Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


CRA Meeting
Thursday, January 12, 2012
9:00 a.m. Session


This file represents an unedited version of realtime
captioning which should neither be relied upon for complete
accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
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.

08:55:12 >>FRANK REDDICK: Good morning.

09:08:20 We call this Community Redevelopment Agency board meeting to

09:08:23 order.

09:08:25 I will yield to Councilwoman board member Capin for the

09:08:29 invocation.

09:08:32 >> Thank you, chairman.

09:08:33 It is with great pleasure that I introduce for the

09:08:35 invocation this morning being given by Loueda Nelson,

09:08:44 secretary to the mayor, a hard working board member and very

09:08:47 respected resident of the community.

09:08:48 She is retired from Xerox corporation and is a volunteer

09:08:53 guardian ad litem program.

09:09:01 Mrs. Nelson.

09:09:01 Please stand and remain standing for the pledge of

09:09:03 allegiance.

09:09:04 >> Would everyone bow their heads, please?

09:09:07 The sons of man are one, and I am one with them.

09:09:13 I speak to love, not hate.

09:09:15 I speak to service and not -- I speak to heal, not hurt.

09:09:22 But pain brings due reward of life and love.

09:09:26 Let the full control, the out of form and life for all

09:09:30 events.

09:09:31 And bring to life the love which underlies the happiness of

09:09:35 the time.

09:09:39 Let the future stand revealed.

09:09:47 Let love prevail.

09:09:49 Let all men love.

09:09:53 In honor of Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday, this is my

09:09:57 prayer.

09:09:57 Thank you.

09:09:58 (Pledge of Allegiance)

09:10:20 >>FRANK REDDICK: Roll call.

09:10:20 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Here.

09:10:23 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Present.

09:10:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.

09:10:25 >>MARY MULHERN: Here.

09:10:35 >>HARRY COHEN: Here.

09:10:36 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.

09:10:48 >>FRANK REDDICK: Good morning, members of the board.

09:10:54 I have the- doing a special commendation this morning.

09:10:59 And especially because for two reasons.

09:11:03 One, we didn't get a chance to eradicate this.

09:11:13 This person who has been helping us out for years, she

09:11:15 transferred, been here, moving on to another division, and

09:11:28 We just felt it was special to recognize her before she

09:11:32 moves from her division and to another division.

09:11:35 So with this commendation, Tampa City Council would like to

09:11:41 present this commendation to you in recognition of ten years

09:11:45 of protecting and providing the highest level security to

09:11:48 the members of the Tampa City Council.

09:11:50 It is gratifying and reassuring to know that you always had

09:11:55 our back, and we are extremely grateful.

09:11:58 City Council of the City of Tampa is proud to recognize

09:12:01 master patrol officer Patricia Paychik, and we wish you well

09:12:06 in your new assignment.

09:12:07 We will miss you.

09:12:08 Signed by all members of the Tampa City Council.

09:12:10 Congratulations.

09:12:10 >> Thank you.

09:12:13 [ Applause ]

09:12:14 I have been working this assignment for ten years, and it

09:12:24 has given me great pleasure to serve you and to protect you,

09:12:28 and also has taught me a lot about what City Council goes

09:12:34 through what you have to handle, and I really appreciate the

09:12:36 experience.

09:12:37 Thank you all.

09:12:41 [ Applause ]

09:13:00 >> All right, staff reports?

09:13:02 >> Good morning, Mr. Chairman and board.

09:13:09 Happy new year to all.

09:13:10 Ed Johnson, urban development manager for East Tampa.

09:13:18 Sitting in for Bob McDonough who is out of town on business.

09:13:21 We'll go ahead and get started with our monthly reports for

09:13:25 downtown.

09:13:26 We would like to highlight the beckon instruction finishing

09:13:34 the interior of the USF CAMLS project and slated for ribbon

09:13:38 cutting on March 30 of 2012 so that project is coming to

09:13:42 completion very soon.

09:13:43 Also, downtown, staff is working with Parks Department to

09:13:49 get the necessary approvals for the commencement of Franklin

09:13:53 Street improvements.

09:13:55 Over in Ybor, we would like to highlight the Ybor City

09:14:01 Development Corporation committee that's been working to

09:14:05 identify priorities and initiatives for their upcoming year.

09:14:11 Staff is also working to develop recommendations for the

09:14:14 2012 facade improvement program, and allocating fund for

09:14:27 facade improvement programs in 2012.

09:14:30 Over in the Channel District, the Washington street park was

09:14:35 completed and open to the public.

09:14:37 Dedication took place on December 13th.

09:14:41 Also in Channelside, staff is working with contract

09:14:44 administration to prepare the bids for the Kennedy Boulevard

09:14:47 improvement.

09:14:51 Drew Park, I would like to highlight the extension of the

09:14:55 westbound lane of Martin Luther King Boulevard from church

09:14:59 to Grady which was completed and the extension improves

09:15:04 safety particularly in periods associated with events around

09:15:09 Raymond James and Steinbrenner field.

09:15:11 Also, the contractor has been selected in the

09:15:15 preconstruction conference to initiate the Drew Park

09:15:18 stormwater improvement will be held on January 26th.

09:15:23 In East Tampa, we are continuing along with our very

09:15:27 successful commercial facade program.

09:15:29 To date, we have ten approved grants that total an

09:15:33 investment of $338,189 in our commercial facade program.

09:15:40 And you will be getting more update next month where we are

09:15:44 going to highlight several of our completed facade projects

09:15:49 four and the picture review.

09:15:51 Also in East Tampa we are working right now on developing

09:15:53 the application for submission to U.S. department of

09:15:57 environmental protection for a one-time pilot multi-purpose

09:16:03 grant.

09:16:04 We were encouraged to apply for this grant, to go on the

09:16:23 application for $400,000 grant.

09:16:27 Over in Tampa Heights, riverfront, would like to highlight

09:16:34 conducting meetings right now with the Heights community,

09:16:37 advisory committee, parks and recreation, hard a man

09:16:42 association to discuss the plan and schedule for phase one

09:16:44 improvements to Waterworks Park.

09:16:46 Over in Central Park, those of you that have been riding by

09:16:50 that site, you can see the yellow, continuing along

09:16:56 construction of the first building and Encore.

09:17:00 The Encore development team is working to secure funding for

09:17:03 the trio and the reed apartment complexes.

09:17:08 Then the overall department, a couple things to highlight,

09:17:12 we are taping the 15th episode of first look of Tampa's

09:17:16 redevelopment, and we will be featuring the downtown CRA,

09:17:20 and the 2011 CRA annual report, which is required by Florida

09:17:26 statute, in production and being drafted.

09:17:34 Questions on any of those reports?

09:17:35 If not I'll move to the next item.

09:17:37 >>FRANK REDDICK: Are there any questions or comments from

09:17:41 board members?

09:17:47 Okay.

09:17:52 Before we move to public comments, we are going to have the

09:18:03 attorney make the announcement regarding item 7.

09:18:07 >>SAL TERRITO: There's been some confusion on item 7 so what

09:18:09 I would like to do is spell out what it is we are doing.

09:18:11 Item number 7 is a resolution authorizing the expenditure of

09:18:14 funds to buy a piece of property.

09:18:16 The way the original resolution came out, it looked like

09:18:20 $65,000 of CRA funding going towards this.

09:18:23 Actually, it's all of $28,000 which is what the advisory

09:18:27 committee recommended takes maximum CRA would spend.

09:18:31 If you approve this resolution the administration will then

09:18:33 have to find $37,000 difference to complete the purchase.

09:18:38 What you don't have on your agenda today, the issue of

09:18:41 whether to go forward with the roundabout or not.

09:18:43 Because that has already been approved by a previous CRA and

09:18:47 City Council, that item will move forward, unless there's a

09:18:51 motion made by someone on the council that is seconded and

09:18:54 then support by a majority of the council and CRA to move

09:18:57 forward on the roundabout, to stop moving forward on the

09:19:01 roundabout, because right now it will move forward unless

09:19:04 some action is taken to rescind that earlier activity.

09:19:07 If that were to happen, then the CRA would have to find the

09:19:11 funding to do the new redesign, which is estimated to be

09:19:15 between 150,000 and 200,000 to change the design that's

09:19:19 already been paid for, for the roundabout.

09:19:21 And that's where some of the confusion has come about.

09:19:23 It's already moving forward, unless there's an affirmative

09:19:26 action to rescind the privilege action.

09:19:28 >>FRANK REDDICK: Is there any specific time on the agenda

09:19:34 we need to do that?

09:19:36 >>SAL TERRITO: When it comes to the new business portion, if

09:19:39 someone wants to make a motion and get the second, then that

09:19:41 would the time to do that.

09:19:43 >>FRANK REDDICK: Okay, thank you.

09:19:47 Public comments, if anyone wishes to speak at this time, you

09:19:49 have three minutes to speak to any matter on the agenda.

09:19:54 Please state your name.

09:19:56 >> Essie Simms, Jr., East Tampa, chairman, standing before

09:20:06 you today, Mr. Chairman and distinguished board members,

09:20:08 just to give my support for the project going forward as one

09:20:14 player.

09:20:15 Some confusion also that is out there is we talked and

09:20:18 deliberated last time when we were here about just the

09:20:21 $150,000 of the design money that may have been spent, but I

09:20:25 would hope that we have a wise decision and take into

09:20:31 consideration also, that there's some that has already been

09:20:38 spent in property around this proposed roundabout to bring

09:20:43 in stability to our community and economic development.

09:20:47 So I would hope that as you deliberate this issue that in

09:20:51 your wise decision making, do the best thing for the whole

09:20:56 of the community.

09:20:57 I know sometimes leadership, you know, much is given, much

09:21:01 is required.

09:21:02 And I think in the long run, as we go forward, as we

09:21:06 continue to go forward with this project, I think the

09:21:09 community of East Tampa in the long run would appreciate the

09:21:13 decision that you would make.

09:21:15 Thank you.

09:21:16 >>FRANK REDDICK: Next.

09:21:18 >> Good morning.

09:21:21 I'm Maritza Astorquiza. I'm chair of Drew Park CRA,

09:21:25 outgoing chair at that point.

09:21:27 I wanted to comment -- soon -- wanted to make a point.

09:21:33 I have worked really hard with Drew Park, and I have a lot

09:21:37 of passion for Drew Park and I really care about the area.

09:21:40 It's come to my attention that we have two working

09:21:45 definitions of what the qualifications are to become an

09:21:47 applicant to be on the board of the CRA advisory committee.

09:21:53 My understanding, and other people based on number 5, that

09:21:59 you have to work or live or own a business there, property,

09:22:06 or some sort of significant interest.

09:22:08 Based on that, I know of applicants who have not applied for

09:22:17 the position, and these are position.

09:22:19 And I guess back ten years as a resource professional that

09:22:28 this is one that we need to be clear and concise on the

09:22:31 qualification itself.

