Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Thursday, January 5, 2012

9:00 a.m. session


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.

09:06:11 >>MARY MULHERN: Good morning.

09:06:13 Welcome to our first 2012 Tampa City Council regular

09:06:16 meeting.

09:06:16 The chair yields to Councilwoman Capin for our invocation.

09:06:21 >> Good morning.

09:06:24 And happy and healthy and prosperous new year to everyone.

09:06:27 I would like to introduce with great pleasure the reverend

09:06:30 Steven brown who will do our invocation this morning.

09:06:34 He's presently assistant to the president of Saint Leo

09:06:36 University, serving in the university ministry while

09:06:40 participating as a supply priest throughout the dais of

09:06:43 St. Petersburg and Orlando.

09:06:43 Specializing in Spanish, Portuguese and English math.

09:06:48 Reverend Brown has been at St. Leo since 2007.

09:06:53 And before that served as pastor of saint Leo church in

09:06:57 Indianapolis and saint Nicholas church in St. Louis.

09:07:00 A graduate of the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago,

09:07:04 Reverend Brown also served as columnist for the Indianapolis

09:07:10 Recorder newspaper, and he's going to do our invocation this

09:07:16 morning.

09:07:17 And please stand and stay standing for the pledge of

09:07:19 allegiance.

09:07:20 >> Let us bow our heads in the presence of a mighty good

09:07:30 God.

09:07:31 Lord God of holiness, we come before you as we begin this

09:07:37 new year.

09:07:38 You have called us to be the servants of the people here in

09:07:42 the City of Tampa.

09:07:44 Today those who serve as representatives of your people need

09:07:48 to seek a new direction for this city. So loving God, we

09:07:53 ask for your grace and your guidance.

09:07:56 Help them to truly represent all those who live and work in

09:08:03 the City of Tampa.

09:08:04 In the true needs of our city and the common good of all be

09:08:08 their concern. And above all, may your will in these

09:08:11 matters become our will and help those who serve the

09:08:14 leadership.

09:08:15 Remember that all of their concerns are aimed to transcend

09:08:21 all challenges, and the transformation of our city, to

09:08:25 reflect the presence of your kingdom, a kingdom of justice,

09:08:28 love and peace.

09:08:33 Not blind us to the primary work of our city, the well-being

09:08:36 and the holiness of all its members.

09:08:39 May you aspire this meeting.

09:08:45 Grant us the life of divine wisdom.

09:08:49 We ask in your name, you our God, our creator, redeemer, and

09:08:53 sanctifier, and together we all say amen.

09:08:56 [ Pledge of Allegiance ]

09:09:19 >>MARY MULHERN: Roll call, please.

09:09:20 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Here.

09:09:25 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Here.

09:09:26 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.

09:09:27 >>HARRY COHEN: Here.

09:09:33 >>MARY MULHERN: Here.

09:09:34 I have a motion to adopt the minutes.

09:09:36 >> So moved.

09:09:37 >> Second.

09:09:38 >>MARY MULHERN: All in favor?

09:09:46 We have no ceremonial activities today.

09:09:56 A motion to approve the agenda, if there are changes to go

09:10:09 over.

09:10:09 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: City clerk.

09:10:12 Council, the only item we have to the agenda is item 12 and

09:10:19 13.

09:10:23 Council pro tem Mulhern has asked that those items be

09:10:26 removed from the consent agenda.

09:10:28 And discussed with item 60 under staff report at 10:00 a.m.

09:10:34 That's it.

09:10:35 Thank you.

09:10:35 >>MARY MULHERN: I would like to pull one other item on the

09:10:42 consent agenda just for Councilman Reddick to highlight

09:10:45 number 18.

09:10:48 And he will do that during the regular consent agenda

09:10:53 portion.

09:10:58 Are there any other requests from council?

09:11:01 >> Move to approve.

09:11:03 >>FRANK REDDICK: Second.

09:11:04 >>MARY MULHERN: All in favor?

09:11:11 Is there anyone here -- this is our time for public comment.

09:11:15 We have 30 minutes allotted for anyone who would like to

09:11:17 speak on any matters other than public hearings, three

09:11:22 minutes per speaker, and preference will be given to anyone

09:11:26 speaking on items on the agenda.

09:11:28 >> Pete Johnson, 510 east Harrison street, here about two

09:11:38 items.

09:11:38 One is the ordinance rewriting the ordinance for the

09:11:40 addresses on buildings.

09:11:45 Very good.

09:11:46 We need it.

09:11:46 Unfortunately, it's not enforced.

09:11:50 So what's the sense of having the ordinance?

09:11:52 The second thing is the money for the demolition of four

09:11:59 properties.

09:12:00 Very good.

09:12:01 But these properties have been under investigation since '02

09:12:12 and '06.

09:12:14 Why is it taking so long?

09:12:15 There are thousands of properties that need to be demoed

09:12:17 that are health and safety problems that allow drugs and

09:12:21 prostitution to survive.

09:12:23 We need to get a handle on this.

09:12:26 Third item I would like to bring to your attention, this is

09:12:30 a list of five years of code violations that the code

09:12:36 enforcement department has just given up on and turned over

09:12:41 to legal.

09:12:44 This is ridiculous.

09:12:47 We have got to get a handle on this problem.

09:12:50 I know we have got a workshop coming up, and it's something

09:12:54 I have been pushing for many, many years.

09:12:57 But when you see this, I mean, we have just given up on

09:13:03 these.

09:13:03 We need to get a handle on this whole program.

09:13:07 Thank you.

09:13:07 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

09:13:12 Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?

09:13:17 We will move on to our agenda.

09:13:23 Oh, I'm sorry.

09:13:24 >> I'm here.

09:13:29 My name is Gladys Jackson.

09:13:32 I'm speaking for the Rainbow Heights crime watch and

09:13:35 association in East Tampa.

09:13:38 We have been told that it's becoming a strip club.

09:13:47 We will fight that all the way to Tallahassee if necessary.

09:13:51 We will not have a strip club in our neighborhood only three

09:13:56 blocks behind me.

09:13:57 We have young kids, and they have to deal with drugs,

09:13:59 criminals, burglars, shooting as it is in our community.

09:14:03 We do not need another blight on that community.

09:14:09 So we are objecting to that club being there.

09:14:11 And we would like to see it shut down.

09:14:14 Thank you.

09:14:14 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.

09:14:21 Madam Chair, somehow, we have noticed in East Tampa that

09:14:29 some people are starting to open up clubs that are

09:14:36 identified as strip clubs, and there's two, one on

09:14:39 Hillsborough, and one that Ms. Jackson is speaking of.

09:14:45 That is on Martin Luther King Boulevard.

09:14:47 And I just want to request from legal to see if we can --

09:14:55 number one, if there is a permit to open these clubs, and

09:15:04 two, can we investigate to determine whether they have

09:15:06 commenced or not?

09:15:07 Because they are putting signs on the building saying

09:15:12 dancers need, and there's two that I know of in East Tampa,

09:15:17 and they just popped up.

09:15:19 So this is what Mrs. Jackson is speaking about.

09:15:23 So I assume they are going to speak to it, but if we can

09:15:30 find out whether people have permits or whether they are

09:15:33 just opening up, let's see if we can investigation this and

09:15:36 hopefully report back to council with the status.

09:15:39 Thank you.

09:15:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: In the form of a motion?

09:15:42 And how long would you like a report back?

09:15:45 >>FRANK REDDICK: Yes, I'll make that in the form of a

09:15:48 motion, and how much time do you probably need to do

09:15:52 something like that?

09:15:55 >>JIM SHIMBERG: City attorney.

09:15:56 I think we could probably investigate that within a couple

09:16:01 of weeks and report back to you.

09:16:04 Two weeks.

09:16:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: January 19th is your next regular

09:16:07 meeting.

09:16:07 >>FRANK REDDICK: Then set it for January 19th.

09:16:10 Thank you.

09:16:10 >>MARY MULHERN: Motion by Councilman Reddick.

09:16:12 Seconded by Councilman Suarez.

09:16:14 All in favor?

09:16:18 Anyone opposed?

09:16:19 >> Good morning.

09:16:26 My name is Clay Daniels.

09:16:29 I'm a resident of Rainbow Heights, been there for about 20

09:16:32 years.

09:16:33 We have problems with that club over there, police calling

09:16:38 about loud music, disturbance, shooting, fighting,

09:16:41 narcotics, and the club needs to be shut down.

09:16:46 It's too close to grace Mary Baptist church.

09:16:48 You have another church less than 15 feet behind club class

09:16:53 on east north bay, the community church.

09:16:56 We have two churches there.

09:16:57 This place need to be shut down like I said earlier.

09:17:00 It's an embarrassment.

09:17:01 The police department has to spend too much time and

09:17:04 dollars, tying too much time up.

09:17:06 Recently, the police been up there, they had the road block.

09:17:10 39th street, MLK, 200 people block party, cussing,

09:17:15 arguing.

09:17:16 The place is an embarrassment to the community needs to be

09:17:19 shut down.

09:17:20 I got a call last night from Lieutenant Moskowitz, told the

09:17:28 fire marshal that it's in violation.

09:17:30 The place is just an embarrassment.

09:17:32 I just hope you all will look at this place, and someone

09:17:36 will get killed.

09:17:37 But if you look at this paperwork, the history of this club,

09:17:40 police calling, narcotics, shooting, faithing, and it need

09:17:45 to be shut down.

09:17:46 Thank you.

09:17:46 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

09:17:53 Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?

09:17:58 Thank you.

09:17:59 We will move to item number 1.

09:18:13 Judy Lisi from the Straz Center.

09:18:17 >> Judy Lisi.

09:18:18 It I'm here this morning in my capacity as president of the

09:18:22 Straz Center for the performing arts which is a public

09:18:25 private partnership for the city for the last 24 years and

09:18:29 very grateful for all that you have done.

09:18:31 I am here at the invitation of Councilman Cohen.

09:18:37 I have brought this legislation to the attention of our

09:18:39 board, and it's very important to talk about it here, and

09:18:43 that has to do with scalpers and a new law that would allow

09:18:53 them to have new software to buy tickets before the public

09:18:56 would have access to them at all.

09:18:58 That would mean that anything that we do at the Performing

09:19:03 Arts Center, St. Pete Times Forum, at Raymond James stadium,

09:19:06 anywhere in the state, the public would not have access to

09:19:11 these tickets before these Internet scalpers would be able

09:19:18 to buy them and raise prices on them.

09:19:20 We recently had egregious examples of this.

09:19:24 We had Janet Jackson a couple of weeks ago.

09:19:27 These tickets were Internet scalped.

09:19:32 They go on the Internet, people thinking they are buying

09:19:35 from the original ticket seller, five times the amount of a

09:19:39 ticket price.

09:19:40 Not only do they up the ticket price, but very often they

09:19:45 are not in the areas that they -- that the ticket buyers

09:19:51 would be in.

09:19:52 For example, they spend five times the amount in the

09:19:55 orchestra, when they come, they are up in the balcony, which

09:19:58 is fine, still very good seats, but fraudulently they were

09:20:02 sold something that was not what they got.

09:20:05 At that point we can't do anything for the consumer.

09:20:07 We are here as your perform arts center and the other

09:20:12 organizations are for the community.

09:20:14 We want to make sure our public knows that this is

09:20:17 happening.

09:20:18 Scalping laws have been on the books in the State of Florida

09:20:22 for 60 years, until five years ago when this new Internet

09:20:26 concept came up, and now the companies on eBay are

09:20:32 out-of-state, they have no responsibility, they have deep

09:20:36 pockets, and this is going to be challenging everything.

09:20:42 So we want to bring this to your attention today and hope

09:20:45 that as it comes up, our public and you are aware that this

09:20:50 is happening.

09:20:51 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

09:20:54 Councilman Cohen.

09:20:55 >>HARRY COHEN: There is some legislation that has been

09:20:58 penning this year and it's been sort of maybe derailed and

09:21:03 come back.

09:21:04 What is the status of that?

09:21:05 >> The status is, it was tabled in December.

09:21:09 These are very, very persistent people that have deep

09:21:13 pockets, and it will come up again.

09:21:15 It's coming up every year now.

09:21:17 At least we were successful a couple of years ago in getting

09:21:21 the not-for-profit performing arts centers out from under

09:21:24 this.

09:21:25 But it is happening, and now they want access to all

09:21:28 tickets.

09:21:29 So it's really very, very --

09:21:32 >> So with the sports venues as well?

09:21:35 >> Yes, that's correct.

09:21:36 And they are targeting large states like Florida first.

09:21:40 This is not just Florida.

09:21:42 It's a national issue.

09:21:44 The biggest thing is -- they misrepresent who they are, so

09:21:49 the ticket buyer thinks they are actually buying from the

09:21:52 original ticket seller.

09:21:53 And then if the show cancels, we can't reach them.

09:21:57 If there is a traffic problem we can't reach -- we have a

09:22:05 contract between the original ticket seller and the person

09:22:07 who bought that ticket.

09:22:08 This absolutely intervenes and takes away how we can service

09:22:14 our customer.

09:22:14 >>HARRY COHEN: Would you be able to sell season ticket

09:22:18 packages if this type of a law went through?

09:22:20 >> Probably not.

09:22:21 Because our ticket packages are sold, they want access to

09:22:26 tickets before anything happens.

09:22:27 This is what's so scary about this.

09:22:30 It will upend the entire industry and our relationship to

09:22:34 the consumer.

09:22:36 So I thank you for the opportunity to speak before you.

09:22:40 Again I thank you for all the good work that you do.

09:22:48 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Briefly, how are we here on City Council --

09:22:54 what can we do to participate?

09:22:58 What do you ask of us?

09:23:00 >> Well, at first, I thought it would be good -- this is a

09:23:07 rareness that this is happening.

09:23:09 It's been tabled.

09:23:10 It will come up again.

09:23:11 At that point we will appeal to you and see how you might

09:23:14 support opposition to this, because really you represent the

09:23:23 city and these institutions, institutions like the

09:23:27 Performing Arts Center, St. Pete Times Forum, so it's

09:23:31 important that you know all of this, and I'll make sure that

09:23:34 we bring this to your attention.

09:23:38 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Thank you.

09:23:38 Please keep us up to date.

09:23:40 Thank you very much.

09:23:40 >>MARY MULHERN: I had the experience over the holidays, I

09:23:46 was with my sister, going to buy my mother opera tickets for

09:23:51 the Michigan opera theater in Detroit.

09:23:53 So I got online, and we almost bought tickets that were

09:24:02 almost twice as much.

09:24:04 And you really couldn't tell because they didn't -- they do

09:24:11 almost represent themselves as being like the official

09:24:16 seller, so people are doing this now, and there's no way to

09:24:19 tell.

09:24:23 And the only reason I can figure it out was because there

09:24:26 was in a -- when you try to figure out where the seats were

09:24:29 on the maps, you couldn't do that.

09:24:30 But they did have -- we have all become so used to the

09:24:43 centralized ticket sellers or whatever it is, so you are not

09:24:46 even assuming you are getting the box office anymore.

09:24:48 But I think -- I can't believe that you are actually having

09:24:54 to fight legislation that would make things worse.

09:24:57 I think it's pretty bad right now.

09:24:59 >> It's really bad.

09:25:02 And they will force all of us to put tickets on sale that

09:25:10 they can buy first.

09:25:11 This is what's not correct about this.

09:25:12 >>MARY MULHERN: Is there any kind of legislation?

09:25:14 It seems like something that should be -- I don't know if

09:25:17 you can do something nationally, but --

09:25:22 >> Well, I am actually on the board of a national

09:25:24 organization, and they are going to try to put federal

09:25:31 legislation as well because it gotten so big right now.

09:25:36 This is going state by state.

09:25:37 And they did it in a way that it happened and we didn't even

09:25:40 know, so we have been in a reactive mode, but now we realize

09:25:44 we have to step up to the plate.

09:25:45 A lot of us are not for profits, we don't think that way,

09:25:48 but we really have to start thinking to have proactive

09:25:55 legislation.

09:25:55 >>MARY MULHERN: Councilman Suarez.

09:25:57 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mrs. Lisi, the bills that you have

09:26:01 highlighted in your package to us is primarily for

09:26:03 nonprofits, correct?

09:26:05 >> no, no, not just for not-for-profits.

09:26:09 This goes beyond not-for-profits.

09:26:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ: The reason I ask is because if there are

09:26:14 some issues that you are going to be part of, because I know

09:26:19 as an example, major league baseball has a contract with

09:26:23 stub hub to provide these services for reselling the

09:26:26 tickets.

09:26:27 Have you -- obviously, essentially they are AP official

09:26:32 reseller of these tickets.

09:26:33 And you might end up fighting a lost different battles and

09:26:38 not just one from these particular companies.

09:26:41 >> We aren't opposed to having an official reseller.

09:26:46 Because if we have the ability to have an official reseller,

09:26:49 then we could make certain contractual agreements with what

09:26:52 the reseller is responsible for.

09:26:55 That's not what this is right now.

09:26:57 >>MIKE SUAREZ: May I ask, have they approached yourself or

09:27:01 other nonprofits in the state to become official resellers?

09:27:06 Is this to force you into that situation?

09:27:09 >> That would seem what it is right now.

09:27:12 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, Ms. Lisi.

09:27:14 >> Thank you very much.

09:27:19 >>MARY MULHERN: Are there any requests by the public for

09:27:24 reconsideration of legislative matters?

09:27:36 Seeing none, we will move on to committee reports.

09:27:39 I want to highlight a couple of things.

09:27:54 We have a couple of confirmations, and I want to introduce

09:27:59 Mr. Rick Hamilton, who is the convention center director,

09:28:07 and I just wanted him to have a minute to say a few words if

09:28:11 he would like.

09:28:11 >> Good morning, Madam Chair.

09:28:13 Rick Hamilton from the convention center, glad to be here.

09:28:17 First I want to say it was very nice to meet the council

09:28:20 members yesterday and today and have a little bit of one on

09:28:23 one time so, I get to know you personally.

09:28:25 I am thrilled to be here as most of you now know, it's my

09:28:29 third attempt to work for the City of Tampa, and this time I

09:28:32 made it.

09:28:33 As Councilman Suarez told me yesterday, the third time is

09:28:36 the charm.

09:28:38 I have loved the city and the convention center since it was

09:28:42 constructed and it's always been sort of my ideal job, and

09:28:46 I'm very thankful that you have given me this opportunity,

09:28:49 and I'm glad to be here.

09:28:50 So thank you very much.

09:28:51 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you thank you for coming by.

09:28:53 And I don't know if Ali Glisson is here, the new public

09:28:59 affairs director.

09:29:00 >> Hi.

09:29:01 I'm the new public affairs director, started a few weeks ago

09:29:06 actually, and I'm actually originally -- I'm happy to be

09:29:17 back, great to be here, and a great couple of years.

09:29:22 Obviously please call me if you have anything.

09:29:26 It will be great.

09:29:27 Thanks.

09:29:27 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

09:29:40 We will move on to our ordinance being presented for first

09:29:52 reading consideration.

09:30:02 Oh, sorry.

09:30:04 I'm a little rusty on this.

09:30:10 We do them first, right?

09:30:12 They are on their first?

09:30:13 Consents?

09:30:14 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.

09:30:16 Good morning and happy new year to everybody.

09:30:19 This ordinance is being present towed upon motion of council

09:30:23 made prior to the new year.

09:30:25 This would amend our chapter 5 to provide that vacant

09:30:29 parcels that are undergoing construction permit reviews,

09:30:33 that they are also obligated to address the parcel, and that

09:30:38 the address would be visible from the right-of-way.

09:30:40 We also put in some additional language to match the new

09:30:43 requirements of the state laws as to what needs to be

09:30:48 available to the addressing.

09:30:50 I'm available for questions.

09:30:51 Thank you.

09:30:51 >> Councilman Reddick.

09:30:55 >>FRANK REDDICK: Let me ask you a question.

09:30:57 How would this be enforced?

09:31:00 >> When a property is undergoing permit review, and they go

09:31:03 through the property as part of that process, the inspector

09:31:09 will show up and know whether or not there is an address

09:31:15 from the parcel.

09:31:17 Right now buildings are required to be addressed.

09:31:19 That is part of your current permitting requirements.

09:31:23 There just was no obligation of a parcel undergoing

09:31:28 construction have an address that is visible from the

09:31:30 right-of-way, and as we were going through some of our other

09:31:33 code amendments, that issue got raised, and in fact it was a

09:31:37 new requirement of state law as to what the address was

09:31:40 supposed to look like.

09:31:41 So we simply are adding in vacant parcels added to the

09:31:46 address and be reviewed as part of the permit process.

09:31:48 >>MARY MULHERN: Councilman Suarez.

09:31:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I move an ordinance for first reading

09:32:01 consideration, an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida

09:32:02 making revisions to City of Tampa code of ordinances chapter

09:32:05 5, building code, amending section 5-116 .1, numbering of

09:32:12 buildings, repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances

09:32:15 in conflict therewith, providing for severability, providing

09:32:18 an effective date.

09:32:18 >> Second.

09:32:21 >>MARY MULHERN: Motion made by Councilman Suarez, seconded

09:32:24 by Councilwoman Capin.

09:32:27 All in favor?

09:32:30 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda being absent.

09:32:32 The second reading of the ordinance will be held January

09:32:34 19th at 9:30 a.m.

09:32:40 >>JIM SHIMBERG: Good morning.

09:32:41 Item number 3 on the agenda is first reading of an

09:32:45 ordinance, that makes some modifications to your

09:32:49 not-for-profits ethics ordinance.

09:32:52 Over the past year or so, there have been several

09:32:54 not-for-profits who pointed out issues with the original

09:32:57 ordinance.

09:32:59 One example is you don't allow nepotism within the board,

09:33:05 and we have family foundations, and also an issue, but the

09:33:08 threshold of support from 5,000 to 25,000 a year.

09:33:19 Marci Hamilton is here if you have questions, and any public

09:33:29 comment we can have at second reading.

09:33:35 >>MARY MULHERN: Questions?

09:33:36 Marci, we don't have any questions.

09:33:48 Councilman Capin, would you read that?

