Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

Tampa City Council
Thursday, March 17, 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]
>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
The chair will yield to Ms. Mary Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
It is appropriate and fitting that our invocation this morning be given by Monsignor Lawrence Higgins, being that today is St. Patrick's day.
Monsignor is well-known in our community and is my pastor at St. Lawrence Catholic church.
Please stand for the invocation and the pledge of allegiance.
>> Let us pray.
Almighty God, we pray for our City Council.
Send your spirit of wisdom upon each one to help them make the right decisions which are at times difficult ones so that all the people of our community work together for the greater common good.
And Lord, one more thing.
Please look down upon the lot of us here for the recelebration and honor of your great St. Francis Patrick.
We know that your thoughts at the sight of his grand collection of saints and sinners.
Help all of us to be a saint at least for today. And one more thing.
Thanks for the weather you have given us, St. Patrick.
>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: (No response.)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: (No response.)
I would like to give our sympathy to Ms. Sheila Cole, she was really an advocate trying to build Central Avenue back.
She passed a wait a minute and we are going to really miss her.
Because seeing her come here every Thursday was just a joy for us because she was a very good friend to the City Council.
So I would like for you to bow your heads for a few minutes, a moment of silence.
(Moment of silence)
In the audience I see Sheila Cole's daughter here.
Would you like to say something?
>> I don't know how to make that work.
>> Give us your name first.
>> My name is Stacie Cole, Sheila Cole's daughter.
She had custody of my other daughter.
And I'm here today because she wanted to say goodbye.
And is sickness that she had, she had no insurance.
It was really hard.
And I just wanted to know anyone that would like to come to the funeral, which is six to eight tomorrow for the viewing and eight to eleven, and we are just feeding food, and going out just the way she loved to be, and I've decided not to send her to a church because that wasn't my mother.
So I just wanted you all to know, Ms. Ferlita, she had most respect for you.
And I left her picture here for you.
She spoke of you non-stop.
And she wanted her boyfriend Mr. Buckhorn to know she was coming to see him.
And thank you.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Six to eight where?
>> On 40th street.
And also in the Florida sentinel.
You can stop by the convenience store on the "hood" side.
Address and everything and where the eating is at and everything.
She won't be here to fight.
But Yule see me.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Praise God to you and your family.
I would like to put on record that Ms. Linda Saul-Sena will not be in attendance at the meeting today.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I know that we all have memories of Sheila Cole.
And it's individuals like Sheila.
And you ought to be very proud of your mom.
There are individuals like Sheila who keep us straight and keep reminding us that some days we do the right thing and some days we do the wrong thing.
And if we slide to the wrong side she was always not shy in telling us.
But she was a wonderful part of what government is about.
And she will be missed by many of us.
My sincere sympathy.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm sorry, I just came in late and want to express my sympathy to the family.
It's very tragic to read about Sheila.
What a wonderful spirit.
What a wonderful spirit she had.
Just a neat, neat lady.
Did anybody suggest a commendation for Sheila?
>>GWEN MILLER: It hasn't.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why don't we do that?
Let's prepare a commendation.
I don't know if we can have it ready for this week but we'll have it ready for you and your family will always have that from City Council.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
At this time we are going to do a commendation to the police officer of the month.
Ms. Rose Ferlita.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, our support team, Brian's family and the additional officers are coming up.
Again it's my pleasure to be able to present another officer of the month award.
As we usually do, the chief always has difficulty in selecting one officer, and his introduction pretty much tells why Brian Bishop was selected.
So, chief.
>> Chief: Good morning, council.
It's clearly my distinct privilege to introduce our officer of the month, Brian Bishop, to council, and to the audience here today.
He's truly an exceptional person.
And an exceptional police officer.
Officer Brian Bishop is making Sulphur Springs a better place to live with his work as the weed and seed officer.
In his short tenure he has conducted hundreds of truancy checks that resulted in 55 arrests or probation violations.
He has tagged 27 inoperable vehicles and even helped capture 28 stray dogs as part of operation clean-up.
But these are not just numbers on a page.
These numbers translate into an improved quality of life for the residents of Sulphur Springs.
A perfect example of officer Bishop's community oriented policing is his effort to help Sulphur Springs in their initiative to build sidewalks.
The community expressed concern for the 800 children who walk to school, on the streets, and play in those same streets after school.
Officer Bishop assisted the residents as they collected citizen signatures in support of building sidewalks and improving their neighborhood.
Also, on officer Bishop's list of credits, he's a big brother volunteer in the city's mentoring program.
He participants in the great American teach-in and helps organize neighborhood watch initiatives.
Officer Bishop does an excellent job of balancing the roles of preventing crime and enforcing the law.
While initiating so many positives in Sulphur Springs, officer Bishop has also arrested 223 violators last year with almost half of those quality of life offenses.
Officer Bishop not only does the big things, he does the little things that make the neighborhood better to live in.
And we are very proud of him.
And I'd like to say congratulations to officer Bishop as officer of the month.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Officer Bishop, as always as public safety chair it's my pleasure to be able to single one of you out to thank you for what you do and the many things we take for granted sometimes.
After I present this perhaps you can introduce the support team that makes you be able to do the things that we appreciate that we need.
On behalf of my chairman and my colleagues, on behalf of all the people in this city it is my pleasure to present this to you.
Tampa City Council commendation, presented to officer Brian wish Bishop in recognition of his dedicated efforts, officer Brian Bishop has been selected officer of the month for March 2005.
His community oriented policing as well as his volunteer activity continue to improve the lives of Sulphur Springs residents.
For this the City Council the City of Tampa and I personally commend you for what you do.
And I was particularly happy to hear as one of the board members on the Humane Society you go the extra mile for animals, too.
That's important.
Introduce your family?
>>> To the left is my other half, Tammy.
There's my father Charles.
My mother Carmen.
This is my niece.
Her name is Georgia.
And I greatly appreciate that.
I appreciate all the stuff.
After my first night of work I came home and woke them up.
And I told them, thank you, mom and dad, for the way you have raised me.
Because it's quite different once you hit the streets.
That's for sure.
But it's a great honor to accept, this Chief Hogue.
And we appreciate it.
Captain Haderra is an excellent man, of course.
Major Castor.
Lieutenant Gonzalez.
Lieutenant Stanbro.
Another immediate supervisor that I deal with specifically is sergeant Lazinski, excellent supervisor, I'd say by far the best man I've worked for.
There are other individuals that helped me out along the way.
Detective Crate which is probably helping this now.
I appreciate his support as well.
It is a true honor.
We all expect to try to achieve and get awards, and this is one that I didn't think I'd ever get.
So thank you very much.
I appreciate it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I think I did this backwards.
We were supposed to lead up to this.
Now that you said thank you, now we get to say thank you back.
I have got some of the corporate members of our community that would like to give you some recognition as well.
Sit tight for a minute.
>> Danny Louis from Bill Currie Ford.
When I looked outside and seen the weather and traffic this morning I said, I have been coming for five years.
Maybe I'll skip today.
But I realize some of the folks at Bill Currie Ford and myself needed you, would you be there for us.
And also Charles, retired, MacDill Air Force Base.
And if your dad will come forward I would like to present you this watch.
>> Well, first of all, I have to express what a great honor.
Brian is my son.
Of course, I haven't always said that.
In the lighter days, it's been truly a great honor.
And when they say want to be a Tampa police officer I was slightly skeptical because in the Air Force for a period of time I was also in law enforcement and there's a lot of stress on the job.
Very important job.
But a lot of stress.
But I'm happy he's receiving the awards he has.
And very happy that I'm honored to say that this man is my son.
>>> Thank you, sir.
I appreciate it.
That's very nice.
>> My name is Trish, vice-president of marketing and public relations for Lowry Park Zoo.
On behalf of Lowry Park Zoo I would like to present you and your family with tickets to come visit our park.
We just opened a bunch of new things so hopefully you will get a chance to ride on our new rides.
And we appreciate all your hard work and service to our community.
We are very thankful for your volunteerism with children as well.
>>> Steve Stickley, representing Stepp's towing.
On behalf of Stepps Towing we would like to present you this statue and we really appreciate the hard work you do for the community here.
And also a gift certificate to Outback, which is really appreciation of everything you do for us.
Thank you so much.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Good morning.
One of the first things I did when I saw Monsignor Higgins this morning, I asked him would it be okay if we made you an honorary Irish man for the day?
So your new name is officer Brian O'Bishop.
On behalf of Bryn Allen studios they are going to present you and your family with a package so you can have a nice photo for you and your family.
The phone numbers and all are here for you to contact them.
The second thing, the Signature Room Grille over in Channelside has provided you with a $100 gift certificate so you can enjoy dinner over there.
And the towing association is providing with you a $50 gift certificate at Outback.
When you get tired of that you can go to Bern's, $100 gift certificate.
So go over there and enjoy Bern's in the evening.
And not that you should ditch the Irish but when you want to go for the creole, Po boy's cafe will present with you a creole dinner.
So enjoy yourself with these gift certificates, Brian O'Bishop.
>>> This again is quite an honor, and I really don't know what to say.
You guys really know how to make a person feel good.
Thank you to everybody.
Thank you very much.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, thank you for this opportunity.
Chief, thank you for the caliber of officers that you bring forward.
We appreciate what you do.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have another commendation to be presented by Mr. John Dingfelder to Joe Capitano.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think we all would like to award -- present awards to Joe Capitano but I am going to defer to Mary Alvarez.
She has known Mr. Capitano forever and I will give her the honors.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Capitano, you are not getting all those gifts now.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: We can't call him O'Joe, I guess.
Madam Chairman, colleagues, this recognition goes to Mr. Joe Capitano, who I have known for many, many years.
I have known him for his tenaciousness, for his dedication to not only the Italian club but to the community and Ybor City.
He has been the Stallworth of the Italian club for many, many years.
He has finally given up his presidency.
We in the Italian community know how important he has been to us.
But we also know that it's time for him to move on to bigger and better things, right, Joe?
>>> Right.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So he's always been part of the -- he started the founder of the festive Italiano and it's become one big party in Ybor City.
And this year it's going to be on April the 3rd.
And so we are really happy that Joe is still going to be with us.
But right now, what we are going to do is we are going to recognize him for his dedication, time and service to the Ybor City community as president of the Italian club.
Your outstanding continued leadership and advocacy towards the restoration of the Italian club building and the annex building has brought pride to Tampa's citizenry.
During your administration, festive Italiano has become a leader of events in Ybor City by serving the Italian American community with food, music, entertainment.
Tampa City Council hereby commends you for your time, commitment and dedication to preserving the history of our city, especially Ybor City.
Joe, this is your recognition.
>>> Thank you very much.
I certainly appreciate your taking the time to do this.
And I appreciate it.
I'll hang this in a prominent place in my office.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: At this time we are going to go to our department heads and city employees.
We first have Mr. David Vaughan.
>> Dave Vaughan, contract administration.
At last week's council meeting there was a discussion regarding a desire for someone to come and talk about College Hill this morning and I didn't make it -- made to the a formal agenda item and I am here to do this.
I sent you an updated report of where we were and in that report out of the three important points were regulatory house is in order and ability to begin work again is clear.
We have reached an agreement with the original contractor to resume the work.
And he is actively coordinating with his subs and preparing the schedule to remobilize.
And updates to that report are that he has now given us an April 11th date for when he will be on-site by then doing work.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Excuse me, you said the College Hill project.
For those listening we are talking about the pool, correct?
>>> That's correct.
The contractor has given us a start date of April 11th.
Between now and then, we will have him review the site, safe it up, shore it for fence, do some of the kinds of things to make it more presentable and keep it safer until he starts and that will give us a mid-September completion.
With that I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?
>>KEVIN WHITE: I would like to make a comment.
We all received an e-mail.
Well, I in particular have been getting several phone calls as well as e-mails from constituents.
And that's what we wanted to do was basically bring you in and give the public listening audience a message from the administration that let's the people know exactly what the progress is and know that we do have a sound finite start day and projected ending for this project, because as we all know it should have been completed way by now.
I think that's all that people were actually looking for because the project had been stalled for so long, and so many fingers pointed.
And the people in the area didn't care about the finger pointing, they just wanted the project completed for the neighborhood.
And I thank you for coming in and clarifying that.
And so April the 11th, with mid-September completion date, we should be done.
Thank you very much.
If that changes, would you please let us know for any reason if something happens?
>>> Absolutely.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Vaughan.
Next we have Mr. Roy LaMotte.
>> Roy LaMotte, transportation manager.
And I'm here to talk to you on two particular items this morning.
First was to provide a report to council on the groundbreaking of the Manhattan project.
I'm pleased to say that the design plans are at the 90% stage, 100 plans will be completed in 60 days and our project will be bid in June of this year and awarded in October.
Construction should begin in November.
This is a four-lane divided 5-lane section and it's a 6.9 million dollar project.
We do have the funds in hand and the project is a mile and a half in length.
And it will go from Gandy Boulevard to Euclid.
Can be extended to El Prado. It's approximately an additional 1,000 feet that would cost us an additional half a million.
If we would take it that far.
That's primarily due to right-of-way.
The second item that you are asked --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Before you move on.
November we are hoping to break ground?
>> We are going to be in the ground.
>> I'm going to be standing out there with my shovel.
So I'll be waiting.
>>> We know you have been waiting a long time for this.
And our objective here is both projects on time and get them done.
The second item that you are asked to provide a report to was the feasibility and possibility of widening Westshore to three lanes from Gandy to Euclid.
And it can be done.
West Boulevard is currently two lanes undivided from Gandy to Azeele.
Current cross section is rural with a swale.
The northern segment of the roadway carries approximately 25,000 vehicles per day, far exceeding the design capacity of the roadway.
The right-of-way is 80 feet.
And the width of the right-of-way is adequate for the three-lane section.
I would like to demonstrate here basically the existing over the proposed section, the three-lane section that we built as an urban section consisting of two eleven-foot lanes and 10-foot turn lane. The three-lane section will provide needed gaps and refuge for vehicles accessing both sides of Westshore.
Three-lane section will also improve the overall capacity and operation of Westshore Boulevard. The estimated cost for this improvement is scheduled to be $5.5 million.
Some might ask why are we doing this today?
As we look down again to the Elmo, you can see the two-lane section basically where you have an intersection coming up as you see vehicles go around the particular cars in that section of lane wearing the right-of-way down and slowing down the capacity of what could pass through this intersection.
And the improved section phase, you can again see on the Elmo, what a finished three-lane section will look like.
We are hopeful that this project will be done in a fashionable manner and be done on time and in cost.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you want to leave that picture up?
The only thing that picture is missing that we have done a really, really good job on along Himes is trees.
And I'm confident -- as a matter of fact, I'm 100% assured that you're going to tell me that we would put trees in the median wherever we could in that third lane.
>>> We will be adding beautification wherever possible.
We will also be adding sidewalks wherever needed, filling in the interim stages.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I realize this is a process.
And now we have concluded, we have the right-of-way there to do three lanes, just like we have done south of Gandy.
We have got a rough estimate of $5.5 million.
We know that there's going to be a lot of -- there's already a lot of projects that have been approved and are coming on line including the marina, WCI has already been approved, the Andrew property is coming to us soon, Georgetown, I think, is something.
I don't know what.
So will those projects -- do we anticipate that those projects will create the impact fees to be able to do this?
>>> We are anticipating a contribution to do this.
Yes, absolutely.
>> So what do we know about the monetary aspect of building this in $5 million?
>>> The 5 million?
Would you like to carry on about the financing?
Thank you.
>> Mahdi: As far as impact, this project is Manhattan and what we have done south of Gandy.
We will not have any impact fee for a large-scale project like this.
But we anticipate this large -- these large-scale developments as they come along to contribute to mitigate the impacts, essentially, and would also have the option to ask for more funding through MPO and other available funds.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I know you guys are part of the administration.
Does the rest of the administration have plans to aggressively pursue financing for this project?
>>> I know that the administration has been briefed on this project.
It is a project that is needed.
And we believe it alleviates the congestion we have now and will alleviate the congestion that is projected with additional impacts.
Again, the financing issue we are just going to have to look at the developments as these developments occur.
Part of the development review process is that we look at these developments, mitigate for the impacts.
If any project south of Gandy were to occur is an important segment in our analysis of these developments.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Harrison, are you still chair of the MPO?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: As far as I know.
>> I know that Westshore in the past has been a hot potato but the section of Westshore we are talking about I don't believe is particularly controversial because this part of Westshore is from Gandy up to Euclid.
Euclid, El Prado area.
And I'm just wondering -- if we could perhaps have the MPO look at this.
It's not on one of the MPO's lists now, is it?
