CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE_ FLORIDA

					CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE, FLORIDA                                             Regular Meeting
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL                                                 Tuesday, June 6, 2006
MINUTES                                                          Council Chambers-City Hall


Having been duly advertised as required by law, the regular meeting of the Mayor and City
Council of the City of Temple Terrace, Florida, was held on Tuesday, June 6, 2006, in the
Council Chambers at City Hall.

PRESENT WERE: Mayor Joe Affronti, Council Members Frank M. Chillura, Ron Govin, Ken
Halloway, Linda Shattles, and Glenda Venable, City Manager Kim Leinbach, City Clerk Lisa
Burns, and City Attorney Mark Connolly.

ALSO PRESENT WERE: Public Information Officer Paula MacDonald, Fire Chief Ernie
Hiers, City Engineer Joe Motta, Parks & Recreation Director James Chambers, Finance Director
Diane Reichard, Human Resources Director Woody Hubbard, Deputy Police Chief Patricia
Powers, Public Works Director Steve Hodge, Community Services Director Ralph Bosek,
Assistant Director of Planning Ann Sheller, Planner Tom Moore, Deputy City Clerk Linda
Brewer, Police Lieutenant Chris Jeffords, Parks Planner Dana Carver, Deputy Fire Chief John
Donahue, Senior Planner Susanne Hicks, Housing Compliance Officer Ed Sassor, Housing
Compliance Officer Gail Garnier, Kate Kramer, Candace Samolinski, Jennifer Rendahl, Eddie
Adams, Jr., Laura Fontanills, Virginia Halloway, Judy A. Govin, D’ee Griffith, Jack Griffith,
Beth Bosserman, Mac Ritchie, Mindy DeVane, Ken DeVane, Gloria Kares, Alan Balfour, Susan
Zucker, Charlotte Encinares, John Rice, Jess Wiggins, Mark Knapp, Michael Lant, Bill Mertin,
Grant Rimbey, Ed Vollrath, Gail Benton, Patricia Allen, Paul Tomasino, Bill Hammontree, J.
Worth Williams, Ann A. White, Paula Benway, Al Latina, Robert E. Benuay, Lidia E. Kelly,
Michael Hinman, Robert Finnegan, Jim Keen, Austin Simmons, and several other persons.

There being a quorum present, Mayor Affronti called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., after
which he led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, followed by a brief invocation.

Proclamations, Recognitions, and Special Presentations:

Mayor Affronti presented a Proclamation recognizing June 5 through 9 as “Code Enforcement
Officers’ Appreciation Week” to Housing Compliance Officers Gail Garnier and Ed Sassor. Ms.
Garnier commented that they were receiving the Proclamation also on behalf of the City’s
separate Code Compliance Department for neighborhood standards, headed by Director Joe
Gross.

Mayor Affronti presented a Proclamation recognizing June 5 through 11 as “National Garden
Club Week” to Joyce Zellner. Calling forward other members of the Temple Terrace Garden
Club to accept the Proclamation, Ms. Zeller noted this is the 60th Anniversary of their Club,
making them the oldest organization in Temple Terrace. Comprised of 84 members now, she
explained the purpose of the Club, commented on their loving care of Woodmont Park, and
noted that not only have they maintained the gardens, but they have added a butterfly garden area
and etchings for children to learn about toads, frogs, and butterflies.
Mayor and City Council                      June 6, 2006                             Page Two.


Ms. Zellner said this year the Garden Club completed the Memorial Marker patio, and they
raised over $2,500 for hospice in Temple Terrace. She said this year their project will be
“Sincerely Santa,” with free vendors, and focusing specifically on educating children about the
environment. She said their clubhouse needs renovation; although their budget is small, they are
donating $1,000 to the renovations of Woodmont Clubhouse. She stated they do countless of
things for the community with the goal of beautifying and maintaining it for all generations to
come. She invited the community to join them on either Wednesdays or Saturdays at Woodmont
Park.

Mayor Affronti announced that during the recent International Institute of Municipal Clerks
Annual Conference, held in Anaheim, California, City Clerk Lisa Burns was presented with the
2006 Records Management Award for the visionary use of document management technology to
provide access to vital records during a disaster. He noted Laserfiche, the conference’s main
sponsor, serves 3,000 municipalities, among its 22,000 clients, with document management
solutions.

Minutes of Previous Meetings:

Upon motion of Council Member Chillura, seconded by Council Member Halloway, and
unanimously carried, the MINUTES of the May 16, 2006, Regular City Council Meeting were
APPROVED.

Public Hearings:

1.     Annexation – Cedar Center Office Condominiums.

Mayor Affronti opened the Public Hearing, calling on the Community Services Department to
introduce the subject of the hearing.

The City Manager stated this is the second Public Hearing in regards to the proposed annexation
for Cedar Center Office Condominiums, which is comprised of twelve individually owned
offices. He said owners of seven of the twelve units have petitioned the City for annexation. He
said City staff has reviewed the requests, prepared the Urban Services Plan, and found that there
is minimal impact to the services. He said they are able to provide the same level of services to
this business ownership group that are currently provided to the community without any adverse
fiscal impact upon existing residents. He said approval is recommended after Public Hearing
comments, adding that the proposed adoption of the ordinance appears later in the agenda.

There being no persons wishing to be heard, Mayor Affronti closed the Public Hearing.

2.     Zoning Text Amendment – Professional Research Office Facilities (PROF).

Mayor Affronti opened the Public Hearing, calling on the Community Services Department to
introduce the subject of the hearing.
Mayor and City Council                        June 6, 2006                            Page Three.


Senior Planner Susanne Hicks stated that RZP# 06-10 is a proposed text amendment to the
Professional Research Office Facilities (PROF) zoning district. She briefly explained the
purpose of the PROF district, and said the application submitted by Holland and Knight for
applicant Telecom Lot F, LLC, requests amendment of the text of Section 25.530.12 (8) relative
to the permitted uses in PROF. She said the proposed change would remove the language that is
restricting medical, dental, and surgical offices as accessory only and allow the mixed permitted
uses. Ms. Hicks concluded that the Development Review Commission and the Hillsborough
County City-County Planning Commission have reviewed this application and recommend
approval of the zoning text amendment request.

There being no persons wishing to be heard, Mayor Affronti closed the Public Hearing.

3.     Zoning Reclassification – Terrace Oaks Phase I.

Mayor Affronti opened the Public Hearing, calling on the Community Services Department to
introduce the subject of the hearing.

Senior Planner Susanne Hicks stated RZP# 06-06 is a City-initiated zoning reclassification
request for Terrace Oaks Subdivision Phase I, which is an existing subdivision of 41 homes, built
about 1990, on approximately eight acres; the property is located on the east side of Davis Road,
north of Temple Terrace Highway. She said this subdivision was annexed into the City from
Hillsborough County in 2000 by Ordinance No. 1029, and in 2002 the City changed the
Comprehensive Plan Designation from Hillsborough County designation to the City of Temple
Terrace Designation of Residential-9, which allows development up to nine units per acre. She
said this request for rezoning will remove the Hillsborough County PD (Planned Development)
zoning, which remains on the property; the proposed Temple Terrace zoning will be Residential-
7. She said the City’s Development Review Committee and the Hillsborough County City-
County Planning Commission have reviewed the application and recommend approval.

There being no persons wishing to be heard, Mayor Affronti closed the Public Hearing.


Person Wishing to Be Heard on Items NOT Listed on the Agenda:

D’ee Griffith, 416 Bon Aire Avenue, expressed thanks to the Mayor and Council and the City
Manager for all they have done and all the citizens who worked on the Referendum to bring the
redevelopment project to this point.

Grant Rimbey, 411 Island Road, wanted to clarify, in case Council Members have been receiving
e-mail on this topic, that last weekend he sent out an e-mail to his extensive group of Citizens for
the Revitalization of Temple Terrace concerning the motion that had been made, or tabled, or
withdrawn at the last meeting about sending an RFP back out for a developer and he thought that
would be coming up for consideration at this meeting. Mayor Affronti responded that Unicorp is
here tonight to make a presentation and after hearing it, hopefully the Council will decide which
way they want to go.
Mayor and City Council                       June 6, 2006                             Page Four.


Bart Siegel, 606 Vanderbaker Road, said he watched the workshop [relative to Evaluation and
Appraisal Report of the City’s Comprehensive Plan] on television earlier and heard that the long-
term plan is to increase the density or the population of Temple Terrace by 30%, which he thinks
should be put up for a vote from the people. He said he doesn’t want Temple Terrace’s
population to increase 30%, with plans for 9,000 people to move to Temple Terrace; he likes it
just the way it is.

Jess Wiggins, 11308 Linarbor Place, said he is representing the Arbors Homeowners
Association, concerning the consideration of the conversion of the City park located at the north
and west of the intersection of 113th Avenue and 62nd Street to a dog park, which he learned this
evening has been postponed to June 20th. While he said he could not speak to the finite details
of a dog park, since he doesn’t recall ever having seen a dog park, he does know that the north
border of the proposed dog park and the southern wall of his home are the same line, which is 5’
linear from the headrest of his favorite easy chair. He said at this time he would simply request
that the Council think of the proposed park in terms of the broadest possible improvements to the
property, i.e., such as Bonnie Brae Park, making it fully equipped to serve the needs of adults
and children, and to move slowly, so the neighborhood can have the chance to petition signatures
should the proposed park present adverse effects, such as parking, traffic, etc.

The City Manager informed Mr. Wiggins the Parks & Recreation Department staff is in the
process of reviewing the deed upon which the park was donated to the City. He said they
preliminarily believe the deed restrictions would not permit such use, but they will finish their
investigation and report back at the next meeting. He said they will be looking at alternatives
and try to present something during the budgetary process.

