We're here to talk about the uh discussion of the Riverside Park project and I'll turn it right over to our leisure services director, Carl Lenfeld. >> Good morning, mayor, members of city council. Carl Langfeld, leisure services director. Uh we're here this morning for this council workshop to discuss the
Riverside Park project uh to kind of talk about uh the progress that the the health team has made so far. uh kind of a a a current state of affairs of the design of the park and to start a listening conversations with regards to
direction of steps forward from where we are now. Uh at this point I'd like to turn it over to uh Joe Loretta from HAL. He's going to provide a presentation about 15 minutes long uh with some slides and some visuals about uh about the work that they've been doing, the progress that they've been made and some
uh opportunities for steps forward from here. So let that Mr. Loretta Morning. [clears throat] >> Good morning. Thank you all for having us. Uh Joe Loretta with Half. Um can we get the presentation up? All right.
Great. Let's see if this is on. Um all right. Well, cool. Thank you all uh for allowing us to be here again. Um again, name is Joe Loretta. I'm a deputy practice leader with half in the planning and landscape architectural practice. Uh with us we have Laura Delane the project manager, Martin
Stefen the the team leader of our Tampa team and uh the overall project team includes Carl and Carlos. We've been working with them intimately for the the past year. Um, you know, today our workshop goals really is just to kind of provide you where we are, uh, what we've
been doing, um, discuss some phasing and some budget opportunities with you all and then, uh, address any outstanding concerns that maybe exist, uh, and really try to finish this with some clear direction to move forward. So, where we're at today, um, you know,
this past year, we went through, we did a a public presentation in early 2025 along with the digital survey. We came back out in April, April 1st, April Fool's Day, I guess, uh, and gave a presentation to the city council. Um, and at that point, we really got some
pretty clear direction, seemed pretty comfortable moving forward. Um and so with uh with Carlos and Carl, we proceeded forward with detailed design and engineering uh construction plans through this overall project. We have started some of the initial permitting. Um but then really I think maybe at the
September time frame, we were asked to kind of be put on hold a little bit as we wait for this current meeting here for a a workshop. We have started the initial water management district permitting, Army Corps of Engineering permitting. All of that is looking pretty good and we're at right now just
u 90% design plans have been ready plans are ready to go in for permit uh to Temple Terrace at this point. Uh barring uh the outcome of today's meeting and any any revisions that want to be made from today's meeting. Uh but we're we're ready to kind of get moving forward on this project. And um again, barring the
opportunity and discussion today, we should really be able to have plans permitted by midsummer, hopefully starting construction by the end of uh uh the third quarter potentially of this year and you know, ideally at least a phase one constructed in 2027.
Um so I wanted to go back you know as you all aware this overall project started many many years ago but um even before us uh before us you had the the master plan for the pedestrian space master plan in downtown but then when we came through we started with initial
survey results and I don't want to belabor too many of the overall survey results but um a lot of them really relate to what exists in the current park today and um many of what the improvements and park improvements and the the focus of those park improvements
are being shown today. As well as when we get into a little bit of the phasing, we can really look at some of these survey results and say, "Hey, you know, this may make sense for uh for a phase one type situation." Um, and you know, regretfully, I'm going to walk in front of the dice here just because my eyesight's not good enough. I can't see
out to the uh to the TV screen at this point. But so other survey results that came through, we we talked about it in the last meeting. Um [snorts] different elements to set a dog park or the splash park and back to hours is maybe not being applicable for this overall
project. And so as we have cons uh continued forward on this project, we have had to make a couple additional adjustments with um removing a few more trees, but we do have nine canopy trees being removed, nine green palms, five stable palms, and five understory trees
being removed with with new plant material installation and so forth. We vastly exceeded that and uh we're far beyond that until it needs to be updated. So we have a current master plan. It's nothing really any different than um than that. What has been Sorry,
I got all good microphones right here. So, the uh uh the um the master plan really is not that much different than what we saw uh what last April. And I'm going to go through and kind of highlight a little bit of those changes. Um just at the Springdale
Pond portion, we have reduced a little bit of [clears throat] the courtyard space. Uh we took a little bit of the trellis away uh from that section. We have shown we're going to be updating the wall on that western edge of Springdale Pond. And then there has been some proposed restroom challenges within
that area. Uh some of those I don't know how familiar you are with that or not, but um some of the elements to the restroom in that location would because of utilities would require an additional lift station to be included there. And so that's going to add another 100 uh plus thousand dollars to the overall
construction. the existing pond that or the existing park that portion of that site really has not changed too much. Uh but when we get to the vacant parcel, we we have moved the proposed pedestrian crosswalk uh to the other side of the street uh to really better align the pedestrian
movements and actually better align the pedestrian movements and vehicular turning into the uh into the parking lot on the property. Um and then we have reduced you know one pedestrian sidewalk within this portion of the park area primarily uh just to deal with some ADA
issues and to avoid steps and and just to avoid removal of additional trees and so forth. Um so right now the current city budget is around $6.5 million I'm sorry the current city budget is $3.8 million for fiscal year 2026
um for construction of this project and so forth. And right now the project total uh with contingencies built in about [clears throat] 6.5 million. And so with that there's uh 200,000 as though is that's like a direct purchase for specific equipment um that the city
can get. And that's saving you you know maybe 10 20% or $20,000 in taxes and a few extra elements of that nature. Um but in total it's approximately $6.5 million as a opinion of probable cost. Um, if you look at it like the north
portion, the the Springdale Pond portion, that's around just under a million dollars. The southern portion's around six million of that or 5.6 million of that and and a total again of 6.5. And so what we're looking at is kind of a recommendation of [clears throat] a phase one and a phase
2 approach to allow us to be able to construct um something within this fiscal year uh 26 budget as a $3.5 million total cost. So that would really include all the improvements around Springdale Pond, um all those elements
along with the parking lot, uh the the new pedestrian connection um to the existing um to the existing playground area, uh some pavilion improvements and so forth around the existing playground area, and then a boardwalk out to the overlook. And so that overlook structure
is included within that uh phase one cost of approximately 3.5 million. When we when we do phase this into two separate phases in construction, you're going to have a little bit of additional mobilization. And so that, you know, the overall cost will probably come up
about, you know, 100 to 200k in the second phase just because of the second mobilization depending upon how the project laps and goes. if you can really roll from one phase to the other with with monies that may be encumbered um then you know some of that can probably come down but again all of these costs
are you know really engineers opinions of probable costs until we get true uh construction bidding costs um we'll see where the the final numbers come out but we feel pretty comfortable with where where we're at here and so I know there's been some outstanding concerns um you know the additional restroom I I
kind of discussed this a little bit earlier but um in speaking with Carlos and Carl as a neighborhood park. Typically, this existing park is unique [clears throat] in that it actually has a uh a restroom where many of the other neighborhood parks in the city do not.
Um but uh the, you know, staff in the city are looking to clean the existing facility, repaint and improve this for a safe and secure restroom as we move forward. Um uh there's been discussion of parking along Springdale Pond rightway versus the new lot. Uh really
the existing pedestrian master plan um evaluated parking within that area and it was said not to um and so I mean obviously things can be redised with the community but at that time with the pedestrian master plan it was was recommended for no parking to be in that
location. And so um depending upon how you guys want to proceed it is possible that that could save some money within parking there. But the downside is if you do put all the parking there, everybody would then have to walk across the street and it'd be, you know, I don't I could see there being a value
for parking there, but I'd see a greater value for parking on the southern portion of the property, especially a full buildout of the project. Um, there's been discussion on concrete sidewalks versus aggregate sidewalks and so forth. I mean, in the grand scheme of things, really from a stormwater perspective, you get no value by putting
gravel down versus concrete. you're still having to hit uh your storm water calculations basically as the same number and so you still have to have all your storm water improvements in a similar fashion. From a costing perspective upfront, yeah, will cost a little bit less, but the long-term maintenance is going to become
significantly greater. It's possible we could consider, you know, a gravel or maybe even asphalt um consideration for the path around the pond. Uh I mean, we're not talking about much of greater savings than $20,000 or something of
that nature. 20 $25,000. I don't know that it's really worth the value when you're considering it's almost a different type of material that would then have to be installed. And so just that alone would then require almost another little mobilization. Um and so
it's it's just not creating that great of a value. Um and then you know community involvement. We we've touched on this uh throughout the process, but it had started, you know, far many years ago um through community meetings with this uh we've had our council meeting
here uh previously and then today, you know, uh really at this point it's it's our opinion that the plan has been based upon the voice of the community. It's in alignment generally with the voice of the community along with you as the city council um and then Carl and Carlos as
the client and so forth. And so, you know, at this point, we're here to to have discussion. We can go into great detail on a multitude of things. Um, really, wherever you all want to um take this is uh is open for us. >> Thank you, Mr. Mr. Loretta.
[clears throat] Council members, Council Member Kravitz. >> Yeah, I really appreciate you coming in. Uh, thank you very much. And I have to say from the anticipation of so many of the arguments that I just heard, it
doesn't sound like you're very open to making any changes. U I got the impression you seem very happy with the design. You don't see any real need to address any of the elements of the design, but I'm going to have a little back and forth, a little question and answer session here with you if that's
all right. >> Yeah. No, I mean we're we're here uh to have discussion and so if if things need to be changed, you know, um then that's fine. I I can explain to you if it's a good idea or if if I see a concern with
that idea. That that's really I think my focus here for you guys. >> Great. I'm happy to hear that. Thank you. Um so I'm going to start with the parking comment regarding the pedestrian master plan, moving the parking potentially to another location. Um you mentioned that that would save money. Was that something that I heard correctly?
>> I think if if the parking only along uh Springdale Place was to occur from a parallel perspective, yes, it would it would most likely save uh money because we're not building an overall new parking lot. Um so, yes. >> Great. Following up on that, um you said
that that was not a good idea because it might potentially create some friction with the pedestrian master plan. Um but you also said that you had taken public feedback into account and in the public feedback the support the support for the city's pedestrian master plan came in
dead last. It was at 2.13 score number five and the uh number one score was 4.01 for improving pedestrian walkability and connectivity. So, um why why wouldn't that be a good option if first of all it saves money, second of
all, it creates more green space south of um River Hills Drive, and third of all, it has the lowest level of community uh concern. >> Well, uh to my knowledge, it's been codified. >> Is that is that not correct that the pedestrian master plan's been, you know, codified and it's actually a part of
your guys, um plans for the future? >> Why is that relevant? if it's relevant because we would then be going against, you know, a portion of your guys codes that you all have approved years before. So, >> okay. So, you're saying that by [clears throat] building the parking off
Springdale, this somehow violates a statute? I'm not saying it violates a statute, but it's basically it's just as though you have a um if you have a CRA and we have a CRA and we develop a um a master plan that's then been codified by the city, the
focus is to follow that master plan. And so, uh in the end, uh yes, you could add parking within that location. What that would do is force everybody to then walk across the street. Um, and as you see, there's there's two different locations
to walk across the street, but that would require those from that [clears throat] side to actually make two movements to cross the street. The reason for that pedestrian connection being actually shifted a little bit over uh is based on existing utilities and the existing bridge and to maintain that
that storm water inlet there to maintain um how do I describe it? Not creating additional conflicts or cost for the city because of that bridge and that storm water. And so, uh, it just doesn't seem to be overly ideal for the primary parking for this facility to be located
on the north side. In the grand scheme of things, um, uh, I could see there being a value for additional parking there, but I don't know that I'd recommend that being the only parking. >> Okay. So, to that point, um, the pedestrian master plan is drafted in a
way that there is a northwest crossover across River Hills Drive already. That is part of the pedestrian master plan. So, it would be more accurate in my mind to say the pedestrian master plan already states that people are supposed to cross River Hills Drive there because
that crossing is in the pedestrian master plan. >> Oh, we have two crossings across River Hills Drive. >> Exactly. So, it's already part of the intent of the pedestrian master plan that people will cross River Hills Drive. >> Yeah. >> So, what's the issue with people crossing River Hills Drive?
