Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

Tampa City Council
Thursday, February 24, 2005
9:00 a.m. session

The following represents an unedited version of realtime captioning which should neither be relied upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
The original of this transcript may have been 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.

(Sounding gavel)
>> CHAIRMAN GWEN MILLER: The meeting is called to order.
We would like to introduce our guest for the invocation.
>>Desiree Valdez, City Council.
On behalf of councilwoman Mary Alvarez I would like to introduce to you today Kathy Good Jenkins who will be giving our invocation.
Kathy is the president of the Oakford Park Neighborhood Association, originally from Buffalo, New York, and raised in northern Virginia.
25-year resident of Tampa Bay.
With 15 years where she has been the civic association, president for the past two years.
For the past 21 years, she was involved in broadcasting in a variety of radio and television shows including WQYK, WFLA AM, the Jack Harris show and the Kathy Belton show, just to name a few.
She has worked in marketing.
But her forte is entertainment projection.
Five years ago Kathy's hobbies of collecting salt and pepper shakers led to major life change, a career in antiquing doing business as "Good Things Antiques."
After two years, treasures are now showcased at Knight's Bridge Antiques in South Tampa.
They share their home with Buddy and Holly and a cat named Grey Poupon.
They like hanging out with a family in Oakford Park.
Thank you for joining us today and honoring us with the invocation.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would you please stand and remain standing for the pledge of allegiance.
>>> Thank you all for inviting me.
It's really an honor.
I'm reading a book called "In Praise of Soleness" by Carl Haines, a Canadian.
We live in the age of speed.
The world around us moves faster than ever before.
We strain to be more efficient, to cram more into every minute each hour, each day.
The speed has pushed the world into high gear, pushing us to the breaking point.
Americans are spending 40% less time with our children than we did in the 1960s.
We are spending 72 minutes a day behind the wheel of a car.
And the typical business executive now stays on hold for about 68 hours a year.
There's a slow revolution taking place.
The spirit by its very nature is slow.
No matter how hard you try, you cannot accelerate enlightenment.
The slow movement was first seen as an idea for a few people who like to eat and drink well.
But now has become much broader cultural discussion.
About the benefits of doing things in more human, less frenetic manner.
You cannot accelerate enlightenment.
Slow is beautiful.
It's not easy to swim against the tide, but we think the best way to administer a city is within the slow philosophy.
Actually, in Europe now they have a program called "Slow Cities."
A slow city is more than just a fast city slowed down.
The movement is about creating an environment, a balance.
This is key, the balance, where people can resist the pressure to live by the clock and do everything faster.
In a slow city, you have the license to relax, to think, to reflect on the big questions, rather than get caught up in the storm and speed of the modern world where all you do is get in the car, go to work and then hurry home.
You take the time to walk and meet people and say hello.
Being slow does not mean being torpid, backward or technophobic.
Yes, movement aims to preserve architectural, cuisine but also celebrates the best of a modern world.
A slow city asks the question, does this improve our quality of life?
If the answer is yes, the city embraces it.
I hope that helps you all make some nice slow decisions today.
Good morning.
>>GWEN MILLER: Before we begin, I would like to send our sympathies out to Mayor Dick Greco who lost his mother Ms. Evelyn Greco, and we will let him know his family is in our prayer and we want to do anything we can to help him get a good spirit and have a good mind.
So we bow our heads in a moment of silence, please.
(Moment of silence)
Roll call.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: (No response)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: (No response)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: (No response)
>>ROSE FERLITA: The chairman has indulged me to clarify something on the record, and I'm most anxious to do that.
Last week, as some may or may not have read in the Tribune, one of the reporters, Mr. Reed, who is in the audience today, made some reference to a petition that I was filing with -- I was a co-petitioner, actually.
And I think the sense of the report perhaps doesn't bring to light all of the issues.
Not that the Tribune has any White-Out, of course, but I would like to put this into the record so people understand what I was doing was appropriate and forthcoming.
My remarks on resolution for vacating petition.
I as a co-petitioner with two other property owners filed a vacating petition for an alley behind our places of business, and one petitioner's home because of prostitution, loitering, drinking, alcoholic beverages, dumping and many other reasons to be discussed at the appropriate time.
When we filed the petition, I was fully aware that when this petition was presented to the council for consideration, on the merits, that is whether to approve or deny the vacating, I would not vote and I would file the appropriate required memorandum.
I discussed this issue with City Council attorney Shelby, and Morris Massey as well.
Last week there was a resolution on the agenda to set the public hearing for a vacation petition.
The resolution was a procedural matter because city code section 22-39 actually requires that upon filing of a vacating petition, resolution setting the public hearing shall be set to consider the matter.
In other words, we have no discretion in setting the public hearing.
Additionally, there are commission on ethics opinions and cases which specifically address procedural issues such as this and conclude that it is not a voting conflict of interest to vote on procedural or preliminary matters.
I have subsequently confirmed this interpretation with legal council and in fact it is also my understanding that under state law, if there is no possible conflict of interest, then I am required to vote unless I am absent from the meeting.
I wanted to put this information and explanation on the record to clarify what I did and why I did it in the exact manner in which I did.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I just didn't want there to be any confusion on the process.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
I would like to put on the record that Ms. Mary Alvarez will not be at the morning meeting but she will be here for the afternoon meeting.
And Mr. Shawn Harrison will not attend the morning meeting, not the evening meeting.
At this time we will go to our department heads and city employee Mr. Curtis Lane.
>>CURTIS LANE: Department of code enforcement.
I'm here to deal with the item under unfinished business B, 2005-20.
You can tell I'm not Mindy Snyder. This is to for tell advising the Code Enforcement Board.
I have looked at this, and my first impulse would be, this would be an informational piece for the code enforcement department as well as educational piece.
Secondly, I thought about the board that we have, the Code Enforcement Board.
We have attorneys.
We have architects and other persons of personal persuasions, and this board being televised, I think, would put those individuals in a posture whereby I think they would be at risk to some extent, because of some of the cases that we deal with.
And as you know we deal with the most egregious cases, and these cases, folks are fined up to $5,000 a day, and we do not want our volunteer board to be subjected to any unnecessary hardships as a result of being televised weekly with the Code Enforcement Board.
However, if the thought was the information that was being transmitted within the board was not being given out to the constituents in the community, the code enforcement, Debra Hanson, our code enforcement person who handles all the code enforcement cases, and we would be more than happy to have a disposition sheet rendered to anybody that wants to look at that or anybody that wants to review that.
So we thought that it would be better served to now have the Code Enforcement Board televised, and reminded of the Nuisance Abatement Board that we used to have, that we still have.
The Nuisance Abatement Board has never been televised and the rationale behind that was because of the risk involved to those that were volunteering participants on that board.
So if you will bear with me, to give the disposition of those cases out to anyone that would like to see those through our code enforcement person in the code enforcement office.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think the reason that council suggested this was we felt that there could be some sort of public judgment about people who are repeat offenders, and I understand your concerns about the well-being of the volunteer board members.
>>> Yes.
>> But I think having information perhaps available in print form on our government access would have a similar effect, perhaps less intense, but it would still sort of embarrass people who are repeat offenders.
>>> Okay.
>>KEVIN WHITE: When this came up, Mrs. Saul-Sena, I believe the great majority of these came up within my district, Mr. Lane.
And one of the things that I think most of the people were concerned about within the community is they weren't able to follow the disposition of the cases, and quite frankly I agree with your solution as far as not televising that.
But I think, on the other hand, if maybe we can get with a representative of his department, and CTTV, and do something like public service announcement, after each Code Enforcement Board is done, they can do like a commercial or infomercial, if you will, stating the disposition of each one of the cases for the listening audience, and be on that rolling screen throughout the week with CTTV, keeping the public updated on the cases that come before the Code Enforcement Board, and the specific issues that they need to be abreast of within their neighborhoods.
>>CURTIS LANE: Councilman, Martinez, our anchor on "spotlight Tampa," and would have a spot on spotlight Tampa shortly coming to deal with just those issues and to get the information out about code enforcement, and at the same time we can have disposition of those cases readily available to the constituents.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Lane, I think that this council understands the sensitivity of your position in terms of the volunteer board.
You know, when that first came up -- and I don't have the letter in front of me -- but I remember Mrs. Saul-Sena made the motion, Mr. White seconded -- in any case, I think it was you, Linda, that did that -- and I thought it was a great idea.
I thought, why didn't I think of that?
Because it's a good idea.
However, I don't think we were realizing what you're saying.
Might I suggest this?
I know about the disposition on the availability of such.
But I think -- and of course I'm not putting words in Ms. Saul-Sena's mouth -- but sometimes when people realize that there is a price to pay, like public embarrassment, we won't have so many repeat offenders on code enforcement.
I think that's one of the things from the standpoint of the neighborhood needs relief and if it means putting them on TV they may not want to be there as often.
Maybe that would lessen the reoccurrence of violations.
Taking your side, I understand that, too. Might we do something like this?
Let's not do anything for now, based on what Mr. Lane is saying.
And I think, Mr. Shelby, we are coming up with our workshop when?
Next month?
And from the discussion that we have had and the meeting that some of us attended, I think there are a lot of shortcuts, legal shortcuts that you have already suggested that might expedite the process and make it more efficient.
And I think it gives you and your department relief as well.
I think we had a good meeting when we were talking about what we could and could not do based on statutes.
Why don't we revisit this again then, and in the event that we still don't get people out of being repeat offenders, another thing we might suggest is going to the board of volunteers and asking them if they'd mind, and not make that decision now.
I think what we are doing is we are all grasping, struggling to do something to make it better.
And in our rush sometimes to do that, maybe inadvertently we overlook somebody's issues or sensitivity to the board, because in fact they are volunteers and we certainly appreciate that.
So all I'm saying is, looks like we are in understanding with what you are saying but I think we need to revisit the issue at the time Mr. Shelby runs his workshop in conjunction with our chairman.
Does that sound okay?
It's not even a motion.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Rose, I was thinking something similar.
But Curtis, I don't think it would be any harm in the interim if you would ask them individually, one on one, not as a group, because people might not speak as freely in a group, ask them individually if they would have any hesitation serving on camera as opposed to off camera.
Would you have any problem asking them individually?
>>CURTIS LANE: Absolutely not.
However, in the ensuing lapse of time between now and the next meeting 30 days from now the code enforcement department will also try to device a method getting that information out to constituents, and perhaps bring that back to you, and you can see that, and see this will work, rather than having the full board, you know, televised monthly.
So let us work on that part of it.
Getting that list of violators with names and so forth, and dispositions.
And if they are repeaters, we will so note that as well, and bring that back to the council, too, for consideration.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I think, Mr. Dingfelder, may I make a comment on yours?
I think we are in agreement with that.
But I think what Mr. Dingfelder is saying is when you have the opportunity, take the opportunity just to ask them, just in case.
We are not doing anything with it at this point, right?
Just to give us feedback.
I think we need to go forward with your suggestion, but it would be nice to know how they feel individually to that discussion.
>>CURTIS LANE: We will certainly move forward with that as well.
>>GWEN MILLER: I know that code enforcement has been working diligently trying to find ways to make things better.
So I think let them go back to the table, let them come up with some suggestions that they feel that's going to be best for them and how they can work it out.
And then he can bring it to us on April 7th and let us go over them.
I know code enforcement want it more than we do.
And we talk about it every day but they are working on it every day.
So Mr. Lane, we will give you an opportunity to you and your staff to come up with suggestions you think would be best to do.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Stick around for a few years and we might get that Hanson program to you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Ms. Julie Brown.
