Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

Tampa City Council

Thursday, February 9, 2006

9:00 a.m. session


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


09:07:32 [Sounding gavel]

09:07:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.

09:07:50 The chair will yield to Ms. Mary Alvarez.

09:07:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

09:07:55 It is my pleasure this morning to introduce the pastor

09:07:58 Jeffrey Singletary.

09:07:59 He's with the Idlewild Baptist church central campus,

09:08:03 I believe that's on Tampa street.

09:08:05 So would you please stand for our invocation and stay

09:08:08 standing for the pledge of allegiance.

09:08:15 >>> Let us pray.

09:08:16 Our father, Thy great God, we have come this morning

09:08:19 to ask for your blessing.

09:08:21 Your divine guidance upon this City Council meeting

09:08:25 today.

09:08:26 Father, we ask that you would grant your divine

09:08:30 wisdom, the wisdom that comes only from above.

09:08:35 And God, that you would give them your divine

09:08:40 perspective on the various issues of items that are on

09:08:43 the docket for today. Give them clear insight and

09:08:46 foresight.

09:08:48 Father, give them the courage, strength, and the

09:08:52 intestinal fortitude to do and to say that which is

09:08:55 right before God and man.

09:08:58 And then, father, when this session, when this day

09:09:02 draws to a close, father, it is our prayer that

09:09:06 everything that is said and done in this chamber today

09:09:11 will bring glory and honor to your name.

09:09:14 For we ask it all in the precious name of our great

09:09:18 God and savior, Jesus Christ.

09:09:21 Amen.

09:09:24 (Pledge of Allegiance).

09:09:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, pastor.

09:09:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.

09:09:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.

09:09:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: (No response.)

09:09:44 >>SHAWN HARRISON: (No response.)

09:09:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.

09:09:47 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.

09:09:48 >>KEVIN WHITE: Here.

09:09:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.

09:09:49 At this time we need to approve the agenda.

09:09:58 First on our agenda we need to make a -- to move that

09:10:04 we move our public comments to after the agenda.

09:10:10 >>KEVIN WHITE: So moved.

09:10:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wait, Madam Chairman.

09:10:14 (Off microphone).

09:10:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes, they are.

09:10:23 Any other questions?

09:10:24 We have a motion and second to move the public

09:10:26 comment.

09:10:28 To move the public comment to after approval of the

09:10:31 agenda.

09:10:31 (Motion carried).

09:10:34 Do any council members have any changes to the agenda?

09:10:40 Okay.

09:10:40 Seeing none.

09:10:44 We now go to our staff sign-in sheet.

09:10:49 We have Cathy Coyle.

09:10:56 >>CATHERINE COYLE: There's no volume.

09:10:57 I can't hear you.

09:10:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Will you all turn the volume up,

09:11:00 please?

09:11:00 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.

09:11:05 This is a walk-on item WZ 06-28 to be scheduled for

09:11:09 March 16th, 06.

09:11:11 We placed it in the doc agenda system by the deadline

09:11:14 of 10 a.m.

09:11:15 However, it wasn't signed off until about 10:15 a.m.

09:11:19 and the hard deadline is 10 a.m. so it was a 15-minute

09:11:22 glitch with the processing so we are hoping that

09:11:24 council would be willing to schedule it for the date

09:11:27 that it came in for which was March 16, 06 at 10 a.m.

09:11:31 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.

09:11:31 >> Second.

09:11:32 (Motion carried).

09:11:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Rebecca?

09:11:41 >> Rebecca cart, legal department.

09:11:46 On February 1st Morris Massey submitted a

09:11:49 memorandum to City Council asking that the City

09:11:50 Council schedule an agreement to bifurcate the Tampa

09:11:53 Technology Park DRI for March 9th.

09:11:57 And that needed to be done.

09:12:01 >> So moved.

09:12:01 >> Second.

09:12:01 (Motion carried).

09:12:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Mark Huey.

09:12:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Not here yet.

09:12:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: He was in --

09:12:13 >>GWEN MILLER: He's coming.

09:12:14 Mark Huey, you're on.

09:12:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: He heard a voice above.

09:12:19 >>MARK HUEY: Economic development administrator.

09:12:22 I wanted to appear before you briefly this morning to

09:12:26 clarify the Channelside model that's been requested

09:12:32 and update you on that.

09:12:35 As you might recall, two weeks ago at the CRA meeting,

09:12:39 there was a motion to spend $13,000 to build a model

09:12:43 to help the CRA understand the recommendations, the

09:12:49 land use recommendations of the Wilson Miller plan.

09:12:53 Later that evening, some rezonings in the Channel

09:12:56 District came forward, and there was discussion at

09:12:59 those rezonings about having the model be a part of

09:13:03 the future consideration of those rezonings.

09:13:07 I wanted to come before you and suggest to you, after

09:13:11 working with the legal department, that the use of a

09:13:14 model for rezonings was not contemplated in the work

09:13:22 that had been committed to, and in fact wouldn't be

09:13:25 appropriate.

09:13:27 A model would become part of the legal evidence of a

09:13:31 rezoning.

09:13:31 And to think about how we would archive a model, to

09:13:36 think about the accuracy of that model and what would

09:13:39 be required, that, again in working with the legal

09:13:46 department, would not be recommended to council.

09:13:49 So I wanted to clarify -- and I'll update you on the

09:13:54 progress of the model.

09:13:55 But it's not our intention to create a model that

09:13:57 would become a part of the evidencery process for

09:14:02 rezonings in the future in the Channel District.

09:14:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I pass to Ms. Saul-Sena.

09:14:10 I do have a comment.

09:14:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

09:14:12 I have had many, many, many conversations about this

09:14:15 model.

09:14:16 And I think that it will be a helpful tool in our

09:14:19 understanding of the proposed Wilson Miller plan.

09:14:22 And I intend for it to be something that can live in a

09:14:26 room adjacent to the Mascotte room and we can go back

09:14:29 and refer to.

09:14:30 Legal isn't comfortable using it for rezonings.

09:14:33 I think it's so important for our understanding of the

09:14:35 plan that I'm willing to just have it for our

09:14:37 understanding of the plan.

09:14:38 But we can also go down there and look at it and use

09:14:40 it and think about it.

09:14:41 They just can't figure out how to save it archivally.

09:14:46 It's something that in an effort to get a plan done

09:14:50 that's understandable, I think the model will be a

09:14:52 very helpful tool.

09:14:54 They are going to give us examples of what the minimum

09:14:57 and maximum F.A.R.s, we will be able to have an

09:15:03 understanding of the whole area working together.

09:15:04 The model is going to have three different colors for

09:15:07 what's existing and approved, what's existing and

09:15:10 under construction, what's approved and what's

09:15:12 proposed.

09:15:13 So I think it will be an extremely useful tool, even

09:15:16 in its limited use as something to help us understand

09:15:21 the plan.

09:15:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What I'm wondering about is now we

09:15:30 are in the -- what century are we in?

09:15:33 >> 21st.

09:15:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 21st century.

09:15:36 Now we are in the 21st century.

09:15:38 I'm just wondering why we are not investing whatever

09:15:40 money we have -- and we never have a lot of money --

09:15:43 in a computer product instead of a physical product.

09:15:53 I don't know.

09:15:56 Have we looked into a computer product?

09:15:58 And maybe if we can afford both, fine, we do both.

09:16:01 But I think that a computer product would give us a

09:16:04 lot more flexibility, because obviously it's a lot

09:16:07 easier to change, you can insert things and pull

09:16:10 things out, just with whatever they do, software

09:16:13 changes and things like that.

09:16:15 So have we explored that?

09:16:19 >>MARK HUEY: Yes, and I think there is a vision for

09:16:22 equipping council with, at some time, a computer

09:16:27 graphic sort of a model.

09:16:29 And the technology to do it is available.

09:16:32 It's just quite expensive right now.

09:16:34 But like high definition TV, it's going down.

09:16:38 And we do feel like within a couple of years, we will

09:16:41 have the ability, the technology will be affordable

09:16:44 enough, so that we will be able to make that a routine

09:16:47 part of your design considerations.

09:16:50 And we do believe we will investigate some money in

09:16:54 the Channelside plan to bring you some computer

09:16:57 animation graphics that will complement the work of

09:17:00 the model.

09:17:01 So, yes, the technology is out there.

09:17:07 To do now, to demonstrate some of the aspects that a

09:17:10 model can help you understand, the technology is not

09:17:13 quite there at an affordable level.

09:17:16 But we are going to provide you both some technology

09:17:20 to help you understand some of the recommendations of

09:17:21 the plan, and then we think the physical model, as

09:17:26 Linda has described it, would be helpful as well.

09:17:29 Let me just say, just again to clarify, I wanted to

09:17:32 update you and let you know what the model will look

09:17:34 like so that there's no misunderstandings.

09:17:37 The model will be something along the length of this

09:17:41 podium, maybe twice as wide.

09:17:44 It will be built to scale of one inch equals 50 feet

09:17:49 so you can imagine a 200-foot building would be about

09:17:52 four inches tall.

09:17:54 It will not model the entire district built out in

09:17:59 every imaginable form.

09:18:01 It will, as Linda has just shared with you, it will

09:18:03 show buildings that have been built.

09:18:05 It will show you buildings that are under

09:18:08 construction.

09:18:08 It will show you buildings that have been approved.

09:18:11 And then for undeveloped sites, we will take a couple

09:18:14 of examples and show you how the recommendations of

09:18:18 the plan in different areas of the plan could be

09:18:23 developed by an architect and development team.

09:18:26 To give you examples of how the flexibility that an

09:18:32 architect would have and the impact of those

09:18:34 recommendations on undeveloped parts of the

09:18:36 Channelside.

09:18:37 So we won't be building out in the model every piece

09:18:40 of available land in the Channelside.

09:18:43 So I just wanted to clarify that for you.

09:18:45 But we do think in concert with Linda that it will be

09:18:47 a tool for you to understand a little bit more the

09:18:52 recommendations of the plan.

09:18:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A follow-up, if I comment Mr.

09:18:56 Smith -- I'm sorry -- did you -- Mr. Huey mentioned

09:19:00 about legal's comments, that's sort of hearsay.

09:19:04 Since you are here did you want to speak on this?

09:19:07 >>DAVID SMITH: Essentially what we were trying to do

09:19:12 is provide as much assistance to council as we can for

09:19:15 the tasks you have to perform, and a model has a lot

09:19:18 of utility in that regard.

09:19:20 I think the way Ms. Saul-Sena character riced it is

09:19:24 probably--character rides it is the form that is most

09:19:29 easily accepted by legal.

09:19:30 As now we like to avoid anything that's close to the

09:19:33 line.

09:19:33 So using it as a basis for forming your plan and

09:19:36 understanding the overall concept for a given district

09:19:38 is an excellent way to use it.

09:19:40 One of our concerns, as she was mentioning, was the

09:19:43 archiving.

09:19:44 Obviously the demonstrative evidence is something you

09:19:48 can consider in making a zoning decision because it's

09:19:50 substantial, competent evidence. This will be a model

09:19:52 that was done by objective parties.

09:19:56 I think it has a lot of competency.

09:19:58 So I think it could be something that would be

09:20:00 relevant to your calculus.

09:20:02 What we were concerned about is having it too much

09:20:04 involved on a case-by-case basis because as the model

09:20:08 changes, as different projects get approved and it

09:20:10 evolves over time, that's the archival issue that

09:20:13 Linda was talking about.

09:20:15 It is one item of all the other sorts of evidence that

09:20:19 you can consider, however, in making your

09:20:22 quasi-judicial zoning decisions.

09:20:25 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Let me understand this, Mr. Huey.

09:20:29 What you're saying is that we could do a model based

09:20:33 on what we know now, but the proposed developments is

09:20:38 not a good idea to do -- this is my understanding of

09:20:41 it -- is not a good idea to do because site plans

09:20:45 change.

09:20:46 And so if you want to use it for a rezoning, it's not

09:20:49 a good thing because then you are going to have a

09:20:51 model that shows a proposed development that

09:20:55 invariably could change when it comes for a rezoning,

09:20:58 and it's not an easy thing to archivally at that

09:21:01 point.

09:21:03 Is that --

09:21:04 >>MARK HUEY: That's part of it.

09:21:05 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And I agree with Mr. Dingfelder, that

09:21:09 if we could do it on a computer, and have it --

09:21:14 because we have seen these before, and they work out

09:21:16 good.

09:21:16 So if we could do something like that, and then maybe

09:21:19 just have the model or stuff that we already have and

09:21:23 know, that will work for me.

09:21:27 That's my comment on it.

09:21:28 >>ROSE FERLITA: It's my understanding he's saying we

09:21:31 can't do that.

09:21:32 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes, he --

09:21:34 >>MARK HUEY: You can do the model as part of the

09:21:36 planning process, that Wilson miller is doing.

09:21:39 >>ROSE FERLITA: The physical model.

09:21:41 Talking about the technology on the computer.

09:21:42 >>MARK HUEY: Yeah, there are elements that possibly a

09:21:46 model can help you understand a little bit better than

09:21:49 the technology on a cost basis.

09:21:54 You can build the model a little more cheaply.

09:21:56 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Huey, I do have to tell that you

09:21:58 things are expensive.

09:21:59 And you're right. The longer something is out there,

09:22:01 the less expensive it is to purchase.

09:22:04 Maybe if we have another six years Hanson will be

09:22:07 cheaper and more effective.

09:22:08 But we have to move on as a city and not wait for

09:22:10 something to be more affordable.

09:22:12 I think that particular area is going to bring a ton

09:22:14 of money in terms of TIF dollars.

09:22:17 And I think that we have found dollars for other

09:22:19 things. This is a very useful tool.

09:22:22 And I'm glad actually that John brought that up,

09:22:24 although I agree with Linda wholeheartedly, sometimes

09:22:26 you need to see what's going on and it gives you a

09:22:29 better picture of the actions on there.

09:22:33 But in terms of the computer, and that can be changed

09:22:36 based on what's happening, not happening, I mean, is

09:22:38 it so insurmountable that we can't get that in place

09:22:41 now?

09:22:42 >>MARK HUEY: We will bring you computer graphic

09:22:45 simulations that I think will be useful.

09:22:48 And once you see those, you can inform me as to

09:22:51 whether those are what you are thinking about, and we

09:22:55 can build from there.

09:22:56 So I'll commit to you, councilman Ferlita, that we

09:22:59 will bring to you some -- similar to the model, if

09:23:04 would you like to again continue with the model -- a

09:23:07 graphics tool that will help you understand the

09:23:09 implications of the planning.

09:23:12 >>ROSE FERLITA: And what is your idea of time frame

09:23:13 for that, Mr. Huey?

09:23:15 >> MARK HUEY: I think the computer piece of it can

09:23:17 probably happen a little bit quicker than the model.

09:23:20 The commitment we have on the model --

09:23:23 >>ROSE FERLITA: What?

09:23:24 No, no.

09:23:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me.

09:23:27 Rose is asking for a Channel District wide thing. The

09:23:29 computer piece is little.

09:23:31 The one that I've seen.

09:23:33 The one that all of us have seen. The one that Wilson

09:23:35 Miller already developed.

09:23:36 Excuse me, Ms. Ferlita.

09:23:40 I have to share with council my frustration.

09:23:41 Other cities not only have the computer model.

09:23:45 You can type in Boston, Portland, and see their entire

09:23:49 downtown.

09:23:50 And now who commissioned it?

09:23:52 Their CRAs.

09:23:53 Their CRAs.

09:23:55 San Diego, Oakland, have these things online.

09:23:58 We need, in my opinion, both.

09:23:59 And we needed it all a year ago.

09:24:02 At least we should work on getting it now.

09:24:04 I think we should move ahead with the 3-D model and we

09:24:11 should also get information on what the cost would be

09:24:11 on doing the entire thing online.

09:24:13 Both tools are useful.

09:24:14 And we are just really behind the curve.

09:24:17 >>ROSE FERLITA: And Linda, back to me -- and I agree

09:24:19 with you -- because if we don't hurry this up -- and

09:24:23 no one can convince me we can't get this done more

09:24:26 expeditiously.

09:24:27 It's unfair to us because we don't have the tools we

09:24:30 are struggling to get and at the same time it's not

09:24:31 fair to the developers that we are saying hold on

09:24:34 because we want to see this in a better context and

09:24:36 get a good opinion of what's going on and move their

09:24:38 development forward.

09:24:41 For us to be a big city like we are, for us to be

09:24:44 stumbling over giving us these tools is ridiculous.

09:24:50 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I don't think we are stumbling.

