Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council
Thursday, October 6, 2005
9:00 a.m. session

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

[Sounding gavel]
>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
The chair will yield to Ms. Rose Ferlita.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, colleagues, ladies and
gentlemen, good morning.
It is my pleasure this month to be able to invite
guests to lead us in the invocation.
This morning I'm particularly excited to welcome a new
pastor to the Palma Ceia United Methodist Church, and
that's Dr. Kevin James.
And if you would allow me please to say a few things.
Dr. Kevin James, Sr., is the senior pastor of Palma
Ceia United Methodist Church.
He made history in 1998 becoming the first
African-American to serve as district superintendent of
the St. Petersburg district of the United Methodist
Church.
Born in Los Angeles, California, Dr. James was reared
in Daytona Beach, Florida.
He was a bachelor of science degree and a master of
divinity degree from the interdenominational seminary
of Atlanta, Georgia.
He received an honorary doctorate from Bethune Cookman
college.
Dr. James has been published in several magazines, has
received fellowships, grants, awards, and honors too
numerous to mention this morning.
He's also served his community by sitting on many
boards and committees.
He's married to the former Gayl Wilson of Daytona
Beach, a Florida A&M graduate and a 24 year veteran of
the department of children and families.
They are proud parents of a daughter in college and a
son in high school.
And I we are very pleased to have Dr. James in Tampa
and it's my honor to have him here as my guest.
As always we would ask that you stand, and follow Dr.
James in prayer.
This morning, I have also asked our chairman if she
would allow me to do something additional.
Dr. James has been informed of the loss of one of our
own, and I'd like to honor and recognize him this
morning.
Benny Albeto was a member of Tampa Fire and Rescue and
he died Monday.
He has been a big player in terms of children,
associations, et cetera, to better life of people in
Tampa.
He retired as a captain on fire rescue because of on
the job injuries.
He has been a long-time friend of mine and someone I
have expected dearly.

My respect and sympathy and prayers go to his wife
Diana, to his daughter the honorable Denise Pomponia
and husband Pete and their family, because there's such
a bond between the Tampa Fire Rescue firefighters, his
long-time friend and buddy for life who was also a
firefighter, Manuel, particularly will miss Danny.
Dr. James, thank you for coming.
And if everyone will stand, please.
>> Dr. James: Good morning. Let us pray.
Gracious holy one, we break for a moment of silence to
render praises and Thanksgiving to you.
We acknowledge you as the architect of our city and our
world and ask that your Holy Spirit continue to be with
us.
We remember your servant, captain Daniel, at this time.
We thank you for his commitment to this community, and
we pray that his legacy will continue to be lived out
through our lives of community service.
We thank you for this City Council, and we ask today
that you give them to go forward to share with your
people.
We ask that justice continue to live out in this

community.
And as we are inspired this morning by the presence of
the Stanley Cup, we ask you to rally around our hearts,
that we may be one, that we may continue to love Thee,
one another, and that we may be all a community of
unity.
Consecrate our lives for community service, in Christ's
name we pray. Amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance)
>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: (No response.)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Here.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Here.
Before we begin I would like to put on the record that
Mr. John Dingfelder will not be with us this morning.
He's out on city business.
At this time, the chair will yield to Mr. Shawn
Harrison.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Last night was a great night for Tampa Bay sports fans.
The Lightning opened their 2005 season with a win, 5 to
2.
(Applause).
I can also honestly say that like many of us in Tampa
Bay, it was one of my first hockey games to attend that
last night.
And I am hooked like the rest of our community is
hooked on hockey now.
We are truly Hockey Bay.
This morning we also have a first.
Never before have we had a world championship hockey
team to call our own.
And never before have we defended the most highly
respected sports trophy in all of professional
athletics.
And never before has the Stanley Cup appeared at a
Tampa City Council meeting.
It is here this morning.
As the Lightning opened their defense of the cup last
night, tradition dictates that as soon as the puck is

dropped on opening night, the Stanley Cup leaves the
home of the defending champion.
It's leaving this morning as soon as we conclude here.
And it won't return until it's defended in the Stanley
Cup finals later this year.
So we are fortunate to be here this morning, and to be
with the cup as it leaves Tampa for the last time.
Just as we are fortunate to have the cup here, we are
also fortunate to recognize the Lightning and the
community efforts and the community partnership that we
have here in our city. The Lightning are a wonderful
corporate citizen and a partner to the city.
From the Lightning foundation that provides educational
enrichment opportunities for children, along with
medical research and treatment for those in need, to
the reindeer run which benefits local epilepsy
organizations and the school district of Hillsborough
County, to the child abuse council, and now the new
project which has raised more than $100,000 in its
first year for breast cancer research at H.Lee Moffitt
cancer institute they are not only the Stanley Cup
champions but true community partners and we are very

fortunate to have them with us here in our community.
So I would like to recognize this morning Mr. Ron
Campbell, the president of the Lightning, and read him
this commendation and then give him a chance to make a
few comments as well.
The Tampa City Council commendation presented to Tampa
Bay Lightning, in recognition of the Tampa Bay
Lightning's first-ever NHL championship season in
2003-2004 and in appreciation of the outstanding
community partnership that the City of Tampa has with
the Lightning, and with great anticipation that all
hockey fans share with the start of the 2005 season,
the Tampa City Council hereby commends the Tampa Bay
Lightning and wishes you luck as we defend our Stanley
Cup, presented this sixth day of October 2005.
(Applause).
>>> Thank you, Shawn.
Thank you, council.
Winning a championship in a league let alone the
National Hockey League, it takes great players making
the plays and coaches doing the things they do.
But what allowed us to win our Stanley Cup was the

great support that we have received from this community
and from this leadership.
And if it wasn't for that partnership as you have
talked about, we would not be standing here today, and
with the Stanley Cup.
So we thank you.
We thank the Tampa Bay community for all it has done
and the support for our franchise.
And we look forward to being back here maybe about 12
months from now for another one.
Thank you very much.
(Applause).
>>ROSE FERLITA: Obviously we are all proud to have that
here, and we believe when he said it's going to be no
more than a year to be back.
But Ron, just that compliment back to you in terms of
the eagerness to win and in terms of that spirit of
community spirit, cooperation.
It might come from here but it also comes from you.
Anytime we have had any kind of issues, any kind of
problems, and my legislative aide or myself call you,
you are just right on the button to help and I

appreciate that partnership and congratulations to you
and to the whole team and to the administration.
Thanks.
Are you going to take it away or leave it here?
>> Trust us.
>> Thank you, guys.
And good luck.
We will now have the ooh approval of our agenda.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If there are any deletions, additions,
substitutions, Madam Chair, I believe you have some
people signed in for some items.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Shelby, again direct me.
I'm still trying to understand what we can and can't do
at this juncture. If there's something on the agenda
under unfinished business can I address any issues?
This would be the right time?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If you wish to ask it to be continued.
>>ROSE FERLITA: This is the issue: About a month ago I
had asked that I give a -- get a report.
We didn't get a very comprehensive report, just a

one-page flier that didn't do very much.
So I asked him to go back to the board, give me a more
comprehensive report about how those $12 per household
on average were spent in stormwater assessment fees.
And he asked for a little more time.
He asked till the end of the month.
Yesterday early I understand they submitted a report,
and they quickly called it back.
And then this morning I received the report.
As a courtesy to Mr. Daignault before we started, I
told him that having received that report, whether
there are any comments or questions or not, I don't
know until I do my homework.
So I had asked him to understand why I am going to ask
this be continued for a week.
It might not be an issue but obviously if I requested
the information, it's because I wanted to look at it
and have some answers in terms of accountability that
citizens ask.
I got it this morning.
I have not even looked at it.
I don't even know if there are any differences between

the one that was offered yesterday and pulled and then
the one submitted this morning.
I think in terms of due process and in terms of
courtesies to this council and to this particular
council member, I wanted it held for another week.
Mr. Daignault said he was going to go forward with his
report and that he could ask the questions later.
That's not how we are going to do. This unless my
colleagues override me and I'm hopeful they won't.
If you ask for a report, you need the report so that
you can be prepared to explain your concerns or ask
questions.
So that being said, I would like this to be continued
just for one short week, and his PowerPoint and
comments and presentation can certainly hold till then.
They have held for a week -- two weeks, right.
They have held for a month.
They can hold for two weeks and I hope my colleagues
understand that rationale.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
I will support that.
And there's a column that indicates existing projects.

It would be helpful to me to have some he number ration
of the projects.
I think that would lead to a more substantive
conversation.
So I would like to see a list of the projects added.
Thanks.
>>GWEN MILLER: You second it?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
(Motion carried).
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you for your support.
>>GWEN MILLER: Two weeks.
There's no meeting next week so two weeks.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you for the second, Ms.
Saul-Sena.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anything else on the agenda we need?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just as a follow-up.
The approval of the agenda is the perfect time to raise
these kind of issues.
And that would be early on in the meeting.
I know we would be able to set forth the road map for
the rest of the day.

So thank you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It would be the appropriate time to
recognize on item number 4 that I have asked that this
be continued till November 17th?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: That would be the appropriate time.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is Mr. Massey going to say something?
Ms. Wise is in the audience.
Did you want to speak or have something to say?
Motion and second to continue item number 4.
(Motion carried)Anything else?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I would ask you to go around your
sign-up sheet.
Actually, you have some more.
This is where you would do that.
>>GWEN MILLER: We will go to our staff reports.
We have.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: This is when you go over the list of
the sign-ins of the people, for instance, I know that
Mr. Smith wishes to speak on an item.
I know that land development has some items.
>>GWEN MILLER: How about the walk-ons?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: This is when do you that now.

>>GWEN MILLER: That's what I'm doing, the walk-ons.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Land development.
I have two different sets of walk-ons.
With reference to the consent agenda, the junior
league, there are two cases, temporary wet zoning
cases.
The third case that we need to walk on represents the
third day, which was omitted by staff.
And Mr. Chairman Miller, the case is WZ 05-150, Junior
League cruise terminal number 3.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We wish them good luck.
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: With reference to land development
cases, as you know you are off next week.
Yesterday and the day before, we had development review
committee meetings.
We do not schedule cases until after the development
review committee meetings.
So staff can ascertain that the case is substantially
complete and ready for council review.
So, therefore, I need to walk on the cases that

normally would be scheduled next week for the November
17th p.m. agenda.
The cases are: V0570, 05-143, 149, 05-150, 05-151,
05-152, 05-153, 05-155, 156, 157, 158, and 05-159.
>>GWEN MILLER: That's 12.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Are these the ones we had planned
on, the number we had agreed to?
>>HEATHER LAMBOY: Because we only have one hearing in
November about due to the holiday break, we agreed to
12 new cases on that agenda.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Mr. Dennis Fernandez.
>>> DENNIS FERNANDEZ: You may recall two weeks ago I
was here on the designation, item number 60, which was
continued to today.
In redoing the legal to pertain to just the historic
structures, and not the entire boundry of MacFarlane
park we discovered we were going to require a survey.
So I am here to ask for a continuance of 45 days to
allow us to conduct a survey, and have an accurate
legal description for that.

>>GWEN MILLER: We can't do it till 10:00.
We'll move it at 10:00.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Fernandez, since you are here.
Yesterday, I attended a preservation round table
meeting, and they said -- one of the things that was
learned at this conference, this national conference,
was that in some places you're not allowed to pull a
demolition permit to allow new redevelopment until the
redevelopment has been approved, which just strikes me
as really smart.
And I wondered where we are in terms of our new
preservation ordinance, if it's too late to stick that
in.
I think it's something that we would benefit from.
Because we have seen examples of buildings, significant
buildings being torn down because somebody was
desperate to build something new, the demolition
occurred and end this the land sat fallow for a long
period of time.
>>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: I can do that.
The ordinance did go through City Council and scheduled
through Planning Commission.

But I'm sure at this point we can intercept that and
discuss those revisions.
I'll speak with legal about that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Sal Territo.
>>> Sal Territo, legal department, I'm here to speak
with one dealing with university of Tampa bonds.
Basically what's happened, the organization that's
going to be building the structure for the dormitories.
And the city has no liability on this particular bond
issue.
Just a pass-through for us.
If you need any more information I can certainly
provide it but that's basically what this deal is.
>>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council members?
That's number 18 and 19.
>>> 18 and 19.
Ms. Wise will be speaking on that issue.
>>BONNIE WISE: Director of revenue and finance here for
items 19 and 20.
This is the commercial paper program that I have spoken
several times before you about.
This is going to allow us to borrow money for

stormwater and transportation projects.
It is a short-term borrowing approach.
We only borrow the money when we need it.
And therefore we are only paying interest on the amount
that we borrow.
At some point when we have borrowed a significant
amount, enough for a fixed rate bond issue, we will
issue fixed rate bond in its place.
And this commercial program is through the Florida
Association of Counties.
It's an established program.
And we have been approved for this financing.
It's going to be a flexible financing tool for us.
When we pay back the commercial paper, there is no
penalty for paying it back early.
It's a very flexible program.
So I'm requesting your approval on those items.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Ms. Wise, we recently found out
there's a shortfall on this phase of the 40th
street project that we are in right now of about
$5.5 million.
And yesterday the county commission appropriated a half

of that, if we would match that from the city's
perspective.
Would this be an appropriate pool of money that we
could draw from in order to do that, with the idea that
maybe we go to the MPO and ask for a match, or we ask
for some sort of reimbursement back in the out years of
our five year work program from the MPO?
>>BONNIE WISE: That is exactly the type of purpose for
which this is for.
It is to accelerate the 40th street project before
the costs continue to escalate.
Then when we do get federal funds, MPO funds, county
funds, whatever, we can use that to repay the
commercial paper.
It's perfect for that type of scenario that you
described.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
We will pass it in our committee reports.
Mr. David Smith.
>>DAVID SMITH: Good morning.
David Smith, city attorney.
Thank you for taking me early.

I'm here to speak to agenda item number 21.
Given the sensitivity of this issue, we felt it would
be important to provide you a summary, and a summary
for your constituents, although this is the first
reading.
But we think it's important to get the information out
there and have people have a full opportunity to
respond.
You may remember, council, I believe Ms. Saul-Sena was
in fact the initiator, made a motion maybe a couple of
months ago now to come back to you with some
corrections on the ethics code, clear up some
contradictions, eliminate some confusions, and tighten
up a couple of areas.
What we are doing today, this is going to be a two-part
process.
Today I would call it more like a glitch bill.
We are addressing five or six things substantively but
we really want to go through the ordinance completely
and make sure we have eliminated any contradictions or
issues of terms.
But we caught some of the obvious ones today.

I want to walk you through those briefly and make sure
it's what you want to do and make sure you understand
how we are addressing it and whether you wish to
address it differently than we are proposing.
And this is just a proposal.
As I'm sure you realize but I'll reinforce it, it's
always within your prerogative to suggest things need
to be changed.
So that's the primary point of this today.
You should have a draft of it.
I think we also sent out an executive summary.
But I would like to touch base with you on each of the
changes.
Really ten changes.
Five or six of them are definitions.
So there's really about four or five substantive
changes given the fact that some of the definitions in
fact make substantive changes.
If you could follow along on the draft you have, on
page 3, the first change is to define a community
event.
And you will see later why it needs a definition.

