Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

Tampa City Council
Thursday, September 1, 2005
9:00 a.m. Session

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

[Sounding gavel]
>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
The chair will yield to Mr. Kevin White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
We have to give our invocation today Father Paul Couch originally from India.
He's been in the ministry for over 31 years and has been a priest at St. Peter Claver Catholic church for the past three years.
At this time, we welcome you to come up and give us our invocation, where we will remain standing for the pledge of allegiance.
>> Our loving father, you are our sustainer and provider.
Our hearts and minds are in gratitude for the numerous gifts and the countless blessings that you sent our way.
You are the mystery of the created world.
Your imagine industry and glory shine out from within all of creation.
The sun, moon and stars.
We walk by their light.
And we also feed upon the light daily for our food.
Blessed are you for the gifts of sunrise, high noon and sunset.
In the splendor of the sun we see your splendor, O light of lights.
Like the plants of the earth, may we lean toward you, eternal source of all light.
Help us this day to be light to all we meet.
Besides creating us in your likeness, you have also given us the task of taking care of your creation.
You have in your divine plan chosen us for different tasks so we can partner with you to bring up healthy families, communities and cities.
We thank you for these leadership roles you have entrusted to the members of Tampa City Council as they go into session today.
In your wisdom you have balanced all of creation, day and night, male and female, summer and winter, light and dark, body and spirit.
We pray, father, that you provide this sense of balance to the members of this City Council so to preserve, to build, to expand, and to beautify this city, to proclaim to all a sense of balance for the body and the spirit, material and spiritual things.
May all be sensitive to the needs of the individuals, families, businesses, and the community at large of this city.
Loving father of us all, we are grateful for the daily light of insight, we see our way to you.
We are also grateful for shadows and night fall, the background for this light.
In our lives, we often stand in the darkness of feeling suffering.
May your divine light penetrate these times.
May your divine presence be a shining star in the midst of gloom and darkness.
Blessed are you, Lord our God, who has faced creation with light and splendor, and have called us.
Give us all your blessings that we may see your wonder and your might all the days of our lives.
This we ask through Christ our Lord.

>>GWEN MILLER: Before we begin our meeting I would like us to do a moment of silence for all the victims in Mississippi and New Orleans who have lost their lives, who are homeless, who don't know where they are going.
Let's have a moment of silence for them.
(Moment of silence)
Roll call.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: (No response.)
>>MARY ALVAREZ: (No response.)
>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Alvarez will be a few minutes late but she will be attending the meeting later on in the morning.
We are going to go to approve our agenda.
Mrs. Saul-Sena?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
At our budget workshop on Monday, I passed out to council members some suggestions on how to make our meetings flow more smoothly.
And I'd really like for us to seriously consider them.
They are mostly things we have already adopted.
It's just a question of enforcement.
And one of them -- I'm passing them out now.
One of them is to use this opportunity at the beginning of our agenda to look at what we have on tap and see how we can most efficiently make the meeting flow.
I think we would all agree that last Thursday's meeting was the absolute sort of triple train wreck of agendas because we had so many things scheduled at the same time.
And, Madam Chairman, I guess what I would like to do, whatever you prefer, we could discuss this now or we could wait till the end of the meeting but I would really like to discuss these scheduling issues which I think could make our meetings run more deliberately and smoothly.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do it at the end.
We have two people on that would like to speak.
That's Gray Spearman.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do we need to move to approve the agenda?
>>GWEN MILLER: After this.
>>> Spearman: I want to give you a brief update what the city is doing in terms of rising fuel prices and that's a concern that all of us have.
The administration has actually appointed a task force to study that.
And I have been asked to work on the task force, fleet maintenance, Jim Stefan from the budget office.
We have a simple two-fold mission.
I'll be brief and tell you what that is.
The first part of our mission is to look at ways that we can reduce fuel couples in times of rising fuel prices.
Secondly, one thing that the city has an adequate supply of fuel at all times, especially in catastrophic events when fuel supplies are a challenge.
So we will be meeting next week.
We have already started receiving suggestions and ideas.
We will come back to the administration for recommendations.
>>ROSE FERLITA: That was one of the things that I wanted to bring up in some form or fashion today.
So maybe it's through my not being aware that you were coming that I'm happy that was the presentation you wanted to give, and some conversations with Mr. Massey, I find that we have already increased the amount of gas in terms of our budget by approximately 1.3 million.
But the fact that the task force is coming together to make some provisions again, obviously, with what has been occurring, that's probably not going to be enough.
So I'm glad that you're we have a task force going and we'll look forward to a report from you at the appropriate time.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
Thank you, Mr. Spearman.
Ms. Donna Wysong.
>> Good morning.
I'm here to speak today on item number 24, which is a resolution setting a public hearing to consider the December -- to initiate the consideration of the designation of the historic bridges on the Hillsborough River I need to do a substitute resolution in this matter because we had originally set the public hearing for September 29.
And I needed to move that on into October, and also the original resolution failed to indicate that it was going to be a multiple properties designation.
So I went ahead and did a substitute resolution, and I gave it to the city clerk already.
And you all should have a copy of that as well.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
We'll move it in our committee reports.
Question by Mr. Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Donna, the county has obtained some money from the federal government to rebuild and repair those bridges, a couple of them, and I don't know which one this deals with.
But will that historic designation impact the types of repairs or construction that can go on on those bridges?
>>> You know, we are unsure of that at this time.
This is something that we hope that during the public hearing process, when that gets started, we hope to learn more about that at that time.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have been attending the preliminary meetings about this, Mr. Harrison.
Anytime you spend federal money, you have to assess if you're having any impact on coastal resources.
So the research has already been done on the historical significance of the bridges.
So sort of irregardless of what we do locally because there's federal money involved, it kicks in this federal assessment of its historic nature by which is done by, what do you call it, like an objective, independent person, or company, that's determining whether it's historic.
And according to the preliminary conversations, yes, they are historic.
But the constraints beyond the history, the greater question of constraints has to do with the geographic constraints, because of the -- whether you can widen stuff because of the streets that lead to the bridges on the other side.
But I'm sure that will be part of the report.
There's a public hearing tonight about fox street at 6:00 which we are not able to attend, but I would assume that somebody from city staff would be attending and you can ask a question at that hearing.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Obviously, the historic designation, it's appropriate, but we don't want to hamper our ability to fix those bridges by placing that designation.
I think before we actually take that vote we ought to have that question answered.
>>> Right.
And I know that staff is contacting -- they already contacted people at the county, and I believe people at the state as well, and are having conversations regarding this.
So you should have that information by the time of the public hearing, I'm sure.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Donna.
We appreciate it.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I was going to say if there are any other additions, deletions, substitutions or any requests of council to the consent docket, this would be the time to do that.
Otherwise, I would recommend approval of the agenda as amended.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, move to approve the agenda.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to approve the agenda.
(Motion carried)
Is there anyone in the public that would like to ask for reconsideration?
At this time we'll go to the public comments.
Would anyone in the public like to speak to any item on the agenda not set for public hearing?
>>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
My name is Moses Knott, Jr., 2902 East Ellicott street.
And again I thank God to have this privilege to stand here one more time, been some hard times but God bless me to keep coming and I'm going to keep coming in a wheelchair.
But I thank God for his grace and mercy.
You all have to excuse me, I'm completely stressed out.
Thank you, Ms. Miller, thank you for bringing that up.
Ain't nobody else care.
I want to tell you why they don't care.
Most of these people are black.
Black people don't care about their own self today.
Here's what I do, I watch, you know, I stand in the back of this building here and observe what goes on, you know.
And I sit there and look at some pictures, you know, and they don't care.
It's like it never happened.
You know what?
I feel like I'm the only one praying this morning.
And I'm the only one this morning wearing a flag.
I got two of them.
I wore the flag -- I wore this cap until I couldn't wear it.
I'm going to keep wearing them.
I love Jesus and I love my country.
But the whole thing happened for this morning.
You know, God does everything for the best.
People tell me about Mississippi where all this stuff happen.
Everything God does is for the best.
Now what the problem is?
People don't have no respect for Jesus.
The 24th chapter of Matthew, five or six times, people please read that, the 24th chapter, said all this stuff is going to happen.
There will be much sore-o mother against daughter, nation against nation, hate.
That's what it's all about.
That's what it's all about.
But there's no respect.
And I was out of the country about two months ago, and there isn't a building a storm can't tear down.
And a bunch of -- I told him, I said, hey, man, you said there's not a stone that God cannot tear down?
But you know what this remind me of here?
This remind me of about 13 years ago when all those black people came from Haiti.
I ain't forgot about that.
That hurt me to my heart.
All those black people come from Haiti.
One had 15 on it.
It had 15 on there.
That boat went down on a Sunday, and the Coast Guard was overhead filming it.
And looked at those people drown, thousands and thousands and thousands of them dying.
And the black people said -- I mean, the black people don't care about one another.
That's a shame before God.
But like I said, the 24th chapter of Matthew spoke of this.
And God won't tolerate it.
But, you know, I think in New York, not one quarter what happened there.
This morning would have been flags, people at this podium praying.
I mean, the government would have had church.
You know, obviously now preacher was stressed out.
I'm stressed out this morning.
Because you know what?
I love poor people.
Ain't nobody loves poor people than I do. Jesus Christ all through the Bible said God bless the poor.
(Bell sounds)
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Anyone else like to speak from the public?
We now go to our public committee reports.
Public safety, Rose Ferlita.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I would like to move resolutions 2 through 5, please.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
(Motion carried)
Parks, recreation, Ms. Mary Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I move items 6 through 10.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Public works, Mr. John Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move items 11 through 14.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Finance Committee, Mr. Kevin White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move items 15 through 23.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Building and zoning, Shawn Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move items -- we have a substitute for 24.
I move items 24 with the substitution, through 29.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Move an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida amending City of Tampa code of ordinances sections 5-108.2, 13-45, 13-91, 17.5-73, 17.5-78, 17.5-132, 20.5-23, 27-182, 27-183, 27-19, 27-213, 27-214, 27-216, 27-231, 27-246, 27-267, 27-373, 27-461, 27-462, 27-463, 27-464, 27-465, 27-466 and 27-523 by creating uniform procedures for appeals heard by administrative boards, commissions and the City Council of the City of Tampa, providing for severability, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
Question on the motion.
Mr. Shelby.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a comment.
I would like the opportunity to thank Ms. O'Dowd for her work in putting this together. This addresses a lot of issues and concerns.
And thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Mr. Shawn Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I move items 31 through 36.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Public hearing is 10:00 so we can't do those.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chairman.
This might be a good opportunity since we are here to express how to make our meetings run more efficiently.
We will go to Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think everybody received a copy of this memo that I wrote.
And if it's okay with Madam Chairman, I would like to start with the rezoning concept, which is something that, Mr. Shelby, I believe is already legal.
We have already adopted this as a rule.
But the petitioners have to have turned in their necessary paperwork to the staff by the 13-day deadline so that the staff has an opportunity to review it and provide us with written comments.
Mr. Massey, this is already in the works, in place, correct?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Just to make a clarification.
The code provides there can be in a graphical revisions to any site plan for site plan rezonings, made after the 13-day deadline, without council's consent or waiver of the 13-day rule.
So it's not an automatic continuance.
Council has the ability to waive that.
What I have discussed with the zoning staff after our meeting Thursday night is that they need to be more diligent about letting you know if folks are going to ask for a waiver of that 13-day period.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is sort of is the glass half full or half empty.
What I am proposing here is if our staff isn't given the proper materials that they are required, 13 days in advance, and since most of these rezonings are planned two, three months out, they seem to have plenty of time, that there's an automatic, automatic understanding that the case will not be heard, and that it is the petitioner's responsibility to notify the surrounding homeowners, and the community association.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I understand.
I read your memo. And if that's council's wish I do believe the code would have to be revised to implement that because that's not how the code reads currently.
>> Is it code or is it just a procedural thing that council can adopt?
>>> You can certainly adopt it as a rule of procedure.
Frankly, one of the things, since we have had some of the issues come up for continuances, it may be wise for council to consider it.
I will be happy to work with Mr. Shelby on it.
Basically, either in your rules or in the zoning code a uniform method of dealing with continuances, for instance, if folks aren't ready for the first time then maybe they get an automatic within continuance.
And if they are not ready the second time then it's discretionary, they have to show good cause.
I'm just throwing out suggestions so that it's not something that you have to debate on a consistent basis.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's my strong feeling that the neighborhoods are being severely impacted by having to show up and show up and show up.
It affects the flow of our meetings and council's patience and it is completely irresponsible of petitioners to request these continuing continuances, and it's just not right, and it's something that we have let go on too long, and it's become an increasing problem.
And I think we need to address this.
And I would like to ask my colleagues what they think of the proposal here.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I think that's a good suggestion, Ms. Saul-Sena.
We have had some contentious hearings about this, and I guess it's time for us to do something about it.
And probably the way to go is the rules of procedure so we won't have to go and amend.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: May I make a suggestion, perhaps let Mr. Shelby and I perhaps look at either supplementing your rules of procedure, or looking at making changes to the code to deal with continuance issue to follow up on Ms. Saul-Sena's suggestion and try to implement a more uniform process.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, I want to follow up on what Mr. Massey said.
It's my opinion that if you wish to make the requirement of it being rescheduled to the next available date automatic and a requirement to notify surrounding property owners, it's my opinion that would have to addressed in the code rather than procedural rule.
So that would require an amendment to the code.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: How long does that take?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: It's an amendment to chapter 27.
One of the suggestions is you allow me Shelby and I and zoning staff to look at this issue, maybe make a presentation to you.
If you put it in the code, you have hard and fast rules and council may want that.
If you put in the your rules, one of the advantages in your rules, and it can be viewed as a disadvantage, the unanimous concern of council, you can waive that rule, if there was a good reason to waive it.
And I just throw that out there because there are reasons why -- I'm not saying that you have seen many of them lately.
But there may be reasons why.
I would ask that you maybe give us an opportunity to kind of look at this issue, maybe make a presentation to you all about various ways to handle the issue.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Does this have to go to the Planning Commission?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Chapter 27.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: A good six months.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: May I just share an observation?
To waive council rules requires unanimous vote.
Therefore, there's a chance it doesn't get waived unless council has chosen to do it.
In the meantime if council wishes to have us look into this, council could, as a policy, from this dais, say to the development community or the petitioners, that they will look very harshly on these continuances in the meantime, and perhaps as a policy, rather than have it in the code, say that absent whatever circumstances council wishes.
And I understand the position that council is put in when members of the community show up and want the opportunity to speak and wish them to have the time to speak, because council does have that policy, the custom of not allowing them to speak at subsequent meetings, but sometimes puts the community at a disadvantage.
So I understand the conflict that council is experiencing.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, what my dilemma is that when we see a note on there that the staff wants it to continue, and we overrule staff, that bothers me a lot because the staff is the one that has to put these things together, and they know whether they have seen everything and they have got everything in place.
That's the part that bothers me a lot.
We are not following staff's region these things.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: One of the advantages, perhaps, and policy is a good thing, but perhaps we might want to look at if not codifying, maybe put in your rules of procedure what council's policy is regarding continuances, so that the public is on notice, staff is on notice, how council will typically deal with continuance issues.
You know, one of the things that I think is important as we see more and more requests for continuances occur before you all that council act on those continuances in a uniform fashion, and deal with people similarly situated folks in the same way, and that's just from a legal standpoint one of my suggestions to you all.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I think we also need to find out why we do have the rash of continuances.
I don't think it's all because of the petitioners who are changing things.
I mean, I don't think that it's all their fault.
I think a lot of times staff doesn't have the opportunity to review things.
And I don't know that that's anyone's fault.
I mean, there is no doubt that the process of getting projects approved in this city has slowed down dramatically over the last couple of years.
And so I think if we are going to take a look at it, we shouldn't assume that it's the petitioner's fault, and I think we do have a rule on continuances.
You get two, and that's it.
And then your projects get dropped.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: We don't have a written rule per se.
We had a policy of sorts.
And frankly one of my concerns is that sometimes we deviate from that policy, and perhaps we ought to have a rule saying, you know, setting forth what council's expectations are.
I would concur with what you're saying, Mr. Harrison.
Part of the problem is staff not just graphical change of plan.
Sometimes staff has issues, as total traffic analysis and they get those two or three days before the hearing and they don't have time to review it.
Those are issues that come up.
And, you know, we are trying to address that through not establishing hearings, or setting hearings on petitions until they have at least had one meeting with the DRC so that the issues can be flushed out at least initially.
So we are trying to slow up the process a little bit.
The city historically has had a fairly aggressive process, fairly short process compared to other communities for processing rezoning petitions.
We don't necessarily want to lengthen that but want to certainly look at that process to see how that dovetails and why so many continuance requests come in to council.
>>GWEN MILLER: Sometimes we as council members, we suggest to the petitioner to continue the project for another week or two, so we are part of this, also, with the continuation.
Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We went through this a year ago.
And I think we went -- I think we traveled along pretty well for a year.
And then the last meeting or two, it seems to have risen up again.
And I think it's extremely important -- and frankly, I think the policy that we have probably can work and has been working for the year, as long as staff enforces it.
And when I say that, the best way that staff can enforce it is when they get up here, and Cathy or whoever is doing it is going through the list of, you know, the petitioner has asked for continuance, the neighborhood this, and that, and you go through the list at the beginning, she needs to say, "and by the way, you know, we have not received for item number X the following documents."
And, therefore, I haven't had a chance to do my staff report.
Because that's one of the things that irks me the most, is if there is no current written staff report, then we are all at a severe disadvantage.
And that's not fair to anybody in the process.
I mean, also the public doesn't know where staff is, because if staff just changed their mind, and has thrown out all their objection as day before but it's not in written, that's not fair to the processor the public or to anybody.
So I think it's incumbent upon staff right at the beginning of the meeting.
Because that way at least if it comes, okay, their inconvenienced, but they are only inconvenienced for 10, 15 minutes till we get it out of the way, we tell them it's going to be continued as opposed to waiting until the item comes up, and then two or three hours later of course everybody is going to be annoyed.
So, you know, if we want to change some things, that's okay.
If we want to enhance what we already have to include additional paperwork or whatever, I think that's okay.
But frankly, I think it's really up to Thom Snelling and his staff to make sure that that issue gets addressed right up front at the very beginning of the meeting.
>>GWEN MILLER: I suggest keep it like it is and see how it works in a couple weeks.
Because we are not having the problem every week we meet, Ms. Saul-Sena.
It's not every week.
We don't have to have it like that. So we can see if it's going to do better.
Then if it doesn't do any better, like Mr. Dingfelder said, add those paperwork that we need.
Mr. White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: One of the other things that appears to be an ongoing problem the past few meetings, where we have had several notices, not being perfected, the petitioners, and then we have 12 or 15 hearings that night, and I can't remember exactly what night it was we had eight on one particular night couldn't be heard because notice wasn't perfected, and that throws us into a perpetual spin, and the petitioner is here or community is here, and they come out in force and in masses and they are not even notified that the notice hadn't really truly been perfected, and then it's a true inconvenience to them.
And I don't think it's fair.
And after two of those, I think we really need to take a hard, fast look at that, to keep granting continuance after continuance after continuance.
I understand it wasn't he this petitioner's fault, I understand if it's staff's fault, and staff does from time to time make a mistake and we can't continue and proceed.
Oftentimes it's the petitioner's fault.
And I have never seen the neighborhoods not ready to proceed.
And I think we really need to take a look at that and see what we can do.
Because I think it's more or less a fairness issue than anything.
Fair to the community, fair to the petitioner and fairness to council.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I know the clerk's office is basically the ones that get the affidavits sent and determine whether new notice has been done in a timely manner.
In accordance with the code requirements and they do try to let the petitioner know on the agenda as soon as possible if a petition has been misnoticed or cannot move forward that night.
We will try to do a better job at letting the neighborhoods know as well.
But that information usually is available in advance of the public hearing.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I understand.
Most of the people are looking at the signs that are posted in the neighborhood.
They are not going online to find out whether it's been continued or not.
Especially some of the great majority of the people that we do have, some of the elderly and things of that nature that come down and take a very active part in their neighborhoods, don't have computers, or are not computer literate, but they are literate about their neighborhood and want to speak about it.
And then when they get down here after they sat down here for an hour and found out it's going to be continued or not going to be heard because notice hadn't been perfected.
It's kind of hard on them.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can follow up with the ordinance that council passed earlier with regard to appeals.
There is a misnotice provision that does only allow one bite at the apple and does allow the opportunity for to the be rescheduled.
It says failure to perfect notice required for the rescheduled hearing shall result in the appeal being denied.
So council at least with regard to the appeals process has addressed the issue of misnotice.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
I'd like to make a motion that Martin Shelby and Morris Massey get together and look at codifying some of the things that have been our practice.
But I think it's helpful for everyone to sort of have it written down, like the idea that, you know, one continuance is allowable, two continuances we really frown upon, and three are absolutely not allowed.
But, also, I think we need to communicate at the beginning of each zoning meeting so that the people who traditionally represent petitioners -- because oftentimes it isn't the individual.
This is the only rezoning experience.
We have certain people who on a continuing basis represent folks.
They need to understand we are really serious about this 13-day rule and that we are really serious about staff providing us written reports.
Because I think that allows us to do our job more professionally.
So my motion is that you all get together, draft -- basically codify what we do and bring it back to us.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I just asked for clarification from the maker of the motion when you say codify you make the ordinance or something that can be contemplated as a council rule of procedure?
>> I meant as a rule of procedure.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I would support that.
I wouldn't support it as a code change.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Not as a code change but as a future rule.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I second that.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't agree with that.
If we are asking for Morris and Marty to take a look at options and come back with a report about what those options are I'm okay with that.
But what's being suggested is we make a rule which means in order to waive it we have to have unanimous consent.
And if it's a contentious issue at all we'll never get unanimous consent.
I go with you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: So let these two smart guys come back with some sort of suggestion.
Without rule of procedure.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Recommendations, think.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Including rules of procedure?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Everything under the sun.
Whatever your recommendations may be.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: We'll be happy to look into it.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Certainly will.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
>>ROSE FERLITA: I wanted to make a comment.
Mr. Massey, since you are up here and part of this staff, I do have something that I think this is a good time to say it and I want to just mention it.
Last week was obviously pretty disorganized, and it went into a night meeting, and we all had the same frustrations, I think, colleagues, about one of the projects in Channelside.
The petitioner's representative was not ready to present his information.
And it appeared that you and Cathy Coyle didn't have -- weren't ready.
And I think you were very nice to come up and say, if you want to blame somebody, blame the staff.
But I'm going to tell you just from what I understand, it was pretty well-known that the administration was going to ask for it to be continued.
So, Morris, I guess what I'm saying is, you were a good soldier to the administration, you and Cathy.
But I want to clarify that was nothing to do with the lack of preparation for our staff.
I just don't think it's fair.
They were caught out there.
And everybody was looking for somebody to point the finger at and you were very nice, you and Cathy.
But it wasn't your fault.
It will get resolved.
And I thank you for being so nice to try to accommodate what was happening.
I needed to tell you both that.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Public hearings is our next thing.
This week's meeting appears is going to be a very easy meeting.
Last week's was like --.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Nothing is easy.
>> Like Katrina as a City Council meeting.
So for public hearings there are a couple of points made that I would like to discuss and decide if you want to do.
Number one is that when there is a public hearing scheduled for a particular time, I really do believe that council in respect to the public who we sent out all these notices to, we should stop whatever we are doing at that time, within five minutes or so, and have the public hearing.
And I don't think we should schedule more than one public hearing at a particular moment.
I think we should not schedule a series of them for the same time because realistically you can't hear three or five hearings at one time.
You should schedule them at five-minute increments or ten-minute increments.
And lastly -- are you all listening?
Are you listening?
Thank you.
I think we should not schedule more than two public hearings, two assessment hearings at one meeting.
And I think that it should be -- I think it should either be the chairman or council, somebody looking to our future agendas, we should notice if we have, you know, huge number of things scheduled, and say, wait a minute, let's spread them out a little.
For example, wouldn't it have been smarter in hindsight to have a couple of those meetings scheduled for today rather than last week?
I think we should seriously, instead of being passive, instead of being just saying, oh, well, this is the agenda that the administration set.
We are council.
We have power to set an agenda and we should look at when we schedule these meetings with an eye toward not overhauling ourselves at any given meeting.
And that's something we can do without asking anybody's permission or changing a rule.
We simply need to be more active.
Are you -- I think it's something we can do.
And I think we should stop at this moment and look at our future agendas and see when we have six things scheduled.
All for the same time.
And change it.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: We do that all the time.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I tell my children, we can learn.
We are educatable.
We can make this situation better.
And last week was such a fiasco that I think it's incumbent upon us to look at, for example, you know, some day when we have a zillion things scheduled, and say, let's not schedule three controversial things for exactly the same moment.
Let's spread them out in time, let's spread them out by week.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: An observation from my perspective.
Council sets the hearings when those items appear on the consent docket by resolution setting public hearings.
So, in effect, council does create its agenda.
Now the question is, to what degree does council wish to give that, or perhaps a guideline as to how many, or what days?
But traditionally, my observation is that council has not scrutinized the consent docket when it does set public hearings as to the number or the complexity and the like.
And as an example, next week, you have, I believe, it's nine small scale land use plan amendments scheduled for 5:00, in advance of your regular docket at six.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Which is 13 rezonings.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: My objects is it would be a change when it sets resolutions on a consent docket.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I want to tell Ms. Saul-Sena, I strongly agree that there's some I guess idiosyncrasies, that we need to change that.
When sometimes we have eight or ten things scheduled for 9:00, but some of them move very rapidly.
And sometimes we are very much on track.
I don't think anyone has a crystal ball to figure out when it's not going to move rapidly.
But we might be able to, for the public's sake, we may want to stagger some of those things.
Last week, as an example, we had 9:00 hearings that weren't being heard until 3:30, or 4:00 in the afternoon.
But if they are not contention issues, we may want to leave them as is.
But if we know -- it never seems to fail when we have the contention issue and we plan to be here a long time, then it gets continued and we spread it out because one side or the other is not ready.
And if that's the case, and we spread that out, and we set it for a time period, say 1:00, oh after the lunch hour, or something of that nature, then we end up finishing with our regular agenda at 11:30, and then done, and then the 1:00 is going to be continued or canceled, but because it's scheduled for 1:00 we have to come back in just to open the public hearing and continue it.
So I agree with you to a certain extent.
Maybe we can just spread them out in 30-minute increments to maybe the 11:30 hour, and then we'll just see where it goes after that.
But as far as further scheduling things, like we do the workshops, 1:00, 2:00, if you want to do 9:30, 10:30, 11:00, something like that I would be more than happy.
>>GWEN MILLER: But like this morning, how many we had scheduled at ten?
We didn't have anything to do because 10:00 wasn't here and we had them scheduled and we didn't get to them.
It doesn't happen as a meeting date, it's just some days that we have overflow.
But now we got how many scheduled for 10, and we cannot hear not one of them because it's not 1:00.
It was just ten minutes after nine.
So we can't say this is going to happen every Thursday.
Because like Mr. White says, sometimes you're finished at 11:30 and we got something scheduled at 1.
We have to wait until 1:00 to start the meeting because we cannot hear it until it's set for 1:00.
So I don't think scheduling them at 10:00 cause as problem every meeting.
It is sometimes we might be overloaded but not every meeting.
Ms. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: There's analogy here.
The analogy is that when you go to a doctor, and you have, say, a 10:00 appointment, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are going to be there at 10:00.
They schedule six or seven patients at the 10:00, and when it's your turn, that's when your turn is.
And this is the same way with this.
Not that we're doctors or anything like that.
But at least we have a time certain that they know that they are going to be here at 10:00.
And when we get to them, we're here.
So I don't think we need to kind of mess around with the procedure, as Ms. Miller says.
This doesn't happen to us every week.
It happens to us maybe three or four times a year.
So I think we can live with that.
I don't think we need to change it.
Because then, like Mr. White said, we have to come in the afternoon for something that could have been at 10:00.
So I don't think we need to mess around with that part of it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I do like the idea of perhaps staggering them a little bit.
If you have a clump of them at 10:00, it kind of sends the wrong message.
And so I think when they are clumped, maybe we should do three at ten, three at 10:15, and so on.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: That's easy to do.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I think that way if people are on a tight schedule or whatever, they know they don't have to get here till 10:15, and we waste 15 minutes less of their time.
I think that's something we can do fairly easily.
I think it's something the clerk can take care of easily as they are scheduled.
What is the other issue?
Whether or not we start things right when they are scheduled?
That's a tough one.
Because you never know.
I mean, a lot of these things are carryover from staff reports, and we get into vigorous discussion about them.
And then along comes a 10:00 hearing and we just stop dead in our tracks?
That's sort of awkward.
So I don't know if I agree with that one.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Also, we have to look at the things that are coming onto our agenda from the administration.