>>> Mahdi: It identifies the need to do an enhancement project on the Westshore Boulevard, which is essentially a middle lane, three-lane section.
This section of north of Bay to Bay is identified by our comprehensive plan as a constraint facility.
So we really cannot do any improvement north of Bay to Bay unless we do our comp plan amendment and unless we improve it.
South of Bay to Bay we can do enhancement.
In the long range MPO plan as needed improvement for enhancement.
>> So doesn't need to do anything south of Bay to Bay?
>>> We do not think we need to go through any amendment to the long-range plan.
>> Maybe you guys can just help fund it.
Thank you.
Thank you to both of you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Bonnie Wise.
>>BONNIE WISE: Good morning.
I'm here to speak to item number 18 on your agenda today.
To give you a brief update on the Tampa museum of art project.
And if I could, I would like to remind you of a fact sheet that was prepared in February.
And I do have copies of that, too, with me.
About that time, we had determined that the project size was approximately $76 million.
And that was being funded from various sources, city bonds that had been issued in 2001 and TMA funds.
At that time we determined that the bond issue that the TMA would be borrowing would be about $38 million.
And if I could remind you, those bonds were going to be in the form of conduit bonds.
And those are bonds that the revenues from TMA would be the only revenues pledged toward repayment similar to what you approved recently for the volunteers of America so it would not be a city six-year bond issue.
I just wanted to remind you of that.
And then at that time, too, we saw that there would be various fund-raising efforts that would be needed to be ongoing at that time.
We had also determined that there were operating guarantees that were going to be needed, various reserve funds, and that was related to the, if you remember, the consulting report, that was an independent report that was provided --.
>>GWEN MILLER: Excuse me.
We have a cell phone.
Would you please turn off all cell phones?
Please turn your cell phones off.
>>> A consulting independent report that was done in November that outlined various revenues and expenses and projected visitors relating to the museum.
And it was a very extensive report.
And at that time, in that consulting report there were a few things outstanding.
And one was that they had assumed the museum would have a $10 million endowment for its continuing efforts, the museum at this time, and the fact sheet, I know that they had 2 million at that time.
And so the city thought that it would be important to have a $3 million operating reserve as well as ongoing assurances.
I think you all received a copy of the e-mail that I had sent to the museum staff on Monday.
Since that fact sheet was completed, on Friday, the museum did receive a formal commitment letter to the financial institution.
If you recall when we had the fact sheet those facts were based on some numbers that we had received from the bank but the museum had not received a formal commitment letter from their financial institution for their financing.
That did come late last week.
And David Smith and I spent a lot of time on Friday outlining some of the issues that we noted in that commitment letter.
And that was distributed on Monday.
Yesterday David and I did attend a museum board meeting where the museum staff and board has assured us they are working through those outstanding items, and if the chairman did send an e-mail to us last night reiterating that they are working through those items.
What did come up at the museum board meeting that's significant is that there is still a $3.2 million gap in the financing.
They are working to address that.
And that the agenda deadline for your council meeting for the 31st remains so you will have all the documents you need to make any decisions you would have to make at that time.
This is a timetable that has continuously been reiterated to the museum board and its staff.
In order to make the March 31st deadline, the agenda deadline is March 24th.
We need all documents submitted to council for that 31st meeting.
In order to do that, city staff of course needs to review those document prior to that distribution.
On the 31st is when it would go to you as City Council.
And as you might recall, that we had continued various public hearings, public hearing and a TEFRA hearing from a previous date, and that would be scheduled for the 31st. The plan would then be to issue the conduit bonds the week of the 4th, and then provide with a notice to proceed.
At this time there are many documents still to be prepared as noted in my e-mail of Monday.
And we will see whether we have those by Thursday or not.
Do you have any questions for me?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: The deadline of the 31st is based on the Becks guaranteed maximum price, right?
>>> Yes, sir.
>> What is the date that will expire?
>>> April 11th.
>> Okay.
If for some reason the 31st arrives, and they have met all of the requirements that the mayor has put forth, they close the funding gap, everything else is met, but the council has reservations or has any questions or has any I shall issues on the 31st, how will we be able to get those and address the time for the April 11th meeting?
Or how will we be able to react to that?
Do you understand what I'm trying to ask?
There doesn't seem to be much time here for us to be able to raise our own concerns.
>>> Right there. Would be one council meeting between the March 31st date and the April 11th date that we would have to sign back.
We would have to deal with at that particular council meeting.
>>GWEN MILLER: Questions, Mr. Harrison?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Not right now.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm a little confused on that comment.
Because it's my understanding that the agenda items are going to be on our council agenda on what date?
>>> The 31st.
>>GWEN MILLER: The 31st.
So that the week later meeting would be moot based upon the schedule that's there right now.
>>> The public hearings are now continued to March 31st.
When beck had the first deadline prior to their extension we had thought that that council meeting was going to be of a certain date and it was continued to March 31st.
So regardless it does have to go to March 31st.
That is what we are scheduled for.
It is really the timetable. The reason we scheduled the March 31st with the April 11th date is because we need to have the financing complete in order to sign the contract with Beck.
This is the appropriate way under our charter to handle this.
Certainly if you have any questions for me now, or privately, or as things develop during this week, I will know more each day I know more.
Yesterday the museum had its board meeting.
That is when the gap was told to me of 3.2 million.
As you notice in my e-mail, I noticed that there was a gap. I did not know the number.
So each day I am learning something more.
Hopefully each day I can keep you apprised of what is happening.
But at this time we do not have the documents that we need, and financing is not yet complete.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Ms. Wise, after the meeting with the museum board yesterday and finding out that that gap is $3.2 million, if the museum board their fund-raising efforts are successful in closing that gap, is there anything else at this point in time that we need to know about that is of any major concern to the administration before the administration is willing to give their stamp of approval to move forward with this?
Or has every other item been taken care of?
>>> There are many issues still outstanding.
That is one of the issues.
That is a material issue.
And the board is working on that particular one.
In my e-mail I outlined nine or so items in the commitment let theory need to be addressed.
They are working on those.
There are going to be fund-raising efforts that are dramatic.
One thing I don't have at this time are debt service or amortization schedules on the financing.
So it's very hard for me to say what the debt service is going to be because I don't have the most current numbers.
I'm hoping to receive that any time now.
But I can't do that analysis without the numbers.
But I'm concerned about the material debt service that would be over time.
But I just don't have the numbers yet.
I'm concerned about how the guarantors would be handled over time and the numbers.
I just don't have that information.
So, yes, there are a number of items still.
And the other thing too is we are still finalizing how that operating reserve is going to be funded on closing and I understand that they do have all the assurances handled for over time but nothing yet has been signed.
>> Debt service and amortization schedules still take some time to go over.
Do you feel -- are you going to be under a time crunch to try to cipher through all the numbers in a timely fashion to come up and be able to make a serious educated decision on this in the time we have allotted?
>>> I agree with you, we have one week.
There's a lot to do in one week.
>> So is that a yes or no?
>>> I'll work as hard as I can.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Wise, is there any possibility you could come back to us, say, next week, maybe toward the end of the session, and give us an update on how close you have gotten to this?
And maybe if we need to do a special night meeting, or a special meeting to help the museum meet these deadlines, or come to a vote, maybe we can do that.
I don't know whether that's a proper thing to do or not.
But I want to give them all the benefit in the world.
>>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: All the benefit in the world to come back with all the documents that you need for us to help you process.
Or that you have to process and we just have to vote for it.
But it doesn't seem to me like one of my council members mentioned, that I think it was Mr. Harrison, if we have questions, we are being put in a crunch, too, here.
So that's why I'm suggesting that maybe between the 31st and the 4th, maybe we can have a special meeting to help resolve some of the questions that we may have.
>>BONNIE WISE: Certainly we'll know by noon on Thursday whether we even have all the documents together.
And maybe we can decide at that time whether you need to schedule something separately for that purpose.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Would you let us know?
Could you come maybe as close to our time when we get done with our council meeting, to give us an update on what's going on?
>>> Yes, ma'am.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Ms. Wise, I came in not having too many questions today, although there are obviously some concerns around the dais.
And what Mr. Harrison raised, I want some clarification on.
The 31st you come to us and we vote the question, et cetera.
If there are some concerns at our eleventh hour where we don't feel like we are comfortable voting for or against, is there that cushion of the next week to give you final approval or disapproval?
I know we don't really want that.
But it would not --
>>> it would not be the best way to handle this project.
I think probably what councilwoman Alvarez was suggesting was between the 24th and the 31st might be a better way to handle that.
>>ROSE FERLITA: But in the event as this all leads up to the 31st at that point even after having, if we did have special session, what is the drop-dead date in terms of the frozen costs?
The froze than costs are April 11th, but if we couldn't come to an agreement on the 31st, and not that I'm subconsciously pushing it back but I want to know if it has that cushion.
So I understand anything we did prophylactically about come back for another session separate from the 31st is fine.
But what happens if we can't, just worst case scenario?
What happens?
>> BONNIE WISE: I really have to talk to the bond people and see how quickly they can issue the bonds and close.
We really want to have the bonds.
We need to have the money in the bank before we award Beck that contract.
>> And we really all want to do yes or no smoothly.
But if you could get back with us or me, send us a memo, and let us know, is that finality on the 31st?
>>> And it's not a requirement that we are making. This is our charter --
>> no, no, I understand.
And Morris, let me say something.
Let me finish what I'm asking.
Obviously we have some concerns from different colleagues this morning.
And referring back to my same concerns last week, I don't have questions today because I like to do homework first.
You apologized on the way in for inundating me with documents.
That's way asked for.
That's way got.
And don't think from our conversation outside you interpreted that to be confrontational.
It's just a matter of giving me the information I needed.
So thank you for doing that. Perhaps it was voluminous.
But that's way wanted so if I have some questions at the appropriate time.
That's basically all I needed to ask.
If you will let us know about that, the 31st.
One closing thing. This has been something that obviously is political, controversial, many people for, many people against.
And in my meetings with you and the mayor, and David Smith, I know you all are working hard as well regardless of what the outcome is, okay?
But I don't think that this has been the style of this administration, and every administration has a different styles.
But this is something that's true to the heart for all of us, whether we are justified in supporting this, whether not, et cetera.
Might there be an opportunity -- and let me clarify this so that nobody here thinks I'm saying she has to -- it would greatly be appreciated if the mayor would come in sometime between now and the 31st, or on the 31st, to let us know what her final thoughts are.
I sure would like to have the leader of the city, to listen to her directly and personally.
Not that you're not doing a good job as the conduit.
But about I sure would like Mayor Iorio to say I support this and the style it is, or I support it in a different configuration, this is way think.
Now you have the opportunity tell us what you think based on a vote.
That's just a thought.
I wish you could relay that to her.
Thank you for all you're doing.
>>GWEN MILLER: My question is, if they have not met all the obligation that the city is asking them to do by the 312 1stst, will we continue to April?
Or will you still bring it back to us on the 31st?
>> No.
Unless everything is put together by the 24th it will not even come to you on the 31st.
So we are going to know in one week.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay, good.
Mr. Massey.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I just want to remind council that you did have scheduled public hearings on aspects of the museum project on the 31st.
They are publicly noticed.
They were continued I think till 1:00 on the 31st for both the lease of the park property on the bond issues.
That's when that matter would have to come before you.
You know, if there's an opportunity to extend that, then that would have to be discussed at that time during that public hearing.
So that's when that decision would have to be made.
I just want to remind council of that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Ms. Wise, the operating subsidy of $2 million a year has caused me some issue.
Could you just briefly tell us what the operating subsidies are for our other attractions, if you will?
>>BONNIE WISE: I have a lot of paper.
>> It's very hard for to us read that.
>>> This is a schedule that I prepared actually in July when we were talking to the museum folks about operating subsidies.
And what it says is that on an operating basis we provide the aquarium about $850,000 a year, Performing Arts Center $750,000, the museum currently is at about -- was 900, 930 right now, and Lowry Park Zoo about $350,000 a year that. Does not include debt service amounts that we pay for those various institutions because that really does vary from $1 million to $6 million for the aquarium annually.
As you might remember, the museum currently is structured a little bit what I would call unusually because we pay for certain employees and certain expenses of the museum.
And going forward structure, that would all be independent and would all be -- it would not be a division of the city any longer.
It would be responsible for all the expenses and employees. If we went with the current structure we have right now, moving forward where we pay for certain people and certain expenses, electric, security, various other things, it is estimated that that amount in fiscal year '07 would be about $2.7 million and it would increase over time as expenses increase.
So what we did when we were doing our analysis is that we felt that it was prudent that we have a cap on expenses coming from the city on an annual basis.
We couldn't just have an open checkbook type scenario.
And that's how we ended up with a fixed amount on an annual basis.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
I appreciate the information.
One of the reasons why I asked you to come in this week was so that we would all have a chance not only to be brought up to speed with the latest and greatest as of late last night, but for us to be able to also say if we have some concerns let's get them out on the table because there are people that have been working long and hard on this project, but they are putting their hearts and souls into this.
And we don't want to get a package next week, if they do everything they are supposed to do, next week they get all the information, and then we are going to vote it up or down on the 31st, and we wouldn't have had the opportunity to say, you know, we have our concern concerns -- own concerns.
I want everyone to have the opportunity if they have concerns to be able to relay what those are.
And I have said a $2 million operating subsidy, I think, is a lot of money.
And, in fact, it's double what the museum of art currently gets today, and they are the highest attraction that we subsidize today anyway.
I know that everybody -- I know that we are subsidizing everyone on the bond funds, on that.
But, you know, that's a fact of life when you build capital projects.
So that's not the issue.
But $2 million a year out of the City of Tampa's budget is a lot of money.
And I want the folks at the museum of art to have in mind potentially a plan be.
If this issue is something that is of concern to any of my other colleagues, then I think that they ought to be prepared to try to address that on the 3 1stst when we get here. If I'm the only one that's concerned about it, that's fine.
That's not an issue.
For me, it is an issue.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm good today.
Let's see how this plays out.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Let me just ask.
I know where Mr. Harrison is coming from.
But that $2 million doesn't give me any heartburn because at the end of the day this museum will come to the city.
When they get through with paying their bond issue.
This will be a city asset.
And we have to maintain it.
It becomes a city asset.
Just like your own home, if you don't maintain it, you are not going to have anything.
So that $2 million doesn't bother me.
That's all I have to say about it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: One closing comment for me.
Obviously, we are kind of discussing a pre-vote here.
But just for the record, obviously Mr. Harrison raises some questions that I raised last week, in the public records request, and obviously some people thought it wasn't done for the reasons I did it.
And obviously the fact that I asked that information of you is obviously the fact that I'm concerned, too.
But that's the process.
We'll see what happens on the 31st.
>>GWEN MILLER: Emily Harrison, do you want to say anything?
You don't have to.
We go to Mr. Morris Massey.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Legal department.
I'm here to request a continuance on item 44 for three weeks to allow the city real estate department and TECO to investigate some issues that councilman Dingfelder raised, so that we have all the facts before this matter is brought back before you all.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll discuss this with TECO. Number 44.
I discussed it with TECO and they have no objection.
I'll move it.
Three weeks.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to ask for reconsideration?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Good morning.
Steve Michelini.
I'm here on behalf of Mrs. Narro's family.
Last week you had a hearing on land use amendment at Mississippi and Georgia.
And I represented to you at City Council that we had an ongoing dialogue with the homeowners association regarding their acceptance to the continuance, not their acceptance to the land use amendment, and I brought forward a number of written documents and correspondence going between the two of us.
There were phone conversations immediately after land use hearing on the 14th of February.
And then on the 21st I sent a letter to Rose Petrucha asking her for the process.
On the 24th I received an e-mail from Anni Ellis.
I assistant her an e-mail regarding the postponement. 10th hearing, I haven't heard back you from, I need to alert my neighbors and document what you promised to provide me as you know difficult to many people in these meetings and schedules and I need the confirmation to move forward as soon as possible so that people will be properly notified.
I responded to her per our conversation, we intend -- this is on the 23rd -- we intend to continue the land use hearing dates to a date in the future.
We are preparing a number of exhibits, drawings, et cetera, for a neighborhood meeting to be invited by you.
This meeting or meetings and discussions will precede -- this is our commitment -- will precede any commitment to Tampa City Council and we will probably be asking for a 60 day continuance and a minimum of 30 days.
We want a sufficient amount of time to discuss details with the proposed project and any possible implications with you prior to any further action by City Council.
That was our commitment.
And then I received this on the -- this is Frank Narro e-mail of the 24th.
I want to follow up with you.
At the Planning Commission hearing we decided to postpone our hearing to Tampa City Council in an effort to work with the neighborhood a plan that will make all parties happy.
