CITIZENS TO BE HEARD - 03/15/2016_ __
�
�.5 ��� ��� �
C��� ��
� � ��
��� �
� � ��
Comment to CDB on Tuesday, March 15
On Tuesday, January 12, Mr. Frank Dame, COO of the Clearwater Marine Aquarium, presented the
proposed CMA expansion pians to a large audience of Island Estate residents. At least the is�and
residents thought this meeting was to be informed of the CMA's proposal.
By the third slide of Mr. Dame's presentation it became abundantly dear that what Mr. Dame was
presenting was not a proposal, but in fact the CMA's go forward plans. In his presentation Mr. Dame use
the phrase "this is what we are going to do" multiple times. Finally, I questioned him directly regarding
his choice of words and my understanding that this meeting was intended to be an informational
meeting for the residents of IE on the CMA's proposal. His response was that what he was presenting
was the CMA plan and that the CMA had plenty of support to move forward with their expansion. Was
the CDB already on board?
I followed up this question by asking why, seven days prior to the scheduled Community Development
Board meeting to review the CMA proposal, we the residents of IE are just now hearing about these
expansion plans. Mr. Dame responded that the plans had just been finalized and there had not been
time to inform the residents. In retrospect one of two things happened. Either, Mr. Dame lied to me and
the attendees of this meeting or you, the CDB, did not hold the CMA to your flexible development
calendar. Your calendar required electronic application by noon of November 2, 2015 for your January
19, 2016 meeting.
Frankly, I am not certain what the CDB requires for its application process, but I can say with certainty
that the CMA had been working on the expansion plans for months prior to meeting with the IE
residents. Otherwise, how do you explain the evidence package they presented at the lanuary 19, CBD
meeting? Although I question the completeness of their package it did include architectural and
engineering drawings, traffic study, albeit flawed, landscape plans etc. These plans take months to
prepare. Mr. Dame's statement that the plans had just been finalized was absurd.
Let me draw your attention to another date of interest. On Thursday, November 19, 2015 IECA held a
town hall meeting. I was not in attendance, but my wife who was on the IECA board at the time did
attend. She informed me that the town hall was wel� attended and that the CMA was on the agenda.
The CMA declined to present at this meeting. The meeting minutes for the November 19 town hall
posted on the IECA website note: CMA — plans in flux. No decision. How could that have been the case
at this time? The CMA had to submit an electronic application by November 2, 2015. Did you give the
CMA a waiver on this date?
I would like to now address IECA and its leadership. I have read the IECA by-laws and found nothing in
them that precludes the association's leadership from sitting on boards such as the CDB. However, what
I thought was interesting is the primary duty of the Vice president is to serve as the government liaison
o�cer. This position is held by Mr. Albritton. It is fair to have expected Mr. Albritton to keep his
membership addressed of a plan as significant as the CMA expansion. He chose not to.
During the IECA meeting on January 12 there were two notable absences. Ms. Lau, president and Mr.
Albritton, vice-president chose not to attend. Rather they sent Ms. Heather Block to chair the meeting.
When asked why Ms. Lau and Mr. Albritton were not in attendance Ms. Block stated that they felt there
was a conflict of interest in their attending this meeting and then sitting on the CDB and voting on the
CMA proposal. Ms. Lau and Mr. Albritton, why did you not attend the IECA meeting and listen to your
membership? Why did you not recuse yourselves from voting on the CMA proposal?
The third paragraph of the IECA mission statement states "we represent a clearing house for matters of
community concern and interest, gain consensus and speak as a uniform voice of the community to local
government". Ms. Lau and Mr. Albritton, you failed to uphold the mission of IECA.
I would like to now address the January 19, CDB meeting and its minutes. Ms. Lau I want to thank you
for attempting to get a continuance on the vote on the CMA's expansion plans. Mr. Funk, I am not sure
of your roll however. First, you supported the continuance motion and then when you were presented
in quote "evidence" from Mr. Aungst you immediately withdrew your support. Where did you go to
acting school? This appeared scripted. Why did you not question Mr. Aungst on his claim that the CMA
may lose the advantage of a grant expiring in June of this year? I have investigated this grant and cannot
find it. Sandy Hutton of Rep. Folly's office has told me in writing that there is not a federal grant or
appropriation earmarked for the CMA. I also check with the state government. Although I found a
number of appropriations earmarked for the CMA I could not find one in the amount of $1.7M. There is
a line item in this year's budget for $1.OM for construction of a dolphin pool. Did Mr. Aungst overstate
the value of the grant and therefore the urgency to move forward?
In the minutes for this meeting you clearly state the number of people who spoke out for and against
this CMA proposal; fifteen for and seven against. Why in your minutes do you not also state the number
of letters you received in support and against the expansion? Are you aware that seventeen letters were
sent in opposing the expansion and only five were in support? Unlike the CMA, we could not give our
staff the afternoon off and parade them in front of you. We, the IECA residents actually had to take our
personal time to both write and attend the CMA meeting.
I am not sure who filed the letters submitted on the CMA proposal, but you should know that letters
written by Mr. Tom McClain and Mr. Jan Willem Smeuters were either purposely or possibly erroneously
posted in the file with letters of support for the CMA proposal. Was someone trying to inflate the woeful
number of support letters you received?
In closing, I am not certain the mission of the CDB. I assume you sit at the request of the city to provide
an impartial third party on development activity. From my perspective this could not be further from the
truth. Your work is sloppy, staff work is incomp�ete and you are clearly not impartial. No, your roll in the
CMA expansion is small town politics at its worst. You could care less about the citizens of Clearwater.