09:33:51 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Yes.

09:33:54 An ordinance being presented for first reading

09:33:57 consideration.

09:33:57 An ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida amending City of

09:33:59 Tampa code chapter 2, article 8, City of Tampa ethics code,

09:34:06 division 2, subdivision 5, section 2-525, standards of

09:34:12 conduct and accountability requirements for nonprofits

09:34:15 provided financial support by the city, amending the

09:34:18 definition of financial support, providing for certain

09:34:22 exceptions, providing for a change in reporting date,

09:34:26 providing for severability, repealing conflicts, providing

09:34:29 an effective date.

09:34:29 >> Second.

09:34:32 >>MARY MULHERN: Motion made by Councilwoman Capin, seconded

09:34:35 by Councilman Suarez.

09:34:36 All in favor?

09:34:38 Anyone opposed?

09:34:39 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda being absent.

09:34:42 Second reading of the ordinance will be held January

09:34:45 19th at 9:30 a.m.

09:34:47 >>MARY MULHERN: We will now move on to our committee

09:34:53 reports.

09:34:54 And I would like to ask, on the Public Safety Committee,

09:35:00 Councilman Reddick, and Councilwoman Montelione, I had asked

09:35:10 to pull 12 and 13, and there is another public safety item,

09:35:17 number 60, which had already been pulled, since 2 p.m., and

09:35:26 I was wondering after we passed the -- not just public

09:35:30 safety by our consent agenda items, if we could take those

09:35:33 up first so we wouldn't have to keep them here or have him

09:35:37 come back, if that would be okay with council.

09:35:46 So we'll do that after all the consent agenda items.

09:35:50 Councilman Reddick, public safety.

09:35:52 >>FRANK REDDICK: I move item 4 through 11 and 14.

09:35:58 >> Second.

09:36:03 >>MARY MULHERN: Seconded by Councilman Cohen.

09:36:05 All in favor?

09:36:06 Anyone opposed?

09:36:10 Parks, Recreation and Culture, Councilwoman Montelione.

09:36:13 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I move items 15 through 22 for approval.

09:36:20 >>FRANK REDDICK: Second.

09:36:23 >>MARY MULHERN: And Councilman Reddick wanted to just

09:36:26 discuss item 18.

09:36:31 So motion by Councilwoman Montelione, second bid Councilman

09:36:36 Reddick.

09:36:39 All in favor?

09:36:40 Anyone opposed?

09:36:46 >>FRANK REDDICK: Yes, just wanted to state for the record

09:36:52 that we just approved naming the Gwen Miller fitness trail

09:37:03 at the Gwen Miller center in honor of Ruth J. Fleming.

09:37:07 And she is here.

09:37:18 Come on down, Ms. Miller.

09:37:25 I just want to congratulate you.

09:37:27 This council just approved a resolution naming the fitness

09:37:31 trail at Gwen Miller --

09:37:39 >> Thank you.

09:37:39 >> -- after you.

09:37:42 >> Thank you so much.

09:37:44 >> And Ms. Fleming is an icon out in that community.

09:37:47 And it's possible for improvement out in that area, and also

09:37:56 in that recreation facility, as well as encouraging the city

09:38:03 to also do the fitness trail.

09:38:05 So we are honored to name this after you.

09:38:18 The official dedication will be later.

09:38:20 But also sitting back there being quiet, and there's other

09:38:28 members from her neighborhood that are there.

09:38:31 Would you please stand that came here for this today?

09:38:43 They want to congratulate you for this recognition, and Ms.

09:38:47 Fleming, do you want to say anything?

09:38:48 >> Yes.

09:38:49 First I give reference to God for this great opportunity.

09:38:52 I want to thank the entire City Council, and especially Mr.

09:38:58 Frank Reddick.

09:38:59 He does such a good job out in our community and

09:39:03 neighborhood.

09:39:06 I thank you for restoring this honor on me.

09:39:08 And we will definitely take care of our trail.

09:39:15 I want to thank my husband for standing by my side, and all

09:39:19 of my neighborhood watch members that came to support me

09:39:23 this morning for moral support.

09:39:26 This is just a few of.

09:39:29 We are a very large group and we try to get things done in

09:39:32 our community.

09:39:32 Again, thank you very much.

09:39:33 I don't want to take up a lot of time this morning.

09:39:37 I could go on and on and on.

09:39:39 I want to thank you from the depths of my heart, and may

09:39:43 each one of you have a very happy, prosperous and healthy

09:39:47 new year.

09:39:50 [ Applause ]

09:39:53 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.

09:39:57 After looking at a few of the gentlemen back there, I think

09:40:00 you all have been working out already.

09:40:04 Thank you, Madam Chair.

09:40:05 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you all for coming down, and Mrs.

09:40:09 Fleming for all that you have done.

09:40:14 Public Works Committee, Councilman Suarez.

09:40:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I move items 23 through 29.

09:40:22 >> Second.

09:40:23 >>MARY MULHERN: Seconded by Councilman Cohen.

09:40:25 All in favor?

09:40:28 Finance Committee, Councilman Cohen.

09:40:30 >>HARRY COHEN: I move items 30 through 38.

09:40:34 >>FRANK REDDICK: Second.

09:40:36 >>MARY MULHERN: Seconded by Councilman Reddick.

09:40:39 All in favor?

09:40:44 Building, zoning and preservation, Councilwoman Montelione.

09:40:47 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I move items 39 through 47.

09:40:51 >> Second.

09:40:52 >>MARY MULHERN: Motion by Councilwoman Montelione, seconded

09:40:55 by Councilman Reddick.

09:40:57 All in favor?

09:40:58 And transportation committee, Councilwoman Capin.

09:41:02 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I move items 48 through 51.

09:41:05 >>FRANK REDDICK: Second.

09:41:08 >>MARY MULHERN: Motion made by Councilwoman Capin, seconded

09:41:12 by Councilman Reddick.

09:41:14 All in favor?

09:41:15 Thank you.

09:41:23 I would like to ask chief Hamlin to come up and we have a

09:41:30 few questions.

09:41:36 Items 12 and 13.

09:41:39 And then item number 60, I just wanted to ask about and

09:41:47 highlight number 60 because of the huge amount of grant

09:41:54 funding that we are getting from Department of Justice for

09:42:10 the Republican national convention, and because it is a huge

09:42:14 amount and we are going to be granting individual

09:42:17 appropriations from that, I guess I was wondering if we

09:42:23 could hear -- and maybe could you come back at another

09:42:26 meeting -- is just how -- is there a budget that we can see

09:42:31 so we know -- I know it may not be final, but what is going

09:42:38 to be spent out of that $50 million?

09:42:44 >> Yes, it is an itemized budget that prior to soliciting

09:42:50 this money from Congress.

09:42:51 I can tell you that a half to two-thirds of the money will

09:42:54 go to personnel costs, because we have to bring in thousands

09:42:58 of police officers from other jurisdictions to work the

09:43:00 convention.

09:43:01 We'll have to house them, and we will also have to feed them

09:43:05 as well.

09:43:05 That's where the majority of the money is.

09:43:07 And then some equipment, technology, et cetera.

09:43:09 So we have a very inventory breakdown.

09:43:14 >> Is that -- could we get a copy of that so we could see --

09:43:19 now, a general idea?

09:43:21 >> It's not for public consumption right now.

09:43:24 There's a lot of security details that would be in the

09:43:25 budget that could impact security plans.

09:43:29 >> Well, maybe some kind of like an outline where you take

09:43:32 out anything that might be, now --

09:43:34 >> I'm sure we can facilitate that.

09:43:36 >> Yeah, just so we have a general idea.

09:43:38 Because they are huge appropriations.

09:43:42 Then I guess what I was wondering is, how is the spending?

09:43:51 I understand that most of it, two-thirds, you said, is for

09:43:55 personnel.

09:43:55 But the other amounts, are there some kind of restrictions

09:44:02 on what you can spend that on?

09:44:04 >> Yes.

09:44:04 >> Because, you know, we heard and have been pressured, and

09:44:10 then passed the panhandling ban, and we talked so much about

09:44:17 arrest diversion, and about homeless shelters shall R, and

09:44:20 homeless services and all of that, and I was wondering if

09:44:23 there is anyway that we could access some of this grant

09:44:26 money for the safety of our homeless community and services

09:44:35 for those people that would, you know, make it a safer place

09:44:39 to live.

09:44:40 I mean, there's opportunity, all of the federal grant money.

09:44:46 I was just wondering if there's any way we can use that.

09:44:49 >> Well, all of the $60 million federal grant is

09:44:51 specifically for security at the Republican national

09:44:56 convention.

09:44:56 All the purchases will be monitored by the Department of

09:45:00 Justice, bureau of justice administration.

09:45:03 Every decision we make we have to get permission from them,

09:45:06 and in the long-term they will audit us to make sure we

09:45:09 spent the money properly.

09:45:11 I can tell that you $50 million may not even be enough.

09:45:14 We originally sketched a $55 million budget but were only

09:45:18 appropriated 50 million so tweed scale down from that.

09:45:22 Like I said, a lot of those personnel costs, those personnel

09:45:25 costs can only be predicted.

09:45:26 They can't be actual because we don't know what's going to

09:45:30 happen during the days of the convention.

09:45:32 If we have incidents that require us to keep staffing, when

09:45:35 you are talking about 4,000 police officers, that need to

09:45:39 maybe stay a couple hours extra, you are looking at a lot of

09:45:42 money.

09:45:42 So we are not going to buy a lot of equipment with this

09:45:44 money.

09:45:45 And I'm pretty sure that the money couldn't be used for a

09:45:49 homeless shelter.

09:45:51 >> Could we look into that?

09:45:53 >> Absolutely.

09:45:54 We have grant guidelines.

09:45:55 And they are for security purposes.

09:45:58 So we'll look into that.

09:45:59 >> Yeah, I think it might be worth to the look into it as a

09:46:07 source.

09:46:07 I appreciate that.

09:46:08 And then number 13, I personally find that kind of troubling

09:46:14 that we are buying armored vehicles for the convention.

09:46:24 You know, I did a little bit of research, and I know that

09:46:26 this is somewhat of a trend for police forces to have -- to

09:46:33 start having military equipment.

09:46:34 But that's a lot of money being spent on an armored vehicle,

09:46:44 and, you know, one of the things that I think would make

09:46:49 sense, and, you know, might help you with the overall amount

09:46:53 of the grant for personnel or whatever costs that you think

09:46:56 are more important, but we have, you know, we have

09:47:03 MacDill Air Force Base, and we have got Army reserve

09:47:06 here, and I don't see why we couldn't, you know, if it

09:47:13 appeared, or even if you wanted to plan that you might

09:47:17 possibly need some vehicle like this, why we wouldn't be

09:47:20 able to borrow something like that from the military, or

09:47:23 from, you know, New York and LAPD seem to be, when I looked

09:47:31 online were some of the police forces that have this kind of

09:47:33 thing.

09:47:34 But I don't feel -- I personally don't feel like this is a

09:47:39 necessity, and I feel like it's -- I just don't like the

09:47:44 idea of our city becoming this sort of militarized police

09:47:51 force.

09:47:51 And I think it was worth just letting people know that

09:47:55 that's what we are talking about doing.

09:47:57 >> I could tell you we already have two armor vehicles in

09:48:03 military you are surplus that are in excess of 20 years old.

09:48:08 Thank God we have two because we can't get parts for them

09:48:10 any longer so the crafty mechanics at central maintenance

09:48:13 have been able to keep them going.

09:48:14 Ma'am, we use these armored vehicles several times a month.

09:48:17 Every time we have the swat call out we use them.

09:48:20 We have taken fire.

09:48:21 We actually have bullet -- not holes because they don't

09:48:26 penetrate.

09:48:26 We have bullet markings in those swat vehicles.

09:48:29 What we use them for are for real, real life and death

09:48:32 situations.

09:48:33 Now, 50 police officers on the average get shot and they are

09:48:36 typically not swat situations because you have time to plan

09:48:39 and use those vehicles.

09:48:40 We use those vehicles to rescue citizens, if they are

09:48:43 armored we can send a police officer into a hazardous

09:48:47 situation where they are receiving gun fire where you

09:48:49 normally couldn't.

09:48:50 They are an absolute necessity for police work in America,

09:48:53 around the world.

09:48:55 It has nothing to do with Tampa and things like that.

09:48:58 Now, the convention, we will be borrowing probably over a

09:49:01 dozen of those vehicles for the convention as well from the

09:49:04 federal agencies that are partnering with us and the local

09:49:07 agencies.

09:49:08 So we are exhausting all the borrowing.

09:49:11 NYPD and LAPD aren't going to send their swat vehicles, 12

09:49:17 and 3,000 miles respectively.

09:49:20 We are going to be borrowing from Hillsborough County,

09:49:23 Pinellas County and some of the agencies locally.

09:49:26 It's a necessity.

09:49:27 >>MARY MULHERN: And I can understand that in those kinds of

09:49:31 situations.

09:49:31 And I know that this planning for RNC is just worst case

09:49:41 scenario you have to look at.

09:49:42 But I don't know, it's the thought of the use of those in

09:49:48 the kind of situations you are talking about makes a lot of

09:49:51 sense.

09:49:51 But to see those as a crowd control or whatever --

09:50:00 >> Well, they are not used for crowd control.

09:50:03 They are not used for crowd control.

09:50:04 >> How are we going to see them?

09:50:06 Are we only going to see them if there's some --

09:50:09 >> Correct.

09:50:10 >> Really serious --

09:50:12 >> We don't patrol the street with armored vehicles.

09:50:14 They are only utilized where the swat team is deployed.

09:50:18 We have several dozen callouts a year.

09:50:20 And we also do about five to ten high-risk search warrants

09:50:24 every month that we use them for.

09:50:27 When you bring in 40,000 people into downtown plus 15,000

09:50:32 journalists plus 15,000 protestors, the odds of incidence

09:50:35 happening when you have more people are greater, just like

09:50:38 at Gasparilla when you have several hundred thousand people,

09:50:41 the odds of an incident occurring in that area are greater,

09:50:45 and you have to spread your resources, because there's going

09:50:47 to be a lot of street closures, fire department has to plan

09:50:49 for Gasparilla because streets are closed and the police

09:50:52 department has to plan.

09:50:53 We have to spread our assets out so we can respond to

09:50:56 emergencies properly.

09:50:56 That's why we don't have enough armored vehicles to properly

09:50:59 police the Republican national convention, even with

09:51:01 borrowing from the regional assets.

09:51:09 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay, thank you.

09:51:11 Thanks a lot.

09:51:13 Then number 60, did you have questions about that,

09:51:15 Councilwoman Montelione?

09:51:19 That was on there for being over a million dollars.

09:51:26 I think it is on there because it's over a million dollars.

09:51:29 I did speak with Chief Castor yesterday.

09:51:31 And even when I read the description, the contract, the

09:51:38 department has been using analog since 1999, I think that

09:51:41 about says it all and why we need to replace the system,

09:51:45 because analog technology is almost stone age in technology

09:51:53 terms.

09:51:53 >> That's it in a nutshell.

09:51:56 >> So I don't have a problem with this and I think it's long

09:52:01 overdue, as a matter of fact.

09:52:01 But thank you for asking.

09:52:03 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

09:52:07 So thank you, chief, for looking into the, you know,

09:52:12 stretching the boundaries of how we could possibly use that

09:52:17 money.

09:52:19 You know, I feel like the pressure to reduce the number of

09:52:25 people on the streets and the panhandling, a lot of it had

09:52:28 to do with the Republican convention coming here.

09:52:31 So to me it seems like a reasonable security expense to find

09:52:39 a place for people on the streets to go during the

09:52:41 convention.

09:52:42 >> We certainly will inquire with the Department of Justice

09:52:47 if it's an expenditure that week do.

09:52:49 >>MARY MULHERN: Thanks for come.

09:52:53 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Chief, on that $50 million appropriation

09:52:57 that Congress made to us, and you had said that there are

09:53:02 specific guidelines, and if you could just briefly explain

09:53:05 that most of the stuff that we get, as you said, personnel,

09:53:09 the other parts of it are equipment that is used primarily

09:53:11 for -- I won't say defensive but being prepared for any

09:53:19 contingency that comes up, and I think that in your

09:53:21 experience that an armored vehicle, you know, if it's a

09:53:26 military vehicle, sends a different message, and offensive

09:53:29 weapon versus a piece of equipment that's used for defense

09:53:34 for our police forces.

09:53:38 In terms of the other types of equipment we are talking

09:53:40 about primarily, it's going to be as I understand it a lot

09:53:43 of communication equipment, a lot of equipment to make sure

09:53:45 that people on the ground are going to be able to be in the

09:53:48 right place at the right time, to be able to have a peaceful

09:53:55 dispersion of folks if there is an incident.

09:54:01 >> That's a correct summary.

09:54:03 >>FRANK REDDICK: I read, I believe, as part of the $50

09:54:12 million that you are looking into purchasing cameras that

09:54:16 will be utilized throughout the downtown area somewhere.

09:54:20 Once the convention is over, and everybody has gone back, do

09:54:26 you know now, what are your plans to do with those cameras?

09:54:29 >> No, but I think as a city that's a business decision we

09:54:33 need to make whether we keep them and pay to maintain them.

09:54:36 Obviously with the grant that's just for RNC security, we

09:54:39 can't buy a maintenance package on them for a favor-year

09:54:42 period.

09:54:45 I think that's a business decision we'll have to make as a

09:54:47 city.

09:54:47 But as a whole, the mayor, police department, et cetera.

09:54:50 >> Thank you.

09:54:55 >>MARY MULHERN: I wanted to bring up one other thing.

09:54:58 There's one other item on the agenda that I'm wondering

09:55:02 since you are here, if there were questions.

09:55:04 Item number 61 has to do with the maintenance contract for

09:55:13 police vehicles.

09:55:14 Did anyone have questions on that?

09:55:18 That's also pulled for the over $1 million contract items

09:55:23 that I had asked pulled at the beginning of our council

09:55:26 year.

09:55:26 And this is a renewal of a contract.

09:55:29 So I don't have any issues with that.

09:55:31 So we are in the second of a three-year renewal, I think it

09:55:35 is so, we have one more year remaining, and then we'll la to

09:55:38 see after the contract renewals are exhausted.

09:55:42 So.

09:55:43 [Motion Failed]

09:55:43 That for approval.

09:55:44 >> Okay.

09:55:45 Could we have a motion to move item 12, 13, 60 and 61?

09:55:52 >>HARRY COHEN: So moved.

09:55:54 >>MARY MULHERN: Seconded by Councilman Reddick.

09:55:56 All in favor?

09:56:00 Thank you very much.

09:56:00 >> Thank you for your time.

09:56:04 >>MARY MULHERN: We appreciate it.

09:56:06 All right.

09:56:11 We move on to our 9:30 public hearing, continued public

09:56:17 hearing.

09:56:18 Item number 52.

09:56:30 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.

09:56:31 The site plan has been certified and is on file with the

09:56:33 city clerk.

09:56:34 I'm available for any questions.

09:56:35 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

09:56:40 Councilman Reddick.

09:56:41 >>FRANK REDDICK: I just need to know between first and

09:56:50 second reading, I think there were some conditions that they

09:56:52 had to meet.

09:56:55 Did they meet those conditions?

09:56:59 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes, they did meet the corrections to the

09:57:04 site plan.

09:57:04 The load was recalculated based on -- apparently there was a

09:57:08 discrepancy on how the architect was actually calculating

09:57:10 it.

09:57:11 It was actually lowered to 108, based on the actual

09:57:15 calculations of the seating and the floor plan, and this was

09:57:18 from the original 170.

09:57:19 So it's actually a true 108, a apparently, according to the

09:57:23 floor plan.

09:57:24 So that that actually lowered the parking requirement from

09:57:26 43 to 27.

09:57:28 They had 18 on-site so they are still seeking a nine-seat

09:57:32 waiver.

09:57:32 They were able to secure and get approved to the

09:57:34 administrative design process off-site parking for 20

09:57:39 spaces.

09:57:40 However that 20 spaces Monday through Friday does not start

09:57:43 until 5:30 p.m.

09:57:45 They have an opening time of 11 a.m.

09:57:47 So they are still seeking a nine-space waiver because of the

09:57:51 hours that they were granted through the lease that they got

09:57:54 were only partial hours of operation.

09:57:56 So instead of 20 some odd spaces and a waiver, it's nine

09:58:00 now.

09:58:02 It basically reduced it to that degree.

09:58:05 It's really up to council to decide whether or not they want

09:58:08 to grant the nine spaces in the waiver.

09:58:10 >>FRANK REDDICK: One problem, will this be 51% of

09:58:17 restaurant versus bar?

09:58:19 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes, they are classified.

09:58:20 They are requesting a restaurant, alcohol permit, which

09:58:25 under our requirements, the definition of a restaurant is

09:58:27 that the kitchen does have to be open and operational, and

09:58:30 ability to serve food the entire operational hours, and

09:58:34 according to my discussion was the applicant, the reason you

09:58:37 need at least 100 feet is to qualify for the SRX license

09:58:42 which is a special restaurant classification with the state,

09:58:44 which does require 51%.

09:58:48 That's the 8 or $9,000 license versus the quota license

09:58:51 which is $80,000.

09:58:53 >>MARY MULHERN: Councilwoman Capin.

09:58:56 But first I would like to ask if anyone wishes to speak on

09:59:00 this item to please stand and be sworn.

09:59:04 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I have the applicant here as well.

09:59:06 (Oath administered by Clerk)

09:59:18 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I wanted to ask the conditions that were

09:59:20 stated at the last meeting, are they on the site plan, and

09:59:25 what are they?

09:59:27 I want to make sure.

09:59:33 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Catherine Coyle again for the record.

09:59:34 They did change their operation of operation to 1 a.m. as

09:59:38 opposed to 3.

09:59:39 They did remove the tree behind the dumpster and so they

09:59:44 have the right angle.

09:59:45 They did move the Hedges.

09:59:48 A lot of this is site related but they had to add parking as

09:59:55 I requested in my changes.