Our architect is working on a few concepts.
Since I am waiting on the architect I'm not sure exactly when it will be ready but I want to handle the frequency of your meetings and then we'll proceed.
Lori Janice Frank: We are pleased to learn that you intend to revise your plans for Estrella and Hillsborough planning.
We look forward to reviewing them with the neighbors and receive comments and input.
The neighborhood association meets the second Tuesday of each month at 7 p.m.
However we can schedule alternate meeting times for special presentations.
Please provide us -- I'm excerpting -- please provide with us reasonable dates to review your new plans, we will gather the neighborhood together for a specific meeting on this topic if necessary.
We la forward to working together to accommodate all interested parties in a redevelopment effort.
And that was on the 25th.
On March 3rd we sent the official request into the city clerk's office with a copy to Gloria Moreda and Rose Petrucha at the Planning Commission and to the chair.
Petitioner indicated an interest to continue the scheduled hearing before City Council.
Basically to discuss these matters further with the neighborhood association.
Another on the 7th.
Unfortunately we are a little behind schedule.
However, we are planning -- I'd like to call a planning committee tomorrow to go over the potential dates with you.
Back Tuesday the 22nd, and Thursday the 24th, let me know how these dates look.
And that was from Lori Gennis.
Anyway, there's plenty of documentation.
(Bell sounds)
There was a lot of dialogue.
This is clearly a fairness issue.
It's a matter of integrity of the process.
We were not expected to make a presentation.
We weren't planning to make a presentation.
When you come before City Council, you expect to be treated with a level playing field.
And if the homeowners associations are to maintain their integrity and the petitioners are, this should be set back, it should be reconsidered, and a continuance should be granted.
I'm not talking about the merits of the land use amendment.
Just the opportunity to discuss the issues with the neighborhood association as they have agreed to.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order real quick.
I'm sure you just spoke, Mr. Michelini.
You said a continuance should be granted.
>>> Reconsideration should be granted for our request for the continuance.
I don't want to discuss the nature or the merits of the land use amendment.
We committed not to do that.
We were forced into doing that by your motion it is other night.
The neighborhood association knew that.
We have the written documentation which I will be happy to put into the record indicating that they knew about this and were talking about dates to meet on March 22nd and March 24.
>> As a matter of procedure, two of the folks who you referenced in the correspondence was GENNIS and Ms. Ellis are in the back of the room.
And I think council should actually give them an opportunity to speak on the reconsideration.
I don't know if that's within our rules or not.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I think that's a good idea simply because Mr. Michelini has referenced their opinion.
And I would like to hear from both of them, what we have to do.
>>GWEN MILLER: Will you come up, please?
>>> Good morning.
Lori GENNIS, president, Palma Ceia association.
I'm here before you, as we learned that perhaps reconsideration was going to be an option.
We are here just to protect our interest.
All of the communication that was referenced -- and I have copies here, too -- was in regard to the property in which we are not talking about specifically, which is before you, but the property south of the proposed property.
The Hillsborough County printing association owns the property across the street from this store.
That's what they wish to come before you and ask for reconsideration for land use change.
The neighborhood has said emphatically, we've told them emphatically, numerous other details that can be provided by Annie to show you that we have said we do not want to have this land use change.
We're just talking about land use.
We're not talking about site plans.
For what this gentleman is here before you.
We are talking about land use.
We do not want the land use changed from R-10 to R-20.
And this is Hillsborough County land use planning issues.
We had a public hearing at the Planning Commission.
We had 16 or 17 neighbors show up in support of not -- Hillsborough County Planning Commission approved a request for that was consistent with our request that the plan not be changed, the land use plan not be changed.
We had many meetings about this in our homeowners association.
Everybody is unanimous.
We told the petitioner this on numerous occasions.
What we are interested in for the record is the dialogue between this larger parcel of property just to the south of what they are speaking of.
And Annie has a map she can show you.
That is a huge piece of property zoned for high intensity growth.
We are very concerned about that.
That will be a PD before you in the future.
That's what we are interested in.
That's what the dialogue was discussing.
We want to see the plans.
We have never had an opportunity to see any plans from this petitioner, and in fact as I mentioned in the last council meeting they were chastised for that because they were just trying to push this through and get it through the neighborhood.
We are not happy with that.
We wanted to negotiate with them on the huge parcel that is going to have the bigger effect on the property.
The issue before you, which they are asking for reconsideration, is something that we have told them over and over and over again, it's single-family zoned property, we want to the stay that way.
It is consistent with the future of our land use plan amendment that we are going before Hillsborough County Planning Commission with.
It's consistent with what the neighborhood's desire was for the future.
We have no talking prints on that particular property.
It's five lots.
Five single-family home lots that they want to increase the density on.
I think it's asking a lot for them to be pushing this issue when they have a huge piece of parcel just to the south that they are going to go for.
I can answer any questions.
I can share with you the dialogue that we had.
We have never been to mislead anyone.
We have been very successful with other developers who want to work in larger parcels like this.
There's another piece of property we work with extensively with the developer.
We didn't oppose it when it came before you.
We supported it because they worked with us.
And they got the input from the neighborhood for that particular PD.
We are not talking about a PD here.
We are talking about a land use change amendment that the neighborhood firmly, strongly is not supportive of.
(Bell sounds)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Gennis, just for clarification.
Your organization wanted dialogue related to the Hillsborough County printing building, okay, which is to the south.
From the south side of Mississippi.
The building itself that possibly is coming in for a PD rezoning.
That will all be developed at once.
They are selling the property at once, so yes.
>> Just for clarification that's what your correspondence was about. If you wanted to dialogue about the Hillsborough Printing Building.
>>> The existing --
>> Right, but the correspondence that you were done with dialogue in regard to the empty lot, parking lot that came in front of us last week.
>>> Absolutely, 100% correct.
>> And the board's position wasn't going to change on that?
>>> No changes at all.
We had numerous backing from the neighborhood.
And, you know, they would have been here at the last council meeting but they said they were asking for a continuance.
We came just to make sure that they weren't going to have to be presenting a topic and just to represent the neighborhood.
And as the council so decided at that time that you were ready to hear it.
Because there really was no excuse for a continuance.
The neighborhood said no.
>>> Anni Ellis.
Do I need to give you my address?
1612 South Arrawanna Avenue.
Do you want to see the map?
Where is this is, let's see, this is the location that we are talking about, that they wanted to talk to us about, which in fact on five separate indications, I completely said that we had no intention whatsoever of ever going to any land use change, that we have no intention of ever putting town homes there.
And I said, You are wasting your time, on several occasions, to both parties here, the representative and the petitioner.
And his brother and his architect.
They are actually walking through my neighborhood, and I spoke to them personally, face to face, not only several phone calls, that we would never go for that, that the only thing that we were interested in was looking at the total plan that they are presenting, because this is the printing company property right here.
And this whole thing is -- excuse me, I'm sorry.
Where am I?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: City Council.
>>> Thank you very much.
So I have to put my glasses on.
Here's the property.
Here's the apartment that's going to be developed later.
This is the printing company.
And this is the property that we have always been interested in, in talking with them.
That is zoned differently.
It is a completely different land use.
And that's the only thing that we had any interest ever.
Now, we expected this to go to a continuance.
And that's what our whole e-mail situation was about.
Because we didn't know -- and I've never seen it before -- that a continuance hasn't granted.
However, I must take this opportunity to say that I don't think continuances should be granted unless there's some huge extenuating circumstances that should be proven to the City Council to see that they have to have it.
Not something that just continually drags it out because it puts an incredible burden on anyone that is against that, and the neighborhood -- I mean, I have one neighbor down the street that has six children.
I mean, all of the people have children.
Most of them are toddlers.
And it's very difficult for them to come out here.
I actually didn't put this in because I forgot, but I have 25 signatures documented here on all the neighborhoods that I just walked door to door on one day.
One day, to get everybody to say that they didn't want this.
So the other thing is that we didn't even know that there was such thing as coming before you to ask for reconsideration until two days ago.
We had never even heard of it.
So that's why we came today, because I personally don't think that any type of reconsideration should ever be given to anyone when something has been unanimous.
It doesn't matter that we had an e-mail correspondence.
Our e-mail correspondence or any of our e-mail correspondence were totally related to us wanting to see the complete plan related to what they said about this and this.
We were actually hoping that they would get the idea and get the adamancy about us and come up with five single-family homes there. So we never ever said that we were going to go along with any kind of development there besides single-family homes.
So that's why we are here.
(Bell sounds)
And I do have this.
I don't know how that works.
Thank you very much for your time.
>> Good morning.
Frank Cisneros.
My family has the contract to purchase this property that we are talking about and the property across the street that currently is occupied by Hillsborough Printing Company.
Just want to take a few minutes.
I know it's a passionate situation.
Being in the development construction business I have actually been in front of council quite a few times in my life.
And in every one of the situations was willing to work with the neighborhood, talk with the neighborhood, honor the process, between the neighbors, or the effected neighbors and the person proposing the project.
The e-mails that we made reference to, if you read them specifically, they talk about reviewing the whole project.
And that was our intent.
Nothing sly.
There were some comments made about being sly and sneaky.
In the end we still have the process.
I still have to come in front of you.
I still have to go on camera.
I still have to be here.
I have nothing wrong with that.
We had a land use issue and a zoning issue and all we wanted was the opportunity to talk.
In the end if it doesn't work at least we have made the full process.
There has been several projects, like I said, I watch this television show whenever it's on for rezoning.
And there's been numerous projects that there's been people that have been concerned and been upset, and at least had the opportunity to meet and talk.
Sometimes extensions have been granted.
Other times work it out in the time period.
It's always tough.
Obviously they have made some of their opinions very strong.
I understand that.
But once again, if you look at the e-mails, it was the spirit to try to get together. The actual meeting was scheduled for this upcoming week.
That's why we were looking for an extension for this period.
So we can meet with them and change some ideas, et cetera.
I wanted to look at this project.
And we looked at it as a whole thing, not trying to break it up into pieces.
I know it's easier to do it that way.
But all in all, all we wanted to do was to have a chance to keep the integrity of the process and have both sides communicate.
There's been we have had different projects we haven't gotten together.
Fine, you move on.
But at least you tried.
I just want to have a meeting with them and talk with them about the whole project, both parcels and go from there.
That's all I ask.
And I appreciate the time.
And thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Just so I can clarify the record for a second. The e-mail from Lori GENNIS on February 24th specifically says Hillsborough printing parking lot.
It doesn't say Hillsborough printing property.
It says "parking lot."
Every piece of communication we had related to the land use amendment, and talking about bringing the rest of the process and the rest of the property into a discussion, and as frank said, we didn't have a problem with that.
But what's damaged here is the integrity of the process.
You heard Anni Ellis get up and say we were expecting a continuance.
You heard Laurie Gennis say then with respecting a continuance.
And I got up here and requested a continuance, which is what I did.
We had all awe that communication going on.
It's written out here.
I would be happy to put it in the record.
But what happens is it damages the integrity of both the neighborhood association and the petitioners when they come before you, when they have a reasonable expectation to a continuance.
They are not expecting to put on a presentation.
You had people coming up before the City Council on Thursday night saying we weren't expecting to present from the neighborhood side.
They just finished telling you we want to have 20 or 30 people.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order.
This is beyond the three minutes and there's no rebuttal allowed.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Just a couple of things.
Mr. Cisneros, many times people that are on opposing sides, if not openly hostile, sound like they have an undercurrent of hostility.
And I appreciate your frankness.
And I appreciate your gentlemanliness, because I know it's a frustrating process.
Just want to put that on the record because you're very nice to say what you said the way you said it.
>>> Thank you.
Just a chance.
If it doesn't work out, it doesn't work out, we move object.
There's hundreds and hundreds.
But this is one of those situations.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I understand.
Mr. Shelby --
>>> I'm sorry. If this doesn't work out we are going to be willing to withdraw the petition.
We just wanted to have a chance to say our piece and we appreciate it.
Thank you very much.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you for the way you said it.
That was my point.
Suppose today this doesn't go forward and it looks like it won't.
What happens with this whole process?
I should know this maybe but I just need you to remind me.
>>> It was a land use plan amendment that failed.
Therefore the zoning that is presently on that parcel remains as a land use designation.
>> Mr. --
>> Mr. Dingfelder, you said last week you had the floor.
I've got the floor.
If you will keep quiet.
>>GWEN MILLER: Take it up somewhere else, not in this council.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I agree.
Obviously, we are passionate about protecting neighborhoods, and I appreciate what Mrs. Ellis is saying, I appreciate Mrs. Gennis' position.
My question to you, my council, is say this does not win reconsideration today.
What happens -- what can the petitioner do at a later date?
I'm not real clear on that.
>>> Develop present development standards relating to and this land use designation that's presently imposed.
>> So that means if this goes away as a reconsideration that failed -- I really have -- this is my opinion.
I think people that Mrs. Ellis represents and Ms. GENNIS represent, they know that develop development is going to come but it's just the way it complements with the neighborhood.
I just wonder ultimately if there's some areas that they could get together.
Obviously not on this issue.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: The issue that was before council was not site plan dependent.
Renderings were not relevant.
The project was not relevant.
It was the density issue.
I believe it was -- it was RM 10 to RM 20, I believe.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Residential 10 to residential 20.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: That was the fact before council. What ultimately would be developed whether it was an R-10 or R-20 was not relevant to the discussion, but rather the land use relevant to the comprehensive future land use map and the compatibility.
And that was what was before council.
Whatever designation is what the development has to be complied with.
So were this not to go forward, that parcel has to be developed under a current land use designation.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you for the clarification.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: A motion for reconsideration has to be made by someone who voted with the prevailing side.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Let me ask you this question, Mr. She will which.
Since Mr. Michelini brought up the fact that as far as he was concerned wasn't due process with W the neighborhood, it would be appropriate to ask for reconsideration so that they could go back to have those meetings that he was talking about?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: This is not a due process issue.
Due process was afforded to the parties.
>> You have to forgive me, I'm not a lawyer.
But you can direct me.
>>> And Mr. Massey, if you don't mind.
I'd like to rope you into this.
In terms -- I think it's important.
I just want to be clear on this.
The standards that were before council for a land use plan amendment are different than the standards for a site plan specific rezoning.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: That's correct.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: And the difference in standards would be?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Plan amendment are legislative function, fairly debatable standard.
So if council's decision, as long as your decision is supported by fairly debatable evidence, is a defensible position.
When you are considering rezonings, then you are sitting in a quasi-judicial setting like judges, and your decisions have to be supported by substantial and competent evidence.
It's a different standard.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you, Mr. Massey.
Co-put it a lot clearer than even I would be able to.
So the to answer your question, Mrs. Alvarez, due process has been afforded.
And that's why at the time I did not interrupt to keep council from going forward, because under the standards, it was a proper hearing.
Now, the issue, I guess, is a fairness issue that Mr. Michelini raises, which is outside of due process.
And it's still council's purview whether it wishes to.
One of the things that when could talk about later in the revisions for rules of procedure are what basis -- and we could talk about this later -- what bases do you want to numerate?
Maybe it would be nice to have it in the rules so at least you have a standard to know what to weigh when somebody comes before council asking for reconsideration.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Shelby.
>>GWEN MILLER: What is the pleasure of the council?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Nothing.
So the motion is denied.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: There was no motion.
>>GWEN MILLER: Reconsideration was denied.
Would someone else in the audience like to ask for reconsideration?
You may come up.
>>> Steve Umansky, Resource Development.
I was here last Thursday night.
I represent Stallion Homes for a rezoning request Z 0-5-24.
And the address of the property is 307 MLK.
We were asking rezoning from RS-50 to PD.
After City Council on Thursday night, I went outside, spoke with transportation a little bit, we looked at a couple of different scenarios for modifying the site plan there. Were some other concerns on the site plan that we'd like to go back and readdress.
Some of them were unknown to myself, and I became aware of those at the time of the hearing.
Those were concerns that came up by staff.
You are a fair council.
I have been in front of you numerous times.
And then again, like I said, I would just request that I can bring this back up in front of you, be able to address all the concerns that arose.
There is a hearing on May 12th, the 26th, and I would like to be on one of those agendas.
Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just for clarification.
I don't believe there was any opposition.
I don't think anybody spoke but you on that particular night.
Is that correct?
>>> Yes.
>> You and transportation?
>>> Correct.
>> Transportation had some issues.
Do you think you have worked some of those out with transportation?
Are there some other ideas that are floating around that are new?
>>> Transportation, we sat down after and we spent about five minutes and they said, we can try this, we might be able to try that.
So there's other opportunities that transportation said that we could at least look at.
>> Is transportation here today?
Since you and Mr. Umansky were the only one that is spoke on that issue would you have any problem to revisit this zoning?
