Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


TAMPA CITY COUNCIL

Thursday, December 16, 2010

9:00 a.m.


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.


09:05:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Tampa City Council will now come to

09:05:10 order.

09:05:10 We yield to Councilman Stokes.

09:05:12 >> I would like to invite Pastor Lockett of Bethany

09:05:18 Christian Discipleship Church to give the invocation,

09:05:19 recognized by some as one of the most inspiring,

09:05:23 intelligent minority leaders in the 21st century

09:05:26 community, new to the State of Florida, he is a

09:05:28 visionary leader, pastor of Christian discipleships,

09:05:34 churches, place of refuge, resurrection of Tampa,

09:05:40 Florida.

09:05:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Please stand and remain standing for

09:05:43 the pledge of allegiance.

09:05:45 >> Let us pray.

09:05:50 God, we thank you again for your amazing grace and your

09:05:52 tender mercy and that you always know what we need,

09:06:00 when we need it.

09:06:01 So as we stand for wisdom and guidance in this place

09:06:06 this day right now district 7, that you begin to give

09:06:10 him wisdom, and that you will give her wisdom, Scott

09:06:20 chairman, give him wisdom, pray for Mulhern, that you

09:06:27 will give her wisdom and Stokes that you will give him

09:06:30 wisdom, God, that you bless this event that as we

09:06:33 complete this day, that safety would be maintained,

09:06:36 that financial stability for this city will be secure,

09:06:40 that hope will be restored, that peace will prevail,

09:06:45 that love will exist as we seek to be the best that we

09:06:48 can in this city, this city be a beacon for light

09:06:51 around this world.

09:06:52 Thank you for this day and all of those who serve

09:06:54 faithfully and diligently, in your name we pray.




09:06:59 Amen.

09:06:59 [ Pledge of Allegiance ]

09:07:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, pastor Lockett.

09:07:23 Pastor Lockett is a friend of mine, came here and

09:07:26 established a church and is doing well.

09:07:28 So thank you, councilman Stokes, for inviting him to

09:07:31 come and share with us this morning.

09:07:33 At this time we will have our roll call.

09:07:35 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Here.

09:07:39 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Here.

09:07:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.

09:07:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.

09:07:43 >>MARY MULHERN: Here.

09:07:44 >>CURTIS STOKES: Here.

09:07:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.

09:07:46 Okay.

09:07:47 The chair will yield now to honorable Councilwoman Gwen

09:07:51 Miller.

09:07:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Good morning, everyone.

09:08:14 We have two officers of the month because in November

09:08:16 we didn't have it.

09:08:17 We took a break and didn't have our Officer of the




09:08:19 Month.

09:08:20 We are going to do November and December.

09:08:22 So with that, starting with November, detective Carlos

09:08:24 Navarro.

09:08:34 >> Good morning, council.

09:08:35 It's again my honor to be bring TPD's finest before you

09:08:39 this morning.

09:08:39 We are going to begin with Carlos Navarro who has been

09:08:47 with us for 14 years.

09:08:48 He is an amazing detective day in and day out.

09:08:50 He works out of district one for the last two years,

09:08:53 but he's been a detective for seven years, worked in

09:08:56 narcotics, in a number of different areas, and he is

09:08:59 the one who has always called in where they have

09:09:02 difficulty getting confessions or interviews out of

09:09:06 individual, and I will cite, to save some time, he does

09:09:12 a great job every day.

09:09:13 I will just site three outstanding examples.

09:09:17 A series of robberies through centers, pain clinic, and

09:09:23 the robber was identified, and after a vehicle pursuit

09:09:27 was arrested but he refused to cooperate with

09:09:29 detectives, so they called Carlos Navarro in.




09:09:33 He was able to obtain a complete confession which led

09:09:36 to a 30-year prison term for this particular robbery

09:09:40 suspect.

09:09:41 Another instance, we had a series of armed robberies

09:09:43 that occurred at superior injury center again dealing

09:09:47 with the pain clinic issue.

09:09:49 A partial tag was received in that case, and the

09:09:54 detectives ran a series of tag numbers, came up with a

09:09:58 suspect, suspect vehicle.

09:10:00 They, through surveillance, they received probable

09:10:03 cause.

09:10:04 They stopped the individual, brought him to district

09:10:06 one, called in Carlos Navarro and he quickly

09:10:10 established a rapport with the suspect.

09:10:12 Not only did he obtain complete confession for all of

09:10:15 the robberies, the individual implicated a second

09:10:18 subject that the detectives were unaware of in that

09:10:21 particular offense.

09:10:22 Back in October, you may have recalled the Charley's

09:10:26 steakhouse robbery, a brutal robbery.

09:10:28 It was an employee that had set this all up.

09:10:31 Three individuals came in.




09:10:32 They pistol whipped one of the bartenders there, ended

09:10:36 up getting a large sum of cash, it rolled into a

09:10:43 pursuit where the officers were able to box the car in

09:10:46 up on the Howard Frankland bridge.

09:10:48 One of the suspects jumped into the water and it was a

09:10:50 very protracted incident.

09:10:53 Although it was not detective Navarro's area, he was

09:10:57 called in because of his ability to interview.

09:11:01 Not only did he obtain confessions from all of the

09:11:04 individuals that were involved, he also helped pimple

09:11:09 indicate the employee who set the whole incident up.

09:11:11 So he is a valued part of the Tampa Police Department.

09:11:15 He is a team player.

09:11:17 He's always there to help anybody that he can in any

09:11:20 way, and he is dedicated to service to the community

09:11:24 and does an outstanding job day in and day out.

09:11:27 And for those reasons and many, many more, he has been

09:11:30 named the Officer of the Month for November 2010.

09:11:33 >>GWEN MILLER: I am not going to read it but we have a

09:11:48 commendation.

09:11:49 I am going to start out with Charley steakhouse as the

09:11:52 first one.




09:11:53 >> On behalf of the Straz center for the Performing

09:12:03 Arts Center we would like to invite you to a night out.

09:12:07 Thank you for all the work that you do.

09:12:09 >> Police on behalf of the Tampa PBA, I want to give

09:12:23 you a $100 gift card.

09:12:25 Congratulations.

09:12:32 >> Steve Stickley representing Stepp's towing service.

09:12:35 First of all, I would like to send out a message from

09:12:39 Mr. and Mrs. Stepp.

09:12:40 They want to pass the holiday experience to the council

09:12:46 and they also want to extend how much pleasure they get

09:12:49 out of presenting these awards to the first responders

09:12:51 throughout the year.

09:12:52 So on behalf of Stepps towing, happy holidays.

09:12:57 Detective Navarro, on behalf of Stepp's towing service

09:13:00 we would like to present you this statue for a job well

09:13:04 done and a gift certificate to Lee Roy Selmons.

09:13:10 Thanks so much for the work you do.

09:13:11 >> Congratulations, detective.

09:13:19 I'm Frank DeSoto with Bill Currie Ford Lincoln-Mercury.

09:13:24 It's always a pleasure for us to participate and to see

09:13:28 the good fortune of having officers that are this




09:13:31 capable.

09:13:32 Danny Lewis has retired.

09:13:34 I don't know if everybody knew that but he has retired

09:13:37 and here I am with one watch this morning.

09:13:39 So, anyway, I will see that the other officer receives

09:13:42 this watch.

09:13:43 Congratulations.

09:13:44 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I'm here on behalf of Bern's

09:13:55 steakhouse, as well as Rigatoni's and Bryn Allen

09:13:59 studios.

09:13:59 They are providing you with gift certificates so you

09:14:01 can enjoy with your family there.

09:14:04 You can have lunch of your choice at Rigatoni's.

09:14:08 I assume you want to the take your wife to Bern's.

09:14:11 You can have a family portrait done at Bryn Allen.

09:14:15 >> Thank you very much.

09:14:28 >> Thank you very much for this acknowledgement.

09:14:30 It's really appreciated.

09:14:32 I would like to thank my chief, district one.

09:14:34 I work with a great staff, major steer.

09:14:39 I work for a fantastic crew at district one, a bunch of

09:14:42 great detectives, all wonderful team players that bring




09:14:45 all of this together.

09:14:46 I'm very grateful for the position I'm in.

09:14:48 I'm grateful for the people that I'm surrounded with.

09:14:51 And absolutely blessed by a wonderful family and

09:14:55 beautiful little girl.

09:14:56 Thank you very much.

09:14:59 >> Next we have officer Vance van Evers.

09:15:13 He has been here a little less time.

09:15:15 He has been here three years in January.

09:15:16 But he does an amazing job every day as well.

09:15:19 And what I am going to read is just a couple of weeks

09:15:23 worth of activity for him.

09:15:25 He's been instrumental in the arrest of several

09:15:28 burglary and robbery suspects.

09:15:30 The first burglary occurred at Sammy's smoke shop on

09:15:36 Nebraska in district two.

09:15:37 He responded and observed an individual fleeing on

09:15:40 foot.

09:15:40 And this is where his youth comes in.

09:15:42 He chased the individual for several blocks, over

09:15:48 fences and a wall before he placed him under arrest.

09:15:51 I told him a burglary this just occurred, and corporal




09:16:04 Mark Yost caught the individual about a block away.

09:16:06 Of course, the suspect told him he didn't have any

09:16:09 involvement and he was completely innocent.

09:16:12 Officer van Evers went back to the scene and was able

09:16:14 to match up the mold on the suspect's shirt with mold

09:16:20 in the wood print from the wooden fence that he had run

09:16:22 into when he escaped.

09:16:24 So he obviously has some pretty good investigative

09:16:29 skills there so he does a great job.

09:16:30 Then we had another particularly vicious home invasion

09:16:33 on citrus circle where an individual sitting on a front

09:16:37 porch was robbed at gunpoint and the suspect came

09:16:41 inside, pistol whipped the female inside with a stolen

09:16:44 pistol and then took clothing from the scene.

09:16:48 He fled on foot.

09:16:49 Officer van Evers was out in front, the lead, and was

09:16:58 able to apprehend the suspect and also recover the

09:17:01 stolen .45 caliber Glock pistol.

09:17:06 He made two felony narcotics arrests and a myriad of

09:17:11 arrests for lesser offenses.

09:17:12 He's a C.O.P. officer down in the Sulphur Springs area

09:17:16 and the northern half of district two, and as he has




09:17:21 made 270 quality of life investigations with 281

09:17:27 associated arrests so far for quality of life type

09:17:35 crimes, and all of those types of crimes that really

09:17:38 give the neighborhood -- their neighborhood back when

09:17:41 he takes these individuals off the street.

09:17:43 So he does an outstanding job every day.

09:17:46 And he's demonstrated that it's not an individual

09:17:49 achievement that distinguishes your quality of work.

09:17:52 It is instead the sum of many outstanding efforts that

09:17:56 exemplify the quality of an officer.

09:17:59 I think that sums up officer van Evers.

09:18:02 He has an amazing career ahead of him and does a great

09:18:05 job of service to the community every day.

09:18:07 So it's my honor to name him as officer it month for

09:18:11 December 2010.

09:18:17 >>GWEN MILLER: On behalf of Tampa City Council, we are

09:18:21 happy to present you with this.

09:18:24 I won't read it.

09:18:25 And now the private sector has something to give you.

09:18:30 We'll start with Charley's steakhouse.

09:18:32 >> On behalf of the City of Tampa as well as the Straz,

09:18:38 we would like you to come out, and thank you for your




09:18:42 good work.

09:18:43 >> Steve Stickley representing Stepp's towing service.

09:18:50 If I didn't know Danny Lewis better, I would think that

09:18:53 he might have just left.

09:18:58 Congratulations for a job very well done.

09:19:00 We appreciate everything you do.

09:19:02 Enjoy this statue and also a gift certificate.

09:19:06 >> On behalf of Tampa PBA, congratulations.

09:19:13 $100 gift certificate.

09:19:15 >> Thank you very much for all you do for the City of

09:19:23 Tampa.

09:19:24 And I have a bona fide certified IOU.

09:19:33 [ Laughter ]

09:19:37 >>STEVE MICHELINI: How fast are you?

09:19:39 >> Pretty fast.

09:19:40 >> Want to be on a relay team with me?

09:19:43 On behalf of Bern's steakhouse, Rigatoni's and Bryn

09:19:48 Allen presenting you with certificates to enjoy

09:19:50 yourself again at Bern's, Rigatoni's, your choice of a

09:19:55 photographic package for you and your family at Bryn

09:19:58 Allen studios.

09:20:00 Congratulations.




09:20:00 >> Thank you.

09:20:04 Well, this is my wife.

09:20:06 First I would like to thank Chief Castor, and thanks

09:20:13 very much City Council.

09:20:17 I'm actually pretty humbled by this being here three

09:20:21 years.

09:20:23 My supervisors, they have helped me out the last two

09:20:29 years, to be on the C.O.P. position.

09:20:33 Without that I could not be as proactive, at least not

09:20:36 as much anyway.

09:20:39 Again, thank you very much for all the gifts here.

09:20:45 We very much appreciate it.

09:20:46 I couldn't have done it without the support of my

09:20:48 lovely wife.

09:20:51 [ Applause ]

09:21:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I think we will review our agenda at

09:21:14 this time.

09:21:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Before you, you have the addendum to

09:21:20 today's agenda.

09:21:21 There's been a late request to have item number 53,

09:21:26 which is resolution approving a plat of Avian park

09:21:30 Westshore, to have that continued to February 3rd




09:21:33 of 2011.

09:21:35 That's the request of the legal department.

09:21:39 So.

09:21:40 That to be made part of the motion.

09:21:41 To the bring to your attention, item 63, Chairman

09:21:43 Scott, will be having to abstain due to a conflict of

09:21:49 interest on that, a voting conflict, so that will have

09:21:52 to be voted on separately.

09:21:54 For your 10:30 public hearings, there are certain items

09:21:58 that will not be heard for various reasons.

09:22:01 Item 80, file C-10-16, public hearing on the closure of

09:22:05 a right-of-way in Ybor channel.

09:22:08 After 10:30 there will be a request to continue that to

09:22:11 March 17th, 2011 and 10:30 in the morning.

09:22:15 Item 82, V-10 377, public hearing on a petition of

09:22:19 gourmet cafes and bistro incorporated, 401 east

09:22:23 Jackson, cannot be heard as no affidavit was filed.

09:22:26 So as part of this motion to have that removed from the

09:22:29 agenda.

09:22:31 Item 83, you have received an e-mail from John

09:22:34 Grandoff, petitioner's representative, requesting that

09:22:38 V-10 380, petition for sale of alcoholic beverages at




09:22:44 3434 west Columbus drive, be withdrawn.

09:22:47 And item 85, after 10:30, you will hear a request for a

09:22:51 continuance on V-10-406, public hearing on alcoholic

09:22:55 beverages at 1701 and 17072 North Franklin Street and

09:23:01 that will be ab request from Catherine Coyle, zoning

09:23:04 administrator to have that continued to January 20 of

09:23:08 2011.

09:23:09 The other housekeeping item is that on your consent

09:23:13 docket, item 62 will have to be voted upon separately,

09:23:18 cannot be voted on as part of that committee.

09:23:21 That is the resolution approving the historic property

09:23:24 tax exemption covenant.

09:23:25 The reason for that is that item, that resolution, must

09:23:28 be adopted after the ordinance, which is item number

09:23:32 72.

09:23:33 So if we can just make note to take up item 62

09:23:37 following item 72 and take those two together.

09:23:40 Other than that, Mr. Chairman, members of council, I am

09:23:42 not aware of any other changes to the agenda and I

09:23:44 present to the you for your approval.

09:23:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a motion?

09:23:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.




09:23:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Seconded by councilman Stokes.

09:23:51 All in favor?

09:23:53 Opposes?

09:23:55 Okay.

09:23:55 At this time we'll take public comment.

09:23:59 Come, state your name and address.

09:24:01 You have three minutes.

09:24:02 First, items on the agenda.

09:24:05 We go to items first on the agenda and then whatever

09:24:08 time remaining, you may speak to that.

09:24:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to approve the minutes.

09:24:17 >> Second.

09:24:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

09:24:20 Opposes?

09:24:22 Okay.

09:24:30 Somebody come and speak.

09:24:31 >> I had mistakenly cite last week when I spoke at last

09:24:46 meeting.

09:24:47 My name is Tillou, Ed, from the north end of Tampa.

09:24:55 I spoke about the water main replacement and the chaos

09:25:01 it was inflicted upon a lot of people because I thought

09:25:03 there was too much of it.




09:25:05 That's 55 to 59.

09:25:07 But I mistakenly cited some others that I would address

09:25:11 today.

09:25:13 And somebody signed in saying they would speak on safe

09:25:16 streets, but I go through and I don't see anything

09:25:18 about safe streets.

09:25:19 But I do see items 1 through 8 involving the police

09:25:22 department.

09:25:25 And you can only have so much safe street by

09:25:30 infrastructure, you know, safe streets that encourage

09:25:34 safety.

09:25:35 I'm close to this because I major in industrial safety

09:25:39 management at USF.

09:25:41 That's what my masters in public health is in.

09:25:43 It was kind of a waste of retraining because they

09:25:47 actually had to phase out the safety engineer and

09:25:50 safety management program because most safety managers

09:25:52 are actually somebody's brother-in-law, and become self

09:25:57 taught and never really does a good job of it.

09:26:00 But what goes with items 1 through 8, I went out

09:26:03 yesterday and looked where admiral Collins was killed,

09:26:06 and I think he was killed by the same thing I have a




09:26:09 lot of trouble with, which is turning cars.

09:26:13 Half of the cars on the road are not making turns in

09:26:15 the right kind of way.

09:26:17 How they get their licenses, I don't know.

09:26:20 But the thing is, looking at red lights, these red

09:26:23 light cameras and various other things are missing the

09:26:26 mark.

09:26:26 The real thing is turns.

09:26:29 Turning cars.

09:26:31 Now, I went through to the county commission and they

09:26:34 were talking about alternative ways of funding

09:26:36 transportation improvements in the city.

09:26:38 Well, I think a 70 or $80 ticket goes a long way toward

09:26:44 that.

09:26:45 And I think most people are going to get one or two,

09:26:47 but you are going to have some get five, six, seven of

09:26:50 these and they are going to be riding the buses, or the

09:26:53 commuter rail.

09:26:55 And the thing of it is that this is the key element to

09:27:04 safe streets.

09:27:05 This is why admiral Collins was killed, because a turn

09:27:08 was made in an unsafe way.




09:27:10 And I'm not exact exactly happy with funding things by

09:27:15 traffic laws, because I became a victim of that over in

09:27:18 Pinellas County.

09:27:18 People don't realize, but the county police, the

09:27:21 Sheriff's Department will largely -- is largely

09:27:25 financed by traffic infractions.

09:27:27 Now, this was 12 or 14 years ago.

09:27:30 And I complained about this to AAA because I actually

09:27:34 did get a turn infraction, but the police thought I

09:27:38 didn't leave enough time, and yet he was on my tail and

09:27:41 he made it through in the same amount of time.

09:27:43 So I how I didn't have enough time I don't know.

09:27:48 So there's a problem with this.

09:27:50 But when you see the epidemic of poorly made turns to

09:27:56 jeopardize pedestrians, jeopardize bicycles, you say,

09:27:59 well, maybe this is how we need to fund transportation

09:28:02 improvements.

09:28:05 And as I say -- oh, when I complained to AAA, they

09:28:08 refused to believe that Pinellas County would do such a

09:28:12 thing.

09:28:12 And they came down on poor little WALDO and stark.

09:28:18 I always slowed down to 35 miles per hour because I




09:28:20 figure that's their community, they have a right to

09:28:22 that, and a big road goes through there.

09:28:25 It's on 301.

09:28:26 I'm not sure.

09:28:27 (Bell sounds)

09:28:28 And Pinellas.

