continued... part 3 of 3
For starters, this is adopted by resolution, not by ordinance, it does not carry the weight of an ordinance.
These are goals for which the community wants to work towards.
It does not mean that if it's adopted that's going to reduce or eliminate that amount of housing.
This is under the ownership of the housing authority.
This is a goal that the community has set for themselves to work obviously with the housing authority to see if that's possible.
And they're absolutely correct.
There's a lot of work that would have to be done if that were to ever become a reality.
>>Gwen Miller: what you're saying, nothing can be changed so that the money they have, they won't lose the money --
>> no, nothing will change in the housing authority's plans or where the number of units that's already there today.
It's just saying that this is a guide for the community itself and this is something they'd like to work towards.
Obviously if the housing authority is not willing to work towards it, then it's not going to happen.
But that doesn't preclude it from happening some time in the future.
And that's something that they like to have in their plans so that they can keep considering it and looking for an opportunity.
It May not be now, but it May be five or ten years from now that it would be an appropriate thing to consider.
>>Gwen Miller: is that enough for --
>> I know how plans operate.
Once you put something in a plan, it becomes the guideline to which we operate by.
I'm saying to you, if the plan stays as it is, we would not be the partnership that we should be in the Tampa Heights community.
That would be a constant discussion, debate about the future direction in terms of low income housing and the -- in the Tampa Heights community.
We've demonstrated over on 22nd street, the former college hills, and ponce, what we're going to do with affordable, mixed income housing.
They are saying to us, well, five years from now, we'll talk about this again.
We are responsible for fighting every day to maintain low income affordable housing in the City of Tampa.
This plan does not address that the way the language is listed in the plan.
>>Charlie Miranda: let me ask another question.
This plan does not eliminate those individuals living there now either, right?
>> no, it does not.
But it also -- but it leaves an impression with us, an impression is always that sometimes, you know, it's in the eyes of the beholder is what I知 trying to say.
It would be in our mind better to say that we support the preservation of affordable, low income housing in the Tampa Heights community and that we'll work to revitalize both the central park and robles park community to get to that particular goal.
>>Gwen Miller: so you're saying in five years they'll come back and talk with the housing authority and say now May change the plan with now.
>> bottom line, let's be honest, there's a lot of pressure in Tampa Heights.
There are speculators in the community right now trying to build new and more expensive homes.
All of that will play a factor in this plan.
And we know if low-income families are not at the table with real clear language in the plan, it becomes difficult when the money folk get involved in this process.
So we are saying to you, it's very important, that the housing authority have shown its track records under leadership of Mr. Ryan, there's no question, if you go anywhere in the City of Tampa, whenever we had a chance to put our hands on it, that community is now the best looking property in the community.
We made that a goal of ours.
All we asked the Planning Commission to do is recognize how we created the belmont heights community.
How we create the riverview terrace community.
We've done the job with the private public dollars to make that happen.
But under this plan, it does not even give the opportunity or to recognize the efforts that we have done to this point.
>>Mary Alvarez: thank you.
What you are objecting to it on page 21 where it says for the Tampa housing authority is to encourage Tampa housing authority to develop programs for homeownership for people who have lived in a unit for more than five years?
>> no, we object to the one that says the possibility of it becoming a cooperative or a resident management.
And that concept is no longer --
>>Mary Alvarez: page 22, where it says the goals for the community, convert robel park to a cooperative --
>> that's exactly.
>>Mary Alvarez: that's what you're objecting to.
>> cooperative means the families who live there owns the property.
And that as you know and I知 saying to you again, majority of the families unemployed very low income.
It's the lowest rent roll that we have in the Tampa housing authority.
It's a tremendous effort to get to that.
And as a landlord, I don't want someone telling me I have to change my property to a cooperative which means I lose control of it.
And I think that as an owner, I would like to say to you that my goal is to revitalize it, make it a mixed income similar to belmont heights that demonstrate low-income families can live anywhere in the City of Tampa, including Tampa Heights.
>>Mary Alvarez: do you agree to the comprehensive physical assessment of robles park including cost estimates to upgrade plumbing, electrical and roofing of all units?
>> we've already done that and we'll continue to upgrade that every year.
So yes we support that.
>>Mary Alvarez: and identification of funding to make improvements and establishment of resident management, to establish a 501(c)(3).
>> no, we do not agree with the resident management nor the 501(c)(3).
That's again taking the ownership control out of the hands of the Tampa housing authority and giving it to a group of residents who at this point in time do not have the ability nor the resources to improve the community in general.
We've done it through our partnership with the public, with the County, with the City, with the federal government, and with our own funds to make it happen at the ponce and college hill community.
We think the same type of approach going to have to happen at central park and also at robles park.
But we do not exclude our residents.
Throughout the 2012 process with central park.
There were meetings every week, every day to talk about the future.
Our only goal that's the housing authority was to preserve the 483 units as part of that whole process.
We really understand the process in terms of planning, in terms of revitalization of communities.
We object to the idea of someone telling their landlord that you have to change your property to a cooperative without sitting down with that landlord and the owner to discuss their future in terms of where they want to go with their property.
>>Charlie Miranda: next, please.
>> good morning.
My name is lina young green.
I live at 3406 north even Avenue.
I came here with a lot of excitement this morning.
Very happy that finally we have gotten to this point.
For years and years and years, we've been working as a community together to put a plan before you.
We've been here before.
Years ago, asking for this same thing.
You told us we had to go out and work on it.
We went out.
We spent years doing it.
We finally got to what we have and we're putting it before you.
We don't want to see that because of an issue with the housing authority, our whole plan now is addressed in a different light.
And a lot of times -- a lot of Tampa -- time has been spent on addressing the housing authority's issue.
I do want to point out a couple of things as far as the housing authority is concerned, about six months ago, Mr. Ryan came before our group and said that there were no plans for any activity on robles park.
He told us that, the entire group.
And at that time the robles park community came forward in numbers of over a hundred, which is not the usual thing for this population.
And they said there are some simple things that we want for the community that the housing authority is not doing.
I am a property owner.
I'm required as a property owner to maintain my property and not impact my neighbors in a negative way.
