Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

Tampa City Council
Thursday, August 4, 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.

>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
The chair will yield to Kevin White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: The invocation will be given this morning by the Reverend Bartholomew Banks of St. John Progressive MB Church, has a master's degree in Biblical studies and is married with three children and he's also my distinguished pastor.
So if he would come and give us our invocation, we would remain standing for the pledge of allegiance.
>>> Thank you, Councilman White.
Our gracious and heavenly Father, we come into your presence with thankful hearts for all of the blessings you have bestowed upon us.
We thank you for life, reasonable portion of health and strength, the opportunity to live in this great City of Tampa.
We pause now to ask your blessing upon those families, those fighting men and women in foreign lands who lost their lives in recent days.
Comfort their hearts to know that their sacrifice is not in vain.
We ask your blessing upon these your public servants as they deliberate the business of the City of Tampa today. We ask those decisions that will be made will be beneficial to help us to make this the greatest city in this country.
We ask it all in your name.

>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: (No response.)
I'd like to put on the record today that Ms. Linda Saul-Sena will not be in attendance at the meeting this morning.
At this time I will yield to Ms. Rose Ferlita who will do the Officer of the Month.
>>ROSE FERLITA: As always it is my pleasure to begin the commendation award for the Officer of the Month.
And I guess Chief Holder is not able to come?
Out of town.
Typically, I ask the chief to join me to do this.
And kind of give us a brief idea about why this officer was selected because it's a difficult process because he wants all the officers to be selected.
Since Chief Hogue is not here, who would be -- okay.
Why don't you come up and tell me why he's getting the award.
>>> This is the Officer of the Month selection for the department for August of 2005, Master Patrol Officer Jerry Barrow who led a successful campaign to stop drug related crimes in and around motels along Nebraska and Hillsborough Avenues.
In the month of June he was responsible for 30 arrests of drug users who were living in the motels and involved in various criminal activities.
He was surveying license plates at the Dutch Motel when he discovered a person standing in one of the rooms was wanted on drug charges.
The officer obtained permission to search the room, seized 102 grams of marijuana, even more cocaine, and arrested two suspects.
Two days later, MPO Barrow used the information that he developed from another arrest to set up a bust operation at the Oasis Motel.
With the help of other squad members he arrested two suspects, seized almost $1400 cash, marijuana and rock cocaine.
The quad squad recently submitted MPO Barrow for an Eagles Nest award.
He is known for his ability to flip drug users which usually leads to more arrests, seizures of additional drugs and the cultivation of confidential informants.
These types of self-motivated initiatives by a veteran officer set a great example for all the troops while truly improving the quality of life in our city.
The department and others specifically thank MPO Barrow for his hard work and constant continue as efforts to clean up various neighborhoods in the community.
Thank you.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Chief, thank you very much.
I appreciate it.
He's been very nervous this morning practicing his ten-minute speech.
He says, "Not on your life."
We say thank you to you today.
On behalf of my colleagues, allow me to read.
This Tampa City Council commendation presented to Master Police Officer Jerry Barrow in recognition of his outstanding service, Master Police Officer has been selected as Officer of the Month for August 2005.
The lives of the citizens of Tampa have been improved by MPO Barrow's ability to lead successful campaigns against drug activities and related crimes.
Nor the City Council City of Tampa commends you and I will personally say thank you for all the things you do that we sometimes take for granted.
And Jerry, as always there are some corporate members that would like to say thank you as well and we are delighted they are part of this presentation.
Whoever wants to come forward.
>>> Danny Lewis from Bill Currie Ford.
I'm honored to be here representing Bill Currie Ford family and employees, present this watch as a small token of our appreciation for the work you are doing to keep our community safe.
>>> Thank you, sir.
Fine watch.
>> Mark Sino with Innovation Eye Care.
We are proud to be part of the ceremony and we would like to help protect your eyes by presenting you with a certificate for a free pair of Rayban sunglasses.
>>> Thank you.
>> Steve Stickley representing Stepp's Towing.
On behalf of Stepp's Towing and Jim and Judy Stepp, we would like to present with you a statue.
We appreciate all the things do you in Tampa, keeping everybody safe.
Not only that, we have a gift certificate for Outback for dinner, lunch, whatever you choose.
We thank you very much.
>>> Thank you, Steve.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Good morning.
I'm happy to present a couple things for you.
I don't have the battery for your watch that Danny just gave you.
He says you have to go to the dealership for the watch and battery.
Anyway, I'm here on behalf of Bryn Allen studios who is pleased to present with you a certificate for a photographic package for you and have your portrait done.
The towing association of Hillsborough County is presenting with you a $50 gift certificate to Outback.
The Signature Room Grille Channelside Drive is presenting with you a $100 gift certificate for dinner.
The list development company and Bern's steakhouse is presenting you with a $100 gift certificate for Bern's.
And Po boys creole cafe. Have a great lunch over there.
>>> Thank you, sir.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Jerry, a couple of our presenters weren't able to come today so they sent this to me and asked that I give it to you.
It's a family package to the aquarium.
And also family package to Lowry Park Zoo.
They as well congratulate you.
And if you would like to say a few things.
>>> I'm terrible at speeches.
I'm good on action, though.
I want to thank City Council.
I want to thank the staff and my squad and the people that contributed these fine gifts.
I really appreciate that, too.
But -- I just can't do it out here by myself.
It's a squad effort.
There's a lot of fine officers out here that should be in my place.
And I'm very humbled to be Officer of the Month.
And I appreciate it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you, Madam Chairman, for this opportunity.
>>GWEN MILLER: Now we have to have approval of the agenda.
Mr. Shelby?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, Madam Chair.
It's at this point in the agenda where if there are any additions, deletions, substitutions, items that council wishes to remove from the consent docket, this would be the appropriate time to do that.
If there are any requests of council by department heads or members of staff that they wish to bring to council, now would be the appropriate time.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to approve.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Are there any members of staff who wish to address items on the agenda that need to be addressed in terms of changes?
>>GWEN MILLER: We go to our staff report.
We have Heather Lamboy.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Land development.
There was a case that was scheduled, Z 05-105 that was scheduled prior to council's vacation.
I called the petitioner to remind her to do her public notice, just because of the awkward scheduling during the vacation time.
And unfortunately her husband was in the hospital with an emergency surgery and she was not going to be able to make the scheduled date.
I would like the council to make two motions, waive the administrative fee for the scheduling of this particular case, and reschedule the case to September 22nd, 2005, evening agenda.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: When was it scheduled for?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: It was originally scheduled for August 25th.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So it hasn't come up yet.
So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>> Also waive the fee.
>>GWEN MILLER: Waive the fee.
Thank you.
Mr. Roy LaMotte.
>>> I'm here to talk on item number 53.
It's relative to a wet zoning issue.
But there was a question raised about transportation.
And I don't know if you would like to hear about this additional item at this time.
Is it your pleasure that I continue?
Or would you rather hold until it's brought up for second reading?
There was a question related to transportation.
There was a particular resident that was raised an issue about wanting the alleyway converted into a cul-de-sac, and there was a question raised about transportation related to this alleyway.
If I can direct your attention.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: With all due respect, this is the subject of a public hearing, and the opportunity would be during the public hearing which in effect is testimony.
Come back at that time.
Mr. Marty Shelby.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, thank you.
Members of council, I'm here on item number 7, which is regarding clarification of the city ethics code.
I sent council an e-mail.
I apologize for the grammatical errors in it but I'm requesting respectfully approximately six weeks time, September 15th would be good, to be able to work with the administration to provide proposals to council.
>>ROSE FERLITA: So moved.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Cindy Miller.
>>THE CLERK: May I just request, is that a workshop?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you, Ms. Marshall.
I would request it be set as a workshop, and that council would wish to do it at a time certain, for instance at the end of the meeting.
That would be fine as well.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need a motion.
Do you want a workshop or what?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Is that one of our late nights?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: That particular night meeting is the public hearing totally on the budget.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: All right.
So moved.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Having a workshop following the council meeting.
So it could run after lunch, or if you want to set it for a time certain, say 1:30 or 1:00, or set it for the end of the agenda as the last item on the agenda as a workshop.
Council can do that.
But I suspect it will take longer than five minutes, which is why -- I thank Ms. Marshall for reminding me.
>>GWEN MILLER: Set it for 1:30?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I move to set it at the end of the agenda.
If we get to the early, we get to it early.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Miller.
>>> Madam Chair, members of council.
I'm here on item number 3.
With me is Nick D'Andrea, the manager for the construction service and commercial development division.
And we are here to do a very brief presentation on the chapter 5 building codes.
What you have before you is a draft modification to the regulations.
The ordinance itself has not yet been drafted.
This is basically updating our codes to be in compliance with state statute.
The state reviews it every three years and then is transmitted to us and we are required to have our code updated on or before October 1st.
Nick has a very brief PowerPoint presentation to take you through the modification ifs.
>>> Good morning, Madam Chairman, members of council.
I have a brief presentation that I promise will be under two minutes.
Basically, the purpose of our update basically is to clean up the code language and to correct scrivener errors.
That's all basic number 1 item.
Number 2 item is basically reorganize it and update the sections for better clarity and continuity.
And then we are going to reformat, add and modify the code sections for compliance with the new Florida building code and that goes into effect October 1st.
The first item under clean-up operations, multiple sections have spelling and syntax errors and they are being corrected.
There are section that is refer to outdated code references and they are being updated.
Under the number 2 category of reorganization and updating, the order of the code sections have been reformatted for better consistency.
There are sections that are not very clear.
And these have been clarified.
Furthermore under the reorganization, time limits have all been incorporated into one area, and verbiage has been clarified for better understanding.
And the time limits for commercial site plan resubmittal has been increased from 45 to 60 days to allow more time for our customers to make corrections to the plans.
Also, we have clarified that work on the right-of-way does not fall within the purview of chapter 5.
There's been a lot of confusion about that in the past.
We replicated the solid waste hauling fees in chapter 5 for ease of reference for our customers so they don't have to go to another code volume to find out what it says.
As far as Florida building code compliance is concerned, the administrative section of the new Florida building code has been reformatted so chapter 5 now has to be reformatted in order to reflect the same section numbers.
New sections have been added.
And old sections have been deleted to match what the new code requires.
As an example, in the current code, section 5-103.7, alternate methods, is now 5-104.11.
This is basically right out of the building code.
So just to give you an idea, that's the new section number that you will now see in the code.
Also, we have clarified that a contractor cannot obtain a permit without showing proof of workers' compensation based on the Florida statutes.
Contractors are required to maintain a valid workers' compensation certificate through the time that they were pulling permits.
So we basically clarified that is in fact the case.
The section on notice of commencement was expanded for additional clarification for our customers.
We have updated the fee for work without a permit to match the new Florida building code.
And we have added provisions for a certificate of temporary occupancy.
As far as our anticipated chapter 5 adoption schedule, the ordinance is being prepared now by our city attorney.
We are submitting to the Planning Commission August the 8th.
So we will be in time for the September meeting.
We are having an industry workshop August 17th for all of the industry members so that they are aware of what we are doing.
We will go to the Planning Commission on September the 12th.
First reading at council is scheduled for September 15th.
Second reading is scheduled for September 29th.
And effective date of the ordinance will be for October 1st, which is required by state law.
That concludes the presentation.
I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Good morning.
Thank you for coming.
I think Ms. Miller preceded your presentation by referencing the legislative or the review in Tallahassee.
>>> Yes.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And is that what basically has inspired us to make these changes?
>>> Yes, sir.
We're mandated by state law to basically use the code that is passed by the Florida building commission.
This happens every three years.
So this is the third year.
The code that we're under now is the 2001 and October 1st we have to be under the 2004.
So we go back every three years in chapter 5 to make sure that we are consistent with what that new code says.
So that's the purpose.
>> I know and you know that and one of the mayor's goals and our goals in the city is to improve our processes, to have the best possible service to the city, and to the city residents.
Is there anything, any changes in here that we've made that are just our own changes to make our system better?
>>> Well, as you saw --.
>> As opposed to just the state changes?
>>> Yes, as you saw in the presentation there has been some confusion with the processing as far as plan review, as far as what's required, how long do I have, what are the time limits, and with permit issuance, how long are the permits good for, can I get an extension?
Those kinds of things.
