Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council
Thursday, May 26, 2005
9:00 a.m. session

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 may have been produced in all capital letters, and any variation thereto may be a result of third-party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.

[Sounding gavel]
>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: It's my pleasure to introduce associate pastor Dwight Loomis of St. James United Methodist church.
If we can all please stand for the invocation and remain standing for the pledge of allegiance.
>> Let us pray.
Almighty God, heavenly father, we lift our praise to you today.
You are too wonderful for words.
Father, your glory is evident everywhere we look, and we thank you for the blessings we enjoy as individuals, and as a community.
We are grateful for the favor you have shown to our nation.
And we lift our prayers to you on behalf of the men and women who serve to protect us and ensure freedom across our globe.
Give grace to your servants, O Lord, who serve as our local authorities.
Grant that they will have courage, wisdom, discernment, and foresight to provide for the needs of all our people, and to fulfill our obligations in the community.
Help them with a steadfast purpose to serve faithfully to promote the well-being of our citizens.
Teach our people to rely upon your strength, and to accept their responsibilities to their neighbors, exercising mutual regard one for another.
Help us, O Lord, to utilize our talents, and energies, to make Tampa a better place in which to live.
Our desire is for peace to prevail with righteousness and justice with order.
Under the influence of your spirit, make us trustworthy leaders who make wise decisions.
We need touch from you this morning that each person will bring honor to our God and be a blessing to our people.
Amen.

>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
>>ROSE FERLITA: (No response.)
>>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Here.
At this time we will have a commendation presented by Mr. Kevin White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: It is my privilege to be here this morning.
I'd like to ask my colleague Rose Ferlita to come down and help me with these presentations, please.
I would also like to ask officer Bucher to come down and any other colleagues.
As noted in the paper a few weeks ago, on May 8th, the eat on harms apartments went up in flames, and Officer Bucher and Officer Tregoe happened to be in the area.
Officer Bucher saw the flames and the smoke coming from the apartment complex and went over to see what was going on, summoned assistance, and after summoning assistance went into the building to actually rescue three to four residents that were trapped inside the building, both risking life and limb.
Officer Bucher got hurt in the incident going into the burning building and rescuing our residents of Tampa.
One of the things that people don't realize that our law enforcement officers and personnel, they are often unsung heroes, if you will, people just don't understand what it is that they do for us on a day-to-day basis risking life and limb, and taking total disregard for their own personal safety.
And I just think we would be remiss if we didn't honor some of our officers that go over and above and beyond the call of duty, because how many of us would run into a burning building to risk our own lives to save a fellowman we don't even know.
I would venture to say very few of us.
But today we're going to recognize two of those who have.
And I'm going to read the commendations, and the commendations both read the same.
But to officer Peter Bucher and Officer Tregoe, we would like to commend you for your bravery in entering the eat on complex which was fully engulfed in flames without regard for your personal safety, to prevent further tragedy from occurring, and the loss of lives and assisted with vacating residents safely.
We humbly extend to you our thanks and appreciation for your courage and heroism.
And on behalf of Tampa City Council, and all of the residents of Tampa, we do say thank you.
(Applause)
And before I ask the officers to come and say a word, I'm sure my colleague, who has never at a loss for words, and is chair of the Public Safety Committee.
>>ROSE FERLITA: You're very lucky because since I have been injured I can't do too much.
I didn't realize Mr. White was going to ask me to do anything at the podium and I'm delighted here to congratulate the two officers as well but I'm certainly appreciative that Kevin took the time and the energy to acknowledge them as he said, many things are done by our TPD officers are taken for granted, and all of us have to learn to appreciate what they do each and every day more and more and more.
So as well, congratulations to both of you.
And thank you for what you do.
We certainly appreciate it in this community.
Thank you, Kevin.
(Applause)
>> Officer Bucher: I would like to say thank you very much, and it's just what we do.
This is my daughter Ellen.
This is Jay, my wife, my mother-in-law.
>>> I also would like to say thank you and I feel very honored to receive this award.
These are my parents, Ed and Marge Trinkin.
(Applause)
>>KEVIN WHITE: At this time we'll hear from our chief, Chief Hogue.
I always put him on the spot as well.
>> First, I would like to say congratulations to the officers.
They obviously did something above and beyond the call of duty.
And, you know, they ran into that building, and they didn't have air packs on and they didn't have on special clothing to protect them.
And I know it's a scary thing.
And I know there are people alive today because of what you both did.
So I want to say thank you for that, also.
I would also like to say thank you to the council, particularly to Councilman White, for actually taking the time to put this together and honor both of these police officers.
So thank you very much.
(Applause)
>>ROSE FERLITA: Obviously this was not scripted, so I just went over to Mr. Michelini and he represents some of our corporate sponsors who say thank you to our police officers of the month and he has said that he's also going to give both of you certificates to Bern's and Signature Room and Bryn Allen.
So, Steve, thank you for the on-the-spot commitment here.
Kevin, thank you.
(Applause)

>>GWEN MILLER: We will now have the representatives from MOSI to please come up.
>> I wonder if we might wait for Maruchi Blanco.
She's enroute from a board meeting and is part of the presentation.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let us know as soon as she gets here.
We now go to Mary Alvarez.
She will do a commendation.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I think as a City Council we should accept Wayne Papy's resignation.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
It's unanimous.
(Laughter)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: That's what his choice is.
So we want to honor his choice to retire.
He has been a wonderful, wonderful employee, a model of -- a true mold of what an employee should be.
He started as a summer job, and became a part-time recreational leader and worked his way up through the ranks to where you are today.
Deputy director.
Your story is a true model not only for other city employees who just started out and wanting to reach the highest goals you have achieved but also an example to our youth in our community.
So we thank you for all the years of devotion to your city, to its citizens, and to all the wonderful park and recreational facilities.
I met Wayne just about the time that I started on City Council and I guess most of you did, too.
If anybody had any problems with parks, recreational facilities, I knew who to call.
Wayne was and is the right-hand man for the Parks Department, and the recreation department.
I know he has been Karen palus's right hand man and he's shown her all the ropes that she could possibly get in the short time that she has been here.
And I know that he has been a wonderful leader and inspiration to you.
He has been an inspiration to me.
I'm going to miss him.
The city is going to miss him.
And I think I still have your phone number.
(Laughter)
Don't change that phone number.
He has been truly a great employee.
38 years on the job, never heard of one complaint about him.
He's truly exemplary model to the city.
But anyway, we are going to miss you, Wayne.
I'm going to miss you.
And I just can't believe that you're really going to do this.
(Laughter)
You're too young.
I mean, you know, 62.
You're a kid.
Compared to me anyway.
But as chairman of the parks and recreation committee and on behalf of all my colleagues, we would like to present to you this commendation as you retire with 38 years of service to our city.
The commendation reads: In grateful recognition of your 38 years of service to the City of Tampa, the Tampa City Council does hereby commend you for your commitment to providing quality time options to the City of Tampa, your tireless efforts to create after-school activities for our youth and your leadership in the expansion and renovation of parks and recreation facilities throughout the City of Tampa.
Wayne, it's with great and heavy heart that I give you this.
(Applause)
Say a few words.
>>WAYNE PAPY: Thank you, Mary.
You know, there's an awful lot of people I have to thank throughout my years of working for the city, and three of those guys are sitting right behind me.
I hate this because you know I hate to get emotional.
But Pete and Mike have been with me for the last 24 25th years as we went through our programs in the recreation department, and the last two years with parks and recreation.
They have been part of the administrative team and I just want to thank them.
(Applause)
And Henry didn't come over this morning.
I'm sorry.
Henry has been with me the last two years.
This has just been an awesome career.
Started out, as Mary says, a part-time recreation leader at Broward elementary school, working part-time, and made some wonderful, wonderful experiences with all those kids and people.
And what's really sad on my part is, I started out, and it was my peers that were calling me and saying, hey, I've got a son, can you get him a job now?
So I would always help them along.
Now it's, "can you get my grandchild a job?"
So that tells you something.
Council, I just want to tell each and every one of you it's been my pleasure and my honor to worked with you for all these years.
I still have little pockets with notes in them from Ms. Miller and Ms. Ferlita.
We still have some things we need to do.
And as Mary mentioned, we've got Ms. Palus now who is going to take control and I think you know she demonstrated she's going to carry on that same tradition of honoring your requests and being responsive to your needs.
And with that I say thank you very much for a wonderful career.
I thank the City of Tampa for allowing me to work for them for 38 years.
Thank you.
(Applause)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Papy, I don't think you can get off that easy.
I don't think you can get off that easy.
Wayne, I remember when I was president of the neighborhood association on Davis Island, and working with Pete, a little neighborhood function out there, that's the first time I interacted with you guys and it was amazing.
We wanted to do something on the island and you guys made it happen.
And I know that's probably what you have been doing for 38 years which by my calculation was 1967.
So do you have a picture you can show us of what you looked like in 1967?
>>> Well, I had a flat-top.
>> Anyway, you have done a phenomenonal job, and we just wish you all the best.
>>> I appreciate that.
You all know that we have still got a long ways to go, and there's still some projects out there that we need to finish.
And Mr. White, I want you to know that the masons are laying blocks.
We were by there yesterday to make sure they are working.
Jenkins pool, still need to get it renovated.
There's a lot of things we still need to come.
We have come a long ways.
Again it's been my pleasure to work for each of you and to help you in your endeavors as you have tried to serve your constituents.
Thank you.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Wayne, I want to add my comments, as usual, right?
When you talk about 38 years ago beginning as a part-time employ when the recreation department, I can't help but to think that 38 years I started as a part-time employee with the recreation department, and have been a not a city employee but pretty close, and compared to what you have done for the city in 38 and what I have done for the city in much less active time, don't think I could stay here long enough to do what you have done in that 38 year career.
From the bottom of my heart, and I hate to get emotional, too, but Wayne, I'm going to miss you.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have one more note for you to put in your pocket before you leave.
>>WAYNE PAPY: Is my pocket long enough?
>>GWEN MILLER: You can fill it before you leave.
But I would like to say thank you for all the hard work you have done and all the help you have given me and I'm going to miss you.
And I don't know who can fill your shoes and do the things you have done for me.
But I'll find someone that you would tell me to find.
And thanks a lot for everything.
And I know everyone feels the same way I do.
And enjoy your retirement.
>>> Thank you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's so great when somebody's work is also their passion.
And it's always -- in working with you, I've always felt that you were doing this not only because it was your job but because you just loved it.
And we all appreciate what you've always done for all the neighborhoods.
When we go out in the community and ask people what they like about this city, recreation is really the top of the list.
And with the limited dollars you have had to struggle with over the years, you have done as many programs and as many locations and we are very appreciative for the energy and commitment that you always brought to your job.
Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Papy, I too want to weigh in.
In the short time that I have had a chance to work with you, you have been one of those rare people that's a go-to guy.
Whenever I've needed something out of parks and recreation, I've come to you, and you've made it happen for me.
And sometimes in a city of 300,000 people with 3,000 employees, it's awfully easy to sort of pass the buck and say it's not my job.
But I never got that type of a response from you in anything I asked for.
And if you can navigate that mine field out there in New Tampa with all of those kids, and all of those parents who are demanding, very demanding folks, that's a great testament to your ability.
So thank you very much.
We are going to miss you.
And I hope whoever comes along to fill your shoes can do half the job.
>>> Their still here.
Mr. Harrison, you know, we are moving along on those plans for the New Tampa gymnastics center and there's a meeting tomorrow on it and I'm sure going to the community very soon on that and it's going to be a wonderful addition to the recreational needs in New Tampa.
Hopefully it will be within two years we'll have it.
You all have been very patient in some of the projects, because you have asked us to do some things, and it takes time, and you know that it takes time.
We have been able to work together and get them accomplished.
>>KEVIN WHITE: You forgot to tell Mr. Harrison after you retire you are going to be in the private sector and you are going to be supervising that in New Tampa.
(Laughter)
I just want to let you know, as well as Shawn's remarks, probably in my district three of the main projects that I've had going on that directly reflect your department and under your administration, it has been a true pleasure.
And there's never been a time that I've ever needed anything that I couldn't get a direct response or an answer from you or someone in your staff.
And I commend you for that.
And I hope that type of communication continues to happen and go on.
I think leadership comes from the top, and everybody else gets it from there.
>>> Thank you, sir.
If I may take one more little moment.
There's two ladies back here that sit right outside of my office for many, many years.
Nicky and Debbie Rotella.
They are actually the ones that kept me straight for the last many years.
(Applause)
>>ROSE FERLITA: Gwen, I'm sorry, I forgot one thing.
Obviously when we can sit here and compliment for the rest of the day and it wouldn't be enough.
But one thing that I thought was important as you leave, and I want to you take this with you, I see my friend Pete there, whose mom before her death was a customer of mine.
And Pete never, never lost an opportunity when he was at the store, on his time off, of course, to talk about how much he expected you, and when the guys that work with you say that, then that tells it all.
I just wanted to add that to my comments.
>>WAYNE PAPY: It's been my pleasure.
>>GWEN MILLER: You will be missed a round here.
Now we go to MOSI's representative.
>> It's my pleasure to follow Wayne Papy.
All the great things that MOSI has done with the community over the last five years, I think what I'm most proud of is what we have done with the Hispanic community.
Just a quick story, Viv Santiago is a senior at the University of South Florida, in the Department of Education, learning how to be a science educator in our public school system.
She's also a green jacket at USF and a student leader.
Six years ago she started out at the science center as a very young, naive woman that MOSI was mentoring, as one of our Yes team members.
She really developed and blossomed into a spectacular teacher at MOSI, working with the public, and she hadn't even graduated from high school.
So luckily, we knew that that she was going to be a successful high school graduate but now she's going to be a successful university graduate and go into the workforce.
This is all a result of our national Hispanic scientist of the year program, which Maruchi Blanco started.
I would like to get her up here as our member from MOSI to tell you who our scientist of the year is.
>>> Good morning.
First of all, I would like to express my sincerest appreciation to the council for the past recognitions that you have given our Hispanic scientists.
Over the last five years we have been able to honor outstanding public educators, scientists, ranging from Dr. Antonio Molina who honored her last year with her presence, the first person to serve the United States, and Dr. Molina, who discovered the holes in the ozone, and Frank Caldeto, whose mission will be going up in a couple of weeks.
Just to give you an idea, these scientists impress children to continue education.
That's our mission.
The high drop-out rate of 30% in the Hispanic community of children dropping out between the ages of 11 and 14 is just a dire number that we need to really attack, because science, modern technology are the backbones of our society.
We can't solve problems without finding them through math and science.
We decided five years ago to begin this program, the national Hispanic scientist of the year event.
No other community, no other Hispanic community, is doing a project like this, because no other community has the science center of the stature and the importance of MOSI.
MOSI is the largest science center in the southern United States.
When the children's science center is finished it will put MOSI in the higher echelons of one of the top science centers in the country.
So today we are here with great honor to have the opportunity to present to you the selection of this year's national Hispanic scientist.
The selectee or the honoree, as we like to call them, is from Harvard medical school for the last 30 years.
He spearheaded the department of cancer immunology and aids.
He's from Columbia.
So you can imagine what our Columbian community is going through, because Dr. Edmond Yunis who will be gracing us on October 21 and 22 with his presence will be here and has an unbelievable reputation in South America and the entire Yunis family is known as just scientific mentors for people all over the world.
Dr. Yunis will be addressing 1,000 Hispanic immigrant children on Friday, October 21st, many of whom it's their first visit to MOSI.
All of this is made possible through the tremendous members and sponsors that have caught onto this program over the last five years, one of which is more important to us than Bright House.
And I'd like wit make this introduction.
>> Wit Ostrenko: We would like to introduce to you Bright House assistant general manager.
>> Greg McLaughlin, Assistant General Manager of Bright House here in Tampa, and I know most of you.
I could stand up here and tell you about how important it is to support programs like this.
But you already know that.
So I won't.
I'll just tell you that we are honored to be part of this, and we value so much the scientific technology that they support in our citizens as they grow up to be hopefully supporters of us.
So we're just thrilled to be a part of it.
Thank you for your support.
Thank you for all the work you're doing.
(Applause)
>>GWEN MILLER: We will now go to our department heads, Ms. Cathy Coyle.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Good morning, council.
Catherine Coyle, land development.
I want to bring to you the student housing project across the university of Tampa, the one where they saved the grand tree and it was a fairly long rezoning case.
They have some minor changes to the plan, and they came in for a substantial change review with staff.
There are two issues with the site plan that we cannot dress administratively.
One is the setback on the western side is being reduced from six feet to four feet.
We cannot change setbacks administratively.
And the second is the increase in the building size.
It was originally approved at 52,000 square feet and they are asking for a maximum of 60,000 square feet.
We can only approve a 5% change which would give them 54,600 square feet.
So basically I'm here to let you know that they do have to be rezoned again for those two minor changes.
Everyone on the staff has reviewed it.
And there really are no objections.
They do have a financial contract deadline which they can get into.
If you have questions for Andrea Zelman, she's here.
But the deadline is pushing this to an issue where we need to get it done as soon as possible, for the opening for the university.
The next available date would be June 30th at 10 a.m., if council would be so willing to hear it then.
It's those two minor issues and they have no objection from staff.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would the additional square footage they are asking for be additional height?
>>> Six feet in height actually.
The building got wider.
That's the problem.
>> Would the petitioner notify the surrounding property owners?
>>> They will be required.
It's another rezoning hearing.
They have approximately 34 days now.
So they'll meet the 30-day deadline for the notice.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would support that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Make a motion then.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I guess my motion would be to waive the rules so we can hear this during the day.
>>> Yes, June 30, 10 a.m..
>> I move we move this to hear this June 30th at 10 a.m..
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Santiago.
Is Mr. Roland Santiago here?
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Good morning.
Legal department.
I've got two items that I want to address.
Item 15 is a substitute ordinance, there was an error in the title.
We provided that for you.
You should have copies.
We just ask that you accept the substitute ordinance, for the one originally provided.
Second item is number 43.
Item number 43 was actually approved on May 5th.
So through our system, we had a little glitch.
What you received is a duplicate.
You don't need to take action.
I would just ask that you withdraw that from the agenda, since that matter has in fact been resolved.
And that is all.
>>GWEN MILLER: That is all.
Thank you.
Mr. David Smith.
>>DAVID SMITH: Here to speak with you briefly about item number 23.
As you may recall, 23 deals with a question regarding the pruning of a tree and whether that pruning constituted an effective removal.
The issue I'm going to address, you have a written report that Karen Palus provided to you that indicates what the department is currently doing.
This matter is actually still in process.
There are efforts being made to correct it.
Whether those efforts prove to be sufficient or not is something that Karen will continue to monitor.
The question I'm here to speak with you about briefly is whether criminal penalties are appropriate or can be used in situations such as these.
And the answer is, yes, they can.
It can be a criminal offense.
And if the situation is sufficiently egregious, a criminal prosecution could be commenced.
One of the things that's important in that process, though, that you may not be aware of, our judiciary has a tremendous caseload.
Not all of our criminal prosecutions are uniformly well received, given the caseload.
So we are very careful in our selection criteria.
We want to make sure we have a case where the evidence is very strong, the action is particularly egregious, and the judge who happens to hear that case will take all the appropriate actions we want them to take.
The last thing we want to do is bring actions in which there's essentially a no real sanction attendant to it.
So we are aware of that and it's certainly something we evaluate and are still evaluating in regard to this case.
That's essentially my report.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?
Thank you, Mr. Smith.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there a time frame when we will hear back from you after you evaluated those different considerations?
>>> There's a report that Karen Palus provided you that talks about an ongoing negotiation with the possible violator, and reports there are certain measures that need to be taken.
Those measures need to be successful.
Unfortunately we don't have a strict time frame.
It will depend on how those measures play out over the course of time.
But I realize we can't let it run forever.
But we will keep track of this, with Karen, and when we have a decision date where it looks like we are getting too long to consider criminal prosecution, we'll certainly make a decision.
But right now, it looks like they are working very hard to solve the problem.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Donna Wysong.
>> Donna Wysong, legal department, here to speak on fishing along Bayshore.
New City of Tampa code section 14-216 currently fishing and crabbing along Bayshore Boulevard is prohibited.
This ordinance has been in effect since 1989.
At your request, we looked into -- we had spoken with the Parks Department and they looked into whether or not amendments to that ordinance should be changed to allow sufficient -- fishing along Bayshore and it was determined that due to potential liability concerns with the mixed use along that strip, that it was determined that no amendments would be recommended at this time.
Also, we checked with the transportation department, and they would not recommend allowing fishing from the bridges either.
So at this point we have no recommendations to make, amendments to the ordinance at this time.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I spoke to -- and I believe it's not only Bayshore, I believe we also prohibit fishing along some other places like the edge of Davis Island, Channelside Drive, and some other locations.
I'm very concerned.
First of all, I heard from commissioner Jan Platt, but she is a big advocate of fishing and she said the majority of people that she sees fishing are kids, and she thinks two things, first of all that this is ridiculous, and, secondly, the signs would be very unattractive, and thirdly, there is a subtext.
I don't know that anybody has ever mentioned this.
But I think there might be a subtext of racism in this.
And I think that's a concern.
And I think that fishing should be legal on the edge of city parks.
And if I were fishing -- I'm not so good.
I need a lot of room to put my stuff out.
There are cut-outs along Bayshore where there's a bench, and there's a little more room.
And it's obvious that those are the places where it's easier to put your tackle and all the things you need.
And rather than just along the straight-away.
Plus it's too shallow along much of the straight-away to even consider catching anything.
But people fish on the bridges and they fish on the parks that go out into the water a little more, and they fish at Ballast Point, which is in any my opinion the lost likely place to catch something.
But I think making it illegal and cutting out different pieces of land saying this is illegal, this is legal, it's inconsistent, it's an enforcement issue, it might lead to tacky signs being put up, and I just don't think it's necessary.
So I would support the elimination of this ordinance.
I think it's just not worthy of our city.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I take the different viewpoint on that.
I think there's little places on the Bayshore that can be used for fishing, just like you said, that little cut-out near where the Gasparilla boat normally parks.
Because I've seen -- I think the most people in there that are going to catch is catfish.
And I've seen people not on the Bayshore, of course, but I've seen people cut off the catfish with their line, and leave them there because they don't want to touch them.
So who is going to come around and pick up these dead catfish that are there, plus -- you know, we have got some people that are responsible.
But yet we have a lot of people that are irresponsible.
And they'll leave their catfish and their bait and everything else out there.
And I don't believe that the Bayshore is a place to do the fishing, especially where it's so shallow.
And I believe -- I'm not too sure but it seems to me that one of the reasons they ban fishing on the Bayshore at one time was because of the polluted bay.
And they didn't want people crabbing or fishing in there because of the pollution in there.
So I don't know whether that's still the case or not.
But I'm not convinced that it's a place to go.
It's a beautiful, you know, a beautiful place to be in, walking and jogging and bicycling and whatever else you want to do over there.
But I don't believe that fishing is one of them.
Unless you can do it like we've talked about where the cut-outs are, and the Ballast Point, they have beautiful fishing pier over there.
And I wouldn't support any changes to it at this point.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other council members?
Thank you, Ms. Wysong.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me, I'm going to try to make a motion.
I move that we eliminate the prohibition against fishing on Bayshore on the edge of Davis Island and the other little places that -- where fishing is prohibited.