>> Julie Brown, assistant city attorney.
I'm here to walk on two resolutions.
The first you were previously -- the first is an artist contract with Santana for a 10 by 8 feet acrylic painting on canvas.
Basically it's depicting the various aspects of the quality of life and beauty of the City of Tampa.
And then the second one is the transfer of funds for the purchase.
I believe councilwoman Saul-Sena would like to talk a little bit about it.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I apologize it's being walked on the week before the Gasparilla sidewalk art festival.
But the reason we are doing it, normally we purchase works of arts festival but this work is going to be created live during the festival.
It's going to be a banner.
And then in April when we have our Arte 2005 Celebration it will be hung and viewed and it's a very innovative project.
I appreciate legal moving so quickly.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion an second.
Any questions on the motion?
(Motion carried)
>>STEVE MICHELINI: We filed an e-mail request, and we met with the staff regarding the rezoning that's currently scheduled for the 31st of March.
We discovered there was an error in the legal description.
So we are going to have to renotice.
We have paid the amendment fee.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Rezoning number?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: 139, 211 Platt Street.
We inadvertently omitted the alley which has been vacated.
So we have to include the alley in the legal and readvertise.
We are respectfully requesting that you set the amended hearing date for the same date that we currently have, which is the 31st of March of this year.
That's Z-04-139-211 Platt Street.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I assume there's no staff objection.
We paid the fees and everything is in order.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone in the audience like to ask for reconsideration?
At this time we go to our public, if there is anyone in the public that would like to speak on an item on the agenda not set for public hearing.
>>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
My name Moses Knott, Jr..
And I resign at 2902 East Ellicott street, and I thank God for his grace and his mercy.
I'm about to have a heart attack.
What that man said awhile ago, that about to give me a heart attack.
Article D.
I prayed for years and years to one day bring this code enforcement on TV.
I got on my knees and prayed to God, what happened to me.
They come in every Wednesday.
All the human rights people, the TV people all come in on Wednesday with TV cameras and film and see what go on with peoples in here.
I come in here years ago.
They brought me here years ago on Wednesday.
But my case was so bad they want to hang me.
Drug me over there in front of about 7 judges and put me out of business.
Judges said get it out of my courtroom.
I don't want to hear it.
How can you put a man out of business these many years zoning?
How do they do that, and put in the all the courtrooms.
And then they recommend my lawyer file a lawsuit.
And I filed lawsuit for a million dollar with damage to me.
And one newspaper man told me don't even say it.
But one judge over there signed an order, my lawyer said, Moses Knott get nothing from the city.
But I want to say, though, put it on TV.
Mr. White, you wanted to be a big man.
I wish would you put this, you hear?
You know black people are the ones don't want to come on TV.
They don't want other black people to say -- I don't want to say the word.
I ain't going to say the word.
Malcolm X said that.
Beware of those house niggers.
Excuse me my language.
But they hide their hand.
And they don't want it on TV.
You all come right here on TV, right here, you all put things on TV.
But the people at home look at it and they want to throw up.
People see this City Council.
You know, this place here got a lot -- got a -- people watch me all over the world.
They watch me what I say.
They believe what I said.
Because it's on TV.
And then at the end you all cut the TV off.
But I want to say you all got a thing called set of penalties.
You put these guys on TV and they got brooms and bottles and neighborhoods.
Why put the house nigger on TV?
Why white people back there?
One neighbor telling the other neighbor.
About the dog park, how the neighbor turn one another in.
It's badder than that.
A neighborhood with a brand new car, they come and look at your car tag, don't matter if you're 90 years old, right here on a Wednesday.
I seen old people bring that picture with them.
And the code enforcement, black man sit up there, what they call him?
A hearing master.
Some neighbor, don't know the law.
And anytime you put people in a position that don't know the law, look out.
I don't care if it's husband, wife or boyfriend.
Better watch your back.
But a man come in and haul people out at the Hillsborough County courtroom.
I watch the paramedic haul people out there.
They work for a home or something and you all call it a crack house and tear it down.
Read a book this morning about speed it up.
(Bell sounds)
And you read in the Bible in Matthew.
And Jesus ride a mule.
Now you are on a horse.
>> Thank you, Mr. Knott.
>>> I want to talk about agenda audience, agenda 3 minutes.
And somebody has been cutting that short.
Somebody need to investigate that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Need your name.
>>> Mentesmot.
I need to speak on item number 15.
Half a million dollar to TPD.
TPD don't need any more money.
They got a budget that's too big.
They got everything.
They got dogs and they got horses, got horse wagons, all kind of craziness they don't even use.
And who do they use it against?
They got helicopters that fly over the African community all night long for anything.
Who do they use it against?
They use it against the African community.
They use it against black people.
They use it against our youth.
They use it against us.
At nighttime, inside the black community, it's like Marshall law.
Everywhere you go, inside the black community, police pulling people over, every single place, everywhere, for anything.
And most of the time absolutely positively nothing call themselves look for dope or suspect.
Suspect of what?
Driving while being black.
Nothing more, nothing less.
That's the treatment we get.
This City Council sits here every Thursday, don't discuss no real issues.
No real issues.
They got an invocation.
They got an award ceremony they do every Thursday.
And don't discuss any real issues.
And give all the money away to developers, to TPD, and to their friends, apparently.
Because ain't none of this money coming inside the black community.
Absolutely positively none of it comes inside our community.
And so the people need to wake up to this, that when this money they are talking about going to TPD, this need to go for some real economic development inside the black community.
And the other thing is, along with this, on this invocation and this other stuff you all do with these awards and all this you give away, it's some serious mistakes being made there, where this thing need to be cut short.
People come down here to discuss real issues.
And they end up incarcerated.
Three minutes to speak.
And they end up in jail, to come and speak before their elected officials.
And you all think that's a nice thing.
Oh, you're out of order.
And you all have such hate.
You have such hate for the people that when the people do have the opportunity to speak, what do you do?
The taxpayers pay for all this.
And you say, no, we turn the cameras off.
You say, we don't want the other people to see.
Because their concerns are legitimate concerns so we turn the camera off and they can speak to the end of the meeting.
They can speak to the back of the meeting.
That's the hate and the contempt that you all have for people.
But when you all need that vote, oh, we got a community meeting, come out here and vote for us and do this, and we want to hear you.
You all don't want to a damn thing the people say.
>> Mr. Daniel, we are not going to have that in here.
If you are going to speak, you respect respectful to us.
>> What seems to be the problem?
>> That language you just said.
>> Okay.
You all don't care about what the people have to say.
You all hide it in the background.
And you all hide.
When the people come up here to speak you all are so disrespectful you pay them no attention.
You all on the phone, you all doing different things.
And you all want to show so much.
Show that Code Enforcement Board.
Because all the dirt they are doing, most of the dirt, 99% of the dirt is inside the African community.
It's against poor and working class people.
(Bell sounds)
And show on TV the taxpayers paying for it.
You all ain't paying for it.
>> Thank you.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I would like to respond.
Mr. Daniel, I want to say something to you real quick.
You say that we give you the three minutes that you have here.
I can't count the number of times that you have encountered me out in the public and I have given you countless -- now you want to walk out.
Now you are saying that people -- anyway, that's fine.
The countless numbers of times that he has encountered me out in the public and I give him a great deal of my time when I'm on, quote-unquote, my personal time.
And it seems like Mr. Daniels has a lot of hostility toward our police department, which I think does a wonderful job in our community.
No police department is perfect.
No organization is perfect.
No city administration is perfect.
No one person is perfect.
But it seems as much as he comes in here saying that the Tampa Police Department does nothing, absolutely nothing for the black community, and he spreads hate against the police department every opportunity he gets the chance, why not also give praise when an organization does a good job as well?
Mr. Daniels never said a word about an ordeal that happened three weeks ago where the Tampa Police Department chased a white man into the black community who took a black woman hostage, and the Tampa Police Department killed the white man, in the black community.
But you never hear about that.
But, on the other hand, if the Tampa Police Department had shot a black man in the black community, or in the white community, then it gets blown out of proportionate times, and sometimes it's blown out intentionally, or justifiably, and sometimes it's not.
But all I'm saying is, no one is perfect, no entity is perfect, and let's give credit where credit is due, and let's not demean and try to intimidate an organization at every opportunity we have a chance.
If they deserve it, then they deserve it.
But, on the other hand, when an organization or an entity does a good job, let's do that, too.
I just get tired of hearing the demeaning comments on every opportunity that Mr. Daniels wants to take an opportunity to grandstand.
I also ask the chairman for a moment, and if I can take this moment, Madam Chair.
This Sunday, February 20th, I had the opportunity to go down to Ybor City.
I arrived in Ybor City at approximately 8:30 p.m. to observe club Fuel which was sponsoring a teen night for presidents day.
The children were out of school.
And upon my arrival, I parked across the street and I looked inside.
It's a two-story club which holds approximately, I would say, maybe 2 to 3,000 people as far as capacity if both floors are open.
But the entire first floor was completely full.
And there were 3 to 500 children out on the street lined up to still go in in this club.
The club had approximately five oh to six regular security personnel there, but no off-duty personnel, no off-duty Tampa police office personnel.
After a little more than an hour, the management and the door personnel took no initiative to stop the influx of children that were going into this club.
I'm assuming it was all for the profit sake.
And there were approximately, I would say, maybe 2,000 kids inside this club.
And well over the capacity for the fire marshal.
TPD had been passing by on a rotating basis, and I was monitoring the police radio, and the street units became concerned with the growing number of kids.
Although I will give credit where credit is due, one of the management staff at Club Fuel was diligent in the process of trying to keep the children out of the street and on the sidewalk.
TPD came at about 10:00 and approached the management at the door and said, guys, you're way over capacity here and I think we need to cut this off.
And the club management quickly responded, and they did so.
But in their attempt to do that, there were still 3 to 500 children on the street.
And at that point in time once they realized they couldn't get in, it turned into chaos.
And the children realizing they couldn't get in, they had an hour left, so they just decided to start running around in the street.
The two police officers that were there summoned additional units to come in and help for crowd control.
At approximately the 11:00 o'clock hour when the club let out, now the additional 15, 1800 children were all out in the middle of the street.
The street units had to call in two extra squads, which were the SAC units and quad units on the streets, and now we have three squads of on-duty police personnel responding to Ybor City to handle a private issue which this particular Club Fuel knows the procedure for off-duty personnel, has off-duty personnel working at their establishment three nights a week, and totally disregarded that process.
I feel that they did this knowingly and willingly.
As I passed back by, I noticed that they had a sign from ATF that their alcohol license had been suspended.
That happened prior to this incident.
So I'm assuming that this was their attempt to possibly make up for lost revenue.
And I think the management, the owners, and/or the subletees of the club took profit over personal safety of our children in our community.
And I think that's a very wrong message to send out.
And they know the repercussions of that.
They knew the possibilities of what could happen based off of prior experiences in Ybor City.
And I just don't see that being a good precedent to set.
And I think this council and this administration needs to send a loud and clear message to not only Club Fuel, but to any other club that does a wanton, willful disregard of the process and tries to take an attitude of It's better to ask forgiveness than permission, and let's see if we can get away with this.
And once all the children let out, fights broke out, it was okay October, they had to call out the police helicopter which operates at over $400 an hour, and it was just an awful, awful scene that did not need to happen.