Sometimes we just get things loaded up on one particular week.
This week, certainly the 9:00 hearing looks like it's fairly light.
But sometimes, it just a matter of what we deal with from the administration as well.
And I think that we need to give some direction and some ability to our chair to say, enough is enough for this week, guys.
We are going to be here all day as it is.
Don't load us up any further.
If there are things that don't have to come on the particular week, maybe they can work on staggering some of their things as well.
It's not all our fault.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If you set things at different times, it effects your ability to then skip to different items on the agenda, because if they are set for a different time, you cannot hear it until that particular time.
So when you have, as council member Dingfelder suggested, you have a series at least within that time, if that's something council wishes to do, then as long as you are at that time, or after, then you can hear them.
But it would add another layer that would have to be addressed.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think an example of council does it is this evening.
We have a very contentious issue and we set aside an entire evening meeting to discuss it rather than putting it in the middle of our agenda which could really stretch things out and been very difficult for the people attending it.
So I think when we recognize something in advance that's going to be real contentious and give it it's own time slot that's a God thing to do.
I agree with you, Mr. White, that we don't need to schedule things after 11:30.
I think the appropriate thing would be for the chairman to ask the administration not to schedule a number, for example, of assessment hearings and then we have the ability to look at our agenda and say we are not going to do that, for the same time, and we know that a particular issue is going to take a lot of time.
For example, I'm looking at appeal hearings.
Oftentimes appeal hearings are -- don't come to fruition for various reasons.
But when they occur, then we have to hear things de novo, we should give them the time that they are going to take because they are going to be long.
And I think the idea of beginning public hearings at ten rather than 9:30 is more realistic.
Oftentimes we are not through with department heads by 9:30.
I mean, most often.
So that might be a strategic approach.
>>GWEN MILLER: We set our appeal hearings to be the last thing on our agenda.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: The appeal hearings?
They come later, yes.
Also, my advice to council, the rules of procedure are relatively new as we are supplementing them and I believe Mrs. Saul-Sena said at the outset of her remarks initially this morning, when council does approve the agenda early on, council has given itself through its rules the discretion to reorder, or to change the agenda in any way it sees fit for that particular day, that particular morning.
So council could through its own authority at that time, early on in the process, notify the public and have a discussion about how there may be items that may need to be rescheduled within the agenda or for another day.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It seems like we have kind of wrestled with that one pretty well.
I don't know if there's a motion coming on that.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I want to address one other issue that Mr. Shelby and I were talking about last week, and this is really, in my mind, almost a due process issue.
What I observed happened on some issue last week.
We have a staff report coming first, and then we have agenda public comment.
And last week, during the staff report -- and I can't remember what issue it was.
Do you remember, Marty?
That there was a very substantive discussion during the staff report.
And then we made a motion that was a substantive motion, and then two agenda items later public had a chance to get up and speak and they were speaking to one of those issues that we had already talked about, and basically made a decision about, without being able to take the public's comment into consideration.
And I know we didn't do it on purpose.
But I think the reason we did it is because that's now the sequence of our events.
And, therefore, I think we have to take serious consideration into moving the agenda public comment portion to come before staff reports, just for that reason alone.
Because if we don't, I think there's a due process concern in my mind anyway that the public is not having an ample opportunity to inject itself.
Now, we can either do that, or we could make a rule or decide that we're never going to take any vote whatsoever based upon the staff report, and wait until after public comment.
I think we have to do one or the other.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think that Mr. Dingfelder's point is well taken.
And I think of the two things you suggested, one is to put the public prior to staff, and second to just make sure that we allow public comment before we take any action.
The latter is what I prefer, because I think that would work best.
So that would be what I would prefer.
And my question for Mr. Shelby would be, that doesn't require any change in our procedures, it just requires us to remember to do that, correct?
Or do we need to write it down and codify it in our procedures?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't think you have to. I think if you want Mr. Dingfelder's first proposal that would require a change to the rules.
But the other could be implemented with just an acknowledgment, and I'll remain vigil so that if council does make a motion to do something as a result of what it heard in staff report that there be a motion then to open it for public comment before taking official action.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: My aim would be to move the agenda for public comment to earlier in the meeting.
And I think we used to have it earlier in the meeting.
>>GWEN MILLER: Department heads is always before.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, I don't know why.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I can tell you it was an accommodation for the administration.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Which administration?
Years ago?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: No, because quite frankly it was a discussion that I had with the administration when we were talking about the order of business.
And it was my initial recommendation to have the agendaed public comment first.
And the administration -- I guess because of the way it had been done and seemed to have worked effectively for them to not have them sit through the agendaed public comment to be able to accommodate that, get back to their business.
>>GWEN MILLER: It's 10:00.
We need to go back to our agenda.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, I would like to deal with this issue before we move on and at least come to some conclusion where we are going to go on it because I think the status quo is not appropriate.
I would like to move that we amend our rules and put agendaed public comment first, and after the ceremonial activities and the approval of the agenda.
>> Second.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think it extremely important.
Who are we trying to convenience, staff or the public?
The public has someplace to go to.
They get three minutes.
Let hear them early so we know how they feel about the issues we are going to discuss that day.
And then we move on with the issues.
So that's my motion.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby, you had a question from the look on your face?
Just amend it and change it?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: It would be a motion to amend the rules.
Now, to do that, it has to go on the agenda, has to be read.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's just a motion to amend the rules to oh follow approval of the agenda.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Question on the motion?
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's 2 to 2.
So we need the rest of them back here.
>>GWEN MILLER: It's 10:00. We need to go to agenda item number 1.
The legal is supposed to bring an ordinance back for number 1.
>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Legal department.
Last week, given concerns expressed by Karen Jones on behalf of the southeast, I think it's south Baptist Seminole Heights church, you had requested or had directed my office to prepare an ordinance allowing for a one-year conditional, as well as including conditions that would address the church's concerns.
We had contacted Karen Jones earlier in the week and did not receive any return calls.
I spoke with pastor Floyd yesterday.
It turns out that Ms. Jones has family in New Orleans and was preparing to travel over there to assist her family.
When I did talk to pastor Floyd, I let them know that council had directed my office to do.
I asked if there was any type of language we could include in the ordinance that would address the concerns expressed by the church.
And although he didn't want to come across as an obstructionist with this application, he couldn't really support putting in conditions in an ordinance.
Dent feel that there were conditions that could address their concerns.
So I do not have an ordinance for your consideration today, because I would have been preparing something without really keeping those entities abreast.
I have also been told there are represents from the neighborhood association present this morning that would like to speak.
If that is council's desire, I believe council would have to reopen the public hearing to consider that additional testimony.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Need to open the public hearing.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you, council.
Just a couple of items with regard to any of the public hearings that were going to be heard by council today.
I ask that all written communications relative to today's hearings that have been available to the public at the council's office be received and filed into the record at this time.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: In addition if any member of the City Council has any verbal communications with any of the petitioners today, his or her representative or any members of the public in connection with any of the petitions that are going to be heard, that that member of council should please disclose the following information -- the identity of the person, group or entity with whom the verbal communication occurred, and the substance of that verbal communication.
Madam Chair, I believe if we are going to reopen this public hearing, it would require those who testify be sworn.
>>GWEN MILLER: If there's anyone in the public to speak on item number 1, would you please stand and raise your right hand?
>>THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: For the record when you do state your name please reaffirm that you have in fact been sworn.
Thank you.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Land development.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 1?
>>> My name is Bill Duval, 5408 Branch Avenue.
And I'm here today to speak on behalf of the board the Old Seminole Heights civic association.
Randy, the president, could not be here because of a work conflict and he asked that I represent him and the board.
Old Seminole Heights continues to be opposed.
Now some of you are sitting up there saying, wasn't Bill Duval here last time talking about a six-month continuance -- I'm sorry, one-year continuance?
Yes, I was.
It was based on a particular factor that this business was attempt to show good faith.
However, the board has still spoken and I'm here to deliver the vote of the board.
In addition, we had discovered that this property is for sale.
And as you know, wet zoning goes with the property.
Now, the petitioner, I spoke to this morning and certainly will speak for himself, has denied this fact.
I can't -- I'm not here to change my report from the board.
The board is not here.
Although there's a board member here who will speak.
So bottom line is we continue to oppose a conditional wet zoning at this location.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Come back, they have a question for you.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Bill, I have a question.
I'm sorry to make you come back.
Last week when we heard this, it was in the morning.
My understanding is that some people were confused about when the petition was going to be heard.
And you were not here and I think we referenced the time before you were here.
So I'm just assuming just to clarify it for me that you were in opposition last week but you didn't realize it was going to be the morning meeting.
>>> That's correct, as well as our president Randy Barron delivered an e-mail that his response was received on Wednesday.
And we felt that that e-mail was going to speak for us last week.
And apparently it didn't.
So here to make sure.
>>ROSE FERLITA: With that petition, at least, madam, some of the colleagues, it was obviously an important factor that neither association was here and I'm grateful that you came down this time.
>>> Just how many times can we come down and say no?
That's no excuse.
We will always be here.
And this won't happen again.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And I think we got your message loud and clear.
Thank you for being through the whole process.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you that. Was the confusing issue last week.
Because last time, I don't know it was you personally or you as the association, was in support of this petition because of what the petitioner had done to clean up that corner and that neighborhood.
And when it appeared that you were in support last time, and then the non-appearance of your support, or your non-appearance in council last week showed that, you know, you weren't in opposition, because I know how active your neighborhood association as well as the southeast Seminole Heights civic association is.
And two questions for you.
You spoke for the association.
You personally, are you opposed to it as well?
And second -- I didn't know if he was speaking as an individual resident, or was he speaking for the association?
>>> Speaking for the board, not to contradict.
This morning.
>> Was it the board's position to change it's mind because they found out the property was for sale?
>>> Not at all.
The board had already voted the third week of August, prior to even finding out that it was for sale.
I just think it points out the fact that in wet zoning, it goes with the property, and we were attempting good faith with the current owner, and all of a sudden we hear that it's for sale.
We feel like, well, we are not even dealing with the current owner at this point.
So there went the good faith.
And while I have the opportunity here, can someone on the council say that they did in fact read the e-mail that was verified as being received Wednesday, before, the 24th before the hearing?
Because we felt that was going to speak for us.
Are you saying that no council member received that e-mail?
>> I didn't.
>> I have it in my hand and we are very disappointed that didn't get to you all last week.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, sir.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question for Bill.
I'm a little confused.
I'm curious.
I heard your position, your official position you're transmitting on behalf of the board.
I'm confused, because I thought I did recall you personally, the last time we had this hearing, I recognize things change, and that sort of thing.
The last time you personally said you did not object to this petition.
Is that correct, Bill?
>>> Actually, the board did not object.
It's because a result of the meeting that I participated in with the petitioner and the board, the board at that time voted to consider --
>> So that was, what, a year ago, something like that?
>>> That was the last six months, because every six months they can reapply.
Yeah, that was six months ago.
>> So for whatever reason the board has changed it's mind.
But it didn't have to do with the sale sign.
The board changed it's mind for other reasons?
>>> That's right.
At the time the board voted, they had no knowledge --
>> And different composition of the board, whatever, different discussion?
>>> Well, I must take a little responsibility for the last vote.
I may have had this much to do with the board considering a one-year conditional.
Based on the economic value of the business to the neighborhood.
However, it has been and will continue to be the board's position that no additional beer and wine sales be added to the neighborhood without an R.
And this falls in that category.
That's why don't even have to consider it.
If someone wants to add wet zoning and it not connected with a restaurant, 51%, we're going to say no.
In this case, we gave the petitioner too long.
But we did give him an opportunity to show us how he could conduct his business, and I've heard even Mr. White ask as a customer, the business looks fine, police reports.
>> What's your observation on the activity of the business?
>>> Well, we got a little nervous in the last six months.
There was a tractor trailer, truck repair in there and suddenly we saw tractor trailers all over the place.
We thought we may be going downhill.
In person to the petitioner, we have asked for food service, like a subway, or something else to supplement the income, which apparently gas stations need, you know.
Apparently you can't sell gas anymore, although it looks like from the prices, where is that money going?
So we were trying to encourage another line of supplemental income besides beer and wine.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Bill, just to clarify very quickly, I think what your position was when you came here, due to the explanation you just gave us, was that you were not supporting it but you were not opposing it.
Did you not come up and say we will not be in opposition?
>>> No, the board is opposing --
>> Now.
I'm just thinking about what Mr. Dingfelder is saying.
I think along the way someplace you at least were willing to give the petitioner opportunity to show good faith.
>>> That's correct.
And that was denied by a vote of 4-3 last time.
So the board said, okay, you know, we tried, and we tried to up our hearts, full, to a person that was trying to do a good job.
It failed before council.
So we're going to go back to our original position, and that's the position I'm presenting today.
I'm sorry for that. I'm sure we contributed somewhat to that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> My name is Susan long.
I live at 921 east broad street and I'm on the board of Old Seminole Heights neighborhood association.
And yes, I have been sworn in.
I'm looking at this sign.
I'm personally -- I have been opposed to this from the beginning.
Now obviously I was outvoted by the board when they decided to give him a one-year provisional.
My concern was if you give him a one-year provisional, how do you ever take it back?
Because I have known those things to happen in the past.
Currently, I'm even more opposed to it once I found out the place was for sale.
You give him a liquor license.
Who knows what's coming in next week or next month.
Although rumor has it and I haven't heard it from the owner's mouth the owner densities for sale but there's a listing you can pull off the Internet which tells me it for sale.
Somebody put it up for sale.
My other concern is I'm very active in the Seminole Heights mobile crime patrol, and that area, with I guess, what is it, a BP at the corner of Nebraska and Hillsborough, combined with the historic hooker traffic on Nebraska, we really don't need to throw more liquor into this.
This is not known to be a nice, clean, upper, middle class tidy intersection.
If you put more liquor there, it serves nobody's interest except the people that we don't want to have.
So my personal position has always been to deny this, although as a board member, the board did approve a provisional one-year liquor license, and then over time has changed their mind due to a lot of things that have gone on.
Some of the activities we have seen at the location, and then of course that was the original one, and people are now even more adamant now that they have seen it's for sale.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> Good morning council members.
My name is Beverly Morrow.
I'm serving as president out of southeast Seminole Heights civic association.
I reside at 1106 East Ellicott street.
And I have been sworn in.
Regarding the wet zones, 806 east Hillsborough Avenue.
Southeast Seminole Heights civic association's position remains unchanged.
And this petition request, we are still opposed to granting the 2(APS) petition, either with or without conditions.
This is a unanimous decision by our Board of Directors.
So many heights church located directly across the street is less than 500 feet from 806 east Hillsborough Avenue.
And they continue to be opposed to the petition.
This is also a unanimous decision by all 415 members of their congregation.
They have taken a second vote.
Previous to this you had information, I think it was something like 375 or 85 people.
But their membership has grown, and they have reconsidered it, and to take a new vote to show unanimous consensus from the members of the congregation.
Old Seminole Heights neighborhood association also opposes this petition, as you have heard, and e-mailed all City Council members on or about the 25th of August.
Along the major business corridors of Seminole Heights, we are truly saturated with businesses that sell alcohol for consumption off the premises.
The neighborhood suffers.
Many of the negative result of having such easy access to alcohol within our community.
Some of those are vagrancy, public drunkenness, beer bottles in cans and bags left around our right-of-way, our bus stops, our interstate ramps, and in front of other business properties.
We request that you up hold the city ordinance that is restrict the sale of alcohol in such close proximity to a church or school.
The church has scheduled recreational activities for their youth on the parking lot which adjoins the church buildings.
They also conduct alcohol and drug cessation programs at the church.
When deliberating your decision this morning, please consider this additional information.
And you have heard the business is currently on the market being offered for, I believe, 825,000.
And here is that.
I don't know how to operate that so I have to ask for your assistance.
That's on the web site, of the real estate company at 806 east Hillsborough Avenue.
Neighbors have recently noticed, as you have also heard --.
(Bell sounds)
>>GWEN MILLER: Continue your statement.
>>> That the current owner is no longer managing his business on a day-to-day basis.
There is another management team in place, and those people say they are leasing the business, that they have the intent to purchase.
Seminole Heights civic association requests that City Council members up hold your prior decision to deny this petition for approval.
I don't know if I can be allowed, but I have one additional thing I would like to share with you.
If I may.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there one for each council member?
>>> I just have these two items and I can give it to you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Give it to us and we'll review it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Is it a petition against this?
>>> No.
I asked Tampa Police Department to draw up statistics on two intersections at Central and Hillsborough, where there's a BP that serves beer and wine, and at Nebraska and Hillsborough which is a Mobil that does the same.
I wanted to see what we have at those locations.
So this is it.
This is the one for Hillsborough and Nebraska.
This is the one for Central and Hillsborough.
Got from January 03 through August 31 of 05.
And even if you take out the situations like stopping someone because there's no tag, or there's information only type reports, if you take half of that out, the business at Hillsborough and Nebraska in that area, calls for service are just over 2500.
And I'm taking half of what's here, just to be conservative.
That place is just under a thousand feet from the church, I think 968 feet.
Central and Hillsborough, a BPS, also serving alcohol for couples off premises, or selling it, if you take half of theirs, you still have over 500 calls for service, in the time frame January 03 through yesterday, basically.
>>GWEN MILLER: Why don't you submit them to me?
Give them to Mr. White.
We will review it.
Ms. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I have a question for you.
A question.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: We have a police report from the police department that they showed that they have no opposition.
Do you why know why that would have been?
>>> I would assume prior to this business coming into being, it was a building, piece of property, building.
There was no business there.
So they didn't have a lot of calls for service.
And I don't think that there's been any calls for service.
I'm not aware of any currently at this location.
But, you know, do I just assume that that will remain the same?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: We can't assume anything.
We just have to take facts.
We can't take assumptions.
The other question I had for you was, have you seen walk-ups, people walking to the store?
Right now, they don't have any beer and wine.
So how do you assume that it would be walk-ups?
Could it not be that these people, especially where the location is, right across the street, right at the entrance of the interstate, do you suppose that people would be coming in walking up to go buy their beer and wine?
Or would they be coming in cars and just getting back on the interstate and going?
>>> Well, I think you are going to see both.
And I have seen -- I don't sit and observe that business a great deal of time.
But I have seen some people walking up to it.
But if you're serving or selling alcoholic beverage, people will walk up.
I mine, the church, I don't think they are here to talk to you today.
But before services on Sunday, and Wednesday, or to having a meeting there, they have to have somebody go out and police the area, because they find all of these bits of debris that you have just spoken to you about.
They frequently find human excrement at their door.
And so there is a lot of -- there are a lot of people walking around in that area.
They now can go to the BP or they can go down to the Mobil, and they do.
I have even had the Mobil manager say that sometimes they wish they didn't sell the beer, because they have a lot of people go behind the building, and homestead basically for as much time, until somebody, you know, get them to go away.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: But this particular station is, like I said, right at the entrance of the interstate.
>>> Yes.
>> The BP station is on the corner, right?
Of Nebraska and hilt bore Avenue?
>>> Right.
>> So it would seem to me like you would have more walk-up business in that area than you would at this particular location.
>>> Well, there's a sidewalk that runs right in front of both the church and this business.
There are lots of people biking and on foot.
So I think the preponderance of traffic would be vehicular but you are going to have people walking to the.
And one of our main concerns is that it's less than 500 feet from the church.
>> But it's across the street from the church and it's a highway, like a six-lane highway.
I can't imagine anybody going to buy a beer and then going to cross six lanes of traffic to go to the church.
I just can't see that.
You know, I want to be fair -- I want to be fair to the petitioner.
I want to be fair to the Baptist church and everything.
And I understand, Baptists are mainly opposed to any kind of liquor.
Even if it was three blocks away, the Baptist people would be opposed to it.
>>> Well, in this case, they simply would like to think that they are protected by the ordinance that says it cannot be within a certain distance.
And this is certainly much less than that distance provided by the ordinance.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do you want to speak on that?
>>> Gene Haynes, Tampa police. I did not get sworn in.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
I didn't get to do this report personally.
But I can tell you the calls for service will be done at that exact location.
So they are probably not going to be as prevalent as the number that Ms. Morrow has for that intersection.
So based on his background, and the call for service at that exact address, is why the police did not have any legal opposition to that, any enforcement issues.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Not that we are going to support or deny this position.
I was going to go along with on the lines of what Ms. Alvarez was saying.
Ways looking at this report that Ms. Morrow brought to us.
As a police officer and working that area and things of that nature, officer, I'm looking at the types of incidents that are occurring on these calls for service in that block.
And the majority of these traffic stops related, driver's license offenses, accident, and the on the codes on these are arrests that are made, but basically subsequent to a traffic stop where you find out the person that is actually driving the automobile may be wanted and then an arrest is made and that location, the arrest location is put in there.
>>> I didn't get a chance to look at the whole packet either.
>> I just looked real briefly at the first five pages.
But there are a few for couples of alcohol.
But that could be open containers in the vehicle as well.
And that's all I'm saying.
I just want to be fair and objective.
>>> I think it goes back to the fact that that's the intersection.
And not the exact address.
>> And not only that, but most police officers would probably prefer to make a traffic stop at that location where it's well lit, well-known, and safe for them as well as the violator.
Am I correct?
>>> Yes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Ferlita, did you want to speak?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, I guess we had gone off on some issues about calls for service, et cetera.
I have always been opposed to this petition, and I'm continuing to be opposed to it.
Let's look at the real yes and no.
It's within a thousand feet of a residential property.
It is within a thousand feet of an institutional use place like Seminole Baptist church and the drug a bus center.
We have two strong, strong -- abuse center.
We have two strong, strong civic associations that oppose it.
Last week there was some confusion about when the petition was going to be heard.
>>GWEN MILLER: Can I interrupt you a minute?
We are asking questions now.
>>ROSE FERLITA: We're asking questions?
>>GWEN MILLER: Do you want to wait?
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>>> Good morning.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any questions from council members?
Anyone else in the public like to speak on item number 1?
Now, petitioner, you may speak.
>>> Thank you.
Good morning.
Looks like a hard case for me, because I did a good job past two years, and I don't know why people are against.
But I can answer a couple of questions, like what I hear from Beverly.
I agree with you, there are six lanes, and I don't know, the issue is people coming from church buying beer or somewhere else.
No way you can get six lines get the beer from us.
BP, people can go right there.
I appreciate your opinion.
Second one, Bill, he said our location for sale.
This morning I look at the web site.
I call the lady.
I said, Who lists?
She said, I don't know, in the computer.
I said, I would like to know this.
I own the property.
I don't know nothing about this.
I say, please, take off right away.
I have no idea what my property without my permission.
She says she will do it.
And if you like, I have her number, dialing number if you guys call, find out why it's listed.
I don't give permission about that.
That check, this happened three months ago, and rent the property, got it nicely cleaned.
If you come three months now, 100% much better.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I don't mean to interrupt you.
>>> Can I --.
>>KEVIN WHITE: White just one second.
Are you standing there after being sworn and say somebody else mysteriously listed the property you own and you know nothing?
>>> 100%.
Yes, sir, 100%.
I give the number.
If you want I call right now.
>> You own that property?
>>> I own the property.
I gave nobody permission to market.
I want to know why they market.
I have nothing to do with this.
>>ROSE FERLITA: That is amazing in itself.
And I'm glad Mr. White asked because I was going to ask the same thing.
I don't think Coldwell Bankers are going to put themselves in a predicament when they don't have a listing agreement with the property owner to try to sell.
>>> 100%.
I swear for --
>> I don't care who you swear for.
I don't believe you.
Don't believe that somebody is going to come and take the description of your property and stick it in a real estate.
And that's one thing.
>>> How --
>> The second question I have is, who are these people that are managing your place?
>>> Good family people.
I have leased the gas station.
>> You listed property?
>>> I leased the property.
>> For sale?
>>> No, not for sale.
I leased the property for management.
People managing already.
I rent the property.
Not for sale.
Two different things.
>>ROSE FERLITA: So somebody, you weren't selling the property, you were selling the business?
>>> No.
>> To somebody who wants to buy it?
>>> Nobody can buy it.
I have not listed.
>> Who are these people that are running it?
>>> They are very good --
>> I am not disputing whether he's a nice guy or not.
It has nothing to did do with what I am asking.
Is somebody operating it and managing it?
>>> His name is Rosanto.
>> What is your relationship with him?
>>> I leased the property.
I own the property.
>> You listed the property?
>>> Rent it.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think he's saying he leased the property, not "list."
>>ROSE FERLITA: Are you leasing the property or are you in the process of selling the business to this family?
>>> No, I lease the property.
I give the business to him.
This property not for sale.
I own it.
I don't know what the --
>> So then you are leasing the business to these people?
>>> Right.
>> And in your attempts to give us good faith testimony last week, you didn't say that.
So that kind of goes to the veracity that you bring or the candor.
>>> Because you put condition, I own the property, still same condition, if I own the property, if I go to manage it, still I like to use this condition.
If I don't own it, you don't have to approve it for someone else.
>> I think what the majority of this council wanted to do was trust you to have good faith effort to make this business a reputable business in the next year.
But while the majority of this council was approving it, you already had somebody else in that business.
How can you come and tell us what he stands for?
He's not even the applicant.
I think there's a great deal of deceit.
I don't appreciate that.
And I think you have done a disservice to this process, sir.
>>> May I ask?
>> That's all.
You can't ask me something.
>>GWEN MILLER: You can finish rebuttal.
Turn his time on.
Go ahead, sir.
>>> I don't know why she don't like -- I'm small business owner.
I have been a taxpayer.
I just want to sell the beer, nothing else.
But if you want to put conditions, my name on it.
I will take consideration, I will take responsibility, I will do good job like in the last couple of years.
Also if you look at the report, the report, not even one, I have the same report here, not even on my property.
Most for BP and mobile gas station.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Sandy, stop his time for a minute.
May I ask a couple?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: For the clarity of record to allow him to finish out his time, hold the questions.
>>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
>>> I appreciate your time.
And I'm the only one.
I don't think I can fight with everybody.
But I appreciate last week the condition.
If you give me the opportunity I will use it.
That's it.
I appreciate it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Ms. Ferlita.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Ms. Alvarez pointed out that this listing has expired.
But I don't think, and Mr. Shelby, correct me if I am wrong, that cannot be a basis for us denying it anyway, whether a building is for sale or not.
But the issue is again that he asked for a conditional.
The majority of my colleagues agreed to give him that.
He is not even the person that's going to be managing this business.
That's already in transition.
And I just think that it is a very disingenuous posture of this petitioner.
I'm not happy about it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions from council members?
Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: When did you enter into the lease with your tenant?
>>> I don't sign the contract, after application.
Application first.
And two months later somebody came in, wants to manage, seems like a very nice, trustable guy.
I will be next door to you.
I'm going to manage the garage.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What type of controls do you have over their activities while they are leasing?
In other words, the neighborhood has expressed great concerns over all of the convenience stores in your neighborhood, including yours.
Mr. Duval has indicated because, you know, they developed a little bit of a relationship with you over the years, that perhaps they built up a level of trust with you.
Ms. Ferlita expresses some very sincere concerns that now you have a tenant, so therefore nobody knows who that tenant is, and what type of control would you have over that tenant?
>>> Can I say?
>> Yes.
That's a question.
>>> I still own the property.
I'm going every day to check to make sure they do the job.
Also we have a contract.
This guy is going to be 50% commission, make sure nobody has any hangouts, make sure -- this is mine first.
The second one, Bill Duval was happy and I was happy also, and people on my property, here or somewhere else, Mr. Kevin White pass by many times.
>> And how long is your lease with this new tenant?
>>> One year condition.
Point is, if you guys not comfortable, I will take responsibility, just put in my name.
I go there.
I am responsible.
I'll take these conditions.
Just in my name.
>> And when you call this realtor the other day --
>>> I called this morning.
>> You called this morning?
>>> This morning.
As soon as I found out.
I don't know anything about it.
>> Did you talk to them?
>>> I talked to the lady.
>> Cathy Caigley?
And what explanation did they have that Coldwell Banker would be listing your property?
>>> That's way said, who give you permission?
She said I don't list the property, someone else's property.
I said give me the number, let me talk to them.
She took my number is going to call them back.
I don't want this property for sale without my permission.
>> And when you swore under oath earlier today --
>>> 100%.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: It appears to me that the issue is not you as the owner of the property.
Maybe that's not the problem.
It's the people who are running the business that's located on your property that's the problem.
And they're the ones that are going to be selling the alcohol.
>>> You put a condition just for my name, not even for them.
If I go back there I will take care of my business, put in my name.
Nothing to do with these people.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let's hear from legal if there's anything we can do along those lines.
>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Legal department.
The usual you really before council today is the impact of the proposed wet zoning is going to have on the vicinity of the subject property.