Council Member Chillura asked that wherever this dog park is to be located, that the surrounding
neighbors be notified, perhaps by notice and possibly posting a sign at the property, so people are
aware.

Parks and Recreation Director James Chambers stated they never got far enough in the process to
notify neighbors. He said they were reacting to the petition and starting to study that site;
therefore, it is very preliminary. He said when they found the deed restrictions, they have
basically “written that site off.” He assured the Council that when they do locate an appropriate
site, they will notify the property owners of the proposed conversion.

John Rice, 9605 N. 55th Street, distributed copies of photographs recently taken in the northwest
quadrant of the CRA, stating his concern that as the City goes through the rest of the
redevelopment process that consideration is given to the other quadrants of the redevelopment
area. He specifically said they are having some extreme problems with Temple Heights
Boulevard, noting that a recent traffic count done by the City Engineer’s office found there were
13,354 cars a day on Temple Heights Boulevard.

Mr. Rice continued that he took some pictures of some of the problems in his neighborhood
because he wasn’t sure whether the Council was aware of the problems in the northwest area.
He said he was encouraged to hear the Planning Commission talk about a holistic approach to the
City, which is what they had asked for the last two years.
Mayor and City Council                       June 6, 2006                             Page Five.


Mr. Rice stated that in talking to Mr. Bosek and some of the Council Members, when
redevelopment is finished, there has to be enough money left for operations, including increased
Police Officers, and garbage cans throughout the neighborhood, because there will be a lot of
people walking through the neighborhoods going to the public areas. Referring to the
photographs provided, he apologized for one of the pictures that has a curse word; he said it’s on
the back of a fence on a rental unit that is behind his house, which he said he pointed out a year
ago to the Code Compliance Director; however, nothing has ever been done about it, or about the
gang insignia that has been painted on some of the walls on the east side of town. He said
Temple Terrace is a multi-cultural City, and with a lot of different people, will have some
societal problems from time to time that the City Council will have to address within the context
of the redevelopment. He said the 2001 plan addressed all the neighborhoods, but all the current
plans since then have only addressed the southeast quadrant. He concluded by reiterating his
request that the City take that holistic approach.

Expressing appreciation to Mr. Rice for his comments, Mayor Affronti asked the City Manager
to ensure that the Code Compliance Department pays particular attention to that area.

There was no correspondence, communications, or petitions for consideration and action
by the Council.

Presentations:

1.     Unicorp National Developments – Downtown Redevelopment Plan & Recommended
       Conditions.

The City Manager stated Unicorp National Development will present their proposal for the
downtown redevelopment project. He said when, and if it is accepted, the project’s financial
aspects will be analyzed and reported back to the Council. He said the administration has
prepared twelve conditions for the plan to move forward.

Community Services Director Ralph Bosek briefly reviewed events of the past year, including
Unicorp presenting its first New Urbanism redevelopment plan to the community, which was
approximately June 24, 2005; the bond referendum that did not pass on August 2, 2005; Council
produced its compromised 21-points document; Council approved Unicorp’s block plan on
December 15, 2005; City’s redevelopment financial plan has been developed with $3.75 million
in grants and appropriation, $13.3 million in low interest federal loan guarantees, and $2 million
in promised corporate donations; a controversial partially non-New Urbanism plan was
developed; and finally Sweetbay delivered a “home run” last week by agreeing to develop a New
Urbanism store in the old Terrace Plaza. He said financial details must still be worked out, but
they are a giant step closer to fulfilling the City’s dream. He said a “constant” throughout this
past year has been Unicorp National Developments; including the original RFP submittal and the
latest plan, Unicorp now has developed four different plans for our City, totally on their own
“nickel.”
Mayor and City Council                       June 6, 2006                              Page Six.


Mr. Bosek acknowledged the relationship with Unicorp has not been without problems, citing
the difficulty with the leases and that it took 5½ months to get an acceptable Sweetbay plan,
which was a frustrating experience for all, including Unicorp.

Mr. Bosek said tonight they are poised to move forward to collectively fulfill the City’s
redevelopment dream and plan. He said staff has prepared an agenda document that is derived
from the December 15, 2005 conditional Unicorp plan approval. He said the recommendation
tonight is to move forward with Unicorp. He read for the record twelve proposed Conditions of
Approval, all agreed to in advance by Unicorp, which are contained in the Memorandum of May
30, 2006, to the City Manager, which is part of the record, and which are as follows:

                                    Conditions for Approval

1.     Unicorp will procure the services of Mr. David Kitchens before July 1, 2006 to refine the
       plan to provide the sense of placemaking currently absent from the plan. A revised plan
       shall be presented to the City by September 1, 2006.

2.     Since one the City Council’s 21 points is to include an option for the sale of Phase II land
       to Unicorp in the Phase I contract, it will be important that City Council, City staff, and
       citizens see a conceptual plan prepared by Unicorp with a second phase of the project
       prior to the signing of the Phase I agreement. It is understood that the plan for Phase II is
       likely to change prior to design and construction, but an up-to-date plan prior to the
       initiation of Phase I will show the Temple Terrace community the intent of future
       development.

3.     Pedestrian and automobile traffic patterns and speed within the development, as well as
       the impact of traffic on 56th Street and Bullard Parkway are key issues. Location of
       ingress and egress points, traffic calming devices, etc., are important and will determine
       the safety and functionality of the development. The City, Unicorp, and their
       traffic/transportation consultants shall be required to work closely together to develop a
       transportation plan that works for both the development and all roads surrounding the
       proposed project. [Mr. Bosek noted this would include Temple Heights.]

4.     All parking garage areas in the plan should be concealed and/or disguised to be as
       aesthetically pleasing as possible.

5.     Unicorp shall change the footprint and configuration of City Hall and community center
       site to provide enough land for future development for those civic uses, and maximize the
       site value and aesthetics.

6.     Unicorp to develop pedestrian and automobile corridors between blocks.

7.     Unicorp to complete the lease negotiations with Kash ‘n’ Karry/Sweetbay by August 6,
       2006.
Mayor and City Council                       June 6, 2006                         Page Seven.


8.     Unicorp to work diligently as possible with existing tenants in the City to move toward
       resolution of site and contract issues with other tenants (Regions Bank, Burger King, U.S.
       Post Office and other smaller tenants) by August 15, 2006. The City will negotiate lease
       buyouts of two tenants at La Beacon Plaza.

9.     Unicorp to provide John Stainback all required financial information on the project by
       August 1, 2006, and complete negotiations with Mr. Stainback by August 30, 2006. [Mr.
       Bosek noted that Mr. Stainback will prepare his own report back to the Council, make
       recommendations, and discuss the business details of his work with Unicorp.]

10.    Unicorp to complete the development agreement contract negotiations with the City by
       October 15, 2006.

11.    Unicorp to insure that the plan has strong streetscapes and coordinate with the City on
       street design and amenities. [Mr. Bosek commented they are developing some
       streetscapes prototype designs, as well as completing the transportation study, all of
       which will be integrated into the Unicorp plan.]

12.    Unicorp to incorporate the City’s CRA approved interim design guidelines into the plan
       and provide reasons to the City, in writing, for any deviations from these design
       guidelines.

Referring to Condition 1, Council Member Shattles asked whether David Kitchens (or his
contracted people) will be under the guidelines of the New Urbanism building plans and be fully
aware of the Torti Gallas plan in order to coordinate some of those issues together.

Mr. Bosek responded affirmatively, explaining that Mr. Kitchens was involved in the original
presentation with another team, and Unicorp has had numerous conversations with him since
then. He said Unicorp has been reluctant to bring him on without having a plan that all parties
could agree to, but Mr. Bosek believes they are ready to move forward now.

Council Member Shattles then referred to Condition 2, stating that the river-front property is
probably one of the most valuable pieces of property, and she would like to make sure if there
are townhomes, that they incorporate in their design an area for boats to be stored, and an access
area to the river. She said she would also like to know how access will be provided in the
extensive park area for all persons, adding that the City is very protective of the River and
reminding them that this would have to go before the River Board. Relative to Condition 4,
concerning parking garages, she said she would like to make sure that they incorporate a lot of
lighting and security.

In regard to Condition 7, Council Member Shattles questioned whether Council would be privy
to the complete details of the Sweetbay / Kash ‘n’ Karry lease agreement before Unicorp puts
their “blessing” on it. Relative to Condition 8, she stated she understands Regions Bank has
bought out AmSouth and they would like to know, upfront, whether Regions Bank plans to
remain in the redevelopment area or be in a different location.
Mayor and City Council                         June 6, 2006                              Page Eight.


Council Member Shattles said in reference to the transportation areas in the redevelopment area,
the bus stops are currently located where the Burger King is; they will need to address the bus
stop issue, with a pull-off area somewhere in the redevelopment area, where the bus will not
have to stop on 56th Street. While she would like to see a Burger King or McDonald’s, she said
she would not like it to have a drive through.

Relative to Condition 8, Council Member Govin noted it doesn’t mention the other leases that
are still not taken care of, such as Advance Auto Parts; he questioned why they were omitted.
Mr. Bosek explained Advance Auto owns their site; it is a Phase II problem they would like to
solve in Phase I, if possible. He said they did not leave it off intentionally, but the Phase I
“plate” is pretty full.