And our last code because of the way the state code was written, they were kind of scattered throughout the administrative section.
And it made it very confusing for our customers.
The good news is that through the building commission, they have now changed those sections, and we have basically updated our sections to match them.
And we have also clarified a lot of the verbiage in chapter 5.
And one of the things that we did, we increased the time frame from 45 days to 60 days for plan resubmittals because our customers are saying we would really like to have 60 days because 45 isn't enough in some instances.
So we did that.
So I think you will find that it's going to be a lot more customer friendly than it was in the past.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And last, Mr. Snelling came to us within the last year or so to adjust some of his fees in the zoning department.
And I would assume your fees, are they located in this provision?
>>> The fees are in that document you have in your hand.
We have not touched any fees.
We are not asking for any fee increases or fee changes.
>> That would be my question.
If it's been three years, and with inflation, salaries I'm sure go up and everything else, and these fees being a true fee for service, they are not a tax.
>>> I'm glad you asked that question.
>> I'm just wondering why we are not increasing.
>>> We are reviewing them right now.
We are making comparisons with other jurisdictions.
We have eight jurisdiction that is are comparable to what we do.
And we are looking at costs of doing business, what it costs to actually do business.
We are looking for wherever permit fee revenues are and we are going to come back to council probably at the end of this year just strictly for that fee schedule.
We are not quite ready to do that yet.
We didn't want to come now at this point.
>> You don't want to delay this?
>>> No, sir, I'd rather not.
We have to have this done by October 1st.
We figured we'd come back in phase one to do this and then phase two come back and speak to you about fees.
And that will give us a chance to go to the industry, get their input and make sure they are okay with what we're doing.
>> Thank you.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. D'Andrea, you really went fast on this, especially for the code updates.
Do you have a hard copy of your PowerPoint?
>>> Yes, ma'am, I do.
>> That we may take a look at it?
>>> I will e-mail that to each of you as soon as I get back to the office.
Be very happy to do that.
>> Yes, because you really went through it fast.
>>> I know we were limited in time.
But sure.
>> There might have been some questions that I could have picked out.
Especially the one about the right-of-way construction.
>>> Correct.
>> What is that all about?
>>> Well, historically, whenever people do building in the right-of-way, we really don't have any involvement in that, because that goes basically through the parent company's transportation, depending on what they are doing.
A lot of people do work as far as streets are concerned, and they do work as far as sidewalks are concerned, things like that.
Curb cuts.
We really don't issue permits for that because we don't do permits in the right-of-way.
But there's nothing in our chapter 5 that says that.
So they come to us with the permits and we tell them you have to really go to transportation to get the permit.
They said, why don't you just tell us that?
So we said, you're right, we are telling you that. So that's what we are doing.
And I will send that to all of you just as soon as I get back to the office.
If you have any questions just let me know.
>>ROSE FERLITA: First of all, the two guys that are here today, Mr. D'Andrea and Mr. Barrios, we don't see you often but we take for granted what you do so thank you.
I want to confirm a conversation with Mr. Morris and Ms. Cole.
I really don't have anything to say about what you are saying because it's my understanding these are mandated by the state, and the Planning Commission, at that time when it comes back to us, if we have any questions, like Mary wants to look at it closely, that would be the appropriate time.
So thank you for that.
>> That's why we came to you a couple of months early because we didn't want to come at the last minute and dump all this on you.
>>> We so much appreciate that.
>> That way, if you have questions, please feel free to ask me at any time.
I'll be happy to help you.
Thank you for taking the time.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you for come and presenting it to us.
Unfinished business, item 2.
Do we have a resolution?
>>THE CLERK: Yes, I do.
I received it this morning.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move the resolution.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
Just a quick point of discussion.
In regard to this chapter 5 building code, and I apologize, you moved on before I realized you were moving.
This document with the various changes, I know we are going to see it again after it goes to Planning Commission and then it comes back.
But I'd like for council to see these type of changes, especially when they are this extensive.
I'd like for to us see them with at least about a week advance notice before we get it to review like we are today, before we send it to Planning Commission.
Unless there's a problem.
>>> Julia Cole: I should have no problem getting that prepared prior to going to Planning Commission.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I don't mean this one in particular.
>>> In the ordinance form?
>> No.
What I'm saying is, the last couple of days, I was asking, I said, where is the proposed ordinance that we're going to be talking about in council's meeting today?
And I think the message came back was the ordinance hadn't been prepared.
Well, that's understandable.
The final ordinance hadn't been prepared.
But way was really asking for is what I am holding in my hand, which is the strike-throughs, because they are the most informative to us, what are we changing, what exists, what are we changing?
In this case it's mostly state-mandated issues and things like that so it's not that big a deal.
But just for any ordinance change from any department, and Morris, I'm sending this message to all legal council, you know, that we should be getting these strike-throughs about a week before today's meeting, not a week before some future meeting but a week before today's meeting so that way we have time to look at it and have a little more intelligent discussion with staff when they come make the presentation.
It's not fussing.
>>> No, I totally understand.
And I will absolutely make sure as he would move forward that this particular one, when it gets in proper ordinance form, will be well before the meetings that we get to you and any additional ordinance that is I'm dealing with, I'm sure the legal department.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: That's why I asked for the PowerPoint hard copy, because most of this stuff is like in the Florida statutes.
So we really don't have any say-so in that, right?
But the others, if you have a question on it, we can always call and find out.
That's why I want add hard copy of it.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, madam chair.
>>GWEN MILLER: Item number 4 need to make a motion to continue.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Do we have a date certain on that?
>>GWEN MILLER: August 25th.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Number 5.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I have a question.
Is this the second time they are doing it this month?
Because I saw them out there last Saturday.
>>THE CLERK: Last Thursday night you approved a reso for the Tampa firefighters union for August 12th.
This one is for August 19th.
This is for Tampa firefighters.
We did that one too?
>>THE CLERK: That was for August 5th. This is August 12th.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Item number -- that's 10:00.
So we have to go to requests for reconsideration.
Anyone in the audience like to request for reconsideration?
We go to our audience portion.
Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to any item on the agenda that's not set for public hearing?
>>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
My name is Moses Knott, Jr..
I resign at 2902 East Ellicott street where I operate a business for 40 years, and my business take up six city blocks, and done took everything I had and not even grandfathered me in.
So I hold my demolition license and everything on that one little corner but rest of everything I got is gone.
And I thank God for his grace and his mercy.
You know, I can't make it without that.
Other peoples can make it, they got a lot of stuff to lean on, power, law, family, but me, I lean on his grace and mercy.
And then I'm always talking about prayer.
That's all I got left.
When I was a little boy, you know, people talk about my father, run away when I was two weeks old, and mother said he's a great man, been in World War I.
But ever since I was two weeks old I depend upon grace and mercy of Jesus.
But, you know, this morning when you are praying the prayer this morning, always talk about prayer, that's all I got left.
That's enough.
That's more than I need.
But the preach they are morning was talking about, you know, he prayed for the peoples in sorrow.
Me, I pray about the good things, where what God has done for me, for the country, and how he blessed this city.
Whoo, the blessing this morning.
And then I thank God for him showing up.
But the other day, I thank God that he showed up on this airplane, the airplane crashed with 309 peoples.
On CNN all the time, I watch CNN because I like to know what's going on all over the world, not just here in Hillsborough County.
But all of a sudden I was looking at that and special bulletin, airplane went down.
309 people come off that airplane, didn't nobody get killed.
But God showed up.
I thank God for showing up.
Late that night the CNN man came on, and airplane with 309 people and been praying, everybody been praying.
I don't want to switch but I have to switch.
I want to talk about construction and building this morning, article 3.
This morning, you know, I sit back there.
God showed up again.
And said this morning, go back to state statute.
Not you all's statute. The state statute.
You know, people talk to me every day about this building thing.
Mayor Freedman took this building thing and fixed it where you couldn't build a dog house, put two or three people in jail, in the newspaper about building a dog house.
Now you all go back to the same thing.
I know God gonna show up.
And raise the fee, raise the fee, raise the fee.
That's all you all talk about it.
You want the state to come in and now tell you to raise the fee on everybody.
The people are saying right now they cannot build a house no more because to build a house costs $100,000.
It cost about 20 or 30 before you even get started.
I told him that he didn't know it.
Now he called me the other night, to sue you all about this building thing and everybody in town, what's this lawyer's name?
The lawyers can't do nothing with you all.
They got to come -- one of the lawyers told me, Mr. Knott, you got to be humble to them.
I said humble?
Don't be humble to nobody but Jesus.
That's all I bow to.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Anyone else in the public like to speak?
We go to our committee reports.
Public safety, Ms. Rose Ferlita.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you.
I have one item.
Move item 8, please.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Parks, recreation, Ms. Mary Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I'd like to move items 9 through 13.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Public works, Mr. John Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Pleased to move items 14 through 22.
(Motion carried)
Finance Committee, Kevin White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move 23 through 26.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Building, zoning, Mr. Shawn Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I move items 27 through 37.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, I don't need to hold this up.
I am going to support what Mr. Harrison put Ford.
But if it would be possible I would like for the real estate department, just if a citizen asks us, I have more clarity about item 27.
Maybe a written report back to me, anyone here who would like a copy.
Just what that process involves in terms of a land exchange.
So if somebody feels like, wow, I would have liked to have had that.
I don't know what merits doing this and I don't know what qualifies one person for exchanging versus another.
And --.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I don't know if I can answer all the details.
But these were two parcels that were appraised at the same value, and one piece of property.
The city had surplused it.
The city parcel, we did not need for a municipal purpose or public purpose any longer.
And Allstate owns some property that appraised out at the same value that we do need and stormwater needs and therefore a deal was struck to exchange those lots.
If that helps.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, thank you.
Morris, it helps somewhat.
But on the 914 east Louisiana property, that was Allstate or the City of Tampa?
Which is who's?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Let me get the resolution from the clerk.
I think the resolution from the clerk ought to spell that out but the item doesn't.
>>GWEN MILLER: We'll come back to it.
He's leaving.
Do you have a question?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was just going to make a comment to Ms. Ferlita.
The only thing, Rose, I had asked the same question yesterday by e-mail to Mr. -- to Jack in real estate.
And he had sent me an e-mail explaining it.
But I can't tell you what his explanation was exactly.
But he had an explanation as to why we were swapping.
Eights good question.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Morris, Ms. Alvarez is showing some of her information here.
And what I asked about the Louisiana property was the just as an example, that kind of caught my attention because I have had several people in southeast Seminole Heights, two neighbors fighting to try to get that property, what should we do?
So because that area is being looked at very closely in terms of development and those type of things, I just want to be sure that we're real careful with what we're doing.
So I want to better understand that process.
So maybe the real estate department.
Tell me how they do that.
Because that's fine.
But I am sure we can pick other parcels that -- that other private people own that are valued the same amount as one of our parcels.
But I think we need to make sure the fairness issue is throughout that whole process.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: We have the ability to dispose of property under a special negotiated basis.
And land exchange or land swap would be a special negotiated transaction.
Notice of that should have come to council by way of written memo before -- this item comes before you for that very reason so that if you have questions of why it's being specially negotiated you can discuss that with the administration.
But I will have Jack Rodriguez come back and address council how they arrived at that.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And I'm sorry I'm a little confused and that's why I want clarification, Morris.
At the point that we start this process, when do we exclude anybody else, like we decided we want to change it because the values were the same.
Maybe somebody was willing to give us an amount of that property.
I just want to make sure when we start on the process, not to belabor this, to make sure we don't slight anybody else.
I'm okay with Jack doing it just by written memo.
If that's enough for you, Mr. Dingfelder and the rest of my colleagues.
And then the written response, if it's not clear enough then he has to come visit us.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I believe once they negotiate it is when they cut off others from making offers on it and that decision is made -- Jack would be the appropriate person.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And I'm not so interested in what happens at the end because that's what you are telling me here.
I just want to know how we went through the first part without being discriminatory.
That's all.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just to piggyback on that a little bit.
You bring up an interesting point, Morris.
We might have received a memo related to that but I don't recall getting it.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Well, the resolutions state you were provided written notice on July 10th, 2005.
Anytime we negotiate and not make it generally marketable to whoever the highest bidder is real estate is required to send a memo to City Council explaining that we're doing it and why we're doing it so council is aware of that fact.
