TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, September 2, 2010
9:00 a.m. session
The following represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied upon
for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
09:02:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Tampa City Council will now come to
09:02:13 The chair will yield to Gwen Miller.
09:02:16 >>GWEN MILLER: It's my pleasure to introduce the guest
09:02:18 to give the invocation today.
09:02:19 He was born to the late Mr. and Mrs. Olie Jones.
09:02:24 Reverend David L. Jones, Sr., moved to Tampa in 1962
09:02:27 from Quincy, Florida. He is a graduate of the original
09:02:30 Blake senior high school formerly known as Don Thompson
09:02:33 senior high.
09:02:34 Reverend Jones acknowledged his call to the ministry in
09:02:38 Soon after he was called to preach the gospel in 1998
09:02:44 reverend Jones was ordained as a minister at St. John's
09:02:48 Progressive Missionary Baptist church under the
09:02:52 pastorage of the late Reverend F.G. Hilton, with the
09:02:58 Reverend Bartholomew presently serving as pastor.
09:03:06 Reverend Jones has an AA degree in Biblical studies and
09:03:11 has a Ph.D. in pastoral ministry.
09:03:17 Rev. Jones is also a City of Tampa employee. He has
09:03:18 been employed 18 years and three months. He has been
09:03:20 president of the Hillsborough County school board.
09:03:23 Reverend Jones and lovely wife his Shirley have been
09:03:25 married for 27 years and together are the proud parents
09:03:29 of four children and three grandchildren.
09:03:33 Will you please stand and remain standing for the
09:03:35 pledge of allegiance?
09:03:36 >> Our father, we come now in the name of your son
09:03:59 We come now in the name of Jesus thanking you for the
09:04:03 council members.
09:04:09 We ask they be sensitive to the needs and the concerns
09:04:13 of the community and the people.
09:04:15 Heavenly fat, we come understanding that the
09:04:20 government -- Lord, help to us govern ourselves
09:04:25 according to your principles in the name of Jesus.
09:04:30 [ Pledge of Allegiance ]
09:04:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Roll call.
09:04:52 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Here.
09:04:53 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Here.
09:04:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
09:04:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
09:04:56 >>MARY MULHERN: Here.
09:04:59 >>CURTIS STOKES: Here.
09:05:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.
09:05:01 And good morning, council.
09:05:11 We will begin this be morning with the review and
09:05:14 approval of the agenda and then move to the public
09:05:16 Mr. Shelby.
09:05:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members
09:05:20 of City Council.
09:05:20 Before you, you have the addendum to today's agenda,
09:05:27 plus some new business items that need to be taken up.
09:05:30 Council, Mr. Territo, chief assistant city attorney,
09:05:35 has sent you a memo requesting that council set a
09:05:37 special called session on April 16, 2010 prior to the
09:05:42 regular session of the CRA, and this is for the
09:05:44 purposes of sales tax bonding refunding.
09:05:47 It's been brought to my attention that time is of the
09:05:50 essence, and to the City Council, to be able to Don
09:05:54 this in a timely fashion.
09:05:56 So that request is being made to set a special called
09:06:00 session on September 16th.
09:06:02 So I guess that would be 9:00 in the morning.
09:06:04 It should be a short item.
09:06:07 Could we ask that be a separate motion, please?
09:06:09 >> So moved.
09:06:10 >> Second.
09:06:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion and second.
09:06:13 All in favor?
09:06:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You also received a memo from senior
09:06:18 assistant attorney Julia Cole setting adoption hearings
09:06:26 for -- and October 28, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. on three map
09:06:33 amendments to the comprehensive plan and five text
09:06:36 amendments to the Tampa comprehensive plan.
09:06:38 Council, I bring to your attention that again there is
09:06:42 a time issue related to that which is why it is being
09:06:46 requested that the October 28th date is following
09:06:49 the CRA.
09:06:51 So that will also be a special called meeting that's
09:06:53 being requested for October 28th at 10:30 a.m., and
09:06:57 if council wishes, please by motion and vote.
09:06:59 >>GWEN MILLER: So moved.
09:07:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
09:07:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
09:07:04 All in favor?
09:07:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And we had a late breaking
09:07:07 development on item number 88 on the agenda.
09:07:10 And assistant city attorney Mauricio Rodriguez is here
09:07:14 to explain to the council.
09:07:16 And did you give a copy to the clerk or is this the
09:07:21 Council, it's my understanding that there has been a
09:07:23 change in the parties to the agreement relative to
09:07:28 number 8.
09:07:30 Mr. Rodriguez, do you want to explain to council?
09:07:35 There's a request for a substitution here, council, and
09:07:37 if you wish to have time to take it up, there could be
09:07:41 a vote on it later in the day to give council time to
09:07:44 read it but my understanding, Mr. Rodriguez will
09:07:47 explain to you but time is of the essence with this
09:07:50 >>> Mauricio Rodriguez, legal department.
09:07:54 The original agreement was between the city, and
09:08:06 Kaboom, and late yesterday the NFL Yet got out of the
09:08:12 agreement so the city found anew partner, Tampa Bay
09:08:14 housing community partnership.
09:08:18 And what is before you is the same agreement and all
09:08:22 that has changed is the computer partner with the city.
09:08:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Rodriguez, when you say NFL Yet,
09:08:30 who is the NFL Yet?
09:08:32 They don't have any money to give?
09:08:38 >>> It's a not-for-profit organization, and
09:08:43 unfortunately they reached impasse with Kaboom
09:08:46 yesterday regarding some of the language in the
09:08:49 And to limit their liability, they decided --
09:08:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I don't mind doing whatever but I
09:08:57 would like to read it.
09:08:58 I haven't gotten a chance to be digest it so if we
09:09:01 could put it towards the end of the agenda so all of us
09:09:03 have a chance, because Kaboom sounds like a toy, and
09:09:08 yet sounds like a Martian.
09:09:11 I would just like to read it.
09:09:13 >>> Absolutely.
09:09:14 I'm available if you have any questions.
09:09:15 >>MARY MULHERN: And I was all excited about we are
09:09:21 getting another Kaboom playground.
09:09:25 Why is it so time sensitive that we can't hear it next
09:09:32 >>> Kaboom needs to execute agreement, I believe, by
09:09:36 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
09:09:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me just say I'm very familiar with
09:09:41 Kaboom and NFL Yet.
09:09:45 They have done a lot of these projects throughout our
09:09:47 And they have had this partnership for some time now,
09:09:54 is there change in the language based on what they have
09:09:56 done in the past?
09:09:59 >>> Kaboom presented a new agreement this year, and
09:10:03 they need to revise some of the language, and the city
09:10:06 approved the revisions.
09:10:09 It's unfortunate that NFL and Kaboom could not agree on
09:10:15 the language.
09:10:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Now the new entity -- what's the name
09:10:20 of the new entity that wants to be involved now?
09:10:26 Tampa Bay Housing Partnership?
09:10:28 I guess the question is, they are going to provide the
09:10:30 same kind of funding, and with the NFL, they brought
09:10:34 the football players and the television there, live
09:10:39 entertainment for children and so forth.
09:10:40 Will that kind of activity still be available?
09:10:47 >>> I'm not sure if they would be able to provide the
09:10:49 same kind of amenities that NFL Yet would be able to
09:10:54 provide, but in order for the agreement to move
09:10:58 forward, we do need a partner.
09:11:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Chairman, East Tampa, it has been
09:11:08 there quite awhile and we need that assistance to keep
09:11:11 the park going.
09:11:12 So whatever council will agree on, I hope we don't vote
09:11:17 against it because East Tampa playground is for our
09:11:19 youth to keep them off the streets and not having any
09:11:21 problems in that area on 34th, and very well kept
09:11:27 park that's been there since NFL has taken it over,
09:11:30 have done a lot to improve the park.
09:11:33 Please pass the resolution.
09:11:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Now, I pulled the item to highlight it
09:11:38 because I'm familiar with NFL Yet, what they have done
09:11:41 in that area, and Jackson Heights and that park, and
09:11:47 was surprised by anticipation.
09:11:51 I understand the importance of moving forward with the
09:11:53 agreement, just as the NFL name carries a lot of weight
09:11:59 and a lot of advertisement or a lot of support, with
09:12:04 the players being there from the children and youth.
09:12:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, just to let you know
09:12:10 that council member Stokes is on the Board of Directors
09:12:13 of the NFL Yet, and because there's a conflict, he is
09:12:16 going to abstain, and also cannot participate in the
09:12:19 discussion, just so you know that for the record.
09:12:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, that can't hold up now if they
09:12:26 are not part of the involvement now, Mr. Attorney.
09:12:29 And I'm not practicing law.
09:12:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Factually, based on what I know of
09:12:41 this, I believe that because of Mr. Stokes as a member
09:12:45 of the Board of Directors, which this is an action
09:12:48 which may affect council's outcome, he perceives this
09:12:53 to be a conflict and I believe he does have the ability
09:12:55 to abstain.
09:12:56 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: And you will be more specific in
09:13:01 the language whereby you said there's a disagreement?
09:13:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
09:13:06 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: It would also be helpful to have
09:13:08 the park staff to discuss this, if we could put this
09:13:11 off to staff reports so we would be able to answer any
09:13:13 questions that council members would have and an
09:13:17 opportunity to take a look at it and get more staff to
09:13:20 give you more complete information.
09:13:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
09:13:23 Thank you.
09:13:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: So it's your desire to hold this for
09:13:28 staff reports at 10:30?
09:13:30 >> Okay, fine.
09:13:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There's one other item of new
09:13:33 business that needs to be brought up, and that's
09:13:35 relative to the petition that you heard last week
09:13:39 regarding the Mangroves and the alcoholic beverage
09:13:52 It is council's policy normally to not accept requests
09:13:57 or issues of reconsideration in a quasi-judicial
09:14:00 matter, and that is done by council policy which was
09:14:05 effectuated by change in the code of 2006 and an
09:14:09 amendment to council's rules.
09:14:11 Council, you have been consistently advised that
09:14:13 council does not accept requests for reconsideration of
09:14:18 quasi-judicial matters.
09:14:20 However, in this case, council, there are very unique
09:14:28 circumstances and fact, and that being that the city
09:14:31 clerk had discovered that information that had been
09:14:35 provided to City Council by the city relative to what
09:14:38 took place at the first public hearing was a mistake,
09:14:43 it was factually inaccurate, and on that basis,
09:14:48 council, because of that, it is my opinion that because
09:14:55 that fact may have affected the vote of one or more
09:15:01 City Council members and ultimately the outcome of the
09:15:03 case, it would be appropriate for City Council to
09:15:05 reconsider this, because to allow a fact that was
09:15:13 provided by the city, which was a mistake, to have
09:15:16 possibly affected the outcome, would be violating due
09:15:21 So it is my recommendation in this unique instance,
09:15:26 unique circumstance, it would be appropriate if a
09:15:28 member of City Council wishes to make a motion for
09:15:30 reconsideration, a member who was on the prevailing
09:15:33 side, to allow the question to come back, and that in
09:15:40 order to cure this concern and problem, it would be
09:15:43 appropriate then to set it for a duly noticed second
09:15:47 reading and public hearing.
09:15:50 And that would be my recommendation.
09:15:53 And I have consulted with the city attorney.
09:15:55 And I believe he shares with my opinion.
09:15:58 So if there is a member of the prevailing side -- oh,
09:16:02 also to inform you that I have informed Mr. Ron Weaver
09:16:05 of this, council counsel for the petitioner.
09:16:10 He is present.
09:16:10 He is willing to agree to do that if that is council's
09:16:13 pleasure, to renotice the public hearing, set it today.
09:16:16 I suppose the appropriate day would be October 7th,
09:16:19 and that is again if there is a member of the
09:16:21 prevailing side who wishes to make the motion to
09:16:25 Be? Mr. Chairman, I understand.
09:16:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, I understood what the
09:16:33 counsel said and the error that he mentioned happened
09:16:35 in my voting record where I vote against something and
09:16:38 it shows that I voted for something.
09:16:41 And luckily my aid kilowatt it and it was correct on
09:16:46 the record.
09:16:46 But I move that we change or rehear this hearing on
09:16:50 October 7th.
09:16:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I think the proper motion would be to
09:16:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion to reconsider to October
09:17:02 At what time?
09:17:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I would ask you to just set the
09:17:06 motion to reconsider.
09:17:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion as one of the four
09:17:10 to clear this thing.
09:17:12 Otherwise we will be in litigation.
09:17:15 Not that we aren't going to be in litigation and costly
09:17:19 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, is it possible at
09:17:23 this time that I can give get a police report of the
09:17:28 specific calls?
09:17:29 What was on our agenda, the information that they gave
09:17:32 us --
09:17:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, council, let's carry this
09:17:39 Then we can respond to that.
09:17:40 But there's a motion moved and seconded for
09:17:43 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
09:17:47 And now let me -- well, I don't think we really need
09:17:56 Mr. Weaver to speak if we are going to set the hearing
09:17:58 unless he's opposed to us setting the hearing.
09:18:01 Mr. Weaver?
09:18:02 Do you want to speak to -- okay.
09:18:06 So the motion will be in place to reset the hearing for
09:18:08 October 7th.
09:18:09 Is that right?
09:18:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's second reading at and public
09:18:18 Do you need any additional information, madam clerk,
09:18:21 relative to the Mangroves?
09:18:22 I don't have that case number in front of me.
09:18:25 1:30 you have two closure public hearings.
09:18:27 Do you want to set it for 1:30?
09:18:29 >> Second.
09:18:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
09:18:32 All in favor?
09:18:34 Now, in response to councilman Caetano, I think between
09:18:37 now and then he can get any information he needs
09:18:39 relative to this case, police report or anything,
09:18:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: So long as it's put into the record
09:18:46 and made part of it.
09:18:47 >>RON WEAVER: We have it and thank you for your
09:18:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: State your name for the record.
09:18:53 >>> Ron Weaver, 401 east Jackson, attorney for the
09:19:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So that's been set for October 7 at
09:19:04 Second reading.
09:19:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Continuing with the addendum to the
09:19:08 agenda, item 8 has already been placed under staff
09:19:18 reports at this point.
09:19:19 Item 1 and 19 are just to be pulled for highlighting.
09:19:23 I take it those won't be placed under staff reports, is
09:19:26 my understanding?
09:19:29 Items 22 and 23, the request originally was to have the
09:19:36 legal department prepare a resolution.
09:19:37 The resolution has been prepared for council's
09:19:40 On items 22 and 23, if council so chooses, it can move
09:19:43 those resolutions and resolve those items today.
09:19:49 Item 51 was placed at the end of the agenda because of
09:19:53 time constraints, but it was appropriate to take item
09:19:56 51 when items 37 through 48 are taken care of under
09:20:04 committee -- excuse me, are addressed under staff
09:20:08 reports and unfinished business.
09:20:10 Item 41, council, has been placed in error on today's
09:20:14 agenda, and it should be continued by council to
09:20:18 September 23rd, 2010.
09:20:23 Does that require action of the council?
09:20:26 Was that already?
09:20:27 Okay, thank you.
09:20:27 Item 47 is a staff report, and senior assistant city
09:20:35 attorney Julia Cole is requesting that item be
09:20:37 continued to September 30, 2010 at 10 a.m., the
09:20:40 workshop session, when council will be considering
09:20:42 amendments to the historic district code.
09:20:44 This would dovetail with that.
09:20:46 Item 49, council, is an afternoon item and that is a
09:20:56 petition to vacate right-of-way, and that is a case
09:21:02 that is not able to be heard.
09:21:03 The public hearing has been rescheduled for October 7,
09:21:09 between at 1:30.
09:21:10 Item 50 is a letter from David Mechanik the petitioners
09:21:14 representative requesting a continuance to September
09:21:16 23rd, 2010, and that means, therefore, council,
09:21:24 that you will not have anything to hear at 1:30 in the
09:21:30 afternoon today.
09:21:31 Now, I don't know how the morning is going to go, but
09:21:33 if for some reason, council, there is not a -- if I
09:21:37 talk faster -- I am going to be done in just a second
09:21:43 but I wanted to make sure, council, if it's council's
09:21:46 direction to the clerk, if a quorum should not be
09:21:50 present at 1:30 in the afternoon today, that a note be
09:21:53 placed on the door.
09:21:54 I will be here personally to inform people.
09:21:58 Then it should automatically be continued to the next
09:22:00 regular meeting which would then be September 23rd.
09:22:04 So that would negate council having to come back at
09:22:07 1:30 in the afternoon.
09:22:08 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: What property is involved in
09:22:12 Because I am not going to be here on the 23rd and I
09:22:14 want to be here.
09:22:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That involves a DRI relative to an
09:22:19 agreement between Tampa Bay mall and Jesuit high
09:22:24 It's a proposed change to a DRI.
09:22:28 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Do we have the backup material?
09:22:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe you presently do and you
09:22:32 will have an opportunity to get with staff between now
09:22:35 and then.
09:22:36 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: If that information is not there,
09:22:39 like I said I am not going to be here on the 23rd,
09:22:41 I want to be part of that.
09:22:42 I would like to see that before we vote on this today,
09:22:44 whether we are going to move it to the 23rd.
09:22:46 >>THE CLERK: That particular information wags
09:22:52 including the backup on the Web site, and I believe
09:22:54 it's approximately 560-some pages of backup.
09:22:58 >> You can read it.
09:23:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Caetano, if you have concerns
09:23:08 about that, we can have that communicated to
09:23:11 Mr. Mechanik before the 23rd and perhaps the issues
09:23:15 can be resolved.
09:23:15 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Thank you.
09:23:17 You will call him for me, right?
09:23:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I believe items removed from
09:23:23 the agenda also I neglected to state this but item 21
09:23:28 was a request by council member Miranda.
09:23:30 I had overlooked that at the bottom of the page.
09:23:33 He's requesting that item 21 relate to the job order
09:23:36 contracting audit be pulled for discussion under staff
09:23:39 reports and unfinished business.
09:23:41 Other than that, members of council, I am not aware of
09:23:43 any additions, deletions or changes to todays agenda
09:23:46 and I present to the you for your approval and I thank
09:23:48 you for your patience.
09:23:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 20, 21, 22, 23, are we moving that up
09:23:54 earlier than 1:30?
09:23:55 Did I miss that?
09:24:01 They are under staff reports.
09:24:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Under staff reports.
09:24:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: They are under staff report, but a
09:24:08 time for this afternoon.
09:24:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Oh, 22 and 23, you have resolutions
09:24:15 ready for you to vote on, so when council member
09:24:17 Mulhern moves those items, 22 and 23 should move the
09:24:22 resolution that will resolve them.
09:24:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much.
09:24:26 Any other items need to be pulled from the agenda?
09:24:28 If not --
09:24:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
09:24:32 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Second.
09:24:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?
09:24:34 And that motion is approval for the agenda and for the
09:24:45 Do we need to make a motion for approval of the minutes
09:24:47 from last meeting?
09:24:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move approval of the minutes.
09:24:51 >>GWEN MILLER: No, no.
09:24:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All right, thank you.
09:24:56 We will take public comments at this time.
09:24:57 First 30 minutes being given to those items on the
09:25:02 If you would like to speak, state your name and address
09:25:04 for the record, please.
09:25:06 We give preference to those items first on the agenda
09:25:10 and then for any other items that you may want to speak
09:25:14 >>> Spencer Kass representing Virginia park
09:25:16 neighborhood association.
09:25:17 I'm also here on behalf of the of the East Tampa land
09:25:21 use committee, on behalf of West Tampa.
09:25:24 First, I want to thank staff and council, number one,
09:25:28 we appreciate the continuation of the waiver zone.
09:25:31 So I did want to come down and thank staff for all
09:25:34 their hard work and thank council for passing it.
09:25:37 Next I wanted to express my support, in support of the
09:25:40 Virginia park neighborhood association, for item number
09:25:42 43, which has to do with the sidewalks.
09:25:46 We would respectfully ask that this be changed to a
09:25:49 first reading so that we can move forward with these
09:25:51 changes, changes for a long period of time everybody
09:25:54 has waited for very patiently.
09:25:57 We are glad to see they are being done, to make a
09:26:00 little more sense, in the future there might be
09:26:02 somebody more tweaks needed but at least now is a
09:26:05 starting point and we greatly appreciate Mr. Miranda
09:26:08 presenting it and possibly voting on it.