09:22:32 Based on the qualifications there have been people who have

09:22:34 been interested, at least three round and possibly a fourth,

09:22:37 who could not apply because they felt that they did not have

09:22:40 a business, a property, living here, or significant ongoing

09:22:44 business -- excuse me, interest -- in Drew Park.

09:22:48 I think that has made it unfair to some people who were not

09:22:51 able to apply.

09:22:55 What seems like there's another definition which is

09:22:59 basically if you have any interest defined by anything, you

09:23:05 can apply.

09:23:08 I don't feel that that's the definition that has been put

09:23:11 out there for a lot of people, and they have been denied

09:23:14 access to apply.

09:23:15 What I am saying is at this point, we have four fine

09:23:19 candidates, I know two personally which think are fine

09:23:22 people.

09:23:22 It's not about that.

09:23:23 It's about the fact that we have denied access to people to

09:23:25 apply to the position.

09:23:27 I would ask that the right thing to do, having knowledge of

09:23:30 this now, that has come to my light, and I understand it --

09:23:34 it is also my integrity that I have put out that

09:23:37 information, that maybe the -- may be the correct one or may

09:23:41 be not be.

09:23:42 I think it has to be defined by you all.

09:23:44 But I think there's some confusion that people have been

09:23:47 denied access we need to postpone right now at least for

09:23:50 another month right now, whatever the time period is, so we

09:23:52 can allow people to apply and have a fair application

09:23:57 process, which I don't think right now is.

09:24:01 That's my comments.

09:24:02 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.

09:24:05 Sal, what is the legal definition of at-large?

09:24:11 >>SAL TERRITO: Talking about at-large and someone having a

09:24:12 significant interest in the area, it has never really been

09:24:16 defined.

09:24:17 It came up in one of the contexts about a year ago in East

09:24:19 Tampa and the question was, what are does significant

09:24:23 interest mean?

09:24:24 Does that mean you have to own something?

09:24:26 And the feeling of the board at that particular time is if

09:24:29 you have an interest, a significant interest, irrespective

09:24:32 of whether you live there, own any property there, you have

09:24:34 an interest in seeing that area develop, that was

09:24:37 sufficient.

09:24:38 It hasn't really been defined.

09:24:40 That's up to the board if they want to define that, either

09:24:43 broaden it or narrow it or clarify it.

09:24:46 It was -- in East Tampa, if you are interested in working in

09:24:50 that area, even if you don't live there, own a property or

09:24:53 work there, that was sufficient as long as the interest was

09:24:56 in seeing that area developed.

09:24:57 >> Mr. Miranda.

09:25:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, when I look at this, that

09:25:04 falls under number 5, qualifications, serving on the

09:25:07 advisory committee.

09:25:07 I start to think and wonder, we may have significant

09:25:10 interest to seek office, but guess what happens.

09:25:14 If you don't qualify and live in that district or do other

09:25:18 things, you can't seek office.

09:25:21 You have to have significant interest.

09:25:22 I don't know what "significant interest" means, and I think

09:25:27 our attorney, Mr. Territo, explained it, because there is no

09:25:32 definition for "significant interest."

09:25:35 You may have significant interest in writing Hartline, but

09:25:38 guess what, maybe you don't go to the bus stop.

09:25:42 There is no significant interest if you never ride the bus.

09:25:45 So what I'm trying to say is, let's get a clarification on

09:25:50 what is significant interest.

09:25:52 Does that mean that you drive through occasionally through

09:25:54 that area of town, wherever it may be?

09:25:57 Or that you either live, work, own property in those areas?

09:26:02 There's a fine line, and that happens even in the political

09:26:06 process when you say, well, I have significant interest but

09:26:09 I don't live in that district but when I get elected I'm

09:26:12 going to move.

09:26:13 Those things have happened in the past.

09:26:14 But I think we have to narrow it down to some form of degree

09:26:19 so that this could be put behind us.

09:26:23 Because the old cliché is, it's always been that way.

09:26:26 Well, that's fine up to a point.

09:26:28 But then you have to clarify what that point is.

09:26:30 And that's what I'm asking, for the legal department to

09:26:34 define what is significant interest, and I make that into a

09:26:38 motion, if it's permissible at this time, Mr. Chairman.

09:26:41 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right, and there's a second.

09:26:45 Any discussion on the motion?

09:26:48 >> Mr. Territo, this is a friendly amendment to the motion,

09:26:53 to look at the enabling legislation in which CRAs are

09:26:59 created, if there is any kind of help that we can give in

09:27:03 terms of that definition.

09:27:05 Obviously, this is not something that we have created

09:27:08 ourselves in terms of the legislation, but have created our

09:27:12 CRA as a basis from that particular legislation.

09:27:16 I am curious about it because community redevelopment is not

09:27:19 just about people coming from the outside in in order to

09:27:24 develop the neighborhood, but from people on the inside

09:27:30 working to improve their own neighborhoods.

09:27:32 And to me that's really the essence of CRA.

09:27:35 And I think if you will accept that as an additional

09:27:39 amendment.

09:27:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Certainly, sir.

09:27:42 I appreciate it very much.

09:27:43 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion by board member Miranda, seconded

09:27:47 by board member Suarez.

09:27:49 Further discussion in the motion?

09:27:50 All in favor?

09:27:52 Opposed?

09:27:53 It's carried.

09:27:53 >>THE CLERK: Could I ask the motion be formally stated for

09:27:57 the record?

09:27:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: For the legal department, this is the

09:28:01 motion I believe the intent was to have the legal department

09:28:03 come back with their recommendation on "significant

09:28:10 interest" within the CRA category in those areas.

09:28:14 You may have significant interest in your mind about serving

09:28:21 but you are living in Lakeland, Florida, and things of that

09:28:23 nature have to be cleared up.

09:28:24 It's not cleared up the way it is now.

09:28:26 I think only proper thing, like Mr. Suarez said, those who

09:28:33 want to serve and do the right thing, not that somebody from

09:28:35 Lakeland or somebody else won't do the right thing, but

09:28:37 let's get some clarity into the issue so it's not what it's

09:28:41 always been in the past.

09:28:43 And I think that will carry along with the friendly

09:28:46 amendment that council member Suarez added, which was well

09:28:50 taken.

09:28:50 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.

09:28:54 >> My name is Diane Hart, 2912 north 26th street.

09:28:59 I appreciate the fact that Sal did explain exactly what has

09:29:04 transpired in the past when this roundabout -- I too was a

09:29:09 little confused because I thought it had passed a long time

09:29:12 ago by the previous CRA.

09:29:15 So thank you very much for clearing that up.

09:29:17 However, I hope that the city will continue on this process.

09:29:24 I mean, we have a lot of money at stake here.

09:29:26 It's going to be very, very beautiful, it will be a nice

09:29:30 invite into our community.

09:29:32 We definitely need to continue on.

09:29:35 I hate to think what would happen if we have to stop and

09:29:38 start over.

09:29:38 We don't have any money as it is, and we definitely don't

09:29:41 have any money to just throw away because we thought we had

09:29:45 not passed this.

09:29:46 This is passed.

09:29:47 It's done.

09:29:47 And I would greatly appreciate it if you all refer back to

09:29:51 that.

09:29:51 Thank you very much.

09:29:51 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.

09:29:53 Next.

09:29:53 >> May I ask a question if you want that to apply to the

09:29:58 members now?

09:30:03 >>FRANK REDDICK: Well, we'll get feedback by the members of

09:30:06 the board.

09:30:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ: If I may way, was thinking is looking at

09:30:13 some of the applications, there is specifically more in Drew

09:30:18 Park some of the other areas.

09:30:20 A lot of at-large applications with no specific interest.

09:30:24 And when I use interest, I mean either property owner,

09:30:27 resident or business owner in that particular area.

09:30:31 Now, I think that we need to look at that specifically, and

09:30:35 maybe hold votes on that at this particular time so we can

09:30:41 get clarification and do it at the next CRA meeting.

09:30:43 That would be my suggestion.

09:30:44 I'm not making a motion for that but I think that's

09:30:46 something we may need to look at first, so that going

09:30:49 forward we have a better clarification, a better knowledge

09:30:52 of really what is an at-large selection and what is

09:30:57 "interest" in the particular CRA.

09:30:59 >>FRANK REDDICK: That's all CRA?

09:31:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I think having looked at the other

09:31:07 applications, I don't think that it's a bigger issue than

09:31:12 the rest of them as there is on just Drew Park.

09:31:14 When I look at all of them, most of them have significant,

09:31:18 either residential or business interest in that particular

09:31:20 CRA.

09:31:20 So I would just suggest that maybe we hold off on Drew Park,

09:31:24 because I think that they are the one area which does not

09:31:27 have a significant number of even business owners or

09:31:30 residents that are applying for these positions currently.

09:31:33 >> Any other comments?

09:31:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: For discussion, Mr. Chairman, there was

09:31:39 one interesting part brought up by Ms. Astorquiza that

09:31:47 someone had approached some members about applying, and

09:31:49 because they didn't live in the area, or they wanted to be

09:31:53 in the area, whatever it was that was stated, therefore they

09:31:59 did not apply. And to me, that's something that has to be

09:32:06 determined, that if those people that live in the area

09:32:09 wanted to apply, and they didn't apply, then there's a

09:32:13 system that has some flaw in it.

09:32:14 >>FRANK REDDICK: Anyone else?

09:32:20 >>HARRY COHEN: I'm very comfortable with the suggestion.

09:32:22 >>MARY MULHERN: I agree with Councilman Suarez and Miranda.

09:32:28 I just want to suggest that maybe we wait to hear from

09:32:31 everyone and see if we hear from any of the other districts,

09:32:37 if they want us to continue it.

09:32:38 But I think we could just continue and renotice Drew Park.

09:32:42 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right, thank you.

09:32:44 >> My name is Curtis Brown.

09:32:48 I'm here this morning to ask the question, why do we need a

09:32:54 roundabout, even though it may have been approved in

09:32:58 previous years, with things are different now, the money is

09:33:01 very tight now, and it costs more money to build the

09:33:05 roundabout than what it would be to make the correction that

09:33:11 the attorney said would have to be made, because once the

09:33:13 roundabout would be built, then it's going to be left up to

09:33:16 the East Tampa redevelopment to maintain it, to make it look

09:33:21 beautiful as some people say, because just building the

09:33:24 circle doesn't make it beautiful.

09:33:26 It's what's on that circle is going to make it beautiful.

09:33:28 And you have to go spend additional money that we don't have

09:33:32 for the roundabout.

09:33:33 And number two, I gave you one in number, a petition, and

09:33:41 the people, they don't want the roundabout.

09:33:44 I think the City Council should consider over 126 people

09:33:48 saying they don't want the roundabout compared to 25.

09:33:57 It's like dictatorship instead of democracy because you are

09:34:02 ignoring what the people said they want, and the chairman

09:34:07 said whatever the citizen wants, he got up and say he's for

09:34:11 the roundabout, which is just contradictory to what he told

09:34:14 us in the partnership meeting.