Council Member Govin said he would prefer that the City doesn’t negotiate with any more
property owners, but it wasn’t put on the list for Unicorp to negotiate, leaving it for the City to
negotiate. He reiterated he would prefer Unicorp negotiate, which could also take off possible
expenses in the future that are yet unknown. Council Member Govin stated there is at least one
other tenant on the property they desire, which hasn’t been mentioned, and he wanted to know if
more negotiation has to be done, whether it would be the City or Unicorp who would negotiate.

Mr. Bosek responded they have appraised all the properties in the southeast quadrant, including a
number they haven’t approached to purchase. He said those are decisions they don’t have to
make to move Phase I forward and get a successful redevelopment going. He said they will
discuss a lot of the big issues and bring the Council up-to-date at the CRA meeting on June 20.

Council Member Govin asked whether they could add to the Conditions of Approval any future
negotiations for existing properties that are within Phase I, II, or III so that the City isn’t the one
doing the negotiating. Mr. Bosek replied that there are some issues they need to be careful of in
regard to timing and who owns the property; they need to get Unicorp under contract, which will
spell out some of the open land purchase issues. He explained they have to be cautious about
land purchases and who purchases them. Mr. Bosek wondered if Kash ‘n’ Karry was in private
hands right now, what that landlord would be doing with its tenants. He concluded the City
made the right decisions, because they do own Kash ‘n’ Karry.

Council Member Govin stated his question had not been answered. He said he has a concern for
the future that the City will find itself negotiating for properties again and will be putting out
more money and more involvement. He said he thinks they have a “black hole” that they need to
talk about. He said he’ll go forward, not wanting to hold the project up for that, but thinks it
needs to be understood that there is a “black hole” there.

Referring to Condition 5, Council Member Govin stated that in the Council’s 21 points, one of
the points says that after they get into the development, they will consider the placement of the
City Hall and a performing arts center. He asked if they are now overriding that in this
document by asking Unicorp to plan for them at this point, when the Council previously said
they would not plan for them until further down the line.
Mayor and City Council                         June 6, 2006                             Page Nine.


Mr. Bosek responded that nobody has committed funds or made decisions to even build those
facilities, but the vote of the Council on the 21 points was to hold space for them. He said it’s
just an insurance item to make sure that if Council decides to move forward with either or both
of those facilities, there is enough space left to be able to build them – that’s the only reason they
are there. He said that item is the same as item #7 approved at the December 15, 2005 Special
Meeting, which read, “Change the footprint and configuration of the City Hall and Community
Center site to provide enough land for future development for those civic uses, and maximize the
site value and aesthetics.” The City Manager interjected that there is no commitment on the part
of the Council to go forward.

Council Member Govin wondered why, then, they were including it. Mr. Bosek explained the
conditions approved on December 15 and Unicorp’s block diagram included that statement, and
he just wanted to make sure that if Council decides to go with one or either of those facilities that
there is physically enough square footage and acreage to make those facilities work.

Regarding transportation issues, Council Member Govin, who serves on the HARTline Board,
expressed concern that he had not seen any plans to accommodate the Express bus that currently
uses the Kash ‘n’ Karry lot as a pick-up location. While it is probably not the most desirable
thing in a New Urbanism concept, he said it serves a purpose, noting recent increased ridership
in Temple Terrace. He said the pick-up area doesn’t have to be in the southeast quadrant, but he
would like to talk about where to include it.

Mr. Bosek responded that the transportation concurrency exemption area requires that alternative
means of transportation be developed. He suggested some turn-offs and at least two bus stops
could be placed on the eastern part of 56th Street, and south Busch Boulevard. The City Manager
added that he has discussed this preliminarily with Mr. Ray Miller, Executive Director of
HARTline, and he is aware of their needs and is ready to work with the City in terms of
development.

Austin Simmons, Odessa, representing Unicorp National Developments, expressed appreciation
to staff for their continued support in this process, adding that he also appreciates all the public
support.

Mr. Simmons stated their goal tonight is to convey Unicorp’s continued desire to move forward
in this process in the partnership they have developed with the City Council, the public, and staff
to get this project completed. He said several hundred thousand dollars have been spent
analyzing, planning, meeting, discussing, talking to consultants about this project, and doing
plans at the City’s request to facilitate this project. He said it’s an important point to make that
their commitment has not been just time, but has been actual money spent, which doesn’t come
back to them if it doesn’t work. He emphasized they are here to make a viable, economic project
for them, for the City, and for the residents.

Mr. Simmons said he would also like to talk about the Sweetbay plan, commenting that they
received the plan the same time the City received it. He said he met with Sweetbay’s architects
last Monday and gave them his input. He said with his and their architect’s input combined, this
plan was presented to the City Council on Wednesday’s public meeting at the Lightfoot Center.
Mayor and City Council                         June 6, 2006                              Page Ten.


Mr. Simmons briefly commented on the Sweetbay presentation, stating the City stepped forward
in an attempt to meet Sweetbay halfway, or more than halfway, and Sweetbay met their goal to
cross the line and shake hands; at that meeting the City left with a partnership, an important
tenant in the property, and an important corporate citizen in the community. He said Unicorp has
since looked at these plans, and while he cannot say they’ve done any extensive economic or
physical analysis of this plan, he can say that the commitment they made and the Conditions for
Approval that Mr. Bosek read essentially state they will take this “orientation plan” or
“footprint,” which tells them where Sweetbay would consider being located, and analyze their
hand-drawn sketch presented by their architects and overlay it into phasing diagrams. He
illustrated this with a diagram on the PowerPoint screen, displaying what SweetBay presented.

Mr. Simmons continued, pointing out elements of the plan, including the placement of Burger
King on the corner, with Sweetbay and the parking in front, a structure up against Bullard, retail
up against 56th Street, and live/work up against the new Broadway, which is located back by
Doral Oaks. Pointing out placeholders for offices, residential, and the second garage, he
explained the first two slides are the extent of Phase I, from Bullard to Main Street; also included
in Phase I are the condo/townhome units down by the River. He noted the townhomes can be
built concurrent with the Sweetbay project, since it is off-site; it will be a relatively simple matter
from a construction management standpoint. He said what gets developed on the northern
portion will inform what needs to be developed on the southern portion. He said David Kitchens
will design for them where the roads are going to be, and what the place holders for blocks of
buildings will be, and he will also design the schematic for the southern portion

Mr. Simmons said the ambitious criterion that was set out last week has positives: 1) the critical
Sweetbay alignment; and 2) a site plan that was met halfway in a New Urbanism context, which
has an open parking lot, but it will be screened by retail. He reviewed challenges that remain: 1)
the leases, specifically noting that Burger King requires 500 parking spaces in an undefined
shopping center; counting those which will be provided in the parking structure and surface
parking, they will exceed that count and not trigger a default under that lease while they build the
rest of the center; 2) the location of the post office; he said it would be cost prohibitive to move
the post office a second time; and 3) the design of Sweetbay and the location of the shops – the
Sweetbay has shops on the south side of it that are attached.

Utilizing the layouts in the PowerPoint display, Mr. Simmons discussed the position of Regions
Bank, which is east in what he is calling Phase II, stating it makes sense in the way the plan is
designed. Continuing, Mr. Simmons noted that unlike the Sweetbay plan, they have put the Post
Office on the northern side of Block 2, sharing a dock and loading space with Sweetbay. He
explained that one of the critical requirements of the Post Office was a dock-high delivery place
for a 60-foot trailer, which is what they have now in the rear of their existing space; putting them
with a conjoined dock-high space with Sweetbay is a great combination, and it makes sense to
build it there. He continued that there are some of the ancillary tenants who want to stay – a
women’s clothing store in the south side by Kash ‘n’ Karry, the Radio Shack, the Payless Shoes;
those tenants can stay and relocate into the Sweetbay development in the northern portion of this;
it will fit in and work because the rest of those tenants are south of the first phase of the
development. He said it is important to the City to have the fabric, the multi-cultural and diverse
nature of Temple Terrace.
Mayor and City Council                       June 6, 2006                          Page Eleven.


Mr. Simmons explained that Mr. Bosek asked Unicorp to analyze the timing from a phasing
standpoint. He said if they are successful in completing the agenda items for approval, whatever
they agree to, they will be applying for permits from September through June of next year. What
that encompasses is asbestos abatement, he explained, and environmental abatement issues,
which will go on before June 2007; they will be applying for demolition permits, which will be
received in advance of the building permits in June 2007; they will be engineering the plans, the
architects, including David Kitchens, along with a local architect, will provide the actual working
drawings; all of those things will occur within the next 8 to 12 months, between September and
the following June/July.

Mr. Simmons explained the reason he uses September as the starting date is because they need to
get the Sweetbay lease finalized, according to the Conditions, by August 6. He said construction
will take approximately two years (early to mid-June 2009) from the time they receive their
permits, to complete everything and move in on the Sweetbay block, the Post Office, and on the
area that surrounds the Burger King, and move in on the live/work on Broadway. As soon as
that occurs, he said, they can turn their attention to the existing Sweetbay facility. He
commented the City is hoping to demolish the gas station, according to Mr. Bosek, before
November.

Mr. Simmons continued that once those tenant leases run out on the south side, they will
demolish the remainder of that plaza to the main street and build the main street through. He
concluded, stating that was a very rough sketch of the phasing, reminding the Council that they
have only had the plan for five days, and they will need additional time to sit down with an
engineering site plan and engineer to come up with a hard time frame, but the rough time frame
he provided tonight is generally what he believes will be the best possible time frame to get this
done.

Mr. Simmons then proceeded to respond to some of the questions asked earlier. He reported that
he has spoken with Regions Bank and asked them what they are going to do with their AmSouth
facility on 56th near Whiteway. He said he can’t speak for Regions Bank, but he understands the
deposits in both those banks are strong enough that they have a desire to remain in the project;
Unicorp is moving forward with them as if they are going to be there. He stated he has had
many conversations with their representatives discussing the project and keeping them abreast of
it, because they do other business with Regions Bank.