09:24:52 I think what they are trying to Do is making sure that

09:24:55 we are going to get the correct models.

09:24:58 And that -- I don't agree with doing a proposed model

09:25:02 because these things change.

09:25:04 This is the part I don't understand.

09:25:06 What you're saying --

09:25:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why are we doing this?

09:25:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: No, let me finish.

09:25:11 What you're saying is that the other cities that have

09:25:14 it, are they using proposed plans in there?

09:25:18 They are using proposed plans where they can change

09:25:20 them and everything?

09:25:21 Can you do that on a model?

09:25:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.

09:25:23 Yes.

09:25:24 You pick it up.

09:25:24 You can do both.

09:25:25 Pick it up and put something new down.

09:25:27 That's how you do it.

09:25:29 But I have a student intern who is doing all this

09:25:32 research because she works fast.

09:25:33 And she's going to give us all the web sites where you

09:25:37 can see other cities, and the cost of how other cities

09:25:41 address the issue that legal has some heartburn with,

09:25:44 which is archiving it.

09:25:46 They are concerned about how this could be archived

09:25:48 for the future.

09:25:49 I am getting research from other cities who have done

09:25:51 it and costs and people who put it together so that we

09:25:53 have that information.

09:25:54 But in the meantime, I'm pleased that we are finally

09:25:57 going ahead and getting our modest first model.

09:26:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?

09:26:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So does Mr. Huey have his marching

09:26:07 orders on this?

09:26:08 >>MARK HUEY: Yes.

09:26:10 Thank you.

09:26:11 We will do it as expeditiously as we can.

09:26:13 That was it.

09:26:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay, thank you.

09:26:18 We need to move to approve the agenda.

09:26:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.

09:26:21 >> Second.

09:26:22 (Motion carried)

09:26:25 At this time we are going to go to the public.

09:26:27 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak

09:26:29 on any item that is on the agenda that is not set for

09:26:31 public hearing?

09:26:39 >>> Gordon shift, 1211 North Westshore.

09:26:42 We have an item that we want to bring to council today

09:26:44 that we can wait till the end.

09:26:45 It concerns requesting an expedited hearing date for a

09:26:49 2(COP-R) wet zoning application, or we can do that

09:26:52 now.

09:26:53 We are a little unclear on the policy.

09:26:55 But we have spoken to your staff and have a completed

09:26:57 application.

09:26:58 So if you are comfortable, we are here just asking for

09:27:01 an expedited hearing date to be set for a wet zoning

09:27:04 application that's been filed.

09:27:06 I'll defer to council. I did bring my client with me,

09:27:11 Mrs. Wyley.

09:27:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Let me hear from staff.

09:27:15 Cathy.

09:27:17 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.

09:27:19 We do have the wet zoning application certified and

09:27:21 ready to submit.

09:27:23 I advised Mr. Schift that it would be able, before or

09:27:31 April.

09:27:32 I'm sorry, April, actually.

09:27:34 And due to circumstances from his client which she can

09:27:38 explain, he was asking for a March date if at all

09:27:40 possible so he needed to come before to you ask for

09:27:42 that date.

09:27:43 >>GWEN MILLER: What is your position on this?

09:27:46 >>CATHERINE COYLE: It's completely up to council.

09:27:47 I believe there's only two or three wet zonings

09:27:50 scheduled for that morning.

09:27:51 March 16th.

09:27:54 >>ROSE FERLITA: Certainly we are willing to listen to

09:27:56 anything, Mr. Shift but what are the hardships?

09:28:04 >>> Thank you.

09:28:04 The hardship is this was an existing wet zoned

09:28:07 property.

09:28:08 It's at 223 South Howard.

09:28:10 And due to either misunderstanding or my client or

09:28:15 others -- they were asked for the 120-day extension.

09:28:18 They didn't realize that they could file it, they

09:28:22 missed filing it.

09:28:22 We are asking literally for something that was in

09:28:24 effect in December of 2005 to be put back into place.

09:28:29 So it was an unfortunate circumstance;

09:28:32 misunderstanding the ability to extend, have a 120-day

09:28:35 extension and not asking for it in time.

09:28:37 So that's what caused this hardship.

09:28:39 >>ROSE FERLITA: Is it an open location now?

09:28:41 What is it?

09:28:42 >>> It's not open at the moment.

09:28:43 It's intended to be opened.

09:28:45 But it doesn't have wet zoning.

09:28:46 So that process is being achieved over the next 30

09:28:49 days.

09:28:49 >>ROSE FERLITA: I mean, is it --

09:28:53 >>> It was existing.

09:28:55 >> Where is it?

09:28:56 >>> Right at the corner of Howard and Platt.

09:28:59 >>GWEN MILLER: What's the pleasure of council?

09:29:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.

09:29:03 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think usually we make rules and

09:29:05 stick by them.

09:29:07 I certainly can understand if there was a

09:29:07 misunderstand being the time frame.

09:29:09 One thing that also would have made me say no would be

09:29:15 if we had a lot of wet zonings.

09:29:16 But since we don't, I mean, that's not to say of

09:29:19 course that we are going to approve it.

09:29:21 You understand that, Mr. Shift.

09:29:23 But since there's not a multitude of wet zonings I

09:29:25 don't have a problem with it.

09:29:26 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a second.

09:29:28 All in favor say Aye.

09:29:30 Opposed, Nay.

09:29:30 (Motion carried).

09:29:33 Next.

09:29:36 >>> Good morning.

09:29:36 Terry Neal, 4703 East River Hills Drive, Tampa,

09:29:40 Florida.

09:29:41 I wanted to come today and I think this item is going

09:29:43 to be continued.

09:29:44 But I wanted to thank Linda Saul-Sena and Mary Alvarez

09:29:48 for putting a staff report number 2 requesting the

09:29:52 report on the buried utilities.

09:29:55 I was at T.H.A.N. last night and everyone agrees that

09:29:58 buried utilities are not just anesthetic, they are

09:30:01 very essential for a city that endures hurricanes and

09:30:06 things like that.

09:30:07 So I appreciate you're doing that.

09:30:09 I look forward to that report.

09:30:11 I would also like to waive my right to speak at the

09:30:13 public hearing on item number 45, because I'm not

09:30:15 going to be here, which is the ordinance for second

09:30:19 reading on trees.

09:30:21 If I may do that.

09:30:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Will you be taking testimony then?

09:30:29 >>> No, I just wanted to give public comment but I'm

09:30:31 going to waive my right to speak then because I will

09:30:33 not be able to come back, if that's okay.

09:30:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby?

09:30:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I would caution against it.

09:30:41 I appreciate Mr. Neal wishing to do that.

09:30:43 But two fold, number one, it is supposed to be done

09:30:46 during a public hearing when testimony is taken.

09:30:48 And number two, it is a dangerous precedent for those

09:30:50 who can't come during public hearings later on in the

09:30:52 day.

09:30:52 So I would caution against that.

09:30:54 And I understand Mr. Neal's desire to do that.

09:30:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

09:30:58 In F we are not going to let you speak, if you

09:31:00 wouldn't mind writing something and giving it to the

09:31:02 receptionist and then she can give copies.

09:31:06 >>> I'll e-mail you all with comments about this item

09:31:08 after I get home which is after the public hearing

09:31:10 will have taken place.

09:31:11 >>GWEN MILLER: That will be fine.

09:31:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But you can make a comment.

09:31:16 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Neal, your first comments about

09:31:21 the underground wiring and utilities and stuff, that

09:31:24 was in reference to item 2?

09:31:25 Is that what we were talking about or just the

09:31:27 concept?

09:31:28 >>> Staff report number 2.

09:31:29 TECO, I understand, has not gotten back with the City

09:31:33 of Tampa's transportation department.

09:31:36 But the cost for burying utilities.

09:31:37 But I'm asking for 40th Street utilities to be buried.

09:31:41 >>ROSE FERLITA: Okay.

09:31:42 And if you remember, Mr. Neal, if you were listening

09:31:44 to that when it was brought up either by Ms. Alvarez

09:31:47 or Ms. Saul-Sena, certainly anything that is more

09:31:50 efficient or prettier, if you would, is something that

09:31:53 we might want to consider.

09:31:55 But I don't know if everybody understands the

09:31:58 complexity of trying to get a price or an estimate

09:32:01 that quickly.

09:32:02 And I have been in contact with some of the leadership

09:32:05 of TECO.

09:32:06 And of course they just can't go out and give you a

09:32:09 ballpark and say it's about this, because my

09:32:10 understanding when you move one pole, then what does

09:32:13 it have to do with the other one and what do you do to

09:32:16 reconfigure that?

09:32:17 I think realistically we did not give TECO enough

09:32:19 time, and I don't see anybody from TECO who would

09:32:22 respond to that and if they come in later I'll ask

09:32:24 them.

09:32:24 But my concern was, yes, we'd love to do that

09:32:27 throughout the entire city.

09:32:27 The only problem is, because you guys out there have

09:32:30 been waiting so long for this 40th Street improvement,

09:32:33 if the underground is so cost prohibitive, then that's

09:32:37 something else we have to look at and have to weigh.

09:32:40 And I'm not sure -- Sandy, the appropriate people were

09:32:45 contacted at TECO?

09:32:46 I'm confused about that, too. Because I don't believe

09:32:48 that they were.

09:32:50 >>THE CLERK: Your request was for the transportation

09:32:52 department to work with TECO.

09:32:54 So they would have probably been the ones to contact

09:32:56 TECO.

09:32:56 >>ROSE FERLITA: Okay, but I'm not sure whether that

09:32:59 got lost in the process.

09:33:01 And I know that their government affairs person is

09:33:06 here, Ms. Agliano just walked in.

09:33:09 Just in fairness to you, Mr. Neal was talking about

09:33:12 how great underground is, and we all agree it's nicer

09:33:15 and prettier, et cetera.

09:33:17 But with the communication that has transpired or has

09:33:19 not transpired and the fact that you guys just can't

09:33:21 pick a figure and estimate it, I want -- and Terry, I

09:33:26 think you understand where I'm coming from.

09:33:28 I want it to be realistic.

09:33:30 Don't want to rush TECO and say, oh, it's going to

09:33:33 cost X number of dollars and then later on we find out

09:33:36 it's going to cost XXX number of dollars and it slows

09:33:39 the process and we talk about cost and where do we

09:33:41 pass the costs on?

09:33:42 So that was one of my concerns and that's the reason I

09:33:44 just chimed in.

09:33:45 And Madam Chairman, if it's okay, I would love to hear

09:33:48 from Ms. Agliano.

09:33:51 They have given her a courtesy.

09:33:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, per my memo that I sent to

09:33:57 you a couple of weeks ago, I'm asking council to not

09:33:59 engage in discussion during agenda public comment but

09:34:02 please wait until the item is called up on the agenda

09:34:04 that it wishes to open the floor to additional

09:34:06 speakers.

09:34:07 It has the right to recognize it at that time.

09:34:09 >>ROSE FERLITA: The only reason that I chimed in, Mr.

09:34:11 Shelby, is since Mr. Neal is leaving I would like him

09:34:15 to know some of the behind-the-scenes thing that I

09:34:18 understand were prohibitive for TECO to come up and

09:34:23 give us a report today.

09:34:24 And I don't know what the administration is going to

09:34:26 say or not say or do or not do when we get to that

09:34:29 item.

09:34:29 But I wanted to make sure that the whole process was

09:34:31 understood and communication was there.

09:34:33 So even if you're not going to be here later, Terry,

09:34:36 perhaps when this does come up let's listen to what

09:34:39 our administration has to say, let's listen to what

09:34:41 the government affairs person --

09:34:43 >>> I have about 90 seconds left, I think, on my

09:34:46 public comment so let me add one other thing because

09:34:48 you bring up a very important point. The reason that

09:34:50 we are asking for this is, we have been told, well

09:34:52 maybe we should go back and ask for money to bury

09:34:56 utilities after the road is done.

09:34:57 Our contention is, if it's dug up, put the utilities

09:35:02 in the ground where it's dug up, not go back and put

09:35:04 them in the ground later.

09:35:06 Because obviously it is going to cost a whole lot more

09:35:09 money to bury the utilities after the 40th Street is

09:35:12 finished.

09:35:13 So basically we are just trying to get some

09:35:15 information.

09:35:16 And the reason that I have made an issue of this is

09:35:20 because victor Crist and Les Miller went to the state

09:35:23 to get nearly a million dollars for 22nd street to

09:35:26 bury the utilities there.

09:35:27 And I'm not necessarily asking the city to price this

09:35:31 or to pay for it.

09:35:32 I'm asking for a joint effort to do something like

09:35:36 they did, also.

09:35:38 Whatever it takes, I'm just saying when it's dug up

09:35:40 why don't we put them in the ground then?

09:35:43 >>ROSE FERLITA: So then according to Mr. Shelby, we'll

09:35:45 have further discussion when item 2 comes up.

09:35:47 Thank you.

09:35:50 >>SHAWN HARRISON: It will have to wait till item 2

09:35:52 comes up.

09:35:55 >> Good morning.

09:35:56 My name is Clarence towns, I stay at 2677 north

09:36:02 33rd street.

09:36:03 Item number 17, file B-2006-44.

09:36:08 That's some properties -- a property at 3709 north

09:36:13 31st street.

09:36:14 That's in the enterprise area of East Tampa.

09:36:18 I just had a meeting Monday on the 6th with Ms.

09:36:23 Cynthia Miller and she informed me that the City of

09:36:26 Tampa wasn't selling any properties over there, and

09:36:29 they haven't sold any properties for a couple of

09:36:31 years.

09:36:32 But I understand, I found out later, it's not because

09:36:36 they don't sell it, it's who they sell it to.

09:36:39 The reasons I got in that meeting was, one, that I'm

09:36:43 black.

09:36:43 That's why the City of Tampa won't sell to the me.

09:36:46 Number two, because I will not build substandard

09:36:51 homes.

09:36:51 Number three, that I refuse -- I will not build a

09:36:55 house without a back door.

09:36:57 And I will not build a house without a sidewalk in

09:36:59 front of it.

09:37:00 And, also, the way that I'm building homes over there,

09:37:05 that the city is against the type of homes I build

09:37:07 because they bring up the area instead of bringing

09:37:09 them down like the nonprofits have been building their

09:37:12 homes over there.

09:37:13 And so what I would like to have is this put on the

09:37:18 agenda to come forth to say what's the qualifications

09:37:20 of someone to buy properties from the City of Tampa?

09:37:23 I definitely cannot change my color, you know, and I

09:37:25 will not change it.

09:37:27 You know, and if you got the letter, I dropped off,

09:37:31 say it's time for a change.

09:37:34 Every last one of you.

09:37:35 This thing is four years old.

09:37:36 We have been fighting for this four years, after four

09:37:39 years we still are getting the same thing.

09:37:42 We are getting the runaround, run around, run around.

09:37:45 You know, they don't tell me that.

09:37:46 If they do decide to sell to me I have to have a half

09:37:50 million dollars put away in order to prove to them

09:37:52 that I build homes, even though I don't build five of

09:37:56 them, the sixth one with my own home that I have over

09:37:58 there in East Tampa, you know.

09:38:00 And that 3405 north clay street and 3306 east 33rd

09:38:07 Avenue, one of the nonprofits foundation built two

09:38:12 homes over there on his home and neither one of those

09:38:14 homes had rear doors.

09:38:16 And I brought that up to Mrs. Miller.

09:38:20 He said, well, you know, did he that on his own but

09:38:20 he's doing what the city want to do.

09:38:23 And so I'm asking you today to put that on the agenda

09:38:27 to find out what someone has to do that's not selling

09:38:31 to me because I'm black, no, that don't float a boat.

09:38:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

09:38:36 Anything else?

09:38:38 >>> Could I have that put on the agenda?

09:38:41 >>GWEN MILLER: The clerk is writing everything you

09:38:43 said, got it and it will go out.

09:38:46 >>> Do I get a date?

09:38:48 >>GWEN MILLER: You can't put it on.

09:38:50 Council puts it on.

09:38:51 >>> I know, but it's been a long time since I have

09:38:54 been here.

09:38:54 I know last time you saw set a date before I even walk

09:38:57 out.

09:38:57 >>GWEN MILLER: No.

09:38:58 >>> So would I have to do now?

09:39:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's under my committee.

09:39:03 I'm going to request that a staff person from building

09:39:07 and zoning come over and address that issue when we

09:39:10 get to our committee reports.

09:39:13 >> Today.

09:39:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Today.

09:39:15 >>> Today?

09:39:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Today.

09:39:16 >>> What time?

