Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

Thursday, November 13, 2008
9:00 a.m.

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.

09:00:56 >>CHAIRMAN MILLER: CRA is called to order.
09:08:01 The chair will yield to Mary Mulhern.
09:08:04 >> I would like to introduce reverend Burrows for the
09:08:11 First Baptist Church of College Hill.
09:08:13 Please stand for the invocation and remain standing
09:08:16 for the pledge of allegiance.
09:08:22 >>> Shall we pray?
09:08:23 Almighty God, our heavenly father, turn Dan upon those
09:08:31 who hold office in this city the wisdom, charity and

09:08:36 justice, that with steadfast purpose they may
09:08:39 faithfully serve in their offices to promote the
09:08:41 well-being of all people.
09:08:48 In these times of mutual regard, send us honest and
09:08:53 able leaders, enable us to eliminate poverty,
09:08:56 injustice and oppression, that peace may prevail with
09:08:59 righteousness and justice with order, and that all men
09:09:03 and women may find with one another the fulfillment of
09:09:06 their humanity.
09:09:08 We ask this in the mighty name of our great God.
09:09:12 Amen.
09:09:15 (Pledge of Allegiance)
09:09:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
09:09:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
09:09:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.
09:09:42 >>MARY MULHERN: Here.
09:09:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
09:09:47 I would like to put on the record that Mr. Joseph
09:09:49 Caetano will not be here.
09:09:50 He had a previous engagement.
09:09:53 Before we start, we have some visiting guests with us.
09:09:56 We have some students from the mount pleasant middle

09:10:01 school.
09:10:02 Will you please stand?
09:10:03 If you have a spokesman, will you come up and say
09:10:06 something?
09:10:17 >>> Good morning.
09:10:19 My name is David Henson, the school resource officer
09:10:23 for mount pleasant standard middle school here in
09:10:26 Tampa.
09:10:29 Also affiliated with the church which is right across
09:10:33 the street.
09:10:35 And it gives great pleasure to come here and sit down
09:10:40 and listen to find out what the city and city
09:10:42 government is all about.
09:10:43 So I am going to let the sports person take over from
09:10:48 here.
09:10:49 >> I'm a student.
09:10:51 I'm a 7th grader at mount pleasant middle school
09:10:55 and very honored to be here and listen to what you
09:10:57 have to say and how it is on city council.
09:11:02 >> My name is Antonio coster and I would like to thank
09:11:06 you all for letting me come here and enjoy City
09:11:15 Council meeting.

09:11:16 >>GWEN MILLER: We would like to say thank you for
09:11:18 giving us the honor of having you here today.
09:11:19 We are very happy to have you here and I know you all
09:11:22 are very good students.
09:11:25 You are out of class or you wouldn't be here.
09:11:30 So thank you for come and we are very proud of you.
09:11:33 [ Applause ]
09:11:35 Mr. Mark Huey.
09:11:36 >>MARK HUEY: Good morning.
09:11:41 Good to be with you this morning.
09:11:44 We have a little lighter agenda than most of our past
09:11:47 meetings.
09:11:47 But we look forward to a good meeting.
09:11:49 The first agenda item has to do with community gardens
09:11:53 and community support agriculture.
09:11:57 There's been a good bit of discussion at the council
09:11:59 meeting.
09:11:59 We had a special work session on it.
09:12:02 And so I'm here to report about -- was asked to report
09:12:06 about current activities related to that topic that is
09:12:10 going on within our CRA.
09:12:21 We do appreciate the fact that in many communities,

09:12:23 locally, statewide and around the country community
09:12:25 gardens can be great for building community spirit,
09:12:28 and in SOP cases can provide for entrepreneurs
09:12:32 business opportunity.
09:12:36 We have appreciated the fact that particularly in
09:12:40 those of our CRAs that are very urban, in particular
09:12:44 downtown and the Channel District, that it's like lie
09:12:49 without some government involvement that there would
09:12:51 not be an opportunity for residents to have some sort
09:12:54 of a gardening opportunity.
09:12:57 So most of what we have tried to do proactively has
09:13:01 been in the downtown and the Channel District.
09:13:04 Bob McDonough, our development manager for downtown,
09:13:11 in downtown and the Channel District, at this point
09:13:13 was not able to identify that stakeholder group that
09:13:16 had a real passion and interest in bringing that
09:13:18 grassroots group that would take ownership of a
09:13:21 project like the community gardens.
09:13:24 We do belief at some point that that could change.
09:13:27 And want to keep that as one of those life-style
09:13:31 amenities in downtown and the Channel District that we
09:13:35 have been potentially offer in the future.

09:13:39 As you are a well, for example, in the Channel
09:13:40 District, we would like to acquire some additional
09:13:46 park property and those locations in the future might
09:13:48 provide an opportunity to the extent that there's
09:13:50 community interest in providing a venue for that.
09:13:55 In our other CRAs there's been limited discussion at
09:13:59 this point, not a lot of active discussion.
09:14:03 I think in your community workshop you certainly
09:14:09 learned all of the things that are important in making
09:14:11 a community garden an agriculture garden successful,
09:14:14 and community ownership was at the heart of it.
09:14:17 This is a grassroots effort.
09:14:19 And the importance of doing it right, making sure you
09:14:21 have irrigation, you have lighting, you have security,
09:14:25 and so forth.
09:14:27 It's not a light undertaking.
09:14:29 I have had one personal experience in doing it in East
09:14:32 Tampa, back in the late 90s or early 2000s and it
09:14:40 was well funded, a grassroots efforts, and that was
09:14:43 not successful.
09:14:44 So I know again it can be a very helpful tool in
09:14:48 building community spirit.

09:14:50 We continue to be open to groups within any of our
09:14:57 CRAs who might have an interest in that, but that is
09:14:59 where we are at this point.
09:15:00 I would be happy to answer any questions.
09:15:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
09:15:04 Mr. Huey, about two years ago, downtown, now residents
09:15:14 of the SkyPoint, Irene and Ms. Skidmore, chairman of
09:15:20 healthy together, met with our Parks Department to
09:15:22 discuss this, and the discussion centered on the park
09:15:25 that Tom Balsley is building and particularly some
09:15:29 land between the children's museum and the art museum,
09:15:33 because it could be sort of a teaching opportunity for
09:15:35 the kids.
09:15:36 And there has been conversation about that, and I
09:15:39 would love to pursue that.
09:15:40 But beyond that, Sigrid Skidmore has been talking
09:15:48 about food security for people particularly in East
09:15:51 Tampa partnering between her initiative which has some
09:15:55 funding and the city which could provide some land,
09:15:57 and some professional expertise which we would have to
09:16:00 hire.
09:16:00 The question which we were really wanting to know, and

09:16:03 I think that you clarified, is whether it's
09:16:06 appropriate to spend CRA money on something -- on a
09:16:11 program that would create community gardens.
09:16:15 And community gardens are an investment and structure
09:16:19 which some people advertise for sale -- houses for
09:16:22 sale within walking distance of community gardens.
09:16:25 I think the answer would be yes.
09:16:26 >> The funding question --
09:16:32 >> It was directing staff energy and funding toward
09:16:35 accomplishing this.
09:16:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Certainly no one I don't believe is
09:16:42 against anyone planting anything at any time.
09:16:44 I believe that could ab great resource.
09:16:47 However, I think the question is like was addressed
09:16:49 just a few seconds ago, whether that's appropriate
09:16:52 under the guidelines of the CRA, and the intent when
09:16:57 they were created.
09:16:58 That's number one.
09:16:59 Number two, I believe -- and I can do some research if
09:17:04 all the facts are correct, didn't the Tampa housing
09:17:07 authority start one of these some years back?
09:17:10 >>> Yes, that was the experience I was part of.

09:17:12 I was chief financial officer of the Tampa housing
09:17:14 authority at the time.
09:17:17 That sort of didn't go through.
09:17:18 >> What happened?
09:17:19 >> Well, essentially the background there is it was a
09:17:23 group of really was a youth directed effort and there
09:17:27 was a community leader who organized the youth in East
09:17:29 Tampa.
09:17:30 They partnered with the Tampa housing authority on a
09:17:33 site on 34th street.
09:17:35 Site is still there.
09:17:36 And they received a grant, I believe it was from USDA,
09:17:41 maybe in the order of magnitude of a million dollars
09:17:44 so it was well funded, very much of grassroots.
09:17:46 This was the late 90s, early 2000s, and the garden
09:17:51 started with great fanfare, the youth were very
09:17:54 involved, got it planted, but then really the youth
09:17:58 partnership broke up.
09:18:01 And at that point the keys were given back to the
09:18:05 housing authority to the garden that was planted.
09:18:07 It overgrew.
09:18:08 The neighborhood got very frustrated.

09:18:11 The Tampa housing authority, if I recall having to
09:18:16 approve those checks.
09:18:17 We had to clear the garden at that point.
09:18:19 And it wasn't successful.
09:18:21 And I don't need to over -- the only reason for noting
09:18:26 that experience was just to note that these aren't
09:18:28 easy undertakings.
09:18:31 Here you had an effort with really all of the best
09:18:34 things going forward.
09:18:35 A lot of great technical support and funding and
09:18:38 community interest.
09:18:39 And it still wasn't successful.
09:18:42 So, again, we are open to these kind of initiatives,
09:18:45 but cautiously.
09:18:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I wish I could continue -- I'm not
09:18:54 opposed to having city vacant land, I don't care who
09:18:56 you are, if you want to make a deal with the city for
09:18:58 a dollar a year and you lease it, you plant it, you
09:19:02 fertilize it, you water it.
09:19:04 Talking about water, we are going to be in a very dire
09:19:07 situation in the coming months, the whole area, unless
09:19:12 something changes right quickly, with the reservoir

09:19:16 being down, to minimum capacity for various reasons,
09:19:21 and not having adequate rainfall for the last two or
09:19:23 three years, to support the filling up of the
09:19:27 tributaries and things that feed the river, we are
09:19:30 going to be maybe in a situation where you may not be
09:19:34 able to water the lawn.
09:19:35 I'm not saying you will.
09:19:37 But if it continues the way it is, it's going to be a
09:19:40 lot stricter than what it is today.
09:19:43 And, therefore, I'm very he's hesitant right now to
09:19:46 bring in more water for outside use.
09:19:50 Already we are using about 45% of all potable water
09:19:54 outside the system.
09:19:55 If we had reclaimed water throughout the city, then I
09:19:58 would say, now what?
09:19:59 That's a wonderful thing to do.
09:20:01 Because they are looking at us.
09:20:04 We are putting ourselves in a situation that we
09:20:07 continue using potable water for outside, someone is
09:20:09 going to take those 55 million gallons, or try to take
09:20:13 that water away from the City of Tampa citizens that
09:20:16 worked so hard to get it where it's at today, and the

09:20:20 only reason we don't have it completed is because we
09:20:22 don't have the money for the distribution.
09:20:25 Thank you, Madam Chair.
09:20:27 >>GWEN MILLER: I think the project on 34th street
09:20:29 was an eyesore for many years.
09:20:32 I remember.
09:20:34 And everybody complained.
09:20:36 What are you going to do with it?
09:20:37 How long are you going to let it stay like that?
09:20:40 You know, it was really not -- Ms. Mulhern.
09:20:44 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm sorry that you were unable to
09:20:49 attend our discussion meeting.
09:20:50 I know you were probably at the redevelopment hearing.
09:20:54 >>> Right.
09:20:55 >> Unfortunately we had to miss that because we had
09:20:57 council on that day.
09:20:58 And my other colleagues weren't there except for
09:21:00 Linda, and John Dingfelder was there.
09:21:04 We learned so much about this.
09:21:07 And I don't like to call it community gardens because
09:21:09 that sounds like a sort of hobby, or a little project.
09:21:15 Really, the right name for what I want to look into --

09:21:19 and I have been doing a lot of research, and the
09:21:21 community that turned out for this meeting was all
09:21:25 people who are doing -- it wasn't as if we were
09:21:29 talking about whether the city can help us do it, it
09:21:31 was hearing from the community, how they are already
09:21:33 doing it, and just starting to investigate whether the
09:21:37 city can partner with them.
09:21:39 So that's why I wanted you to tell me what kind of
09:21:43 planning is going on with the CRA.
09:21:46 And I think as Linda said, it's really East Tampa that
09:21:51 we are looking at as probably the first place that we
09:21:53 would -- and I don't even want to say "we."
09:21:59 Where it likely to happen.
09:22:02 I personally read most of the state statute on
09:22:07 community redevelopment areas.
09:22:08 I don't see anything in there that would preclude --
09:22:13 to me it looks like the perfect thing to do for
09:22:15 redevelopment.
09:22:16 It's not about -- there are a lot of advantages to it.
09:22:21 And it's happening in cities much more urban than
09:22:25 ours, with no land.
09:22:26 I mean, in some places in New York, you know, they

09:22:30 have got a little about the size of each of our little
09:22:34 desk areas here, and people -- just gardening.
09:22:40 On the other hand, we have a very successful organic
09:22:44 community farm in Hillsborough County, sweet water
09:22:47 organic farms, and they actually are looking for land.
09:22:55 And this is what they have been doing for years and
09:22:57 years.
09:22:57 So they have the expertise.
09:23:02 And it's already happening.
09:23:03 So they are a good person to help us or to, you know,
09:23:08 help facilitate this.
09:23:10 And as Linda said, Sigrid Skidmore with healthy
09:23:16 together, they are working with the school district is
09:23:22 working on these kinds of things, USF is -- there are
09:23:28 all kinds of groups that are already doing this
09:23:30 research.
09:23:32 I would like to see the city and the CRAs work with
09:23:37 these people.
09:23:38 You know, everyone is mentioning that farm, or that
09:23:42 garden in East Tampa that didn't work.
09:23:45 The first thing you read when you read about community
09:23:48 agriculture or community gardens is you have to have

09:23:51 security, and you have to have a committed group.
09:23:58 And I think that you have to have professionals, you
09:24:02 know.
09:24:03 Basically you have to have someone who is a farmer.
09:24:05 You have to have somebody running the farm, basically.
09:24:07 So the big mistake there, I think, was it was just
09:24:11 youth.
09:24:12 And one of the things that I have been talking to
09:24:14 people in East Tampa about is that you need -- you
09:24:19 could have the youth from, say, a high school, like
09:24:23 people who are here today, but they need the mentors,
09:24:26 which would be basically their grandparents, retired
09:24:29 people, and a lot of whom in Tampa have been raised on
09:24:35 farms or planted gardens, so you have got a great
09:24:38 opportunity there.
09:24:39 And I know that the Hillsborough school district is
09:24:41 looking into some of this, too.
09:24:42 So we really just want to open up the discussion.
09:24:45 But what I would like to hear today is not where it's
09:24:51 not going to work.
09:24:52 You know, Bob told us about -- he couldn't find anyone
09:24:57 in Channelside that wanted to plant anything.

09:24:59 But I think that's not true in East Tampa.
09:25:03 So what are you doing in East Tampa?
09:25:05 Is there anything happening there?
09:25:10 >>MARK HUEY: Nothing that I can report to you that is
09:25:12 proactive at this point.
09:25:13 There has been some informal conversation since the
09:25:15 workshop has occurred.
09:25:17 As you might know, there are produce markets that are
09:25:20 run by entrepreneurs in East Tampa.
09:25:23 There are many who plant privately on their property.
09:25:28 You can drive around East Tampa and see their yards.
09:25:34 So there's that kind of interest already occurring and
09:25:38 we will be happy to support a work session.
09:25:40 Maybe we could bring in the folks from sweet water,
09:25:43 folks from USF and have more of a dialogue within the
09:25:46 neighborhood to see if we can generate more interest.
09:25:51 I can just categorically say that -- not the lawyer,
09:25:58 but if your focus question was, can you use
09:26:00 redevelopment, TIF resources, I think if you take a
09:26:05 blighted piece of property, and certainly we have
09:26:09 given you that to seed the land we have, fanned
09:26:12 there's community interest and certainly it would

09:26:14 beautify a part of or properties in East Tampa that
09:26:19 are not attractive, and again there was a real plan
09:26:21 that could be successful, that could be an appropriate
09:26:24 use of resources.
09:26:26 But do we have the staff to really do it and manage a
09:26:29 community garden?
09:26:32 No, it would really as you have been saying take that
09:26:34 grassroots community interest.
09:26:35 And if we can help facilitate with these other
09:26:38 interested parties from discussion within the
09:26:40 community, to see if that would be there, we would be
09:26:43 glad to be part of that.
09:26:45 As a convener.
09:26:46 >>MARY MULHERN: I want to say a few things.
09:26:49 It's not about beautification at all.
09:26:54 Even I think green is beautiful.
09:26:55 Plants are beautiful.
09:26:56 It's not about that.
09:26:57 It's about growing food that will be affordable for
09:27:01 people.
09:27:02 And that's why this has become an international trend,
09:27:08 where cities are, you know, growing.

09:27:11 I won't mention the city because it's a third world
09:27:16 island country that we don't like to talk about.
09:27:19 But it's an urban, hugely populated city, and because
09:27:24 they could no longer get food from the Soviet -- from
09:27:32 Russia, they had to start growing their own food or
09:27:34 starve.
09:27:35 And now the city now grows, I think, half of their
09:27:41 food that they eat in the city, and this is a much
09:27:44 more dense city than Tampa, even downtown Tampa.
09:27:50 New York, Chicago, London, all kinds of, you know,
09:27:56 places on the -- cities on the east coast are doing
09:27:59 it, in the northeast, and Detroit, which is -- I love
09:28:05 to talk about Detroit because I'm from there, and
09:28:07 Detroit, the city, is so blighted, as you probably
09:28:09 know, that the entire neighborhood has become
09:28:17 overgrown with just, you know, weeds and trees and
09:28:22 grass.
09:28:23 So they started their economic development, people
09:28:25 started doing urban agriculture.
09:28:28 So we are a city that's doing really well, but that's
09:28:37 an example of how an urban place, with very it
09:28:41 resources, was able to do that, and they do it almost

09:28:44 out of necessity, you know.
09:28:45 And also we learn so much from all the people that
09:28:50 came to this meeting.
09:28:52 And Kristina has DVDs.
09:28:57 I think she probably gave you one.
09:28:58 But we would really appreciate it if those of you on
09:29:02 council would watch this DVD at some point, maybe when
09:29:05 you are trying to fall asleep.
09:29:09 It actually was interesting.
09:29:11 It might keep you awake.
09:29:12 But we can't even tell you all the things.
09:29:15 So it would be great if we got some kind of work
09:29:17 group.
09:29:17 And really what kind out of this discussion was, we
09:29:20 need some kind of ad hoc committee or something, so it
09:29:24 would be great if we could work with you to just get
09:29:27 that together.
09:29:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, Madam Chair.
09:29:32 First of all let me say you have to go, though the
09:29:36 community may think that's a great idea, you have to
09:29:38 look at Florida statute 163 carefully because that was
09:29:41 not the original intent of the CRA.