09:59:56 They did also add, as you can see the whole way down,

10:00:00 additional landscaping down this side, add an additional

10:00:06 five trees here, an additional tree here.

10:00:08 They increased this wall height to 66 feet instead of four

10:00:13 and six to block any noise related, what they advised me.

10:00:18 They did correct the size of the trees in the front from one

10:00:21 inch to two inch.

10:00:24 And I think that's pretty much those particular

10:00:27 requirements.

10:00:27 They also did correct the legal description to have the

10:00:31 square footage of the structure at the sales area which

10:00:34 originally was just over 4600 you hundred square feet so did

10:00:43 it reduce in size of the building and sales area as well as

10:00:46 the occupant load.

10:00:49 And the last piece, I believe, was the parking issue, and

10:00:52 like I said, those 20 spaces.

10:01:04 I thought that was two meetings ago but there was an

10:01:07 addition here as well which they shifted to the side, in

10:01:10 part even though it got smaller as well.

10:01:12 So this back of the building is the true setback that it is

10:01:15 today, and then like I said, they added this wall in, a

10:01:18 masonry wall six feet high.

10:01:26 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I recall one of the conditions being the

10:01:27 trash, the bottles and cans.

10:01:30 >> They did add that.

10:01:34 Number 10, disposal of bottles and cans, between the hours

10:01:37 of 11 p.m. and 8 a.m. prohibited.

10:01:47 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Okay.

10:01:48 Trying to recall the other.

10:01:52 >> Amplified sound in the outside area.

10:02:00 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Can you read them to us?

10:02:04 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes.

10:02:04 They are not necessarily listed as how they were added but

10:02:07 amplified sound is prohibited in the outdoor area, disposal

10:02:11 of battles and cans prohibited between 11 and 8 a.m.

10:02:15 The distance separation.

10:02:19 They fixed the landscaping.

10:02:22 The operation of the valet service will be on private

10:02:26 property including drop-off and pickup of customers.

10:02:29 Valet service will not block City of Tampa right-of-way.

10:02:34 The last conditions are the ones that were just added.

10:02:37 The ones prior to that were the general ones we normally

10:02:40 have.

10:02:40 >> I remember being added, since we had maybe three

10:02:43 meetings.

10:02:48 Thank you.

10:02:50 >>CATHERINE COYLE: No problem.

10:02:51 >>MARY MULHERN: Councilman Cohen.

10:02:54 >>HARRY COHEN: Quick question for the applicant or Mrs.

10:02:57 Coyle.

10:02:58 The parking agreement, how far are the 20 space as way from

10:03:03 the property?

10:03:05 >> Directly across from it.

10:03:08 There's one street in between the two properties.

10:03:10 >>HARRY COHEN: That's directly across Kennedy, though?

10:03:15 >>STEVE MICHELINI: No, not Kennedy.

10:03:17 At this time adjacent side street.

10:03:18 Council, we respectfully request your approval.

10:03:20 We have done everything you asked us to do and everything

10:03:22 staff asked us to do and everything that we got up and

10:03:25 committed to with respect to establishing a restaurant at

10:03:29 this location, and certainly reserve any time for answering

10:03:33 any questions you might have, and any that the neighbors

10:03:36 might have.

10:03:36 >>MARY MULHERN: Councilwoman Montelione.

10:03:45 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I was going to move item 52 for

10:03:49 approval.

10:03:49 >>MARY MULHERN: Is there anyone from the public who wishes

10:03:52 to speak?

10:03:53 >> My name is Robert Allen.

10:04:05 I am the current president of the North Hyde Park civic

10:04:12 association.

10:04:14 I'm here in behalf of the civic association and the

10:04:18 concerned citizens of the area between Willow and Rome and

10:04:30 Kennedy and the interstate.

10:04:33 We had a meeting with our executive body, and the conclusion

10:04:39 that we came to is that if they are going to be a restaurant

10:04:49 with incidental sales of alcohol -- and I think, correct me

10:04:53 if I am wrong, that's 49-51%, 49 being alcohol, 51 being the

10:04:59 serving of food.

10:05:02 If that's the case, and also if the parking that we are

10:05:07 concerned about is met also, they took down the hedge, and

10:05:15 want to make sure that is a concrete, at least eight-foot

10:05:22 fence, the egress and ingress, as I haven't seen the new

10:05:26 plan, as I understand, was to come out on Kennedy instead of

10:05:31 going back through the community.

10:05:34 Now, exactly where it leaves the property to get onto the

10:05:37 next street, which think is ARAWANA, I'm not sure about that

10:05:44 because I have not seen the new drawing.

10:05:46 But our concerns, as I say, were parking, nor ingress and

10:05:53 egress, also, the wall, wanted that to be at least an

10:06:03 eight-foot wall, and no outside music.

10:06:08 That was one of our concerns, also.

10:06:14 If this is met, and it is adhered to, then we will support a

10:06:21 restaurant, not a bar.

10:06:24 In other words, restaurant, no bar.

10:06:28 We also were concerned about a bar that is scheduled to be

10:06:32 built inside the building that is as large if not larger

10:06:37 than the restaurant.

10:06:38 We were concerned about that, also.

10:06:44 Council, the North Hyde Park civic association do not want

10:06:48 to cause anyone from locating in our community.

10:06:53 However, we are concerned about those things that might be

10:06:56 later on a problem like some of the others did do that had

10:07:01 the involvement of alcohol.

10:07:02 (Bell sounds)

10:07:04 As I say, we will support a restaurant, but we will not

10:07:06 support a bar.

10:07:09 I'll answer any questions.

10:07:10 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

10:07:12 Councilwoman Capin.

10:07:14 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Yes.

10:07:14 This is for Ms. Coyle.

10:07:16 Ms. Coyle, again just to a sure the residents that came up

10:07:22 today, those conditions will be posted on the placard.

10:07:28 >> Correct.

10:07:29 Any special conditions that are applied by council will be

10:07:31 in the placard.

10:07:32 >> Posted in the placard.

10:07:34 All of these conditions will be posted on a placard in the

10:07:36 restaurant.

10:07:38 Therefore, if this passes, and this restaurant is opened,

10:07:42 you as citizens will be able to go in, look at the placard,

10:07:46 look at the conditions, and advise our code enforcement if

10:07:54 they are not being adhered to.

10:07:57 So I wanted to repeat that because a lot of times we are not

10:08:01 aware that this is in effect now.

10:08:03 Thank you.

10:08:04 >>MARY MULHERN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?

10:08:09 >> 25054th west north "A" street.

10:08:17 Tim president of the North Hyde Park homeowners and

10:08:19 residents association, the actual area directly affected by

10:08:23 this proposed -- it's called a restaurant, with a humongous

10:08:28 bar in it.

10:08:31 We still are asking that you all deny this.

10:08:35 Two of you, Mr. Reddick and Ms. Mulhern, have already voiced

10:08:39 their opinion as they know this is going to turn into a

10:08:42 mess.

10:08:42 The rest of you are still able to change your minds.

10:08:47 They have not adhered as they say.

10:08:50 Now, they have not adhered.

10:08:51 This original parking agreement they had with Donaldson, who

10:08:56 has passed onto the new owner who says, sure, we'll let you

10:09:00 come in.

10:09:04 If you are insistent on stuffing this down our throats in

10:09:07 the neighborhood then you let them open at 5, 5:30.

10:09:11 They have five employees.

10:09:12 Now five spots are gone.

10:09:14 They are still asking for a full waiver not to mention

10:09:17 proximity to alcohol sales, proximity to other people.

10:09:20 There are so many waivers that go on forever.

10:09:22 Please think about this.

10:09:23 Reconsider what you are going to do to our neighborhood.

10:09:28 They still need nine waivers just on that alone.

10:09:31 They have not adhered to what they were told to do.

10:09:34 You said get the parking spaces.

10:09:36 I have spoken to all of the business owners including Dave

10:09:42 Donohue who said they would probably let them do it at five,

10:09:45 but that is it, at five.

10:09:47 No one else down the street would let them do it because

10:09:49 they are behind them.

10:09:50 Everyone is behind them except the City Council, a few of

10:09:53 you.

10:09:53 Please reconsider what you are doing to us.

10:09:55 We live here.

10:09:56 We live in this neighborhood.

10:09:57 You are making us live with.

10:09:58 This we don't need it.

10:10:00 We don't want it.

10:10:01 We haven't ever wanted a bar or restaurant on that corner.

10:10:04 Nobody in the neighborhood.

10:10:05 Nobody.

10:10:05 If they open, let them open from 5:30 to 1.

10:10:10 If they want a restaurant that bad, we can live with that.

10:10:13 Thank you.

10:10:13 >>MARY MULHERN: Councilman Reddick.

10:10:17 >>FRANK REDDICK: I think I need some clarity here.

10:10:23 Bob, you said you are the president of North Hyde Park.

10:10:33 You say you are the president of north Hyde Park as well?

10:10:35 >> Okay, I am not aware of this group.

10:10:37 I just found it out about roughly six weeks ago.

10:10:42 But we are the official group for the North Hyde Park area.

10:10:48 And I will just give you our boundary so you know.

10:10:53 We are from Kennedy on the north side to Laurel on the south

10:10:58 side, from Willow over to Armenia, and that will be on the

10:11:05 east side of Armenia.

10:11:06 >> I'm familiar that the city recognize your group as the

10:11:22 official organization.

10:11:23 When he came up and said he was president of the North Hyde

10:11:26 Park homeowners association, there's two groups in the same

10:11:30 neighborhood?

10:11:31 >> As far as I'm concerned it's two separate groups.

10:11:33 I just don't have anything to show where they are existing

10:11:37 of.

10:11:37 But as far as I am concerned, it is two different groups.

10:11:48 >>MARY MULHERN: Is there anyone else wishing to speak?

10:11:55 Petitioner?

10:11:57 >>STEVE MICHELINI: If you have any questions, I will be

10:11:59 happy to answer them.

10:12:00 You know, we had difficulty with the two different groups

10:12:03 because one is registered and one is not.

10:12:05 And we talked about that and our ability to locate them.

10:12:11 Regardless of what you have on the inside, and our inside

10:12:14 floor plan shows some bar area, 16 feet, which they also

10:12:20 have to serve food at.

10:12:22 You can't just go into an area that has an SRX license which

10:12:27 is a restaurant license and just order district. You have

10:12:30 to have food.

10:12:31 And we are bound by that restriction of 51-49, and that's

10:12:36 what we are here requesting from you.

10:12:40 You asked us to do the best we could in terms of bringing

10:12:43 back the parking agreements that were acceptable, and

10:12:47 according to the code, could be certified by the city, and

10:12:49 they have been.

10:12:50 And we have made all of the corrections on the site plan,

10:12:53 and it's been certified and presented to you as having met

10:12:56 the various motions that you have made.

10:12:59 So we are requesting your a property.

10:13:01 >>MARY MULHERN: Councilman Suarez.

10:13:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Michelini, in terms of the parking, this

10:13:08 is an issue that came up before because it was not a true

10:13:12 executed contract about parking from the first reading.

10:13:16 Is there now a current contract for -- between the people

10:13:23 that are going to be running and another business adjacent

10:13:28 to it?

10:13:29 Or is that still being negotiated?

10:13:31 >> No.

10:13:32 That contract was submitted by the city, reviewed by them,

10:13:36 approved by the city attorney's office.

10:13:38 >> Let me rephrase.

10:13:39 That night same contract that was presented to us at first

10:13:42 reading then?

10:13:42 >> No, it's an updated one.

10:13:44 It's a new one.

10:13:45 It's the same individual, same property, but it's updated to

10:13:51 within the last three or four weeks.

10:13:52 >> If I could have the city attorney -- she's coming up.

10:14:05 Ms. Cole, the original contract, if I recall correctly --

10:14:08 and I have seen in our package here, was between two

10:14:13 entities, that one did not exist anymore, or one was not --

10:14:16 no longer the owner or the operator of that particular

10:14:19 business.

10:14:21 Is there an executed contract currently for park Noriega

10:14:24 particular --

10:14:28 >>JULIA COLE: I reviewed a lease agreement between the

10:14:31 petitioner and adjacent property owner.

10:14:34 I reviewed it, found it met the criteria for a long-term

10:14:39 lease but it actually was a lease that could be usable for

10:14:42 this purpose and that the parties were appropriate, and did

10:14:45 approve that lease in terms of the alternative design review

10:14:48 process.

10:14:48 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay, thank you.

10:14:51 >>MARY MULHERN: Any other questions?

10:14:57 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Michelini, Mr. Allen stated several

10:15:04 things that the neighborhood association had requested.

10:15:10 As part of the neighborhood support.

10:15:12 Now, have you met all of those conditions that he specified?

10:15:17 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Yes, sir, we met them all.

10:15:20 Except he mentioned a masonry wall, and we have a six-foot

10:15:26 masonry wall.

10:15:28 You know, we have added landscaping as well to knock the

10:15:33 noise down if there is any, and we have also included in the

10:15:36 area that's out here, this is also a six-foot -- I'm sorry,

10:15:47 this is also a six-the foot masonry wall.

10:15:50 He's asking for an eight-foot masonry wall back here when

10:15:54 really there are no openings on this side.

10:15:57 So we think that the six-foot masonry wall would be

10:16:00 sufficient.

10:16:00 And I just talked to Cathy Coyle about whether or not we

10:16:03 could change that to an eight-foot masonry wall and she

10:16:09 indicated we would have to go back to first reading in order

10:16:11 to accomplish that which I would like to avoid doing that.

10:16:16 And I think is it six-foot, Kathy, a minimum or maximum?

10:16:21 So can we commit on the record to making an eight-foot wall?

10:16:28 Is there a way to get to the eight foot without going back

10:16:30 to first reading?

10:16:33 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.

10:16:34 Just to clarify, the eight feet, from my recollection, is

10:16:37 the first time I heard of the eight feet.

10:16:39 At the last hearing the plan that I showed City Council,

10:16:42 which the markup would be orange and everything that I had

10:16:45 marked up, I had indicated that, in my notes, that it should

10:16:49 be six feet.

10:16:50 It was four, six.

10:16:53 Six is the minimum for that code requirement.

10:16:55 Commercial properties can have a maximum of eight feet.

10:16:58 So he can certainly go to permitting when he build this and

10:17:02 build eight feet, that's fine.

10:17:03 We just can't place it on the plan as a required condition

10:17:06 without -- because it's already certified -- without going

10:17:09 back, you directing me to come back and do that with a final

10:17:13 certification.

10:17:14 He can certainly commit to it if you would like to as far as

10:17:16 the plans are concerned, six feet, and that is the minimum

10:17:21 standard.

10:17:21 >>STEVE MICHELINI: And just asking Mr. Allen -- and if you

10:17:28 would like to direct the question, he's indicated he can

10:17:31 live with a six foot wall.

10:17:32 I don't think he realized we would have to go back to first

10:17:35 reading if we made that change.

10:17:36 But we can do whatever you wish.

10:17:38 >>MARY MULHERN: Councilwoman Capin.

10:17:46 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Yes, Mr. Allen, please.

10:17:52 That is correct, that statement, that your association as a

10:17:58 representative of the association could live with the six

10:18:00 foot wall?

10:18:02 >> Yes, we can.

10:18:03 We just didn't want anything smaller than that.

10:18:07 >>YVONNE CAPIN: All right.

10:18:07 Thank you.

10:18:23 >> And concern really about parking.

10:18:26 >>MARY MULHERN: Clerk, can we swear him in?

10:18:28 Is there anyone else here who is going to S speak on any of

10:18:31 the public hearings today?

10:18:33 If so, please stand and be sworn in.

10:18:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You just asked if anybody is going to

10:18:39 speak on all the other items as well?

10:18:41 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes.

10:18:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Okay, thank you.

10:18:43 (Oath administered by Clerk)

10:18:50 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Just for clarification, I certainly

10:18:52 reserve time to have rebut any further comments.

10:18:54 >>MARY MULHERN: Of course.

10:18:56 >> I'm major ARMENI, Tampania Avenue, only less than 500

10:19:07 feet from the proposed restaurant.

10:19:09 My concern is parking, very much concerned with that.

10:19:14 The streets in that area are very narrow as far as parking

10:19:18 is concerned.

10:19:18 If there's two cars parked on there, an emergency vehicle

10:19:23 wouldn't be able to get through.

10:19:25 Just the other night coming home from work, because I work

10:19:28 late at night, the Kennedy was very busy.

10:19:31 They were parking on the north side of Kennedy Boulevard,

10:19:35 and I had to go around the block in order to get to my house

10:19:38 because there were so many cars parked over there, and this

10:19:40 is on the north side.

10:19:41 So emergency vehicles wouldn't be able to get through.

10:19:45 With this parking across the street, I'm just concerned that

10:19:50 the people involved with this contract for the parking are

10:19:55 the true people that are supposed to be there, between the

10:20:00 person with the restaurant and the person that's operating

10:20:02 this facility currently.

10:20:05 Is there any way to verify these are the right people

10:20:10 currently?

10:20:14 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.

10:20:14 I can certainly get a copy of the lease, but the assistant

10:20:18 city attorney did verify they met the legal standard for the

10:20:21 city.

10:20:22 >> And it's valid and everything as far as the people are

10:20:26 concerned?

10:20:27 We don't know?

10:20:29 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.

10:20:31 I have to assume.

10:20:31 I'm not an attorney.

10:20:32 My city attorney verifies that it is.

10:20:34 >>MARY MULHERN: Mrs. Kert?

10:20:40 >>REBECCA KERT: I'm not the one that reviewed the lease.

10:20:43 But when they sent to the legal department, they review to

10:20:45 the make sure that it meets our criteria. As Mrs. Cole

10:20:48 stated she did review it and it did meets our criteria for

10:20:51 the long-term lease.

10:20:53 >>> As far as the people were concerned, these are the right

10:20:55 people involved in this situation, currently, authorize

10:20:59 lease agreement?

10:21:01 >>REBECCA KERT: It was signed recently within the past --

10:21:04 >> The agreement was?

10:21:05 >>REBECCA KERT: This was an updated lease signed within the

10:21:07 last month.

10:21:08 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

10:21:11 >>> Well, like I said, I'm just concerned about the parking

10:21:17 and the overflow into the neighborhood.

10:21:19 Obviously, they can't park south because that area is

10:21:22 already full from people parking from down there because

10:21:26 that area gets full at night as well.

10:21:29 So thank you very much.

10:21:30 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

10:21:31 Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this?

10:21:34 We have already been through this once, so this is it.

10:21:40 Mr. Michelini?

10:21:41 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Just in summary, we have done what you

10:21:45 asked us to do.

10:21:45 We produced the documents, and they have been certified by

10:21:47 the city.

10:21:49 We respectfully request your approval.

10:21:51 >>MARY MULHERN: Councilwoman Montelione.

10:21:54 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I move item 352.

10:21:57 >>MARY MULHERN: Motion to close.

10:22:00 >> Move to close.

10:22:01 >> Second.

10:22:01 >>MARY MULHERN: All in favor?

10:22:03 Okay.

10:22:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Now move for approval item number 52, an

10:22:07 ordinance being presented for second reading and adoption,

10:22:11 an ordinance approving special use permit S-2 for alcoholic

10:22:14 beverage sales, restaurant, on premises only, and making

10:22:17 lawful the sale of beverages regardless of alcoholic

10:22:19 content, beer wine and liquor, for consumption with a

10:22:21 restaurant business establishment on that certain lot, plot

10:22:24 or tract of land located at 2617 West Kennedy Boulevard,

10:22:29 Tampa, Florida, as more particularly described in section 2

10:22:32 hereof, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict,

10:22:35 providing an effective date.

10:22:37 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Second.

10:22:38 >>MARY MULHERN: Motion made by Councilwoman Montelione,

10:22:40 seconded by Councilwoman Capin.

10:22:43 Please vote and record.

10:22:44 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda being absent and

10:23:03 Mulhern voting no.

10:23:09 I have a motion to open the rest of the public hearings.

10:23:19 >> So moved.

10:23:19 >> Second.

10:23:20 >>MARY MULHERN: All in favor?

10:23:22 Item number 53.

10:23:31 Looks like it was a scrivener's error.

10:23:33 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Motion to close.

10:23:34 >>MARY MULHERN: Is there anyone who wishes to speak on item

10:23:37 number 53?

10:23:39 Motion to close.

10:23:40 >> Second.

10:23:42 >>MARY MULHERN: All in favor?

10:23:44 Councilman Cohen, would you read 353?

10:23:49 >>HARRY COHEN: I move an ordinance for second reading and

10:23:54 adoption, an ordinance amending ordinance number 2011-6

10:23:58 passed and ordained by the City Council of the City of Tampa

10:24:01 on January 6, 2011, correcting a scrivener's error by

10:24:05 substituting a revised site plan to clarify an incorrect

10:24:08 statement about the number of floors from one to two for the

10:24:12 previous site plan that was supplied in error, providing for

10:24:15 severability, providing an effective date.

10:24:16 >> Second.

10:24:18 >>MARY MULHERN: Motion made by Councilman Cohen, seconded

10:24:21 by Councilman Suarez.

10:24:22 Please vote and record.

10:24:33 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda being absent.

10:24:35 >>MARY MULHERN: Item number 54.

10:24:43 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.

10:24:48 Items number 54 through 57 on your agenda this morning did

10:24:53 require certified site plans.

10:24:54 Those plans have been certified and you have them available

10:24:57 for your are review and I am available for any questions.

10:24:59 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

10:25:06 Councilman Reddick, could you read item 54?

10:25:10 >> Move to open.

10:25:22 >> Second.

10:25:24 >>MARY MULHERN: Does anyone care to speak on item number

10:25:26 54?

10:25:27 >> Move to close the public hearing.

10:25:32 >> Second.

10:25:32 >>MARY MULHERN: All in favor?

10:25:35 >> Good morning, Madam Chair, members of City Council.

10:25:37 Again my name is Alberto Portella, Portella and Associates,

10:25:43 Architects, 610 West Horatio street, Tampa, Florida, the

10:25:47 architect for Mount Calgary Academy, and with me today is

10:25:52 the principal, and we have all the comments from her

10:26:00 department so we are respectfully requesting approval on

10:26:03 second reading.