I live three houses over from the public housing.
And for the last 20 years, I could tell you that that property owner has impacted the rest of our community in so many negative ways that when the residents came before us, we embraced them.
We were happy that now we had residents who had come out and were asking for very, very simple things that that property, yes, the housing authority has done good over at the other ones, but Mr. Ryan told us there were no plans for robles.
And robles is impacting us negatively.
But I don't want to spend a lot of time on that.
I do want to let you know how happy we are that we've come together that we've worked so hard, that we've passed a lot of issues that had been before us in the community and now we're at this point to ask you to please pass the work plan.
We've worked hard.
There's nothing in here that says a housing authority -- we ask you to pass the plan the way we put it before you.
Thank you.
>>Gwen Miller: thank you.
Next.
>> hi.
My name is hal hart.
310 east plymouth street in Tampa Heights.
And I致e owned my house for a little over six years now.
And the only thing I wanted to say is I am on the advisory committee, but I have not spent nearly the number of hours that these other people here before you have today.
I also own a property at 3913 north arlington Avenue which is included within Tampa Heights, the Tampa Heights area.
And I知 very pleased, in fact, this plan has provided an incentive for that entire five block street to form their own association and become proactive.
In partnership with the City had a major cleanup effort about two weeks ago.
So there are a lot of good things that are happening in our community as a result of this plan being worked on and finally coming to fruition.
As a property owner and as a neighborhood neighbor who lives approximately three blocks from robles park at first I was a bit put off because my initial impression or my initial thought was, well, these people are tenants.
They are not property owners.
They don't have a vested interest in the community.
But I got to really thinking about it they are not the only tenants in our community.
We have lots of people that live in single-family housing that rent these properties.
And the robles park residents are residents of Tampa Heights like any other person living there, whether they own the property or not.
My impression has been since that realization is this.
What we are seeking to do is to bring the community together and have a common goal to improve our community, our neighborhood, where our children play, where they ride their bikes.
And robles park residents are members of that community.
And we -- we have to recognize that they, as residents of the community, whether they live in low-income housing or not, have a right to say what they want to see happen in the community as a whole.
And recognizing their right to say that what they want, that we -- the plan was amended to include what they want to happen specifically in robles park.
But, like any other landlord in Tampa Heights, we recognize that the housing authority cannot be compelled to do anything that is not within their own goal, that is not within their own plan.
If my neighbor rents from a landlord and that landlord decides that he wants to paint the house purple, well, the first question is, is that within the law?
Is that a code violation?
Is that somehow violate some right that I May have as a neighbor?
And robel park has the same right to paint their house purple provided it's within the law.
I guess my point is this.
We're not trying to tell any of the landlords in our neighborhood to do anything that is not in the best interest of the community, including the tenant that lives there.
What we are saying is simply this.
We recognize that -- we recognize that the residents of robles park as residents of the community of Tampa Heights have a right to speak out and contribute to our plan.
And we have accommodated that right.
We don't presuppose that by approving this plan that the City Council is going to somehow limit or restrict a landlord's right to improve the property, tear the property down, change the type of grass on the front lawn, we're not presupposing that at all.
What we're saying here is that we have a plan -- we have developed a common goal which we think speaks on behalf of the vast majority of the residents of Tampa Heights, including robles park.
And that by approving this plan, the City Council will hopefully in the future use this as a guide when request for zoning variances come before you or things like that or maybe matters inconsistent with our plan.
But that's our point of view.
This is a guide for City Council.
We're not compelling anybody to do anything specifically.
We're asking the City Council to support us as a community and not necessarily even financially.
We're not asking for that at this point.
But just to support us as a community to work towards these common goals.
>>Charlie Miranda: I have to cut you off.
>> that's fine.
I'm through.
>>Charlie Miranda: next, please.
>> ralph schuller, 2101 north jefferson street, president of Tampa Heights civic association.
I'm here to ask for your support of this plan.
I think it's been -- a lot has been talked about.
I guess the only one issue which is, of course, housing authority.
There are a lot of other really exciting parts of this plan about how infrastructure and housing gets dealt with in this community and how we see ourselves for the next 20 years.
And how this becomes a garden district of Tampa and how it becomes something that not only we take pride in, but the City takes pride in in becoming the next great neighborhood, urban neighborhood that has access to all the amenities that Tampa's Ybor City and downtown afford us.
And access to the riverfront, that we didn't have access to with the new park that I think is going to be great.
I think the new bank of america development which gives us full access to the riverfront.
I think there's a lot of energy here.
I think this plan really speaks about the energy within and throughout the community at large and how that when people get involved in -- and want to shape their own futures, good things can happen.
Thank you very much.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you.
Next, please.
>> good morning.
I'm robert gardner.
I live at 209 west palm Avenue.
, Tampa Heights.
I'm here this morning to ask that you adopt the Tampa Heights redevelopment plan that we have worked on for the last two years or more.
This plan actually is a dream, a dream of the residents of Tampa Heights, people who live and work in Tampa Heights.
The plan is not limited to single-family dwellings at all.
It's all-inclusive.
There's visions.
There are provisions for mixed use housing, apartments, condominiums as well as single-family homes.
But traditionally, Tampa Heights was basically single-family residents.
And perhaps one day we can get back to the level that we once were when Tampa Heights was at its heyday.
I certainly agree in the demoCRAtic process that anything that you want to oppose, of course, you have the right to oppose that.
But the residents of robles park village express themselves as to what their desires are.
And they have every right, I think, to express those wants and express those desires.
I don't think any governmental entity or any individual has the right to deny a group of people the right to express what they would like to see.
As it was indicated earlier, this is not an ordinance that we are asking that you approve this morning.
It's more or less a resolution indicating that what the people in Tampa Heights would like to see is 20 years down the road.
So I知 asking your indulgence this morning and pass the resolution before you on Tampa Heights.
Thank you.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you very much, Mr. Gardner.
Next, please.
>> paul gordon goodman.
323 west palm Avenue.
I would like to state that this plan while it's comprehensive and it represents laudable efforts of much of the community, the people that have houses in Tampa Heights that have lived there some time understand some of the needs of the area, but I see that the focus has been primarily for single-family residents.
