Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


09:11:55 Tampa City Council

09:11:57 Thursday, January 26, 2006.

09:12:02 9:00 a.m. session.

09:12:02

09:15:51 [Sounding gavel]

09:15:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.

09:15:53 The chair will yield to Ms. Linda Saul-Sena.

09:15:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Good morning everyone.

09:15:58 It is my great pleasure this morning to introduce

09:16:01 rabbi conover serving as the assistant rabbi to the

09:16:06 congregation which I attend, and she has been a great

09:16:10 source of inspiration since she came to Tampa a year

09:16:13 and a half ago.

09:16:14 I'd like you all to welcome her.

09:16:17 We will stand for the invocation and remain standing

09:16:19 for the pledge of allegiance.

09:16:21 Rabbi Conover.

09:16:28 >>> Thank you.

09:16:30 We pray.

09:16:32 O God, the vast infinity of your universe humbles

09:16:36 every living creature.

09:16:39 The spectrum of creation is truly beyond our powers to

09:16:42 explain or reason, for we cannot comprehend the time

09:16:45 and space in our creator's terms.

09:16:49 O God, hear our prayer from a world of turmoil.

09:16:55 Listen and guide us all, for we truly strive to be

09:16:58 just to every living soul, and to be open to the many

09:17:03 in need.




09:17:04 Provide us the insight to our sphere and guide us as

09:17:07 we seek to set aside the false values and vanities

09:17:13 that creep up to steal the true richness from our

09:17:16 lives.

09:17:17 Grant us greater tolerance for so much of the anguish

09:17:21 we bear is not truly worthy of our time.

09:17:26 Let us always find friendship, love and acceptance, so

09:17:31 that we will have the vital nourishment of existence.

09:17:35 Teach us to bend when we must, and to find

09:17:39 encouragement gracefully, even in slight gain, so that

09:17:43 we are stronger and more confident as we each -- as

09:17:49 each challenge is met.

09:17:51 Bless us this council, our families and our friends,

09:17:56 with good health and a peaceful spirit.

09:18:00 Stand with us as we strive to separate from the

09:18:02 complexities that embroil us, the basic values we all

09:18:07 share which will enrich our city, community.

09:18:11 We say together amen.

09:18:12

09:18:20 (Pledge of Allegiance)

09:18:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.

09:18:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: (No response.)




09:18:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.

09:18:36 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.

09:18:37 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.

09:18:39 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.

09:18:40 >>KEVIN WHITE: Here.

09:18:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.

09:18:41 >>GWEN MILLER: At this time we need approval of the

09:18:45 agenda.

09:18:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chairman, thank you.

09:18:47 We all received a memo from our City Council attorney,

09:18:52 Marty Shelby the other day, on the City Council

09:18:55 agenda, and it proposed a number of ways to make our

09:18:59 meetings run more smoothly, including something that's

09:19:02 certainly challenging for me which is to not ask any

09:19:05 questions until we get through a presentation.

09:19:09 But in honor of the fact that last week's meeting ran

09:19:12 so long and was so complex, I'm willing to adopt the

09:19:18 suggestions made by Mr. Shelby.

09:19:20 And I hope we all are, because I know none of us want

09:19:23 to have a meeting that runs as long as last week's.

09:19:26 And one of the issues he raised was at what point in

09:19:29 the meeting should we allow the audience to speak in a




09:19:32 way that doesn't evolve into a whole workshop and

09:19:35 dialogue on every issue that's under unfinished

09:19:41 business?

09:19:41 And I'm willing to do whatever my colleagues are

09:19:43 willing to do.

09:19:44 But I really feel like we need to minimize discussion

09:19:47 at that point, so I think we should figure out what

09:19:50 our rules are today and stick with them.

09:19:52 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I think that I like Mr. Shelby's

09:19:59 suggestions, that when the audience comes for

09:20:03 discussion on the things that are set for -- on the

09:20:08 agenda, not for public hearings, that there shouldn't

09:20:11 be a dialogue from us.

09:20:12 We never had that before.

09:20:13 And it makes it a lot smoother when we don't ask

09:20:17 questions from the audience.

09:20:18 When we get to that type of -- on the agenda item that

09:20:22 they are talking about, then we can have some

09:20:24 dialogue.

09:20:24 But not at the time that they are asking.

09:20:28 And I like his suggestions.

09:20:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: On the recommendation?




09:20:33 >>GWEN MILLER: The suggestion from Marty which I love,

09:20:38 and one thing, we are not going to speak unless you

09:20:40 are recognized.

09:20:41 That too takes up time.

09:20:42 We get dialogue going.

09:20:43 So we are not going to be speaking out unless we are

09:20:45 recognized.

09:20:46 So we need to get everybody's opinion on this.

09:20:48 We are going to follow Mr. Shelby's recommendations.

09:20:51 Mr. Dingfelder?

09:20:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I apologize for coming back in

09:20:55 late.

09:20:56 I also noticed in your memorandum that you spoke to

09:20:58 the fact of changing the order?

09:21:02 Did you all just discuss that?

09:21:04 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We were just discussing that.

09:21:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Changing the order to hear from the

09:21:09 public first, and that's part of what we are agreeing

09:21:12 to?

09:21:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There's no motion to that. If

09:21:17 council wishes to try that, that is the is the point I

09:21:20 suggest you do that and take those comments first.




09:21:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How would we do that procedurally?

09:21:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Make a motion to approve agenda

09:21:27 comment to approve the agenda.

09:21:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you want to remind to us do that

09:21:32 for a couple of weeks and see how it goes?

09:21:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It would be my pleasure.

09:21:37 >>KEVIN WHITE: Also he was saying while you were out

09:21:40 there would be no dialogue with the public.

09:21:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I heard that.

09:21:44 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to have a walk-on.

09:21:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you want to make a motion today

09:21:54 then to approve the agenda, public comment to

09:21:56 immediately following approval of the agenda?

09:22:00 >> So moved.

09:22:02 >> Second.

09:22:02 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second to move public comment

09:22:05 to the front of the agenda.

09:22:06 And do we need to make a motion to approve, Ms.

09:22:10 Ferlita, to do a walk-on.

09:22:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You can go down the list or however

09:22:15 it works.

09:22:15 >>ROSE FERLITA: If it's okay at the end of department




09:22:18 heads.

09:22:18 It would just be a very brief one.

09:22:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do we have any today?

09:22:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes, we have a couple.

09:22:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Are those for walk-ons,

09:22:29 substitutions, deletions?

09:22:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Walk ons.

09:22:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Then my suggestion is do them at the

09:22:39 beginning of the agenda.

09:22:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Cathy Coyle.

09:22:50 >>ERIC COTTON: Land Development Coordination.

09:22:51 This morning, Cathy's son was ill.

09:22:55 She's not here.

09:22:56 We have a total of ten walk-ons for this weekend for

09:22:59 temporaries, eight of which are related to Gasparilla,

09:23:01 two of which are taking place this weekend, none of

09:23:04 them downtown, one of them is not in the Gasparilla

09:23:06 area.

09:23:09 The first is WZ 06-30, Tampa federation of garden

09:23:12 clubs incorporated, WZ 06-31, Florida Aquarium, WZ

09:23:18 06-32, the Hillsborough community college foundation.

09:23:24 WZ 06-33, Hillsborough community college foundation.




09:23:28 WZ 06-35 is decree.

09:23:33 Not part of the pirate fest.

09:23:37 37, retarded citizens.

09:23:39 WZ 06-39, Stewart's foundation.

09:23:43 WZ-06-40, university of Tampa.

09:23:48 And 31, which is also the Hillsborough association of

09:23:51 retarded citizens.

09:23:52 And the last one which is not part of the Gasparilla

09:23:55 pirate fest is WZ-06-36 which is the arts center.

09:24:02 The actual pirate fest and why they came in late, they

09:24:05 can address that.

09:24:06 The other, if you have any questions by council.

09:24:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That was my question, Eric, how we

09:24:12 feel about walk-ons, and I'm just wondering, two days

09:24:17 before Gasparilla, why would we be having all of these

09:24:20 alcohol walk-ons?

09:24:22 >>ERIC COTTON: The other thing you would have to waive

09:24:27 by majority vote is the 15 day requirement, that they

09:24:29 appear 15 days prior -- submit 15 days prior to the

09:24:32 date they appear on council agendas.

09:24:34 None of these ten that I just noticed did.

09:24:38 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm just wondering why it takes them




09:24:39 so long to come up.

09:24:41 They know Gasparilla is coming up.

09:24:42 >>ERIC COTTON: I'll let Michael Brooks address that.

09:24:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like to hear.

09:24:47 Because it's not -- if they were not non-profits I

09:24:51 certainly wouldn't approve it.

09:24:53 >>> Good morning.

09:24:54 Michael Brooks.

09:24:55 I am here as ambassador of pirate fest, and here on

09:25:01 behalf of the nonprofits, the eight nonprofits that I

09:25:04 sent you the letter on previously.

09:25:08 This is a complicated process.

09:25:11 It is many ways from my seat herding cats who

09:25:16 sometimes do go vertical.

09:25:20 Three years ago when I was asked to be the president

09:25:21 of pirate fest, we had run into a situation where

09:25:26 throughout the early '90s, late 90s, where there

09:25:31 were only two locations along the parade route that

09:25:33 actually met the wet zoning criteria.

09:25:35 This is something we talked about last year, worked

09:25:38 real hard on.

09:25:39 We did come before you the week of Gasparilla last




09:25:42 year, and the reason for that, just to refresh

09:25:46 everyone's memory, was that we were working very

09:25:49 closely with the administration, having some meetings

09:25:52 with you on council, and the locations that you got in

09:25:56 your packet, the actual graphics that were prepared by

09:26:00 staff, were ultimately agreed upon that there was a

09:26:04 strong public benefit in doing it this way, spacing

09:26:08 them out orderly, putting them where the police

09:26:10 officers are, where the Port-o-Lets are, things like

09:26:13 that.

09:26:16 So all of those things.

09:26:17 This year, we had somewhat of a wrink in that -- the

09:26:23 wrinkle in that the second goal I had as president of

09:26:26 pirate fest and looking out for the interests of the

09:26:28 nonprofits was we were really looking for a lot more

09:26:30 support from our sponsors on parade day for the

09:26:33 nonprofits, community profits, as Ms. Saul-Sena calls

09:26:37 them.

09:26:38 Historically, they had been somewhat left to fend for

09:26:41 themselves in terms of ordering their tents, ordering

09:26:44 their chairs, getting their ice there, getting the

09:26:48 product there, et cetera.




09:26:50 This year I'm happy to tell council that that has

09:26:54 changed.

09:26:55 And the spoke sponsor for this year will be in fact

09:26:58 running a full professional concession area in

09:27:02 conjunction with the nonprofits.

09:27:04 It will have a common theme, as far as tent, marketing

09:27:08 signage, they were going to have professional

09:27:11 concessionaires in the back, in the trenches with the

09:27:14 nonprofits.

09:27:15 They are going to have two other professional

09:27:17 concessionaires in front helping to manage the people.

09:27:21 They are preparing signage that will advertise that

09:27:25 they I.D., that there will be two drinks per

09:27:29 transaction, as well as signage to drink responsibly.

09:27:32 There will be unified T-shirts with I.D. tags.

09:27:40 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Get to the point.

09:27:41 >>> The point being as part of pirate fest,

09:27:46 unfortunately it's taken us all the way to this point

09:27:49 of Gasparilla.

09:27:50 >>MARY ALVAREZ: When did you start this process?

09:27:52 >>> We started this process immediately after the

09:27:55 parade each year.




09:28:02 We really put the pieces together about four weeks ago

09:28:04 of how this was going to work.

09:28:06 We did have the applications from the nonprofits in

09:28:10 early December.

09:28:12 We were not able to let them know all the details

09:28:17 until roughly three weeks ago that we first knew of

09:28:20 all of these.

09:28:21 Pirate fest was very excited about it.

09:28:23 The nonprofits scrambled very hard in getting to this

09:28:27 point.

09:28:27 (Bell sounds).

09:28:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Your time is up, Mr. Brooks.

09:28:32 How much time do you want to spend on this?

09:28:38 >>KEVIN WHITE: There is obviously a lot of good

09:28:41 nonprofits in here.

09:28:43 I think Mr. Brooks needs to pay close attention, and

09:28:46 once this is over start your process for next year on

09:28:48 Monday.

09:28:48 And I'd like to make a motion that we waive the 15-day

09:28:52 rule.

09:28:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.

09:28:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion.




09:28:54 >>SHAWN HARRISON: The only one that I had an issue

09:28:57 with, you said there were ten, Eric.

09:28:59 And nine of them are within the parade route, or right

09:29:02 downtown.

09:29:03 But where is the ten?

09:29:07 >>ERIC COTTON: It's on Zack Street, greenfields

09:29:12 parking lot.

09:29:12 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to waive

09:29:15 the 15 days.

09:29:17 All in favor?

09:29:18 Nay?

09:29:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Nay.

09:29:20 >>KEVIN WHITE: Mega motion to approve the T wet

09:29:25 zonings.

09:29:26 >> Second.

09:29:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Nay.

09:29:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Randy Goers.

09:29:37 >>RANDY GOERS: Strategic planning and technology.

09:29:40 I'm here this morning to request a workshop for

09:29:43 February 9th at 11:00 o'clock.

09:29:46 The purpose is to allow the school board staff to come

09:29:50 and brief council on the status of the school




09:29:53 concurrency pilot project.

09:29:57 Everything is needed because there will be primarily

09:30:00 another joint meeting of the city-county in mid

09:30:03 February, where wove to try to get a consensus of a

09:30:07 jurisdiction on the direction of the pilot project.

09:30:09 So school board staff would be here to brief us on the

09:30:12 status, and what the direction in which you will need

09:30:14 to know for that joint meeting in February.

09:30:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So move to set it up and I hope you

09:30:20 will be joining us today at 1:30 at Jefferson high

09:30:23 school in the meeting room when all the jurisdictions

09:30:25 get together and talk about a motion and second.

09:30:27 >>ROSE FERLITA: I was just happy that Mr. Goers is

09:30:31 coming forward with that because I was concerned

09:30:33 because of time constraints that we could get to that

09:30:35 meeting today, Mrs. Saul-Sena.

09:30:36 Thank you for bringing that.

09:30:37 I think we need to be totally aware of what's going on

09:30:40 with the school concurrency.

09:30:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Clarification on the motion as to

09:30:48 direction.

09:30:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Setting the time and date he




09:30:48 suggested.

09:30:48 >>RANDY GOERS: February 9th at 11:00 o'clock.

09:30:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Will council stop what it is doing to

09:30:55 take this item at 11:00 o'clock?

09:31:00 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, we'll have to.

09:31:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: My suggestion would be if not it is

09:31:04 irrelevant as to what time you set it.

09:31:06 >>ROSE FERLITA: Well, I think this is important.

09:31:13 I think we need a time certain.

09:31:15 I think we need to abide by that.

09:31:17 So let's make every effort to do that at 11:00

09:31:19 o'clock.

09:31:20 Time certain.

09:31:21 Yes.

09:31:21 In answer to your question.

09:31:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second for 11:00 o'clock

09:31:25 time certain.

09:31:27 All in favor say Aye.

09:31:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How long do you think?

09:31:31 >>RANDY GOERS: Coordinating with the school board

09:31:34 trying to make it 45 minutes or less.

09:31:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let's set it for 1:30.




09:31:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ooh.

09:31:44 >>GWEN MILLER: What about the end of the meeting?

09:31:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's so rude.

09:31:48 These are the school board members coming here?

09:31:51 >>RANDY GOERS: School board staff and perhaps their

09:31:53 consultant.

09:31:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just hate to have them come for

09:31:56 an 11:00 o'clock thing and not even get to it till

09:31:59 after lunch.

09:32:02 >>GWEN MILLER: We say time certain.

09:32:04 When they get here we can stop.

09:32:05 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, if we do that, then at

09:32:08 least everybody in the audience knows so they don't

09:32:10 have to wait till right at 12:00 and then, gosh, mine

09:32:13 is not going to be heard till later.

09:32:15 If they are coming at 10:00 they will know we are

09:32:18 listening to this at 11:00 o'clock, it's going to take

09:32:22 45 minutes, it will go right into lunch so people

09:32:24 don't have to stay if they don't want to talk about

09:32:26 it.

09:32:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a reminder to council that

09:32:28 unless council waives its rules, it will take no




09:32:32 longer than an hour because council schedules lunch at

09:32:36 12:00.

09:32:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And we will be back after lunch, I'm

09:32:39 telling you now.

09:32:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ:

09:32:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did we vote?

09:32:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes, we voted on that.

09:32:46 All right.

09:32:46 Marty Boyle.

09:32:53 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.

09:32:58 I'd like to discuss item number 45 on the the agenda.

09:33:02 It is Z 05-165.

09:33:04 It's Cass Street.

09:33:05 It is a planned development.

09:33:07 A surface parking lot.

09:33:09 It's been discovered that the case was misnoticed and

09:33:13 cannot go forward with the public hearing for the

09:33:14 second reading.

09:33:16 The petitioner has paid an amendment fee and it's

09:33:19 asking to be rescheduled for the next available public

09:33:22 hearing, April 9th, 6 p.m.

09:33:27 >> So moved.




09:33:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.

09:33:28 (Motion carried).

09:33:35 >>MARY ALVAREZ: April 9th.

09:33:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. David Smith.

09:33:39 >>DAVID SMITH: Good morning.

09:33:41 David Smith again.

09:33:42 I wanted to speak with you before the agenda to make

09:33:44 sure you received a copy of a memorandum I provided to

09:33:47 you earlier this morning.

09:33:48 It has a summary of recommendations with respect to

09:33:51 the gift discussion that we will have later.

09:33:54 I believe it's item number 10 on the agenda.

09:33:58 We will also have a discussion subsequently, I think

09:34:00 it's somewhere around 54, where we take up the glitch

09:34:04 bill for the second reading.

09:34:05 My recommendation today would be to proceed with the

09:34:07 glitch bill as is, so we get that done, and as you can

09:34:11 see from our recommendation, I'm also recommending

09:34:13 some clarification in the definition and how that will

09:34:18 work through our ordinance.

09:34:19 But I think it's important to get the glitch bill

09:34:21 done, and we can come back after we have the




09:34:23 discussion today, and you have the presentation of the

09:34:25 ethics commission's proposal, and then provide us

09:34:27 clear direction as to exactly how you want to proceed

09:34:30 from there.

09:34:31 Then we can come back with an ordinance that finalizes

09:34:33 the issue with respect to gifts.

09:34:36 I want to primarily make sure because the memo came

09:34:39 out at the last minute.

09:34:40 You can think about it during all the laws you have in

09:34:42 the process.

09:34:43 I'm kidding.

09:34:44 But that was the point of speaking to you before.

09:34:47 So I recommend continue with the agenda as is.

09:34:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

09:34:52 Mr. Morris Massey.

09:34:58 >>MORRIS MASSEY: Legal department.

09:35:00 I'm here in connection with item 24 which is a

09:35:02 proposed built-out agreement for the university

09:35:06 business center DRI.

09:35:09 We discovered, when you enter into these, that

09:35:12 agreement, one of the things that staff must do is

09:35:15 verify that all the requirements in the DRI,




09:35:17 development order, have been satisfied by the

09:35:19 developer.

09:35:20 The staff discovered that there was one transportation

09:35:22 condition that had not been satisfied that is still

09:35:25 contingent upon -- it doesn't have to be satisfied.

09:35:27 It's contingent upon a certain square footage being

09:35:31 permitted and they are not there yet.

09:35:32 We propose some language to add to that.

09:35:36 Mr. Mechanik wanted an opportunity to review it.

09:35:38 I wanted to submit a letter asking this item be

09:35:41 continued to February 9th.

09:35:42 And unless you are requesting otherwise, we would

09:35:45 request that this -- we concur.

09:35:47 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.

09:35:51 >> Second.

09:35:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to continue.

09:35:57 (Motion carried).

09:35:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And the motion to approve the agenda

09:36:01 as present -- as amended.

09:36:04 [Motion Carried]

09:36:04 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam chairman, thank you.

09:36:09 I didn't want to interrupt our program very long.




09:36:11 I met yesterday with corporal Simpson, and he is in

09:36:14 the audience.

09:36:15 He had a request for support from this council, and as

09:36:21 chairman of public safety, I wanted to move it.

09:36:23 He had spoken with meeting with representative rich

09:36:28 Gloriosio who agreed to put aside a day, may 17th,

09:36:32 is that right? You can come forward if you want,

09:36:34 Mike.

09:36:34 To recognize law enforcement explorers.

09:36:37 As we know, or most of us know, corporal Simpson has

09:36:41 been dedicated to the explorers, to the men and women

09:36:44 that are out there doing that.

09:36:45 And he's taken wonderful care of them.

09:36:48 28 years, I think you have been an instructor. The

09:36:51 deal is that if we move forward in a motion to

09:36:53 support, then representative Gloriosio will move it

09:36:57 forward at this state.

09:37:00 Mike, I think that's all I needed to do, simply to say

09:37:03 yes, we support it.

09:37:04 Is there anything else you want to add to?

09:37:07 >>> Corporal: If council supports this, it opens the

09:37:11 door -- if council supports us making a day in the




09:37:14 City of Tampa for the police explorers, it opens up

09:37:17 the door to make a state day through representative

09:37:22 Gloriosio, and at that time if the state day is

09:37:24 proclaimed, we can move on to try to make at national

09:37:27 day.

09:37:28 So we would be the forerunners of a national day of

09:37:32 recognition for law enforcement explorers.

09:37:35 >>ROSE FERLITA: I would like to make that motion.

09:37:38 As always there's a glitch.

09:37:39 Sandy, he needs some acknowledgment that we move this.

09:37:42 And I'm assuming we'll have the support.

09:37:44 They need to show that to confirm it to the state by

09:37:47 tomorrow.

09:37:48 So can you just give them something that was in the

09:37:50 minutes that says we approved it?

09:37:53 And thank you for what you have done for the

09:37:55 explorers.

09:37:57 >>> Corporal: Thank you for your support.

09:37:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.

09:38:01 Sir, I appreciate the great work you do. I'm just

09:38:03 curious.

09:38:03 A good percentage, or is there a fair percentage of




09:38:06 young explorers that go on actually into a career in

09:38:08 law enforcement?

09:38:10 >>> Actually they do. Two of those explorers have

09:38:12 appeared before City Council as officers of the month.

09:38:15 So we are pretty proud of that.

09:38:17 And just recently one of my explorers has been

09:38:20 deployed to Iraq as an M.P. in the ir airborne unit to

09:38:25 train Iraqi police officers.

09:38:27 When he came back from boot camp and lectured the kids

09:38:30 one of the first things he said was how well he made

09:38:33 it through M.P. school because of his training here at

09:38:35 the Tampa Police Department.

09:38:36 So we are pretty proud of that.

09:38:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Must be gratifying.

09:38:39 Thank you.

09:38:39 >>KEVIN WHITE: Before your time, Mike, I was also a

09:38:43 product of that program.

09:38:51 I don't know which end of the dais you were speaking

09:38:53 of.

09:38:56 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

09:38:58 All in favor of the motion say Aye.

09:38:59 Opposed, Nay.




09:39:00 (Motion carried).

09:39:01 At this time we are going to go to our audience

09:39:04 portion.

09:39:04 We will let our attorney explain to you how it's going

09:39:06 to be handled so we don't have any complications.

09:39:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

09:39:10 This is the portion of the agenda where people have an

09:39:13 opportunity to speak, three minutes total, on items

09:39:15 that are on the agenda but not set for a public

09:39:19 hearing.

09:39:19 You will have an opportunity to speak at individual

09:39:22 public hearings when they are called.

09:39:24 During staff reports and unfinished business, council

09:39:27 does not take comments from is the floor, unless they

09:39:30 unanimously waive the rules.

09:39:31 So if you wish to speak to something under staff

09:39:34 reports and under unfinished business or items on the

09:39:37 consent docket the time to speak is during agendaed

09:39:40 public comment which is now.

09:39:42 We ask when you state your name, and you reference

09:39:44 which items you like to have council listen to,

09:39:48 council will take under advisement.




09:39:50 My advice to council is again to not engage in

09:39:53 dialogue or make commentary.

09:39:54 The time to do that is when is item is called.

09:39:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Unless we have a specific question?

09:39:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Then would you ask the chair for

09:40:02 permission from the floor for a specific question.

09:40:04 >>ROSE FERLITA: And she may say no and put you in

09:40:09 prison.

09:40:09 Sorry.

09:40:09 >>GWEN MILLER: At this time we go to our audience

09:40:12 portion.

09:40:12 Is there anyone in the audience to speak at this time?

09:40:14 You may come forward.

09:40:18 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Neal, welcome back.

09:40:21 >>> Terry Neil, Tampa, Florida.

09:40:23 I have to do that part first.

09:40:25 Thank you very much for women coming me back.

09:40:27 I really didn't intend to speak this morning.

09:40:30 Honestly, I didn't.

09:40:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Put your name on the record for us.

09:40:34 >>> Thanks for those rules.

09:40:36 I really think that's a great improvement.




09:40:37 I do have one question, though.

09:40:39 And you added this to the agenda as a walk-on, which

09:40:42 is the topic of walk-ons.

09:40:45 If we are going to have walk-ons, I do think those

09:40:49 walk-ons should be in printed form and available for

09:40:51 the public to look at.

09:40:52 I mean, if they have them two days in advance, they

09:41:00 could have printed them up.

09:41:00 I have no idea what those walk-ons are right now and I

09:41:00 can't comment on those and neither can you because you

09:41:01 don't have a copy of them.

09:41:02 So I just wanted to add that as a walk-on to your

09:41:06 walk-on to the walk-ons.

09:41:08 I did want to speak about item -- staff report 2005-48

09:41:13 regarding the federal courthouse.

09:41:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: What number is that?

09:41:18 >>> Item 3.

09:41:19 Sorry about that.

09:41:20 As you know, I have taken a strong position and

09:41:23 written some reports, columns in the newspaper, also.

09:41:26 I think the federal courthouse is a fine building.

09:41:29 Paul Wilborn took me on a tour of the building.




09:41:33 I want to see that building preserved and I want to

09:41:36 see it serve a useful purpose in downtown Tampa.

09:41:39 I was in favor of it as the art museum.

09:41:41 I still am.

09:41:42 I think the history sent core go in there as well.

09:41:45 I hope that the report regarding the health concerns

09:41:48 are not too damning because old buildings have health

09:41:55 problems, old buildings have asbestos.

09:41:58 I point to as I did in an article I wrote for the

09:42:01 Tribune that the Sarasota art museum and the Ringling

09:42:03 brothers school of art got together and decided to put

09:42:08 a school and museum in the old Sarasota High School.

09:42:11 And as you know, the Sarasota High School was built

09:42:15 around the time as the old federal courthouse,

09:42:19 although there have been some additions to the

09:42:21 courthouse.

09:42:21 We need to use our old buildings.

09:42:23 We need to preserve them.

09:42:25 There are very few of them left.

09:42:27 I'm glad what you are doing with the Kress building.

09:42:29 I'm glad of the historic districts.

09:42:32 My neighborhood doesn't necessarily have a lot of




09:42:34 historic buildings, but we do need to save our

09:42:37 history.

09:42:39 And it may take a little extra money.

09:42:42 It may take a little extra effort.

09:42:44 But there's a time and a place for everything.

09:42:46 And that federal courthouse building is a beauty.

09:42:49 It really is a beauty.

09:42:51 Strip off the paint, take down some of the ceilings,

09:42:54 and you have got a gem.

09:42:55 And that's what I wanted to say.

09:42:57 Thank you.

09:42:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

09:42:58 Next.

09:43:04 >>> I'm here on agenda item number 4, the noise

09:43:07 ordinance.

09:43:08 Jennifer D'Angelo, 112 north E street, Tampa, Florida.

09:43:13 As you may or may not know I work for the law offices

09:43:16 of Luke Lirot.

09:43:18 I am here for many clubs in the Ybor district.

09:43:22 I want to speak about the noise ordinance because

09:43:24 there are changes that seem fundamentally unfair

09:43:27 especially in light of Ybor City being an




09:43:29 entertainment district.

09:43:30 And because Ybor City is an entertainment district

09:43:34 there are more zoning requirements, you have more

09:43:36 entertainment-type businesses that are closer to each

09:43:39 other, which is the whole intent of creating such a

09:43:42 district, and why these businesses came to exist in

09:43:45 the fashion and manner in which they do.

09:43:48 There are already current problems with enforcing a

09:43:50 noise ordinance as is, because these are so close

09:43:55 together, it's virtually impossible to tell where the

09:43:57 sound is coming from when they are located so close

09:44:00 together.

09:44:00 Additionally with, the opening up of the streets,

09:44:03 there is now traffic on 7th Avenue, which creates

09:44:06 an additional ambient noise level, which also makes it

09:44:09 virtually impossible to tell who is violating and who

09:44:12 is not.

09:44:13 And to create a criminal imposition for inadvertent or

09:44:20 basically undeterminable noise violation, just seems

09:44:23 fundamentally unfair, and -- just fundamentally unfair

09:44:30 to enforce against these businesses that have been

09:44:33 enticed to come and provide a particular form of




09:44:35 entertainment are now being punished for that

09:44:37 particular reason.

09:44:38 And I would like the council to consider that Ybor

09:44:39 City is an entertainment district, you did entice

09:44:42 these businesses to come and set up in the fashion and

09:44:45 manner that they did, but they are not the cause of

09:44:48 the problems that this noise ordinance apparently

09:44:51 seems to address, that they provide jobs and revenue

09:44:55 for this city, and create the entertainment district

09:44:58 which was the whole intent, I believe, of the council

09:45:01 and the city.

09:45:01 So please consider that when you're looking at this

09:45:04 noise ordinance, and the implication it's going to

09:45:07 have for those businesses down in Ybor City.

09:45:09 Thank you.

09:45:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

09:45:12 Mr. Dingfelder, I love you but we are not going to

09:45:15 have any dialogue.

09:45:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you want to bring it back and

09:45:20 forth?

09:45:21 >>GWEN MILLER: You will have to get the rules from

09:45:23 counsel.




09:45:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: What is the question?

09:45:30 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's going to trigger all of us

09:45:32 having questions, I can tell you that.

09:45:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a specific question.

09:45:36 >>ROSE FERLITA: I have a specific question, too.

09:45:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 4.

09:45:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You can recall that person if you

09:45:44 wish during the time the item is there to ask that

09:45:46 question.

09:45:47 Council rules do allow that.

09:45:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are you sticking around for this

09:45:50 item when we are discussing it?

09:45:55 >>> I'll stick around.

09:45:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My question is written down.

09:45:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

09:45:56 We'll call you later.

09:45:57 Next.

09:46:01 >>> Chip Thomas, 1219 east Henry Avenue.

09:46:04 And I'm also going to speak to number 4 of the noise

09:46:07 ordinance.

09:46:10 I'm guessing that every one of you as a kid grew up

09:46:13 with a soft, gentleman hum of lawnmowers whenever a




09:46:20 lawn was cut.

09:46:21 And those noises have primarily been replaced today

09:46:25 by, I would call it, the audible assault, ear

09:46:31 shattering, in my case, the next source of lawn

09:46:37 service that actually vibrate it is floor of the

09:46:39 house.

09:46:40 I spoke a little over a year ago to you about this,

09:46:44 and you assigned a staff member to look into L.A.'s

09:46:48 experience with an ordinance that they had.

09:46:50 They not only put a cap on the noise that lawn

09:46:54 equipment can make -- I believe it's 75 decibels --

09:46:57 they also outlawed on gasoline powered leaf blowers.

09:47:03 According to the sheriff I spoke to in L.A., there was

09:47:06 a logistical problem enforcing this because response

09:47:10 time didn't allow them to get to the scene fast enough

09:47:13 to catch people in the act.

09:47:15 And, second, they weren't happy that this wasn't the

09:47:18 kind of crime they wanted to devote time or resources

09:47:20 to.

