Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
April 14, 2005
9 a.m. City Council Meeting

DISCLAIMER:
The following represents an unedited version of realtime
captioning which should neither be relied upon for complete
accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
The original of this transcript was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of third party
edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the proceedings
may need to hire a court reporter.


>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
The chair will yield to Mr. Shawn Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: It's my pleasure to introduce reverend Bernard
Lieving Junior.
Executive Pastor at Hyde Park United Methodist Church.
If we would all stand and remain standing for the Pledge of
Allegiance.
>> Let us pray.
Almighty and eternal God, you promised that wherever two or
three are gathered in your name, you would be there with them.
We claim that promise this morning as we pause in this moment of
prayer to give you thanks for a new day of your creation, a day
of challenges and opportunities.
Thank you for this city, its residents, its places of
employment, its healing and educational institutions and its

public servants.
In this time now, I lift before you our Mayor and all those who
work to administer the affairs of this city.
Especially, I pray today for the members of this City Council
that you would make for each of them this moment now to be a
sacred moment before they begin the duties of the day.
Turn their thoughts to you.
Open their hearts to your presence that they may have
understanding in their thinking.
Compassion in their attitudes, wisdom for their decisions and
mercy in their judgments.
Do not let them think that when this prayer is finished that
their dependence upon you is over and forget that you are with
them throughout the day.
From this moment of quiet interlude, may there be light and
power, strength and courage that will sustain them until the day
is done.
So help all of us through this day, for we dare to offer these
words of prayer in your holy name, creator of God, amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance)
>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Here.

At this time, we will have a commendation presented by Mr. Kevin
White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Colleagues, it's my distinct pleasure this morning to introduce
Mr. David Denson to City Council.
I first Mr. Denson when I started my career in law enforcement
in the early '80s.
He was working in West Tampa public housing areas as a security
specialist who fought diligently to bring criminals on the
streets of Tampa in our public housing areas to justice and
brought attention and awareness to all of the surrounding
residents in the public housing arena.
Mr. Denson has also been a diligent advocate of youth in our
community.
He has sponsored several youth activities.
He's currently working with the state advisory Council for early
head start education for the children of our state.
And most recently, about two Saturdays ago, Mr. Denson sponsored
a "spring into action" festival at the Sulphur Springs pool up
in Sulphur Springs, an area which I represent.
In attendance were approximately five to six hundred children at
the event.
And Mr. Denson just exemplifies what one person can do if they
put their minds to it to help better a community for our
children.

He also -- one of his main responsibilities that he's taken on
now is helping single males learn their responsibilities and
duties as a parent and how to take charge of their
responsibilities.
He's taking these young men off the streets saying, hey, you
have created a child, live up to your responsibilities, come
forward, step up to the plate, be a man and trying to help the
youth in our community just understand what being a parent,
being a responsible adult is all about.
And he's working diligently in the Sulphur Springs area now.
He's also the crime watch coordinator for the district five
crime watch patrol which is in the Belmont height area.
But mainly for this wonderful event that took place in the
Sulphur Springs area, I'd really like to give him this
commendation.
The commendation reads: Tampa City Council commendation
presented to David Denson.
The Tampa City Council would like to take this opportunity to
commend and congratulate you for your leadership work in the
Sulphur Springs area with the annual "spring into action" event.
Also for your community crime watch efforts and many youth
activities held throughout the years.
We humbly extend to you, hope for many years of service and
support and commitment to come in our community.
Presented by all of those on Tampa City Council.

Mr. Denson, greatly appreciate your efforts.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> Thank you, councilman White.
I would like to say that I kindly appreciate the commendation
from all of you, the City Council and the City of Tampa.
I'm also a member of the district five citizen advisory
committee that was formed way back in 1992 somewhere.
The reason that I chose to do this in Sulphur Springs is because
I'm a member of the Tampa-Hillsborough urban league crime
prevention task force.
And what this led up to was we wanted the kids in the community
to have something to do during the spring break.
Also, I named the award after one of our fallen police officers
who lost his life in the line of duty while on a search and
rescue mission looking for two Orlando firefighters that died on
a fishing expedition.
Therefore, that's why I named it the Norris community service
award.
I am hoping to continue this and make this an annual event.
So next year, we're working and planning for next year.
So we'll have officer EPPS family here to receive their
commendation.
And I would like to, again, say thank you.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>>GWEN MILLER: At this time, we'll go to our city departments

and our department heads.
We have Mr. Davis Smith.
>> Good morning.
And thank you very much for taking me early.
As you probably know, hearing scheduled for 9:30 this morning.
It's a hearing on our emergency motion for a protective order
with respect to the deposition.
I don't have a lot of time so I'll be brief which is good for
all of us.
I wanted to talk with you briefly just about a couple of things.
I should, however, mention that Jerry Gewirtz spent an
incredible amount of time preparing for the hearing today.
He's truly an asset of the city.
He worked late that night, the next day and he's down there for
the hearing now.
I'll join him as soon as I leave here.
One thing I wanted to mention to you briefly was about the Jay
Lou study.
Thom Snelling will be talking to you in detail about that, but I
wanted to let you know that we have done the research, certainly
not completely, but on a very strong preliminary fashion with
respect to an ordinance that we're going to request that you ask
us to prepare to make sure everybody is on board with regard to
adequate protection for MacDill Air Force Base.
We've looked at the issue.

If we have an appropriately tailored abatement it will be
defensible.
It needs to be appropriately tailored and narrow in time.
And this is a temporary issue in order to complete the study and
make sure that action in the interim doesn't jeopardize the
fruits of that study.
It is also based upon analysis that's already been undertaken so
there is adequate data and analysis to support it.
Thom Snelling, as I said, will speak to you about that more
whether that's today or next week, I don't know.
But I just wanted to let you know we are and have done the work
in order to have a sustainable ordinance.
The primary points I wanted to speak with you about today were
items number 21 and 22.
I wanted to particularly address the issue with respect to
settlement processes and make sure you're aware that there has
been no improper delegation of legislative authority.
Any comment to the contrary that may have been made was simply
an error.
That's not been the case.
What has happened is we originally, when I got into office here,
found out that we did not have a procedure for selling these --
for settling these cases.
Let me back up.
We didn't have any written procedure for settling these cases

but we had a policy that had been followed for about six years.
It's my understanding that policy was articulated verbally by
Mayor Greco to the City Attorney at that time, Jim Palermo.
That policy was to settle all cases, all cases.
If your homestead at $250, nonhomestead, $500.
Whether it was one day or ten years.
We had a couple of problems with that.
The first problem was, it wasn't in writing it wasn't clear.
You have to have a consistent policy.
As you know, we have equal protection issues, we need to follow
appropriate procedures.
And it should be in writing.
I was behind the initiation and preparation of the order we
discussed last week.
We tried to do a couple of things.
One, we tried to put it in writing.
Clearly we accomplished that.
And we wanted to really establish a three-way approach, and I
don't think the third way was articulated very clearly last
week.
The first thing we did, we're establishing criteria for
foreclosure, and that's the area in which we will primarily
address the law.
The person who is basically out there not making much of an
effort.

Now, we can only foreclose on nonhomestead property.
Anyway, we have that first approach on those types of issues.
For homestead property, what we do is we have that scale that we
talked about.
Now, this was largely a stopgap measure or a place holder.
At the time that this started in preparation, which was long
before it ultimately came to fruition, we were in the early
stages of revising the ordinance that you're now going to look
at and hopefully pass for first reading today and then have your
public hearing in two weeks.
So this was to cover the interim.
That ordinance will soon be adopted.
And we recognize and I've also already been directed by the
administration to take additional steps to toughen some of the
requirements.
Obviously, I've watched the tape from last week.
I know what the Council wants to accomplish.
And the administration shares those objectives.
But what you do with homestead -- now, I know you realize this,
but I want to make sure some of the viewers recognize this.
The issue with homestead is a tough one.
Sometimes we have people who are indigent.
We have little ol' widow ladies who have diabetes, they can't
get out.
They are trying to find a neighborhood boy to mow the yard, and

it's their only asset.
It's homestead.
If we accrue fines at $250 a day in such a situation, we have a
major problem.
So what we want to do is not deprive people such as that of all
their equity in their homestead but to have a procedure that
allows exceptions for illness, for other reasonable bases to
excuse that situation while not excusing the law.
We have approaches I'll suggest we take in our executive order
and we'll certainly provide you copies of those that we think
will accomplish those purposes.
Won't dispossess somebody such as that of their life savings.
We also think we can accelerate either the fine scale or shorten
the time periods.
As you may recall, the reason that Mayor Greco initiated that
policy at the time was properties were not changing hands.
So you ended up with properties in the hands of people that
either refused to maintain them, but in a lot of cases were
unable to maintain them.
And we did not want to have a disincentive for properties
changing hands.
So for those situations, although we felt that 250, 500 fix was
a little too generous but that's what that was intending to
address to get these properties to change hands.
When we're thinking about this, we want to keep all of these

policy considerations in mind.
We obviously don't want to dispossess the homestead person who
is indigent and disabled and has a reason for not being as
prompt in fixing these things.
But we do want to get the scofflaw and we do want to have an
incentive for people to pay.
And it needs to be a significant incentive.
One of the things not clear, under the nonhomestead property,
after two years, if they haven't paid it, the fine is going to
be the total amount of the fine up to either the appraised value
of the property, the greater of the appraised value of the
property or 10% of the purchase price.
But the total amount of the fine.
So, you know that may seem like too long a period of time.
And if that's the sentiment of the Council, we can certainly
address that because we do want to make sure this works that
it's effective.
I know the administration received a -- receives a lot of the
same calls that you receive and is very sensitive to the issues.
So I think we are all working in the same direction.
I just wanted to make sure you understood what was behind the
policy as it was enacted in that we're certainly interested in
making it more effective because we have to make sure our code
enforcement works.
So that was my primary purpose for being here today.

If you have any questions on any of those issues, I'd be happy
to answer them before I go to the hearing, which I hope will be
successful.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you for -- Mr. Smith, thank you for
coming.
Thank you for listening to the tapes.
And I hope in the future as Council works on these code
enforcement issues, that you will come to us representing the
Legal Department.
Our concern was that the proposed caps of fines were too
namby-pamby.
We feel that there are times based on our -- hearing from our
constituents when the city should be punitive because it isn't a
disadvantaged older person.
It is, in fact, an insensitive property owner who owns a
property commercial and they don't care how their rundown houses
negatively impact the neighborhood and we want the city to have
the ability to act in a punitive way because the irresponsible
behavior of the property owner has had a negative impact on all
the surroundings.
That was our greatest concern and I think I'm hearing you say
that you are going to change -- you're going to change the
amount that we're able to fine people so that we can act

punitively when it's appropriate.
>> Well, your ordinance already allows the fine to be much more
significant.
What I'm going to do is -- what we're trying to create is a
consistent settlement approach so that we don't have challenges
to our process.
But we can have a little more inconsistency within that.
For example, what I think we need to do with the executive
order -- and I've had some discussions with the Mayor about
this -- is we need to have more serious fines, as you just
expressed, but have a clearer process for forgiveness of those
fines in those exigent circumstances where there's health,
disability problems, et cetera.
So I think we can accomplish both purposes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
David, one of the things I would like staff and legal to do is
take a look at the way some of the environmental agencies like
the State of Florida, department of environmental protection
assess their fine in terms of a matrix, and then it talks about,
you know, repeated -- I mean -- and I'm not talking about
assessing the fines, because first we have to assess the fines,
but also in terms of the settlement policy.
I think perhaps we can have different ways to implement the
settlement policy based upon some sort of matrix.

And if somebody is a repeat offender or the like or has some
other circumstances where we wouldn't want to settle with them,
I think they might -- should fall away from that more lenient
approach.
And I'm sure that you guys can be more creative instead of just
have a blanket approach.
>> Absolutely.
The intent of the executive order really was for that limited
fairly generous approach to apply only to first offenders.
So you're absolutely right.
A multiple offender is not someone typically who has an excuse.
And Ms. Saul-Sena, I appreciate your request, and I apologize
for not being able to get down here last week.
I know you had some questions, but unfortunately I was tied up
in a couple of meetings.
But I will make sure to make myself available to assist in this
process.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Smith, for bringing this up this
morning.
Yes, we did have a lot of questions last week.
My main concern, of course, is the fines.
My main concern is the repeated violators that I feel like we
need to send these people to court.
And they are the ones that are going to get on television and in

the paper to get -- and I think it's embarrassment.
Once they find out that we are really -- we really mean business
on this thing, they'll stop this.
But it's a repeat violation.
I'm not talking about the little elderly person or the one that
has a public or a health problem, because I think we can work
with those people.
It's the repeat violators that we're worried about.
That we just -- it's just going year and year out, same old
thing, same old violators.
And that's what we want to target.
>> Absolutely.
And the first part of the executive order, which was not
discussed last week, unfortunately, was or only briefly, was the
foreclosure component.
And that's exactly the type of people who are ripe for
foreclosure.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: That's what we want.
Thank you.
Also the hearing master and the code enforcement board are
really the ones that send them to court, right?
>> The determination to foreclose is something in conjunction
with code enforcement and legal, because we have to evaluate a
lot of criteria.
One of the things we don't want to do is foreclose on

contaminated property, for example.
That's what this executive order does.
Establish those criteria so we can't be accused of being
arbitrary and capricious because we don't want the whole system
to be challenged.
You're right.
We work closely with code enforcement to get that accomplished.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay.
Just as long as we put it on record that we're going after these
repeat violators.
>> I should probably -- to be more precise, we're going to work
closely with code enforcement to get that corrected.
We haven't done very much in terms of foreclosure.
It's not been a historic remedy.
It's not used in a lot of other jurisdictions, but it's time to
be used and we are intending to use it.
We're establishing space in the Legal Department.
We have a position for a paralegal.
It was funded last year in the budget.
You funded it.
You know how it is, sometimes it's difficult to get the staffing
but we're ready to move in that direction, and we will be moving
in that direction.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Of course, we want that system to come in right
away.

It's got to come in.
>> You're right.
And one clarification on that, what happens, the Hansen system
was ready.
The users were polled.
Apparently there's an upgrade in the software that became
available.
And rather than miss the power of that upgrade, they decided to
wait for the upgrade and implement it systemwide with the
upgrade.
I understand the need to move quickly, but it was that decision
that slowed it down.
I don't think there was any effort by anyone to mislead you in
what they said previously.
Literally the upgrade became available, and that was the
consensus.
And that's something not within my purview.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Right.
And I understand and I appreciate your thinking on that, but the
thing about it is, usually when you buy software, you put it
into use and then if there's an upgrade, you use the upgrade.
Not wait until the upgrade comes because we haven't used
software to begin with.
>> I understand.
I don't know the specifics.

Yes, ma'am.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: David, I'll let you run if you need to go.
Curtis.
>> Okay.
Thank you very much.
Hopefully I'll have good news later.
>>GWEN MILLER: Good luck to you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Curtis, one of the things, the universe that
we're able to foreclose is so small because these liens don't
prime, mortgage liens or anything like that.
And it seems to me that there are some municipal liens that do.
Maybe mowing and maybe mowing and demolition or things like that
actually take priority over mortgages.
If the state legislature were to give us the ability for these
types of liens to take priority over security interests, then
that foreclosure universe would be expanded greatly and we
wouldn't have to worry about things like, is there equity in the
property or whatnot.
So could you check -- have someone check with the league of
cities and see if there is any interest in trying to get sort of
a statewide initiative moving to do that?
>> Certainly.
I sure will.

And also -- Curtis Lane, code enforcement.
Councilman Alvarez, just to comment on your statement, which I
can appreciate as far as code enforcement really getting very
aggressive with these repeat folks.
We're doing that through our criminal report affidavits, CRA,
the different CRA than what you're familiar with.
Criminal report affidavits.
What we have done with that -- as a matter of fact, last month,
Judge Dominguez sent two folks to jail for code violations.
That's how aggressive we're getting with that.
We are aggressively going after folks who are repeat violators
and we would not relinquish at all.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Gloria Moreda.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: Gloria Moreda, Land Development.
Item 68, it's being scheduled for the May public hearing.
The petitioner has requested to be scheduled for the June 9th
hearing.
Z 05-66.
I just wanted Council to be aware of that.
>> So moved.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Ms. Cindy miller.