Some of the things that could have happened, if the Tampa Police Department had been there working off-duty status, as they should have been when the club got to capacity as some parents were dropping their children off, the police officers could have notified the parents at that point in time.
The club is full.
You can make an educated decision whether to leave your child in this environment, out on the street, because they will not be able to go into the club.
And at that point in time parents could have made their educated decision based upon those facts.
But based on that, and I don't want to belabor the point, but it was quite an ugly situation.
Several fights broke out.
Tampa Police Department acted very quickly in their response in all the situations.
None of the police officers were hurt.
None of the children were hurt.
And it took about an hour, hour and a half to finally disperse the entire crowd, and all is well that ends well, this time.
But I don't think we need to put our citizenry or our children in this predicament ever again.
And I'd like to make a motion that the administration look into the cost associated with having 30 of our on-duty personnel have to respond to a private issue at whatever -- whether it's on-duty rate or off-duty rate, and having a police helicopter have to be called out, like I said, a rate of a minimum $400 per hour to come in, and try and recoup our administrative costs for having that.
And one of the reasons for that, because the SAC squad and the quad squad work predominantly in my district and they were out doing proactive thing, thwart crime and criminal activity within my district, and they had to be pulled off of this for the rest of the night to deal with an issue that a private individual has caused.
Basically, on endeavors on their own.
But I would just like the administration to look into recouping some of the costs and reimbursement that I think the city is owed due to the negligence and wanton disregard of this particular business owner who knows the common practices for the off-duty practices for the Tampa Police Department.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a second.
Question on the motion.
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a clarification.
I think from a protocol perspective, we probably are just asking administration to look into it and report back to us?
As opposed to directing them to do something?
>>KEVIN WHITE: I was making the motion to have the administration look into what the cost assessment was, and if they deem necessary, go after reimbursement.
>>GWEN MILLER: I would like to go further, and have the administration recommend what we could do to close down a club.
We do not need a club in Ybor City that's going to allow kids to come in, when we know we have a curfew and he's going to take advantage of us, knowing our curfew was Thursday, Friday and Saturday, he took advantage of us knowing that Sunday was not a curfew and I think something needs to be done about it.
I think we need to go further and see if we can close a business down like that.
And he knows the procedures.
He knew city had off-duty police there.
He knew the curfew was off on Sundays.
And just took advantage of us.
And I don't think it's fair for him to take advantage of us like that.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Madam Chair, it's obvious this is not a business that's doing business the right way if ATF already suspended their license.
This is just showing the continuing pattern of wanton, willful disregard of the process.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Rose, you were first.
Go ahead.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I just want to weigh in on that, too. I think Kevin is right.
Several issues that come from this, the fact that there are that many more police officers, and of course complaints from the neighborhoods are always if something is going on like a special event or something is going on at Ybor City, we pull out police off of our area, just to do some protection down in Ybor City, or at a special events function, they feel that it's unfair, and I agree.
I had to laugh when the newspaper reported that this gentleman was considering and what a wonderful thing to do, weighs going to send a letter of a polling, that should take care of it all.
But there are several issues, and I support your motion and your second, Madam Chairman.
But the thing I'm concerned about is -- and I don't know if Mr. Shelby or Mr. Massey would like to weigh in on this -- in the event that somebody like this is not a responsible owner and does things that circumvent what the existing rules are, is he grandfathered in?
Has he been there long enough, where some bars don't have to have off-duty?
Does anybody know that?
Officer Guffey?
>>GWEN MILLER: Would you like to come up, Officer Guffey?
>>SCOTT GUFFEY: Tampa Police Department.
To answer your question, wet zoning date of that business was 1993, which was grandfather them in, the date requiring security requirements in the ordinance was 1995.
>>ROSE FERLITA: But Officer Guffey, I didn't realize this, and Councilman White said that their liquor license has been pulled?
Oh, suspended?
Is that an opportunity?
I guess back to legal maybe.
Is that an opportunity to revisit what the criteria are for him to come back and operate with liquor?
>>SCOTT GUFFEY: The suspension is a state suspension, doesn't have anything to do with the city.
Obviously part of the revocation of a wet zoning in the city, you can look at a suspension, a state suspension of the license is one of the criterias you can address.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And again looking over your shoulder to Mr. Massey.
We can't really use that, Morris, right?
As an opportunity to relook at the status?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: We have to look.
To give you a firm answer on that, that's not my area of expertise.
>> Cate O'Dowd?
>>> Yes.
>> Just look at it.
And that goes hand in hand with what we were talking about.
>>> We understand there are issues with that club.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just to add insult to injury.
I have heard on pretty good authority that the person who runs Club Fuel, who leases Club Fuel and had that event, also has recently taken a lease on club excess across the street from the city's convention center, and is currently doing renovations, specifically to open a teen club.
And I think that what I can maybe read in the at a leaves of that is the fact that it's not in Ybor City.
So it wouldn't be subject to the curfew that's in place.
So maybe they are just trying to move their teen club activity somewhere else.
But I think it's something also that the administration should look at and maybe get ahead of that train.
My point earlier, Kevin, I think your points are well taken.
I'm really glad you brought this up.
And I just don't want us to overstep our bounds as a council and tell the administration what to do.
We should ask them, you know, to look into things and report back to us.
I think Mr. Massey has told us that on numerous occasions.
That was my only point.
>>GWEN MILLER: That was his point.
To look at it and come back to us.
Other questions?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Not on this point but on a tangential one.
>>GWEN MILLER: His motion first.
Other questions on this motion?
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
Now, Mrs. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
Safety in Ybor City is of great concern to all of us.
And two weeks ago there was a tragic fatality where a girl fell off the balcony.
I spoke with the administration this week about it several times and I was pleased to hear that we are working with the city of Gainesville in the state legislature to look at changing the state laws that would address excessive drinking.
One of the things that's being done in Ybor City has come on, they have people promoting women drink free.
Well, that's just encouraging excessive drinking.
We are looking at addressing that on a state level.
But the other issue that's unique to Ybor City, that's I think very significant, is the safety of the balconies.
As I have said before, I love balconies, I love historic preservation, I have lived in New Orleans.
But in New Orleans, you don't have bars with drinking on balconies.
You have restaurants with eating on balconies.
And I think that it would be appropriate to ask the administration to look at balcony safety, specifically in Ybor City, and to come back to us with some ideas on insuring safety on the balconies much Ybor City.
And that could take a variety of forms.
I would be happy to work with the administration on this point but I think it's a significant point.
And I think that one of the pleasures of being in Ybor City is being able to be out op on balconies, but we all want it to be a safe experience for our citizenry.
I would like to make that in the form of a motion that the administration -- I'll give them 30 days to report back on their ideas on how to increase balcony safety in Ybor City.
>>GWEN MILLER: Second?
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion.
Mrs. Ferlita.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I don't have a question.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of that motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: We might as well have a complete circle discussion about this.
Because those two issues were kind of related to what I was going to talk about.
We might as well finish the whole discussion if it's okay with you.
It's kind of out of order.
A lot of times we struggle with, this is within our legislative authority or purview not to tell the administration but to ask the administration.
And I don't think anybody here cares to do anybody else's job, whether he says tell them or you say suggest, we are still dealing with the same frustration.
And your comments, Mrs. Saul-Sena, go to the same frustration.
I don't think she minds that I discuss this, but Sarah Mule came to me because she's an owner with the tragedy first occurred, was the first one on the scene and was taken pretty aback because she continued to reflect that this could have been my daughter, this could have been my son.
And what can we do about it?
And I'll be very candid in my discussion with her.
And I'll try to say it as close as I can.
I said, Sarah, you have come to me several times.
Everybody in their own little piece of the pie has come to this drugstore to discuss the frustration about the teen thing, the overdrinking, the balcony issues, the noise ordinance.
So let's make this real simple.
We understand what our charge is.
And you should understand what the administration's charge is.
So that it doesn't appear always that we are kind of bucking heads with the administration.
I think we have all been in these seats long enough, mature enough to understand that there is no bucking of the administration's power or ours.
It is a complimentary type legislative administrative joint effort: Not that it's not a concern.
It was traumatic for the girl and for her family.
But let's make this as effective as possible.
Instead of continuing to have dialogue with me, go straight to the mayor.
Go straight to the mayor every time you all have problems.
Go straight to the mayor.
Because it is an administrative decision, one we will support or assist in any way we can.
But she did.
And from my understanding the mayor gave her an audience for about a half hour and she understood the issues that were frustrating to Sarah and some of the pioneers in Ybor City.
Thank you for the background music.
In any case, that was productive.
That was productive.
So what we need to do is not because people play us against the administration, but if we expedite the process we can get more done.
So I have been doing that and it works well.
If they come to us, and I think it is an administrative decision to do initially, send them to the mayor's office, so when they come to us, we don't go, well, it's an administrative decision, we can't do that, go to the mayor.
So it helps everybody instead of this back and forth.
So what you're saying is supportive to that, Mrs. Saul-Sena, and it's a good idea, because she hasn't really voiced her concern to the administration so perhaps it won't occur again.
I think that relationship between legislative and administrative will work well.
Along that same lines, more frustration has come up again and again and again.
And I know that there was a piece on the noise ordinance this weekend.
He interviewed me, interviewed Major McNamara, several people.
All of these things are components of why Ybor City is working or not working, is conducive to economic development or it's not.
We need to look at all these issues not separately.
Coincidentally it's wonderful that we talk about it again so it works or not work.
We talked about the new initiatives.
We talked about the marketing process.
Then we have all these blotches of problems that continue to give Ybor City a black eye.
As far as I'm concerned, and Major McNamara was gently considered enough to understand that his opinion and mine were understandably different and everybody that comes and talks to me says the noise ordinance is not working.
Well, there are a lot of undercurrents as to why or why not.
Major McNamara and the police, I believe, feel if there were more criminal consequences they could be more assertive and quicker in making people either come into compliance or you citing them.
Remember how long we went through this to reconstruct the ordinance or reconfigure the change in language, et cetera.
And there are some parts of the ordinance perhaps can be looked at again.
I understand there's a little bit -- and Morris, I'm kind of talking out of my league so please help me if you can or Orlando, but there are some areas of that ordinance that say they either violate it by doing this, or this.
So if they don't do both, instead of "or" we need to do "and" because that's kind of a link, to giving them more time to continue to be violators.
So when Mr. Lingle talked to me I said I don't think it what it should be.
And Mr. McNamara told me about informal warning, informal warning, back to compliance, they come back and comply, but ten T next week they start all over again.
As long as we took to do this ordinance and reconfigure it, there are still holes in it and police are frustrated, and the citizenry is frustrated.
So we have to do something.
And there can be several option ifs we come back for a longer discussion about that.
People, because they don't feel that TPD is doing enough, what they are doing is going to EPC.
And I can guarantee you knowing the professionalism I've seen from the people in control over there and supervision, they don't want to step on our legislative toes, and I don't blame them.
It's jurisdictionally ours to do. We decided code wasn't going to do it, TPD is going to do it.
That's their option, too. They have their own noise ordinance criteria in place, right?
So ultimately it's too much and it's frustrating because the police have all these other issues we are talking about.
Maybe we could decide to partner.
And this is just a thought.
I'm not asking for support or not.
Just a thought.
Maybe we could decide to give jurisdictional power to EPC.
But at the same time comes a price.
We have to give them some finances in order to have more equipment, more training, more personnel, because what people are doing is if they see we are not doing it they are going to EPC and we are bouncing back and forth.
We have got to make all this under control so this becomes something that is beneficial to the administration and to us in terms of economic development, causes businesses to survive down there.