09:39:17 Because I would like to be back here.

09:39:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: An hour.

09:39:21 I don't know.

09:39:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It will be this morning.

09:39:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It will be this morning.

09:39:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: We can't tell you on the agenda when

09:39:28 it's going to come up except it will be pulled for

09:39:31 discussion, item number 17.

09:39:32 So it will be sometime this morning.

09:39:34 >>> So I can come up again when it comes up?

09:39:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No, sir.

09:39:38 >>> No?

09:39:38 But myself about the City of Tampa selling properties,

09:39:42 you know, that don't -- that doesn't even mat er?

09:39:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No, sir, your comment has been taken

09:39:46 under advisement to City Council.

09:39:48 Contribute referenced back.

09:39:49 Your comments can be referenced back during the

09:39:50 discussion of the item.

09:39:52 >>> But how about the part where they don't sell

09:39:55 property to blacks?

09:39:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Sir, you are going to have to wait

09:39:58 till the discussion of the item.

09:40:00 And if you wish to discuss what is discussed at that

09:40:01 time, you will have an additional opportunity at the

09:40:04 end of the meeting --

09:40:05 >>> Which one is it?

09:40:06 One minute you say I don't speak anymore.

09:40:08 Now you are saying that I can.

09:40:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You cannot speak during discussion of

09:40:12 item number 17.

09:40:13 If you wish to discuss what's been discussed for item

09:40:15 number 17 you have that opportunity at general public

09:40:18 comment which takes place at the end of the meeting.

09:40:22 >>> Okay.

09:40:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.

09:40:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

09:40:24 Mr. White?

09:40:26 >>KEVIN WHITE: I just want to, for clarification,

09:40:28 there is one thing that he said that struck a chord

09:40:31 with me that I just met with Cindy Miller and our new

09:40:35 real estate manager.

09:40:37 And that was the message that I received from both of

09:40:43 them as well, that we were going to revisit the way

09:40:45 the city was going to look at the disposition of real

09:40:49 estate we had in housing.

09:40:52 We weren't going to be selling anytime more at this

09:40:54 point in time until we come up with a fair and

09:40:57 equitable process for distribution.

09:41:00 Quite frankly I'm surprised to see one on the agenda

09:41:05 so soon.

09:41:05 And I would really like to hear our staff's position

09:41:10 on that.

09:41:12 More so than some of the other concerns that Mr. Town

09:41:17 is speaking of.

09:41:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. White, we are going to pull that.

09:41:19 And Ms. Saul-Sena, when we go to our committee

09:41:22 reports, we'll pull 17.

09:41:23 Each council member will have an opportunity to

09:41:25 discuss number 17.

09:41:27 Thank you.

09:41:28 Is there anyone else that would like to be speak?

09:41:33 >>> Good morning.

09:41:33 Jennifer D'Angelo, 112 east street B, Tampa 33602.

09:41:40 I came in a little late S.this the time for public

09:41:42 comments for anything on the agenda?

09:41:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

09:41:45 >>> I want to speak to item 44 which is the second

09:41:47 reading of the noise ordinance.

09:41:48 >>GWEN MILLER: That's a public hearing.

09:41:50 You have to wait till that time.

09:41:51 >> I have to wait till that time?

09:41:53 Okay, pardon me.

09:41:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?

09:41:58 Okay.

09:41:59 We need to approve the agenda.

09:42:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.

09:42:04 Would like to move that we take item 17 out of

09:42:12 building and zoning for discussion, and invite her

09:42:21 over to discuss it.

09:42:23 >> Second.

09:42:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There was a motion on the vote --

09:42:26 wasn't a motion to vote on the agenda.

09:42:29 I guess it's a motion to amend.

09:42:31 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I thought we did.

09:42:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

09:42:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Was there a vote on that as well?

09:42:35 >>GWEN MILLER: No.

09:42:36 It was a question.

09:42:38 We have a motion for approval of agenda.

09:42:41 (Motion carried)

09:42:44 Now we go to item number 1.

09:42:49 >>> Rebecca Curt, legal department, I'm here with a

09:42:52 substitute essentially built-out agreement for the

09:42:54 university business DRI.

09:42:56 The clerk has received a copy and council and Mr.

09:42:58 Shelby should have also received a copy.

09:43:00 The change is an acknowledgment that there's an

09:43:03 outstanding transportation condition which has not yet

09:43:05 been triggered by the development out there. The

09:43:08 changes, the clarification that that condition

09:43:09 remains, and that when the build-out to that level

09:43:13 occurs, that that condition must be met.

09:43:15 I'm available for questions.

09:43:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?

09:43:19 Thank you.

09:43:20 Item number 2.

09:43:21 >>ROY LAMOTTE: Good morning.

09:43:32 >>THE CLERK: You will need to move item number 1 with

09:43:37 the substitute agreement.

09:43:37 >> So moved.

09:43:38 >> Second.

09:43:38 (Motion carried).

09:43:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay, Mr. LaMotte.

09:43:42 >>ROY LAMOTTE: Good morning, council.

09:43:45 Sorry for that start.

09:43:46 Item number 2, I am seeking a continuance for some

09:43:49 more time.

09:43:50 In the spirit of cooperation, and your request to us,

09:43:56 we have sent a letter to Mr. Chuck black, president of

09:43:59 Tampa Electric Company, requesting them to provide a

09:44:01 cost and a schedule for the underground placement.

09:44:05 And we are waiting a response back from him today.

09:44:08 We have a representative of Tampa electric here today

09:44:12 to talk to you.

09:44:13 But in addition to that, I will tell you that it is a

09:44:16 costly venture, as Ms. Ferlita has pointed out

09:44:19 already.

09:44:19 It's a million dollars a mile based on the 22nd

09:44:23 street project.

09:44:24 That's just an estimate at this time.

09:44:25 And we'll refine that number as soon as we have got

09:44:29 information back from TECO.

09:44:31 Yes.

09:44:31 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. LaMotte, right now, the project

09:44:38 is segmentalized.

09:44:40 It's broken down.

09:44:42 >>> That's correct.

09:44:43 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Are we requesting a break down per

09:44:45 segment from TECO?

09:44:47 Or is it just sort of a general entire corridor, this

09:44:50 is what it's going to cost?

09:44:52 >>> We have asked for a breakout of the corridor, so

09:44:54 we can address it by the individual sections being

09:44:57 affected.

09:44:58 >>SHAWN HARRISON: And there currently is no funding in

09:45:04 the -- either through the MPO program, and-or the

09:45:10 additional money the city has been able to acquire

09:45:13 from the federal government to do this, is that right?

09:45:15 >>> That is my understanding.

09:45:17 >> If we got to -- let's say we get to the end of one

09:45:21 of the segments, whatever segment we are currently

09:45:23 involved in now, and it looks like we have more money

09:45:28 than we need to finish that segment, would we be able

09:45:31 to utilize some of that money to apply towards burying

09:45:37 the lines?

09:45:37 Or does that money sort of go back into the pot to be

09:45:41 used on the next segment?

09:45:43 You may not even be able to answer that.

09:45:44 >>ROY LAMOTTE: I can't answer that this morning.

09:45:46 I would say if we have any money left over, we'll be

09:45:50 left what we begin with, we are always able to use it

09:45:56 in the project it was destined for.

09:45:57 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. LaMotte, has any progress been

09:46:02 made, or any attempt to ask our senators, like senator

09:46:06 Miller and Mr. Crist, to do something about funding

09:46:10 for 40th Street like they did for 22nd?

09:46:15 >>ROY LAMOTTE: We have sought federal funding wherever

09:46:17 possible relative to the possibility of doing the

09:46:19 underground, I can't speak explicitly to that request.

09:46:25 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, that might be something that we

09:46:27 could ask.

09:46:27 >>ROY LAMOTTE: We'll be willing to explore it.

09:46:32 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's all we need.

09:46:35 Information.

09:46:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chairman, I understand that

09:46:39 two weeks ago that on a Monday the Public Service

09:46:43 Commission had a statewide meeting with all the power

09:46:46 companies and number of municipalities to discuss

09:46:49 undergrounding.

09:46:50 And there's some bills that are going to be put out in

09:46:53 this year's legislative session that might have some

09:46:56 bearing on this.

09:46:57 So whenever we come back to discuss this, I would like

09:47:04 maybe a report from our staff on -- who I assume are

09:47:09 tracking this bill because it's going to be relevant

09:47:11 to our franchise negotiation was teak, where those

09:47:15 bills stand in the legislature.

09:47:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was just wondering, was there a

09:47:21 time certain on your continuance request?

09:47:25 >>ROY LAMOTTE: At this time I can't say there is,

09:47:26 because it is a major endeavor on the part of TECO to

09:47:29 deliver.

09:47:31 I certainly would anticipate coming back with a

09:47:35 response as quick as humanly possible.

09:47:38 >> Should we give you 30 days or 60 days to report

09:47:40 back to us?

09:47:41 >>> I think 60 days is more reasonable.

09:47:43 But again TECO's rep is here today.

09:47:46 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to hear from Ms. Agliano.

09:47:49 Would you come up, please?

09:47:53 >>> Thank you all.

09:47:55 Stephanie Agliano, Tampa Electric Company.

09:47:59 It will take a few weeks to get the estimate back.

09:48:03 I wish we could just drive the route and give you an

09:48:06 estimate.

09:48:06 But it's not that easy.

09:48:08 So we want to make sure that we are looking at the

09:48:11 total picture and do what we need to do.

09:48:14 I should know more hopefully today.

09:48:16 I know that I spoke with mark this morning.

09:48:19 And so as soon as we hear how long, we'll definitely

09:48:24 let you all know.

09:48:25 I will tell you, though, the smart thing is that, yes,

09:48:28 if you're doing roadway work, I mean, now is the time,

09:48:31 if this is something that you all want to visit, it is

09:48:33 the best time to visit it.

09:48:35 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Stephani.

09:48:40 And, Roy, just so there's no misunderstanding about

09:48:43 this, we are not delaying, slowing this project down

09:48:47 one second while we wait for this information?

09:48:52 >>ROY LAMOTTE: That's correct.

09:48:54 >>SHAWN HARRISON: That's correct.

09:48:54 That is the one thing we cannot do on this project.

09:48:57 Those people have been waiting for this for 40 or 50

09:49:01 years, and we are now in the middle of it.

09:49:03 Every day we delay means the project goes up that much

09:49:07 further in cost.

09:49:08 And what we are doing at the MPO is we are struggling

09:49:11 every year to just meet the rising construction costs,

09:49:15 just to build the road.

09:49:17 Forget about the, you know, the additional things that

09:49:19 we would all like to see out there.

09:49:21 So if there is -- once we get that estimate back from

09:49:24 TECO, I would suggest we make an effort to go outside

09:49:28 of the MPO process directly to the state legislature

09:49:31 or directly to the Congress to get a specific earmark

09:49:35 for burying those lines.

09:49:38 Because if we try to add that in to the MPO process,

09:49:41 it will throw the whole thing off, and we'll lose

09:49:45 another year or two just on being able to build a

09:49:47 road.

09:49:47 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think basically we are all talking

09:49:52 about the same problems, Mr. LaMotte.

09:49:55 And just as Mr. Harrison said, that's why I brought up

09:49:57 the issue of what it would cost.

09:49:59 It would be cost prohibitive, et cetera, when Ms.

09:50:03 Saul-Sena and Ms. Alvarez were talking about it.

09:50:06 So I certainly don't want to delay any more than we

09:50:08 have to based on the fact that Shawn said 40 or 50

09:50:11 years.

09:50:12 It sounds like it's been 100 or so.

09:50:14 That's the point.

09:50:15 Although if timing is such that we can do the other,

09:50:17 that's fine.

09:50:18 But those are the issues that we have to ask other

09:50:21 legislative bodies for funding, et cetera.

09:50:23 And that's something for you guys to research.

09:50:26 I will tell you something or make a comment.

09:50:29 Not necessarily to this but generically in terms of

09:50:33 policy.

09:50:33 I was involved because I asked about the cost issue

09:50:37 and then Ms. Agliano called my office and want add bit

09:50:40 more information about it.

09:50:41 It will expedite our relationships and our responses

09:50:44 back from TECO.

09:50:45 And I'm telling you just as a policy standpoint, as

09:50:48 director of transportation, but Ms. Agliano was our

09:50:52 government affairs personnel, has been directed to --

09:50:58 moved up to director of community affairs.

09:51:01 In the process, I don't know if it was through someone

09:51:07 else in your department, don't remember hot was, but

09:51:10 it was given to Chuck Black.

09:51:13 It will really be better and quicker and more

09:51:15 expeditious -- expeditious and quick fer we continue

09:51:19 to contact with Ms. Agliano because she is our

09:51:21 contact.

09:51:22 She called me and said, can you give me an idea of

09:51:25 what you suggested when they were making this

09:51:26 discussion?

09:51:26 So I think you two need to get a clear channel of

09:51:30 communication so we can get a quicker response.

09:51:32 I understand from what she's saying that it's going to

09:51:34 take a little while anyway because they want an

09:51:36 accurate estimate.

09:51:37 But just as we go forward, Roy, it will be quicker for

09:51:40 you guys to communicate instead of somebody someplace

09:51:43 else with somebody someplace else.

09:51:44 And Ms. Agliano, you can comment on that.

09:51:47 >>> Well, I didn't know about it until I got a call.

09:51:49 So I was like, gee, I'm not even copied on this.

09:51:52 But that's fine, you know.

09:51:54 It got to me, and definitely Mark was on it.

09:51:58 But, you know, hopefully I can be included in the

09:52:04 future.

09:52:04 >>ROY LAMOTTE: Let me say in the spirit of cooperation

09:52:09 I will work with Stephani.

09:52:10 >>ROSE FERLITA: It's not that you guys have a fight or

09:52:13 anything.

09:52:13 It will be quicker.

09:52:16 >>> Agliano: We are doing some work today.

09:52:18 So hopefully like I said we'll get back.

09:52:21 And definitely go from there.

09:52:25 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Agliano, is there any possibility

09:52:32 that in cooperation with the city that you could ask

09:52:40 the Senate -- Mr. Miller and Mr. Crist, about helping

09:52:44 with this funding?

09:52:45 >>> I will definitely go back and note that request.

09:52:51 >> Because I think between the city and TECO, there

09:52:54 might be a possibility.

09:52:55 And we need to strike while the iron is hot.

09:52:57 >>ROSE FERLITA: During election season?

09:53:01 (Laughter).

09:53:02 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Besides that, I want it to publicly

09:53:07 acknowledge your new position at TECO.

09:53:10 Congratulations again.

09:53:11 >>> And thank you.

09:53:12 I know I talked with councilwoman Saul-Sena, and

09:53:14 Alvarez yesterday, because I just want to make sure

09:53:18 that the people on the motion knew that, hey, we're

09:53:21 working on it, and we'll get it.

09:53:24 I wish we could do it in several days but that just is

09:53:26 not realistic.

09:53:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Agliano, while we're at it, and

09:53:34 not trying to pile on or anything, but we have two

09:53:39 other major projects that I'm aware of, both in South

09:53:42 Tampa.

09:53:44 One is the D.O.T.-Gandy project.

09:53:49 And they are doing a lot of resurfacing and digging up

09:53:52 sidewalks and that sort of thing in that project.

09:53:55 And so that might be an opportunity.

09:53:59 And then also adjacent to that on Manhattan which

09:54:03 clearly we are just going to be digging up the whole

09:54:05 thing and doing the five lanes there.

09:54:08 So if it's not too burdensome, maybe there's a

09:54:13 ballpark figure that somebody can throw at us on both

09:54:18 of those.

09:54:18 >>> On the Gandy project, is that already currently --

09:54:21 >>: It's not under construction.

09:54:22 It's supposed to start perhaps this summer, what I

09:54:25 have been told by the D.O.T.

09:54:26 But at the Manhattan, you know, we'll start turning

09:54:30 dirt --

09:54:32 >>> Do I get with you?

09:54:32 Okay, so I'll get with Roy and see where those

09:54:35 boundaries are and tan that back to you.

09:54:37 >>GWEN MILLER: That means you have to get money for

09:54:40 both projects now.

09:54:41 (Laughter)

09:54:45 Thank you.

09:54:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.

09:54:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did we set a date, four weeks?

09:54:53 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We are waiting on Stephani at this

09:54:55 point.

09:54:55 >>GWEN MILLER: She will contact us, give us a date.

09:54:59 They don't know when it's going to be.

09:55:02 Stephani has to go back and check and see how long

09:55:04 it's going to be.