09:34:16 But I just think that we need to really give the

09:34:19 consideration and when you go through a roundabout, you are

09:34:24 going on a one-way street.

09:34:27 We don't have east-west traffic to speak of.

09:34:30 If you do you need a traffic count to see why it's not need.

09:34:34 It's not so much we are against the roundabout.

09:34:36 It's just that it's money wasted.

09:34:38 We have wasted over $15 million in East Tampa.

09:34:44 If you go back and look at it, you can find where to spend

09:34:47 it.

09:34:50 You know, we got $27 million.

09:34:57 We can account for 5 or 6 million.

09:34:59 The rest we can't account for.

09:35:01 MLK, the police station, some improvements on Lake Avenue,

09:35:06 and there's some on Martin Luther King.

09:35:11 And that's not $27 million worth in that area.

09:35:15 You need to really look at what we have done with our

09:35:18 dollars and vote against this roundabout.

09:35:32 This is the petition.

09:35:33 >>FRANK REDDICK: Next.

09:35:38 >> Good morning and happy new year.

09:35:43 Kay Andrews, publisher of The Florida Sentinel, located at

09:35:47 2207 East 21st Avenue.

09:35:51 I'm right in the midst of the controversy for the

09:35:55 roundabout.

09:35:57 And this is indeed a controversy.

09:35:59 When the roundabout was proposed, it was not proposed as a

09:36:04 roundabout.

09:36:04 It was proposed as an enhanced interest to East Tampa.

09:36:09 There was a discussion about which streets should be on the

09:36:14 entrance to East Tampa and it was between 22nd street and

09:36:17 34th street.

09:36:18 22nd street was voted on, and development did start there.

09:36:23 The controversy on the editorial side of it is when the

09:36:30 enhancements were decided upon, there were certain parts of

09:36:35 streets that were jumped completely over.

09:36:38 So we have one part of 22nd street of the substation that

09:36:45 has been completed from MLK to Lake Avenue.

09:36:48 And you have Lake Avenue up to 26th street that is the

09:36:51 major business district that's owned by an African-American

09:36:57 that was completely jumped over.

09:36:58 Now we are at 26th right up to 23rd, right at the

09:37:03 entrance of where this roundabout will be, where that is all

09:37:07 torn up now.

09:37:09 We have been told that because they could not negotiate with

09:37:13 the business owner between lake and 26th is why that

09:37:19 corridor was completely jumped over.

09:37:21 Now we are at the apex of where this supposed roundabout is

09:37:26 going to go, which is right in front of my uncle's doctor's

09:37:33 practice.

09:37:33 So he's retired, but I have another interest in this.

09:37:36 My grandmother lived all her life, her adult life, on

09:37:41 23rd Avenue.

09:37:41 So I was raised up right in the area where we are talking

09:37:45 about.

09:37:46 The other controversy is that there are residents there,

09:37:51 there is a lady who owns a house, and two other lots right

09:37:55 on 21st that is in the proposed -- a proposed grocery

09:38:04 store that certain people in city government are part of as

09:38:07 well that has been threatened with imminent domain, when she

09:38:12 has three lots.

09:38:13 (Bell sounds)

09:38:14 You have a lot, LLC, a law firm that is the owner of this

09:38:23 house that we are proposing to spend $35,000 for, so that's

09:38:28 another controversy.

09:38:29 The partnership does not have any money now.

09:38:33 In 2012, we have been told by the mayor's office in city

09:38:38 government that there will only be $30,000 in the

09:38:40 partnership money.

09:38:41 So to spend 1.7 million on a roundabout is not good

09:38:45 business.

09:38:46 (Bell sounds)

09:38:48 And it's not good government business.

09:38:49 So please consider this when you consider it.

09:38:55 >> Good morning CRA members.

09:38:58 I'm Linda Saul-Sena, and I live at 157 Biscayne.

09:39:03 I'm here to encourage you to revisit an investment that was

09:39:06 made by a previous CRA.

09:39:08 About seven years ago, the Channel District CRA spent about

09:39:14 $100,000 on an arts plan for the Channel District.

09:39:18 After a lot of searching we hired an excellent consultant

09:39:21 named Lisa van Nulen.

09:39:25 She did the study. I was a big proponent when I was a CRA

09:39:27 member.

09:39:29 Nothing was ever done with it.

09:39:30 We said to Mark Huey, let's do something with this.

09:39:34 He said, you know, to focus on the proposals just in the

09:39:36 Channel District is too narrow.

09:39:38 Let's focus it on the whole urban core.

09:39:41 The good news is that the study is excellent, we paid for

09:39:44 it, we have it.

09:39:45 The bad news is that it's never been implemented.

09:39:48 And I think that there's nobody on council now who was even

09:39:51 there, and there's no staff who was here when this was done,

09:39:54 so there's not a memory of it.

09:39:56 So I am here as your historian to say it's an excellent

09:40:00 study, dust it off, it's a wonderful time to use the arts as

09:40:05 an economic development and revitalization tool for urban

09:40:10 core, and I called legal.

09:40:12 They said that I should call the clerk.

09:40:13 I called the clerk, and she said that economic development

09:40:16 would have a copy.

09:40:17 But I'm certain someone has a copy of this.

09:40:19 And I think you would find it interesting.

09:40:22 What I might propose, Yolie has done a lot of initiatives as

09:40:27 far as economic development of the arts, and I don't know if

09:40:30 you had a chance to see the study, but perhaps you all could

09:40:32 set aside a future time as a CRA or council to look at these

09:40:37 suggestions, and perhaps implement them.

09:40:39 And I wish you a wonderful year.

09:40:42 I think it will be a great year for our city.

09:40:44 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.

09:40:46 Board member Montelione.

09:40:47 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Ms. Saul-Sena, before you walk away, I

09:40:51 did request a copy of that study, and it is very lengthy and

09:40:58 very detailed, and a beautiful outlook, and -- I didn't know

09:41:08 you were going to be speaking on it this morning.

09:41:10 But is there any aspect that you recall of that study as far

09:41:15 as priority that you would recommend?

09:41:20 >> There are two things.

09:41:22 One is talking about joint marketing which I think this city

09:41:24 really could do well with, you know, doing more in

09:41:27 conjunction with other organizations that promote the arts,

09:41:30 to market what we have going here.

09:41:32 Secondly, using vacant properties to fill in urban areas to

09:41:36 function as interim gallery spaces, or at the very, very

09:41:42 least, hang work in the front windows, but do things to make

09:41:46 us visibly appear more arts oriented.

09:41:49 The truth is, the good news is we have a lot more going on,

09:41:51 and people working to market it.

09:41:53 But the study suggestions ways it might even be done more

09:41:57 effectively.

09:41:57 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you very much.

09:42:01 >>FRANK REDDICK: Next speaker.

09:42:02 >> Mr. Chairman and members of the Community Redevelopment

09:42:08 Agency, I'm Al Davis, in the area of East Tampa,

09:42:16 redevelopment area.

09:42:22 Mr. Chairman, I communicated with you and the members by fax

09:42:37 of a document that I hope each of you have received, and I

09:42:40 would like to offer it now for the files to be received with

09:42:46 my comments.

09:43:00 I commend this agency in your engagement of your legal

09:43:07 duties as members of the Community Redevelopment Agency.

09:43:14 But our year really began about three months ago, first of

09:43:17 October, because now we are in a new year of 12-13 now.

09:43:31 I want to encourage you to support the commitment that this

09:43:37 agency made through the development of this strategic action

09:43:42 plan, through its communication with the people of the area,

09:43:52 the neighborhood association meetings, and that roundabout

09:43:58 is a betterment of the strategic action plan.

09:44:12 I hope you will stick to the evening nearing that you made

09:44:18 that that roundabout is needed.

09:44:22 And also I want to commend you for looking at the

09:44:29 eligibility of individuals who may wish to serve on the

09:44:32 citizens advisory committee, that whatever the attorney

09:44:36 takes into consideration, and that is stakeholder.

09:44:39 I don't know what a stakeholder is, you know.

09:44:41 (Bell sounds)

09:44:43 But that's like a big opportunity.

09:44:54 Persons of interest or having an interest but also take a

09:45:01 look at the term stakeholder.

09:45:04 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

09:45:04 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.

09:45:08 Any additional comments from the audience?

09:45:10 Anybody wish to speak at this time?

09:45:14 Do we want to take up that issue pertaining to the motion --

09:45:21 not the motion but discussion we had at this time?

09:45:28 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Chair, if I could, I think based on what

09:45:31 I said previously, maybe we can hold off on votes for the

09:45:37 Drew Park advisory committee at this point so that we have

09:45:42 it off the agenda to get the legal opinion from Mr. Territo

09:45:46 and maybe come back next month with new candidates or

09:45:50 continuation of some of the other candidates based on what

09:45:54 the recommendations are from Mr. Territo.

09:45:57 >> Is that a motion?

09:45:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I will so move.

09:46:00 >> (off microphone).

09:46:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I will go ahead and include that in the

09:46:11 motion to renotice for all positions.

09:46:13 I think that we may be at a point that we might be putting

09:46:17 the cart before the horse, though, because we need to find

09:46:19 out what at-large actually means first.

09:46:22 I think maybe coming back next month with that definition of

09:46:25 what we are doing will help us, and then go from there.

09:46:31 So that will be my motion.

09:46:32 >> We need a second on that.

09:46:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I'm still waiting for it.

09:46:44 From a fine horseman like yourself I appreciate that.

09:46:50 >>FRANK REDDICK: Seconded by board member Miranda.

09:46:55 If there is no further discussion, all in favor say aye.

09:46:59 Opposed?

09:47:00 So that will be back in the next CRA meeting.

09:47:03 Okay.

09:47:03 So today, just for clarification, we will not be voting on

09:47:07 the Drew Park applicants today.

09:47:09 But everybody else we'll vote on.

09:47:11 Okay.

09:47:11 >>MARY MULHERN: The radioactive Iodine O --

09:47:20 >> The reason I didn't second your motion, your motion we

09:47:23 haven't voted on, right?

09:47:25 Did we vote on it?

09:47:27 >> We did vote, yes.

09:47:28 This motion was really just to take it off the agenda at

09:47:31 this point.

09:47:31 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Johnson.

09:47:36 >> Ed Johnson, urban development, East Tampa.

09:47:40 We move on to item number 2 that's on the agenda.

09:47:43 This is concerning a memorandum from Mr. McDonaugh to the

09:47:47 chairman of the board concerning the Central Park community

09:47:52 advisory committee, and is dated -- and I will just

09:47:54 paraphrase a little bit of this.

09:47:56 As you know, outside of Encore, there has been very little

09:48:00 redevelopment activity within the Central Park CRA, and

09:48:02 annual TIF revenues have been very low since the creation of

09:48:06 the district in 2006.

