Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

Tampa City Council
Thursday, July 28, 2005
9:00 a.m. session

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

[Sounding gavel]
>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
The chair will yield to Mr. John Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's my honor to introduce Sara Newton who is going to give our invocation today.
Sara was our intern last semester and recent graduate of the University of South Florida.
She's going to soon go to the mideast to solve the problems over there as an intern.
And we'll rise for the invocation followed by the pledge of allegiance.
>> Sara: Being the pretty -- political science student that I am I would like to quote Thomas Jefferson slightly altered for the purpose of addressing council.
Utterly indeed idea spare not the presence of many whom I see here remind me of that of other high authorities provided by our Constitution.
I shall find resources of wisdom, of virtue and of zeal on which to rely under all difficulties.
To you, City Council members, who are charged with the sovereign functions of legislation, and to those associated with you, I look with encouragement for that guidance and support which may enable us to steer with safety the vessel, Tampa, in which we are all embarked amidst the conflicting elements of a troubled world.
I shrink from the concentration and humble myself to the magnitude of your undertaking.
Thank you.

>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
>>GWEN MILLER: At this time we are going to yield to Rose Ferlita for our officer of the month.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Nice to see we have the council back.
Welcome back, everybody.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, oh good morning to everyone.
Again it is my pleasure to have this commendation for the police officer of the year.
A couple of years ago, actually Mr. Sykes mentioned he gives every year for police officers, I thought it was a good idea to continue using some on the reasons for acknowledgment for our police and firefighters, and Tampa Electric Company, TECO, came to the plate and offered to be our main sponsor for the yearly awards.
And we will bring them up shortly but I just want to tell them thank you for trying to start this with us, it's been very successful and we appreciate what they are doing along with other corporate members that are involved.
Larry, congratulations.
Obviously there are a lot of reasons and a lot of hoops that you have to go through to determine who the police officer of the month is, and certainly the police officer of the year.
So that brings us to asking Chief Hogue to give a little bit of input about why you were chosen, and then we get to harass you a little bit.
Bear with us.
Chief, do you want to say a few words?
>>CHIEF HOGUE: Absolutely.
Thank you.
Corporal Larry McKinnon is the police officer of the year for the City of Tampa.
Corporal McKinnon was employed by the Tampa Police Department in June of 1982.
Corporal McKinnon currently serves the citizens of Tampa in patrol district 2, which is the northeast section of Tampa.
For most of 2004, corporal McKinnon served as acting sergeant for his patrol squad, the squad thrived under his leadership and during his watch the squad tactfully adjusted to crime trends, formulated and implemented community policing enforcement, and crime reduction strategies that simultaneously -- while simultaneously waging war on both street level narcotics and prostitution.
An infamous street level drug hole at east Annie street and north 13th street became their first campaign, and 100 arrests later it was relief for the neighborhood.
They turned their attention to prostitution along north Nebraska, east Busch Boulevard, reducing complaints by 90%, and virtually eliminating any signs of the age-old problem in that area. The squad did this while answering 14,000 calls for service and arresting another 700 law violators.
Corporal McKinnon led by example, permanently handling 534 calls for service and initiating another 356 police actions.
We are certain that individual and collective efforts such as these played an integral role in reducing crime an unprecedented 12% city-wide in 2004.
Corporal McKinnon's leadership style is subtle yet strong.
His commitment is unquestionable and his determination to make the City of Tampa a safer place for all is unyielding.
Corporal McKinnon epitomizes what it means to be one of Tampa's finest.
As you know, there are a thousand police officers at the Tampa Police Department.
And to select one individual is generally a very difficult task.
Fortunately this year it wasn't that difficult, because corporal McKinnon really does epitomize what a fine police officer represents the City of Tampa.
And I think there's one little war story that sums that up.
We have a seniority system at the police department where you get to bid for your shift.
And based on your seniority.
And corporal McKinnon's squad were bidding through the bid process, and everybody realized that there was another corporal who was senior to corporal McKinnon who had bid into his slot.
And so corporal McKinnon was required to in fact go to another sector of town to bid into that slot, and his whole squad including his sergeant, which is his supervisor, bid to go with him also.
They changed their own personal schedules and desires in the area of town that they worked to bid to go with corporal McKinnon to his new area.
So I think that speaks volumes.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Chief, thank you.
Obviously, this is a big deal.
Because when we look at all the men out there protecting us and we have to pick one guy, that says something that's just incredible.
So again, Larry, on behalf of everybody you represent, thank you for what you have done.
To your family, congratulations and thanks a lot for being behind him and letting him do all the time-consuming jobs that he does and over and above.
I guess what I'll do is I'll read this and then Steve Michelini is here on behalf of a couple of corporate sponsors that are typically here every month.
And then we'll acknowledge TECO and their process.
To the gentlemen outside, I know you're here for the dragon boat race awards, but this is thank you to him, thank you to you guys, to the family, to the chief, to everybody that has something to do with TPD.
It's just a great, great honor to be able to do this.
We can't find enough times to say thank you but we keep trying.
Larry, Tampa City Council commendation presented to corporal Larry McKinnon in grateful recognition of your dedication to duty, leadership in crime reduction, we very proudly acknowledge that corporal Larry McKinnon has been selected as officer of the year 2005.
For this honor and for all that you do the City Council of the City of Tampa commends you.
I as chairman of public safety commend you and the people who we represent that you keep safe say thanks for everything you do.
Steve, do you want to come up?
>>Good morning.
I'm here on behalf of a variety of different people.
But today in particular, for Hillsborough County towing association and for the Signature Room Grille at Channelside, I'm very familiar with the area you were talking about on Annie street.
Busch Gardens tried for many years to assist that neighborhood in cleaning that up.
And I know without your efforts that wouldn't have happened.
So thank you very much and congratulations to you.
Signature Room Grille presents you with a $100 gift certificate for dinner of your choice.
Call and get your reservations.
And the towing association has given you a $50 gift certificate.
>>> Thank you very, very much.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you, Steve.
As I said briefly awhile ago it all of a sudden, I think it was TECO, and simultaneously we thought about the fact the officer of the year was being acknowledged there, and while we do this every month we didn't have a part in our program that acknowledged the officer of the year.
Al Parodi is here with TECO, Stephani Agliano.
And all the leaders.
They need immediately came to the plate and said, gosh, we have to do something, please allow us to be part of that.
So obviously they are the sponsor that is key to telling Larry thank you.
I think I would like to call Al up and Stephani up and have them say a few words.
>> Al: On behalf of the men and women of TECO energy and our affiliates of Tampa electric and because I know you personally, it is my special privilege to present you with the officer of the year award acknowledging your incredible accomplishments.
A fellow by the name of Harry Cleavers said be grateful for the award.
Thank you.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And I did fail to mention that I think it's appropriate that Al give him this award, because in charge of security for TECO for two or three years but he brings years of service at the Sheriff's Department.
Thank you for what do you in law enforcement and at TECO.
Larry, here is a present for me with some little notes in there.
Thank you.
Now it's up to you to say something.
>> Corporal McKinnon: Well, I had everything I thought I was going to say and of course I get up here like last time and it all goes out the window and I don't know what I was going to say and my tongue gets tied and mouth dried.
But I was born and raised in Tampa, grew up in Tampa, I have worked my whole adult life, 24 years here with the city.
And this is the highlight of my career.
And I can't tell you how much I appreciate it, the support from City Council, Ms. Ferlita, my chief, the major, and my wife and family, and God.
You know, for blessing me to have the ability to be here.
I'm just floored.
You know, the support the community gives us is very important.
I think it keeps us on our mission and keeps our hopes and our attitudes positive.
And knowing that, that we're not just out there with the criminal element, that we do have a vast majority of the community that supports us.
And it's times like these that sets that example.
And I truly thank all of you.
I thank my community that's here.
And I'd like to thank the chief.
The chief is the greatest and I don't say that because I plan on going anywhere or ask for promotions.
I truly mean that.
But, by the way -- (laughter).
My major, major Castor is the best I've ever had.
I mean, she supports us.
Couldn't have done it without her.
Her management style allows us to get out and do what we do.
And lastly, my squad.
You know, when the chief read that out, it wasn't all about me.
I have a great squad.
You know, they were out there and fighting out there every day, trying to make the community safer and better.
And you can expand that into all the squads.
I mean, it's to me the greatest department in the world.
I have to leave soon, and it's very, very mixed emotions about it.
I just want to say thank you.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart to everybody.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you again.
It never seizes to amaze me the precedent continues.
Here we have these guys that are our big leaders on the street and doing all these things that are just always in harm's way, looking down the barrel of a Glock or looking at five criminals coming your way, but one thing I know for sure that has been said over and over again, as strong as you guys are out there I know that I don't have to ever worry about giving you guys a public speaking award.
This intimidates you more than all those guys out there.
But that's fine.
That's watch with you're needed to do. Anyway, Larry, thank you.
Congratulations to you and your supervisors and your chief.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: At this time Mr. John Dingfelder will do a commendation.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Come around.
I guess it's TPD morning and isn't that a wonderful thing?
We're so honored that the -- I asked the chief to stick around for this one.
But we're here to commend and honor our Tampa Police Department water warriors, and this is TPD's dragon boat racing team.
As you recall this year we had the second Tampa annual dragon boat race.
We have Christine buoyed row, the Executive Director of the international dragon boat races.
Tell us briefly about dragon boat racing and next year's dragon boat race and maybe about these guys.
>> Good morning to everyone.
On behalf of the Tampa Bay international dragon boat races, I want to congratulate the TPD water warriors for their win this year.
They were our grand champion.
They blew everyone out of the water.
We're very proud to have them represent the city.
And we also thank the city very much for their support for the races.
The third annual races will be happening April 29, 2006, and we look forward for our reigning champions to come back and defend their title.
We're also proud to host the 2006 U.S. national dragon boat racing championship where we'll have all of the dragon boat racing teams from across the country come to Tampa in August of 2006.
And we hope that you guys will also represent us there as well.
So on behalf of everyone I would like to thank you guys and congratulations.
Captain Bennett, I think you were the captain of this.
And major Castor was a member of your team.
Did you give her specific orders?
>>> Actually, it was quite interesting.
We participated last year, of course.
And we got a crew together at the request of the event and had very limited practice and did okay, and we came back next T next year.
Everybody you see here donate add lot of their personal time to be involved.
And the team has to be comprised of 20 members and a drummer which we used Joey, and it has to have eight women, and to be perfectly honest with you I think that's what put us over the edge.
Our female officers are full of tenacity and I think they were more competitive than the other women in the other boats and that's what pulled us through.
So we're proud of our team and looking forward to next year.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I competed in the first year with our law firm.
And I have got to tell you, we thought we would just go out and be casual.
But the minute you hit the water and those paddles, there's nothing casual about it.
It's serious effort.
TECO won the first year.
And you beat them this year.
So congratulations.
I'm going to read off real quick our commendation in recognition of your first-place victory at the 2005 Tampa Bay international dragon boat race, the challenge.
Tampa City Council commends TPD's water warriors for continuing the tradition of Tampa being a city of champions.
And this team is comprised of Captain John Bennet, Major Jane Castor, Captain Joe Ramsdon, Corporal Wayne Hutchins, Sergeant Eric Diaz, Sergeant Joey Diaz, the drummer, Major Melanie Betton, Lieutenant Sherri Icons, Heather Rhodes, officer Max Lanski, officer Randall Lopez, Corporal Thomas Downs, officer Jason Tripp, Sergeant Alan Draftman, officer Rodriguez, officer Hughes, and officer Bethany Wallworth.
We congratulate you.
Here's our commendation for you.
And one for everybody.
Okay, congratulations.
>>GWEN MILLER: We are very happy to have with us this morning the Steps, through environmental partnership and service, partnership of eleven years with the mayor's beautification program, clean city division of parks and recreation.
We currently have 26 youth with this program but today we only have eleven with us.
And we would like for them to stand.
And we are going to have a representative to come forward, Mr. Ronnie Oliver, to introduce them and let them know some of the students received scholarships and we want you to introduce those to us first.
Would you please stand up, Steps students?
>>> Good morning.
We have the kids with us this morning, Alexander Hopkins, she graduated from Middleton high school, she received a scholarship to Hillsborough County community college from the mayor's beautification program.
We have Mark Hamilton.
We have David Luggett.
She also received a scholarship to Hillsborough community college from the Mayor's beautification program.
He's going to play football in Wisconsin this year.
Harris, who is also going to play football in South Carolina.
We have Travis Johnson.
We have Michael James.
Chris Levens.
Germane Gossett.
Allen, Jr..
And supervisor Ted Johnson.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: At this time we are going to turn to our council attorney Mr. Shelby.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Good morning, council.
I just want to remind council that today we are going to attempt to promote the new rules of procedure on the order of business and council will note the new agenda as laid out follows the new order of business.
I'm going to remind council a few things actually.
Number one is that those items under unfinished business and staff reports per council's rules are going to be limited to five minutes, not including council's questions and discussions.
But we are going to try -- and please, I'm asking for a little latitude.
We're working out the issues as they come up.
So as we implement, there may be something that's going to need to be changed or ironed out.
But please bear with us.
I noticed for instance on the sign-in sheet we are probably going to have to revise the sign-in sheet to change a section called the approval of the agenda.
I just want to remind council, that's something new.
What the approval of the agenda is and reading from the rules, it's prior to adoption, that is the point council may entertain additions, deletions, substitutions, requests of council by city staff and removal of items from agenda for separate vote.
That might take a little getting used to.
But I think once we do that, the goal ultimately as we discussed is when the time comes, if the agenda is approved, we will be able to go down the agenda in order with the public knowing exactly what the road map is, and it will also speed things up.
And the goal ultimately is to make council's time here more efficient.
So, at this time, if there's any items, for instance, that an individual council member wishes to remove from the consent agenda for discussion, now would be a time to raise it.
And present that suggestion to council.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would like to see -- excuse me -- discussion on items 34, 56,
69, 70, 71.
>>GWEN MILLER: 34 --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: 56, 69, through 71, which are Hartline issues.
>>CHAIRMAN: That's it?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes, ma'am.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other council members?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Shelby, is this the time now to tell about my conflict of interest on one of the items?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I don't recall which number it was.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: 38, I believe.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes, 38.
I have a conflict in number 38.
I signed a conflict of interest form last week.
Because my husband is being appointed to the Tampa housing authority.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: (off microphone)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm sure she's going to vote against him.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I wouldn't go home.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Shelby, I have a question.
What if somebody in the audience has a question or brings up an issue of something on our consent agenda that I wasn't aware of or council?
They bring it up under the audience portion.
Can we then -- what is the appropriate process for us to then pull the item for discussion?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I think it would be appropriate for you to make a motion to amend the agenda after the fact.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to make sure that we didn't preclude ourselves from having that ability.
Because there might be something that I wasn't, you know, aware of previously that they bring up that we want to help additional -- have additional conversation about.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: As we go through this, if there are any issues or comments, I'll discuss them with council and I'm available -- as I stated up front, this is council's agenda.
And the goal is to serve council better.
So as we work through these issues, and we confront things, we'll take the time to work through them.
And ultimately the goal is to make things smoother and have the public be able to keep along and know exactly where we are in the agenda.
So I thank council for its patience.
>>GWEN MILLER: Number 5 is going to be continued.
Do we bring that up now, too?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If number 5 is going to be continued, now would be a time to do that.
>>GWEN MILLER: I would like for the public to know that item number 5 is going to be continued.
If you are here to speak on that it's going to be continued for 60 days.
Ms. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Getting back to the items that councilman Dingfelder wanted to pull on 69, 70, and 71, did you want them pulled?
Or for discussion?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: No, for discussion.
Or we can discuss them now.
I don't think that's the point, though, right?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If you want to discuss them.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Pull them temporarily to discuss.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: There's an item on the consent docket for items to be removed from agenda.
So you take those items individually.
>>GWEN MILLER: Now we need a motion to approve them?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to approve the agenda as amended.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Now we go to our department heads and city employees.
We have Mr. Eric Cotton.
>>ERIC COTTON: Good morning, council.
Eric Cotton, Land Development Coordination.
I'm requesting that you schedule WZ 05-95, the petitioner was Hyde Park marketing incorporated, for the September 15th public hearing.
They paid their amendment fee.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
>>GWEN MILLER: Second?
>> Second.
>>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>> I was here on two items.
I believe one has been deferred to later.
Maybe you can help me understand when that would be.
I believe it was moved to subsequently do. We know when that will be?
I know we have people here that want to speak to that as well.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Technically that would be after the council votes on the consent docket.
If council wishes to take it sooner, then council can choose to do that.
But it can set the order of business however it wishes to set the order of business.
But consent docket could be taken as is presently set up after the consent docket.
If that does not work for whatever reason we can restructure that.
But that would be the place that it was meant to be originally.
But if Mr. Smith -- if council wishes to have Mr. Smith discuss it now, that's council's call.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
You may speak on 56 now.
>>DAVID SMITH: More or less an important matter, introducing to you Kathryn, Cathy with a C, our newest attorney comes to us from Michigan, although she's been traveling a little bit having retired from Michigan, did her undergraduate work in Michigan state so we have a nonpartisan in terms of the Florida-Florida State spat.
She got a degree from Thomas Coolly in Lansing near Michigan state.
She has over 18 years of experience as an attorney.
She started out initially with the UAW-GM legal services so she has a lot of employment and labor law related background.
After that, however, she went into government service and has been in government service for 15 years, eleven of which she served as the city attorney for the city of Saginaw, Michigan.
So she brings a wide breadth of experience to us.
We are very fortunate to have her.
I know she wanted to at least say hello oh to you this morning.
>>> Good morning, Chairman Miller, pro tem and council members.
I look forward to working with each of you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Welcome to the City of Tampa, the City Council legal department.
We are very happy to have you with us and I know you are going to enjoy being with us.
>>DAVID SMITH: Thank you very much.
I guess we are going to go on to 56.
>>DAVID SMITH: First of all, I would like to remind you, we are here just to set the public hearing on this matter.
Clearly, we have to avoid pre-judging the issues for obvious due process considerations.
I would also like to remind you that we are in litigation currently, and we also have been advised by those who oppose it that we'll be in litigation subsequently depending on what happens.
So obviously this is a very sensitive situation.
In such a context, I have to be real careful what I say.
I need to try to avoid saying things that will cause problems in either eventuality.
Since this is only about setting the hearing and it's not appropriate for us to address the substance of the issue, I will not address the substance of the issue.
I did have an opportunity to speak with council for the residents who are in opposition.
And although I think they are opposed to having the public hearing, they can speak to themselves in that regard.
Seth also indicated to me September 1st in terms of preparation as an acceptable date.
Again, as I said, given this litigation context, I'm not going to say very much about this other than a couple of comments.
It's going to be very important during this process that you have an opportunity to hear all of the facts, all of the criteria that were used by my office in making a recommendation it making.
There were several attorneys involved in this process.
I'm obviously not the litigate or.
But we had at least five attorneys involved in the analysis of this, and who were involved in gathering the relevant facts, the anticipated testimony, and what exactly would occur.
Our primary purpose for recommending this is obviously you need to get that information in order to decide.
That's what the hearing is about.
It was generally speaking our assessment that the city was at significant risk.
That was the assessment I received from the attorneys who were handle the case.
It was the assessment I was able to make based upon the recommendation I reviewed.
We have a distinct possibility of having a problem with regard to matters that could cause us to be liable for attorneys' fees.
I don't know what that number might be, but if this is a two, three, or four-year piece of litigation it could be considerable.
They have in the paper that judge holder at least is asserting he's owed $1.29 million.
Whatever that may be, the accuracy aside, it's a significant risk to the city.
Based upon information that I will explain to you, when we have the hearing, we believe we are significantly at risk with respect to the merits and therefore with respect to attorney fees.
For that reason we are going to be recommending a mediated settlement agreement to you at the public hearing and we will provide you all the information that we can at that public hearing.
I will also seek an opportunity to talk with each of you privately.
One of the things we do not want to do is in solving one problem create a second and perhaps greater problem.
The goal in settling this litigation is not only to minimize the city's risks and the city's damages, but also to preserve the long-term viability of some of the very things that are going on in the Historic Hyde Park district.
So we are at this point simply making a recommendation that you set this for a public hearing, September 1st seems to be a date which is acceptable to all concerned, although I don't know that it will be as long a hearing as some anticipate.
It is certainly going to be a hearing in which we have got to provide everyone an opportunity to be heard.
We have due process considerations on both sides of the issue.
So we have got to make sure that we accord everyone due process by neither pre-judging the issue nor not allowing them an opportunity to make a sufficient presentation.
For that reason I recommend you set this for public hearing.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
Mr. Smith, this is a de novo hearing, correct?
>>DAVID SMITH: It will be a hearing -- we are going to recommend that you accept any and all evidence that you think is relevant to the issue at hand.
So it will be treated as a de novo hearing.
>> How many hours, if we are to act prudently, how many hours would you recommend we set aside for this?
>>DAVID SMITH: I would really think in light of the fact that many of the matters that are at issue here, the underlined substantive matters, have been argued and briefed at least a couple times.
So we have a fairly substantial record.
That I would be surprised if we could not complete this in two hours.
If you are going to limit it to the evidence that's relevant.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's why I asked the first question about whether it's de novo or not.
But nonetheless being de novo, it's limited to the context of the mediated settlement agreement which really addresses the issue of scale, density and mass.
The other issues that are part of your A.R.C. code are not decided by this and there ought to be an A.R.C. hearing in which those issues will be addressed.
So there will be a separate A.R.C. hearing. This is simply for the purpose much dealing with the limited issues.
I don't mean limited in terms of impact or importance, but the proscribed issues that are within the mediated settlement agreement.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
I have to say that I think he's a little optimistic.
I think that two hours would be a modest amount of time to set aside for this.
Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm not going to rehash too much of what I said last week.
David, I know you were away at a meeting last week, but you and I have talked about this issue and I know you have been briefed on what we spoke about.
But I think we need to back up a few steps and look at this a little bit philosophically.
This council -- there's a lot of things that we're not, okay?
We don't supervise directly 5,000 employees.
We don't set a lot of -- of the policy.
That's all in the mayor's purview and the administration's purview.
But, council, one thing we are, is we are the zoning authority, and that's why Y we spend so much time on Thursday nights doing that.
We are the final zoning authority, as far as I know, and counsel can correct me if he thinks I'm wrong.
And as such, a year ago when this issue was in front of us, we labored long and hard, as did the A.R.C., on this issue.
And I think we heard huge amounts of evidence, and we made up our mind based upon the competent, substantial evidence that was in front of us, and it wasn't an easy decision.
We all kind of agitated about it, and that sort of thing.
But at the end of the day, we made a decision that the proposal that was in front of us at that time was not acceptable.
It was not acceptable.
It didn't meet the various requirements.
We had opinions that supported our position.
We were never told by legal counsel that we were on shaky grounds at that point in time, and we made our decision.
