Tampa City Council
Thursday, January 12, 2006
9:00 a.m. Session
The following represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied upon
for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
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
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
09:09:38 [Sounding gavel]
09:09:39 >>CHAIRMAN GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called
09:09:41 to order.
09:09:41 The chair will yield to Ms. Linda Saul-Sena.
09:09:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Good morning.
09:09:46 It's my extreme pleasure this morning to introduce
09:09:49 Tampa's poet laureate James Tokley.
09:09:52 James Tokley has graced our city's sidewalks, walls,
09:09:57 books, with his wonderful poetry.
09:09:59 But last Saturday he did something that was quite
09:10:06 His poem was placed on the side of a building in
09:10:10 downtown Tampa making it the physically largest poem
09:10:14 ever created, and it's going into the Guinness book of
09:10:19 And on Saturday, which was a very cold day, Mr. Tokley
09:10:23 was signing his poem on the side of this building, as
09:10:28 the winter winds were whipping around.
09:10:30 It is beautiful poem.
09:10:33 It was physically Cal owe graphed.
09:10:41 But the image is spectacular.
09:10:43 Mr. Tokley, thank you for all the years of service you
09:10:45 have given to us as poet laureate.
09:10:47 Thank you for leading us this morning in the
09:10:50 Let us all stand.
09:10:51 And after the invocation we'll pledge allegiance.
09:11:01 >> James Tokley: The Negative Confessions for Tampa
09:11:17 City Council.
09:11:18 To compensate the shifting scale that shows where we
09:11:21 succeed or fail, to balance it and hold it still in
09:11:26 hopes to weigh the people's will is a job not suited
09:11:31 for the meek, for kindred souls who fail to speak or
09:11:37 seek false friendship might surmise fraternity in
09:11:40 treachery's eyes.
09:11:42 Therefore, we seek before the fact those words that
09:11:47 tell us how to act and feel as we assume the seat of
09:11:53 power at the people's feet.
09:11:54 For this the only prayer we know, which represents the
09:11:57 sacred glow of public service, liberty and justice,
09:12:02 thus we bend a knee and bow our heads that they may
09:12:06 find who come to us; truth is not blind.
09:12:10 We seek the words that plant in us the will to be both
09:12:14 mild and just, and so we say for all to hear, by the
09:12:19 souls of them who stood here once, we have not wavered
09:12:24 insincere, nor have we robbed with violence.
09:12:27 No harm have we done knowingly, nor stolen food so men
09:12:34 could eat, nor worked affliction, nor transgressed nor
09:12:40 lay waste, nor places where people go to sit and watch
09:12:45 the river flow.
09:12:46 We've done no evil nor eavesdropped nor set our lips to
09:12:51 slow our stop our fellow citizens as they sought to do
09:12:54 what legally they ought or ought not do.
09:12:57 We did not cause in anger to forsake the laws that
09:13:01 govern us and guide us all.
09:13:04 No tower did we cause to fall, nor seldom uttery fiery
09:13:11 words, nor stopped our ears so they have not heard the
09:13:13 words of mercy, truth and right.
09:13:15 We swear we have not stirred up strife, nor caused to
09:13:20 weep nor conjured grief, the blood of peace, nor acted
09:13:26 rudely, judged in haste, nor spat in an opponent's
09:13:31 face, nor have we vexed people's trust nor fought our
09:13:35 might but said you must, nor swaggered overwhelming
09:13:38 proud, nor sought to stir the surly crowd, but most of
09:13:44 all we have not placed one mark upon the people's face
09:13:48 whose faith has placed us where we stand, and by this
09:13:51 oath we raised our hands.
09:13:54 10,000 years ago these words so seldom see, yet gladly
09:13:59 heard by learned elders proclaimed the light coming
09:14:05 forth by day and night.
09:14:06 Therefore, with voice and steady hand we cause these
09:14:11 words to live again, and trust the ones who gather here
09:14:14 will counsel well and without fear.
09:14:21 (Pledge of Allegiance)
09:14:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
09:14:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: (No response.)
09:14:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
09:14:39 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
09:14:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
09:14:41 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.
09:14:42 >>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
09:14:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
09:14:43 >>GWEN MILLER: At this time, Ms. Rose Ferlita will
09:14:46 present the Firefighter of the Year Award.
09:14:58 >>ROSE FERLITA: If captain Barnett and the rest of the
09:15:01 firefighters would join us, I would appreciate it.
09:15:16 Ladies and gentlemen, while we are getting ready, good
09:15:18 morning, Madam Chairman, colleagues, ladies and
09:15:20 Welcome back to City Council for this year.
09:15:23 Obviously, as it is always the burdensome task for
09:15:27 Chief Jones to pick somebody that's the firefighter of
09:15:30 the quarter amongst so many qualified men and women in
09:15:32 our department, it is even more difficult, I would
09:15:36 suspect, to pick the firefighter of the year.
09:15:38 So I will yield to him temporarily so he can give you a
09:15:41 little bit of the process about how we got to honoring
09:15:45 captain Barnett this morning.
09:15:49 >>> Dennis Jones, Tampa Fire Rescue.
09:15:51 I do want to thank you for the opportunity for us to
09:15:55 come before you and recognize the firefighter of the
09:15:57 Each and every day, 24 hours a day, you have got almost
09:16:00 600 firefighters that are on the streets of Tampa
09:16:03 providing service to the citizens.
09:16:07 Every one of them is a hero. Every one of them is a
09:16:10 And we have the daunting task of trying to select one
09:16:15 each quarter to be recognized.
09:16:18 And then from that group of four, for a year, we select
09:16:21 the firefighter of the year.
09:16:23 And I am honored today to be standing before you to
09:16:26 present the firefighter of the year for 2005, captain
09:16:38 And I'll just briefly read from the program his
09:16:42 For 27 years, captain Barnett has been a dedicated and
09:16:46 outstanding member of Tampa fire.
09:16:48 His love for the job is infectious, and he leads by
09:16:52 He was proficient in fire rescue skills, and because of
09:16:56 that became an instructor to share that knowledge with
09:16:59 He's a state certified paramedic who worked on one of
09:17:02 the busiest rescue cars in the city.
09:17:06 Providing that critical service to the citizens of
09:17:09 Tampa for 24 hours a day.
09:17:11 He also volunteered to become one of the first
09:17:14 Community Emergency Response Team instructors, or CERT
09:17:19 instructors and is still actively involved with the
09:17:21 Tampa serve program.
09:17:23 In the course of his duties and in the course of our
09:17:25 duties as fire rescue professionals, we come in contact
09:17:30 with a lot of traumatizing events, a lot of situations
09:17:36 that affect the human side of the firefighters.
09:17:40 Ken Barnett was a founding member of the Tampa Bay
09:17:44 critical incident stress team, and still provides that
09:17:47 service day and night to firefighters who have been
09:17:50 traumatized because of instances that they have
09:17:53 responded to.
09:17:53 For eleven years, captain Barnett has volunteered as a
09:17:58 counsel at camp Hopetake for children which suffered
09:18:05 scarring burn injuries and there are countless
09:18:06 individuals that benefited because of his leadership.
09:18:09 Captain Barnett is an individual who is not into
09:18:13 And for that and many other reasons we are proud to
09:18:15 recognize him as your firefighter of the year.
09:18:25 >>ROSE FERLITA: Chief, thank you.
09:18:27 Certainly I know that the chief joins me in saying it's
09:18:29 a difficult decision.
09:18:30 Because the other firefighters of the quarter are
09:18:35 excellent examples of what Chief Jones has under his
09:18:39 Bob, let me present this to you, and award you this
09:18:44 commendation from City Council.
09:18:46 Tampa City Council commendation presented to captain
09:18:49 Robert Barnett in recognition of his dedication as
09:18:52 firefighter, a state certified paramedic, member and
09:18:55 instructor of the community response team and a
09:18:57 volunteer counselor at Camp Hopetake, we are proud to
09:19:01 acknowledge that captain Robert Barnett has been
09:19:03 selected as firefighter of the year for 2005.
09:19:06 For this honor and for all you do to protect the
09:19:08 citizens of Tampa, the City Council, people that we
09:19:11 represent, and me particularly as public safety
09:19:14 chairman, say thank you, and we appreciate everything
09:19:16 you do.
09:19:18 Someone noticed.
09:19:20 Thank you very much.
09:19:21 You know, awhile back, of course, we are always
09:19:24 involved in giving police officers of the month their
09:19:26 award and firefighters of the quarter their award.
09:19:29 And so we were talking, and both chiefs and I decided
09:19:33 that it would be nice to honor the firefighter and the
09:19:35 police officer of the year.
09:19:37 Obviously, we have corporate partners that come up
09:19:40 every month or every quarter to represent the community
09:19:43 in saying thank you to those men and women.
09:19:45 And when we decided to initiate the annual award, I
09:19:52 asked another one of our corporate sponsors, Tampa
09:19:54 electric, TECO rather, to be partners in this, and they
09:19:58 have gladly done that, and they have been with us from
09:20:01 the inception about the annual award.
09:20:03 So you will have an opportunity but let us do some
09:20:06 things first and then we can introduce Tiffany.
09:20:10 I would ask that the TECO representatives come first.
09:20:12 And while they are coming up, both very good friends,
09:20:16 and it's an honor to have at the podium what TECO has
09:20:21 Stephani as now is our government relations person.
09:20:25 She has gotten a well deserved promotion.
09:20:27 Stephani is the director of community relations.
09:20:30 And congratulations.
09:20:31 And we have the continue working with her and harassing
09:20:35 her when we want.
09:20:36 And of course Al and I have been friends forever.
09:20:38 And he is the director of corporate security and
09:20:40 emergency management from TECO, has a wonderful
09:20:43 experience background.
09:20:45 So to both of you, thank you.
09:20:46 And why don't I let you do your presentation first and
09:20:50 then go from there.
09:20:53 >> Captain Barnett, on behalf of the men and women of
09:20:55 the Tampa Electric Company it's my personal privilege
09:20:58 for the third year running to be able to present the
09:21:00 firefighter of the year award.
09:21:07 It's a real pleasure.
09:21:13 >> Robert Barnett: Thank you.
09:21:15 I'm so proud for TECO stepping up.
09:21:20 It's beautiful.
09:21:22 >>ROSE FERLITA: And one of our faithful every month,
09:21:25 every quarter representatives, Steve Michelini, I
09:21:27 think, is here to present an award as well, Robert.
09:21:32 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Captain Barnett, I have dinner also.
09:21:38 While I can tell you that all there though there were
09:21:40 some very competitive folks out there that wantd this
09:21:43 award you won it hands down and I know you're very
09:21:46 proud of that as all of the firefighters, men and women
09:21:50 of Tampa are.
09:21:51 We have already given you a lot of stuff already but I
09:21:53 know you can always eat.
09:21:55 So the Hillsborough County towing association would
09:21:57 like to present with you a $50 gift certificate to your
09:22:00 choice of Carabbas or Outback.
09:22:03 It's only a small toke eastbound of the -- token of the
09:22:06 esteem they hold for you and the men and women of the
09:22:09 Tampa Fire Rescue.
09:22:11 They are also the sponsors of the annual fire rescue
09:22:13 competition, and we hope you get that back on board
09:22:16 again so you can go compete against the area
09:22:20 firefighters and show your stuff.
09:22:28 >>ROSE FERLITA: Robert, finally, I would like to
09:22:31 present this to you.
09:22:33 Captain Robert Barnett, Tampa Fire Rescue firefighter
09:22:36 of the year.
09:22:36 It's got a little insignia on the back.
09:22:39 My personal thank you for your dedication, Rose
09:22:44 Ferlita, Tampa City Council.
09:22:46 Thank you again.
09:22:47 Now if would you like, I would like to you reintroduce.
09:22:53 >>> Robert Barnett: I just like to thank the council
09:22:56 and the fire chief for this recognition.
09:22:59 It is an extremely difficult decision, because so many
09:23:02 firefighters are out there every day putting it on the
09:23:05 line, and without any particular recognition through
09:23:10 their peers.
09:23:10 It's nice on indication when they have some outside
09:23:14 recognition, and we greatly appreciate it.
09:23:16 Thank you again.
09:23:17 I'd like to take this opportunity to reintroduce my
09:23:20 daughter Tiffany Melton, Tampa Fire Rescue for five
09:23:27 I brought her into the organization, didn't bring her
09:23:31 into it but suggested she might into look into a
09:23:33 position with the organization and it became available,
09:23:35 because I know what it's done for me and I know what
09:23:38 kind of pride I've had in being associated with the
09:23:42 City of Tampa and Tampa Fire Rescue in particular, and
09:23:45 she's made me very proud what she was able to
09:23:49 accomplish while she was here.
09:23:50 And I thank you for the support you were able to give
09:23:52 her while she was working.
09:23:54 Thank you.
09:24:00 >>> Tiffany: To say that I'm proud of my father and
09:24:03 the work that he's done for the citizens of Tampa and
09:24:04 for Tampa Fire Rescue is a true understatement.
09:24:08 He's raised me in a family for the past 27 years at
09:24:12 home as a strong father, and a wonderful, loving
09:24:17 parent, and he introduced me into the love and the
09:24:19 family that is our extended family of Tampa Fire
09:24:22 And I know that he goes to work every day extremely
09:24:25 proud of what he can do and proud of serving the
09:24:28 citizens of Tampa.
09:24:29 And the city as a whole is better off for the work that
09:24:32 he has done.
09:24:33 Thank you.
09:24:42 >> I would like to know what was wrong with those five
09:24:44 years, because she's 32.
09:24:46 Plast (Laughter).
09:24:49 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think that completes our presentation
09:24:51 except for the fact that if Chief Jones and I had a
09:24:55 chance to plan our strategy this morning we probably
09:24:56 would have withdrawn all these honors.
09:24:58 He's right.
09:24:59 He absolutely was responsible for Tiffany coming but
09:25:01 you're also responsible for not helping us make her
09:25:04 So I don't know -- thank you for all the things you
09:25:08 have done, too.
09:25:09 Robert, congratulations.
09:25:10 Thank you.
09:25:22 >>GWEN MILLER: At this time we'll do the approval of
09:25:24 the agenda.
09:25:28 Are they here?
09:25:31 I didn't see them.
09:26:05 Would members of Prosperity come forward?
09:26:09 Good morning.
09:26:10 It is my honor today to present a commendation to the
09:26:13 prosperity campaign of Hillsborough and Pinellas
09:26:18 It is in recognition of the opening celebration of the
09:26:21 2006 prosperity awareness days scheduled for January 11
09:26:25 through April 15, 2006.
09:26:29 And the Tampa City Council is very proud to share in a
09:26:33 collaborative efforts of nonprofit organizations,
09:26:36 social service agencies, governments, and businesses
09:26:39 with the mission to ensure all those eligible for the
09:26:45 income tax credit and the child tax credit, and have
09:26:51 assessed to the financial education necessary to make
09:26:54 wise and firm decisions and gain access to mainstream
09:26:58 financial services.
09:27:00 We commend all of those taking part in this campaign
09:27:03 for their dedication, providing our citizens with the
09:27:06 knowledge to improve financial self-sufficiency.
09:27:12 I'm sure that all citizens of Tampa and Pinellas County
09:27:15 will take advantage of this, because this is an
09:27:16 opportunity you cannot miss.
09:27:18 And I would like to present to you this commendation
09:27:20 saying thank you for what you've done for the City of
09:27:22 Tampa and Pinellas.
09:27:30 >>> Good morning.
09:27:31 My name is Karen Busing.
09:27:33 I am co-chair of the prosperity campaign of
09:27:36 Hillsborough-Pinellas Counties.
09:27:38 This is an organization which is a collaboration of
09:27:41 governments, social service agencies, businesses,
09:27:43 non-profit corporations, all of whom are dedicated to
09:27:49 increasing awareness of the earned income tax credit
09:27:50 and increasing the number of people who apply for it.
09:27:54 Our understanding is about $15 million still being left
09:27:56 on the table in Washington in earned income tax credits
09:27:59 that belong to people in this county, money they have
09:28:02 earned, they worked for.
09:28:05 And we are working hard to ensure they do get it.
09:28:08 Standing beside me is Kristen Gopmah, an employ of the
09:28:15 Hillsborough County government and on loan to our
09:28:17 prosperity campaign.
09:28:18 She's running the effort and really doing the whole
09:28:21 We are really grateful to the City of Tampa for its
09:28:24 You all have been great.
09:28:26 We really appreciate your support.
09:28:27 Thank you so much.
09:28:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Stay right there.
09:28:33 I have to commend you.
09:28:33 Karen Busing, who was just speaking, won the leadership
09:28:36 Florida State wide honor this year for the initiation
09:28:39 of the prosperity campaign, which is really impressive.
09:28:43 She's brought millions of dollars back to our community
09:28:47 for low income people who didn't know that they could
09:28:50 apply for these earned income credits.
09:28:53 And could you just give us a quick -- because this is
09:28:56 televised -- tell us where people can go for help?
09:28:59 And is help also bilingual?
09:29:03 >> Karen: Yes.
09:29:05 You said it right the first time.
09:29:06 It is actually low and moderate income.
09:29:08 People who are earning in general less than $37,000 a
09:29:12 year depending on marital status, number of children
09:29:14 and so forth can qualify for a tax credit of up to
09:29:17 $4500 a year and if they have never applied before they
09:29:19 can go back three more years and maybe get as much as
09:29:23 Kristin will tell where you they can go for help.
09:29:25 >> Kristin: There are about 20 different locations in
09:29:28 Hillsborough County, all over the county, where people
09:29:31 can go for free, and file their tax returns.
09:29:36 They can access these sites by calling 211, and also
09:29:40 there are many web sites with our partners, the City of
09:29:43 Tampa, the children's board, and also Hillsborough
09:29:46 County health and social services that will have a
09:29:49 listing on these sites that people can access, as well
09:29:51 as the schedules.
09:29:52 And they are actually opening this Saturday.
09:29:55 And they will be open until April 15th.
09:29:57 >> Karen: The City of Tampa's web site does have a
09:30:02 link to our sites.
09:30:04 Thank you so much.
09:30:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Now we go to the approval of the agenda.
09:30:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to ask.
09:30:22 Last week, this didn't go as well as it might have.
09:30:24 And I wanted to ask our attorney Martin Shelby to
09:30:27 clarify what we can do at this point in our agenda.
09:30:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you, council.
09:30:39 To answer your question, Ms. Saul-Sena, the approval of
09:30:42 the agenda is very significant for council and for the
09:30:47 public, because what it does is it allows for changes
09:30:50 to be made to the final agenda, subject to council's
09:30:54 So, for instance, if there is a subject matter that is
09:30:56 not on the agenda, or wishes to be placed on the
09:30:59 agenda, this would be the time for council to have
09:31:01 notice of it, to have a discussion about it, and when
09:31:04 they approve the agenda to vote whether to add that, or
09:31:08 choose not to add that to the agenda, or to choose to
09:31:11 discuss it at another time, and to set that time and
09:31:14 If there are substitutions, that's the point to do it.
09:31:17 If there are continuances that are not public hearings,
09:31:20 that's the point to do it.
09:31:21 If there are additions, if staff wishes to walk on
09:31:23 things, that's the point to request council to do it.
09:31:27 And council has the option of how it wishes to proceed,
09:31:29 whether it wishes to pass it, add it to the agenda, set
09:31:32 it for another day.
09:31:33 It is the time when both council and the public has a
09:31:36 clear road map of what's going to be discussed on the
09:31:41 council's business for the day.
09:31:43 So to clarify, if there are any items of new business
09:31:46 that are not on the agenda that you wish to have a
09:31:49 discussion of whether it's appropriate to hear at that
09:31:52 point, and if you wish to discuss it or staff wishes to
09:31:55 discuss it, that's the point in time that you bring to
09:31:57 the council's attention, council can choose whether to
09:32:00 hear it and when it votes to approve the agenda as
09:32:03 amended, that's when council agrees that it will hear
09:32:05 whatever business is on the agenda for the day.
09:32:07 Does that clarify, I hope?
09:32:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Suppose there are people out there that
09:32:15 have walk-ons but we don't know about it.
09:32:18 How do we approve that?
09:32:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: This is when people would come up, and
09:32:21 the chair now has a sheet in front of her of those
09:32:24 people making requests of council to change the agenda
09:32:27 by adding on on asking for a continuance or deletion or
09:32:31 So at that point in time when they come up there,
09:32:33 council historically says we have made these changes,
09:32:36 has been taking taking that individually and then
09:32:38 approving the agenda by a vote as a whole.
09:32:41 In other words, taking them them as they come up. But
09:32:43 in effect what you are doing is you are choosing to
09:32:45 accept it as an add-on.
09:32:48 It's ultimately council's prerogative, when somebody
09:32:49 approaches the lectern and makes a request of council,
09:32:54 whether council wishes to have that on the day's agenda
09:32:57 and entertain that, if it's appropriate to be heard at
09:32:59 that particular day.
09:33:00 So what this does is it ultimately, as I said from the
09:33:03 beginning, this is council's agenda.
09:33:06 If an item is appropriate to be discussed that day and
09:33:08 wishes -- somebody wishes to add it on and meets
09:33:11 council's approval F.council doesn't wish to discuss
09:33:14 that the day or there may be other parties involved
09:33:16 that are not present and they need to be present, then
09:33:18 maybe it would be more appropriate for council to
09:33:20 choose to discuss it at another time, or a different
09:33:22 point on the agenda.
09:33:24 Does that clarify?
09:33:24 Or does it make it more confusing?
09:33:26 I tend to do that.
09:33:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
09:33:30 Under "staff reports" and unfinished business, I know
09:33:33 there are people in the audience who are here to speak
09:33:35 on some of those items.
09:33:38 So rather than wait until public comment, I would like
09:33:43 to move that we allow the public to speak for their
09:33:47 three minutes on the items under "staff reports and
09:33:50 unfinished business" as they are discussing that
09:33:54 particular item.
09:33:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I don't understand.
09:34:03 Say people that you have on your sheet here are going
09:34:06 to talk about some of these items that are here now.
09:34:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's an issue that I will have to
09:34:10 work with staff.
09:34:11 If it is listed under staff reports, and unfinished
09:34:14 business, they shouldn't sign in on that sheet, because
09:34:17 they are already on the agenda.
09:34:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's what's confusing.
09:34:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And that's something I have to work
09:34:24 with staff.
09:34:24 Because working with the clerk, and we have to inform
09:34:26 the staff about how the order of business is done now.
09:34:29 If they are already on the agenda, there's no need to
09:34:31 sign in.
09:34:32 Those who are not on the agenda who wish to appear are
09:34:34 the ones that need to sign in.
09:34:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: To restate my motion, it is while we
09:34:40 are discussing staff reports, unfinished business, that
09:34:43 if a member of the public wants to come comment on
09:34:46 that, that we allow them to comment at that time rather
09:34:50 than waiting till agenda public comment.
09:34:52 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
09:34:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
09:34:55 Question on the motion.
09:34:56 Mr. Shelby.
09:34:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is this request just for today?
09:35:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, with an eye toward looking how
09:35:03 we can make these things happen more smoothly.
09:35:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Then you are requesting that a change
09:35:07 of council's rule today which requires unanimous vote
09:35:09 of council.
09:35:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
09:35:12 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
09:35:13 Opposed, Nay.
09:35:14 >>KEVIN WHITE: Question on that, Madam Chair.
09:35:20 So we are going to give each member of the public who
09:35:23 wishes to speak on those items those three minutes.
09:35:25 Are they going to be allowed to speak on them again
09:35:28 during the general --
09:35:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, my intent was that they would
09:35:31 get their three minutes at that point.
09:35:33 >>KEVIN WHITE: I understand the intent but would we be
09:35:36 able to preclude them speaking again for another three
09:35:38 minutes during the general public audience agenda?
09:35:41 Can we stop that?
09:35:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: My advice would be if they wish to
09:35:47 speak to the item that's under unfinished business and
09:35:50 staff reports, during that time they could confine
09:35:55 obviously their discussion to that.
09:35:56 But when it comes to agenda public comment my advice
09:35:59 would be if there's other items they wish to speak on
09:36:01 that they not be precluded from that, but they not have
09:36:04 another bite of the apple to readdress something that's
09:36:07 already been previously discussed.
09:36:08 >>KEVIN WHITE: But under our rules can we preclude
09:36:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.
09:36:14 >>KEVIN WHITE: Then I will go with a A long with that.
09:36:16 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor again say Aye.
09:36:18 Opposed, Nay?
09:36:19 (Motion carried) any other changes?
09:36:22 >>MARY ALVAREZ: What about the walk-ons?
09:36:29 >>GWEN MILLER: I have to read an announcement.
09:36:33 Notice is hereby given that on January the 12th,
09:36:37 2006, at 12 p.m., Tampa City Council will go into
09:36:41 closed session pursuant to 2 A 6.0118 Florida statutes
09:36:47 for approximately one hour.
09:36:50 The meeting will convene in the City Council chambers
09:36:53 and will move to the conference room on the 8th
09:36:56 floor of City Hall for the closed session.
09:36:59 The council notice will discuss settlement
09:37:03 negotiations, strategy sessions, related to litigation,
09:37:08 expeditious, regarding to city national bank of Florida
09:37:12 and Civitas construction corporation versus City of
09:37:15 Tampa, case number 04-6188, filed in the 13th
09:37:23 judicial circuit.
09:37:24 The meeting will be attended by council member chair
09:37:28 Gwen Miller, council member rose Ferlita, Linda
09:37:31 Saul-Sena, John Dingfelder, Kevin White, Mary Alvarez,
09:37:34 and Shawn Harrison.
09:37:37 David Smith, the city attorney, Marty Shelby, City
09:37:41 Council attorney, Gerry M. GWERTZ, chief assistant city
09:37:48 attorney Donna Wysong, Cathleen O'Dowd, Julie Cole,
09:37:58 assistant city attorney, following the closed session
09:38:00 the City Council will reconvene in open session in the
09:38:03 City Council chambers so the chair can announce
09:38:08 termination of the closed session, and the council will
09:38:09 take any formal action it deems necessary.
09:38:17 Mrs. Alvarez.
09:38:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: There's a correction that I would wish
09:38:21 to make, that I think you mispronounced.
09:38:26 Instead of Civitas it should be Citivest.
09:38:32 >> Citivest versus City of Tampa.
09:38:36 Another correction to that?
09:38:42 We will now go to our staff report.
09:38:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The walk-ons.
09:38:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Heather Lamboy.
09:38:56 >>HEATHER LAMBOY: Good morning.
09:38:57 First of all I would like to wish you a happy new year.
09:39:02 This walk-on represents an event to be held by the
09:39:05 Tampa Theatre corporation with the carnival of the
09:39:08 arts, is going to be held in the Franklin public
09:39:12 There's a letter that has been signed by the mayor
09:39:15 permitting staff to transmit this request to the City
09:39:19 Council for their consideration.
09:39:22 The temporary wet zoning will occur on January 21st
09:39:26 from 9 p.m -- I'm sorry, 1 a.m.
09:39:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What's the delay on the walk-on?
09:39:34 >>> I thought I transmitted on December 27th.
09:39:38 It didn't take.
09:39:38 I didn't realize it until it was too late.
09:39:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a technical error.
09:39:45 >> So moved.
09:39:45 >> Second.
09:39:46 (Motion carried).
09:39:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. David Smith has an introduction.
09:39:52 >>DAVID SMITH: Here once again to introduce a new
09:39:55 assistant city attorney to you.
09:39:57 Her name is Janice McLane.
09:40:02 We call her Jan, of course.
09:40:04 She is actually born in Tampa.
09:40:06 And was raised as an Air Force brat, undercongratulate
09:40:12 at USF, went to Stetson law school, has been a
09:40:15 coordinator and interim director for the Hillsborough
09:40:17 River greenways task force, has been a lobbyist on
09:40:21 water issues for Hillsborough County during the 1996
09:40:24 legislative session, dealing particularly with
09:40:32 Hillsborough bay, something that's very timely for our
09:40:35 She has been employed by all of the big three.
09:40:38 Not an accounting firm.
09:40:39 Those are the water management district.
09:40:41 Southwest Florida Water Management District, South
09:40:43 Florida Water Management District, and St. Johns River
09:40:47 Water Management District.
09:40:49 She was last employed as a water use regulation and
09:40:52 planning attorney for St. Johns River Water Management
09:40:56 And obviously we will be using her in the water law
09:41:00 And we are very happy to have her.
09:41:02 She's Jan McLane.
09:41:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Welcome.
09:41:06 >> Jan: I want to take this opportunity to thank you
09:41:11 for the opportunity to serve you.
09:41:12 I look forward to working with each of you.
09:41:15 >>GWEN MILLER: We look forward to working with you,
09:41:17 too. Mr. Morris Massey.
09:41:21 >>MORRIS MASSEY: This is a walk-on item in connection
09:41:26 with item 45 on your agenda.
09:41:29 That is a proposed change to the USF-DRI. The
09:41:37 developer or petitioner miss noticed this public
09:41:39 hearing, and under our ordinance, a minimum of 30 days
09:41:43 must be provided.
09:41:44 So I will give to the clerk and give to you all a
09:41:48 proposed resolution resetting the public hearing for
09:41:50 February 16th -- if council will.
09:42:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
09:42:06 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
09:42:07 (Motion carried).
09:42:09 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
09:42:21 >>> Good morning.
09:42:22 I'm here for your consideration.
09:42:24 You have a location liability release form that we
09:42:28 would like to have added to the agenda for your
09:42:30 acceptance and approval.
09:42:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
09:42:34 >> Second.
09:42:34 (Motion carried).
09:42:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Cathy Ginster.
09:42:44 >> Good morning, chair, council.
09:42:46 I'm here on brownfield designation application for 1608
09:42:50 north 43rd street.
09:42:52 And the reason I'm requesting that you affirm by motion
09:42:58 today an additional public hearing that's required
09:43:02 under the Florida State statute on brownfields.
09:43:05 This is a public hearing, that because of where the
09:43:09 property is located, is requested to have a public
09:43:14 hearing on-site to allow for the local residents and
09:43:17 neighbors to give additional public input.
09:43:19 This hearing is in addition to two public hearings that
09:43:24 will be also held on this matter before the council in
09:43:28 council chambers.
09:43:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Is there an item number on that?
09:43:32 >>GWEN MILLER: No.
09:43:32 It's setting a public hearing.
09:43:35 >>> The state law requires that City Council, because
09:43:38 of where the property is located, to announce a public
09:43:42 hearing for the local neighbors to attend, at the
09:43:49 property that's going to be redeveloped at 16508 north
09:43:53 43rd street.
09:43:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Announce it publicly?
09:43:59 Is there a document that needs to be read?
09:44:01 >>> Yes. This was sent by memorandum in advance to
09:44:04 City Council with the public announcement.
09:44:06 It does need to be read by the chair.
09:44:09 Thank you.
09:44:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Needs to be read now?
09:44:13 A public hearing will be held regarding a proposed
09:44:16 brownfield designation at the DARICO -- I'm not Spanish
09:44:30 speaking -- with JBS corporation for the site at 1608
09:44:34 north 43rd street, Tampa, Florida.
09:44:36 This public hearing will be held at 1608 north 43rd
09:44:41 street, Tampa, Florida on Thursday, January 9th,
09:44:44 2006, at 6:00 p.m
09:44:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Need a motion by council to set that
09:44:49 public hearing.
09:44:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
09:44:51 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
09:44:52 (Motion carried).
09:44:55 >>> Thank you very much.
09:44:55 >>GWEN MILLER: You're welcome.
09:45:00 Dennis Fernandez.
09:45:09 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Manager for historic preservation.
09:45:12 We want to let you know we will be requesting a
09:45:15 continuance on item 39.
09:45:17 There was a memo filed for that item.
09:45:19 And I'll be back at 10:00 when that public hearing is
09:45:23 >>GWEN MILLER: We'll wait till then, yes.
09:45:31 Mr. Roy LaMotte.
09:45:39 >>ROY LAMOTTE: Transportation manager.
09:45:42 I'm here to offer an apology that I was unable to meet
09:45:47 with councilman Ferlita before today's meeting relative
09:45:50 to an item that you have on second reading on a new
09:45:54 And I would just like to know if it's your pleasure to
09:45:56 go forward or -- the item, it would be 36.
09:46:14 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, I would like to add
09:46:17 something to what Mr. LaMotte just said.
09:46:20 We don't need to get into issues here, but I just want
09:46:23 to tell you that Mr. LaMotte made every effort to meet
09:46:26 with me.
09:46:27 There is some issue of policy where he could not meet
09:46:30 in my drug story.
09:46:31 That's an old story, need to move on.
09:46:33 Made every effort to meet with me as late as last night
09:46:36 but he had an animal that was ill, and I'm hoping that
09:46:39 that got taken care of.
09:46:41 He was even nice enough to offer to meet me at my home
09:46:46 last night, because there's some issue about whatever
09:46:48 administration's policy is.
09:46:49 But, Roy, I'm okay, and I think that was kind of on the
09:46:55 side of caution.