09:29:46 It was not the intended intent.
09:29:48 The intent originally, and the attorney may want to
09:29:51 speak to this, we were looking at blighted areas,
09:29:54 blighted community, and to redevelop, and to become an
09:29:59 economic base for that community.
09:30:00 That's the original intent of that, taking those
09:30:04 rundown neighborhoods, rundown communities, redevelop
09:30:07 them, get people back in there, get business back in
09:30:12 there and so forth.
09:30:13 Now the second thing I would say is you have got to
09:30:15 have input from the community, just like Channelside,
09:30:22 East Tampa, do they have an interest, whether they
09:30:26 want that or not.
09:30:26 We can't force something upon somebody that they don't
09:30:30 want that kind of development in terms of a community
09:30:32 gardens.
09:30:32 So let me be very clear about that.
09:30:35 And then thirdly, you know, you have got to make sure
09:30:38 that when you do this -- see, 34th street, in my
09:30:44 opinion, that was in the wrong place and then it
09:30:46 wasn't kept up.
09:30:47 34th street is a major thoroughfare in East Tampa.

09:30:50 And it became an eyesore to East Tampa and to that
09:30:53 community.
09:30:54 And so you can't just put it out there and then all of
09:30:57 a sudden it becomes abandoned, and nobody is taking
09:31:00 care of it and it becomes more of a hassle as opposed
09:31:08 to support and economic growth.
09:31:11 >>GWEN MILLER: I want to say this about East Tampa.
09:31:14 You know, East Tampa has more things they need than a
09:31:19 garden out there. We have been working hard to
09:31:20 redevelop East Tampa, bring in businesses, build up
09:31:23 all those torn-down houses.
09:31:26 We don't need a garden out there. We need something
09:31:29 that's going to make East Tampa look like the rest of
09:31:32 the city and that's why we have CRA working to help
09:31:35 build these and I don't want to tear it down again,
09:31:38 but those gardens aren't going to be kept up, they are
09:31:40 going to be an eyesore like the one on 34th
09:31:43 street.
09:31:44 If you want to help East Tampa, bring some business
09:31:46 out there.
09:31:46 Bring something out there for the need of the people,
09:31:48 bring some jobs to East Tampa.

09:31:50 If you are going to help East Tampa.
09:31:54 Mr. Dingfelder?
09:31:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We have a wide divergence of
09:32:01 opinions up here about this issue.
09:32:07 I think there is great value in this gardening concept
09:32:10 because it is a community builder in many
09:32:12 circumstances.
09:32:13 It brings people together in a common activity.
09:32:20 It does need to be organized.
09:32:21 It needs to be well organized.
09:32:23 Then that way it's well maintained.
09:32:24 But, you know, we can take you up and show you
09:32:28 examples where, you know, it happening in this
09:32:31 community and it's happening in a very positive way,
09:32:34 and it brings together 100, you know, 100 or 200
09:32:38 families, you know, and like I say in, a very positive
09:32:40 way.
09:32:41 But I agree with you that, Tom, I think you said it,
09:32:47 what most important is what that community wants, you
09:32:50 know, and we shouldn't be, you know, doing this from
09:32:53 the top down and shoving it down people.
09:32:56 So I think the best thing to do is, Ed, if you could

09:33:01 get with Ms. Mulhern and the sweet water people
09:33:08 perhaps come out and make a presentation to the
09:33:10 advisory committee and see if the idea appeals to
09:33:13 anybody.
09:33:13 If it does, what we could do, I believe, if there is
09:33:17 enthusiasm out there and poem actually sign up and say
09:33:19 I'm very interested, what we could do, you don't have
09:33:22 the staff or the expertise to do it, you know, we
09:33:26 contract out a lot of these issues.
09:33:27 He would contract with Mike English's firm to the tune
09:33:30 of hundreds of thousands of dollars to do engineering
09:33:33 and planning for Channelside.
09:33:35 I think sweet water could come very cheap to
09:33:39 facilitate and assist in these activities to the tune
09:33:43 of probably 5 or $10,000 to be our contractor to do
09:33:46 all of this leg work.
09:33:48 We would have to find a piece of land and we would
09:33:50 have to get the community involved.
09:33:51 But the first, you know, take baby steps.
09:33:54 I'm seeing some shaking heads out there.
09:33:56 They could coordinate and get sweet water over there
09:33:59 and see if there's any interest at all.

09:34:01 And if there is, great, let's move forward.
09:34:03 If there's not, then forget about it.
09:34:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Why don't you start in an area other
09:34:10 than East Tampa and see how it works?
09:34:11 Why start at East Tampa?
09:34:13 Let East Tampa see how it works before you go start in
09:34:16 East Tampa.
09:34:17 Let's go to another community and if they want it, see
09:34:21 how it works, and if East Tampa is focused but if they
09:34:26 aren't interested don't push it down their throats.
09:34:29 Mr. Miranda.
09:34:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I want to clarify one thing.
09:34:32 I want to speak about my father's home land because it
09:34:34 was mentioned indirectly, Cuba.
09:34:37 And Cuba, since the beginning of time, has had and
09:34:41 will always have what is called the campesinos.
09:34:49 They have always done that and will always continue to
09:34:52 do that, no matter who is ruling, whether it's
09:34:56 democratic or communistic government or socialist
09:34:59 government or by default government, whatever they
09:35:03 want to call it.
09:35:04 Those individuals have a plot of land, an acre, two

09:35:07 acres, three acres.
09:35:08 They live in a shack.
09:35:10 We don't have that here.
09:35:11 So let's not compare this with the other.
09:35:14 I have been to Detroit.
09:35:16 And that person was right, there are miles, I mean,
09:35:21 miles down the road there and on both sides there's
09:35:24 vacant buildings.
09:35:27 If I was in government there I would knock all those
09:35:30 buildings down and Manatee something because it looks
09:35:32 than any war zone I have ever seen.
09:35:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Ms. Mulhern had her hand up first.
09:35:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Mulhern.
09:35:43 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm not shoving anything down anyone's
09:35:49 throat but the idea of this came from the community
09:35:51 and the people talking to me about it were from East
09:35:54 Tampa so that's why East Tampa came up.
09:35:56 Nobody from Tampa Heights invited me to do this.
09:35:58 I actually thought that Channelside was a great place
09:36:01 to do it.
09:36:02 And what I really think, because it doesn't matter
09:36:04 where we do it, I agree, if we have some community

09:36:07 support from some area, let's do it there.
09:36:10 But I have to tell you, Mr. Dingfelder, that our
09:36:13 friend Rick Martinez is so busy now, he can't even --
09:36:20 he is the guru, the guru of community gardening,
09:36:24 community agriculture.
09:36:25 He's working for target.
09:36:27 He's working -- he's a consultant for people all over
09:36:30 the world on organic food.
09:36:32 So we will be lucky if he can even fit this into his
09:36:36 calendar, and that's why -- I'm not shoving it down
09:36:40 anyone's throat but I'm certainly pushing this onto
09:36:43 the table because we need to talk about it now, while
09:36:45 we have the opportunity to do it, and food prices --
09:36:51 people are not able to even buy produce.
09:36:54 I mean, part of the reason that the poor are less
09:36:58 healthy is because they can't even afford to buy
09:37:00 vegetables.
09:37:01 And this is becoming a huge problem for them, and for
09:37:07 all of us.
09:37:08 So it's not an issue of like this is something we want
09:37:11 to force on someone.
09:37:12 This is the way that we want to help communities

09:37:15 become self-sustaining and healthy.
09:37:19 And there are all kinds of opportunities for funding
09:37:24 from this.
09:37:27 There's the agriculture department.
09:37:28 There's the FDA.
09:37:29 There's homeland security.
09:37:31 Because security is an issue, too.
09:37:34 So I think that what I would like to see us do is just
09:37:38 start to work with all these resources, and what the
09:37:44 CRAs have, they have vacant land that's city-owned
09:37:47 so that's the biggest thing.
09:37:48 And thank you, Mr. Dingfelder, for pointing out that
09:37:56 this is not, you know, this isn't making a hippy
09:38:01 commune.
09:38:01 This is a farming business and we would have to have,
09:38:04 you know, contract with professionals to do it.
09:38:06 And if we don't do it soon we are going to have a hard
09:38:09 time finding anyone.
09:38:10 The only other thing I wanted to say was I did read
09:38:13 that.
09:38:16 I don't know what the number is for that state
09:38:19 statute, but I did read it.

09:38:22 And you could have a very narrow idea of what
09:38:24 development is, if it's just building houses.
09:38:27 But economic development, this becomes sustainable,
09:38:32 and Ms. Martinez will tell that you. If you get an
09:38:36 organic farm started, yes, she has to buy -- you have
09:38:41 to buy some equipment, you have to get the land.
09:38:44 But once you get it going, it becomes sustainable.
09:38:47 You're selling the stuff at farmers markets, and
09:38:50 you're creating jobs, because people have to, you
09:38:52 know, farm the farm.
09:38:55 I think one of the problems with that example everyone
09:38:58 keeps talking about was it was just a volunteer thing
09:39:01 and you just show up, and there wasn't organized, and
09:39:07 it wasn't run like a business.
09:39:09 So that's really what I'd like us to look at.
09:39:14 And I'm going to pass these down, because I really
09:39:16 hope that you all can watch this.
09:39:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I'm --
09:39:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's my turn next.
09:39:28 I just said she should go because her hand was up.
09:39:32 A group of young architects and community people are
09:39:37 having a three-day symposium on sustainable design

09:39:40 right here in Tampa, experts from around the country
09:39:42 have come in to help them develop neighborhood plans.
09:39:45 I'm certain neighborhood farming is going to be part
09:39:49 of the planning that they come back to the city with
09:39:52 and say we want to do this.
09:39:54 As you pointed out, Mr. Huey, very validly, we the
09:39:57 city shouldn't be the ones to run it.
09:39:59 That's not our bailiwick.
09:40:02 We should see what resources we can bring such as land
09:40:05 that isn't appropriate for building something else on,
09:40:08 and perhaps CRA resources.
09:40:11 So I hope that after this plan is developed that we
09:40:14 can convene people as Mr. Dingfelder suggested, look
09:40:19 at where this could be successful, where the folks in
09:40:22 the neighborhood want to work on it, and initiate it
09:40:26 in Tampa.
09:40:27 And I have ever confidence that once we have the first
09:40:30 one of these going, that other neighborhoods are going
09:40:33 to be really eager for it, in the same way that the
09:40:36 investment made by the people in Hyde Park with the
09:40:39 fountain, where the children can play in the water,
09:40:43 all over town, a community garden will be such a

09:40:45 neighborhood, gathering point and resource, that other
09:40:48 neighborhoods will seek it out.
09:40:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I just wanted the attorney to be able
09:40:56 to speak to this issue.
09:40:57 >>SAL TERRITO: Legal department.
09:40:58 I'm not going to speak to the issue because that's
09:41:01 your decision, but as far as the process is concerned.
09:41:03 I think Mr. Dingfelder is right.
09:41:05 You have chapter 163 of the statute that's fairly
09:41:08 broadly written, then you have individual plans for
09:41:10 each of the areas.
09:41:11 I can tell none of them dealt with this issue because
09:41:13 it's a fairly new issue.
09:41:14 You have to go back and ask the advisory committees,
09:41:17 and maybe have the presentations made to them, and if
09:41:20 they like the idea, they bring it back to you, and
09:41:23 then it's your role to have to find somewhere in that
09:41:25 CRA plan where you think this fits.
09:41:28 Because once you make a finding that fits under park,
09:41:30 it fits under economic redevelopment, then you can
09:41:33 move forward.
09:41:33 But right now it is not addressed.

09:41:35 And you need to find a way to address that.
09:41:38 The best way to do it, I think, as Mr. Dingfelder
09:41:41 indicated, have these presentations made to the
09:41:43 individual CRA advisory committees.
09:41:45 If they want to move forward, they'll bring it to you
09:41:47 as their idea, and then you find a way to fit it in
09:41:50 the CRA plan.
09:41:51 Because even though the statute is broadly written,
09:41:54 the plans are narrow.
09:41:55 As now when these plans were first established, the
09:41:57 priorities for those areas were listed and these are
09:42:02 not listed.
09:42:03 Economic development is in there.
09:42:05 Quality recreation.
09:42:05 Open space.
09:42:06 Obviously those are all in there. But you need to
09:42:08 find a niche where this will fit in.
09:42:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Right.
09:42:13 And my question will be, has it been at any point
09:42:16 discussed by the advisory board for East Tampa?
09:42:19 >>GWEN MILLER: No.
09:42:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So it will have to go back to them.

09:42:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:42:24 We are going to move on.
09:42:30 >>MARK HUEY: Again in my opening comment we would be
09:42:32 glad to be sort of conveners for East Tampa, bring
09:42:37 sweet water or other whose might help create a vision,
09:42:40 and if the community gets engaged we'll take it from
09:42:42 there, and we will report back to you on how that
09:42:45 goes.
09:42:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I would move that the advisory board
09:42:49 of East Tampa take the issue.
09:42:53 >>MARY MULHERN: I'll second that, and want to say
09:42:56 that, honestly, I don't know that we can get sweet
09:42:59 water is going to have time to go to all these CRAs
09:43:03 but they might be able to do it if we started with
09:43:05 East Tampa CRA.
09:43:07 But the other interesting thing is if you have been at
09:43:11 the meeting, there were so many people that came and
09:43:14 one of the most interesting discussions, or most
09:43:17 interesting information we got, was from a woman who
09:43:21 has started a community garden in St. Pete, and it's
09:43:26 working, and it's happening, and it's in Bartlett
09:43:30 park, which is a low income neighborhood, and it's

09:43:32 going really well.
09:43:33 So if we can't get Rick Martinez, maybe we can get
09:43:37 both of them to come to that meeting.
09:43:39 So with my second could we add that we have that as
09:43:44 the next East Tampa advisory committee meeting?
09:43:47 Can we put that on the agenda?
09:44:00 >> January is the next.
09:44:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question on the motion.
09:44:03 Linda, you had suggested, and I thought it might be a
09:44:06 good idea, instead of putting all of our eggs in one
09:44:09 basket, perhaps also to throw it out to Tampa Heights.
09:44:15 I don't know too much about who is on Tampa Heights
09:44:18 and how many folks are actually living there that
09:44:21 might be interested.
09:44:24 Is that something you want to pursue?
09:44:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think what I would like to do,
09:44:28 would it be okay to have a meeting on this topic maybe
09:44:32 at the same time as East Tampa meeting, but invite
09:44:36 interested -- say this is going to be maybe the first
09:44:39 order of business, that they wouldn't interfere with
09:44:41 the regular business of Tampa Heights so the
09:44:43 presentation, could people from any of our advisories

09:44:48 committees, that they listen, not that they get
09:44:50 involved, so it would be less strain on the
09:44:52 presenters.
09:44:52 >>MARK HUEY: I think maybe we could take advantage of
09:44:58 the time and invite representatives from all the CRA
09:45:01 groups.
09:45:01 We would be glad to undertake that.
09:45:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Tampa Heights, Drew Park, it would
09:45:08 be of benefit to any of those.
09:45:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here again we are going off playing
09:45:13 the outfield without the infield knowing what's going
09:45:16 on.
09:45:16 Let me explain that.
09:45:17 We still don't have a legal opinion of what you can
09:45:19 and cannot do, although what Mr. Scott brought up on
09:45:24 the state statute, that has not been given directly.
09:45:27 That's number one.
09:45:28 Number two, I have already stated, we don't have the
09:45:31 water.
09:45:33 Believe me when I tell you.
09:45:34 Number three, it was mentioned about wells.
09:45:38 I'm not too sure you can dig a well without SWFWMD's

09:45:41 approval.
09:45:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Right, got to have it.
09:45:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I don't know what that cost is to
09:45:47 get a permit.
09:45:47 So I don't know where we are going.
09:45:49 But again we are trying to ski on bare feet, and it
09:45:56 doesn't ski too well unless you are an expert.
09:45:59 And I'm not an expert in this area, I admit to that.
09:46:02 I don't think anyone here is.
09:46:03 I can read things and talk dialogue, and I know Mr.
09:46:09 Martinez personally.
09:46:10 I play Dominos with his father every Saturday.
09:46:13 He's a he's a terrible domino player.
09:46:19 That being said -- they call it the Martinez Miranda
09:46:29 team.
09:46:29 So what I'm saying is, there's nothing wrong with
09:46:32 doing this.
09:46:32 I'm not here to give money away.
09:46:35 I want to see something constructively done in the
09:46:38 neighborhoods, and once they are done, you want to
09:46:42 plant anything you want, plant them.
09:46:44 You want to do things, plant them.

09:46:46 You have the adequate water, plant them.
09:46:47 We are in a drought and we are going to get worse come
09:46:51 2009.
09:46:53 Not what I say but what the forecasters say who knows
09:46:56 a lot more about water trends and things that are
09:46:58 happening in yearly cycles.
09:47:02 It's going to get worse.
09:47:04 We should not start talking about planting when it
09:47:07 takes a lot of water, without a permit to have a well.
09:47:11 You cannot have a well in the City of Tampa, I
09:47:13 believe, for drinking water.
09:47:17 Maybe for irrigation but not for drinking water.
09:47:21 Until those issues are brought up and legal, we have
09:47:26 the water department come talk to us, we have SWFWMD
09:47:29 come, we want to do it because we are council members,
09:47:32 we can do it.
09:47:32 I think you better check before you do anything that
09:47:35 you want to do to make sure that you are heading in
09:47:37 the right direction, not send staff, have been else
09:47:40 working, and at the end somebody says, you can't do
09:47:42 it, possibly.
09:47:44 So what I'm suggesting is, do what you want to do, I'm

09:47:47 not going to support this until all those individuals
09:47:49 that I mentioned, the water, Swiftmud comes in and
09:47:53 tells us what you can and cannot do after the legal
09:47:57 opinion is rendered that you can't do it.
09:47:59 I don't want to waste your time, my time, the people
09:48:01 in the TV crew time, all of us discussing something
09:48:04 that we may not be able to do, and therefore that's my
09:48:07 statement.
09:48:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Reverend Scott.
09:48:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Miranda.
09:48:11 I think you have a valid point there. Maybe what we
09:48:14 should be doing, I think Sal says we can do it within
09:48:18 a certain process and that is go back to the advisory
09:48:21 board, if I understood.
09:48:22 So what I will do, I think I will withdraw my motion
09:48:25 and state the motion that we allow staff to take a
09:48:27 look at that, look at the process, look at SWFWMD,
09:48:33 look at what we can do and then come back with more
09:48:35 information before we proceed further.
09:48:37 So I will withdraw my original motion and restate the
09:48:41 motion from that standpoint, that we allow staff to go
09:48:44 talk with SWFWMD, go get more legal information on

09:48:49 this, talk to perhaps the advisory board, again come
09:48:52 back with us, maybe how we should proceed.
09:48:56 That's my motion.
09:48:56 >> Second.
09:49:00 >> Withdraw the second to withdraw the motion?
09:49:03 >>GWEN MILLER: New motion.
09:49:04 >> New motion now.
09:49:06 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion on the floor.
09:49:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was going to say, because I think
09:49:10 this is -- I'm sure you all read the book "the tipping
09:49:17 point" when there are sticky ideas, the idea of food,
09:49:22 security, is a sticky idea for our time, and the idea
09:49:25 of creating it on a neighborhood basis.
09:49:27 So while I support this motion, I'm also going to
09:49:30 encourage the neighborhood groups in the community to
09:49:34 talk among themselves and see if there will be some
09:49:37 neighborhood people who bubble up, who are interested
09:49:41 in being leaders on this, in their neighborhood,
09:49:43 because I think that the cost of food that Ms. Mulhern
09:49:48 alluded to is sitting all of us.
09:49:50 A tomato is a dollar.
09:49:53 We could all use something grown in our community,

09:49:57 affordable, and that we aren't dependent on shipping
09:50:01 tomatoes from wherever.
09:50:02 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
09:50:07 Motion carried.
09:50:15 >>MARY MULHERN: Madam Chair.
09:50:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
09:50:17 >> I'm sorry you are going withdrew your motion
09:50:21 because no one is going to be digging any wells unless
09:50:24 we find that someone wants to pursue the idea so if
09:50:27 the object is to slow the process down, we have gotten
09:50:29 there.
09:50:30 So, you know, when I called the discussion meeting, I
09:50:38 was hoping -- and I think we are probably going to go
09:50:41 back to that -- that we are going to have to have some
09:50:46 people from the community, and unfortunately the
09:50:49 communities that need this are people who are working
09:50:51 one or two jobs, so they don't have time to organize
09:50:54 this.
09:50:54 So I would ask that -- I don't know.
09:51:04 John left.
09:51:05 But I would like to restate the motion that there
09:51:07 should be on the agenda a discussion at the next East

09:51:10 Tampa CRA advisory committee, it will not preclude
09:51:15 anyone from talking to SWFWMD and figuring out water.
09:51:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
09:51:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Madam Chair, just the opposite.
09:51:28 It will enhance quicker instead of going through all
09:51:32 the rigmarole, and at the end, yes, I found a group,
09:51:36 I've got this group, and it takes month and you have
09:51:39 it all figured out at the end you say, I can't get no
09:51:43 water.
09:51:43 What are they going to grow it with, sand?
09:51:46 How are you going to water, with sand?
09:51:47 So it's enhancing the operation.
09:51:50 It is making it quicker by finding out what are all
09:51:53 the obstacles first.
09:51:54 >>MARY MULHERN: You need to know where you are going
09:51:56 to get --
09:51:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Please don't interrupt me.
09:52:03 But what I'm saying is, if all those things are done
09:52:12 and it enhances it quicker instead of having all the
09:52:16 work done, spending all the time, paying taxpayer
09:52:19 money to get it done and then at the end you can't do
09:52:21 it.