It is a civic, social, charitable or athletic event.
There has been much attention paid to the athletic
event aspect of this.
But I can tell you based upon the inquiries we received
from you and others in the administration, the problem
is more often a charitable or social event.
We get more inquiries about "can I attend this event"
and if I do what do I have to do to attend it
consistently?
So we are trying to address that issue today.
And this is something -- I'm not sure is the most
momentum regime but I want to make sure it gets
coverage so I'll walk you through that.
The next change is on page 6.
And what we are doing here conceptually, so you know,
besides closing a couple of gaps -- and I'll get to
those later, and clarifying some definitions, we are
trying to conform this at least in some of the more
ambiguous areas with requirements of chapter 112, which
is the Florida statute.
And I should step back for a minute and indicate that
three of us have been working on this.

Martin Shelby, Donna Wysong and I have been working on
it.
Donna has probably done far more work than Marty or I.
But we are all responsible for it and we have had a lot
of help with everybody involved and I appreciate that.
Thank you, Marty and Donna.
On page 6, what we are doing here is trying to redefine
gift.
And the redefinition is essentially to say, what state
law does is prohibits you in receiving gifts from
lobbyists.
Lobbying is an activity that occurs outside of the
public venue.
It's seen potentially harmful situation.
We in our code also have a prohibition on you receiving
a gift from someone who has a contract with the city.
The problem is, people who have a contract with the
city are multiple, and sometimes it's not obvious.
The Tampa Museum of Art.
The Tampa Bay Performing Arts Center.
Lots and lots of people have a contract with the city
because it's any relationship with the city can

constitute a contract.
So when you are invited to those events, you need to be
aware of the fact that you are dealing with someone who
has a contract with the city, and the ethics code is a
potential implicator.
What we are doing here is changing the definition of
gift.
And when you receive a gift for a community event from
a non-lobbyist, first of all, it cannot be a lobbyist.
If it is a lobbyist, you cannot accept it, period.
That doesn't change.
So if it is not a lobbyist, but it is an entity or
person who has a contract with the city, it has to be
for community event.
Hence the definition of community event.
Nonetheless, if it exceeds $100 in value, you still
have to disclose it.
Concept of the ethics laws, you need to disclose
everything that goes on, there is not a presumption
that you engage in nefarious activities, but you are
investigating everything if people want to be do that.
If it's something inappropriate they should find that

out.
So it's a disclosure issue primarily.
Yes, ma'am?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My question is, compared to the
state law, the change that's being proposed here is
still more strict.
Is that correct?
Or is it parallel with the state law?
>>DAVID SMITH: It is more strict than the state law.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why don't we for the sake of
confusion just do what the state law suggests?
>>DAVID SMITH: You are certainly free to do that.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was going over this last night and
thinking about what is the state law and what is the
city law?
Because, I mean, it would seem to make sense to me that
we would do what the state law recommends rather than
cooking up our own.
Anyway --
>>DAVID SMITH: That's certainly within your purview.
I think the thinking of the administration was to limit
it to community events.

But you're a legislative body and you are free to craft
legislation as you see fit.
>> The state law precludes you from doing something
that a lobbyist pays for.
>>> Absolutely.
>> So it would counter that I think valid public
concern that you not do things that lobbyists are
inviting you to.
And I dare say we are a lot more conscientious here
because it's our own community, than folks up in
Tallahassee, you think they are on another planet.
>>> I wouldn't venture to respond to that.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I have some questions, too, Mr. Smith,
just to clarify what Ms. Saul-Sena is trying to point
out.
Reiterate for us what the comparison is, what ours is.
Is that what you were going to ask?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
>>DAVID SMITH: Most of my advice has come from Donna
Wysong, but if I get something wrong, kick me.
As I understand it, the state law prohibits a gift from
a lobbyist.

It does not extend to those doing business with or
having a contract with, with whatever entity or
government it may be.
>> But what about the limitations?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's $100.
>>DAVID SMITH: That's the same.
Yes, ma'am.
>>GWEN MILLER: How did it change from the county?
>>DAVID SMITH: That I don't No. Donna might know
because she used to work with the county.
No, I'm sorry, we don't.
I think they just have the state law.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Smith, you just said something
that I'm not sure if you meant to say it or not but let
me make sure I understand.
You said you can't accept anything from someone that
has a contract with the city or doing business with the
city.
>>> A contract with the city, you're correct.
Normally, you shouldn't be doing business with a city
without a contract but there are limited instances,
purchase orders and things of that nature.

Is it limited to a contract with the city?
Or is it also extended to doing business?
Let's just look at the provision and make sure.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: You don't have to answer that now.
But that is of course much broader than somebody who
just has a contract with the city.
>>DAVID SMITH: Any person, company, firm or corporation
to which any purchase order or contract is awarded, any
rebate, gift, money or other consideration with a
value -- so it does include purchase orders.
So in fact I spoke correctly, however inadvertently.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Smith, how do you know who is a
lobbyist and who isn't?
Are they going to disclose that for us?
>>DAVID SMITH: Under our code they are obligated to
disclose it and they should disclose it to you.
If they do not disclose it to you, you're absolutely
right, that presents a problem.
The problems with ethics code always comes in the
interaction itself.
A lobbyist is not always really clear either.

But under our definition of a lobbyist, if you will
look at it, it is essentially someone who represents
another before you has a communication with you.
Remember we talked about electronic, telephonic or in
person, to attempt to persuade with you respect to a
position of something that appears before you.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So you're talking like Verizon, and
Bright House and things like that?
>>> Who would represent Verizon, and who would
represent Bright House, would be the lobbyist: The
principal is not the lobbyist. The lobbyist is.
And under state law, that's the same definition with
state law.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay.
>>DAVID SMITH: I know that doesn't help a whole lot.
I realize that.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Smith, I'm sorry to belabor this
but we want to get it right.
Now Verizon I know has somebody who is a lobbyist, and
I know Bright House does.
Take another -- I mean a utility like TECO. Typically
it's somebody in charge of governmental affairs.

They are not really a lobbyist, or are they a lobbyist?
What is the criteria there?
>>> If they are speaking to you for purposes of
affecting legislation they are acting in a lobbying
capacity.
We have a definition of lobbying.
I believe that's what it encompasses.
>>ROSE FERLITA: So if you determine it that way, then
in the category, they can be talking as a lobbyist
sometime and sometimes just informing us of things that
TECO, for instance, is going forward with, so that we
understand it.
>>> Yes.
I'm sorry.
>> So, I mean, I guess if you are a lobbyist sometime,
you have to be a lobbyist all the time?
We cannot accept anything from any of those categories?
Is that right?
>>> That's correct.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And we are looking at this $100.
It was my understanding, from non-lobbyists now, we can
accept something up to $25 of value like a lunch or

something.
Maybe I have gotten this confused.
>>> Used to be 25.
>> So you are increasing it up to 100?
>>> No, it was increased to 100 when the ordinance was
passed.
It's been 100.
>> And you can accept it up to 100 but they have to
report; is that right? I thought there was some
direction where -- up to 25, it was fine.
Over 25 and up to 100, you could accept it and there
was no violation of the ethics policy.
But that entity had to report that they had given you
something of value up to $100.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Ms. Ferlita, if I can, I believe
that's state law.
State law says anything that is over $25 up to $100, it
can be given but it must be -- it is the responsibility
of the lobbyist, not the elected official, to report
that to the appropriate --
>>ROSE FERLITA: Up to $100 we can accept.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.

>>DAVID SMITH: Let me clarify that.
Under 2-562 you are prohibited from receiving gifts
from lobbyist, know officer or employee of the city
shall knowingly accept directly or indirectly a gift
greater than did $100 from any person the recipient
knows is a lobbyist and who lobbies the recipient's
agency or executive department.
It has to be someone that is not only a lobbyist, they
lobby you, or any principal or employee of a lobbyist.
So a principal of Verizon.
So could you not accept a gift in excess of $100 from
them.
Also --
>>ROSE FERLITA: I'm sorry, so you can still accept up
to 100 from a lobbyist?
>>DAVID SMITH: Correct.
But there's an obligation to disclose it.
>> Their obligation or ours?
>>> Who receives a gift of over $100 shall report that
gift.
Correct.
>> If it came up to like 25 do we have to report it or

no?
>>> No.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: 50?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Do I hear 55?
>>DAVID SMITH: It's $100 and a penny you have got to
report it.
This is part of the annual reporting.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I thought it was the responsibility of
that person giving you up to 100 that had to report it.
Maybe I'm confused with the state.
Is that it?
>>DAVID SMITH: Right.
Exactly.
>>ROSE FERLITA: So what you're proposing in your
changes here is that we go up to 100, but we were not
at 100 before.
>>> The real point of the change is to try to put you
in position if you're so inclined to accept gifts from
those who are not lobbyists who may have a contract
with the city, and that amount is in excess of $100.
That's the fundamental change.
Right now, you cannot accept -- you can accept up to

$100 from either lobbyist or someone who has a contract
or purchase order with the city.
You can do that now.
You should disclose it.
What this allows you to, do you are still limited to
$100 for a lobbyist as defined in the code.
But you can go above $100 for someone who has a
contract with the city that does not lobby you.
Is that possible?
We'll deal with that issue later.
But that's what it does.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And the lobbyist portion is really
staying the same.
>>DAVID SMITH: Corrected.
Correct.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Smith, for clarity, I think Ms.
Saul-Sena's question makes this thing a lot easier just
to mirror the state law without all these other
impromptu caveats in the ordinance.
If we just mirror the state law, we ought to all be in
good shape.
>>DAVID SMITH: And that is certainly something this

council could choose to do and direct the legal
department to -- that might be essentially to repeal
the ethics ordinance.
You would have to be --
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, just this particular section.
>>DAVID SMITH: That's really what we are trying to do.
Other than if you want to, we can also broaden the
definitional change here to make it completely comport
with 112 so it's only lobbyists and it's only gifts in
excess of $100 F.that's what would you like to do, we
can alter this so that it parallels chapter 112 in this
issue.
>>DAVID SMITH: You still have to, quote-unquote, define
the community event?
>>DAVID SMITH: We are heading to that.
We have that product on this particular change, which
is only second of ten, although probably the most
controversial.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: In terms of making things consistent
with the state even in the reporting requirements with
regard to gifts between the city code and the state are
different.

I don't know why I am getting feedback.
Under the state code, as long as the person is not a
lobbyist, you can't accept gifts in excess of $100 as
long as you report it by the end of the following
quarter, the quarter following the gift, whereas I
believe under the city code its annually.
>>> Yes, it is.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: So there's two different reporting
requirements as well.
So you have to keep tabs on that as well.
So there's a discrepancy between the state and the city
code in that regard, too.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So what's the form number?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe it's 4-9 for the state.
>>DAVID SMITH: I think that's right.
I think we use their form.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Never had it.
I never had anything that was over that.
Sorry.
>>DAVID SMITH: The next issue is if you look at the
definition of lobbying, as you can see these things are
all implicated by this, on page 7, but what ware doing

on page 7 is trying to close the gap.
What I understand we have right now is someone could
come visit you and lobby you about something they
intend to file, but is not lobbying because it doesn't
currently pend before you.
So what we are doing now is we are required someone who
comes and visits you seeks to affect your vote on
something that they haven't yet filed but they
subsequently filed, they have to retroactively file a
disclosure.
(Bell sounds).
Oh, too much time.
So what we are really doing is trying to close the gap.
I don't know that anybody is purposely abusing this but
nonetheless we are trying to tighten that provision.
So if someone lobbies you about something, they will
know whether they are lobbying, even though it may not
seem clear to you, they have to subsequently file.
It's just a disclosure.
They have to file it.
I think we are giving them 90 days after that time to
file it.

But whatever the standard filing time is.
But that occurs for 12 months.
So really just kind of closing the gap.
They can't lobby you and then file.
They have to disclose that.
Next on page 8 what we defense D for the definition of
lobbyist is we excluded from there governmental
employees and quasi-governmental agencies, or those
types of entity employees.
So when you are talking to other governments, even
though they may be talking to you about matters of
public purpose, the presumption is, government to
government doesn't have the risk of a private lobbyist.
You may or may not want to make that change.
But that's what we recommend you do here.
So intergovernmental discussions don't become
problematic.
Official responsibilities is defined in that same page.
That's just to address the issue of a community event.
If you don't go back to 112 takes guidance with regard
to gifts from lobbyists, we are limiting your ability
to accept gifts from non-lobbyists to official

responsibilities, and there's a definition of it on
page 8.
It's pretty encompassing.
It's anything you do as a legislator or any other
governmental committee or body or board on which you
serve and it relates to that activity.
So it's a fair expansive definition of official
responsibilities.
Again you may not want to have that provision.
But that's what we have in here currently.
On page 10, we define quasi-governmental agency or
entity.
Remember, we exempted the intergovernmental discussion.
We have to define take what that type of entity is.
That's what we do on page 10.
The bottom of page 10, what we are doing under page 11
we are delete ago provision that requires the mayor
approve in writing any outside employment.
We have a prohibition in the code, you cannot take
outside employment that conflicts with your
responsibilities.
To put the mayor in a position of having to approve is

not a wise course of action.
So we are recommending you delete that.
Below that is the additional voting conflict language.
Now this was implicated, I think, for Ms. Miller and
Mrs. Saul-Sena earlier in the session.
We have language other than 112.
It is much, much encompassing.
The other commission when presented with these
questions struggled to try to define it in what it
meant, and ultimately decided that the test under the
state law is the test that should apply to this
provision.
And that is if you have a direct pecuniary interest.
Not whether your brother worked -- it gets too
attenuated.
We are recommending you delete that.
We'll go back to the provision that's fairly standard
in 112.
Okay.
The next change is on page 12.
And this is to conform to gift change we're talking
about.

And this is accepting gifts given for community event
as that term is defined elsewhere herein.
Lastly on page 12, an amendment to 2-581, we delete the
date of employment provision.
The concept here is that we do not want an employee who
works for the city to be involved in activity, files,
preparing ordinances, doing whatever, and immediately
upon leaving the city be able to lobby the city perhaps
inadvertently or intentionally taking advantage of a
policy or ordinance that they have crafted that has an
implication that it's not a favorable implication. The
way it was drafted before would seem to suggest, we
talk about employee after that date.
What it meant was if you have been employed recently.
Not whether you were hired before 1981 or -- so trying
to prevent misuse of position so the employment dates
are irrelevant.
If you work with the city you are prohibited for two
years from coming back and working against the city or
representing someone else against the city.
Those are the changes.
I think of what I heard the only doubt is whether you

want to go to 112 with respect to the gift issue.
The rest, I think, you're in accord with.
If you want to provide me some direction with regard to
the gift issue, and we'll respond accordingly.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Smith, the last thing you covered
was the two-year prohibition.
Is that standard in the state law as well?
>>DAVID SMITH: The state law has a, I think, one-year
prohibition.
A two-year prohibition. The state law has been
interpreted from the standpoint, is worded a little
differently and interpreted more along the lines of an
entitlement.
If you were employed before a certain date you are sort
of entitled to come back and lobby the entity with
which you worked.
We think the point of an ethics law is to prevent
improper activity.
And we think the way they get at that issue is to allow
people to come back shortly after employment and
perhaps use either inside information or either have
been involved in crafting policy that they can then use

against the city.
That's what we think the harm that's trying to be
depleted.
>> But two years has been --
>>> It has been but you are free to make it one year or
three yourself or whatever you want to do.
>> Is this something that we change?
Was it one year before and we moved it to two?
Or has it always been two?
>>> I think it was one year before.
It was one year before.
It was changed with this code to two years.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Smith, does that prohibit -- I
didn't see in the here.
But does that prohibit an elected official from coming
to work for the city after --
>>DAVID SMITH: There is a separate provision for
elected official.
And I had this discussion yesterday.
I have to find that.
Do you know where that is, Donna?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Is that part of state law, too?