09:48:08 As a result of that, TIF funding, the committee has canceled

09:48:15 the majority of its meetings over the past two years.

09:48:20 With only one of six members whose term expires in 2012

09:48:23 applied for reappointment.

09:48:26 With this in mind, we respectfully are requesting that new

09:48:30 appointments not be made at this time, and that the

09:48:32 committee be suspended until further notice or until we give

09:48:36 new residents in the Central Park CRA.

09:48:38 >>FRANK REDDICK: And the recommendation, Mr. Suarez?

09:48:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Johnson -- and maybe this is a question

09:48:47 for Mr. Territo -- when you say suspended, that means

09:48:50 obviously we are not going to continue any meetings, we are

09:48:52 not going to do anything specific to it.

09:48:54 Does that mean that they still will have a extra component

09:48:59 at some point, if there is development, and there is

09:49:01 interest in order to redevelop or to have folks involved in

09:49:06 the redevelopment process in Central Park?

09:49:08 >> That's right.

09:49:11 Just lay dormant until we have some new residential activity

09:49:15 and new folks that are willing to come forward and serve on

09:49:17 the committee. And it also prevents us from having to go

09:49:20 back and change the community advisory committee policies

09:49:23 that we have created, that created --

09:49:27 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I appreciate the fact that that will --

09:49:34 obviously with Encore come online at some point in the next

09:49:37 couple of years, this is a good point where we can probably

09:49:41 reenergize and reinstitute that particular committee.

09:49:46 But I just want to make sure that we didn't have to start

09:49:49 all over again with the process.

09:49:50 >> No.

09:49:53 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.

09:49:55 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

09:49:59 Because of the discussion we had about the Drew Park

09:50:03 appointments, it makes me wonder if maybe we should do the

09:50:09 same thing with the Encore, with the Central Park CRA and

09:50:17 see if there's anybody who might apply, you know, if we gave

09:50:22 it a couple months, and renotice.

09:50:27 >> That could be an option.

09:50:29 >>MARY MULHERN: Because there are a lot of people.

09:50:31 It's a big area.

09:50:32 There are a lot of people interested in redevelopment.

09:50:38 As was pointed out, there are at-large opportunities for

09:50:43 people --

09:50:47 >> Michael Hatchett, manager for the Central Park CRA.

09:50:52 The interest here in the request of suspending or making

09:50:57 dormant this committee is not necessarily related to lack of

09:51:00 interest.

09:51:01 The Central Park CRA committee is a nine-member committee,

09:51:05 and there are eight people presently on that committee.

09:51:08 There is one vacancy on one of the county seats.

09:51:14 The concern here is not lack of interest, it lack of

09:51:16 activity, and lack of substance or reason for the committee

09:51:20 to meet.

09:51:21 So I can get people together, and then meet, but as has been

09:51:27 our practice for the past two years, more times than not, I

09:51:30 will look at a potential agenda and then ask the chair to

09:51:33 cancel the meeting, not because of lack of interest, but

09:51:36 because of lack of activity and funding for the group to

09:51:39 discuss.

09:51:40 >>MARY MULHERN: How often were you meeting?

09:51:42 >> Originally when the board was put in place, we held a

09:51:46 monthly meeting.

09:51:47 Some of them were canceled over the course of the year.

09:51:50 It became such a routine that the committee chose to keep a

09:51:53 quarterly schedule for a year, and we canceled one or two of

09:51:59 those, and then we went back to a monthly meeting after the

09:52:02 Encore development agreement was established.

09:52:08 And since then, I think in year 2011 we met three times.

09:52:11 >>MARY MULHERN: What if you just met quarterly or

09:52:17 biannually, maybe met twice a year?

09:52:20 I mean, I hate to see no community advisory interest at all.

09:52:25 >> That is an option if the board would like to direct us to

09:52:28 have those twice a year meeting, and not completely suspend.

09:52:35 But the request is being made on lack of activity, not lack

09:52:39 of interest.

09:52:40 >>MARY MULHERN: You don't -- well, there's in a activity so

09:52:50 you don't think there would be any new applicants that might

09:52:53 be more interested in meeting?

09:52:55 Or you have got people that are good advisors?

09:53:01 >> There are six of the seven seats that are presently open.

09:53:08 I have one person reapply, and the feedback that I received

09:53:12 from the other committee members was, I would be interested

09:53:15 in serving on the board if there were activity and reason to

09:53:18 meet.

09:53:19 I'm not going to reapply because we have been canceling all

09:53:22 the meetings.

09:53:22 I can get people together.

09:53:25 It's just having a reason for them to meet, and having them

09:53:28 know that they are engaging and making a difference in the

09:53:31 community.

09:53:31 >>MARY MULHERN: Maybe if you did that twice-a-year meeting

09:53:37 and have given three months or six months to reopen the

09:53:42 applications, and then come back and see.

09:53:46 >> Okay.

09:53:47 I would ask and request of the board if you do want to

09:53:50 direct me to have a committee and meet two or three times a

09:53:55 year per your direction that we not try to move on any

09:53:59 Central Park applications today.

09:54:00 We don't -- aren't prepared for it, but to bring it back

09:54:05 next month and perhaps open up the recruitment again.

09:54:07 >>MARY MULHERN: We don't have applications today at all?

09:54:14 I would make that as a motion that maybe they come back in,

09:54:21 what would you say, three months, six months, reopen it, and

09:54:26 reopen the application process in four months, and then six

09:54:32 months from now come back and see if we have got

09:54:35 applications, and you could put the team back together.

09:54:41 >> A question that was on the mind, if we came back, we

09:54:46 started the process again, in the four to six months, got up

09:54:50 and running with the new committee, it would be time for the

09:54:53 next annual appointment project.

09:54:55 And we would be back before you before another round of

09:54:58 appointments in 2013.

09:55:00 >>MARY MULHERN: Well, six months -- this is the annual

09:55:06 appointment process today, right?

09:55:07 >> Yes.

09:55:08 >>MARY MULHERN: So wouldn't it be in a year that we are

09:55:10 doing it again?

09:55:11 >> Yes.

09:55:12 If we are going to wait four to six months to, for lack of a

09:55:16 better material, to have Central Park, it would be that four

09:55:20 months to six months before we do the recruiting.

09:55:25 >>MARY MULHERN: Well, you can make those appointments for

09:55:28 early and include the next year.

09:55:30 So you have 18 months appointment.

09:55:32 >>FRANK REDDICK: Before you make the motion, a few of them

09:55:38 want to speak.

09:55:40 Mr. Miranda.

09:55:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

09:55:43 Although I agree with the maker of the motion, there is a

09:55:48 question in my mind who makes that determination when you

09:55:51 meet?

09:55:52 Is it us?

09:55:54 Or is it your board members?

09:55:56 Are you saying this is what the agenda is going to be two

09:55:59 times a year or three times a year, because of lack of

09:56:03 activity, and within that certain area?

09:56:05 And that's a legal question that I don't have an answer to.

09:56:08 I don't know what it is.

09:56:09 >> Up to this point, the committee itself, a meeting

09:56:16 schedule.

09:56:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Do we set that when they meet, how often

09:56:20 they meet, or do they set it?

09:56:22 >>SAL TERRITO: Unless there's something in their bylaws,

09:56:25 it's sort of their decision.

09:56:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And I agree with the maker of the motion.

09:56:29 I will second that.

09:56:31 It's your committee.

09:56:32 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Just for discussion.

09:56:38 I agree, but the only concern I have is that if we appoint

09:56:45 individuals to the board, or to the advisory committee, and

09:56:52 there isn't any real activity for them to discuss or to

09:56:57 render opinions on, those people have the risk of being

09:57:03 eliminated for the next round because they will have burned

09:57:09 through their eligibility, and then when there is activity,

09:57:15 we will have lost some very good people who were interested

09:57:18 and engaged, involved, or want to be involved, because they

09:57:25 have term limited.

09:57:27 That's the only concern that I have.

09:57:29 >> You are correct, they would be using one of their

09:57:32 eligible terms during the period of inactivity.

09:57:37 And then at some point in the future, when activity picks

09:57:40 up, they would only be able to apply for an additional

09:57:45 two-year term.

09:57:47 And some of the members that I have on the committee now,

09:57:51 that has been their comment.

09:57:52 I am not going to reapply now since there is so little

09:57:56 activity, I will wait until there is a reason, in the

09:58:02 substance of agendas and participant, so that is a good

09:58:05 point.

09:58:05 You would be -- could be using those terms over a period of

09:58:11 inactivity.

09:58:12 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't know what the answer to that is

09:58:22 other than is that the same rule for every citizens advisory

09:58:27 committee about the term limit thing?

09:58:30 Or is it specific to each?

09:58:38 >>SAL TERRITO: (off microphone) What you can do is decide to

09:58:41 suspend that period of time, the period of suspension.

09:58:46 >>MARY MULHERN: Can we do that specifically for this CRA?

09:58:52 >>SAL TERRITO: (off microphone) term limits are the same,

09:58:59 you can make that change.

09:59:00 >> And it also this advisory committee does not have bylaws.

09:59:04 We operate on the CRA advisory policies.

09:59:09 >>MARY MULHERN: Can I just add that to my motion?

09:59:14 Okay.

09:59:16 So we are going to add that change to the bylaws.

09:59:22 I'm sorry, did you want to speak?

09:59:23 Bylaws for the Central Park CRA.

09:59:29 And we will renotice --

09:59:36 >>SAL TERRITO: CRA policies.

09:59:41 >>MARY MULHERN: And that we will renotice the application

09:59:43 process in four months, and do the appointments in six

09:59:51 months.

09:59:54 Do I have to find the dates?

09:59:57 >>SAL TERRITO: We'll get the dates for you.

10:00:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'll go along with that since I seconded

10:00:02 the motion.

10:00:03 >>FRANK REDDICK: Further discussion on the motion?

10:00:05 The motion by board member Mulhern, second by board member

10:00:10 Miranda.

10:00:10 All in favor?

10:00:11 Okay, thank you.

10:00:14 >> Brenda Doran Shipp, 518 Tampa street.

10:00:21 Didn't plan to speak to you about this issue.

10:00:23 But as a private citizen, a member of the Encore team, I am

10:00:27 on the CDD for the Encore project.

10:00:30 And I just want to go on record, whatever the city decides

10:00:34 and the CRA decides in terms of activity, no one wants to

10:00:37 meet for the sake of meeting.

10:00:38 That's for certain.

10:00:42 I can tell you that because we have the private community

10:00:48 development organization within Encore, so our services are

10:00:52 needed, and we have some points that we can help them, I can

10:00:55 stand in front of you today and tell you that we will do

10:00:59 that.

10:01:00 However you decide to suspend, not suspend, but we are there

10:01:02 to help.

10:01:10 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.

10:01:10 >> Ed Johnson: Number 3 through 6 are the applicants

10:01:19 applying for the various CRA advisory committees.