09:47:22 They had far too many other crimes to deal with.

09:47:24 I want to address -- and given that, you decided to

09:47:28 just not take action at that time.




09:47:33 Number one, most lawn services, the professionals who

09:47:36 are the primary violators of this noise problem, with

09:47:40 their equipment and all the leaf blowers, they operate

09:47:43 on schedules.

09:47:44 And you pretty much know that they are going to do

09:47:46 this house at 1:00 on Tuesday.

09:47:48 So you can set up with police or whoever is involved

09:47:53 ahead of time, and if they get tied up and you can't

09:47:56 make it this week, then next week they'll be there

09:48:00 Tuesday at 1:00 and you can take a reading and see if

09:48:02 they are a violator.

09:48:05 Second, Tampa is not L.A., and hopefully all police

09:48:09 resources aren't stretched to the extent that theirs

09:48:12 are.

09:48:14 For nothing else the extent of crime activity they

09:48:16 have out there.

09:48:16 And hopefully that is not a reason to not enact such

09:48:20 an ordinance.

09:48:26 I think if you have a fear of too much government

09:48:28 intrusion or being anti-business, let me just say that

09:48:33 when too many people refuse to use common sense and

09:48:37 good judgment and use machines for the uses that they




09:48:40 were intended, these sit-down mowers that look

09:48:43 likal-terrain vehicles and have tires bigger than

09:48:47 probably your car tires were not meant to mow city

09:48:51 lots.

09:48:51 They were meant for acres out in rural areas.

09:48:55 And why should we have to be subject to such, as I

09:48:59 said, audible assault when there is equipment that

09:49:02 will do the job without making the noise?

09:49:06 Just the fact that all these people -- and there are

09:49:08 homeowners that are guilty, too, especially when it

09:49:11 comes to the great leaf blower, which really doesn't

09:49:15 remove the offending leaves, they just kind of move

09:49:19 them somewhere else.

09:49:19 But the majority of people using this equipment use

09:49:24 the heavy duty ear phones, and that alone should say

09:49:27 something, because if they are wearing it, then does

09:49:29 that mean that you next door need to be wearing it?

09:49:32 (Bell sounds).

09:49:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

09:49:34 Next.

09:49:40 >>> Carmen brown Johnson.

09:49:43 I'm here representing Willet brown, a property owner




09:49:46 at 2003 north Highland.

09:49:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Which item are you speaking on?

09:49:51 >>> Number 1.

09:49:52 I would like to first of all commend the commission on

09:49:58 their consideration, and what was said this morning

09:50:02 concerning the Tampa Heights project.

09:50:06 As I said, my father and my family were property

09:50:10 owners there, and I'm just here to ask the council to

09:50:12 continue to take very careful consideration on what's

09:50:17 done in that area, and keep the property owners that

09:50:20 have owned property there for almost 100 years, and

09:50:25 have lived in the City of Tampa over 100 years, and

09:50:30 what their best interest is.

09:50:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

09:50:33 Next.

09:50:38 >>> Walter Johnson, 465 Longfellow Avenue in Tampa.

09:50:42 I'm here to talk about item 9.

09:50:45 The revisions to chapter 13.

09:50:47 I would like to be here at 11:00 o'clock for the

09:50:51 presentation by staff.

09:50:52 However, I have a doctor's appointment so I am going

09:50:54 to take advantage of this time to make a couple of




09:50:56 comments.

09:50:57 First I want to thank councilwoman Saul-Sena for

09:51:00 chairing the tree committee.

09:51:02 I think she, Thom Snelling and the city staff all did

09:51:06 an excellent job in working with the committee to

09:51:08 bring forth recommendations to you.

09:51:13 I'm here basically to urge that you move quickly to

09:51:16 adopt the revisions that are being presented today.

09:51:20 While these revisions are meaningful, I hope that

09:51:25 there will be additional recommendations from the tree

09:51:28 committee later in this year.

09:51:30 I heard that there's the possibility, or at least a

09:51:34 possibility that there will be further follow-up on

09:51:37 this, and I think it's urgently needed.

09:51:43 One specific recommendation I don't think you will

09:51:47 hear today but it's important and I think needs to be

09:51:49 addressed, quickly, is to look at the method used to

09:51:52 determine what is a grand tree and what is not a grand

09:51:55 tree.

09:51:58 This needs to be simplified to make it easier for

09:52:02 everyone, city inspectors, developers, tree trimmers,

09:52:05 and citizens, to be able to determine if it's a grand




09:52:09 tree involved when something is happening to a tree.

09:52:13 With the penalties involved, I think we owe it to the

09:52:16 citizens, penalties involved for the removal of the

09:52:19 grand tree, and or for even trimming of a grand tree,

09:52:22 without a permit.

09:52:23 I think we owe it to the citizens to be able to have

09:52:28 them easily identify what is a grand tree and what is

09:52:31 not a grand tree.

09:52:34 I thought we had consensus on that issue in the

09:52:37 committee.

09:52:37 However, I don't think it's included in what you will

09:52:40 hear today.

09:52:41 Also, from time to time, I hear references to property

09:52:44 rights when discussing tree issues.

09:52:47 I'm a proponent of property rights.

09:52:49 However, I also believe that a neighbor a neighborhood

09:52:55 has rights on issues that affect the character and

09:52:58 appearance of that neighbor neighborhood.

09:53:01 I think we should look upon the tree code the same way

09:53:04 we look upon our electrical codes, plumbing codes,

09:53:07 zoning codes, anything else.

09:53:10 These codes limit what and how they may be built on a




09:53:15 person's property.

09:53:17 The tree code deserves the same respect.

09:53:21 I conclude by showing you three or four photographs,

09:53:24 four or five, I guess, that show you the need for a

09:53:27 stronger tree code and stronger tree code enforcement.

09:53:35 In this one, there were three homes on this piece of

09:53:38 property -- two homes, and they brought them down to

09:53:43 three homes in the area.

09:53:44 As you can see during the demolition process, barriers

09:53:47 were attempted to be put up and knocked down.

09:53:52 It's in my neighborhood.

09:53:52 I personally witnessed large equipment running over

09:53:55 the roots of these trees, et cetera, in the process.

09:54:01 This is another site in our neighborhood where a house

09:54:05 was torn down.

09:54:10 (Bell sounds).

09:54:12 I'm sorry.

09:54:12 >>GWEN MILLER: We have to get the consensus.

09:54:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to allow Mr. Johnson one more

09:54:21 minute.

09:54:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.

09:54:22 (Motion carried).




09:54:24 >>> Thank you very much.

09:54:26 As you can see the barricades that were put up, and

09:54:29 they were actually nailed to the tree.

09:54:30 So they weren't very effective.

09:54:35 People talk in terms of the damage that can be done by

09:54:39 root systems to trees that are close to a house. In

09:54:41 this particular case, this tree, it is a grand tree,

09:54:45 is less than a foot from the base of the house.

09:54:50 As you can see, there has been no damage to that wall.

09:54:54 This is another shot of the same tree.

09:54:58 And you can see the large root that's come out.

09:55:00 The root came over, it hit the foundation and turned,

09:55:03 it went down, and this tree is over 40 years old.

09:55:06 I'm familiar with it.

09:55:07 Because it's at my house.

09:55:10 And it was there -- you can see, and there's been no

09:55:19 structural damage.

09:55:21 And last but not least, this little guy.

09:55:25 He's saying "please protect our trees."

09:55:30 Thank you.

09:55:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

09:55:31 Next.




09:55:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Robert.

09:55:37 >>> Eric Shull, 4133 Salt Water Boulevard, talking

09:55:41 about the noise ordinance as well which I believe is

09:55:43 number 4.

09:55:44 I believe this ordinance is a mistake because it

09:55:46 doesn't address the problem.

09:55:47 And the problem down in Ybor City is what I believe is

09:55:51 unhealthy financial fundamentals down there.

09:55:55 And I know that because I have been a property owner,

09:55:57 business owner on 7th Avenue for more than

09:55:59 3020th years.

09:56:01 We all agree and want to see a viable neighborhood,

09:56:04 small retail, providing services for the residents.

09:56:06 But the problem is with the taxes, the prices being

09:56:09 paid by speculators, regulations, fees and so forth,

09:56:13 not even including the debt service, the landlord has

09:56:16 a hard time putting a small retail operation on

09:56:20 7th Avenue and actually making a profit or even

09:56:22 paying his expenses.

09:56:24 This ordinance will vacate large blocks of buildings

09:56:27 leaving only vacant storefronts, and real estate

09:56:30 speculators.




09:56:31 Small retail will not thrive as a result of this

09:56:34 ordinance.

09:56:37 Our healthiest industry down there right now is

09:56:40 flipping properties and putting current business

09:56:42 owners out of business will not change that.

09:56:44 Now, we raise more funds for chartable causes than any

09:56:49 other venue in Ybor City.

09:56:50 Remember the convention and visitors bureau and the

09:56:52 Ybor Chamber of Commerce and a large event with

09:56:55 throngs of visitors to the city.

09:56:57 We pay muss Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida crowds

09:56:59 and visitors and locals.

09:57:00 Under this ordinance I can go to jail for that.

09:57:03 Under this ordinance my ten-year-old son's steel drum

09:57:07 band from Lockhart school can never play there again

09:57:10 without me risking going to jail.

09:57:13 And not long ago, we entertained a bus load of

09:57:19 travelers from Great Britain.

09:57:20 We ended up in the London daily mirror, which has a

09:57:24 circulation of 2,500,000.

09:57:28 This is the kind of progress we are making down there.

09:57:30 But I cannot play music to those people without




09:57:33 risking going to jail.

09:57:34 Now, the hip hop and crowd it brings of 18-year-old

09:57:39 kids is the real target of this ordinance.

09:57:41 And I'm here to tell you now you are about to make me

09:57:45 collateral damage.

09:57:46 I'm going to lose, because of this.

09:57:51 And if you ever heard about throwing the baby out with

09:57:53 the bath water, well, we are the baby and the bath

09:57:56 water is going and we're going with it.

09:57:58 There are lots of things we need to do to improve the

09:58:00 business and living for the residents in Ybor City.

09:58:02 But this is not one of them.

09:58:04 Now, at the very least, ski the council to provide for

09:58:07 variance or waiver of procedures prior to this

09:58:09 ordinance because I don't think it's too much to ask

09:58:11 that for special permit we can play ethnic music,

09:58:14 Latin music, indiginous Tampa music to guests on the

09:58:19 outside patio two nights a week.

09:58:23 There's a trickle down effect.

09:58:25 Recently one of the executives from one of the larger

09:58:27 hotel properties down downtown was at our place and we

09:58:30 talked about this and he said, how are we going to




09:58:32 fill hotel rooms if there aren't any venues? I think

09:58:36 that's a question that we need to consider.

09:58:39 I was cited, oh, sometime last year, for a violation

09:58:42 of the noise ordinance.

09:58:44 Fact was that the band wasn't even playing.

09:58:48 Like the lady from Mr. Lirot's office said, the

09:58:51 ambient noise will do that.

09:58:53 A motorcycle will go by.

09:58:54 Do I have to suffer criminal penalties for a mistake?

09:58:59 And it looks like that's the way it's going.

09:59:00 Now I'll finish up by saying that the city has a poor

09:59:04 record of tweaking public policy in Ybor City.

09:59:06 (Bell sounds).

09:59:07 And this is just the latest example.

09:59:09 So please stop it and let's do something constructive

09:59:11 instead of destructive.

09:59:13 Thank you.

09:59:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

09:59:16 Next.

09:59:18 >>> Jennifer meadows, 4002 west coachman Avenue.

09:59:22 Some of you are well aware, we have been violating --

09:59:25 Afghanistan noise problem in our neighborhood for over




09:59:27 a year now.

09:59:29 We bought our home in March of 2000 and for the first

09:59:32 four years that we lived there, the commercial

09:59:34 printing company across the street, treasure chest at

09:59:39 the time, never had a problem.

09:59:41 They operated 24 hours a day there. Was council

09:59:43 noise, but nothing like it is today.

09:59:47 VERTIS took over the operation of that business a few

09:59:50 years ago and since then the activity has increased so

09:59:53 much that basically late 2004, early 2005, there's

09:59:57 been 24-hour a day truck activity in the loading bays.

10:00:02 And these are semi tractor trailer rigs, 24 hours a

10:00:08 day.

10:00:08 I have some photos.

10:00:11 This is our house.

10:00:12 This is the facility.

10:00:14 And you can see this is where the loading bays are

10:00:16 that operate 24 hours a day.

10:00:18 This is how close these trucks are to our homes.

10:00:22 They pull right up to this fence line which is

10:00:24 directly across a residential street.

10:00:26 And the noise is unbelievable.




10:00:27 These photos were taken last night about 6:00.

10:00:32 And you can see, you know, it's just crazy.

10:00:36 There are no noise mitigating features in place.

10:00:41 There's constant sleep disruptions, in addition to the

10:00:44 loss of enjoyment of our homes.

10:00:46 We can't enjoy our patio in the backyard even in the

10:00:48 daytime because of the truck activity.

10:00:50 We can't have our windows open.

10:00:52 The EPC issued a warning to them in July.

10:00:56 And they were exceeding the nighttime A-scale limits

10:01:01 and also exceeding the daytime low-frequency limits.

10:01:05 Until my e-mail plea to some of you January 3rd,

10:01:10 there was little to know relief in the nighttime

10:01:14 hours.

10:01:14 Since then, they have very much decreased the

10:01:16 overnight activity but the daytime activity still goes

10:01:19 on and they are already creeping back going later in

10:01:21 the evening, starting before 6:00 in the morning.

10:01:25 There's also equipment on the roof tops that causes

10:01:27 noise that goes on whenever they crank it up.

10:01:33 By the way, I'm addressing the noise ordinance.

10:01:35 I didn't say that.




10:01:36 The proposed changes, I became aware yesterday that

10:01:40 apparently VERTIS was cited for noises in 2002 twice

10:01:45 and several police departments said they could not

10:01:47 issue citations because of the exemption for operation

10:01:51 of trucks in good repair.

10:01:54 If I was reading that, I have heard that, I would take

10:01:57 that to mean operation of trucks and other vehicles on

10:02:00 roadways, not in a loading bay directly across the

10:02:04 street from a residential home.

10:02:07 But apparently they are using that as a loop hole.

10:02:11 And we have had neighbors call the police in the past

10:02:13 year to complain about the noise, and they have come

10:02:17 out and said, yes, but we can't do anything.

10:02:21 And I noticed in the proposed changes to this noise

10:02:24 ordinance there are some enforcement things about

10:02:25 police issuing citations.

10:02:28 First of all the problem with getting them there when

10:02:31 something happens, because you know the trucks may

10:02:33 come in, they shut down, cop gets there, nothing is

10:02:35 going on.

10:02:36 They leave.

10:02:37 Truck starts up and leaves.




10:02:39 My suggestion would be, since the EPC is really the

10:02:42 only ones who have come out and tested to maybe assign

10:02:45 some officers to the EPC that could go with them when

10:02:48 they come out and test.

10:02:49 (Bell sounds).

10:02:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

10:02:54 Next.

10:03:00 >>> Joe Ammon, 4914 Anniston Circle, Tampa.

10:03:07 I'm here to talk about the noise ordinance number 4.

10:03:10 I am a member of the YCDC and have sat on that

10:03:13 committee, the noise ordinance committee since its

10:03:16 original inception.

10:03:16 I was here before you all when we put the first

10:03:19 ordinance in.

10:03:20 I'm here to talk to but this ordinance.

10:03:23 We are in favor of the ordinance.

10:03:26 But we have some issues with the ordinance that he

10:03:28 would want to bring to your attention.

10:03:30 First off is, if you hear comments regularly made that

10:03:34 you cannot measure the sound, don't know where it's

10:03:36 coming from, that's technically inaccurate.

10:03:38 County be done and done regularly.




10:03:41 The decibel levels that are proposed in the ordinance,

10:03:43 we have published a unanimous agreement that -- I say

10:03:49 almost unanimous, ten to one. The one Hearn who was

10:03:53 against the numbers was not against them being higher,

10:03:55 he was against letting them remain where they are.

10:03:59 He wanted them to be lower than what they are.

10:04:01 And that may not be reasonable for our district.

10:04:05 The noise committee, though, is very much not in favor

10:04:11 of the current written enforcement proceedings.

10:04:17 Or the procedures that are presented in this

10:04:18 ordinance.

10:04:20 We absolutely believe that there has to be criminal

10:04:23 sanctions.

10:04:25 In order to make this noise ordinance -- to give the

10:04:29 ordinance teeth, something that the police can help

10:04:31 us.

10:04:31 Right now the way it's written it's very ineffective.

10:04:34 We have found that since it is in effect and has been

10:04:37 in effect, when we could go to a certain area or

10:04:41 certain business and they do comply, is quite

10:04:43 reasonable, the noise is reasonable, and the business

10:04:46 can function within it, and the police can get along.




10:04:49 But the problem is, an individual can exceed the

10:04:52 limit, get a ticket, come back in 72 hours and do it

10:04:56 again, 72 hours later today it again, do it again, do

10:05:00 it again, and there's no way to stop it.

10:05:02 So we are very much into having -- we agree with the

10:05:05 fact that you need to have these sanctions.

10:05:07 But there is a problem, and that is in Ybor City, many

10:05:09 of the people who own the businesses that are making

10:05:12 these noises are not property owners.

10:05:14 And there are contractual relationships there.

10:05:18 And what we are against, very additionally against is

10:05:21 the revocation of the wet zoning, if it's not the

10:05:25 business owner not being the property owner.

10:05:27 In other words, if it's the business owner, fine.

10:05:29 And they also own the property.

10:05:31 The problem is that many of the properties down there

10:05:33 are separate landlords leasing the businesses.

10:05:37 It is the business that is the problem, not the

10:05:39 landlord.

10:05:41 And somehow we have got to look at this ordinance so

10:05:44 that we can somehow modify that so we are attacking

10:05:47 the business when they refuse to follow the ordinance.




10:05:51 But not necessarily go after the innocent landlord who

10:05:54 is basically just leasing the property to give him

10:05:57 business.

10:05:57 And I will be around.

10:06:00 I'm just about out of time but I will be around if

10:06:02 there are other questions, technical, and how the

10:06:07 committee voted and discussd this.

10:06:08 Thank you.

10:06:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

10:06:09 Next.

10:06:13 >>> Alan Kahana, 320 Blanca, chair of the YCDC.

10:06:21 Joe did a very good job of representing discussions

10:06:23 that we had at YCDC.

10:06:25 Just so you know very clearly YCDC did not support the

10:06:29 penalty phase that's currently being presented here in

10:06:31 this ordinance.

10:06:32 In the previous ordinance, there was an escalation of

10:06:36 fines which we think should be reconsidered again in

10:06:39 redrafting this ordinance, and also in regards to the

10:06:42 revocation of wet zoning.

10:06:44 We realize that your current ordinances do not allow

10:06:47 for suspension, but instead of using way term the




10:06:51 nuclear option, maybe you all need to consider the

10:06:54 revocation process as being modified -- excuse me, the

10:06:58 ordinance as it is currently in effect be modified to

10:07:02 allow for suspension.

10:07:03 If you provide the 30-day suspension, that effectively

10:07:06 punishes the business, because they then can't operate

10:07:11 for those 30 days, while the property still remains

10:07:12 wet.

10:07:13 This would be the type of action that the state would

10:07:15 take under its enforcement of the state alcoholic

10:07:18 beverage laws.

10:07:20 Prior to moving to revocation.

10:07:23 So I strongly encourage you consider a suspension

10:07:26 option.

10:07:27 Secondly, I'd like to get some clarification in the

10:07:31 penalty phase under section 1-6 of the city code, how

10:07:36 subsection B would apply in our particular case.

10:07:41 Subsection B says that whoever commits a violation of

10:07:44 the city code, or aids, abets, counsels, hires or

10:07:49 otherwise procures such violation to be committed, can

10:07:52 also then be committed.

10:07:55 So I didn't read the whole thing.




10:07:56 But I would like to get some comment from the city

10:07:58 attorney as to how subsection B would apply in this

10:08:02 case.

10:08:05 I'll also stay around until you all get to commentary,

10:08:08 if you have any questions, I would be happy to come

10:08:10 back up.

10:08:11 Thank you.

10:08:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

10:08:12 Next.

10:08:14 >>> Paul Gordon good man.

10:08:21 I would like to address the noise ordinance.

10:08:24 I don't have a dog in that fight but used to work in

10:08:26 the environment where some of the concerns come from

10:08:28 and originate in Ybor City where there's been

10:08:31 exception concerning the noise ordinance.

10:08:36 I think the city is going to be back at the courthouse

10:08:38 again.

10:08:39 It's going to to have to be tweaked. The same for the

10:08:41 tree ordinance.

10:08:42 It's a difficult circumstance.

10:08:43 There's too many factors to really combine them into

10:08:46 one in a satisfactory ordinance.




10:08:49 As far as the public safety, just need to equip the

10:08:55 police with innovative equipment to allow them to

10:08:57 function in the environment that exists.

10:08:59 I don't think that it's proper to curtail the use of

10:09:03 ordinary equipment in the maintenance of property.

10:09:08 I have a vehicle that I have access to out of a fleet.

10:09:10 There's no law against using it out on the street.

10:09:12 But in the sense and spirit of this law, it would be a

10:09:16 violation of this ordinance.

10:09:17 And I don't think that that's correct.

10:09:22 But really to get to what I'm talking about, and

10:09:25 what's of concern to me today, is development in Tampa

10:09:28 Heights.

10:09:29 And I'm not going to go into particulars, because it

10:09:34 appears to be headed towards litigation, and probably

10:09:37 going to have a process that I don't think is really

10:09:39 going to be favorable with resolving and obtaining the

10:09:43 results that are desired in that circumstance,

10:09:46 probably delay in the project an additionallier to

10:09:48 four years before the information that I would be

10:09:52 ready to move forward and make a decision where you

10:09:54 all would be available.




10:09:56 In the consulting process, you are not really even

10:09:59 taking into consideration the reality of the legal

10:10:02 ramifications.

10:10:03 It's like construction company and looking at building

10:10:07 a house with a calculator and ruler.

10:10:09 It takes workers.

10:10:10 It takes materials.

10:10:11 And it takes special equipment in the field.

10:10:14 And somebody with the knowledge and the understanding

10:10:16 and the wisdom to get the job finished.

10:10:19 Okay.

10:10:19 That's what's important.

10:10:20 That's how it really happens.

10:10:25 I'm not in support of eminent domain use because it's

10:10:29 selective.

10:10:29 I think there's an issue that it's not Constitutional

10:10:32 in the application that's being done in this instance.

10:10:34 It may in the near future be legislatively impossible

10:10:37 because it will become illegal.

10:10:40 And that will be by the passage of effective new law.

10:10:47 Anyway, that's my opinion, my viewpoint.

10:10:50 I would ask you not to do it, even though you have




10:10:52 gone forward with the CRA.

10:10:55 There is -- it's really not a public venture at this

10:10:58 point.

10:10:58 There's maybe some public funding that will go into

10:11:01 it.

10:11:01 But there's also a taxpayer funding that's going into

10:11:04 the whole picture there.

10:11:06 So that's not just the public.

10:11:09 That's the ownership that exists currently.

10:11:15 Anyway, back to the noise ordinance.

10:11:19 One idea I had all along and I brought this forward

10:11:21 was really probably for the public safety, okay, and

10:11:24 the public welfare, because hearing damage is

10:11:27 cumulative from excessive noise.

10:11:30 Okay.

10:11:30 And I realize there's exterior and there's interior

10:11:33 issues.

10:11:33 But, you know, when there's an interior situation

10:11:36 that's going to the exterior, the measurement need be

10:11:40 made interior because that's where the occupants are

10:11:42 being affected.

10:11:43 And that's one viewpoint that I have.




10:11:46 I don't think this ordinance addresses that.

10:11:48 (Bell sounds).

10:11:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

10:11:49 Next.

10:11:55 >>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: I reside at 2902 East Ellicott

10:12:00 street.

10:12:01 And I thank God for his grace and his mercy.

10:12:04 Especially this morning.

10:12:08 Sister chairman, I thank you this morning for a little

10:12:13 law and order business this morning.

10:12:15 But anyway, I want to speak on this noise thing.

10:12:17 I want to speak on the courthouse thing.

10:12:20 But the noise thing first.

10:12:21 First thing I am going to say, every time, I think

10:12:26 this thing been racist all along, and it's been

10:12:33 prejudiced.

10:12:33 When I say racist, I say racist against black people.

10:12:34 Now black people make noise, we going to jail.

10:12:37 But the white, they have a little party, put everybody

10:12:43 in jail.

10:12:44 So I don't know what all this thing talking about,

10:12:47 been having a law on those black people for making




10:12:49 noise.

10:12:49 And back to the prejudice card against Ybor City, I

10:12:54 have put Ybor City together many, many years, and

10:12:57 started from day one, told the people of Ybor City to

10:12:59 open up a bar, the walls got to be three foot thick.

10:13:03 Insulate it where can't nobody hear it outside.

10:13:06 I started from day one.

10:13:07 I mean, and it never stopped.

10:13:11 Those people that cut hair over there.

10:13:13 And some of the neighbors tried to stop them from

10:13:15 going into business.

10:13:16 And after they got started they got a license and come

10:13:19 in there.

10:13:20 But I want to say that you all made several attempts

10:13:22 about the noise.

10:13:22 Now the only thing you got to stop people in Ybor City

10:13:25 is the noise.

10:13:26 Now Ybor City, people are going to do what they want

10:13:28 to do.

10:13:29 Ybor City was designed what it was created for.

10:13:32 You all didn't put Ybor City in business.

10:13:34 The people over there got together and bought all




10:13:36 those abandoned buildings.

10:13:38 They didn't buy them, some of them took them from

10:13:40 people.

10:13:41 They went into business.

10:13:42 Now they come up with this thing, and direct to Ybor

10:13:47 City.

10:13:48 I feel sorry for those business peoples over there.

10:13:51 If it wasn't for those peoples in Ybor City, wouldn't

10:13:54 be no Ybor City.

10:13:56 Years ago when the people wanted to have party on my

10:13:59 side of town they had to go to the white part of town

10:14:01 because there wasn't nothing over there till Ybor City

10:14:03 came.

10:14:03 So Ybor City is there.

10:14:04 And I'm glad it's there.

10:14:07 And the city profits from that.

10:14:08 But this thing is prejudice and racist because you all

10:14:13 done had a law on the book all along for noise.

10:14:16 But only in the black part of town.

10:14:19 You can't even have an outdoor barbecue.

10:14:22 We got the neighborhood pimps, you know, say, hey,

10:14:28 so-and-so cooking barbecue.




10:14:30 You know, get out of here, get out here.

10:14:33 Now white folk can go over there, I'm going to say

10:14:35 this and then sit down.

10:14:37 Like the Gasparilla thing.

10:14:39 Can't get no liquor this year.

10:14:41 I don't know where you all get that from.

10:14:42 But now you all are going to have a problem.

10:14:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you. Next.

10:14:52 >>> Tom with Ybor Chamber of Commerce.

10:14:56 I want to you know we are very concerned about the

10:14:58 noise ordinance particularly making it a criminal

10:15:00 ordinance and not looking more extensively at the

10:15:02 criminal -- the civil options.

10:15:05 It's a very complex issue.

10:15:07 I sat through the meeting with the lawyers, and

10:15:09 sometimes when you give an assignment to your

10:15:11 attorneys, they will come up with a solution that will

10:15:14 give you a quick answer.

10:15:16 But all it will do is shift the frustration of the

10:15:20 residents and the police to the courts and to our

10:15:22 legislative group here at City Council.

10:15:24 So be prepared for that option there.




10:15:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's just one of the attorneys,

10:15:33 Tom.

10:15:35 >>> Sir?

10:15:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.

10:15:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No editorial comment?

10:15:39 >>> We need to fine tune what we have.

10:15:42 I think that if you go after the managers, the big

10:15:45 corporate groups will play musical managers, very

10:15:48 effectively.

10:15:49 And the manager owner and their families will suffer

10:15:52 tremendously as exemplified by Eric and his family.

10:15:56 I was the dissenting vote at the YCDC and I'm very

10:16:00 proud of that because hadth is not a criminal

10:16:03 situation.

10:16:03 It is a complex situation, might require to us ask the

10:16:06 state for some relief.

10:16:07 We need to look to other cities in the state and work

10:16:10 with their entertainment districts like south Miami,

10:16:13 that has some of these same things.

10:16:15 And we need to make sure that we are looking across

10:16:16 the board from the owner of the business, to the

10:16:21 workers in the business, the managers of business, the




10:16:23 business owner, and the land owner.

10:16:25 Okay, it's a very complex hierarchical structure in

10:16:30 Ybor and in other areas, and covered by the

10:16:33 Channelside and the downtown area.

10:16:34 So I think it's an issue that you may want to refer

10:16:37 back rather than move forward.

10:16:38 I think this is very punitive and I think will cause

10:16:42 us a lot of grief.

10:16:43 I want you to know we are turning things around in

10:16:45 Ybor.

10:16:45 We are becoming very successful.

10:16:47 If you are reading the press the street activities are

10:16:49 going very well. This could be very damaging for us.

10:16:51 And I really think that this is one that needs

10:16:55 reconsideration rather than a quick action.

10:16:58 So I just want to take my few moments here and say

10:17:01 that we are doing a pretty good job for you and we are

10:17:04 making progress.

10:17:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

10:17:07 Next.

10:17:11 >>> My name is Joseph Capitano, Sr.

10:17:15 3400 Lykes Avenue, Tampa, Florida.




10:17:19 I want to go back 16 years ago.

10:17:22 When Ybor City had the Columbia restaurant and Tacks.

10:17:25 I think that was the only two things there.

10:17:27 And at that point in time, I think every time someone

10:17:32 came in for a bar opening or wanted a liquor license,

10:17:35 they forced them into Ybor City.

10:17:36 A lot of us had buildings that were built for bars and

10:17:41 for entertainment.

10:17:42 And now you're telling us, if my tenant exceeds noise

10:17:49 ordinance you are going to take my wet zoning away,

10:17:51 which my building is built for entertainment.

10:17:54 And I have no control once he takes that lease.

10:17:57 I think this felony is too much of a hit.

10:17:59 I think we need to enforce the noise ordinance as it's

10:18:04 written, and make that work.

10:18:06 If we did that I think we wouldn't have any problem.

10:18:08 And I believe we also need to look into better

10:18:12 equipment.

10:18:12 I know when I first was on the committee, I was

10:18:18 speaking to one of the officers, and if we are

10:18:23 worrying about the expense of them being able to hear

10:18:25 this is ridiculous.




10:18:26 We ought to have the equipment for the officers that

10:18:28 they can hear if that's the problem.

10:18:30 But again, I have no problem with enforcing the noise

10:18:34 ordinance.

10:18:34 I have a problem with you being able to take my wet

10:18:38 zoning away and putting someone in jail that I have

10:18:42 nothing to do with.

10:18:43 I appreciate your concern.

10:18:45 And if you can help us on this we could certainly use

10:18:47 it.

10:18:47 Thank you.

10:18:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

10:18:49 Next.

10:18:59 >>> Fran Williams, 1501 second Avenue.

10:19:03 And I'm speaking on item 6.

10:19:07 I would like to read into the record a memo that I

10:19:09 received from a planning consultant, that I ask to

10:19:16 answer this question: How long after the comp plan

10:19:19 update is completed is it reasonable to expect that

10:19:24 rezoning at the Adamo corridor can be completed?

10:19:31 Note: The comp plan update is required to be

10:19:33 completed by the state in the middle of 2007.




10:19:39 From your notes, Terry Cullen told L.S., that's

10:19:43 councilman Saul-Sena, that the first comp plan update

10:19:47 briefing that the state has given the Planning

10:19:48 Commission throughout the state an 18 month extension

10:19:52 to this date upon request.