>>DAVID SMITH: 2-582.
Yes.
It says -- and this is a very short paragraph.
Reemployment of elected official.
No formal elected official shall hold any compensated,
appointed city office or employment until one year
after expiration of the term for which he or she was
elected.
So it's a one-year prohibition, has to be a compensated
position.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So that's not part of the changes
because the only one you give is part of the changes.
>>DAVID SMITH:Dy not change that.
We will if you would like us to.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, just to follow up, Mr.
Smith, it does reference the charter in there.
It is a charter provision that is mimicked in the code.
So in order to change that would mean a charter change.
>>DAVID SMITH: Good catch.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: All right.
So that means a council member who leaves office after
eight years would not be able to go to work for the

administration or in any other capacity for one year
after they leave office, and that's in the charter.
>>DAVID SMITH: Yes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
Okay.
What is your pleasure?
Do you want to make changes?
Leave it as is?
Ms. Saul-Sena?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
I think that we should use the state ethics rule as a
guide.
Was it 112?
>>DAVID SMITH: Yes, ma'am.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So I think that the other things are
very clear.
I really don't feel that strongly about it.
But it just seems to me for clarity, that that would be
a sensible route to take.
So my motion would be that we adopt the other changes
that were proposed and the number 112 we use the state
ethics commission as a guide.

>>DAVID SMITH: For dealing with gifts we use chapter
112 as a guide.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And could you once more clarify what
that is?
>>DAVID SMITH: You are prohibited from receiving under
the state law, prohibited from receiving a gift in
excess of $100 from a lobbyist, period.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But in any case, you have to report
anything from anyone that's over $100.
>>> Correct.
>> And you are required to note gifts from lobbyists
under $100.
>>> I believe you are --
>>: Required to report something between $25 and $100
on a quarterly basis?
>>DAVID SMITH: What many people do in a caution
approach is report all their gifts but I think it is
$100.
It's only over $100 that you have to report.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, I wanted Mr. Harrison to weigh in
on this change, because I'm still a little confused as

part of -- because there are some tickets that go over
$100.
What happens when that happens?
Other than reporting it, what happens?
>>DAVID SMITH: Well, there's another issue.
Unfortunately it's the value you receive, not the face
value of the gift or the ticket.
And it gets very complicated.
The public doesn't understand.
You guys are just trying to comply.
We get all kinds of questions about what it means.
I have a -- a charitable event, it takes $125. The
value is the value of the meal like $65.
But the gift you receive is $65.
And we will send you a letter, if you paid for the
ticket, that says your charitable contribution was $60.
And the amount in excess of the value.
You report the value you receive.
So if you get a gift, a ticket to an event and it says
it's 150 and the value is really 75, you have not
received a gift in excess of $100.
That's where it gets very complicated.

And some people don't understand that.
So it's got to be in excess of $100 and all kinds of
complicated provisions when you have a multi-party
event.
And that's one of the reasons why we recommended you
consider using 112 because there's a body of
interpretations under 112 that will help us advise you.
There is no precedent or case law or body of
interpretation under the city ordinance as yet.
We have an ethics commission that started.
I think we had, what, two opinions issued.
I'm not trying to get into policy or anything.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I understand.
>>> I'm just concerned about being able to get you guys
to know what the law requires so that you can comply
with it.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I need to confer with my attorney.
(Laughter).
>>> The advice would be free so you get what you pay
for.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Smith -- I'm sorry, did I take
anyone else's time?

She's going to talk to her lawyer.
So, Mr. Smith, if we go to the state law, what we are
doing is we are totally eliminating this business about
some entity that has a contract with the city.
It's just lobbyist.
That's the only thing you have to look at.
>>> Yes, sir.
>> If it's over $100 you can't accept it from the
lobbyist.
>>> That's correct?
>> It's under 100 you can accept it but you have to
report it.
Or do you even have to report it?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I want to be clear on that.
Because it is confusing.
The distinction in the state law is, the question is,
is the person a lobbyist?
If the person is a lobbyist, you can accept it
regardless of the value of it, but you must pay it down
to $100.
And please correct me if I am wrong.
So, for instance, if you get a ticket that has a value

of $400 from a lobbyist, under state law, you can
accept the ticket, you can fill out the appropriate
form saying you accepted the ticket, but I believe it's
within -- I can't recall within 30 days or 90 days, you
have to refund the difference back to the lobbyist.
So you are not precluded from taking it.
But you have to pay down the difference.
So that's state law.
Now, under the current city law, you cannot take
something that's worth over $100 from a lobbyist,
period, the way I read it.
That's the distinction between the state and the city
with regard to lobbyists.
>>ROSE FERLITA: But if Tau that, what happens?
Under our current regulation, if you accept something
from a lobbyist under $100, talk to me about the review
process.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Something from a lobbyist under $100?
I believe you can just accept it.
>>ROSE FERLITA: You can accept it.
But then I thought -- David, please -- I thought if
that's the case, then it is their burden to report

that.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: The lobbyist's burden.
>>ROSE FERLITA: As we stand we can still accept up to
$100 from a lobbyist.
That's confusing because again with a lot of these
utility companies I thought you could not, and I have
not.
And I thought it was up to $25.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Under state law you can accept it.
But if you pay it down.
You can't take it at all presently.
>>ROSE FERLITA: You cannot take it --
>>DAVID SMITH: I think we have been interpreting that
differently.
You have two lawyers talking.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: You allow a paydown?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Up to 100 we can accept it city or
state right now.
>>DAVID SMITH: Correct.
You just have to pay it down to $100.
You cannot accept anything over $100.
>>ROSE FERLITA: That sounds like at this time same way.

And your proposal for the lobbyist proposal we have
discussed would be no maximum?
>>DAVID SMITH: It would essentially as I understand it
parallel the state, a $100 limitation, because we
cannot make your restrictions less than state law so
you have got to comply with state law.
So if you are going to conform with state law, we would
recommend we conform with it across the board.
>>ROSE FERLITA: But it seems that's what we are doing
in a particular category already.
>>DAVID SMITH: I do believe we parallel that and
sometimes you look to the only code in existence which
is the state.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Smith, where did I get this
confusion?
Maybe I shouldn't be talking about this but it doesn't
matter, I want to be clear.
We went to the League of Cities.
We were invited to different things.
It was my understanding that up to $25 it was fine.
I was real unclear about everything.
So I just gave them the total amount for their din

theory they invited me to.
I went but I paid.
As we stand now, maybe we could have accepted it up to
25 and paid the difference?
Or we really didn't have to pay for anything.
>>DAVID SMITH: It depends on when you went.
Seriously.
Our ethics code as originally drafted had a $25 limit.
It was changed to $100 about a year ago.
More than a year ago.
>>ROSE FERLITA: With the burden on them to report it.
>>DAVID SMITH: Under the current code you could have
accepted up to $100.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Then on the second portion -- you know,
I horned in on what he's doing.
You go ahead and finish, Shawn.
You finished?
Okay.
So then on the second portion the one that concerns me
more is the deal with B where you are defining in this
section what a community event is, we can take anything
even in excess of $100, so long as it's reported.

And you don't pay it down because --
>>DAVID SMITH: From a non-lobbyist.
>>ROSE FERLITA: So you're saying in excess of $100 no
matter what it is?
>>DAVID SMITH: It's a non-lobbyist and a community
event.
You may not want to go with the community event
approach.
This that is not the approach that exists in state law.
It's again sort of a compromise.
And you may not want to make that kind of a compromise.
You may want to simply say, let's parallel state law,
period.
And if that's what you want to do it's not limited to
community events.
It's just limited to a lobbyist.
Community event is defined in this new provision, and
if you look on page 3, and there's two aspect of the
definition.
First is the simple one.
It means a civic, social, charitable or athletic event.
But what you're really looking at, if you look back at

the change in the gift definition, it has to be for a
governmental purpose, or official responsibilities.
That's what I think where the unclarity may arrive.
That definition is on page 8.
It says official responsibility meant any action,
processor matter related to of an official or officer
pursuant to city charter, local ordinance, state
lawsuit, federal law, or the bylaws, or governing
documents of any boards, committees or agencies on
which such official or officer sits, official
responsibilities for elected officials shall include
but not be limited to representing the city or
otherwise promoting the city's interests, or that of
not for private entities or governmental,
quasi-governmental entities serving city goals,
objectives, or policies, at community events.
That's just fairly esoteric and convoluted set of
circumstances.
If you ask me to apply that to a specific set of facts,
I'll have to know what all the facts are in order to be
able to advise you.
So we are in the same situation we were in before.

When you are going to an event, someone is going to
call us, Marty or whomever, and say does this qualify
as a community event and is this consistent with my
official responsibilities?
We will have to provide you an.
In that regard that you can rely on in making your
decision.
If you don't want to get involved in that sort of an
issue, then we parallel Florida statutes 112.
And we deal just with lobbyists.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Before we enacted this -- and we
don't need to speak about that for the next half
hour -- but it used to be, if I recall, if there was a
lobbyist, it was the same structure, you couldn't
accept it over $100, the paydown thing, that seems kind
of silly to me.
But I think what has caused the problem in this past
year since this has been enacted is the extension of
this to entities that do business with the city, or
have a contract -- I mean, they have a contract with
the city.
That has become the problem.

So is there a way to simply eliminate that restriction
and return it back to whatever -- return it back to
whatever it was before we made -- we added that
particular provision?
>>DAVID SMITH: I do not know exactly what the city
ethics ordinance said prior to that.
But you certainly can return to the that concept which
would parallel 112.
>> So it sounds to me like the easiest thing to do is
to just parallel 112.
Otherwise, you have all the rest of these definitions
about community events and things like that, that you
are trying to fit a square peg into around hole.
And this is only first reading.
If we go with the motion that was made, what we can do
is when we put it on first reading, we can see what the
public feedback is, we'll have the second hearing, if
there is -- if people really want to weigh in on this
we can deal it with at that point.
But it does seem to me like the easiest thing to do is
to parallel state law, get it off the dime, let's have
public hearing on it and take the pulse of the people,

and we'll make a decision after that.
So if there is a motion on the floor, and I think there
was from Ms. Saul-Sena, I believe it was seconded --
>>GWEN MILLER: To go with state law S.that what you are
saying, to go with state law?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: On this particular portion of this.
>>ROSE FERLITA: There's a motion on the floor and a
second.
I just want to make some comments on the second.
And talking about that particular portion being on page
6, right?
In excess of $100, community event, in your executive
summary?
Is that what we are referring to?
>>DAVID SMITH: Yes.
Essentially what we will do is we will take out the
provision on page 6, we will take out the definition of
community event, and we will take out the definition,
the conforming paragraph on page -- and we have looked
at this issue as well -- on page 12, 5-262.
We'll take those three out and we'll make sure that we
look at the other provisions that are implicated and

make sure they comply with chapter 112.
>>ROSE FERLITA: The portion about the lobbyist doesn't
bother me because you make up your own criteria if it's
more restrictive than what is allowed.
So that will just cover itself.
But the portion on page 6, and I think there was some
confusion, no disrespect, but even Steve OTTO thinks we
all look alike, talk alike, think alike, and I guess
some of us were interviewed by the Tribune, some by the
times.
My position is the same as today. When you are trying
to determine what is a community event, when are we
representing us, when are we representing the
constituents?
I think that this is something that is very sensitive.
And if we put this provision in, this is everybody's
opinion, of course, Mr. Harrison said it's a good idea
to have people weigh in.
But I don't even need to wait for that.
If it's in excess of $100 and it's a community event, I
think it sends a bad message.
I think somebody in Sulphur Springs who is maybe in the

less affluent area really doesn't care if I am
representing them in the Bucs box, in the Glazers box.
But this is something that I'm strong about.
I'm going to stick right to that rule.
I am not going to support this motion.
Simply because they think we don't need that.
And I think if it's important, and he would always have
to pick and choose about where we go and what we want
to do and what events we have to go to, you know, I
guess the money goes just so far.
I think we will be invited to things.
And if it's important enough that we think we need to
attend and represent the city that we pay the excess.
But to allow this to go over $100 sends a bad message
as far as I'm concerned to the constituents we
represent.
So I am not going to support it.
And I wanted that on record.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: If you go with the state law, does that
leave in the second paragraph where it says the
lobbyist meetings, that leaves us --

>>DAVID SMITH: The change we would make on page 8 is
delete the definition of official responsibilities if
you go with state law because you don't need that
because you are not creating a community event
exception.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So that goes out.
>>> Yes, ma'am.
>> But above where it says -- starts with lobbyist,
stays in.
>>> If you want to.
That change simply allows you to communicate with
quasi-governmental entities without that being a
lobbying event.
>> So that would stay in.
>>DAVID SMITH: If would you like that to stay in.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
As I.
>>DAVID SMITH: As I understand your motion right now it
stays in.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: One more thing, Mr. Smith.
I saw this honorarium section.
What is the current rule on any elected official

accepting an honorarium?
>>> This is intact from your current ethics code.
Donna, do you remember exactly what this is?
We haven't changed any, but he wants to know what the
current requirement is.
It's essentially a summarizing here.
I think it's still -- honorarium not accepted from the
gift definition.
So you still have to look at the dollar amount.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: That doesn't bother me.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: So it's just a dollar amount
determination.
>>DAVID SMITH: It doesn't look to me like it has a
substantive impact on your ethics code.
It just talks about what an honorarium is but if you
accept money in excess of $100 under a lobbyist or a
contractor under the current code, you can't accept it,
number one.
Sometimes what's in here if you look at the provision,
the one that Donna is pointing out, is there's a
reference to a Florida statute.
And part of what we try to do is, in this code, point

out some of the issues of state law, so when someone
looks at this code, and they think they have complied,
that they are not confused by that.
Because this is just an additional layer of
requirements.
And there are state requirement that is deal with
honorarium also.
So the chapter is with reference to chapter 106 that
deals specifically with campaign contributions.
But this doesn't -- we are not recommending any change
to this.
And if you would like to further ---a further
elaboration we can do that with what state law
requires.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I would like to know about the
honorarium.
I don't think it happens often.
We haven't quite reached the level of the political
spectrum where we get offered honorarium.
I did actually get offered one for a commencement
address recently.
I turned it down.

But I don't know if I chose to accept that if I would
have been prohibited or not.
>>> If you go to the change you're talking about
assuming it pass he, it would not be a determinant
factor because if it's a lobbyist even if it's
honorarium, you should --
>>SHAWN HARRISON: On lobbyists basically.
Okay.
>>ROSE FERLITA: If Mr. Council went with the changes
and the motion that's on the floor page 6 to 7 in page
of honorariums and payments, I hope I'm myth
interpreting this, but that would mean with that
clarification at the bottom of that section, immediate
family means spouse, parents and children of persons
involved.
So we're talking about the ability to receive more than
$100 for lodging and stuff?
That's not what it means, I hope, does it?
>>DAVID SMITH: No.
It depends on what you do.
If you don't change it, the $100 is relevant to those
other than lobbyists.