09:26:10 Finally, the one controversial thing I am here about is
09:26:14 items 18 and 19 which deals with the raises.
09:26:23 First let me say TPD and the fire department have the
09:26:26 unconditional support of the neighborhoods.
09:26:28 We all know this is going to be a rough budget year and
09:26:31 next year even worse.
09:26:32 I respectfully ask these items be continued until the
09:26:35 first budget hearing.
09:26:36 I think if you do them in the context of the first
09:26:40 budget hearing two things can happen.
09:26:42 You can look at the entire budget, and two, it will not
09:26:44 cost anybody anything.
09:26:45 This contract does not go into effect until the end of
09:26:48 the month.
09:26:49 So by continuing it just until the budget hearing,
09:26:53 items 18 and 19, by continuing it to the budget hearing
09:26:56 we can see it in context.
09:26:58 Because one of the concerns of the neighborhoods is
09:26:59 that down the road, we think we could end up losing
09:27:04 police officers on the street.
09:27:06 We think that the city is going to run into a
09:27:08 continuing on going budget problem that things are
09:27:10 going to get tighter.
09:27:12 We are taking 12.5 million out reserves this year.
09:27:15 And our real concern is that maybe not this
09:27:18 administration, but there might be absolutely no choice
09:27:20 but to start cutting positions.
09:27:22 And we are very concerned about that.
09:27:23 So if it could be done in the context of the budget
09:27:26 hearing it will be greatly appreciated.
09:27:27 And if you decide to pass it, it will not cost anybody
09:27:32 anything to the end it month.
09:27:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I concur with what you said
09:27:39 especially since the administration said they want to
09:27:42 reserve at a minimum of 20% and if I remember that item
09:27:45 all the way to the right I can almost tell you the page
09:27:47 number, it's now at 20.1%, so that means whoever is
09:27:52 coming in next won't have the -- they may if they want
09:27:56 but I don't know who is going to be here on this side
09:28:00 on the council side.
09:28:01 I think 20% is a correct figure.
09:28:04 And that could cause a problem later on.
09:28:06 You are absolutely correct.
09:28:07 >> Thank you very much.
09:28:09 I appreciate it.
09:28:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker.
09:28:17 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I'm here on behalf of the Diaco
09:28:20 family regarding item number 45, which is the traffic
09:28:26 control measures that are to be implemented along
09:28:28 Bayshore at the MacDill Air Force Base gate.
09:28:37 They have specific requests, one that the city look at
09:28:40 a queuing mechanism along the gate parallel to Bayshore
09:28:43 Boulevard as well as on-site storage lanes before they
09:28:46 go into the gate, and in addition to that, to direct
09:28:49 the traffic toward the Dale Mabry gate which has no
09:28:53 backups and has multiple lanes for storage.
09:28:55 Bayshore does not have storage lanes and has no
09:28:59 capacity for cars except to back them up.
09:29:03 Mr. Diaco called me early this morning and indicated he
09:29:07 couldn't get out of his driveway beginning at 7:00 this
09:29:10 morning because of the traffic.
09:29:14 Also asked that they make Bayshore gate a priority
09:29:20 instead of making the other gates priority for
09:29:22 increased security, and the car check-in system that's
09:29:26 designed to accelerate the passenger cars through the
09:29:29 security gate.
09:29:31 One final thing is that they respectfully request, they
09:29:35 are not here in opposition to MacDill Air Force
09:29:38 They appreciate everything that central command does
09:29:41 for this community.
09:29:42 However, they are impacting a very narrow street with
09:29:45 no storage capacity and no ability to do anything other
09:29:49 than back cars up.
09:29:50 And this morning the cars were backed past Interbay and
09:29:55 affected traffic all the way to Gandy.
09:29:56 I know that's coming up under staff reports.
09:29:59 And if there is anything that I can do at that point
09:30:02 regarding questions an answers, I would appreciate it
09:30:04 being considered to speak at that time,s also.
09:30:07 Thank you.
09:30:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
09:30:09 Next speaker.
09:30:11 Anyone else?
09:30:12 Thank you very much.
09:30:15 Anyone here wish to request reconsideration on a
09:30:21 legislative matter?
09:30:22 Seeing none, we will move then to our item number 1.
09:30:26 Mr. Miranda, do you want to read item number 1?
09:30:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
09:30:31 Mr. Chairman, I present an ordinance for first reading
09:30:33 and consideration, an ordinance presented for first
09:30:35 reading and consideration, an ordinance of the city of
09:30:38 Tampa, Florida amending the City of Tampa code section
09:30:42 75-74-A-of to reauthorize a no transportation impact
09:30:49 fee exempt zones for a portion of East Tampa and West
09:30:54 Tampa as more particularly in section code 25-74-A-6
09:31:03 providing for an effective period of five years
09:31:06 commencing October 21, 2010 providing for repeal of all
09:31:09 ordinances in conflict, providing for severability,
09:31:12 providing an effective date.
09:31:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's moved and seconded.
09:31:14 And I want to call our attention to the fact that this
09:31:17 there is no impact fees for West Tampa, portion of West
09:31:23 Tampa and East Tampa.
09:31:25 In prior years, there were three years.
09:31:29 This time it's five years which is a max under the
09:31:32 ordinance, and primarily I raised the question, because
09:31:38 of the recession an things having a major impact in
09:31:41 these areas.
09:31:42 So this will be very helpful for East Tampa and West
09:31:45 Tampa in terms of no transportation impact fee.
09:31:50 It's been moved and seconded.
09:31:51 Seconded by Councilwoman Mulhern.
09:31:53 All in favor?
09:31:56 >>THE CLERK: Second reading and adoption will be held
09:31:58 September 23rd, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.
09:32:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We will move now to our committee
09:32:04 Public Safety Committee, Councilwoman Miller.
09:32:07 >>GWEN MILLER: I move resolutions 2 through 7.
09:32:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Miranda.
09:32:13 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
09:32:17 Okay, parks, recreation.
09:32:19 Councilman Stokes, but with item 8 being pulled.
09:32:24 >>CURTIS STOKES: Move 9 through 15.
09:32:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilwoman Mulhern.
09:32:31 All in favor?
09:32:33 Public works.
09:32:33 Councilman Miranda.
09:32:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I would like to move items 14
09:32:36 through 17.
09:32:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilwoman Mulhern.
09:32:42 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
09:32:45 Finance Committee.
09:32:46 Councilwoman Mulhern.
09:32:47 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm going to move item 20.
09:32:59 21 was moved to staff reports.
09:33:01 22 and 23, do I need to move those individually?
09:33:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Move the resolutions for 22 and 23.
09:33:10 >>MARY MULHERN: I move 20, 22, 23.
09:33:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
09:33:20 All in favor?
09:33:22 Building and zoning.
09:33:23 Councilman Caetano.
09:33:24 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I would like to move femmes 24 to
09:33:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Miranda.
09:33:33 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm sorry.
09:33:37 We can move these amendments.
09:33:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
09:33:47 All in favor?
09:33:49 >>MARY MULHERN: I was just going to make a brief
09:33:51 comment about 1 and 19 but it sounds like we may want
09:33:55 to have discussion.
09:33:56 So for 18 and 19 do you want to move that to staff
09:34:02 >> We pulled them already.
09:34:06 So they will come under staff reports.
09:34:07 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay, that's where they were going to
09:34:10 go anyway?
09:34:11 I was just going to comment on it but in light of the
09:34:13 fact we heard from the public about wanting to discuss
09:34:15 it, I would like to put it under staff reports.
09:34:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You pulled them already, is my
09:34:22 >>MARY MULHERN: That's fine.
09:34:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Transportation.
09:34:26 Councilwoman Capin.
09:34:29 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I would like to move item 33.
09:34:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
09:34:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
09:34:34 All in favor?
09:34:38 Public hearing item 34.
09:34:39 >> Item 34 for public hearing.
09:34:41 >> Second.
09:34:42 >> Moved and seconded by councilman Miranda.
09:34:44 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
09:34:50 We are down to our 10:00 items.
09:34:52 And I don't think we can take them up till 10:00.
09:34:54 Is that right?
09:34:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's correct, sir.
09:34:57 >>GWEN MILLER: No 9:30?
09:35:07 >> We can go back and talk about the pulled items.
09:35:10 Those are not time certain, right?
09:35:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I put in a call to the chief of staff
09:35:16 office, and said council is moving at a very rapid
09:35:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Why don't we then ask staff to come a
09:35:22 little early this morning.
09:35:23 We'll take about a five-minute break.
09:35:25 >>GWEN MILLER: New business.
09:35:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's right.
09:35:27 Any new business?
09:35:30 Start to my right.
09:35:31 Mr. Caetano.
09:35:32 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: You caught me off guard.
09:35:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Capin.
09:35:50 >> On chapter 27, alcoholic beverages, a workshop to
09:35:54 ask that staff report back to City Council by September
09:35:57 16th the following information pertaining to all
09:36:00 commercial properties located in the South Howard
09:36:02 Avenue corridor, with South Howard Avenue corridor
09:36:07 being defined as the properties located south of Howard
09:36:10 Avenue from Bayshore Boulevard to Kennedy Boulevard,
09:36:13 from the land development and zoning department, the
09:36:16 current and immediate prior alcoholic beverage
09:36:19 designation for each property, the date the last
09:36:23 alcoholic beverage designation was granted, any zoning
09:36:26 violations for the past two years, the capacity of any
09:36:29 properties property zoned as a restaurant or bar, the
09:36:32 hours of operation of any property zoned as a
09:36:35 restaurant or bar.
09:36:37 And from the Tampa Police Department, a copy of all
09:36:41 dispatched calls and reports in the general SoHo area
09:36:46 in TPD district 1 pertaining to each property in the
09:36:48 last two years.
09:36:50 From the code enforcement department, pending citations
09:36:56 for each property.
09:36:58 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'll second that for discussion.
09:36:59 I appreciate it very much.
09:37:00 And I really believe that's needed.
09:37:02 And also it's going to be very hard for the police
09:37:05 department to call an incident from one location when
09:37:10 the incident started across the street and it came to
09:37:12 your side.
09:37:12 But I agree in theory what you are trying to get to.
09:37:17 >>YVONNE CAPIN: That's why I said general SoHo area
09:37:20 district 1, South Howard Avenue.
09:37:27 This is to help us in my questioning for the October
09:37:29 7th and 14th workshop.
09:37:33 Oh, the report for the for September 16th.
09:37:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: My suggestion would be you set all of
09:37:38 this for a workshop.
09:37:39 That's a lot.
09:37:44 >>YVONNE CAPIN: So we can have this information before
09:37:45 the workshop.
09:37:45 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
09:37:52 I know that is a very labor intensive operation, and if
09:37:59 you want to put it to the 16th, I just want to let
09:38:02 you know that staff may need to request additional
09:38:05 I do not believe they will be able to get that to you
09:38:08 by the 16th.
09:38:09 >>YVONNE CAPIN: That is fine with me.
09:38:11 >>THE CLERK: September 16th there is no council
09:38:15 Your next regular is not until the 23rd of
09:38:19 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Then the 23rd.
09:38:28 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I am not going to be here on the
09:38:30 If we could have another date, please.
09:38:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, it's up to Ms. Capin.
09:38:38 It's her motion.
09:38:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: My understanding from your motion is
09:38:41 you want -- you just want this as a written report and
09:38:49 So there will be no discussion.
09:38:51 It will be in preparation for the October 14th
09:38:53 So it will just be a receive and file.
09:38:55 So it won't require participation of Mr. Caetano
09:38:59 because there will be no discussion.
09:39:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You just want a written report.
09:39:07 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Just a written report.
09:39:08 I'm sorry I didn't make that clear.
09:39:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion and seconded by councilman
09:39:13 All in favor?
09:39:18 Councilwoman Miller?
09:39:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Nothing.
09:39:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I am going to hold to later because
09:39:23 mine going to be tied to item number 21.
09:39:25 >>MARY MULHERN: I have a couple things.
09:39:29 One, I would like to schedule ten minutes for Alan
09:39:40 Snell of SWFWMD for the bicycle users and dealers, a
09:39:44 bicycle advocate, to present his PowerPoint, a bikable
09:39:48 Tampa, on October 7th under staff reports and
09:39:51 unfinished business.
09:39:52 >> Second.
09:39:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
09:40:01 All in favor?
09:40:04 >>MARY MULHERN: And the other thing, I just wanted to
09:40:06 tell everyone that this Saturday at Macfarlane Park is
09:40:11 the kickoff for this year's wheel-a-thon for freedom
09:40:15 playground, the accessible playground that is at
09:40:22 Macfarlane Park but also the foundation which is also
09:40:24 the proceeds from the wheel-a-thon are going to another
09:40:30 playground project at la boy exceptional center, which
09:40:36 is that West Tampa or Drew Park?
09:40:38 So they are having a kickoff at the park this Saturday
09:40:42 from 9:00 to 12:00 including pancakes, gourmet coffee
09:40:46 and entertainment.
09:40:47 And this is kicking off their national wheel-a-thon
09:40:53 2010 road trip.
09:40:57 Ms. Busansky is taking her two daughters on the road
09:41:01 from Tampa to Minneapolis to raise money for freedom
09:41:04 playground, in a van, just the three of them, driving.
09:41:09 So they probably would enjoy if anyone wanted to go
09:41:12 with them, too.
09:41:13 But you can register online for the wheel-a-thon.
09:41:16 And they are looking for teams.
09:41:19 It's freedom playground.org.
09:41:25 The pancakes and all that are Saturday morning and I
09:41:28 hope people can stop by.
09:41:33 >>CURTIS STOKES: Mr. Chairman, a motion to name the
09:41:40 center after Gwen Miller.
09:41:41 I would like to amend that date to October 7th as
09:41:46 the community had an opportunity to write a resolution
09:41:53 for their approval.
09:41:54 Also I would like to set for workshop, staff give an
09:41:57 update for the Tampa Heights planning for September
09:42:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
09:42:03 Let's go back to the first motion.
09:42:05 You want a motion to change the date to October --
09:42:09 >>CURTIS STOKES: To include a date.
09:42:11 The first motion didn't include a date.
09:42:13 But I would like to include a date to October 72nd.
09:42:19 >> Second.
09:42:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion and certificated.
09:42:26 >>CURTIS STOKES: The second is to set a workshop for
09:42:28 September 30th on the tap Tampa Heights
09:42:32 neighborhood plan.
09:42:32 >>THE CLERK: On September 30th you have at 9 the
09:42:37 presentation of the commendation for the police Officer
09:42:40 of the Month, firefighter it of the quarter.
09:42:43 At 9:00 you have a workshop already set for regarding
09:42:45 the rules and recommendations regarding surface and
09:42:51 parking lots.
09:42:52 You have a amendment to the historic district carried
09:42:58 over to that meeting.
09:43:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
09:43:06 Give us another -- the next workshop.
09:43:10 >>CURTIS STOKES: Move to the next workshop.
09:43:12 >>THE CLERK: October 14th.
09:43:14 You currently have three workshops.
09:43:15 One at 9:00, news rack ordinance, 9:30 discussions to
09:43:23 the, and 9:30 community gardens.
09:43:30 >>CURTIS STOKES: What's the next available?
09:43:35 >>THE CLERK: The next workshop --
09:43:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, all those at 9:00 and 9:30.
09:43:41 >>CURTIS STOKES: In the afternoon of the 14th?
09:43:43 >> No, let's set it for maybe 10:00 on that date in
09:43:48 >>THE CLERK: That is October 14th at 10 a.m.?
09:43:55 >> That's a workshop date.
09:43:57 Is there a second to that?
09:43:59 Moved and seconded.
09:44:00 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
09:44:09 At this time we can move to the staff reports.
09:44:15 Those that are here.
09:44:37 Under staff reports?
09:44:42 >>BRAD BAIRD: Brad Baird, director, water department,
09:44:44 here to answer questions on items 37, 38 and 39.
09:44:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.
09:44:53 >>MARY MULHERN: Before we thank you for coming, before
09:44:55 we do that, I would like to oh -- I had also pulled
09:45:01 number 40 to put on the agenda this week.
09:45:11 Ms. Miller has asked that we continue that for a week,
09:45:16 to the next council meeting.
09:45:18 I would like to just move to continue item 40.
09:45:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 40 to the next council meeting?
09:45:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Two weeks.
09:45:28 >>MARY MULHERN: September 23rd.
09:45:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Stokes.
09:45:33 All in favor?
09:45:34 That's on item 40.
09:45:35 >>MARY MULHERN: So Brad, what are we going to start
09:45:42 Which number?
09:45:45 Item 37.
09:45:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: 19, 20 and 21.
09:45:53 >>MARY MULHERN: I appreciate council allowing me to do
09:45:58 this because it did take me quite some time to get the
09:46:01 But I did get all the answers I needed, but I do feel
09:46:07 it's important that on the record we talk about this,
09:46:09 because we spent many, many hours, years working on the
09:46:17 minimum flow levels.
09:46:18 And what caught my attention on the agenda last week
09:46:20 was the fact that we were moving 1.35 million out of
09:46:28 the NFL fund into these other water projects.
09:46:38 It was-and it is in fact was on -- in budgeted for
09:46:42 2010, and as Mr. Baird assured me, it is going to be in
09:46:49 the 2011 budget and needs to be in there.
09:46:53 But I thought it was important that maybe you
09:46:57 As it turns out, that amount of money is about one
09:47:00 third of the money the city had budgeted for that
09:47:03 So it's a pretty fair share of money we are taking out
09:47:06 of there for this year.
09:47:09 So since you answered most of my questions, what I
09:47:13 really need you to say on the record is what this means
09:47:18 for the minimum flow project, and what assurance we
09:47:22 have that it will continue, that since it's not in the
09:47:27 budget this year it will continue to be part of the
09:47:30 program and will be in the budget in future years.
09:47:37 >>BRAD BAIRD: All of the minimum flow projects that are
09:47:39 listed in the rule including the blue sink project, we
09:47:44 will be going forward with them, they are required by
09:47:54 rules and Florida law that we build those projects.
09:47:59 We had some delays in the blue sing project, and as
09:48:02 such we were taking the money out of the line item for
09:48:04 the 2010 budget.
09:48:09 To use towards a pipeline replacement project.
09:48:13 But we are planning on going ahead with those projects,
09:48:18 moving forward with those projects.
09:48:19 >>MARY MULHERN: Does the Crip reflect what's going to
09:48:28 happen in the coming years?
09:48:31 >>BRAD BAIRD: Yes, it does.
09:48:32 >>MARY MULHERN: Would you mind just a brief, brief
09:48:35 description as a reminder of what the blue sing project
09:48:40 >>> The blue sing project is about an $11 million
09:48:44 project that half funded by Southwest Florida Water
09:48:49 Management District and half funded by the City of
09:48:53 Tampa, and it is a project comprised of a pumping
09:49:01 station and a force main to deliver water to the base
09:49:03 of the dam in the amount of about two million gallons a
09:49:15 So we are moving ahead with the design.
09:49:21 And then the following year construction of that
09:49:23 >>MARY MULHERN: And I want to compliment everyone on
09:49:26 the health of the Hillsborough River.
09:49:29 It's never been better.
09:49:30 And all the work you have done on this.
09:49:32 And I just want to make sure it continues.
09:49:36 Thank you.
09:49:36 >>> So do we.
09:49:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 37.
09:49:41 >>MARY MULHERN: I move item 37.
09:49:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Capin.
09:49:50 All in favor?
09:49:52 >>MARY MULHERN: And then 38, that's just the follow-up
09:49:57 to this.
09:49:57 Is that right?
09:50:02 >>BRAD BAIRD: Yes, 38 is referencing the reimbursement
09:50:07 of moneys from SWFWMD to the City of Tampa for the
09:50:14 reclaimed water expansion project at the Tampa
09:50:16 International Airport.
09:50:17 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay, yes, and I did have a couple
09:50:22 questions you answered for me and I would like to hear.
09:50:27 I guess the reason that hi pulled this one was because
09:50:29 we spent years, a lot of time talking about-and many
09:50:37 councils before me, too, about the star project, about
09:50:39 the reclaimed water project, and I had -- the last I
09:50:43 had heard, I thought we were still going to be doing
09:50:47 some of South Tampa, and what this does is say that we
09:50:50 are no longer planning to do that, and we are only
09:50:54 doing the airport project.