>> I'm not saying there's an issue with that. I'm just focusing on that it would be my recommendation with a family uh with little children that I'd prefer to be parking in the parking lot and walk across a safe bridge and have my children outside of any concern or you
know any roadway conditions. >> You're making you're making an assumption here that families with children will always drive. Some people might walk, >> people may walk, all sorts of stuff, but for the parking itself, the focus of the parking itself is for the playground >> and for the amenities within the park.
And >> so, [snorts] uh, I think it's a reasonable assumption to make. >> Okay. So, to sum sumate my argument on this, and I'll move on to some other points in a second. Um, the support for the city's pedestrian master plan was the lowest ranked item in the public feedback that was of least concerned
people. And second of all, um, we've established that relocating the parking from south of River Hills Drive to Springdale would save money. And third of all, we've established that it's already stipulated in the pedestrian master plan that it is the intention for
people to cross River Hills Drive at two separate points. Is that accurate in your mind what I've just said? >> Yeah. And you're just missing the elements of >> Thank you very much for answering. I'm moving on to some other topics now if you don't mind. >> Fine. Yeah, I understand. So, um, that's
fine. Uh, so the other point that I'd like to mention is, um, the restroom improvements that you brought up. So, my my understanding is that previously there was a $75,000 budget item, which then became $90,000, which was just to
improve the existing restrooms. And the current state of the plan is, from what I understood you just saying, we're only going to improve the existing restrooms. We're not going to add more restrooms. >> That's current. That's okay. what's currently shown in the uh in the plan per coordination with the client.
>> Awesome. Great. Um, another point that I'd like to mention is that um the budget process for this, this is just a general comment before I get into the nitty-gritty. The budget process for this has been a great disappointment for many people because we started out at 3.8 million and then
we got 5.8 million and now I see for the first time 6.5 million. So, I'd like to ask when [clears throat] was this documentation provided? >> I'm sorry. Can you explain your question a little bit better? When was >> what do this this stuff?
When did you have this ready to go and why didn't I get it before this meeting? >> The uh And can you walk me through the 5.5 million? Was that uh what was that? >> I'll have that for you in a minute. Can you answer my question? Uh, I'm just trying to understand your overall volume
of questions that you have for me. >> This stack of documentation here, >> yeah, >> is an ambush because I walked in here and suddenly I'm I'm seeing that the cost for the park is $700,000 more than even the previous overbudget estimate. >> Okay. >> Why am I only seeing this now and when did you have this ready to share?
>> Basically, we've been working to accomplish this overall cost estimate and you know, quite frankly, the cost estimate was wrapped up over the past week. >> So, why didn't I get it last week? over this past last week. So, I mean, we we finished it a day ago, two days ago. So,
I can't answer you why you didn't get it any sooner other than the fact is we didn't really have it completed until yesterday, you know, until yesterday morning. >> So, you printed these documents out and brought them into the meeting? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. So, these were not sent to the city. >> Uh, they were sent to the city yesterday.
>> What time? >> 2 >> 2 p.m. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Question to the city manager then, if I may, Carlos, why was it excuse me, Mr. city manager. Why was this not distributed yesterday in a prompt manner? >> We had planned to have it distributed here today. It was we we got it like he
said yesterday afternoon considered an oversight on my part that we didn't distribute it last night, but the goal was we're going to have because this would have been a bear to print out that we wouldn't expect anyone to print these out individually. So, we're going to have handouts for you today. So the reason I'm asking is because all of the materials that I prepared for today are
based on the previous estimate and now the estimate that I'm dealing with is 800 700 or $800,000 over and so this could have easily been integrated into my briefing materials from yesterday if I had gotten it in time. And so a lot of what I have to say is still excuse me sir I have the floor if I may finish my
thought. A lot of what I have to say today is still fully applicable but it would have been very very good if I had been able to operate off of the most recent figures. So, I just want to put my disappointment about that on the record. >> No, I appreciate that and you know, um, I consider that oversight on our end. I
apologize, but glad to go through every little line item that you'd like. >> This directly relates to my next point, which is the budget for this project has gotten out of control and we haven't even broken ground and I have done a lot of construction in my life and I can guarantee you that whatever the number is today, it will grow. We will not land
at 6.5 million in the end. It will be a higher number. We need to get the budget for this project under control because the city is under a lot of cost pressures in other areas. And so what I am missing from what you said during your presentation which in which you said we have taken public feedback into
account is that a number of the amenities that the public doesn't want are still in the project plan [clears throat] and they cost a lot of money. And so what I am looking for today and I hope other people will join me in trying to do that is to look at the items that we don't need that we
don't really want and I have a list here of the ones that we can look at. For example the fishing pier only 26% of people wanted the fishing pier only 40% of the people wanted the picnic shelters only 41% of the people wanted the kayak launch even the restroom improvements only 49%.
The number one item that people really wanted was the riverfront boardwalk. So, I was happy to hear you say that the riverfront boardwalk is in this first phase of the project. That was supported by 84% of the people. What people really want. I'm not finished yet. I'll get >> No, no. I just wanted just a point of
clarification for you. Only a portion of the riverfront boardwalk is in phase one. I just want to make sure. >> I think all of the riverfront boardwalk needs to be in phase one. And then I think we need to really think hard about whether there's going to be a phase two. What people want 80% of the people who responded to your public feedback wanted
exercise. they wanted walking trails and there's a huge gap between the 80% that wanted that and the 56% who wanted um water amenities like the kayaking and then when you look at the actual granular breakdown the kayak launch
doesn't even break 42% of support. So what people want is a riverfront boardwalk that they can walk on and dovetailing with that I was interested in what you said about the gravel path. You said that if we take one small gravel path
uh and use that instead of concrete, we can save $25,000. >> No, no, no, >> no. >> I did not say that. >> What did you say? >> Okay, so I explained to you that the walkway around Springdale Pond, uh, which I wouldn't consider small
because it's the largest walkway that we have here. If we were to take that entire portion and utilize an alternative material from concrete such as asphalt or potentially gravel, we would be able to save some money. Maybe it's be approximately $25,000. I don't
have a strong answer for you at this point. But the reality is it's not going to be saving us that much money because uh over time you're now going to be having significant greater maintenance costs with the gravel pathway. And then, you know, even with asphalt, you'd have
more maintenance cost because if you normally may go with like a 6 or 8 foot wide concrete pathway, but then if you put asphalt down, you want it to be at least a foot wider or more simply because that asphalt cracks. Okay? And so, in the end, regardless of that, the
asphalt is going to require a different trade to come out and put it in. Right now, all the concrete that you have, it's just easy. You get one person come in, get it done, and [clears throat] you move on. Uh, in my experience, getting gravel from a gravel yard is not difficult. Um,
>> I'm talking more of the asphalt portion, not in the >> Would you prefer to jog on concrete? >> This isn't really a jogging path if you look at it. I mean, we're talking uh the the whole loop's less than a quarter mile. Nobody's I mean, if you're going to jog on this, it's because you're
going through a lot. Uh most people [clears throat] who would choose to jog on this are going to be younger children or they're going to be those running are most likely running down the middle of these roads because that you like you said, they're going to want run on asphalt and more of a
flatter surface. >> So 80% of people said that they wanted to walk or jog. >> Yeah. And so as what what you did miss, the reality is this is a small neighborhood park. You're not creating there's also bicycle uh requests to ride bikes through here. This isn't a large
enough park for a bicycle [cough and clears throat] or even a running loop through this overall project. This is a small neighborhood park. >> Okay. I'll just ask in really broad terms, do you think that this project design should accord with the results of
the feedback that you solicited? So we solicited feedback and we also solicit feedback from the council and we also solicit feedback from the client and so the client and the council you know have primary focus on really where the elements go. So I believe that the overall plan has basically generally
aligned with this the feedback from the community. Just because the community makes a statement that just doesn't come in alignment with what is actually feasible doesn't mean that it makes sense. Does that under do you understand that? Are you suggesting that it makes sense to keep an amenity in there that
costs $200,000 that only 26% of people said they wanted? >> If that's been the vision and the goal of the city council along with um the the city manager and and you all as the client, then yes. >> Okay. Um I think I've made my general
point, which is simply that we have some actual numbers from the public about what the public wants. We have rather detailed information about the massive massive cost overruns for this project before even breaking down ground. Um, we have a direct link of amenities being in
this design which the public doesn't want or support. And we have relatively obvious ways of saving money. For example, replacing concrete with gravel, which is also advantageous for joggers and walkers. Um, we need to really do a lot of work on this design today. In my opinion, I really hope other people will
join me in that because the city cannot afford a $10 million park. Um it would be massively financially irresponsible and I think that given the history of this where we're already um roughly 65% over the original cost estimate and again we have not even broken ground. Um
we need to do some hard thinking here and I I cannot in good conscience simply accept the design here from Hal. We need to make some some changes here. Either pushing some of the additional amenities out into the future. Maybe in three or four years, maybe 5 years, six years, whenever we have the money. Perhaps we
need to put a trigger in where if our general fund reserves reach a certain level, then we can do phase two of this park. Um, I think we should do a phase one and I think the phase one should really focus on the amenities that people wanted, like the riverfront boardwalk. Uh, I think it's critical that we give people a park that they
actually want. Give them the best part of the park that they want, the part that the most people are going to use, that the most people want and for the for the best possible price and not a bunch of other amenities that don't even have majority support. So, um, >> if I may ask, >> and I I'll get to the other stuff. I I
yield my time on this. So, I'm >> Could we go back and pull up the the PowerPoint that I have shown with the phasing because I feel as though what you've just stated is in alignment with what we shown on the phasing plan. And so, if you look at the phasing plan, uh I think you all can you all have a your
TVs in front. Uh, I'm sure what we could look to do is figure out how to coordinate a budget that's going to allow us to um build the um the river walk, which is identified as J all the
way through and then connect to a gravel path on the eastern side and then connect back to that uh back to the parking lot. That really would not be that overly difficult. Um and you know beyond that uh everything else is pretty um there's nothing of of egregious
costing within phase one that you know I mean you could take out the the um we could take out the other bridge which is if I may hear sorry I'm being told to come over here
but this bridge right here you know we could remove that easily and incorporate this out. Let's remain portion and it' be probably a pretty apples to apples element here right now. Um I don't see that being um overly complicated to
accomplish that. And so basically what I'm saying is you remove the bridge on the southern portion of Springdale Pond and then that allows [clears throat] us to extend the boardwalk along the river. Uh and then we just provide a gravel gravel walkway back to the um gra back to the parking area. That'd be pretty
easy accomplishment. I believe that would be in alignment with everything that you've asked for uh thus far if I'm not mistaken because really as you stated uh we're not showing the fishing pair within phase one. That's really for a phase two or a later date.