She wants to wait.
Cathy Coyle.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Good morning, Council.
Catherine Coyle, Land Development.
I have some handouts for you.
This is on item number 26, I believe.
It was the case Z 04-127.
It was denied by Council in September of 2004.
You have received several letters from the neighborhood, the
surrounding property owners requesting a public hearing for this
case.
Just some background information, the address is 3117 West Swann
Avenue.
It's currently zoned RM-24.
It's multifamily.
They came before you in September of 2004 to build eight condo
units.
By the zoning regulations, they are permitted to potentially
build seven, and that's what they are in construction services
plan review for.
What I've given you as the handout is just the general synopsis
of the case.
They did resubmit plans on April 8th to construction services.
Currently they have approvals for tree and landscape, stormwater
and transportation.

The denials that are existing right now are solid waste, zoning,
building plan review and fire.
They have approximately 45 days from the date of that plan
review to resubmit addressing those additional concerns.
I spoke with Ms. Saul-Sena about it this morning, and she wanted
to see the actual plans that were in with construction services.
And mark RUNDSly did deliver them to me this morning.
I have one set.
This is the actual plan that's in.
Just to show you the orientation of the building, it is a
four-story condo building.
They are not town houses.
There's one entrance off of MATANZAS.
The parking is on the first floor.
There are elevators and lobby area that go to the top three
floors.
It is four stories high.
There was an elevation submitted for the zoning review.
This is the elevation facing swan.
And this is the elevation facing MATANZAS.
Addressing the issue from the Neighborhood Association and the
neighbors about having a public hearing, that is completely up
to Council.
There really is no public hearing to have, per se, because they
are not rezoning the property.

They are going by current zoning.
Ms. Saul-Sena also had a question about the stormwater.
This plan that I showed you is the drainage and paving plan.
They do have a large stormwater pond in the southwest corner of
the property with the sump pumps and everything and all the
types that meet code.
And they also do have to submit a Stormwater Management plan.
And it has been approved by Dave, the stormwater reviewer.
So it meets the technical requirements.
I'm here for any questions that you have.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I very much appreciated you getting the site
plans because I was concerned that we see what is being
proposed.
And I wondered about the height you said is four stories.
What is the allowable height in this particular zoning category?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: 60 feet.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And the proposed structure is no more than
60 feet.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: It's 44 feet and couple of inches.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And the piece of property, is it a hundred
feet facing on swann?
I drove past there recently.
They've removed the previous structure which had been
multifamily, but it had a lot of grass around it.
The reason I asked about stormwater is because I know this part

of Swann floods.
This is near the eye doctors office on swann just off --
Dr. GUGINO's office.
It tends to be low and tends to flood.
I'm concerned because so much more of the property will be paved
and I want to make sure we have adequate stormwater.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: It is hundred feet along swann and 134 along
Matanzas.
That's the dimensions.
There is a landscape plan.
When they submit building plans for review, they are very thick.
They have all the details, every single type of plan you could
possibly imagine.
They are all signed and sealed by a licensed engineer.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: No problem.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes, Ms. Coyle, thank you for coming up this
morning.
The reason I brought this up was because they still had -- the
neighborhood still had the same problems, even though it's a
seven unit or four-story building, whatever it is, but it still
had the same problems with it, you know, the stormwater, the
traffic, everything else.
And they were still concerned.
But I think that you've answered it, and you told me that you

had the solid waste zoning and fire that still has to come
before you before they get review.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Building plan review as well.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
So I don't see any reason why they need a request for public
hearing.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I mean, I agree.
It's not in for zoning, it's not in for zoning and it's really
out of our purview.
But I do have a question because we don't see these very often.
And under parking spaces, it says 10 parking spaces required for
seven units.
So I guess that's one unit per -- I'm on page two -- it's one
unit per apartment or per unit plus three guest spaces or
something like that.
And it just seems so low.
Because most of these town homes --
>>CATHERINE COYLE: In multifamily structures, we go by bedrooms.
So if you have an efficiency or a one-bedroom unit, it is one
space per unit.
If you have two-bedroom -- sorry, one- or two-bedroom unit, one
and a half spaces per unit.
Three-bedroom or more is two spaces.
By code they are required the one and a half per unit, which

comes out to the ten.
They are providing, I believe, 14 parking spaces on the plan.
I believe that's what I saw.
They are actually doing two per unit, which is more than what
the code requires.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: All I saw on the document said 10 spaces.
That's fine.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: I think that's the way he worded it just
because that's what is required by code.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Ms. Coyle.
Mr. Eric cotton.
>> Good morning, Eric cotton, Land Development.
I have a request to -- for a walk-on for a wet zoning that would
normally be scheduled on May 19.
The legal -- the deadline to get it to the city clerk's office
for publication for this hearing I missed because I just took
over this and I'm still trying to catch up with the policies and
all, so I just ask if you can consider this for the hearing on
May 19th.
I do have a request, there are three other wet zonings that
normally would be scheduled that date.
Legal still have not been completely verified and corrected.
I was requesting if you could, May 19th is the third Thursday.
It's usually the day you all have your wet zoning hearings, if
you could schedule those tentatively for May 26 pending the

legals being approved.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>> And the one for May 19th is WOZO 5-79.
It's an extension for the Rocky Point village corporation which
I believe is craw daddy's and the rusty pelican.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]

>> Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Julie Cole.
>> Julia Cole, Legal Department.
I had signed to speak on item number 27.
But that's a 10:00 time certain, so I'll go ahead and present at
that time.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Martin Shelby.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, thank you.
I'm attempting this new wireless microphone that's been provided
to me.
I don't know what to do with my hands now.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We'll miss your nightclub routine.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just be thankful I haven't led you in song,

which has been suggested.
I'm asking Council to consider a resolution that was made by
motion by Council member Dingfelder asking the Council to
declare the month of April water conservation month in the City
of Tampa.
I apologize for several missteps.
It was not able to get on the formal agenda.
I provided a copy to each Council member and if Council wishes
to address it today or at a future date, I present it to
Council.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So can we do it today?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So move.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Ms. Cindy Miller.
Still not ready?
Okay.
Mr. Thom Snelling.
>>THOM SNELLING: Good morning, Council.
Thom Snelling Land Development.
I'm here on actually two items.
The first item is number 25, which is -- I was asked to look
into discussing the developments on Barcelona and Granada

street.
If possible, I would like to have about a week or two-week
continuance on that particular item.
We did meet with the person who had the questions.
We've looked at the questions that they had had.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: What number did you say?
>>THOM SNELLING: 25.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thom, I can cut this short.
We had a discussion on this.
I think it's completely appropriate to have an additional two
weeks and I'll move for a two-week continuance on 25.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]

>>THOM SNELLING: Thank you, councilman.
The other item here is item number 1-B, which is MacDill Air
Force Base.
City Attorney Smith gave you a quick briefing on basically what
was going to happen and also Mayor Iorio had sent you a letter
briefly outlining what the intentions were of the administration
as well.
I'm here today to bring you up to speed on exactly what has
taken place thus far and where we are with our work with MacDill
Air Force Base in this entire joint land use study.
Currently right now, we are in the process of going ahead and

completing a grant application, and that should be completed by
the time there's a May 3rd meeting of a policy committee which
will request funding from the office of economic adjustment to
proceed with the full JLU study.
Prior to that, however, we already have city staff in
conjunction with my land development, real estate, historic
preservation, economic development and a couple of others where
our -- in the field verifying the data within the joint or
within the accident potential zones one, two and the clear zone.
Basically our approach is to consider this in order to be more
efficient is to approach this in the two-phase type program.
The first phase being that we will do the intensive study in
these areas here, literally drive every street there verifying
the properties, verifying what is there, verifying the exact
density of what is out there, which properties are vacant, which
are not, et cetera.
And then come up with an analysis by comparing -- another of
staff member going -- the last rezoning in the ten years and
verifying that as well.
And to make a determination as to what has been the density
trends, the redevelopment trends, the patterns in these two
areas here.
Because as you know, these are the accident potential zones
where if any unfortunate activity happens in relation to MacDill
Air Force Base, it's going to be in one of these two areas.

Once they complete that study, which we anticipate the field
verification will be done by the end of the month, April 29th,
that data will go in, we'll go ahead and collect it and have
that information ready for the Legal Department to take a look
at and to -- or to analyze whether or not the requested
abatement is going to be in order.
We believe that it is.
We have done previous smaller scale studies of over three or
four hundred parcels in the area and find there are some trends
that are a bit concerning and that the city wants to take a more
aggressive look in these areas to do a protection.
So that once we get into the phase two, which I referenced, and
you do the entire study for the entire area which will include
the transportation work, the environmental work, parks and
recreation as well as the density and the height kind of
limitations, once you get into the entire area for the whole
study and those analyses and recommendations are made, that you
haven't over the months of the study, the six or eight months of
the actual study itself exacerbated the problem by allowing
things to happen that you would not want to have happen at the
end of the study.
It's a move in an abundance of caution but I think it's a very
smart move in order to protect valuable resource.
Council, you've been most -- I believe all of you have grown up
in Tampa.

It's been a part of your lives and our history with MacDill Air
Force Base, going back as far as I've been with the city, all
the way back to Mayor Freedman through Mayor Greco and now with
Mayor Iorio, we have constantly worked to establish memorandums
of understanding that had applied to joint housing programs,
work programs, greenways and trails programs, et cetera.
The city also has purchased got two federal grants that have
purchased lands in these areas.
They have a third proposal on the table that's going to come
before you within the next week or so from real estate,
purchasing, another 2.3 acres.
The city has had a very long track record of doing everything it
possibly can in order to ensure that MacDill's mission is
protected.
This is really one more logical step in that progression.
As I said, we anticipate having the first phase of the study
completed sometime by July 18th.
The information needed by the Legal Department in order to craft
a temporary and short-lived abatement of rezonings within one of
these two areas will be available probably within the next week
to ten days.
What I'm here today to ask you is for a resolution requesting
the Legal Department to go ahead and prepare that document, if
the data, once it finally comes back verifies that, indeed,
there are some temporary protections needed.

The second phase of the program will take place again probably
sometime in the middle of July.
It will be the full-blown JLU study for the entire area there,
following the same protocol with the very thorough analysis of
the land use, the densities, and all related impacts.
Then we anticipate that will take approximately six to eight
months to conclude.
For that study, we've already started working with the
purchasing department to do an RFP for a consultant to probably
handle the larger section of that.
And because that's going to be a much more intensive study with
many, many neighborhood meetings, literature research, data
analysis, et cetera.
We felt the need for a consultant to kind of fly captain on this
and perhaps, you know, try to herd the cats that all these
things will take into account when trying to keep them in order.
People that have done these types of things in the past, we're
going to look to them for some expertise and some help here.
As it has been suggested by Council in the past is to use
outside expertise as possible.
With the grant application going forward hopefully on May 3rd,
it will be concluded by then.
Hopefully the policy committee will approve the scope of work
and then submit the grant at that time.
Once that happens, we will be able to take advantage of some

revenue funding, revenue sources from the federal government who
supplies these grants and makes these grants available to do
exactly what we're proposing to do.
If there are any questions, I'll answer any questions.
I covered a lot of ground very quickly.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Snelling, for bringing this up.
I read in the paper this morning that some of the builders are
calling this a temporary moratorium.
Is that a good word?
>>THOM SNELLING: No, Ma'am, it's not a good word.
What it is, a moratorium, as far as I've ever seen them applied,
you stop issuing permits, you stop building, you stop everything
that's happening in the area.
I would say that's a true moratorium and I'll ask legal to back
me on that.
We're not proposing to stop permits.
If somebody has -- if somebody is coming in and they are going
to get a variance to add an addition to their house that's
already down there, they are just going to have to get their
permits and meet code.
If somebody has a vacant lot on an RS-50 zone and they have the
right to build a single-family house there right now, they'll
come in and turn in their permits and build their single-family
house.
What this is focusing on is developmental pressures and

potentials that will take property that could perhaps be zoned
CG and RS-50.
They combine them.
They kind of mix the densities of that and whereas before you
may have only been able to build one or two houses, the
combination of taking some commercial land, converting the floor
area ratios and some of the densities allowed there, perhaps two
houses you come back with a proposal that builds six or eight.
It's a rezoning that we're focusing on.
We're not focusing on stopping permits whatsoever.
So people that have property and want to build what they are
currently allowed to build there are not affected by this at
all.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Are there any current rezonings?
>>THOM SNELLING: There is one rezoning in place that is not
only -- it's located down here in this area.
It is as you can see, it is outside the APZ 1 and 2 and not in
any type of the zones.
We would think any protections later on would not be affected in
this area.
So this person is not affected at all.
I think that particular case is coming forward either maybe
tonight or next month.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's being set by us today to come --
>>THOM SNELLING: You judge it on its own merits as it applies to

the kind of development that you want to have, not as it applies
to any density or infill development in these two areas.
It's not in there, and we're not going to have any kind of
recommendation on that one at all.
That person, that consulting group, that planning group has
contacted our office, and, you know, because they were
concerned.
They saw this and it doesn't affect them.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Snelling, for all your work on
this and your staff.
I know it's been a concerted effort.
And it's extremely important that we do recognize more closely
with MacDill Air Force Base.
With that said, I'll go ahead and make a motion to direct our
zoning department and Legal Department to craft a temporary
rezoning abatement ordinance or any other appropriate mechanism
that you and legal feel is appropriate in the APZ zones if your
preliminary data warrants such an ordinance.
>>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second.
Question on the motion.
>>ROSE FERLITA: No, not on the motion, Madam Chairman.
Certainly we're supportive of that as I think we all are.
Let me reiterate, Mr. Snelling and I know this has taken a lot
of your time and consumed lots of manpower hours, but certainly
it's very, very important.

Along the same lines of what Ms. Alvarez raised, in some
people's perception, this is a moratorium, but in fact in the
list of priorities for this community, it is certainly not.
I think our motive here and our intent here is to do everything
we can to protect our relationship with the air force base.
To bring up some awareness in terms of community awareness that
in some areas is deficient, about the importance the base serves
for us in terms of the economy and revenue, et cetera.
In the list of things, we certainly want to not only be in the
honorable mention on the brack list.
These are all things we have to do.
You and Cathy and the rest of your staff have been, as you
should, put some things aside because of the importance of this.
And I thank you for doing that and some of the meetings I have
had, certainly that is a reiterating theme that we need to do
everything we can to keep MacDill right where it is, no
second plan, no anything else.
That's what we need to do, and that's obviously what you and the
administration are doing.
And I appreciate the strong words that the Mayor has come out
with, certainly confirming her position and goes all the way
down from her to Cindy to you to everybody else.
Thanks to everyone who has done that and certainly I'm
supportive of the motion.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.

>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
I think this is a fortuitous congruence of what the neighborhood
really wants and what we can do as a city to support MacDill
avenue -- I mean, MacDill Air Force Base.
Our agenda today at 10:30 has a public hearing on the Ballast
point neighborhood plan, which they have worked so diligently on
for the last I think two or three years, they've been really
focusing on this.
>>THOM SNELLING: There's a lot of stuff in that plan that will
roll right into this study.
I read this maybe 12 months ago.
I sent an e-mail to the president at that time.
A lot of the stuff that's in there just, it just absolutely
rolls into the kinds of things that they want us to do.
The kinds of things that the Air Force is going to do and some
of the kinds of things that this whole area has been looking at.
It's a hand in glove kind of deal.
I didn't mean to jump --
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's what I was going to say.
It's a good thing.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Mr. Snelling.
And let me ask you, the purpose of the study will be to

determine what are appropriate types of land uses in this area.
>>THOM SNELLING: The ultimate study, yes, sir.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Are we more concerned about the height of
structures or the intensity of the development?
>>THOM SNELLING: Actually, there are three.
You bring up a good point.
The first is certainly density, the number of bodies inside of
buildings and residences.
The second is the level of commercial intensity, you know,
offices, stadiums, things like that that generate a lot of
attendance or a lot of bodies in them at the time.
And the third is absolutely height.
Because as they take off, it's not unlike what has happened or
what has happened 15, 20 years ago when the city established the
M.A.P. zones for Tampa international.
If you look at your code, you have M.A.P. one, two, three, four.
There are specific floor area ratios.
Specific uses.
Specific kinds of things that are allowed in those zones or
prohibited in those zones as it gets further away or closer to
the airport itself.
This is going to have a very similar type feel to it.
The ultimate, you know, analysis of the study.
Because it is going to look at height, you're correct.
It will look at densities and it will look at commercial or

industrial intensities.
Those are the three primary areas of focus analysis.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: So ultimately at the end of the study period,
we may say that we're going to restrict the height on structures
that go into the APZ areas, but we won't necessarily restrict
density or other elements.
It's just something that's being studied right now.
>>THOM SNELLING: Right now, absolutely correct.
Everything is on the board to be looked at to determine what the
appropriate measures will be.
And the three areas that will be looked at closest will be
height, density and use.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: And during this time this ordinance is in
effect, there will be no rezonings allowed in this -- no
rezonings allowed in this area.
>>THOM SNELLING: I'm not exactly sure which of the areas.
It depends on -- when we finish our field -- right now, we're
focusing on this area, because in reality, this area has the
most open vacant land and it is the closest to the base which is
the highest risk.
So we're focusing on this area right now and then secondly on
the APZ-2.
It's further away.
This is more built out already.
This is where the greater potential lies, right there.