Whether it's disguised as an honorarium or anything
else.
>> But if we make these changes?
>>> If you make these changes, you can accept
honorarium or other gifts in excess of $100 but I think
what you will probably want to do is make sure you are
obligated to disclose that.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And because there's no limit there,
would allow for accommodations and expenses of spouse,
parents and children?
>>DAVID SMITH: Yes.
>>ROSE FERLITA: So then we are talking about an elected
official representing this city, and they can go to
something with a family, family members, which to me
translates as a family a fair, and they still do not
have to pay back any of that housing, lodging,
transportation, for children, and the children are not
there to represent the city.
That's the fine line that I'm cautioning this council
about.
>>> Well, bear in mind, I think what the motion is,
they are deleting the definition of community event.

Because they don't want to get caught in that kind of
definitional tangle.
I think what they are saying is let's go with 112,
which if it's a lobbyist we can't accept it.
>> Right.
But on the other side whether you want to talk about
the legal entanglement of community event you are still
allowing that elected official to accept over 100
anyway.
>>> That's correct.
If it's not from a lobbyist.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Same.
That's not good.
Okay.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have been a council member for a
number of years and I have never been in a situation
where gifts like that were offered or accepted.
I think this is in the speculative world.
But it's just -- I mean, that might be appropriate --
it might refer to some other level of government.
But I've never seen anybody offer me or my family or
anybody lodging or that sort of thing.

>>ROSE FERLITA: But Ms. Saul-Sena, if I might
interject, if you are right and I haven't either, if
when allow this to happen then it is not subjective
interpretation, it is allowed.
Whether it's offered or not is one thing.
Whether it's offered and somebody says, no, I don't
want to do that, I will pay for the cost of my children
going with me or my husband or wife or whatever, but
then this gives you the potential, not you
particularly, because you may decide that your
standards are higher than that and you won't accept
that honorarium to pay for your family to join you on a
trip or event.
But it still allows the person who wants to do that, to
do that, and still remain within the guidelines of this
ordinance.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I hope council forgives me, but we are
way past the five minutes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Number two is, I don't believe when
Mr. Smith approached, council is asking very good
questions and very valid questions, and very much

concerned.
I mean, I'm not minimizing what's to be discussed.
But when you go into honorarium, there is a state law
involved and we have to compare how the city code
compares to the state, has to be on the scope of what
Mr. Smith has before us today.
I would recommend that either council chooses to go
with what's today, putting it on for first reading, or
give legal direction on how to change it, or schedule
it for a workshop, maybe on another day, maybe in the
Mascotte room, but to have this kind of discussion now,
I don't believe -- I can tell you personally I'm not
prepared to discuss the breadth of what council is
raising.
And they are all very valid concerns.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Shelby, just to move at long and
not benefit from the time that we have invested in
discussion today, could we go ahead and go with first
reading and vote yes or no, whatever, and then on the
second reading, understand that we are going to allow
some time for further discussion?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, you can do that.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Like Mr. Harrison said, people that
didn't realize we were going to have such an intense
conversation may want to come in and weigh in on this.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can share my personal opinion
without speaking out of turn, that was certainly an
option to take, put it on for first reading, have the
opportunity to speak with myself or legal, between now
and then to address any concerns.
I should also point out that even -- and this is my
personal and professional opinion -- that even without
any changes, I believe this is a substantive
improvement over the present code to address certain
stop gap concerns that have been expressed to council,
that council wished -- and expressed to legal to
address immediately.
So even if this passes, there's still an opportunity to
go into those issues.
But at least what you are doing is making positive
steps in the right direction.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: So, Mr. Shelby, all that you are saying
is the motion on the floor from Ms. Saul-Sena --

>>MARTIN SHELBY: If that's on the floor, obviously so
we clear up at this point in time, madam clerk?
>>THE CLERK: The motion on the floor at the present
time is to change the ordinance pertaining gifts to
reflect language of chapter 112 regarding gifts.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And to support all the other
suggestions made in the draft ordinance.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Which would require new ordinance.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So we have to send it back to legal
to have that come back to us.
>>DAVID SMITH: With the understanding you are going to
have a more comprehensive review later on the entire
ordinance. This is just the first two of phases.
>>KEVIN WHITE: The first of three because now it has to
come back.
>>KEVIN WHITE: The first of three.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second on the floor.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
>>THE CLERK: Ferlita, no.
>>GWEN MILLER: We continue it to till when?
How much time, Mr. Smith?

>>DAVID SMITH: We are not meeting next Thursday.
This is the 6th.
What's the first meeting in November?
You will be ready by the 28th?
I think we'll be ready by the 28th.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>>GWEN MILLER: Wait, wait.
Of October?
>>DAVID SMITH: Yes, ma'am.
>>GWEN MILLER: October 28th?
27th.
We need a motion to move.
>> So moved.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
>>DAVID SMITH: I'm sorry, I just realized I will be in
Orlando for a two-day conference on municipal finance.
>>GWEN MILLER: November 3rd.
We have a motion and second to continue till November
3rd.
All in favor say Aye.
(Motion carried).
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Unrelated, item 40, which is in my

committee, which is this assignment Hartline, any
issues?
There's pending litigation apparently between Hartline
and progress rail?
>>DAVID SMITH: Yes, sir.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I want to make sure that we are not
stepping into a mess, if there are some legal issues or
some factual issues that might put the city in
jeopardy.
>>DAVID SMITH: Because we are in litigation I want to
choose my words carefully.
This agreement establishes what outside counsel
considers and I agree to be a predicate set of facts to
allow to us stand in the shoes of Hartline.
So really this settlement agreement with Hartline is a
concession they belatedly made to us to strengthen our
position in that lit delegation.
And I would be happy to elaborate in more detail if you
would like.
But essentially, originally we were not going to get
part of what we have in the settlement agreement in a
more favorable position for the city.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: It is.
And it benefits the city as opposed to potentially --
>>DAVID SMITH: We are assuming a certain amount of risk
because Hartline is getting out of the litigation.
But they are also admitting liability to us which gives
us the necessary privity to their claims.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Are we waiving any -- are we waiving
any rights to pursue those claims against Hartline
then?
I guess we are if we are --
>>DAVID SMITH: Given the nature of the relationship as
it's been explained to me by outside counsel and by Ron
ha has been monitoring this, the claims we have against
Hartline are very minimal.
The claims are really against the provider and the
rail, which is progress rail.
And through the lack of contractual privity the
contract was between Hartline and progress rail rather
than the city.
And really the claim is against progress rail.
And we need to be able to step in the shoes of Hartline
to a certain that claim, and that's what this does.

We could argue -- we could create an argument against
Hartline but it would be very attenuating.
I think the advice of counsel is that's not a
particularly fruitful approach.
So therefore the best, strengthening our position
vis-a-vis progress rail.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: In any event it is your
recommendation?
>>> Yes, sir, it is.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Cindy Miller.
I know you are saying, gosh, we would never get to you.
Blame the councilmen.
>>> Cindy Miller: I was going to show up earlier this
time, not before the presentations.
Cindy Miller, director of business and housing
development.
I'm here on item number 2 which is to report back to
you as to our discussions regarding various
organizations.
Specifically it was originally addressed regarding roof

damage that has occurred at Gary school.
What I basically can report back at this time -- and I
will be asking for a later appearance in a few weeks --
is that my staff and staff members are nonprofit
preservation organizations have been speaking to each
other.
But at this point the staff of those organizations have
not been able to take it forward to their board for
discussions.
So I think it's premature to present anything to you
right at this moment.
I think it also became clear in our discussions that we
have to work out some of the legal responsibilities,
since we would be working on a building that we do not
own.
So we need to address that.
And that's one reason why the nonprofit organization
would be a good entity to contract with.
Also is funding.
What I would like to do is come back to you, I believe
it would be October 27th, that I would be able to
present to you both the funding mechanism as well as

then attentive agreement with the organization.
So that's the outline of our progress.
I would like to ask to come back on October 22nd.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>> Second.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you for your creativity and
figuring out how to fund and address the issue of
historic preservation emergencies.
And I look forward to your presentation on the
27th.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Item number -- need a motion to grant the Shriners.
Have a reso.
Motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried)
Since we are past 10:00, is there anyone in the public
that wants to continue items on the agenda for 10:00?
>>> Robin Williams here on items number 23, 24 and 25
concerning Guavaween.

It's the wet zoning.
It's file WZ 05-134, WZ 05-135, and WZ05-136.
Terry Cox would like to apologize.
She had obviously other obligations.
She just wanted me to come to see if you have any
questions concerning wet zoning.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
I have been hearing from some merchants in Ybor City
who are not bars, people who sell goods or people who
have restaurants, that the fencing of Ybor City for
Guavaween is not necessarily good for their business.
In fact, they think it's terrible for their business
because people can't get in.
And they suggested that we do analysis of Guavaween and
figure out if it might be more beneficial to have
each -- rather than having an admission charge which
then pays for the fence which a lot of folks don't
like, is to allow venues to just be open for business
that night, the bars would make money, the clubs could
have special events at their clubs, and make money, and
that we should sort of -- not for this year but examine

who makes money and who loses money because of
Guavaween, and where the money that's made goes, and
look at the idea of not fencing Guavaween perhaps in
the future.
Because if Ybor City is our national registered
district, and we spent so much money doing the vision
plan for Ybor City, that wants to promote it as a
family friendly place, not a place that's marketed up
to Atlanta as the place to come and get drunk, that
maybe we should consider repositioning Guavaween
without a fence, and just the aesthetics of a fence
around a naming registered district, it's like a weird
aesthetic to have this ugly chain link fence around
this beautiful architecture.
Maybe we should sort of step back and rethink what the
cost and benefits are, and if it couldn't be a more
productive and open event, reposition.
I think it's just something we should look at.
I realize it's too late to do it for this year, but to
look at it for next year with, an idea for this year to
analyze what the costs and benefits are.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Ms. Saul-Sena, I kind of agree with

that.
But a couple of the reasons that I wouldn't, the fence
controls the traffic flow and the pattern of the people
coming in.
And when they pay, that helps pay for the promoter, and
the promoter helps also kick in to pay for the police
protection down there, and if you just have it open,
the city in partnership then there's no one collecting
that revenue to pay for police protection, fire
protection, those type things.
More importantly, after a certain hour, it keeps the
teenagers out of the area.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Oh, really?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Absolutely.
You must be of age after a certain hour to get through
the fence.
So you don't have the young teenage crowd down in Ybor
amongst the drinking party revellers.
So that's another, I guess, benefit, if you will.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If people are allowed to go in
earlier in the day, do they do a sweep at a certain
hour and make the teenagers leave?

>>KEVIN WHITE: As the police start seeing the younger,
especially with the ordinance now.
>> Maybe we can audit that this year and see if that is
truly what happens.
>>> Can I make a comment on that too?
Kevin, you are totally correct.
We came in nine years with promoters.
Before that we saw tons of articles that said there
were stabbings, all kinds of violence at this event,
which we controlled it with the fence.
Exactly what Mr. White said.
Since then, you have articles now and police records,
and it's totally went way down.
All you have is a bunch of drunk fighting every now and
then.
There isn't the violence and all that.
Another major issue, it is a major fund-raiser for the
Ybor Chamber of Commerce.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: That's exactly what I was going to say,
major fund raiser for the chamber.
I was involved with them many years ago when we first
started Guavaween.

And they didn't do as well till the time that they got
the event makers to do this.
And the fence doesn't go up until after certain hour to
keep the -- to keep the -- up to then it's family day.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Isn't there a charge of $7?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Afterwards.
>>> After 3:00 it goes up to $12 for the nighttime
entertainment.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So it's a family day.
They have all kinds of activities during the day.
Centennial Park at no charge.
It's all free.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Three dollars.
>>> Ten to three is $3 but you have Home Depot there
doing workshops, Busch Gardens there, Florida
aquariums, everybody doing hands-on free activities for
the kids.
>>GWEN MILLER: All day long until $10:00, Mrs.
Saul-Sena, it's free.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, not free.
Three dollars until three in the afternoon.
Then it's $12.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: That just started recently because at
the time I was involved it was a free event.
>>> Daytime used to be free.
Yes.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I never knew that they had stuck a
charge of $3 on for that.
But it's a major fund-raising for the Ybor city
chamber.
And I won't support anything else other than -- this is
their main event.
This is their main event that they make a ton of money
on.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, if I can make a
suggestion as opposed to us just discussing it because
we are not going to take action this year.
Ms. Saul-Sena has some concerns.
Mary is very accurate, so is Kevin about the fact this
is a fund-raiser for the chamber and they need those
revenues to continue doing the services they do for
tourism and for local residents as well.
Why don't we look at this a little later.
It's obviously not going to come under our consent

agenda today.
Let's have been all the parties that are part and
parcel to how he would do this next year, that would be
representation from the chamber back to the event
coordinator, TPD, and then see if we can still generate
the revenue that they made, and if there's something we
can do to promote a little more safety, that's fine.
But I think that's going to involve a lost conversation
was a lot of people and players.
So I don't think you're saying anything radically right
now today under this consent agenda.
They have accurate positions and reasonable reasons for
not supporting.
I think we can come to some kind of an agreement that
works and doesn't discount the moneys that the chamber
needs.
>>> Just one more thing.
We had a meeting with all the merchants.
I personally go door to door, knock on the door and
talk to them and have overall meeting with the police
and everybody.
We just had that on the 18th.

We are having another one on October is 9th.
All the merchants are welcome to come and talk.
We have some that do catering, that during Guavaween we
give them passes to get them in and out so they can
still continue and conduct business.
But yes, there are some that know today they won't make
money but hopefully some of the people will come back
and remember Ybor City to come shop and eat there.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just have to share with you guys,
I was around at the beginning of Guavaween when it
started as a nonmotorized parade and I was in Imelda
Marcos shoe slave.
It was very creative.
It was a lot of fun.
And I totally support the chamber.
And I support Guavaween.
I'm just wondering, as a suggestion, that we take a
look at it and see if we can make it better.
One of the strong messages that we got from doing the
visioning plan for Ybor City is that Ybor needs to be
understood as a place for a variety of activities,
including retail, including offices, including

families.
And that's what we are spending a lot of marketing
dollars and efforts to try and enhance.
And that's what the chamber is trying to do.
And what we are really talking about is balance.
I think balance is really the punch line.
So let's look at it this year, and let's see what it
costs, where the money goes, how to make it the best it
can possibly be.
As a balanced event.
Thanks.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you for coming and sharing.
>>> No problem.
Thank you.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And that's a reasonable observation.
Plenty of time for each of us to develop our opinion.
>>GWEN MILLER: Next.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I'm here on behalf of the
petitioners on item number 68.
And I just got a call from them yesterday asking me to
assist them on this.
We respectfully request that be continued for 30 days.

I called and talked to the neighborhood association
involved in this area yesterday.
And they had no objection to continuance.
And Mr. Santiago is here.
He's been advised as well.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Michelini, I'm assuming you didn't
say looking at the others --
>>STEVE MICHELINI: 5301 Nebraska Avenue.
That's Beverly Moros.
She has no objection.
She was going to come down.
>>ROSE FERLITA: If they had some strong position on not
supporting it -- I will continue it.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: He's correct.
The city has no objection.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: 30 days will be what?
>>THE CLERK: November 3rd.
We are currently off the 3rd of November.
You have a 9:30 public hearing.
10:00 you have a continued landmark.