At that point in time, I think we have an expectation that our legal department, or any other lawyers that we may choose to support us -- and this would apply to this case and every other case -- would then support that decision vigorously.
And usually they do.
Usually, they do.
I think, you know, I won't mention names, but the attorneys and legal department I think generally do a fantastic job of supporting all of the city's decisions and all of our decisions.
And you have to settle, I understand that.
But what I don't understand in this case is that -- and David, I'm glad you're still standing here -- is this case a very early stage in this litigation, okay there, was a motion to dismiss which is the first thing do you when you're in litigation.
The judge, as far as I know, because I read the pleadings, I read the transcript, appears to have basically, you know, he didn't deny the motion to dismiss but we did okay on the motion to dismiss, and the most important thing that I think happened on the motion to dismiss was that the historic preservation ordinance is safe, because that was one of the big questions.
Are we putting the historic preservation ordinance at risk?
And I think the judge ruled that, no, as far as co-see, the historic preservation ordinance on its face was valid and was safe, okay?
So then you move onto the next stage, which is discovery.
As far as I know, there has been, except for one deposition, there has been virtually no discovery in this case.
So what I'm completely befuddled about is, why are we even having this discussion?
This, in my opinion -- and I'm not talking about the merits of the case.
I haven't even gone to the clerk's office to see what the settlement is about, okay?
But as far as I'm concerned, this is premature.
There was no authority from this council to tell legal department to go settle this case whatsoever.
And I think no offense to David, and he and I have discussed this and we're good friends, but we are going to be friends through this.
But the bottom line is that we gave no authority whatsoever to tell them to go settle this case, to even go negotiate this case.
And yet they came back and said, we've entered into a settlement negotiation, and by the way, Mr. Acosta, Mr. Snelling and Ms. Moreda signed off on?
There's something wrong there.
And I'm saying that, you know, I cannot support us even going into this, not on the merits, okay, but on the process.
There's been no explanation whatsoever to this council in terms of, you know, why we went into settlement negotiations, why some level of administration entered into the settlement agreement that we're now being boxed in and asked to address.
We don't have to go to the next level of that hearing.
We can say, you know what?
We spent a lot of time on this a year ago.
We are comfortable with that decision from a year ago.
And, David, we love you, but go back to the litigation, and litigate the heck out of this because we know you can, and win this thing instead of just settling it.
Because I think it sends a bad message.
I think it sends a bad message to this community that anybody who doesn't like our decision just goes in and sues us and we collapse it.
We fall apart.
We start quivering and shaking and saying that we might lose, we might get hit with attorney fees, that sort of thing.
It's the wrong message because we will leave ourselves vulnerable to all sorts of challenges.
And we stand strong on this one, we let the judge decide on the merits of the case, we see what happens, we're better off in all of our cases.
I'm not going to support this at all.
>>DAVID SMITH: Let me address a couple of issues that Mr. Dingfelder has raised, and we have had this conversation.
The issue with you respect to council's participation in mediation is a complex one.
First of all, council acts as a collective entity.
It cannot act individually.
I cannot poll you for direction.
You have to meet in public.
You have to debate in public.
Then you have to direct in public.
Your participation in mediation is per se not accomplishable.
It is correct that you should know what's going on.
But I don't think we have an ability to allow you to participate in mediation discussions that will survive sunshine act challenges and will survive due process challenges.
Let me explain the due process issue.
When you're sitting in this capacity now, you're sitting as a quasi-judicial capacity.
If you have communications in a mediation process, those are per se ex parte.
If they are ex parte, you're obligated under the very ordinance that you have adopted in order to avoid the Constitutionality problems to be disclose all of those ex parte communications.
That puts us in an untenable position.
That puts us with everything that is said in mediation a matter of public issue.
I can tell you, we have looked at this issue seriously.
We are not intimidated by people who bring lawsuits.
We have hundreds of them.
And wee we litigated many of them to the very end and we have won more than our share of them. The litigators handling this have one those cases.
So it not simply that an argument was made.
It's an argument that was made that we found unfortunately very persuasive.
It was an argument that put this city at risk.
It put this city at risk for attorneys fees.
It put this city at risk in ways I will not articulate today because to do so would put the city at risk with respect to those matters.
That's unfortunate.
But that's the nature what happens sometimes in legal proceedings, particularly in mediation.
I violate the confidentiality of mediation unsanctioned.
I'm not going to do that.
You don't want me to do that.
And you shouldn't respect anyone who will.
So we are stuck in a situation where I would at least hope you will give us an opportunity to present this argument to you in as much detail as we can.
I will also talk to you personally about some of the risks that I don't think you want me to articulate in public and that the neighborhood doesn't want me to articulate in public.
So I would at least help you understand why you are not inextricably involved in the process.
We cannot involve you in the process.
At least in that level of detail.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just have one quick rebuttal, Madam Chair.
Just one quick.
But I'm not going to get in an argument with you.
But there is something you are leaving out, David, is the fact that as I think you guys referred to, the shade meetings, okay?
I agree with you wholeheartedly we don't want you to talk about the weakness of the case in the public setting for violation of mediation as well as bad strategy.
So you don't do it in the public setting.
But as you know, under the sunshine act, there's an opportunity to go behind, you know, to close up this room and have a litigation session outside of the sunshine, solely for purposes of litigation.
Two and a half years I have been here it's never been done.
I don't think it should be done very often, because we think the sunshine is important. But when you're in litigation, when I was in the county attorney's office, it happened every now and then, that you had to go into the shade to be able to brief your council members about, hey, I'm going into mediation, I'm going to negotiate this thing.
We had some serious flaws with this.
That's what should have happened back in April or May when this thing was going on.
That's what should happen now, in my opinion in regard to if you have something to tell us, tell us all at the same time, and let us wrestle with it before we go in to talking about the merits of the case.
>>DAVID SMITH: And let me tell you why we didn't go that route, because obviously we're aware of that prospect under chapter 286.
The reason we don't think a shade meeting solves the problems is after the shade meeting is held and the litigation is resolved, the transcript of that meeting is a public record.
If I'm going to give you the information at a shade meeting that's going to end up hanging the city, I have not done my job as your attorney.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's only after the litigation is done.
>>DAVID SMITH: We have other challenges.
That's why if you listen and get all the facts you will understand there's much more at risk here than just this particular piece of lit litigation.
Wall hear in a shade meeting in order to adequately understand, which I'm going to tell you personally, which is not subject to disclosure as a public record, is that there's much more at risk than this particular piece of litigation.
There are other potential litigants.
We know at least one other set of residents.
They have not been allowed to intervene yet.
By the way, we did not oppose their intervention.
The judge didn't grant it.
So we have at least one known piece of litigation coming that even relates to the same set of facts.
But I'm telling you, in light of the facts which I will advise you about, there are other potential claimants.
And these claims are significant.
And the city, I'm telling you, is at risk.
If you don't accept that after you hear all the facts, then don't vote for the mediated settlement agreement.
But I think you should at least hear all the facts before you make that determination.
>> You have assured us you will never put us in this situation again.
>>> And what position is that, recommending that I believe what the law requires?
>> Having been in the dark for two months about what was going on.
>>> I can advise you generally of things that are going on.
I cannot advise you of specifics that could constitute a problem in terms of your quasi-judicial role.
I can certainly provide you as much information as I can.
But we have to be careful about the various requirements and how government works.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
My question is, after City Council votes on a zoning, wouldn't you need -- need to come back to council and ask for our mer mission to go into a mediation?
That isn't what the charter contemplates, primarily because of the reasons I articulated.
The charter specifically contemplates that all litigation will be handled by the city attorney's office.
Now obviously this matter is subject to council approval.
It is in the mediated settlement agreement.
If you choose not to approve it, then it doesn't happen.
And that is the way in which council participates.
But it doesn't participate directly in a day-to-day litigation for the reasons I have just explained.
You have to participate as a collective entity and not individuals.
>> But the legal department doesn't have to ask council's permission to start the whole process of mediation?
>>> Yes, they do not.
>> In my years on council, we have never been in this posture before.
>>> Almost all litigation finds itself very quickly in court ordered or voluntary mediation.
And it is my opinion -- and I think it's clear under the charter -- that council is not consulted with respect to procedural issues that are in litigation.
And that's one of the procedural issues.
I agree with John's comments -- I'm sorry, Mr. Dingfelder.
We have talked about this at length.
There is a need to make sure you guys are informed, and we need to do a better job at doing that.
Absolutely true.
But I just want you to understand, that's a little more difficult than it might seem, because of the sensitivity of the process.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: What is being asked of us today is to set a public hearing to review the pros and cons of a mediated settlement agreement that Mr. Smith in his capacity as city attorney -- not our attorney, not the mayor's attorney.
He represents the entity of the City of Tampa -- believes is in the City of Tampa's best interest.
We will ultimately decide yes or no on that.
>>> That's correct.
>> Whether or not that has happened early in the litigation or late in the litigation, to me, is really of no consequence, because if we do not accept this, and we decide go ahead and let's go down this path a little bit longer, we can continue to discuss potential settlements.
And many times, in my experience as a litigator, your first bite at the apple in mediation, you don't get something resolved, but at least you know what each side is thinking.
And that may ultimately lead you to a conclusion that everyone can live with.
One of the things that is very clear is that even though Mr. Dingfelder and I may both be litigators and we have some knowledge of how the process works, we don't speak for the City of Tampa when it comes to legal matters.
Nor does Mr. Shelby.
Mr. Smith does.
And if he is here asking us to take a look at a mediated settlement agreement that he believes is in the best interest of the City of Tampa, I'm going to listen to him.
So, Madam Chair, we are looking at September the 1st.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: What day of the week is that?
>>DAVID SMITH: That would be a Thursday.
>>GWEN MILLER: Could we do it after our council meeting?
It will be two hours --
>>> you do not have a night meeting, I believe, on the 1st.
>>GWEN MILLER: Could we do it like 1:30?
>>DAVID SMITH: You can do it whenever you want to set it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Wait, the clerk is talking to me right now.
Just one second.
She had a question.
We have something at 1:30 already?
>>THE CLERK: (off microphone)
>>GWEN MILLER: Now, Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: From a point of order perspective, it has been mentioned there are public here that wanted to speak to this.
This particular issue about scheduling.
I think they have a right to speak to it before we go any further.
>>GWEN MILLER: They can speak on the scheduling, that's it.
We haven't scheduled it yet so they can't speak.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, there's an agenda item.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a workshop already for 1:30 on September 1st so we need to find a time that's going to be available to us.
Mrs. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Last week at the council meeting this was brought up and discussed and the public very clearly spoke to the fact that they wanted it to be in the evening because there's a great deal of public interest.
So I would personally processwise prefer to hear from the public before we set the time.
But I'm just sharing what they said last week was they preferred an evening meeting.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: And since Mr. Smith raised the idea that we probably ought to go as far as we possibly can with accommodating every single sort of public comment that will be necessary, I would agree that we probably should set a special hearing in the nighttime frame.
I'd make that in the form of a motion.
September 1st at 6:00.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Harrison, I don't have a problem with the motion you are making.
My only request would be, I wonder if we could just have a few minutes to check our schedules.
I think it's something important that we need to attend, if that's when we end up meeting.
And if we have some schedules already, I'm sure my colleagues do the same thing I do, is schedule evening meetings when there's not a Thursday meeting.
So if we could take a few minutes to check that or come back with the date in a little while.
I don't know how tight each of our schedules are.
At the last minute, so that we don't have several of us not come and that defeats the purpose of setting the schedule.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: We have time, because this was on consent item agenda, so we have time to check our schedules and come back at committee reports.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's off the agenda.
We pulled it off.
>>GWEN MILLER: Still we have time.
Mr. Smith, we are going to let our council members check their schedules and see if September 1st at 6 p.m. is available.
We want a full council.
And see if everybody is here.
And later on in the meeting we'll make a decision.
Mr. Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I do see the attorney who is representing residents.
If we could just ask him very quickly, is September 1st at 6 p.m. acceptable to you, Mr. Nelson?
>>CHAIRMAN: Come to the mike, Mr. Nelson.
>>> Seth Nelson, Michael Maddox, P.A., I represent the neighbors.
My first point of order, I know there's been some different rules of procedure that have been implemented today.
Are we going to be allowed to speak to whether first if there is going to be a hearing set, and then, if so, when?
Or is that already off the table and you guys have decided you're setting the hearing?
>>GWEN MILLER: We haven't set it yet because council members don't know if their schedules allow them to have it on September 1st at 6 p.m.
We are going to decide it later.
Before we decide we'll let you know what that is so you can say if that's okay or not okay.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't want to paraphrase or put words in your mouth, but the question is, will council, when it opens the floor to the public, allow an argument or discussion whether the threshold question to be set, I believe that is the question.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Normally, I would say we ought to allow all public comment about any issue. But what the public will be commenting about on this is, should we even have a hearing on a proposed settlement agreement?
And not about the merits of the settlement agreement but should we even have a hearing?
And I don't know that anyone really that's outside of the process right now can weigh in with any sort of particular relevancy about that, because all -- we're not deciding anything.
We're simply deciding to look at something.
And so what the testimony would be today would be, is it a good idea to even look at doing this?
And I'm not sure that that's particularly relevant.
But as Mr. Nelson represents the homeowners in the area, and the concern that -- the concerned parties, certainly if he wants to weigh in on that, I think that would be appropriate as their legal representative.
But to take 30 minutes of testimony on whether it's a good idea to look at a settlement, I don't know about that.
>>DAVID SMITH: If I could also address that issue.
Although I don't disagree with a single thing you said in light of the litigation posture and the potential litigation from the residents, I think it would be appropriate for us to hear from Mr. Nelson today with respect to whether it should be heard, and although, granted, they could reserve that objection and present it at the hearing itself, just as an accommodation.
Because I know some folks have come down here, they might want to see what their attorney says so they can also help him understand some their other concerns.
Obviously just as an accommodation I think it would be appropriate to hear.
Seth Nelson: I would say that I represent three homeowners, but I know that there are other homeowners in the neighborhood that I do not represent.
And I would certainly think if you are going to allow me to speak on behalf of my neighbors, then you should hear from the other neighbors as well.
I think councilman Harrison is absolutely correct that the comments should be restricted to whether to set the hearing, and when, and not discuss the merits of the case.
So if you would like me to do that now, or come back.
I just need to get one more thing.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Could we have public comment on this now while Mr. Smith is here and everybody is here?
Should we say that officially?
>>> Nelson: Regarding whether we should set the hearing and have the de novo review as city attorney has said, we don't believe a hearing should be set to review this matter.
There's three reasons why we don't believe it's appropriate.
First is the process of litigation.
There are four quarters to litigation: The pleading stage, the discovery stage, the trial, and appeal.
And in this case, we're in the first quarter.
At the end of the first quarterer you don't shake hands with the other side and say I think we have it all worked out and let's decide it and see, go to the referee, flip a coin and see if they'll approve it or not.
That's what they are asking you to do.
In the discovery phase, which would be the second quarter, there's been one deposition taken.
The city fought hard to take the deposition of the bank's corporate representative and of Citivest corporate representative.
That deposition has not been taken for either of those individuals, and not only that, the city hasn't taken any depositions.
It was important to listen to your city attorney.
He said that there were merits that he needed to consider and that he thought it was at risk due to the anticipated testimony.
They haven't heard the testimony because they haven't done the work in discovery yet.
Therefore, I think it is inappropriate to even set it for de novo hearing, where we are going to have to get all this back into the record to protect my clients' rights which is the record that is currently up on appeal in front of the circuit court.
Furthermore, there may be good reasons to settle.
Now I'm moving from the focus of where the litigation is to possible reasons for settlement at a later date.
If you do not hear this, you don't send it back to litigation to say we'll never hear it again.
You send it back to them to do their work and possibly come back later if they can reach a settlement.
It is certainly a legitimate reason to settle later on if you're afraid that you have a bad case.
The city attorney has said publicly previously that they have a strong case and they'll fight it vigorously.
They just haven't fought it vigorously yet.
Second, if you're afraid of losing, then you have to be concerned with attorneys fees.
I'm here for informational purposes only.
I'm just informing you that the attorneys' fees issue will not go away by settling this case.
Because my clients are ready, willing and able to bring suit to protect their own rights.
They're not doing this in a threatening manner.
I please want you to understand that from the bottom of my heart.
It's to give you the information you need to make these decisions that are important to our community and to our historic district.
Finally, as the city attorney pointed out, my clients tried to intervene in the lawsuit so we could be part of the mediation process.
The court denied us and said, if it doesn't settle you can come back and ask me again.
Obviously, if it doesn't settle, we will do that, because we would prefer to come before you and say, we sat through tough mediations, and we worked with the developer, and we worked with the city, and we're here to support the resolution of this case.
We haven't been given that opportunity.
And just as the city attorney cannot give you information that is relevant, even if you do have a shade meeting, he can't give us that information.
And Citivest fought hard to keep us out of mediation.
And what I'm trying to say is we might be able to all work together for a change and hash this out and come before you and not have a de novo hearing where we have to put all this back in the record, that will go into the wee hours of the morning.
So before you take your precious time and move forward with this to set a long hearing, let's move forward with litigation and possibly come forth with the resolution that we can all be proud of.
I'm happy to entertain any questions.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Mr. Smith.
>>DAVID SMITH: Just a couple of comments on what Seth indicated.
Actually, there has been discovery in the case.
But, more importantly, what you typically do is you interview your witnesses.
You don't depose your own witnesses, for obvious reasons.
We interviewed our witnesses.
We know what our witnesses are going to say.
We know what they will say upon deposition.
There are a lot of factors that can figure in to analysis that makes you decide that it is in the best interest of the city to settlement we would like to you hear all of that information.
And I think that any additional parties who want to object to the very holding of the hearing, we should concede that they have reserved their rights in that regard, because I don't know that you will hear anything else other than what Seth indicated that will add to that argument.
We do not believe it's premature, in light of the facts that we will present to you, and in light of the law that applies to those facts.
We do not think that it's the case, and we are going to owe them attorneys fees.
Understanding the facts as we do, we cannot conceive of a complaint that they can fashion that will entitle them to attorney fees but we will deal with that issue when we have to.
It not something in which we have a great deal of trepidation.
But when my attorneys are telling me that the city is significantly at risk, and they present the facts and argument that convince me of that fact, it would be dereliction of my duty not to recommend to you that we settle.
Now, if you disagree, after you have all the facts and you look at the relevant law, then you disagree.
This meeting settlement agreement is contingent upon your approval.
We did the best we could to preserve that situation.
So all I'm saying is, I think we need to get to the public hearing.
I think those who are opposed to holding the public hearing should be acknowledged as having reserved the right with respect to the fact that they think the hearing shouldn't even be held.
I don't find that argument at all persuasive, particularly when they have an opportunity to present any and all argument at the hearing.
So for those reasons I would reiterate I think we should set the public hearing and proceed in that way and then you can make an informed decision rather than a speculative decision which of course you can't do as a quasi-judicial board.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
>>> Elizabeth Johnson, 1819 Richardson place.
I guess I represent myself and my husband.
I have a great relationship, I think, with the city attorney's office.
But I am concerned that really and truly everything I predicted has come to pass, and I have talked to council members when you weren't in a quasi-judicial capacity, and it's unfortunate.
In addressing what Mr. Smith said, for one thing, you do have the ability under the sunshine act to, yes, not poll the different members of council, thereby obviate the open meetings law, but you do have the ability to get a briefing from council.
Why that has not happened is really beyond the pale.
We asked the city attorney's office in May -- actually we asked them in April, could we please just have a face to face meeting with you?
We're intelligent.
We followed this issue.
They took a week to get back to me.
And Julia Mandell Cole responded and said, because the issue is being heavily litigated, they felt that because of the posture of the litigation, they would not meet with residents.
Now, what Mr. Nelson said is true, we are not asking you to avoid considering this in a de novo hearing at some time in the future.
But it's premature when the A.R.C. rejected 20 stories a year ago, and they come back with 19.
The "settlement" that the developer's attorney speaks so warmly of is a mere one story.
If you have not been given information as to how this came about, Sunshine Law or not, something is amiss here.
The proposal flies in the wishes of the City Council at numerous hearings.
Now I don't consider myself very old here, but the idea that they are allowing a 19-story sky scraper, even proposing it to you to protect the Hyde Park historic district, is incredible to me.
You know, I have been here during the Lykes controversy and the settlement that resulted in that.
I was here and spoke against the demolition of the Swann house.
At what point is this City Council going to respect its preservation ordinances?
Why can Savannah have a historic district and St. Augustine can have one, but every single time a developer sues this city, we capitulate.
This agreement is contract zoning.
I do not understand why a city attorney that pledged in the newspapers to vigorously defend this suit, and even cautioned judge T judge about the dangers of contract zoning, has capitulated in this mediated settlement agreement.
If you take a look at it -- and this is not on the merits, this is why we should even have a hearing -- there are whole duties of the A.R.C. that are being vitiated here.
If you don't think that's a due process concern and you don't think under section 1983 there are some viable claims in there, and maybe even the absence of qualified immunity, I'm not sure if you are being counseled as fully as you need to. Under the charter there is a distinct separation of legislative and executive powers.
The charter says, there shall be a distinct separation.
Each of you represent a particular district.
If staff is presenting you with something that's ill considered or ill timed, you need not put it on your agenda.
(Bell sounds)
Staff has been wrong in the past we would have 7 foot setbacks on Bayshore.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have to cut it off.
>>> Thank you for your time.
Please don't put it on the agenda.
>>> Jeanie Holton, past president, Historic Hyde Park association.
I had to take some exception when Mr. Smith talked about the neighbors not being a part of the process.
There is no secret here.
I was quite frankly appalled when I realized that I knew weeks before council what the details of this settlement were.
And I kept waiting to kind of hear something, and weeks went by, and nothing.
And then to find out that you didn't even know.
And I'm thinking, why do I know and you don't?
It seems to me that we have been putting the cart before the horse in a lot of different ways here, in the way that this is being settled.
I'm no lawyer, but we have access to really good lawyers.
I mean, they are on our board.
We have several of them.
And we have more that we have retained.
We have a lot of legal counsel.
We are not in the dark about. This and we're certainly not in the dark about the process.
I think the process has been kind of convoluted on the city's end, not on our end.
From our end, we have sort of gotten the short end of the stick.
But honestly we haven't gotten the short end of the stick because the truth is we prevailed in every single public hearing that's been held and we have been here hours and hours and hours, and we have also been at A.R.C. hours and hours and hours.
So we compounded, what you have seen of us, we have been even more than that in front of the A.R.C..
So whether this hearing should be held, I can't imagine there's any fact we haven't already heard about this case.
However, if a hearing is held, we'll certainly be here en masse to once again debate the facts of the case.
And I do think that our attorney can quite adequately address this with the city attorneys or any other attorneys that want to go over all of this again.
However, obviously, the citizens need a night hearing.