09:52:22 So why don't we investigate first and then act later?
09:52:24 That's all that this is doing.
09:52:26 It's not holding it back.
09:52:28 >> Reverend Scott.
09:52:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, we have been on this about an
09:52:33 hour now.
09:52:34 I would say actually what the motion, it does not slow
09:52:37 the process down.
09:52:37 What it is, to even talk with the advisory board and
09:52:44 discuss it with them.
09:52:46 My intention was you go and look at the process, you
09:52:48 talk to SWFWMD, talk into this, and they come back to
09:52:51 us with a recommendation.
09:52:53 That was the motion.
09:52:54 In my mind, that means you are going to be following
09:52:58 those steps of whatever is appropriate to bring back a
09:53:01 recommendation to this body, as opposed to us telling
09:53:03 them what to do.
09:53:06 >> Right.
09:53:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I think that's very clear.
09:53:09 >>GWEN MILLER: And you don't need one vote.
09:53:11 You need all vote.

09:53:13 East Tampa.
09:53:14 Let's do all.
09:53:16 I can't support just one.
09:53:20 Ms. Mulhern.
09:53:20 >>MARY MULHERN: My motion was to do both and it was
09:53:24 not to -- not take it to SWFWMD, it was to put it back
09:53:28 on the agenda, and that I think those are public
09:53:32 meetings so we can notice everyone and whoever wants
09:53:35 to can share.
09:53:36 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
09:53:38 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
09:53:39 Opposed Nay.
09:53:42 >>THE CLERK: Motion did not carry with Miranda,
09:53:45 Dingfelder, Miller and Scott voting no.
09:53:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 2.
09:53:50 Mark Huey.
09:53:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I voted yes on that.
09:53:57 >> It still nailed.
09:53:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is 3-3 a failure?
09:54:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
09:54:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Still, it doesn't preclude Mr. Huey's
09:54:13 staff talking about it at any meeting.

09:54:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 2.
09:54:18 >>MARK HUEY: Item 2.
09:54:20 We were asked at the board meeting a couple of weeks
09:54:22 ago to do a presentation about TIF spending and how
09:54:28 it's allocated among three categories, planning,
09:54:31 administration, implementation.
09:54:32 I have provided you that.
09:54:35 And we are going to go through the PowerPoint quickly.
09:54:38 If that could come up.
09:54:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: While you are doing that, I looked at
09:54:47 the backup really, and it looks like, though, the only
09:54:50 one that's spent more money on planning was Hyde Park.
09:54:58 Did I read that correctly?
09:55:03 >>SAL TERRITO: Number 2 is being handed out now.
09:55:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That was my observation.
09:55:12 >>MARK HUEY: Your summary observation is correct.
09:55:14 I wanted to start by defining the terms.
09:55:20 Again, there were three categories.
09:55:21 You asked that the budgeted items be put in planning,
09:55:25 administration, implementation.
09:55:27 Planning, as you can see, I defined as strategic
09:55:30 action plan.

09:55:33 Vision plans.
09:55:34 Arts consulting plans.
09:55:35 On the plans unrelated to implementing infrastructure
09:55:39 for service, city services and programs.
09:55:44 Administration is personnel costs, operating costs,
09:55:47 and other expenses needed to administrate plans.
09:55:55 Implementation is defined as programs, services,
09:55:59 events, infrastructure development, as well as any
09:56:03 consultant related to that.
09:56:12 We mentioned in the Heights that public-private
09:56:18 partnership.
09:56:18 I wanted to make sure that you understand that
09:56:20 definition, and that are there any questions about
09:56:26 those definitions? Pretty straightforward.
09:56:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Straightforward.
09:56:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I need some -- for using the
09:56:40 Channel District, as an example where we see the vast
09:56:43 amount of money was spent on implementation, but my --
09:56:47 my memory of how we spent this money, if you see here,
09:56:50 we have been writing checks to, it's basically been
09:56:53 Wilson Miller for planning, and it's not that I don't
09:56:55 think we need the planning, but I don't think that if

09:56:58 you were to low at this chart and see where we have
09:57:00 been spending money that it jives.
09:57:03 >>> It goes back to the definition of how you define
09:57:08 planning and infrastructure and implementation.
09:57:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Then when I asked the question for
09:57:12 the money to be broken down, that was what -- we
09:57:15 didn't discuss how you were defining implementation.
09:57:19 I define implementation as like public works kinds of
09:57:24 investment, money spent on the roads, the sidewalks,
09:57:27 the trees, the lights, purchasing property for a park,
09:57:31 physical improvements in the area.
09:57:33 And you are defining implementation as the planning to
09:57:36 do that stuff.
09:57:39 >>MARK HUEY: No, I'm not.
09:57:41 I'm defining, let's take roads, for example.
09:57:44 You can't improve a road without doing the design
09:57:46 work.
09:57:47 >>
09:57:48 >>: Correct.
09:57:49 I would call that professional services versus the
09:57:53 project itself.
09:57:54 Huh Hugh again you gave me three categories to work

09:57:56 with.
09:57:57 So I worked with those three categories.
09:57:59 So anything related to building a road is in
09:58:03 implementation.
09:58:04 Anything related to improving stormwater is in
09:58:08 implementation.
09:58:09 So it's not planning.
09:58:11 Planning is unrelated to specifically building
09:58:15 something.
09:58:17 I thought that's really the distinction that made the
09:58:19 most sense.
09:58:20 Planning is not related to building.
09:58:23 Implementation is related to building something.
09:58:26 And administration speaks for itself.
09:58:28 We do have here -- and we have had Wilson Miller in
09:58:32 the case of the Channel District report to you every
09:58:34 three month on the work that they are doing.
09:58:36 We have here -- this is what they are doing.
09:58:42 It is a set of engineering drawings to build
09:58:46 infrastructure, and we can't do it without this.
09:58:49 This is what's going to be bid to contractors.
09:58:52 This is the work that is going to give us the basis to

09:58:56 do pricing, to figure out if we should do "pay as you
09:58:59 go" versus bonding.
09:59:01 This is about getting it done.
09:59:02 And when can't get it done in the Channel District of
09:59:07 East Tampa.
09:59:07 We are getting ready to do this on 22nd street.
09:59:10 We are spending money on engineering design work to
09:59:12 get things designed so we can build stuff.
09:59:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would say what you hold in your
09:59:19 hand is planning.
09:59:20 When it hits the streets, when the sidewalks are
09:59:22 built, and obviously we need both pieces. And what we
09:59:27 are discussing now, it isn't that we spent money on
09:59:31 it.
09:59:32 What I am trying to do is define how we spend our
09:59:37 money in these areas.
09:59:39 And you and I just have a difference of opinion about
09:59:41 what you hold in your hand.
09:59:43 I call that planning.
09:59:44 You call that implementation.
09:59:46 And that's why there's so much turquoise, is because
09:59:49 of that difference in how to characterize that work

09:59:53 that we paid for.
09:59:55 That was just the point I'm making.
09:59:57 And weapon I asked the question I wish we had had this
09:59:59 conversation about our definitions.
10:00:01 I of course assumed that you were understanding mine
10:00:03 and you of course thought I was understanding yours.
10:00:06 >>> Right.
10:00:07 Okay.
10:00:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I was going to say the only
10:00:12 question I raised -- and I really like the report --
10:00:16 and said Hyde Park.
10:00:17 Actually it's Tampa Heights, that when you look at
10:00:20 that, it is no different in how they get spent in
10:00:29 terms of how you get it categorized.
10:00:31 Understand what I'm saying?
10:00:32 So my question is being, that's a big difference in
10:00:35 how those dollars are spent versus all the other
10:00:38 CRAs.
10:00:39 So my question is, why is that?
10:00:41 >>MARK HUEY: Okay.
10:00:42 Let me address that.
10:00:49 I can just go to that.

10:00:51 Much the Heights, about $625,000, Tampa Heights is a
10:01:06 unique CRA for us in that it is primarily being
10:01:09 carried out by private developer.
10:01:11 So unlike our other CRAs where there are multiple
10:01:16 developers involved, and multiple redevelopment
10:01:22 challenges, in this case, the Heights development team
10:01:24 is taking the lead.
10:01:26 We have a development agreement in place with us that
10:01:30 was approved by not this board but the previous board
10:01:33 that directs how TIF dollars are spent.
10:01:40 Most of what you see here that has been spent on
10:01:42 planning and administration, the administrative work,
10:01:45 the development manager's salary, the planning work
10:01:48 related to the consultant that we had involved during
10:01:54 the negotiation of the development agreement with the
10:01:56 Heights team.
10:01:57 We had a variety of financial and bond counsel related
10:02:02 consultants who helped us structure that partnership
10:02:04 and bring to you the recommendation that we have.
10:02:10 So that's what's different about Tampa Heights.
10:02:12 Did I answer your question?
10:02:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.

10:02:15 >>GWEN MILLER: I'm fine it with.
10:02:20 I don't know about the rest of the council.
10:02:22 I think it's very important that we did it, and you
10:02:25 did a very good job showing how it's done, and we can
10:02:28 move on.
10:02:31 >>MARK HUEY: Most of this information really is on
10:02:34 budget reporting to you, and in our quarterly
10:02:37 financial reports.
10:02:37 But we are glad to clarify it.
10:02:43 >>GWEN MILLER: We can now move on to public comments.
10:02:47 Anybody in the public that would like to speak?
10:02:51 >>> Madam Chairman, members of the board, I'm Al Davis
10:03:06 from the East Tampa area.
10:03:11 So much time is being used and so many suggestions
10:03:17 have been made to I'm almost reluctant to make this
10:03:21 suggestion in terms of East Tampa.
10:03:32 There's a saying that an ounce of prevention is worth
10:03:34 a pound of cure.
10:03:35 And there's another saying that, you know, why make a
10:03:38 mountain out of a molehill?
10:03:46 Given our fiscal year 1 October, there is some
10:03:50 expectation that certain changes should have occurred

10:03:54 in East Tampa regarding the community advisory
10:03:59 committee.
10:04:07 We feel that has not happened and it would not be good
10:04:09 for the perpetualization of noncompliance.
10:04:16 So I would invite -- I would ask that the attorney be
10:04:22 invited to attend the next meeting and have a little
10:04:31 discussion about it.
10:04:32 You know, last month you had the updated discussion on
10:04:37 the strategic plan for East Tampa.
10:04:41 And we already got the development plan for East
10:04:48 Tampa.
10:04:50 And I just want to be sure we are on the same page,
10:04:52 the same line, the T's are crossed and the dots
10:05:00 connected.
10:05:01 Don't send us on a wild goose chase.
10:05:03 Not now.
10:05:05 TIF is a very limited resources.
10:05:07 And I would like to see us use that resources very
10:05:12 judicially and very carefully.
10:05:14 Thank you.
10:05:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:05:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Could you tell me again what wasn't

10:05:21 carried out?
10:05:22 That wasn't quite clear.
10:05:23 >>> The TAC policy.
10:05:26 And this observation.
10:05:29 Now maybe somebody else could look at the same thing
10:05:33 as other cities.
10:05:36 And -- I prefer not to take up the council's time, I
10:05:41 mean the board's time at this point.
10:05:44 But I think if the board would allow you then we can
10:05:49 sit down and talk more specifically.
10:05:51 And I think I have examples of what you might call
10:06:00 examples.
10:06:01 >>GWEN MILLER: We'll work on that.
10:06:04 He'll work on it.
10:06:05 >> Thank you.
10:06:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Next.
10:06:11 >>> My name is Eddie Lee Darren, Jr.
10:06:16 Major Honeywell unequivocally stated to me that
10:06:19 officer Henderson botched this case.
10:06:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Is this concerning CRA?
10:06:24 >>> No, this is concerning a case that I spoke to you
10:06:27 personally about two weeks ago and I spoke with

10:06:31 council and I passed out all the information.
10:06:32 >>GWEN MILLER: I know, but you can't talk about this.
10:06:35 This is CRA community redevelopment.
10:06:37 >> Will I be able to talk afterwards?
10:06:40 >>CHAIRMAN: At a council meeting.
10:06:42 At a regular council meeting.
10:06:45 Okay, thank you.
10:06:49 >> Good morning.
10:06:51 My name is Jacqueline Baker and I am a Drew Park
10:06:54 property owner and business owner and have been since
10:06:58 1986.
10:07:05 I'm also a licensed real estate broker.
10:07:07 I have clients in Drew Park.
10:07:13 And many of my clients are not only business owners,
10:07:16 they are also property owners.
10:07:18 And oaf the years in Drew Park we have experienced
10:07:21 many, many problems that we have had to deal with on
10:07:25 our own.
10:07:26 We have had very good support from the police to deal
10:07:29 with the problems that we have.
10:07:30 But we are all very encouraged by the community
10:07:33 redevelopment that is going on in Drew Park.

10:07:39 The efforts that the city is putting forth have really
10:07:42 improved immediately.
10:07:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I cannot hear.
10:07:51 >>> I'm sorry.
10:07:52 Is that better? Sorry.
10:07:53 But we are really encouraged by the improvements that
10:07:56 have gone on in our community.
10:07:59 We have seen, you know, definite changes that are a
10:08:03 direct result of the city's involvement I believe that
10:08:08 Drew Park is really an ideal location for businesses
10:08:12 in the City of Tampa.
10:08:13 And the redevelopment plans are going to really
10:08:16 continue to attract new business to the area.
10:08:21 In the past, my only community involvements have
10:08:24 really been at the county level, in neighborhood
10:08:26 associations, I spearheaded the formation of the
10:08:31 neighborhood in town and country, our neighborhood
10:08:34 association, I prepared grant requests to get grant
10:08:40 money for neighborhood improvements, and then when I
10:08:43 moved to the Carrollwood area, I prepared more grant
10:08:46 requests for my new neighborhood for other property
10:08:50 improvements that the grants allowed them to do.

10:08:57 I have now really focused on the Drew Park
10:08:59 redevelopment.
10:09:00 I have attended several of the advisory committee
10:09:03 meetings.
10:09:06 And I'm interested in becoming a part of the
10:09:10 committee.
10:09:11 And that's why I'm here today, asking you to let you
10:09:14 know who I am, and to thank you for everything that
10:09:18 you have done so far in our community, and the
10:09:22 continued efforts and the continued plan.
10:09:26 It's very encouraging to see things actually move
10:09:29 forward.
10:09:30 Several years ago we had a five year plan and we have
10:09:33 a ten year plan, and none of that ever happened.
10:09:36 So to see the community redevelopment actually, you
10:09:39 know, come in and do things and see what's going on,
10:09:45 and look to the future, I appreciate that.
10:09:49 And I know all of the business owners and property
10:09:52 owners in Drew Park are about that as well.
10:10:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Your name again?
10:10:02 >> Jacqueline Baker.
10:10:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

10:10:05 Our next speaker?
10:10:07 >>> My name is Thomas Gola.
10:10:12 I am an at-large applicant for the Drew Park CRA
10:10:15 advisory committee.
10:10:17 I am currently an industrial property specialist with
10:10:21 Prudential CRES Real Estate located on south Dale
10:10:23 Mabry, just south of Kennedy Boulevard.
10:10:28 I have been in the area specializing in industrial
10:10:30 real estate for numerous years.
10:10:32 Over the years, we have seen a lot of changes in our
10:10:35 economy, and jobs and job creation.
10:10:39 As I read through the addendum on here, it was
10:10:42 mentioned Drew Park was for small businesses and I
10:10:46 think that should continue.
10:10:49 My familiarity withdrew park came back in the mid to
10:10:52 late 90s when I was business development manager
10:10:54 with the Pasco County EDC and at that time of course
10:10:57 the 50 percent of our inquiries for relocation to
10:11:00 Pasco County were coming from Drew Park businesses.
10:11:04 I got to know firsthand the pros and cons of Drew
10:11:06 Park.
10:11:09 An area where companies were growing 5,000-foot,

10:11:12 10,000-foot tenants were outgrowing their space
10:11:15 subsequently looking for other areas that their
10:11:18 companies could expand.
10:11:24 I think that Drew Park really needs to stay as an
10:11:28 incubator for businesses in the City of Tampa and
10:11:31 Hillsborough County.
10:11:32 The growth of the company gets started, created most
10:11:35 of the industrial properties are located north, Waters
10:11:37 Avenue, some of the original developments done by
10:11:42 Thompson, Kirk, fed off companies that grew out of
10:11:45 Drew Park.
10:11:49 Basically, I think this is a real good area for small
10:11:53 manufacturers.
10:11:54 They are not making land anymore for manufacturing.
10:11:58 It's very hard for the small manufacturers to succeed.
10:12:02 Or even find a suitable location with the heavy
10:12:05 industrial location.
10:12:07 But what I would like to do, I don't think Drew Park
10:12:12 should change as it is right now.
10:12:14 What I think we need to do is basically ensure the
10:12:16 growth of the local manufacturers that heir currently
10:12:18 located there.