And I'll make sure in speaking with Jack Rodriguez that's done.
In fact, I refuse to sign off on these resolutions unless there's a recital stating they have followed that process in the procedures.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Massey.
Transportation, Mr. Shawn Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I move items 38, 39, and 41 through 48.
And on 40, I just would like a report, unless there's some reason we have to do this today, from Hartline or the administration to just let us know how that Hyde Park connector is doing, what their ridership, is it -- is it a wise investment for the city to make and maybe we can have somebody come in before the end of the meeting.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
We go to our public hearings.
9:30 for second reading.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to open 53 through 61.
We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
Is there anyone in the public that's going to speak on these items?
Will you please stand and raise your right hand.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: 53 through 61.
>>THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: At this time I would 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 prior to action.
>>KEVIN WHITE: So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
Finally, in addition, if any council member had any verbal communication was any petitioner, his or her representative or any members of the public in connection with any of the petitions that are going to be heard today, that member of council should please disclose the following information: The identity of the person with whom the verbal communication occurred, or the group or entity, and the substance of that verbal communication.
Thank you.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Just on the side of caution, the other morning when we had our meeting, I was walking out of the building and Ms. Lovett, who I believe is here for item 53, and I have some comments, just that she was asking for direction to go to the transportation issue.
But if it makes Mr. Shelby more comfortable.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 53?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>> Move to close.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: When you do speak, please state for the record that you have in fact been sworn when you give your name.
Thank you.
>>> My name is Jane Levin and I have been sworn.
Can I distribute some information?
>>GWEN MILLER: Give it to our attorney right there, please.
>>> I'm just passing pictures around of the restaurant which is a fine dining Italian restaurant.
It is conceivable that people would like to have a glass of wine with their pasta or their veal.
And this is not going to be a bar.
This is not going to be a place where alcohol is going to be served other than with the meals.
Also, there was some question about the parking and the ingress and egress and I did bring a copy of what was approved by the city as far as our parking.
So that you can see that we have to go out through the alley.
And that's pretty much what I brought.
Also a menu from the restaurant.
But it should be an advantage to have this fine restaurant in the neighborhood.
It's basically between -- on Henderson between bone fish and Outback.
And gives you some additional opportunity to go have a fine dinner.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Anyone else like to speak on item 53?
>> Move to close.
Someone else like to speak?
>>ROSE FERLITA: If Mr. Lund is going to speak, we didn't close the public hearing.
>>GWEN MILLER: We didn't close it.
>>ROY LaMOTTE: I was asked to come before you to come back and give a short site report on what the conditions are out in this particular area and the possible feasibility of cul-de-sacking the road, in particular, I believe the alleyway that was talked about is part of the staff report.
And I'm here to do that today.
I'll get out the Elmo.
Particularly, this is Henderson.
This is the alleyway extending from Holmes down to Lykes.
This is the petitioner that's asking for the wet zoning.
This is single-family home that raised the question about the cul-de-sacking of the apartments that are contiguous.
The alleyway is a well maintained alleyway.
As you can see, it is very limited in space and width.
In actuality, really only one vehicle can traverse the alleyway.
As it approaches from the Lykes intersection, you can see it is much wider at that particular point in time and that coming in from Lykes you actually can see the alleyway is somewhat sheltered by this tree, single-family home, apartments that are above it.
Many of the stores that are set up their particular parking lot, you can see it's set up in a herring bone pattern that does direct people back into the alleyway.
Transportation division has examined the impacts related to the closure of the commercially to exiting traffic on west Lykes Avenue and do not recommend it after conducting the site visit and the investigation.
Our finding is that all vehicular traffic accessing this alleyway is proprietary and commercial.
In order to resolve the condition fairly, however, we shall restrict any left-hand turn movements onto west Lake Avenue from the alleyway.
And I'll go back to the Elmo if I may.
Traffic coming back out onto west Lykes.
There was a section here that was one way that was raised earlier today and we would actually be putting in no left turn sign and directional sign so that motorists understand the conditions that prevail here.
We feel like the appropriate regulatory signage and pavement markings in the form of some arrows would remedy the condition and no other further measures are needed at this time.
I'll take any questions.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I do, Mr. LaMotte.
I'm sorry I was ill two weeks ago when this was heard and I tried to keep up everything and be prepared to come back and make my opinion official.
It was a neighbor someone who wanted to cul-de-sac that?
>>> Yes, ma'am.
There was a particular party.
>> It doesn't matter, because I was puzzled.
I think I walked away and then when I came back, I thought this was a very good petition, and for a little bit I thought that the petitioner was asking for that cul-de-sac.
But when I better understand what you're showing, you don't think so, they don't think so and I don't think so.
So we are good to go as presented from your standpoint.
>>> Yes, we are.
>>GWEN MILLER: You wanted to say something?
Anyone else like to speak on item number 53?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight and not more than 14% by weight beer and wines, 2(COP-R) for couples on premises only in connection with a restaurant business establishment on that certain lot, plot, tract of land located at 3636 Henderson Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, more particularly described in section 2 hereof waiving certain restrictions as to distance based upon certain findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Is it working?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: All right!
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder and Harrison and Saul-Sena being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 54?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Do you want those back?
Mr. White, would you read 54?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages coining alcohol of more than 1% by weight and not more than 14% by weight and wines regardless of alcoholic content beer and wine 2(COP-R) for consumption on the premises only in connection with a restaurant business establishment on that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 2223 North Westshore Boulevard, unit B-224-225, Tampa, Florida as more particularly described in section 2 hereof waiving certain restrictions as to distance based upon certain findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder, Harrison and Saul-Sena being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 55?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to adopt the following ordinance on second reading: An ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight and not more than 14% by weight and wines regardless of alcoholic content, beer an wine, 2(COP-R), for consumption on the premises only in connection with a restaurant business establishment on that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 10006 north 30th street, Tampa, Florida as more particularly described in section 2 hereof, waiving certain restrictions as to distance based upon certain findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Mr. Harrison, are you going to vote?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: That's okay.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder, Harrison and Saul-Sena absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public to speak on item 56?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close.
(Motion carried)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move the following ordinance -- move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading: An ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight and not more than 14% by weight and wines regardless of alcoholic content, beer and wine, 2(APS), in sealed containers for consumption off premises only at or from that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 1108 south Dale Mabry Highway, suite B, Tampa, Florida as more particularly described in section 2 hereof, waiving certain restrictions as to distance based upon certain findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder and Saul-Sena being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 57?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading.
Move an ordinance in the general vicinity of 201 south Armenia Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications CG commercial general, RM-16 residential multifamily and RO, residential office, to PD, multifamily residential, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder and Saul-Sena voting no -- excuse me, being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 58?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: I would like to move an ordinance upon second reading: I move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading: An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 3001 north Rocky Point drive in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications PD business professional office to PD business professional medical office, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder and Saul-Sena being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 59?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 112 south Edison Avenue, in the city of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RM-24 residential multifamily to PD business professional office, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder and Saul-Sena absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 60?
>>THE CLERK: This is the second public hearing.
>>GWEN MILLER: Read it?
>>THE CLERK: After you close the public hearing.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading: An ordinance imposing an abatement upon the acceptance and/or processing of applications for rezonings, special use permits and amendments to the Tampa comprehensive plan, including future land use map amendments for real property or portions thereof located within the clear zone and accident potential zone 1 in the vicinity of MacDill Air Force Base for a period of 12 months pending the completion of a joint land use study regarding development within the MacDill Air Force Base clear zone and accident potential zone 1, prohibiting the processing of such requests within those zones, providing for severability, providing for -- repealing all ordinances or parts of all ordinances in conflict therewith, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder and Saul-Sena absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 61?
>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Legal department.
I'm here to provide a substitute ordinance for item 61.
It was merely correcting the date this was considered by the Planning Commission.
It's not a substantive change and doesn't require the ordinance to go back to first reading.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Give to the Mr. White, please.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close the public hearing.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to adopt the substitute ordinance upon second reading, Tampa comprehensive plan, future land use element future land use map for the property located in the general vicinity of 4930 west Commerce Street in the Port Tampa city area from light industrial to community mixed use-35, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for severability, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder and Saul-Sena being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 62?
>>THE CLERK: On item 62 continued public hearing.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone like to speak on item number 62?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: Move to adopt the following ordinance after second reading: An ordinance amending the Tampa comprehensive plan, future land use element, future land use map for property located in the general vicinity of 5001 west Tyson Avenue in the sun bay south area, from heavy industrial to urban mixed use 60 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for severability, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion carried with Dingfelder and Saul-Sena being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on items 63 through 70?
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?
>>GWEN MILLER: Item 63 is a continued public hearing.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
You have to pardon me.
I'm sick.
This petition is before you and was continued to this date for some minor modifications to the site plan and the elevation.
The site plan was turned in on Tuesday.
And I did send it out for comments.
Ultimately, the case will need to be continued to next week so that the ordinance can be updated.
And we are awaiting solid waste comments.
The rest of the plan looks like it meets the rest of the staff's recommendations.
There was an issue with the next door neighbor, which is a residential use.
I just wanted to show you.
It's on the northern section right here.
They originally had a buffer with a fence and a hedge and trees planted in that area.
And the neighbor actually did not want those planted there.
They have used this driveway for approximately 30 years to access their house.
And this petitioner has agreed to leave that open and pave the property lines so that there is available access to their home.
I did receive a letter this morning -- sorry, yesterday afternoon -- from iris Ray, the property owner to the north stating that with the new proposal she has no objections to the request.
They did as well submit a new elevation, which is much more in keeping with the newer development that has been introduced into the area.
And there is an office.
With that we would ask -- oh, I'm sorry.
He has a color version.
There I can show you.
With that, Mr. Michelini may have anything else to say to you.
But we would ask it be continued a week waiting solid waste comments in keeping with the ordinance.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: We've met with the staff and the rest of the neighboring property owners concerned.
Mainly what we are asking is you just direct legal to come back with an ordinance, and I guess close the hearing so that we are just dealing with the ordinance next week.
If there's any substantive changes then we'll have to reopen it.
But at that point we can deal with those issues.
But I think that the design works well.
I don't think solid waste is going to have any concern.
I've checked with Mr. Massey.
He may want to confirm the direction that we can go in.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Without comment from solid waste, I would suggest that the hearing be continued and not closed until.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 63?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>>GWEN MILLER: Can't close.
Motion to continue for one week.
10 a.m.
(Motion carried)
We need to open item number 64.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>THE CLERK: On item 64, actually through 70, you can probably open them all at one time.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open.
(Motion carried)
>>THE CLERK: On item 64, as of August 2nd, we have not received in our office the payment for the publication on this item.
And we have also, as of Monday, not received a payment for the advertisement for publication on item 69.
>>GWEN MILLER: So do we have to continue those?
>>THE CLERK: I would refer to the legal.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Yes, that's one of the conditions of the hearing that they prepay that.
If they haven't, I would ask you continue that matter for a week.
We will send them a reminder notice to comply with that.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Santiago, if you would concur, it would appear more appropriate to not open the public hearing but set the date to continue it, being as the fee is not paid?
Would that be more appropriate rather than opening the public hearing?
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: If you don't open it, I understand you will be resetting it but if you open it and continue it, all those here for that matter are on notice as opposed to just being set for a new date.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just wanted to clarify.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay, Mr. Santiago.
>>> Here on 64, 65, 66.
I'm not sure where the mixup is, Madam Chair.
I wonder if we can continue this for several minutes and I'll go outside because I believe in our files we do have all the notices.
>>GWEN MILLER: The pavement.
>>> And I have paid checks in the materials as well.
>>THE CLERK: I would refer that to legal.
It had to be paid prior to the public hearing.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Santiago, it should have been paid prior to the public hearing?
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: It should have been paid.
Cash in the barrelhead is always good, huh?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Are we doing 64, 65 and 66?
>>GWEN MILLER: All of them.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: The T reason that requirement is in the public hearing is to ensure the city's costs for advertising are covered, and we don't want the public hearing to proceed without ensuring that that our costs for publishing notice on the special assessments have been covered.
I would say if he can provide us evidence right now that he has actually paid it, you could go forward on it.
But if he can't, then it needs to be opened and continued to next week so we are assured it's paid before you consider it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, do you have those checks now to present to us?
>>> I do.