Is there any other possibility to make this zoning work?
>> Melanie Calloway, transportation. I did look at the site.
And the only thing that I thought may be a possibility is to angle the spaces.
However, the alley is a two-way alley so they could only come into those spaces on one way.
But they are kind of close to the corner.
I could look at it.
I told him I could look at it.
>> So there is a possibility you could work with him?
>>> Possibility.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't know what council's pleasure is.
I'll go ahead and move for reconsideration based on the fact there was no open neighborhood opposition and staff said they could work on it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Just clarification before we go forward.
Ms. Marshall, maybe I'm thinking about the wrong file number.
But was that not -- was Mr. Dingfelder on the prevailing side?
And clarification again.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Don't believe Mr. Dingfelder was on the prevailing side.
>>ROSE FERLITA: So can somebody not on the prevailing side move reconsideration?
She will and I have a copy for council members.
Section 27-297 says denial of the site plan rezoning application, council shall preclude consideration from a similar request in the application and on the site plan.
Let me just read it verbatim.
Denial of a site plan by City Council shall preclude application with substantially similar requests as involving the same lands or any portion therefore for a period of twelve months from the date of denial of the previous application.
Council may determine if this time period does not apply for the site plan zoning request has addressed grounds for denial identified during the public hearing.
And just as a point of information, while there may have been no testimony outside of, I guess, the petitioner and staff, council at the time did, in terms of dialogue, did make findings of fact which determined the vote.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you, Mr. She will which -- Shelby.
>>THE CLERK: The motion was made by Saul-Sena, seconded by Ferlita, denied, with Dingfelder voting no.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I appreciate the clarification, Ms. Ferlita.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Sure, Mr. Dingfelder.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone here?
You two are the only ones that can make a motion.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You can pass the gavel, Madam Chairman.
>>GWEN MILLER: Reconsideration was denied.
Is there anyone else that would like to ask for reconsideration?
Um come forward.
>>> I apologize for my ignorance. This is my first City Council meeting and speaking.
I'm not sure if this is the appropriate time to discuss item number fifty --
We will get to that later on.
>>> Thank you.
>>> Ask for reconsideration on the rezoning of 702 West Ohio from R-10 to R-0.
My first thing was Ms. Ogilvie wasn't present hop was handling that.
In my opinion was an advocate for the petitioner.
I think her input would have been maybe not decisive but certainly persuasive to the council.
The large part of the petitioner's case was based on his lack of traffic impact, and the steadily increasing traffic volume on North Boulevard.
A great deal of the council's questions and discussions also concerned the traffic on North Boulevard.
Oh, one question.
Was I under oath when I -- when I spoke the other night?
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes, you were.
>>> Thank you.
The petitioner's agent --
>> you're still under oath.
>>> I contended that a quantum increase in traffic would be realized on North Boulevard because of the westbound access ramp onto I-75 to be built to the North Boulevard home housing complex.
The petitioner's agent, myself, contended under oath a ramp was to be built, the FDOT paid $2.5 million for the property.
They paid $2.35 million for the property.
I lied about that.
And that ten buildings were involved and that this matter had been reported in the Tampa Tribune, and St. Pete Times.
Council was skeptical, but the only one in this room that knew the true facts about that but had no other information but their opinions at that time.
Ms. Saul-Sena requested Mr. Thornton, a city employee, to research access on I-275.
And I-275 web site document, which was not made available to me to peruse or look at or anything, he held a document up.
We all saw it.
For a decision of this magnitude concerning my client, you know.
I felt it was inadequate.
It was incorrect at best.
At worst it was inadequate, and correct but misinterpreted by Mr. Thornton who said there was not a ramp going on North Boulevard.
And Ms. Ferlita stated flatly that the ramp was not going at North Boulevard and I-275.
The entire council seemed to acquiesce to that position.
And Tew to the council's mistake, mistaken belief on this major issue for that petition concerning the ramp and the traffic on North Boulevard, I am requesting that a rehearing be given to my client on 702 west Boulevard.
Tampa Tribune, March 14th, 2002, Tampa Tribune, March 11th, 2002, also the St. Pete Times, ten run down buildings on North Boulevard, public homes, housing complex coming down to make room for interstate I-275 expansion, Florida Department of Transportation paid the housing authority $2.35 million for the six acres.
I spoke to Ms. Lillian Stringer, who is the director of public relations for the Tampa housing authority.
Her number is here if you wish to speak to her.
She indicated to me the transaction had closed.
(Bell sounds)
The buildings had been torn down and that the property was bought by the D.O.T. for the purpose of an off-ramp.
I have these things.
I state several times I thought it was a double lane off ramp going in there.
I'm sorry, it was a single-lane off ramp.
D.O.T. provided -- and I have this document previously.
I couldn't find it the other day.
I would never have brought it.
Like I said, I didn't believe I was the only one that knew about this.
D.O.T. provided me with this document yesterday.
It's called curb return tables, ramp J and North Boulevard.
I've got it marked.
I will turn it over to you, I-275, North Boulevard, ramp J.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> The traffic --.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. White --
>>> I would ask for reconsideration.
>>KEVIN WHITE: As the maker of the motion for denial of this particular petition, I would just like to reiterate to the petitioner, the interstate was never a factor from this council person's perspective for this.
My motion for denial was for the incompatibility of your client's use of having an office in a residential neighborhood.
It was not compatibility to the character of the neighborhood, nor was it conducive use for the neighborhood.
Any interstate, the off ramp, on-ramp, how much they paid for it, that was never a portion of my motion for denial.
It was just based off of total incompatibility of the land use or the proposed land use, and that was just to clarify that.
The interstate had no bearing on my position on that.
And I just want to clarify that for the record.
And I will not be supportive of it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: It's pretty much along the same lines of clarification.
I don't want any dialogue back with the petitioner's representative.
But when he says that I absolutely talked about that ramp, that was in reference to what Mr. Thornton said to us.
I think almost at the eleventh hour.
That really didn't weigh in very greatly on my decision.
My decision was pretty much the same as my colleague.
I just felt because of the closeness of this application, this location, this site, to what he referenced as a blighted area and I proved otherwise by pictures, that it wasn't compatible, compatibility was the issue, therefore, I did not support it.
So really that was just an additional piece of information.
And if I remember correctly, clerk, this was 809 west Ohio?
>>THE CLERK: 702 west Ohio.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I may stand corrected but he said he had the neighborhood's best interest at heart.
>>> Those colors are not accurate.
>> Really?
>>> Digital situation.
>> Is it a clear blue or something?
>>> It's a greenish brown.
>> I need to correct you on that, sir.
I went by there. And I saw the color on that house.
>>: It is a green color.
>> No.
>>> Then you saw the wrong house.
>> I saw this myself.
And you're under oath.
But I saw these colors.
And the next day they were gone.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you, Mrs. Alvarez.
We are not color blind.
We don't need any reference.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: These color colors were on that house.
And I went by there on a Saturday.
And then Sunday they were gone.
So I don't know who painted it afterwards.
Those colors were in stripes.
And I said, oh, maybe they are painting them to see what color would go best. But then I saw it was all stripes.
And I said, no.
>>GWEN MILLER: What is the pleasure -- okay, sir.
That's the enough dialogue.
What is the pleasure of council?
Reconsideration has been denied.
We now go to the public.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on any agenda on the item not set for public hearing?
>>> Under the guise of -- oh, excuse me, sir.
Excuse me.
Go right ahead.
>>> Madam Chairman, City Council, I'm here this morning -- my name is Akbar, the chairman of the Positive Change Foundation, 501 (C-4) nonprofit organization, and some of our main interest is in the community.
And we get involved in politics quite dearly.
And what we did earlier this week was sent out a couple of letters concerning College Hill pool, and Madam Chairman, we sent you one, Rose, we sent you one, councilman Rose, we sent you one, and we sent one to the mayor.
We didn't get a response from you all on that.
And we are saying that maybe didn't have enough time to respond to the letter.
Kevin, we did get a response from you.
We appreciate that.
We appreciate you, Kevin, for everything that you have done in response to all the things that we have sent you in the past.
And we want to work with the community and resolving issues that we have, both code enforcement in our community, and drugs and all of that.
We will not go away.
When we sent out these letters, we respectfully would be expecting a phone call, or letter to the response, because we are all here to work together, no matter what we said or what we did on the campaign trail, it's over with.
Let's put those things behind us.
We are all in the same house now.
So we need to work together, for the betterment of the City of Tampa.
And the change foundation is here to work with this City Council, here to work with the mayor, and we hope respectfully that you want to work with us.
>>GWEN MILLER: I did receive your letter but knowing today we would get a date when the pool was going to be started and when it's going to be finished is the reason I didn't send back a correspondence.
But everything you have sent to me you have gotten correspondence back from me.
But I didn't think it was necessary to send you a correspondence.
I just got it Tuesday or Wednesday.
And day knew you would get the response that you were looking for.
>>> Right.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Akbar, along the same lines, if I'm correct, I believe that's in some documentation that I received like yesterday.
>>> Yes.
>> So because I haven't answered you, you know that's not my style.
>>> That's what I'm saying.
>> I'll call you when we meet, okay?
>>> But I want to reassure our members that you are working with us.
And we may not get a response back, then they want me to come down here and let you know that we emphatically want to work with you.
We don't want to bring no negativity.
All we want to bring is positivity.
>> I did receive it yesterday.
I haven't had an opportunity.
But trust me when I tell you, it doesn't go unanswered.
>>> And we are glad this project is getting started after so long.
And we are also concerned that it be safe around there and make sure the fence are closed and the bottom of the fences where the kids cannot go under there.
So make sure that safety conditions are met while in construction.
We will be monitoring this project from this day forward to make sure all of those issues are.
>>GWEN MILLER: If you need something that needs to be done, be sure to let us know.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Akbar, I would like to take a moment for your diligence as far as being quick to compliment as well as criticize.
Unfortunately, I, unlike most of my other colleagues here, I just don't have anything else to do other than sit down and answer -- and they all have lives.
I just sit here and try to answer my constituents as much as I can.
And I do appreciate your good comments.
Because I do try and be as respectful as I can, and to my constituents' concerns.
And as well as I know my colleagues do as well.
But thank you for your comments.
>>> Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> I want to speak on one of these issues a little later.
Under the guise of item 20-A, Gandy and Euclid, I want to take this opportunity to say Mrs. Mayor, please coordinate some of the traffic lights on the south side of town especially east and west.
Perhaps the hurricane effected that.
But driving over there with the lights is rough to get 100 feet from a light.
You just stop and get caught again.
I wanted to speak on issue 43 which was in the paper the other day.
Is this the time to speak on that?
Will there be a time when this $50,000 request is brought up to speak against?
>>GWEN MILLER: Do it now.
>>> Start from ground zero, and get a cross some of the concerns I have about this.
This ideal, I guess we can call them wheat properties.
Ideal in these wheat properties, and the Pasco and Hillsborough County area, and in the City of Tampa.
This is a new program they are starting.
It's expensive.
It certainly could snowball.
They are planning to, you might say, foreclose on quite a number of properties.
Talking about 15 to 20 a month.
As far as I know, in the City of Tampa, there's no lot worth less than $15,000.
You start talking 15, $20,000 lots, 15, 20 of them a month, you go 10 months or something, you're talking millions of dollars being foreclosed on.
We had this project before in the city under Mayor Freedman.
It was a project that I would say looked like this.
We had the rings.
Code enforcement.
The real estate people.
And then when you got to the distribution part of this, there was just flat disconnect.
The city was the largest owner of lots -- well, we had hundreds of them.
There was no distribution.
You couldn't disgorge them once you got them.
I don't know anything about it.
Has there been workshops?
How much of the program does the council understand?
Is it well thought out?
Has it been vested by various experts around people like me that deal in these?
I think we can get a program that looks like this where everybody is working together, everybody is talking together, everything is working.
It can be a good program.
It can clean up the city.
But we need a tight, well thought-out program.
And this is neat as opposed to a single.
I call it a value-added program, or we could have a fire sale dump program.
Let's see here.
There was a recent sale that the city had, where the council will vote on it.
And it was a fire sale dump program in my opinion.
The City Council will be asked to issue these people quitclaim deeds.
This is a very weak piece of paper.
With a value-added program, I believe the city could have gone a little further, spent a little more money, ran these before a judge, and given a certificate of title.
I tried to participate in this program. I did not participate in it.
Not because I didn't want the property and everything.
But --.
(Bell sounds)
>>GWEN MILLER: Time is up.
Thank you.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I would like to respond to the gentleman that's here.
Your drawing with the rings were rather crude, but I want to tell you, I'm going to tend to agree with you, because I read in the paper about the mayor's foreclosure and lien process.
I'm not sure of what the entire process is going to entail either.
And we need to -- if this is going to be implemented, and I'm very, very reluctant in supporting something of this nature.
Because the great majority of the people that are going to be affected by this, in code enforcement, are going to be the people in my district, which are the poor and disenfranchised.
Now we do have some absentee landlords and things of that nature that live out of state and some slum lords that may be very wealthy and don't care.
But the great majority of these people are people that do live here in our district, in our city, that can't afford to fix up their property, and we need to make sure that the city affords individuals the opportunity to fix up their property, and not come in with a bulldog type approach saying that we are going to automatically foreclose and lien your property and kick you out.
There needs to be a finite process described, and I have not seen it.
>>> A good process.
>> Absolutely.
And from start to finish.
>>> Raising the fines substantially.
>> But I'm just not in total agreement with that.
And I personally would need to see something.
>>> I would like this council to call a workshop.
>>> That really know the ins and outs around up to of this type of real estate acquisition, the law of unintended consequences.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I just want you to know from this council member's standpoint I'm very concerned about the foreclosure and lien process.
But I wanted to let you know since you brought that up.
>>> I'd like to get up and speak when -- when number 43 and we are going on this.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Several issues have been raised that are consistent with the direction that council wishes to go with regard to code enforcement.
Number one is with regard to liens and settlement of liens and foreclosure, the mayor has issued executive orders relating to that.
I will provide council with copies of that if council members have not received that.
That relates to the revisions of chapter 9, because as presently proposed in chapter 9, the settlement of liens does not have to come for council approval.
If council wishes to revise that, on the consent docket, then council can have a approval of settlement of liens before the administration does so.
But with regard to my meetings in the neighborhoods, with T.H.A.N., with southeast Seminole height and the group of neighborhood associations that were there, the number one complaint that I have heard is with illegal dumping on city-owned lots, and the management and maintenance of city-owned real estate, within the various neighborhoods, is a major concern to the quality of life issues within the community.
That being said, the gentleman pointed out the different circles.
And I've realized during my analysis of the issue that when you have an issue of city-owned lots, it isn't just a code enforcement issue.
Not the code enforcement department, which ultimately, I believe, is now under Mr. Corrada's position as code director of code enforcement.
But not only is it a code enforcement iron you, it is a real estate issue which ultimately is Mr. Huey's domain.
Ultimately I'm talking about a director level.
When you talk about the big circle.
When you talk about the big circles.
And then you talk about the clean-up of the land.
That is a solid waste issue, which is Mr. Daignault's domain.
And then when you talk about illegal dumping, that is a second degree felony which then is a police issue, which is Chief Hogue.
So as an interdisciplinary solution to the problem, I do agree, my analysis would say that it does take a concerted effort.
And in that vein, I was looking forward to using the workshop on April 7th to address those very issues.
So I would have the request of council, if council wishes to address those issues, it would be important for representatives of the various departments who would ultimately play a role in the solution to contribute their expertise, the analysis and solutions to the problem.
So I would suggest that the appropriate time to deal with this would be a comprehensive solution on April 7th, and perhaps an invitation by council of the various departments that would ultimately be part of the solution.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Good idea.
Mr. Shelby, I agree with you, so we can have a comprehensive, well attended workshop, like Mrs. Alvarez just said under her breath.
We need as much attendance as possible.
We know there's conflict.
So I think, Mr. Shelby, your point is right there in terms of TPD.
Let's invite Chief Hogue.
And if Chief Hogue feels that somebody else can address it, he can send an appointee.
But all of those particular departments you just referenced need to be here.
Commenting on something that happened before your tenure here, Mr. Shelby, we had asked, and I think some of my other colleagues in terms of time, not age, we need to ask Bill Doherty to give a list.
I think Bob Buckhorn asked. This the 100 most egregious properties that were in violation of code.
And somewhere in that list, guess what, City of Tampa appeared on numerous occasions.
So that's something like do what you say and say what you do.
And getting back to what this gentleman said on this item about the 50,000 forfeiture, funny that you reference Southeast Seminole Heights.