10:26:04 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

10:26:06 Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item?

10:26:11 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Move to close.

10:26:13 >>FRANK REDDICK: Second.

10:26:14 >>MARY MULHERN: All in favor?

10:26:17 Mr. Reddick?

10:26:18 >>FRANK REDDICK: Move an ordinance being presented for

10:26:22 second reading and adoption.

10:26:24 An ordinance approving a special use permit S-2 approving a

10:26:27 school, daycare, nursery facility in an RS-50 residential

10:26:32 single-family zoning district in the general vicinity of

10:26:34 3111 east wilder street in the city of Tampa, Florida and as

10:26:40 more particularly described in section 1 hereof providing an

10:26:43 effective date.

10:26:43 >>MARY MULHERN: Motion made by Councilman Reddick, seconded

10:26:49 by Councilman Cohen.

10:26:52 Please vote and record.

10:26:52 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda being absent.

10:27:02 >>MARY MULHERN: Item number 55.

10:27:09 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.

10:27:14 Item number 55, public hearing we conducted on December

10:27:18 10th, there were some questions concerning stormwater at

10:27:21 that meeting.

10:27:21 I did want to let you know I have been in coordination with

10:27:24 Michael Miller, the stormwater department.

10:27:26 He is here this morning to report back to you on that item

10:27:28 and how that has been handled since the public hearing, and

10:27:32 also staff is available for any other questions.

10:27:34 Thank you.

10:27:35 >> Thanks, Julia.

10:27:43 Also I have a customer service request inquiry that was

10:27:46 received by a citizen in the area who was unable to make it

10:27:49 this morning and I did want to provide that to City Council

10:27:51 and the clerk for the record.

10:27:52 >> Mike Miller.

10:28:14 I work for the City of Tampa stormwater division.

10:28:17 And Abbye Feeley asked me to go out and look at the site for

10:28:25 special use petition V-11-397.

10:28:29 Apparently there are some questions by Mrs. Harvey who lives

10:28:32 at 4611, at the December 8 public hearing.

10:28:38 I went out and looked at the property and I determined that

10:28:40 the problem that she was experiencing was runoff from

10:28:43 private property and not from public property.

10:28:46 Apparently, the roof runoff from the subject strip shopping

10:28:52 center on the property for special use, the runoff flows to

10:28:57 the back of the building, and there was a curbing that was

10:29:00 installed to divert that water to on-site retention pond.

10:29:06 The somewhere in the past years or so, that curbing was

10:29:08 taken out.

10:29:09 So therefore the water did not -- was not diverted to the

10:29:13 pond but instead ran right into Mrs. Harvey's backyard.

10:29:17 On December 15th, I met with the consultant David Bell

10:29:22 with Landmark Engineering, on the site, and he showed me

10:29:27 what he thought the problem was, which I agreed with, and

10:29:31 also came up with a solution that he says his client was

10:29:33 willing to install to correct the situation.

10:29:37 Subsequent to that meeting, on December 21st, we met

10:29:40 with Mrs. Harvey on that site along with her daughter and

10:29:43 her son-in-law, and Mr. Bell reviewed the solution that the

10:29:49 client was willing to do to solve that problem.

10:29:52 And she seemed very happy at the end of the meeting.

10:29:55 And based on my opinion, if those are installed as Mr. Bell

10:30:01 has designed them, and if they are maintained that should

10:30:04 take care of the problem.

10:30:05 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

10:30:08 Councilwoman Capin.

10:30:10 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Thank you for that report.

10:30:14 What concerns me is that it took this long to come to

10:30:17 resolve when this woman's property has been flooded for

10:30:20 years, and she reported it, and nothing until now has been

10:30:27 resolved.

10:30:28 That really is concerning.

10:30:30 I don't know who she spoke to.

10:30:35 Skid the daughter when she was here who told her to come

10:30:38 here to resolve it, but they shouldn't have to come to City

10:30:43 Council to resolve a problem of that magnitude that's been

10:30:49 going on for years.

10:30:52 I don't know what process is in place.

10:30:55 Maybe you can explain it to us and maybe the -- so the

10:30:58 public can hear what the process is.

10:31:03 I understand that no property is allowed to overflow into

10:31:08 another property because of its grading or -- so I'm still

10:31:15 at a loss of how this happened, why it's gone on for so many

10:31:20 years.

10:31:20 >> Well, I contacted our maintenance and operations division

10:31:26 after Abbye contacted me, and they went back through the

10:31:29 records, and on November -- I'm sorry, September 2011 and

10:31:35 November 2011, Mrs. Harvey called in, and there was another

10:31:41 neighbor -- I don't see the name here, but they called in

10:31:48 and report sod flooding.

10:31:50 This is out on McElroy.

10:31:52 There's a stormwater ditch in front of her home.

10:31:54 And those calls were related to that ditch in front of her

10:31:58 home, and really had nothing to do with the water in the

10:32:01 backyard coming from the neighboring property.

10:32:05 I think that she was correct in calling code enforcement,

10:32:08 because I stated it's not runoff coming from public property

10:32:12 that was flooding her backyard, it was off of private

10:32:15 property.

10:32:16 I don't know why code enforcement could not implement any

10:32:20 actions to correct this.

10:32:21 I'm not in code enforcement, and you probably have to direct

10:32:25 that question to them.

10:32:26 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Well, we should have code enforcement here

10:32:28 today, too.

10:32:30 To explain this.

10:32:31 >>> I don't know if the curbing that was removed was

10:32:36 required under some type of a building permit.

10:32:40 But it was pretty evident that that curbing diverted the

10:32:45 water to the onsite retention pond, and with that being

10:32:48 removed there was no way -- there was nothing to keep it

10:32:51 from flowing onto her property.

10:32:55 If the action that the owner is going to put in are done and

10:32:58 maintained, that should keep it from flowing onto her

10:33:01 property and should solve the problem.

10:33:04 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Thank you for your time.

10:33:05 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Has landmark engineering added this to

10:33:12 the site plan?

10:33:13 You said that the site plan was certified.

10:33:15 I mean, this can't be a condition of the zoning.

10:33:20 I know this can't be a condition of the zoning, right?

10:33:23 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.

10:33:25 In fact, it shouldn't be a condition of the approval, but

10:33:30 not withstanding what happened today on this approval, it

10:33:32 appears that there is an outstanding code enforcement issue

10:33:35 that needs to be resolved, so no matter what happens today,

10:33:39 that will need to be resolved.

10:33:41 This property will be responsible for resolving this

10:33:44 problem, and so going through those appropriate processes to

10:33:48 get that resolved is something I think what Mr. Miller is

10:33:51 saying, is now that they are aware of it, why they weren't

10:33:54 aware of it before, you know, they are going to need to

10:33:59 resolve this problem no matter what happens here, society

10:34:01 does not -- it does not need to be part of the approval nor

10:34:05 should it be.

10:34:06 >>LISA MONTELIONE: But I don't know that we have

10:34:07 established that there was a code broken.

10:34:09 I mean, if the curbing was on a site plan when the original

10:34:15 building was built, and that curb was shown on that site

10:34:18 plan, and it was subsequently removed, then it would be a

10:34:23 code violation, because it would have been removed from the

10:34:25 original site plan.

10:34:26 But, I mean, we haven't established that that curb was

10:34:32 required as some kind of permit to start with.

10:34:36 >> If I could also inform you, the special use is not over

10:34:42 the portion of the property, commercial portion of the

10:34:45 property, that is subject to the curbing issue.

10:34:49 Not withstanding what was on previous site plans or previous

10:34:52 approvals, property owners have option to keep their

10:34:57 stormwater on their own site per our code so it's something

10:35:00 that they would, not withstanding anything to be resolved,

10:35:04 now that we have identified that there is something that

10:35:08 needs to be done to a sure that water from this commercial

10:35:11 site is not -- does not run into an adjacent site.

10:35:15 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Now that we have that on the record, we

10:35:18 have something to go back to, to state that the property

10:35:22 owner has to do this, and has to resolve this, because from

10:35:25 what I understand from previous testimony, this has been an

10:35:29 ongoing problem, as Councilwoman Capin pointed out, it's

10:35:33 taken a long time to come to the light of day to get some

10:35:36 sort of resolution, and with the hearing that we had

10:35:40 previously, we haven't seen the property owner, we have only

10:35:44 seen the property owner's representative, so we don't have

10:35:47 the property owner to come and state for the record that

10:35:49 this will be taken care of, and get their -- okay.

10:35:56 As long as we have some sort of assurance, that section is

10:36:02 being set aside.

10:36:03 I just want to make sure that we have that on the record.

10:36:06 >>MARY MULHERN: Petitioner?

10:36:14 >> For the record, I have been sworn name is Timothy H.

10:36:20 Powell, president of TSP company, and Tampa, Florida 33061.

10:36:31 I think I can answer some of the questions how this kind of

10:36:35 got exacerbated over the last several months.

10:36:41 So I am going to focus on the two issues.

10:36:43 The first issue -- and Mrs. Harvey is going to speak after I

10:36:48 am about the stormwater issues, follow up on a meeting that

10:36:53 we had with her back on December 21st.

10:36:56 Although not a part of the application, but discussed during

10:36:59 the first hearing, I wanted to put into the record that Mr.

10:37:02 Casterbaris is going do make improvements eliminating

10:37:11 stormwater to the east of his property by doing the

10:37:13 following.

10:37:14 One, construction of additional underground stormwater

10:37:16 conveyance by basins for the newly installed gutter system

10:37:21 on the eastern building that will convey the stormwater

10:37:24 runoff on the eastern building into the existing stormwater

10:37:27 on the west side, the existing parking lot.

10:37:30 Part of this problem was an unintended consequence.

10:37:34 When that curb was removed a couple years ago, there was a

10:37:37 curb, kind of a Jerry rigged curb that was put on top of a

10:37:43 sidewalk that's right behind the building.

10:37:44 What was happening was the stormwater was coming off the

10:37:48 building, and then backflowing and going into the building.

10:37:52 So he was having tenant that was flooding.

10:37:59 The landlord not being expert in this particular area cut

10:38:03 the curb back not knowing what the consequences would be,

10:38:05 and obviously it then started causing a problem to Mrs.

10:38:07 Harvey's property.

10:38:09 The second thing that happened just a couple of months ago

10:38:11 was a very large utility poll was moved about four feet, and

10:38:17 when it was moved it created an earthen void that then

10:38:20 almost created a chute so all the stormwater came off the

10:38:25 sidewalk and onto the dirt and went into a chute that went

10:38:28 down into the swale, which was along the common property

10:38:31 line of Mrs. Harvey.

10:38:33 So the second thing is, the installation of a new retaining

10:38:39 wall approximately five feet in length that will act as a

10:38:42 barrier to stormwater runoff at the northeast corner of the

10:38:46 existing parking lot.

10:38:48 This is an area that's recently been disturbed due to the

10:38:51 moving of a large utility poll which created an earthen void

10:38:55 funnelling the stormwater into the drainage swale along the

10:38:59 parking lot's eastern property line.

10:39:02 Right on the eastern property line between the common

10:39:04 property line between the Harveys and my clients is actually

10:39:08 about a three to four-foot wide concrete chute that was

10:39:12 designed to take the stormwater, and take it through the

10:39:18 site down to McElroy and into the city's drainage swale.

10:39:22 That works just fine except it was never designed or

10:39:26 contemplated that it would take all the building stormwater.

10:39:29 That was to be diverted off into the parking lot.

10:39:32 So when the utility poll was removed and this little curbing

10:39:36 was removed, everything stopped working correctly.

10:39:39 So what we are going to be doing -- and by the way, I am

10:39:41 going to be submitting an affidavit to provide additional

10:39:48 assurance.

10:39:49 It was an affidavit I had him sign because he couldn't be

10:39:54 here, that he signed, had notarized that will be put in the

10:39:57 record, and I have copies for council members if they would

10:39:59 like to read it, and Mrs. Harvey has also been supplied

10:40:02 copies of it.

10:40:07 To a sure council that he is going to do what I am telling

10:40:10 you and putting onto the record.

10:40:42 So that's the new five-foot wall which is going to be

10:40:46 installed.

10:40:47 Then there's an earthen swale at the southeast corner of my

10:40:51 client's property and it's going to be regraded, a remainder

10:40:56 issue that we are going to deepen it by six inches to one

10:40:59 foot, because over the years, tree roots and stuff like

10:41:02 that, and leaves, and just normal debris kind of filled it

10:41:07 in.

10:41:07 You can still see it but we are going to deepen it to 12

10:41:12 inches. We didn't want to deep it it too much, and the

10:41:17 city's Mike Miller has agreed that that will probably

10:41:19 enhance the ability to get that drainage.

10:41:23 There's also a mysterious large slab of concrete that's in

10:41:26 the city right-of-way that everybody is guessing why it's

10:41:30 there, because it looks like it was part of the sidewalk but

10:41:33 there's in a sidewalk in the area.

10:41:34 And it's about four feet square.

10:41:36 So we are going to be removing -- it's on the city

10:41:39 right-of-way.

10:41:40 But just because it's right next to that swale, we are going

10:41:43 to also have that particular slab removed.

10:41:48 Also, there's an existing -- this is on the west side of the

10:41:51 property.

10:41:52 There's a discharged stormwater pipe.

10:41:55 When we look at it real carefully, we think that some of the

10:41:58 flow going into that pond may have been restricted because

10:42:01 of the cypress tree root about four inches, six inches in

10:42:09 diameter, has gotten real close to that discharge pipe, and

10:42:12 they are going to have to cut that particular root out.

10:42:14 Believe it or there's a couple of cypress trees actually in

10:42:18 the retention pond.

10:42:19 Also, if this is approved, there's a proposed garage

10:42:24 structure, the subject of this application, will be so

10:42:28 designed that the gutter system come off of the roof will

10:42:31 all be sloped off and directed to the west, away from the

10:42:36 eastern property line.

10:42:38 So when it's directed to the west it goes into the parking

10:42:40 lot, which actually has a complete stormwater system in it.

10:42:44 It has surface grates, underground pipe.

10:42:50 In fact that's going to be a new underground pipe that goes

10:42:53 into the underground grate.

10:42:55 So all this is underground.

10:42:58 And that then discharges into the stormwater pond on the

10:43:01 west side which is on the opposite side from Mrs. Harvey's

10:43:05 property.

10:43:06 And the second issue is the proposed anticipated use of the

10:43:10 garage.

10:43:14 And I apologize, I wasn't as prepared as I should have been

10:43:17 in the first hearing but the use of the proposed garage is

10:43:19 for the shopping center's owner which is my client, and his

10:43:24 family noting that the owner's wife runs fantastic fans, and

10:43:28 I will give you a list of all the tenants in the building,

10:43:30 but not only does he own the center which is two buildings,

10:43:34 but his wife and sister and family, other family members

10:43:37 actually run the fantastic fans as a tenant in the building.

10:43:42 And the vehicles that they have, that are going to be

10:43:49 parking in the residential style garage, it's a large SUV,

10:43:54 two luxury sedans, two pickup trucks and a car.

10:44:00 My client chooses, and this came up in the discussion, my

10:44:03 client chooses not to park his vehicles in front of the

10:44:06 vehicles because that's in essence why this parking lot was

10:44:10 constructed in the beginning, is that the prime customer

10:44:14 parking spaces are in front of the building.

10:44:16 The buildings are all designed so they front Gandy

10:44:18 Boulevard.

10:44:19 So he doesn't want to park his vehicles in the prime

10:44:23 customer parking.

10:44:24 He would rather go ahead and park it in the back so he

10:44:27 doesn't take up customer parking.

10:44:30 The tenants in the building, which I did not have I a list

10:44:33 of in the first hearing, and now I do, is subway, metro PCS,

10:44:38 a day spa, fantastic Sam's, a nail salon, State Farm

10:44:42 insurance, UPS store, a rental car office, and H&R block are

10:44:48 the tenants in both of those buildings so he has pretty

10:44:51 reputable tenants.

10:44:52 And by the way, just for clarification, my client did not

10:44:55 build this building originally.

10:44:57 He took it over, I think, approximately eight years ago.

10:44:59 So he was not the original developer.

10:45:02 So he didn't do the original development of the parking lot.

10:45:07 Let me see what else.

10:45:09 The other issues I just wanted to note on, to emphasize that

10:45:14 the proposed residential garage structure does exceed the

10:45:17 zoning setback requirements for an R 75 zoning district.

10:45:20 The garage will only replace existing parking spaces and

10:45:24 will not add to the intensities of the commercial use.

10:45:29 Also, we emphasized to the client that what the code says he

10:45:33 can and cannot do with that garage structure that he can

10:45:36 only park cars in there, and he fully understands that, and

10:45:40 that's why I wanted to make sure that council understood the

10:45:44 sincerity and the obligation that my client is putting forth

10:45:48 on this, is that he understands he has a responsibility,

10:45:51 wants to abide by the code, and, two, in order to make those

10:45:54 improvements, that have been discussed.

10:45:57 And again Mrs. Harvey is here, and she may or may not have

10:46:05 something to say.

10:46:07 Oh, and I'm sorry, come on.

10:46:11 I brought my engineer, David Bell from landmark engineering.

10:46:16 If you have any detail questions.

10:46:18 >>MARY MULHERN: Does council have any questions before we

10:46:21 hear from the public?

10:46:22 >> My name is Rose Harvey representing Margie Harvey, the

10:46:26 property owner at 4611 west McElroy, and I was at the last

10:46:31 council meeting, and thank you very much.

10:46:33 We had a meeting.

10:46:34 We feel if this follows through with everything, it will all

10:46:37 be resolved, and my mother-in-law does not have a problem

10:46:41 with a parking garage being put on the parking area.

10:46:46 Thank you.

10:46:46 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

10:46:48 Anyone else wishing to speak?

10:47:02 I had one question for the petitioner.

10:47:04 Did you see this e-mail?

10:47:06 We just got this e-mail.

10:47:13 From December 3rd with questions about the use of the

10:47:15 garage.

10:47:17 You said it wont won't be used for storage.

10:47:20 >> The parking, and they are his vehicles, he and his

10:47:24 family.

10:47:25 >> I guess the only thing in this e-mail that she's

10:47:28 concerned about it being an industrial garage door and being

10:47:33 noisy being opened at night since it's so close to the

10:47:40 neighbors.

10:47:41 >> Yes, ma'am.

10:47:43 It's actually the equivalent of a two-car residential car

10:47:46 garage door.

10:47:47 That's what it is.

10:47:47 And it's motorized and the motor will be inside the

10:47:50 building.

10:47:51 And so it actually faces to the west.

10:47:55 So I have been told by the architect that it's a standard

10:48:00 motorized door, so therefore it would be no noisier than any

10:48:05 other residential garage door.

10:48:07 >> It's not like a big commercial aluminum --

10:48:10 >> Well, it's 16 foot wide which is like a double car garage

10:48:14 door.

10:48:15 I mean, that's the long and short of it.

10:48:21 I unfortunately didn't bring the specifications for the

10:48:23 motor, but the engineer did assure me that it just a

10:48:28 standard motorized door.

10:48:30 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

10:48:34 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I'm sorry I had to step out for a

10:48:37 moment.

10:48:38 Could you state again, why does this need -- I mean, you

10:48:42 said it's for his vehicle and his families?

10:48:47 I'm sorry, I don't know of any other shopping center in any

10:48:50 place I have ever been that has a residential parking garage

10:48:58 for a shopping center.

10:48:59 >> What I was explaining was the reason this parking lot was

10:49:03 built so many years ago was there's a limited amount of

10:49:06 parking spaces in front of the building so all the buildings

10:49:09 front Kennedy Boulevard so because it's he and his family, I

10:49:15 listed all the vehicles.

10:49:16 There's like six vehicles that he has.

10:49:18 Four of them fit in there.

10:49:19 They don't park in the front parking garage because it

10:49:21 takes -- the parking lot.

10:49:24 They take up prime customer parking so he parks in the back.

10:49:29 There are two luxury sedans, a sports car, two pickup

10:49:33 trucks, an SUV, and compact car.

10:49:37 A lot of times, he's stuff in there like computers, because

10:49:42 it's kind of like a mobile office.

10:49:44 He has mobile computer equipment.

10:49:47 And so being in the back parking lot, because there's no

10:49:50 windows in the back, and there's just the emergency doors on

10:49:53 the back of the car, so there's no way to monitor those

10:49:57 vehicles if they sit in there all day long or sometimes in

10:49:59 the evening.

10:50:00 So he's simply asking for a secured place to park the

10:50:04 vehicles.

10:50:06 And then obviously I think there's probably Avanti situation

10:50:11 on the sports car because he wants it inside a garage.

10:50:13 >> Because I don't know that a large piece of equipment

10:50:18 would fit inside a sports car.

10:50:21 So --

10:50:25 >> It's one of several vehicles.

10:50:27 In other words, he has a an SUV --

10:50:30 >> And I'm sorry, I'm so skeptical.

10:50:33 We have shopping centers all over the city.

10:50:35 We have got folks that have computer repair businesses,

10:50:42 electronic stores, and I haven't ever heard of someone --

10:50:47 and I have been doing this a long time -- I never heard of

10:50:51 someone building a parking area, or even a residential style

10:50:55 parking garage, because they keep stuff in their car, and

10:51:00 it's out back behind.

10:51:02 I mean, you keep the stuff inside, downtown put in the your

10:51:05 car, downtown leave it there overnight.

10:51:09 I mean, you are not allowed to have storage in a

10:51:11 particular -- you don't build storage in a particular area.

10:51:14 And just by using the car or the truck as a container for

10:51:21 the things he wants to protect and putting it in a building

10:51:24 out back, still is storage to me.

10:51:27 So like I said, I'm just very skeptical about it.

10:51:32 >> I have seen over the years, I have seen various stages of

10:51:36 structures, i.e., mainly for sun control, not for security

10:51:40 purposes.

10:51:40 >> Sun shades, yes, but not parking garages.

10:51:47 >> Right, and I think it's, I guess, a matter of what he

10:51:53 feels he's capable of doing is providing not only the sun

10:51:56 shade but the security and actually being able to put the

10:51:59 park there.