09:46:55 Mrs. Saul-Sena told me to take a look at it because of
09:46:59 problems we had with Waverly.
09:47:00 I'm sure if there's anything else that surface was N
09:47:03 terms of South Tampa development that we need to low
09:47:05 at, to also institute, I'm sure you will be very
09:47:07 accommodating and help us with those constituent
09:47:11 Not putting words in your mouth.
09:47:13 >>ROY LAMOTTE: We will be glad to be there for you or
09:47:15 any other council member on this.
09:47:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Other comments from council members?
09:47:20 Thank you.
09:47:22 We now go to our unfinished business, item number 3.
09:47:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry.
09:47:28 I believe two requests.
09:47:29 Number one is just a reminder for council on item
09:47:33 number 35 that is the ethics, that's already been filed
09:47:41 with the changes that council requested at the time it
09:47:44 will be discussed.
09:47:45 And it will be brought back to first reading.
09:47:48 So that's a correction there.
09:47:49 It will be a first reading on the substituted
09:47:54 Also, I believe council, the chair has a request from
09:47:57 the administration to allow Mr. Daignault to speak.
09:48:01 He's requesting ten minutes.
09:48:03 Madam Chair, I don't want to put any words in the
09:48:07 I believe it's relating to the water fee issue.
09:48:09 So it's a request by Mr. Daignault to have council --
09:48:12 to address council on that issue for a period of ten
09:48:15 minutes, and that would require again an adoption of
09:48:17 the agenda, approval of council.
09:48:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Need to waive the rules on the three
09:48:23 minutes to allow for the ten minutes?
09:48:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I think if you leave it on the agenda
09:48:32 it would constitute that.
09:48:33 >>SHAWN HARRISON: The 10 minutes, this will not be 10
09:48:37 minutes, I'm sure.
09:48:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Set it for 1:30?
09:48:43 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I wonder if we can set it for when we
09:48:47 come back from lunch.
09:48:47 We know we are going to have to come back from lunch
09:48:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why?
09:48:51 The morning agenda is short as it is.
09:48:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It is not short.
09:48:56 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have everybody here for something
09:48:58 on old business, now is going to be allowed to speak,
09:49:01 and we don't want to hold them up while the discussion
09:49:03 is completely off the agenda.
09:49:04 >>KEVIN WHITE: A time certain, the first item we pick
09:49:08 up when we come back.
09:49:11 Motion by council members?
09:49:12 >>KEVIN WHITE: I second that.
09:49:13 (Motion carried).
09:49:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I would ask for a motion to approve
09:49:17 the agenda as amended always Alvarez so moved.
09:49:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
09:49:21 (Motion carried).
09:49:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Anybody who is here to talk about
09:49:24 the water issue, after lunch at 1:30.
09:49:35 >>ROSE FERLITA: Including you, Steve.
09:49:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Are we ready to proceed?
09:49:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Item 3.
09:49:49 Dipping ding move the resolution.
09:49:50 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
09:49:51 (Motion carried).
09:49:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 4.
09:49:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe there's a report filed.
09:50:00 >>SHAWN HARRISON: This was a motion that Ms. Ferlita
09:50:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Administration to appear.
09:50:09 >>ROSE FERLITA: Oh, yes, I'm sorry, I thought we
09:50:12 were -- on 4, yes.
09:50:15 I had asked that the administration do everything they
09:50:17 could to expedite this, and coincidentally or not
09:50:21 coincidentally the next morning I understand there was
09:50:23 a directive or announcement from the mayor they were
09:50:26 going to expedite this and try to help officer O'Brien.
09:50:29 So there's no reason to go further with that, except
09:50:32 that I thank them for doing that, and I believe that
09:50:34 all of us in one way or the other are trying to make
09:50:37 attempts to try to help Mr. O'Brien financially, and
09:50:42 it's a wonderful group, team effort.
09:50:48 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Mrs. Ferlita, for what
09:50:50 you're doing.
09:50:51 On February the 4th, the New Tampa community, in
09:50:55 conjunction with some other folks, are going to hold a
09:50:57 fund-raiser for officer O'Brien and his family.
09:51:02 So if you're free February 4th, the evening, that's
09:51:04 a Saturday, block your calendars off and we'll give you
09:51:08 more details about that.
09:51:09 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thanks back to you for doing that,
09:51:13 It's great.
09:51:14 That's incredibly good.
09:51:15 >>THE CLERK: Yesterday, I believe, a memorandum was
09:51:19 delivered to council.
09:51:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes D.everybody get a memorandum?
09:51:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
09:51:23 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
09:51:26 Item number 5.
09:51:27 >>MORRIS MASSEY: Legal department.
09:51:32 This is in connection with the notice provided relative
09:51:34 to the streetlight special assessments that came up
09:51:38 when we went the last round.
09:51:40 I have some proposed changes to chapter 23 which
09:51:43 establishes our streetlight program that I would like
09:51:45 to hand out to council and just discuss briefly with
09:51:48 you all and to the clerk.
09:51:56 The issue that arose is that in one instance there was
09:52:00 no notice recorded by a developer of a new subdivision
09:52:06 that they were intending to seek a special assessment
09:52:08 for streetlights.
09:52:10 What we are proposing to do is amend our streetlight
09:52:13 provisions in our code to mandate that for new
09:52:16 development that the following things must be done.
09:52:20 There must be first a legend firmly placed on the front
09:52:23 page of the final plat which states an application has
09:52:24 been filed for special assessment, streetlights in the
09:52:28 subdivision if approved, all lots in the subdivision
09:52:31 shall be subject to an annual special assessment for
09:52:34 the cost of streetlights.
09:52:35 The legend will be capitalized, be in bold and will be
09:52:38 in 14-point type to make it clear on the front page of
09:52:41 the plat.
09:52:43 We are also proposing that we put the following in the
09:52:48 agreement that gets record in the plat itself, that it
09:52:51 contain a notice that states as follows:
09:52:54 As the developer of the subdivision which includes the
09:52:56 land described in exhibit A attached to hereby provides
09:53:01 notice to all potential purchasers of lots in the
09:53:03 subdivision that the undersigned has applied for
09:53:05 special assessment, to pay for the cost of streetlights
09:53:08 in the subdivision, if approved by the City Council,
09:53:10 the City of Tampa, the owners of all lots will be
09:53:12 subject to an annual special assessment for up to 20
09:53:15 years to pay for the costs of streetlights in the
09:53:18 Again, this would be in bold, all caps, and in 14-point
09:53:22 So it should show up in two places in everyone's title
09:53:25 work, notice, that application has been filed.
09:53:27 So it should not be a surprise to anyone.
09:53:29 And this would be a requirement before the assessment
09:53:33 even comes before you all for consideration.
09:53:34 So hopefully that will address that issue.
09:53:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:53:39 Mr. Thom Snelling, item 6.
09:53:51 >>THOM SNELLING: Land Development Coordination.
09:53:54 Item 6.
09:53:56 Awhile back, council asked Cathy and Morris to take a
09:54:14 look at during rezonings, when you're looking at the
09:54:16 rezoning petitions, and a map is put in front of you
09:54:19 and a report that you get, it shows the surrounding
09:54:23 And on those maps it's listed on a PD and the question,
09:54:28 what were those PDs, how can you use that information
09:54:30 to help you judge and analyze what's before you?
09:54:35 Basically what happens when you see a PD, you don't
09:54:37 really get a clear picture of what is going on in that
09:54:41 project, on that particular property, because it just
09:54:44 says PD.
09:54:44 There's no further identifiers as to what is there,
09:54:47 what is not there, what's allowed, what protections are
09:54:52 Euclidean district, on the other hand, with F you look
09:54:54 at an RS-50 or some other type of Euclidean district,
09:54:57 now that the land development regulations are providing
09:55:00 the typical public health, safety and welfare kinds of
09:55:03 things for that property, so you can use that
09:55:05 information in helping to make your decision.
09:55:08 Council asked if there was a way to go ahead and
09:55:10 further enlighten some information on this T zoning
09:55:16 So what staff is proposing to do, as the zonings are
09:55:22 coming before us, and petitions are filed, and we are
09:55:24 looking at it, one additional level of review is we'll
09:55:28 look at the PDs that are within a specific radius of
09:55:31 the property being requested to rezone, whether that's
09:55:35 one block or two blocks, we're not sure.
09:55:37 Typically when we are looking at some other things
09:55:39 we'll go out two or three blocks in either direction.
09:55:42 We just want to see what makes the most sense and bring
09:55:45 back that kind of information as part of your staff
09:55:47 reports, as to what gets shown on the Elmo, so
09:55:50 everybody else can see.
09:55:51 That information that we will bring back to you so you
09:55:54 have at your fingertips will include now the height,
09:55:57 square footage, what's permitted, when it was approved
09:56:00 and other kinds of uses that were allowed in that
09:56:03 planned development, in and around the project that is
09:56:05 before you for your evaluation, and whether or not it
09:56:08 should be rezoned.
09:56:12 The evaluations, typically what we do do is rely on a
09:56:18 lot of our own institutional knowledge, and as you
09:56:21 know, have quite a long history with my staff, and they
09:56:25 talk about this, and existing PDs are considered in
09:56:30 the final staff report to the council.
09:56:31 But we feel with this additional information, it will
09:56:33 give you more of that data up front prior to.
09:56:38 So that's basically the proposal.
09:56:40 You can take a look look at what we have.
09:56:42 I don't want to read it verbatim to you.
09:56:44 Eventually, I think what we are going to do is as we
09:56:47 are updating these things, we are going to go ahead and
09:56:50 scan virtually all of the planned developments
09:56:53 districts that we have.
09:56:54 And as we're coming forward, we'll be able to be more
09:56:58 efficient with providing that kind of information.
09:57:00 To actually put it on the map and list out, you know,
09:57:03 some text alongside the PD, yeah, exactly, it will be
09:57:07 so small, so minute, that it's not really practical to
09:57:11 show it visually on the map.
09:57:12 But as we're scanning these documents in -- and it's
09:57:15 going to be about an 18 to 24 month process, because we
09:57:19 have about 15 years of these documents now -- and
09:57:22 council was very gracious.
09:57:24 And when we got the money from last year we spent it on
09:57:27 buying E-size scanner which is this very large scan
09:57:29 theory can look at the PDs.
09:57:32 We are using our technology along with info so it will
09:57:37 be faster for our staff to provide that information.
09:57:42 But everything I have talked about is a little more
09:57:44 detailed in the handout I have given you.
09:57:46 If you have any questions, I will be glad to answer.
09:57:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
09:57:54 >>THOM SNELLING: Okay.
09:57:54 I'm also here to talk on item number 7.
09:57:59 >>GWEN MILLER: I was going to ask the council members,
09:58:03 would you like to finish items 8 through 11 first and
09:58:06 then come back to 7 or just go ahead and do 7?
09:58:10 Go ahead, Mr. Snelling, 7.
09:58:13 >>THOM SNELLING: I have a handout.
09:58:14 One of the questions was asked of us last week, what
09:58:29 what does your program look like over the last six to
09:58:32 eight months in the short term how quickly we can do
09:58:34 perhaps a full-blown corridor study for the Adamo
09:58:38 What you have before you is a breakdown of the projects
09:58:41 that we have currently in the hopper, and a variety of
09:58:45 stages of completion.
09:58:49 Very quickly going through it, as you know, chapter 13,
09:58:51 we met last week with the tree committee, we finally
09:58:54 got a resolve on the document that's going to come back
09:58:57 to you, that will be back next week with, first and
09:58:59 second reading, second reading hopefully coming in
09:59:01 That will be something that we'll get off the table.
09:59:04 Very important project that's been ongoing for the past
09:59:07 few months is joint land use study with MacDill Air
09:59:10 Force Base and the City of Tampa.
09:59:13 We do have a consultant that's helping us do that.
09:59:15 But the grant that we were allowed to have outlines
09:59:19 certain very specific things that they can do and
09:59:22 certain very specific things that the city must also
09:59:25 I have a number of staff members working on that
09:59:27 project as well.
09:59:31 The voluminous chapter 27 clean-up provisions, we are
09:59:35 calling them, has been languishing for some time.
09:59:38 People kept adding things to them.
09:59:40 We have met with T.H.A.N. a couple months ago, met with
09:59:44 the Tampa Bay builders association, met with city
09:59:46 staff, we have two meetings set up next week and the
09:59:49 following week with City Council to finalize those
09:59:52 It will go to the Planning Commission in March, then be
09:59:54 in front of this body for first reading, public
09:59:57 hearing, the end of March and adoption hopefully by
10:00:00 March 30th.
10:00:01 Wet zoning, as you know, that's another project that's
10:00:03 going on.
10:00:04 We are finalizing that language and we hope to have
10:00:07 something for council sometime next -- in the next few
10:00:11 weeks in February, present to you, this is what we are
10:00:13 going to do to present you with the enforcement issues,
10:00:18 and then public hearing and charge adoption on March 6.
10:00:20 Chapter 3 does not have to two to the Planning
10:00:22 Commission because it's not technically a Land
10:00:24 Development Code so it will just come straight to
10:00:27 What we have done is we pulled out, because there is a
10:00:29 great deal of interest in the Kennedy Boulevard
10:00:32 We have separated that out from the second batch of
10:00:34 chapter 27 hearings that we were going to have, and
10:00:38 hopefully that will start back in front of City Council
10:00:41 with some workshops in March with the Planning
10:00:44 Commission and City Council first hearings and adoption
10:00:49 School concurrency, some of you have been very --
10:00:52 following that very closely.
10:00:54 The city and Hillsborough County V have been selected
10:00:56 as a pilot program.
10:00:57 That is faster an fast track.
10:01:01 This has to be done by the middle of the summer, in
10:01:05 June, and the deliverables on that have to be an
10:01:08 updated interlocal agreement, which specifies how
10:01:12 concurrency is going to work, levels of service, things
10:01:14 Lykes like that.
10:01:15 And then a comp plan element that goes right along with
10:01:18 So that whole package has to be done in six months.
10:01:20 The Planning Commission, school board, my staff, and
10:01:24 Randy goer's staff, and many others are working very
10:01:26 hard on that.
10:01:27 And that is a huge thing that's going forward.
10:01:30 The EAR is also coming to a close.
10:01:32 You have been receiving, some of you, some e-mails on
10:01:35 that from Randy Goers.
10:01:36 My staff is also working on that.
10:01:38 That's coming up in July.
10:01:39 And then the whole sufficiency findings and adoption of
10:01:44 that document will take place right after that.
10:01:46 And then the comprehensive plan update will start
10:01:49 immediately thereafter.
10:01:57 I feel -- well, don't want to say that.
10:01:59 I understand sometimes council gets frustrated when
10:02:03 some of the projects that are important to all of us
10:02:05 don't happen as quickly as possible.
10:02:08 But we have got these things in the queue.
10:02:10 So for the next six months, those are where land
10:02:14 development's priorities are.
10:02:15 Those are the things that we are going to work on,
10:02:17 conclude, wrap up, to get off the table.
10:02:22 The second page of the handout shows other projects
10:02:24 that are out there that are already in the queue lining
10:02:27 up to do that.
10:02:28 40th Street, you have been working on that with
10:02:30 transportation, and of that widening program.
10:02:32 We even started to meet with the Temple Crest
10:02:34 neighborhoods and some of the other neighborhood groups
10:02:36 out there and starting their land use revisions and
10:02:38 their zoning revisions.
10:02:39 We have met with them a couple of times.
10:02:41 We are doing the tour, I think, next month with them
10:02:43 driving around to be see what that is.
10:02:45 That's another huge project coming forward very
10:02:48 Gandy and west shore, as you know, that's a huge area
10:02:50 down there. We have been requested to do a lot of land
10:02:53 use rezoning analysis, infrastructure analysis down
10:02:56 there there.
10:02:57 That's something else in there that's been touted as
10:03:00 being very important, something we have to work on.
10:03:02 The Tampa Heights, you know about.
10:03:04 You have been out there. That's getting ready to come
10:03:06 at you.
10:03:06 We have been working very hard on that.
10:03:07 That's something else we have to focus on.
10:03:09 The different CRAs in Drew Park and East Tampa are
10:03:13 both getting ready to come to a head.
10:03:15 Believe it or not the street code is finally going
10:03:19 going to move forward to talk about the Rae names which
10:03:22 we have been done there and -- been there and done
10:03:25 that, renaming, and routinely someone comes before you
10:03:29 and is upset about an adverse change and what is the
10:03:31 So we are finally going to codify that.
10:03:34 And then once that's done, we are doing the complete
10:03:36 revision with the analysis of chapter 27.
10:03:39 And that's a huge project.
10:03:42 That's what staff is working on.
10:03:43 (Bell sounds).
10:03:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Good, Mr. Snelling.
10:03:47 >>THOM SNELLING: And the answer on the Adamo corridor,
10:03:51 if you are looking for definitive, that study should
10:03:54 take place as part of the overall comprehensive plan
10:03:59 We just simply do not have time or staff to jump away
10:04:03 from any of these projects I presented to you, focus on
10:04:07 that to do a legitimate, honest-to-God land use
10:04:12 analysis, economic analysis, land use analysis with, a
10:04:18 hard legitimate look at a corridor study.
10:04:20 How that affects the rezoning that's in front of you is
10:04:23 entirely your call.
10:04:24 It's entirely your call.
10:04:28 Whether you make that final jump and rezone that
10:04:31 property to the YC district, there's folks here that
10:04:35 are going to talk about that.
10:04:36 Or whether you don't is council's call.
10:04:40 The reason it was brought forward -- and I have to tell
10:04:43 you very quickly, I misspoke last week and I didn't
10:04:46 mean to when I said that it was holding up some of the
10:04:50 other parts of YC 8, 7 and 9 in the northern portion.
10:04:56 I didn't realize that.
10:04:58 Those had already been rezoned.
10:05:00 So that is not being held up.
10:05:01 There's just some. Portions along the Adamo, Third
10:05:04 Street, fourth street, that are being held a little bit
10:05:07 but the big part of that, council adopted that a few
10:05:10 months ago, a few weeks ago.
10:05:12 So I do want to clarify that because I did say that
10:05:14 incorrectly last time.
10:05:18 I'll answer any questions you have.
10:05:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Snelling, I really appreciate your
10:05:24 Believe me, I think you people do the -- you are the
10:05:28 work horse of the city administration, and certainly
10:05:33 I'm the first one to give you all kudos for what you
10:05:36 all do.
10:05:38 And, yes, I want to talk to you about the Adamo
10:05:42 Because I've read this letter that came from Mr.
10:05:51 And I think I have to concur with a few of the comments
10:05:53 that he made on this, especially if we can't ask the
10:05:57 Planning Commission to do the study, and that would
10:06:02 take it away from you all, because we do need answers.
10:06:05 And we've always asked Planning Commission to help with
10:06:08 us these studies and so on.
10:06:09 So I don't know of any reason why we can't -- unless
10:06:13 you have one that I don't know about -- why can't we
10:06:16 ask the Planning Commission to do the study and help
10:06:18 you out in this?
10:06:22 >>THOM SNELLING: You certainly could ask the Planning
10:06:24 Commission to do it.
10:06:26 I don't know what their answer will be to you.
10:06:28 But, I mean, it is certainly within council's
10:06:30 authority, privilege, function, that their Planning
10:06:35 Commission, who is charted to do work for the City of
10:06:37 Tampa, tend to take a particular study that the council
10:06:40 wants, if that's their desire.
10:06:42 I can't see -- I don't want to speak for the Planning
10:06:45 Commission certainly.
10:06:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: No, but do you have any objections to
10:06:48 us asking the Planning Commission?
10:06:51 >>THOM SNELLING: Personally, no, ma'am.
10:06:53 We are only participating because there's going to be
10:06:55 information they'll ask us for.
10:06:58 All of the depth of the analysis, and the economic
10:07:00 studies, the transportation studies, it's the whole
10:07:03 notion of coordinating such an effort.
10:07:06 That's huge.
10:07:06 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I know, but this has been going on for
10:07:10 a little over two years now.
10:07:11 And people in that area really deserve an answer,
10:07:14 whether it's pro or con, it's time for us -- it is part
10:07:18 of the Kennedy Boulevard study -- not the Kennedy, but
10:07:22 the state road 60.
10:07:24 And so it's time for us to do something about it.
10:07:29 And I'll wait until I hear comments from the rest of my
10:07:33 But I would like to ask Planning Commission to help us
10:07:38 with this study.
10:07:39 >>THOM SNELLING: Could I get a copy?
10:07:42 My office has been out of commission for the last four
10:07:44 days because there was a flooding problem.
10:07:46 And I may have been sent an e-mail or sent some mail
10:07:49 that I haven't accessed.
10:07:50 But I haven't seen Mr. Williams letter if it's
10:07:53 something different.
10:07:54 If I can have a chance to look at that.
10:07:56 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'll give you a copy.
10:08:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Snelling, you have given us such
10:08:06 an enormous list of projects that you're currently
10:08:10 undertaking, and I have to point out that there are two
10:08:12 things that I know you're working on that you didn't
10:08:15 list here.
10:08:16 One is the Channel District plan, which you are also
10:08:20 involved in.
10:08:20 And another is the non-glitch version of chapter 27,
10:08:25 which you all promised as soon as we get through the
10:08:28 glitch portion we'll start to work on.
10:08:31 This is an extraordinary amount of work.
10:08:33 When I spoke with you earlier, you said that you're
10:08:37 hiring several new staff people, which --
10:08:40 >>THOM SNELLING: I will have two brand new in a month
10:08:43 and I know Cathy is saying -- looking at me now saying
10:08:46 why are you saying that?
10:08:47 But planning on two new planners in a month.
10:08:50 We have interviews.
10:08:52 And Jimmy Cook and I are already interviewing with two
10:08:55 new planners.
10:08:56 When that happens, within four weeks, it will be the
10:08:59 first time in ten years that I will have had a full
10:09:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Snelling, you have so much to
10:09:05 And I need to point out a couple of changes to your
10:09:08 list, in addition to the Channel District and chapter
10:09:10 27, under List, you have down the tree and landscape
10:09:16 code, the first public hearing on January 26th, we
10:09:20 are supposed to look at that at 1:30.
10:09:22 I'm going to ask council, we had a meeting about the
10:09:26 school concurrency the other day, and on January
10:09:29 26th at 1:30, it turns out that there is a joint
10:09:32 meeting among all the municipalities, the county
10:09:35 commission, Temple Terrace, Plant City, and I think
10:09:38 City Council needs to participate, to discuss this
10:09:41 concurrency thing.
10:09:41 It's going to be held at Jefferson high school.
10:09:44 The school board has organized it.
10:09:45 We need to be involved in that. The schools are so
10:09:48 completely important.
10:09:49 So -- that's the same time we scheduled this other
10:09:53 So we might need to schedule the tree and landscape
10:09:56 code to be heard at eleven, not 1:30 because we all
10:09:59 need to be at this thing at 1:30.
10:10:01 Secondly, I received a letter that I'll share with the
10:10:04 other council members.
10:10:05 The Westshore alliance said their stuff is ready to go
10:10:08 and they requested if we are looking at Kennedy
10:10:09 Boulevard in March and April that we move the Westshore
10:10:12 overlay revisions.
10:10:14 Because Westshore and Kennedy are up against each
10:10:17 other, and the Westshore has already been agreed upon.
10:10:20 >>THOM SNELLING: I can take a look at that, sure.
10:10:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So those two things need to, you
10:10:27 know, come in -- come in at the same time.
10:10:30 >>THOM SNELLING: Under chapter 13 I want to make sure
10:10:34 we have notice.
10:10:36 If we notice it that we have enough time.
10:10:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's more than two weeks ahead.
10:10:42 If you need to make a motion I hope Mr. Shelby will cue
10:10:45 me in.
10:10:48 Given the breadth and complexity of the list that you
10:10:50 provided us, I would caution my fellow council members
10:10:53 against adding anything to this list.
10:10:59 >>KEVIN WHITE: I just want to make a comment.
10:11:04 I see this is a lengthy list, but I also agree with Ms.
10:11:09 But one thing about this list, certainly as some things
10:11:13 go off some things will go on.
10:11:15 This list will never get any short.
10:11:16 Especially as our city continues to grow.
10:11:19 We spoke last week on just basically getting it on the
10:11:23 radar screen.
10:11:24 All we are doing is asking for -- to start being
10:11:30 studied tomorrow, especially by your department.
10:11:32 I think what Ms. Alvarez was basically advocating is
10:11:35 that we ask the Planning Commission to start looking
10:11:38 into something.
10:11:39 Who knows where it's going to fit on their calendar?
10:11:42 It may be two months before they begin to start looking
10:11:44 at it and I it may be another two months before they
10:11:47 start -- start preparing the documents to ask the City
10:11:50 of Tampa what to look for.
10:11:52 And we all know how government bureaucracy works.
10:11:55 It may be this time next year before we even start on
10:11:58 the study.
10:11:59 But it's just one of those things to say we are asking
10:12:02 if you all would undertake that, we will participate in
10:12:04 that with you, and we want to get everybody some
10:12:08 And I just think it's an issue of fairness, and if they
10:12:13 can't participate in it, at least we have asked and
10:12:15 we've done our part and given them the opportunity to
10:12:18 chime in and help us resolve an issue.
10:12:21 I guess we'll wait to hear what the public has to say.
10:12:24 But that's the way I personally feel at this point in
10:12:30 >>> I can certainly make contact with Terry Cullen at
10:12:32 the Planning Commission.
10:12:33 I know Phyllis is here, and she's hearing what's
10:12:36 happening here and she can supplement my conversation
10:12:38 with Terry, filling I am him in on what the mood of
10:12:41 council is and certainly what the request is.
10:12:44 She'll be able to communicate that.
10:12:45 And I can certainly ask Terry to take a look at it and
10:12:48 to say, now, what about doing this?
10:12:50 >>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Snelling, six months from now, if
10:12:53 this slate is wiped clean, this is a six-month project,
10:13:01 if you don't foresee --
10:13:03 >>THOM SNELLING: We'll -- it comes off the top and it
10:13:13 kind of keeps scrolling up. The stuff that's on that
10:13:16 second page, there's no dates on this stuff for a
10:13:19 specific reason, because it is still kind of nebulous.
10:13:22 I know these are the next hot items we have to work on.
10:13:25 But we haven't really got to the point where we can
10:13:27 assign specific dates and times and schedules.
10:13:29 >>KEVIN WHITE: On your second page, the 40th Street
10:13:33 issue, that was an issue before I got on this council.
10:13:36 And you don't even have a date on it yet.
10:13:38 But it's on the calendar to be looked at.
10:13:41 And then I guess that's the point that I'm trying to
10:13:44 get at.
10:13:45 Thank you.
10:13:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
10:13:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
10:13:50 The way I look at it is, I like to look at sort of the
10:13:54 bigger picture on this.
10:13:56 And from the city's perspective and the city's
10:13:59 And he have single budget that comes around now, we
10:14:02 have to write a check for, I think, it's like 7 or
10:14:07 $800,000 a year to subsidize Centro Ybor.
10:14:11 Isn't that our annual requirement?
10:14:14 I know it's in the hundreds of thousands.
10:14:16 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's to pay for the second mortgage.
10:14:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I understand.
10:14:21 The bottom line is we have a suffering project over
10:14:24 there and the City of Tampa met, the CRA -- anyway, we
10:14:31 spend hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars sub
10:14:34 deciding that project.
10:14:35 We have problems in Ybor.
10:14:35 We hired a consultant.
10:14:37 What did the consultant tell us? I went to one or two
10:14:39 of those meetings.
10:14:40 One of the things I heard loud and clear was that wave
10:14:42 to get more residential units in Ybor City if we want
10:14:46 to make Centro work, and if we want to make Ybor the
10:14:51 kind of place that is alive-work-play community.
10:14:57 We need to get more residential units there.
10:14:59 Now, we are doing that.
10:15:00 And I'm sure Vince can probably point to us and tell us
10:15:03 about, you know, a five-unit project here, or ten-unit
10:15:08 project there, okay?
10:15:10 And that's all fine and good.
10:15:11 But that's not the type of increased density that is
10:15:14 going to turn Centro Ybor around and make it a
10:15:17 profitable venture.
10:15:19 That's one of my biggest concerns.
10:15:21 The city has huge investments in the parking garage,
10:15:26 And as a result, I don't think we can sit and wait
10:15:31 And I'm not saying this for the benefit of any
10:15:33 particular developer out there, because you know me,
10:15:37 that's not where I'm coming from.
10:15:38 Where I'm coming from is the fact that the city
10:15:41 investment in Ybor City is huge.
10:15:43 And I think as a result, this needs to be a big
10:15:47 How do we get more units in Ybor City?
10:15:51 Now, that's not to disregard the fact that it's
10:15:54 historically preserved, and historic preservation is
10:15:57 extremely critical.
10:15:58 Any additional density in Ybor City has to be sensitive
10:16:02 to historic preservation.
10:16:04 We all know that.
10:16:05 But at the same time, along Adamo Drive, there are
10:16:09 large chunks of land in the tune of five, ten, fifteen
10:16:13 acre chunks that could be the kind of density that we
10:16:16 need and want in Ybor City as a whole.
10:16:21 So with all of that said, I think we need to expedite
10:16:24 And Thom, I'm not saying we should put it on your back.
10:16:28 I'm saying, I agree wholeheartedly we should go to Mr.
10:16:32 Hunter and a very strong letter from our chair and say
10:16:35 we want to expedite this prior to the comp plan update.
10:16:38 Because the comp plan update, we all know, is going to
10:16:41 be a huge project and a long and lengthy process.
10:16:44 I think this process of looking at Adamo Drive, like I
10:16:49 said last week, should take precedence and go in
10:16:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison.
10:16:55 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I agree with councilman Dingfelder
10:16:58 that we have a suffering investment there that we are
10:17:02 holding the bag on until it gets better, and we have
10:17:06 got to do everything we can to make sure that's as
10:17:09 successful as soon as possible.
10:17:10 I don't think we need to do the study to make that
10:17:13 happen, though.
10:17:15 This all came about because the Planning Commission
10:17:18 made some comments that they think that out of the
10:17:23 whole YC-6 or 7 or whatever this was that was in front
10:17:27 of the Planning Commission at the time, there might be
10:17:30 exceptions to the height variance, or to the height
10:17:34 It didn't say anything more than that.
10:17:36 They just wanted us to be on notice of that.
10:17:39 And I think that we all recognize that the Adamo
10:17:42 corridor can be a different height requirement from the
10:17:50 rest of Ybor as a whole.
10:17:52 But we can deal with that on a case-by-case basis.
10:17:55 And I don't think that we have to undertake another
10:17:58 study to determine what those hyheight restrictions
10:18:03 ought to be.
10:18:04 I don't see why anyone should be -- we can satisfy
10:18:07 everyone here.
10:18:08 We can satisfy everyone that wants us to move forward
10:18:11 with the YC 6 or 7 designation, that came from the
10:18:16 Planning Commission.
10:18:17 There are people here in the audience to speak about
10:18:20 There are people here in the audience that also want to
10:18:22 be relieved from those height restrictions, if called
10:18:27 There's no reason why we can't take those cases up on
10:18:29 an individual case-by-case basis.
10:18:32 It doesn't hurt anyone for us to move forward with
10:18:36 And if we say, Thom, you're going to have to initiate a
10:18:39 study for us to determine what we think those height
10:18:41 restrictions on Adamo ought to be, then it throws
10:18:45 everybody off.
10:18:47 And it I'm not in favor of adding to the workload now.
10:18:52 Like Mr. White said, 40th Street now, we are going to
10:18:55 have to start to pay attention to 40th Street now.
10:18:58 In the past we really hadn't had to take a look at
10:19:00 those zoning issues because we were still focused on
10:19:03 Well, the road is going to go under construction down
10:19:06 at the bridge section here this year.
10:19:08 And the residents are now starting to ask, when are we
10:19:12 going to get back into this zoning process?
10:19:15 So I'm not in favor of another study.
10:19:17 We don't need another study.
10:19:18 We need to move forward with light what the Planning
10:19:21 Commission recommended and either vote it up or down,
10:19:23 and if there are property owners within Ybor City, the
10:19:28 that think the height restrictions are too onerous, we
10:19:31 can deal with those on a case-by-case basis, if we want
10:19:35 to make sure we increase the density of residential
10:19:39 development in Ybor.
10:19:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I don't agree with you, Mr. Harrison,
10:19:42 in all due respect.
10:19:44 We do need a study.
10:19:45 There's a lot of unanswered questions in what the
10:19:49 Planning Commission just came out.
10:19:51 The vision that we did for Ybor City is just that, a
10:19:57 No study was made.
10:19:59 So there needs to be a study made, regardless of
10:20:02 whether you agree with that or not.
10:20:04 There needs to be a study made.
10:20:06 There's a lot of questions that needs to be answered.
10:20:09 And I for one thing that the Planning Commission should
10:20:13 weigh in on this, and be part of it.
10:20:18 There's too much going on in Ybor City for us to just
10:20:21 sit back and not do anything about it.