I think the edge of Davis Islands is absolutely a fine place to fish.
And I never understood why that was enacted.
So I would make that as a motion.
>>GWEN MILLER: Did I get a second?
It dies for lack of second.
Ms. Ferlita?
>>ROSE FERLITA: I just want to ask some clarification to determine what I'm doing.
When we are talking about not allowing fishing, we're not talking along Channelside?
We are talking about that?
Is that right?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Channel drive along Davis Island.
Maybe Ms. Palus could come up or somebody from legal to explain where the areas that are set aside where fishing is prohibited.
>>> Karen Palus, parks and recreation director.
There are several areas that you can currently fish at.
Tony JANUS park is one.
We encourage a lot of our fishermen to go in that area.
It's not heavily traversed by bikers, walkers and such.
So there are some areas.
We also have -- I have been looking at identifying some areas near the Gasparilla -- that Ms. Alvarez was talking about but there may be a landing there, to get some access that gets them away from the main thoroughfare of activity with the baby carriages and the bikers and the skaters and walkers and such.
So those are the areas there.
We also have Ballast Point park as mentioned with the pier.
Picnic island is a great fishing location.
And those type of facilities where we currently allow.
The other areas I am looking into as well right now, the way this is written, is Marjorie Park yacht basin is not allowable for fishing currently.
And based on when that was enacted in '89 there is a law of all the marina ran around the basin area, so there may be an area there that could be designated.
Or off on the Channelside.
There are other areas that we can look at Bayshore itself with the amount of activity, there's very limited parking so even in the cut-outs to be able to bring all your equipment with you and cart it out there, that's a far way to go.
And again with not having facilities there to be able to clean fish or throw away or such, I think we might be back into some serious issues, which I think is why this came about in '9.
Several others of our employees.
But it was some safety issues, the health and welfare of that area, keeping it cleaned up and trash fish was very heavily available, and I believe there was some banning that occurred with the crabbing and such in the area.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Ms. Palus, you said fishing was allowable but what's the status at this point about Channelside Drive?
>>> Channelside Drive, I have to look specifically in that area.
I'm trying to think.
I'm still learning all of that.
But I think that is not available currently in that specific area.
>> I'm sorry, Kevin, I just want some clarification.
Ms. Saul-Sena, I think you're talking about removing the ban in every area.
>>> That's what I thought was my motion.
But I think the points that Ms. Palus raised were valid about lifting, and perhaps some of the other areas where it's currently prohibited, like Channelside, and Marjorie Park, and where the Bayshore -- the public art where the tarpon --.
>> Yes, across from that.
And we try to look at areas where there was close parking to those locations as well.
It wasn't something where you had to cart your equipment and such.
That distance.
>>ROSE FERLITA: That's my concern.
It appears that your motion is crafted, I wouldn't support it.
And I'll give you the opportunity to restate fountain you want, Ms. Saul-Sena.
But I think from the standpoint of public safety chair, there are issues.
And I think Ms. Alvarez spoke to some of them about removing the ban all the way down Bayshore.
My first sense is, well, some people like to bike.
I don't.
Some people like to jog.
I should.
Some people like to walk.
I don't.
But they have the rights to do that on the Bayshore.
And maybe somebody else has the right to fish there if that's what they want.
That's wonderful therapeutic past-time.
But I think the allowance of enough space to take care of bait, to take care of doing whatever fishermen do is going to be a problem on Bayshore.
And one thing that Ms. Saul-Sena said about whether or not this is a racial undertone or discriminant undertone, I believe it would be if we didn't allow fishing.
And I didn't know it was illegal.
I'm going to tell you what.
And with no specific spent intent, lots of times when I'm on Davis Island, and I drive down channel because it's really pretty, I see a lot of people fishing and I see predominantly more African-Americans.
So what?
It's out of the way.
Everybody has the same rights.
It's a nice peaceful place to fish.
The residents are across the street.
So they are really not interfered with and lots of times I see people come across because they want to make conversation or -- yeah, to see what they caught.
I think if we try to be smart about, this eliminate the areas that are not safe, not because of black or white or anything else, it's just not safe, there's not enough room, and we don't want any accidents on the Bayshore, but if we start looking at areas that we can allow, I think that would be great.
And I hope to God that we don't remove Channelside or channel drive -- is it channel or Columbia?
Whatever is on the water.
It's Columbia, yeah.
But, I mean, I just think that's such a nice peaceful place.
You have places to sit.
You have residences.
There's a lot of traffic.
People enjoy fishing.
There's a lot of trees.
It's shaded.
You think we would do our citizenry a disjustice by not allowing that.
I know that everybody is -- boy, here we go, I shouldn't say this -- but every neighborhood is protective of it's own neighborhood.
Davis Island people obviously have shown this over and over.
But Davis is Davis Island.
Just because somebody doesn't live there doesn't mean they can't go there and fish.
I think people who fish are very healthy people mentally.
And I think for us to take away the opportunity to fish in place that is are pleasant is the wrong way to go.
That being said, Mrs. Saul-Sena, if you want to say something else and it sounds good I'll support it.
If not --.
>>GWEN MILLER: Well, talking about Bayshore.
>>ROSE FERLITA: In terms of public safety think she has referenced some of it.
Karen has.
And it's not about discrimination.
It's not the right place.
But on Columbia, that's fine.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: To take it from the top, I would like to you come back in three weeks with a report on allowing fishing in some of the places where it's previously been prohibited based on the advice of your staff.
And specifically Columbia drive and some of the other places were identified.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Any questions on the motion?
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Morris Massey.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Legal department.
I'm hear on item 25 to give you all a report on the history center.
Let me hand out to you all an item that was passed by council in October.
In October of last year City Council approved an interlocal agreement with Hillsborough County for the location of the history center on a portion of what everyone refers to as Fort Brooke phase 3 which is property being acquired with money partially from the Trust along the Garrison Channel.
And prior to coming to council, we had jointly with the county applied to the Florida communities trust to amend our grant application in the proposed management plan for that park to allow the erection of the history center of that location.
And we had a meeting before the Florida communities trust board where they unanimously approved the amendment to the management plan for that property and consented to the construction of the history museum at that location.
As a result, the city and the county commenced negotiating this interlocal agreement which provides for at 99 year lease to the county for the history -- for the construction of the history center building and the use of that building for the history center.
So currently we do have an agreement in place with Hillsborough County.
We also consented to the county entering into a management and sublease agreement, the Tampa Bay History Center, Inc., which they have.
And based on that, I believe the Board of County Commissioners released the $17 million in community investment tax funds, and went forward with the design of the history museum, and they are in the process of designing that.
And so that's where that project lies now.
And so I think everyone is proceeding on the basis that that will be the location of the history museum.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Mr. Massey.
And I made the motion for you to come in, and update us, because it seems like we had some opportunities with the mayor's new vision for the potential location of the art museum being in the courthouse, and Zack Street, and sort of the Boulevard of the Arts she's talking about.
And it seems like there's a great opportunity here to co-locate all of our new museums up in that arts district.
Certainly none of us want to pull the rug out from under the folks at the his true museum.
And if we are too far gone on that location, then it is what it is.
But it seems to make a whole lot of sense to put everyone up in that same area so that they can feed off of one another.
And I know you're jumping at the chance to respond here.
It just seems like it makes a heck of a lot of sense.
So from a purely legal standpoint, not a policy standpoint, where are we?
We are locked into this 99 year lease at this point?
They have complied with all conditions precedent, there's nothing that we can go back to them with and say, we ought to take another look?
>>> They have not violated the terms of the lease.
In order to relook at this, you have to have the consent of not only the City of Tampa but Hillsborough County and the Tampa Bay history center, Inc., as well.
They have not totally performed under this agreement.
This agreement envisions that they have to design a building that is consistent with the approved management plan for that site, and they have to build it within a certain number of years, I believe five years or six years under the terms of this agreement, from the time it was approved.
So there are things that they must Don.
And they must continue to do them.
And one of the things we built into this agreement is they must strictly comply with any requirements that the state has imposed through the Florida communities trust.
So to the extent that there's any problems with meeting those criteria, obviously, there's the ability at that juncture to revisit the issue.
But at this juncture, you know, they are claiming it, as far as we know or are concerned, and made it consistent with the state's approved management plan for the site.
The city staff has been invited to, I believe, some of the design meetings.
The property will actually have to be rezoned and that rezoning will come before you all, concerned that the building is sited and designed in a manner totally consistent with a management plan.
I think we probably want to do a site specific plan for that and the city is responsible for doing that under the interlocal agreement.
So at this juncture, there's no legal basis to unwind the deal.
That's not to say at sometime in the future there wouldn't be a basis to do so and obviously everyone agrees, the citizens of Tampa, everyone agrees it makes more sense for it to be located elsewhere, the parties can essentially agree to terminate this.
But without that consensual agreement, I don't see a legal basis.
>> And one of their conditions is they have to come up with a business plan that is acceptable to the county?
>>> Yes.
And I believe they have submitted that to the county folks.
And before the county even allowed the CIT money to be used for the design of the proposed history center, I believe the Tampa Bay history center folks had to raise like $11 million endowment which they have done, and they have increased their fund-raising goals.
So as far as I know, they have met all the criteria that both the city and can't placed before them.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Mr. Steve Daignault.
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: I wanted to address item number 27.
It's provide a report on the STAR program.
And just so you're aware of how we are managing this program, there originally was under the wastewater department.
We have moved it about a year ago under the water department because it really functions more like a water supply system rather than a sewer collection system.
And then the contract administration is overseeing the contract.
Okay.
So there's a number of folks still involved in this program.
I have a short presentation that I'd like to give you just to provide in the way of an update.
Go ahead and start that STAR program.
There we go.
As you know, STAR 1 was broken up into four different areas, four contracts, and the first area was out on Davis Island.
Was activated in October of '04.
We had about 1285 people enrolled, and so far 656, or just a little over 50% of those folks have actually connected.
In Hyde Park we actually broke it into north and south areas.
The north area was completed and activated in November.
Last year.
We had about 894 enrolled and so far 223 connected and that's about 28%. Did I get ahead of myself?
In the Hyde Park South area, it was activated in February.
We have 894 people enrolled.
About 223 connected.
We have recently had some clogs in this system.
I just want you to be aware of that.
From the original drilling into the pipe, and we had some sand and stuff in there.
And that's kind of some issues we are going to have to work through as we get this process going, kind of start-up issues.
But we'll get that taken care of and cleaned.
And we don't expect much of that as we move downstream.
Again, in the south Hyde Park area is about 25% of the folks have connected.
In the Westshore area, we actually had a contractor walk off the job about a year or so ago.
He lost some of his staff.
And so one of our areas became -- sat there and was not being finished.
The Westshore area was actually closer to being finished.
But the area in between Westshore and Hyde Park was not finished so we couldn't activate the Westshore area. The Westshore area will be activated in July and we have 300 people enrolled in that area, or customers.
And then the Beach Park area will be activated in November.
And we have 1874 customers enrolled there.
From some of those numbers you can see they are relatively low numbers of people hooking up.
And we really do need those customers who committed up front to actually connect.
We need those customers because of the way we structured the repayment of this capital project.
One of the things we have been doing in trying to get folks connected, we have done a survey to find out why aren't you connecting with the problem?
As you can see the majority of the folks said, well, they're just busy and they've forgotten.
Others said, well, estimates tore high to connect and this is where they have to pay for the plumber to connect them.
You can see other reasons there.
One of the things that again we need to do is to try to encourage these folks.
A good drought would probably help because they want to say, well, I want to be able to water when I can without any restrictions.
Well, I'm not asking for a good drought.
That's the story of incentive that we have available to us, is something like that at this point.
The star 2 project is the next area that we are looking at.
Again there was an initial planning report done back in 2003.
Budget office performing initial financial feasibility also in 2003.
We just had consultant presentations.
We heard presentations from three consultants who are applying for the contract to do the initial planning for STAR 2.
We just heard them on Tuesday of this week.
So a selection will be made shortly there.
And we expect to move forward with the STAR 2 project.
Here you can see that we have a good bit of money committed from Southwest Florida Water Management District.
This is a 50% match.
So we have to match all of these dollars when it comes time to actually construct this program.
But those dollars are out there and are committed in their program, in their financial program.
We have learned a lot of lessons since STAR 1.
As I mentioned you need a drought now to incentivize folks, and that's not what ed like to rely on.
As a matter of fact we would like to use some other mechanisms to try to encourage people to kind of demonstrate the importance and the significance to the city and to them of using reuse water.
As Lou around the state, there are other things, homeowners being assessed, different types of arrangements with regards to the plumbing connection, the rates, et cetera, in watering restrictions, which there are none for reuse customer here in the city.
But we have to come up with other mechanisms to incentivize folks as we go into STAR 2.
These are the criteria we use for STAR 1.
We said it was a very valuable resource.
And it actually is.
We had.
No flat monthly fees or rates.
We had a volumetric charge.
But everything was in that volumetric charge including the capital cost, and we said connection was voluntary, and the STAR must pay for itself.
You see we have at least half of the money from southwest water management district but we still need to get the remaining amount of money.
That's pretty much it for that presentation.
I do want to say to you that hits as many folks as we possibly can over on the re-use system, anybody that is irrigating onto a reuse system is a very, very important part of what we need to be pursuing.
As Tampa knows, and you know how quickly and language we are growing, we need that potable water.
While it may seem like we have an endless supply, we don't.
We have capped and limited on the amount of potable water we can produce and make available.
Any people that we can get off of using potable water for irrigation and onto using reused water which we have a significant amount from subpoena going to save us in the future.
We are just kind of putting money, or at least water in the bank for the future.
So again we are going to be continuing to present these STAR type programs.
In the South Tampa area you're aware of the programs of the regional reclaims augmentation program which would allow to us bring reuse water to north Tampa.
We want to target those part of the city where people do a lot of irrigating, and therefore would use the irrigation, the reuse water.
So I thank you.
I hope that answers some questions.
Gives you an update.
And I would be glad to answer any questions.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Daignault, this has nothing to do with the STAR projects because I am not involved in it.
But I was wondering, what about the reclaimed water?
Are you selling off that water to the counties and the other Tampa Bay water, whoever else is wanting to buy this water?
And do we have a lot of it left?
>>> We have on average about 50 million gallons a day that comes out of the plant, the wastewater treatment plant that we currently put in the river, except for the few folks who are currently on STAR.
We are selling to the those STAR customers.
We have not gotten to the point.
We have had the pipeline in so we are not selling it yet to Tampa Bay, either Hillsborough or Pasco.
But that would be the intent.
And that would be what we would do once that project is completed.
>> When would that be?
Because I know at one time the county was asking for the reclaim water.
It was kind of like a little war going on that they wanted all of our reclaimed water.
What's going on with that?
Is that because of the downstream augmentation?
>>> The downstream augmentation project would provide the mechanism, the pipes that would allow us to transfer water to them and sell the water to them, yes.
>> So is the county willing to help with that augmentation by helping with the pipes and stuff like that?
Or you never asked them?
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Oh, no, there is a team or a group of five different entities involved in that downstream augmentation and includes Hillsborough County, includes Pasco County, water management district, Tampa Bay water.
So they are all funding in funding, getting grant money, et cetera, for those projects.
>> So when do you think these parts will be in place?
>>> Well, they need to do done by 2012.
2012 is the date.
Right.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: What about getting reclaimed water to the Florida Aquarium?
Because I know they are interested in getting some reclaimed water.
>>> Right now, we're not really close to the aquarium.
We have a lot of large developments going on in the close vicinity of at least STAR 2, the Georgetown project, the WCI project south of Gandy, the yacht basin.
Those larger pros are potential low-hanging fruit that we would like to get for use of water, too.
So we'll be dealing with them as we start STAR 2.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: A few months ago my family connected to the STAR project and our water bills have gone down considerably.
And if you need somebody to like -- to state how, what an excellent program it is, and don't feel guilty about watering in these dry months, because you know it's reclaimed water.
So I think it's an excellent program.
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Daignault, thank you, and Mr. Bennett and all of your team, for all of your hard work on STAR and everything else.
The question I have is probably more in the way of a comment.
And perhaps a request down the road.
You and Mr. Bennett and I have been talking about this a little bit.
But it has to do with the fact that when we do build these large parks, particularly to take reclaimed water to the north, to our city developments to the north, or to the county's developments, or even to Pasco, it's my understanding that Pasco has already put into their ordinances that their new developments, anywhere that it's anticipated that reclaimed water could reasonably be there in the reasonable future, that the new developments are required to dry-line in the infrastructure and the purple piping in Tampa, would be purple piping, all the way up to the homes, I guess, or at least to the streets.
And I think that's very progressive.
Because basically what that says is they are going to have a whole bulk of customers waiting for that water, and nobody has to make the investment, because it's already there in the ground.
All they have to do is probably pay a hundred bucks and have somebody switch the pipes over and turn at round.
So if you could confirm some of that.
And I would say that the City of Tampa should look into changing our ordinance so that new developments are reasonably expected to get this reclaimed water should go ahead and put their pipes in the ground when it's cheap and easy to do so.
And the same thing with Hillsborough County.
If they are going to be a partner, then we need to move with them.
We need to work with them and with SWFWMD to make sure our customers are there and ready to go.
Can you confirm what you know about Pasco?
>>> About Pasco?
>> Am I correct?
>>> I'm not sure we are putting in much of a pipe system in Pasco.
We are getting water up there to them.
They already have a reuse system in effect.
But unless they are expanding their system, they are not going to be going by any new developments.
But the new developments that are in the area of their current system, and any new developments that are even reachable from areas that we are looking at, the South Tampa and new Tampa areas, we probably could find a geographical boundary and identify new developments in those areas.
If they could put in those reuse distribution lines at the time of construction, it would be very helpful.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And what I'm saying is not where it an option, where it's a function of development, and it's my understanding that SWFWMD, in contributing to all of this reclaimed augmentation project, SWFWMD is going to be pretty much asking local governments or telling local governments, you if you want our money then you have to make sure these new developments do this.
And we have to do this by ordinance.
And it might cost them a few hundred dollars per household on the front end as compared to maybe a thousand dollars a household on the back end, ten years from now.
And it just makes a lot of sense.
Plus it provides that customer base that's built in.
So I'm not going to make a motion at this time.
But I just hope that we keep working on that, as a goal, to amend our development ordinances to require that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions?
Thank you, Mr. Daignault.
Ms. Sarah Lang.
>> Sarah Lang, human resources here on items 31 and 34 on the agenda, just to answer any questions you might have.
I think you have been notified previously from our office.
This is regarding the contract for the city with MGT of America, Inc., which will be providing a compensation and classification study for the city.
It's designed to occur in two phases.
Phase one, to commence immediately, which includes a review of the pay rates for managers, elected officials, legislative aides, attorneys, that are appointed as classified employees, and phase 2, which will include the classification of compensation for the rest of the city employees, which would start approximately October 1st.
If you have any questions, I would be glad to answer them.
>>KEVIN WHITE: A couple of questions that I have before you.
I'm looking at the proposed resolution, and it's $35 that you for this first term, and what was the amount, $110?
>> It's 110 total.
>> And 75 for the second.
>>> Correct. 65.
>> In a timely fashion, I don't know why this came about from the mayor's office, in such a timely manner.
Two weeks ago, we were having council budget discussions.
We were down in the Mascotte room.
It was a publicly noticed meeting.
And, again, there were a couple of council members that were not there.
But I, as finance chair, was asked to look into salaries for council, aides, the city attorney.
And the $110,000 to do a study over two years just doesn't seem feasible to me when I was able to, myself and my aide, were able to conduct a survey in two weeks that cost the taxpayers nothing.
I have a lot of information here especially in phase 1, the $35 increment.
My aide would probably like that 35,000 for her diligence.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like that, too, believe me.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't know what council's preference is.
And I'll ask them now.
I do have the information that I was charged to investigate.
Again, as reported last time when this came up, this was a Kevin White issue.
This is not a Kevin White issue.
Kevin white was put on a charge.
I did my job.
I investigated.
I brought it back to council to disseminate the information.
That's what this is again.
Kevin White has no dog in this fight.
I will not be here.
But I do have all the information.
A lot of things have changed since we got elected in 2003.
And I see the look on some of the council members' face.
And some of those things, we have gone from one CRA district to five.
Which in the words of Ms. Saul-Sena, we need to dedicate more time, more meetings, more hours, just to that one particular thing.
Last week, we had an 8-hour special meeting for Tampa General Hospital, which was on a Tuesday night, which is not our regularly scheduled night.
We have a backlog of developers waiting to get on the schedule, can't be heard, months and months behind.
Or if they misnoticed then they had to go to the next scheduled meeting date.
Council members currently -- frequently request extra workshops, additional meetings.
There are so many things that the average person doesn't see that council members do.
They just go to City Council meeting on Thursday, they meet on Thursday night with the zoning hearings, and that's it.
Each one of us are charged with different responsibilities and have different boards that we serve on that take up an exorbitant amount of time.
I personally am on the public Transportation Committee, and the youth advisory council, as well as the metropolitan planning organization, which our chair pro tem is the chairman of that.
And I'm sure he can tell you that takes up a whole great deal of time.
It goes on and on.
But the dedications, the ceremonies, the ribbon cuttings.
Are all of these things mandatory?
Absolutely not.
But are they expected of council members by our constituents?
Absolutely.
And there's a fine line between having to discern and to go with one, or trying to make a living.
Some of us up here are retired or in business for ourselves.
Others of us work for a living, so to speak, and have other obligations.
And it's hard trying to have to decipher between which obligation takes precedence.
As well, since announcing my leaving this position, I can't tell you how many people asked me about the hours this job entails.
And I can tell you once I go over my weekly calendar with somebody, the first thing they say, there's no way I can afford to do that on what you all make.
So one of the things that council's salary, as well as the mayor's salary, as well as other members of the city salary, they are not conducive.
And I applaud the effort of trying to get a study done.
But I don't think $110,000 is the way to go about it over a two-year period of time.
>>> Could I correct some things?
It's not a two-year time.
It's expect to be completed within a few months.
This is a study of over 400 positions in this city and close to 3,000 employees.
>>> Okay.
>> One includes approximately 200 employees.
>>> I understand that.
>> Which is all of the administrators, directors, all of the different levels of the assistant city attorneys.
We did ask and include elected officials in the study.
They will perform both market survey outside as well as internal comparisons.
And then they will move to the rest of the city.
It's very important that the city from time to time -- and the city has not done it since the early '80s -- validate its pay structures with an independent consultant of a professional level.
And the focus is not purely on the elected official.
It is for the entire workforce.
I want to make sure you understand.
>>> I understand.
I was specifically referring to phase one which is the elected officials and the aides.
>> And that should be finished by October 1st.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Okay.
Now, to be perfectly candid, I don't think this would have even come up, period, from the mayor's office -- and I'm glad the mayor is taking an interest in this -- if the previous executive orders dated October 1, 2004, and May 9th, 2005, raising the pay salaries of administrators to $137,280, and $144,144.
, Would have even come up.
But now you have top administrators making more than the mayor.
And of course, well, now, if I had administrators making more than me, I think it's time for a survey.
>>> If I can answer that question.
We have been working on the contract with MGT of America for many, many months, long before any of those two options occurred.
And this is the same consultant that has just finished work, or is finishing up work with Hillsborough County and also the Sports Authority.
So I understand your concerns.
But truly one had nothing to do with the other.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Well, I understand.