09:28:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

09:28:34 Your time is up.

09:28:35 Thank you.

09:28:36 Next speaker.

09:28:36 >> Spencer Kass.

09:28:41 First let me say happy holiday.

09:28:45 And if someone can put this on the Elmo, I would

09:28:47 appreciate it.

09:28:47 I'm here to officially request on behalf of the

09:28:50 neighborhood associations, the council, put a

09:28:53 panhandling ban on the upcoming election.

09:28:55 You know we started to gather signatures already so

09:28:57 that if we have to do it ourselves we will.

09:29:00 It's 18,000 signatures in two weeks.

09:29:04 Just for the record, someone from City Council requires

09:29:08 half as many signatures, and twice as much time so it's




09:29:10 very interesting that when citizens want to put

09:29:13 something up, there's a harbinger to do that.

09:29:19 It's a very interesting situation.

09:29:21 But on the Elmo we have the petition form that can be

09:29:23 downloaded from the Virginia park Web site.

09:29:28 I have copies for council for the record, for

09:29:31 themselves.

09:29:31 This is supported by the administration.

09:29:34 This is supported by the police department.

09:29:38 This is the same ordinance that has been adopted in

09:29:40 St. Pete.

09:29:41 As you know oh, Hillsborough County already has a ban,

09:29:44 as do our other situation ter cities.

09:29:47 It is a dangerous situation.

09:29:49 Council, by mere motion can place this on the ballot

09:29:52 today.

09:29:53 And we can all have a nice happy holiday season without

09:29:56 having to run around trying to gather these signatures.

09:30:00 Regardless of whether my time expires to get the

09:30:04 signatures or we get enough or don't, we still will

09:30:06 have January and February to come down to council and

09:30:08 request that you put it on the ballot, or you adopt the




09:30:15 ordinance on its own.

09:30:17 If you won't, the very least you can do is let the

09:30:19 public decide how they want their streets used.

09:30:23 That seems extremely fair to us.

09:30:25 If you sign a petition, you should know you have voted

09:30:28 for the ordinance or against the ordinance.

09:30:30 All you are voting for is democracy to let people

09:30:33 decide how they want their streets used.

09:30:36 The question is why will council not place this on the

09:30:38 ballot?

09:30:39 I don't have an answer for that.

09:30:40 That's for you guys to answer.

09:30:41 I know I don't have a right to ask anybody to answer

09:30:44 anything.

09:30:44 But I imagine during the candidate forums other things

09:30:47 over the next couple of months you will get that

09:30:49 question repeatedly, continuously.

09:30:52 I am not here as a Republican or independent.

09:30:57 TBO did a poll, 93% of people wanted to let fellow

09:31:02 citizens decide what happens in the city.

09:31:04 They got a thousand responses.

09:31:05 We get an e-mail to my office.




09:31:08 And 1001 North Howard Avenue, pick up the petition

09:31:12 form, sign it, download it.

09:31:14 Every neighborhood association has it.

09:31:15 You can get it from them if you want to.

09:31:17 If anybody wants them hand delivered I am more than

09:31:19 happy to give it to them.

09:31:22 So once again I am not really wanting to do that over

09:31:25 my holiday season.

09:31:26 I would rather that council let the people decide,

09:31:29 place it on the ballot today.

09:31:30 But if not the option is out there so citizens can at

09:31:33 least decide for themselves.

09:31:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And I am not talking to you directly

09:31:43 but there are comments that says the administration

09:31:52 favors an ordinance.

09:31:53 They could do it if they choose.

09:31:55 The administration could present an ordinance.

09:31:58 I am not just kicking the ball around.

09:32:00 I'm just telling you the facts.

09:32:01 That's number one.

09:32:02 Number two, although it seems to be a very simple thing

09:32:05 to do, get rid of everybody you don't want, and that's




09:32:08 a fact.

09:32:10 There are other things that go along with that.

09:32:14 There are the good people from the Shriners who would

09:32:16 not be allowed to do this, who fund all their hospitals

09:32:20 without any participation or tax dollars that I know

09:32:22 of.

09:32:23 They do a great thing for burn kids and burn units

09:32:28 throughout the country.

09:32:29 They have various hospitals.

09:32:31 Secondly, there's a foot drive for the muscular

09:32:33 dystrophy that would be hampered, stopped.

09:32:42 Thirdly, I don't know if bell ringers that are

09:32:49 sometimes on streets, could be in rights-of-way, would

09:32:52 also be hampered.

09:32:53 So although the problem seems to be simple, get rid of

09:32:56 the people we don't want, but it has a two-sided

09:32:59 animal.

09:33:00 For every action there's a big reaction.

09:33:07 Then there's people putting food on their table by

09:33:10 selling newspapers on Sundays from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m.

09:33:13 So let's get rid of those 300 or 500 people, get rid of

09:33:21 them, we don't want them.




09:33:22 So society is a wonderful thing.

09:33:23 But it's hard to make decisions where you sit on this

09:33:26 side of the dais, because it always has an effect on

09:33:30 everyone.

09:33:31 Am I for the panhandling going on?

09:33:34 Absolutely not.

09:33:36 Do I have an answer for it?

09:33:37 Well, there's been three or four meetings from various

09:33:40 cities and counties combined, and they haven't come up

09:33:43 with an answer.

09:33:44 I'm not part of that committee.

09:33:45 But let me tell you what I would favor.

09:33:47 I would favor limited hours to a traffic pattern that

09:33:51 the city should have already, that we don't go from

09:33:57 zero to 100 percent in getting rid of everything.

09:34:00 You know, it only took 63 years from when the Wright

09:34:03 brothers flew to the time we went to the moon.

09:34:06 That's all.

09:34:07 63 years.

09:34:09 And not much since has happened.

09:34:11 The moon is still there.

09:34:13 We are still going up and coming down.




09:34:15 So what I'm saying is, how do we solve this problem?

09:34:19 I think you have to look at it, not just drastically

09:34:24 get rid of everything and everybody at one time,

09:34:26 because there are people who are making some type of

09:34:28 effort to live -- and I'm not talking about the

09:34:31 panhandlers, I'm talking about the people selling

09:34:33 newspapers -- that put food on their table that I am

09:34:37 going to take away.

09:34:38 So it's not that easy.

09:34:42 You may not like bald headed people and I will have to

09:34:46 wear a hat every day of my life because bald heads are

09:34:50 in a longer permitted in the city of Tampa.

09:34:53 So what I'm saying, it got to be done in a mannerism

09:34:57 that maybe you can have Sundays from 6 to 2.

09:34:59 Maybe have Tuesdays, Thursdays, during slow traffic

09:35:06 patterns.

09:35:06 So what happened here happened 14, 15 years ago, if my

09:35:12 mind recalls with the legislature and it went to the

09:35:15 court and it said we were unconstitutionally doing what

09:35:18 we were doing, because then you only have basically two

09:35:21 individuals that were doing this kind of solicitation.

09:35:23 That was the fire department, and that was the




09:35:27 Shriners.

09:35:28 They had to have a contract.

09:35:29 They had to have a permit.

09:35:30 And they had to have a million dollar bond.

09:35:33 All that was thrown out the wind -- out the window.

09:35:38 When that happened, this problem, and that's what we

09:35:41 are living with today.

09:35:43 So hopefully somebody introduce it is bill we can do

09:35:50 what we did.

09:35:51 We haven't had a problem in the City of Tampa never in

09:35:53 all my years of service until that law was taken out,

09:35:56 and then we created the animal that we have today.

09:35:59 So what I'm saying is, maybe we can write an ordinance

09:36:03 through traffic, and get together and say, okay, here

09:36:08 the low traffic flows, two or three times a week, and

09:36:11 if that doesn't work, then you go top the extreme.

09:36:15 But to say that today I am going to do this, and oh

09:36:25 hoot -- and I say that instead of hell -- but can't say

09:36:28 I don't like these people, get rid of them.

09:36:30 That's fine.

09:36:31 But you have to go progressively.

09:36:34 I'm not against the ordinance.




09:36:35 But I also have compassion and feeling like you do.

09:36:38 I'm sure you have feelings for the burn kids.

09:36:41 I'm sure you have feelings for the kids and grown ups

09:36:44 and all of us muscular, who get that terrible disease

09:36:49 that is getting closer to getting solved.

09:36:51 So when I look at these things and I tell myself, my

09:36:54 God, how do I solve this?

09:36:56 It's not easy.

09:36:57 It seems real simple.

09:37:00 Yes, I see them at night.

09:37:01 Yes, I see them during the day.

09:37:03 Yes, I see them in all parts of the city.

09:37:05 I don't know how many arrests.

09:37:07 There's a ban right now in the county.

09:37:11 Does anybody here on this dais know how many arrests

09:37:13 were made by the Sheriff's Department at the county?

09:37:16 I don't know.

09:37:17 Maybe a thousand.

09:37:19 Maybe they haven't made any.

09:37:20 So what I'm saying is, until -- you can write any law

09:37:24 you want.

09:37:25 But then you have to enforce it.




09:37:26 For years I have been wanting to write a law about when

09:37:28 you can't put that blower and put everything into our

09:37:33 sewer that causes more money and more repairs at the

09:37:37 Howard Curren plant.

09:37:38 But I tell Mace, okay, I'll write the law.

09:37:40 Oh, I feel great.

09:37:42 I get great press.

09:37:44 But who is going to enforce it?

09:37:45 So I haven't written the law, because I see the yard

09:37:49 signs come up, yard sale, garage sale.

09:37:58 Nobody enforce it is law.

09:37:59 So I am not trying to be humorous or petty, but it's

09:38:05 much more complicated than just saying let's get rid of

09:38:08 them.

09:38:08 It takes concerted effort built whole community to work

09:38:11 this problem out.

09:38:11 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm going to be brief because Charlie

09:38:20 said everything.

09:38:21 But I would like to ask you to do three things.

09:38:24 One, I haven't seen the petition.

09:38:28 So if you are asking council to put something on the

09:38:32 ballot, we should at least see the language.




09:38:38 Secondly, I think you have to work with our legal

09:38:40 department, because we are not going to be able to pass

09:38:44 anything if our legal department isn't -- this council

09:38:51 won't do that.

09:38:52 And the third thing is to say when we have the one

09:38:55 discussion we had about this, we were advised that the

09:38:59 county -- there is a committee that councilman Miranda

09:39:04 mentioned, and I would like to hear what their findings

09:39:07 are, and we haven't heard that.

09:39:09 I am going to ask that we put that on the agenda.

09:39:12 I'll do that in new business.

09:39:13 A report from the committee that is looking into this.

09:39:17 And hopefully get that.

09:39:21 I don't know, when are your petitions do?

09:39:24 >>> We only have until the 26th to collect our

09:39:29 signatures.

09:39:29 But the legal department has signed off.

09:39:31 >>MARY MULHERN: Is it the 31st?

09:39:36 It.

09:39:37 We have to turn them in the morning of the 27th.

09:39:39 >> Of January?

09:39:43 >>> No.




09:39:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Capin.

09:39:49 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I am going to look at this from the

09:39:50 finance side.

09:39:54 And when we arrest these people, the cost of

09:39:57 incarcerating these people, the taxpayers pay inform

09:40:05 that.

09:40:05 We need to look at that.

09:40:07 We are asking taxpayers to pay to incarcerate people

09:40:12 when they are soliciting on our street corners.

09:40:16 It's very costly.

09:40:18 That has not been addressed.

09:40:20 I'd like to know how many arrests, and what it cost the

09:40:26 taxpayers so far, Hillsborough County who has the ban.

09:40:29 I would like to know that.

09:40:30 Thank you.

09:40:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Caetano?

09:40:38 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I got a copy of this probably a

09:40:40 week or so.

09:40:41 I personally think what Mr. Kass is doing is going to

09:40:44 take a long time.

09:40:45 They have to get 18,000 petitions.

09:40:47 I think it's almost impossible.




09:40:49 I think this body -- I don't think we need the

09:40:53 administration.

09:41:00 It's like any other petition.

09:41:02 I think this City Council should take a vote, or put it

09:41:10 on the agenda for the next meeting to adopt this.

09:41:12 I don't care, as Ms. Yoe says about incarceration, it

09:41:18 is devastating.

09:41:20 People don't want to come here and buy homes.

09:41:22 I know that.

09:41:24 I was at dinner the other night.

09:41:25 The Tampa Bay builders association.

09:41:27 And it was brought up that people don't want to come

09:41:30 here when they see 10 or 15 people sitting on the

09:41:33 corner of Fowler Avenue.

09:41:36 First thing you hear, who are these people?

09:41:38 What are they doing?

09:41:47 Some gentleman who wants to come here an start his

09:41:49 business, maybe with 250 employees, he's not going to

09:41:52 come here.

09:41:52 We don't need it.

09:41:54 It happened in St. Pete and we should have the guts to

09:41:56 put it up and vote on it.




09:41:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Miller.

09:42:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Because he says the neighborhood

09:42:06 association.

09:42:06 Did you meet with all associations, or just T.H.A.N.?

09:42:10 >> Spencer Kass, no we mailed it out to every single

09:42:13 neighborhood association that's registered with the

09:42:15 City of Tampa which of course all of them are not

09:42:18 members of T.H.A.N.

09:42:21 And the issue was last Friday that we got approval for

09:42:24 this.

09:42:25 That gives me basically two weeks to get 18,000

09:42:28 signatures.

09:42:28 >> And did you get an answer from each association?

09:42:31 >> The ones I have spoken to, the community leaders, I

09:42:33 can tell you that West Tampa, the North Hyde Park

09:42:36 neighborhood association had a meeting.

09:42:37 They supported it unanimously.

09:42:46 They were more than happy to discuss it.

09:42:47 They had a long debate on it.

09:42:49 They said they absolutely support it.

09:42:50 In East Tampa I brought it out to the community

09:42:52 leaders.




09:42:54 I would provide them copies.

09:42:56 They have concerns like everybody else.

09:42:57 I can tell you standing here as the land use chairman,

09:43:00 East Tampa CRA, I'm very concerned.

09:43:03 Exactly what councilman Caetano said is happening.

09:43:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, Mr. CASS, thank you.

09:43:10 Mr. Kass, okay, okay, you answered the question.

09:43:13 >> I think it's a good idea.

09:43:15 But I would like to see it all come together, and come

09:43:18 back in a workshop, the neighborhood associations, let

09:43:21 them express their concerns and what they would like to

09:43:25 do.

09:43:25 It's a good idea.

09:43:26 We need to do something about them on the corners, but

09:43:31 I would like it to be unanimous that all of them come

09:43:34 together and work together and let's see what we can

09:43:36 come up with.

09:43:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I am a firm believer that before you

09:43:40 make a decision that will impact the lives of people

09:43:43 that you need to know what the impacts are going to be,

09:43:47 and you have to do your due diligence and see what that

09:43:51 impact will be.




09:43:52 I disagree with councilman Caetano that it is keeping

09:43:58 businesses from coming.

09:43:59 I think we all agree that it is an issue that is

09:44:04 affecting all of us.

09:44:05 We hate to ride down the street and see people in those

09:44:10 conditions, so forth.

09:44:13 However, I said four years ago when I came on this

09:44:15 board, watch what happens.

09:44:17 How is it going to get worse?

09:44:18 I guarantee more people on the streets.

09:44:20 And that's exactly what happened.

09:44:22 And I said last time, well, all of us who are doing

09:44:25 well in our homes, have a job, have an income, not out

09:44:30 in the cold.

09:44:31 First of all, you all thanks God every day.

09:44:35 That's not you out on the street.

09:44:36 The second thing I will say is something is being done.

09:44:39 I am currently working with the city attorney.

09:44:43 We hope to bring something back to City Council,

09:44:48 identify the streets or collector roads so that we can

09:44:53 ban those which I understand is Constitutional or

09:44:57 legally defensible, which at some point we hope to




09:45:00 bring that back.

09:45:02 That will alleviate, we believe, some of the

09:45:05 panhandling.

09:45:07 But it would be in a manner that I think is very

09:45:10 respectful, in a manner that will eliminate some of the

09:45:13 concerns that our citizens have, and I am so glad that

09:45:23 as an elect official I learn to think rationally and

09:45:26 reasonable, hear everybody on both side of the issue,

09:45:30 and then get all my facts and information so I can make

09:45:33 a decision.

09:45:35 I don't like to be threatened or intimidated when

09:45:39 someone tells me about what they can do, and someone is

09:45:44 going to vote against you and they are going to get

09:45:46 somebody to run against you.

09:45:48 I don't like that.

09:45:49 This is America.

09:45:51 Anybody can run.

09:45:53 Anybody can vote.

09:45:56 That's legally registered to vote.

09:45:58 If you have an issue, let's try to deal with it.

09:46:00 But I don't like threats or intimidation, because at

09:46:03 that point you are not helping the cause.




09:46:08 So something needs to be done.

09:46:14 Mr. Fletcher and I have been discussing this issue now,

09:46:17 and hopefully, council, we hope to bring some

09:46:20 resolution back to this.

09:46:23 We don't meet again until January, I think.

09:46:25 So hopefully by then we will have some resolution.

09:46:28 The county has not taken any action, by the way, on

09:46:35 that committee that was appointed.

09:46:38 I think councilman Mark Sharpe came out with finding

09:46:43 the person that gives to the person.

09:46:45 Well, that's not legal either.

09:46:46 So I think everybody is looking at it.

09:46:49 Okay, public comments.

09:46:51 I think we kind of got off it.

09:46:53 All right.

09:46:55 Anyone else?

09:47:06 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Good morning.

09:47:07 My name is John Grandoff, address is suite 3700 Bank of

09:47:11 America Plaza.

09:47:13 And I would like to speak for a moment on item 75,

09:47:16 which is the proposal on the notice changes by the city

09:47:23 attorney's office.




09:47:24 I ask that you postpone this matter for a little more

09:47:26 time for several reasons.

09:47:29 I have not completely been able to digest the

09:47:33 supplemental notice provision which is on page 31, and

09:47:38 also Ms. Grimes and Mr. Massey of my office also,

09:47:43 former city attorneys, we have met with Julia one time.

09:47:47 We just want to go through the whole process and make

09:47:50 sure we can test it and make sure there's no gap that

09:47:54 would trip up an applicant or make it difficult for

09:47:58 someone who may be a pro se applicant representing

09:48:01 themselves.

09:48:01 This is a highly technical process.

09:48:04 I think the consolidation of all the notices is a very

09:48:07 good idea.

09:48:07 We have all agreement on that.

09:48:10 It ought to be one section in the city code, you follow

09:48:14 this process.

09:48:29 The second issue would shall sign posting.

09:48:31 And I'll merely read the sign section to you, and you

09:48:34 can see what I mean.

09:48:35 Page 33.

09:48:37 This is a sign that had you post on the property




09:48:40 announcing the public hearing, 30 days before the

09:48:43 hearing.

09:48:43 I submit to you the process is fine at this point as to

09:48:46 the sign posting.

09:48:47 The proposed section would say the sign is to remain

09:48:50 posted on the subject property, legible and in good

09:48:53 condition until the date of the public hearing.

09:48:57 To remain posted.

09:48:58 The applicant is responsible for ensuring the sign is

09:49:02 in compliance with this section.

09:49:03 This is a 30-day time period.

09:49:06 Wind, rain, storm, whatever.

09:49:07 If requested, the applicant will be required to replace

09:49:10 the sign or repost the subject property to ensure that

09:49:12 the sign remains posted consistent with this section.

09:49:15 It is silent as to who enforces this, who polices this.

09:49:19 Is it subpolicing?

09:49:23 Do you believe someone who tells you the sign was taken

09:49:25 down?

09:49:25 I think you have an isolate set facts that created this

09:49:29 issue, and I don't think you make policy changes based

09:49:32 upon an isolated set of facts.