We are always looking at whether there's going to be, by waiving a distance separation requirements, which would be required, and an approval today, whether that is going to create an adverse impact on the neighborhood.
So it's not who is running the property or who owns the property or the name on the business, it's the impact of the proposed wet zoning on the neighborhood.
>> But who is running the property and how well they are running the property can have a direct relationship to what's happening in the neighborhood.
And so what I'm wondering is, is there any way, if he voluntarily adds a condition that would say that if he sold it, if he sold it, that the conditional would expire?
>>> In the code it addresses conditions that may be imposed on a wet zoning, relate to the location of the business establishment, the hours, and sanitary regulations.
And those are conditions imposed by council, not suggested by the petitioner.
That was an amendment to the code that council had requested within the last year or so.
So I don't know that we're in a position to -- there's nothing in the code that would address conditions, you know, for that by the petitioner.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What I'm thinking is maybe if we tie them to the sanitary conditions and say that this permit would expire if Mr. Yildrim was no longer able to enforce the sanitary conditions on the site.
It just an idea.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: It seems we are trying awfully hard to fit a square peg into a round hole.
What the petitioner has to prove, the petitioner has the burden of proof here that we should waive the separation requirements.
And to me that's a significant burden of proof.
And if you have a church that's within the limitation area that has objected, if you have a neighborhood association in the area that has objected, it seems like you have got a pretty tough row to hoe.
What I want to hear in a short 10 or 15 second answer is, why should we make an exception to our rule that says if you're within these geographic restrictions, we should grant you the wet zoning?
What is unique and different about your property that no one else in the city shares?
>>> It's a small business and income, probably to help pay my property tax.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman.
Mr. Harrison and I continue to agree on this.
Shawn, you're absolutely right.
We are really struggling to get around the thousand foot limitation on institutional, about residential.
This ad for sale, I was looking over my shoulder was Desiree brought to the Mary, it expired 8-25-05.
That's the same day he thought he had gotten permission from us to do this.
In addition to which, Ms. O'Dowd is well versed in what we can and can't do as far as wet zoning.
We have control over the hours of operation, and the location.
I don't think that there's anything that we can do about tying it to the petitioner.
And if there were, I don't think we should do that.
We haven't done that for anybody else.
Why are we trying to reconfigure, convolute everything?
There was some deception to the question.
I know we can't look at the sale of the property.
We have got two strong opposing neighborhood.
We have always supported neighborhood input.
And if it was a straight-up thing where we didn't need any kind of variances, that's fine.
It's there.
And I disagree with the issue that the highway is going to keep people from walking up and down for beer.
I do counseling for a alcohol rehab center for positive years been there and there's nothing that gets in the way of someone who wants to get a beer.
I don't care if it's a 6 lane highway. The church is asking us to respect the guidelines we as a city have established.
I don't understand.
I don't understand why we are trying to help the petitioner as much as we seem to be wanting to help him as opposed to helping the church and the two neighborhoods that are being affected.
It's pretty cut and dry.
>> We need to close.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: She took my thunder.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, you can't speak anymore.
That's it.
We have a motion and second to close.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
(Motion carried)
Council members?
Mr. White?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Deny the petition.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to deny the petition.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think just for the record, I think it would probably be helpful to identify reasons.
>>KEVIN WHITE: The close proximity to the institution as well as serves no public purpose.
>>GWEN MILLER: He didn't hear the last part.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Serves no public purpose.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions on the motion?
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: We go to item number 40.
We need to open the public hearing.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>JAMES COOK: Land Development Coordination.
Petitioner is requesting a continuation to September 15th at 10 a.m.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public to speak on item 40?
We have a motion and second to continue.
All in favor of the motion.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: 10 a.m., Mr. Cook?
>>JAMES COOK: Yes, 10 a.m.
>> Do we have 10 or 10:30?
He's the first one.
Let's go to item number 44.
Number 44 cannot be heard.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe you cannot hear it.
One of the options of number 44 as to what council can do, anybody here representing petitioner on number 44?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: The opportunity for the appellant to perfect the record at least once.
I believe this is the first attempt.
They may not be here because it can't be heard.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I move to deny the appeal.
Why would we continue it, Morris?
Aren't there time restrictions they have?
Well, I suppose they could file their appeal timely.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Apparently the transcripts of the complete record and the severity of mailing were not filed, and filed with you all and the clerk clerk's office were sent out in the appropriate time frame.
What council has historically done, as I understand it, is they have usually given the appellant one more time to perfect the mailing, the record, and the transcript with you all.
That is a matter of policy.
It's not written in your rules.
It's not written in the code.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Way would move to do, since we are trying to tighten up our procedures is deny this.
The petitioner can come in next week and ask for reconsideration if he wants to.
But it puts the burden on him to come in and make that request.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Question on the motion?
(Motion carried)
We go back to item 37.
Continued public hearing.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Land development.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't believe the parties for numbers 37 through 42 have been sworn.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the audience that to speak on 37 through 42 -- 43, raise your right hand.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: I have been sworn.
This case has come before the council before and has been denied.
It was reconsidered at the request of the petitioner.
The site is located on the north side of Cass Street between Albany and Fremont avenues.
The case involves the proposed demolition of the existing structure on-site, an historic, noncontributing structure.
The site is located within the national register of the historic district but is not located within the historic district.
Just for comparison, next door to the site is a two-story bungalow used as an office.
Across the street from the site is another two-story bungalow structure being used as an office.
And then there are a series of one-story bungalow structures being used as an office, or for private residential use.
You get an idea of what the streetscape is because that is an important issue.
This property is located immediately to the west of the subject property.
Further west on Cass Street.
And the two commercial properties on the street are at the corner of Cass and Albany, the one-story laundromat at the corner of Fremont and Cass which is a one-story building.
Those are the two noncontributing structures on the streetscape.
I have shared my staff report with the petitioner.
The petitioner proposes to rezone the property to construct a 4,555 office building that stands two stories and contains 13 parking spaces on the ground floor.
I have the elevation for you.
Vehicular entrance will be on the front elevation, not in character with the rest of the streetscape.
As you recall from the pictures that I showed you vehicular entrance was at the side or the rear of the properties.
The site lies within the west Tampa overlay district and the design standard.
Petitioner has attempted to retain some of the architectural details of the building on the site and the building that was proposed. The proposed setbacks are shown zero front, seven on the west, 3.1 feet on the east side and 12 feet in the rear.
According to the table on the site plan zero trees will be retained on-site, and 12 will be removed.
Four of those which are 20 to 29 inches in caliper and 30 trees are required to be planted based on landscape standards.
Dennis Fernandez has provided a memorandum and I'll read a portion to you.
He does not have concern about the existing historic structure.
He designates it as noncontributing.
However, as a means of preserving the remaining context of the Cass block, it is recommended that in-fill construction maintain the appropriateness of patterns or characteristics of development in the area including building setback, height, and pattern.
One would argue that this petition does not accomplish that.
In conclusion, the objections, there are objections from land development regarding the streetscape character, and it does not meet the requirements of the west Tampa overlay.
Transportation objects based on the request for waiver of parking spaces.
They feel that the waiver is excessive.
And construction services division objects on the basis that there will be no trees retained on-site. If the council may recall, there has been substantive discussion on the streetscape pattern with the petitioner.
Many council members have expressed the desire for the streetscape, for the petition, to reflect the streetscape and pattern.
And staff concludes that this does not meet the council's wishes.
This that concludes my comments.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: First of all, let me read the first paragraph to you from Dennis Fernandez.
The area in which the property is located is neither in a national nor a locally designated historic district.
I think that's contrary to what staff just told you.
Although the structure was identified in the west Tampa historic resources survey as a contributing structure, as a result of this, the Cass Street portion surveyed was removed from the proposed west Tampa local historic district as the boundaries of the district have been redefined.
By staff.
So it's not in a national district, not a local district.
You have letters in the record already indicating that the condition of the structure was poor and was in danger of collapse.
That was done by both a certified engineer and also by contractor indicating the ability to preserve this T structure was beyond reasonable means.
In addition to that, we hired a second architect, because we wanted an independent view of how we could possibly renovate, restore, or retrofit this building.
We hired Franklin Sebastian.
And the rendering you have is Sebastian's rendering based upon a site plan that when thought was very sensitive.
We took that site plan to the west Tampa overlay district committee, took it to the north Hyde Park civic association and took to the Wilson Stair, all of whom approved that elevation.
So I don't know where this comment is coming from be not being consistent with west Tampa or the streetscape.
That's completely a new concept and new comment coming to us at this point.
With respect to continuity, the reason we moved to a bungalow style look is because we previously had this look, which Wilson Stair also approved.
And before that, we have had a Spanish style, which Wilson Stair approved, and he liked that.
-- did he not like that, I'm sorry.
The neighborhood association and the west Tampa overlay district people loved that one, did not like this one, which is what we moved to.
And when we replaced it with this, everyone loved that.
Now, each one of those concepts show a central access driveway.
The problem that you have is that if you try to move the building to the side, and put a side access on there, it just doesn't work.
You don't have the depth in order to make the parking work and you end up with more parking -- requests for parking and waivers.
Previously we weren't asking, I don't believe we were asking for waivers on parking.
When we moved top this scheme, the design is basically forcing you to request the parking waivers.
We were happy with the other designs.
We had a storefront.
We had a variety of other things.
The west Tampa overlay guidelines also require you, and they are encouraging you to use alley access, and to begin to utilize the facilities off of the alley.
We've done that.
You have a letter in your package, at least you should, from Robert Allen, and the north Hyde Park civic association endorsing this project.
And you also, at the last point, had endorsement from the west Tampa overlay committee.
I don't know what else we can do.
We've modified the plan significantly.
We went back and redesigned it.
And we lost parking because we were asked to change the facade design.
The trees that are on the site are not significant.
They are a variety of different kind of trees.
None of them what you would call specimen trees.
The west Tampa guidelines encourage you to push the buildings up to the front at zero lot line.
If they didn't do that you would have room to put trees in there.
So the gentleman with the property immediately next door appeared at the last hearing and was here encouraging us to move forward to demolish the building because it was making his building look bad.
Anyway, I think we have done the very best we can do with this in terms of meeting the intent of the code.
We have jumped through a number of hoops.
And again, you have a letter there that there was some concern early on that this might be a structure worth salvaging.
And we went the extra mile about hiring an additional architect to go in, do an independent evaluation, and that's what they came back to us with.
So we respectfully request your approval.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was just curious.
Looking at the elevation on the site plan --
>>> Same as this one?
I think it does a fairly good job of hopefully of hiding the cars.
I think that's the intent, isn't it?
>>> The cars are completely screened.
That's an entrance drive aisle that goes in the front.
>> My question is this: If you're looking straight on, the cars are fairly well screened by those two side panels.
If you're looking from at an angle, like if you're driving down the street, does any of that facade continue down the side a little bit, so it also creates that similar illusion down the side?
Or could it?
>>> I don't have a side elevation.
But it is attractive.
I mean, it doesn't just stop there.
It turns the corner and it wraps back around.
Because we have, if you look at the site plan, we have the access, as you would see right here.
This is the access area for the elevators and things like that.
So it has to return back along the side.
>> That or the other side?
>>> The on the side is showing a porch.
And we can certainly screen the first two --
>> I mean, I would feel -- pleased about that because if you're coming down the street obviously you're not looking dead on.
You're going to see the corners.
And I think it would be important to at least provide some screening going back, you know, a certain distance, in a similar facade.
>>> We can certainly indicate and commit to you --
>> The rest of the building I'm -- you're screened by six-foot PVC fence and then a back alley and that sort of thing.
So I'm not as concerned about it.
But if you can include that on the note, that would be great.
>> Would you like me to add the screening returns along the side?
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: That was part of the question that I had, that Mr. Dingfelder already asked.
But I was going to make a comment based on that.
Although nothing else on this street has this type of facade as far as your drive-through, for lack of a better word.
The elevation in the site plan you have here is much more attractive and much more conducive to any of the other ones.
Don't care, the neighborhood association, Wilson Stair or anybody else approved those.
Of the styles that you had there, there's nothing on the block that even comes remotely close to mirroring those -- no, not that, the previous one.
>> That's why we changed them.
>>> And keeping in the character of this neighborhood.
And I appreciate you or your petitioner's sensitivity for at least going back to the drawing board or being willing to go back to the drawing board and come back to something that's a lot more sensitive to what is in character of the neighborhood, and especially with the concerns of the -- this is the west Tampa overlay district.
And seeking their input into this, even though they approved the last one as well.
Because on the other side of Albany we are going into some of the square box office complexes.
And this, even though this is a commercial building, at least it is coming up with a lot more blending in with the residential corridor that already exists there.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The picture that's up there, could you put it with the other?
There you go.
Then slide it up.
There you go.
I'm going to assume since I found it in the packet that's the one being torn down?
>>> That's the existing building.
We trade to mirror the design.
>> I think that's pretty sensitive to what's there right now in terms of what you're tearing down and what you're replacing.
I'm a little concerned the opening is kind of wide, but I guess you need it, I guess.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Alvarez?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
I like this elevation a lot better than the other one.
It looks like it's part of the neighborhood.
I was concerned a little bit.
You said that you had gone to the west Tampa overlay?
This was reviewed with Michael Randolph and Wilson reviewed it.
>> Was Michael by himself there?
Was Robert Allen with him?
>>> Robert Allen was there.
They looked at this several times.
And I had asked Robert Allen to update his letter just to make sure that there was some clarity here, and he said he already endorsed it, we're happy with it.
>> I don't have a letter from that.
I don't know where it is.
But we were talking about the parking.
There's an opening right there on the front on Cass Street and you go all the way through to park in the back?
Is that how you do it?
>>> There's a driveway.
The driveway comes through here and the parking comes off of each side.
The driveway goes straight through.
So if you wanted to exit along the alley, could you.
It also enables you to turn around and come back on Cass Street.
>> So then you are going all the way to the alley with this?
>>> Yes.
The alley has to be approved also.
We have to repave that all the way down to the corner.
>> All right.
>>> And clean up any trash and debris that may have been left there.
We have to go east.
>> Fremont.
This is a lot better than the other ones.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I had almost forgotten that our instructions to the architect were to mimic the roof plane and the design facade of the building, that that was our intention.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 37?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What is the setback of the existing structure on the property?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: On the front setback?
>> Yes.
>>> Jill have to check on my survey sauce Saul-Sena maybe the staff knows.
Maybe I prefer to ask the question of staff.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: We had a survey showing.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: The existing setback on the building is approximately 11 feet from the sidewalk to the front plane of the building.
>> The existing structure?
>>> Yes.
>> And petitioner is proposing how many-foot setback?
>>> The petitioner is proposing moving the building forward in effect.
It will have a 10 foot setback from the property line, there's an existing sidewalk.
I don't have my scale with me but I think it would be about five feet from the sidewalk, about half.
>> So what we're talking about is if we look up Cass Street is a change in the pattern of development along here with where the new structure would be?
>>> Yes, that's correct.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions by council members?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: That's what the west Tampa guidelines require to you do.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on number 37?
Mrs. Alvarez?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Michelini, she brings up a good point.
Does that bring the building in line with the others, or is it just going to be come up front?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: With the porch it will come up a little bit.
It won't be significantly further forward than anything else.
But, again, that's what the west Tampa guidelines are requiring us to do.
>> But aren't you supposed to kind of be parallel to the other --
>>> we are as close as we can be to doing that.
>> I don't think I want a snaggletooth.
>>> It's not going to be a snaggletooth.
It's not dramatically forward.
That's why we added the porches and the columns out there. Quite honestly the west Tampa guidelines were actually requiring us to have overhangs that went beyond the sidewalk, and there's none of those on Cass Street.
And we actually were arguing with the staff to delete them from our plans so that we wouldn't have to put awnings out over the sidewalk when there weren't any on that street.
So we kind of split the difference, is what we did.
>>KEVIN WHITE: They are actually encouraging zero lot lines, aren't they?
>>> Yes.
That's why I said we split the difference.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close the public hearing.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Hold it a second.
In relation to the second issue, Heather, is that the analysis?
Does that show how this property relates to the other property?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: This particular analysis is from the historic sampler maps which there are still quite a few historic buildings on-site.
However, the setback has changed a little bit because of the addition of nonhistoric buildings on the block.
And I did a block averaging and it was approximately 15 feet.
I think it was 12 feet.
I was lag through my papers really quick to find it but I think it's between 12 and 15 feet as the average.
>> But as I think Mr. Michelini said, is it the intent of the district to tray to push these properties, especially commercial properties, closer to the street, to be more of an urban feel to it?
I mean, is that the intent of the district?
>>> Well, as the council may know, staff is working on a proposed amendment to the code to get rid of that requirement for commercial properties to be located right along the sidewalk, because there are so many residential properties that are being converted into commercial properties, these residential streetscapes are being radically transformed.
So, therefore, there are commercial properties in what were classically residential districts, whereas the streetscape is just incompatible with the streetscape and if we were to apply that commercial standard in this instance it would be incompatible with the streetscape and the overall purpose and intent of the west Tampa overlay is to have in-fill developments or in-fill projects that are compatible with the streetscape.
>> So at the end of the day -- and I missed this because I was outside -- at the end of the day what is the staff recommendation?
>>> The end of the day the staff recommendation is an objection to the projects.
>> Based on?
>>> Based on streetscape and incompatibility and site design.
From land development there are transportation objections.
>> What's the site design issue in terms of -- not the facade --
>>> vehicular access to the site is not consistent with vehicular access to other sites.
The size of the building and design -- well, the design of the building has improved but the size of the building is not consistent with the buildings within the streetscape as well.
>> In terms of mass?
>>> In terms of mass.
That's correct.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: But Heather, do you feel that this neighborhood is in transition?
That the homes that are there right now will eventually become commercial?
Because I think it going that way now.
>>> I agree, councilwoman Alvarez.
As I drove around the neighborhood there have been a lot of changes.
But we also need to acknowledge the historic roots of that neighborhood.
And make sure that transition is sensitive to those roots.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: This was the west Tampa overlay design.
I just want to show you on the overhead.
These are zero lot lines with these canopies extending out.
And then here's a detail.
These are also built out over the right-of-way.
And those are the guidelines that we have to live with.
The only last point I would like to make is Wilson Stair and the design staff are the ones who ruled on the compatibility with the streetscape and we have met with them, and they have indicated no objection.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to close.
(Motion carried)
What's the pleasure of council?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Maryland a.m. chairman.
I move to deny this petition based on the staff's recommendations that the project isn't compatible with the prevailing streetscape pattern, the objections of transportation, and the removal of 100% of the trees on-site.
689 motion failed for lack of second.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to approve.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to approve.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance in the general vicinity of 1907 west Cass Street in the city of Tampa, Florida more particularly described in section 1 from district zoning classifications CG to PD, professional office, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Clarification to the council --.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: We agreed to add a note to the first 20 feet.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I thought that was included in the motion.
>>GWEN MILLER: Will you write it on?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: I'll write it on there.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Petitioner-s that your understanding?
>>> Yes. The first 20 feet will wrap back to the side, first floor.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: We are going to go to recess for CRA.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chair, it is now 11:15.
Do you anticipate that we'll -- that we will hear number 37 before or after lunch?
>>GWEN MILLER: We heard number 37 already.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm sorry, 38.
Do you anticipate we will hear them now or after lunch break?
>>GWEN MILLER: How much do you have on CRA?
(video and audio lost)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The only people that are here for CRA are staff.
Whereas the public is here for a public hearing scheduled at 10:00.
And I think we should respect the public, have the public hearing on 38 and have the CRA meeting after we finish the 1:30 hearing.
I think that would be more courteous to the public who has come out for, I believe this has been continued twice previously.
And I think that's who we should accommodate, is the public.
So I would ask you for us to consider with our scheduled 10:00 public hearing.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Ms. Alvarez walked out.
It is her meeting and I think it's been canceled a couple of times.
>>GWEN MILLER: I think we should have it today after.
>>ROSE FERLITA: But I think, Linda, it's scheduled for 11.
I think as a courtesy to one of our colleagues we should see what she says.
>>GWEN MILLER: She's talking to Mr. Vince Pardo.
>>KEVIN WHITE: This is where we get into the predicament we were in as earlier that we were discussing.
We have people from the community who are scheduled at a 10:00 public hearing, and here we are at 11:30, and we're not even there yet.
And that's a disservice.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I am sort of surprised we scheduled this for a day meeting.
I don't know why we scheduled it for a day meeting, but here we are.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move that we open number 38.
>> Let's see what Mary says.
>>GWEN MILLER: We are going to hear what Ms. Alvarez says.
She's speaking with Mr. Pardo.
>>> Number 21.
>>GWEN MILLER: We. Gotten there yet.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's three more down the road.
>>CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Alvarez is back.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Conferring with my CRA department heads out there, and we have agreed to cancel today, and -- well, continue this till September 15th, which will be our regular CRA meeting.
>>GWEN MILLER: Make the motion.
>> I'd like to make that motion.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to continue CRA to the 15th.
(Motion carried)
>>KEVIN WHITE: Madam Chair.
Can we make the CRA at 9:00, come into session, maybe 9:00 City Council, then break at 9:05 for CRA?
That way we know we get CRA out of the way, and then go back into council session?
That way we don't have this debacle anymore.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: We could do it at 8:30 in the morning.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That would be fine.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Either or.
I think it's a disservice to our staff.
That way we make sure we have it and we can accommodate it.
Either one.
Fine with me.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Let me check with them.
Hold on.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mary, I don't think we have to --.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: You have to make a motion.
So 8:30 for the CRA.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Is there a motion and second?
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: 3038 is a continued public hearing.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
I have been sworn.
This petition has been before you.
This will be the fourth time actually.
It has had many iterations.
The final one is before you.
The previous petition, first and foremost, rezoning if you recall, 77 and 81 East Davis Boulevard, currently there are two structures on-site.
They are proposing townhouse development.
Previously, it was single family attached and semi detached.
There is a fourth unit attached here.
They have eliminated that and reduced it from eleven units to ten.
The buildings were also pushed forward through discussion was the neighborhood in past hearings to make the rear setback larger.
Originally it was -- I can't say originally because there have been so many plans.
But now it is 25 and 24 to the base of the structure.
There are notes on the site plan.
You will notice the second and third floor.
There are potential cantilevers, three feet in.
You see the little dashed lines.
And the roof line also comes in three feet as well.
You will notice it does get a little high on the side, down to six feet and seven feet on the rear structure.
So you are getting kind of close to the side lot line with that.
Just so you know this is the area.
The petitioner did give me a letter dated today, September 1st.
There was an issue on the fill on-site.
A question about that.
The original note from councilman Dingfelder, I believe it was you that said potentially not filling the site higher than the level of sidewalk at the site.
The engineer did write a letter, James Catalano, PE, said that no more than 18 inches of fill would be needed for the site.
That is a letter the petitioner will submit that.
If that is acceptable to council, if this were to be approved, I would note that on the plan as well and it would be made part of the record.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think one of the reasons I was saying that was, would we then start measuring the height limitation from the 18 inches?
>>> Correct.
It's measured from finished, from grade.
There are elevations before you.
You saw this one.
This is along Davis Boulevard.
There is a rear elevation as well.
It has changed.
The petitioner didn't give me the one yet with the building cut out of the center in the back.
So there is a portion of this that is missing.
The one difference that there was an objection from land development staff is that along the front they did introduce a six-foot wall along Davis Boulevard, three feet solid, three feet wrought iron.
You will notice on the bottom of the site plan is a detail.
I did object to be that.
When you look along the street along Davis Boulevard, it's not common for those residents to wall themselves off on that street.
Even a look at the older Bill buildings that are along the street, they all connect to the street.
Then the petitioner had also shown you the older historic condominium buildings and office structures that also do not wall themselves off.
He did agree just now to eliminate the wall so I can take that off the site plan if council does move to approve this.
Commercial site review services, Greg Yurcus is in the audience, if you have any questions for him.
But you will notice that there is one grand tree on-site, 36 inches being protected.
With the buildings moving forward, there are additional trees being removed, 26 to 22, a 10, 12 inch, 7-inch palm, there is a large 32-inch tree here that is under grand status and some other trees in that courtyard area.
The trees in the front and the 32-inch are all very nice trees according to staff, but with the building placement they cannot be saved.
So I did note his concerns with that.
He did note also on page 2 of the revised staff report that there are 25 trees that are required to be planted on-site with the removal that is proposed and the development that is proposed.
Six must be placed on-site.
19 can be donated to the tree trust fund.
He is recommending that the minimum two-inch caliper be bumped up to 4 inch so the majority of trees can be placed back on-site.
If council does consider to approve this, we can note that on the plan as well, that he will be replacing the 4-inch trees as replacement.
I noted on the findings of fact the single family attached dwelling units are supposed to have two car garages, and maintain a connection to the street which they do.
We have no more objections.
They have been removed because of what the petitioner has agreed to on moving the wall.
The neighborhood as I said did prepare a book.
I just got it at the end of the day yesterday.
It's fairly lengthy.
If there are any questions from council based on transcripts and things that they have included.
I haven't had adequate amount of time to have any kind of cross-examination.
I have to read through it as that discussion happens and hopefully I can answer any questions that you may have.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Coyle, the report that I have here is 3-10-05.
Is that the last report we have?
>>> No, I send it through doc agenda on Monday.
I sent to the all of your aides and to Kathryn Jones in the front and city clerk's office.
>> So we have a dated one, you said?
>>> August 29th.
Do the rest of you have it?
I got the Greg Yurcus comments.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Busy did send it through on the --.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have the old one but not the new one.
>>> Morris is going to make copies.
I apologize.
I did send it out Monday.
I apologize it didn't make it to you.
>> Does that change radically from what we had in March?
>>> The design of the site has changed, yes.
>> But the report itself?
>>> Has it changed radically?
Let's see.
>> Do you disapprove or approve?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: They have no objections.
>>> The final objection that I had listed in this new report was based on the wall that was being placed along Davis Boulevard.
That has been removed so my objection is removed.
And commercial site review services also had objections based on the potential tree removal.
But in light of the building placement, if council approves the structures that are in front of you, the plan that's in front of you, the trees are going to be removed.
So he can speak to that more clearly as far as the species and the quality of the trees on-site.
>>> Greg Yurcus, Construction Services Center and I have been sworn in.
>> You have been?
>>> Yes, sir.
>> I saw your letter dated August 19th related to the enact that there's some significant trees that are being proposed for removal, because we have suggested they push the buildings closer to Davis Boulevard.
My question is, if you look at the drawing that's up right now, there's a 32-inch tree right almost smack in the middle of the whole property and they are showing that should be coming out.
But now that's a courtyard and not a building.
I'm wondering why is the tree coming out?
And the same question for the 6-inch and the 9-inch trees but I don't care much about those two.
But the 32 inch tree is a pretty significant tree.
>>> As far as the 9-inch it's clue too close to the building.
It would be a problem to save that one.
As far as the 32-inch goes, what happens for that one is they would need a 10-foot protective radius of which we could reduce that to a 4-foot undisturbed radius and put pavement around it.
I think where the problem is going to come in is in a distance that the backout from the garage across from that tree is going to need.
I think it's going to reduce that in about that area to, what, 22 feet?
Or take it to 18 feet.
Steve could address that.
Depending on the waivers or the ability of transportation, there are possibilities to work with that.
>> I think everybody would be supportive of trying to save that tree.
I don't know what kind of tree it is.
Hard to tell.
Looks like it's an oak tree, 32 inch oak tree.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: The issue with the previous staff report is they need add 20-foot clear fire lane.
If you were to go and build in the graphic needed and pencil in, this is only 24 feet between the building now.
You probably would wind up with less than 24 feet -- or 20 feet for the fire lane.
>> But is it 20 feet from the trunk building or is it 20 feet from these protected pavers?
Do you know what I'm saying?
If it's a fire issue, clearly, we don't want to construct it.
But if they can get through, and it's not -- I don't know if this is a low-limb tree oak tree or not.
I hope somebody will raise that in the presentation as we go forward.
Thank you.
>>> Greg Howard from Parks Department is here as well.
He's done some extensive work on the site as well.
>> Greg Howe, parks and unanimously resources in lieu of Dave Riley who is out on vacation.
I have been on-site.
I have seen this 32-inch tree.
It is a specimen tree.
It is a very high canopy tree.
So if a fire truck needs to get under there it can do that because this is a very straight tree trunk, canopy starts high on it.
It may need some minor pruning to lift the canopy somewhat.
But I think that it would be a tree that would be worthy of saving on-site.
And I have been sworn, I'm sorry, I didn't mention that.
>> Seems like it would be a nice amenity for the complex as well.
>>> Yes, I believe it would be.
I'll also an ISA certified arborist.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: You talk about the tree for just a second.
I have been sworn, Steve Michelini here on behalf of Alegra, 77 Davis Boulevard.