>> I yield my time if anyone wants to speak. >> Council members Council Member Chambers. >> Yeah. Thank you. Uh so we said this was questions but we've strayed away from questions. So can I talk about a couple items then? >> Sure. >> Thank you mayor. Appreciate it. So in my
opinion in my past work experience of developing a lot of our parks in Temple Terrace uh and helping develop a lot of our parks over the last 40 years. Um I can attest to a couple things and this is just my opinion. One, gravel
is a disaster from a maintenance point of view. It really is. We've had we've gone this route many [clears throat] times in some of our parks. It's uh the argument is it's uh it's it's pvious, so it's going to help. That doesn't work. Uh it's a maintenance nightmare. Also,
it becomes a lot of children's throwing rocks. Uh it's a it's it's bad. We need concrete or asphalt. and the uh and your talk about the asphalt edges cracking. That happens all the time. So, concrete is my uh preferred thing. We need to put
that issue to bed today one way or the other on what the surface is going to be. Uh parking. When we developed uh Riverside Park, uh the south side or the west side, uh it was designed as a neighborhood park to support the condos
that aren't there. And it was [clears throat] never supposed to have parking. that created an issue. People parked AC across the street at the the old uh restaurant and walked across and that created issues. So, I am all in favor of the parking on the the south
side of River Hills Drive. Maybe addition over by Springdale, but I don't think that's necessary now. Uh it's it creates a safety hazard. I know people can walk across, but it's been a problem for 20 years with that park and that we need to solve this problem with that.
Those are my first two things. And I am concerned about the budget. I I think the budget is uh grown well over. When Mayor Ross first talked about this many many years ago, preserving this property, he would he kept using the figure, well, let's spend about $75,000.
And u this is obviously much higher than that. Um so we could look at stuff like that, but I want to just address those couple items. And a jogging trail. I'm not sure it's big enough to be a meaningful jogging trail. So, >> no, I I agree um with everything that
you've stated. I mean, I think that um gravel is definitely not a recommendation that I would provide. >> And and all the people I've talked to uh fishing pier is probably a bad term for you at observation pier, observation deck would be a lot better. You know,
you give the impression of just fishing, which is true, but uh people always want to go out and walk out and and look, >> everybody goes out to get a view. I mean, >> right. I'm just saying the fishing pier sounds, you know, different than an observation pier, but I >> It does. >> It does.
>> Council [clears throat] member Fernandez, >> I have a a couple of questions and comments. And one, I I what I would like to say regarding the gravel, I'm all for saving money, but I'm also familiar with people having complaints about ADA
compliance or accessibility for a variety of of people. and gravel can be an issue. I I also hike a lot of trails, my children will attest. And um I know that for people who have any kind of
mobility issue whatsoever, concrete is a better surface for them. And that's um that's just my my opinion. So, I personally, while I understand the upfront cost of gravel might be cheaper,
the long-term cost is probably more expensive and it it does not enhance the accessibility for people that might be have any kind of mobility issues. So, that's my opinion on that. Um, I have a
couple questions and one is there's a wall behind Enigma and we've spoken about this periodically. I just want to ask about
the connectivity or the aesthetic of and I think we've said that the wall makes it the aesthetics better but it seems like that intuitively it seems like having open space between
Springdale and Enigma would be more aesthetically pleasing. I but I don't know. >> Um so and Mr. Lura can speak to this a little bit too because the wall the wall has some retaining features to it in terms of the soil from the other property. So there's a little bit of
that which he can describe much better than I can. My biggest concern I think with if you take the wall out is you have a the Enigma Plaza is a commercial plaza. It has a commercial parking lot with spaces that directly point at the homes on Springdale. So the wall today,
not that there's a lot going on in Nigma, but if it were functioning, headlights would be going into the living room windows of these homes on Springdale, which when we do when when plans come through for site plan approval, that's usually one of the issues that people have, neighbors have. It's like, wait a minute, what can you do to buffer that?
>> So the wall today serves that purpose. Um, it's a brick wall, which is I mean, I personally find it attractive. It's got some issues we've had to show up over the last several months in terms of its stability, but um I mean Mr. Ler can speak to some of the details and they looked at some wall uh alternatives as
well. But again, those are just some of the concerns. If if the council feels strongly that you'd prefer not to have a wall, we just have to address how we how some of the soil and grade changes can be remedied. [clears throat] Um and what type of buffer you'd want to do then in place of that to avoid the
headlight intrusion. Uh, and keep in mind the other part of this is that the the Enigma Plaza today looks pretty good. I mean, it's it's very well done. It's taking a long time, but it's very well done. But commercial properties, you don't control that. So, that could change. And
then how that is visible into your into your into the city's property there in the pond is something that you may want to consider or it may not be an issue. I mean, it really depends on the on the what you think is important. >> Okay. Um All right. So then uh I do I
want to talk about the bathrooms because so yes this is a neighborhood park but at the same time this the hope is that this space becomes an attractor to bring people into the the whole of the
downtown area. And we can't open the bathrooms right now at this park. We have issues with having the bathrooms open for people that that go there. And this space is a
distance from any of the commercial properties where somebody might be at the park and then need to go over walk all the way over to Wind Dixie or if it's an Aldi, whatever it is at the time. Um that's I I have a concern about
that. Um because I places like Hollywood Beach, um Tuscaloosa, those are the two examples that I go to frequently. They have big park areas. Hollywood Beach all along that boardwalk there are public
bathrooms, the entirety of it. And somehow they managed to have them open and functioning. And then the other Tuscaloosa is another example. They've got a very large central park area with bathrooms at the end of it that are
open. They're public bathrooms and somehow I you know we we go to those spaces frequently and somehow they're functioning. They don't seem to have a problem. I've never gone in there and and had an issue. So I don't know what
those spaces are doing. And I understand that this could be a that this is a cost-saving measure, but at the same time, it doesn't make sense to save money that ultimately hurts us in the long run and makes the space less
functional. So, that's one of my concerns as a a practical matter. Um, as far as the parking goes, as uh somebody who's I I go to Savannah a lot also and they've
got Foresight Park which really doesn't h it's doesn't have a lot of parking around it. um people walk but if we are at some point going to add and and
from my perspective the feedback that I've gotten from the community access to water is an important factor for them. It may not have been an import as important a factor to the people that came to that
particular meeting and voted, but I the feedback that I've gotten over the years from people is that access to the water is important and a lot of people do not have like a a specific boat to go fishing, but they do want to be out on
the water canoeing and kayaking. And I think the parking if we were to I don't have any issue with secondary parking over at Springdale Place, but if I'm carrying a canoe or a kayak, I don't want to walk that
distance. But that brings me to my question of if if that's if this all stays part of the plan. Um, is there a clear path from the existing parking that's presented for people who are
carrying their kayaks or canoes because we don't really have any easy access. Or maybe it's more practical that we don't do that here and we add that kind of access at the boat ramp off of Fowler. Or we add that kind of river
or we add that kind of access at River Hills Park because it's easier. It's actually easier and more cost-effective a direct line for people that are carrying their stuff and we don't even try to put a launch here. But I do know that that has been a request over the
years for easier access to the water. So I got I'm not my So my concern is there's quite a distance from this parking. Is there a straight shot even to get all the way out to a kayak launch where it's
>> there? There's Yeah. So you asked a lot of questions. I'll go with the last one. No, that's okay. Um the uh the last one, you know, there really isn't. I mean, we had a plan at one point which actually created a circular drive around the outside of this um and then had a
parking lot out closer to the water. Um which to me would have made more sense if this is a primary kayak uh focused facility. And so this is going to have a facility where people can kayak out of. Uh it's been designed where people can kayak or canoe out of, but it's not the
primary focus of the overall park. we will have an ability for there to be a a rentable kayak um uh um lockers basically that's identified as a W on the plan and so you could go
there just like in downtown Tampa where you go rent a kayak from one of the lockers and you go put it in and so that would have much more of a direct route right now primarily if if you're launching a kayak at this location and you're bringing it yourself you're going to either be walking through um through
the parking lot uh through kind of the oval section down um to the kayak launch or you'll go basically down J which is the boardwalk through in the interim uh while we while we uh what we've shown as a phase one most of that wouldn't
actually be constructed so you really just be taking it across grass which is not very uncommon and just walk it straight out um uh to kind of over to this new gravel pad that we just talked out or to um to the Riverwalk portion
and then out to the kayak launch. And so uh you know in the end I've kayaked like um King's Landing uh next to King's Landing. There's uh community uh county park right there, city park. Man, I had to walk a half mile from the parking lot
to to my launch there because I was too cheap basically to pay for King's Landing. [laughter] and and but although be it you have to deal with um you have to deal with uh you know a lot of people at that at that King's Landing facility and so forth. And so um those who want to get on the
water and bring their kayak out, they're not going to be overly that uh it's not going to be that difficult for them. At the same time, you know, they may go down just a a quarter mile um to the current boat launch and just launch from the boat launch and um they may determine that that's simpler. It just
all comes down to traffic. uh boat traffic at that time and parking uh for those who are using the facility and so forth. But so I don't think that it's really a detriment. It is definitely not a direct route. Um if a direct route is something that wants to be evaluated, I
mean I think that a a more direct route could be evaluated. Um it's just uh it would probably require us to remove a few more trees. Uh >> okay. So then so really my this is my opinion. I don't see the boat launch,
the kayak launch, the kayak accessibility or that activity as very necessary at this location. I think we would be better served improving [clears throat] either the boat launch
on Fowler Avenue near the bridge or the boat launch at River Hills Park and making that more accessible for somebody launching a canoe than spending the money on
creating the launch out here. And in terms of like a fishing pier, yes, people like to fish on the water, but they can fish from the actual boardwalk, which they do at River Hills Park, or even off of a if the observation tower
has tears, they can. So I guess it I mean I the the budget is a very large concern for me and it's about the return on the
investment because even though [snorts] people always think of the return on investment as renting property or uh selling that improving and selling or something like that. But when you take public space, the return on investment
is the the enhancement to the neighborhood, the attraction for people to come and live here or the attraction for people to come here. So I don't I So I I guess what I want to make sure we're doing is
making sure that this space is maximized for the best use of it that provides the the most cost advantage return. So to me when I look at this
park I see it as a very passive park more nature. So, so I mean, so that's my op. I do think the bathroom is important. I do think that we need to look at a way to and >> well, I mean that
>> for Carl and Carlos, the bathroom will be getting improved and be maintained and they're actually uh another facility right now. It's just going through a similar process where uh right they're they're going through a test case with another facility and the locking devices and all sorts of stuff. And so, uh, it
is their, you know, it is your staff's opinion that the restroom will be able to be operable and usable and a clean facility and so forth. The nec the necessity for an Well, yeah, but it's too >> So [clears throat] the your comparables when you go to the beach, there's
thousands of people. There's not going to be thousands of people there. I get that. >> And so then everything within this property is within a 5minute walk, you know? So if like if we're if you look at the intersection of Springdale and Chicago Avenue to the existing restroom facility, it's really 5 minutes. It's
not that far. And so um uh I live in Jacksonville Beach, Florida. We have a large um park that has a huge sports complex, a huge uh well a huge uh sports field,
uh two tennis courts, two pickle ball, three pickle ball court, four pickle ball courts, four volleyball courts, uh a skate park, a uh playground that is six times larger than this. So there could be close to 500 plus people in
this park along with multiple pavilions that they rent out and it's rented on a regular basis and there are four restrooms for that whole facility and that facility does very fine and so this facility uh 20% as large as that having two
restrooms um you know if you all want to add another restroom it's not bothered me you know but I just don't know that it's fully necessary. Um what is necessary is actually well what is a benefit to the community would be getting the restrooms operable and in clean you know
comfortable condition. Uh completely agree with you though. >> Okay. If somebody else wants >> Yeah. Just a quick question on the restrooms and the plan of renovation. Does it go increase the number? >> No. It'll stay two.