09:49:34 I think the sign posting obligation right now is

09:49:37 sufficient.

09:49:38 And I'll tell you why.

09:49:40 You should give notice ton surrounding property owners.

09:49:45 The sign is intended to give notice to the world that

09:49:48 an event is occurring on this property that the City

09:49:50 Council is going to consider in 30 days.

09:49:51 And the Constitutional protections, that is sufficient

09:49:54 notice to the world.

09:49:56 The persons that are truly affected are the folks

09:49:59 within 250 feet of the property, when they receive

09:50:03 actual paper notice on their affidavit.

09:50:04 So I think the process is sufficient to survive

09:50:07 Constitutional standards, and to put the world on

09:50:10 notice.

09:50:11 I think consistent posting obligation is very unwieldy,

09:50:17 and I think you are going to have an event occur where

09:50:19 someone is going to try to handle their own rezoning,

09:50:22 get botched up in this process and get deferred, and I

09:50:26 think what frustrates people more than anything is

09:50:29 process over simplicity.

09:50:35 And I think it's simple and I ask that you leave it




09:50:38 that the way.

09:50:39 (Bell sounds)

09:50:43 We ask we have another 30 days to review this.

09:50:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

09:50:49 And let me just say on that note, I concur with you.

09:50:53 This is as a result of a knee jerk reaction to the cell

09:51:03 phone towers at one of the meetings.

09:51:05 And everything goes back to getting all the

09:51:10 information, making all the fact, because I had a

09:51:12 discussion with Mr. Fletcher on this same issue.

09:51:13 In most municipalities this is something you have to go

09:51:16 out and post.

09:51:16 Well, we'll debate that later.

09:51:19 But, yes, thank you.

09:51:20 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I would concur with Mr. Grandoff.

09:51:25 There are some significant issues regarding the sign

09:51:28 posting.

09:51:29 And then there's a presumption that somehow somebody

09:51:33 has less than the best interest in the city and the

09:51:35 public, and having to prove a sign is there for 30 days

09:51:42 and going back to the property every day, and how are

09:51:44 you supposed to know if it's the morning or the night




09:51:46 the sign comes down or is blown away.

09:51:49 If we as petitioners know that a sign is coming down or

09:51:52 is blown away and someone this to our attention, we go

09:51:55 and repost it.

09:51:56 But you can't be responsible for this every single day.

09:52:01 As John mentioned, you get notice by certificate of

09:52:05 mailing to every property owner within 250 feet P.it

09:52:08 used to be 150 feet.

09:52:10 And then we expanded that to include rights-of-way, and

09:52:15 as well as the neighborhood association.

09:52:16 So there is sufficient notice.

09:52:19 And the sign issue does not play that kind of roll.

09:52:23 But it puts a tremendous burden on the petitioner,

09:52:27 whether you are a professional or whether an individual

09:52:29 trying to process your own application.

09:52:31 It's a heavy burden to try to meet, and it should be

09:52:35 deleted from this provision.

09:52:36 Thank you.

09:52:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

09:52:37 Anyone else from the public wish to address council in

09:52:40 anyone else from the public wish to address council?

09:52:42 All right.




09:52:43 We will move now to our committee reports.

09:52:46 Councilwoman Miller, public safety.

09:52:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Move resolutions 3 through 8.

09:52:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I want to point out to council on item

09:52:55 5, coming out of the trust fund or should I point out

09:53:02 this is for the police department, for another year

09:53:09 after that?

09:53:10 Here again talk about our budget and the constraints

09:53:12 that we are understood.

09:53:13 Here again, 520,000 is coming from grants.

09:53:19 So I just want you all to be aware of that, the

09:53:23 budgetary constraints, the issues that we will be

09:53:25 facing this coming year.

09:53:26 This is only for one more year.

09:53:31 It's been moved and seconded.

09:53:33 All in favor?

09:53:34 Opposes?

09:53:34 Okay.

09:53:35 Parks and recreation.

09:53:36 Councilman Stokes.

09:53:38 >>CURTIS STOKES: I would like to move items 9 through

09:53:40 17.




09:53:40 >> Second.

09:53:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: On item 15, that is 23% SLBE, 18.4%

09:53:57 WMBE.

09:53:58 It's been moved and seconded.

09:54:00 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

09:54:02 Opposes?

09:54:02 Okay.

09:54:03 Public works.

09:54:04 Councilman Miranda.

09:54:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move 18 through 29.

09:54:08 >> Moved and seconded, item 19 and 32% SLBE.

09:54:15 I want to call it to our attention as well.

09:54:18 Seconded by Councilwoman Mulhern.

09:54:20 All in favor?

09:54:21 Opposes?

09:54:22 Okay.

09:54:24 Finance Committee.

09:54:25 Councilwoman Mulhern.

09:54:26 >>MARY MULHERN: I move items 30 through 39.

09:54:30 >> Second.

09:54:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Caetano -- I

09:54:35 mean Miranda.




09:54:36 All in favor?

09:54:52 Opposes?

09:54:53 Building and zoning.

09:54:54 Councilman Caetano.

09:54:56 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Move items 40 to 64.

09:55:03 >> And I am abstaining from item 63.

09:55:06 Moved and seconded.

09:55:07 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

09:55:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, if I can.

09:55:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.

09:55:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a reminder that item 53 was

09:55:23 continued to February 3rd, 2011.

09:55:25 With regard to your abstaining from item 63 --

09:55:38 (Audio lost)

10:03:01 >> Councilman Stokes, do you want to read item 71?

10:03:06 >> Yes, sir.

10:03:06 Mr. Chairman. An ordinance being presented for second

10:03:09 reading and adoption, amending ordinance passed and

10:03:17 ordained by the City Council of the City of Tampa on

10:03:20 November 18, 2010, which approved a wet zoning 2(APS)

10:03:24 for 19910 Bruce B. Downs Boulevard changing the wording

10:03:28 from small venue to large venue providing for




10:03:31 severability, providing an effective date.

10:03:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Caetano.

10:03:36 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I believe this is on WalMart, and

10:03:40 there was a 360 feet from the school zone, which was

10:03:47 brought up.

10:03:48 But I believe WalMart being the company that they are

10:03:52 will make sure that all rules and regulations are

10:03:56 adhered to.

10:03:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

10:04:00 It's been moved an seconded.

10:04:02 Record your vote, please.

10:04:05 Number 71.

10:04:06 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda voting no.

10:04:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 72.

10:04:14 Item 72.

10:04:15 Also we need to vote on 62 after this item as well.

10:04:20 Item 72. Anyone wish to address council?

10:04:24 Moved and seconded.

10:04:25 All in favor?

10:04:27 Councilman?

10:04:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move an ordinance for second reading

10:04:31 and adoption, an ordinance approving an historic




10:04:33 preservation property tax exemption application

10:04:36 relative to the restoration, renovation, rehabilitation

10:04:40 of certain property owned by Jon D. Pellecchia and

10:04:49 Julie A. Truster, located at 2113 west hills Avenue,

10:04:54 Tampa, Florida in Hyde Park historic district, based

10:04:57 upon certain findings, providing for notice to the

10:05:00 property appraiser of Hillsborough County providing for

10:05:03 severability, providing for repeal of all ordinances in

10:05:05 conflict, providing an effective date.

10:05:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Capin.

10:05:10 Then we'll take up item 62.

10:05:13 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.

10:05:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move item 62.

10:05:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilwoman Mulhern on

10:05:21 62.

10:05:22 All in favor?

10:05:23 Opposes?

10:05:24 We'll take up our 10:00 items at this time.

10:05:26 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: City clerk.

10:05:42 Council, this is regarding the council appointment for

10:05:45 the Barrio Latino commission.

10:05:49 We have three vacancies and two applicants.




10:05:54 If you would like to hear from them, one position we do

10:06:10 have one position for resident of Ybor City historic

10:06:13 district.

10:06:14 That's Fran Costentino followed by Ybor City applicant

10:06:20 Carol west.

10:06:21 >> My name is Fran Costentino, served on the Barrio for

10:06:42 two terms already.

10:06:49 We have a monument business in Ybor City back in the

10:06:51 years.

10:06:52 My cousin Joey is still doing that.

10:06:54 Moved off Bayshore to Ybor City to try to improve the

10:06:58 area.

10:06:59 We were very successful in moving the historic

10:07:04 boundaries from 22nd, to Columbia restaurant to

10:07:09 26th street.

10:07:11 I feel I'm qualified that I know enough about Ybor

10:07:13 City, and my heart is in the right place to keep our

10:07:19 historic area in order.

10:07:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Next speaker.

10:07:28 Is that it?

10:07:32 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: Mr. West is not here.

10:07:34 It just one applicant for each position.




10:07:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move unanimous approval.

10:07:42 >> Second.

10:07:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's moved and seconded by Councilwoman

10:07:50 Capin.

10:07:51 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

10:07:53 Opposes?

10:07:54 Okay.

10:07:54 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: Item number 74.

10:08:01 We have one applicant also for the enterprise zone,

10:08:05 development agency.

10:08:07 Mr. Clinton Robinson.

10:08:09 >> Happy holidays, Merry Christmas, happy new year if I

10:08:21 don't see you again before the new year.

10:08:22 I'm Quincy Robinson, an applicant for the enterprise

10:08:25 zone.

10:08:26 I believe I would make a great contribution to the zone

10:08:32 living within the City of Tampa.

10:08:33 And I serve.

10:08:46 One of the things they look for is employment.

10:08:50 One of the things I would like to see the enterprise

10:08:52 zone do is actually reach out and work to the community

10:08:54 itself to make sure that the communities that they




10:08:58 impact, that they employ those neighbors and citizens.

10:09:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close and move unanimous

10:09:09 approval.

10:09:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

10:09:11 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

10:09:13 Opposes?

10:09:16 Thank you.

10:09:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: See how democratic we are?

10:09:21 [ Laughter ]

10:09:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 75.

10:09:26 >>JULIA COLE: City of Tampa legal department.

10:09:34 I am presenting to you an ordinance regarding the

10:09:39 notice procedures.

10:09:40 I have previously discussed these procedures with

10:09:43 council where we had a workshop back in September and I

10:09:45 had discussed the changes, so I am not going to spend

10:09:48 too much time on it.

10:09:49 But I will -- and you did hear some comments today, and

10:09:53 yes, it is a rather long ordinance because it goes into

10:09:56 the idea that our notice provisions have been scattered

10:09:59 throughout our code, and by consolidating them, it took

10:10:03 me 32 pages to do that, which I think is a positive




10:10:06 thing, and I appreciate that there is some support for

10:10:08 the consolidation portion of this.

10:10:12 As it relates to the posted notice issue which Mr.

10:10:14 Grandoff did raise, that was a direct motion of City

10:10:20 Council to look at providing an opportunity for

10:10:22 continuing notice requirements.

10:10:25 I do think that Mr. Grandoff raises somebody fair

10:10:28 points regarding that, enforcement of that issue, in

10:10:32 trying to draft this.

10:10:34 It's something that is very difficult to do because

10:10:39 while it is easy to put in a code provision which

10:10:42 requires a sign to be posted for 30 days, these are

10:10:48 cardboard signs.

10:10:49 They can blow down, rain can come and take them down,

10:10:55 folks can come and take them down.

10:10:57 It was difficult to draft that provision.

10:10:59 If City Council given the comments today by Mr.

10:11:03 Grandoff and Mr. Michelini, understands that there is

10:11:07 going to be some difficulty, certainly that is a

10:11:09 provision that we can remove, and we can remove that

10:11:12 actually between first and second reading, if that is

10:11:15 the will of council, and that is something that I can




10:11:19 go ahead and redraft fairly easily.

10:11:21 I know that Mr. Grandoff had mentioned that he wanted

10:11:23 some additional time to review this, and certainly if

10:11:26 council would like to continue it for that purpose,

10:11:28 that would be up to council.

10:11:30 Another option would be to go ahead and hear this on

10:11:32 first reading today with a change of the posted notice.

10:11:36 Mr. Grandoff raises some issues that we think need to

10:11:39 be changed.

10:11:40 We can make those changes and bring this back to you

10:11:42 for first reading in January.

10:11:44 And I would just go ahead and switch this out to first

10:11:46 reading.

10:11:47 And because certainly Michael and all of this, Michael

10:11:50 with any of the changes that come from the city

10:11:52 attorney's office, especially procedural changes, isn't

10:11:55 to make things harder for folks.

10:11:57 And if it does, I will be the first one to recommend

10:11:59 that change.

10:12:00 What it is attempting to do is actually create some

10:12:03 consistency in our procedures, and make them readily

10:12:06 understandable for anybody coming through this process,




10:12:09 and that is always going to be my goal whenever I bring

10:12:11 forward a procedural change.

10:12:13 So certainly like I said, if it is council's will to go

10:12:18 ahead and continue it, that is fine as well.

10:12:20 But the other option is to go ahead and hear this on

10:12:22 first reading, if council would like to move the posted

10:12:28 notice provision we can do that.

10:12:30 But I will continue to work with Mr. Grandoff or

10:12:32 anybody else who wants to work with me on these

10:12:34 changes.

10:12:35 And if there is a change that should be made to make

10:12:37 this better code, I will be the first one to make it.

10:12:40 So I would just request in at least move forward with

10:12:47 some changes to our notice code because I do think

10:12:49 there's some benefits.

10:12:50 >>MARY MULHERN: I would be fine with removing the sign

10:12:58 changes.

10:12:59 But I do feel like -- my question for you is about the

10:13:02 supplemental notice.

10:13:04 That's a pretty long provision.

10:13:05 It starts on page 31.

10:13:07 And I don't know what his questions are about that.




10:13:13 So is that something we can change between first and

10:13:17 second reading?

10:13:18 >> We will be able to make those changes between first

10:13:20 and second reading.

10:13:23 Your options are to go ahead and continue it to the

10:13:25 first meeting in January.

10:13:26 I can continue to work with Mr. Grandoff or anybody

10:13:29 else.

10:13:31 My door is always open.

10:13:32 Anybody who knows me knows that, for any changes or

10:13:35 discussions, or you can I can work with Mr. Grandoff,

10:13:40 and if there are any changes we will just have to

10:13:43 switch second reading in January into first reading.

10:13:48 Really whatever the pleasure of council is on that.

10:13:49 >>MARY MULHERN: I would rather continue it and have

10:13:54 the time to read this and have been you discuss it with

10:13:56 them.

10:13:56 And that way you can come back with the recommendations

10:14:00 to us before we pass it.

10:14:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: My understanding in meeting with Mr.

10:14:06 Fletcher on this item that there was concern about the

10:14:08 notice provision, the continuous notice is a part that




10:14:12 hi think everybody -- Mr. Grandoff, do you have more

10:14:15 concern other than the notice?

10:14:18 My understanding in meeting with Mr. Fletcher, we

10:14:21 discussed it, and I said, you know, to have you post a

10:14:26 notice, because someone can come take it down.

10:14:28 And you are holding the applicant hostage pretty much

10:14:32 to say you have got to put it up every day, and so you

10:14:42 said.

10:14:44 >>> in fact that issue did come up, and I already

10:14:47 prepared an ordinance ton remove that because I think

10:14:49 there's a legitimate question but I think that does

10:14:52 need to come as a motion before City Council because

10:14:54 that is something that came before City Council, and I

10:14:56 do think that Mr. Michelini and some other folks I

10:14:59 heard who raised that posted notice issue raise a

10:15:08 legitimate concern and we can revise that by removing

10:15:12 the language that was previously put in the ordinance.

10:15:17 But I also don't want there to be a sense that I would

10:15:20 be unwilling to work with folks during any period of

10:15:22 time.

10:15:23 So I am absolutely willing.

10:15:25 And that's why I suggested either go ahead and read




10:15:27 this on first reading.

10:15:28 I can continue to work with Mr. Grandoff and anybody

10:15:31 else and we can make changes or we can just continue

10:15:33 it.

10:15:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Grandoff?

10:15:39 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Mr. Chairman, Ms. Cole is an excellent

10:15:42 drafter of legal documents, superb, and I want you to

10:15:46 know that from that from the get-go.

10:15:53 And I think when I am trying to give notice all I want

10:15:55 to do is map out the supplemental notice, see how it

10:15:58 works, make sure there's no pothole that we are not

10:16:00 seeing, and certainly appreciate someone looking at

10:16:04 something as intensely as she may have.

10:16:08 I think mighty close and I can come right back in

10:16:11 January and we are not going to have any problems.

10:16:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, why it always takes attorneys

10:16:21 and lawyers a long time top say yes, continue it for 30

10:16:25 days.

10:16:26 [ Laughter ]

10:16:27 >>JULIA COLE: It will be January 5th which we will

10:16:30 do second reading anyway.

10:16:31 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I'm not an attorney.




10:16:39 I just say continue it.

10:16:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: One is hourly rate.

10:16:43 That's number one.

10:16:44 Number two, this has already been changed.

10:16:46 This is on page 33.

10:16:48 I read it last night, about halfway on the right-hand

10:16:50 side of the paragraph.

10:16:52 And it was also missing something that was there

10:16:55 before, what has two or three individuals as a unit.

10:17:00 Am I correct?

10:17:01 Well, that's not there now.

10:17:03 It's already been changed.

10:17:04 The first reading.

10:17:07 >>JULIA COLE: And I did not discover that change as

10:17:11 well.

10:17:11 I got caught.

10:17:12 One of the other issues that was raised when I was

10:17:15 discussing this with some folks, and I think was a

10:17:17 legitimate question, was when we created, participate

10:17:21 in organization provision that it had other

10:17:24 organizations other than the neighborhood organization,

10:17:27 have an opportunity to also get their notice, we had




10:17:32 just put in three, that if you organize three people.

10:17:37 There was some concern that that might be overly broad.

10:17:40 I did some research on how condo associations become

10:17:43 incorporated and how other neighborhood become

10:17:45 incorporated.

10:17:46 So I went ahead and just had them be an incorporated

10:17:50 entity with the department of state, and I think it

10:17:52 will be simpler to enforce that way.

10:17:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I guess of the three, one said yes,

10:17:57 one said no, the third one abstained.

10:18:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

10:18:02 Is there a second?

10:18:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.

10:18:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded to continue this

10:18:06 for 30 days.

10:18:09 >>> January 6th.

10:18:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: January 6th?

10:18:12 All right.

10:18:12 All in favor say Aye.

10:18:14 Opposes?

10:18:15 It's been continued to January 6th.

10:18:19 10:00.




10:18:25 Item 76.

10:18:26 >> Good morning.

10:18:37 Kimberley Crum, director of human resources.

10:18:40 And I am here this morning to address item number 76.

10:18:43 The effort to provide information on the prosperity

10:18:47 campaign to our city employees.

10:18:49 The pros territory campaign at its core is designed to

10:18:53 provide information to be citizens on up to $5600 each

10:18:56 year in earned income tax credit, and also free tax

10:19:00 preparation services that are available in the

10:19:02 community.

10:19:03 And that's typically directed at families with an

10:19:05 income of less than $50,000.

10:19:07 And particularly in these difficult economic times,

10:19:10 this is a very worthy effort.

10:19:12 And so at council's request, I have met with Ellen

10:19:16 stocker and Carol Moore of the United Way of Tampa Bay

10:19:19 to coordinate the prosperity campaign as the lead

10:19:23 agency of this year again.

10:19:24 And we are working together on messaging for our city

10:19:27 employees that will go out over our E-news, E-mail

10:19:30 system, so employees will have information on the




10:19:32 prosperity campaign as well as the location, the dates

10:19:36 and times of operation of the free tax preparation

10:19:40 sites.

10:19:42 In addition, we are also developing a schedule that

10:19:44 will enable them to host employee meetings at a variety

10:19:49 of targeted city locations.