10:52:00 And again, we have very carefully told him what the code is,

10:52:04 and he has very carefully reiterated he understands what the

10:52:08 code is.

10:52:08 He is allowed to do and not allowed to do.

10:52:10 >> And part of the problem for enforcement that Councilwoman

10:52:16 Capin brings up all the time and Councilman Reddick is how

10:52:20 these codes are enforced, it's not because the vehicles are

10:52:23 going to be inside the garage, it's not that code

10:52:26 enforcement come and ask to open the garage to make sure

10:52:29 that there's a vehicle in there and there's not equipment

10:52:33 being stored in there, or it's not being used as a small

10:52:36 little warehouse behind the shopping center.

10:52:40 So it's not -- it's not as other areas can be inspected.

10:52:46 So whether or not there's a vehicle in there or whether or

10:52:50 not it's being used as a mini warehouse, we more or less

10:52:55 won't know, we morals won't have the ability to verify it if

10:52:59 it's being properly used or improperly used.

10:53:02 So it puts us, I think, in an enforcement situation where --

10:53:10 I don't know, Ms. Cole.

10:53:14 >>JULIA COLE: When you are reviewing land use decisions,

10:53:20 you have to make the presumption that people are going to

10:53:22 act legally, and they are going to act in line with the

10:53:25 code.

10:53:25 In this type of case, what you are looking at is you have an

10:53:30 existing parking lot in a residential area through a special

10:53:33 use.

10:53:34 This is the request to intensify that by adding a garage.

10:53:40 And so when you are reviewing it, you are reviewing it under

10:53:42 that context.

10:53:45 It is certainly understandable why would you be using this

10:53:51 for second else comes out there, and I know there is an

10:53:57 affidavit Al and all that but we have to be careful, assume

10:54:00 this is going to be operated in a manner consistent with our

10:54:02 code but looks look at it in terms of it is an increase in

10:54:05 intensity as to what is existing there today.

10:54:07 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Well, I understand that, Mrs. Cole, but

10:54:12 we have been talk about enforcement issues for a variety of

10:54:15 different land use decisions.

10:54:16 And to me, this is just another land use decision that we

10:54:20 are discussing the potential enforcement of that decision we

10:54:26 make today.

10:54:26 >>MARY MULHERN: Councilwoman Capin?

10:54:37 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I understand that the drainage problem is

10:54:38 something that has to be addressed no matter what.

10:54:48 I understand about these retail properties, and wanting to

10:54:54 have the parking for your clients, and if that is possible,

10:55:00 and you have the property to park, the leaseholders tore

10:55:06 operators or the workers out other than in the front, which

10:55:10 is for the client, I understand that, and that it wants to

10:55:16 be secured.

10:55:17 I also understand.

10:55:18 I personally know of people in a personal situation, as an

10:55:26 owner of a retail property, where cars have been stolen and

10:55:29 set on fire in the back of a property.

10:55:32 So, yes, there is security issues when it comes to

10:55:37 commercial property, very much so.

10:55:40 But I am satisfied with what the petitioner said they are

10:55:48 going to use it, and I agree, as Ms. Cole said, we have to

10:55:56 assume, we have to put into place -- we put into place

10:56:04 different parts where -- checks and balances, and we have to

10:56:09 assume that people are going to follow those rules.

10:56:11 We have to assume that people are going to follow the speed

10:56:13 limit.

10:56:14 We have to assume that people goring stop at red lights.

10:56:16 If not, there's a camera there.

10:56:18 At any rate, I just want to let you know that I understand,

10:56:23 and I really appreciate the explanation with more

10:56:28 information that's coming forth.

10:56:31 And I will be supporting it again.

10:56:33 Thank you.

10:56:33 >>MARY MULHERN: Councilman Reddick?

10:56:39 Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this?

10:56:41 Can we have a motion to close?

10:56:43 >>FRANK REDDICK: Motion to close.

10:56:45 >> Second.

10:56:46 >>MARY MULHERN: All in favor?

10:56:47 Councilman Reddick?

10:56:48 >>FRANK REDDICK: Move an ordinance presented for second

10:56:56 reading and adoption, an ordinance approving special use

10:56:59 permit S-2 approving parking, off-street commercial in an

10:57:02 RS-75 residential single-family zoning district in the

10:57:05 general vicinity of 4644 West Gandy Boulevard, in the city

10:57:10 of Tampa, Florida and as more particularly described in

10:57:12 section 1 hereof providing an effective date.

10:57:14 >>MARY MULHERN: Seconded by Councilman Cohen.

10:57:25 Please vote and record.

10:57:36 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Suarez and Montelione

10:57:38 voting no and Miranda being absent.

10:57:40 >>MARY MULHERN: Item number 56.

10:58:08 >>DAVID MECHANIK: 305 South Boulevard here on behalf of

10:58:10 Tampa General Hospital.

10:58:12 We have nothing additional to present but are here in case

10:58:15 there are any questions or comments.

10:58:18 Thank you.

10:58:18 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

10:58:20 Anyone from the public wishing to speak on item number 56?

10:58:23 >>FRANK REDDICK: Move to close.

10:58:27 >> Second.

10:58:28 >>MARY MULHERN: All in favor?

10:58:30 Councilwoman Capin, would you read that?

10:58:34 >>YVONNE CAPIN: An ordinance being presented for second

10:58:36 reading and adoption.

10:58:37 An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of

10:58:40 606, 608, 702, and 722 West Kennedy Boulevard, 107, 109,

10:58:48 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, and 115 south Brevard street, 603,

10:59:00 605, 607, 610, 707, and 711 Cleveland street, 108, 110, and

10:59:11 112 south fielding Avenue and 115 south Magnolia Avenue in

10:59:17 the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described

10:59:20 in section 1 from zoning district classifications PD planned

10:59:24 development office, business/professional to PD, planned

10:59:28 development, office, business/professional and medical,

10:59:32 transportation service facility, retail, multifamily,

10:59:36 residential, college and daycare nursery facility, providing

10:59:39 an effective date.

10:59:39 >> Second.

10:59:43 >>MARY MULHERN: Motion by Councilwoman Capin, seconded by

10:59:46 Councilman Suarez.

10:59:47 Please vote and record.

11:00:01 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda being absent and

11:00:05 Montelione being absent at vote.

11:00:06 >>MARY MULHERN: Item number 57.

11:00:19 Anyone wishing to speak on item number 57?

11:00:21 >> Move to close.

11:00:25 >>FRANK REDDICK: Second.

11:00:26 >>MARY MULHERN: All in favor?

11:00:29 Councilman Suarez.

11:00:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ: An ordinance being presented for second

11:00:33 reading and adoption, an ordinance rezoning property in the

11:00:36 general vicinity of 6608 South Westshore Boulevard in the

11:00:39 city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in

11:00:41 section 1 from zoning district classification PD planned

11:00:45 development, residential, multifamily, restaurant, retail,

11:00:48 to PD, planned development, residential, multifamily,

11:00:51 restaurant, retail, providing an effective date.

11:00:54 >> Second.

11:00:55 >>MARY MULHERN: Motion made by Councilman Suarez, second by

11:00:59 Councilman Cohen.

11:01:00 Please vote and record.

11:01:01 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Montelione being absent at

11:01:25 vote and Miranda being absent.

11:01:27 >>MARY MULHERN: We will move on to our 10:00 staff reports.

11:01:43 Item number 58 is that you, Ms. Cole?

11:02:22 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.

11:02:24 The next two items relate to sidewalks from the legal

11:02:29 department.

11:02:29 I was hoping I could just generally discuss those together

11:02:31 and then answer each one of the issues separately, because I

11:02:36 think it's important especially since we have so many new

11:02:39 council members, for all of us to have general discussion

11:02:43 about our practice for sidewalks.

11:02:45 As it stands today, and what's in our code today and some

11:02:48 recent amendments that we made and then talk about the two

11:02:50 individual questions that have come up.

11:02:53 Right now in chapter 22 of your code, there is an obligation

11:02:57 on the part of a property owner when they come in to

11:03:00 redevelop their property, or to do some kind of

11:03:02 modification, expansion of whatever the uses on their

11:03:06 property to put within the public right-of-way a sidewalk.

11:03:13 There's a requirement for single-family residential and for

11:03:15 commercial property.

11:03:16 So to go ahead and add to our sidewalk grid by putting in

11:03:20 sidewalks within the public right-of-way in front of their

11:03:22 property.

11:03:24 However, the code also provides an opportunity that is a

11:03:27 sidewalk is considered not practical in chapter 22 of the

11:03:32 code kind of describes what that means, but these are

11:03:35 determined by the transportation manager or by City Council,

11:03:39 that that requirement can be waived, but then that property

11:03:42 owner is then required to pay an in lieu fee into our

11:03:47 sidewalk trust funds, and our sidewalk trust funds are set

11:03:50 up and situated near impact fee districts so depending on

11:03:55 what part of the city it is, you go to redevelop your

11:03:58 property you are obligated to put a sidewalk in, and if it's

11:04:01 determined to be not practical you write your check, that

11:04:04 money is put into the impact fee district, where your

11:04:07 property is located.

11:04:08 The amount of money for the in lieu fee is set by

11:04:11 resolution, and has fluctuated over many years, given the

11:04:17 cost of concrete and other issues, and I believe there was a

11:04:20 revision to that cost, I want to say in the last six, eight

11:04:25 months bringing it about $45 a linear foot to about $25 a

11:04:30 linear foot.

11:04:34 That's code that I was describing very briefly, has been in

11:04:37 place, it is in the code at least since '89 and has really

11:04:42 been the main source of revenue for the City of Tampa to put

11:04:46 in these sidewalks, repair old sidewalks, or other moneys

11:04:49 that are used.

11:04:51 And I am not your budget expert so I don't want to get too

11:04:54 much into that, but that is a source of revenue we have

11:04:56 within the city to repair or replace sidewalks in areas

11:04:59 where they do not exist.

11:05:03 Approximately a year ago, actually now more like a year and

11:05:06 a half ago, there was a question that was asked as to, okay,

11:05:09 there's this money that comes in, how do we prioritize at

11:05:13 that funding?

11:05:14 There is nothing in the code that does discuss how the money

11:05:17 is to be spent except that it has to go into different

11:05:20 impact fee districts and that's the memorandum that I handed

11:05:22 out for you.

11:05:25 The city a administration has really set forth a point

11:05:29 system for prioritization of sidewalks, and going back to

11:05:33 the specific question which is how do we prioritize schools?

11:05:38 Well, as you can see from this memo, we prioritize schools

11:05:41 as receiving -- school grounds as being a five point meaning

11:05:45 we go ahead and give them the greatest amount of deference

11:05:47 in terms of prioritization of where sidewalks go, given the

11:05:50 amount of money in each impact fee district, and also

11:05:53 keeping in mind that we do work with the schools, the school

11:05:57 board, to try to identify those routes which are the walking

11:06:01 routes for kids, because if we were to place them in every

11:06:03 single possible route that kids walk to school, obviously

11:06:07 that would be quite an impact.

11:06:09 So we do work with the school board, we work with them to

11:06:14 kind of join forces to make sure we are putting those in the

11:06:17 right location.

11:06:17 And then as you can see we have other prioritization of how

11:06:20 we use our point system.

11:06:22 Again it depends on the amount of money that's in place.

11:06:27 If there's joint projects that can be done, we look at

11:06:29 those.

11:06:31 If there's joint projects with either Hart or with FDOT, we

11:06:35 look at those issues.

11:06:36 So we try and prioritize specifically schools but also at

11:06:42 the same time looking where our money can be best used.

11:06:45 Prior to this discussion, I did actually take some time

11:06:48 surveying how other jurisdictions do handle sidewalk

11:06:51 programs.

11:06:52 And especially depending on when they put those sidewalk

11:06:57 programs in place.

11:06:59 Many jurisdictions, it's really an in-fill process.

11:07:06 You go to redevelop.

11:07:06 You go ahead.

11:07:08 You spend whatever money or you put your sidewalk in, a lot

11:07:11 of times if there's been sidewalks that everybody talks

11:07:13 about, and hopes that will fill in the grid at some point in

11:07:17 time.

11:07:18 Some jurisdictions have absolutely no obligation that a

11:07:22 property owner when they redevelop the same sidewalk or may

11:07:25 be part of a PD or some other process but not specifically

11:07:31 codified, and a lot of jurisdiction versus moved forward

11:07:34 with master plan for sidewalks the same way that we master

11:07:36 plan and actually create master plans for roadways, and I

11:07:40 will talk about that in just a second.

11:07:42 And I want to say in 2010, maybe even 2009 there was a

11:07:48 request by Chairman Miranda to look at amending our code to

11:07:51 deal with the second issue that council raised, a and this

11:07:56 is what about these sidewalks to know where, especially

11:07:59 residential local roads, sidewalks to nowhere?

11:08:02 We have all seen it.

11:08:04 We have the one house that's brand new, goes in, there's in

11:08:08 a sidewalk on one side, there's no sidewalk on the other

11:08:12 side, those property owners were required to put that

11:08:14 sidewalk in, and there was a lot of complaints that creating

11:08:19 these sidewalks to nowhere is kind of wasteful, it's extra

11:08:21 money that shouldn't be spent, and we have no master plan or

11:08:25 other plan in place to say we are actually going to dedicate

11:08:30 our funds to putting sidewalks in that location so City

11:08:34 Council amended the code to provide an exemption for

11:08:38 single-family residential properties going through to

11:08:41 redevelop, either put in brand new house, or an expansion of

11:08:45 that house, and if there is no other sidewalks on the block,

11:08:51 and there is no plans in our capital improvement plans to

11:08:55 put sidewalks in that location, then that property own is

11:08:59 not going to be obligated to put the sidewalk in, northerly

11:09:01 they be obligated to pay into the sidewalk trust fund.

11:09:05 The other change that we made at the time is to also make

11:09:08 sure that if there's a driveway that's put in, we actually

11:09:12 subtract out the driveway from the amount of in lieu money

11:09:15 that you have to pay because that was also an issue, just to

11:09:21 be consistent as to where we are.

11:09:23 So that sidewalk process in place right now is intended to

11:09:28 sort of do what you are talking about, not the 300 feet, but

11:09:31 it is intended to be part of that block face that you aren't

11:09:35 going to have to put in a sidewalk, but that is only for

11:09:38 residential properties on local roads, does not include

11:09:42 collector, does not include arterial.

11:09:44 The only other part of this that I did want to just bring to

11:09:46 your attention that I alluded to before is many

11:09:49 jurisdictions really have started to look at sidewalks as

11:09:52 part of a more pedestrian style, mobility style process, and

11:09:59 it is something that, you know, you are hearing a lot of

11:10:05 mobility and hearing about other ways you get people

11:10:07 transported around other than automobile.

11:10:09 We were very fortunate about a year and a half ago to be

11:10:13 able to partner with MPO, and they have some grant funding

11:10:16 available, to start us down that road.

11:10:18 What we have been doing is they have been working with us to

11:10:21 do a sidewalk inventory, which is the first step in the math

11:10:25 master plan.

11:10:26 You need to know what you have in order to know what you

11:10:29 need in certain parts of the city, and they have been in the

11:10:32 process of completing that inventory, and from there, it

11:10:35 will give us the opportunity to start to really look at

11:10:38 sidewalk master planning, which as we said is more in line

11:10:41 with how jurisdictions today are dealing with sidewalk

11:10:44 programs as opposed to this more let's just see what we can

11:10:49 get what people are redeveloping and fill in the gaps later

11:10:52 as needed.

11:10:53 And I think that will give us a lot more tools moving

11:10:56 forward.

11:10:56 But for today, the way it's drafted, that does exempt

11:11:01 properties from having to put in sidewalks, if there's

11:11:04 single-family on local roads and no other sidewalks on the

11:11:06 block face, and while it does not specifically have within

11:11:09 the ordinance the prioritization of how moneys are spent,

11:11:14 the administration, when they spend the money, they do have

11:11:18 this point system, and it allows both the opportunity to

11:11:23 say, that's where the money should go, but it also allows

11:11:27 for flexibility, because I want you to keep in mind that if

11:11:29 you codify where the money should go, it binds us, it binds

11:11:35 council, and it binds other folks as to how we want to spend

11:11:38 money.

11:11:39 So if there is a good project that we want to do that may

11:11:41 take a little bit of funding a way and may not be a school

11:11:45 ground, it would hamper the opportunity to spend the money

11:11:48 in that way per sewed code.

11:11:50 So I think having this level of flexibility allows us to be

11:11:53 able to use our money, which is limited, obviously, in the

11:11:56 best way, given what other situations are going far.

11:12:00 >>MARY MULHERN: Councilman Reddick.

11:12:03 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you, Madam Chair.

11:12:05 I want to go back to what you stated about the exemption.

11:12:12 So if a person takes a house, guts this house and redevelops

11:12:22 this property, to make it a small bakery, for example,

11:12:30 there's no sidewalks within 300 feet.

11:12:35 I mean, you have got residential homes across the street

11:12:37 from it.

11:12:38 Those people don't even have sidewalks.

11:12:39 The kids have to play out in the street.

11:12:43 You have to walk 300 feet to a main thoroughfare in order to

11:12:46 see a sidewalk.

11:12:49 Why is that person required to put a sidewalk all the way

11:12:57 around his property, that's a corner lot, and will be the

11:13:02 only person with a sidewalk in this neighborhood?

11:13:08 And so based on what you are saying, that person is being

11:13:11 required to do it.

11:13:13 Why is this person then required to do it and there's none

11:13:15 within 300 feet of any existing sidewalks?

11:13:21 >>JULIA COLE: What I hear you saying is this is a

11:13:24 residential property which was converted as a change of use

11:13:26 to a commercial use or retail use.

11:13:29 Yes, that would require them to put a sidewalk in.

11:13:31 The only exemption is if you are developing single-family,

11:13:36 or you are expanding single-family.

11:13:38 And when we were looking at this issue, and Mr. Miranda

11:13:41 brought this issue up, it was limited only to the

11:13:44 single-family properties on local roads where there were no

11:13:48 plans to put sidewalks in.

11:13:50 Council certainly has the authority to expand that, and make

11:13:57 an exemption for local roads, or some other kind of

11:14:00 exemption.

11:14:00 Keep in mind, though, that the way our sidewalk program does

11:14:05 work today is it is much more of an ad hoc, we want to

11:14:09 try -- we are dealing with these on a property by property

11:14:13 basis, and we are dealing with them because it is our intent

11:14:15 to ultimately go in and fill that grid in because we have

11:14:18 never gone through a process of master planning.

11:14:21 So it's really a policy decision on the part of City

11:14:23 Council, if you would like us to amend this again, and add

11:14:27 in an additional exemption, that is something we could do.

11:14:31 >>FRANK REDDICK: I would like to address that point,

11:14:36 because here is what bothers me, is that when you are in,

11:14:44 say, a down, neglected neighborhood, and there is a person

11:14:55 coming along and trying to better this community, try to

11:14:58 create jobs, opportunities, and to develop this business,

11:15:08 this is all privately financed, and is going to be paying

11:15:15 taxes to the city, and also employing some people, which is

11:15:21 going to make this neighborhood, adds to the value of this

11:15:25 neighborhood, there are currently no sidewalks, and it seems

11:15:30 to me, now, we provide economic incentives to attract

11:15:35 business tows come to this city.

11:15:37 It seems to me that to try to maintain in the city, it just

11:15:49 seems unfair that this person spends thousands and thousands

11:15:54 of dollars.

11:15:55 And when they say in lieu of, and $29 per linear feet, 29,

11:16:07 and this could eventually lead to more than what it's going

11:16:21 to sell for out there, so this is a disadvantage.

11:16:23 Yes, I don't know if the terminology can be used, but I'm

11:16:40 for one doing that because I just hate to see this person

11:16:43 almost lose this investment, because the city requirement to

11:16:51 put in sidewalks.

11:16:59 And in a neighborhood, sidewalk on one property, and

11:17:04 everybody else around there don't have a sidewalk, and so

11:17:08 what's going to happen is that the kids that have to play

11:17:11 out on the street now, all over this property where they

11:17:21 have sidewalks, and what's going to happen to this business

11:17:24 owner, because it becomes a liability.

11:17:27 Somebody is going to get hurt.

11:17:29 So it just puzzles me that this person is put in this

11:17:32 position, and there should be some type of exemption for a

11:17:38 person who wants to improve this neighborhood, wants to

11:17:40 create jobs, and not have to be required to put in a

11:17:45 sidewalk just to meet the code.

11:17:48 So I'm all in favor of expanding it, what you just stated,

11:17:53 but that's my point.

11:17:54 >>MARY MULHERN: Councilman Suarez.

11:17:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Ms. Cole, you mentioned about other

11:18:03 jurisdictions.

11:18:04 What do other jurisdictions do or what have you seen for

11:18:09 contiguous sidewalks?

11:18:11 Meaning, where you are one piece in an entire puzzle,

11:18:17 continuous sidewalk, as opposed to situations, a person

11:18:25 having a private sidewalk.

11:18:26 You know, what have you seen in other jurisdictions? I know

11:18:29 you mentioned about mobility.

11:18:33 What do you call it?

11:18:34 >> Mobility fees.

11:18:36 >> Mobility fees.

11:18:37 What have you seen other cities do in terms of that type of

11:18:40 issue?

11:18:41 >> Well, generally, either cities handle it the way we

11:18:43 handle it and have created a lot of their own sidewalks.

11:18:47 I haven't seen anybody -- this new exemption that we really

11:18:51 put in, which if there's nothing on the block face, you

11:18:54 know, you don't need to deal with it because I think the

11:19:01 90s when a lot of these codes were drafted, we just want

11:19:04 to keep it as development, we are not going to worry about

11:19:07 the sidewalks, we are going to start to fill in the grid

11:19:09 when we have the resources as a city, but we are going to

11:19:12 require developers or property owners to help us.

11:19:15 That is large jurisdictions handle it that way.

11:19:22 There are a large category which make no obligation for it.