10:01:23 And we'll take the first one is Channel District.

10:01:26 They have three seats available.

10:01:29 And they have five applicants.

10:01:36 Harriet Brantner, Robert Canton, Abbey Dohring, Kate Thorpe,

10:01:42 Lynette Williams Austin.

10:01:44 I want to go on record stating that Kate Thorpe and Lynette

10:01:49 Williams Austin have applied for numerous CRA advisory

10:01:54 committee vacancies on other CRAs.

10:01:57 So we need to make sure if either one of these are voted in

10:02:01 on any one of the CRA areas that come up for consideration,

10:02:07 that eliminates them from being considered on any of the

10:02:09 other CRAs.

10:02:10 >>FRANK REDDICK: Those two that you named, do they live in

10:02:15 any one of these CRAs?

10:02:19 Live or work or have businesses?

10:02:22 >> These are at-large.

10:02:25 There again, they are not business owners, they are applying

10:02:31 in the at-large position.

10:02:32 >>FRANK REDDICK: Are they here today?

10:02:38 >> Are any of the individuals that are here that want to

10:02:43 come forward?

10:02:51 >>FRANK REDDICK: So none of the five are here at this

10:02:55 moment?

10:02:56 >> Ed Johnson: At this moment.

10:02:59 >>LISA MONTELIONE: If we could read the names off and make

10:03:12 one last call to see if any of them are here.

10:03:14 Harriet Brantner, Robert Canton, Abbey Dohring, Kate Thorpe,

10:03:19 Lynette Williams Austin.

10:03:26 >> Ms. Dohring's mother is here.

10:03:29 >> Yes, I realize that.

10:03:30 >> An e-mail that came from Abbye that said she would like

10:03:34 to be considered for the Channel District CRA.

10:03:36 And wanted to know if her mother could speak on her behalf

10:03:41 because she was doing some other business.

10:03:43 >> Would you want to speak on Abbye's behalf?

10:03:50 >> Brenda Dohring Hicks, mother, Abbye Dohring. One of my

10:04:00 important roles.

10:04:02 Abbye is out of the country, so this was something she

10:04:05 applied for, she felt very strongly about.

10:04:08 She is a big advocate of downtown and the Channel District.

10:04:10 She's been involved in a lot of activity.

10:04:14 She is responsible in a large part for the art program that

10:04:18 put 20 sculptures throughout the downtown area.

10:04:20 She attends an awful lot of meetings.

10:04:22 And I know this is something that's important to her.

10:04:25 That's what I can tell you.

10:04:26 >> But she's out of the country.

10:04:30 >> She's out of the country or she would be here.

10:04:33 >>FRANK REDDICK: While she's recording, do you want to move

10:05:33 to item 7?

10:05:40 What's the next one, 4?

10:05:46 >>ED JOHNSON: The next one is downtown.

10:05:49 Two seats available in downtown.

10:05:51 And they have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven,

10:05:54 eight, nine applicants.

10:05:57 And I will read their names.

10:05:58 Alana Braser, Robert Canton, Brenda Dohring-Hicks, Robert

10:05:58 Edwards, David Jae, Christina North, Eric Odum, Kate Thorpe,

10:05:58 Lynette Williams Austin.

10:06:12 >> Do we have anyone from the applicants of downtown here?

10:06:16 All right.

10:06:16 >> I'm Robert Edwards, Long-time member of the St. Paul AME

10:06:27 church.

10:06:28 What I did leave off my application by mistake was a former

10:06:31 member of the St. Lawrence board, that worked with the city

10:06:34 over the years, worked with the apartments.

10:06:37 I reside at Metro 510, and look forward to putting in good

10:06:46 work to help the city move along.

10:06:48 >> Can I put my mother on speakerphone? (Laughter)

10:06:58 My name is Christina North.

10:07:01 I live downtown.

10:07:02 I work downtown.

10:07:05 If you read my application, I have been working at the law

10:07:07 firm of Cordell and Cordell at the Regents Building and I'm

10:07:13 proud to say I opened my own practice this past Monday, and

10:07:17 my office is at the beer can building.

10:07:20 So suffice it to say, I am very interested in downtown.

10:07:25 As you can see by my application, I lived in San Francisco

10:07:28 for many years.

10:07:29 I grew up in Sarasota, lived in San Francisco for about 12

10:07:32 years, absolutely loved it, but my family was so far away,

10:07:36 moved back to Sarasota, and there wasn't a gel there, there

10:07:42 was something missing, and I just happened to take a job in

10:07:46 Tampa, and I love it here.

10:07:47 I know I am going to spread my wings, I know I am going make

10:07:51 roots, and I do want to be a part of the community in a very

10:07:54 proactive way.

10:07:56 In addition to loving Tampa, having lived in a beautiful

10:08:02 city, San Francisco, I bring to the table two perspectives.

10:08:05 One is that I am a young-ish urban professional without

10:08:10 children.

10:08:11 And I do love my life and I have a lot of freedom and I have

10:08:16 a lot of fun.

10:08:17 I also work very hard.

10:08:18 But the second perspective is that my boyfriend of several

10:08:22 years, who I am crazy about, has an eight-year-old daughter

10:08:26 and he time shares with her duct during the bulk of the

10:08:29 summer, winter break and spring break.

10:08:31 So from that perspective, I am sort of a stepmother looking

10:08:36 at the community, and in being able to guide her around

10:08:40 urban living.

10:08:41 She comes from rural Canada.

10:08:43 So I'm very excited to walk around with her downtown.

10:08:47 I have noticed, I have only lived here about five months now

10:08:54 but I noticed growth in downtown, and I'm thrilled,

10:08:57 particularly we just got a somewhat new urban market, and we

10:09:03 have been waiting for.

10:09:03 This we were buying our milk at CVS and it wasn't a fun

10:09:07 experience.

10:09:08 So I see the growth in downtown Tampa.

10:09:10 I love downtown Tampa.

10:09:12 And I think I can be an absolute asset on this committee.

10:09:16 I thank you for your time and attention.

10:09:18 And I do hope you select me.

10:09:19 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.

10:09:21 >> Brenda Dohring Hicks, and I would like to adopt you.

10:09:31 [ Laughter ]

10:09:31 Beautiful, energetic, wonderful.

10:09:36 You and Abbye would make a great team.

10:09:37 I come to the downtown CRA after having taken a break.

10:09:39 I did serve once before.

10:09:40 I believe some really good history.

10:09:43 I consider myself a very conservative optimist.

10:09:47 But I absolutely love this city.

10:09:49 I have owned my property.

10:09:51 My one building which is 518 Tampa street, and cafe for

10:09:59 almost 15 years, but I started my own business in downtown

10:10:01 Tampa at the top floor of what is now our police station.

10:10:05 So I was certainly an urban pioneer back when there wasn't

10:10:09 much going on in this city.

10:10:10 And I'm just pleased to see what has happened over the past

10:10:14 year.

10:10:15 We have a lot more to work on.

10:10:16 And I'm happy to give my time and do that.

10:10:19 We are also working very hard on advocating the waterfront.

10:10:25 I have a sailboat that we have put in service for taking

10:10:28 tours of our city.

10:10:29 And we are getting ready to try to add some electric boats

10:10:32 into our waterfront to do that.

10:10:34 So we need a lot more activity.

10:10:36 We need that energy.

10:10:37 We need the young people.

10:10:39 We need older folks.

10:10:40 We need everybody to understand what is here in Tampa.

10:10:46 It is really a little bit of a secret and we need to get out

10:10:51 there and tell people what we have for downtown Tampa and

10:10:53 how it contributes to the Tampa Bay area.

10:10:55 Thank you.

10:10:55 >>FRANK REDDICK: Okay.

10:11:03 Do you want to pass your ballots down?

10:11:11 >> CRA members -- Shirley Foxx-Knowles, city clerk.

10:11:18 I wanted to let you know that Harriet Brantner, Robert

10:11:23 Canton and Abbye Dohring were selected.

10:11:27 >>FRANK REDDICK: We just needed three.

10:11:31 Okay, good.

10:11:32 Thank you.

10:11:37 Tampa Heights.

10:11:37 >> Tampa Heights, riverfront, there were five seats

10:11:48 available.

10:11:49 And they have ten applicants for Tampa Heights Riverside,

10:11:58 and if any of those individuals are here that might want to

10:12:02 come forward.

10:12:04 >> Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members.

10:12:14 My name is Emily Rogers.

10:12:15 My address is 801 west Alfred street.

10:12:19 I currently work as an independent contractor, an

10:12:23 entrepreneur.

10:12:24 I have lived in the Tampa Bay area for almost 20 years.

10:12:28 And in terms of my training and experience, I have a

10:12:31 master's degree in international development in public

10:12:34 policy, and a recent graduate of the community real estate

10:12:38 development credit course at USF, I also have certification

10:12:46 in organizational development.

10:12:47 I applied to become a member of this committee because I'm

10:12:51 aware of that committee of the dynamics.

10:12:56 At the local level we see that communities change sometimes

10:12:59 on a monthly basis, on a weekly basis, and at the

10:13:03 neighborhood level, almost on a daily basis.

10:13:07 So in submitting my application, I want to be part of the

10:13:09 process that creates a positive change, that ensures balance

10:13:15 in the Tampa Heights community.

10:13:18 My goal is to be part of that process to help solve problems

10:13:22 by analyzing the current policies and practices, by ensuring

10:13:28 accountability and listening to all viewpoints, and also

10:13:32 engaged to review and prioritize solutions that benefit the

10:13:36 entire community, and therefore our city at large.

10:13:42 My overall goal is to ensure that the community has access

10:13:45 to the information that it needs to make the decisions that

10:13:49 are the best for that community.

10:13:52 So to summarize, public policy and community redevelopment

10:13:58 is an important process, and I hope to become a part of that

10:14:01 process, create positive change, create balance, and

10:14:06 stability.

10:14:07 So I'm excited about this opportunity.

10:14:10 And I solicit your support in order to move forward.

10:14:12 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.

10:14:14 >>MARY MULHERN: Ms. Rogers, do you live in the Tampa

10:14:19 Heights?

10:14:20 >> I'm applying as an at-large member.

10:14:24 >> You don't live in that neighborhood?

10:14:25 >> No.

10:14:26 My residence is not.

10:14:27 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

10:14:29 >> Thank you.

10:14:30 >> My name is Matt May, a resident at 206 west Ross Avenue,

10:14:42 one of approximately 15 permanent residents by my count

10:14:45 within the legal boundaries of the Tampa Heights Riverfront

10:14:48 CRA.

10:14:48 In April of 2011 my family and I completed construction of a

10:14:53 private residence artist studio.

10:14:58 This project represents the largest development of vacant

10:15:00 land in the CRA since the Beck building was completed.

10:15:04 As a I have been a small business owner in this region for

10:15:07 over ten years.

