Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


TAMPA CITY COUNCIL

Thursday, September 2, 2010

9:00 a.m. session


DISCLAIMER:

The following 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.



09:02:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Tampa City Council will now come to

09:02:13 order.

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

09:02:37 1981.

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

09:03:58 Jesus.

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.

09:04:29 Amen.

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 comments.

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?

09:06:14 Opposes?

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 Opposes?

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

09:07:20 original?

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 agreement.

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




09:08:47 agreement.

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

09:09:28 week?

09:09:32 >>> Kaboom needs to execute agreement, I believe, by

09:09:35 tomorrow.

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 city.




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

09:13:43 permit.

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 process.

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

09:16:24 reconsider.

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

09:16:57 reconsider.

09:16:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion to reconsider to October

09:17:00 7th.

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 anyway.

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 motion.

09:17:39 Then we can respond to that.

09:17:40 But there's a motion moved and seconded for

09:17:42 reconsideration.

09:17:43 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

09:17:45 Opposes?

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 hearing.

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?

09:18:33 Opposes?

09:18:34 Okay.

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,

09:18:41 right?

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 consideration.

09:18:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: State your name for the record.




09:18:53 >>> Ron Weaver, 401 east Jackson, attorney for the

09:18:58 Mangroves.

09:19:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So that's been set for October 7 at

09:19:04 1:30.

09:19:04 Second reading.

09:19:05 Okay.

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 consideration.

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 this?

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

09:22:23 school.

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 Opposes?

09:24:34 And that motion is approval for the agenda and for the

09:24:40 addendum.

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

09:25:00 agenda.

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

09:25:13 on.

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

09:29:37 Base.

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?

09:30:11 Okay.

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?




09:31:54 Opposes?

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 reports.

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.

09:32:15 Opposes?

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?

09:32:32 Opposes?

09:32:32 Okay.

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.

09:32:44 Opposes?

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?

09:33:21 Opposes?

09:33:22 Okay.

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

09:33:27 32.

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?




09:33:48 Opposes?

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

09:34:01 reports?

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

09:34:21 understanding.

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?




09:34:36 Opposes?

09:34:36 Okay.

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.

09:34:46 Opposes?

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

09:35:19 clip.

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 time.

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

09:38:14 session.

09:38:15 Your next regular is not until the 23rd of

09:38:17 September.

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 23rd.

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

09:38:48 appearance.




09:38:49 So there will be no discussion.

09:38:51 It will be in preparation for the October 14th

09:38:53 meeting.

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

09:39:12 Miranda.

09:39:13 All in favor?

09:39:15 Opposes?

09:39:15 Okay.

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?

09:40:02 Opposes?

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 30th.

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.

09:42:18 7th.




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 October.

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.

09:44:02 Opposes?

09:44:02 Okay.

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?

09:44:39 Yes.

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 Opposes?

09:45:34 That's on item 40.

09:45:35 >>MARY MULHERN: So Brad, what are we going to start

09:45:42 with?

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

09:46:00 answers.

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

09:46:56 highlight.

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 project.

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

09:48:39 is?

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

09:49:12 day.

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 project.




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?

09:49:51 Opposes?

09:49:52 Okay.

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

09:52:52 reclaimed?

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.

09:53:18 Thanks.

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,

09:54:54 period.

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?

09:55:19 Opposes?

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?

09:55:35 Opposes?

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

09:56:02 recreation.

09:56:03 Yes, sir.




09:56:03 >> Good morning honorable members of Tampa City

09:56:07 Council.

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

09:56:20 disabilities.

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?

09:57:14 Opposes?

09:57:15 Okay.

09:57:16 Thank you.

09:57:17 >> Santiago.

09:57:21 If I could make a few comments regarding number 8, the

09:57:24 Kaboom.

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 build.

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.

09:59:01 Opposes?

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

09:59:26 there.

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.




09:59:37 .

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

10:01:52 interpretation.




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

10:02:54 rights-of-way.

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

10:03:36 that.

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?

10:03:52 Opposes?

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

10:04:24 Road?

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 done.

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 share.

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.

10:05:17 Diaco.

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

10:05:29 okay.

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

10:07:25 causes.

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 thing.

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 us.

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.

10:12:37 Okay.

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 it.

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

10:14:12 that.

10:14:13 Item 51.

10:14:18 The police department report on the loud music from

10:14:23 automobiles.

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

10:14:33 department.

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

10:15:45 citations.

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

10:16:03 license.

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 Okay.

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

10:17:40 ourselves.

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

10:19:05 today.

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 No.

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

10:20:02 pricing.

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

10:20:28 longer.

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

10:21:33 $9,543,000.

10:21:44 It bothers me as a tax payer to see these things going

10:21:47 on.

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

10:22:30 business.

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

10:25:09 sidewalks.

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

10:26:43 purchasing.