10:12:19 Also encourage new manufacturers to locate there
10:12:22 possibly through new development.
10:12:26 Do what we can to provide affordable housing for the
10:12:28 local manufacturers, Hillsborough County community,
10:12:31 college employees, airport, and manufacturing
10:12:36 affordable housing can go hand in hand, if you looked
10:12:39 at the Publix facility off of 92 up in Lakeland,
10:12:43 substantial amount of housing along the southern
10:12:45 portion of 92, and some of these areas 60% of the
10:12:50 residents there are employed by Publix.
10:12:53 I would also like to see what we can do to renovate
10:12:55 and change Drew Park to create a strong economic base
10:12:59 for the City of Tampa.
10:13:00 Again, it's an incubator for larger companies in
10:13:03 Tampa.
10:13:04 It's been that way since Drew Park was first created.
10:13:08 And I think I could -- my knowledge of the industrial
10:13:12 users in the marketplace, it would be a good asset to
10:13:17 the advisory committee.
10:13:18 Thank you.
10:13:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:13:19 Next speaker.

10:13:27 >>> Mike Ross with King Engineering, and I'm applying
10:13:31 for the vacant committee spot on the Drew Park CRA.
10:13:35 I have lived in Tampa, the Tampa area for over 40
10:13:38 years, and I spent 22 of those years at king
10:13:41 engineering.
10:13:41 I currently serve as a partner, services director for
10:13:45 the engineering department out of our Tampa office;
10:13:50 provide numerous in-fill and utility improvement
10:13:53 projects common to areas like Drew Park.
10:13:57 We have worked in the port Ybor area in cooperative
10:14:00 efforts between Tampa Port Authority and we worked on
10:14:04 the Belmont Heights project and other such projects.
10:14:09 All these projects typically include not only site
10:14:12 redevelopment but construction improvements, we
10:14:15 provided economic evaluations relative to those
10:14:18 utility improvements, and I feel like this would be a
10:14:21 valuable asset to the CRA.
10:14:26 I appreciate your time and your consideration this
10:14:28 morning.
10:14:29 I'm available if there's any further questions.
10:14:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.
10:14:32 Is this like a paid political announcement?

10:14:36 What are you coming here to tell us other than you do
10:14:38 this for --
10:14:44 >>> For the advisory.
10:14:45 >> Okay.
10:14:46 I was thinking, you have these amazing credentials,
10:14:48 but now I get it.
10:14:52 Thanks.
10:14:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:14:54 Next speaker.
10:15:02 >>> Good morning.
10:15:03 My name is Bob Cave.
10:15:06 I'm the operating manager of Drew Park LLC, in Drew
10:15:09 Park.
10:15:10 I'm here to talk to you about the vacancy of the Drew
10:15:13 Park advisory committee.
10:15:18 Drew Park office building is located at the corner of
10:15:21 Osborne and north Lois, right in the center of Drew
10:15:26 Park.
10:15:28 I have a vested interest in the Drew Park area, and I
10:15:31 am a partner in that building, and I also feel like I
10:15:35 have something to offer to the development activities
10:15:39 in Drew Park.

10:15:41 I'm a registered mechanical engineer in the State of
10:15:45 Florida, and vice-president in charge of engineering
10:15:49 for a small consulting firm in Sarasota, with a sat
10:15:52 light office in Drew Park.
10:15:56 We provide commercial, industrial and institutional
10:15:59 building designs.
10:16:00 We work with civil, structural and architectural in
10:16:05 the development of properties around the State of
10:16:06 Florida as well as 20 other states in the U.S.
10:16:13 If selected, I look forward to working with Jeanette,
10:16:18 and the CRA, and Drew Park and the City of Tampa in
10:16:21 the redevelopment process.
10:16:23 Thank you.
10:16:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:16:25 Next speaker.
10:16:30 >>> Good morning.
10:16:31 I'm George Adams, owner of Electric Supply of Tampa
10:16:36 Incorporated.
10:16:37 We have been in business in Drew Park for 39 years.
10:16:42 Drew Park has been very, very good to us in business,
10:16:46 and in many on the ways, also.
10:16:51 We employ 135 employees, and we are a property owner,

10:16:58 owning 46 lots, where our business is located.
10:17:01 And I'm a past president of the Tampa Jaycees.
10:17:08 I was a member of the Chamber of Commerce board of
10:17:10 governors.
10:17:12 And I was past chairman of the Hillsborough County
10:17:16 civil service board.
10:17:20 As I stated, we have been in business for 39 years in
10:17:23 Drew Park, and it has been very, very good for us.
10:17:28 And I was a member of the Drew Park Executive
10:17:32 Committee when it was first started a number of years
10:17:35 ago, that later became the Drew Park CRA advisory
10:17:41 committee.
10:17:42 And I am very, very interested in everything that
10:17:46 happens in Drew Park, and I'm very concerned.
10:17:50 We have a lot of problems in Drew Park.
10:17:53 And I think the CRA is making some very good
10:17:57 improvements, but there is still a lot of work to be
10:18:00 done.
10:18:00 I would like to be a part of that.
10:18:02 I'm very interested and very concerned about Drew Park
10:18:06 in the future.
10:18:08 And will do all I can to help improve it in any way

10:18:11 that I can.
10:18:12 Thank you for your time and your consideration.
10:18:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
10:18:19 Okay, Ms. Mulhern.
10:18:23 >>MARY MULHERN: Are we voting on this?
10:18:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 5.
10:18:27 >>MARY MULHERN: We are voting on it today?
10:18:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes, number 5.
10:18:46 >> We are going to go to number 5.
10:18:51 We are going to skip to number 5.
10:18:53 Appointment for Drew Park board.
10:18:56 >>MARK HUEY: We provided you a memorandum we hope
10:18:58 helps in your discussion, gives you a matrix of the
10:19:00 current board and their capabilities, and then there is
10:19:06 a description of all of those who have been nominated,
10:19:11 and gives you a feel of their background against your
10:19:17 criteria.
10:19:18 >> Do we have ballots?
10:19:26 >> Normally we have an election ballot form.
10:19:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: How many do we select?
10:19:46 >>GWEN MILLER: One. You can go to number 3 while we
10:20:08 are voting.

10:20:10 >>MARK HUEY: Number 3 is the follow-up to the last
10:20:12 board meeting we presented to you, a draft of the
10:20:19 facade grant program.
10:20:20 There were a few changes we made in response to
10:20:22 comments from YCDC.
10:20:24 And those were highlighted in a memorandum to you.
10:20:28 And so we at this point are asking you to go ahead and
10:20:32 approve it this morning.
10:20:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Do we have a motion?
10:20:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
10:20:37 I think this is one of the best programs we are
10:20:39 initiating.
10:20:40 >>MARY MULHERN: Second.
10:20:41 (Motion carried).
10:20:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well written, too.
10:20:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What is the time frame that you
10:20:49 anticipate for this in terms of when people apply, when
10:20:53 they can receive the money and when we could see how
10:20:57 it's going?
10:21:03 >>MARK HUEY: Basic time frame is in January we'll be
10:21:11 issuing an RFP to have an administrator join us.
10:21:15 Remember, that's part of how we are going to implement

10:21:18 it.
10:21:18 We don't have the staff to implement it so we will
10:21:20 issue that in January.
10:21:21 But we will already begin next month to do some soft
10:21:29 marketing, and remember it's East Tampa, Ybor City and
10:21:31 Drew Park, who already has interest but it is our hope
10:21:37 we will be accepting application in the March-April
10:21:39 time frame.
10:21:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: May I make a request?
10:21:41 Since this person is going to be funded, I would assume
10:21:44 that partially by CRA money.
10:21:47 As a CRA board I think that we should request the
10:21:51 facades for the building, this is what the person sees,
10:21:56 that it person has some training in urban design,
10:21:58 something that indicates that they have a design
10:22:02 sensibility, not just an accountant, not just an
10:22:05 engineer.
10:22:05 >>MARK HUEY: Weave actually written into the program
10:22:09 that the city's urban design, Wilson, will be part of
10:22:12 the review or plan.
10:22:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, but it would be helpful if the
10:22:18 person who is the administrator has some design

10:22:21 sensibility.
10:22:23 >>MARK HUEY: The administrative function really relates
10:22:25 to the financial administration.
10:22:26 Rest of it will be done by the city.
10:22:29 Our capacity that we were lacking within the city had
10:22:32 to do with our ability to process and underwrite
10:22:36 applicants and then to administrator loans going
10:22:39 forward.
10:22:40 So -- the urban design aspect of this will be part of
10:22:48 the review of each project, and we have the city staff
10:22:53 to do that, where we didn't, as we outlined in our
10:22:55 memorandum about the project.
10:22:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Right.
10:22:58 My concern is that the participation of the staff
10:23:03 person who has some design training is after the
10:23:07 applicant has already developed a project, come to your
10:23:11 financial guide, then Wilson loss and says, it's
10:23:18 dreadful or it's okay.
10:23:20 It would be so helpful if as part of the initial
10:23:24 counseling there could be some staff person with design
10:23:26 background to talk to the applicant.
10:23:29 It's so much, as you know, less expensive and more

10:23:32 effective to talk to somebody up front.
10:23:34 And that, since the whole point is to improve the looks
10:23:37 of the city, we need somebody who knows about looks at
10:23:41 the front end rather than just a financial person.
10:23:43 >>MARK HUEY: We'll make sure that is in the front end
10:23:46 of the process.
10:23:48 >>MARY MULHERN: I agree with Linda.
10:23:50 That's great that you are going to do that.
10:23:51 But I have a question that kind of brings up some other
10:23:53 issues -- not issues but questions I have about our
10:24:01 administration of loan programs in this city.
10:24:05 Do you have someone already who does that kind of work
10:24:10 for economic development?
10:24:15 >>MARK HUEY: Not as part of my staff.
10:24:17 For example, you are familiar with the historic
10:24:18 preservation trust fund.
10:24:20 And that process.
10:24:24 There are a number of city staff who were involved and
10:24:26 they are in the housing department.
10:24:27 They are in Bonnie's office.
10:24:29 They are in other departments in the city which
10:24:31 administer loan programs.

10:24:33 But we have --
10:24:36 >>MARY MULHERN: But it's not centralized under Bonnie
10:24:38 or under -- huh Hugh no, no.
10:24:41 >> I'm curious because this came up in a meeting,
10:24:45 nothing to do with CRA, but I'm trying to understand
10:24:49 how the city does this, because we are talking about
10:24:54 the transfer of development rights, and the demolition
10:24:58 by neglect ordinances, and that was a big issue, that
10:25:04 it was felt that the city didn't have the financial,
10:25:09 administrative people to do that.
10:25:11 So I'm trying to figure out how the other programs get
10:25:15 administered.
10:25:17 Are they all different?
10:25:20 >>> Let me help because this was the hardest part of
10:25:23 putting this program together.
10:25:25 And let me see if I can put it this way.
10:25:27 The city has the technical expertise within city staff
10:25:31 to administer loan programs.
10:25:33 We have very capable staff.
10:25:35 We just don't have enough.
10:25:37 So what happened is we tried to do this entire program
10:25:40 internally, and these other programs you mentioned, can

10:25:44 we do it internally?
10:25:48 And because we are not sure yet how fruitful this
10:25:50 program is going to be, how many applicants, how we
10:25:54 think the best approach initially is to outsource it,
10:25:59 and then as things unfold, if it's a highly successful
10:26:03 program we'll bring that in-house and hire some staff.
10:26:07 We thought it would be premature at the beginning of
10:26:09 the program to staff up in order to launch it.
10:26:12 So if we are launching it, we are going to outsource
10:26:14 the administration, and then we'll see how it unfolds.
10:26:18 >>MARY MULHERN: Then I have a question.
10:26:21 I know this will come in front of us separately for the
10:26:24 actual appropriation for that outsourcing, right?
10:26:28 If you don't know how many applicants you are going to
10:26:30 have, how do you know what you are going to -- I mean,
10:26:33 don't we kind of just need to -- is this person you are
10:26:38 going to hire to administer it, are they going to write
10:26:43 the RFP?
10:26:45 >>> No.
10:26:46 >> So shouldn't we do that part first and see how much
10:26:49 interest there is before we decide, you know, how much
10:26:52 we are going to pay, how many hours it's going to be or

10:26:55 anything like that?
10:26:56 >>> Well, the contractual agreement that we anticipate
10:26:58 having will be based on units of activity.
10:27:02 >> Okay.
10:27:03 >>> So there won't be a fixed fee.
10:27:05 There won't be an up-front lump sum.
10:27:08 >> So payable per loan application?
10:27:10 >>> Exactly, correct.
10:27:13 And for different activity related to that loan
10:27:14 application.
10:27:15 So that's the kind of agreement that we anticipate
10:27:18 bringing to you.
10:27:20 And we want to do it up front, because when we go out
10:27:23 and do applications people get excited and they want to
10:27:25 move forward with their projects.
10:27:27 And we don't want to hold up and say, now we have to
10:27:29 get -- first we are going to get that administer.
10:27:33 Then mark it and see what kind of response we get.
10:27:35 And I will keep you abreast by giving you a general
10:27:38 time line.
10:27:41 Again the big contingency is how quickly we can get
10:27:43 that administer on board.

10:27:45 But we are going to get working on that right away.
10:27:47 >> It sounds good.
10:27:48 My only concern is I don't want the CRA money for the
10:27:50 actual work and to go towards administration, kind of
10:27:57 the issue that Linda was getting on that earlier agenda
10:28:00 item.
10:28:02 >>MARK HUEY: Yes.
10:28:03 In our summary memorandum to you, we provided you what
10:28:05 we think is a general estimate that we think the
10:28:08 program could be administered on an outsource basis for
10:28:14 in the 9 to 12% range.
10:28:15 Is that correct?
10:28:16 So we have done some analysis.
10:28:18 And we believe that about 9 to 12%, until we actually
10:28:23 get a contractor and see how it works, we have enough
10:28:27 assurance that we think it will take about that much.
10:28:31 And frankly to do it internally would have taken more
10:28:33 than that.
10:28:34 >> And what is the total amount going toward the
10:28:37 program?
10:28:38 >> We had 800,000 in East Tampa.
10:28:42 200,000 set aside in Drew Park.

10:28:44 And approximately 100 in Ybor.
10:28:49 Potentially.
10:28:50 So you are talking up to a million dollars.
10:28:52 And then the issue will come, how much of that becomes
10:28:56 occurring?
10:28:56 I think if the program is successful, our hope would be
10:28:59 that we would continue to dedicate year in and year out
10:29:02 resources, and maybe even increasing resources.
10:29:05 But that remains to be seen.
10:29:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
10:29:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
10:29:14 Well, ballpark, what is the total amount that we have
10:29:20 budgeted or we will have budgeted for the facades in
10:29:23 the various districts?
10:29:24 Let me just ballpark.
10:29:26 >> About a million dollar.
10:29:28 100,000 in East Tampa.
10:29:30 200,000 in Drew Park.
10:29:31 And 100, approximately, in Ybor City.
10:29:34 So those are the three participating CRAs.
10:29:38 In the current budget how much they have set aside
10:29:40 toward this program.

10:29:41 >> And it appeared in quickly reading through this that
10:29:44 it's a limit of about 50,000 per applicant per property
10:29:47 owner?
10:29:48 >>> That's right.
10:29:48 >> So they can contribute it or are expected to
10:29:51 contribute in match?
10:29:53 >>> 50-50 match we are anticipating.
10:29:56 >> I'm hoping that folks are watching this and can get
10:29:58 real excited about it, because, you know, I think it
10:30:03 sounds like a really good program.
10:30:08 And they should call Mark Huey directly.
10:30:13 >>MARK HUEY: And to have matching maybe what could move
10:30:16 people forward.
10:30:17 It is difficult times right now and maybe this can move
10:30:22 some projects forward and that's what we hope will
10:30:24 happen.
10:30:24 >> Good program.
10:30:27 >>GWEN MILLER: We have some results on number 5?
10:30:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Before you announce the results, if
10:30:31 I can, Madam Chair, the five folks who applied and who
10:30:34 spoke today were all tremendously well qualified.
10:30:38 Janett, it sounds like you have some good interest

10:30:40 going in Drew Park and I hope although we are only
10:30:43 going to pick one out of the five that we can pick up
10:30:46 the other four in various less formal capacity.
10:30:52 >>THE CLERK: No one received a majority vote.
10:30:54 There were two votes for Mr. George add amounts and one
10:30:57 for each of the remaining four applicants.
10:31:00 >>GWEN MILLER: So Mr. Adams?
10:31:03 We have to vote again?
10:31:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just run it again.
10:31:16 >> It shows we have a lot of respect for all the
10:31:18 applicants.
10:31:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Another ballot.
10:31:25 >> Were the absentees counted?
10:31:27 >> One got two votes and the other got one vote.
10:31:33 Early voting.
10:31:34 Absentee voting.
10:31:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We could vote for the same person
10:31:40 again and see if somebody else changes their vote.
10:31:43 >> Take your own ballot.
10:31:45 Try again.
10:31:50 >>GWEN MILLER: While we are doing this again, do you
10:31:52 want to go to item number 6, Mark?

10:31:55 >>MARK HUEY: Yes.
10:31:56 Actually, item number 4 is the quarterly TIF report.
10:32:00 And that is presented to you each quarter for review.
10:32:06 And to file.
10:32:19 I just note on the quarterly TIF report that we did do
10:32:22 some enhancements based on the information that was
10:32:24 provided to us, a couple of meetings ago as promised
10:32:29 and hopefully those improvements will be recognized
10:32:31 particularly in the notes related to each capital
10:32:34 project.
10:32:35 So we are presenting the quarterly TIF reports for your
10:32:39 review and approval, for filing.
10:32:42 To receive and file.
10:32:42 >> So moved.
10:32:45 >> Motion and second to receive and file.
10:32:47 (Motion carried)
10:32:49 Ms. Saul-Sena?
10:32:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
10:32:55 I had a meeting this morning with Henry Lewis, who is
10:33:00 a property owner in the Channel District.
10:33:04 And he is extremely dissatisfied that the road in
10:33:08 front of his business has been torn up for six months.

10:33:14 And staff has been working with him energetically to
10:33:20 no avail.
10:33:21 The transportation --
10:33:29 The condo construction catty-corner from his building
10:33:38 has prevented a road from being open for six months
10:33:41 and the other one is completely dusty and impossible,
10:33:44 and the only -- the majority of actual businesses in
10:33:49 the Channel District are on 11th street which is
10:33:53 what's being impacted by the construction.
10:33:55 Maybe Mr. McDonough could come up.
10:33:58 And I'm not blaming you because you are not the grown
10:34:00 up in charge but we as the CRA district have got to
10:34:03 spend some money fixing up this street that's been
10:34:06 closed all this time, and apologizing to the
10:34:10 businesses that are trying to hang on, and what can we
10:34:12 do?
10:34:13 >> Bob McDonough with economic development.
10:34:15 Yes, it is a constant headache.
10:34:18 And in the case of Mr. Lewis, I actually thought I had
10:34:25 the road open two weeks ago.
10:34:27 >> I drove down there this morning.
10:34:28 >> I know.