10:19:55 After the comp plan update is completed, the city

10:19:57 would need to institute an area-wide rezoning of the

10:20:01 Adamo corridor properties.

10:20:02 This could take up to two years.

10:20:05 The answer to your question is of how long it would

10:20:10 take for an area-wide rezoning of the Adamo corridor

10:20:13 to be completed after the comp plan to be completed

10:20:17 from today is approximately five years.

10:20:21 Although it is a rough estimate, it seems like a long

10:20:24 time.

10:20:24 It could actually be understated.

10:20:26 There is no assurance that the city will ever do an

10:20:29 area-wide rezoning of the Adamo corridor properties.

10:20:34 In the two-year time frame to complete it could be

10:20:37 understated.

10:20:39 It is extension we do everything in our power to get

10:20:41 the zoning and land use right on the Adamo corridor at




10:20:46 this point.

10:20:46 If the YC-6 zoning goes through it will become the

10:20:51 standard for possibly the next five years.

10:20:54 You already know what I think of the appropriateness

10:20:56 of the YC-6 zoning for the Adamo corridor.

10:21:00 I will forward under separate cover the minimum

10:21:02 intensity guidelines used by Miami-Dade special

10:21:05 districts such as Ybor.

10:21:08 As I stated in our last meeting, the biggest danger to

10:21:11 Ybor and the Adamo corridor success is not

10:21:15 overbuilding, it is underbuilding.

10:21:16 The city has invested hundreds of millions of dollars

10:21:19 to create the redevelopment area. The only way for

10:21:21 this investment to make any sense is for the projects

10:21:24 that are built to be of an acceptable intensity.

10:21:32 Metro Dade as well as many cities around the country

10:21:36 have used the vehicle of minimum F.A.R. in these

10:21:40 areas.

10:21:41 I am sure Terry Cullen is well informed about the use

10:21:45 of this vehicle. This approach has been very

10:21:47 successful.

10:21:48 And we should attempt to get the city to direct the




10:21:50 Planning Commission to implement this as soon as

10:21:53 possible in the Adamo corridor.

10:21:57 There is not a doubt if the city proceeds with the

10:21:59 city of the Adamo corridor, this recommendation will

10:22:01 be one that is considered.

10:22:05 If they proceed without a study, again, we must do

10:22:08 everything in ow power to convince the council of the

10:22:12 wisdom of implementing some sort of minimum F.A.R.

10:22:15 when dealing with the Adamo corridor.

10:22:18 The Adamo corridor's success as an accelerator for

10:22:24 Ybor's and East Tampa's growth will depend on the

10:22:27 success of our endeavor.

10:22:28 Thank you.

10:22:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

10:22:29 Next.

10:22:34 >>> Good morning.

10:22:37 My name is Maureen Patrick.

10:22:39 I am the current president of the Tampa historical

10:22:42 society.

10:22:43 I am speaking on item 57.

10:22:46 Public history is so designated for two very good

10:22:50 reasons.




10:22:50 It is our common legacy.

10:22:53 It is also our common responsibility.

10:22:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Point of order.

10:23:02 This item is set for public hearing.

10:23:02 You will have the opportunity to speak when that item

10:23:03 is approached.

10:23:05 To speak now it has no weight as evidence.

10:23:08 So my recommendation would be --

10:23:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Come back when we get to public

10:23:12 hearings.

10:23:12 >>> At the public hearings.

10:23:14 All right.

10:23:15 Thank you very much.

10:23:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?

10:23:20 >>> I'm Don Barco, 1523 seventh Avenue.

10:23:27 I don't think you will find anybody in Ybor City that

10:23:31 cares more about the noise problem than myself.

10:23:35 But after reading this thing, this new proposed

10:23:38 ordinance, it seems like it's more about alcohol

10:23:41 licenses than it is about the noise ordinance.

10:23:47 I've had a running battle for about a year and a half

10:23:50 with a business across the street from me that opened




10:23:53 up, and now it's spreading to two businesses, and

10:23:57 sometimes three businesses, and it's in the daytime.

10:24:00 It's not the nighttime.

10:24:01 It's during the daytime.

10:24:02 And they are all retail businesses.

10:24:04 Has nothing to do with alcohol.

10:24:07 I do have an alcohol license myself.

10:24:09 But that's why I'm trying to figure out what y'all are

10:24:13 doing because it's about the noise.

10:24:16 If somebody is not being a good neighbor, if they are

10:24:19 causing a noise problem, that's what the issue should

10:24:21 be.

10:24:22 It appears to me.

10:24:25 I go to COPA walk in coconut grove.

10:24:29 They have signs up.

10:24:30 I was going to Britt today but I didn't.

10:24:31 But trust me that they are there that say noise

10:24:34 ordinance strictly enforced.

10:24:36 I'm having a little bit of problem, because from

10:24:39 reading what is in this proposed ordinance, if I --

10:24:44 and I have never had a problem in my place with noise

10:24:47 Hoe if I were to get a noise violation -- and it's




10:24:49 really he easy because 65 decibels is pretty low.

10:24:52 And given that it's that low, I'm on a daily basis

10:24:58 faced with these people across the street from me

10:25:01 right now and I have been calling the police trying to

10:25:03 get that addressed to no a veil, put huge speakers in

10:25:07 the doorway facing out to the sidewalk and blasts out

10:25:12 into the street and I have commerce getting up and

10:25:15 leaving.

10:25:16 It has nothing to do with alcohol.

10:25:17 Bits the noise.

10:25:18 And City Council, you have to do it.

10:25:20 I'm not an attorney.

10:25:21 This is your ball of wax.

10:25:25 But it seems like somehow the issues are getting a

10:25:27 little skewed here and it needs to be about noise, and

10:25:29 not about the alcohol license.

10:25:31 If somebody is doing something wrong with their

10:25:33 alcohol license, that's the thing that needs to be

10:25:36 addressed.

10:25:36 If they are not being a good neighbor, that needs to

10:25:39 be addressed.

10:25:40 And if it for being a public nuisance with sound or




10:25:44 anything else, I think we need to address the problems

10:25:46 that they are causing.

10:25:48 I don't understand the thing about the alcohol.

10:25:50 I understand that the city, we have kind of created

10:25:55 this problem.

10:25:56 If alcohol is a problem, you all gave out all the

10:26:00 licenses.

10:26:01 And so I think we need to get back to the issue of the

10:26:04 noise, and not trying to do -- address it in a

10:26:10 round-about way.

10:26:12 Thank you.

10:26:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?

10:26:14 At this time, we have some students here.

10:26:19 I would like to recognize them now.

10:26:21 Would you please come forward?

10:26:22 We have a small token for you.

10:26:24 The teacher is Anna Spanos.

10:26:30 Mrs. Alvarez will give them a small token.

10:26:32

10:26:36 Who will be the spokesperson?

10:26:54 Come up and introduce yourself and tell us why you're

10:26:56 here.




10:26:57 Come on up.

10:26:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Don't be shy.

10:26:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: what you probably don't know it's a

10:27:05 downtown partnership school, and is the charter school

10:27:08 here in the downtown area.

10:27:09 And we are so happy that they opened up this school in

10:27:14 this area because it's for the people that work in our

10:27:19 community in the downtown area that send their

10:27:21 children over there, and they are very, very fortunate

10:27:23 to have a beautiful, beautiful facility like they do.

10:27:27 So at this time I'm going to allow somebody to talk.

10:27:38 >>> Okay.

10:27:44 My name is CHANN Sampson and I'm in the 7th grade.

10:27:50 And I to be the junior mayor of downtown.

10:27:55 And it's been a wonderful experience for me.

10:27:58 I'm also the president of my future business leaders

10:28:03 of America.

10:28:05 And although I could not make the competition today

10:28:08 that they had, I'm there with them in spirit.

10:28:15 But I thought this would be an important thing since

10:28:20 it's all about business, because my future plans are

10:28:22 to run.




10:28:22

10:28:31 This is my junior isn't.

10:28:38 This is Tony.

10:28:39 And this is Chrissie.

10:28:42 And our two representatives are Mr. Elliott and Lori

10:28:50 James.

10:28:51 (Applause).

10:28:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We have a couple of gifts for you

10:28:58 here.

10:28:58 And I hope that you will be able to use them maybe for

10:29:02 your books.

10:29:04 And there's one for you and one for you.

10:29:15 And we are certainly glad to welcome you to City

10:29:17 Council and to see how the city is run.

10:29:21 We make all the ordinances, and as you can see we have

10:29:24 a full house today.

10:29:25 So I won't take too much more of your time because in

10:29:28 a time crunch.

10:29:29 But thank you for coming today.

10:29:30 And we welcome you again, anytime you want to come.

10:29:33 Congratulations.

10:29:35 (Applause).




10:29:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Now we go to our staff reports and

10:29:43 unfinished business.

10:29:44 Item number 1.

10:29:50 >>DAVID SMITH: Good morning.

10:29:53 David Smith again.

10:29:55 Item number 1 of course has been referred to you by

10:29:57 the Community Redevelopment Agency for consideration

10:30:00 to bring an action of eminent domain.

10:30:03 I have for you, as I did with the CRA, I have marked

10:30:08 10-A, B and C as not included, because those were

10:30:13 excluded by the CRA and forwarded to you.

10:30:16 So if I can give that to Marty.

10:30:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move the resolution.

10:30:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.

10:30:30 >>DAVID SMITH: I have a brief presentation.

10:30:33 That's just to correct the legal description.

10:30:36 Since we didn't go through this process in full last

10:30:40 week I think it's important we get all the evidence on

10:30:42 the record for your basis for taking whatever action

10:30:44 you choose to take.

10:30:45 Essentially, this resolution that has been slightly

10:30:48 revised, I have provided you a memorandum, very small




10:30:52 changes. The most critical one is the inclusion of

10:30:56 the fact that no interest in homestead property will

10:31:00 be taken.

10:31:01 That's essentially the same provision we had in the

10:31:04 CRA resolution.

10:31:05 The property that the CRA wished to have excluded is

10:31:08 now excluded before you, and you do not take further

10:31:10 action to exclude that.

10:31:12 This resolution, as you may recall, is essentially

10:31:15 identical to the resolution passed in 2003 when the

10:31:19 development of the area was identified as somewhat

10:31:24 smaller project.

10:31:25 As a consequence of the subsequent amendment to the

10:31:27 development agreement, more property was added.

10:31:30 These parcels are those portions of the property added

10:31:33 that were not yet acquired, which are important for

10:31:36 the development and necessary for the project.

10:31:41 As you know, eminent domain is authorized only by the

10:31:46 governing body.

10:31:46 That's this body by the mayor, not the CRA.

10:31:50 So now it is referred to you for your action.

10:31:55 You must, if you choose to take that action, what you




10:31:59 are essentially doing is deciding that these

10:32:03 properties are necessary for the project to move

10:32:06 forward.

10:32:07 For this area to benefit from the redevelopment that's

10:32:09 contemplated, this is pursuant to chapter 163 part 3

10:32:13 which is communicate redevelopment.

10:32:15 I think you're familiar with the issues inherent in

10:32:17 that.

10:32:18 But I think what we will do is, the developer will

10:32:22 provide you information that goes to the issue of the

10:32:24 significance and necessity of these properties for

10:32:27 that development.

10:32:28 I will simply provide you the context.

10:32:31 It's also important to recognize that eminent domain

10:32:34 process, there's a process pursuant to statute that is

10:32:38 heavily regulated.

10:32:39 What the city does as well, we have an acquisition

10:32:41 process that we follow in advance of bringing an

10:32:45 eminent domain action.

10:32:47 Property owners are contacted.

10:32:48 Negotiations are commenced and only if those are not

10:32:51 successful, the statutory process be triggered.




10:32:55 And eventh then the statutory process has a

10:32:57 mandatory notice requirement that each property owner

10:32:59 be noticed in advance and we provide them a copy of

10:33:02 the appraisal so they have the ability to determine

10:33:05 whether they agree or disagree with the appraisal or

10:33:07 have their own appraisal done and attempt to see if

10:33:10 there's negotiations even then that could vitiate the

10:33:13 need for taking an action.

10:33:16 The city has voted to use eminent domain for four

10:33:19 different projects, as I think last time, the CRA

10:33:23 since 1998, there's been seven votes, one of those was

10:33:25 the previous resolution on this very property.

10:33:28 So there is a significant history in the city

10:33:32 acknowledging the relevance of using eminent domain

10:33:36 for community redevelopment under chapter 163.

10:33:38 You specifically have the statutory authority.

10:33:41 And all you have to do is make the determination it's

10:33:44 appropriate and necessary for the project.

10:33:45 When we first started there were 17 parcels and 14

10:33:48 owners.

10:33:49 Two were acquired.

10:33:50 So we were down to 14.




10:33:52 Excuse me.

10:33:54 17 parcels.

10:33:55 14 of which were vacant.

10:33:59 Now they acquired two more.

10:34:01 So we were reduced to 15 parcels, 12 of which are

10:34:04 vacant lands.

10:34:05 And with the exclusions from the CRA today, you now

10:34:08 have 12 parcels. The three that are vacant, one is an

10:34:15 abandoned home, no one lives there. It's been a code

10:34:18 enforcement issue.

10:34:19 It's my understanding there's actually been a crime at

10:34:22 that location.

10:34:22 It is a threat to the health, safety and welfare of

10:34:24 the community as a consequence.

10:34:32 I want to make sure we have the evidence in this

10:34:34 portion of the hearing as well.

10:34:37 This is different from the CRA.

10:34:38 Hopefully I'll get this right side up this time.

10:34:44 Did I succeed?

10:34:46 No.

10:34:50 This is a graphic description of the property.

10:34:55 All of you have a packet that shows this and has the




10:34:57 backup information for it.

10:34:59 You can see the parcels that are in dark red are the

10:35:02 parcels that are either homestead or active

10:35:05 businesses.

10:35:05 Those are excluded.

10:35:06 There is no homestead property, and no ongoing

10:35:09 business included within this taking.

10:35:11 It is only the lots you see identified as a light tan

10:35:15 color which are vacant lots other than the three

10:35:18 properties I identified for you.

10:35:20 You also noticed several of those parcels are right in

10:35:23 the middle of intended grid system.

10:35:26 So we have an alternative, an additional reason for

10:35:30 those parcels being taken for public purposes.

10:35:31 (Bell sounds).

10:35:33 I think you have more than adequate reasons for

10:35:37 exercising your authority in eminent domain.

10:35:39 And I will let the other presenters provide you

10:35:42 additional backup information and be available to

10:35:44 answer any questions you might have.

10:35:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'll wait until --

10:35:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder, you had a question?




10:35:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Smith, in reading through these

10:35:58 cases including the most recent Kelo decision by the

10:36:06 Supreme Court, I think it's critical -- let me back up

10:36:09 a bit.

10:36:10 Excuse me.

10:36:14 There's no doubt that taking private property through

10:36:20 this process, we take it and we pay a fair market

10:36:25 value.

10:36:25 And that's allowed under the Constitution as long as

10:36:29 we do pay the fair market value, but it has to be for

10:36:34 a public purpose.

10:36:36 And I think that's one of the things I would like you

10:36:38 to discuss a little bit, because clearly the taking of

10:36:43 this process is one of the most extreme acts that a

10:36:45 government can do is to take private property.

10:36:47 And the only reason we would do it is truly for a

10:36:50 public purpose.

10:36:51 So if you can elaborate on that, I'm sure others will

10:36:55 as well.

10:36:56 >>> I would be happy to do so.

10:36:58 Essentially I think it's important to really that the

10:37:01 Kelo case observed by most legal observers as an




10:37:04 extension of the preexisting finding by the supreme

10:37:06 court in 1954, I believe it was justice Douglas wrote

10:37:09 the opinion, I believe a unanimous holding.

10:37:12 I believe it was Berman versus Parker.

10:37:13 In that case they made a specific determination that

10:37:16 the use of eminent domain for the purpose of

10:37:18 communicate redevelopment is in fact a public purpose,

10:37:22 and does comply with the Constitutional requirements.

10:37:24 So when you are doing as you are doing here, acting

10:37:28 consistent with chapter 163 taking an area that has

10:37:33 been determined to be either slum or blighted, and

10:37:35 meets the statutory criteria of slum and blight, then

10:37:39 you are acting with a public purpose in using eminent

10:37:42 domain.

10:37:42 So I think literally what you're doing today is under

10:37:45 the old precedent, because the ILO case dealt with a

10:37:50 situation where there's only an economically depressed

10:37:54 area.

10:37:54 Don't think they have the requirements of slum and

10:37:57 blight which existed in the Berman case and here.

10:38:00 I think it caused an uproar. The view was that that

10:38:03 allowed a taking for mere economic enhancement meaning




10:38:07 that the city was going to simply increase its tax

10:38:11 coffers and get a more aesthetically pleasing project

10:38:15 that. Was found to be by the recent court, of course

10:38:18 a 5-4 decision, to be Constitutional.

10:38:20 But we are not really proceeding under Kelo. We are

10:38:24 proceeding under the previous authority.

10:38:26 So it's important we make that distinction.

10:38:28 This is not a situation where we are just trying to

10:38:30 attract more businesses to the area because we want

10:38:32 more tax revenue.

10:38:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: In this case the city and the CRA,

10:38:37 I guess, in prior processes and prior public hearings,

10:38:40 we made a clear determination of slum and blight long

10:38:44 ago, I think New Mexicoth parcel.

10:38:46 >>DAVID SMITH: Yes, sir, 1999, as a matter of fact.

10:38:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.

10:38:51 >>GWEN MILLER: How much time are we going to spend on

10:38:53 item number 1?

10:38:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think they need to put something

10:38:58 in the record.

10:39:01 >>> Rhea Law: Fowler White representing applicant

10:39:04 here.




10:39:05 If I could just respond a little bit to your question,

10:39:08 councilman Dingfelder.

10:39:09 The blight study was done in 1999 and the specific

10:39:15 findings were 43% of the blocks were owned by the

10:39:19 government or by nonprofits, and of the remaining

10:39:23 blocks 57 percent had abandon structures or vacant

10:39:26 parcels.

10:39:27 77% of the structures had code violations, and it was

10:39:30 also found to have defective or inadequate street

10:39:34 layouts.

10:39:34 So as a result of that study the CRA was approved in

10:39:38 1999, and subsequently a portion of that parcel was

10:39:43 acquired, or the interests were acquired by the Bank

10:39:46 of America, and you went through the same process with

10:39:49 them.

10:39:50 And I'll speak in a few moments about the good results

10:39:53 that came from that effort.

10:39:54 As far as the public purpose, I just want to remind

10:40:00 you that this is a project that will result in 1900

10:40:00 dwelling units, 160,000 square feet of office, 100,000

10:40:04 square feet of commercial, but also 25 boat docks.

10:40:09 But on top of that, and perhaps more importantly, it




10:40:13 will include an enhancement of the water works park,

10:40:16 the creation of the water works -- I mean of the water

10:40:20 walkway -- I'm not saying that right.

10:40:23 The riverwalk going all the way down to the Performing

10:40:26 Arts Center, Cass, all the way up.

10:40:30 So it is a substantial -- I can't talk -- extension

10:40:34 all the way up through this particular project.

10:40:37 It is removal of the blight.

10:40:39 It's providing for affordable housing.

10:40:41 And it's constructing, as I said, the actual

10:40:44 redevelopment of the CRA, which was a vision of this

10:40:49 council all the way back to 1999.

10:40:51 It's a -- to very quickly speak to two questions that

10:40:55 were raised by prior speakers, one was Ms. Johnson.

10:40:58 She did speak to her parcel which is number 11.

10:41:02 And I just want to show you a photograph of number 11,

10:41:07 as you can see.

10:41:12 This is a vacant parcel.

10:41:14 It's also an unbilleddable parcel.

10:41:16 It is 37 by 81.

10:41:18 So it's a very small, vacant parcel.

10:41:21 Mr. Goodman mentioned his site.




10:41:24 And I quickly want to show you a photograph of that.

10:41:28 His site is 35 by 100.

10:41:31 And I think he put some evidence on the record last

10:41:34 week about having acquired it in 1986 at a tax deed.

10:41:42 That's what it shows on the information from the tax

10:41:46 appraiser.

10:41:46 The final thing I want to point out to you is that we

10:41:49 have been very successful as far as acquiring parcels,

10:41:53 and two that were on the map that Mr. Smith just

10:41:57 showed you have gotten contracts since the last time

10:42:00 we were here.

10:42:01 That is number 6 and number 8.

10:42:03 So those are actually not included in the package you

10:42:06 have but it was included in the graphic he showed you

10:42:09 just a few minutes ago.

10:42:10 If you would like any additional information, I have

10:42:14 the project manager and would be more than happy to

10:42:16 address those issues.

10:42:18 Thank you.

10:42:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Alvarez?

10:42:21 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

10:42:23 I'm perfectly satisfied with this resolution going




10:42:26 forward.

10:42:28 And one of the things that I noticed in there, a

10:42:31 couple things, one is that it's not a Kelo project,

10:42:37 this is -- we are just dealing with vacant lots.

10:42:40 The other thing is that there's an agreement in there

10:42:44 that the developers have 75 days to negotiate to

10:42:49 acquire these properties.

10:42:50 That's quite a big number of days to try to do

10:42:55 something.

10:42:55 And so I'm comfortable that they are doing everything

10:42:58 possible to protect these people's property rights.

10:43:01 And then in the event that that doesn't happen, then

10:43:03 it goes to eminent domain.

10:43:05 Then they get to acquire these properties that way.

10:43:08 But they will also be given the chance, the property

10:43:12 owners will be given the chance to sell their

10:43:14 properties at fair market value, probably more than

10:43:19 ever they'll ever do, if it was just selling them

10:43:23 outright.

10:43:24 And they'll be getting attorney fees for it, too.

10:43:27 So I can see this as a win-win situation for

10:43:30 everybody.




10:43:31 And so I'm willing to support this resolution.

10:43:36 >>DAVID SMITH: I'd like to clarify something for the

10:43:38 record.

10:43:38 The 75-day period actually has already been conducted.

10:43:43 They have met actually for a lot longer than 75 days

10:43:46 attempting to acquire the property.

10:43:48 But it will take the city, given deliberate process,

10:43:50 probably at least that much as well.

10:43:52 So there's plenty of time.

10:43:55 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you for the clarification.

10:43:56 I read that in the resolution.

10:43:57 >>ROSE FERLITA: I would like to put a couple comments

10:44:00 on record as well.

10:44:02 Obviously, no one has ever taken the authority or the

10:44:05 power of eminent domain lightly, not now when the Kelo

10:44:11 decision has surfaced and we are talking about

10:44:13 property rights.

10:44:14 Not any more than in 1999.

10:44:16 But at that time we didn't have the Kelo decision

10:44:19 roaming around.

10:44:20 Just I was trying to summarize what I was thinking as

10:44:22 we were going forward.




10:44:23 And talking back to the Kelo decision I just made a

10:44:26 couple of comments, the precedent that decision

10:44:29 established is problematic.

10:44:30 If government does not act responsibly, the authority

10:44:32 to condemn one person's property for the benefit of

10:44:35 another person could be abused, which would be to the

10:44:37 detriment of all citizens.

10:44:39 And I think that's why we have lingered and belabored

10:44:42 this because we certainly want to do what's good for a

10:44:44 CRA district, because it has been cattiesed as slum

10:44:48 and blight.

10:44:49 It certainly can stand some improvement.

10:44:50 But at the same time in so doing we want to make sure

10:44:52 that everybody's property rights are respected and

10:44:55 protected.

10:44:55 And I think that's what happened under that other body

10:44:58 this morning at CRA.

10:44:59 We want to make sure that somebody who has a

10:45:01 homesteaded property has the option, whether they

10:45:05 choose to or not, to do something, as they goes

10:45:06 forward with her property, and that's why I think

10:45:08 collectively we agreed that we should also homestead




10:45:10 the parcels that are contiguous to hers.

10:45:14 Small story I want to share with you.

10:45:17 And I think this goes to the efforts that Mr. Bishop

10:45:19 and company have gone to.

10:45:21 I have a customer who has two little slivers of

10:45:24 property there, doesn't care about them, he just

10:45:26 happened to buy them a long time ago, was a native

10:45:28 Tampa person, came in one day, probably good idea that

10:45:31 I put this on record, and said, now, Mr. Bishop and

10:45:33 those guys want to buy this.

10:45:35 And I said, well, you know, okay.

10:45:37 And he said, well, we'll see, we'll see.

10:45:39 So he wasn't too worried about it, I think financially

10:45:42 it's not a concern for him.

10:45:44 And last week, I guess it was, I was walking my dog

10:45:48 outside of the drugstore and he pulled up to tell me

10:45:50 this.

10:45:50 He said the price they gave me, they stuck to.

10:45:52 I'm very surprised.

10:45:54 He says, it's incredible.

10:45:55 He said, they didn't argue with about it.

10:45:58 And he said I didn't have to play the back and forth




10:46:00 and back and forth.

10:46:01 He said they treated me very fairly.

10:46:02 I want to tell you as all of us I'm sure have had

10:46:06 conversation was Ms. Law, and with Andrea and Mr.

10:46:08 Bishop and whatever.

10:46:09 I've seen some of us, as everyone else, some of the

10:46:13 values they have given for the purchase of those

10:46:14 properties.

10:46:15 And my customer's conversation goes right to the heart

10:46:19 of that.

10:46:19 I think in an effort to make this good, in an effort

10:46:21 to improve the neighborhood, slum and blight, everyone

10:46:26 has treated with consideration and the price versus

10:46:28 not been cheap, that's for sure.

10:46:30 But you have made an effort to make everybody go away

10:46:33 from the table happily and feeling they got a good

10:46:36 deal.

10:46:36 Now that's where we would hopefully hope that

10:46:38 everybody else thought so, so we wouldn't have to

10:46:40 exercise eminent domain.

10:46:42 But sometimes some people decide they want to stay in

10:46:45 it longer than they should.




10:46:46 That's their decision and I'm not saying it's right or

10:46:48 it's wrong.

10:46:49 All I'm saying is after all this conversation, and I

10:46:52 am going to put it on the record, because of all these

10:46:55 steps we went through, because of the testimony I

10:46:56 heard from my customer, because of the fact we look at

10:46:59 why and why not this is going to be moving forward, we

10:47:03 as a body have to be very, very comfortable that we

10:47:05 treat everybody the same.

10:47:07 The developer with more money perhaps than some

10:47:10 residents in another area.

10:47:13 I am so wholeheartedly comfortable that properties

10:47:17 rights have not been violated, that CRA

10:47:20 responsibilities are going to blossom in terms of

10:47:22 having a wonderful CRA district in Tampa Heights.

10:47:24 So the process has been long.

10:47:26 Everybody has had more effort maybe than needed to be

10:47:30 but it looks like we are going to get to a conclusion

10:47:32 that's good for everyone.

10:47:34 So I appreciate, Mr. Bishop, what your team has done.

10:47:36 I appreciate staff, et cetera, everybody else

10:47:39 involved.




10:47:39 I think ultimately it's a win-win.

10:47:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move the resolution.

10:47:43 >> Second.

10:47:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to move the

10:47:45 resolution.

10:47:45 (Motion carried).

10:47:47 >>THE CLERK: I would like to clarify that you are

10:47:48 moving the substitute resolution that was attached to

10:47:50 the January 21 --

10:47:52 >>GWEN MILLER: The revised resolution, yes.

10:47:55 Thank you.

10:47:56 Okay.

10:47:56 Item number 2 is an ordinance for first reading.

10:47:59 Mr. Dingfelder, would you read that, please?

10:48:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: An ordinance vacating, closing,

10:48:06 discontinuing, and abandoning a certain right-of-way

10:48:10 all that alleyway lying south of east 12th Avenue

10:48:13 north of east 11th Avenue, east of 25th street

10:48:16 and west of 26th street, in Wagner's addition to

10:48:18 east Ybor, a subdivision in the City of Tampa,

10:48:22 Hillsborough County, Florida, the same being more

10:48:24 fully described in section 2 hereof, providing an




10:48:27 effective date.

10:48:28 >> Second.

10:48:29 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

10:48:30 (Motion carried).

10:48:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.

10:48:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 3.

10:48:40 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, it looks like it's just

10:48:49 a report so I would simply move to receive and file

10:48:51 the report.

10:48:51 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to file

10:48:54 number 3.

10:48:54 (Motion carried).

10:48:56 Item 4.

10:48:59 We need to get consensus from the council how long you

10:49:01 want to spend on item 4.

10:49:03 How much time?

10:49:09 Ten minutes?

10:49:10 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.

10:49:11 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a suggestion for ten minutes.

10:49:12 Agreeable with council?

10:49:14 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's fine.

10:49:16 >>> David SCHEPP, city's municipal prosecutor.




10:49:23 Wanted to give council a substitute.

10:49:56 >>DAVID SHOBE: I would like to briefly walk council

10:50:04 through changes or bring their attention to the

10:50:05 changes.

10:50:08 In subsection A of the new ordinance, which should be

10:50:13 found on page 18 of your draft, in the initial

10:50:18 prohibitions, we simply added an "S" to make it clear

10:50:23 it shall be unlawful for any person or persons to

10:50:27 commit, cause, allow, amplify, create, emit or sustain

10:50:33 excessive noise.

10:50:36 In that regard, it may be helpful to look at E-1 of

10:50:41 the ordinance which should be, I believe, on page 21

10:50:44 of the draft.

10:50:46 We also pluralized in E-1 individual or individuals,

10:50:53 so that the ordinance will read: Whenever a law

10:50:56 enforcement officer observes a violation of this

10:50:58 section, the officer shall issue a warning in writing

10:51:01 to the individual or individuals.

10:51:06 The purpose of both those changes was to just

10:51:09 designate the fact that the ordinance does allow for

10:51:14 more than one individual at a location to be cited for

10:51:18 a violation.




10:51:20 An example of that may be a dee-jay and a manager are

10:51:23 both cited for a violation at a location.

10:51:27 The other change occurs in B-1 and B-2.

10:51:35 This change was really more grammatical in nature.

10:51:39 The language was -- we had in the previous ordinance,

10:51:44 may have been somewhat cumbersome.

10:51:45 So we have simply separated the language out,

10:51:52 designated one sentence that will indicate the maximum

10:51:56 noise levels are contained below, and the second

10:51:58 sentence indicating where that measurement is taken,

10:52:01 which is from the property line and in subsection D of

10:52:07 the ordinance which would be page 21 of your draft, we

10:52:12 have removed the prohibition against orienting

10:52:15 speakers towards the right-of-way, so as to project

10:52:18 sound out into the right-of-way.

10:52:23 That was based on the previous draw.

10:52:26 Based on comments we received we decided to go ahead

10:52:28 and remove that prohibition.

10:52:33 At this time, I would like to bring up some members of

10:52:37 the Tampa Police Department to just go through the

10:52:41 genesis of these changes, where they came from, and

10:52:45 I'll be available, of course, to answer any questions




10:52:47 regarding them.

10:52:51 >>> George McNamara, Major, Tampa Police Department.

10:52:55 A little overview if I can to go back and address the

10:52:57 things that we have done previously on this matter.

10:53:00 We started taking noise readings back in November of

10:53:03 '04 when we have come to council.

10:53:05 At that time, as a remainder, there were three

10:53:09 different processes we went through.

10:53:10 We first gave out a five-minute warning to the

10:53:13 violator.

10:53:13 And again that allowed us to go up to the window. We

10:53:18 went through a formal first written notice.

10:53:20 Again alleging the violations and explaining the

10:53:22 information to the manager.

10:53:24 And then third, following the second written notice,

10:53:27 there is what we call the notice to appear that was

10:53:30 issued at that time frame.

10:53:31 We have gone forth since that time over the 72 hour

10:53:34 window, be it Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and found

10:53:37 unfortunately a multitude of repeat violators.

10:53:40 On average we are taking anywhere between 12 to 14

10:53:44 readings a weekend -- weekend night.




10:53:48 We are finding during this time, some are way over.

10:53:50 The establishments -- and I understand some concerns

10:53:52 back here -- know who they are.

