TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online
Curtis Hixon Park Plan Gets Mixed Reception
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: February 8, 2008
Updated: 02/07/2008 11:57 pm
TAMPA - City council members got their first good look Thursday at plans for a new Curtis Hixon Park, and they didn't like everything they saw.
During and after the meeting, they raised concerns about everything from the design of the park benches to the project's $15 million price tag.
"A couple of years ago, I was comfortable with that because it's a nice amenity," Councilman John Dingfelder said during a meeting break. "But I can't in good conscience vote for a new $15 million park when we're talking about a $15 million to $20 million deficit and laying off hundreds of employees."
Several years ago, Mayor Pam Iorio announced plans to remake Curtis Hixon Park in downtown Tampa. The art museum building is being demolished and a new building will be constructed at the northern edge of Ashley Drive, next to a proposed Children's Museum.
The park, Iorio has said, will serve as Tampa's central park and as a community gathering place. People would be able to step off the adjacent Riverwalk to enjoy the park's amenities.
The city hired New York landscape architect Thomas Balsley to design the project. At Thursday's meeting, he showed the council updated renderings of his plans.
"It's been very carefully conceived to be a very active park," Balsley said.
The park would be built in two phases. The first phase, which carries a $15 million price tag, would include features such as a visitors' center, cafe kiosk, play area, dog run, fountain on Ashley and a shade trellis at a future pavilion building.
The second phase would include the glass towers, a mist fountain, the pavilion building, a garden and a restaurant. The second phase could cost an additional $5 million to $10 million.
Funding for the park would come from revenue generated by the downtown Community Redevelopment Area, though the city might need to borrow some money from its Community Investment Tax interest earnings and/or fund balances. Money from the Community Redevelopment Area is in question because of a recent state Supreme Court decision that might restrict how the city can spend money generated in these areas.
Regardless, finance director Bonnie Wise said, the city's goal is to pay for the park with money generated in the downtown area.
Iorio said this week the city should continue building, in part because the projects will offer job opportunities to many in the community as the country teeters on the brink of a recession.
As for the park's aesthetics, some council members particularly didn't like the five 50-foot-tall glass structures that each would contain a letter spelling out T-A-M-P-A. Each structure is expected to cost six figures.
"It doesn't look like a gateway. It looks like a barrier," Councilwoman Mary Mulhern said. "I hope we can lose those."
Dingfelder also questioned the necessity of the glass towers. Does Tampa have an identity crisis? he asked.
Balsley said the pillars would serve as a gateway announcement to town.
"The city has lacked a sense of, 'This is the place, this is the center,'" he said.
Councilman Joseph Caetano questioned whether the park benches would have dividers in the middle to prevent the homeless from sleeping on them.
Balsley said the benches would have arm rests to serve as a deterrent. Dingfelder wasn't satisfied and said some of the other benches looked like an invitation for the homeless to sleep there.
Dingfelder also questioned whether the fountains would use reclaimed water.
That would be impractical, parks department Director Karen Palus said, because the fountains are designed for children to play in.
That prompted council members to ask whether the fountains would be subject to the city's water restriction ordinance.
Though the fountains can be turned off and on whenever the city wants, they would not be subject to the city ordinance, officials said.
City administrators hope to ask the council to award the construction contract for the park next month, with an eye toward groundbreaking in late March or early April. Work would take a little more than a year.
No timeline has been set for the second phase.
Reporter Ellen Gedalius can be reached at (813) 259-7679 or egedalius@tampatrib.com.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)
* Keep it clean
* Respect others
* Don't hate
* Don't use language you wouldn't use with your mom
* Use "Report Inappropriate Comments" link when necessary
* See Member Agreement for details
TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online Member Agreement | Privacy Statement | Work With Us
Reader Comments
Posted by ( BecauseIknow ) on February 8, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Amazing, Pam can't find money to retain employees or pay a competitive wage but she has plenty of money for her special projects. Pam you are cutting our basic services to save money for projects to make yourself look good for your future political future.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( LARGO_TOM ) on February 8, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Where are the pictures ?
How are they going to keep the street bums out of the fountains and defecating in the bushes ?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( gsp ) on February 8, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Looks like the city has more $ than needs, when projects like this can be funded. What is not getting funded so that this projects can be done?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( dan_in_tampa ) on February 8, 2008 at 10 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Wow, I think many of the comments made so far show a lack of understanding the funding for this project. In municipal governments there are many “pots” of money.
The city is expecting a budget shortfall in its general operating budget because of reduced property taxes. The things that the city has been cutting back, eliminating or otherwise streamlining to save money are all funded through the general operating fund of the city.
This project, from my understanding, is being funded through taxes collected in a “Community Redevelopment Area.” Taxes that are collected in this redevelopment area are put into a separate fund from the general operating fund and can only be used to help in the redevelopment of the specific area where the taxes are collected - the downtown redevelopment area. I hope you would agree that this helps in the redevelopment of our downtown.
Therefore, the argument that is being made in many of the earlier comments fail to realize the reality of how budgeting works in a city. Even though the city may be cutting services, making layoffs, and otherwise reducing expenses in its general operating fund because of a shortfall. There are funds available in this fund that holds money for the CRA. I would hope that when people slam Pam in the future that they would know all the facts and not just a select few.
Lastly, many people have also mentioned the homeless people in the downtown area and their fears that this new park would somehow be a magnet for the homeless. What would you have the city do? Should we just surrender our downtown to the homeless and not try and redevelop and improve our city because there are homeless people?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( gsp ) on February 8, 2008 at 6:12 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
the article says different dan
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( d2541 ) on February 9, 2008 at 12:08 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Dan in Tampa,
Maybe you can explain to us why in 2003 that the $104,543,608 recieved from property tax was 38.8% of the total general fund of $269,633,383 and for the projected 2007 values the $164,307,934 recieved from property tax was 49.5% of the total general fund of $331,967,578.
Is it because that maybe Pam is relying more heavily on property tax alone to pay for essential services so that she can take money that once paid for these services for her own pet projects? She can spin the cities budget crisis any way she wants but the fact is she is willing to screw the workers and taxpayers of Tampa for projects that are luxuries for her legacy. She started redirecting funds for her benefit when she took office and that worked great for her until the money dried up.
As for the community invesment tax, that money was supposed to last for 30 years and the majority of it has been spent in less than 10 years. Thats great handling of money.
Report Inappropriate Comments