And that doesn't really address what the real needs of Tampa Heights are.
Tampa Heights historically has been a segregated community and my hope is that it will be integrated and I think that it's important for our future that people consider humbly that we can't really be proud about all that's happened in Tampa Heights or even about what this plan represents.
I think we need to consider that there are going to be new people coming to the area, that we need to look at their viewpoints and we have to consider those viewpoints and those people and the people that haven't been embraced and haven't been part of this planning process, that this plan can be amended.
It's just a guideline, it's a start.
I think that's good work that's been implemented yet it's not totally comprehensive.
There's a big need for commercial improvement in the area.
For mixed use, this is important.
This plan is addressing the residential and primarily there and the City is in part has excluded the citizen participation of the use -- the ability to freely in a free market utilize their property for the benefit of corporate.
When you look at that house picture, you got to see that there's something wrong with that picture.
The City is up at the top of it and it's really more like a pyramid a system back in egypt that really is proven not to work.
It's not the greatest plan.
And that picture could be improved.
It could be drawn in a better way.
In other words, as a working plan, not as a picture, something that's nonfunctional like much of the City process that's occurred with code enforcement, the undo oppression of people monetarily to steal their property under the guise of saying, code enforcement says, oh, we're trying to help these people.
The reality of it they are trying to help themselves to somebody else's property that doesn't belong to them.
Then you hear from the Planning Commission, the City doesn't have all the ability to solve all the problems.
It is the people, the citizen's responsibility to exercise authority in this government.
And the government, it doesn't have the place to deprive people of what dually is there's.
To get into more particulars, I値l have to look at the plan.
RFPS have gone out.
Most recent one for kevin white to buy a property.
That was taken out of the table for single-family.
He has adjacent property.
Likely May develop there.
That May not be the greatest and better use for the property.
Commercial opportunities nearby.
Adjacent planned development mixed use May be the better way because Tampa Heights with its spa houses in Ybor, particularly Ybor City they are nonconforming uses that existed, early paddings are very unique to Tampa and there was a great density.
Lost 800 houses over 20 years, about 25% of the housing stock.
That's a -- current goal of the City to build new housing -- in other words, single-family up to hundred units a year, that's eight years of work ahead of us.
We can expedite and get the process going better, but we have to enable the people that have property, the people that have the finances that aren't necessarily the corporate and the government entities.
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you very much.
>> and go beyond non --
>>Charlie Miranda: thank you.
From experience in my time here in Tampa, seems like yesterday, but I致e never known Tampa Heights to be segregation and everything.
In fact, there was the old bridge there on North Boulevard that leads into Tampa Heights.
That was a bridge that was turned by individuals.
It was not a drawbridge.
It was a bridge that turned to hope in and out.
The old garcia Avenue bridge, if I recall.
That's just my opinion, though.
Anyone else care to speak on this subject matter? Motion to close by Ms. Saul-Sena.
Second by Ms. Alvarez.
Close vote with Mr. Harrison.
All in favor of the motion, indicate by aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
I have a motion to move the resolution by Ms. Saul-Sena.
Seconded by Ms. Ferlita.
Further discussion by council members?
There's nothing in life that's perfect but this is near perfect.
All in favor, aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Thank you all very much for attending.
It's been our pleasure to work you with in some fashion for the last almost three years.
I'm going to go back on something we discussed earlier.
That was Item Number 10 I believe.
>>Gwen Miller: ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight, beer, wine and liquor, 4(cop-x) for consumption on premises only at 1611 east 7th Avenue, Tampa, Florida.
>>Charlie Miranda: motion by Ms. Miller.
Second by Ms. Alvarez.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The motion passes five to two.
Thank you very much for attending.
We go now to -- I知 sorry, again, I知 running about an hour and a half behind on unfinished business d.
I apologize to all.
>> good morning, Mr. Chairman, council members, Elton Smith, transportation manager.
And I have with me today bob clifford from district 7 of F.D.O.T. To respond to agenda item "d" under unfinished business regarding two subject matters, 40th street project and Nebraska Avenue.
We will try to make this response as brief as possible and then respond to your questions.
Most of you know that the federal funds that were the primary funding source for 40th Avenue have been reduced somewhat.
Projected federal funding for road projects in Florida have been reduced somewhat due to the budgetary constraints that we're all dealing with right now.
As a result, the 40th street project has, in order to be fully funded, has to depend on an out-year funding which is not yet available.
Therefore, we have been revising the agreements which allow us to start the 40th street project.
We think we have a proposal to bring to you in the next few weeks that will be a funding agreement for those phases of 40th, which we can start now and get moving.
We will also be able to tell you what our plan is for completing the project and funding it -- completing the project and funding it across the board.
You should understand some portions of the project will depend on funding not yet allocated.
Six years beyond the state program.
So if we are able to bring you that plan or that -- or funding agreement within the next few weeks, we should be able to advertise this job in April.
That would mean that's the first phase.
This would be the segment e between Fowler Avenue and the fire station.
We would be able to start construction on that phase toward the end of the summer.
And complete that -- the next phase to be constructed following that would be segment d, which runs from the fire station south to yukon.
And the next phase to be worked on would be segment b, the bridge phase which extends back to both sides of the railroad.
That's the order of work, but we would bring -- we'll bring you a funding document that will work with available funds with the understanding that we are still anticipating additional funding to be allocated from -- through the mpo in the out-year of that program.
Any questions?
>>Gwen Miller: you say phase b would be the bridge but you didn't say when that phase b would start.
>> the soonest we would be able to undertake right-of-way acquisition over the next 18 to 24 months on that and construction money should be available then for contracting for that in approximately two years for the bridge segment.
And the bridge segment works as soon as it's completed.
It corrects a lot of the safety problems there and extends well back on both sides of the river into those neighborhoods.
And that has always been the next piece to do.
You can't do the connecting pieces to the bridge without realigning the bridge itself.
So that is the next piece.
The project overall is still going to be a six- to seven-year construction program.
Because some of the funding won't even be available until the sixth year.