And you're correct, the request that we have today is for
temporary resolution approving a temporary -- depending on the
outcome.
I mean, we have had some studies.
So we have a pretty good feel based on 300 parcels that we've
looked at in this area already over the last year.
The ultimate decision or the ultimate outcome of that study,
that's why we're proceeding carefully and we're literally
looking at every single piece of land and the past trends and to
see what the trends are before we make it.
That is a bold move, you're correct.
And it would consider stopping the rezonings in those areas to
further have more density or commercial intensity, yes.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't see how that's not a moratorium.
But be that as it may, it's a policy decision.
And we all are in lock step here that the protection of MacDill
Air Force Base is of paramount concern to our community.
We're going to do everything we can to make sure they stay and
remain a good partner.
And as long as what we're dealing with is temporary in theory,
I'm going to support it as well.
>>THOM SNELLING: That's the proposal we're making to you now,
that it has a limited time frame and limited scope.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Snelling, you did say that you all have
representation from MacDill working with you all on this?

>>THOM SNELLING: Yes, Tony Rodriguez.
>>GWEN MILLER: And they are satisfied with it too?
>>THOM SNELLING: Yeah.
Tony -- I don't want to speak for him, if you would like to say
something.
>> Good morning, Council.
I'm Tony Rodriguez.
I'm the base community planner at MacDill Air Force Base.
And I just want to commend the city for stepping forward like
this.
Really ahead of any results that we would get from the joint
land use study and really putting these land use compatibilities
in place so that something won't happen in the interim while the
study is going on and the recommendations come out.
And those recommendations hopefully would go -- would lead into
things like changes to the comprehensive plan and changes to the
zoning regulations, which would bring some of these land use
compatibilities on paper.
And those are protections that as Thom says with the M.A.P.
zones at Tampa International that we don't really currently
enjoy with MacDill Air Force Base.
So we're just looking to work with you all and get those kinds
of protections down in South Tampa.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Mr. Dingfelder.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yeah, I just wanted to finish up.
As part of my motion originally, I also wanted to state -- and
this is probably even more important than getting along with the
base or anything like that, but, you know, the intent of my
motion and the intent of this proposal as it's going to play
out, is to protect our residents.
Because the fewer residents that we have, you know, living in
that potential crash zone, then, you know, the less likelihood
of a tragedy.
And I think that's the most important issue here today.
And I know that's what the base cares about.
The base is not trying to expand their boundaries beyond the
gates or be a bully or anything like that.
The base wants to protect our citizens and reduce the danger.
And so that's really what this is about.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
We have a motion and second on the floor.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
Opposed, nay.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>>THOM SNELLING: Council, thank you for your time.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, too.
Now go to Ms. Geraldine Williams Smith.
>> Good morning, Council.

I'm Geraldine Williams-Smith.
I'm here as a native of East Ybor, a resident of East Ybor, a
business owner and land owner of East Ybor.
And I'm coming to ask you to discontinue a direction that you're
going in in that neighborhood with two houses.
We want you to reconsider your planned use of two houses that
have been placed there.
They are two historic houses.
Let me just give you a bit of background on this.
I awoke one morning and there were two houses, one block away
from me that weren't there the day before.
And what happens is, when they were expanding the interstate and
they were moving houses about, they didn't do it during the day.
They did it at night.
And I saw the lights and there they were.
What we are having happen there is that the houses were placed
there without our knowledge.
We did not know that they were coming.
So we have been outside of the process.
And when I say "we," I mean the residents of East Ybor have been
outside of the process.
We appreciate your concern, and the fact that they are there,
but we need to do something else with them.
And you have one plan in mind, and we have another that we'd
like to present to you.

Actually, we have been outside of the process in terms of your
negotiating with the federal and state agencies that put
together this memorandum of agreement that means that those
houses must be used for residential purposes.
We were outside of that discussion and negotiations.
We were outside of the decision to place the houses there, and
we were outside of your decision for the planned use.
Now, we want you to please consider the fact that precedent has
been set, and I have done some research before coming in to you
to let you know that my -- the reaction -- the reaction and
response to every attempt that I have made to get those houses
used for the community, the reaction has been and the response
from people in government has been that the memorandum agreement
limits what you can do.
The memorandum of agreement, however, did not limit what you
could do with the casitas that are at 1901, 19th street,
1903-19th street.
1909-19th street, and 1911-19th street.
Nor the houses used by the Ybor museum at 1820 East 9th
Avenue.
They were also transferred, deeded over to the city of
Tallahassee -- I used to live in Tallahassee -- to the city of
Tampa and had the same memorandum of agreement.
And you were able to biopsy that so that -- bypass that so you
could accommodate other needs in the community, the Ybor

community.
And I want to say to you we really need you to bypass that
memorandum of agreement to address the needs of our community.
What I did, I tried to find somebody else to do it and I could
not so I finally decided to get on out and do it myself.
I was talking with a young lady whose parents own a property
over there and she said I'll come over and go with you.
We actually have been going door to door.
In going door to door, we were going for one thing and we came
out with at least one other thing.
We were going to get signatures on petition to bring to you, and
I have that petition for you, from people who live in the
neighborhood to say that we have some needs, and these houses
can help us address those needs.
What we found is that they have some needs that perhaps you are
not aware of because I don't know that you send people out to
find out what is going on in neighborhoods.
When you go to your family reunions, you have the good relations
and the high-sounding relations, those who are doing very well.
And then you have the poor relations.
In our community, we are in the poor relations group.
We just don't have anything.
And in terms of trying to find assets for assets -- asset
mapping, the only item we can find in our community and we are
pleased about that and thank you very much, is the fact that we

brought the Mayor out and it was her first community visit upon
being elected Mayor.
And we now have $207,000 allocated in the budget for a
playground.
Now, I am not an artist, but I did try this.
I want you to see that this is I-4 here, and that is the
northern part of our neighborhood.
We go all the way down to Adamo Drive.
Now, 26th street will be the North-South access going through
East Ybor neighborhood.
Right here at 26th street between 12th avenue and 11th and
12th avenue is where the playground is going to be.
There is a church, AME -- Zion hill AME church right here on the
corner.
The two houses I'm telling you about are represented by these
two Hs.
What we envision is a government complex that would address the
needs of the community.
One of the houses we ask you to consider using would be using it
as an outreach library like you have over at the Loretta Ingram
over in Carver City.
And this is library month, so, you know, we are right on target
with that.
This request.
(Buzzer).

>>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
Can you wrap it up?
>> All right.
What we're saying, the other one we would like to have an as an
archive and enrichment center because we are both national and
historic in terms of national historic status and local historic
status and we want the other one to be used so that tourists can
come in to see what our neighborhood used to be like and what,
you know, in terms of renaissance, where we were and what we're
trying to go back to.
We have opportunities to get money to sponsor activities and
events, and I have that information documented.
I want you to know that the Mayor's beautification committee
certainly could be helpful in what we're doing.
And there are other foundations, and I have documentation on
that.
We have the signatures here.
We want you to know that we have illiterate people.
We have one woman with 26 grandchildren who lives over there.
We have a Haitian immigrant for whom English is a second
language.
We have unsanitary living conditions, and all of this really
goes to the point that we are victims of benign governmental
neglect.
We'd like for you to please help us take these two lemons and

mix them in the bowl and come out with some sweet-tasting
southern lemonade.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Ms. Smith.
I was there, too, when the Mayor showed up that first meeting
that she had.
These are city-owned lots that they put them on, right?
>> That's correct.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I think what we need to do is talk to Elaine
Elise.
Did you talk to her?
>> Elaine came back and spent several hours with me one time
talking about what the possibilities are.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: And she could help with the MOA, memorandum of
agreement.
It takes a little while because it goes up to Washington D.C. to
do this.
>> That's fine.
We're accustomed to time being a problem.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So if Elaine -- it seems to me like the how's --
houses on 19th street, we did have a memorandum of agreement,
and we might be able to use it for these two lots here because
you're saying you don't want them for residential use.
You want them for commercial use.
>> Not commercial.

Community use.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, it's commercial.
It's not a residential is what I'm talking about.
>> Right, right.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So we need to talk to Elaine Elise.
And we can make a motion that Elaine Elise get with you and you
can talk to her about the memorandum of agreement.
And I see Ms. Miller up there and maybe she can help us out with
this too.
>> Thank you, Councilwoman Alvarez, for noticing me.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I notice you all the time.
>> What I would like to do is perhaps make a better offer.
I am Cindy miller, director of business and housing development.
I have not had the pleasure of meeting Ms. William-Smith as of
yet but I am giving her my card.
And I know that I have staff watching.
A number of my divisions are involved in the work with F.D.O.T.
on these houses as well as other community redevelopment
efforts.
So what I would like to do is schedule a meeting with
Ms. Williams, a number of my division managers along with the
F.D.O.T. representatives.
I intend to do that in the next few days based upon her schedule
and being able to call everyone together.
So let's have an opportunity to do that.

And whether -- that way we can both work on whether it's these
particular parcels looking at the needs of the neighborhood and
working also with the neighborhood relations office to see if we
can come to some real benefit for the neighborhood.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: And I would get Elaine Elise to be part of this
discussion, because she's the one that shepherded all of this
through.
>> And we are in constant communication on some of the other
issues and working on the projects.
So we'll be very happy to include her.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Good.
And thank you, Ms. Smith, for being such a powerhouse in that
community.
>> Thank you very much.
Now, my neighbors signed this, and I wanted to leave it.
Where do I --
>>KEVIN WHITE: The first thing I wanted to do was thank Madam
Chair for allowing this to come on the agenda.
I did speak with Ms. Williams-Smith and I, too, wholehearted
agreement, $207,000 allocated for the pocket park in the area.
And this would be such an enhancement because we do not have a
community center in this area and we have so many children over
here that need a police to go and need a place to flourish and
thrive.
And that was one of my recommendations for the administration as

well to see if we could work as expeditiously as possible to see
if we can get this arranged or get this memorandum of agreement
revised, if you will, to be able to use this as a public entity
rather than private residential homes.
And Ms. Williams-Smith, thank you very much for your diligence
in this area.
She's been a lifelong member of this community, although she
went away for a while, but I believe she was actually born in
Ybor City.
And she has a passion for this area, and it shows.
And thank you very much.
And we'll do whatever we can on our end to make sure that this
comes to fruition for you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Ferlita.
>> Are you doing a motion or --
>>ROSE FERLITA: I just want to make one quick comment,
Ms. Williams-Smith.
Obviously we are all supportive of what you do in terms of the
community.
We need that kind of thing all over the city.
But -- and I don't mean to be giving more work to my colleague,
Ms. Alvarez, but as you and Ms. Miller go forward, I do want you
to know that you said in your presentation that you're used to
the waits and the delays, et cetera, and that's part of the
government and that's the process.

As she said, the additional delays because you have to go all
the way up to Washington with the approvals and that type of
thing.
But Mary has been a champion and a hero in terms of seeing the
casitas from beginning to end.
We sat and talked about that many times before either one of
us -- I don't know if you remember that -- or even thinking
about running for a position on this Council.
So she's got a lot of historical experience and I'm sure if
Cindy needs her help, that she would be willing to do that.
I don't mean to give you an extra job.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would you like to appoint --
>>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
Because I know her heart is in that type of a project.
I know if she has anything to do with it to make it more
expeditious.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you for bringing it --
>> Ms. Miller, do you think we might have some sort of
information within 60 days?
Is that enough time to have some kind of report back to us?
>> I'm sure that we can do that.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I would like to make a motion that we have a
report back from Ms. Miller and her office on this project in 60
days.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

All in favor, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Thank you, Ms. Miller, and thank you Ms. Smith.
Ms. Julia Cole, are you ready?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Call me.
>>GWEN MILLER: It's 10:00, are you ready?
>> Yes, ma'am.
Julia Cole, Legal Department.
Before you on agenda item 27 is V 05-22.
Council had requested legal to bring back an ordinance waiving
the requirement that construction under an S-2 special use
permit occur within six months.
This is before you on first reading.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is the petitioner here?
>> I did not see that the petitioner was here.
You had closed the public hearing, and had directed legal just
to come back with that change.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, the reason I asked if the petitioner was
here, even though Palmetto beach actually is a historic area,
it's not protected by any kind of historic designation and
somebody can build anything they want.
And I was encouraging the petitioner to build something that
would be in the character of the historic bungalows that are the
predominant in the area.

I found the name of some people who could help them with the
historic bungalow design.
I was going to give them some free architectural advice.
>> Unfortunately, I don't see them there.
Certainly I can pass that information along to Mr. Bentley who
was their representative.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
I will pass that along to you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance approving an S-2 special use
permit approving 80% lot development in an RS-50 residential
single-family zoning district in the general vicinity of 2209
Davis street, Tampa, Florida, and as more particularly described
in section 1 hereof, waiving the six-month commencement time for
construction, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Is there anyone in the audience who would like to ask for
reconsideration?
>> Good morning.
Steve Michelini.
I was here last night on 1907 Cass Street.
And since that time, I had had an opportunity to talk to Michael
Randolph as well as Robert Allen.

And the CDD of West Tampa actually had weighed in on this issue
and had supported the project.
They sent an e-mail over, which I have a copy of.
What they asked us to do was to explore design alternatives,
which would preserve the facade of the building.
And on that basis, we're asking you for -- for you to reconsider
our petition.
It's a very tight site.
It's going to require a variety of different waivers and
variances in order to do that.
We would like to have an opportunity to readdress the site plan
issues and design issues and come back to you.
So on that basis, we respectfully requesting reconsideration.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Cathy Coyle.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: If I may, Mr. Randolph sent the e-mail this
morning to LIVVY, Ms. Miller's aide.
It said he spoke with Steve last night.
He is requesting a change from C -- while the overlay committee
approved the design of the building a while ago, it did not
address the issues of demolishing a building as it is the policy
of this committee to preserve as much of the history of West
Tampa as is possible.
It is for this reason that the overlay committee is opposed to
the demolishing of any building without having the change -- it
says change -- without having the chance to determine the

historic nature of the building.
I spoke with him on the phone, and he said that at this point,
they don't want the building to be demolished.
They had like to keep it and have it rehabbed.
When I spoke last week at the continued hearing, I referenced --
I believe I said Mr. Dingfelder commented on this.
But I went back and pulled the transcript and it was actually
Ms. Alvarez that had advised Mr. Michelini to work with his
client for a new continuance to potentially do -- design
something that would be compatible with this area like a house
that's an office.
Because Mr. White and Ms. Alvarez had a conversation about a law
office that had been redone on the corner nearby.
And I believe everyone concurred with that.
So the site plan before you that you denied actually went along
with the issues that you had raised.
If you do reconsider, I would suggest that the plan does change
per the request of the CDD and Council.
Soonest date available would be June 9.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
For conversation purposes, I would consider reconsideration and
only in this regard.
I went and drove by the site yesterday.
The house has great historical character, and the plans that
were submitted to this Council last week, nothing on that block,

nothing looks like that.
I would be supportive of the reconsideration if the petitioner
was in agreement to, first of all, do one last due diligence to
see if that building can be preserved and rehabbed in its
current status.
Second of all, if it can't for whatever reason, then it needs to
be demolished, that whatever they do rebuild or whatever they
would propose rebuilding would fit in with the character and the
style of the homes in that neighborhood now.
Also, a half a block down on the opposite side of the street,
there is a house under rehab now within that same block which
underlying looked in the same condition as the petitioner's
property now.
And they are doing a marvelous job of rehabbing.
I don't know if it's cost-effective.
I don't know any of that, but I do know that within that
one-block radius, which is the only thing on Cass Street that is
still residential, on that one-block radius on both sides of the
street, there's nothing that looks like what the petitioner is
submitting now nor do I think that's the fit or the character of
the corridor that we intend to go forward with.
So I would support the reconsideration on those two bases.
First of all, trying to save the building.
Second of all, if it has to be demolished, that the new plan
would have to be resubmitted and fitting the proper character.