But if I could have a moment, as I asked, to go outside with Roland, sort through which notices relate to the items, I think that would be best.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Santiago, do you agree with that?
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: I have no problem with that.
In the interest of efficiency, one I would like to address before he and I talk.
Item number 70, we do not have the roll for that matter yet.
It is open.
We ask you to continue that for a week for transportation to make sure we have the actual, so that way if there's anybody here, so we are not wait ago round, if we can just move on that for a week.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public here to speak on item 70?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to continue to August 11th at 10:00.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to continue to August 11th at 10 a.m.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Number 70.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Let me continue conversation with you, Mr. Santiago. First we were going to move it to next week.
Now you are saying if the petitioner has the check we can move forward?
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: With evidence of prepayment.
>>ROSE FERLITA: If that's the case, I'm sure the other council members got letters of requests to continue this.
And I believe there are a couple of people from the New Tampa area, or Tampa Palms area.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: I understand there are folks on at least one issue, item number 66.
>>ROSE FERLITA: That's my concern, too.
We can go forward depending on what the board decides.
But I kind of --.
>>GWEN MILLER: That's one that wants to be continued.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Rose because there are some people that want to speak to the.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Give us two or three minutes to try to resolve it.
>>> Madam Chair, I just spoke to my client.
I think in the interest of some folks being here it might be best to continue it, give us an opportunity not only to straighten out the checks but to talk to some of the residents, to clarify.
>>GWEN MILLER: To continue both of them?
>>THE CLERK: 64 and 69?
>>GWEN MILLER: Both of them?
>>THE CLERK: That's on town homes and the Point at Tampa Palms.
>>> That would be items 64, 65, and 67.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public to speak on 64, 65 and 67?
If you want to be speak, please come up now and speak.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: As to a continuance?
>>GWEN MILLER: As to the petition to continue it.
Do you want to speak on the continuance?
FROM THE FLOOR: I want to speak on 65.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay, we are continuing it.
You can't say anything else about it.
Continue for another week.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If you wish to present it, you come back next week to present the evidence.
In other words, it will be continued.
The hearing will be continued for one week.
It will be heard at that time.
Do you have a position on that for or against?
>>> I guess.
>>GWEN MILLER: If you say it, you won't have to come back next week?
If she speaks today can she not come back next week?
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: If she speaks to the substance.
>>GWEN MILLER: You cannot speak next week.
So you can come back next week, it will be fine.
>>> I apologize, council.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: It's good to open things on the public hearing as a group.
But when it comes to talking about each topic, for the purposes of clarity of the record and the transcript, I prefer we do it in order.
>>GWEN MILLER: Not to wait time on the agenda.
>>> I think we have it straightened out, Madam Chair.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: It's actually item 66, 67 and 70.
So procedurally I will ask you, move to rescind the previous motion to continue items 64 --.
>>GWEN MILLER: We hadn't voted on it.
If you could, please modify that to a motion to continue 66, 67, and 70.
>>THE CLERK: 70 was already continued.
I apologize.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on item 66?
Item 66.
Do you want to speak on the continuance?
It's going to be continued.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We don't know when it's going to be continued.
I thought they were going out to talk to Roland about these.
And now that we are not doing that, we are just moving to continue.
We have no idea what's going on.
So before we have speakers come up, let's advise the speakers what we're asking to do here.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: I could summarize it up.
These items are set for the public hearing to adopt the tax roll today.
Individuals are noticed, that what the assessment would be.
It's an assessment for 20 years for the streetlighting in that particular district.
These items have come up, ones that we just addressed, item 66, 67 and 70.
The nature for the continuance, I believe, is for purposes of the petitioner to address the concerns raised by members of that district.
We are otherwise ready to move forward on those.
We have got the tax roll.
The notices have been done.
But apparently there are some issues, perhaps some concerns that need to be addressed.
Anything beyond that, I would be unaware of.
Mr. Thornton is here.
We could speak to the theology of imposing these assessments, on the petition by the property owner, the developers at that time.
We process a methodology that was approved last year by resolution.
Once the tax rolls come in, the appointment is determined by virtue of the area and the district.
And then today is the hearing to go ahead and adopt it.
Basically approve the sending out of the invoice, that assessment, which was also part of the property tax bill.
Now, anything beyond that issue between the homeowners and the develop he heer, I don't have privy to.
So that would come out now.
But if we are going to be talking about the continuance, I would just ask folks to limit their discussion to the continuance.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I'd like to know from the petitioner, first of all, which item are we on?
Petitioner, what are you asking us to continue here today?
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: 66, 67 and 70, as I understand.
>>GWEN MILLER: We're just on 66 now.
We just want to talk about 66.
The petitioner is going to speak.
I'm sorry, Madam Chair, for the record, Michael Brooks, 500 East Kennedy Boulevard.
I have in my packet three of these assessment formulas.
And I probably need, as I said, to spend some time with anybody here who is here to speak on 66, 67 and 70, just so we can let council move on with its business.
I'd like a continuance on those.
One week.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: We're on 66.
You want a one-week continuance on 66.
That's what you're asking for, petitioner?
>>> 66 and 70.
One week.
So there's been a request for one week.
So maybe we can ask them to address the request.
>>GWEN MILLER: The only thing -- come to the podium and address on the continuance.
>>> It's such --
>> Your name on the record.
>>> Joseph Catano, Talent Court, it's a convoluted mess.
I want to know how many homes are in this subdivision.
Can someone tell me?
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, do you know how many homes?
>>> How many homes are we talking about?
>>> Michael Brooks: Mr. Thornton will answer.
>>CALVIN THORNTON: Calvin Thornton, transportation division.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Question.
Is this relative to substance of testimony for today's hearing or is this with regard to the continuance?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: What has been proposed is a one-week continuance on this.
Is a week enough?
Do you need more?
>>> Joseph: We have been working for this over a week and there's a lot of unanswered questions.
I want to know how many homes are in this subdivision, first of all.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Let's not talk about this.
How much time?
>>> Give us at least three weeks.
I mean, we're all working people.
We don't do this for a living.
With you got jobs to go to.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Santiago, can we continue for three weeks?
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: By state statute this item must be addressed by September 15th.
So August 25th we are bumping right up on not a lot of time left.
So you can consider August 25th.
Maybe a week after that.
But I certainly would not encourage anything more than that.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Take two meetings?
>>> It's a resolution.
>>GWEN MILLER: The petitioner, they say they are going to need three weeks.
Is that going to give us time enough?
>> Michael Brooks: I can't count my days very well.
But is it before September 15th?
>>THE CLERK: Three weeks would be August 25th.
The previous meeting would be the 18th.
>>GWEN MILLER: August 25th.
Calvin Thornton, that's okay?
>> Michael Brooks: I'm sorry, I apologize.
We have done this in Tampa Palms.
I have never received contact from anybody here, as you know, and we are always willing to talk to the residents.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Brooks, that may be the case.
But on this particular item 66 when we have a couple of citizens that are questioning why the management company paid 14,000 in 2004, and now they are asking the owners to look at a cost of 38,000, I think that would concern me, too.
So I hope that is addressed very clearly when we get back.
>> Michael Brooks: Absolutely, ma'am.
>>GWEN MILLER: On the continuance only?
>>> I'm one of the --
>> Put your name on the record, please.
>>> Mark slope.
I'm one of the owners also in Lancaster.
Part of our problem has been not being able to digest and understand exactly the why-nots of all of this.
We are being caught by surprise but also a notice to title potentially happens.
So obviously we all went up in arms.
There was no explanation whatsoever.
>>GWEN MILLER: That's why we are going to give you three weeks to meet with the petitioner so he can go step by step and let now.
>>GWEN MILLER: We are going to let you have continuance of three weeks.
>> As an FYI, if you could give thought to perhaps not going to August 25th.
I understand on the 25th you have a very long list of assessments coming for other issues.
So I know the 25th -- on assessments.
I would say bump it closer, not further out.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: August 18th.
And that's not enough time.
>>GWEN MILLER: The 25th.
We have a motion to continue item to August 25th, 10 a.m.
We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
All right.
Let's go back, Mr. Santiago, to number 64.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: I believe that is still unaddressed.
I would ask that you continue it till next week, 10 a.m.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: 10:00 a.m., 65.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Number 65, that is crescent park.
And I have prepared the resolution.
It should be noted that it's not ad valorem assessments.
At the conclusion of the hearing, we cannot close the hearing and then adopt a resolution.
The resolution must be adopted while the hearing is open.
Here to speak on crescent park?
That's all I have.
And Calvin is here to address any of the methodology on crescent park.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do you want to speak?
Anyone in the public like to speak on item 65?
It's going to be continued.
You have to talk on the continuance.
65 is the hearing.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Okay, you can speak on that one.
>>> Antonia Edwards, and we already have streetlights.
Obviously this notice is saying that I'm going to be taxed to get streetlights put in?
I don't understand what's going on.
So I figured this is the form to -- forum to come up and ask these questions.
I don't know what's happening.
>>GWEN MILLER: Can you answer that?
>>CALVIN THORNTON: Transportation division.
Presently, all of the subdivisions have existing streetlights.
The developer is paying for the lights to be on.
The developer has the option, when he was the majority property owner to go to the special assessment streetlight district.
That option basically is to pass on the cost to each individual homeowner.
That's what he's electing to do.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Just for clarification.
Whenever a developer requests the ability to go through the special assessment process for streetlights, a notation is put on the subdivision plat, and in the subdivision agreement which is put of record on the property, there is a notation in that agreement that states that this property could be subject to a special assessment for streetlights, if that is approved by City Council.
The subdivision code allows a developer to bond, the cost of streetlights for 20 years, and then that cost is rolled into the price of a lot.
Or they allow -- our code also allows, in lieu of bonding out the full cost and adding it to the price of the lot, that the developer can apply for special assessment.
And this is the process which the developer in this case chose.
I hope that clarifies it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone else that would like to speak on item 65?
We have to pass the resolution first.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Was the lady that was up -- was her question answered?
>>GWEN MILLER: She's talking to Mr. Thornton.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Morris, one question.
You said the developer chooses that.
How do the residents of that particular area deal with this?
Do they have any choice?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: No, ma'am.
We require at the time a subdivision plat, before the units are constructed.
Under our subdivision code streetlights are mandatory.
Subdivisions are not allowed to be developed in the City of Tampa without streetlights being put in.
At someone's cost other than the city.
The subdivision code allows two options.
They allow the developer to provide a bond to provide the full cost of the streetlights for 20 years.
That is historically what's been done city-wide.
What happens then is really the cost of the streetlights is added to the cost of the lots.
Or the townhouse units.
The other option our code allows is that the developer can ask that council consider a special assessment for the cost of streetlights for 20 years so that the tax collector's office basically collects for the special assessment process on your tax bill for the cost of the streetlights.
That's what the developer elected in this case.
And when elects that, we mandate that there be a legend place placed on the subdivision plat that this property -- and application for special assessment for streetlights, and your property or lot if you buy in the subdivision can be subject to a special assessment for streetlights.
We also mandate that that be placed in the subdivision agreement and placed of record so people who buy lots in that subdivision are put on notice that they will eventually be subject to a special assessment.
>>ROSE FERLITA: So is this a new subdivision?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Yes, ma'am.
>>ROSE FERLITA: So they don't already have lights and they are assessed more?
>>> No.
At the time the lights were placed in, the developer elected to go through the special assessment process. What our code requires is until -- there's usually a lag between when the subdivision plat is approved and streetlight and subdivision improvements are placed and when you all approved the special assessment.
And we are in that lag.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I wanted a clear understanding.
So what happens actually is this was already given in terms of information when each of the owners bought this property.
>>> Yes, ma'am.
>> So somewhere in the future they have to pay.
>>> I mean, you know, whether they read all the documents.
>> Well, these their option.
At least it was in the original --
>>> there was a legend on the subdivision Platt plat and it should show up in the title work when they buy that unit so they are on notice that their lot could be subject to a special assessment for streetlights.
And so now we are going through the process.
Until council adopts the special assessment, the developer is on contract to pay for the cost of the streetlights and that's how the process works.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to move the resolution.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>> Jim foster, 6815 south Court.
Is what he just spoke about in my documents that I should have on file at my house?
I mean, I don't remember ever seeing anything like that.