10:53:55 And the comment was made about the musical managers.

10:53:59 And we actually had to go find out who was the

10:54:02 manager.

10:54:04 First noticed this individual guy.

10:54:05 We there is the second one.

10:54:07 On the third one he wasn't there.

10:54:09 We had no mechanism in place to enforce the ordinance

10:54:13 as it was written at that time.

10:54:16 In discussing with the city attorney, discussing with

10:54:18 the department staff, we needed some changes.

10:54:22 To say that Ybor City has changed with the influx of

10:54:24 people is certainly an accurate statement.

10:54:26 But we need something to address the concerns in an

10:54:30 effective and efficient manner.

10:54:31 We need something with teeth in the.

10:54:33 So looking at this in a holistic manner, this proposed

10:54:37 ordinance will give us that.

10:54:39 And then looking at the need for the business owners,

10:54:43 they need to be responsible.




10:54:45 They are responsible for the noise that is emanating

10:54:47 from their business.

10:54:48 While they may be a freak instance where a car will go

10:54:52 by when we are taking a noise meter reading the

10:54:56 officers are certainly aware of the ambient noise

10:54:59 coming from there.

10:54:59 The same as the business owners need to be aware of

10:55:01 the level of decibels that are coming from their

10:55:05 businesses.

10:55:05 We want to work with them.

10:55:07 This isn't attack tick by law enforcement to

10:55:10 strong-arm people.

10:55:11 But the previous ordinance did not give us a mechanism

10:55:13 which was efficient and effective in dealing with the

10:55:17 repeat violators.

10:55:19 This will certainly do that for us.

10:55:29 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't want to interrupt.

10:55:30 If you guys are done with your report.

10:55:32 >>DAVID SMITH: No, sir, we are not.

10:55:35 What David Shobe did was explain to you the changes

10:55:37 from the last version you got.

10:55:40 Now what I am going to do is explain to you generally




10:55:46 speaking what the revisions were overall.

10:55:46 So you have a context.

10:55:48 And major Mac normal stay here if you have any

10:55:51 questions.

10:55:53 What I want to do is start with -- David Smith, city

10:55:58 attorney.

10:55:58 Obviously it's important that we Rae Pete for all

10:56:00 those maybe watching. This Ybor City has come a long

10:56:03 way.

10:56:03 It is a great place to go, if you haven't been there

10:56:06 recently you're missing out.

10:56:08 It's much safer, much more enjoyable place and part of

10:56:11 it is hopefully will be enhanced by this ordinance.

10:56:15 It also important to remember the changes are

10:56:17 primarily enforcement oriented.

10:56:19 We didn't change the underlying science.

10:56:21 I'm not bringing the experts back to provide you all

10:56:23 the analysis as to why these DCB and DCA levels are

10:56:28 appropriate.

10:56:28 Did you that before.

10:56:29 We are not changing that.

10:56:30 So we don't have to revisit those issues.




10:56:32 So those predicate facts are established.

10:56:36 As I said, the DBA and DBC limits will remain the same

10:56:39 in the entertainment district.

10:56:40 As major McNamara indicated as well, this ordinance

10:56:43 also establishes a city-wide, 65 DBC limit for those

10:56:48 areas outside of entertainment districts.

10:56:51 So we are going to have some ability to enforce noise

10:56:54 issues city-wide more effectively.

10:56:59 An additional point of measurement was added as David

10:57:01 alluded to.

10:57:02 And the clarification was to make sure it was clear

10:57:06 that the reference was to the distance from the

10:57:09 location, not some other issue.

10:57:15 We removed the orientation of the speakers as a

10:57:17 prohibition because we did not want that to be a

10:57:20 stand-alone violation.

10:57:21 If you have a speaker oriented toward the sidewalk and

10:57:24 it's coming out 20 DBC and they are listening to a

10:57:29 ballgame, that shouldn't be a violation. This is a

10:57:32 noise ordinance.

10:57:33 I think that's a good suggestion and it enhance it is

10:57:35 ordinance.




10:57:37 As you know, and I won't belabor this point and I'll

10:57:39 address some of the comments that were made. The

10:57:41 primary issue here was to solve our enforcement

10:57:44 problems.

10:57:45 The 72-hour, you know, 52 times a year or 100 times a

10:57:50 year, however many that 72-hour cycle goes, that's

10:57:53 been eliminated.

10:57:54 The citation is good for a year.

10:57:56 So we can't can't continue to play that game.

10:57:59 Now the primary concerns that I heard articulated are

10:58:02 important.

10:58:02 They need to be addressed.

10:58:04 This is a criminal ordinance.

10:58:06 So it does have sanctions.

10:58:08 It is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

10:58:11 There was some resume rumor in the community it's a

10:58:14 felony.

10:58:14 That's not the case there. Was some concern about the

10:58:16 possible revocation about a wet zoning establishment,

10:58:18 or wet zoning for a property, even though the property

10:58:21 owner doesn't run the business.

10:58:23 A couple of comments on that.




10:58:26 One, having been in real estate law for a long time

10:58:28 you almost always put in your leases an obligation to

10:58:31 comply with the law.

10:58:32 Some people may not have that provision.

10:58:33 We are encouraging them to put that in there.

10:58:36 So if you have a tenant, tough ability to protect your

10:58:40 property by removing that tenant.

10:58:41 I wouldn't courage everyone to do that.

10:58:43 However, some people may not have that, and we may

10:58:46 want to consider a lesser sanction.

10:58:49 And that lesser sanction would be a suspension as

10:58:51 opposed to a revocation of a wet zoning.

10:58:54 I like the idea that that really gets at the bad actor

10:58:58 as opposed to punishing the innocent property owner.

10:59:04 Presumably they are.

10:59:06 And that is not addressed in this ordinance, by the

10:59:08 way, today.

10:59:09 We would have to come back to you.

10:59:10 I think it's section -- I always get this wrong --

10:59:12 either 3-100 or 1-100 but it's the section that deals

10:59:16 with revocation of wet zonings.

10:59:18 We would have to come back to you with an ordinance




10:59:19 that addresses the possibility of a suspension as

10:59:22 opposed to a revocation.

10:59:24 So we have sort of a lesser included penalty.

10:59:26 And that makes a lot of sense because there are

10:59:28 instances in which that is the more appropriate

10:59:30 remedy.

10:59:30 So with that said, we are recommending the noise

10:59:34 ordinance portion as it is, and if it's the sense of

10:59:36 this council you would like us to come back to you

10:59:38 with intermediate remedies we would be happy to do so.

10:59:42 If you have any questions we are all here to answer

10:59:44 them.

10:59:44 David has the legal technical side.

10:59:46 Major McNamara of corks knows what's in the field.

10:59:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A couple of questions for David, or

10:59:53 Mr. McNamara, whoever wants to answer them may jump

10:59:56 in.

10:59:59 On page 21, paragraph E-1 under enforcement, it speaks

11:00:02 to the officer shall issue a warning in writing to the

11:00:05 individual or individuals responsible for the

11:00:09 violations.

11:00:10 And major, perhaps you would be in the best position




11:00:13 to answer that.

11:00:14 How are your officers going to determine which person

11:00:18 or persons is responsible for the violation?

11:00:21 Is it the drummer?

11:00:22 Is it the dee-jay?

11:00:25 Is it the manager?

11:00:26 Is it the owner?

11:00:28 Who is it?

11:00:32 >>> McAnna Maria A.

11:00:32 The manager of that bar should be responsible.

11:00:37 However, if you have a band in there -- and we have

11:00:39 talked about bands before in the past where we have

11:00:41 talked to the manager and we have somebody that's

11:00:42 playing too loud, could they be charged?

11:00:45 Absolutely.

11:00:45 We have a dee-jay that is constantly above these

11:00:48 levels.

11:00:48 Could that person be charged as well?

11:00:50 Yes, sir.

11:00:51 Again, we are looking for a working relationship with

11:00:54 those businesses.

11:00:55 So when we come in there and we are talking about 85




11:01:00 and 87 levels, they have towns we mean business with

11:01:03 them.

11:01:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm thinking when you do your it's

11:01:08 going to be a revised warning.

11:01:09 You might want to have multiple copies so that way if

11:01:12 you have mutt am people that you can hand each one

11:01:15 their own personalized copy.

11:01:17 >>> I guarantee you that's going to happen, yes, sir.

11:01:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Next question.

11:01:24 Two or three.

11:01:27 David, on page 19, at the top of the page, (3) and

11:01:36 this speaks to what's happening in the rest of the

11:01:40 city.

11:01:40 And I think it's wonderful that we are now sort of

11:01:44 strengthening the noise issue in the rest of the city.

11:01:47 Because all of us do receive calls periodically about

11:01:49 neighborhood noise issues.

11:01:51 And obviously Ms. Ferlita has been working on one

11:01:54 diligently in that VERTIS case.

11:01:57 But generally speaking, (3) at the bottom of the

11:02:01 paragraph says: Unless such persons or business can

11:02:07 common straight that such devices, equipment or




11:02:09 machinery must remain in operation beyond the

11:02:11 operating hours of the business, in order to avoid

11:02:14 harm to persons or damage to property.

11:02:18 That's the exception.

11:02:20 It's at the top of the -- it's at the bottom of

11:02:23 paragraph 3.

11:02:26 I'm in the revised -- the new one.

11:02:31 Page 19.

11:02:32 Top of the page.

11:02:36 >>CHAIRMAN: We got it.

11:02:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My point is, what do we mean "to

11:02:41 avoid harm to persons or damage to property"?

11:02:46 In other words, is it financial harm that we're

11:02:48 concerned about?

11:02:49 Because any business owner who is operating too loudly

11:02:53 after 10 p.m. is going to say -- is going to argue and

11:02:57 say this will cause me financial harm.

11:02:59 Or are we talking about physical harm to persons -- in

11:03:04 other words, if we shut off oxygen equipment to

11:03:06 somebody who needs it, that could be physical harm.

11:03:10 Or damage to property.

11:03:11 In other words, I guess if you have pumps running, you




11:03:13 have to keep them running.

11:03:15 If you turn them off it could injury the pumps

11:03:17 somehow.

11:03:17 But my concern is leaving the "possible" out and

11:03:22 saying, I don't think we need -- mean to say financial

11:03:26 harm, do we?

11:03:28 >>> David SHOBE: No, that was based in there based

11:03:32 upon comments that I received.

11:03:33 There were certain businesses and certain situations

11:03:35 where machinery would have to be left on.

11:03:39 I believe the example that was given is a pump that

11:03:43 may be pumping excess water out of the site.

11:03:45 Most of the situations arose in the construction

11:03:49 context where there are situations where they would

11:03:52 need to be able to leave pumps on to avoid flooding of

11:03:55 the site.

11:03:58 We are certainly not attempting to protect somebody's

11:04:01 personal, financial harm.

11:04:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think we should probably

11:04:07 expressly exclude financial harm, so it's abundantly

11:04:11 clear that that cannot be an argument.

11:04:15 >>> I think, councilman, one of the concerns -- and




11:04:19 this could be an area where financial harm could come

11:04:21 in to play, an example of a water pump, if that pump

11:04:26 were turned off, is the potential of significant

11:04:28 financial harm where a construction site is flooded?

11:04:32 That was where the concerns came in.

11:04:35 >> The good news is, you guys got plenty of legal

11:04:38 brain power there and over the next couple of minutes

11:04:40 you can come up with some language to include that?

11:04:44 >>DAVID SMITH: I think it's a good idea.

11:04:46 I think what we would add is the term "physical

11:04:50 damage" to property.

11:04:51 I wouldn't want to exclude economic harm because you

11:04:53 can translate almost any harm into economic terms if

11:04:55 you are so inclined but physical damage is the point.

11:04:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Maybe physical harm --

11:05:02 >>DAVID SMITH: To personsors physical damage to the

11:05:04 property.

11:05:05 You're saying harm to persons could be economic?

11:05:08 Okay.

11:05:10 Injury to persons?

11:05:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Right, right, if that's the intent.

11:05:13 >>DAVID SMITH: That is the intent.




11:05:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think those are my two questions.

11:05:24 It looks like an improvement.

11:05:25 It looks like it's going to add some teeth to the

11:05:27 enforcement.

11:05:30 Sure that council will continue to monitor the

11:05:32 situation.

11:05:32 And the recent changes.

11:05:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison.

11:05:38 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Question on page 21, paragraph E-3.

11:05:44 Third line from the bottom.

11:05:45 The City Council has the ability to set this public

11:05:48 hearing, which "could" result -- or a violation could

11:05:52 result in setting of a public hearing before City

11:05:55 Council.

11:05:55 I think that is the out that we need where you spoke

11:05:59 about the possibility of rather than a full

11:06:03 revocation, a suspension.

11:06:05 I think if we just leave this alone, and that hearing

11:06:08 that we have could be a suspension versus a

11:06:11 revocation, depending on the circumstances.

11:06:13 >>DAVID SMITH: We just want to make sure that 3-100

11:06:17 provides that you option.




11:06:18 I agree.

11:06:19 >>SHAWN HARRISON: And otherwise, I think that

11:06:21 addresses some of the concerns of the criminal

11:06:24 violations that were raised.

11:06:26 It also addresses the concerns of the land owner who

11:06:31 isn't quite as aware of what's going on there as

11:06:33 perhaps he or she should be.

11:06:35 And with that, I too am comfortable with the

11:06:40 ordinance.

11:06:40 I think what we are doing here is leveling the playing

11:06:43 field.

11:06:44 As long as everyone plays by the same rules in Ybor,

11:06:46 no one is going to be economically harmed by this.

11:06:49 Everybody is going to have to turn the music down a

11:06:51 little bit.

11:06:52 And those not going to force anyone out of business

11:06:54 because everyone else is going to be playing by the

11:06:56 same rules.

11:06:57 So I think that's a good thing. Ybor is changing as

11:07:01 we have heard said many times here before.

11:07:04 And the businesses that are down there have to accept

11:07:06 that change and get with the program.




11:07:09 So I think that we're in good shape.

11:07:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Nothing.

11:07:13 >>ROSE FERLITA: Major McNamara, I have a couple

11:07:17 comments but I want to ask you a question or two.

11:07:20 How many noise ordinance meters do we have?

11:07:23 >>> Two.

11:07:25 >> And that's two are available for each shift?

11:07:26 Or is one someplace else so that if there's something

11:07:29 throughout the city, that one is being used?

11:07:31 >>> That's normal protocol, yes, ma'am.

11:07:33 When we are getting complaints as you all are

11:07:34 throughout the city we have one specifically --

11:07:36 >>: Well, two is ridiculous anyway.

11:07:38 It's one per shift and one floating someplace else.

11:07:41 >>> Right.

11:07:42 >> And on each of those shifts, major, how many people

11:07:45 are trained to use this?

11:07:47 >>> We have trained our entire crimes squad which

11:07:50 consists of ten people again.

11:07:51 You have cycle A and cycle B so everybody is trained

11:07:53 on that, ma'am.

11:07:55 >> And I think you, George, above many others know




11:07:57 where I'm coming from in this in terms of this because

11:08:01 we have always said we have shifted it from code

11:08:03 enforcement, gave to the TPD, but the enforcement

11:08:07 criteria was something that you couldn't work with

11:08:09 because 72 hours it goes away, the revolving door, on

11:08:12 and on.

11:08:13 So now we shift add way to the other side.

11:08:15 I think, I want to remind myself and council, if this

11:08:19 is a noise ordinance, not simply for bar owners in

11:08:23 Ybor City, not simply for businesses in Ybor City, it

11:08:25 is a noise ordinance that's supposed to address, as

11:08:28 Mr. Smith said, city-wide concerns about noise

11:08:30 ordinances.

11:08:32 The neighbor who is here, this is not directed to you.

11:08:35 I'm just editorializing where I think we are and where

11:08:38 we should be.

11:08:38 We have neighbors in the audience that maybe don't go

11:08:41 to Ybor City or don't care about the noise that the

11:08:44 bars make.

11:08:44 But, you know, in terms of exemptions on page 19,

11:08:48 we're talking about one of the exemptions being the

11:08:50 operation of buses, trains, ships, airplanes, buses in




11:08:55 good repair.

11:08:56 It's great if the trucks that VERTIS uses are in good

11:09:04 repair but I think it would be good if they are in

11:09:07 good repair and not making noises throughout the

11:09:10 night.

11:09:10 I think in ten minutes we can't talk about all the

11:09:14 changes.

11:09:14 We have people in the audience, representatives of the

11:09:16 chamber, business owners, like Mr. Capitano that have

11:09:19 been here a long time that simply say we want to you

11:09:21 regulate us and everybody around us so that we coexist

11:09:24 and everybody is successful, without impairing the

11:09:28 quality of life for the residents.

11:09:29 That's the same thing that we have experienced last

11:09:31 week.

11:09:32 Nothing to do with you, major, about neighbors that

11:09:34 want the same expectation from us for what they do

11:09:38 behind Howard Avenue.

11:09:40 I think we have come forward with doing some things.

11:09:43 But I don't think in the scheme of things today, given

11:09:45 that we have other agendas on this meeting, that we

11:09:49 can fine tune this enough.




11:09:51 I'm happy for one of the things that has been done,

11:09:53 and that means giving you more enforcement and moving

11:09:56 on with it and not letting people off the hook in 72

11:09:58 hours.

11:09:59 But now we have gone so much to the other side, I

11:10:02 don't think we have come up with a happy medium.

11:10:04 Mr. Capitano, you were right in some cases.

11:10:07 You were wrong in some cases.

11:10:08 You think it's not right for we as a governing body to

11:10:11 hold you accountable for your tenant.

11:10:16 I in fact think in some terms we do.

11:10:16 Secondarily, every landlord has a responsibility to

11:10:19 make sure that the person you choose to enter into an

11:10:22 agreement with as your tenant complies with the law.

11:10:24 If that is something that is detailed in your

11:10:27 contract, of course we are not going to come and pull

11:10:30 you out and take you to prison because the guy that's

11:10:33 renting from you is making too much noise.

11:10:35 That's harsh.

11:10:36 That's ridiculous.

11:10:37 That's absurd.

11:10:38 So those are things that we need to look at as a




11:10:40 landlord with property in Ybor City.

11:10:45 At the same time, Mr. Barco said, yes, we have

11:10:47 complained about noise but the guy across the street

11:10:49 maybe doesn't even -- and I'm not sure.

11:10:51 Let's see, Don, he probably doesn't even serve will

11:10:54 go.

11:10:54 I don't know.

11:10:55 It doesn't matter.

11:10:57 But when we get more comprehensive with this to try to

11:10:59 help you -- and again I can't say it enough times as

11:11:02 chairman of public safety -- I want you to have every

11:11:04 single tool you need to enforce the law.

11:11:06 But now we have gone from not enough to too much.

11:11:10 And unless we took this and dissected it and discussed

11:11:14 it, I don't think we are going to have a final good

11:11:16 product.

11:11:16 And at the same time I don't think this is a fair time

11:11:18 and a just time to look at that and dissect it enough.

11:11:22 I personally have not had enough opportunity to look

11:11:24 at this and ask Mr. SHOBE and Mr. Smith -- although

11:11:28 let me tell you Mr. Smith right up front has been

11:11:30 there for me anytime I have questions.




11:11:33 Mr. Shelby has come to my store to answer questions or

11:11:36 concerns I have.

11:11:36 But I think in order to do the right thing, instead of

11:11:39 a knee jerk reaction from where we were, I think we

11:11:42 need more time.

11:11:43 So I am not going to support it like. This although I

11:11:45 am happy that we are at least solving the problem you

11:11:47 have had, George, and I think you have to agree with

11:11:49 that.

11:11:50 So thanks for your indulgence and my editorializing.

11:11:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

11:11:55 I agree partially with what Ms. Ferlita said.

11:11:59 But we have come a long way.

11:12:00 And I think with the revised ordinance that you are

11:12:03 planning on doing, by adding some of the things that

11:12:07 we have agreed to, like the 30-day suspension, I think

11:12:11 that's a really good idea.

11:12:13 I don't want to punish the property owners because

11:12:18 sometimes they are not at fault.

11:12:21 And the idea that you brought forward by putting it in

11:12:27 their lease agreement is a really good idea.

11:12:30 And I don't know why they haven't done that before.




11:12:32 But it's a real good idea.

11:12:33 And I strongly encourage that to be done.

11:12:37 Mr. Barco brought up that in mime they have the signs

11:12:45 that say noise ordinance strictly enforced.

11:12:49 I think that's a real good idea, too.

11:12:51 I think maybe if we put that in there, in strategic

11:12:55 locations, that would help.

11:12:57 I think the YCDC could see their way in doing that

11:13:01 with some TIF funds in there.

11:13:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Who is that aimed to?

11:13:13 It sound like it's aimed at cars perhaps?

11:13:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: No, it's for anybody.

11:13:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But you wouldn't put up signs to

11:13:22 tell the shop owners.

11:13:28 >>> McNamara: The other side of the coin.

11:13:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I guess for the boom box kids.

11:13:33 >>> Major McNamara: Business owners should know.

11:13:40 It's not like it's something we are trying to slide

11:13:42 in.

11:13:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And I think Mr. Barco could talk to

11:13:47 the YCDC and they could straighten that part out.

11:13:50 All of it out.




11:13:51 But we have come a long way.

11:13:52 I think that we should go ahead and when it comes back

11:13:56 to us in a revised form again, that we should go ahead

11:13:59 and move with this thing.

11:14:00 And then if we need to make amendments just like we do

11:14:04 every other thing, we'll do it.

11:14:05 But we have got to move forward.

11:14:06 We have got to put teeth in this ordinance.

11:14:10 It's time.

11:14:11 And it's not because we want to punish the property

11:14:13 owners or the managers or anything else.

11:14:16 It's just that they have to regulate themselves.

11:14:19 And apparently it hasn't helped.

11:14:21 So we have to do it for them.

11:14:23 So let's go ahead and do this, which I think is the

11:14:28 right thing to do.

11:14:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Based on the comments that we heard

11:14:32 today, I would like to move this ordinance.

11:14:34 I just want to make sure Mr., Mr. Smith, this

11:14:38 ordinance includes the suspension rather than --

11:14:41 >>DAVID SMITH: It does not.

11:14:42 That's a separate ordinance.




11:14:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So it's a separate ordinance.

11:14:46 >>DAVID SMITH: We will come back to you with an

11:14:49 amendment, 3-100.

11:14:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excellent.

11:14:52 Based on all this conversation --

11:14:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. White?

11:14:55 >>KEVIN WHITE: Question of Mr. McNamara. One of the

11:14:59 things we are talking about, the enforcement down

11:15:01 there, with some of the traffic issues, councilman

11:15:06 Dingfelder happened to mention at nights with the

11:15:10 motorcycles and things of that nature, with the

11:15:12 streets being closed off to pedestrians, we do have a

11:15:14 lot motor vehicle lar traffic down there.

11:15:16 And with the motorcycles, with the loud muffler, glass

11:15:20 packs, and their revving their engines, and you can

11:15:23 hear that over the noise inside the bars.

11:15:26 Are officers that are going to be on the street, are

11:15:28 they going to be addressing those individuals as well?

11:15:33 Or are we going to be specifically targeting business

11:15:35 owners?

11:15:35 Or is this going to be enforced across the board?

11:15:41 >>> Major McNamara: We are taking a holistic view.




11:15:46 That's one of the things we look at.

11:15:48 We have written a number of citations down there for

11:15:50 vehicular traffic whether it be the motorcycles that

11:15:56 illegal under Florida statute 316, or people with

11:15:59 excessive noise, we are stopping them and giving them

11:16:02 citations.

11:16:02 When you're taking that reading from the property

11:16:05 line, be aware of the ambient noises, car going by, is

11:16:10 there a siren, is there something else going?

11:16:12 And try not to take it during that time. If there's

11:16:15 an issue where you a bartender or manager that says,

11:16:18 hey, you took that during a time.

11:16:20 That's what supervisors are for.

11:16:23 >>KEVIN WHITE: Not specifically traffic violation.

11:16:25 You have a motorcycle stopped at a stoplight, vroom,

11:16:31 vroom, stopped, and you know how loud that can be,

11:16:37 talking about noise ordinance, are we going to be

11:16:40 attacking them at that time if we can get to those

11:16:43 individuals?

11:16:45 >>> Yes, sir.

11:16:46 Yes, sir, we are.

11:16:48 >>ROSE FERLITA: Major McNamara, I may point out to




11:16:51 you just to help you here, Councilman White has a

11:16:54 motorcycle and he spend as lot of time in Ybor City.

11:16:58 >>> We have videotape of him as well, ma'am.

11:17:00 (Laughter).

11:17:01 >>KEVIN WHITE: I see you getting ready to move back

11:17:03 there.

11:17:06 (Laughter).

11:17:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Just the decibel range that we are

11:17:12 talking about, is that including the bass part of it?

11:17:15 >>> Yes, ma'am.

11:17:16 Again, that has not changed.

11:17:18 It's just the same as it was before.

11:17:19 85-DBA and 87 DBC which is the bass.

11:17:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'd like to move this ordinance

11:17:30 including that little change on page 19 column 3,

11:17:33 which I believe Mr. Smith wrote down.

11:17:37 >>DAVID SMITH: Personal injury to persons and physical

11:17:39 damage to property.

11:17:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do I need to read this?

11:17:45 First we move it.

11:17:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Do we read it?

11:17:48 >>DAVID SMITH: Yes.




11:17:49 >>Linda Saul-Sena: Move an ordinance in the City of

11:17:51 Tampa amending city Tampa of code of ordinances

11:17:56 article 1, division 1 by deleting section 19-58

11:18:00 excessive noise declared a public nuisance, amending

11:18:02 chapter 3, alcoholic beverages, article II, general

11:18:06 regulations, amending section 3-100, revocation for

11:18:10 cause, amending section 3-29.1, conditions for

11:18:14 historic downtown Ybor City historic district and

11:18:17 Channel District area, amending chapter 5, building

11:18:20 code, by amending section 5-301.2, loud noise

11:18:24 generated by construction activity on private property

11:18:27 near residential uses, amending chapter 14, offenses,

11:18:31 article III, noise, deleting section 14-151, loud and

11:18:35 unreasonable noise-prohibited, deleting section

11:18:38 14-152, same enumeration, deleting section 14-153,

11:18:43 exceptions, adopting a new section 14-151, excessive

11:18:46 noise prohibited, establishing maximum noise levels,

11:18:50 providing for exemptions, establishing enforcement

11:18:53 procedures, providing for severability, providing for

11:18:55 repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an

11:18:58 effective date.

11:18:58 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.




11:19:00 Question on the motion, Mr. She will -- Shelby?

11:19:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: This is amended in the course of this

11:19:05 hearing and I understand the clerk is requiring a

11:19:08 completed copy of the changes as soon as possible to

11:19:10 be filed so it can obviously be there for second

11:19:13 reading at public hearing.

11:19:14 >>DAVID SMITH: Mr. SHOBE will be happy to accommodate

11:19:19 you.

11:19:19 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, I appreciate the

11:19:21 motion.

11:19:22 Certainly we all want Ybor City and any other

11:19:25 entertainment district in the city and I'm happy again

11:19:28 the enforcement tool has been addressed.

11:19:30 I think the changes that we have been presented with

11:19:32 and the changes that we requested are not

11:19:34 comprehensive enough.

11:19:35 And I don't think we have enough time to do that

11:19:37 today.

11:19:38 I think given the changes that I read at least on

11:19:40 their face are changes that perhaps in some cases will

11:19:42 be challenged.

11:19:43 I don't think that they are considerately fair




11:19:47 straight across the board.

11:19:48 And I think areas like page 19 about some exemptions

11:19:50 are exemptions that are not addressing some of the

11:19:53 issues that neighborhoods have, case in point, VERTIS.

11:20:00 In its configuration currently I am not going to

11:20:00 support it, not that I am 100% in favor of enforcement

11:20:04 of noise capacity.

11:20:05 So I won't be supporting this as it stands today.

11:20:08 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the

11:20:09 floor.

11:20:10 All in favor of the motion say Aye.

11:20:11 Opposed, Nay.

11:20:12 >>ROSE FERLITA: Nay.

11:20:13 (Motion carried).

11:20:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 5.

11:20:19 >>DAVID SMITH: Good morning.

11:20:21 David Smith again.

11:20:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Again?

11:20:23 >>DAVID SMITH: I'm sorry.

11:20:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I make this short for you since

11:20:37 it was my motion?

11:20:38 I think I read a memo that suggested that we put this




11:20:41 off until after the judge has ruled.

11:20:44 I'm completely in favor of that.

11:20:47 So we can just pull this off the agenda, when after

11:20:53 the judge has ruled and the case goes up on appeal,

11:20:56 then I would like this to be revisited.

11:20:58 >>DAVID SMITH: That's fine with me.

11:21:00 That's my recommendation.

11:21:01 Thank you.

11:21:02 >> Second.

11:21:02 (Motion carried).

11:21:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 6.

11:21:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: As Mr. Cullen is coming up we are

11:21:15 all committed to going at this thing at 1:30 today so

11:21:18 I would like everybody to be as succinct at possible

11:21:23 so we can get through our agenda.

11:21:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Aren't we always?

11:21:29 >>TERRY CULLEN: I'm with the Planning Commission staff

11:21:31 with reference to unfinished business item number 6.

11:21:34 You asked the Planning Commission staff to come and

11:21:36 talk to you about our work program, and time lines,

11:21:40 and to give you some information similar to what Thom

11:21:44 Snelling from Land Development Coordination had given




11:21:46 you the other week.

11:21:47 Let me begin by saying that overall the Planning

11:21:50 Commission's work program is much larger than the two

11:21:54 printed pages I gave you.

11:21:56 It encompasses a wide variety of different teams of

11:22:01 teams covering the four local governments in

11:22:04 Hillsborough County.

11:22:04 And this is a property of our year in review for

11:22:09 fiscal year 05.

11:22:10 And this is in the mail and on its way to you so you

11:22:12 will be able to see what we have accomplished for all

11:22:15 four local governments.

11:22:17 Specifically, I wanted to talk to you about Tampa, and

11:22:21 more specifically the planners on my team and the work

11:22:23 that they are conducting on behalf of the City of

11:22:25 Tampa.

11:22:27 I'm just going to be brief about this.

11:22:30 And I know that this came up with respect to the Adamo

11:22:34 corridor redevelopment study.

11:22:36 And if you don't mind I'll give you a little bit of

11:22:38 background information with respect to that in just a

11:22:40 moment.




11:22:41 But just briefly touching upon the different types of

11:22:43 things that we are working on for the City of Tampa.

11:22:47 First and foremost, the most important project that is

11:22:49 in front of us is the Tampa comprehensive plan update.

11:22:53 That is a five-year project.

11:22:55 It is enormous.

11:22:58 It's an enormous undertaking.

11:22:59 It started in 2003 and it's not expected to be

11:23:03 completed fully until 2008.

11:23:06 It consists of two different parts.

11:23:08 One is an evaluation and appraisal report process.

11:23:11 And the second part is actually amending the

11:23:14 comprehensive plan consistent with that evaluation and

11:23:17 appraisal.

11:23:18 We are in the midst of that evaluation and appraisal

11:23:21 report process.

11:23:22 We are at a critical time with it at this point.

11:23:26 The components that go into that, there's an extensive

11:23:29 public participation component.

11:23:31 There is also an extensive intragovernmental

11:23:34 coordination effort, not only with the city

11:23:36 administration, but also with council.




11:23:39 The Florida Department of Community Affairs, the

11:23:42 school board, and the four local Hillsborough County

11:23:45 governments.

11:23:46 There's a research component.

11:23:48 There's a consensus building component.

11:23:49 And there's a writing and refining the report

11:23:52 component.

11:23:53 And I have given you the approximate time frames in

11:23:56 which all of that is taking place.

11:23:57 That is taking up probably most of our time at the

11:24:01 Planning Commission.