09:55:04 Mr. LaMotte said did he not know how long it's going

09:55:07 to take.

09:55:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: In an effort to keep things above

09:55:10 the radar screen, I would like to move that we set

09:55:12 this for the middle of March -- no, the end of March,

09:55:17 which gives like six weeks.

09:55:19 And if it needs more time it needs more time.

09:55:21 But just to make sure that we don't lose it.

09:55:23 So maybe March 30th at 9:00, for a report back.

09:55:30 That gives us seven weeks, I believe.

09:55:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: May I suggest unfinished business

09:55:39 rather than a time certain?

09:55:42 >> Yes.

09:55:43 >> Second.

09:55:43 (Motion carried).

09:55:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Windy when we hear back from that,

09:55:47 that we also get a report from our staff that keeps

09:55:49 track of what's going on in Tallahassee and what's

09:55:51 going on in Tallahassee -- March something it happened

09:55:58 or not happened.

09:56:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

09:56:05 That's a comment.

09:56:06 Item number 3.

09:56:13 >>DAVID SMITH: David Smith.

09:56:14 I only have the opportunity to talk with Mr. Harrison

09:56:18 yesterday but what we are requesting is additional

09:56:20 time.

09:56:21 And starting this project, this is the one about any

09:56:25 other fees within the code that deals with actions and

09:56:34 things of that nature.

09:56:35 I think I was quoted that we have like 2,716 pages of

09:56:38 code.

09:56:39 What we would like to do is make sure we provide you

09:56:41 an adequate answer.

09:56:41 I would propose that what we do is have about a 30-day

09:56:45 extension, and we provide you a written report that

09:56:47 will identify the areas with an explanation.

09:56:51 These things aren't always intuitive or obvious on

09:56:54 their face.

09:56:55 I think it would be important to provide you an

09:56:57 explanation along with it.

09:56:59 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't have any problem with

09:57:00 granting a 30-day extension on this.

09:57:03 Although, Mr. Smith, I at that time from your answer

09:57:05 that there are no new surprises in the works that will

09:57:12 show up in the next 30 days?

09:57:14 >>DAVID SMITH: No, sir.

09:57:14 >>SHAWN HARRISON: All right.

09:57:16 Move to continue for 30 days.

09:57:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.

09:57:18 (Motion carried).

09:57:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 4.

09:57:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: City Council attorney.

09:57:27 This is an item continued from last week.

09:57:31 And I apologize for giving council late information at

09:57:34 the last minute.

09:57:36 That was a part of the problem continuing it for one

09:57:40 week.

09:57:40 But to bring council up to date very briefly, I had a

09:57:42 conversation with Janett Fenton.

09:57:45 She clarified the position of the Florida League of

09:57:47 Cities.

09:57:48 They are opposed to the bill in its present form.

09:57:50 This is regarding the billboard proposal.

09:57:53 But they are working through legislative means to be

09:57:56 able to make changes to the bill to make it more

09:58:00 palatable to the city.

09:58:01 She faxed me a letter which I have provided to

09:58:03 council, to the sponsor of the bill outlining their

09:58:08 concerns.

09:58:09 My suggestion, council, and my recommendation, I do

09:58:12 not feel comfortable having council take a position

09:58:17 with this information just being provided to it.

09:58:19 But my recommendations would be this:

09:58:25 Before I say that let me just say that the legal

09:58:27 department does not have a problem or any issues with

09:58:29 council taking a position on this bill, vis-a-vis any

09:58:36 litigation.

09:58:36 The administration is not prepared to take a position

09:58:38 on this at this time but has no objection if council

09:58:42 should wish to take a position presently.

09:58:45 But it's my recommendation that council look through

09:58:47 this information.

09:58:48 I provided a resolution if council wishes to go

09:58:50 forward today.

09:58:51 But to receive and file it.

09:58:53 And we'll keep it on the radar with the Florida League

09:58:55 of Cities.

09:58:56 And keep you posted as to the action that should be

09:58:58 taken at the appropriate time.

09:59:02 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, colleagues, you will

09:59:05 remember I'm the one that brought this up at the

09:59:07 recommendation of Ron Rotella is ho is part of our

09:59:10 committee, sign committee, and I think he was trying

09:59:13 to just watch over this issue because there was some

09:59:16 concern about it.

09:59:17 And did not want it to get in the way of what we are

09:59:20 trying to do in terms of improving our sign ordinance.

09:59:24 At the time I brought it up because I felt like that

09:59:26 was my obligation to so do.

09:59:27 And Mr. Shelby has done certainly his due diligence

09:59:30 and research.

09:59:31 And if that is the administration's position that's

09:59:34 fine.

09:59:34 The fact that the League of Cities is following it and

09:59:37 trying to make some improvements, I think we are in

09:59:39 good hands with them and I'll take your advice unless

09:59:42 somebody has a different position.

09:59:44 It well adviced that we just receive and file it and

09:59:46 keep it there and see what happens.

09:59:49 And I understand what Mr. Rotella was doing.

09:59:51 And I certainly appreciate as chairman of that

09:59:52 committee.

09:59:53 He was just trying to just lay the groundwork for this

09:59:55 to become a good product at the end.

09:59:57 But I think that's good advice, Martin.

10:00:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I really haven't had a chance to

10:00:04 take a look at this.

10:00:05 Why don't we take a look?

10:00:07 We have a little bit of time before the legislature

10:00:08 convenes.

10:00:09 So we'll have a chance in the next couple of weeks if

10:00:12 we want to do something to do something.

10:00:15 >>ROSE FERLITA: So still, then, are you agreeable to

10:00:18 just receive and file it and look at it in the

10:00:21 meantime?

10:00:22 >> Yes.

10:00:22 >>ROSE FERLITA: Let's do that.

10:00:23 And then go from there.

10:00:26 >>> Amadio: City of Tampa transportation planning.

10:00:30 I did review the two bills, house and Senate.

10:00:32 I just want to bring up the city is actively pursuing

10:00:36 beautification projects and vegetation on the state

10:00:38 highway system which these bills address.

10:00:40 Kennedy Boulevard, which is State Road 60.

10:00:43 Nebraska Avenue, State Road 45.

10:00:45 Busch Boulevard, State Road 580.

10:00:47 There is a desire for shade tree line corridors and

10:00:50 tall palm trees as well as other plantings.

10:00:53 Additional maintenance requirements, and keeping view

10:00:56 corridors trimmed back, payment for fences to sign

10:01:00 owners, make the current version of the bill very

10:01:04 tenable.

10:01:05 We also have issues, and we are looking for the city's

10:01:10 revisions, et cetera.

10:01:12 But we are proposing beautification on state roads.

10:01:16 And that would be -- fall under this bill.

10:01:19 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Basically what the League of Cities

10:01:25 is saying is they don't like either one of these.

10:01:27 And that's what we're saying here, too.

10:01:30 So I don't really see why we wouldn't go ahead and

10:01:33 proceed.

10:01:37 I don't see any down side to not passing this

10:01:42 resolution.

10:01:42 I think if we get on the record quickly, they know

10:01:45 that at least where we stand.

10:01:48 >>> Right.

10:01:49 And in its current form we oppose that, as the city's

10:01:57 transportation.

10:01:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think you're right, Mr. Harrison,

10:02:00 and I will also bring it to the board next --

10:02:05 >>ROSE FERLITA: I'm fine either way.

10:02:06 It seemed like some of you wanted more time to look at

10:02:09 it.

10:02:09 And I think, Mr. Harrison, you're right.

10:02:11 We don't like it as it is.

10:02:13 That doesn't mean we won't accept it in some other

10:02:15 configuration.

10:02:16 I'm comfortable either way.

10:02:17 If, Linda, if we want to look at it after we move it

10:02:21 and get some more information, that's fine, too.

10:02:23 It doesn't matter.

10:02:24 We have enough people watching it.

10:02:26 I don't think we are intentionally contradicting what

10:02:28 the administration's position is.

10:02:30 But if you're okay with moving it then fine, we'll go

10:02:33 back to plan 1.

10:02:34 That's okay with me, too, Marty.

10:02:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The resolution that I prepared is

10:02:41 very generic and not very fact specific but it does

10:02:44 put council on record, if council wishes the to take

10:02:47 action today.

10:02:48 And you are getting the letter from the Florida League

10:02:50 of Cities, you can see what their position is, and

10:02:52 there are specific problems with the bill.

10:02:54 But the facts contained within the letter are not

10:02:57 included in the resolution but the resolution in and

10:02:59 of itself is very generic.

10:03:02 >>ROSE FERLITA: So then even not having -- in Ms.

10:03:06 Saul-Sena's case not having had opportunity to look at

10:03:08 the detail, we still know they are opposed to the in

10:03:10 their current configuration and so are we.

10:03:14 That being said let's back up and just move the

10:03:15 resolution.

10:03:17 >> Second.

10:03:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to move the

10:03:19 resolution.

10:03:19 (Motion carried).

10:03:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you for coming.

10:03:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone fountain in the public

10:03:26 that would like to ask for reconsideration?

10:03:32 Okay, we go to our committee reports.

10:03:37 Parks, recreation, Ms. Mary Alvarez.

10:03:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I move item 5.

10:03:43 >> Second.

10:03:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

10:03:44 (Motion carried).

10:03:46 Public works, Mr. John Dingfelder.

10:03:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Items 6 through 11.

10:03:54 >> Second.

10:03:54 (Motion carried).

10:03:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Finance Committee, Mr. Kevin White.

10:03:57 >>KEVIN WHITE: I would like to move resolutions 12

10:04:00 through 15.

10:04:01 >> Second.

10:04:01 (Motion carried).

10:04:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Building and zoning, Ms. Linda

10:04:07 Saul-Sena.

10:04:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to begin by pulling

10:04:09 item 17, so that Ms. Miller can comment on it.

10:04:15 >> Second.

10:04:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: She's in the hallway.

10:04:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I hope that she was able to hear

10:04:21 the questions asked.

10:04:24 I'll tell you what.

10:04:27 In an effort -- well, I'll just wait.

10:04:31 Thank you for coming over.

10:04:33 Ms. Miller, you're up.

10:04:34 Thank you for coming over.

10:04:35 I hope you had an opportunity to hear the questions

10:04:37 raised previously.

10:04:41 In our public comment section.

10:04:44 >>> Cynthia Miller: Yes, I did.

10:04:46 For item number 17, and I do want to just sort of

10:04:52 mention as a preface, is that I did tell Mr. Towns

10:04:57 earlier this week that we, in our department, and

10:05:00 through the real estate division, at my direction, had

10:05:03 not gone forward with any real estate transactions,

10:05:06 any advertisements, as I reported to council before.

10:05:09 We were still working on the inventory of what was

10:05:11 available.

10:05:12 We identified those parcels that were available for

10:05:14 housing.

10:05:16 And that would be made available through our housing

10:05:21 and community development division.

10:05:24 And council very recently, as a matter of fact, had

10:05:26 authorized our contracts with nonprofit organizations

10:05:30 for that.

10:05:30 So that was our first step.

10:05:32 When I met with Mr. Towns, I had thought that we had

10:05:35 not advertised any properties, that any properties

10:05:39 that are coming to you here at council now I had

10:05:43 thought had been advertised in 2004.

10:05:47 I was in error.

10:05:48 And this particular property that is item number 17

10:05:51 was advertised in 2005.

10:05:54 It was advertised through the coordination with the

10:05:58 real estate department, or division, which is my

10:06:01 division.

10:06:01 And it had been basically involved from the standpoint

10:06:06 of being made available through the East Tampa CRA.

10:06:09 So I met with Mr. Towns.

10:06:12 I thought we had suspended everything.

10:06:13 Frankly this kind of advertisement does not require my

10:06:15 approval.

10:06:17 It will from now on.

10:06:19 So from that standpoint, I am sorry if I misled him on

10:06:22 this particular transaction.

10:06:24 But this one was advertised.

10:06:25 It was advertised through appropriate public notice.

10:06:30 And it was reviewed by both my divisions as well as by

10:06:35 Mr. Chen and Mr. Johnson.

10:06:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Miller, thank you for that

10:06:41 explanation.

10:06:41 And sometimes things slip and that's the way it is.

10:06:45 I know it wasn't intentional.

10:06:48 We have had some of these discussions in the past

10:06:50 before, and just refresh my memory.

10:06:54 Is there a standard list that interested folks can get

10:06:58 on?

10:07:01 Or is there a web site they can look at or something

10:07:04 like that to see what city properties are available at

10:07:07 any given time?

10:07:09 And, in other words, this particular parcel or any of

10:07:13 these 17, 18 that we are disposing of, you know, in

10:07:20 purchasing department, if I'm interested in selling

10:07:22 the city widgets, I get on their widget list, and

10:07:26 whenever the city wants to buy widgets they send me a

10:07:29 notice, and that way I'm assured to be aware of it.

10:07:33 Do we do anything similar to that in real estate?

10:07:38 >>> We do it, councilman, from the standpoint of this

10:07:41 particular item, would have been advertised in a

10:07:44 newspaper of general distribution.

10:07:47 Frankly that's one reason why I had wanted to wait

10:07:50 until we do make parcels more generally marketable.

10:07:53 Because I don't believe that we do have a good process

10:07:56 at this time.

10:07:58 We can be literally showered with requests to be on

10:08:00 every bidder's list or to have names placed on it.

10:08:04 So what we are working on is being able to have

10:08:06 something through the city's web site, first of all,

10:08:08 that can be an easy access cookie to be able to say

10:08:14 real estate available for sale.

10:08:16 To also be able to set up a bidder's list that will be

10:08:20 standard.

10:08:21 Now I can't say that I'm going to be able to have a

10:08:24 bidder's list that says for he have single parcel.

10:08:27 I think we'll have to contact bidders for any parcels

10:08:30 that become available.

10:08:31 So that is something that real estate division is

10:08:33 working on.

10:08:33 >> I know you can do blast e-mails. The clerk's

10:08:36 office does blast e-mails.

10:08:38 Anybody who is interested in seeing what our agenda is

10:08:40 gets it by e-mail.

10:08:41 And so if you had a couple hundred real estate folks

10:08:45 or developers who want to be on that list, just blast

10:08:48 them that e-mail whenever we are going to sell

10:08:50 something.

10:08:50 >> And one thing I had identified earlier this week,

10:08:53 and we are identifying to a number of parties, is that

10:08:55 when it comes to especially in East Tampa for parcels

10:08:59 that we want to make available for affordable housing,

10:09:04 in the next roughly two months, we are hoping to make

10:09:07 available to nonprofits, for-profits, individuals,

10:09:12 approximately 60 parcels, 60-plus parcels that will be

10:09:15 made available for affordable housing.

10:09:18 And that will be generally marketable.

10:09:20 It will be the type of thing that we will certainly

10:09:22 make all of you aware as well as the neighborhood

10:09:24 associations, as well as those in the CRAs that

10:09:29 those locations are in.

10:09:30 Let me also, if I may, elaborate on one other point.

10:09:35 Let me just say when it comes to Mr. Towns, he's right

10:09:37 about a number of items he says, not necessarily as to

10:09:40 how the message, I believe, was conveyed in my meeting

10:09:43 with him, but we agree in business and housing

10:09:46 development that a number of the types of houses that

10:09:49 were constructed in the past through city subsidy are

10:09:54 totally inadequate for the neighborhood and for the

10:09:56 owners.

10:09:57 A small house with no back door, with no good exit in

10:10:01 the case of an emergency, without good access for,

10:10:04 say, an elderly individual who may be living in it or

10:10:08 children, is totally appropriate.

10:10:10 So we intend for any standards of any parcels of land

10:10:12 we sell for affordable housing are going to be up to

10:10:14 quality standards.

10:10:15 Sharon Rus of our housing community development

10:10:17 division has been working on that.

10:10:19 And we concur from the standpoint of the development

10:10:22 and the administration.

10:10:23 So we totally agree that we need to improve the

10:10:25 housing product that the city is involved through

10:10:27 federal and state funds in subsidizing.

10:10:30 >> How about the issue of race, the gentleman brought

10:10:33 up?

10:10:34 It's hardly worth mentioning but I think you should

10:10:36 mention it.

10:10:39 >>> I do not believe that I have the reputation or my

10:10:44 staff has the reputation of making any decisions,

10:10:46 especially negative decisions based on race.

10:10:49 And I would hope that council believes in that aspect

10:10:54 of my personality.

10:10:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We do.

10:10:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We do.

10:10:58 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We do.