>>Bob Buckhorn: thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith, we've been wrestling with this for a long time.
>>Elton Smith: yes, we have.
>>Bob Buckhorn: refresh my memory again.
The segment from Hillsborough to the bridge is going to be completed when or started when?
>> Hillsborough to the bridge and the bridge to Busch, bridge to yukon, rather, those would be the last segments to be completed and they would be done -- actually not done until six to seven years construction, say seven years from now, presuming we are able -- that we get the additional federal funding which has been -- which is anticipated.
It is -- I think that's a good probability because the mpo has already voted as a policy and specifically as it relates to this project to continue funding existing programs prior to funding new ones.
>>Bob Buckhorn: now, the Hillsborough to the bridge segment is a six- to seven-year before construction.
>>Elton Smith: yes.
The construction money for those segments would not occur -- remember, most of the money in this project is tied up in the right-of-way acquisition.
And so the construction money is that out-year funding that we're talking about.
>>Bob Buckhorn: so in the interim, we are acquiring, vacating, demolishing, sometimes ignoring a number of properties along 40th street that the maintenance of leave a lot to be desired.
Do we have a plan in place to make sure we don't allow that neighborhood to deteriorate in the interim?
>>Elton Smith: yes, we've been working with real estate to establish mowing contracts and maintenance contracts on the properties we own.
The only acquisitions we've undertaken so far are willing seller ac which significances.
The reason for that program, we didn't want to hold somebody hostage that you will time while we accumulated the money to do the project.
If we are able to get the money for a parcel -- but you cannot obtain, you can't start the eminent domain process on a taking of a parcel until you have the construction money in hand.
You can't advertise for construction until you can certify that you have all the right-of-way.
>>Charlie Miranda: Mr. Harrison.
>>Shawn Harrison: it is a frustrating process, but it is the process and we can't change it.
And I just want to finish by saying this.
The process could be advanced significantly and would be much cheaper if we don't have to use eminent domain.
And so if the property owner is along this route are serious by helping us move this project quickly, then they can be part of this solution.
>>Mary Alvarez: well, serve looking for the top dollar.
>>Shawn Harrison: that's true.
As a property owner you are entitled to go through that process if you want.
That is your right.
But that's the system that we have, and so if people are going to avail themselves of that right, then they have to understand that that slows the project down too.
>> I guess the good news long term is that we are starting.
We are acquiring property and we have -- and we currently, even without the additional federal funding that we're looking for, we currently have in excess of 42 million federal and state dollars invested in this project that we didn't have when we started this.
>>Mary Alvarez: when did you start this project, four years ago?
>>Elton Smith: no, no.
The genesis of this project that goes back to 1990 when former Councilman paine and I visited with a neighborhood group along the site.
And I had just started this job.
And they produced a letter, some time during this process, they produced a letter and read it to the mpo where they were begging the Mayor of Tampa to facilitate this project in 1960.
So they have been trying -- when they widened 56th street and the bridge on 56th street, 40th was in the running for that funding.
So these folks have been looking for a long time.
>>Rose Ferlita: with all due respect, Mr. Smith, after saying that, I don't think I necessarily agree with your definition of good news.
>> this is the farthest we've ever gotten.
The way it works for them is they understood that they have to stay after it.
Because these projects do survive after the political leaders who create them are gone.
So that it's -- it's the neighborhood's consistent effort to move this project forward that's kept it where it is.
Kept moving.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I want to compliment the plans done for 40th.
They are great plans.
I'm thrilled we've got some money to go and we're beginning.
Hopefully we'll live to see it completed.
>>Mary Alvarez: not in my lifetime.
>>Elton Smith: do you want to add anything to that?
>>Charlie Miranda: you covered it all, right?
All right.
Anyone care to speak on item d here.
>>Mary Alvarez: what about Nebraska Avenue?
You did mention Nebraska Avenue?
>>Elton Smith: all right.
Well, that was part of the motion.
I didn't know what the question was about Nebraska.
>>Mary Alvarez: where are we?
That's the question.
>>Elton Smith: well, what we have agreed on Nebraska Avenue is that, first of all, as it applies to both Florida and Nebraska, we realize that during the construction of the interchange for the next four years there would be a lot of additional traffic on those north-south arterials.
And so we didn't want to move to curtail that capacity of Nebraska Avenue during this construction period.
In the meantime, F.D.O.T. Has funded a modeling study to look at all of the accesses to downtown to make sure the improvements we're making on the interstate work well with the adjacent at-grade roadways.
In addition to that, the mpo has started working with all of the stakeholders and all -- on all of the accesses to downtown and it is our intention to do a downtown access study and as part of that, we can address the landscaping issues, the questions of whether or not we should change the cross section, narrow Nebraska in places.
The resurfacing program, bob, is in the 4th year?
There's a resurfacing program planned in '04-'05.
And as part of that resurfacing program on Nebraska, we have been working with F.D.O.T. And the neighborhoods to create additional landscaping plans as well.
>>Mary Alvarez: that's a big issue that's been coming up during the campaign trail.
And they keep asking us about it.
So we needed to find out exactly where we were on this.
>>Elton Smith: I understand.
Okay.
>>Gwen Miller: anybody in the audience want to speak?
We have some people in the audience that would like to speak.
>> hello, paul goodman gordon, Tampa.
I decided kind of a personal inspect tiff.
My dad invested in property on 40th street south of Martin Luther King back in the '70s.
Auto parts business which my family is involved in through the course of decades.
And that's what he bought it for.
We sold it to a equipment development corporation.
But when I was younger, I took a class out at USF.
And I had some friends and we lived in south Tampa down like over villa rosa and hyde park, and to get up to USF to take classes the 40th street corridor was a quick way to get there without using the interstate because we had the new expressway and it connects.
It's really a gateway and connects an important part and vital part of our community and gives us access to the university.
Obviously, you have the Department of Transportation, district 7 headquarters at the north part of 40th street which is mckinley drive.
You know, 40th street is important.
Nebraska has some of the same needs.