09:50:56 So I found it very helpful when you explained to me how
09:51:01 the airport project is being funded, or the upfront
09:51:05 costs were being paid by the Aviation Authority, but in
09:51:10 the end, the infrastructure is being paid for by the
09:51:16 city and by Tampa Bay water, SWFWMD?
09:51:20 >>BRAD BAIRD: SWFWMD.
09:51:21 >>MARY MULHERN: SWFWMD.
09:51:22 So although it's it basically seemed to me the airport
09:51:27 was financing this for us, and they won't be paying any
09:51:30 water bills after this until the fee get to the
09:51:37 point -- their bill comes to the point where it is
09:51:42 paid -- what they paid up front.
09:51:45 They have water credit.
09:51:46 >>> That's correct.
09:51:48 >>MARY MULHERN: I just thought that was interesting
09:51:50 for people to know, that the airport, although they
09:51:52 kind of financed the project, but they didn't really
09:51:54 have to -- they are not really making any contribution,
09:51:57 the Aviation Authority, to the reclaimed water project.
09:52:04 >>BRAD BAIRD: That is correct, they funded the
09:52:05 construction of the pipeline to Tampa International
09:52:07 Airport, or half of the amount, with SWFWMD funding the
09:52:15 other half.
09:52:16 And we have set up as part of the agreement, we have
09:52:19 with Tampa International Airport, a credit account that
09:52:30 for the water they use until that account is exhausted,
09:52:33 and at that point they will pay the full residential
09:52:39 rate of $1.20 per CCF for their water.
09:52:45 A separate large user agreement.
09:52:47 >> And that rate is locked in?
09:52:48 >> That rate is locked in.
09:52:50 >>MARY MULHERN: And what is that compared to the
09:52:56 >>> The seam same rate, $1.20 which is the same rate as
09:53:03 a residential customer so it's a very good deal for
09:53:05 both parties.
09:53:06 We did not have the money to build the extension.
09:53:08 They did.
09:53:10 And of course we had the water to provide.
09:53:12 So it was an agreement that was a win-win.
09:53:16 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
09:53:20 I'll move that item.
09:53:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So that no one gets shocked, that
09:53:26 was talked about a year or two ago, and also so no one
09:53:29 gets really electrocuted, we are working on much more
09:53:33 bigger deals than these.
09:53:35 International airport, something we are in the hundreds
09:53:38 of millions of dollars on water credits, so that the
09:53:41 EPA doesn't come after the city if and when we start to
09:53:45 grow and we are putting in over 55 million gallons of
09:53:47 water into the bay.
09:53:48 If it goes over a certain amount, and different items
09:53:51 like phosphate and so forth and so on, you are going to
09:53:54 get fined to a sum larger than what we can afford.
09:53:58 So we are working with different individuals to try to
09:54:01 navigate the straits and narrows of water, meaning
09:54:06 either we are going to pay and get nothing in return or
09:54:09 we are going to not pay and give water away for many
09:54:12 years, reclaimed water to a certain point, and then
09:54:15 they will start paying back once the 100 million or 150
09:54:18 million, whatever, may be worked out, but it's he tried
09:54:22 to be worked out now for about a year and a half, and
09:54:25 we haven't gotten real close.
09:54:27 And let me tell you why.
09:54:28 Because every time you get matching grants, matching we
09:54:31 don't have.
09:54:33 All we have is matches.
09:54:34 Not matching.
09:54:36 So in matching, that means you have to come up with a
09:54:39 proportionate share, which we don't have, so we are
09:54:42 trying to work it with different governments to get
09:54:43 this thing done.
09:54:46 And it will solve our water crisis, and long after I'm
09:54:51 gone -- and I don't mean on the council -- gone,
09:54:58 They will need indirect water use.
09:54:59 They don't need it today but 15, 20 years down the line
09:55:03 you will remember on this date day, it was said again
09:55:06 and again and again, you will need a supplement to the
09:55:09 Hillsborough River.
09:55:10 Thank you very much.
09:55:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's a motion.
09:55:13 Did we get a second on that motion?
09:55:16 >> Second.
09:55:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify by saying Aye?
09:55:21 Okay, item 39.
09:55:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 39 is a budget resolution that goes
09:55:26 along with that.
09:55:27 >>MARY MULHERN: I'll move item 39.
09:55:32 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Second.
09:55:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilwoman Capin.
09:55:34 All in favor?
09:55:37 Thank you, sir.
09:55:38 Item 42.
09:55:53 Mr. Santiago, councilman Miranda raised this issue
09:55:56 relative to the seniors and individuals with
09:56:00 disabilities according to the fees for parks and
09:56:03 Yes, sir.
09:56:03 >> Good morning honorable members of Tampa City
09:56:07 Indeed I'm here on item 42 as we have heard from not
09:56:11 only councilman Miranda, councilman Caetano,
09:56:13 Councilwoman Mulhern.
09:56:15 There was a concern with the fees that were being
09:56:17 charged to nonresident seniors and persons with
09:56:21 In fact, today we have an adjusted fee schedule for
09:56:24 parks and recreation reducing the cost of a
09:56:28 recollection card to $15 for nonresident seniors and
09:56:31 those individuals that can demonstrate that they live
09:56:33 with a disability.
09:56:35 Thus setting them at par with those citizens of the
09:56:38 city with when it comes to the purchase of recollection
09:56:40 cards, and then they pay the same as any city resident
09:56:42 would for any other programming in the parks and
09:56:44 recollection department.
09:56:46 And we ask for your support.
09:56:50 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Thank you, Mr. Santiago. And I
09:56:52 want to thank the mayor for honoring this request.
09:56:55 I think it was very important to these seniors.
09:56:58 I understand there's only about 60 of them who are
09:57:00 non-residents that will still be able to go to our
09:57:03 recreation facilities.
09:57:04 Thank you.
09:57:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion moved and seconded by
09:57:12 Councilwoman Mulhern.
09:57:14 All in favor?
09:57:16 Thank you.
09:57:17 >> Santiago.
09:57:21 If I could make a few comments regarding number 8, the
09:57:25 I wanted to clarify we had a great relationship with
09:57:27 both the NFL Yet and Kaboom.
09:57:30 They have not never partnered together for a Kaboom
09:57:33 This is the first time that they would be partnering
09:57:36 together for this particular build.
09:57:37 We have done two in the most recent past none of which
09:57:40 envelope involved the NFL Yet, Inc. This actual build
09:57:44 will occur at the NFL Yet site.
09:57:46 And so this year, Kaboom required an official not for
09:57:51 profit to be part of the agreement so we had two great
09:57:53 partners that couldn't really agree on the
09:57:55 indemnification language.
09:57:56 Both are very particular about the indemnification
09:57:59 language, both the NFL Yet, Inc., as well as Kaboom so
09:58:03 in the end they could not come to accord on that so we
09:58:06 were able to pull in another partner.
09:58:07 The NFL will still be very, very involved in this
09:58:10 Kaboom build, although they won't be the official
09:58:12 partner of record on the agreement.
09:58:14 Tampa Bay housing, Inc., will be, and the East Tampa
09:58:17 civic association will also be an active partner as
09:58:20 well as the parks and recollection department.
09:58:21 So we ask for your support in having this approved,
09:58:24 because we all want these additional playgrounds built
09:58:27 within the city through Kaboom and through our partners
09:58:29 and the parks and rec department.
09:58:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Move resolution 8.
09:58:39 >> Second.
09:58:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Resolution 8 with the Tampa Bay
09:58:42 housing partner, I believe it is.
09:58:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Stokes, for the record you are
09:58:48 going to abstain from this, correct?
09:58:50 And that's because you are a member of the Board of
09:58:52 Directors and you are going to file all the appropriate
09:58:55 forms at this time?
09:58:57 >>CURTIS STOKES: Yes.
09:58:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's been moved and seconded.
09:58:59 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
09:59:03 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Stokes abstaining.
09:59:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And that is the NFL Yet on 34th
09:59:11 street pointed out by Councilwoman Miller, a good job
09:59:17 of doing that facility.
09:59:18 A lot of activity going on there now.
09:59:20 >>> We have an expansion going on there as well, from
09:59:24 the last Super Bowl, and we have not had a playground
09:59:27 So this is a great opportunity for to us install one
09:59:29 there with very little cost to the city.
09:59:32 Thank you.
09:59:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 43.
09:59:34 This is councilman Miranda's item.
09:59:42 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
09:59:44 I have had an opportunity to review this proposed
09:59:46 amendment to chapter 22 which was submitted by Mr.
09:59:49 Miranda as well as have members of our staff look at
09:59:53 that amendment as well.
09:59:55 The amendment, just briefly, provides for two things.
09:59:58 First of all, if you have a single-family residential
10:00:01 structure that you are constructing or adding onto,
10:00:05 that you would be exempt from putting in a sidewalk,
10:00:10 unless the sidewalk is in close proximity or
10:00:15 alternatively if it's on a capital improvement to put
10:00:18 sidewalks in that location.
10:00:20 In addition it provides if you cannot put in a
10:00:22 sidewalk -- I'm sorry, if you are obligated to put in a
10:00:27 sidewalk or if you have to pay to put in a sidewalk and
10:00:29 you already have a driveway that the driveway can be
10:00:32 subtracted from any amount of money to pay into a
10:00:35 sidewalk fee, so after looking at it, legal has no
10:00:42 issues or problems with recommending to move forward
10:00:45 with approval.
10:00:46 But after speaking with staff we did want to clear up
10:00:49 the language with the definitions for amount of lot
10:00:55 faces where you are a single-family residential you
10:00:58 would have to put in a sidewalk so we make sure that
10:01:01 all of our different departments can understand and
10:01:04 permit that correctly.
10:01:05 I'm available for any questions.
10:01:06 But otherwise, I would just request that we go ahead
10:01:08 and schedule this for first reading on September
10:01:13 23rd meeting and we will go ahead and I'll work
10:01:15 with the administrator to clarify the language as it
10:01:18 relates to the --
10:01:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I want to thank the legal department
10:01:27 and all those involved that worked so diligent
10:01:29 including my aid.
10:01:30 This is something that should never have occurred.
10:01:35 The ordinance is fine for occurring but the application
10:01:37 for which it was handled, I had called that department
10:01:41 various times and asked, please omit the apron.
10:01:45 It's there.
10:01:45 And the answer always came back the same.
10:01:50 The code is silent, so therefore this is an
10:01:55 When something is silent, don't take the risky part.
10:02:02 Take the commonsense approach, because you are charging
10:02:05 somebody twice, and in essence you are.
10:02:08 You are charging something that they paid for, the
10:02:10 ingress and egress of their homes, and then you are
10:02:13 charging and penalizing them because they can't do
10:02:16 something, again you are paying for it twice.
10:02:20 So the benefit is to no one, in my judgment is it a fee
10:02:27 or is it a tax?
10:02:30 I have discouraged individuals from filing a lawsuit
10:02:32 because that lawsuit would have been not just for their
10:02:36 home but from the beginning of time on ingress and
10:02:41 egress from their homes, and the charges that they were
10:02:45 charged were for not being able to do what the court
10:02:48 said because of impediment to their own land.
10:02:51 In fact, it wasn't even their own land, it was
10:02:55 That would have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars
10:02:57 to get give back to the public.
10:03:00 That's why we wrote this thing.
10:03:02 And I'm going want to thank the legal department,
10:03:05 including Ms. Cole for really applying their expertise
10:03:12 to getting something done, and I am very happy to see
10:03:15 hopefully that we get unanimous support on this item.
10:03:17 I think it's very important that all citizens be
10:03:20 treated with the same respect and kindness that others
10:03:23 should be treated with.
10:03:26 And that's the end of that conversation, Mr. Chairman.
10:03:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
10:03:30 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you, Mr. Miranda, for doing
10:03:37 This has been coming up for my tenure on council, this
10:03:43 term, and I'm looking forward to passing this.
10:03:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second?
10:03:48 >>CURTIS STOKES: Second.
10:03:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Stokes.
10:03:51 All in favor?
10:03:54 >>THE CLERK: That is --
10:03:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: First on September 23rd.
10:03:59 Yes, ma'am.
10:03:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 44.
10:04:01 Item 44.
10:04:04 This is councilman Caetano's item.
10:04:07 Relative to streetlighting jointly on County Line Road,
10:04:10 I guess it is.
10:04:13 Is anyone from staff here to address that?
10:04:17 No one here from staff to address joint effort to
10:04:21 install streetlights as a safety measure on County Line
10:04:25 Nobody here for that?
10:04:27 We'll come back to that.
10:04:28 Is that all right?
10:04:29 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I would like to add that I think
10:04:31 we need to include Hillsborough County because this is
10:04:35 partially in Pasco County in the City of Tampa and
10:04:39 Hillsborough County.
10:04:40 It should be a three-way party in order to get this
10:04:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: As long as Pasco pays for their part.
10:04:54 [ Laughter ]
10:04:56 I just want to make sure that they are paying their
10:04:59 >> For not paying for lights on their side of the line.
10:05:07 Item 45.
10:05:08 This is relative to Bayshore.
10:05:13 I think Mr. Michelini spoke earlier on behalf of Mr.
10:05:21 >>JEAN DORZBACK: Jean Dorzback, transportation manager.
10:05:23 I have a short evaluation I would like to provide to
10:05:26 you to give some more information if that would be
10:05:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.
10:05:51 >>> We provided a report at our last motion, and
10:06:10 transportation reviewed this report.
10:06:12 It's basically a list of calls that came in to the
10:06:15 Tampa Police Department.
10:06:18 And we reviewed the information and determined that
10:06:26 there were actually three duplicate calls, 31 calls
10:06:29 that came in, and within this list, met the TPD
10:06:36 criteria for a crash report produced.
10:06:39 So we actually went back and queried the system a
10:06:43 little further, depending on how you ask the
10:06:46 information is the amount of information you get.
10:06:49 We did a further query and determined there were eleven
10:06:52 additional crash reports that were produced during this
10:06:55 time frame within this two-mile corridor for a total of
10:06:59 13 reports.
10:07:02 We reviewed all of those 13 reports.
10:07:04 And as you can see on your one-page summary that I
10:07:08 provided, the calls of those 13 crashes are documented
10:07:12 by TPD were listed on the bulletin in the middle of
10:07:17 your page there, basically careless driving, rear-end
10:07:21 collision, failure to yield, and other driver-related
10:07:27 We went out and reviewed the corridor for site line
10:07:32 issues, stop signs, blockages, and determined that
10:07:36 there were some vegetation issues that we can go out
10:07:39 and the prove through coordination with our department
10:07:45 and property owners but there were no roadway
10:07:47 deficiencies that we identified within this corridor
10:07:49 that were causing any of these accidents.
10:07:52 So basically our conclusion is we are going to work
10:07:54 with DPW to rectify some of the vegetation issues.
10:07:59 We are also going to do a thorough review of all the
10:08:02 signage along the corridor to make sure we don't need
10:08:05 additional or different signs or maybe relocate the
10:08:08 signage to improve warnings for the drivers, and we'll
10:08:13 continue to monitor any other complaints that we get in
10:08:15 terms of flashes along this corridor.
10:08:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, ma'am.
10:08:23 Council, I have a briefing from staff yesterday on
10:08:26 this, and of course the public can see the various
10:08:34 outline, what you have marked, different crashes, and
10:08:39 also see where they will be doing some improvements.
10:08:44 There are a couple of other issues.
10:08:47 I think mentioned earlier was the queuing session, and
10:08:50 I guess on Dale Mabry versus Bayshore.
10:08:54 Do you want to give us those three items again?
10:08:59 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Yes, sir, the question is not
10:09:00 whether or not there were crashes, and I don't know why
10:09:03 we are focusing on accident reports instead of focusing
10:09:06 on solutions to the traffic, which would be a parallel
10:09:10 storage lane to Bayshore near the gate, and an internal
10:09:14 queuing lane of some sort.
10:09:17 They have that queuing mechanism down on Manhattan and
10:09:20 Interbay, and they use that quite effectively that
10:09:23 keeps the commercial traffic from backing up on
10:09:26 Interbay and Dale Mabry.
10:09:27 And they have also widened Dale Mabry.
10:09:29 You can't do that with Bayshore.
10:09:32 There isn't enough room in there to do that.
10:09:34 So the issue is not vegetation and whether or not
10:09:37 people read signs or whether or not they are careless
10:09:43 driving but how do you solve the traffic backup getting
10:09:46 to the game gate?
10:09:47 And they are considering a security pass mechanism
10:09:51 which would accelerate traffic going through the
10:09:54 security gate, but Bayshore gate is going to be the
10:09:58 last gate for that implementation program.
10:10:01 We are respectfully requesting that the city work with
10:10:04 MacDill and put that on the top priority as opposed
10:10:08 to making that the last implementation area.
10:10:12 In addition to that, in the interim, a sign more
10:10:17 security personnel to the gate to expedite traffic
10:10:20 through the gate.
10:10:21 And so those were the recommendations.
10:10:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The only problem, Mr. Steve Michelini,
10:10:28 is we would have to work with MacDill because we
10:10:32 can't tell MacDill what to do on those issues.
10:10:34 A lot of those issues are relative to MacDill in
10:10:37 terms of the queuing and the passes, that sort of
10:10:41 Jean, did you write all those down?
10:10:43 And then maybe go back and take a look at those and try
10:10:46 to work with MacDill, see if they are amenable to
10:10:50 those suggestions and see how we can help further
10:10:52 resolve some of this?
10:10:56 >>JEAN DORZBACK: Yes, we can certainly do that.
10:10:57 We have gone out and met with MacDill, with the
10:11:01 base, and discussed this issue in general as far as the
10:11:06 backups go.
10:11:07 The motion that I was responding to related
10:11:09 specifically to the accident.
10:11:10 But we have certainly been talking to MacDill about
10:11:14 the backup issue as well, and we can take these
10:11:17 specific requests to, Mr. Michelini, and what we can do
10:11:23 as far as their reaction to those.
10:11:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So, Steve, if you get a copy of those
10:11:33 and they can take those to MacDill and have
10:11:34 discussion with them, because you suggested that they
10:11:37 move more over to Dale Mabry versus Bayshore in terms
10:11:42 of entry.
10:11:44 So that will require the MacDill, those who are in
10:11:52 charge to get involved.
10:11:53 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Yes, sir.
10:11:56 I will have Mr. Diaco communicate that.
10:12:02 >> And if you can report back within 30 days, 60 days,
10:12:05 how much time you think you need?
10:12:09 >>JEAN DORZBACK: I would appreciate 60 days.
10:12:10 I don't know what MacDill's schedule is for seeing
10:12:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So 60 days, and report back to us, on
10:12:19 the recommendations and report back on the outcome of
10:12:22 those discussions.
10:12:22 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
10:12:25 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
10:12:26 Opposed, Nay.
10:12:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much for meeting with
10:12:29 me and giving us all of the background information.
10:12:32 >>> Okay, thank you.
10:12:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
10:12:45 Item 46.
10:12:53 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
10:12:54 You received a letter May 24th, 2010 and I believe
10:12:58 this motion from the report stems from that letter.
10:13:02 I want to acknowledge that we have continued to work
10:13:03 with the Hillsborough River and our local planning
10:13:05 board and the advisory committee for council.
10:13:10 We do attend the committee meetings regularly as they
10:13:13 noted in their letter and the recommendations that they
10:13:15 put forward are sound recommendations.
10:13:16 We are aware of them and we have worked with them on
10:13:19 We do need to continue that work going out,
10:13:23 reinventorying the existing docks along Hillsborough
10:13:27 River looking at any nonconformities created and go
10:13:31 back and work closely with our neighbor as they
10:13:34 develop, potentially develop regulations.
10:13:37 I don't have anything to report today as far as
10:13:39 attending ordinance or anything like that, because
10:13:42 there is additional study needed, obviously, and we
10:13:45 will continue to attend the committee meetings and work
10:13:48 further on these regulations.
10:13:51 And as something comes forward, you will see it in a
10:13:53 text amendment cycle down the road, and if there are
10:13:57 any outstanding issues, we would plan to bring this
10:13:59 forward in a workshop with City Council to update you.
10:14:03 I'm available for any questions.
10:14:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Questions from council?
10:14:06 Okay, thank you very much.