But one thing I'm saying, I'm greatly appreciative that the mayor feels that the city deserves to take a look at its pay structure, and personally told me she thought City Council was underpaid.
Those words came out of her lips.
And I'm glad to see that she is considering that.
Now, if council's pleasure at this point in time, I will disseminate the information based off of what I was requested to get per our discussion meeting in the Mascotte room.
And I'm willing to at this point in time make a motion based on those results, if that is appropriate at this point in time.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Could we finish talking about this?
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I was going to let her finish.
And if we don't care to hear, then I'll proceed with that.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to speak to the issue that Sarah Lang brought us which is to look at the way city positions are structured.
I think one of the thrusts of this administration is increasing the professionalism and the organizational qualities.
Things tend to happen over time and get cobbled together.
And since the '80s, there has certainly been very different levels in professional responsibilities, based on increased I.T. considerations, based on the way some of our departments have become automated, based on perhaps lessening our dependence on consultants and bringing certain responsibilities in-house.
And I think what you're bringing to us is very appropriate.
And I think the amount of money -- and I know compared to what the Sports Authority paid, and the county commission.
But I think this is professionally responsible.
And I intend to support this.
And Mr. White, would really I will prefer to wait until these people who do this broadly do their job and come back to us with recommendations, rather than us going off on our own.
That's just my own personal opinion.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Ms. Lang, what I want to know is, it would appear that this is a two-year study.
And because we are breaking it up into two fiscal years.
I think what we are saying is we can go ahead and do the $35,000 in this fiscal year, and the $75,000 study gets done next fiscal year which starts October 1st.
But that the two studies together aren't going to take very long.
So tell me, for this fiscal year, the $35 study, you say that will take only a few months to complete.
Right?
>>> Correct.
>> When will we be starting the big study, since that is not actually being appropriated until October 1?
>>> The funding, the contract includes both studies.
The contracts that you're approving, which is item number 34, and has the total 110,000.
It just that the budgeting process is providing the 35,000 in this fiscal year.
And in fiscal year '06 which starts October with the remainder of the money.
But much of what they will be doing from day one as part of the $35,000 goes into the rest of the study.
It is really only one study.
But two groups of employees divided -- for an orderly fashion.
This consultant uses this special type of method of gathering job data from the employees.
It's automated.
We will be orientating employees from the beginning on how to use that system, and enter their data.
They will be training our staff for when they finish with the study to maintain the work with their software package.
It's only split to the extent it was the funding of the fiscal years.
But it is one contract for $110,000.
And some of the initial charges are things that won't be charged again in the second part of the study.
And we do expect it to move very, very rapidly.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: All right.
You said the first phase will focus on elected officials, aides.
Because the point Councilman White is making is an excellent point.
And that is, we don't need to spend $35,000 to figure out what our aides make comparative to what other aides make, what our mayor makes.
>>> You're not.
You're spending that money for the 150 or so managers and attorneys.
And of that $35,000, I would venture to guess -- and I can get the exact number, I'm sure -- not all of that is just for the study.
Some of that is where they are training our HR staff where they are trying to or Yen Tate employees, setting up the system, having meetings with administrators to design and discuss what the city wants, to have as its compensation philosophy.
It's a very important beginning of the study.
And then they will do the internal comparisons of those managers and attorneys, as well as external comparisons.
The external comparisons will be primarily with other governmental entities that are comparable in gathering that data.
We originally did not include the elected officials in this study.
And decided that we should include the elected officials.
They are independent.
They are professionals.
We thought it would be good to include them in.
We did not have any additional charge for adding the elected officials in to the study.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a couple of comments.
I didn't even know we were going there today and you probably didn't either.
But number one, I always support the study.
Regardless of whether or not we are dealing with elected officials, we have a number of professionals.
We need to make sure that we are keeping pace with the rest of the state in terms of being able to keep them and recruit new ones.
I think that's very important.
But going to Mr. White's comments, you know, just to clarify, we all ran for office in 2003.
And when we ran for office, we knew what the job entailed.
I think that we all clearly should have done our homework and knew how many hours were required.
I know I did.
We also knew that the job only paid $28,000 a year, I think.
It might have gone up a thousand or two there from there.
And that's fine because that's what we ran for.
That's what we ran for.
And that's what we knew we were getting into.
I watched Linda do this for years.
Linda probably puts in 40 or 50 hours a week.
And she's fortunate, she doesn't have another paying job.
I probably put in 20, 30 hours a week, and I don't want to guess what everybody else does.
But the bottom line is we knew it.
I can't support a motion to give ourselves a raise unless, A, it's supported by this independent study that comes out in October, and it's going to say how we compare to other cities.
And, B, that it effective after the next election in 2007.
Because frankly, I just don't think the public appreciates the fact that we want to give ourselves a raise during this term.
That's the feedback that I've gotten after we discussed it two years ago.
I think that the public says, you know, you want to give this position a raise, then you can give this position a raise.
But that means give it to the empty seat that is going to be there in 2007 and then run for that empty seat.
And that's possibly what I might plan to do.
But the bottom line is I can't support anything that would be prior to that next election in 2007.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: One of the questions, Ms. Lang did answer, I was going to ask what the savings would be if you took the elected officials out of that equation.
And you already answered that.
As I stated earlier just to rebut Mr. Dingfelder, just a moment -- and it doesn't matter to me whether it's now, the new fiscal year, or the year 2011.
That doesn't matter.
One of the things is, it's just this council needs to be fairly compensated for what it does.
And you're absolutely right.
Some of us did know.
Or if every one of us knew what it was we were doing before getting elected, things and responsibilities, duties, have changed in the interim.
Period.
And there's no question about that.
So when you first got here versus what we were doing then, and what we're doing now, the workload has increased.
And there is no -- I don't think there's any turning back on there.
Wire thriving, growing metropolis.
Don't see the business at hand getting anything but more heavy.
And I also don't ever think that there's ever a good time for any elected official to ask for a raise.
I just don't think when is it a good time for anyone to ask for a raise.
But when you're trying to stay and keep and attract, as the mayor would put it, the best and the brightest that you have, the salaries that we get paid hinder a lot of people from running for public office.
There are good people that could potentially do this job very well, if the salary was even halfway commensurate to what they are making in the public sector -- in the private sector, I'm sorry.
And council's salaries are only a third of some of our colleagues down the street at the county.
And not that that's necessarily an issue.
But we do almost exactly the same thing except there's just a few more constituents.
And like I said, I'm not here to argue and banter.
I was put on a charge to do something.
I'm bringing back the facts.
And either if we want to hear them at this point in time or we don't.
And that's the consensus of this council.
So you asked me to get the information.
I got the information.
I'm ready to disseminate the information.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Dingfelder, I think that was a poor argument, because anybody that comes in to work for the city comes in at a certain rate, and they expect a raise -- they expect to be compensated properly.
And I think we being on council for six years, even though we are getting 2.-whatever raise a year, well, you know, I think I'm worth a little more than that regardless of whether I started at whatever it was that I started at.
And so your argument just doesn't hold any water with me.
I'm with Mr. White, because it not going to effect me any.
I'm done after my term here.
It's just that we need to get good representation out there.
And a lot of people -- fortunately my husband works, and I'm retired, so it doesn't matter.
This to me is a good job for me.
But the problem is that when we get other people that want to run for this office, and like he said, they ask what the pay is, they are not going to be able to have a job here, and a job there, because we put in a lot of hours.
I myself am on about four or five boards.
And I'm working all the time.
I have meetings at night, too, you know.
So it's not that we're being selfish or anything like that.
I think we deserve it, for God's sake, you know.
If the county can give themselves a 4 or $5,000 raise without anybody making a big I shall but it, then I certainly think that we can ask for a 2 or $3,000 raise without anybody saying about it either.
I mean, I think we're worth it.
I think we're a good council.
We have made good decisions.
So, you know, your argument just does not hold any water with me.
And besides that, with the executive orders that I have seen come through, the mayor certainly can give everybody a raise if she wants to.
And then all of a sudden we are going to have a study, you know.
So what's going to happen?
Is the study going to show that these people that made -- that are already getting their raise?
And the study says they don't deserve that much, are they going back?
I don't think so.
It going to stay where it is.
It's just not a good time, I suppose.
Burr we're worth more than what we are getting.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't think that we necessarily have to make both of these things mutually exclusive.
I think we ask Councilman White to do something.
He has done it.
He's ready to report to us and that's great and let's hear the results.
We're not being asked to vote on giving anyone a raise right here, right now.
Trust me.
I was ready to tee this up and swing as hard as I could when I saw it on the agenda.
But I think what you're asking for makes sense, certainly since finding out, it hasn't been done since the early '80s.
That's with respect to the other people that are being studied.
How do we make the City of Tampa an attractive place to work for professionals.
I think particularly in a legal department.
In order to attract the brightest and the best attorneys, which is a very, very critical function for everything the city does, we need to know comparatively speaking, where we need to be to bring those quality people in.
So I'm okay with these studies now.
But I don't think that that should in any way discount or stop the research that we have asked Councilman White to do.
And if we are prepared to take independent action on that we can go ahead and take it.
But what's on the agenda now is 31 and 34.
And knowing what I know about the two studies being asked for right now, I'm prepared to go ahead and support both of those two actions.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena?
Other questions by council members?
Ms. Ferlita?
>>ROSE FERLITA: I just have some comments as well.
Ms. Lang, I'll tell you why there's some controversy or for-and-against type attitudes here.
It hasn't been -- it has been in the very recent past that this council, when you read editorials from -- in the times or the Tribune, I don't recall which, came across as being perceived as self-serving.
We talked about term limits and the issues that term limits as to how they would effect us, the fact that Ms. Alvarez had talked about maybe extending term limits comparable to what happened at the state legislature this last session.
And I think somewhere in the conversation, there was reference to the fact that it would be late if it was in November because of course the city elections are the following March.
I think Mr. Harrison and I conversed back and forth about what would happen, and if it was earlier, it would cause the taxpayers to pay a lot of money.
And I think we clearly said this.
And if we didn't, he took an opportunity to do it, sending a letter to the editor.
And I'm clearly taking the opportunity, from this council member who is term limited out, certainly not in my wildest, worst days, times-Tribune, would we ever suggest that we come up for an independent election time for a referendum that decides if I get to stay in this seat four years from now and I think some of my colleagues have that same sentiment.
In addition to that, Mr. White has been charged not once, not twice, but several times, go forward, Kevin, and give us all these comparable study and he does.
But when he comes back all of a sudden it's that fear that every elected official says.
He said very well that there's never a good time to ask for a raise, especially for yourself.
So we ask him to do this and then he hangs out there.
That's the process.
That's the reality of the political arena.
I understand that.
Mr. Dingfelder said that we knew what we were signing on to have when we were elected.
Well, way signed on to be responsible for in '99 is certainly different than what I got in 2003.
I'm not begrudging it.
Happy to be here and if I had to do it again I would have done it again.
But the point is that as the job description changes, then so the salary should be commensurate with those expanded job responsibilities.
So you may say that the two things have nothing to do with each other, and perhaps you're right. The study versus the executive order to increase the rate cap for top officials in the administration.
But it has to do when it translates here with the fact that when Mr. White talks about raises, it's self-serving to a council that's trying to give themselves raises.
And now it's talking about a more broad-based arena.
And you know what?
I agree, that the people, not the department heads but the people behind the department heads, behind the department heads, behind the assistant to department heads, they make really hard and maybe they get a thank you from time to time.
But they certainly don't see the bonuses that have been given to top executives in this administration.
They don't see their cap going up to like 144,000.
So there's some inequities, and I don't think I have you to blame, I think I have if media to blame, because when we talk about it, it's, There the council goes asking for raises again.
And I had to smile quietly when asked as an incidental decide, we decided to include elected officials.
But, no, no, no, I don't want -- this is all my interpretation as I see the media's interpretation.
And another thing, too.
I think awhile back, under the last administration, we talked about -- and correct me if I am wrong somebody in finance -- that if something comes up that's over 100,000 wave to weigh in on it and approve it.
Well, I find it very funny, and I find it very coincidental that 35 of this is FY 05, 75,000 is FY 06.
And except for the fact that you were coming here today -- I didn't know anything about this study.
Where was somebody telling us, guys, relax, we will come up with a study that's fair, that's comprehensive, that's inclusive to you so it doesn't look like Mr. White getting Mr. White a raise or Ms. Ferlita getting one for herself.
We are looking at this very broad spectrum for everybody that's involved in city government.
And absolutely, yes, we want everybody in the city, regardless of their rank, to be treated fairly, to give a salary that's commensurate with other arenas so we keep the good help and don't go through expensive retraining people and have a big turnover in employees.
But it's just very funny to me the way this has been presented, it's like, it's like the things that I complain about all the time.
Maybe I'm the one who was absent that day when you or somebody came to us, whenever this study started, and say, guess what, Rose, we're going to do this study.
Great.
Let's utilize the data you find and accumulate from this study so we don't keep asking him to be the sacrificial lamb and look at his own study and comparison.
I just think it's unfair that something like this is done and conveniently or coincidental or not, we have part of it in 05, part in 06 but they both come together to do 110.
When I first saw this, my thirst thought was, I can't support a study for $110,000 any more than I can support an extra referendum election just because I want to know way think I have the option to do earlier than November of last year.
$110,000.
God, I really wish I would have had the opportunity to see what we are buying for 110.
Don't No. maybe I was remiss.
Maybe I missed you that day.
But nobody told me about this.
So that is something that kind of sticks right here.
Because last week, we talked about -- and some of my council members were not here.
We talked about how this city doesn't have the money -- and I know it's different pots of money and I know all of that stuff -- but just afford me the opportunity to vent.
We didn't have enough money in our budget.
Mr. Stefan said we have to wait till we collect it someplace else to get this done, for environmental clients.
Ever since I have gotten this I have gotten letters from oil spills, to concrete trucks, mess-up and stuff like that.
And yet we're spending $110,000.
I don't know what your research was.
I don't know if you went out and did a competitive study to see who could give us the best product for our $110,000.
But based on that philosophy, and that philosophy alone, and please don't misconstrue where I'm going -- I think everybody needs to have your salaries and their benefits and their package as a City of Tampa employee looked at and reviewed from time to time.
But guess what.
I'm not going to support this.
I think that is just too much durn money for us to spend on a study.
Anytime you go out to a public that we go out to, say, you're right, got a point, we want to do a study.
They want to go for the jugular.
$110,000 is too much.
Besides the fact that we were not afforded the opportunity to weigh in on it so I could defend it, instead of oppose it.
I didn't get that opportunity.
I think as a council member, who from what I hear, from my friend Pam, is what she's about, and she wants us to be about, a working partnership.
I know that she called and left messages in our office this week but this week is too late, Sarah.
I wish I had known about this early on.
And you have to understand -- and I am not trying to be confrontational with you but you have to understand if we can support something, if you ask us to support something, and you want to us feel good about it, we have to have the homework first to make sure that our support of it is justified.
It is not.
To me it's just simply another $110,000.
I don't know what the other opportunities were that you could have looked at or would have looked or didn't look at.
But based on way just said, for the record, I am not supporting $110,000.
The last and final comment I make, well, Mr. Dingfelder said, give it to an empty seat.
And that has a lot of validity.
But in the event this study is going to go forward, and I suspect I will probably be the only dissenting vote to support the study, if it comes earlier then I don't think it's fair that the council members wait until '07.
I think something logical but I can only speak for myself.
My term limits may not be here at all.
The likelihood is I probably won't be here at all.
So that being the case if you are going to incorporate these benefits and salaries for everybody, aides, part-time attorneys, employees, department heads, et cetera, I think ours should be implemented in 06.
I will go on record as saying I won't accept it.
If I get reelected or change seats or do whatever, and have the good fortune to win again, then I'll accept it in 07.
But there's no reason to put that barricade in 06 because again I think we are treated as step children because we are elected officials.
I changed my attitude about that raise awhile back based on one letter in particular that I got from a guy and he said, I voted for you because I thought you were the real thing and all you're looking at is bucks and I cam back and read that to the general public.
He wrote back and said, boy, did I do you an injustice.
Said he said you should get that and more.
So we should deliberate the issue of whether it's fair, whether it's not, but I just don't like the way this was presented or not presented.
Thanks, Madam Chair, for your indulgence.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
Council members work very, very hard.
And I don't think the amount that we are compensated is a reflection of our work.
I think that what we are is a special category.
We are elected officials.
We run for an office for a four-year term.
The understanding we have is that this is the salary for that four-year term.
Regular city employees, staff positions, are different from elected positions.
I think it's appropriate for us to consider a salary increase for the subsequent terms, but not for the term that we're in.
You're correct, Mr. White, our work has increased.
And frankly, given the complexity and dynamism of this city, we could work even more hours than we are.
But I think the contract with the public, which is that we ran for these seats, and we knew what the rules were going in, means that when should respect those rules for the time of this term, and any changes should be made for subsequent terms for subsequent council members.
That's my take on it.
>>KEVIN WHITE: So, Madam Chair, Ms. Saul-Sena, may I ask that the contract that administration has come in and said, this is my salary, and top out to say 44, 144, what it is now -- just using that as an example -- but should probably not -- you wouldn't accept the $10,000 executive order bonus that the mayor gave?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Talking about staff people or council members?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Just trying to make a comparison.
But not only that.
But you're right.
Okay.
The contract with the public is X.
But the workload has gone to Z.
So the contract either is null and void, or -- not null and void, but it needs to be tweaked.
And compromised.
And that's my position.
So I don't know if any further discussion needs to be made on Ms. Lang, but she brought those.
And I'll move those whenever we go through the committee report.
Because I don't think we are going to vote on that particular issue right now.
>>GWEN MILLER: I would like to make a comment.
Ms. Ferlita, you really put it real well and I like your statement say field goal the raise is taken you would not take it.
And I think all the council members should feel that same way.
If you don't like the raise, as Ms. Ferlita said, you don't have to accept it.
And then back here in 2007 you accept the raise if you want it then.
But we are putting in time and time and time.
I know I put in 50 or more hours per week.
And it's not for the raise.
It's because I'm enjoying working for my constituents.
But when you listen to people, neither one you talk to, they want a raise.
We are the only ones that have to give ourselves a raise.
Other elected officials do not give themselves a raise.
We are just unfortunate we have to give ourselves a raise.
And we are really skewed by the papers and everyone else when we ask for a raise.
But if we had someone to give us a raise I don't think we would be in this position.
If someone gave us a raise we would never hear anything about it.
But like Ms. Ferlita said, we should be able to work and get what we ask for.
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have great respect for all of you.
You know that.
And we are agreeing to disagree.
And I think that's okay.
But I can't vote for that and then just give back the money, because it's bad policy.
And it sends a bad message.
And the headline that will read will say that council gave themselves a raise while they were sitting in this seat.
Okay.
And they are not going to remember that Dingfelder or Saul-Sena voted against it, and Ferlita gave her money back, et cetera, et cetera.
They are going to remember that council voted to give themselves a raise.
And what we all do, we all rise and fall together on this issue.
And --.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Not that -- we don't do that.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Because nobody ever remembers what each one of us did. What they remember is what City Council did as a whole.
As a whole I think it's bad policy, bad precedent to give ourselves a raise while we are sitting in this seat.
We should give the seat a raise effective in 2007, if the study warrants it.
And that's my whole point.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: And that's your opinion.
>>KEVIN WHITE: One final comment I would like to make.
It would be a wonderful thing if we were like other municipalities, and the state legislature set council's salary, as it does for other elected bodies throughout the state, and that way I shall would not come up, wouldn't seem as self-serving and wouldn't be such a contentious issue.
It's an issue, whether it comes up now or in 07 it's going to be the same issue.
It came up two and a half years ago.
At this time same thing now as it was then.
And it won't be any different in 2006 or 2007.
And the bottom line -- I don't care what anybody says -- in my mind, the study is only initiated because of these numbers I see that were presented on these executive orders.
And I'm finished with that portion, Madam Chair.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I think we have a motion on the floor.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm not sure what the motion is.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I'll move those items under consent agenda, and I don't know whether you want me to go forward with this or what.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone have a question of Ms. Lang?
Thank you, Ms. Lang, for coming.
Now, is there anyone in the audience that would like to ask for reconsideration?
Okay.
We go to our audience portion.
Anybody in the public like to speak on any item on the agenda that is not set for a public hearing?
>>> Mentesmot.
I want to speak on the issue that you just spoke on and giving yourself a raise, like when you go to some jobs and want a raise, bend over.
That's what you got to do.
If you want a raise bend over because apparently you don't do anything for the city and then you come down here and ask for a raise.
This thing wasn't about raise.
It was to do a study.
And made a big stink about the $110,000.
I can't see spending $110,000 when the mayor just gave the Glazers and NFL the millionaire club a million dollars to bring a Super Bowl to Tampa Bay.
But we make it a big stink about $110,000, oh, that's so much money, it's so much this.
What really we need is some real representation.
We need people that represent us in a certain way that brings things back to their constituents, brings things back to their area, brings things back to their district.
You all come up here this morning, the Parks Department come through here, with that number 24 fishing along Bayshore.
And sensitivity to African people, insensitivity to blacks.
And we always get dumped on in the worst way.
And then we are supposed to just stand up and say nothing and do nothing and Lee act in a stupid manner like we don't have enough sense to see what's going on.
Just put under agenda, don't want no blacks on Bayshore.
Plain and simple.
Just put in the agenda no blacks on Bayshore.
Just like they don't want any blacks in the parks and recreation.
It's the same people that's doing it.
Go to Riverfront Park the police harass us, the Parks Department, everybody harass us.
Now you want to harass us on Bayshore and Davis Island.
You all are insensitive to the people's needs and the people's request.
When the people come through and say, like this is what we want on Davis Island and 600 people show up, and the majority of them want the same thing you all are insensitive to the people's needs.
$55,000 under number 30 for summer jobs program.
$55,000 for a summer jobs programs.
Insensitivity to the people's needs and the people's wants.
Every single morning on the agenda, every Thursday, you all come down here, oh, we want to give an award to the police.
Insensitivity to the people's needs.
Do you all ever say, let's discuss the police issue and see how the police are tasering black people all throughout the city and how they are murdering black people under their auspices, stop them for a stop sign?
Did anybody come down here and say anything about Mr. Gregory Sanderson?
You want a moment of silence to congratulate yourselves for doing absolutely, positively nothing.
Doing nothing.
And $5 a 5th,000 for summer jobs but $17 million for a Mu system.
$55,000.
$55,000 for summer jobs.
Then you all want to say, why are our youth out there selling dope and robbing people and whatnot?
They are trying to make it just like anybody else.
And talking about getting yourself a raise and who need it and who don't, look outside this window.
Point the camera outside this window and see who drives Mercedes-Benz and who doesn't.
>> You drive one, doesn't you, Mr. Daniel?
I think you drive one, don't you?
>> I got about eight of them.
So the reality is that this City Council needs to be more sensitive to the people's needs.
We talking about $110,000.
It's so much money to do a study.
$110 is absolutely positively no money.
It's no money.
A million dollars to the millionaire club.
A million dollars to the millionaire club and nobody said a single thing about that.
(Bell sounds)
And Nebraska Avenue still hadn't been repaired.
But the mayor is in Atlanta giving away money.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, sir.
Next.
>>KEVIN WHITE: It sounded like you want to run for my office.
If you check with my aide, my seat is going to be available.