11 you have technical standards.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: On the 11th I think you have
other hearings.
If you are going to go to the two weeks beyond that.
>>THE CLERK: The 10th, a 1:30 public hearing and
workshop.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Let's go to November 10th?
Is that when we have a lot of things?
>>GWEN MILLER: What time now?
>>THE CLERK: 10:00.
>>GWEN MILLER: Number 10 -- 10:00.
(Motion carried)
On item number 64, they are asking for a continuance.
Are you here to speak on 64?
>>> Yes, ma'am.
This is our first request for a continuance.
Petition to vacate petition number C-05-22.
There are some issues as to who owns the right-of-way,
actually whether it's my client Kimmins or the city.
So we need to work those cities out with the city.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion.
Did we get a second?

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
(Motion carried).
Continue to how many days? 30 days is what?
Anyone in the public come to speak on item number 64?
November 10th.
Motion and second.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: 10 a.m.?
>>GWEN MILLER: 10 a.m.
Is there anybody in the public that would like to
request reconsideration?
>>> Keith Stanton, architect.
Petition Z-05-26 you heard Louisiana last week and
voted on.
I wanted to take just a minute to speak about that
particular project.
>>GWEN MILLER: Give me your name.
>>> Keith Stanton, 3109, architect.
That particular project was located at 211, 212 and 213
South Moody Street, two blocks south of Kennedy
Boulevard.
It was the first time heard two weeks ago, voted 3-3,
resulted in a split decision.

It was revoted on last week, which was defeated 4 to 3.
I just wanted to speak briefly on a few things that
council might not have been aware of at the time and
seek reconsideration for this particular petition.
I understand that the reasons for the decision made on
the information that you had at the time normally
through the development process, what architects should
do and seeking development of a particular site.
We go through any particular site like this.
There's a process by which you need to obtain a
demolition permit.
And if you go through historic preservation department
within the city and seek their approval for a request
to demolish the structures.
We did that, and I advised city staff of that and I
don't know that that actually made it into their report
that they had provided to you.
But we did that on all three properties.
And they came back and had indicated to us that the
buildings hadn't been reviewed.
These are e-mails from that department.
The building had been reviewed for demolition and not

found to be individually historically significant and
approved for demolition.
Those are all three bungalows, or all three houses on
these particular multifamily sites.
I wanted to bring that to your attention.
Perhaps it wasn't available to you at the time and
wanted to make you aware of that.
Then to recap just briefly, too, on the other issues,
there was no objection, we sent out let towers
neighbors in our immediate area soliciting some input.
No public opposition, no feedback whatsoever on that
basis.
And the city staff also, Marty Boyle will confirm this,
they had also not received no phone calls on this
particular petition in opposition.
So that might be worthy of consideration as well.
Just briefly, I know that city staff report and council
member Harrison, I know you had a particular concern
about the number of waivers that were requested, and it
sounded lengthy when staff reported it.
But I wanted to make you aware what we were doing here
was not any different.

And basically a carbon copy of the site plan for the
project.
It's just one block north of us on the same street.
Here you can see on the Elmo, that's a typical one-lot
site plan.
Then adjacent to the, this is the site plan of the
approved rezoning petition one block north of us.
The setbacks, the backout requirements, the groan space
waivers, everything is basically a carbon copy.
If we use that, the it's kind of the basis of design.
So none of the waivers that we had requested were
beyond anything that you had seen and previously
approved.
So I wanted to just bring that to your attention, too,
and let you know that we would do whatever we needed to
do in order to be able to work with you and on this
particular project and respectfully ask for your
consideration.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: What's the pleasure of council?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Madam Chair, just a caution, make my
declaration.

I did have a phone conversation with Mr. Stanton
yesterday evening.
And the basic substance of the conversation is just
what he gave his three-minute dissertation on here.
I told him seeing the facts here once again, and I
reviewed the tape again last evening, as well as drove
by the subject site.
Not being here for the entire presentation, one of the
things that I didn't realize, that there was no
neighborhood opposition.
I am not at this point in time necessarily still
impressed with or in favor of the project.
But from the staff's pictures that were on the Elmo
that was presented, looked like three wonderfully
viable bungalows, did not know they were in the
condition that they were in, nor did I know that there
already had been approval for demolition of those
particular bungalows.
Being on the prevail side, I would be willing to at
least give Mr. Stanton another bite at the apple and
make a motion for request for reconsideration.
Also seeing the two council members that were directly

involved or live in that particular area, Mr.
Dingfelder and Ms. Ferlita, probably know this area
better than all of us.
But I will make the motion to at least give you another
opportunity.
I'm saying they live in that area.
That's my motion.
>> I second.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I want to make sure what you put in
the record.
You own the three bungalows or the three homes?
>> No, do not own them.
>> You have a contract with the owner of those?
>>> Yes.
>> And the owner has already obtained demolition
permits on all three?
>>> Not demolition permit.
There's one condition precedent to that, which is
obtaining the approval of the preservation department,
at which point that demolition permit can be issued.
>> And has that occurred?
>>> Yes, that's the written approval here from

Charlotte Hine and her department in preservation along
with -- you can provide you a copy of that.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, no, just tell me.
>>> Charlotte Hine and historic preservation, yes, all
three structures, correct.
>> What is the report you have?
It just says they have no historical significance?
>>> Right.
>> Which clears the way to obtaining a demolition
permit?
>>> Right, correct.
Normally the procedure is, when you seek that request,
you provide photos of the particular structure that you
are going to demolish, and it was an elaborate kind of
application that included documentation of those
particular structures as well as adjacent structures on
either side.
That package is reviewed by them.
And then they render a decision as to grant you the
right to demolish or not.
And that was approved.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: And you say immediately one block

north of here is almost an identical type of project?
>>> Yes, correct.
>> And it would seem to me that we wouldn't want to put
two carbon copy identical projects right next to one
another, so --
>>> I'm sorry, if I may, they are only identical in
their footprint.
The styles are a little different.
It's not a cookie cutter kind of a thing.
I should also add I would not be doing this east of
Howard Avenue.
You know, this is kind of that transition area.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You know how we have had a lot of
conversations about what's protected and what isn't.
This shows how important boundary lines are.
These houses in terms of the quality are worthy of
protection.
The staff spoke to that.
The neighbors spoke to that.
And I don't think that the fact that he's applied to
demolish them doesn't mean that they are worthy of
demolition at all.

It just means that he can make more money if he puts
four units on the site instead of the single family
home that's there.
So I'm not going to support this request.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I just wanted to remind council of its
rules regarding request for reconsideration.
When entertaining request for reconsideration of a
quasi-judicial matter decided at a previous meeting,
council should consider the following as grounds for
consideration: One, whether there was procedural error
that the party of due process -- deprived a party of
due process, or two, there is evidence that was not
reasonably available to be known and presented at the
time of the hearing.
That's the basis that council can pass.
>>KEVIN WHITE: On that note with my motion, I didn't
know the structures were in the shape that they were in
and were not considered contributing structures by
staff.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to hear from Mr. Dennis
Fernandez, who can speak to the historic quality of

these structures.
Is it that they are not historic or that they are not
in a protected area?
>>> Dennis Fernandez: First of all, this happened
under Annie Hart so that was reviewed under her tenure
but the structures, I understand to be outside of the
protected area, so that we would apply the criteria in
chapter 27, if they meet the individual landmark
criteria.
Apparently that was done by HPC staff and they felt
that individually they did not qualify for a local
landmark.
So their only option at this point is to go into
demolition.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Ms. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: A landmark sounds like a big deal
like Plant hall.
What the B contributing structures or you don't get to
be considered as a contributing structure if you are
not in a district?
>>> Right.

If it's not in a district, then it is not contributing.
>> And they are a block away?
>>> And they are a block.
>> That's why it's so hard to draw these lines.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Are there people living in it?
>>> Maybe the agent can speak to that.
>>> Yes, they are.
Some of them are rented.
Some of them are owner occupied.
Correct.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the floor
for reconsideration.
(Motion carried).
>>THE CLERK: Saul-Sena, Harrison, Alvarez, no.
>>CHAIRMAN: We have to wait till next week.
We have a tie.
We will let now next week.
Thank you.
>>> Not a meeting next week?
>>GWEN MILLER: I'm sorry, two weeks.
The meeting in two weeks.
Okay.

Anyone else like to ask for reconsideration?
>>ROSE FERLITA: What were we, 3-3?
Who was the third?
>>GWEN MILLER: Me.
>>> Jim Porter here on item number 69.
It's not really a reconsideration, it's a request for
continuance if this is the appropriate time to ask for
that.
I am here representing Conchita Horner on a VRB.
She filed the appeal without counsel.
I have been subsequently been hired and there has been
some confusion between getting the record and getting
the transcript.
There was another court reporter at the hearing so we
had to recreate that.
It's been continued once.
But we would beg your indulgence to have another
continuance in order to get everything that I need to
get to you for the appeal.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Santiago, okay?
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: I have no objection to that, Madam
Chair.

>>ROSE FERLITA: and I know we have some policy busy
additional continuances but since Mr. Porter has been
made counsel I think he needs appropriate time to
collect data.
>> The 17th.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Madam Chair, if council is going to
grant the reconsideration, then I would ask that the
motion also be contingent on rescheduling that hearing
for that date certain, and that the petitioner
re-effect notice for that date certain as they would
have to do original.
>>ROSE FERLITA: But we are not looking at a
reconsideration, we are just looking at a continuance.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: I stand corrected.
>>GWEN MILLER: The 17th.
At 10:00.
We have a motion and second.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Keep it up.
>>> Good morning.
I wanted to speak on article 63.
Is this the appropriate time?
>>GWEN MILLER: Come back.

Anyone else to ask for reconsideration?
Now we go to the public.
Anyone in the audience that wants to speak on an item
not set for public hearing.
Now you may speak.
>>> That's under public hearing.
>>GWEN MILLER: It's a public hearing?
Okay, you can't speak on it now.
You have to wait till we get to that.
>>> KAREN CRAWFORD: 1406 South Moody Avenue.
You all are going to have -- to have to ask me.
On item number 37, that was a hearing on Soho
investments, number 37.
When we left the hearing that night we were under the
impression that there was going to be a masonry wall on
parcel B.
And when I picked up the official copy from the clerk's
office, that was the note that was made on the clerk's
copy.
If you all remember, parcel B is the little lot where
the employee parking was going to be and the concern
was it was so close to the neighbor's bedroom.

Unfortunately Mr. Dingfelder is not here.
He and I had the conversation about parcel A, when we
were talking about a masonry wall, and we had the issue
with you the oak trees on parcel A.
Everyone else, I believe, the city and everyone has had
a chance to review the tape of the hearing.
I have and I didn't know this was coming before you
today till I wag lag for another agenda item.
We would just like clarification on what exactly kind
of wall this is going to be.
It's my understanding it's going before the A.R.C. on
Monday to ask for a third continuance.
And we just want to be real clear as a neighborhood
what kind of wall or what we are going to get on parcel
B.
There's also a note on number 21 that was added and I
wonder whether that note also is included, because the
way I read this, it just says correcting and restating
City Council imposed zoning in their entirety providing
an effective date.
I don't really know what that means at this point.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Massey.

>>MORRIS MASSEY: Legal department.
Relative to this item, a question was raised by the
petitioner as to whether the fence along parcel B
should be masonry as noted on the conditions, or
whether that was what council's motion was at the time.
So they requested that we look at the tape of the
hearing to confirm that.
Both Ms. Coyle and I reviewed the tape.
Mr. Dingfelder made a motion and asked the petitioner
whether they would be -- whether they would consider
converting that wall from a wood fence to masonry wall.
Actually, the petitioner himself, the owner of the
property, came up and refused to make that change to
the note.
Refused Mr. Dingfelder's change to that note, and
council voted on the conditions in that state.
Staff made a mistake, when the conversation occurred
about masonry or wood, I think staff thought it was
going to be a masonry, so someone wrote masonry wall.
From our view of the tape it's very clear that it was a
wood fence that was approved by City Council.
But this ordinance correct that.

It's restating all the council imposed conditions in
their entirety.
And it does include that one change that was
handwritten.
But it just clarifies it's a wood fence and not a
masonry wall.
I have already communicated that to the preservation
staff, so there should not be any further delay
relative though that issue.
But from reviewing the tape of that hearing that's very
clear what occurred, to us.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Massey, I have a question.
I drove by the street behind bellows the other day and
the dumpsters are sitting there in all their mess.
There's been no improvement made.
They are a mess.
They are just sitting out.
And legally without any kind of covering.
And I'd like to hear from you, shouldn't we take that
into consideration when we are considering this?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: This is merely a correction of an
error that staff made.

I don't think really that's something that council
should take into account at this juncture.
We are just asking you to correct an error that was
made by staff.
This is not a new public hearing.
It is correcting a scrivener's error that staff made.
>> Then maybe I would just like to hear from petitioner
when they intend to address the things they said they
would do five months ago.
>>DAVID MECHANIK: We can't make any of those changes
until all the changes are approved by the A.R.C. and
then we get building permits.
So we are in that process right now.
So all of those changes including did dumpster and the
fence along the small parking lot are part of the
application before the A.R.C.
So none of those changes -- that was part of what
council approved as part of the PD rezoning.
>> Maybe they could at least kind of clean it up.
>>> I'll be sure to advise them of that.
Thank you.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: That's what I was going to ask,

Mr. Mechanik, is garbage included in that ordinance?
>>DAVID MECHANIK: I will advise them to make sure they
need to make sure that area --
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Because there's no reason.
Or we'll call code enforcement.
>>DAVID MECHANIK: I understand.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, one thing.
And I think Mr. Massey explained to us there's been no
action to be taken, just a clarification.
But, Karen, I understand your concern.
But I was thinking -- and correct me if I am wrong,
either you or Mr. Mechanik -- I thought the issue they
didn't go into the issue of the masonry fence is there
was concern about what the masonry fence would do to
the trees S.that the section where the trees are
behind?
>>> Karen: No, the existing fence on parcel A, which
big parcel behind, it's my recollection that Mr.
Dingfelder and I had this back and forth about that,
because of all those oak trees.
So therefore we said since it's an existing wooden
fence if they will continue to maintain it and take

care of the trees we are okay on parcel A.
Our concern on parcel B is because that's employee
parking going to be coming and going day and night.
So our concern was, what kind of fence is going to be
there that's going to keep the headlights and the noise
away from the people's bedrooms of? So leaving the
hearing thinking it was going to be masonry, you know,
my question now is there's a lot of kinds of wood
fences.
How do we have any insurance that now we change this to
a wood fence that it's, A, going to be a solid wood
fence, you know.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And I can't speak to petitioner or his
representative but I'm going to he will you, I think
everybody worked so hard for. This and Dave, I am not
putting you committing to anything.
But I have a feeling if there's a type A fence or type
B fence or type C fence, that makes everybody happy, we
don't really want to come back and discuss some of
these issues.
What I'm saying, it's speculation on my part, but I
suspect that Mr. Mechanik will direct his client to do

the best they can with the wooden fence.
There's nothing more than we can do with that now.
>>> But 21, I don't understand.
The other handwritten change.
Is that included?
And what does that mean?
>>MORRIS MASSEY: I believe that handwritten change is
included.
Let me read it.
Proposed fencing, exterior alterations and/or
landscaping not depicted by this plan on-site shall be
subsequently reviewed and approved by the city's A.R.C.
in conjunction with other land development regulations
specifically related to site visibility.
I think it's defining or clarifying what the A.R.C.'s
jurisdiction is.
They can't now make a fence that you all have called
out in the plan to be a wood -- a wood fence to be a
masonry fence.
They can deal with the design issue and also deals with
making sure the fences -- and anything else that's on
the site is constructed in a manner that doesn't

obscure visibility for cars.
That's what I think the note means.
But, yes, it's part of the plan.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: 2902 East Ellicott Street, three
nights a week.
And I thank God for his grace and his mercy.
You know, the lawyer asked me this awhile ago how my
heart doing.
Beating fast.
For the last ten years.
But I guarantee you coming down here, another five
years.
But I want to talk about this morning, you know, always
talk about prayer.
The gentleman came this morning and prayed a good
prayer.
But he said, let us continue love one another.
And I sat back, I said, what love?
What people love one another?
You know, I read the Bible.