11:19:25 And then you have got the third, and St. Petersburg is a

11:19:28 good example where they have gone out and done master

11:19:31 studies and have made some actual decisions but said, all

11:19:35 right, here under our master plan is where we are going to

11:19:38 have sidewalks and everybody else we are not going to worry

11:19:40 about, and that kind of where is we have now gotten to a

11:19:44 place especially with the new state legislative requirements

11:19:47 and with some of the other kind of discussions that are

11:19:50 happening in Tallahassee, is the idea of mobility fees which

11:19:55 is sort of like an impact fee, to utilize that money for

11:20:01 other purposes for transit facilities so, a lost

11:20:12 jurisdiction versus not changed their code.

11:20:16 So the concept of what transportation is, and by doing that

11:20:22 you are really charging everybody for that service as they

11:20:25 go through the development process.

11:20:27 You don't say, you put that sidewalk in, give us the money

11:20:30 and we are going to put it in for part of our master plan.

11:20:34 And we were starting down the path of the master plan

11:20:36 process by utilizing the resources of the MPO and it will

11:20:40 allow us to sort of transition to that concept.

11:20:44 I only raise that just so you know in the future where I

11:20:46 think you are going to see as it stands today, and many

11:20:51 other jurisdictions does create the sidewalks that potential

11:20:55 can go to know where for single-family residential and if

11:21:01 that's something you want to expand that certainly is within

11:21:03 the purview of City Council to do, keeping in mind, now,

11:21:07 that there is a potential loss of revenue, or potentially

11:21:11 lost opportunities to have sidewalks put in place.

11:21:15 But I believe that's a policy decision for this council.

11:21:17 >> Absolutely.

11:21:18 And because ware an older city, in the type of manner, O the

11:21:29 University of South Florida, which of course never was part

11:21:31 of the city, and then all of a sudden now we get to zone

11:21:34 something new because they came in, and in the mid 80s to

11:21:40 the city.

11:21:42 I think the problem that we have, because we have a more

11:21:48 developed city, that we will need MPO and Planning

11:21:50 Commission to come up with that kind of comprehensive plan.

11:21:55 We deal with overlay districts, Westshore, dealing with

11:21:58 trying to make it more pedestrian friendly.

11:22:01 But we have not done that really for a lot of the

11:22:03 neighborhoods.

11:22:07 The neighborhood I live in has three parks within a quarter

11:22:09 mile of each other so-so for me it's a great place.

11:22:13 There are no sidewalks for my children to walk from our home

11:22:15 to any of those parks.

11:22:17 Now, again, I have any own private sidewalk but it only goes

11:22:21 to my lot line.

11:22:24 I love to have a sidewalk all the way down to where the park

11:22:27 is at but I know the cost associated with that is going to

11:22:30 be borne by us because it was never borne by the original

11:22:33 developers.

11:22:34 And, you know, we know in this city that the individual

11:22:38 homes that were developed here were on usually small

11:22:43 developers.

11:22:44 You would have one developer develop maybe 25 homes or 50

11:22:47 homes at the most as opposed to what happened during the

11:22:51 70s and 80s when suburban areas were exploding, you

11:22:57 would have huge development of homes. I agree, it is a

11:23:07 policy question.

11:23:08 I would like to revisit it.

11:23:09 I know that going back to Councilman Reddick's statement

11:23:12 about how you have one business owner that is going to

11:23:15 develop a piece of property that is going to make the

11:23:18 neighborhood better in terms of pedestrian use really

11:23:22 doesn't mean much because there are no other connections to

11:23:25 his particular sidewalk.

11:23:27 So his use of it or his value really is not enhanced by him

11:23:36 putting in a sidewalk so we are really in a contained of

11:23:39 catch-22 and I want to figure out how to make everything

11:23:42 connect, so to speak, so we do have a more walkable city,

11:23:45 and at the same time ware not causing homeowners to provide

11:23:49 a service that leads nowhere.

11:23:51 Thank you, Ms. Cole.

11:23:53 >>MARY MULHERN: Councilwoman Montelione.

11:23:55 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I'm in an interesting spot on this

11:24:05 subject because we talk about how Tampa is, along with

11:24:09 another city in Florida, alternating between number one and

11:24:12 number two in the country in pedestrian deaths.

11:24:16 A lot of that because we have dangerous roads, and a lot of

11:24:19 that because we have no sidewalks.

11:24:22 Just recently, a tragedy happened in a neighborhood, and we

11:24:27 went and moved heaven and earth to get a sidewalk put in to

11:24:31 prevent another such tragedy from happening again.

11:24:36 There aren't any sidewalks, other places on that particular

11:24:39 road.

11:24:40 There are on the major road that is adjacent to but on that

11:24:44 side street there isn't another sidewalk in that area.

11:24:47 But we went ahead and insisted that a sidewalk be put in so

11:24:52 another tragedy did not happen.

11:24:55 On the other hand, I am a proponent of small business and

11:24:59 look to give small businesses every opportunity possible to

11:25:03 expand businesses and hire individuals to better our

11:25:08 economy.

11:25:09 The conundrum is how do you achieve both public safety,

11:25:14 installation of sidewalks, and yet save money for new

11:25:17 business owners trying to improve property in areas of the

11:25:20 city where we are encouraging economic development to

11:25:24 happen?

11:25:28 The $29 fee was mentioned by Councilman Reddick.

11:25:32 Is that the current fee right now for a fee in lieu of

11:25:35 sidewalk installation?

11:25:39 >> That's my recollection.

11:25:41 >> In 2009 it was $43 per linear foot. So we went from $43

11:25:47 per linear foot in 2009 to $29 in 2011 you know, 2012.

11:25:55 So we have tried to reduce that fee in lieu.

11:25:58 As a member of the economic competitiveness, and we heard

11:26:01 here before on council -- as a matter of fact, the next item

11:26:04 59 I was going to ask if we could also discuss 59 at the

11:26:07 same time since they are intertwined, they are both sidewalk

11:26:11 related.

11:26:11 >>MARY MULHERN: We are.

11:26:12 >>LISA MONTELIONE: 58 and 59?

11:26:17 That's great.

11:26:18 So we have talked about reducing even further that fee in

11:26:20 lieu of $29 to something less.

11:26:25 Staff hasn't come up with a recommendation yet as to what

11:26:28 that dollar amount would be, or how the code of ordinances

11:26:29 would be changed to accommodate the going rate or market

11:26:29 rate for sidewalk installation, which $29 is a lot of money

11:26:49 for a sidewalk. You can probably put one in for 14, $15 per

11:26:55 linear foot.

11:26:56 That is not a lot of money to install a sidewalk that would

11:26:58 potentially save lives.

11:27:03 So while I encourage economic development, I'm a strong

11:27:07 proponent of it, but I think that we are sending a mixed

11:27:10 message to say when a death happens, we want a sidewalk, and

11:27:14 we want it yesterday.

11:27:16 But when we want to exempt certain areas, we'll say, well,

11:27:28 we'll wait for a death to happen and then insist on a

11:27:31 sidewalk being put in.

11:27:32 So you can't have it both ways.

11:27:33 We either have a sidewalk plan and we want sidewalks and we

11:27:36 want to protect our citizens, we want to keep kids skating

11:27:42 and bicycling on the sidewalk as mentioned.

11:27:45 The other alternative is keep kids skating and bicycling in

11:27:49 the streets. So what's the preference here?

11:27:53 I am a proponent of sidewalks.

11:27:54 We talked about complete streets not long ago and revising

11:27:58 our ordinance for complete streets.

11:28:00 That would include sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians.

11:28:07 We are anticipating -- do we know when the sidewalk

11:28:10 inventory -- maybe Mr. Daignault might know when the

11:28:13 sidewalk inventory will be complete?

11:28:20 Jean Dorzback has been very involved in that, and can get

11:28:23 back with you all on where that is in the process.

11:28:27 Habit going for a little while, and MPO has been really

11:28:31 tremendous to give us the opportunity to assist us and pick

11:28:36 up some of the monetary needs of doing this, and we can go

11:28:39 ahead and ask Ms. Dorzback to get back with you all on that.

11:28:42 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.

11:28:47 Two things.

11:28:48 I want sidewalks.

11:28:50 I don't he support any further change of the ordinance for

11:28:54 sidewalks until after the economic competitiveness committee

11:28:58 meetings are completed and recommendations are made to the

11:29:00 mayor and then brought before council for change.

11:29:03 I don't see that changing the ordinance now would do

11:29:11 anything but confuse the issue later on when we look at that

11:29:16 complete package of code ordinance changes, both for the

11:29:20 complete streets ordinance and as well as the sweep of

11:29:27 ordinance changes that will be coming forward as a result of

11:29:30 the work of the economic competitiveness committee.

11:29:33 I think any change to any ordinance now is only going to

11:29:36 complicate the matter and create more work for staff where

11:29:40 they are going to be in the next few months changing the

11:29:43 ordinance again.

11:29:44 So that's what I have to say on that subject.

11:29:47 And really, I don't know if begging is going to help, but I

11:29:52 really think that protection of our citizens and getting

11:29:56 off -- oh, you talk about -- and I get on a roll here -- you

11:30:01 talk about attracting businesses and talk about making this

11:30:03 a place where businesses want to come.

11:30:05 If we are number one or number two on the list of pedestrian

11:30:08 deaths in the entire country, that's a statistic that

11:30:12 companies are going look at and say, I have to relocate my

11:30:16 staff to the City of Tampa but they are number one in the

11:30:19 country in pedestrian deaths.

11:30:22 I don't know that that's the place where I want to send my

11:30:25 employs.

11:30:25 So we have to get a lot lower on that list, like 50, 60, or

11:30:32 100, on the list of pedestrian deaths as far as concerns

11:30:41 before we start looking at exempting sidewalks.

11:30:43 >>MARY MULHERN: Councilman Reddick.

11:30:55 Councilwoman Capin?

11:31:02 >>FRANK REDDICK: She was first.

11:31:04 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Thank you.

11:31:09 I lived in neighborhoods where there were sidewalks, and the

11:31:12 person walking is the person on the bottom of the totem pole

11:31:17 as far as traffic and transportation is concerned.

11:31:23 My husband takes walks on sidewalks.

11:31:26 Bicyclists ride on the sidewalks.

11:31:29 Cars, when you are crossing on a light, do not wait for you

11:31:34 to cross.

11:31:35 They cut you off as you cross.

11:31:37 It has a lot to do with education.

11:31:39 And, yes, we are very high on that number of fatalities, way

11:31:46 out of reach.

11:31:47 The other thing is, I see here where sidewalk program is

11:31:59 citizen motivated.

11:32:00 Is that something that Mr. Daignault would have?

11:32:02 Can we get the list?

11:32:06 Citizens requests for sidewalks?

11:32:07 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Administrator for public works and

11:32:11 utility services.

11:32:12 Council member, we spend between four and eight million

11:32:17 dollars a year for sidewalks.

11:32:18 And we have a continuous request from the community for

11:32:22 sidewalks.

11:32:25 Most of you know, and as we have reported recently, the

11:32:28 sidewalk is just a contentious issue.

11:32:30 Many people want them and many people don't want them.

11:32:35 It becomes almost a 50-50 proposition.

11:32:37 So I can give you a list.

11:32:40 But we continue to have requests every year for more

11:32:44 sidewalks in the community, in the residential part of the

11:32:46 city.

11:32:46 >> You are saying it's increasing?

11:32:50 People want sidewalks, it's increasing?

11:32:52 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: I would say it's steady and continuous,

11:32:57 not necessarily increasing but it's staying about the same.

11:33:02 >>YVONNE CAPIN: So when a sidewalk program, when the

11:33:06 sidewalk is requested in the neighborhood, these points are

11:33:11 used.

11:33:12 In other words, based on the priority as to where in line

11:33:18 they are going to be to get that sidewalk?

11:33:21 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: We work first with the schools, then

11:33:26 with transportation, and then with the community.

11:33:28 We have to prioritize things.

11:33:32 And again we continue to can have requests from the

11:33:35 community.

11:33:35 We keep processing them.

11:33:36 We work with those neighborhoods, sometimes, even though we

11:33:41 may have a couple of folks that come and say we need

11:33:44 sidewalks when we get into the neighborhood, they have a

11:33:46 vote, and they don't want them. So we move on to another

11:33:51 area.

11:33:51 >> How many people in the neighborhood have to agree to have

11:33:55 a sidewalk?

11:33:58 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Whenever we are doing maybe three

11:33:59 blocks, we will have everybody on those three blocks vote.

11:34:03 And so the majority of the three blocks want it, then we'll

11:34:08 go ahead with it.

11:34:08 >> But can one person can it?

11:34:10 >> Absolutely.

11:34:11 One person can request it.

11:34:13 But again -- we go out to the community before we actually

11:34:16 start installing sidewalks.

11:34:18 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I understand.

11:34:18 I just wanted to follow up on that process.

11:34:20 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Sure.

11:34:24 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Again, I am a big proponent of the

11:34:26 sidewalks.

11:34:26 And we need to see what we can do to put more money into it

11:34:32 and make it more pedestrian friendly.

11:34:34 It is very dangerous out there.

11:34:41 Unfortunately.

11:34:42 >>MARY MULHERN: I haven't spoken yet.

11:34:47 Do you want to have the last word?

11:34:49 >>FRANK REDDICK: That will be fine.

11:34:50 >>MARY MULHERN: We have been talking about this for my

11:34:56 whole time on council, and it used to be Linda Saul-Sena

11:35:01 always wanted the sidewalks, everyone to have to put a

11:35:06 sidewalk in, and then Charlie thought it was unfair.

11:35:09 So for those four years, probably four year terms before

11:35:14 that, debate went on.

11:35:15 But I think most people probably by huge majority would like

11:35:21 sidewalks if they did GTE connect, if they didn't have to

11:35:24 pay for putting them in.

11:35:28 So what I think our problem is -- our problem starts really

11:35:31 at the top and how we fund transportation and how it goes

11:35:34 for roads and cars only.

11:35:37 And if we have the resources from the Department of

11:35:41 Transportation that we could put towards sidewalks, that

11:35:46 even a fraction of that that we put toward roads, that would

11:35:49 be great.

11:35:50 So there's not a whole lot we can do, exempt I believe our

11:35:56 secretary of transportation right now is very much in favor

11:35:58 of bicycle and friendly things so if we could get change on

11:36:04 that level, if we were lobbying for that, that would be

11:36:06 great.

11:36:08 This discussion is all very familiar to me.

11:36:13 I have been hearing it for four years, and I'm sure it's

11:36:16 been going on forever, because of our long-term being at the

11:36:20 top of the list of unsafe places to walk.

11:36:24 So I just wanted to say that.

11:36:26 Anything we can do at the MPO level, at the administrative

11:36:30 level, to administration level, to lobby for federal funding

11:36:36 to start to be used for sidewalks and bike trails and bike

11:36:41 paths and not just for cars, that would be a help.

11:36:46 One thing that occurs to me with the constituent that

11:36:50 Councilman Reddick is trying to help is there's a difference

11:36:55 between, say, somebody here today like Tampa General doing

11:36:59 huge buildings, and development on Kennedy, and somebody who

11:37:05 has got residential commercial house trying to open a

11:37:09 bakery.

11:37:10 So I think when I asked about what we could do as a council,

11:37:17 this is one of the things I'm wondering.

11:37:21 Why can't we have -- there's some option I can see.

11:37:26 Number one, if we are going -- and I agree, I don't think

11:37:29 anyone thinks that we shouldn't be working toward having

11:37:32 sidewalks where we can connect.

11:37:35 Everybody wants that.

11:37:37 But if we are going to require people to have to pay for it,

11:37:42 what are the possibilities of looking at that, not as an

11:37:50 absolute.

11:37:50 Everybody who puts in a sidewalk has to do it.

11:37:52 Looking at, okay, is this one of the areas -- and maybe this

11:37:56 goes along with the sidewalk inventory, and the complete

11:37:59 streets plan.

11:38:01 Is this person's block where he lives, is that a street that

11:38:09 is part of the plan, part of the inventory of future

11:38:12 sidewalks?

11:38:13 Because if it's not somewhere that will likely ever -- if

11:38:18 it's a low-income neighborhood, and it's a residential

11:38:23 street that's unlikely to ever have the resources or the

11:38:30 need, if it's not high traffic or school route or bus route

11:38:36 or ADA route, if it's not on the list to get a sidewalk at

11:38:41 some point, maybe there should be an opportunity to waive

11:38:44 that sidewalk fee.

11:38:46 Or if it is on there, maybe there should be a way that the

11:38:51 person could finance it.

11:38:52 You know, you are putting in a bakery, you don't have the

11:38:55 funds right now to pay to put in the sidewalk, the city puts

11:38:58 in the sidewalk, and you pay it back over a period of time.

11:39:04 I think there's ways that we should be able to work with

11:39:07 individuals, small businesses, and individual houses.

11:39:13 So, you know, that's just something to look at.

11:39:15 I don't know if we are -- I'm frustrated today because I

11:39:19 think I asked for legal advice on what we could do as

11:39:22 council making that motion, but really we should have had

11:39:25 Jean Dorzback, gene Washington, the transportation people

11:39:29 need to come back.

11:39:30 So maybe somebody -- this is of such interest to us if

11:39:36 someone would make a motion to do a workshop where we could

11:39:39 maybe Councilman with drafting some kind of changes to the

11:39:44 code.

11:39:44 >> If I can go back to your complete streets discussion, in

11:39:49 your February workshop you are going to have folks from the

11:39:51 MPO there.

11:39:54 I believe that's on your February workshop.

11:39:56 So maybe it would be appropriate to have that more long-term

11:39:59 strategy as part of that conversation.

11:40:01 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay, so I think a lot of this stuff will

11:40:07 come back up then.

11:40:08 But my specific thing, and hopefully this will come, take,

11:40:13 because I have been asking this question for years, and that

11:40:15 was one of the agenda items, can we make a school route area

11:40:21 a priority?

11:40:21 And I have seen this priority list.

11:40:24 And I don't know if the numbers, the point systems has

11:40:27 changed or not.

11:40:28 Is it any different?

11:40:30 >> No.

11:40:31 >>MARY MULHERN: So I have been seeing the same thing. So

11:40:33 this is not prioritizing.

11:40:34 But I think it's a point system.

11:40:41 But my thought -- and I don't think I thought it through

11:40:44 very well, but I think at this point looking at this -- and

11:40:48 maybe this is part of the sidewalk inventory or some of the

11:40:52 story the MPO is doing, but the priorities should be the

11:40:59 dangerous part.

11:41:00 And I think that's really what the frustration that we

11:41:03 arrived at as council, that here, it's dark, the street is

11:41:10 narrow, in a sidewalks, all those things combined.

11:41:13 If you combine school roads, Hart bus route, high traffic

11:41:16 volume, grocery store, hospitals, some of those things

11:41:21 together, that should trump everything else, you know.

11:41:28 As you are prioritizing.

11:41:29 I think that's what I was trying to say.

11:41:32 And that's something I pushed on the MPO, too.

11:41:34 And on City Council, when we rewrote the comprehensive plan,

11:41:39 that safety should be like the number one priority when you

11:41:41 look at everything, because as Councilwoman Capin said, it's

11:41:45 not pedestrian safety, it's not people.

11:41:48 Everything is designed in transportation for cars, not for

11:41:51 people, whether they are walking or on a bike.

11:41:56 And I still think that there is a way that our

11:42:00 transportation department could make that kind of pedestrian

11:42:04 safety a bigger priority than it is just with this whole

11:42:09 system, what I am trying to say.

11:42:10 So when we come back to having that workshop, the complete

11:42:15 streets workshop, I would like hopefully some contained of

11:42:22 rewriting of this calculation or the point system approach

11:42:30 so that the number one priority becomes the safety issue,

11:42:37 safety for pedestrians.

11:42:45 And then the answer about how we can make the putting in a

11:42:49 sidewalk that becomes the burden of an individual, a small

11:42:56 business or, you know, single-family property owner, how we

11:43:00 can perhaps alleviate the cost of that either through some

11:43:10 kind of loan policy or some kind of formula that you can

11:43:17 waive the fees.

11:43:24 So if swan wants to make that as a motion, that the answers

11:43:28 to those two things could come back as a workshop that she

11:43:31 mentioned.

11:43:31 >> We don't have a second on that.

11:43:38 >> Okay, there's a motion on the floor by Mrs. Mulhern,

11:43:42 seconded by Councilman Reddick.

11:43:43 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I looked through the calendars we were

11:43:48 given today only goes through March.

11:43:50 So the rest of the year, I don't see the workshop that Ms.

11:43:57 Cole has mentioned in this calendar.

11:44:01 But what I think is when we heard the complete streets

11:44:04 report, we passed it, come back under staff reports, not

11:44:11 under a workshop.

11:44:12 >>JULIA COLE: And I might have been incorrect and thought

11:44:17 it was coming back as a workshop.

11:44:19 >>MARY MULHERN: So the complete streets will be coming back

11:44:22 under staff report, and I'm not sure what date that staff

11:44:25 report was requested.

11:44:29 >>JULIA COLE: In February.

11:44:32 >>LISA MONTELIONE: It's in February?

11:44:37 >> The first meeting in February.

11:44:40 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So February 2nd will be staff

11:44:42 reports we will be hearing on complete streets.

11:44:45 So if that would satisfy the request for a workshop, then

11:44:55 maybe we want to hear complete streets in February, and we

11:44:57 can still schedule the workshop maybe in March?

11:45:02 Because again, in light of the recommendations from the

11:45:05 economic competitiveness committee, believe me, sidewalks

11:45:08 are talked about a lot, and that is going to be a

11:45:11 recommendation for a change in the ordinance, and exemptions

11:45:14 are going to be talked about, and changing the fee in lieu

11:45:17 of.

11:45:19 >>MARY MULHERN: How about we do this as a workshop instead?

11:45:26 >>HARRY COHEN: Asking for a friendly amendment to schedule

11:45:28 it for the March 22nd workshop.

11:45:29 >>MARY MULHERN: It actually doesn't look that busy so

11:45:33 that's a good idea.

11:45:34 So 9:00, I guess.

11:45:39 Why don't we make it at 10?

11:45:43 >>HARRY COHEN: Why don't we make it 9:30 in case we go over

11:45:46 and have to wait.