>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
Council member White, I think you're being too nice.
I really do.
I won't support this request for reconsideration because it's
saying, it's still saying to the petitioner, you can take this
house down, and I think that what you spoke to as you discussed
the neighborhood, is serious investment right here in these
older houses which have the historic character which the
neighborhood would like to have protected, and, therefore, what
I prefer is to not support your motion and just say to the
petitioner, rehab this and use it as an office.
That would be my preference.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ditto.
You know, Kevin, asking them to have their own people look at
the building again to see if it can be rehabbed when they really
don't want to rehab it, they never wanted to rehab it, is the
fox in the henhouse.
And you are too nice.
You really are.
And it's not a fault.
You know, list is doing some great work, Mr. Michelini, and I
want to pass that on to both Mr. Lums and everybody in their
company.
They are doing some very fine work.

But they are not into rehabbing.
I have not seen one rehab project that they've done.
They are into clearing stuff and building new stuff.
And that's done great things for certain parts of town.
But anyway, I can't support it, and I hope we just move on and
let them figure out something else to do.
Let them sell it to a rehaber and somebody else will do it.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, I don't agree with both of you, because I
think we need to leave it to the CDD to make that determination.
And what I'm reading, they oppose demolishing, and I think
Mr. Michelini is taking that message to his company or to his
whatever you call, to the petitioner, the clients, for that same
reason.
And not be the first one to say, no, if I didn't feel like he's
not going to demolish it at this point.
And that he is going to come back with something that's going to
be compatible with this neighborhood.
So I'm going to support Mr. White's motion if he made a motion,
I will second that.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Where are we with this procedurally?
She made a substitute motion.
>> No.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: There's nothing on the floor.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Okay, that being said then, I don't think
there's anybody here that's a bigger advocate than Ms. Alvarez

in terms of what is happening in West Tampa.
And we've seen that in the newspaper and editorial.
So I think Mr. Michelini and these properties know their
challenge.
I think he's very well aware of the fact that his presentation
last time was not very well received.
So I think we ought to give him the opportunity to do either-or
of those things that Mr. White suggested.
Obviously our preference would be rehab.
If that doesn't make economic sense, then obviously,
Mr. Michelini, what you come back with is going to have to be
appealing and compatible with what's there.
So I think there is some effort being extended to try to do that
and I certainly would be supportive of the motion as well for
those reasons.
>> We don't want to rush the process.
We think June is too soon because we have some challenges that
we'll have to address.
It probably should be set for August sometime.
We want to bring in a consulting architect that August 11th, I
think is your date, that can help us identify what the true
alternatives are for this.
We have some severe site challenges, and that's why I suggested
to you whether we do it under this process or under a rehab
process, we'll be back in front of you because the site is so

tight.
>>GWEN MILLER: How much time you are saying you need?
>> August 11th is what the staff is indicating is your --
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, we have a motion --
>>GWEN MILLER: Did you make that a motion?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Is there a motion on the floor?
There's a motion on the floor to reconsider made by Council
member White, seconded by Council member Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: And add August the 11th.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Make that a separate motion, please.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second for reconsideration.
All in favor of that motion, say aye.
Opposed, nay.
>>CLERK: Motion carried, Saul-Sena and Dingfelder voted no.
>>GWEN MILLER: Now set a date for the hearing.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Like to make a motion to set the date for August
the 11th, 9 a.m.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: It's an evening motion?
>>GWEN MILLER: Catherine Coyle, it's evening.
Is that your evening?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: That's completely up to you.
>> We had no opposition.
Only staff issues.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
Morning.

>>KEVIN WHITE: 10 a.m.?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Unless you feel that the CDD needs to weigh
in.
>>GWEN MILLER: They can come in the morning.
They come in the morning.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Just so Council is aware as well, I will be
scheduling Mr. Michelini for a new development review committee
meeting as well so staff can have a new opportunity to review
whatever plan he does submit August 11 is fine.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a staff question.
In a situation like this where the rehab-ability, if that's a
word S part of the question.
I wondered if city staff has the capacity to go in.
I believe that the petitioner has an inherent bias based on
their previous plan to tear the building down.
And if -- what would make me feel more comfortable is an
independent assessment of the building.
And I wondered if city staff has that capacity to come in and do
an independent assessment.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: I can certainly ask Annie Hart.
She's part of the development review committee as well.
I can certainly ask her what her mechanism is for that.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: She's coming, even as we speak.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We also have experts in other departments.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was going to say -- Mr. Michelini, this is

nothing personal.
>> We've made the building access to Ms. Hart.
She's been out there, and we certainly will continue working
with her and others as you direct.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My question, Ms. Hart, does the city have the
staff capacity to go out and assess the rehab-ability of the
building?
>> Good morning.
Annie Hart, historic preservation manager, City of Tampa.
And yes, the HPC has not reviewed this property yet for
demolition, but we do, as you are probably aware and what you're
thinking of, in our budget have monies to do structural
assessments when necessary.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, it seems to me that the core question
here is, you know, can this building be saved?
And is that practical?
Is that doable?
And the petitioner has stated that their structural engineer
didn't think so but I would like an objective city entity to
take a look at it.
>> And that's exactly what that funding in the budget is for.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do we need to direct you to do that, or can
you all just do it as part of why you are work?
>> It would probably expedite if you did direct it.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: After we vote on this then I will do that.

>> We may want to see and what our alternate plan is.
We're not going to come back to you and say absolutely this
building needs to be torn down.
We'll be working with the staff continually.
I don't want them jumping the queue here if we come back with an
alternative plan.
For example, saves the facade and rehabs and do some other
things.
I just don't want them interfering with our design process.
I don't mind involving them, but I don't want them coming back
saying well, you can do this and this and the other thing.
I have to meet with CDD and work out a design with them.
Work with staff on site-plan issues.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My concern, Mr. Michelini, the stability and
rehab-ability of the building is critical, absolutely essential
part of the conversation.
I don't want you all spending a lot of money on new plans and
everything if it isn't in sync with the city's assessment.
And so --
>> That's fine.
We'll continue to work with them.
As I said before we even had our first hearing, Annie went out
to the site.
We took her there for those purposes.
That's fine.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But when you came to us initially with this
rezoning, your premise was the building shod, it's got to go.
That was your absolute beginning premise.
So I don't buy that necessarily.
I just want a city person to assess that.
>> That's fine.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Please don't shoot the messenger.
I just want to caution Council that to be cognizant of the fact
that in setting this in the morning you are setting a public
hearing on first reading with a new site plan for a day meeting
and I want to caution Council about how long this motion to
reconsider took and just be cognizant of the fact, although
Council does have that discretion, that by a very minimum with
the petitioner's right to make his presentation, you're adding
at least 30 to 40 minutes to your morning meeting.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: That was where I was going to go, too.
And Mr. Michelini, you may come up with a rehab --
>> Evening would be fine.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: And the neighborhood hates the rehab idea and
it would be controversial.
Let's stick with the evening meeting.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: It's the same night, August 11.
If you wanted to schedule it for 5:30 instead of 6:00, that's up
to you.

>>KEVIN WHITE: Just amend the other motion to make it 5:30 p.m.
instead of 10 a.m.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: 5:30?
Or 6:00?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I'll second the 5:30.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion for August 11 at 5:30.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
I would like to request that BCS have a structural engineer from
the city's perspective take a look on the viability of the
building.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
Opposed, nay.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Nay.
>>GWEN MILLER: At this time we're going to go to our audience
portions.
Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on any
item not set for a public hearing, may speak for three minutes.
>> Paul Goodman, 323 Palm Avenue.
I would like to agrees for further consideration, in other
words, Mr. Michelini got up and was talking.

The code enforcement, this will be a continuing process, but
item one from last week about the code enforcement workshop.
I'm holding the tapes with about three hours of conversation.
I've actually heard that, but I do have a copy of the
administrative order from Mayor Pam.
And I'm listening to some of the discussion that was given this
morning.
You know that I have a long history and involvement with code
enforcement.
My greatest concern is that, you know, code enforcement has
been -- first of all, it's been primarily selective.
It's been excessive.
Actually, I'd say first excessive, secondarily selective.
And then thirdly that it's been extraordinarily abusive.
And the violations that have been repeated have mostly been done
by the city.
In other words, the fines, the maximum fine for irreparable or
irreversible type of a harm, which is the primary cause before a
fine can even be levied against a property and there's a
multitude of alleged code violations that are not designated
that and are not found with the conclusions of law and finding
of facts, et cetera, when it's done.
And the fine can't exceed $5,000.
There are tens of thousands of instances that the city has
exceeded $5,000 fines.

I think that what is necessary at this time to correct it is to
have code enforcement amnesty for the past to correct the city's
history.
And then you got to move forward with a much diminished process.
And when Parkland Estates wanted to get rid of their benefit of
the legislative act, you know, the community there did not want
to be subject to being arrested.
They didn't want to be subject to huge humongous fines.
They just liked a process that's expeditious, inexpensive, all
the intent and noncriminal.
And so arresting people for code enforcement, the new statute
may provide for it, but the city ordinance is not congruous nor
does it allow it, does contemplate it, it's wrong to arrest
people for that under the current system until it's corrected.
I believe James Dominguez, you know, has an interest, and he's
trying to protect the community as a good neighbor.
I don't know what the specifics happened that was mentioned this
morning, but those, you know, there have been other charges that
have been leveled and a good defense attorney could raise the
issues that the city is inadequate in their position.
And it's been long due.
I went to Fred Karl.
He gave me, you know, one of his first days on the job he gave
me over an hour of time and I discussed at length what my
current circumstance has been.

And I alleged that the city, Martin should have been fired long
before Steve LaBrake.
The conversation between the inspector and couple of neighbors
and friends that led to his downfall happened in front of my
Morgan street property.
That aside, you know, Jorge Martin is, you know, he has
committed what I think are criminal acts.
And I think I can support it with the evidence.
And I think if I brought you the facts, that you would need to
fire him and that being attorneys, that you would need to bring
him to the Florida bar to be disciplined and probably
permanently disbarred for conduct over a multitude of instances.
And this is my perspective.
I know it's somewhat unique, but I gave up two properties
through tax deed where the city, like I say, like I've said
before, took over $25,000 of excess proceeds.
One property sold for 14,000.
The other for 13,000.
And mortgaged for 238 worth way more than that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Next.
>> Good morning.
Mentesmot.
Code enforcement is nothing but a land grab.
Nothing more, nothing less.
The city want to go around.

They start a long time ago.
Long time ago they started coming through the African community.
Selective.
Highly selective.
Very prejudice, very racially motive.
Coming through the black community.
The city is under land grab.
Still personal property, private property.
They steal it from you.
First they came through the black community saying, oh, we're
getting crack houses.
We're tearing them down, doing whatever, taking people's homes
under the auspices they were suspected crack houses.
Then they say drug houses.
Then say we get in your cars if caught picking up a prostitute
or whatever, we're taking your cars and taking your private
property from you.
It's a land grab, nothing more, nothing less.
The city need to clean up its own act.
Now, who violate the city when the city is in violation of
Nebraska avenue that you can't drive up without going to Meineke
muffler and getting new shocks for your car.
Henderson and Dale Mabry that's been flooding for the last 30,
40 years.
With Bayshore boulevard that's been flooding.

We can't even get in our houses down on Bayshore boulevard when
it rains a little bit.
It's nothing but a land grab.
When they talk about code enforcement and then they tie it in
with MacDill Air Force Base and the historical plans and what
they are going to do and they tell people, oh, you can't tear
the building down and put up another building, you have to rehab
this building.
What kind of craziness is that?
It's a land grab, nothing more, nothing less.
Who went down to South Tampa and told them they can't build the
big ugly houses, monstrous houses they build throughout the
neighborhoods in South Tampa.
Nobody was there for the people.
This City Council is not responsive to the needs of the people.
This City Council is not responsive to the needs of the people.
The only City Council representative here that's responsive to
the needs of the people is Shawn Harrison, who I think is from
North Tampa or New Tampa and he responds to his people's needs.
When people come down here and want two million dollars for a
museum, I -- our representatives don't say for district five and
the other black areas in West Tampa, say no, that money can go
into real needs of the people.
They don't say that.
Shawn Harrison say, no, this money can go into real needs for

the people.
This City Council is not representative and they are not
responsive to the needs of the people and this is what we see
time and time again.
They bully people around.
That's what is going on.
They tell a man is coming up here, to beg to tear a building
down to put up a new building.
Same nonsense they tried to pull on Lykes Brothers and Lykes
Brothers were not having it.
Oh, you can't build a building there.
It has to be used for such and such use?
Why?
Why would you try to refurbish some of the old ugly buildings
that are unsafe, that are environmentally unsound, that are
environmentally unfriendly, why would you try to refurbish some
of these buildings?
Tear them down and build something new.
Build something futuristic, build something what that designer,
that property owner, who is putting out their money what they
like.
And code enforcement goes around the black community just as the
gentleman said, very selective, because the biggest code
violator that had millions of dollars in fines, the other day he
came in the national news and he settled for like 80 or 90

thousand dollars.
How is that?
Poor people, they are grabbing their homes.
We need a City Council that's responsive to the needs of the
people.
The people's needs aren't getting met and we need the people
needs met.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Anyone else like to speak at this time?
You can't speak again, Paul.
No, you cannot speak.
Nothing.
You may have your seat.
You had your chance.
I don't want to hear it.
I don't want to hear it.
You had your chance.
Officer, would you come take him out, please.
>> What I'm asking for is to talk about today's agenda.
>>GWEN MILLER: You had your chance.
That's it.
He knows he can talk at the end of the meeting.
>> First of all, I want to thank you for your patience.
I'm a novice at this.
As you observe with me waving my hand around earlier,

councilwoman Alvarez took pity on me, sent her assistant out to
tell me to calm down that I would have my chance to speak and
here it is.
>>GWEN MILLER: Put your name on the record.
>> Carolyn Beahm.
I'm here about item number 26.
I was here on September 23rd, and I don't really see where
anything has been resolved.
They've decided to build a four-story condominium which has
seven units.
We talked about greenspace.
They've been approved to take down ten trees on that property.
I don't think there are anything more than ten trees except some
podus carpus bushes there.
I don't count them as trees.
The entrance and exit will be on Matanzas because the city will
not allow an entrance or exit on to swann.
We have a small two-lane street, that means the possibility of,
since there will be seven units, I understand, 14 cars with
guests coming in and out of that building or parking on the
street.
We don't have availability for parking on that street.
There doesn't appear -- I haven't seen the diagrams, but there
doesn't appear to be any setback.
There doesn't appear to be any greenery.

