09:11:55 Tampa City Council
09:11:57 Thursday, January 26, 2006.
09:12:02 9:00 a.m. session.
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
09:17:17 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.
09:18:20 (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 >>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 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 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
09:20:46 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
09:20:56 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
09:21:14 >>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 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
09:23:09 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
09:26:16 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
09:26:38 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
09:26:55 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
09:27:15 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 (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 And I'd like to make a motion that we waive the 15-day
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
09:29:03 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?
09:29:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Nay.
09:29:20 >>KEVIN WHITE: Mega motion to approve the T wet
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 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Setting the time and date he
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
09:31:20 Time certain.
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 >>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 >>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 >>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
09:35:20 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 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
09:37:28 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
09:37:48 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
09:37:57 >>> 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 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
09:38:56 >>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 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 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 >>GWEN MILLER: At this time we go to our audience
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 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
09:42:39 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.
09:43:04 >>> I'm here on agenda item number 4, the noise
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 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
09:45:21 >>GWEN MILLER: You will have to get the rules from
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
09:45:47 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.
09:46:01 >>> Chip Thomas, 1219 east Henry Avenue.
09:46:04 And I'm also going to speak to number 4 of the noise
09:46:10 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
09:46:40 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
09:47:22 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
09:48:14 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 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.
09:49:40 >>> 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.
09:50:38 >>> 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
09:50:57 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
09:51:58 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 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 >>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.
09:55:35 >>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
09:56:31 Small retail will not thrive as a result of this
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.
09:59:18 >>> 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 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 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.
10:03:00 >>> 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
10:04:20 We absolutely believe that there has to be criminal
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 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
10:05:41 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 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.
10:06:13 >>> 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
10:07:13 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
10:07:27 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
10:08:05 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.
10:08:14 >>> 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
10:08:39 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
10:09:29 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
10:10:03 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 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 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 There's maybe some public funding that will go into
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 And I realize there's exterior and there's interior
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.
10:11:55 >>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: I reside at 2902 East Ellicott
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 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 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
10:13:41 They went into business.
10:13:42 Now they come up with this thing, and direct to Ybor
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 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,
10:15:35 >>> 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
10:15:49 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 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 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.
10:17:11 >>> 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 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 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 Thank you.
10:18:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
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 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
10:20:39 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
10:21:41 I am sure Terry Cullen is well informed about the use
10:21:45 of this vehicle. This approach has been very
10:21:48 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.
10:22:34 >>> Good morning.
10:22:37 My name is Maureen Patrick.
10:22:39 I am the current president of the Tampa historical
10:22:43 I am speaking on item 57.
10:22:46 Public history is so designated for two very good
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 >>> 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
10:24:22 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
10:25:16 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 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
10:26:01 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.
10:26:36 Who will be the spokesperson?
10:26:54 Come up and introduce yourself and tell us why you're
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.
10:28:31 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
10:28:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We have a couple of gifts for you
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.
10:29:37 >>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
10:32:07 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
10:32:18 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
10:33:49 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?
10:34:50 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 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 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 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 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
10:39:05 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
10:39:27 77% of the structures had code violations, and it was
10:39:30 also found to have defective or inadequate street
10:39:34 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
10:39:50 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 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
10:42:28 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 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
10:43:24 And they'll be getting attorney fees for it, too.
10:43:27 So I can see this as a win-win situation for
10:43:31 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 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 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 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
10:46:15 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 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 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 (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 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
10:50:08 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 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
10:54:04 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 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
10:55:53 What I want to do is start with -- David Smith, city
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 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 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
10:57:37 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
10:57:45 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 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 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 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 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
10:59:59 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
11:00:10 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 We have a dee-jay that is constantly above these
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
11:01:04 >>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 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 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
11:05:05 You're saying harm to persons could be economic?
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
11:05:30 Sure that council will continue to monitor the
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 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 I think what we are doing here is leveling the playing
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
11:08:32 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 I think in ten minutes we can't talk about all the
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
11:09:32 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
11:09:59 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 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 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
11:11:50 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 >>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 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 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
11:16:45 >>> 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.
11:17:01 >>KEVIN WHITE: I see you getting ready to move back
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 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, I appreciate the
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
11:19:38 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
11:20:10 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
11:22:27 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
11:22:41 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
11:23:18 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
11:23:46 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
11:23:53 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 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 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
11:27:11 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
11:28:25 >>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
11:28:37 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
11:29:07 >>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 >>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 >>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
11:30:36 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
11:32:19 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.
11:32:58 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 >>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 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
11:37:31 Faith based organizations that apply for these funds
11:37:35 must have a partnership with a neighborhood
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 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
11:38:21 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 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
11:40:11 >>> 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 So depending on how many get in we may need to modify
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
11:40:35 >>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 >>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 >>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 >>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.
11:44:46 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
11:46:07 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
11:46:50 >>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
11:47:18 >>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 >>SHAWN HARRISON: From my perspective there should be
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 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
11:51:53 >>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 >>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
11:58:19 >> 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
11:59:01 >>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
12:00:03 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 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison won't be here.
12:00:33 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Let me make a suggestion on the
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
12:00:57 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 >>KEVIN WHITE: Why don't we just send a
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
12:01:53 Aren't we going to have the same subject matter in
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
12:02:52 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
12:04:20 >>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 >>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 >>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 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 >>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 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 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.
12:11:09 (City Council in recess at 12:10 p.m.)
Tampa City Council
January 26, 2006, 2:30 p.m. Session.
The following represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
The original of this transcript was produced in all
capital letters and any variation thereto may be a
result of third party edits and software compatibility
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
14:32:11 (The Tampa City Council meeting resumed and was called
14:32:11 to order by Chairman Gwen Miller.)
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
14:36:19 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 >>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 >>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 >>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
14:46:32 >>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 (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
14:49:57 >> 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 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 >>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
14:51:08 >>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 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
14:52:03 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 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 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
14:54:57 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
14:55:40 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
14:57:03 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
14:57:29 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
14:58:09 That would be the first question I would need to ask
14:58:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Not for profit -- they do community
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.
14:58:56 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
14:59:34 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 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 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.
15:02:10 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
15:03:50 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
15:04:32 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
15:05:51 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
15:06:29 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
15:07:22 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
15:08:15 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
15:08:51 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.
15:10:00 >>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
15:10:50 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
15:11:47 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
15:12:26 >> 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 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 >>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
15:15:57 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
15:18:38 >>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
15:19:51 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 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 They were only there to consider the changes with
15:20:15 regard to those businesses doing business with the
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
15:20:39 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
15:21:19 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
15:21:33 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 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
15:24:16 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
15:26:47 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
15:27:09 Last week we were invited to the Westshore alliance
15:27:12 and my host invited me perhaps like your host invited
15:27:16 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
15:27:51 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
15:28:08 >>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 >>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 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
15:31:28 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 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
15:32:10 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 >>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
15:33:43 >>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 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.
15:36:03 >>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.
15:36:50 >>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
15:38:29 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
15:39:43 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,
15:41:46 We are elected officials, and we need the respect from
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.
15:42:12 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
15:43:03 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 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?
15:44:22 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 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 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
15:46:25 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
15:46:32 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
15:46:59 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
15:47:06 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 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
15:48:18 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 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
15:49:08 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 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 >>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 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.
15:52:09 >>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 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
So that's my motion.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
>>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.
>>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
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Who would pay for that?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: First let's see how much it's going
>>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
>>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.
>>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.
>>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
>>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
>>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.
>>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.)