10:20:23 And I will make that motion, if everybody agrees, to
10:20:28 make the motion as Planning Commission.
10:20:36 Hold the motion?
10:20:37 >>ROSE FERLITA: It doesn't make any difference.
10:20:38 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like to make the motion to ask
10:20:42 the Planning Commission to initiate a study on the
10:20:45 Adamo corridor.
10:20:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. White, go ahead.
10:20:49 >>KEVIN WHITE: What were you going to say?
10:20:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The question would be: Do you wish to
10:20:54 address that before or after you take public comment on
10:20:58 this issue?
10:20:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: the motion --
10:21:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The question was, you had made the
10:21:05 motion to allow public comment.
10:21:09 I just want to bring to the council's attention.
10:21:12 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We can have the motion after --
10:21:15 >>ROSE FERLITA: I would like to weigh in on the motion
10:21:17 after public comment.
10:21:18 >>KEVIN WHITE: I was going to mention that.
10:21:20 But I also just want to make a comment on something
10:21:22 that Mr. Dingfelder said.
10:21:23 One of the things that I have thought about with the
10:21:27 Centro Ybor issue, but one thing about the Ybor and the
10:21:32 Adamo corridor, they are all connected.
10:21:34 But we are subsidizing that entity.
10:21:38 And I was thinking about it when he mentioned Centro
10:21:40 One of the things that I do on Friday and Saturday
10:21:44 nights with my family is we go to movies all the time.
10:21:47 And where do we go?
10:21:48 I always go to Centro Ybor.
10:21:50 Why do I go to Centro Ybor?
10:21:52 Because I know it's empty.
10:21:53 I never have to wait.
10:21:55 I don't have to stand in line.
10:21:57 I park in the garage.
10:21:58 I walk there.
10:21:59 There's never a chance of that movie not being sold
10:22:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How are we going to change that?
10:22:06 >>KEVIN WHITE: That's how we need to change that with
10:22:08 more density, more people.
10:22:09 We need to bring memorandum people to that corridor and
10:22:12 do whatever we need to do to make it more expeditious.
10:22:15 The only thing I was going to suggest, before the
10:22:17 public comment, to add as maybe a friendly amendment to
10:22:21 Ms. Alvarez' motion, that the study be directed to go
10:22:29 to the appropriateness of the corridor, as well as the
10:22:33 height restriction, so developers or anyone else that
10:22:35 is coming in will know definitely what it is you can do
10:22:38 and what it is you can't do, and not be surprised,
10:22:42 well, you let them do it, you didn't let me do it, this
10:22:45 is the appropriateness up front of what it is that
10:22:47 we're trying to do, these are the guidelines, this is
10:22:50 what we're basing all of the development in this area
10:22:54 on, so everyone will be on a level playing field.
10:22:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's fine.
10:23:01 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to go to public comments.
10:23:03 Would anyone in the public like to speak on item number
10:23:05 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Grandoff, are you getting ready for
10:23:11 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Very cold next week.
10:23:17 Getting warm.
10:23:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where is your earring?
10:23:25 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: God morning Madam Chairman.
10:23:28 My name is John Grandoff, suite 3700 Bank of America
10:23:33 I have the pleasure of representing Kimens corporation,
10:23:35 also the Adamo corridor property owners association
10:23:39 many of whom are here this morning.
10:23:42 We are very pleased with the council's direction this
10:23:44 I wanted to introduce Mr. Williams.
10:23:47 And before introducing let you know that he is a very
10:23:51 passionate gentleman about this issue.
10:23:53 I rarely experience a client that devoted to his
10:23:56 region, his area and his neighbors.
10:23:57 And I really ask that you listen to him for a moment.
10:24:02 Come forward.
10:24:04 I am going to provide the map on the Elmo so you can
10:24:09 look at that.
10:24:12 Fran Williams.
10:24:13 >> Fran Williams, second Avenue.
10:24:32 I represent the Adamo corridor civic association.
10:24:35 And also property owners on Adamo.
10:24:45 We own 90, 95 percent of the property on the corridor
10:24:49 be most of us have been long time Tampa people.
10:24:55 We respectfully request one action from the council
10:24:57 Approval of the study of the Adamo corridor as
10:25:00 potential redevelopment corridor.
10:25:04 Tampa's gateway from the east could be a regional
10:25:08 connector that links Ybor's historic district to
10:25:11 downtown Tampa, the port, and the Channelside.
10:25:15 And residents in East Tampa.
10:25:17 It could be a revitalization catalyst for Ybor's
10:25:21 historic district as well as East Tampa in general,
10:25:25 while creating more jobs and contributing to Tampa's
10:25:28 overall prosperity.
10:25:31 The Adamo corridor deserves equal -- the equality of
10:25:35 opportunity to be studied just as Kennedy Boulevard was
10:25:40 in advance of becoming a successful redevelopment
10:25:45 Living around the Adamo corridor, our citizens whose
10:25:48 income is significantly lower than the citizens living
10:25:51 around Kennedy Boulevard, and they need our attention
10:25:54 to a greater extent.
10:25:57 A recent Tampa Tribune article gave talked about the
10:26:04 Kennedy mergens to Tampa's downtown from the west.
10:26:08 We believe a turning point was when the council
10:26:14 declared Kennedy a redevelopment corridor.
10:26:16 Kennedy's turn-around demonstrates that the
10:26:19 redevelopment corridor concept -- the council has the
10:26:23 opportunity to create another success story by studying
10:26:27 the Adamo corridor as the redevelopment corridor.
10:26:30 Adamo today has many of the same problems Kennedy had.
10:26:33 And just as much potential.
10:26:38 We believe the triumph of Tampa's gateway from the west
10:26:42 can be repeated in Tampa's gateway.
10:26:46 Redevelopment corridors inspire community cooperation
10:26:50 and a vision and a plan for success.
10:26:53 We strongly believe starting Adamo must be completed in
10:26:56 advance of any general zoning changes for the area.
10:27:00 The broader regional economic implications of changes
10:27:05 to Adamo should be critical components of such
10:27:07 redevelopment study.
10:27:10 The Ybor City plans significantly identifies the
10:27:14 corridor of Ybor as an area with potential to supply
10:27:17 housing units, transit trips and pedestrian activity to
10:27:20 support the revitalization of historic Ybor in East
10:27:25 Zoned appropriate can also supply thousands of jobs for
10:27:30 East Tampa residents.
10:27:31 The corridor, according to the plan, offers an
10:27:35 opportunity for denser and higher buildings that could
10:27:37 be built elsewhere in the district.
10:27:42 Division plan specifically calls for a more detailed
10:27:45 planning study of the Adamo corridor.
10:27:48 We respectfully request that Adamo be studied as
10:27:52 redevelopment corridor in advance of instituting zoning
10:27:55 that could and probably will strengthen its potential.
10:27:58 Please consider our request to give the Adamo corridor
10:28:02 equal opportunity to be studied just as Kennedy was
10:28:06 Thank you.
10:28:06 (Bell sounds).
10:28:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just have to clarify with a heavy
10:28:10 heart that the Kennedy Boulevard plan still isn't
10:28:13 adopted, still hasn't come to public hearing.
10:28:15 We have had all this good redevelopment, but the city
10:28:17 is still working on it.
10:28:19 So you shouldn't hold your breath for the city to come
10:28:23 up with a plan before you see the rezonings.
10:28:25 I have been trying to get the city to complete the
10:28:27 Kennedy Boulevard overlay for over two years.
10:28:29 And it still isn't there.
10:28:32 In the handout that Mr. Snelling provided, the good
10:28:35 news is, the good news is, we hope to get to it in
10:28:38 March before the Planning Commission, in April before
10:28:42 City Council.
10:28:44 It is still in process.
10:28:47 So the fact that we're working on it doesn't mean that
10:28:49 it's been completed, unfortunately.
10:28:51 >> Can I say anything now?
10:28:54 I don't know the rules.
10:28:55 >>GWEN MILLER: No.
10:28:57 She's just making a comment.
10:28:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm curious to hear what you have to
10:29:03 >>> Thank you. This study of the Adamo corridor could
10:29:05 have been done prior to the time taking in the
10:29:10 It would have seemed an appropriate time to do that is
10:29:12 when we expanded the district.
10:29:13 So we knew how many units we needed to make Ybor
10:29:17 successful before we expanded the district.
10:29:19 And then develop the zoning categories around that as
10:29:23 opposed to expanding the district, slapping zoning
10:29:25 categories around it without any plan for even
10:29:28 identifying how many units we need to make it
10:29:31 That's my point.
10:29:32 The point is, we have been waiting two years for this.
10:29:36 And that's an issue.
10:29:38 We're not starting today with this.
10:29:40 We started two years ago.
10:29:41 We left this council -- I believe many of you were on
10:29:45 it -- you were on it -- in taking a look at the
10:29:50 district and we're going to develop guide lanes for the
10:29:52 uniqueness of your district.
10:29:54 I didn't understand the lack of planning that went into
10:29:56 that decision.
10:29:56 I assumed the planning had been done.
10:29:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay, sir.
10:30:02 >>> Fran Costantino, president of the East Ybor
10:30:11 Historic Association.
10:30:13 Good morning.
10:30:14 I decided to come today.
10:30:15 I had my name mentioned three times last week.
10:30:19 So I guess you were patient.
10:30:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We can't make progress without you
10:30:35 >>> With all due respect to Mr. Williams I disagree.
10:30:38 When the process was started in 1999 the Adamo group
10:30:42 was noticed before we went to the Historic Preservation
10:30:45 They were noticed before we went before the Planning
10:30:48 They were noticed before City Council, and no one came
10:30:52 I feel like the study should be paid for, if in fact
10:30:56 they want one, by the Adamo corridor group.
10:30:59 We are a small civic association.
10:31:01 When we go to the YCDC and we ask for pavers on 7th
10:31:06 Avenue we are told to hire a consultant.
10:31:08 We have $1400 in our treasury that took us three years
10:31:11 at $5 a family to save that kind of money, and they are
10:31:14 telling us to hire a consultant.
10:31:15 We want streetlights east of 7th Avenue.
10:31:19 Hire a consultant.
10:31:20 Well, my suggestion to them is, hire a consultant, let
10:31:24 them do the feasibility study, don't spend the city's
10:31:27 money, and then come back if it's biased towards them
10:31:33 we can argue that point later.
10:31:36 It's going to come in however.
10:31:37 But that's my point.
10:31:39 I feel like the process has been tainted from the
10:31:42 When the vision consultant was brought in for Ybor,
10:31:45 they did not meet with the east Ybor historic
10:31:50 association. The president of west side is here.
10:31:52 They didn't ask to meet with them either.
10:31:54 Maybe I misunderstood how the consultant accidentally
10:31:56 came into town, but he was taken to Kimmins, with city
10:32:00 staff, for lunch.
10:32:02 The rest of us had to scatter and scramble so we could
10:32:06 get to all these public meetings.
10:32:06 But they had their privacy meeting there.
10:32:09 That's not fair to the little people.
10:32:12 I've got maps and things for you.
10:32:14 You all adopted a city ordinance that says where the
10:32:17 little star is to the side -- this is City Council's
10:32:20 ordinance that you adopted -- that you will allow a
10:32:22 compatible mix of residential, commercial, and light
10:32:26 In your packet, there are historic districts.
10:32:33 There's the sweet Auburn district out of Atlanta, after
10:32:38 community industrial designated as historic.
10:32:45 I also gave you maps of the one that Linda had
10:32:49 requested last time but I didn't mark it up.
10:32:52 That's the one showing the historic.
10:32:55 But I also attached your Chamber of Commerce map which
10:32:58 is probably one that people walk around with more,
10:33:00 which shows Adamo as the corridor to the south, and
10:33:03 then they show Nuccio on the west, 23rd, and then I
10:33:10 would show Columbus but they are showing interstate.
10:33:13 This is what people walk around with in the core.
10:33:16 You have a couple of historic districts.
10:33:18 I won't take your time.
10:33:19 But I did want to show you the historic Ybor, that was
10:33:31 There's already a precedence on Adamo where height is
10:33:34 not even legal.
10:33:35 (Bell sounds).
10:33:37 This is a picture of it now.
10:33:40 Oh, I do have, Mr. Shelby, actually, three more
10:33:47 >>GWEN MILLER: It's not a public hearing.
10:33:50 Finish your statement.
10:33:59 >>> It is being developed.
10:34:01 It is totally sold out.
10:34:07 There's a picture of the proposal.
10:34:08 No height variance.
10:34:09 It sold out. The developers are going to make money.
10:34:12 The one to the west, they have asked for no height
10:34:18 So you already have a precedence on Adamo drive of
10:34:21 historic buildings that are going to be preserved where
10:34:23 you don't need a height variance.
10:34:25 So --
10:34:29 >>GWEN MILLER: What would you like to see?
10:34:31 >>> Okay. The point is, when all of this was going on
10:34:33 starting from 1999, I didn't want to cause any friction
10:34:39 between the people so we went and head said, let's let
10:34:42 everybody stay whole.
10:34:44 When we extended the historic district the Adamo
10:34:46 corridor lost from their 60 feet that they had by being
10:34:51 included in the historic district, they got down to the
10:34:53 45 feet.
10:34:53 But like Mr. Dingfelder said, they doubled the density.
10:34:56 And we realize we want more density.
10:34:58 That's fine.
10:35:00 But the height limit, we do not want to create a
10:35:03 barrier coming into the historic district.
10:35:05 They are in the historic district, incidentally.
10:35:07 And the National Park Service is going to do another
10:35:10 survey in 2006, and we just got off the watch from the
10:35:15 park service because of the D.O.T. houses because the
10:35:18 garages put us back on the watch.
10:35:19 So please, I'm asking, councilwoman Alvarez,
10:35:22 councilwoman Ferlita, for six years I come and I heard
10:35:26 you all say you know how I feel about Ybor.
10:35:29 Please I'm begging you.
10:35:30 Now is the time to show Ybor how you feel about Ybor.
10:35:33 To protect that landmark status.
10:35:35 We don't need anything higher than 60 feet.
10:35:38 They can have their feasibility study.
10:35:40 They can say what's best, that we can do with this and
10:35:43 we need to protect it.
10:35:44 If we use that landmark status it's going to be gone.
10:35:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is Mr. Acosta here?
10:35:52 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You know how I feel about Ybor City,
10:35:55 But we need to do something.
10:35:58 Changes are here.
10:35:59 And I will be the one to protect the historic district.
10:36:04 But the problem is that Ybor City needs revitalization.
10:36:08 It's dying.
10:36:11 >>> Mary, let me just explain.
10:36:12 If you go with me -- and I'll be glad to give you a
10:36:15 East of 22nd, we have a senator's office and N a
10:36:20 preserved house.
10:36:20 We now have the counsel for Panama in a preserved
10:36:25 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's fine, but it needs
10:36:28 It needs people in there.
10:36:29 It needs people to walk up and down the streets.
10:36:32 It needs people to bring retail in there.
10:36:36 That's what we are trying to do.
10:36:37 We are trying to bring people in there.
10:36:40 >>> We are going to lose the landmark status.
10:36:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's why we are going to ask for the
10:36:45 Planning Commission to study this.
10:36:46 If they tell us that we could lose the status, we'll
10:36:49 back down.
10:36:51 We've done it before.
10:36:52 >>> Approved on 7th Avenue, we just approved a
10:36:56 57-foot high.
10:36:57 Heidt & Associates is moving to Ybor from South Tampa.
10:37:00 We approved it.
10:37:01 What we are asking for is if they want the height,
10:37:03 Channelside and downtown, but please protect the
10:37:07 landmark historic district.
10:37:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ:Nd you know we will.
10:37:12 >>> We already started -- granted I lost there because
10:37:14 our Historic Preservation Commission person who is now
10:37:16 in real estate, you need to know a little bit of the
10:37:21 I wanted to go to Channelside with the historic
10:37:22 I was told, one, I couldn't because it was industrial
10:37:25 and commercial, so I proved to you all now by the
10:37:27 handouts that there are industrial commercials, in
10:37:31 Atlanta, in Chicago.
10:37:32 So that should have been gone there.
10:37:34 I was told I couldn't go there because it was
10:37:36 industrial and commercial.
10:37:37 I couldn't go there because it wasn't recognized by the
10:37:40 national, which of course they back then before we got
10:37:42 there and started doing what we did, the national
10:37:44 didn't have a clue.
10:37:45 And, three, it was still vague.
10:37:49 So I was precluded by our staff in the his toy torque
10:37:55 All of that Adamo corridor would have been protected.
10:37:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Ferlita.
10:37:58 >>ROSE FERLITA: Well, that may be the case.
10:38:01 What is done is done.
10:38:02 And I think that what Ms. Alvarez is saying, it's going
10:38:09 to give us some guidelines.
10:38:10 It doesn't mean necessarily that it's going to be
10:38:12 slanted towards one side of this discussion or the
10:38:15 And in the meantime -- and I hate to pick the middle of
10:38:17 the road because I usually don't do that -- but as we
10:38:21 go along with this study we as a council -- and please
10:38:25 correct me if I am wrong, whoever wants to correct me
10:38:28 if I'm wrong -- figure that comes to us in terms of
10:38:31 development on any of those parcels on Adamo drive.
10:38:35 >>> On a case-by-case basis.
10:38:38 >>ROSE FERLITA: So whether there should have been more
10:38:40 uniformity and more camaraderie and more cooperation
10:38:43 one side versus the other, if it was oversite or an
10:38:47 intentional position, I don't know but that's done.
10:38:51 You are passionate about Ybor City, as are many of us.
10:38:53 But at the same time, you look at other areas, of other
10:38:58 cities, and warehouse districts are booming, et cetera,
10:39:01 et cetera.
10:39:01 I just think we need to address that Adamo drive.
10:39:04 And maybe I'm misunderstanding what Mr. Williams is
10:39:11 coming up to request. They want guidelines.
10:39:13 It doesn't necessarily mean that we are going to accept
10:39:15 exactly what the Planning Commission is telling us to
10:39:18 And so whether Mr. Harrison thinks we don't need a
10:39:21 study or Ms. Alvarez thinks we do, we are still going
10:39:25 to go forward looking at things and here comes the
10:39:28 study, put it on the list, let's have the study, and we
10:39:31 can choose or not choose.
10:39:34 Whether financially when you try to do things and they
10:39:38 say, get a consultant, I'm not sure that that would be
10:39:41 the objective, appropriate way to say, all right, Mr.
10:39:44 Williams, you want a study?
10:39:45 You get the study then.
10:39:46 Then if Mrs. Constantino doesn't like it, oh well!
10:39:51 So we have to have some non-subjective group to do the
10:39:56 We don't know what that study is going to come back and
10:40:00 They may be more restrictive than he hopes, and they
10:40:03 may be as restrictive as you wish.
10:40:06 But I don't see any kind of problem with using that
10:40:09 And I think that based on what the dialogue was with
10:40:12 Mr. Williams and the Planning Commission, they are
10:40:15 waiting for one of the council members to ask that.
10:40:20 It circumvents at least overloading Mr. Snelling.
10:40:23 I know he would be involved in some fashion or form but
10:40:25 at least we don't have to tell him, add some more to
10:40:28 the list.
10:40:28 And Ms. Saul-Sena, I'm not trying to sway your
10:40:31 position, but by your response to Mr. Williams, you
10:40:35 know, don't la forward to this getting done because
10:40:38 Kennedy is not getting done yet.
10:40:40 But the point is, if you don't get on the list, you're
10:40:42 never going to get on the list.
10:40:44 I just don't see the harm in requesting that, and at
10:40:47 the same time being very sensitive to what you're
10:40:51 trying to preserve.
10:40:52 You have done a wonderful job on this side of Adamo
10:40:59 >>> But there are guidelines in place, councilwoman.
10:41:02 When we have come before you trying to get this into
10:41:04 the historic district, the IG industrial general on
10:41:08 Adamo had a 60-foot height limit.
10:41:12 They didn't do their due diligence, and they didn't
10:41:15 come before counsel or to all these meetings to defend
10:41:19 So, therefore, I heard that they were legislative in
10:41:23 the historic district.
10:41:24 So their height got lowered from 60 to 45 feet.
10:41:27 But they doubled their density.
10:41:29 They can put as many units, not going higher, as they
10:41:34 Del Acosta sat down and offered you all on his time to
10:41:37 write their guidelines for the industrial district that
10:41:39 is included, so there are guidelines in place.
10:41:44 >>ROSE FERLITA: My point is, to finality, I understand
10:41:47 That's where they have to be guided.
10:41:49 That's what we have to dictate in terms of our decision
10:41:52 We don't know if the Planning Commission is going to
10:41:54 come back and suggest something that Mr. Williams group
10:41:57 doesn't like.
10:41:59 That's the process.
10:42:00 >>> And I will finish and I thank you very much.
10:42:02 Let me just warn you that the national park service is
10:42:06 coming to review our national landmark status now in
10:42:09 So whatever decisions you all make, if we lose that,
10:42:13 Ybor City is gone.
10:42:15 Thank you very, very much.
10:42:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:42:20 >>> Elizabeth Johnson, 1819 Richardson place.
10:42:23 I think it's an unusual day here today because I agree
10:42:25 with Mr. Harrison and Thom Snelling, which I don't
10:42:29 think has happened before.
10:42:31 I want to remind you how this came about, and what I'm
10:42:36 concerned about is that this came about because a group
10:42:39 of owners represented by Mr. Grandoff wrote you a
10:42:42 letter and somehow managed to get a lot of hearing time
10:42:46 last week.
10:42:48 And there is a due process concern.
10:42:50 And I raised this with Martin about whether or not the
10:42:54 public should have been allowed to speak then.
10:42:57 Moving to the merits, though, let's assuming that you
10:42:59 are going to consider the merits.
10:43:01 I am concerned that the request does fundamentally
10:43:05 undermine the Ybor Historic District that that is in
10:43:09 I think we have been given the opportunity to speak
10:43:13 last week, we would have explained to you that 27-176
10:43:16 of the code, and its related sections, prevent
10:43:20 inappropriate development in Ybor.
10:43:23 Now, there were due process hearings that enabled that
10:43:26 district to go in place.
10:43:27 They had notice and an opportunity to be heard.
10:43:30 And to come back now -- and there are apparently a lot
10:43:32 of height and density negotiations that took place.
10:43:35 And to come back now and to say we want to study it, we
10:43:41 want to move to the head of the line, simply because
10:43:43 one developer and a group of property owners wants to
10:43:46 do this, I think that that sets a terrible precedent.
10:43:51 Mr. Snelling was correct when he said to you last week,
10:43:54 it's a privilege to rezone.
10:43:56 It's not your absolute God-given right to have your
10:43:59 property rezoned when it has been found to be in a
10:44:02 certain land use category and zoning district after
10:44:05 months of debate and zoning conformance and public
10:47:59 >>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: I wanted -- wanted to speak on
10:48:19 the --
10:48:20 >>GWEN MILLER: We are only speaking now on item number
10:48:23 >>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: I want to speak about what they are
10:48:25 talking about. Then I can come back.
10:48:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
10:48:27 >>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: That's better.
10:48:29 Thanks somebody for that idea this morning, bringing
10:48:31 that up.
10:48:32 But you know what? Sometime I speak first. Sometime I
10:48:39 speak last. But today I wanted to speak last.
10:48:42 Because you all hadn't had nothing to do with Ybor
10:48:44 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Excuse me?
10:48:48 >>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: Me, I been on the front line.
10:48:50 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Oh, Mr. Moses.
10:48:56 >>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: Nothing was there but ghosts.
10:48:58 That place was dead.
10:48:59 I mean dead as a doorknob.
10:49:02 When I think about -- I moved to Ybor City, and I could
10:49:05 walk down and see all the people smoking cigars and
10:49:09 And all all of a sudden the place dead but it came back
10:49:13 through the people took the old buildings, had to do
10:49:16 something with them, run all the Cubans out thereof,
10:49:19 chased them out, get out of here y'all, like they do
10:49:22 us, get out of here, came from all over the country and
10:49:27 made bars and dance halls.
10:49:29 Nobody will come.
10:49:32 But I want to say, tell you all, though, this morning,
10:49:36 don't none of you all know, you can't pay nobody to
10:49:38 come to this podium tell you what is going to happen to
10:49:41 Adamo drive in the next 10 or 15 years.
10:49:43 Can't pay nobody because they don't know.
10:49:45 They are like Ybor City.
10:49:49 You complain about what Ybor looked like, you all
10:49:51 didn't do that.
10:49:52 It was nature did it.
10:49:54 It was nature did it.
10:49:57 When they were fighting about Ybor City, I think the
10:50:05 vote was 2 to 5.
10:50:08 They didn't want no part of no liquor, no nothing.
10:50:10 Those people come and fight with lawyers and said go
10:50:13 get Moses, Moses will help you get the place going down
10:50:20 They saw me in the hallway and said, we want to you
10:50:22 help you us now, hear?
10:50:24 But I predicted seven of you, and Adamo drive, going to
10:50:29 go all the way.
10:50:33 But nobody know what going to happen.
10:50:36 Mr. Perry Harvey said, sit right there where Ms. Rose
10:50:40 Ferlita is sitting at, he said, you cannot make peoples
10:50:43 do anything that they don't want to do.
10:50:45 And then back in the country, they said you can lead a
10:50:49 mule to water but you can't make minimum drink.
10:50:53 He said -- Mr. Perry Harvey said people are going to do
10:50:56 what they want to do.
10:50:57 So you don't know when those Chinese people are going
10:51:00 to come over and say they want to build some
10:51:03 Look down there on harborside right now.
10:51:05 Those people come from all over the world buying that.
10:51:09 And it's people from another country come in spending
10:51:13 big money.
10:51:14 They want to go way up in the air like downtown.
10:51:17 They got that big building being built downtown.
10:51:19 That's where your money is at.
10:51:21 Then again, in 15 to 20 years, from downtown to
10:51:28 Brandon, they got building in Brandon, squeezing, and
10:51:32 people come in there every day all over the world by
10:51:34 the truck load, buses load.
10:51:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:51:47 >>VINCE PARDO: I just want to clarify the reference
10:51:49 made to the vision plan and also the Ybor Development
10:51:54 The office as well as the staff support here.
10:51:57 There is a recommendation very strongly in the vision
10:51:59 plan that this area be evaluated, and be studied.
10:52:04 I'm sorrydy not bring the plan today.
10:52:06 There's a very nice graphic if you remember that map of
10:52:08 Ybor City where it has certain land uses, and talks
10:52:11 about the commercial core.
10:52:12 It has a residential area which kind of surround that.
10:52:15 And there's this line that goes along the Adamo
10:52:17 corridor as we have referred to it now.
10:52:20 The other areas pretty much are going to be residential
10:52:22 with mixed use. The commercial area will be commercial
10:52:27 residential blend but this corridor has the ability to
10:52:30 change from what it is today from commercial general,
10:52:32 from steel mills to body shops and other things such as
10:52:36 residential to working studios for artists and kinds of
10:52:40 That's why our consultant has recommended a further
10:52:43 study of this particular area.
10:52:45 The study that was supported by the Ybor Development
10:52:48 Corporation board -- and again with the benefit of
10:52:52 dialogue, Fran was showing, members of that board
10:52:56 representing the associations as well as other
10:52:58 stakeholders of Ybor City, it's not just about height.
10:53:00 It was particularly, more specifically, about the land
10:53:04 What should this area be in the future?
10:53:06 We are still -- we still have manufacturers that cannot
10:53:09 move anywhere in Hillsborough County because the
10:53:12 restrictedness of that type of use even in the
10:53:14 unincorporated areas of the county.
10:53:16 And I happen to live in Pasco County.
10:53:18 What do I do with the families?
10:53:21 They can't travel that far, can't do this.
10:53:23 So throws a real consideration by land use than there
10:53:26 are about height.
10:53:26 Height was one thing that brought up, was the specific
10:53:29 recommendation of the vision plan, about evaluating
10:53:31 that and taking a look at that.
10:53:33 This is not only about height.
10:53:34 Believe me, I have been in Ybor City before I was in
10:53:37 the city for five, six years now.
10:53:39 I have been a volunteer in the district for over two
10:53:42 So I feel the passion that you have knowing that --
10:53:51 there's a very inherent need to look at that corridor.
10:53:54 Since we talked about it on the north end of the
10:53:56 corridor, what is being discussed now, what about the
10:53:59 south side of Adamo drive?
10:54:01 That's why it's important to look at the Channelside
10:54:03 mix and how that comes together with Ybor City, not
10:54:06 just the northern portion of Adamo drive and looking at
10:54:08 You know, it's like fixing up one side of the street
10:54:12 and not fixing up the other.
10:54:13 It does need to be looked at in that particular area.
10:54:16 Maybe that corridor is broader than our area, to
10:54:21 26th street.
10:54:23 So we encourage that you do put it on the list at least
10:54:26 and look at this particular area.
10:54:28 We can look at that.
10:54:29 We can look creatively, how the Planning Commission or
10:54:33 Thom's staff, that when know he is really under the gun
10:54:35 on a lot of things here.
10:54:36 But believe me, I just want to make the point this is
10:54:39 broader than the issues strictly of height.
10:54:42 It's about land use.
10:54:43 And what happens under that.
10:54:45 The recommendation that came from the YCDC board was to
10:54:48 support the YC 6 zoning, mainly as a holding pattern
10:54:52 until the land use plan is complete.
10:54:54 And much benefit to have this input at whatever leave,
10:54:59 be at least of the land use before the comp plan was
10:55:02 adopted and the land use was adopted that doesn't
10:55:05 include that particular study.
10:55:06 So just take that under consideration.
10:55:09 Some perspective as to why the board that represent it
10:55:11 is stakeholders of Ybor City did recommend the study of
10:55:15 the vision plan and also the YC-6.
10:55:18 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Vince, did you all look into how much
10:55:24 this study was going to cost, and how long it would
10:55:27 >>VINCE PARDO: No, did not.
10:55:29 We have had discussions.
10:55:30 There was an effort by another development that had
10:55:34 gone to the Planning Commission, encouraged them to do
10:55:37 a -- a study, creating a redevelopment corridor, by
10:55:41 that private entity was withdrawn.
10:55:45 And so that's taken off the plate of the Planning
10:55:50 Commission for the individual developer's request.
10:55:53 So I think some direction, whether it's going by
10:55:56 individual groups or by this body, the vision plan and
10:56:00 the YC-support helped support a review of that
10:56:02 particular corridor.
10:56:03 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I think that you all are in a great
10:56:05 position to be able to move this forward, this study.
10:56:10 That way, we don't have to burden Thom and his shop
10:56:13 with -- you all can figure out how much it would cost,
10:56:17 what the time frame would be on it and come back and
10:56:20 let us know what those needs are, and a lot of money if
10:56:23 we need to, to assist with that.
10:56:26 But at the same time, we can move forward with the YC-6
10:56:31 As you said, you put it very well, it's a holding
10:56:35 It is to get the district expanded, and do what we can
10:56:39 do as a result of the study is to determine, should the
10:56:42 Adamo corridor itself, which is now going to be
10:56:44 included in the YC-6, should it be exempted out and be
10:56:48 given some sort of redevelopment corridor designation?
10:56:52 There is no reason why we can't proceed with both of
10:56:54 those things.
10:56:56 We don't have to make this decision here today.
10:56:58 The YC-6 is coming back on March 23rd.
10:57:02 I heard someone say.
10:57:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's on our agenda.
10:57:06 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We can at that point say, all right,
10:57:09 let's include Adamo, or else keep Adamo out right now.
10:57:12 But we will go ahead and pass it for everything else.
10:57:14 There's no reason to hold up the rest of the area,
10:57:19 because of what Mr. Grandoff's clients are asking for.
10:57:22 I think everyone -- I don't think we have to make this
10:57:26 decision here today.
10:57:27 And I think that we can proceed with the study,
10:57:30 whatever that is, and we have used that word, thrown at
10:57:34 I'm sure it means something different to everybody
10:57:35 sitting up here.
10:57:36 But it is what it is.
10:57:37 I think that everyone can win here today.
10:57:42 >>ROSE FERLITA: Okay, that confuses me even more.
10:57:45 So, Mr. Prado, what is your concern about the position
10:57:50 that Mrs. Constantino has if the study went forward?
10:57:55 >> There would be -- that would be terrible for this
10:57:59 And the State of Florida.
10:57:59 >>ROSE FERLITA: What I'm saying is, what would your
10:58:03 concern be, or do you have a concern if we went forward
10:58:06 in some form or fashion with a study?
10:58:08 Do you think that would jeopardize it?
10:58:10 And the third thing is, when Shawn is talking about a
10:58:13 study, are we talking about yet another study that's
10:58:17 going on someplace?
10:58:19 >>VINCE PARDO: Let me address the first issue.
10:58:24 Conducting a study, and presenting it the study to this
10:58:29 body, the mayor or any body, will have zero impact on
10:58:33 losing any stat with us the landmark district.
10:58:35 It's only on actions that are taken either because they
10:58:38 are recommended in that study or not.