10:34:28 I sent an e-mail to both you and Ms. Mulhern yesterday
10:34:33 because aid meeting with the contractors and city
10:34:35 departments, and the owners two weeks ago and they
10:34:41 agreed they would open up one lane of traffic on
10:34:44 Washington street.
10:34:45 And I went back, and it was not open.
10:34:48 And I had a subsequent meeting, and when they went to
10:34:50 the city to change their maintenance of traffic plan,
10:34:55 I was rejected because they are stuccoing the outside
10:35:00 on Washington.
10:35:01 Again this being an urban development it's only ten
10:35:03 feet from the property edge.
10:35:05 The scaffolding actually goes to the edge of pavement,
10:35:08 and the concern was by the traffic department was
10:35:11 that, yes, people working up on the scaffolds, they
10:35:14 could very well drop something that could injure a
10:35:16 pedestrian or a car, and they recommended to keep it
10:35:19 closed.
10:35:20 In about two more weeks the stuccoing on Washington
10:35:23 and then the entire length of Washington will be open.
10:35:26 And I know Mr. Lewis is frustrated, and one of the
10:35:29 things that I did shortly after coming to work here

10:35:33 is -- and I talked to the board.
10:35:37 I think several times and said, we have to change
10:35:41 people's frame of reference.
10:35:42 Again, there are a lot of people that see this as an
10:35:47 industrial area, not a home for 1500 people.
10:35:49 And so one of the first things I have done is gone to
10:35:54 the different departments and talked about the fact
10:35:57 that these are people's homes now and we have to look
10:35:59 at it with a fresh set of eyes.
10:36:03 Unfortunately in the case of Slade the process is down
10:36:06 the road but anything that comes forward, we will have
10:36:09 a much better plan as far as maintenance of traffic
10:36:12 and imposing construction standards on the
10:36:16 neighborhood.
10:36:17 So I have apologized profusely on several occasions to
10:36:21 Mr. Lewis because it is a difficult situation.
10:36:23 But I have taken steps in meeting with other city
10:36:27 departments that subsequent projects in that
10:36:30 development area will have a more stringent set of
10:36:33 plans that they will have to follow that will have
10:36:36 less intent.
10:36:37 Again, you know, we are encouraging new urbanism,

10:36:40 building to the edge.
10:36:41 What that means is less lay-down area and more impact
10:36:46 on local streets.
10:36:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have two specific questions on
10:36:48 this.
10:36:48 >>> Yes, ma'am.
10:36:49 >> One is, because we are going to be looking at the
10:36:52 construction of a parking garage by the Port Authority
10:36:54 immediately in front of where a bunch of people live
10:36:57 in the towers at Channelside.
10:36:58 In real cities, what they do is they have the workers
10:37:02 park off-site and they develop a system to have the
10:37:06 off-site worker parking people ferried in to work and
10:37:12 spend money constructing things that you walk through,
10:37:14 like little pedestrian tunnels, so that pedestrian
10:37:19 activity isn't impaired.
10:37:20 This is what real cities do.
10:37:23 Tampa is becoming a real city.
10:37:24 And I think that we need to do this.
10:37:26 Now, how do we do this?
10:37:28 Do we request that the administration request
10:37:30 including these provisions for the neighborhood in the

10:37:36 construction in the urban area?
10:37:38 >>> Yes, I think what we have to look at is our rules
10:37:41 and regulations and maintenance of traffic.
10:37:43 In the case of the Port Authority I know for a fact
10:37:45 that they are supplying -- to workers, including
10:37:51 laydown areas, inside the immediate area so it will
10:37:55 not impact the local neighborhood, and as far as a
10:37:57 maintenance of traffic for pedestrians, a plan will
10:38:01 have to be worked on.
10:38:02 >> I would like to make a motion that we request that
10:38:04 the administration consider pedestrian protection
10:38:08 tunnels during construction in our urban areas which
10:38:11 include our CRA areas.
10:38:16 >> Second.
10:38:21 >>MARY MULHERN: I want to say one level of
10:38:23 scaffolding.
10:38:24 That's what it takes.
10:38:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And up to that, in our budget, Mr.
10:38:30 Lewis, it turns out, is very engaged, has been very
10:38:33 engaged, in investing in the Channel District.
10:38:36 And he says that there is no possible way that the
10:38:43 $1.4 million, I believe, that we have dedicated to

10:38:47 improving the Streetscape, Indigo project, will be
10:38:51 needed during this next year, the '09-10 year that we
10:38:55 have committed this money for.
10:38:56 So I would like to make a motion that we --
10:39:07 >>GWEN MILLER: What motion do you want?
10:39:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The first motion is which is that
10:39:11 we ask the administration to protect pedestrians
10:39:13 during construction in urban areas.
10:39:19 At our next CRA meeting, get a report back from the
10:39:22 administration on whether they are implementing some
10:39:24 policies to better protect pedestrians during
10:39:26 construction in urban areas.
10:39:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you want transportation to be
10:39:30 there?
10:39:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm asking the administration in
10:39:33 general.
10:39:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Questions?
10:39:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: For clarity, I agree with you, but
10:39:40 I just want to know who is going to pay for it?
10:39:42 Is it going to be the city or the developer?
10:39:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The developer.
10:39:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I want to make sure it's not in

10:39:48 conjunction with any CRA money.
10:39:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The developer.
10:39:53 >>CHAIRMAN: The developer, not CRA.
10:39:55 You got that?
10:39:57 >> That was implied.
10:39:59 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor say Aye.
10:40:01 Opposed, Nay.
10:40:01 (Motion carried)
10:40:02 My second question, I guess we can't do it today but I
10:40:06 would like a report back from administration at the
10:40:08 next CRA meeting on the -- I would like -- actually, I
10:40:14 would like to direct the staff to transfer funding for
10:40:17 the project that isn't going to happen in this fiscal
10:40:20 you're to a budget that -- which is the 1.2 million
10:40:26 for 11th street to a project that could happen,
10:40:28 that desperately needs happening which is the sidewalk
10:40:30 on Washington.
10:40:31 Now, I thought we had money allocated to the sidewalk
10:40:35 on Washington but nothing has happened.
10:40:36 >>> There's actually been a sidewalk constructed on
10:40:41 south side from Meridian to 11th street and the
10:40:45 remainder will be constructed in the next month.

10:40:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It will be?
10:40:48 >>> They already built the first half on it.
10:40:50 >> I was there today and it looks like the north
10:40:53 side --
10:40:53 >>> No.
10:40:54 >> Is there going to be a sidewalk on the north side
10:40:56 of Washington?
10:40:56 >>> South side is where we are constructing one right
10:40:59 now.
10:40:59 >> I'm asking is there going to be a sidewalk on the
10:41:01 north side of Washington?
10:41:02 >>> We have not planned one right now, no, because we
10:41:05 are building one on the south side.
10:41:06 >> Let's pretend like this is a real urban area.
10:41:10 You have sidewalks on both sides of the street.
10:41:12 This is no longer the industrial place it was.
10:41:16 We have people who live there.
10:41:17 We are not planning a sidewalk on the north side?
10:41:20 >>> We have not immediately, no.
10:41:23 No, ma'am.
10:41:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I look at the plans and -- I
10:41:28 withdraw my motion.

10:41:29 I want to take a look at it because it seems to me if
10:41:32 we are talk ago real urban area you have sidewalks on
10:41:34 both sides of the street.
10:41:36 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to move on.
10:41:42 >>THE CLERK: In the second round of voting Mr. George
10:41:45 Adams received four votes, and Mr. Cave received two
10:41:50 votes.
10:41:51 >> Which means Mr. Adams was selected.
10:41:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Adams?
10:41:59 We thank everyone that applied.
10:42:01 Don't give up.
10:42:02 There will be more openings and you will get a chance
10:42:04 to get on that board.
10:42:05 We thank you for having an interest and wanting to be
10:42:08 on the board.
10:42:09 We go to item number 6, we did.
10:42:17 Number 7.
10:42:21 >>MARK HUEY: Items 6, 7, 8 and 9 are accounting
10:42:25 measures.
10:42:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I move all of those.
10:42:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Second on the motion.
10:42:29 All in favor?

10:42:30 Opposed?
10:42:31 (Motion carried).
10:42:31 All right.
10:42:32 Information.
10:42:33 Highlight.
10:42:33 >>MARK HUEY: There's one item.
10:42:37 I would like to make a request that at your regularly
10:42:39 scheduled meeting on November 20th of City Council
10:42:42 that you set aside a few minutes for CRA meetings to
10:42:46 approve a Drew Park land acquisition.
10:42:50 We have been negotiating a contract, that we
10:42:53 anticipate will be ready on November 20th, and
10:42:55 rather than delaying the implementation on that, we
10:42:57 would appreciate your commendation.
10:42:59 So we would take it up.
10:43:00 And you approve it at council that day as well.
10:43:03 So we would like to make that request.
10:43:05 >> So moved.
10:43:07 >> Second.
10:43:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Which one needs to be approved
10:43:09 first?
10:43:10 CRA?

10:43:11 >> As far as having Carr moneys, that item go first
10:43:17 and then go back to council.
10:43:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Schedule it first thing?
10:43:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Reverend Scott has a question.
10:43:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I thought we discussed last time that
10:43:27 because our agenda will be very heavy that we monitor
10:43:32 because it's kind of difficult to move from one
10:43:33 meeting to the next one.
10:43:35 We had that discussion as I recall last time.
10:43:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Sounds like an urgent situation if you
10:43:42 have a real estate deal there.
10:43:44 >>MARK HUEY: It something we typically would like to
10:43:47 do but sometimes the monthly cycle of meetings doesn't
10:43:50 accommodate it exactly the way the free market
10:43:53 negotiations work.
10:43:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I'm telling you the next several
10:44:03 meetings are very heavy.
10:44:04 Anything you add now, you may be working a second day.
10:44:07 Right now, I'm just telling you that the next several
10:44:10 meetings the end of the year are very heavy.
10:44:15 Council has very heavy.
10:44:17 Anything you are adding, you are going to be coming

10:44:19 back on Friday, okay?
10:44:20 I just want to stress that.
10:44:23 >>GWEN MILLER: What about 9:30?
10:44:31 Huh Hugh we will accommodate whatever makes sense for
10:44:33 you.
10:44:33 >>GWEN MILLER: We have the police of the month, two
10:44:35 commendations.
10:44:36 Then we will do that.
10:44:38 All we have to do is approve it, right?
10:44:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If you start out with CRA, then you
10:44:43 just have a tape.
10:44:44 >>GWEN MILLER: You want to do that?
10:44:46 Okay, we'll do it at 9:00.
10:44:48 Do it at 9:00.
10:44:53 >> That's smart.
10:44:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's my motion.
10:44:55 >> Second.
10:44:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
10:44:57 (Motion carried)
10:45:00 >>THE CLERK: May I ask that the motion be formally
10:45:02 stated for the record?
10:45:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Motion is that we have a special

10:45:05 CRA meeting scheduled on the 20th of November
10:45:09 beginning at 9 a.m., prior to the regular council
10:45:12 meeting.
10:45:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
10:45:19 >>THE CLERK: Special CRA meeting to consider something
10:45:21 in particular?
10:45:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Heartland purchase.
10:45:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Reverend Scott.
10:45:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I want to say to Mr. Huey and to your
10:45:31 staff, I really appreciate the backup material, I
10:45:34 really appreciate -- it's very thorough, and the graph
10:45:38 that you did for us is excellent.
10:45:40 I mean, I like getting my stuff early and being able,
10:45:43 and I want to compliment you and your staff.
10:45:46 Very, very good report and well written.
10:45:49 >>MARK HUEY: We had a good team.
10:45:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena.
10:45:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
10:45:54 I figured out a better way to say what I was
10:45:56 interested in exploring before, which is the fact that
10:45:59 since the project, there were six federal projects
10:46:02 that were supposed to go forward, because of the

10:46:04 market, because of the economy, they will not be
10:46:07 happening within this fiscal year.
10:46:10 So the money that we have set aside, which is 1.4
10:46:15 million, we can move into our next fiscal year and
10:46:17 spend the money that's projected for this year on the
10:46:20 things that we heard from the residents of the Channel
10:46:22 District, they want money spent on, which are
10:46:24 sidewalks, streetlights, and road repairs.
10:46:27 Currently, 11th street and Washington and other
10:46:31 streets are literally half paved.
10:46:33 There's like an inch and a half difference between the
10:46:36 right side of the Street and the left side of the
10:46:40 street.
10:46:40 We need to make it habitable for the people that live
10:46:43 there. It's my anticipation unfortunately because of
10:46:46 the role estate market that we are not going to see
10:46:49 new construction for the next several years.
10:46:51 So for the people who are contributing financially to
10:46:55 our CRA budget, I think the appropriate way to spend
10:46:58 our money is to make their lives decent by fixing the
10:47:02 street, the sidewalks and the streetlights.
10:47:04 So I would like Mr. Huey to take a look at that and

10:47:07 perhaps in January come back to us with some proposals
10:47:11 on how to improve those quality of life issues for the
10:47:14 people who are living in the Channel District.
10:47:16 That's a motion.
10:47:17 >>MARY MULHERN: Second.
10:47:21 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
10:47:23 Question on the motion?
10:47:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me hear from him on that.
10:47:26 >>MARK HUEY: This was something we discussed when we
10:47:28 actually approved the budget.
10:47:29 And I'm not sure what your source of information about
10:47:33 the Sembler project.
10:47:34 The fact of the matter is, the Sembler folks that we
10:47:37 talk with regularly, they have fully permitted
10:47:40 drawings for the project, they have a bank loan, and
10:47:44 they are ready for the last bit of equity.
10:47:47 So we are behind them.
10:47:48 They have not given up on the project.
10:47:50 And so as long as they are working hard on the project
10:47:52 to get it done, we believe that we need to be backing
10:47:56 them and behind them and supporting them.
10:47:58 >>GWEN MILLER: I agree.

10:48:00 >>MARK HUEY: When we did the original budget we said
10:48:02 if that project does not go forward we'll do just as
10:48:04 you suggest.
10:48:05 But officially the Sembler organization continues to
10:48:08 work very hard to move forward on the Indigo Hotel
10:48:13 project and he would want to continue to be
10:48:15 supportive.
10:48:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Can we wait --
10:48:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What do you think a reasonable time
10:48:21 to wait is, Mr. Huey?
10:48:24 >>MARK HUEY: In these wild times of unprecedented
10:48:27 capital market I wouldn't even know how to answer
10:48:29 that.
10:48:29 I think what we are doing is just as they are,
10:48:32 taking -- giving them every opportunity.
10:48:35 When a private developer has invested the kind of time
10:48:38 and money that they have to doing a project that I
10:48:41 think everyone here agrees would be --
10:48:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's a wonderful project.
10:48:45 But in the meantime the people who are living in the
10:48:47 Channel District are living in less than acceptable
10:48:52 conditions.

10:48:53 If this is money that we can dedicate here and now to
10:48:57 improving the quality of their lives, I think that's
10:49:00 being responsible and appropriate thing for us to do.
10:49:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: May I make a suggestion?
10:49:07 Bob, maybe you can facilitate Sembler having
10:49:10 conversations with Mrs. Saul-Sena to give her a better
10:49:13 idea of how this project is going and what the
10:49:15 realistic aspects of it are.
10:49:17 We all know him and I'm sure he would be glad to talk
10:49:20 to you.
10:49:20 >>GWEN MILLER: To meet with Mrs. Saul-Sena and discuss
10:49:25 this and give a better insight on what's going on.
10:49:28 >>> Certainly, but as a quick comment.
10:49:30 The condition of that roadway in that area right now
10:49:33 is not planned to be left that way in the short term
10:49:36 and there are going to be improvements done shortly.
10:49:38 >> When?
10:49:39 >> Within the next 30 days.
10:49:40 I have to wait until Slade finishes their paving job
10:49:43 and then we will go in and finish the rest of that
10:49:46 roadway.
10:49:47 Again, we'll have a conversation.

10:49:49 But, yes, it certainly was not the intent to leave
10:49:52 that looking like --
10:49:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It is completely unacceptable.
10:49:55 >>> I agree.
10:49:56 >> Been that way for six month.
10:49:58 For the people who live there and who are funding the
10:50:00 CRA, it's not fair to them.
10:50:03 >>> I agree.
10:50:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, Mrs. Saul-Sena, for all the
10:50:09 tenacity and the issues on Channelside.
10:50:11 But I think it's very important, though, that we not
10:50:13 get ahead of the process, and we give the process time
10:50:17 to work, and at the same time I believe that we do
10:50:20 have -- don't we have an advisory council on
10:50:22 Channelside to also take a look at these issues and
10:50:26 bring a recommendation to us?
10:50:28 >>> We do, yes, sir.
10:50:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So my point is, we be very careful
10:50:33 going outside of the process, that we make sure that
10:50:36 we keep all the right people in the process, and allow
10:50:39 them to have input.
10:50:41 That's all I'm saying.

10:50:42 So be very careful.
10:50:44 And we do understand that -- given the economic times,
10:50:50 but at the same time we don't want to kill what's
10:50:52 already in process.
10:50:54 We want to make sure that it moves forward because you
10:50:57 are talking about here again economic development,
10:51:00 talking about jobs, and you talk about tax revenue for
10:51:04 this community.
10:51:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I will amend my motion to April.
10:51:08 I would like to amend my motion that Mr. Huey come
10:51:11 back to us in April with how we can spend the money on
10:51:14 city improvements if nothing has happened.
10:51:17 I think six months is a reasonable amount of time
10:51:19 since this is set to break ground in August of this
10:51:23 year.
10:51:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Mulhern, do you still want to
10:51:27 second?
10:51:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Moving this ahead to April.
10:51:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
10:51:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What is the motion again?
10:51:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The motion is to look at other ways
10:51:36 that we can spend this money in April for things that

10:51:38 would improve the quality of life for the people in
10:51:41 the Channel District if the project hasn't moved ahead
10:51:44 in six months.
10:51:46 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
10:51:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I have another question.
10:51:50 So then if they have not moved ahead, let's say they
10:51:54 say the plan is to move ahead in May --
10:51:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If they say that, I'll be thrilled.
10:52:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: But the motion says if they --
10:52:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That Mr. Huey come back to us with
10:52:06 ideas on how we can spend the money because we are six
10:52:09 months into our fiscal year and they couldn't spend
10:52:11 the money quickly enough to benefit their project if
10:52:13 it's April and nothing has happened.
10:52:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I am going to support the motion in
10:52:18 the form it is because it doesn't preclude anybody
10:52:21 from spending the money now, but I guarantee you I
10:52:23 will not vote to spend the money anyway other than to
10:52:26 continue in the progress that we are going, and make
10:52:29 sure that it's done right the first time.
10:52:31 People have invested a lot of money.
10:52:33 People that are living there and developers both.

10:52:35 And this is -- anytime you move into an area that's in
10:52:39 transition like it was and like it is now, it's much
10:52:42 better than it was five years ago, certainly much
10:52:44 better than it was 25 years ago.
10:52:47 So if we are going to do that, we have to -- remember
10:52:52 we were talking about farming?
10:52:54 You have to plant the seed and you have to get the
10:52:55 seedling and then transfer to a vacant plot and then
10:52:58 you have to seed it again, and then you get the fruit.
10:53:04 Here's where we are at today.
10:53:05 Thank you.
10:53:05 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor say Aye.
10:53:06 Opposed, Nay.
10:53:07 (Motion carried).
10:53:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I know we have to go back but I want
10:53:11 to be very careful we don't send the wrong message to
10:53:14 people that if they are coming up short that we are
10:53:16 going to shift money, funding before they can get
10:53:18 through the process.
10:53:20 I want to be very careful with that.
10:53:24 >>GWEN MILLER: It's to bring it back.
10:53:30 The advisory board.