>>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: I reside at 2902 east he will you cot street.
That's the cornerstone of my business, knot salvage and hauling for many, many years.
I stay there three nights a week.
And I thank God for his grace and his mercy.
And I got a lot to be thankful for.
St. Petersburg times running a big story on me tomorrow.
Talk on the Internet.
Talking early this morning.
Oh, my God.
Lot to be thankful for a poor boy like me, bear feet on the back of a truck.
But, you know, you all stone my thunder they are morning.
I agree with everything Mr. Daniel said now.
But I want to add a little bit on what I said.
Mr. White, you know, I fight for you all, sometimes when you're wrong I go against you.
But you this morning, I feel sorry for you this morning, because you talk about get yourself a raise because you got that job to go, you know, the apartment there.
But when you come back, now everybody point a finger that you are trying to give your own self a raise, and that's your job.
But it proves my point, see.
I come to this every week, people question me about what I say.
I said got two black mens in this town can do anything they want to do, and one of them, Mr. Dave McCary with solid waste.
Ms. Rose Ferlita, you sed sat right there and said do not raise people's garbage and what he done?
He come in, went to this podium, tall brother with glass eyes, said we are going to raise this, we are going to raise on the people's garbage and ain't going to pick up no trash, don't pick it up.
But that man can do anything he want to do.
Now I see here under the article 44 or something here where the code enforcement is going to get some money to benefit them.
And I said, two weeks ago, two blacks can do what you all want to do.
Now you all want to hang Mr. White this morning because he come back, and went and did a survey and come back.
But I been saying over and over again, and Mr. Daniel said mostly what I wanted to do, about this $55,000 for these children summer program, a much needed for the poor.
The poor children -- I got teenage children.
My children every year I count on this program for my children to go out there and get these here city jobs.
For one big reason.
I took them, when they made the job I said you all buy your own school clothes out of your own money, hear?
And there was a big fight about it.
But $55,000?
$55,000?
That don't make no sense.
And fishing on Bayshore.
You know, if I was a black politician, I would have hit the floor this morning.
When that come up, you know, about the county commissioner what she had said about it, you know.
I love that lady.
That lady is a legend for poor peoples.
I represent poor peoples.
But they speak the truth.
They speak the truth over there.
But in this town, though, I tell you, people said, racism don't exist.
Feel sorry for them.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Anyone else like to speak?
Mr. Roy LaMotte, did you want to speak on item number 26?
You may come up and speak.
>>> Good morning, City Council.
Glad I had a breather between some of the items being raised this morning.
It's been a very busy morning for you.
Again, Roy LaMotte, transportation manager.
I'm here to report on the possibility of school zone signs that were used in the city of Orlando, and it's a feature that gives us driver feedback signs.
Speeding in our school zone areas is a very serious concern.
It's a serious issue in Tampa as well as throughout the State of Florida.
We do have the pleasure of speaking to the member in Orange County, Mr. Kevin Miller, who indicated they have the radar unit signs at mid-block crossings at 60 locations.
They use the 3-M company's form of radar speed designs.
They are expensive.
But we have installed similar type of device here on Bayshore drive.
And again, they've used them only during the crossing times, which is important to note they're not on all the time.
They have portable units and speed boards that are in the vicinity of 1700 to 4,000.
Their units that they did put in in their school areas, though, however, are 15,000.
They have indicated that while they are expensive and they do require some high maintenance, they have brought about safety for the school children.
Orange County also has 2.5 million appropriated for such safety projects but it's not just the school radar signs.
They included the count down heads, they have used some school zone signs in a passive form and included that as the partner sidewalk project.
I will also tell you that the city of St. Petersburg recently bought three of the solar powered units in their particular community that they mobilize and they move them around.
We are doing research and continue on the different type of devices that that are out there.
We also know that we have cut off high speed, programmable -- programmable selectable options as being features for these devices.
We do not have any appropriation in the current budget for this.
However, we will try to investigate this program for you further, because we believe it's an important feature that our school should have.
And as I brought to you previously, new devices and technology am continue to do that.
And again, as I get more research done, I would be hopeful to come back to you and make a recommendation for your upcome fiscal year.
We know we are going through budget right now.
We know times are tight.
And we know how expensive these types of devices are.
But we hold our children in this city as one of the highest resources.
I'll take any questions.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
Mr. LaMotte.
I do appreciate the research.
You're absolutely correct.
We can't emphasize enough the importance of keeping our school zones safe.
And this, I think, has been an effective tool in doing that, in other municipalities, it sounds like.
We were all a bit shocked to find out the price of these signs.
Even sort of the middle of the road signs, apparently 9500 or $10,000 apiece.
And if you start to think about putting two at each school zone, you know, at either end, that price is going to go up very, very quickly.
So what I would like to see us do is a pilot program, where we are going to take four locations throughout the city, and I would like it to be equitably distributed, north, south, East Tampa, and try to see if they are going to be effective.
And you're talking about probably $1,000,000 in cost to do this.
And I'm certain that there are certain grants available for the state, perhaps other types of grants available, so that we're not going to be asking anyone to come up with this money out of our budget.
But could you check on this and come back in 90 days with recommendations for where your locations are going to be, and how much it's going to cost, and what the source of income for those signs are going to be?
Let's take a look at it.
Let's study it with real live examples in a pilot program.
And that way, if it is something that is truly effective, we can come up with a strategy for the next fiscal year going to the school board, and going to the county, and going to the state to say, let's really start implementing these in a very aggressive way.
If they are going to be helpful.
>>> It would be my pleasure.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Question on the motion, Ms. Saul-Sena?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I know that transportation is a different department from police.
But it would seem to me that a potential way to fund these which I think Mr. Harrison's recommendation is excellent, might be speeding tickets.
I would love to see our police department be more aggressive in handing out both speeding ticket, and tickets to people who cut off pedestrians who are in striped zones, and would seem there's poetic justice to have revenues from those tickets go back to where there are safety de -- fund safety devices.
So maybe not for your department but maybe ask police to pursue with an eye of giving that to you all.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the floor.
(Motion carried)
Thank you.
Now we'll go to committee reports.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: As a follow-up to that, I would like to request that the police report back to us in two months on how much -- how much revenue is generated by tickets that they are giving specifically for speeding in school zones, and people, cars who don't yield to pedestrians.
Because I've had numerous complaints by citizens that cars are just not respecting the school zones and the crosswalks adequately.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can ask for a clarification.
Over what period of time do you want that?
Not when you want the information back but over what time period?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would suppose a year.
I'm open to suggestions but I think a year will give us an idea how we are doing in that regard.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Public Safety Committee, Ms. Rose Ferlita.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I'd like to move resolutions 28 and 29.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Parks and recreation, Ms. Mary Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I move item 30.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm certainly going to support it.
I just wanted to say for the record I don't want there to be any misconception.
This $55,000 is going to the Boys and Girls Clubs of Tampa Bay for implementation of their summer jobs program.
That is not the only amount that the City of Tampa spends for employing young people during summertime in our recreation department and all other.
There are several facets of summer employment for kids in this city.
This is only one small portion of it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez moves it.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>> Finance Committee, Mr. Kevin White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move 32, 33 and 35.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>KEVIN WHITE: And somebody needs to move the others.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm the vice chair.
I move 31 and 34.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm going to support 31 simply because the legislative aides are included in this.
So that's why I'm going to vote for that one.
>>GWEN MILLER: So moved 31.
Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We are trying to run a professional organization.
We have four or five thousand employees.
We need to make sure that our pay at every possible level is fair and comparable with other municipalities, people doing the same thing.
So I don't know what our qualms are about 31 and 34, you know.
That's part of running an organization.
Make sure that your pay is fair, and that's appropriate.
It not saying we are giving raises to anybody.
It's just saying we are studying it.
And we spend a lot of money on consultants.
This one I think is fine.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Just real brief.
As chairman of this particular committee, I don't have a problem with the second half of the study which would study all of the city employees.
Honestly, I wholeheartedly believe that the staff and support staff of the city deserves he have opportunity to look at any kind of increase possible.
The only problem I have was on the first 35,000 which was looking at the elected officials and those type things.
That's why I am not going to move it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Just to comment on 31.
I don't mean to dispute what Mr. Dingfelder is saying.
But our qualm -- my qualm, his qualm, different council members will disagree on different issues.
And I think it's been clearly documented that I am supportive of raises and compensations appropriate for legislative aides and for our City Council attorney.
So whenever a council member decides what my qualm is, I feel compelled to explain it.
Don't have a problem with giving people appropriate raises and benefits.
I do have a problem when we buy a project or product, and I'm not sure how we got there, if the money was well spent, if any other means could have been used, or any other competitive study would have been utilized that didn't cost that.
So it's not about supporting our employees.
I try to say thank you to them in he have single way that I can.
My qualm is that I think we should have been better informed about how these dollars were spent, and that being said on the record, I will not support 31 and 34.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: It's my understanding -- and I hope I'm right about this and, colleagues, correct me if I am wrong, approximate 1 is not about studying us our aides.
It's about studying other people in management positions and professional positions including our legal department, which I think is --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And us.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Phase one includes elected officials including legislative aides, attorneys, managers, including managers and department directors.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Okay.
So we are included.
But what Ms. Lang said was it didn't cost any more to include us.
So it doesn't matter to me if we're included or not, quite frankly.
But we do owe it to our professionals to make sure that they are on par with where they are.
And I'm the last person usually to get behind studying things, because I sometimes think it's a waste of money.
But I think what really motivates me is the fact that it's this since the early '80s, and we have to make sure we are offering a competitive environment for our professionals that work for the City of Tampa, so I won't support both of them.
>> Move resolution 31.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second:
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move resolution 34.
>> Second.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
All in favor?
Opposed?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: There's a problem administratively.
The only thing 31 did was put in the money for $35,000 for part of 34.
So I'm a little confused, Ms. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: You know, Mr. Dingfelder, I think I'm making a point here.
I think Ms. Ferlita made it very clear that we weren't considered when these things came up.
That's my point.
I just can't support it.
If she wants to come back with a workshop and tell us all about it and how she came to this $110,000, then maybe ill support it at that point.
But none of this was brought to our attention, like most of the stuff that we put in, you know.
So especially with $110,000.
I understand where you're going.
But it's a point.
I'm making a point.
Okay?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
>>GWEN MILLER: We go to building and zoning.
Ms. Linda Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I am not sure of the location on number 36.
I'm not certain if east Emma street is located in the Tampa Heights historic area.
>>GWEN MILLER: No, it not.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Then I will go ahead and move 36 through 42, and 44 through 46.
Alvarez avenues second.
>>GWEN MILLER: 43 to be received and filed.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: To receive and file that.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to receive and file 43.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Number 47.
Move an ordinance vacating, closing, discontinuing, and abandoning certain public right-of-way comprising all that 50 foot portion of 35th street south of the intersection with 2nd Avenue, all that portion of 2nd Avenue West of 37th street to but not including the intersection of 35th street, the easterly 10 Pi 50 foot portion of 36th street south of 2nd Avenue and all that 10 foot alley in block 11 south of 2nd Avenue bounded by 35th street on the west and 36th street east on the east in the second revision in east bay park, a subdivision in the city of Tampa, Florida, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, the same being more fully described in section 2 hereof reserving certain easements and conditions, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Number 48.
Move an ordinance vacating, closing, discontinuing and abandoning a certain right-of-way all that alleyway lying south of Caracas street, north of Ellicott street, east of 29th street, and west of 30th street, in block 16 of Belmont Heights, a subdivision located in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, the same being more fully described in section 2 hereof providing an effective date.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm not going to move 49.
Maybe son else wants to.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Before you start on 49.
I need to abstain.
Again, a client in my law firm owns property subject to the adjacent property and is opposed to the petition to vacate and I have been advised by counsel it's appropriate to abstain.
I will file my form for this meeting and last meeting.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena voted no.
We go to transportation, Ms. Alvarez, vice chair.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move item 50.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second readings, Madam Chair?
>>GWEN MILLER: We are going to open our public hearings for second reading.
Is there anyone in the audience going to speak on items 4 through 11?
Would you please stand and raise your right hand?
If anyone wants to speak on items 4 through 11, please stand and raise your right hand.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Council, with regard to the public hearings that are today, I would ask that all notations relative to today's hearings that are available to the public at council's office be received and filed into the record.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do we have any information we need to receive and file, council members?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.
>>GWEN MILLER: Need to make a motion to receive and file.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to receive and file.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: In addition, if any council member has had any verbal communication was council members or any members of the member of the public that that member should disclose prior to the vote, prior to the hearing, the identity of the person with whom the verbal communication occurred and the substance of the communication.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
We need to open the public hearings.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public to speak on item number 4?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading.
Move an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida amending the City of Tampa code of ordinances chapter 3, article IV, regulations and offenses section 3-41, possession, consumption on property operated or supervised by the recreation department, providing for severability, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 5?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance -- move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading.
An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 4801 west Independence Parkway in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications PD office research corporate park to PD office research corporate park, including addition of adult school, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita and Harrison absent at vote.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 6?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 5224 South MacDill Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications CG to PD single-family attached, providing an effective date.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita and Harrison being absent at vote.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public to speak on item number 7?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 2716 West Virginia Avenue and 2709 St. Isabel street in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-50 to PD medical office providing an effective date.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita and Harrison being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 8?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. White, would you read 8, please.
>> Move to adopt an ordinance on second reading, move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 11302 north Oregon Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-100 residential single-family to RS-60 residential single family, providing an effective date.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call vote.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Harrison being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone like to speak on item number 9?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: I move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading.
An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 509 south Hyde Park Avenue, in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RO-1 residential office to PD single family detached semi detached, attached, and multifamily, providing an effective date.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Harrison being absent .
>> Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 10?
>> Move to close.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second to close.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 332 south Plant Avenue, in the city of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RO-1 residential office, to PD, professional office, providing an effective date.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita and Harrison being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 11?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move an ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 3705 north Himes Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications PD professional office to PD professional office providing an effective date.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita and Harrison being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: We now go to item 12.
Anyone in the audience that wants to speak on item 12, would you please stand and raise your right hand.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to open.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>> Julia Cole, legal department.
I have been sworn.
You have before you an appeal of a permit to remove a grand tree which was deemed to be hazardous which has been filed by the adjoining neighbor.
I just want to remind council that section 13-45 of the code provides that hazardous trees shall be permitted to be removed if the urban forester determines it is in compliance with the tree ordinance.
This shall not be overturned unless there is evidence in the record that the urban forester's determination is not supportable.
I ask Mr. Graham to come up and briefly describe his review.
And then we'll hear from the appellant.
>> Steve Graham with Parks and Recreation Department.
Just for review, there are two conditions in which the coordinator can administratively approve a grand tree removal permit.
One is if the tree is hazardous, and two, if the grand tree is causing structural damage to the dwelling.
And it's the ladder that applies in this case at 3805 Leona.
And I have photographs if you would like to see it.
But basically our decision is corroborated by the Construction Services Center, chief building inspector Jim Greenhall has submitted a report which you have in your packet, and he's just to summarize basically saying that there's severe structural damage and deflection from the trees growing into the house, and that's somewhat apparent in the photographs.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can you lighten it up?
Not you but the TV people.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Bring it down a little bit.
There you go.
>>> And here's another one that may show a little better.
Even from this photograph this far away you can see it's borne out when you're there.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I ask a question?
Mr. Graham, there's been reference in some of the correspondence of two trees.
Is that a Doubletree?
Or is there another tree?
>>> It is in fact two trees.
There's a live oak in the adjacent tree, the larger of the two trees.
>> I guess because it's so dark it's hard to tell.
But that's sort of one of those double trees then?
>>> Yes, it is.
It's definitely two trees.
But the one that's furthest to the margin of the photograph, the larger of the two was determined to be a grand tree by Construction Services Center.
>> And are they both equally -- at the base are they both touching the house?
>>> Yeah, I think that's a reasonable assessment.
That both trees have substantial roots and both are affecting the house.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And my last question is, as related, do you have any drawing or survey that shows where the base of this tree sits on the lot?
>>> No, don't.
>> And how that house and lot and tree all relate to each other?
>>> No, that would be useful information but I do not have that.
>> Can you give us a ballpark then where this tree sits, or where this double tree sit on the lot?
>>> All I can tell you is that it sits on the property at 3805 Leona.
I couldn't actual you in relation to the house.
>> Smack dab center of the whole lot?
>>> No.
I guess that would be considered the -- this photograph shows it a little better.
I guess it would be the rear setback.
The top right hand corner.
You can see the fence.
>> So that must be an addition or something, would you think?
Or do you have any idea?
>>> I think that would be characterized -- I think it's part of the original structure.
>> Thank you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
It's evident from the photograph that you gave us that the tree is smack up against the house.
And my question to you is, which came first?
>>> That I don't know.
>> That's okay.
I'll ask someone else.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions?
Petitioner?
>> Good morning, council.
My name is jack Evans.
I live at 3806 west San Luis street.
Our backwards abut one another.
I'm to the house directly to the north.
I lived in the house for 18 years, came down here as a result of the military and my wife and I fell in love with Tampa, and specifically South Tampa.
We will probably live there for the rest of our days that we have, hopefully many more.
And if you will indulge me 30 seconds let me tell you before I get to the tree, what's occurred in 16 years.
There was an empty lot directly across the street from me on San Luis when I first moved in, realized sooner or later something would develop there.
A very nice attractive office complex did.
I even supported it at the time each though the parking would have to be approved by council back then, on the residential side, because the front could not handle the parking on Dale Mabry because of everything being so small, and all those commercial areas along Dale Mabry.
An orthodontist was going in.
I was assured it would just be come and go kind of dentist traffic and probably would not impede everything but I'm very happy for the orthodontist.
I know him personally.
He has been so successful that his parking lot cannot bear even a fraction of the patients that he sees so they park all day long along San Luis.
It has grown tremendously.
In fact he's so successful he's now going to bring another dentist in which will mean more traffic.
Directly to the north of me was a Duncan do nuts on Dale Mabry, Tampa restaurant, in fact I supported it because there were homeless back there.
That has since turned over to a new owner who has done a nice job of renovating, but once again in that area of South Tampa the parking lot is woefully small for the kind of business he does.
He's very successful and I'm very happy for him.
But I have cars all day long even blocking my driveway.
Worse yet I have many trucks.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order.
Mr. Even, I am concerned about these issues as they relate to my district.
But I think you need to focus on the tree.
>>> And I will.
And forgive me.
I felt that was important just oh to now move to the back side.
So the property at 3805 west Leona is on zero property line all the way around.
In response to you -- and I have some photographs here to show you that the tree is just up to the west side of the property.
This property has changed hands six times in the last ten years.
No oner has ever lived there.
It is four extremely small apartments that have been run down since the day that I moved in.
The only beauty to this entire property -- it's a typical lot, 50 by 100 with four apartments there.
One has encroached back to an outbuilding which abuts my property, with zero property line.
In fact when they recently did some stucco, they couldn't even get to the back of the building because there's no room between the back of the building and my fence.
Your previous question, I think my photographs will show here, there are clearly two distinct trees that are there.
You will see it sits further to the front, which I think one the parks division is talking about, one to the back, very close to this apartment.
The fence you see, there's just a couple of feet out that doorway.
That is the property line on the west end.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Does somebody have a plan that could show us the relationship of your house to this property?
I think bow that would be really helpful.
>> I can.
It will be the extreme back end of my house.
And this was the previous owner.
Just a couple moments ago before he sold it to the car owner.
It's not in there in other residents but now has these apartments.
That growth there is my backyard fence that I have allowed to grow to camouflage. The back of that building which you see is wire in the back board which has never been stuccoed because there's literally inches between the back of that building and my fence.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is that the rear of the house or the side?
>>> That is the rear of the out building which has become another apartment to this complex.
Which they included a carport to try to make it large enough, which is probably only a couple hundred square feet, to make it an apartment dwelling which could never be completed in the back.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Evans, this was multifamily in here?
Or is that a single family home that they made apartments out of it?
>>> No.
From the day I moved in they have been apartments with residents that come and government they have like this one in the back I just showed you has one room to it but the bedroom, living room, kitchen, and small bathroom.
Let me show you a couple things about the property as we go around.
There's a picture there.
Here's a picture from Leona street from the dumpster and typically the trash that lays like that.
>> Excuse me, could you put that -- thank you.
Where is your house in proximity?
>>> My house, now I'm in the back.
That's Leona.
>> Directly behind it?
>>> Directly behind it.
I just want you to have an appreciation for the property itself.
And also to address the trees.
Here, if I could, this is Dale Mabry.
There are the two trees in the back which I don't think we would find another place in Tampa that close to a major highway with trees of the beauty and size that these have just behind Florida.
The building behind is a restaurant and I'm directly behind that building.
Let me also state that during our recent hurricanes, I sit in my backyard, and I have a screened-in pool area that comes to the edge of my property.
And about six or eight feet which then had that overgrowth to that fence.
These trees are the only thing that camouflages these four run-down apartment complexes that are there.
In the height of the hurricanes -- and these haven't been trimmed in 14 years.
These trees barely moved at the top.
They were as healthy as can be in my opinion.
I just think -- and excuse me for describing the front.
I just think if we continue to grow in South Tampa, without looking out for the parking, and where people -- let me mention one other thing.
There was a large sign on San Luis since I lived there, said no trucks.
I said to PD one time, take the sign down because it absolutely ignored.
Trucks park to frequent the businesses on Dale Mabry.
So my point there was that this was a problem, and to see these two beautiful trees go, for the sake of these apartments that are only going to be there until someone decides to develop that property -- believe me, it's only 50 by 100 lot.
With four dwellings on it.
All single story.
I wouldn't courage you to out there and look at it before you make the decision to remove these trees.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Evans, since you have been there for 16 years, were these trees there already?
>>> These trees, in my opinion, I'm not an arborist, but have been there for 50 years.
These trees are 40 to 50 feet in the air.
>> How about the house that you're talking about?
>> The house was there when I got there. The house had at least six owners ten years, all knew the trees were there.
The new owner has only been there for six months.
Clearly he knew that.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I hear all these arguments but I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the health of the tree and the recommendation that's been made by our urban forester.
Could you address that, please?
>>> Well, if it's purely because the root system has invaded the house -- and I agree with councilwoman Alvarez question, which was there first? -- it that these houses -- these apartment dwellings are extremely deteriorated.
They are going to come out.
I'll guarantee you once those trees are removed, we will see this property sell for $250,000.
We'll see a 3-story or two-story home built on this 50 by 100 foot lot.
They are healthy trees.
They are not damaged.
They are not sick.
My point is, we are going to remove two beautiful trees from a South Tampa neighborhood so close to Dale Mabry that camouflages the noise, the visual aspect of living there.
You force residents that unfortunately bought that close to commercial to look elsewhere, because the commercial continues to creep in, and now something that makes it look like it has some rural aspect we are talking about removing not because they are sick or ill but because we have a dilapidated apartment building there.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's not a question for you but for staff after you finish.
>>> Again, I just thought it was relative if we talk about the trees to understand the property.
We are not talking about a homeowner who lived there for many years and history has now encroached on the foundation. This is one more appreciation of cinder block around that apartment.
That door you see there is sealed.
You cannot get in or out of there.
There's dirt and leaves 4 inches up on it.
There's an air conditioner been there for years.
So we are going to remove two beautiful 40 to 50 tree structures there, for this.