When you bought your lot, you got the title policy that shows the plat for that area.
There should be a legend on your plat saying the developer has elected to apply for a special assessment for streetlights, and the lots in the subdivision could be subject to a special assessment for streetlights.
And that notice should also be in a subdivision agreement that shows up in your title work.
You may have a voluminous amount of documents.
I'm sure there's covenants, restrictions, about 30 pages or 40 pages long.
And those documents are fairly lengthy.
But we do require a mandate if they are going to go through this process.
They put that statement on the plat.
So it should be.
>>> I should be able to find in the my paper.
If I don't find in the my paperwork, what's my recourse?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Rather this put this gentleman through this burden, why don't we continue this for a week?
He can read his documents.
If there's a problem, come back and tell us in a week.
>>> Okay.
Mr. Santiago?
I stepped out for a minute and came back in when you were discussing this and I think I understand the concept.
And clearly, these are ones that are already set up.
I assume somebody said, I think, the lights are already there.
This is just a function of how it's going to be paid for.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't really see a whole lot of alternatives about this.
Because somebody has got to pay for it.
But my question is, are we continuing to set up these kind of things?
And if so, is it good policy?
Is it good policy on the part of the city to do that?
Because I don't understand why streetlights are any different than any other infrastructure.
These are new developments, correct?
>>> Yes, sir.
>> I don't understand why the streetlights are any different than any other infrastructure that the developer is putting in.
Developer puts in the pavement, puts in the curbs, puts in the sewers and the water and everything else, put in the streetlights and pass the cost onto the homeowner at the time of sale.
It looks like it comments amounts to at least this one, $3500 each.
You know, I recognize that they want to try to keep the prices down but the problem is now, in every single year, right?
This will come back to us, and then people get upset about it and they don't know it exists.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Once the roll is approved and you approve it the way it's set up, this runs for 20 years.
It doesn't come back to you unless the amount increases which hopefully it never does.
So unless there's an alteration of the assessment upwards, then it will come back to you.
>>CALVIN THORNTON: He's correct, the roll does run for 20 years.
The amount does increase.
We just haven't the man power to correct the roll for as many as we had, because as TECO goes up with the energy, and whatever, the cost of it goes up.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: But administratively, is the city making money -- is the city breaking even on this administratively?
Is the tax collector breaking even on this administratively?
>>> I the tax collector gets 2% of the assessed value.
2% and the City of Tampa gets 2%.
>> And 2% covers everything that we are going through on this?
>>CALVIN THORNTON: By law, that's what we are allowed to collect.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would just say as these petitions might come in down the road, I think we need to look at them a little more critically and ask that question of, you know, why don't you just put this into the cost of the homes?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Currently the way the code is written the developer as a matter of right has a right to follow this process, as an alternative to bonding it.
The policy decision was made years ago.
It's written into our subdivision code.
There was a period of time where this option did not exist under our subdivision code.
Just to let council know that.
But that is the way --
>> I think we should revisit that as a matter of right.
I think it should be as a matter come in front of us and tell us why.
Council, do you see what I'm saying on this matter?
On these, these are done deals but I'm talking about future projects.
Maybe we should try to discourage these so they are not surprises to the neighborhoods, you know.
And maybe it shouldn't be a matter of right.
As a matter of right.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: It's a little difficult, I think, to come up with criteria about why it's okay in one situation and not another.
I would let council know about that.
I think there is a policy decision to be made about whether council wants to allow a special assessment process as a means of funding the streetlights and subdivisions as an alternative to the bonds.
And we certainly could relook at that issue.
Again, that was a policy decision made by another administration, another City Council years ago.
And there was a time when that was not an option.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I guess I would like to know, does that 2% cover our staff costs, our legal costs, you know, any other hidden costs that are out there on us administratively?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Along the same lines, Mr. Massey, I just want to make sure this is something that is not hidden intentionally someplace.
And that was my reason for saying give them a week, so the owner, property owner can tell that.
And I know there's nothing we can do if that was the agreement.
And if I'm understanding what you are saying, the developer can charge that up front, and the cost of the lot, et cetera.
Or the property own theory is paying the cost and the financial burdens at the beginning to start his new home, if they know it and it's very clear, I don't know, maybe most people would like to not pay that.
But know and understand and not be taken by surprise that they are going to pay the $3500 later.
And I know it's almost like a buyer beware thing.
It's in there.
They are supposed to see it.
But I think on a few other situations I have seen the same reaction.
And from the way Mr. Smith walked in I can see he wants to weigh in on it.
>>DAVID SMITH: Actually, I went through this process as a developer awhile back, was in the county.
The issue is really one of whether you want to have all your costs up front, or amortize them over a 15 or 20-year period.
So there's impacts on different buyers.
A lot of buyers typically you buy a home, you live there five or six years.
And what we did, and mine was in Hillsborough County and it's the same thing in the city.
You have to record an agreement.
And this agreement also runs to TECO, hole install these lights frequently.
So it's a financing mechanism.
I think the most important thing is to make sure that people are on notice up front.
What we did in our subdivision, once you record it, you're obligated to start making those payments.
So it's alternative financing mechanism.
If you don't sell the lots you pay the assessments on all of those lots.
So it's just a question of whether or not this council wants to continue that alternative.
Larger developers have the financing capability may want to do that up front.
Some of you are your smaller developers may not have the ability or financial resource to do that.
I think that's why we typically have an alternative.
>> Mr. Smith, that's fine.
I think I understand that.
I think in the past we have had some confusion about that.
As long as it's clearly stated to the potential buyer. The second thing I want to ask since you brought it up, TECO has absolutely nothing to do with this.
>>> No.
>> In terms of like on 66, I don't think it would be fair to the utility company that because there's an increase it's because TECO is making more money.
>>> It's not their responsibility.
They just install the lights and the developer has to pay for them.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Just from a policy standpoint, I hear what Mr. Dingfelder is saying.
I personally like having the option, because it might be, frankly, might make the cost of homes cost prohibitive if we are going to force everyone to pay this cost up front.
We look at some of these lots, $500 a year the assessment, if you calculate that over 20 years, you're going to be paying significantly more for your lot up front.
You have to finance that.
You are going to pay interest on that versus just continuing to pay it on a yearly basis.
So I like the option.
We don't typically have a whole lot of confusion on these things.
Six years on council, I don't ever really remember it being questioned to the extent that it's being questioned on number 66 today.
And that's just because there's a huge difference in the price from last year versus this year.
And everyone just needs to get to the bottom of that.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I conferred with Mr. Santiago, that we do in fact have a legend on the plats, it is recorded in the sub divider agreement that we do not process these plats where this election is made by the developer unless there is a statement made in the plat, and that the subdivision agreement referenced the fact that they may be subject to a special assessment.
So we do what we can to make sure folks are on notice that this is coming.
Just for a point of clarification, the county, streetlights are not mandatory.
Really the a special assessment process is only T only process in the county for streetlights.
It's a routine process in other jurisdictions.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Just according to this memo that we got, it said that the chapter 23 was amended in 1989 to allow the developers the option of funding streetlights.
And it seems to me that they must have gone through a big process to amend the quote at that time.
So I think that it behooves a person who is going to go build or buy in a subdivision to look at the subdivision documents and their own agreement and make up their mind whether they want to do it or not.
But it's been on the books now for a number of years.
And I don't see any reason that we need to try to amend it again.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Not to beat a dead horse.
But Rose, you bring up an interesting point on this issue of notice.
And Mr. Massey clarified what the notice is.
I mean, we have all had home closings and that sort of thing.
You go into the closing and you got 30 documents to sign, and that sort of thing.
How many of us actually -- how many of us, you know, actually go through those, read them page by page, paragraph by paragraph, especially when it comes to the title work.
You just assume you got a good title company and they are going to stand by you.
I don't read the entire titles.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Closing is kind of like a walk-on.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And on top of that the language is extremely vague in terms of what the assessment is going to be.
It says you might be assessed something in the future related to these streetlights.
You know, with all due respect, I'm not saying anybody is trying to trick anybody.
But it's not, you know, if was a buyer, I would be rather surprised when that extra $150 or whatever it is, it might even be up to $500, might show up on my tax bill, you know, at some point.
So that's the part that makes me uncomfortable.
Then it looks like it's government doing it to you.
And that's the part that really makes me uncomfortable.
>>DAVID SMITH: As a former real estate lawyer, addressing your issue, one thing you might want to consider is amending your ordinance to also require that in conjunction with closing, a specific separate document be provided to a home purchaser in this context.
Not only do you put it on the plat.
Not only do you put it in your subdivision regulations.
But you also have to provide a disclosure that he must sign.
Now I know there's more complication in residential transactions these days than there are in the commercial but at least you have a separate notice, one page, and all caps, and they sign it so that there's an extra effort to make sure that they know what they are getting into.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: There may be some reasonable estimate about what the annual cost might be.
>>DAVID SMITH: That could be done, a reasonable estimate.
And if notice is your concern, that may be another way to make sure the notice --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: At least that prospective home buyer or lot buyer has a better idea what's going on.
>>ROSE FERLITA: So in the event that we move this, obviously it doesn't come back next week.
And it appears from both attorneys' explanations that it is in fact -- if the gentleman back there finds that it isn't, then if we move forward with this today, Mr. Shelby, I guess, what happens with his concern?
It's probably buried there.
So only as a Curt easy to him, not to support this, unless you're telling me that there's something missing and we go back to square one.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: His recourse would be would be with the title company or title company.
It would not be with the city.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Then I understand that.
And that gives him the opportunity to clear it up in that arena.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to move the resolution.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move the resolution.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the public hearing.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Santiago, number 67.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Actually on 68.
67 is continued.
>>GWEN MILLER: We didn't continue.
We need to dot.
We are doing one at a time.
67 we need to continue to how long?
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: The 25th, 10 a.m.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public to speak on item 67?
To be continued.
We need to move to continue.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Continue a week?
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: To the 25th on this one.
>>GWEN MILLER: To continue to August 25th.
All in favor say Aye.
(Motion carried)
Number 68.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: A non-ad valorem seeks special assessment for townhomes in the amount of $99.42.
That is the unit of measure for the assessment.
I prepared the resolution.
I don't have any further comments on that.
If there's anybody in opposition, I would just ask in conclusion we adopt this during the open hearing if you choose to do that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public to speak on item 68?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move the resolution.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close the public hearing.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>THE CLERK: On item 69, that is the one we have not received the costs for the publications.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Santiago, did you get a chance to look?
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Mr. Brooks is not involved in that one.
I have not had any contact with anybody on 69.
Please give me a week.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: We already continued 70.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: That is all.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: 70 is one, as long as we are in the back, can I suggest that since Ms. Saul-Sena is not here and I am having a little trouble this afternoon that we continue this to September?
>>GWEN MILLER: September what?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What's our workshop on September?
If the first is okay with council that's all right with me.
>>THE CLERK: September 1st you already have a workshop continued, historic preservation, A.R.C. process.
You have a night meeting that night, also.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: This one says related to historic preservation.
Oh, I see.
Related to alleys, which is also historic preservation related in some places.
>> September 1 at 1:30.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Let's go back to unfinished business.
Item number 6.
Continued public hearing.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: The public hearing was closed.
Public hearing was closed.
This is a matter that's just, per council's rules, prepared for vote after the reading of the ordinance.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Second reading.
I move to adopt the following ordinance upon second reading.
An ordinance providing for the area rezoning the general location 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: We have a motion and second.
Roll call vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita voting no and Saul-Sena being absent.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: If I could interrupt.
Mr. Harrison asked to defer an item.
Mr. LaMotte has the information related to that.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: If we want to let Mr. LaMotte out of here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Come on up, Mr. LaMotte.
>>ROY LaMOTTE: Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the council.
The item raised earlier today on item 6 relative to the Hyde Park ridership.
I am going to pass -- going to pass this to Mr. Shelby, a list.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I believe it's item 40.
>>ROY LaMOTTE: Sorry to misdirect you. The statistics were brought over from Hartline, faxed over.
It's basically indicating they have had 33,749 since the bus began in 2004.
It shows the breakdown.
We are averaging approximately 4219 riders per month which is a good quantity.
It actually maxed out in the month of March and went up to 3403.
Again as we came into summer season ridership is lower but anticipated to increase again come this fall and entering into the winter season.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Roy, is there a charge to ride the trolley for this route?