10:53:32 >>> At the last meeting you asked me to look into the
10:53:35 fact of the process, if we have City Council, or CRA
10:53:39 members, going to advisory committee meetings.
10:53:42 There's nothing improper.
10:53:43 These are open meetings.
10:53:44 Anyone who wants to attend the meetings can attend the
10:53:46 meetings.
10:53:48 What you may want to discuss among yourselves, though,
10:53:50 is what role a CRA board member takes when they go to
10:53:53 a CRA advisory committee member.
10:53:56 As you know, you have a lot of presence, and they are
10:54:01 there to advise you and you want to make sure you
10:54:04 don't overly influence their input by your presence.
10:54:07 That's really more of a policy issue, not a legal
10:54:09 issue.
10:54:10 Anyone can attend these meetings.
10:54:12 They are open meetings.
10:54:13 But what you may want to discuss yourselves what role
10:54:16 individual CRA members should have as advisory
10:54:18 committee members.
10:54:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Somebody might want to make a motion.
10:54:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I was going to say that while

10:54:34 anybody can attend those meetings, I have refrained
10:54:36 from attending any of those meetings for that very
10:54:39 reason.
10:54:39 I want the advisory board to feel free to discuss any
10:54:42 issue they want and bring their recommendation to us.
10:54:44 I do not want to have any unnecessary influence on any
10:54:48 advisory board.
10:54:49 And if I were -- I would probably sit somewhere where
10:54:57 it's not conspicuous, and not be seen, so you have
10:55:02 appointed these people to function.
10:55:04 And let's let them do their job and bring their
10:55:07 recommendation to us.
10:55:10 >>MARY MULHERN: I'll take your advice on that.
10:55:15 But it brings up the question, and I think I might
10:55:19 have missed the last one, but we were having our CRA
10:55:24 board meetings at different CRAs where -- where sour
10:55:28 next meeting going to be?
10:55:31 I'm just curious.
10:55:35 We have East Tampa last --
10:55:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Channelside.
10:55:39 >>MARY MULHERN: Are we doing that quarterly?
10:55:43 >>MARK HUEY: Yes, there's three or four scheduled, and

10:55:47 what I will be doing is contacting you about the next
10:55:50 one.
10:55:52 We don't have that one set up yet.
10:55:54 But it will be after the first of the year.
10:55:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena.
10:55:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I should feel very honored.
10:56:02 I have been asked by the chair of a CRA advisory
10:56:07 committee to attend because he felt that I provided
10:56:09 some great input having been around before the Channel
10:56:11 District was named, having developed the original plan
10:56:14 for it, having really been involved with the
10:56:20 conceptual as well as the implementation,
10:56:23 redevelopment of this area.
10:56:25 But if that's the feeling of this board, then I won't
10:56:28 attend.
10:56:28 And I will tell him that it's not because he didn't
10:56:30 invite me and not because I'm disinterested, but
10:56:33 because that is the direction that I'm hearing from my
10:56:36 peers.
10:56:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, that's different.
10:56:41 Now if the committee invites you, they want to hear
10:56:44 from you, that's totally different.

10:56:46 As an elected official, they invited you to come, to
10:56:49 hear from you.
10:56:49 I'm talking about if we are going in on our own,
10:56:52 taking over a meeting.
10:56:53 That's completely different.
10:56:55 If you are invited I have no problem with that.
10:56:57 If the board wants to hear from you, I think you
10:56:59 should go.
10:57:00 Personally.
10:57:03 >>SAL TERRITO: I think you have to be careful if you
10:57:05 do attend one of these meetings that you indicate that
10:57:07 you are there as an individual member and that you
10:57:10 don't speak for the board.
10:57:13 You have sunshine problems again.
10:57:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm very much an individual.
10:57:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I like Reverend Scott do not
10:57:19 attend.
10:57:20 I feel that in my position O or any elected
10:57:24 official -- and I'm just speaking for myself -- even
10:57:26 if you attend and just sit there quietly, you have a
10:57:28 presence there.
10:57:29 And I appointed, or we appointed them individuals to

10:57:33 advise us.
10:57:34 For me to go there, then either we have a weak
10:57:40 organization, or I'm there to influence somebody.
10:57:43 That's just me.
10:57:43 I don't care about anyone else.
10:57:45 I can also say that I don't send e-mails to this
10:57:48 chamber, I don't call people to fill this chamber.
10:57:51 I could do that.
10:57:52 And I could have a bus load here.
10:57:53 But I am not doing that.
10:57:56 As an elected official I was sworn in to do the
10:57:58 responsible thing for this city.
10:58:00 Sometimes people agree with me, sometimes they don't
10:58:02 agree with me, and these part of the process.
10:58:04 I understand that.
10:58:06 But that being said, that's just the way Charlie
10:58:08 Miranda feels.
10:58:09 You see what you get.
10:58:12 I say what I do and I do what I say.
10:58:14 And that's about it.
10:58:16 So I'm not apologizing to anyone.
10:58:18 I listen to all sides.

10:58:21 I receive the information that I need and I have to
10:58:23 make a decision.
10:58:24 And that decision is based on the fact that I have
10:58:26 before me.
10:58:27 Sometimes that may be 100%.
10:58:30 Sometimes individuals think I'm not 100% and I can
10:58:33 understand that.
10:58:33 >>GWEN MILLER: We need a motion for what you want him
10:58:42 to do.
10:58:44 Some guidelines.
10:58:52 >>> Let me work with the staff, see if you want
10:58:54 guidelines.
10:58:55 It's up to you, if you want to have a formal set of
10:58:57 guidelines we can do that.
10:58:58 If you want to leave it as it is, that's your
10:59:01 decision, not mine.
10:59:01 If you want me to go forward and two over guidelines
10:59:06 we can do that.
10:59:06 It's your call.
10:59:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I really feel that if we leave it
10:59:10 to ourselves, we may injury ourselves in some way.
10:59:18 I think you have to have some guidelines.

10:59:20 I don't know what I am going to do tomorrow.
10:59:22 But if I had a guideline, I think -- and let's not
10:59:25 take this out of context.
10:59:27 I don't know what I am going to do tomorrow based on
10:59:28 the guidelines that we don't have.
10:59:32 [ Laughter ]
10:59:33 So if somebody has a quote from Charlie on such and
10:59:37 such a date, I know how this politics works.
10:59:39 So let's not take it out of context but that's what
10:59:42 the statement is in reference to.
10:59:44 Some individuals like the president had to defend
10:59:47 himself.
10:59:47 So I'm saying this, that I think the guidelines are
10:59:50 needed.
10:59:52 So at least we have a framework that we can
10:59:54 understand.
10:59:56 That's a motion.
10:59:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Second.
10:59:58 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.
11:00:00 (Motion carried).
11:00:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Nay.
11:00:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Huey, anything else?

11:00:07 >>MARK HUEY: A few seconds. I know we covered a lot
11:00:10 of different topics.
11:00:11 These are challenging times and it's always nice to
11:00:13 step back and reflect on progress.
11:00:16 We had a great day in East Tampa yesterday.
11:00:18 Fifth Third Bank broke ground on the first commercial
11:00:22 bank branch to be built in East Tampa in 30 years.
11:00:25 And that's coming into Hillsborough Avenue, adjacent
11:00:28 to Meridian appointments apartment project, worked
11:00:32 with from the very beginning hoping to create a vision
11:00:34 for commercial development there along Hillsborough
11:00:37 Avenue.
11:00:38 We also broke ground on a local prune near broke
11:00:47 ground, new office building in East Tampa yesterday.
11:00:49 Some of you were at 7th Avenue in Ybor City
11:00:52 wherein we received the recognition from the American
11:00:55 planning association that it's one of the ten great
11:00:58 main streets in America.
11:01:00 Downtown has had some great successes recently.
11:01:03 We had the topping out of the art museum, the farmers
11:01:06 market started with great success.
11:01:08 We unveiled our new signage for pedestrians in our

11:01:11 downtown as well as vehicular.
11:01:14 So a lot of good progress even in these difficult
11:01:16 times.
11:01:17 Things are moving forward on our redevelopment areas.
11:01:19 And so we appreciate all that you are doing.
11:01:22 To push things forward, and that the communities we
11:01:25 are working in are doing.
11:01:26 And we continue to make this progress.
11:01:28 So thank you.
11:01:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else coming before CRA?
11:01:35 Motion and second to receive and file.
11:01:37 All in favor?
11:01:38 Opposed?
11:01:38 We stand adjourned.

The preceding 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.

Special Discussion Meeting
Thursday, November 13, 2008
1:30 p.m.

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.

13:05:24 >> A special discussion meeting on transfer to order.
13:37:41 Julia is not here yet.
13:37:47 Maybe if you want to start out.
13:37:48 Dennis?
13:37:49 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Historic preservation manager.
13:37:55 As you know, we have been working both internally and
13:37:57 with partners in the city on creating a transfer of
13:38:02 development rights ordinance, and what you have in
13:38:05 front of you, I think if you don't, I have copies, is
13:38:09 a draft of the ordinance that was used, both to you as

13:38:13 a means of discussion and as a basis for determining
13:38:17 what might be needed to be added to it.
13:38:22 And that's the stage that we have been at for the last
13:38:28 several weeks, reviewing the ordinance and making sure
13:38:30 that it's going to be on target for a lot of the
13:38:34 challenges of preservation.
13:38:38 We have gone to the heritage committee, I believe the
13:38:42 American planning association has been -- there has
13:38:49 been a lot of participation from the public in making
13:38:51 recommendations of how this might be effective.
13:38:53 And from my perspective in preservation, I'm looking
13:38:59 forward to it being, you know, very vital incentive,
13:39:02 especially in our areas which are really more prone to
13:39:07 demolition and development, higher density, and that's
13:39:10 where in looking at this throughout other cities, it's
13:39:13 been effective in dealing with some of the lower
13:39:15 density historic properties which may have been only
13:39:18 two or three stories, but had the underlying
13:39:21 development potential to be much, much more intense.
13:39:26 That being said, on the second page, one of the points
13:39:32 that we have really been discussing of late has been
13:39:34 the eligibility of what type of property, what

13:39:40 classification of property would really be eligible
13:39:44 under this type of ordinance.
13:39:47 And we had a meeting yesterday with many of the
13:39:50 individuals here at the table, and there were many
13:39:57 suggestions that were made.
13:40:01 Julie and I since that meeting, we have had a
13:40:03 discussion, and I think our intention today was to
13:40:05 just go through those suggestions and our immediate
13:40:13 response to them in trying to incorporate them into
13:40:15 the TDR ordinance, and then maybe have further
13:40:18 discussion on those, and maybe develop it more.
13:40:23 I don't want to shift it to Julia unless she's ready
13:40:26 but if she is we can kind of get into the eligibility
13:40:29 requirements.
13:40:31 >>MARY MULHERN: Can we start over and everybody
13:40:32 introduce yourself for the record?
13:40:34 >>JULIA COLE: City of Tampa legal department.
13:40:36 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Historic preservation manager.
13:40:38 >> Seth Nelson, citizen.
13:40:42 >> Stephani Farrell, historic preservation, architect,
13:40:47 and citizen.
13:40:48 >>MARY MULHERN: Tampa City Council.

13:40:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Tampa City Council.
13:40:51 >> Gus Paris, architect.
13:40:54 >> Laurel Lockett, attorney, citizen.
13:41:03 >>MARY MULHERN: Julie, do you want to give us your
13:41:07 summary?
13:41:09 >>JULIA COLE: We did a meeting yesterday and the main
13:41:11 point of the meeting was to discuss some of these
13:41:13 eligibility requirements, and in fact that was an
13:41:15 issue that we have come up with when the TDR ordinance
13:41:19 came for first reading, and there was some discussion
13:41:21 that the way the eligibility requirements are drafted
13:41:25 in current ordinance wasn't giving enough of an
13:41:29 opportunity for properties that may be -- maybe
13:41:32 haven't achieved the status yet of rehabilitation.
13:41:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I just ask a question?
13:41:40 Where are we right now?
13:41:45 How are we able to make changes to what's in fronts of
13:41:47 us?
13:41:47 Are we still into sort of a work shopping mode, and
13:41:51 whatever we decide upon today will then go forward to
13:41:53 the council?
13:41:55 >>JULIA COLE: Where we are today is the transfer

13:41:57 development ordinance scheduled to go to November for
13:42:01 November approval.
13:42:02 If I recall correctly, we continued this to December
13:42:06 11th for the purposes of discussing this exact
13:42:09 issue so it would be completely appropriate to go
13:42:11 ahead and make changes to the ordinance after this
13:42:13 discussion, given the fact that this issue has come up
13:42:16 during our workshop discussion, and go ahead and
13:42:18 present that for first reading.
13:42:20 Everyone if we have to make changes up to very first
13:42:23 reading, we can still make changes as long as we don't
13:42:25 impact the title of the ordinance or the general
13:42:27 overall intent.
13:42:28 But the conversation we are having now is very much in
13:42:31 line with the whole purpose under which we continue
13:42:33 this item, so we can have further conversations on the
13:42:36 eligibility requirements.
13:42:37 >> Because this is very much a draft, and today,
13:42:40 depending on what -- where our conversation goes, we
13:42:43 can then make recommendations back to City Council
13:42:45 about what's included in December.
13:42:46 >>JULIA COLE: We can do that.

13:42:49 If we get too far afield then it may obligate us to go
13:42:52 back to Planning Commission.
13:42:55 But -- and we are say ago lot of the ones that we are
13:43:02 discussing.
13:43:05 I think the eligibility question was the most
13:43:07 significant question that did come up during the
13:43:12 process, so that's kind of the issue yesterday.
13:43:16 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm sorry to interrupt you when you
13:43:18 are just starting but I have a question that Dennis
13:43:21 has brought up, and I just got this.
13:43:25 This draft, this hasn't been amended since our meeting
13:43:29 yesterday.
13:43:29 >>> No.
13:43:32 >>MARY MULHERN: So you are going to talk about some of
13:43:34 those.
13:43:34 >>> I had hoped that I would actually have an
13:43:36 opportunity to do it.
13:43:37 But Dennis and I would go through Tampa changes and
13:43:48 make sure what we can put in the code and what he
13:43:50 could deal with in terms of processing.
13:43:52 So I want to go through those, and my goal then would
13:43:55 be to produce a draft, a written draft that I can send

13:43:58 out from you, December 11th, and I did really
13:44:04 intend to get something else.
13:44:09 And again, in talking with B the eligibility issue,
13:44:13 the way it's currently drafted, you can be eligible to
13:44:17 transfer your rights, if you have a historically
13:44:20 designated property, which it is a contributing
13:44:26 structure in a -- in a district.
13:44:30 The second part of it is the way it's drafted is you
13:44:33 have to have rehabilitation of the Secretary of
13:44:36 Interior standards in city code and receive your
13:44:38 certificate of occupancy, and there was some concern
13:44:40 that was raised, that that was really leaving out a
13:44:43 whole classification of properties that maybe needed
13:44:46 the opportunity to transfer their rights in order to
13:44:49 pay for their properties to be rehabbed, or you had
13:44:54 property owners that may be were interested in even
13:44:57 becoming designated as land mark but have the means at
13:45:03 the time of designation to go through the process of
13:45:06 bringing it out of rehab.
13:45:07 So we discussed some options with that, and when we
13:45:11 originally talked about this, there was some thought
13:45:13 process of looking at the language that we were

13:45:15 discussing with the demolition by neglect, but I think
13:45:20 that the feeling is that we really need to have this
13:45:22 stand-alone ordinance and allow it to kind of stand on
13:45:26 its own and allow that through the process.
13:45:28 However, the language in the demolition by neglect as
13:45:30 it relates to maintenance, we thought, would be a very
13:45:33 good standard, because you want to make sure -- we are
13:45:37 giving it entitlement so you want to make sure you
13:45:40 have very defined standards within your code and that
13:45:42 you don't have it do something that's so amorphous, we
13:45:48 all know there's mostly good people out there but
13:45:51 there's also very bad apples that want to take
13:45:54 advantage and get in the process where they haven't
13:45:57 met the standard.
13:45:58 So that process was to provide the opportunity for a
13:46:00 maintenance of your property that has been land
13:46:03 marked, and allow the opportunity to transfer
13:46:07 development rights even though you haven't
13:46:09 rehabilitated it, ensuring that it is up to
13:46:12 maintenance standards, and frankly I had some concerns
13:46:15 about that from an enforcement perspective, say we
13:46:19 allowed an opportunity to transfer, you know, we have

13:46:21 these standards for maintenance, but all of a sudden
13:46:24 it became, well, five years later they transferred,
13:46:27 and what are we going to do about the maintenance
13:46:29 issue?
13:46:29 And after our discussion yesterday, I thought about it
13:46:32 some more, and I really think from what I am going to
13:46:35 recommend is a third classification -- a second
13:46:40 classification, either one you rehab, your certificate
13:46:43 of occupancy, or, two, you answer in an agreement to
13:46:49 maintain.
13:46:49 And that agreement maintained within that code.
13:46:55 It isn't something we negotiate on certain issues.
13:46:57 We take the standards that we have within the
13:46:59 demolition by neglect for what does it mean to
13:47:03 maintain your property up to a standard that we
13:47:05 believe is appropriate for historically designated
13:47:08 properties, that you would be agreeing prior to the
13:47:09 opportunity to transfer your development right, you
13:47:12 would be entering into an agreement with the city to
13:47:14 maintain your property up to those standards, and that
13:47:18 agreement can contain its own enforcement provisions.
13:47:25 And that in addition, that agreement to maintain --

13:47:30 and I would like to hear Laura because I didn't get a
13:47:33 chance to talk to her about it, that you can actually
13:47:35 record that agreement to maintain and have that served
13:47:37 in and of itself as a restricted covenant, that ran
13:47:43 with the land.
13:47:44 And Laura being very profound real estate attorney
13:47:50 could probably talk about that.
13:47:53 >> I think conceptually that's good, but I think -- we
13:47:57 can call it an agreement to maintain, but there will
13:48:00 probably be some affirmative obligations with respect
13:48:02 to bringing into compliance with the Secretary of
13:48:05 Interior standards if we go that way.
13:48:08 So it's not just maintaining, but whatever the
13:48:13 deficiencies are in the structure at that time, those
13:48:16 will have to be identified and addressed.
13:48:19 If we have a building which is the build building
13:48:24 energy is substantially deteriorated, it's going to be
13:48:27 more than just simply maintaining the condition it's
13:48:30 in but actually bringing itself up to some standard
13:48:35 which is Secretary of Interior standard for
13:48:38 rehabilitation, and -- there are two kind of standards
13:48:44 we are talking about, rehabilitation.