And I just think you all need to be aware of that before you make that decision.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Mrs. Saul-Sena, did you want to ask a question?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
And I just wanted to clarify with that, the request is for removal not because the trees are not healthy but because of the structural damage it causing the building and my structure for staff, not tree staff but on the city staff, was this building legally permitted?
Do we know?
Because it's my understanding that -- well, speak.
Julia Cole: I don't believe there's anybody here from S -- from CSE to answer that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Staff.
>>> I thought it was important I respond.
>>GWEN MILLER: It not a staff thing.
Mr. Graham, can you answer that question?
>>> Steve Graham, parks and recreation.
I don't know the answer to that question.
But we would be happy to investigate and report back to you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: To piggyback on that question, I'd like to know what the zoning is on the property.
I'd like to know if it's a legal nonconforming use.
I'd like to know when those structures were built pursuant to the property appraisal record or any aerials we can find.
Because those are all very relevant.
I believe, Mr. Harrison, in response to what you're saying, this is not about a sick tree. This is about a conflict between a healthy free.
Mr. Graham, healthy trees?
>>> They are definitely healthy trees.
>> A conflict between healthy trees and perhaps sick buildings.
So I think at some point we can continue on and get all the evidence.
But I think we need to probably delay this hearing to get the additional evidence from staff related to these questions that Ms. Saul-Sena raised.
>>> Julia Cole: You might want to do this when we can get you the information.
How far, I think it might be appropriate to hear from the property owner.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think it would be good to hear from the property owner.
>>GWEN MILLER: Want to speak?
>>> My name is Cathy bird.
I reside at 4305 west Leona, five blocks from this property.
And I am the new property owner at this particular building.
There are two oak trees, one of them has been deemed grand, and hence it fell under this review process.
The on the one is considered protected.
It permit and approval has actually already been granted.
The grand component, I understand, is the component that is coming in front of you.
The two trees that we are addressing, the one is immediately adjacent to the west side of the property.
The other one is immediately adjacent to the -- literally grows into the south side of the primary structure.
The zoning on this property is multifamily, less than ten unit.
That is what its current zoning is.
The structure appears to have at one time been a single family home, just simply the way that it's constructed but when it became apartments and when it was rezoned to apartments, that I don't know.
I don't have the history.
It was constructed according to the property appraiser's web site in 1955 and that's consistent with when this entire subdivision was developed.
When the tree was planted, I really couldn't comment.
I haven't got a clue.
They are large trees.
They have clearly been around for a very long time.
But the reality is that they are both a protected tree and the grand tree, are both growing into the buildings with such a force that they have actually caused the one wall on the side to buckle in, and on the slab at the rear, where there is an occupied apartment, the slab is actually heaving up inside.
For those two reasons the buildings are beginning to demolish themselves.
There is evidence that there were Band-Aid attempts in the past to try to prune the tree away from the building.
We can see scarring where it looks like it's been gouged away.
We were told by one of the tenants that reside there, who has resided there for nine years, that two property owners ago, I guess, attempted to take some kind of tool and gouge the tree, or grind the tree away from the building.
Unfortunately, the root system is growing up in the foundation and up underneath the slab.
It not just the trunk condition.
So at this point and because the trees are alive, they are not dead, they are continuing to grow.
So these buildings, this building will eventually, left untested, will eventually just demolish itself because of the tree growth.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You're the property owner for the last three months?
>>> Since the 24th of March.
>> So the trees and the problem were there when you purchased it?
>>> Yes.
>> My concern is if -- what are your plans concerning this building?
Would you be willing to say for five years you wouldn't pull a building permit on this?
If you were willing to say that for five years you weren't willing to pull a building permit, then I would believe you were truly concerned about the structural damage to the existing structure.
If, however, the reason that you want the trees removed is not to protect the existing structure but rather just to remove them and then you were going to build something new there, then this is one of the problems we're looking at as we look at our tree code.
I'm not saying that you have done this but other people have used structural damages as a reason to remove perfectly wonderful trees, and then they removed the structure.
And that's my concern.
That's why we are relooking at our tree code.
And it's a very, very serious concern.
And my other great concern is that none of this was legally done in the first place, that the addition that the gentleman is referring to was not appropriately allowed to have a single structure in there.
And if it's illegal then why should we do away with trees for an will illegal structure?
You know how when you have rental property it has to be inspected and all that jazz by the city.
Do you have a permit for these four units?
>>> We have only just now applied for the permit, because the units have been vacant.
Prior to us closing on the property, with the exception of two, it was fully occupied at the time my husband and I looked at the property.
And from the time that we made an offer and made a contract to lo close three of those four units became vacant.
And two of those four units are still vacant.
The accessory structure which I think is the one that you're talking about, neither one of these trees is impacting that accessory structure at all.
That accessory structure is not affected in any way.
This is the primary structure that is being affected on both the south and on the west end.
But the fact is -- and that structure, I mean, because it's rezoned, I'm assuming it was converted to apartments legally.
I don't really know.
>> I think the question about long-term plans.
Would you be willing to say for five years you are not touching the structure?
>>> Well, I don't know at this point I have the luxury of agreeing to that only because until we can get the trees away from the structure I cannot yet fully evaluate the extent of the damage, and the demolition that's going to be necessary to make the repairs.
And I don't know what that is yet.
I can surmise.
But until I can get the trees away from the structure and get that root system out, can't even inspect the foundations.
This is a masonry structure.
So I really can't tell to what extent we have damage.
At this point, we have absolutely no plans to demolish I shall and reconstruct anything.
We bought it as an income-producing property as part of our retirement portfolio that. Is our plan at this point.
But if when we pull these trees away we find out that we've got some kind of damage, I may very likely have to pull a permit to do the repair.
I happen to be a general contractor.
So I'm fully capable of doing that work.
And that's the reason why this damage wasn't as frightening to me as the seller had indicated had frightened several people away.
And I would understand that.
So doing these types of repairs are the kinds of things that my company does on a regular basis.
But I cannot assure you that it wouldn't require pulling a permit of some type in order to do that.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So you were fully cognizant of those trees and of the damage that was being done to the home when you bought it?
>>> Absolutely.
Just can't tell the extent of the damage.
That's all.
>> And so you took a risk in doing that.
I assume you probably knew about this process when you bought the homes.
>>> Well, actually the sellers had represented to us -- and when we called the city departments, it was confirm -- that the seller had in fact applied for the demolition permit.
It was granted the permit.
And I now understand -- and we didn't learn of this until after we closed -- that because the seller did not complete the due diligence portion on his seed of properly notifying property owners and carrying that process all the way through, that the approval process was stopped, but the permit was still intact.
So the Parks Department, as I understand it, had in fact reviewed and approved the permit --
>> but it hadn't been perfected?
>>> It hadn't been perfected.
Then when the seller went and found what it was going to actually cost to remove the trees, he didn't have the funds to carry out the removal.
And so he just simply didn't continue following up.
And all that information has been confirmed. The component we didn't know about at the time of close was the fact he didn't finish doing his part properly because we understood that he had.
>> I think the can he question that Ms. Saul-Sena was getting at was not whether or not you would pull any permit, because of course, you know, we saw what's happening, you are going to have to repair the roof and probably repair the foundation of that existing building.
I think that key question is, would you voluntarily agree as part of the issuance of this permit that you would not ask for a demolition of the entire structure to build a brand new home?
That's the key issue.
I believe in my mind and Ms. Saul-Sena's mind.
I think five years is probably a little egregious.
I would say something more in the lines of two or three years, that over the next two or three years that you would not pull a permit to demolish the existing home and to build a brand new home.
And if you would voluntarily agree to that, then it would give me more comfort in the fact that this -- that you legitimately want to keep this as rental property and just want to fix it and that sort of thing.
I know it's not going to make Mr. Evans, but we have had at least one if not several situations where people have done exactly what you're trying to do, but then they have leveled the house once they got the tree out.
Because the trees were in the way of the proposed next new big house.
And that's a very big concern of this council.
At least these two council people.
>>> And I appreciate that.
And yes, I can tell you that my husband and I would be more than happy to agree to a two to three-year moratorium on anything other than demolition to repair.
>> And if it voluntary on their part.
It not something imposed by council.
Because Ms. Cole, I know where you're going.
>>> That specifically allows council to put reasonable conditions on.
So I did want to go ahead and get that on the record so I would ask council, if that is their will when they make the motion, and make it very specific what this condition is.
And then reask the property owner to again confirm she does agree to that.
>>> And my only concern in all of that is that it is clear that that is not worded in such a way that I could never pull a permit to do repairs that are going to inevitably be necessary.
That would be my greatest fear in that motion.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, all that's going to be accomplished here today is there's not going to be anything happening for two to three years, and until that's tied down, we don't have any agreement.
But the trees are going to come out and the trees are healthy.
And I'm glad that we clarified these are healthy trees, imposing on a preexisting structure versus a diseased tree.
So here is my question for legal.
When you purchase a property, and it is clear that it has already suffered structural damage, based on the tree being there, isn't there some sort of sums of the risk where we would otherwise say that because you had the tree that has over the years grown into a building, and it is making it uninhabitable, and hence there is a public safety issue to be concerned about that, where you come in and based on a very minimal amount of due diligence, that you're buying a structure that has already been damaged, and, therefore, are you still able to a veil yourselves of the same res Democrats as you as a long-term property owner who is experience the same thing?
>>> Julia Cole, legal department.
What it says is -- part of that evidence would show and what the coordinator would look at is whether or not there's damage happening to the structure.
It does not say whether or not you assume the risk in moving forward or not by purchasing the property.
It doesn't make that distinction.
That issue mate come up at some point in the future, if that permit was denied or not.
But it is not something that specifically is looked at in the code at this point in time.
>> But can we look at it? Is it a relevant issue for us?
>>> Well, the way the code reads, I'm not sure that it does make it a relevant issue because --
>> let me disagree with that.
Because we are sitting here having people go on the record and put conditions upon themselves that are completely irrelevant to whether or not the structure is being damaged by the tree.
Yet we can't look at what I think is a very salient point being was the structure preexistingly damaged?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: One thing I would disagree with you is the reason they are asking for the retree removal permit here is it is in fact causing damage to the structure so council is asking for conditions to be placed that are tied to the reason they are asking for removal of the tree.
So in my opinion, there is a nexus between a condition that council is talking about here, and it's a difficult issue, and I know councilwoman Saul-Sena can talk to you in detail probably.
But in the tree issue, you have problems where you have trees that have been there, that were very small trees, that have grown, and all of a sudden created major damage to existing homes, but when people planted them they didn't think.
And it's a balancing issue that we have to take into account.
But when we are talking about damage to existing buildings, the way the code speaks to now, that is a valid basis for a permit to be grant for the removal of both protected and grand tree.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I just have a couple of concerns I would like to weigh in on, and Ms. Cole said people come in and ask that trees be removed.
Every case of course is different.
And in this case, perhaps the prior owner was not able to do the repairs that have been warranted if he had gone further with the petition to remove the trees regardless of the condition of the tree.
In this particular situation, I think it's different.
The petitioner is a contractor.
She can do something probably cheaper than we could.
As a matter of fact, she has never done any work for me.
I met her many years ago based on a reputation that people referenced her in terms of west Tampa projects, I think.
I don't remember.
Notary public any case, might it be because she was in that because if you are in a particular business you are able to renovate your store and do better with AP product that another owner couldn't do.
So I don't think it our role, our right to infringe on the right of a current owner of property regardless of what transpired before she got there.
She looked like she wasn't very reluctant to say, okay, I'll put those conditions on myself.
I think five years is ridiculous.
I think two years is reasonable.
To renovate the building maybe in a cheaper way than the previous owner because you can do it cheaper if you do it yourself.
There's no profit structure involved.
Then I don't think we should deny her that right.
Now regardless of how Mr. Massey interprets or Mr. Shelby interprets or Mr. Harrison interprets, later on, you're right, we see a president of issues in South Tampa particularly, where people do exactly that.
They go in.
They talk about the tree.
They talk about the house.
They cut the tree down.
Two months later they sell.
Well, she's not guilty until proven guilty.
She wants to go in and repair it and use it as income property in years to come.
Who is to say about what she want to do?
But I think the fact she's giving some commitment up front voluntarily, that she plans to do some restoration, and probably do it in some of a nice passion, I think that's reasonable.
People get caught in this issue but what's.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Important, the house or the tree and you get more respectful of approach.
There's a camphor planted in front of my house, and Steve you remember that, the thing was probably there before, but the thing is too big, apparently we don't have enough money in the sidewalk thing and it is lifting the first little wall of my house.
Well, Ross Ferlita, not to be mistaken for Rose Ferlita, made me as a property owner pay $1200 to root prune just so they could save the tree and I could protect my investment.
Again it always comes back to the same things, ladies and gentlemen, we have to have some common sense.
Just because ten people might want to demolish it and do something, that's not to same this particular individual isn't.
She's given us some assurances she would make us comfortable.
I'm supportive of her requests for the reasons stated.
And I think we have to be reasonable.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: He deserves rebuttal.
>>GWEN MILLER: No, sir, not yet.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Clearly, this tree is damaging this house.
I mean, it's clearly that it's going -- the root are going under.
The eves have been trimmed back to keep the tree away from it.
It's just -- it's a beautiful tree.
And I'm sorry to see it go and all that.
But I know Ms. Byrd, too. I know she does quality work, and she wouldn't tear down a house unless it was actually a lot of structural damage that she couldn't possibly repair.
Because she knows what she's doing.
So I would like to move that --.
>>GWEN MILLER: Not yet.
Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have great respect for Ms. Byrd.
It not you, at this time principle.
In this particular area I think the trees -- nothing against this house but the trees have more value than the house.
What I would like to do is continue this hearing until we get word from our city departments about how many units you would legally be able to have, whether the property is able to be used for apartments, and so you have the chance to think about based on what's legal what your income stream could be.
Because it might turn out that it's a better deal for you to take down the house and sell the lot, keep the trees.
That might be more profitable than having this as an income extreme for apartments, because you haven't yet gotten your rental certification that's necessary before you rent those as apartments.
And so, therefore, I think that those all really relevant and ger mile-per-hour to the question of whether this building is going to continue.
Because if the building isn't going to continue, then we can save the trees.
So I would like to ask for a continuance on this.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do you want to rebut?
Mr. White?
>>KEVIN WHITE: I want to respond to her statement.
I just don't see how we can put that burden on a property owner to try to make them figure out whether they want to sell the plot property or what kind of income stream.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's germane to the trees.
>> But what if then sell the property, want to keep it as income producing property. The property is not going to do anything but continue to increase in property values.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think Ms. Saul-Sena's point is if the back two units are going to be, just for argument sake, illegal units that she can't rent out, then maybe she might be better off demolish issuing the structure all four units and therefore she would withdraw her request to remove the trees because it wouldn't be relevant anymore.
Do you know what I'm saying?
I think the continuance -- and we talked about a continuance a long time ago, because there is information that we all could use in terms of are those legal units, is this a legal nonconform unit, property, et, et cetera, those are all really relevant to the structure.
And frankly the tree has been there for years.
A couple of weeks won't matter.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on item number 12?
Mr. Evans.
>> Jack Evans: These trees are extremely close to the property line.
If in fact the -- I think the value of the property goes way up, I wouldn't have been adverse to that at all.
I'm more concerned about the apartment there.
I don't think anything was pulled when the construction was done because the house to the north, that concerns me more.
And she's exactly right, there was a couple of owners go again it like six owners in ten years where the own der go out in the middle of the night, I guess, but sometime on a weekend and tried to kill the tree, took a saw and tried to kill the roots.
Only when I went over and told him I would immediately turn him over to the Tampa Police Department did he turn the saw off.
I want you to carefully consider two beautiful trees and if you want to develop, I would be more than happy to discuss it.
It over on the side that I'm sure would not infringe on a newer structure being there.
It's in dire need of repair, which I think Ms. Byrd would agree, to other than just the structural damage that may be caused by the tree.
Thank you.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Evans.
Let me just -- didn't you tell me that was a 350 foot lot?
>>> As far as I know it's a 50 by 100 foot lot.
>> So if and when she ever decides to tear down the house, or the apartments, whatever, the thing about it is, those trees are going to be in the way.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.
>> I don't think it's any more than six or seven feet from the fences.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's why we need a survey to see where the trees sit.
Ms. Byrd, would you have any objection to a three week continuance to get some additional information?
>>> No, not as long as we can do something before the rainy season.
It still leaking.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move for a two week continuance, and during that two weeks, the information that we need back from the city is when the permits apartments were permitted and how many units are allowed there.
And I would like to see a plan.
In fact, Mr. Graham, I'm really surprised that you didn't provide us a site plan showing the dimensions of the property and the location of the trees, and the location of the structure.
I think that's really useful information.
>>> We will be sure to include that in the future.
>> And I would like to add if it's a legal nonconforming use.
I would like somebody to look at the property appraiser's records and see when these conditions were built, because they are clearly additions.
And I think the property appraisers have the records.
And perhaps there's an aerial photo.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is two weeks enough time?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: June 9th is going to be a bear of a City Council meeting.
We are going to be here all day and all night.
Let's make it three weeks.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to continue for three weeks.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Nay.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Nay.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: She had in a objection to the three weeks.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Excuse me, can I be recognized?
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder, wait.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry. I did not get that vote.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Ferlita has a question.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Somebody said that two weeks was going to be stacked.
Is that the two weeks one?
Petitioner is willing to do that.
I don't think it will take that long to determine.
The rainy season is an usual you for her and she agreed to do this on the record, this on the record, wait.
One week.
If we can't do it in one week, then let's just vote it or down and go from there.
Three weeks is too long because of the rainy season.
Two weeks, Mrs. Saul-Sena, somebody -- I think Mr. Harrison said we have a packed agenda.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: One week and staff will get the information.
Period.
One week.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is that a motion for one week?
I hear we move back in one week.
And I realize this puts a burden on the staff but we really appreciate it.
Because it frankly should have been part of the original information that was provided.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to continue for one week.
Any question on the motion?
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's 12:00.
We said council is going to break for one hour.
>> What else?
>>GWEN MILLER: We are not going to break.
We have to finish our committee reports.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I have a meeting with MacDill Air Force Base at 12:45 so I won't be coming back.
>>GWEN MILLER: Did you understand what we did?
Next week.
We need to go back to committee reports.
Mrs. Alvarez, would you read 49, please.
>> Move an ordinance vacating closing and ban dong a certain right-of-way known as all that alleyway Campbell street located east of north Central Avenue, south of east Frances Avenue, and north of east Park Avenue in historic Tampa Heights district a subdivision located in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, the same being more fully described in section 2 hereof, providing an effective date.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I abstain.
>>GWEN MILLER: Wait a minute, we didn't get a second.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I did abstain on this item last time.
I'm abstaining again for the reasons stated.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The staff report on this alley vacation was no, because it's in the historic Tampa Heights neighborhood, and it shouldn't be closed.
Part of the historic character of the area or the alleys are, we are seeing more and more people using the alleys for access to the garages and I really think council Schuh should respect the staff recommendation and disapprove this Pete.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
Okay.
Mr. Harrison, transportation.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move number 50.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: We already did.
>>GWEN MILLER: We did that that one.
All right.
It's 12:00.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Ms. Ferlita said she had a previous engage.
I didn't know if she was going to make it back.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What do we have left?
>>KEVIN WHITE: 13 through.
I want to take lunch but something while we have a full council.
The only reason, Mr. Harrison, I was going to make a motion for a resolution.
And the only reason, the only reason that I would be bringing this today is I know that our chair and Ms. Alvarez will be out of town for the next couple of weeks.
And based on the salary comparisons that we had, the three most comparable cities that we have were Jacksonville, Miami, and Orlando, although we did look at St. Petersburg, Ft. Lauderdale, Tallahassee, Clearwater, and Gainesville, and Naples.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Did you look at Temple Terrace?
>>KEVIN WHITE: No, ma'am.
Comparable size cities.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order.
I have a point of order.
I'm just looking at our agenda and trying to figure out where this fits on our agenda.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Basically under information reports.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just want to clarify so anybody out there would know where we are going.
>>GWEN MILLER: Information.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Anyway, based off those comparisons, the average medium salary of the comparable cities that I mentioned earlier, Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, the average medium salary of those persons were 2593.
I came up with some of the figures that those people did and they also are part time.
I didn't think that -- I think it's justified, but through the extent I didn't think it was necessarily justified.
So I took that back to 40,250.
And I have three things.
But with that one, I'd like to make a motion that we direct our legal staff, Mr. Shelby, to draw up a resolution to be brought back to us this evening, which he says he can do, amending council salaries at 40,250 dollars to commence on October 1, 2006 fiscal year budget.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Question, Mr. Shelby.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Clarification.
When was the date?
>>KEVIN WHITE: With the new fiscal year budget.
October 1st, 2006 budget.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: The 2006 fiscal year begins October 1st, 2005.
You want October 1st, 2005?
>>KEVIN WHITE: October 1st, 2005 for the 2006 fiscal year budget.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. White, I appreciate the research you did.
And I think that it's helpful.
I, however, am not going to support the motion because I believe we should only make a change like this for the beginning of the council cycle and not mid-term.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Councilman White, thanks for the information.
I wasn't prepared to vote on anything at this point.
So I'm not going to support it without having a chance to ruminate, but thanks for getting the information.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Here we go again telling Kevin thanks but no thanks and I'm going to join that too for the reasons I said.
I think at the time that Ms. Lang comes back with the phase one study it's going to be discovered that what he's doing is warranted, and for the record, I will support it at that time so long as I have the opportunity in '06 to say I think this is for the next candidate that sits in district 2 seat but not for me until something else transpire it is next time around to allow that, and I won't support it at this time for those reasons.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Ms. Ferlita, based on the vote that we took at council previously today, she won't be coming back to us with any information because we didn't give her permission to go spend the money to hire the consultants.
>>ROSE FERLITA: But they can do it without a cost like Mr. White did so it not like she's going to come back to us without any data.
So we are looking at the administrative report and findings and Mr. White's reports and findings, and he's done this enough times for us that I know he's going to be accurate, then I will have no pangs of consciousness to say, yes, I will support it, not in 06 but in 07 and leave the opportunity for each of the council members to accept in the 06.
And again, Mrs. Saul-Sena, I guess you misunderstood what I was saying and I hope the general public doesn't.
I was not opposed to some kind of a mechanism to show that we need to give increases in benefits and raises to our employees.
I am just reluctant to support a study I know nothing about, know what we are getting for our money, and that's the reason I didn't support it.
But that's not to say that I am not open to the administration to come back and tell me what they have found based on comparative studies.
He has done this with no dollar costs to anybody.
We sit up here and profess not wanting to spend money uselessly.
And I don't know what this $10,000 got it and that's the reason I said no on 31 and no on 34.
I will support the raise at that time in the near future and give myself the opportunity to say no thanks in 06.
>>KEVIN WHITE: One quick thing.
When that does come back, that won't come back -- the study won't come back in time with recommendations, I promise you, for the next upcoming fiscal year.
I just want that to be clear and understood.
It a short study.
But I promise you, it will not come back before the November 1 fiscal --.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: There is no study.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Simply to clarify to council that there is no study.
Council did not authorize a study.
What could possibly happen would be a new budget amendment to rescind the previously approved budget amount because there is no contract for which that money has been allocated by council.
And council did not give any specific direction for a study.
And I don't know whether it would be appropriate to say what action the administration would take in response to that.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I would like to explain.