You know, all talk about love, now. But the guy
telling mama, I hate you, especially black people.
And black people hate one another.
A lot of people hate them.
If they go on roof tops, six, seven days and nobody
give them no food, no water, nothing.
But I want to talk about first thing about this law
this morning you all talk about can't receive $100.
That got to me.
Now, the first thing, Ms. Saul-Sena, I love you, baby,
but I'm telling you, Mayor Freedman started you all's
law.
Mayor Freedman started it.
You couldn't build a dog house.
No fence.
I tried to tell people awhile ago and some of the
people are still here.
And Ms. Saul-Sena, you were here.
You couldn't build a dog house.
It was Mayor Freedman, and she's still here, passed a
law, oh, Jesus.
But I read the Bible.

It started in the Bible.
That's why Jesus came here and died and went to the
cross.
He said I didn't come here to change the law, but to
fulfill it.
Now, read in the Bible from exodus 20 about this.
You read about them laws they had back then.
If a child cuss his mama, they shall die.
But what I'm saying, though, you the man said this
morning you couldn't receive over $100.
And I was sitting back down there, got 15,000 doing
somebody a favor.
But what I'm saying, though, that don't deal with
nothing you can't take.
I see all's law and charge us $100 a day if the house
need to be painted.
I seen you -- I seen you all's law take thousands and
thousands of houses from our poor peoples, wood frame
houses, crack houses.
You all call crack houses.
That wasn't even in the Bible.
I don't know where that crack house come from.

But that ain't in the law nowhere.
And I want you all to know, you all know poor people,
and these men here trying to build some property, I
want that $500 paid.
I want all the people out there to call you all, or
write letters, I want that $500, that $100.
You all shouldn't get the $100.
All that money you all got.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Knott, I was a little confused at
the beginning of your speech.
Were you advocating that we repeal the six foot rule?
>>> I beg your pardon?
>> You were talking about that law we pass board of
director that six-foot.
Were you advocating that we repeal that?
>>> Not only Jesus come here but you all's law try to
change it.
>> Are you saying we should change it back to what it
was?
>>> No, ways saying this morning, go with the state
law.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak?

We go to our committee reports.
Public safety.
Ms. Rose Ferlita.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Before I move my committee, I just want
to say that I had talked to Ms. Alvarez.
I'm sorry I didn't bring this up at the beginning.
I have a concern about one of hers and I'll bring it up
under that committee.
That being said I would like to move resolutions 6
through 9, please.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez is coming back.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. White, if you are going to move
that committee, item 10, I have not had the opportunity
to talk to some staff.
I don't need to belabor that today and air my questions
or concerns when we can answer them very quickly
probably.
And I don't think there's a big crunch.
I would like item 10 to be held for a couple of weeks,
please.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move items 11 through 17, holding item

10 for two weeks.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Finance Committee.
Mr. Kevin White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I would like to move 18 through 20, 22
through 29.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Madam clerk, I need to read number 21 in
its entirety?
>>GWEN MILLER: 21 has been continued.
Okay.
It's continued.
21 is continued.
Building and zoning.
Ms. Linda Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move resolutions 30 through 36.
>> Second.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Number 37.
Move an ordinance amending ordinance number 2005-107,
which rezoned property in the general vicinity of 1405
and 1413 South Howard Avenue, 2307 west -- wait a

minute.
Wait a minute.
This isn't the one at Howard and Swann, is it?
No, okay.
1316 south Alabama Avenue in the City of Tampa by
correcting and restating the City Council imposed
zoning conditions in their entirety providing an
effective date.
>> Second.
[Motion Carried]
>>GWEN MILLER: Transportation.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move 38 through 45.
>> Second.
>>THE CLERK: Madam Chairman, on the Finance Committee,
item number 27, that required council to waive the
15-day notice.
>>GWEN MILLER: You need to make a motion to waive the
15 days.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Item number 46.
>>THE CLERK: Items 46 and 47 are resolutions to set

closure public hearings for November 17th.
And we have noted that you currently have six plan
amendments set for that date at 9:30, which is your
second public hearing at 9:30.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion to move 46 and 47.
>>THE CLERK: 48 and 49 are requested to have wet zoning
public hearings set for that date so you would be
having the six plus the two you just set.
>>KEVIN WHITE: So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: 48 and 49.
All in favor say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried).
Now we go to public hearings for second reading.
Is there anyone in the public going to speak on any
item from item 50 through 59?
Would you please stand and raise your right hand,
anyone to speak on item 50 through 59, 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: Madam Chair, thank you.
I would ask all those who are going to be testifying to
please reaffirm that you have been sworn when you state
your name.
Also, council members, please, at this time I would ask
that all written communications relative to today's
public hearing that have been available to the public
in council's office be received and filed into the
record at this time.
>>GWEN MILLER: Nothing has been presented.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Nothing from the staff?
If any members of City Council has had any
communication with a petitioner, his or her
representative, or any members of the public that
individual should disclose the identity of the group,
person or entity with whom the communication occurred
and the substance of that verbal communication.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak
on item number 50?

>> Move to close.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. White, would you read 50.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to adopt the following ordinance
upon second reading, an ordinance vacating, closing,
discontinuing, and abandoning a certain right-of-way
all that southern portion of the alleyway that runs
north and south between west gray and west Carmen
street generally located west of Albany Avenue and east
of Howard Avenue in Benjamin's 4th addition 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.
>> Motion and second.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Here.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Yes?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder being
absent.

>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the audience to speak
on item number 51?
>>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
I wanted to point out that I provided the clerk and I
provided a memo to council requesting the ordinance is
substituted with the ordinance which made two minor
changes to sections 105.54, 55, and 104.16, where the
word "approve" is substituted.
>>THE CLERK: I would ask, are they still to proceed
with second reading?
>>JULIA COLE: Yes, they are still to proceed with
second reading.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move upon second reading an ordinance of
the city of Tampa, Florida deleting in its entirety the
City of Tampa code of ordinances chapter 5 adopting the
City of Tampa code of ordinances chapter 5, the City of
Tampa building code adopting the City of Tampa 120
mile-per-hour wind speed line maps providing for
severability, repealing all ordinances or parts thereof
in conflict therewith, providing an effective date.
>>THE CLERK: Before you vote you need to close your
public hearing.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close the public hearing.

>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call vote.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder being
absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would
like to speak on item 52?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
[Motion Carried]
>>ROSE FERLITA: Move to adopt an ordinance on second
reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the general
vicinity of 6510 south Himes Avenue in the city of
Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in
section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-60
residential single-family to PD single-family
residential, providing an effective date.

>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
Roll call.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
Ms. Saul-Sena, you realize you voted no last time.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I totally appreciate that but this
isn't the apartment house, is it?
>>ROSE FERLITA: I don't know but you voted no.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I thought -- thank you so much.
It's not written on my agenda.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: You have an old agenda.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you and I want to change my
vote.
Thank you, Ms. Ferlita.
>>THE CLERK: White?
>>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder being
absent and Saul-Sena voting no.

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion to close number 53.
>> Mrs. Ferlita?
>>ROSE FERLITA: Move to adopt the following ordinance
on second reading, an ordinance at the property at 5825
south 6th street in the city of Tampa, Florida and
more particularly described in section 1 from zoning
district classifications RS-60 residential single
family to RS-50 residential single family providing an
effective date.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Here.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder being
absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone to speak on 54?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to adopt the following ordinance
on second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in

the general vicinity of 6213 south main Avenue in the
city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described
in section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-60
residential will single family to RS-50 residential
single family providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Voice roll call.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder being
absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public to speak
on item 55?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to adopt the following ordinance
on second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in

the general vicinity of 4521 west north A street in the
city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described
in section 1 from zoning district classifications PD
single family attached to PD single family attached,
providing an effective date.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Voice roll call.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder being
absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public to speak on item
56?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I move to adopt the following
ordinance upon second reading.
An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity

of 3411 west Ohio Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida
and more particularly described in section 1 from
zoning district classifications RS-60 residential
single family to RS-50 residential single family
providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Voice roll call.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder being
absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public to speak
on item 57?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to adopt the following ordinance
upon second reading.
An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity
of 8314 north 39th street in the city of Tampa,
Florida and more particularly described in section 1
from zoning district classifications RS-60 residential
single family to RS-50 residential single family
providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.

>>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder being
present.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public to speak
on item 58?
>> Move to close.
(Motion carried).
>> Move an ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance
rezoning property in the general vicinity of 202 north
11th street in the city of Tampa, Florida and more
particularly described in section 1 from zoning
district classifications CD-1 to CD-3 providing an
effective date.
>> Second.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder being
absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public to speak on item
59?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move the following ordinance upon
second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the
general vicinity of 2119 West Gray Street in the city
of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in
section 1 from zoning district classifications CI
commercial intensive and RM-16 residential multifamily
to PD medical professional office, providing an
effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
Voice roll call.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
>>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder being
absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Item number 60, need to continue for 45
days.
What would that be?
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mid November.
>>THE CLERK: November 17th?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: That's a horrible day, isn't it?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, but this is easy.
>>GWEN MILLER: What time of day?
>> 10:00.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: Item 61 is a continued public hearing.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe we have to have the
witnesses sworn for item 61 through 67.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the audience to be testify on
61 through 67 please stand and raise your right hand.
(Oath administered by Clerk).

>>> Dennis Fernandez, manager historic preservation on
item number 61, asking for the initiation of the local
landmark process.
On 1202 North Franklin Street which is known as the
Majestic Hedges building.
On the Elmo you see a picture of the building.
Requesting to add this to the North Franklin Street
downtown local landmark, markable properties group.
And to give you a full presentation on first reading.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone fountain public to speak
on item number 61?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
>>THE CLERK: We do have the resolution approving
initiation.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Do you want me to read it or just move
the resolution?
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed?
(Motion carried) item 62 is a continued public hearing.
>>> Heather Lamboy, land development.

This public hearing was first heard on the 25th
regarding property at 405 north Armenia just south of
the armory, but at the intersection of grey and ar men
yeah. The petitioner has designed the site plan if you
recall there were issues with trees on-site and I have
photographs of those trees.
It's a one-story masonry building on-site.
And immediately adjacent is a tree that is protected.
There are actually two trees that are protected.
And this is the tree that's close to the proposed
antique store.
The parking lot has been redesigned.
Mr. Yurcus reviewed the site plan for the protected
tree immediately adjacent to the one-story building.
And commented that it would be -- if we required the
petitioner to flip the handicapped parking space as
illustrated on the site plan, to being adjacent to
Armenia Avenue and leaving the regular parking space
mulch surface to protect the roots because the roots do
extend out far.
And for the canopy and the rats for that existing tree.
As you can tell the site plan has been redesigned to

detach the storage so the tree will not be affected.
In addition, Parks Department has requested that the
existing concrete pad in the back of the existing
building be removed manually so as not to disturb the
root system of the tree.
Staff has no opposition provided that the petitioner
acknowledges those changes.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Quick question.
Will there be some kind -- something to protect the
tree once this is reconfigured?
>>> There's nothing on the site plan but we can make a
note to that effect.
>> Obviously in the photograph before us the U-Haul
truck is parked quite close to the tree and I believe
to protect a tree they are supposed to be set back ten
feet on all sides.
>>> I'll let the petitioner speak to that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>>> My name is ray Alford, 4900 east 98th Avenue,
Tampa, Florida 33617.
And I have been sworn in.
We have worked with staff in regards to this, and we do

concur with staff.
And Linda, we'll be happy to meet the ten-foot criteria
about the truck aspect of it.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And remove the concrete by hand?
>> I didn't hear you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The staff recommends that when you
take out the pad that's going to be removed, that
instead of doing it with a front loader which will
really hurt the tree, that you do it --
>>> Turf block and --
>> And do the actual physical reworking without the
front loader.
>>> That's correct.
And we have agreed to that.
Thank you.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I have a question.
I understand that there was code violation on this
property, and it was supposed to be complied September
28th?
Have you complied?
>>> No, we can't comply until we get the zoning.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Why?

>>> The code violation in regards to this is in
violation of zoning.
Even though this business has been operating for over
seven years, and it's been -- even his dad operated the
building before he passed away.
And it was just discovered that it was zoned RS-60 and
it was in noncompliance.
So he was issued a code violation in regards to that to
bring it into compliance.
That's one of the reasons we are here today to get the
inspection to rezone in order to bring him into
compliance.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would
like to speak on item 62?
>>> Pete Johnson, 301.
As you know I'm in big favor for code enforcement.
This piece of property has had code violations going
back as far as 2000.
Okay.
Every time that a violation is reported by a citizen,
code goes out there, couple weeks later and finds it

corrected.
Okay.
Some citizen has continuously, continuously -- if I can
have the Elmo on -- complained about this residence.
The residence was also issued a city business license
in 2000.
In a residential neighborhood.
I talked to Jake Slater, and he said he had no computer
program to tell them whether or not an address was in
residential or not in residential.
They didn't have comply.
I hope that has been corrected.
This council needs to get with the business department
that issues occupational licenses, and apply more
strength to them.
At this point the only thing Jack can regulate is
prostitution, dirty book stores and petroleum products.
This is ridiculous.
This has been a business that has been in this
property, in violation for seven to ten years.
We need to come up with a solution that the
administration communicate with each department.

And say, hey, look, this is -- you can't issue a
business license, you know, or give Jake more authority
to say what kind of business he can okay in a
residential neighborhood.
I don't know.
It still in violation.
There's a $25 day fine against the property.
It has been beat around code department, and code board
so many times, and appealed and appealed and appealed
and all of this.
It's ridiculous.
If we are going to have codes, like I've always said,
let's enforce them.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I agree with you, Mr. Johnson.
We are going to do something about that.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak on item 62?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Clerk?
Ms. Alvarez, will you read it?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I hope that by reading this ordinance

and getting you -- that you will comply with this,
because this is strictly against our codes.
>>> Yes, ma'am.
We are complying, and he's already removed one of the
tents, and the debris that was in there, and we are
cleaning up the property, and we are going to fix it
up.
>>> Thank you very much.
Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general
vicinity of 405 North Armenia Avenue in the city of
Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in
section 1 from zoning district classifications RM-16
residential multifamily to PD, business professional
office, specialty retail, providing an effective date.
>> Second.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I was hesitant in doing that.
Of course Ms. Saul-Sena did it.
I just want to reiterate was councilwoman Alvarez said.
We are approving it?
Okay.
If you're in a hurry, I'll hold my comments.
Okay.

Way want to say is that you have to have every single
vote that's up there.
I'm going along with the approval reluctantly, with the
expectation and the anticipation that you will correct
it by second reading, or I am not going to support it.
>>> He's making process to do that now.
He started to clean the property up.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I'm sorry.
Did you F you want to say something, that's fine.
>>> We have already started cleaning up the area.
The program helped us out Saturday.
It's a big, big difference from what it was.
And we respect not parking by the trees and being
clients with everything you all want done, we'll do in
compliance.
>>ROSE FERLITA: But in compliance by the second
reading.
>>> I'm Charles Thomas Carbonell.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I'd like to have the business and
occupational tax department to come up and talk to us
about exactly what Mr. Johnson talked about, because it
seems to be a problem that continues on and on.