Relative to Kash ‘n’ Karry, Mr. Simmons said he reconfirmed on a personal note the lease and
when they negotiate the lease and when they terminate the lease; they reconfirmed what they
said publicly; there should be no surprise that the lease will terminate when they sign their new
lease, and move out of their old space. There will be a termination clause that will trigger the
termination once they move into their new space with their new lease, he clarified.

Mr. Simmons said he met with Burger King representatives in person a few months ago when
they came out here to meet with staff and Unicorp representatives. In answer to the question
concerning the drive-through, he suspects they would only be interested in being here if they had
a drive-through; same with McDonalds.
Mayor and City Council                       June 6, 2006                          Page Twelve.


Mr. Simmons said they will be very focused on the development as it moves forward so it is
incumbent on Unicorp and the City, as the current landlord, to make sure none of the lease terms
are compromised in any way. He said their development goal is to make sure they develop
subject to the terms of the lease; he’s confident they can do that. In response to a question as to
who will be handling the project from Unicorp’s standpoint, Mr. Simmons said he has been the
managing director throughout the process and will maintain that role. He reiterated that he and
Unicorp are fully committed to this project, and briefly noted some of the other members of the
team, which he commented were discussed back in their RFP.

In response to earlier remarks from Council Member Shattles, Mr. Simmons said that in regard
to issues related to the River, they have to comply with all of the requirements of the River
Board and other agencies. He explained that David Kitchens also does what Torti Gallas did,
producing guidelines and ordinances for cities, so he will be very conversant with that. He
reminded them that Unicorp was asked by the citizens group and design group to bring Mr.
Kitchens on board.

Regarding security and parking, Mr. Simmons said that is always an issue with them; he
reassured them appropriate lighting would be in place, commenting that they cannot subject
themselves to the problems that would arise without sufficient lighting and security. When they
negotiate the lease with Kash ‘n’ Karry, he said he would be happy to do it with everyone
present; since the City owns the land, they need to be involved in the process. He said he is
happy to negotiate the acquisition of the Regions Bank land; however, as it relates to the City’s
public purpose, it is more appropriate to be in the City’s hands. He said they are an effective
conduit, but the City owns all the land around it and is the right entity to have the strength of
discussion; however, they will facilitate it any way possible.

Council Member Chillura thanked the Unicorp representatives for coming, commenting that they
have invested time and put some efforts forward to try to make something viable from the
perspective of the developer. He said he has had concerns along the way; they have been
communicated, and this is a very critical point in time for this City to make sure they take the
right direction. He said he is personally not comfortable with the direction the City is going.
There has been a lot of discussion back and forth and a lot of things approved by the Council, he
said; Council Members have educated themselves along the way. He said one thing they have
learned for sure is this City should not be in the negotiating business; as Mr. Govin touched on
earlier, negotiation should take place between a developer and the business owners.

Council Member Chillura stated that he wants to move forward; this is a City that they all live in
and care a great deal for. Relative to the Sweetbay lease, he expressed caution; while he thanked
Sweetbay for coming forward, he said there are some very large hurdles to overcome, and before
Sweetbay relinquishes any interest in their lease, they are going to be asking for an awful lot. He
said it was in Sweetbay’s best interest that they come forward, having an opportunity to move up
to the north and be surrounded by a totally different demographic area; this will change their
profit margins substantially. He said the biggest questions that will face the developer when the
right time comes, is whether the developer can live with the conditions that Sweetbay wants to
impose. He explained he has tried to look at these issues from a reality standpoint.
Mayor and City Council                        June 6, 2006                         Page Thirteen.


Council Member Chillura continued that they are going to try to accommodate as many tenants
as possible; however, he did not feel the majority of the tenants in that shopping plaza are going
to be able to remain when the rents double, triple or quadruple, citing Casey’s Barbershop as an
example; the current tenants can’t afford that. He said he wants to know all the facts,
acknowledging there will be some tough challenges and hurdles along the way. Stating this is
not against Unicorp, he said he was speaking to make the general public aware of the way he
sees some of this. He said he is not comfortable; at the last Council meeting his position was to
terminate the relationship at this point with Unicorp and go out with an RFP. He said there are
some who say that will take too long, but he said it is better to take the time now than take it six
months from now.

Council Member Chillura continued that the guidelines are in place, and they have a plan that
seems to be somewhat acceptable, depending where they land after dealing with Sweetbay. He
said that is the pivot point here, what Sweetbay says, because they are running the show at this
point, based on their conditions; they can’t build around them because they encumber the
parking lot and the buildings to some degree; to build up to them they would have to leave the
whole southern portion of that unattended. Having said that, he said he thinks the Council knows
how he feels about it. Speaking for the Council as a body, he said they look to the professionals
that advise them along the way; he would like to ask, as they do from time to time, to look to the
City Attorney and the City Manager to get their advice and opinion as to how to proceed at this
point; how to proceed with or without Unicorp from this point forward.

The City Manager said this is one step of many steps; obviously very critical. They are at a
decision point, whether to go or not go with Unicorp. He said they have not done the analysis of
Unicorp. They have input, which Council Member Chillura and he have both been critical of,
but they have not done the financial analysis or the in-depth contract negotiations stemming from
those types of financial analyses upon which to base a decision. If they go forward tonight, he
said, they are not signing on Unicorp; they are going to the next phase of substantive analysis;
he said he believes that is appropriate and will provide them with the factual basis on which to
make a determination as to whether or not they want to proceed with Unicorp. He said if they
decide not to, to answer his second question, he believes they have three alternatives – one would
be to change the entire procedure to put out an RFP for a developer; ask them to come in under
the guidelines that are in place now, and ask what they would do with the property; and choose
the best one after the appropriate public input.

The City Manager said the second alternative would be to look at the other RFP proposals that
they had a year ago. While he would ask the City Attorney for his review of this statement, he
said he thinks they could legitimately go to the second ranked and third ranked accordingly
without reinventing the wheel, if they decide not to go with Unicorp.       He said the third
alternative would be to go with Unicorp with the financial analysis and in-depth contract
negotiations on which to base their decision.

Council Member Chillura said he appreciates that summary, and while he doesn’t mean to put
him in the path of the vehicle, what is his recommendation.
Mayor and City Council                        June 6, 2006                          Page Fourteen.


The City Manager said his recommendation is to authorize an analysis of Unicorp upon which to
base a decision whether to go with them, to ascertain whether they are fiscally sound, and to
enter contract negotiations if they are.

Council Member Chillura stated for the record that is conflicting with what was said to him in
the recent past, and therefore, he has a problem with that. He said the City Manager gave him a
different opinion two weeks ago.

The City Attorney said as he understands the inquiry from Mr. Chillura, he is asking the Board to
ask him, if the Board wishes, for his views on that and the Board hasn’t done that, so he is not
going to express any views until the Board requests that he do so.

Council Member Chillura questioned whether Mr. Taub was referring to the legality or
marketability or what. Directing his comments to the Council, Council Member Chillura said
that the City Attorney wants to know whether the Council would like to know what his
recommendation would be, as he is the one who provides the Council advice and counsel along
the way, if this Council wants to hear his recommendation.

The City Attorney said that is correct, and he is not prepared to provide an intelligently
formulated recommendation at this time. He said there was a lot of work done by Unicorp, and
he believes the staff, or at least part of the staff - Mr. Bosek, is recommending that they go
forward with Unicorp, and if indeed, they are going to be asked whether they start the process
over and do RFPs, which Mr. Leinbach is not necessarily suggesting, but indicating as options,
they have opened up a whole new can of worms, and he doesn’t intend to shortcut his views on
that without really thinking about it. He said he doesn’t think that is the way to proceed; there
was an analysis at one time about the financial wherewithal of this company, and he doesn’t
understand the suggestion to do it again.

The City Attorney continued, stating that as he understood it, the Council had more or less
formulated a position that they wanted to allow Unicorp to proceed to try to put a deal together
with Sweetbay, and now with a time certain. He commented that he’s said from the beginning
that they should have been operating in the context of the development agreement years ago; and
they haven’t done that. He said they can certainly do that if they want, but that will take a long
time and it’s going to take coming up with a plan and financing – they are a long way from doing
anything more, in his opinion, than getting a critical piece put together by way of a negotiated
deal with Sweetbay. He said it has to involve the City, since they are the landlord, as Mr.
Simmons said.

The City Attorney explained there is no way that a deal can be put together without accounting
for the cost of the land that Sweetbay is going to require; where does that fit; will the City recoup
any of its costs – they should have been sitting at the table with these fellows a long time ago
trying to put the pieces together. He said he believes they have a suggestion made by Mr. Bosek
and these twelve conditions that he saw for the first time tonight, which are pretty tough
conditions; if Unicorp can meet all of these conditions, and then come to the table and say they
have Sweetbay in the bag and then going forward with it, they could sit down and hammer out a
development agreement pretty quick at that point.
Mayor and City Council                       June 6, 2006                           Page Fifteen.