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

10:27:08 administration.

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




10:28:16 construction.

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 them.

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

10:30:23 in-house.

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

10:30:38 shameful.

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 solicitation.

10:33:50 >> Was it your mission to get kiosks instead of pay by

10:33:55 phone?

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

10:34:29 concerns.

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 factor.

10:35:31 That adjustment factor includes their profit and

10:35:34 overhead.

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

10:38:35 based.

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 program.

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 economy.

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

10:40:06 column.

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 that.

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

10:41:33 protect.




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.

10:44:43 Period.

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

10:44:56 military-driven.

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

10:45:48 nothing.

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 changes.

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

10:47:57 it.

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

10:48:27 question.

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.

10:48:54 Opposes?

10:48:55 Okay.

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

10:49:51 here.

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

10:51:24 defer.

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 contract.

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

10:53:07 basis.

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

10:53:24 reinstituted.

10:53:25 And I would ask council members to approve them as

10:53:28 proposed.

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

10:54:38 understand.

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 it.

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 out.

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?

10:57:19 Opposes?

10:57:23 Okay.




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

10:57:48 now.

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?

10:58:12 Opposed?

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




10:58:24 infrastructure.

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 submitted.

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 questions.

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

11:01:57 date.




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

11:02:26 36?

11:02:27 This is the nonconforming sign ordinance.

11:02:30 .

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

11:03:10 public.

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

11:05:21 side.

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 months.

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

11:07:26 construction.

11:07:27 You can't put the building sign in the middle of the

11:07:29 building.

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

11:07:43 hardship.

11:07:44 You can only talk about whether or not practical

11:07:48 difficulty.

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

11:09:19 mistake.

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.

11:10:25 meeting.

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

11:10:53 corridors.

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 signs.

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

11:12:55 signs.

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

11:13:13 signs.




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

11:15:35 development.

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 boot.

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 city.

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

11:17:48 years.

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

11:19:15 were.

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

11:19:32 change.

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

11:19:57 change.

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

11:20:21 change.

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

11:21:59 development.

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 jobs.

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

11:24:46 sign?

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 there.

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 us?




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

11:26:05 lanes.

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 change.

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

11:26:34 Mulhern.

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

11:28:43 brain.

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 successful.

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

11:30:10 digital.

11:30:11 It just would really give you fright to drive down the

11:30:15 street.

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

11:30:53 size.

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 company.

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 billboards.

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 recommendations.

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

11:32:57 forward.

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

11:33:59 Cathy?

11:34:00 The clock is ticking.




11:34:01 >>JULIA COLE: I only wanted to make two statement

11:34:04 first.

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

11:35:43 truth.

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

11:36:22 changed.

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 issue.

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

11:37:55 quickly.

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

11:38:25 corridors.

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 like.

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

11:41:18 first.

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

11:41:33 signage.

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 conforming.

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 back.

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

11:45:02 us.

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?

11:45:34 Okay.

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.




11:46:59 Westshore.

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 this?

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

11:47:51 Warehouse.




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.

11:47:58 Okay.

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

11:48:47 cost.

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.

11:51:28 Okay.

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 property.

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 forward.

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 you.

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 finality.

11:53:52 That's what we are here for and that's what we get paid

11:53:55 for.

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

11:54:48 ordinance?

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

11:54:59 reading.

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 Motion.

11:55:45 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

11:55:47 Opposes?

11:55:50 Okay.

11:55:50 What's the pleasure of council?

11:55:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Mulhern, you said you support this

11:55:56 ordinance?

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

11:56:23 order.




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

11:56:33 ordinance.

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 first.

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 Opposes?

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

11:59:31 community.

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?

12:00:23 Opposes?

12:00:25 >>THE CLERK: Miller voting no and Caetano being

12:00:27 absent.

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 12.

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

12:01:31 corrected.




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 23rd.

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

12:02:35 reconsideration.

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?

12:03:02 Opposes?

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 23rd.

12:04:13 Moved and seconded item 40.

12:04:20 Item 44 for staff to appear on the 23rd of

12:04:23 September.

12:04:23 All in favor?

12:04:26 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I am not going to be here on the

12:04:28 23rd.

12:04:28 October 7th.

12:04:32 >> Second for October 7th.

12:04:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

12:04:35 Opposes?

12:04:35 Okay.




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?

12:05:31 Opposes?

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

12:05:46 Tampa.

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

12:06:26 threshold.

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 process.

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.

12:07:20 Opposes?

12:07:22 Okay.

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?

12:07:36 Opposes?

12:07:37 Okay.




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

12:07:57 items.

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 stock?

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 issue.

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 money.

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?

12:09:24 Okay.

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 Opposes?

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 back.

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

12:10:01 canceled.

12:10:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Actually continued to the 23rd of

12:10:04 September.

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?

12:10:40



DISCLAIMER:

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.