Mr. Shelby, thank you for that explanation.
Again it goes to the heart of what I was saying.
It not that I'm opposed to it.
However, whether we decided what route was going to be taken or what Ms. Lang is going to offer as an alternate she still has the opportunity to come back and tell us what they are doing, how they are doing it, what the cost, and justifying the cost as opposed to springing it on us approximate now without any research.
I get sick and tired of being taken by surprise.
I want to make sure that what we spent was justified.
And it doesn't take very long for her to come back and follow up, let her be creative in a too timely fashion, so that can come to us quick enough so all of us can say yes, or no, or whatever we feel.
It pretty simple.
It not for me to tell her what alternative route to take.
It obviously was not for us to tell her what primary route to take, which is one that I didn't like.
So tell me something else.
Tell me differently and I'll be happy to support it.
I just need some justification that I'm saying yes to something that I know I can feel good about it.
That's simply my point.
And I think I have explained it enough different ways.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. White, since this seems to be -- you can count heads as well as anybody.
It looks like the motion is about to fail.
However, I think you have heard several council people say they would support a motion that would be effective at the gnaw council in April 1st in 2007.
So I think that that motion would be well taken.
I would prefer to see a study.
But it looks like we are not going to have a study.
So if we are not going to have a study and you want to make that motion April 1st, 2007 for whatever seven people are going to be sitting here, then I'm okay with that because I do agree that this council as a body, okay, deserves more money than it's being paid now, the 28 or 29 or $30,000, whatever it is, for the amount of hours put in.
But I don't think it's appropriate for us to think of these people, these individuals a raise.
I think we should give this empty seat a raise effective two years from now.
>>KEVIN WHITE: If I may respond.
You may be right, Mr. Dingfelder.
I particularly won't make that particular motion because I will let whoever comes in at that point in time take the same heat that I've taken for the past two times for themselves.
And that's not being self-serving.
I'm just saying I'm chartering the course here, and if people want to go on history, or whatever the case may be, I did what it is that I was asked to do, and --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I didn't ask you to do it.
>>KEVIN WHITE: And that's fair, you weren't there.
But that's fine.
I think each one of us in our own profession what we're working at.
And I really don't think that this council has to necessarily justify, we're not asking for $100,000, we're not asking for anything that's not reasonable.
I think wife all come to the conclusion that the amount is reasonable, it's not exorbitant, and the job is not what it was when we got elected.
It has been added upon, added upon, added upon.
And it's even been suggested that we every Thursday night to accommodate the zoning.
And even with that, I wouldn't even be opposed to that if the pay is commensurate to what it is, that it is that we do and the hours that we put in.
And I can only speak for myself because I know what I do on a weekly basis, and I have my calendar written down.
And maybe like I said, maybe all of us don't get as actively involved as some in certain areas and some people like myself, I'm just on the go all the time but that's just me and my personality.
But I know what this council is worth, not this council person, but I know what this council is worth and I know what this position is worth.
And like I said, at this juncture, 2005, I won't take it personally, because I don't have a dog in the fight.
This was strictly an informational deal.
And I brought it forth.
And I really wish that council would support it.
But it up to you all.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I just want to know where we stand.
There was a motion made.
The motion was made.
But I don't know.
And it was seconded?
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I want to be clear on that motion.
The motion is to have it put in the budget?
The resolution to come back tonight to have the salary increased to $40,250, to be placed in the FY 06 budget.
And if I understand correctly, I believe I'm correct in this, is that is a direction in preparation for the budget.
Of course, council will have the opportunity at the time of budget.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I also want to make it perfectly clear the only reason I brought this and asked for the resolution to be prepared tonight is I know for the next few weeks we'll not have a full council.
And that was the only reason for that request.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll move to amend the motion to change the effective date to April 1st, 2007.
That's an amendment to the motion.
It actually a friendly amendment.
A friendly amendment to change the effective date to April 1st, 2007, for the next council.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I guess you didn't get a second to that.
And I'm going to withdraw my second, then, Mr. White, because all I hear right now is it's a joke.
This council just does not feel like it's worth anything.
And if this thing about us having when we came in and all of this stuff, it's just not relevant.
We work for what we get.
And just because we want to give it to the next person, that may be good for you.
It's not good for me.
I think he had a good reason to make it October 1st, 2005.
But it's not going to pass.
And you may as well just withdraw it and forget about it.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I appreciate if you leave your second up or down.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: It's not going to work.
It's a joke.
It's a big joke.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chair.
I feel badly for Kevin.
He's the guy that for sure is not going to be here.
He's the guy striving to get something done.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm not going to be here either.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Well, could you run city-wide.
Kevin has already declared he's running for county commission.
He's the one that least stands to benefit.
The old adage that no good deed goes unpin issued.
We asked him to go back to the drawing table several times to get data for us, just in a quick communication with county commission, I have got a note from my legislative aide that their maximum for legislative aides is 77,292.
We could compile information like this, information that he has, when we get a full council back, I'm telling you, that we need to look at it again.
And it sound real good-O'-I don't want to accept it next year but I don't want to get in the way of something that's really warranted.
I will support it at that time.
And regardless of whether or not Sarah Lang comes up with a new creative way of this study or convincing me that the money is well spent, fine.
But the only thing that Kevin is trying to do is put it on the record for the people that come.
So I'm saying no to what you're saying now, Kevin.
And I don't pull any punches, I don't think, with you.
And I will support it if we come back, accumulate the data for aides and for council and for city attorney, and that's the best of both world.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Well, I had more.
I was doing these one at a time.
>>ROSE FERLITA: To bring all of these to council if we are absent or don't have a full council for the next few weeks.
Then when we come back we can look at it and vote on it.
Right now it looks like the maximum for our aide, Ohio think do just as much work with all due respect to county commission, our maximum ceiling is 63,003.20 for legislative aide.
So, you know, I think we need to look at that.
I think whatever we want to do in terms of how politics are going to criticize us, we need to follow through on this just a little later and make it beneficial to the people that work for us and with us.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I have a headache from studying it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I know.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is your intent to go through the public hearings before us and not break for lunch?
>>GWEN MILLER: Pleasure of council members and see what you want to do.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I want to go to lunch.
We have ten more hearings.
>> I think our deliberations will be moved.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Since I am going to be gone on city business, not because I have a date with somebody, that everything I come up with in terms of new business, old business, will you entertain me doing that briefly tonight?
>>GWEN MILLER: That would be fine.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just for the purposes of the record, I believe there was a motion and second on the floor.
There was a friendly amendment which was not seconded.
And then -- I just want to be clear on that -- and then what happened was second to the main motion was withdrawn.
So I just want to be clear that the motion therefore, Mr. White, I just want to be clear on what Mr. White's pleasure is.
Is the ruling from the chair that the ruling dies for lack of a second or does the motion remain on the floor, and dies for lack of second or withdrawn?
>>KEVIN WHITE: No, I am not going to withdraw my motion.
No, ma'am, I'm not going to withdraw.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Dies for lack of a second.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Let me just say something about all of this.
And Mr. White, you did exactly what we asked you to do.
Thank you for that.
We all need to take the information.
We need to digest it.
The number was pulled out of -- it hit us all today without ever having a chance to consider it.
We all, I think, share the same belief that the job description of City Council has changed dramatically over the course of just the last two years, given the additional workload we are doing.
What everyone I think is wrestling with, if we agree that a pay raise is appropriate, should it be effective for us, or should it not be effective for us?
That is a good debate that we need to continue to have.
There is really no reason right now for to us try to push that debate through, because it won't go into effect until October 1st anyway.
I think what we did today in not going forward with the overall study, though, is going to make it very difficult for us to make a case that we ought to give a pay raise, and we are not willing to fund any sort of study to determine what the appropriate level of compensation is for everyone.
So I would encourage us to take a look at that, and maybe the process wasn't the best to bring before us today.
But I do think that we probably ought to take a big picture look, especially -- again let me come back to our professional that is we employ, the legal staff, and people like that.
Because what we did is we killed that study by not voting on the second part of it.
So we're not looking at anything right now.
And it would seem to me that we do need to take a look at these things because it's been since the early 80s.
That's just my take on it.
>> The prevailing side on item 34 consider reconsidering and continue that item for two weeks -- well, I guess you guys will be gone.
I don't know.
Can you ever even consider continuing till tonight?
They are not going to be here.
I don't know.
I'm just throwing it out there.
You gays were on the prevailing side on 34.
If you need more time as opposed to killing it.
Do you want to continue it?
Just an idea.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I make a motion to reconsider 31.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can the second be on the on the side?
I think 34 is what we are on.
Second
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The seconder, I don't think has to be.
Can we have lunch while they figure it out?
>>GWEN MILLER: A motion to continue the motion.
About 45 minutes.
That would be 1:15.
Okay.
We are going to recess until 1:15.
(Recess taken at 12:27 p.m.)
---------
Tampa City Council
Thursday, May 26, 2005
1:15 p.m. session

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 may have been produced in all capital letters, and any variation thereto may be a result of third-party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.


[Sounding gavel]
>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called back to order.
Roll call.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: (No response.)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
>> MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
>>ROSE FERLITA: (No response.)
>>GWEN MILLER: Here.
Item 13 needs to be moved to continue.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I apologize.
But I do have an answer to the issue of the motion to reconsider.
And that is a proper motion.
The maker of the motion was on the prevailing side.
According to Roberts rule of order, the one who makes the second of the motion does not have to be on the prevailing side.
It's not relevant.
So just in terms of procedurally, there is a motion and a second on the floor to reconsider that matter of the contract.
And that's what happened before the recess.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We can wait.
Everybody will be here tonight.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: So you want to continue that?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Until tonight's hearing.
Or remove my second.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Should I remove mine?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: You can if you wish.
>>GWEN MILLER: She withdraws hers.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: She's my attorney.
(Laughter)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
Madam Chair, I believe there's one item that I believe is a very short hearing.
I believe it's item 18.
It's going to be a very short hearing but I believe there's a strict time limit on that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Item number 13 wants to be continued to June.
June 16th.
At 10:00.
We have a motion and second to continue item 13 to June 16 at 10:00.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
Now we go to 18.
We have a motion and second to open.
(Motion carried)
>>> Good afternoon.
I'm Ron Beeler, historic preservation.
I have not been sworn.
>>GWEN MILLER: Everyone who is going to testify please stand and be sworn.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
>> I'm presenting tax ad valorem exemption application for 1920 east 5th Avenue.
And I'd like to submit this for the record.
This property meets the qualifications because it's listed on the national register of historic places, and is a contributing structure in the Ybor City historic district.
This property is owned by FDOT.
I'll go through a couple of photos.
On the Elmo, you have exterior before it was renovated.
This is the structure after it was renovated.
The interior before it was renovated.
You see the ceiling, the flooring, the walls.
And after rehabilitation.
And just the last two photos, another interior before the renovation.
And then after the renovation.
This property is consistent with the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation and guide lanes for rehabilitating historic buildings, and reviewing the project it meets the criteria established by the department of state and improvement exceeds $10,000 and staff recommends that this project is consistent with the City of Tampa's historic properties, tax exempt ordinance as submitted.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone in the public like to speak on item 18?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance approving an historic preservation property tax exemption application relevant to the restoration, renovation or rehabilitation of certain property owned by the Florida Department of Transportation located at 1920 east 15th Avenue, Tampa, Florida in the Ybor historic district based upon certain findings, providing for notice to the property appraiser of Hillsborough County, providing for severability, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
>> Motion and second.
All in favor say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
Item 14 is a continued public hearing.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Legal department.
I'm here on item number 14, which is a proposed second amendment to the university center research and development park DRI.
This proposed second amendment would extend the buildout date by nine years.
There are some transportation improvements that are identified in the development order that need to be taken care of.
The developer is required to fund $350,000 for those improvements or like improvements in the area.
That is determined after consultation with D.O.T..
Staff has no objections.
Ready for you all to consider it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>>DAVID MECHANIK: 101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida.
Here on behalf of the University of South Florida research foundation.
The applicant.
We are here to answer any questions.
I think we have all favorable recommendations for approval.
So we would be happy to answer any questions.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 14?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez, would you read that?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida approving a second amendment to a development order rendered pursuant to chapter 380, Florida statutes, for the university center research and development park DRI number 161 and providing an effective date.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to open 15.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>THOM SNELLING: Land Development Coordination.
Petitioner is requesting to vacate a portion of an alley lying between Howard and Albany, and Carmen street and Gray Street.
Staff has no objections to reserve easement between Verizon and solid waste.
This here is Gray Street. The property lies here, the north-south alley.
Carmen street, Gray Street.
This alley still functions to serve these properties back here.
The photos, if you can see these, looking north from Gray Street, and this one looking south, across from Carmen street.
This part is going to remain open.
This is paved.
This is remaining open.
The portion that's requested to close is driven on and is primarily -- well, by the applicant themselves.
So I'll answer any questions.
This is across the way.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My first comment is to the people who are in charge of our AV materials.
We need a brighter light.
The photos are really dark, really hard to see.
And it would be helpful if we could see them better.
My question to the applicant, he would be the only person impacted by this closure?
>>THOM SNELLING: Correct.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can you put the first drawing you had up that showed sort of the grid?
Okay.
So the yellow is the alley that we're talking about?
>>> The yellow?
Yes, sir.
>> Proposed vacating?
>>> Yes, sir.
This here.
>> Is that a street or alley?
>>> It's an alley.
>> And to the north, Thom?
>>> Carmen street.
>> To the north of the alley, proposed vacating, that stretch.
>>> That's remaining open.
And the businesses use that as, and will continue to use it to do their business.
>> So it appears to me that there is, to a certain extent, there's a grid of an alley system there in terms of the alley that runs east-west, and then this is currently an alley that runs north-south.
Now part of it is improved, and the part that's being vacated is not improved.
But still, kind of a grid system of an alley.
And this is an area that's undergoing improvement, which we know it's undergoing improvement.
Why wouldn't we want to leave the grid system in there?
Don't we believe in alleys?
>>THOM SNELLING: You know, this is anecdotal.
We ask those questions if they have any objections, if they have any further use of this property, right-of-way facility.
>> I'm talking about from -- just take off your specific technical hat and put on your general planning hat.
If this is part of the grid system of alleys through there, the grid system of alleys in Hyde Park works very nicely, we want to encourage the grid system in Tampa Heights, and Seminole Heights they feel very strongly about some of their alleys.
Why wouldn't we want to leave this grid system in place?
>>> I think if it's a residentially specifically, that comes in to play a lot. This is primarily commercial property using this.
>> It seems to be vacant on the property.
This piece here.
>>> Yes, it is.
This is vacant.
Is the petitioner here?
Yes.
He can describe his business for you.
>> I'm not talking necessarily about what his issue is.
I understand from his perspective.
He wants to join them so he can have a common usage, whatever it is, or might be in the future.
I'm talking about from the community's perspective.
There's a grid system there.
Why wouldn't we continue it the same way we continue the street grid systems?
>>> Right now, the city planning perspective, my department, we have not gone through and done analysis, the long-range planning of any area.
Forget about whether it's west Tampa, East Tampa, no matter where.
The future use and function of alleys.
We have not gone through and done that type of consideration.
That's smaller scale planning and analysis.
We have simply not done that.
In the future, as different parts of neighborhoods come in, west Tampa right now, there's more and more analysis taking place in parts of west Tampa which relates to the -- relates to the historic district and the function of those alleys.
Ybor City has done it.
Seminole Heights has done that.
And mention Hyde Park.
All of those areas have had the analysis done.
And the overall planning perspective questions asked and answered about the value and the desire to keep alleys in some kind of grid pattern or functioning.
Parts of this part of the city, that type of analysis has not taken place.
>> Once it's gone, it's gone.
And if we do the analysis later and find out we really want to keep the grid system, then it's too late.
Does that east-west alley go all the way through to Howard?
The east-west alley?
>>> No, it stops right here.
This alley runs behind -- it goes here, like this.
>> So if we get rid of this alley it's only going to give you one option, which is going north to Carmen.
>>> As you come in like this?
Correct.
>> All right.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Santiago.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Good afternoon.
I have not prepared an ordinance.
I would ask if you vote favorably on this motion to make a request that legal prepare the ordinance commensurate with the recommendation.
That is all.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>>> Jerry Clayton.
Yes, the hope is that the we can build medical offices on the western-most portion of that parcel.
And that on the eastern portion that you're looking at there, at least on my monitor, would be a parking lot essentially.
One of my concerns about the waterway is that first of all, I don't know how relevant this is.
This is not my ball of wax.
It's never been used by the public as far as I know.
We purchased from previous owners that had owned it since 1947, and they were using it mainly as a driveway to get to their meeting hall, which is on the eastern portion of the property there.
But basically, my concern is, if you look at the eastern portion, which would be the parking area, proposed parking area, all those spaces on the western side of that eastern portion will be dedicated handicapped spaces.
And even though the right-of-way is not currently being used by the public, it does present a concern for the patients to their parking in the lot, when they are getting next to the building.
I don't know what the relevance of that is to the council.
But these are primarily senior Medicare patients for the ophthalmologist clinic and also the chiropractor.
>> You could improve that easement, and then with a license or agreement from the city.
If you paved it over and improved it, we can give you permission to do that.
>>> Okay.
All right.
I'm not sure that alleviates my concern, though, councilman, about traffic going back and forth across that right-of-way if I've got consumer traffic trying to cross that right-of-way.
Again, primarily, we are talking about seniors, and that is part of my concern.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Make sure I understand the map.
You own the parcel to the east of the yellow shaded area, and the parcel to the west of the yellow shaded area?
>>> That's correct.
>> All right.
And what is that immediately to the north of the, I guess, western section?
Do you know?
>>> To the north of the western section is a commercial business.
I believe air conditioning, environmental.
To give the council some idea, if you're driving up Howard toward the interstate, this particular business has got a large mural in front of it with what looks like outdoor wildlife, some sort of large mural on the side.
And they have some sort of environmental business.
>> All right.
So you're planning on building an office building on the western section, and using the eastern section for parking?
>>> That's correct.
That's the proposal.
>> And so if we follow what Mr. Dingfelder is suggesting, you will have a public alley running through the middle of property that you own where you're having people trying to walk back and forth across to get to your medical building?
>>> That's correct.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Just for my two cents, I don't think that's a very good public policy position for us to be in, either, if we are going to have people walking across an alley that's still open to traffic when they are trying to park and walk back and forth into that medical facility.
So as long as we are retaining the easements that have been asked to be retained, I don't have a problem with it.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I feel the same way.
It seems to me like the only people -- nobody is using that alley now, and the ones to the north there, are they using the alley at all?
>>> No, ma'am, not to our knowledge.
Not to the knowledge of the previous owners.
And we did ask about that.
>> And the building to the east, that belongs to you.
And what is that?
Is that a warehouse?
>>> Yes, ma'am.
It's like an old meeting hall.
It was a former VFW hall.
And they used it, a bunch of World War II vets.
>> And that piece was never used or anything.
Somebody was maintaining it, I hope.
>>> Well, it's kind of a dirt -- the whole thing is sort of undeveloped.
And it's basically a grass lot right now.
And so they were driving in there and parking their cars on the grass lot.
>> So you were having vagrants in there, too?
>>> Well, that is a concern.
We were hoping to take that building down.
It's an absolutely in abysmal shape.
And even the previous owners really had vacated it long before they sold it to us.
>> And what about -- I see it's westland Avenue?
Is that right, on the east part of that?
Westland Avenue?
I can't read backwards.
>>> Oh, I see.
Yes.
>> And is that a through street going through they're?
Is that a through street there?
Going north to south?
>>> Maybe it stops at Gray.
>> Or does it veer and then starts again?
So that it's not a through street.
So the grid has already been compromised because of that.
Okay.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 14 -- 15?
I'm sorry.
Somebody is coming.
>> My name is Wanda MONDEZ representing streamline environmental.
We are the company that is bordering the alleyway, and the proposed building.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Show us on the map?
>>> Yes.
We are here.
>> You have the mural.
>>> Yes.
We have the mural.
That alleyway is and has been utilized by the homeowners and the business owners in that area.
Our company has been there for eleven years.
And it has always been accessible to our company.
There is also a single-family residence on top of the building next to us that also utilized that area.
If you look at the map here, on the other side of the street, on the other side of Gray, they just installed a medical facility there, also.
But they didn't take out the alleyway along the back of their building that allows large commercial vehicles to come in and make deliveries which is not accessible on Howard.
If they stop on Howard, they cause traffic problems, and things like that.
So they have to come around to the back of the building to make deliveries.
If when don't have that alleyway, we don't have deliveries, we don't have consumer access, client access and vendor access to our businesses.
And one of the businesses is vacant at this time.
But ours, it's not.
We do utilize that area.
And the grid line that you were referring to, if they close it off where they are proposed, and we have been out and looked at the markings where they propose to close off the alleyway, it will also limit the access along the other border.
When we refer to the traffic along that alleyway, with a parking lot, it's not a huge amount of traffic so I really doubt it would pose a problem to any type of patients going through there.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Ma'am, you can access through Carmen street to come in through that alley.
Are you using that alley now?
>>> Yes, we are.
We utilize it from Howard -- excuse me, from Gray to Carmen.
And it's a straight alleyway.
It would be really hard for a FedEx truck to come down Carmen and go into that alleyway and turn around somehow, and the same way for the trash, utilities, pickup.
Because at this time, they pick up exactly where they propose to close the alleyway.
>> So where is your parking here?
>>> We have limited parking into the back of the building there, right along the red grid line.
We had, from the previous owner, purchased parking spaces out of that vacant lot as well did the armory across the street during the overflows, you know, for parking in that area.
We did purchase spots from them and paid a monthly fee from them to park there.
And once the property was sold, no one has come to us and asked us if we would like to continue to do that.
I'm sorry?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: No, go ahead.
>>> No one has continued to ask if we want to do that or proposed to us that they closed the alleyway, until now.
Oh.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thom, would you put those pictures back up, please?
>> The alley itself, is that the top left?
This is it right here.
This is the alleyway.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What is the width of the alley?
>>> Looks to be 15 feet.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So, Thom, if this alley is being used by this property owner and the other one, how come you don't have an objection to it?
>>THOM SNELLING: That type of review -- again, land development processes the reviews, for the reviewing agencies.
Transportation is the one that either comes back.
And addressing a similar question from Dr. Dingfelder.
What is the long-term thought behind keeping the alleyway, long-term use of this alley?
It's understood when it goes through transportation that when they are looking at that, they are looking at the circulation routes, how much traffic is on Howard, how often the alley gets used, how are businesses using those?
Those are issues transportation should address.
And if they come back and say we have no objection to vacating of the alley, that assumption is made that there will be no transportation traffic impacts up and down on Howard by trucks stopping there and the people using that have an another alternative use to give access to that property.
That kind of analysis is transportation conversation.
And when when -- when they come back with an objection that's what we put in, has offered a non-objection to it.
That's not a great answer but that's the answer that's real.
>> But, Thom-f she's saying if you close that alley up and then the FedEx trucks and the garbage trucks and so on that are going through there, they don't have a way to back in and out of this thing.
>>> And I can only speak to the reserved easement.
If solid waste is requesting a continued use of this easement which means they are going to have to have access going up and down and through this alley.
But the question is, is the public -- and I heard this council discuss this -- is the public good served by closing the alley or is the public's good served by keeping the alley open?