10:14:08 And we will move -- skip over item 48, come back to
10:14:13 Item 51.
10:14:18 The police department report on the loud music from
10:14:23 I think this is a regular update report.
10:14:25 Yes, sir.
10:14:26 >>> Assistant Chief Mark Hammel on behalf of the police
10:14:34 Good morning.
10:14:36 We started enforcement in a greater manner back in 2009
10:14:39 when it was brought to our attention by council that
10:14:41 they were receiving some complaints.
10:14:42 If you recall correctly, in 2009, enforcement efforts
10:14:47 were up 60% as compared to be 2008.
10:14:50 And I can still tell you to this day we are up 47% from
10:14:55 2008 numbers.
10:14:57 Our goal this year in 2010 was to match our enforcement
10:15:01 efforts in 2009.
10:15:04 So we are still about 250 citations less in 2010 than
10:15:09 we were in 2009 but we have written 1014 citations as
10:15:14 of August 31st, this year.
10:15:17 And I can tell you from talking to the district majors
10:15:19 that the complaints are still common about loud music
10:15:24 from vehicles but less than they were two years ago.
10:15:28 When they go to neighborhood watch meetings and things
10:15:30 like that, they are hearing less about it and they say
10:15:32 it's improvement.
10:15:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The reports of 1014?
10:15:37 >> Yes.
10:15:38 There were 101 non-moving citations, $101 non-moving
10:15:46 As of October it goes to a moving violation.
10:15:49 State legislature changed that effective October.
10:15:51 It will be a moving violation like for speeding.
10:15:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So October 1st the state
10:15:56 legislature has move to the a moving violation?
10:16:00 >>> That's correct.
10:16:00 Which will be a heavier fine and also points on your
10:16:04 It's $101 now for non-moving infraction, and the fine
10:16:08 for a moving infraction goes up to $160.
10:16:16 But I'm not sure.
10:16:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So only the folk who are playing loud
10:16:22 music need to be aware of points now on their license.
10:16:25 >>> Well, not yet.
10:16:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: October 1st.
10:16:28 October 1st is, what, 29 days?
10:16:31 >>> Right around the corner.
10:16:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
10:16:34 Also, any other questions?
10:16:40 Thank you, chief.
10:16:46 We go to the pulled items.
10:16:56 Item 21.
10:16:58 Councilman Miranda.
10:16:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: It might take more than five
10:17:02 minutes for me.
10:17:03 I don't know about the other council members.
10:17:04 But I read this thing not once, not twice, but three
10:17:09 times as late as 2:30 this morning.
10:17:12 I want to thank the auditor for the outstanding job,
10:17:19 Mr. Strout, along with Gary Chapman, the auditor, I
10:17:22 guess in, charge.
10:17:25 I speak very frankly.
10:17:30 I never voted for them.
10:17:31 That doesn't mean I'm smart, doesn't mean I'm better
10:17:34 for anyone.
10:17:35 I can't speak for -- vote for anything that I know has
10:17:37 a cost factor going in that we should be doing
10:17:41 I have stated that to Mr. Spearman not once but twice,
10:17:44 privately in the office.
10:17:46 I'm not here to debate anyone.
10:17:48 I'm not here to cast aspersions.
10:17:50 I am here to look at an audit that in all my years of
10:17:55 public service I think there was 15 or 16 comparisons
10:18:01 how it's done regarding, and those that were
10:18:13 responsible agreed to.
10:18:15 That throws up red flags immediately.
10:18:19 For instance, I don't know what JOC is.
10:18:25 I don't know who is behind it.
10:18:26 I don't know what they did prior to being JOCs.
10:18:30 The background, when I looked at the background on the
10:18:34 audit report, the city JOC contract or JOC program is
10:18:41 made on a competitive bid.
10:18:46 If there was a period behind competitive bid, the whole
10:18:49 process changes.
10:18:51 I'm not an attorney, nor am I an English major.
10:18:54 In fact I don't even like dangling participles.
10:18:58 But the city ordered job program is based on a
10:19:02 competitive bid.
10:19:03 If there was a period there, maybe we wouldn't be here
10:19:07 But it goes on, and definitely delivery and definitely
10:19:11 quality contract between the city and preselected
10:19:14 construction contractors.
10:19:15 Well, we must have been dead for the last 150 years, as
10:19:18 long as the city has been in operation, because we have
10:19:21 had the same contractor doing the same job with or
10:19:24 without JOCS.
10:19:27 The city is under no obligation to continue to do work
10:19:30 with a problem contractor.
10:19:35 Do you mean to tell me if we were not with JOCS we
10:19:40 would still do business with a problem contractor?
10:19:43 We don't do business like that.
10:19:45 But it goes on, JOCS projects are determined to be a
10:19:48 scope of work prepared by the user department, the
10:19:52 contractor breaks down the projects, the task and
10:19:55 qualities that are exempt, which are extended by
10:20:03 The proposal is generated -- and I am going to need
10:20:06 somewhere down the line what this means.
10:20:08 After applying the contractor's adjustment factor.
10:20:14 That sound nice.
10:20:15 I don't know what it means.
10:20:20 This simplified process allows projects to begin within
10:20:23 20 or 30 days from if it takes up to six months or
10:20:30 Let me tell you what that means.
10:20:31 That means we circumvent the bidding process.
10:20:36 We circumvent, throw them out.
10:20:40 So if we can do that with JOCs why don't we do it on
10:20:45 our own and throw out the competitive bid?
10:20:47 It's beyond me.
10:20:52 Then you go to the page here where we have all the
10:20:54 listing from July 7th through September 9th or
10:20:57 roughly a year and a half, almost two years, contract
10:21:00 administration spent $1,261,000 with JOCs.
10:21:09 I find that to be highly irregular.
10:21:12 The 1.45 million with JOCs.
10:21:18 Transportation spent 2 million with JOCs, or contract
10:21:22 with them and the water department spent $2,125,000
10:21:27 with JOCs for a total combined city for that time of
10:21:44 It bothers me as a tax payer to see these things going
10:21:47 I can tell you that I have a problem with JOCs right
10:21:50 here from when I first got elected.
10:21:53 I can tell you that if my wife hadn't been sick, I
10:21:57 would have gone to every one of them addresses to find
10:22:01 out what was going on.
10:22:02 There was three companies, if I remember.
10:22:07 Cornerstone, and accordion.
10:22:13 I would have gone to all three of them.
10:22:15 And let me tell you what I think I would have found.
10:22:17 I would have never found an office.
10:22:19 I would have found a home address.
10:22:21 That's what I think.
10:22:21 Maybe I'm wrong.
10:22:22 Because I never got to make the trip.
10:22:27 And it's imperative that we change the way we do
10:22:31 We -- in fact in this contract, in this audit, it says
10:22:34 that on occasions JOC doesn't have to pull a permit.
10:22:43 Why have a permit at all then?
10:22:44 So some small business guy in Tampa is doing the same
10:22:47 thing but he or she or that company has to pull a
10:22:51 permit but JOC is exempt from that.
10:22:54 That's wrong.
10:22:55 You have to treat everybody the same way.
10:22:58 What's happened is we become, in my estimation,
10:23:02 satisfied with the status quo, and let a company run
10:23:05 the city.
10:23:06 Maybe we don't need a City Council, let JOC do that.
10:23:09 Maybe we don't need a mayor.
10:23:11 Let JOC do that.
10:23:12 Maybe we don't need a police department or fire
10:23:13 department or administration department.
10:23:15 Let JOC do that because they save everything.
10:23:20 They save the world from the world.
10:23:23 I read this thing and it's sickening how many errors
10:23:26 and omissions were given.
10:23:27 There was over $16,000 that the auditors found that we
10:23:33 either in error or overpayment.
10:23:35 And if our auditing department hadn't found that, do
10:23:41 you think they would have gotten $60,000 back?
10:23:45 The answer is no to my estimation, because they knew
10:23:47 when they received the money they never sent it back.
10:23:51 It had to be the audit department for them to fine to
10:23:53 the for them to sen it back the way I read the article.
10:23:58 If you look at the managers who read this thing -- and
10:24:01 maybe they were fearful of something -- they mostly all
10:24:05 said it doesn't work, it costs more money.
10:24:08 So then -- it says yes, but it says managers time and
10:24:13 effort in the city.
10:24:14 Well, let me look at how I look at this.
10:24:19 I understand that it saves time for the management of
10:24:22 the city, but it costs more money.
10:24:24 So then I'm paying for it just like a sidewalk
10:24:27 ordinance, I'm paying for it twice.
10:24:29 I'm paying for paying somebody's part of a salary to
10:24:32 doing what they were supposed to do when they are
10:24:34 sitting as a city position, as a manager, and then I am
10:24:38 paying them to do the same thing.
10:24:45 I'm just troubled.
10:24:48 This is the worst audit, not by the auditors, that I
10:24:52 have received in all my years of public service.
10:24:56 Sidewalk program.
10:24:57 JOC is supposed to be for specialties.
10:24:59 Is sidewalk a specialty?
10:25:01 I don't think so.
10:25:04 No wonder you are paying $40 a linear fat for
10:25:10 I don't know what the actual cost is but I can
10:25:12 guarantee you it at least half of that.
10:25:14 Somewhere it disappears.
10:25:16 When I look at this and continue reading, they have
10:25:22 been the L.E.D. electric light change.
10:25:24 Oh, that's nice.
10:25:25 That's a difficult task.
10:25:26 We don't have anybody employed in the City of Tampa
10:25:29 that can do that?
10:25:32 I could be there all day reading all this.
10:25:36 I wrote down pages and pages and pages of response, a
10:25:40 lot of business, and I could take up all morning.
10:25:46 What I'm bothered a lot with, on page 8 of the 298 jobs
10:25:51 recorded under the JOC application, 47 included one or
10:25:56 more non-priced -- pre-priced items.
10:26:03 Do you know what that means?
10:26:05 That means you pay through the nose for one sixth of
10:26:07 all your projects that went through, if my math is
10:26:11 correct, 47 into 298, I just round that to 50, I am
10:26:15 going to be kind and say 1.578 or something like that.
10:26:22 So what I am saying is half of those to the reduction
10:26:26 and scope of work, and right there on page 8 for
10:26:30 everybody to read it tells you the percentage, 25 all
10:26:32 the way to 100.
10:26:33 This program does not work.
10:26:35 It talks about contract administration.
10:26:39 What's contract administration?
10:26:41 This should be under contract administration, not under
10:26:44 Purchasing in my opinion is a contract administration
10:26:47 says, here is what I need, find me the best price.
10:26:50 But in this case, it's not that way at all.
10:26:54 I'm not an administrator.
10:26:56 I'm not in administration.
10:26:57 But I am going to tell you one thing.
10:27:00 I follow these audits very, very closely, and you can
10:27:05 ask Cindy Miller, the prior auditor under the former
10:27:09 I called her.
10:27:10 You can ask Mr.STROUT.
10:27:14 I call him M.
10:27:16 The observations on page 10, the JOC project managers
10:27:25 prefer to administer their own projects to ensure
10:27:28 timely completion.
10:27:29 One of the advantages of the JOC program.
10:27:32 The JOC program received apparently to be successful of
10:27:36 a few projects that were involved in a single
10:27:38 construction trade and required both permitting and
10:27:40 inspection, which may or may not have been done.
10:27:45 We cannot continue to do business under this met and be
10:27:56 respected by the taxpayers of this city.
10:27:59 This sometimes a permit, sometimes not permit, they
10:28:03 can't quite understand why.
10:28:04 And I think the auditor was very kind in the words that
10:28:06 he used.
10:28:09 On page 12, the most common response on the
10:28:12 disadvantages of a JOC program was the higher costs of
10:28:17 Those are from the managers.
10:28:19 Within the department saying that.
10:28:23 I'm appalled.
10:28:26 I'm surprised that this has been going on for this
10:28:29 period of time.
10:28:29 And I can tell you that under other administrations, I
10:28:33 never knew what JOC stood for.
10:28:35 I never even heard of JOC.
10:28:38 It says here in 2005 it came about on the prices, I
10:28:45 would imagine it started in 2005 or just before because
10:28:47 talked to the CIP of 2005, and talks to that Crip, or
10:28:54 not greater than 5% a year increase.
10:28:56 So I don't know what it is, because you have some
10:28:58 figure here based on 2005 dollars, and I'm sure you
10:29:03 haven't used any of these, but if you do use them,
10:29:06 their labor cost for program manager is -- construction
10:29:10 manager $90 -- an hour, construction $90 an hour and
10:29:15 estimator $90 an hour and inspector $78 an hour and
10:29:19 contract administrator is $48 an hour.
10:29:22 It also talks about long-term and short-term use of
10:29:24 their personnel in the city.
10:29:26 I don't believe we use that.
10:29:29 But you pay for everything including the insurance,
10:29:31 including the vehicle, including the cell phone,
10:29:34 including the meals, including the hotel, if you use
10:29:37 I'm not saying you have used them.
10:29:39 So what I'm saying is, what I see here is something
10:29:42 that was not written.
10:29:44 When you talk to the contract administration about it,
10:29:49 and that's on page -- give me a second and I'll find
10:29:52 it -- guess who answers.
10:29:54 The purchasing department.
10:29:59 That's in the audit.
10:30:00 I'm not making that up.
10:30:03 So what I'm saying is, I have never voted for it.
10:30:06 I don't want you to think that just because -- I read
10:30:13 this thing, and there should be wholesale changes made
10:30:16 in the way this administration handles JOCs.
10:30:19 My advice is get out of the JOC program, do it yourself
10:30:24 Anything that JOC can do, we can do just as well,
10:30:30 without paying the fees, without paying the cost.
10:30:33 If you want to circumvent the bidding process, that's
10:30:39 Get rid of it.
10:30:40 Get rid of the bidding process because that's exactly
10:30:42 what you are doing through JOC.
10:30:44 And, again, I want to know the names of the individuals
10:30:47 behind JOC, and I want to know what they stood for, and
10:30:50 I want to know where they came from, and I want to know
10:30:53 what professions they were, because in my mind I am
10:30:56 getting some red flags coming up and I don't like it.
10:31:02 It's a shame that I have to say this.
10:31:05 We need changes.
10:31:06 And we need changes quickly.
10:31:09 I can tell you another thing.
10:31:12 When you turn out these bids for 100,000 I am going to
10:31:20 make a motion today that it come back to 25,000 the
10:31:22 same as the legal department.
10:31:24 I haven't spoken to the legal department.
10:31:25 I don't think the legal department has got the right to
10:31:27 give a contract out for more than 25.
10:31:29 Why do I say that?
10:31:31 When you read different things in here, $99,000,
10:31:37 various others, one to cornerstone for $99,000.
10:31:42 Not only do we not bid it, but just give them away.
10:31:48 And this audit specifically calls for the management of
10:31:51 the City of Tampa not following the procedures in
10:31:55 section 202 -- I mean 2.2, and things of that nature
10:31:59 that need to be addressed, we should not be in JOC.
10:32:03 No city should be in JOC.
10:32:05 And I'll tell JOC right to their face.
10:32:07 This is nothing more than passing the buck and say
10:32:11 somebody else did something wrong.
10:32:12 That's just my opinion.
10:32:13 I don't know how council is going to feel about it.
10:32:16 But I yield to Ms. Mulhern.
10:32:21 >>MARY MULHERN: I just was wondering if we have had an
10:32:26 external audit of this.
10:32:30 Do we do that every year?
10:32:36 >>> Spearman, director of purchasing to. My knowledge
10:32:39 we have not had an external audit.
10:32:40 This is the first audit we have had of JOC that was
10:32:43 started by Roger STOUT with the city awed department.
10:32:51 >> Well, I just recommend to the city administration
10:32:54 that -- Mr. Miranda has done a lot of work for you.
10:32:58 So sit down and talk to him and look at ways you can
10:33:00 fix it.
10:33:01 But I'll support Mr. Miranda's whatever motion you want
10:33:07 to make, but I think that might be one, too, to have an
10:33:11 external audit of it.
10:33:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Caetano, then I will allow
10:33:19 to you respond.
10:33:19 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Spearman, while you are up
10:33:21 here, when you put the bid out for the parking meters,
10:33:25 how did you specify what you wanted?
10:33:28 Did you just put out that you wanted kiosks or all
10:33:35 types of methods to pay for meters?
10:33:37 >>> We developed services in all of our -- either the
10:33:41 request for proposal, there are details for
10:33:50 >> Was it your mission to get kiosks instead of pay by
10:33:57 >>GREG SPEARMAN: You are asking me questions that I
10:33:58 don't have answers to because I don't have a bid
10:34:00 document in front of me.
10:34:01 >> I want to see copies of the bid document, please.
10:34:05 >> Yes, I will get you a copy of those.
10:34:06 >> Because I got a letter from someone -- I am not
10:34:09 going to say it here -- but I didn't like what I got
10:34:12 from an unknown person.
10:34:13 I don't know who it is.
10:34:15 >> We will be happy to get you copies of the specifics.
10:34:20 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Thank you.
10:34:22 >> Greg Spearman, director of purchasing for the City
10:34:25 of Tampa, and I have heard councilman Miranda's
10:34:30 I would like to address those.
10:34:32 First to say that the purchasing department is very
10:34:36 highly responsible in terms of the way that we
10:34:40 administer bids and contract.
10:34:41 We do not take that lightly.
10:34:45 We have a staff of individuals that nearly 100 percent
10:34:50 certified, and basically requires us to go through a
10:34:53 rigorous set of standards, testing, professional
10:34:59 education to get to that point, and we would not do
10:35:01 anything to jeopardize this city or the department in
10:35:03 terms of awarding contracts that's not going --
10:35:12 Now, JOC has been around since the 1980s. It
10:35:15 actually started in the military.
10:35:17 It's recently moved to the private sector.
10:35:19 And it is a competitive bid contract.
10:35:24 And the way that happens is that you ask your
10:35:28 contractors to bid what is known as an adjustment
10:35:31 That adjustment factor includes their profit and
10:35:35 Only those contractors would submit the most factor for
10:35:40 the ones selected for the JOC contract.
10:35:46 When you establish the contract.
10:35:47 In this particular instance, we had three JOC
10:35:51 contractors who were the most competitive with their
10:35:54 adjustment factors and they were the ones selected.
10:35:57 We actually have a team of city staff to review those
10:36:01 when they came in from throughout the organization, and
10:36:04 based upon the criteria that was listed in the
10:36:07 proposal, based upon the fact that we asked for
10:36:11 references, we asked for experience, we asked for proof
10:36:14 of bondability, insurance, those are the criteria we
10:36:18 used to select these three contractors.
10:36:20 I want to make sure we understand that.
10:36:22 The JOC program works in ways that it was designed and
10:36:26 intended to work and it works very well.
10:36:28 Is it perfect?
10:36:29 Can we make some adjustments?
10:36:30 Yes, we can.
10:36:32 And there are many, many audits that are done
10:36:34 throughout the city-and I don't ever recall one of
10:36:37 those audits ever being done without having some
10:36:41 recommendations, and we acknowledge in our audit, yes,
10:36:45 we want to make some -- we want to accept those
10:36:48 recommendations for improvement, and in many cases we
10:36:50 have already implemented those.
10:36:51 I also want to point out that there are some very
10:36:53 positive things about the JOC program.
10:36:58 As point out by councilman Miranda, one advantage of
10:37:00 jock over traditional bidding is the elimination of
10:37:03 solicitation for each project.
10:37:05 That doesn't mean that the projects are not done on a
10:37:07 competitive basis.
10:37:08 It just means it's already gone through competition to
10:37:12 selected JOC contractors that we can choose one or more
10:37:15 of those contractors to perform the work.
10:37:17 It does save staff time.
10:37:19 Answer as you will see, it takes anywhere from 13 to 20
10:37:25 days to come up with a scope to do the JOC contract, it
10:37:32 takes about one hundred days to get that done.
10:37:33 So there are many, many positive things that are
10:37:35 pointed out within the JOC contract, and there are some
10:37:38 tweaks we are going to have to make.
10:37:42 Just to show you how popular the JOC contract is, there
10:37:45 are many other entities throughout the nation including
10:37:47 within the State of Florida that use JOC.
10:37:50 We have a city of Miami which used JOC since 2004.
10:37:54 City of Miami Beach which used JOC since 2003.