The City Attorney said that if the Council is going to start all over again, and until the Sweetbay
thing came together, it was his view that they should start all over again, notwithstanding the
delay, he thinks they are going to have to make a decision whether they have enough in their
“quiver” to make them feel comfortable to go forward with Unicorp or whether they want to start
the process all over again. He said he doesn’t know whether Unicorp would stay in the game at
that point; they might walk on this, having been at it a long time. He said they certainly sound
like they’re committed and their representative said they have spent several hundred thousand
dollars, which he believes, based on the earlier information that was put forward. He said he
thinks the Council has to “fish or cut bait” tonight. If the majority of the Council feels that
uncomfortable with Unicorp, then they ought not to make a deal with Unicorp, he said. The City
Attorney commented that everyone wanted to have a citizen-driven plan, and while it’s great to
have citizen input, planners develop town centers, not people sitting around a table, and
developers and architects put together these deals; most governments don’t try to micro-manage
a deal like this one has.

Council Member Chillura said he would like the recommendation of the City Attorney if at all
possible, so at least he knows clearly in his mind. The City Attorney responded that he doesn’t
make any guarantees.

Council Member Chillura said that as legal counsel for this board, what would be his advice and
recommendation at this point in time.

The City Attorney said he really thinks that Council Member Chillura is trying to make him the
sixth member of this City Council and that isn’t his role. He said his role is to give them legal
advice; he has stated that Unicorp has come a long way; they’ve made certain promises, dates,
and if they fail in the next couple of months to produce, then Council can go elsewhere. He said
his advice is give them a little chance and see what they do; put them on the spot, like these
conditions do. He said he would tell the Council in a second, as he monitors the progress, if he
thinks they are not up to the task, but he hasn’t had any relationship with Unicorp thus far. The
City Attorney commented that he hasn’t been invited to one meeting to negotiate with Unicorp;
the administration goes to Orlando to visit with them. He has never met with Unicorp to talk
about this deal, he said, although he is a negotiator, a deal-maker, he is up-to-the task and looks
forward to the task. He said the question before the Council is whether they want to start to
reinvent the wheel or give these guys a run. His recommendation is he’d give them a run.

Mayor Affronti questioned what would be different if the City went out with an RFQ and got
another developer; what would be different with that developer than the same problems that
Unicorp is going to be facing regarding the leases, regarding Kash ‘n’ Karry, and everything else
that is going to be involved in that redevelopment area.

The City Attorney commented they don’t know until they are dealing with it. He noted that Mr.
Simmons said that in order to create a town center and a place to shop, they need a developer that
is going to get the best tenants in there to make it a place, instead of just a retro-fitted old
shopping center. He reassured the Council that as they go through the process, he will tell the
Council if Unicorp is not up to the task, but he doesn’t know it yet.
Mayor and City Council                        May 16, 2006                           Page Sixteen.


The City Attorney acknowledged that Unicorp was his last choice when he was called in at the
beginning of this process – the only time he met with the STAR Committee, but that isn’t the
way it worked out.

Council Member Venable said a person’s word is very important, and if she can’t take their word
and their promises, she is very disappointed. She said she was very, very “high” on Unicorp last
year, and is now probably about as low as she’s been. She recalled Mr. Maher stating in
December that Kash ‘n’ Karry was very high in providing a New Urbanism design, but then they
heard nothing more until April 26 when they received that “horrific” plan to put a grocery store
in the middle of a shopping center. She questioned why Unicorp would present a plan with a
grocery store in the middle of a shopping center with nothing around it if they were aware that
New Urbanism is what they wanted. She said her point is that Unicorp is not supporting their
dream/plan/vision for this shopping center, adding that she felt this was a slap in the face of the
citizenry. She concluded that Unicorp should have done something better than this, and if they
felt they had an inroad with Kash ‘n’ Karry and could negotiate, the Council should have learned
a lot earlier that things weren’t going well.

Community Services Director Ralph Bosek said it is very important that the Council realize that
wasn’t the Unicorp plan; that was the City plan. He explained it was necessary to put that plan
on the table to get where they are today, adding that they have come a long way quickly. He said
he was at the meetings with the tenant and they were going nowhere; he doesn’t believe any
other developer at the table at the time under those conditions with Kash ‘n’ Karry/Sweetbay
could have done any better. He noted that although Austin Simmons has great rapport with these
people, knowing them personally, it was going nowhere. He credited the reaction of the
community and the good will of Kash ‘n’ Karry, with their understanding of a sense of
community and what they needed to do, to turning this thing around. He said he couldn’t let
Unicorp take the shots for that; that was all they could get on the table that they knew Kash ‘n’
Karry/Sweetbay would accept.

The City Attorney said Mr. Bosek is absolutely correct; his discussions with Sweetbay said they
wanted to have the parking right on 56th; they came up with that plan just to have something, but
the fact of the matter is that is “yesterday’s newspaper” right now and doesn’t matter. He said
the new plan is the one on the table, which shows the Council still has the ability to move that
major tenant with a long-term lease off the south parcel and put them in the north parcel in a
New Urban environment, which he is sure the architect David Kitchens will refine. He reiterated
that he believes it is in the City’s best interest to give Unicorp a short-term opportunity; if they
fail, the City will do something else, adding that they are talking about a couple of months and
not a year from now.

Council Member Govin said they are talking about exactly two months from this date to have a
lease in hand. He stated the City has put out a lot of money, have money not being collected
because construction has not begun, and there are bills coming due – those are all practical
things. He said he believes with the time frame in front of them right now Unicorp has good
faith, and that is all anyone is going to tell the Council until they have to go to the negotiating
table and they have to sign on a dotted line.
Mayor and City Council                        June 6, 2006                        Page Seventeen.


Council Member Govin continued, stating his belief that Unicorp has operated in good faith,
adding that putting out a couple hundred thousand dollars is more good faith than he or the other
developers who left the process when they even visualized problems, would be willing to do on a
project. He said at least Unicorp has stayed in there throughout this process. He acknowledged
that the Council all thought Unicorp would negotiate the lease with Sweetbay, which was
probably what was said, but he said that in the thick of what was said in those early days, they all
wanted to hear what they wanted to hear because they all want this development so badly that
they were willing to hear anything. He said he honestly thinks where they are right now is two
months away from having definitive answers from this developer and approximately four months
away from true negotiation, which is not going to happen until they get there. He said they can
talk about it forever, but they aren’t going to have numbers until Mr. Stainback puts them there,
and until these people decide what the property is worth to them; the Council doesn’t know any
of those things yet. In his opinion, he said, they need to go ahead and go to the next step. He
said if by July 6 they can’t produce anything, he would be willing to vote for a new developer,
but he thinks at this point a delay could cost them up to two years. He said he has to vote to go
with Unicorp based on these conditions and that they understand that unless these conditions are
met in the timeline laid out here, the Council will go in a different direction.

Upon motion of Council Member Govin, seconded by Council Member Halloway,
RESOLUTION NO. 062-06(m) was ADOPTED, accepting the plan as presented by Unicorp
and moving forward, based on the twelve Conditions for Approval set forth in the Memorandum
to the City Manager dated May 30, 2006, from Ralph Bosek, Community Services Director, and
as stated herein. In addition, Unicorp will provide a letter agreement acknowledging the
agreement to meet the terms of the Conditions for Approval. Vote on the motion being: Council
Members Govin, Halloway, Shattles, and Venable voting “aye,” and Council Member Chillura
voting “nay.”

Prior to vote on the above motion, the City Attorney confirmed that the motion is to go with
Unicorp provided that the Conditions of Approval are met in accordance with the terms thereof,
which Council Member Govin confirmed. In addition, the City Attorney suggested that
inasmuch as this is unilateral at this point, that there be at least a letter agreement from Unicorp
acknowledging the agreement to meet the terms of the conditions of approval. Council Member
Govin said he would be happy to include that in the motion. Mr. Simmons concurred that was
fair.

Mayor Affronti called on those who wished to address the Council on this issue.

Charlotte Encinares, 330 Sunnyside, declined to speak, saying she believed it had all been said.

Council Member Chillura said he had an additional comment to make. He said the reason why
he stated the comments that he has stated is that he felt like he had been going to these meetings
alone, because the Council has given Unicorp chances after chances after chances, and now they
are offering yet another chance. He said last year Unicorp said they would take care of the
leases, but they didn’t and now they are being given another chance; last December they said
they would have a plan and numbers and will take care of the leases in the first quarter of next
year; it never happened. Council didn’t hear from anyone or see anyone from Unicorp.
Mayor and City Council                        June 6, 2006                        Page Eighteen.


Council Member Chillura said his frustration has stemmed from all the chances they have given
Unicorp. He said it isn’t personal, but he’s going by their track record and what has been posed
before them.

Ann Allison, 8029 Brien Green Way, questioned who is going to pay for all of the things
everyone has been talking about. She said it would seem to her that before they agree to go to
the second step, that the first step would include who is going to pay for what. She said she was
at a loss as to what plan has actually been approved at this point; her understanding of the law is
that once they come up with a plan it has to be approved by the taxing authorities involved. She
expressed concern about spending additional money and hiring the consultant, Mr. Stainback,
questioning why the analysis could not be performed internally. She also questioned why the
Community Services Director was being asked questions that she felt should have been directed
to the City Attorney. She felt there was a lack of organization and expressed concern that the
taxpayers would be “stuck paying for it.” She continued that the City is supposed to be
eliminating blight, but she feels that instead, the taxpayers will be paying for someone’s “big
dream,” and she didn’t feel that was the intent of the redevelopment statute. She was opposed to
the Council voting to hire spend $115,000 on consulting, stating that it is not that big of a piece
of property and that was Mr. Bosek’s job, and she was also opposed to the Council voting on
something with Unicorp when no one knows any numbers from the financial end of it.