The retention pond I'm not sure where that goes because I'm not
astute as southwest, northeast, whatever.
But I'm looking at two retention ponds now from a new
development that's right across the street from me, eight town
homes.
They don't park in their garages if they are coming in for 15,
20 minutes.
They park on the street.
We now have eight town home complexes in a six-block radius.
Four are in my immediate vicinity.
Down the street, there's a 10-unit town house development.
Around the corner, a 20-unit town home development, a 10-unit
across the street, and on the corner, approximately 15 to 20
more.
That's a six-block radius.
Think about the people who are going into those.
They are not finished yet.
The cars that have -- that are going to be in that six-block
radius.
We're going to be like an ant farm with people coming over us.
It's my understanding now that because it's less than 8, they
don't have to ask your permission.
They can go ahead and do it.
We had a wonderful discussion when I was here before.
You asked them to come back to consider all the things we talked

about.
Now it seems like that was for naught.
If you speak doesn't it trickle down and some of that go into
whatever is considered for the building.
Now it's like they did an end run.
They went around.
They can go ahead and build this, and it doesn't matter to the
citizens there.
That's what they are doing in this area of South Tampa.
We're getting town houses everywhere.
The smallest piece of property, you see a sign, town home is --
town homes coming.
Our area is overpopulated.
Six blocks.
The eight town home developments that I talked about do not take
into consideration this one ninth one that will be on swann and
Matanzas.
We're not adverse to building there.
We want something that will be with greenery and setback.
Anyway, take my things into consideration.
I hope you will.
Maybe we can have a public hearing.
I hope something will be done.
Thank you for your time.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez has a question for you.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Beahm, thank you for coming in.
And I know how concerned you are about this, but the reality of
the thing is that this is zoned for -- it's an RM-24 zone which
is zoned for seven units.
They came with eight and like I said before, concerns are the
same, but the denials right now for the site plan are solid
waste, zoning, building plan review and fire.
So they've got a lot of things to consider and they have 45 days
to answer.
Maybe they'll make it right, but the zoning people are on these
right now.
And Ms. Coyle is here, and she can talk to you after the meeting
and she can tell you pretty much why they are denying these
things.
But I appreciate you coming, and I know how concerned you are.
>> We are.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So that's why I'm giving you the opportunity to
come and talk to us.
>> Thank you.
Thank you so much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder has a question.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes, ma'am.
You're exactly right.
It is an end run, because, you know, they came in with the
eight.

Your neighborhood showed us that it was completely inappropriate
and too dense.
And so now they are maxing out at the seven.
And it's unfortunate from a legal perspective, there's nothing
this Council can do.
But I'm going to direct you right behind you is a Lovell --
lovely lady in blue.
Cindy Miller is the head of the construction services center,
and they will be the ones who will be making shower that all the
Is are dotted and Ts are crossed.
And you can work with each one of those groups to make sure that
happens.
And frankly, I think there might be some discretion in regard to
the Matanzas, swann entrance-exit issue.
That's not a state highway.
And if staff has any discretion I would agree with you
wholeheartedly that traffic should come in and out of swann and
not Matanzas.
Maybe that's something that staff could look at again.
>> Thank you for your time.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
And thank you for coming.
Anyone else like to speak at this time?
Okay.
We'll go to our committee reports.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Cindy, you're going to wish you were not
hanging around here much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Public safety, Ms. Rose Ferlita.
Committee reports, Ms. Rose Ferlita.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Before we do that, I was waiting for the
audience participation portion.
May I just enter something into the record about some
conversations we had about the West Tampa projects.
My legislative aide handed this to me before after the fact.
A friend of many of the Council members Robert Allen president
of North Hyde Park Civic Association, talk about commitment to
neighborhood and community this gentleman is in the hospital.
He's watching this in the hospital.
Bob, I hope you are doing better, hopefully.
But he just wanted us to just reiterate his position on both the
Howard project and the Cass Street project that Mr. Michelini
was involved in.
And he just wanted us to know that the North Hyde Park Civic
Association was in favor of this and he didn't have the
opportunity to sign off in any regard.
I thought that was important to put it in the record.
And we wish him well.
>>GWEN MILLER: We wish Mr. Allen well.
Speedy recovery.
Come back.

>>ROSE FERLITA: In terms of committee reports, move resolutions
28 through 30.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Parks, recreation, Ms. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman, move items 31 and 32.
>>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion, say aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Public works, Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Before I move mine in regard to item 31, the city is
contributing $5,000 towards construction of a Florida World War
II monument in Tallahassee honoring Florida's World War II
veterans.
And that's just a wonderful thing, long overdue, probably 50
years overdue and I'm sure we all look forward to going up in
Tallahassee at some point and seeing that after it's
constructed.
In regard to my items, I'll move items 33 through 35.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Finance Committee, Mr. Kevin White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I would like to move items 36 through 46.

>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion -- 42, we have to go back and read
42.
We have a motion and second.
All in favor, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Number 42.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance in the City of Tampa, Florida,
amending City of Tampa ethics code chapter 2, article 13,
section 2-658, procedures of complaints of violations by
modifying when a copy of a complaint shall be transmitted to the
alleged violator by modifying the number of days alleged by the
violator has to request public hearing by modifying the number
of days the ethics commission has to promulgate written finding
of fact and conclusion thereon, providing for severability,
providing for conflict, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor, aye.
Opposed, nay.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Building and zoning, Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman?
Excuse me, please.
Ms. Saul-Sena, excuse me one second, before you move your
committee reports.

I would like to read into the record 8-B, a memorandum of voting
conflict with regards to item 59, file number C 04-49.
Disclose that on April 14, '05 measure will come before my
agency that will inure to my special privilege private gain or
loss.
It's an ordinance vacating, discontinuing -- I don't think I
need to read all that.
Just that file number.
I am a copetitioner and owner of the real property adjacent to
that.
For those reasons I will read this into the record and recuse
myself.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
Building, Zoning and Preservation Committee.
I'm going to pull item 50, because I want the staff to clarify
what the details of the settlement are.
And 58 and 59.
So I'm going to go ahead and move resolutions 47 through 49 and
51 through 57 and to set a public hearing on number 60.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
>> Holding 59?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
Well, why don't we go ahead and vote on the motion I made.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

All in favor, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
59.
>> It will be 58.
Santiago, city -- items 58 and 59, we ask that you hold those.
Stormwater is here.
They are requesting that this matter be continued till the
evening.
They are going to explain to you the reasons why.
>> Alex Awad, stormwater department.
For policy purposes, we would like to have the opportunity to
get an easement for some of the alleys that we feel that there
would be a drainage concern or for us to maintain in the future.
So we would like to have the ordinance add stormwater department
to the easement.
58 and 59.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You want to defer it until tonight?
>> Yes.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
58 and 59 will be heard tonight.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Number 50 -- number 50 is the largest

discussion about the illegal removal of trees that's ever been
discussed by Council.
There were a huge number of trees that were destroyed.
Donna WYsong, can you come up and discuss this settlement.
This is with Kimmins Corporation.
I think their attorney is here also.
This was something that I thought was very important because of
the number of significant grand trees destroyed and the city's
sense of fairness in requiring the property owner to make
restitution.
>> The final settlement agreement is that Kimmins, the alleged
violator is going to plant an estimated 1600 caliber inches of
trees.
50 of those will be planted along Kennedy Boulevard and also --
Kennedy and Florida.
50 of those will be divided between Kennedy and Florida.
And the balance of the inches will be planted in Bobby hicks
park.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Have we specified -- you know, a four-inch
tree is a lot more expensive than two-inch tree and six-inch
tree, sort of an exponential thing.
As part of the settlement agreement, did they commit to the
caliber of the trees they would be putting in?
>> Yes, they did.
Along Kennedy and Florida, they'll be printing three-inch trees.

Bobby hicks part, I believe two-inch trees.
And this was as agreed to by the park staff.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Was there a cash settlement also?
>> There was not a cash settlement other than the triple permit
fee that they paid into the -- for failing to pull a permit.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: How much was that?
>> That was $7,471.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I believe the number -- the amount of trees
that they cut down were worth way more than that, way, way, way,
way more than that.
Can you elaborate more on how we arrived at $7,500?
It was over a quarter of a million dollars that they were
supposed to be fined.
For which we could buy a lot more than two- and three-inch
trees.
>> Well, the $7500 that they paid in, that is under the
ordinance as part of just for failing to pull a permit, that is
the --
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But for every grand tree illegally removed
it's at least 15,000.
They took down at least 20 grand trees.
>> Right.
What they are doing, they are basically replacing the inches --
instead of paying the fine, they are paying the inches --
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm saying a two-inch is lot cheaper than --

I see the developer's representative here.
Actually, I'm not as interested in their comments as the city's
comments.
This strikes me as a very watered down development agreement in
terms of what the city could potentially fine the developer for
this egregious removal of at least 20 grand trees.
I mean, this is something, but it's not much.
>> This was negotiated with Steve Graham from the park staff.
What we agreed upon and I think you may recall this,
Ms. Saul-Sena, was -- what we agreed upon was the amount of
dollars-wise and the way the trees were removed on that site,
based on a tree expert that KIMMINS and some testimony and
evidence that -- $240,000.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's what I remembered.
I remember it was about a quarter of a million.
>> I believe the exercise that park staff went through when they
went through this replacement tree provisions in the settlement
agreement, that was to approximate the $240,000.
In fact, they are supposed to post a $240,000 bond or letter of
credit to be sure they do what they are supposed to do under the
settlement agreement.
We can certainly have Mr. Graham come in in here and explain the
number of trees they are planning to plant approximates the
$240,000.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Massey, was there any monies put into the

tree trust fund?
>> Was there any money paid to the tree trust fund.
I don't believe so.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: No?
>> No.
>> If they had paid the $240,000 fine that would have gone to
the tree trust fund.
What the Parks Department asked for were trees to be planted in
lieu of paying the $240,000.
And they worked out a formula in the negotiations saying that
these trees approximated $240,000.
I believe under this agreement, Kimmins is also required to
guarantee the life of the tree and maintain the trees.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Where the trees planted?
>> 50 of them will be planted on Kennedy and Florida avenue,
divided between Florida and Kennedy as directed by the Parks
Department.
And the balance of the inches that are going to be planted will
be planted in Bobby hicks park.
Instead of paying the money, they decided to pay with trees.
And so that's how the settlement was worked out.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: The calculation came out to $240,000.
>> Right.
1600 inches was deemed to be about $240,000.

So they are replacing 1600 inches.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: And they paid the $7500 fine?
>> Right.
They did pay that.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What I would like to do is meet with
Mr. Graham this afternoon and bring this up this evening, if
that won't inconvenience him.
I need more assurance.
Two inch trees are not very expensive and three inch trees are
not terribly expensive.
I just need to see the numbers and feel reassured.
Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I want to make sure I heard you right.
Did you say they were going to plant 50 trees at Florida and
Kennedy?
>> It's going to be divided between Florida and Kennedy.
There are 50 three-inch trees that be planted some along Florida
and some along Kennedy as directed by the park staff.
They will identify the places where they want the trees planted.
And then the bulk of the inches will be planted, two-inch trees
at Bobby hicks park.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: How many?
>> Goodness, I don't have those numbers in front of me.
Steve Graham will be better able to answer that question.

It's quite a few.

>> My name is John Grandoff.
Suite 3700 Bank of America plaza.
I am attorney for KIMMINS corporation on this violation.
I would like to follow up with a couple of questions
Ms. Saul-Sena had to clarify.
I can read off the settlement agreement briefly.
Basically, after the site was cleared, aerial photographs were
studied by city staff and by our experts also.
We came to the conclusion that 1600 caliber inches of trees had
been removed.
That was our best collective guess.
This is working with Steve Graham and code enforcement folks.
We pegged that value to be $240,000.
And agreed that rather than the cash payment, it would be
basically replacement of all that tree value.
And in our discussions, it was thought that the best way would
be to get as many trees as possible on as many portions of the
city.
So we decided the tree planted along Florida Avenue between
Platt Street and Martin Luther King Drive.
Kennedy Boulevard between Kennedy and MacDill, between
Florida and MacDill, and finally Bobby Hicks Park was just
North of Robinson high school.

We paid the triple permit fee.
Steve also asked that the trees be specified as Crepe Myrtle on
Florida Avenue, and Crepe Myrtle of a Natchez variety also on
Kennedy Boulevard.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did you say Crepe Myrtle?
>> Yes.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's a conversation we need to have with
Mr. Graham.
>> That's on the roadways.
The remaining trees of the 1600 inches would be oak, hickory,
maple, pine, holly and other associated native species approved
by Mr. Steve Graham of the City of Tampa Parks Department.
The trees at Bobby Hicks Park measure two to four inches DBH.
Before planting the trees, KIMMINS would meet with Mr. Graham to
select the trees.
He would select the trees.
Calculate the caliber inches and confirm that the total
replacement would be 1600 inches.
Again, the whole verification within the city's prerogative.
The city will stake all the locations of the trees at Bobby
Hicks Park.
Getting back to the roadways on Florida Avenue and Kennedy
Boulevard, our client is responsible for all of the traffic
control to get that done.
So we have to get D.O.T. permits and monitor all the traffic to

make sure this whole process happens.
The city would take on irrigation responsibility.
And we would transfer all guarantees to the city, but we would
assure a warranty on all trees for at least one year.
We also will post a performance and payment bond in the amount
of $240,000 to make sure you get what you're getting as far as a
settlement.
That's the essence of the agreement.
And we were in many discussions with Mr. Graham and with Morris
Massey and with Donna to reach that settlement.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm pretty familiar with the price of trees,
and that would be 240 trees at a thousand dollars each.
And the size trees you're talking about are not a thousand
dollars each.
So I'll have a conversation with Mr. Graham and then we can look
at this tonight.
>> Thank you for your time this morning.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
We'll bring number 50 back tonight.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move to continue it to this evening's
meeting, pending -- and then tonight, if I feel satisfied, we'll
bring it up.
If not, we'll continue.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.

[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Transportation, Mr. Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I move items 61 through 64.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I move new business items 65 through 67 and 69
through 73.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I move item 68 to be set for June the 9th.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion, aye.

[ MOTION CARRIED ]
We are now going to go to our public hearings for second
reading.
Is there anyone in the audience going to speak on items 3
through 9, would you please stand and raise your right hand.
Anyone going to speak on items 3 through 9.
We have a motion and second to open the public hearings.
All in favor, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak on three?
We have a motion to close.

All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Mr. Dingfelder, would you read three, please.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes, Madam Chair.
Move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading.
Ordinance authorizing the construction and installation of
proposed encroachment balconies by Franklin Street developers
LLC over a portion of the public right-of-way known as Franklin
Street and royal street.
Property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of
Franklin Street and royal street.
As more particularly described herein, subject to certain terms,
covenants, conditions and agreements as more particularly
described herein, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>CLERK: Motion carried unanimously with Saul-Sena being absent
from the vote.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the audience like to speak on item 4?
We have a motion and second to close.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move an ordinance -- move the following

ordinance upon second reading.
An ordinance authorizing the installation and maintenance of an
existing encroachment, two statues of male African lions each
atop a pedestal by dynamic engineering international corporation
over a portion of the public right-of-way known as South
Melville Avenue near the intersection with West Kennedy
Boulevard as more particularly described herein, subject to
certain terms, covenants, conditions and agreements as more
particularly described herein, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>CLERK: Motion carried unanimously with Saul-Sena being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the audience like to speak on item 5?
We have a motion and second to close.
All in favor, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Ms. Alvarez, read five, please.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance approving a special use permit
S-1 on appeal from a decision of the zoning administrator,
approving the location and construction of an extended family
residence located at 5011 North Central Avenue in an RS-60
zoning district in the City of Tampa, Florida, and more
particularly described in section 1, waiving the required rear
yard setback from 20 feet to 4 feet with a two-foot eve.

Waiving the side yard setback from seven feet to three feet with
a two-foot eve.
Waiving the required 26-foot maneuvering drive aisle backing
into the alley to 19 feet, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>CLERK: Motion carried unanimously with Saul-Sena absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the audience like to speak on item 6?
We have a motion and second to close.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Ms. Ferlita, would you read, six, please.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Move to adopt after second reading an ordinance
approving S-2 special use permit approving 80% lot development
in an RS-50 residential single-family zoning district in the
general vicinity of 10015 North 10th Street, Tampa, Florida,
and as more particularly described in section 1 hereof providing
an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Waiting for the computer.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the audience want to speak on item 7?

>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to adopt the following ordinance after
second reading.
Move an ordinance amending ordinance number 2004-258, passed and
ordained by the City Council of the City of Tampa October 28,
2004, relative to the rezoning of property in the vicinity of
5000 West Gandy Boulevard by substituting a corrected legal
description for an incorrect legal description that was supplied
in error by the Land Development coordination, providing an
effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I wondered if the city is doing -- one of the
very controversial aspects of this rezoning was the
transportation impact on all of the collective rezonings.
It wasn't this one.
It was up the street.
But I'm concerned about Gandy and Westshore.
And I wondered if Council is aware of the city doing some sort
of transportation impact study at that intersection and coming

back to us.
Has that been scheduled?
I know it's something we've discussed.
It's something specifically that Ms. Ferlita and Mr. Dingfelder
brought up after they had gone on a tour --
>>ROSE FERLITA: It seemed to me, Ms. Saul-Sena, if I might, that
it was suggested and it might be on pending.
I don't have a copy of the pending calendar.
You're right, it was a result of that tour because we were
looking at everything collectively.
But I don't know where that suggestion went.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: A couple of things.
One, I think if we're talking about the intersection, I don't
think we've looked at it specifically.
It's a D.O.T. intersection but it's clearly something we could
look at.
And I think that's probably appropriate.
In regard to the northern part of Westshore, from Westshore
North to el Prado, we had that report.
I don't know if you were here for that.
Staff gave us a report.
They said that we have the right-of-way to three lane on
Westshore from Gandy North to el Prado.
And that it would cost I think somewhere between five and ten
million dollars.