When I held a town hall meeting in Seminole Heights, well-attended meeting, Pam was there, and she was campaigning for office, et cetera, and this is one of the issues that came out resoundingly from Southeast Seminole Height, old Seminole Heights, South Seminole Heights, the fact we had potential violators, and people talk about increasing fines.
Well, that's fine.
But until there is some sort of a lien that they have to exercise or have to be exercised, in some cases, it's not good enough.
So I agree wholeheartedly with what the mayor is doing.
These issues about foreclosures, et cetera, that's been something that's floated around but most people, if they are perpetual violators, and that percentage, I think it's 30% that they say statewide will not adhere to conforming, they just blow it off.
I think one day you said something, Mr. Shelby, not to do with this issue but it hits this issue, I think one time you said that pain was a wonderful motivator.
And in this days case it is. The commercial sites that continue to infringe our neighborhoods, the perpetual violators who have the overgrowth accumulation, dilapidated structure, they just don't care.
And if we are going to protect the neighborhoods, then I think this council member for sure is going to support what the mayor is doing.
It was talked about long and hard through the last administration, and I think she's probably going to bring this to fruition finally.
We need to threaten them with code enforcement foreclosure, except for people who are homeowners, that are owner occupied, homestead, we can't do that.
The commercial sites, I guarantee you, if we say you have been doing this forever and ever, on Florida Avenue, this is it, either clean it up or we are foreclosing on your property, we will get their attention.
So that's the thing we need to do.
In terms of what Mr. White says, I agree with him to an extent.
We do not want this type of strong code enforcement to hinder people that are in less affluent areas or East Tampa, et cetera.
But that's where the soft arm of code enforcement comes.
My office has worked very closely with some of the other personnel in the city to find ways to help hardship issues.
Be it financial.
Be it healthwise, those type of things.
So there's some considerations for that.
And I am glad that Pam is coming up with this.
I think it's long overdue.
And the neighborhood, as you have heard throughout the city and with T.H.A.N., they are tired of people who think this rule belongs to somebody else.
So that's my editorial for the morning.
Thank you.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I am going to include in her editorial that I do support what the mayor has done, and it's for repeat housing code violators.
It's not -- we are not targeting the low income.
But let me tell you something.
Low income, high income, whatever, it doesn't matter.
Cleanliness is a virtue.
And a lot of these low-income people or any, for that matter, thinks it's okay to go and dump their trash in somebody else's lot.
And who gets to pay?
The people that their lot has been dumped on.
And we have been looking for these court dates for many, many years now.
I can remember coming on this council back five years ago where we were talking about doing something, putting some teeth into our code.
And so we are finally getting there.
And it took an executive order to put these violators into their place.
And if that's what it takes, by God, let's do it.
And I wholeheartedly agree with Mrs. Ferlita.
And I wholeheartedly agree with the mayor because she goes out day in and day out and sees exactly what's going on in our neighborhoods.
People are tired.
I'm tired of having my constituents call me and ask me to go to somebody else's lot and clean it up.
And who is paying for it? The people that are getting dumped on.
So there's no reason why anybody has to dump on somebody else's property.
I wouldn't like it.
And I know you wouldn't like it.
So it's not that we are targeting the low income or the middle income or anything.
It's just a city-wide problem.
And this is a way, if we have to strong arm, then we are going to do it.
That's my editorial for the day.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
>>> It doesn't shift the problem from property owners --.
>>GWEN MILLER: You have had your time.
>> Mentesmot.
A moment of silence for sister Sheila.
Also, I want to say it's a sad thing to see the young sister had to pass the way she did.
Also want to make a note of the fact general public.
Want to speak on a lot of issues.
The invocation. The code enforcement issue and some other things. The reality is that people need to be aware of the fact that when people take their time to come down here and speak to this City Council, the City Council don't listen to them.
The City Council do not listen to them.
The cameras need to be on the City Council members to see how they have disrespect for the people.
A total disdain and disrespect.
People hate.
You all go around like vote for us, do this, we care, we care.
When people --
>> stay on the agenda, please.
>>> Right on the agenda, ma'am.
>> No, it not.
Council members are not on the agenda that you are talking about.
>>> And what I want top say also is on this invocation thing that you do every Thursday morning, waste taxpayers time.
You all are getting paid to be here and you all waste taxpayers time.
A total waste of taxpayers time.
And Councilman White saying, no, don't come down hard with the code enforcement because the people in certain neighborhoods that are poor and underprivileged and economically disadvantaged and whatsoever, fantasy words they use, and we shouldn't have to be saying that year after year.
They are poor and economically disadvantaged and can't afford anything because we can't get any jobs.
And our representatives, our two black representatives, don't do anything in helping us get --.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, is that -- I don't know what he's referencing.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Daniel, you talk what's on the agenda or sit down.
Off choice.
>>> Right.
So what I'm here to say is, the reality of number 14, and when they are saying code enforcement, the reality of.
All these other issues, where there's $12 million in this budget, $12 million in this budget.
And none of our black representatives say where do we get any part of this $12 million?
Where does any of this $12 million go inside the black community?
We had someone else come down and say, oh, we want to have some fence and is it safe to go under the fence and whatnot?
Nothing inside the African community.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: You're out of order.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I guess cascading pool and I guess 22nd street.
I guess none of that is in the black community, Madam Chair.
>>GWEN MILLER: The last time I'm going to tell you.
What's on the agenda?
You have to stick to that.
Number 14 does not have nothing to did with what you are talking about.
>>> Ma'am, all I can say clearly and unequivocally when they start a meeting off in the morning with the pledge, with the roll call, and with your commendation, when you give the commendation out every Thursday morning it's a waste of taxpayers time and money.
That's right here on the agenda.
And that's what I'm speaking op on.
And I'm saying the taxpayers. The citizenry that comes down here, that pays attention to this, is tired of our money being wasted in that fashion.
We need money to address real issues.
We need money to address issues inside our communities.
We need the issues to be discussed in place of this, inside our community.
We need stuff, there's police violence, we need that to be discussed in the place of. This when black people come down here and speak of real issues, they are blown off or they are told that --.
(Bell sounds)
Or they are off the agenda.
And those are issues we need to be discussed.
Not these non-bread and butter issues.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Daniels.
>>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: My name is Moses Knott, Jr..
I resign at 2902 East Ellicott street write been in business for 40-some long years.
And then I thank God to have one more opportunity to come to this podium and speak.
Devil told me don't come down here and speak today.
There's some hell down here.
I know you all are fighting this morning up there.
Whoo, Jesus.
Busy around here today.
But I want to speak on several things this morning.
But I done got upset this morning twice back there with conversation.
But you all spoke about the code enforcement this morning.
I'm one of the first guys that the code enforcement attacked me.
I operate add business many years, demolition, and my business sat on six city blocks of land.
But Mayor Freedman got elected and she put the code enforcement on me first to get me out of business.
I appreciate you, man, and Mr. White, I appreciate what you say.
But the rest of you all, I disagree you all say code enforcement should raise the praise on us poor land owners, where drug dealers can kill somebody and go downtown and they don't pay no $40 or $5,000 a day.
I tell people over and over again, land on my part of town, it's like living in daylight and dark over there.
The code enforcement on us poor peoples that own land.
Now, what you were talking about this morning, the code enforcement thing, dumping trash on somebody else's property.
Ten or fifteen years ago didn't have that problem.
Let me tell you why you didn't have that problem.
They had a garbage truck that come around every two or three weeks and pick up garbage from somebody else's house.
They didn't have garbage problems.
Mayor Freedman cut that garbage thing out of picking up tree limbs and bed mattresses.
She said the garbage can can't weigh more than 40 pounds, cut down the trees.
When the sun goes down they dump it on somebody else's property.
And whenever they -- I'm in the clean-up business.
I have tried many days, you know.
I love Jesus, but I love Jesus peoples, too. I love people, especially poor peoples.
People call me to move some property, that somebody else put there.
But call waste management raise the price where you can't take garbage and dump it on somebody else's property.
Mr. White said at while ago.
You need to come with a program, make them get rid of your old wood frame house so it be one of those new houses. The whole thing is be one of those new houses in town.
But that is wrong.
And I'm against anybody that think like that.
I disagree with that kind of thinking.
Down through the years they do that. Mayor Freedman tore down thousands and thousands and thousands of wood frame houses, called them crack houses, tear them down, and then at the end, turn around and pay peoples to go in and burn the people's house down at night, all over Seminole park, fires all over, burn down houses.
But Mr. Shelby, I agree with you, you need to have a workshop.
You need to do something about that.
(Bell sounds)
But raise the price upon poor land owners, that is wrong.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you. Next.
>>> 14496-124th Avenue North, Largo. I hope you all had a chance.
I'm going to speak about the museum.
Had a chance to read this article from fine home building.
It's not efficient.
It's not beautiful.
Written by A. Lovings.
This was the individual picked to help lead the retrofit of the White House and the Pentagon to make them more energy efficient.
He's the author of this paper climate-making sense and making money.
Now, in here you can read that in a building lighting circuit, if you go from code, which is 12 gauge wire to a 10 gauge wire, you will get a 193% annual return on your investment.
Idiots like Vinoly can't get that.
Now, I heard frozen costs when speaking about this project.
You don't have a frozen cost.
You have to operate this building.
And future generations are going to suffer because this building is such a waste.
A monument to ignorance.
It should not be oriented as it is.
The Indians knew over 1500 years ago, proper orientation.
Not like this is the building's plan. The footprint should be as this.
Now, this is a crime.
We had the new solar today, a place in the sun, architectural innovators tell us what's next in sustainable design.
This thing, nowhere near sustainable.
It's as bad as the law allows.
And like I say, future generations, you're talking about what the taxpayers have to roll out this building now.
Wait till you see the utility bills for that building 20 years from now.
I'm sure you will all be resting easily.
But there will be future generations that are going to suffer.
And I really can't have a whole bunch of faith in some of you people up there deciding whether or not this building has integrity, because I heard earlier that stage your sitting on referred to as a "dias."
It is a "dais."
Look it up in the dictionary.
Now, again, you are going to screw the future generations if you go forward with this project.
There isn't any excuse.
This is why I have coined the term the second Dark Ages.
Fountain was truly the information age, this would be a high performance beautiful building.
The St. Louis Art Museum, 100 years old, as you saw in those photos, free to the public.
And this building, it can't stand for 100 years.
Society will not be able to afford it.
This is a crime.
And I hope there's somebody up there that's going to use some common sense, investigate the science and technology and see what a waste this building is.
(Bell sounds)
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> My name is Diane Mower.
8403 North Packwood Avenue.
And I'm addressing item number 15 which is not being heard today.
>>GWEN MILLER: Item number 15 is a public hearing so when we come to that item then you can speak onto but you can't speak on it now because it's set for a public hearing.
>> I'm sorry.
Somebody told me to come up during this.
>> We apologize.
I'm going to yield to Ms. Alvarez for a minute.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Just a couple of things, Madam Chairman.
I just want top address something that Mr. Daniels talked about.
And it's our prerogative as the City Council to have the invocation and pledge of allegiance and also the presentations.
I think it's a wonderful thing that we do.
That's all I want to say about that.
Also, I'd like to continue the CRA that was due today for the 24th.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to continue to what date?
March 24th.
11:00 o'clock.
(Motion carried)
We now go to our committee reports.
Ms. Rose Ferlita, public safety.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I'd like to move --.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Wait a second.
First the issue of the April 7th meeting.
I believe was there a motion made?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes, we did have a motion, didn't we?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: To request certain, I guess, department heads.
It was not voted on.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: In dealing with that, Mr. Shelby, was there any other department you might think of or any of us might think of that we need to include? I was following up on your suggestion.
We thought that was a good one but I don't know if it's comprehensive enough.
Think about it for a minute.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: It was police, solid waste.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Real estate, code enforcement.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: And the Code Enforcement Board.
And who else?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Did you say solid waste?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Was there any other, Mr. Martin, relevant that you would like to have at that workshop?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Any department in addition to you, Mr. Martin.
Jorge Martin, city attorney's office.
I think you mentioned all of the relevant players which would be real estate in managing the properties.
And solid waste for clean-up to the extent that they do that.
Parks, demolition to the extent that they do that.
And the police department.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Enforcement of the illegal dumping statutes.
>>> That, of course, is outside.
However, you might want to do that separately from chapter 9.
Remember we are going strictly on chapter 9 on the 7th which is only those issues to deal with the code board, the administrative proceedings.
Once we get into state statutes, our code enforcement inspectors are not authorized and don't have the authority or jurisdiction to enforce state statutes.
Realize they are not part of that discussion.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: With regard to chapter it I think what council is looking for, at least their direction to me, was to make chapter 9 give the tools that chapter 9 would provide under the statutes for enforcement and compliance, which, as Mr. Martin says, and which Mr. Lane says, that's the number one goal is compliance, not punishment, not fund-raising, but compliance.
But also it's an opportunity to look at the deficiencies with which council wants top accomplish that may be beyond the scope of chapter 9 that it may need to consider within the context of looking at chapter 9 in terms of solutions, that which has to go beyond chapter 9 so they could at least have a dialogue in that regard.
At least that was my understanding of what council was looking for.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I think it is.
We want this to be very comprehensive.
In addition, too, we probably need budget.
We are talking about equipment and stuff.
Maybe we can reiterate, those of us -- I think Mrs. Saul-Sena was there -- could come in and tell us what they are doing to provide them with the equipment and stuff.
Along that line.
One other last thing, too.
Because this seems to be from your visiting in different areas of the city, and with T.H.A.N., might it not be appropriate, colleagues, to just reiterate this via a reminder to Sue Lyon in terms of T.H.A.N., in case different representatives from different neighborhoods want to come, I think that is something we should give to her and let them disseminate it in case somebody wants to attend.
>> Jorge Martin: Last week we appealed before T.H.A.N. director Curtis Lane and myself to discuss the changes to chapter 9.
We gave them copies of the proposed amendments which you already have.
We gave them the already executed executive order by the mayor, and discussed the changes that are coming up.
So certainly we would love to have them and other groups come in, the civic groups, et cetera, and give us their input and the workshop on the 7th.
But one of the things that Marty might want to consider and City Council might want to consider, also, is see if we can get another workshop going to address changes to chapter 19 which is currently being drafted, and I think that chapter 19 will be a vehicle where we can address these non-board issues that have to do with enforcement, that may have to do with police issues and whatever.
But we will be visiting these issues both 9 and 19.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Let me be clear on this.
We seem to be leaning towards doing all of this at one time.
Is that where we start off?
That's my preference.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I think we need to come to some conclusion on this, that we will get the chapter revised, and going forward with this.
Because it just been going on for too long now.
It would be good to have the interested parties in this, or the affected parties, I should say, and that way we can get their input and go on forward with this thing.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mrs. Alvarez, you're absolutely right.
And I realize they were guest of T.H.A.N..
However, that wasn't a group that included a lot of people in a lot of areas.
Like if you had somebody from southeast Seminole Heights, they are having a separate meeting soon.
This is something that would afford them the opportunity to come here and say, look, fine, this is not how it's working in our neighborhood.
Although that's a good start in terms of a foundation, I still think we should send that correspondence to Sue Lyon and ask her to notify the neighborhoods in case somebody else wants to come in.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Did you do any more revisions to the chapter other than the ones we have already --
>>> Chapter 9 is -- you have received it.
Wave not received any more revisions.
But chapter 19, which is the housing code, basically covers anything from demolition, et cetera, and housing standards, structural standards, and whatever is in the process of being basically overhauled the same way as chapter 9 was.
I see chapter 9 as being the procedural chapter.
Chapter 19 as being the substantive chapter.
>>> Then maybe we are going to have to go ahead and have a workshop on chapter 19, after we get through with chapter 9.
>>> That's what I was trying to say.
Probably you will have to address these things separately.
Unfortunately, I had the drafts done.
They are being circulated for comments.
But before I have consensus from the departments and administration, I don't want to present to the City Council.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I agree with Mr. Martin.
I think that's a good way to go.
Chapter 19 is the substance provisions.
Although I don't believe it would hurt for council to express at the early stages before the revision is presented, or to have the community weigh in as to the issues, so at least the administration would have a perspective of the public policy results that they want to see accomplished as a result of the revisions to chapter 19.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: When we get through the meeting, or when we are in the meeting on the 7th, if when get through early enough, then we'll maybe come back a little bit on chapter 19 to see what type of an agenda we would have on it before we go for a public hearing.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, I believe council's direction, or council's goal, is to have a holistic approach to the solutions to the problem.
And that encompasses whatever mechanisms, whether it's chapter 9 or chapter 19, however the mechanisms work.