We for decades neglected the ability to utilize and come to a contemporary terms with our commercial uses in our zoning, in the small parcels and the frontage and how it interacts with the neighborhood to bring back, you know, the viable neighborhood commercial businesses that have gone out to the peripheral -- to the larger, to the big box -- I don't want to name particular corporations, the typical big store now coming back to being small store type of things.
And with our larger scale regional mall developments, et cetera.
Anyway, I知 glad that the state is providing some funding.
Obviously they are there so they see the need.
And we have the bigger picture, education for servicing our whole community and thanks for your support and helping us go expedite it.
I would like to say about the eminent domain, obviously the attorneys get 10% over.
It gets into the negotiations there where my dad bought a property for 4500 bucks surplus from the County.
We sold it for 110.
Had I gone to trial like my neighbor and use the first attorney, would have ended up in trouble.
That gives you lots of grounds for just small, you know what seemingly inexpensive pieces of parcels.
What kind of offers you need to present.
If you're going to really save the money from the public, you got to put stuff out there that's more than like saying, hey, we'll give you the tax amount like what lynn mccarter and coach foundation was trying to do with my riverfront whereas we got an offer eight times that more recently from people that are -- you know that personally have houses and are interested in getting commercial development with doing new housing and promoting Tampa Heights and the riverfront development to happen, what hasn't in the last five years because of some of the problems that have been internal with city government.
Thanks.
>>Gwen Miller: thank you.
Next.
Next, please!
>> that's the next presentation.
>>Gwen Miller: okay.
All right.
They are standing waiting.
>>Elton Smith: I think with your permission we can move on to agenda item "e" which is the presentation on high-speed rail.
And I have sharon phillips from post, buckley, schuh and jernigan here to make a brief presentation on the status of high-speed rail.
>> hello, sharon phillips, I am the deputy project manager on the high-speed rail study.
I will be very brief, so if I知 too rapid, you let me know.
What I want to do is start this power pointed.
And you're going to push the button.
I work for pbs and j here in Tampa.
And this is the current study is the result of the constitutional amendment in 2000.
High-speed rail authority in 2001.
We are only looking at the area from downtown Tampa to the orlando airport.
We were supposed to continue at a later date to look at the Tampa downtown area to St. Petersburg.
We started without two primary corridors, the i-4 median and the csx rail tracks south of there.
We had two big bubbles, one at each end as we try to decide how to come into the downtown area and how to get to the orlando airport.
We use our normal environmental impact statement process.
These are listed, the criteria.
Normal environmental, physical environmental, social, and other factors to evaluate a process.
We have over the last few months began the first of series of evaluations to eliminate some alternatives.
I'm going to show you in each case of five different corridors in yellow our beginning analysis corridors, what we eliminated on the next slide.
In this case, it's downtown Tampa from the river to approximately 40th street.
The two corridors shown in yellow, three corridors shown in yellow include the median of i-4 and then coming off the median.
The csx tracks through Ybor City and then the abandoned csx tracks known as the s-line that runs generally north of Adamo drive.
As we did our first analysis, we eliminated the tracks through Ybor.
When we're talking about high-speed rail, you need to picture something generally elevated, 24, 30 feet above the ground on some sort of pier system.
No at-grade stops.
So you do have impacts as you go through, say, a historic district visually as well as potentially have noise impacts.
I also have three aerials that will give you a little bit better view.
This is the area downtown on alignment e, alignment d which was retained for further study, we come off the interstate, i-4 median at about 18th street in Ybor and run as close to the existing improvement as we possibly can, parallel to i-4 and then parallel to i-275 and then coming into a station location in the central business district just south of i-275, generally in the area between the jail and the state office building where the new transit mall is and generally in that area.
The second alternative that remained was the csx former tracks running past but not including union station.
There's been some discussion about a station location there that was eliminated because of the impacts to the station itself.
This is the area further to the east in Ybor.
We're in the median, like I said, till about 18th street and avoid the existing Ybor boundaries.
The second corridor, corridor b, 40th street to out to i-275.
In the median on the northern alternative, along the former tracks and then the tracks and the southern alternative and then running up the median of I 5 up to the junction with i-4.
-- i-75 up to the junction with i-4.
We took care of eliminating small segments but left those two alternatives in as we continued our study.
The next corridor was from i-75 to the west entry of the polk County parkway.
One being in the median.
One being on the parallel to the existing csx tracks as it ran through plant city.
That analysis resulted in the eliminate of the alternative along the csx tracks.
As we went through the study, the small communities along the csx tracks were quite opposed, as they saw it, visual intrusion, noise intrusion into their historic districts and their downtown areas.
And we had several resolutions requesting us to remove the csx tracks as alternatives.
As you see in the next sections, the third corridor being from the polk County parkway to approximately celebration area, the csx tracks are eliminated.
So in the middle of the study, all that remains is the track in the i-4 median.
The last corridors from the celebration disney area, two alternatives with some variations were studied to get to the airport.
The northern one being i-4 to the beeline, the turnpike and then running down to the airport from the north.
The southern one being on the toll road 417, the greenway.
Our study left both of those alternatives in.
This is probably one of the most controversial areas, primarily between disney and orange County convention center area and the residents along the greenway are fairly opposed to what they see as an intrusion into their neighborhoods.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: I have a question.
Given the ambivalence of the legislature currently about this project, will the study be on sort of hold at this point until the legislature decides whether it's going to just wait or go ahead or be eliminated.
>> we keep going.
We have funding through the draft environmental impact statement.
I'll get to where we are going to go in a minute.
And then what I know about it.
These are the remaining corridors, as I said, through the middle of the study, we're on the i-4 median and have two alternatives on each end.
We had some workshops in January.
Had about 400 people turn out overwhelming in favor of the high-speed rail which I致e been doing public hearings for 20 years.
It's the first time I致e run into that except 40th street.
We've done a series of reports.
We're working on the draft environmental impact statement, which is due in June.
And we are funded through that particular activity.
What happened in February was receipt of proposals by the authority, four different consortiums submitted a -- proposals.
Those are under review now.
One is an electric system similar to the tgb system in france.
That includes the korean government, the fluor-bombardier have a turbine powered by a jet engine.