10:37:58 Palm Beach County which has used JOC since 1994.
10:38:02 The Tampa Housing Authority, Mr. Jerome Ryan is here
10:38:06 today, they have used JOC extensively since 2000.
10:38:10 They have had it for ten years.
10:38:11 It's a very good program.
10:38:12 The City of Tampa since 2009.
10:38:14 City of Pompano beach 2010.
10:38:17 And the city of Madeira Beach since 2008.
10:38:22 I want to point out to council that understood this
10:38:24 program we have had a total of 119 subcontracted out of
10:38:30 the JOC program.
10:38:31 66 of those have been for contractors that are Tampa
10:38:36 Eight everybody from firms.
10:38:38 Eight have been Hispanic firms.
10:38:41 11 women-owned firms.
10:38:42 And 11 small businesses.
10:38:44 Just to give you some statistics how the success of
10:38:48 this program has been, from funds have benefited under
10:38:51 this contract to the tune of just under $1 million.
10:38:55 You talk about stimulating the local economy and
10:38:58 creating jobs.
10:38:59 JOC does that.
10:39:00 Hispanic firms benefited to the tune of about $700,000.
10:39:04 Women-owned firms about 1.3.
10:39:08 The total public participation was about $3 million.
10:39:11 So you can see that this firm -- this particular
10:39:14 program is generating a lot of economic growth and
10:39:17 development locally within the Tampa area.
10:39:20 I would also like to point out to you that we have had
10:39:23 approximately 357 job orders that have come under this
10:39:27 We have a 13% reduction in staff.
10:39:31 So between contract administration and purchasing, that
10:39:35 work has to be done and would not have been done,
10:39:38 especially -- that's a lot of projects.
10:39:42 So JOC to get those small, medium size construction
10:39:46 renovation projects done in a very timely manner.
10:39:49 At the same time we are having an impact on the local
10:39:54 (Bell sounds)
10:39:57 Now in just look at the advertising costs alone.
10:40:00 To advertise in a newspaper it costs us about $50 for
10:40:07 So we are talking about $250 for an ad.
10:40:10 So if you multiply that by 257, you are talking about
10:40:11 $85,000 just to advertise these projects.
10:40:13 They have already been addressed.
10:40:16 Not only that, we are talking about the time it takes
10:40:20 to go through the competitive bid process with
10:40:22 purchasing involved, contract administration involved,
10:40:25 you are talking about all the prime contractors,
10:40:33 monitoring of staff, with 13% reduction in staff, we
10:40:36 don't have the resources to do these projects in-house.
10:40:39 JOC is competitively bid.
10:40:41 It is a contract that works.
10:40:45 We have JOC that comes in for the Super Bowl.
10:40:47 They put in the way finding signs in a very short
10:40:51 period of time.
10:40:52 When this council wanted to make sure we had reclaimed
10:40:54 water connections, we had the drought last year, the
10:40:57 JOC contractors would come in and get their work done
10:40:59 very timely, very quickly, and very competitive because
10:41:04 we did not have the resources within the city to do
10:41:06 So this is a very good contract.
10:41:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
10:41:11 Let me -- councilman Miranda.
10:41:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, I asked for this audit
10:41:19 some time back and seconded then by Mr. Dingfelder.
10:41:22 I don't care what mime does.
10:41:24 That's not part of this audit.
10:41:25 I don't care what West Palm Beach does.
10:41:28 I don't care what any city does.
10:41:29 I don't care what all of them do.
10:41:31 I just worry about the city that I got elected to
10:41:35 But this morning when I walked into the office, my aide
10:41:37 was standing there talking with Spencer Kass, and the
10:41:43 to look at my face and they saw the adjust in it, not
10:41:46 that I'm disgusting looking without reading this, but I
10:41:50 told them, this smells military to me.
10:41:53 And I'm glad you brought that out.
10:41:55 We are not in the military.
10:41:58 We are a government entity for the people, by the
10:42:01 people and elected to serve the people.
10:42:04 When you talk about what you just said in your opening
10:42:07 statement on page 4, no one indicated that the
10:42:11 contractor adjust adjustment factor has been reviewed
10:42:17 for accuracy.
10:42:18 That's your department, sir.
10:42:19 On page 5 it says including procedures on review of
10:42:22 JOC, reinforcement.
10:42:26 You meet once a month just to discuss JOC.
10:42:31 Wouldn't it be to our benefit if you meet and read your
10:42:35 own -- meet your own subcontractors?
10:42:39 Hire a contractor that in this marketplace that are so
10:42:42 far the unemployment is 13% five of which have given up
10:42:45 not working for work, 18, and 5% who were making much
10:42:49 more money and now taking substandard jobs just to
10:42:52 create bread and butter on their table.
10:42:54 It's over 20.
10:42:55 On page 5 again, management response.
10:43:01 City project managers all receive training, doing
10:43:07 during the inception in 2005.
10:43:09 Refresher training will be conducted.
10:43:11 Well, that's nice.
10:43:14 We are not staffing.
10:43:15 We are not reviewing.
10:43:16 It's in the audit.
10:43:17 They just happened to go by.
10:43:21 We can do the same thing without JOC.
10:43:24 I don't care what any city does.
10:43:26 When I look at something that costs money, we are now
10:43:34 violating our own rules.
10:43:35 We are.
10:43:36 It's not the competitive bidding.
10:43:38 It's competitive bidding between who?
10:43:40 JOC and JOC?
10:43:41 And who is to say -- and I am going to say exactly how
10:43:44 I think.
10:43:44 I believe that there could be a possibility for JOC to
10:43:49 be collecting from both sides of the aisle, from us,
10:43:52 and from the contractor.
10:43:54 And I don't care what JOC thinks of me and who they are
10:43:57 and what rang they are in the military.
10:43:59 I really don't give a damn.
10:44:03 This, there's something wrong with it and it smells
10:44:05 bad, period.
10:44:09 The sidewalk programs, building sidewalks.
10:44:11 I'm not talking to you, I'm talking about the program.
10:44:14 Don't get offended.
10:44:15 It's not about you.
10:44:16 If it was I would tell you.
10:44:17 But let me tell you something.
10:44:19 There's something wrong in the way we do business.
10:44:22 It has got to change.
10:44:25 And if we can't make sod there's something wrong.
10:44:30 There's a hundred sod companies here.
10:44:33 If we can't build sidewalks there's something sadly
10:44:35 wrong with us.
10:44:36 There's a lot of unemployment.
10:44:37 I don't need anybody in the military to tell me how to
10:44:42 run my government.
10:44:46 And I hope that's not taken against military because
10:44:48 I'm not.
10:44:49 But when I walked in this morning and I read this thing
10:44:52 various times last night, I told myself, this is
10:44:57 Because the way it's structured, I retired.
10:45:01 I got my pension.
10:45:02 And what I found out from the intelligence bureau or
10:45:07 this bureau that I worked in, I create this thing, I
10:45:09 put it out to market, I sell it, and all I do is
10:45:12 collect for doing nothing.
10:45:14 That's what this program is about.
10:45:15 It's about a computer.
10:45:16 It's about a book.
10:45:22 Sometimes we may not inspect these things.
10:45:25 Sometimes there's not a permit pulled out.
10:45:27 How can I have the gall to tell some little pop mop and
10:45:32 pop operation, you have to do this or you are going to
10:45:35 get fined, you have to do that.
10:45:37 You didn't get a permit?
10:45:39 Now you have to pay three times the fee to a homeowner,
10:45:43 when I know that JOC gets away with it with it for
10:45:49 And this program is faulted from wherever it started.
10:45:52 You know what?
10:45:54 Sometimes I'm come here 8:00 or 9:00 at night and my
10:45:58 aide says, go home, I don't pay overtime.
10:46:01 Maybe we should also stay here past time.
10:46:05 Thank you.
10:46:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do you want to respond to the awed snit
10:46:09 then we have to move so I can make sure we finish our
10:46:12 agenda for the morning.
10:46:13 >>GREG SPEARMAN: We do have other departments here
10:46:16 this morning, council, that may want to speak,
10:46:18 particularly on the contract administration, because
10:46:20 they have used JOC and benefited from it.
10:46:24 But before any of my colleagues speak, this contract
10:46:27 carries with it an umbrella performance bond and
10:46:31 payment bond and insurance policy.
10:46:33 Most of these projects, many of these them are bonded,
10:46:37 and small contractors are not in a position to get the
10:46:41 bonding because they cone of uncertainty meet the
10:46:43 bonding and insurance requirement.
10:46:44 So for them to be able to come under the umbrella
10:46:47 contract and be able to get work from the city, it's a
10:46:50 tremendous benefit to them in this particular program.
10:46:54 That's another added advantage of it.
10:46:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I think the issue, though, is I think
10:46:59 the issue is in the audit there was a number of
10:47:03 findings that you all concurred with, and I guess based
10:47:08 on what I saw, reading was, that you all agreed to make
10:47:11 some changes to that.
10:47:13 But evidently it's the first audit the program has had
10:47:17 and obviously quite a bit of findings based upon your
10:47:21 performance auditors.
10:47:22 >>GREG SPEARMAN: Again we have looked at those
10:47:25 In fact, some changes were implemented even before the
10:47:28 audit took place.
10:47:29 So it is a good sound program.
10:47:31 And these are adjustments that can be made to
10:47:34 strengthen the program beyond.
10:47:37 The obvious recommendation is that.
10:47:39 So we believe in the program as recommended it should
10:47:42 be continued with these adjustments.
10:47:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, on the agenda today is really to
10:47:47 receive the audit, I guess it is.
10:47:51 Is there a motion to receive the audit?
10:47:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'll second that if I can speak on
10:47:58 For years I have been asking this city under the small
10:48:00 business and helping the people in small businesses
10:48:03 that didn't have the money -- and you can check the
10:48:05 record -- for bond that the city would pay the money
10:48:11 and you pay it back out of the proceeds.
10:48:13 I have said that many times.
10:48:15 We are creating excuses for a company that should not
10:48:17 even exist.
10:48:21 Thank you very much.
10:48:21 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I want to ask Mr. Miranda a
10:48:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have had enough of this.
10:48:29 The next administration, whoever they are, I'm sure
10:48:31 will judge this.
10:48:32 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I want to follow up, Mr. Miranda.
10:48:35 I'm not criticizing.
10:48:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: No, no, you can I don't want to
10:48:41 criticize you.
10:48:42 You have been criticized enough.
10:48:44 What is your intent?
10:48:45 >> My intent is to be wait out the administration.
10:48:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's a motion and a second to
10:48:49 receive the audit report.
10:48:51 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
10:48:58 Then we will move to -- we need a motion for item 18
10:49:03 and 19.
10:49:04 It's my understanding Councilwoman Mulhern that had you
10:49:07 want to hold this item till the budget process?
10:49:12 18 and 19?
10:49:13 >>MARY MULHERN: No, that was not my -- I was just
10:49:16 going to highlight them under the consent agenda and
10:49:19 thank the PBA and the administration for working
10:49:22 together and coming to this agreement and thank the
10:49:27 mayor for honoring her commitment last year to restore
10:49:30 the step increase this year.
10:49:32 However, I think it was Mr. Miranda who wanted to have
10:49:42 some further discussion.
10:49:44 I would like to hear from my colleagues.
10:49:46 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: The attorney for the union is
10:49:52 Can he address this board, please?
10:49:55 >> Well, I see Mr. Smith from administration.
10:49:58 Are you coming on this particular item, Mr. Smith?
10:50:00 Do you want to be recognized?
10:50:02 Chief of staff Mr. Smith.
10:50:04 >>> Good morning, Reverend Scott, council members.
10:50:14 I'm here in response to the remarks during the agenda
10:50:17 review this morning.
10:50:20 And the consideration of continuing the police
10:50:24 contracts until the first budget public hearing.
10:50:28 And I just wanted to review with council the Hess try
10:50:36 on the merit step increases.
10:50:40 And you will recall that last year, in order to assist
10:50:44 the city in achieving a balanced budget, and minimizing
10:50:48 the number of layoffs, all three unions went without
10:50:55 any cost of living increase, and without any merit or
10:51:01 step increase.
10:51:02 And that was a huge benefit for the city that assisted
10:51:06 us in balancing the budget.
10:51:11 And this year, as in every year, we looked at each
10:51:14 budget on a case-by-case basis, and we make the
10:51:19 determination of what we can afford, what is important,
10:51:22 and what we cannot afford and what we will have to
10:51:26 We have closely looked at the budget for this year and
10:51:30 have determined that the step program should be
10:51:34 reinstituted for the police and fire and HQ.
10:51:44 No cost of living.
10:51:45 Just the merit and step increases.
10:51:47 We have reached an agreement with the police union that
10:51:51 is before you today and a contract that reflect that
10:51:54 increase in step for one year only for one-year
10:52:00 We have tentatively reached an agreement with the HU
10:52:03 union to accept a contract with a merit increase built
10:52:10 in for one year also.
10:52:12 We are currently negotiating with the fire union and
10:52:15 their position is that they should receive the step
10:52:18 increase for the FY-11 budget.
10:52:23 The step program, merit program, is important from
10:52:29 retention benefits, but where it really comes into
10:52:32 play, and it's very important for us, is to continue to
10:52:36 recruit top quality candidates for police, fire and of
10:52:41 course other city staff, our non-sworn city staff.
10:52:45 It has proven over the years to be very beneficial,
10:52:49 very important, to continuing to build our top quality
10:52:54 force of police officers, firefighters, and city staff.
10:52:59 I understand the concerns about future budgets and
10:53:02 other administrations.
10:53:05 And those will need to be addressed on a case-by-case
10:53:09 Approval of the contract that are before you today does
10:53:11 not mean that that's in perpetuity.
10:53:13 It means for FY11 and for that contract period, the
10:53:18 administration is recommending the step increases be
10:53:25 And I would ask council members to approve them as
10:53:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have been advised by my aide
10:53:34 outside that she thought someone said I pulled this. I
10:53:37 didn't pull it.
10:53:38 I seconded it, if I remember, for discussion, as I will
10:53:41 second any council member's request to hold something
10:53:43 for discussion.
10:53:45 I did bring up that future administration, when you
10:53:48 looked at the -- we were at 30-some percent in
10:53:53 reserves, now down to 20.1, if I remember the call.
10:53:56 So whoever comes in next is going to have a tight,
10:54:04 tight, tight situation.
10:54:05 And I want the public, the general employees, want to T
10:54:08 fire to know and the police to know that we gave
10:54:11 12-point something mill this year, and that's over $30
10:54:17 million out of reserves.
10:54:21 And I guess this increase would mean for all city
10:54:24 employees, including those elected --
10:54:31 Oh it would only apply to the three.
10:54:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I want to make sure because I am
10:54:35 going to give mine back.
10:54:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And all of them don't get it, as I
10:54:43 It is an item that was pulled for highlighting by
10:54:45 Councilwoman Mulhern, and then Spencer Kass came up and
10:54:54 said maybe we ought to hold it to the budget.
10:54:56 I think that was suggested.
10:54:58 However, I think to move forward today, I think a
10:55:03 couple things.
10:55:03 I think one is administration kept their word.
10:55:06 That was the thing that we talked about, you recall,
10:55:09 last year.
10:55:10 And secondly, we said we would take a strong look at
10:55:14 And we have kept our word.
10:55:16 So in my vision, a handshake, that was good.
10:55:23 So I don't have a problem with moving it forward.
10:55:25 It's not going to have an impact either way because for
10:55:30 this budget year, it's not in perpetuity as you pointed
10:55:33 So it is a committee item under Councilwoman Mulhern.
10:55:38 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes.
10:55:39 (Bell sounds)
10:55:40 I would move both items 18 and 19 and I don't regret
10:55:47 that we had this discussion.
10:55:48 It's very important.
10:55:51 And I respect and honor Mr. KASS's request to think of
10:55:59 this in context.
10:56:02 But I think we look at this all year with the budget.
10:56:06 It's not a big surprise to us on council that the three
10:56:13 union contract we have are coming up.
10:56:15 And I just truly believe that even though we are in
10:56:22 this really difficult economy, part of the really bad
10:56:26 part of our economy isn't just unemployment, but it's
10:56:29 the fact that people aren't making a living wage.
10:56:33 So at the very least, our first responders, the people
10:56:37 who put their life on the line for us every day, this
10:56:42 is one of the few professions where you can be at least
10:56:48 at a decent wage, and I think people need to keep that
10:56:51 in mind, that if it's only, you know, if it's only
10:56:55 because you are putting your life on the line, and a
10:56:58 fireman or policeman, that you deserve to be able to
10:57:02 have collective bargaining and work for -- put your
10:57:06 life on the line every day.
10:57:09 We need to honor that, especially -- so I move both 18
10:57:15 and 19.
10:57:16 >> Second.
10:57:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
10:57:18 All in favor?
10:57:23 Now, you had a request, councilman Caetano, a request?
10:57:28 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Well, the attorney, do we need to
10:57:29 have him get up and talk from the PBA?
10:57:33 Because I think Mr. Smith covered everything.
10:57:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I don't think we need to do.
10:57:39 I think they probably want us to go ahead and take
10:57:44 action so we have done that.
10:57:45 Thank you very much.
10:57:46 We have a couple of other items I need to hold right
10:57:49 I want to go to our public hearings.
10:57:51 Item 35.
10:57:52 Public hearing.
10:58:05 Central Park.
10:58:06 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
10:58:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to open the public hearing.
10:58:11 >> Second.
10:58:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?
10:58:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Open 35 and 36.
10:58:15 >>REBECCA KERT: This is a petition to establish the
10:58:21 community district for the ownership and maintenance of
10:58:25 The petitioner has supplied all the requirements under
10:58:28 Florida statutes, in addition the petitioner set it in
10:58:34 form of affidavit.
10:58:35 This morning they have supplied additional affidavits.
10:58:38 Nothing has changed since the prior testimony that was
10:58:41 I will submit this into the record now.
10:58:48 He page 2 of your staff report contains the 6.2 under
10:59:00 Florida statutes, to evaluate in order to determine
10:59:02 whether to approve this.
10:59:04 Staff has reviewed this as note in the staff report,
10:59:07 and there were no objections.
10:59:08 The petitioner is here if you have any questions.
10:59:11 If you want to approve the petition, you have the
10:59:14 ordinance available for first reading.
10:59:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Second reading.
10:59:20 It's first reading?
10:59:31 This is second reading and this is the CBD for Central
10:59:34 Park development, Encore.
10:59:39 Mr. Ryan is here and Bank of America is here.
10:59:42 I don't know if they want to state anything on the
10:59:43 record or say anything.
10:59:44 >>> My name is Jonathan Johnson, on behalf of Central
10:59:51 Park development we just wanted to express our
10:59:53 appreciation to you and your staff as we have worked
10:59:55 through the documentation and giving all -- getting all
10:59:58 of this in order.
10:59:59 As Mrs. Kert noted we have filed affidavits bringing
11:00:03 testimony current through today.
11:00:04 We do have all of our witness here if there are any
11:00:07 Obviously so far as it's a public hearing if there are
11:00:10 any comment or questions from the public bee -- we
11:00:14 would like to address or answer those.
11:00:16 The CBD determined this to be a primary entity that
11:00:20 self-sustaining Encore within its boundaries.
11:00:23 We do believe the petition, the testimony, the
11:00:26 affidavits and the proof of publication which was filed
11:00:29 with the clerk's office on August 26th, that we
11:00:31 have met the statutory criteria for the establishment.
11:00:34 CBD and we are simply here to answer your questions if
11:00:37 you have any.
11:00:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any questions by council?
11:00:49 Anyone from the public wish to address council?
11:00:52 Anyone from the public wish to address council?
11:00:55 >> Move to close.
11:00:56 >> Second.
11:00:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?
11:00:58 Okay, Mr. Stokes, do you want to read the ordinance?
11:01:02 >> Move to adopt --
11:01:12 >> Second.
11:01:13 >> Public hearing on petition by Central Park
11:01:17 development district development group, being presented
11:01:23 for second reading, an ordinance of the city of Tampa,
11:01:26 Florida generally located south of Kay and Scott
11:01:32 streets, west of Nebraska Avenue, north of Cass Street,
11:01:35 and east of Perry Harvey Sr. park comprising 2.9 acres
11:01:40 of land more or less for the purpose of managing and
11:01:43 delivering basic community infrastructure improvements
11:01:46 said district to be located entirely within the
11:01:48 boundaries of the City of Tampa the same being more
11:01:51 particularly described in section 2 hereof pursuant to
11:01:53 chapter 190 Florida statutes, naming the district,
11:01:56 providing for severability, providing an effective
11:01:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's been moved and seconded.