10:10:59 >>KEVIN WHITE: Ms. Miller, I want to confirm, I guess,

10:11:03 our conversation, and when Mr. Town contacted me a

10:11:09 little while ago, in regards to this particular issue,

10:11:14 I understand that it was something that you weren't

10:11:17 privy to at this point in time that got back doored,

10:11:22 if you will.

10:11:25 And maybe that's a bad terminology.

10:11:27 But you weren't privy to this particular

10:11:29 advertisement.

10:11:30 But that seems to be the continuation of the process

10:11:37 that he had been bumping into over the past few years,

10:11:42 and quite a few other people in dealing with the real

10:11:45 estate department.

10:11:47 And I was quite comfortable with the conversation that

10:11:50 we had with your new director of the real estate

10:11:52 department, that we are going to have some sort of set

10:11:56 guidelines at this point in time, and some

10:12:00 standardizations of your processes.

10:12:03 As I explained to you as well, I was very familiar as

10:12:07 well with some of the inadequacies of the process --

10:12:13 inadequacys of the process and the misinformation of

10:12:18 some of the processes that had been given out in the

10:12:21 past and I thought Mr. Town's frustration as well.

10:12:25 And when he called me, I assured him that I just met

10:12:28 with Cindy Miller and I just met with the new

10:12:31 director, and they assured me that nothing is going

10:12:34 forward at this point in time until we get some of

10:12:37 these processes in place.

10:12:38 And then when I saw 17 on the agenda, I was set back,

10:12:42 if you will.

10:12:43 And now hearing your explanation with that one, I can

10:12:47 live with that explanation, and quite frankly would

10:12:50 probably be more than willing to go ahead and move

10:12:52 forward with that.

10:12:54 But that still, as far as I'm concerned, that probably

10:12:57 doesn't do Mr. Town any good because if he knew about

10:13:00 this advertisement he probably would have tried to

10:13:05 enter into this bidding process, because I have seen

10:13:09 some of -- if you will, he's one of the type of

10:13:14 developers that I was speaking with you and the new

10:13:19 department manager about, he's one of the developers

10:13:21 that likes to build the onesies, twosies a year

10:13:27 because that's how he subsidizes his income and

10:13:30 frankly he build a quality home, not one of those you

10:13:33 were speaking of with no back doors and windows.

10:13:35 He build a quality home and a decent size home that is

10:13:38 still affordable for the East Tampa area.

10:13:40 And when he does -- what he does build uplifts the

10:13:46 neighborhood instead of keeping it on a happy medium

10:13:48 and I would speak up for him on that standpoint.

10:13:50 But I continue to see his frustration with this

10:13:54 process, and even with this one moving forward, I can

10:13:56 even continue to see -- continue to build.

10:14:01 As far as the race issue, I can say that I truly

10:14:06 haven't seen any of that coming from your department,

10:14:09 although I do question some of the decisions in the

10:14:13 past that have been made as far as the assignment or

10:14:19 the awardation of the recipient of some of the

10:14:24 properties, even when the RFPs were clear-cut,

10:14:29 outlined, and people that did not even meet all of the

10:14:32 qualification criteria got awarded when other people

10:14:36 that met every step of the criteria didn't get

10:14:39 awarded.

10:14:40 I had some serious concerns about that.

10:14:41 But that was not under your watch.

10:14:44 And I'm sure, I would hope that that process would not

10:14:48 continue.

10:14:50 >>> And thank you, councilman.

10:14:52 When it comes to item number 17 I do want to mention,

10:14:55 all appropriate legal processes were followed but I

10:14:59 will commit to you that when it comes to

10:15:01 responsibility for whether an advertisement is made,

10:15:04 it will fall to my division manager, Mr. Herb becker

10:15:10 and to me as director, to make sure that it's done

10:15:12 appropriately in the future.

10:15:13 So even though this was appropriately done legally, it

10:15:16 was not done under my level of sign-off.

10:15:20 They will be in the future.

10:15:21 >>GWEN MILLER: One point.

10:15:25 There was a statement made that you have a certain

10:15:27 amount of money in the bank or something.

10:15:34 >>> I am not sure what Mr. Towns is mentioning.

10:15:35 And may I also mention part of our conversation the

10:15:37 other day was Councilman White mentioned it.

10:15:41 Mr. Towns did bring some pictures of the various homes

10:15:44 he has constructed.

10:15:45 And I think the key word is those are homes.

10:15:49 The interior finishes, the layout, everything was

10:15:52 extremely well done.

10:15:53 And my staff and I -- members of my staff have already

10:15:57 toured some of his houses.

10:15:58 So when it comes to a minimum amount, I'm not sure

10:16:02 where that is coming from.

10:16:03 We are still putting together information on how we

10:16:07 will make these parcels available.

10:16:10 Now, very frankly, when it comes to making the

10:16:13 parcels, we want to make sure that whoever is awarded

10:16:16 the parcels to construct affordable houses, we do want

10:16:20 a wide range of small business owners, individuals,

10:16:23 corporations, non-profit organizations, we want

10:16:25 everyone to be with us in this venture.

10:16:29 Because I think we all agree affordable -- affordable

10:16:32 housing is a very major need in all of our

10:16:34 communities.

10:16:35 So when it comes to that, no such dollar amount.

10:16:38 We do want to make sure that a person or corporation

10:16:42 or a non-profit do have the financial wherewithal to

10:16:46 follow through on a project.

10:16:47 We don't want to sell a parcel and then still see it

10:16:51 vacant, you know, three years later.

10:16:53 We want to be able to see that happen.

10:16:54 But any such dollar amount has not been established.

10:16:57 I think that is something that we have to look at on a

10:17:01 case-by-case basis, parcel by parcel.

10:17:04 One parcel is going to be different than if we award

10:17:07 somebody three par soles or five parcels.

10:17:09 So that dollar amount, I don't recall that in our

10:17:11 conversation earlier this week.

10:17:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

10:17:14 Ms. Saul-Sena.

10:17:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

10:17:17 If our discussion is done --

10:17:19 >>KEVIN WHITE: I just had one other question in

10:17:21 regards to that.

10:17:22 Ms. Miller, on this agreement I'm looking at on the

10:17:26 docket on the computer, don't see that there's any

10:17:30 reversion clause back to the city.

10:17:31 I remember when I did my land purchase with the city,

10:17:37 it said that if I had not commenced building within X

10:17:42 amount of time, whether it be 24 months, 12 months,

10:17:46 the T land would revert back to the city and the city

10:17:49 would purchase it back for the price that I purchased

10:17:51 it for.

10:17:52 And then it would be disposed of again.

10:17:54 I don't see that type of clause here.

10:17:56 And I think that would preclude anybody from just

10:18:00 buying property from the city as far as speculation

10:18:03 rather than going ahead and continuing in-fill home

10:18:07 especially in the East Tampa area.

10:18:08 I think that probably needs to be standard.

10:18:11 >>> I share your same concern.

10:18:12 I don't know if it is in that.

10:18:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why don't we hold these?

10:18:17 I'll move the other things and hold this for next week

10:18:19 so you have a chance to research that.

10:18:21 I complete -- agree completely with Mr. White Mr.

10:18:25 White, I appreciate your sharp scrutiny.

10:18:26 >>KEVIN WHITE: I just know what they did for me.

10:18:31 >>MARY ALVAREZ: There's two of them.

10:18:33 18.

10:18:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ:

10:18:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.

10:18:35 So move 16, 19 through 26.

10:18:40 >> Second.

10:18:40 (Motion carried).

10:18:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move 17 and 18 to

10:18:44 be sent back to the department for -- and then appear

10:18:47 next week under unfinish business -- unfinished

10:18:51 business to see whether that paragraph with the

10:18:54 reverter clause.

10:18:55 >> Second.

10:18:55 (Motion carried).

10:18:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Transportation, Ms. Mary Alvarez.

10:19:00 >>MARY ALVAREZ:

10:19:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'd like to move items 27 through 38.

10:19:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.

10:19:30 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Hold 39 for one week.

10:19:32 And move 40 and 41.

10:19:35 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

10:19:38 All in favor of the motion say Aye.

10:19:39 Opposed, Nay.

10:19:40 (Motion carried).

10:19:40 Item 42.

10:19:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.

10:19:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Number 42 is set for a public hearing

10:19:50 on March 23rd.

10:19:53 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

10:19:54 (Motion carried).

10:19:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Now we go into our public hearings.

10:20:00 Is there anyone in the audience going to speak on

10:20:02 items 43 through 49?

10:20:14 Or 51.

10:20:15 51.

10:20:16 Would you please stand and raise your right hand.

10:20:18 Anyone that's going to speak on items 43 to 51, please

10:20:21 stand and raise your right hand.

10:20:24 >>THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell

10:20:27 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

10:20:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: when you state your name, please

10:20:37 reaffirm that you have been sworn.

10:20:38 And council, at this time I ask that all written

10:20:40 communications relative to today's hearings that have

10:20:42 been available to the public at council's office be

10:20:44 received and filed at this time.

10:20:47 >> So moved.

10:20:48 >> Second.

10:20:48 (Motion carried).

10:20:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: A brief remind theory council before

10:20:52 its vote should disclose any ex parte communications

10:20:56 relative to today's hearings.

10:20:57 Thank you.

10:20:59 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, I would just like to

10:21:01 disclose that two or three representatives of the

10:21:04 builders association did have some discussion with me

10:21:08 yesterday on item 45.

10:21:13 >> The substance of that communication?

10:21:16 >>ROSE FERLITA: Just something their opinion about the

10:21:16 ordinance and its current configuration.

10:21:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Which was?

10:21:24 >>ROSE FERLITA: Some concerns about the moratorium

10:21:26 issue.

10:21:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Actually 44 and 45, Ms. O'Dowd, tells

10:21:38 me are legislative.

10:21:38 >>ROSE FERLITA: So I don't have to disclose that?

10:21:41 I disclose it anyway.

10:21:43 It's fine.

10:21:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No harm in doing that.

10:21:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to item 43 through -- 43 through

10:21:57 51.

10:21:57 >> So moved.

10:21:58 >> Second.

10:21:58 (Motion carried).

10:22:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there a staff person who can

10:22:02 speak?

10:22:02 I wasn't here, and I don't know if this is part of the

10:22:06 area that is considered historic.

10:22:10 Because I know that the barrio in the past has said

10:22:13 they want to protect alleys.

10:22:15 And I can't picture offhand where this is.

10:22:17 Is there a staff person who can speak to 43?

10:22:23 >>VINCE PARDO: Ybor City Development Corporation.

10:22:25 I have been sworn in.

10:22:26 Yes.

10:22:26 This is part of the historic district.

10:22:31 Particular to the Barrio Latino last month.

10:22:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And?

10:22:36 What was their opinion?

10:22:40 >>VINCE PARDO: This is the vacation of -- would have

10:22:43 been the alley, what has become east Ybor park.

10:22:48 Yeast Ybor park on the east side of 22nd south of

10:22:50 the interstate.

10:22:52 It was a vacation coming through ended up in that

10:22:54 area.

10:22:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Oh, right.

10:22:58 Okay.

10:22:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else lick to speak on

10:23:00 number 34th 3?

10:23:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.

10:23:04 >> Second.

10:23:04 [Motion Carried]

10:23:05 >>ROSE FERLITA: I would like to adopt the following

10:23:07 ordinance after second reading, an ordinance vacating,

10:23:10 closing, discontinuing, abandoning a certain

10:23:13 right-of-way all that alleyway lying south of east

10:23:15 12th Avenue north of east 11th Avenue east of

10:23:18 25th street and west 26th street in Wagner's

10:23:21 addition to east Ybor, a subdivision in the City of

10:23:24 Tampa, Hillsborough County Florida the same being more

10:23:26 fully described in section 2 hereof providing an

10:23:28 effective date.

10:23:29 >> Second.

10:23:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Voice roll call.

10:23:38 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Alvarez and Harrison

10:23:40 and white being absent.

10:23:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

10:23:44 would like to speak on item 44?

10:23:47 You may come up and speak.

10:23:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 44, not 45.

10:23:55 >>> 44 being the noise ordinance.

10:23:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No.

10:23:58 Is it?

10:23:59 I'm sorry.

10:24:02 >>> Jennifer D'Angelo.

10:24:03 Once again, 112 north suite B 33602.

10:24:09 I was before you a few weeks ago during first reading

10:24:12 raising concerns and there are a few more I wanted to

10:24:14 address to you at this time.

10:24:15 I have just received a public records request

10:24:18 regarding your task force reports, specifically with

10:24:21 regard to crime in Ybor City, and extensive report

10:24:24 about the noise ordinances.

10:24:26 And how they are being violated.

10:24:28 And the concern that was raised by council last time

10:24:31 is that you need to regulate these clubs because they

10:24:33 are not self-regulating themselves.

10:24:36 I think if you take a look at these task reports, that

10:24:39 contention is negated by the number of violations that

10:24:44 have been reduced by these clubs attempting to

10:24:47 self-enforce.

10:24:48 I don't know if you have had an opportunity to review

10:24:51 that prayer to considering the second reading of this

10:24:53 ordinance, but I think it's something that you should

10:24:55 look at since you are basing the ordinance on the fact

10:24:59 that these clubs will not self-regulate.

10:25:02 The second point I want to raise, has there been any

10:25:05 attempt by the Tampa Police Department or code

10:25:08 enforcement to meet with these clubs during

10:25:10 non-business hours so that they can determine what

10:25:14 noise level is appropriate without ambient problems,

10:25:19 without street problems, without any of those concerns

10:25:22 occurring, and also maybe while bands are preparing

10:25:25 and setting up, so maybe they can find out where that

10:25:28 noise level is, and they won't be in complete

10:25:31 violation.

10:25:32 And the other thing that's devoid from the task force

10:25:35 reports is, you know, how far over the decibel limit

10:25:38 are these clubs?

10:25:39 Are they blowing it out at 100 or 120?

10:25:42 Or are they mission it by one or two points, and

10:25:45 therefore being subject to violation at that point?

10:25:48 I think that's something that needs to be considered

10:25:50 as well.

10:25:51 With regard to the revised ordinance that's going to

10:25:55 be here for second reading today, there's two points I

10:25:58 want to address.

10:25:59 First of all, the revocation process which is 3-100.

10:26:04 And I'm a little confused about that, because with the

10:26:08 last discussion that we had, I'm not sure, and I'm not

10:26:12 sure by this ordinance, that this is a permanent

10:26:15 revocation or temporary revocation based on the fact

10:26:18 that they are in violation so that the property owners

10:26:21 aren't permanently enjoined from using their wet

10:26:25 zoning.

10:26:27 It's a temporary process.

10:26:28 I need to call the council's attention to the fact

10:26:31 that there is a code provision that if you are dry for

10:26:34 30 days, you revert back to dry status, period.

10:26:37 And we have had extensive litigation over that, in a

10:26:42 case with Mr. Redner and the City of Tampa which we

10:26:44 won and it cost a lot of money for the city to enforce

10:26:46 that provision.

10:26:47 And I just wanted to make you aware of that as well.

10:26:49 And the last thing I wanted to address was the section

10:26:52 14-151 which is the penalty phase.

10:26:55 Specifically, the language that talks about to permit,

10:26:58 suffer or allow these noise violations to occur.

10:27:01 We are going to have a legal problem there as well in

10:27:04 the criminal courts.

10:27:06 There's a case called lumen enterprises where it has

10:27:12 show that someone permitted or allowed these

10:27:15 violations to occur.

10:27:16 And they are going to have a hard time doing that with

10:27:18 but you can't -- when you can't decide if it's the T

10:27:21 band doing it, the manager, the dee-jay or whoever.

10:27:24 And I think that's why it might be helpful to revisit

10:27:26 this, and maybe allow TPD or code enforcement to work

10:27:30 with these clubs on a non-hours basis.

10:27:34 (Bell sounds).

10:27:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.

10:27:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. D'Angelo, were you complete?

10:27:41 Were you finished?

10:27:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

10:27:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I wasn't sure if she was finished.

10:27:47 Did you have anything else you wanted to add?

10:27:50 >>> I would just --

10:27:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder, her time is up.

10:27:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's my prerogative that. Was my

10:27:55 question.

10:27:55 That was my question.

10:27:56 Did she have anything else she wanted to add?

10:27:59 >>> That summarizes it.

10:28:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Anybody from legal, did you want to

10:28:05 rebut any of that specifically?

10:28:06 Because she brought up some interesting points.

10:28:08 Thank you.

10:28:15 >> Dave Shobe, city's municipal prosecutor.

10:28:23 I am aware of some of those that Ms. D'Angelo is

10:28:27 speaking of.