I think Mr. Harrison-n this same seat right here, was the maker of a motion about moratoriums in terms of alcohol licenses.
Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that that's not the answer, that people, just a handful of people that are misusing the wet zoning opportunities that they have, are the people that are causing the problems in Ybor City.
We don't want to discourage more wet zoning than appropriate, like restaurants, like 4(COP-R), et cetera.
But we have to come to grips with what's down there.
And I think in our efforts to do it, we have maybe not looked at some opportunities to do something else, because it's frustrating.
This is frustrating to everybody.
So other than editorializing an opinion of what's going on, I think we need to go back and look at, Linda, good point, about the balconies, Kevin, good point about what has occurred.
And you knew they were going to try to reconfigure around this finely crafted ordinance for child protection so they would have the Sunday thing, or like Mr. Dingfelder said, it's limited there, no problem, we'll move our business someplace else.
So we have to stay right behind them or catch up or do something.
But we have to have a conglomeration of issues to deal with.
When I first heard the story about controlling drinking, and females drink free all night, with my conversations with major McNamara, et cetera, there was some sense they would have to try to control how many drinks somebody would have in a bar.
Well, my God, they can't do it.
They are having their hands full about the noise ordinance.
So, you know, I invite TPD to tell us, if there's something that they feel is getting in the way of them trying to enforce this ordinance, come back.
I don't think any of this council is crazy about the idea of going through that whole dialogue again and again and again.
But, you know, look at the ands and ors in terms of the bass and the decibels, and that's for the legal department.
But we need to protect the time we have put into these ordinances, because collectively it's not working.
And these issues need to be addressed.
That's my editorial for the morning.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Ms. Ferlita, I agree completely.
One of the things that you identified, which is that somebody gets cited and then they correct it and then they are cited again, one of the things I think we need to look at -- and it's not only for the noise ordinance but the other issues -- is repetitive citations, that at a certain point we look at it differently, the penalties go up, the severity of what we can do.
I think that it shows that people aren't serious about where we are playing according to the rules.
And the statistics here that you just handed me from McNamara identified that in some cases it's just people not playing by the rules, and we need to get much more serious in terms of the repercussions to them as property owners, because of that.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I agree, Mrs. Saul-Sena.
It's interesting to see both sides.
Because, you know, I'm strong willed about what I think is my opinion, but at the same time hear everybody else's opinion as optional, too.
And when I talked to major McNamara, they are doing that but they feel there's not enough of a criminal intent.
When they come back into compliance, it's on Tuesday.
So by the next weekend, it doesn't matter.
They don't care about not being able to do this till the next Friday.
They don't want to do it on a Tuesday.
It's just really, really frustrating and we need to do something about it.
And I was going to say one thing else but I forgot so I'll probably interrupt.
>>GWEN MILLER: Something you say, we are always trying to catch up or are right behind.
I would like to for legal to look into the concerns about curfew for teenagers.
If we have it Thursday, Friday, Saturday, can we look and see can we have it seven days a week, and Mr. Dingfelder saying he's going to move his business over to another club so he can do it where there's no curfew?
What can we do about a city-wide curfew for teenagers?
And maybe this way nobody will be trying to take advantage of us, we won't be trying to catch up like Mrs. Ferlita says in trying to keep -- catch up with them.
We can see about a curfew for teenagers.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you.
You're the one that I elected to interrupt and I'm sorry.
It's really important.
Mr. Massey, I don't know if we can look at this, I don't know enough about this, but I don't think it's a very expensive piece of equipment.
Have we talked about it and I missed it?
What about the opportunity or the possibility of, in that district, making it a requirement that people who are in the entertainment business and bars and music-type related events, install limiters?
Limiters, I understand, are not that expensive and it's a self-governing tool.
You attach that to your equipment somehow and when it hits that level, it bangs it back down.
Why can't we make them help enforce themselves?
Can you look into the issue of limiters?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: We will certainly be glad to look at it.
I know that David Sherman and others are looking at the ands and/ors and looking at TPD to make sure the ordinance is enforceable and is workable, if there are other ideas that we could incorporate, we are open to looking at it, as long as it's legally justifiable, and we can have a basis.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Would you look into limiters?
>>GWEN MILLER: And look into the hours for teenagers seven days a week, not just three days that we have.
Can you do that?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I have already alerted Mr. Smith that the curfew issue was a big issue for you all and we need to look at that.
>> And what about city-wide?
>>> I think we are aware of that. I think our current ordinance has been stricken by the Florida Supreme Court so what we will do now is recraft it based on that decision.
But I'm sure that we will look at doing that.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Massey, on that same suggestion that the chairman had, if it starts opening again, we have to look at it again.
I know at the beginning where we had the other curfew process, it as because it was too widespread, right?
And that caused to the not hold up to Constitutional challenge.
But now they are looking at the loop hole so now we have to look at what we can do.
But still to make it --.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: We can look at the Florida Supreme Court decision and craft it the best way we know to cover the issues, but also to address the legal issues that were raised against us the last time when a curfew ordinance was attacked.
But we will undertake that.
>>GWEN MILLER: We appreciate it.
We go back to our public.
Anyone else in the audience like to speak?
Anyone in the public wants to speak?
Come up and speak.
>>> 2302 North Florida Avenue.
I am here to speak on the 110 last week.
>>GWEN MILLER: You have to speak at the end of the meeting.
It has to be on the agenda today to speak now on it.
You can speak at the end of the meeting on that.
>> Okay.
I can't be here that long for the end of the meeting.
Could we put it back on the agenda?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to waive the rules.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to waive the rules.
(Motion carried)
You may now speak.
Go ahead.
>> Okay.
On last February 17th, I wasn't here, because I was late, because when I looked at the agenda, it said that that particular item was going to come up at 11:00.
Somehow it got moved up.
I don't know what happened.
But some things was said about me that wasn't true.
And I've never come before this council and misrepresented myself or put out any kind of false information to help my case or help my purchase of that property.
I've always tried to be honest and open and respect everybody that I was talking about, ar not in agreement with.
But on last Thursday, I didn't get the transcript, and I can't say that was jack Rodriguez but someone from the real estate department came before you and told you that I was uncooperative, that we could not reach an agreement, when the fact of the matter is, you told real estate to get with us and kind of work out some kind of agreement between $4,000 and $21,000.
We were supposed to work out that agreement.
However, real estate never called me to set up a meeting.
I have not met with them since we met at City Council.
We came before you and told we were uncooperative when in fact we sent a letter asking them for a meeting, we sent them a letter stating that we was ready to move forward, and try to work out some agreement.
We never got a response from jack Rodriguez nor anyone in real estate.
Again I called Randy Crowder.
He told me to sit tight, that they are working on something, they would get back with me, and said sit back, we come in here uptight.
So we never called back for a meeting.
At that point I contacted David Smith, the city attorney, and we met with him.
And what we agreed in that meeting was that since it has been five years, that he got the latest figures that we paid interest on the $4,000, which was between 4 and $600.
We sent him a letter saying that we was willing to pay the $400 interest on the $4,000.
He sent us a letter back saying that he never said that.
And that's the only meeting we had with him.
And I sent real estate a letter before that telling them that we had met with Mr. Smith and seems as though we was trying to work out some agreement.
But came to you last week without your knowledge, without me being present, and told you that they couldn't work with me, which is untrue.
I never agreed not to pay anything --.
(Bell sounds)
-- of the $21,000.
I agreed not to pay that but I didn't agree to pay anything between the $4,000 and the $21,000 that you told us to try to work on.
So I believe that they have misrepresented this case.
And I hope that you will look at that.
And I just wanted to come here and clarify the fact that they never called us, they never tried to work with us, and they came before you, and they told you a lie.
>>GWEN MILLER: The item was not set for 11:00.
It was under committee reports.
So we don't have a special time for committee reports.
We do those anytime.
Mr. Massey wants to answer?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Briefly, I think Mr. Smith is going to come down and at least clarify the conversations that he had with Mr. Akbar.
But I did want to put into council's record the fax from the real estate department to Mr. Akbar notifying him that this matter would be considered on February 17th, did not state any facts, any time.
Faxed him the agenda. The agenda shows it coming up under committee reports.
I want to put this on the record.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Akbar, I think if you look back at the transcript for last week, I think the only time your name came up was somebody on council asked specifically, were you given the opportunity to meet the $21,000 price?
And Mr. Rodriguez said that, you know, that you were not willing to pay that higher price.
And I think that's the only thing that Mr. Rodriguez said, in his defense.
So he didn't disparage your name.
>>> I told you all when I was at the meeting that I wasn't in agreement to pay $21,000.
>> I know.
I just wanted to clarify that. He didn't disparage you at all.
>>DAVID SMITH: David Smith.
I had the opportunity to only watch part of Mr. Akbar's presentation upstairs.
And I started on down here.
I wanted to explain a couple points to you.
Basically, we had the meeting that Mr. Akbar was describing.
Donna Wysong of our department was in there with me.
The meeting was a discussion about some possibility of considering a calculation that would create a purchase price that would reflect the value that had been received.
And I talked about some concepts.
Those concepts including what we call present value.
The property had been used for about five years, and not been paid for yet.
So there was a savings of ad valorem taxes.
Had closing occurred when it should have occurred, which was our view of the equity position that Mr. Akbar was asserting, then he would have been paying taxes on the property for a period of time from when he closed to now.
So we thought one possible approach would be to assume the closing were to occur at the appropriate time, and then additional money would have been paid.
So to be economically whole he would pay the additional taxes.
Another alternative was to deal with the possibility of an interest calculation.
So we had a generalized discussion on a possible approach that would deal with a solution that if it was acceptable to all the parties, we would recommend.
But at the end of that discussion, we were advised that Mr. Akbar's position was he would close under the contract as it was originally, even though it had lapsed, and those exact terms with no adjustment whatsoever.
I passed that information on to real estate.
That was unacceptable.
And that's what led to the process that you dealt with last week.
I just want to make sure you have the facts as they occurred.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Question by council members?
>>> Mr. Akbar: Councilman, chairman, I am being ridiculed by assumption.
He assumed that I wasn't going to pay for anything of the $21,000.
If we did not agree on the interest on the $4,000, then they could have called me and say we did not get this agreement in real estate, where do we go from here?
The thing was, we did not sit down and talk with real estate.
So they assumed that I wasn't going to pay nothing from 4,000 to $21,000.
And I am being ridiculed on assumption.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I had a question, I guess procedural for Mr. Morris Massey.
This already passed last week under this contract was already done, and does this conversation really -- really a mute point?
>>DAVID SMITH: That would be my understanding.
I don't know that it's actually been signed but it would have been because it was approved last week by you.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Even if I wanted to bring this back up, I mean, I was not on the prevailing side.
But I wanted to basically put that on the record for Mr. Akbar's benefit, that this was done and passed in committee reports last week and I know signed off by the chair and the mayor last week.
So this wouldn't really be a case for reconsideration, because it's basically done.
>>DAVID SMITH: That's our understanding as well.
>> I just wanted to try to clarify that as well.
Thank you.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I think the explanation was appropriate and adequate.
But just to comment.
We improve processes and the next time we do better in terms of how we handle stuff and how we do business.
The thing that still concerns me is that the answer from than the title company was that they couldn't find any paperwork.
That worries me because we may be in this situation again.
That's not under your watch, but do you remember that?
We don't have paperwork, we can't find it.
What happens if they lose some of the stuff, too?
I don't know what we can do.
But it concerns me.