11:24:03 Other major work program items that we are conducting

11:24:06 include plan amendments, development reviews, other

11:24:10 types of planning consistency reviews, on page 2,

11:24:14 neighborhood planning efforts, and then something I

11:24:16 called "other work program activities."

11:24:20 I won't get into a lot of detail about it.

11:24:22 What I have done is we are not able to estimate, for

11:24:25 example, how many plan amendments that we are going to

11:24:28 get filed this year in the four cycles that we do

11:24:31 have.

11:24:31 But I provided you information for how many we




11:24:34 processed or how many were filed in last fiscal year

11:24:38 which would be from September of '04 -- excuse me, the

11:24:42 beginning of October 04 until the beginning of

11:24:44 September 05.

11:24:46 For example, we had 36 plan amendments that were filed

11:24:48 and processed.

11:24:50 And you may recall one of those was the Palma Ceia

11:24:52 plan amendments.

11:24:53 So it can very widely, in terms of their complexity

11:24:57 and the amount of effort that needs to go into it.

11:25:01 Also under planned information and counseling, many

11:25:03 people don't realize that service we provide to the

11:25:07 public, and we serviced over 4500 clients in fiscal

11:25:13 year 05.

11:25:14 So the planning commission is working at almost 100%

11:25:18 capacity.

11:25:18 And on some days it feels like it's well over that, as

11:25:21 I'm sure you understand.

11:25:24 So what I'm here to explain to you is that we are

11:25:28 not -- our resources are maxed out right now.

11:25:32 Now, let me talk a little bit about some of the

11:25:34 requested studies that we have had, more specifically




11:25:37 the Adamo corridor redevelopment study.

11:25:39 And if you bear with me, I'll give you a little bit of

11:25:42 history on that and why that is in front of you.

11:25:45 A little history, okay.

11:25:47 Very little history.

11:25:48 And that is that there are people in the corridor that

11:25:51 are interested in applying for the urban mixed use 60

11:25:55 plan category, which allows up to 60 dwelling units

11:25:58 per acre, and or floor area ratio of two and a half.

11:26:02 However, the comprehensive plan locationally restricts

11:26:05 where you can apply for that plan category.

11:26:08 And one of those areas in which you can apply for it

11:26:10 is in a redevelopment corridor.

11:26:13 But you can't be a redevelopment corridor until you

11:26:15 are designated as one in the comprehensive plan.

11:26:18 And the only redevelopment corridor that we have today

11:26:21 in the comprehensive plan is Kennedy Boulevard.

11:26:24 And a lot of Kennedy Boulevard is designated urban

11:26:27 mixed use 60.

11:26:29 Hence, the interest in doing a study to ultimately

11:26:33 amend the comprehensive plan to put a tech statement

11:26:37 in there that would make Adamo corridor a designated




11:26:40 redevelopment corridor, then would allow for

11:26:43 consideration -- consideration.

11:26:46 I'm not saying approval.

11:26:47 Consideration of the urban mixed use 60 plan category.

11:26:51 Now, we have explained to people that have approached

11:26:55 us before of that we do not have the resources to

11:26:58 conduct that kind of a study.

11:27:00 (Bell sounds).

11:27:01 And so what you have before you, Mr. Kimmins came

11:27:04 and -- excuse me, Mr. Williams came and spoke before

11:27:07 you this morning and has been before you on previous

11:27:10 occasions.

11:27:11 He sat down with us in a meeting with some

11:27:15 representatives, and we explained to him that we do

11:27:19 not have the resources to do this study.

11:27:21 Our understanding of that point in time is that they

11:27:23 are willing to file the plan amendment and privately

11:27:28 finance and conduct the study to see if it's feasible

11:27:31 to do a redevelopment corridor.

11:27:34 We have expressly said to them that if you do do that,

11:27:38 we will be looking for a redevelopment vision for the

11:27:42 corridor, we will be looking for extensive public




11:27:44 participation, and we highly recommended that they

11:27:48 reach out to all of the interests, particularly in

11:27:51 Ybor City, that they take it from Channelside, out to

11:27:55 either 34th or even 40th Street, and that we look

11:28:01 at the north and south sides, and they have to justify

11:28:04 why the industrial plan categories are no longer

11:28:07 beneficial in that area.

11:28:10 And that we would be working with them next month to

11:28:12 help them frame what would be included in that study.

11:28:16 So there's the potential to have this study conducted

11:28:21 with private funds done through the plan amendment

11:28:23 process.

11:28:25 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to cut it off now.

11:28:27 >>TERRY CULLEN: That's the brief history of why that

11:28:30 is in front of you and why we are explaining our

11:28:32 resource allocation.

11:28:33 Thank you.

11:28:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Cullen, thanks for that

11:28:36 explanation.

11:28:37 That was a good one.

11:28:42 The plan amendment that will be or should be privately

11:28:46 funded, would that be for a private consultant coming




11:28:51 in, working with the Planning Commission?

11:28:53 >>TERRY CULLEN: The prime consultant would be doing

11:28:55 the plan amendment, and they would have to do a study

11:28:58 as part of that plan amendment, and we would be

11:29:00 working with them to frame that study and ensure that

11:29:05 certain types of information and processes were

11:29:06 followed.

11:29:07 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And have they agreed to when they were

11:29:12 going to start this?

11:29:14 >>TERRY CULLEN: They are thinking they may start it

11:29:16 with the next plan amendment cycle which begins March

11:29:19 1.

11:29:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So realistically by the end of this

11:29:22 year they should have a plan amendment in place?

11:29:25 >>TERRY CULLEN: It's possible.

11:29:25 I need to add another adjunct onto it.

11:29:29 The city administration, Vince Pardo, has expressed to

11:29:33 me that the city administration is interested in

11:29:36 perhaps doing the study independently themselves.

11:29:42 And have spoken with Michael Chen, and it may be that

11:29:46 the city administration would pick up the study.

11:29:48 At this point that hasn't been confirmed.




11:29:50 But suffice to the say that there are several

11:29:53 interests out there that would like to conduct this

11:29:55 study.

11:29:55 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So there would be two studies going on

11:29:59 at the same time?

11:30:00 >>TERRY CULLEN: I wouldn't recommend that it be two

11:30:01 studies going on at the same time.

11:30:03 Obviously that would have to be worked out.

11:30:05 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Has the Planning Commission added any

11:30:09 staff to their workforce that you know of?

11:30:14 >>TERRY CULLEN: No, they have not.

11:30:16 We have been relatively at the same staffing level now

11:30:19 for several years.

11:30:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.

11:30:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Cullen, for coming

11:30:23 down and sharing your work with us.

11:30:27 You guys are so busy.

11:30:27 And we are impressed with the quality of the work you

11:30:29 do and the long list of projects on your to-do list.

11:30:33 I think that what you're suggesting is not

11:30:35 unprecedented.

11:30:36 I know of other area studies that have been done by




11:30:39 the private sector, and then brought to the public.

11:30:42 I think that that would be the appropriate route for

11:30:46 the people along the Adamo corridor to fa.

11:30:49 If they are willing to pick up the tab I don't see why

11:30:52 we should pick up public dollars.

11:30:55 They are doing it for their own potential gain.

11:30:57 While you are standing there could you quickly

11:30:59 address -- or do it next, the next one -- which is the

11:31:02 request -- thank you.

11:31:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.

11:31:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Terry, I hear what you have to say

11:31:11 and I agree with you that you are very busy and I know

11:31:13 this is an extra busy time with the update.

11:31:15 But it's a reality that progress doesn't stop

11:31:20 especially in sort of a boom economic time that we are

11:31:23 in right now.

11:31:24 Like it or not, the developers are chomping at the bit

11:31:28 to do this and do that and then they are going to file

11:31:30 their plan amendments, and sometimes we're caught a

11:31:32 little bit flat footed.

11:31:34 I think it's just a reality.

11:31:36 Case in point, rattlesnake point, off of Westshore,




11:31:39 you know, those developers from what I hear are

11:31:43 chomping at the bit, put in their plan developments,

11:31:46 we are kind of trying to hold them back until we can

11:31:48 study the area.

11:31:49 I saw it on page 2 of your list.

11:31:51 You know, other things that we need to look at.

11:31:54 Adamo Drive.

11:31:57 I agree wholeheartedly with Ms. Saul-Sena.

11:32:01 I think if those developers are chomping at the bit to

11:32:03 do something different and do a significant plan

11:32:05 amendment in that area or text amendment or both, then

11:32:08 they need to fund the study.

11:32:09 However, what I think that would be more appropriate

11:32:12 and create a better and more objective study is if

11:32:15 they contract with the Planning Commission, with you

11:32:18 guys.

11:32:19 In other words, feigned out what it's going to cost,

11:32:22 they route the money through you, and you guys have

11:32:24 total 100% control over that subcontractor, that

11:32:31 consultant, who does the work as opposed to just

11:32:34 giving them input and that sort of thing.

11:32:36 They can fund it.




11:32:38 They can route the money through you.

11:32:40 You guys can control it.

11:32:41 And that way, it's 100% objective.

11:32:43 Because then when it comes back to us, I think it's a

11:32:46 study that we can feel a lot more comfortable with and

11:32:49 trust that it's been done completely, you know,

11:32:53 Kosher, objectively, properly.

11:32:57 Kosherly.

11:32:58 I just made that up.

11:32:59 So let me just finish and then give me your ideas.

11:33:04 I'm just throwing this out at you.

11:33:07 It just came to my mind.

11:33:08 There are some extremely important issues right now.

11:33:10 But I don't want any of this to hold up the potential

11:33:14 redevelopment of the Adamo corridor in this positive

11:33:17 economic environment, because of the reasons that I

11:33:20 stated last week and the week before.

11:33:22 This city has invested $750,000 each year now in

11:33:27 propping up central Ybor.

11:33:29 We have millions invested in those garages.

11:33:30 And in the trolley.

11:33:32 We need to to do something to infuse more energy and




11:33:35 more residences in Ybor City, in my opinion.

11:33:39 >>TERRY CULLEN: Thank you.

11:33:40 Your point is well taken.

11:33:42 However, a couple things I need to explain with

11:33:45 respect to that, is the understanding of what contract

11:33:49 management entails.

11:33:50 That entails a significant amount of resources.

11:33:55 Consider also that the city administration is willing

11:33:59 to take on the study.

11:34:00 You may take that approach and fund the money through

11:34:03 that.

11:34:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We don't want to spend the money.

11:34:05 >>TERRY CULLEN: No, private sector, funnel the T the

11:34:11 money through the city --

11:34:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think you're more independent.

11:34:14 >>TERRY CULLEN: It not without precedent.

11:34:17 When an applicant comes in for a DRI, and a DRI is a

11:34:20 huge amount of development entitlements potentially,

11:34:24 we do not contract manage the study of the DRI. The

11:34:27 DRI is done independently, and then it undergoes rig

11:34:33 rouse sufficiency review with government staffs and it

11:34:36 allows for the input from the various people that are




11:34:38 going to be affected by it, will have to carry --

11:34:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's all a condition with a

11:34:45 specific goal in mind which is here's the goal line,

11:34:47 figure out how we are going to get there, as to

11:34:51 opposed if you guys do it it's independent, objective.

11:34:53 Yes, it requires some management on your part.

11:34:55 Let them pay you for that.

11:34:57 Let them pay you additional X amount of dollars to

11:34:59 manage the study.

11:35:00 >>TERRY CULLEN: We'll take that under consideration,

11:35:02 but that was one of the questions that was asked to us

11:35:04 by Vince Pardo, is whether or not that could happen,

11:35:08 and we took a close look at it inhouse and we felt we

11:35:13 were not going to be able to adequately manage a

11:35:14 contract of that size, within the time frame that it

11:35:17 would take to complete it, that it could be more

11:35:20 efficiently done from the private sector, and

11:35:22 following a similar approach as DRIs with

11:35:25 sufficiency reviews.

11:35:27 DRIs come back with proposals for wide range and

11:35:31 type of development potential that is not necessarily

11:35:33 anticipated at the very beginning of the process.




11:35:37 And we think that is very possible that we can help to

11:35:40 bring the study jointly with the city and with the

11:35:42 petitioner, and come out with a successful outcome.

11:35:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.

11:35:51 Mr. Cullen, number 7.

11:35:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I talked to Mr. Cullen yesterday

11:35:54 about Virginia park since it was my motion.

11:35:56 And I also talked to Mr. Wise from Virginia park.

11:36:00 And I think we are all in agreement to defer that for

11:36:02 four weeks.

11:36:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.

11:36:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It on the agenda four weeks from

11:36:08 today.

11:36:08 We'll keep working on it.

11:36:09 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

11:36:11 (Motion carried).

11:36:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 8.

11:36:24 >>> Santiago Corrada neighborhood services to report

11:36:27 on item number 8 regarding our faith based matching

11:36:30 grants program.

11:36:31 Before we pass out the graphs to all of you of the

11:36:37 application process I would like to acknowledge and




11:36:39 thank Shannon Edge, our director of neighborhood

11:36:41 community relations, and also Toyin Aina.

11:36:51 The draft is a mirror inchage of the city of Orlando's

11:36:54 matching grants program.

11:36:55 We have worked closely with them.

11:36:57 They have given us their permission to mirror their

11:37:00 grant program.

11:37:01 And the reason why we are tailoring ours to match

11:37:06 theirs is because theirs has passed all of the legal

11:37:09 muster, all of the legal challenges that might present

11:37:12 themselves to such a process.

11:37:16 I do want to very quickly let you know that the faith

11:37:20 based organizations that apply for these grants, as

11:37:23 you know last year, through the budget process,

11:37:26 allocated $25,000 to neighborhood faith based grants

11:37:30 programs.

11:37:31 Faith based organizations that apply for these funds

11:37:35 must have a partnership with a neighborhood

11:37:37 organization.

11:37:38 All of that is detailed in the application process

11:37:43 grants may and will be awarded anywhere between one

11:37:46 and $5,000.




11:37:49 The projects must prove that there's a documented

11:37:54 need.

11:37:54 They must support families youth and education, and

11:37:59 must have to do with civic responsibility and or

11:38:02 character development.

11:38:03 The application process will be shared with faith

11:38:08 based organizations on February 17th, 2006.

11:38:12 There is a time line on page 8 of when the grant

11:38:17 application deadline will be and when funds will be

11:38:20 disbursed.

11:38:21 If you have any questions regarding the process, we

11:38:24 are here to answer those.

11:38:25 I know you're trying to move your agenda and I don't

11:38:28 want to get to all the specifics.

11:38:29 We are certainly open to any input and feedback that

11:38:32 you may have for us to look at before we roll this out

11:38:36 on February 17th.

11:38:37 However, I do want to caution that our legal staff has

11:38:41 looked at it and made sure that it complies with the

11:38:44 law, and that it mirrors the Orlando model, so there

11:38:47 may be some limits on how much we can tweak in this

11:38:51 process in, this application.




11:38:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison?

11:38:54 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Santiago.

11:38:56 We met yesterday and a constructive meeting, and some

11:38:59 of the changes that I suggest, I see, have been put in

11:39:02 here.

11:39:02 I appreciate that.

11:39:03 I think that this is a great first step.

11:39:07 It is cumbersome, and we'll find out if that's going

11:39:12 to dissuade anybody from applying.

11:39:14 But I also understand that we have got to stick within

11:39:16 the parameters of current first amendment law.

11:39:19 So I think it's a good first step.

11:39:21 And I think it's a good thing for the city and for our

11:39:26 small organizations out there.

11:39:27 And I want to thank you all for doing this.

11:39:29 I want to thank the mayor for supporting me on this.

11:39:32 And my council colleagues for going along with. This

11:39:36 it's a good thing.

11:39:38 >>> And we thank you all of you for your support as

11:39:40 well and getting to the finish line, which we are just

11:39:43 about there.

11:39:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to thank Mr. Harrison for




11:39:45 his leadership.

11:39:46 And I just have a quick question. The amount of money

11:39:49 that's designated is so modest, 1 to $5,000, that for

11:39:54 all of the reporting that's required, I don't know

11:39:59 that people are going to be willing to go through all

11:40:01 of that for a relatively modest sum.

11:40:02 I wonder if you had considered increasing the amount

11:40:05 of grants that people can ask for to a maximum of

11:40:09 $10,000.

11:40:11 >>> Our only concern with that -- and that's a great

11:40:13 point and we debated that back and forth. The only

11:40:16 concern is that the pot of dollars is $25 and we just

11:40:18 don't know how many applications we are going to get

11:40:20 in.

11:40:20 So depending on how many get in we may need to modify

11:40:24 that.

11:40:24 If we get two or three, we may up the amount.

11:40:27 So we really need to roll it out and see what the

11:40:32 interest level is because it's only $25,000 as a

11:40:32 pilot.

11:40:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Perhaps if you could report back to

11:40:36 council after this first grant cycle, March 31st,




11:40:42 maybe the first week in April, as unfinished business

11:40:45 to let us know what the response has been, what you

11:40:48 decided to award, so that then we could tweak this if

11:40:51 that's helpful in terms of eliciting greater response.

11:40:58 Thanks.

11:40:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Santiago.

11:41:00 Item number 9.

11:41:02 Tree ordinance.

11:41:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like Mr. Shelby to clarify

11:41:47 what our public participation for pro sees is for

11:41:49 this.

11:41:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: This is not scheduled as a workshop,

11:41:52 this is scheduled as a staff report. The staff

11:41:54 reports are limited to five minutes.

11:41:56 And then council discussion.

11:41:59 People have had opportunity to speak as to the subject

11:42:02 during the agendaed public comment, as I stated at the

11:42:06 beginning of the meeting.

11:42:06 It is not a public hearing.

11:42:08 And therefore it is -- again this is a first reading

11:42:13 so the public hearing will come back in two weeks time

11:42:16 for a second reading.




11:42:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And a public hearing at that time?

11:42:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.

11:42:22 This isn't is public hearing, that's correct.

11:42:25 But there is no public comment absent council

11:42:28 unanimously waiving its rules to open the floor.

11:42:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: For future reference you might want

11:42:33 to consider reversing that in light of the fact that

11:42:36 at second reading if you change something you have to

11:42:37 take it back to first reading.

11:42:39 If we are going to have public comment at one of the

11:42:42 two, in the future it would seem the first reading may

11:42:45 be the proper place.

11:42:46 Maybe Mr. Shelby will look at that.

11:42:50 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't understand why it's not a

11:42:52 public hearing if it's an ordinance.

11:42:54 And I think that's probably --

11:43:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's a discussion that I would like

11:43:02 to have possibly, and discuss it with you.

11:43:05 I have had that same usual you and obviously

11:43:06 Congressman Dingfelder has the same issue, too, so we

11:43:10 can discuss that.

11:43:36 >>THOM SNELLING: Land Development Coordination.




11:43:38 I have handed you a copy of the ordinance.

11:43:42 In many ways there's been a couple of -- from the last

11:43:46 time we were here, we were instructed by council to go

11:43:49 back to reconvene the tree board or the tree code

11:43:53 meeting, and discuss some of the issues that the

11:44:00 public sector had brought to City Council that they

11:44:04 needed to air out a couple of their concerns a little

11:44:07 more clearly at the committee.

11:44:10 They are here to speak.

11:44:11 And I'm confused.

11:44:13 Are they going to be allowed to speak?

11:44:14 >>GWEN MILLER: No.

11:44:15 >>THOM SNELLING: I don't want to put words in their

11:44:17 mouth.

11:44:17 >>GWEN MILLER: No one is going to speak.

11:44:21 At the second reading they can speak then.

11:44:22 >>THOM SNELLING: Okay.

11:44:26 Well -- okay.

11:44:27 There were two issues of primary importance that came

11:44:29 up at that meeting.

11:44:31 One issue had to do with the two-year prohibition.

11:44:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can you give us a page?




11:44:39 >>THOM SNELLING: Yes.

11:44:40 I'm sorry. This will be on page 13.

11:44:43 Discussion.

11:44:46 We talked about it at great length at the meeting.

11:44:49 We did not make any specific changes to that.

11:44:52 At the ordinance or with the two-year prohibition

11:44:54 against removing the house for which a grand tree was

11:44:59 removed because it was causing structural damage

11:45:02 remains in place.

11:45:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I clarify that a little bit?

11:45:06 I think when we hit that point and there was good

11:45:08 healthy discussion on that issue, we deferred that

11:45:11 question to Cindy Miller and her staff, in regard to

11:45:15 the practicality of enforcing that.

11:45:19 And then she in turn wrote us a memo and said that

11:45:22 they had massaged it, looked at the computer system

11:45:25 and the software, and not to put words in her mouth,

11:45:30 what did she say?

11:45:32 Just briefly.

11:45:32 >>THOM SNELLING: "to remove trees for structural cause

11:45:37 the following will be utilized: A law created to

11:45:41 track when such permits are issued.




11:45:44 Number two, information technology services will be

11:45:46 requested to write a program to automatically add an

11:45:49 active comment to the screen, which is how we track

11:45:52 permitting and development, which will identify the

11:45:56 grand tree removal for structural cause permit has

11:45:58 been issued.

11:45:58 This would immediately attach a comment to the address

11:46:01 on the folio number identifying there is a prohibition

11:46:04 from structural demolitions on the property in

11:46:06 question.

11:46:07 By linking it directly to the issuance of a tree

11:46:09 removal permit it would less ten chance of a comment

11:46:11 or mission of error by -- omission or error by staff

11:46:17 linked to the permit being issued.

11:46:20 Number three, with the county clerk's office as part

11:46:23 of the county permit office, they would bring a

11:46:28 recorded -- excuse me -- recorded plat book and page

11:46:32 number to the Construction Services Center and submit

11:46:34 it as part of their permit application.

11:46:37 So it will go into the city system and it will also be

11:46:40 attached to the property as a note when a title search

11:46:43 or any other kind of search takes place.




11:46:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is the county clerk process in the

11:46:48 revisions?

11:46:50 >>THOM SNELLING: It's not in here.

11:46:51 That's going to be internal.

11:46:52 We record subdivision plats and all of that and it's

11:46:57 not called out.

11:46:58 That's just another process to require that.

11:46:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So you will put in the a procedure.

11:47:02 >>THOM SNELLING: Yes, sir.

11:47:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What else?

11:47:06 >>THOM SNELLING: That's it.

11:47:09 The most important part is having it linked to the

11:47:12 City of Tampa so no permit gets issued to take the

11:47:15 demolition.

11:47:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: She said it was doable?

11:47:22 >>> Yes, sir.

11:47:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Earlier a question was raised about

11:47:26 the definition of a grand tree.

11:47:27 Didn't we agree that we had a definition?

11:47:30 >>THOM SNELLING: That is one of the things that was

11:47:32 still somewhat foggy.

11:47:33 I know Wolford was in here before and he kind of felt




11:47:39 that, too.

11:47:40 That was less of an agreement than -- there wasn't

11:47:45 complete consensus on that because we had gone back

11:47:47 and forth.

11:47:47 We weren't sure if we were going to go with how the

11:47:50 county specifically described it.

11:47:52 And also that leads to debate as to the breakdown of

11:47:57 trees that were ten inch in diameter, then trees from

11:48:02 20 and above.

11:48:03 There was a tier of three different types of trees.

11:48:07 When that discussion, everybody said, no, we don't

11:48:11 want to have that go forward.

11:48:12 The definition everybody agreed at that point, just

11:48:14 leave the definition of the grand tree alone, and

11:48:17 tackle this larger issue about significant --

11:48:20 protected -- protected, significant and grand, because

11:48:24 that became a very -- a discussion that need add lot

11:48:27 of massaging.

11:48:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So after we deal with this, which

11:48:31 is really kind of a tweaking of our ordinance after

11:48:33 this time, we will go hopefully in the future to a

11:48:36 phase two of a dressing some of the things that we




11:48:38 couldn't resolve?

11:48:40 >>THOM SNELLING: And I belief Karen Palus and Cindy

11:48:43 both made that promise to council.

11:48:44 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Snelling, on page 13, the

11:48:50 provision that allows someone to petition City Council

11:48:54 during that two-year period, is there any filing fee

11:48:58 or what will the requirements be on the homeowners who

11:49:02 come in and bring this petition?

11:49:07 >>THOM SNELLING: Well, we haven't contemplated a fee

11:49:12 for that.

11:49:13 That's typically done through a resolution.

11:49:14 We hadn't actually contemplated the processing of that

11:49:19 at this point.

11:49:23 We haven't discussed the notion of a fee at this

11:49:25 point.

11:49:25 >>SHAWN HARRISON: From my perspective there should be

11:49:29 none.

11:49:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I agree.

11:49:30 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I think if subject to the second

11:49:34 reading of this, and the public comment we will

11:49:39 receive, you do have this language in here that says

11:49:41 it will be the council's decision based upon




11:49:46 unusual -- extreme circumstances or unusual hardship.

11:49:53 So I guess it's gray enough that we can also interpret

11:49:58 that in our own minds if that ever came up.

11:50:02 >>THOM SNELLING: Well, we did a what-if and it came up

11:50:05 about from everything from a death in the family where

11:50:09 somebody wanted to just get rid of the property and

11:50:11 move on with their lives, to economic hardships, where

11:50:14 all they could do was sell the property.

11:50:18 >> Partial fire damage.

11:50:20 >>> We went through it and it was felt that this would

11:50:22 be better, and let the person come up and say this is

11:50:26 my hardship, rather than do it like a variance.

11:50:28 A variance you are supposed to have certain kinds of

11:50:31 criteria.

11:50:31 We felt bringing in the that direction is not as

11:50:34 workable as this.

11:50:36 So that's kind of how that came up.

11:50:38 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Once they come over after the

11:50:42 application and they ask for either a waiver or

11:50:44 whatever, and they need a permit, that's when they pay

11:50:47 their fee, right?

11:50:50 >>THOM SNELLING: For --




11:50:51 >>MARY ALVAREZ: For removal of the tree?

11:50:54 >>THOM SNELLING: If someone comes in to remove the

11:50:56 tree, they pay a tree removal permit fee at the time

11:50:58 they take the tree out.

11:50:59 Yes, ma'am.

11:51:00 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And then when they come back for the

11:51:03 two-year moratorium?

11:51:06 >>> If they are coming back to talk to council about

11:51:08 their particular circumstances, they need to take the

11:51:10 building down as well, and to get rid of that two-year

11:51:13 moratorium, they will just, you know, come in, make

11:51:17 request to City Council and we'll discuss it through

11:51:19 doc agenda just like we schedule everything else on

11:51:22 the item.

11:51:23 I imagine when they come to City Council they'll make

11:51:25 their pitch.

11:51:25 If council says yes, then it's yes.

11:51:27 If they say, then it's no.

11:51:29 And if there's an appeal process to appeal back, I

11:51:35 mean, would there be a stay before a lot of them could

11:51:37 take it down like two weeks or something?

11:51:47 Okay, so as soon as council says, yes, you can take it




11:51:49 down, they can run out of here and knock the house

11:51:52 down?

11:51:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: But they don't need a permit for that?

11:51:57 >>THOM SNELLING: They'll need a demolition permit.

11:52:00 They won't for this process.

11:52:05 I'm sorry.

11:52:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Anybody who wanted to appeal what

11:52:07 we did would have to go to circuit court, they could

11:52:10 look for stay in circuit court.

11:52:12 >>THOM SNELLING: There's appeal processes, I'm sure.

11:52:17 Hopefully this will be pretty rare.

11:52:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to thank Mr. Snelling,

11:52:20 his staff, all the loyal members of his committee who

11:52:23 attended many, many, many meetings, and for the amount

11:52:28 of -- for the number of changes which are really

11:52:32 pretty modest, we had a lot of conversation.

11:52:34 The best thing that came from this process is the that

11:52:38 we developed better internal administrative processes.

11:52:41 The second best thing is that we now have a technical

11:52:43 manual which we didn't have when we began it.

11:52:46 So both of those improvements are great.

11:52:48 And both sides went into this, meaning the development




11:52:54 community and the neighborhoods, wanting more things

11:52:56 than ended up in here.

11:52:58 What we have here is truly an act of democracy.

11:53:00 It's very much a compromise.

11:53:02 I dare say that by the second reading when we have

11:53:04 public comment, we'll receive more input from both

11:53:06 sides saying that they want more.

11:53:08 And to that I look to the next round with this, and

11:53:12 making more improvements.

11:53:14 But based on all the input and what we, council, have

11:53:19 worked toward, I would like to move this.

11:53:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.

11:53:22 >>THOM SNELLING: There is one other.

11:53:28 The other change we made that was significant was when

11:53:31 the group did meet, and I want to get this on the

11:53:33 record, when the group did meet there was some

11:53:35 confusion and it's on page 16 about the four feet

11:53:38 versus the six feet.

11:53:39 Since all that was just to clarify what was already

11:53:42 existing we changed that back to the six feet.

11:53:46 And that was one of the other areas that there was

11:53:50 some concern.




11:53:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move an ordinance of the city of

11:53:57 Tampa, Florida amending city Tampa code of ordinances

11:53:59 chapter 13, landscaping tree removal and site

11:54:02 clearing, section 13-4 definitions, section 13-7,

11:54:06 exemptions for certain trees, departments, and

11:54:09 aviation public safety, section 13-44 permit-site

11:54:13 inspection and site clearing exemptions, section 13-45

11:54:17 same-tree removal and replacement and tree trimming;

11:54:23 exemptions, section 13-146 technical standards

11:54:26 adopted, section 13-161 landscape and tree planting

11:54:30 requirements, section 13-162, landscape and tree

11:54:33 planting standards; chapter 16 parks and recreation,

11:54:37 creating article III landscape area trust fund,

11:54:40 providing for severability, providing for repeal of

11:54:43 all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective

11:54:45 date.

11:54:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.

11:54:48 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Not a question, just a comment.

11:54:51 In order to thank councilwoman Saul-Sena and all the

11:54:56 people that have taken part in this for so many months

11:54:58 I will support this on first reading to get to the

11:55:00 second reading so that we can have a healthy debate on




11:55:03 the remaining sticking point, and we'll see where we

11:55:06 go from there.

11:55:07 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

11:55:08 (Motion carried).

11:55:12 Item 10 will be heard at the end of our meeting.

11:55:14 Is there anyone to request reconsideration?

11:55:19 We go to our committee reports.

11:55:20 Public safety.

11:55:22 Mr. Dingfelder, vice chair.

11:55:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I move items 11 and 12.

11:55:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.

11:55:31 (Motion carried).

11:55:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Public work, Mr. John Dingfelder.

11:55:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Item 11, I want to complement the

11:55:40 purchase department.

11:55:42 We had four bids for our new police cruisers.

11:55:45 They were very tight bids so we know we are getting

11:55:47 some really good prices for those police cars.

11:55:50 Public works, I'll move items 13 through 17.

11:55:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.

11:55:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Finance Committee, Mr. Kevin White.

11:56:00 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move items 18 through 22.




11:56:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.

11:56:21 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

11:56:22 All in favor of the motion say Aye.

11:56:23 (Motion carried).

11:56:24 Building and zoning, Ms. Linda Saul-Sena.

11:56:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move 23 through 25.

11:56:30 >> Second.

11:56:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 23 and 25.

11:56:41 (Motion carried).

11:56:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Number 26.

11:56:44 Move an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida

11:56:47 granting the New Port Tampa Bay community development

11:56:50 district authority to exercise special powers set

11:56:53 forth in chapter development 190.012-2-A through F, to

11:57:01 establish indoor and outdoor parks and recreational

11:57:03 facilities, fire prevention and control facilities,

11:57:06 school buildings and related structures, security

11:57:09 facility, mosquito control programs and waste

11:57:12 collection and disposal programs providing an

11:57:14 effective date.

11:57:14 >> Second.

11:57:16 [Motion Carried]




11:57:16 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I move items 27 through 35.

11:57:29 >> Second.

11:57:29 [Motion Carried]

11:57:29 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I move items 36 through 40 on the

11:57:35 new business.

11:57:38 >> Second.

11:57:39 [Motion Carried]

11:57:39 >>GWEN MILLER: We now go to our public hearings for

11:57:42 second readings.

11:57:43 Is there anyone in the public going to speak on items

11:57:46 41 through 53?