10:19:53 We are lag for rolling this out after the first of the

10:19:55 year so that it comes in plenty of time before they

10:19:57 receive their W-2 information and begin working on

10:20:01 their taxes.

10:20:07 >>CURTIS STOKES: Ms. Crum, thank you very much for

10:20:09 providing an opportunity.

10:20:10 Currently 44% of city employees earn under $50,000 a

10:20:13 year in income so this will provide an opportunity for

10:20:17 our employees to take advantage of the area income tax

10:20:20 opportunity that exists by the federal government and

10:20:23 give them the ability to get at least $5600 in earning

10:20:27 tax credit on their tax return.

10:20:29 So thank you very much, Ms. Crum.

10:20:32 And I see employees who earn less than $50,000 really

10:20:35 appreciate it when they receive their income tax check.

10:20:38 Thank you very much.




10:20:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me ask an question.

10:20:41 Do we know how many of the employees participate?

10:20:43 I think this is going to about the fourth year?

10:20:47 >> At least, yes.

10:20:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do we know what percentage participate?

10:20:51 Do we have any?

10:20:53 >> We don't have any statistics on how many of our

10:20:55 employees would participate in the earned income tax

10:20:57 credit.

10:20:58 However, as we were talking earlier offline about this,

10:21:02 I will be asking the United Way if they have a way of

10:21:06 capturing when our city employees have their tax

10:21:09 returns filed just so we have a number of tax returns

10:21:11 that are filed through the program of our city

10:21:15 employees.

10:21:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Employees that take advantage of this

10:21:19 program.

10:21:20 Okay.

10:21:20 >> Happy holiday.

10:21:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much.

10:21:25 Item 77.

10:21:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, that was a request to




10:21:33 have a resolution brought back to you today received by

10:21:43 council members for the appointment to the citizens

10:21:46 budget and finance advisory committee.

10:21:48 I am distributing for you that resolution, giving the

10:21:52 original to the clerk, and again for those council

10:21:54 members who have not made appointments, please feel

10:21:59 free to bring that to my attention when you do have an

10:22:03 appointee that you would like to have appointed and I

10:22:05 will bring the resolution back to council to add those

10:22:07 names to the list.

10:22:08 As it is, I just ask for you to pass the resolution and

10:22:13 move for approval.

10:22:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.

10:22:18 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Second.

10:22:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

10:22:20 Opposes?

10:22:24 We aren't to 10:30 yet.

10:22:38 We'll take up new business.

10:22:39 We have about five minutes before 10:30 so we'll take

10:22:42 up new business.

10:22:43 Councilman Stokes, do you have anything?

10:23:12 >>CURTIS STOKES: This will probably take the entire




10:23:14 five minutes.

10:24:13 >>CURTIS STOKES: I would like to thank you for your

10:24:14 assistance.

10:24:19 Thank you very much.

10:24:20 [ Applause ]

10:24:20 >>MARY MULHERN: I would like to provide request a

10:24:34 staff report providing details of the installation of

10:24:36 the new parking payment system.

10:24:38 That caused the removal of three loading zones on the

10:24:41 500 block of Tampa street, and whatever other areas in

10:24:46 the city had a similar experience.

10:24:49 I would also like to add to that, ask the parking

10:24:57 department to report on why we don't have the posted

10:24:59 times on the new parking meters.

10:25:03 Parking downtown is free after, I think, 5 or 6 p.m.

10:26:46 >>GWEN MILLER: I would like to present a commendation

10:26:48 to Teresa Manuel.

10:26:50 In 1948 she was the United States Olympic track team,

10:26:53 was a member of that team, did the 80-meter hurdles,

10:27:00 she was coaching in the Hillsborough County school

10:27:04 system, coach of the year of Hillsborough County,

10:27:07 Florida, coach of the year State of Florida in 1976 and




10:27:10 she did many other things in the City of Tampa.

10:27:15 She's also in the Hall of Fame of Olympics.

10:27:19 She's going to be celebrating her 85th birthday.

10:27:22 I would like to present her a commendation.

10:27:24 >> Second.

10:27:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

10:27:29 Opposes?

10:27:30 >> I will be presenting to her at her birthday party.

10:27:32 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I have a number of things I want

10:27:38 to bring up.

10:27:39 I have spoken to Chip Fletcher about this, and that is

10:27:43 moving our city elections that are held in March, to

10:27:47 have them in November at the general election time.

10:27:50 It would be a savings of about $700,000.

10:27:54 That's what we pay to have those special elections.

10:27:56 And especially after the election that we just

10:27:59 Hillsborough, people are tired, and they are not going

10:28:03 to vote.

10:28:03 People are not going to come out.

10:28:05 And this would happen in the 2015 election, and

10:28:09 evidently the positions that are going to be elected

10:28:13 would have to be shortened by about five months.




10:28:20 I would like legal to come back with what's the

10:28:23 proposition, what can we do for that?

10:28:25 >> was there a second to the motion?

10:28:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I apologize for being out.

10:28:38 I had to do other city business.

10:28:40 But I only caught the tail end about moving the

10:28:43 election somewhere?

10:28:44 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Moving the election from Martha

10:28:46 we normally have our elections to the general election

10:28:49 time in November, a savings of $700,000.

10:28:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: This was done in 1978 or '77,

10:29:03 somewhere through there when it changed over to the '80

10:29:06 election or '81, whatever year it was.

10:29:11 It passed council at that time 4 to 3 and moved it from

10:29:14 the regular cycle to a March cycle, and the reason that

10:29:18 was given was that the elections were having too much

10:29:25 clutter, and the city would not have gotten the results

10:29:30 of the voters to participate in the city election

10:29:36 because there was national, state, federal, judicial,

10:29:43 county, there was so many elections going on and so

10:29:45 many people voting, signs were so rampant, and you add

10:29:51 our signs to it, now you have a sign clutter, and again




10:29:55 nobody follows the law, because it will pick up too

10:29:58 many signs.

10:29:59 They do pick up some, I'll say that.

10:30:03 But it changed 4 to 3.

10:30:07 I was one of the three who voted against changing.

10:30:13 And the problem with an election, national elections

10:30:17 and state elections usually are held not on mano to

10:30:23 mano or handshake to handshake but on the media, a lot

10:30:27 of money, a lot of TV adds ads, and a lot of those

10:30:32 things that usually elections are not like that other

10:30:33 than maybe the mayoral elections where you spend a lot

10:30:39 of money.

10:30:40 So it will be harder to get individuals who have little

10:30:44 resources or little assets to money where they can

10:30:50 gather a campaign than to have a city election in

10:30:55 March.

10:30:56 It would take some time for me just to vote today

10:31:00 without thinking about it like we did way back then for

10:31:05 a long period of time.

10:31:06 I'm just not prepared to vote on that today because it

10:31:09 was just brought to the floor now.

10:31:12 So I can't support the motion as it stands now, because




10:31:17 I haven't read through a whole item.

10:31:20 I don't know what the intent is.

10:31:21 I don't know the reason.

10:31:25 Yes, it saves $700,000.

10:31:28 Maybe it's 2 million it saves.

10:31:31 But it also doesn't give the opportunities to the

10:31:33 people who want to seek office, who have little money

10:31:36 to spend where they can go knocking on doors and be

10:31:42 seven seats and a mayor's, eight, five or six in each

10:31:49 seat, so maybe you have 50 people seeking office.

10:31:52 So you add those 50 people to the couple of hundred,

10:31:59 you don't even recognize.

10:32:00 You yourself don't even know because there's so many

10:32:04 things going on.

10:32:05 So there's got to be more detailed explanation before I

10:32:09 vote.

10:32:10 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

10:32:11 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, to have legal come

10:32:16 back.

10:32:16 I ask we have a staff report on this in order to come

10:32:20 up with some figures to see what type of vote was taken

10:32:26 at the last couple of elections because I heard




10:32:28 something about 18% of the people in the northern part

10:32:31 of my district voted, and that's not good.

10:32:34 >>MARY MULHERN: I think it might be a good idea to --

10:32:40 well, we may not -- none of us may be here after March

10:32:46 1st.

10:32:46 But when the years of the mayoral election people,

10:32:50 people do get and vote more, I think the turnout

10:32:55 certainly is higher during the regular November

10:32:58 elections.

10:32:59 But I think it merits a lot of discussion and research,

10:33:06 because as Mr. Miranda was saying, you get -- the

10:33:11 drawback is not as many people vote, if it's an

10:33:14 off-year election or off-cycle election.

10:33:17 But the good part is that people actually pay attention

10:33:21 because they are not totally focused on the bigger

10:33:23 races.

10:33:25 So it's kind of -- it's a mixed bag.

10:33:29 So I think we should have a discussion about it.

10:33:35 I'll second your motion.

10:33:38 I don't know if we should have a staff report or

10:33:40 workshop.

10:33:42 A workshop might be better because maybe we could get




10:33:46 some elections, political scientists or somebody to

10:33:50 come in and make some recommendations.

10:33:51 >> Maybe Susan MacManus will be off that day and

10:33:55 she can come here.

10:33:56 Okay.

10:33:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, your January workshop is

10:34:00 pretty booked and your February workshop only has two

10:34:03 items, one at 9:00 and one at 9:30.

10:34:07 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Can we have it in February,

10:34:13 Mr. Chairman?

10:34:15 >> Whatever council votes.

10:34:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: February 24th at 10:00 then?

10:34:19 Is that your motion?

10:34:21 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Right.

10:34:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Didn't we discuss the election two

10:34:30 years ago?

10:34:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes, we did.

10:34:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's what I thought.

10:34:32 And we voted.

10:34:37 So there's a motion on the floor.

10:34:40 Motion and second.

10:34:41 I won't be supporting the motion.




10:34:42 All in favor?

10:34:43 Opposes?

10:34:44 >>THE CLERK: The motion failed with Miller, Stokes,

10:34:49 and Miranda voting no.

10:34:51 >> I vote yes.

10:34:56 >> It's 3-3.

10:34:58 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: It's 3-3 so it's a tie vote.

10:35:13 Maybe when Ms. Capin comes back.

10:35:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: On the new business, I want a

10:35:19 commendation to Haines, Blake high school, for Blake,

10:35:26 one of the eight schools that's an "A" school now.

10:35:30 I will make that commendation in January.

10:35:33 >>CURTIS STOKES: Mr. Chairman --

10:35:41 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I didn't finish.

10:35:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Oh, I'm sorry.

10:35:45 I beg your pardon.

10:35:45 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I had one more thing.

10:35:47 >>MARY MULHERN: I seconded your motion.

10:35:51 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

10:35:52 All in favor?

10:35:59 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Sunday afternoon there was a

10:36:00 woman whose car went off the road and her car was




10:36:04 submerged in a lake.

10:36:05 I don't have the name of the two people that rescued

10:36:07 her.

10:36:08 They broke into the back window of the car and got her

10:36:11 out, an 18-year-old gentleman and a 26.

10:36:15 They both had the same last name.

10:36:17 I'm trying to find out their names.

10:36:20 And I wanted to give them a commendation, because it

10:36:22 was really a heroic act to do what they did.

10:36:30 These two guys jumped in and rescued this woman.

10:36:35 So I would like to give them a commendation as soon as

10:36:38 I get their names, and have I have the police

10:36:41 department working on bringing those names to me.

10:36:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

10:36:45 All those in favor signify by saying Aye.

10:36:48 Opposes?

10:36:49 >>GWEN MILLER: You mentioned the "A" schools.

10:36:55 Blake and some other school made an "A."

10:37:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I know Blake was on that.

10:37:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Those are high schools.

10:37:22 So we'll just find the names of the other high schools.

10:37:27 Thank you, could Councilwoman.




10:37:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I don't know -- are you done, Mr.

10:37:37 Caetano?

10:37:40 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Well, now that Ms. Capin is back.

10:37:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Well, you can't do that until we go

10:37:46 from the left side to the right side.

10:37:48 She has to study the issue before we vote.

10:37:53 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Thank you, Mr. Miranda.

10:37:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Purchase very welcome, Ms. Capin.

10:37:56 I believe the plant high school volleyball girls won

10:38:00 their fifth state championship in basketball and we

10:38:02 would like to honor them upon their notification, the

10:38:05 date that they would like to have, and have council

10:38:07 give them a commendation.

10:38:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

10:38:12 All in favor?

10:38:13 Opposes?

10:38:14 Okay.

10:38:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Don't leave.

10:38:17 Mr. City attorney, don't leave.

10:38:18 The second one is I believe you have been discussing

10:38:22 with the chair and maybe other council members

10:38:24 regarding the panel handling ordinance, and we should




10:38:38 have some idea of the traffic counts on certain days,

10:38:40 and we could even add that to the component.

10:38:45 And since you are the legal adviser to all council

10:38:49 members along with our own staff attorney, we don't

10:38:55 talk about others and you don't tell us what you talked

10:38:57 to them about.

10:39:01 So if you can add with the chair to low-peak hours, I

10:39:10 think this will be the first step into solving some of

10:39:13 these problems.

10:39:13 Is it going to solve it all?

10:39:15 No.

10:39:15 But it will certainly adhere to what the courts have

10:39:19 done to follow the intent of the law, but also realize

10:39:22 that they are legitimate reasons for organizations to

10:39:26 be there, such as Shriners, such as the boot drive for

10:39:33 the firefighters, and distribution of media.

10:39:37 I can also say that if I remember the current law says

10:39:40 that you can do this on the right-of-way but not on the

10:39:44 street.

10:39:45 And we are not adhering to that because I don't know,

10:39:50 maybe there have been arrests on the street, but they

10:39:53 are walking on the street, and to my knowledge there's




10:39:56 been no arrests.

10:39:57 So we do have a law in place now.

10:39:59 I don't know if there has been arrests, but I don't

10:40:01 know that.

10:40:02 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: There have been charges.

10:40:06 There have been citations.

10:40:08 There has been enforcement.

10:40:09 But the law enforcement officers can't be everywhere.

10:40:12 And the folks are not leaving the travel area when the

10:40:19 light changes and we do have issues in that regard as

10:40:21 you indicated.

10:40:22 Typically there's a warning provided first, and I think

10:40:25 that's what the vast majority of the encounters are.

10:40:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I understand.

10:40:29 So when you were the chair regarding that, if you can

10:40:33 incorporate some of these ideas, maybe we can come up

10:40:36 with something, and then later on, if it doesn't work,

10:40:39 we can look at something else.

10:40:41 But I appreciate what you have done, and what the

10:40:45 efforts have been to solve this problem.

10:40:47 It seems real simple.

10:40:48 But if you look into it, or maybe the legislature can




10:40:53 change this whole thing and give us back the rights

10:40:55 that we had before, we wouldn't have no problem.

10:40:57 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Thank you.

10:41:00 And just so we are clear, the traffic issue is based on

10:41:03 empirical evidence, based on traffic counts, if there's

10:41:06 a time of lower traffic, then we have the ability to

10:41:12 actually to have different dates, different times

10:41:16 through the different ways, and that's what we'll look

10:41:18 into for you.

10:41:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

10:41:23 I have got seven more but I will yield to next year.

10:41:27 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I think I'm done.

10:41:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do you want to take up the issue on the

10:41:33 3-3 tie?

10:41:35 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: We do that now according to our

10:41:37 rules?

10:41:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, it's up to council by

10:41:43 unanimous.

10:41:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Notice he said unanimous.

10:41:52 >>YVONNE CAPIN: On the panhandling, I agree with

10:41:55 councilman Miranda, and to be that end, I think sent a

10:42:00 memo out on November 4th of this year asking about




10:42:06 the city's right to limit activities during certain

10:42:10 times, and also discussed it with Chip Fletcher on the

10:42:14 study of traffic flow.

10:42:16 I think that the could be a very good answer to our

10:42:22 situation here in the city.

10:42:24 Thank you.

10:42:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I think on the public

10:42:33 perception, City Council has been working on the issue

10:42:36 since it has come up, it's not that we are not doing

10:42:38 nothing, but from a legal standpoint, again it has to

10:42:42 be legally defensible.

10:42:43 It has to be legally defensible.

10:42:46 We don't want to be spending money that we don't have,

10:42:50 because it will be challenged.

10:42:51 So, therefore, it's important for us to make sure it's

10:42:54 legally defensible.

10:42:55 Secondly, as you heard today, a number of us have been

10:42:59 meeting with Mr. Fletcher, and we have been talking

10:43:01 about the arterial roads, and putting a ban on those

10:43:05 and so forth.

10:43:06 He and I have had several meetings of that.

10:43:08 Of course we heard other council talking about the time




10:43:13 issue, and the lower traffic.

10:43:15 So, Mr. Fletcher, with that I'm sure that you will be

10:43:19 coming back to us, and with something in those regards.

10:43:23 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Yes.

10:43:26 And we are continuing to meet with the county, and as

10:43:29 council previously instructed, and I believe our next

10:43:33 meeting is in mid January, so we are all still working

10:43:35 with the county in that regard as well.

10:43:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Again for the public, know the council

10:43:42 is working with city attorney, having meetings,

10:43:45 dialogue, as well as talking to other municipalities

10:43:48 regarding this whole issue of the panhandling, I guess.

10:43:51 >>MARY MULHERN: Since you are here, we are all adding

10:43:57 on more questions for you.

10:43:58 But I'm not sure, Mr. Kass was saying that the county

10:44:02 has a ban that --

10:44:08 >> The county has a ban on county roads.

10:44:10 That doesn't apply within the city because we have an

10:44:13 ordinance on the topic.

10:44:17 There is also some enforcement by the Sheriff's

10:44:19 Department on state roads as the agent for the D.O.T.

10:44:26 So there is practically -- there should be a ban on all




10:44:30 roads in the county that are not neighborhood roads.

10:44:31 >>MARY MULHERN: So my question -- and I think this

10:44:35 might be covered and the question of councilman Capin

10:44:38 and Miranda, but I want to make sure, there are laws on

10:44:43 the books that do prohibit this, and some roads and

10:44:48 streets.

10:44:49 Are those being enforced?

10:44:53 So that's part of, I think, the report, because we want

10:44:58 to find a solution if we can, or make it better.

10:45:03 I think there's a solution to poor people panhandling,

10:45:12 and I think we need to pass an ordinance and that will

10:45:14 solve it.

10:45:14 I think the public needs to know when ordinances are in

10:45:17 place.

10:45:17 Are they effective?

10:45:19 As well as the cost of enforcement.

10:45:22 >> If I may, Mr. Chairman.

10:45:25 I think to address your question.

10:45:28 As was indicated there's a lot of legal complexity

10:45:30 because there are some state laws on this topic that

10:45:32 they have been invalidated because of the impact on the

10:45:34 first amendment and free speech.




10:45:37 As part of this working group with the county, we have

10:45:39 been meeting with St. Petersburg to look at how

10:45:42 effective their ordinance has been, and how it's been

10:45:45 implemented and what other schools they have.

10:45:48 And so we would be happy to report back on what we

10:45:52 learned there.

10:45:54 And the question of enforcement, we do have bad actors

10:46:00 out there, but the experiences by and large, people

10:46:02 want to follow what the rules are.

10:46:03 And so the volume that you have tends to decrease

10:46:08 significantly, provided that they understand clearly

10:46:10 what the rules are.

10:46:23 >>CURTIS STOKES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

10:46:27 We can have the finance department to look at different

10:46:30 ways for resources, police department, fire department,

10:46:36 in doing more.

10:46:37 If we can look at different ways to costs of responding

10:46:42 to crashes and accidents and fire department, to shift

10:46:52 some of those costs to someone else, or to the

10:46:55 insurance companies that they can cover these items,

10:46:58 so.

10:47:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Fletcher may want to speak to that




10:47:06 because that is under the purview of the

10:47:07 administration.

10:47:07 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to

10:47:11 look at that.