They need to come in the night.
They have come down here in bus loads before, and we'll come down in bus loads again if we need to reiterate what our point is. But this isn't going away for us because this is a really big issue.
And we really feel the historic district is in great danger right now.
We really feel like this is a precedent-setting case that could really destroy the district.
There's a lot of investment in that district from the city and from the citizens.
And I don't care what the lawyers say.
That's important to us.
And we're not going to quit fighting for it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else going to speak?
If you are going to speak, please come up.
>>> Architect, 1906 Madison Avenue, Hyde Park, also the current president of the Hyde Park neighborhood association.
I just want to reiterate that it's more than just the Hyde Park historic district that is at risk here.
It is all of the historic districts and all of the quality neighborhoods in our city.
Please let the lawyers work this through a little further before bringing it before council.
Thank you.
>>> My name is Bob Schruck, 2413 Bayshore Boulevard, I'm the director of the atrium association.
I'm here on behalf of the association which as we know right now strongly in support of denying this building a 19 story building. We don't know the facts.
We think our city engineer as capable and competent as he may be put it in a little phrase put the cart before the horse.
We would prefer that we go through the normal process of litigation.
Take depositions and you will get the information.
>>> I'm Susan Meade, 2109 Bayshore Boulevard, which are the Bayshore royal condominiums.
I'm also president of the Board of Directors.
And I agree with the fellow Hyde Park residents, the quote-unquote, cart has been put before the proverbial horse.
I'm not a litigator.
But to mediate immediately just appears somebody rolled over.
And I really don't think it's appropriate to have a meeting.
Because I don't think the city attorneys have really done a thorough job. Anyway, thank you very much.
>>> Tony Daniel.
I think this issue speaks to not only what's going on in this situation, but also what's going on throughout Hyde Park and South Tampa.
And I think that when the first lady here articulated well when she said from a 20 story building to 19 stories, that's what's happening, anything south of Kennedy.
And this has to stop.
Not only in these buildings, but also in houses, where they are coming in, putting in giant houses, or double houses, that double occupancies, and just destroying the whole south side of Tampa and the South Tampa area.
But also what this speaks to is a rush to judgment is how the people are represented by their elected officials, and how the people are represented by the city.
Anytime a developer come through, the developer takes precedence over anything or anyone.
Anytime a developer comes through, anyone with money comes through, may it be the Glazers, may it be Citivest, whoever, irrespective of what our elected officials told us in community meetings and private meetings and private phone conversations, we see that as capitulation.
It's always the developer has this great idea on how to increase the tax base, but they can't carry on with that idea, in an area that's zoned for what it's designated for.
And this is wrong.
And this, I think, shows how the citizenry is treated, is the same way the citizenry was treated on the Davis Island, Tampa General Hospital issue, irrespective of how the citizenry come en masse, in to say, hey, no, this is wrong, there's something wrong with this.
The city always capitulates because apparently the deal is already made before it even comes to the public.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay, Mr. --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Clarification, please.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Smith wants to say something.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: David, if you want to explain it or Mr. Shelby.
Ms. Johnson said the term, I don't know if everybody is familiar it with, suggested that if we go down this path, of contract zoning, et cetera, et cetera, and if we approve the settlement agreement, she said, and then the neighborhood sued us, she said there could be an absence of qualified immunity.
Could you explain exactly to council what she's referring to there?
>>DAVID SMITH: Do you want to tackle that one?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just wanted to ask him to explain to council what that means.
>>DAVID SMITH: Contract zoning essentially means in essence contracting police powers. If we use the term generically we can use other police powers the city possesses even in a nonzoning context, we have to follow processes for the decision making exercised in those police matters.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: The question was qualified immunity to City Council.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mrs. Johnson indicated there's a risk that we might lose our qualified immunity and I think it's important to describe to council what that means.
>>> I can tell what you the loss of qualified immunity is.
I cannot say I agree with her assessment.
It means you are acting in a capacity in which you are outside the scope of your official authority.
For example, if you receive advice from the city attorney, one form of qualified immunity is you're acting pursuant to advice of council.
That can give you qualified I am unit.
So the loss of qualified immunity can be a situation which would be you would be individually liable for any action under 1983.
We happen to believe -- well, I won't say that you're at risk in any particular respects because that's not serving you right as your council.
I'll just say we'll make sure you don't have that problem.
I'd like to just direct a couple of things.
I don't want to talk about the merits.
I think that's inappropriate.
I think we had conversation about the merits but procedurally there's a few things said that simply are not accurate.
The A.R.C. did not review a 20-story building.
What the A.R.C. reviewed was an application for a 20 story building and determined it was not substantially different from the previously reviewed 24-story building.
That's a different procedural setting.
Different procedural settings have different consequences.
So it's not true that the A.R.C. thoroughly reviewed a 20 story building, found it unacceptable, and this is just a 19-story building.
As you will find out when we go through the process, the last submitted application dealt with a 347-foot tall building.
The mediated settlement agreement has a 203 foot living space building with an extra 207 feet for the typical mechanical appliances to go on top.
The cupolas and other kinds of things that seemed to be offensive were removed.
This is more than a third less than what was previously submitted.
But we need to deal with those issues in a context which is clear, and allows everyone to hear those arguments and needs to be heard on this issue.
That's why I think it's important that we follow a process that's going to be defensible.
And the best process we can follow is to have the hearing on the date in which you intend to schedule it, if you agree with that, and allow everyone to be heard with respect to the specific items at issue.
If you so choose, we have the resolution, which is the previous resolution submitted, set for August 11th, and this sets it for 6:00 on September 1st.
>>GWEN MILLER: And Mr. Harrison is going to make that motion.
Do you still want to make that motion?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I move to set this for a public hearing September 1st at 6 p.m.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Questions on the motion?
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
>>THE CLERK: Dingfelder and Saul-Sena voting no.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Just to put this on record, when Mr. Harrison was about to do that, I was considering supporting that motion.
But I think that some of the individuals who came up here made some sense about what they are suggesting that we do or not do, specifically Mr. Nelson representing some of the neighborhood.
So I think that although I can certainly appreciate what Mr. Smith is trying to do, I can't support the motion, because I feel that we need to go a little bit further, let the process take care of the process and see where it ends.
And I think just as a side bar, last week I wasn't here but I was at home watching it.
So don't think I was playing hooky completely.
But I was listening to some of my concerns blood pressure, and this is just a generic conversation.
Although it has nothing to do with this case, I hope administration takes to heart what was said last week.
And I don't remember which of you said it.
But when all possible or almost always, we should be part of the process from the beginning on as opposed to getting things brought to us by surprise or at the last minute, except not about this, Mr. Smith, but I think this council as we have gotten to know each other and worked together over the past two years we have grown up.
And although some of us have great differences in what we believe or what we think or what our position would be, one thing that's certainly generically acceptable is us is we are the legislative body, we need to be involved, we don't need to have the Tribune or Times ask us about something that we don't even know about where we have to go scrambling to a source to get information so we can appear at least moderately informed about projects.
So I think that's a lesson to be learned, and a consideration to the administration.
But that was just an editorial directed towards the motion.
I won't support it.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I will be in support of the motion and I believe our city attorney Mr. Smith and his host of attorneys that he -- that he has working for him and the staff upstairs, we, as the city, rely on you and your staff to protect our best interest, even though we do have a couple of attorneys on council, you see they even have differing opinions.
You do not work for us, but we rely on you, and we rely on your background and your knowledge and your capability in your capacity that you serve for the city.
And just like when in the private sector, when you hire an attorney, you rely on the attorney's opinion.
If you are leading us down the wrong path, I'm sure you won't be serving in your capacity too long.
But I think that it is incumbent upon us to rely on your expertise.
And in every court case, there's always opposing sides.
And there are always attorneys that are bantering and everybody sees different opinions.
But I think in this particular case, he has to look out for the best interest of the city, as well as the residents that may not be seeing that at this time.
And at least at this point I'm willing to at least hear the hearing and see if we need to go forward from there.
Because right now we don't have anything to go on.
So when we start hearing the evidence, we can vote on whether we want to go forward with this or not.
But at this point in time we have nothing to vote on.
So I'll be in support of the motion.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Anybody else?
We will now continue with our department heads.
Mr. Steve Daignault.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chairman?
This attempt at our new schedule putting things that require more discussion at the end, this just proves the challenge of it.
If I had known, I would have set it for last.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm not saying that we'll do it.
It's very difficult.
>>GWEN MILLER: It's a learning process.
Go ahead.
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Good morning, council.
This is about item number 26, which is a consent agreement between the city and the Environmental Protection Commission, and the Florida department of environmental protection.
Kathy Fry has a comment or issue to address first.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We didn't pull this for discussion but you can talk about it.
>>GWEN MILLER: It's on the --
>>> Kathy Fry with the city attorney's office.
I have a ministerial matter.
I need to make a substitution.
EPC and the city were negotiating final edits of a paragraph for clarification.
And the original consent order that went through the agenda process was slightly altered.
It was not a -- it not a substantive change.
But for the record I would like to provide the city clerk with the updated version.
And City Council was already provided this version last Tuesday.
Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Fry, after you do that, I just want to say that we received, unfortunately, we received what appears to be Miss Fry's resignation letter, after ten and a half years of phenomenonal service to the City of Tampa as our legal counsel in all of these utility areas.
She's decided to I guess go elsewhere.
So anyway, I just want to, on behalf of this council, thank you.
On behalf of the city, thank you for all your hard work and dedication.
As I read through the list of things you have worked on, it's been quite a run.
But we appreciate it.
>>> KATHY FRY: Thank you very much.
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: On the consent order, again, this is between the city and FDP and EPC.
It is with wastewater department, and I briefed most of you individually on that issue.
It involves fines for past spills.
It involves a corrected action plan.
It involves sometime -- stipulated penalties for not meeting certain items in the schedule, and for future spills.
And this is in lieu of a lawsuit to bring those things into being.
Again, we mentioned to you a number of times the issues that we do have to deal with, with our wastewater and our water and stormwater system.
So again, this is something that we have been negotiating for awhile, and just be glad to answer any questions that you may have at this time.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think it's really poignant that a group of citizens had to hire a lawyer and sue the city and do what we needed to do. Since you have been here we have taken many actions to do the issues that they underscored.
When we go through our budget this year, I just want you to reassure me that we have budgeted the things that we need to do to begin the process of cleaning up from the spills that they recognized.
I mean, it's been decades that we have been remiss in this.
And I'm thrilled we are finally coming up to speed.
And I hope that's not why Ms. Fry is redesigning.
>>KATHY FRY: Thank you.
Actually, if you read the letter again, I am currently negotiating with the city attorney to be outside counsel on specialty water matters and continue to represent the city in that capacity.
>> Because it's got to be more satisfying to you to represent us when we are finally getting to comply instead of all those years of defending us why we weren't complying.
This is a much better posture.
We are actually doing what we are supposed to go to be doing.
So reassure me.
Last week the council approved an increase in fees to charge what the actual cost is for the services.
We have a couple of other measures that we'll be bringing to the council over the next couple of months during the budget process.
But to assure you, to answer your question specifically, yes, we do have items in the budget specifically identified that speak to the consent agreement, and we are as a staff moving rapidly towards getting those things accomplished.
Just a couple of notable items, of course, are the -- I forget the street.
>> Lake Kipling?
>>> No, not Lake Kipling.
We have a spill down close to Bayshore.
And then we have the Reece ordinance that has to come about.
There are things that are already in process in this fiscal year to move towards accomplishing these issues.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excellent.
Thank you.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Daignault, the fee increases that we have already established and I guess you're planning to come back to, are you planning to bond those out or something?
Because it seems like it's going to take a long time to collect these fees and get this work done.
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Yes, ma'am.
In the case of wastewater, and possibly some in the water department, we are planning to bond, get some debt to help us accomplish these things, especially over the next two fiscal years, we have some pretty significant items, not just on the repair side, but also on the JPA side, where the county or FDOT is moving roads or extending roads and we have to relocate some of our utilities.
So we have some big expenses that we're looking at in fiscal year 06 and 07.
So to get over those humps and to make some improvement on our system, we are going to have to have some debt.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> Good morning, Madam Chair, members of council.
Cindy Miller, director of business and housing development.
I am here on unfinished item number 3, which was a request from council to have a brief discussion on the city's policy for sale and disposal of land.
What I am distributing to you and the clerk is the disposition policy that has been in existence here in the city since 1990.
It is an overall policy that identifies what the city staff is to do as to disposal of land.
I'll just give a very brief outline.
And then if you have any questions I would be happy to answer them.
Basically the administration and my staff look through and periodically review our holdings.
We look to identify whether -- a couple of different categories, if they cannot be used for any other purposes as an individual lot, whether it's generally marketable, that could be marketable to the general public, or whether it be a special negotiated sale.
And with these -- especially if something is generally marketable, we make them available through ads, postings, on the property, letters on file, publication through general media, and also as I mentioned letters that we may have on file from interested parties.
We also then -- and I want to make this very clear for all of these categories, whether it be made available through general marketability or special negotiated sale, every sales transaction for disposal of land must come back to this council for approval, so it is not something that the administration can do unilaterally, we must have your approval.
I think that basically outlines what is within the policy.
And I'll be very glad to answer any specific questions that you may have had that gave rise to this.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Question by council members?
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: On page 3, top of page 3, item B, it says, once we decide that we have a property that's generally marketable, real estate division shall post and/or advertise the property at least one time in a newspaper of general circulation 30 days prior to the sale, or negotiate a contract of sale, and then it would come back to us.
A little bit of concern I have -- and I tend to ask this question sort of on a weekly basis when it comes up, when these issues come up on our agenda -- is did we advertise?
I know it's not our place necessarily to amend executive orders or anything like that.
But this appears that it's sort of an option to advertise.
It says we shall post it, which is mandatory.
And I don't know exactly what post means.
I don't know if that means posted in the clerk's office or on the property as you said.
And then it's and/or advertise.
So that makes it optional.
>> Council, basically, this is for the generally marketable property.
When it's posted we actually post a sign on property.
I mean, it's for sale by the City of Tampa so that everyone in the neighborhood would be aware of it.
We do then publish within the newspaper.
And think it is varied as to which specific one.
I think for some of the sales transactions that are on the agenda today.
It is posted in the Tribune.
We also make it available to anyone who may have indicated an interest.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: When we advertise it do we list the addresses within the advertisement?
>>> Yes, we do.
>> On the parcel?
And this indicates it's optional but you're saying we do it every time?
>>> We do it for those that categorized as generally marketable.
>> So maybe at some point the next time we look at this policy we need to change the "or."
>>> We'll be glad to take a look at that.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Ms. Miller, I've seen the signs that say for sale by City of Tampa on vacant parcels.
Is that an invitation for a bid, or when the individuals call the City of Tampa, are we giving the residents an exact dollar amount and first one to come in at that dollar amount has the contract?
>>> Councilman, usually when we do make it available, we indicate what is our minimum requirement, whether it be an appraised or fair market value, and then a bid is being requested when it is posted in that manner.
>> So it's basically saying we accept minimum bids of 6,000 that come in and pay as much as you want and the highest bidder will get the property at that point in time?
>>> That is generally the case when it's a marketable piece of land, that's correct.
>> And the process along the open bid process, that is not posted on the property.
It's just the for-sale by the City of Tampa signs.
>>> Generally it's a 30-day time period that we keep that information open and available to receive the bids that come in from the general public.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
Ms. Miller, on page 1, where you have 1 and then C, negotiated sales property, does that go through the same procedures?
>>> Special negotiated, some of them do. Some may very well be properties for which we did not receive bids.
But then if someone comes to us and -- I don't know for my own personal experience how long that may be, but say we posted property and received no bids.
If someone comes to us within a short period, a few months after that, we will then be open to negotiation was those parties.
In that case, we will show that it has been made generally available, and then we negotiate as long as they are meeting our minimum qualifications.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Jim Stefan.
>>JIM STEFAN: Budget officer.
There's an item on the council agenda, item number 20, which is a contract between the City of Tampa and Steve Knapp, Lights on Tampa program.
As we were going through the agenda last week, the contract actually managed to be on the agenda.
However, the financial resolution that was tag ago long with it for some reason did not make it.
And I believe that both the clerk's office and my office corresponded with City Council to make them aware that we would be working on a resolution for that.
And I believe the clerk has that for 102,500.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm sorry.
I was thinking about something else.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: And this is --
>>> it's from the public art funds to the capital -- it's how we fund capital public arts projects.
>> So we'll consider that --.
>>GWEN MILLER: In committee reports.
Committee reports.
Ms. Ferlita.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I'm sorry, I was involved in another conversation as well.
Is this the walk-on?
>>ROSE FERLITA: What is the urgency about doing it today?
>>> The contract made it on the agenda and it's item number 20.
If we don't go with the financial, then we'll have to pull the contract.
There's no money for the contract.
Usually, we marry both of them together.
For some reason the electronic agenda let the contract go through but didn't allow the financial to go through.
>> So that's the reason you find it necessary to do walk-on?
>>> Yes.
>> You know, I listen a lot more to this council when I was in the audience and when I was in the audience at home last week I believe Mr. Dingfelder said walk-ons are something we shouldn't really encourage except for health, safety and welfare and here we go again.
Welcome back to City Council.
Just an editorial comment.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I raised this exact same issue with our attorney, Marty Shelby yesterday, when I saw the walk-on on my agenda.
And I totally agreed until I spoke with Mr. Stefan this morning.
Normally, as of the previous conversations we had, I would have voted against this walk-on this morning.
But seeing that there was just an error in the transfer, and the tail end of this should have been attached to 20, and it was just a miscommunication error, I will be in support of it on this time.
But just to do a walk-on in general, for something that is not health, safety and welfare related issue from this point on, I will probably not be very receptive to walk-ons.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Our Public Art Committee voted on this at least two months ago and it's just been winding it's way very slowly through the administration.
We are very eager to see this use of public art created and installed as part of our Lights on Tampa program so we need to get it going.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is that the main reason why you couldn't wait till next week, or we didn't wait till next week?
>>JIM STEFAN: You have to actually pull the contract from the agenda at this time and then marry them both up for next week's agenda.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We can't approve a contract unless there's an associated budget item?
>>> Right.
There's no money to fund the contract.
That would be inappropriate, actually.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: The city cannot enter into contracts unless we have appropriated money.
If the contract provides for us to pay money and we have not appropriated the funds, we are not supposed to enter the contract.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just procedurally then, perhaps they should be the same agenda items, because there might be situations where we approve one, didn't approve the other.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Certain contract are done that way where the amount allocated is actually allocated in the resolution.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Saul-Sena and her lights-on Tampa, the mayor's Lights on Tampa community, I withdraw my grumbling.
>>GWEN MILLER: We will move to committee reports.
Mrs. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
The previous issue that Ms. Miller discussed about how the city disposes of property, I didn't see anywhere in here where it says that if something is a priority for the city, like the creation of affordable housing, that it gets particular attention, or that's something that we promote.
And I'm wondering if we shouldn't consider creating that as a City Council policy.
I know that Ms. Valdez, Ms. Alvarez' assistant, is working on the affordable housing task force.
I went to a luncheon the other day where we discussed, the people who provide affordable housing said the biggest thing the city can do to help us is to make property available so that the land costs are modest, because the biggest cost in providing for housing is the cost of the land.
So I saw that Mayor Freedman wrote this in like 1990 that perhaps we should revise it, with the recognition that providing affordable housing is a real issue within the city, and that the greatest thing we have to offer to encourage that is land.
If we should look toward creating a council policy and land disposition that that's one of our greatest concerns in land disposition.
I bring that up because I think it's really important.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I agree with you to a certain point, Ms. Saul-Sena, that I think we need a lot more discussion on that.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let's have a workshop on it.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: We need to have a discussion on it because there's a lot of -- of developers out there.
This is what we need to find out.
I know that the city sells these lots at market value.
And the way property values are going, these little 25-foot lots, they may be market value at 25,000 right now.
So that's one thing that we need to discuss and find out about.
It's a real big conundrum right now.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think it warrants a workshop.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Question of council if I can.
I don't know what the posture aft Fordable housing task force is going to be or ultimately when council will have the opportunity to get involved in the final product there with that.
But that may be tied in together with where the council wants to move forward.
>>> Desiree Valdez, City Council.
Their mission is to come up with some suggestions by February so that we can go before the board of county commission, and give them some information on what we think the situation is.
We are just gathering information at this point.
However, Commissioner Scott is asking for a million dollars to be added into the county's budget coming up now, specifically to target and tackle affordable housing, and as a side note, the information that Hillsborough County is actually carrying about this situation and taking the initiative to form a task force was brought up on the house floor and the Senate.
So it's an important issue that everyone is looking at right now.
But we are the first county to actually form a task force to try to come up with solutions and ideas.
Right now we're still gathering information.
We're holding community meetings and public forums, and all our meetings are open to the public.
We all fall into the Sunshine Law.
Sharon West also serves on that board as I do for City Council.
And we also have a web site now.
Just for your information.
February looks like our target date.
>>Cindy Miller: I'm happy to report that we really don't have to wait on this.
It's part of our policy.
I'm driving my staff crazy, and I hate to use the vernacular but I am.
We are going through all our available lots over the past faux months to look at them as to their desirability and availability for affordable housing.
If they are available for affordable housing, we intend to make that so designated.
We are looking at all parcels within the various CRAs so they are appropriately utilized for affordable housing and other needs.
So as part of the review it's part of the policy I just presented to you, we in administration are already doing that, my real estate staff, managers of the CRAs as well as Sharon West in charge of the community housing, and we are doing that as part of our presentation.
Over the next few weeks we will be finalizing those so that we are able to make these management determinations and affordable housing is one of our priorities.
Thank you for let meeting clarify that.
>>ROSE FERLITA: This is not a question to you but a comment based on some reports, and I think we are going in the right direction when this administration says we should provide affordable housing, because we should.
That's our responsibility as a government.
But at the same time if and when we look at this somewhat based on the suggestion that Mrs. Saul-Sena has mentioned, and Mayor Freedman did this a long time ago, and obviously it was a good document then, but now we have to revise it like maybe other things.
I want to make sure if we go in that direction that we make sure as we look at affordable housing and as the policy stands now we can provide that, or sites for that.
We still need to be very careful about the perception, and perception is something that the seven of us deal with when we are talking to different members of the public.
Two, three weeks ago I was in the check-outline in Publix, one of the few times I was minding my own business, and a guy came up to me and was very belligerent and very aggravated and said, look, all the development that's going on in Tampa Heights, I haven't been given the opportunity to buy it, not to say that I could buy it, but why are you setting aside large plots of parcels for developers when we don't have the same opportunity?
At that point, I'm hoping Mr. Rodriguez, I asked him to call the gentleman and explain to the him.
Whatever we do, we need to also keep in mind if we want top revise a document as we revise many things on the books now, let's make sure the process is fair.