>> Yes. >> Okay. That's all. >> Vice Mayor. >> Yes. Thank Thank you. Thank you [clears throat] for the presentation. Thank you for the numbers. Um, you know, I have [clears throat] several concerns. My very first question, I've lost track of one of the the aspects of it. What,
and this may be a Carl question. What happens to the angel's monument? >> Angel hope the G uh is being maintained as is. We're not >> I can't see that from here. There be absolutely no changes to that at all. >> I mean, other than some landscape improvements around and cleaning it up.
Um, okay. >> That that that's an important one because um of of what it is budget's a concern. Okay. Um I know when the when the original numbers were tossed around, you know, we started a small number and
it's going to grow, but if we try a camel was a horse built by a committee and this is what we're doing. We're trying to accommodate everybody's I want this, I want that. And um I know that that's what you're trying to do with this. You're not here trying to value uh
val place value on everything. You just tell us what the numbers would be if we had all the different components. So now it's up to us to come back and say okay we want we agree on this, we agree on that. We don't need this, we don't need that. Time phase it, eliminate whatever it takes. That's our job, not yours. And
I and I don't expect you to I I expect you to give us a number of of of of what's our grocery list going to look like now? What do we actually need? and that's up to us to come back with. So, I don't I don't fault you for the budget. Just you know that we know that it's a
big number and that it's not something that's entirely feasible at this moment. Um the parking issue, I have to defer to the experts on the parking. Uh Council Member Chambers, he he he designed the original one years ago uh for the
Riverside Park. Um I doesn't doesn't bother me to cross River Hills Park. However, at River Hills Drive, however, I do know that with little kids, they're going to dart back and forth and that that creates dangerous issues. Uh the restrooms
probably need to do more with the restrooms down there. Even if it's even if it's just I don't know, we can move them or make them a little more centralized so that people get a better feel for it. Uh I do recognize the fact that it was it as a community was originally set up as a community park
and I don't think any of the others have one. So uh it's [clears throat] with within our within our our confines. The amenities I think some of them are important. This is you know we we want it used. We don't want just an open
area. We want the public to come down and uh I'm not sure we have a a broad enough cross-section of what people want. I have uh I've had anecdotal discussions with a lot of people who are really looking forward to the
observation tower, really looking forward to the to the boardwalk, really looking forward to the potential kayak, if not a launch, at least a dock type of things that they can kayak in and and go do something at the park. So, I mean,
it's there's a lot of people who uh may not have responded to the to the uh uh request of information several, you know, a couple years ago, um but may have developed an attitude or or an opinion since then or may just been reticent to to come to the meeting and
but they still have an opinion of what they want. Um, [snorts] so I I I I I worry about the the us adhering too strictly to what the public comment is because if we we we have a very broad and diverse uh
uh population. So uh it's it's it's going to be uh more what our vision is as to what we need to do with this going forward. Um, I personally want to take some time to go through the components of the budget. Um, and I'm not sure what
the overall plan is going to be as far as I I don't think we're going to slice and dice the budget here today. I'm not prepared to to do a whole lot of that. I needed the information. I needed the numbers. I needed to um to uh [snorts] hear my colleagues commentary as to what
we as a group think needs to be done. But um uh thank you for all the work. You guys done a heck of a lot of work on this. Um it's good work and uh it's something that we can work with and and come back with with uh um modifications
and now it's up to us as a council to uh uh to work with with with parks and and and wreck and and and come up with a workable plan. So, uh, I thank that that that's the bit that's the bulk of my comments. [clears throat and cough] Thank you.
>> Really quick, mayor, I'm sorry. I did forget one thing that Miss Fernandez had mentioned regarding the wall. Um, and so so right now there's the wall is existing. It acts as a little bit of retaining wall. So, let's say the parking lot's maybe a foot and a half, two feet higher than the park side. Um,
so we should at least have some assemblance of a a a short wall, a knee wall, a seat wall. Um, uh, you know, if you want it to become as cost effective as possible, basically we could figure out. It's tough though cuz it's not that much room and that
right now the way it is is the the sidewalks kind of at the top of the bank of the pond and then really the wall in some sections is like smack dab up on it and so forth. And so if we were to um
you know if the city were to get let's say an easement on the commercial property and we were to remove the wall put in a hedge and then have a little bit of a knee wall there. Um then you know that that alone would would not
have that wall there. And then the hedge ideally running along but the hedge is almost now on kind of on private property. you don't fully maintain it unless you got an easement to go throughout. But the spacing of all is just super tight um to accommodate all of that. And so kind of open to
everything and and and really uh Gil and and Mr. Kravitz the whole focus of this is you know we can develop this park how you guys see fit. And so um you know we take out uh and it can be phased over
time, right? I mean that's a huge benefit. We can we can develop something that has a a lookout observation deck into the water and in 5 years you can add the kayak launch or 5 years or one year you add the kayak launch or you never had the kayak launch. I mean it's
just there's endless opportunities as you all own the property. It's just no different than your single family residence. So sorry mayor. >> Thank you Mr. Loretta and uh thank you for the work on this. I this is a great concept and so I appreciate you and your team for being here and all the work you
put into this. One of the things we haven't talked about this morning at all is that the whole idea of this park um the underlying reason for this park idea was to activate the downtown. We haven't talked about that this morning at all.
And so we're [clears throat] trying to activate the downtown. We have talked, this council and previous councils for years have talked about trying to create a downtown that's vibrant, walkable. There's stuff to do. There's families down there. There's activities.
And that's what we're missing down there. And if we [clears throat] don't do something different, we're going to wind up with just eventually we'll just trade an old shopping center for new shopping centers. I mean, that's really what we we have is just retail. So now,
and the businesses down there are great. Everybody wanted a Starbucks. We have a Starbucks. Now they complain about a Starbucks. But um they're great. But the businesses that are down there are the types of activities that you go you go down there, you eat supper, you have a
cup of coffee, you buy your whatever you're buying, you get a massage, whatever it is you do in your banking, but then you leave. I mean, there's nothing for you to do. And so the whole origin of this park wasn't that we don't have parks along the river. Now we do, but this was supposed to provide an
activity center for passive events cuz we know that there's homes nearby. You can't have loud events and big crowds, but something for people to do. You come down, you bring your kids, you get dinner, you get some ice cream, you walk down to the river. Hey, look, you can run a kayak. We can go out for an hour.
We don't have to, you know, whatever. You have this activity center there. much on a smaller scale. The same concept that the city of Tampa has done with Curtis Hixon Park and the Riverwalk and they're expanding that. Now, I like
this this plan and I don't you know I really do use concrete or asphalt or I mean I don't think the city council needs to be deciding what material to use on a path. I do think however that one of the
things that's important about the path is that it be wider than a normal sidewalk. You mentioned, you know, we have a five, six foot sidewalk around the pond. I think it needs to be a wider path. I'm envisioning a path that lots of people can walk on. That's the only comment I have about that. >> It is
>> the the Okay, the the bathroom. I I agree. I think I envision in the future there should be another bath house there at another location in the park, but I don't think that's essential right now. I think we could phase than and I'm getting to the main point of this thing
is the phasing. Um, this is obviously a whole lot more expensive than what we expected it to be at the beginning, but everything is. And so it's still I mean to us it's expensive if you look at what Tampa
spent on you know their their riverfront park was $30 million park. So this doesn't approach anything like that. So, Temple Terrace, we're a bit different. Um, we're kind of debt adverse. We don't like to we're not I don't think anybody
wants to even talk about borrowing money to build a park. I don't think we would ever do that in Temple Terrace. So, it's a pay as you go kind of thing. I I really like this concept and I'd like to see this built, but I think out of financial necessity, we're going to have
to chunk this up into more phases than two and make it be. Now, now I realize that that's going to cause the overall price tag to go up because building something next year is cheaper than building something in three years. So, it's going to cause
the ultimate price to go up, but it will come in smaller chunks each year. I mean, there's a lot of things in here I think we could keep in the master plan, but phase um you know, we've got picnic pavilions, we've got a field, we've got
what is this? courtyard areas. We've got fitness equipment. There's a lot of stuff in here that we don't have to necessarily give up, but it doesn't have to be built right away. We need a parking lot. I think the boardwalk is probably one of the first things that ought to go in.
People want to get to the river. Um, but we may have to accept the fact that this project may take longer than we individually are going to be around. Um, and we'll have to phase into this. But that's not, you know, that's not the end of the world either. Suppose it's five
or six years before we they the city might be working on this for 20 years. Who knows? We keep adding amenities to this thing as time goes on. Um I think that's what we're going to have to do if we're going to build this
at all. But I I just think it's important for us to realize that what we're trying to do is activate the downtown. I think the things most important to doing that involve access to the river along that property and a parking lot. Um, other things can come
later to include the bathroom bath house as if this thing becomes widely used and there's a need for a bathroom, we'll know it. I mean, there'll be people telling us, "Hey, man, I'd love to go down there, but I can't ever get in the bathroom or what," you know, we'll know it and we'll build a bathroom at that point at that point. So, um, I
[clears throat] like it. Um, my focus right now is just on how to chunk this into smaller bites and spread it out over a longer period of time. And for staff, we we haven't the construction schedule. This is this
is probably a little premature, but just so we start thinking about this once we get this figured out how we could phase this into smaller chunks over a longer period of time. I think we could budget money towards phase one
for the the fisc for the next ongoing fiscal year. But I don't think we ought to start signing contracts until after the election in November for actual construction to begin because there's a lot of uncertainty what the
outcome of the property tax reforms might be. So putting it in the budget is one thing, but spending it prior to that might be, you know, signing contracts because we may just find out that we
don't have the money. um to do that and we don't want to be building a park if we're at the same time forced to scale back services in other areas. That would be a terrible, you know, well, they're spending money to build a park and they're scaling back, you know,
community events. That would be awful. I think Mr. Bay wanted to >> So, and then >> if if that's I appreciate that concern. If that's the sentiment then of the council, then we probably wouldn't actually bid it until after the >> election too because having somebody go
through that whole process is there's issues with doing that. [clears throat] >> The vice mayor had a comment real quick. >> My other comment that I wanted to make earlier was regarding the wall. The the wall was not originally necessarily part of this. the wall was the enigma uh deal
[cough] and it was [clears throat] bu it was built as a buffer against Springdale Pond because of the of the of the way it was this way this several years ago but to your point mayor about the property taxes you know we'll we'll have a kind of an idea after the session what what
we're looking at so we can what the >> I don't think so >> well no at least if what's being offered >> I don't think so I think the governor just this week has talked about um He's got a plan that he's developing that he hasn't shared with anybody yet and he's
talking about a special session after the April special session. >> Oh, wonderful. >> So, I don't I don't know. >> But I I the the bottom premise I agree with. We can't >> Yeah. >> Everything everything all across the state's up up in the air right now
outside of school districts what could potentially happen. >> But the I don't that's not that I mean it's 11 months. I'm not sure we'd be ready to bid this. I mean I that's not really that >> No, but I mean it has to be it has to be in our in our in our thought process as we go forward with with virtually
anything that we're doing. >> That's my comment. >> Council member Fernandez. So, it seems to me that my my biggest interest is making the Springdale Pond
a an attractive walkable space and then creating a walkable trails throughout at least to the river and the boardwalk, but also, you know, potentially creating the trails in the space just
nature trails. um so that it's an attractive area to walk and then so would it is it possible to create basically the walking path part of it and then as time goes on add
benches or add workout equipment or add u pavilions for picnics or add um features along the way. It is that would that phasing be as practical as
the phasing that would create would do the construction to put it in place at once? >> Yeah. I mean, so short answer is yes. We could definitely add certain elements to this as we continue forward. I mean, when I hear everybody talking, um, in my
mind, this is what I would recommend. Okay. Uh, I would recommend everything in Springdale Pond stay the same and that bridge portion we have as a line item and hopefully we can get it built into the budget. Okay. Then I would recommend we build the parking lot and
do uh restroom uh additions and but then minimize additional additions around the playground. uh minimize maybe enhanced landscape uh things such as that and then focus on developing that uh the walkway out to the riverwalk.