I've recently heard that with the Georgetown improvements coming
that that project may very well fund that improvement.
So I think -- I'm optimistic on that.
But I think we can ask staff specifically about the
intersection, because that intersection is not functioning very
well.
And it will function worse and worse as these projects come on
board.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Dingfelder, you're right about what we got
back on that other report.
Ms. Saul-Sena is accurate, that after we took the tour -- maybe
it wasn't in the form of a motion but perhaps in the form of a
comment -- that your concerns were directed to the
transportation issues there in addition to what we had already
gotten and in addition to the intersection.
I thought you had made some comments.
Maybe there was no follow-through because we didn't follow it in
the form of a motion.
I know we talked a little bit at length based on what you and I
had seen.
So maybe not.
I guess what you're saying we'll cover it.
And then Ms. Saul-Sena is concerned about the intersection
probably give some additional data to keep us cognizant of what
is happening in that area.

I guess we are covered in terms of our concerns.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You want a motion for staff on the
intersection?
>>GWEN MILLER: Let the clerk carry the motion first.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I don't know -- I sort of asked the questions
but I actually would like to make a motion.
>>CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder voting no.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
Now you can make your motion.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move that transportation
staff provide a report to Council in 60 days on the impact of
proposed redevelopment -- rezonings on the level of service of
the intersection of Gandy and Westshore.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Is there anyone in the audience like to speak on item 8?
We have a motion and second to close.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Ms. Saul-Sena, would you read 8, please.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the
general vicinity of 107, 109, 115 and 117 South Packwood avenue
and 1807 West Cleveland Street in the City of Tampa, Florida,
and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning

district classifications RM-16, residential multifamily, and PD,
office, to PD residential town homes, providing an effective
date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder voting no and Ferlita
absent from the vote.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to
speak on item 9?
We have a motion and second to close.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Mr. Harrison, would you read nine, please.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I move to adopt the following ordinance upon
second reading.
Ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 5202
North 43rd Street in the City of Tampa, Florida, and more
particularly described in section 1 from zoning district
classifications RS-50, residential single-family and CI,
commercial intensive to PD, multifamily affordable housing,
providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and a second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.

>>CLERK: Motion carried unanimously with Ferlita absent at vote.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We talk about bugs in software.
Is there some reason why it takes so long for all this to
record, Gail?
>>CLERK: [INAUDIBLE].
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can't we get a mouse?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Put that in the budget.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
We go to item 10.
Appeal hearing.
We need to open.
Motion and second.
All in favor, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Anyone in the audience going to speak on item number 10, need to
stand and raise your right hand.
Anyone going to speak on item 10?
(Oath administered by the Clerk.)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Please reaffirm for the record you have been
sworn.
>>GLORIA MOREDA: I have been sworn.
The petition is an appeal hearing.
S-1 appeal for extended family residence.
Asking for waivers of two of the conditions of extended family
residence to allow an extended family residence to be located in

a nonconforming structure.
And to allow an increase size.
Normally the extended family residence is limited to 600 square
feet.
They are asking for 797.
It relates to property at 3309 West St. Konrad -- CONRAD.
The occupant will be the daughter.
Juana gladamez.
The extended family residents is -- residence is going to be in
the existing accessory structure.
The structure was renovated.
They were cited for code violations for doing the renovations
without permits.
But it is an existing structure.
It sits at a two-foot setback from the rear property line, five
feet from the East side and 6.4 feet on the West property line.
The size of the structure requires that main structure setbacks
be adhered to, but it was an existing structure.
And they were doing the renovations to provide for the unit in
that structure.
They have committed to -- committed to comply with all other
conditions with that -- that code provides for in terms of an
extended family residence.
Staff has no objection with the request, especially since the
structure was an existing structure.

>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>> Good morning.
(Speaking in Spanish) my name is Isabel Pita.
>> Bought a house in December 2002.
It's an existing structure in the back part.
Mona Lisa Gonzalez.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Have you both been sworn?
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes, they did.
We saw them stand up.
They did.
>> (Speaking in Spanish).
>>MARY ALVAREZ: (Speaking in Spanish).
>> We bought the property in December of 2003.
It was a house and back house.
The previous owner had built the back house already with I guess
the intention of having the extended family because it already
had all the connections to the plumbing, the kitchen,
everything.
All my mother did was put the siding, tile it and put a wall
because it kept leaking, it wouldn't hold the structure.
So she put the wall so the water wouldn't come through and fix
the top part.
That's how the city cited us.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So that's what happened, that's how come you got
a violation because you all were doing --

>> Because we started renovating without permit.
We didn't know.
It's been for four years.
We didn't know you needed permits and stuff.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So the structure was there when you bought the
property in December?
December the 2nd?
>> Supposedly the structure had been there for 12 years.
When we get it, it was rotting and stuff.
What we did was put stuff up.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
They did it without permits because they didn't know.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let's see if anyone wants to oppose you?
Anybody in the audience like to speak on item 10?
Is there anyone in the audience want to speak on item 10?
We have a motion and second to close 10.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance approving a special use permit
S-1 on appeal from a decision of the zoning administrator
approving the location and construction of an extended family
residence located at 3309 West St. CONRAD street in RS-50 zoning
district in the City of Tampa, Florida and more particularly
described in section one, granting waivers to allow the extended
family residence to be located in an existing nonconforming

structure and increasing the allowed size of an extended family
residence from 600 square feet to 797 square feet in area,
providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Question.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Just a question, Madam Chairman.
I'm sorry, I walked in on part of that.
I know she was talking about fixing something without the
appropriate permits.
So is everything appropriate now?
>> So far, yes.
We're going to call reinspection and again, just in case we're
going to call them in.
Linda off of North boulevard to reinspect everything.
>>ROSE FERLITA: You all are doing everything that --
>> Yeah, we follow the guidelines, yes.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Before we carry this motion, we might want to
watch it.
We might be labeled as being too nice to people.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for staff, and that is, do
we have a mechanism in our computer system so that this is
identified as appropriate for extended family, but that if, for
example, the property owner sells it, that it couldn't be used
as a rental apartment.
How do we track that?

>> The extended family conditions, one that they have agreed to
is to require annual inspections by city staff to ensure that
the daughter is still living in that unit.
If she moves out and another family member is wanting to go
there, they could go; however, if any other person that is not a
family member, the code specifically says that it has -- the
kitchen has to be removed.
So there is that protection.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the floor.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>>ROSE FERLITA: I didn't know if I should say it or just let it
go.
I wanted to tell you, Ms. Saul-Sena, I know of a couple of
particular instances in southeast Seminole Heights where
everything is appropriate and it was approved as an extended
family use in old Seminole Heights.
And the lady is in compliance with everything, every single
year.
But I do want to tell that you code enforcement comes out there,
takes a photo of her mom and makes sure that it continues.
And that has been without fail.
They are doing a good jobs in terms of enforcement.
(Speaking Spanish).
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to open number 11.

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
All in favor, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: There was a letter on this that sought a
continuance.
Is staff aware of that?
>> Santiago, city Legal Department.
Here on item number 11.
I understand a letter was submitted requesting continuance.
We don't object to that.
I believe Mr. Michelini is here.
He was signed on to represent or is in the process of being
signed on to represent the petitioner.
That being the case, he needs some time to review the documents
that were filed, transcript and record that was just submitted
last week.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What was the proposed continuance date?
>> I haven't read the letter.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have the petitioner here.
>> It was really -- Steve Michelini, here on behalf of Nancy
Metzger.
It was really trying to get it on a date when you didn't have a
heavy public hearing schedule, when it was a lighter day.
So that's what we were looking for.
It's not time sensitive.

If it's 30 days, that's fine.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
>> But whatever date the clerk has --
>>CLERK: May 12.
>>GWEN MILLER: May 12 is okay.
Is that okay?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: 10 a.m.
>>GWEN MILLER: 10 a.m.
Was there anybody in the audience who came to speak on item
number 11?
We have a motion and second to continue to May the 11th at
10 a.m.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
May 12th.
All in favor, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Item number 12 is a continued public hearing.
Staff want to speak on that?
Is the petitioner here or staff member?
>> Claire on behalf of the petitioner.
This is the second reading, I understand.
This was for a land use plan amendment --
>>GWEN MILLER: Have you been sworn in.
>> No, I have not.
>>GWEN MILLER: Raise your right hand, please.

Anyone else going to speak on item 12, please stand and raise
your right hand.
(Oath administered by the clerk).
>> The applicants have contracted to purchase this property at
3306 West Hillsborough for the purpose of relocating all or a
portion of their dealership.
And automobile dealerships are not currently permitted under the
land use, and so we are seeking this land use change to HC-24.
The property is in a state of disrepair.
It has been vacant since 1999.
It is the site of the old car mike theater, Hillsborough eight
theater and the applicants are proposing to redevelop this site
utilizing the existing building and to create a real
state-of-the-art dealership.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>> Good morning.
My name is Ethel Hammer.
I'm here to answer any questions that might arise on behalf of
this application.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public like to speak on
item 12?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close.
>> Second.

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close.
All in favor, aye.
Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just wanted to address the petitioners very
quickly.
I recognize this is the plan amendment and that's fine.
When you go down the road on this, clearly there are some
residential in the back there, with no response necessary, I
just wanted to make you all very, very keenly aware that you all
need to be sensitive in regard to light and noise as related to
a car dealership adjacent to a residential.
>> If I might say two things.
Number one, we've already filed our request for PD, so we will
be working with the neighborhood.
And, in fact, we've already started working with the
neighborhood.
We have a letter of support from the plaza terra homeowner
association with respect to the plan amendment.
We expect to work with them on the details of the PD zoning
application.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Have you also talked to the Tuscany oaks
apartments?
>> Yes, we have.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I believe we talked about this the last time you
were up here with the lighting and the landscaping and so on,

pertaining to the driveway into the complex in the back of --
North of the theater.
>> That is correct.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So you've done all that.
>> Yes.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you very much.
>> And we also have a letter of support from Monsignor Higgins.
So we've been dealing with everybody in the neighborhood that we
felt would be interested.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: He gave you the blessing so you should be all
right.
>> Thank you.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, thank you.
It's good Mr. Dingfelder brought up the sensitivity issue from
the standpoint of the neighborhood.
I think we all support that.
But I particularly want to commend the petitioner and his
representatives.
I think from the beginning you all were very, very sensitive
about those fine-tuning issues.
And I think you'll be very well received.
And I think the city will benefit from you getting rid of that
awful, awful, awful site.
So I wish you well and I'm sure it will be a good partnership
between you and the neighborhood and the adjoining properties.

Thank you, both.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to adopt the following ordinance after
second reading.
Move an ordinance amending the Tampa comprehensive plan future
land use element, future land use map for the property located
at 3306 West Hillsborough Avenue from community mixed use 35 to
heavy commercial 24, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
conflict.
Providing for severability, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
We're waiting on our -- vote and record.
>>CLERK: Motion carried with Harrison absent at vote.
>>GWEN MILLER: Item number 13 is a continued public hearing.
Is there anyone, staff on that?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: It has a request for continuance, I believe.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to continue 13.
>>GWEN MILLER: You want to say something, Ms. Miller?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: How long?
Six months.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to continue item 13
for six months.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Is there anybody in the public who wishes to
speak to the continuance on this public hearing?
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion, aye.

[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Item 14 is a continued public hearing.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Also been a memo from staff, I guess asking
for six months on that one as well.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: October 13th.
>>CLERK: October 13th at 10:00.
>> It was continued from October -- it's being continued to
October 13th 2005, 10:00.
>>GWEN MILLER: Want to speak on item 13?
You have a second?
All in favor of the motion, aye.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I want to be clear.
Is there anybody who wishes to speak to the continuance on item
14?
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay, Mr. Grandoff.
>> I don't know if I have to be sworn to speak to the
continuance.
I would like to, if I may, Cindy miller, director of business
and housing development, just identify the reasons why I'm
asking for this continuance.
I know that this is an issue and an item that has been continued
from before as was mentioned from last October.
And I realize it's a very complicated issue and there are a lot
of owners, property owners, constituents and citizens that have
an interest in this particular item.

What I would like to have an opportunity to do is work both with
the historic preservation commission, which this is a
recommendation from them, to be able to work with their work
plan, not only for the cigar factories identified here, but also
as part of the West Tampa historic designation process that's
about to commence as well as to work with the owners.
There are a number of properties here that are identified within
the item 14, and although I have met with one representative of
those owners, I've not had an opportunity to meet with the
balance of those owners.
So I would like to have that opportunity and that's why I'm
asking for the continuance.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Grandoff.
>> Good morning, Madam Chairman and members of the City Council.
My name is John Grandoff.
My address is suite 3700, Bank of America plaza.
We have no objection to the continuance.
I represent five families that own factories.
Four in West Tampa, one in Palmetto beach.
And they are with me this morning, all five of them.
And I would like for each of them to raise their hands and be
recognized so you know who they are.
We've been communicating with the city but -- Jackie and Hayward
Chapman and Kathleen Kellher.

Bubba Ellis family.
Owns a factory on Armenia between spruce and chestnut.
Jeff Freeman's family owns a factory at Albany between cherry
street and Palmetto.
Kent larson's family owns the factory in Palmetto beach.
He's not in West Tampa.
He's on 22nd Street between Harper and Palmetto Street.
And finally, tray's family owns a factory on Armenia between
Aileen and Kathleen just North of Columbus Drive.
We've been participating in this process for about six to eight
months.
Meeting with the administration several, several times and have
written letters to the Mayor requesting that we be excluded from
this entire process.
Our clients have absolutely no interest in being involved in the
designation of their property as historic structures.
I have put this on the record with historic preservation
commission.
They feel it is tantamount to a taking of their property without
the compensation as guaranteed under the constitution.
They want to go back to their businesses and simply be left
alone to do what they've been doing with their properties
without any further interference.
We all support historic preservation; however, there has to be a
point in time where the property owners' consent must be

considered.
We have been steadfast in stating that there is no consent to be
given in this process or considered.
We've been trying to be as diplomatic as possible about it.
We will certainly won't contest a continuance into the fall, but
that's not going to change our client's position.
And I don't want anyone to feel that meetings or further
discussions are going to change that.
I have briefed my clients on the provisions of the historic
preservation ordinance, and what it involves.
They do not want any part of it.
And at this point, I would like to file on the record a copy of
the deeds to all of their properties.
I have copies of the recorded deeds and I would like to file
those with you before I finish my comments.
In summary, we just want to be excluded, and if you would adopt
a motion this morning approving the continuance, but excluding
our clients' properties as stated, we would be very pleased with
that.
And we thank you for your consideration this morning.
They are here this morning just to support each other.
If you would like to talk to any of them, that is fine.
We have not prepared any further statements or any testimony.
But we are available if you have any particular questions.
But that is our firm and genuine position.