Concentrate on affordable, when we can offer the affordable lots, but at the same time make sure the offering of any lots that are for sale are given to the public in total, and then go from there.
Because that is whether it's the perception, right or wrong, the sense that a lot of people say, well, the developer gets the choices, and just because I'm a private individual, private citizen, I'm not offered the same concerns.
So I just want to caution you with that.
If we look Do look at it under a workshop or something, Mrs. Saul-Sena.
We don't need to belabor it now, but I just wanted to let you know that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Roy LaMotte.
>>ROY LaMOTTE: I'm here to address the council on two particular items.
Item number 6 in which you ask for a status report regarding the status of the administration's process regarding the elimination of parking meters in downtown in violation of city code prohibiting parking within ten feet of an opening or driveway.
As you recall, we went out and we conducted a study with the parking division early on and found 240 cases that we felt were in violation of this particular code, and we examined it thoroughly, and we found out that there were other codes that applied, and we made an evaluation at 130 of these, some, needed to be eliminated.
We thought that was a rather large amount and that the downtown couldn't really do without a lot of parking.
Also, in our parking study, we looked at the Soho area as well as the city and Ybor.
After consultation with the parking department and the legal department we think we have a solution.
In reality we think we only have to eliminate 31 spaces for the reasons of public safety.
And again that includes five spaces over in the 200 block South Howard.
We understand that may effect business owners in that area, but in the name of public safety, we need to also look into some contractual elements.
Other than the 24 spaces are metered spaces and the others were residential parking in a time management space of two hours.
We are proposing to council today that they adopt a new code that would read: No parking within ten feet of a designated parking space clearly defined by parking markings, parking meter, or signage.
Therefore, we will be able to save over 200 parking spaces here in our city.
I have three small examples, and I'm going to ask if you would help me with the Elmo just to demonstrate the rationale of what we have done here, and then ask for your blessing on adoption of a new ordinance that we will prepare for you.
We have less than ten feet between driveways, and in this particular case when we move it over here a little bit, a very wide driveway coming out of a parking lot.
As you can see there is only seven feet between the rear of this vehicle and the opening of the driveway.
But clearly it's not interfering with any problem related to it.
We have other situation as round here in town that basically where we have -- I believe this is a T Cadillac operation, previously, but they do not use these overhead doors and they have parking availability.
And we would like to do that.
Lastly, we would like to tell you that there are spaces that are involving handicapped spaces in relationship to drives, and at the same time just relocating our signage, we can save the parking space.
So in summary, we believe that just eliminating 31 spaces for public safety is all we have to do, adopt a new code, and we can save another 200 spaces here in the city.
I'll take any questions on that item.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you for that report, Mr. LaMotte.
When this was first brought to my attention, I thought 240 spaces, especially over 138 of them in the downtown area, was going to be a shame to lose because of an ordinance that we had on the books.
Can you tell us when you're going to be presenting the new adoption?
>>ROY LaMOTTE: We can bring it back as early as next week if you wish.
But certainly we'll have it prepared with legal counsel very shortly for you.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Not only that, once you bring the ordinance back for adoption, when will you be able to go out?
How long will it take for you to physically do the moving of the proper meters and/or eliminating the 30, 31 spaces?
>>> That's a very good question.
We intend to do it within the next 45 to 60 days.
And the reason for the delay is that we are preparing signage for the school opening, and recent championship signs that we had Reiss recently installed.
>> 31 is a definite improvement over 240.
>>> We certainly believe that.
And we feel that these spaces are important to all the economic development that's taking place here in the downtown area.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you very much for that report.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. LaMotte, are you going to do 8?
>>ROY LaMOTTE: We have item number 8 as well, here to provide a report regarding both the pedestrian and vehicle impacts of rezoning in the vicinity of Platt Street.
I will ask my colleague to address with you that and I'll be glad to answer any questions afterwards.
>>CALVIN THORNTON: Transportation division.
I'll try to be brief.
We were asked to look at the Bayshore Boulevard here.
Our study area was -- this is the Bayshore area.
The hotel site which is at Platt, one Bayshore located at the intersection of Platt and Bayshore, 319 Bayshore Boulevard, and the other development is Tampa General Hospital.
We looked at the total development as generated by all of those uses.
You can see that the daily trips 14,769 vehicles per day.
Total a.m., 731 entering, 396 exiting, the p.m. peak is 444 vehicles entering, 839 exiting.
We modeled this, and this is a snapshot of the worst case.
And I apologize for the view.
You can come and see.
Areas we have with traffic.
This is all of the volume onto the network.
This is that council directed to us look at.
You notice to the north areas, traffic backed up, at this intersection.
And there is some located in this general vicinity.
This is a low-up of that area.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was the one I believe who made this motion for you all to study this.
And I have specifically requested not only these things to be studied but the other things we have approved in this area such as an additional high-rise that's immediately to the south of Platt, to the east of one Bayshore, which is, I believe, 30 stories, and it appears that you didn't include that in this study.
Or did you and it just doesn't appear on our map?
You included the hotel site that I asked you to look at, also.
This is to the south of the hotel site.
And it's something that's previously approved.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The second phase of one Bayshore.
>>CALVIN THORNTON: If it's one --.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It isn't populated yet.
It's the second part of the proposal which is an even higher high-rise.
>>CALVIN THORNTON: If this is Bayshore, yes, Bayshore is included.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's my question.
Is it included?
I don't remember offhand the name of it.
>>CALVIN THORNTON: Yes, it is.
>>ROY LaMOTTE: It's included in the existing volumes when we did the analysis.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
That's the clarification I was seeking.
>>CALVIN THORNTON: This little blowup, this driveway here is the driveway for 305.
When we looked at the analysis before they typically would have an eleven-second delay.
With this particular model, a delay went up to 15 seconds.
The level of service at the intersections in and around that area, with the worst case, with signals optimized, you have level of service D at Bayshore and Platt, at Platt and plant we have a B, and then Hyde Park and plat we have a level service C.
We also studied the intersection with Bayshore task force improvements.
And that includes a stop sign here, at the ramp, a left-turn lane here, as well as a signal movement for the northbound on Bayshore.
This is a zoomed-in section to show the changing and pattern of traffic.
(Bell sounds)
We definitely have more traffic in that stretch of Bayshore.
You will see that Platt Street does back up past the driveway of one Bayshore.
You can also see that there is a considerable amount of traffic that will be turning onto Verne.
Possibly blocking the driveway of 345 Bayshore.
But in the model looking at the delay, it was a difference of only 4 seconds.
It was eleven seconds prior to and 15 seconds after.
The intersection level service, with the Bayshore task force improvement Platt and Bayshore went to level service E.
Our adopted level service for roadways was D.
We don't know when some of these Bayshore task force improvements are going to be done.
We don't know if some will be done.
But one of the factors we have to look at is based upon what's there now, level of service, and with all the development, one of the worst case scenarios includes the peak period of the hospital being loaded on this network.
Understand the peak period of the hospital is not when our peak period occurs.
It's normally between the hours of two and three.
But we decided to locate it at the 5:00 peak period to really show you what's going on at that intersection, and still we have acceptable level of service without the Bayshore task force improvement.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What does U mean?
>>> You means on city lots.
These are -- on city lines.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: On city lines, okay.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And the Bayshore task force improvement at the bridge was what?
>>> A stop control, or for the right turn lane getting off, left turn lane onto Verne and a northbound signal control, or --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Northbound signal at the bridge?
>>> Correct.
And that was to allow pedestrians to flow across the bridge rather than under the bridge.
>> But that's going to slow everything down on the Bayshore.
That takes us from a D to an E.
Is that something transportation recommended or is that just the neighborhood recommendation?
Because I was on the task force.
I don't remember that one.
>>ROY LaMOTTE: Councilman Dingfelder, I think what we have looked for you is the worst case scenario.
We did look at improving the improvements at that particular intersection, if we are were to choose to do it at grade.
If we did, this is the impact from it.
We understand there's an underground passage that people can take to bypass.
But the reality is the majority of these pedestrians coming from the tourist convection center actually go at grade.
And so we believe that there should be some improvement here.
I also want to point out if I may just one more second is we took a look at the action and experience along Bayshore, between this area, between Platt and Verne, and we have actually --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Excuse me one second.
The question I asked, though, was Bayshore task force apparently recommended the traffic light at the bridge as you are coming north on Bayshore.
But based upon the fact that that's going to take us from a D to an E, is that something transportation is recommending?
>>> We are not in a position at this time to tell you that it should be signalized but we are suggesting that it needs attention.
>> Okay.
>>> But I will tell you that the improvements that were recommended as we heard from Bayshore relative to a left-hand turn into Vernon is a good idea, because actually, when we looked at the accident experience in this area, we uncovered the fact that there's 25 rear-end collisions that are taking place in this section, and they are all contributing to left turns.
So in closure, we really want to explain to you that we have done a comprehensive analysis.
We have looked at it in the worst case scenario.
And we believe it is doable with the buildout as you now have it proposed before you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What else can we do to improve this little, very dense quadrant of our city, in terms of traffic and transportation?
Obviously, from your analysis, you're indicating there are some problem areas, there are some problem intersections, there are some backups, et cetera.
And are we going to continue to look to see what specific improvements we can make?
Or are there any improvements we can make as these developments do come in?
>>> We may do both.
We do want to find additional ways to increase safety in the area, and we will look for ways to finance it, if development takes place, we will suggest to you that the financing pay for such improvements.
On an operational level, we may restrict the parking along Bayshore contiguous to the marina section during the hours of four to six when it's most heavily used.
The reality is in the worst case scenario that Calvin is pointing out to you this morning is really a peak 15 minutes within the peak hour that we have difficult out in this section of roadway.
And that we do take a look at where we need signals and where we have got gaps.
We do also suggest in future improvements that from Platt intersection southerly that we consider a median that would divide the traffic in this area.
It would not only provide for aesthetic reasons but give separation of traffic flow and decrease accident experience.
>> Where would that be?
>>> On the upper section.
Let me try to use the same graphic.
Between the Platt bridge southerly down towards the marina.
I believe that was one of the recommendations of the Bayshore task force.
Ting dung I hope you stick around for the rezoning those relevant to this issue.
>> It's my pleasure to stick around.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Thom Snelling.
Mr. Santiago?
Are either one of them in here?
Whale we are waiting for them we are going to go to item number 10 and 11.
One of our council members has to leave and we need a full council for that one.
Number 10 and 11.
Mr. Shelby, we need to give a brief history.
10 and 11.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Number 10. The public hearing is closed and it is being presented for second reading.
With regard, council, please, to all the public hearings today, I'm going to ask that all written communications relative to today's hearings that have been available to the public at council's office be received and filed into the record at this time.
If council would so move.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: I was waiting for Mrs. Alvarez.
Whale we are waiting, we go to Mr. Smith.
>>THOM SNELLING: I apologize.
I'm hear to speak on agenda item number 9.
I'll be brief.
Just a report back to City Council.
It had to do with the Air Force Base, the area of 5th street and 6th street south.
I have a couple of handouts here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Number 9.
>>THOM SNELLING: Number 9, I'm sorry.
>>THOM SNELLING: The question was asked by council whether, with the frequency of some of the rezonings down in this area in the recent past, couple, three, four, years, there have been a number of requests to go from RS-60 to PDs.
Many of those requests, it was noted, were going to simply allow for additional single-family houses to be built on lots that had been smaller than what has been from RS-60 zoning district, either the width, we had 55 feet or 48 feet of rezoning to a PD in order to build on the lots that had already been previously plotted at a certain size, yet under the current zoning district of the RS-60.
So the question that was asked whether or not an area-wide rezoning to an RS-50 would be something that made more sense rather than piece milling and bringing it in one at a time.
That was the general question.
The first thing I want to point out, on the handout I gave you are some of the most recent areas.
Within that handout, you are going to notice in the APZ 1 there were a couple of rezonings previously, but you also see on your map the handout that you have in front of you the clear zone.
Council has already put an abatement in that area for rezoning for density.
So that area is kind of, in terms of this discussion, somewhat off the table.
The greater area where you see some of the other rezonings, actually ends up being within the greater area where the joint land use study is taking place.
Ms. Coyle has already had H numerous meetings with a couple of different committees.
This study is already under way.
The next step is -- and she's working diligently to go ahead and get a consultant on board and hopefully that will happen in the near future.
Then the full-blown study is going to take place.
The entire area you're talking about is within this study.
So in effect, we are already doing exactly that.
What you will have available to you within the next eight to ten months is going to be a very thorough, very analytical study along with recommendations for land use designation changes, potentially, zoning changes potentially, other development, site regulation changes potentially.
So in a sense we are doing an area wide study to not only evaluate whether or not you should just rezone from one particular residential district to another particular residential district.
We're looking at the full gamut of all kinds of considerations as it applies to development, intensity, density, of everything in that area.
So the short answer is, as people are coming in with individual cases, outside of the abatement area, I think council is going to still need to look at those rezoning on a case-by-case basis.
Filtered through the notion and the knowledge that within eight months or so, you're going to have a wealth of information as to the future direction of this entire area, as recommended through staff, or through the consultant, and through the neighborhoods and the process.
Many of these rezoning were, as I said, rezoned to take advantage, or in order to allow them to build a single family detached.
A lot of this list, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, eight of the 12 or 15 that were there were exactly that.
There have been some for town homes.
But again, if you're looking at them on a case-by-case basis, the single-family detached kind of houses, which is characteristic of what that neighborhood has made clear, that's what they are looking for, and the other kinds of rezonings, you need to continue to look at those on a case-by-case, through the filter that this study is coming down the road, and have that effect your opinion, your decision, your question-and-answer session of staff and of the neighborhood as you go.
And I'll answer any questions.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I appreciate that information.
And I think it's going to be great that we'll have all this additional information maybe a year from now, and perhaps revisit some of these issues then.
>>THOM SNELLING: Because that's exactly what it's designed to do, council.
Exactly that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Mr. Rolando Santiago, are you back in?
Mr. Santiago came back and he left again.
>>ROSE FERLITA: As Mr. Snelling is leaving -- Thom, I didn't know whether it was necessary to say it again but I guess too many thank-yous are never bad.
This is so crucial to what we are doing in terms of our partnering relationship with MacDill.
And we are going to continue leaning on you for input and some services in terms of what's good and what's not and what should be cautioned about.
Thanks for the work that you guys are doing in the middle of everything else.
Thank you, Thom.
That's all.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: I'm here on item number 83.
It's a public hearing coming before you, scheduled for 10 a.m.
I just want to give you a note that we are going to be asking to continue this matter for two weeks.
I can address those issues when the public hearing comes up.
But I just wanted to give you that heads-up.
That's all.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Now we go back to 10 and 11.
A continuation public hearing.
We need to have a full council to vote.
So all we need to do is vote.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe there was a motion on the floor and a second to accept and receive all the information that the public has had available at council's office and make it part of the record.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: A reminder to council, please with regard to each of the public hearings today, I ask that City Council members disclose any verbal communications with the petitioner, his or her representative, or any members of the public in connection with any of the petitions today that will be heard, and that the member of council should disclose the following, the identity of the person, group or entity with whom the verbal communication occurred, and the substance of that verbal communication.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Are we ready to vote now?
Mrs. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I just want to communicate that I have not had any ex parte communication was this case.
>>CHAIRMAN: Anyone else?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: When this was in front of us, I guess last week, there was some discussion from the neighborhood that they would like an extra week to work with the developer.
And his putting in the car dealership.
I received an e-mail which I put into the record from one of the neighbors.
And she said previously she had been e-mailing me how upset she was about this project, and she didn't have enough information, and this and that.
Subsequently, she was sent an e-mail to us yesterday, Beverly is her name, and she indicated that she had received additional information this past week, and had met with the developers, and was very pleased and thought this would be a big improvement and that she felt their communication with the developer -- made the developer aware of some of the neighborhood issues that they previously hadn't been aware of.
So I think the week perhaps proved fruitful and I'm ready to vote.
>>GWEN MILLER: The motion is to be put on second reading.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
Motion passed.
We go to second reading now --.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: This was for second reading.
>>GWEN MILLER: Has to be read?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I would prefer at this time that it be read again, please.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Do I have the ordinance?
>> It's number 10.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay, I'm sorry.
Move to adopt the following ordinance for second reading.
An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 3306 west Hillsborough Avenue, in the city of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications CG commercial to PD commercial general uses and vehicle sales and major repair, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
Question on the motion, Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Couple for petitioner seems to be indicating some desire to speak but why don't you speak with our attorney before you --.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Just as he's finishing up, it appears obviously this is going to be wholeheartly supported.
I want to say not only am I looking forward to supporting it but also congratulating the petitioner for taking the steps that they have taken to accommodate some of the needs of the area around them.
I think Mr. White last week from listening to council was citing some of the things that you had done and offered to do without anybody asking you to do that.
So I think you're the perfect, responsible corporate leaders that we want.
That site has been awful.
And I think at the end, you have worked with the neighborhoods, and resolved some of their problems.
And just congratulations and good luck is all I want to tell you.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, Ms. Saul-Sena, I apologize.
I want to make sure there isn't an issue of law that Mr. Massey wanted to chime in on.
I'm sorry.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Currently there has been some conversations between the petitioner and the neighborhood relative to certain buffering issues.
I think part of the discussion that occurred last week at second reading was a suggestion from councilman Dingfelder that that might be something that the petitioner might look at.
If that's the case, then I think council would have to reopen the public hearing to allow the petitioner to provide that information and allow anyone in the audience to address those particular issues.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Before it's taken on second reading.
I apologize.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to open.
>>GWEN MILLER: It fails for second --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: No, no, no, I was --.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let's hear from petitioner.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We can't hear from her unless we open it.
We have a motion and second to reopen the public hearing.
(Motion carried)
>>> Blair Kirland, North Westshore Boulevard, here on behalf of the applicant.
We did meet with the neighbors and at the neighborhood meeting, we agreed that the neighbors would rather us put a wall along Lincoln from the Lincoln access and then a wrought iron fence from the access north, in lieu of the landscaping that we previously committed to doing.
So if we could add a note to the site plan that says that for the petitioner would be permitted to construct a wall, six foot masonry wall, and we could describe it, in lieu of the landscaping as depicted on the site plan, because there would be a little bit of difference there.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Coyle.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development, they can.
But it would require them to go back to first reading.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to speak to this it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Does petitioner want to say something else?
Blair Kirland: We don't want to continue this any longer.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can't we make at note on there and bring it back tonight?
>>GWEN MILLER: That's for first reading.
This is second reading.
>> Can we put it on first reading tonight?
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner does not want to go back to first reading.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I think we could add maybe language on the note that basically says landscaping or the wall at the election of the neighborhood and the petitioner, and go forward with second reading.
So we'll bring it to you for second reading.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Good creativity.
>>GWEN MILLER: We already read it for second reading.
>> No, we didn't.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe Mr. Massey --
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Hold it for a little later in the agenda.
>>GWEN MILLER: We already read it.
Rescind it?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: On second reading?
>>GWEN MILLER: We were just getting ready to vote.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: If you will hold it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Massey, when is it we can get this finalized? I'm so confused.
They have been here longer than we have.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Five minutes.
>>GWEN MILLER: While we are waiting we'll go to item number 11.
A continued public hearing.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: This isn't open at all?
>>GWEN MILLER: Number 11.
This is put on first reading.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Item number 11.
The public hearing is closed.
Since you all heard a presentation from transportation staff relative to transportation issues, if F that's going to be part of your debate today, I would suggest to council that the public hearing be reopen so if you have questions you can ask transportation staff, that you would allow also the petitioner and any members of the public to address the traffic issues, if that's what council wants to address relative to item number 11.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to reopen.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Can we do this in a half hour?
Because we are going to lose seven members in a half hour and that means this thing is just going to get continued once more.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, who is the petitioner?
On number 11.
>>> Truett Gardner: 101 South Franklin Street.
I think we need to be sworn.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Swear in the witnesses for number 11, please.
>>THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
>>> I do.
>> Was there anybody not sworn who intends to testify on this item?
Thank you seeing none.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
>> Gardner, 101 South Franklin Street.
Jim Smith would like to speak on the improvements to the intersections, George Deacon, our traffic consultant has run the model time and time again, and would also be more than happy to discuss any technical issues.
>>> Jim Smith with Crescent Resources, 400 South Trout in Charlotte.
I don't think that you have seen any traffic analysis change since day one because they were accurate from the beginning.
I think council has been very prudent in questioning and challenging those numbers.
I will go on record as saying, although I guess when we talked with zoning, we can't really state emphatically that we'll not be using all of our entitlements on the adjacent property, that's a separate zoning issue and can't really let that be into play.
I would go on record as saying and reminding council that this petitioner is the only petitioner on all of those sites that are in the transportation study, the hospital, the hotel, one Bayshore development, the existing developments around us, we are the only ones coming to you via your excellent negotiating skills with us, to help solve the existing problem, and mitigate the minimal traffic impact we are going to have on the intersection.
We are the only ones offering to help financially with the city.
I know that you're strapped for funds.
Every city in the states are strapped for funds right now.
We're coming through negotiation was council to solve the existing problem.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Smith, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions.
We as council received -- and I'm sure you might have received a letter that was written by Mr. Diaz -- pertaining to the alley, street conversions, and the beach Place accesses and so on.
Did you get a copy of that letter?
>>> I did not.
I'd be happy to address a concern.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, what they are saying is that they have some issues with it, especially with the existing alley, they think it should be converted to a street.
Are you sure you didn't get a copy of this letter?
>>> No, ma'am, I did not.
>> Well, I'm going to have my aide or somebody make a copy of this for you, because there are some mitigating circumstances in there that would keep me from supporting it.
And I think that you need to look at it and see if there's anything that you can do to help.
I believe that the 345 Bayshore is amenable to your project, if they have these improvements done.
So I don't know.
>>> Are there any specifics you could share with us at this point?
>>GWEN MILLER: I know one, to put a traffic light in an alley.
I was kind of questioning that.
I don't think that's possible.
Mr. Dingfelder, do you have yours down there?
>>ROSE FERLITA: She's coming back with copies in a second.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can request that letter be furnished to Mr. Garner and maybe take -- but rather than have them address it now maybe move onto another issue.
Are you prepared just to --
>>> I haven't seen the letter or had the opportunity to read it.
I think I have heard of the substance of it, which is basically --.
>>GWEN MILLER: There it is.
>>ROSE FERLITA: We are running into a crunch again and this is going on almost as much as the dealership one.
Can you tell us, Mr. Gardner, so that it doesn't cause you to lose one of the council members?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I need to do a disclosure for the record.
Mr. Daignault had called me in regard to this project and said he had been in discussion with the neighborhood about the alley.
And he wanted me to be aware since it was my district.
Apparently, the request -- and I think that's consistent with what you were reading, Mary -- is that a sidewalk be placed in the alley to make it a safer place for folks to get from 345 Bayshore, and 319 Bayshore, over to Publix and that sort of thing, and also that the alley be lit, which is probably not a requirement.