That observation tower, you know, to mayor your comment. Um this observation tower is going to be the thing everybody's going to go do at sunset. Um you're going to go to dinner, you're going to walk down here, and you're going to go get a sunset view. and you're going to get more people in
this facility at sunset than you will throughout the rest of the day would be my guess on a regular basis. Um, we build the boardwalk along the riverwalk and we figure out and and we basically take the sidewalk and we manipulate it to get back up to the parking lot in a
similar fashion to as shown today where into the future we may only eliminate 50 100 ft of that sidewalk. Uh, when we build kind of the circular oval be super simple. you're accomplishing everything I think that you're looking for. I think that um that I think everybody's looking
for, including Kravitz, uh Commissioner Kravitz. So, uh I I I do think that developing enhancing the around Springdale Pond with the um uh the sports equipment and all of that is kind of providing that additional
level of of effort and and entity. it can come in after the fact, but you know, we're I mean, it's a $120,000 line item, $150,000 line item, and at this point, it seems like it'd be a strong element to try to include right off the bat. But, you know, with every project,
we're going to go out to bid and we'll see where the numbers are and then we'll be able to come back and and make additional refinement and and and so forth. But, I think based on what I just stated, we'd be able to accomplish this with under the current this year fiscal $3.8 8 million budget um pretty easily
that be and allow this to expand over time. >> I like that plan. Council member Kravitz, [clears throat] >> um I thought it was a really good comment about activating downtown. Um my only question would be uh if people
aren't able to cross uh River Hills Drive, how are we activating downtown with it? that that's just uh I don't understand how uh how that will work. So I I know people can use the area around Springdale without crossing River Hills Drive and that we're approving Springdale, but if the goal is to get
people to the park to downtown, they're going to have to cross River Hills Drive at some point. Um or it's it's going to be either or. There's not going to be both. Um and uh I have another question for you, which is are there trash cans in your proposal? Um, yeah, we have a
few spread throughout uh throughout the park. At this point, I can't really pinpoint for you, but I'm sure Lark can we can spend a minute to pinpoint, but we do have two connections across River Hills Drive within this project. So, there is definitely the pedestrian connection across River Hills Drive.
>> We have to we have to distinguish between two things here. One is can people cross River Hills Drive? The answer is yes, even right now. Um, the other question is, are we designing this park in a way that encourages that? And if we build all of the parking south of River Hills Drive, we're not encouraging
people to cross. And that that has been the comment tonight. It's been, "We don't want people to have to cross River Hills Drive. People who drive don't like to cross pedestrians crossing. Pedestrians don't want to cross River Hills Drive." Those comments all support what I'm saying, which is people will
not cross River Hills Drive. They will not go to downtown. Nor will they go from downtown. Excuse me. I'm not finished speaking. Please don't interrupt me. >> Um, and the other the other thing is people will not go from downtown to the park in that case if they're not if there's not an easy crossing and if it's not built into the design that it is
intended for people to cross River Hills Drive. Um, and final question would be to you um what uh what are your assumptions about the number of visitors to this park because you you said it's not going to be thousands of people or something along those lines. So what what is your assumption about how many
people will come here? Okay. May I uh answer a little bit of a opinion regarding access from downtown to River Hills Park? >> You can say whatever you want. I just don't want to be interrupted. Please go ahead. >> Okay. Well, so um I feel as though the design is very
clear and provides two paths uh of pedestrian safety uh improvements to to get folks from downtown to to the park to the overlook. Uh it's very clear, it's very obvious, we're going to have pedestrian flashing beacon, so it's going to be safer than what exists
today. Um and so uh we we have made one modification on the eastern edge kind of at the intersection of Springdale Park and River Hills Drive. Um but that's really to kind of save money. Uh and as we don't really want to get into the bridge components of of of kind of that
bridge cover going over um between the park and the ditch. Um and so you know to your question the park can be go from uh anywhere from 20 to 30 people to a couple hundred depending upon if you guys activate it,
right? I mean so if you ever and in and um months ago it was discussed that really this wasn't going to become an active park. You weren't going to look to put a farmers market. I think a farmers market would be great but you're not looking to put a farmers market there. But you know the design if and when you wanted if if and when let's say
N is built with the oval um there's a wide variety of activities that could be developed there and programmed into the future. And so uh will you ever get more than a few thousand at this location? I mean we'd have to go through um um
building code standards to even see you know how many people could fit in this situation. I I I forget. I know when we looked at this months ago, N was sized for, you know, if you were to actually put a screen up and do a movie or so forth, you could get a few hundred people within that oval portion, but
that really wasn't um a goal and a focus of the commission um based on community feedback because they didn't really want this to become an overly active park. And so hopefully I answered your question. >> Not not about the second one. uh the number of anticipated visitors that you
considered in your design. >> So I I I feel like I just did with I mean it could become from 30 to as active as you all want the park to be. >> So no no specific number was considered. >> Um the the existing playground
I don't believe that no specific the the the focus of this park is to activate the park. Okay. So, um, at sunset, I could see there being, you know, especially at full buildout within this plan that's shown here, you're going to
maybe have 10 to 15 plus people on I, you know, 10 to 15 plus people on K and other people walking around the park and enjoying their time. And so, you may have 30 to 40. Every park, you know, I'm not sure that people, unless it's an events park, are truly focused on
focusing on the direct number of people who are going to be attending that park. We're actually developing this park for a wide variety. And when I'm talking about what I just did, I didn't even consider Springdale, right, the pond. And so there could be people up there. So there's just a wide variety of options and opportunities for people to
utilize this park. It's not focused on a specific 20, 30, 200 people. It's focused on activation for the pedestrians within the overall area. See, in my mind, you have to know how many people are anticipated to use the park in order to decide how many parking
spaces you'll realistically need or for example, how many trash cans you'll realistically need. Um, and it would have been interesting to me to look at the visitor numbers going to Riverside Park presently because there is a Riverside Park that current >> and and so we have that within the survey. If I may finish, sir, and then
extrapolate from the number of people visiting Riverside Park based on however many those may be to how many additional visitors we might anticipate when we add on to Riverside Park in this plan. And so, uh, that that that's something that I would have would have would have liked to see. And I'd like to make a motion to
open it to public comment because I do see some people in the audience and it's possible that uh you know people took time out of their day and uh it is it is a work day and I appreciate people who come here during the workday and so if if there's anyone here who'd like to speak I'd like to open it up to them if there's a second to that maybe we can hear.
>> Well, I will take public comment but not because you make a motion to do it. That's the chair. I will open it up to public comment though. I know we have members of the public here that >> Well, I'm happy, >> but I'd like to finish um the conversation that we're engaged in now.
Make sure everybody's had their questions. Is there any other >> I'll withdraw the motion then and yield my time. Thank you. [clears throat] >> Questions comment. I like the the last >> Okay. Well, >> if there's no more questions, then let's
go ahead and take the public comment because that might drive some other questions. And so, >> Mr. letter. We'll take public comment. Are there members of the public who wish to address the council on this? I I can't They've got this board. Can we
move these at this point, Carl? Cuz >> we can't see. U Mrs. Tumblesson I did see first. Mrs. Thumblson was first and then you'll be second. >> I'm going to move here so you can see me. >> That's fine. There we go. That's better. Thank you. >> Good morning.
>> Good morning. >> I'm glad y'all are all here. Thank you very much. >> We just need your name and city of >> Okay. Uh Jan Tumblesson, Temple Terrace. All right. First of all, I appreciate all your comments. Okay. I think the
best thing to do is like Mayor Ross asked, Mayor Ross suggested was doing in phases [snorts] and you did have some good information regarding phasing to get people downtown.
Now, first of all, I have a problem. I do not ever use asphalt or gravel for people to walk on. First of all, the gravel is going to have weeds and all the other
stuff and people are going to fall and sue [clears throat] the city. Okay. Second of all, the asphalt is going to break up eventually and have weeds and stuff and it's hard to maintain. So, the only way I would suggest based
on my experience and also how I walk in the city is on concrete. You know, that's what I would like to have. Okay. Uh I think it's a good idea. I think it's a great place for a
destination in Temple Terrace and it will work. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Tomlson. Mrs. Kravitz. [clears throat] Uh my name is Audrey Kravitz. I live here in Temple Terrace. I actually live around the corner from the park. Um
I was a little frustrated to hear that the plan is already allegedly 90% complete. Um but I think there have been some really great comments here today. So, I don't think there's any concern with um members of the community coming in and uh still making suggestions and
and requests. Um I'm here today to actually propose that you guys consider working with um the school board and anybody else that needs to be worked with to try to move the school bus stop that's on Sunnyside right now into the
park when you're doing the redesign. Um I've put together a proposal here that I'll I'll share with council. Um, so I'm not going to go into the details of it. Um, but there are some resident concerns that the um students that wait at the
bus stop um are playing in the road, that they're harassing the residents that live there um and that they're basically waiting in people's front yards. Um, and that parents who are waiting there for their kids or dropping their kids off. Um, which is actually a
requirement. Um on the website for the school um it says that parents are supposed to um uh chaperone or come with their kids and pick their kids up at the bus stop. So it makes perfect sense that parents are driving there. Um but they're parking illegally. They're parking in people's driveways. Um
because the bus stop is currently located a block or two from the park. And since you guys are going through a redesign right now, I think it'd be really great if you guys could consider um the feasibility of simply moving the bus stop. Not necessarily adding benches or anything like that, which would cost money, although that would be also
great. But by moving it just to an area that's a large public space, you're going to get the kids away from the road. um and it's just going to be overall a better experience for the people that live in that neighborhood um who are about to be potentially very disrupted um by the construction um that
the park is going to do. So with that, that's my time and I'll just pass these off as I go. Thank you. [clears throat] >> Are there other members of the public who wish to comment? >> Good morning. >> Good morning. Um my name is Nelanie Hija. I live in Temple Terrace on Hills.