11:45:48 Okay.

11:45:49 So we have a motion on the floor by Councilwoman Mulhern,

11:45:53 seconded by Councilman Reddick. Is there any more

11:45:56 discussion?

11:45:56 If not, all those in favor?

11:45:59 Opposed?

11:46:00 Motion passes.

11:46:01 >>MARY MULHERN: Councilman Reddick?

11:46:05 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you, Madam Chair.

11:46:07 And I just wanted to say these last few comments, and I will

11:46:14 move on from this.

11:46:16 But with all due respect to my colleague, let me just say

11:46:22 that comparing the death to a small business, an economic

11:46:34 opportunity, there's no comparison, because you look at the

11:46:39 situation with that death on 43rd street, sidewalks are

11:46:43 not the problem, the only problem.

11:46:46 Streetlighting.

11:46:49 There was no lights out there.

11:46:52 That's why they were rush forego streetlights, not

11:46:55 sidewalks.

11:46:55 The sidewalk is not even installed out there.

11:46:58 They have got a streetlight improved.

11:47:00 So to compare, I think, is in very poor taste.

11:47:08 But I don't think it's in poor taste when you have people

11:47:14 who are trying to make a neighborhood that people are trying

11:47:20 to bring about, create job opportunities, and when we can

11:47:25 look out and we are hearing City of Tampa, Hillsborough

11:47:31 County government, where you can provide all of these

11:47:34 economic incentives, to bring a business here in this city,

11:47:43 but we are forgetting about our own existing business hees

11:47:46 and those who want to create businesses in this community,

11:47:49 then we are going doing a disservice to those people who are

11:47:51 residents and who are paying taxes already.

11:47:54 And as we speak about economic development, and sidewalks is

11:48:02 one of the priority, let me just say, that might be a

11:48:10 priority of that committee.

11:48:12 It doesn't have to be a priority of the mayor.

11:48:16 And so if you send those recommendations, it doesn't mean

11:48:19 the mayor means you have to accept the recommendations.

11:48:22 And the same thing when we had our budget citizens advisory

11:48:25 committee, staff brought a recommendation that they

11:48:29 presented.

11:48:35 So my only point is, if we are going to treat those who want

11:48:46 to relocate to this city, and provide them all kind of

11:48:51 economic incentives, even through the QIT and all those

11:48:56 people, then we need to also look at those mom and pops and

11:49:00 those people who want to provide businesses that live here

11:49:05 already, pay taxes, and try to provide a decent living for

11:49:09 their families, and I think that's a small gesture that the

11:49:15 city can provide versus providing that opportunity.

11:49:21 So I want to finish by saying I'm willing to do whatever

11:49:25 this body wishes to do, but we shouldn't be insensitive to

11:49:32 those people at all.

11:49:33 Thank you.

11:49:33 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

11:49:37 Councilman Reddick, I don't think anybody was suggesting

11:49:40 that there is anything more important than the safety of

11:49:46 constituents or suggesting, you know, anything was worse

11:49:52 than what happened to that poor family.

11:49:55 So I'm not sure what you are suggesting, but I just don't

11:50:01 think that anybody here was suggesting that that wasn't the

11:50:06 most important thing, and I think that's what we are all

11:50:09 trying to talk about, safety, and just wanted to say that.

11:50:15 And I'll support -- I'm hoping that the motion that I made

11:50:23 would look at an exemption or some kind of help for people,

11:50:26 and for paying the in lieu fee, so hopefully we'll get there

11:50:34 with our next discussion.

11:50:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: City Council attorney, number 62, a second

11:51:04 reading of your title.

11:51:05 Per your rules of procedure in order to make this part of

11:51:08 your council rules, amending the meeting of City Council to

11:51:11 create rule 3-G to permit participation by maybe who is not

11:51:19 physically able to attend a meeting where there is a quorum,

11:51:22 so all that is required to is to move the resolution by

11:51:25 title and then move the resolution.

11:51:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Unless there's any discussion I move

11:51:32 resolution 62.

11:51:35 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Second.

11:51:36 >>MARY MULHERN: Motion made by Councilman Suarez, seconded

11:51:38 by Councilwoman Capin.

11:51:40 All in favor?

11:51:41 Anyone opposed?

11:51:43 Nay.

11:51:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And if you can, have it read by title.

11:51:49 >> Resolution presented for second reading and adoption,

11:51:52 resolution amending the rules of procedure governing

11:51:54 meetings of the City Council, the City of Tampa, creating

11:51:57 rule 3-G to permit remote participation by a member who is

11:52:01 physically not able to attend a meeting where a quorum is

11:52:04 present, providing an effective date.

11:52:04 >>MARY MULHERN: Motion by Councilman Suarez, second bid

11:52:12 Councilman Reddick.

11:52:13 All in favor?

11:52:15 Anyone opposed?

11:52:16 Nay.

11:52:16 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Mulhern voting in a.

11:52:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That rule is now in effect.

11:52:21 >>MARY MULHERN: Councilwoman Capin?

11:52:38 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Just the opportunity for Chairman Miranda to

11:52:40 phone in from his long distance is now in effect.

11:52:46 Thank you.

11:52:46 >>MARY MULHERN: Probably doesn't have a phone.

11:52:52 Item number 63.

11:52:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Item number 63 is a continued discussion

11:53:00 of the process by which items that involve QTI, which are

11:53:07 involving state or federal grants for economic incentives,

11:53:11 to be able to be placed on the agenda in a timely fashion.

11:53:15 I have in your backup material provided you a memo

11:53:19 previously dated November 28, 2011, with certain scenarios.

11:53:29 One, when council is already scheduled to meet or when the

11:53:31 Community Redevelopment Agency will be in session, but not

11:53:34 City Council, and finally when neither City Council nor the

11:53:37 Community Redevelopment Agency is scheduled to meet, such as

11:53:40 what we just had recently with the holiday schedule.

11:53:43 Again, this is in response to economic development in that

11:53:50 the administration is requesting the ability to inform

11:53:55 potential businesses that wish to take advantage of QTI to

11:54:00 know with some degree of certainty when that item will be

11:54:04 able to be resolved, brought before council, and discussed.

11:54:09 So that being the case, what I provided for you, I grant

11:54:12 you, I grant you -- and I will be the first to admit -- is

11:54:14 not an elegant and simple solution, but it is, I think, an

11:54:18 effective balance between the discretion of the chairman,

11:54:24 balanced against the needs of the administration to be able

11:54:27 to know with certainty and to be able to provide information

11:54:30 to potential employers with certainty as to when something

11:54:33 can be placed on the agenda.

11:54:34 So if council wishes, we can do this as an amendment to

11:54:40 council's rules.

11:54:41 It will be a whole separate new rule.

11:54:45 And that will be one recommendation.

11:54:47 Another recommendation would be to do it in the form of a

11:54:50 resolution, setting forth the desire of council to

11:54:56 facilitate this, although, council, I will share with you

11:55:00 that the way the schools are presently situated, there is

11:55:03 really, other than an emergency meeting involving the

11:55:09 health, safety and welfare, whereas the ordinance has to set

11:55:12 forth for your charter basis for the emergency, there is

11:55:15 really no way right now under your present rules for an item

11:55:18 to be scheduled when council itself does not schedule the

11:55:23 meeting in advance when you already meet.

11:55:25 So that being said, that is a concern.

11:55:31 And if council wishes to do that, that would require a

11:55:33 change to your rules to allow that to happen.

11:55:36 I don't want to take up any of your time or make it any more

11:55:40 complicated than I need to but I present that for your

11:55:42 consideration.

11:55:44 It would be my recommendation that if council wishes to, and

11:55:49 have it limited to QTI, then way provided for you will

11:55:52 resolve any future issues.

11:56:00 >>YVONNE CAPIN: On here, you have when neither City Council

11:56:04 nor the community development agency is scheduled to

11:56:06 meeting, to have's special called meeting to consider

11:56:16 incentive.

11:56:17 Administration is a very broad term.

11:56:18 As I said before, we were elected, and the only other person

11:56:24 that is elected in this city is the mayor, and that's the

11:56:29 only other person that I would even consider calling a

11:56:33 special called meeting of this body.

11:56:44 I have a difficult time accepting this because it's very

11:56:46 brother.

11:56:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: May I just share discussion?

11:56:52 In an early draft of this, I did use the word mayor.

11:56:55 We could have the mayor, or his or her designee so the mayor

11:57:01 makes the decision, just the mayor, or his or her designee.

11:57:06 I changed that to administration on discussion of some

11:57:09 people who didn't wish to have the mayor put into a position

11:57:12 of having to make a request to have something put on here.

11:57:16 But if it is the mayor, I just want to point out that there

11:57:20 really is no discretion.

11:57:21 It is a request.

11:57:22 But it also says that the chairman or the disqualification

11:57:27 of a chairman, the chair pro tem, the next paragraph, shall

11:57:31 coordinate with the mayor or his or her designee and the

11:57:34 city clerk to set the date and time of the meeting.

11:57:36 In other words, the chair or the chair pro tem upon

11:57:38 notification of the mayor per this rule really does not have

11:57:41 discretion.

11:57:42 There's a "shall" in there.

11:57:44 So it is not necessarily a request.

11:57:46 So if you wish to have the administration changed -- it's

11:57:51 council's desire to have administration struck and have the

11:57:53 mayor placed in that place, that would be council's

11:57:56 decision.

11:57:57 I'm happy to do that if you wish.

11:58:01 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I would like to see the mayor or his

11:58:04 designee.

11:58:05 Again, this is a request to call council.

11:58:09 That's what the governor does.

11:58:11 I feel that there is no other elected offerings in the city

11:58:17 other than City Council and the mayor.

11:58:19 And that responsibility should be carried by elected

11:58:25 official.

11:58:26 And dizzying knee is fine.

11:58:33 And "shall" again, there is no -- that is fine, but

11:58:40 administration is too broad for me.

11:58:44 That's my take on it.

11:58:52 I would like to see the mayor in that place.

11:58:54 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I want to thank Mr. Shelby.

11:58:58 I know this was a difficult resolution to work on.

11:59:01 And working with all the council members and addressing

11:59:04 concerns, along with Mr. McDonaugh and moving this is

11:59:11 another step towards making Tampa a city that puts business

11:59:15 first and making it an attractive city for businesses to

11:59:19 come here, relocate or open, whether they be large

11:59:23 businesses or small businesses, receiving money from the

11:59:27 State of Florida to do enter praise funds or QTI.

11:59:31 So I appreciate the concerns of Councilwoman Capin, and I

11:59:37 support her request to make it the mayor, his or her, takes

11:59:44 case may be with the mayor, going forward so that we can

11:59:51 hang that "open for business" sign out and really send a

11:59:54 message that we as City Council, along with the mayor,

11:59:59 really want to have the economy bolstered by businesses

12:00:03 coming here and locating to Florida, and that's what

12:00:08 enterprise Florida and the QTI program is all about.

12:00:10 So thank you very much.

12:00:12 And I am thrilled that we are moving this forward finally.

12:00:16 >>MARY MULHERN: I think the message we are sending is that

12:00:27 City Council is ceding its responsibility and authority to

12:00:32 the mayor, and under a chart theory has a very strong mayor

12:00:37 system.

12:00:38 What we are talking about here is a difference of hours or

12:00:41 days, and allowing the mayor to tell the City Council chair

12:00:54 to call a special meeting for the purpose of this QTI or

12:01:03 whatever.

12:01:04 And it's interesting because I did do so research on this

12:01:09 online and I couldn't believe it but I found recently the

12:01:14 Florida legislature, Republican Florida legislature, were

12:01:21 really upset about the enterprise funds and questioning it

12:01:25 and questioning whether in the end they really did bring

12:01:27 jobs here.

12:01:28 So this isn't just like this.

12:01:32 This is a program that's been in place for really a long

12:01:35 time.

12:01:36 Think from the data we have gotten from the chamber and from

12:01:39 our economic development people, that it has created some

12:01:44 jobs.

12:01:45 But the idea that by City Council allowing the mayor to

12:01:52 require us to call a special meeting -- I don't each know

12:01:59 how this is going work.

12:02:01 Do you think you are going to call a meeting within three

12:02:03 days?

12:02:03 Who knows who is going to be available, who is going to be

12:02:05 in town, whether we are going to be able to get a quorum.

12:02:08 The idea, it feels like to me an attempt to limit our

12:02:16 independent authority as a City Council body.

12:02:22 And I am not going to support it.

12:02:23 But I just -- really think about what you are doing.

12:02:26 You are setting this precedent of giving away some of our

12:02:31 charter and rules of procedure, our authority as an

12:02:37 independent body and a check on the mayor, on the

12:02:44 administration, and for what?

12:02:51 For this idea we.

12:02:53 Seen any evidence of that we are somehow going to lose the

12:02:57 people who we are giving a great tax incentive to, we are

12:03:01 going to lose their business because we don't tell them --

12:03:04 we give them three days more than they want?

12:03:06 So I am not going to support it.

12:03:10 Councilman Suarez.

12:03:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.

12:03:14 A couple of questions for you, Mr. Shelby, first.

12:03:17 On any special called meeting that is always initiated by

12:03:21 the chair or member of the City Council, correct?

12:03:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No, it is only right now initiated by a

12:03:27 motion and vote of City Council at a scheduled --

12:03:31 >> Regularly scheduled meeting?

12:03:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.

12:03:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ: As I read the language -- and I agree with

12:03:36 what Councilwoman Capin said about administration, I think

12:03:42 probably should have that as mayor, it is a request, City

12:03:45 Council chair can then say, no, I am not going to be able to

12:03:50 schedule that meeting, we are not going to do that meeting,

12:03:52 this rule does not supersede any power that both the council

12:03:56 chair or the council itself has.

12:03:59 >> That is why it's significant.

12:04:03 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Then let me just say that your language

12:04:09 belies that particular point that you just made.

12:04:13 Your language says "may request City Council."

12:04:17 It doesn't say "will request -- and doesn't say that they

12:04:21 have to have the special called meeting.

12:04:24 So the language itself, Mr. Shelby, is incorrect.

12:04:27 Now, again, I am not an attorney, but it does not, in my

12:04:31 mind, the way I read it, say that.

12:04:33 I am in support of trying to expedite these things if it is

12:04:37 going to mean jobs for the City of Tampa, but I agree with

12:04:43 Councilwoman Mulhern that I will not cede any kind of

12:04:47 control that the City Council currently has because of this

12:04:50 particular aspect.

12:04:52 I believe -- and I am in agreement with her that the reality

12:04:58 of this aspect is going to be extremely rare that this is

12:05:00 going to happen.

12:05:01 But I do believe that we should make sure that the language

12:05:05 is tighter, so that it is just a request.

12:05:10 I don't think that we should cede the control of the City

12:05:13 Council to the mayor, and it's wrong in our charter and I

12:05:16 think it's wrong in terms of a procedural matter in general.

12:05:20 And I apologize.

12:05:22 The way I read it, when I see requests, and I see "may," it

12:05:28 does not say that the mayor is going to have that power.

12:05:32 So maybe I'm reading it incorrectly.

12:05:35 >> Well, I believe -- I welcome this discussion.

12:05:41 I don't have any -- I'm not married to this language but let

12:05:46 me just share this with you.

12:05:47 The term, request, I guess, as a polite thing could you

12:05:53 change that word to "may" from "request - because if the

12:05:57 second paragraph doesn't allow for any discussion by the

12:05:59 chair.

12:06:00 Now, let me share with you that --

12:06:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Let me just interrupt you for a moment.

12:06:06 We need to go over.

12:06:08 I would like to make a motion to go over --

12:06:13 >> Five more minutes?

12:06:15 Ten?

12:06:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ: 15 more minutes.

12:06:17 >>MARY MULHERN: All in favor?

12:06:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chair.

12:06:23 The way it's written, you have both the set-up and then the

12:06:26 response that is in there.

12:06:30 To me the language does not coordinate with each other.

12:06:32 So that language has to be changed in order for it to fit

12:06:35 in.

12:06:35 So when you have requests in the first paragraph and then

12:06:40 you have "shall" in the second, the "shall" is only a

12:06:44 response to the first paragraph, not -- if the second

12:06:50 paragraph stood by itself I would agree with you.

12:06:52 But it sound to me based on your language that we are

12:06:55 requesting if he says yes, then it shall coordinate after

12:06:59 that point.

12:07:00 So again, I'm no lawyer, but at the same time it doesn't

12:07:05 sound to me like there may be some language that we need to

12:07:08 tighten up.

12:07:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Then let's for the sake of argument,

12:07:12 because I think it's council -- whether it's council's

12:07:15 intention or not, the intention of this provision is to

12:07:19 remove the discretion of the chair, or the chair pro tem is

12:07:24 presiding, is to remove that discretion.

12:07:27 And I understand, from a policy perspective, as your

12:07:30 attorney, I am very cognizant of City Council to retain its

12:07:36 authority and not cede its authority.

12:07:39 That being said, the direction that I was given was to be

12:07:43 able to craft language to allow the administration to be

12:07:49 able to a sure an organization coming in that it will not

12:07:54 have to, quote-unquote, forgive the language, go begging to

12:08:00 the City Council knowing whether or not the particular

12:08:02 person sitting as chair at the time would grant it or not.

12:08:05 Then the provision.

12:08:06 If that's the case and City Council doesn't want to do that,

12:08:10 the recommendation would be to strike that entire third

12:08:13 scenario. Because what the administration is lag for is FOB

12:08:16 certainty to be able to say, this is what's going to happen,

12:08:18 and if it's a request, which is what City Council may wish,

12:08:21 then that is really, as far as the administration is

12:08:24 concerned, nothing that they could put forth if they want to

12:08:28 say, we'll tell you, but I can't give you an answer.

12:08:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Well, if I may, chair.

12:08:33 I apologize.

12:08:35 I guess the misconception -- and cost on my part or could be

12:08:39 on your part, I don't know which -- is that you would draft

12:08:42 language that would cede any control to us, as our attorney.

12:08:47 I mean, I think that may be you misinterpreted what we were

12:08:52 trying to say.

12:08:53 It's to expedite a process, not cede any kind of control

12:08:56 from the City Council.

12:08:56 There's a big difference.

12:08:59 The mayor still has to come to us for agreement on these QTI

12:09:03 kind of contracts.

12:09:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's true.

12:09:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Because of that, asking the City Council

12:09:08 chair to call a special called meeting is much more in line

12:09:12 with our history of democracy than it is for the mayor to

12:09:18 then have a way of saying to a contractual body, yes, I am

12:09:24 going to get the City Council to meet on this.

12:09:26 They are going to say yes.

12:09:27 The mayor does not know what's going to happen.

12:09:29 So why put in place a process that allows the mayor to have

12:09:33 control over council, and how we set up a meeting as opposed

12:09:37 to asking for us to set up a meeting?

12:09:40 I understand totally the concept of wanting to have

12:09:43 something expedited.

12:09:45 I think we all here agree that expedited process would be

12:09:49 helpful.

12:09:49 The problem is, extra indicted process does not fit into

12:09:53 democracy per se.

12:09:54 And it's because of that I think we need to reexam the

12:09:58 language that's in front of us right now.

12:10:02 I am not going to belabor any more discussion, but I will

12:10:04 make a motion that we tighten up this language and not cede

12:10:10 any control whatsoever to the mayor, and go back to what

12:10:14 Councilwoman Capin's original intent when she'd she said the

12:10:19 mayor should request us to have this meeting.

12:10:21 The council chair, whoever it may be at that particular

12:10:24 time, may say, now what?

12:10:26 I am not going to call a special called meeting.

12:10:27 That's a discussion between council and the mayor.

12:10:30 And that's when we have either an issue between the two

12:10:36 individual bodies, the two individual people, or between

12:10:38 what's going on with the contractual obligation on the QTI

12:10:41 or getting something or not getting something.

12:10:45 That's truly all within our purview.

12:10:48 So I would like to make that motion that Mr. Shelby come

12:10:54 back with language that tightens up that relationship and

12:10:57 bring it back to us, and then we, in my mind, make a

12:11:00 decision based on new language and not on this language

12:11:03 here.

12:11:03 If we want to vote it down, so be it.

12:11:05 But I will not be supporting this particular language based

12:11:10 on what Mr. Shelby told us, and what effect it will have.

12:11:15 >>HARRY COHEN: Second the motion to bring it back.

12:11:22 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Yes, thank you.

12:11:22 I understand that if we do that, then it's a request, which

12:11:25 is no different than the request to the chair in the first

12:11:28 place.

12:11:30 And I understand that part of it.

12:11:33 But, again, I cannot support subjugating this body to anyone

12:11:46 other than this body.

12:11:50 So a request -- I understand that the request again would

12:11:54 put us back to square one, which it can be requested from

12:11:59 Mr. McDonough that -- from the chair, so if the mayor is

12:12:04 requesting from the chair and the chair says no, they are in

12:12:07 the same place.

12:12:08 So I don't know exactly the solution, but I do know that

12:12:16 subjugating this body is not something that I am in favor

12:12:18 of.

12:12:19 Thank you.

12:12:19 >>MARY MULHERN: There's a motion on the floor.

12:12:32 I was going to speak to the motion unless anyone else -- I

12:12:36 don't think that -- you are either going to allow the mayor

12:12:42 to require the chair to call a meeting or not.

12:12:46 If you are not -- if there is no requirement, the chairman

12:12:52 shall coordinate with the mayor or his designee and the city

12:12:58 clerk to set the date.

12:12:59 If you are not going to Seth say that, it really isn't a

12:13:02 rule change, there's not really any reason to do this.

12:13:04 So I am not going to support even the motion for the change.

12:13:07 I don't think we need to do any of this.

12:13:08 I don't see the need for it.

12:13:10 >> I apologize but the motion was not -- the motion was to

12:13:17 come back with language if they are going to do this.

12:13:19 We either can vote it up or down then or not.

12:13:22 I just want to make sure you --

12:13:24 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you, Mr. Suarez, but what I am saying

12:13:27 is, there is in a language.

12:13:29 I don't think that there is a change of language you can do

12:13:33 that would actually mean anything.