10:28:27 I think the bulletins just go over the daily readings

10:28:30 or the weekend readings that were taken by Tampa

10:28:32 Police Department, that there are several clubs that

10:28:37 were in violation, others that were not.

10:28:41 I know that the Tampa Police Department during that

10:28:43 time period was also making an effort to do a lot of

10:28:49 verbal warnings and to try to work with the clubs, and

10:28:51 that is true.

10:28:52 I want to remind council that this ordinance does not

10:28:55 change the noise levels at all.

10:28:57 The noise readings are being kept at their current

10:28:59 levels during this ordinance.

10:29:02 And, also, once again remind council that the wet

10:29:07 zoning is not affected by this ordinance.

10:29:09 We are -- legal department is in the process right now

10:29:13 of bringing forth amendments to several sections of

10:29:16 chapter 3 that would grant council the ability to do

10:29:22 suspensions of wet zonings rather than revocations,

10:29:26 which is what the code currently provides.

10:29:30 The ability to bring a revocation hearing before this

10:29:33 body for violation of the noise ordinance has been a

10:29:37 part of 3-100 for quite awhile.

10:29:41 This ordinance references 3-100 only to change the

10:29:45 statutory site.

10:29:49 I believe Tampa Police Department should be here and

10:29:54 they would probably be the best people to provide

10:29:56 specific testimony regarding their readings and their

10:30:01 enforcement efforts.

10:30:02 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Shobe, I know the legal department

10:30:12 prepared it, but can you take this ordinance to court,

10:30:17 and defend it?

10:30:21 >>> Yes, we can.

10:30:23 As with any ordinance, that deals with specific

10:30:28 decibel readings, a lot depends on the specific

10:30:31 measure.

10:30:32 I will state that part of what will make this

10:30:35 ordinance effective is that the training that TPD will

10:30:39 endeavor to do with the officers that are taking the

10:30:41 readings to make sure that they take steps to reduce

10:30:45 ambient noise.

10:30:47 And ambient noise is something that can be dealt with

10:30:51 by the measures, by things such as making sure that

10:30:55 there are a lot of -- there aren't passing cars or

10:30:58 there aren't people walking directly behind the

10:31:00 officers as he's taking the measurement, things like

10:31:03 that will help in prosecution of the individual cases.

10:31:08 But as to the validity of the ordinance, as legal

10:31:14 determined, as does with every ordinance, we reviewed

10:31:18 it and believe it is very legally defensible.

10:31:21 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.

10:31:23 Also, there was a question I I was going to ask you.

10:31:27 Senior moment here.

10:31:31 Go ahead.

10:31:32 Oh, I know what it was.

10:31:34 You mentioned about this ordinance here would still

10:31:38 allow for suspension and revocations in the wet

10:31:42 zoning.

10:31:43 Right?

10:31:45 >>> Yes.

10:31:45 It doesn't actually allow for -- the revocation of the

10:31:50 wet zoning, what makes violation of the noise

10:31:53 ordinance a criteria for revocation of the wet zoning

10:31:56 is found in 3-100 of the code.

10:32:00 This ordinance referenced 3-100 only for the purpose

10:32:03 of changing the statutory site to the noise ordinance,

10:32:07 because we are changing the number.

10:32:09 This ordinance does not affect wet zonings at all.

10:32:13 We are working on changes to chapter 3 that are going

10:32:17 to give council the ability to do suspensions rather

10:32:21 than revocations.

10:32:23 Right now chapter 3 only provides the ability for

10:32:26 council to consider whether to do a revocation of a

10:32:29 wet zoning, not a suspension.

10:32:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?

10:32:36 Is there anyone else in the public that would like to

10:32:38 speak on item 44?

10:32:40 If you are going speak, please come up.

10:32:48 >> Good morning.

10:32:49 Carmine AVARONI, East 7th Avenue.

10:32:54 I have been sworn in.

10:32:55 And as many of you know, we have a courtyard that is

10:32:58 outside, has no walls, and they do dance, and we do

10:33:03 play music out there, and this is a serious matter for

10:33:07 our business.

10:33:09 I feel this ordinance is incomplete.

10:33:13 And I feel that the City Council should not pass it

10:33:15 today.

10:33:18 I feel that we should possibly be given something in

10:33:24 writing on if the person doing the measuring would

10:33:28 possibly walk by and say, look, this is how loud you

10:33:30 are, this is your receipt, and we can go by something.

10:33:36 There's nothing for to us go by to tell us how loud

10:33:40 our music is.

10:33:42 That's one thing.

10:33:46 I think there are some nights that you can play the

10:33:48 music loud, I believe, like Gasparilla, or New Year's

10:33:52 Eve, or Guavaween.

10:33:54 I mean, why is it okay those nights?

10:33:57 It's sending a mixed message to the people, to our

10:34:01 customers.

10:34:02 We want to be good neighbors.

10:34:04 We want to be good in Ybor City.

10:34:06 We have a good business there.

10:34:08 And this ordinance is incomplete.

10:34:11 I feel that the police department is doing a great job

10:34:14 in Ybor City.

10:34:15 We are all working together.

10:34:16 And I would like to see it work in Ybor.

10:34:21 And this is a strong ordinance that you're passing.

10:34:24 And I wish you would give it some time and let us all

10:34:28 get together and do the right thing.

10:34:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Carr mine, when the police

10:34:34 officers come and they see that your noise level is --

10:34:39 exceeds what they are supposed to, don't they come and

10:34:42 tell you, bring it down or in five minutes we are

10:34:46 going to come back and do something?

10:34:49 >>> Well, I think maybe we should put that in writing

10:34:51 or have a system for that. Let's say, look, they come

10:34:53 by at a certain time at night, and, you know, get to

10:34:57 know the dee-jay or the person playing the music and

10:35:00 say, look, this is how loud you are, keep it at that,

10:35:03 you know, put it up higher or put it up lower, but

10:35:06 give us a gauge.

10:35:07 It's like if you're driving a car and you have a

10:35:09 speedometer, we have something to see when we are

10:35:11 driving.

10:35:11 I mean, their equipment is expensive.

10:35:15 And it's good stuff.

10:35:17 And we don't have that.

10:35:19 And we are at a disadvantage.

10:35:22 We have a courtyard that's outside.

10:35:25 A nightclub or bar, if their door happens to open, and

10:35:28 the music goes outside, I mean, you know, these rules

10:35:33 can be set.

10:35:33 But we have to also be able to monitor them and make

10:35:40 it work.

10:35:41 At the restaurant we can't just say, you know, we want

10:35:48 to do that and I think that's what we are trying to Do

10:35:51 is do the right thing.

10:35:52 >> It seems to me we have worked on this ordinance now

10:35:54 for at least two years that I November.

10:35:56 More?

10:35:56 At least two years.

10:35:58 And every time we come up with an ordinance somebody

10:36:03 else comes up with a new thing that we should put it

10:36:05 away and not do it until we put it in the ordinance.

10:36:09 How many more times are we going to continue this?

10:36:12 >>> Forever.

10:36:14 (Laughter).

10:36:18 No, because that's business.

10:36:20 Business is fine tuning your business.

10:36:22 And that's what we're talking about here.

10:36:25 We have a good thing in Ybor City.

10:36:29 Ybor is different.

10:36:30 We have buildings right next to each other.

10:36:32 We have a train track running through Ybor City.

10:36:34 We have a trolley.

10:36:35 We have the interstate.

10:36:36 I mean, it's different.

10:36:37 It's not Carrollwood.

10:36:39 It's not South Tampa.

10:36:40 It's different.

10:36:41 I mean, why is there a Gasparilla parade there on

10:36:45 7th Avenue?

10:36:46 Why is it okay those nights?

10:36:51 >>> It's Sant'yago.

10:36:57 >>> Okay, the Sant' Yago Night Parade.

10:37:00 >> There are times you can go over the noise limits

10:37:03 because you're talking about 50, 60, 100,000 people in

10:37:07 there.

10:37:07 That's a different thing.

10:37:08 But during the time that you're not, what's happening

10:37:14 is it's permeating into the neighborhoods.

10:37:16 And that's not good.

10:37:19 We need to start somewhere.

10:37:20 And this is the start.

10:37:21 And I would like to remind our council that we have

10:37:24 got to start somewhere.

10:37:25 We could always amend these ordinances as we go on.

10:37:28 But I can't do that.

10:37:31 >>> And one last thing I would like to say if I could.

10:37:33 (Bell sounds).

10:37:35 Wasn't it working that you had 24 hours, if you got a

10:37:37 warning, and then you had to really keep it quiet

10:37:41 another 24 hours?

10:37:43 Wasn't that working?

10:37:44 Why did we change that?

10:37:46 >>> I never heard about 24 hours.

10:37:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It was reported to us that it

10:37:53 wasn't working.

10:37:53 That was the staff report.

10:37:54 >>> I don't see how it can work, you had 24 hours to

10:37:56 not have it happen again.

10:37:59 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I think it would be very helpful if

10:38:03 the speakers who wanted us to not pass this would,

10:38:08 rather than someone coming up and saying this is bad,

10:38:11 you need to rethink it, have you considered X, Y, Z?

10:38:16 There are specific recommendations that you have to

10:38:19 make it better as opposed to what we're hearing, which

10:38:23 is what we hear every time we bring this issue up, and

10:38:27 that simply we don't like it, you're going to run us

10:38:31 out of business or it's going to kill us.

10:38:32 If someone has some specific ideas about what we might

10:38:36 do to make this ordinance that we're looking at right

10:38:39 now on second reading a little bit fairer, you think

10:38:45 it's unfair, then I would like to hear what that is.

10:38:48 Otherwise, what people are saying is simply, you're

10:38:52 going to kill us.

10:38:54 That's not evidence that we can really take into

10:38:57 consideration.

10:38:58 >>> Well, I gave you one suggestion, is to have

10:38:59 somebody come by there and give us something in

10:39:02 writing on how loud we are, at the beginning of the

10:39:04 night or the middle of the night or the end of the

10:39:06 night.

10:39:07 That's one suggestion.

10:39:09 >>ROSE FERLITA: That would be very staff prohibitive

10:39:12 for them to go and be monitoring your business and the

10:39:15 next guy's business and the next guy's business.

10:39:17 We don't have enough staff to enforce this noise

10:39:19 ordinance as it is.

10:39:20 What I might suggest to you, being another business

10:39:22 owner, is some of those things have to be

10:39:25 self-monitoring procedures.

10:39:28 Now, if my recollection is accurate -- and I don't

10:39:30 know that it is but I think that it is -- talking to

10:39:33 somebody who was involved in noise issues at EPC, Kay

10:39:37 Struther, she said there was a mechanism or something

10:39:40 you could buy, an article that you could buy to attach

10:39:46 to your music area that it would automatically kick it

10:39:49 back down if it went over a particular decibel.

10:39:51 I mean, I think there has to be some self-governing.

10:39:54 We are struggling two years and out to try to find

10:39:57 something that's fair.

10:39:58 Now for you to tell us that somebody should build a

10:40:01 relationship with you guys -- and I'm sure that they

10:40:02 have.

10:40:03 You are a pioneer down there. We have discussed that.

10:40:05 We have acknowledged that and we appreciate it.

10:40:06 But there has to be some self-monitoring.

10:40:09 And she said it wasn't a very expensive device.

10:40:11 It would let your munition -- musicians know, oops,

10:40:15 you're over.

10:40:16 And it would lower it.

10:40:17 I understand your concern but let's take the flip of

10:40:20 that.

10:40:20 Major McNamara, the reason we are revisiting this is

10:40:23 because they are having problems enforcing it.

10:40:25 How can you possibly expect them to be nurse maids to

10:40:29 the bar business or any other establishments down

10:40:31 there?

10:40:32 They can't.

10:40:32 I will tell you that the reason that 24-hour thing

10:40:35 didn't work or whatever the time frame was, was that

10:40:37 it was a Rae involving door in terms of code

10:40:39 enforcement.

10:40:41 Be good a little bit, comply, make noise.

10:40:44 Be good a little bit, comply, make noise.

10:40:45 There was no enforcement.

10:40:47 I agree that maybe some of the things on this noise

10:40:49 ordinance as Mr. Harrison said might be interpreted as

10:40:52 onerous from you and the bar owners.

10:40:54 I actually voted against it on first reading because I

10:40:57 thought it was targeting just the bar industry and I

10:40:59 think there are a lot of violators down there that are

10:41:01 not bars or bar owners.

10:41:03 But I think we have to do something to make it better.

10:41:05 And his suggestion was to that point.

10:41:07 If you feel that there's something else that we have

10:41:09 not looked at, you know what?

10:41:12 Welk we could hold this for a week or two. We don't

10:41:14 want to hold it for the rest of our lives.

10:41:16 We can't forever continue talking about it.

10:41:18 But back to my first point.

10:41:20 Self-governing is the first thing that's going to keep

10:41:22 new business and make this ordinance worth.

10:41:25 Which I might say, council members, when we have two

10:41:28 noise monitoring meters that major McNamara -- I

10:41:32 guess he's not in that area anymore, whoever is

10:41:35 charged with that enforcement, that's nonsense.

10:41:38 It's like having a gun with no bullets.

10:41:40 We have to have more devases for them to be able to

10:41:43 this on a regular basis or irregular basis or

10:41:46 unsuspecting time or suspected schedule.

10:41:50 But that's the first thing.

10:41:51 We are talking about enforcing -- tightening up

10:41:54 enforcement.

10:41:55 They don't even have the equipment to do it which is

10:41:57 crazy.

10:41:58 >>> Well, may I say that we can self-govern ourselves

10:42:01 but we are also talking about our neighbors.

10:42:03 Now, that equipment can regulate our court yard.

10:42:07 But the reason why I'm asking for someone to come

10:42:09 around and take measurement is because what if it's

10:42:12 the person across the street?

10:42:13 What if it's the person next to us?

10:42:17 And hours is right.

10:42:17 I'm just talking about --

10:42:19 >>ROSE FERLITA: Internal equipment, Mr. Avaroni, shows

10:42:23 you are not beyond that decibel level that's in

10:42:25 violation.

10:42:25 When they come there to cite you or to attempt citing

10:42:29 you, your equipment will show that it's below.

10:42:31 So it won't be.

10:42:33 It will not be in violation and it won't be

10:42:35 categorized.

10:42:36 >>> I disagree, because with a --

10:42:39 >>ROSE FERLITA: I don't think you and I need to have a

10:42:40 dialogue.

10:42:41 I certainly appreciate what you're saying.

10:42:43 But I think there's some things that should be in

10:42:44 place that are not in place from the standpoint of the

10:42:47 business owner.

10:42:48 And then we need to do our share to make this

10:42:51 enforceable, and fair.

10:42:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

10:42:55 Next person.

10:42:57 >>> Thank you.

10:43:06 >>ROSE FERLITA: Where were you when I needed you,

10:43:08 major McNamara?

10:43:10 >>> I'm Jennifer meadows, west coachman Avenue.

10:43:13 I have not been sworn in.

10:43:14 I'm concerned about the changes to the noise

10:43:16 ordinance.

10:43:16 >>GWEN MILLER: You need to be sworn in.

10:43:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I had discussion with Ms. O'Dowd

10:43:24 about that.

10:43:26 Just so council is clear, these are ordinance

10:43:29 revisions.

10:43:30 These are not quasi-judicial in the sense that they

10:43:33 don't involve particular pieces of zoning.

10:43:37 Therefore, under council's rules, they don't have to

10:43:40 be sworn in for these items.

10:43:42 44, 45.

10:43:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.

10:43:46 >>> I'm concerned about the changes in the noise

10:43:48 ordinance, not because of what's included, but because

10:43:50 of what isn't included.

10:43:51 And like you were just saying, recommendations.

10:43:54 I have a couple of suggestions here and I'll get to

10:43:56 them two. Weeks ago I brought to your attention an

10:43:58 ongoing problem in Manhattan manor, not a bar.

10:44:03 The business has been wreaking havoc, has no wet

10:44:06 zoning to suspend or revoke, operates 24 hours a day

10:44:09 and has been a noise nuisance for over a year with

10:44:11 truck activity and loading bays directly across a

10:44:14 residential street from single-family homes and also

10:44:16 from rooftop equipment that's been installed in the

10:44:19 last couple of years.

10:44:20 EPC testing has shown them to be in violation of

10:44:23 Tampa's noise limits.

10:44:24 TPD has said they cannot issue a citation for the

10:44:27 offending truck noise because the activity is exempt

10:44:30 under number 3, subsection C of code 1-4-151, which

10:44:36 exempts the operation of buses, trains, ships,

10:44:40 airplanes, helicopters and trucks in good repair.