10:47:12 There are significant legal constraints, and there are

10:47:15 also some limited ordinances in place regarding that

10:47:20 presently.

10:47:21 But as there is a movement by many municipalities to

10:47:26 pass those costs onto travelers on the interstates

10:47:29 particularly, there was some state legislative

10:47:31 restriction on that.

10:47:32 So we would be happy to look at it, see what our scope

10:47:35 of authority is, and work with the finance department

10:47:36 to report back.

10:47:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I seem to have a recollection that

10:47:42 Chief Jones awhile back might have discussed that sort

10:47:44 of proposal.

10:47:45 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: I believe Chief Jones did.

10:47:49 I believe we put a limited assessment in place.

10:47:53 Then we were also involved in the legislative process

10:47:55 that happened after that, where there was a state

10:47:58 statute enacted that limited our authority, and




10:48:04 standing here before you today I cannot remember

10:48:06 exactly what the final result of that statute was and

10:48:08 how our authority was limited.

10:48:15 >>CURTIS STOKES: I police and fire department are

10:48:21 called to crashes especially for texting, that if we

10:48:25 are able to pass a fee on for that service.

10:48:27 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: I would be happy to look at that.

10:48:32 And there's also some other mechanisms I am aware of

10:48:36 that we can look at as well.

10:48:38 I will be happy to look at that.

10:48:41 >>CURTIS STOKES: Is January enough time, Chip?

10:48:44 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: The second meeting in January

10:48:45 would be enough time.

10:48:47 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Second.

10:48:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: January meeting, the 20th.

10:48:52 Moved and seconded.

10:48:53 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

10:48:55 Opposes?

10:48:55 Okay.

10:48:55 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Westbound we bring that item up

10:49:01 that we had a 3-3 tie on with the elections of the City

10:49:05 of Tampa?




10:49:06 >> You can bring it up, yes.

10:49:07 I have been trying to bring it up for the past ten

10:49:10 minutes.

10:49:11 It's getting knocked around, you know.

10:49:13 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I would like to make a motion we

10:49:18 have a workshop --

10:49:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, there's a motion on the floor.

10:49:21 What is the motion?

10:49:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The motion that was made, if I can

10:49:27 have that, madam clerk, notation says there was a

10:49:30 motion to have a work shown on February 24th at

10:49:32 10 a.m. for a discussion moving City Council elections

10:49:38 from March to November.

10:49:39 That motion per council's rules failed on a 3-3 tie.

10:49:43 So there is no motion on the floor.

10:49:45 If it's council's consent to be hear it again, to

10:49:49 reconsider, because obviously -- unless there is a

10:49:56 motion for somebody on the prevailing side, to waive

10:49:58 the rules.

10:49:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It was a 3-3 tie.

10:50:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY:

10:50:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Normally you don't take something up




10:50:10 at the same meeting unless there's consent to waive the

10:50:13 rules.

10:50:13 >> So moved.

10:50:14 >> Second.

10:50:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And the motion to waive the rules, and

10:50:17 it has been to be unanimous to waive the rules.

10:50:19 Is that right?

10:50:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: This is where the power comes in.

10:50:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's a motion to waive the rules.

10:50:29 All in favor, signify.

10:50:34 Opposes, nay.

10:50:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Any City Council member with an item

10:50:42 that does not pass has the opportunity to bring it back

10:50:44 at a subsequent meeting.

10:50:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It can come back at our next meeting.

10:50:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I voted nay, because in all fairness

10:50:54 to council member Capin, she was out of the room doing

10:50:57 city business and I don't want to put her in the

10:51:00 response she didn't have the whole context of the whole

10:51:03 conversation to give her a couple of weeks to

10:51:05 understand, not that she doesn't understand now, but

10:51:07 she wasn't hear for the text of the conversation.




10:51:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I voted no because we dealt with it two

10:51:12 years ago we dealt with it, and we voted then.

10:51:15 Okay.

10:51:15 >>MARY MULHERN: I voted yes because I always think

10:51:20 it's worth investigating and discussing.

10:51:22 But after being reminded that we already had this, I

10:51:26 might change my vote the next time.

10:51:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

10:51:32 Let's pick up item 78.

10:51:33 Item 78.

10:51:39 78 and 79.

10:51:40 >> Move to open.

10:51:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

10:51:45 Opposes?

10:51:45 Okay.

10:51:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Item 78 is a non-quasi-judicial

10:51:53 proceeding.

10:51:54 Streetlighting assessment.

10:51:55 Is there any presentation that needs to be made?

10:51:57 >> No presentation?

10:51:59 We just read the resolution?

10:52:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: My suggestion is you open it to




10:52:02 citizen comment.

10:52:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone from the public wish to address

10:52:05 council on item 78?

10:52:06 Anyone from the public?

10:52:07 Okay.

10:52:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.

10:52:10 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Second.

10:52:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

10:52:12 Okay.

10:52:13 >> Move the resolution.

10:52:21 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Second.

10:52:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

10:52:23 Opposes?

10:52:24 Item 78, special assessment for streetlighting in the

10:52:26 Westshore area

10:52:31 Item 79.

10:52:32 This is designation of a brownfield.

10:52:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Did you close the public hearing

10:52:42 before taking a vote?

10:52:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes, we did.

10:52:44 I closed it.

10:52:45 >> My name is Debby Ginster and I'm the city attorney




10:52:52 assigned to assist with the brownfield program here

10:52:55 with the city.

10:52:56 And this is the second and final public hearing for a

10:52:59 proposed brown field designation in the north Ybor

10:53:03 channel area, and this proposed site is approximately

10:53:08 25.7 acres located near the intersection of Channelside

10:53:12 drive and Adamo Drive located within the City of

10:53:14 Tampa's enterprise zone, and the property is located

10:53:19 within the City of Tampa community development area.

10:53:25 It contains approximately 23 parcels of property, 19

10:53:27 are privately owned, and 4 are currently owned by the

10:53:31 City of Tampa.

10:53:32 And the details of the proposed brown field

10:53:35 designation, a staff report in north Ybor brownfield,

10:53:42 area of designation which is on file.

10:53:55 Public notice requirement recommendations the City

10:53:58 Council, the public hearing that you approve the

10:54:02 resolution to designation this property as a brownfield

10:54:07 area, and this will allow the private property owner to

10:54:10 remediate and redevelop this site.

10:54:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Just one question.

10:54:16 Understood the brownfield, economic development,




10:54:23 provide jobs.

10:54:24 I think a requirement of minimum of ten jobs, is that

10:54:29 accurate?

10:54:30 >> It's now five full-time jobs.

10:54:34 But once the area is designated, applicants are also

10:54:37 allowed to petition for there's a brown field program

10:54:47 for employees for doing so which is very beneficial to

10:54:54 the redevelopment of the site.

10:54:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I recall it because this is one of my

10:55:00 first initiatives as a county commissioner in 1996 as I

10:55:04 recall, but it has been amended now to 5.

10:55:07 It was 10.

10:55:08 So it's 5.

10:55:10 But thank you very much.

10:55:12 Okay.

10:55:14 Anyone from the public wish to address council on this

10:55:16 item, item 79?

10:55:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.

10:55:20 >>CURTIS STOKES: Second.

10:55:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

10:55:22 Okay.

10:55:23 Council?




10:55:25 Move the resolution.

10:55:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.

10:55:27 >> Second.

10:55:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilwoman Capin.

10:55:31 All in favor?

10:55:33 Opposes?

10:55:34 Okay.

10:55:37 If you are going to be speaking and have not been

10:55:39 sworn, stand to be sworn and we need to open all the

10:55:45 remaining items.

10:55:48 Go ahead, clerk.

10:55:48 (Oath administered by Clerk)

10:55:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move items 80 through 88.

10:56:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Number 80, we have to continue that

10:56:07 one.

10:56:07 If we can get a motion to continue.

10:56:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: To March 17, 2011 at 10:30.

10:56:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Would you please see if anybody

10:56:17 wishes to speak to the continuance?

10:56:19 >> Anybody speaking to the continuance of item 80?

10:56:21 Moved and seconded.

10:56:22 All in favor signify by saying Aye.




10:56:24 Opposes?

10:56:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You got a second?

10:56:28 >> Yes.

10:56:29 82 cannot be heard so we need to remove that.

10:56:31 >> So moved.

10:56:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second to move.

10:56:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 83 is to be withdrawn.

10:56:40 Is there a motion?

10:56:42 >> Move to withdraw.

10:56:43 >> Second.

10:56:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

10:56:45 Opposes?

10:56:46 85 is to be continued.

10:56:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to continue to January 20,

10:56:52 2011.

10:56:53 Anyone in the audience like tock speak on this item?

10:56:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone in the audience?

10:57:00 It's moved and seconded.

10:57:02 All in favor?

10:57:02 Opposes?

10:57:03 Okay.

10:57:03 So the item that we are opening is 81, 84, 86, 87 and




10:57:09 88.

10:57:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: For the record, your motion to open

10:57:13 also included the ones that you continued items 80 and

10:57:21 85.

10:57:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Right.

10:57:23 All in favor?

10:57:24 Opposes?

10:57:25 Okay.

10:57:25 >> Barbara Lynch, Land Development Coordination.

10:57:30 C-11901 is a request to vacate an alley in the Seminole

10:57:34 Heights area of Tampa.

10:57:36 I have a map for the overhead.

10:57:41 The petitioner's property is shown in red in the alley

10:57:44 to be vacated, shown in yellow. The alley lies between

10:57:49 Hiawatha and Pocahontas and is bounded by Wellington to

10:57:54 and Branch.

10:57:55 I have photos of the alley.

10:57:56 This is the alleyway that's north of Pocahontas.

10:58:02 And then there's another shot of the alley north of

10:58:05 Pocahontas past the tree.

10:58:09 And the next photo is the alleyway looking south of

10:58:13 Hiawatha.




10:58:16 And then I have a couple of photos of the petitioner's

10:58:18 property.

10:58:19 And one looking east from wellington.

10:58:27 The next photos are the alleys that are north of this

10:58:30 alley and south of this alley, and they are not to be

10:58:33 vacated but they do continue.

10:58:39 Staff has no objection to this request leaving

10:58:43 easements for Verizon and wastewater.

10:58:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone from the public?

10:58:55 Anyone from the public wish to address council?

10:58:57 Yes, sir?

10:58:59 >> I'm Daniel Beltram.

10:59:02 I'm just here to request the Tampa City Council, give

10:59:07 their blessing to vacate the alley.

10:59:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

10:59:11 Anyone else to speak on this item?

10:59:13 Motion to close?

10:59:15 >> So moved.

10:59:15 >> Second.

10:59:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, sir?

10:59:19 >>CURTIS STOKES: Is there any financial consideration

10:59:20 to the city?




10:59:23 Is there a consideration to the city for vacating

10:59:26 property?

10:59:26 >> You mean in terms of the property?

10:59:29 >>CURTIS STOKES: Right-of-way property, alleys.

10:59:32 >> It's not really owned by this property city.

10:59:35 There's some interest by the abutting owners.

10:59:38 There is a fee paid to initiate the petition.

10:59:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

10:59:48 To close.

10:59:48 What's the pleasure of council?

10:59:50 >> So move to close.

10:59:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The alley?

10:59:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Second.

10:59:54 >> Move an ordinance vacating, closing, discontinuing,

11:00:02 all that alleyway lying south of high Hiawatha and

11:00:08 north of pock a hasn't as Avenue east of wellington

11:00:13 Avenue and west of branch Avenue in map of JOSIAH

11:00:20 Richardson's center hill subdivision, a subdivision of

11:00:23 the city of Tampa, Florida as more fully described in

11:00:27 section 1 herein, providing an effective date.

11:00:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You're on a roll, Charlie.

11:00:41 >> The next one I am going to read in Spanish.




11:00:44 >> All in favor?

11:00:45 Opposes?

11:00:46 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.

11:00:48 Second reading of the ordinance will be held January

11:00:50 6th at 9:30 a.m.

11:00:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 84.

11:00:53 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.

11:00:59 3625 West Gandy Boulevard requesting a 2(APS) for

11:01:02 package sales of beer and wine in association with a

11:01:04 retail store, target.

11:01:06 It's located at the northeast corner of Dale Mabry and

11:01:10 Gandy.

11:01:16 Three waivers noted on page 1 for institutional

11:01:18 residential and alcoholic beverage establishments.

11:01:21 Total square footage 114,789 square feet, 411 parking

11:01:26 spaces on-site which meets current code requirements.

11:01:30 The properties within 1,000-foot distance are listed on

11:01:34 page 2.

11:01:35 All the considerations of the code for general

11:01:36 standards, and the standards for large venue are on

11:01:39 page 3 through 5 of the staff report.

11:01:42 There were no objections from staff.




11:01:43 I'm available for any questions.

11:01:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do we have an attorney?

11:01:53 Not the attorney, the petitioner here?

11:01:57 >> My name is Jill Hartley representing target score at

11:02:01 3625 West Gandy Boulevard.

11:02:03 Our request is for beer and wine sales for our location

11:02:06 only.

11:02:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone here in opposition to this

11:02:08 petition?

11:02:09 Anyone here in opposition to this petition?

11:02:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.

11:02:13 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a question first.

11:02:14 Am I reading right you are going to start at 8 a.m. to

11:02:17 10 p.m.?

11:02:24 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.

11:02:25 The hours of operation for the store are 8 a.m.

11:02:27 They will not starting is alcohol until 11 a.m.

11:02:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Does it Vermont to be noted?

11:02:33 >> No.

11:02:33 Alcohol sales fall under chapter 3 for this type of

11:02:36 establishment.

11:02:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's a motion to close.




11:02:40 Moved and seconded.

11:02:41 All in favor?

11:02:42 Opposes?

11:02:47 Councilwoman Mulhern.

11:02:48 >>MARY MULHERN: I move an ordinance approving a

11:02:53 special use permit S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales

11:02:56 large venue manging lawful the sale of beverages

11:02:59 containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight and not

11:03:01 more than 14% by weight and rinse regardless of beer

11:03:06 and wine 2(APS) in sealed containers for consumption

11:03:09 off premises only at or from that certain lot, plot or

11:03:12 tract of land located at 3625 West Gandy Boulevard,

11:03:16 Tampa, Florida, as more particularly described in

11:03:19 section 2 hereof providing for repeal of all ordinances

11:03:22 and providing an effective date.

11:03:23 >> Moved and seconded.

11:03:25 All in favor?

11:03:27 Opposes?

11:03:27 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.

11:03:29 Second reading of the ordinance will be held January

11:03:32 6th at 9:30 a.m.

11:03:34 >> Item 86.




11:03:38 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.

11:03:38 Case V-1105, 905 North Florida Avenue, this request is

11:03:43 for a 4(COP-X).

11:03:45 The proposed use is the hotel Floridan, and not just

11:03:52 the hotel use, it's the northwest corner of Florida and

11:03:58 Cass.

11:03:59 It includes the adjacent structure which will become

11:04:01 the new meeting rooms and ballrooms for the facility.

11:04:06 You will note on the staff report there are some

11:04:08 inconsistency findings which are basically notes that

11:04:12 need to be corrected on the site plan.

11:04:13 If council subpoena so inclined to approve the request

11:04:16 I would ask you add those notations on page 2 be

11:04:21 directed.

11:04:21 There are three waivers.

11:04:22 Two residential institutional and alcoholic -- other

11:04:27 alcoholic beverage establishments.

11:04:28 The total is 177,166 square feet.

11:04:33 It is a hotel.

11:04:34 Again, I said the adjacent meeting room and ballroom

11:04:37 spaces, pages 3 through 5, contain the criteria for the

11:04:41 standard -- general standards.




11:04:43 Staff has only those objections relate to the site.

11:04:48 Thank you.

11:04:48 >> officer Miller?

11:04:53 Officer Miller?

11:04:53 >> Officer Don Miller, City of Tampa police department.

11:04:57 City of Tampa has no objections to this wet zoning.

11:05:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, sir.

11:05:01 Petitioner?

11:05:02 >> Lisa shellstein, 905 North Florida Avenue.

11:05:10 I am so happy to be here.

11:05:11 Thank you.

11:05:13 We are obviously asking for our 4(COP) license right

11:05:17 now, and I'm here to entertain any questions that you

11:05:20 might have.

11:05:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone here in opposition to this

11:05:23 petition?

11:05:23 Anyone here from the public in opposition?

11:05:27 Okay.

11:05:28 Motion to close?

11:05:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.

11:05:32 >> Motion and second.

11:05:34 Councilman Stokes, do you want to read that be?




11:05:47 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: An ordinance approving a special

11:05:49 using permit S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales large

11:05:52 venue making lawful the sale of beverages regardless of

11:05:53 alcoholic content, beer, wine and liquor 4(COP-X) for

11:06:00 consumption on premises only at or from that certain

11:06:03 lot, plot or tract of land located at 905 North Florida

11:06:06 Avenue, Tampa, Florida, as more particularly described

11:06:10 in section 2 hereof imposing certain conditions based

11:06:13 upon the location of the property, providing for repeal

11:06:17 of all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective

11:06:21 date.

11:06:21 >> Second?

11:06:24 >> Second.

11:06:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I just want to say this building

11:06:27 here is one of the historical landmarks in the area,

11:06:29 and there's many stories that I can say, but I won't.

11:06:33 I think one of the organization bartend certifies still

11:06:35 alive and I'm sure he would be pouring the first drink.

11:06:38 His name is Gus Ericseba and is about 95 years young.

11:06:45 >> We'll make sure that we are there, Mr. Miranda, for

11:06:48 that.

11:06:48 >> You will be there more than me, sir.




11:06:52 >>CATHERINE COYLE: You did include in the motion the

11:06:54 changes on page 2 of the staff report?

11:06:56 >> Yes.

11:06:56 That's included in the motion.

11:06:57 Moved and seconded.

11:06:58 All in favor?

11:07:00 Opposes?

11:07:01 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.

11:07:03 Second reading of the ordinance will be held January

11:07:05 the 5th at 9:30 a.m.

11:07:08 >> Item 87.

11:07:09 Item 87.

11:07:11 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.

11:07:12 Case V-11-06 located at 4213 south Manhattan Avenue,

11:07:18 requesting a 2(COP), beer and wine sales for on-site

11:07:22 consumption and in sealed containers for consumption.

11:07:28 The total area is 927.5 square feet.

11:07:31 This is the rear portion of the business located at the

11:07:36 northwest corner of Manhattan and Wallcraft.

11:07:40 It's known as Pondscapes.

11:07:43 The rear portion of the building has been converted to

11:07:45 a wine and cheese shop, and this alcohol petition is




11:07:48 related to that particular use.

11:07:50 There are two waivers for residential and institutional

11:07:53 uses.

11:07:54 Parking has been provided on-site pursuant to code.

11:07:57 You will note on page 2 there are some changes in the

11:07:59 site plan related to some of the notations that are

11:08:01 needed, and the graphic for the dumpster is located on

11:08:04 page 3.

11:08:05 These are changes that can be made between first and

11:08:07 second reading.

11:08:08 The criteria for small venue and through general

11:08:11 standards are located on pages 4 through 6.

11:08:14 The only objections as I said are related to the

11:08:17 graphic and the notations on the site plan.

11:08:19 I'm available for any questions.

11:08:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Officer Miller?

11:08:22 >> Officer Miller, City of Tampa police department.

11:08:25 We have no objections.

11:08:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Petitioner?

11:08:31 Michael Jones.

11:08:45 We are trying to sell wine with our cheese tastings at

11:08:49 the cheese store.




11:08:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone here in opposition to this

11:08:51 petition?

11:08:52 Anyone here in opposition?

11:08:53 Okay.

11:09:02 >> Good morning, City Council.

11:09:04 My name is Charles Cornelius speaking to item number 87

11:09:13 with the alcohol petition by Michael Jones, who is the

11:09:15 representative of Pondscapes.