13:48:45 >> Well, the other is the Secretary of Interior
13:48:49 standards for preservation.
13:48:51 So probably use that more than exterior.
13:48:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Could you explain the difference?
13:48:57 I thought there was just one standard.
13:48:59 >> Preservation basically is preserving the building
13:49:05 in a way that keeps the building from deteriorating.
13:49:15 Rather than actually rehabilitating it per se.
13:49:17 >> And it's keeping it from deteriorating.
13:49:19 >> Yes.
13:49:26 Structurally sound, and the envelope secure and
13:49:30 waterproof, et cetera.
13:49:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And rehabilitation, you can
13:49:41 basically do it.
13:49:42 In the vernacular would you say mothballing is -- or
13:49:47 mothballing is to keep it from falling down?
13:49:51 >> Well, we have been talking about that amongst the
13:49:53 architectural heritage committee, and our view is that
13:49:56 we want to make sure that it is more than just
13:49:58 boarding up the windows, for instance.
13:50:00 The windows -- if the windows have deteriorated or
13:50:04 some of them are missing and so forth, then those need

13:50:07 to be put back.
13:50:08 Our feeling is that those need to be reconstructed or
13:50:11 repaired in order for the property to qualify for the
13:50:15 TDR, and the roof needs to be repaired, but not only
13:50:19 does it need to be repaired, it needs to be, you know,
13:50:22 prepared according to the Secretary of Interior
13:50:25 standards.
13:50:28 There's a certain relatively specific -- I think we
13:50:30 can make the standards very specific to the building.
13:50:34 And obviously additionally a building that has
13:50:39 continued to deteriorate may have some structural --
13:50:42 some structural damage as well, and that would need to
13:50:44 be repaired as well.
13:50:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, there's a rule in the process
13:50:49 that we created as part of this ordinance for the city
13:50:52 staff to sort of be in an evaluative mode which says
13:51:00 what needs to happen.
13:51:01 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: First of all the designation in
13:51:03 the historic property, that is throughout the entire
13:51:07 process.
13:51:07 And then also the historic preservation determines
13:51:11 initial eligibility.

13:51:12 So they are at the front of the process.
13:51:16 They are going to be introduced to us before it may go
13:51:19 to a level that you have to start working backwards
13:51:21 on.
13:51:23 In regards to Secretary of Interior standards, we try
13:51:30 to not isolate it to just one preservation technique.
13:51:38 It's just encompassing so you have to comply with
13:51:40 Secretary of Interior standards.
13:51:41 So we don't call that one treatment rehabilitation,
13:51:45 reconstruction, I don't think we are going to be
13:51:47 dealing with.
13:51:53 It falls within the interior secretary standards.
13:51:57 There are four distinct treatments.
13:52:00 >> And so this allows for all of them, depending on
13:52:03 which ones are appropriate.
13:52:13 Depending on what the situation is would be
13:52:14 appropriate.
13:52:15 If we are dealing with maintenance, now, just
13:52:18 specifically you say, for instance, a church that's
13:52:20 been maintained up to the standards, just through its
13:52:25 maintenance program, then that's inherently going to
13:52:29 go more towards preservation, because it's already

13:52:31 been in that mode, and actually would then cross over
13:52:35 to the maintenance issues that we talked about, and
13:52:38 that's what we are talking about eligibility, that the
13:52:41 renovation is either completed in accordance with the
13:52:44 standards, or that you have been maintaining it in a
13:52:48 method that both encompasses the standards and then
13:52:50 has not contributed to the demolition of the building,
13:52:54 the neglect of the building through what we have
13:52:56 specified within the demolition by neglect ordinance.
13:52:59 So there's sort of a conditional there that you have
13:53:03 done this, or you have done that.
13:53:05 You know, to be able to qualify.
13:53:11 That part would be our department.
13:53:17 >> Are we talking about an agreement to maintain, or
13:53:22 all the categories?
13:53:24 >> I would think so.
13:53:27 >>JULIA COLE: The way I drafted it, it was a separate
13:53:29 question, but I hear where the conversation is going.
13:53:33 It's really -- what I'm hearing you all say is anytime
13:53:39 you have a property owner who is going to receive
13:53:41 these transfer rights that they would then be
13:53:44 obligated to enter into an agreement to maintain.

13:53:47 That agreement to maintain would -- if you have got,
13:53:51 say, for example, a structure which is already
13:53:53 renovated, that you just have a general set of
13:53:57 standards they have to comply with.
13:53:58 If they have it renovated, yes, then they are going to
13:54:01 have to comply with a secretary interior standard for
13:54:06 maybe preservation.
13:54:07 I don't know if it's up to date.
13:54:10 >> You might have an agreement as per requirements.
13:54:18 "I agree to do this based on my CA" or whatever.
13:54:21 So there's a specific requirement for what needs to be
13:54:25 done for that building.
13:54:28 You are not spending five years arguing about what the
13:54:33 secretary of --
13:54:35 >> That are not CA or equivalent, there's a specific
13:54:39 requirement they need to do as well as the
13:54:44 maintenance.
13:54:45 To make it clear, though, maybe we didn't talk
13:54:48 yesterday amongst ourselves, but if someone is in the
13:54:51 position where they haven't been able to rehabilitate
13:54:55 the building, they may not have an end use so we are
13:54:59 not particularly talking about the interior

13:55:00 renovations, because that's going to be dependent upon
13:55:03 the end use.
13:55:04 So we are really more concerned with the structural
13:55:07 building envelope and the preservation and
13:55:12 rehabilitation of the exterior.
13:55:16 Does that make sense?
13:55:18 >> Yes, because sometimes some of the very
13:55:22 deteriorated vacant buildings don't have a proposed
13:55:24 use.
13:55:24 >> The exterior could be preserved.
13:55:27 >> And that would be sort of implied within the
13:55:29 historic designation property pursuant to section
13:55:33 27-231.3 because the designation does only pertain to
13:55:38 the exterior of the building.
13:55:41 They can opt in, which I envision that would be
13:55:44 fairly -- not really something that they would debate,
13:55:47 because there's going to be significant tax advantages
13:55:49 to review in the interior, but that would be more
13:55:51 something that they would decide and implement on
13:55:53 their own.
13:55:55 >> MARY MULHERN: I have a question. (Off microphone)
13:56:10 >>JULIA COLE: And let me just say in what's proposed

13:56:12 for the demolition there's a number of standards in
13:56:15 there, and then those were the specific standards that
13:56:16 I was going to actually put within the code and
13:56:19 talking about the --
13:56:27 >>MARY MULHERN: I just wonder if we do --
13:56:30 >>JULIA COLE: As long as you -- no, it's not.
13:56:34 (multiple conversations)
13:56:41 >>JULIA COLE: I'm just thinking about taking that "A"
13:56:44 through "J," those specific standards and putting them
13:56:47 within the context of the code.
13:56:50 There are certain things that are not subject to
13:56:52 negotiation as part of an agreement.
13:56:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question I didn't see
13:57:01 anywhere in here.
13:57:02 But we have an issue about 17 years ago, the beautiful
13:57:06 tower site next to the river, the water tower where
13:57:11 somebody wanted to build a drugstore on the corner,
13:57:13 and that's when we got into a big discussion about
13:57:15 it's not only the historic property.
13:57:17 Because I think the Sulphur Springs tower has been
13:57:20 designated but we haven't addressed the questions of
13:57:23 site.

13:57:25 And I think that's a concern.
13:57:26 When we say historic property, does that include the
13:57:29 whole site?
13:57:30 And if it does, is that spelled out clearly enough in
13:57:33 the proposed ordinance?
13:57:35 >>JULIA COLE: That issue came up yesterday.
13:57:37 And what I am going to do is modify the language of
13:57:39 the definition, considering landmark site, because the
13:57:45 landmark site from what I understand, didn't get an
13:57:48 opportunity to go back and cross reference.
13:57:51 The definition of landmark site includes some of the
13:57:54 entire real property upon which the structure is on.
13:58:07 >> (off microphone).
13:58:08 >> We have the four categories.
13:58:11 Something that's land marked.
13:58:13 Something that's eligible for designation.
13:58:15 Contributing structures within historic district.
13:58:20 What was the last one?
13:58:22 >>MARY MULHERN: I saw it but I don't remember.
13:58:35 >>JULIA COLE: I do need to cover that.
13:58:37 None of these -- well, we can do that.
13:58:39 But that's going to take a little additional time for

13:58:42 the entire thought process behind this.
13:58:44 And I was pretty clear that what I am doing is taking
13:58:49 at this point the most conservative approach using
13:58:51 models.
13:58:52 When you start talking about vacant parcels, how you
13:58:54 define what those uses are and how you deal with
13:58:57 those, that gets a little more complicated.
13:58:59 And I'm not saying you can't do it.
13:59:01 I'm just saying when we started this process we were
13:59:04 trying to do this a little bit in baby steps so we
13:59:06 made sure we had a process that worked, if that is
13:59:10 something that City Council, somebody wants to do, we
13:59:12 can do it one of two ways.
13:59:13 It will take some time, and get back with Kathy and
13:59:18 figure out how to calculate this thing, and I can do
13:59:21 that by December --
13:59:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If we want to do it --
13:59:24 >>JULIA COLE: Let's get that and put that in the code
13:59:29 and let's -- and I never intended this to be the end
13:59:33 of the conversation.
13:59:33 It was really the beginning.
13:59:35 Let's get something codified, see how it's working and

13:59:38 see how we can expand it, because did it get quite
13:59:40 complicated.
13:59:41 You know, there's open areas, vacant properties that
13:59:44 we are trying to develop it, but it got a little more
13:59:48 complicated, from our perspective just to try to get
13:59:51 something done.
13:59:52 We wanted to start small, and in terms of having a
13:59:58 sense of the code that makes sense, because again you
13:59:59 are giving it entitlement and you want to be real
14:00:02 careful.
14:00:03 You don't write it in such a way that you give away
14:00:05 entitlements that once you have given it's very hard
14:00:10 to get back.
14:00:11 So I think that's part of the continuing discussion.
14:00:14 >> The other concern I had about that frankly was you
14:00:16 would have -- it was flooding the market in one sense.
14:00:22 And I again with Julia, our thought process I think
14:00:25 from the beginning was to have something that we could
14:00:29 roll out, kind of almost a skeleton, and then see how
14:00:33 it goes, if we need to standardize it more, we do.
14:00:35 >>MARY MULHERN: My experience that came up was with
14:00:47 the DeSoto property.

14:00:48 And maybe we could hear from staff.
14:00:51 But I just want to mention that Christina just told me
14:00:54 that Citivest is on our agenda.
14:00:57 >> Let's not talk about it outside the public hearing.
14:01:00 >>MARY MULHERN: It just rang a bell with me, because
14:01:03 that was my experience of meeting TDRs, and I
14:01:06 thought -- I'm new.
14:01:12 I remember that sort of but I just have the recent
14:01:15 experience.
14:01:15 >>JULIA COLE: The only thing I will say about that is
14:01:17 the property which is on your agenda, and I can say
14:01:19 this because it's on your agenda, is not the DeSoto
14:01:22 property.
14:01:24 It's another parcel.
14:01:28 >> I just think that all the points that people made
14:01:34 about vacant land are very well stated.
14:01:36 Though it's exciting when you want to move forward and
14:01:38 you want to try to protect and give people different
14:01:41 avenues, you go too quickly with entitlements, that
14:01:45 it's hard to get them back.
14:01:46 And then the purpose -- I mean, you create a
14:01:50 marketplace there.

14:01:51 So when you flood the market, then it's not working.
14:01:58 So the idea is, hey look, at where we can save and
14:02:02 preserve our community in the historic district by
14:02:04 doing this, and then you realize, we have given away
14:02:06 everything, everybody has it, if they need it or want
14:02:10 it, and you are kind of back to where you are because
14:02:12 you sort of rush forward.
14:02:13 I think taking the baby step approach is a good one,
14:02:21 for those reasons.
14:02:23 >> Can I say something on that topic?
14:02:25 Because Laura, I just remember you told me about it,
14:02:29 somewhere where that happened.
14:02:37 >> I have of a question regarding the Secretary of
14:02:39 Interior standard.
14:02:40 And then you are also bringing in the demolition
14:02:44 standards.
14:02:46 Is there any conflict there?
14:02:48 Or could there potentially be a conflict?
14:02:50 If so, how is that resolved?
14:02:52 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Well, the demolition by neglect
14:02:58 standards are preventive list of criteria, in other
14:03:00 words, keeping the root structure in place, keeping

14:03:03 the walls waterproofed.
14:03:05 And I think that those are accomplished through the
14:03:10 Secretary of Interior standards in different parts and
14:03:13 in different treatments depending on what the
14:03:14 situation I don't see a conflict there.
14:03:16 I think more they complement each other than conflict.
14:03:21 >> And if some clear lawyer sees a conflict they want
14:03:26 to argue about, is there one way that one can trump
14:03:29 the other?
14:03:30 Do we even need that?
14:03:32 We obviously aren't controlling the Secretary of
14:03:34 Interior standard, if there's any changes to that.
14:03:40 It won't change our code on the park such as we adopt
14:03:44 the standard.
14:03:44 But if they do something that what we have done here
14:03:47 locally on this other standard, it's just something
14:03:49 you might want to --
14:03:53 >> I think that the demolition by neglect are specific
14:03:59 scope items that say the Secretary of Interior
14:04:05 standards tells you how, okay?
14:04:08 So what we are trying to do is define the scope of
14:04:10 what we want done, and that's not done with the

14:04:15 Secretary of Interior standards.
14:04:19 >> they are very concrete, I think, understandable to
14:04:26 the public, the windows, the foundation.
14:04:28 >> And I'm not saying that there is a conflict.
14:04:31 I'm just raising the question.
14:04:33 >>JULIA COLE: In order to deal with that issue you can
14:04:35 put in a statement saying that the most restrictive
14:04:38 provision would prevail in the case of a conflict, and
14:04:41 be sort of a catch y'all to throw in there.
14:04:44 And as I draft this, in front of you, anything I
14:04:49 draft -- of course, I haven't drafted it yet, but as I
14:04:53 draft this, I think it will be a lot easier to see how
14:04:56 it's going to play together, and then everybody will
14:04:59 have that opportunity to review it, and -- she's a
14:05:08 lawyer and I'm a lawyer, and we always make things
14:05:11 harder.
14:05:13 That's what we do for a living.
14:05:14 So -- and I appreciate that level of input.
14:05:19 >> I do think we need to make that -- I think that's a
14:05:22 good point, that we don't leave some sort of opening
14:05:25 that, "oh, but I'm complying because I'm meeting the
14:05:30 specific item that you have in the code and I'm

14:05:33 putting up plywood to cover all the windows and
14:05:36 therefore that's making it water proof, and I don't
14:05:39 have to do what the Secretary of Interior standards
14:05:42 says because I'm meeting this."
14:05:44 >> Right.
14:05:45 >> So we really need to say that's the scope of what
14:05:47 you need to be doing, and the methods shall be as
14:05:52 described by the Secretary of Interior standards.
14:05:59 It's kind of like writing specks will.
14:06:02 >> Then Dennis, you are going to be the one who
14:06:05 determines whether it's --
14:06:09 >> Whether it's rehab.
14:06:12 >>MARY MULHERN: Whether rehab, preservation or
14:06:14 whatever.
14:06:15 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Right.
14:06:16 The scope of work will lead to any one of those
14:06:19 treatments.
14:06:20 I think while we are looking at this you have to
14:06:22 realize the initial eligibility will be determined by
14:06:27 me in certain situations, but there's also situations
14:06:31 where these type of projects will be going to the ARC,
14:06:34 because if they are designated structures, and they

14:06:37 are going through an architectural review process and
14:06:39 they are going to be going to a full board for
14:06:42 probably most of the exterior activities on these
14:06:45 significant buildings.
14:06:46 So you will have that additional layer of review,
14:06:49 where I think our staff evaluation, and the actions of
14:06:54 the board, would then need to coordinate at that
14:06:58 level.
14:07:00 >> Would you expound on that?
14:07:03 If someone comes to you with a property and you are
14:07:05 saying you want them to do, I don't know, X, and they
14:07:09 are saying, hey, I think I only need to do Y, how does
14:07:14 that play out?
14:07:17 Does that question make sense?
14:07:19 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Well, let me rephrase that. Let's
14:07:21 say someone has a designated building, and they are
14:07:24 coming in, and they are going to go through some type
14:07:28 of architectural review process.
14:07:30 You could have that situation where they then go
14:07:32 through the architectural review process and perhaps
14:07:35 afterwards they find out about the transfer of
14:07:37 development rights and they want to then initiate that

14:07:41 incentive, so you already had the review and you had
14:07:44 that body that had already evaluated it according to
14:07:47 the Secretary of Interior standards.
14:07:49 So that would be one scenario.
14:07:50 The other scenario would be perhaps they are having a
14:07:53 disagreement with the staff evaluation, then if they
14:07:57 are going to be executing changes to the building,
14:08:00 they could then go through the architectural review
14:08:03 process and have the final determination as made by
14:08:06 the ARC.
14:08:07 You know, the staff normally what it does in its
14:08:12 activities is relies on -- in these situations will be
14:08:15 relying on the Secretary of Interior standards, and
14:08:18 point out the different actions towards the building
14:08:24 and how that then ties in with the Secretary of
14:08:26 Interior standards.
14:08:27 So we are taking a very literal approach to those
14:08:32 standards.
14:08:32 The standards themselves do have a lot of conditional
14:08:36 type of language in there that the board could then
14:08:38 determine.
14:08:40 >> So I guess what I'm saying, someone says, look, I

14:08:43 just want to maintain.
14:08:44 But you're saying, you need to bring it up to par.
14:08:51 >> Actually the three main categories of buildings
14:08:54 that we discussed amongst the small group yesterday,
14:08:58 and those are, those buildings that are actively
14:09:00 applying for a certificate of appropriateness, that
14:09:04 have not been rehabilitated, and that can be saved,
14:09:09 also.
14:09:09 Then there's the buildings like the church that Dennis
14:09:15 mentioned, but if you maintain over the years and
14:09:17 maintain according to the standards, and then lastly,
14:09:19 there are those buildings that have not been
14:09:22 maintained, and that's because perhaps the property
14:09:27 owner doesn't have the funds.
14:09:29 >> Sure.
14:09:30 >> And when we come to that particular case, if they
14:09:38 are applying for the transfer of development rights,
14:09:40 we want to make sure that they do more than just
14:09:42 receive minimum standards.
14:09:44 >> Well in, that particular case, I think it would be
14:09:47 straightforward because that would be completion of
14:09:48 the renovation up to the Secretary of Interior

14:09:51 standards.
14:09:52 That's where that would fall.
14:09:53 >> Then there would be an agreement to do that, which,
14:09:56 you know, might take place a couple years.
14:10:00 It might take place sometime after the TDR --
14:10:06 >> I think it's critical that you have a CA process in
14:10:09 there, that the CA defines the scope of the work based
14:10:14 on the criteria.
14:10:16 And then the agreement that makes them agree to
14:10:21 complete the work according to the CA.
14:10:23 >> And where we talked about -- I don't know that we
14:10:30 reduced this completely, but the idea that if the
14:10:35 building doesn't have a CA or equivalent that the
14:10:38 transfer of the certificate of transfer would be
14:10:42 conditioned upon some other agreement, and it would
14:10:45 probably be in the form of some sort of third party
14:10:47 escrow agreement not involving the city.
14:10:51 Where the funds that are generated through the sale of
14:10:55 the certificate would be held, and perhaps disposed in
14:11:02 a construction job or something, but the city would
14:11:06 not be a party to that, but there would be some sort
14:11:08 of funding mechanism reasonably acceptable to the city

14:11:11 that would facilitate completion of the work.
14:11:17 >> My point is that that's on the tail end.
14:11:22 On the front end you also have to have a CA review of
14:11:25 what they are proposing to do.
14:11:28 Otherwise --
14:11:32 >> For those properties.
14:11:33 >> When they were going to do a new roof, you know,
14:11:36 specific items, because then there's no question.
14:11:39 Well, did you complete the roof or didn't you?
14:11:45 >> If you are going to have an escrow, the escrow has
14:11:48 to be very concrete and it's going to have to be an
14:11:52 engineer or architect, certificates that X was done,
14:11:58 therefore this can be released.
14:12:00 >> That's right.
14:12:01 And the point, the example that she gave us, and I
14:12:08 think county be basically answered up front, the
14:12:10 question, okay, which one is this, one, two or three
14:12:14 are? That's what I was getting to.
14:12:15 How is that determination made?
14:12:18 Because the person might say, oh, I think it's one.
14:12:20 But then we are saying, oh, it's two.
14:12:23 And how does all of that play out?