12:13:38 The whole idea behind this was this idea that you needed to

12:13:41 compel the council, economic development needs you to compel

12:13:45 council to call a meeting.

12:13:46 So you are either going to do that or not.

12:13:49 And compel the chair to do it because there wasn't time to

12:13:54 actually just, you know, put it on the agenda and have

12:13:58 council vote on it.

12:13:59 So I think I'm not going to support the motion.

12:14:04 So anything else on the motion?

12:14:08 All in favor?

12:14:11 Opposed?

12:14:12 No.

12:14:12 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Mulhern voting.

12:14:15 No.

12:14:15 >>MARY MULHERN: Actually, do you understand the motion, Mr.

12:14:20 Shelby?

12:14:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I do with regards to the third scenario.

12:14:24 I just want to be clear with regard to the first two

12:14:27 scenarios.

12:14:27 Again, that also removes the discretion of the chair.

12:14:33 And I just want -- let me just share with you that I thought

12:14:40 I was doing it consistent with what council's direction was.

12:14:43 It is my professional opinion -- and the rules were crafted

12:14:51 when I first came onboard to allow special called meetings

12:14:55 to be set by motion and vote of City Council, majority of

12:14:58 City Council.

12:14:59 And not necessarily by one person, be it the mayor or the

12:15:04 chairman at the time.

12:15:05 So the answer to the question is, if council's direction to

12:15:10 me -- and the maker of the motion's intention -- that the

12:15:14 chairman and City Council not cede any authority, I can come

12:15:16 back with rules consistent with that.

12:15:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ: If I may, Madam Chair, the confusion in my

12:15:26 mind based on this language is not -- it is a request from

12:15:29 the mayor for a meeting.

12:15:30 The chair sets the meeting.

12:15:32 It is not to, in my mind, compel us to fee. Chair can ask

12:15:39 for the meeting.

12:15:40 He may not get a quorum, as Ms. Mulhern said earlier.

12:15:44 Okay.

12:15:45 But it's still within the purview of the chair to ask for a

12:15:48 special called meeting.

12:15:52 Again it is a request, not a direction from the mayor.

12:15:55 That's the problem. And I think when you said that this

12:15:58 language is actually saying, it is a direction from the

12:16:01 mayor to have a meeting, it is not.

12:16:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: But the thing that I need to be clear

12:16:07 about, though, is the chair -- right now, there is no

12:16:12 provision for the chair solely to call City Council into a

12:16:17 special session. Now, the chair, if the chair would call up

12:16:21 each one of you and say, do you want to come into special

12:16:25 session to vote on something?

12:16:26 It cannot be done, because that would be in violation of the

12:16:29 sunshine.

12:16:29 And those are two separate --

12:16:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Those are two separate issues.

12:16:36 What you said is correct, that there's a third aspect of

12:16:38 this which is that the chair can ask the clerk to contact

12:16:42 each member to find out if they are available for a

12:16:45 particular date.

12:16:45 They may or may not be there.

12:16:48 Again, it is a request from the mayor to City Council chair

12:16:52 that we have the -- whether or not we set a special called

12:16:59 meeting and ask the clerk to contact us all to find out if

12:17:04 we are available for a special called meeting is different

12:17:07 than the first question, which is whether or not the mayor

12:17:10 has the power to compel us to have a meeting.

12:17:14 He can only request.

12:17:15 And I think that's where the confusion lies, and that's why

12:17:19 the language itself is confusing.

12:17:23 It's confusing both in terms of what I thought we were

12:17:26 originally going to do and both in terms of what you said

12:17:29 that this actually does.

12:17:30 So I think we need to clarify that before we go forward, and

12:17:34 that was the reason for the motion.

12:17:36 So I don't know if that clarifies my motion or not.

12:17:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And I'm happy to do that.

12:17:40 I really am.

12:17:41 Thank you.

12:17:41 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

12:17:44 Item number 64, it's the calendar has been submitted and we

12:17:52 just need a motion to receive and file.

12:17:54 >>HARRY COHEN: Motion to receive and file.

12:17:56 >> Second.

12:17:56 >>MARY MULHERN: All in favor?

12:18:00 New business.

12:18:01 We'll start with Councilwoman Montelione.

12:18:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

12:18:05 I have one piece of new business.

12:18:08 And that would be an announcement, an amendment to the

12:18:13 February 23rd City Council workshop session.

12:18:18 The 9:00 a.m. workshop to discuss community development

12:18:24 block grant proposed funding reduction and implication on

12:18:27 various funded programs.

12:18:29 It's something that we talked about during the CDBG process

12:18:33 when it came forward, and that's why this is an important

12:18:37 workshop to have because we really do need to understand.

12:18:42 I am going to make two requests.

12:18:43 One, that that be heard at the top of the hour, because we

12:18:50 have got workshops to discuss code enforcement policy, as

12:18:53 well on that same calendar.

12:18:55 And if I could request that that be heard first, there may

12:18:58 be an engagement that I have to attend that I want to be

12:19:01 part of that conversation.

12:19:03 So they are all listed at 9 a.m.

12:19:08 If we could maybe make a note to do that one first.

12:19:11 The other is to amend the description to add an invitation

12:19:15 to the national development council and their

12:19:20 representatives, one flying in from New York and one from

12:19:28 Atlanta.

12:19:29 They are the oldest -- let me get this right -- the oldest

12:19:31 nonprofit working in community development in the country.

12:19:37 They are going to be attending a forum they are having on

12:19:42 the 24th.

12:19:43 And they work in the area of advising municipalities.

12:19:49 They do a lost work in New York.

12:19:51 They just received a $6 million grant from Chase to provide

12:19:55 lending and funding to expand the community development

12:20:03 efforts of the city of New York City, and they will be

12:20:05 coming here to impart their knowledge and advice to us at

12:20:07 that for you will.

12:20:09 And I thought since we are facing funding reduction and

12:20:14 there will be implications that they come and give us some

12:20:19 of their wisdom at that workshop.

12:20:22 >>MARY MULHERN: Can I ask that you ask them to speak

12:20:28 specifically to how we can improve our process?

12:20:34 >>LISA MONTELIONE: On the CDBG?

12:20:36 I'm sure that we can ask that of them.

12:20:39 >>MARY MULHERN: I want to make sure it's not just them

12:20:42 explaining economic development to us.

12:20:47 I'm sure -- it sounds like a fantastic idea.

12:20:51 I want to make sure they stay focused on how they can help

12:20:55 us make our process better.

12:20:57 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I thought they could also impart how

12:21:00 it's done in other municipalities since they do work in

12:21:02 large -- and share best practices with us.

12:21:08 And the announcement is, as I alluded to, that on February

12:21:12 24, the National Development Council, the Federal Reserve

12:21:17 Enterprise Florida and the FDIC, greater Tampa Chamber,

12:21:21 Florida Next Foundation, EDC, the Small Business Development

12:21:26 Council, will all be participating in a forum put on by the

12:21:32 Federal Reserve in conjunction with us here in the city,

12:21:36 with the mayor's support, of bringing the lending community

12:21:40 together with technical advisors to facilitate the access to

12:21:45 capital and the access to small businesses.

12:21:50 Everywhere you go you have small businesses saying the banks

12:21:55 aren't lending money.

12:21:56 I thought it would be a good time to bring the heavyweights

12:22:00 of that arena in together with the technical advisors so

12:22:02 that we can begin perhaps facilitate the flow of cash and

12:22:06 expand our economy and provide lending to small businesses.

12:22:11 We are even going to have a discussion on microlending to

12:22:14 help -- people talk about small businesses.

12:22:17 I know we have talked about what's the difference between

12:22:19 the definition of small business and sometimes it's the mom

12:22:23 and pop, but they get the least amount of attention.

12:22:26 So in light of that, there will be a panel discussion on

12:22:31 microlending as part of that forum on the 24th.

12:22:35 >> Second.

12:22:43 >>YVONNE CAPIN: On the workshop I do appreciate the

12:22:45 discussion economic development block grant considering that

12:22:48 their best practices, it would be very beneficial, since

12:22:52 everyone has the same guidelines, the national guidelines.

12:22:56 Therefore, how are you getting 6 million and how do we

12:23:01 manage that?

12:23:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE: The 6 million is coming privately from

12:23:06 Chase, not from the federal government.

12:23:09 >>YVONNE CAPIN: But as an example of their successfully

12:23:14 forging public-private partnerships.

12:23:16 >>MARY MULHERN: Councilman Suarez.

12:23:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I was just going to second it if it's in the

12:23:21 form of a motion.

12:23:22 >>MARY MULHERN: All in favor?

12:23:25 So that will move that to the first slot on the February

12:23:29 23rd workshop.

12:23:30 >>THE CLERK: Just for clarification, the police Officer of

12:23:33 the Month commendation would be first.

12:23:37 >>MARY MULHERN: Right, right.

12:23:46 >> Councilman.

12:23:47 >>HARRY COHEN: Can I indulge my colleagues for a moment.

12:23:51 I know the hour is late.

12:23:52 I did not speak this morning during the sidewalk discussion.

12:23:56 Partially because I knew I was going to be bringing up this

12:24:00 item during new business. And I'm very concerned about

12:24:06 something and I want to bring it to council's attention, and

12:24:09 see if we mate explore some ways to improve the situation.

12:24:15 Like all citizens of the community, I'm very happy to see

12:24:17 that the Platt Street bridge is almost complete.

12:24:21 It is scheduled to be open again on January 16th.

12:24:25 I know that a lot of the people that commuted to downtown

12:24:29 from all different directions will be very glad to see that

12:24:32 bridge reopened.

12:24:33 As you are all aware, there's also been a major improvement

12:24:37 effort along Bayshore Boulevard that's been proceeding at

12:24:41 the same time.

12:24:44 It has been a project to change the northern part of

12:24:48 Bayshore from three lanes to two lanes in order to

12:24:52 accommodate bike lanes in both directions, and also some

12:24:57 additional landscaping and pedestrian improvements that have

12:25:00 been paid for both by the city and the county.

12:25:04 Since Bayshore is a county code but the park that adjoins it

12:25:10 is a joint city-county property.

12:25:14 I have been very disappointed over the past week or two as

12:25:18 the project has been completed to see that it has -- well,

12:25:25 it hasn't been completed.

12:25:26 That's the problem. It's been completed to what the scope

12:25:32 of what I think was designed originally, but there are

12:25:36 gaping holes in what we end up with.

12:25:44 To make a long story short, the city spent money repainting

12:25:48 and fixing the balustrades, the sidewalks are in much better

12:25:51 shape.

12:25:53 These new lanes have been added to make it safer for

12:25:55 motorists and also for bicycles.

12:25:59 But at the end of the project, we, when I say we, it wasn't

12:26:05 the City of Tampa but the county did not appropriate the

12:26:08 funds to repave the street.

12:26:10 So as a result, now that it's opened, there are still weeds

12:26:14 growing out of the middle of the street, the pavement is a

12:26:18 patchwork quilt of all different levels, colors, and various

12:26:24 grades, and the bicycle lanes that were supposed to be a

12:26:28 huge improvement both for cyclists and for pedestrians,

12:26:33 because after all it was going to remove bicycles from the

12:26:36 pedestrian sidewalk, these bicycle lanes are, in my view,

12:26:41 not up to the standard of what one would expect for a brand

12:26:44 new project on which millions of dollars have been spent.

12:26:51 Commission Murman and I both brought this up at the MPO on

12:26:54 Tuesday, and there was a motion made for Mr. Chiaramonte who

12:27:01 is the Executive Director of the MPO to coordinate a group

12:27:04 of local officials to discuss ways that we might remedy this

12:27:07 problem.

12:27:08 Now, again, Bayshore is not a City of Tampa street.

12:27:13 It is a Hillsborough County street that exists inside of

12:27:16 city limits.

12:27:16 But Bayshore is an asset is used by thousands of city

12:27:20 residents from all over the city and the county every day,

12:27:26 and to spend this amount of known improve that and leave it

12:27:28 half done, I think, is really not the way that we want to

12:27:32 move forward, particularly when we are trying so hard to

12:27:36 improve things for pedestrians, improve things for

12:27:39 bicyclists, and improve things for motorists.

12:27:43 We talk a lot about how we want the city to look good for

12:27:47 the convention coming up, and there's been some very

12:27:50 spirited debate over whether or not it's even important as

12:27:55 we move through some of our public policy discussions to

12:27:57 take that into consideration.

12:27:59 But I would submit to you that when the national media is

12:28:03 here in August, the most likely scenario that every major

12:28:07 national news broadcast is going to be broadcast from

12:28:10 Bayshore Boulevard during the last week of August.

12:28:13 And it is the one iconic historic beautiful street right

12:28:20 adjacent to where the convention is being held that really

12:28:22 showcases what is best about our city, because after all it

12:28:25 affords sweeping panoramic views of the water.

12:28:28 I am frustrated that this city asset is not going to be able

12:28:33 to put its best foot forward when the eyes of the world are

12:28:37 upon us.

12:28:38 And I want to appeal to all of you today to work with this

12:28:42 MPO group that has been formed, and to try to find a way to

12:28:46 secure some funding to at least improve that part of

12:28:49 Bayshore at the very north end so that it's safer for the

12:28:54 bicyclists to use the you bike lanes, so it's safer for the

12:28:57 pedestrians to be on the sidewalks, and so the city looks as

12:29:01 good as it's capable of looking when we are the eyes of the

12:29:05 world.

12:29:06 I know that the mayor shares this concern.

12:29:08 I don't know that anybody, though, has come up with a plan

12:29:12 for where the funds might come from to pay for the needed

12:29:15 improvements.

12:29:16 I know that to do the entire seven-mile stretch to repave

12:29:20 would be $1.2 million.

12:29:22 I don't know if that's necessary.

12:29:23 I don't know if that's possible.

12:29:25 But I do think that we ought to look at doing something to

12:29:28 improve the viability, the safety, and the appearance of

12:29:32 Bayshore Boulevard, because we have spent an awful lot of

12:29:35 money to get it to this point, and to not have it be

12:29:39 complete I think is really a terrible shame and disservice

12:29:43 to our citizens.

12:29:47 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I'm so glad you brought up that.

12:29:49 I have to absolutely agree, that is going to be a bird's-eye

12:29:53 view for the media that will be here.

12:30:00 One for -- one suggestion for money might be the red light

12:30:04 camera funds.

12:30:04 I understand they are triple what they expected.

12:30:09 And not enough to even pave our roads.

12:30:15 That's just a suggestion.

12:30:16 >> I really didn't have a motion to put on the floor today,

12:30:20 but I was going to put everyone on notice that I wanted to

12:30:23 bring this up again, probably during the next meeting of new

12:30:25 business with some specific ideas in terms of steps to move

12:30:33 forward.

12:30:34 The legislative delegation might be one.

12:30:36 They are of course going to the session in Tallahassee next

12:30:39 week.

12:30:42 Appealing to our partners in the county to look for funding

12:30:44 source might be another.

12:30:45 I know that commissioner Murman indicated at the MPO that

12:30:48 she was going to bring this up in front of the county

12:30:50 commission today.

12:30:50 So it's possible that this will also be on their agenda.

12:30:53 >>LISA MONTELIONE: May I make a suggestion?

12:30:59 Do you want to add to the staff reports for transportation

12:31:01 to come back with having contacted the county, the MPO

12:31:06 staff, the legislative delegation, and have staff come back

12:31:09 with a recommendation on what they found out during your

12:31:12 investigation and how we can facilitate moving forward?

12:31:17 >>HARRY COHEN: Well, I think that's a good idea.

12:31:19 I think they should also work with Mr. Chiaramonte since he

12:31:23 was given a formal charge by the MPO to look at the

12:31:25 different alternatives.

12:31:27 My one concern is that we not hear back that, hey, this

12:31:30 really isn't the city's problem, because it's not actually a

12:31:33 city street.

12:31:34 It is the city's problem because, of course, Bayshore is a

12:31:38 city asset, even though it's technically a county road.

12:31:41 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So if we add that to the next meeting

12:31:45 which will be February -- the 19th, I'm sorry.

12:31:52 >>HARRY COHEN: I would make a motion to have it appear

12:31:56 under staff reports on January is itth to further this

12:31:58 discussion.

12:31:59 >> Second.

12:31:59 >>MARY MULHERN: All in favor?

12:32:00 Anyone opposed?

12:32:07 Councilman Reddick.

12:32:08 >>FRANK REDDICK: I have two items.

12:32:11 One is the code enforcement workshop that we have scheduled

12:32:17 February 22nd.

12:32:19 I would like to move that February 23rd, move it to

12:32:25 March 27, at 9 a.m. due to me having to be out of town that

12:32:30 day.

12:32:30 >> Second.

12:32:37 >>MARY MULHERN: All in favor?

12:32:39 >> Which workshop?

12:32:45 >>FRANK REDDICK: Code enforcement.

12:32:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Reddick, just to inform you and

12:32:50 council that you have something scheduled for 9:00 already,

12:32:52 the first report on the citizens advisory committee on the

12:32:55 economic impact of cultural assets.

12:32:57 I don't know if you want them at the same time or half hour

12:33:00 after?

12:33:01 >>FRANK REDDICK: Say 9:30 then.

12:33:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE: We set the sidewalks for 9:30 on March

12:33:11 22nd.

12:33:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, the sidewalks at 9:30?

12:33:14 I'm sorry.

12:33:15 I forgot about that.

12:33:15 Then what did you want to do in terms of time on that?

12:33:19 >>FRANK REDDICK: Move to the 10:00.

12:33:34 And the last item, I would like to have a motion, move an

12:33:39 accommodation be put together for the breakfast on January

12:33:46 16th.

12:33:47 >> Second.

12:33:48 >>MARY MULHERN: All in favor?

12:33:51 Opposed?

12:33:51 >>FRANK REDDICK: That's it.

12:33:53 >>MARY MULHERN: Councilwoman Capin.

12:33:56 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Nothing new.

12:33:57 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have one item.

12:33:59 I would like to request council prepare a commendation

12:34:04 honoring our chairman Mr. Charlie Miranda for recognition of

12:34:07 being selected takes George Guida Memorial Outstanding

12:34:11 Citizen of West Tampa to be presented at the banquet on

12:34:15 January 26th.

12:34:17 >> Second.

12:34:19 >>MARY MULHERN: All in favor?

12:34:21 That's it?

12:34:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Move to receive and file.

12:34:23 >>MARY MULHERN: I had one thing.

12:34:27 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Oh, sorry.

12:34:28 >>MARY MULHERN: Councilman couldn't, I want to you take the

12:34:35 gavel so I can, I guess, make a motion but I need your help

12:34:39 with this.

12:34:40 I really want to do whatever we can as council to support

12:34:45 the performing arts center, and the Straz Center and all the

12:34:50 other venues from the scalping scam.

12:34:54 So I need your advice on this because I wasn't clear if

12:35:01 these bills in the state are still pending but I think maybe

12:35:06 from Mr. Shelby we can just send a letter from council

12:35:09 saying that we support our local venues and do not support

12:35:16 any legislation that would interfere with their ability to

12:35:22 sell their own tickets and subscriptions.

12:35:25 >>HARRY COHEN: Let me make a suggestion.

12:35:29 I think what Mrs. Lisi asked us to do today was to be

12:35:32 vigilant in keeping an eye on this because it may come back

12:35:35 in a different form than its presented here.

12:35:38 My one concern is if we write a letter against this, next

12:35:42 week it will appear as something else.

12:35:45 So what I was going to suggest is that we sort of monitor

12:35:48 it, and when it does appear again we can strike --

12:35:56 >>MARY MULHERN: You will keep your eye on it.

12:35:59 >>HARRY COHEN: As a matter of fact, as a board member we

12:36:01 are constantly being apprised, and I would say to Councilman

12:36:06 Reddick that I bet the Sports Authority will be taking the

12:36:10 same kind of proactive approach.

12:36:11 >>MARY MULHERN: What about possibly just sending a letter

12:36:16 to our Congresswoman asking that she -- maybe we have to

12:36:28 identify if there's anything in Congress that's going to

12:36:32 deal with this.

12:36:33 This is such a problem nationwide.

12:36:35 It's really, really bad, and especially for arts venue.

12:36:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ: If I can make a friendly amendment to the

12:36:44 motion.

12:36:46 In support of, which is that we write a letter to the

12:36:48 delegation, not necessarily naming these particular bills,

12:36:52 but the issue itself, so that they can be aware of that I

12:37:01 think to your suggestion about our Congresswoman, I'm not

12:37:04 sure that that issue is relevant here only because there's

12:37:08 so many hodgepodge different state laws concerning scalping

12:37:12 that there are some states like California that are wide

12:37:16 open to scalping laws, and it may not have much traction in

12:37:20 Congress as opposed to us reaching out to our delegation

12:37:23 saying we need to make sure we protect these venues.

12:37:26 >>MARY MULHERN: There may be some Internet laws.

12:37:30 I can look into that and research that.

12:37:32 But I appreciate that suggestion, because it's possible that

12:37:38 our local delegation, as Councilman Suarez said, isn't even

12:37:43 aware, so we just put in general the idea in there of where

12:37:46 we stand on this.

12:37:47 >>HARRY COHEN: So there's a motion on the floor to write a

12:37:51 letter to the legislative delegation expressing our general

12:37:54 opposition to these type of practices and encouraging them

12:37:59 not to pass laws similar to the ones defined by Senate bill

12:38:05 392 and house bill 225 that would make this practice

12:38:08 illegal.

12:38:10 >> Second.

12:38:11 >>HARRY COHEN: Motion by Councilwoman Mulhern, seconded by

12:38:15 Councilwoman Capin.

12:38:17 Is there any more discussion?

12:38:18 All those in favor?

12:38:20 Opposed?

12:38:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Would council have any objection to me in

12:38:28 order to assist a letter to talk with Mrs. Lisi I -- Mrs.

12:38:32 Lisi and how to best phrase that?

12:38:37 >> Absolutely not.

12:38:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion to receive and file.

12:38:41 >> Second.

12:38:42 >>MARY MULHERN: All in favor?

12:38:47 Anyone opposed?

12:38:48 Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak?

12:39:04 (City Council meeting adjourned)


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.