The City Attorney responded that his understanding, insofar as Unicorp’s continuing efforts to
put together a deal with Sweetbay, is that it is on Unicorp’s “nickel” and not the City. He said
the Stainback/consultant issue is a general issue, which does not deal specifically with Sweetbay,
but deals with the entirety of the development of the town center and it is a staged contract. He
said it isn’t a $115,000 up-front contract, but might be less than that, based on the work put in, as
he understands the contract. He explained that the first time there will be a commitment as he
understands it, unless this Council does otherwise, for the City to commit, for example, a
contribution of land to this development or a pricing of land or anything else, that will be in the
development agreement and probably be about 50 pages long and they are not there at this point.
He said that in effect, the City is letting Unicorp roll the dice with their dollars and come back to
the City; they may come back with the Sweetbay deal and what they are going to need from the
City; that is when the Council has to make some decisions relative to writing checks. He
concluded that they are not there at this point.

Bart Siegel, 606 Vanderbaker Road, said this is the first meeting he has attended that he can
understand; now they are acting like adults approaching this development instead of dreamers.
Giving his credentials, Mr. Siegel said the City should be thinking of coming up with $4 to $6
million to move Sweetbay, with a $350,000 per year lease. Acknowledging that he doesn’t know
all the terms, but he believes that before Sweetbay will move and Unicorp is going to be able to
do it feasibly, the City will be coming up with $4 to $6 million, which he thinks might be a
conservative number. He asked the City Attorney how the new eminent domain laws affect the
City’s proceeding, in view of the fact that there are several pieces of land the City has not
acquired and now does not have the option of eminent domain.
Mayor and City Council                        June 6, 2006                        Page Nineteen.


The City Attorney responded that the “watershed” effect of the June 23, 2005 opinion by Justice
Stevens in the Kelo Case has been felt in Florida by virtue of a couple of bills passed in the last
session, one of which definitely put a stranglehold on any municipality trying to take private
property for conveyance to a private developer. That’s now prohibited by law, he said. He
doesn’t see eminent domain playing any part in this deal. He said the City may have some
difficulty as a result of that, but eminent domain is not the tool that it was before the Kelo case
and before the Florida Legislature jumped on it. In his opinion, he said the City will not be filing
for any eminent domain.

Mr. Siegel said he appreciated Council Member Chillura’s remarks, adding that in his writings
he has been critical of him, but Council Member Chillura has been the person he has been most
impressed with on the Council. He stated his belief that the City is in big trouble and is ignoring
it, and he would like to go back to the premise of selling the property, figure out how much they
have lost, and get out of the real estate development business.

At this point, Mayor Affronti called for a vote on the above motion, which passed by a vote of 4
to 1, with Council Member Chillura casting the dissenting vote.

Site Plan Reviews:

1.     Final Site Plan Approval Extension – Countryway Townhomes.

Senior Planner Susanne Hicks said this is a request from Sam Aref, Arefco International, Inc.,
relative to SPR #05-06 site plan approval for Countryway Townhomes, requesting an extension
of time for the approval of the site plan. She explained the Council approved the preliminary site
plan last December to construct 16 townhomes on the north side of Harney Road and 78th Street.
She said this request is to extend the initial six-month approval, which ends this month, for an
additional six months. She continued there have been no changes to the City’s land development
regulations that would affect this property, and there are none pending; therefore, staff
recommends that the request for extension be approved by Council.

Council Member Shattles said the original plans that came before them were three stories with
garages underneath; she asked whether there would still be garages if the units were reduced to
two stories.

Ms. Hicks responded it is basically the same design; they have not received the site plan, since it
is not up for review tonight, but she understands they have to make some design changes, which
will require them to submit another site plan. In order to keep the original plan going forward,
she said, they are requesting the extension.

Upon motion of Council Member Chillura, seconded by Council Member Govin,
RESOLUTION NO. 063-06(m) was ADOPTED, approving the request to extend the time for
the approval of the site plan for SPR # 05-06, Countryway Townhomes, for an additional six-
month period. Vote on the motion being: Council Members Chillura, Govin, Halloway,
Shattles, and Venable voting “aye,” no “nay.”
Mayor and City Council                      June 6, 2006                         Page Twenty.


2.     Final Site Plan – Knapp Office Complex.

Presenting an overview, Community Services Director Ralph Bosek said it has taken staff a lot
of time to deal with a small project, but there is a big concept involved. He said he believed
eventually improving the Land Development Code is critical so that they can bring more
architectural style to Temple Terrace and be able to regulate to some degree where buildings of
certain types are built. He said their conclusion on this particular office building, which would
be the only commercial property adjacent to the City’s golf course of which he is aware, being
located next to the third tee, and zoned Residential-18, does allow for Commercial Office
development that fits into the nature of the area.

The Director said the City’s Code is weak and really doesn’t address where buildings are built
and what architectural style may be used. He said they have had a lot of staff opinions of this
project, but in the end, that is not how decisions are made; decisions are made based on the
Code. This is an art deco building, he said; more residential character would have been
preferred. He said he has talked to the City Attorney and City Manager regarding these issues,
and the Code is absent concerning style; if an office building meets Code, it can be built just
about anywhere.

The Director commented when he comes back in a few weeks to discuss selection of a planner to
revise the Land Development Code, he would like to receive comments from the Mayor and
Council concerning any issues they may have with the Code; certainly raising the bar on
architectural quality. He reiterated that while he believes this building will be a high quality
building, it will be an art deco building in an area where they would prefer a different style.

The Director said the other issue with this project involves access to two residential streets,
Sunnyside Road and Greenfield Avenue. He said the design of the project allows the applicant
to use both streets for ingress and egress; the issue staff has is a future issue. Planner Tom
Moore will present a compromise that will change the first Condition of Approval contained in
the Memorandum dated May 26, 2006 to the City Manager, he said. Their fear is in the future as
the City moves forward with redevelopment, he said, that eventually traffic will increase on
Sunnyside Road and there may even be a traffic light at the intersection; this may present an
opportunity in the future to cut through the applicant’s property once traffic increases. He said
several citizens and Council Members have talked to him about the problems of cutting through
the redevelopment area, which is the same concern as posed by this property.

Planner Tom Moore said that SPR #06-01 is a Final Site Plan for Knapp Offices on Bullard
Parkway/Sunnyside Road, comprised of a two-story 7,324 square foot office building. He said
the property is approximately .48 acres and is located on the south side of Bullard Parkway
between Sunnyside Road and south Greenfield Avenue. He explained the property is located in
a transitional area between the denser apartments and commercial activity to the west and the
low density residential neighborhoods surrounding the golf course. He said the property is zoned
CO (Commercial Office), with a Future Land Use Designation of Residential-18. Mr. Moore
said access to the property is provided off of Greenfield and Sunnyside; 21 parking spaces will
be provided, which is more than the 18 required.
Mayor and City Council                       June 6, 2006                      Page Twenty-one.

Mr. Moore said the City’s Development Review Committee (DRC) has reviewed this final site
plan and based on this site plan package, and the comments contained in the Memorandum of
May 26, 2006, to the City Manager, a copy of which is part of the permanent record, staff
recommends approval subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in said Memorandum,
with the exception of Condition No. 1, which staff recommends be amended to read as follows:

1.     Greenfield Entrance – Access on Greenfield shall be limited as an entrance only
driveway on Greenfield Avenue upon completion of Phase I of the southeast quadrant of
redevelopment or upon the installation of a traffic light at Bullard Parkway and Sunnyside Road,
whichever occurs first.

Mr. Moore proceeded to read the balance of the conditions found in the Memorandum above
referenced, which is part of the permanent record.

Mayor Affronti asked Mr. Knapp whether he agreed with the Conditions of Approval as
presented by staff.

Mark Knapp, 1503 N. Riverhills Drive, distributed a color photo of the site in order to explain
his objection to the condition relative to access. Mr. Knapp said staff wants to eliminate or
change the Greenfield ingress/egress to be ingress only. He explained that if a tenant in a
shopping center or office complex receives, on a daily basis, deliveries from UPS or Fed Ex or
DHL, etc., with those deliveries comes an oversize delivery vehicle. He referred the Council to
the site plan that he provided and said that taking the orientation on Bullard Parkway heading in
a westerly direction toward 56th Street, they can see there is no median cut at Greenfield, which
means that the only way to enter the site without making a u-turn on Bullard Parkway would be
from Sunnyside Road. Once they have entered the street from Sunnyside, if there is no exit off
onto Greenfield Avenue, their only way to exit the site is a three-point turn, he said, adding that
attempting to make a three-point turn in a Federal Express delivery truck is not a viable solution.

During the Development Review committee, Mr. Knapp said this specific topic was addressed
heatedly. Later, he said he met with the Community Services Director to discuss it in a more
civil manner; at that time (about eight weeks ago) Mr. Bosek indicated to him that he would have
a traffic study performed to see what, if any, impact there would be, because at that time, the
concern of the DRC was not as much about cut-through traffic, although it was mentioned, but
the impact of traffic in the residential neighborhood from the site. He explained that he sees that
to be a moot point, because anyone who has lived here any period of time knows that if they are
turning onto Greenfield heading in a southerly direction, they are either going home or they are
lost. With that in mind, he said he doesn’t understand the reasoning behind attempting to limit
access to the site. By having ingress/egress from Sunnyside Road and Greenfield Avenue, he
said he is attempting to allow those types of vehicles, including City sanitation trucks and
emergency-type vehicles, to easily enter the site without having to make u-turns, regardless of
the direction from which they are coming, and then exit the site easily also. Mr. Knapp
continued that after receiving the final review and comments, he asked for a copy of the traffic
study; however, Mr. Bosek told him it wasn’t necessary to have a traffic study because the
impact of cars going into a residential area was minimal, so it was not necessary to go to the
expense of a traffic study.
Mayor and City Council                        June 6, 2006                      Page Twenty-two.