10:15:09 I'm a commercial photography, works for several area

10:15:12 professional sports teams, as well as national and

10:15:14 international business publications.

10:15:19 Also own property in Seminole Heights, south Seminole

10:15:21 Heights to the north of this area.

10:15:25 In summary, I have got a young family and interested in

10:15:29 development of the CRA, in particular how things move

10:15:31 forward as the Heights project emerges from bankruptcy and

10:15:36 any potential changes that may come down the road to the

10:15:39 development agreement.

10:15:41 We obviously feel there's great potential in this area.

10:15:46 I'm an avid outdoorsman, Fisherman, artist.

10:15:50 This represents an amazing opportunity for residents of the

10:15:54 city and has potential to become one of Tampa's greatest

10:15:57 neighborhoods.

10:15:57 I thank you for your attention.

10:16:01 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.

10:16:02 >> Good morning.

10:16:08 My name is Lena Young-Green.

10:16:10 I reside at 3406 North Avon Avenue, Tampa Heights, and I

10:16:15 want to take this opportunity to wish everyone the very best

10:16:20 for this new year.

10:16:22 I feel in my bones it's going to be an exciting year, and we

10:16:25 will get those things done under your leadership.

10:16:29 As a member, current member of the CRA, I reapplied,

10:16:35 continue to offer my services.

10:16:37 I'm delighted to hear those who have already put in

10:16:40 applications and their interest in continuing to help our

10:16:45 neighborhood develop.

10:16:47 I have worked for quite awhile in Tampa Heights and various

10:16:50 areas, and mostly Tampa Heights.

10:16:55 I seek the opportunity to continue to be a part of our -- to

10:17:02 serve as somewhat of an institutional memory as we move

10:17:06 forward and as new things develop.

10:17:09 We do have major challenges for our CRA, and it's going to

10:17:16 be very interesting, important that we make good decisions

10:17:20 as we decide how we manage the issues that exist on that CRA

10:17:26 specifically.

10:17:28 Therefore, I offer my services once more, but recognizing

10:17:32 that many of the people who have already applied also bring

10:17:37 a value and would be great assets to developing our Tampa

10:17:42 Heights area.

10:17:43 Thank you.

10:17:43 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.

10:17:46 >> Good morning, Mr. Chairman, City Council members.

10:17:53 My name is Frederik Fourie, 313 West Cypress Avenue which is

10:18:00 just two blocks north in the Heights.

10:18:05 I am a current homeowner.

10:18:07 My wife and I are in the process of restoring our historic

10:18:10 home, which as you probably know is quite a challenge.

10:18:16 I'm a Tampa resident for 16 years, been in the Tampa Bay

10:18:19 area for 20 years, and USF graduate.

10:18:25 During my 20 years construction management degree, I worked

10:18:29 on countless projects across the United States and

10:18:32 international.

10:18:36 I am currently construction cost consultant.

10:18:39 My expertise, has been to design buildings to budget.

10:18:45 I specialize in performing arts centers and museums.

10:18:49 Also, I was vice-president of development services for and.

10:18:54 We developed multi-use projects, and a couple retail

10:18:57 projects.

10:18:58 Also, been a director of design and development services for

10:19:01 the Ritz Carlton development in Grand Cayman.

10:19:05 I was basically the guy that organized a lot of that stuff

10:19:07 down there.

10:19:11 Further, I'm certified to qualify buildings green, then

10:19:18 member of such association as the American association of

10:19:22 engineers, construction management association of America,

10:19:24 and American association of professional estimators.

10:19:28 Basically, if you guys are talking about numbers, I'm the

10:19:32 guy that understands better than anybody else.

10:19:35 The reason why I want to volunteer with the CRA is because I

10:19:39 love my city and my community.

10:19:40 I'm very passionate about Tampa Heights, and the future, and

10:19:45 that is the part of the city that I died decided to live in

10:19:48 because it's centrally located and it is the key to our

10:19:51 community.

10:19:51 You can see that there's many of us who are passionate about

10:19:54 our community.

10:19:54 And I am hope to be part of it.

10:19:56 Again my name is Frederik Fourie.

10:20:04 Thank you very much.

10:20:04 >> Do you know anything about community gardens?

10:20:05 >> I know it's going require eight hours of my time.

10:20:08 [ Laughter ]

10:20:09 >>FRANK REDDICK: You are right.

10:20:11 >> If you see my backyard.

10:20:16 [ Laughter ]

10:20:18 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.

10:20:30 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: City clerk.

10:20:32 The individuals selected for the downtown CRA community

10:20:34 advisory committee include Brenda Dohring Hicks and

10:20:40 Christina north.

10:20:42 Thank you.

10:21:24 >>FRANK REDDICK: While she tallies the vote, do you want to

10:21:28 do the next item?

10:21:30 >> Ed Johnson: Item number 7 is a resolution.

10:21:37 Which the attorney referenced earlier in his comments,

10:21:40 offering up a substitute resolution in the amount of $28,000

10:21:44 for the purchase of property at 3020 north 22nd street as it

10:21:50 relates to the property that is needed to complete the

10:21:55 roundabout project on phase 3 of the 22nd street project.

10:21:59 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right, do we have a motion?

10:22:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Item number 7, I think it's a substitute

10:22:10 resolution that we are looking to move.

10:22:11 So, Mr. Chairman, I move the substitute resolution based on

10:22:14 the fact that when you talk about the cost, it would be more

10:22:19 costly for us to stop whatever was done years back by

10:22:23 council members and those members sitting honorably as the

10:22:27 CRA than it would be to continue on a project that I think

10:22:29 would be an enhancement to the area.

10:22:33 >> Second.

10:22:35 >>FRANK REDDICK: Discussion on the motion?

10:22:42 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I just have one question, if I may.

10:22:45 Mr. Johnson, could we have a substitute resolution -- we

10:22:49 have to come up with a difference as the city for the

10:22:52 purchase of the home, correct?

10:22:54 >> That's correct.

10:22:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Have moneys already been identified for that

10:22:57 purpose yet?

10:22:58 Or we are going to do this and then we are going to be

10:23:01 looking for some cash?

10:23:03 >> The latter.

10:23:04 The discussion has been already taken place with the chief

10:23:07 of staff, and with the CRA chair, and at that time, it was

10:23:12 stated that he wanted to wait until -- we wanted to make

10:23:15 sure that the 22nd street roundabout was going to move

10:23:18 forward, and then he would move forward with identifying a

10:23:21 funding resource that will then come back to you next week

10:23:24 on the 19th to approve the whole total purchase of that

10:23:30 property using the TIF dollars and whatever resource is

10:23:34 provided by the city for the remainder.

10:23:36 >> Thank you.

10:23:38 >>MARY MULHERN: I just want to go on the record once again

10:23:44 that although I respect the decision of the previous

10:23:50 citizens advisory committee and their desire for

10:23:55 improvements along 22nd street and there were a couple of

10:24:00 different renderings that were provided over the meantimes

10:24:04 we have discussed this.

10:24:06 I have suggested other alternatives, and really don't feel I

10:24:11 have ever gotten any of my questions fully answered.

10:24:17 The perspective that I have from the development background

10:24:20 is that there are other alternatives, and you look at all of

10:24:26 the alternatives based on what input there is from the

10:24:30 community, what the cost of the project will be, and what

10:24:34 the impact of that project will be.

10:24:37 I think that this particular property purchase and this

10:24:41 project fail on two of those three counts.

10:24:45 So I cannot support this motion to purchase this property.

10:24:51 Again, we are in dire financial need both within the

10:24:56 redevelopment agency, in all of the redevelopment agencies

10:25:00 because of declining property values.

10:25:02 Our budget within the city has been, you know, discussed ad

10:25:07 nauseam during the campaigns of all of us, and even on

10:25:11 council as we were passing the budget.

10:25:15 Our Councilman Suarez voted out, we don't have funds

10:25:18 identified.

10:25:19 It was in the budget because it's not an expense that we

10:25:22 anticipated as City Council and the budget to accommodate

10:25:26 this purchase.

10:25:28 And I for one, you know, will not support it because I want

10:25:33 to send that message to our property owners in the City of

10:25:35 Tampa that when the city does a project, it's not an open

10:25:38 checkbook.

10:25:39 You can't dictate to us what we are going to pay for that

10:25:43 project.

10:25:45 Eminent domain, yes, is an expensive process.

10:25:48 I worked on eminent domain cases.

10:25:51 I worked on expert testimony for eminent domain cases.

10:25:54 I am intimately familiar with the process.

10:25:57 It's not necessarily that we need to go there and use

10:26:00 eminent domain if property owners have a perspective that

10:26:04 they are doing the right thing by the tax paying citizens of

10:26:07 this city, and by the projects that we select by not

10:26:13 demanding four, five, six, seven times what the property

10:26:17 values are for the land that they are sitting on.

10:26:20 So based on, you know, just the dollar value alone, and that

10:26:29 we are paying way too much money for this property, I won't

10:26:34 ever support a project -- and you never say never in this

10:26:41 day and age -- but I will be hard pressed to support

10:26:44 approval for purchasing a property that is tremendously

10:26:50 overpriced.

10:26:51 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you, Councilwoman Montelione, for

10:27:02 putting that in perspective.

10:27:03 And the thing that I want to add to this, to what she had to

10:27:08 say, I can't support this either.

10:27:14 This has been coming back to us over a months and month and

10:27:17 months, and the outcry I have heard from the community, from

10:27:25 the East Tampa, and this particular neighborhood, has been

10:27:31 really strong.

10:27:32 We got another petition today with all these names.

10:27:35 So the problem for me, in addition to it, not really meeting

10:27:44 the economic criteria that Councilwoman Montelione put

10:27:47 forward, is this is community redevelopment, and we created

10:27:55 these in order for the community to meet the needs that they

10:27:58 see necessary.

10:27:59 And I think what this community is telling us is that

10:28:03 because of limited resources in this TIF funding, that

10:28:12 that's not what they want to spend their money on.

10:28:14 They don't want to spend it on this acquisition of property,

10:28:17 and they don't want to spend it on the redevelopment of

10:28:24 roundabouts that is planned to happen.

10:28:26 So I can't support it either.

10:28:28 >>HARRY COHEN: What I'm troubled by is that we have taken

10:28:43 this issue up a couple of times, and every time we meet,

10:28:49 there seems to be a resolution, and then we come back, and I

10:28:54 feel like something different than what was discussed the

10:28:56 last time is happening.

10:28:57 If I remember correctly, the last time we talked about the

10:29:01 roundabout, there has been a vote in the community.

10:29:04 I remember it was a very close vote.

10:29:06 I believe that the community defeated the roundabout by one

10:29:12 vote.

10:29:13 Now, at the time, I seem to remember that we decided to

10:29:19 honor that vote.

10:29:25 Now today it's in front of us, and it seems in total

10:29:28 contravention of what we discussed the last time that this

10:29:31 issue was brought up, and my discomfort, I would like to go

10:29:34 back and review the proceedings of when we discussed this

10:29:37 the last time to make sure that what we are doing today is

10:29:42 following up with where I felt this was going.