10:44:43 My question to you is this: What is the intent of

10:44:45 that exemption if the intent is to permit the

10:44:48 operation of those vehicles on the appropriate

10:44:50 roadways, railways, waterways and airways then please

10:44:55 clarify this and close that loop hole.

10:44:57 Otherwise, explain to me why Ybor nightclub owners and

10:45:00 other individuals in Tampa are compelled to comply but

10:45:03 a business such as the one in our neighborhood can

10:45:06 continue to violate its residential neighbors' right

10:45:08 to peace and quiet unimpeded by the law.

10:45:13 I also have questions about enforcement.

10:45:15 How would we as affected residents get TPD out to an

10:45:19 offending site in a timely man we are an audiometer?

10:45:26 If it's a an ongoing problem can they set up some

10:45:32 situation?

10:45:33 Can a TPD officer when they come out to do testing so

10:45:36 that a citation can be issued immediately instead of

10:45:39 waiting days or weeks for the EPC to go through their

10:45:42 administrative process?

10:45:43 The EPC issued a warning notice on July 12th, ten

10:45:46 days after they completed their testing.

10:45:48 And now seven months later we are still awaiting a

10:45:50 resolution.

10:45:51 Also, in a situation like ours where it's a

10:45:53 multi-national corporation that's creating the

10:45:56 disturbance, who would be held accountable?

10:45:59 It would be a shift manager?

10:46:00 Or a regional vice-president?

10:46:02 Or the CEO?

10:46:03 Or it would be the property owner who lease it is site

10:46:05 to these people?

10:46:07 No neighborhood should have to suffer what we have

10:46:08 endured for over a year.

10:46:10 I urge the council and the City of Tampa to take a

10:46:13 closer look at the noise ordinance and amend it so

10:46:16 it's protecting citizens city-wide, not just in Ybor

10:46:19 City.

10:46:19 If you want, I have a couple of pictures that kind of

10:46:22 illustrate what's going on in our neighborhood.

10:46:27 This is the facility.

10:46:28 These are our homes.

10:46:29 And --

10:46:34 >>GWEN MILLER: We didn't see it.

10:46:36 Now it's on.

10:46:37 Okay.

10:46:40 >>> These are our homes.

10:46:42 The only thing separating --

10:46:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can you orient us on the streets?

10:46:49 >>> This is coachman Avenue. This is Grady.

10:46:52 This also is Grady kind of breaks off.

10:47:02 Another couple of minutes?

10:47:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Show us the picture.

10:47:05 >>> The only thing separating our property is

10:47:07 dilapidated fence and chain link.

10:47:12 And this is a poor quality picture, I'm sorry. The

10:47:18 rooftop equipment that's been installed in the last

10:47:18 couple of years.

10:47:20 There's also a big shredder. This makes a phenomenal

10:47:23 amount of noise when it's running at full speed.

10:47:25 And they do it 24 hours a day, whenever they feel it

10:47:27 necessary.

10:47:29 This is taken from almost in my backyard but shows you

10:47:32 the proximity of these trucks in and out of there.

10:47:35 And if they are using that exemption of a loop hole,

10:47:38 explain to me, can the city tell me that this is

10:47:41 appropriate in a residential neighborhood?

10:47:44 This type of activity?

10:47:46 Those are my concerns.

10:47:48 Thank you.

10:47:50 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think Ms. Meadows brings up a good

10:47:52 point.

10:47:52 She tried to bring up the same point last time and it

10:47:55 was the same issue I had.

10:47:57 As I said before I voted no on the ordinance not

10:47:59 simply because we need more enforcement but I think it

10:48:02 should be more comprehensive and fairer across the

10:48:05 board.

10:48:06 Mr. AVARINI brings up a good point, bar owners that

10:48:11 may or may not be in violation of noise ordinance and

10:48:14 then a non-bar owner is not subject to the same

10:48:16 enforcement.

10:48:17 I mean, Mrs. Alvarez is looking at a file they've here

10:48:20 that is very thick that is becoming the biography of

10:48:23 Marty Shelby because he has cement much time with Ms.

10:48:26 Meadows and the issue is, no, it not a bar but they

10:48:30 are in violation of noise levels, as far as I'm

10:48:33 concerned, and EPC has been involved too.

10:48:36 And I know point to point Mr. Shelby can be more

10:48:39 descriptive.

10:48:40 But I think there's an exemption in this noise

10:48:42 ordinance as it stands.

10:48:43 But if the trucks are in appropriate operating order

10:48:48 they are exempt.

10:48:48 I don't understand it Mr. Smith and I am asking you to

10:48:51 come up.

10:48:51 But trying to get relief for noise ordinance issues

10:48:53 down there in Ybor.

10:48:55 We are overlooking things that are affecting quality

10:48:57 of life for people like Ms. Meadows.

10:48:59 We have to take care of everything that's going on,

10:49:02 not just a particular sector, not a particular portion

10:49:05 of town, not a particular type of noise ordinance.

10:49:08 I mean, just as you try to quaff this -- and we have

10:49:11 been doing it as Ms. Alvarez said for two years -- you

10:49:14 have the issue of -- this is another example here --

10:49:19 February 6th, Tribune talked about "you think jets

10:49:23 are loud?

10:49:24 Honk."

10:49:25 We are talking about a guy that's got a train horn

10:49:28 that he's selling for automobile use.

10:49:31 Well, tell me that that's not a public safety issue

10:49:33 when you are driving down the street and you hear a

10:49:36 train horn behind you.

10:49:37 You are probably going to try to turn to somebody's

10:49:40 porch or something.

10:49:40 So we need to be smart, wise, comprehensive and treat

10:49:44 everybody fairly in terms of looking at noise

10:49:46 ordinances.

10:49:47 That being said, Mr. Smith, can you come up and give

10:49:49 me something that --

10:49:52 >>DAVID SMITH: Actually, Mr. Shobe is more familiar.

10:49:55 He will address it.

10:49:56 Then Mr. McNamara can address questions regarding

10:49:59 enforceability in Ybor.

10:50:03 >>DAVID SHOBE: I am familiar with Ms. Meadows' issue.

10:50:07 I looked at exception 3 which deals with trucks in

10:50:10 good repair.

10:50:11 That exception is take A necessary exception to avoid

10:50:15 the city being entangled in interstate commerce

10:50:20 issues.

10:50:21 We can't regulate any more than -- if a truck is in

10:50:25 good repair, trucks have to be allowed to operate.

10:50:29 Ms. Meadows' issue, while I completely understand, is

10:50:33 a unique situation, and is really more in the realm of

10:50:37 zoning, and the fact that the business that she is

10:50:42 speaking of is a legal business that happens to border

10:50:45 up against a residential area.

10:50:47 The business has been operating for quite some time.

10:50:50 And the problem that the city now faces is that the

10:50:54 city will attempt to close an otherwise legal

10:50:59 business.

10:51:00 It would be an inverse come deny nation, it would be a

10:51:03 taking.

10:51:04 And that has been our largest issue.

10:51:07 From reviewing the noise log that is Ms. Meadows has

10:51:11 provided me, her logs indicate as she mentioned it's

10:51:14 not just trucks that are a problem.

10:51:16 There apparently is heavy equipment on the roof.

10:51:19 She indicates there are yard tractors that are used,

10:51:25 that there are trucks coming and going.

10:51:27 Unfortunately, this is not a situation that the city

10:51:32 can exactly regulate, at least not under noise.

10:51:35 If we were to address it, the proper way to address it

10:51:37 would be as a zoning issue.

10:51:41 >> But Mr. Shobe, you can't change the zoning and it's

10:51:44 a legal use as it reads now, so what is the relief

10:51:46 that this same government offers that neighbor? Too

10:51:49 bad, put up with it or move?

10:51:50 I can understand about them being a legal business, in

10:51:53 a legally zoned area that's adaptable to the use.

10:51:56 However, there has to be guidelines about noises as

10:51:59 well.

10:51:59 I mean, so the truck -- and I understand about

10:52:04 interstate commerce and the truck is in good operating

10:52:04 order.

10:52:05 But you can take another piece of equipment on another

10:52:07 site that's in good operating order but doesn't mean

10:52:10 you can use that same equipment in good operating

10:52:11 order in a level that is in violation of a noise

10:52:14 ordinance.

10:52:14 That doesn't make any sense.

10:52:16 That wouldn't make any sense to me if I were living

10:52:18 where she's living.

10:52:19 What can we do given the situation to give her some

10:52:23 relief from the violation of noise that that

10:52:27 particularly approved business is creating?

10:52:29 There has to be some relief for the resident.

10:52:33 >>> Well, Ms. Ferlita, I believe one of the areas of

10:52:35 relief -- and Ms. Meadows may be able to address

10:52:39 this -- my understanding is that TEPC is working with

10:52:42 the business, and is attempting to get the business to

10:52:46 do some sound attenuation, such as walls, some

10:52:52 baffles, and that is the best way to address it, is to

10:52:56 work with the business, to try to get the sound

10:52:58 redirected back towards the business and not towards

10:53:02 the residents.

10:53:04 Our noise ordinance is of course applicable city-wide.

10:53:09 But it's not uncommon outside of our districts for EPC

10:53:13 to take the lead, and that's what's happened in this

10:53:16 instance.

10:53:16 EPC is attempting to address it.

10:53:18 >>ROSE FERLITA: And you're right.

10:53:20 And I don't mean to interrupt you.

10:53:21 And I don't mean to belabor this either.

10:53:23 But Ms. Clary who works with me has had numerous

10:53:27 conversations with Ms. Meadows, and numerous requests

10:53:30 that have been sent to Mr. Shelby.

10:53:32 So, I mean, I guess, Mr. Shelby, can you tell me, as

10:53:35 an update, has there been any real attempt to put any

10:53:38 kind of noise buffers in the way?

10:53:40 I mean she lives with this every single day.

10:53:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I cannot speak to the most current

10:53:46 information.

10:53:46 I spoke with Ms. Meadows several weeks ago, and they

10:53:50 had -- EPC had requested that the company engage the

10:53:57 services of a professional to provide a report of

10:54:01 means of remediating the situation.

10:54:06 Supposedly they have been out there.

10:54:07 But in all candor I have not spoken with her in the

10:54:10 past two weeks to have the latest update as to what's

10:54:14 happening.

10:54:14 >> How many meetings have you had, Mr. Shelby?

10:54:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, phone calls I've had.

10:54:20 But I have attended one of the meetings with Verdis

10:54:26 and their attorney and the EPC.

10:54:28 And of course I have been in touch with Mr. Shobe

10:54:31 about it and of course I have been in touch with Ms.

10:54:37 COBY and Ms. Meadows as well.

10:54:40 But I can provide a report to you but I don't have the

10:54:43 most current.

10:54:44 Maybe she has been in contact with EPC.

10:54:48 >>ROSE FERLITA: I would like to hear from them and I'm

10:54:50 sorry to delay this meeting.

10:54:53 Go ahead.

10:54:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The time, 10 p.m.

10:55:05 Or unless they can show that they have to conclude by

10:55:12 10 p.m. unless they can show the equipment and

10:55:14 machinery must remain in operation beyond the

10:55:16 operating hours.

10:55:17 And how can -- what do you need, a letter from them

10:55:21 saying, oh, we need to do this?

10:55:24 You know, if there is a time limit in there, why

10:55:27 should they be doing it willy-nilly during all the

10:55:30 hours?

10:55:31 >>DAVID SHOBE: Actually, Ms. Alvarez, the exemption

10:55:33 that Ms. Meadows was speaking of is under C-3,

10:55:38 exemptions.

10:55:39 That states the provisions of this section shall not

10:55:41 apply to -- number 3 is the operation of buses,

10:55:45 trains, ships, airplanes, helicopters, and trucks in

10:55:48 good repair.

10:55:51 I see the section that you are referring to.

10:55:56 That is also something that the business would have to

10:56:00 contend with, although I would imagine that they would

10:56:03 endeavor to show that they have a reason to continue

10:56:07 their operations 24 hours.

10:56:10 I did also want to add that our noise ordinance is

10:56:13 applicable to Verdis and police officers are able to

10:56:19 go out and enforce our noise ordinance.

10:56:21 I think one of the enforcement issues that has come up

10:56:26 is that unlike a sound system which is a little more

10:56:30 constant, you may run into the issue of once the

10:56:32 officer is there, is there noise?

10:56:36 There is certainly nothing that prevents our officers

10:56:38 from going out, and I believe that they do do that,

10:56:41 respond with a noise meter to take noise readings, and

10:56:44 if the noise readings are in excess of the city-wide

10:56:49 levels, then we can go ahead and issue a warning.

10:56:55 The issue of who to cite would be the same as to who

10:56:59 you cite in a nightclub, who is on duty at night, most

10:57:03 likely a foreman or shift manager, someone who has the

10:57:05 ability to control the noise.

10:57:08 >> We know that's not going to happen.

10:57:09 >>KEVIN WHITE: We only have two noise meters for the

10:57:14 Tampa Police Department, on Wednesday, Thursday,

10:57:15 Friday night if they are in Ybor City, how are we

10:57:18 going to enforce them in the rest of the city?

10:57:22 >>DAVID SHOBE: I'm not sure how many noise meters we

10:57:26 have.

10:57:26 I would probably defer that to major McNamara

10:57:28 regarding the number.

10:57:28 >>KEVIN WHITE: To be fair and equitable, I think he

10:57:32 would at least need one on each quad throughout the

10:57:35 city -- throughout the city to enforce this thing in a

10:57:39 reasonable manner.

10:57:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison wanted to say something.

10:57:43 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Colleagues, we can sit here and talk

10:57:45 about individual cases and we will be here for the

10:57:48 next several hours wee while we try to hammer out

10:57:51 exceptions and craft the different things for

10:57:53 individual situations.

10:57:55 We have heard from Ms. Meadows.

10:57:57 We all, I think, would like to be able to help.

10:58:00 I would suggest that we continue that discussion until

10:58:04 we deal with this ordinance that's in front of us, and

10:58:08 then we look at ways to address individual

10:58:11 case-by-case basis.

10:58:12 I know there are people in the audience that probably

10:58:14 want to talk about fireworks.

10:58:16 I know that there are people in the audience that may

10:58:18 be here to talk about other things.

10:58:19 But if we start, you know, crafting these, trying to

10:58:24 fix these things on a case-by-case basis, we are

10:58:28 literally going to be here for the next couple of

10:58:30 hours.

10:58:30 >>ROSE FERLITA: And I agree with you, Mr. Harrison, we

10:58:33 can move on.

10:58:33 But the point that I make because of bringing up her

10:58:36 particular issue which is certainly of concern to her,

10:58:38 and I understand why, my point of bringing it up is

10:58:41 I'm not looking at it as case by case.

10:58:43 I'm simply making the point that as we look at this in

10:58:45 terms of noise ordinance violations in an

10:58:48 entertainment district, so should we be comprehensive

10:58:51 when it affects neighborhoods, not just Ms. Meadows.

10:58:55 So that's fine.

10:58:56 So that's really the point I was trying to bring.

10:58:58 So that's fine.

10:58:59 >>DAVID SMITH: If I can address this.

10:59:02 The issue that was not addressed earlier, the reason

10:59:05 why we changed the provision to not have these 24 hour

10:59:09 warnings is there were people that would turn down the

10:59:12 music, the 24 hours would lapse and they would dot

10:59:17 again.

10:59:17 It was just a yo yo.

10:59:19 The point of this is to try to strengthen the

10:59:21 enforcement procedures to try to prevent the various

10:59:24 sorts of harm we are discussing.

10:59:26 And with this strength in ordinance I think we will

10:59:28 have more efficacy and hopefully we'll be able to

10:59:31 remedy situations such as Ms. Meadows and others.

10:59:35 So the point is to try to address those problems.

10:59:37 We think this does so in a comprehensive, fair,

10:59:41 defensible way, that we will allow the police

10:59:43 department to do their job so that they can help the

10:59:47 people who have these various problems.

10:59:49 I think major McNamara can address some of the

10:59:53 empirical questions you have.

10:59:55 >>> George McNamara, major, Tampa Police Department.

11:00:00 I apologize, I was at a staff meeting, didn't know I

11:00:03 had to be here.

11:00:04 Bottom line, we currently have two noise meters,

11:00:07 $5,000 apiece.

11:00:09 They are in fact deployed in the Ybor City Channelside

11:00:12 area on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights.