We met on the site and there's no less than three times with Dave Riley about this tree, and we tried to save -- tried to figure out which ones we could save and how we could blend the site as best we could.
And they were consistently supportive of us removing that tree.
If we can save it and still meet the code as far as the concerns of the fire department, we'll save it.
Our intention was when we started moving the buildings around was to curb this and incorporate it into the courtyard.
But we would need an additional waiver from transportation to waive the backup space, 24 feet is the minimum that they'll allow us to show on any kind of plan.
We can certainly save the tree and put some kind of at-grate grade pavers and builder sand, that kind of thing.
We've done that before.
And we have worked around these trees very effectively.
It would be a nice amenity if we can save it and we're in favor of doing that.
If you go back for a minute, I know, councilman Dingfelder, you said why are we here at a morning meeting.
Because the neighborhood association said they were supporting us.
And they got up and testified to that at the last meeting.
We have been working on this with the neighborhood groups since February.
And they have given us several different lists of things that they wanted incorporated into the site.
And we've done everything that the group has asked us to do.
I'm not sure that they have unanimity of the group but the group has supported everything that we have done, and here to speak for the group today.
You suggested to us to provide the additional setbacks in the rear, that the overhangs are not a big issue.
The roots are not extending beyond the edge of the balcony.
That's from the root.
And we've taken out a unit.
We've separated them, to separate the massing on the back.
We've separated the units in the front.
And when you push them Ford, and you're at the minimum on the 24-foot setback in the drive aisle, these oak trees along the front, they disappear.
And our original plans, they were being saved.
But we also have to deal with the fact that they are considered effective removals, which means we get no credit for them anyway.
So when they are talking to you about the tree table and 19 trees being required and that sort of thing, they are also including effectively removed trees, even though we may be saving them on the site.
We have no problem whatsoever going to a four-inch tree.
We routinely go to four-inch trees because they are more stable and they provide an instant impact on the project.
In addition to that, we negotiated with the neighborhood group the species of tree, an ornamental buffering that they want in the back, and the type of trees and the type of fence.
That's why you are showing an 8-foot wall back there, because that's what they asked for.
In addition to that, what we did was we took that fence around to the front with some low-scale ornamental metal fencing and masonry wall, because when thought it looked more attractive that way.
We don't have any objection to council desires us to remove it, we would be happy to remove it.
It was just an amenity that we were trying to provide for those units.
In addition to that, we provided the three guest spaces between the units in the back.
And we also wanted as an option if approved to go to curbside, or actually it's, I guess, alley driveway access pickup for garbage cans.
That would enable us to remove the dumpster.
But we wouldn't know for sure until we get to construction services.
But if they allow to us go to cans we prefer it to do that way.
It's more attractive and certainly more in keeping with the development pattern.
Anyway, I draw your attention to the elevation.
We have blown it up over here on I guess your right.
It's a very attractive project.
We have reduced the size on the height and the rear per the request of the neighborhood group, and then pushed the buildings forward.
Because it's an irregular shaped lot you get a little closer to the side yards that we have maintained at least seven feet on the north side and when it gets a little closer on the north side, I think it's a little closer on the south side.
But this is a parking lot for an apartment building that it's close to. There's not a single family structure here.
And it's a fairly significant apartment building.
I've also shown you, I think, the -- I think you saw the elevations.
Basically we are here, we have done what the group has asked us to do, and we are back requesting that you approve this project.
We've done everything we can do to make this a better project.
I'll reserve any time for rebuttal and any concerns.
The report that Cathy referred to has not been provided to us, although it's not a group report.
To my knowledge it's from one of the individuals within the group.
And we have requested a copy of that and they refused to provide it to us.
So with that I'll reserve time for rebuttal.
>>GWEN MILLER: Question from council members?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Michelini, as a matter of due process, I want to hand you this.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: It was proffered -- I was going to ask if it was proffered.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Give him a start.
>>GWEN MILLER: We are going to go to the public.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item number 38?
Would you please come forward?
If you are going to speak, would you please come up and speak?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: And when you give your name please reaffirm that you have been sworn.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone that's going to speak, please line up so you can speak.
FROM THE FLOOR: (off microphone).
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe for the record, both proffers have been provided to the petitioner, so he will have that time, if he wishes.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I don't have one.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay, sir, put your name on the record first.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry.
The gentleman who handed me the book, is that the gentleman who is at the lectern?
If I could just have the gentleman who handed the book and put it into the record, if he could just put his name on the record for the purposes of clarity.
>>GWEN MILLER: Come up again.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If co-just clearly state your name for the record, for the purposes of the items that you have asked be submitted for council's review.
>>> My name is Daniel Marcus.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, sir.
>>> My name is Don Green.
I live at 62 -- Don Green, I live at 62 Columbia drive.
I think three houses north of the project on Columbia.
So I'm here in support of my neighbors who are immediately behind it and also I'm here as general principle to argue a general principle.
>> Have you been sworn in?
>>> Yes.
I think I'm speaking for my neighbors, although they will speak for themselves when I'm finished.
But we are opposed to this project, and we ask you to reject it.
And we also think that we shouldn't get lost in the details of this project.
It's a great picture, very attractive.
And I guess so is the Taj Mahal.
But I would be against the Taj Mahal being on this little piece of property.
We think the details are really a distraction in looking at this project.
To us the basic issue is what is that property zoned for?
Zoning is to make life better for people, to be consistent, better looking, air, space, et cetera, et cetera.
And to us they have broken zoning codes or whatever they are called.
I'm not familiar with it.
But they have broken the zoning in every conceivable way.
The building is higher than the zoning calls for.
It's wider.
And it's also deeper.
And in the book you have this picture, which is based on their layout.
Tough blue and green and pink.
Almost all the front buildings are -- don't coincide with what the zoning should be.
They have also added to the back.
They are at least five feet higher and the same for the side.
So in every conceivable way, this project goes against the zoning, what the original intent was for the zoning.
And of course it's at our expense.
We're the neighbors.
And we think it's a matter -- it greed is what's involved here.
We think it's outrageous and we think it should be rejected out of hand.
And these are experienced people.
This is not Dorothy coming in from Kansas and her little red sequin shoes, says, gee, I want to go to Tampa, let's build a letter little project here.
These people have projects all over the place.
They knew exactly what they were getting into.
And they figured that they could pull this off, they could finesse it.
Now, of course the key thing I think, it was brought up in another instance, there's absolutely no hardship here.
They knew what the zoning was before they got into it.
And they are asking for all this extra space.
And there's no hardship involved.
So simply, I think that's the case.
And we ask you to reject it.
And I know people following me will have some specifics to follow up this general argument.
But we are absolutely, contrary to Mr. Michelini, we are absolutely opposed to this project.
We think it's a mistake for us and we think it's an mistake for Tampa.
Thank you very much.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, sir.
Ms. Saul-Sena?
>>> I live at 62 Columbia, which is 3 houses closer to downtown.
I guess that's north.
>> Neighbor to the east?
>>> I'm behind it.
I have been there 15 15th years.
I'm still not sure of directions.
But, yeah.
I'm a little further down.
As I said, one of the reasons I'm here is I think this kind of thing could extend all the way down Davis Boulevard to the bridge.
And a massive project that doesn't belong there.
There's plenty of land for a nice project.
But not all these extras.
And they have been given things.
I don't understand why that is.
I'll be very frank with you.
If you look at this layout, the whole front, the pink, they have been given that.
Now, it seems to me if you have been given that, at least you should compromise in other respects.
Leave a little more in the back, a little lower on top, more on the sides.
Instead, they have gotten that and they want everything else that they conceivably get.
They are really pushing the envelope.
So please reject it.
Thank you.
>>> My morning is Andy Lynch, 76 Columbia Drive.
I have been sworn in.
My property sits directly behind the proposed development so I am greatly affected by it.
The mass and size, the height of the project, and the encroachments or the waivers of the existing zoning clearly have been our major concerns throughout the discovery period.
We have been -- it's been difficult to get a precise handle on what is being proposed.
The information that we have been given has been kind of trickled, and it was only this morning that we were told the base-line or benchmark for the height.
That is the 18-inch fill that they have proposed, and that that would then become the baseline.
Up until this morning, we were never given that information.
Height clearly is a major issue for us in that the appearance, the view from my backyard, it's a major impact and height is a big issue.
The discovery those been taken, we put in a lot of time, resources, and Ward and Daniel have really gone to bat in the driving of this thing.
But the overriding consensus is, the project as it's proposed simply doesn't fit.
It just doesn't fit.
The diagram, the site plan that you were just shown, shows all the concessions the city would be granting to put that -- to allow that development.
It just doesn't work.
It is not consistent with the neighborhood that we bought into, that we desire, and we ask that you reject the proposal.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, sir.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I had a question for you.
There is an issue, since you live directly behind the project, I think this issue of an 8-foot wall, just for argument sake, if the project got approved -- and I want to Troy to find out some of your druthers.
I know your preference is to have it denied and sent it back to the drawing board.
But a standard wall typically is six foot masonry wall treated and painted on both sides.
I guess they proposed an eight-foot wall but Mr. Michelini indicate sod flexibility in that regard.
What is your preference as a back door neighbor?
>>> One would be masonry, eight foot is my preference.
>> Eight is preferable to six?
>>> Yes, sir.
>> And I would assume you would like to see as much trees on the other side of the wall as possible?
>>> That's a huge point. The tree that you brought up, sir, you know, scheduled for removal is a -- it is an oak.
And the 32 inch, I believe we would call it, it's a beautiful tree.
And absolutely part of the ambience in the neighborhood.
>> Since they are going to be planting new trees, I'm going to assume would you psyche like to see as many new trees along the wall as possible?
>>> Yes, we discussed that in the spirit of negotiations and we have come up with -- we wanted oaks but then there is an easement with power lines and that may impact power lines.
So we're not sure -- well, we were told that an oak along the back side would not be viable.
So now we're considering there was a eureka palm which you may or may not know but may involve some blockage, some screening, preference again would be the oak trees.
>> And how tall -- it looks like most of the houses behind this project are too two-story homes?
>>> Yes, yes.
>> Yours is a two story home?
>>> Yes.
>> Do you have any idea how tall it is to the roof?
>>> We are talking 25?
>> Okay.
Thanks, sir.
>>> Thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, sir.
>>> Ward: 460 Columbia drive.
I thought maybe something that would be helpful is to give a little bit of history as to how this project evolved.
And I was contacted a couple days before the first public hearing.
I'm in the real estate business.
Some of my neighbors thought since they were confused as to really what the rules of the game were, if I might help out.
You know, it not right behind my house but being a good neighbor, I said, fine.
So I took a look at the plan.
Initially, I thought this was a variance that was hamming.
Then I saw this PD.
So I went and took a look at the project that was being done by the petitioner, part of the petitioner's team, on Davis Boulevard, and I thought it was a fine looking project from Davis Boulevard.
I would go around the side and see the side yard setback and kind of gulped, and I saw the rear yard setback and kind of gulped again.
I got a sense of what this plan in the project was representing. So I talked to some planners, and I said, my neighbors are pretty distressed about this.
And the planners, as a favor, I took a look at it and said, did you talk to staff?
And I said, yes.
And unfortunately staff I don't think any of the neighbors had communicated to staff their concerns.
So the report was already completed that things were fairly acceptable from the city.
So the planners took a look at it, you know, said, Ward, your neighbors, massive scale on the back sides, you know, really pretty horrendous actually, and it's going to bury their properties.
I said, what should we be asking for?
This thing has already been contained of approved by staff.
And they said, you know, if I were you, I would try to at least get rid of the unit, and tell them to respect the existing setbacks under RM-24.
So that's kind of how our position and most of the neighbors were relieved to at least have some kind of position, a couple days before the hearing.
So that's where our initial position evolved from.
Later, you know, we were reviewing the documents, got the plan for the first council meeting, reviewed the trees and things, saw the major tree on the site, the grand oak was a 24-inch oak, the petitioner resubmitted it, the plan after the first council meeting, and it became a 32-inch oak.
And then that was brought to my attention by Daniel Marcus who was reviewing it and at that point thought maybe we should have an architect take a look at it, laid out the site plan, and, you know, asked for a survey, and on the survey was a 36-inch oak tree.
So the neighbors -- and I say this, I'm not saying I was -- the neighbors, their reaction, and maybe their subsequent change of heart on things is really because they feel they haven't been dealt with as straight up as they would have liked.
So if their position seems to have changed or whatever, they've done more homework than I have after the last public hearing.
So having said that, we have it laid out but we also found out when the architect laid it out that the site plan didn't fit.
(Bell sounds)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why didn't it fit?
>>> Well, the architect put it out that if you use the rear setbacks or fence setbacks and then you put in the units, 26 by 29, and then back 26 by 29 in the front, you didn't have enough -- you didn't have the 24-deep, on the circulation.
So during the public hearing, it was the night before that we received the revised plan.
And the neighbors, we got it, and said, what's our position?
And our position was, as a fallback, get rid of the unit, protect the 32 inch oak tree and respect the side yard setbacks.
So the petitioner was somewhere more open to kind of negotiating with us.
They did submit a plan the night before that did fit.
It's why the units in our opinion went from 26 by 29 to 26 by 27.
I sat down with them a couple hours before the last public hearing in an attempt to try to make something work for everybody, so everyone can get on with their lives.
And that's where they said maybe we can work with you, and they said, you know, we can't preserve the tree, preserving the 32 inch tree, and maybe if we could increase the size of the units from 26 to 27, the F you have the 27 by 28, that can work.
So, I mean, the neighbors are pretty distressed, and, you know, I thought on behalf of them that we were, you know, we made some progress, there was finally some significant concessions, you know.
Some of the neighbors don't think there's been a concession, because the square footage remains pretty much the same.
But --
>> What is your bottom line, you personally?
>>> My bottom line is, this is 40% greater than RM-24 on the density on an FAR basis.
And it seems to me that they should respect the tree at a minimum of up 32 feet, they should respect existing setbacks on what RM-24 is, and there should not be any hardship provided on the neighbors for having this development.
And candidly, and I've told the petitioner, on a precedent basis, I think this is very detrimental, and I have been straightforward with him in that.
I think this is extremely detrimental to Davis Island, people who lived there 20, 30, 40 years, you know.
I want to say this in defense of the petitioner, they did sit down with us, and they did make some progress.
I can't before council and said my neighbors, majority of them, supported the plan.
When I got home, you know, a couple said, our opposition has been reduced, not that we really support it.
So I may have misspoke on behalf of my neighbors.
But the petitioner was also willing to try to meet some -- move some of that density around to maybe shift it on the ground floor and maybe pull it back, so you don't have this three stories.
>>GWEN MILLER: Sir, your time is up.
You need to wrap it up now.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: For the sake of the record, you have been sworn, is that correct?
>>> Yes.
I have been sworn numerous times, actually.
>> Today?
>>> Yes, today twice.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak?
If you are going to speak, please line up.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I want to bring to council's attention per counsel rules that a recess for lunch be shall be taken for one hour at noon or as close to noon as feasible.
It is about 10 seconds to noon.
I want to bring that to council's attention.
>>KEVIN WHITE: We can finish this hearing.
>> If you wish to waive.
>>> Mike surgeon, 58 Columbia drive which is a few blocks north.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Is there a point of order?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think we need to resolve that issue.
I think it's rude to go halfway through the hearing and stop.
I think we should finish the hearing and then take lunch and then we have a long afternoon after that.
So I'll move to waive the rules and finish this hearing.
>>ROSE FERLITA: When do we resume?
When we come back?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: An hour after we leave for lunch.
At the end of this hearing.
>>GWEN MILLER: If we break at 12:30, we have a 1:30.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Then we put off the 1:30. The intent of the motion is let's finish the hearing, the public is hearing, petitioner is here, we're moving forward, let's finish the hearing, we take an hour for lunch and then when continue, whatever time that is.
>>ROSE FERLITA: It's fine.
We'll see where that goes, John.
But when we come back, so I understand better, when we come back and complete our agenda and then go to the stormwater thing?
>>GWEN MILLER: That's what I'm saying, we have a workshop at 1:30.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The workshop and then we finish.
>>ROSE FERLITA: So in fairness to you, it has to be before stormwater.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can be we take it as two separate issues?
I think the first issue is, let's finish this hearing, and then break for lunch.
And then deal it with on a separate motion.
I just think it would be cleaner to be separate.
>>ROSE FERLITA: That's fine.
But what I'm saying is, in your effort to be fair to them, I want to be fair also to the people that are after them.
So I just wonder what the sense is about what should we do about where we are when we come back?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can we deal with that --.
>>ROSE FERLITA: The reason I'm asking, Mr. Dingfelder, because my decision to support your motion is dependent on that. Really.
If you are fair to one petitioner you have to be fair to everyone.
>> I want to be clear.
>>KEVIN WHITE: It's going to take a unanimous.
I'm going to vote no because I think we need to stay to our rules.
And I make my appointment appointments based off of that. I can't speak for anyone else.
We said we are going to do. This I make my appointments for people I need to see or have lunch with at this particular time.
And we make this announcement every day.
Petitioners know, our people.
And it needs to be unanimous. And I won't support it.
So I think we're going to lunch.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: May I make an observation to council?
>>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead, sir.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: On Thursday evenings, when a request is made to set public hearings such as this to day meetings, please remain cognizant of the position that council find itself in now, and that is the risk that council runs when it recesses what is normally an evening meeting to a day meeting, just for future reference.
>>KEVIN WHITE: One other point, it's not being unfair to anyone but the county has been doing this for years.
They know, they break at 12:00.
I don't care where they are in the middle of their agenda.
In the middle of a petition.
They break and they come back.
And that's one of the reasons that we initiated this so we can have some consistency to our rules.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll withdraw my motion since it doesn't make any sense.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We'll recess till what time?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Before he speaks, because I know he has the same concern.
But when would you like staff to come back for this?
I only ask because we have appointments as well, unfortunately, for the afternoon.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Are you sure you don't want this after your stormwater meeting?
We'll continue this.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Be here at 1:15.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: This public meeting does remain open.
(Off microphone)
>>GWEN MILLER: We'll be in recess until 1:15.
(Meeting recessed.)
Tampa City Council
Thursday, September 1, 2005
1:15 p.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.

>>CHAIRMAN: Roll call.
[Roll Call]
>>GWEN MILLER: We were on number 38 when we left.
We'll continue with that number.
We had some people who were speaking on item number 38.
Who is the gentleman that spoke or speaking?
58 Columbia Drive, if he's here.
Come on up, sir.
You were first.
He was speaking before we left.
The one behind you.
Thanks a lot.
I have been sworn in.
I live at 58 Columbia, which is a few blocks north and east of the proposed development.
And I guess I'm here in support of my neighbors.
This doesn't directly effect me.
But I'm concerned with the zoning and the fact that the original setback isn't being, you know, the existing setback.
I'm also a little concerned that in the end the setback will be less.
And I wonder why the developer is being granted 40% more density than is allowed under RM-24.
And has staff and Planning Commission discussed this?
Have they been over this?
I just feel this sets a bad precedent going forward.
I mean, if you look at these properties, this is really high and it's really close compared to what is currently in place.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question of Cathy in that regard.
You might want to stay there, sir.
Refresh our memory in regard to what they can do under the RM-24, they currently have RM-24, right?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What can we do under RM-24?
The opposition seems to be focusing on floor area ratio as opposed to our usual discussion which is density.
I thought floor area was usually related to commercial stuff.
But, anyway.
>>> You're correct.
The residential districts don't have an FAR.
They go by setbacks and height limitations.
RM-24 is 24 units per acre.
This particular property would support -- my current by current zoning 12 units.
They are asking for 10.
RM-24 has a 60 foot height limit and they are requesting 35 on the rear and 40 in the front.
What is being decreased by this request is setbacks.
Front setback is 25 feet and they have five feet.
That's where the main difference is in the front.
>> How about the sides?
>> The sides are seven feet.
And they have six on one side and seven on the other.
The second and third floors do cantilever out three feet.
>> I wanted to put it in context a little bit, because, I mean, yes, the setback is pushing towards the front street, pushing towards Davis.
But at the same time pushing the height down.
And this is something that they could build today without coming to council.
And that's the part that concerns me.
I mean, I recognize there's been two houses on this property, as a former Davis Island resident, I know the property, and there's two houses on the property for a long time, and that's what everybody gets used to.
How long has the RM-24 been there?
>>> Land use is R-35.
It's been multifamily since 1956.
I can't remember.
It's in the staff report on the history page.
R-3-A which was a multifamily district.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Let's reiterate that again.
This doesn't go to PD, this developer can go up to 12 units?
>>> 12 units would be the max on this particular property.
>> And they are asking for 10?
>>> 10.
And keep in mind, though, they are removing some trees that through the permitting process they may get a little flack for removing and they may have to reconfigure some buildings if they were going straight through permitting, other issues.
>> Let's get back to the setbacks.
If they didn't get this zoned, they could build up to 10, and they wouldn't have to worry about setbacks?
>>> They could build up to 12, and the setbacks --
>> I know.
>>> The setbacks would be more actually in the front.
RM-24 requires --
>> What about the height?
>>> 60 feet is the top.
>> 60 feet is the height.
And the reason they are using -- are they filling up 18 inches or something?
>>> The fill being brought in is 18 inches, yes.
That's one thing I was looking at when we were here before.
I was looking at the survey.
You have to pay attention to the grade that's around it as well.
When the surveyor shot the grade on the single family lots, it's anywhere from 6.5, 7, 7.5, 8.46 at one point.
On the back of this property, where it butts up, it drops back down to 6, 6.25, 6.5, in some places it's 5.
So it's just slightly lower around their site than it is on the residential site.
>> Is that a floodplain by any chance?
>>> They are in a flood zone, yes.
>> They are in a flood zone.
So that's part of our zoning code, too, right?
If you're in a flood zone you have to build?
>>> That's part of the building regulations.
>> Whatever.
But you know what I'm going at.
So if you go with the PD, like they want to do, they are subject to whatever they put on the site plan?
>>> Yes.
>> As opposed to being in an RM-24?
>>> Correct.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
I have been sworn.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Would you please raise your hand to indicate your presence
Katie Paula?
R.M. Coleman.
>>> I would like to first show this.
>>GWEN MILLER: It's upside down.
All right.
>>> Our neighbors.
Some of them could not be present here that support.
First I wanted to start with a clarification.
Like at the beginning of the meeting, there was discussion about the height and at the last meeting with the council, which is on page 16, the neighbors site analysis, page 16.
The first line, request to developer, he said, I'd like in addition to the site plane related to the 25-foot rear setback.
And also on the other line, he says, I think it needs to be stated on the site plan that you are agreeing that your 40 foot and 35 foot limitations are both zero on the sidewalk.
And this was -- this should not change the requirement because since the FEMA regulation they are going to be five feet high, so if they have to change the height of the building they have to move the setback accordingly.
So if they have to go a foot higher on the building, the code asks for additional setback from the rear and from the side as well.
Also, to clarify, this drawing, the second page, the blue dotted line is the setback.
>> Will you point to it on the overhead?
>>> Okay.
There's a blue line.
See the green space and the red.
They should be in the blue dotted line.
17 feet on each side.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where do I find that in this book?
>>> In the section, the second page.
So everything in red is -- in the last meeting, by asking for 17-feet setback encroachment.
It's not that we are giving them five feet and they want to come to six feet.
And that's what we are not agreeing to.
I would like to start first with this part of the code.
I talked to the gentleman at the fire department when I was going to ask why, and he said he would not have any problem with the tree.
But the gentleman's name is Carlos.
He said because he has to put in the new addition as the fire code.
And it should be at least ten feet from the corner.
So I don't think that he can build on this site, the second row of residence there, because that's going to be a violation of the codes.
I also brought some concerns about the trees.
We have been debating this a lot.
And I would like to say related to the tree, the neighbors would like to see that other 32-inch tree saved, because they are taking a lot of trees in the front.
So in exchange for that excess amount of trees that they remove from the site, it's a half front area, and you have to have 25 tree.
This could be considered a free clearance and a violation of the code.
And by this rule, this site could not be approved because they take too many trees from the site.
And since the beginning they have not had any consideration for the trees.
The first project --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: This is a very telling picture.
Would you put that up?
For council?
>>CHAIRMAN: You have it upside down.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Flip it 180.
I don't know if you have had a chance to see this one, council.
But I thought that was kind of a telling picture.
According to the caption, this is a 32 inch oak tree that I was talking about.
It's in your book.
>>> This tree has 65 feet, and it has 165.
To become a grand tree, 175.
So I think -- the other issue that they are asking is on the 11th of August, there was the issue about removing a unit from the developer's site.
Actually, the total linear footage of wall for the units we had on the back was everything.
When we received the new plan from the developer, he has on the north 18, along -- that we allow him on the units to the side.
(Bell sounds)
So the results of that, the total length he can build according to his revised plan, he only gained three feet.
So there was not --.
>>GWEN MILLER: I'm sorry, your time is up, sir.
That's it.
Are you saying that because of the overhang that they are proposing?
>>> Yes.
They should not be allowed per the code, because should not be allowed out of the footprint.
But has to be part of the footprint.
And that's clear in the code.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Did you hear me ask Ms. Coyle earlier about the floor area ratio?
We usually hear that in the context of commercial but in the residential context we always hear about density, units per acre, and that sort of thing.
But you brought in a table, this table here, that references floor area ratio, and you think that it's too intense based on floor area ratio. Ms. Coyle has indicated that's not our normal approach to residential.
So where are you coming from on that?
>>> Yes, the issue here, we talked a lot about some other units.
The floor area ratio gives you an idea how much volume you have.
How is it proposed?
(off microphone)
If they can do one unit in that, one house.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The other question I have for you, you heard my question earlier.
But obviously you're well studied and well prepared with all this material.
But don't you have great concern that if we turn down -- I'm not saying we should accept the PD as they proposed it, but don't you have great concern that if we turn down the PD, in some form, that they'll just go back to the RM-24 and build a 60-foot -- excuse me, a 60-foot building behind these residences?
It's a great concern to me.
>>> Okay.
I don't have a concern.
Because if they do a building that's above 35 feet, they are going to start losing money because they cannot have as much square footage again.
Within the current zoning, they can put six townhouses there, and they have the code 17 to 18,000 square feet, without any rezoning, and save other trees in the front, just removing the 32-inch tree.
>> But that's not my question.
My question is, why couldn't they build a 60-foot building there with an elevator, and what is it, 12 units in that tall, skinny, narrow, 60 foot building?
>>> The 60 foot building would be four feet wide.
>> Cathy, he says a 60 foot building would be 4 feet wide.
Steve, I'm not looking for you.
Thank you.
You have rebuttal.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't know if you get rebuttal, but go ahead, Cathy.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
I sound a little exasperated because I was trying to explain the way we do setbacks several times.
>> Explain to the us.
>>> It doesn't seem to be getting across.
Look at the Elmo.
The interpretation that I gather they are making is say this is the boundary line here.
They are correct, in the RM-24 the height above 30 feet, it's a one-to-one ratio. For every foot above you set back an additional foot.
The neighborhood's interpretation is that the entire building sets back an additional foot for every foot above.
And that is not --
>> Like a cake?
>>> It's a wedding cake, that's correct.
So that rear setback is always at 20 feet and then increased at an increment.
It just stacks up.
And that is the historical interpretation of the code.
And court cases that we have had.
>> Have you calculated the maximum height at the top of that wedding cake based upon the front and rear and side yard setbacks?
>>> I have not.
I can do it really quickly.
>> You thought it might not be 60 feet.
>>> I believe in the previous hearing that we had, Mr. Michelini showed you a rendering of what the architect had done.
I hadn't verified it because I hadn't seen it until the hearing.
I could check on it.
>> Why don't you look at fountain he still has it?
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, sir.
Is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask a question of -- okay.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Question for me or someone else?
>>GWEN MILLER: No. Go ahead, petitioner, rebuttal.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I can show you very quickly and I have copies to pass out what can be placed on the site in accordance with the code.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is this what Cathy is confirming?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
Just by looking at it, if you look on the Elmo, it's already on here, they in fact did add 16 feet to the rear to increase up to 46 feet.
They don't have to do that, but they did follow the interpretation of the neighborhood for that.
So they went out 16 feet above 30 to 46, and they added 16 feet and a rear setback to 36 from the 20.
They don't have to do that.
They could step the building closer if they wanted to.
But looks like a fairly substantial size building.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: We didn't try to max out, just so you would be comparing apples to apples's.
This is a reasonable size building with the most conservative zoning code and we thought you would want us to apply the most conservative approach as opposed to the most liberal approach.
If we went to a more liberal interpretation, we could go up probably to the 60 feet, but this is not a project we want to build.
We have been working very diligently with the neighborhood group.
And every time they came to us with a list -- and I mean a list, it wasn't one or two things, it was six, eight, ten, twelve different things, we did everything they asked us to do.
We removed a unit.
We were very strongly opposed to removing the unit.