10:29:46 You know, it seems as though there's tremendous dissension

10:29:49 in the community about whether or not to build the

10:29:51 roundabout, and I hate to move forward with something when

10:29:58 it just seems so unsettled.

10:30:01 And that's what troubles me about voting.

10:30:05 I do have one question, though, and I actually took a ride

10:30:09 by there a couple of times after our last discussion, and

10:30:13 for clarification, I was sort of understood the impression

10:30:16 that the city was going to have to purchase this house

10:30:19 regardless of whether they ultimately built a roundabout or

10:30:23 ended up redesigning the intersection for any kind of

10:30:27 improved -- if I remember correctly the house almost sits

10:30:32 like right literally in the middle of the intersection.

10:30:35 Is that correct?

10:30:36 >> Not the actual intersection.

10:30:40 The house is bordered by some -- yes, it's very close to the

10:30:47 apex where the roads split off and become one-way pairs.

10:30:52 If the roundabout is not approved, no, there is no need to

10:30:54 purchase the house.

10:30:57 If the corner was basically stay the same as it is, or if

10:31:00 you choose to redirect dollars to redesign the project in

10:31:04 another way, then it could potentially come back in as an

10:31:11 unnecessary need, if that's one of the options in the design

10:31:17 or redesign of the project, cot come back into play.

10:31:20 But if the roundabout is not approved going forward, as it

10:31:24 was already approved, if we are not going forward with the

10:31:27 roundabout, then there would be no need for us to purchase

10:31:29 the house.

10:31:29 >>FRANK REDDICK: If I may, let me clear up some confusion

10:31:34 hear.

10:31:37 The neighborhood partnership, they were voting on whether or

10:31:44 not to accept the roundabout, and that was the 26-25 vote.

10:31:47 The neighborhood voted to approve the purchase of this house

10:31:55 when they limited it to $28,000.

10:31:58 There is no controversy about that.

10:32:00 The only controversy is about whether they want the

10:32:03 roundabout or not.

10:32:09 The chairman can confirm this.

10:32:11 They voted with no controversy to say we will only put

10:32:14 $28,000 of our TIF funds toward the house.

10:32:19 The chief of staff had discussed with me that he identified

10:32:26 additional funds that he wanted to see first what was going

10:32:29 to transpire with this roundabout.

10:32:33 There was no need of him going forward or putting this item

10:32:36 on the agenda to approve unless they were assured that the

10:32:41 roundabout -- that the issues of the roundabout were

10:32:46 resolved.

10:32:47 Dent want to get involved.

10:32:48 But I think that's the confusion.

10:32:50 We need to clear it up.

10:32:51 They have in a problem with the house.

10:32:53 But they wanted to limit their dollars to $28,000 only. And

10:32:58 that's the resolution here today, if we want to move forward

10:33:02 with this $28,000.

10:33:03 But this is not a discussion about the roundabout.

10:33:07 All the discussion is about, do we accept their request that

10:33:12 they would limit their $28,000 of TIF funds towards the

10:33:16 purchase of the house?

10:33:18 And am I correct on this, Mr. Chairman, from the

10:33:23 partnership?

10:33:24 Thank you.

10:33:26 All right.

10:33:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

10:33:32 I'm glad that you clarified that because that was my

10:33:34 understanding, that the roundabout issue -- and again, you

10:33:37 know, we talked a little bit about this last CRA meeting,

10:33:40 which is the history of this goes back to, I believe, 2005,

10:33:44 correct, Mr. Johnson?

10:33:45 >> That's when it started, yes.

10:33:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ: And I really believe that the issue here is

10:33:51 that we have a duly appointed board that has to report back

10:33:57 to us, and we can second guess almost any decision that

10:34:00 comes before us.

10:34:01 I think that the issues concerning the cost of the home, and

10:34:06 Ms. Montelione has brought up, is a very good issue.

10:34:09 That's separate than the decision about the roundabout

10:34:12 itself.

10:34:12 The roundabout itself is that we can keep continually

10:34:17 reassessing the decisions that are made by these advisory

10:34:20 committees, and then essentially remove their power.

10:34:24 And that's part of the problem that we have here.

10:34:27 Now, is that a problem of the advisory committee not

10:34:32 reaching out more to the community and finding out more what

10:34:34 the community actually wants?

10:34:35 That may be an issue.

10:34:37 If it's something that we haven't done the right process in

10:34:41 order to allow people to have their viewpoints aired, that

10:34:45 may be a problem.

10:34:46 But in terms of once it comes to this board, in terms of

10:34:50 what our decisions are, I look at it as this.

10:34:53 We have to trust our citizen advisory committees.

10:34:56 And if we don't, let's disband them and make our owned

10:35:00 darned decision based on whatever we think.

10:35:02 And I don't believe in that.

10:35:03 I think that's why CRAs are created.

10:35:06 They are really from the grassroots up.

10:35:08 I do think that we can lend some expertise -- and I think

10:35:13 that Councilwoman Montelione is very specific about her

10:35:16 expertise on these particular issues -- and that type of

10:35:20 thing is a different aspect than whether or not the

10:35:22 roundabout is built or not built.

10:35:24 It has to come from our advisory committee, in my mind.

10:35:27 And I am going to support the roundabout primarily because I

10:35:32 respect our chair in terms of how much he's worked on this,

10:35:36 having been a member of that advisory committee.

10:35:39 And I think that is an important aspect of it.

10:35:43 We can second guess every decision we ever make, and believe

10:35:48 me, every election that's what's going to happen every time

10:35:50 we go out there to talk about what we have done on this

10:35:53 board and on council.

10:35:54 So I would rather not do that with the advisory committees,

10:35:57 because their charge is to give us the best advice possible

10:36:00 as to what they want to spend their TIF dollars on.

10:36:05 So, Mr. Johnson, I appreciate you giving me sort of a time

10:36:08 line there.

10:36:08 And Mr. Chair, thank you so much for your service previously

10:36:12 and currently in terms of giving us some idea of this

10:36:15 particular issue.

10:36:15 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.

10:36:21 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

10:36:25 Mr. Johnson, you said that we don't need the property if we

10:36:35 don't build the roundabout.

10:36:36 Is that correct?

10:36:37 >> Ed: That's correct.

10:36:41 >>MARY MULHERN: We also heard from Councilman Cohen, which

10:36:45 I think you confirmed, that the community voted that they do

10:36:51 not want the roundabout.

10:36:54 Is that correct?

10:36:55 >> What took place at the last CRA board me meeting was the

10:37:01 chairperson of the advisory committee was asked to go back

10:37:03 again a second time, because as you recall, previously,

10:37:06 there was a vote, a special called meeting that took place

10:37:10 in September of last year on this issue.

10:37:13 And that vote was 15 to 7 for it.

10:37:17 And then some folks came to you at the last CRA board

10:37:21 meeting and asked that they go back out again and recanvas

10:37:29 the community.

10:37:30 That vote was taken in December, I believe it was, and that

10:37:32 vote came back 25-26 against it.

10:37:36 But at that time, our counsel advised you that the

10:37:42 roundabout and the 22nd street project had already been

10:37:46 approved by you the CRA agency.

10:37:50 >> Right, downtown have to go into all.

10:37:53 That I just wanted to make clear what the vote was.

10:37:55 So it was a close vote at that meeting.

10:38:00 So I think -- I think there's way too many questions to

10:38:10 support it.

10:38:10 I can't support it.

10:38:12 I'm wondering if -- I thought that's what Mr. Territo told

10:38:19 us that we needed to move first on the roundabout before we

10:38:24 voted on that.

10:38:26 So -- well, I think it's very clear, that this is not what

10:38:35 the neighborhood wants, it's not a good use of our TIF

10:38:39 dollars.

10:38:39 Each though only 28,000 is coming out of the TIF money, it's

10:38:44 still going to be taxpayer dollars that pays for the other

10:38:50 more than half of the costs for that house, which is

10:38:52 inflated.

10:38:53 I just cannot support it.

10:38:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Very briefly, do you have a contract on

10:39:01 that house?

10:39:02 >> Yes, we do.

10:39:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: What happens if today you lose that

10:39:05 contract and Councilman back?

10:39:07 Do you think you are going to buy it for 65,000?

10:39:09 >> With all of the conversation taking place?

10:39:12 It will probably be 85,000.

10:39:13 >> And I'm not an expert.

10:39:15 I'm a realist.

10:39:16 Not an expert, I'm a realist.

10:39:18 I understand things that are real.

10:39:20 What we have here by experience, of mine and other members,

10:39:25 that have seen things go from what you could purchase and

10:39:29 what you would purchase under eminent domain, it's a lot

10:39:35 costlier.

10:39:36 I challenge anyone to read and understand what all the

10:39:41 eminent domains have cost this city, including relocation,

10:39:45 including if it was a business, you have got future business

10:39:50 loss, this, that and the other.

10:39:51 I have sat here and I voted, and the public has lost.

10:39:57 When you start that, you start going into details that are

10:40:01 much more costly today, this morning, we had evidence that

10:40:05 to stop this project and redesign it, it would be a minimum

10:40:10 of 150,000 to $200,000 cost.

10:40:16 Without nothing being done.

10:40:18 I'm not one that supports roundabouts in the past based on

10:40:24 my decision of looking at the roundabout on North Boulevard

10:40:26 and Fowler, the size of a dime.

10:40:29 Dangerous intersection because even though it is around

10:40:32 about, you are turning real sharp all over.

10:40:35 The same people, including myself, that sort of lifted their

10:40:43 eyebrows on the roundabout on Lois and MLK, by the wonderful

10:40:51 Hillsborough community college area, were against it.

10:40:54 Guess what.

10:40:56 The same people including myself, you have to see something

10:41:00 come of something and see what it does that changed our

10:41:05 minds.

10:41:05 That roundabout is functional.

10:41:06 It works.

10:41:07 And it helps move traffic, including the large semis that

10:41:12 I witnessed myself going through.

10:41:13 So things change.

10:41:14 Time doesn't change.

10:41:19 Realistically what you see and do changes.

10:41:22 Not what you don't do.

10:41:24 Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

10:41:25 >>FRANK REDDICK: Anyone else need to speak now?

10:41:30 Last round so we can move this.

10:41:31 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.

10:41:33 Speculating that had this is going to come back at $85,000

10:41:37 is completely out of the realm.

10:41:39 And the only reason why people expect that their price is

10:41:42 going to go up is because this body will pay it.

10:41:45 And nobody is talking about going eminent domain unless we

10:41:48 need to have this property purchased.

10:41:51 And if we do not approve the roundabout, we do not need to

10:41:55 purchase the property.

10:41:56 So eminent domain doesn't come up.

10:41:59 My personal opinion on roundabouts, anybody's personal

10:42:02 opinion on roundabouts, doesn't make a difference.