That is the debate that council has.
And we try to prevent the facts as the other agencies looked at it, and then debate about whether or not it should open and the inconvenience to this business and this customer, this citizen, is that invene for the greater good of the public, or is it not?
And again, that's what this form is for.
>> So then if this gentleman here wants to build the building on Howard Avenue, and he wants a parking lot toward the back, and is it like Mr. Dingfelder said, that they could give him an easement or something, the city could give them an easement so they could use that right-of-way there?
>>> They have the right to use that right-of-way right now as an alley.
It's a public --
>> they can improve it.
>> They can improve it?
To be used as a parking lot?
>> I'm wishing transportation was here.
They could improve the alley to city standards and pave it and use it and make the improvements to that alley he to make it safer, et cetera, et cetera.
They could do that with the petition to transportation, I believe imagine.
And than the condition, I suspect it would be, that they build it to whatever the suspect is for a vehicle use area or public right-of-way by putting the paving in.
One of the requirements -- okay.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Legal department.
I think I might be able to address that.
The report received -- and let me correct the record.
This is the item that I proposed the substitute ordinance on.
So it's actually before you.
The report that was received requested a solid waste easement.
The substitute ordinance that's before you actually incorporates that.
If you will look at it.
Item B in section 2, to item A in section 2, that effectively creates that right-of-way into a solid waste easement.
Let me frame tout this way.
Right now it's a right-of-way, easement available to the public.
Anybody can go across it.
The way that the reports come in, the way that it's crafted, it will lose its public quality.
But still remain an access way for the use of solid waste.
So it is being reserved.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: But only for solid waste.
Suppose the gentleman wants to build a parking lot in the back and he's got medical patients who are wanting to go there.
Wouldn't that constitute a little danger for these people that are going back and forth finance this alley is closed?
>>THOM SNELLING: I believe he's maintaining the closing of the alley would be safer oh for his patients. The closing of the alley is going to effect an adjacent business owner.
You heard her testify to closing the value, and she represents other neighborhoods Yuing that.
She also represents that some of her deliveries and things would have to be effectnd and use Howard mover often than the alley.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: If they are getting a delivery from Kennedy, Kennedy Boulevard, or if they have employees or whatever, they would go north onto Howard, right on Gray, up the alley.
If they don't have the alley they are going to have to go all the way back toal ban toy get into the east-west alley.
You can follow with me if you want, Thom.
Then circle up.
Then come all the way back down.
And then you can see what I'm talking about.
North on Howard.
Right on gray.
All the way down to Albany.
Left on North.
Then to the middle of that block.
To the middle of the block.
And then come down.
There.
And then all the way up that alley.
Otherwise, how do they get in the back of the property?
>> They are go north Howard and then come back around.
They have a virtual dead-end.
>>THOM SNELLING: It could cause a change in the circulation.
It would.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Ma'am, I thought you said there was already an alley right next to your business.
>>> It's a T.
There's an alley going along the back of our business.
And there's one that meets it going up to Albany.
It goes all the way through Albany.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thom, keep your pen there.
Go back to the top of the yellow.
Go to the left.
My left.
>>> There is no alley there.
That's private property.
That's his property.
>>THOM SNELLING: The alley that runs along the back of the commercial, that's the one alley pattern.
Then the alleys that run east and west along the back of the residential.
It's the same here.
I guess up here as well.
But it's a T here.
T here.
And then these are the opposite.
But the commercial property along whatever street it is.
If they have an alley behind commercial businesses serving their functionalities, solid waste, et cetera.
And you have the east-west alleys which are typically this is supposed to be a ten-foot alley that services whatever the needs to go to a residence.
This is no different from that.
We have got this same configuration on all three of these blocks.
>> Well, Thom, it seems to me like if you have got a public right-of-way going between a parking lot and a business you have the very real possibility that someone is going to get hurt there.
If you maintain an easement for our solid waste trucks to go back and forth forth, at least they will know when those solid waste trucks are going back and forth, with the adjoining property owner, if they are getting deliveries at all hours of the day, there's no scheduling.
So someone could be walking across there, and they could be conflicting with delivery trucks that are going in and out of that alley as opposed to going up to Carmen, and just having those delivery trucks come south down the alley and pull in the back of the business that way.
It seems like everybody can win in this situation.
But if we don't allow the vacating, it seems like there's going to be some conflicts between people going back and forth from either side there.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's the choice of his design.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
Mr. Dingfelder, will you please stop interrupting and let Mr. Harrison make his conversation?
After he's finished then you can comment.
>>> In that case, Mr. Harrison is saying that no citizen should cross the street because it's too dangerous.
>>GWEN MILLER: No, dent say that.
>>> He said if you have to worry about people crossing, or leaving that easement open, or right-of-way open, then you have to worry about people being, you know, hurt.
People do that every day.
People cross the street.
It's limiting -- this is limiting access to residential and commercial properties with this design.
You're cutting off half of the direction of flow to get to our business.
And if our deliveries have to stop on Howard, can you imagine stopping your vehicle on Howard and getting out and making a delivery?
That's almost the only choices that they have.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for the neighbor who is standing up.
Did anybody from the city transportation department talk to you about the impact of this?
>>> No, they did not.
>> Thank you.
I have a question for our staff, which is, in an alley vacation, do we talk to the civic association?
>>THOM SNELLING: We do not typically contact them on an alley -- the notice goes out to the neighborhood association that's in that area and the notice goes out to the --
>> so it went out to the neighborhood association?
>>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Because what I'd like to say, council members, is this is not -- this is a specific isolated request.
But the larger question, which is, I think this is the north Hyde Park civic association, they have been very articulate about wanting to protect the residential parks of this neighborhood from the commercial ones.
And it seems to me one of the ways to protect the residential parks is by keeping the alleys open so the commercial traffic stays closer to the commercial and has less intrusion as the residential.
And I think what we should do after we discuss this whatever happens is bring it back to the north Hyde Park civic association, it's like a policy question.
What do they want to see happen with the alleys in their area?
Because to me, it's a real important planning question for their neighborhood.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question for the petitioner.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is it your intent to come back in for rezoning for a PD or something like that, when you are able to combine these two separate parcels?
>>> These 2004 --
>> these 2004 separate follow owes, aren't they?
>>> Yes, they have been under separate ownership.
>> But two separate follow owes divided by a public easement.
>>> Divided by public rights-of-way.
>> Public rights-of-way, thank you.
But my question, do you have any intent of coming in for rezoning, or you don't need a rezoning once you get these combined?
>>> I don't know the answer to that, councilman.
I'm not a -- let me give you my perspective since I have heard a lot of things if I may, and I will hopefully be able to answer your question in my answer.
Yes.
I mean, if it requires coming back for some sort of rezoning, and I'm not an expert, then we will certainly have to do that.
>> I guess my only point is, currently it's not and approved project.
It hasn't been rezoned.
You know, --
>>> it's a little bit of a chicken and egg, if I may, because if you can't get the right-of-way figured out, it's going to effect how the architect draws the parking lot and everything else, as you can understand.
My concern -- I'm an insurance liability attorney.
I counsel my clients every day in avoiding risk.
I don't want doctors and medical people on one side and on the left-hand side I've got about 60 patients a day that range in age anywhere from 40 to 80.
>> But you testified yourself that it's hardly used today.
As a matter of fact, you said nobody uses it today.
So what's the difference?
If nobody is using it north and south, except for this young lady and her adjacent property, then where is the big risk?
It's not a dangerous street.
>>> It's hard to see from these pictures.
And I appreciate it's hard to see from these pictures.
But quite frankly, nobody uses it today because it doesn't look like anything.
And as soon as you put up something that looks like a road, I suspect it will be used, and make it look like a street, I suspect it will be used much more frequently.
And in terms of the concern of the northern commercial business, getting back to your concern about federal express, they come off of Kennedy.
They go up Howard.
All they have got to do -- you drew that elaborate -- just go up to the right and take an immediate right.
>> And how do they get out?
>>> The alleyway that runs east-west.
>> Right.
And they have to go all the way back out there.
Why is that to the convenience of the public?
What's the difference, why are we inconveniencing the one property owner -- you theoretically could use that grid system.
>>> If it makes any difference we would be more than happy to talk to the business about giving them an easement.
We don't have any problem with that.
What we are really concerned about to be perfectly frank is pedestrian -- I'm just talking about people getting out of their cars and going into a medical building, and I just cannot imagine as a matter of public policy it's a good idea to have anything that looks, smells, or appears to be a road cutting right through there.
>> Design it differently.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Snelling, all the neighbors in that area were notified about what's going to happen with this closure?
>>THOM SNELLING: The appropriate notice was sending it out to the appropriate property owners. In this case it was just business owners here.
The other people that live along this portion -- because that was not requested to be closed -- they may not even know -- they post a sign here, here, and maybe here.
I'm sorry.
Here and here.
They probably posted signs here, and gave notice to this owner, this owner, and that would be it because nothing else is being requested to close.
And it went to the neighborhood association.
Chances are that these folks here, they did not get notice.
They did not get notice.
>> They weren't supposed to get notice, right?
>>> No, ma'am, they weren't.
They would be impacted by it, I believe.
Because what might happen, you may increase some of the traffic up and down this portion of the alley as people are trying to circulate back.
And the only other thing, if we are having a discussion here -- and if I may -- is if you are designing property, the use of crosswalks and speed humps and pedestrian kinds of things, we use them in neighborhoods where traffic is an usual you, there are traffic calming techniques that can be used in the design if the alley stays open, that you can do, to put that out there.
There are traffic calming techniques to increase the safety factors of people moving from parcel A to parcel B.
People do go across Howard Avenue as well.
And they cross at crosswalks and things like that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
>>ROSE FERLITA: I apologize.
I arrived late.
I didn't think I was going to be able to but glad that I D.sir, to update me, I listened to the rest of the discussion, this is going to be a medical office?
For you or you're doing it for somebody?
I don't know what your role is.
>>> I'm just a partner with the other three.
>> In the business, in the property, in the project?
>>> Yes.
>> Do you have any tenant in mind?
What kind of a practice?
>>> Yes, ma'am.
We have an ophthalmologist.
I actually have some plans.
I don't know how to use the pro tech genetic tore.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: It's a medical office.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I want to know specifically.
>>GWEN MILLER: Just place it on the overhead.
>>> It is going to be an ophthalmologist office, Dr. Williams.
He wants to have a small optical shop on the Howard side, and then on the other part is going to be Dr. ROVOLOSHA.
He's a chiropractor.
I don't know if I can -- here we go.
Right here is where that current right-of-way extends.
You can kind of get -- I wish I had picked that up earlier because it gives you a better idea.
You can see where the handicapped spots are.
They are -- Mrs. Ferlita, as you know, because it is a medical office, there is a higher parking lot space allotment.
So, unfortunately, and we tried and tried and tried to design this way as best we can to get as much building as we can out of it but because the parking lot as you see takes almost two-thirds of what we are trying to do here because of the higher use restrictions on medical, it does take an enormous amount --.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And I appreciate the length of your explanation.
But the thing I was going to -- and I'm not trying to be funny or, you know, sometimes we look at alley closures from the standpoint of public purpose.
And this one, as far as I'm concerned, I'm looking at it from the standpoint of public safety.
And again not trying to be funny but this is my sense of what is going on F.this was a physician that's a gastro, that's one thing.
If you have ophthalmologists with patients crossing that alley, sometimes an eye that's dilated, that tends to tell me I am going to support this even more because of the issue of what's going to be housed in that particular site.
That's why I wanted to know what specialty.

Thank you.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thom, since you're in the land use office, could you tell me what the zoning is there?
>>THOM SNELLING: I knew you were going to ask.
I don't know.
I don't have every piece of the city memorized.
I'm going to suspect -- I was actually asking -- I'm going to say this stuff on Howard is probably CG or CI.
And given that this was a commercial business, I imagine the zoning probably does some kind of a thing like that, although I cannot guarantee it.
I feel very confident this is at least a CG.
Chances are because of the warehouse property that's here, it probably also has initials on it it.
We could verify that, though.
The use of a hospital -- not hospital, the use of a professional office or medical office would not require rezoning-f that's where the question is going.
>> That's where it was going.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Need to close the public hearing.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Wait a minute.
Wait, wait, wait.
>>GWEN MILLER: We're just closing it.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I know, but Tom said he couldn't answer the question.
I trust this gentleman.
Do you know what the back property is zoned in or do you know what either parcel is zoned?
>>> My understanding it's all commercial, yes, sir.
I don't know the codes and everything.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think the principle here is really protecting the commercial property the residential property to the east from the commercial property that fronts on Howard and based on that I would move to deny this because I think that the alley actually protects the residential uses located to the east from the commercial traffic that's now going to be taking the alley behind their homes over through their little alley over to Albany.
And I think it would be disruptive.
And I think we'll have them angry with us.
And this is as a policy not a wise thing to do. And fellow council members, I would point out to you that the danger is much less from the alley than from the people in the parking lot pulling in and out.
So I move for denial.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second. The reason I'm seconding it is wave to look at the total public purpose.
This is a hypothetical use.
It's never even been in for rezoning.
It's not in for permitting.
Okay.
We give up our alleys piece by piece by piece.
We give up the grid piece by piece by piece.
Thom testified to us, Thom Snelling testified to us that these alleys have become extremely important in other parts of the city where people are retaking the alleys and using them more and more.
This adjacent next door neighbor says that they use the alley in their commercial vehicles use the alley.
Okay.
This isn't about them more than anybody else.
If they can't use it, then her delivery trucks are going to have to run right up that alley, east-west, as Linda said, and go out toward the other end.
That's not fair to anybody.
And nobody on that alley had been noticed, Madam Chair.
You brought up a great point.
Nobody on that alley had been noticed at all because our code doesn't require that we notice except that little for example segment.
So the fact they are not here today, which I think is your point, not here today objecting, they don't even know what's going on.
So I think in the public right this should be denied.
And I know you and your designers can work around this, with our staff, putting in the traffic calming that Mr. Snelling has proposed.
We can work with you and make that medical office prosper and be safe.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm not going to support the motion, because let us assume that there is no rezoning required.
They own both sides of the existing alley.
They can build what we see on the screen right now without ever coming back in front of us.
If they are going to do that, they have got three handicapped spaces right up alongside this alley where there are going to be delivery trucks going up and down.
To me, that is a terrible public policy position for us to be in that we are going to be allowing commercial traffic to go through the middle of a parking area.
Now having said that, it would appear to me that Mr. Tolton's -- he has a medical office here -- there are going to be deliveries of some type being made to his office.
Perhaps he can get together with the adjoining property owner and figure out a way so that deliveries can be timed so that they can still -- as long as they can work it out together, they can come to some understanding that we minimize any sort of problems along there.
But I think it's a terrible public policy statement for us to be making, that we are going to allow traffic in and out thereof when they don't have to come back before us to do anything.
They can go ahead and build this right now, and we are going to be in trouble right there.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I agree 100% with Mr. Harrison.
They can just do this.
And now they have got patients crossing an alley.
It not like this adjacent property owner or person that is opposing it doesn't have some open alley way behind them.
They just have to change the configuration of the delivery trucks in terms of how they get there and how they leave.
But I sure would not want to be held responsible for making a decision that would cause particularly people particularly seeing a medical physician crossing an alley -- there is no objection from any of our departments.
As long as we have the easements for utilities that are stated here, I think this is a good public safety issue, and I am going to wholeheartedly support it and not support the motion to deny.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the vote for denial.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question on the motion.
This is a question to legal.
Mr. Santiago.
Okay.
He stood in front of us and told us we thought he might be building, okay, in order to get this alley vacating.
He showed us this picture.
Does this picture go with the vacating?
Do they have to build a medical complex?
>>> The issue before you is only the back piece of property that constitutes the alley.
>> Right.
>>> Outside of that --
>> if they change their mind, we have now given them 15 feet of right-of-way.
We have inconvenienced the next door neighbor.
And they can change their mind legally?
They can put anything they want on there that fits in their commercial zoning, correct?
>>> That's correct.
>> Or they could do nothing and just close up the alley and inconvenience these people and sit on that property for 20 years.
Correct?
>>> No structures can be put on the alley.
They have to remain open.
>> Once they vacate it, they can do anything they want.
>>> No. The easement prohibits, the structures and things of that nature.
>> Oh, okay.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second for denial.
All in favor?
All opposed, Nay?
Mr. Harrison, would you read it?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move an ordinance vacating, closing, discontinuing, and abandoning a certain right-of-way all that southern portion of alleyway that runs north and south between west grey and west Carmen street in Benjamin 4th addition located in Tampa, Hillsborough County Florida the same being more fully described in section 2 hereof providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a second and motion.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to speak to the motion.
I'm not going to ask you a question.
I'm just going to make a statement.
And that is the way that council works, we have two public hearings.
One now and one two weeks from now.
If you want to tell the neighbors who live up and down the streets there that there's a second public hearing, and they want to -- they can phone call us, they can e-mail us, or they can come to the hearing, to express their concerns about that portion of the alley being vacated, that would probably be illuminating.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question on the motion.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Harrison, you made an alternative suggestion about -- and I'm sorry she left but about the cross easement.
I don't know if you intended that to be part of the vacating ordinance, because without that, there's no leverage.
There's no incentive.
They get the alley and they don't have to deal with those numbers.
That was your suggestion.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, it is.
And I would strongly encourage the petitioner to see if there is anyway that you can work it out with your adjoining neighbor, because Ms. Saul-Sena has very deftly ensured that we will have a few more people here at the second reading of this ordinance.
I would see what you can do to work it out with them.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, I think that Mr. Heroin's abilities to be mediator came out loud and clear.
And I appreciate what he's trying to do.
But I think that's obviously something the petitioner would have to consider.
I don't know if he could do that.
I'm very comfortable with it as it is, as opposed to what Mr. Harrison suggested, which I think, Shawn, is fine.
It's a good suggestion.
This is another good suggestion.
You ought to be going around the neighborhood and finding fought there's some people that agree with you and to bring them here, too.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Opposed, Nay.
>> Move to open item number 16.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>THOM SNELLING: Land Development Coordination.
This is CO 507.
We received a letter from Wilson Nobles, the petitioner's representatives.
They are requesting a continuance.
Says on behalf of the school district of Hillsborough County, I respectfully request a continuance of the May 26th hearing for C 05-07.
The continuance will allow us to address an issue with the City of Tampa fire marshal's office which has recently come to our attention.
If it please it is council I would like to request June 9th, 2005 for the continued hearing date.
And any other questions, contact me.
Sincerely, Michael English, EICP.
They are requesting a continuance.
And then I'll leave it at council's pleasure.
Roland, I don't know if they are obligated procedurally.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: City legal department.
Petitioner CO 507 is before you.
They have submitted the request for continuance.
Procedurally what's before you is a matter of the continuance.
The petitioner is here to answer questions regarding that.
There's also members of the public also here to speak.
I would just remind council at this juncture of the hearing, you would be limited to just discussion on the continuance.
And make sure everybody speaking for the petitioner or the public limits their conversation to that.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to say that I think all the council members received an e-mail from the member who said there was only one little sign posted, and only saw it because she walked her dog, and if it turns out that we do continue this we need to insist upon new signage being posted, and notice being widely circulated.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Going to have a special retirement for this vacating different than any other vacating?
I'm confident that if there was a flaw in the notice or in the signage, staff would have pointed it out to us.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Our understanding is that notice has been conducted pursuant to code.
There's been no flags from the department or the clerk's office so my understanding is code requirements have been met.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>> Jennifer wellman, with Wilson Miller, 11 oh 1 north Channelside Drive 400 Tampa, Florida 33602.
We are representing school board on this matter.
The petition to vacate is related to classroom expansion, to reduce class size.
We have received no comments from the public.
We received approval from all the local utilities.
The fire marshal's office brought an issue to us on Tuesday, which is why we requested a continuance yesterday.
We sent the letter yesterday because we are scheduled to have a meeting with the fire marshal's office to resolve that issue.
It was just brought to our attention today that there is some neighborhood concerns, and we would like to have a neighborhood meeting to address those concerns.
And we'll be meeting with the fire marshal's office.
For that reason, we would like to request a continuance for three weeks now instead of the two weeks which we originally had intended to meet with the fire marshal's office now that we also would like to meet with the neighborhood.
We would request that three-week continuance to June 16th.
>>GWEN MILLER: What school is this?
>>> Roosevelt elementary.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on the continuance?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to continue for three weeks.
>>GWEN MILLER: To June 16th.
All in favor of the motion.
10 a.m.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
>> Move to open.
>> Second.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Give me a second.
There's a gentleman from the public that wanted to speak this morning.
If you give me a second let me square him away.
>>GWEN MILLER: Sure.
Sing
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I share with the council the e-mail that I got to go ahead and talk with the person?
I can give a copy to the clerk.
I have two copies.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: I have spoken to the gentleman and he's going to go ahead and not have any concomments so he will come back in -- comments, so he will come back in three weeks.
>>GWEN MILLER: Item 17.
We have a motion and second to open.
(Motion carried)
Is that Mr. Snelling?
>>THOM SNELLING: I was making a copy.
I'll make sure she gets it.
Item 17.
05-08.
This is between real rose and Hesperides.
It's from TECO and stemwater.
This is the portion being requested.
As you can see, this has been already vacated, as has this.
This includes that portion there. And I have some photographs as well.
As you can already see, it is extensively tree lined, a number of very large trees already growing here so this alley obviously has not been used forever.
Even this portion of Trask which is still completely open, to the north of Melrose, south of Estrella, this area here you can see huge, huge trees here.
I would suspect some are close to grand trees.
Growing in this entire area.
These pictures here, you're on Trask street looking south.
So you're standing looking into the -- here's the sign.
This is the public alley.
If we notice this tree here, that's pretty darn big right there.
That's a grass area there.
This is looking to the other end.
Turning around looking the other way.
Tree lined.
Manicured grass.
Now on the other side, this is the first thing you see is this.
Although this may have been a dedicated public right-of-way at one time, the size of some of these trees indicate that it has not been used by anyone.
However long it takes to grow a tree that big.
And that's a pretty big tree.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: A golf cart or something could go through there.
>>THOM SNELLING: I think there are golf carts running around out there.
I'm kidding.
But that is the petitioner's request to make that vacate.
>>KEVIN WHITE: One question.
I saw the sign posted there. I'm well good and fine with that.
But I thought we decided last year or the year before that land development was going to start using bigger, brighter and more colorful signs.
>>THOM SNELLING: We are actually using different colors now.
We are using greens and reds and blues.
The size of the sign, we have gone back and forth, and some of it has to do with expense.
But I will have something coming in front of council asking for additional money for signs.
And then we go back to the -- the larger signs are more than twice the amount of this one.
And this sign here is $4.
The other ones are like nine.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: How much do we charge people?
>>> For the sign?
Nothing.
We're taking a beating on the cost on that one.
But that's easy to fix.
As I said, there's a request for the easement of TECO and stormwater.
The propensity of this portion of Tampa to perhaps flood a little bit.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Snelling, I don't have any questions.
Just a comment again looking at the sheet that kind of tells me where we are in terms of department opposition and objections and easements, et cetera.
Pretty clean.
I think objections, there are none.
Easements, TECO and water department.
And I guess when we close the public hearing -- I'll be more than happy to move it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I wonder if this petitioner has a better appreciation for what we do now.
You have been warming that seat for about five and a half hours.