Um, I am one of the people with kids and I actually don't care because we already have to cross River Hills drive all the time. Um, so having the flashing lights is good. That will make me feel better, but I have a four-year-old and a 8-year-old and yeah, there's hard to control. Um, a couple of things. Um,
concrete is better. I have a dad who have to make sure he has stable um, secure footing and so I think that would be better for navigating strollers and all the walkers and um, wheelchairs. Um, I agree. Uh, there's a park right down
the street I can walk to. If I want to take a kayak, I can drive my car there and it will be much shorter distance to take my kayak. I really don't think a kayak launch is necessary when we have a park literally. Um, I would right between both of the parks and I can go
either way. Um, I don't think you're going to have a lot of people [clears throat] weighing this park as let me go take my kayak there. I want to drive my kayak and then go on this when I have access to the river in a very short distance. So, I really don't see the point in
having a kayak launch right there. Yes, maybe you have people who are going to come to dock their kayak at the park to use the park, but that seems really far-fetched to me. Um, but that's the population here. Um, [snorts] the retaining wall, I think that's really cool. Um the lights are obviously going
to bother your neighborhood, but some suggestion would be to maybe if you have already a retaining wall to add landscaping with the hedges above it. So that can help uh break that um light barrier there um for that and then it's also you know attractive to the population. And then um I agree with the
phases obviously the walkway is really important. And I think it would be great because right now there's not a lot of um pathways from one portion of the park to the other and you're trying to connect this outside pond to the playground to this area where we can actually have these nature trails. So having that walkway set up first in that
phase is wonderful. Um you know there's picnic tables at the other park that you can like carry your stuff to and take your coolers and all that stuff. I don't think that's necessary right now because the focus of your park is to appreciate the area that there is and then the more structures you put in, the less trees you have because you have to move things
around and so that detracts from the pond and the type of park that you're trying to build. Um so or or appreciate um so you know making this as a activating downtown is a great idea, but uh you have to have access to it, right?
So you're not going to have people walk from Wind Dixie to the southside pond unless there is open structures to connect the two that look like they're safe to use. So that was my several points. Thank you. >> Are there other members of the public
who wish to comment? >> Okay, Mr. Be what's being asked of us. >> So couple of things here. So uh one thing is they're proceeding as he as Mr. Lurer mentioned in his timeline would permitting. So I I I we all agree I
think we all agree that some sort of phasing plan is is necessary because as we I want to just make clear to when we talk about overruns there's been no overrun overrun implies that we've spent money on the right. We haven't spent anything on the construction. We've appropriated dollars. >> When we started this project as I
indicated a couple of budget cycles ago we didn't know what the number was. we had a ballpark estimate. So that's why we hired the firm to get to the point, but we we start to appropriate dollars because we thought we'd go faster than we've gone and we thought we might be under construction. So we have those dollars set aside for this.
Um but when he was mentioning the timeline in terms of permitting, so yes, we're going to if if the council wishes us to do phasing, we will probably still go out to permitting for the entire project because that way you can get the permit for everything. So that if you choose to not do all these pieces later on, at least you've got the permit
authority to do that. Uh whereas if you try to manipulate that now and cut things out of the permitting cycle, you you'd probably have to get a change order with them and and things like so that would complicate that. So I'd like just let me clear that even if you do phasing, we may still go out to full permitting just to have the permits in
hand. um the phasing. What we'd like to see, what I'd like at least this this morning is some clear direction on the things that you really like that you really want us to to include in in in fa this phase one. Um it sounds like and
again I'm just interpreting this. It sounds like the boardwalk is popular with all the members of council. Uh, it sounds like some sort of connection to the boardwalk, sidewalk trail, connection to the
boardwalk is acceptable. Sounds like uh a trail around Springdale Pond. I I know Council Member Kravitz had an issue with the our concern about the the the material, what we've heard from the
public, and I've had my father also had walking issues, and I can appreciate what they said about the concrete. If you all want if you agree on the concrete Springdale pond, these are the kind of things like just check off five, six things you think are yes, we all agree we'd like to do this. We can
have a conversation maybe even today. Okay, what what does that look like? Can we afford that under phase one? And is phase one what we have budgeted today? 3.8 million. If that's what phase one is, we know that. I understand the concern. And if the council feels like we should wait to in terms of bidding
this out after the uh November election, we can also do that. So just like to have some of those touch points clarified that would help us so we're not losing more time. >> Okay. What do you
>> just So my my preference would be the walking path around Springdale. Make that attractive but not necessarily
have all the amenities completed. the connection the at T1 and T2 connection improvements and the walking path out to the river
with the observation tower to the extent possible that could be done in phase one um for any So I guess what I'd like to see is maybe not add everything at
Springdale place and the and that park area maybe do what infrastructure needs to be done. For example, does it make sense to make it an attractive place to have the
pavilions at the corner and then add other things later like the workout equipment and the pavilions if those come up? Um, I mean I'm flexible with that sort of thing, but the walking aspect of it I think is the most
important. The connectivity improvements at T1 and T2. I know that there's connection there. Been to the park many times with when my kids were younger. Um and then access to walking
to the river observation tower and then secondary from that if it's possible to add some other trail aspects within that price range. I'd like to see the phasing of
this part and then the potential of adding other walkable areas in the larger park space, but as a secondary consideration because that seems like that's something that could be added. And then I'd like to see the
possibility or the the practicality of parking, additional parking along I what is that the the east side of the Springdale pond
as a second maybe as a secondary or I don't know what that does to the to the walkable space and I don't know what that does to the street. aspect of it. But um even though we want to activate and we
want people walking, practicalitywise, people also like to drive. So and I know if we have events like we had in the downtown space with the King High School concert, etc. You know, we had empty space for people to
park, but hopefully that space will be built and we won't have um as much parking there. But so I guess for my phasing purposes, I'd like to see that as a phase
with second to that additional walking capacity trails within the larger park itself. And I I really truly have no issue with the potential of moving a bus
stop if the school district were amendable to that because [snorts] that makes more sense to me. But I don't know that we need to do any specific construction in order to accommodate that. And I wouldn't advi I I wouldn't necessarily suggest that the city do
that construction. But um that would just be a place where kids stand and and it is a more public space. So, um, and I don't know that that needs to be in necessarily incorporated into any kind of design element, but that's those
are my, um, and then I would like to see any improvement that we can do to the bathroom space in that phase. Um, but so that's my two cents, >> Council Member Chambers. >> Okay. Um, again, Springdale, um, a lot
of mine is just what Council Member Fernandez said. the Springdale area um complete that and maybe not with all the things like she said uh bathroom renovations I think for me is uh very important the parking lot uh uh as
designed and again if we can incorporate the bus stop I think that's a good idea uh u the walking trail down to the observation tower I think it's important we have the observation tower maybe not the kayak launch yet but uh stuff like that and some of the new amenities in
the park and a walking trail in the now open area. Maybe not having the the field or any of that. Those are my priorities. Sir, [clears throat] thank you. Vice Mayor, >> I echo most of the same. Uh the only thing I would like to make sure because it wasn't specifically stated would be
to make sure we clean up Springdale Pond, the the basin of it, too. I I know that uh [cough] director Carl has talked about it in the past as to what could possibly be done, but it if people aren't going to use it
if it's if it's looks the way it does now. So, I mean that that includes um I do have one one quick question. You're talking about getting the permitting done now. How long is that good for? I'd have to defer to
>> so your water management district permit should be good for five years but then you get an extension on the back side of it and then quite frankly your city of temple terrace uh some municipalities maybe um you know it just comes down to your your all's guidelines I don't actually know the city of temple terrace
many it's good for forever >> but we know people we know people there so that's leisure but swift mud and Port of Tampa. >> Yeah. Port of Tampa. I don't completely know, but Army Corps we've already got. No permit necessary. >> Okay. All right. So that mean So they're they're they're based. They could be
technically be open-ended for 5 10 years. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Yeah. I would like to see that. Make sure we do Springdale. The bathrooms obviously it's going to become it's going to be an important one. Um if we end up with the parking facility, then the school school uh the
bus stop is is is pretty much a no-brainer. if we don't do the parking lot, then it becomes a little more problematic. But I I concur with that, >> member Kvitz. >> Yeah. Thank you. Um I'm really happy to see that there's a lot of uh desire to
keep the cost of the project in check. Uh a lot of my animous about the walking paths and material was because I was looking frantically for any sort of savings that we could find without actually impacting the scope of the amenities on offer. So I don't have a problem with the concrete. This was mostly a cost-savings suggestion.
I'm happy to go along with that. Um, I also think that we have a possibility to uh get more parking for the park uh at the south parcel south of Enigma Plaza. I think that would be worth exploring. Um, there could be something there. Uh,
it's very close to the park and it's also a city-owned property at this time. Um, I would like to explore that. Um, I am a little worried about overloading the park and overloading Springdale with parking. I think I think when you know my my suggestion is like move the parking. It's not just add more parking.
So I think people do want a green natural space there. Um I got a email from a constituent just this morning saying the same that it's not supposed to be uh you know paved over and made into uh an urban feeling space. It's supposed to be natural and green. And so
I think the more parking you add the greater the risk of that. [snorts] Um and I fully agree with everyone's comments here about the park should be for walking. I think that is what 85% of the people who came you know this was over 350 replies I think that we got for the for the number. So this is a a very
representative sampling of what people think in Temple Terrace 85% by overwhelming majority just want to go to this river river boardwalk and they want to walk around in the park and they want to enjoy the natural space there. They want to go for walks. They want to be in a in a nice shady area and that's what
people like with lots of nice trees, lots of green space. Um and um picnic tables was another comment that I heard. Um my experience in the city manager will validate this. I've I've been back and forth with him on this a couple times and he's been very helpful in
getting some of these um picnic spaces clean, but they do generate resident complaints because people will throw their trash away um where it shouldn't be and it'll it'll generate litter. Um so picnic picnic spaces are a double-edged sword. So walking paths are a little bit less risky. We [snorts] do
need to make sure that we have a sufficient number of trash cans in this park. That's critical. Uh and uh I think the u relocation of the school bus is a is a good idea, too. And I think that I don't have an issue with that. I think that um the safer [clears throat] that we can make it for kids to get in and
out of the bus, the better and the easier it is for the residents to not be impacted by any of that. Uh this is a yeah, if we're if we're already building a large parking lot south of River Hills Drive, then that could be a possibility. Um and uh I think uh I think once we
have the first phase done, if we focus really on the top priority uh which is the walking paths, the riverfront boardwalk, keeping the park clean, keeping it green, having a nice space where people can enjoy their [clears throat] walks, uh and and
interact with the river in that way. Um we might be able to get it done under the 3.8. And I think I think if we had originally known or if we had originally had the number that we have today, which is 6.5 million, I think that the entire course of this would have gone a very
different route. So, I'm I'm happy to hear the idea about phasing. Let's do a phase one that's modest and effective that that addresses the um people's greatest wishes and their biggest wants at the lowest price. We get the biggest bang for our buck in that way. And then
when that's completed, we see how it is and then we go from there. Uh and uh regarding the other um um public comment that I heard, um a landscape barrier in lie of the wall separating Enigma from uh Springdale is definitely the way to go. Uh very low maintenance generally
speaking. Um the wall keeps people out of retail. We we have to acknowledge as well Enigma Plaza is part of the downtown development. It is a major major anchor there. Uh and and letting people get in there easily from Springdale is a really great idea
because they're going to be walking there anyway. And there's already a coffee shop that I saw um going in at the corner unit there. Uh and I think that that's that's a really great idea that people will be able to sit there. And a landscape area is obviously not only nicer for the people who live in the buildings across the way, the the
houses, it's also nicer for the tenants because they're looking at something that's green. and a landscape barrier also integrates better with the park because the park is green. So those are my thoughts. >> I I have one question. >> Okay. >> And it it's regarding the permitting. Um
so with regard to I know that the river there's multiple uh agencies that have jurisdiction over the river, Army Corps of Engineers, EPC uh you know what what have you. And when we talk about the permitting with those
agency, all of those different agencies, is that only for essentially the observation tower or something that would go into the river or does that impact anything that might be developed later in the park it like on the the
green space as a park? >> Yeah. So, it's kind of multi-tered answer for you. So each each entity has their own specific criteria. Like Port Tampa, they're really only caring about what's in Hillsboro River. Uh the water management district cares about any
ounce of impervious and wetland modifications uh and things such as that. So pretty much the entire site is devel is is cared for by the water management district which includes environmental protection element portion of that as well. And so [clears throat] um so city of temple terrace basically
cares about everything. So each little element kind of cares about a specific topic. But um >> so the reason I'm asking is when we when we come back with the phasing and we're
looking at at increasing the number of phases or or slowing down the speed of the project. Can we identify the areas of the project that in the future are relying on those permits? So like if you
go out and you get all the permits for the full project, can we identify and say so this part of the phasing requires this permitting and this permit will expire at whatever time. So that we
know when we're looking at phases going forward that for example >> I understand what you're saying. So I just want to so so like for >> we'll create like in the in the grand scheme of things I think what we're looking at is a phase one plan but we're going to be permitting the whole thing
and then we'll be able to identify hey observation deck K is you know has a deadline date uh or not observation deck the the fishing pier/observation you know deck has a a date of you know 2032
December and you either got to do it by then or we got to ask for an extension, right? We can, you know, we'll we'll be able to have that information for you. >> Okay, that's what that's the information that I think would be helpful as part of the phasing process to say, let's just
say uh walkway, interior, these are the permitting entities that are required. We have the permits. Here's where those permits might expire. I mean, I'm not and I'm not saying this to to say that, oh, K is going to expire
at whatever date. We have to do that by that time. We might not ever want to do that, >> but I think it's important to know that for our planning. >> Yeah. No, that's fine. I mean, a lot of things such as the pavilions or the, you know, the um
uh the workout stations. I mean, all of that it's really going to be permitted under the current water management district permit. Um, and and along with the city of Temple Terrace and so most everything really is not going to be of
a of a significant long-term phasing kind of issue as long as we permit this at one point. I mean, even if we we let the permit lapse with the water management district and we haven't built certain objects, we, you know, we can kind of go back and rekindle that permit
and so forth. But, um, you know, from from what we see here, I think we'll be able to develop a really nice park that's going to, you know, primarily the the major focus of what we're not kind of installing is a lot of the additional
amenity upgrades and maybe the oval and a lot of the other elements are really going to be trying to get incorporated into this phase one. And so, um, I think this should be this should work out well for everybody here. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay, my turn. So [clears throat] I I don't know, Mr.