11:09:19 My wife and I have lived only 100 yards away from

11:09:23 Pondscapes.

11:09:26 In the event that the alcohol application is approved,

11:09:31 it will have a nasty ripple effect on the surrounding

11:09:34 neighborhood, our home included.

11:09:39 I realize the City of Tampa will get some of the sales

11:09:45 tax from the alcohol sales.

11:09:47 However, I suggest to City Council that there will be a

11:09:52 lot of service calls from the police and the paramedics

11:09:58 because there will be a lot of fist fights, beer

11:10:03 bottles, even body waste, in surrounding property of

11:10:08 Pondscapes, the residential neighborhood.

11:10:14 The service calls for those will be very expensive.

11:10:20 The nasty effect will also drive down the property




11:10:24 values of the surrounding neighborhood, our property

11:10:26 included.

11:10:28 On numerous occasions, Pondscapes has left empty

11:10:33 pallets and shipping material out on the asphalt, out

11:10:37 in the open, jutting out into the corner of the

11:10:41 intersection of Manhattan Avenue and wallcraft Avenue.

11:10:49 The past behavior of Michael Jones has demonstrated

11:10:52 that he is not going to be a good neighbor.

11:10:58 I'm certain Mr. Jones has timed his request to occur

11:11:01 here in the holiday season because he knew a lot of the

11:11:03 homeowners would be away visiting relatives.

11:11:07 Mr. Jones also has a tree limb partially concealing the

11:11:12 plastic to display the special use public hearing to

11:11:20 the public.

11:11:22 In summary, I respectfully request the City Council to

11:11:26 deny the alcohol application.

11:11:33 Thank you very much.

11:11:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else?

11:11:37 Petitioner?

11:11:45 Petitioner, you can come back.

11:11:49 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I live a few blocks from this

11:11:50 establishment.




11:11:52 I see here the hours are not stated, and, well, it's

11:11:59 defaulted, for land development.

11:12:04 Sales listed on plan -- okay, default to chapter 3.

11:12:08 Okay.

11:12:10 What are your hours?

11:12:11 >> Cheese please is open from 10:30 until 7:00.

11:12:17 And so they might run till 9:00 maybe.

11:12:24 We have cheese tastings on Friday nights.

11:12:27 >> And hours of operation are 10:30 to 7:00 p.m.?

11:12:33 >> Yes, ma'am, except for the cheese tasting course.

11:12:35 >> And this is seven days a weak?

11:12:38 >> Not on Mondays.

11:12:40 And Sundays noon to five.

11:12:41 >> Noon to five.

11:12:43 Okay.

11:12:44 It's not on here.

11:12:45 And what we have here is default to chapter 3, 7 a.m.

11:12:53 to 3 a.m., would this be to add these hours to your --

11:13:02 to your petition?

11:13:08 >> So the hours of cheese please are 10:30 to 7,

11:13:15 Tuesday through Saturday and noon to five on Sundays.

11:13:18 What we would like to do, though, typically our chest




11:13:22 tastings are Friday nights, so that might run till

11:13:24 9:00.

11:13:25 And if we have an council private party --

11:13:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: She's asking, would you be amenable to

11:13:34 add this as a condition that you all will close at

11:13:36 9:00?

11:13:39 >>YVONNE CAPIN: 10:30, 9 p.m., and 12 to 5 on Sunday,

11:13:43 closed on Monday?

11:13:44 >> Yes, ma'am.

11:13:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You would agree between first and

11:13:46 second reading to add to the site plan you are limiting

11:13:49 your hours of alcohol sales and operation to those

11:13:52 hours you have just announced?

11:13:54 >>> Absolutely.

11:13:56 We are not trying to be an alcohol establishment.

11:13:58 It's a cheese store.

11:14:03 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.

11:14:03 I just want to clarify for the record that the sales

11:14:07 stop at 9:00 according to the agreement, the business,

11:14:09 I want to make sure the business understands, the

11:14:11 business itself has to close for operation.

11:14:13 It cannot stay open past that hour of 9:00.




11:14:16 I just want him to be aware that when the alcohol

11:14:19 stops, the business closes.

11:14:21 >> Could we do 9:30 just to get everybody out at 9:00?

11:14:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 9:30?

11:14:36 >>

11:14:36 >>YVONNE CAPIN: If that's what the petitioner wants,

11:14:38 we'll deal with that.

11:14:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: With regard to the Sunday hours, do

11:14:41 you have that down 12 to 5?

11:14:45 >> Yes, sir.

11:14:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.

11:14:47 >>MARY MULHERN: I would suggest you make it 10:00.

11:14:53 You know, to be reasonable about having the wine

11:14:57 tasting and getting the people out.

11:15:02 You can flick the lights at 9:00.

11:15:07 >>CATHERINE COYLE: If I could to remind City Council,

11:15:09 it is on-site consumption, but the uses associated with

11:15:12 a specialty retail shop just under 400 square feet,

11:15:15 it's a fairly small establishment.

11:15:20 Hopefully with negative impact.

11:15:22 >> So 10:00.

11:15:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion to close.




11:15:33 >> So moved.

11:15:34 >> Second.

11:15:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion and second.

11:15:37 All in favor?

11:15:38 Councilwoman Capin?

11:15:49 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I move an ordinance approving a special

11:15:51 use permit S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales, small

11:15:55 venue, making lawful the sale of beverages containing

11:15:59 alcohol of more than 1% by weight and not more than 14%

11:16:02 by weight wines regardless of alcoholic content, beer

11:16:05 and wine, 2(COP), for the consumption on premises and

11:16:09 in sealed containers for consumption on premise from

11:16:13 the certain lot or tract of land located at 4215 south

11:16:19 Manhattan Avenue, Tampa, Florida, as more particularly

11:16:22 described in section 2 hereof providing for repeal of

11:16:25 all ordinances in providing an effective date.

11:16:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And the special conditions to that.

11:16:38 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Second.

11:16:40 Mr. Jones, perhaps you can meet with your neighbor and

11:16:44 iron things out, and to make everybody happy.

11:16:50 Okay?

11:16:52 It's a small business, and it's tough.




11:16:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's moved and seconded.

11:16:59 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

11:17:01 Opposes?

11:17:03 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.

11:17:05 Second reading of the ordinance will be held January

11:17:07 6th at 9:30 a.m.

11:17:09 >> council, our last item, 88, an appeal hearing.

11:17:20 We have done well up to now.

11:17:21 >>ERNEST MUELLER: We have review board denial of 101

11:17:46 south Dale Mabry Avenue, and the petitioner is Kennedy

11:17:50 Dale Mabry center, Inc. The petitioner was seeking

11:17:53 several variances for two existing signs, and those

11:17:58 signs have a nonconforming status.

11:18:02 The nonconforming status means the signs do not meet

11:18:05 the current sign code requirements, but they can remain

11:18:10 as long as they are and that they are undergo

11:18:12 reasonable sign repair.

11:18:14 The sign structures were to come down for some reason,

11:18:18 like wind blowing down, whatever else, that means with

11:18:21 the nonconforming status, if they replaced them, they

11:18:24 would have to be conforming to the sign code as it is.

11:18:28 So we have nonconforming status now.




11:18:34 One of the signs is Kennedy Boulevard and the others on

11:18:38 Dale Mabry.

11:18:38 This is the Kennedy Boulevard sign.

11:18:45 This is a sign located at the Boulevard.

11:18:47 And the variance request for this sign is to decrease

11:18:50 the setback from the road, the right-of-way, from 15

11:18:54 feet to two feet.

11:18:56 And to increase the allowable height from 20 feet to 25

11:19:00 feet.

11:19:03 This is the sign along Dale Mabry Highway.

11:19:08 And the request for this sign is to decrease the set

11:19:13 back from 15 feet to 7 feet.

11:19:16 And to increase the allowable height from 20 feet to 25

11:19:19 feet.

11:19:21 The third variance, we wanted to increase the square

11:19:25 footage of the combined signs from 100 feet to 307 feet

11:19:31 for both signs.

11:19:34 And the purpose of the variance is to change the status

11:19:37 of these signs from nonconforming to conforming, and by

11:19:44 granting the requested variances and making the signs

11:19:47 conforming, if the sign structures came down for any

11:19:50 reason, again if a storm did knock them down they could




11:19:56 be rebuilt as they are and be in excess of the current

11:19:59 sign code.

11:20:04 In other words, the dimension, the height, if they are

11:20:07 to be replaced they can be replaced at the same place,

11:20:10 same height, same dimensions, which would be in excess

11:20:12 of the current site.

11:20:14 But that would be okay.

11:20:15 They would be conforming.

11:20:17 That would be a little different than anybody else who

11:20:20 is putting up a sign for the first time.

11:20:24 The applicable sign code is section 20.5-13 which

11:20:28 regulates site signs.

11:20:31 I have copies of the 20.5-13.

11:20:36 25.13, paragraph C, which starts out on the second page

11:21:24 of what I am handing out to you, subparagraph 1-C at

11:21:28 the bottom of the page -- bottom of the page that says

11:21:34 size.

11:21:34 And C-1-C pertains to size, and if you turn the page to

11:21:36 C-1-B, the allowable height of the setbacks.

11:21:44 When petitioner's agent presented the case to the

11:21:46 Variance Review Board, the board received the evidence,

11:21:49 and was provided by the agent.




11:21:53 The agent is asserting that the board members testified

11:21:59 during the deliberations.

11:22:02 And I read through the transcript and saw that all they

11:22:05 did was deliberate regarding the evidence in the code,

11:22:12 much the same that City Council will deliberate when

11:22:14 you have hearings dealing with the code and evidence

11:22:16 that was presented.

11:22:21 In receiving all the evidence the Variance Review Board

11:22:23 felt there was in a evidence to show a hardship to

11:22:25 warrant the granting of the variance, and make the

11:22:29 present signs conforming.

11:22:30 Consequently, the board voted to deny the application

11:22:33 by a vote of 6-0.

11:22:35 So what that does, now that agent status, they can

11:22:39 remain as they are.

11:22:41 However, if they came down for some reason, they have

11:22:43 to rebuild in accordance with the sign code just like

11:22:47 any other business.

11:22:51 But the signs can stay as they are now.

11:22:57 As a reminder of no new evidence presented to you

11:23:01 today.

11:23:02 Your actions are based on the record created during the




11:23:05 review board hearing.

11:23:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a reminder to City Council, did

11:23:12 you receive a transcript and a DVD for your viewing on

11:23:17 this.

11:23:18 This, I believe, may very well be the last of the

11:23:20 appeal hearings that will come to you under certiorari

11:23:24 standard.

11:23:24 So what you look towards is whether the board's

11:23:29 decision of the, the VRB decision was supported by

11:23:32 competent substantial evidence, whether due process was

11:23:35 in accordance with the petitioner and whether the

11:23:36 essential requirements of law have been observed.

11:23:39 Nerd, the hardship criteria applied.

11:23:41 And again, the hardship criteria, you know, is 17.5-74,

11:23:48 the five criteria that you may look to.

11:23:51 And with that.

11:23:54 >>STEVE MICHELINI: We are respectfully requesting

11:23:56 relief from the Variance Review Board's denial of this

11:24:00 petition.

11:24:03 I provided to you a summary of our request, and

11:24:08 basically the VRB failed to consider the fact that the

11:24:11 existing building -- and I will point it out to you --




11:24:14 the prohibit any movement of that sign.

11:24:20 The site plan clearly demonstrates -- I hope that you

11:24:25 can see that. if you relocated the signs, they would

11:24:33 be in the drive aisle to meet the code.

11:24:35 So whether the sign blows down, or whether you are

11:24:38 building a new sign trying to build a new sign, you

11:24:42 cannot meet the codes.

11:24:44 It's physically impossible.

11:24:47 The staff prepared a report indicating that the

11:24:50 application was for an electronic sign, and that was

11:24:54 inaccurate.

11:24:55 They were instructed to replace that report, and

11:24:58 indicate that it was for the setbacks that were being

11:25:02 requested.

11:25:03 And the city attorney admonished them later on in the

11:25:06 hearing.

11:25:07 And that occurs on -- occurs on page 37 where assistant

11:25:16 city attorney Ernie Mueller says the request is about

11:25:19 the variances and not about electric sign.

11:25:23 This were no objections to many external agencies.

11:25:26 That included transportation.

11:25:29 The relocation of the sign into the drive aisle would




11:25:32 make that completely impractical.

11:25:35 It's not possible to comply.

11:25:38 The structural integrity of the sign, someone said why

11:25:40 don't you snip the top off or do something else with

11:25:43 it?

11:25:43 And the testimony at the hearing was that this is there

11:25:49 are steel columns, four of them, and they are

11:25:52 incorporated into this masonry base here, this

11:25:54 landscape.

11:25:55 This building wags built in 1957, and it met the code.

11:26:00 They had no control over any subsequent changes to the

11:26:04 sign code.

11:26:04 You can't move the building.

11:26:07 You have simply no way to comply.

11:26:09 This is an aerial view of that site.

11:26:13 And the signs are located here.

11:26:16 And here.

11:26:18 And you can see that it's clear that when you have the

11:26:21 parking, and the configuration that it's in, the

11:26:23 building that it's in, you can't move the building, you

11:26:28 can't park move the parking, and it's impossible to

11:26:33 comply with code.




11:26:36 We request that the sign be allowed to remain.

11:26:38 That appears on page 8.

11:26:40 We demonstrated the site was developed in 1957.

11:26:43 That's on page 9.

11:26:44 There were no impacts to residences.

11:26:46 That's on page 10.

11:26:48 They did not consistently apply the code.

11:26:51 That was on page 14.

11:26:53 VRB members began to testify about the structural

11:26:57 integrity of the sign.

11:26:58 That occurs on page 17 where one of the board members

11:27:04 says, and I'll quote,

11:27:11 Well, there's two elements, and after talking about it

11:27:14 the structural integrity there's four columns and they

11:27:16 are embedded in concrete, so a VRB member says cutting

11:27:20 down the height won't effect that, I'm a structural

11:27:23 engineer.

11:27:24 That's where he begins.

11:27:25 Then he goes on on the next page, page 18, and he says,

11:27:28 well, now this was never submitted into the record, he

11:27:31 says, well, it's probably 100 feet between you and

11:27:33 another sign.




11:27:34 The building is right on the property line, 130 feet,

11:27:37 so I'm guessing, so it's 100 feet away.

11:27:39 Then he goes on to page 19 and says, well, maybe it's

11:27:42 100 feet away to the next sign.

11:27:44 They go on and they do this several different times.

11:27:48 On page 19, they start talking about integrity.

11:27:54 And then on page 21, the VRB -- a different VRB member

11:28:01 says I think you have shown substantial competent

11:28:03 evidence that you can't move this sign in the parking

11:28:05 lot.

11:28:05 That just makes common sense for most of us.

11:28:08 That's page 21.

11:28:09 And then on page 22, we are talking again about the

11:28:13 structural integrity of the sign.

11:28:17 And one of the members says, well, why don't you take a

11:28:19 giant pair of scissors and just cut it off?

11:28:22 That doesn't work.

11:28:24 There is a tremendous expense involved in these signs,

11:28:27 and you just can't start cutting and lopping things

11:28:30 off.

11:28:30 That statement is made again on page 23.

11:28:33 And then on page 24, when I'm talking about VRB members




11:28:37 testifying, well, what if the VFW wanted to put up a

11:28:41 sign?

11:28:42 What would they do?

11:28:44 This has nothing to do with the VFW petition.

11:28:48 That was not before the board.

11:28:51 And when they asked me again on page 25 about what

11:28:55 happens when you destroy today, it wouldn't matter

11:28:57 P.you cannot comply with the code whether that sign was

11:29:01 destroyed, unless you just completely redevelop the

11:29:04 sign.

11:29:04 It simply isn't going to happen.

11:29:09 The VRB states clearly that substantial and competent

11:29:14 evidence has been met.

11:29:15 That appears again on page 29 where the VRB members is

11:29:20 quoted clearly -- and I'm quoting directly from the

11:29:23 record:

11:29:24 Clearly Mr. Michelini has shown that on the property

11:29:27 you cannot move the sign anywhere else.

11:29:29 Otherwise it would be in the parking locality.

11:29:31 Also there's an encroachment in the road.

11:29:33 The D.O.T. and the City of Tampa, the roads are state

11:29:36 roads.




11:29:36 They took right-of-way from the property.

11:29:39 They created two turn lanes.

11:29:41 One of them is a turn lane that is eastbound off of

11:29:46 Kennedy heading south, and the other one is a turn lane

11:29:49 that shifted the lanes slightly to the west on the

11:29:54 southbound portion of Dale Mabry.

11:29:56 And then it goes on to talk about, on page 2029 the

11:30:00 right-of-way was taken, hardship or practical

11:30:01 difficulties does not result in the actions.

11:30:05 Applicant.

11:30:05 Well, we had in a control over that.

11:30:07 And then when I say, well, this is interesting, I think

11:30:10 it there's in a real effect on health, safety and

11:30:13 welfare and there's no testimony big or small, we

11:30:16 talked about the triangle being disturbed,

11:30:20 transportation signed off on that with the existing

11:30:22 sign.

11:30:24 So again, we start talking about on page 12, 25, and

11:30:31 going on through about the site cannot comply, on page

11:30:37 29, assistant city attorney Mueller says again, well,

11:30:46 he's talking about the ability of the site, I mean, of

11:30:50 the application to be consistent with what is being




11:30:54 requested.

11:30:56 And VRB member says staff report, on page 38, the staff

11:31:02 report goes on and talks about the fact that we

11:31:13 requested something that was not a petition.

11:31:20 In fact.

11:31:21 Page 37, 36, the VRB separates the request.

11:31:23 So one of the VRB members says you can't separate the

11:31:26 request because all of them are integral to each other.

11:31:31 The setback, the height, the size, you can't just start

11:31:33 taking one part and saying you are going to approve it

11:31:37 as opposed to some other part.

11:31:38 And one of the VRB members says I don't feel we should

11:31:42 separate because it's an existing sign and I don't

11:31:44 think we want to approve anything that's partially

11:31:48 existing P.it doesn't make sense to me.

11:31:50 Again, on page 37, we are hear for the total

11:31:56 application to allow electronic sign.

11:31:59 That was not the petition.

11:32:01 Well, Mr. Mueller steps in and says, I need to correct

11:32:04 that.

11:32:04 This is not about whether or not we are going to allow

11:32:06 electronic sign.




11:32:07 It whether or not you are going to make this sign

11:32:09 legal.

11:32:11 And then one of the VRB members says, well,

11:32:14 unfortunately, our report says, in order to allow

11:32:16 electronic message sign.

11:32:18 So that's what I keep referring to.

11:32:19 And that became the focus of the VRB hearing as opposed

11:32:23 to whether or not we could move the sign to make it

11:32:26 legal conforming or not.

11:32:29 And then they go on to say, ultimately, the applicant

11:32:33 is asking for electronic signs.

11:32:40 More discussion, page 39 P.you could keep the setback

11:32:43 because you don't want to keep it in the parking lot.

11:32:46 It would make the sign conforming.

11:32:48 I am not going to get into structural arguments here.

11:32:50 And then here is where another VRB member starts

11:32:52 testifying.

11:32:53 VFW sells their property, or honey bake, or a hurricane

11:32:58 comes through and knocks these downs, the signs will be

11:33:01 able to come back to whatever she approved.

11:33:03 And what we approve right now, and that's clearly a

11:33:07 violation of the public policy, the sign code.




11:33:10 And you haven't shown a hardship.

11:33:11 These are the same VRB members who said earlier that I

11:33:15 clearly demonstrated it's a hardship.

11:33:18 And then they vote.

11:33:21 There's a short discussion.