And in the last go-around with WOR, we agreed if that's going to make everybody happy, at least in the compromise situation, we are not completely happy and they are not completely happy, which means that we probably have gotten to the point where we both have given up a little more than we wanted to, but we're still willing to move forward with it.
With respect to, I guess, a couple things mentioned.
Obviously FAR.
The 6-foot setback on the side is the only -- the smallest side encroachment.
Again that's on the side where there's an apartment guild building.
There are no single family on that side as well.
I don't know where these lived that are coming from 62 and 58 Columbia, but they are way around the corner.
They're not behind this project.
Also, some of the people that have made comments have not participated in the last few discussions, and apparently they are not aware of the fact that we have moved the buildings to the point where they are 25 feet away from the rear property line.
And in order to do that, and also to meet the other codes, we pushed the buildings forward, which I know council is aware the last time we met with you, and the lots are irregular shaped.
It's not a square.
So in order to position the buildings, we had to move them around, save the trees.
As I told you before, the tree that you saw in the overhead was one of the 32-inch trees and the one to the left of it was the grand tree that was incorporated in the site plan.
And it's clearly identified.
This became the feature oak in the back and we created a courtyard, and I'll show you that here.
That's this tree here.
We have created this greenway and open space which we interpret that to be sort of a park-like setting for the residents of this project.
The 32-inch oak that's shown here was another courtyard.
That's this tree that you're seeing in the back.
And with some manipulation beings with your indulgence, and has to be set on pave or builder sand.
We are not going to get credit for it because it's within the protected radius of the building.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Steve, the last time -- I recognize you guys would rather save the tree.
I would hope so.
The last time you were here -- and I'm glad that the neighborhood included the transcript.
We asked you to do certain things.
I think we asked you to eliminate at least one of the units to break up that back.
And I think you've done that.
What else did we ask you to do?
I think we asked you to do the 40 feet in the front and the 35 in the back.
And you have done that.
>>> We did that.
>> There's a little bit of question about 35 or 40 feet above what?
And now we have the letter from the engineer, Mr. Catalano, who indicates that you're going to have up to 18 inches of fill on the property, and that would be over the six inches that's already there, I guess.
>>> The six inches of what?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I thigh that's what Cathy -- apparently there's six inches above grade right now that's there.
>>> What we did was we added two notes to the plan that said whatever the minimum that was going to be required by FEMA, that we would put in there.
And then we went back to the engineers and said, I need a number.
What is the minimum that you can live with and still be sure that we can meet the flood zone elevation?
And then they came back to us with the 18 inches.
>> I think we had to include the 18 inches on the site plan.
>>> She's putting it on there.
We also have two notes indicating whatever the minimum is.
>> But here's my concern.
My concern is about that 32-inch tree.
Right now you're showing removal.
And I recognize maybe you can say in a save it, maybe you can't.
But that's not good enough I think because we've seen them and you put up the picture, it's a big, gorgeous, healthy, you know, might as well just be a grand tree, although it's not a grand tree.
But we're all in agreement it should be saved.
So my point is, I don't want that X on that tree, because that X gives you the Leeway to say, oh, well, if fire says we have to remove the tree then we have to remove the tree.
I say no.
If fire says that's not going to work then you need to remove the building in front of it to allow enough clearance or transportation has the same objection.
So I just think that this site plan needs to be abundantly clear that that 32 inch tree is going to stay, and that you need to make whatever accommodation as round that that will make it work.
And then, other than that, I think you've done a good job.
I think you have been accommodating to the neighborhood.
I'm a little concerned about that dumpster.
I think it would be better to have --
>>> we prefer the garbage pickups in cans, not the dumpster.
>> Solid wasn't waste won't allow that or what?
>>> What happened was in the original configuration, there was an issue but the dumpster.
And so we put it in.
But we've lost a unit.
Now we probably qualify for garbage cans.
I don't think there's an issue anymore for the alley -- or the driveway pickup of garbage cans.
>> But I think the 8-foot wall on the rear, normally I would object to.
But in this case at least one of the neighbors directly affected seems to indicate he would prefer it.
Is there any other neighbor that's directly affected?
Mr. Marcus, would you prefer 6 foot or foot?
>>> They flow to that, and if they put a wall, that's going to be a problem.
>> They have to put the cut-outs in to let the water flow through.
It's a problem.
If it's a problem make sure you let us No. one way or the other, would you prefer 6 foot wall or 8 foot wall?
>>> I would prefer they leave it as it is, because I have some buffer, how do you call, plants, vegetation, that will be better, because if we have to run they are going to get --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think he's saying he would prefer no wall.
There has to be a buffer.
I would think from the privacy perspective of these new homes that they can have a wall.
So the question is, how high a wall would you prefer?
Taller wall or shorter wall?
>>> I would request if they have to move -- what the neighbors want, like the 8-foot wall, but today there is a little bit of encroachment, and there are some plans plants there.
Approve as is.
>> I'm sure Mr. Michelini and his client will work on that courtesy.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: What did he say?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Some vegetation issues.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: That's fine.
We'll work with him on his plants.
>>> And I would like to ask council please to look at the amount of encroachment.
>>GWEN MILLER: He has spoken already.
That's enough.
Let the petitioner finish.
>>> Cathy has marked up a site plan indicating that 32 inch oak will be saved.
And then we'll have to work with the city parks and fire department on grade beams and placement clearances and that sort of thing.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Will you also include a note on the dumpster --
>>> convert to the cans.
>> That with it would be cans if the city will accommodate.
>>> If allowed.
Yes, sir.
Cathy seemed to think we can just delete the dumpster and put a note on it and it will be cans.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: In reality, solid waste doesn't have any beef about the dumpster on this site because they normally on these when they have circulation they do go out and pick up.
I think it was left on there through the many iterations of the plan.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let's get rid of the dumpster.
>>> I don't know if Mr. Michelini would be amenable to it or not.
Looking at the trees.
I did note on here about the 32-inch oak to be protected and preserved pursuant to chapter 13 requirements, so when they go through permitting they have to make it work to meet both codes.
If you will notice the other units are 26 feet wide.
These three are 27.7.
They could make them 26 foot and gain another about five feet or so to help the tree and the side setback.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Could I ask a question?
Can that be complied with without graphical revisions to the site plan?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: I can alter the number on the plan itself.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: In terms of both the fire lane situation -- it's a procedural question as well as to comply with our graphical revisions.
Or will the note require ultimately graphical revisions to the site plan?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I don't think there's any graphic changes necessary except adding the notes.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: At time of permitting the graphic will change obviously to show the new island around the tree and the potential shifting and whatever buildings.
But often things do change slightly when they go to permitting and engineer the drawing.
So buildings do shift slightly.
I don't believe that it needs to be changed.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, further rebuttal?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I want to make sure I have gone through all these notes.
We are at this point -- I think we're finished.
Unless you have any questions, I think we've done everything we were asked to do, and we're agreeing to save the 32 inch oak.
I can put back on the record that we reduce the heights in the back which is 35 feet, which is normally what would be required.
Setbacks on both sides -- I'm sorry, on the north side.
On the south side, it's 6 feet.
But it just the corner of that building.
The third thing is that this is consistent with the Davis Island plan, which was brought to you, debated at length in terms of the front yard setback.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Be the trees that you're contributing back, I'd like a note if possible that we try to put them on the right-of-way since there is a good right-of-way there.
So to work with the transportation and the tree department.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: We have to be careful also here because we have made commitments to the neighbors about putting these different types of palms around the back to screen the back yards.
But we'll work with them if we have any reminder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Cathy, would you include that note?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: We made commitments about putting certain type of palm across the back for the neighbors and Mr. Dingfelder wanted to make sure we put some trees in the right-of-way.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: On Davis Boulevard where possible with staff.
>>> Consistent with parks and recreation.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We are taking out some significant trees.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: We put that 32 back in there, we probably will have a tree credit.
We still have a debit. But we'll work with them.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close the public hearing.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: What's the pleasure of council?
Mr. White?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Madam Chair, I think this petitioner has gone over and above to work with the neighborhood.
And I think that they have met a lot of the neighborhood concerns.
Not only that, looking at the doc agenda, some of the compatible uses in the neighborhood, and looking at some of the developments that are going on now, as well as the previous rendering that was brought before us, and I believe the petitioner has removed units, has met with the neighborhood, addressed a lot of their concerns, I believe that this proposal lines up with what's compatible, what's going on out there on Davis Island.
The petitioner's commitment to reduce the height in the back, as well as the sanitation addresses that they have committed to, I just think it's going to be a wonderful addition to Davis Boulevard, as well as what could be there if they didn't, if we didn't approve this one.
So I move for approval.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: First of all I want to commend the neighborhood for presenting us with probably the most thorough, well-thought-through responsive ever seen to a zoning petition.
The completeness of your submission has given council the tools to really evaluate what's proposed.
I'm very concerned about what's proposed.
I feel that for me the tipping point is the saving of the 32-inch tree.
I think that will absolutely set a scale and a protection that will minimize the impact of this proposed development.
And I think that, you know, the wall is good, setbacks are good, but the protection of the significant trees is what makes this a tolerable petition.
I don't want council to think of this as setting a precedent for going down Davis Boulevard, because this is one big development.
And if we didn't have the trees, if it was just buildings, it would be extremely unattractive.
And we have a lot of one-story, very modest cement block buildings along Davis Boulevard that I guarantee you we'll be seeing in the next months and years come before us, and I think that if we accept this that we can't necessarily approve those, because you've accepted this.
I think we have to take each project on its own face value.
And I am marginally open to this because of the compromises that the petitioner has made in terms of protecting the tree, lowering the heights, increasing the size of the wall, buffering the neighbors with the palm trees, and removing a couple of the units.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I'm going to support this plan, because I believe that if we don't go with the PD I'm afraid like has been said before that they can build up to 12 units in there and they won't have to come back to us with any notes on the site plan and so on.
So this gives me a level of comfort that the right thing is going to be done for that area there.
I think Mr. Michelini has done a good job in expressing the concerns of the neighbors, and doing the right thing.
Nobody is going to be happy.
There's always going to be a portion that's not going to be happy.
And hopefully they'll come to realize that we as a council tried to do the best thing for everybody, fairly.
And I do have to commend the neighborhood for bringing us a real good set of plans.
I think this was well done, and it really gave us a perspective of what can be done when neighbors come together.
Because I think it's a good thing that it gives us a way to really look at it and we can make up our minds when we see things like this.
This is real good.
And I thank the neighbors for doing that.
I will support the plan.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Just a couple of additional comments.
I think, Ms. Saul-Sena, your concerns about precedent and going down Davis Island are not heavily founded.
I think that Davis Island has been apparently verbal about what they want and what they don't want for their area, and I think if something comes about that's maybe not as acceptable that we are hear for the Davis Island residents.
I don't think us agreeing to support this will have anything to do with precedence.
And we have been through this so many times, different configurations, eliminating this, eliminating that.
Obviously, from the standpoint of the neighborhood support, the optimum result would be not to have it supported.
Well, obviously there were some reasons why the petitioner and the representative of the petitioner had some valid requests, and I think there has been a give and take.
I think we have modified it to the extent that we can modify it.
And obviously it still remains a case-by-case as opposed to a precedent starter.
I'm obviously going to support it as it is.
I think we have gotten through the best part county be in terms of what we need to do, and in terms of due diligence.
Just one minor concern, Steve.
I know that you're going to accommodate Mr. Dingfelder's request about additional trees and palms, et cetera, in the front.
I know that Ms. Saul-Sena and I in the past have received lots of complaints from residents from Davis Island about trees, particularly palm trees, that are planted under overhead wires.
So I hope that doesn't come in to play here because I think that's going to exacerbate some of the problems we have already and our relationship with TECO and with palm trees hitting lines and those type of things in terms of storms.
Other than that, I think this is the best we can do.
Everybody has is tired.
Everybody is a little disappointed.
I think in total it's a good project and I will support it.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: A picture speaks a thousand words.
I asked Mr. Michelini to put that picture up because that is what they could build today without asking us for rezoning.
And our staff confirmed that something along these lines would work, parking underneath, throw stories above it, total of 40-plus feet, all style, one big massive building across your back yards.
That's why I can support this.
If it wasn't for the fact that they already have this rezoning I'd vote against it because I think the density is a little high.
But -- this picture is not going on the feed?
Could you switch to the Elmo so I don't look like a -- a lunatic?
Is it on now?
>> It's on.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So, a picture speaks a thousand words.
But I mean that in all sincerity.
I think as good developers, and as good architects, if you guys put some trees out there, on Davis Boulevard, regardless whether or not you have to.
Thank you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is it okay for me to ask Catherine Coyle --.
>>GWEN MILLER: We closed the public hearing.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Then I am just going to say that I have been thinking about this and the picture that Mr. Dingfelder just asked to be put up would not be allowed because of the trees that would be removed.
They would have to come before us and ask for waivers.
The truth is that they brought this piece -- bought this piece of property with these significant trees on it and the trees didn't surprise the property owners or developers.
The trees were there.
They couldn't do this, Mr. Dingfelder, because they would have to get waivers for the trees.
And it would be up to us to grant the waivers.
And I really think that the plan that the neighbors propose, with fewer buildings in the back where the trees are truly protected, is the way to go.
But what's being proposed, we're not sure that these trees are going to survive the additional structure.
And I'm very concerned about that.
And based on that I am not going to support the petition.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would argue except to say I don't think these are grand trees.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think these are just protected trees.
That's the only clarification I have to make.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 77 and 81 East Davis Boulevard in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications RM-24 to PD single family attached and semi detached, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
>>STEVE MICHELINI: At this time we have our chief of police, Chief Hogue.
I would like to recognize him now.
>> Chief Hogue: Thank you very much.
First, I'd like to say to the council chair and the council, I sure appreciate this opportunity to kind of break in in the middle of a meeting and being given that opportunity.
As you are aware, assistant chef Scott Cunningham took applies chief's job a couple weeks ago in Carrie, North Carolina which left opening for assistant chief of police at the Tampa Police Department, which is the number 2 position at the police department.
The assistant chief is.
And we had a fairly exhaustive look at all five of our majors, and we have selected major Jane castor to be our new assistant chief.
And at this time, I would like to recognize and present her to council, assistant chief castor, and I would also like to present her with her assistant chief's badge here right at this time.
I would also like to add to that that Jane castor has been an exceptional person ever since she's been on the police department.
Currently, she hold the position of major in uniformed district 2 where for the last two years she has consistently brought the crime rate down in her district.
Also, she is the point person for our URAZE project for the region, not just the City of Tampa but the region which is all of Hillsborough County and Pinellas County.
And of course you see those purchases come through council here regularly in the form of the fire boat, and some of those major purchases that are being got on behalf of homeland security.
And she manages that whole program not only for Hillsborough County, but for Pinellas County.
And those requisitions.
And that's a full-time job, to be honest with you.
So essentially she had two jobs.
She was a major in the district and had the opportunity to run that district, and while she had that opportunity, she brought the crime rate down, and at the same time she has successfully run the UAZE program which amounts to millions and millions and millions of dollars every year of expenditures for the homeland defense of our area.
She is the epitome of the old adage, the more competent you are, the more you get to do.
And that's what we've done to her.
And I'm very proud to present her to you at this time.
>>> Assistant Chief of Police Jane Castor: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
I would like to thank the chief and the mayor for the support that they have shown.
And I am truly honored to be a member of the Tampa Police Department for almost 22 years now.
It certainly doesn't seem like it.
Some days it seems as if I just started yesterday.
I couldn't be in this place today certainly if it wasn't for my family, most of which are here now.
I have my sisters and my mom, and one of my brothers, and Don, and my partner Melanie, and our boys whose interest in this promotion basically only goes as far as if there's a cake involved in it.
But, anyway, I certainly do -- I'm humbled by this honor.
I didn't get to this position by myself, as I said.
It's from the hard work of all these people up against the wall here.
They have done an outstanding job in district 2.
And they are the ones that get the credit for the crime rate coming down.
And I appreciate all the assistance they have given to me.
I will continue to serve the citizens of Tampa and do everything that I can to make Tampa a safer city, and for our residents.
And I thank you all. (Applause)
>>> Chief Hogue: Thank you very much, council.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: This is news to me.
It's certainly a great pleasure, Jane, to see you promoted to this, as the major for my district, I have called on Jane at 3:00 in the morning before when I had issues in my own neighborhood, and she has always been responsive.
She is the epitome of professionalism.
It's well deserved honor.
I hope that you will be followed by someone as major in the district with as much professionalism and integrity as you bring to the job.
Chief, I wanted to say, was going through the budget last night.
And I think there's many, many kudos that you all deserve for the way you're running your department now.
$4 million decrease in personnel costs from fiscal year 05 to 06, with 10 new positions being created.
That is quite an example of efficiency.
And I'm very pleased to be able to support you all on your budget request this year.
Keep up the good work.
>>CHAIRMAN: Thank you and good luck.
We are now ready for number 39 which is a continued public hearing.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: I will be covering the comments.
Land development.
I have previously been sworn.
I will be covering comments both for land development and the Planning Commission.
Mr. Farce yeah was here this morning but is unable to attend this afternoon.
The site is 3815 Phillips street, south of Martin Luther king, east of 50th.
Petitioner is proposing to a special use for a church facility on the site.
The 90-seat church facility will have a residential character to it.
And the petitioner has provided sample elevations of the facility that would be like their facility.
In addition, there will be daycare facilities on the site.
Petitioner designed the plan to avoid impact to the existing 46 inch grand tree on the site and provide good circulation to and from the site.
Furthermore, the semicircular drive has been provided in front of the church building to allow safe drop-off and pick-up of children in the daycare facility and to church members with special needs.
As a result of redesigning the site to avoid any impact to the grand tree, there were some objection that is were raised by the transportation department and the solid waste departments.
The solid waste department requested that a dumpster be placed on-site.
And this the suggestion to place the dumpster on the site.
And petitioner responded in kind by having a graphical change to the site plan in order to address that.
Transportation has responded to the new site plan by objecting to the number of -- the proposed waiver for parking spaces of nine spaces.
Transportation still feels that is excessive.
In addition the Planning Commission objects to the proposed church facility located on that site.
Mr. Garcia indicates in his report, which is attached as part of the staff packet, that this is located in a residential neighborhood, and the location of the church not being on a corner like another church in the immediate block, will have a larger impact.
He feels that with 90 members coming to services on a Sunday that impact to the neighborhood will be excessive, and is not consistent with the policies of the comprehensive plan.
In conclusion, the objections come from the Planning Commission, the transportation division, and the petitioner has through graphical change cured the solid waste objection.
That concludes my comments.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
>>> Sharon Stevens, P.O. Box 567, mango, Florida.
33550 for the petitioner, church of the living God Gateway to heaven incorporated.
Again, as city staff has discussed, church of the living God Gateway to heaven is proposing to construct a new church at this particular area.
As an accessory to that we also would like to have a daycare.
There is, I guess, a typo in the agenda where it says school.
We have withdrawn that request for the school in order to be able to comply with the code.
So we have deleted that request.
But we are asking for daycare for the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. for approximately 20 students, ages infant to pre-K as well as after-school.
I want to make sure we do stress that we are asking for after-school.
There is several bus stops in the area, the bus stops from James as well as Beavis elementary.
So we would like to offer after-school care for the neighborhood.
Particularly, I just want to say that the proposed structure is going to be approximately 3400 square feet, and that's because the actual sanctuary as well as proposed dining facility.
Again, there was concern regarding parking.
And just to talk about that initially, we will have services.
There will be services Wednesday night as well as on Sunday.
And what we are probably proposing to do a split level service on Sundays, from a morning service, in the afternoon, and a Sunday school as well as an afternoon service, so in order to kind of comply and offset any type of impacts with the residents, residential area for traffic.
What's proposed now as far as compatibility, I just have a few pictures that I want to present.
This is adjacent to the existing site.
This is what's currently on the site.
We are going to demolish it.
That's what we're proposing.
And just to show basically the top of the structure that we were going to propose, to be similar.
This is what we are proposing to be similar to this.
And this is what's currently there.
So as you can see, it a similar scale, single-story, nothing obtrusive.
It will meet the district's height maximums that's already in place.
This is another shot of the site.
This is the site.
This is south.
This is north.
So we do believe that where we are again proposing.
>> How many members in your church now?
>>> Currently there is probably 40 people on record, and probably -- again this is not an established church but I believe they have like 40 people already on who are interested in the church.
And again some of the members there, some of the proposed members there come out last time and stood up as well as the pastors.
But as you can see, there is a very small congregation.
What they are trying to do is think about future growth.
>> Right.
That's part of the concerns I think of the Planning Commission and me a little bit, is if it gets too successful, then you outgrow the site and everybody is parking up and down the neighborhood in the street.
I think that's where the planning staff seemed to be coming from a little bit?
>>> I think what the Planning Commission staff, the basis of their objection, they just thought it would be incompatible because they felt that a church should be on a corner lot, and I believe -- and Heather can probably clarify more so.
I've talked to Tony myself.
But basically saying that a church on commercial use should be pretty much on a corner lot, but not everyone has the ability to purchase property on a corner lot.
That's a premium lot.
This is the property they purchased for the location.
>> It's hard for me to interpret, but how many spaces are going to be in this parking lot?
>>> What we have, I believe, is 27?
15 spaces, I'm sorry.
We were initially 27.
But we had to save a grand tree.
So we ended up reducing it again to 16 because parks and rec wanted us to save the tree, so we had to shave from 27 to 16.
It's a 46-inch oak.
And to make sure we have the radius around it.
So we are having to do another reduction based upon the site visit from parks and rec.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: For the record have you been sworn?
>>> Yes, I have been sworn.
>>GWEN MILLER: Are those homes on either side of the church?
>>> Again, the neighbors are in agreement with this.
And then this is the north side.
This is a vacant property.
>> So home on one side.
Another side is vacant?
>>> Well, this is a vacant property as you can see.
Then -- oh, the same person owns the vacant property as well as the house.
And she's not opposed to this.
And then on the south side, the actual property itself is in excess of 21,000 square feet.
So that's the south side.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: According to the Planning Commission, it also says that since the site is located mid-block, there's going to be like three ingress and egress areas?
So how do you do that?
In the middle of the block?
>>> The daycare.
The transportation asked us to do a drive, a drop-off drive.
So you actually have access, to come here.
And you can see the arrows.
That's the way you access the property.
>> So it's a circular drive?
>>> Yes.
And that's the only way that you access.
>> So there's only one entrance and one exit?
>>> Yes.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Yes, there is entrance to the parking lot.
And then our engineer was talking about the turn-around radius, to have turn-around radius so be able to access over here on the parking lot, as well as for people who want to drop off the children, the access there.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.
I think one of the reasons why this isn't controversial is because basically on the sides of the site you have vacant parcels.
It appears to me, although it's not before us as part of that rezoning, you're significantly deficient in terms of parking that you need to provide because of saving the tree, which I totally agree with.
I think what y'all should do is buy the property on either side so you will be able to provide adequate parking for the congregation.
It's obvious what's before us, if your neighbors were developed as homesites, they would not be as enthused having people park all week long and on Sunday.
So you might want to do that too sooner than later.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 39?
>> Move to Moss close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
I move an ordinance approving a special use permit S-2 approving a church and daycare in an RM-16 residential family zoning district in the general vicinity of 3815 Phillips street in the city of Tampa, Florida and as more particularly described in section 1 hereof reducing the front setback to 21.7 feet reducing rear set back to 6 feet waiving the required access to an arterial or collector street and allowing access to a local street, reducing vehicle parking area buffer from 10 feet to 6 feet along the north property line, reducing the rear yard buffer from 10 feet to 6 feet with a foot 6 foot red fence allowing parking on the grass with the exception of the drive aisle and have handicapped parking spots which will be asphalt reducing the required number from 27 parking spaces to 16 parking spaces, reducing the required back out area from 6 feet to 4.9 feet providing an effective date.
>> Second.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: After listening to all the waivers they are asking for I'm not going to support this until they come back with additional parking.
I think that it's irresponsible of us to waive that great a percentage of parking spaces, when land is available on both sides.
So I would encourage the petitioner to ask for a continuance and come back with some additional land.
>>> Can I address that?
>>GWEN MILLER: We've already closed.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to reopen.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm not seconding that motion.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do you want to speak before your motion?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: It's 2:25, guys.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone want to second reopening the public hearing?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: It's a small church.
They are trying to get on their feet.
I think we ought to do anything to help them be successful.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I also think if land becomes available if the church continues to grow, if it doesn't become available they will have the opportunity to work with the neighbors, and if it's vacant land next door and especially if they prove themselves to be good neighbors to the neighborhood, I think if it becomes available I'm sure they would like to purchase at that point in time a site for their congregation.
>>GWEN MILLER: Second and motion.
>>THE CLERK: Saul-Sena and Alvarez no.
>>GWEN MILLER: Item number 41.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>JAMES COOK: Land Development Coordination.
You voted to continue this from this morning to September 15th.
>>GWEN MILLER: We are on 41.
>>JAMES COOK: Land Development Coordination.
I have been sworn in.
Petitioner is requesting to vacate an east-west alley between Horatio and Azeele and from Arrawana to Habana Avenue.
This is property in red.
It's actually an I-shaped alleyway.
Here is an east-west portion here, and north-south, and another.
They are requesting this east-west portion down here.
This is the alley looking west from Arrawana.
The east-west alley looking east from the north ---from the north-south alley in the rear.
The tree is backed up by a fence.
A shot of the other alleys around this location.
This next photo will be looking, east-west alley lying north.
This is townhouse access parking to the rear.
This is not affected by the vacating.
This is a shot looking west towards Habana.
This is a shot of the north-west alley looking south.
This is continuing, to vacate on the other side of this fence right here.
This next photo is looking back north from the east-west alley.
And this actually north-southbound is a 15-foot line alley so people driving, townhouses accessing it and also this way.
That will not be affected by the vacating.
This photo is a photo looking west to east from Habana.
The portion behind the feigns right here.
And the last shot, this is looking from Habana west to east.
This is the portion of the east-west alley on the north side and it's currently not accessible.
Staff has no objections as long as drainage easement is reserved.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Cook, one of the photos that you showed us which shows says east-west alleyway, from Arrawana Avenue, and they show the buildings, so the buildings --
>>> understood construction?
>> Yes, under construction.
Is that the part that we were looking to?
>>> Yes, ma'am, where the pod is sitting that's the east-west alleyway between the buildings.
>> So they built these thinking they were going to get council to approve the alley?
>>> I don't know if it was part of the original plan when they built these units.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Cook, you were not in that meeting?
Just checking.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Is Cathy Coyle here?
Maybe you can answer.
Will you tell me how many feet between these two buildings, these three buildings, I guess south and one on the north?
Yeah, right there.
>>JAMES COOK: The alley is a ten-foot wide alley, so I would assume probably got 20 feet between those buildings.
>> So that would be five feet.
So they would have five-foot setback on each side?
>>> I don't know.
>> You know, this is becoming very prevalent especially in the west Tampa area.
That you have a tall building like this looking at a wall, you have got bedrooms on the top floor, and then you're looking at a wall on that building that's on the side.
This is becoming very prevalent.
And there's no backyard.
And it kind of disturbed me a little bit that they would build this and then come to us for a vacation.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Leave that up for a second.
I'm a little messed up on my orientation.
Where in relationship to this picture is the alley?
>>JAMES COOK: From here to here.
One here, one on that side.
>> So these houses --
>>> Here, here and here.
>> So where does this alley run?
>>> Somewhere in between here.
It's only a 10-foot wide alley.
>> It's running from us.
>>> Yeah.
And this is the other shot looking from that tree back out to Arrawana.
And the back side is the fenced area.
That's one house there and the other two here.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Cook, what public purpose does this serve?
>>> Petitioner stated public health and safety.
I'll let him speak further to that.
>>> I haven't been sworn in either.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
My name is Steve McKenna.
I reside at 618 boss road, Tampa, Florida 33606.
And we're just asking to have City Council grant the closing of the alley that's not even being used, it's not paved.
I heard a question as far as when we designed the building and went forward were we hoping you would do this to help us on the back side.
Not at all.
We're just trying to save from kids being in there, we have had homeless in there, in fact -- I think that's sanitary, safety and security issue.
Is alley is not even paved.
All the other alleys that Mr. Cook showed are paved and are being used.
So this is a grass alley.
I did not do any variances on the setbacks from the alley the way it is today.
Basically a 15 foot setback and I have observed that.
There is a backyard that's about 15 feet, which most of Hyde Park does not have.
I also have adequate parking in the front so I am not trying to get any kind of rear access at all.
Just looking at it from a safety, security and sanitary reason.
I've got two-car driveways, two-car garage.
So I'm keeping everybody off the street.
So I'm not trying to get any variances on setbacks or anything like that.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Sir, I probably agree with you you are not getting any variance for setback but by vacating that alley you are getting five feet on either side for the homes that abut that alley.