Beer, that we've really cut down phase one. In fact, I think we added to it. >> I was going to go I was just going to >> Well, let me cuz cuz we added to it with putting parking and I I don't know that we've cut it down. So [snorts] if if you
can do all that for our budget, that's fine. I don't I'm not opposed to Well, I am opposed to a couple of the things that were mentioned. Um, so we don't quite have consent or unanimity. Um,
if phase one to me would be the parking lot, the crosswalks, the bathroom, and the boardwalk. That would be phase one to me. Um, >> say it again. >> The the parking lot, the crosswalks, the
bathroom, and the boardwalk. By the bathroom, I mean the bathroom renovations of the current bathroom. That to me, that's phase one. Now, if you can do that and you still have money to move into the other things, then so be it. That's fine with me, too. But
I don't agree personally with putting the additional parking spaces at at this time on Springdale at this time. Now, I'm not opposed to that idea potentially in the future. In fact, I think you and I talked about that a
couple years ago at one point. [snorts] I don't think that's the first priority here. Um, I also think we need to talk more about the wall and if there's a move to replace it. I'm not necessarily opposed to that idea
either. I just think we need to talk it out a little more. We talk about a landscape barrier that could work. But what would it be and how high would it be and what would the maintenance look like? And I I don't know that that's a bad idea, but um
could we also do something with creating entrances in the wall without obstructing the I don't know if that would maybe compromise the integrity of the wall that the entrances that you could get through either in the wall or a hedge need to be as much as
possible so that they don't line up in front of a parking space. like if there's a so that you don't have the headlight issue. But I I'm not necessarily opposed to either one of these ideas. I just don't think they're phase one. And I don't think we have enough information to do that make that
decision right now. Um so to me, phase one is the parking lot, the bathroom, the crosswalks, and the boardwalk. Um, but I other than the parking spaces and the
wall coming down, I didn't hear anything else that I mean, if there's if the if the majority of the council wants to go on the north side and do that first, I I I'll live with that. I mean, it's not terrible. I think we'd get the most bang for the buck putting the boardwalk and
the tower in and the parking lot first, but that's just my opinion. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I I agree with that. I I hope in in my talk about Springdale um pond um that I didn't agree to the parking on
phase one. Um, I think uh some part of that has to be beautified just to get people to walk from downtown to the new park. So, if we don't go all the way around, if we can find some money to maybe enhance the uh east side that's already there to get people to use the
crosswalks to go because right now if we put the parking lot in uh where it's supposed to be, people have the option to park there and walk into downtown and go to the coffee shops or the restaurants or whatever. and the people in the restaurants and the coffee shops have the option to walk down to the park
and enjoy the sunset and all that. So, I think that's the way we should go. >> Would you say Council Member Kits? Go ahead. >> But I just wanted to say I I am in opposition to having parking in both places. I want I want my preference is
parking at Springdale. I'm also fine with parking south of River Hills. I just don't think it's optimal for the reasons I outlined. So, if everyone wants parking south of the River Hills, I'm fine to go along with that. I don't want parking in River Hills and on Springdale. I think it's just too much parking like I was mentioning earlier.
We need to keep it a green space. >> Vice Mayor, >> the crosswalks you're talking about, are you talking about crosswalks over to me? Crosswalks crossing River Hills. >> Yeah. T1 and T2. >> T1 and T2. Okay. Well, I I concur with what uh what
Councilman Chambers talking about the the got to have a pathway that's reasonable getting from Chicago Avenue all the way down. >> That makes sense. Yeah, >> that's so I I would include that. >> I Yeah, I agree. That's a good point. That makes sense.
>> Okay. May I >> Yes. >> Okay. Excuse [clears throat] me. So, just want to make sure that we walk away here with the same understanding of what I think consensus has been so far. Um, boardwalk, which here looks like it's uh
J on the on the drawings. I heard Boardwalk from multiple council members that that's something you'd like us to pursue in phase one. Is that correct? >> Yes. From my perspective. >> Okay. Um, observation tower. I heard mixed things about the observation tower
and again I'm not looking at the numbers right now in front of me so I'm just looking at the the graphic and I have to rely on half to figure this out and say we can actually make it work for the numbers but is the observation tower something the council would prefer us to look at for phase one if financially it could be done or is that sort of on
lower priority and so if it's if it's financial >> to me I would like it if it's financially feasible because I think it's one of the main attractions but that's just my >> to me it's a throwaway pitch put it in there and if it can be done it can be done. If you can't, it can't. >> Yeah, that's kind of what I'm
>> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. So, >> Kravitz, >> um I like the observation tower. I think it it is supported by I think uh 62% of the respondents in the survey, so it's the number two item. My concern is that it's very expensive. But if we're if
we're going to phase it and if we're going to stretch the costs over time and maybe uh the other amenities become nice to haves in the future, uh if we can fit the observation tower into the budget as presently uh anticipated, uh then I'd
love to see it. Yeah, absolutely. But uh it's it's also because of its cost one of the top cuts that I would look at if we needed to save money. >> Same for me. But also uh in uh phase two of the original Riverside Park was an observation tower. So it's been in phase
two of this project for 20some years. So no >> I my personal opinion I'd like to keep it in the observation tower in phase one because it gives you a destination for the pathway to begin with. So if and
to be clear, I'm not suggesting that any parking on Springdale Place be I'm I'm just asking if you're going to look at it >> the observation tower. >> So the observation tower, yes,
>> I think it's important in phase one. >> I think what everybody is saying, and you guys correct me if I'm wrong, is that we would like to see the observation tower in phase one if it's financially feasible. >> Okay. The boardwalk is more important of course than >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. Understood. >> All right. >> Okay. The uh next piece. So the the the
parking lot. >> Um the I think Miss Kravitz mentioned about moving the bus stop. I'd never heard that that concern before. So I'm glad she brought it up. I I did agree what what vice mayor said if we are going to consider that and work with the school
board that to address the concerns that she raised about people with their cars idling. you if we're going to make it to this, you'd probably want to have that parking lot there as well. Is another reason to have this parking lot in the south. Is that Can we go with that? Can we run with that idea that the parking lot is doing the parking lot in the
south? >> Yes, >> that's where I like it. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. So, parking lot in the south. >> Before we leave the bus, because I'll forget to go back to that. >> Would you have chief stately have our PD talk with Chief Newman over at the We
don't need to wait till a parking lot's built. If there's a problem out there with kids, we need to do what we can to address that now. >> Yep. >> Not that we can't ask if offer the spot to move it, but I don't want people out
there to wait two years to give some attention to that. >> Okay. >> Please. >> Okay. Yeah, we can do it. Okay. [clears throat] So, we got the boardwalk, we got the parking lot in the south, the observation tower is if we can make it work first phase. Okay. Um,
we've got now the crossings the so T1 and T2 are basically one is already there. It's a raised crossing. T2 would be another raised crossing with the difference would be and and Mr. Letta, correct me if I'm wrong. Would you be installing flashing pedestrian beacons as well on both of those?
>> Yeah, that's my recommendation. >> Okay. Okay. And seems like everybody was okay with that. Is that correct? >> I think it makes sense because without T2 that that aligns with the parking lot. I mean, >> okay.
>> That I don't want to speak for everybody if you feel differently, but Okay. >> Okay. All right. The the part that I missed uh in this conversation was and Mr. Loretta, you'll have to tell me. You probably have a very solid idea here of this, but the connection from So, if
we're doing the parking lot, the connection to the boardwalk, is that that J is that proposed? Can that be fit in this phase potentially? So, so H, which is the [snorts] boardwalk, the northern new bridge along the ditch,
that northern one, that is what we've actually already been incorporating into phase one. The parking lot we've already been incorporating into phase one. So, everything we're actually talking about right now, other than maybe a little bit additional of the boardwalk, we've been talking about in phase one. And so to
some extent, if we remove like the um the extra [laughter] picnic >> [clears throat] >> uh stations and the the workout stations, that's going to accommodate the costing for additional boardwalk and and some of the additional sidewalk. So I think that um we should be able to the
one thing I do want to say is Jay Jay the only thing that's in that we'll be able to incorporate within phase one is what's along the river. So what's along that ditch was not considered within that phase. >> That's a creek by creek. Sorry. We don't have ditches. We have creeks.
>> The beautiful creek which is which would be will be enhanced in phase two. That really is a part of the phase two portion. And so um what I would say is the item J on Springdale Pond. Um that
one will be kind of we'll put it in there and that will be either can we build it or not. I mean, that's almost like the last thing. Hopefully, that's the last $100,000 that we can put into this thing. Um, but, uh, you know, so
all the elements along, [snorts] you know, um, everybody kind of is in consensus. Okay, we don't need the picnic areas. We don't need the the workout stations at this point. Um, but that'll be, you know, so we'll see where the initial bid comes in. And that can
be something that your all staff installs quite frankly because you could go buy it and then install it yourself. It really wouldn't become that big of an issue at a later point. I would like to try to incorporate M um espec really the north west corner which is kind of
almost the little mini gateway element into the park from downtown. Uh all we're talking about is a trellus with some little patio area. Uh, I think that would be a nice little element to to um to incorporate into this. But I believe,
you know, really as we were looking at, we had everything wrapping around Springdale Pond and the parking lot, the observation tower and access to that observation tower. And so now really what we're ext what we're going to try to figure out if we can't we got to figure out how to manipulate the numbers
to work is extending that boardwalk from the observation tower to the other side along the river and then creating a sidewalk path. And I mean I've got it drawn in front of me. We can kind of follow the sidewalk path. I love the idea of connecting it to the east to that neighborhood to the east and
connecting it back to the parking lot. Um, and I, you know, I believe we'll be able to bring that in under this $3.8 million budget. >> Okay. Can I ask a question, please? >> Uh, refresh my memory. I thought H was already in our existing capital plan.