Thank you.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Grandoff, we appreciate that you want to support the
continuation of this, but I for one will not adopt a motion for
the exclusion of these factories at this point.
I want to give Ms. Miller a chance to talk to the historic
preservation commission and to the parties that are involved.
And that will be my stance at this point.
So we won't do that.
I think Ms. Miller has come on board.
She has come on board.
She's willing to listen to all concerned and to see if some
recommendations -- she'll make some recommendations to come to
us at that point, but I cannot support to adopt that motion at
this point.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I agree with Ms. Alvarez in regard to today.
I think the motion for continuance is sort of a -- kind of a
resting period for everybody to go back and look and see what is
going on.
I have expressed consistent concerns about the property rights
of these folks, the five families that have come out against
this.
Because it's hard -- you know, it's hard for me to imagine if it
was my house or my property and somebody all of a sudden laid a
huge unusual amount of regulation upon my particular property

just because it happened to be old.
And I recognize we do that around town.
But typically, we've done it in a voluntary fashion, and this
case, it disturbs me a little bit, and we haven't had a lot of
testimony on this, and I look forward to down the road if we
proceed a lot to have a lot of testimony on both sides of this.
So with that caveat, I think it's appropriate for us to kick
back for six months and continue to have dialogue.
Ms. Miller is new to her position and I'm sure she's going to
give this a lot of thoughtful insight.
>>GWEN MILLER: Did we get a motion to continue to October -- all
in favor of the motion, aye.
Opposed, nay.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
It will be continued.
>> Thank you for your time this morning.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Item 15 is a continued public hearing.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Is this going forward, number 15?
>> Yes, sir.
Give me one second.
>> I'm ready and I've been sworn.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anybody in the audience going to speak on items
15 through 19, would you please stand and raise your right hand.
(Oath administered by the clerk).

>> Good morning, Madam Chair, rowland Santiago.
Here on item 15, briefly, you might recall these petitions
coming before you on at least one previous occasion, Grand
Hampton.
This is very similar.
It's a community development district.
They are creative pursuant to chapter 190 of the Florida
statutes.
When a petition is submitted, it is reviewed by staff pursuant
to six criteria in the statute that I'll read into the record
for you briefly.
Criteria number one is whether all statements contained within
the petition had been found to be true and correct.
Criteria 2, whether the establishment of the district is
inconsistent with any applicable element, portion of the state
comprehensive plan or the effect of local government
comprehensive plan.
Three, whether the area of land within the proposed district is
of sufficient size, sufficiently compact and sufficiently
contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated
community.
Criteria four, whether the district is the best alternative
available for delivering community development services and
facilities to the area that will be served by the district.
Criteria five, whether the community development services and

facilities of the district will be incompatible with the
capacity and uses of existing local and regional community
development service and facilities.
And lastly, criteria six, whether the area that will be served
by the district is amenable to separate special district
government.
Staff has reviewed the petition.
They have reported that based on that review, they have found it
to be consistent with the six criteria.
Accordingly, I've prepared an ordinance for your review and
consideration this morning.
That outlines the compliance with that.
I believe the clerk has that if you can confirm for me that you
have received it.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have it, yes.
>> That's all from me.
The petitioner is here to answer any questions you have.
We ask that you move and approve the ordinance.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>> My name is mark Straley.
100 East Madison street in Tampa.
I'm here this morning on behalf of the petitioner.
With me in the audience is also mark Newton who is a
representative of Bruce B. downs partners and Jim ward from
Trent who is a financial consultant of the petitioner.

We have a favorable recommendation from the city staff.
I'm not aware of any opposition to this petition, so I won't
make a lengthy presentation this morning.
But I'd be happy to answer any questions that Council may have.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Straley, this says it's approximately 500
units.
Are those all town homes?
>> Yes, sir.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions from Council members?
Is there anyone in the audience like to speak on item number 15?
We have a motion and second to close.
All in favor, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chair, move an ordinance of the City of
Tampa, Florida, establishing the hammocks community development
district, community of approximately 500 residential units
within a parcel of land lying in sections one and two, township
27 South, range 19 East, comprising 100.83 acres more or less,
generally located one mile East of I-75 on county line road
lying East of and abutting the Grand Hampton community
development district, entirely within the boundaries of the --
the same more particularly described in section 2 hereof,
pursuant to chapter 190 Florida statutes.
Providing for severability, providing an effective date.

>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and a second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Item 16.
I have a motion and second.
All in favor, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Staff?
>> I believe item 16 is up for second reading.
You already had the public hearing.
>>GWEN MILLER: No one here to speak on it?
Is there anyone in the audience like to speak on item 16?
We have a motion and second to close.
You want to speak, Ms. Hart?
We have a motion and second to close.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move an ordinance of the City of Tampa --
actually, I move to adopt the following ordinance upon second
reading.
Ordinance of the City of Tampa, Florida designating the
Plant-Hatton house located at 4505 West Beachway Drive as more
particularly described in Section 3 hereof, as a local landmark
providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing
for severability, providing an effective date.

>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>> Annie Hart, historic preservation manager.
I wanted to update you and tell you as this process for the
designation moves forward, the mothballing process is also
coming to its conclusion within the next few days, and we're
very excited and thank all those involved in that effort.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public like to speak on
item 17?
We have a motion and second to close.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll move to adopt the following ordinance
response second reading.
Ordinance of the City of Tampa, Florida, designating the George
Guida senior house located at 1516 North RENFREW avenue, Tampa,
Florida, as more particularly described in section 3 hereof as a
local landmark, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
conflict, providing for severability, providing an effective
date.

>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to say that I'm really proud of
the community for coming forward to support this.
I think this is significant that we're landmarking it, and I
look forward to coming up with the funds to rehab it.
At least in a mothball condition, it can be secure while we're
working on the rehab funds.
And I think this is significant.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
>>GWEN MILLER: Need to open item 18.
We have a motion and second.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>> James, I have been sworn in.
Vacate -- lying between 29th street and 30th street.
Petitioner property located here.
Alleyway.
12-foot alleyway.
You can see how it's being used.
I don't think it's traveled very often.
This is looking North from ELLICOTT street and this is looking
South from Caracas.
Staff has no objections to the vacating request.

>>GWEN MILLER: Is the petitioner here?
>> Todd seemy.
4706 North Thatcher Avenue representing the owner and applicant,
Mr. Melton Davis, who is here and we have no objection from any
of the agencies.
Verizon had a question, but we had resolved that.
So we thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public who would like to
speak on item number 18?
We have a motion and second --
>> Hi.
My name is Ms. Davis.
I'm for the closing of the alley because the people come through
the alley and it's just like where this guy went and it's like
they are over the fence or something or another.
And then we have this problem with somebody coming like try to
break into somebody's house and they use that little area right
there to like try to get away or something like that.
And we definitely, my mom and I would definitely for that.
We live like right -- the alley is like right on the border of
our lot.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Anyone else like to speak?
We have a motion and second to close.

All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Need to make a motion to go to legal.
>> So move.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: It's a public hearing.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena and Harrison.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Is that a first reading?
How does that work?
>> It's a motion to legal.
>> The public hearing is closed and now the motion has been made
to legal to come forward with an ordinance.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to open item 19.
We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Do we have anyone in the audience who wants to speak on item 19?
>> Randy, strategic planning and technology.
I have been sworn in.
This is a neighborhood plan, Ballast point neighborhood plan
coming for an ordinance for approval by City Council.
I believe there's a representative from Ballast point who will
make a brief presentation for your consideration.

>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Staff had no objection.
>> City staff has reviewed or is still in the process of
reviewing the Ballast point neighborhood plan.
We will be producing primarily for the benefit of the
neighborhood organization the staff comments and all the
recommendations.
At this point, most of them are all reflective of ongoing city
programs and activities that the city is already working on.
There is a couple that -- will require further study.
One of them was I think you'll hear a request today for a
special overlay district for that area.
There are a couple of things in progress.
You heard this morning that the city moving towards JLU study in
that area to look at the Land Development which should answer a
number of those issues out of that process.
The other consideration, it's the position of LDC to try to,
rather than have a lot of different overlay districts throughout
the city to look at how we can have an amendment to chapter 27
that would address the same issues throughout all neighborhoods.
So that may be one of the areas that requires further study is
whether or not there will be a special overlay district or an
amendment to chapter 27.
Other than that, there were no other staff recommendations or
comments on the neighborhood plan.

>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>> Good morning.
My name is Jerry Miller.
I'm Chairman of the Ballast point planning board.
I want to make just a few brief comments about the plan, if I
could.
The plan that you're seeing today represents over three years'
of work by the neighborhood itself.
We've had meetings, surveys, workshops, public hearings, and
everyone who has wanted to have input has had an opportunity to
do so.
As a result of that, this plan, I can tell you today has the
overwhelming support of the neighborhood.
The plan has been reviewed by city agencies.
It was first submitted to the city almost six months ago.
And at this time, our group has not received any negative
comments or requests for any changes to the plan.
We have had the active participation of MacDill Air Force Base
planners.
The plan complies with the objectives of the department of
defense regarding development around the Air Force Base and has
the support of the base planners.
Plan has been submitted to the Planning Commission and its staff
for review and has received the unanimous support of the
Planning Commission regarding consistency with the overall comp

plan.
One of the things I want to tell you, this is not an
antidevelopment plan.
We recognize development is important to Ballast point.
It's important for improving our neighborhood.
It's the only way our neighborhood will improve.
It's -- neither this plan nor the Ballast point Neighborhood
Association supports a ban on all rezonings in Ballast point.
A recent newspaper article in that regard is just incorrect.
Finally, this plan is not just about development.
We recognize that many assets in our neighborhood, some of those
include the cultural and economic diversity we have right now a
wonderful environment, sense of place.
And all these things are important to us, not just the issues of
development.
We recognize that Ballast point and its future is ultimately in
the care of the people who live there, and that's why this plan
is being presented to you.
I'll be available either now or after the other people have
spoken to answer any questions you may have.
I appreciate your consideration.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you for coming down.
Thank you for all the hard work to you and your committee.

I just wanted to stress that this is actually not the
Neighborhood Association, per se.
>> That's correct.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That put this together.
This is a separate group, but planning group that we
established --
>> Yes.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: -- to kick off this process a couple of years
ago.
>> That's correct.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: One of the commercial owners in your area has
written me some e-mails and expressed some concern that the
commercial property owners were left out of the loop.
And I just want -- and I don't know if they were or weren't.
But I want to just ask you what sort of outreach that you all
did as you were starting this process to try and be inclusive
of, you know, any nonresidential commercial property owners and
also, finally, to encourage you, as you proceed with additional
opportunities for overlays, et cetera, because, you know, to
include the nonresident commercial property owners because one
of your goals is about the MacDill corridor and encouraging
more enlightened development as you say along the MacDill
corridor.
And I think we all would generally agree that that corridor
could be improved aesthetically as well as functionally.

But anyway, if you could answer any of that, Jerry.
>> We developed a mailing list that included every property
owner, every person who lived in Ballast point, and every person
who had a business in Ballast point.
Obviously this list was not perfect.
But we sent out -- I believe was it 17 -- we had 1700 addresses.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What point in the process, Jerry?
>> At several points.
We began with a survey.
Over three years ago.
The initial survey went not just to the residents but to all
property owners and all business owners.
We had at each public hearing we used the same mailing list.
It was updated several times.
We posted signs in the neighborhood, throughout the
neighborhood, many signs for the final hearing, we did a legal
ad, posted signs, put out Flyers and again sent a specific
notice to everyone including businesses in the neighborhood.
Obviously we missed some, but there was tremendous participation
that was evidenced by the final vote.
And one of the things -- let me mention to you about the overlay
district just to make sure we are clear on this.
Your support of this plan and the approval of this plan does not
approve a special overlay district.
Simply one of the objectives of this plan is to come back to you

at some point with a special overlay district.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak may come up now.
>> Melanie Higgins, president of Ballast point Neighborhood
Association.
I've been sworn in.
As you clarified, the Ballast point Neighborhood Association did
not institute this plan, but we worked hand in hand with the
planning board the entire time.
To answer your question about the commercial, we had two
commercial business owners as members of the planning board at
the outset of it.
I think beveled glass, I can't remember the gentleman's name he
was on the planning board at that time.
So not only did we reach out as far as mailings, but we also
reached out to ask commercial owners, business owners to be on
the board itself.
And I was asked to clarify the newspaper article the other day
of which there's a clarification in today's article of the
Ballast point Neighborhood Association feels about PD zonings.
We voted to oppose plan development rezonings that would
increase density in residential zoning districts in our
neighborhood.
Not all PD zonings.
And I wanted to clarify that as well.
But in any case, the Neighborhood Association supports the plan

and we are just thrilled with all the work that Jerry and his
group has done on it, and I have to say, I wasn't really that
involved with it.
So kudos.
Thank you.
>> I'm Sally Flen.
Interbay boulevard.
I have been sworn.
First I would like to read a letter that Louise Ferguson who
cannot be here sent.
Dear members of Tampa City Council, I speak as a member of the
Ballast point planning committee.
We worked long and hard considering the wishes of the members,
concerning what they wished the neighborhood to reflect for the
future.
The area in great part is residential, which the members which
to retain while allowing cautious and reasonable development.
The beautiful trees, greenspace and sidewalks are particularly
important as are safe crosswalks.
We hope you as the Council will favorably on the plan with an
affirmative vote.
Thank you for your attention to all citizen concerns, sincerely
Louise Ferguson.
Personally, I also was not on the planning board.
But I can remember when the concept of neighborhood plans was

first brought up at Tampa homeowners.
And it's been 12, 15 years.
And I thought to myself it was a wonderful concept, but I never
envisioned Ballast point actually getting it done.
And I realized that I just personally had too much on my plate.
So I was thrilled that a board was brought together and got it
done.
And I urge you to pass it.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Anyone else like to speak?
>> Good morning again, Council.
Tony Rodriguez, base community planner at MacDill Air Force
Base.
I'd just like to say that this has been a great grassroots
planning effort done by residents that truly care about the
future of their neighborhood.
I'd like to thank the neighborhood for including MacDill Air
Force Base as their neighbor in this planning process.
I've worked with the neighborhood on this plan for over two
years now, and it's a really great piece of work.
As mentioned earlier by Mr. Snelling, the plan meshes with the
upcoming joint land use study and I would simply encourage
Council to adopt this plan.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

Anyone else like to speak?
>> Strategic planning.
I want to make one follow-up comment.
The plan does a real good job at identifying the roles of the
neighborhood organization in the implementation of the plan.
And nearly every recommendation, they are taking the
responsibility to initiate the action and work with the city and
move forward.
There are a number of things that still would probably need to
be a little clarified as we move through the process.
Part of our review and our comments going back to the
neighborhood organization will be for each recommendation what
the city's position with the current status of any programs that
it has in place and how they might be able to contact the city
for further information or for clarity in the future.
So we're trying to develop a mechanism where they can continue
to work in moving forward on their goals and objectives and try
to implement whatever they can out of their neighborhood plan.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
We need to close.
Have a motion and second to close.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
We need a motion to send to legal.
>>CLERK: No.

We have a resolution.
>> So moved.
>>GWEN MILLER: Sure.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Been having some long conversations with
Randy Gowers about this in the past with Morris Massey also
about the planning process, the neighborhood planning process.
And there's some ambivalence on my part and other people's part
about, you know, the neighborhood planning process.
It's been successful now, I guess this was the second
neighborhood that's been successful through this.
And we have, I don't know, 50 or 100 neighborhoods out there
that are active.
So we're very early in this process.
But the thing I like about the process of neighborhood planning
is that -- I like sort of the visioning exercise that the
neighborhood is clearly going through.
And especially when I look at page four of this particular
neighborhood plan, and it's like -- it's really a vision
statement.
They call it their comprehensive goal.
But it says what they dream and aspire their neighborhood to be.
Low density use.
Low-rise residential.
Peaceful, calm, you know, streets.
Low noise.

And, of course, we could say that all neighborhoods want that,
but for some neighborhoods might want to be more urban.
You know, five years from now when we talk to the channelside
about visioning themselves, they are not going to have that same
description.
But -- and I think that that's really what I like about this
neighborhood planning exercise is that for each neighborhood to
do some long-range 20-year, you know, planning and thinking
about what their neighborhood should be, and then when we
compile these, the city will do its best to respect that.
It's not -- what they are passing here today does not have the
force and effect of law.
It is just what their dreams are, what their aspirations are and
to sort of send us a message to that effect, and we use it to
the best of our abilities when we make our planning decisions.
I'll move the resolution.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to move the
resolution.
All in favor of the motion, say aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to add my compliments.
When the project started, I was representing South Tampa and I
remember one night there was this terrific Tampa thunderstorm as
only we can have and everybody plodded through the rain to get
to this meeting.