10:58:39 Without the actions being taken, this study is to give
10:58:42 information to the people that are making decisions.
10:58:45 >>ROSE FERLITA: This study meaning whether it comes
10:58:48 from some other origin or from the Planning Commission?
10:58:52 >>VINCE PARDO: Of course.
10:58:53 >>ROSE FERLITA: Where are you recommending that this
10:58:55 study initiate?
10:58:56 >>VINCE PARDO: We had looked at the Planning Commission
10:58:58 because of Thom's workload.
10:59:00 And knowing that Thom of course -- he's going to be
10:59:04 involved with that.
10:59:04 >>ROSE FERLITA: You asked that, but the Planning
10:59:06 Commission didn't go forward because they want add
10:59:08 council member to initiate that request.
10:59:10 Was that the reason it wasn't done before?
10:59:13 >>VINCE PARDO: I don't remember specifically.
10:59:15 We had talked to them about the workload.
10:59:17 Talked about the land use that would be done in the
10:59:20 next couple of years.
10:59:20 And there's a comp plan, and it would be beneficial to
10:59:23 have the recommendation with the land use for this
10:59:25 corridor should be as they are modifying the comp plan.
10:59:31 >>ROSE FERLITA: So it didn't go anyplace.
10:59:35 >>> No.
10:59:35 >> So your position is -- tell me if it's not.
10:59:38 I am certainly trying to not -- if a study were done it
10:59:41 really doesn't jeopardize the status because we don't
10:59:43 have to agree with the study, we don't have to take
10:59:46 action on the study.
10:59:47 So I'm trying to figure out, what is the danger of
10:59:50 supporting this study?
10:59:51 And I'm not sure that I see one.
10:59:57 Resources, Mr. Dingfelder, Ms. Saul-Sena, said at the
11:00:02 Planning Commission, and if this F this council as a
11:00:05 deciding body thinks we want ton request their services
11:00:07 for this, then of course.
11:00:09 But everything that we put on a list --
11:00:14 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You can put it on a credit card.
11:00:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: My understanding when this was first
11:00:23 initially raised, the fact that this study is underway
11:00:27 may or may not have an impact on what this counsel or
11:00:29 the actions of this council could take on a public
11:00:33 hearing that's going to come to it on March 23rd.
11:00:35 >>MARY ALVAREZ: There is no study.
11:00:36 >>ROSE FERLITA: No, that's the T height discussion,
11:00:40 From 45 to 60?
11:00:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It's just been raised in a letter that
11:00:47 something is anticipated coming to council on the
11:00:50 23rd but nothing has been set.
11:00:55 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And I want to comment to what Mr.
11:00:59 Harrison said.
11:01:00 The YCDC can't initiate a study because they are going
11:01:05 to have to use city staff to do it anyway.
11:01:07 Is that right?
11:01:08 So thisth is what we are trying to do, is the
11:01:11 burden away from the city staff.
11:01:13 The Planning Commission is the proper Avenue to get
11:01:16 this study done.
11:01:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: YCDC has the ability to use tiff
11:01:26 money for to higher a consultant.
11:01:28 But the point I want to make is depending on with on
11:01:32 which consultant you will hire, you will get different
11:01:34 If you hire as YCDC did previously, if you hire a
11:01:39 go-go, let's create more taxes, let's do more intense
11:01:43 economic development, you will get a study that
11:01:45 encourages hire heights.
11:01:47 If you do a preservation-oriented consulting group, you
11:01:51 will get results from a study that encourages lower
11:01:53 So I just want us all to be cognizant of the fact that
11:01:57 the orientation of the consulting firm you hire will
11:02:00 help spin the result of the study.
11:02:05 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The Planning Commission is the proper
11:02:09 Avenue to take, Ms. Saul-Sena.
11:02:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why don't we ask the Planning
11:02:12 Commission --
11:02:14 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Whether it dies or whatever, but I
11:02:16 would like to go ahead and move the motion.
11:02:21 Here it is 11:00 o'clock and we have been talking
11:02:23 nothing but --
11:02:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder, did you want to speak?
11:02:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm wholly in support of the motion.
11:02:29 And I just want to say, I've heard all the comments,
11:02:33 And I think, rose, you were right on, and Vince, you
11:02:36 were right on.
11:02:36 The sky is not falling.
11:02:38 I heard a lot of chicken little.
11:02:40 What are we afraid of to study something?
11:02:42 And especially if we have an unbiassed group like the
11:02:45 Planning Commission staff should be, that they are the
11:02:48 appropriate group, because they are not -- they
11:02:50 shouldn't be leaning one way or the other.
11:02:52 They should give the unbiassed professional opinion.
11:02:55 They are studying something isn't going to change the
11:02:58 I think Vince stated this very well.
11:03:00 It doesn't change the code.
11:03:01 It doesn't change the zoning.
11:03:02 It doesn't change the height limits.
11:03:04 It doesn't put the historic district at risk, because
11:03:07 we're just studying something.
11:03:08 And when the study comes back we can take it or leave
11:03:10 it, period.
11:03:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Absolutely.
11:03:18 I would kind of like to substitute the motion.
11:03:21 I would like to rescind that first motion.
11:03:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Who did the second?
11:03:25 Mr. White, did you second?
11:03:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I second.
11:03:29 What's your motion?
11:03:33 I withdraw my second.
11:03:36 >>GWEN MILLER: It's withdrawn.
11:03:37 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Direct the Planning Commission to
11:03:41 conduct a study concerning the appropriateness of the
11:03:43 Adamo corridor being designated a redevelopment
11:03:46 corridor on both sides, north and south, and also
11:03:50 dealing with the issues of the appropriateness of the
11:03:52 YC zoning classification on the Adamo corridor from a
11:03:56 future land use comprehensive planning perspective.
11:03:59 That's my motion.
11:03:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Did you get a second?
11:04:03 Motion and question.
11:04:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would submit to you fellow council
11:04:07 members that -- plus it includes the report, the 40th
11:04:15 Street study, all the stuff.
11:04:17 I don't see -- I don't think it's fair for this request
11:04:21 to do an end run.
11:04:25 >>ROSE FERLITA: Nobody is asking that.
11:04:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The Planning Commission is what we
11:04:30 did this past week with Thom Snelling.
11:04:32 Before we moved this, that we get feedback from the
11:04:36 Planning Commission staff about exactly what their
11:04:38 workload is, and what, if we make this request, what
11:04:42 the time frame would be, or what additional resources
11:04:44 they would need to move it up further.
11:04:49 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to vote on it or we are going to
11:04:55 discuss this a long time.
11:04:56 We have a motion by Mrs. Alvarez, a second by Mr.
11:04:59 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
11:05:00 Opposed, Nay.
11:05:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Nay.
11:05:02 >>CHAIRMAN: We have the motion carried.
11:05:12 We go to item number 8.
11:05:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Now, Mrs. Saul-Sena, if would you like
11:05:17 to make a motion for the Planning Commission to talk to
11:05:19 us about it.
11:05:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
11:05:21 I would like to make a motion for the Planning
11:05:23 Commission to let us know -- to come next week to
11:05:30 provide council with a list of their work program and
11:05:33 project time lines similar to one provided by Mr.
11:05:35 Snelling so they can see the format to give us a sense
11:05:39 of what their workload is.
11:05:41 >> Second.
11:05:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
11:05:42 (Motion carried).
11:05:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Huey.
11:05:48 >>MARK HUEY: Economic development administrator.
11:05:51 I was asked to appear this morning to speak with you
11:05:56 about the historic courthouse.
11:05:59 For the benefit of the audience, viewing audience, the
11:06:03 courthouse is located in the center of our downtown.
11:06:16 The Elmo on, please.
11:06:17 A treasure of a structure in our community.
11:06:26 And something that I know council has been very
11:06:29 sensitive to how it is redeveloped.
11:06:33 In September of 2003 the city took ownership of that
11:06:39 wonderful building.
11:06:43 A group of volunteers led an advisory process that
11:06:47 lasted about one year that identified a particular use
11:06:53 that we had spent some time.
11:06:55 This was a use led by Mr. P.C. Patel and a group of
11:07:01 community leaders.
11:07:02 We also, as you know, studied the courthouse for its
11:07:05 possible use for the Tampa Museum of Art.
11:07:10 Neither of those efforts moved forward successfully.
11:07:14 Since then, we have had conversations at various times
11:07:19 with folks who ideas about the future of the building.
11:07:22 Nothing is imminent.
11:07:24 Nothing to report to you in that way.
11:07:28 The approach of the administration from a redevelopment
11:07:30 standpoint has been simply that the building is too
11:07:34 important a structure, too important a historic and
11:07:37 cultural fabric of our community, to do anything out of
11:07:42 So we are looking for just the right use for the future
11:07:44 of that building, something that respects its
11:07:50 What we have learned in the redevelopment of the
11:07:52 building is that it's key impediment to redeveloping is
11:07:57 That is the biggest challenge in finding a use that's
11:08:01 compatible with the courthouse.
11:08:04 From an environmental standpoint, I know I was asked to
11:08:06 report from an economic development standpoint.
11:08:10 I was also asked to report from an environmental
11:08:14 The building received a very thorough environmental
11:08:18 review, as part of our marketing process.
11:08:23 We had a study done by environmental engineering
11:08:28 consultants in early 2004.
11:08:30 The results of that study are a public document that
11:08:33 was made available to all of the respondents, to our
11:08:36 courthouse RFP process.
11:08:39 Since then, as now it appears that the buildings' reuse
11:08:46 is not em imminent and that the building is more in a
11:08:49 holding pattern, more recently, our consulting did a
11:08:57 study on behalf of the risk management department of
11:09:00 the city, because we were receiving requests, and in
11:09:04 the course of maintaining the building there was active
11:09:08 inter intermittent interest in being in the building.
11:09:11 In an abundance of caution the risk management
11:09:13 department, knowing that the courthouse had certain
11:09:19 environmental conditions, asked Sal, our consultant, to
11:09:23 give recommendations, and they have recommended that
11:09:25 the building be limited in terms of folks going into
11:09:29 the building and using it.
11:09:32 So that is a brief update, from an economic development
11:09:35 standpoint, and an environmental standpoint.
11:09:37 And I would be happy to answer any questions.
11:09:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Huey, it is such a grand
11:09:44 building and we so look forward to something happening
11:09:48 I would hope after the administration figures out we
11:09:52 are going going to put our Museum of Art, not there,
11:09:55 then this is next on our list of things to think about.
11:09:58 Because I would suggest to you that somewhere close to
11:10:02 the baggage building at Tampa union station some use is
11:10:05 better than no use.
11:10:06 I think we are trying to generate activity, and I think
11:10:09 we should proceed to low at what we could put in there.
11:10:12 Secondly, I received word the other day from Tampa
11:10:14 Theatre that the Wilson company that used to let them
11:10:17 park there for theater events has rescinded that.
11:10:21 It seems to me that the City of Tampa, as we encourage
11:10:25 redevelopment in this portion of downtown, needs to
11:10:27 look seriously at what kind of parking facilities,
11:10:31 structured parking, we can provide to encourage the
11:10:34 redevelopment of this area.
11:10:36 And as is often the case as a municipality we probably
11:10:41 need to take the lead.
11:10:42 >>MARK HUEY: I would concur with you on that.
11:10:46 It on the radar screen.
11:10:47 And one of the things, as we are looking at the future
11:10:52 of the -- future of the courthouse, the single biggest
11:10:56 impediment to redevelopment is parking.
11:10:58 So while it's an issue for Tampa Theatre, which is just
11:11:01 catter-corner from the courthouse -- you can imagine
11:11:04 how a parking structure that could satisfy the Tampa
11:11:07 Theatre might also benefit the courthouse.
11:11:10 Additionally, there's quite a bit of redevelopment
11:11:12 activity planned around there.
11:11:13 And we are very engaged in obviously all of those
11:11:19 And the possibility that some parking solution might
11:11:24 evolve out of some of the private sector initiatives
11:11:26 that would benefit the courthouse, and again you
11:11:28 mentioned the Tampa Theatre as well.
11:11:30 I think your points are well taken.
11:11:32 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, thank you.
11:11:35 Mr. Huey, it looks to me here, it appears at least that
11:11:39 I was the maker of the motion.
11:11:40 I believe I was.
11:11:42 I don't know where economic concerns came in.
11:11:45 I am not so much concerned about the economic concerns.
11:11:48 And Mrs. Saul-Sena is right, it is a grand building.
11:11:50 But I remember days when you were able to come to one
11:11:53 of our places of business, we talked about the health
11:11:56 And you assured me -- and way thought was your
11:11:58 assurance included was to an adequate extent that there
11:12:02 were not any health problems.
11:12:04 Now, I understand -- and I don't need to fill in the
11:12:10 blanks -- but from the film industry side using the
11:12:13 building for commercials or from a movie or something,
11:12:15 and we were told to not plan to continue that because
11:12:17 of the health concern.
11:12:21 When I asked you about an unhealthy building and if we
11:12:24 were doing some environmental studies, phase 1, phase
11:12:27 2, phase 3, awe assured me right off the cuff
11:12:31 everything was fine.
11:12:32 And I don't think it's fine.
11:12:33 So whether we look at whether or not we can do this or
11:12:36 look at the parking, I'm more concerned about the
11:12:38 health status of the building.
11:12:40 And I don't think I have still gotten an adequate
11:12:43 Everything else we needed to put aside and I need
11:12:46 somebody to talk to me about where are we in that
11:12:48 process, what are we doing to correct those things in
11:12:50 we have in fact inherited or purchased an unhealthy
11:12:55 And what is your answer different today than two years
11:12:59 Because imstill not adequately happy about the
11:13:06 >>> I do not remember the exact conversation.
11:13:09 >> I can.
11:13:11 I can remember the two chairs we were sitting in.
11:13:12 You assured me don't worry, there are no health issues
11:13:15 we need to address.
11:13:16 Here we are three years later still telling people not
11:13:19 to use it because of health concerns.
11:13:21 >> I think at the time we would have been talking about
11:13:23 the redevelopment of the courthouse, and whether
11:13:26 environmental issues were an impediment to the
11:13:28 building's redevelopment.
11:13:29 And I can tell you that that is in fact -- the
11:13:33 environmental issues aren't an issue as to why the
11:13:36 building didn't work for a whole host of users.
11:13:39 The assessment that was done two years ago, again at
11:13:43 the time that we were talking, and at the time the
11:13:47 advisory group were working, was a very extensive
11:13:50 environmental assessment of the building.
11:13:52 And again it's a matter of public record, and was made
11:13:56 available to all of the developers who responded.
11:13:59 And again it wasn't an impediment to the building's
11:14:03 What's happening now is now that the building's
11:14:05 redevelopment isn't eminent, councilwoman Ferlita, and
11:14:09 more groups are coming to us saying, can we use it for
11:14:12 this or can we use it for that?
11:14:14 I think our risk management department, with more of
11:14:21 those requests coming in, wanted sort of an independent
11:14:22 assessment based on the condition of the building,
11:14:25 whether not in the context of redevelopment, but in the
11:14:27 context of groups coming in on a regular basis, whether
11:14:32 it was --
11:14:34 >>ROSE FERLITA: But let me interrupt you and clarify
11:14:36 the position so you can answer it bitter.
11:14:39 So we were not worried about the health concerns in
11:14:41 terms of that being an impediment to an economic
11:14:43 development of the building.
11:14:44 However, whatever health concerns we have are still an
11:14:47 impediment to people using it like SIROKA, and the film
11:14:54 It seems if we didn't have any health impediments when
11:14:57 looking at redevelopment of it in terms of an economic
11:14:59 engine, why then do we have health concerns about
11:15:02 people using it for other things now?
11:15:06 Hugh Hugh because all of the environmental issues would
11:15:08 be addressed.
11:15:09 So whether it's lead-based paint or mold in certain
11:15:14 rooms, or other issues that were identified in the
11:15:17 environmental engineering report, that's why it was
11:15:20 provided to the development team so they knew what they
11:15:24 would have to mitigate as part of their development.
11:15:26 >>ROSE FERLITA: Okay, that's a good explanation.
11:15:28 But then the double edge sword.
11:15:30 If we weren't concerned about the health concerns, why
11:15:33 do we let them use it and then pull them out?
11:15:36 Why do we not allow them to go in there in the first
11:15:39 place and the film industry commercials, Senates.
11:15:42 >>> Now that I cannot respond to.
11:15:43 That would be -- I think what I know is that there was
11:15:47 enough of these requests coming in, that again the
11:15:50 city's risk management department felt it was
11:15:52 appropriate to really get an opinion that they do.
11:15:56 And that has concluded that it's better to limit public
11:16:00 activity within the building.
11:16:04 So I think they have gotten to the conclusion that they
11:16:07 have a prudent process but it would be better for
11:16:10 really the risk management department to assure more
11:16:13 about that.
11:16:15 >>ROSE FERLITA: So first we let them use it and then we
11:16:18 say get out and we are not going to let anybody else
11:16:21 use it for any reason until we determine what's going
11:16:24 >>> I believe that's what the risk management
11:16:26 department concludewood be prudent for the city.
11:16:30 >>ROSE FERLITA: I don't mean to deliberate about that
11:16:33 but I think we ought to be cautious at the front end of
11:16:36 any kind of health concerns about an unhealthy building
11:16:39 instead of letting people start and say, no, no, no,
11:16:41 you have to get out of here.
11:16:43 But that's fine.
11:16:43 >>MARK HUEY: I would agree with that.
11:16:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Is there anybody in line that wants to
11:16:48 see the building or interested in buying it?
11:16:52 >>MARK HUEY: We have had folks who call with -- some of
11:16:56 those who originally had ideas but weren't selected as
11:16:59 the preferred bidder, continue to work on their ideas.
11:17:03 But nothing is eminent, councilman Alvarez.
11:17:07 Nothing to report
11:17:10 And the public is aware that the building is available.
11:17:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The people that are coming forward from
11:17:17 that other list that you're talking about, are they
11:17:20 aware of the health and environmental issues in it?
11:17:25 >>MARK HUEY: Oh, yes.
11:17:26 Yes, again the report -- that's why we did the report,
11:17:29 because we wanted everyone who responded to the
11:17:31 redevelopment opportunity to be fully informed about
11:17:36 the environmental condition of the building and about
11:17:37 the cost that it would take to mitigate that.
11:17:42 >>ROSE FERLITA: Is anyone here from the health
11:17:46 >>ROSE FERLITA: Ms. Marshall, did anyone ask in terms
11:17:51 of that?
11:17:52 Do you know?
11:17:56 Madam Chairman, at the end of this conversation I would
11:17:58 still like to make that an additional motion.
11:18:01 I want to make sure that we are not in any kind of --
11:18:05 for future reference, and I would like the health
11:18:07 department to weigh in on it.
11:18:09 I did check with somebody from ECC.
11:18:11 They said at this point it would not be their issue, it
11:18:14 would be a health department thing.
11:18:15 So whether -- and Mr. Huey, you can be her or not,
11:18:19 whatever you like.
11:18:20 But I would like to have them weigh in on it and give
11:18:23 us their opinion.
11:18:24 Maybe they weren't noticed.
11:18:25 Maybe they didn't want to attend.
11:18:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Come or report?
11:18:31 >>ROSE FERLITA: Maybe even a report is fine.
11:18:32 Couple of weeks.
11:18:34 >> Second.
11:18:34 (Motion carried).
11:18:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 9.
11:18:39 Mr. Steve Daignault.
11:18:43 >>ROSE FERLITA: Then if we have any questions and it
11:18:45 seems like the concerns are severe enough then we can
11:18:47 follow it up.
11:18:48 We don't have to belabor the agenda for that day.
11:18:50 Thank you.
11:18:51 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Administrator of public works
11:18:54 utility services.
11:18:55 This item is on the agenda because the county who owns
11:18:59 the bridges, specifically the Platt Street and the
11:19:01 Columbus street bridges, is in the process of
11:19:05 redeveloping, refurbishing those bridges, and is out
11:19:11 talking to the public, and asking for their input.
11:19:16 At one time we tried to schedule for them to come and
11:19:19 speak to the council, make their presentations.
11:19:21 There's two of them.
11:19:26 It was going to take us about 15 minutes to do that.
11:19:26 The council asked that we do individual briefings.
11:19:28 Instead a number of you on the MPO have already seen
11:19:31 the presentation.
11:19:32 I think it's just here for further discussion and for
11:19:35 council to see what they want to do with this topic.
11:19:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have had a chance to talk to Mr.
11:19:42 I have been to a number of meetings on this.
11:19:44 Frankly, I think it needs to come before council
11:19:46 because it's a difference northbound opinion between
11:19:48 the neighborhoods and people who support walkers and
11:19:52 pedestrians, and the county engineers, and they are
11:19:55 asking for input.
11:19:56 I think we need to hear from our constituents.
11:19:58 I would like to move to put this on our agenda for
11:20:01 public discussion.
11:20:01 I pulled it off because I thought there was consensus.
11:20:04 And when I looked into it further, there isn't.
11:20:07 And it's really important.
11:20:09 It's a really big deal.
11:20:10 Columbus bridge, Platt Street bridge, big, big, big
11:20:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Set it for when?
11:20:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm looking at the middle of
11:20:21 At 11:00 o'clock.
11:20:30 February 9th at 11:00 o'clock.
11:20:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Did you get a second?
11:20:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Question.
11:20:36 Are you setting this then as a workshop?
11:20:38 And will you then stop other business to handle this at
11:20:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'll ask my fellow council members.
11:20:45 I heard a lot of this conversation.
11:20:47 Would you rather I have a special workshop meeting and
11:20:49 report back to council?
11:20:51 I'll do whichever you prefer.
11:20:52 >>GWEN MILLER: That would be fine.
11:20:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So in that case, maybe.
11:20:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So in that case, maybe the February
11:21:02 8th, which is a Wednesday at 9:00.
11:21:03 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Second.
11:21:07 (Motion carried).
11:21:10 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Just one question.
11:21:11 Would you like us to have anyone from the county or
11:21:13 their consultants attend?
11:21:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
11:21:17 That will be in the Mascotte room.
11:21:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I guess I'm a little bit confused.
11:21:25 These two county buildings, right?
11:21:32 Bridges, I meant.
11:21:35 Two county bridges.
11:21:37 Right now it seems these would be predominantly
11:21:40 county-funded improvements or renovations or
11:21:47 >>> Right.
11:21:48 >> And they are asking us for input.
11:21:50 Do we have control over what they do?
11:21:52 >>> I don't think so.
11:21:53 I think it's a recommendation.
11:21:54 Again you are getting input from a number of places,
11:21:57 and trying to get the public's input as well as as well
11:22:00 as the various government entities' input.
11:22:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
11:22:03 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Daignault, one quick question,
11:22:08 unrelated, I guess.
11:22:10 When we talk about that Platt Street bridge, it just
11:22:12 stops at the edge of the bridge area.
11:22:15 There's some concern about the pedestrian status at the
11:22:18 end of the bridge on the other side of the bridge.
11:22:20 >>> I think all of that is included.
11:22:22 Certainly with the riverwalks, the Super Bowl 2009,
11:22:27 those are all concerns.
11:22:29 >> I'll tell you the reason I remember that is because
11:22:32 as many of us from South Tampa use that corridor, some
11:22:36 lady was trying to walk across there.
11:22:38 Boy, it's really rough.
11:22:40 You know you have that little median right in the
11:22:42 And maybe that hopefully will be addressed at the same
11:22:44 I don't know what can be done.
11:22:46 But a pedestrian trying to cross from this side of
11:22:50 where Publix is over to the other side, it's really
11:22:53 She was having a tough time.
11:22:56 Does that need to be another discussion?
11:22:59 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Again, it is.
11:23:01 >>ROSE FERLITA: Is that still county?
11:23:05 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: In their options they have a little
11:23:07 matrix sheet.
11:23:08 Among the issues --
11:23:11 >>ROSE FERLITA: It looked like that, Steve, but I
11:23:14 wasn't sure.
11:23:16 >>> Yes, it is addressed.
11:23:17 >> That was my question.
11:23:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to make sure that at
11:23:20 this meeting we have representatives from the city,
11:23:22 from transportation, as well as parks and rec because
11:23:26 it's part of our Greenways and trails, and have a staff
11:23:30 member from land use that can report on all the
11:23:32 improved rezonings in that area, because those
11:23:37 rezonings are going to impact now future pedestrian
11:23:40 So since we set this for a month from now that should
11:23:45 give land use an opportunity to give us, for example, a
11:23:49 five-block radius, or four blocks might be walkable, in
11:23:54 terms of approved rezonings with the potential impact.
11:23:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Daignault.
11:24:04 Mr. Daignault.
11:24:07 Number 10.
11:24:08 >>DAVID SMITH: Good morning again.
11:24:12 David Smith here to speak on item number 10.
11:24:17 Not going to say very much about ongoing negotiations
11:24:20 but I'm here.
11:24:21 I need to provide a basis for understanding what we
11:24:24 will be bringing back to you, hopefully soon, as we
11:24:27 continue making progress on this negotiation.
11:24:31 This is with Verizon, the Verizon cable franchise
11:24:39 Item number 10.
11:24:41 The process has been a bit protracted.
11:24:43 Perhaps at times a little bit rancorousous.
11:24:46 But there's reasons for that.
11:24:47 There's a lot at state.
11:24:50 One of the other reasons for why it's been protracted
11:24:52 is Verizon insists on using their form document for the
11:24:56 franchise agreement.
11:24:58 That's not without good reason.
11:24:59 Their negotiating needs and something like 10,000
11:25:03 jurisdictions across the country.
11:25:07 We do have a tendency to see what on the jurisdictions
11:25:10 do. We of course watch the agreements in Fairfax
11:25:13 county and elsewhere.
11:25:14 So they are very concerned that they not have to start
11:25:17 from someone's base document as their baseline for
11:25:22 That raises an issue for the city that's of significant
11:25:25 concern, however, because we have a statute called the
11:25:27 level playing field statute.
11:25:29 We have an existing agreement with white house using
11:25:33 our existing franchise document.
11:25:35 When you start changing documents so that they are
11:25:38 entirely different, you raise issues of whether or not
11:25:43 it is in fact sufficiently equal to meet any kind of
11:25:45 equal playing field challenge.
11:25:47 Now, we have representatives from both sides here in
11:25:49 the audience today, so you can understand why I would
11:25:53 be reticent to be too detailed.
11:25:55 But essentially what we are doing, we have -- Verizon
11:26:01 has been working actively in states and in the federal
11:26:04 government, perhaps a preEMS to a local government
11:26:10 We wondered how they would be interested in obtaining a
11:26:16 franchise, if you get a state or national, why would
11:26:20 you need one from us? I understand that they do want a
11:26:23 franchise agreement with us.
11:26:24 We have simplified the negotiating team.
11:26:27 We probably had too many people at the table.
11:26:29 Right now, I have a meeting with one of the their
11:26:34 directors of national negotiations.
11:26:36 We met yesterday for about three hours.
11:26:38 We will meet again tomorrow.
11:26:39 And we are making considerable progress.
11:26:41 But what we need to do in the course of negotiating
11:26:45 this agreement is make sure that we, the city,
11:26:48 compensate for any differences in the document with
11:26:51 regard to allocation of risk and economic issues.
11:26:55 So it makes it a bit difficult.
11:26:57 But we are making considering progress and hope to be
11:27:00 back to you fairly soon with a franchise agreement that
11:27:04 we can present to you for your consideration.
11:27:08 Part of that may entail, if the document is
11:27:11 sufficiently different, or -- and sufficiently
11:27:15 problematic with regard to the level playing field
11:27:17 issues, we need to also have discussions with Bright
11:27:20 House to make sure that we are proceeding in a way that
11:27:23 is both fair to the current provider as well as fair to
11:27:26 the second provider.
11:27:28 So it not as he is a process as it might seem on its
11:27:34 face since we have an ordinance and a form document.
11:27:37 We have much more complication in the old mix by virtue
11:27:41 of how this is proceeding.
11:27:42 So it gives awe God context.
11:27:44 I know it doesn't give you the specifics.
11:27:46 But the goal is to get this done, and to get it done as
11:27:49 soon as possible, we do believe, in the benefits of
11:27:54 choice to our citizens, and hopefully we'll be there
11:27:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Smith.
11:28:02 One other thing.
11:28:03 We have been receiving documents from various folks on
11:28:09 I know we have all read newspaper articles about. This
11:28:11 one of the things that concerned me, and I wanted to
11:28:14 give you my input on this, and hopefully council's
11:28:16 input on this issue.
11:28:22 One of the things that was stated to us was some sort
11:28:24 of statistic that said, you know, not many people, some
11:28:28 small percentage of people in this community watch
11:28:33 public access, watch government access.
11:28:35 That sort of thing.
11:28:36 And, therefore, those channels should somehow be
11:28:40 shifted over into an optional program, okay?
11:28:45 And I don't know the technical details of that.
11:28:47 Frankly, don't care.
11:28:48 But what I do care about is the fact that I think that
11:28:51 public access and government access, that we should
11:28:55 keep the channels that we have and they should stay as
11:29:05 strong and apparent as they are.
11:29:07 Because I think they are extremely important.
11:29:08 I believe that it's important that people have an
11:29:11 opportunity to flip, you know, flip the channels, and
11:29:13 if they are unfortunate enough to come across channel
11:29:16 15 and see us deliberating, or channel 22 and see the
11:29:19 county deliberating, you know, but I'm serious.
11:29:25 If they come across those channels as they are flipping
11:29:28 their channels, a lot of people tell us that they watch
11:29:32 for a few minutes and they see what's happening.
11:29:34 And that's extremely important.
11:29:36 And it doesn't matter that it might only be, you know,
11:29:39 10% or 20 of the people that actually respond to the
11:29:41 survey and say, oh, I watch government access.
11:29:44 That doesn't matter.
11:29:45 What matters is that the public has an opportunity to
11:29:50 see the their government in action, and that's
11:29:52 extremely important.
11:29:53 And likewise, I think regardless -- and I'm not going
11:29:56 to get into a dough bait about the content of what's on
11:29:59 public access.
11:30:00 I think that public access is extremely important,
11:30:03 because the public should have access to these cable
11:30:07 channels for the same reason, that the minority
11:30:11 opinion, whether or not they are talking about their
11:30:11 particular religion or their belief or whatever it is,
11:30:15 that they have an opportunity to spread that word in
11:30:18 the same way that the majority does through the rest of
11:30:20 the channels.
11:30:21 So that's my opinion on this.
11:30:23 So as you go through negotiations, I would hope that
11:30:27 the government access and the public access retain a
11:30:29 very, very strong place on those channels.
11:30:35 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I didn't want to talk about any of
11:30:36 the specifics of the proposals.
11:30:40 And I don't think it would be appropriate right now.
11:30:42 I think we all share Mr. Dingfelder's sentiment that
11:30:45 the government access is on an important part of what
11:30:48 we provide to our citizens.
11:30:49 That should not go away.
11:30:50 Public access is a debatable issue, but it has been
11:30:55 with us for a long time, and that should continue in
11:30:58 some fashion.
11:31:01 What you said, David, is just what I want -- I want to
11:31:04 agree with, and that is competition is a good thing.
11:31:07 And right now, there is no competition.
11:31:11 And we want to bring the other group to the table.
11:31:15 My yard was torn up for three months last year, and I
11:31:20 have been eagerly awaiting the opportunity to compare
11:31:24 what we have now with what might be offered, and so I
11:31:26 can make an informed decision like everyone else in
11:31:29 this community has.
11:31:31 So what I would just encourage you all to do is to
11:31:34 redouble those efforts with Verizon to get something
11:31:39 together that you all feel meets the level playing
11:31:44 field standard and will enable that competition to take
11:31:49 At the same time, I know there have been some concerns
11:31:52 from Bright House that they have been requesting
11:31:55 meetings to talk about the future of their franchise
11:31:59 agreement with the city, and they may not feel like
11:32:02 they have gotten the attention that they feel like they
11:32:08 deserve as a corporate citizen of this community.
11:32:11 And they are an integral and viable part of our
11:32:18 They provide a very valuable public service.
11:32:20 And I think that we should extend them the courtesy of
11:32:24 listening to what their concerns are as well.
11:32:26 I know there are representatives of each one of these
11:32:28 companies in the audience.
11:32:29 I don't know if they have any more to say.
11:32:31 If so we should welcome that.
11:32:33 If not we can move on.
11:32:35 Thank you for the presentation.
11:32:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I concur with the statements of both
11:32:41 my colleagues.
11:32:43 And I think that perhaps a cost effective and proactive
11:32:47 way to deal with the question of public access and
11:32:49 government access is to look at cost sharing, that if
11:32:55 there are two or three or however many entities of
11:32:58 providing this service to the community, that rather
11:33:01 than each of them providing a government access, or
11:33:04 public access opportunity, that we could figure out
11:33:08 what the annual costs are, and let them share among
11:33:14 however priors there.
11:33:18 Logically it seems to make sense.
11:33:22 >>ROSE FERLITA: I don't really care to go to the
11:33:24 specifics because that's not my area of in -- of
11:33:33 But I think the reason for bringing this to surface,
11:33:35 Mr. Smith, is basically what you heard.