11:02:03 Record your vote, please.
11:02:07 This is second reading.
11:02:08 >> Motion carried with Caetano being absent.
11:02:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 36.
11:02:20 Item 36.
11:02:22 Anyone from the public wish to address council on item
11:02:27 This is the nonconforming sign ordinance.
11:02:38 >>JULIA COLE: City of Tampa legal department.
11:02:41 I have presented to you an ordinance per City Council's
11:02:45 motion to amend our sign code to allow the opportunity
11:02:49 for nonconforming signs to have -- be able to change
11:02:54 out their sign face for an electronic message board.
11:02:59 If City Council has any questions about some of the
11:03:01 background, I would be happy to answer those.
11:03:03 Otherwise if you just want to hear from the public then
11:03:07 I can answer any questions after you hear from the
11:03:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone from the public please come
11:03:13 forward at this time, state your name and address for
11:03:15 the record.
11:03:20 >>MARGARET VIZZI: 213 south Sherill.
11:03:24 Council, because it seems the sign business is going to
11:03:27 make some additional recommendations, we would really
11:03:32 like to let you know about our concerns about such
11:03:38 change in policy up to two years of work.
11:03:41 I don't know if that's possible that I can address you
11:03:45 on their new proposals, because it seems it's going to
11:03:49 be quite a change from what is even in this
11:03:54 recommendation now.
11:03:54 Because we have concerns that after all the work -- and
11:03:59 I'm talking to for Tampa homeowners -- we met as we
11:04:06 told you we would do.
11:04:07 We did not have time to bring everything back to our
11:04:09 full membership.
11:04:10 But the committee knew all of the work that the
11:04:15 committee put together which was a combination of
11:04:17 citizens of the business, of staff, et cetera,
11:04:23 et cetera, attorneys who worked on this, and during
11:04:30 this process, the sign industry for brought us many
11:04:34 things that changed some of our feelings about signs,
11:04:42 which the comp plan says we-to bring the sign industry.
11:04:49 The sign said just border our neighborhoods because I
11:04:54 know council mentioned that most of these signs were
11:04:57 not within the neighborhood, but they are within the
11:05:01 business part of our neighborhoods.
11:05:03 And the neighborhoods were trying to better the way
11:05:07 they looked, and they felt that the business community
11:05:10 would want to do the same.
11:05:12 So during all of this, there were negotiations, you
11:05:17 might say, between what one side wanted and the other
11:05:22 Then even at the last meeting at the public hearing,
11:05:24 there were additional negotiations made such as
11:05:28 bringing in the digital signs.
11:05:31 That was not even part of the ordinance then.
11:05:35 And now at the hearing the sign would be brought in and
11:05:43 now I understand it's going to be a proposal to even
11:05:46 let those digitals change more often.
11:05:49 And those are great concerns.
11:05:50 So I hate to do this because I was the one who report
11:05:57 last time with, all the changes being proposed I would
11:05:59 hope that council would put this off again to let
11:06:02 everything come out for the public to know and discuss
11:06:06 more fully.
11:06:07 Thank you thank you.
11:06:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker.
11:06:13 Anyone else wish to address council on this?
11:06:17 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Council, the basic problem is not
11:06:29 how long you have worked on a sign code, but whether or
11:06:31 not there are problems with it.
11:06:33 I have got some real issue here.
11:06:37 When I sent you a letter, which outlined the basic
11:06:40 issues that are involved here, and I know that people
11:06:43 worked long and hard on this, but that's not the point.
11:06:46 The point is that it made 90% of the signs that were
11:06:50 legal conforming signs, it made them nonconforming
11:06:53 legal signs.
11:06:55 Which means that you cannot make major modifications.
11:07:01 You have to file for a variance.
11:07:03 Those variances cost without professional services
11:07:10 $2200 just for the necessary fees and to get the
11:07:13 necessary document together, they take three to four
11:07:15 You can't modify and move signs because they end up
11:07:18 being in your parking lot.
11:07:22 These are for existing developed buildings, not for new
11:07:27 You can't put the building sign in the middle of the
11:07:31 It's not possible.
11:07:32 If you can relocate the sign, costs you $35,000.
11:07:38 Those are unusual and extreme hardships.
11:07:41 If you go for a variance, you can't talk about economic
11:07:44 You can only talk about whether or not practical
11:07:48 You can't talk about reducing it.
11:07:50 You can't talk about the cost of what the expense is in
11:07:55 terms of what it costs you to comply.
11:07:57 And if you built on a development project with a
11:08:02 parking lot that's laid out according to current codes
11:08:05 and then all of a sudden you are trying to make a sign
11:08:07 meet that code, for an existing developed building
11:08:10 which you have permits for, and you can't do it, that
11:08:13 hardship is now passed on to you.
11:08:19 In terms of reducing the square footage of the sign the
11:08:21 code reduced it from 200 square feet to 50 square feet.
11:08:24 That's a 300 percent reduction.
11:08:27 This doesn't affect this that.
11:08:30 This just allows you to modernize and upgrade the sign.
11:08:33 They reduce allowable height from 30 feet to 20 feet, a
11:08:37 30% reduction.
11:08:38 I really find hard to believe that all those other
11:08:41 people have said that the sign code was investigated
11:08:44 and it was reviewed, in terms of what impact it would
11:08:48 have on-site plans.
11:08:50 But it's very clear in talking to Construction Services
11:08:52 Center that they were opposed to this.
11:08:55 They said they were.
11:08:56 They said they pointed out the difficulties in meeting
11:08:58 these code requirements under the new code.
11:09:01 And yet they weren't adopted.
11:09:05 When we came back before you and asked for a change,
11:09:08 the issue was whether or not there was a hardship being
11:09:12 placed on unreasonably on small businesses, and I would
11:09:15 venture to say there was.
11:09:17 Council has an opportunity here to correct that
11:09:20 They have the ability to correct a wrong that was put
11:09:23 down on small businesses that can barely afford to have
11:09:26 that happen now.
11:09:28 You have the ability to correct a disparity and to
11:09:31 relieve an unfair burden and that's what this is about.
11:09:34 This isn't about trying to take away somebody's rights
11:09:39 in a house.
11:09:40 If you had a similar regulation, you have got a permit
11:09:42 for your house and you can do this, this and this, and
11:09:46 somebody from the business community came down and
11:09:48 said, we don't think that's a good idea, you should
11:09:50 remove that and make them all comply with the new code,
11:09:54 and we think because we live near you and meet the
11:09:58 criteria, you would have a hue and cry that you would
11:10:01 be hearing from now until the end of time that you
11:10:03 serve on this council.
11:10:04 (Bell sounds)
11:10:05 I respectfully request you adopt this code amendment.
11:10:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
11:10:09 Next speaker.
11:10:10 >> Randy Baron, 217 west Comanche Avenue speaking on
11:10:16 behalf of than as T.H.A.N.'s president.
11:10:20 We had a zoning committee meeting to discuss this.
11:10:23 We haven't had a chance to have a full T.H.A.N.
11:10:26 This has happened rather rapidly.
11:10:28 We T.H.A.N. did vote to allow the zoning committee to
11:10:35 make their recommendations on behalf of all of than.
11:10:39 We came up with the following conclusions.
11:10:41 One, City Council made a significant policy statement
11:10:44 when they changed the sign dimensions.
11:10:47 The purpose was a city-wide reduction in the impact of
11:10:50 on-site signage on the aesthetics of Tampa's commercial
11:10:54 Simply put it was to make the city look better.
11:10:56 The zoning committee unanimously and enthusiastically
11:10:59 support this public policy.
11:11:02 Two, the goal of making some legal nonconform is to
11:11:06 eliminate it by attrition.
11:11:08 This has been confirmed by legal staff.
11:11:10 By making the existing signs legal nonconforming the
11:11:12 City Council recognizes the significant investment this
11:11:15 has had in their signs and the cost ton replace those
11:11:18 Legal nonconforming status allowed those businesses to
11:11:21 maintain those signs that required the signs become
11:11:24 conforming in the event the sign ever came down or
11:11:26 changes were made such as a change of use or change in
11:11:28 the site plan.
11:11:29 This makes sense.
11:11:30 You don't want to take the sign down immediately but
11:11:32 the goal of the public policy is to come into
11:11:36 conformance with the sign code.
11:11:37 You keep your sign until such time as you need to make
11:11:40 a change mange or change of use.
11:11:43 Electronic message boards to be the carrot that
11:11:46 encourages businesses to make their signs conform.
11:11:49 Allows allowing our nonconforming signs to have the
11:11:52 same message area eliminates that incentive and is
11:11:55 contrary to existing public policy.
11:11:57 Passing the ordinance will signify a major public
11:11:59 policy shift by City Council.
11:12:03 Four, allowing nonconforming signs to have the same
11:12:05 amount of electronic message board area as conforming
11:12:09 signs in addition to maintaining their 300 square
11:12:11 foot -- about 200, 300 square foot signage will result
11:12:16 in significant competitive advantages the businesses
11:12:19 with nonconform signs.
11:12:21 While those businesses claim that electronic message
11:12:23 boards put conforming signs at competitive advantage,
11:12:27 public policy dictates that, given a choice, it is the
11:12:29 conforming signs that should maintain the advantage and
11:12:31 not the nonconforming signs.
11:12:34 What you have you will have is a sign closer to the
11:12:36 street, 300 square feet, going to have 50 square feet,
11:12:39 electronic message board and a conforming sign which by
11:12:42 the way are owned by small businesses, also that had to
11:12:45 put them up for the last four years, having 50 square
11:12:47 feet, which can be a total of electronic message board,
11:12:51 lower and further set back.
11:12:53 They are going to be lost in a sea of nonconforming
11:12:57 Five, should nonconforming signs be allowed to have the
11:13:00 same amount of electronic message board area as
11:13:03 nonconforming signs?
11:13:05 The zoning committee predicts that businesses with
11:13:07 conforming signs will seek variances or increase the
11:13:10 size of their signs to that equal of nonconforming
11:13:14 That just makes sense.
11:13:15 If you are a con forge sign in a sea of nonconforming
11:13:19 signs, you are smaller, further setback, you are going
11:13:22 to have to want to have the same amount of signs they
11:13:24 do, and that's completely contrary and is going to
11:13:27 reverse the public policy.
11:13:30 Six, after the long and thorough process that was used
11:13:32 to determine recommendations for the existing sign
11:13:35 code, and my understanding was close to two years,
11:13:38 there is no compelling reason to make the proposed
11:13:40 changes which would reverse existing public policy
11:13:42 without the benefit of the same process.
11:13:46 In conclusion, the than committee on behalf of T.H.A.N.
11:13:52 unanimously opposed the change in the sign code.
11:13:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else from the public?
11:13:57 >> After I figure out the technology here.
11:14:20 >>RON ROTELLA: Westshore alliance.
11:14:22 I won't repeat a lot of what Randy said but I will
11:14:24 point out I was one of a number of the committee
11:14:26 members that represented businesses, the sign industry,
11:14:29 and the residents, staff city staff, construction
11:14:33 service center, Julia, that worked very, very hard to
11:14:37 revise the cities sign ordinance.
11:14:39 An important consideration is we didn't want to impact
11:14:42 existing small businesses, so we didn't go with an
11:14:45 amortization schedule.
11:14:46 We didn't say all these illegal nonconform signs have
11:14:50 to come down by a certain date.
11:14:52 We said that's really a burden on small businesses.
11:14:55 What we said was if they want to change the sign, or
11:14:59 change use, then they should come into conformity.
11:15:02 So with the what the Westshore alliance did is we
11:15:05 passed a commercial overlay district that dealt with
11:15:08 signs and ultimately the committee came up with most of
11:15:12 our recommendations.
11:15:16 Here is an example of how it looks with the current
11:15:20 sign ordinance in place.
11:15:22 In our commercial overlay district.
11:15:24 Shouldn't every arterial in the city look like this?
11:15:32 Here is an example of the signage that's going into the
11:15:38 That's no imposition.
11:15:40 They can meet site plan requirements.
11:15:42 It really looks good.
11:15:45 Another new development on Boy Scout.
11:15:50 Now, here is what we would like to, as I understand,
11:15:54 would like to perpetuate.
11:16:02 No city should look like this.
11:16:04 No arterial should look like this.
11:16:07 What they want to suggest is these signs all stay and
11:16:10 become legal conforming signs and include digital to
11:16:15 That will be changing down Kennedy at night, resident,
11:16:21 people visiting the city, it will look like psychedelic
11:16:24 And the whole intent of the sign committee with
11:16:27 representatives from the sign industry was to rid the
11:16:31 city of this kind of sign pollution, and the this kind
11:16:38 of sign, all up and down every major arterial.
11:16:42 Again, we did not want to impact small businesses, so
11:16:45 we said these signs can stay like they are, even though
11:16:47 they are offensive to a lot of people, until they want
11:16:50 to change the sign, or change use of the business.
11:16:54 Please, please do not undo what a lot of people in the
11:16:59 city worked very hard to accomplish through a very
11:17:04 deliberative process that took two years with a council
11:17:06 member chairing that committee of that of those signs
11:17:11 sign revisions approved unanimously by City Council.
11:17:13 So we would ask that you do not adopt the revision
11:17:16 before you.
11:17:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else from the public?
11:17:20 Anyone else from the public?
11:17:33 >> Speaker waiver form with two additional names.
11:17:35 Craig Tiley present?
11:17:38 And Michael Cury?
11:17:40 Two additional minutes, please.
11:17:41 >> Bob Smith, owner of electric sign company.
11:17:46 I was on the sign committee for over two and a half
11:17:49 And in that committee, what we had was we said that if
11:17:55 you didn't change the sign structurally, do not change
11:17:57 that in any way, that we could go in and gut that
11:18:04 cabinet that had fluorescent tubes in it and put
11:18:08 electronics in it.
11:18:09 That is not a structural change.
11:18:11 And we made sure that was through.
11:18:12 Now, I had Mark Bramsley try to come in today, and he
11:18:17 verified that was true, that was on our committee.
11:18:21 So what I did,
11:18:25 After the code was in effect, I took this old sign,
11:18:33 that old sign was an old sign that looked terrible, had
11:18:39 was all falling down and broken down and we gutted that
11:18:42 sign and you can see the electronics is kind of small
11:18:45 there, and then we revamped the sign, put the plastic
11:18:48 on it.
11:18:49 Now it looks like a brand new job but we did not
11:18:53 structurally change that sign.
11:18:54 All we did was change the guts.
11:18:55 And we went to another job on Dale Mabry.
11:18:57 Same thing, got the permits for it.
11:18:59 Went to do a third job and all of a sudden the city
11:19:02 comes up with, oh, we don't have the proper ordinance,
11:19:05 it's not there.
11:19:06 What are you talking about?
11:19:07 We have already done this.
11:19:08 I got with mark BRESKI right a way, met with Andrea
11:19:13 Cole, and told her this is not what our intentions
11:19:16 Our intentions were to leave the structure, the
11:19:18 structure the same.
11:19:19 We are exchanging fluorescent tubes, balance lasts and
11:19:23 putting electronics in it.
11:19:26 This is one I had here.
11:19:28 So these gas changers, you can see it's just a face
11:19:36 So if we are going to change electronics, which we can
11:19:40 change electronics, it is just a face change.
11:19:43 Right now the City of Tampa to do a face change, if you
11:19:45 want to change to the Joe's barbecue to Tom's record
11:19:49 store, there's no permits required.
11:19:51 If you want a permit required for the electronic part
11:19:53 of it, they attach right to the face, not a structural
11:19:58 Then we can pull an electrical permit.
11:20:01 But that's where we are going with this.
11:20:03 And that was wrote incorrectly when we did the sign.
11:20:08 When we met with Julia, she said just wait a little
11:20:11 bit, wait until the billboard guys get done with their
11:20:14 deal, and take that up.
11:20:16 One more thing was they came up with a 5-minute time
11:20:22 5 minutes.
11:20:22 That's ridiculous.
11:20:23 Hillsborough County code is seven seconds.
11:20:27 Seven seconds.
11:20:28 I'm sorry, six seconds.
11:20:30 So that's something you might want to look into, too.
11:20:33 The City of Tampa has a bunch of signs.
11:20:35 A bunch of electronic signs.
11:20:37 The City of Tampa, Tampa Theatre, performing arts,
11:20:49 aquarium, convention centers, those signs are rocking
11:20:52 and rolling 24 hours a day.
11:20:56 You are not even following your own code.
11:20:58 So if you are going to walk the walk, talk the talk.
11:21:02 That's where I'm going with this.
11:21:03 But it is in our advantage to do the electronic signs,
11:21:07 to gut them.
11:21:09 Because remember we change electrical for electronics.
11:21:12 That's the only difference there is.
11:21:13 There's no structural changes in this sign.
11:21:17 Any questions?
11:21:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker?
11:21:29 >> Spencer Kass.
11:21:35 I'm representing a couple of different groups with a
11:21:38 dumb couple different things they want.
11:21:41 First, on behalf of East Tampa, West Tampa, what we are
11:21:47 requesting is if we are going to make changes, we want
11:21:49 to go back to the old sign code, with digital.
11:21:53 We discussed this at the East Tampa land use committee.
11:21:56 We discussed this at the East Tampa economic
11:22:01 We don't think it's fair that a new business, someone
11:22:03 who expense a lot of money in our community, creates a
11:22:08 lot of jobs, has to have 300 square feet.
11:22:12 I want to make sure you know what the difference is.
11:22:16 This represents 50 square feet.
11:22:22 And this represents 300 square feet.
11:22:25 So the City of Tampa tells people we are going to go
11:22:30 from this, to this.
11:22:31 To us, that's not fair.
11:22:33 We need our businesses to be able to compete.
11:22:35 The whole point of our overlays is to make it so that
11:22:38 we can bring in more businesses, we can create more
11:22:40 The number one complaint we hear is we need more jobs,
11:22:43 we want to put people to work.
11:22:46 When the sign code was proposed, what hooped, what I
11:22:52 told a business person is we are going from a 300
11:22:55 square feet to 50 square feet but what we are going to
11:22:57 do for the 50 square feet people, that's going to give
11:23:01 them a slight competitive advantage to help them
11:23:03 compete against these people with 300.
11:23:07 Let people keep the 300.
11:23:11 That's not right.
11:23:12 If you want to change the policy, I have no objection
11:23:14 to changing the policy.
11:23:16 We would like you to do-and I have discussed this with
11:23:18 city staff, and under your instruction, if that's what
11:23:21 you want, they will work on changes to the East Tampa
11:23:24 and West Tampa overlay only, bring back the old code
11:23:30 with the digital, if you are willing to do that.
11:23:32 I can tell you the community supports that 100 percent.
11:23:35 I repeat.
11:23:36 100 percent.
11:23:41 We want new businesses.
11:23:44 East Tampa has vacant land.
11:23:45 That's one of the biggest problems, vacant parcel after
11:23:49 vacant parcel.
11:23:50 We want people to build.
11:23:51 How can I tell someone that wants to come to East Tampa
11:23:54 and build something on an acre or two acres? Oh, open
11:23:57 up a sandwich shop next to you.
11:24:01 Next to you 300 feet square feet of sign.
11:24:04 It doesn't work.
11:24:06 In today's economic times it's what's needed.
11:24:08 So respectfully I ask that you ask staff -- and I
11:24:13 understand you they may not be able to do it today but
11:24:17 with the chapter 27 changes, so it will be discussed
11:24:19 again amongst all the community members to work on
11:24:21 changing the East Tampa and West Tampa overlay codes to
11:24:24 be old sign code with digital signage.
11:24:27 Thank you very much.
11:24:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker.
11:24:41 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Can I ask Mr. Kass a question?
11:24:43 Mr. Kass, in your business do you have a nonconforming
11:24:47 >>> No.
11:24:48 I have old under the overlay sign which is the smallest
11:24:50 sign you can have in the City of Tampa.
11:24:54 It's about that big, smaller than anything else.
11:24:56 Where my business is, all we get is a tiny little sign
11:25:04 about that big and that's all we are allowed to have.