But I think that the codes should support the public policy and take direction from the policy it wishes to accomplish, and at least use the forum of the workshop to at least get a handle on what the issues are, so that whatever solutions, however the mechanism, it accomplishes the goals that the City Council sets forth.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Martin, since we have a specific $50,000 grant on our agenda today that we are going to be doing on the 2nd, what is that 50 going to go to initially?
>>> Strictly it's going to go to fund -- research, finding fees, service of process, publication, strictly judicial costs.
>> So court costs.
We are going to be taking these things in, court costs, service.
>>> Basically it's meant to front the foreclosure program, some candidates we couldn't go forward because we didn't have the funding.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Martin, wasn't that one of our orders to the budget department, was to find some money for this, the court costs, and that way they were going to be reimbursed by the fees or the fines that we were going to collect on this?
>>> The second part of your comments is a bridge we haven't crossed yet.
So far they are making available $50,000 to start the foreclosures from going.
How that becomes either self sustaining or funded in the next budget year is going to be the subject of continued discussions.
>> Okay.
>>> There's been talk about going into funds collections, funds come in from foreclosures, then as properties are sold or whatever to use some of that money and plow it back into this program.
But I don't know that there's been any consensus or agreement that that's going to be the replenishment of that fund.
>> Then we need budget here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
We didn't vote?
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
Ms. Ferlita, public safety.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I'd like to move resolutions 23 to 25.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Public works, Mr. John Dingfelder.
I move items 26 through 32.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Finance Committee, Mr. Kevin White.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. White, can I ask you to pull 33 for a separate vote, please?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Separate vote?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's your preference.
>> Just go ahead.
>> I just want to ask for a week on that.
I didn't get information on that settlement.
It's a 2003 case.
I don't think there's anything pressing on it.
>> We'll just do 34 through had 1 and then maybe have someone from legal come down and brief you on it real quick.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I believe this is handled by one of our part time assistant city attorneys, Mr. Larkin.
I'm not sure if we could have that information for you today.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Just as long as a week won't prejudice.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I'm calling upstairs right now.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Hold 33 for a minute.
Move 34 through 41.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Building and zoning.
Mr. Shawn Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: And what were we doing on 44?
>>GWEN MILLER: Already voted on.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I move 42, 43, 45, 46.
>> We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Transportation.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move 47 and 48.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: We are going to go back to our public hearings for second reading.
Items 4 through 6.
Need to open.
>> So moved.
(Motion carried)
>> Is there anyone in the audience going to speak on items 4, 5 and 6?
Would you please stand and raise your right hand?
Number 4.
Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on item number 4?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading, ordinance approving a special use permit S-1 on appeal from a decision to the zoning administration approving location and construction of an extended family residence located at 218 West Powhattan Avenue in an RS 60 zoning district in the city of Tampa, Florida more particularly described in section 1 allowing the extended family residence located residence to locate in a nonconforming accessory structure, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Harrison being absent and Saul-Sena being absent at vote.
>>GWEN MILLER: Number 5.
Anyone in the audience want to speak on item number 5?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading: An ordinance making lawful the conditional sale of beverages containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight and not more than 14% by weight and wines regardless of alcoholic content beer and wine 2(COP-R) for consumption on the premises only in connection with a restaurant business establishment on that 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 in conflict, providing an effective date.
>> We have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
Try it again.
Vote and record.
Okay, Kevin voted.
>>THE CLERK: Motion did not carry with Rose Ferlita and Gwen Miller voting no.
>>GWEN MILLER: It carries over to next week.
Is there anyone to speak on item number 6?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. White, would you read number 6.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance on second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 6402 south Adelia Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RM-16 to PD providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Roll call vote.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita voting no, Harrison and Saul-Sena being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Item number 3.
Is there anyone to speak on item number 3?
You need to stand and raise your right hand.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Just here to answer any questions.
We don't have an objection to that continuance.
>> Just a reminder on the record.
I believe it's Mr. Mechanik representing this petitioner.
In anticipation of him providing the rendering, which I think he will, but I want to remind him that we get to see that before we vote.
>>> That's my understanding.
He's out of town this week.
But clearly --
>> And I think he said on the record last time he was going to provide that but since we have yet another continuance I just want to remind him.
>>THE CLERK: For the record he was asking for a continuance to May 5th.
>>GWEN MILLER: Did we get a motion on that?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: 9:30.
Anyone in the audience going to speak on item 7 through 16, would you please stand and raise your right hand?
(Oath administered by Clerk)
Oh continued public hearing.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Please when you state your name reaffirm that you have in fact been sworn.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
I have been sworn.
The petitioner has revised the site plan to reflect that the proposed townhouse development is going to be oriented towards the rights-of-way.
They also have in their redesign increased the green space to where now there is 1117 square feet of green space per unit.
And staff has no objection with the proposed development.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: You asked me to go back and -- I have been sworn.
That's a prompt, I guess.
Rose row don't take it personally.
We have all kinds of prompts here, too.
This efficiency is too much.
>> You asked me to go back and redesign the project.
And we have completely redesigned it.
We are orienting the townhouses to the exterior.
We have increased the green space.
We have removed the waivers.
I can answer any questions you might have.
Basically the staff has removed their objections and requesting approval.
>>GWEN MILLER: Are there any questions by council members?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just for clarification.
Mr. Michelini, we haven't seen this site plan at all before, right?
I mean, this is a really new site plan?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Well, we redesigned the buildings, reduced them in size, reoriented them.
I think you had some concerns.
We had some concerns, too, about the internal driveway.
So now we have created an internal courtyard for each of the units.
Plus the other projects orient their access to the alley.
And we have done that.
>> One of the things I think I like is if they have guests they can park in the driveway in front of their garage.
>>> We provided two guest spaces for each of their units.
>> I think that's a huge improvement especially for that property near Mitchell elementary.
We appreciate your efforts.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on item 7?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: I'd like to move this -- I don't have to do that; is that right? Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 302-304 South Bungalow Park Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification RM-16 multifamily to PD single family attached providing an effective date.
>> Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Item number 8 noticed to open.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Item 8 cannot be heard.
Has petitioner paid his fee?
>> Last I knew he has not paid his fee so it would be just be to file an amended petition.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>> Item 9 need to open.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Petition has paid the fee.
All we need to do is what?
>> At this time legal department would need to prepare a new reso to reset the hearing.
I don't know if that has been done.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Point of order.
There was a motion to open a hearing.
Is that appropriate at this point to open a hearing?
>>THE CLERK: You can continue without reopening.
It cannot be heard because they never filed the affidavit.
It has to have a new resolution prepared.
That's what they are doing.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Need to open item number 10.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Legal department here on item 10 which is a notice of proposed change to the Westshore area wide DRI.
It's a fairly simple change.
It's to amend the equivalency, allows a trade-off of certain uses.
There are certain maximums, trade-offs allowed.
The current maximum for residential development within the area wide DRI is 3,000 dwelling units, asking for an increase to 4,000 dwelling units.
It would require conditions requiring pavement of fee to the Parks Department for parks and recollection alpha silts for this segment of development they are asking for.
They are going to pay transportation impact fee, all the other fees we would normally levy or ask any developer to pay in connection with the development.
This has been reviewed and approved by the Tampa Bay regional planning council and by our staff.
And I am here for any questions.
Mr. Rotella is here as well as Randy Goen.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the audience to speak on item 10?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison, would you read that, please?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes, Madam Chair.
Move an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida amending a development order 380.06 Florida statutes for the Westshore alliance area, a previously approved development of regional impact, providing an effective date.
>> I have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Item number 11.
Mr. Pete Cowell.
>>PETE COWELL: Land Development Coordination.
This particular petition WZ 05-42 had an administrative error in identifying the incorrect neighborhood association.
Staff is requesting that the fee be waived by council so that they can come back next month on April 21st.
And they will do the renotice.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to reschedule and waive the fee.
April 21st at 10:00.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Number 12, need to reopen.
>>GWEN MILLER: So moved.
(Motion carried)
>>PETE COWELL: Land Development Coordination.
Before you is the shopping center for WZ 04-5-44.
Location at 15363 Amberly Drive, a 4(COP-R) they have currently they are asking for a one-year extension in a PDA because the restaurant is not open at this time.
That's the actual location of the restaurant.
>>GWEN MILLER: How much time are they asking for?
>>> One year.
>>GWEN MILLER: Pleasure of council?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We have no opposition from the police department?
>> Good morning.
John Lucas, Tampa police.
I have been sworn in.
No opposition from the police.
>>GWEN MILLER: Pleasure of council?
Is there anyone in the audience that wants to speak on item number 12?
>> David Smith, 401 East Jackson Street 33602 for the applicant.
Just to answer any questions.
Crabby Bill's moved on.
There have been several restaurants.
I have just been informed by the owners that we may have an existing tenant that's going to move into that space and expand, which is Sushi Sue's, and have been a very successful sushi restaurant.
But we just need this time in order to keep the wet zoning in place so we can lease it.
If you have any questions.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm happy to do what I can.
This location is cursed.
In my 15 years of living there, there must have been eight to ten restaurants.
Nothing makes it.
So whatever we can do to help, let's do it.
>>> I'm with you.
And since there's an existing tenant, they have been successful so far.
The space won't curse them.
>> It's good sushi.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: This has nothing to do with the petition.
But when we ask for reports to put the district number on them, could you do that for the wet zonings, too, please, Pete?
>> Move to close.
(Motion carried)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: This is the resolution, so I don't need to move it.
November item.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>> Move to open 13.
>> Number 13.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Are we finished with this?
He's doing something else.
Mr. Cowell, I think sometimes when we don't answer things expediently it causes some problems and I'm sorry I didn't get. This nothing related to the project you're doing.
I just talked to Mr. Massey and I thought very quickly we could address this and be appropriate.
Mr. Massey, if could you come to the podium I would appreciate it since Mr. Santiago is not here.
I received this earlier today, apparently at 7:59 a.m.
And there is a question or questions here about item 3, from Terry Neal, addressed from Mr. Santiago to myself to David Smith.
What changes were made to this -- and you can answer them altogether or separately.
What changes were made to this ordinance for clarification.
If new materials have been added as backup the public has a right to inspect.
If the ordinance is changed this process would start over.
Or are you simply presenting the ordinance without changes?
Are there several potential and dangerous loopholes that can be put on -- maybe after your response, perhaps somebody could come for clarification.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: We had asked for this item with the developer to be continued.
The reason being, the ordinance authorizes the encroachment of the sky bridge over the Franklin Street right-of-way but only the right-of-way portion only. The sky bridge then will connect into the Tampa convention center so it's going over non-right-of-way city-owned property and actually going to be pushing a hole into the convention center.
Wave to have a construction agreement that deals with the complicated construction issues, insurance issues, and need to have a perpetual easement over the portion that goes on our property and our right-of-way property.
Wave not finished negotiating all thoughts points yet.
And we do not want it to go before we have the whole package ready to go.
That's why the legal department asked for this item to be continued.
>> That's fine.
And that's really why I asked for the rendering.
If you don't mind, Mr. Massey, thanks for the clarification.
I am going to turn this over to you, Mr. Santiago, to do a follow-up.
Is that okay?
>> We would be glad to call Mr. Neal.
>> Madam Chairman, I'm sorry for the interruption.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Cowell, you may come back now.
>> Next petition is WZ 05-55.
It's Chipolte Mexican Grill of Colorado, the location at 309 North Westshore Boulevard.
This is the site plan location directly across from the entrance to Westshore mall.
That is the facade of the new building.
The request is for a 4(COP-R) for the restaurant and CG zoning district.
It has 78 seats in the restaurant both inside and outside.
There are several other wet zonings within the 1,000 foot radius, shown on the staff report.
There is residential within 40 feet of the site.
Council would need to provide waivers to both the residential distance and to the other places that are selling within 1,000 feet in order to grant the petition.
>> John Lucas, Tampa police.
No opposition.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>> Holland and knight, 100 north Tampa, the agent for Chipolte Mexican Grill.
As previously stated, this is a restaurant seeking a 4(COP-R) zoning.
We would need to request the waivers because of the distance requirements.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the audience wants to speak on item number 13?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol regardless of alcoholic content beer wind and liquor on the consumption in connection with a restaurant business establishment on that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 309 North Westshore Boulevard 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.
>> I have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
(Motion carried)
Item number 14.
Need to open.
>> So moved.
(Motion carried)
>>PETE COWELL: Land Development Coordination.
As council is aware, this is in International Mall, Tampa Westshore Associates is the petitioner.
It's for a location within the food court.
2223 Westshore Boulevard.
The unit number is FC-208.
They are requesting a 2(COP-R) for that restaurant.
There is no residential within a thousand feet. The City of Tampa does have a fire station that falls within a thousand feet.
Council would need to provide waivers to other places selling alcohol as well as institutional uses in order to grant the petition.
>>> John Lucas, Tampa police. No opposition from the police.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>> Ann Park, Mechanik Nuccio, this is International Plaza in the food court.
If you have any questions.
>> Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on item 14?
>> Move to close.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move an ordinance repealing ordinance 2001-181 making lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight not more than 14% by weight and wines regardless of alcoholic content beer and wine, 2(COP-R) for consumption on the premises only in connection with a restaurant business establishment on that certain lot plot or tract of land located at 2223 North Westshore Boulevard, unit F-C-208, Tampa, Florida as more particularly described in section 3 here waiving certain restrictions based upon certain findings, providing for repeal of all ordinance in conflict, providing an effective date.
>> I have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Item 15.
Mr. Cowell.
>>PETE COWELL: Item 15.
All thought cannot be heard, petitioner has paid his amendment fee and is requesting April 21st.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the audience want to speak on item 15?
Now you get up here.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Are you speaking --.
>>GWEN MILLER: To the continuance.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I just want a clarification.
Are you speaking as to whether you support or oppose the continuance?
Or are you going to be speaking to the actual merits of the case?
>>> In regards to the continuance only.
>> It's not a continuance.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, it has to be reheard.
I apologize.
Basically the issue is that it cannot be heard.
>>GWEN MILLER: Can she speak on that?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I move to waive the rules to give her three minutes to speak on this.
>>> Took a day off.
I wait add whole year for this.
>> Go ahead and speak.
>>> Thank you.
My name is Diane Bower.
I reside at 8403 North Packwood Avenue.
And I would like to request to put this into public documentation.
And I would also like to respectfully request a denial for continuance --.
>>GWEN MILLER: It's not going to be continued.
It's going to be heard another date.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: They filed a petition.
It's a matter of right.
It's going to have to be set at that time.
You can either support or oppose it.
But as a matter of right I believe they are entitled to this.
>>> Okay.
Would they have to -- may I ask the question, would they have to let us know when?
Because they did not let us know when this hearing was or that it was not.
>> I believe that's the issue as to why it's not going to be heard today. So you will have to receive proper notice.
>> But I may put this into the file?
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes, you may.
>>> Thank you.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Just again one clarification.
Ms. Bowers obviously has been waiting here and she's got some issues that she's put aside to deal with this.
And I think in between now, if she has anything she wants to communicate to us she can send that via e-mail?
Can she do that?
>>> Well, what she's putting in today, she can ask that be distributed to council as part of the record if she wishes.
>> I don't know fountain was a petition.
>>> I and if council -- if she wishes to have that distributed as opposed to just putting it into the file, she can ask to do that.
Again, when it comes before council, it will have to be received and filed at that point as well.
>>> I apologize for my ignorance.
I would like the council to see this, as well as matter of public record.
This is just documentation and pictures and things like that, that I feel would be important to the council top see.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Diane, you don't have to apologize.
We do this all the time.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: And so you don't have to take off a day of work again, you can always call your single-member representative or the chairman's assistant and they will be able to tell you for sure if this thing is going to be heard on the date that it's supposed to be.
>>> Yes.
I expected -- that's how I found out.
I'm getting used to the process.
I am seeing a lot of you unfortunately.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry.
To give that to a receptionist for distribution and it would make its way into the file as well?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Bring it up here.
We'll take care of it.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you for waiting.
You were so patient.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: As related to that issue, and just generically, the wet zoning is a public hearing process, Ms. O'Dowd.
Is there any caution for council in regard to ex parte communication?
>>> A resolution has been passed where ex parte communications if they are verbal must be disclosed at the time the public hearing is opened.
If they are written communications, they must be filed with the clerk's office.
With regard to the report that has just been received by council, I would ask that that report be made part of the record when the public hearing is held on April 21st, assuming that it's not misnoticed again.
Just because anything received today would not be considered part of the public record for the hearing since technically it wasn't open for this purpose today.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
We need to open item number 16.
>> So moved.
(Motion carried)
>>PETE COWELL: On item 16, it's just a question of whether or not you are willing to reschedule it for the 21st.
Oh, I'm sorry, item 16.