11:33:37 I think competition, particularly in a business, as far
11:33:40 as I New York City is a good thing for everybody.
11:33:42 And I think it's what everybody is asking.
11:33:44 There's no secret.
11:33:46 I have had conversation was Mr. Anderson, not worried
11:33:48 about declaring that.
11:33:49 And what he wants for his clients, as I'm sure what the
11:33:52 other attorney wants for their client.
11:33:54 Given the opportunity to get this done, have this
11:33:57 franchise agreement updated and revised, and just kind
11:34:00 of expedite the process so everybody can move on.
11:34:04 And I think that's what we are asking you to do and I
11:34:06 think that's what you committed to do this morning.
11:34:09 >>> Correct.
11:34:09 And that's exactly what we are trying to accomplish.
11:34:11 With regard to Bright House, our view on that is
11:34:15 literally about a month ago we had a real almost
11:34:17 impasse with Verizon.
11:34:20 We can't approach Bright House with adjustments to
11:34:23 their situation until we know what the situation is
11:34:26 with Verizon.
11:34:26 We have now made considerable progress in the last 30
11:34:30 As I said, he's committed to it and we are getting very
11:34:34 close to having a conceptual deal.
11:34:36 There's always some issues in the language.
11:34:38 But once we have that, we will then know what we also
11:34:45 need to do to accommodate Bright House.
11:34:46 But they have been a long-term corporate citizen in
11:34:49 this community, providing the service for a long time.
11:34:51 They dealt with the situation as it was in essence
11:34:54 provided to them.
11:34:56 And we need to make sure that any accommodation will we
11:35:00 are providing Verizon is also shared with them.
11:35:02 Ultimately we will get to a position, and it's an
11:35:07 updated, more -- I mean the technology in this area
11:35:10 changes so rapidly.
11:35:11 It's incredible.
11:35:16 We I think we will have a very similar arrangement and
11:35:20 provide the competition we are all seeking.
11:35:21 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Smith, thank you.
11:35:23 I know that the representatives of both companies
11:35:25 sitting here, thank you, since 9:00.
11:35:28 You assured us you are going to move on as
11:35:30 expeditiously as you can.
11:35:31 But again, the invitation that Mr. Anderson noted, if
11:35:36 Mr. Anderson on the other hand wants to say something,
11:35:39 then I think he would should give him that opportunity.
11:35:52 >>> Good morning.
11:35:53 Steve Anderson, with the law firm of rood and
11:35:56 McCluskey, local counsel for BrightHouse Network.
11:35:59 Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
11:36:03 And I'll keep it brief.
11:36:05 We do believe that Bright House has an excellent
11:36:08 relationship with the City of Tampa.
11:36:11 We have worked very hard to be good corporate citizens.
11:36:15 That's because we do serve 75,000 households in your
11:36:23 750 of our employees are located right here in
11:36:26 Hillsborough County.
11:36:29 Bright House, as you know, pays to the city directly
11:36:34 about $2.5 million each year for the privilege of
11:36:37 having our system in the public right-of-way, and for
11:36:43 the last five years we have paid almost an additional
11:36:45 $5 million to the City of Tampa.
11:36:49 For various things under that franchise.
11:36:52 And each year, as you know, our Bright House
11:36:56 contributes more than $1.5 million to local civic and
11:37:01 charitable events.
11:37:04 So we do work really hard at doing that, and I
11:37:07 appreciate Mr. Smith's statements.
11:37:09 And believe me, I appreciate where he is and the things
11:37:15 he has to do. It's not an easy situation.
11:37:17 As he said this is very complicated.
11:37:19 Frankly, I think for the very reasons he stated, Bright
11:37:22 House does wish that we would be granted an
11:37:27 opportunity, would have been granted an opportunity
11:37:29 already, to have had some high-level policy level
11:37:34 conversations with the city.
11:37:39 I can't speak for Verizon, their representative.
11:37:42 But Bright House does believe that both companies are
11:37:45 in somewhat of a quandary.
11:37:46 Verizon needs and wants a franchise so county compete
11:37:52 as soon as possible.
11:37:53 And the city is asking for fees and concessions greater
11:37:59 than what the market would bear under current
11:38:04 conditions for this industry.
11:38:06 A new franchisee as now under the level playing field
11:38:11 law, can't be given terms that are substantially better
11:38:14 than an existing franchise.
11:38:16 And that would be us.
11:38:17 So you have got this situation of Verizon, we think
11:38:24 Verizon should not be held to the same level of extras
11:38:31 that we gave the city, but because of the level playing
11:38:37 field, they may feel like they have to be.
11:38:40 They can respect speak for themselves.
11:38:43 But I want to remind you, as we reminded the city, our
11:38:48 franchise was entered into when we in effect had a
11:38:54 Those days are gone.
11:38:55 Competition is here.
11:38:56 That's good that we have and have had satellite,
11:39:03 Verizon is coming in.
11:39:03 There are others that will probably be coming in.
11:39:05 So the world has changed in this industry, and the
11:39:08 world has changed.
11:39:10 We think competition is good.
11:39:14 We hope that local government will understand that it
11:39:17 now takes a different mind-set when entering into, when
11:39:20 trying to resolve these issues.
11:39:23 (Bell sounds).
11:39:25 How much time do I have?
11:39:27 >>GWEN MILLER: None.
11:39:29 >>> None?
11:39:29 >>GWEN MILLER: But state your recommendations.
11:39:33 >>> Well, we certainly agree with the recommendation,
11:39:37 and we would really hope that Bright House be allowed
11:39:42 to have conversations now so that we can do exactly
11:39:44 what Mr. Smith was saying is so difficult, and that's
11:39:48 look at the two franchise agreements simultaneously,
11:39:52 and discuss the issues and how we can have two
11:40:00 franchise agreements now that are not only on a level
11:40:03 playing field and fair but reflect today's technology.
11:40:08 Thank you very much.
11:40:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:40:12 >> Alan Kempersayer with Verizon.
11:40:18 We simply want to get started. We currently have about
11:40:22 25 that you homes in the city.
11:40:23 We are training installers about 40 a month.
11:40:26 We are ready to go, ready to provide competitive
11:40:31 David has been great about getting together and
11:40:33 discussing the franchise and the contract.
11:40:39 It's moving forward.
11:40:40 I would only ask, we don't want any advantage over
11:40:43 Verizon -- over Verizon?
11:40:45 We definitely don't want.
11:40:46 We don't want any advantage over Bright House.
11:40:49 We simply want to get going.
11:40:52 We have a different technology so in these complicated
11:40:58 franchise agreements.
11:40:59 For example, if Verizon stops providing service, you
11:41:02 can take their system.
11:41:05 If we stop providing cable service because we fail in
11:41:09 the cable market that's still the telephone system.
11:41:12 You probably don't want that and we still need it.
11:41:15 So there are some agreements, but in general, the
11:41:18 playing field is level, and we absolutely will provide
11:41:21 whatever is required.
11:41:23 Our biggest concern is that we are putting money in the
11:41:27 ground now at about a rate of $215 million a year in
11:41:33 the city and county.
11:41:34 We need to start to be able to sell service.
11:41:36 We are ready to start to be able to sell service.
11:41:39 We have started in Temple Terrace.
11:41:41 People are buying it.
11:41:42 I have to say people love it.
11:41:44 And so we want to let the city, the people, the city
11:41:48 and the county, have the same opportunity as the
11:41:54 As you might have read in the newspaper, has asked us
11:41:54 to come back with a franchise agreement by the end of
11:41:57 the month.
11:41:58 We are hoping to be able to do that.
11:42:11 In a month or two 150,000 people that will be able to
11:42:14 get service.
11:42:15 Thank you very much.
11:42:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to compliment both companies
11:42:20 in your ten dense to now put your facilities
11:42:23 underground rather than stringing them up on wires.
11:42:26 And as we look toward our negotiation was Tampa
11:42:30 Electric Company, I encourage them to similarly la
11:42:33 toward putting their facilities underground because it
11:42:36 certainly effects the quality of Tampa's street canopy.
11:42:40 Thank you.
11:42:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:42:45 >>> My name is Bob BOMACK, 2889 Bayshore trails in
11:42:51 Tampa, 33611.
11:42:53 The agenda references a report from the administration
11:42:55 today on the status of negotiations with Verizon and
11:42:59 Bright House for cable TV franchises.
11:43:03 And I have followed this matter closely in the papers
11:43:06 and believe it is important to our community.
11:43:10 I'm concerned with the attitude of the city.
11:43:13 Both Verizon and Bright House say they are asking that
11:43:18 the city is asking for too much in fees and taxes.
11:43:21 The discussions with Verizon have dragged on for
11:43:26 months, and the city won't even meet with Bright House.
11:43:31 What is going on here?
11:43:32 I want you to remember that all those fees and taxes
11:43:36 get passed right through to us, the consumer.
11:43:40 And I and lots of other people are tired of getting
11:43:44 nickeled and dimed to death by hidden taxes in our
11:43:50 Last week I read that Bright House intends to keep its
11:43:54 digital rates constant for the next two years, and will
11:43:58 only raise analog rates by 2%.
11:44:02 That must be in recognition on their part that
11:44:07 competition is here.
11:44:08 And that is good.
11:44:09 That is what competition is supposed to do.
11:44:15 So why is government standing in the way?
11:44:18 Why are you slowing the process?
11:44:21 Why are you adding to my bills?
11:44:24 It seems that the city government is stuck somewhere in
11:44:28 the 70s or '80s.
11:44:30 You need to catch up with the rest of the world.
11:44:33 Instead of piling on whenever you see a chance to hit
11:44:37 us for a few more dollars, you should get out of the
11:44:39 way and let competition work.
11:44:42 Thank you.
11:44:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:44:43 >>ROSE FERLITA: Sir, just a comment back to you.
11:44:46 Obviously the fact that this board took the position
11:44:48 that we wanted to ask Mr. Smith to do all co-to
11:44:51 expedite it hardly tells me that we are in the way of
11:44:55 We agree with the spirit of competition.
11:44:57 I agree with what you say.
11:44:58 And obviously that's why this forum is going to have to
11:45:02 come along.
11:45:02 >>DAVID SMITH: I would like to correct what has been a
11:45:05 major misperception in the media, started with the Wall
11:45:08 Street Journal article.
11:45:10 Contrary to the communication I provided the author of
11:45:13 that article, they insisted on reporting that we were
11:45:17 seeking something like $13 million from Verizon in
11:45:20 terms of contributions for paying an I-net.
11:45:24 That's faults.
11:45:25 They know it's false.
11:45:26 Verizon knows it's false.
11:45:28 What we spoke of, public, educational and governmental
11:45:35 I-net is Internet for the institutions, the service
11:45:41 within the school buildings and city buildings and
11:45:43 county buildings.
11:45:44 The costs are the fees associated with peg and I-net.
11:45:52 It's not negotiable.
11:45:54 It's what it is.
11:45:55 It's set by state.
11:45:56 So the idea that we're seeking to exact charges in
11:46:00 excess of those paid by Verizon is false.
11:46:02 If we need to and can make accommodations to decrease
11:46:05 it even below what Bright House has paid, we are
11:46:08 certainly willing to talk to Bright House about their
11:46:11 waiver of any level of playing field in order to do
11:46:14 But it is important as you all indicated that we
11:46:16 continue the public, educational and governmental
11:46:20 access, in the I-net that serves all the buildings that
11:46:24 you guys help manage.
11:46:25 Those are things that we have continued.
11:46:27 I believe we have a conceptual agreement as of
11:46:30 recently -- and my conversations with Eric edgington on
11:46:34 the business points.
11:46:34 All we are doing at this point is final I go some
11:46:38 They are not unimportant.
11:46:39 Things like indemnification, et cetera.
11:46:42 I think we have conceptual understanding on the
11:46:44 business front.
11:46:45 So it should not take very long to get this finalized.
11:46:48 I'm waiting for a couple of responses.
11:46:51 He has to get some comment from his folks.
11:46:55 And I think we will get that. If we do we have
11:46:58 essentially a done deal and we'll be happy to talk to
11:47:01 Bright House at that time because we know what we have
11:47:03 and what we need to discuss with them about.
11:47:05 So thank you very much.
11:47:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:47:07 Number 11.
11:47:08 Cindy Miller.
11:47:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only part that concerns me,
11:47:11 David, about that comment, if I could, Madam Chair.
11:47:16 It's sort of like when we hear something is a done
11:47:19 deal, and then you bring it, not you, but it gets
11:47:22 brought to us, I can see why Bright House would be a
11:47:25 little bit concerned if something is a done deal and
11:47:27 then it's brought to them.
11:47:28 >>DAVID SMITH: Well, the better way to describe it, the
11:47:32 way I'm conceptualizing is, is when we have what I
11:47:36 think is a conceptual deal with Verizon, if we have
11:47:39 issues that I think are going to implicate level of
11:47:44 field contract, we need to talk to Bright House.
11:47:47 And truthfully as we are accommodate ago more moderate
11:47:51 approach to this industry were going to be some
11:47:54 accommodations, irrespective of level playing field.
11:47:57 It's just something that's appropriate to do.
11:47:59 So rather than go through what could be a continuous
11:48:03 back and forth, we need to get a baseline and then get
11:48:06 Bryce house, talk with them, see where they are on
11:48:08 these issues, and we'd like to really have grand
11:48:13 Kum ba yah so it's -- done deal is a bad term.
11:48:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Number 11.
11:48:30 >>> Cindy Miller: Director of business and housing
11:48:33 I'm here on item number 11.
11:48:38 This was a motion made last week when you acted upon an
11:48:42 amendment to an agreement with the West Tampa CDC
11:48:45 Community Development Corporation regarding financing
11:48:50 of three homes that they will be constructing in West
11:48:53 I do appreciate you acting on that motion last week and
11:48:55 then asking for this clarification.
11:48:56 This agreement was negotiated back in 2004, and I
11:49:00 believe was executed as an agreement last year.
11:49:03 This amendment simply allows the city to pay LISK, who
11:49:10 is providing a line of credit to the West Tampa CDC,
11:49:13 for any moneys that they are expending.
11:49:15 The West Tampa CDC has obtained a line of credit with
11:49:20 list to pay for construction of these houses.
11:49:22 What list provided in their agreement between the
11:49:26 parties is they receive the reimbursement for the
11:49:28 construction funds directly from the city.
11:49:30 So we were paying list moneys extended through their
11:49:33 line of credit and then we will reimbursing the West
11:49:35 Tampa CDC for any appropriate expenses.
11:49:39 So that is all the amendment last week did.
11:49:42 Subsequent to the agreement we had with the West Tampa
11:49:44 CDC, we have reformatted our agreements, so we do not
11:49:47 believe that any future agreements with development
11:49:52 corporations or nonprofits will necessity this kind of
11:49:55 I hope that clarifies the item.
11:49:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What is the time frame on these
11:50:01 >>> I believe that now that construction is underway we
11:50:03 will see construction in the next few months.
11:50:05 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, thank you.
11:50:09 Ms. Miller, had I known this before, you and I discuss
11:50:13 things up front.
11:50:16 I had not read this, obviously.
11:50:18 Last night when we saw each other after my sign
11:50:21 committee in the courtyard, this morning I was looking
11:50:23 at the article that was written by Janet Zink on the
11:50:27 city housing division.
11:50:32 Given some of the issues that happened in the past, and
11:50:34 I know that this references some concerns about her
11:50:38 subletting a house, and when she was with the Buffalo
11:50:41 housing authority, 28 others since her tenure, cell
11:50:47 phones, credit cards, bunches of flashbacks that I'm
11:50:50 getting here.
11:50:51 What have we done that -- how can we improve on what we
11:50:57 have done so that some of these things would have been
11:51:00 detected when we are checking references, et cetera?
11:51:04 What happened in the past that this didn't come to
11:51:09 >>> This particular audit has been conducted by HUD on
11:51:11 the Buffalo housing authority, just conducted in very
11:51:14 recent months.
11:51:15 I can assure you that when I was involved in checking
11:51:18 the references of Ms. West, I did talk with folks up in
11:51:24 We throughout the city had checked with references
11:51:26 through the industry, through HUD and on the housing
11:51:29 We checked people that Ms. West gave us as references
11:51:32 and when talked with folks that she had not given as
11:51:34 references that we did as our own independent research.
11:51:38 I am assured that Ms. West is a person of integrity.
11:51:41 I am assured of my own interaction with her in the past
11:51:45 year that she is someone who will do great things for
11:51:47 the City of Tampa when it comes to housing.
11:51:49 And when it comes to this particular audit, it was just
11:51:53 completed in the last few weeks.
11:51:55 Mrs. West, I believe, is on record, and I have talked
11:51:58 with her last week into this week, she was not given
11:52:00 the opportunity when the audit was released to give her
11:52:03 side of the story or to present documentation that
11:52:09 could address these items.
11:52:10 My understanding from both the media in Buffalo and in
11:52:13 conversations I have had with representatives there is
11:52:21 that they have appointed a person to take a look at
11:52:23 these items, and I spoke to that person just two days
11:52:27 ago, and Mr. Elmo is his name, and he has very credible
11:52:31 He is a person who has given me the assurance that he
11:52:33 has all confidence in Sharon west, he believes that the
11:52:36 outcome of his review, investigate, of the HUD audit
11:52:40 and recommendations will show that Ms. West did
11:52:44 absolutely nothing wrong.
11:52:46 So, as a matter of fact, she had hoped to try to make
11:52:48 some of these changes during her tenure, and also keep
11:52:51 in mind she has been gone for nine months.
11:52:54 So that folks in Buffalo could have picked up this and
11:52:59 progressed even further.
11:53:01 I have every confidence.
11:53:03 >>ROSE FERLITA: So these may or may not be founded,
11:53:09 these charges or these accusations?
11:53:11 >>> We of course will monitor the situation but I think
11:53:13 they have to resolve their issues and I have every
11:53:16 confidence that the improvements Ms. West has made in
11:53:18 our process has dramatically improved our
11:53:21 accountability, and our fiscal responsibility here in
11:53:24 City Council.
11:53:26 >>ROSE FERLITA: I feel almost silly asking you this
11:53:28 because I don't know how much more comprehensive
11:53:31 anybody can be versus your comprehensive ad attitude.
11:53:35 So I'm sure if you're comfortable, that's a good thing.
11:53:39 And if there's anything that transpires good or bad or
11:53:42 confirms what you suspect in terms of these being
11:53:46 unfounded, for your convenience-were Thom comes back
11:53:51 up, would you report that to us?
11:53:54 >>> I will.
11:53:55 >> That's not a motion.
11:53:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would
11:53:59 like to ask for reconsideration?
11:54:01 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak
11:54:03 on any item on the agenda not set for public hearing?
11:54:19 >>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: I reside at 2902 East Ellicott
11:54:24 And I thank God for his grace and his mercy.
11:54:28 I have to say that because a poor black man from
11:54:31 Mississippi doing way do, I have God in front of me.
11:54:34 But I want to speak on article 26, 27, 28, 29, that
11:54:39 consists of that Florida street bridge.
11:54:43 But awhile ago they brought up about this TV thing.
11:54:46 And that interested me more than anything you all can
11:54:48 talk about for the next two weeks.
11:54:52 Let me tell you why I said that.
11:54:54 I represent the poor peoples.
11:54:56 And most of them can't afford to see this City Council.
11:55:02 Me, I come down here, and many peoples, I get offers to
11:55:07 change my cable, to another satellite dish, and I tell
11:55:12 them I wouldn't mind chaining.
11:55:14 Right now I pay $80 some a month and I'm on a fixed
11:55:19 And all of the people on fixed income have to pay.
11:55:22 Used to have what we call the senior citizen thing and
11:55:25 they cut it out.
11:55:27 Now we have to pay through the nose.
11:55:31 I said that awhile ago.
11:55:32 And I say, thank you, Lord, Jesus, for finally hearing
11:55:37 my prayer.
11:55:38 And I agree, like anybody -- I done told the cable
11:55:43 company here today I cannot get the community station.
11:55:46 It's very important.
11:55:47 Because you have City Council here, the school board
11:55:49 meeting, the county board commission, everything comes
11:55:52 down through there, that people need to know about.
11:55:55 And of course they need to know what's going on in this
11:55:58 But they don't know and they go and pay that 60, 70,
11:56:03 $80 to Bright House.
11:56:05 And they are telling me in the flea market, Moses, I
11:56:10 can't get you now, I can't get you now.
11:56:13 But I really think that this come up here, and I agree
11:56:17 with you all to go if it 100%.
11:56:22 Okay, back to the 40th Street bridge, you know, there's
11:56:26 one thing in -- I mean, serious problem for years and
11:56:33 years, no project in town more needed than the 40th
11:56:36 Street bridge start from Hillsborough to Fowler, but
11:56:44 this here is serious, and that bridge, talking about
11:56:47 the Platt Street bridge, that bridge down there, close
11:56:50 to 20 black people.
11:56:52 Nobody -- they came with three young black children got
11:56:57 killed, ran into a bus or something and got burned up
11:57:01 alive on this bridge.
11:57:02 Back to the mayor.
11:57:03 I love the mayor.
11:57:04 And people peoples ask me.
11:57:08 I love the mayor.
11:57:09 You know why I love her?
11:57:10 Because she got a God heart in her body.
11:57:13 And then again, what I say about the mayor, when she
11:57:18 got elected she was going to do -- when she come to
11:57:23 this podium here about two months ago and said 40th
11:57:25 Street is going to get done, I wanted to hug her
11:57:29 because I thought, oh, thank you, Jesus, because we
11:57:32 heard many more that didn't know of that problem.
11:57:36 But I want to see here talking about raising the fund
11:57:41 into a gas tax fund, get that done.
11:57:44 And I see this thing from fire house 13 to Fowler,
11:57:48 already got the money for that.
11:57:51 But I want to say, though, there's something wrong with
11:57:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
11:57:57 We go to our committee reports.
11:57:59 Parks, recreation, Mary Alvarez.
11:58:00 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I move item 12.
11:58:07 >> Second.
11:58:07 (Motion carried).
11:58:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Public works, Ms. Rose Ferlita, vice
11:58:11 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move resolutions 13 through 16, please.
11:58:15 >> Second.
11:58:15 (Motion carried).
11:58:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Linda Saul-Sena, vice chair.
11:58:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move item 17.
11:58:27 >> Second.
11:58:27 (Motion carried).
11:58:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Building and zoning, Linda Saul-Sena.
11:58:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move resolutions 18 through 23.
11:58:35 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
11:58:37 (Motion carried).
11:58:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Number 24, an ordinance being
11:58:44 presented for first reading, an ordinance vacating,
11:58:47 closing, discontinuing, and abandoning a certain
11:58:50 right-of-way all that 220 feet portion of Maxwell
11:58:54 Avenue lying south of jackson street north of
11:58:56 Washington street east of John F. Kennedy Boulevard SR
11:59:00 60 and west of the CSX railroad in map of Finley and
11:59:05 stillings subdivision, a subdivision in the City of
11:59:07 Tampa, Hillsborough County Florida the same being more
11:59:10 fully described in section 2 hereof providing an
11:59:11 effective date.
11:59:12 >> Second.
11:59:12 (Motion carried).
11:59:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Transportation, Mr. Shawn Harrison.
11:59:16 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I move items 25 through 29.
11:59:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:59:22 (Motion carried).
11:59:22 >>SHAWN HARRISON: If I could just on 27, I would like
11:59:27 to express thanks to the county for a contribution
11:59:29 towards this project, $2.7 million. This is 40th
11:59:33 They didn't have to do that.
11:59:34 And we certainly appreciate it.
11:59:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
11:59:40 Mr. Harrison.
11:59:41 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I would like to move items 30 and 31
11:59:44 to be set for February 23rd.
11:59:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:59:47 (Motion carried).
11:59:48 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Items 32 through 34 to be set on
11:59:55 February 16th.
11:59:56 >> Second.
11:59:56 (Motion carried).
11:59:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
12:00:01 We are going to go into recess.
12:00:04 Do I need to read that again?
12:00:18 >>GWEN MILLER: We do have a reading again.
12:00:55 Notice is hereby given that on January the 12th,
12:00:58 2006, at 12:00 p.m., Tampa City Council will go into
12:01:03 closed session pursuant to 286.0118, Florida statutes,
12:01:08 for approximately one hour.
12:01:11 The meeting will convene in City Council's chambers and
12:01:14 will move to the conference room to the 8th floor
12:01:17 of City Hall for the closed session.
12:01:20 The council members will discuss settlement
12:01:22 negotiations and strategy sessions related to
12:01:26 mitigation regarding City National Bank of Florida, and
12:01:31 Citivest Construction Corporation versus City of Tampa,
12:01:35 case number 04-6188, filed in the 13th judicial
12:01:42 The meeting will be attended by City Council chair Gwen
12:01:45 Miller, council member Rose Ferlita, Linda Saul-Sena,
12:01:49 John Dingfelder, Kevin White, Mary Alvarez, and Shawn
12:01:55 David Smith, the attorney, Marty Shelby, City Council
12:01:58 attorney, Gerry Gewertz, chief assistant city attorney,
12:02:08 Donna Wysong, assistant city attorney, Cathy O'Dowd,
12:02:12 assistant city attorney, and Julie Cole, assistant
12:02:16 The following is a closed session.
12:02:17 The City Council will reconvene in open session in City
12:02:21 Council chambers so that the chair can announce
12:02:24 determination of the closed session, and the City
12:02:27 Council will take any formal action it is deemed
12:02:31 But we will come back at City Council at 1:30.
12:02:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: ... (off microphone) that you
12:02:41 immediately come back, reconvene, announce
12:02:42 determination, and if it's before 1:30 to recess until
12:02:47 >>GWEN MILLER: We will convene at 1:00.
12:02:51 Approximately one hour.
12:02:52 We are now going to recess.
12:02:56 (City Council recessed at approximately 12:04 p.m.)
13:08:30 Tampa City Council to called back to order.
13:08:33 Roll call.
13:08:36 [Roll Call]
13:08:49 Pursuant to 286 0118 Florida statutes, the closed
13:08:54 session to discuss City National Bank of Florida and
13:08:57 Citivest Construction Corporation versus City of Tampa,
13:09:01 case number 04-6188, is hereby terminated.
13:09:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I move that we direct city legal
13:09:15 staff to appeal Judge Levin's order.
13:09:21 >> Second.
13:09:22 (Motion carried).
13:09:22 >>GWEN MILLER: We will now go into recess until 1:30.
13:37:15 [Sounding gavel]
13:37:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called back to
13:37:20 Roll call.
13:37:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
13:37:23 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
13:37:25 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.
13:37:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
13:37:27 I would like to make an announcement.
13:37:35 It was January the is itth, January 19th, 2006,
13:37:41 at this meeting.
13:37:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The motion was related to January
13:38:02 Or you just do a motion for reconsideration.
13:38:04 Somebody can make a motion for reconsideration.
13:38:05 >>ROSE FERLITA: I'm sorry?
13:38:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion to rescind.
13:38:11 >> Move to open.
13:38:13 >> Second.
13:38:14 [Motion Carried]
13:38:14 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion to rescind, set that item for
13:38:17 the 19th.
13:38:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
13:38:20 (Motion carried).
13:38:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I alluded to this earlier.
13:38:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm so sorry, council.
13:38:26 Just for the sake of making sure the legal department
13:38:28 is satisfied if you could reread that statement in its
13:38:32 entirety with the correct date.
13:38:37 It's not that bad, I hope.
13:38:38 >>GWEN MILLER: It has the Spanish name.
13:38:42 I'm going to read the brownfield designation again.
13:38:45 A public hearing will be held regarding a proposed
13:38:48 brown field designation, at the corner of ELMICO and
13:38:56 JVS contracting corporation for the site at 1608 north
13:39:01 43rd street, Tampa, Florida, this public hearing
13:39:04 will be held at 1608 north 43rd street, Tampa,
13:39:07 Florida, on Thursday, January the 19th, 2006, at
13:39:13 6:00 p.m.
13:39:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
13:39:21 To be clear, this is something I alluded to earlier
13:39:23 with Mr. Shelby, so I need to make it in the form of a
13:39:27 Currently on our schedule it says we are going to have
13:39:29 a first reading for the tree ordinance.
13:39:31 I would like to move to change that to 11:00 rather
13:39:34 than 1:00 on Thursday, January 26th.
13:39:38 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Second.
13:39:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
13:39:41 (Motion carried).
13:39:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And at 1:30 on Thursday, January
13:39:45 26th, I move to put on our calendar a discussion of
13:39:50 school concurrency to be held at Jefferson high school
13:39:53 along with the county, Temple Terrace, Plant City, and
13:39:56 the school board.
13:39:57 >>ROSE FERLITA: I'm sorry, I had written those dates,
13:40:00 and the currency -- concurrency meeting is when?
13:40:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thursday, January 26, 1:30.
13:40:10 So I move that we put that on our calendar.
13:40:15 >> Second.
13:40:15 (Motion carried).
13:40:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chairman, I think I made this
13:40:20 motion but I'm not sure.
13:40:21 It was to discuss the bridges on Wednesday, February
13:40:26 8th at 9 a.m., in the Mascotte room, the Columbus
13:40:30 and Platt Street bridges.
13:40:34 Oh, I did that already.
13:40:36 >>GWEN MILLER: If not anything else we go to our public
13:40:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe you had the item from this
13:40:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Daignault, water.
13:40:55 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Good afternoon, council members.
13:40:57 Steve Daignault, administrator of public works, utility
13:41:02 I appreciate your willingness to let me have some time
13:41:06 here to address this important matter with you.
13:41:10 We are constantly evaluating our water system.
13:41:15 We do that through hydraulic modeling, and we do that
13:41:18 by evaluating and looking at the requests for letters
13:41:22 of commitment.
13:41:23 We do this because we have to know how much water to
13:41:25 produce now, and we also have to look into the future
13:41:28 and see what the demands are going to be on the system
13:41:30 in the future.
13:41:36 Recently because of all the growth that's occurring in
13:41:38 South Tampa, primarily, we hired Reece environmental
13:41:43 engineers to do a study for us in the South Tampa
13:41:47 specifically, in the Tyson area by Westshore, Gandy,
13:41:55 and that happened in early 2005.
13:41:57 In July, they came and told us that as a result of
13:42:01 their evaluation that the existing system currently
13:42:04 does not have adequate capacity to serve the projected
13:42:09 increases of flow in the Tyson Avenue area.
13:42:11 That caused us some concern, again with all the
13:42:14 development that's going on in that part of town.
13:42:16 So we said we need to back up and actually look a
13:42:19 little broader, we need to see what's going on
13:42:22 throughout the city, and especially in the South Tampa
13:42:27 And as you can imagine, the requests for water service
13:42:31 has not slowed up, they continue to come to us.
13:42:36 We had them do a broader evaluation.
13:42:40 And what they determined was previously projected 2025
13:42:45 flows are being realized in 2006.
13:42:49 So we are experiencing requests and demand for service
13:42:53 in our system now that we had previously thought
13:42:56 wouldn't occur until 2025.
13:42:59 As a result of that, they have made some
13:43:03 recommendations of modifications to our system to
13:43:05 include running a new pipeline from the plant down
13:43:10 through downtown, into downtown, and into South Tampa.
13:43:16 Their recommendation on how we would do that is an aid
13:43:20 in construction area.
13:43:22 Implementing an aide in construction area.
13:43:26 The city currently has seven established aid in
13:43:30 construction areas, most notable is Harbor Island, and
13:43:34 a section of downtown.
13:43:37 So there's some precedence in how we have handled these
13:43:40 in the past.
13:43:42 Before we implemented an aide in construction area, we
13:43:46 certainly consulted with our attorneys and we consulted
13:43:49 with our finance director, and we consulted also with
13:43:52 the outside firm of Nabors, Nicholson who does utility
13:43:59 fees and rates and that sort of thing as their main
13:44:02 And they said we're God with your process, we're good
13:44:06 with your procedure, we think it works, and we're good
13:44:10 with it.
13:44:12 This is a regulated -- regularly acceptable method of
13:44:15 installing a system, part of a system, and recouping
13:44:19 the funds for that.
13:44:21 It is being borne by those who would benefit from it in
13:44:26 the area that it is benefitting, and it is not
13:44:29 impacting the existing rate payers, the existing folks
13:44:35 who already had service in that area.
13:44:37 The City of Tampa does not have a water impact fee or a
13:44:43 water capacity fee, unlike almost all of the other
13:44:47 municipalities around us.
13:44:51 Hillsborough County, for example, has a $1760 water
13:44:54 capacity fee.
13:44:55 We do not have such a fee for water.
13:45:02 Since we got the blessing from our consultant, from the
13:45:07 attorneys, from Nabors, given, Nicholson, and since it
13:45:12 was in the city code, again we thought it would be the
13:45:15 most appropriate way to proceed here with W
13:45:17 implementing this aid in construction area.
