32:17The central topic of discussion revolved around Sutton Hall, a significant historical site owned by Florida College. Concerns were raised about the lack of transparency from the college regarding their development plans for the property. One board member pointedly remarked, “I think we should know before the bulldozers arrive what is going to happen there,” underscoring the board’s desire for proactive engagement rather than reactive measures once decisions have already been made. This sentiment was echoed by another board member who expressed frustration, “we can’t tell them how to design their building,” highlighting the board’s limited authority in influencing the design and preservation of such historic structures.

The board acknowledged that the real decision-making power lies with the city council and community development, which are responsible for site plan reviews. However, there was a strong call for the preservation board to be kept informed, even if their ability to directly engage with the college on design matters is limited. A member expressed disappointment, saying, “it’s a lack of courtesy, a lack of respect from that college towards the city,” reflecting broader concerns about community engagement and the importance of preserving historical sites.

32:41There was discussion about the mayor’s role in engaging with Florida College. A member noted, “the mayor has made that step and went on that tour because he knew that all of us felt the way we did,” indicating that while the mayor was making efforts to communicate with the college, the board still felt sidelined in the process. The conversation included a proposal to formally request that the city council invite the president of Florida College to present design plans to the board. However, there was hesitation, with a member suggesting, “I would leave that for council to do,” recognizing the board’s limitations in authority.

Despite these challenges, there was mention of a temporary reprieve on the demolition timeline, with assurances that it would not occur before the centennial celebration. Yet, the specifics of future plans remained unclear. The board recognized that the mayor would serve as the primary liaison with the college, and members agreed that reaching out independently would be beyond their scope. The mayor’s role was seen as crucial in keeping the board informed and representing their concerns.

01:33In addition to Sutton Hall, the board meeting also discussed the progress toward Temple Terrace becoming a certified local government (CLG). Jeanie Barlo provided updates, stating that progress had been made, including the removal of language requiring the consent of all property owners for designations. Instead, a supermajority vote of 60% would be necessary to approve designations over objections. Barlo anticipated presenting an ordinance to amend the relevant code section before the city council, with the first reading scheduled for April 15 and the second in early May.

04:19Barlo also introduced a resolution for council approval outlining incentives for property owners to participate in the designation program. The proposed incentives, under the banner of the “1920s club,” included waiving designation and Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application fees, fast-tracking permits, providing a bronze marker, and offering a one-year family recreation center membership. A member expressed support for the incentive list but raised concerns about the program’s name. Barlo explained that the focus was on 1920s Mediterranean Revival homes due to existing historic resource files and the potential for grants once CLG status was achieved, though there was openness to considering 1950s homes in the future.

23:50The board also discussed the criteria for tax incentives related to historic property designations. Clarity was sought regarding eligibility, emphasizing that properties must undergo a designation process to qualify for tax reductions. The board agreed to prioritize the inclusion of tax incentive information in application materials. To address homeowners’ misconceptions about the designation process, there was a proposal to create an FAQ section on the website and distribute informational literature during upcoming community celebrations.

31:11Concerns were raised about the need for workshops with contractors to ensure homeowners receive accurate guidance on restoration projects, especially after achieving CLG status. The board recognized the importance of better educating the public to dispel misconceptions and encourage participation in historic preservation programs.