10:42:05 Because I would it works.

10:42:09 I like it.

10:42:09 But that doesn't matter.

10:42:11 That's my opinion.

10:42:12 Anybody's personal opinion in a public matter really has no

10:42:17 bearing.

10:42:17 It's what the experts tell us.

10:42:20 Roundabouts work in some circumstances.

10:42:22 They don't work in other circumstances.

10:42:24 It pays no never mind.

10:42:26 The 25, 26 vote against in December, that is too close to

10:42:31 call.

10:42:32 That is not a decisive vote, in my opinion.

10:42:37 So whether that's for or against is weighing in the balance,

10:42:44 because it was pretty evenly split.

10:42:48 There was no clear message sent.

10:42:52 The 15-7 vote in September, look at the numbers.

10:42:55 15-7.

10:42:55 There weren't a lot of people at that meeting.

10:42:57 So that's not a clear read on the community either.

10:43:00 So not that -- we are not taking any powers or any respect

10:43:06 away from the citizens advisory committee by looking at

10:43:09 these votes and saying that neither one of these vote is a

10:43:12 clear message.

10:43:13 That's not removing any of their power.

10:43:16 That's not taking away from the work that they have done.

10:43:19 It's just calling it for what it is.

10:43:22 One is too close of a vote to really say it's a clear

10:43:25 message.

10:43:26 And the other one, there weren't even enough people present

10:43:29 at the meeting to say it was representative of the entire

10:43:32 community.

10:43:35 And, you know, we have got a $37,000 commitment out of our

10:43:39 city budget.

10:43:42 For those of us who talk about doing things for senior

10:43:46 citizens, for doing things for people in our community that

10:43:48 are in great need. $37,000 would go a long way to one of

10:43:53 those efforts.

10:43:54 And we don't find money all the time for things that are

10:43:57 very worthy, but we can find money for purchasing a piece of

10:44:03 property.

10:44:05 And if we send a consistent message, that price isn't going

10:44:09 to go from 65 to 85, we are going to send a consistent

10:44:12 message that, no, we are not going to pay inflated costs for

10:44:15 real estate, we are not going to go down that road, and we

10:44:18 are going to send that message.

10:44:20 The only ones who can do that is this board and this body.

10:44:24 And if we continue to approve inflated prices of real

10:44:28 estate, we are going to send a message that you can demand

10:44:31 any dollar amount you want from the City of Tampa because we

10:44:34 are going to approve it.

10:44:39 >>SAL TERRITO: I don't want to get in the middle of the so,

10:44:41 but the roundabout has already been approved.

10:44:43 And when I mentioned earlier, and I apologize if you weren't

10:44:46 here, but what I happened earlier is the roundabout is

10:44:49 approved if you do not want the roundabout to go forward

10:44:53 then you have to make an affirmative action to overrule.

10:44:58 That's your decision if you want to do that.

10:45:00 But the roundabout has been approved.

10:45:01 All you have to da is to approve the purchase of the

10:45:04 property.

10:45:05 If you want to take the action of overturning a previous

10:45:07 decision on redesigning the roundabout, that will require

10:45:09 another vote.

10:45:11 The roundabout has already been approved by a previous

10:45:14 board.

10:45:14 >>FRANK REDDICK: And Sal, let me ask you this.

10:45:19 And I thought I made it clear.

10:45:20 We are note voting on the roundabout.

10:45:24 We did it at another meeting.

10:45:26 And we can bring that up under new business, to affirm the

10:45:31 previous council's vote or overturn.

10:45:34 And this is all about the process.

10:45:36 Now, since it was brought up by a previous council, let me

10:45:42 ask you a question.

10:45:43 When was that vote at a by the previous council?

10:45:46 >>SAL TERRITO: Maybe Mr. Johnson knows.

10:45:48 I don't have that.

10:45:50 >> I don't have that in front of me.

10:45:55 2009.

10:45:56 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right, taken back in 2009 by the

10:45:59 board.

10:45:59 Let me ask you this.

10:46:00 Do you recall the vote of that council, the vote of that

10:46:04 board?

10:46:04 Was it a unanimous vote or was it a 4-3, was it 35-2?

10:46:08 What was the vote?

10:46:10 >> I would say it was a unanimous vote, but don't hold me to

10:46:14 that.

10:46:14 I didn't hear any objections to voting on the project when

10:46:17 it was first presented, or the funding necessary to pay for

10:46:20 the 22nd street enhancement and the paying for the design of

10:46:25 the roundabout.

10:46:26 >>FRANK REDDICK: That was in 2009 that that board voted.

10:46:33 Correct?

10:46:33 >> 2009 -- I don't know the exact date.

10:46:37 >> Was it 2010?

10:46:43 I'm only making a point here.

10:46:44 >> 2008, 9 and 10 is when the funding was appropriated by

10:46:55 the CRA board and the City Council, all three of those.

10:47:03 2008, 9 and 10 is what makes up the funding for the

10:47:07 enhancement project which includes the design of the

10:47:08 roundabout.

10:47:09 >> So this seven-member body right here, that means some

10:47:16 members of the certain board would be overturning their vote

10:47:20 if they voted to do that.

10:47:22 So they voted to confirm their vote or to overturn their

10:47:25 vote.

10:47:26 So they were on the board at that time.

10:47:28 Is that correct?

10:47:29 >> That's correct.

10:47:30 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.

10:47:31 And also, my understanding, the representative for district

10:47:34 5 and the chair of the CRA from the community was on the

10:47:40 council at that time.

10:47:41 Am I correct?

10:47:42 >> Yes, they were.

10:47:43 >>FRANK REDDICK: So we are sitting here, you know, I don't

10:47:53 know why the attitude has changed.

10:47:54 But if you have got a formal board, and you have current

10:47:58 members that are sitting on this council that vote, and now

10:48:02 you are going to go back and overturn their vote, that

10:48:07 position, and you have four members who represent the

10:48:12 position calling individuals, asking them for you not to

10:48:16 vote on this, there's a hypocrisy there.

10:48:23 So we either vote to move for the 28,000, or come back and

10:48:30 overturn the previous council that voted who some of the

10:48:33 members were sitting up here a unanimous vote and they voted

10:48:37 for it.

10:48:38 And that was the plan that includes the roundabout.

10:48:40 Am I correct on that?

10:48:41 >> That's correct.

10:48:42 >>FRANK REDDICK: Now, the last question I have.

10:48:46 If we vote -- if we move the roundabout, since that's the

10:48:51 controversy, if we remove the roundabout from the plan, we

10:48:53 have to go back and redesign a new plan.

10:48:56 Is that correct?

10:48:57 >> You would have to redesign that particular area, if you

10:48:59 take out the roundabout.

10:49:00 >>FRANK REDDICK: Do we have an estimated dollar cost?

10:49:04 >> Between 150 and 200,000.

10:49:07 Remember, the budget that was already previously approved

10:49:10 was for $225,000 for the design of the roundabout.

10:49:15 160,000 of that has already been spent.

10:49:18 So that would be -- the additional funds would have to be in

10:49:21 addition to what is already what's available so that would

10:49:26 be in the neighborhood of 41 to $90,000 that you would have

10:49:30 to find to make up the difference to make up that cost.

10:49:34 >>FRANK REDDICK: We'll hear from board member Capin again.

10:49:40 >>YVONNE CAPIN: The other option would be to not do anything

10:49:43 and leave it.

10:49:46 That's an option, isn't it?

10:49:50 >> Ed: That's correct.

10:49:53 >>FRANK REDDICK: We can do that after we vote on this

10:49:55 $28,000, correct?

10:49:57 We can come back under new business and do all the other

10:49:59 stuff.

10:50:00 >> I call for the question.

10:50:01 >>FRANK REDDICK: Do we have a second?

10:50:04 >> Second.

10:50:04 >>FRANK REDDICK: Can we get a motion?

10:50:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I already have a motion.

10:50:12 Called the question.

10:50:12 >>FRANK REDDICK: I'm sorry.

10:50:15 I got confused on that.

10:50:17 We call the question.

10:50:18 All in favor of the motion?

10:50:21 Opposed?

10:50:24 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Mulhern, Cohen and mother

10:50:27 Montelione voting.

10:50:28 No.

10:50:28 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.

10:50:29 >> Take a vote on whether you were going to approve the

10:50:35 resolution.

10:50:37 >>SAL TERRITO: The motion was to call the question.

10:50:38 You have taken the vote to call the question.

10:50:41 That's on the floor now.

10:50:42 >>THE CLERK: The motion and second to call the question.

10:50:45 >> I made the motion.

10:50:49 >> And I seconded.

10:50:50 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Suarez.

10:50:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: There was a motion on the floor.

10:50:54 Prior to that we did not vote.

10:50:56 I'll state that motion again.

10:50:57 To move item number 7, substitute resolution.

10:51:01 And it was seconded by Mrs. Capin, I believe.

10:51:04 >> Motion by board member Miranda, second bid board member

10:51:10 Capin.

10:51:10 All in favor?

10:51:12 Opposed?

10:51:12 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Montelione, Cohen and

10:51:15 Mulhern voting no.

10:51:16 >>FRANK REDDICK: Kay okay.

10:51:18 Item number 8.

10:51:19 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: City clerk.

10:51:32 The individuals selected for the Tampa Heights riverfront

10:51:37 CRA community advisory committee include Frederik Fourie,

10:51:45 Matthew May, Emily Rogers, and Lena Young-Green.

10:51:49 Thank you.

10:51:49 >>FRANK REDDICK: Congratulations.

10:51:53 Item number 8.

10:51:56 >> Item 8 is our quarterly TIF report presented for your

10:52:08 review and file.

10:52:11 If there are any questions I will be glad to address them.

10:52:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to receive and file the resolution

10:52:18 if there's in a more discussion on it.

10:52:19 >> Second.

10:52:21 >>FRANK REDDICK: Seconded by board member Cohen.

10:52:23 All in favor?

10:52:25 Opposed?

10:52:26 Okay.

10:52:28 Thank you, sir.

10:52:30 New business.

10:52:31 Board member Suarez.

10:52:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have no new business at this time.

10:52:35 >>FRANK REDDICK: Board member Capin.

10:52:40 >>YVONNE CAPIN: No new business.

10:52:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: No, sir.

10:52:43 >>MARY MULHERN: No, sir.

10:52:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ: No, thank you.

10:52:47 >>LISA MONTELIONE: No, thank you.

10:52:49 >>FRANK REDDICK: There being no new business --

10:52:53 >>THE CLERK: Motion to receive and file, please.

10:52:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to receive and file items presented

10:53:00 on this agenda.

10:53:01 >> Second.

10:53:03 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.

10:53:04 We stand adjourned.

10:53:05 But I have been told that we need to take pictures.

10:53:10 Put your smiling faces on now.




This file represents an unedited version of realtime
captioning which should neither be relied upon for complete
accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
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.