14:12:26 But I think you're right.
14:12:27 The city should not be -- they need to approve them.
14:12:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask a question?
14:12:37 >> Sure.
14:12:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thanks.
14:12:38 Actually, this is a question that Stephani asked
14:12:40 awhile back and I think was a really good one, and
14:12:43 that is, if money is generated, you know, from the
14:12:46 sale of the transfer development rights, that the
14:12:52 money is spent on the improvements that need to happen
14:12:54 in the property, if indeed the property does -- if
14:12:58 it's in the last category, it's in wretched condition,
14:13:01 then before they spend money on anything else they
14:13:03 have to bring it up to, you know, include conditions.
14:13:10 If the building is maintained all along, then there's
14:13:12 no need to do that.
14:13:13 But if it's hanging on to make sure that it gets
14:13:23 maintained immediately. Is that clear enough in here?
14:13:25 >>JULIA COLE: That was -- we had a lot of conversation
14:13:28 about that.
14:13:30 You know, that's a hard thing to do on some level,
14:13:34 because how much control should the city really be

14:13:36 taking over these transactions, if we are not going to
14:13:41 enter into it as an escrow agent or anything like
14:13:44 that, but my thought process, the one thing I did
14:13:46 mention was to actually put a provision in here that
14:13:49 we -- I envision in there, the more I had this
14:13:53 conversation, I really think this will probably be a
14:13:55 better way to go.
14:13:56 The agreements are something that will be negotiated
14:13:59 on a case-by-case basis, with standards that everyone
14:14:02 has to meet, and then maybe look at whether or not
14:14:04 it's first year, second year, third year, and these
14:14:07 agreements all come by the City Council if we are
14:14:09 going to be entering into an actual agreement.
14:14:11 That way, each individual, situations can be dealt
14:14:15 with and there's enough flexibility within the code
14:14:17 that we have two different agreements except for the
14:14:22 general standards that we all agree to, things that
14:14:24 there may be a third party escrow, we want to have a
14:14:27 recognition of that, those kind of issues can be dealt
14:14:29 with on an individualized basis, because it can be
14:14:33 very difficult to draft a code that is specific enough
14:14:38 and vague enough.

14:14:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Julia, when you come back to
14:14:43 council, can it go back to ARC or something?
14:14:46 Because council is less -- we have fewer design
14:14:50 professionals on council than the ARC or the --
14:14:55 >>JULIA COLE: Well, it doesn't go to ARC at all.
14:14:58 So it's only through our regular process goes to the
14:15:00 Planning Commission and then --
14:15:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, no, not the adoption of the
14:15:04 ordinance.
14:15:04 I'm saying, let's say there is a person with a church,
14:15:07 and they want to apply for this.
14:15:09 I'm saying, should that go to counsel or should that
14:15:13 go to staff or --
14:15:15 >>JULIA COLE: If we are going to execute an agreement
14:15:17 you are obligated to have it come to you.
14:15:21 ARC can't delegate to ARC the authority to --
14:15:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Staff would review it and make a
14:15:27 recommendation to us?
14:15:28 >>JULIA COLE: Yes.
14:15:29 It's something that would be negotiated with staff
14:15:31 involved to ensure that these standards are being met,
14:15:33 dealing with an individualized situation, and then

14:15:35 that agreement would come forward.
14:15:37 And the one thing I was wondering, and Laura might
14:15:44 have -- if you do a lot of this kind of work because I
14:15:47 know I sure don't.
14:15:48 We have a provision in here for restrictive covenant,
14:15:51 and we may want to put them together and create this
14:15:54 agreement, but also have --
14:15:58 >> I was thinking we would basically be talking there.
14:16:02 The escrow agreement is not something that's going to
14:16:04 be recorded.
14:16:05 >>JULIA COLE: No.
14:16:06 I see this agreement to maintain and -- to maintain a
14:16:10 restrictive covenant, and maybe provide a provision, a
14:16:17 restrictive covenant zoning, enforcement through
14:16:21 agreement to maintain and restrict the covenant.
14:16:25 >> We can throw a few more commas in there somewhere,
14:16:30 I'm sure.
14:16:31 >>JULIA COLE: That would then be recorded and be a
14:16:33 covenant in and of itself with the land.
14:16:35 >> I think the one thing we want to make clear, if it
14:16:40 doesn't have the CA or equivalent, that the delivery
14:16:46 of the certificate of transfer can be conditioned upon

14:16:49 an agreement which requires the sales proceeds to be
14:16:52 held by a third party, very specific draft provisions
14:16:59 that are keyed into, you know, the specific details of
14:17:04 the CA.
14:17:07 Because otherwise, it just won't work.
14:17:11 Someone is going to have to go through the efforts of
14:17:14 coming off the criteria and those are going to have to
14:17:17 be molded into an agreement because no one will hold
14:17:20 the Meg money --
14:17:24 >>JULIA COLE: Oh, yeah.
14:17:26 >> Then everybody is on the same page.
14:17:33 >> Just on the point quickly because you were talking
14:17:36 and I was recalling our conversation of yesterday.
14:17:38 At one point it was asked if there was a disagreement
14:17:44 between a particular situation involving the zoning
14:17:46 administrator, then, now, what would be the appeal
14:17:50 mechanism?
14:17:51 And under designated properties, administrative
14:17:54 appeals go to the architecture review commission.
14:17:58 So if there was a disagreement between myself and the
14:18:03 interpretation of what category this fell under, as
14:18:06 administrator, and the property owner, then that

14:18:09 appeal would be the same, it would still go to the
14:18:12 architecture review commission.
14:18:13 So the architecture review commission, I think it is
14:18:15 the appropriate body to be determining these
14:18:18 standards.
14:18:18 >>JULIA COLE: If there's any dispute over the
14:18:23 standards that apply, it would be a determination,
14:18:26 administrator determination that would also have an
14:18:29 appealable process to do.
14:18:30 >> Or the calculation.
14:18:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have another question.
14:18:42 One of the issues we have been concerned about is that
14:18:43 the secret of making this work is having a place to
14:18:47 transfer these development rights to, and whether what
14:18:49 we set up now is too restrictive.
14:18:52 I wasn't at the meeting yesterday but was there
14:18:54 conversation about that?
14:18:56 >>JULIA COLE: No.
14:18:57 I mean, where we set this up for transfer two is
14:19:01 downtown, that you can -- the way the code reads right
14:19:06 now, downtown, you are limited to a height of 120
14:19:10 feet, in a DBD 1, allows a CBD zoning, that approves

14:19:16 for rezoning through a CBD2 if you have over 120 feet
14:19:20 and could you actually purchase these development
14:19:21 rights, you would have the right to have your height
14:19:25 increased up to whatever you purchase, knowing that
14:19:28 you first of all downtown height issues are not as
14:19:32 challenging as other areas of the city.
14:19:35 And second of all, that you still have it designed and
14:19:40 you just wouldn't come forward with the zoning.
14:19:42 So that's how we narrowed it to that area.
14:19:45 And that was part of the -- kind of start there and
14:19:48 see where we go.
14:19:49 >> I have a follow-up question to that.
14:19:52 In the last couple of years we approved a slew of
14:19:55 high-rises based on current market conditions are not
14:19:57 going to be within the five year time frame unless
14:20:01 they meet their approval do. Those rights then go
14:20:03 away?
14:20:05 >>JULIA COLE: You don't lose all the entitlements of
14:20:07 five years. What you lose in the five years is
14:20:09 compliance with certain code provisions.
14:20:12 And we had a whole conversation about problem with the
14:20:15 PD site plan.

14:20:16 That's another conversation for another day.
14:20:18 >> So in other words, if there's a piece of land, a
14:20:21 parking lot that we approved 250-foot tower on it --
14:20:25 >>JULIA COLE: They have an entitlement on that.
14:20:27 What they don't necessarily have is, you know, if you
14:20:30 have given them waivers to certain code provisions,
14:20:33 et cetera, that say you may have a new code provision
14:20:37 that has come in which would then supersede so you
14:20:40 don't necessarily have all code provisions, but you
14:20:43 have that --
14:20:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: In other words to make this as
14:20:47 incentive as possible, would council have the ability
14:20:49 to say, you know, we have rethought things, and I was
14:20:55 a planner like 30 years ago when City Council did away
14:20:59 with height restrictions as a way to encourage people
14:21:02 to build downtown.
14:21:02 It was the single worst piece of legislation we had,
14:21:05 and now it's very competitive.
14:21:08 And this is the absolute single worst thing.
14:21:11 Can we say that 30 years later world is different, we
14:21:14 have had a chance to rethink this and we want to
14:21:16 change it so the result in five years, your 250-foot

14:21:21 approval goes away?
14:21:25 >>JULIA COLE: I think it would be something that
14:21:26 council would have to weigh very, very much as to
14:21:30 whether or not we would be treading on some property
14:21:34 rights issues.
14:21:36 But I think that's probably a conversation best had in
14:21:39 another forum.
14:21:43 >> There was an e-mail that we got from groups meeting
14:21:48 on the TDRs, if I could just take you through.
14:22:14 >> You can tell you where I think we are coming from
14:22:16 on this of the first issues, and it is this year
14:22:19 as well, we ought to just go ahead and identify
14:22:22 additional receiving areas.
14:22:23 And I think instead of the consensus of the group was,
14:22:27 one, you are going to run into the WMBE issue if you
14:22:31 start taking neighborhoods other than downtown and
14:22:33 let's get the program sort of off the ground.
14:22:35 Again, if it's not working because there's not a
14:22:37 market, then we can bring it back further.
14:22:43 The second issue again, basically giving a bonus or
14:22:47 multiplier factor on the TDR, again, let's see where
14:22:53 we are before we start kind of giving bonuses.

14:22:59 The third issue is the escrow account.
14:23:00 We talked about.
14:23:01 That when don't think the city should be the escrow
14:23:03 but we are going to weave in this third party
14:23:09 agreement.
14:23:10 And without having interlocal agreement on the TDR,
14:23:14 let's take things.
14:23:18 Then the last thought they had was the ordinance could
14:23:20 also address the preservation, and I think in essence
14:23:24 that's what we are talking about on the buildings that
14:23:26 we don't have an ordinance, they are just going to
14:23:30 preserve the exterior and the building envelope.
14:23:34 But these are issues which may come up for members of
14:23:38 that group, and that's kind of where we came out on.
14:23:41 >> If I may say, I think it's clear that we need to
14:23:45 have more receiving areas than just the CBD.
14:23:51 Problem is the CBD is defined pretty precisely.
14:23:56 There aren't other areas that are defined that way.
14:24:00 And in this discussion with the ATA we talk about
14:24:06 where would you like to have them?
14:24:07 Well, we would like to have them as the
14:24:10 transportation -- well, where are the transportation

14:24:13 modes?
14:24:13 They are not set yet.
14:24:14 So, you know, those things need to be done, but they
14:24:18 need to be done as part of our process as we move
14:24:20 forward.
14:24:21 >> And if I could comment on that.
14:24:23 Because Cathy Coyle and I, we did think a lot about
14:24:26 that.
14:24:27 And in fact kind of weaving of the comprehensive plan,
14:24:34 and I know it's kind of gotten a bad rap the bonus
14:24:38 concept, but when you are talking about transportation
14:24:40 areas, utilizing that kind of process and having
14:24:45 potential transferring of development rights as part
14:24:48 of that classification, so we were thinking about
14:24:52 that, and we were thinking that that would be
14:24:55 something we could weave in, but until we get
14:25:00 through -- that's one of the reasons we wanted to
14:25:02 start off this way, and we get to the -- we are going
14:25:06 to be going through a lot of work redrafting our code
14:25:08 to deal with the comprehensive plan.
14:25:12 So, now, it's a work in progress.
14:25:15 So, you know, I know we all want it done yesterday.

14:25:19 But we all get real excited.
14:25:21 It's a work in progress.
14:25:22 So we are trying to take baby steps but we are
14:25:24 actually building upon some of the thought processes
14:25:27 that we put in the comprehensive plan on these issues.
14:25:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: How long do you think it will take
14:25:34 you to draft up the things that we decide upon today?
14:25:37 Like two weeks?
14:25:39 Like by Thanksgiving?
14:25:41 >> I'm hoping before then but if you give me a
14:25:43 program --
14:25:47 >> It's not that far away.
14:25:50 >> I was hoping to get this done.
14:25:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And then you could get that out to
14:25:55 the folks here and they could share with their
14:25:57 organizations and the people, that would be great.
14:26:01 So then do you think it would be appropriate to
14:26:03 have -- I don't know that we need one more meeting
14:26:06 before the December -- I feel real good about this.
14:26:11 >>JULIA COLE: We are on the same page.
14:26:14 >> Right.
14:26:17 >>JULIA COLE: If we could integrate the comments, if

14:26:20 there's some policy decision that, you know, we need
14:26:23 City Council to make, we'll bring it up to them.
14:26:25 But I kind of get the sense we are all kind of going
14:26:27 in the same direction, and some of the bigger issues
14:26:30 that we all would like to see and hear, I think
14:26:32 everybody recognize it probably not the right time for
14:26:35 now but something to keep in mind for the future.
14:26:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to say that Laurel, her
14:26:41 intern, and Stephani has put such a huge amount of
14:26:44 time into this and this is going to help answer the
14:26:49 questions that people feel like they are in a corner
14:26:51 and it will give them the resources to move ahead and
14:26:54 do the right thing in terms of provisions.
14:26:58 >>JULIA COLE: And that is the sense because it has
14:27:03 been very hard timewise to get a lot of this work done
14:27:06 and it gave me a leg up so I can work towards
14:27:09 something, and it's been really just an amazing
14:27:10 valuable tool.
14:27:15 >>MARY MULHERN: I have one question.
14:27:24 And it's really for Linda.
14:27:27 We talked at the end of the meeting yesterday about --
14:27:30 well, first of all, we pulled the discussion of the

14:27:34 demolition by neglect.
14:27:40 And Julia touched on this a little bit.
14:27:41 But we talked about when we come back in order.
14:27:46 Did you ever decide what to do?
14:28:06 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: It would be on the same agenda but
14:28:08 they would be scheduled.
14:28:19 >>MARY MULHERN: And the thing is Julia, I guess
14:28:22 everyone agreed that the same language would be used.
14:28:32 The provisions for maintenance.
14:28:36 >> Thank everybody.
14:28:40 It's generous.
14:28:41 Volunteerism.
14:28:42 >> Thank you for allowing to us do this.
14:28:44 It's a two-way street.
14:28:46 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: If I can say one thing.
14:28:48 I attended the national trust conference in Tulsa,
14:28:51 Oklahoma a couple of weeks ago.
14:28:52 >> How was it?
14:28:54 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Very good.
14:28:55 Very good conference, if you ever get an opportunity I
14:28:57 recommend you going to them.
14:28:58 But one of the things and I have been sharing this

14:29:01 since I have come back, is that all of the effective
14:29:07 programs that are out there involve a level of
14:29:10 cooperation between the municipality and private
14:29:13 organizations and concerned citizens.
14:29:16 A lot of people ask, you know, what's the missing
14:29:19 piece of any program?
14:29:21 And I'm very confident in seeing where effective
14:29:25 programs are when you look at, you know, areas like
14:29:29 Savannah, and Tulsa, and Austin, and these cities that
14:29:34 are emerging.
14:29:36 It's definitely that participation by private groups,
14:29:40 or groups that are not related to the oversight body.
14:29:44 And so I just encourage this type of activity for
14:29:47 other, you know, other type of activities,
14:29:50 preservation.
14:29:50 It's very effective.
14:29:51 And it tends to give you sort of a perspective that
14:29:55 goes beyond just the regulatory end of it.
14:30:02 >>MARY MULHERN: This just occurred to me.
14:30:05 Um, Linda and I went to an event, the conference on
14:30:09 redevelopment associations was here a couple of weeks
14:30:12 ago.

14:30:14 Florida redevelopment.
14:30:15 >> FRA.
14:30:18 >> Were through?
14:30:20 And after lunch, it was the mayor, and he was the T
14:30:30 key.
14:30:31 >> Well, municipality.
14:30:32 >>MARY MULHERN: A little word to the wise.
14:30:40 >> It's better when you have both.
14:30:42 You need everybody.
14:30:44 >>MARY MULHERN: That's what we found.
14:30:46 >> I think -- yeah.
14:30:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: City Council attorney.
14:30:52 I just want to chime in.
14:30:54 Julia has very graciously volunteered to undertake the
14:30:57 task that has been discussed today.
14:30:59 Although it would be more appropriate, I believe, even
14:31:02 though it's voluntary, it would be more appropriate to
14:31:04 have bring it up tonight's under new business at City
14:31:07 Council, so that the direction can be formally made,
14:31:11 to direct her to do that in advance of the December
14:31:13 6th or whatever you would decide by November.
14:31:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We have to remember all the things

14:31:18 we asked her to do?
14:31:21 A summation?
14:31:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, a summation.
14:31:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And the suggestions at today's
14:31:27 special discussion meeting?
14:31:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: They will not be binding upon the
14:31:30 City Council, but presented to the City Council for
14:31:32 discussion, in advance of the meeting.
14:31:36 But I think it would be probably procedurally more
14:31:39 appropriate for the direction to the administration to
14:31:42 come as an official action of council.
14:31:48 >>MARY MULHERN: Can't we just make a motion tonight --
14:31:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.
14:31:53 >>MARY MULHERN: -- for Julia to draft the first draft
14:31:57 for first hearing?
14:32:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: We already have the first draft.
14:32:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That is your first draft and that's
14:32:04 what has been presented to the Planning Commission.
14:32:11 >> Just the refinement, do the tweaks.
14:32:13 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
14:32:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And all members of City Council will
14:32:17 have an opportunity to get them in advance of the

14:32:19 meeting, and also they will have the opportunity to
14:32:21 review this paper, but obviously when the draft comes
14:32:25 out, they'll see what the changes are.
14:32:27 >>MARY MULHERN: You just say that tonight and I'll say
14:32:32 "so moved."
14:32:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Will do.
14:32:34 >> Anything else?
14:32:37 >> Just really minor language.
14:32:45 >> Okay.
14:32:47 >> In fact we'll put in the commas.
14:32:50 [ Laughter ]
14:32:50 >> And maybe some semicolons as well.
14:32:58 >>MARY MULHERN: Special discussion meeting is
14:32:59 adjourned.
14:32:59 Thanks, everyone, for doing this work.
14:33:01 It's great.
14:33:02 (special discussion meeting adjourned at 2:33 p.m.)

The preceding 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.