But their own answer in their own defense was we can't find any paperwork.
>>DAVID SMITH: I think Morris had the conversation with real estate.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: From what I understand in the late '90s real estate would send the documents to the title company for closing and no one from the city real estate department would follow up with the title company.
It was just left with the title company.
Now the city real estate department actually track it is contract and they actually attend the closing so there are not instances where you have a lapse of time the real estate has not tracked the contract.
>>ROSE FERLITA: So if in the event the title company loses this, we still can go back and recoup everything?
>>> Yes.
>> Because that could cause us a lot of problems.
>>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Thanks, Mr. Smith.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak?
>>> I would just like to thank you for allowing me this opportunity.
We'll go forward from here.
>>GWEN MILLER: You're welcome.
We appreciate you coming back to us.
We are going to go to committee reports.
We are going to go to public safety.
Ms. Rose Ferlita.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I would like to move 15 through 18, please.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Public works, Mr. John Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move items 19 through 25.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Finance Committee, Mr. Kevin White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move 26 through 35.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. White, you have to go back to 31.
That's an ordinance.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance repealing ordinance 97-206 an ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol regardless of alcoholic content beer, wine and liquor 4(COP-R) for couples on the T premises only in connection with a restaurant business establishment on that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 2110 east Fowler Avenue, Tampa, Florida as more particularly described in section 3 hereof waiving certain restrictions as to distance based upon certain findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Building and zoning.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move 36 through 40.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move to set an appeal hearing on item 41.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena, Transportation Committee.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move resolutions 42 through 47.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Number 48.
I would like to move an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida to repeal ordinance number 2000-275 which created a pedestrian way or mall on a portion of 16th street, the 16th street pedestrian way, that restricts and prohibits vehicular traffic along the 16th street pedestrian way, providing an effective date.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Will you set our public hearings, Mr. White?
Move items 50 and 51, please.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena missed one.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move number 49 which sets a public hearing.
>> Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Now we go back to our public hearing for second reading.
Items 1 through 10.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to open.
>> We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>> Is there anyone in the public going to speak on items 1 through 10?
Would you please stand and raise your right hand?
(Oath administered by Clerk.).
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone in the public like to speak on item number 1?
>> Move to close.
(Motion carried)
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to adopt on second reading an ordinance vacating, closing, discontinuing, and abandoning all those certain rights-of-way known as Wesley Drive and Langhorne court lying off of Tampa Palms Boulevard west, in the map of Tampa Palms area 2, a subdivision within the Tampa Palms community development district, in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, the same being more fully described in section 2 hereof subject to the reservation of certain easements and to certain covenants restrictions and conditions as more particularly described herein providing an effective date.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried.
>> Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on number 2?
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: I would like you to consider a continuance of this matter for three weeks.
I'll explain briefly.
What's before you now is the ordinance allowing ordinance over the public right-of-way. The proposed sky bridge is going to go over the public right-of-way and over a portion of the city parcel known as the Tampa convention center.
That's a separate component.
We are still working at hammering out the details for the construction and easement agreement together with construction easements.
We are in the process of doing that. Because it's going to be a puzzle to effectively link those two components, the public right-of-way encroachment and the city parks easement.
We have asked that you continue this for three weeks so that by the time we hammer out the agreement, they run concurrently, they are both before you at the same time.
That is all.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let's see what Tate that is.
March 17th.
We have a motion and second to continue this item to March 2nd.
We have a question on the motion.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If there's anybody here who wishes to speak specifically to the continuance, that would be appropriate.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the audience going to speak on item number 2?
You may come up.
>> Specifically about --
>> This is not about the continuance. This is about item number 2.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Anybody who would speak to this item today, under council rules, substantively, they would not have the opportunity to come back and speak in three weeks.
Is that correct?
That's my understanding.
>>> So I would not be able to speak when it's continued, right?
>> In other words, you have the option to speak today, but then should anything change between now and then that you would forfeit that opportunity.
>>> I see.
So I have to come back in three weeks.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak?
Move to close.
We have a motion and second to continue to continue -- to continue to March 17th.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: I have a question.
I don't know if the petitioner or his representative is here.
I think it's Mr. Mechanik.
I, along with the rest of my colleagues, supported this the first time around.
I have a question, and I was going to ask Mr. Mechanik or request, not a question, but I'm sure that somebody the K relay it to him.
I think the Tribune referred to this as a gerbil or whatever.
But it's my understanding that perhaps it's not that.
And I think all those things are pieces of the components that look at something like this.
Because it is over a right-of-way, and there are some considerations that are being made here from the standpoint, I think, of economic development, good for the convention center, good for the petitioner.
But it is an oversight as far as I'm concerned because I want to see a rendering.
I think that's the focal point of downtown.
And I don't think it's much to ask the petition that -- petitioner when they come back up -- I understand we are delaying this for the easement issues and I understand that.
But I think that gives the petitioner time to show us what we are voting on.
And I would like to see that.
Don't have any other problems for now.
But I really would like to see a rendering.
Fountain was shown, I didn't see that.
I don't know if you all received it.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We didn't see it.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: We'll ask Mr. Mechanik to bring a rendering with him when you consider this on March 17th.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I appreciate that.
Thank you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And I think that's an excellent suggestion.
And to follow up on that, Mr. Massey, we have discussed, when we are requested to approve large-scale, high-rise structures, particularly downtown and adjacent to downtown, we have had a brief discussion about having the petitioners submit a scale model -- yes, a scale model.
It's three dimensional.
That we can see in the context of the other neighboring approved developments, I think that as we have seen this very exciting urban redevelopment, it will help council make better decisions if we see this.
I believe other communities require things like this in their large-scale developments.
What I would like to ask legal to do is to develop some rules for this.
We have discussed this previously.
I don't know if this is underway.
But the petitions keep coming.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: We are will go at changes to chapter 27.
I think it would have to be added as a criteria for the application process for large developments within the central business district, for the Channel District, or certain areas where large developments can occur.
But I'll get with zoning and talk about what we can do to address that issue.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to specifically make that as a motion that in the redo of chapter 27 you include something like that.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'd like to second it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Second on the motion.
Mr. Dingfelder and Ms. Ferlita.
On that?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Are you going to talk about that?
Yeah, go ahead.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Linda, I think it's a good idea.
I think what we have to start with is probably to fund the basic model.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: University of South Florida school of architecture has one.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can we get it?
Is it going to be ours?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It belongs to the downtown partnership.
They have loaned it to us.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We have to have a model train to start with and go from there.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And I know this is not part of this petition.
But it's so important, Mrs. Saul-Sena, because we are here to teach people and to learn from them.
And when somebody comes up to me, I kind of like to be prepared.
And if I get a question like, have you seen the skywalk you are supporting? And sometimes perception -- not sometimes.
Perception is something we deal with all the time.
And I'm kind of sorry that I didn't ask for a rendering.
But we go forward and approve our processes like we talked about something else awhile ago.
I think that's a good idea.
And if we can come up with something like that.
In the meantime you will get that message to Mr. Mechanik?
>>> I sure will.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 3?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
Move an ordinance approving an historic preservation property tax exemption application relative to the Sasso, Karen Sasso and Jeanne Kronsnoble located at 2117 west hills Avenue, Tampa, Florida in the Hyde Park his -- historic district based upon certain findings, providing for notice to the property appraiser of Hillsborough County, providing for severability, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
>> I have a motion and second.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 4?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move an ordinance -- I move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading.
An ordinance approving a special use permit S-2 approving a recycling building materials and auto parts in an IG zoning district in the general vicinity of 4102 Causeway Boulevard in the city of Tampa, Florida, and as more particularly described in section 1 hereof, waiving the 200 foot separation from jurisdictional wetlands and allowing the open storage of raw materials and chemicals in the flood zone "A", 39.28 feet, from jurisdictional wetlands, waiving the 6-foot limitation on the height of stacks of outdoor inventory to allow an increase of said stacks to 12 feet, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just wanted to compliment this petitioner and the council on doing such a better job than when this matter came in front of us the first time, and showing that even in industrial use can be a good neighbor.
So let's hope.
Thanks very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
(Motion carried)
>> Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 5?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading.
Move an ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol regardless of alcoholic content, beer, wine and liquor, 4(COP-R), for consumption on premises only in connection with a restaurant business establishment on that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 1580 north Dale Mabry Highway, Tampa, Florida, as more particularly described in section 2 hereof, waiving certain restrictions as to distance based upon certain findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 6?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Upon second reading, move an ordinance making lawful the conditional sale of beverages containing alcohol regardless of alcoholic content beer, wine and liquor 4(COP-X) for consumption on premises only at or from that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 11315 north 46th street, Tampa, Florida as more particularly described in section 2 hereof waiving certain restrictions as to distance based upon certain findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
>> Motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 7?
>> Move to close.
>> Motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
(Motion carried)
Mr. Dingfelder, would you read 7, please.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to adopt the following ordinance on second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 5101 Interbay Boulevard, in the city of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section 1, from zoning district classifications RS-60 to PD, single-family residence, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 8?
>> Move to close.
>> Motion and second to close.
(Motion carried)
Mr. White, would you read 8, please.
>> Move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 500 West Platt street and 414 Magnolia Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications PD church and daycare and RO-1 to PD church and daycare, providing an effective date.
>> Motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 9?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena, would you read number it, please.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading: An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 3304 west Iowa Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-60 to RS-50th providing an effective date.
>> I have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on item 10?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 6410 South MacDill Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-60 to CN photography studio, professional office, providing an effective date.
>> We have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have number 12, an appeal hearing.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: 11, same situation.
>>GWEN MILLER: Same one.
11 and 12.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: I'm not here on item 11 but I could answer questions regarding 12.
I understand regarding 12, I understand the petition filed a letter, rather succinct letter asking for it to be canceled, and there was some question as to what he meant by that.
I can speak to it.
I had a discussion with the petitioner who informed me it was his intent to effectively withdraw it.
He may not have been able to articulate in that his letter but in case there are any questions I would be happy to answer them.
>> 11 and 12?
>>GWEN MILLER: I don't not about 11 yet.
(Motion carried)
Mr. Massey, do you know anything about number 11?
There is a memo that I think went to City Council members regarding this whole issue.
What had happened was that the person who requested the removal of the grand tree because it was hazardous did not provide proper notice.
Therefore, the permit approval for the removal of the grand tree is not effective.
So the appeal of that approval is not effective.
So if this person wants to go back and reapply they need to go through the process and simply -- properly notice. The grand tree is not going anywhere.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Item 13, need to open.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Assistant city attorney.
Here on item number 13.
On behalf of the city staff and city legal department, I would like to ask this matter be considered for continuance for 30 days.
In review of chapter 190 that's a number of criteria that have to be evaluated.
In the process of evaluating that criteria it's come up we need some additional information.
We have asked for that information from the petitioner, in fact Mr. Strally is here representing petitioner and they are gathering that additional information so the staff can review it.
I am going to forgo reading the criteria in the record.
I will be happy to clarify it.
But it's trying to gather all the information required to appropriately identify whether the CDD meets the necessary standards.
>> Move to continue.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: March 24.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just hope the CDD gets built out within ten years.
>>GWEN MILLER: Number 14 we need to open.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't believe those speaking to item 14 were sworn specifically.
>>GWEN MILLER: You need to raise your right hand.
(Oath administered by Clerk.).
>> Dennis Fernandez, historic preservation department.
We have the information for the request to be submitted and filed.
The property which is listed on the national local register of historic places.