11:25:06 And every piece of bad signage in that area, all of
11:25:10 that now would be under the 50 square foot code.
11:25:15 >> When you get a new client coming into your place did
11:25:19 you ask them, how did you hear about us?
11:25:20 >> They drive past three or four times.
11:25:23 They can never find the sign.
11:25:25 The sign is too small.
11:25:26 They drive right past.
11:25:28 It on Howard Avenue.
11:25:30 They go right by.
11:25:31 By the way, I put in $20,000 worth of landscaping.
11:25:36 >> You won the award too.
11:25:37 >> I won the award.
11:25:39 >> And do you want an electronic sign?
11:25:42 >> In today's business --
11:25:47 >> There are a lot of small businesses hurting out
11:25:49 I just put a new sign up at my business and every
11:25:52 person, I had a lady yesterday, how did you hear about
11:25:56 She said, I saw your sign out by the building.
11:26:01 And it's fortunate they just wide end us to eight
11:26:06 It brought the traffic a little closer to my building
11:26:08 but we spent $3,000 on a sign.
11:26:10 And it brings people in.
11:26:11 >> And that's why we respectfully ask that you make the
11:26:16 >> We cannot continue hurting the small business,
11:26:19 because they are hurting, believe me.
11:26:20 I don't know how many people out there are small
11:26:23 business people.
11:26:24 But they have to take a look at the other side of the
11:26:27 wall and see where these people make their money from.
11:26:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Miranda, Councilwoman
11:26:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I hate to be a little different from
11:26:37 the rest but I guess I will have to be.
11:26:39 That's just my cause.
11:26:40 The size of the design does not mean you are going to
11:26:43 be successful.
11:26:44 I've seen many restaurants.
11:26:46 In fact, there was one on Dale Mabry and cypress, big
11:26:52 sign, that went out of business.
11:26:54 Some individual moved in and put in another type of
11:26:56 business with a smaller sign that you can hardly see
11:27:00 because it's brown and beige.
11:27:02 I drive by there, when I was in rehab in South Tampa,
11:27:07 and that means I was living in my daughter's house, not
11:27:11 that type of rehab, but I mentioned that jokingly.
11:27:15 You can't find a parking space.
11:27:18 And they must have two or three acres of parking.
11:27:20 They park everywhere.
11:27:22 Most successful turnaround of a business I have seen in
11:27:25 a long, long time.
11:27:29 If the pictures that I saw of both sides are
11:27:32 accurate -- and I assume they are, because photos don't
11:27:36 lie -- then I am not opposed to making some changes in
11:27:40 the strip center, I am not going to mention the name
11:27:46 but there was 150 signs in a couple of blocks.
11:27:49 If they said ware going to take all these signs down
11:27:51 and make an agreement to put one nice sign illuminated
11:27:57 with the names of the companies there, I find that to
11:28:01 be acceptable.
11:28:03 But if what Mr. Rotella showed, all those signs
11:28:09 becoming digital, I find that repulsive, unacceptable.
11:28:17 But if those same businesses were to get together and
11:28:20 make some type of arrangement to have one sign to a
11:28:24 certain size, not 5,000 square feet, not the size of a
11:28:27 parking lot, I find that acceptable, because it clears
11:28:32 up the mind.
11:28:37 Clutter, you don't read anything because your mind
11:28:39 doesn't pick it up.
11:28:40 Your eyes pick it up but it doesn't resonate in your
11:28:44 There's too many of them.
11:28:45 But when you have a nice sign that has eight or ten
11:28:50 businesses on it, and that has happened on MacDill,
11:28:55 then it's acceptable, in my mind.
11:28:57 So I like change.
11:29:02 And certain industries and several cases.
11:29:06 But I'm not prepared to make wholesale changes.
11:29:08 So there's got to be a compromise if any is kneed to
11:29:12 have those strip centers -- and your sign is very
11:29:14 legible, very small.
11:29:15 I don't think your sign is more than three and a half,
11:29:18 four feet long by two feet, and is white and black.
11:29:21 I see it every day when I go home.
11:29:23 And these are the things that I see that makes it.
11:29:29 If big signs meant something, businesses wouldn't close
11:29:35 but they do close because the product extinction.
11:29:37 You can have a big sign and it doesn't sell.
11:29:41 You can have no sign and a good product and you are
11:29:44 I see that all the time.
11:29:46 There's some fine also restaurants all over the city
11:29:49 that the sign is the size of one of these monitors.
11:29:52 You know what?
11:29:52 There's lines to get in because the product is a value
11:29:58 for your dollar.
11:29:58 So these are the things that are hard to understand.
11:30:02 I think both sides have a position.
11:30:08 I however, I think that you can't have everything
11:30:11 It just would really give you fright to drive down the
11:30:16 And I understand the gentleman's report.
11:30:20 I have said it many times.
11:30:21 Government, regulations just like -- you don't talk
11:30:30 about the audit, you talk about other cities because
11:30:32 they are ashamed to talk about this audit.
11:30:35 These are the things that I see.
11:30:37 And government should not have an exemption that the
11:30:39 people don't have.
11:30:40 That's what I'm saying.
11:30:43 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm going to give landmark realty a
11:30:48 plug here.
11:30:48 You have the best signage, and it's not just about the
11:30:55 It's about good design.
11:30:57 And it fits in.
11:30:59 I notice your sign before I ever knew you driving down
11:31:04 Howard and it was very -- it fit in, and I don't think
11:31:08 you have a signage problem at all, because I noticed
11:31:10 it, and I wasn't looking for real estate or for your
11:31:14 But I agree with councilman Miranda and with the
11:31:20 gentleman who spoke about the city should conform to
11:31:22 our own regulations.
11:31:24 But that's not really the question here.
11:31:26 And I'm surprised to hear that everyone talking about
11:31:30 the two years of work, because I know when I started on
11:31:35 council, there was a sign committee, and I think it
11:31:37 might have been more concerned with -- it wasn't just
11:31:42 It was a sign committee.
11:31:44 And there were people from sign companies, there were
11:31:46 people from T.H.A.N., and this is almost four years
11:31:52 ago, and it was supposed to be the last meeting of that
11:31:56 committee before council came up with some
11:31:59 And I said sat in on that as a replacement for my
11:32:03 predecessor, Rose Ferlita, who I know had been working
11:32:08 on it for years.
11:32:09 So I don't see any reason for us to change the work
11:32:14 that went into all of that today, without having, you
11:32:20 know -- we can continue to have more discussion and
11:32:24 more meetings, but the ordinances that we came up with,
11:32:29 this council voted in, which we are asking to basically
11:32:34 repeal part of today, that was worked on between the
11:32:41 businesses, between the sign industry, not just small
11:32:44 businesses, but the people who make the signs, and the
11:32:48 neighborhoods, and people on council.
11:32:50 So I don't think that we should be putting this
11:32:58 And I think there seems to be people quite willing to
11:33:05 work on this more, T.H.A.N. is willing to meet and have
11:33:08 a committee or whatever you need to do, to continue
11:33:10 with that.
11:33:12 But I don't think we need to change our ordinance at
11:33:16 all today.
11:33:18 >>> on a possible compromise, we are not asking for --
11:33:29 all we are asking today is for instruction to staff to
11:33:31 work with us over the chapter 27 process.
11:33:33 I think staff is willing to do that if you give them
11:33:36 the instructions to do that.
11:33:37 That will then require as part of chapter 27 to have
11:33:41 multiple community meetings and bring it back to you
11:33:43 before, if we could maybe put that on, we would
11:33:48 appreciate it.
11:33:49 Thank you.
11:33:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Did you want to say something in
11:34:00 The clock is ticking.
11:34:01 >>JULIA COLE: I only wanted to make two statement
11:34:04 The government sign issue did come up and I just wanted
11:34:08 to remind council we did amend the sign code as relates
11:34:10 to government signs, and government signs do need to
11:34:13 come into conformance with the sign code as it
11:34:15 currently is.
11:34:16 There may be signs that were larger, but in terms of
11:34:19 the time frame associated with it as to noncompliance
11:34:23 I'll make sure our code enforcement folks are aware of
11:34:25 it and other folks are aware of.
11:34:28 There are some exceptions, but for purposes of the
11:34:31 record I wanted to make that statement.
11:34:32 The on the thing I wanted to say is to read this
11:34:36 ordinance on first reading today, I am going to make a
11:34:38 request that in paragraph 4 on page 2, I'm able to come
11:34:44 back between first and second reading to add the
11:34:47 language except as provided for in subsection 3 above,
11:34:50 just to make sure it's clear, how the two paragraphs
11:34:54 work together, I would -- I was reviewing it and
11:34:57 realized that I needed to make that change.
11:34:59 The only other thing I wanted to say is, yes, we did
11:35:02 work on this issue for a long period of time.
11:35:05 From the history, if anybody is interested, but in
11:35:09 terms of what has been addressed, it was a long
11:35:14 process, and we continue to work on our sign code.
11:35:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: At some point there is never no
11:35:25 finality to these issues.
11:35:26 Since I have been here, continuing, continuing.
11:35:29 We need to bring finality to these issues.
11:35:33 At some point, you have got to bring finality.
11:35:35 Otherwise you just keep going on and on and on and on.
11:35:39 Personally, I'm about ready to move on, to tell you the
11:35:46 On this issue
11:35:52 The question becomes, you are right, and we have dealt
11:35:57 with this, and now we are back where we are.
11:35:59 I guess the only new issue that I hear from Spencer, I
11:36:02 guess I need someone from than to talk about that when
11:36:07 he is talking about East Tampa, West Tampa overlay.
11:36:10 Does someone want to speak to that?
11:36:12 Because I assume that T.H.A.N. discussed all of that in
11:36:15 their meetings.
11:36:15 >> Randy Baron, president of T.H.A.N.
11:36:21 We did not discuss whether the overlay should be
11:36:23 Those are neighborhood issues.
11:36:25 T.H.A.N. generally deals with city-wide issues.
11:36:28 We would like to have the opportunity to discuss it
11:36:30 further with Spencer Kass but we haven't made any
11:36:35 position on that.
11:36:36 >> So you all don't deal with the neighborhood issues?
11:36:40 >> Well, if an individual neighborhood comes before us
11:36:42 with zoning or something like that, we deal with
11:36:45 city-wide issues.
11:36:47 Overlay is technically signs for a particular
11:36:52 neighborhood and we tend to give that neighborhood some
11:36:55 credence, and some -- with respect to a neighborhood
11:36:59 However, to the extent that it may just open the flood
11:37:04 gates for change in the code to the entire city,
11:37:07 obviously we want to discuss that, with both the staff
11:37:10 and Mr. Kass.
11:37:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Because way hear Mr. Kass saying, he's
11:37:15 saying East Tampa, West Tampa, that's a huge area.
11:37:17 >>> Well, with respect to this issue, there may be
11:37:23 smaller areas in the city that need to be targeted.
11:37:26 Like you suggest, I don't think it should be all of
11:37:28 East Tampa or West Tampa.
11:37:30 That's a large part of the city.
11:37:32 But signage is a complicated issue.
11:37:35 And I wish there was finality to the.
11:37:38 We have been doing signs for a long time.
11:37:40 But that's because it is complicated, and we do have a
11:37:44 nonconforming signage that is significantly different
11:37:47 than conforming signage.
11:37:49 Somewhere there's got to be a middle ground.
11:37:51 We are willing to work on that.
11:37:53 We just think that this current change is happening too
11:37:57 Without enough discussion.
11:37:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I will tell you, what Mr. Rotella
11:38:02 put up, the first picture, is beautiful.
11:38:07 The second one he put up is a nightmare.
11:38:09 >> I just remind council that even though it's a
11:38:12 five-minute, those signs don't have to start changing
11:38:16 their five minutes at the same time.
11:38:18 So each one of those signs will be staggered so
11:38:21 effectively you are going to be seeing a change rate
11:38:24 that's going to be continuous along those commercial
11:38:26 I live in Seminole Heights and we have a lot of signage
11:38:28 along there, also.
11:38:29 It's a public policy issue.
11:38:31 You have to decide what you want your city to look
11:38:33 There is a determination four years ago that you wanted
11:38:37 to make it look better.
11:38:38 That's public policy.
11:38:39 If you want to switch it back, it's certainly within
11:38:42 your control to do so, your jurisdiction.
11:38:44 But I would suggest that we look at this more closely,
11:38:48 and really understand what the impacts are.
11:38:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
11:38:54 Councilwoman Capin.
11:38:56 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Getting back to government and the
11:39:00 signage, I notice along my district, many bus stops and
11:39:07 the cover for them, and the signage that's on it is way
11:39:12 out of proportion to the structure.
11:39:16 Why is that?
11:39:25 >>JULIA COLE: I don't even recall when we did this but
11:39:29 it was somewhere four or five years ago, there was a
11:39:31 request made of council to change our code to allow
11:39:37 signage on transit shelters, and myself specifically
11:39:43 were to review that issue, and to look at the needs of
11:39:48 the Hart folks and come up with some guidelines, and as
11:39:53 a result of that motion City Council, as we did put
11:39:56 that into our code, we have subsequently added some
11:40:01 additional language on those signs to conform with the
11:40:06 same types of brightness standards that we have for
11:40:08 other signage, but that was something that we did do at
11:40:12 the request of council, and I don't recall how many
11:40:17 years, four or five years.
11:40:21 >>YVONNE CAPIN: So if they wanted to add digital --
11:40:23 >> At this time they cannot add digital.
11:40:26 That would not be allowed and is specifically not
11:40:28 allowed as we were discussing our billboard sign issue,
11:40:33 we have confirmed, no, that not allowed.
11:40:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I thought we added that into our code,
11:40:39 sign code, where they came and agreed to what we added.
11:40:44 >>JULIA COLE: We added that language as part of the
11:40:46 billboard signage.
11:40:47 Did we add that language and that was part of the
11:40:49 change that we made.
11:40:55 >>CURTIS STOKES: One of the things is that you have to
11:41:01 listen to neighborhood associations because when you
11:41:03 don't et you get a lot of phone calls.
11:41:05 [ Laughter ]
11:41:09 So I would like to move that --
11:41:15 >>GWEN MILLER: You cannot do that.
11:41:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We have to close the public hearing
11:41:24 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Zoning administrator for the city.
11:41:25 I want to clarify, I do not administer the sign code.
11:41:28 However, many of the processes that deal with signage
11:41:31 come through the zoning process including variances for
11:41:34 Just to clarify the record, with what Mr. Kass said
11:41:37 about east and West Tampa overlays, in this particular
11:41:40 context, it's the first time I heard of changing those
11:41:43 overlays back to the old code.
11:41:44 And I want clarification what the old code meant
11:41:47 because those overlays actually have limitations on
11:41:50 signage that were above and beyond what the old signage
11:41:52 code was.
11:41:53 So in order to be clear, with direction, I want to
11:41:57 understand what that was and I have to go back and
11:41:58 compare those regulations, and quite frankly they are
11:42:01 very unique.
11:42:02 East Tampa is approximately 11 square miles of the
11:42:05 city, it's very large and contains many different
11:42:07 neighborhoods as well as West Tampa.
11:42:10 And I think it would be unfair if we are talking about
11:42:14 fairness this process just to change something like
11:42:16 that without actually going out and meeting with the
11:42:18 people and hearing from them.
11:42:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I agree with that.
11:42:21 >>GWEN MILLER: I think if they wanted to change they
11:42:23 would have been here to speak for themselves.
11:42:25 >>> Secondly the variance process for signage, it's a
11:42:28 nuance but the difficult we are having with electronic
11:42:31 signs and wanting to come.
11:42:33 >>CHIEF FORWARD: Are nonconforming signs, and this is
11:42:36 a nuance, signage may be coming forward that may be 300
11:42:40 square feet, they may be less, may be 300 square feet
11:42:43 high, any old comes forward in the variance process
11:42:46 because they want to change out a box as is shown by
11:42:49 the guide, want to -- wants to change out a box for
11:42:54 electronic sign.
11:42:55 The they have to get a variance not to allow electronic
11:42:59 messaging but a variance to grant setbacks and height
11:43:02 reductions for that signage.
11:43:04 If that variance is granted, or on appeal to City
11:43:06 Council as has been done several times, it's granted
11:43:09 and overturned by City Council that sign becomes
11:43:13 And even if the sign comes down, I have to allow it to
11:43:17 go back, constructions services has to allow it to go
11:43:20 That's a small nuance, and that's the difficulty where
11:43:23 it is in this particular policy decision, is the
11:43:26 purpose of nonconformity is to have them cease, to go
11:43:30 away over time.
11:43:31 The problem with this particular process and the way
11:43:33 that it's laid out for me, administrator of the
11:43:37 variance processes, if those are granted the sign
11:43:40 becomes conforming and Nevada goes away, and I think
11:43:44 that's counterintuitive to the old policy.
11:43:46 That's my only comment.
11:43:48 I don't have a suggest one way or the other. I just
11:43:50 wanted to lay that out and make it clear.
11:43:52 >>MARY MULHERN: I wanted to make a comment that the
11:43:56 photographs we saw from Ron Rotella are actually of the
11:44:01 same street, not far -- they were both Kennedy.
11:44:04 So he's showing you not only what neighborhoods in
11:44:09 Westshore lines worked on as an overlay district.
11:44:12 That's the positive result they got from that.
11:44:15 So east and West Tampa start to look at wanting to
11:44:19 change their overlay district, I would think they would
11:44:22 want the "after" picture which is what our current
11:44:26 ordinances would encourage.
11:44:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
11:44:28 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: One more.
11:44:32 Mr. Spencer.
11:44:38 As a business owner in West Tampa, could you repeat for
11:44:47 everyone here, the recommendations --
11:44:56 >> Spencer Kass: What we asked was the staff work with
11:44:59 us on East Tampa and West Tampa overlay to work with
11:45:05 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I'm not referring to that.
11:45:06 Therefore we recommend the following two options, to
11:45:08 roll back the City of Tampa or keep the current
11:45:10 Tampa --
11:45:12 >>> That's correct.
11:45:13 >> Right?
11:45:13 >>> Yes.
11:45:14 >> -- sign code and add language if you wish to add
11:45:18 digital signage to your legal nonconforming sign, you
11:45:21 need to comply with the current city sign code.
11:45:24 >>> Right.
11:45:24 >> I know as a small business owner myself I think it's
11:45:29 very fair.
11:45:29 >>> Yes.
11:45:30 We have no problems.
11:45:31 Thank you.
11:45:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else from the public?
11:45:36 Motion to close?
11:45:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me just state.
11:45:40 If this was changing -- and I know I said this
11:45:42 before -- to where a black or half a block of a strip
11:45:47 sent worry get together and say I want to change it to
11:45:49 one sign and have various carriers on it, and certain
11:45:54 size depending on the size of the center, I would not
11:45:57 be objectable to that.
11:46:00 But I will be objectable to the second sign that you
11:46:03 alluded to, Mr. Chairman, which makes you think you are
11:46:08 in Disney World without ever going into space.
11:46:12 That is not the right thing.
11:46:13 Even though I understand that there's hardship due on
11:46:17 certain individuals, but sometimes you can't fix
11:46:21 everything that comes before us.
11:46:23 You have to take the middle of the ground or the road.
11:46:25 And that's the only objection I have.
11:46:29 If they were to come together and work it out with the
11:46:31 legal process that we have in place, I would not be
11:46:34 objectable to taking out 50 signs or 20 signs or 10
11:46:38 signs in one block and make something small, nice,
11:46:41 somewhere where everybody can read it.
11:46:43 I won't be objectable to that but I'll stop there.
11:46:46 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, the pictures that
11:46:50 Mr. Rotella put up, Mr. Rotella, the first picture you
11:46:54 put up, that was Bayshore?
11:46:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: No.
11:47:00 Boy Scout Boulevard and Columbus drive.
11:47:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Boy Scout.
11:47:05 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: The second picture was a
11:47:09 conglomerate of a lot of signs.
11:47:11 You are talking buildings here 300,000 square feet and
11:47:15 on the other one with all the conglomerates, you are
11:47:17 talking buildings maybe 2500 square feet, okay?
11:47:20 How is somebody going to survive in a district like
11:47:24 Because 100,000 square feet, 200,000 is a difference.
11:47:31 >>RON ROTELLA: I don't understand.