And I probably erred, but I think on the side of the neighborhood, to transmit that request to Mr. Gardner yesterday by telephone.
We didn't discuss it any more than I said the neighborhood is requesting that you put in the alley, and you put in the lighting.
And he said that he thought that was reasonable.
And he would come back and discuss it here today.
So that's my disclosure.
>>GWEN MILLER: Have you had a chance to read it, Mr. Gardner?
>>> As I understand the letter, it's asking for a 50-foot wide alley, and that would be impossible for us to do.
We would agree, although I have a philosophical problem with it, in past discussions, the neighborhood group has asked us to increase green space and increase the setbacks in the back of the building.
We did do that.
But we are going to go and put a concrete sidewalk in.
I don't have a problem with that.
But it's going to take away five feet more of green space again.
And I think -- we were planning on lighting the alley, although it doesn't specifically state that.
And I would like to put the Hyde Park approved streetlights back there, which would be very attractive.
So we have no problem to the sidewalk.
We have no problem with the streetlighting.
And we would agree to that.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The neighborhood representative is here also.
>>> Elizabeth Deconti, 345 Bayshore Boulevard, I have not been sworn.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
Thank you.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you for the time this morning.
A couple of points that I think might clarify some questions that were posed by council earlier.
I'll start with chairperson Miller.
You said we were asking for a traffic light.
What we were talking about was what Mr. Dingfelder was referring to, and that is a sidewalk and some streetlights on this alley.
Our point is that we feel that the alley is being used as a street function.
The developer has told us that the alley is only going to be used for delivery trucks and mail items, and that type of traffic.
And even if that turns out to be the case, we have a great deal of concern that in our neighborhood, because that part of Bayshore facing the street and the buildings is so congested as it is, that people in our building and in theirs are probably going to be concerned about walking there with their pets and their baby strollers and that kind of thing and they will inevitably try to use the alley to go to Publix and to the other places where they go.
So what we are asking for is that area be made more safe with the improvement of a sidewalk and some lights.
I did also want to mention to council that as Mr. Dingfelder referred to a group of residents met with Mr. Daignault, and we also have an earlier meeting with some of the members of the city traffic department to discuss some of the issues that are included in this letter from Mr. Diaz.
We understand that there are numerical gradients and factors that the city uses.
And, you know, based on my professional experience, and I can hear it from some of the things council had to listen to earlier this morning, I understand that there are certain standards that you need to rely on to make decisions in the event that your decisions are challenged.
But in this particular case, we want you to understand as the real people driving the real cars coming out of the real driveways, what we experienced in the mornings and in the afternoons and at the evenings at 345 doesn't necessarily match up to these numbers that you're receiving.
Interestingly, the graphic that you saw this morning is something that even though we have discussed this many times, we didn't ever see until this very late date.
And I think personally that may be so that we can back into a result that has been represented to you.
And that's fine.
But one point of clarification that Mr. Gardner may be able to help me with, I think that Ms. Saul-Sena asked the city traffic officials whether the other 26-story building was included in that analysis.
And unless I'm wrong, I don't think it was what was submitted as part of the one Bayshore project or -- it's a separate project, is it not?
It's on the same PD?
Okay, that wasn't what I understood.
At any rate, I don't want to take up more time.
But I would like one of my fellow residents to show you some pictures that he has taken of the area from his unit to show you some of the practical concerns that I'm talking about.
Thank you.
>>> Glenn Crosby, 345 Bayshore.
I have not been sworn in.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
>>> I do.
Thank you, council.
If I could just take a look at this.
These are some realistic pictures taken at 5:20 p.m.
This is the Platt Street bridge.
As you can see, the corner of the crescent development and the existing apartments.
As you can see the light under the convention center turns red, and look at backup.
Look at traffic coming down south as well.
This is reality.
This is not a model.
I really have a hard problem with the traffic departments logistics and models.
This is reality.
One more quick picture.
A little further down.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Was that an everyday occurrence or a special event at the convention center?
>>> Every day.
If there's an accident, you make a good point, an accident or event going on, traffic will back up all the way to Swann or Howard.
I've seen it.
This is reality.
Here's the front of the marina parking lot here.
I mean, this is every day.
This isn't a schematic or some numbers on a graph.
And one last point I would like to make.
We're going to put in a stacking lane for the developer so that we can mitigate some of this traffic.
What I think you should seriously consider, the marina has 12 parking spaces.
You have 37 boat slips.
Every weekend, this parking along the street is used by people who are paying rent to use their boats, to the city.
Now, my understanding, I need to understand this, this is S going to be taken away.
You're going to take away city marina parking and give the developer a stacking lane into the entrance of his building.
I think let him build it, let him put in his own stacking lane.
You're going to take away city parking from a marina?
So these are very valid concerns.
Elizabeth already said the alleyway behind it, a sidewalk.
I don't want to take my life in my hands with cars whizzing past 40 miles an hour, trying to get to Publix.
I mean, that's reality.
We use that alleyway to walk our dogs, you know, do what we need to do, because it very safe.
Because when you cross Bayshore, when you try to use the sidewalk, right here, you take your life in your hands.
You're like this and the cars come whizzing past you.
You can't even get to the park, which is a major thing.
You can't even get to it.
So I'm just saying let the alleyway be street, let's have sidewalks, and let's not take away city parking.
Let them make their own stacking lane and then we're fine.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
Does somebody else want to speak?
(Oath administered by Clerk)
>>> I do. I just probably want to add to some of the things that have been said.
I just wanted to say that the traffic situation on some of the pictures that he showed you, they were only from the one side.
But the traffic on the other side, I guess we didn't have pictures ready.
They go all the way sometimes to Howard.
And they just stack up.
And I really fear that if an emergency vehicle has to get through, they are just not going to get through.
And then we are adding more traffic.
Another thing where he was talking about the parking spaces along the -- allowing a lot of people to park now, people that also park there besides the boats, people that walk and jog along Bayshore.
And then, finally, on this other road, when you're trying to walk to -- we just put up bus stops, Hartline put up bus stops along Platt for to us get to.
What's the sense?
It's just too risky to probably try to walk there.
Not that you couldn't do it.
But why take the chance?
I mean, Bayshore was not designed as a traffic road.
It was designed back in the late 80s and '90s to be a park.
And basically if it's a park, you don't put tons and tons of cars on there.
And that's exactly what's happening with these, having more people to this area.
It's way too congested an area for an entrance to what we call the Bayshore, as a proud part of our city.
It's detrimental.
There's no other word.
Thank you very much.
>> Truett Gardner again.
It's been a long process but to be honest, I enjoyed working with 345.
If I could just clarify two points.
One, on the issues of the streetlighting as well as the sidewalk and the rear alley, we would be more than happy to commit to that.
Secondly, just to address some possible misinformation, when we spoke with Roy LaMotte on the left turn lane that we'll put in at our expense at Bayshore and Verne they will not require the removal of the parking for the marina.
It occurs before that.
And there's plenty of space at that point of Bayshore to have both the stop sign coming off the bridge as well as the turn left -- left turn lane from Bayshore onto Verne.
Secondly, just to address one more point, which I think has been overlooked, but crescent is committed to provide a safer pedestrian experience, right now you will notice that the sidewalk ends, and immediately
Turns into
The heartscape of Bayshore.
This is a pretty blind curve where people move pretty rapidly.
But in order to break that up and provide something safer, it will go from sidewalk to green space, then to the pavement, to give a little bit of effort between sidewalk and -- buffer between sidewalk and Bayshore.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Just like on the opposite side?
>>> Exactly.
So with that we'll close.
I believe we have this thing wrapped up.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So you're saying you are going to make a stacking lane then?
>>> We have committed on-site plan to do that.
Actually, I think what the site plan says is we will work with the transportation department to install those immediately after John Dingfelder made that comment, we met the following week with Roy LaMotte and Calvin Thornton to discuss the left turn lane at Verne as well as possibly Beach.
They did not think it would be a good idea at Beach.
I think the residents brought up a good point, that would require losing parking spaces for the marina, just because Bayshore throttles at that point but back at Verne they thought it would be safer for everyone, and there would be plenty of room to put in the without losing any of the on-street bark parking.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So you have committed to the alley?
>>> It's already on the site plan.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
>>> The alley and the streetlighting are currently not commitments on the site plan.
We would be more than happy between first and second reading, or even now, to drop that note on there.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I think it has to be now.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: First reading is right now.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: First reading now.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you want to take five minutes to do that and we can go back to the car dealership?
>>GWEN MILLER: Catherine Coyle, can you do that now?
She's looking at it.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I think the issue is whether this constitutes a graphical revision that needs to be brought back.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you want to bring it back tonight?
Do you want to bring it back tonight with the revisions?
>>> Sure.
>> As opposed to now?
>>> That's fine.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: That's fine.
I just think they need to discuss with transportation about the sidewalk issue.
It's going to be a minor conversation.
But I think it should happen.
>>GWEN MILLER: So do that now or later?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: I think 6:00 is fine.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison won't be here.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: It sounds like there's pretty broad consensus on this now.
Can we do it in the next 15 minutes?
>>GWEN MILLER: Let's come back to 10.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: We have had some conversation.
We believe that the wall could be accomplished without changing the language.
Staff will accept the wall in lieu of the required landscaping.
I would ask the petitioner to commit to that on the record before City Council.
But that would remove any risk of us having to go back to first reading.
I think when we start changing conditions, we typically have gone back to first reading.
There's a judgment call how much you can change without being substantial change and I would rather not go there if we could.
I would want to let council know as well, there are members in the audience that would like, since the public hearing is open, to speak to you relative to the buffering conditions.
That's at council's discretion to some degree.
But since we opened the hearing to allow the petitioner to address that, could allow the other side to make a couple comments before you take a final vote on second reading.
>>GWEN MILLER: Proposing we open it back up?
>> It's already open.
>>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone want to speak on item 10?
Anybody speak on item 10?
>>> Actual think there's a gentleman.
He just left.
>>GWEN MILLER: Have you been sworn?
Would you raise your right hand?
(Oath administered by Clerk)
>>ROSE FERLITA: I think as our greeting process everybody that comes through that door should be sworn in at that time.
If they speak, fine. If they don't, fine.
>>> Hi.
Members of the council --.
>> Put your name on the record, please.
>>> Gayl Raveman, Lincoln Avenue.
A gentleman was here also, several times with us.
He just now left.
Can't believe it. Anyway, we met with the car dealership fellows the other evening.
I don't know, 20 of us or so.
Had a good meeting.
They offered to do some things to make it more palatable for the community to have a car dealership there.
At the gate of our neighborhood.
Let me just say a few things first.
Thank you for allowing me to speak.
I am opposed to the zoning change for this proposed purpose.
It's a use I feel would not have a positive impact on immediate established residential neighborhood.
Aesthetically, noisewise, lightingwise, property valuewise, it will further commercialize the area which will obviously hurt the neighborhood feeling feel.
That's my opinion.
My small voice.
I'm a small voice in a large machine.
Our neighborhood voices were not included during the initial decision process due to a loop hole that allows applicants for zoning change to get approval from the nearest "neighborhood association."
Which such neighborhood will not be affected.
I don't even know the name.
Plaza terrace. Anyway, I understand because of the rules -- and they followed the rules.
Because of the rules, person going for change of zoning can go to a neighborhood association who is, you know, a group.
We're not an active group.
We're not together.
So they didn't ask us about what we thought about it. Anyway, that aside, should the counsel or county have -- and that's another thing.
Since I was even aware of this, and it was kind of presented to me that the council has already approved it, so I'm not even sure if that's the case.
I don't understand how all this works.
I'm not a political person.
Don't get involved a lot in the political machine.
But I was kind of led to believe that your decision had already been made and there was nothing to talk about.
So thank you for allowing us to speak at this last minute.
And the gentleman that's really made us all aware of this has just left.
I'm very sad.
But, anyway, if I had a string I'd pull him back in. Anyway, should the council approve this change, if you haven't already, and not taken into consideration immediate neighborhood, who it's going to effect, other issues, should you go ahead and approve this, other issues need to be addressed as to the site plan, which they were gracious enough to M meet with the neighborhood, the real neighborhood, the other day, they had mentioned at the meeting there would be 14-foot lighting that would not be so obtrusive to the immediate -- we're talk ago cross the street neighborhood here.
We're not talking blocks down the road.
(Bell sounds)
There were supposed to be 14-foot lights.
>>GWEN MILLER: Your time is up.
Next person.
>>> All right.
Would you finish mine?
>>> City Council, my name is Holbert Atwood.
My wife is Beverly.
The property that we live on was purchased over 60 years ago.
In that time the people living in that immediate area, you know, all quiet, residential area.
We paid the taxes.
And we relied on the city, and the City Council, and the mayors and all, to do the right thing with our neighborhood.
We usually went along with it and voted for it.
There may be some different votes this coming year.
I'm more concerned about a security issue of the access of car carriers that will be allowed to come down Lincoln, and the traffic that might be generated in that area.
We have a bus stop at the corner where the dealer is going to have access to his property on Lincoln, which is a residential street, and it was -- when this street was put in, it was a residential street.
Not a commercial type of street.
Like I say, there are school bus stops there.
And that should be addressed.
Getting out on the highway in the afternoon, it used to be two lanes.
Now we got three lanes on each side.
And in the afternoon, traffic is blocked up clear past that street from Himes and Dale Mabry.
The fact that the owners of the property now have agreed to put a wall along there, and I had asked if they would put some kind of diverting driveway in so as to funnel the traffic towards Hillsborough more so than down the side street.
But all those changes that have caused this to be open again for your consideration.
But I'd like to see that.
I'd like to see it be funneled towards Hillsborough, and the children's safety for a school bus stop there, this should be looked into it.
As far as the aesthetics of the dealership, I'm sure it will help the property out as it is now, because it's abandoned.
The drains have been plugged.
It's been breeding mo -- mosquitoes.
We have had some undesirables, that they take up residence in the old theater.
They were sitting out last night at a card table and couple of lounge chairs.
So that will help that situation.
So keep in mind the security of the area, the children.
I'd appreciate it.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: We've already done that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
Mrs. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question of the petitioner.
You're done.
>> Blair Kirland for the petitioner.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: How are you ensuring that the commercial traffic is all geared, oriented toward the dealership and won't go south on Lincoln?
Did you channelize the entrance on Lincoln?
>>> Blair Kirland: No, we have not.
Hillsborough Avenue will be the main access point, with the signage, and that is where -- to the extent that the applicant could have control of where the commerce come in and out, that they will direct them to go, to utilize Hillsborough.
Lincoln Avenue is a dead-end street.
So there really is in a reason for them to go -- it's not a through street.
So customers would, if they were coming to the site, they would -- if they didn't enter Hillsborough, they would enter Lincoln and go straight to the site the same as existing.
There's just no reason to go south on Lincoln.
And so we think the way the design will sufficiently address the issues.
And we have had a condition on the site plan which we have discussed at future hearings that there will be no test drives on Lincoln or the adjacent neighborhood.
The test drives will be conducted on Hillsborough.
>> Do you have some strict guarantees the car carriers will go south on Lincoln, make a --
>>> I don't think the car carriers are going to make a 3-point turn.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Isn't there --
>>> there's a condition on the record at the previous public hearing that the car carriers will come in on Lincoln through the site, circulate on-site, behind the building and exit onto Hillsborough.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I could have sworn there was some reference on the site plan to that.
>>> We limited the times of deliveries of the cars.
I would like to mention on the record, too, that the car carriers, the delivery to the site is an council thing.
It could be once a month.
It could be four times a month.
It not everyday delivery that another commercial type establishment would generate.
>>GWEN MILLER: Put on record --
>>> yes, at the meeting with the neighbors, the applicant agreed to construct a wall.
So I would like to put on the record what exactly they agreed to do.
The applicant agreed to construct a 6-foot tall concrete block and stucco wall on the eastern property boundary, south of the access point on Lincoln Avenue, which W shrubs planted on the east side of the wall, and it's all in lieu of the landscaping and the trees that are depicted on the site plan.
As you can see, landscaping depicted on the site plan that we submitted.
So this wall would be constructed in lieu of this planting.
Also, the applicant committed to the neighbors to construct an iron or metal fence on the eastern property boundary north of the access point on Lincoln Avenue from this point north, in lieu of the landscaping and trees depicted on the site plan.
Dipping ding move to close the public hearing.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Read it again?
Move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 3306 west Hillsborough Avenue, in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications CG commercial general to PD commercial general uses and vehicle sales and major repair, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
>>GWEN MILLER: One more time, back to number 11.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: I believe we worked it out.
We have all spoken.
The neighborhood people, the developer, transportation and myself went through the issues.
There was a note added underneath the expanded alley comment.
Because they did do, as you recall -- Elmo -- they gave us an easement to expand the alley to 20 feet for two-way traffic, I believe.
They are adding sidewalks to be installed on private property adjacent to the 20-foot alley and shall be privately maintained.
Lighting shall be installed and maintained by the developer and/or association to the IES standard, which is the illumination engineering society, and shall be illuminated from dusk to dawn.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close the public hearing.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to close.
(Motion carried)
Mr. White, would you read that one?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 319 south Bayshore Boulevard in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications PD 72 multifamily residential units to PD 140 multifamily residential units, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Question on the motion?
Mr. Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: This has been painful and arduous and no one at the end of the day I think got what they originally wanted but I think it's something everyone can live with, and I think that shows the process has probably worked.
Good job to everybody.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
I think that what we are ending up with is much better than what we start with, but I still can't support it because I still think it's too much density in this particular park but I think the design is vastly improved.
The pedestrian safety is improved.
And I hope that my concerns about traffic will not be borne out in fact.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, much the same sentiment.
My situation is here.
Mr. Smith, we dealt with you on your last project and I know I supported it.
And I think your company's reputation is obviously well respected.
At the same time, I have a friend, a good friend that was my friend before this, Mr. Gardner, during this and I hope after this, but at the same time I think Mr. Smith raised an issue a whale ago that's probably right to the core of this.
You called it maybe tongue in chief persuasive negotiating.
And because of that, and because of the problem that this went so far, I think things were given that perhaps would not have been on the table before.
I think certainly you have extended a lot of negotiating tools to the neighborhood, and I think you have done a good job in terms of representing what you represent and giving us the strong sense that you will be in our community again for more development.
I commend you for that.
And I hope you understand my sentiment.
At the same time, today, when transportation department came up with some of the issues that at least partially are involved with your petition, they talked about the fact that we really don't have a big problem, just peak hour difficulty.
But peak hour difficulty is still difficulty nonetheless for the residents next to you.
The long and the short is that unless this were no more intense or no more dense than what's there, I can't support it for reasons that I've stated, not to say that it should make sense for you because maybe the dollars are not there, but those number of units, and I understand business and I respect the fact that a developer has to have a bottom line.
At the same time, your neighbors at 345 Bayshore have gotten some concessions that if this was a quick deal straight through maybe that would not have happened.
We have made wonderful improvements.
You have been very cooperative.
The neighborhood has been very supportive of listening to both sides.
But, at the same time, I base my lack of support on this, on some testimony and some documents from Mr. Diaz, Ohio think is a very good traffic consultant expert, and his are different from the city.
So I wish you good luck.
It appears that it is going to pass.
Everybody has gotten something.
That being said I won't support it for the reasons I stated.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I've received numerous critical e-mails that I put into the record.
And two comments as related to those e-mails.
One, some of them say, well, you guys would give anything to this big company because they are big developers, and that sort of thing.
And then the other comment that was made in the e-mail was, well, this big developer has already developed one Bayshore, and they have two big buildings there, don't give them another one, you know, right around the corner.
Well, my problem is, in part it's a legal problem, because council will tell us that we have to will at each PD on its own merits within the four corners of the PD, and we can't evaluate it on who the developer is, and whether or not we like them, whether or not they are from out of state, whether or not it's some big corporation.
The on the thing we can't look at is we can't look at what they have done up the street, because that was a project that this council looked at a couple of years ago.
And that was a done deal. The mere fact it's the same developer doing it here, we can't legally hold that against them.
So I just wanted to state that on the record.
I think they have done a fair job of making concessions, to make this the best project it can be.
We have brought it down many, many, many floors from what the original proposal was, so it does not loom over 345 Bayshore, it will look eye to eye with 345 Bayshore.
And I think that's fair.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the floor.
All in favor say Aye.
>>THE CLERK: Motion passed with Saul-Sena and Ferlita voting no.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I want to remind council that it is several minutes afternoon, and council's rules do provide for the breaking for lunch for about an hour at this time. If council wishes to go forward, it can do so but it would require you waiving the rules.
>>GWEN MILLER: I'm asking to waive the rules to do number 12.
Waive the rules for number 12.
They have been here since 9:00.
We need to do that one.
A motion to waive the rules?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: How long do you anticipate this will take?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: We don't know.
Seven minutes?
[Motion Carried Unanimously]
Number 12.
>>> Good afternoon, City Council members.
My name is Jim Hosler with the Hillsborough County city Planning Commission.
I'm going to go through the quick portion or the short version of this presentation.
At first when I asked what the bottom line is that you received and file the west Tampa economic development plan.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>> I'm not going to get time to go through the whole thing.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We might do it afterwards if we have any comments.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I know for a fact that all the players in the development of this manual worked really, really hard, particularly Mr. Hosler.
I want to listen to his presentation.
But before we start that, I don't want that to be finality.
I don't know exactly what we are doing today.
Are we just accepting it or Watt?
Because in the brief amount of time I have had to look at it, I have some serious questions that would improve the already good documents.
So I guess I'm throwing this out there for somebody to give me some direction.
Mr. Hosler, you're going to present this.
>>> Right.
>>ROSE FERLITA: But I don't want to cut the efforts of what you and the whole group have done.
I want to talk about some concerns very briefly.
But we need to bring it back.
You have been sitting here all day and I appreciate the fact you waited.
Hopefully there weren't any conflict.
But once you finish, what is your expectation?
Because I want to go further with this.
You have worked hard.
Mrs. Alvarez has led the charge in terms of our council.
A good thing can always be made better.
>>> I totally agree.
>> So what are you expecting to accomplish today, Jim?
>>> What I had hoped was to have about 15, 20 minutes to discuss this with the council, if of course we are not going to have that amount of time.
I'm making the presentation to the same document to the board of county commission -- commissioners on Wednesday of next week.
I would like to tell them I have talked to City Council, it's been received and filed, and they may have some issues they want to bring back later.
But I have touched this base before I go to that base.
>> With the expectation to come back and elaborate more?
>>> I would hope so.
I was going to give you kind of the quick presentation and then come back later and do whatever evaluation.
>> It precedes a longer dialogue?
>>> I believe so.
This is the start of about a year's worth of work.
>> Sorry to interrupt you.
>>> If that's okay.
There's copies of the plan on the web site.
I want to briefly point out the study area to you.