It is a contributing structure. The work done is consistent with the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation.
You see the subject property on the screen.
The project meets the criteria established by the department of state.
The improvements did exceed $10,000.
And were substantially complete by January 1st, 2005.
And the project recommendation from the staff is it meets the historic property tax ordinance as presented.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 14?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to say that it's really gratifying to see such quality reinvestment in Ybor City.
The images you just shared with us are really impressive.
It's obvious that this property owner has taken this rehab very seriously and it looks absolutely beautiful.
I hope that when the city considers what to do about balconies and drinking, that -- seriously, that the department that deals with the Barrio Latino is part of the conversation.
Because I wouldn't want to see any proposal that would in any way negatively impact the beauty of the balconies.
>> You mean like a Wal-Mart?
>> I mean like broken glass.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Ferlita, would you read the ordinance?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance approving an historic preservation property tax exemption application relative to the restoration, renovation and rehabilitation of certain property owned by Golden Flame restaurant, Inc., located at 1611 East 7th Avenue, Tampa, Florida, in the Ybor City historic district based upon certain findings, providing for notice to the property appraiser of Hillsborough County, providing for severability, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>KEVIN WHITE: I just hope the golden flame is as good as the blue flame.
>>GWEN MILLER: Change from blue to gold.
>>ROSE FERLITA: What are you talking about?
>>KEVIN WHITE: There was an issue awe few years ago.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, I was interrupted outside and didn't get back as fast as I thought, as I wanted to.
I know that both 11 and 12 were, I guess, canceled.
And just the fact that we are looking at that same address, 111 Chesapeake Avenue, I had received several complaints on some code enforcement issues on 111 Chesapeake Avenue, and that is a separate and a stand-alone issue.
I would like to instruct code enforcement to go out there, make sure that everything is appropriate, not associated with this, but there are some code issues that are of a disturbance to the neighborhood.
And I'd like them to send back a report on what they have found.
I think that there are some violations, and I want to make sure they are made to comply.
111 Chesapeake Avenue, Davis Island.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Item "A" I think we can dispose of because we got a report last week.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Massey?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I'm happy to respond to any questions you all have.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is the concern.
I got a call from Denise Layne who we all know is an environmental activist in the community.
She says the county has actively said they want to participate with the DCA challenge to this petition.
And she encouraged the city, because our watershed and our water supply and river is being impacted by this.
Should similarly write a letter similar to the county's that says we want to participate, as we are very concerned, and we recognize the impact to the city, as a supportive member with DCA, and their questioning of this proposed development.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I believe the time for the city to legally intervened as passed.
Now we certainly can write a letter to DCA and ask that we would like to be involved or at least be able to monitor the hearing process and be noticed of all the administrative hearings relative to this, and so that we can be present, or at least be able to report to council what occurs, and be there to see what occurred.
But I don't think we legally have any right to intervene at this juncture.
>> I would like to move we ask legal to draft such a letter.
We are concerned.
We know that our water supply could be impacted by this.
And I think we want to be on the record as supportive of the DCA action.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Item "D".
Mr. Guffey.
>>SCOTT GUFFEY: Tampa Police Department.
Last week when I came before you the petitioner's attorney Joe Diaz brought up some of what he said were discrepancies in numbers in police reports that were provided to council several years ago, as well as the one I provided to you last week.
I did some research on that this week.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I was going to direct this for a second. This is item "D"?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: And we had a public hearing on that?
>>GWEN MILLER: Last week.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: And it was a closed public hearing.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to open it again?
>>Well, is Mr. Guffey planning to offer evidence to City Council that might be --
>>> This is first reading because it had to be redrafted.
Whatever council's pleasure.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, is the petitioner present?
He's out there.
>>It was not noticed?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: It was not noticed.
There was direction to bring it back next week.
The hearing was closed.
My understanding was there was no additional testimony prior to the first reading.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We are here to reopen first reading?
>>GWEN MILLER: Right, yes.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move to hear -- to reopen the public hearing.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to reopen the public hearing.
(Motion carried)
Now we need the T motion to hear Officer Guffey.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>SCOTT GUFFEY: Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Petitioner can have rebuttal obviously.
>>SCOTT GUFFEY: The numbers that I presented to you last week --.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Sorry, were you sworn?
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else that's going to speak stand and raise your right hand.
(Oath administered by Clerk.).
>>SCOTT GUFFEY: My report was presented to you last week with the numbers on it that you saw.
And I'll stick by my numbers that I gave you.
I have no problems with those.
I also ran some additional numbers.
As I said, the business is located in the strip center that had several other businesses.
I have other statistics for that area if council would be interested in seeing those, I would be glad to present them.
The first thing is I ran just the 3400 block of Lake Avenue.
And the 3400 block of Lake Avenue from 1998 to present, there are 575 occurrences.
The second thing I ran was for the address of 3402 East Lake Avenue which would be directly adjacent to the petitioner's property.
And that location, I have 68 occurrences.
The next thing I ran was for 34th and Lake Avenue, which I'm sure council understands if the police go to an address and they give that actual numerical address then that will come back on a call run.
If they encounter someone in the street, then that won't come back to that address, it will come back to a cross street which would be 34th and Lake which is ten steps from the petitioner's front door.
For 34th and Lake, and I ran that from 1999 to present, there's 1,547 calls.
And then the last thing I have for council is, I wanted to go just from 2002 to present, because that's the time that they were last before you and denied.
From 2002 to present, I ran grid 99.
I put a copy of grid 99 on the Elmo so you can see how big it is.
And the only things they covered, that I thought would effect this operation of this business, were liquor law violations, DUIs, drug offenses and assaults.
In this runny just asked for police reports written, not just a call for service but anything that generated into a report.
And there's 457 reports for those I just described.
And I'd like to present all this to council for the record.
And I would be glad to answer any questions.
>>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council members?
>>> Joseph Diaz, here on behalf of the petitioner.
I think what drove this whole issue was, if you go back, when the original report was submitted two years ago, the police report at that time indicated there was approximately, I believe, 86 violations at this location.
Officer Guffey comes in and prepares his report which he stands by and says that that report showed 44, I believe, or somewhere in the 40s.
Maybe 42.
So I questioned the disparity of these numbers.
So I guess now Officer Guffey has gone back and reports now have 2,000 incidences covering this same time period.
I haven't even seen them.
I don't know what he's alluding to but I guess these reports are with DUIs and drug violations and alcohol violations.
We certainly weren't wet zoned so we weren't selling any of those alcoholic beverages.
We can't be responsible for those DUIs.
And to come in here and say that DUI didn't occur, who knows where, and got stopped there, I think is ridiculous.
I mean, we had what we had.
Petitioner had been before you in 2002.
He was told go behave for a year and come back.
He behaved for three years.
There were no incidences associated with the address before you.
Now, if we want to expand this whole grid to cover other addresses, intersections, I can't control that.
It historically has been that when a petitioner comes before you, you check the address in question.
So I would object to those reports.
I haven't even seen them.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?
We need to close the public hearing.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
>>GWEN MILLER: Second?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I do have a question.
Officer Guffey.
As I look at the reports that you have provided to us, one of them says 68, I think, incidents since 1999.
That's specific to this address?
>>SCOTT GUFFEY: That's specific to the address immediately adjacent to the 3404.
That was for 3402.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What is that establishment?
>>SCOTT GUFFEY: That whole thing was a strip center.
One end was a TV repair which is gone. The other part was like a big opening kind of a game room that they had.
And then the far end of the plaza is the petitioner's address, which is a restaurant, which is connected through an internal door to the big opening room, like I said, that used to be the game room.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So when we identify where the call is coming from, is it assumed that there's like a telephone in that adjacent game room or something like that?
>>SCOTT GUFFEY: It had its own address at one time.
And that's why those are specifically attached to that address, yes, sir.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So at the end of the day, do you come to us with a recommendation for or against this?
>>> The police department's recommendation hasn't changed.
The numbers that I presented were called into question by the petitioner's attorney.
And I thought I would give council additional information that you could look at and make your own decisions.
>> So I don't have to dig into the book, what was your recommendation?
>>> I was not opposed.
The petitioner has no criminal history for the department to be opposed to that petition.
>> And that's the criteria -- that's the sole criteria of the department?
>>> That's certainly the major one we take into accounts, neighborhoods being against or for can't weigh into our decision.
Criminal history and calls for service are the two things we try to address.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I just wanted to clarify.
The game room that was there, you have to remember some people in certain neighborhoods are forced to go to the closest phone, and that's one of the reasons that sometimes these liquor establishments and other establishments where they don't want pay phones outside of the establishment, because if you put a pay phone outside of your convenience store, and everyone in the neighborhood use that is to dial 911 and you have 150 calls for service, it looks like the call for services are generating from that particular location when it's just people in the neighborhood walking around, and/or don't have phones and use that.
So that can grossly skew the numbers for that.
And it's something different.
>>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council members?
We need to close the public hearing.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance making lawful the conditional sale of beverages containing alcohol of more than 1% and not more than 14% weight alcoholic content beer and wine 2(COP-R) for consumption on premises only in connection with a restaurant business establishment on a certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 3404 East Lake Avenue, Tampa, Florida, as more particularly described in section 2 hereof, waiving certain restrictions, as to distance based upon certain findings, imposing certain conditions, providing for repeal of all ordinances, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
>> How about tonight?
>>GWEN MILLER: We have to come back next week.
Mr. Harrison won't be here, so we will have to bring it back next week at 10:00.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Excuse me one second.
Our rules say if we tie, we come back next week?
I know it's not a tie.
If we tie, we come back next week.
Our rules say if you're short, we come back next week?
I didn't recall that.
But if it does, it does.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe the rules state that --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We obviously need four votes but what happens if you come up short?
Our legal scholars are looking at that.
We'll wait and hear.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Rule 5-A, a majority vote of the entire council shall be required for action on all matters coming before the council.
When a matter is considered by the council and a majority vote of the entire council is not obtained, either in support or in opposition to the matter, the matter shall automatically be brought before the council at the next regular council meeting as unfinished business.
>>GWEN MILLER: So unfinished business.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thanks for the clarification.
>>GWEN MILLER: Now we go to item "C".
>>ANGELA HURLEY: Land development.
I'm here to let council know that we are working on updating the East Tampa overlay district.
We are working closely with the East Tampa community and revitalization partnership.
And we are going to accomplish this through phases.
And the initial phase, we would like to kick off with three community meetings.
They are scheduled for three consecutive Wednesdays from 6 to 8 p.m.
The first one will be March 9th at Grant Park community center.
The second one is March 16th at the Reagan park community center.
And the third and final one will be March 23rd at the Seminole gardens center.
This is for the initial phase which will focus on evaluating the need for changing the boundaries of the district because of the new CRA.
We want to look at that.
Also, we would like to provide a provision allowing the East Tampa community revitalization partnership to look at petitions that come before council and the VRB for public hearing so that they can make recommendations.
Also, reviewing the current design criteria within the overlay for additions and changes.
The dates that we are looking at is to try to get an update to Planning Commission for April stow to go to their May hearing, and then come back before council on May 12 to ask for a resolution to set public hearings, and we are going to ask for May 26th and June 9th so we can complete the first initial phase by June 9th.
And if you have any questions I would be glad to answer them.
Toni Watts is here and also Ed Johnson from the Tampa Bay development.
I would like to take a moment to thank Carla Jackson of the neighborhood and community relations department because she's helping us do the public notice of these meetings.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I would just like to know, do either of you have anything you want to tell us?