13:45:23 And the method of using this aid in construction or
13:45:26 calculating the aid in construction, we are actually
13:45:29 adopting from Hillsborough County's method for
13:45:33 computing their capacity fee.
13:45:35 We are using the same numbers, or attributed flow rates
13:45:41 for all of the different categories of development as
13:45:44 they are using.
13:45:46 We have actually modified one, and that is the
13:45:49 multi-family and multi-metered residential section.
13:45:53 We have broken it into less than 1600, between 1600 and
13:45:57 3,000, and then greater than 3,000.
13:45:59 And, for example, in the case of a multifamily,
13:46:06 multi-metered unit under 1600 square feet, they would
13:46:09 be attributed with one half of an ERC, equivalent
13:46:14 residential connection.
13:46:15 So they would pay .5 of the $1500 rate that's
13:46:21 established for a single ERC.
13:46:26 How this would work, since this is a fairly
13:46:29 well-developed area, anybody that currently has service
13:46:33 would not be charged against.
13:46:34 If you had the single-family home, and that
13:46:38 single-family home on that lot is torn down and a new
13:46:41 single-family home built there, there would be no
13:46:43 charge, since they were previously served with the
13:46:45 current system.
13:46:46 If you tear down a single-family home and you build a
13:46:50 four-plex, the three additional units will be charged.
13:46:53 If you're in the commercial area and you tear down a
13:46:57 warehouse and you build a condominium, you will again
13:47:01 pay the difference between what your previous service
13:47:04 was, calculated into ERCs, and what the new
13:47:08 development will be.
13:47:16 We believe this again to be the most fair and equitable
13:47:19 way of doing this.
13:47:23 It's allowing for growth to pay for growth.
13:47:28 It's fair to the current rate payers.
13:47:31 It is fair to those benefitting in those areas.
13:47:36 And the way we presented it, the way we rolled it out
13:47:40 was based on the mayor's commitment to inform council
13:47:43 of these sorts of things first.
13:47:46 It's based on the fact that there was precedence in
13:47:48 using the aid in construction areas in the past and
13:47:54 it's based on our desire not to disrupt the planning
13:47:57 process by pausing or discontinuing for a period of
13:48:02 time the issuance of letters of commitment for water
13:48:07 We think that that is probably a most key issue here.
13:48:12 I have a package for each of you.
13:48:14 It's the same package that we handed out to the
13:48:19 community on Tuesday.
13:48:21 Some of you have received those.
13:48:23 In there is a copy of the first report, the second
13:48:26 report, the chart that we'll use for calculating the
13:48:33 It also shows what other communities currently charge
13:48:36 in the way of an impact or capacity fee.
13:48:38 And it is the document that establishes the new aid in
13:48:45 construction area.
13:48:45 I need to make one comment.
13:48:47 There are two aid in construction areas that were
13:48:51 previously established.
13:48:52 Again Harbor Island and downtown that are in this new
13:48:56 So when we establish this new one that you will see in
13:48:58 that document, those other two are rescinded, so people
13:49:02 will not be paying for both of those.
13:49:05 With that I'll be glad to answer any questions you
13:49:08 >>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Daignault, first of all, last week
13:49:13 when we met -- and I appreciate you meeting with me --
13:49:17 and I was under the impression that this would be --
13:49:25 you did not tell me that, it was just, I guess, an
13:49:27 assumption of mine that this would be coming to a
13:49:30 public hearing, and/or it may be aired publicly, where
13:49:34 the development community would have a side to air
13:49:38 their concerns as well as the community would have an
13:49:40 opportunity to air their concerns.
13:49:42 I was very, I guess, disappointed to say the least that
13:49:46 that was not the case, that the mayor ended up, go
13:49:52 ahead and enacting this order, which I guess she has
13:49:55 the authority to do based off of the guidelines.
13:50:02 I don't think in this particular instance a public
13:50:04 hearing would have changed the outcome of this
13:50:09 particular measure that the mayor took.
13:50:12 As I told you, when we were briefing, I don't know one
13:50:17 resident that I met since that time that it came out in
13:50:21 the paper or before, including myself, that had a 345
13:50:26 unit condo complex coming next door to them that would
13:50:30 say, well, divvy up this share and let me pay my share
13:50:34 of the impact if that's coming.
13:50:37 Growth must pay for itself.
13:50:40 I wholeheartedly agree with that.
13:50:43 But I think we need to keep everybody involved in the
13:50:47 Now, if I'm not mistaken, I think it was Monday that we
13:50:51 met, and you told me that there was going to be some
13:50:59 sort of meeting with the development community and
13:51:01 sometime before that, on Wednesday it's in the paper.
13:51:04 I don't think -- I may be wrong on the dates, but
13:51:07 before the date that I understood that the
13:51:12 administration would be meeting with the development
13:51:14 community, the act was done, and it was in the paper.
13:51:21 The time frame, I can't say exactly what it was.
13:51:24 And I just don't think that was a fair process.
13:51:26 I believe the community needed an opportunity to say
13:51:30 what they needed to say, which it would have -- which
13:51:34 we all know would be "don't want to pay for that."
13:51:38 And the development community, at least they didn't
13:51:39 have an opportunity to be heard on their side.
13:51:43 Now, in T only problem I have wholeheartedly with this
13:51:46 situation is I think we may find ourselves in a little
13:51:49 trip back unless we talk to our city attorney.
13:51:51 I think this thing needs to be enacted city-wide.
13:51:54 Don't now how we can discriminately take on a certain
13:51:57 portion of the city and not include the entire city.
13:52:01 And if we include the entire city as a whole, it's only
13:52:06 incumbent upon growth.
13:52:08 It still has nothing to do with current -- we have
13:52:11 water problems all over the city.
13:52:13 We have aging infrastructure all over the city.
13:52:17 That's not going to change.
13:52:18 With when growth starts to occur let's not push
13:52:22 development from one area to another.
13:52:23 When an area starts to develop, when an area starts to
13:52:27 If I was a developer, that would be the first thing I
13:52:29 would say, if that $1500 margin of profit was going to
13:52:34 push me out of my range, whether that was going to make
13:52:40 or break a development especially on a 300-plus unit
13:52:44 complex, I might go to East Tampa now where I don't
13:52:47 have to pay that impact fee, or I could go further
13:52:51 north in between New Tampa.
13:52:54 I just think that's to be fair and equitable to
13:52:58 I think that's the way it needs to be.
13:53:01 And I love the fact that if it is an existing
13:53:06 structure, or we are tearing down, remodeling, rear not
13:53:11 penalizing for somebody that wants to do a tear-down
13:53:14 and remodel or rebuild a new home.
13:53:17 But I don't like the process of not having everyone,
13:53:20 including the public, not just the developers, because
13:53:23 the public loves this.
13:53:24 I love it.
13:53:25 But I think everybody deserves a fair shot to be heard,
13:53:30 at least.
13:53:31 For something that happened on this magnitude that
13:53:35 impacts me, my business, my livelihood, as trying to
13:53:40 not only make a dollar but make certain portions of the
13:53:43 city a much better place to live, a more beautiful
13:53:46 area, I at least need the public process to be able to
13:53:52 have my point of view heard.
13:53:55 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Daignault, basically the same
13:54:00 And I'll be brief.
13:54:01 But I think that's the concern here.
13:54:04 And when I read the different articles by Janet Miller,
13:54:07 that's the consensus on this council.
13:54:10 But no one is trying to push away from the table and
13:54:13 not take the responsibility of saying that we have to
13:54:15 do something to accommodate growth.
13:54:20 Everybody agrees with that.
13:54:21 And the development agrees with that, too as Mr.
13:54:26 Lockwood talked about taking ownership for concurrency
13:54:31 But in the paper, the man was quoted as saying that
13:54:34 engaging all of these people in the discussion would
13:54:36 have been time consuming, and would have delayed
13:54:38 construction projects or prevented the city from
13:54:40 charging the fee.
13:54:41 Well, so that's the process.
13:54:43 Sometimes it takes a little while.
13:54:44 But, at the same time, it's maybe a corny analogy, but
13:54:50 as I was saying to Janet or Allen, they kind of want a
13:54:53 sound byte from me about a story they have already
13:54:56 What good is that?
13:54:58 And when you invite the development community to come
13:55:00 in here and say, oh, by the way, it went into effect
13:55:03 And I'm not looking at you when you are saying this but
13:55:05 you are representing the administration.
13:55:07 No one disagrees that something has to be taken.
13:55:10 Action has to be taken and sometimes you have to
13:55:12 implement things that are maybe not popular.
13:55:15 But at the same time what then did was it appears to
13:55:18 have put a bigger rift between the resident and the
13:55:22 development community, whereas we should be bringing
13:55:24 them together, making the business side understand you
13:55:26 have got to take care of costs if you are going to make
13:55:29 the bottom line not and not put the burden on residents
13:55:33 already there.
13:55:33 That is a given.
13:55:34 But it seems to me that anytime you have you have
13:55:38 dialogue you have some ideas that perhaps you didn't
13:55:39 think about.
13:55:42 One example.
13:55:44 Tampa Bay water is doing a down-stream augmentation
13:55:48 from Martin Luther King to downtown.
13:55:50 They have got to lay pipe, potable water, different
13:55:53 pipes, different water, but still they have to lay
13:55:55 pipe, they have to tear up the ground, they have to do
13:55:58 things like that, that I'm wondering just in an effort
13:56:02 to cut cost when you disburse the cost to the developer
13:56:04 it's maybe a little bit reduced.
13:56:06 If you co-locate these things, and do those type of
13:56:10 things, the economy of scale maybe tells us we can cut
13:56:14 down on costs.
13:56:15 In not having dialogue and saying this is how we are
13:56:18 going to do it, I am the mayor, end of story, that
13:56:20 doesn't care well with people.
13:56:22 And I'm disappointed at the way this process was
13:56:26 carried out, not necessarily the end of where you
13:56:29 wanted to get.
13:56:30 But there's a more tasteful way to do that.
13:56:32 I think the A lot of the developers, particularly ones
13:56:35 with smaller developments, were concerned and felt they
13:56:39 were automatically ditched in the process.
13:56:41 And I don't think that's the way we should do business,
13:56:45 And if you would, at some point, weigh in on this.
13:56:48 Would there be some savings into looking at this
13:56:51 downstream augmentation process?
13:56:53 >>> We actually thought about that as well.
13:56:55 >> Discussed or listed?
13:56:58 >>> Hasn't been used, in a.
13:56:59 But in the staff we have discussed possible ways to cut
13:57:02 down cost.
13:57:03 Unfortunately the size of this pipe unless you are on a
13:57:06 roadway like whoth south of Hillsborough, you are
13:57:11 going to have difficulty getting our pipe and their
13:57:14 pipe both in the same road.
13:57:16 But could it be done under the same construction
13:57:19 contract in the same area?
13:57:21 And we can still pursue that.
13:57:22 >> But that was discussed in the privacy of your staff,
13:57:26 I guess, right?
13:57:27 So that's an example.
13:57:29 Maybe somebody in the third row when you were talking
13:57:32 to the development community said, gosh, why don't we
13:57:35 do this, it will cut costs.
13:57:37 Well, that's why the open dialogue is so important.
13:57:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena?
13:57:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Go ahead.
13:57:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are you sure?
13:57:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
13:57:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I respectfully disagree with my
13:57:55 fellow councilman.
13:57:56 I think in this particular case, we are talking about
13:58:00 water pressure.
13:58:04 We are talking water pressure.
13:58:05 Frankly the way it's been described from the engineers,
13:58:08 we are talking about water pressure, especially the
13:58:10 further away you get from the plant and about the
13:58:13 farthest away you can get from the plant is all the way
13:58:16 down in South Tampa south of Gandy and in Port Tampa.
13:58:19 And we have had complaints, and I have actually pulled
13:58:23 from the water departments some of the complaints over
13:58:25 the last several years.
13:58:26 We have had complaints from residents in those areas
13:58:28 about water pressure, okay?
13:58:32 Our engineering staff led by Mr. Daignault recognized
13:58:35 that growth has been unprecedented in the last couple
13:58:38 of years, and it's not stopping.
13:58:41 And it's frankly taken our water department staff by
13:58:48 And he because when they looked at it five years ago,
13:58:52 the numbers came out totally different.
13:58:53 And they didn't think we would have to do this for
13:58:56 another 20 years.
13:58:57 But things change.
13:58:58 And what do we ask of them?
13:58:59 They ask us to respond to change.
13:59:01 And you have to respond to change quickly.
13:59:03 You can't be out there on the battlefield where they
13:59:05 are on a day-to-day basis, and then running back to
13:59:09 your constituency and ask them what move to to make
13:59:14 You have to be decisive and you have to show
13:59:17 And that gets to my next point.
13:59:19 I think the mayor has showed very, very strong
13:59:22 leadership on this area.
13:59:24 Water pressure is an issue of public health and safety.
13:59:27 And nobody should be playing politics with those kind
13:59:30 of important issues.
13:59:32 Now, in regard to public involvement, there will be
13:59:36 public involvement.
13:59:36 And everybody should know that.
13:59:45 Steve, you will be coming back to tweak this ordinance
13:59:47 so it will northbound place for the next 20 years or
13:59:50 so, so everybody in 20 years who benefits from this
13:59:54 pipeline can pay for this pipeline, correct?
13:59:56 >>> Correct.
13:59:57 >> So in that process over the next couple of months,
14:00:00 I'm sure, the public will be very involved if they want
14:00:02 to be and come give us their input on whether or not
14:00:05 it's going to help.
14:00:06 If we don't tweak that ordinance and fix it, you know
14:00:09 This project will fall flat very quickly because it
14:00:11 can't be done unless it's done by everybody who is in
14:00:15 that area in the next 20 years.
14:00:18 The other part that we'll come to council will be the
14:00:21 This is a big $50 million project or 45 or 47.
14:00:27 Nobody can know actual until we bid it out. The bottom
14:00:30 line is it will have to be bonded.
14:00:32 And that will again come to council.
14:00:34 And I'm going to guess there will be probably ten other
14:00:37 items over the next ten number of years that will come
14:00:41 before this issue.
14:00:42 But I'm hoefully supportive.
14:00:46 They briefed he have single council member in advance
14:00:49 and showed the right move, strong leadership.
14:00:52 This is an issue we shouldn't be playing politics.
14:00:56 >>ROSE FERLITA: Since he looked my way, most of that
14:01:01 subject was discussed as he was looking in this
14:01:05 Or forward or whatever.
14:01:06 But I want to know in this council's -- council
14:01:09 person's mind this is not about playing politics
14:01:12 Clearly let me re-state my position.
14:01:15 I'm a South Tampa resident.
14:01:16 I know about the low water pressure.
14:01:18 I know about all the problems we're having.
14:01:19 All I'm saying, it was not a matter of criticizing
14:01:23 A applaud leadership.
14:01:25 Just a Curt easy to let some of the other players know
14:01:27 in advance.
14:01:28 And I'm not talking about having dialogue with them for
14:01:31 four and a half months and delaying the process that we
14:01:33 obviously need that. Was just my position.
14:01:35 I agree that we need to do something about it.
14:01:42 >>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Daignault, can you look at that
14:01:47 possibility of enacting this city-wide?
14:01:50 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: I can tell you that it certainly was
14:01:52 one of the things that was considered.
14:01:54 The difficulty is, is 1500 per ERC which is the number
14:02:01 that you come to for the costs of this pipe in the area
14:02:03 that we're talking about, is that the right number,
14:02:07 And the reason we can't answer that is because we don't
14:02:10 know what project will be needed next in Drew Park or
14:02:14 in East Tampa or someplace else.
14:02:19 >> How did we come to know that's the correct number
14:02:20 for the area we are in?
14:02:22 >> Because we know the cost of the pipe.
14:02:24 We have an estimate for the cost of the pipe.
14:02:27 You divide that by the number of ERCs that are
14:02:30 currently on the books and anticipated for future
14:02:33 And and that determines the 1500.
14:02:35 So it's very much particular to this area and this
14:02:42 >> We can have the potential of being millions and
14:02:44 millions of dollars off on that, again, if we have a
14:02:48 concrete shortage, a petroleum shortage, things of that
14:02:54 nature in the very near future or these commodities
14:02:57 continue to elevate rising, and lowering costs,
14:03:01 >>> You're correct.
14:03:02 >> So that's just a projected cost for handle it and
14:03:07 for what specific period of time?
14:03:10 >>> Well, until this pipe is paid for.
14:03:12 >> But it based off of current today's market prices,
14:03:17 is that correct?
14:03:20 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Correct.
14:03:21 But again the difficulty is, is 1500 too much or too
14:03:25 little for what the next project might be?
14:03:28 >> And that was my point for the development community.
14:03:30 As I said, I believe it needs to pay for itself.
14:03:33 I have no problem with that.
14:03:34 It definitely does.
14:03:35 But I don't feel that that's an accurate or a fair
14:03:43 number to come up with right now.
14:03:47 I'm glad we did something.
14:03:48 We had to do something.
14:03:50 I'm just not as comfortable with that part of the
14:03:54 process, where the numbers come from.
14:03:56 The only thing that I can do in a N comparison to that
14:04:01 is the 40th Street project.
14:04:02 How many millions of dollars are we off on the 40th
14:04:05 Street project?
14:04:09 20 million?
14:04:13 And that's low.
14:04:14 Based off of the petroleum and concrete that we have
14:04:17 been trying to do on the 40th Street projects.
14:04:19 And we enacted that when we were supposed to. And I'm
14:04:22 not -- believe me, I'm not badgering you.
14:04:25 It's just trying to make my point.
14:04:27 >>> I understand.
14:04:28 >> Like I said, I really do appreciate when we met, we
14:04:31 had a great conversation.
14:04:32 Thank you for that.
14:04:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Daignault, I have a question. You
14:04:35 are saying we could tie with some other -- what Rose
14:04:39 Ferlita was talking about, can tweak the ordinance and
14:04:43 might bring down the cost effect down at that time?
14:04:45 Would you lower the price of the fees?
14:04:50 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: No, ma'am.
14:04:51 We're not anticipating changing the price.
14:04:54 We certainly will pursue every possible cost savings as
14:04:59 we would in any project as we move forward.
14:05:02 However, in answer to the question, did we consider
14:05:07 doing it at the same time as downstream augmentation,
14:05:11 the downstream augmentation project is going to be
14:05:14 costly, is going to put a big pipe in the ground.
14:05:17 Our project is also going to put a big pipe in the
14:05:20 So even if they are done together it's going to be a
14:05:22 very small change in price.
14:05:25 Could they be done in the same contract?
14:05:27 That's a possibility.
14:05:28 Again there's not going to be a significant change in
14:05:30 the cost.
14:05:31 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Daignault, I think that the
14:05:40 problem that I have -- and maybe some of my colleagues
14:05:42 were aware of that.
14:05:44 I was not.
14:05:44 I didn't even know there was a study under way.
14:05:47 And I've heard sort of -- some of the complaints that
14:05:50 have come out of portions of South Tampa about low
14:05:55 water pressure, but those have never been quantified.
14:05:57 To my knowledge, nothing -- we were not undertaking any
14:06:02 sort of study, and as you Corum confirmed today because
14:06:04 of the amount of the contract this wasn't something
14:06:06 that came before City Council.
14:06:07 So I didn't know about the existence of this study
14:06:10 until I found out about the remedy, which was when we
14:06:14 read about it in the paper over the weekend.
14:06:19 I do appreciate the mayor advising us first.
14:06:23 I wasn't in on Friday when that packet was dropped by.
14:06:26 But I do think that was appropriate.
14:06:27 I think that the process to the extent that there was a
14:06:29 process was followed here.
14:06:31 I think it was done the right way.
14:06:34 My question is this:
14:06:37 This is a done deal.
14:06:39 This has been done.
14:06:40 There is no coming to council and asking for approval.
14:06:44 There is no engaging in public hearings.
14:06:47 You now do need our approval, apparently, to increase
14:06:51 the life span of this process so that it will extend
14:06:57 beyond the time that it's actually taking to construct
14:07:01 the pipeline.
14:07:03 And if we are bonding, we are now going to have to bond
14:07:06 to this project.
14:07:07 And we know that that bonding period will take 10, 15,
14:07:12 20 or more years.
14:07:13 Is there some way that we can ease into this fee as
14:07:19 opposed to start on day one, which I guess day one has
14:07:23 already passed.
14:07:24 It started on Friday.
14:07:26 So that the projects that were already online, on
14:07:31 multi-million dollar projects -- there are several that
14:07:33 are multi-unit, have been planned for many years, have
14:07:39 invested significant amounts of dollars, so they don't
14:07:43 get hit with something they were not expecting until
14:07:45 this past weekend?
14:07:47 And I don't know if there is a way to do that.
14:07:52 If everyone is going to have to pay and they realize
14:07:54 they are going to have to pay this 1400, I just wonder
14:07:58 if there's some way that we can gradually increase it
14:08:01 or apply only -- I don't know how we might do that.
14:08:07 But I think what we'll hear from the development
14:08:10 community is we don't mind paying their fair share but
14:08:13 we would like to have a say in it and would like to be
14:08:15 able to plan for it, and they didn't have the
14:08:18 opportunity for either here.
14:08:21 I don't know if there is a way to do that.
14:08:22 But if you can respond, I would like to hear it.
14:08:26 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: I'm not aware of a way to do that
14:08:29 And the difficulty, of course, everyone building in
14:08:34 that area will be benefitting from this pipe.
14:08:39 It's very difficult to try to be fair, and justice is
14:08:43 supposed to be blind.
14:08:44 So rather than saying we think that that there's a
14:08:49 whole lot of people here, and knowing who they are and
14:08:51 where they are in their planning process, we chose --
14:08:56 we thought the fairest way to make our line of
14:09:00 demarcation was, if you already had a letter of
14:09:04 commitment, for water, what that meant was that we
14:09:07 looked at your project, we looked at where your project
14:09:10 was relative to our system and our ability to provide
14:09:13 you service, and we have made a determination that we
14:09:16 can provide you service with our current system.
14:09:21 If we have not, then either we are concerned about it
14:09:24 or we are still going through iterations of tweaking
14:09:29 and testing your modeling to see whether or not we
14:09:32 So it became a clear line that those that did not have
14:09:36 letters of commitment would be those who would be
14:09:43 benefited and those who we ask to contribute.
14:09:46 If we have previously given a letter of commitment it
14:09:48 meant that our current system, we felt, could provide
14:09:51 them service.
14:09:52 It's very difficult, and certainly in the evaluation
14:09:55 process, one of the questions was, can we go back and
14:09:59 talk to people who have come on line recently?
14:10:02 And we certainly didn't think that was fair, how far
14:10:04 back, and how do you pick and choose?
14:10:07 So again, trying to be care, if we determined that you
14:10:11 had a letter of commitment, whoever you were, then you
14:10:15 were good, we could serve you, because we have done the
14:10:18 Our water staff has determined, we can serve you with
14:10:20 our existing system.
14:10:22 But if for whatever reason you don't, then we are going
14:10:29 to establish this aid in construction area and you
14:10:31 would be subject to paying the fee for that benefit.
14:10:35 >>DAVID SMITH: If I could add agent bit to that.
14:10:39 Because I was involved in some of these discussions.
14:10:41 Part of the problem we have no matter what you call
14:10:48 these sorts of assessments, they really are an impact
14:10:51 fee and there are certain requirements.
14:10:54 We must attach the burden to the benefit.
14:10:56 So part of what we try to do, and the engineers tell
14:11:00 us, this is the improvement we're going to put in,
14:11:02 these are the benefited parties.
14:11:04 So with that allocation of that perimeter that locks us
14:11:08 in know.
14:11:09 Now in terms of the timing of this, what we typically
14:11:13 do is we issue your concurrency determinations when you
14:11:19 get your letters of commitment.
14:11:22 These commitment letters ar contract, literally a
14:11:26 So what happened was when they started to to real
14:11:29 advertise -- not started to realize, but as they
14:11:31 started to get into position to make the contractual
14:11:35 commitment beyond the potential ability to deliver,
14:11:38 they had to stop, get these valuations you are
14:11:41 referring to, and that became the point in time.
14:11:44 And this that is the most defensible point in time
14:11:49 given the current structure.
14:11:52 However we will be back with some of the issues that
14:11:54 Mr. White raised, because there will be a future in
14:11:57 which this will be needed in other areas.
14:11:59 The specific area is limited.
14:12:03 We are attaching the benefit but there may be situation
14:12:08 where is that will occur in the future elsewhere in the
14:12:11 So there may be a city-wide, some aspects that will be
14:12:19 Primarily your district, they have a whole different
14:12:22 So a SIAK up there is probably not going to be very
14:12:26 I didn't mean to get too far afield but we had to draw
14:12:29 the line, had to draw the line on the system and what
14:12:32 we have done in the past inconsistent with our current
14:12:35 That's primarily why that's the case.
14:12:36 >>SHAWN HARRISON: So there's no way to ease into it.
14:12:43 I suppose that there has been consideration of what
14:12:46 happens if this actually has the opposite effect, which
14:12:53 is 1500, that's my price point, I'm not going to build
14:12:56 my project now.
14:12:58 Then we have invested in a $50 million-' we bondd this
14:13:02 $50 million pipeline, and we all of a sudden create a
14:13:06 de facto moratorium on growth because they don't want
14:13:10 to pay that.
14:13:11 You may feel like that's just totally out of the
14:13:14 question, that there's no way anyone is not going to
14:13:16 build their projects because of a $1500 assessment.
14:13:20 But if you are building a 300-unit project then you
14:13:25 have $1500.
14:13:26 I don't know what that math comes out to but it's a
14:13:29 And we have bank loans, they are there are real
14:13:34 financial consequences to this.
14:13:35 What do we do in that case?
14:13:38 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Understand.
14:13:40 One of the -- by not planning to start construction
14:13:54 till 2007 gives us some time to basically see what the
14:13:57 market is going to do.
14:14:01 I mean, if it changes significantly perhaps we won't go
14:14:05 forward, perhaps we won't need a bond issue, perhaps we
14:14:07 won't need the pipe.
14:14:09 So we have a little bit of time in here to see how the
14:14:11 market is going to react.
14:14:13 If we don't build the pipe, I mean, we could return.
14:14:16 This money is going into a specific account and if it's
14:14:21 not used for this it will not be used.
14:14:23 So we would refund the money if that's the case.
14:14:28 But again, they will only pay if they plan to move
14:14:30 forward and receive water service.
14:14:32 We will have a year or more of history to determine if
14:14:43 we should go forward with this pipeline.
14:14:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A couple of things hopefully to wrap
14:14:48 things up.
14:14:49 Kevin, in regard to what you said, I think your ideas
14:14:54 sound that we shouldn't get caught flat footed anywhere
14:14:57 else in the city, and if there's potentially weak
14:15:00 pressure anywhere else in this city, then it should be
14:15:04 When Mr. Daignault showed me the pipe drawing the other
14:15:07 day the pipe clearly starts up in -- what's that area
14:15:10 called, Sulphur Springs, that sort of thing, and drops
14:15:15 down through East Tampa before it heads to South Tampa.
14:15:18 But what Steve showed me the other day was the fact
14:15:21 that there's no opportunity to branch off of the pipe
14:15:24 as you come down through East Tampa.
14:15:26 So it would be unfair to any of those new developments
14:15:28 in East Tampa to pay for that pipe, because it's never
14:15:32 going to benefit -- it's never going to benefit them.
14:15:36 So I think the reality is, if all of a sudden East
14:15:39 Tampa development or West Tampa development takes off
14:15:42 in the same way, and the engineers conclude that
14:15:45 another pipe might be needed, then they probably would
14:15:48 come forward with another CIAC, contribution in aid of
14:15:56 That's number one.
14:15:57 Number two is, Mr. Harrison, in regard to the projects
14:16:02 falling flat, as you know, there is probably not a
14:16:07 project started in South Tampa that's less than 250,
14:16:10 $300,000, and many of them are much more, per
14:16:14 residential unit.
14:16:15 And that doesn't even matter if they are connected, if
14:16:18 they are townhouses or what have you, they start at
14:16:21 250, $300,000.
14:16:22 So I honestly don't believe that $1500 is going to
14:16:26 detract, starts or finishes or thon projects.
14:16:31 Yo, it might require additional financial manipulations
14:16:34 or what have you.
14:16:35 Now, I did take note of what you said, Shawn.
14:16:38 And I want you to perhaps look at this, Steve, David,
14:16:42 with your assistance, is I think that if a develop Kerr
14:16:46 come to us and say, you know what?
14:16:49 I already had a deal with my buyer.
14:16:54 Okay, Mr. and Mrs. Jones had already signed and had
14:16:58 wanted to pay $300,000 for that house, and even though
14:17:01 it's not necessarily finished yet, that was our deal.
14:17:04 And I can't change that deal, okay?
14:17:08 And I'm looking at the list developer.
14:17:11 He's in the back of the room.
14:17:13 Because I see him cringing on some of these issues.
14:17:17 But it's not just about him, it's about anything that's
14:17:19 into doing this type of project.
14:17:21 I think if we could prove they already have this deal
14:17:25 locked in and they were going to have to take it on the
14:17:28 chin and swallow the $1500 as opposed to passing it on,
14:17:32 then I do think we have a fair, sort of equitable
14:17:36 problem there.
14:17:37 Because now it's not just about a pass-through to the
14:17:43 ultimate homeowner, ultimate rate payer or whatever.
14:17:46 Now we have -- truly have developers who might get
14:17:50 stuck with that themselves.
14:17:52 Now some people might say they don't care, but don't
14:17:55 think that's fair.
14:17:55 So I'm not saying that's a solution.
14:17:57 But I would like you all to look at that before it
14:17:59 comes back to us in some other iteration and see if
14:18:03 there's some relief in that regard.
14:18:05 Prove to us that you had that contract in place, and
14:18:07 that you are going to have take it on the chin.
14:18:12 >>CHAIRMAN: Other questions by council members?
14:18:13 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak
14:18:15 on item -- is it item 10?
14:18:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Not on the agenda.
14:18:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Off-the-agenda item?
14:18:28 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I'm here on behalf of a variety of
14:18:32 different development people, list is not the least of
14:18:36 There are a couple of issues that we asked for, and I
14:18:40 discussed this with Mr. Daignault, discussed this also
14:18:42 with Mr. Smith.
14:18:43 One thing that is not being discussed is the 30 days.
14:18:54 At the end of the 30 days if you haven't paid the fee
14:18:57 you have to apply get and get a new commitment letters.
14:19:01 Any one of those junctures they have the choice of
14:19:03 increasing the fees in that connection or whatever else
14:19:07 you install.
14:19:08 The other issue is that this pipeline that they are
14:19:11 proposing, it's a pipe that goes to a storage tank or
14:19:16 goes near a storage tank, that as I understand it the
14:19:19 storage tanks are not up to capacity in terms of being
14:19:23 So if you turn the spigot on, what you have is the
14:19:28 volume inside the pipe.
14:19:29 You don't solve the long-term problem without
14:19:32 additional storage tanks, or without using the full
14:19:35 capacity of the storage tanks that exist.
14:19:37 So you only have what's available in the pipe.
14:19:40 You can take as much water as you want to South Tampa,
14:19:44 unless you store it, you have more pressure, but you
14:19:47 don't have any capacity.
14:19:50 The other thing is that -- and I asked them in the
14:19:53 meeting the other day, was the distribution system
14:19:56 sufficient throughout the network?
14:19:59 That is the lines that go, the individual homes that go
14:20:02 to the individual properties, and they indicated they
14:20:04 were not planning any changes in the distribution
14:20:06 network, they were satisfied with that.
14:20:12 Because of that your distribution system you are
14:20:13 dead-ending a 36-inch line into 10-inch lines, 12-inch
14:20:18 lines, 11, 8, 6's.
14:20:22 It doesn't really solve the problem unless you do
14:20:24 something about capacity.
14:20:26 The fees associated with any development at all -- and
14:20:31 let me state -- and I've said this before --
14:20:34 development pays its own way, wants to pay its own way.
14:20:37 In the course of development, developers have to pay
14:20:40 for line extensions, main extensions, which are all
14:20:44 paid for and absorbed into the city system and then
14:20:48 given to the city.
14:20:48 So there are a lot of benefits that come from that.
14:20:51 Most of the new projects that are going in in South
14:20:54 Tampa have to install main extensions in order to get
14:20:58 the capacity that they need for the individual
14:21:03 But based on the old water system -- and I'm going to
14:21:05 pick a one-inch meter -- you pay $2500.
14:21:09 And that was based upon a flow of 21 to 50 gallons per
14:21:16 When you get a commitment letter it's based upon
14:21:18 capacity and volume.
14:21:21 In October, those rates went from 2500 to 7,000.
14:21:27 The same rates, same service.
14:21:28 The installation for the meters went up.
14:21:31 All those fees went up.
14:21:32 So there was an anticipation of additional revenue
14:21:35 going into water before this issue came up about the
14:21:41 The final thing is that if you're going to establish a
14:21:45 fee, $1500 across the board per unit is not the same
14:21:49 calculations they use on all of these other fee
14:21:54 If you use an inch and a half line the fee is 10,500.