It's to my left, your right.
The west Tampa economic development plan was requested by the mayor, at the behest of councilman Mary Alvarez, the west Tampa CDC.
The effort that we did and the public input that we had, the plan we came up with would not have been possible without the roughly two years worth of groundwork that was laid by the west Tampa CDC overlay district and the creation of the overlay district.
So I have to thank them.
I have I have to thank the mayor would. The people that have been waiting for this please stand up so they can see that you're here for this?
So you can see there is a lot of interest in this and a lot of things they would like to say, also.
So perhaps it can be brought back.
The idea was to move forward with this as quickly as we can, because the market is turning, and there's some things that I think we need to do.
When I say we or I, it means this plan.
So don't misinterpret me.
The goal was -- my goal is to document the west Tampa someplace special, an it deserves special attention.
That's the bottom line, from both City Council and board of county commission and the local governments.
The product is a two to five-year plan for implementing.
So there's nothing in here that should be expected to be done within the next three months six months or three or four months.
There are some things to do to try to have some initial success, focus on foundation, infrastructure, public policy towards zoning and land use.
We bring in the human foundations when it's an issue in the area, and in west Tampa it is an issue.
I want to talk about that very briefly.
But the focus is on small business development and providing them the foundation that is they need to develop.
First I want to try to convince but the value.
And put that one back for me.
I'm sorry.
I have several charts to show this same thing.
I'm going to show it to the board.
If you were to calculate the center of fluctuation for the Tampa metropolitan area, it's the intersection of waters and the Suncoast parkway.
Veterans expressway as it is there.
So this area is about four miles to the southeast of the center of population from the Tampa metropolitan area.
There's a quarter million people live within a five-mile radius of this area.
There's 25 major institutions within five miles of this area.
I show you all these maps and things I'm saying but I'm trying to document to you, this area has incredible economic value. The social problems, cultural problems, are huge problems in the area that have been there for a long time, but it also now has economic value, perhaps we can add that to the equation.
I want to talk for just a second about the human needs.
Obviously it has economic value.
Human needs.
We did a survey ahead of time.
Again there was a six-month public process that went into this.
I would like more time to talk about.
97% of the respondents to the survey said the area did need to be revitalized, household incomes 10% less than the cities, and one in four people, and one in four people live in poverty, below the poverty line.
Education issues, training issues, human workforce issues, language issues, life skills issues.
So on top of all of this potential there's a lot of infrastructure need, planning need and humid need.
I'm not going to go over the pictures.
I am going to switch this to get to the summary right here.
So I'm done.
While she's moving to that, let me show you one picture.
And this is the one to me that says why history is important, if we go to the Elmo for just a second.
This is a strike in the late 1800s in west Tampa.
Some people might call it labor unrest.
I call that black people, white people, people of all colors working together to improve their conditions.
That's the legacy.
That's the historical legacy of west Tampa.
These folks worked together, made their own city, and they took care of their own problems.
To some people that might feel that is a threatening picture.
Notice the hammer in the background.
To me that shows the example that west Tampa sets.
Going briefly to the summary, to my left, your right, this is the Tampa portion of a larger plan, and jurisdictions.
Again very briefly, this is what local groups have brought up.
A long-term commitment to code enforcement and public safety that supports economic revitalization, code enforcement should of course be affordable.
Can you all see that as you move closer?
Revisit the west Tampa overlay districts with special attention to the business, the commercial portion of it.
Let me put this on the Elmo, too, so you can see it on the Elmo.
Taking another look at the overlay district with special attention on the commercial and mixed use portion of it with emphasis on affordable and the encouragement of transit and pedestrian activity.
You might want to think about it.
If you look at the map 1 that shows the areas, the impact fee zone and the overlay district line don't necessarily add up.
If you're asking people to pay more to come in and develop in the west Tampa area and overlay district area it might be nice to have the impact fee zone lined up.
You could incent that.
Proceed with local historic district with emphasis on affordable and community driven conned to pursue the individual designations.
Loads and loads of transportation issues.
Just a little bit, had lunch in the bistro yesterday, if it wasn't a fatal accident close to fatal accident at the intersection of spruce and Howard.
The major public safety issue in west Tampa is speeding on Howard and Armenia avenues.
And if you look at what they have currently done on Howard, which is one of these pictures that I had -- I am going to go ahead and give it to you.
It's recently been restriped.
You notice on the right-hand side of the road there's plenty of room for parking, plenty of room on the other way.
This is Armenia going south of Columbus.
There's incredible width to Armenia.
There's a lot that can be done there to encourage parking.
And that can be done without a whole lot of money.
But transportation has to support, west Tampa, especially Howard and Armenia is a way to get through as opposed to support the appear.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: You know that we have been in talks with the county commission.
>>> Yes.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: And this was done by the county. The striping was done by the county.
It wasn't our transportation.
And so she's looking into redoing that portion again, because it's absolutely asinine what they did there.
>>> Thank you, ma'am.
You can say that on camera.
>> I will.
I'll say it again.
Absolutely asinine.
>>> But one question I was going to say, I was going to hold my questions till you finished but it's part and parcel of what Ms. Alvarez said. In terms of any kind of working partnership with the Board of County Commissioners, obviously, Howard and Armenia are county roads.
And what amount of dialogue has gone back at least in informing them and maybe having them look at it.
I know that it's a truck route now.
Maybe somebody the to take some action.
>>> I understand there have been some meetings on this, that they are aware of the issue.
I was until elevator yesterday.
I guess pat bean comes home every day, acknowledged the fact she might have to have a two lane road, only jokingly.
>> I understand.
>>> And the city has talked about doing finding money to potentially do a circulation study for the area, which is the first thing that needs to be done as I understand.
I guess one once that circulation study is done then the city would be ready to proceed.
>> I'm still confused.
We don't want to get somebody like two bodies being territorial in the way of having this done.
We haven't asked them, are they just at this point being aware of what we're doing and later we're going to ask them for some funding?
Or are they casually involved?
I'm not sure where they are, with where we are.
>>> Currently they are just aware and they are involved.
They understand that it's coming to them.
And that's, I guess, all I can say.
>> So then next week when you present this to them, if they say, Mr. Hosler, you met with council last week, what at this point do they expect us to be?
Active participant, observer?
What would you take back to them that they are giving you or not giving you?
I think it's important.
It's been a long time since this happened in west Tampa -- never, actually -- and I don't want it to get messed up for some ethical thing.
>>> I would say I made the presentation to council, city staff is working on it, that there have been meetings.
>> And I can only speak for me, and I'm certainly not trying to interrupt what Mary has tried to accomplish.
But from this council member, at least we can have the understanding when you go to them that we realize that they are the owners of the roads, and we are trying to do what's the best thing in terms of the two-way versus the one-way and those types of things.
Since to me this is just -- that's another thing I am going to ask my attorney.
I don't know what receive and file means and what we are doing when we are receiving and filing it.
But to me since this is not the final document, and although I haven't had the opportunity to talk to Ms. Miller, I want them to look at this and come back later.
And during that time, during that interim time, maybe we can better fine-tune what we expect our neighbors at the county side to help us with, so this is a win-win for everybody.
Am I making any sense?
I just feel like we are cramming this altogether now.
But there are so many things that need to be fine tuned, and those are some of the questions I have, that I don't want them to prematurely assume that what we. Done isn't something we want done.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Rose, I understand your frustration on this thing here.
But we have had talked with -- talks with Kathy castor, met with the west Tampa Chamber of Commerce, there are some people in the audience here I think, still.
We had people with the CDC.
We met.
We had people with the county transportation department.
We all met in the board of commissioners board room.
They know the issues.
It's just a matter of them getting their act together and come back.
That's where we found out that they were the ones who did the striping on this thing, without even consulting our transportation department.
So Cathy castor is aware of these problems, and they know that we want Howard and Armenia Avenue two-way streets again.
>> But Mrs. Alvarez, let me answer that and then you can continue.
My enthusiasm is secondary to yours.
And the county commission that you keep talking about is Cathy castor.
And someone, I don't know who, will replace her in district one.
And so I want to make sure that the rest of them, that potentially will be there after Cathy seeks her other office, are also included just from a matter of courtesy.
And sometimes if you include people, they are less likely to try to put --
>>> she has directed the county transportation departments and engineers, they were all there at this meeting, to look at the fees interest of doing it.
I mean, we have been keeping in touch with her office the last three or four times, I think like every other week I'm asking Desiree to call Cathy castor's office, and we just don't get really a good answer.
>>ROSE FERLITA: That's what I'm saying.
Might it not be a good neighborly effort for maybe you, as our point, to talk to the chairman over there and let them know that we expect great things, and we want them to be part of it?
Because Cathy castor will not be here.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Since this was I think early May we did this, and then June we went on hiatus, on vacation, and then July.
Now is probably a good time.
And I will take that.
>>> I'll briefly finish up.
I think I'm on 6.5 minutes.
The whole government land issue that you addressed for the City of Tampa, what the plan suggests is the city can serve as a catalyst for not just the city land in the area but the housing authority land, the school board land, there's oodles to use a technical phrase of government-owned land in west Tampa.
And one of the suggestions from the plan is the city perhaps convene some type of meeting of staff or meeting of whatever to take a look at this land, see if it's really needed, and address it on an area wide basis.
Workforce development, that could be up top.
There's no operator ordered here.
Support small businesses.
We are looking to start merchants association.
I say we.
The folks in west Tampa with your staff and the Planning Commission working as technical support.
And also from the city would be appreciated, which I know you are going to do, which is participate and help coordinate implementation.
And that's not very much.
That's only about I don't know how many hundreds of tens of millions of dollars.
But this is a plan that I suggest be reviewed in two years, which is how planning is supposed to work.
I would like to take a look at that.
I have to tell you looking around the country -- and this will be real brief -- I think we are losing ground especially on the transit issue.
As you serve as ambassadors on your words boards transit is very important in west Tampa.
We are not going to be able to get the intensities we like to have, be able to afford the building without improved trance I it.
I'm taking that message to the board next week also.
I'll be much more specific next week.
Other agencies with responsibility, Planning Commission, Hartline, MPO, Board of County Commissioners, and the school board.
The school boards paid about $1010 million in the last five years so they put a lot in.
Again they asked this be received and filed with whatever qualifiers you would like to put on that, just so I can tell the Board of County Commissioners next week that we met.
And the next public meeting on this for those watching on TV instead of eating lunch is August 25th from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at the Dr. Martin Luther King rec center on 2300 Oregon.
And I know that's your meeting nights.
But that seems to be convenient for people in the neighborhood.
So it's a neighborhood-driven thing.
August 25th is a Thursday.
Any questions?
I think I took eight minutes.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, and Dr. Fisher and all the members of the planning group out there for the work, and just a number of you worked very hard on this.
I worked on west Tampa 15 years ago, got me virtually nowhere.
I'm so pleased to see that things are moving, that council is committed to working with you.
I'm sorry we're in a time crunch right now.
But let's bring this back again for a longer conversation.
And in your list of people who need to work on this, throw FDOT.
Because the expansion of the interstate is going to be really important.
We need to make the pedestrian walkways underneath as friendly and safe as possible.
>>> Someone who isn't here -- the state reps have been involved from day one on this as has the federal -- bill Nelson's office has been involved.
Bill Alvarez has had to leave.
Yes, the bases have been touched but now will be touched harder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Jim, thanks for all of this.
I was reading through this yesterday.
When you talk about preserving the existing development pattern or whatever the words that have been used, we often get requests to vacate alleys or portions of alleys.
Would that be included in your notion of preserving the existing development pattern?
>>> The language preserving the existing development plan comes out of your existing west Tampa overlay district.
So that's where that wording comes from.
So I was attempting to -- I wasn't attempting.
I was following through with the attempt of the overlay district.
>> That we should try to preserve our alleys?
>> And the other question is, on this parking issue --
>>> Huge issue.
You huge issue for the redevelopment of these businesses and that sort of thing?
>>> Yes.
>> I saw you reference very, very briefly that perhaps when would develop parking and stormwater utilities.
I guess that's very early and preliminary.
But is that something we need to look hard at?
>>> The funding mechanisms, it's the same thing recommended for Ybor City, in the Ybor vision plan, was to look at funding mechanism for business tows pay for parking down the road, for parking facilities down the road, so if you have a nice mixed use, and numbers won't work on the parking is what's happening right there.
And I believe that from talking to folks in the area that pursued it.
You might lose that project and chase them someplace else if we don't address it.
That gets back to, will we be able to compete in 10 or 15 years if we don't address these issues now?
Because relocating 10, 15 years from now.
>> In other words, instead of just sort of willy-nilly giving waivers for parking, maybe give you a waiver for parking but you might have to pay a fee in lieu or something like that.
>>> Correct.
And is our staff already looking at that, do you know?
>>> I'm not sure.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I just want to thank everybody that was involved with the plan.
It was long and arduous, and Jim did a marvelous job in bringing this plan to where we are now, and I see Dr. Fisher in there, and Michael from the west Tampa CDC, and Bob Garcia from the west Tampa chamber, and all the residents that were there, John Rodriguez from the office, and everything was involved in this.
This was a labor of love.
People came together from all walks in the west Tampa area, because they really want west Tampa to succeed.
And it's their time.
West Tampa has been put on the back burner, too, too, long, and it's time for the administration, and I believe they are finally sitting up and saying, hey, you know, west Tampa has a lot to offer.
And we're going to do our best here.
And I have one year and a half to go and I'm hoping by that we can get some of these things implemented and going forward with it, because the last plan didn't, like you said, Mrs. Saul-Sena, it didn't go any I where.
Well, this plan is going somewhere.
So I think the mayor knows that we are serious.
She knows I'm serious.
And I'm seeing Mrs. Miller is here, she's shaking her head, so she knows where we are all coming from.
So I want to thank everybody.
And Mrs. Barrios is here, too, and Joe Robinson, of course.
Their all here.
Mrs. McNair.
I didn't recognize you with your hair down.
But this is a representation of the west Tampa.
I see Ed Turanchik and Teresa back there, too.
So they are all here that. Means they are interested and they want west Tampa to succeed.
I just want to thank everybody from the bottom of my heart.
Jim, thanks again.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you.
Mary, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that you have led the challenge here to get this on board and get it working.
And I think that this is definitely your signature project because you worked hard.
I think as we get to the end of our second term that's a wonderful focus that you're looking at.
Because of the hard work and all those types of things that have gone into it, all the players out here and there, I want to make sure that we make the very best product.
That's why when I was talking to Mr. Hosler about different improvements, I had some notes and I want to briefly share them with you because some of them have already been talked about, about the county participation.
I even went to ask even though this is not a CRA and I am not in any way form or fashion suggesting that west Tampa wants that.
Obviously they don't need that.
Here we are.
But there are a lot of similarities between planning, et cetera.
I was thinking that we want to be as strong as we can be and need to be as a council.
So out of either agressiveness or desperation or whatever, could we discuss this under our power of CRA?
He seemed to think since it was not a CRA area, although some of the issues again are the same, that that is not where we needed to take it.
The only reason I was thinking about that was in fact to give it more punch.
And I do have to tell you on a personal level, Ms. Miller and I have been friends for a long, long time, longer than she's had this job.
And I think, Cindy, you are a testament to that.
Don't think you need to reconfigure our power so that we force her to help us help her heme help them help west Tampa.
I think a better way to do that is to suggest to you some of these concerns, have a workshop, as Ms. Saul-Sena suggested, then once you digest what we have had to say, or what the power players have to add, that you come back in 60 days or 90 days and come back with even though this is a great product, maybe an even better one, and some of the headlines you have talked about, or we have talked about, and we can talk about them at length, we talked about the Howard-Armenia issue.
We talked about the parking that Mr. Dingfelder brought up.
And I think Mr. Hosler very carefully suggested in his notes that this does not have to include our City of Tampa infrastructure dollars, just some mechanism to make it work.
So we have to fine tune that because we do not want to lose development from going in there because of the parking being a problem.
And I think that's key to some of this stuff.
We see the generalities of the overlay district.
But obviously that too needs to be fine tuned in terms of impact free -- fee zones, in terms of making it work and making it more comprehensive for small business development, mixed uses, and a lot of different things we want as sources to go in there.
So we want to make it comfortable and reassuring, that that makes sense, that it works, that they can have some feeling of success as they join us in the partnership with west Tampa.
So those are just some of the things, Cindy.
And I think that we can elaborate on them when we bring it back as Ms. Saul-Sena has suggested.
And as always, things are worked on so hard for a year, and we have trade to say how wonderful it was in 35 minutes.
That's not good enough.
So if you work with us, don't think we need to have a power struggle.
We obviously know the administration is the administration.
We are legislative.
But look to my immediate right and you know that it's not only a body that wants to work, it's somebody whose heart and soul is it and we want to support what Mary has gone forward to do to make it better.
So I guess my request to you, my plea to you, let's forget about positions, and obligations, and titles, and please listen to what we're giving you in a very good, objective, critical arena to make the decision better.
That being said, I don't know what you have in mind.
>>> Councilman Ferlita, well accepted.
The mayor has already given me the charge that I'm to report back to her as to what our time line is and working with Jim Hosler and the community in order to see how things progress.
So I already have that requirement from the mayor.
So I will be very happy to share it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you so much, Ms. Miller.
And Mr. Hosler, I don't know where you are supposed to be but the county's loss is our gain for you being here.
This was wonderful.
And you're just as passionate as the rest of the players.
>>> Jim Hosler: Actually a root canal extension in 28 minutes.
Just from a procedural standpoint.
Just to remind council that rule 7-D, the action of receiving final document by the City Council shall not in any way be construed to constitute concurrence with or endorsement by City Council of a matter being received and filed.
From a procedural standpoint knowing the act of receiving and filing is just that.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Assaults based on that don't we want to do something liken doors it?
I think Ms. Alvarez should have that privilege.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe the request is to receive and file it.
And the issue is whether you want to have it for a workshop before endorsing it --.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I planned a workshop date.
Council set as a policy the first meeting of the month because we usually don't have a night meeting that time.
In October, which is the 6th at 1:30, that we set that as a special workshop on west Tampa.
So my motion would be that we have a workshop on west Tampa on October 6th at 1:30.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: Would you please ask, I guess, Mr. Hosler --
>>> I didn't get a chance to say this but if the Planning Commission accepts this and direct me to do what I am doing now, and I'm dedicating this for a year.
But still get it received and filed.
Is that part of the motion?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We did that.
Make a motion again.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I make a motion to receive and file the west Tampa economic plan.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>> Jim Hosler: Thank you very much.
I look forward to seeing you in October as will everybody else here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
We will now go into recess until 1:30.
(City Council recess at 12:35 p.m.)
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone here that would like to request reconsideration?
Anyone in the audience to speak on any item not on the agenda?
Then we will go to our committee reports.
Public safety.
Ms. Rose Ferlita.
(1:43 p.m.)
>>ROSE FERLITA: Move resolutions 13 to 18 with a quick explanation on 17, if I might.
TPD is entering into this agreement strictly because in any situation, not necessarily correlates, any place that's private property, they have to have this approval in order to enforce -- to have enforcement powers.
Nothing specific.
It's just one of those processes.
So that's it.
>> We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
(Motion carried)
Parks, recreation, Mary Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I move items number 19 through 22.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Public works, Mr. John Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I move items 23 through 36 with the exception of 34.
Substitution on 26.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>> On item 34 I'll let somebody else make the motion.
>>KEVIN WHITE: So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>THE CLERK: Dingfelder voting no.
>>GWEN MILLER: Finance Committee.
Mr. White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move 37 through 43.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry.
I want to make the record clear.
If you could do 37 and 39 through 43.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second, all in favor say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
>>KEVIN WHITE: I'd like to move 38.
>> Second.
[Motion carried]
>>SHELBY: And if the record will indicate.
>>THE CLERK: Mary Alvarez abstaining.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Number 38, Manny Alvarez, not only the spouse of Mary Alvarez, but served on the board for 15 years and now is back for more on the housing authority.
We appreciate his service.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you very much.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: One other thing, Madam Chair.
On item 43, this is sort of a public service announcement.
Item 43.
Stephani Busansky has been working on the freedom park for several years trying to get better equipment for accessible playgrounds and stuff.
And they are holding an event called the annual Tampa wheel a thon, first annual Tampa wheel a thon, 2005 to be held at McFarland park on the 17th, sounds like a wonderful event.
You can get with Stephani but San ski or the Parks Department.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'd like to move resolutions 44 through 66.
>> Second.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: With the exception of 56.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Already moved 56.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I didn't want to move them again, though.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Number 67.
Move an ordinance amending ordinance number 2005-161 adopted by the City Council of the City of Tampa on June 9, 2005 to correct a scrivener's error wherein the incorrect legal description is referenced, providing an effective date.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>CHAIRMAN: Transportation, Ms. Mary Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Dingfelder, do you still have any questions as to 69, 70 and 71?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Actually, I did, and I have talked with the administration about it.
I have asked them for a one-week continuance.
So I can get my questions answered, since I am the Hartline board member.
From this council.
I didn't hear any objection from staff.
So I would like to just pull those for one week.
Other than that I'm good with the rest of it.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I move items 68, 72 to 82.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>THE CLERK: 73 is a -- the first two are resolutions.
73 is a petition.
Move 75 through 82.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move 75 through 82.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: New business.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to continue 69, 70, 71 for one week.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: New business.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Set 75 to 82 as new business.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Item 83 continued for two weeks.
>> Yes.
>>> we have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
(Motion carried)
Now we go to our public hearings.
Anyone in the audience that's going to speak on any items from 84 through 87.
Would you please stand and raise your right hand?
>>THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: 84 is a continued public hearing.
Anybody want to speak on that one?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I believe there's a letter withdrawing.
>>GWEN MILLER: Withdrawn?
We have a motion to withdraw?
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Shelby, I know it's a withdrawal request.
Do I vote, not vote, what?
This is a conflict for me.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: (off microphone)
>>ROSE FERLITA: I'll do that for obvious reasons, not that it matters at this point.
I'll abstain.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second for withdrawal.
(Motion carried)
85 is a continue public hearing.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita abstaining.
Anybody to speak on that?
Ready to close the public hearing?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>THE CLERK: For the record, Saul-Sena and Ferlita voted no.
>>ROSE FERLITA: That's what I was going to ask.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance -- move to adopt the following ordinance on second reading, an ordinance providing for an area rezoning in the general location of which is 9207 north 27th Street in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-60 residential single-family to RS-50 residential single-family, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Okay, carry over.
>>GWEN MILLER: Continue to next week.
86 is a continued public hearing.
Anybody want to speak?
All right.
>>> I was going to say.
>>LAURENCE GOODRICH: Good morning but I'm going to say good afternoon.
Tim Shimberg, Jr., from Holland and Knight, North Tampa Street, representing the Kress square partnership.
I would like to hand out a packet to council members, if I could.
I have our project architect.
We are here again today with our plan to rezone and redevelop the Kress and the Grant blocks downtown.