>> Toni Watts with CDC of Tampa.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I'm not making you talk.
I didn't want to put you on the hook there.
>>> No, there is not.
Well, thank you for asking.
We are just excited about what's happening with East Tampa, with the CRA, and the partnership, in working out the design standards for East Tampa, and doing an overlay district.
It going to certainly help us to be able to look at the neighborhoods and put them in more conformity, so that East Tampa is not just a ground for everything that wants to come in and just like the petition before us that came, that we be able to take an opportunity to look at that and see how it would affect the neighborhood.
So we are excited about working on this partnership.
>>> Good morning.
Ed Johnson, East Tampa development.
Like Toni, we are very excited about being a part of this effort to develop a real overlay district that really has some teeth in it and has some meaning.
So as we go about the redevelopment efforts that we are contemplating that happen in East Tampa, we would really like to support the community to ensure that what comes into their community is something that they desire and it's not something that's forced upon them.
Thank you for the opportunity this morning.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I just wanted to take a moment to personally thank Mr. Johnson and Mark Huey for their efforts in the redevelopment of East Tampa.
And I know, put it on the record publicly, a lot of past criticism has gone out because the word has not gone out in a timely fashion, or as the community has received commenting in a timely fashion about ongoing projects that are going on in East Tampa.
There are quite a few in the pipeline, and I have discussed with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Huey, and we have come up with some plans, strategic plans to be able to get those plans out to the community and keep the community completely informed.
And we will have a forum coming up within the next 90 days or so alerting the East Tampa areas, as well as the whole city of upcoming projects that are online.
Mr. Johnson, I want to personally say thank you for your diligence in making sure that these briefings are continual and occurring, and very pleased with some of the projects that are coming on line, and in the pipeline, and look forward to seeing them come to fruition.
>>GWEN MILLER: We go to information by council members.
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
As you know, I serve on behalf of this council on the arts council.
And we have a couple of exciting events coming up.
I just wanted to announce.
On Thursday, March 10th, at TECO plaza we will be celebrating an evening of music, literature, visual arts.
The community is invited and there will be refreshments.
TECO plaza, 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.
Also coming up this Sunday is Oscar night.
And the Tampa Theatre, in conjunction with the arts council, is putting on like their black tie, fancy Oscar night.
I haven't been there but I might try to get there.
I'm sure you have probably been.
It looks like a lot of fun.
That's this Sunday evening probably starting at 6:30.
And then I'm sure tickets are still available.
And finally, on March 12, Rob Rowen and the IPP, Interbay Peninsula Partnership in South Tampa, sponsored a kaleidoscope festival which is going to be from ten in the morning till four in the afternoon.
It's a kids' art festival at Ballast Point elementary school.
A couple of motions that I would like to do real quick.
Manny Alvarez, I saw on our agenda, is resigning from Hartline board after many years of service.
I would like for council to give him a commendation when he's up on his feet and wants to come receive it.
>> Would you like Mary to present that?
>> I'm sure he definitely would like Mary to present that.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Secondly, Ballast Point neighborhood association several months ago actually passed their neighborhood plan.
And the next step in that process is to get it onto our agenda.
And I'd like for council to consider that maybe one month from now.
I'm not sure if that's an ordinance or something like that.
But I think there's plenty of time if I give you all a month.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I believe it's referred in legal to formally present to council in the form of a resolution, an ordinance, however it's appropriate.
I will find out where that is and I'll be happy to make sure that gets to you all as quickly as we can.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll change the motion then to just ask legal to prepare that and get it back to us as soon as possible.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Third, I'd like a report from the -- Palma Ceia is in the process of a plan amendment there. Seems to be a little bit of delay or something.
I would like a report from our planning staff in the Planning Commission staff next week on the status of the Palma Ceia comp plan amendment.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Finally, Linda and rose and I were down at the mayor's -- what did she call that?
Town hall meeting last night at Robinson high.
It was well attended.
And they had a lot of concerns.
One of the concerns obviously has to do with infrastructure.
They say we are approving a lot of rezonings down there, we approved 2000 units, do we have the infrastructure to support that?
Two things that I would like a report back from transportation staff, I would like to know when we are going to break down on Manhattan improvements.
Because we have the five-laning of Manhattan from Gandy north to Euclid or El Prado. We already have the money.
We have the plans.
I would like a report back from staff in a week.
Make that two weeks.
In regard to that plan.
Let me add one more thing.
Also, the discussion has repeatedly come up about can the city-widen Westshore to three lanes from Gandy to Euclid or El Prado?
And again I would like for a report from staff on the feasibility and possibility of that.
Because I know we are going to have the money to do that from all these developments that we have been approving.
So I'd like for them to look at it in terms of the right-of-way and the feasibility so we can possibly get that into the pipeline.
Maybe three weeks would be fine so they can look at that.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: There were two separate issues.
One you gave two weeks, one you gave three weeks.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Three weeks on both.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I appreciate your indulgence.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think that all council members that attended the up to hall meeting agree we need to give the mayor a buzzer because some folks went on and on.
It was quite challenging. Anyway, the event that I would like to invite council members to is on Monday at 2:00.
There is a convent in Ybor City on 20th and Columbus drive where the sisters who taught there taught African-American children had a read and they were jailed for teaching them how to read.
In the 1890s.
And this event is going to be remembered by a poem by our city's poet laureate, and the poetry has been created in the form of a plaque that's going to be embedded in the sidewalk.
And this is the first time I have been aware of, the Florida Department of Transportation spending money on public art.
So it pretty significant.
So this is Monday at 2:00.
The location is 20th street and Columbus drive in Ybor City, just north of the interstate, a block away from where the Department of Transportation moved the houses.
And the city's poet laureate will be there, and the public art will be revealed.
I think it's just a great partnership effort, recognizing a pretty shocking piece of Tampa history, but one that I think is appropriate for us to celebrate the bravery and courage of these sisters in teaching these young African-American kids to read.
>>ROSE FERLITA: That's a wonderful effort.
We'll certainly try to attend.
Was this the site of a school or convent?
>>ROSE FERLITA: I was born in Ybor City in the 40s, and I remember this being there forever and ever, but not there in the 1890s.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'll tell you the person who has the file on this is Del Acosta.
And originally we thought that perhaps the site which was ruined by the time we wanted to do something with it could be saved as around, and Steve LaBrake and his mania for tearing things down had it scraped clean so we couldn't do around.
So now we are doing a plot. Anyway, so at least there's going to be some memorialization.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I was just curious.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
All in favor say Aye.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Actually, it wasn't a motion.
It was just an announcement.
But actually, I have one other item.
That is, I got a call the other day from the press about the sign.
I looked at it and thought, marine, so if Mrs. Ferlita can update us on how we are going on signs.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I was happy to. We were talking about the Fifth Third Bank or Third Fifth Bank.
I get confuse being the sign.
Surprisingly enough I did get some questions about it and some e-mails.
I have already done that.
Because that leads into an update I was going to give you.
Should I just continue on?
It's the one on Swann.
And you are absolutely right, Ms. Saul-Sena, the first time I saw it, I was this close to going over the curb.
We checked.
And permitting says that they are okay.
I don't know if it's just the design that makes it look so huge or what.
But we have submitted that concern to the permitting department.
And they are supposed to report back.
But verbally it's my understanding that it is okay.
It doesn't look okay.
However, if you're a smart businessman if there's something that irritates your potential customer base, would you do something about it.
So I understand without any forcefulness from us or any mandate that the bank is going to consider revising the way that sign looks.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's the belief of my concern if it's legal perhaps we should, as you are lead ago committee to revisit our sign ordinance, we should look at the scale of signs, particularly on neighborhood commercial serving strips and see if perhaps the sign should be scaled to the size of the building, and the proximity of residential, and just to prevent things like that.
So that made me realize how important it is that ware doing what we are doing, and made me kind of refocus on that as opposed to 27,000 of the committees we all serve on.
To give you an update, what I have done, I had an initial meeting with Mr. Shelby and Mr. Massey, Ms. Cole, and who else was there?
Anybody else?
I think basically that's it.
Just to find out where we wanted to go because you have issues before you get to your end result that you have to resolve.
If you have 40 people it's too many.
If you have too few people, then you don't have a good sampling of all the people that are involved, their likes, their dislikes, et cetera.
So we went through a potential invitation list.
And way tried to do through that was, of course with the help of Morris and Mr. Shelby, was try to pick people that are going to represent different opinions.
I think one of the things that we had talked about was some people complained about the CVS at Kennedy and Dale Mabry.
Not necessarily because of the signage by itself, electronic signs, that type of thing, but it had the complement or lack thereof of the big billboard, too. So it's just a huge thing right at the corner.
I do want to tell you that I have made several efforts to call the district manager and even called someone in Rhode Island because that's where CVS is corporated out, because I want them to say this is what we are going to do or not do.
We want to accomplish, and that's why I kind of volunteered, we want to accomplish two things.
We want something that is not horrible, that the neighborhoods don't want, but at the same time, we want businesses to have signage, or they'll go out of business.
Small business, big businesses.
So I kind of looked at that and invited small people, invited people like CVS, I have been trying to get in touch with Mr. Hunter.
I know he's out ill because I think Planning Commission can weigh in on this as well.
Morris is kind of holding our hand while we go forward.
At some point he will relinquish that participation to Julia who has some experience with the county already in signing, and Mr. Shelby will stay on, ongoing.
I have heard back from some, and not from some.
So we are going to have a deadline.
At the end of this month, we have sent out those invitations, and the people that want to be involved.
We have also asked that Dan bring in a couple of representatives.
We have also asked that somebody that has had a long history of being in the sign business come.
So I just want to get everybody in.
And then what we'll probably do is have our first organized meeting next month.
And from time to time -- and I realize now that it's going to take longer than I thought. I thought I could just whip this out.
You can appreciate that from the tree ordinance issue.
Way might do instead of somebody criticizing a sign and then us talking about it like what we see, Mrs. Saul-Sena, because we are in South Tampa, I think I am going to ask each of those committee members -- I'm saying this so they can start realize wag their homework will be -- to bring to us what they do like from different parts of the city or bring to us what they don't like from different parts of the city, so if somebody in New Tampa or that area is not necessarily obligated to come to South Tampa to see that sign, to like it or not like it and weigh in on it.
I have some strategies, however good or bad they are going to be, we'll try it.
And if our focus is effective, fine.
If not, we will change it.
But that whole code was done, you said in 1980 initially and then tweaked a couple of times.
>>> '86, I think.
>>ROSE FERLITA: So it is long overdue for repair.
Mr. Dingfelder, I'm almost done.
One more comment.
I didn't want you to get tired holding your hand up.
Just the fact we even need to look Do we want to revise it or do a wholesale change?
And I don't think that we do.
So that's the brief update.
And I apologize for the amount of time it's taken.
But all of these different issues seem to belabor it.
So we'll get back with you as updates come up.
Thank you for asking.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, rose, for taking on that task.
I have a couple of suggestions when you get going.
And this one came out of the Fifth Third sign on Swann.
As you look at that sign, if you saw that sign perhaps on Dale Mabry or Busch Boulevard or something, it might not shock you as much.
But the fact it's on sort of a smaller neighborhood type of street, Swann, or a smaller neighborhood type of street elsewhere in the city, I think our standards need to be different.
When I inquired with city staff apparently our standards don't vary that much depending on what type of street you are.
I know from a zoning perspective we do have different perspectives if you are on a main Boulevard or little neighborhood.