>>> I believe there is.
>> Do you know what it is?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: It's 50 cents.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Do you know if this is going to be a yearly occurrence, are we going to be supporting them to the tune of 50,000 a year from now on?
Or is there any time this will become self-funding?
>>> There is always the hope it will become self-funding.
>> Our experience has been that we hope that but it never does happen.
>>> Well, this is strongly predicated upon the convention business.
I think as we continue to grow our convention business, this will be a steady ridership.
I can only project that based on past studies.
I know you were indicating on past results where they have tried to do starts before and I have to divert to Ray Miller for answers to you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Good question.
The mayor note add two-year commitment.
Obviously she can't commit our budget, but she made at least sort of an honorable two-year commitment to Hartline, to justify getting this going.
So we're just halfway into the first year.
And I'm going to continue to encourage Hart lane to look to increase that fair, to a dollar.
Because a lot of this is tourist related and that sort of thing.
And I think a tourist probably has a better chance of having a dollar in their pocket as opposed to 50 cents.
So I'm going to talk to Mr. Miller about increasing that at some point.
They said it was a logistical problem, because the downtown trolleys are 50 cents, and they didn't want these trolleys to be different and that sort of thing.
Anyway, we'll look into that.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I think this came about because of the downtown partnership was trying to do something for the Kennedy Avenue corridor, people that were there.
And they were trying to get people to go down to Hyde Park, and that's why this became what it is now, downtown Hyde Park connector.
And I think it was -- was it March?
Early Martha we had -- it was early this year, I believe, we all went down there, the chairman and Mr. Dingfelder were there along with myself.
And it seemed to have made a big impact in that neighborhood.
They really loved it.
So I'll support it, see what it does for another year, since the mayor made that commitment.
But I believe it's a good connector.
And I'll support it.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: And we made a two-year commitment.
We need to honor that commitment and I'm fine with that.
But it is, from what Mr. Dingfelder says, it is largely tourists, and we have other subsidies that we could probably use better.
We are using general revenue dollars rather than subsidizing the tourist trade between Hyde Park and the convention center.
So one more year is fine.
Hopefully by then, Hartline will figure out how to make it self-sustaining and we can take that 50,000 and use it for other things.
>> I kind of like the idea of what Mr. Dingfelder said, to go ahead and raise the rate to a dollar.
That might work, too.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I don't know if Mr. LaMotte can answer this or Mr. Massey.
When we extended the trolley to Hyde Park, wasn't there some clause that said that some of the merchants there were going to also contribute and do that?
Or is that incorrect?
>>> I believe you're correct on that statement.
>> Do you know what extent that is?
>>> I do not today.
>> I think we are all going to be supportive of this.
I assume so.
But that's one consideration we ought to look at later.
In the event that the ridership doesn't absorb the total cost, and even at that point after this commitment of two years is over, it's been my experience that many times if something is a lost leader it still serves the purpose because as we get those people that ride it into Hyde Park, we can remember some months in the past or some years in the past that the Hyde Park circle was struggling to stay open, et cetera.
And so this kind of brings some customers and clients to that area.
So we have to look at that pretty comprehensively.
Not that Mr. Dingfelder and I are going to get into conversation now about what we think, in most cases I would say, yeah, let's increase the price.
But in this case, when and if it comes back in terms of that recommendation, I won't support it because of way just said.
It serves a purpose whether it absorbs its own cost or not, because I think it's added some new life and some new customer bases to that area.
And, as Ms. Alvarez said, it has been well received by neighborhood people that live, as I do, in Hyde Park, although maybe the ridership and tourism is going to increase.
So too I think local people like to get it on it for a little change of pace, get on it, come downtown.
I guess what I'm saying is when we get to looking at this let's consider all these issues.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: To clarify, the Hyde Park village is making an annual contribution I think in the neighborhood of $5,000.
There are some other businesses along the way.
Bayshore one is contributing, I think when they open, the resident right there by Publix.
And there might be a few on the businesses that are contributing in smaller amounts of $5,000 each or something.
So they have worked on that issue.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And I think, John, when we get to this next year maybe, we can look at the costs or the operating overruns, and we can look at that in partnership with businesses to see if they are willing to come to the table.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: As your representative I'll look into that.
>>ROSE FERLITA: That's why I'm looking to you.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: And the downtown partnership on this downtown trolley.
It's a partnership that's happening.
That's what they wanted.
So they weren't getting service in this area, because we don't have street cars out this way, they decided that part of that assessment that they were doing would help fund that trolley.
>>ROY LaMOTTE: We appreciate your support.
We'll bring you back a year's worth of operating and discuss fare changes with Hart later.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you for bringing it to us.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I move the item.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: We go to information from council members.
>>THE CLERK: 49 (off microphone)
>> So moved.
(Motion carried)
>> Shawn slacked off.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: The new agenda confuses me.
>> 49 through 52.
Mr. White, do you have anything?
Ms. Ferlita?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Rose just one question I had and I'm sorry I had to leave.
When we had the meeting in the Mascotte room on Monday we were talking about the possibility, and maybe the rest of you came to some discussion.
But I think given the issues and given the situations that the mayor has had H to tolerate in terms of finances to be able to accommodate funding and unfunded requests in our budget, we as such have -- we as a council have not taken a lot of time in the past, which it's embarrassing.
And I think we should have a workshop to look at the budget from the time it was given to us on the 11th to the time after second hearing that it's adopted.
I would love having support on workshops to look at it, dissect it, make sure there's money so we know where she should go and those type of issues.
And I think that would be fiscally responsible.
It's going to take some time.
But I think that we ought to do that.
And I don't know.
In lieu of that, if we don't do that, I guess, we can come back at the second reading of the -- before adoption.
But then we have a lot of dialogue.
>>GWEN MILLER: We talked about having a workshop.
Anything else?
We have to revote on it.
>>KEVIN WHITE: The general consensus was if we had any major concerns before the first budget hearing, we were going to -- if we had major concerns about where moneys were allocated.
Then we were going to set a special public hearing.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I don't know if we were going to have a public hearing --.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Not a public hearing, a workshop.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: It was council's discussion as to whether it wishes to have a workshop to have more in-depth discussion, prior to the first public hearing, if it needs to be communicated to the administration in advance of the public hearing to allow them to address any concerns.
Which council did not do last year.
I can't say traditionally what council has done in the past.
Perhaps in the administration it was handled differently, I don't know.
Alvarez if I could weigh in on that.
Desiree handed me a few minutes ago, the mayor wants to meet with each council person for an hour and there's a list of dates with times on it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: For what?
>> After she makes the presentation on August 11.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Might I add to that?
That would be okay to meet with her as well.
But I don't think we should do that in lieu of the workshop.
Because if we have a noticed workshop and we talk about it, your focus, Mr. Dingfelder, with the mayor, might be different than mine.
And one person up here will bring something up.
And the other person, Gee, I didn't realize that.
So I think as each of us feed off of each other's ideas, not to discount that hour we set aside with the mayor, I think that's great and we should follow through with that but I think we should also do this workshop.
And I think the reason I'm so intent, if you remember our former chairman, Charlie Miranda, if we had two different neighbors that didn't like each other, we spent two and a half hours trying to play referee.
But when we came to the budget process it was a done deal in three minutes, which is such an injustice because the budgets makes us able to help them in terms of different issues.
So I think we have to change that mind-set.
And this is a wonderful time to do it.
So, yes on that and yes on the workshop.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anything else?
Ms. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Just a couple of things.
Tuesday, I went on a fly-along with the MacDill Air Force Base on a KC 135 which did a refueling over Charleston, South Carolina.
It was really --
>> And you still have that patch, by the way.
>>> It was something.
And I just have to commend everybody at the MacDill.
They are so accommodating, so nice, and they just did everything possible to make us happy and comfortable.
>> Well, unfortunately when it came to my turn to go lay down on this mattress out, the recipient to get fuel was having problems.
So they were docking and undocking.
And so I never got to see it.
But I saw the booms that went down.
And could you play with -- it's like a joy stick.
I'll tell you, those people are amazing at what they do.
>> Is that why the plane was having problems, you were playing with the joy stick?
>>> No, not me.
I was there at the time, but I was so -- just so emotional about the whole thing, because it was something that never happened to me like that.
And I just wanted to say that MacDill is a viable piece of real estate that we have out there, and we want to keep the base there as long as they want to stay.
I just want to say that they are wonderful, and they are great.
And I enjoyed every minute of it.
Even though I got up at 4:00 in the morning.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anything else?
>>> Saturday the 13th we are having the unveiling of the Breezer at the Ybor City museum gardens.
I don't know if anybody got their invitations for that.
The Breezer is a new streetcar that they leased this car, I guess, for five years.
It's a beautiful car.
It great.
So if you all have your invitations, please go.
Because you will be surprised to see this beautiful car.
And I think that's it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I received a memo.
If you don't mind me taking a moment.
I didn't know this, anticipated this.
I don't know if you all received this memo.
But this is a memo from Steve Daignault to us notifying us of retirement of public works director Jack Morriss.
That's awful in the sense that he takes so much institutional knowledge and experience.
He worked for six mayors, and his experience is going to be very much missed in terms of the area of public works.
I think, John, you know that better than anybody being our chairman.
So he's retiring.
And I wish him well.
And I thank him for all he has done.
He and I crossed swords sometimes but he was a gentleman and a professional.
>> Is there an effective date?
>>ROSE FERLITA: October 7, 2005.
And, John, when you get around to your time if you want to make a motion to support it. Anyway, I want to thank him and congratulate him and he will be missed.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I did forget one thing.
I would like to make a motion for this Saturday August 2nd for mount Zion Baptist church for their new school they have opened for their dedication service.
>>GWEN MILLER: I don't have to do it?
You are going to take it over there?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Are we going to talk about what happened on the Mascotte room on Monday?
>>GWEN MILLER: We are going to do that at the end.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: The second thing is, I want to let everyone know that both houses of Congress have passed a new transportation bill.
Everyone may have read about that last week and the City of Tampa fared very well on some of our projects including, I believe, the number is $2 million for the Busch Boulevard corridor, and $2 million for Kennedy Boulevard, and cross creek out in my district got about $1.5 million to complete the widening which is an absolutely critical piece of the transportation puzzle in New Tampa.
It's good news.
It hasn't been signed by the president yet but everyone thinks it will be very shortly so we are going to have some nice new money for transportation here in the city.
It called Safe-T extension 221.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: A couple things.
Rose, thank you.
No doubt about Jack.
He's done a great job, Jack Morriss.
And I want to schedule him for September 29th for a commendation.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Might I suggest you keep that open and talk to him?
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We know how much he likes to come in front of council.
And then the other commendation I would love for us to do, item 2 on our agenda, references again Stephani Busansky and the freedom playground she's been working for two years.
Why don't we schedule her and her organization, anybody on her board, for September 18th, two days before her event, do a commendation for Stephani and her freedom playground.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Two other short items.
Bonnie Wise presented us with an exhaustive memo, four-page memo about this museum bond, and I have some questions and I guess other members of council might have questions about it.
I think it would be appropriate if she came and discussed that with us.
I'll give her a little time because I know they are all working on budget.
Maybe September 8 at 10 a.m. to come and discuss her memo and what the city's options are with regards to bonds.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I guess I had decided to ask the administration to have Linda Saul-Sena sit on one of those boards.
It's my understanding that didn't happen.
That's too bad.
On the museum one.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: September 8, 10 a.m., Bonnie Wise to report to us regarding this particular bond issue in her memo.
>>GWEN MILLER: That's the motion.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The last thing, Ms. Ferlita, I do agree, I think we should go ahead and schedule the budget workshop right now for September 1st.
I think that would be a timely place to do it, which would be about a week or two before we get into the actual budget hearings.
I think that if we get to the budget workshop, and nobody has anything to say, then we can adjourn very quickly.
But I think it would be helpful to the public to at least have the public on notice that we are going to workshop the budget on that particular day.
In sort of a less formal setting.
So I'm suggesting we workshop it September 1st.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Where are you suggesting, Mr. Dingfelder?
That's too hard for me.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Then some other day nearby.
But I'm just saying, I think we should go ahead and schedule it.
You know, we all have schedules, calendars.
When we put things on at the last minute, I can't make it sometimes.