There's a monorail system a series of small companies have put together a proposal.
And then we have a vacuum tube proposal as well.
Here is our future schedule in terms of what -- and I show in red the legislative action.
We're really unclear what's going to happen.
There's enough state and federal funding to continue the study, to do the eis unless the legislature closes down.
There are two bills in the house, one requesting -- both in the house, I think.
One recommending it go back to a vote, but that would not take place until the November 2004 election, so we're unclear.
Probably what -- everything will depend on what happens with regard to funding, if any.
So we are moving forward.
There's a presentation by the authority March 3rd where they are going to spell out what they would like to see happen to the legislature.
Then in March and April, we'll wait to see what the legislation, what sort of legislation and funding occurs.
We have, as I said, the draft eis is due in June.
A hearing in August, and they -- the authority has asked for revenue stream when they'd ask for their proposals, you had to prove that you have a revenue stream by 2008.
So that assumes a system up and running in 2008.
So what they'll be doing to meet the constitutional amendment is hiring a design-build, one of the proposers in the fall, November, which was the date in the legislation to start the final design assuming the environmental process is done concurrently.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: do you think it's conceivable that somebody could create a system in four years?
>> given that so much of the right-of-way is the median of i-4, the right-of-way acquisition part of the process is fairly small, surprisingly.
The proposal in Tampa is for some right-of-way now owned by the City, some of it owned by F.D.O.T. Were in the ultimate right-of-way of the Tampa interstate as that has no proposed funding.
So our impacts are minimized.
So a lot of the physical environmental impacts that we normally have we've minimized.
It's a disturbed area.
Probably the biggest controversy will be -- and even in orlando, you're on existing roads for the most part.
There's not much.
And then you go into the airport property.
So there isn't a lot of right-of-way acquisition.
That cuts the process done.
If they do design-build, they have committed that they will.
>>Shawn Harrison: when will the downtown Tampa segment, when will that be chosen and when will the choice in orlando be made?
>> as a part of the process, in order to get federal funds, you have to keep a no-build and go through the process through the hearing.
So no choice on who will be building till after the public hearing in August.
So between August and November, probably by November.
The two alternatives in Tampa are still viable.
The one in the median looks to be the most likely at this point in time, assuming we can get a memorandum of agreement between some agencies.
It's significantly cheaper than having to buy property from csx.
I don't know what will happen in orlando.
>>Mary Alvarez: who buys the trains?
>> each of the proposals has a different mix of how public and private is done.
For the most part, the equipment is provided by the proposer and using F.D.O.T., The right-of-way acquisition occurs.
So for the most part the train sets themselves are provided by the proposers.
>>Gwen Miller: is that the end of your report?
>> that's the end.
>>Elton Smith: if you have no further questions, that's the end of our presentations.
>>Gwen Miller: thank you for coming.
We now go back to unfinished business, item c.
>>Gina Grimes: Gina Grimes, Legal Department.
You want me to -- Mr. Chairman, you want me to pick back up where I left off?
>>Charlie Miranda: yes, ma'am, if you may.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: Mr. Chairman --
>>Charlie Miranda: by 1:00, we're going to stop at 1:00.
>>Gina Grimes: picking back up where we left off and I just want to quickly address the issue that -- the issue that Mr. Harrison brought up about employment and the creation of a situation where it could be -- it could reasonably be expected to impair a city official's or an employee's judgment in performing their duties.
I needed to point out that in the state statute, that currently is in effect and applies to everyone, there's an outright prohibition against employment by a public official or employee, employment by that official with a business entity that has a contract with the City.
So that's -- you are already prohibited from having an employment relationship with a business entity that has a contract with the City.
So that exists right now.
Ours is not -- well, we're going to go on to a provision where we have a similar prohibition.
This provision on page 12 states that you cannot have employment relationship if it can be expected to impair your independence and the performance of your duties.
So we need to be clear that there already is that prohibition in that area where he expressed a concern.
But just moving along, again, we're in the employment restrictions.
We also have the mandatory disclosure requirement for all city officials and employees to disclose noncity employment.
On page 13, you'll see a section that for certain classes of employees referred to and defined as appointed employees, and that would include the mayor's executive staff, division and department heads, deputy division and department heads and assistant City Attorneys.
Before any of those types of individuals would be able to accept noncity employment, you would have to have the approval of the mayor.
So before those individuals, those with certain levels of discretion and decision-making authority would be able to accept noncity employment that it would have to be disclosed if they accepted it and prior to accepting it, they would have to have the approval of the mayor.
On page 14, we have provisions dealing with parties who have contracts with the City and a prohibition against them employing certain officials and employees.
Basically what it provides for is that the -- neither the Mayor or City Council and department heads that cannot solicit or accept any kind of employment from a corporation having a contractual relationship with the City.
And again, that's similar to what's already existing in state law where it's an outright prohibition for a public officer or employee to have an employment or a contractual relationship with a business entity that contracts with the City.
Extending little bit lower down the rank of city employees is also on page 14, subsection "c," you'll see that no employee of the City can be employed by a firm if -- if the approval or concurrence of the employee is sought or obtained or required in connection with the contract or service.
So the standard for employees is a little bit different than the standard for mayor, City Council members, department heads and directors, and that is that they are only prohibited from having noncity employment if their officials actions are required or sought or obtained in connection with whatever that contract is with that outside employer.
So this is an example where the standards for different level employees is different.
Moving on to the contractual restrictions under the conflicts of interest.
Currently, we have a provision in our city charter, which means that we basically have to adopt it and abide by it.
We can't really modify it.
But what we've done starting on page 15, we've expanded the prohibition.
Currently the prohibition provides that no officer or employee, so it's across the board, individually or through any firm of which they are a member can receive any substantial benefit or profit out of any contract entered into with the City.
And with the changes, you'll see on that page, we've expanded it to include family members, immediate family members, brothers, sisters, mother, father.
So neither the employee nor any member of their immediate family can have or receive any substantial benefit or profit out of any contract entered into with the City.
Page 16, we have a prohibition against conflicting contractual relationships.
And prohibition doing business with one department or city.
Both of these are pretty much verbatim from state statute.