In the past we have had some criteria and in the future we should continue to look at that criteria, and from you, petitioner, with all due respect, we should look at that criteria more seriously than we have in the past actually.
When we talk about public purpose, I don't see any here.
And this is not an overgrown alley where you have issues of prostitution, and garbage dumping and those type of things. This is clearly a clean application to give the back of your project more footage, just to complete the project.
There is absolutely nothing you can convince me of in terms of why this would serve a public purpose.
So I think this goes right against the grain of why we vacate alleys.
There's not a good enough reason, not a public enough reason.
I'm not going to support it.
>>> I --.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I don't want a response.
I'm just making a comment to the record.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions by council members?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 41?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question for the petitioner.
You design these houses, at least two of them, and you are aware that the alley was there, why wouldn't you consider having them be rear loaded, opening up the alley and using it as the main egress, like some homes do, when they have alleys?
>>> Well, we had enough space in the front, we didn't have to do that.
And keeping cars off the street, have two-car driveway for each unit, so we're not using -- I think it helps with parking that is obviously out of control in the streets.
And if I can, I would like to go back, there are homeless people and have been homeless people that have lived back there and use it as a bathroom.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't think that's realistic now that it's in the middle of --
>>> no, and that could be true.
You're of your opinion but we've a cul-de-sac, a fence basically where you see the fence today, and then the other unit is going to have a fence.
I'm going to put up a fence.
So all you are going to have is a cul-de-sac that the city needs to take care of the grass because it's not even a paved street.
>> What lots are these three houses, 10, 11 and 12?
>>> 9, 10 and 11.
9, 10 and 11 that are on Horatio.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Excuse me, is this on a corner lot?
>>> Yes.
>> The two houses are on corner lots?
>>> Correct.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Now we go to our public.
You can speak now, sir.
>>> I have been sworn in.
Nagil Panias.
And he didn't show any pictures facing west.
I have property there.
And people come in through the alley and turn and go out the other.
He didn't show any pictures of that.
Now, there's also fire.
If there's a fire, if they close that alley, they can't come in.
They can come in from Habana, but somebody calling from Arrawana, when the fire truck gets there, there's no way to get in.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: If I could ask you or staff to put this on the overhead, to show us where your property is so we can have a better understanding.
There's no where you can turn.
There's no way.
Right now, they are going over my property to make a turn.
They need to turn.
Then you close that, and I don't know if you come all the way on Habana -- you can't have access from that side.
This only shows one.
There's another duplex over here.
And the back side of Arrawana.
And then you see come from here.
>> And then continuing north.
>>> Continue through here and go out.
Come out this way.
If you close that the only way to come in is there.
And a fire truck is not going to get in.
>>JAMES COOK: In order to open that alley, we have to remove that tree.
>>> They use my property as an alley.
And I never said anything about it.
If they close that, I don't know what's going to happen.
I'm thinking of a fire.
They can only come in from this end, and it becomes like a compound in there, in the center.
And the only way you are going to be able to come in from the back is the side.
I don't think that's safe and I don't see a necessity.
>>CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
Anyone else like to speak?
Anyone else like to speak?
Okay, petitioner, come on.
>>> Steve McKenna: We are asking to have this section closed off here.
Fire trucks can still come in this way and get behind these units.
And this alley here is not just used for these condos parking.
The folks that actually live at this gentleman's place do park so they are using it.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Your three homes are where?
>>> Actually two.
Right here and right here.
>> Where is the third home we just saw in the picture?
>>> That's here.
There's two units, one building.
Two units here, one building.
Two units here, one building.
So the fire access is down this alley here, you get behind here, in front, and on the side.
Like I say, this is paved.
This is concrete.
And this is actually grass alleyway.
>> And what's that parcel that's right there in the middle of the whole block?
>>> Right here?
That was a portion of this owner right here's property.
>> So we're not really locking him in.
>>> No, not all at all.
Not trying to close an alley as inconvenience to anybody else.
Not affecting anybody that's there today.
There's two entrances in and out of there.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I want to ask you a question.
The two houses that you just built, are those addresses -- well, was that property on the front side?
Or was it on -- I don't know what the name of the streets are there.
What's the name of that street?
>>> This is Horatio.
>> What's the other one?
>>> This one is --
>> Where you are building now.
>>> Where I am building is right there.
>> So you're on Horatio and what?
>>> On Horatio on the corner of Arrawana.
>> Was there a house there before?
>>> Yes.
>> What was their address, Arrawana or Horatio?
>>> These two lots were both Horatio.
>> I just can't understand it.
>>> It's still Horatio.
>> It's still Horatio.
I just can't understand how you got setbacks for that.
>> I'll be happy to address.
When you say setbacks, I followed exactly what the zoning RM-16 is the there.
15 in back, 25 in front, I didn't ask for any change on those.
>> Because it looks like you're pretty close to -- what is your setback back there?
>>> In the back is a 15 foot.
You have got 15 foot for myself.
You have got the 10-foot alley.
And you have seven feet right here.
>> So you have got 15 and 10 is 25.
And so there's 32 feet between those three houses?
>>> Yes.
Mine is 15.
I'm coming 15 from the alley.
You have got the alley.
That's 10.
You have 25.
And then the gentleman on Arrawana.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's all squeezed in there.
Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Madam Chair, I think I'm usually the flag bearer on this issue of not wanting to vacate for frivolous reasons.
In this case, I think these three houses, the three properties that are going to be most affected, don't think anybody else is effected, and Mr. Cook has testified that this is, as we're looking at this picture, it's overgrown, never been used, tree in the way, fence in the way.
You know, on this one -- and this is in my district.
So maybe it might be your district, Mary.
On this one I don't have a big problem with it.
I don't think it's ever going to be used as a rear alley.
It only ten feet wide.
Is that what somebody said?
Only ten feet wide.
Not much of an alley to start with. Normally, Rose, I'm leading the charge on these kind of issues but on this one, you know, it's like whatever.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Is there a motion somewhere in there?
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder, knits your district.
Read the ordinance.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Now you're challenging me here.
I make a motion to approve -- how are we doing this?
It's number 41.
Move an ordinance vacating, closing, discontinuing, abandoning certain right-of-way a portion of that certain platted alleyway lying between west Horatio street and Azeele street, westerly of Arrawana Avenue and east of Habana in Azeele business unit, a subdivision located in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, the same being more fully described, in section 2 hereof, providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Any question on the motion?
>>THE CLERK: Alvarez and Ferlita vote no.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Item 42 is a continued public hearing.
>>ERIC COTTON: Land Development Coordination. This is petition WZ 05-98, continued from the July public hearing.
The petitioner's name is Willmack Food 1, LLC, City Council district number 6, 1155 south Dale Mabry unit number 3, requesting a 2(COP-R) for selling of bore and wine, a restaurant.
The restaurant is currently established.
There are a number of already wet zoned establishments within a thousand feet including a sushi bar, Japanese restaurant with a 2(COP-R), the Publix and Gas Kwik, as does the U save grocery store.
This is 1155 south Dale Mabry.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What is the location?
I mean, is there a restaurant there?
>>> There's a restaurant there.
Actually, I don't know the name.
The petitioner is here.
He can tell you the name of the restaurant.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Tell us where we're talking about.
FROM THE FLOOR: Ring stop.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What's it next to?
>> Blockbuster.
>>ERIC COTTON: Across the street, 1108 south Dale Mabry is a 2(APS) which council approved I believe roughly two months ago.
The petitioner is requesting the waiver of the distance separation requirements.
The property is within a thousand feet.
Petitioner -- there is no residential property within a thousand feet.
The only institutional use within a thousand feet is a United States post office, the station on church street.
>> Gene Reyes, police department.
We have no objection to this.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>>JOHN GRANDOFF: My address is suite 3700 Bank of America Plaza.
I represent Randy Pruense and his family, want to open a wing stop restaurant, right around from the corner of blockbuster just north of Neptune.
I have spoken to Missy Studman who runs the Gulf View homeowners association.
She has no objection to the application as far as I know, and no other interest or objections to the application.
I respectfully request your approval.
>>GWEN MILLER: Questions from council members?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 42?
>> Move to close.
>> Motion and second to close.
(Motion carried)
Mrs. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move 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(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 1155 south Dale Mabry Highway, unit 3, 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.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN GRANDOFF: Thank you for your time.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mayor, can you wait for one more?
Item 43.
Item 43.
We are going to hear from the mayor first then.
We have the mayor with us.
She would like to speak with us.
>>MAYOR PAM IORIO: Good afternoon.
I know you have such a busy agenda today.
And I appreciate you just allowing me a couple of minutes of your time.
I know we are all affected by what's occurred in Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama.
And we are all so moved by it and want to help.
And for those of us who all run a city, I think we can look at what's happened to New Orleans and see such terrible destruction of the city.
And it's terrible, and it's really beyond words.
And everyone feels that way.
And I would just like to share a few thoughts with you.
We had a statewide conference call this afternoon with Governor Bush.
As you know, the governor is playing a leadership role in statewide emergency efforts.
He talked to us about the consumption of natural gas, gas and electricity.
And some of the challenges that we are faced with.
Normally the State of Florida uses 23 million gallons of gasoline a day.
That amount has doubled.
But for really no reason.
It doesn't need to have doubled.
It's doubling because people are topping off their gas tanks and are concerned.
And so one message that the governor is trying to send out throughout the state is there is no reason to go out and top off your gas tank and to attempt to fill all containers with gas.
That really only makes matters worse.
If everyone just uses their normal consumption, goes about business as usual, he feels that the state will be in a very good position.
However, there is an overall need for all of us to conserve.
Natural gas has been affected.
So you have your gas, your electricity and the natural gas.
And I have been in touch with TECO.
And they also would like a message to go out to the community about the importance of conservation, if everyone could conserve by 10%.
We're doing this, as I believe Greg Spearman made a presentation this morning about what we are doing internally as a city government looking at all our fuel consumption as well as our electricity consumption.
Increased thermostats by about 5 to 10 degrees.
Be mindful of your use.
I share this with you because all seven of you are leaders in this community, and if you could help share this message, as you go about particularly this holiday weekend, I think it would be greatly appreciated.
What the city is doing, we currently have 25 personnel from Tampa Fire Rescue, four canine units, as well as 15 pieces of equipment that have been helping with search and rescue operations since day one.
They really are outstanding individuals to be doing what they are doing.
Tampa Police Department is currently coordinating with the statewide EOC for best utilization, and all of this is coordinated by statewide EOC and it really is a very organized effort.
We are prepared to receive patients from the affected areas.
We'll be transported to a hangar at Tampa International Airport adjacent to our fire station.
Tampa Fire Rescue will coordinate the receipt and transport of the patients.
They will be triaged and then dispatched to appropriate hospitals in the bay area.
So many people want to give.
And I know you have likely received many e-mails and calls, and our office has received many calls of people who want to give.
We urge people to give to the disaster relief fund of the red cross,, also help by calling 1-800-help-now.
Any amount would be appreciated.
This is such a giving community.
And I know people want to give.
But I think the American Red Cross with their expertise and disaster relief and recovery efforts would really be the best Avenue for giving.
So, council members, I just wanted to take a few moments to first let you know what the governor's message is, and then what we're doing here in the City of Tampa, and then finally how people can give.
This is really a time to keep so many people in our prayers.
And I know that that is going on throughout our country.
This is such a horrible disaster.
It's catastrophic.
And I think if we all pull together as a country, and we do that community by community, city by city, we can help those Gulf coast area residents rebuild.
And I thank you very much for your few minutes this afternoon.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I would just like to thank the mayor for bringing that message, and also sharing with our listening community about giving, because disastrous times like these, we have those among us who will still prey on this particular unfortunate situation that's occurred.
And I think it's important for our community to know, because we do have so many giving people, and especially some of our elderly and unsuspecting that will be preyed upon to donate and give through unscrupulous people that wish to take advantage of this type of situation.
If our community as well as our city and our state would concentrate on giving to the major organizations that we are all familiar with, and we know the moneys will be directed in the right direction, to help the major relief areas that are so desperately in need, not to be -- not to succumb to the generosity by anyone that is just holding their hand out and especially giving -- asking for and demanding cash donations on the spot, that type of thing.
I think this is the time that most of our people are most vulnerable.
And I thank you for bringing that to us.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I share councilman's white's thanks.
We have all watched in horror over the last few days of what's happening in New Orleans.
It just keeps getting worse by the hour.
And other than Houston, we are probably the largest city that's close to New Orleans.
And I'm glad that we're opening up our hospitals and medical facilities for some of those folks.
As the crow flies or the ship sails we are not that far from New Orleans.
And to get them here and get them treated, I think that's a great use of our resources.
So thank you for your leadership.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, mayor.
We appreciate you coming.
Mr. Daignault?
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Good afternoon, council.
I appreciate this opportunity to address the stormwater issue on item number 43 on your agenda today.
We'd like to show you -- we have a PowerPoint presentation we would like to walk you through today.
You were previously given a package, or you have a package up there on the dais with a copy of this presentation, as well as a list of all of the projects in the five-year plan.
You may want to refer to that as we go through here.
I'd like to start off with taking you back about a year.
I hope you all remember council asking that we come and talk to you about what could be done about all of the flooding going on around the city, both with the storms that we experienced last year, the hurricanes, as well as just the average tropical or summer storms that wove and the flooding that resulted from those various storms.
We have tried to put together a plan, and in fact came and talked to you back in January, and laid out a plan at that time of how we would address the many, many flooding issues and stormwater issues that you and your constituents brought to us.
So just, for example, this particular picture shows the residential area just adjacent to Dale Mabry
And Henderson
Which is one of the projects that when would certainly like to address.
It's not always in the main road, even though the flooding there is significant.
But this is flooding that is in an adjacent residential area that's associated with that Dale Mabry-Henderson flooding area.
This one, of course, is up at the Donut Pond area.
113th street.
This one is at 55th and 28th Avenue over in East Tampa.
And this one is in west Tampa, where on Tuesday of this week we had a groundbreaking ceremony and received some funding to help us continue with the various phases of that project.
And it's important to note right here that because we have a plan, because we do invest money in our infrastructure, in our stormwater system, that we are eligible to receive those kinds of funds.
So it's important that we move forward and do have a plan for how we are going to address our stormwater needs.
This we have about $300 million worth of stuff in the ground for stormwater, 365 miles of pipe, 180 miles of ditches, 104 retention ponds, 7 pumping stations, and we're not talking about small devices.
In fact I am going to show you one in just a minute.
Then we have 20,000 inlets, 21,000 miles of street are swept annually, and the street sweeping program is also part of our stormwater budget.
And we have 103 personnel.
Again, here's one of our punching stations.
This is curiosity creek.
Again it's a pretty significant facility.
I think you are all aware of the duck pond program that we're working with the county.
We are coordinating the pumping of water from their site through our site, and are pursuing funds, have pursued funds to allow us to get our water and their water into a pipe and downstream and not flood that area.
But this is the type of pump station that we have around the city in a number of locations.
This is our primary stormwater issues, the things we address at stormwater on a day-to-day basis.
Structural flooding, degradation -- degradation of water quality, aging systems, pipes under structures, increased costs to provide services, construction costs are, as you know, going up significantly with everything else.
Development impacts than on our system.
And I don't know that there's a day that goes by that we don't get a call from somebody that says because of the growth, because of a new place down the street, water is coming our way.
Increased regulation.
New laws every year that we have to deal with.
And then changing community expectations with regard to our stormwater system.
This slide shows a very important item that needs to be -- we need to be mindful of this as we move through here, and that is that our ordinance requires that the stormwater utility proceeds be used for operations and maintenance.
Operations and maintenance.
That's where those dollars, those revenues have to go to.
Operations and maintenance includes street sweeping, it includes cleaning or repair stormwater inlets, pipes, drainage structures, ditches, et cetera.
And then it includes the administration and the planning for those projects.
I'm going to address operations and maintenance a little later here in this presentation.
Heretofore and prior to implementing a stormwater utility fee, our stormwater budget was fairly flat.
The blue line shows the actual funding, and the red line shows the budget adjusted for inflation.
Our stormwater funding approach is to move toward having the stormwater utility fee fund more of the operations and maintenance than it has in the past, and therefore free up utility tax, ad valorem funding, and grants and other sources for our capital projects.
I think I need to just make a mention here that there's a difference between the stormwater utility fee and utility tax.
Utility tax is the tax that's collected on power, telephone, water and wastewater, all the other utilities.
Doused down here as capital projects.
The stormwater utility fee is what we're talking about today, and that's what has to be used exclusively for operations and maintenance.
Based on our current rate, our stormwater utility fee is an average $12 a year.
That's again an annual amount.
And this shows where the City of Tampa's rate currently sits compared to a number of other Florida cities rates.
What we're proposing is to increase the annual stormwater utility fee from $12 to $36, again annually and for operations and maintenance.
This will allow us to have a bond issue with about $12 million of proceeds to address our five-year plan.
The stormwater capital work program for that would be then $60 million over the five year plan, and in your package, again the list and the whole description of the five-year plan are all of the projects that will be accomplished within that period.
Assuming that that was approved, this shows where the City of Tampa would be relative to those cities.
We would move up a notch over Lakeland.
And one of the things, it's important I think to note here, is many of these cities have been collecting these fees for a number of years.
I personally am aware of the Cape Coral $40 rate that goes back at least ten years.
So they have been collecting that and using those proceeds for a number of years to do stormwater projects.
Again, assume that that increase was approved on an annual basis -- we have a tiered structure, and for a small unit or small residential establishment, the rate would go from 7.20 to 21.96 and again across this slide you can see the change or the increase for a small, medium, large and very large residential unit.
And then on the right, you can see the changes for commercial units.
This next slide is a little powerful and busy, but I hope it shows what we are trying to demonstrate here.
If you look to the very far left, you see under existing and revenue, you see down at the bottom there, we have $2 million worth of stormwater utility fee, we have 6.5 million of ad valorem and 3.9 million of U-tax: That's how we fund the stormwater budget currently.
What we do with that money is spend 8.5 million for operations and maintenance and 3.9 for capital projects.
That's what we do currently.
By increasing the stormwater utility fee from 12 to $36, we go from 2 million to 6 million.
So you can see that the stormwater utility fee now is getting closer to funding, or funds more of the operations and maintenance part of the budget.
We still have the same amount of ad valorem and U-tax. But we can now use more of that for capital projects.
So we're offsetting the ad valorem and the U-tax part with stormwater utility fee on the operations and maintenance side to allow us to do more capital improvements.
The $36 annual fee would allow us to use the U-tax budget for the $20 million bond issue.
It would allow us to address 34 of the top 95 stormwater and flooding and drainage problems.
It would improve stormwater quality.
And it would allow us to start replacing our aging and collapsing stormwater pipes.
There's 94 projects throughout the community, throughout the city. Again you can look in your package and see that list.
And there's also in your package a description of -- a detailed description of each one of those projects.
Based on all of the projects that you and your constituents have brought to us, we have to -- or had to devise a method to prioritize this project -- these projects.
And these are the items that are included in determining how a project is prioritized on the list.
We include public health and safety, flooding frequency and depth, water quality, benefits, permeability, condition of existing condition -- permittability, condition of existing system, probably more important is emergency vehicle access and protection of evacuation routes.
But those are also included in determining again the priority of projects.
From here, we will still need to come to the council again, if that increase is approved we still have to come back to council after approval of the bond issue, and then each year, when a year has been approved and is underway, we will have another year, a new fifth year with new projects to the five-year plan.
I told you that I want to talk about operations and maintenance.
And again the department is a new department, but we are rapidly evolving how we deal with operations and maintenance.
We have gone through an optimization process where we have actually down-sized the crews and created more crews where we had four people, we have gone down to three, where we had three, we have gone down to two, and the way we are able to do that, what optimization does, instead of just having an equipment operator and a mechanic and a laborer, the person, the people in each of the crews can do all of the work.
They do the equipment operating, they do the labor work, they do the mechanic work, they do everything.
So they're trained to do all of that.
And that allows us to have more crews around the city.
It allows us to address the needs and the operations and maintenance area a whole lot better.
So our new work plan divides the city into four zones.
In each one of the zones there are 12 work areas.
In each month, we will be working in one of those areas in each zone.
So there will be work going on in each of the four parts of the city in any given month.
And what that a allows us to do in 12 months we can meet all of the needs of the city.
Now needs are going to constantly change and new needs brought in.
It might be that we get in there and find that a need is such that the operations and maintenance crew can't address it and it needs to be turned into a project.
But again this gives us an opportunity to get around the entire city, with operations and maintenance, all in one year.
Again, these are the 2004 districts.
And of course emergencies are dealt with anytime.
If there's water getting into people's homes or if there's flooding going on such that traffic can't get through there, we'll address those things as they come up.
So our bottom line here at the end is, we have requesting that you approve the stormwater utility fee non-ad valorem assessment roll and the associated fee increase.
And just before I finish, Ms. Wise would like to make a few comments about the stormwater program.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I have a question for Steve but I don't want to --.
>>GWEN MILLER: A question for you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: It doesn't matter.
If you want to let Bonnie go ahead.
>>> Finish the presentation and then take all your questions.
Ways wise director of revenue and finance.
I am going briefly talk a little about the financing aspect of the program.
Many of you know prior to joining the city I was an investment banker and I specialized in the issuance of municipal bonds.
And I did that for about 16 years.
And I had participated in million dollar of stormwater financing.
So I speak to you from my prior experience as well as my experience with the city.
I believe that we have really developed a sound financial plan, moving forward on the stormwater program.
We have an assessment methodology that has been used in various places throughout the State of Florida.
It has been tested in the courts.
And like I said, it's not one that was prepared and presented just for the City of Tampa.
It's one that's used elsewhere.
We have a plan that uses our stormwater utility fees for operation and maintenance.
As Steve mentioned, that is a requirement of the assessment methodology.
And what it does is that it frees up those utility tax revenues and ad valorem revenues through capital projects that are so desperately needed.
What we plan to do is issue debt in the amount of $20 million.
But what we are probably to going to do is an interim financing mechanism where we are going to participate with the Florida association and the counties commercial paper program, and it's a program that we have not participated in before, but it's one that I have been involved with in my previous life.
It allows us to draw funds for projects that are necessary and therefore we are not incurring interest costs until we actually need the moneys.
It's a very flexible program because it allows us to pay it off at any time without any penalties.
And so at some point when we have borrowed a significant amount of money, way would recommend then is that when come back, and then do a fixed rate financing to take out that program.
All those financing mechanisms will of course have to come before you for approval.
Initially, we would have a pledge on that commercial paper program of our non-ad valorem revenues later in our fixed rate financing, take that out with a pledge probably of our utility tax.
The plan is to use a very solid revenue stream, something that's very creditworthy in order to get the very low interest rates.
This commercial paper program that I'm discussing is a program that we're also going to implement for transportation projects.
We'll of course account for it separately, any draws on the program for stormwater programs will be accounted for separately from transportation.
It's what we're going to use to help accelerate the four-year program.
Nabor is our expert in stormwater so if you have some legal issues related to that, Chris is here to address that.
I really believe that we have now developed a five-year program.
It entails a $60 million capital improvement projects.
And this $20 million bond financing that will allow us to move forward and address many of these capital improvement projects that we have not had the ability to address prior to now.
So I too request that you approve the stormwater fee non-ad valorem assessment roll and the associated fee rates.
With that I'll open it up for any questions.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is that all on the presentation?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: That's the end?
>>> Yes.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Better than last week.
Can I speak, Marty?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I just want to clarify something.
I hate to interrupt.
But this was listed on the agenda as a quasi-judicial hearing.
There was an issue as to setting a fee, whether it was really necessary.
I had some discussion with Mr. Massey.
It doesn't appear to be, but because there are some people who expressed concerns, just for the sake of dispelling any concerns that people may have, if I would just ask that people be sworn in and just reaffirm, and in the future we'll be clear -- it's listed on the agenda.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the audience that's going to speak, 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?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Of course Ms. Wise and Mr. Daignault.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: The $20 million bond issue, Bonnie, that will be paid over how many years?
>>> 30.
I'm sorry, that's when we do the fixed rate part of it.
>> Okay.
And I saw on the spreadsheet that you all did, the debt service is 1.3 million a year.
For 30 years.
Thank you.
Now, Mr. Daignault, I want to ask you a question about the memo that you sent yesterday.
And in particular, there was one line in the memo that I found a bit disturbing.
At the very bottom of the first page it says, at the status quo, there's no plan to complete the 95 projects.
And I just wonder if that is really the official position of the City of Tampa, that without this fee increase, there is no plan to try to address the 95 projects that we have on our list.
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: It's certainly going to be very difficult to try to address those items on the list.
The list has grown over time.
And it's more than a losing battle at the current rate to have enough funds to address capital projects.
It will be, for example, if you wanted to do Dale Mabry and Henderson, you would have to save for 12 years before you could start the project.
So you really don't have a very good plan, it's certainly not going to be a five year plan, it's not going to be on the current administration's plan.
It would be very difficult.
Very difficult.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, I appreciate that.
It may be difficult if you're going to take the position that we have to have new revenues to do it.
But I think you could also take the position that you can begin to address the 95 projects with existing resources that we have.
And so I don't want to debate the issue with you right now.
I just wanted to clarify, it is a very stark statement that you made in this memo.
There is no plan to complete the 95 projects at the status quo. I find that lack of creativity a bit problematic just from this councilman's perspective.
That's the only question I have right now.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Bonnie, this is for you.
You're saying that the annual stormwater utility fee rates would be $36.
Is that an average?
>>BONNIE WISE: That is for the medium size home.
I think Steve had shown you a schedule, because it is delineated between four different categories for single-family residential, and then commercial.
>> Well, if you add the four you were talking about, small, medium, large, very large, and you add the four together and divide it by four, you come up with $55 as an average fee.
>>> The fee that we are talking about is for the medium size home that. Goes from $12.
>> But that's really not a true statement if you see it that way.
Because there's a lot more -- there's a lot of homes that are -- I'm trying to get an average and the average is not $36, is what I'm saying.
>>> For small, large and medium homes.
Is that what you're saying?
>> Yeah.
So you're apt to get more money.
Then than if you add the commercial rates, which could be in store supermarket and the Home Depot, you add those together, and it's about $1700.
So you're getting a lot more than just the average $36.
So what is the amount of money that you're planning to collect?
Is it based on the $36?
Or based on --
>>> it's based on basically everybody going from the current rate to the new proposed rate.
So currently we raised in total $2 million.
Under the proposed plan, in total, we would raise $6 million.
So everybody's property would increase proportionately.
>> Right.
But that would be under the property appraiser?
He's the one that does the collection and everything?
>>> Right.
It's on the tax roll.
>> Then based on last year's assessment, how much have we got, 2 million?
>>> Two million, yes.
>> Then what you're saying is we're going up three times and it would be the six million?
>>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay, got you.
With W that $6 million, it doesn't have to be collected before you can do the bond issue?
>>> That's correct.
>> That would be --
>>> but it would be on the property tax bills, so we know that those moneys are going to be coming in, and we're very comfortable with that.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I have --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I yield to everybody.
Go ahead.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Do you have a lot of questions to ask?
I just have one question.
Other questions later.
Before we go beyond Mr. Harrison's concern.
I'm going to need a lot of verifications.
In any case, Mr. Daignault when weighs asking about the 95 projects, I think I heard you say, we don't have a very good plan.
Does that mean we don't have a very good plan long-term or don't have a very good plan, or did I misunderstand you?
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: No, what we're saying, under the status quo, at the status quo, without increasing the fee, the stormwater utility fee, that we are going to have to spend a lot of the money currently dedicated for stormwater for operations and maintenance, leaving little amount for capital improvements.
That's all we're saying.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I just wanted some clarification.
I don't think that was it but it doesn't matter.
In terms of what you're proposing that we are going to try to do in the five-year plan, you know, people have an expectation to have in some cases triple their fee, and sometimes maybe even more, for a five-year plan, and then based on what your closing comment is here, right now there is no plan to complete the 95 projects.
So the people that are not included in the five-year plan for the first 50-whatever projects we're proposing, there could be the expectation that somebody in some particular areas will pay the increased fee but not realize any kind of improvement in their particular area, depending on what projects were chosen?
I mean, we do run that risk, right?
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Just like any in any given year when you have to make decisions over what capital projects are in the budget.
For the stormwater five-year plan, the current five-year plan, decisions had to be made, and we tried to explain to you how we prioritize -- most of these were projects that you and your constituents have given to us that we have then applied some of these characteristics.
>> I understand that.
>>> And beyond the five-year plan, we would continue to do -- to add a year each year, and do more projects.
And one of the items in your package there addresses if the fee were more, what it would cost, answering the question to council member Harrison.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I'll have some other questions later.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to thank you for this presentation.
I thought it outlined a very rational and professional approach.