14:21:59 If you use a two-inch line it's 17,500.
14:22:02 (Bell sounds).
14:22:03 So what I'm saying is the fee isn't necessarily the
14:22:06 issue here, but appropriateness and scale is something
14:22:09 that should be looked at according to the size of the
14:22:13 A 4-unit development doesn't have the same impact as a
14:22:16 100 unit or a 50 unit or a 25.
14:22:19 And you're not requiring, because of the size of those
14:22:22 projects, the extension of a 48-inch main down to a
14:22:27 36-inch main in South Tampa.
14:22:30 Thank you.
14:22:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
14:22:32 Mr. Daignault, could you come back and answer that, how
14:22:39 the fees--you are saying the 117?
14:22:44 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Maybe I'll work backwards.
14:22:49 First of all, you approved two changes in water fees --
14:22:54 well, in change of water fees and a change in water
14:22:56 rates last year, in 2005.
14:23:01 The changes you approved for fees were for actual
14:23:07 service, whether installation of a meter, or a line, or
14:23:10 something else.
14:23:11 It is based on size of pipe and size of meter, and it
14:23:15 is the actual cost of us providing that service that we
14:23:20 adjusted those fees to.
14:23:22 Those fees have not been changed since the mid 1980s
14:23:28 so we brought them from 1986 up to 2005 and you
14:23:31 approved that last year.
14:23:33 That's something totally different from what we're
14:23:36 trying to find in the aid in construction area.
14:23:40 Additionally you approved a rate increase of 63%. That
14:23:43 didn't quite keep up with inflation but it was an
14:23:45 increase in rates that hadn't been approved before.
14:23:51 Those are the two changes in other water fees and
14:23:54 things that you approved last year.
14:23:56 Again, either of neither of those had a direct effect
14:23:59 on this additional pipeline.
14:24:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How about water to youers? Build
14:24:06 more water towers?
14:24:09 >>> I'm going to ask the chief engineer to come up and
14:24:12 give you an explanation on the water tank issue.
14:24:17 >>> Mark: With respect to the storage tank issue, the
14:24:22 misconception there is that storage tanks are not
14:24:25 utilized to capacity.
14:24:28 They are.
14:24:28 They are basically moving water every day, beginning
14:24:30 with disproportionate peak flows.
14:24:36 Part of this project also includes a more effective way
14:24:39 to get the water out of the storage tanks in a more
14:24:43 rapid mandatory get it to the place where it needs to
14:24:45 So the bottom line is not necessarily storage in our
14:24:48 system is a problem, it's getting the supply to the
14:24:54 source of demanded.
14:24:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Does it give it more pressure?
14:24:59 >>> You're going to get more pressure, that's correct.
14:25:01 That's the benefit to the area.
14:25:03 So again it's like anything else.
14:25:06 You have a plant that has capacity to deliver.
14:25:10 You have storage with adequate.
14:25:13 You have a transmission system that needs to meet the
14:25:19 demand that's happening right now.
14:25:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I heard some confusion on fire
14:25:25 And I would think water pressure as related to hydrant
14:25:32 pressure, the fire system pressure, et cetera,
14:25:34 et cetera, can you enlighten us on that at all?
14:25:38 Is this a must be safety issue?
14:25:44 >>> We attempt to never make it a public safety issue
14:25:46 but always keep that in the back of our mind.
14:25:49 The way we handle delivery of water to the individual
14:25:53 areas are to make sure that we meet peak demand.
14:25:59 The way you handle fire flow is you also have to have
14:26:02 the capacity in those pipes to be able to deliver that
14:26:05 fire flow.
14:26:06 So depending on where you are in town, those fire flow
14:26:11 demands may change.
14:26:12 Downtown they may require a more peak or demand than
14:26:17 you would in a into consideration.
14:26:22 So we take that into account when calculating the
14:26:26 appropriate fees and evaluating the application that
14:26:29 comes into the process.
14:26:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Putting that all together this fire
14:26:36 safety is part of this ratio?
14:26:39 >>> That's correct.
14:26:39 We include fire as part of every calculation.
14:26:41 >> Because I heard a story about the big fire we had in
14:26:45 Ybor City and at certain point in fighting that fire
14:26:48 that there was a little bit of concern about our
14:26:56 Thank you.
14:26:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
14:26:58 >>SHAWN HARRISON: It's not a question on this topic.
14:27:07 Oh but just generally I would like to New York City
14:27:09 Marty, and our legal department, this was probably news
14:27:11 to all of us that the department head for the water
14:27:15 department had this power to unilaterally levy this
14:27:20 fee, that that maybe some of you knew about.
14:27:23 I didn't.
14:27:24 I am concerned about that.
14:27:25 Because if this were an impact fee you couldn't do it.
14:27:29 It would have to come to us.
14:27:30 It would go through a public hearing process and we
14:27:33 would all benefit by the free flow of ideas, and
14:27:36 different possibilities come from different angles.
14:27:42 I'm concerned about unfettered ability of department
14:27:45 heads to enact these types of things.
14:27:47 And I know this is the only one.
14:27:49 But I would like to know from legal what other
14:27:55 surprises we may have in store for us like this, and
14:27:57 then if we need to take any action to try to tweak
14:28:00 that, we can.
14:28:03 I think that's important.
14:28:04 We have an executive and a legislative body.
14:28:07 And the city government works best when every takes
14:28:11 part and is able to offer their ideas.
14:28:21 I'm sure you can get the answer quickly.
14:28:23 But we don't have to rush into it and we are heavily
14:28:26 engaged having just come back from our holiday.
14:28:30 Why don't you report back to us in 30 days?
14:28:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
14:28:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else from council members?
14:28:38 Thank you very much.
14:28:39 We go to our public hearings for second reading.
14:28:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The vote was?
14:28:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Did I get a second?
14:28:49 Motion and second.
14:28:49 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
14:28:49 Opposed, Nay.
14:28:50 (Motion carried).
14:28:52 Is anyone going to speak on items 35 to 37?
14:28:54 Would you please stand and raise your right hand?
14:28:56 (Oath administered by Clerk).
14:29:10 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I would ask that all written
14:29:12 communications related to today's hearings that have
14:29:14 been related to the public at council's office be
14:29:16 received and filed into the record prior to action at
14:29:21 this time
14:29:27 Haven't received anything.
14:29:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
14:29:30 Moved to open 35 through 37.
14:29:34 >> So moved.
14:29:34 >> Second.
14:29:35 (Motion carried).
14:29:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would
14:29:38 like to speak on item 35?
14:29:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Before we begin, just a reminder
14:29:42 please that if any member of council has had any verbal
14:29:45 communications with any petitioner, his or her
14:29:48 representative or any members of the public in
14:29:49 connection with any of the petitions that are about to
14:29:52 be heard, that member prior to a vote being taken
14:29:54 should disclose the following information.
14:29:58 The identity of the person group or entity with whom
14:30:00 the verbal communication occurred and the substance of
14:30:02 that communication.
14:30:03 Thank you.
14:30:06 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
14:30:08 I'm before you on item number 35, which deals with the
14:30:14 final version hopefully for first reading of your
14:30:17 glitch bill on the ethics code.
14:30:18 The only change that is in this version was the change
14:30:21 that was suggested by council found in section 2, page
14:30:27 4, provided in your backup material.
14:30:29 I think we highlighted it in yellow because there's so
14:30:32 many other changes in there.
14:30:33 It would be hard to follow otherwise.
14:30:34 I'll read it to you.
14:30:35 It's one sentence.
14:30:37 And it deals with outside investment or outside
14:30:43 employment and they seek approval from a department
14:30:45 head and that is denied as being acceptable.
14:30:48 It now says if the department director determines such
14:30:51 non-city employment or engagement in a private business
14:30:54 entity is prohibited, that decision shall be
14:30:57 automatically appealed to the ethics commission for
14:31:02 So it has the automatic appeal component without the
14:31:05 potential stigma of perhaps irritating your director or
14:31:11 department head, and it will go to the ethics
14:31:13 commission for review, and we will make note of that
14:31:17 fact at our 3:00 meeting.
14:31:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We have had many conversations about
14:31:23 What is before us today is the glitch provision.
14:31:27 This is not the provision that deals with gifts, and
14:31:29 what are gifts and what's appropriate.
14:31:31 This is just dealing with the questions of employment
14:31:33 and questions of participation and getting specific
14:31:37 about that.
14:31:38 Based on that, I am prepared to move this ordinance for
14:31:43 first reading.
14:31:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else in the public like to
14:31:48 speak on item 35?
14:31:51 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to close.
14:31:54 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close.
14:31:55 >> Second.
14:31:55 (Motion carried).
14:31:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'd like to move an ordinance of the
14:32:00 City of Tampa amending City of Tampa ethics code
14:32:03 chapter 2, article 8, section 2-502, definitions, by
14:32:09 amending the definition of lobbying to include
14:32:11 communication on any item that comes before the city
14:32:13 official within one year by amending the definition of
14:32:16 lobbyist to exclude government employees and
14:32:20 quasi-governmental employees by defining
14:32:22 quasi-governmentage or entity, section 2-512, mayoral
14:32:29 approval required for non-city employment or private
14:32:33 business enterprises of appointed employees, by
14:32:35 limiting mayoral approval to department directors and
14:32:40 adding department director approval for departmental
14:32:42 employees, section 2-514, prohibition against receipt
14:32:46 of benefit from contract with the city by limiting the
14:32:49 restriction to contracts with the department for which
14:32:52 the employee or official works, by allowing the
14:32:56 department to request an advisory opinion, section
14:32:59 2-520, additional voting conflicts, by repealing and
14:33:05 deleting section 2-520, section 2-581, post employment
14:33:10 restrictions representation by others before city by
14:33:13 deleting "after June, 15, 1989" amending chapter 2
14:33:17 article 8 by changing all references of business
14:33:21 enterprise, to business entity, providing for
14:33:23 severability, repealing conflict, providing an
14:33:27 effective date.
14:33:27 >>KEVIN WHITE: Second.
14:33:29 (Motion carried).
14:33:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone in the public like to speak
14:33:31 on item 36?
14:33:33 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to close.
14:33:34 >> Second.
14:33:34 (Motion carried).
14:33:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
14:33:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move an ordinance of the city of
14:33:43 Tampa, Florida -- second reading, move to approve
14:33:46 following ordinance upon second reading an ordinance of
14:33:49 the city of Tampa, Florida amending the City of Tampa
14:33:52 code of ordinances chapter 15, the City of Tampa
14:33:56 parking ordinance article 2, regulations, permits,
14:34:00 penalties, division 1, general parking regulations,
14:34:03 section 15-43, parking in front of residences or public
14:34:07 or private driveways, providing for parking within 10
14:34:11 feet of driveways in metered or otherwise marked
14:34:15 spaces, adding section 15-43-D, which creates a
14:34:19 prohibition on parking in front of driveways on roads
14:34:22 that are less than 25 feet in width providing for
14:34:24 repeal of all order instances in conflict providing for
14:34:28 severability, providing an effective date.
14:34:29 >> Second.
14:34:29 >>CHAIRMAN: Vote and record.
14:34:31 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Alvarez being absent.
14:34:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone in the public like to speak
14:34:34 on item 37?
14:34:38 >>MARTY BOYLE: Legal development.
14:34:40 Good afternoon, council.
14:34:43 This came before second reading before council last
14:34:46 week, and council gave staff direction, three
14:34:51 directions, get with the petitioner, get with the
14:34:54 neighborhood association, and call parks and rec.
14:34:59 And staff did all three.
14:35:04 It was to come back for second reading today.
14:35:06 So I'm not sure if there's -- what additional questions
14:35:09 you would like to ask of us.
14:35:10 I know the conflict, Ms. Saul-Sena, was about the
14:35:14 off-site tree.
14:35:15 And we did contact parks and rec, and Mary Daniel, and
14:35:20 also from LVC, and they looked into the tree, and
14:35:24 determined that there would not be any significant
14:35:29 canopy damage.
14:35:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Grandoff is here perhaps to
14:35:38 speak for himself.
14:35:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ms. Boyle, were you sworn in?
14:35:44 >>> Yes, I have been sworn.
14:35:45 >> Just a reminder when you come up here to state that
14:35:49 you have been sworn.
14:35:49 Thank you.
14:35:51 >>> Good afternoon.
14:35:52 I'm Steve Graham with Parks and Recreation Department.
14:35:56 And as you know we were asked to go out and take a look
14:35:59 at this tree on the property adjacent for 2 south
14:36:02 Melville, and we did.
14:36:04 It's a 22-inch live oak in good condition and the crown
14:36:11 of the tree extends over both properties as you
14:36:14 suspected, Ms. Saul-Sena.
14:36:15 And we also looked at the existing survey, what's
14:36:18 there, and it's offset from the tree.
14:36:21 And then we looked at what's proposed in the impact
14:36:24 area that would be present when that structure is
14:36:28 And the impact area does move closer to the tree.
14:36:33 Recognizing that it is protected tree and under the
14:36:36 purview of DHE, and consulted with Mary, and Mary is
14:36:42 here, and she's formed her opinions.
14:36:44 There will be some structural limbs that may northbound
14:36:47 There may be some roots in conflict as well.
14:36:50 I have pictures and two site plans.
14:36:52 Of course Mary is here to answer any questions.
14:36:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Were you sworn in?
14:36:58 >>> Yes, sir.
14:36:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena would like to see it.
14:37:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Who is Mary?
14:37:16 >>GWEN MILLER: The young lady out there.
14:37:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I don't know her.
14:37:19 She's a new face before council.
14:37:24 >>MARTY BOYLE: Mary came on with LDC, she has
14:37:28 essentially taken the place of Greg Yurcus.
14:37:30 She's now part of land development.
14:37:32 And reviewing site plans for chapter 13, tree and
14:37:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is it the process now if we want to
14:37:41 know something we have to ask?
14:37:43 Your staff doesn't volunteer stuff but if we
14:37:45 specifically ask you will answer us.
14:37:52 And I really apologize that this was scheduled for like
14:37:56 And it's now almost 3:00.
14:37:58 But we're really sorry.
14:38:01 Can you explain this?
14:38:09 >>> Steve Graham: Okay.
14:38:11 Here, this is to the north of the property.
14:38:14 Bordering Azeele.
14:38:18 The photographer is standing at the alley behind the
14:38:20 existing structure at Melville. The tree is to the
14:38:27 south on the adjacent property.
14:38:32 That's actually me walking through the tree leaves.
14:38:36 The tree to my left there, the existing structure is
14:38:43 approximately 15 feet removed from the tree.
14:38:46 The tree is only one foot off the property line so it's
14:38:49 very close.
14:38:50 Very tight.
14:38:51 And so the new structure will move to within ten feet
14:38:55 of this tree.
14:38:57 And then in addition there will be a secondary impact
14:39:00 in the form of a covered sidewalk that is only one
14:39:05 story. The two-story structure, I don't know if you
14:39:08 can see the canopy.
14:39:11 Actually, I have another photograph that may show it a
14:39:13 little better.
14:39:19 That's the back of the structure again, shooting from
14:39:21 the alley to the west.
14:39:25 To the crown, the structural limbs, do extend well over
14:39:28 the property.
14:39:34 The W the proposed structure moving closer to the tree
14:39:36 there will be some structural limbs that will have to
14:39:41 be removed, which depending on how it's done it could
14:39:45 be okay, or cost a disaster.
14:39:47 Either way, it's something we would watch the progress.
14:39:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
14:39:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask for some clarification on
14:40:01 the site plan?
14:40:02 It's my understanding there was a covered walkway, but
14:40:05 then a second floor parkway with can't levers off and I
14:40:10 was successful to tell on the elevation whoa that
14:40:14 proposed second floor balcony impacted the limb or not.
14:40:19 Because the tree isn't drawn on the picture.
14:40:25 >>> Existing site plan, this offset here is 15 feet.
14:40:39 You see the proposed structure -- 23-inch tree.
14:40:48 And the covered walkway is actually in that.
14:40:56 I'll turn it over to Mary at this point.
14:41:02 >>> Mary Daniels, Land Development Coordination, tree
14:41:05 and landscaping, and I have been sworn.
14:41:08 The proposed covered walkway is single story.
14:41:16 It is on that side of the property.
14:41:19 And if you look at the Elmo here, it will be this
14:41:22 structure here.
14:41:26 If the petitioner does a slab on grade within that
14:41:28 area, impervious concrete, there should be no conflict
14:41:31 with this portion of the structure.
14:41:37 There will be some minor root pruning with the two
14:41:40 story portion of the one structural limb.
14:41:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
14:41:50 >>STEVE MICHELINI: A couple of issues.
14:42:06 On the elevation, I want to make sure that we're clear.
14:42:11 This covered walkway is not proposed to impact in any
14:42:16 way the tree, which is further to the east.
14:42:23 It's on the side of the house but it's much further
14:42:25 It's not toward the front.
14:42:30 Usually we have on those issues at permitting, where we
14:42:33 deal with the things like rentals and things like that,
14:42:38 to protect the root structure.
14:42:40 And based upon just the normal sort of clean-up and
14:42:46 pruning, these are fairly minimal and to my knowledge
14:42:52 there were no staff objections whatsoever regarding
14:42:54 this or any other issues.
14:42:56 The only thing that they asked was to clarify --
14:43:02 exactly where that covered walkway was.
14:43:06 To sort of refresh your memories about what this is,
14:43:09 it's a ten-unit apartment building that's being torn
14:43:14 It's probably at least 40, maybe 42 feet high.
14:43:20 This is the rear of the building showing the rear
14:43:25 access to the second level.
14:43:27 There's parking back here for probably two or three
14:43:37 This is the front view.
14:43:38 And a side view of the same building.
14:43:54 We were asked before when this came before you to come
14:43:56 back to you to bring you a revised plan and revised
14:44:00 site plan, revised elevation, which we did.
14:44:03 And the units, we reduced the height of the units,
14:44:09 which we did.
14:44:10 And basically, we did everything that was asked of us
14:44:15 regarding this particular project.
14:44:18 One of the things that is very important to remember is
14:44:22 that as this area redevelops, taking ten units off of a
14:44:28 network and adding four units is a net decrease of six.
14:44:32 It's not going to impact the neighborhood any more.
14:44:38 Actually, it's going to impact the neighborhood less.
14:44:41 We already had a brief discussion about the
14:44:44 improvements discussed for water lines, sewer lines,
14:44:48 sidewalks, parking.
14:44:49 We are providing it would be off-site parking spaces in
14:44:53 addition to the two covered spaces so a total of four
14:45:00 parking spaces where now there's only three.
14:45:05 We went back -- obviously, I don't want to go through
14:45:10 all of this unless you want me to now but there were no
14:45:13 objections from staff no, objections from Planning
14:45:15 Commission, and we came back in with a plan that was
14:45:18 very sensitive to what we were asked to do.
14:45:21 As these areas redevelop as well, these are the support
14:45:26 areas for the Kennedy corridor, so that you have the
14:45:29 resident populations that can support the -- support
14:45:32 the commercial that needs to recur in the development
14:45:35 process along though Kennedy Boulevard.
14:45:40 It's already happened around Howard Avenue and now is
14:45:42 moving forward a little to the north.
14:45:45 According to the comprehensive plan, the land use
14:45:48 regulations are trying to encourage redevelopment and
14:45:51 retrofitting and rehabilitation where possible.
14:45:55 In this case, you wouldn't take on development and
14:45:59 restoration of this particular building.
14:46:04 It simply not feasible to do that.
14:46:07 I can certainly address any specific questions you
14:46:11 There are a number of variety of other projects in the
14:46:18 immediate vicinity.
14:46:19 This is the post Hyde Park property, which you're
14:46:22 looking just to the east of this project down the
14:46:39 We also put on last time the number of follow owes.
14:46:42 Out of 812 folio numbers there were 291 homesteaded,
14:46:45 119 were PD, homesteads, 108 were single family
14:46:50 professional offices, 49 were single-family homesteads,
14:46:54 individual properties.
14:46:58 We have looked at the area.
14:46:59 We studied the area.
14:47:01 We are not going to create transportation impact, not
14:47:06 going to create a drainage impact.
14:47:08 It is a sensitive project which takes into
14:47:10 consideration the size of the property.
14:47:13 Access is coming off the alley off of Melville.
14:47:20 We believe that we have done the best possible job we
14:47:23 could do.
14:47:24 We entered into the record a number of petitions in
14:47:27 support that are already in the -- you already have
14:47:30 copies of.
14:47:32 There were 19 on one sheet.
14:47:36 There were probably 10 or 15 more on individual sheets.
14:47:39 You already have all of those.
14:47:44 Certainly we are open to answer any questions you might
14:47:46 have regarding this project.
14:47:48 We believe that we've done a good job.
14:47:52 We've listened to what was asked and we have done
14:47:55 exactly what was asked of us. Again this is a net
14:48:02 >>CHAIRMAN: Would anyone in the public like to speak?
14:48:04 You can speak now.
14:48:11 >>> Good afternoon.
14:48:12 I'm Paula Steinhouse size more, Albany Avenue.
14:48:18 I have been sworn in.
14:48:19 I am speaking on behalf of the newly created Courier
14:48:23 City Oscawana homeowners association.
14:48:28 Walter crumbly who was elected our interim president
14:48:32 had to leave for other issues this afternoon.
14:48:34 So I'm speaking on his behalf, on behalf of the
14:48:36 organization, and on behalf of myself as a homeowner.
14:48:43 We have no problem with this particular building coming
14:48:47 It's been an eyesore since I moved into the
14:48:49 neighborhood in January of 1989.
14:48:52 We see that it does detract from our neighborhood.
14:48:56 We don't have an issue with that.
14:48:58 We still have an issue with the design that has been
14:49:02 It is typical of what's been forced upon our
14:49:05 neighborhood over the past few years, which is NBG --
14:49:10 nothing but garage.
14:49:12 From a street T street that's all you see.
14:49:15 Now, Mr. Michelini stated that they have been sensitive
14:49:19 to the needs of the neighborhood, that it does fit with
14:49:26 what's going in.
14:49:28 Yes, it does fit with what's going in.
14:49:29 That's what we want to put a stop to.
14:49:31 He said he complied with everything that's been
14:49:34 This is not true.
14:49:35 When this was set back after the first meeting --
14:49:38 excuse me -- the petitioner was requested to meet with
14:49:43 the neighborhood members to discuss the plan, to see
14:49:46 what could be done, to get everybody together.
14:49:50 We have not been contacted in any way, shape or form.
14:49:54 One of our members happened to notice that this came
14:49:57 forward in minutes.
14:49:59 Otherwise, we would not have even been aware that this
14:50:03 had been brought back before the council.
14:50:08 While the mass and scale are similar to what's been
14:50:10 going up, it has become far too dense.
14:50:14 Yes, this is going to reduce some of the traffic.
14:50:16 We don't have an issue with it being a smaller number
14:50:19 of units.
14:50:19 We like that.
14:50:20 However, it goes against the character of the
14:50:23 And that is what we have been fighting for over the
14:50:26 past year.
14:50:28 This property is a prime corner.
14:50:31 It could command high rates, high costs, high profit,
14:50:36 if it were built in a duplex, replicating the bungalow
14:50:42 style of the neighborhood that we are attempting to
14:50:44 preserve, to continue that mix.
14:50:47 We don't want the neighborhood to become saturated with
14:50:53 cookie cutter boxes of town homes that are going to be
14:50:56 moved into, people are going to flip in a couple of
14:51:00 years, move out, have no interest in sustaining the
14:51:03 neighborhood, or preserving it, or enhancing it in any
14:51:09 We really appreciate your interest in this.
14:51:11 And we want to go on record as still being against the
14:51:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena?
14:51:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: After she's done.
14:51:22 >>> I'm done.
14:51:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I need to share something, and that
14:51:26 is I was asked by our legal department if I had any ex
14:51:30 parte communications, why did I change my vote from the
14:51:33 previous vote the last time I wasn't happy with this.
14:51:36 And I just feel compelled to explain to you all what
14:51:39 I didn't have any ex parte communications.
14:51:42 I had a New Year's resolution.
14:51:44 My New Year's resolution was, in 2006 to not accept
14:51:51 What was beforeness 2005 was three stories and it was
14:51:56 It improved from dreadful to mediocre.
14:51:58 And frankly, in 2006, you know, here tonight we talk
14:52:02 about many rezonings.
14:52:05 Mediocre simply isn't good enough for our community.
14:52:08 So that is the genesis of my change of heart in
14:52:13 bringing this back.
14:52:14 But we have consistently heard from this community
14:52:19 about the character of the bungalows and their concerns
14:52:26 about waivers of green space, their concerns about the
14:52:29 character of the neighborhood, and I just felt
14:52:34 compelled to share that.
14:52:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
14:52:35 Mr. Dingfelder.
14:52:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: There was a little bit of confusion.
14:52:38 I think the last -- correct me if I am wrong -- we had
14:52:46 our first hearing last summer, wasn't it?
14:52:50 August, okay.
14:52:51 And then we all left there.
14:52:53 And that was my recollection, was the developer was
14:52:56 going to get with the neighborhood association.
14:52:58 And you're testifying under oath that that never
14:53:01 And I think the former president is behind you, and
14:53:03 maybe she'll enlighten us on her opinion on that as
14:53:10 So when this came up for the next "first reading" I
14:53:14 guess in December, that was my question, where is the
14:53:21 Because you guys were very, very involved
14:53:25 In giving a lot of positive input on how you felt that
14:53:28 this property should be appropriately redeveloped.
14:53:31 So what happened between August and December?
14:53:34 You guys just -- did it slip everybody's calendar that
14:53:37 this was coming back in December?
14:53:42 >> Maybe Calie can answer that specifically.
14:53:47 I not was not brought to my attention.
14:53:48 I don't know if anyone did make attempts to bring to
14:53:51 the anyone's attention.
14:53:52 But if they had, the word would have circulated among
14:53:55 our group.
14:53:55 >> It's not that big a group.
14:53:57 >>> No.
14:53:58 Well, yes, at this point I can say that we have 20
14:54:00 active members and we're growing.
14:54:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You've gotten bigger.
14:54:05 >> Yes, we have.
14:54:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Next.
14:54:07 Kellan Gerry, 505 south Melville. I have been sworn.
14:54:14 To answer your question, it fell off our calendars to
14:54:18 be honest.
14:54:18 I had sent you an e-mail after my spare time perusing
14:54:23 the meeting minutes.
14:54:25 And so I slapped myself on the wrist.
14:54:30 Our group again is in transition.
14:54:31 But my point, my e-mail to you, the intention was to
14:54:35 say, hey, when there are all these continuances is
14:54:37 there any way the city would consider sort of
14:54:39 renoticing at least the association, while it is
14:54:42 completely, I would say, my fault for not informing the
14:54:45 group, it would have been helpful to be renoticed.
14:54:47 And I don't think that's asking a whole, whole lot.
14:54:50 So we didn't know it fell off our calendars.
14:54:53 In the interim since that first meeting we weren't
14:54:56 I believe if I recall the conversation correctly, you
14:54:59 asked the petitioner to talk with the neighborhood,
14:55:02 because I think that we have generally not presented
14:55:05 ourselves as unreasonable.
14:55:07 And that didn't happen.
14:55:09 And I think that's unfortunate.
14:55:11 When I read the meeting minutes I noticed the
14:55:14 development -- obviously I couldn't see a picture -- it
14:55:17 sounded like it looked better.
14:55:18 I would agree with you, councilwoman Saul-Sena.
14:55:21 But at the end of the day, and it's sort of ironic.
14:55:24 I hate using that word.
14:55:25 I looked up the sort of elevations this morning with
14:55:28 Mr. Levin.
14:55:31 I think it's ironic because I think it's a lot closer.
14:55:34 And I think if they had taken the opportunity to meet
14:55:36 with us, I think that we could have gotten there.
14:55:39 I think that four units is a little too much.
14:55:42 I think it's -- I don't think it's correct that the
14:55:45 units are facing Azeele when the current structure
14:55:47 faces Melville.
14:55:48 All the homes on Melville face Melville.
14:55:51 I think it's appropriate for a new unit to face
14:55:54 But it was so close I think it's really not in the
14:55:57 spirit of cooperation to just ignore the group.
14:55:59 And any suggestion that they wouldn't know who to
14:56:01 contact, I think, is absurd in this case.
14:56:04 And I think that there is transition in the
14:56:07 I'm no longer involved in the organization because we
14:56:09 are moving.
14:56:11 And I will happily be a member of Hyde Park association
14:56:15 in the coming months.
14:56:17 I don't think I will have the opportunity to be so
14:56:19 vocal with you but I will still go through Carver city.
14:56:23 I wanted to speak quickly to a larger I shall as well
14:56:26 and it's the development of all these townhouses and I
14:56:29 think it not exclusively Courier City, Oscawana.
14:56:32 I think in ten years when we look at sort of Swann,
14:56:35 MacDill, 275, and Fremont, we are going to say,
14:56:38 what the heck did we do?
14:56:40 There are no single-family homes.
14:56:42 There will be none left.
14:56:43 Every time you drive by, partly because of value of the
14:56:46 land, and that's the economy, it is what it is.
14:56:49 I just think that there's no sort of overall way that
14:56:54 this development is going in.
14:56:55 Perhaps the city or the Planning Commission can take a
14:56:57 look at the underlying land uses, and perhaps work with
14:57:00 the development community.
14:57:01 To be honest I've heard that they are scratching their
14:57:04 heads as much as we are.
14:57:05 I don't think they know what to bring forward and I
14:57:08 think that's a problem.
14:57:09 When they buy a property and have to hold it because
14:57:11 the city is not telling them how to do it and
14:57:13 neighborhood associations have the opportunity to come
14:57:15 back, and if there's a rapport developing, I think it's
14:57:18 hard for the developers.
14:57:19 I'm usually not having my violin out for them but I see
14:57:23 that point.
14:57:24 So I think that perhaps you all can look at the bigger
14:57:28 picture at some point.
14:57:29 I think this development is better.
14:57:31 I would say garage banks on the street are bad.
14:57:34 We walked the neighborhood.
14:57:36 It doesn't work.
14:57:36 I would like to see a duplex.
14:57:39 Often the site of the duplexes that are in Hyde Park
14:57:42 village, it's a nice way to do it and get your
14:57:46 (Bell sounds).
14:57:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Next.
14:57:53 >>> Jeff Black.
14:57:54 306 south Albany and I have been sworn.
14:57:57 I just wanted to go on record as saying I had to work
14:58:01 160 hours at my job in order to get the vacation day
14:58:04 that I took to be here and I'll I'm having a great time
14:58:08 it's not my first vacation destination but it's
14:58:10 something that's important to me, okay?
14:58:13 I was really sorry to hear that Kelly was moving.
14:58:15 What happened?
14:58:16 She's exactly what I'm looking to come into my
14:58:18 neighborhood, young people, starting a family, and what
14:58:21 Well, gee, she got a year and a half two, years
14:58:25 invested in her house and she's had to fight for it for
14:58:27 a year.
14:58:28 I have been in my house 29 years.
14:58:29 I have a lot more invested.
14:58:31 I can't just pack it and run.
14:58:33 First of all, I couldn't afford to buy my house at
14:58:36 today's prices.
14:58:37 I just happened to get in very lucky.
14:58:42 So if I were in her place, I'd balk and run, too.
14:58:45 I'd go to a nice Hyde Park, moving to Delaware, where
14:58:50 there are not going to be challenges like this.
14:58:51 She has to spend time with her new family rather than
14:58:55 here in council chambers defending her neighborhood.
14:58:58 I was really, really pleased to hear Mr. Michelini when
14:59:02 he was talking about the new water service.
14:59:05 He actually used the words "appropriate size and scale"
14:59:08 and that's exactly what I'm talking about.
14:59:10 Now, I do appreciate that you have brought it down to
14:59:14 But, folks, it's about greed.
14:59:18 Here we buy a property between 3 and $500,000 and cut
14:59:22 it into four and sell each one of those for 3 to
14:59:26 You make a million plus dollars.
14:59:29 When you have some expenses in there, but you walk away
14:59:31 with a nice check.
14:59:34 Well, what about doubling your money, instead of
14:59:39 quadrupling your money and doing the duplex?
14:59:42 I think twice as much money as I started with would be
14:59:44 a nice profit.
14:59:46 And I wish I had brought some gloves so I could throw
14:59:49 it down the gauntlet, because I'm tired of it.
14:59:51 I'm ready to fight.
14:59:53 We are going to -- the neighborhood association really,
14:59:58 really worked up.
14:59:59 Don't want developers coming into my neighborhood.
15:00:02 Believe me, that structure is disgusting.
15:00:04 I'd love to see something else in that place.
15:00:06 But I don't like being ignored.
15:00:09 Especially when it comes to my neighborhood.
15:00:11 Thank you, council.
15:00:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
15:00:15 >>> I have not been sworn.
15:00:16 (Oath administered by Clerk)
15:00:25 My name is Alex Liggett, 310.
15:00:31 Also in the newly formed Courier City Oscawana
15:00:36 neighborhood association, registered with the city.