We fine people that are having licenses, but there's no
continuation between what we have on the various
streets, and like in the residential, into the
businesses.
So we need to find some way of doing this.
And I want the business and tax department to come over
and talk to us about the occupational licenses.
A couple of weeks?
Understood department heads.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I think you're right.
I think Jake Slater is trying to do a good job of
improving.
If he has a problem with that amount of time and needs
longer, then he can send a message.
I think Mary is right on point.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried.)
Item number 63 for second reading.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak
to item 63?
You may come up and speak.
We need to open it.

>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
>>> I have been sworn in.
I'm Mary Numeyer.
I live at 3409 east 24th Avenue.
And I'm here not only to make a statement but to get
educated.
I'm very concerned about the phrase "a local landmark"
for Gary school, that it become a local landmark.
To me, that says that somehow or another it's going to
be frozen.
And then it not going to be able to be torn down or
something like that.
And the reason I'm speaking about this is, I don't
think that it should be preserved.
I brought a picture of it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Just lay it there and it will come up.
You have it upside down.
>>> Thank you.
I went by here two days ago for the heck of it to take
a picture of it.

You see a school.
What you don't see is that it has a basement that
floods, it has rooms that have had to be evacuated
because of load going on the walls, it has vines on the
walls outside, and the wood frames around the windows
are decaying.
What you can't see on the pictures, there's a sign on
the front door that says building closed.
They have had to move every single one of the classes
and offices into portables around that school.
Now the reason I'm speaking about this is because this
is in my local area.
My husband was a school teacher there.
And I've taken classes there as an adult.
So I have been in and out of this building and I know
it fully well.
I don't know who is proposing this or who is behind it.
But I don't want to see a disaster happen like happened
to the junior high school that was on Columbus drive.
I think it was called Washington junior high and it
languished for many years until they finally said,
look, we have got to tear the thing down.

If the school board is thinking about rehabbing it, I
think they would be well spent -- the money, the
taxpayers money would be better spent tearing the whole
thing down and building it completely new school as
they just did to Bryant school, which is at 30th
and Hillsborough.
I think that it they tore that one down and they didn't
ask for any local landmark status.
And that was a pretty school, you know.
They have rehabbed some other schools and done really
good jobs on them.
But those were schools that were not as far gone as
this one.
The old Jefferson has been rehabbed.
Hillsborough high school is being rehabbed.
And they look really great.
But I don't think -- you know, unless President Bush
went to this school, I can't see any reason, or Pam
Iorio, somebody like that went to this school, I can't
see any reason for saving it.
The blue tarp, maybe we need -- well, I won't go that
far.

But I think -- I don't think -- it's not worthy.
There's a lot of other buildings.
And I'm for historical preservation.
I run around trying to save this and save that.
But I don't think this one is worth it.
I think we ought to do a pass on this.
Thank you.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I think it's very nice that Mary was
bipartisan with exclusions, one Republican and one
democrat.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have some good news for you.
Actually the school board is building a new adult Ed
school up the road for the people who are now in the
portables will go but they have done an appraisal, and
they put it out with 30 days for requests for
proposals, and there are two interested parties to buy
it, fix it up, not using any public money, just
for-profit people, but they will be able to get tax
credits for their investment if they get this
designation.
And that's why we are going ahead with it to make it
more financially attractive to the people who are

interested in fixing it up, that they could get the tax
credit.
So our hope is -- and I attended a meeting yesterday at
the preservation round table that's with the school
people and Tampa Preservation and, you know, what they
are saying is, they have got some for-profit folks who
are -- and non-profit people who are willing to do
something with it so that -- and, Mary, the good news
is, they can do for buildings which we only wish they
could do for people.
I mean, some Spackle, some drywall, new roof, it will
look great.
It won't cost us any money.
>>> I'm not against that. It's just I was worried
about the school board dumping the money in there.
And I've seen them do some crazy stuff with our tax
money.
And --
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: They are going to make money on
this.
>>> If there's somebody that thinks they can fix it up,
I say more power to them.

But I hope they know what they are getting into because
it is going to make a lot of lot of work.
Thank you of the.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else to speak on item 63?
I have a motion and second to close.
(Motion carried).
Ms. Ferlita, would you read that, please.
Move for adoption.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Move to adopt -- move an ordinance of
the city of Tampa, Florida designating Gary public
school located at 3610 east 10th Avenue Tampa,
Florida as more particularly described in section 3
hereof as a landmark providing for repeal of all
ordinances in conflict, providing for severability,
providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
Voice roll call.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
Motion carried with Dingfelder, Harrison and white

being absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
Item number 65.
>>THE CLERK: Just make a motion to continue the
petition.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Santiago.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Good afternoon.
I'm here on item number 66.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to open.
Number 66.
We have a motion to open and a second.
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: And Julia brown for the City of
Tampa legal department.
This is a petition to establish a community development
district to be called the K-bar ranch, CDD.
Staff has reviewed the petition.
They have had -- there is no objections.
A number of the conditions requested have been included
in the ordinance that has been prepared.
I have got that ordinance here for you.

General overview on CDD and the petitioner is here to
give you more perspective.
Mr. Harrison is a good resource as well.
A chapter 190 independent special purpose unit of
government is effectively a quasi-governmental unit
that's subject to Sunshine Law and the public records
law.
They are created by the state organizations, or county,
and in this case the City of Tampa.
This is going to be a CDD of approximately 140 acres.
I will defer some of the details of this project to the
petitioner.
Effectively a CDD is what I have termed as a homeowners
association on state roads.
They are effectively an association that can levy taxes
and enforce those through some of the same mechanisms
that a local government, county or city will do.
They have satisfied all the criteria in the memorandum
as provided for you dated October 3rd entitled
development communities, K-Bar Ranch, includes a report
from the Planning Commission, from December 2002.
In that memorandum, it sets forth a number of criteria

in section 5 for the petition.
Staff has reviewed it pursuant to that criteria. Again
there's no objections.
Subsequently your review today will also be consistent
with that criteria set forth in section 5, together
with any comments or suggestions you have got from the
public.
Having said that, I have got nothing further to add.
I prepared the ordinance for you in anticipation you
may move favorably.
I present this to you if you do.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>>> Madam Chair, members of the council.
My name is Darrell McAtier, suite 3700, I have been
sworn and I represent Mobley Homes Florida LLC.
With me, representative is mark Mobley.
He's actually bringing up some exhibits to continue our
discussion.
I have some items for the council and the clerk that I
would like to file at this time if I could.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I have a question for petitioner.
What's the initial millage rate going to be? The

yearly millage that will be imposed by the CDD.
>>> I'm not exactly sure.
My name is mark Mobley with Mobley Homes.
I'm not sure of the millage.
There will be a cap on the assessments, either $1,000
or $1200 per year per unit.
So what that works out as far as the millage rate is
concerned, I'm not sure.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't have any further questions.
>>GWEN MILLER: Let us see if anyone in the public would
like to speak.
Anyone in the audience want to speak on item number 66?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: You have an ordinance.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: This is a typical run of the mill New
Tampa CDD, right?
Nothing out of the ordinary on this?
>>> Mobley: No, it's run of the mill, plain vanilla
CDD, brought a map to show you where it's at, on this
piece of property, some of you are aware it's a
relatively large piece of property, there may be

additional CDDs that may come in later for
components.
It contemplates that CDDs will be used to build
certain roads on the property, and that's what we are
putting in place for, an east-west road going across
the property, and we are using some of the CDD money to
start construction on that portion of the road.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And I can see that Mr. Mobley is upset
that he had a long presentation and we don't want to
hear it.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Did when close the hearing?
I move an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida
establishing the K-Bar Ranch community development
district comprising 445.81 acres more or less for the
purpose of managing and delivering basic community
structure improvement within a parcel of land generally
located south of the Hillsborough County and Pasco
County line, west of Morris Bridge Road, county road
579 near the border with Pasco County entirely within
the boundaries of the City of Tampa, Hillsborough
County Florida the same being more fully described in
section 2 hereof pursuant to chapter 109 from a Florida

statute, providing for severability, providing an
effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you for that presentation.
(Laughter).
Number 67 is continued public hearing.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: Legal department.
I'm here because Ms. Coyle has laryngitis this morning
and can't speak to you all.
So --
>>ROSE FERLITA: She was fine 20 minutes ago outside.
>>MORRIS MASSEY: This is the continued public hearing.
It's been continued for two weeks relative to the
property near the intersection of Swann and Howard.
Council had raised several issues in the public hearing
two weeks ago, primarily relating to transit service to
the site and also to the waiver of green space and what
improvements could be made to parks nearby, in
consideration for waiving the green space, open space
requirements in the code.
Just briefly, I want council, the special notes in the
site plan, and I will let the public speak as well.

To address this issue upon issuance to the property
owner and owners or its assigns shall pay Hartline the
sum of $10,000 a year for the cost of operating the
in-town trolley so long as the trolley is operating and
serving subject property.
This condition shall be borne in the event the city or
other legal authority imposes an assessment on the
subject property for the same or similar trolley
service.
Secondly upon issuance of the first CO, the developer
shall contribute the sum of $75,000 towards the
construction of improvements at the Hyde Park arts
studio and playground located at Swann Avenue and
Albany Avenue.
This developer shall also design and install one brick
crosswalk with concrete curb on the east side of the
intersection of Swann at south Albany as approved by
the transportation division.
Prior to the first building permit the developer shall
work with Hartline to establish a stab for potential
extension of the in-town shuttle, developer shall
install a trolley stop, shelter and bench on its

property in such location as the stop, shelter and
bench shall similar to those installed by the developer
on Harbor Island and maintained at the expense of the
project.
Additionally developer has agreed to install
landscaping in excess of the landscaping and tree
planting requirements of chapter 13, trees will be
installed only, and they are shall be a minimum 4-inch
caliper 6 inches above the grade.
Multi-stem plant shall be available for 45-gallon size
container grown, hedge material, ground level plant
shall be at a minimum of 5 gallons in size.
There are a couple of other notes that were added to
address some transportation issues relative to joint
access, and visibility issues.
But with these additional notes, as I understand it
from Ms. Coyle, staff has no objections to this plan.
And we are her for questions.
Petitioner is here as well.
>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>>DAVID MECHANIK: Good morning, council.
David Mechanik, 305 south Boulevard.

Morris went through the additional notes in pretty good
detail.
So I don't really have a whole lot to add.
I would just like to point out on the landscaping, to
put it in perspective, most of the additional
landscaping that we have agreed to install is almost
double what the current landscape ordinance requires.
So it's a significant enhancement, in addition to the
financial contribution to the Hyde Park arts studio and
playground which is east of the property.
One other condition that we did offer, I think in
response to Mr. Dingfelder's request that he would like
to see more people-oriented uses along Swann Avenue, as
we have a note that will allow for the possibility of
office on the ground floor along Swann Avenue.
We actually had wanted to put some retail in there, but
the transportation department indicated that the retail
would generate more traffic.
So they wanted us to limit that to office.
And that would be in lieu of three residential units.
So it would be either or, so we wouldn't be increasing
the impacts of the development.

So with that we'll be happy to answer any questions you
have.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would
like to speak on item number 67?
Ethel black.
I have been sworn N.I live at 306 south Albany which is
only a few blocks north of this development.
I have a problem with the traffic impact that we are
going to have from this.
There are apparently 100 one-bedroom units going in,
over 130 two-bedroom, and I think a dozen three-bedroom
units going in here.
That's a lot of vehicles that will be added to this
neighborhood.
This is going to directly impact our neighborhood,
which is the Courier City Oscawana neighborhood.
And, I mean, these people are going to have to come out
onto Swann or Howard, and that intersection is already
very, very busy at this time.
I cannot cross Swann in the afternoon to go to the
grocery store.
I have to wait till either later in the evening, or go

to a different grocery store.
There's just no way across Swann at that time of day.
And I don't see this making it any better.
And I don't really see any options for them, because
the way the neighborhood is set up, the Crosstown is
behind this, and Kash N' Karry is right next to the.
It's got the park.
But there's no other way out for these people.
So they are going to have to come out on either Swann
or Howard, and that intersection has buildings right up
against the corner.
So there's no way to expand that street, either one of
those streets.
And it just seems like this is going to be pretty busy.
I would like to see the density lowered on this, if
there's any way possible.
They are talking about hemming us with speed bumps in
the neighborhood.
That's not going to lower the traffic count.
I'm sorry.
The speed bumps are nice, they are probably a nice
idea.

But between Swann and Platt, Albany street has no stop
signs.
And so this is just going to really impact my street.
I mean, all I see is a lot more traffic.
I see a great deal more traffic.
Thank you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for you.
This is a pretty wild question.
But what would you think of creating a cul-de-sac at
Albany and Swann?
>>> I personally would probably like that.
Hillsborough Avenue went through this same situation
where they had to put the wall up and everything.
And for us, it might help us.
But I'd like to see a study on that.
Because if you cul-de-sacked those so that they don't
empty onto Swann, or so that the people on Swann can't
get into that neighborhood, they are going to come in
and we are not going to be able to get out except maybe
on Platt and Howard.
And those are pretty busy already.
I mean, I just don't see how this is going to have

lowering impact on our traffic.
Our traffic is horrible there.
Howard backs up.
We are adding those new brown stones there.
And, you know, just south of this development.
And I just don't see a solution there.
I just think they need to lower the density, if
possible.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> My name is Walter Crumbly.
I haven't been sworn yet.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
I live at 503 South Westland also, known as the
Westland Speedway.
We had a traffic survey done out there not long ago by
the city, and there's 800 cars a day that go down that
residential street.
It's the one that directly across Swann Avenue from
where the residents will be going into this project.
I don't even want to think about how many cars I'm
going to get after they complete this, because Westland

has become what's known as a cut-through street.
The two or three main arteries coming out of downtown
are Kennedy and Platt Street and Cleveland.
Now if you're coming from town and you're going to that
particular area, if you don't want to go all the way to
Howard Avenue, because then you have to go to Armenia,
you pick up two lights there, you pick up a couple more
lights if you go down Armenia to Swann and then cut
back in.
So I'm sure that everybody is going to do what they are
doing now, which is cutting down either Westland or
Albany or Melville, and your idea of a cul-de-sac has
never come up but to me it sound like the greatest
thing there ever was, because you're putting in the
ground stones, which is a block south of there, you
have got that big development at the corner of moody
and DeLeon, which would be opening soon, you have got
the drug stores, everybody there, like she says, if you
want to cross the street, it's take your own chances.
And you can put a neat little brick walk or something
like that across there and call it the walkway.
But the practical matter of it is, when you do that,

you have just got a gaping point where cars could get
you.
You know, I wouldn't walk down there if my life
depended on it, right now.
Add another 500, a thousand cars a day going through
there, and I know I am going to stay away from it.
I think that's an issue that certainly needs to be
dealt with.
People are going to take the shortest way home, and
they are going to skip four traffic lights and come
through that neighborhood.
And I never thought of blocking off the streets.
But certainly that's the best one I have ever heard of
yet.
Any questions?
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Sauce Saul-Sena may I ask a question?
When the petitioner presented this petition, Steve
Hendry from links and associates, their transportation
planner, said that the proposed 248 units would create
less traffic than the existing development on this
project.

