The Blueprint Intergovernmental Agency met on May 27th to consider a number of projects. The meeting lasted for over seven hours. Listed below are notes on the outcomes related to votes taken on six projects.
Project Mango
The Blueprint Intergovernmental Agency (IA) voted 11-1 to move forward with offering a $2.6 million incentive package to the company connected to the fulfillment center project called Project Mango.
City Commissioner Jack Porter was the only elected official who voted against moving forward with the project.
The Northeast Gateway
A tense discussion over a vote to consolidate previous decisions related to the Northeast Gateway resulted in a delay in moving forward with the project. The staff recommendation to move forward with the project – after being approved 8-3 at the last Blueprint IA meeting – failed 6-5.
Those five elected officials supporting the project included Mayor John Dailey, Leon County Commissioners Jimbo Jackson, Nick Maddox, Brian Welch and Carolyn Cummings.
Those voting against moving forward were City Commissioners Jeremy Matlow, Jack Porter and Curtis Richardson and Leon County Commissioners Kristen Dozier, Rick Minor and Bill Proctor.
After the staff recommendation failed, a unanimous decision was made to hold another Blueprint meeting before June 30 to allow additional time to address concerns of some residents who are negatively impacted by the project.
Tallahassee Community College Athletic Facility Enhancements
The Blueprint IA voted unanimously to approve a request for $1 million to update TCC athletic facilities. Funding for the project could be allocated from monies expected to be received by the Office of Economic Vitality from the American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA) Fiscal Year 2021 allocation.
FSU Convention Center, Doak Campbell Stadium Upgrades
The Blueprint IA voted to discontinue negotiations with Florida State University on the convention center project. The vote was due, in part, to construction cost increases, the budgetary limitations compared with limited funding available to construct a project of recommended size and the economic recession due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Blueprint IA also voted to direct staff to coordinate with FSU on a $20 million economic development project related to repairs at Doak S. Campbell Stadium. The vote directed staff to:
- Conduct an economic analysis to determine the economic impacts of the stadium improvements and work with Downs & St. Germain to determine the visitor impact of the request and reallocate funding in the amount of $35,000 from the convention center project budget for these analyses.
- Update and expand upon the initial Populus Facility Assessment Report, at FSU’s expense, to fully document, assess, and estimate the funding repairs needed at the stadium.
- Present analysis, findings and recommendations for the IA Board’s consideration full funding analysis with bond options.
Market District Park
The Blueprint IA voted unanimously to move forward with the Market District Park concept plan. The park plan was based on the top-ranked preferred features determined by community engagement sessions.
FSU Stadium Upgrades, Project Mango a Go added by Steve Stewart on
View all posts by Steve Stewart →
@ Edward Lyle Aren’t “staff” ALSO County Employees? I work for the state and all my Emails and such are subject to Sunshine Law.
Good questions Tony. I’m sure the FSU Endowment has more than enough funds to cover their own facility maintenance, not to mention the funds rolling in from China via the exchange student program.
As for the Project Mango and the Sunshine Law… “staff” negotiations are not subject to the law.
I’d still like some specifics as to why Porter voted against the measure.
“The Blueprint Intergovernmental Agency (IA) voted 11-1 to move forward with offering a $2.6 million incentive package to the company connected to the fulfillment center project called Project Mango.”
*
Doesn’t THIS violate the Sunshine Law by NOT telling us who Mango is since you have agreed to do this?
For many YEARS, FSU has been building on the Stadium so WHY didn’t they also include those needed Repairs at the same time?
Excellent questions, Ed. Perhaps TR would be willing to report the answers.
Did the property owner of Project Mango support Porter or the incumbent in the last election?
I’m curious… As it’s reported that Commissioner Porter was the single nay vote on the Project Mango matter, one wonders if there exists any further information as to her reasoning for her objection. Did she offer a cogent argument against the recommendation, or did she simply vote against it without comment?