15:00:37 David sheers, the new president, unfortunately was here
15:00:41 earlier, had to leave.
15:00:43 This association which is recognized by you is all
15:00:46 Anyone who lives, works, does business, owns property
15:00:49 in this area, has a vote and can be a member, including
15:00:53 all these people here.
15:00:54 This thing here is not representative of this
15:00:57 We have statistics, I think you need to look at those.
15:01:00 I think you're placing a hardship on property owners,
15:01:02 what's been going on here.
15:01:04 You talk about development.
15:01:06 What about people who are getting taxed out of this
15:01:08 area who have had rental properties for years, who are
15:01:11 pioneers in this area, people who believed in it when
15:01:14 no one else did.
15:01:15 I think it was five or six years ago when the list gays
15:01:18 said their first project they could not get
15:01:21 institutional financing in this area.
15:01:23 I just don't understand what's going on.
15:01:26 I think everything is very one-sided.
15:01:28 We have a lot of issues.
15:01:30 And some issues we agree with the residents on.
15:01:34 Specifically, those are some of the traffic.
15:01:35 I think some of that is driven by commerce on Howard
15:01:40 In fact, I know it is.
15:01:41 And I also know that we are impacted by the well and I
15:01:47 think that's something that needs to be looked at.
15:01:49 Also, I would like to speak to you on Mr. Black's
15:01:52 comments on economics.
15:01:53 While I respect your numbers, sir, you have absolutely
15:01:55 no concept of the economics of these projects.
15:01:57 And it's getting skinnier and skinnier every day, and
15:02:01 the risks are getting higher and higher, and to have
15:02:03 people out there who have undergone serious economic
15:02:06 hardship because of the indecisiveness of the community
15:02:09 as a whole, now, council has gone back and forth on
15:02:13 these things.
15:02:14 I think we need to work together.
15:02:16 And so what we have done, we have formed an
15:02:19 Everybody can come together.
15:02:20 But I don't think it's right that you can have a group
15:02:23 of, quote, residents who are very small, minority in
15:02:26 this area, to come and speak for the community.
15:02:30 You're shaking your head.
15:02:31 Well, we have the numbers.
15:02:32 And we are going to get them out.
15:02:33 And they are going to continue to come out.
15:02:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If I could, Madam Chair.
15:02:38 I'm shaking my head because they have a right to come
15:02:41 speak just like you do.
15:02:43 And --
15:02:44 >>: But they don't speak for the community.
15:02:45 >> Well, I think what they say is, they speak for the
15:02:48 individual single-family homeowners who live there.
15:02:54 Let me finish.
15:02:55 I don't think they have ever deceived us or anybody
15:02:57 else in who they are speaking for.
15:02:58 You're speaking for a different entity.
15:02:59 And we accept that, too.
15:03:00 And we'll take all of that input and digest it
15:03:04 >> But I think there are a lot of issues here at hand
15:03:06 and you can't arbitrarily and say, you have to stop
15:03:08 this development.
15:03:09 Because there's a thing called, now, the economics of
15:03:11 the situation.
15:03:12 Some things that are driving it.
15:03:14 The real estate taxes have gotten out of hand.
15:03:16 I think you are presented with a statistic, don't have
15:03:18 any exact numbers but in 2000 the total taxable value
15:03:25 of the properties in the area was about, I don't know,
15:03:28 70 million, now it's 163 million in 2005.
15:03:33 Who is paying for the improvements to the
15:03:35 The developers?
15:03:36 Where are we going to put the density as Tampa grows in
15:03:38 South Tampa?
15:03:39 Where are they going to go?
15:03:41 You all probably know better than anybody what's
15:03:43 projected for the city in growth and how we are going
15:03:45 to handle it.
15:03:45 So we are addressing waterness uses and stuff like
15:03:50 But we are in support of this project.
15:03:51 We think they have made efforts to scale it down.
15:03:55 We applaud the design because it is different and
15:03:56 unique and something that we agree needs to be done in
15:04:00 there. So with that said, we absolutely speaking for
15:04:03 this organization -- by the way, we have about 20-plus
15:04:09 Plus the petitions and stuff as well that I brought.
15:04:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
15:04:18 >>> Martin Lum.
15:04:22 I'm not sworn.
15:04:23 (Oath administered by Clerk) --
15:04:24 I reside at 4053 Flamingo Road West.
15:04:33 I'm affiliated with the developer.
15:04:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order.
15:04:37 I was just asking Mr. Shelby, is this part of rebuttal
15:04:39 at this point, since Mr. Lum is with the developer or
15:04:49 >>> What I want to talk about, my topic, we talked
15:04:52 about neighborhoods in transition.
15:04:54 I want to talk about homeowner associations in
15:04:56 transition because a tended several of the meetings.
15:04:58 And I just want to relate to you what --
15:05:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But you are not the petitioner?
15:05:03 >>> No, I'm not.
15:05:05 >> But you're related somehow.
15:05:06 >>> I'm affiliated with them.
15:05:08 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I understand your point.
15:05:11 I understand your point.
15:05:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I want to make at abundantly clear.
15:05:17 >>> He's related to John lum who is the president of
15:05:20 list development.
15:05:23 Really, what we were trying to say is that Martin was
15:05:26 sent to talk to the neighborhood association.
15:05:27 He a tenned the meetings.
15:05:30 -- attended the meetings and in many cases tried to sit
15:05:33 And that's oops oops what we were going to talk about
15:05:36 with the elevation and site plans.
15:05:38 And because the organization was in transition the
15:05:40 opportunities never presented themselves.
15:05:42 Kelly was leaving.
15:05:44 They were adopting a new president.
15:05:47 I don't know exactly.
15:05:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Lum is part of your rebuttal,
15:05:55 that's fine.
15:05:55 Now we say rebuttal will begin and we go from there.
15:05:59 >>> If that's the context, that's fine.
15:06:01 I did want to have the opportunity to relate to you
15:06:03 what I observed.
15:06:04 I know there was a time when there was a real vacuum in
15:06:07 terms of the homeowners association in Courier City.
15:06:11 That changed when Kelly came in and started organizing
15:06:14 I attended several of the meetings.
15:06:15 The first one I think was October 4th, Kate Jackson
15:06:19 center, and it was evident at that time there was maybe
15:06:22 15 people there.
15:06:23 Probably half of those were business and property
15:06:26 owners who found out fairly quickly through the meeting
15:06:30 they were not really represented there.
15:06:32 And some of it trickled out.
15:06:33 We had sort of a small group that was present.
15:06:35 And we tried to get some bylaws but they weren't
15:06:41 readily available.
15:06:41 It became apparent it was really a situation of an
15:06:44 acting president, not really a dual constituted board,
15:06:48 they were just starting to form a voice for the
15:06:50 And I attended the -- and I remember passing out
15:06:54 business cards at that time.
15:06:55 So in response to the situation, I passed out a
15:07:00 business card to anybody who would accept one.
15:07:02 I then also attended the second meeting at Kate
15:07:06 I don't remember the date.
15:07:07 It was in December.
15:07:08 And it was rather strange because the group had
15:07:10 And I found out that Kelly was leaving and there was a
15:07:13 new incoming president.
15:07:15 There still had not been a meeting.
15:07:17 They were still in somewhat disarray.
15:07:19 I think it's important for you to realize that, because
15:07:22 if someone says you should have communicated with the
15:07:24 group, if the group is not really sort of a moving
15:07:27 target, it's pretty hard to talk to them.
15:07:30 We did talk to a fairly substantial group of people,
15:07:33 30-odd names, brought in a petition at the previous
15:07:37 hearing, I believe it was.
15:07:39 But at the second meeting, it was rather interesting
15:07:41 because there was nobody from the board there, and
15:07:45 Shannon Edge and her assistant were there, and they
15:07:48 ended up running the meeting for close to an hour and
15:07:50 saying to folks, A, you need to run, B, figure out who
15:07:55 the board is, C, call for the first annual meeting and
15:07:57 set yourselves up.
15:07:58 So it's not a case where we have been ignoring the
15:08:01 group that's kind of formally out there, and dual
15:08:06 They were in the process of setting themselves up and
15:08:09 we certainly did talk to a number of people.
15:08:11 We did not get a distribution list.
15:08:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I ask you a question straight up
15:08:15 on this?
15:08:16 You have always been a straight-up guy as far as I can
15:08:20 As far as I know, I don't think Kelly has even moved
15:08:24 She's still at the same address.
15:08:25 She still has the same phone number.
15:08:27 Still has the same e-mail address.
15:08:30 I don't believe -- I don't think it's your testimony,
15:08:32 is it, that you guys specifically contacted her and
15:08:35 said, we have been directed by council to meet with you
15:08:38 about this specific project.
15:08:39 Did anybody from list or Mr. Michelini's group do that?
15:08:45 >>> No.
15:08:45 Straight-up answer, no.
15:08:47 Mr. Crumbly was incoming.
15:08:49 In fact yesterday I had him in my two in my car for for
15:08:54 two hours with Shannon Edge and the new acting
15:08:57 I don't know if he's really been elected yet.
15:08:59 You can give him a call.
15:09:01 You can talk to Shannon Edge.
15:09:02 We drove up and down, crisscrossed all the streets
15:09:04 trying to educate them on what's taking place, what's
15:09:07 there now, good, bad, ugly, and to bring them up to
15:09:09 date on what it is, to speak more from an updated term
15:09:15 as to what's going on.
15:09:16 We did that.
15:09:17 We contacted them.
15:09:19 We talked several times.
15:09:20 We met at the last meeting, when it was at the Kate
15:09:23 Jackson center and talked to him and several other
15:09:27 >> And he's the gentleman that was here all morning.
15:09:29 He left Paula as his designee to tell thaws his
15:09:33 organization is still opposed to this.
15:09:35 >>> Well, anti-and what's really interesting to take
15:09:37 one case in point.
15:09:38 The comment that was just made that we should not be
15:09:41 putting entrances on adeal, that directly contra
15:09:45 convenience what we were instructed to do through a
15:09:47 couple of meetings we had here was that the previous
15:09:49 project was critiqued and they did not have entrances
15:09:52 on east-west streets.
15:09:54 So we directly respond to that by placing entrances
15:09:57 And now you're hearing from the outgoing president that
15:10:00 that's not the right path.
15:10:02 You see if we design this thing in committee like that
15:10:04 it can be a very frustrating process.
15:10:06 I just want to fill you in on my experience of dealing
15:10:09 with the association.
15:10:10 It's been, you know, interesting.
15:10:14 Thank you.
15:10:17 >>> John lum.
15:10:18 I have been sworn in.
15:10:22 Linda Saul-Sena, Mr. Michelini, this is a much better
15:10:25 design. The lower height is better significantly
15:10:27 better. The design is much more interesting.
15:10:29 Much more complete.
15:10:30 I still think it's a little dense but it's much better.
15:10:35 Than what you developed previously.
15:10:36 I would like to see more of this scale.
15:10:38 If there's more to come, duplexes in durrier city.
15:10:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That was in '05.
15:10:49 That was before my New Year's resolution.
15:10:51 >>> We had our second hearing last week and somebody
15:10:52 pulled this thing off the agenda.
15:10:54 I've never seen the way you guys did this ever before.
15:10:58 But we can put three town homes on there, three stories
15:11:02 high, 9,000 feet of air conditioned space.
15:11:05 Here we are trying to work with you guys, scale it down
15:11:07 and you give us no respect.
15:11:16 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Lum, come back.
15:11:19 Tell me what you can do.
15:11:20 >> Joo week put three stories, about 9,000 total square
15:11:26 That's just in the zoning guidelines we have, RM-16.
15:11:30 Checked it out.
15:11:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Knock yourself out.
15:11:33 What is that supposed to mean to us?
15:11:35 >>> We are trying to work with you.
15:11:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Excuse me, tiff floor.
15:11:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Don't have a conversation --
15:11:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: He made an accusatory statement.
15:11:45 I have the floor.
15:11:45 It's like why should you even say that to us? If you
15:11:48 want to do that then you don't have to go through this
15:11:51 >>> I'm trying to work with the neighborhood.
15:11:52 >> Then you meet with neighborhood like was suggested
15:11:56 to you last August, and we wouldn't be having this
15:12:00 >>> Sir, you organized these 20 people there. Was
15:12:01 nobody that was in opposition.
15:12:03 You're the one who started the whole thing way back
15:12:08 You got a small, small cross section in durrier city
15:12:12 and won't even let us as property owners be members.
15:12:15 >> They will meet with you.
15:12:16 You just didn't make the effort to do it and your
15:12:18 brother acknowledged that five minutes ago.
15:12:21 >>> We don't even have a vote.
15:12:23 >> If you don't want to meet with them that's fine.
15:12:25 Just say that and we'll move on.
15:12:27 >>> They were totally dysfunctional N.august Frank Cain
15:12:30 was still the president of the homeowners association.
15:12:34 He was.
15:12:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's not true.
15:12:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Sir, are you standing to speak?
15:12:47 >>> I need to be sworn.
15:12:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I thought we had rebuttal.
15:12:53 Now what?
15:12:54 >>GWEN MILLER: You called it rebuttal.
15:12:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That was rebuttal.
15:12:58 Now where are we, Mr. Attorney?
15:13:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If there are additional people who
15:13:02 want to speak they are entitled to speaking.
15:13:03 That time that I guess Mr. Martin lum speaks will be
15:13:07 counted towards the time of rebuttal.
15:13:09 But obviously don't want to preclude people from
15:13:19 (Oath administered by Clerk).
15:13:20 >>> I don't know if I'm rebuttal or what I am.
15:13:24 But I have been working in this area, as I said in
15:13:26 December, since 1980.
15:13:28 I have been refurbishing houses and duplexes.
15:13:32 >>CHAIRMAN: Put your name on the record.
15:13:34 >>> Oh, Jane Liggett.
15:13:36 And perhaps all the townhouses that have been built may
15:13:42 not be what we might desire ideally.
15:13:48 But they are so much better than what was there, that
15:13:51 we're grateful.
15:13:52 Now, this building where list wants to build I think
15:13:58 rather nice -- very nice looking townhouses, will
15:14:01 replace one ugly-ass building that's falling apart and
15:14:06 to me that makes sense.
15:14:07 These all.
15:14:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
15:14:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mrs. Liggett, I have one question.
15:14:13 You don't live in the area, correct?
15:14:15 I mean, you live -- not in Courier City.
15:14:18 >>> I do live very close.
15:14:20 >> Not in Courier City Oscawana, correct?
15:14:23 >>> No.
15:14:23 But I might as well after all the time of working on
15:14:26 these houses.
15:14:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, sir.
15:14:32 >>> Al size more, southal bane, I have been sworn in.
15:14:35 It's kind of a shame that we kind of get into all this
15:14:37 bickering and fighting back and forth.
15:14:40 But if we stop and think why maybe we are doing that
15:14:46 I don't know if the other parts of town have the same
15:14:48 And maybe because we have let certain elements come
15:14:52 into our neighborhood to create and think that because
15:14:55 they can get one in, you know, just do another, a
15:15:00 little bigger, a little uglier, whatever.
15:15:04 And like mason Dixon said, we have to call an out
15:15:08 somewhere, and this might be the time to just lay out
15:15:12 the rules and follow them.
15:15:13 And as far as everybody getting along, I'd like to
15:15:16 think that we kind of would all like to.
15:15:19 You know.
15:15:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
15:15:26 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Before I start I want to make sure
15:15:27 no one else is going to come up.
15:15:30 Anyone else want to speak before I start?
15:15:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Hallelujah.
15:15:43 >>> Quite honest it's been a moving target.
15:15:46 We started off with an elevation that looked like this,
15:15:50 which was the med rev, three stories, 45 feet high, we
15:15:59 went back and we said, okay, what can we do to make it
15:16:02 look better?
15:16:03 We came back, and changed the design to sort of a
15:16:07 bungalow, Key West style, to make it compatible.
15:16:14 It is in the height and scale of what is in the
15:16:16 It's not exceeding it.
15:16:18 It meets it.
15:16:21 In terms of trying to do what's best for the
15:16:25 The land use designation here is res 35 which means
15:16:28 that you could develop potentially six units.
15:16:33 You can develop, as John mentioned, three units by
15:16:39 The difference is that you have smaller scale units
15:16:42 that are appropriate, and at the last meeting Mr.
15:16:44 Dingfelder asked me, did you play a shell game here, or
15:16:48 did you really reduce the size of the units?
15:16:50 And I put on the record, yes, we indeed took a floor
15:16:53 off, we are now in the 2000 square feet or so size of
15:16:58 unit, not the 2700, not the 2800.
15:17:01 We have the enclosed garages.
15:17:03 We have the storage space on the property, which you
15:17:06 also asked about.
15:17:09 Was there sufficient parking?
15:17:10 Was there any impact in the neighborhood in terms of
15:17:13 And there's not.
15:17:16 You get to a point where -- the difficulty is the
15:17:21 development itself, and you start adding things on, do
15:17:24 you want to build a huge unit, and do you want to build
15:17:27 3,000, 3200 square feet per unit in an area that can't
15:17:31 support that?
15:17:31 No, you don't want to do that.
15:17:33 Do you want to build something that's more in size and
15:17:35 keeping with the area?
15:17:36 Yes, you do.
15:17:38 And in you go the other extreme, then it's a disservice
15:17:43 to the neighborhood.
15:17:45 The larger units, bigger -- big McMansion kind of
15:17:51 thing, you could build out of right.
15:17:53 That's not the right thing to do.
15:17:54 Could you do it but it's not the right thing to do.
15:17:57 When we came to you, we asked, what do you want to see?
15:18:01 And I've had conversation with Kelly.
15:18:03 We have sent people to talk to her.
15:18:05 We have had architects talk to them.
15:18:06 What do you want to see?
15:18:08 And they have told us, they have told the architects,
15:18:10 they have told other petitioners, bungalow style,
15:18:12 two-stories, we are going to be happy with that.
15:18:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.
15:18:19 What date between August and December did you
15:18:23 specifically meet with any --
15:18:25 >>> I didn't say I did.
15:18:27 I said we sent people to talk with people.
15:18:29 >> What date did any of your -- you or your
15:18:32 representatives meet with any of the officers of that
15:18:34 organization that was established last summer, okay, as
15:18:39 directed by this council?
15:18:40 I think that's a simple question.
15:18:43 >>> I don't know the answer to that.
15:18:45 I don't know.
15:18:47 >> Okay.
15:18:49 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I didn't personally.
15:18:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Martin lum indicated it didn't
15:18:55 I think it's unfair to waste all of our time and have
15:18:58 have been get so frustrated.
15:19:00 I'm not saying this project should be denied, period,
15:19:02 and that junky the thing should be left up there and I
15:19:08 think what should happen it should be continued, go
15:19:10 back to the drawing board, meet with the officers of
15:19:12 the organization and talk about their input, which is
15:19:14 where we were last August.
15:19:18 Do you disagree with that, Mr. Michelini? I.
15:19:20 >>> I think that's a reasonable approach.
15:19:23 >> So why are we spending more time on this?
15:19:24 >>ROSE FERLITA: I don't know, but let me tell you, what
15:19:33 Madam Chairman.
15:19:34 >>GWEN MILLER: How did it get on first reading from
15:19:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: First reading was meet with the
15:19:40 neighborhood and come back, bring it on first reading
15:19:43 again in December.
15:19:43 Unfortunately, it slipped off the neighborhood's
15:19:46 calendar and they didn't have a chance to come talk the
15:19:48 about it.
15:19:49 Then they realizedded it was going on.
15:19:52 That's how we got to where we are.
15:19:53 >>ROSE FERLITA: There were some transitions in the
15:19:57 neighborhood, or whether they followed through with it
15:19:58 or they didn't.
15:19:59 I think the kind of dialogue I have seen here between
15:20:04 us or some of our colleagues and the petitioner and the
15:20:06 neighborhood and somebody not wanting to get along,
15:20:08 this is shameful because I don't think we have
15:20:10 accomplished anything.
15:20:11 Mr. Michelini, it probably appears that it won't pass
15:20:14 today anyway.
15:20:15 That's my sense.
15:20:17 And I think if everybody shows a little bit of good,
15:20:21 honest effort, maybe we can come back with something so
15:20:23 that they don't end up with that Jungy site that's
15:20:26 there, and you guys are not the recipients of some what
15:20:31 I think is unnearly rude dialogue here.
15:20:34 So I think it's a win-win if we do something else.
15:20:38 Because obviously I appreciate what the neighborhood
15:20:40 has said.
15:20:41 John, I understand where you were coming from.
15:20:42 And this is just not a way to do business.
15:20:45 Don't think we need to be yelling and screaming at each
15:20:47 other from this end to that end to this end.
15:20:50 I don't know what we are accomplishing here.
15:20:52 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I think a reasonable sort of less
15:20:56 intensive discussion would be fruitful for everyone.
15:20:59 >>ROSE FERLITA: And I think because probably some of
15:21:01 the changes are finished, you know, maybe the people
15:21:06 that you talk to now will be more representative of the
15:21:11 neighborhood and there won't be any confusion about who
15:21:13 you talk to or who you don't talk to. Kelly, I'm lucky
15:21:17 because you're moving to my neighborhood.
15:21:18 So I think you might want to consider that, Steve.
15:21:22 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I think it's a reasonable approach.
15:21:24 I certainly defer to council on that.
15:21:27 It's been very frustrating and it's not through lack of
15:21:30 effort I think on either party's part.
15:21:33 It's just been very frustrating on how we get to where
15:21:37 we want to be.
15:21:39 If staff gives awe date and we can come back.
15:21:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think it would also be appropriate
15:21:44 for council to give you some direction from what we see
15:21:47 as appropriate.
15:21:48 And I would like to offer two observations.
15:21:52 One is that I will not support any request for any
15:21:57 waivers -- any more waivers of green space in this
15:22:01 I see this neighborhood as becoming almost 100%
15:22:07 impervious surface.
15:22:08 And I know for a fact that's not what the residents
15:22:11 So I won't support any proposals or green space waivers
15:22:17 Secondly, I thought I heard the neighbors, at least two
15:22:21 or three, stay that what they would prefer to see is
15:22:24 something more like the duplexes on Rome that we have
15:22:28 discussed previously, that the hunger for these
15:22:34 quadplexes is gone.
15:22:36 There is no more desire for these quadplexes.
15:22:39 They have played themselves out.
15:22:40 They just saturated this neighborhood.
15:22:43 And the neighborhood doesn't want to see any more
15:22:46 That's what I'm hearing.
15:22:48 I personally would support developments that are less
15:22:53 dense and more green.
15:22:58 And more in keeping with the character of the
15:23:00 neighborhood, and less impervious surface.
15:23:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, two things.
15:23:09 Number one is, obviously, regardless of the testimony
15:23:14 you do hear, ultimately, your decision must be
15:23:17 factually based on competent, substantial evidence,
15:23:20 which I recommend whatever our decision is, that is
15:23:23 articulated in the record.
15:23:25 And I understand sometimes a -- motions can run high,
15:23:29 but obviously council is aware that it's it acting as a
15:23:32 quasi-judicial body and must render its decision based
15:23:35 on competent, substantial evidence.
15:23:36 Number two, if I understand Mr. Michelini correctly,
15:23:38 it's your request, Mr. Michelini, to request a
15:23:41 continuance for a second reading on a subsequent date?
15:23:45 Or am I misunderstanding?
15:23:47 >>> I'm not sure it will be second reading because if
15:23:49 we make changes to the site plan or to the
15:23:50 elevation ---maybe not the elevation but certainly if
15:23:55 we make significant changes, we are back at first
15:23:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It will have to be renoticed if that's
15:24:00 the case, is that correct?
15:24:02 >>> I don't think so.
15:24:03 But the hearing is still open.
15:24:05 We have had first reading.
15:24:06 We don't have closure on second reading.
15:24:09 The staff is indicating that February 23rd, they
15:24:11 have an opening at 6 p.m.
15:24:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can it be redesigned by then?
15:24:18 >>> I think we'll have our meeting and if we have our
15:24:21 meeting we can come back.
15:24:22 But I think we can respond quickly if they are minor.
15:24:26 I don't know.
15:24:27 We can respond within a month, certainly.
15:24:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is that your request?
15:24:34 >>> Yes, sir.
15:24:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: What date?
15:24:37 >>STEVE MICHELINI: 23rd at 6 p.m.
15:24:40 >> So moved.
15:24:41 >>ROSE FERLITA: Second.
15:24:42 >>GWEN MILLER: February 23rd at 6 p.m.
15:24:46 [Motion Carried]
15:24:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I thought I was just voting for a
15:25:03 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to have people sworn in for
15:25:10 items 38 through 47.
15:25:17 Anyone that's going to speak on items 38 through 47,
15:25:20 stand and raise your right hand.
15:25:24 (Oath administered by Clerk).
15:25:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Again please state for the record that
15:25:33 you have in fact been sworn.
15:25:35 Thank you.
15:25:36 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.
15:25:37 I have been sworn.
15:25:38 Item number 38, Z 0-5-116 is to be heard today.
15:25:44 Actually, staff, along with the petitioner, are asking
15:25:49 for a one-week continuance, based on some objections
15:25:53 from transportation in which they are graphical and we
15:26:02 need to ask council to waive the 13-day rule.
15:26:05 But petitioner feels that he could, within a week, make
15:26:08 the necessary changes that transportation has asked for
15:26:11 and we could come back at 10 a.m. next -- the 19th.
15:26:16 January 19th.
15:26:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there anyone from the public
15:26:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone from the public to speak on item
15:26:25 >>STEVE MICHELINI: We previously had no objections.
15:26:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Can I get a motion?
15:26:28 >> So moved.
15:26:29 >> Second.
15:26:29 (Motion carried)
15:26:43 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: I am here to speak on item 39.
15:26:46 The clerk should have received a memo from DHC director
15:26:50 Cynthia Miller requesting a four month continuance on
15:26:53 this issue to you work out some legal issues in the
15:26:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Four weeks?
15:26:59 >>> Four months.
15:26:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Four months would be what?
15:27:04 May 11th.
15:27:05 Motion and second.
15:27:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: What is the time for that, please?
15:27:10 10 a.m.?
15:27:10 >>GWEN MILLER: 10 a.m.
15:27:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to make you aware, Mr.
15:27:13 Fernandez, that we have scheduled a special workshop on
15:27:16 February -- I think it's February 9th, which is a
15:27:20 Wednesday at 9 a.m. in the Mascotte room, to discuss
15:27:22 the Platt and Columbus bridges.
15:27:26 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Thank you.
15:27:28 I'll be sure to come.
15:27:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 40.
15:27:34 >>MORRIS MASSEY: Legal department.
15:27:35 I'm here in connection with item number 40 which is a
15:27:38 notification of proposed change to the Tampa Technology
15:27:40 Park development, regional impact, DRI, specifically
15:27:45 Tampa Technology Park West.
15:27:48 This proposed change that will be the 16th
15:27:51 amendment to this DRI would extend the buildout date
15:27:53 for the western portion of this DRI by five years.
15:27:57 It reduces the number of entitlements, including no
15:28:03 additional residential units or hotel units. It allows
15:28:04 us the map 8 showing the designated uses.
15:28:04 And it requires the petitioner Lennar to provide the
15:28:12 City of Tampa $555,624.43 to four-lane Commerce Park
15:28:19 Boulevard within 45 days of the final rendition of the
15:28:21 order of DRI development order.
15:28:25 This money can also be used by the City of Tampa for
15:28:28 other improvement such as the bridge over I-75.
15:28:32 In addition to that, Lennar must pay the City of Tampa
15:28:34 within 45 days of the development order becoming final
15:28:40 while appeal period is running for installing
15:28:43 signallization at the intersection of Tampa Palms
15:28:45 Boulevard and commerce park Boulevard.
15:28:49 Trade-off mechanism has also been revised.
15:28:52 I believe we have transportation staff here if there
15:28:55 are any specific questions about it.
15:28:56 As I understand it, this has been reviewed by DCA, the
15:29:01 region, and our staff, and at this juncture there's no
15:29:04 opposition, or objections to this proposed ordinance
15:29:08 with the development order.
15:29:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that would
15:29:13 like to speak on item number 40?
15:29:20 >>> Scott Larson, I live at 5030 Ashington landing
15:29:25 drive in Tampa.
15:29:29 And it's a subdivision across the street from this
15:29:32 development in question.
15:29:35 And I have been sworn in.
15:29:39 I have a couple of concerns.
15:29:40 I thought I would hear a little more about what was
15:29:42 involved with this because I was just reading off the
15:29:44 petition that was originally presented in December
15:29:46 about some things about extending the build-out date
15:29:50 seven years.
15:29:51 I guess that maybe now has gone to five.
15:29:53 And a trade-off mechanism to allow conversion of office
15:29:59 use to commercial use.
15:30:00 And not fully understanding that maybe everything
15:30:03 that's involved in this petition.
15:30:06 My immediate concerns as a home own area cross the
15:30:08 street and the fact that we have a middle school and a
15:30:12 high school immediately across the street and up the
15:30:14 road from us, I have some concerns.
15:30:20 When I hear the word commercial, I don't know what
15:30:22 exactly that means to. Me that could be restaurants,
15:30:26 coffee houses, gas stations, liquor stores, adult book
15:30:30 What does that mean?
15:30:31 I would like to know more about what they mean by going
15:30:33 from office space, which is what's in there now, is
15:30:36 what we understood it to be when we bought our property
15:30:39 across the street, to what will be allowed as
15:30:42 commercial uses in that area.
15:30:45 And then seven-year extension, again, to me as a
15:30:49 resident, raises a red flag.
15:30:53 We have got children walking back and forth to school.
15:30:55 It's a residential area across the street.
15:30:57 There's offices there that have tenants in them now or
15:31:00 will shortly.
15:31:03 I would not like to see this thing dragged out for five
15:31:05 years or seven years or any extended time.
15:31:07 I don't really know the reason why that is going to
15:31:12 Construction sites are dirty.
15:31:14 They are unsightly.
15:31:15 They can be dangerous.
15:31:16 Don't support that at all.
15:31:20 So those are my concerns.
15:31:21 I thought I would hear more information as to the
15:31:23 details about these changes.
15:31:25 But I didn't.
15:31:27 But based on what I know, which was given in the
15:31:31 petition, something that was sent out by Lennar's
15:31:35 attorneys, I still had some real concerns about those
15:31:37 two items, switching use from office to commercial, and
15:31:43 the fact this thing is going to be extended, I guess
15:31:45 now at least five years out to be built out, given the
15:31:48 fact that there's residential areas across the street,
15:31:50 and there's schools up the street, and there's a
15:31:54 preschool up there as well.
15:31:55 >>GWEN MILLER: The attorney can explain to you.
15:32:02 >>MORRIS MASSEY: Developer's council is here.
15:32:05 He can also respond in detail.
15:32:06 But as council is aware, DRIs are large scale
15:32:10 developments where the developers are requested to make
15:32:12 major improvements to roads, to the utilities, to
15:32:16 facilities, to parks, the whole -- it's supposed to be
15:32:19 a very comprehensive look at the impacts of that
15:32:21 development on the whole area.
15:32:23 And as a result, in doing those massive improvements,
15:32:28 in exchange for that, they obtained entitlement
15:32:32 developments for a number of years.
15:32:33 And this developer is requesting an extension that they
15:32:37 have not built out their available entitlements.
15:32:41 Part of what they are exchanging for the extension of
15:32:43 the buildout, they are asking for reduction in the
15:32:46 number of intimatements.
15:32:48 In fact they are taking residential off the table.
15:32:50 The conversion between commercial and office is
15:32:53 based -- the trade-off mechanism is all based on
15:32:56 transportation figures.
15:32:57 The ideas that we will allow certain amount of
15:32:59 trade-off between different uses as long as you don't
15:33:02 create more traffic.
15:33:04 And I believe that the maximum allowed commercial that
15:33:06 is allowed through the trade-off mechanism in Tampa
15:33:08 tech west is somewhere on the scale of 80,000 square
15:33:12 I think it's primarily to allow commercial to serve the
15:33:14 office of development in that area so you will have
15:33:18 some internal capture of trips.
15:33:19 The DRI ticket is a broader scope.
15:33:21 It looks at uses in the broad scheme much like the comp
15:33:25 plan, office, residential, any type of development that
15:33:28 occurs, though, within that DRI also has to comply with
15:33:31 the zoning.
15:33:32 So could you not have an adult use there, or some
15:33:35 obnoxious use, unless there was zoning that permitted
15:33:38 that, and I don't believe the zoning in that area
15:33:41 permits that at all.
15:33:45 >> It couldn't be wet zoned, a star or bar or something
15:33:48 without a separate public hearing.
15:33:50 >>> That's correct.
15:33:51 >>SHAWN HARRISON: And this happens all the time in New
15:33:55 They get extended, contracted, they change residential
15:33:57 to office, it happens all the time.
15:34:01 I don't think there will be any negative impact at all
15:34:04 in your part of Tampa Palms based on this change.
15:34:08 I think it will be fine.