11:57:50 Would you please stand and raise your right hand?

11:57:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Before we do that, Madam Chair, I

11:57:54 have a question.

11:57:54 Before we do that, there are several public hearings.

11:58:01 That's going to cut into the noon hour.

11:58:01 We are about two minutes before noon.

11:58:02 I want to know what council's pleasure is.

11:58:04 Obviously it has a standing rule that it shall break

11:58:06 unless the rules are waived.

11:58:07 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like to move to waive the

11:58:16 rules.




11:58:19 >> Second.

11:58:19 >>KEVIN WHITE: Nay.

11:58:23 Let me put on the record one more time for my dissent.

11:58:27 You're absolutely right, Madam Chair.

11:58:29 I can leave but there are items that I care to have my

11:58:33 vote recorded on.

11:58:34 And -- talking about the past three years sticking to

11:58:41 our rules.

11:58:42 We came up with this rule.

11:58:44 The unfortunate part about the rule is that's how I

11:58:47 make my calendar.

11:58:48 I make appointments because of the rules that we set.

11:58:52 And I make appointments at our lunch hour, because I

11:58:55 know our rule is in force.

11:58:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Maybe we can take the ones that you

11:59:00 want.

11:59:01 >>KEVIN WHITE: I would just like to keep my vote the

11:59:03 way it is.

11:59:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I respect you.

11:59:07 >>GWEN MILLER: We are trying to move because if we

11:59:10 break now we have to stay --

11:59:14 >>KEVIN WHITE: I understand but if we stay till a




11:59:16 quarter after one there's some opposition on something

11:59:19 else and then there's no lunch hour.

11:59:21 And scheduled lunch.

11:59:25 >>ROSE FERLITA: I'm certainly an advocate for

11:59:27 following the rules but a question I have in terms of

11:59:29 procedure, Mr. Shelby.

11:59:31 It has to be unanimous?

11:59:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.

11:59:34 >>ROSE FERLITA: We can't change our rules to make it

11:59:37 not unanimous?

11:59:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Only if you have a unanimous vote.

11:59:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Catch-22.

11:59:46 >>GWEN MILLER: I don't know how long that workshop

11:59:53 will last at 1:30.

11:59:56 >>ROSE FERLITA: We have to make a decision here.

11:59:58 All of us can go if we want to.

12:00:00 Aren't we going to have somebody come here on February

12:00:02 9th?

12:00:03 Because if we are staying until 3:30, otherwise it's

12:00:06 kind of silly to just make a political appearance, get

12:00:09 up and listen to the subject matter because otherwise

12:00:11 3:30 we come back, 5:30 we start again tonight?




12:00:17 If we have children we won't see them.

12:00:19 Those of us who have dogs won't get walked.

12:00:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just carry over the business till

12:00:26 5:30.

12:00:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison won't be here.

12:00:33 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Let me make a suggestion on the

12:00:34 1:30.

12:00:35 I think the school board is probably not -- this is a

12:00:38 workshop and I'm not sure that this is quite as

12:00:41 important as we all have been led to believe that this

12:00:44 thing is at 1:30.

12:00:45 So I would maybe recommend that those of us who want,

12:00:50 would prefer to come back, as long as we have four, we

12:00:52 can probably hammer out a lot of this stuff this

12:00:55 afternoon.

12:00:57 Because the school board is going to to be coming

12:00:59 right back here in February and telling us what

12:01:01 happened in this workshop.

12:01:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only thing I would ask in that

12:01:05 regard, because I want to go to the school board

12:01:07 thing.

12:01:07 >>KEVIN WHITE: Why don't we just send a




12:01:09 representative?

12:01:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's fine.

12:01:11 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We all said yes, we were going to go.

12:01:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I know, we did.

12:01:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only thing is I would say we

12:01:19 pass on item 44 which is the ethics issue.

12:01:21 >>ROSE FERLITA: No, no, see, that's the problem.

12:01:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: He's got something he wants --

12:01:27 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Dingfelder, this is not directed

12:01:29 at you.

12:01:30 All of us probably want to go to that.

12:01:32 And if we send you, then -- the ethics thing has been

12:01:36 mulled over 100,000 times.

12:01:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Put it off till tonight is all I'm

12:01:43 asking because I would like to vote no.

12:01:45 And I would like to be here to vote no.

12:01:47 So if we put it off till tonight I don't think that's

12:01:49 a big deal.

12:01:50 >>ROSE FERLITA: Why do we have to go to this thing

12:01:52 anyway?

12:01:53 Aren't we going to have the same subject matter in

12:01:55 February?




12:01:58 We can send our explanation as to why.

12:02:01 He wants to go.

12:02:02 I want to go to.

12:02:03 >>KEVIN WHITE: I don't think it's fair to our

12:02:08 constituents that we have been elected to serve.

12:02:09 I know we would love to go to that.

12:02:12 I'd like to go.

12:02:13 But I think we need to fin usual our business and our

12:02:17 housekeeping first rather than go --

12:02:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It was publicly noticed that we would

12:02:21 be meeting at 1:30.

12:02:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It an important issue.

12:02:28 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's the problem.

12:02:31 >>GWEN MILLER: 1:30. Then we go to Jefferson.

12:02:41 We stay at Jefferson till 3:30.

12:02:44 We have a lot on this agenda to complete.

12:02:46 And we have to be back at 5:30.

12:02:48 Don't think we can complete our agenda from 3:30 to

12:02:50 5:30.

12:02:52 We have a lot to do.

12:02:53 We have second readings.

12:02:54 We have public hearings.




12:02:56 We have to have information from council members and

12:02:57 from the clerk.

12:02:58 And I don't think we'll be finished at 5:30.

12:03:03 >>KEVIN WHITE: If we can't complete in the two hours

12:03:05 then we can't complete it in two hours now.

12:03:07 >>GWEN MILLER: So when we came back we wouldn't have

12:03:11 that much.

12:03:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: come back at 1:30 and ask Mr.

12:03:16 Dingfelder to serve as our representative.

12:03:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just ask you to defer the ethics

12:03:25 until 5:30 tonight.

12:03:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There are two attorneys here to

12:03:32 request continuances.

12:03:36 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion on the floor.

12:03:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes, we, did and motion to rescind.

12:03:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: When do we reconvene?

12:03:48 >>GWEN MILLER: 1:30.

12:03:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The question is was it noticed that

12:03:54 council was going to be at that meeting at 1:30?

12:03:57 ROSE FERLITA: Yes, it was.

12:03:58 We absolutely did that.

12:03:59 >>SHAWN HARRISON: You many we noticed our meeting at




12:04:07 1:30 so we can't come back here?

12:04:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We could reconvene back here at

12:04:17 two.

12:04:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I hate to be the bearer of bad news.

12:04:22 But council's agenda was created by motion of council.

12:04:27 And if council wishes to make a motion to amend its

12:04:30 agenda somehow in a way that doesn't prejudice

12:04:33 parties, county do so.

12:04:34 But barring that I think it just has to follow its

12:04:37 agenda.

12:04:37 >>ROSE FERLITA: Which is what?

12:04:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Which is right now to Zurn for lunch.

12:04:43 Council previously made a motion to be at Jefferson

12:04:46 high school at 1:30.

12:04:48 I think they didn't make a statement how long they

12:04:51 would be there.

12:04:53 Council can wish to stay --

12:04:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why don't we leave here at 2:00 and

12:05:03 reconvene at 2:30?

12:05:04 >>ROSE FERLITA: We have really gotten ourselves in a

12:05:07 mess.

12:05:07 >>GWEN MILLER: We still have a motion.




12:05:11 >>ROSE FERLITA: That no, that's done.

12:05:14 Oh, about that.

12:05:16 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Back here at one.

12:05:18 Get as much done between 1:00 and 1:15.

12:05:23 >>GWEN MILLER: If you just make a motion.

12:05:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Need to rescind the motion we were

12:05:30 going to break for lunch.

12:05:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Rescind that motion.

12:05:33 Withdraw these two items.

12:05:35 Can we do that?

12:05:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You can do a motion for

12:05:40 reconsideration to waive the rules.

12:05:46 Somebody can make another motion.

12:05:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move to rescind.

12:05:55 >>KEVIN WHITE: I'll make that motion only for the

12:05:57 motion that they can withdraw, and then rebreak for

12:06:01 lunch.

12:06:01 I'll do that.

12:06:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: By unanimous consent.

12:06:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

12:06:07 All in favor say Aye.

12:06:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.




12:06:11 >>> Item 58.

12:06:12 Ann HURR, Mechanik and gnaws owe, looking to continue

12:06:18 to February 23rd in order to resolve some issues.

12:06:21 >> So moved.

12:06:23 >> Second.

12:06:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 58.

12:06:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Does anyone in the public want to

12:06:27 speak to that continuance?

12:06:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public want to speak to

12:06:31 that continuance?

12:06:31 We have a motion and second to continue.

12:06:33 (Motion carried).

12:06:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 10 a.m., February 21st.

12:06:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Next one.

12:06:39 >>> Jeff sheer, item number 9, requesting a two week

12:06:45 continuance.

12:06:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to open it first.

12:06:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.

12:06:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to open number 59.

12:06:50 (Motion carried).

12:06:52 For two weeks.

12:06:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: At 10 a.m.?




12:06:55 The date is?

12:06:58 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The 9th.

12:06:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public want to speak on

12:07:00 the continuance?

12:07:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.

12:07:03 >> Second.

12:07:03 (Motion carried).

12:07:05 >>GWEN MILLER: You want to continue?

12:07:08 >>> Item 49.

12:07:09 I was just wondering if you all could read that one.

12:07:12 >>GWEN MILLER: No, we are just continuing.

12:07:15 >>ROSE FERLITA: Can I ask you a question for

12:07:17 clarification?

12:07:17 Mr. Shelby, in the event that something like this

12:07:19 happens again, in the future, can we just say

12:07:25 depending on, or depending on what our agenda is,

12:07:27 which is more important than us attending the meeting,

12:07:30 I think, and most of us think, can we say that we

12:07:34 expect to attend, we may or may not?

12:07:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: We can talk about how to remedy this

12:07:44 from happening again.

12:07:45 >>ROSE FERLITA: We are very sorry.




12:07:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: When are we --

12:07:51 >>GWEN MILLER: When are we going to reconvene?

12:07:55 >>MARY ALVAREZ: 1:00.

12:08:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: My recommendation, council, is to

12:08:02 break for lunch and whatever time council chooses to,

12:08:05 obviously it's noticed for 1:30 at Jefferson high

12:08:08 school.

12:08:08 Determine how long council wishes to stay.

12:08:11 >>GWEN MILLER: 2:00.

12:08:12 >>ROSE FERLITA: And the chairman can explain to them

12:08:16 that this is a good faith measure --

12:08:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If he wishes to stay at 2:30.

12:08:23 And I guess what's important now if you take a recess

12:08:26 then you announce that you are going to be attending

12:08:28 this thing at 1:30, the joint meeting, at 1:30 at

12:08:31 Jefferson high school.

12:08:33 And then we'll reconvene council's agenda, the

12:08:35 business on the agenda, at this location here in

12:08:38 chambers, at 2:30.

12:08:40 Is that correct?

12:08:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: He's going to be representing us.

12:08:44 >>ROSE FERLITA: We are going to go and then come back.




12:08:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I want notice to the public when

12:08:50 council will be back to reconvene its meeting.

12:08:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: But we are still going to be here till

12:08:55 5:30 working on this.

12:08:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Maybe he'll be back.

12:09:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Oh, yeah, right.

12:09:04 And maybe Christmas will be --

12:09:06 >>GWEN MILLER: We are in recess until 2:30.

12:09:45

12:11:09 (City Council in recess at 12:10 p.m.)

12:13:19


Tampa City Council

January 26, 2006, 2:30 p.m. Session.

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


14:32:11

14:32:11 (The Tampa City Council meeting resumed and was called

14:32:11 to order by Chairman Gwen Miller.)

14:32:11

14:32:11

14:35:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I ask that all communications that

14:35:52 have been available to the public at council's offices

14:35:54 be received and filed into the record at this time.

14:35:58 Haven't received anything.

14:36:00 There's no need for that motion. Secondly if any

14:36:02 member -- thirdly, if any member of council has had

14:36:05 any verbal communications with any petitioner, his or

14:36:07 her representative, or any members of the public in

14:36:09 connection with any of the petitioners that will be

14:36:11 heard today, that member should disclose the identity

14:36:14 of the person, group or entity with whom the verbal

14:36:16 communication occurred, and the substance of that

14:36:18 communication.

14:36:19 Thank you.

14:36:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

14:36:23 would like to speak on item 41?

14:36:25 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.

14:36:28 >>KEVIN WHITE: White move to close.

14:36:30 (Motion carried).

14:36:33 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance vacating, closing,

14:36:34 discontinuing, and abandoning a certain right-of-way

14:36:38 all that 220 feet portion of Maxwell Avenue lying

14:36:41 south of Jackson street north of Washington street

14:36:43 east of John F. Kennedy Boulevard State Road 60 and

14:36:47 west of CSX railroad in the map of Finley and

14:36:51 stillings subdivision, a subdivision in the City of

14:36:53 Tampa, Hillsborough County Florida the same being more




14:36:55 fully described in section 2 hereof providing an

14:36:57 effective date.

14:36:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

14:37:00 Voice roll call.

14:37:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.

14:37:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.?

14:37:04 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.

14:37:06 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.

14:37:07 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder, Harrison

14:37:09 and Ferlita being absent.

14:37:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

14:37:12 would like to speak on item 42?

14:37:16 Move to close.

14:37:17 >> Second.

14:37:17 [Motion Carried]

14:37:18 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance vacating, closing,

14:37:19 discontinuing, and abandoning a certain right-of-way

14:37:23 all that alleyway lying south of Platt Street north of

14:37:26 Horatio street east of New Port Avenue and west of

14:37:29 Delaware Avenue in "C" Baywood subdivision, a

14:37:32 subdivision in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County

14:37:34 Florida the same being more fully described in section




14:37:36 2 hereof providing an effective date.

14:37:37 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

14:37:39 Voice roll call.

14:37:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.?

14:37:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.

14:37:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

14:37:45 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.

14:37:46 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder, Harrison

14:37:48 and Ferlita being absent.

14:37:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

14:37:51 would like to speak on item 43?

14:37:54 >> Move to close.

14:37:54 [Motion Carried]

14:37:55 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to adopt the following ordinance

14:37:58 upon second reading.

14:37:59 Move an ordinance of city of Tampa, Florida providing

14:38:02 the 16th amendment to the development order for

14:38:04 the Tampa Technology Park of regional impact in

14:38:08 response to a notice of proposed change filed by

14:38:10 Lennar homes, Inc., providing an effective date.

14:38:11 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second. Voice roll

14:38:15 call.




14:38:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.

14:38:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.

14:38:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

14:38:22 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.

14:38:23 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder, Harrison

14:38:26 and Ferlita being absent.

14:38:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

14:38:29 would like to speak on item 44?

14:38:32 >> Move to close.

14:38:32 >> Second.

14:38:33 (Motion carried).

14:38:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

14:38:39 Move to adopt the following ordinance upon second

14:38:41 reading, an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida

14:38:44 amending City of Tampa ethics code chapter 2, article

14:38:48 VIII, section 2-502 definitions; by amending the

14:38:53 definition of lobbying to include communication on any

14:38:56 item that comes before the city official within one

14:38:59 year by amending the definition of lobbyist to exclude

14:39:01 government employees and quasi-governmental employees,

14:39:04 by defining quasi-government agency or entity, section

14:39:09 2-512, mayoral approval required for non-city




14:39:15 employment or private business enterprises of

14:39:18 appointed employees, by limiting mayoral approval to

14:39:21 department directors and adding department director

14:39:22 approval for department employees, section 2-514,

14:39:28 prohibition against receipt of benefit from contracts

14:39:32 within W the city, by limiting the restriction to

14:39:34 contracts with the department for which the employee

14:39:37 or official works, by allowing the department to

14:39:39 request an advisory opinion, section 2-520, additional

14:39:44 voting conflicts, by repealing and deleting section

14:39:47 2-520; section 2-581, post-employment restrictions;

14:39:58 representation of others before city; by deleting

14:40:00 "after June 15th, 1989" amending chapter 2,

14:40:04 article VIII by changing all reference of business

14:40:08 enter provides to business entity, providing for

14:40:11 severability, repealing conflict, providing an

14:40:13 effective date.

14:40:13 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

14:40:15 Voice roll call.

14:40:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.?

14:40:18 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.

14:40:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.




14:40:20 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.

14:40:21 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder, Harrison

14:40:24 and Ferlita being absent.

14:40:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

14:40:27 would like to speak on item 46?

14:40:29 >> Move to close.

14:40:30 >> Second.

14:40:30 (Motion carried).

14:40:31 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to adopt the following ordinance

14:40:36 upon second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in

14:40:39 the general vicinity of 129-130 Maxwell place in the

14:40:43 city of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly

14:40:45 described in section 1 from zoning district

14:40:47 classifications RS-50 residential single-family to PD,

14:40:50 single family residential, providing an effective

14:40:52 date.

14:40:52 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

14:40:56 Voice roll call.

14:40:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.

14:40:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.?

14:41:00 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.

14:41:01 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.




14:41:02 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder, Harrison

14:41:04 and Ferlita being absent.

14:41:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

14:41:07 would like to speak on item 47?

14:41:09 >> Move to close.

14:41:09 >> Second.

14:41:10 (Motion carried).

14:41:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance -- move to adopt the

14:41:16 following ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance

14:41:18 rezoning property in the general vicinity of 4121 West

14:41:21 Cypress street in the cit city of Tampa, Florida and

14:41:25 more particularly described in section 1 from zoning

14:41:27 district classifications RS-50 residential

14:41:29 single-family to R -- 1 residential office providing

14:41:33 an effective date.

14:41:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

14:41:34 Voice roll call.

14:41:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.?

14:41:37 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.

14:41:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

14:41:40 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.

14:41:40 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder, Harrison




14:41:43 and Ferlita being absent.

14:41:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

14:41:46 would like to speak on item 48?

14:41:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.

14:41:50 >>KEVIN WHITE: Second.

14:41:51 (Motion carried).

14:41:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to adopt the following

14:41:55 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance rezoning

14:41:58 property in the general vicinity of 111 North Franklin

14:42:01 Street in the city of Tampa, Florida and more

14:42:04 particularly described in section 1 from zoning

14:42:06 district classifications CBD1 to CBD2 providing an

14:42:11 effective date.

14:42:12 >> Second.

14:42:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.?

14:42:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.

14:42:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

14:42:17 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.

14:42:18 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder, Harrison

14:42:21 and Ferlita being absent.

14:42:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to share that I had

14:42:26 an opportunity to talk with Wilson Stair after we had




14:42:29 this public hearing.

14:42:30 And he said that, yes, he is going to be looking at

14:42:33 the screening and weighing in at different points and

14:42:36 if it doesn't meet with you him it will be -- pass

14:42:41 muster with him it will be bouncing back to us in

14:42:44 council.

14:42:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

14:42:46 would like to speak on item 49?

14:42:48 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.

14:42:50 >> Second.

14:42:50 (Motion carried).

14:42:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to adopt the following

14:42:54 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance rezoning

14:42:57 property in the general vicinity of 1011 east Mohawk

14:43:01 Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida, and more

14:43:03 particularly described in section 1 from zoning

14:43:05 district classifications CI commercial intensive to

14:43:08 RS-50 residential single-family, providing an

14:43:10 effective date.

14:43:10 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

14:43:14 Voice roll call.

14:43:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.?




14:43:16 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.

14:43:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

14:43:18 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.

14:43:19 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder, Harrison

14:43:21 and Ferlita being absent.

14:43:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

14:43:24 would like to speak on item 50?

14:43:26 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close.

14:43:27 >> Move to close.

14:43:28 (Motion carried).

14:43:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to adopt the following

14:43:31 ordinance upon second reading.

14:43:33 An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity

14:43:35 of 115 south Lois Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida

14:43:39 and more particularly described in section 1 from

14:43:41 zoning district classifications CG commercial general

14:43:45 to RS-75 residential single family to PD multifamily,

14:43:50 providing an effective date.

14:43:50 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

14:43:52 Voice roll call.

14:43:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.

14:43:55 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.




14:43:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

14:43:56 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.

14:43:57 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder, Harrison

14:44:00 and Ferlita being absent.

14:44:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

14:44:03 would like to speak on item 51?

14:44:07 >> Move to close.

14:44:07 >> Move to close.

14:44:08 (Motion carried).

14:44:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move to adopt the following

14:44:12 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance rezoning

14:44:15 property in the general vicinity of 3909 west

14:44:17 Cleveland street in the city of Tampa, Florida and

14:44:20 more particularly described in section 1 from zoning

14:44:23 district classifications RS-60 residential single

14:44:26 family to PD multifamily, providing an effective date.

14:44:28 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion and second.

14:44:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.?

14:44:35 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.

14:44:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

14:44:36 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.

14:44:37 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder, Harrison




14:44:39 and Ferlita being absent.

14:44:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

14:44:43 would like to speak on item 52?

14:44:45 >> Move to close.

14:44:46 >> Second.

14:44:46 (Motion carried).

14:44:47 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to adopt the following ordinance

14:44:49 upon second reading, move an ordinance rezoning

14:44:54 property in the general vicinity of 4601-4615 east

14:44:57 Fowler Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and more

14:44:59 particularly described in section 1 from zoning

14:45:01 district classifications IG industrial general and IH

14:45:05 industrial heavy to CI commercial intensive providing

14:45:08 an effective date.

14:45:09 >> Second.

14:45:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.?

14:45:12 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.

14:45:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

14:45:15 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.

14:45:16 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder, Harrison

14:45:18 and Ferlita being absent.

14:45:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that




14:45:20 would like to speak on item 53?

14:45:23 >> Move positive to close.

14:45:24 >> Second.

14:45:24 (Motion carried).

14:45:25 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to adopt the following ordinance

14:45:27 upon second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in

14:45:30 the general vicinity of 1403 east Louisiana Avenue in

14:45:33 the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly

14:45:35 described in section 1 from zoning district

14:45:37 classifications RS-50 residential single family to PD

14:45:40 single family providing an effective date.

14:45:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

14:45:44 Voice roll call.

14:45:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.

14:45:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.

14:45:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

14:45:48 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.

14:45:49 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder, Harrison

14:45:52 and Ferlita being absent.

14:45:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If anybody is watching this and

14:45:57 wonders how we are able to go so rapidly, it's because

14:46:01 we had hours and hours and hours of discussion at our




14:46:03 first round of public hearings, and these are one that

14:46:05 is we all agreed upon.

14:46:06 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to open number 54 and 55, continue

14:46:11 them, don't see anybody here in the audience, to March

14:46:15 9th at 10 a.m. for both.

14:46:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

14:46:18 wants to speak on the continuance of number 54 or 55?

14:46:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a request to make of the

14:46:26 petitioners on this, for wanting the petitions

14:46:31 continued.

14:46:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Are petitioners here?

14:46:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, they are.

14:46:35 I saw them there.

14:46:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I question you what you are going to

14:46:40 talk to the petitioner about is outside the course of

14:46:42 the public hearing.

14:46:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to ask for some information

14:46:45 so when we do have the public hearing they are able to

14:46:47 provide this information.

14:46:48 And I think that since I'm not supposed to talk to

14:46:50 them, except at City Council, this is the right time

14:46:53 for me to ask them for the additional information.




14:46:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Okay.

14:46:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The request is for this -- the

14:47:01 landmark, historic preservation thing.

14:47:03 I'm very interested in what's going to happen to the

14:47:06 parts of the building that are not going to be

14:47:07 preserved, and that will help all with my decision

14:47:12 about what's going to be before us on March 9th.

14:47:15 So if you could provide that information, particularly

14:47:17 in graphic form, and especially 3-D form, I would

14:47:21 really appreciate it.

14:47:25 >>MARK BENTLEY: Okay.

14:47:26 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second for

14:47:28 continuance.

14:47:28 (Motion carried).

14:47:30 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to open 56.

14:47:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.

14:47:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public going to

14:47:38 speak on item 56?

14:47:39 Would you please raise your right hand?

14:47:43 (Oath administered by Clerk).

14:47:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public that would like to

14:47:50 speak on 56?




14:47:55 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.

14:47:56 >>RUDY FERNANDEZ: I just want to say we have given a

14:47:59 full presentation of the first reading.

14:48:03 The owner's agent is here, if you have any questions.

14:48:05 We are ready to proceed with second reading.

14:48:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close.

14:48:10 >> Second.

14:48:10 (Motion carried).

14:48:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move to adopt the following

14:48:16 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance of the

14:48:19 city of Tampa, Florida designating the property known

14:48:21 as the S.H. Kress building located at 810 North

14:48:24 Florida Avenue, a/k/a 811 North Franklin Street,

14:48:28 Tampa, Florida, as more particularly described in

14:48:30 section 2 hereof as a local landmark -- 3, I'm sorry,

14:48:40 local landmark providing for repeal of all ordinances

14:48:45 in conflict, providing for severability, providing an

14:48:47 effective date.

14:48:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.

14:48:50 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.

14:48:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

14:48:52 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.




14:48:53 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder, Harrison

14:48:55 and Ferlita being absent.

14:48:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wonderful.

14:48:58 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to open 57.

14:49:00 >> Second.

14:49:00 (Motion carried).

14:49:01 >>RUDY FERNANDEZ: I'm here today for the initiation of

14:49:07 the landmarking of 245 south Hyde Park Avenue which is

14:49:12 also referred to as a Peter O. Knight cottage, his

14:49:19 original structure where he lived further south on

14:49:21 Hyde Park Avenue was demolished in the 1980s.

14:49:24 This is a proximity map showing that the property is

14:49:27 just north of -- just on Hyde Park Avenue, just

14:49:32 north -- or south of the interstate. This is what the

14:49:35 structure looks like today.

14:49:37 It was constructed for Mr. Knight in 1989.

14:49:43 We are asking for the initiation of the landmark.

14:49:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

14:49:48 would like to speak on item 57?

14:49:50 >> Move to close.

14:49:51 >> Second.

14:49:51 (Motion carried).




14:49:52 >>THE CLERK: I do have the resolution to approve the

14:49:56 resolution.

14:49:57 >> Approve the resolution.

14:49:58 >> Second.

14:49:58 (Motion carried)

14:50:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: there was an individual from the

14:50:04 history center who was here earlier in support of

14:50:07 this.

14:50:07 This is great.

14:50:07 Thank you.

14:50:08 >>GWEN MILLER: We go back to item number 10.

14:50:17 Item 10.

14:50:19 Mr. Smith, are you up on this one?

14:50:37 >>DAVID SMITH: David Smith yet again.

14:50:41 Unfortunately this is your last item, I think, of the

14:50:44 day.

14:50:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I believe that we had a specific

14:50:48 request from Mr. Dingfelder and Ms. Ferlita to discuss

14:50:54 this while they were here.

14:50:55 And I'd be fine with that.

14:51:03 In terms of putting off this discussion until they are

14:51:05 here.?




14:51:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm not going to stick around.

14:51:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I mean tonight or a different day.

14:51:13 Not that this isn't fascinating but they both

14:51:16 expressed an interest and neither are in attendance.

14:51:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: They should have been here.

14:51:23 >>KEVIN WHITE: I agree, I'm ready to wrap this up.

14:51:28 >>DAVID SMITH: It may be you won't take any action

14:51:31 today anyway.

14:51:31 Really we are before you for a couple of things.

14:51:34 A long time ago, you think you filed a motion, you

14:51:36 approved the glitch bill, and we set aside for the

14:51:39 time being the issues dealing with gifts, because it

14:51:42 was complicated, controversial.

14:51:44 We didn't want to slow you down on the glitch bill.

14:51:47 The point of number 10 today was to talk to you about

14:51:52 the gift approach, or what gift approach you may find

14:51:53 acceptable.

14:51:53 I sent to you earlier this morning a memorandum.

14:51:57 I should probably clarify, because I try not to

14:52:00 overstep my boundaries, and I think my language is

14:52:02 unfortunate.

14:52:03 What I was really trying to say, the dollar amount,




14:52:06 what you said in zero or 100, it's really a policy

14:52:11 matter and it's for you to decide.

14:52:13 What I was suggesting, however, was that we seriously

14:52:16 look at paralleling the state approach, because it

14:52:18 adds more clarity in terms of what is a lobbyist, when

14:52:23 are they lobbying, and, therefore, when are you

14:52:26 subject to those gift limitations?

14:52:28 I think it's imperative that we try to avoid what I

14:52:30 call an inadvertent violation.

14:52:32 That was the point behind the memo this morning.

14:52:35 So I apologize for any confusion.

14:52:36 I don't mean to intrude into your policy purview.

14:52:40 But back to my recommendation about following the

14:52:43 state law.

14:52:44 We have got a little bit of confusion regarding who is

14:52:47 a lobbyist, when you lobby, who discloses, so forth.

14:52:52 We do not want to have a situation where you have an

14:52:55 inadvertent violation or your neighbor has an

14:53:00 inadvertent violation.

14:53:01 We think the best way to clarify that is to parallel

14:53:04 the state's approach with respect to who is a lobbyist

14:53:06 and who is governed by the gift exclusions.




14:53:09 So that was the point of the memo.

14:53:11 That's very general.

14:53:12 That's simply a recommendation.

14:53:14 You have nothing before you today on that issue.

14:53:16 If you choose to go that route, rather than the route

14:53:19 that is going to be summarized for you by Donna

14:53:22 Wysong, and Donna will talk to you about a

14:53:25 recommendation from the ethics commission.

14:53:27 You may recall you talked about paralleling 112 and

14:53:30 the ethics commission looked at the issue and at one

14:53:33 point there was a suggestion in the community event

14:53:35 section, may be the appropriate way to go, and that's

14:53:37 essentially the concept of the ethic's commission

14:53:42 recommendation.

14:53:42 Donna has much more information on that.

14:53:44 Thank you.

14:53:48 >>> Donna Wysong: Legal department.

14:53:51 The public hearing before you has the blessing of the

14:53:57 ethics commission. They met on January 12th.

14:54:00 And they unanimously approved this version of the

14:54:02 ordinance that does provide for a community event

14:54:06 exception to section 2-562 of your ethics code.




14:54:12 And if you can take a look at the ordinance that's

14:54:15 before you, they have broadened -- page 2, under

14:54:25 subsection A, the ethics commission is proposing that

14:54:30 you broaden the entities that this would apply to, to

14:54:35 include any person, company, firm or corporation doing

14:54:38 business with the city, or which has applied to do

14:54:40 business with the city through the city's procurement

14:54:44 process.

14:54:44 Now that's in addition.

14:54:46 Currently it just states that it's anybody doing

14:54:48 business with the city.

14:54:48 But they felt that that should be broadened to include

14:54:51 anyone who is attempting to do business with the city

14:54:54 by going through our competitive bidding processor

14:54:56 otherwise.

14:54:57 So that has been broadened.

14:54:59 They then went down and added an exception in.

14:55:02 You already had two exceptions.

14:55:04 And they added another exception which is now

14:55:07 subsection 2 under subsection A which says except that

14:55:11 the gift cannot be accepted except when given for a

14:55:15 community event as set forth in subsection B below.




14:55:19 And B indicates elected official may accept tickets in

14:55:26 excess of $100 to charitable, educational and athletic

14:55:29 events, otherwise known as community events, when

14:55:31 given by a not-for-profit corporation or governmental

14:55:34 entity or quasi-governmental entity so long as such

14:55:37 entity is the sponsor of the event and is not a

14:55:39 lobbyist.

14:55:40 And of course then they went back into the definition

14:55:43 section, and defined community event there as well.

14:55:47 And then the third thing that they added was

14:55:52 subsection C that indicates that compensation provided

14:55:55 by the officer or employee to the donor if provided

14:55:58 within 90 days after receipt of the gift shall be

14:56:01 deducted from the value of the gift in determining the

14:56:03 value of the gift received.