11:47:33 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: You don't understand?
11:47:35 It's simple.
11:47:35 The first picture you showed had no sign except one
11:47:36 wall sign on one of the buildings, correct?
11:47:40 Okay? How big is that building? 200,000, 300,000
11:47:43 square feet?
11:47:45 >>RON ROTELLA: About 200,000.
11:47:48 >> 100,000 square feet.
11:47:50 >> All right, 100,000. The second one, Men's
11:47:52 How big do you think that building is?
11:47:54 2500 square feet.
11:47:55 How big is that building?
11:47:56 That building is about 6,000 square feet.
11:47:59 When you get onto the other one where Men's Warehouse
11:48:03 is showing, you are talking buildings maybe 1500 square
11:48:07 feet, 2,000 square feet.
11:48:08 They have to have a sign for them to exist.
11:48:10 Or else they are going to be out of business.
11:48:12 We will be killing the small business again.
11:48:14 And that's all we do on this council and this city.
11:48:19 >>RON ROTELLA: Council member, can I respond?
11:48:21 >> Yes, sir.
11:48:22 >>RON ROTELLA: What we are suggesting, Mr. Caetano, is
11:48:25 what with the revisions, Men's Warehouse can keep their
11:48:30 sign just like it is.
11:48:31 >> They can't make it digital?
11:48:33 >> Pardon?
11:48:34 Sure they can.
11:48:35 But then they have to come into conformance with the
11:48:38 sign code. They can make it digital.
11:48:38 >> Then how much is that going to cost them to come
11:48:41 into conformance --
11:48:42 >> If they don't want to do it --
11:48:45 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: It's prohibitive because of the
11:48:48 You have to go to the Variance Review Board.
11:48:49 They have to do this and they have to do that.
11:48:52 >>> No, sir, you are wrong.
11:48:53 I respectfully suggest --
11:48:55 >> You are killing small businesses and we continue
11:48:58 doing that.
11:48:58 >> Well, that's why I suggested all these nonconforming
11:49:01 signs, there would be no amortization period, that they
11:49:04 stay just like they are, not to impact the small
11:49:07 businesses, unless the small business closed, or they
11:49:10 wanted to replace the sign, and then come up and
11:49:13 conform, so that eventually the arterials of the
11:49:19 city --
11:49:20 >> You have completely different location, geography
11:49:24 here is different, you have gigantic buildings.
11:49:27 You are talking about buildings maybe 2500 square feet
11:49:30 where Men's Warehouse is.
11:49:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, we need to -- it's almost 12:00.
11:49:36 Can I get a motion to close the public hearing?
11:49:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I ask the legal department to review
11:49:44 along with than and the small businesses and everybody
11:49:46 else the suggestion that I put on the floor that if one
11:49:51 shopping center strip mall wants to change and they
11:49:53 have eight or ten signs and want to come to agreement
11:49:56 among themselves that they can now working with the
11:49:58 property owners, making a nice sign, only to certain
11:50:03 square footages, that the legal department can review
11:50:08 these suggestions and see if they can put it in some
11:50:12 legal form so we can get the sign thing behind us once
11:50:15 and for all.
11:50:15 I'm not taking sides, about but Boy Scout, Columbus
11:50:18 drive, Spruce, that's one road.
11:50:20 You get confused in Tampa when you live here.
11:50:23 And there's thousands of buildings, thousands, hundreds
11:50:27 of thousands of square footage.
11:50:29 But with all due respect, there's also hundreds of
11:50:32 businesses, and the signage is inside when you go in
11:50:37 the area.
11:50:43 New construction to old construction that's been there
11:50:46 40, 50, 60 years.
11:50:48 That's where we have the problem and I'm trying to
11:50:49 solve this, mediate this thing through so we can have
11:50:53 final, we can have maybe a death march and get rid of
11:50:58 the signs and have prosperity all at the same time.
11:51:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, all I know is when I was on the
11:51:05 county commission ten years, we talked about signs,
11:51:08 billboards and signs, come over to the city, we are
11:51:11 still talking about signs, billboards, signs, and we
11:51:14 continue forever.
11:51:16 And at some point we just really have to bring this to
11:51:20 finality, to closure.
11:51:21 I think as part of public government, we never make a
11:51:25 decision, we just continue stuff around here forever.
11:51:29 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
11:51:32 In kind of listening to this conversation, I thought I
11:51:34 would just raise the following point.
11:51:36 When we amended our sign code, we did three things.
11:51:40 We changed the height.
11:51:42 We changed the size.
11:51:44 And we changed the height and the setback on the
11:51:54 We also put requirements in for how they need to work.
11:51:59 So the two issues relating to the height of the sign,
11:52:02 and to the location of the sign on the property.
11:52:07 When we need the sign to come to a variance we are
11:52:10 basically making those two things conforming.
11:52:13 But way heard Mr. Miranda talk about -- and if this is
11:52:17 something City Council wanted to explore, is maybe
11:52:20 allowing those two items to remain nonconforming, the
11:52:23 height, location, and just look at seeing if there's an
11:52:27 opportunity to reduce square footage of sign on a par
11:52:32 particular parcel in order to have the benefit of an
11:52:34 electronic sign while still retaining that sign's
11:52:37 nonconforming status.
11:52:38 Be if that is something City Council is interested in
11:52:40 exploring, what I would recommend we do is allow myself
11:52:44 along with Ms. Coyle to look at that issue and see if
11:52:47 we can draft some language to deal with those issues,
11:52:51 if that's the will of council, and nobody wants
11:52:56 finality on the sign issues more than I do, and so I
11:53:00 think Ms. Coil did make a fair point, though, which is
11:53:03 to say that you will be seeing a lot more sign
11:53:08 variances result of this, the way the code is currently
11:53:12 drafted, and that's part of the process, and that's
11:53:15 fine, but that is something we should all be keeping
11:53:17 into the context of this discussion and how we handle
11:53:21 those variances.
11:53:22 So whatever the bill will of council is, we can proceed
11:53:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, again under your new
11:53:32 appeal process anybody that's denied that variance that
11:53:35 whole hearing will then come before City Council for a
11:53:37 full de novo hearing.
11:53:39 So that is something that obviously will be brought to
11:53:43 >>MARY MULHERN: I just want to say one thing, that
11:53:50 you're right, Chairman Scott, of course there's no
11:53:52 That's what we are here for and that's what we get paid
11:53:55 But I also think that it's very soon after we adopted
11:54:02 some standards and ordinance, and we are basically, I
11:54:07 mean, it says repealing all ordinances in conflict.
11:54:10 We are asking to repeal all this work that people spent
11:54:13 eight years doing so I think it's fine if people want
11:54:17 to meet and talk about some minor changes.
11:54:20 There's nothing to stop anyone from doing that.
11:54:23 But as far as coming back with ordinance changes, I
11:54:27 just don't think it's-I'm not going to support that.
11:54:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Miller.
11:54:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Cole, I have a question for you.
11:54:38 The ordinance we have before us today, can we pass this
11:54:40 today and then you an Ms. Coyle get together for this
11:54:52 >>JULIA COLE: I did read out a change I would like to
11:54:54 make between first and second reading but we would like
11:54:57 to not make any changes between first and second
11:55:00 If we want to make additional changes in light of some
11:55:03 of the conversations, I would have to recommend that
11:55:05 you continue first reading to allow us to present those
11:55:08 to you, or you can deny -- you can request us to come
11:55:13 back to bring those changes forward as well.
11:55:15 So that would be the options.
11:55:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
11:55:22 >> Move to close the public hearing.
11:55:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Can I ask one question?
11:55:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you want to go back on?
11:55:30 >> No, no.
11:55:30 How many small businesses that are here today have a
11:55:34 sign outside their building support this ordinance?
11:55:38 Will you just raise your hands?
11:55:43 Thank you.
11:55:45 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
11:55:50 What's the pleasure of council?
11:55:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Mulhern, you said you support this
11:55:58 You need to read it.
11:56:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: This was presented to you by the
11:56:07 legal department on a motion of City Council.
11:56:10 Again, now that you have heard the public hearing, you
11:56:12 can either choose to approve it or deny it or continue
11:56:16 it to a date and time certain.
11:56:18 So a motion to be resolve this one way or another is in
11:56:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
11:56:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman --
11:56:31 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, I move we adopt the
11:56:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It requires it to be read.
11:56:35 Is there a second?
11:56:37 >>GWEN MILLER: He has to read it first.
11:56:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: No, I have to is he get a second
11:56:42 >> All right, read the ordinance.
11:56:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Number 36.
11:57:00 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: An ordinance presented for first
11:57:02 reading consideration, an ordinance of the city of
11:57:04 Tampa, Florida making comprehensive revisions to the
11:57:07 City of Tampa code of ordinances chapter 20.5, signs,
11:57:11 amending section 20.5-3, administrative authority;
11:57:17 amending section 20.5-16, nonconforming signs;
11:57:23 repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in
11:57:26 conflict there wit; providing for severability;
11:57:29 providing an effective date.
11:57:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Second.
11:57:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
11:57:35 All in favor of the motion signify by saying Aye.
11:57:38 >> Scott, Miranda and Stokes voting no and Mulhern.
11:57:49 >>GWEN MILLER:
11:57:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 57-2.
11:57:52 Is there another motion?
11:57:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm trying to work out.
11:58:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me just say most of us are strong
11:58:05 supporters of small businesses.
11:58:06 I raised the question for a reason.
11:58:08 How many small businesses was here to have a small
11:58:11 sign, raise your hand.
11:58:12 Not one.
11:58:15 Not one.
11:58:16 If this were a major issue to small businesses, believe
11:58:19 me, this place would have been packed out.
11:58:21 Believe me.
11:58:23 I have been around long enough to know when people,
11:58:26 when you have these kind of ordinances being read, they
11:58:29 come out and support or come out in opposition of them.
11:58:31 So I don't think we are killing small businesses.
11:58:34 I'm a strong advocate for small businesses.
11:58:36 I heard Councilwoman Mulhern.
11:58:38 All of us.
11:58:40 So council, I don't want somebody to get the wrong
11:58:45 message that this council is ant small business.
11:58:47 I don't think that's the case.
11:58:48 I think the issue before us is that there's been a
11:58:54 committee that worked on this for ordinance for two
11:58:56 years, brought back a recommendation, and we have
11:58:59 T.H.A.N. here represent representative from the
11:59:01 community saying please do not change what will impact
11:59:03 what we put in place.
11:59:05 We have a 5-2 vote that agreed with that.
11:59:07 And so the message that I want to send is that this
11:59:10 council supports small businesses, but at the same time
11:59:14 that this council recognizes the importance of making
11:59:17 sure our communities are protected, our commercial
11:59:19 corridors are protected, and that we have a community
11:59:22 that people can recognize and want to come and visit
11:59:26 without there being a distraction.
11:59:28 That's the message that I think we want to sen to the
11:59:34 And to those out of town.
11:59:35 Thank you.
11:59:43 Be? I'm not going to say anything after the amen.
11:59:47 [ Laughter ]
11:59:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
11:59:51 A motion?
11:59:51 No motions?
11:59:56 We have item 44 and 48.
12:00:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The motion did not get the required
12:00:08 four votes for council action.
12:00:09 The it requires four votes.
12:00:11 The motion to deny is based on the failure of that.
12:00:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
12:00:17 Motion to deny.
12:00:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
12:00:19 >> Second.
12:00:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
12:00:21 All in favor?
12:00:25 >>THE CLERK: Miller voting no and Caetano being
12:00:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
12:00:29 Item 44 and item 48.
12:00:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, the hour is striking
12:00:40 I am going to make this very quick.
12:00:42 I discussed with you last time proposed changes to the
12:00:45 rules of procedure.
12:00:46 I am going to specifically, with regard to my items,
12:00:54 ask that council give me some direction with regard to
12:00:56 about whether want to proceed with having groups get
12:00:59 additional time.
12:01:00 If that is not the case, then I will bring it back
12:01:02 without it.
12:01:03 If it is the case then I will bring back to council
12:01:06 with options at the next regular meeting to be able to
12:01:08 do that.
12:01:09 Other than that, council, I am going to ask that you
12:01:13 give me some direction on that, but also make a motion
12:01:17 to have me present a resolution for first reading
12:01:20 amending council's rules of procedure at your next
12:01:23 regular meeting on September 23rd because we do
12:01:26 have to get changes in place in preparation for the new
12:01:29 appeal process and other problems that need to be
12:01:33 That being said, is there council direction for me to
12:01:37 address the item of additional time for?
12:01:46 Okay, I am not getting any direction to do that.
12:01:48 So if that's the case, that being said, I am asking
12:01:52 council to make a motion to for me to present a
12:01:55 resolution for first reading consideration.
12:01:59 Again it takes two readings to amend council's rules
12:02:02 per your rules, and bring that back on September
12:02:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What's the motion on that?
12:02:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The motion to not -- well, being as I
12:02:15 have gotten no specific direction to take any further
12:02:17 action and not conclude, a motion and second on that, I
12:02:25 am bringing back the on the proposed changes that need
12:02:27 to be done to correct which were in the backup that I
12:02:30 have previously given you changing the names of the
12:02:32 committees, things like correcting and clarifying
12:02:37 And you will have that again before then and be able to
12:02:42 make any changes you wish if you need to.
12:02:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a motion to that?
12:02:55 A motion?
12:02:56 Okay, moved and seconded.
12:02:57 And that will come back when?
12:02:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: September 23rd.
12:03:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
12:03:01 All in favor?
12:03:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There's a second part to this that
12:03:06 requested you explore the possibility of including
12:03:09 council rules of procedure, a discussion or primmer as
12:03:15 to what is competent substantial evidence.
12:03:17 Council, on reflection I am troubled by putting that in
12:03:19 there, because those are questions of law, and anything
12:03:22 we add to the rules of procedure could come back and
12:03:26 become a subject.
12:03:29 So I would ask that be removed from the agenda.
12:03:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a motion?
12:03:32 >> So moved.
12:03:33 >> Second.
12:03:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?
12:03:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And the other two items, council, Ms.
12:03:38 Miller had a vote where she had to abstain last week.
12:03:41 She had a vote this week to be abstain.
12:03:43 Anand I am submitting the required conflict forms into
12:03:46 the record.
12:03:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
12:03:55 I called for staff.
12:03:58 Nobody responded.
12:04:01 It will continue to next week.
12:04:01 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: (off microphone).
12:04:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That will be on our next week agenda
12:04:08 so we will continue that item.
12:04:11 On the 23rd, right?
12:04:13 Moved and seconded item 40.
12:04:20 Item 44 for staff to appear on the 23rd of
12:04:23 All in favor?
12:04:26 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I am not going to be here on the
12:04:28 October 7th.
12:04:32 >> Second for October 7th.
12:04:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?
12:04:36 Any other item to come up?
12:04:38 Councilman Miranda?
12:04:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: 2001 new businesses.
12:04:43 First, the city has denied or retracted or hasn't
12:04:48 taken, it want a rebid of the Centro roof replacement.
12:04:56 I am not opposed to that but I think in appeal,
12:05:00 protest, they should write exactly what happened and
12:05:02 write to three or four or five or six bidders that bid
12:05:06 and explain to them why they are rebidding the bid,
12:05:08 because I don't want one bidder not file an appeal or
12:05:11 protest and become this become a very costly manner.
12:05:15 I know that it's been possibly bid out before but I
12:05:18 think that was years ago, way before even the museum
12:05:21 used it as an interim area.
12:05:23 That's number one.
12:05:24 >> Is there a second to that?
12:05:27 >> Second.
12:05:28 >> Moved and seconded.
12:05:30 All in favor?
12:05:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The other one, Mr. Chairman, is even
12:05:33 to me, we have given council members, not this council
12:05:38 maybe, but other council members, have given a lot of
12:05:44 leeway into purchasing and doing things in the City of
12:05:47 We have now gone, the legal department -- I'm not here
12:05:50 for them to address but they can if they want, only
12:05:53 have the right to bid or to receive legal services up
12:05:56 to $25,000.
12:06:00 Yet purchasing in other needs is 99,999.99.
12:06:09 Anything under 100,000.
12:06:10 I would like to change that back to the legal
12:06:12 department status of 25,000 as I stated earlier today,
12:06:15 and the audit report, there was many of them, including
12:06:19 cornerstone, Hayes and Gordian that was $99,000
12:06:27 I believe firmly when you go into this amount of money
12:06:30 and to those numbers that there should be a bid
12:06:33 >> Second.
12:06:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, let me speak to that.
12:06:36 I won't support that.
12:06:37 What I will support is to 50,000 because many other
12:06:42 agencies it is 50,000.
12:06:44 Expressway authority is 50,000.
12:06:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: All right.
12:06:46 I'll change to the 50,000 to meet the criteria of the
12:06:49 other agencies in the governments.
12:06:53 >> Second.
12:06:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's moved and seconded.
12:06:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Miranda, your motion then is for
12:06:59 the legal department to bring back in the form
12:07:01 necessary to affect effectuate that policy?
12:07:06 >> Correct.
12:07:07 Regarding the bid list award to be reduced from
12:07:09 99,999.99 to 50,000 or 49,999.99.
12:07:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Question on that?
12:07:18 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
12:07:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: A motion to receive and file?
12:07:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Receive and file all documents that
12:07:28 were given to us today.
12:07:29 >> All in favor?
12:07:38 Yes, sir.
12:07:41 >>CURTIS STOKES: In an effort to continually streamline
12:07:43 city budgets, we use estimates in my business called
12:07:48 just in time inventory management where we order
12:07:51 merchandise and supplies as we need it.
12:07:53 What that does, it eliminates overstocking of certain
12:07:59 So I would like to ask staff for a brief workshop on
12:08:05 October 14th to discuss just in time management on
12:08:08 city purchasing inventory.
12:08:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You want a workshop?
12:08:17 We just added one.
12:08:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Stokes, if you wish, you can do
12:08:24 it as a staff report if it's brief, which is five
12:08:27 minutes for a presentation.
12:08:29 >>CURTIS STOKES: Yes.
12:08:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Then if you need further.
12:08:32 >>CURTIS STOKES: September 30th then?
12:08:34 >>THE CLERK: October 7th?
12:08:38 >> So that keeps track of the pencils you have in
12:08:41 >> Yes.
12:08:42 What it will do is give departments opportunity as we
12:08:45 need merchandise and supplies to go to the Internet and
12:08:47 order it as opposed to having overstock of items.
12:08:50 >> So there's no middle man in that.
12:08:55 Doing that yourself?
12:08:57 >> Exactly.
12:08:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, I support the motion. Always
12:08:59 good to get information.
12:09:00 But again, it becomes an issue for the administration.
12:09:07 That's the problem with that H.that's an administration
12:09:09 Secondly, it is my guess that many times that you order
12:09:13 in large quantities causes you to save dollars, saving
12:09:17 But I'll support the motion for information.
12:09:22 Nothing wrong with getting information.
12:09:23 All in favor?
12:09:25 Was there a second to his motion?
12:09:28 >> I second it.
12:09:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
12:09:30 All in favor?
12:09:31 Okay, yes.
12:09:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, two items.
12:09:35 Number one, if council adjourns the meeting today
12:09:37 rather than take a recess to 1:30 you are not going to
12:09:39 have a quorum at 1:30, and frankly I don't recommend
12:09:43 you do if you are planning to adjourn and not come
12:09:46 So that being said, could you direct the clerk due to
12:09:51 the fact there will not ab quorum, and council will not
12:09:53 be returning at 1:30, to post the doors in.
12:09:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved to post a sign on the front
12:09:58 doors stating that the afternoon 1:30 meeting has been
12:10:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Actually continued to the 23rd of
12:10:06 And I'll be here.
12:10:09 That was a motion and second.
12:10:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?
12:10:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And I want to make sure I do this on
12:10:17 the record with regard to the Mangroves, it's already
12:10:20 been set for a push hearing.
12:10:21 It would be inappropriate for you to talk with members
12:10:23 of the public, members of the press regarding the
12:10:25 subject of that hearing.
12:10:26 Thank you.
12:10:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, sir.
12:10:28 Anything else need to come before council?
12:10:30 If not then we -- public comment?
12:10:35 Anyone from the public wish to address council?
12:10:37 Anyone from the public?
This file represents an unedited version of realtime
captioning which should neither be relied upon for
complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.