TAMPA CITY COUNCIL CRA Meeting
Thursday, November 13, 2008
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.
09:09:15 (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
09:10:02 Will you please stand?
09:10:03 If you have a spokesman, will you come up and say
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
09:10:29 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
09:10:49 >> 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 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 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 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
09:17:30 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
09:22:16 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 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
09:23:32 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
09:24:03 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
09:24:12 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
09:27:02 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
09:27:35 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
09:28:23 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 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 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
09:30:54 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
09:31:44 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
09:32:13 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
09:32:41 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 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
09:37:01 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 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
09:38:16 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
09:42:48 >>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 >>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 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 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
09:45:33 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
09:45:42 >>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 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
09:46:53 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
09:48:08 >>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
09:50:30 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 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 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
09:52:22 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 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
09:57:48 >>: 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
09:57:57 So I worked with those three categories.
09:57:59 So anything related to building a road is in
09:58:04 Anything related to improving stormwater is in
09:58:09 So it's not planning.
09:58:11 Planning is unrelated to specifically building
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
09:59:32 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 >>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
10:00:39 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
10:04:07 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
10:04:50 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
10:05:01 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
10:06:01 >>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
10:07:05 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
10:09:00 I have attended several of the advisory committee
10:09:06 And I'm interested in becoming a part of the
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
10:09:30 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
10:11:09 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
10:11:54 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
10:13:04 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 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
10:14:29 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.
10:14:54 >>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
10:15:10 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
10:15:28 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
10:16:37 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
10:17:12 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
10:17:42 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 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
10:19:18 >> 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
10:20:40 >>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 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 >>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
10:22:23 >>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
10:22:40 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
10:25:17 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
10:27:15 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
10:28:02 >>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
10:28:38 >> 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.
10:28:50 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 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
10:29:48 >>> 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 >> 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
10:31:19 >>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
10:32:35 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
10:34:13 >> 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
10:35:20 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
10:36:17 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 >>> 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
10:38:24 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
10:39:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm asking the administration in
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 >> 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
10:41:51 >> 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 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I move all of those.
10:42:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Second on the motion.
10:42:29 All in favor?
10:42:31 (Motion carried).
10:42:31 All right.
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
10:43:11 >> 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 >>GWEN MILLER: We have the police of the month, two
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
10:45:18 >>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 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
10:48:16 >>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 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
10:48:53 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
10:49:47 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
10:51:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Mulhern, do you still want to
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
10:53:48 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
10:54:10 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 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
10:55:52 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 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
10:56:39 >>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.
10:57:03 >>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
10:57:20 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
10:58:55 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 So I'm saying this, that I think the guidelines are
10:59:52 So at least we have a framework that we can
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
11:00:38 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
11:01:17 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 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.
TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
Special Discussion Meeting
Thursday, November 13, 2008
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.
13:37:49 >>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
13:40:31 >>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
13:41:09 >>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 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
13:43:05 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 >>> No.
13:43:32 >>MARY MULHERN: So you are going to talk about some of
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 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 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
13:50:28 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 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
13:51:23 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
13:52:15 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
13:54:45 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 >> 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
13:57:25 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
13:58:52 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
13:59:41 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
14:00:03 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 >>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
14:01:24 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
14:02:46 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 S.so 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
14:05:13 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
14:06:15 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Right.
14:06:16 The scope of work will lead to any one of those
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
14:07:00 >> 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 The standards themselves do have a lot of conditional
14:08:36 type of language in there that the board could then
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 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
14:09:52 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 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
14:17:51 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 >>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
14:20:05 >>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 H.one 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
14:23:10 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 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
14:24:21 >> And if I could comment on that.
14:24:23 Because Cathy Coyle and I, we did think a lot about
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.
14:28:42 >> 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 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
14:30:14 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
14:30:31 >> 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 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.