Other people can't make it sometimes.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Why don't we have a memo and put some potential dates?
But, John, you --
>> I agree with you philosophically.
I think we should do that.
>>ROSE FERLITA: But I just find looking at the old budget, new budget, see what we agree with in terms of the potential increases allocating for increases that we assume happen the next year.
We don't have enough room.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where or when it doesn't really matter to me.
>>ROSE FERLITA: As long as it's noticed.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: The question is whether council wishes to have it televised.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I don't think it's necessary, because I think our conclusions, that we have come with it, are going to be things that people are going to listen to us on the public hearing side.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's very public.
Reporters will be there.
They love us.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And when the Times came in late today.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I just want to be clear.
The suggestion to circulate --.
>>GWEN MILLER: Circulate dates, and everybody put down what date is convenient for them.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Give us a couple of options.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Then set it for next week?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: That would be appropriate, to set it next week.
>>KEVIN WHITE: (off microphone)
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I just need to look at the calendar.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If council wishes to do this, I think the point was made by council, the dialogue that's available, and the exchange of ideas is important.
So having participation by council members at their convenience would be most productive.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You mean we all should --.
>>GWEN MILLER: I would like to do a commendation for Andrea Alexander who has been with the state for 30 years, was with the department of juvenile justice throughout the state and I am going to give to the him, bring him before council.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Clerk, do you have any business?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to receive and file all documents.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby, we save you for last.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
As council is aware, there was a workshop that was held Monday morning at the Mascotte room.
It was a unique, and I guess inaugural event, and council ostensibly could take official action.
I learned from the clerk and Ms. Marshall, I thank them very much, there are a lot of Is to be dotted and T's crossed to make it official.
We will make amends.
But the one official action in order to make it official has to be revoted on.
And that was to request the administration to remove the council attorney from participation in the compensation study.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion?
Mr. Harrison?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Just want more information but I support it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: And again, maybe it's appropriate for Mr. Harrison.
Maybe I can add or clarify.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, I didn't unfortunately have the opportunity to be there, I think it was Monday morning, but I understand that there was some discussion about whether City Council aides needed to be included in the study as well.
And understand that as it turned out they are being included in the study.
What I have been told is that there is no comparison to do on the aides, that we would essentially be making it up as we went.
And the study, therefore, my question would be, why do the -- why include them in this study as well?
It would seem that it easy to find counterparts for Mr. Shelby's position.
>>ROSE FERLITA: It's not?
>> Well, no equals, counterparts to Mr. Shelby.
So I just want to know what the rationale was for including the aides in the study.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Harrison, you weren't there and I was there and I still don't agree, because they are going to be kind of a project, because there's nothing to compare them to.
We know I think what the county does and I think Mr. White in terms of finance chair has provided us with that.
I found personally no reason.
Because that study is not going to come back till October.
We have to deal with before then.
Budget time is the appropriate time to look at additions and deletions.
We know the importance that they have for us.
I don't find any benefit to them being in the study, because I think we need to raise the caps.
And I'm not talking about a straight across-the-board increase just because.
But there are a couple of aides, yours included, that haven't received merit raise, not because you haven't said she deserved it or not, but she's maxed out.
I don't know what that study would do for anybody else on the other side of the walkway over here.
But in terms of our aides, I went in there fully committed to try to get some consensus that they wouldn't be included.
I think it should be incumbent upon us as their individual bosses to look at what we think, make a motion, or look at it during the budget time, allow that money to be there, and then talk about changing the classification.
But putting them in that is going to complicate the issue.
And I think the importance they have for making our department successful warrants us taking care of them, and what they need to have done.
So I'm not in support of doing that either.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I didn't attend the meeting and I don't know much about the issue but I am curious, when we say there's nothing comparable, Kevin, when you looked at City Council salaries around the state, you found things to compare us to.
I mean, obviously you are not going to compare us to, you know, to a little town of 10,000, but there are other cities that are comparable.
So why is it that we wouldn't look to see what other comparably sized cities pay their City Council aides?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: That is my argument.
The argument was that we don't have comparables.
We don't have comparables on our own.
My argument is that there are City Councils all over the world, all over the United Nations, states, whatever, and it seems to me like we don't know.
Do you know what?
I have no idea.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We can look.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: We can certainly look.
But that was my argument.
Let's find out what other cities are doing.
And nobody here wanted to take the job.
We asked Kevin if he wanted to do the comparable for City Councils.
And I see in a reason.
It's not going to be based on performance or anything.
It's going to be based on what it is that their average is going to be.
And it's nothing that's going to be capped there.
If you have a study, just get it done.
Marty is a different --
>> Animal?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I don't think too, too many places have it.
But everybody has got aides.
And it's not that I'm trying to keep everybody out of it.
I think it's good to be in it.
These what I'm thinking.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is that what the purpose of the study is to do?
If we include them in the study, the person who is doing the study would look at other municipalities and see?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Of course.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You study something without knowing what the result is, I don't know, if it could be good to study.
It could be bad.
>>> With the understanding that some of our aides are maxed out.
They tell you enough times that they are.
But it doesn't mean that they are going to be -- if they are at a level that needs to be raised, they will raise it.
If we as a council say, no, we want to change that cap, we have the opportunity to do it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Let me have a conversation with you, though.
This is the problem.
If somebody is maxed out -- I made this reference with several of my other colleagues -- then there's no incentivizing in terms of evaluations.
They do a wonderful job, they don't get any more.
They do a -- so what have you given them in terms of goals?
I agree with you that if we feel the cap is too low, we can raise it.
However, if we said right now, let's raise it, well, my understanding is that it's got to be by executive order.
I've gone through that conversation privately with Sarah lane.
On August 11, when we get the budget, we own the budget.
So from the 11th to the second hearing is the only time that we can act in that capacity, with more power than probably most of us realize.
The study is not going to be completed until October.
Now, this really -- this is not self-serving because my aide, I am declared for another office, doesn't matter to me but it does from the standpoint that the aides are where they are and we are not giving them the opportunity to move up are going to be the ones that are sacrificed.
If that study in October shows the figure that we feel is not right, that doesn't really show the comprehensive job description of each and every legislative aide, and the recommendation is they are okay where they are or they should be lower, because I asked Sarah Lang, and some people in 24 are going to be taken down to 21 with some explanation she gave me I clearly don't understand.
But I don't want to take that chance.
Now if we wait for the study, we go back to, gosh, we don't like the study, and we think merit raise should go up more both for him and them and the ceiling should be raised X number of dollars.
Guess what.
At the end of the adoption of the budget period, we again cannot mandate that the administration does it.
So we are at their mercy.
And the only way it can be done is by executive order.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: But Bonnie Wise said there is money that is going to be put in the budget, where if the raises were supposed to be there --.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Based on the study.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, based on the study or whatever.
The money is going to be there.
>>ROSE FERLITA: But the money can stay there, Mary, unless we agree to increase it.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: You hit it on the head when you said it's an executive order by the mayor.
She'll probably -- who knows?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Who knows?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I don't know what the comparables are because I haven't seen the study.
She can take that route.
>>ROSE FERLITA: She can take any route and that's why in most cases we probably agree with her.
But the chairman made a suggestion we increase the budget for sandwiches at night when the staff -- we're not talking about fancy menu.
That was not approved.
Anything that we feel needs to be approved, we have to act on between those dates.
So we're back to executive order afterwards.
Our hands are tied.
We are power less because she goes back to executive order about anything that's done.
And I'm just cautioning, we have not done that but it's so important that we do.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I just want to clarify for council the process.
With regard to the setting of salaries, that is an administrative process.
That is done by executive order.
There is a human resources policy manual.
There are provisions in that.
And that is an administrative function.
It is not a council function.
With regard to council staff, council staff is delineated in 2.04 of the city charter.
It mentions a budget analyst which doesn't exist.
It mentions a legal aide, which I am, your legal aide.
With regard to other staff, that is a subsection C, and it says this: The City Council may create and fill other staff positions for the purpose of assisting it in the performance of its legislative function.
There is a semicolon by the word provided.
Provided, however, that such other staff positions on the salaries therefor shall first be approved by the mayor.
So the mayor is a full player in whatever council's decision here is.
And I bring that to council's attention.
Mind you, in advance of this compensation study, I believe council is aware that the mayor, through executive order, has adjusted pay ranges.
It is within her purview to do so.
And I believe she has done so.
She can still do so in advance of the compensation study, if she so chooses.
The issue is, I believe, it's council's position, it's incumbent upon council to communicate the administration, its desire, so that it could perhaps be during the period of budget discussion, a negotiated process that could come to a resolution prior to public adoption at a public hearing.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think in light of that very good explanation, which I wasn't aware of, I think that the best opportunity that the aides have to get -- to convince us, and convince the mayor, that a raise is justified, is to study it.
Because otherwise you have no ammunition.
And so, I mean, to me, otherwise, we're in the dark about what other cities are doing out there.
And I'm not talking about little cities.
I'm talking about comparable size cities with comparable legislative aides, who work for those individual City Council people.
And I'm sure, like Mary said, there's a bunch out there. It doesn't have to be limited to Florida.
You can look outside the state and see what else is happening.
And without that, I don't think we have any -- like I say, any argument to be able to justify it.
As much as we all might like to, Rose.
And that's where I think we're all in agreement.
We don't want people to be stuck, you know, et cetera, et cetera.
And we all are in agreement on that.
But I think we have to sort of go through a little bit of a process to do it.
And if there is a fund that Bonnie has assured us exists, that if we get to October and we can justify the raise, then if they need to put in the writing or if they need to show us where the line item is, that fund is there, I think we can trust them.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: There's something else I wish to raise to council.
There is a provision in the policy manual, I believe it was effective in April 2004, that allows for the mayor to award a lump sum bonus in lieu of a merit increase which does not then become part of the salary, official salary number, but is awarded in lieu of.
And that's again upon application to the mayor, with approval of the mayor.
>> She's already done that.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: It's my understanding she's already done that.
>>ROSE FERLITA: She did it for Bonnie Wise.
>> But if council can get it through the bridge this year or council through whatever independent investigation can come to a decision and still communicate that to the mayor in advance of the budget being adopted.
I just should remind council that during this period, as the period through negotiation process, when a council member has significant leverage.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, that's Ms. Ferlita's point and my point, too, that if we allowed this question to remain open when we vote on the budget, regardless of what has been stated by Bonnie that there's money there, if it's not included in the budget, then I'm not sure how that really impacts everything.
We have to do -- do we have to do a budget amendment?
I don't really know what that means.
So we have been told the money is going to be there.
What's the purpose of doing this study then?
It seems like we're doing the study to back into a justification for the adjustment to the next level of the council aides, when all we really have to do is say when was the last time we did it?
Has it kept up with inflation?
Does it match the market realities out there?
How do other bodies do it?
When Kevin did his study of comparables for council members and mayors, he didn't have to go through some online questionnaire study.
It seemed like -- I don't think it's that complicated.
But between now and the first budget hearing to make a few telephone calls to find out what other City Council aides are making throughout the state.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would agree wholeheartedly.
When I say we have to study it, I don't mean it has to be part of that formal study they are doing.
But somehow or other somebody has to study it so we can justify our actions.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Ferlita, and Mr. Harrison, if I don't see why we have to put the aides in the study.
We presented to her what we think the aides should be moved up to another grade, or whatever.
I think we just need to put them out to study, give it to the mayor and let her -- she's going to have the final say, and let her make the decision.
>>ROSE FERLITA: During the budget time.
Not in October.
>>GWEN MILLER: If the money is in there already --.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Say I need a study.
>>ROSE FERLITA: We are in control of our own destiny.
And if she vetoes it we can come back and approve it.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I what will wholeheartedly agree with the statement except one point, and we tell the mayor with a study or some sort of fact finding mission -- not even justification, but if we haven't done any homework, we don't even know what number to tell the mayor to go to.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Exactly.
>>KEVIN WHITE: As an alternative method, if we are talking about comparable cities, comparable sizes, we can go back.
I will go back.
But it can be as simple as this.
And then I just like to keep things in the simplest forms.
I can use the exact same cities that I used for our study, because those are comparable size cities, same mayor form of government, same type of council.
We can go back and use those same cities, and find out some sort of averaging and range of what those council aides make, and make some sort of informed decision.
And that can be done in an afternoon.