11:33:22 And then the motion is that the by the same VRB member

11:33:26 that no hardship criteria is presented and substantial

11:33:31 competent evidence was not addressed in the site plan.

11:33:34 So they had flipped flopped out regarding the

11:33:37 testimony.

11:33:38 Earlier they are saying clearly you can't move the sign

11:33:41 in the parking lot.

11:33:42 We can't do that.

11:33:43 It's not impossible.

11:33:44 These are all small businesses.

11:33:45 These are not, you know, individual.

11:33:48 They are individually owned, and you can't just say,

11:33:50 okay, I am going to start cutting this one off.

11:33:52 You can see the proximity to the right-of-way.

11:33:56 And you can see the proximity here to the parking lot.

11:33:59 There is no other solution.

11:34:04 They should be allowed to continue to have it.




11:34:06 And I'm respectfully requesting that you make this a

11:34:09 legal conforming sign and overturn the VRB.

11:34:12 >> Mr. Michelini, what is the hardship?

11:34:20 What you stated.

11:34:22 >> I can read to you what we put in the record.

11:34:26 This is based upon what was in the record.

11:34:28 I can't give you any testimony.

11:34:31 I can read to you --

11:34:33 >> Well, you can point that out to me.

11:34:35 Where is it?

11:34:36 >> The narrative is et alleged hardships.

11:34:42 The existing commercial center was built in 1957 in

11:34:45 accordance with the Hillsborough County property

11:34:46 appraiser's office, as recently as 1990 the existing

11:34:54 code and subsequent to that time were amended to allow

11:34:56 the sign to be erected.

11:34:59 Over the recent City of Tampa code changes a number of

11:35:03 on-site signs were made and all nonconforming.

11:35:06 The property owner has no manner to redress this or

11:35:09 have his existing sign conformed except to seek a

11:35:14 variance.

11:35:15 During the 1990s additional easements were sought by




11:35:17 the city and the Florida Department of Transportation

11:35:19 to allow for widening of the associated improvements on

11:35:22 south Dale Mabry and Kennedy Boulevard.

11:35:23 The overall section improvements included the widening

11:35:26 of sidewalks, landscaping and other measures.

11:35:28 At the time this did not interfere with the codes and

11:35:32 the ability to meet the setback requirement of the

11:35:34 status to make it an existing legal conforming sign.

11:35:37 This difficulty occurs when the City of Tampa changed

11:35:39 the code with regard to any other actions undertaken by

11:35:42 the city which now prevent it is owner from complying

11:35:44 with the code and creating the severe financial

11:35:46 hardship.

11:35:48 There are physical limitations related to the ability

11:35:50 to comply.

11:35:52 The property is fully developed and no alternative

11:35:54 locations available to relocate the signs in order to

11:35:57 comply with the current city code.

11:35:59 The only possible relocation to place the signs in the

11:36:02 existing drive aisle adversely affecting the parking

11:36:05 and no provision has been made to accommodate the

11:36:08 developed commercial scepter, major high-speed roadway.




11:36:13 >>MARY MULHERN: So the hardship is the setback

11:36:17 problem.

11:36:18 >> Well with, the setback comes, if you waive the

11:36:21 setback, you also waive the height, and you --

11:36:26 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay, so they have the right to this

11:36:29 legal nonconforming sign where it is?

11:36:32 >> That's correct.

11:36:33 >>MARY MULHERN: If we make it legal conforming, then

11:36:37 they have the right to all those other entitlements

11:36:40 like the square footage and the height.

11:36:42 Is that right, Ernie?

11:36:44 >> Well, the right you have the right to the height.

11:36:46 You don't have the right to the square footage.

11:36:48 The square footage would be separate.

11:36:50 It was requested separately.

11:36:54 By allowing the setback variance for the -- by allowing

11:37:00 the setback variance you are also allowing the height

11:37:03 variance.

11:37:06 >>MARY MULHERN: Is that right, Ernie?

11:37:11 >>ERNEST MUELLER: The setback and the height are

11:37:12 related.

11:37:12 The further you go back the higher you can be.




11:37:15 And right now with the current status, legal

11:37:19 nonconforming, or nonconforming, it can be where it's

11:37:23 at now.

11:37:25 It's legal where it's at now.

11:37:27 It's just if it comes down, it's going -- if they

11:37:31 rebuild, they would have to be a at 5-foot setbacks?

11:37:36 They can only be ten-feet high.

11:37:38 That's what the sign code requires now, is that it has

11:37:40 to be 5 feet setback, whereas now it's 7 and 2, they

11:37:46 would put it in the same place or have to ask for a

11:37:48 variance on the setback.

11:37:49 But the height would have to be 10 feet or further

11:37:52 back.

11:37:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Mueller, if I remember that

11:37:59 ordinance for every foot setback you get an additional

11:38:01 foot in height, one for one, right?

11:38:03 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Yes, sir.

11:38:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: But the ordinance doesn't take

11:38:09 consideration since the ordinance was passed, and new

11:38:12 roadwork was done by the Department of Transportation,

11:38:14 when you had on the corner of crystals that was gone,

11:38:20 and before CVS came in, that part of the road was done




11:38:25 by the Department of Transportation on both sides of

11:38:28 Kennedy and Dale Mabry.

11:38:29 Am I correct?

11:38:33 >> I think we are assuming there was property taken on

11:38:37 each side.

11:38:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Nerd, I'm not the lawyer, but would

11:38:42 that have anything to do with the ordinance that was

11:38:48 there and the new ordinance?

11:38:49 Because the setback came not because the property

11:38:52 wanted to change, it's because the need, the desire to

11:38:57 have transportation affect some of the general public,

11:39:01 and therefore that was waived in lieu of moving the

11:39:04 sign.

11:39:04 >>ERNEST MUELLER: I think the answer to the question

11:39:09 is the code does not take that into effect, but what

11:39:12 does take that into effect is the fact that it's legal

11:39:15 conforming.

11:39:15 The code changed after this was built, and the fact

11:39:18 that any property taken -- and I don't know if that

11:39:20 property that was taken to widen the street was before

11:39:24 or after.

11:39:25 I believe it was before the new sign code went into




11:39:28 effect.

11:39:29 So I think what's key here is that sign can stay where

11:39:34 it's at right now.

11:39:36 It's only if it comes down.

11:39:39 Then they have to put a sign in.

11:39:43 What the code says is it can only be five feet from the

11:39:46 right-of-way.

11:39:47 If they want to be closer, if they want to put a new

11:39:50 sign in exactly where this is now, they would have to

11:39:53 get a variance and setback from 5-foot to 2-foot.

11:39:57 >> So that means that the sign would have to come more

11:40:05 lower by two feet based on the code that's going from

11:40:09 five to three feet, so you lose two feet.

11:40:11 That's what I understand?

11:40:15 >> It begins at five foot so he would have to get a

11:40:18 variance that says I would like a ten foot sign with a

11:40:21 new code.

11:40:22 Ten fat.

11:40:28 The new code -- they wanted a variance higher than ten

11:40:34 foot.

11:40:35 If they want to go higher they have to get a variance

11:40:37 for that.




11:40:37 >> Way want to understand is there is a sign location

11:40:41 there now.

11:40:42 >> Yes.

11:40:43 >> Let's assume for all practical purposes that sign

11:40:45 for whatever reason, only a high wind hits, which is

11:40:56 unlikely to happen, where does that come back to and at

11:40:59 what height?

11:40:59 >> It would come back to at the 5-foot from the

11:41:03 right-of-way to be 10 feet high.

11:41:05 That's what the code would allow.

11:41:06 >> But it would not allow where it's at today with the

11:41:09 same basic height.

11:41:10 Is that correct?

11:41:11 >> It would follow the new code?

11:41:13 >> Well, Kennedy is 7 feet, right?

11:41:19 Again, they could be at 5 feet.

11:41:22 The one on Kennedy, it's at 7 feet right now.

11:41:25 But it could only go up 10 feet.

11:41:27 If they wanted to go higher than 10 feet they have to

11:41:30 ask for a waiver of setback.

11:41:32 The one at Dale Mabry if they were to put it in where

11:41:34 it at now, that's at 2-foot.




11:41:37 If they wanted to go higher they would have to get a

11:41:39 variance for the height and the setback.

11:41:40 >> What's complicated is we have got so many feet, so

11:41:46 many setbacks, so many Heights.

11:41:48 Basically I'm just trying to find out for myself, that

11:41:51 sign is there now.

11:41:53 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Yes.

11:41:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Nonconforming.

11:41:57 >>ERNEST MUELLER: And county stay there.

11:41:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Can stay there forever.

11:42:00 It's not going to be a digital sign F.those signs went

11:42:02 down, then you lose the height, I would imagine, from

11:42:07 what you are saying, because the setbacks are

11:42:09 different.

11:42:11 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Correct.

11:42:12 They would have to come down to 10 feet.

11:42:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: What we are saying is if a wind --

11:42:22 well, the wind came in and took those two signs down,

11:42:27 that location would lose what it has now, according to

11:42:29 the law?

11:42:31 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Yes.

11:42:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So the petitioner is asking for the




11:42:35 same sign and the same height?

11:42:37 Or is he asking for a different size height and

11:42:39 different location if that wind was to take down the

11:42:43 two sides?

11:42:43 >>ERNEST MUELLER: He would be able to put up the exact

11:42:48 same signs he has now, same dimensions, same

11:42:50 everything, which would --

11:42:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I know that property very well, and

11:42:56 there's ingress and egress, both on Kennedy and Dale

11:43:00 Mabry, one to the southern portion and one to the

11:43:04 western portion of the property, and there are no

11:43:11 places you can locate that sign, that I know of.

11:43:13 >>ERNEST MUELLER: I understand what you are saying.

11:43:16 They would have to be shorter.

11:43:17 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Michelini hi, was anybody

11:43:25 there opposed to this?

11:43:28 >>STEVE MICHELINI: No.

11:43:28 I received a phone call from the homeowners association

11:43:32 president indicating that they were supportive.

11:43:36 But there were no objections.

11:43:37 In a one showed up to oppose it.

11:43:39 >> So what brought this to the table?




11:43:41 >> The VRB denied the petition.

11:43:44 >> What was the petition, to put in electronic sign?

11:43:48 >> The petition was to make this a legal nonconforming

11:43:53 sign.

11:43:53 What triggered is, if you change out more than 50% of

11:43:57 the signs, there are signs.

11:44:05 And what happened was, we had tenant changes.

11:44:08 And there were tenant changes and three or four of the

11:44:11 spaces, and they went to change out the sign faces, and

11:44:15 the interpretation from the center was that you could

11:44:21 only change out less than half of the sign faces.

11:44:24 Otherwise, it made it-it triggered the nonconforming

11:44:31 provision in the code.

11:44:40 You are very limited on what you can do with an

11:44:42 existing sign under a nonconforming status.

11:44:44 You can make minor repairs.

11:44:46 You can do certain limited things.

11:44:47 But if something happens to it in a major context, you

11:44:51 cannot make those repairs and make the changes.

11:44:54 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: So the tenants that were coming

11:44:59 in, because you had some vacant spaces on that sign,

11:45:02 probably would have not come in if they didn't have a




11:45:04 position on that sign.

11:45:11 >>> Well, obviously when you have tenant changes, you

11:45:13 have to provide signage.

11:45:14 An owner doesn't have droll over control over who comes

11:45:17 and goes.

11:45:20 They are controlled by leases.

11:45:21 By restricting the property owner to that kind of

11:45:25 burden to meet is pretty severe.

11:45:28 It's very difficult to meet.

11:45:34 It's become an interpreted issue at the permit center

11:45:36 because there's been so much discussion about signs.

11:45:40 And that's why you are seeing this variance come to

11:45:43 you, because there's a lot of discussion, and there's a

11:45:47 lot of nonconforming signs that need attention.

11:45:50 And we addressed that.

11:45:54 There's simply, in this case, because the site was

11:45:56 developed when it was, and it met the code at the time,

11:45:59 and then you take the right-of-way away, and you widen

11:46:03 the sidewalks they have no way to comply.

11:46:05 And when you start moving it around, or try to comply,

11:46:08 you say, well, you know, take the scissors as one

11:46:12 member said and just chop the top off.




11:46:15 Well, it's not that easy.

11:46:16 And that also means you lose tenants.

11:46:21 You have no way to --

11:46:25 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Okay.

11:46:26 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes, I want some clarification on

11:46:28 that.

11:46:28 Steve, can you leave that up?

11:46:32 Ernie?

11:46:34 Here is what I don't understand what you just said.

11:46:36 You can't be telling me that you can't change out those

11:46:40 signs.

11:46:41 That's no limitation in our sign code.

11:46:45 If you are asking for more square footage, is that what

11:46:48 you are talking about?

11:46:49 >> In a, we are not.

11:46:50 >> So what are you saying that the permitting wouldn't

11:46:54 allow you to do with those signs?

11:46:56 >> For example, if you had six tenants in a building,

11:47:01 and four of them changed, and you interchange four sign

11:47:07 faces, you can't change four sign faces.

11:47:11 You can change three or less, because it triggers a 50%

11:47:16 rule regarding your ability to re--




11:47:21 >> You can change that.

11:47:22 You just can't change the it area.

11:47:25 >> I said it's an interpreted issue.

11:47:28 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't believe we wrote that law

11:47:30 after all --

11:47:31 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I said the permit center interprets

11:47:34 your code to mean certain things.

11:47:37 They are not always consistent in their application of

11:47:40 this.

11:47:40 >>MARY MULHERN: Well, I don't think that has any

11:47:43 bearing on this.

11:47:44 >>STEVE MICHELINI: It does if you can't get a permit.

11:47:46 That's what triggered this to begin with.

11:47:48 >>MARY MULHERN: You couldn't get a permit because you

11:47:52 were changing more signs?

11:47:54 >>STEVE MICHELINI: This right here, this sign right

11:47:57 here, this sign now is Mylar, strapped over the face of

11:48:06 that board.

11:48:07 It's not even a real sign.

11:48:08 And it's strapped over because they couldn't get a

11:48:11 permit.

11:48:11 >> They couldn't get a permit just to replace the sign?




11:48:18 Is that true?

11:48:22 I'm asking you guys if this is true.

11:48:23 Because this does not seem right.

11:48:25 If you're legal nonconforming and you are just changing

11:48:29 the content, how can they --

11:48:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, listen, time is getting away.

11:48:37 I tell you, you all were doing good until now.

11:48:40 You messed up now.

11:48:42 That's a legitimate question.

11:48:44 So what I am hearing is an interpretation of staff on

11:48:46 the code, and so they made AP interpretation that they

11:48:50 couldn't do it.

11:48:51 Is that accurate?

11:48:53 >> Land development, Eric Cotton.

11:48:55 I couldn't answer that because I am not with the permit

11:48:58 office.

11:48:58 That's hobby I was trying to get in contact.

11:49:01 The code doesn't -- the code allows change of a copy as

11:49:05 long as you don't increase square footage and that

11:49:07 contained of thing.

11:49:08 >>MARY MULHERN: That was my question.

11:49:10 >>ERIC COTTON: I'm not sure if that's what they pulled




11:49:13 over, if VRB can answer that question.

11:49:16 >>STEVE MICHELINI: It wasn't an individual sign P.it

11:49:18 had to do with more than one sign, more than one face,

11:49:21 not just one.

11:49:21 But that's not really the issue here.

11:49:23 I'll tell you how got to the VRB.

11:49:25 The issue is we can't comply regardless.

11:49:28 There's nothing you can do to make this sign and this

11:49:31 site comply with the current code.

11:49:32 >>MARY MULHERN: It's legal nonconforming.

11:49:39 >> We do if we want to make any changes.

11:49:41 >> Not if you want to change.

11:49:42 I think -- to change out the content of your sign, the

11:49:49 code does not prevent you from doing that.

11:49:50 >> The same company is going to change it.

11:49:57 But if they vacate that sign space and someone else

11:50:00 wants to come in, he cannot get a permit.

11:50:02 >> That is not written into your code.

11:50:07 I don't believe that.

11:50:07 I think we need to hear from our attorney.

11:50:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, okay.

11:50:11 >>MARY MULHERN: They shouldn't be doing that.




11:50:14 That's why I'm making the point that I don't believe

11:50:15 this is in the code and if our permit department is

11:50:18 doing that, that's absolutely not okay, and we need to

11:50:21 fix that problem.

11:50:23 Whether it's part of your variance request or not.

11:50:25 >> The code doesn't say that.

11:50:28 I said their interpretation was that.

11:50:30 We had an interpret expert testify at the hearing

11:50:33 saying that they had gone in and changed out some signs

11:50:36 on Kennedy Boulevard.

11:50:43 And he was able to change out the sign faces, and then

11:50:46 all of a sudden he went in for exactly the same thing

11:50:48 and was told he couldn't.

11:50:55 Here is the testimony.

11:50:56 It's not electronic.

11:50:58 It's multiple signs.

11:51:00 This is page 14 of the testimony.

11:51:01 It's an interpretive issue.

11:51:04 Bob just told you, he got permission to install a box,

11:51:08 that this was Bob Smith who testified.

11:51:13 The code says, this is on page 13, the code says that

11:51:16 you can do minor changes, electrical repairs, and when




11:51:20 you get to a certain point they interpret it as beyond

11:51:22 the scope, and the owners are afraid they cannot

11:51:25 replace the sign what's going to happen when they try

11:51:28 to replace the sign.

11:51:29 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay, so the owner was afraid of this.

11:51:32 It doesn't sound --

11:51:34 >> They are coming here because it's an interpretive

11:51:37 issue and there's no clear direction at permitting when

11:51:40 they apply, in a more work or what is legal

11:51:43 nonconforming sign.

11:51:44 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

11:51:46 >> And let me finish here.

11:51:50 The sign faces, on page 12, the threshold that you

11:51:52 start reaching when you start changing out sign faces

11:51:55 when you go for permits, at some point, the sign that

11:51:58 you see here now says signs now, this is not a real

11:52:01 sign, and we because the permit considered this to be a

11:52:06 sign face changeout, they considered it beyond the

11:52:08 scope because there were multiple signs.

11:52:10 With respect to fixing the sign it also triggered a

11:52:13 variance, and that's why we are here.

11:52:14 And that's pages 12 and 13 of this. Anyway, we had an




11:52:20 expert testify for us, and with me, that indicated

11:52:25 there was --

11:52:27 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay, can I hear from Ernie?

11:52:35 >>ERNEST MUELLER: We do have land development coming

11:52:38 over to address that particular question as to what the

11:52:40 interpretation is.

11:52:43 He worked over at permitting specifically on signs.

11:52:46 So he can be very well versed and able to answer that

11:52:51 question.

11:52:51 As you heard, it is not codified.

11:52:57 America.

11:52:59 >>STEVE MICHELINI: This is only interpretation of the

11:53:00 code.

11:53:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The question to come from legal, can we

11:53:04 hear that testimony?

11:53:04 Because it sound like new testimony.

11:53:06 >> That's what I said.

11:53:08 He didn't testify at the hearing.

11:53:09 That wasn't in the record.

11:53:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, listen, can I run the meeting?

11:53:13 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Yes, sir.

11:53:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.




11:53:15 Okay, council.

11:53:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you have a question regarding the

11:53:21 interpretation of the code, my suggestion, though, is

11:53:23 if you have an issue with regard to how the code has

11:53:26 been interpreted, it's correct you are supposed to rely

11:53:32 on the record below and not take any new testimony.

11:53:35 So if that's the issue, you have several options.

11:53:37 You can remand this to the board with specific

11:53:39 instructions.

11:53:40 You can affirm the board's decision or overturn it

11:53:44 based on your own findings.

11:53:45 But if there's an issue of fact that needs to be done,

11:53:53 the appropriate thing would be to reman it to the board

11:53:57 below to resolve that question.