And I personally enjoyed the list of what other communities charge compared to what we charge.
And I wondered if you had an opportunity to distribute those materials to people in the audience who are here for this hearing.
Because I think it's very explanatory and telling.
And it really puts in context what we are proposing in Tampa versus what our fellow Florida communities are charging.
>>> We have copies of those for anyone in the audience who would Luke them.
I don't think we have given them out but they are available for anyone who wants them.
Walter has them right here.
>> Why don't you share them with the people in the audience during this time?
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. White, then come back to Mr. Dingfelder.
>> No.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm a good support.
I thought we should yield to the public actually.
>>GWEN MILLER: Another council person.
Mr. White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
To Mr. Daignault.
First of all, one of the things that still wasn't clear to me from the explanation of last week of the small, medium and large and how we are calculating and how we were mitigating, each individual property, especially based upon houses, the older historical houses and/or houses on stilts, or two or three feet off the ground, and the pervious or impervious and whether the water is running off or being retained on-site, that is still unclear to me, and I know a lot of people in my area, specifically the Seminole Heights area, are concerned about that because they feel that they are not contributing to the stormwater problem in the City of Tampa, first of all, well, do you want to address that first?
Then I just have one other thing after that.
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Let me see if I can't try to clear some of that up.
First of all, there are numbers of methodologies that can be evaluated to see how you want to determine what your stormwater fee is.
You could just use per square foot of property.
You could use linear feet of frontage on a road.
You could use impervious space exclusively.
There are a number of methodologies that can be used.
As Bonnie said, Nabors has suggested a methodology that is the most defendable, that has been tested in court, and is supportable.
That methodology, our particular methodology, says that we are going to have a tiered system, small, medium, large, extra large, and it says that you will pay based on the footprint of your residence.
It doesn't say whether or not your residence is on stilts or on the ground.
It says the footprint that your residence makes.
That's the basis.
Now, there are circumstances if somebody is on the border, on the bubble, that we can go up or down depending on other imperviousness stuff and we could do that on a case-by-case basis.
But for the purpose of determining what tier you fall into, it goes based on the footprint of your property.
So if you're a bird or in the sky looking down, as the property appraiser does when he evaluates properties --.
>>KEVIN WHITE: The actual foundation of a 3,000, 4,000 square foot home is concrete slab, it's certainly different than one that's up on stilts where the water has the potential to stay on-site, percolate into the ground or stay on-site.
There ought to be some sort of mitigating factor if it incorporated in that calculation.
>>> Again, the methodology that we have, in the ordinance says footprint.
Certainly, if underneath your building was a retention pond, not just pervious surface but a retention pond and all of the water on your property was channeled to go there, that would be one of those mitigating circumstances we would look at.
>> Let's move on to the second thing and then I'll be through and you'll catch Mr. Dingfelder and the public.
Looking at the list of the 34 out of 95 proposed projects if this tax passes, I looked at your project prioritization on page 21 with your public health and safety, frequency, water quality, benefits.
I was very surprised and did not know until I became elected that we still have areas of Tampa that are on septic and do not have sewer within the city limits of Tampa.
I looked at each one of these proposed projects.
And it's most of those areas that are affected by sewer -- I'm sorry, septic that don't have sewer.
They flood and flood heavily.
As a matter of fact, I had a meeting with some people in East Tampa.
None of these go east of 40th street.
And it seems like that's where the great majority of this is.
I can't speak for anyone else's district.
But east of 40th street there's quite a few areas that are still on septic.
And it seems like that's a serious health -- public health and safety issue when you have water that cannot percolate into the ground.
And I recalled seeing some of the pictures that saw this morning in a meeting that I had where feces is floating and toilet paper and things of that nature all in the streets where we have serious flooding issues within the City of Tampa, in East Tampa, within the city limits of Tampa.
And close proximity to a recreational complex in East Tampa.
And I just don't see -- these individuals can't see the benefit of paying $36 extra a year, and the projects, especially the immediate projects that are on the list, don't benefit their particular area.
I know we can't fix the entire City of Tampa at one shot.
I'll be the first to admit that.
And I do think that if nothing else, I think this list ought to be maybe restructured or prioritized to take care of some of the issues in at least in east -- in each part of Tampa.
I don't see anything on here affecting Palmetto Beach.
Palmetto Beach has some flooding issues.
Like I said, East Tampa.
East of 40th street, every time I go out to a public meeting, people tell me they feel like they are not a part of East Tampa, they are a part of far-East Tampa, because they are on the other side of 40th street.
It seems like anything that comes up as far as major issues in East Tampa seems to be 40th street and west.
And it's almost like a forgotten territory.
And that's a significant portion of the City of Tampa.
And I think these are definitely hit on the public health and safety, your flooding, your water quality benefits.
And I think it's sad and I think we need to start looking at some of those.
And quite frankly, I feel for people that will be paying this and actually seeing no benefit for five years, and not even saying that they are going to be on the list for the next five years.
That's my comments for now.
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Two comment.
First of all the stormwater utility fee is for operations and maintenance, and we will be working in their area, whether it's cleaning a ditch, cleaning a pipeline, cleaning an inlet, rebuilding an inlet.
We will be doing work in their area as a result of the stormwater utility fee money going to operations and maintenance.
But I am most concerned about you saying that people with septic tanks have feces and stuff fleet floating around, because that's a whole different issue.
It certainly is -- shouldn't be.
That's an improperly operating system and we need to be looking at it and we would certainly like to get those people on the wastewater system if that's the problem they have.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I saw the pictures of that this morning, and before we adjourn, whenever we adjourn, you can get with my aide and get the people that I met with this morning at 8:30.
>>> That's what we need to do is get them on our wastewater system.
>> And you can understand that concern.
>>> Absolutely.
>> I'm not even on this list, and I'm having problems like this, why do I want to continue to pay into a system that's not going to benefit not only me but my community and the area that I live in?
>>> If they have identified a flooding item or issue in their neighborhood, it's either on the 95, the total list that we have, or else it's being addressed through operations and maintenance.
So I hope that they are on that list.
If they are not we want to get them --
>> They are not in the top 34.
Maybe we need to at the very minimum pick at least one particular area of each part of the City of Tampa to at least show some good faith effort, if you want me to participate within this user fee, or tax, if you will.
Please, let me see some benefit out of it.
>>> I understand.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would like to defer to the audience.
I'm deferring to the audience.
But if you will come back to me.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on item 41 -- 43?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a question, a point of order.
Last week there was an opportunity to speak, and some people did avail themselves of that opportunity.
What is council's --.
>>GWEN MILLER: If they spoke last week they cannot speak today.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I believe we waived the rules.
We had a full presentation.
Need to waive the rule.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>> I'm Joseph Catano, live at talons court in Tampa.
I was going to ask Mr. Daignault the next five years what projects does he have for my area.
As you can see it's white.
There's nothing there for the next ten years, okay?
For 17 years, our millage rate has remained the same.
This rate determines the city's portion of our property tax.
I disagree that our millage rate should have remained the same during the last 17 years, considering the increase through the years from growth, reevaluation, and appreciation of property values.
A roll back in taxes should have been in place for years.
The increase this year will be 17.5 million dollars.
Last year our millage rate in the Tampa Palms area was -- excuse me, 21 million in tax dollars last year, in the year of 06 we will bring about 5 million more.
That brings us to $27 million just for the New Tampa area.
And for us to be participating in a program that we're not going to get any benefit from, it's a waste of money.
In the year of 2006 we will collect from ad valorem tax, the amount of increase from 21 of 05.
From the year of 2000 and 2004 we contributed $10 million and we are paying for our infrastructure on a 20-year bond issue which includes all the ponds, areas that receive our stormwater.
And that's for another three or four years.
It was a 20-year bond issue.
In respect to the increase in the stormwater charge from 12 to the various numbers that I have seen, I do not support any increase.
I saw a letter that came to my house that had $80 something on it.
I have a little over 3,000 square feet.
I understand that the council has been told that if the fee does not pass, some of your favorite projects will be dumped.
To me, this appears to be blackmail.
If you don't vote for it this is what you are going to get, and I don't think the council should be told that.
They weren't told if it's blackmail but the imposition of it is there.
The area of New Tampa does not have any stormwater problems.
This area has been constructed through the bonds that are being paid by the taxpayers that live in that area.
The area that is in need of stormwater renovation should have a special taxing district set up to pay for these renovations, to bring the residents to the standards that are not going to cause flooding to their area that need these repairs. The area of Tampa Palms are paying for their stormwater needs through the bonds, as I said before, for the last 17 years.
As I said before, the people in New Tampa are sick and tired of being an ATM machine for the administration and downtown.
The mayor needs to curb some of the many projects that are on her agenda and take care of the necessary things that pertain to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the area that are in need of stormwater repairs, and renovations, to bring them up to a standard in the New Tampa area.
If a special taxing district is not set up to cure these problems, then the mayor and the City Council should insist that the proper moneys be redirected to the projects that have to do with the health, safety and welfare of the residents of this area that need this help.
Gentlemen, ladies, you have to vote your conscience, okay?
There will be more elections and everybody will be on the election ballot.
And people are looking at this.
Mine was $80-something.
Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What development do you live in?
Can you tell me what development you live in?
>> I live in the Tampa Palms area.
I live in the community of Lancaster right now, been there for 18 years.
Tampa Palms area.
>> Is that a CDD?
>>> Yes, it is.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>> Good afternoon Madam Chair.
Steenson, Tampa 33616.
Frankly, I'm just a little uncomfortable standing here this afternoon talking about the possibility of raising my stormwater fee by $24 a year, when a few hundred miles away people have lost family members, they don't have to worry about a stormwater fee because somewhere people won't even have a home to go back to.
Most of us had a hot shower and hot meal, had breakfast this morning.
But having said that, I want to say that I personally do not object to the additional increase in my fee.
Approximately a half gallon of milk a month.
My wife tells me it's $1.99 a half gallon.
She does all the shopping in my house.
However, I would like to say that a lot of my members, a lot of our neighbors that are on very limited income would object to this fee, because we also know that there are other coming behind it.
If you -- you read about it in the paper.
This is on top of the increase that they are receiving every year because of the increased assessments on their property taxes which brings me to a suggestion that I would like you to consider.
This year, I'm told the city received a 14% windfall increase in their property revenue tax if I'm not correct.
Am I not correct?
A why don't we use some of that 10% and apply to the stormwater and take some of the burden off of the citizens, our elderly citizens, South Tampa has been ignored for years and years and years, up until four years ago, we were the red-headed step children.
I urge you to consider this T suggestion of taking some of this windfall, and our property values aren't going to go down unless we have a major depression, and I don't think that's going to happen.
All I'm saying is consider the suggestion and let's put some pipe in the ground and solve the problem.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> Good afternoon.
I'm -- I have been sworn.
I'm Wolford Johnson, I live at 46200 Longfellow in Sunset Park.
I'm not here to speak against the stormwater fee although I never agreed with the methodology that was used.
I spoke about that a couple years ago when you adopted this fee.
So as far as I'm concerned that's a dead issue.
My concern really is from the standpoint of in our immediate area, there does not seem to be very much being done in the way of retention of future stormwater problems.
It's not only just a matter of flooding streets, which you do have that, but is also a matter of pollution, and it's pollution into the canal, into the lakes, it's killing fish, it's giving odor and so forth.
And that pollution is coming from the run-off from the streets, and it's not just in our immediate area, it's come from all over South Tampa, because it gets funneled into our area, into the outlets there.
So my concern really is from the standpoint of how the money is being spent, and where is it going to be spent?
And a the thing I request would be -- I have not seen that 95 list and so forth.
But based on the five-year plan I don't recall very much being in our area.
But I see my request to perhaps have the stormwater department meet with our stormwater committee, and our staff, Board of Directors, and really outline what has been done, what is being done, and what's the future plan for what will be done?
So that's what I request.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> Judith Walkbird, sunset Boulevard.
I also live in Sunset Park.
And I am speaking on behalf of the tax.
I'm in favor of it.
And I am so glad that we finally have a separate stormwater department.
Sunset Park was begging for that for years.
And I remember when the former mayor Dick Greco had a meeting five years ago, six years ago when he came to speak to us about this, and addressing this and nothing ever happened.
In fact what happened was the CIT money left our area, and was designated for a zoo and art museum.
I'm all in favor of these wonderful things, but it was in place of doing the projects that were needed around the city.
And I'm sorry Mr. White has left already, because he was talking about his area not having the benefit.
And I've heard from someone in the audience saying, well, his area already has all the wonderful ponds and retention things, and it's a newer area.
But we have to not forget, we are all in this together, and each one of you represent a different area.
But that area, isn't it still in the City of Tampa?
And I remember Rose Ferlita two years ago, we came before this group, and I remember what you told our area association that we have been coming before your group so many times begging for things to be done, and I can't remember verbatim what you said, but you said, it is about time we do something for these people.
And part of doing something is fixing the broken stormwater system.
I bought a truck.
I wanted a car but I bought a truck in South Tampa when you couldn't get through intersections when it just rains.
I don't have flooding per se on my property.
But I do have issues with Lake Kipling, and spring lake, and the inlet.
Because three years ago you promised us that you would be cleaning out the inlet that connects directly to our bay, and it's still overgrown, silted in, and God knows when you are going to get to dredging and cleaning up the muck that's been put in the waters.
And these are waterways that all of us enjoy.
I mean, my kids grew up going out and crabbing and fishing, and I can't let anyone -- my grandchildren would not be allowed to go anywhere near Lake Kipling or the bay right off of Dundee Avenue, because of the plugs pollution that stormwater has caused.
And we live in Tampa Bay, right?
Our area is Tampa Bay.
And clean water, and water that's used for recreation, is a very part of this.
And yet there are priorities that prioritize what they are going to get to first.
But please don't forget our area also, because like Hunter's Green and New Tampa, we pay very high taxes.
And we have lots of million dollar homes that pay high taxes.
And our area has been neglected for years when it comes to stormwater.
So please, think outside the box a little, and think as a whole, we are a city, we're all in this together.
And wherever you do live, you might have a new technology, the new sedimentation traps, you might have -- you might not have the open culverts like we have down where we are.
This is 2005.
And we still have mosquito-filled, open drainage ditches running through Westshore district.
So please don't forget about all our areas and pass the tax.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you. Next.
>>> I have a prepared witness statement.
May I get a motion?
>>GWEN MILLER: Give it to our attorney, please.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: On the record or do you want it back?
>>> On the record, please.
My name is Lawrence Robert Shuler, homesteaded at 219 West 103rd Avenue, City of Tampa.
I'm not a lawyer, but I reserve rebuttal.
I'm fully retired disabled American veteran.
I have had conversations with the people of the stormwater department.
I visited the annex, spoke with the employees.
And I followed the stormwater issue for over the decade that I have lived here.
Now, there was little financial incentive to protest this council's creation of a new city bureaucracy in 2003, but the new proposed triple increase that stormwater charges, we feel this is just the beginning of a darkening cloud growing on the horizon for many New Tampa homeowners.
I would present to you the simple fact the tiered billing scheme is too far to express to you all of the issues that a court might have with it in three minutes.
However, on the Elmo, I present to you this list of objections.
Right out of the stormwater funding report in 2003 are the sample sizes, only 20 medium size homes were sampled.
Mr. Daignault, or somebody talked about the fact that the methodology, but have been protested but the rates have not been protested and that's what I'm here to talk to you about today.
This chart shows that owners of small houses and medium size houses are being overcharged in the city tiered billing system to the benefit of people who live in large and extra large houses.
The medium house sizes, this medium figure was not used to establish the proxy building square footage.
Instead they use add medium for all houses in Tampa to establish a proxy for the feasibility.
I want to tell you something about the feasibility unit.
Besides the fact it's not an industry standard, it not anywhere in stormwater or hydrology my where.
It was totally thought up by the city stormwater department and their contractors in 2003, and you legalized it by putting it into the ordinance.
And to use their analogy about a kilowatt hour, I would say that the ASFILI unit is like TECO charging for every light bulb in your house as if you kept all your lights on 24 hours a day regardless of whether you used a 100 light bulb or 40 water light bulb.
I know my time has run out.
Here's a chart --.
>>GWEN MILLER: Your type is up.
>>> That shows city members on this council.
>>GWEN MILLER: Your time is up.
You have to wrap it up.
>>> Pay less money per square foot than --.
>>GWEN MILLER: Sir, you have to wrap it up.
>>> In Tampa.
>>> You're paying less.
They are paying more.
>>> Elly Montague, I lived on stormwater for all these years --.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I wonder if you could speak a little louder because I can't hear everything you're saying.
>> Tilt it toward you.
>>> Thanks, Steve.
Can you hear me now?
All right.
You didn't use up all my time doing that?
I have a lot to say.
Thank you for letting me speak again today.
And I wanted to tell you that I am in favor of the tax.
In fact it should be much more.
Piecemeal, they know it's not going to take care of everything.
And definitely we need to -- I don't see how anyone can doubt that we need to pass that tax.
Anyway, we have issues of where it's being used.
Like 30 some odd years I have tried to tell you that you are deteriorating Lake Kipling which is waters of the U.S. and all of the filter systems that came about because are with were fine because we did get help the consent order, it is not coming toward us in those two main pipes that is releasing stormwater into Lake Kipling.
It's deplorable.
It has a watershed of miles and miles and it brings every pollution that no one knows anything about, constantly.
Just in front of my nose in my area watching the water department, the stormwater department, the Verizon people, every department, the citizens, the people who mow their grass, everyone puts everything into those storm filters.
Just for instance the other day, we caught someone with a cement truck spilling and washing it into the drains.
They just say, naughty boy, don't do that again.
Well, that isn't going to keep them from doing it again.
We have to have stricter rules and we have to be fined or slapped a little bit harder.
And so it goes on and on.
We feel that we have been left out of this system on this filters.
The sumps were a laugh because they couldn't get one in.
The one they got in over in that area was very polluting.
They pollute while they were doing it.
They are polluting our streets, putting in those storm scepters, too. I watched them put in -- who is going to take care of all of that?
We wouldn't be so badly polluted if someone thought about water quality instead of just flooding.
And someone did something about it.
And as far as putting all that watershed into Lake Kipling and calling it a retention pond when you have got that permit, federal permit, PDS permit, it was listed only as a retention pond, not Lake Kipling, not waters of the U.S..
It isn't even a lake.
It's an estuary where fish breed.
No wonder we don't have any fish out in our bay and our Gulf.
Look what we're doing.
Water quality.
You don't address the water quality.
You're only talking about flooding.
Flooding is bad.
Yes, and take out that overflow pipe that brings in pump water for years and years.
And last year we had 950,000 gallons in that overflow into Lake Kipling, that little inlet.
No one addresses this.
It's filled with soot and sand and mangroves.
It does not flush at low tide.
We don't get a flushing.
Therefore the place smells to high heaven.
You should live there and smell it.
But you have to keep your children from getting into it, too.
I hope that you will look at all of these issues.
Bring back our CIT tax money.
(Bell sounds)
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Daignault, I think last week we talked about Lake Kipling and you mentioned something about it, that it wasn't water quality that we were concerned with.
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: It was not dredging for the sake of digging more depth for the sake of hold flooding.
It was in fact the quality that we would do the dredging for.
We mentioned that we would be bringing to the citizens and to the council before too long a plan regarding the dredging of Lake Kipling, the lakes, and all of the canals throughout the city.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: The policy -- not the policy, but the MPDS that Ms. Montague talks about all the time, were we in violation of that?
And weren't we -- the city was find because of that violation?
>>> We are currently on a consent order agreement with DEP with regard to stormwater issues, and we are correcting those issues, and working our way back out of that consent agreement.
>> Was it because of Lake Kipling that this NPDS order came along?
>>> It was for a number of issues.
It wasn't just --
>> The canals and things like that?
Well, do you have any idea when you are going to bring this plan to us on Lake Kipling?
Because I'm tired of seeing Ms. Montague come up.
>>> Very nice lady.
She loves me.
She knows I'm kidding.
>>> Before the end of this calendar year, we should be able to get this out to the council and to the citizens, and fully explain how we think we should address those issues.
>> December 1st.
Somewhere in December.
At least bring the plan to us and we can take a look at it.
That will be before the end of the calendar year.
>>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Smith, since you're here, there is a very serious accusation that was laid on council and the mayor, the gentleman that just plea seeded the last speaker insinuating that we get special treatment, that the mayor and councils, that our individual homes are assessed any differently, or somehow we are assessed less than the average citizen and their comparable home.
And being that you're chief of staff and you're in charge of all of this, you know, is there some special credit that I'm not aware of?
Can you clarify that?
>>> Darrell Smith, chief of staff.
I have not been sworn.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
I can certainly affirm that the city's approach to our stormwater methodology has been equal, and fairly administered throughout the city.
And as a resident of Tampa Palms, I can also affirm that I have been provided sweeping services, I have been provided services by the stormwater department as a resident in Tampa Palms.
So certainly it's equal, and equitable treatment throughout the city.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: But specifically this City Council and the mayor receive no special treatment whatsoever, and our homes are assessed just the same as any other citizen, correct?
>>> By all means.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I want to add to that because I have flooding in front of my house.
And I don't get special treatment.
>>> Good afternoon.
I'm colonel Montague.
I live at 4702 browning.
I have been in Tampa probably longer than any of you.
I got here in 1923.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Longer than me.
>>> So I have been concerned about Tampa for a long time.
Although I didn't live here all that time, I spent 30 years in the Army, all over the world.
I have a couple of things to say.
The charge you're going to make on this stormwater is not enough.
It's just a little piddly piddle.
I am shamed to say that Tampa is at the bottom of the list in all of Florida with our $12.
And with our $36 you are going to jump up one little space.
So make the charge $50 at least, or $60 or something.
Little old Clearwater over here has a stormwater fee of hundreds of dollars.
And here we are ten times bigger, and we're afraid to give them money.
Now, lastly -- well, anyhow, go ahead and pass the fee.
Oh, yeah, I know way want to say.
Those people said, oh, we are not going to get anything back from that.
Well, I pay school taxes and I don't have any kids in school.
So that doesn't fly.
Just because you're not going to get some money back from the stormwater fee.
Give it your best.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I would like to make one comment to the gentleman here.
I believe the average income of Pinellas County is much greater than that in Hillsborough County.
Especially those in East Tampa.
Much, much more.
>>> Good afternoon, council members.
I'm Dick Edenrod, executive of the Tampa Bay estuary program, 108th Avenue southeast in St. Petersburg, by the way.
I'm hear to speak on behalf of the stormwater utility fee increase, and to speak to -- from a Tampa Bay perspective of the water quality benefits of improving stormwater.
I'd like to remind you, you're probably aware of it, but Tampa Bay is a terrific success story around the country in terms of bringing an estuary back from the brink of death.
That was done in large part by reducing excessive nutrient input to the bay.
And the City of Tampa of course played a lead role in that in cleaning up wastewater treatment.
And its partner cities, St. Pete, Clearwater, the efforts they are making now, to reuse wastewater, put it on the land rather than discharge into the bay, that's going to help keep Tampa Bay on the road to recovery.
But we need to understand that 60% of the excessive nitrogen, annuity rent necessary in small amounts but harmful in large amounts, 60% of excessive nitrogen is going into Tampa Bay, come from stormwater run-off.
So keeping Tampa Bay on that road to recovery is going to be essential that local governments such as Tampa, and your sister cities, deal with this stormwater problem.
And obviously flooding is always at the highest priority.
But water quality is an important second, I would argue, and the fee increase that you're considering will help Tampa make an important contribution to cleaning up that stormwater.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> Good afternoon.
Mark Layer with tropical representing some of the business community.
Yes, I was sworn in.
We are kind of against increasing this tax.
It's not the only tax and the only fee that continues to rise for the business community.
And we have no choice but to pass them onto the consumer, which puts them right back on the public.
We can't continue to absorb them.
Real estate taxes go up.
All of us are up for insurance increases again.
I know my personal home it doubled last year, and I look to another increase.
Our fuel cost goes up.
We have a wage increase last year that was substantial.
So it does affect us and it would affect the community again.
So we have to pay double.
Thank you for your time.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> Good evening.
I'm Mr. Arthur Love at 912 East Emer Street, Tampa, Florida.
Last time we were here back in 2003, what I heard today substantially was claimed that night, that that budget, or what he wanted to tell us, Mr. Simon, it was at that time, they didn't have a budget, as to what they would do with that money or the money they wanted us to pay for the stormwater fee.
I listened to this gentleman today, and I'm very, very disappointed in him.
And I call upon the council to recognize today and in the future, when someone is competent before them and what they are saying about what they give you as information and data.
Did he not tell you about his capital projects.
He didn't itemize them.
He didn't say which one would cost how much money and what they were going to do with it.
And out of all the money we have paid already, based on the 2003 tax been collected, now illegally because it's in court, they have not come before you and itemize out to you what that money was spent on, which projects they took on with it, which projects they completed with that money.
He hasn't done it.
And today, he says they aren't going to do anything if we don't give him the money in capital projects.
Well, then he changed it.
Now they are only going to do a little because there will only be a little money left.
What about what we have already given them?
Which capital projects did they complete, based on what they have already got?
And again, he he's asking three times as much, which budgetary amount says he needs three times as much?
Which costs have gone up and which areas for material, manpower, equipment, that are justified?
Three times as much.
There is no itemized budget.
I think this demands their jobs.
This tells you they are incompetent.
He is not providing you with enough basic data that you can pass a tax or make a tax levy.
And you know, you could tell us, where that money is going.
And he can show you where he's going to apply.
And one last thing.
He did not tell you thus far where they have applied the money he's collected.
I think that's incompetence.
And last week I said, get rid of them, because he won't tell us this court.
Day ask you to do the same thing.
Fire them.
Because they won't tell you itemized, budgetary-wise what the money is going to be applied for, and asking you to ask us to pay more, more money.
And yet he does not itemize where to go.
We want to know as a taxpayer what we are going to get, nor how much it cost, nor how long it's going to take.
I think that's a sign of incompetence.
Again I ask you to disapprove.
But in addition, please fire him.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a couple things.
In direct response to Mr. Love's comment, I don't know if you want to do it on the overhead or on the computer thing, but can you put up the proposed five-year stormwater CIP?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Please turn on the Elmo.
Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Was this given out to the audience as part of their packet?
Let's make sure that they all get it at some point.
The list that you can't read, but that we have a copy of, we have had a copy of since last week, includes at least 39, 43 different projects over a five-year period, for a total of more than $50 million.
And Mr. Love, I think the questions you raise are very, very good.
But what they will share with you in a minute answers those questions.
It tells you exactly where the projects are, how much they plan on spending, what year they plan on spending it.
It's not going to turn out perfectly.
There's always going to be ups and downs, the movement within that over five years.
But this will help you get some of those answers.
So, Chuck, make sure he gets that.
I think that one of the most important things I think that was said today was said by Judy Rodford when she said we are all in this together.
And this is sort of a recurring thing on a lot of issues.
And I think we had this discussion a year ago when we were talking about putting this fee into place.
But we are all in this together.
And it might not fix the flooding, you know, right out in front of my house, in front of Mary's house, in front of anybody's, in particular house, but that doesn't matter because somewhere within this city, we have serious, serious flooding problems.
Our professionals have identified what the worst ones are, and we are going to do our best to tackle those over the next five years with this $50 million.
We got -- unfortunately, I don't really care much for bond issues but it looks like we do have to float a bond issue in order to really make progress and get some of these projects done.
Otherwise, we are just going to be kind of treading water for -- (laughter) for quite awhile if we don't.
I think Judy also said it's about time we do something.
And that's true.
And, Shawn, your question was very, very good in terms of its sort of preposterous that staff can get up in front of us and say, we're not going to do anything about it unless we pass something or pass this triple budget.
But I think -- and I know that's a little preposterous to hear, but the reality is, history is the best proof of that.
I mean, Linda, how many years have you been sitting here, and other people have been watching even longer, and this city has never had a dedicated fee of any consequence to tackle these problems.
And I'm very proud of the mayor that she put the fee in when she first got on board, with our assistance.
It started out moderate.
Now we are going to triple it because now we are going to create some meaningful money to make progress that we have never been able to make before.
And that's what it's all about.
We're all in this together.
Kevin, I am not going to go into how many calls of service to TPD goes to East Tampa versus South Tampa or that sort of thing.
But you can -- we could spend huge amounts of time trying to make sure that everything is perfectly fair.
But some parts of town need some things more than others.
Other parts of town need other things more than others.
And New Tampa, I think they are in an unusual situation.
But it's my understanding, Steve, don't they get a credit for those big sophisticated pond systems that they have?
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: They get an automatic 10% mitigation.
>> Do they get any more than that?
>>> If they are in areas where they don't contribute at all to the city, they get 100% mediation.
>> And has that been already done last year?
Did they apply for it?
>>> Yes.