Basically, again say nothing official or employee can have a contractual relationship with the business entity that is doing business with the City or subject to the regulation of the City.
And for employees, we specifically say that for them, if it's a contract with their department, because you don't want to have a situation where city employee cannot have a contractual relationship with a business entity that has nothing to do with the department that they work in, especially if it's a lower level employee.
And that's pretty much consistent with the way the ethics opinions have rolled for individuals like the Mayor and City Council, they've said, you can't have any contract with the City at all because the rationale is that your authority extends beyond just City Council.
It extends throughout the City whereas the authority and power of an individual employee generally doesn't extend out beyond their department.
Their influence doesn't generally go beyond that level.
So that's why there's a distinction here for city officials versus city employees.
Next is the financial industry restrictions.
This one is just a general outright prohibition that no official or employee shall participate in any official action that affects a business in which he or his immediate family has a financial interest.
That again is also would be covered to some extent under state law.
On page 17, we also have something new.
It's a mandatory disclosure of real estate owned by certain officials and employees.
This came out of the miami-dade code.
And it provides that elected officers, appointed officers, which is executive staff, department heads, deputy department heads and acas, and appointed employees and board members appointed officials would also include board members, members of the various different city boards.
They have to provide an itemized list of all property that they own in whole or in part that lies within the City or within 500 feet of the City.
And that's, I believe, a continuing disclosure requirement.
Moving into voting conflicts.
I know all of you as council members are probably very much aware of the prohibition against certain types of voting conflicts.
Basically what the state statutes provide is you can't vote on any matter that would inure to your special private gain.
We have gone on to define that to mean any economic benefit of any kind.
Basically you know if you stand to gain or lose financially that you abstain from voting on a matter.
We've added to that on page 19, you'll see we've added a section entitled, additional voting conflicts.
Basically what it says is that no city official or employee, because, remember, sometimes in some instances employees that sit on certain committees have certain voting rights.
And it says that they shall not vote on any -- vote on or participate in any way if the official or employee has any of the following relationships with the business entity that would be affected by the action.
And those three relationships are, officer, director, partner, counsel, stockholder, bondholder, debtor or creditor and then if it's a relative.
What we May want to do with this section is, as far as the stockholder provision, we May want to limit that to like a stock hold we are a certain level of percentage of stock in a company.
Versus just the stockholder in general.
Other conflict restrictions, this, again, is an existing City of Tampa code provision.
We prohibit an official or employee from appearing on behalf of any private person other than himself with respect to any matters -- matter involving the City.
That extends down to department level as well.
That means that you can only represent yourself if you have some kind of matter pending in front of the department.
Say you have your -- you're building a house and you have a permit that has to be obtained from the City.
You can appear on your own behalf in obtaining that permit.
You just can't appear on behalf of any private person in any other kind of matter.
It also, we modified this back in '98 to say that this doesn't preclude an individual who is appointed to a board of the City from appearing on behalf of a private person before any other board.
So we specifically allowed them to, if they are an architect and they serve on the variance review board, but they have a client that's in front of the architectural review commission, it doesn't prohibit them from representing that individual in front of another board on which they don't serve.
We've also added a provision in here from Jacksonville.
It's on page 20, that deals with the issue of a city officer or employee acting as an agent or attorney in front of another unit of government.
And basically what we've said is that that cannot be done, also at the same time that they are a city employee.
Also on page 20 is the code of business ethics that I referred to earlier.
Again, I modified this section to make it more clear that a code of business ethics is required to be adopted by each business -- individual or business that has a contract with the City and they have to agree to comply with all our rules and regulations, including our code of ethics.
And the reason for that is you want to make sure that they don't attempt to employ certain individuals, that they are not permitted to employ, and you want to make sure that they are going to comply with all the lobbying requirements that we have in the code.
And the last provision that we have in division two deals with a prohibition against recommending business or professional services.
It provides that no official or employee shall recommend the services of -- and mentioned various different professions, lawyer, law firm, architect, architectural firm, public relations firm or any other person or firm, professional or otherwise, to assist in any transaction involving the City or any of its agencies.
Except for if it's done in the performance of their duties or they are required to make a recommendation like on a c.c.n.a. Committee.
>>Bob Buckhorn: Mr. Chairman, I think probably gina needs to explain that one a little bit better and what -- the situation that happened in dade County is that elected -- electors were referring their favorite lobbyists to out-of-town developers or builders and pushing the business that way.
What this does is preclude that from happening.
Or at least creates a penalty provision if it does happen.
>> right.
The intent is to not use, for no city official or employee to necessarily direct individuals to retain the services of any business or any profession, whether it's -- whether it's a professional level like a lobbyist or a law firm versus a building contractor or trades person.
Do you want me to move on to division 3?
>>Charlie Miranda: well, we wanted to stop by one and I have some individuals in the audience who might want to be heard.
It's up to you if you think you can do it in ten minutes.
>>Gina Grimes: first section deals with use of public property.
It's in city code right now providing that no official or employee shall used any publicly owned or publicly supplied equipment, et cetera for their personal convenience or private advantage of their self.
It also provides that any individual, officer, or employee or any party who we have a contract with cannot use city funds to carry on any trade or business with those funds.
On page 23, there's a prohibition against officers or employees acting as agents or attorneys for prosecuting any claim against the City or receiving any payment to do so and it also prohibits officers and employees from acting as an agent or attorney before any other unit of government in which the City is a party or has a substantial -- direct and substantial interest.
Use of confidential information.
This, again, is in city code right now.
It says that no city official or employee shall use confidential information to advance their personal or financial interest or the interest of any other person.
Impartiality likewise is in the City code right now prohibiting officials or employees from using or permitting the use of any consideration, treatment, or advantage beyond that which is generally available to the public.
And then finally, misuse of position is pretty much taken out of state statute under the code of ethics for public officers and employees and it prohibits an officer or employee from intentionally using their position to secure by coercion or threat.
There's a malintent requirement in this provision to gain any special privilege or exemption for himself or for others.
Page 24 are some new provisions.
These are the last of the ones under division 3.
Restriction on appointment, employment, promotion or advancement of relatives.