You have a truly dedicated group of volunteers from Ballast
point.
And I know that Council will rely on your plan in the future as
we make decisions in concert with you for your neighborhood.
Congratulations.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I just thought it would be appropriate for
Mr. Dingfelder to read it.
I didn't know if we had to do that or not.
>>GWEN MILLER: All right.
Item number 20, need to move the resolution.
>> So moved.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Item number 21 --
>>ROSE FERLITA: I wanted to be acknowledged but not for that.
I didn't want to interrupt that process.
That story about the cat and the canary, I just wondered if we
could acknowledge Mr. Smith -- you came in with that look about
the cat and the canary so I thought we should have you come to
the podium.
>> It's little both cat and canary, unfortunately.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do you swear to tell truth and the whole truth,
nothing but the truth?
>> Yes, ma'am, I do.

The judge decided that she's going to uphold her current ruling
but in deference to the Council, what she would like to do is
suggest -- she suggested this to Council, that this Council,
individual members, could simply interview and not provide a
sworn deposition.
You could do it telephonically.
And if you choose to go that route, which I would encourage you
to do, the attorney indicated this should not take more than ten
minutes.
She indicated that it should be limited simply to what you
observed in chambers.
You, of course, don't know what happened outside of chambers
anyway.
And with those limitations, it should be a very short interview.
And I think partly because she felt with that limitation it
wasn't really that intrusive, that she was going to sustain her
ruling.
Just so you know, most of the cases on point were civil cases.
This is a criminal case.
Her view was that even if she had observed a crime occur, she
would have to testify and that no one should be excused from
that.
I won't go into too much detail.
Even though we're not pursuing the first part of it, the
disturbance of a public assembly, it's a predicate fact for the

second part of it.
And so literally you did observe the first part of it.
There's not a whole lot I think that's going to be relevant.
But nonetheless, that's where we ended up.
>>GWEN MILLER: When would this take place, this phone call
interview?
>> We can arrange that at your convenes -- convenience.
We'll send a letter to the attorney, indicating if you agree
that you'll be available on that kind of a basis for a short
phone conference, and we would like you to have Council with you
when you conduct that phone interview, so have someone from our
office and clear that through Jerry or Ursula or me if necessary
so we make sure you don't waive in privileges.
The key priv is attorney-client communication.
Anything that Marty has spoken with you about or that I have
spoken with you about that's not public is attorney-client
privilege.
I don't think it's going to rise.
This will be a fairly straightforward issue.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: No, I just wanted to express my appreciation,
Mr. Smith, to you, Mr. Shelby and especially Gewirtz for your
hard work on this.
Just for anybody who is watching, we were subpoenaed for
deposition in this criminal misdemeanor case.

And frankly I felt like a deposition was inappropriate.
And I urged Council and Council responded very vigorously to
file the motion for protective order.
I think you guys were basically successful in this regard.
I think the judge has reconsidered her position, although she
might not have rewritten her order she's reconsidered her
position.
And doing a quick phone call to the attorney to tell them we
didn't see anything is a lot less intrusive on our -- on us as
compared to going for a formal deposition.
>> Thank you very much.
And she certainly recognized that your purview as legislator not
to be part of that deposition.
This isn't why you enact ordinances or why you set rules.
It's what did you observe?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Do we have a trial date?
>> That's part of the problem of speedy trial requires this to
be Monday or Tuesday.
We have to try to do it sometime today or tomorrow.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Are we going to expect to be subpoenaed for
trial?
>> I doubt it.
Part of the problem we had, the state's attorney listed
Ms. Miller as a witness, so I would assume if you are, in fact,
going to be a witness, we don't see why under best evidence.

But if you are, you might get a subpoena just in case you are
sick and don't appear, they have some recourse.
But I would doubt that after you all talk with the attorney
there's much you're going to be able to add that would make you
a witness.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Smith, if we don't -- if we decline the
interview, are they going to subpoena us and haul us to jail?
>> Her order currently stands which is that you can be deposed
but she will allow you to simply do a telephone call with
Council, the defendant.
In lieu of that, I would certainly encourage you to do the phone
call.
They are just going to ask you what you observed.
Well, I'm not going to tell you what you observed but whatever
you observed you will recount that.
Really shouldn't be more than five or ten minutes.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mary, if you go to jail we'll bring you food.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Would you?
I want bananas.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Okay.
Item number 21.
Do we have an ordinance?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance of the City of Tampa, Florida,
amending the City of Tampa Code chapter 9, code enforcement

board to update definitions and general language to incorporate
recent state legislative amendments including increased maximum
fines, mandatory notices upon the transfer of property, manner
of giving notices, providing for expanded judicial remedies to
enforce fines and liens, providing clarification of review
procedures and right to appeal, providing for repeal of all
ordinances in conflict, providing for severability, and
providing for an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>>MARY ALVAREZ: And I would like to add not to the motion or
anything, but that this is just -- this is just the beginning.
If we can always amend these ordinances if we see that they are
not going the way we want.
We're just going to give it a chance.
>>GWEN MILLER: Item 22, did we get any information back from
administration?
>>CLERK: [INAUDIBLE].
>>GWEN MILLER: Item 24, we need to continue for two weeks.
We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Item 23, tree.
Ms. Saul-Sena.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
I spoke with Ms. Miller.
She said why don't we put this off for six months.
I said, you know, we've done so much work, there are some things
outstanding and controversial, but there were three issues that
were small and everybody agreed on, but were important.
So I would like to move ahead with the things that we agreed on.
And I'd like to write them up and continue this till next week
and just bring the things that are simple before us so we get
something done before we in six months tackle the hard stuff.
The complicated controversial issues.
>>GWEN MILLER: Was all the areas involved have representative
when you all met from East Tampa to New Tampa, West Tampa?
Did have a representative for every where?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We didn't have geographical representation.
I sent letter to T.H.A.N. asking for three representatives,
building for representatives -- the idea being that would come
back.
We, City Council would have a public hearing and invite
everybody.
>>GWEN MILLER: I think we need the input of everybody.
This will affect the whole city.
We need input from all the areas.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What I would like to ask, we put this off for
a week and I circulate a memo with the three areas that were

simple that we agreed on.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Question on the motion?
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I was just going to ask Ms. Saul-Sena what three
areas we were talking about.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: They were the list of protected and
unprotected trees.
Some things that were going to be included and some things
excluded as protected trees.
There was a size of protected trees.
Currently, our ordinance says anything over five inches is
protected.
And we were going to expand that to ten inches.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Apparently the building industry is not happy
with that.
You'll bring that back and then we'll have a problem.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Believe me.
That's the least of what they are not happy with.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay.
I understand.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Lastly, the way that we would measure a grand
tree, currently it's a very complicated point system.
And there was consensus that we could do a measurement around
the circumference of the trunk and that's something that a lay

person could do.
It isn't that complicated.
We'd set it for a certain number of inches.
I think it was 108 or maybe 103.
But whatever the number of inches was.
It would be easier than the existing point system.
And it would give average homeowners the ability to figure out
if they have a grand tree or not.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: And would you add to it to find out what we're
doing with the tree trust fund and how it's being administered?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And then the last thing was, right now, we
don't certify arborists that they have to be trained and we
don't license them.
And because we don't license them, we can't take away their
license because we don't license them in the first place.
So we need some kind of mechanism to get -- to legitimize them
so we can sort the people who are legitimate from the
illegitimate ones and only allow the legitimate ones to work on
grand trees.
>> Is the county the one that licenses them?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: They aren't willing to do that.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: What about state licensing?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The state doesn't license.
This would have to be something that we would have to do.
I talked to the county about it.

They just -- their consciousness isn't as involved as ours.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: There's a lot of discussion -- thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Saul-Sena, I'm okay if you want to
revisit this, you know, next week.
I'm okay if staff -- two weeks.
And I'm okay if staff wants to look at the bigger picture in six
months.
I think two weeks is probably better.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Two weeks is fine.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only thing I would like to add, within
the two-week context is when I drive by and see -- when I was 18
years old, I swung a chain saw for the summer and worked with
these type of tree companies up North.
And so I understand from their perspective of what's going on
and stuff.
But when I drive by these tree companies and their trucks, and
they happen to be in any given neighborhood anywhere in the
city, I look at it and wonder, God, do they have a permit?
It's an instinctual thing.
I wonder if they have a permit because that's a beautiful tree,
blah, blah.
It goes through my mind and I think staff will confirm it.
I call Steve Graham all the time and Dave Riley and I'll say, do
those guys have a permit?
And sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.

And where I'm going on this is what I would like to see is that
if -- I'd like to see us include and very simply include in any
revision that we do in the short term that that permit get
posted out by the street just like any other building
construction permit.
And that way it also could be a tool for the police because, you
know, we've got a lot of police people.
Lot of code enforcement people driving around.
And if they see the tree companies out there and they don't see
a permit, then they might pull over and ask that same question
and say, you don't have the permit posted, you're going to stop
until we get this sorted out.
In the short term, I would like staff to look at it.
I don't think it's a big deal.
If people have a permit, post it on a stick by the street.
If you don't have a permit, then you have an issue.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
That's a great suggestion.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the floor.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll add that to Linda's motion.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I agree with that.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
>>SHAWN HARRISON: The idea of licensing is one I think that also
ought to be explored.

I'm quite certain that every arborist in the city pays the
business tax to be an arborist.
And I'm not sure what they get out of that or what sort of
qualifications they have to show, but I think that there is some
merit to that.
One of the things that bothers me about the composition of the
committee, though, it was my understanding that the three
representatives from T.H.A.N., were they all South Tampa
representatives?
>> I let T.H.A.N. select their own representatives.
I didn't tell them who to select and I didn't tell the
developers who to select.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: What we're doing is going to be applied
citywide, I think we really need to have citywide representation
on that.
And I know that the view of tree trimming in New Tampa, North
Tampa, East Tampa may be different than that of South Tampa.
So if we're going to continue this process for the next six
months, maybe we ought to look at trying to expand that
committee a bit and make sure everyone is represented.
>>GWEN MILLER: Glad you agree, Mr. Harrison, because I feel the
same way.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: If I may add, it seems to me like this was
driven by mostly emotional issues than it was ordinances that
were already on the books.

I've already been -- I'm an advocate of having the ordinances
that we have followed, and make sure that they are not only
followed but enforced.
And so if we're planning to add more stuff, then we really need
a lot of public input because I heard the same complaint that
Mr. Harrison brought up.
And believe me, it didn't sit well with me.
So I would encourage you to make sure that Ms. Miller is present
when you have your meeting.
I guess you're going to have a meeting within the two weeks
or --
>> I wasn't planning --
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I wasn't planning on having a meeting within
the two weeks.
Reres well, Ms. Miller --
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, Ms. Miller, do you want to weigh in on
this a little bit?
>> Councilwoman Alvarez, you were addressing enforcement
measures?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Enforcement measures.
The ordinances -- the ordinance that we're planning to revise.
I would like for you to have some input with Mrs. Saul-Sena
pertaining to trees and pertaining to what the home builders and
the building association -- the Builders Association is
concerned about.

>> Again, Cindy Miller, director of business and housing
development.
I think what is key and I don't want to lengthen the meeting any
further, but I think the important thing is regardless of what
the -- whether it's the code in place or the code that could be
adopted or modifications to the code, enforcement is the key.
And Karen palace, who is director of the parks and recreation
department, I've met with the deputy director Bill Doherty of
code enforcement and also have the concurrence of Curtis Lane of
that department as well as working with my divisions.
We intend to work together so that we can develop a mechanism
for proper enforcement of the existing code as well as any other
modifications.
And I would be glad at the future to -- at the future to maybe
summarize that and present that at a later date and be able to
identify that.
Because I think we need public communication as to what does the
code say now.
I think a lot of individual homeowners don't know that.
As well as having a mechanism that makes it simple.
I like the idea of posting the permits.
It makes it easy.
Also needs to be a simple mechanism for a citizen or a business
owner, a neighbor, to be able to make sure that all of that is
in place.

And we do intend to put some procedures in place.
To work together on that.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Do you think that -- for Mrs. Saul-Sena to have
a two-week continuance is enough?
Because I really would like your input and Karen palace's input
with her and if you're going to just go ahead and make your
recommendations and then maybe have a conversation with her, I
think it would be --
>> Definitely.
We've.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We've already talked about it and will talk
about it more.
If certain things appear to be complicated we won't tackle --
the complicated stuff takes a lot of conversation.
I was attempting to do what I thought would be relatively
simple.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, nothing is simple as you well know.
Thank you.
This has to be resolved because it's been going on for too long.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
Thank you.
We go to information.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Motion to continue this for two weeks.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion, aye.

[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Now we go to information from Council members.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I noticed in our agenda today that Christ of
king spring festival is coming up and it's open to the public
and it's Friday, the 22nd of April through Sunday the 24th
of April, from noon on Friday until 8 p.m. on Sunday.
Little advertisement for Christ the king spring festival.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: That's nice of you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anything else?
Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
I received a memo from the Planning Commission that they would
like to have a workshop with Council on an update of the Tampa
comprehensive plan.
And they were proposing May 19th, and we don't have an evening
meeting that night.
I didn't know if you all would consider -- would rather do it at
11:15 or at 1:30.
>>GWEN MILLER: May 19th, you say?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
We propose the 19th as the date for the workshop.
Perhaps Council would prefer an afternoon if schedules permit.
I think it would certainly be a more relaxed conversation at
1:30 on the 19th.
So that would be my motion that we schedule a workshop on the

Tampa comprehensive plan update.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: How long is that going to take?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Probably an hour.
I really don't know.
Would you prefer me talk to the planning staff and bring it back
tonight?
Okay.
I'm happy to.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anything else, Ms. Saul-Sena?
Mr. Harrison?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Shelby and I met yesterday, just an update on our
faith-based initiatives.
We had a very productive meeting with several members of the
private sector, including former Mayor David Fischer of
St. Petersburg, Monsignor Higgins.
We had a lot of folks there, and we got a commitment and you
heard it, too, Marty, to match dollar for dollar what the city
put in from the private sector.
And there was also widespread approval of the idea of making
sure it is open to Civic Associations, small Civic Associations
as well as faith-based organizations.
We're moving forward and looks pretty good at this point.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anything else?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: No, Ma'am.

>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Not a thing.
>>ROSE FERLITA: One quick thing.
I just want to bring up the fact that I am asking to reappoint
April Griffin to the cable advisory committee.
She was there at one time, and this time she would be a
replacement for Steve LaBour.
She was there initially.
I first met April Griffin, who's a friend of Pam Iorio's when
she was supervisor of elections.
Spoke highly of her.
We met and asked to be appointee them.
Time constraints caused her to resign.
And now she's able to come back.
So she'll be a great replacement for Steve LaBour.
>>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second.
All in favor, aye.
>>ROSE FERLITA: That's all I have, Madam Chairman.
Thank you.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Nothing.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a commendation I would like to give to the
global love day which will be held on May the 1st.
Have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion, say aye.
And the jack and Jill club is having a national youth service

day program for 2005.
Going to be held on the 16th.
I would like to give them a commendation.
All in favor, aye.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: There was one other thing, I apologize.
I read an article in the paper the other day that concerned me a
little bit and it was about fishing around the Bayshore and that
sort of thing.
And I talked to staff about it briefly.
And I'm not advocating necessarily that we open up the Bayshore
sidewalk to fishing, because currently it's illegal.
But there are other parts, including Marjorie Park basin that --
where we don't allow fishing and I'm sitting there scratching my
head, that looks like a perfect place.
If the fish want to go there maybe we ought to allow fishing.
Anyway, I would like to ask staff to look at that entire
ordinance and see where we might want to tweak it and possibly
allow some more fishing and come back to us in six weeks.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Dingfelder, was the reason we weren't
allowing fishing on Bayshore was because of the pollution there
at one time.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Oh, that's a possibility.
When staff looked at it, they couldn't really find a legislative

history to figure out why we don't allow it.
I thought it was safety because when you go back with their hook
and you go to cast, you might grab a jogger or a biker.
But from a pollution perspective, no, I don't know.
I mean, people fish --
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Sometimes it smells --
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It does get smelly there, but people fish
there and I see people taking home their fish and the state
hasn't closed it down.
Anyway, I guess the motion -- what did I say, four weeks -- six
weeks to come back with us and look at it.
If there's anything to change, let us know.
>>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second.
All in favor.
Ms. Saul-Sena second.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
Clerk, do you have anything?
We have a motion and second to receive and file.
All in favor of the motion, aye.
[ MOTION CARRIED ]
If nothing else come before Council, we go to our audience
portion.