I mean, we can come back and I can have that by our workshop.
And there's also one other thing that I would like to investigate.
I don't know whether you will consider this comparable.
But we remember our county aides were faced with the same situation.
And I don't know how.
But I would be happy to investigate how the county went about getting their aides salaries --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think they did it arbitrarily.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: No, they were in the study.
>>GWEN MILLER: They weren't in the study.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: They were in the study.
Sarah Lang said the same people that are doing the compensation study for us did the county's.
>>GWEN MILLER: But didn't have the county permission.
She didn't have --.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe they excluded the aides.
That was my recollection.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We'll do an informal study.
And then go from there.
>>KEVIN WHITE: And have some sort of range.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Remembering the contingency fund and the pay raise fund.
Ms. Wise, in all fairness to her, may say that may be put in the budget or is there but it doesn't mean they have to give it.
It means it can just sit in that fund.
For her to tell us it's there, doesn't tell us not to worry about it.
I think we're all saying the same thing.
So if Kevin doesn't mind doing that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Make a motion now before --.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Then can we make this in the form of a motion?
>>GWEN MILLER: The aide does all the work.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: To what?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Can I make a motion?
Did you want to say something?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I wanted to say something prior to the motion.
Just from a logistical standpoint.
Please be reminded that whatever council does with regard to salary shall first be approved by the mayor.
And I'm asking council to take into account, there is a process, and a mechanism through the administration, where the mayor gives approval.
The communication with council, I don't know whether we run it through the chair or through finance chair or through the council as a whole.
But some entity, through some matter, needs to communicate to the mayor to seek approval --.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Not there yet.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: But the council can't just make a motion to say I want to give somebody more money.
>>GWEN MILLER: We know.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I want to finish this, though.
Okay, that's right.
But the best time for us to suggest, not to mandate, not to demand -- how many times have I heard that? -- that we feel that based on what we think is the importance of our employees, she should consider this.
Now, if we did that during that budget time, that's the right process, right?
We did that and we submit to the her.
If she says no, it still comes back to us, if we feel strongly that they are not being awarded the ceiling cap that they should be, then we can override her veto if there are five of us, during that budget period, not in October when the study is done.
Is that right or wrong?
I don't mean to -- basically, you can make changes to budget lines.
You can allocate money.
My understanding in the City of Tampa is you can allocate money but it's still up to the administration whether to choose to spend the money allocated or shift to the a different program, fund, or when we talk about the budget.
I don't believe this council can put the administration in position of having to spend money.
I believe what the council can do is give administration or not the money to spend.
It can choose -- the City Council can choose to fund certain initiatives and not to choose to fund others.
They can remove money from the budget.
Of course, if that money is not there, it makes it that much more difficult in administration to be able to seek those funds to spend it.
So basically what it comes down to, it comes down to communicating what council's priorities are to the administration.
I've heard a budget defined as the allocation of scarce resources.
And it is council's prerogative during this period of time to communicate what it wishes to the administration, how it sees whatever those scarce resources are, and how they should be allocated, to allow council to better fulfill its legislative function, and to further the policies of this council and the best interest of its residents in the city.
>>ROSE FERLITA: During that time.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Not only during that time but I guess each one of us would have an however one on one with the mayor.
That would be another opportunity for each and every one of us to express our concerns and our feelings about the appropriation of the allocation of funds at that point in time in regards to this particular issue as well as any other individual issues that we'll have.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Do you think, Mr. White-w that comment that it would be time better utilized if we have those appointments with her, after we have the workshop, so collectively we can jot down what we think is, you know, warrants discussion with the mayor?
So all right.
John, you were going to make a motion.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would move that we authorize him and his staff to look into this issue and get back with us at our budget workshop.
>> Second.
>>ROSE FERLITA: In the meantime, Madam Chair --.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: In terms of "in or out" in terms of the compensation, I believe we all agree Mr. Shelby should be out.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: We already did it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: No, no, I'm talking about the aides.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Until we get this resolved, and we can always pull him out, can't we?
>>ROSE FERLITA: We know what they are worth and the comparison is going to tell us and I think they can direct their energies and time to something else, frankly.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Who defines what the study is?
What we have asked Kevin to do is the study that we think should be sufficient, what the administration has asked is what I understand is a much more complicated and convoluted online study.
So is there any reason to have them -- can we just say, Kevin, we are going to do your study, and that's going to be the study that we propose.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do we even have the ability or right to pull him out?
That sounds administrative.
>>ROSE FERLITA: To pull him out?
I know we have the right to pull Marty out.
But do we have the right to pull our own staff out of the study?
It sound like an administrative study.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I would like to make a motion that we go forward with the previous motion that Mr. Dingfelder made, and based on the results that Kevin gives us from this study, we will use that as analysis and comparative study for our aides, that being the mechanism by which we are going to come up with some figures, we will use that as a study and ask they not spend their time on this online comparative study, because I think that would be ample.
So my vote is no participation in the study.
That's the motion.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do I get a second?
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: May I just clarify?
I'm sorry, put my Mike on.
Are you then requesting the administration to remove the aides from the compensation study?
Of course if there's an issue with that, I would think that somebody from the administration would contact council if there's a problem with that motion, or that resolution, in effect, because this motion would have the effect of a resolution of City Council.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I guess they could challenge that or our decision and you too if you wanted to.
But since we are here at council, I would hope we would get a favorable, cooperative response from the administration.
We'll see.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: It sounds like what we were argue being a motion, remove the aides from wherever it is they are being included in now.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
The only other thing that came up was Bonnie Wise said about amending that food.
>>CHAIRMAN: When you're in Hillsborough County.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Our food budget, according to Mrs. Wise, council is not allowed to spend city dollars on food, as long as you are in Hillsborough County.
And I guess the issue --.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, Mr. White.
I believe the way it was put was there is a city policy that precludes the spending of money for food outside -- excuse me, food inside of Hillsborough County.
The issue ultimately is, what's council's role or how is council -- in terms of the separation of powers, what control does that policy have?
We have not had that discussion yet.
But I believe what the administration, from what I heard, my recollection -- and please correct me if I am wrong -- if in an attempt to resolve the issue with you City Council is looking to amend the policy or address the issues within the policy to address council's concerns.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Within the travel policy of the city.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe so.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: An easy thing to do is just amend the policy, if we want it for council.
>>ROSE FERLITA: When we submitted that, they just said, no, you can't have it.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I don't think we were there when we talked about it.
With you are already gone.
It was to amend.
She said it's a simple thing to amend the policy.
That's what she said.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just want to go on record on this issue, because, I don't know, I think it's sort of a ticklish issue.
I do believe that the mayor's policy is incorrect in regard to food, as related to the other boards.
The A.R.C..
The Barrio Latino.
The variance re view board.
And the other boards that meet monthly and regularly and that sort of thing.
I think that it was very, very insensitive to yank that food from those boards, because having sat on the Variance Review Board, as a volunteer, you show up, you know, at 6:00 at night and you're there till ten, sometimes 12 at night.
And, you know, to have a little platter of food that's supplied by the city is basically just a nice, cordial "thank you" for volunteering.
I feel very strongly that that policy should change.
I don't know if we can change it.
Maybe we can fund it and see what the mayor does with it during budget.
But I would like to see that policy changed because I think it's very insensitive of the city to just expect these people to show up and, by the way, bring their own lunch, now.
With that said, I also want to clarify that from a separation of powers perspective, I think it's completely appropriate that this council decide whether or not, you know, we should have a platter of food for our own night meetings, you know, that is paid out of the city budget.
I think that's appropriate.
I think we could do that probably by resolution, make sure there's money in the budget for it, if council so desired.
With that said, I will say that I would vote against that, because we make a salary, it not much, we make it, we are going to raise the salary in a year and a half.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: For you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me just finish, Mary.
The bottom line is, we do make a salary.
We were elected.
We knew what the deal was.
I think the taxpayers would probably frown on, you know, us feeding ourselves during that.
That's the only reason.
I'm not going to belabor it.
I'm not going to belabor it, Mary.
I'm just saying I couldn't support it because I don't think it would play very well in Poughkeepsie.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I would like to respond to that.
Don't think first of all that the amount that we are asking for was a very, very minor amount.
And the second thing, over and above us being fed, we have several city staff members that are here to the wee hours of the morning with us and I don't think it's fair that our city staff, our legal staff, transportation staff, and the other staff, who also get salaries, but I just don't -- I think it's a nice thank you gesture for keeping staff here as well.
So it wouldn't just be the council members.
And I'm sure Mrs. Saul-Sena as well as many others might agree that the blood sugar levels start dropping after a certain hour.
And having something here is not only necessarily a courtesy, but at times almost a necessity.
And that's my position.
And I would wholeheartedly support it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I wholeheartedly support it even if we did it just for staff and we weren't allowed to eat.
But I think that's a gesture we should extend.
But, you know, those are all the issues that we can decide.
You're saying out of Hillsborough County.
Are there some circumstances where any kind of staff for the city have meetings and food is provided within -- I'm going to spend a lot of time looking at the budget, because that's going to tell me more than 25 minutes of dialogue here about the budget.
If we see there were some circumstances, that we could hang our hat on, that says this is also different from the other things, too, and I think it's a reasonable request for us to ask the mayor to look at that.
When we look at other situations, that's when we decide what we want to shuffle back and forth and we'll see what T response is.
So that's it.
>>GWEN MILLER: We didn't do anything.
Mr. Shelby.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just so that, from what I hear council saying, I don't think necessarily I believe this was the issue, the discussion on Monday as well, the issue not necessarily -- I believe council member Dingfelder did state it clearly, the issue is not just the issue of food, it goes beyond council's control over its own budget and functions.
So it's a separation of powers issue.
It goes beyond just the mere discussion of food.
>>ROSE FERLITA: If we need to do something creative, we can add whatever amount you requested and it was denied, you can figure that out again, break it down by 7, on the final total of our budget add those $50 to our budget so we can take the $50 out of our budget and pay for the food out of our budget.
It's playing with terms.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: If we are done with that issue, the other --.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Did we vote on whether it's going to be in the study or not.
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes, we did.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The issue that I forgot to ask about before when you asked for my turn, I would make a motion in 120 days the legal department revisit the streetlight ad valorem per Mr. Smith's suggestion.
I thought he made some good sort of middle-ground compromise suggestions about how we might be able to tweak the ordinance.
He and Mr. Massey were talking about that.
So if he could come back in 120 days and report as some possibilities to -- possibilities to amend that ordinance.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Anything else?
>>ROSE FERLITA: One more question.
You know, we were talking about Mr. Shelby as a part-time employee.
And when we first started the search, and accepted applications, we had talked -- because that was when Ms. Saul-Sena was chairman -- we had talked about, this is where we are going to start, and woo F we have a lot of experience we could go beyond top dollar.
In Marty's case, I think we got to the low end.
And just to keep that on board, based on what we have seen, I think we all agree he has been a valuable addition to us and protecting us and defending us and warning us, et cetera.
He as well, I guess, is a certain level evaluation merit raise.
I guess I want to ask you, Madam Chairman, how you are going to put this so we can give you our sense of what the evaluation should be and submit it back to you and it's all public record and then make a recommendation about what we ought to do with our attorney.
>>GWEN MILLER: Each council member, give them -- give me your comments and send them to her by Monday so she can receive all the comments.
>> Are you going to do that category by category?
>>GWEN MILLER: Your comments put in the category on the evaluation sheet and I will combine them.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And can we do that pretty much expeditiously?
>>GWEN MILLER: Ask to have it to her by Monday.
So D anybody get the memo?
I think if she can get it by Monday.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Marty, go open the door to her car so she can get out of here.
>>GWEN MILLER: And Mr. Shelby has been here a year.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I guess he gets his cost of living.
But something else, too, Madam Chairman.
Just to preserve the dignity of this employee that we so much respect, we had talked about some changes to his part of the dais and he still looks like the guy between the price is right, or is it curtain 1 or curtain 2?
I thought we were going to make some changes:
It will make it easier for him instead of back and forth, back and forth.
I don't know if he should sit by you, John.
Because then you and he --.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Talking about changing the configuration so I face more this way.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I kind of like you over there.
>> I have been referred to as Mr. Zulu.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anything else coming before council?
We go to our audience portion.
Anyone in the public like to speak.
(Meeting adjourned.)