>> Sure have.
I was going to ask for a raise.
(Laughter)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: See you later.
>>> No, I bought the property at 4700 west well rose, which is right next door.
And I have a driveway that extends through this right-of-way, which has been there for 30 years.
And all I want to do is replace it with pavers and maintain the area and keep it beautiful.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 17?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: Move to send to legal for approval?
Wait a second.
>>THOM SNELLING: Snelling they need to direct it.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>THOM SNELLING: I think the next time -- Jimmy is very sick today.
He miss board of director three days of work.
But I think the next time he talks to me and says these vacatings are going to be very easy and noncontroversial I'm not going to believe him.
Have a good day.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open 19.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ERIC COTTON: Land Development Coordination.
This is WZ 05-80.
The petitioner is Mary Ann McKinnies and Julian Lifsey, revocable trust.
This is 7720 west Courtney Campbell causeway, castaways, restaurant, which is this property, probably right there.
This is the causeway.
This is Courtney Campbell.
The petitioner is requesting a 4(COP-R) for -- which is a full alcohol for a restaurant.
There's no other wet zoned property or residential properties within a thousand feet.
However, Ben T. Davis beach starts right there, within nine feet of the survey.
Any questions?
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>>> Steve boardman, police department.
We have no objections.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is the petitioner here?
>>> Megan crew, 204 south Frankland, suite 2100.
I have been sworn.
I'm here on behalf of the owners of the property.
We just want to have the wet zoning in place.
Just by way of background, back in 1990, the property was zoned, and there was a conditional wet zoning that was not signed by the mayor.
We got a letter from Peter Cowell back last year saying that it came to the attention of the city in reorganization of the files that the wet zoning had expired.
So we are really here just to make it right.
And get a wet zoning as well.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone in the public like to speak on item 19?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol of alcoholic content beer, wine and liquor 4(COP-R) or on premises only in connection with a business establishment on that certain lot, plot or tract of land at 7720 west Courtney Campbell causeway Tampa, Florida more particularly described in section 2 waiving certain restrictions as to distance based upon certainings findings providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open 20, 21.
>>ERIC COTTON: The petitioner on this one is here.
They are going to be requesting a continuance.
>>GWEN MILLER: Till when?
How many weeks?
>> We are just requesting a one-week continuance.
There are some issues as to whether or not the application is in order.
And we just want to have a little time to just discuss it further with the legal department, and the legal department is okay with this continuance.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I don't have a problem westbound the continuance.
Just out of curiosity, what is the property next to?
>> Restaurant BT, next to Tommy Bahamas on --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Used to be Celenas.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Is that not wet zoned already?
>>> It's wet zoned but the outer part was improperly wet zoned and there's a public area and private area and we are kind of fixing everything.
>>ROSE FERLITA: That's fine.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to continue till to June 2nd.
>>GWEN MILLER: 10 a.m.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to open 22.
>> Motion and second.
All in favor say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
Who is in charge of this one?
Do you want to say something, Ms. Murphy?
>> I wasn't planning on is saying anything.
Sue Murphy.
I didn't get sworn in because I wasn't planning on speaking.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Don't worry about it.
>>GWEN MILLER: You're all by yourself.
There's no one in the audience to speak on item 22.
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance to adopt -- move to adopt the order inon second reading, an ordinance providing for an area of rezoning the general location of which is 10910 Cross Creek Boulevard in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications PDA mixed uses to PDA mixed uses and mini warehouse, air-conditioned storage, providing an effective date.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
>>GWEN MILLER: Now we go to information for council members.
Mr. White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I appreciate being able to go first.
I have to leave as soon as I do this.
I have a graduation to go to.
I finally got to be valedictorian.
Slow I.
(Laughter)
I guess by the time we get back this afternoon and pass all these down for council, these are the tentative dates for our budget workshops.
If you can all look at these by the time we get back now tonight or -- if you know of any serious conflicts tonight, I'd greatly appreciate it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: We may still be here tonight.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I don't know.
You have a book.
The second thing, and this is the only other thing I have, I think I'm going to follow Ms. Saul-Sena's lead here.
I was probably mentally as well as physically famished a little earlier and was thinking a little slow.
And what I'd like to do if it pleases council, I know we had Al an alternative motion on the floor.
What I would like to do at this point in time is make an alternative motion once again to try to present the same motion as before.
I'll restate it again, to move that City Council raise be effective 40,250 effective October -- for the 2007 cycle for the new incoming council.
Effective -- October 1st for the incoming April 2007 council.
So that would be October 1st of 2006.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'd like to second the motion for discussion.
I think it's appropriate to do so in 2007.
The only thing I'm not clear of, Mr. White, is that number you gave us is the right up in.
And I would rather wait till we get some more feedback.
>> I understand that.
The only rationale, I went this way because Mr. Dingfelder said you're absolutely right, but where we are right now is know where.
This will just attempt to take us in the step forth right direction.
But not only that, but once during the next budget cycle, even though this will be effective, once the study comes back, if it is low, you can amend it at that point in time during that next budget cycle.
Or if it's higher we can amend it at that point in time at the next budget cycle.
At least we will have something in place that shows that we're comparable to other cities of our caliber.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wonder, it's now 2005.
Do we -- we're not in a time crunch at all, because it wouldn't be for two years.
So why don't we wait until that study is ton?
>>> Because we haven't voted on the study yet.
And I'm just going off of Mr. Dingfelder's lead on that one, just to show that we did something.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I won't support the motion because I feel like if we have to fight for our own raises, I would say that the new council has to fight for their own raises.
You know, that's the way I feel about it.
Let them fight for their own.
So I won't support it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Oh, gosh, I don't know now.
I thought I wasn't giving up anything I -- it doesn't effect me in this particular tenure.
But now I don't know what I'm going to do.
If we are waiting for the study to come back, the study that hasn't been explained to me is justified, we are talking about a raise and we don't know exactly what the raise is, it may be more, it may be less, Ms. Saul-Sena want it considered later.
Even can, I don't know what to tell you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm going to second it for one thing if you're withdrawing your second.
The good thing about this -- and Kevin, I think your intent was that the raise itself to council would come in April 1st, 2007.
I'm not sure about what that 2006 was in terms of budget and everything else.
>>ROSE FERLITA: You have to put the budget in 2006.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The intent is the raise would not be until 2007 when the new council gets sworn in.
I'll second that for one big reason.
We can keep putting this off and having later discussions on it and every time we do, guess what, there's a whole new article and whole new headline and it gets hashed up all over again.
So I say let's put it to bed F.the number is not right we can always increase or decrease as Kevin so wisely said.
But let's put to the bed now so we don't have to keep dealing with it, you know?
And just do it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Kevin has really tried as hard as he can.
He's trying to do something that's fair for all of us.
I think it's fair.
We can always amend it.
At least we have it off the table.
And if there's anything, any message that's being sent to Ellen and Janet it's that this is not self-serving.
Especially those of us who are term limited out will probably not be here.
So all we want to do is make a statement that says based based on the workload for the City Council members that come after us, the workload is increased, the salary should be commensurate with that workload, responsibility increase, and end of story.
The specifics, we don't know.
The amount we don't know.
All we know is it will be put in the budget 06 in October.
But it won't be effective until April of the next year.
>>KEVIN WHITE: (off microphone)
Tonight sometime.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Just a question.
Maybe I should wait till we vote on it.
Then, Mr. White, what is it you are intending to do as we move forward with legislative issues, City Council attorney?
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
Two Nays.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I said yes.
So, Mr. White, your time frame on doing it?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Alvarez and Harrison voting no.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Before we started earlier, I had also done some comparisons for the mayor's salary and not the aide's salary but the reclassification of the aides so they would fall in a different tier system if that's what council elected to do.
And that's way was preparing.
But as contentious as this one is, I think I will just wait through the budget cycle but those would be two things.
I think -- I'm prepared to put those two things as well, but I don't think -- I don't know if we want to be here -- you all tell me.
I'm prepared now.
But you all tell me.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Let me just make a comment to that, Mr. White.
We'll deal with that subject when we want to.
I think when we have the full council back might be the time to talk about it or in conjunction with the schedules.
But even if we referred to the comparison that I gave you or that you probably had already in terms of county commission aides, there is no place else for me to go but to just to my legislative aide and each of us feels the same.
But -- but they can have cost of living increase.
But when I talk to Ms. Lang about what can I do extra to say thank you for the job she does, she goes, oh, no, can't do anything more than that.
I say why not?
Then she might as well get a bad evaluation instead of an outstanding one because at this time same to her.
She says, no, the only way you can do that is by executive order.
So remember that when we talk about this, to incorporate the fact that we should be in control of what our aides get, regardless of an executive order.
If you feel that your aide or Gwen's aid id or everybody else's aid is underpaid for the service they give this community and this government, then we should be able to weigh in on that without going through this executive order stuff that Sarah Lang referred to.
Otherwise they are just going to get the cost of living raise.
That's an issue.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. White, have you already taken a look at the comparisons with other municipalities or other entities for the aides, too?
Or did we not direct you to do that?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
I looked at that.
But the salaries are in line to what we have.
But we don't have an option -- our only option to go higher at this point in time.
Our aides are classified as AU-4s now and they are maxed out.
So the only way to change that is to either change that rate structure for AU-4s by mayor's executive order like she's done with the other two, or get them reclassified to an AU-5 or AU -- 6 position which pays higher.
>> Can we do that ourselves without executive order?
Just reclassify the aides?
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby, couldn't we do a resolution to reclassify aides to AU-5?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: (off microphone)
The control of the salaries, ultimately to the council, on either the approval or the recommendation and approval of the mayor.
>> A filibuster?
>>> She can obviously veto it and the council could just override a veto.
But I'll have those answers.
You can make a motion, which is a resolution, has the effect of a resolution, to recommend to the administration that in the preemption of the budget for this fiscal year to reclassify your aides in whatever appropriate classification you feel necessary.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Then I would like to make the motion that we prepare a resolution, in lieu of our upcome budget session, that we reclassify our aide's position to an AU-5 position.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion.
Mrs. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to take a look at different city positions.
I don't know where that stands in relation to other departments, other responsibilities we are looking at.
Well, I guess I will have a chance by the time it comes back to us to see where that stands, compared to people who perform similar functions in other departments.
I think that that's relevant.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Ms. Saul-Sena, so I can understand your concern, we are not increasing the ceiling.
We are just giving us the opportunity to give our aides something in addition to just a cost of living.
That doesn't mean they automatically go to the top.
But for some of them that have been here longer -- Ms. Curly has not been here, for instance, as Wanda, or Libby, but at the same time at least you have the mechanism.
Because to me giving somebody an outstanding evaluation, and then saying, here, take this paper and frame it.
Well, you know what?
Give her some money to prove that she's doing a good job.
That's all we're saying.
With the rechange of status, if we feel they deserve it.
But all we can do now is say thank you.
An thank you goes a long way but it doesn't go long way enough.
And the same consideration, too, with Mr. Shelby, when he hired on, I think we were conservative in what he hired him for.
And that's another issue for another day.
And if you want to bring it up today that's fine.
But we want to talk about it too and that will complete our cycle about what we need to take care.
And I can't tell somebody else what to do.
But I would suspect, I would desire, I would anticipate that Mr. David Smith will take as good a care as his attorneys as we are trying to take care of ours for good performance.
So that's not slighting you guys.
So not a problem with that?
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't know enough.
That's my question.
You said AU-4?
And AU-5.
I'm not talking about the dollar amount necessarily but what I'm wondering about, are there AU-5s in the other building working for, let's say, Mr. Daignault, or Mr. Smith?
>>KEVIN WHITE: That I don't know.
>> Are they AU-5s?
>>GWEN MILLER: We don't know what they are classified as.
>>KEVIN WHITE: That was the only mechanism that I knew of that we could do as far as any type of pay increase with them.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: For purposes of preparing a resolution, I can support it but I would like to find out a little more between now and when we finally vote.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: A couple of questions.
Number one, a motion legally takes the form of a resolution ultimately.
I will have that prepared for tonight.
But the question is ultimately considering it has to be done either with the recommendation or approval of the mayor, is the form of the motion -- I just want to be clear -- are you asking the administration to prepare it in the form of a budget or come back with a recommendation?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Come back with a recommendation in the upcome budget for reclassifying or restructuring that executive order, the AU-4 structure.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: For particularly the legislative aides?
>>> For particularly the legislative aides.
Or it could be across the board, AU-4s.
I guess just aides.
Just the aides.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: On the time line for the the Q is at the time of the preparation or discussion of the budget relative to the position?
>>KEVIN WHITE: With discussion of the budget, exactly.
Not before.
That way we can keep everything flowing.
I guess we need to vote on that.
I wanted to say one other thing.
>>THE CLERK: In the form of a motion requesting a resolution?
>>KEVIN WHITE: A motion.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If it's a recommendation to the administration, it doesn't have to be in the form of a written resolution unless you so desire.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Well, I guess what I'm trying to say is, however.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: What I'm concerned about is something I have to research because it's an interesting issue, is relative to salaries, and the setting of salaries by the executive order, I have to see how that comports with the charter, and not facing this issue personally prior to this point, I have to express ignorance about how the City of Tampa operates relative to that.
And I certainly don't want council to by one token invade the purview of the administration setting the salaries.
By the same token want to know how executive salaries are met by charter and that role.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Shelby, when you bring us the other resolution tonight why don't you do some investigation and tell us how would you like to proceed forward with that.
Is that okay?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: That will be fine.
>>KEVIN WHITE: So I'll rescind that motion that we'll just have you come back as an information type deal and either restate the motion tonight, or a resolution of however you deem necessary.
My last comment before I go to this graduation, Madam Chair.
I was just going to say, I think after I did the mayor oral study, rather than the study-study the mayor probably would have been very happy with my recommendation.
So if she's listening, if she wants to send word to me, I'll be happy to move that resolution tonight if she'd like.
I think the numbers would be quite appropriate.
And I think she would be happy.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I remember when another mayor did that.
>>GWEN MILLER: And he accepted graciously.
We didn't get one, though.
>>ROSE FERLITA: First of all, I'd like to ask council to recommend to the mayor reappointing April Griffin to the advisory committee.
I suspect she wouldn't have any problems with that.
She was appointed at Pam's recommendation as my appointee so I'm sure that Pam will speak highly of her.
I guess because there's so much development on Bayshore, I have had some correspondence from some HIV patients in the community and nonHIV patients in the community and I think there's a little confusion and they are asking for some clarification about what the status is about the aides community park that Mayor Greco completed during his tenure, and is it in perpetuity, going to be protected to memorialize AIDS patients, et cetera?
I wonder if I can get the administration to come in the next week and not just a report, come and talk about it.
Because that property is becoming more and more valuable.
And if that's what we dedicated to, then I think we should stay with it.
The same sense is that cancer park at Al Lopez.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, respectfully, we have had generally -- I don't know if that's a sufficient amount of time.
Two weeks?
That would be fine.
>>ROSE FERLITA: That's fine.
And what protection do people have, what assurances do they have, that since it's a dedicated aids park that it remains, that it doesn't get gobbled up by a developer who can look at it to do something else financially.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: The next thing I want to consider, if the police department -- and this is probably in the form of a report.
I had some correspondence as perhaps some of you all had about the issue of air rifles and paint ball guns becoming a problem in some areas and these constituents are getting conflicting stories, one, law enforcement officer said there was a city and state ordinance against it.
Another officer who responded to one of the complaints said that it was not.
So I'd like to have a report that says what it is with the status, is there an ordinance against it, and what can we do to protect neighborhoods from paint balls? First of all they hurt if it's aimed at you.
Secondly they make a mess if it's aimed at your fence, et cetera.
I want some clarification because I don't know how to address this constituent.
So in a week.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I don't know, except there was a national conference of paint ball at Al Lopez field this past weekend, last weekend.
There was a huge tent out there and there was a huge sign saying they were having a paint ball contest or something.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Like you can have contests, as long as it's in a protected environment.
But when you have some kid in the alley that's shooting paint balls at your property or at you or your children or something, I think that's a different story.
Probably the guidelines of it, Mary, is way would like to know because I don't know what to tell them.
So that would be in the form of a motion.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
(Motion carried)
>>THE CLERK: One week or two weeks?
>>ROSE FERLITA: A couple weeks is fine.
That gives them enough time to research it.
Because I want to know what the status is and what can TPD do about it when we have neighborhood complaints about children with paint balls, that should be doing something else.
Last week, very briefly, and I forget what council members were not here, ongoing frustration about code, talking about code enforcement, talking about environmental climbs, and we didn't have enough money in the budget to get an environmental crime unit.
I think Captain Driscoll came and said we needed two detectives per district.
That's a higher scale salary.
I think we need to maybe follow that suggestion and maybe have two police officers regardless of rank that can take care of it in each district but we needed to do something about environmental crime and dumping, and I think he said -- I'm trying to speak fast and I don't know who was missing last week, but they haven't had that many reported cases.
That's why people are frustrated.
Nothing is going to be done.
It's on your property.
You have to remove it or else you get a citation from code.
Big quality of life issue.
As a tag, I got correspondence from different people that were happy that we looked at that and wanted us to do something about it as we go forward with adding enforcement to code.
And as the pictures -- and you all saw these -- there's a gentleman that talked about this.
And the oil spill which recently occurred, in Sunset Park at my home, the oil was subsequently washed into the City of Tampa culvert, which is alongside my driveway, and pipe leading to Tampa Bay.
Other than the property damage, my primary concern is what action the City of Tampa can take and should take to avoid an incident in the future.
Upon arrival of my site, advised the concrete truck driver there was oil to the gutterway and -- I'm assume because there is no environmental enforcement unit -- the driver contacted her dispatcher who apparently advised, go ahead and proceed with the dump and clean it up after completion.
Nothing has been done.
The gentleman has shown me some pictures and some concern, and it's just yet another example of why we shouldn't agree with Mr. Stefan's idea, wait till we get money for closure revenue to do this.
So I'm just saying, council members, for the sake of the constituents, that we all represent, please consider encouraging an alo indication in our budget so that we can have an environmental funding.
But please don't have time.
They have a ton of other priorities.
And I certainly understand as public safety chairman.
But then let's give somebody in solid waste a rest -- arrest powers so that David McCary as we all know is doing such a good job of code enforcement at the curb.
Some way, somehow some department has to take ownership.
We have to let people we are going to do something about environmental crime.
That's just my update on that.
And Madam Chairman, that's all I have.
Thank you for listening.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I have a couple of things.
I would like to appoint Mr. Dan Shafer to the civil service board to replace upcome expiring term of Mr. Daniel Costello.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>> And to appoint James Chittenden for the unexpired term.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: And since we had the Hispanic man of the year, scientist of the year coming up in October, I would like to make a motion to give him a commendation at their MOSI event Saturday, October 22nd.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Second.
By the way, Ms. Alvarez has done a wonderful job representing us each year at that.
Thank you for doing it again, Mary.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: One other thing.
As Ms. Ferlita brought up about the environmental problem.
We have had some complaints on the corner of Albany and Columbus drive where they were having a lot of accidents.
As a matter of fact, there were 51 accidents at this one corner, since 2003, with a couple of fatalities, and injuries, and when we asked transportation to find out about it, they said that they didn't have any money, and in the budget to put up traffic lights, that there was 20 other location that is needed traffic lights.
Well, I guess a light is not as important as a life.
So we need to check into that.
Because if we need to put more money in the budget to have these lights installed, then I would like to make a motion that we have transportation look into it and come back to us for a report, and to make sure that we put more money.
There's only $200,000 in the budget for lights.
Which is ridiculous.
>>ROSE FERLITA: If it doesn't meet warrants, that's one thing.
But if it --.
>>GWEN MILLER: Between 21st street and 22nd Avenue, they have more accidents.
>> Only $10,000 for that budget.
For that study we could put one light up.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: When do you want them to come back?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I think on the 23rd of June would be very good.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, Ms. Alvarez raises a good point.
You know, every year, we seem to forget the power that we have during the budget process.
We are the ones -- we get a proposal from the mayor.
But we are the one that is vote on it.
And we can play a much bigger role in that process if we all want to.
And there are projects, and things that are important to each and every one of us.
And what we need to do is, I think, make sure that we protect our interests during the budget cycle.
So when we know that there's going to be -- we need an extra half million dollar for signals or something like that.
We need to make that clear.
And we need to say, when you come before us, when we are going to actually vote on this, we want you to show us where in the budget our request is.
And we always just sit back and let the administration do it for us, and then we vote, and then we complain throughout the year because our constituents complain to us, and we say, we need more money in the budget for something.
And by then it's too late.
>>ROSE FERLITA: It's called growing up as a council.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Same as in 1999.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anything else?
>> Only to patting ourselves on the back for landing the Super Bowl in twine that. Was a great day yesterday for the City of Tampa.
And I think the council, the mayor, county commission, everybody, this is a true team effort.
And maybe a sign of things to come with relations with our neighbors out there.
That's it.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: A couple of things.
Last week I wasn't here because I went to the Florida trust for historic preservation conference, and it was held in Coral Gables.
I stayed at the Biltmore hotel which is absolutely gorgeous, and it was saved on a 3-2 vote by their City Council from demolition.
It's scary when you think of how fragile some of our historic resources are in terms of their protection.
And we are doing many things right.
But Coral Gables is doing a lot of things really well.
So I came back with a stack of ordinances on signage, zoning, design standards, and what they gracefully call oversized homes, which we are certainly struggling with here.
And I have given them to Morris Massey and Del Acosta.
And I hope in the future as we look at chapter 27 we'll be able to consider incorporating some of these ideas into our improved code.
I think that Tampa can benefit from other areas.
It was really a great conference.
The issue that I want to share with you is an alley in Ybor City.
It was supposed to be repaved in brick.
Instead they put gravel in.
And it's a mess.
So I am just going to pass this along to, I guess, Mr. Acosta, because I guess it's a Barrio Latino issue, and have him report back in two weeks.
It's adjacent to the Hampton Inn on 7th Avenue between 13th and Avenue de Cuba.
That's all.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just two items.
One, I had made a motion a few weeks back to honor with a commendation to Jeanne Holton Carufel for work with her neighborhood.
She has agreed to come accept that on June 9th at 9 a.m.
So they told me I need to make a motion to that.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And secondly, I understand that captain Bennett of TPD led his Fighting Water Warriors, I think they were called, to a first place victory in this year's Dragon Boat Races.
So I would like to honor Captain Bennett and his team with a commendation.
We'll figure out a date.
So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: They just barely beat out TECO.
TECO won last year.
TPD won this year.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anything from the clerk?
>>THE CLERK: I have one item.
And on May 5th council had a public hearing on a closure petition for 56th Adamo.
They requested legal department to prepare the ordinance that. Ordinance has now been prepared.
And the motion at that time was unanimous.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance vacating closing disKos continuing abandoning a certain right-of-way all that portion of 56th lying south of Adamo Drive, south 60 which dead-end at the Crosstown expressway right-of-way in Tampa springs estates and Thomas J. Roberts 6 mile creek, a subdivision located in Tampa, Hillsborough County Florida the same being more fully described in section 2 hereof providing an effective date.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>THE CLERK: And just to receive and file your document.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Anything else to come before council?
>>THE CLERK: The only other thing is if you want to consider item 34 tonight when you come back in?
Okay.
>>GWEN MILLER: We stand adjourned until 5:01.
(Meeting adjourned)