With that, Mr. Knapp said he assumed that things were closed, but obviously they are not
because they are still discussing Greenfield Avenue and cut-through traffic. He said if that were
a situation, he calculated that they would have to be seven cars back on Sunnyside Road to make
it feasible for them to cut through the property; secondly, if they did cut through his property,
they are not going to impact a residential neighborhood, they are going to be turning back in a
northerly direction to get out on Bullard Parkway, or again, they are going home. If someone
were to cut through his property to get out, it would be his [Mr. Knapp] problem.

Mr. Knapp concluded that he agrees with all of the comments and conditions that staff has put
together [except for Condition No. 1] and can guarantee that every comment included is 100%
unnecessary, because not only will he meet all of the City Codes, he is going to surpass them
many times over; the landscaping code will be met two to three times over, and anyone who
knows him, or the reputation of his work, understands that it will be nothing but quality. He said
he believes in property owners’ rights, thus, the reason that they see an art deco-style building
rather than the preferred Mediterranean, although he is a very big fan of Mediterranean
architecture when done correctly.

The Community Services Director responded that this may seem like a small issue, but their
issue is not how much traffic is going to go south on Greenfield Avenue, rather the issue is future
cut-through traffic and he is not sure Mr. Knapp heard what they are proposing. He restated their
proposal to let him have two full ingress and egress situations on both streets NOW, but when
Phase I of the redevelopment project is complete or there is a traffic light installed at Bullard
Parkway/Sunnyside Road, he would be required to deal with the cut-through potential on the
Greenfield Avenue side. He said if the redevelopment never happens, there is no problem. He
countered Mr. Knapp’s argument stating that he goes to work down Whiteway and is sometimes
the 15th car, and if he could cut through somewhere to get to 56th Street, he would.

The Director said the other important point is that they discussed with Mr. Knapp the learning
curve of the UPS drivers and others, and Mr. Knapp himself stated that it will just take the
delivery truck drivers one time, if they can only enter from Greenfield Avenue, to figure it out.
The Director said if the City’s garbage trucks come in from Greenfield Avenue, they can pick up
and leave out of Sunnyside Road, which he thinks will work. He reiterated that they are only
asking this exit be modified when and if Phase I is completed or there is a traffic light at
Sunnyside Road and Bullard Parkway, whichever comes first.

Mr. Knapp responded by posing the question to staff that he fails to recognize how a traffic light
and/or redevelopment would impact the fact that they would have to make a three-point turn to
exit his site. Questioning how that would change in the future, he said the only thing that would
change would be a median cut at Greenfield Avenue that he didn’t think would happen.

Council Member Govin asked for a copy of the revised condition proposed by the Community
Services Department, which had not previously been provided to the Council. Mr. Moore
responded that while they did not have it in writing, he said it essentially requires that access on
Greenfield shall be limited as an entrance only prior to completion of Phase I of the southeast
quadrant of redevelopment or prior to installation of a traffic light at Sunnyside and Bullard
Parkway, whichever is completed first.
Mayor and City Council                         June 6, 2006                    Page Twenty-three.


Council Member Govin said that doesn’t say anything about further analysis or consideration at
that time, which is what he stated, indicating that after Phase I and/or after a stoplight it would be
reconsidered.

The Community Services Director said that it would be modified, adding that it would be
impossible to quantify today what the quantity of cut-through vehicles would have to be or who
would monitor that. He stated that Council has mentioned to him on redevelopment that if it
applies to the southeast quadrant, it applies to this property, and if they put more traffic on
Sunnyside Road, it is going to be an issue. He questioned the three-point turn issue, stating that
this is a future issue; they are thinking of this in advance and not making him do anything until
the redevelopment becomes a reality.

Mr. Knapp stated that if the Council is trying to follow this, perhaps they are feeling his
frustration. He said the point is that people will be entering from Sunnyside Road if they are
westbound on Bullard Parkway; they have no choice; there is no median cut on Greenfield
Avenue. He explained the options of making a u-turn on Bullard Parkway, going down
Sunnyside Road and driving through all the residential neighborhoods that they don’t want them
to and coming back up Greenfield Avenue and entering only. He said he is trying to limit the
commercial traffic to the 200 feet that he possesses from his property line to Bullard Parkway;
otherwise the commercial trucks will go down Sunnyside Road, circle around, come up
Greenfield Avenue, and enter only, because they can’t make a u-turn.

Council Member Chillura asked for the City engineer’s opinion as to the impact this would
create to Greenfield.

City Engineer Joe Motta said that as Mr. Bosek stated, there should not be an impact on
Greenfield Avenue; he doesn’t see any impact on Greenfield Avenue. He said that what Mr.
Knapp is saying about the trucks is correct; traveling westbound on Bullard Parkway, turning on
Sunnyside Road, they would have to go out Greenfield Avenue.

Council Member Chillura suggested they approve an ingress and egress on both sides and when
redevelopment takes place, if it is a problem, (he doesn’t feel there will be a traffic impact once
that portion to the west is developed) do what Pleasant Terrace did; the City can build an island
in the street to stop cut-through traffic. He said they can address it when the right time comes, if
what they are concerned about is cut-through traffic. Mayor Affronti clarified that Council
Member Chillura is suggesting they approve the final site plan and if there is a problem later
when redevelopment occurs, they can address it at that time.

The Community Services Director said he doesn’t feel the taxpayers should pay for it, if as Mr.
Knapp says it is his problem to solve, he needs to pay for it.

Mr. Knapp says he does not have a problem; it is a perceived problem that doesn’t exist. He said
he has employed Mr. Tomasino, who is an expert in the field, to design his site. He said Mr.
Tomasino has done so and has given him what he thought was the best design for his site. Then,
he said, the City Engineer, who is also an expert in that field, has concurred. He said he is yet to
see who it is, of authority in these matters, can see it is not the way it should be.
Mayor and City Council                        June 6, 2006                    Page Twenty-four.


Upon motion of Council Member Chillura, seconded by Council Member Halloway,
RESOLUTION NO. 064-06(m) was ADOPTED, approving the Final Site Plan for SPR# 06-
01, Knapp Office Complex, subject to the Conditions of Approval as set forth in the
Memorandum to the City Manager dated May 26, 2006, which is part of the permanent record,
EXCEPT FOR Condition No. 1, which shall be amended to read that the access on Greenfield be
ingress and egress and if there is a problem in the future, the City can address it at that point in
time. Vote on the motion being: Council Members Chillura, Govin, Halloway, Shattles, and
Venable voting “aye,” no “nay.”

Resolutions for Consideration and Action: (Consent Agenda)

 The City Manager reviewed briefly the two Resolutions listed on the Consent Agenda, stating
that the first Resolution is an agreement between the City and Hillsborough County, whereby the
County collects marine license fees and remits $60,000 per annum to the City for marine patrol
units, which helps defray the City’s costs. He said the second Resolution is relative to the
agreement with John Stainback in an amount not to exceed $115,000, to do the analysis of the
redevelopment. He clarified that there will be no overhead expenses attached to these costs, and
secondly, there is no retainer.

Prior to proceeding, Mayor Affronti called on Ken Tozier, who had expressed an interest in
speaking to Resolution No. E-2.

Ken Tozier, 212 South Burlingame Avenue, stated it would have been nice had the Council
given themselves the opportunity to reconsider the vote taken earlier for at least five days. He
said the Council is not precluded from looking at the alternatives listed by the City Manager,
while proceeding with the next 60-day plan. He distributed a graph of LIBOR (London Inter-
bank Offer Rate) historical rates. He said he believes the approximate $19 million in loans the
City has accumulated are variable rate, based on LIBOR plus 40 basis points (four-tenths of a
percentage point) and as they will notice, LIBOR is currently at 5.4%, so the City is approaching
6% on the loans. He speculated that the City has probably accumulated $1 million in interest
expense; therefore, the City is probably paying 6% on $20 million. If he remembers correctly,
the forecast was not to exceed 3-1/2%, so the City has already exceeded that projection. The
other side of the paper he distributed contained a chart showing the direction that LIBOR is
taking. He noted there is about 16 months until the first of the loans come due; they come due as
a stream with the last one due in September 2008. Time is of the essence here; the City has spent
a tremendous amount of money in pursuit of this project, he said, and while $115,000 may not
sound like much compared to what has already been spent, $115,000 is a lot of money for the
majority of residents in this community. He asked that the resolution not be approved; that the
Council look internally to a staff alternative to meet that; at the earliest opportunity ask Unicorp
what they are prepared to pay per acre for the land that they wish for them to develop, including
everything in Phase I, everything in Phase II, if they think Unicorp is going to be the City’s
developer, and ask immediately how much they are prepared to pay. He summarized that the
interest rates are climbing, and there are 16 months before the stream is coming due; they should
cut their costs and find out what they can retrieve.
Mayor and City Council                       June 6, 2006                     Page Twenty-five.


Council Member Chillura requested that Resolution E-2 be pulled from the Consent Agenda for
a separate vote.

Upon motion of Council Member Govin, seconded by Council Member Shattles, Resolution No.
E-1 was adopted unanimously by consent, being:

RESOLUTION NO. 065-06, approving the Interlocal Agreement between the City and
Hillsborough County for the distribution of boat registration fee revenue.

Relative to Resolution E-2, Council Member Chillura said he does not necessarily oppose this
direction, but not being comfortable with the whole course of direction the Council is taking, he
cannot support this Resolution.