We have considered the comments about height and mass of the building that were raised at the last hearing.
We initially looked at trying to move some of the units from the Grant block over to the Kress block.
The problem with this was the parking.
We couldn't really seem to make it work.
We couldn't fit any more units on that block without losing parking.
And that really didn't give us the ability to restore the Kress building which was the most important part of that block.
So that didn't really work.
We have also looked at height issues, met with the Tampa downtown partnership.
I believe they put a letter in the record, and Christine was here earlier.
She was on her way back.
We talked a little bit about with our executive board and other people in the partnership about what height was appropriate.
And it seemed to be the sentiment of the people that have been involved in downtown for a long time that as long as you're away from the river and you're sort of in the spine of things downtown that height was something that we wanted to encourage.
So we haven't changed the height of the project.
We have worked closely with the city staff during the last month to try to refine the design for the buildings.
Our project architect has been in constant dialogue with Wilson Stair and the city design department.
We have met with the city's administration.
We appreciate their support.
We have tried to work on the design to reflect greater definition between the base, the garage floors, the residential towers, set the tower back a little bit in relation to the base.
The city requested more detailing in the facade like the cornices, parapets and all of these requests were addressed.
The Kress base and tower are now treated differently, parapets and cornices have been added, we received encouragement from city staff on some of these changes which you can see in your package.
We made some changes to the design of the Grant building in order to separate the base from the tower, recessing the tower a little bit, treating the facades in a different manner.
We also have included some renderings of the ground floor.
We think the ground floor treatment on both of these projects is going to be very important in order to energize that area.
We think the additional residents that are going to be coming in are going to utilize the retail and restaurants and other types of uses we are going to make on the ground floor.
As I mentioned, we have some better pictures this time of what the ground floor of the project is going to look like.
Council members, this is a very good project.
It's very much needed in this area.
It will help redevelop this portion of Franklin Street, help the city's vision, creating a residential neighborhood downtown come closer to reality.
As highlighted in the vision plan, this is a prime site for redevelopment for high-rise residential.
We think this project will help the Tampa Theatre, will also send a message to all the other projects being considered along Franklin Street that this area is on the move and is on its way back.
Let me ask Jeanette Jason to make a few comments at this time, and Christine Burdick is here as well.
>> Good afternoon.
Jeanette Jason, Dohr and Jason group and Kress square.
I have my thoughts jotted down.
I can just read them.
Council members, thank you for this opportunity to come before you with this continued request for reconsideration towards the rezoning of the Kress and Grant buildings.
I'll demonstrate this afternoon why this project is worthy of your support and how it can be the cornerstone of revitalization of the north core.
For those of you who don't know me, I have been actively working as a downtown North Franklin Street brokerage specialist since 1986.
I have officed downtown for many years and was one of the co-founders of Franklin Street council in the early 1990s whose aim it was to bring together property owners and merchants in a grassroots effort to tackle issues important to downtown, and specifically North Franklin Street.
This was per the SSD which took over the many tasks which we have worked to organize area land own towers address.
Additionally my father and I were one of the first downtown North Franklin Street core investigators, having purchased the Newberry building in '94 and then the Kress, Woolworth building shortly after that.
I have been watching and waiting since 1986, almost 20 years for this area to take off.
We have hung onto a lot of vacant property for over ten years and explore countless developments scenarios waiting for development to be feasible.
I can assure you it hasn't been easy.
Feedback that we received from the city and the partnership and those we spoke with early on led us to believe this was exactly the project that Tampa wanted and needed.
Perhaps as a result, we didn't work as hard as we should have to meet with each of you before filing to address any of your concerns.
I have been working not just on this project but on downtown revitalization for so long that I took for granted given the other projects that have come before council that you would be in support of this project.
We want and need all of your support, and your perspectives are important to us.
I've heard council members concerns about height and density in this area downtown but I would ask you to consider the following: This area of North Franklin Street is in the heart of the urban core.
If density should be allowed anywhere, it would seem justifiable that it be permitted here.
There is precedent that should be noted in other projects both within downtown and outside of downtown in low density areas that receive council's approval for high density developments.
Some examples of which are worth mentioning include towers at Channelside, and outside of downtown the Imperial yacht basin project.
Both of which projects were approved by council against strong neighborhood opposition.
Many of those opposing the towers of Channelside project use the argument that Channelside is not downtown, and downtown is for high-rise development belongs.
To my knowledge, the Kress and Grant rezoning projects have not encountered any opposition. The reactivation of the vacant Kress building along with new residential developments on the sites to the Grant, Newberry and Woolworth could be the catalyst for redevelopment for Franklin Street, to ensure the continued violent of key venues like the Tampa Theatre and can encourage new small businesses to commit to the north core, and can provide daytime and evening visitors to performing arts center, art museum, Tampa Theatre and other downtown venues, creating mass and density in this area of downtown is what will help the local retailers and the local restaurateurs succeed.
(Bell sounds)
Most importantly, it will restore the historic Kress building which we have waited a long time to see realize.
Over half of the Kress ground floor space with its 28 foot ceiling heights will be utilized as public space and lobby entrance to the two residential towers.
As well portions of the Grant and Kress facades can be enjoyed by all of us.
Our plans focused on striking on the project below those of which most Channelside development versus occurred.
Our goal is to provide workforce housing.
With prices starting at 130,000 to 350,000, we hope to attract the downtown workforce as our residents.
I can understand concerns of too much mass, too much density, and height issues for projects outside of downtown or located downtown blocking water view corridors.
Where better to approve height and density though than in the core of downtown Tampa, and who better to approve it than a development which provides our downtown workforce the ability to afford living and working in downtown, thereby creating the 24-7 community that downtown desperately needs.
My father and I have long been committed to and investigating in Tampa.
We are not here to speculate and move on.
We respectfully request the support of each of you to allow this project to go forward.
Thank you.
>>JIM SHIMBERG: If we can hand those books back to Ms. Coyle, I guess we need extra copies for the official record.
We are happy to answer any questions.
We don't have anything else to add at this point.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I'd like to ask Mr. Wilson Stair to come up and talk to us about the concern that you had from the report about the concern that you had on the appearance of the facade, the parking garage on the Kress building.
>>WILSON STAIR: City of Tampa urban design manager.
In regard to the parking garage question on the Kress, they addressed it.
It needed to be integrated more with the architecture of the building, and kind of stood out and was emphasized a little too much.
So the architect did go back and address that question, and made it blend as well as it could be.
>> What about the Grant block?
>>WILSON STAIR: The Grant block, the architect did go back and make several changes to the tower to give it more streamlined look, which is better, rather than just windows punched into the trunk of a building.
But basically, where the most emphasis was, was looking at the ground floor level of that building.
And I can't emphasize enough how important energizing the street at ground level is with these type of projects.
And it's not just showing it as a retail, it's after they build the project, is actually using that space.
In other words, you don't look at it as filling the residential units, and not concentrating on the base where it's vacant.
We want active uses on the floor level.
Our urban design guidelines, the main emphasis, the foundation for it is the pedestrian.
Now we will look at high-rise buildings, especially in the context where they are next to a historic building.
I give the example of sacred heart church.
It may not be a historic building as such right now, but it's an accent to the downtown community.
The building that came in right next to it wasn't sensitive to that church.
I mean, set back the tower.
Where we have that situation on high-rise buildings, they respect the context especially if it's a historic building.
Other than that, our main emphasis is looking at the ground level and making it work, and giving it architectural interest, detailing, color, and making sure that we have store windows that are activated and inviting.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I have a question.
Is it Jennifer?
Jeanette, I'm sorry.
You said you want this to be workforce housing, and you said price between 130 and 350.
How many units -- one of the things that's vital to the redevelopment of downtown is getting people to live downtown.
>>> Right.
>> And for the true workforce of downtown, the 130 range would probably be the most amicable range to be in.
What portion of your development is going to be in the 130 or that mid to lower range?
>>> I don't know that I have the answer.
Maybe our architect could give a better idea because those are obviously going to be our smaller units, our studio units, and I don't know offhand.
>> Studio meaning 4 or 500 square feet?
>>> 600 square feet.
>> The so that's one person and a closet?
>>> Sorry?
>> That's a closet.
>>> a studio, yeah.
They are going to be the small units.
>> That's one of the things that concerns me more than anything, because it's affordable housing, but 6600 square feet, a studio, that doesn't strike me as -- unless market analysis is done differently, it just doesn't strike me as appealing to the masses.
And if you have studies -- or to the contrary --
>>> we don't have any formal studies that were done.
All indications to us are those are probably going to be the most popular units.
>> Well, entry level would probably be.
But I think when people see 600 square feet, you know, a one-car garage is more than 600 square feet.
Or thereabouts.
Mr. Shimberg?
>>JIM SHIMBERG: I was going to say, the studio, the smallest units are the studios, which are the 600 to 675 square foot units, which from what I understand from the developer, that's a good size studio unit.
Then there's one bedroom units and two bedroom units.
Probably 10 to 15% of the project is going to be at the lowest price range, and then they move up.
And I think Ms. Jason mentioned workforce.
She was talking about downtown workforce.
>> I understand.
>>> Right.
And, you know, clearly we would love to be able to give a bigger unit for the price, but --
>> That was my concern.
As the petitioner, you're coming before a council saying we're providing affordable housing for our downtown residents and our downtown workforce, and I guess what I'm really trying to get at is affordable, is it actually feasible?
If it's just -- for a single individual, maybe 600 square feet is -- I don't know.
My bed is 300 square feet.
But, you know, I just don't --
>> Way too much information.
>>JIM SHIMBERG: The people that want to live downtown are giving up size in exchange for certain conveniences and other benefits of downtown, and that's really what this project is based on.
People who will want to live in relatively small size units in order to take advantage of some of the other resources and attractions the downtown has.
The buildings have public space in other places where you can entertain guests.
And they have open space.
And so I know it's hard for us to visualize a unit that small.
But when we talk about having residential downtown, you may want to have Ms. Burdick from the downtown partnership address this issue awe little bit because she's looked at other downtowns and she's been focused in downtown residential, and what people are really looking for when they want to move downtown.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I guess I understand.
I guess the hardest concept for me to grasp is maybe even the single working -- a couple, just a starting budding couple.
We know that the affordable housing range, due to HUD's standards and everything else, has gone up to about the $130,000 range.
And I just don't conceive that.
I'm sorry.
But, I mean, not saying I won't support the project.
I'm just saying if you were going to have -- and I didn't see how 50% of the project was going to be supportive of $130,000, either.
Jeanette: That's a different distinction, I think.
>>JIM SHIMBERG: We were trying to make the T point this is more affordable than some of the other projects.
>>KEVIN WHITE: But affordable, I don't mean affordable as in low-income, but affordable at 130 is your average workforce and working class, and a beginning first-time homeowner.
That's what I mean by affordable housing.
But okay, we'll see.
>>GWEN MILLER: Another question from council members?
Mrs. Saul-Sena?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a copy of the new submitted drawings.
And I would really like to compare it to the drawings that were submitted at the public hearing we had a month ago.
And I wondered if either staff or the petitioner's file you can make that available to me.
I'm less interested in the ground floor drawings, and also the way the entire building looks.
Because I'm trying to compare what we have now with what we had then.
I want to see that it's gotten better.
>>JIM SHIMBERG: On the ground floor, the last pictures in the book -- not the last page but the last couple of pages, are what it was before, and then the earlier pictures.
Jeanette: There's one identified as outdoor cafe, the original storefront design.
And then we had some comments to change the floor plan.
So the one that's labeled as commercial entrance with were the modification that is were made.
>>JIM SHIMBERG: Those are the changes in the ground floor.
>>> You have a view of what would be outdoor cafe.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That was the previous.
>>> Yeah, the original.
And as you can see, it was a very start look, they were simple, they had no detail, they were not interfering with what I thought would be the desire.
So with the help of Mr. Stair -- and I want to emphasize that there is no project that cannot be improved with the proper criticism.
We developed a way of making those columns and those more attractive, leaving the round, simple, wrapping the aluminum column, and going into something with a granite base, and some more color with inserts, as you can see there.
So that is basically the change in the ground floor appearance.
>> They won't be reflective glass, will they?
>>> Only the upper level.
>> There will be doors.
It doesn't appear there are any doors.
It looks like just reflective glass panels.
>>> Jeanette: (off microphone)
>>> This is the entrance to the lobbies of the residential towers.
And I changed the canopy because.
As opposed to the storefront, where they will have canopies.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: You don't want doors?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I do want doors.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Just checking.
>>> Doors?
Oh, yes.
For instance, here, these are doors.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Some of the other pictures don't show doors.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm really serious, when you walk up Jackson street you walk up to office where is there are no doors on the entire street.
We have many examples of that.
And in our desire to activate, I just want to make sure these are really retail businesses that have doors, and people can walk into from the sidewalk.
Because you can see that there's a central door here.
But adjacent to that, it just appears to be reflective glass.
That's why I asked it.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Because that might be a shop right there.
>>> One of the corners of the building, that's a commercial space.
We have window displays on either side.
But then the make door at the canopy.
But there is a door here.
In several locations.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Are there any pictures of that?
>>> The developer may have one bay or two bays or three bays.
At this time we don't know exactly what the location of the doors is going to be except for those areas, like the lobbies.
>>JIM SHIMBERG: He's trying to show you the representative part what it would like look like without telling you -- we didn't put names of retailers and things like that.
It's premature for that.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Mrs. Saul-Sena, your unit will be a little higher.
We can't see it here.
>> You need to put your name on the record for us.
>>> My name is --
I am the record architect.
>>CHAIRMAN: Other questions by council members?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on this item?
>>> I'm sorry, I need to be sworn.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
I'm Christine Burdick with the downtown partnership.
I come before you frequently, and as always before, we don't speak specifically endorsing specific projects.
But I want to communicate to you how important projects like this are, and how they are exactly what we have been needing and wanting and talking about.
I have been doing it for three years.
You all have been doing it, I think, for ten.
The Jasons have been doing it for 12.
Projects like this will provide -- they are the proposed lowest price.
So they will be the most attainable that have been proposed right now.
It will allow our younger audience, the first-time unit buyers, it will allow the secretaries, it will allow the law firm clerks, it will allow people that right now don't have any prospect of living in downtown.
The height and the amount of people that these buildings will afford are going to contribute to 24-hour life on the ground floor.
Both from the previously established central business district land use plan, and our own vision plan, your and my vision plan that was completed earlier this year.
Things like the renovation of the cross block in an imaginative and respectful way that comes right out of the vision plan.
And it's more than we could have hoped for, I think, three or four years ago.
The opportunity to have retail that will be supported by these units, the retail space that will provide life at street level.
This is the Franklin Street dream.
And this kind of unit is what's going to make it happen.
I encourage support of this, and any other project that comes before you that will allow all of these things that we and you have put forth from your land use plan up through the action plan that we put together earlier this year.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Would anyone else like to speak?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask a question?
I would like to ask a question of Mr. Stair.
I believe part of the understanding is that you will go back and take a look at the drawings at 30, 60, 90%.
>>WILSON STAIR: That's correct.
Including the final.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If you say to the petitioner that there needs to be additional detailing, that there needs to be better -- I mean, what we have here is very general.
>>> Yes.
>> And it's not -- it not specific as to materials.
It's not specific as to the scale of the detailing or entryways or anything like that.
Will you be able to tell him and will he have to do what you say in terms of making sure that it's a high quality pedestrian experience?
When they go for a certificate of occupancy, we have to sign off on it.
And we're different than a lot of other cities in that even when they are in construction, we have the right to go out and inspect the project and make modifications, if it does not meet the intent of what we established to do.
But to answer your question, yes, we will work with the architect and make sure that there are any number of entrances to especially the Franklin side of the building, so you're animating the street, not just having a -- there will be nonreflective glass and that the materials will definitely be upscale enough.
I think what they have come in with a generic look at how the base can be treated.
But they will also have to work with different retailers.
And they may have different looks as you go along.
We'll still main taint the continuity.
But in the end, we will have the final approval at certificate of occupancy.
>> Do you think the plan given today gives you enough detail to allow you to be -- to demand a high quality pedestrian experience?
Do you think there's enough in here to back you up?
>>> Yes.
And I'll follow through.
And they have provided our urban design guidelines and standards.
And I've had any number of discussions with the architect, and they understand that that has to be detailed out.
Even to the point of hiring a storefront design group, they have to make sure that we maintain the visual quality and the look for the exchange for the height.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions from council members?
Ready to close the public hearing?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second to close the public hearing.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I just want to put on the record that I stand by what I said about the height on this project, because I still think it's a little bit too high.
But I am going to reserve the right to look at other projects that come on Franklin Street.
I'm going to support this because I think this is what will jump start the development on North Franklin Street.
But that doesn't mean that I will not look at the others as it comes on.
I don't want the idea that we were going to have a tunnel effect on Franklin Street, because I think a two-way street is just too narrow to have same type of buildings on the west side.
So I will support this.
But it doesn't mean that I'll support it the next time it comes around.
I just want to do this because I think it's -- this will jump start the development that's going on or will go on, on Franklin Street.
So that's my stand on this right now.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Shimberg, I would like to have a very respectful conversation with you.
How is that for starters?
>>ROSE FERLITA: And please take what I'm saying in terms of how I am saying it.
Not to be critical.
Not to be derogatory.
Not to be any of the above.
I don't remember, it was a few weeks ago when we discussed this.
And I think my colleague to the left or right, Mrs. Saul-Sena and Mr. White, had some conversation busy this, I believe it was Mrs. Saul-Sena, and she said, could we approve part and not the other part?
And we all recollection that and of course you couldn't for the legitimate explanation that you gave and I accepted that.
And I think Mr. White was asking for a continuance to discuss some other things.
And I think at the point kind of tongue in cheek if I remember correctly, I said, you know, Mr. Shimberg, we didn't get to where you wanted to be and you rolled the dice and you lost so here we go again.
This is strictly speculative on my part, but somebody had enough influence to have the Tampa Tribune editorial board somewhat scold us, because we had some reservations.
We weren't comfortable, we meaning the three that were the dissenting votes, and I think that's always the case, if you think a project is good but can be better, ask you the petitioner's representative to hold off a little bit or we make you hold off a little bit that. Doesn't necessarily mean that any particular council member, specifically me, is against a project.
For those of us who were raised in Tampa, we know that it's a treasure and jewel and that Kress building ought to be revitalized.
And I think that's commonly generically accepted because that's a wonderful thing for what we in the administration are trying to do downtown.
But the fact is the editorial board came out strong against us the first time, and again I believe today.
And I don't scold easily when I feel like I want to vote appropriately, and I can't do that until I'm fully satisfied that we have gone the full gamut to make sure that the product may be good, but if there's opportunity for to the be better, then I want to wait.
And I'm going to listen.
And then I am going to be supportive.
I don't want to be a barricade or whatever the Tribune said we might be.
To the extent that even the Tribune editorial board suggested that the mayor lobby us, which the mayor did, and I want to put that on record, not in a rude way and not in a bossy way, not in a bully way, but she did ask me if I had a problem with this and I immediately asked her not to continue speaking about it because I didn't think that was appropriate.
So we come to today.
And because of Mrs. Saul-Sena's concerns we have yet a better project.
And if I had somebody on my side, I would pick somebody like your record architect that I believe, I'm paraphrasing what he said, he said there is no project that cannot be improved with or because of criticism.
We saw that just twice today, in the project on the Bayshore.
Everybody came together.
Not everybody won.
Not everybody lost.
We got a better project.
Same thing with the car dealership.
The neighborhood spoke.
The petitioner was willing to give up more concessions.
Everybody won something.
So I want that very clear.
And it doesn't matter because the Tribune is certainly not going to retract what they think of us or what their ideas were about what we were doing or not doing.
But just because we are contemplating in our decision doesn't mean that we're supportive -- not supportive, or we're anti-development downtown.
Because I certainly can speak for myself, and I am absolutely not.
So I'm happy that we are where we are.
And I think that the project is yet a better project.
But you can understand or I hope you understand, on behalf of who you represent, that sometimes we have to make sure that we are right where we need to be.
Mr. Stair talked about the design guidelines, urban design guidelines.
Ms. Burdick talked about what we need downtown.
We all know we need to revitalize downtown.
I don't think that's anything that any of us want to stop.
Our opinions will differ one to another but I think we are all supportive of that development.
That started long before this administration and I hope it continues after this administration, because downtown is downtown.
It should come alive again.
But, you know, at the same time we had a conversation similar to this at another juncture, not to be included in your evidence or in your project, when that same gentleman, Mr. Stair, said that it's a challenge to decide when the scaling down is enough scaling down.
And I remember -- and I will remember it as I'm on this council and long after that -- that when we talked about scaling down versus scaling up on the Trump Tower building, I thought that was totally against our downtown guidelines.
So I voted against it.
So all I want to tell you is, I am going to support this today because I think it's a better project than it was before.
And because of the fact that we have had some dialogue, and that's good.
That's healthy.
Because of that dialogue, something comes up that perhaps you would not have been feeling you had to offer, or the person you represented might not have thought about it.
So it's not retaliatory, it's not bucking heads, eights all about let's get the right thing going, because if we don't, just today, just today in the tribune or the times, I don't remember which because I read both, we talked about a couple of projects in the Channel District.
They are thinking of pulling out.
So we want to make sure, A, we save those wonderful buildings downtown, that many of us grew up with.
It was a heyday when we could go downtown and go to the Tampa Theatre, go to the Franklin jeweler, go to Maas, go to Kress, go to Grants, go to Woolworth's.
And I'm happy that we have the ability to reborn them again.
So I think that you understand where I'm coming from.
And I am supportive.
And I want you to understand and your petitioners to understand that the reason I didn't before was because I thought we had a better project.
And as a courtesy to Ms. Saul-Sena, all we were asking was to wait.
Not to vote against it but to wait.
We have.
We're here.
I'm supportive.
End of my editorial.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other council members?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
I think that what we have before us today is better in terms of urban design.
It's still not terrific.
I mean, not by a long shot.
It's a little better.
And based primarily on the commitment or the persuasiveness of the downtown partnership, who are trying so desperately to give us a 24-7 downtown population, I will be supportive of this.
The reason I asked Mr. Stair so many questions is because, to be candid, I'm still not thrilled with this.
I asked for you all to come back with something that was thrilling.
This is not thrilling.
This is better than last time.
We are going in the right direction.
But when he reassured me, when you come back for permitting, we will have several more opportunities with the city to make sure that what is done on a pedestrian level is high quality.
And frankly, even though you have owned this property for 20 years, nothing has happened in 20 years, because I've been here as long as you all have, and I have been waiting and thinking, please don't let it fall apart before something happens.
And I'm thrilled that something good is going to happen to the Kress building and that something will happen here.
I'm concerned about quality.
I so hope that what is built here is very high quality, because frankly it's going to last for at least 50 years, and if it isn't high quality, it will make us feel terrible when we go past it.