14:56:04 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Could you give us an example?

14:56:08 >>> That's exactly what the state law is right now.

14:56:11 It's just we decided that since it was stated in the

14:56:13 Florida statutes, we would go ahead and put a similar

14:56:16 provision in our code, because there seems to be some

14:56:18 confusion there.

14:56:20 We want you to know that if you pay it down you can




14:56:24 accept it always, if you pay it down below that $100

14:56:27 threshold, you can accept it.

14:56:30 >> Give us an example.

14:56:34 >>> Okay.

14:56:35 You get a gift in the amount of, I don't know, $200,

14:56:42 you get a gift from somebody who does business with

14:56:44 the city for $200.

14:56:46 You pay them $100, and now you have bought that gift

14:56:51 down to $100 and you can accept it.

14:56:54 And that's currently what the state law allows.

14:56:56 It just was never stated in our code.

14:57:00 So we get a lot of questions about that and we thought

14:57:00 it would be better to just go ahead and put in the our

14:57:02 code.

14:57:03 And so that's it.

14:57:05 They also decided to add that same provision down

14:57:08 under section 2-563, which is the section that deals

14:57:11 with accepting gifts from lobbyists.

14:57:14 They wanted you to be aware that you can accept a gift

14:57:17 from a lobbyist, if it's greater than $100, as long as

14:57:21 you pay it down to $100.

14:57:23 So we just wanted to make that clear to you.




14:57:25 Other than that, that's pretty much what they

14:57:28 recommended.

14:57:29 If you have any questions.

14:57:56 >> Chamber of Commerce.

14:57:56 Charitiable, athletic event.

14:57:58 We have to take each one of these on a case-by-case

14:58:01 basis because it is very fact specific.

14:58:03 I would say that -- is the Chamber of Commerce a

14:58:05 not-for-profit or governmental or quasi-governmental

14:58:08 entity?

14:58:09 That would be the first question I would need to ask

14:58:11 them.?

14:58:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Not for profit -- they do community

14:58:19 events.

14:58:21 >>> It would have to be a not-for-profit corporation

14:58:23 or governmental or quasi-governmental entity.

14:58:25 I don't believe the Chamber of Commerce would qualify.

14:58:28 I wouldn't say for sure without checking into it but I

14:58:30 don't believe so.

14:58:31 >>DAVID SMITH: The other issue, I'm not sure we don't

14:58:33 have some kind of financial arrangement with the

14:58:35 chamber that we provide some sort of subsidy, that




14:58:39 might make them a lobbyist in any event.

14:58:43 Anybody who appears on their behalf to obtain that

14:58:45 benefit would be a lobbyist and they would be the

14:58:47 principal for the lobbyist.

14:58:48 So they would be captured.

14:58:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a specific example, Mr.

14:58:55 Smith.

14:58:56 Last Friday, all council members as well as 900 other

14:58:59 people were invited to a big party for the opening of

14:59:03 New Port and it was a big fancy party.

14:59:05 It wasn't the sort of thing that you bought a ticket

14:59:07 to but it definitely cost them a lot of money to put

14:59:10 this event on.

14:59:10 And I'm sure if you advertised it, it would be more

14:59:13 than $100 a person.

14:59:15 So as an example of that, where we as council don't

14:59:20 know, is it appropriate or not appropriate to accept?

14:59:23 Because these people are probably going to come back

14:59:25 in and ask for something from us.

14:59:26 And in fact today we voted on allowing them to have

14:59:29 their own mosquito control, which I thought was

14:59:33 interesting.




14:59:34 Would the best thing for us to do, if we adopt this,

14:59:37 is to provide to your office or to Mr. Shelby all the

14:59:40 invitations we receive, and have them say whether it's

14:59:47 appropriate?

14:59:47 While I appreciate we are attempting to get our arms

14:59:49 around this I still think it's very mushy.

14:59:52 And I'm dead serious when I said, do we need to

14:59:55 provide you all of our invitations so that you can say

14:59:59 this one is okay, this one is not okay?

15:00:02 This person might be coming before council in a while?

15:00:05 >>DAVID SMITH: I think it would be -- some of those

15:00:08 invitations were pretty obvious.

15:00:11 If currently the cut-off is $100 so if you get an

15:00:14 invitation to go to a chamber event and it's a

15:00:17 luncheon and now that luncheon is not over $100 you

15:00:20 don't have an issue.

15:00:21 So you really have an issue when you get into these

15:00:24 unknowns such as the one you mention.

15:00:26 Now the analysis there, as I understand it, is the

15:00:29 value of what's provided the donee, it's not

15:00:34 necessarily the cost of the donor.

15:00:38 >> There was no money involved.




15:00:40 >>> Exactly ,but the point is what did you receive?

15:00:43 Being in the presence of whatever, I don't know

15:00:44 there's a value to that.

15:00:46 But there was food and beverages.

15:00:49 So the question would be, the food and beverages were

15:00:51 the tangible things you were provided.

15:00:53 The question would be, do they exceed $100?

15:00:56 What we typically do when we ask those questions --

15:01:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Did you take $100 worth?

15:01:03 >>> But some of the fancy foods might be.

15:01:13 >> But it's difficult to determine value and that's

15:01:15 why this whole area is much more esoteric than people

15:01:19 realize.

15:01:19 We get these questions all the time.

15:01:21 And what we frequently do is we call the donor, call

15:01:24 the person who provided the gift, and we ask them what

15:01:26 was the value of what they provided?

15:01:28 Because, for example, if you talk to TSA, they have a

15:01:31 whole calculation that determines what the value of

15:01:33 the ticket, the food and beverages that are provided.

15:01:37 So that's the analysis we have to go through.

15:01:39 And we have to rely on the person who provides you the




15:01:41 gift to give us that information.

15:01:44 So in that instance, the appropriate thing to do would

15:01:46 be to find out what the value of that was provided to

15:01:51 the attendees and see if that exceeds $100 and if it

15:01:55 does pay it down.

15:01:57 You can literally attend.

15:01:59 But of course you would want to make sure that any

15:02:03 communications with the principals were very careful

15:02:03 or nonexistent.

15:02:06 >>KEVIN WHITE: That was my question exactly.

15:02:08 TSA.

15:02:10 It's a sporting event.

15:02:11 Quasi-judicial body.

15:02:14 And they invite council members and community leaders

15:02:18 to attend their suite.

15:02:19 But if it's at no -- well, that ticket has a printed

15:02:25 cost value.

15:02:26 But in the event that Mrs. Saul-Sena just mentioned on

15:02:31 last Friday, there was no charge, there was no benefit

15:02:34 to an elected official more so than anyone else that

15:02:38 was at the event.

15:02:40 And it was free of charge.




15:02:41 So, I mean, I see those as two separate distinctions.

15:02:45 And if something is free for everyone and not as a

15:02:51 specific --

15:02:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: He can't advise us just because we

15:02:59 are on City Council --

15:03:01 >>KEVIN WHITE: I understand that.

15:03:01 But the principals there weren't lobbying.

15:03:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, but in my take that's a

15:03:08 complicated question.

15:03:09 And I'm saying that if we adopt this -- and I don't

15:03:11 know how you can craft it any better -- but that to be

15:03:16 on the safe side we are going to have to rely on Mr.

15:03:19 Shelby or somebody who vet all of our acceptances and

15:03:24 probably go to the party, find out what the financial

15:03:28 implications are.

15:03:29 >>DAVID SMITH: You would certainly want to do that in

15:03:33 advance, unless you were prepared to write a check for

15:03:37 the appropriate amount in the ath event it was

15:03:39 determined to be more than $100.

15:03:41 And I am looking at that issue because I also got an

15:03:44 invitation, from a high school friend who serves on a

15:03:48 construction group so I didn't even know the




15:03:49 developers.

15:03:50 Now I know who they are.

15:03:51 And if I have to make a payment, I have to make a

15:03:53 payment as well.

15:03:54 So I will find out precisely what all the facts are at

15:03:58 that particular event.

15:04:01 One other thing I wanted to make clear is the

15:04:03 recommendation in the memorandum I gave to you is at

15:04:05 variance from the recommendation that the ethics

15:04:08 commission has made to you today.

15:04:10 The commission had started this process previous to

15:04:14 the legislature making their change.

15:04:17 Now they did have an opportunity to consider, after

15:04:21 the legislative change came out, you know, this

15:04:23 process was pretty far down the track.

15:04:25 So my recommendation -- the memorandum contains two

15:04:31 things.

15:04:32 That you go to the zero gift policy, and my

15:04:36 recommendation that we try to follow the state law so

15:04:38 that we can avoid as many ambiguities as possible.

15:04:41 So that's the bifurcated recommendation there if

15:04:46 that's clear.




15:04:46 >>GWEN MILLER: You say state law.

15:04:49 Are they going to be crafted in this ordinance?

15:04:52 >>DAVID SMITH: That is not in the ethics commission's

15:04:54 version before you today.

15:04:55 No, ma'am.

15:04:55 >>GWEN MILLER: You say we are going to follow the

15:04:58 state law.

15:04:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You --

15:05:06 >>DAVID SMITH: If it's the decision of this council to

15:05:08 follow the state law we will come back with an

15:05:10 ordinance that does that.

15:05:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a clarification.

15:05:13 When you say state law does that mean that proposed

15:05:16 for the legislature?

15:05:18 >>DAVID SMITH: The distinction that Mr. Shelby is

15:05:20 making that you should understand is the state law

15:05:22 really doesn't apply across the board.

15:05:24 It only applies to the legislative members and their

15:05:28 employees, which would be essentially you and your

15:05:31 aides, and the executive department, not the entire

15:05:36 agencies but the elected officials, and the, I

15:05:38 believe, charter review commission or Constitutional




15:05:41 review commission.

15:05:42 So it's a more narrow application.

15:05:43 So if you were to want to go in that direction, what

15:05:47 you would be doing is basically regulating the elected

15:05:49 officials.

15:05:51 Yourselves and the mayor.

15:05:52 And following the zero gift policy that. Would be a

15:05:58 true parallel with respect to what the state did.?

15:06:04 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I think we would be pretty safe by

15:06:06 following the state law.

15:06:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Then you can't accept anything.

15:06:12 >>DAVID SMITH: It's either-or.

15:06:18 Do you want to go with the recommendation currently

15:06:20 before you from the ethics commission?

15:06:22 And, if so -- and this I believe is really more in

15:06:26 discussion, don't believe we have a first reading

15:06:27 here.

15:06:29 Oh, it is the first reading?

15:06:31 So really we are lag from direction.

15:06:33 You can go in the direction of the ethics commission

15:06:35 proposal that's before you today, or you can tell us

15:06:38 you would rather go and parallel the state law with




15:06:41 respect to the zero approach, or parallel state law

15:06:44 with a different number.

15:06:45 So you have got lots of options.

15:06:47 But I think the real fundamental question is whether

15:06:50 you want to go with the exception approach or whether

15:06:52 you want to go with the state approach.

15:06:54 And it's easy to determine what the dollar amount is

15:06:56 whether it's zero or 100.

15:07:01 >>KEVIN WHITE: Go ahead.

15:07:03 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Your recommendation to us in the

15:07:05 second page is we follow the state law both in terms

15:07:07 of the limits and applicable definitions.

15:07:10 >>DAVID SMITH: It's really not my position to

15:07:13 recommendation limits to you.

15:07:14 It is my position to try to recommend clarity as to

15:07:17 the law.

15:07:17 I think -- I'm a lawyer so bear in mind lawyers like

15:07:21 clarity.

15:07:22 It's easier to advise you when you ask us, can I go to

15:07:25 this event or that event?

15:07:28 In this instance if you have a zero gift policy, it

15:07:29 would be a clear recommendation that you not go to the




15:07:32 marina bay event, because there's some consideration

15:07:34 above zero attendant to that party.

15:07:37 So we don't have to get into the gyrations of

15:07:40 determining what the dollar amount is.

15:07:41 So the policy that says no gifts adds a certain

15:07:45 clarity and ease of the application that the exception

15:07:51 does not.

15:07:52 I would rather have simplicity and clarity to make my

15:07:54 life a lot easier.

15:07:55 But it's not making my life easier.

15:07:58 It also avoids inadvertent gyrations.

15:08:04 It's making it easier so you guys don't have problems

15:08:07 and those you deal with don't have problems.

15:08:08 We have an ambiguity with respect to whether you're a

15:08:11 lobbyist or when you are lobbying under our current

15:08:14 provision.

15:08:15 That's unfortunate.

15:08:16 Because if you have dealings with your constituents,

15:08:20 you may have a constituent that talks to you about an

15:08:22 issue that's coming before you, and under our broader

15:08:26 potential definition of lobbying, they may have to

15:08:30 file disclosure and don't know that.




15:08:32 So part of the recommendation in following the state

15:08:33 law is to have more clarity.

15:08:36 And I won't pretend, the state is exactly clear

15:08:39 because it's not, but it's clearer, and they have a

15:08:41 body of interpretations over a period of time

15:08:43 interpreting it.

15:08:44 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So what you're saying is we can't have

15:08:46 the best of both world.

15:08:48 >>DAVID SMITH: You could, but it would be difficult to

15:08:50 do.

15:08:51 It's real difficult to get a bright line test, now,

15:08:55 with a variety of exceptions like we are describing.

15:08:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: This ordinance that's in front of us

15:09:01 now, that's the ethics commission's version?

15:09:06 >>DAVID SMITH: Recommendation for you, yes, ma'am.

15:09:07 They thought it was appropriate for you to be able to

15:09:09 attend community events.

15:09:10 So that definition of community events.

15:09:12 It cannot be a community event -- the lobbyist cannot

15:09:16 provide you that but county be a contract, or other.

15:09:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Sorry, colleagues, for asking.

15:09:25 But it is confusing.




15:09:28 Go ahead.

15:09:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mary, when Mr. Smith says on page 2

15:09:33 where he refers to the state's definition of lobbyist,

15:09:35 that's different from when he was referring -- Mr.

15:09:39 Smith, you need to listen to this.

15:09:41 Mr. Smith.

15:09:43 >>GWEN MILLER: He's trying to get clarity.

15:09:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: When you're talking about this

15:09:48 little memo on page 2 about the state's definition of

15:09:50 lobbyist, that is different from the state's

15:09:54 definition of zero gifts.

15:09:55 And I think that's what was confusing to us.

15:09:59 Right?

15:10:00 >>DAVID SMITH: Well, also --

15:10:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Not to do also, but, yes, those are

15:10:04 two --

15:10:05 >>DAVID SMITH: I think if I understand your question

15:10:08 correctly, those are two different issues, yes.

15:10:11 The amount can be set anywhere from 100 and below.

15:10:15 The state sets 100.

15:10:17 You cannot go higher than 100.

15:10:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And what you are saying on page 2




15:10:22 is that their definition of lobbyist is a more

15:10:25 constricted --

15:10:27 >>> More tightly constructed.

15:10:28 The other issue, I don't want to confuse Mrs. Alvarez

15:10:32 about, our law currently applies to contract, people

15:10:35 that have a contract with the city, a purchase

15:10:37 agreement with the city, or do business with the city.

15:10:41 The state law doesn't K contemplate that.

15:10:44 It contemplates lobbyists and their principals only.

15:10:47 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Because they are state and we are

15:10:49 city.

15:10:50 We are the one that is have the contracts, right?

15:10:53 >>DAVID SMITH: They have contracts as well.

15:10:54 They just -- the concept originally, that animated the

15:10:59 whole idea of regulating lobbyists, is that lobbying

15:11:03 is an activity that can lend itself to abuse.

15:11:05 So what they are going to do is regulate lobbyists.

15:11:09 They are not going to regulate everyone who does

15:11:11 business with the state, for example.

15:11:12 But most people who do business with the state

15:11:15 probably have a lobbyist who represents them.

15:11:18 But those who have a contract with the state that




15:11:20 don't have a lobbyist for some reason, it's of long

15:11:23 duration, it's incidental, it's however it occurred,

15:11:27 created perhaps administratively at a lower level,

15:11:29 they would not be regulated.

15:11:30 Under our code, they are.

15:11:33 And that's part of the problem here.

15:11:35 It's very difficult to know who all has a contract

15:11:38 with the city.

15:11:39 Purchasing has the ability to make certain purchases.

15:11:43 Without obtaining council approval or mayoral

15:11:45 approval.

15:11:47 Other departments have the ability to conduct certain

15:11:49 business without obtaining your approval or the

15:11:51 mayor's approval.

15:11:52 So we don't even know right now who all is "doing

15:11:56 business" with the city.

15:11:57 So could you receive something from a person who is

15:11:59 doing business with the city, don't know that, and you

15:12:03 have a violation.

15:12:04 That's what I'm talking about.

15:12:05 That's the bright line test that concerns me.

15:12:09 That isn't the bright line test. The lobbying




15:12:09 approach under the state law is a brighter line.

15:12:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And the ordinance we are looking at

15:12:18 right now, does it have anything about the lobbyist?

15:12:24 >>> Talking about the ethics commission

15:12:25 recommendation?

15:12:26 >> Yes, under section 2-5263, right?

15:12:31 >>DONNA WYSONG: Right.

15:12:33 This version that is in front of you today does not

15:12:35 contemplate changing any of the restrictions with

15:12:37 regard to lobbyists.

15:12:40 That's not really before you today.

15:12:41 The only thing that we added to the lobbyist provision

15:12:44 was just the fact that you can pay it down to 100.

15:12:47 Really, what this version in front of you today, this

15:12:49 deals solely with changes to the provision about

15:12:54 accepting gifts from people who do business with the

15:12:56 city.

15:12:56 It really isn't intended to address lobbyists at all.

15:13:00 That's really kind of another issue.

15:13:01 This is strictly changes the way you would accept

15:13:05 gifts from businesses, entities doing business with

15:13:09 the city, and bear in mind, that what you have now,




15:13:12 and what you have in front of you, is both of those

15:13:15 versions are more restrictive than what the state has

15:13:18 because the state doesn't address accepting gifts from

15:13:22 entities doing business with the state at all.

15:13:23 So both the current version and what you have in front

15:13:26 of you is more restrictive than the state.

15:13:29 And this is not intended to address lobbyists at all.

15:13:31 So that's really a separate issue.

15:13:35 >>KEVIN WHITE: The only other thing is community

15:13:38 events, and that's it, for non-lobbyists.

15:13:41 >>DONNA WYSONG: For non-lobbyists, yes.

15:13:43 >>DAVID SMITH: It creates a community event exception,

15:13:47 when you receive a gift associated with a community

15:13:49 event from a non-lobbyist.

15:13:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Which is before us today?

15:13:59 >>DAVID SMITH: Neither one is before you today because

15:14:01 it not for first reading but we would like to know how

15:14:04 you would like to proceed from here so we can move it

15:14:06 to the next stage which is to bring a specific

15:14:09 ordinance to you for first and second reading.

15:14:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm sorry, this is confusing and

15:14:18 I'm going to ask a question.




15:14:22 In this two-page memo from you, the bottom of the

15:14:25 first page, last line, I consulted with the mayor on

15:14:29 this issue; her recommendation is that the city ethics

15:14:32 code be changed to reflect the new state law of no

15:14:36 gifts from lobbyists or their principals, but the

15:14:40 ability to attend community events.

15:14:43 Is that true?

15:14:44 I mean, am I getting it right?

15:14:46 >>DAVID SMITH: No.

15:14:47 Her recommendation doesn't address community events.

15:14:51 Her recommendation is as I said here, to be changed to

15:14:54 reflect the new state law of no gifts from lobbyists

15:14:57 or their principals, period.

15:14:58 Because she's not recommending a community event

15:15:01 exception.

15:15:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: She's recommending --

15:15:06 >>> If it's a lobbyist, no gifts.

15:15:08 >> But if it's a community event by a nonprofit, you

15:15:10 know --

15:15:11 >>> If the non-profit is not a lobbyist --

15:15:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, take the Chamber of Commerce

15:15:16 luncheon, for example.




15:15:19 Will the Chamber of Commerce, which is a non-profit,

15:15:22 but which is in a certain sense a lobbyist, they want

15:15:24 us to, you know, support bringing business to the

15:15:27 community, is that a lobbyist or not a lobbyist?

15:15:32 >>DAVID SMITH: Let me explain the process. The

15:15:33 process is -- you can create a conceptual question.

15:15:38 But it all depends on the thoughts.

15:15:40 What is a lobbyist?

15:15:41 A lobbyist is someone who appears in front of you or

15:15:44 other governmental entities here in the city and seeks

15:15:47 to influence policy decisions.

15:15:50 >> They ask us on a regular basis to support

15:15:52 businesses that come here, they get some sort of tax

15:15:56 waiver.

15:15:57 I forget what the phrase is.

15:15:58 >>MARY ALVAREZ: CTI.

15:16:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

15:16:07 Targeted industry.

15:16:08 >>DAVID SMITH: Qualified.

15:16:13 >> Therefore they would be construed as a lobbyist and

15:16:15 therefore under this proposal, accepting no gifts from

15:16:19 lobbyists, then anytime you attended anything for the




15:16:22 chamber, we would pay for the tickets, or -- and that

15:16:26 sort of thing.

15:16:27 >>> That's correct.

15:16:28 Based on those facts, they would be a lobbyist.

15:16:30 And if you go to a zero gifts from lobbyist approach

15:16:34 you would have to pay for those tickets.

15:16:35 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here's another question, Mr. Smith.

15:16:40 They quarterly invite us to go to lunch with them so

15:16:42 they can update us on events that are coming to the

15:16:47 city, and what's happened in the past, to show -- and

15:16:53 they invite to us that luncheon.

15:16:54 We all pretty much go to that.

15:16:56 Do we have to tell them, no, you can't invite us

15:16:58 anymore, or we have to pay $25 or whatever it is?

15:17:01 >>DAVID SMITH: You can go, but if that is part and

15:17:04 parcel of any effort to influence policy, and

15:17:07 particularly your role in determining policy, then

15:17:10 they are lobbying under our code, and under the state

15:17:15 code as well, and then you would have to pay it down

15:17:15 to zero, if you go to zero.

15:17:18 You have a $100 limit.

15:17:19 Partly, you went to a limit like that so you wouldn't




15:17:22 have to get into those issues on a daily basis.?

15:17:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: On a luncheon that they supply.

15:17:30 >>> Yes, ma'am.

15:17:31 >> They supply at their own place.

15:17:33 >>> Right.

15:17:33 But it has a value.

15:17:34 And the gifts are defined as anything of value.

15:17:38 >> It certainly isn't $100.

15:17:40 >>> It certainly is not.

15:17:40 I realize that.

15:17:45 >>KEVIN WHITE: I think I would feel comfortable with

15:17:48 the ordinance that's prepared before us that would

15:17:51 allow us to do the gifts of up to $100 and buy it

15:17:57 down, just for specific events.

15:17:59 Because I think we get invitations to four or five of

15:18:03 those a month, these community-oriented events that do

15:18:08 bring informational type status to council to update

15:18:13 us on things that go on.

15:18:16 And I don't foresee that as being that much of a

15:18:19 situational problem for council.

15:18:21 Now things more than 100, absolutely.

15:18:23 And I don't think that is going to present that much




15:18:27 of a problem for us with the ordinance that's

15:18:29 presented before us.

15:18:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Never about H the problem before.

15:18:32 Don't foresee one in the term of my limits here, my

15:18:36 term.

15:18:38 >>ROSE FERLITA: Are you making a motion?

15:18:40 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes, making a motion to send that back

15:18:42 to legal so they can bring it to us for a first

15:18:46 reading, because this is the thing that the ethics

15:18:50 commission voted unanimously to approve that they

15:18:53 would support as well.

15:18:54 >>DAVID SMITH: I'm understanding your motion for to us

15:18:57 bring back the ethics commission recommendation in

15:19:00 ordinance form, tighten down all the loose parts.

15:19:04 >>KEVIN WHITE: For first reading with the $100 cap.

15:19:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Did you have a question?

15:19:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.

15:19:14 If the ethics commission acted prior to -- I don't

15:19:18 remember the sequence of when the state made their

15:19:21 move to take it down to zero, has H the ethics

15:19:27 commission considered that when they made their

15:19:29 recommendation to us on January 12th?




15:19:32 >>DAVID SMITH: They started the process prior to the

15:19:34 state change.

15:19:35 They finished the process after the state change.

15:19:37 They were aware of the state change because we

15:19:39 discussed the state change.

15:19:41 >> Did they consider it?

15:19:44 >>DAVID SMITH: Donna.

15:19:47 >>DONNA WYSONG: The state change deals only with

15:19:50 lobbyists.

15:19:51 And so what is in front of you and what they were

15:19:55 craft does not pertain to lobbyists.

15:19:58 It only pertains to entities doing business with the

15:20:00 city.

15:20:00 So I can't represent any official what they might

15:20:06 think about that the state change with regard to

15:20:09 lobbyist, because that's not what they were there to

15:20:11 consider.

15:20:11 They were only there to consider the changes with

15:20:15 regard to those businesses doing business with the

15:20:18 city.

15:20:18 So we are kind of mixing apples with oranges here.

15:20:21 They never considered the lobbyist question.




15:20:23 They only considered this issue.

15:20:25 So if you would like them to go back and consider the

15:20:29 lobbyist issue.

15:20:31 >>DAVID SMITH: That's probably the best way to

15:20:33 understand this.

15:20:34 You have got two categories.

15:20:35 You have lobbyist.

15:20:36 And you have all of those within the category of

15:20:38 non-lobbyist.

15:20:39 And what the ethics commission is recommending to you,

15:20:43 in that category of people called non-lobbyists, you

15:20:46 should have a community event exception.

15:20:49 That's what the recommendation is to you.

15:20:51 They have no recommendation as to what you should do

15:20:54 about lobbyists.

15:20:55 You are currently at $100 for lobbyists.

15:20:57 You can also change that to go to zero if you like, or

15:21:00 whatever you would like to do.

15:21:02 But Donna made that recommendation very clear.

15:21:05 It just that other category of non-lobbyist.?

15:21:12 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I think Mr. White's recommendation is

15:21:16 good.




15:21:19 I second.

15:21:20 >>ROSE FERLITA: Now, Mr. Smith, I know this is going

15:21:24 to come back for first reading.

15:21:25 I know most of this is stuff we aggregated in terms of

15:21:32 ethics.

15:21:33 And my support is going to be based on a few items

15:21:36 like the top one here, an editorial and political

15:21:40 ethics.

15:21:40 This one is from Naples, October 9, 2005.

15:21:43 So bear with me.

15:21:44 Knowing that we are a very collegial body that even if

15:21:48 we disagree, we don't take it personally, we can move

15:21:51 forward, from what we have seen today.

15:21:54 In any case, this editorial political ethics October

15:21:57 9, 2005.

15:21:59 Just allow me to read just the highlighted area. The

15:22:02 senior attorney for the Florida commission on ethics

15:22:04 had been advised for elected and appointed city and

15:22:07 government employee officials.

15:22:09 An associated press account of hers to a Sunshine Law

15:22:12 summit said she focused on gifts.

15:22:17 Lindy Doss said if you don't like it don't take it.




15:22:21 She gave a reality check.

15:22:23 Ask yourself, it would be offered to me if not for my

15:22:26 public position?

15:22:28 Probably not.

15:22:32 The gift law generates a lot of question.

15:22:32 But not necessarily.

15:22:33 One way to simplify the law and to eliminate any of

15:22:37 those questions is for elected officials to enact

15:22:39 tougher localized rules that simply say no to gifts of

15:22:42 any size from any lobbyist.

15:22:45 Elected officials who actually believe that lobbyists

15:22:47 are their friends and have only the elected official's

15:22:50 Beth interest at heart when they offer presents or

15:22:53 gifts have their priorities in the wrong place.

15:22:56 They do not put the public interest first.

15:22:59 My suggestion is to go further with that say no, and

15:23:03 say no to gifts of any size, from anybody, and -- I

15:23:08 personally believe that you can represent the

15:23:10 constituents quite well without receiving any kind of

15:23:13 comp gifts, community events to me simply my opinion,

15:23:18 nothing to do with what my colleagues feel or don't

15:23:20 feel, we are not discrediting each other's position.




15:23:23 I just feel that including community events is an

15:23:26 exclusion or a nice way that you can use, or nice term

15:23:29 that you can use to get someplace for free.

15:23:33 When elected to public service -- and I have said this

15:23:35 before and I will continue to say it again -- you are

15:23:37 there to serve, not to receive presents.

15:23:39 So my suggestion is the cleanest way to keep it is no

15:23:42 gifts from anybody regardless of what they do,

15:23:45 lobbyists or not.

15:23:47 And that's going to continue to be my position.

15:23:48 So I won't support the motion to send Mr. White's

15:23:53 suggestion to legal.

15:24:02 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Smith or Ms. Wysong, your

15:24:05 ordinance which we are looking at says that

15:24:09 prohibited -- prohibited offering receipt of gifts from

15:24:15 lobbyists.

15:24:16 Isn't that what we are talking about, according to

15:24:18 what the other thing that you handed me?

15:24:25 Where it says no gifts from lobbyists? Isn't that

15:24:27 already in there?

15:24:30 >>DAVID SMITH: It is already in there and the only

15:24:32 change this makes with respect to gifts and lobbyists




15:24:35 is the paydown.

15:24:36 Everything else remains take T same with regard to a

15:24:39 lobbyist, other than we are clarifying the fact that

15:24:41 state law in fact applies here as well.

15:24:44 That you can pay down a gift $100.

15:24:47 That's just making clear what was already an opinion

15:24:50 issued by the ethics commission.

15:24:53 >> But Tetics commission said it was okay to take down

15:24:56 anything from $100 less.

15:24:58 >>> Yes, ma'am.

15:24:59 And that's a state law now.

15:25:06 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It was a budge of their peers and they

15:25:12 were the ones making the recommendation.

15:25:13 So I will support Mr. White's motion.

15:25:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena?

15:25:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Ms. Ferlita's argument makes a lot

15:25:24 of sense to me.

15:25:26 But I wonder how it would work in things like going to

15:25:33 a neighborhood picnic.

15:25:39 It means wherever we are, if there's a bill we can pay

15:25:44 for it. But when there isn't a bill that's the more

15:25:46 confusing part to me.




15:25:47 There isn't a bill but there's value to something.

15:25:49 Do we just not attend those things?

15:25:51 Or do we ask them what the value would have been?

15:25:55 >>DAVID SMITH: Neither of those two alternatives would

15:25:57 suffice in that situation.

15:26:02 Let me explain what's happening. The legislature when

15:26:04 they pass this found, discovered there was a lot of

15:26:07 confusion about exactly what zero means.

15:26:10 So they have, I think, ten new exceptions they are

15:26:12 looking at.

15:26:13 Ten policy explanations.

15:26:14 One of which is you can go to an event like that and

15:26:18 not eat.

15:26:18 Or you can leave money appropriate for the value of

15:26:21 the food.

15:26:23 Another thing they are considering is what they call a

15:26:25 public event exception.

15:26:27 So when you come up to Ybor City for black beans and

15:26:32 rice which happens in the legislature every year, as

15:26:34 long as that's open to the public and nobody is paying

15:26:35 for it, then that's not really a gift to you, it's

15:26:38 just a public event you happen to be at.




15:26:41 So there's a variety of things the legislature

15:26:44 themselves are looking at to deal with the zero

15:26:46 amount.

15:26:47 But the basic answer is, you either pay it down, or

15:26:50 you don't eat.

15:26:55 >>ROSE FERLITA: Let me help you, Linda. Say no to

15:26:58 drugs and say no to gifts.

15:27:02 What he's saying if it's out there for the public

15:27:05 that's a different story and I'm glad.

15:27:07 But there are other things that can help you get

15:27:08 around.

15:27:09 Last week we were invited to the Westshore alliance

15:27:12 and my host invited me perhaps like your host invited

15:27:15 you.

15:27:16 I accepted the invitation graciously.

15:27:18 I sat at their table.

15:27:19 I paid for my ticket.