I'm not paying attention.
Excuse me.
WZ-05-58 is item 16.
Vincermo, Inc., doing business as la Curetta in Ybor City, 1727 East Seventh.
They are requesting a 2(COP-R) in a YC-1 zoning district for a sidewalk cafe of eight seats.
There are other wet zonings within a thousand feet. The list is attached.
They are within a thousand feet of residential and a YC-7 zoning district.
And there are institutional -- I'm sorry, there are no institutional uses within a thousand feet.
And council would need to provide waivers to the residential distances and places selling alcohol in order to grant the petition.
For clarification, they already have the 2(COP-R).
This is just explaining it on the sidewalk?
>>> The 2(COP) for the restaurant right now.
Excuse me, a 4(COP).
They are using a state 2(COP) and doing a 2(COP-R) for the sidewalk cafe.
>>> John Lucas, Tampa Police Department, no objection from the police department.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>>> Good morning.
I am the manager of the restaurant.
And I just lick to sell a glass of wine with the food outside on the sidewalk cafe.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on item 16?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>KEVIN WHITE: And the food is not bad either.
>>> I am late for lunch.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I move the resolution.
>> Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: If I am not mistaken, I think -- Mr. Cowell, if I'm not mistaken, I believe that's Mr. t last one for the day and that might be his last one for the city.
Mr. Cowell has served the city for how many years?
>>> 18.5 years.
>> And a phenomenonal capacity, and in front of this board on week in and week out, and actually I am going to move that we do a commendation for Pete Cowell, and whether or not he wants to come back and accept it is up to him.
But we thank you for the job well done.
And we wish you well in all your endeavors.
>>> Thank you very much.
And I will miss you.
But I'll see you in about a year.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: I know this is kind of like after the fact but would you like to us change that from commendation to reconsideration and come back as quick as you leave?
All right.
I tried.
Thank you for everything you did for us.
>>GWEN MILLER: Number 17.
Need to move the resolution.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Item 21.
We are going to skip Mr. Shelby and put him last.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What are we doing?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: The public hearing was closed.
Placed on the agenda pursuant to rule 5-A.
I believe the title of the ordinance was read in full. The motion was not adopted.
Council members Saul-Sena and Ferlita voting no.
Council members Alvarez and Harrison were absent.
And I am going to ask them at this time if they have had the opportunity to review the record and are prepared to vote on the matter.
>> Yes.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe with the public hearing being closed there's no additional testimony.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Restate the motion?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you want to have the motion?
It would be appropriate to read the ordinance again or to read the motion?
>> Last Thursday's meeting you did read the ordinance for first reading but did not have sufficient votes to approve it so the motion is on the floor.
To approve the ordinance for first reading.
>>> It would be appropriate to re-read the title because two members were not here?
>> They know what it was.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just to cross all my Ts and dot all the Is.
>>THE CLERK: The title is right there.
An ordinance approving a special use...
>> Move an ordinance approving S-2 special use permit approving 80% lot development in an RS-75 zoning district in the general vicinity of 413 and 413.5 South Paloma Place, Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 hereof providing an effective date.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
>>THE CLERK: Ferlita, no.
>>ROSE FERLITA: May I say something, too?
We did receive, everybody did, distributed a request from Dr. Guggino to support this, and I want to say on the record that Dr. Guggino and his family are friends of mine but it was a variance, and he says in his own little note here that Mr. Eure brought this under the sums it was a buildable lot.
We have to deal with fact not assumption.
So I'm sorry I can't support it as well.
But I want to put that into the record.
>>GWEN MILLER: Item number 272.
Mr. Massey.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: This public hearing was closed as well.
But it was continued because there was still a scrivener's error in the legal description for the Ybor area wide rezoning.
The clerk should have the legal in the file and it is ready for first reading.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance relocation --
>>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I was anticipating Mr. Dingfelder standing there to vote but I guess he didn't want to do that. In the general location south of interstate 4, west of Adamo Drive east of 14th street in the city of Tampa, Florida particularly described in sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, hereof from zoning district classifications PD to YZ site plan controlled, IG to YC-6, RM 24 to YC-2, RM-16 to YC-2, RM-24 to YC-8, RM-16 to YC-8, RM-24 to YC-4, IG to YC-8, IG to YC-4, IH to YC-6, CI to YC-7, IG to YC-7, and CI to YC-6, providing an effective date.
>> The motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
(Motion carried)
Mr. Shelby, you're on.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: City Council attorney.
I'm here on item number 20-B at the request of council to present recommendations regarding the possibility of amending the council's rules of procedure to reflect when council will be ending the evening sessions.
Clearly this was a result of last Thursday's late-night meeting.
Just as an update, I am looking for finality on this.
I am looking to get by Monday the final draft of council's rules of procedures as a whole, in totality, so that council can review that, so it will be on the agenda a week from the following Thursday.
And of course under continued council rules, because council didn't want to change it, has to be read twice before it takes effect.
With regard to ending the meetings, one of the times I believe it was proposed -- and I understand prior to my arrival as your attorney, it was previously discussed, but I don't believe any action was taken, to make the Thursday night meetings end at 11:00 o'clock as a point of reference.
The issue with ending the meetings, again, it's council's prerogative as to whether it's going to end the meetings at 11:00 o'clock or continue.
The reality of the situation, the practicality of the situation, is that from a due process standpoint, if you enact that rule, my suggestion is you will not be able to waive that rule.
And the rationale is this: There's actually only one rule that council can't waive under it's rules which is the rule to not take action under the workshop.
But if for some reason you have a standing rule of council that says that the meetings end at eleven, and somebody who is present and realizes they have a couple of more hearings to go or is not going to be heard by eleven looks at the clock and says, council rules say it's going to end by eleven, I'm out of here, and they leave, then if council then later on waives that rule, from a due process standpoint, they have effected that person's right to be heard by their waiving of the rule.
So, therefore, if council is going to enact a rule, it would be a rule that has to be relied upon, and I suggest that from a due process standpoint, and in a fairness standpoint, could you not waive it.
So assuming -- any question on that?
If there's any question -- yes, sir.
>>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think I hear what you're saying.
But what if we said -- which I thought we had passed actually last year but I guess not -- but if the rule said we wouldn't start a hearing until after 11:30, okay?
So what you're saying is, that if we got to 11:30 --.
>>> And you wanted to start one.
>> And we wanted to start one, we couldn't do that.
And I guess that's what you're saying.
>>> Yes.
>> But anytime prior to 11:30 we could waive the rule.
>>> No.
Don't think so.
Because if somebody relies on that rule --
>> but they wouldn't have any way of knowing which hearings are going to start or not start by 11:30.
>>> They would know perhaps on the way things are going by 11:15, 1 10:10, maybe 11:00.
>> So it makes it an unstable, uncertain situation?
>>> One cannot rely on the right to be heard if they don't know -- if they don't know whether or not they will be heard.
In other words, what you have is you have a group of constituents then perhaps waiting to be heard, hole then have to wait until 11:30 to find out whether or not council will enforce its own rule.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Good point.
>>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you.
Now that we have gotten beyond that concern, I have even another concern, Mr. Shelby.
What happens to those petitions we didn't hear?
Where are we going to stick them?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: That's the practicality.
Council has created rules to address some of these issues of going to having late meetings.
One of the rules is to have ten hearings per meeting.
That was recently amended which is going to be codified in this revision to have ten new petitions, plus three continuances.
Council has a previous policy of saying the continuances are to be placed following the new petitions, in fairness to the new petitioners.
So, therefore, you might have a room of constituents, or room of petitioners, who then when you reach that point, be it at 11:00 or 11:00 30, have to be rescheduled.
So they are confronted with two rules.
If it's only limited to three continuances per meeting, that continuance may be three months down the road, if council sticks to its rules, which I believe it should and wants to, and secondly, it will not be heard first, it will be heard after the ten new petitions.
So the practicality of it is that when you continue a hearing under council's present rules, which I believe are sound, public policy, then what happens is you will have a case where your hearings, your continuances, will severely prejudice those who want to be heard.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby, listening to you talking, if we made rules that we are here ten hearings a night and three continuances, if we stick to our rules and stop changing them, we will not have to worry about the 11:30 or 12:30 or whatever time we are going to get out.
We will have the rules set in place and not have to worry about it.
So we need to stick to our rules and stop changing.
Because sometimes we come in and keep adding and adding on, and we have too many.
We go up to 19 some nights.
If we do that we don't have to put into a policy after 11 or 11:30.
So let's stay to our policy we will hear ten a night and three continuances and not put any more on there.
They just have to wait till the next hearing to put the people on there.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I could say something on that?
Ms. Coyle pointed out something earlier today that I think is actually a very good point.
She said that last week, the biggest problem arose because we had the six plan amendments on top of our standard 10 or 13, now, 10 or 11 or 12 zoning hearings.
The plan amendments took us till 9:00, 9:30 before we even got to the.
So I think we need to tweak our rules to address what we are going to do on those plan amendments.
And it's kind of -- it's a little difficult because sometimes the plan amendments go very quickly.
But obviously last week it took three hours to do the plan amendments.
And so it's hard to predict.
So I think totally agreeing with Madam Chair, I think part of what we need to clarify is what are we doing with plan amendments?
Do they count as part of the oh?
>> And maybe they should.
>> I got a slight negative reaction.
But let me just share an observation.
From a public policy standpoint, the observation is the discussion that council had last week on the merits of land use plan amendments, the time was well spent.
And I would recommend that council not truncate the discussion of land use plan amendments for the sake of sped dense I -- expediency.
And I think council recognizes the importance of those land use plan amendments and having a full and fair discussion on them.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Shelby, I think by trying to reimplement some rules of procedure, I think what this will do is put petitioners on notice to be prepared when they come before us, not expecting an immediate continuance the next week for fear they may be put out another three months or so.
And they need to be prepared.
Even though we did have the plan amendments last week, we still had six continuances.
So even if we hadn't had the plan amendments, we still would have had six additional petitions which would have kept us here into the late evening hours.
One of my major concerns is being here all day on Thursday, and then until 1:00, 2:00, and if we had gone, if everything had been heard last week, we probably would have been here till 2:30, a quarter to three.
At that point in time, it begins to get very hard to pay attention, and to give each petitioner the consideration that I think each one of them deserve.
And it's very arduous for this council member to be here and focus after being here since approximately 8:00 that morning till 2:00 the next morning.
So I just -- I think we need to limit -- I think this council needs to set a time limit on the evening meetings, and stick to the rules that we do have, and whether it's the 11:00 or 11:30 hour, whatever the case may be, set a finite time, that this is where we are going to stop the meeting.
If we are in the middle of one, whatever that time frame is, we will finish that one, and then the rest of the petitions need to be moved forward.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: And I believe Mr. Massey would want to chime in on this with his recommendation.
But you do raise a good point with regard to fatigue setting in.
And people rightly so feeling that they have the right to be heard, and council has the duty to keep with it.
On an ad hoc basis, on an ad hoc basis, council always has the prerogative to continue hearings and reset them.
If council feels the need as a body to do that.
It doesn't have to be set as a rule.
I'm just concerned that if there is a rule and somebody relies upon it then that person is prejudiced when council waives that rule.
If it is a very late evening -- unfortunately, Council member White and council, should discuss this as a result of the result -- and council member Ferlita raised the issue, where do those hearings go, when do they get heard?
Mr. Massey, do you want to chime in with some observation?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Just a few observations.
I understand council's concern.
It was a late evening for all of us, and I think we all were fatigued that evening.
I will say last Thursday was unusual in that not only did we have several contingency plan amendments but also the community block grant presentation.
So you had zoning hearings that normally start at 6:00, do not start really until 10:00 that night.
So you had four hours of hearing things that were unrelated to zoning matters.
So it is a very unusual circumstance.
I just want to make sure council is aware of that.
I mean, I think the problem can be taken care of through better scheduling, so we don't try to stack too many things at 5:30 before council hears any hearings at 6:00 and maybe hear plan amendments on a separate night altogether when we hear -- I can tell you zonings can be heard during the daytime typically.
We have done that in an effort to accommodate the neighborhood groups so that folks that work all day can come and be at council to present their case and their concerns to council.
But that is not a legal requirement per se either.
>> I don't want to mess with that.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I No. council has options.
I'm just afraid again having a real firm cut-off time can create more problems than it solves.
I think the solution is more in scheduling things in a better -- in a more realistic fashion.
>>KEVIN WHITE: True, Mr. Massey, but we have been trying to come up with a scheduling procedure for two years that I have been here, and it still hasn't come in to place yet.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I think I can address that.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Please.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Basically -- and I mean this with all due respect to the this body -- it takes a collective discipline to adhere to its rules.
And I believe the chair has referenced that with regard to at least the area of ten-plus-three and it came up an issue there was a request to add a 14th hearing, and council waived its rules.
But I will say that with regard to being ready to be heard, that is a significant thing.
I think that council's time is valuable.
I think the petitioner's time is valuable.
I think the community and neighborhood time is valuable.
That when something is set for hearing -- and I think council took some positive steps last week toward that regard, that when somebody does come before council, that it should be ready to be heard, absent some extenuating circumstances.
And I think if council sticks to its rules, and I believe Mr. Snelling and Land Development Coordination are changing their internal procedures.
In other words, things will not be set for a hearing until they already go to the design review committee.
So, therefore, there will already have been objections and opportunities to cure it hopefully by the time it gets to hearing.
That is a recent development.
That's going to help cure the problem.
The other thing is that -- and as Mr. Massey suggested and I think it's an excellent one -- procedurally we take care of the continuances up front.
Not substantive.
But up front.
And we make that determination. If we do that regularly we'll get those continuances out of the way. The other thing is, I provided for the council's code 27-395, which deals with what happens if there's a withdrawal of application or denial of an application.
And it's interesting, because if an application is withdrawn, for instance, there's community opposition.
Normally when there's something -- and I could just share this anecdotally, my observations.
If there's community opposition, a petitioner is concerned and wants the opportunity to cure, therefore ask for a continuance.
And if there is an opportunity to do that, and it seems plausible, council grants the continuances and they come back and they don't have to go through a whole process. If they were to withdraw an application, and the issue subsection D says that they are barred from refiling for 12 months unless the City Council specifies that the applicant may file a new application six months after the date of withdrawal.
So if they withdraw, they are for lack of a better word penalized in the 12 months, or if council gives them dispensation, six months.
But six months at a minimum.
Notice for subsection when there's a denial of a PD, when council denies it.
It says it's 12 months.
But the council may determine that this time period does not apply if the new site plan's rezoning request has addressed the grounds for denial identified during the public hearing.
It does not say six month, does not say three months.
What that ultimately does is if council does agree on the merits of the case by substantial, competent evidence, this is not curable, and it denies it, what the petitioner can then do is albeit pay a new filing fee and re noticing it -- and I believe in speaking with Mr. Snelling this morning it was $2100 -- but they can come back sooner.
They don't have to wait six months.
So in some regards the penalty for withdrawing is worse than the penalty for denial.
But I guess my answer to you, Mr. White, is I believe that what's being implemented with the process internally, with council adhering and having self-discipline to say ten plus three, with Mr. Massey's suggestion of being very cognizant of what you schedule for 5:30, I believe that if council is consistent in its application of its policies, you should not have a meeting that should go past 9:00, 10:00.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Well, you're absolutely right, Mr. Shelby.
And the operative word there was "if" council will.
Because it always seems that areas, there's someone in the audience that has a hardship case, or pleads their case.
Last week or week before, we had our ten plus three.
But the administration asked for one to be put on.
And as a collective body, being cooperative, in a cooperative spirit with the administration, we allowed that, because that's not a normal request for the administration.
And I think as a body, I just think we are going to have problems with that, because I just think one of the seven or two of the seven, someone will always feel sympathetic to whomever the cause may be, whether it be the administration or whether it be a sob story from a petitioner.
And I don't know.
I just don't know where we go with it.
I just don't see it being able to be done hard and fast.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: My understanding, by the way -- and I read this in the newspaper -- that there was one particular hearing last week where the petitioner and the community got together to agree to a continuance, and the rationale being from what I read in the newspaper was the late hour, and the concern that council was getting tired and fatigued by that late hour.
And that's my understanding.
But council does always have that right, even if there's no rule, to continue.
My issue, my concern to you, would be continue it to when, at what effect?
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: First of all, I don't think we can enact anything that says we are not going to go past a certain time.
We have to deal on a case-by-case basis.
Luckily they are aware that we are here until one in the morning.
I don't think we should do anything.
I agree wholeheartedly with Chairman Miller.
We stick to the ten plus three, and we will solve the problem.
The question is, how do we make it more difficult for us to waive that rule?
And is that an officially codified rule of procedure and the council?