>> We do have money in the budget for for what? H actually H is a little this is a little bit to the south if I'm not mistaken. [clears throat] >> It got shifted a little bit to the south because of utilities and tips. So, we put in, I believe, $100,000 in the capital program to replace the existing
bridge that's out there. It's been on hold because we've been trying to work this issue out because we don't want to spend money twice >> together since September. >> Um, so this so where it is today is you can see actually where the sidewalk is on the the on River Hills Drive, right? >> That would line up. That's where the bridge is today. It's closer to the
right of way. So, under this plan, it'll be further into the park, slightly further into the park. It's probably no more than 50 ft away from where it's >> We have we haven't we haven't spent that money out of the budget though. >> No, no, we've not. So that we've kept when we budgeted that if you recall, we talked about look, we'll have this budgeted
>> and if we need it, we can shift it to this project if we had to depending on how these designs came out. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Thank you for finding us $100,000 is what I just heard. >> Well, and I I have a question as well about the tree fund >> and the talking about adding some trees
around here. Would it be possible instead of the cost of additional trees coming out of this particular budget to having some of that come out of the tree fund since we do have a robust tree fund
and this is public space? >> That's a Carl's giving me the nod if we say sure. Yeah, >> we had we we talked in that list of >> Yeah. Come on up.
in in the list of of uh city direct buy purchases that that we added to their OPC. Um I did identify that the tree fund could be used for some of those tree expenditures. So some some that's already been calculated into this. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. So let me recap. So we've got it. What I heard is so we've got the the boardwalk observation tower if we can make it happen. If not, we move it. Parking lot on the on the south side. Yes. uh uh connection, sidewalk connection was still right. I was talking about having a sidewalk connection um H and
maybe a sidewalk connection to the parking lot, the new parking lot to the boardwalk. Okay. In some form or fashion that isn't defined right now because we've got other elements here that we're not doing. The connections across the street to Springdale, um the pathway around Springdale, a new pathway,
concrete pathway around Springdale. We're postponing the exercise equipment and the pavilions at the corners potentially. Seems like we're going to postpone those to a later phase. Is that correct? Okay. >> We only have one trellis. So, there's only like there's only one trellis and
the M on the left side or the bottom left of your thing and there's no other pavilions around Springdale Pond to my knowledge. I mean, yeah. So, there's no like that top right corner. All that is was a little enhanced pavement to kind of say, "Hey, we're coming into a a
public space." Um, so there there's not I mean, the trellis there, we're we're less than $50,000 between all those improvements, I think. >> Well, I [clears throat] I mean, if you can make that happen, I'm okay with making that one M
happen. Um, >> I'm I'm okay with both M's included. Well, there's three. [clears throat] >> Well, the third M won't be built as the gateway into kind of the uh into the oval, but
>> right be later a later phase. >> Yeah, the top M is really just it's just concrete pavers or brick pavers in lie of concrete. And so instead of it being $3,000 of concrete, it's going to be $4,000 of concrete pavers. I mean, we're not it's not going to be a noticeable
difference there. >> Okay. Fine. I think we heard you there. So, if you're comfortable, that would make sense. If we can make it work, it's a nice amenity, it seems like, to be make an attractive end point. Uh, we're not, what I understood, too, particularly based on council member
Kravitz's uh, last comments because we're doing the parking lot at the south, we're not doing parking on Springdale, correct? Okay. All right. Did I miss something critical to the first phase? If I >> No, Council Member Kravitz, >> I'm just curious. Are we going to
discuss um the timing of the procurement? Are we uh there was some discussion about whether we should postpone before after the election? Um I'm not sure whether any of the materials that are being considered for this park are subject to tariffs. I know that those are under legal challenge. So
it's possible that if that wins in court then uh tariffs will go away and that might reduce costs for some items. But >> no, that's a good point. >> So we we can talk Yeah. right now. Can Mr. Loretta, can you share the time? What was the timeline for uh what
>> No, I mean I I think the the focus our our end um I mean I believe we'd be able to get this in where it's January what the 8th right now. So we should be able to get this in for permit based on the results of this you know within the month. Uh and then it should be a 3 to
four month permit time frame. I just don't see why it would need to be much longer than that. And so we should be able to be uh February, March, April, we should be permitted by the end of May if not before then. And so um depending upon, you know, I think we could get
uh it comes down to y'all's bidding process and so on and so forth. I don't completely understand that here with y'all, but I mean I'm sure Carl and ourselves, our team could work together, get the bid ready to go and so come May, miday, it could go out for bid. What I was hearing from the council is they'd
prefer to delay. >> Well, let let's talk about that because I um I mean the money's budgeted in the current budget year. Um, however, I am a little concerned
about we put this out the bid in the summer, we start construction late summer, early fall, perhaps we start moving things, dirt around, we start building, and then November, there's a
constitutional amendment that passes that seriously disrupts our revenue stream. and we have a park under construction at the and at the same time that we're I just I'm just trying to figure out the
timing of this >> you're meeting. Sorry. >> Well, so these are my thoughts >> if that constitutional amendment or whatever the end of it ends up being. All right. So
where there's a dramatic change in property tax revenue which I do want people to understand that [clears throat] the property tax the the revenue that we collect from
that is a calculation based on a value of your property to pay for the services that the city provides to the residents and that has a cost no matter what. So, if that does come to pass, so
I I'm going to go on the record as saying I don't mind moving forward with phase one of this project because I see that as adding value to the overall downtown project that we've been looking
to do. 56th Street, which is very suburban looking, needs improvement in order to help delineate um give us a sense of place, etc., and actually provide value and ultimately enhance
the the entire city basically for the residents. Um, if this property tax, any of the iterations that are being proposed does pass and we see a dramatic reduction in funding to the general
fund, which is where the funding for our police services, our fire services are paid for, as well as parks and wreck and and other services in the city that are not through the enterprise funds. We have an ongoing problem with trying to
figure out how those services are going to be funded on a continuing basis. It's not going to be a one-time. That will be an overall moving into the future restructuring on how and and
there'll be a lot of discussion about that. So, I guess um yes, I'm fiscally conservative, but I see this project as adding value overall to the city residents, to this project, to the city itself, and I don't see us th this not
doing this would give us maybe a one-time, but it doesn't answer the entire process of how we fund those services going into the future. So, that's my opinion. >> Thank you. Council member Chambers.
>> Yeah, I'm in agreement with that. I would like to see it moving forward. >> Fair enough, Vice Mayor. I would like to see us continue to move forward and I'm not trying to get in discussion on the property taxes, but I mean even even the uh the
with the wisdom of going what's going on up in Tallahassee to which I disagree with um it's still a sum zero game and I believe that there's and and I've heard discussions where may not be a property tax but it's sure going to be a tax somewhere. So, you're
gonna we're going to see 10% sales tax before it's all said and done if they go through with the property taxes because it's still got to come from somewhere. We still have to operate all all up and down the state. And yeah, we only get $19 million, but we're we're going to end up as a as a as a city and a county.
And so, we're paying for other counties who don't have the the the same. So, it's going to be it's going to be managed by the state and we're not going to have as much stayover. So, uh, I think that the the the overall number of dollars are still going to be there ultimately. It's just coming from a
different source. However, I do also want to see this thing keep moving forward. I don't think we need to try and turn dirt before the summer. >> Okay? I still think we need to be prudent, but I don't I don't want to sit and not do and not do anything between
now and then. I think we need to keep moving forward. We need to come up with what's this actually going to be because none of us can None of us know right this moment what we're going to be looking at. We we've already budgeted 3.8 I think it was in in in in the plan.
Um I have no idea what this is going to be. I haven't looked at I haven't added up the components but uh I don't want to sit around and not do anything. So I think we need to continue at least working towards it. >> Okay. Council member C. >> Yeah. I'd like to see it move forward. I
I think it's it's not likely that any of the materials are subject to tariffs. I don't I don't really think they would be uh if it's a fiber fiberglass uh walkway materials or pine that's likely to be USmade. Um as far as the property taxes
um I don't want to speculate on that and I don't see why we would borrow tomorrow tomorrow's worries for today. Uh when that happens if that happens then there will be other opportunities and ways of dealing with it. So, I'm perfectly fine moving forward with it right now. And I think uh if we do intend to do that,
then why not move it along? Uh I I don't I don't know what the various arguments are be for or against breaking ground at a particular time, but I imagine that that would be a decision that the executive would make based on uh its own assessment. So,
>> okay. [clears throat] Well, there we go. >> All right. So, I I Mr. dealer, can you so [clears throat] taking all this information for what's excuse me on the phase one that the council has just suggested, when do you think we could get a revised plan that would show everything in phase one so
that we could get it to the council for their final blessing and and move forward? >> Great question. I will I know what I think, but let me uh I mean, do we think within two weeks? Uh I mean, I know exactly what I want to
do. It's just a matter of our graphics team to be able to kind of put it together and the cost and so forth. And so what I think we'll end up doing is providing a revised um I don't know if it's are you if you all be comfortable with a revised black and
white plan that then we almost highlight actually what is within phase one. Um and then that may be the nicest simplest way versus us trying to add additional color and so on and so forth. Um Yeah. When's your When's your next council meeting? >> Next council meeting. The deadline's
already passed for next council meeting. So, be [clears throat] it's it's February, excuse me, it's January 12. >> I mean, we're going to go back and we can uh you know, from my perspective, we can kind of have this kind of coordinated this afternoon. It's just then a matter of getting it completed. So,
>> um two weeks, but then we got ready for February council meeting. >> Yeah. So, okay. So, it seems like from my hearing you can we can hit the February the first February calendar meeting. Carl, does that sound reasonable to you? Does that sound okay with the council? Okay. So, if that's
the case, we bring it back >> February 3rd. >> February 3rd. >> Third. >> And then and then you can approve it hopefully and then we can go and they can move forward. understanding would be then we would go continue the process as outlined go for full permitting go to
issue the uh get final uh engineers cost estimate for for the bid do the bid specs issue the bid and just keep going >> okay >> okay any questions that you have of the direction from council >> um >> you need to
>> yeah so you it's a >> January 20th I need those materials for the February council meeting >> she didn't pass out. So, it's probably not too bad. >> Yeah, we can make that happen. >> We really appreciate I appreciate everybody's time here. Um I mean, I think we've got clear direction. I think
the park and the project that's going to be installed within phase one is still going to be a wonderful project and then, you know, there's going to be a lot of elements that the c the city [clears throat] individually add probably within your own staff as this thing proceeds forward and um kind of continue to enhance this. So,
>> thank you council members. Any final comments, thoughts? Thank you. Thank you. >> Yes. Thank you. The manager. Good. Mr. Langfield, we're good. Yes, sir. >> Got everything we need. Okay. We will be
adjourned then. Thank you very much. [music] >> [music] >> Heat. [music] Heat. [music] >> [music] [music] [music]