Committee debates Moffitt project amid proposed CBA changes

Last year, the newly formed Community Benefits Advisory Committee had to review the first-ever qualifying project – a Moffitt Cancer Center tied to the development of a residential complex, hotel and parking garage. Despite the jumbled meetings, the CBAC pushed the project forward only for it to be rejected by the city. 

The formation of the CBAC was needed due to the city adopting Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) ordinance. CBAs are used by many cities as a tool for economic equity. It creates a process that takes into account the social and community impact of a development plan. 

The elongated CBAC process followed by the city’s denial sent a message to developers – they must leap through additional barriers to get a green light and even then, their project may not come to fruition. 

As City Director of Economic and Workforce Development Brian Caper was presenting changes for the CBAC process and a new streamlined process during a Thursday Committee of the Whole meeting, city councilman Ed Montanari said the “Moffitt deal was the biggest lost opportunity we’ve had in years.” 

“You talked about room for improvement [regarding the review process]. But this is a very complex, very convoluted bureaucratic nightmare for a developer to walk through,” Montanari remarked, stating he wants St. Pete to remain a business-friendly city. “If you cleaned this up, I’d want you to paint with bold colors. Not tinker around the edges.” 

The standard process for the CBA. All images: Screenshots. 

Councilmember Lisset Hanewicz also raised concerns. 

“Like every community member here, I got a lot of community feedback about Moffitt and it wasn’t good … the reality is what is cancer treatment worth?” Hanewicz said. “I have the same question from people [asking] is the city going to put their taxpayer money in a stadium, but they wouldn’t do it in a cancer center? These are hard questions.” 

Councilmember John Muhammad reminded the attendees and members the unfolding of the Moffitt project should not fall on the CBAC’s shoulders. 

“I think the CBA process worked, but the administration had the ultimate decision to not move forward,” Muhammad said. 

The administration cited the lack of affordable housing for the residential tower and significantly low purchase offer as the primary reasons in justifying the rejection. In negotiating the unit count for the joint venture team to set aside at least 30% of the units for affordable housing, the team fell short, offering 17% as the maximum number of affordable units.

Caper said the Moffitt Cancer Center can still come to the table with a plan. 

Montanari asked Caper about the reactions from the development community regarding the proposed changes. 

“So far they’ve generally been positive. The concern we’ve heard from the development community is that uncertainty,” Caper said, explaining how similar to the Moffitt/TPA deal, a development team may go through months of negotiations and the project may not get passed by city council.

“That’s what we are attempting to solve with our streamlined process. There is some certainty there. If you agree to these benefits upfront, saying you will commit to these five things, that becomes your certainty and it’s going to move forward to city council,” Caper assured. 

The language in the proposed streamlines process for the CBAC. 

After the council provides input on revisions to the ordinance, Caper said the CBAC will connect with the St. Petersburg Downtown Partnership, St. Petersburg Area Economic Development Corp. and St. Petersburg Area Chamber of Commerce about the proposed changes before presenting the ordinance to the city council later this year for final approval. 

Highlight of additional proposed changes: 

• Projects that would generate 300 new jobs in the neighborhood in one of the targeted industries that pays at least 150% of the average Pinellas County wage would be automatically categorized as inapplicable, as those jobs are viewed as a community benefit. 
• A project dedicating at least 40% of the residential units as affordable or workforce housing would be inapplicable. 
• Lease agreements that do not contain an option to purchase and the construction of city-owned facilities would be inapplicable. 
• The CBAC would also revise its tiers. For example, project requiring at least 15% of city participation in Tier 1 must have a minimum participation value of $500,000. 
•