Would your experience support that?
>>> I don't see anyway it can create less.
I can certainly see a lot of ways it's going to create
more.
If you have 245 or 48 units, you're will go at 248 more
cars that are going to be nestled in that area.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> Vicki Hall, 1311 South Moody Avenue.
I already have a mike.
Thank you, Mr. Mechanik.
I appreciate this.
You know, coming into meetings specifically about
issues, about traffic impact and mitigation, I'm really
pleased to see Mr. Everett standing up and making the
contribution to the Hartline.
However, I feel like there's just a few individuals
that are banging this drum about this bus route.
I've sent letters.
I have attended Hartline meetings.
I bring that up time and again, the Bayshore task force
brought it up.

I don't think it should be something that is up to
neighborhoods to organize.
Or participate in the pro -- and we'll participate in
the process.
But don't think it should be up to us.
And we have talked to businessmen along Howard Avenue,
and they are more than willing to do this.
And the reason I'm bringing this up is that we have to
start looking at mass transit along Howard Avenue to
get people from Howard to downtown to other places
because it's going to be gridlock.
And that's going to be our only option.
And I don't know how to direct this.
I've sent letters to Hartline.
I've attended meetings.
I sent letters to you all.
I've sent letters.
We need some organization.
Mr. Saterus is saying, yeah, it's needed, who going to
do it? I don't think it should be up to us.
Concerning Swann there are some concerns about the
conflict of the right turns and the left turns between

Kash N' Karry, and Inman, and the entrance to this
place and also Inman along Howard.
You have already all these people making right and left
turns in front of each other.
And I don't feel like that's been adequately addressed.
And I really see a conflict and would like to hear
better how we are going to deal with this problem.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Next.
>>> Karen Crawford, 1406 South Moody Avenue.
I have been sworn.
I think just accept the fact the cars aren't going to
move on Howard and we should all leave them in our
driveway.
So I was going to speak to the Soho guidelines.
I just feel adamantly that the city, we impose these
guidelines, we need to have someone with the city that
ensures enforcement of them, and to make sure that when
these new projects go in that everything adheres to the
guidelines, and that these new developments participate
in the Soho overlay guideline.

So I would just like clarification on the Soho lights,
how many are going to be put in on this project, and I
know he has the specks.
I would like clarification on that. I still feel he
should make some contribution to the park that is in
the Soho overlay district, since his district is in the
Soho, and I do appreciate what he's doing at the Kash
N' Karry park, and just encourage the city and somehow
we come up with some way that we see on an ongoing
basis that the guidelines are followed, that they are
updated, that somebody is overseeing them, there's
changes right now that probably need to be made to
them.
And I just don't feel like anybody is in charge of them
really, or anybody shows up here to defend them but me.
And I really don't think that should be my job.
But I'll dot since no one else is doing it.
So I could use your help on that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
Petitioner?
Petitioner, can you come back for rebuttal?
>>DAVID MECHANIK: I thought were going to ask her a

question.
David Mechanik.
I'll just briefly respond.
We did submit a traffic analysis.
And I just want to say when we continued the hearing,
our consultant was not scheduled to -- I mean he was
scheduled to be out of town for this day so when don't
have him with us this morning.
But he did submit analysis which was accepted by your
staff, which showed that during the peak hour which I
think is primarily the concern expressed by the first
speaker, that we actually are generating slightly fewer
trips than what exists on the site today.
And this was accepted by your staff.
And, in fact, I think Melanie, I just saw her a minute
ago, somewhere here, I'm sure she would be able to
confirm that.
Not withstanding that, we have agreed to an extensive
amount of transportation mitigation, including
extending the northbound left turn lane on Howard
Avenue, which will allow for more through traffic along
Howard Avenue to go through there without being held up

by the left Turners.
We also are contributing toward a video camera to be
installed at this location.
What the city staff has found is when they use the
monitors, which are on the first floor of this
building, they are able to watch the activities at an
intersection and they can then adjust the signal timing
to benefit the movements that are being stacked up, and
increased time in one location, one movement versus
another.
So I think everyone is pretty comfortable that the
operation will work satisfactorily with our mitigation.
I just wanted to comment about the contribution to the
park.
We suggested, and I think this was at the request of
the most immediate neighbors in Courier City, that we
contribute to the park that was the closest to the
site, and that's why we had suggested to the city staff
that we go to the Hyde Park arts studio and playground.
With that we'll be happy to answer any questions.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Mechanik, the only light that's
there on Howard and Swann, is there any on the east

side of that before you get to, I guess, the next light
would be Swann and North Boulevard?
Are there any lights other than that?
>>> Along Swann?
Hyde Park village.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay.
Where you turn.
So there's one there.
And I understand that Mr. Everett is offering to
subsidize one trolley for one year for $10,000?
>>> Yes.
And we are not paying for the full cost.
That's a proportion of the cost that we calculated
based upon the size of other contributions of similar
projects in the area.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Is there any possibility of upping that
a little bit?
>>DAVID MECHANIK: Well, Ms. Alvarez, it's -- we are
actually going to do this for as long as this shuttle
service would run.
>> Okay.
So it's not just for one year then?

>>> No, no.
This is the first time in my career that I have had a
client willing to agree to a perpetual condition such
as this.
>> Well, if he wants to get in there, yeah, he's going
to make some concessions.
>>> Normally, you know, people just prefer to make a
smaller one-time kind of fee, and to get that seed
money for the project.
This is a much more significant contribution, in my
opinion.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay, thank you.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: What was the amount of the park
contribution?
>>DAVID MECHANIK: 75,000.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Okay, that's fine.
You know, we have heard about the Soho guidelines being
created.
But is it being enforced and whose job is it to enforce
it?
And it seems like this is an area with great potential
to create some sort of district in and of itself, not

naturally attacking district but some organized
structure of all the businesses along that area, so
that you can begin to get contributions for the trolley
service and things like that.
And what I would suggest is you all be the first ones,
you all create the -- talk to Soho development
district, call it whatever you want, to go out, form a
corporation, get the other businesses along there to
join up, assess some sort of yearly fee for that, and
you're all pulling together at the same time.
There's a ton of legal work for you, Dave.
And you guys can really start the ball rolling.
And I think that would give the neighborhood an
additional layer of -- it's not a government, but it's
a formal organization to go to, as opposed to coming to
the city and being sort of bounced around as it's not
our job to do it.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It exists.
They have worked on streetlights.
They have looked at.
Haven't gotten off the dime and done it but there is
Gordon Davis, the head of la Bordeaux was head of the

group for awhile.
But I feel like it should be the -- it shouldn't be --
I don't think it should be the private sector's
responsibility to enforce the city guidelines.
I think it should be the city staff's responsibility.
And I think it's also appropriate for the city staff to
pull everybody together to do this.
And I think it's something that would be beneficial.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: If the city staff is not going to
creator monitor the organization, and that will have to
come from the private businesses along -- and if they
have already done it then maybe you made to get that
going again.
>>> Mr. Everett has also submitted in several
neighborhood meetings to spearhead the effort to extend
the entire shuttle service to this area.
So that's something he would like to see accomplished.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
We need to close the public hearing.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I just want to make a comment.
And I think, Ms. Saul-Sena, you're probably right.
I mean, it's up to businesses that are supported by

neighborhoods to have some guidelines, and some levels
of commitment to that neighborhood.
But at the same time, if we have some guidelines for
Soho, I don't think it's the responsibility of this
developer to resurrect them.
I think -- and I think that being said, if that were
done, and I think what you're saying is valid and what
Mr. Harrison is looking at, is also a step in the right
direction.
But if it's there, then we need to do our part as
government to get that done.
And there are a lot of issues.
There are a lot of people that don't want this because
it's going to exacerbate the traffic problems.
Well, we know that. The best thing at Howard and Swann
not to cause some more transportation problems would be
for nothing to be there and that obviously is not going
to be the reality of growth.
So I think it's going to have to be a collective effort
on the part of the businesses, and not necessarily you
spear heading it.
You're the last in line here to get here.

And there's some things that have already been there
that are a problem to Karen's district, and to Ms.
Myer's district over in Parkland Estates.
I think the reality is, especially from a council
member who lives eight blocks from there, I think -- I
don't know how much more intense it can get before we
have to do something.
So we are getting close and I'm hoping that your
commitment to doing an ongoing contribution to the
trolley and to different things that you're trying to
do, to not necessarily make this go away but at least
alleviate the impact, is an impact that maybe some
other owners will follow.
So I think there's something to be worked here, and we
just have to figure out how.
But we have to be part of the solving the problem.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the public hearing.
>> Second.
So moved.
[Motion Carried]
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I wanted to make a comment.
And that is, I feel like the petitioner has been very

responsible between our previous meeting an this
meeting in making additional commitments to address
some of the neighborhoods' concerns.
I think that the commitment of $10,000 on an ongoing
basis to deal with transportation is responsible, and I
think that this should be something that shouldn't have
to come from the neighborhood or the developer.
It should be part of the law process of the city's
transportation department.
We have said we are going to do a look at Howard.
I think that needs to be expanded to Howard and Swann a
couple of blocks, in a variety of directions, as
brought up by the neighbors who are having problems
with cut-through traffic.
We need to see what we can do there. But certainly
public transit is part of it and getting the commercial
uses to help pick up part of the tab is part of solving
that.
I think your $75,000 contribution to the park to
improve it for the people who won't -- you're waiving a
half acre of public open space, and I think that this
is frankly nice, but a modest trade-off, but I think it

will very much benefit the people in the neighborhood
and it's appropriate.
And I think putting trees is the least you can do
because you are putting a lot of folks on a small piece
of land.
I think the petitioner is being really responsible.
I'm concerned about our staff.
I think that it's up to the city staff, to
transportation to look at transit, to not waive a half
an acre of open space, and to be very specific about
enforcing the Soho design guidelines, which are law.
Wave to make sure, it's up to our staff to make sure
these guidelines are addressed and to see where there
are adverse impacts that they are adequately mitigated.
So I challenge the staff to do that as we have future
rezonings.
Because this is the time when we can expect quality.
People as witnessed by this petitioner recognize this
is a great area.
Part of the reason that it's great is because it's so
controlled by guidelines that you know people want to
be there and there will be good quality.

But we have to ensure that that quality is going to be
demanded for our community.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I will be happy to read this, but as an
adjunct to what Ms. Saul-Sena said, transportation
issues at that intersection obviously are horrible.
But we talk about let's do this and let's do that.
I'm happy that Mr. Everett and his group are committing
to this ongoing and hopefully that will help the
mind-set.
But before we go beyond that, and all the issues that
the neighborhood has and the businesses are continuing
to exacerbate with growth and that's expected, there's
a behavioral change that needs to be -- to be instilled
in our population.
I'm sure many people are sitting back and saying, yeah,
more people should ride that trolley so I can drive my
car.
So, you know, we have give and take here.
But Anthony, I think doing that on an ongoing basis
speaks miles to your commitment to that community.
So thank you.
That being said move an ordinance rezoning property in

the general vicinity of 2212 West Swann Avenue in the
city of Tampa, Florida more particularly described in
section 1 from zoning district classifications CG, CI
and RO-1 office to PD residential office retail
providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
(Motion carried.)
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a reminder to council that it is
close, shortly after the noon hour.
>>GWEN MILLER: We are going to hear information from
council members.
Mr. White.
>>KEVIN WHITE: I think there is a quick 30 second
procedural thing.
>>> Heather Lamboy: In order to accommodate a
petitioner who misnoticed, this was last minute.
That I would like to reschedule a public hearing that
was originally scheduled for October 27th to
January 26th.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Ferlita, do you have anything?

>>ROSE FERLITA: No, I don't have anything.
I'll say it very briefly.
If you guys want to wait till next week.
Given all the things we have seen from the Katrina
tragedy, I had started some preliminary meetings with
Humane Society and some other entities, and probably
don't need to mention now, but it is a given that
because of what has happened that many people lost
their lives because of their concern about leaving
their animals behind.
And it's not a matter of picking the life of an animal,
a dog or cat, versus a person, but especially in our
elderly, some of them decided they wouldn't move
because that's their best companion, that's their best
partner.
There is one school site that has been started as a
pilot project.
And I think that was done in August or July, before
this came to fruition, about allowing some shelter for
animals along with the shelter that would be provided
for human beings.
And of course that's not going to go a long way in

terms of the capacity.
But it is going to go a long way in making the
statement that lots of times it's very important to
save our animals so that people feel better.
We are working on that ongoing.
This is just a preliminary report to you.
But I am working with several committees to see if
perhaps we can get something done in the school system,
and that's going to be in partnership with the county,
and that may go, it may not, don't No. but we are
working on that. And I think lots of our population is
going to be happy.
That's an additional concern.
Accommodating people that are victims are done, then
we'll decide what the appropriate time is to approach
the superintendent of Hillsborough County schools and
given an opportunity to weigh in.
But I think it's an important program and anybody who
is interested in helping us with that, we certainly
don't have objections to getting a ton of telephone
calls.
It's fine by me.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Not a thing.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Madam Chair.
We are all familiar with the praise cathedral, Pat hall
in Seminole Heights.
They sustained some major damage in the thunderstorm
that happened earlier this year.
And their building has been severely damaged.
And they have requested the city's assistance.
We are trying to help them out somehow.
I don't know if there's anything we can do.
We can send someone from public works out to take a
look, assess the damage, take a look at the build
willing, and see if there is anything that the city
might be able to do to assist, as well as it's a good
location.
Maybe think creatively about putting some sort of city
service in that location, so that if we are going to
help out with repairing the building, the city gets
something back out of that as opposed to just putting
some money into it.
So I would like to send staff out there, take a look at
the building and then report back to us in two weeks,

as to what they think the damages are, what they think
it will cost to fix it, and if they have any creative
solutions in trying to help them out.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Harrison, I've already gone down
that road with them, and it's like $250,000 to fix.
I had Sharon west take a look at it, and they just
don't have the funds to do that.
I'm also trying with other avenues to see if we can get
some funds for them, and in past it hasn't been a
successful adventure.
We did last year, when -- I guess it was in March when
they had that big lane, they went and put a tarp on
there, the city did, to prevent some more water coming
in.
But it's a faith-based operation, according to -- from
what I understand, and I have already talked to Ms.
Miller about that, too, and she's the one who referred
me to Ms. West.
And there's not much.
But, you know, if you want to make the motion, I'll
support you on that, too.
But I don't think that you will get too much out of

that.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: There may not be but at least let
them come in and say what they found out so far.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried).
Anything else?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: That's in the form of a request of the
administration to do that?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'd like to request that
transportation as they look at Howard and Swann look at
the impact on the surrounding streets, the question of
perhaps cul-de-sacs being an answer.
I have no idea.
But they work.
Thank you.
So that's a motion.
I have already asked them to look at Howard and Swann.
If you're looking at that you look at the side streets,
too.
>> Second.

[Motion Carried]
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think it was about a month from
now, the Howard and Swann look.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried.)
Clerk, do you have anything?
>>THE CLERK: Received a letter from the Hillsborough
County head start, will be hosting family fun day at
MacFarlane park on the 22nd from ten to two.
They are wanting to use the city seal in their 40th
anniversary souvenir book.
And because there is no meeting next week, they have
sent this up to legal.
They have prepared a resolution to grant the use of the
city seal.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried.)
Anything else to come before council?
We are in recess until 1:30.

(City Council recess at 12:15 p.m.)