15:27:21 You know, I don't think it means we have to stay home

15:27:24 and not represent our constituencies and civic

15:27:26 associations and those type of things.

15:27:28 Particularly from a clarification that our city

15:27:30 attorney just gave.




15:27:31 If I understand you, David, let me reiterate what I

15:27:36 thought you said. If you are in a group where the

15:27:38 food is out there for the public, then you don't have

15:27:40 to put a price on each grain of rice that you're

15:27:43 talking about eating.

15:27:43 >>> Let me clarify, that is what the legislature is

15:27:48 making out now in order to clarify their zero-dollar

15:27:50 policy.

15:27:51 We don't have currently a zero-dollar policy.

15:27:53 But if you want to go there for lobbyists, we would

15:27:56 probably also look at those sorts of issues to avoid

15:27:59 anything of that nature.?

15:28:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: See, that's what's so confusing.

15:28:04 Why can't we put that in there, the zero amount for

15:28:06 lobbyists?

15:28:08 >>DAVID SMITH: You can.

15:28:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Can't go to community events?

15:28:13 >>> The community event exemption only applies to

15:28:17 non-lobbyists.

15:28:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: If they are nonprofits we can still go

15:28:20 to those if they invite us.

15:28:23 >>KEVIN WHITE: The chamber and some of these




15:28:25 Westshore -- Westshore alliance, those type of

15:28:28 governmental agencies are lobbyists.

15:28:29 But if the cost of that is $30, if they choose to pick

15:28:34 up that tab to have us there, we either, "A," or we

15:28:41 can accept it, one or the two.

15:28:44 If it's more than 100, we can't the way this is

15:28:47 written. The way this is written we can.

15:28:50 And if it's more than 100 we can't.

15:28:52 Or we buy it down.

15:28:54 We have that option.

15:28:55 And as far as I'm concerned I like having that option.

15:29:01 >>ROSE FERLITA: But this is the caution.

15:29:03 And I think what you suggested, Linda, what you

15:29:05 referenced as an example, if it's below scale in terms

15:29:09 of value and cost, let's pick else that still would be

15:29:12 categorized as a community event for a charitable

15:29:15 reason or cause.

15:29:17 The no-frill ticket, no-frill ticket for Broadway

15:29:20 ball, still $100. The patron level is $1,000 and it

15:29:24 goes up from there.

15:29:25 To me, I can't justify taking a comp 400 ticket, $400

15:29:30 ticket for the Broadway ball, and because it's a




15:29:34 community event.

15:29:34 Well, you may not and none of us may not.

15:29:37 But the point is how we determine to accept or not

15:29:39 accept or translate what we are putting into

15:29:41 legislation for the upcoming City Council members

15:29:45 is -- because we just -- we just had a delightful

15:29:51 meeting with our illustrious county.

15:29:57 Excuse the trip on words.

15:29:59 So there it is.

15:29:59 We know what we will do.

15:30:00 And do I think that anybody up here is going to be

15:30:03 bought for a plate of yellow rice and chicken?

15:30:06 I would think not.

15:30:07 But the point is, we have to accommodate people coming

15:30:11 after us, and their interpretation of what we

15:30:16 legislate.

15:30:16 Because we may not want to do something.

15:30:18 But if it says we can, under the category or under the

15:30:21 definition, that we direct you to craft, then the next

15:30:26 group coming up, if they happen to think Broadway bar

15:30:29 is okay, 400 or something else, they are okay.

15:30:34 So what we have to do is put something in place that




15:30:36 doesn't task our standards of ethics, but that is

15:30:42 something that is very well defined.

15:30:44 And the best way is to say no.

15:30:46 That's what I'm saying.

15:30:47 Then you don't have to worry about is the yellow rice

15:30:50 and chicken okay but not the Broadway ball?

15:30:53 I don't know.

15:30:54 I think each of us will be guided by our own level of

15:30:57 what we think we ought to do and how we think we can

15:31:00 exercise our responsibility to represent the

15:31:04 constituents that put us here.

15:31:05 But I'm just saying if it's very clearly defined, no,

15:31:08 then I have a better time with that than trying to

15:31:11 define what's a community event event, what's not a

15:31:13 community event, what should I, do what should I not

15:31:16 do, what about the the sandwiches that Mrs. Alvarez

15:31:21 doesn't like, that Rhonda Storms doesn't like -- I'm

15:31:27 kidding.

15:31:28 We don't necessarily have to do this for our sake but

15:31:31 we have to do it for the sake of the governing body

15:31:32 that comes and replaces some of us soon and some of us

15:31:36 later.




15:31:36 But that's my position.

15:31:37 And I have reiterate add lot of times.

15:31:40 And I'll come back with that same baby sheet that says

15:31:43 no is a lot simpler.

15:31:46 >>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Smith, under Ms. Ferlita's example,

15:31:50 I think you made that very clear, if it has a purchase

15:31:53 price of 400, we buy it down 300 and we can accept

15:31:57 400, if that's what we choose to do, to go to that.

15:32:01 >>ROSE FERLITA: Even if it's a community event?

15:32:03 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.

15:32:04 That's what he what was saying before you got here.

15:32:06 >>DAVID SMITH: No, there's no cap on the community

15:32:09 event.

15:32:10 As long as it's not from a lobbyist.

15:32:13 Can't be from a lobbyist.

15:32:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: My question would be, as an example,

15:32:18 what relationship does the Tampa Bay performing arts

15:32:21 then have -- you give them money.

15:32:24 >>MARY ALVAREZ: They are not lobbying.

15:32:28 >>DAVID SMITH: I think you will find the definition of

15:32:30 lobbying and lobbyist is more esoteric than we have

15:32:34 even touched on.




15:32:35 So what we really were doing is with the ethics

15:32:38 commission was talking about the issue you of

15:32:42 non-lobbyist.

15:32:42 >>KEVIN WHITE: I think it's a lot simpler, just give

15:32:47 you an invitation and let you tell us, and we'll just

15:32:50 go from there.

15:32:50 I mean, if throws a question by individual council

15:32:53 members, I think if we have that much of a question,

15:32:55 give to the you or Mr. Shelby, and if Mr. Shelby can't

15:32:58 he can get with you and you can come up with your

15:33:00 heads and say you need to bite down or you don't need

15:33:03 to go or need to pay for it.

15:33:07 >>DAVID SMITH: Giving to the Mr. Shelby I would really

15:33:10 appreciate it even more.

15:33:11 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. White made the motion but we

15:33:14 never --

15:33:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Clarify the motion?

15:33:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I think we need to go back and we need

15:33:20 to talk -- not talk about it but I believe that we

15:33:25 should put in there like Ms. Ferlita says that it

15:33:28 should be zero limit.

15:33:31 >>DAVID SMITH: And the zero limit for the lobbyist.




15:33:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Just lobbyists.

15:33:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Lobbyists and $100 to community

15:33:41 events.

15:33:43 >>DAVID SMITH: If I'm understanding you correctly it

15:33:45 would be a three tier approach.

15:33:47 Zero from lobbyists.

15:33:48 Up to $100 from those having con -- contracts and

15:33:53 doing business with the city outside of the community

15:33:55 event which has no cap.

15:33:56 That's your three tier.

15:33:59 I think that's what I'm hearing you say.

15:34:00 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.

15:34:04 I don't like the perception of being that they are

15:34:09 going to think that I'm taking something, you know,

15:34:11 and they are going to sway my vote.

15:34:13 That's not the way it will work.

15:34:15 So I think my doing it the way it's recommended here,

15:34:20 no gifts from lobbyists or their principals is the way

15:34:23 I want to go.

15:34:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So you would move to ask legal to

15:34:31 wipe that off.

15:34:31 >>DAVID SMITH: I think she just amended the motion.




15:34:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Zero from lobbyists.

15:34:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Could we make that clear?

15:34:41 What are the three tiers again?

15:34:44 I think that's significant.

15:34:46 >>DAVID SMITH: Zero for lobbyists.

15:34:48 Now bear in mind, lobbyist is going to be lobbyists

15:34:51 and their principal.

15:34:52 So that's going to be a pretty broad area.

15:34:54 Zero from lobbyists.

15:34:56 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's fine.

15:34:58 >>DAVID SMITH: You can take up to $100 from a

15:35:00 non-lobbyist, irrespective of what the activity is.

15:35:03 You can take over 100 from non-lobbyist if it's a

15:35:08 community event and from a sponsor.

15:35:10 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Relative to those that do business

15:35:12 with the city?

15:35:14 >>DAVID SMITH: That's up to 100 for a noncommunity

15:35:17 event.

15:35:17 And over 100 for community event.

15:35:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Just to clarify, the state has zero

15:35:26 for lobbyist but no restriction on anything from

15:35:29 anybody else that does business with the state.




15:35:31 >>DAVID SMITH: That's correct.

15:35:33 >> So what we are saying is we would be parallel to

15:35:35 the state and zero from lobbyists and more restrictive

15:35:38 above that?

15:35:38 >>> Yes, because they have no restriction for those

15:35:41 who are not lobbyists.

15:35:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I feel good about that.

15:35:45 >>KEVIN WHITE: That's my motion.

15:35:47 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's my second.

15:35:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Any comments on the motion?

15:35:51 All in favor?

15:35:53 (Motion carried).

15:35:55 >>ROSE FERLITA: Zero, nothing, nada.

15:35:59 Sorry.

15:36:03 >>DAVID SMITH: Two things I should have mentioned

15:36:04 earlier today that you may have seen in the paper.

15:36:06 We did bring the TGH appeal which is very good news.

15:36:10 Another thing I just got a call from Ursula Richardson

15:36:13 and we won the Marrero case as well.

15:36:16 So the city is not liable.

15:36:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I feel sorry for the family.

15:36:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to hear from




15:36:24 Mrs. Ferlita about the rest of the meeting.

15:36:26 >>ROSE FERLITA: I will tell but that meeting, okay?

15:36:29 But it's -- can we do it?

15:36:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Madam Chair.

15:36:34 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to receive and file document.

15:36:38 >> Second.

15:36:38 (Motion carried).

15:36:38 >>ROSE FERLITA: If I can.

15:36:42 >>GWEN MILLER: I'm not going to let you lead first.

15:36:48 (Laughter).

15:36:50 >>ROSE FERLITA: I'm going to tell you right now.

15:36:55 >> Go ahead.

15:36:58 >>ROSE FERLITA: The deal was, I believe that we all

15:37:00 collectively, in sincere effort to support the

15:37:04 problems that not this city, but this county, which

15:37:07 the city is part of, are having with deficiencies in

15:37:11 dollars for educational reasons, we committed to going

15:37:15 there not to disrupt the meeting, not to do anything

15:37:18 actively, but to listen to what the school board --

15:37:21 and I believe it was the school board who scheduled

15:37:23 this meeting -- and at the request, I believe, invited

15:37:26 the county commissioners.




15:37:28 Once we got there and everything settled in and they

15:37:31 had a little break -- and they didn't start on time --

15:37:34 and we can certainly appreciate that because many

15:37:36 times we don't start on time but there's no criticism

15:37:38 there -- Mrs. Saul-Sena was polite enough as a guest,

15:37:41 as were we all, to point out to Mrs. Bricklemyer who I

15:37:46 believe was chairing, and sitting next to Mr. Norman,

15:37:49 I'm not for sure, but to point out that we were there

15:37:53 and we would have to leave at approximately 2:00, and

15:37:53 at that point, one of them -- and Linda or Kevin, help

15:37:57 me out, or Mary, I think you got there as well about

15:37:59 the same time, they wanted to know what we were doing

15:38:01 and what action we were taking.

15:38:03 And so at that point Linda came up to the podium and

15:38:05 explained to them that we were there as another

15:38:08 legislative body to just simply support and hear what

15:38:11 they had said. There were some reports coming back.

15:38:13 Mr. Shelby, you were there too, so everybody has a

15:38:16 different opinion what happened.

15:38:17 So if you heard something different please feel free

15:38:20 to weigh in.

15:38:21 They had a task force that had gone out and had worked




15:38:23 on this for a long time, several months perhaps, and

15:38:26 they were looking at what that task force had

15:38:28 recommended.

15:38:29 In the process of that, I believe that Cathy Castor,

15:38:33 in a very congenial way, asked about taking that

15:38:37 forward and the county commission board looking at

15:38:40 what their recommendations were.

15:38:42 At the time, some of the people that were there seemed

15:38:46 to be annoyed that the City Council was there and what

15:38:49 exactly was the action that we were moving toward in

15:38:51 our being there.

15:38:53 And I think that, Linda, you explained to them that we

15:38:56 were there simply to support it.

15:38:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Because all four legislative

15:39:01 branches had to agree.

15:39:02 >>ROSE FERLITA: Exactly.

15:39:03 It was not just the unincorporated areas of

15:39:06 Hillsborough County.

15:39:07 It was Hillsborough County chosen as one of the sites

15:39:09 to look at the concurrency issue and go through this

15:39:11 as a pilot test.

15:39:13 And I will tell you -- and I will try to make this as




15:39:15 little political as possible -- but I was at a forum

15:39:19 last week and one of the questions asked of me was,

15:39:21 how do you feel the relationship between the county

15:39:23 commission and the school board could be improved?

15:39:25 And my answer was simply for each body, whether it's

15:39:28 the school board or whether it's the county

15:39:30 commission, or it's this board here, I believe I

15:39:34 referenced, I'm not sure, that as long as everybody is

15:39:36 respective of each person's jurisdictional boundaries,

15:39:39 then we get along as a community both incorporated and

15:39:42 unincorporated.

15:39:43 And today from what I saw, I must say I saw the school

15:39:48 board making a genuine effort to address the issues of

15:39:53 deficits in dollars for education reasons for everyone

15:39:54 involved, everybody, and I think that they were

15:39:56 drilled unnecessarily about, "would you support an

15:39:59 increase in sales tax?"

15:40:01 And I think that their conversation went back to, we

15:40:03 were looked at, and I think that was prudent

15:40:06 governing, the school board, will go back to looking

15:40:08 at everything that could help the deficit, the first

15:40:10 thing we need to look at are impact fees, as opposed




15:40:13 to just tag on another half cent sales tax or

15:40:16 something like that, be it referendum.

15:40:20 I was impressed they were trying to keep on key in

15:40:22 terms of their agenda.

15:40:24 But I will tell you, ladies and gentlemen, regardless

15:40:27 of whether or not we agree or disagree sometimes, we

15:40:29 are very congenial body.

15:40:34 I'm hoping that territorialism that we saw doesn't get

15:40:38 in the way of what we should have to do as

15:40:40 legislators, or the school board, or county

15:40:42 commission, and move on with the fact that our

15:40:45 educational system here is failing, and we need to do

15:40:47 something about it instead of you, me, you, me.

15:40:50 And it was very disheartening to me to see what was

15:40:55 going on because I don't think that was the issue of

15:40:58 their agenda.

15:40:59 But in any case, we have the opportunity, I believe

15:41:01 February 9th or whenever it is, to hear from the

15:41:03 school board or school board representatives and staff

15:41:05 to give us an idea where they are with it.

15:41:08 But the topic should be what education needs, and

15:41:11 hopefully we collectively as a community will do that.




15:41:13 That was my take on it.

15:41:15 I don't know about the rest of you.

15:41:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: My take was they were very

15:41:21 disrespectful to our City Council representative that

15:41:23 had gotten up to explain the situation that we need to

15:41:26 be back here, because we had recessed just to go and be

15:41:30 with them, and I thought it was at their request.

15:41:35 I found out later that we had asked that we -- later

15:41:40 that we asked that we be invited.

15:41:43 Nevertheless, the fact was that we are elected bodies,

15:41:45 too.

15:41:46 We are elected officials, and we need the respect from

15:41:48 everybody.

15:41:49 And for this certain person to get up and say "point

15:41:55 of order" before she even heard what our

15:41:58 representative was trying to say, was very

15:42:00 disrespectful, and I really don't appreciate that.

15:42:03 And I hope it gets back to her.

15:42:09 Put it down.

15:42:10 (Laughter).

15:42:12 Got it?

15:42:13 >>KEVIN WHITE: Who are you talking about?




15:42:15 You said you wanted to get back to her.

15:42:17 Tell her.

15:42:19 >>> We have already discussed it, right?

15:42:22 I'm willing to put it on the record.

15:42:24 Rhonda Storms.

15:42:26 >>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

15:42:31 In regards to that, before we left to go to lunch, and

15:42:32 it kind of confirmed my suspicions, but before I went,

15:42:38 we are a very collegial body and we tray to

15:42:41 accommodate each other on this dais as much as we can,

15:42:45 although we can't say that about other boards.

15:42:48 And when it was brought before us, we jumped and we

15:42:52 agree, because most of the things that board members

15:42:55 on City Council do are relatively positive things.

15:42:59 But I think we need to think about what we do in the

15:43:02 future.

15:43:03 Because we voted as an elected body to attend another

15:43:06 event that we could take no official action at.

15:43:10 But we voted to attend to show solidarity and support

15:43:18 at this particular event.

15:43:19 And that's how we showed up in masses as a collective

15:43:24 body.




15:43:24 But what we were, truly, we were just individual

15:43:28 citizens that were in the audience.

15:43:32 And I think in the near future, we as a body need to

15:43:37 basically know where our boundaries are and respect

15:43:41 our boundaries, and respect the boundaries of other

15:43:45 elected bodies, and to the point of if we want to

15:43:51 draft a letter of our support, that's fine.

15:43:55 I just really don't appreciate being put in a position

15:44:00 to be embarrassed.

15:44:02 And, I mean, I was not singled out, but I was

15:44:06 embarrassed to be a part of this elected body being

15:44:09 singled out by another body saying, what are you all

15:44:12 doing here anyway?

15:44:13 You all can't do anything.

15:44:16 Well, we need to go back at 2:00.

15:44:18 Well, no, what are you doing here anyway?

15:44:20 So what?

15:44:21 Bye.

15:44:22 That's no position to be in.

15:44:24 And, you know, I don't -- we don't ever -- I wouldn't

15:44:30 say ever.

15:44:31 It's happened once that I can think of, that we don't




15:44:35 disrespect our audience.

15:44:36 We don't disrespect our petitioners.

15:44:38 We don't disrespect other elected officials when they

15:44:41 show up here.

15:44:42 And I would -- any body that I serve on, I would be

15:44:49 glad to reciprocate that.

15:44:52 I don't think it's right, I don't think it's fair.

15:44:54 Like I said, don't like being put in that position.

15:44:56 And if we do anything like that in the future, I think

15:45:00 we ought to go as individuals, especially if we can't

15:45:05 have an impact and make a difference at that point in

15:45:10 time.

15:45:10 If we can't go and take official action, I don't think

15:45:12 we need to go as an elected or a collective body

15:45:19 representing by telling other elected bodies maybe

15:45:23 what they should do, although we weren't telling, we

15:45:26 were just showing our solidarity and support.

15:45:28 But maybe they took it a different way.

15:45:30 I don't know.

15:45:31 I don't know why.

15:45:32 But I just said, I don't like being put in that

15:45:36 position.




15:45:36 And I would appreciate not being able to be able to

15:45:39 participate in that type of thing again.

15:45:40 >>ROSE FERLITA: Please let me vent a little more and

15:45:43 explain what he just said.

15:45:44 He's absolutely right.

15:45:45 And I remember awhile back, although our opinions may

15:45:47 have been the same -- and I don't know, I can't speak

15:45:50 for everybody -- but if you recall Mr. Harrison had

15:45:52 said that we should take a position on the position

15:45:55 that the school board took about the holiday or not

15:45:58 holiday and our religious convictions, et cetera, and

15:46:02 I agreed at the time we should not overstep our bounds

15:46:04 and tell them what to do whether we agreed or not.

15:46:06 And I think county commission did that.

15:46:08 Today we were not there to interrupt anybody's

15:46:11 meeting, or take a position.

15:46:12 Simply to hear about a problem that's generic, city or

15:46:16 county, about the education of our children.

15:46:18 I don't think any of us intended to get up there and

15:46:21 take over their meeting, and that certainly did not

15:46:24 occur.

15:46:25 Case in point.




15:46:25 Let's flip the reverse. We are behind the dais now.

15:46:29 And we were on the other side of the podium over

15:46:31 there.

15:46:32 Last week, I belief, we were behind the dais and

15:46:34 commissioner sharp was behind the podium.

15:46:36 He was very polite to us, and we were very polite back

15:46:39 to him.

15:46:39 And I think that's how one body or one representative

15:46:42 of a body acts in that position.

15:46:48 Mark was here as a person in a neighborhood who was

15:46:52 having a problem.

15:46:53 He didn't get up and say I'm a commissioner and this

15:46:55 is what I want you to do because he has no right to do

15:46:58 that.

15:46:59 Courtesy versus courtesy.

15:47:01 And I think that's what Kevin is getting to.

15:47:03 We went there not as a body to criticize or point

15:47:05 fingers.

15:47:06 Simply to listen to the dialogue, be the recipients

15:47:09 and the beneficiaries of what that task force was

15:47:11 going to report.

15:47:12 And we were not welcomed with the same type of




15:47:14 consideration it should have been.

15:47:16 We know you guys are not here to take action because

15:47:18 you can't, and we didn't come for that reason.

15:47:20 But at the same time let us as different elected

15:47:23 officials benefit from what has been organized and

15:47:27 gained by the task force.

15:47:29 So hopefully that's the last time we have that kind of

15:47:33 encounter.

15:47:33 Because it accomplishes nothing in terms of what the

15:47:35 topic is -- education, how we are going to solve it.

15:47:38 So I agree with you, Kevin.?

15:47:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I want to add one thing.

15:47:42 On the agenda, it had "elected officials."

15:47:46 That meant to us, to me, that we could talk about

15:47:50 anything that they were bringing up, and that we were

15:47:52 there not only just to listen but to recommend or to

15:47:56 support, and we weren't given that courtesy by some of

15:48:00 the commissioners.

15:48:03 So, you know, the county commission needs to remember

15:48:07 that the City of Tampa is part of Hillsborough County.

15:48:10 And for some reason, they seem to forget that.

15:48:14 And it's time -- it's time for them to come to that




15:48:16 conclusion.

15:48:18 We are here, and we want to be part of the county.

15:48:23 And we are the county -- we are part of the county.

15:48:25 And we pay taxes just as much as they do. As a matter

15:48:28 of fact I think we pay more taxes than they do. So

15:48:32 they just need to realize that we are just as

15:48:37 important as they are.

15:48:38 >>KEVIN WHITE: I think they need to send two of us

15:48:43 over there to join them.

15:48:46 (Laughter).

15:48:46 Help them out.

15:48:48 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mary, you're absolutely right.

15:48:50 Because coincidentally enough I was sitting next to

15:48:53 quite the gentleman and a good friend of mine and that

15:48:55 was mayor FRONTE from Temple Terrace.

15:48:58 That was another governing board who was there -- I

15:49:00 don't think Joe was going to take any action or speak.

15:49:02 He's there as the mayor of one of the incorporated

15:49:05 areas of Hillsborough County, as are we, just to

15:49:07 listen.

15:49:08 That's right.

15:49:09 So I don't know.




15:49:11 That wasn't the best way to get that done but we'll see

15:49:15 what happens.

15:49:15 Hopefully we'll improve.

15:49:16 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Hopefully.

15:49:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Madam Chair.

15:49:21 I thought that we were there for a constructive

15:49:23 reason.

15:49:23 And what I would like to see us follow up is for us to

15:49:26 write a letter a letter reaffirming that the reason is

15:49:33 to support the recommendations of the task force which

15:49:35 we all heard put in days and hours of work, because

15:49:39 the bottom line is, in six months he would all have to

15:49:42 agree on a concurrency plan, as you all heard, fast

15:49:46 track on education, we have got to get to it and

15:49:48 everybody has to work together.

15:49:49 So I felt like we were there saying yes.

15:49:53 And we will, you know, move towards some positive

15:49:57 collective action.

15:50:03 >>ROSE FERLITA: The only reason I'm saying I'm not

15:50:05 going to support that is because that goes right into

15:50:07 what I just said.

15:50:08 We were there not to govern what they are doing or to




15:50:12 take any kind of action.

15:50:13 So I think let well enough alone and when it comes

15:50:18 time for to us support whatever it takes -- to take

15:50:21 whatever action we need to for the education of

15:50:24 children in this county we'll do so.

15:50:26 We know why we were there.

15:50:27 End of story.

15:50:28 And I think the school board appreciates it, really.

15:50:30 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And I think this will get back to

15:50:33 them.

15:50:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you have any information?

15:50:35 >>KEVIN WHITE: That was all I had to say.

15:50:39 I can't think of anything right now.

15:50:43 >>ROSE FERLITA: Anyway, a couple weeks ago -- and a

15:50:45 apologize because I was supposed to get this to you

15:50:47 last week and we had a long meeting, not different

15:50:49 from today -- I gave you earlier these two copies of

15:50:52 the House of Representatives bill and the Senate bill

15:50:54 that Mr. Ron Rotella had pointed out to us on

15:50:58 committee, and I would like to make a motion that we

15:51:00 send a letter collectively so that we can have the

15:51:04 legislators understand, we don't want them to support




15:51:06 this, or we are going to have some problems with

15:51:08 landscaping, et cetera.

15:51:09 And Mr. Shelby, since he is part of that committee, if

15:51:11 you want to add some additional comments as to why

15:51:14 it's important that we do this, fine.

15:51:16 If not, I think we have the support.

15:51:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I want to apologize to council.

15:51:22 (Off microphone)

15:51:30 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Shelby, it's okay.

15:51:32 We all have good intentions.

15:51:33 We have all been busy.

15:51:35 You tell me, or Mr. Smith tell me.

15:51:37 I don't think you need to get the resolution done

15:51:39 tonight but since we brought it up let's have the

15:51:43 resolution.

15:51:43 Do you think they are going to vote on it?

15:51:45 I don't think so.

15:51:46 I don't think any apology is necessary.

15:51:51 Then let's just get the resolution done next week and

15:51:54 let's just move on.

15:51:55 Just so many things.

15:51:56 It's very easy to forget stuff.




15:51:59 It truly is. Anyway, I guess that's in the form of a

15:52:02 motion, Madam Chairman.

15:52:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

15:52:05 (Motion carried).

15:52:07 >>ROSE FERLITA: Next week.

15:52:08 Okay?

15:52:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else?

15:52:10 >>ROSE FERLITA: No, Madam Chairman, thank you.

15:52:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Colleagues, as you know, I am your

15:52:17 representative on the Tampa Bay Regional Planning

15:52:19 Council.

15:52:19 And the last meeting, which was early January, they

15:52:26 were talking about that they want to move Manatee

15:52:32 County out of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning District

15:52:37 and put them in the Sarasota County district.

15:52:39 And we are opposed to that.

15:52:40 And so they have directed me to bring this for a

15:52:48 resolution from us from the City Council to send.





And so they have directed me to bring this for a

resolution from us from the city council to send. So I




would like to make a motion -- and I'll read it and

then you guys can -- it's to direct legal to prepare a

resolution supporting the retention of Manatee County

as a member of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council,

and be it resolved that a copy of this resolution be

sent to the governor, president of the Senate, as

reflected in the council's draft resolution. This will

help keep Manatee County -- they do not want to be

moved from our district to the Sarasota district. We

share too many boundaries, and they are part of the

Tampa Bay -- Tampa Bay. So we really want to keep them

with us.

So that's my motion.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.

(Motion carried).

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Two quick issues. Number one, I

would like to in 30 days get a report from I guess

transportation on our inventory of bricks and granite.

I understand that we have -- been trying to receive

brick and granite from the interstate widenings. I'm

not sure that it's ending where it's supposed to be.

I'm not sure we have a system. Perhaps if I ask for




this inventory it will clarify where we are because we

want to have the bricks and granite that are moved

because of the interstate widening so we can have it in

other projects. So that's the motion in 30 days to get

a report back from transportation.

A written report on our inventory.

>> All in favor of the motion.

(Motion carried)

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Secondly, there's an article in the

paper today about -- and we all received letters about

40th street improvements, and how some of the

community groups have requested that the overhead

utilities, specifically the electrical utilities, be

underground. Gene Dorzback said that could be a

problem because we haven't planned on it, and you can't

plant decent trees under wires. You have to plant

littler trees. What I would like to do is ask

transportation to work with TECO and give us a dollar

figure on the time frame on how they feel like this

would affect the project. But it's my strong sense

that we are just in the property acquisition phase now,

and as long as we are tearing up the roads anyway it




makes a whole lot more sense to do it now as opposed to

later.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Who would pay for that?

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: First let's see how much it's going

to cost.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Would we be getting grants from the

MPO or anything like that?

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let's see how much it costs. My

feeling is one of the biggest costs is going to be

tearing up the road and we are going to be tearing it

up anyway.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.

>>ROSE FERLITA: This is my position, Ms. Sauls. I am

going to support it because I know it goes for

landscape but the issue is still, simply supporting

your motion to see how much it costs.

Not only because, you know, they waited so long for

that improvement. If the cost is huge when don't want

to do it. But just from the standpoint of a report

back -- yes, I'll support you.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: A written report in two weeks.

>> Motion and second.




(Motion carried).

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to clarify, it's what the

expected costs would be, and how -- however they do it

would affect the production schedule.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Providing that those two work orders

can be done at the same time to keep the -- not just a

blank cost. Because that's a big difference.?

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

>> We didn't vote on that.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did we vote?

>>ROSE FERLITA: I think we did.

>> You seconded it. You supported your second.

You're still worried about that other meeting we

attended. That's what you're thinking about, Mary?

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Are we done?

>>THE CLERK: Three items to present. Last Thursday

council had public hearings on WZ 06-16, which is the

Pizza Hut on 405 south Dale Mabry. Council requested

legal to prepare the ordinance to change it to a

2(COP)R. I have the ordinance here for first reading.

And the vote last week was unanimous by council.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Read this? She will she will issues




that were raised in the course of the public hearing.

>>ROSE FERLITA: His client agreed to make it an R.

>>THE CLERK: It states per verbal agreement.

>> Move an ordinance making lawful the sale of

beverages containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight

and not more than 14% by weight beer and wine 2(COP)R

for consumption on the premises only in connection

with a restaurant business establishment at or from

that certain lot, plot, or tract of land located at

4055 South Dale Mabry Highway Tampa, Florida as more

particularly described in section 2 hereof waiving

certain restrictions as to distance based upon certain

findings providing for repeal of all ordinances in

conflict providing an effective date.

>> I have a motion and second.

(Motion carried).

>>THE CLERK: I also have another ordinance to be

presented for first reading from last Thursday's public

hearing. This is for WZ 06-15 for the Pizza Hut at 402

south Dale Mabry where the petitioner had requested it

be changed to a 2(COP)R, and it was unanimous at that

time.




>>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance making lawful the

sale of beverages containing alcohol more than 1% by

weight not more than 14% by weight beer and wines

regardless of alcoholic content 2(COP)R for consumption

on premises only in connection with a restaurant

business establishment at or from that certain lot,

plot or tract of land located at 402 South Dale Mabry

Highway Tampa, Florida as more particularly described

in section 2 hereof waiving certain restrictions as to

distance based upon certain findings providing for

repeal of all ordinances in conflict providing an

effective date.

(Motion carried)

>>THE CLERK: I have one other ordinance from last

Thursday's public hearings. That was on WZ 05-125, 210

East Fowler. The ordinance had been prepared for 4COP.

The petitioner requested 4(COP)X. This is the new

ordinance for 4(COP)X.

It was unanimous.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance making lawful the

sale of beverages containing alcohol regardless of

alcoholic content, beer wine and will go 4(COP)X for




consumption on premises only at or from the certain

lot, property or tract of lan land located at 210 east

Fowler Avenue, providing for repeal of all ordinances

in conflict, providing an effective date. I'm reading

fast so it won't be 5:30.

>> Motion and second.

(Motion carried).

>>THE CLERK: That's all I have.

>> Anything else to come before council? We stand

adjourned until 5:30.

>> Anyone in the public like to speak?

(Meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.)