Upon motion of Council Member Govin, seconded by Council Member Halloway,
RESOLUTION NO. 066-06 was ADOPTED, approving the letter contract with Stainback
Public/Private Real Estate, in an amount not to exceed $115,000, plus direct and allocated
expenses, to serve as the City’s public/private finance and development consultant as it relates to
the City’s downtown redevelopment project; payment for said contract to be made from account
001-2411-552.31-89. Vote on the motion being: Council Members Govin, Halloway, Shattles,
and Venable voting “aye,” and Council Member Chillura voting “nay.”

Council Member Govin left the meeting at this point in time.

Proposed Ordinances for Consideration and Action:

Following SECOND and FINAL reading, by caption, upon motion of Council Member Shattles,
seconded by Council Member Venable, ORDINANCE NO. 1174 was ADOPTED being: AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE, FLORIDA, RELATIVE TO
FLORIDA STATUTES §101.657, THE EARLY VOTING STATUTE, TO PROVIDE
THAT THE CITY IS EXEMPTED FROM EARLY VOTING AS SET FORTH IN SAID
STATUTE, IN THE EVENT OF THE NECESSITY OF A RUN-OFF ELECTION, AS
PROVIDED IN §2.03 OF THE REVISED CHARTER OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE
TERRACE, FLORIDA, RESULTING FROM THE NOVEMBER 7, 2006 REGULAR
MUNICIPAL ELECTION; PROVIDING A SEPARABILITY CLAUSE, EFFECTIVE
DATE, AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT HEREWITH. Vote on the motion for adoption being: Council Members Chillura,
Halloway, Shattles, and Venable voting “aye,” no “nay.” Council Member Govin was ABSENT
and did not vote.

Following SECOND and FINAL reading, by caption, upon motion of Council Member Shattles,
seconded by Council Member Venable, ORDINANCE NO. 1175 was ADOPTED being: AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE, FLORIDA, RELATING TO
ANNEXATION; MAKING FINDING; ANNEXING TO AND INCLUDING WITHIN THE
CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE, FLORIDA, CERTAIN
LANDS LOCATED SOUTH OF TEMPLE TERRACE HIGHWAY, APPROXIMATELY
Mayor and City Council                    June 6, 2006                 Page Twenty-six.


400 FEET EAST OF TEMPLE PARK DRIVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT “A,”
ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF; REDEFINING THE
CORPORATE BOUNDARIES TO REFLECT SAID ANNEXATION; PROVIDING A
SEPARABILITY CLAUSE, EFFECTIVE DATE, AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES
OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. Vote on the motion for
adoption being: Council Members Chillura, Halloway, Shattles, and Venable voting “aye,” no
“nay.” Council Member Govin was ABSENT and did not vote.

Following SECOND and FINAL reading, by caption, upon motion of Council Member Shattles,
seconded by Council Member Chillura, ORDINANCE NO. 1176 was ADOPTED being: AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE, FLORIDA, REZONING
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF TEMPLE TERRACE HIGHWAY AND
TEMPLE PARK DRIVE, WITH AN ADDRESSABLE LOCATION OF 7301 TEMPLE
TERRACE HIGHWAY, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT “A,” ATTACHED
HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF, FROM HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CG
(COMMERCIAL GENERAL) ZONING CLASSIFICATION, TO CITY OF TEMPLE
TERRACE CG (COMMERCIAL GENERAL), TO PLACE THE APPROPRIATE CITY
ZONING CLASSIFICATION ON SAID PROPERTY; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT
OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY; PROVIDING A SEPARABILITY
CLAUSE, EFFECTIVE DATE, AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. Vote on the motion for adoption being:
Council Members Chillura, Halloway, Shattles, and Venable voting “aye,” no “nay.” Council
Member Govin was ABSENT and did not vote.

Following SECOND and FINAL reading, by caption, upon motion of Council Member Shattles,
seconded by Council Member Venable, ORDINANCE NO. 1177 was ADOPTED being: AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE, FLORIDA, REZONING
PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF TEMPLE TERRACE HIGHWAY, EAST OF DAVIS
ROAD, WEST OF MORRIS BRIDGE ROAD, AND 700 FEET NORTH OF QUEEN
BROOKS COURT, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT “A,” ATTACHED HERETO
AND MADE A PART HEREOF, FROM HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY RSC-9
(RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY CONVENTIONAL) ZONING CLASSIFICATION, TO
CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE R-7 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), TO PLACE
THE APPROPRIATE CITY ZONING CLASSIFICATION ON SAID PROPERTY;
PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY;
PROVIDING A SEPARABILITY CLAUSE, EFFECTIVE DATE, AND REPEALING ALL
ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. Vote on the
motion for adoption being: Council Members Chillura, Halloway, Shattles, and Venable voting
“aye,” no “nay.” Council Member Govin was ABSENT and did not vote.

Council then heard FIRST reading, by caption, of a proposed ordinance being: AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE, FLORIDA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 25, TEMPLE TERRACE CODE OF ORDINANCES, BY REPEALING
SUBSECTION 25.530.12(c)(8) IN ITS ENTIRETY AND BY ENACTING A NEW
SUBSECTION 25.530.12(c)( 8) TO ALLOW MEDICAL/DENTAL/SURGICAL OFFICES
AND CLINICS AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE PROF (PLANNED RESEARCH
Mayor and City Council                         June 6, 2006                    Page Twenty-seven.


OFFICE FACILITIES) ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING A SEPARABILITY
CLAUSE, EFFECTIVE DATE, AUTHORITY TO CODIFY AND REPEALING ALL
ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH.

Council Member Govin returned to the meeting at this point in time.

Council then heard FIRST reading, by caption, of a proposed ordinance being: AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE, FLORIDA, REZONING
PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF TEMPLE TERRACE HIGHWAY, EAST OF DAVIS
ROAD, WEST OF MORRIS BRIDGE ROAD, AND ADJACENT TO QUEEN BROOKS
COURT, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT “A,” ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE
A PART HEREOF, FROM HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PD (PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT) ZONING CLASSIFICATION, TO CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE R-7
(SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), TO PLACE THE APPROPRIATE CITY ZONING
CLASSIFICATION ON SAID PROPERTY; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT OF THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY; PROVIDING A SEPARABILITY CLAUSE,
EFFECTIVE DATE, AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH.

There was no Unfinished Business.

City Manager’s Report:

The City Manager reported that they have received an inquiry concerning someone in a
wheelchair having difficulty utilizing the elevator in City Hall. He said that while a number of
the features of this building are “grandfathered” in, he doesn’t feel that is an excuse to not
reasonably accommodate citizens. He explained that in order to make electronic changes to the
elevator to provide access for the handicapped would cost about $5,000; as an alternative, until
the options are fully explored, he would propose to make sure that signs for those needing
assistance are prominently displayed so that persons in Police Communications can be contacted
to see that necessary assistance is provided; signs would also be provided in Customer Service
on the second floor, and the Police Department on the third floor. The Council concurred with
his suggestion.

The City Manager reviewed that the City has a “sister city” – Eastleigh, England; every so often
a visit between communities is organized, and it’s the City’s turn to issue an invitation for a visit.
He recommended the Council adopt a motion formally extending an invitation to their Eastleigh
“sisters and brothers” to visit between October 13 – 20, 2007. He said if they are in agreement,
the invitation will be issued, and a committee will be formulated to plan activities. He briefly
related experiences from their last visit here.

Upon motion of Council Member Govin, seconded by Council Member Chillura,
RESOLUTION NO. 067-06(m) was ADOPTED, directing the administration extend an
invitation to the Sister City of Eastleigh, England, to visit the City October 13 – 20, 2007, and
formulate a committee to plan related activities. Vote on the motion being: Council Members
Chillura, Govin, Halloway, Venable, and Shattles voting “aye,” no “nay.”
Mayor and City Council                      June 6, 2006                   Page Twenty-eight.


New Business:

1.        Interim Appointment - Municipal Code Enforcement Board.

Jennifer Rendahl, 708 Rob Roy Place, reviewed that the reason for the interim appointment is
that her three-year term has expired, the vacancy was advertised, and there were no applicants.
She said she would like to remain on the Board on an interim basis until a replacement is found,
because the Board has had difficulties, twice recently, having enough members present to
constitute a quorum.

Mayor Affronti expressed his appreciation to Ms. Rendahl for her willingness to serve on an
interim basis. Upon motion of Council Member Govin, seconded by Council Member Chillura,
RESOLUTION NO. 068-06(m) was ADOPTED, appointing Jennifer Rendahl to serve on the
Municipal Code Enforcement Board on an interim basis, until such time as the vacancy for the
position is filled. Vote on the motion being: Council Members Chillura, Govin, Halloway,
Venable, and Shattles voting “aye,” no “nay.”

Prior to vote on the above motion, Council Member Chillura commented that at the last
Municipal Code Enforcement Board Meeting, the Attorney for the City, Mark Connolly, and the
Board Members asked that the possibility of adding an alternate position to the Municipal Code
Enforcement Board be considered by the Council, to help alleviate the problem of achieving a
quorum at the meetings. He said this will be formally brought to the Council in the near future.

Mayor Affronti commented that tonight was a great night, moving another step forward for the
downtown redevelopment. He thanked Council Member Govin for putting the issue into
perspective and pointing out the need to move forward.

There being no further business to consider, upon proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at
9:50 p.m.


Joseph A. Affronti, Sr.                     Frank M. Chillura, Council Member
Mayor

                                            Ronald A. Govin, Council Member


                                            Ken Halloway, Council Member
Attest:

                                            Linda H. Shattles, Council Member


Melissa E. Burns, MMC                       Glenda Venable, Council Member
City Clerk

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:14
posted:1/7/2012
language:English
pages:28