>>> That council may waive its rules?
>> No.
That we have ten plus three.
>>> I don't believe it is in this version.
It's in the draft that we'll be receiving.
But it's been -- applying that as a policy.
Not as an official rule.
>> So if we add it as an official rule then what we have to do is make it more difficult to waive that rule.
And do we have any ability to say like in order to waive council's rules you need a super majority vote?
>>> I believe the rule -- I have to double check.
It may have to be unanimous.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Make it more palatable.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I think you're right on a rule of procedure.
And we just add that a as a rule and we have solved the problem.
Because Kevin will never vote the way we vote.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Alvarez, your turn.
No, I was going to say that when these plan amendments come up, just like Mr. Massey said, is that if we have more than five or six, then let's go ahead and have another meeting date.
A special meeting for these things.
Because, you know, we can't be here.
And I'm sorry I wasn't here last week.
But --.
>>GWEN MILLER: Because you wanted to stay till 1:00 o'clock.
>> Two weeks prior I was here and we were here till 12:00 midnight.
So it depends on the zoning people to give us the hearings.
And when we are adding our continuances, we are relying on our council calendar to do that.
And if we are going beyond it, we need somebody to tell us to stop, you know.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe the clerk has --.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Right, and she's been good.
But the zoning people are the ones to tell us what we are going to hear and not hear.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
I do it for the zonings.
I do not keep track of your 5:30 agenda items because they could potentially come from any department.
You schedule like the community block grants.
Some member of the administration comes before you.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: That's where we need to make sure we have --.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: It would be the clerk.
>> Somebody needs to schedule those.
And I don't mind coming back for another one.
But we need more time to do this.
But I think, you know, we don't want to be taken advantage of either.
And we don't want to take advantage of having the people here, and then telling them at 11:30, we are not going to hear your petition, because that's not right either.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: It is certainly your option to spread those plan amendments as well, take two a night or three a night.
If you look at it you have 30 minutes from 5:30 to six to do whatever you do.
30 minutes is not enough to even just read the ordinances for those plan amendments.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Sometimes those plan amendments are affecting the people that are putting those plan amendments in, right?
I mean, they probably have a date that they need to have those plan amendments.
They are time sensitive, thank you.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: They are publicly noticed.
>> I understand that.
But -- you lost my train. Anyway, I think we need more direction from the clerk's office and from you all on how to schedule these things.
And if we need to do the plan amendments on another night, or we need to do the CDBG grants on another night, we can do that.
And if other thing that I need to talk about is we had -- I thought we had made a time limit on our conversations with the petitioners.
Didn't we do that?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: They get 30 minutes and then 15 minutes rebuttal.
>>> But it didn't work the other night because you guys went until 1:00 in the morning.
>>GWEN MILLER: 20 minutes.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: The majority of people don't take 30 minutes.
>> But wave people that might talk to us for three minutes.
If you have ten people talking on the same subject, that's 30 minutes right there.
That's all, you know.
We are trying to work with everybody concerned here.
But the public needs to understand that we have limit, too.
Especially at our salary.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Can I chime in from a public standpoint with continuances?
There are opportunities -- and I am not going to go into specifics, but there may be or have been opportunities where a petitioner cannot come to terms with the objections by staff, and ultimately does not resolve the issues with staff, and comes before council to try to see what council will accept over the objections of staff, and then get a continuance for that, and then come and bring it back.
And my suggestion to council would be -- if council wishes to do that, in effect I believe councilwoman Saul-Sena referred to that at a meeting as acting as a design review committee.
Now if council wishes to do that, in the sake of accommodations, council has to realize it has an impact on its time, whereas if a petitioner knows, or does not know, that as a matter of right they will be granted a continuance, in other words, when they come in here as was stated by council, but it's not guaranteed that they will get a continuance, that they do risk a denial rather than a continuance.
What it does then, it gives the opportunity for it to be more addressed at the staff level before it comes to council.
And council then has the right to say, "I've heard testimony from all sides, and it's either up or down rather than a continuance."
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Ferlita.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Let me just summarize what I learned here.
And I believe if we belabor this too much longer we will even lose our media colleagues over here.
We talked about the issue of time.
It's not going to work because of the issues you have talked about, Mr. Shelby.
So I think this is what I'm taking away from this.
I think some of my colleagues agree if not all.
If we stick to policy, we say ten new, three continuances.
In the extreme case there's somebody that wants to waive the rules, that City Council member has to have the unanimous support of the rest of the colleagues so we are each going to be looking at each other about following our rules.
Gwen, you're rate on target.
That's one group that needs to follow the rules.
The second group as I said last week, and we showed them long and hard, maybe it wasn't a tasteful process but it certainly emphasized what our position is and should be.
I think I made reference to the fact when a petitioner's representative comes about an issue, they shouldn't come.
It's like an exam, going to an exam without being prepared.
You have to study to go and exam.
Downtown go into an exam in the hope it's going to be continued.
So I think we sent that message loud and clear last week.
We stick to our rules.
They stick to being prepared when they come.
The unanimous I shall knew terms of if we want to, in rare case, tray to waive our own rules, and I think we see how it goes.
What Mrs. Alvarez is certainly something for consideration, too.
When don't really need to take issue with it today.
But the fact that, Mary, you said some petitioners representatives don't fa that long but some do.
So if we see this works well enough, fine, we have kind of minimized the amount of time that we will stay here.
If we need to look at something else then maybe we can talk to our legal advisor and seep if we can cut down that time.
So I think those are things in the right direction.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Shelby, I was wondering legally is there any way that's defensible since we have put a time limit on our petitioners, is there any way that we can put a time limit on the opposing sides?
Can we --
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you in a sense of three minutes per speaker.
>> Not as an individual speaker.
Can we as a council, especially when -- I'll go back to the Tarpon Springs issue with the Wal-Mart over in tarpon a few weeks ago, when you had 150 people coming down and you had 150 people wanting to exercise their three minutes of either pleasure or displeasure, can we as a collective body say, petitioner, you have 30 minutes, opposition, you have 30 minutes, all in favor, you have 30 minutes, and we can cut a total position down to an hour and a half, or an hour 40 minutes because the petitioner has rebuttal at that point in time.
Is that something that's feasible and/or legally defensible, but without denying a potential constituent their three-minute right?
>>> It is feasible.
And I do not believe it's legally defensible in a quasi-judicial process, because somebody in opposition might not be related to the first person who speaks but they may be related -- they may be the 23rd person who speaks, or somebody in support of it.
And then there may be some evidence that's adduced at hearing.
Now, what council can do voluntarily is council can, to expedite the matters with the consent of those in the audience, take a poll if they wish to do, how many here are in favor, how many are opposed?
They can do that.
Or council could make a request saying please limit your questions to any new evidence or anything that has not been discussed in the past.
I believe that's more defensible.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Because I think that's one of our most time-consuming problems whether it's the -- whether the constituents are for or against.
You have 40 people that want to spend 30 minutes to say they are in favor or in opposition of something.
And nothing new is being introduced, and everyone is taking up --.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe you can make that request of them, but I don't believe you can deny them the right --
>> no, I wouldn't want to deny anyone.
>>> I understand there's a room full of people, the chair can do this, is there anybody to add something that has not already been discussed or wishes to add some new evidence that needs to be brought before this board?
I think that's a reasonable request.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I think when we have that many people that should be strongly encouraged.
>>> And that is the prerogative of the chair.
And if council wishes the to ask the chair to do that, then that's the prerogative of council.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Very quickly.
Mr. White, remember when 345 came down about a month ago and they brought a bus load of people, we did handle it that way.
We basically said could you please get a spokesman and limit your time to X amount of minutes?
And I think it worked out pretty well.
And then there were a few stragglers who didn't fit on either side, so I think that anytime, too.
Everybody had their due process.
On the camp plan amendments-and if this is going to the clerk's office, and Sandy, feel free to chime in on behalf of Shirley or whatever, but adding onto what Mary said, you guys could do a cut-off of three, okay?
So if the Planning Commission brings you five or six, say, okay, it will be three this week and do three two weeks later.
And then at least that way there wouldn't be six.
If we need to direct you by motion or something like that, that's fine, too.
>>THE CLERK: The comp plans, those are resolutions prepared by the legal department by presentation to council, those are put on the consent agenda, and we are now bolding the dates and times on the agenda to bring it out to council's attention.
They are on the building and zoning committee to have public hearings set per resolution.
>> So we need to just pay more attention to those?
>>THE CLERK: Because we do everything that's being sent for specific dates, specific times, we are bolding that on your agendas.
>> I guess I didn't see that.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: A suggestion might be to ask staff to keep tabs.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Maybe you will do that, too, take a look at those being scheduled and make sure it's not going to be burdensome.
>>> And the CDBC is set by resolution.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's on the agenda?
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby, you say we do not have anything in place, and we are going to do ten hearings and three continuances.
When will that come before us?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Actually I'm giving you the draft for Monday.
And then that's the whole package that you want.
You will have an opportunity, because it will not be on Thursday's agenda.
>> It won't be on Thursday's?
>>> Because it has to be in by tomorrow at ten to be on Thursday's agenda under our rules which I don't want to waive.
But the purpose of that, though, the purpose of that, though, is to give the council members either collectively or individually a speaker slip for Monday until the Friday at the 10:00 deadline if they are concerned there are things they want to see perhaps changed.
>>GWEN MILLER: Can we pull that one out and just vote on it?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: It will be there.
Yule see it.
It will be there.
>>GWEN MILLER: All right.
Thank you.
Ms. Ferlita.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Marty, just one last thing, not to vote on it today or take any further action but put it in the corner, with Mrs. Alvarez talking about the petitioner having so much time, can we reduce it? And Mr. White's efforts to say how can we limit this but not take away anybody's rights?
He's accurate in saying the chairman limits sometimes this side and that side.
But if we had like, as an example -- maybe it's not an unrealistic number -- if we have 20 people that want to speak, 20 people who want to relinquish that time, that 60 is reduced to 20.
In some cases where we get into a situation where we find to find other improvements, maybe we need to extend the number of people that can give a speaker one minute.
Because if they would do that, those people are giving up their three.
And just think about it.
I know there's some pros and cons to that.
But we are just thinking about different ways to make this more efficient.
So keep that in mind.
>> Okay.
And I'll speak with Mr. Massey.
But there is some problem when you reduce the speaker's ability to make a presentation before council, whether that's defensible.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Now we go to information from council.
Mr. Dingfelder, do you have anything?
On item 35, which our resolution that I wholeheartedly support to encourage the Super Bowl to come here, in the backup from administration, it said no financial support needed at this time.
And I just want to make sure that when the administration does come back to us at some future date, and that might be a year or two from now with more details and that sort of thing, that we get a financial impact, a comprehensive financial impact statement with the pros and cons to the city budget.
It's been stated that the Super Bowl last time cost the city budget about a million dollars, or 1.2.
Something like that.
I'm sure probably with inflation it will be 2 million.
And I'm confident that we do get that back.
But I'd like to see detailed financials from administration when it comes back.
They'll get that message.
It's not even in the form of a motion.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anything else?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ways not here last week.
I was at the League of Cities conference in Washington.
One of the things we learned is that there is a proposal by the administration to reduce or eliminate the CDBG program nationwide.
And that would have obviously extreme circumstances for us.
So I would like the chair as well as our mayor to write a letter to our congressional delegation asking them to make sure that they do not support any type of resolution to that regard, and we keep that CDBG program locked up and in place.
That's in the form of a motion.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>> And discuss that at CDBG, but everybody is concerned.
It is a nationwide issue.
Just another very briefly.
The transportation reauthorization bill that has passed Congress did have several projects specifically earmarked in the City of Tampa.
A couple of the high priority ones we have heard about are the Kennedy Boulevard corridor and the Busch Boulevard corridor.
Each have been earmarked for $2.5 million from the federal government.
So hopefully that will pass through the Senate, and it will all come down and we'll get that money.
That's all I have.
Thank you.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I want to yield to Mr. White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I wanted to find out if Mr. Massey was able to speak on item number 33 so we can pass that or not.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I believe I gave Mr. Dingfelder the necessary information.
So I think council is ready to move that item.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I'd like to move item number 33, Madam Chair.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>KEVIN WHITE: I don't have anything else.
Thank you for that courtesy.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Just a few things here in reference to something I wasn't going to say but just reminded me on this CDBG issue, too.
We talked about sometimes holding this separately.
I had some residents that were concerned about the process last week when southeast Seminole Heights came to my place of business and they agreed it was better -- and I think we have agreed it has come a long way, but that for one thing is something that doesn't need to be railroaded through.
I think we have to will at that.
And that's the main concern of every single neighborhood that we represent.
So that should be one of the things we look at a separate night and not try to squeeze in the between 5:30 and six that. Just never works.
Clarification to put on record.
On the Mississippi Avenue reconsideration request, just want to put on record, I know that I received some copy of remarks that Mr. Leonard levy had sent to Councilman White in terms of that reconsideration process.
I do want to put on record that Mr. Levy did come to my place of business and asked me to reconsider in terms of zoning request, and I informed him not once but twice that was something he could not discuss.
That's the next thing.
I was going to say this earlier when Chief Hogue was here but I didn't want to take away the time given to officer Bishop in terms of recognition.
Very quickly just a quote from captain John Bennett.
You have one unique opportunity to save a life and you want to make sure the life gets done.
But captain John Bennett squeezed the trigger of his high powered rifle, his actions seemed clear, either botch Bobby miles or watch him murder his hostage.
I think every city office theory works for the City of Tampa or any other municipality hopes that training never comes to fruition.
But John Bennett made the hard decision.
He has been already cleared by Mark Ober, state attorney.
But these are the things we talk about that we say we take for granted when our police officers are out there.
Thanks to him for what he does and also Wayne Hutchins and Tom Downs.
It's one of those sad things but that's what protecting our citizenry is about.
The last issue, I met with James Judy, the president of the Tampa firefighters board, and he gave me copies of different letters that have gone back and forth between now and last May.
He sent a letter to the mayor, and she said, I'm proud of the progress you have made towards preserving part of Tampa's history, referencing the museum.
And feel it will be an important element in our plans for downtown cultural district.
Please be assured that your requests will be considered in this year's budget process.
I am sending a copy of your letter and my response to Bonnie Wise, director of finance and review for her response.
That was in '04.
And Ms. Judy's concern because there was a matching issue and he and the mayor had spoken, and a long time ago, I think Mayor Greco had pledged some matching funds.
And I know that this administration is not obligated to do that, but many times they do that as a courtesy.
They have gotten a grant from the state bureau of historic preservation and the amount of 300,000, and -- I can continue?
And so once they got this $300,000 grant -- this is in reference to fire and rescue so I'm sure we will respect the request without laughing.
Anyway, the $3,000,000 grant they have gotten has some criteria that has to look for matching funds.
So I'm just asking the administration to look at it, this budget year.
And once that started, not necessarily that we expect them to be able to match it completely, but if we get public matching, then perhaps we can go out and do some private matching as well.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: I don't even know if that's a motion because I don't know if we can ask them to do that or suggestion they do that.
Just ask them.
So do we need it in the form of a motion?
Just did, fine.
>>THE CLERK: Several items.
>> Move to receive and file.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>THE CLERK: I have received a request from the Mattacchione in April to discuss the enforcement of sniper signs within the city.
He said sniper signs.
>>GWEN MILLER: Snipe signs.
>>THE CLERK: He asked for ten minutes.
>>GWEN MILLER: He can come any week.
>>THE CLERK: I also last Thursday, council had a closure of public hearing.
They requested legal to prepare the ordinance.
The ordinance has been prepared for first reading.
And the motion last week was unanimous.
This was for a property lying south of West Cleveland Street, east of South Ward Street, west of South Oxidant, Hesperides subdivision.
>>> I'm sorry, don't remember this issue.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: The vacating of six feet in Beach Park.
I think that's what this is regarding.
The cul-de-sac.
>>ROSE FERLITA: The city was comfortable with so many feet.
>> Move an ordinance partially vacating, closing, discontinuing, and abandoning a certain right-of-way that westerly six foot portion of South Gardenia Avenue lying south of West Cleveland Street, west of South Oxidant Street, all within Hesperides, in the subdivision of the City of Tampa, in section 2 hereof subject to certain permanent easements set forth herein, more particularly described herein, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
>>THE CLERK: The other item I have is that yesterday we provided council with a copy of a letter from Mayor Iorio to Mr. Cullen, Department of Community Affairs about the Cypress Creek Town Center project.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>THE CLERK: That's all I have.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anything else to come before council?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Adjourn to 5:30 this afternoon?
>>GWEN MILLER: We go to our audience portion.
(Meeting adjourned)