So I do hope we can be more sensitive to neighborhood-type streets, number one.
Number two, another really bad example, I think, of signage, a sort of garish example is the Amscot sign next to U.T., at the corner of Columbus and Himes, and there's a one I have seen.
I don't have a problem with Amscot.
I'm not really sure I know what they do.
But they vacate the entire awning and make that part of their sign and I think that's a little slippery in terms of getting around the sign code.
Maybe we can look into that.
Finally, and I mentioned this in the past, I think we need to take a very tight look at the grandfathering of a business.
In other words, yes, if a business is ongoing and they have had the same sign for 20 years, great, they get top keep their sign. But when the business goes out of business, then maybe even though that landlord might have that sign there, and it's effectively perhaps an illegal sign or improper sign, maybe that grandfathering needs to have go away kind of like when we when we dry up wet zonings.
Maybe we can dry up the signs a little bit and start cleaning up our city in that regard.
Finally, let not just look at the City of Tampa and where we have good things and bad things.
Let's also look at some of the positive things that other communities around the state have done with signage.
In Longboat Key, they have had a very strict sign ordinance, it's obviously been upheld for years, and they use the low monument signs.
Why can't we just take the whole city and start going to that, and 20 years from now we'd have a city with the low monument signs instead of again the garish, tacky signs that we have all around the city.
>>KEVIN WHITE: When it rains we wouldn't be able to see them.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It obviously works in Longboat and Palm Beach.
Oh, I get it.
I'm a little slow, Kevin.
Thank you.
Thank you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: While we are working on the Kennedy Boulevard overlay district, that Amscot sign is so completely counter to the effect we are going for.
And I'm so frustrated that we haven't been able to get our overlay adopted yet, and they kind of got that in there under the wire.
But that's an excellent example of the sort of thing we need to address in our consideration.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And all those points are well taken and you're right, Mr. Dingfelder, that is another issue of sensitivity that we want to look at.
So there are a lot of different things, now.
What works someplace may not work someplace else.
Excuse my warped sense of humor, Mr. Reed.
I'm talking about a small Rose drug sign in a small area and big Rose sign in Nebraska Avenue.
Those type of things.
We have to make it really workable for everybody.
And that's going to be the challenge.
As we come from junction to junction telling you where we are, then certainly we will welcome your input.
And if that helps us fine-tune it quicker, then I think that's what we want to accomplish.
Mr. Dingfelder, some of us who have been here long enough -- and I don't remember if some of you all remember or not -- but that issue about signs that were grandfathered in, whether or not we want to keep them as the land or the businesses stay, but the business owner changes, maybe you, Linda, remember, was it Martin's pharmacy?
No, Richards.
Maybe you're too young.
That had a huge, huge sign that sat over the street.
And that was probably something like that that we wouldn't want to continue someplace.
Do you all remember, or just saying "yes" to be polite?
It was huge, but we couldn't do anything about it because it was grandfathered.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I don't know if Mrs. Saul-Sena was finished.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I finished.
>>ROSE FERLITA: One quick thing.
I was going to comment on Mr. Greco but I'm so glad our chairman did that very nicely.
A couple years ago, I think as a matter of memory on September 11th, commissioner Frank sat up here and we talked about the possibility of partnering with the county on a training expedition at Jim Walter corporation.
Do you all remember that?
Ultimately, I think Chief Green decided it wasn't something we wanted to do.
And then I think that the county won out on that one and they had the opportunity to train.
They were very grateful.
And in conversation was Chief Jones, he said, yes, they did.
t was a good opportunity.
They remind me that they had the opportunity.
Thanks to us.
That's just history.
We have got another very, very nice corporate citizen, McKensey, in the hotel business.
He has a site at Rocky Point days in that he's going to totally demol and do some things.
He has come to me through his representative, Mr. Michelini, and offered much the same courtesies.
And I immediately -- so we -- remember way said, work together, administration, legislative, immediately brought that to the mayor on the 7th of this month, had a meeting with her, David Smith, Bonnie Wise.
I said he would lick to do this.
Of course there's always time crunches in terms of demolition dates, et cetera.
Pam said sounds like a good idea, and we'll get Chief Jones to get together with McKensey.
We did finally meet.
Some staff members went out and met with Dilip.
And talked about projecting closing dates of the hotel and about what they had to do and not do in terms of training programs and also get back together again with real estate to configure something that is good for us in terms of our ability.
I have talked to Chief Vigil.
And he said that Chief Jones is delighted at the opportunity.
I have talked to some of the training chiefs, captain McCallister.
They love it.
They said it's great for what they need to do, for hurricane preparedness, you know, in terms of mimicking those conditions.
So I want to just personally thank Mr. McKensey for doing this.
Hopefully this one we are not going to slip over to the county.
Because there's not enough time to share.
Not that we are trying to be greedy.
But from what I know, I think Chief Jones is going to capitalize on that and we are going to have some good training process.
I want to thank him for being such a good citizen and I look forward as public safety chairman to working with Chief Jones.
I don't know what to do with this, and perhaps you all have gotten this, too, but this is sent back, Terry Cox hickey in charge of CC event productions.
Have you gotten this e-mail?
I guess there's some concerns about people that get involved in special events programs.
And the special event committee that I was going to try to configure was taken over by Mr. Smith.
And once Mr. Smith and his committee fine tunes what we wanted to do in terms of special events came back to us, and we did vote on this.
We took a position in January.
Their complaints are, city has supposedly changed -- this is an excerpt -- changed the policy that each location on an event must have its own liquor liability meaning if there are two events it's doubled, three locations it's tripled, and if the event is multiple days, it is separate policies per day, completely resolve the source at the source of fund-raising, makes the insurance requirement unaffordable.
I am relaying that to you as a messenger.
I understand the hardship.
I think we supported that committee suggestion and did well in good faith.
So I guess ultimately what I'm saying is, I don't know what to do about this.
I don't know if there's anything we should do or can do.
I know that I got a couple of calls yesterday that I was not able to return from Mr. Capitano.
He was concerned about the standpoint of whether or not we make special events for fund-raising purposes unaffordable.
I don't know.
I'm asking council if you have any comments.
I don't know.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I don't know, but I know that we care very much about the nonprofits that benefit from these.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Should we have Mr. Snelling come back and revisit it?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I believe the committee is working on that.
I heard of the issue.
And I think what our office did when we first heard of it is we asked risk management to look at the issue from a city risk management viewpoint, do we need this level of liquor liability insurance for these types of events?
I don't know what the answer to that is at this point in time.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Do you have any idea time-framewise?
Can you tell them or tell us?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I know that the administration is very serious about trying to bring to you all the final special events ordinance in the very near future.
If I could implement it fairly quickly, and I'm sure this issue will be addressed before we get to the you and we'll explain to the you at that time.
But I don't know what the final outcome is.
I've heard --.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Would it be prudent to ask somebody from that committee to come give us an update so we can at least secondarily give people like Ms. Cox or Mr. Capitano an answer?
Would that be helpful about it or no?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I think they would like to bring the ordinance to you for consideration in a couple weeks perhaps, even if we are that close.
What I will do is I will ask someone in our office who has been involved in the committee to please contact you, or contacted Ms. Cox and try to get an answer back to you all where we are on that issue.
>>ROSE FERLITA: But do you think there is a possibility of their coming in two weeks?
>>> I don't know if it's two weeks or three weeks or four weeks but I know the ordinance is very close to bringing to council.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Just to help the citizenry that's asking, what do you think, Morris?
When we get a concern like that or call from Mr. Captain-o who should we refer them to?
Because I don't have an update.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Susan Robinson obviously is heavily involved.
Darrell Smith.
In our office.
Cate O'Dowd is involved in most of the liquor liability issues.
But also Rolando Santiago and Justin Vaske have been working on the special events ordinance.
But I will go back and try to do it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: For the benefit of the listening audience, and then I'm done, Madam Chairman.
Should we say if you have any concerns about this, should the point person be Ms. Robinson?
>>> Either Ms. Robinson or Mr. Smith.
>> Why don't we do that?
If we need to revisit it, that's fine.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
That's all I have.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
One quick thing.
In light of the recent high level of incidents occurring in Pinellas County with their children and the bus stops getting hurt, killed, in accidents, I would like to -- our public works department is moving so quickly on the motion I brought to council a few weeks ago, and all of the colleagues supported it.
On readdressing and opening Spruce Street back up at the North Boulevard intersection.
I passed by this morning and saw three crews out there demolishing the lane out there, and enhance that traffic corridor as well as force the children to walk to the nearest crosswalk to the light which is at Boulevard and Main Street to cross safely at the pedestrian crossing, as well as alleviate all the traffic back on Spruce Street, and let it flow back southbound onto North Boulevard.
And I just want to thank them publicly for their expediency in dealing with the situation, and so we quite possibly don't have a tragedy like Pinellas County has been experiencing.
That's all I have.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: I would like to announce that the City of Tampa black history committee second annual closing ceremony will be held on Monday, February 28th, 2005, at 5:30 p.m.
The ceremony will be held in the City Council chambers, located on the third floor of old City Hall, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard.
A reception will be immediately following the ceremony in the Mascotte room of the old City Hall.
Dr. Walter L. Smith, former president of Florida A&M university, will be the keynote speaker.
His topic will be "Importance of Recognizing and Celebrating our History."
Dr. Smith is co-founder of the Dr. Smith Library in west Tampa.
Poet laureate James E. Tokley will enlighten the audience during the ceremony with his poetry. The public is invited along with council members and is encouraged to be at this sorry ceremony.
For more information please contact 274-8975, or Shirley Foxx-Knowles at 274-8397.
Also, I would like to mention that I heard some disturbing announcements that Miami Beach an school located in Central Park is going to be demolished. This school has been there since 1926.
I did my internship there when I was getting ready to graduate from Florida A&M university.
And I think this is a historic landmark.
And I would like for Ms. Annie Hart to get involved and see if we can keep the school there and make it a historic landmark.
I can't make the motion.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think they are already looking at it.
What they are weighing is the -- anyway, I'll make it so we can just ask for a report.
>>GWEN MILLER: Make a motion for a report to keep the school there, not demolish it.
Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Anything from the clerk?
>> Move to receive and file document.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chair, why am I surprised this reception is going to be in the Mascotte room?
It seems like it would be kind of small.
Shirley, I might suggest we have that at Chairman Miller's house.
Don't you think that's going to be small?
>> A small room but good party.
Vacations, do you want to do it the last week?
>>ROSE FERLITA: I thought somebody wanted it earlier.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's for a trip that's not happening.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is that the same weeks that we normally take?
>>THE CLERK: Normally the first two weeks in July.
Do you want the last week of June?
>>GWEN MILLER: Do you want the first two weeks of July?
Want to make a motion?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Who doesn't have a problem with either schedule?
>>GWEN MILLER: Do we have a week to do it?
Because land development, in what month are we scheduling our hearings?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We are not up to June yet.
>>THE CLERK: In April.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let's put it under unfinished business for next week.
>>GWEN MILLER: And we have Florida League of Cities.
>>THE CLERK: It's in August.
>>GWEN MILLER: In Orlando.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to put the discussion of our council's official schedule on next week's agenda under unfinished business.
>> Second.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Is it too much trouble, Ms. Foxx-Knowles, so when we come here next week, we don't know what our schedules are, and then we can have a confirmed date.
You know?
>>GWEN MILLER: Anything else, clerk?
We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
If nothing else we go to the public.
Anyone in the public like to speak?
We are adjourned.
(City Council adjourned)