This is a statutory provision that prohibits officials or employees from appointing, employing, promoting or advancing in or to any position in the department in which they are serving, any individual who is a relative of the official or employee.
And relative is defined on page 6, fairly broadly.
It goes beyond the immediate family.
It includes aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, in-laws, step relatives and half relatives and also anyone who you are engaged to be married to.
So we would -- this prohibition in our code is really -- is broader than state statute.
This is what is referred to in state statute as the nepotism law.
And basically, one of the issues with the definition used in the state statute is it doesn't extend to individuals to whom you are engaged to be married or other types of individuals to whom you might be close.
And it only applies -- their definition of a relative is more narrow than the one we are proposing in this code is basically where I知 going with that.
So you're prohibited from promoting, employing, or advancing any of those types of relatives.
Next, you have prohibited activities relating to promotion or appointment, and this is -- applies to individuals seeking employment or promotion within the City.
And it prohibits them from promising or rendering anything of value to any person in order to influence their test or appointment or hiring.
The last one under misuse of position deals with fraternization.
This is the policy that's currently drafted for incorporation into our personnel manual that I mentioned earlier.
It's the one you requested Ms. Lang to develop.
I've basically copied it verbatim in here.
And what it does is it prohibits officials or employees from appointing, employing, promoting or advancing or recommending any of those measures for any individual with whom they have a close, personal relationship.
And that term is defined basically to include dating, cohabitation or intimate sexual relationship.
So you would be prohibited from appointing, employing, promoting or recommending an individual with whom you have a close personal relationship.
It also -- the next sections deal with how you treat a situation where within a department, if there is the existence of some close personal relationship, it says that individuals shall not be selected for any position in the same department when they have a close personal relationship with the department director or they will not be selected for a position in the division or section of the department when they have a close personal relationship with an employee who serves as a manager or supervisor.
And then it also says that individuals who have close personal relationships with an employee of the mayor's executive staff that they will not be selected for any position in the City.
And then it provides if someone becomes related by marriage, that they will not be placed on ineligibility -- an eligibility list for promotion within the same department and they would be placed in a different department or section as soon as possible.
And then lastly it prohibits the officials who serve as officials or lead employees from having close personal relationships with their subordinate personnel and likewise prohibits the employee from doing the same.
That takes us all the way through the first three sections.
This would be a good time to finish up.
We can pick up next week.
Plan on being here for a little bit longer.
Maybe we can get through the rest of it.
>>Bob Buckhorn: as my colleagues can see, this has been a very time-consuming and tedious process.
And gina has done a great job on this.
And I think we are with an adoption of this, we will set a new tone and standard for this city that I think is long overdue.
So gina, thank you and look forward to seeing you next week.
>>Gina Grimes: one other housekeeping measure.
On item 6, it's a rezoning zo 308 which is that rezoning on azeele, Mr. Mikes' rezoning on azeele, I know you continued it for one week.
I was supposed to request a continuance to March 13th.
That was the next available date that Mr. Mikes and Mr. Zabak could appear.
>>Bob Buckhorn: move to rescind the previous motion and move that it be set for March 13.
>>Gwen Miller: new motion that be continued to March 13th.
All in favor, aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>Bob Buckhorn: Ms. Grimes, do you need this set for a time certain next Thursday?
>>Gina Grimes: the ethics code?
>>Bob Buckhorn: yes.
>>Gina Grimes: 9:30 or 10.
Maybe 10:00 or 10:30.
That way you would have the rest of the agenda out of the way.
>>Bob Buckhorn: ask that Ms. Grimes return next week at 10:30.
>>Gwen Miller: all in favor, aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
We now go to information from council members.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: briefly, I request that we ask legal to see who we have to get permission from to put these on city cars.
Be courteous, share the road.
>>Shawn Harrison: second.
>>Gwen Miller: motion and second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
Anything else, Ms. Saul-Sena?
>>Bob Buckhorn: do we have a kum ba yah sticker?
>>Linda Saul-Sena: it's in the process.
>>Shawn Harrison: move we ask henry saavedra as well as a member of the administration to come before us next week in department heads to discuss the possibility of going out for bids for babe zaharias golf course.
We set aside $500,000 to do some renovations.
It's not going to be enough and we want to put out for bid the entire process and see where we stand once we get that information then we can make a decision.
>>Gwen Miller: motion and second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>Bob Buckhorn: not a thing, madam chairwoman.
>>Mary Alvarez: just one thing.
Yesterday, I mentioned before that I had gone to the streetcar board meeting and one of the interesting things was they gave us -- every month they give us the ridership.
And from October to through March, well, through February the 3rd, we had 139,227 people, ridership.
And for -- the interesting thing is that for the week of -- well, for the month of January through January 31st, there was 32,000 -- 32,703.
The biggest week that we had was last week which 15,210.
We're about 24% over our projections for the ridership.
So we're really happy with what we're doing.
>>Bob Buckhorn: 40% of that was mary riding it back and forth.
>>Gwen Miller: we go to the clerk.
>>clerk: Item Number 7, corrected ordinance for first reading.
>>Linda Saul-Sena: move an ordinance of the City of Tampa, Florida, designating cuscaden park and swimming pool as more particularly described in section 2 herein as a local landmark.
Providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for severability, providing an effective date.
>>Gwen Miller: motion and a second.
All in favor, aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>clerk: need a motion then to receive and file the old ordinance.
>>Gwen Miller: motion and second.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>clerk: I also have a resolution last Thursday, we had a resolution adopted for solicitation on right-of-way for temple number 23, however one of the dates they requested was not reflected on the resolution.
So an amended resolution.
>>Gwen Miller: all in favor, aye.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>clerk: we also have a request from steve michelini asking that the City Council initiate a chapter 27 text amendment to remove the air condition storage use in the central business district.
>>Gwen Miller: motion and second.
[motion carried unanimously]
>>clerk: I just have various letters to receive and file.
>>Gwen Miller: motion and second to receive and file.
[motion carried unanimously]
Anything else?
>>clerk: that's all I have.
>>Gwen Miller: we now go to the audience portion.
|