If it's good, it will elevate us.
I think the people it's bringing down are good.
But I think we also have a responsibility to make sure that as our city grows that the quality is built in, and it's a question of materials, thoughtful design, relationship to the other structures in the neighborhood.
And I really encourage you to think very carefully about the design of this as you present your drawings to the city.
And I know that our urban design department will think carefully about them as they review them.
With that, I am prepared to support this today.
I'm not really comfortable with the height.
You all have convinced me that you needed to make economics work.
And I want there to be workforce housing in downtown.
But I feel like we are extending ourselves to support this.
You need to make sure that what's built is high quality.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Ferlita, would you read the ordinance, please?
At the bottom.
Number 86.
Bottom of 86.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I'll be glad to.
An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 901 North Franklin in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications CBD-2 to CBD-2 high-rise multifamily retail restaurant, providing an effective date.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion carried.
Item 87 we need to open.
>>ROSE FERLITA: So moved, Madam Chairman.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to receive and file.
>>GWEN MILLER: Move with to withdraw.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Moved and seconded to withdraw number 87.
(Motion carried)
Let's go back and clean up unfinished business number 4.
Letter from Bonnie Wise.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Still working with Jim Stefan on that. The two days are Thursdays that they are requesting.
Madam Chair, these dates do not have to be a Thursday.
So I just don't know what dates would work for other council members.
If we do it these two dates, there will be four evening meetings in the month of September.
Four Thursdays.
We can either go ahead and vote on those days and set the public hearings for those days, or if each council member needs to check their calendars, we can hold this off until this evening, one of the two requested dates.
These are Thursday evenings.
September 15th and 29th.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I personally think of Thursday as council day.
And my Thursday evenings are more open than like, say, Wednesday evenings or Tuesday evenings.
>>GWEN MILLER: How about Saturday?
>> Not Saturday, no.
Thursday is City Council.
So I prefer having them on Thursdays than another evening.
I guess maybe I didn't understand what the other kinds of days.
What other days are there?
We have to do them in the evening, I believe.
>>KEVIN WHITE: In the evening.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is your suggestion we do them before a zoning meeting?
>>KEVIN WHITE: That was the T question before, before the budget staff that was proposed, and I said the budget hearings don't normally take a great deal of time, and we were dealing with notice issues, which were okay, except for petitioners that were on continuances for that length of time.
So I think we're going to run into an issue there.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do it on zoning night.
We have people for zoning night that want to weigh in on the budget and we'll be here a long, long time.
The budget probably won't be finished when they get in here.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I don't have a problem with -- what's another two night meetings in a month?
And it's not going to take that long.
The budget hearings are not that long.
So I'm willing to sacrifice the 15th and the 29th.
>>KEVIN WHITE: If that's fine, we'll go ahead and move that and then vote on it.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I move it.
I make a motion we set the budget hearings for the 15th and the 29th.
At 6:00.
>>KEVIN WHITE: 5:30.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: This is a non-regular meeting.
I don't know what I have as applies to the office.
If we have something that can be rescheduled, fine.
If not, it will reflect nonattendance.
>>KEVIN WHITE: One thing, it all depends on the length of these meetings.
I guess -- I didn't quite remember how long we were last year but it depends next year to avoid having four in a particular month.
When we are setting up council calendar.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Didn't this have something to do with the Board of County Commissioners?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Yes, ma'am. The county and the school board gets the first two dates.
And we get stuck with the leftover, whichever dates they don't pick, we have the leftovers.
And those are the only last -- those are the only last two days that were available, or within that time frame.
They can be any day within that week.
But those are the only two weeks that they are available because the budget has to be adopted by the end of September.
So we were on kind of a time crunch.
>>THE CLERK: You have a night meeting --.
>>GWEN MILLER: Every Thursday in September.
>>THE CLERK: You set one today earlier.
>>GWEN MILLER: Item number 5, we need to make a motion to continue that for 60 days.
We didn't vote on it.
On the agenda.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Oh, that's the one that David Smith was here.
>>GWEN MILLER: But we didn't vote on that.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to continue for 60 days.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Number 7.
Do we have anything on that, Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We got a letter requesting a 30-day continuance to the last meeting in August.
August 25th?
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
All in favor say Aye.
(Motion carried)
We cleaned up.
Now workshop.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to receive and file all document.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Being that we had some discussion, and it didn't seem to go anywhere, I'm inclined to withdraw the discussion.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, no.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I think it's a nonissue anyway.
I would have supported it if we wanted to do that.
But my sentiment is there are always term limits in place.
If the voters think the legislator is not doing a good job they term limit them out. If they want to add to the position then fine.
It doesn't matter to me.
If the voters don't think the mayor is doing a good job she's out anyway.
I thought you said you wanted to withdraw.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm withdrawing it.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I heard the word inclination.
My question is whether an inclination constitute add motion to which council provides a second it.
It appears that council voted.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Inclinations, thoughts, perceptions.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: The inclination to not discuss the term limits for council, but we could discuss the term limits for the mayor.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I thought the motion was dump the entire conversation.
>>KEVIN WHITE: That's what I was seconding.
>>GWEN MILLER: He seconded it.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Then I started laughing.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Said the record straight.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: You folks just moved very quickly.
>>ROSE FERLITA: He's declared for county commission.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Excuse me.
I was about to question whether an inclination constitute add motion.
Then there was a second to the.
Then it was presented to council for a vote which was taken.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Did we vote?
>> We were inclined to.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just give a clarification on what you were doing.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just as an aside, it's humorous but it's also very serious, that when we do motions, I would prefer that we clarify what the basis of the motion is, and we slow it down just so that I can be able to avoid this happening.
And I apologize to council, it happened so quick.
I don't mean to make light of it.
But it's the kind of thing where we have a situation where we need to clarify what the maker of the motion's intention was.
>>ROSE FERLITA: We need to be slow about that stuff because I'm still thinking about the 300 square foot bed that this guy has.
So we ask you what your intent was or your inclination of your motion.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Not to go forward with either one.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Second the motion.
To --.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: To withdraw the workshop as part of this council discussion.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We will vote now.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Did you get all that?
>>ROSE FERLITA: And my comments in the meantime stay the same.
Doesn't matter.
If we want to go forward, if we don't want to go forward, the voters decide anyway.
So it doesn't matter.
>>GWEN MILLER: From information from council members.
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Of course, we all know sadly enough that Mike Bennett left the city, move we give him a commendation.
>>ROSE FERLITA: He might not want to come back for that.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think he's done a great job.
>> Me too.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And he deserves a commendation.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: I want to add to his comments, second generation done well and he learned under David Tippin, and that says tons of stuff.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Two good public servants.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anything else?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll bring it back at a later date.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Last Wednesday night, I attended the public hearing, the second public discussion we had about the location of the art museum.
It was really well attended.
In fact it was standing room only.
And John was there, too, among many other people.
And it was a really lively discussion.
I don't think it was televised but anyway a really lively discussion of different locations.
And one of the things that wasn't actively discussed there was what council's role in the ultimate location of the art museum would be.
And I just want to make sure that we are active participants in this.
And I know that right now there isn't a clear process.
But as the process involves, I think it's important, because council ultimately has disposition over the CIT money according to my understanding and disposition over city land.
So what I would like to ask Mr. Shelby to do is to research exactly what council's role is in those areas, and report back to us in 30 days.
Because I think that we're an important part of the conversation.
And I think that it's really critical that we, as a vehicle for hearing from the public and making sure that the public is involved, that we weigh in.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I agree with you, Ms. Saul-Sena, but you and Mr. Dingfelder were there. Were you there as members of the council?
Or were you there as participants to the discussions?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was there as a former museum employee.
I was.
Before I was on City Council.
As a citizen.
And as a former urban planner, as a person who feels like this is such a critical decision.
And I think that it's important that council plays a role in this decision making.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I think the mayor does a good job about informing us of everything that she's doing.
If it's not her -- so, you know, I don't know.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The motion is to ask our attorney to explore two issues.
The first issue is, what is council's role in disposition of $21 million in TIF funds?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: It comes to us.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yeah, it comes to us.
But it's a process.
I would like to be -- I want to be a participate in the shaping of it.
It's kind of like if it's a vase, I want to be there when the ceramic wheel is going around helping form it, not just purchasing from the shopkeeper.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: What if you were our representative of?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'd love that but I'll bet other council members would similarly like to.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, I think it has been well documented that Ms. Saul-Sena thought we should take a lead role in this because ultimately it does come to us, and I applaud you for what you have done and some of the stuff you have been out there speaking about loud and clear probably had some effect on the changes that were made or some of the decisions that were made.
And I agree with you and disagree with Mary, with all due respect, that we are kept informed by the mayor, but that means we are informed by the mayor when she wants, and based on what mechanism she wants.
I think we have a wonderful relationship with Janet and Ellen but I would rather be informed about this before I read in the their column.
I don't think at this point I have to define what my position is other than I concur you and support what you are saying and let's see what Mr. Shelby, our attorney comes back.
I think we need to be here at the front and not the end of this, because it's A an important thing.
Ultimately when we cast those votes, regardless of where the mayor wanted it to go, the museum board wanted it to go, we take the hit.
So you want all your data here.
Remember I asked public records last time and got criticized by some of my colleagues.
But we need to have as much as we want, whether we have the time or not, Mary, at least that opportunity should be afforded to us.
And I think Linda is going in the right direction.
And I applaud you and I support you for doing that.
And that doesn't mean that your position on the next time or our position is going to be contrary to the mayor.
We all want this done.
I think that was the generic sentiment when the old version was stopped.
We want the museum.
We want to get it done.
We want -- everybody gives, everybody takes, everybody gets something.
The longer this takes, the construction costs continue to rise.
So if we have any mechanism to speed it along, I think we should be involved.
I mean, I know we should be involved.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It is kind of interesting, because a lot of times especially in this type of project, sometimes I feel like we have less.
Sometimes the public gives input into the pros sees but we are not asked to give input, as Kevin said, until the very end of the Dale when the vase is ready to be purchased, then we just give a Aye or Nay.
And who knows the ramifications of that?
So I tend to agree especially on these very major issues.
And I said this originally when we were talking about what we should do with the old courthouse, two years ago.
I said, why can't council be more involved in this, in this front end?
I think the armory is another example of a major project that council could be more involved in on the front end.
>>ROSE FERLITA: The irony of that all is that whole concept and idea about the courthouse came from a former colleague, and then went someplace and never came back until, you said, the very end.
So I think we're saying it in different ways.
But I think we're all agreeing.
We just want to be asked to be a part at that table.
>>GWEN MILLER: Did we get a second?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'll restate it.
My motion is we ask our attorney Mr. Shelby to research two items: The first is the role of council in the $21 million that's been dedicated to build a new Tampa Museum of.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Stop there.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And I'd like to move that we ask Mr. Shelby to research council's role in the location of any building on the park on the river, Curtis Hixon Park.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And just research that?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That and other city land.
I mean, isn't it our decision about agreeing to instruct -- construct a building on city lands?
>> Park land.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Parkland.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let me see if I can state it more clearly.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: If I may interrupt.
I don't want to take anything away from Mr. Shelby, and he's free to research all of this and report back to you.
Any sell or lease or disposition of city land has to be approved by City Council, especially dedicated park property.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's way thought.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Isn't there a threshold?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: We cannot legally enter into any contract.
We would have to, if we are going to sell or lease city-owned land without approval by City Council, regardless of the numerical or dollar threshold.
Now if it's a dedicated park, there are requirements over and beyond just having a contract approved by City Council, where you have to have a public hearing before City Council on that issue.
That has to be noticed just as if it was a rezoned public hearing, to allow more public involvement.
Because the parks are more sensitive in that regard, and our ordinance requires a mandate.
We cannot sell city park property without a referendum of the voters in the City of Tampa.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, excuse me.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Again, perhaps one of the things you may want to do is get reports from the administration as they come in, like how they are going to get through this process.
That may be a way to do that.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's an excellent suggestion.
>>GWEN MILLER: Withdraw your motion?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I withdraw my motion and reconfigure to a report from the administration, let's say 45 days, on what the process for figuring out what an appropriate location for the Tampa museum will be and what council's role will be in the process.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: May I chime in?
I have a concern of council asking the administration to report what council's role ultimately -- maybe what it sees council's role as being, which is different from what you asked me to do, which is to research the options that council has of getting involved in the process.
At least that was my understanding.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That was my intent.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: And that's why I'm unclear.
And I have no problem with whichever direction you want to go.
But it sounds like it's two separate things that you're asking.
And I was concerned if you were asking the administration what its opinion of council's role is in the process.
Of course I'll respond with the administration, work with Mr. Massey, not only the information I can to get council the background to know what its options are and work with the administration in that regard.
I just want clarification because we were asking two separate things.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My intent, there would have to be some kind of process, and that I want council to have the opportunity to be involved in the process in a formative way.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Early on.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: A workshop?
The administration --.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, I want it to be something that the museum board and the administration would participate in.
Right now I don't think -- I think everybody is trying to figure out what the next step is, what's an appropriate process.
>>GWEN MILLER: What you're saying, you want step by step what they are going to do, if we are going to buy this property, you want City Council to know --.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, I don't want them to buy this property and let us know.
That is a key difference that. Is passive.
I don't want a decision to be made --.
>>GWEN MILLER: If they are thinking about something.
>>GWEN MILLER: You want them to come to City Council, we would like this property over here.
What I want is if we are going to work -- if we are going to work with the downtown partnership and a planner, I want to know if that's the process.
If there's going to be a mediator between the museum and the administration, who is going to propose certain prices? I don't think right now anybody figured out what the process is going to be.
Whatever it is, I want council to be an active participant.
I would be happy to be a representative.
But I think that most council members are so interested that we would all like to be part of the thinking process.
>>GWEN MILLER: You could come back and report to the council, you or a representative, and you could keep up with what the process is.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Excuse me, I think Linda is more than happy to that ta that role.
At that time she doesn't want to take the same role away from some of us.
No, listen.
I think we have seen a council person's response when your feathers get ruffled because at the last minute you're told about stuff and that's generically across the board.
I think what Linda is saying, and as I have been requested so many times, we can't request, we can't demand, we would ask that from the inception that administration let us know what they are thinking so we can have some dialogue, we can get an idea of what they're thinking about, and at the same time they can get this council, in a very nice, diplomatic way, to let them know what we're thinking, not wait till the 11th hour and say here it is.
I think it's a very civil thing to do, to tell us early on what they are thinking about.
If it's a possibility that goes away, then fine.
Fits something that's a real viable suggestion, give us the opportunity early on to weigh in on it so that we know what the administration is thinking, they know if we are going to be supportive or not.
It is almost so simple that it's hard for you to put it in the appropriate ways as a motion.
It shouldn't even have to be a motion.
It should be, look, administration, we have had some problems with the way this has been done.
Allow us the opportunity that you allow every single individual citizen to come to you and say, Pam, we don't like that, or yes, we like that, or walk with me, let me show you that.
All we want to do is be treated at least at the same level as any regular citizen in terms of input.
Ultimately, after that input is mix add round, the administration has to take the lead.
I think that's the role of the administration.
But at that point, there will be no surprises for this council.
We will know from one section to the next section to the next section where they are about what they think.
And that's it.
All we are saying is allow us to have input, allow us to be at the table, whether it's in the person of Ms. Saul-Sena or it's open to all of us, just give us the opportunity to weigh in.
Then you will know before it comes down to the nitty gritty about voting, what we think and what we don't think.
And it's a funny thing, it's a wonderful thing, when ask you for inclusion, people feel like it's their project, it's our project, it's the administration's project.
Everybody wants, because this has become such a big deal from beginning to end, change of administration, change of location, change of opinion, energy and passion from the committee, at the museum.
Give us the opportunity to be just one of those players so that everybody has the opportunity at the end to feel real good about the fact that we had some active participation.
And then we take our role as the legislators, Pam takes her role as the chief, and there we go.
But just change the mechanism a little bit so we feel real good about what's going on.
That's it.
I understand what you're saying.
Don't even know why we need a motion.
I think we have just said --.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We don't.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'd like to add her to be our representative on this issue.
From a practical/sunshine perspective, I think the mayor is going to have a hard time, you know, coming in and talk to all of us, especially in a public setting, because, you know, she might want to just sort of deal with Linda one on one as opposed to out in the sunshine.
Because a lot of stuff, she doesn't necessarily have to deal with the T sunshine.
>>ROSE FERLITA: But, Mr. Dingfelder, if some of those meetings are held out in the sunshine with Linda there and they are noticed, does that not give us the opportunity when we want to, to attend as well?
But if Linda is our point person, at some point, then she can come back and officially report to us at appropriate intervals.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would you put that in a motion?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: If she so desires.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I move that she --.
>>ROSE FERLITA: As long as, Ms. Saul-Sena, if we want to attend, we can be there as well?
It's like you have to and we might.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There's this phrase, (Spanish) altogether.
I feel this needs to be a collective embraced decision.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Another Italian saying but I don't think this is the time.
>> I have one, too.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Can we have a vote on that?
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I have a request of council.
With council's permission, I would like to assist Ms. Saul-Sena in that process.
If she needs any support to be able to have support staff.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: In response to his suggestion, Marty, it almost should be that we should ask you not to attend something instead of attending.
I think you should attend everything you possibly can without getting overloaded in terms of agendas and projects and all those type of things.
And sometimes I think that goes unnoticed, because in my mind it's like, but of course our counsel would be there, because I noticed even today in cases that you did not weigh in on, we didn't ask you to, but my hesitation was because you weren't at the table in the first place.
That is something that this council needs to learn for this term and for the terms to follow.
Because I suspect your involvement is as good ongoing as it is now, that this council and the next will have an opportunity to benefit from your participation.
So we and they should learn to engage your participation in everything, and include you in everything, and take you with them.
Because this is the crown jewel for this City Council.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Alvarez, any information?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Just one bit of information.
On the Tampa Bay regional planning council, we are going to have a workforce housing symposium sometime in October.
And I'm collecting names now for this symposium to be held somewhere, I'm not sure.
Because this thing about workforce housing is just not Hillsborough County issue, it's really a regional issue.
Manatee County, Pinellas County, Pasco County, and Hillsborough will be there at the symposium.
And I think it's very, very important that -- and we are going to have a lot of people from the administration, from the housing authority, just a lot of people coming to this thing.
If you want to be invited, just let me know and I'll turn your names in.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Ferlita?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Couple things. The leadership code enforcement asked that I make a motion to present a commendation to enforcement officer Marco Peterson in helping TPD in arrest of a violent criminal.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: Gayl, I don't know exactly when it will be.
I'll check to see when the individual is able to attend.
Second thing is, I have been asked to present a commendation to officer Gene King and representative home an for the this past legislative session, commendation to be presented if possible Thursday, August 25th at 9 a.m.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: That was not from the standpoint of any kind of partner.
I can go into those details when we present it.
That's all I've got.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have Cynthia Miller would like to come before council August 4 to present the City of Tampa chapter 5 revisions.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What is chapter 5?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Chapter 5 is the building code.
I was wondering if that was chapter 3.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Three, five.
>>GWEN MILLER: It's 5.
Sorry, but it 5.
Is it supposed to be 3 or 5?
Chapter 5, revisions.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: The question I have for council, I understand it going to be presented to council.
Does council intend to take action that day or just for a presentation, and then setting it for the future?
>>GWEN MILLER: Just a presentation.
It doesn't say.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Understood department heads.
>>GWEN MILLER: She's going to do a presentation.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: My experience would show it would be more than a 3 mint discussion for revision to chapter 5.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: The legislature is requiring some mandatory changes to the building code.
And so that may be part of this.
And council could not take action anyway because it's part of our Land Development Code and would have to go to land development before you take action.
She's probably going to tell what you the proposed changes are, describe them in general to you all.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: That's exactly what she said.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
I have two --.
>>THE CLERK: Who made the motion?
>> Ill make the motion.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I'll second the motion.
>>GWEN MILLER: Gladys Johnson would like to come before council next week, president of Rainbow Heights.
She has a whole lot of complaints.
She wants to come before council next week for three minutes.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: She can't come after the agenda?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: It's council's discretion.
Normally if it's not an item on the agenda it would be placed at the end.
>>GWEN MILLER: That's Kevin's.
She wants to come speak before council.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I think she probably has legitimate complaints but if we let people come to any section on the than the end, how can you say yes to one and no to another?
No offense but I wouldn't support that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Where do you want to put it?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Under the general participation at the end.
>>GWEN MILLER: In our public comments at the end?
>>THE CLERK: She can come at the end.
>>GWEN MILLER: Council meeting at the end.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Don't show up at nine.
>>GWEN MILLER: She can come at the end.
Gladys Jackson, Rainbow Heights neighborhood association.
Mr. Shelby.
First of all, I just want to thank council today.
I learned the agenda was a little bit difficult.
And we do have the issue of agendaed public comment to address, how to move that a little sooner.
We are going to have to work on that a little bit.
The other thing I wanted to raise with council is that to refresh council's recollection, when it came to the pre-budget discussion meetings, there was really not a discussion, unfortunately, because of individual council members scheduling, of council's own budget.
And council's direction to the administration relative to its own budget.
And as you know, there are issues such as the compensation study, the issue of legislative aides, the issue of what is going to be forthcoming as a result of the administration's response to council's request, and it suggested that maybe council would wish to schedule a workshop as soon as possible to be able to do that, to address myriad issues which I have had an opportunity to discuss with council members individually.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: A workshop like we just had, or is it a meeting like afterwards?
>>ROSE FERLITA: I thought we were discussing those things because of conflicts of schedules we couldn't come back and agree on what we had already agreed on in terms of budget needs and expansion of some of those items.
I don't know, but I think the sooner the better, let's get it done.
And it always becomes complicated.
>>CHAIRMAN: Monday morning at 9:00.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: To have a workshop Monday at 9 a.m.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Advertised and noticed, I suppose?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you think that ought to be?
Announcing at a public meeting today?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: It's reasonable notice under the circumstances.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: The purpose of it will be to discuss council's budget for FY 05-06, and the latest salary and compensation.
>>ROSE FERLITA: It's going to be reiterate wag we have talked about down in the Mascotte room in terms of what our budget needs are.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I can't be here.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I asked Mr. Smith and Mr. Stefan to give us a proposed budget 05-06.
I haven't had a chance to look at it.
At least they responded.
>>ROSE FERLITA: If you squint a little bit you can say it's something petty like the food, not martini's, but pizza and sandwiches.
But no.
I just wanted to point that out.
>>GWEN MILLER: Conference room?
Let's meet in the conference room instead of the Mascotte room.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Let's point out that it's also open to the public.
And therefore the public would have to be invited to go back there.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to receive and file everything.
>>GWEN MILLER: We did that.
Now we go to our audience portion.
Anyone in our audience like to speak?
We'll adjourn until 6:00.
(City Council adjourned.)