11:53:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Capin.

11:54:02 >>YVONNE CAPIN: It pertains to this.

11:54:04 I'm counting six spaces on this sign.

11:54:08 What triggered it, according to the testimony here,

11:54:14 three signs, three faces need to be changed.

11:54:21 The interpretation was that it triggers using the legal

11:54:32 nonconforming.

11:54:34 And that was the interpretation, the ordinance.




11:54:40 It's three or more faces, it triggers --

11:54:45 >> The ordinance talks about 50% or less.

11:54:48 It doesn't tell you how to interpret it.

11:54:51 That's up to the individual reviewers and how they

11:54:55 enforce that.

11:54:59 We are respectfully requesting relief from that.

11:55:01 And quite honestly because the way the reports are

11:55:04 written up, I don't think that we can receive a fair

11:55:07 and impartial hearing at the VRB.

11:55:12 Because the application indicated we were petitioning

11:55:15 for electronic signs.

11:55:18 And we weren't even told about the subsequent report.

11:55:23 The VRB members never received that report at the

11:55:27 corrected version.

11:55:28 And I think that we are there already.

11:55:32 I am respectfully requesting relieve -- relief from the

11:55:36 City Council.

11:55:36 >> What's the pleasure of this board?

11:55:44 >>MARY MULHERN: I am going to make a stab at remanding

11:55:53 to the Variance Review Board because it sound lake they

11:55:56 weren't making their decision necessarily based on the

11:56:02 specific -- your hardship from what I can tell was the




11:56:07 setback, and they were looking at other things.

11:56:11 But I also have a problem with what we are talking

11:56:15 about now, because if that were actually in our code

11:56:20 and being interpreted that way, you can't change out

11:56:27 signs.

11:56:27 You can't change out the businesses on a sign because

11:56:30 of the new sign code that's not right either, and that

11:56:35 would be a hardship.

11:56:36 Definitely if that our code is being interpreted that

11:56:40 way.

11:56:41 So I feel like -- I think the variance review board was

11:56:45 trying to go by our new code, our new law.

11:56:51 They were trying to enforce the law so that it you

11:56:55 have -- you are grandfathered in.

11:56:58 You have a legal conforming sign.

11:57:00 And you have that advantage already over the people who

11:57:02 are putting up new signs that won't be able to have the

11:57:06 kind of setback you have.

11:57:07 So I think it needs to go back to the variance review

11:57:10 board.

11:57:15 12349 Mr. Chairman, although I am not against all of

11:57:17 that, but I see an individual come in.




11:57:23 I think it's think it's 50% yes, 50% no.

11:57:35 We can find out without the record as to all the facts

11:57:38 that are going on, because I don't see too much wrong

11:57:41 with a sign if it's going to be replaced at the same

11:57:44 location, at the same thing, when people move in and

11:57:48 out today.

11:57:49 Forget about the economy.

11:57:50 In today's world people move to get the better location

11:57:53 and where they think they are going to do better.

11:57:56 And if it's true -- and I assume it is true -- the

11:57:58 ordinance is written that if that sign is changed by

11:58:02 50% or more, I don't care if it's out of the six signs

11:58:06 you move three, and they have 51% of the total sign,

11:58:09 then you can't do it.

11:58:11 That's the interpretation that I get from listening to

11:58:13 both sides.

11:58:20 It's going to have to be reviewed.

11:58:22 Maybe we need an ordinance change because it's very

11:58:28 difficult to change something that's not changing

11:58:30 location.

11:58:31 If you move the sign, you lose -- you can't get in and

11:58:34 out of the location.




11:58:35 You aren't going to put it behind the cars.

11:58:38 So it's very difficult.

11:58:39 I mean, somehow, I correlate this with the sidewalk

11:58:47 ordinance.

11:58:48 It's new.

11:58:49 It doesn't speak directly to it.

11:58:51 So then you charge everybody for everything you can.

11:58:54 And that's the same thing we did for years until we

11:58:57 changed that.

11:58:58 And it's a nonconforming sign.

11:59:01 It's not going to change.

11:59:02 What changes is the content of the sign itself, within

11:59:05 the height of the change, the width doesn't change, the

11:59:10 structure doesn't change, the only thing that changes

11:59:12 is the interior working mechanism.

11:59:17 Sign without electronic signs.

11:59:18 >> Okay.

11:59:24 The face of the sign, if you have four tenants moving

11:59:27 into this location would be -- I could see that.

11:59:32 I can understand the hardship.

11:59:35 I can understand that hardship.

11:59:36 >> That's my interpretation.




11:59:44 >>GWEN MILLER: We have to close the public hearing.

11:59:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's the motion to close the public

12:00:06 hearing. Is there a second?

12:00:07 >> Second.

12:00:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

12:00:09 Opposes?

12:00:09 Okay.

12:00:33 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Move the question, Mr. Chairman.

12:00:43 Based on hardship.

12:00:44 And to me, I think the signs, the way they are set up,

12:00:48 are killing the small businesses.

12:00:53 New people move in, they are not going to be able to

12:00:56 have their name on there.

12:00:57 This has to be changed.

12:00:59 It's killing the small businesses.

12:01:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: So is the motion then based on --

12:01:06 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: If they didn't have substantial

12:01:08 proof, it should have denied.

12:01:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me ask legal.

12:01:12 If we are overturning the barrio, that means we are

12:01:16 making this a legal nonconforming sign?

12:01:19 >> That's correct.




12:01:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Does that mean it can become an

12:01:22 electronic sign?

12:01:23 >> You are asking for an interpretation of the sign

12:01:25 code?

12:01:25 My understanding is yes.

12:01:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Well, I am not going to do that

12:01:32 either.

12:01:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, one of the issues with the

12:01:39 sign code that's come up before is you may very well --

12:01:43 and I don't want to talk outside this hearing, but just

12:01:46 to bring to your attention that the issues on the sign

12:01:48 code, confronted lately, are going to be presented

12:01:52 again to the VRB.

12:01:53 And now they are going to come to council.

12:01:57 You have these side issues.

12:01:59 There are issues that have been brought to your

12:02:00 attention within the sign code that they need to be

12:02:03 addressed to deal with this issue.

12:02:05 Other ways, you may find yourself in this position.

12:02:09 With regard to today's hearing, this is the last

12:02:12 hearing under the old method.

12:02:13 So you can degree with the petitioners presentation




12:02:19 that there was due process issues that he alleged, that

12:02:23 the criteria was not applied properly, the essential

12:02:26 requirements of law had been object served.

12:02:28 If that's the basis for Mr. Caetano's motion.

12:02:30 Otherwise, council, then council would have to deal

12:02:34 with this again either remanding it, or affirming it.

12:02:39 The motion now is to overturn.

12:02:41 Again that would make it a legal conforming sign.

12:02:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: However, let me say this.

12:02:52 If that -- let's say this changes and that owner sells

12:02:59 to someone else.

12:03:00 And the new owner can apply for a digital sign, because

12:03:05 it's a legal --

12:03:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you grant this petition to make

12:03:12 this a legal conforming sign, then those faces can be

12:03:17 changed out, from my understanding, to electronic, if

12:03:22 the applicant chooses without having to come back to

12:03:24 City Council.

12:03:25 >> Although it was stated that was not the intent, that

12:03:29 could be --

12:03:30 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The effect.

12:03:31 But clearly, clearly the issue is that was not the




12:03:36 intent of the application.

12:03:37 But council recognizes that it's an effect of making it

12:03:41 a legal conforming sign.

12:03:44 As it would be, not to speak to this particular case

12:03:47 but with any legal Connecticut forming sign, if City

12:03:50 Council granted status of a conforming sign --

12:03:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I don't understand why is it that

12:03:56 things get so difficult?

12:04:00 If the petitioner wants to just change out three faces

12:04:01 of the sign, we end up here.

12:04:02 I don't understand that.

12:04:03 And now with the situation we are going to make it now,

12:04:05 a digital sign --

12:04:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The city with permitting would have

12:04:11 given it to them without being involved, and it would

12:04:14 still be a legal nonconforming sign.

12:04:16 But once it comes here and we vote on it, it becomes a

12:04:18 conforming sign to the new code, and that's where they

12:04:22 come in and do what they want.

12:04:24 So, I mean, it only takes a little common sense.

12:04:27 But once it gets here, we have to vote on it legally,

12:04:30 and then the law changes on that sign itself where it




12:04:34 becomes a digital sign.

12:04:36 So if the good people would have said you can change

12:04:38 three faces of it hear, sign it, waive it, bingo, done.

12:04:44 50% of the sign was done. But the law doesn't allow

12:04:46 you to do that.

12:04:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's why people are having a hard

12:04:49 time about government and all these regulations because

12:04:52 it's too restrictive, and it's -- that's a problem.

12:04:58 That's a problem.

12:04:59 And I am going to tell you.

12:05:01 Here today we spent 45, 47 minutes on this one issue

12:05:05 that the administration could resolve by letting them

12:05:07 change out the face of the sign without us having to

12:05:10 come here, and now we are faced with whether we want to

12:05:13 make it a legal conforming sign which now they can put

12:05:16 up a digital sign.

12:05:18 That's what you are facing right now.

12:05:22 I don't understand it.

12:05:24 Why does government have to make things so difficult?

12:05:39 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I would like to clarify.

12:05:40 When they said electrical sign.

12:05:42 It is an electrical sign now.




12:05:43 What you are talking about is digital.

12:05:45 And I would like them to be used separately.

12:05:48 Because an electrical sign is a lit sign.

12:05:51 Digital is a sign that is digital, and it's being used

12:05:57 interchangeably.

12:05:58 So that's to clarify that.

12:06:02 The other thing is absolutely correct.

12:06:06 Administration interpretations are -- we have this

12:06:10 issue here.

12:06:12 And I absolutely agree with if chairman on it.

12:06:15 Thank you.

12:06:15 >>MARY MULHERN: I would submit that the hearing is

12:06:20 closed so I am not going to ask Mr. Michelini.

12:06:22 But we would still be here even if they let them change

12:06:28 out those signs.

12:06:28 This is here because they want to be legal conforming

12:06:34 which would give them the rights to the setback

12:06:37 changes, the area changes, the height changes, and I

12:06:43 think it in the record.

12:06:44 I think we can find it in there that this -- I don't

12:06:51 know. Anyway, we know what the effect is.

12:06:56 If they get these additional rights.




12:06:57 And I just want to, you know, remind council, your

12:07:01 problems with government, that's what our job is, to

12:07:04 create these laws.

12:07:05 Our code.

12:07:06 And this sign code was developed with the sign

12:07:11 industry, with the small businesses, they had more

12:07:14 input than anybody, including people on council.

12:07:17 So this was written to reduce the clutter, to make it

12:07:23 safer for us to drive, to be able to see, for

12:07:26 businesses to have, you know, that we have reduced the

12:07:29 sign clutter.

12:07:30 And that's the point of it.

12:07:31 Every time something has come in front of this council,

12:07:34 since we changed that sign code, we go ahead and let

12:07:36 them have it.

12:07:37 So we are not enforcing this.

12:07:40 And the point is, they have the rights to what they

12:07:42 have.

12:07:43 Unless there is this cyclone or whatever it is that's

12:07:46 just going to knock down their two signs, they are

12:07:48 already at an advantage to any new business that comes

12:07:51 in.




12:07:51 And I don't believe -- I think it's a red herring to

12:07:55 suggest that they are not -- would not be allowed to

12:07:59 change out the signage on there.

12:08:01 If it is we need to fix that in the code.

12:08:03 >> And if I can, Mr. Chairman.

12:08:07 Just for the record, just to it reflect on what council

12:08:11 member Mulhern said.

12:08:14 Council, I believe, recognizes what the effect could be

12:08:17 of a legal conforming sign.

12:08:19 But I would ask that you not base your decision on

12:08:22 inferring of what the intent of what the petitioner is

12:08:25 in this particular case.

12:08:39 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: We had a sign committee, Mr. Bob

12:08:40 Smith, who testified in this room about digital signs.

12:08:43 And the sign committee approved digital signs.

12:08:45 >> No question.

12:08:52 And I think digital signs are better looking and more

12:08:55 appropriate for any of these signs that we had out

12:08:56 there.

12:08:59 We are not asking for a digital sign today.

12:09:01 All we want is keep this one conforming.

12:09:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There was a motion made by councilman




12:09:09 Caetano --

12:09:15 >> Stokes.

12:09:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, there's a motion.

12:09:25 All in favor of the motion signify by saying Aye.

12:09:28 Opposes?

12:09:29 Nay.

12:09:29 >>THE CLERK: Roll call, please.

12:09:33 Caetano.

12:09:34 >> Yes.

12:09:36 >>YVONNE CAPIN: No.

12:09:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

12:09:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: No.

12:09:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: No.

12:09:42 >>MARY MULHERN: No.

12:09:44 >>CURTIS STOKES: Yes.

12:09:46 >>THE CLERK: The motion failed 3-4 with Capin, Scott,

12:09:50 Miranda, and Mulhern voting no.

12:09:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What I would suggest is that we remand

12:09:55 it.

12:09:57 I would suggest we remand it back to the Variance

12:10:00 Review Board with specific guidance on looking at the

12:10:04 whole interpretation issue of this.




12:10:07 That will be what I suggest.

12:10:08 So if someone wants to make that motion.

12:10:11 >>MARY MULHERN: That was my motion initially.

12:10:13 So I restate my motion to remand it to the variance

12:10:18 reviewed -- review board with the direction that the

12:10:21 chair stated.

12:10:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Specific directions on --

12:10:28 >>MARY MULHERN: The interpretation of the changes in

12:10:31 the sign.

12:10:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The interpretation, given the fact

12:10:36 that the discussion today was that they want to change

12:10:38 out, I think, three faces that triggered this whole

12:10:40 issue, as I understand.

12:10:44 Yes.

12:10:44 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: The amount of empty stores, and

12:10:53 by putting tougher regulations such as we are doing

12:10:58 here today, there's going to be more empty stores,

12:11:01 believe me.

12:11:03 If there's 150 stores, 100 of them are empty.

12:11:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

12:11:09 Was there a second to that motion?

12:11:10 Moved and seconded.




12:11:11 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

12:11:13 Opposes?

12:11:17 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Do you have any direction regarding

12:11:19 the setbacks of the Heights issues?

12:11:24 >> The intent was you want it maintained as is.

12:11:28 >> I understand that but if you don't give the variance

12:11:30 re view board some direction regarding other matters,

12:11:33 if I am not mistaken, your motion really is directed to

12:11:35 the permit center on interpretation.

12:11:38 The variance reboard board doesn't review that.

12:11:41 But they do look at the setbacks, the height, and --

12:11:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do you want to speak to that?

12:11:48 >>ERNEST MUELLER: I think if I understood what you are

12:11:50 saying, if the interpretation is true, that they can't

12:11:56 change out more than 50% of the, then does that become

12:12:01 more of a hardship?

12:12:02 I think that's what you are asking them to look at.

12:12:05 And if that's a hardship, that might be a hard hardship

12:12:08 for the height or everything else.

12:12:11 That's my understanding of what you said.

12:12:13 If that is the true thing, we need to make a

12:12:15 determination whether or not --




12:12:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The idea is to allow the petitioner to

12:12:20 be able to change out the sign without having to come

12:12:22 here and we make that our legal nonconforming sign.

12:12:26 That's the issue.

12:12:26 >>MARY MULHERN: Did we pass it?

12:12:31 We didn't vote yet.

12:12:31 I want to make a motion after.

12:12:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The motion passed.

12:12:37 >>THE CLERK: If there was any opposition.

12:12:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The motion, I said aye.

12:12:45 Did anyone vote against the motion?

12:12:46 Signify by saying nay.

12:12:48 So the motion did pass.

12:12:49 >>MARY MULHERN: I want to make a motion to ask the

12:12:52 legal department to report to us specifically on how

12:12:58 the code is written as far as changing legal

12:13:04 nonconforming signs with regard to this changing out

12:13:07 the businesses.

12:13:09 And I think that needs to be cured.

12:13:13 If this is a problem that is getting interpreted that

12:13:15 people -- a new business moves in and they can't put up

12:13:19 a sign, that's just not right.




12:13:21 So we need a report on that.

12:13:23 We need to figure out if we need to change the code.

12:13:25 >>ERNEST MUELLER: And we have staff for that, too.

12:13:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's a motion and second.

12:13:35 All in favor?

12:13:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Second meeting in January?

12:13:38 >> Second meeting in January is fine.

12:13:39 Anyone opposed to that?

12:13:41 Signify by saying nay.

12:13:43 Council, earlier --

12:13:45 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Caetano voting no.

12:13:52 Motion carried.

12:13:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

12:13:57 We will give all the high schools a commendation.

12:14:01 Does that include those outside of the city limits as

12:14:03 well?

12:14:08 >>GWEN MILLER: (off microphone).

12:14:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I just want to be clear.

12:14:12 Well, we said we want to give them all.

12:14:14 So I wanted to know if we are talking about high

12:14:17 schools outside.

12:14:18 >>GWEN MILLER: How many schools?




12:14:23 >> Eight.

12:14:23 >>GWEN MILLER: All within the City of Tampa.

12:14:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We'll do that.

12:14:26 Okay.

12:14:26 The second I will say, I want to call to your attention

12:14:29 that I had a discussion with the city attorney.

12:14:31 He sent a memo out on August 26th about the

12:14:34 election and campaigning, to redistribute that to all

12:14:38 of our offices.

12:14:40 I want to call to the your attention.

12:14:42 It is very clear, our code and state law, and so I will

12:14:48 caution you, those that are on the ballot, which I

12:14:51 think all of us are.

12:14:55 >>GWEN MILLER: No.

12:14:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's true, those of us that -- well,

12:15:00 those that are on the ballot, those who may be on the

12:15:02 ballot, and those who may not be on the ballot, okay,

12:15:06 because it's very important.

12:15:07 We understand that there are certain guidelines

12:15:10 understood Florida statutes, and one thing I want to

12:15:14 point out here, it says here understood the state law

12:15:18 and the city ordinance, and particularly the last one,




12:15:22 soliciting or accepting any political contribution in

12:15:25 the city unless it has been renovated for the specific

12:15:29 purpose of holding a town hearing is prohibited as well

12:15:33 and includes but not limited, request to vote for

12:15:36 support or otherwise for the time where anything of

12:15:39 value to any canned data, all of those be aware, so you

12:15:44 have to be very careful if you are in a public

12:15:46 building, you are soliciting a vote.

12:15:50 So just be very cautious to that.

12:15:52 So I want to bring that to your attention.

12:15:55 And I just want us to understand that we are in the

12:15:59 campaign season, and there are those that will be

12:16:03 looking and watching.

12:16:05 There will be those that try to trip you up.

12:16:08 There will be those, you know, again that are trying to

12:16:10 get headlines in the press.

12:16:13 So I just want to caution all of us here, anyway, that

12:16:16 we govern ourselves accordingly to what the city

12:16:21 attorney has distributed throughout all of our offices.

12:16:24 Okay?

12:16:24 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: (off microphone)

12:16:30 If you have a car, you can't put it on your car.




12:16:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

12:16:46 All right.

12:16:47 Happy holiday to all of you.

12:16:59 Hope holiday to all of you.

12:17:00 Enjoy your holiday season.

12:17:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: This is the last meeting of the year.

12:17:04 I want to the take the opportunity to again thank you

12:17:05 for the opportunity to serve you and to wish all of you

12:17:07 a very happy new year and good holiday.

12:17:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Very thank you to our clerk and to all

12:17:13 of you.

12:17:13 God bless you.

12:17:14 Enjoy your holiday time together.

12:17:16 We stand adjourned.

12:17:18 (The meeting adjourned at 12:17 p.m.)

12:18:01



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.