>> So when Mr. Catano talks about his $80 bill, is there a chance that's going to be reduced because his association will apply for something and it will get reduced?
>>> We have to look at that on a case-by-case basis.
But if he's applied we'll do that.
>> Well, I think we have to be cautious, and maybe we can adjust those credits and give some of those kind of neighborhoods a little more credit where credit is due.
But in the big picture, this is a good program, it's a positive program.
When Al Steenson, who definitely does not support taxes and fees at all, when he says that this is something that he can get behind and support because he knows it's good for the entire city, and somebody like that, you know, comes forward and supports it, then I'm okay with it, too.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: If we don't have anything else, I move to close the public hearing.
>> Second.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Wait a minute.
Procedural matter.
This is an assessment.
The resolution has to be moved prior to the public hearing being closed.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I made the motion.
I withdraw it.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I withdraw my second.
>> Let's move forward.
>>GWEN MILLER: Now comment from council members.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Before you close it I have more questions.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Oh, you have more questions?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Just a couple things to clarify.
I don't know if this goes to Mr. Daignault or Bonnie or who.
I think I understand the presentation obviously today.
Or better than the lack of presentation last week.
But in terms of timetable, design, engineers, construction, when we are looking at the selection of the projects, and when are those going to start going in, when are the contracts going to be let, can you give me a brief run-through in terms of what your timetables are based on those things?
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: I can tell you typically we try to design in one year and construction the next year, because we have been looking at this plan for some time.
For example, the Paxton project, and the Dale Mabry Henderson project are well into the design phase.
The Paxton project is ready to be advertised.
So we would design the prior year, and then do the construction in the year that it's shown on the five-year plan.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Daignault, would you put this back on the Elmo, please?
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: The presentation?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: You want that on the -- it's not on this.
There it is.
There we go.
My question, or the reason I wanted you to put this back up is I think we have a lot of information, but I think this is one of the most germane pieces of information.
The City of Tampa -- if the City of Tampa had $36 and compare to the our fellow cities in the State of Florida, we can see that even with this increase we are still modest in what we require.
And I think that this is very -- I think this is an extremely telling table.
And I hope that the people in the council chambers today got a copy of this.
Because I think this clearly shows that what we are requesting is definitely in line with our other cities in Florida.
And given the length of our needs to be met it shows we are beginning to responsibly meet them.
And we received a letter today from the mayor saying that she had been at a kick-off of a stormwater improvement the other day and Mary was in attendance and I was, and the person from DEP who gave us a check said one of the reasons we are stepping up to the plate is because you all are stepping up to the plate.
We need to be able to have resources to commit to these improvements.
And I think -- think that today's $36 a year fee represents our stepping up to the plate in a responsible way to begin to support this.
So I will move that we support this.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: In any other questions?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I second it.
Then since we have a motion on the floor, I want to address that, too.
Mr. Daignault, did you all ask those other cities when we did this, did you compare what their commercial rates are, vis-a-vis the City of Tampa's rates, too?
>> Their commercial rates, again, each of their methodologies could be different.
But they typically come up with an equivalent unit, equivalent residential unit, and so then depending on the size of the commercial establishment, it's broken down into equivalent residential units, and they would pay the fee based on that.
So it goes to size.
Some of them based an total square footage.
Some of them based on impervious space.
That they would be comparable when it boiled down to an equivalent residential unit.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: But we don't know, for instance, say in Oldsmar which has the exact same utility fee rate as what you say we do, we don't know over there what the rate is for their businesses.
So you have a Publix listed as an example on the next page.
Do we know what that Publix pays over in Oldsmar compared to what they would pay here in Tampa?
>>> Okay.
And what I'm saying to you is, without going through their methodology for each of those different cities, I do not know.
However, they break it down to an equivalent unit, and their equivalent unit would be the same as ours, or the $36 or $40 or whatever they are charging by virtue of an equivalent unit.
>> Do you have any idea what those cities pay in solid waste, wastewater and water rates?
>>> I do for water and wastewater.
And I'm going to be bringing that information to you on September 8th.
I'm sorry that I don't have it here with me now.
But I do have that information for water and wastewater.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
>>ROSE FERLITA: You have a motion on the floor.
Just some comments, and accumulation of what we have looked at in the last couple of weeks I am going ask for my colleagues indulgence.
The same lady that Mr. Dingfelder referred to that lives in South Tampa is close to where I lived on San Jose.
She's absolutely right, that two years ago I said it's about time, we need to do this.
I think there's no doubt, this is definitely the time to have done it.
It should have been done sooner.
I have to say in all fairness and call it like I see it that many things perhaps should have been done earlier and then we perhaps wouldn't be in this mess.
But the problem is how bee got to it and if the methodology is fair, and it's something that's acceptable, given the sum total of what everybody has to be absorbing now.
I look at something that was sent to the mayor's office by Patrick Eberhart, and he makes a very good argument, that although he sees some of the reason for doing what we are doing, it's an unfair basis in assessing fees and he referred to some scenario similar to what Councilman White said, about a 1500 square foot frame building raised above ground level on piles in the middle of a high impervious lot line below ground and the surrounding roadway versus the same 1500 foot concrete block building on a concrete slab that is completely surrounded by impervious concrete drive, walkway, patio, et cetera.
And not so much run-off, I know it's going to be the same.
I know you have to choose some methodology.
I just don't happen to agree with about T way we assess fees and methodology.
We have to start someplace. The fact we need to do something is not anything that I am going to disagree with you on.
But when we look at what the citizen has to face, and given that the accumulation of everything that has gone on just since the end of July, in July we asked them to increase fees on water and wastewater, last week we came here, and inundated citizens about things they had to look at and had to absorb sometime soon, we looked at additional fees, studies to be done about homesteaded properties that may or may not based on the study have to pay for proximity to street cars.
We talked about an increase in solid waste.
We talked about whether or not they should pay an assessment for services, even if perhaps not given by the downtown partnership.
We have very fresh in everybody's mind the trim notices, trim notices where the assessment went up, not because the millage went up but because the evaluation went up.
And to the mayor's credit she did not increase the millage.
But to the mayor's discredit I don't think this administration looked long and hard at decreasing the millage.
At this point when we have a windfall on property tax dollars, and of course not all of that goes to the city, some of that goes to county, we realize that, that would have been someplace to give some relief.
So it's not that I'm opposed to what we're doing.
But what I'm opposed to is what we're doing given the scheme of things that people on a particular income have to absorb all at one time.
The methodology is something perhaps maybe that was thought through and not through well enough.
I don't know.
But it's just simply the fees, the rates, the sum total of everything based on some people's incomes.
And I agree with Ms. Saul-Sena in her interpretation of it.
We're still at the bottom of that chart.
But for somebody who is used to paying 12 and now they are paying three times, I keep going back to the 12 and 36, and there are a bunch of people that are going to pay more than 36.
It's hard to get from the bottom of the chart to the middle of the chart right away given all the increases that people are going to have to pay.
And coincidentally, good timing, bad timing, we have the issue of gasoline now.
That's not something this administration could stop or avoid or do anything about.
I just think that while we are waiting to get to where we are, right now the burden in total is too burdensome for the citizens.
And I can't support it.
But I appreciate all the work you all put into your presentation, and to your suggestions.
Thank you, sir.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Madam Chair.
There is no doubt that everyone up here sitting on this dais and everyone in this audience recognizes there is a problem.
But reasonable people of good faith can differ on the solutions to those problems.
And what we have heard here today I think is sort of a lack of willingness to try to address this problem with what has been by all accounts a very, very good year for the City of Tampa.
We have $31 million more in revenue this year than we had last year.
What the sum total of what we are being asked here to do, it will not address what is being spent on operations and maintenance.
It's 8.5 million this year.
It will be 8.5 million next year.
What we get to do with that money is add to the capital improvement projects.
$4 million more per year is going to be spent on capital improvement projects.
Now, I think that out of budget increase of $31 million we can find a significant portion of that $4 million this year that we are being asked to spend.
What I'm also bothered with on this list of projects is up here in capital improvements, 1 through 34 comes out to about $27 million.
20 million of that is for Dale Mabry.
Two intersections at Dale Mabry.
20 out of $27 million.
Dale Mabry is a state highway.
It is an evacuation route.
There are federal and state funds that I am certain are going to be available if we want to try to attack this, these two intersections from a different perspective, I feel confident we can get money from the federal government and state government to do it.
I'm the chairman of the MPO.
I pledge, I will go to bat 100% for us to get money from other sources to try to tackle these problems.
We don't have to saddle everyone out in our neighborhoods who are screaming for relief for their neighborhood projects with improving these two intersections when I think there's a pot of money out there that we can go after.
Steve, I'm sure you tried already.
I don't know that you all haven't left any stone unturned in coming to this point right now.
But I think that if we really work hard at it, we'll be able to address some of those things with other moneys.
Timing is everything here.
And what we're being asked to do today is to triple a fee that didn't exist two years ago.
Next week we are going to be asked to raise fees for three more utilities: Wastewater, solid waste, and water.
Perhaps it's time to address a couple of those utilities.
I don't know that we have ever adjusted wastewater since I have been on the council.
But, gosh, it's awfully hard for me to be able to justify increasing that one when we just tripled this one here today.
It's all coming in a waive right here, four fee increases in two weeks.
That's unprecedented in my six years on the council.
And I cannot in good conscience ask the citizens of our community to pay those four fee increases in a two two-week period when we have $31 million in new revenue from the city of Tampa from ad valorem.
There's no reason for us to think that next year is not going to be just as good.
There's great things happening in our city.
And all the stuff that's downtown, think about what's not on line yet that we all know is coming.
North Franklin.
All these developments downtown that aren't yet paying into ad valorem revenue.
Things are only going to keep getting better.
And so that 4 million out of 31 million this year may seem like a big chunk but next year when we have even more that 4 million may not seem as quite as much.
If we are serious about solving this problem and I think every one of us are serious about it, we can be part of the solution.
I'm not saying we ought to cut this and send it back to the mayor's office and say, you figure it out.
I think we can be part of the solution and I'm offering to be part of the solution.
But not on the backs of our taxpayers.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll be brief.
Steve, as we talked about the museum project, all I kept hearing was prices, construction prices are going up, the price of concrete going up, the price of steel going up, of course labor always goes up.
But is there any reason to think that's going to change?
>>Steve: No.
And now we can add asphalt to that mix because of fuel prices.
>> Because of fuel prices.
So my point is this.
We're all in agreement that this city is 50 years delinquent in doing these projects and in getting to this.
And if we continue to wait, okay, it's only going to get more expensive, and we are burdening and saddling our children and grandchildren with the same problem that our parents saddled us with.
So hopefully by majority vote, we'll get under this and start raising money to address the other issues.
The other thing, Shawn, I think your point is wonderful, it's something that I didn't think about.
If we can get federal money to help us, assist us with Dale Mabry, then that's wonderful.
What can we do with that money?
We can shift it over, and we can --.
>>GWEN MILLER: East Tampa.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: To East Tampa or add to these list of projects.
There's 95 projects.
We're only showing 38 on this list.
We can add the rest of the projects in with the more money that we have.
And that's a wonderful thing.
But until we get there, we can't continue to keep our heads in the sand or in the mud, and not address this.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Dingfelder said we are in this together and I truly believe that.
We as a city are in this together.
But as in any neutral relation -- mutual relationship and/or partnership, there must be benefit to the rewards.
And on this list of 34 items, I don't see there being that much benefit to the district in which I represent.
And that makes up a quarter of the City of Tampa.
Not only that, it makes up a quarter of the City of Tampa that is the most economically challenged.
The people that can afford this tax the least.
And especially -- and I can't tell you what $3 a gallon in the gas is going to do.
I'm sure Hartline's ridership should greatly increase.
I almost thought about taking the bus here this morning.
It ridiculous.
And actually it's unconscionable.
And I can't see my constituency supporting a tax if they are not going to benefit from when they can afford it the least.
And not only that, but there's no certainty that in the next five years that any of those projects are going to be worked on in East Tampa as well.
And like I said, there's so many projects right now.
And we all have areas of concern.
We all have areas of need.
I could possibly be wholeheartedly for this if I saw some sort of equal distribution, or equal benefit to some portions of each part of Tampa.
Unfortunately, for Mr. Harrison, New Tampa is just that, new.
They don't really have any flooding issues, things of that nature.
But other areas of Tampa do.
And I just can't see with the stormwater, wastewater, all of the other fees, I just think it's too much, too soon.
And some of these, no, we have no idea they were coming.
So we unfortunately are blind-sided by some.
I just can't burden the sentence of Tampa with more and more increased taxes when the great majority that I represent would see absolutely no benefit.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Just a couple of thoughts that I forgot to mention awhile ago.
And I again agree with what Kevin has said.
But as we go forward and we expect people to pay what has been assessed, we have to realize, too, that after the first five years, we have every expectation to believe that the mayor is going to be reelected and that's a good thing.
But after that, there were some issues from one administration to the next.
As we go forward after we tell people to pay for the first five years and in the sixth year perhaps something in your neighborhood would be done.
There's always that possibility it would resemble the Greco-Iorio administration.
He had contracts for design, and before the construction was done the plug was pulled because that's the administration's right to do.
So there is some concern about what happens in the sixth and seventh year.
And again, I think that the intent is good.
There's in a criticism of where you're trying to get with the fees.
It's simply how you're trying to get there.
I always try to bring this back to a business sense.
And if I wanted to cover some of my costs, store I wouldn't increase all of my prices.
I would increase some prices so two things could happen, my business would continue and my customers could survive.
This is just -- timing is awful.
Some of those things are within the administration's control and some certainly are not.
But with everything that is headed towards a person that is trying to maintain a household and take care of those kids and grandchildren that Mr. Dingfelder is talking about for later, they have to survive this generation.
And I think that hopefully next year we can accommodate by doing something else.
But this is just too much together in terms of sum total.
And I think it sends the wrong direction in terms of our concern for our constituents.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I have a question.
I heard somebody on the dais call the question.
I just want to ask the maker of the motion to clarify.
Way heard was to move to support the fee.
By that do you mean to move the resolution?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move the resolution.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to move the resolution.
All in favor?
>>THE CLERK: Harrison, Miller --.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Miller said no.
That's correct.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion from council members.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm really disappointed that this went this way, because I want to know who is going to pay for this, if you're expecting the city to do this in the next couple of years, there won't be any money there for it.
And it's a really sad thing.
We all are in this together.
This is a whole city.
I don't look at west Tampa or my district as my district.
I look at the whole city as my district.
And for us to do something like this, it's a real shame, because we're going to be paying for this, not only are we going to be paying for this, our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren are going to be paying for this.
And I don't want to hear anybody telling me that there's flooding on Dale Mabry, or in cherry street or something like that, because we just can't do anything about it.
I'm really disappointed.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was getting my haircut the other day and a woman came up to me in the beauty parlor and said, I am so blood that the City of Tampa is finally stepping up to the plate and addressing flooding problems.
And I share Mrs. Alvarez sentiments, I am shocked at my colleagues.
You all know the problems.
And perhaps the people who did a presentation didn't do it right the first time, but today we got a full presentation, and I think it satisfied our concerns.
And I'm very disappointed also.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Ms. Saul-Sena, I think that echoes the comments of the editorial board and the Tribune this morning and that is not at all the case.
I can speak for myself and certainly the people that voted against this, probably have the same sentiment.
We are absolutely not opposed to trying to do something to fix this.
However, we have a feeling different than yours about how we should go there.
This is not about punishing anybody who didn't give us the right presentation.
We are in full agreement that we need repairs, and corrections, and improvements.
Where we disagree, and I think we should be mature about it, is that we disagree on how we are going to get there.
You know, many times we disagree on votes.
And then we come to compromises.
Well, I think what Mr. Harrison said was we need to look at this again.
We are putting the weight back on all of us to try to get another remedy that gives at least some amount of relief to the citizens.
This is by no means us pulling back and saying, no, that's it.
We all know it.
I am in South Tampa.
I suffer some of the drainage problems you do.
And many of our other South Tampa residents.
It is just simply that it's too much at one time, and we have to look at something else.
Maybe alternatives.
And this is certainly not turn this away.
It will simply give us the opportunity to look at other areas again to try to figure out what we need to do it.
That's it.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Just tell me --.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a lot of feedback.
We need to look at their situation.
We can afford it.
It doesn't bother me.
But we have other people that can't pay it and I have seen those people struggling.
And that's the reason, maybe double it and it might be better for the citizens who can afford to pay it.
And I'm going to hold Mr. Harrison to help us solve the problems.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I'll do everything I can.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm going to make a motion based upon the chair's comment that instead of tripling it, that we double it, that instead of $36, if everybody is uncomfortable with such a huge hike, that we go ahead and at a slower rate of speed.
And this year look at $24.
And maybe if the economy and disasters and everything else aren't hitting us all at once, maybe in a few year we can catch up and do some more.
But we have got to do something.
We are not making any progress at the rate we're going.
I'm going to move that we double it from the current $12 or whatever the ERU is, to the $24 rate, just double the current fee.
That's my motion.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Dingfelder, before I could even support that, I would need to relook or have Mr. Daignault's office relook and reorganize and reprioritize their capital improvement project.
And I would like to see where that --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The problem is from the time perspective-f we are going to get in the cycle I believe we have to move forward with something.
>>JULIA COLE: Assistant city attorney.
I have two comments.
First, we do have a public comment scheduled for September 15th for those 4800 property owners that were noticed incorrectly for the mitigation credits.
And second because the resolution was not adopted, we have no stormwater assessment at this time.
So I would respectfully request that a motion would be made to adopt -- and I can come back later on this evening and bring the resolution, a substitute resolution at any rate that you propose.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The point is I believe time is of the essence for us to be doing readopting the $12 fee or readopting pursuant to my motion, at least the $24 fee.
Madam Chair indicated that that might be something you could live with.
And that's my motion.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I just want to clarify.
>> That would be for this evening's preparation.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: And I concur with Ms. Brown.
I guess motion would be for legal to direct a resolution consistent with the council's or the maker of the motion's desire.
I should also point out, as a consequence -- and I don't know whether it's my purview to do this or not, but as council will recall, that the budget, during the budget presentation that was made Monday is consistent with this fee, the assumption that this fee hasn't been adopted.
So I cannot state from the administration standpoint, nor is it my place, to say what the effect of that would be upon --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It would have a major impact on this page and the capital improvement project but that's a bridge we'll have to cross down the road.
I think we have to get something going.
I think it's a reasonable compromise, $24, going twice instead of triple, and let's just move forward.
It's already almost 5:00.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, for a couple of reasons I am not going to support that.
I did not put us here at the eleventh hour to make a decision and a Band-Aid alternative motion.
Had this gone last week maybe we would have had time to consider it.
I think about the opposition that you saw here to favor the motion, it meant to go back to the table and look at other alternatives.
36, 24, how do we the seven people decide 234 is okay for the citizens versus 36?
Because we have got to get something on the thing so let's vote for something else.
I'm not going to do that.
I'm not going to be put in a corner at the last minute to say okay to something.
It's just not -- it's just not the way I do business.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't know what impact 24 hues has.
I don't know what bonding capability that gives us.
None of us have been briefed on what that will do.
It sounds to be me like what it does, it raises an additional $2 million a year, which we certainly can address out of the existing increase in revenues that we have got.
It seems like we are just grasping for money here.
This one didn't go through, and let's just grab whatever we can get right here.
And again, reasonable people can differ on solutions.
And I think to just grab at something, because this is maybe an unexpected result, I don't think it's the right way to go.
Mr. Dingfelder, I respect you greatly, but I would disagree with this process.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm fine with Madam Chair's lead.
>>> Darrell Smith, chief of staff.
Obviously, this is a critical program to the community.
Just one year ago, in fact, bee were -- we were in the midst of recovering from hurricanes that impacted the community, all segments of the community.
And at the request of the mayor, I'd like to request a continuance of this until next week's meeting so that we can provide you some more information, you would have the opportunity to consider not only a proposal, brought forth by the administration, but alternative proposals, if necessary.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I'd like to ask a question afterwards, Madam Chairman.
So I yield.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I know that the City of Tampa is currently under a consent decree because we have such major problems with stormwater.
And I would be very -- I would support a continuance, and one of the pieces -- there are two pieces of information that would be useful.
One is what Mr. White requested, which is a map, which I think should have done this week showing where in the City of Tampa these projects are located, and secondly, how specifically our compliance with this consent decree would be impacted by our failure to move ahead with this.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a motion if I could.
From a timing perspective you have spoken with legal.
Our time is okay?
>>> September 15th is the last available time that we would need in order to get the rolls to the tax collector.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm okay with putting it off a week.
I withdraw the motion for now.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I was going to address your motion.
And Mr. Smith asked for a continuance.
So is the motion withdrawn?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Motion is withdrawn and I was going to move to continue the discussion to a week from now.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: But if you withdraw your motion there's no reason for a continuance.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, to be able to set the parameters, the public hearing was not closed because of the fact that in order to adopt this assessment, the resolution had to be moved.
It takes an affirmative vote of four either way to effect action.
The vote -- there was not a vote of four.
Therefore the resolution did not move.
A motion was made --.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We can just continue the public hearing.
I withdraw the public motion.
Continue the public hearing.
That satisfies the administration request for a continuance and we just leave the public hearing open?
>>> That's right.
If council wishes to continue the public hearing you can do so.
However, there was action taken on the resolution.
So either -- the act to deny.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: But the hearing is still not closed.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: The motion was not adopted.
If that particular resolution is to be reconsidered there has to be an affirmative motion, just to let you know in the future, if council were to consider by somebody on the prevailing side to reconsider.
If that particular motion is to be reconsidered.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Shelby, would an appropriate action be to continue this public hearing, which is still open, to a time certain next week?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If that is council's desire, that would be an appropriate action to take.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to make that motion to continue it till 1:30 next week.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let's see how next week goes.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay, in the spirit of optimism till 11:00 next week, next Thursday.
>>> The opportunity is there to continue it until September 15th if that's the pleasure of council.
>>GWEN MILLER: You want to go to the 15th instead of next week?
>> That's the last week, isn't it?
>>> Yes.
Your agenda next week is quite full.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Not my motion but my suggestion to the administration, if we continue it to the 15th, which is fine, I don't have a problem with that, but I would suggest that you have a resolution drawn up for $12 and a resolution drawn up for $24.
That way we don't have to send you back and that way, just have every resolution in between drawn up, and that way hopefully some way we can meet the middle or keep it as is, one way or the other.

>>> The other item of information, we have already scheduled a public hearing on the 15th to address the 4900 folks that were excepted from the rolls.
That way we are correcting the roll.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Are you saying that we don't even now have a $12 a year?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Not unless we pass a resolution.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, I don't know how we got to the point of where we are, that we don't even have the $12 resolution.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe Mr. Territo, I don't want to put him on the spot, but the assessment -- you can forward to the property appraiser to have the assessment put on the --.
>>SAL TERRITO: Every year, you redo the assessment.
And this year you were looking at $36.
So if you deny the $36, then you have zero.
It wasn't for the increase from 12 to 36.
Last year you passed one for $12.
This year you would have passed one for 36 had you approved this resolution.
By not passing the 36, you passed nothing.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Can't we just come back next week, 12 or 24, something is going to happen next week, and that determines what happens next week on the overbilling.
>>> That's correct.
I was just answering the one question.
Right now you have nothing as far as the assessment.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: But if I can clarify you have nothing but you have not reached a deadline to which --.
If you want to do it quicker rather than later if you can come to some conclusion.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Would also like to address Mr. Smith's suggestion to September 15th.
And I guess this would be a question for Bonnie Wise and Jim Stefan, if he's here, just to reaffirm the fact if there's some issue with this also on the 15th, you have the first public hearing on the budget, which is presently constructed.
It is under the sums of the passage of this particular resolution which failed.
So that would complicate things as well.
If you wait till the 15th.
>>BONNIE WISE: It would affect it for the 15th but when we come back on the 9th for adoption that's how we would handle it.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I guess my question is what is council's pleasure with regard to -- with regard to action?
Does the administration have a specific request for a specific date?
>>GWEN MILLER: If administration wants to Britt back next week or the 15th.
>> BONNIE WISE: The 15th only because we have a public hearing set for stormwater.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to amend that, change that if I may and make it for the 15th at 11.
We didn't vote on it yet.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: We didn't second either.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: John seconded it.
The motion actually would be to bring this back on the 15th, looking at 12, 24, and 36.
Because I have a feeling that all the people who have been raising a fuss for the last decade about needing money to address stormwater concerns are going to be very actively contacting council members.
>>BONNIE WISE: Julie Brown said she had have any number of resolutions for your approve.
>>GWEN MILLER: 12, 24 and 36.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: You have an amendment to the, and I'm asking Mr. Massey to bring the seconder in to see if he would second that amended motion.
>>GWEN MILLER: He has to do it?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Or somebody else can do it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Make a new motion.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I don't know where I'm at.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, then let's stop.
I would like council to be clear as to the actions.
Mr. Dingfelder, there was an amendment to the motion to which I believe you were the second, and that is, if you can, Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My new motion is to bring this back on the 15th at 11:00 with three options from the legal department, 12 Z 12 a year, $24, $36.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: We have a CRA meeting.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why are we not addressing it this week?
>>CHAIRMAN: It's better for them.
>>ROSE FERLITA: It might confuse the other two increases being asked for.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm not going to support anything that is for $36 a year.
We just voted on that.
So if that's part of what the motion that's on the table is, I'm not going to vote for that.
>>JULIE BROWN: Council members, I want to make a point of reference that this public hearing must precede the hearing for the mitigation credits.
So this should be scheduled prior to the public hearing on the 15th, for those 4800 parcels.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you recall what time that was scheduled for?
Madam clerk?
>> She's looking.
>> Set for 9:39.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: How about 9:29?
>>JULIE BROWN: We can open that up and continue it till a later time.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Harrison brings up a good point.
We are coming back with one of the options that four of us just decided to say no on.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: But we don't have to agree on the 36.
I'm saying she's bringing in three resolutions, 12, 24 and 36.
Is that right?
And that's exactly what we are supposed to be doing.
Not the 36, but the 36 is going to be in there but it doesn't matter because there's a 12 and a 24 in there besides.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Yes, it does matter because that was just voted on today, Mrs. Alvarez.
I think weed should wait till Mr. White gets back.
>>> Darrell Smith: I think the other pertinent piece of information is the current 12 would go away with the motion that was passed.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Bonnie told us that.
>>CHAIRMAN: We can come back.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Whistle we are waiting for Mr. White, and we can let him know where we are with this, in the presentation that the administration made, I did miss this?
Did anybody tell us what happened to the $12 that were going to be dedicated to studies?
Isn't there an update on where those dollars are, however they went, what we have done?
I think it was Mr. Sandling said that was exclusively for studies.
I would love to have an update on that and looks like we have a little time between here and September --.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: And six o'clock.
Plenty of time.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Is there any way you can show me what we did with those $12 assessments last year, two years ago, whatever it was?
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Where the money has been spent over the last two years?
Between operations and maintenance and capital project?
We can break it down.
>>ROSE FERLITA: What I'm saying is it was clearly told to the residents those $12 do could be for studies.
And it's been my experience that at some point everybody gets sick of studies.
But I wanted to know for my own self-information what we did with those -- if you can show me that history, let me know or e-mail it to me or something.
I would appreciate that, Steve.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do we have a motion on the floor?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, I'm sorry.
I want to be clear on this.
When you say 12, 24, 36, you are referring to just one specific -- are you referring to the base rate, times two, times three?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I just want to be clear on that.
So direct legal to come back.
And then except for the motion is to continue this for 11 a.m. on September 15th?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Would it be appropriate to make a substitute motion at this point?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: This was clearly an unexpected result.
We are come back here at six.
You all figure out if you want to come back next week.
Why don't you take an hour and figure it all out.
We'll all be back here in an hour and take action at that point if that's what you want to do.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I want to leave the -- withdraw the motion.
Don't want to leave a motion on the floor.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Withdraw the second.
Till six.
>> Motion.
>>GWEN MILLER: Information by council members?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: She doesn't want to hear it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I want to submit this to the clerk.
This was a review of some of the Florida cities for the aide and this is in Miami.
I think Jim and Desiree worked on this.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: A preservation workshop 6:00 in council chambers, September.
>> Move to receive and file all document.
>>GWEN MILLER: The clerk has something.
>>THE CLERK: You have two requests from members of the public wishing to speak to council.
The first one, I'm trying to read this, reverend Michael Haynes, a date or a time, discussion would be to retain looks like VOPDM for affordable housing program, looks like 3 million for -- 5 million for 410 acres.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Come at the end of the meeting.
(Motion carried)
>>CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shelby, anything?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: You have to ask if there's anyone in the audience who wants to speak under general comment.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: And be brief.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would you three gentlemen like to speak?
We are adjourned until 6:00.
(Meeting recessed at 4:56 p.m.)