11:00:14 However, when we have complaints, out on a call, we

11:00:18 have complaints in district 1, fatso's,

11:00:25 representatives take those noise meters out and take

11:00:27 readings and follow up the normal protocol so far as

11:00:30 enforcement as it's currently written.

11:00:32 When the budget comes around, is district one going to

11:00:36 need noise meeters? Absolutely.

11:00:40 District two?

11:00:41 Absolutely.

11:00:41 Will we train supervisors, quad squad, officers?

11:00:45 Yes, we are going to.

11:00:46 That has to be done.

11:00:47 And that will be done.

11:00:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Excuse me.

11:00:50 Do you have any -- in the new budget that's coming

11:00:54 out, are you buying more noise meters?

11:00:57 Ooh.

11:00:58 >>> We are going to have to, yes, ma'am.

11:00:59 We are in the process of doing it as we speak.

11:01:02 >> Is there any way that maybe you could get some

11:01:04 money from the budget that we have already passed and

11:01:06 amend it and buy some of these noise meters?

11:01:09 Or -- wait a minute.

11:01:11 How many cars have you confiscated from drug dealers?

11:01:18 >>> I don't know how many.

11:01:20 A lot.

11:01:21 But I'm not here -- I don't have the answer for you.

11:01:24 >> We want to help you.

11:01:25 We want to help you help our neighbors in Ybor City,

11:01:28 and Manhattan manor.

11:01:33 We want to help everybody but we have to find the

11:01:35 money F.we have to make an amendment to get this money

11:01:38 and get more noise meters, we'll certainly do it.

11:01:41 >> There will certainly be more discussion across the

11:01:43 street about this.

11:01:44 And I brought this up before.

11:01:46 >>> I know you have.

11:01:47 And we appreciate everything you have done for us.

11:01:49 Thank you.

11:01:49 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's a comment, too, I would like to

11:01:52 tag onto.

11:01:53 Major McNamara is into another area of policing now

11:01:56 so he's not involved with this.

11:01:58 But you have been very instrumental in helping us with

11:02:00 this.

11:02:01 As good luck or bad luck would have it, you are not

11:02:04 there anymore, George.

11:02:04 So thank you.

11:02:07 >>> Absolutely, yes, ma'am.

11:02:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry to interrupt but I do want

11:02:10 to bring to council's attention per its motions and

11:02:13 its discussion this morning that there is an item on

11:02:15 the agenda that is called for a time certain at 11:00

11:02:17 o'clock.

11:02:18 And that item --

11:02:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think we need to finish this

11:02:22 noise issue first.

11:02:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think we should stick to our

11:02:27 rules.

11:02:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let's just deal with this and be

11:02:30 done with it.

11:02:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison?

11:02:34 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm ready to close this for a vote

11:02:38 but I don't know if we have anyone else.

11:02:39 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a gentleman standing up for

11:02:42 quite awhile that wants to speak.

11:02:44 Is there anyone else that wants to speak after this

11:02:46 gentleman speaks?

11:02:48 >>> My name is David Drake from 1902 Republica de Cuba

11:02:54 Ybor City.

11:02:54 My request was to change the actual noise ordinance to

11:02:57 become 90 DB and 95 for the C-scale.

11:03:01 Rationale for that is my club has actually done

11:03:04 significant modifications to the inside of the

11:03:07 establishment to contain sound.

11:03:08 And that way we have been able to maintain 105 DB.

11:03:12 We purchased a noise meter of our own.

11:03:16 We maintain 105 DB with a live band playing, and

11:03:20 variables occur with like a live entertainment

11:03:23 situation.

11:03:24 We have been able to keep our noise at 87,

11:03:28 occasionally going over.

11:03:29 We decided one -- we have been cited one time, been

11:03:32 given one warning, not a citation for a fine but with

11:03:36 a warning and we were not allowed to go over for two

11:03:40 weeks.

11:03:41 It would make my life easier and I know another stab

11:03:44 environment Ybor that does the same thing that we do.

11:03:47 When the officer in question came by, they were at 87

11:03:51 DB on the C-scale.

11:03:53 They had their music off.

11:03:54 That was just their ambient noise of people talking

11:03:57 inside.

11:03:58 And we have done things to enforce our doors, double

11:04:03 enforce our window panes and still have example exits.

11:04:06 Way was trying to do is find a more friendly way as

11:04:10 opposed to sticking with the 87, perhaps increasing 87

11:04:13 to 92 or 59 for the C-scale which is bass, booming

11:04:18 noises.

11:04:18 Then for the high, which is actually the biggest

11:04:20 problem, the A-scale moving that to 90.

11:04:24 It's a difference of 5 decibels but it makes a

11:04:26 significant difference because of the nature of the

11:04:28 sound being an exponential scale.

11:04:32 Any questions or ideas or reflections on that?

11:04:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

11:04:39 >>DAVID SMITH: I'm sorry.

11:04:40 I know you wanted -- David Smith, city attorney.

11:04:43 One of the things I would remind you we have expert

11:04:46 testimony with respect to the noise levels.

11:04:47 These noise levels are the levels the experts have

11:04:50 told us are appropriate and safe.

11:04:52 We have also been advised these noise levels are

11:04:54 higher than many other cities.

11:04:56 So we would request you stick with the expert

11:04:59 testimony with respect to setting the levels.

11:05:02 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Smith, we take the readings from

11:05:06 the street, right?

11:05:10 >>> Yes, sir taken from property lines.

11:05:15 >> We are not going in and measuring the sound inside

11:05:17 a club.

11:05:17 I mean, if you have 200-decibels in a club and it's

11:05:20 still within the guidelines at the property line, it's

11:05:24 okay, right?

11:05:25 We don't care what it sounds like inside.

11:05:27 We care what impact you're having on your neighbors

11:05:30 outside.

11:05:30 >>> Yes, sir.

11:05:31 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.

11:05:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions?

11:05:34 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.

11:05:36 >> Second.

11:05:36 (Motion carried).

11:05:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez, would you read that?

11:05:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes, ma'am.

11:05:45 This is second reading.

11:05:46 Move an ordinance -- move to adopt the following

11:05:49 ordinance on second reading.

11:05:50 An ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida about noise

11:05:53 amending City of Tampa code of ordinances chapter 19,

11:05:56 property maintenance and structural standards, article

11:05:59 1, division 1 by deleting section 19-58 excessive

11:06:03 noise declared a public nuisance, amending chapter 3,

11:06:07 alcoholic beverages, article II, general regulations,

11:06:11 amending chapter 3-100, revocation for cause, amending

11:06:14 section 3-29.1, conditions for approval downtown

11:06:20 Tampa, Ybor City historic district and Channel

11:06:22 District area, amending chapter 5, building code by

11:06:26 amending section 5-301.2, loud noise generated by

11:06:32 construction activity on private property near

11:06:34 residential uses, amending chapter 14, offenses,

11:06:38 article III, noise, deleting section 14-151, loud and

11:06:42 unreasonable noises prohibited, deleting section

11:06:47 14-152, same enumeration, deleting section 14-153,

11:06:54 exceptions; adopting a new section 14-151, excessive

11:06:58 noise prohibited; establishing maximum noise levels;

11:07:03 providing for exemptions, establishing enforcement

11:07:06 procedures, providing for severability, providing for

11:07:10 repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an

11:07:14 effective date.

11:07:14 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

11:07:14 Question on the motion.

11:07:15 Mr. Dingfelder.

11:07:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.

11:07:17 Just very quickly.

11:07:18 I think all amplifiers and other boom boxes or

11:07:24 whatever that have volume knobs and also balance

11:07:31 knobs, and I think that's what we are doing, we are

11:07:34 balancing rights of the club owners to continue to

11:07:36 operate in a reasonable fashion with the rights of

11:07:38 other people that are impacted by the noise.

11:07:41 So I think that that's our job.

11:07:43 We have to balance these issues.

11:07:46 And I feel comfortable with giving this a try.

11:07:49 If it doesn't work then we'll be back here in another

11:07:51 six months or year and try something else.

11:07:53 But right now, the prior ordinance was not working.

11:07:56 And that's why we are going to try this.

11:07:59 As to the other issues, I think we have to direct

11:08:03 staff after we are done with this vote to come back on

11:08:05 some of these other issues.

11:08:07 Rose, you mentioned very importantly the neighborhood

11:08:09 noise issues.

11:08:10 I think that's extremely important.

11:08:11 I got an e-mail today as maybe some of you others did

11:08:16 about lawn equipment and the high-pitched, shrieking

11:08:21 noises from the leaf blowers and that sort of thing.

11:08:24 Also, the Johnsons are here, and they are here

11:08:27 regularly about the noise from fireworks.

11:08:29 And I think that's something else we need to address.

11:08:32 We shouldn't address it today. We need to move

11:08:34 forward with this today.

11:08:35 But I think we need to direct staff to start

11:08:37 addressing these other issues in a timely fashion.

11:08:39 I'll support the ordinance.

11:08:41 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

11:08:43 Roll call vote.

11:08:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.

11:08:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.

11:08:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.

11:08:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

11:08:47 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.

11:08:49 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.

11:08:50 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.

11:08:50 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.

11:08:52 >>GWEN MILLER: At this time we are going to go to our

11:08:55 11:00 o'clock workshop.

11:08:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me just go ahead and make that

11:08:58 motion so we don't lose it.

11:09:08 >>RANDY GOERS: Strategic planning and tech --

11:09:16 technology department here for the workshop on the

11:09:19 school concurrency pilot project.

11:09:21 In a couple minutes we will be joined by the staff and

11:09:23 the school board.

11:09:24 I want to bring you up to date on the pilot project

11:09:26 and where it's going.

11:09:27 As you may know, local governments before December

11:09:32 2008, all of the governments must adopt a public

11:09:35 facilities element in their comprehensive plan which

11:09:37 will then institute school concurrency throughout

11:09:41 local governments throughout the state.

11:09:43 Typically when DCA, when legislature enacts a

11:09:48 far-reaching policy as this the Department of

11:09:50 Community Affairs will select some pilot communities

11:09:53 to develop the model that other communities will use

11:09:56 in developing their procedures and implementing the

11:09:59 legislative legislation.

11:10:00 Hillsborough County was selected as one of the model

11:10:03 communities.

11:10:03 There were five other communities around the state

11:10:07 that were also selected.

11:10:08 So we have the opportunity, the benefit of being a

11:10:11 model community, works with the local community, pays

11:10:15 the consultant and helps craft the information that we

11:10:18 need to, to meet the legislative requirements.

11:10:21 The short-fall if there is one is because it's a model

11:10:24 that other communities are going to be using, we have

11:10:27 to develop it very quickly to get it in place so

11:10:31 communities can use it.

11:10:32 So we are on a very tight deadline of developing a

11:10:34 model and move forward with it.

11:10:36 One thing to keep in mind if our process is, because

11:10:39 it will move quickly, there's going to be a lot of

11:10:42 information, and it's a complicated issue.

11:10:43 It's important to understand that we are developing

11:10:45 the model that will be used to implement concurrency

11:10:49 for us, and it will also help other local

11:10:53 jurisdictions.

11:10:53 We have until 2008 to actually put that into effect.

11:10:57 So if there are some sticking points, if you find that

11:11:00 the that we need more time for the public to absorb

11:11:03 what the information and what's coming out of it,

11:11:05 there is time to do that.

11:11:07 So our goal is to be able to produce working with DCA

11:11:11 and local governments produce a consensus and model

11:11:14 element interlocal agreement to say, okay, let's put

11:11:16 in the place.

11:11:17 However, if the public interest would be better served

11:11:19 having more time, and once the model is developed to

11:11:23 fine tune it then we have that action.

11:11:25 I wanted to bring that to your attention.

11:11:26 Because there will be some complicated issues coming

11:11:29 up.

11:11:29 We are going to be asking each -- as the process

11:11:32 unfold, the school board will be asking each local

11:11:35 jurisdiction to provide a consensus decision.

11:11:39 Consensus decision is not a formal vote but it's kind

11:11:42 of are we moving in the right direction?

11:11:44 And it's just to move the development of the model

11:11:47 ordinance and the facility, public facilities element

11:11:50 to the next stage.

11:11:52 So we'll be coming back to be you at the end of this

11:11:54 workshop.

11:11:55 I'll be asking for you to set a public hearing -- or

11:11:59 ask you to set a time two weeks from now where you can

11:12:04 provide a consensus decision.

11:12:05 The thing will be up to you whether or not you want to

11:12:08 make it a public hearing. The benefit is as a public

11:12:11 hearing you get opportunity to hear public comment.

11:12:13 We have copies of the draft interlocal agreement that

11:12:16 we'll be talking about today that we'll leave.

11:12:18 So if you make it a public hearing, you do have an

11:12:20 opportunity to hear public comment, get that on the

11:12:24 record.

11:12:24 But the decision is the just a consensus, not

11:12:26 necessarily a formal vote so it will be more like how

11:12:29 you all feel about the direction we are going.

11:12:32 So with that, what I will do is turn it over to the

11:12:35 school board staff who is here.

11:12:38 I believe we have Elaine Duffey Suarez, Valdez, and

11:12:45 the consultant working on the project Mike Lauer.

11:12:49 They will work through the interlocal agreements.

11:12:53 I have copies that I can provide to you at this point.

11:12:56 With that Lorraine Duffey Suarez from the school

11:13:10 board.

11:13:11 >>> Good morning, council members.

11:13:12 I'm Lorraine Duffey Suarez, the manager for growth

11:13:15 management for the school district.

11:13:18 My primary responsibility is to make sure this process

11:13:21 goes smoothly with all four local governments.

11:13:24 So you will be seeing my face a bit on this.

11:13:29 Also, during the pilot period, we have a consulting

11:13:31 team headed by Michael lower of planning works, and he

11:13:36 will walk you through some of the changes to the

11:13:39 interlocal agreement.

11:13:42 You recall, I guess it was a couple of years ago when

11:13:44 you all adopted the interlocal agreements with the

11:13:47 school board on citing -- siting the facilities,

11:13:49 Senate bill 306 when it was passed last year, it set

11:13:53 out the process by which every local government will

11:13:57 establish concurrency system.

11:14:00 Essentially spelled out, with the various components

11:14:04 of it, talking a little about that.

11:14:06 But that's the model legislation that we'll be

11:14:09 following throughout this process.

11:14:10 Then there's rule 9-J-5 what that was adopted as well

11:14:14 as to provide additional guidance.

11:14:17 I keep seeing people I know.

11:14:19 Feel like I haven't been here for years, but wherever

11:14:22 I go.

11:14:22 Then Michael will review the changes to the interlocal

11:14:25 agreement.

11:14:25 And then some of the key issues that you will all need

11:14:28 to make decisions on.

11:14:31 And again I caution you, I think Randy gave you a very

11:14:34 good caveat.

11:14:35 We are looking for some sense of is this the right

11:14:38 direction?

11:14:38 Are you comfortable with the direction we are taking

11:14:40 here?

11:14:41 It's not written in stone.

11:14:42 And even when we finish.

11:14:43 But are you comfortable with the direction?

11:14:48 Senate bill 360, there were several components.

11:14:52 One is financial feasibility of the capital facility

11:14:55 planning.

11:14:55 That means in order to achieve the level of service

11:15:00 that is established by all four local governments, the

11:15:03 level of service for the school facilities, we have to

11:15:05 have a plan that's financially feasible to achieve

11:15:08 that level.

11:15:09 So you don't want to say -- I like to use Rose as an

11:15:13 example because we have road concurrency for a long

11:15:16 time.

11:15:17 A, level service A for all our roads but we don't have

11:15:20 the money to make that happen.

11:15:22 Same thing with schools.

11:15:23 You want to be realistic, B the level of service we

11:15:26 want to achieve but want to reflect the community's

11:15:29 desires of what appropriate and adequate levels for

11:15:34 school is.

11:15:34 We have to have a uniform level of service that.

11:15:37 Means all four local governments have to have the same

11:15:39 level of service because the -- it is a countywide

11:15:42 school district, and everybody participants in that.

11:15:45 So we can't have a higher level in one community than

11:15:48 we have in another, or in fact a lower level of

11:15:50 service in some communities, because there's more

11:15:54 growth in that area.

11:15:55 So we do have to have a uniform system.

11:15:58 Proportionate fair share mitigation.

11:16:00 Proportionate fair share mitigation is gnaw to this

11:16:05 concept of school concurrency.

11:16:06 And that is where you collect a fair share from new

11:16:11 development, in addition to an impact fee.

11:16:15 Would you say, to make up the difference or expedite a

11:16:20 project.

11:16:21 The concurrency standard says within three years a

11:16:23 project has to be ready.

11:16:24 So you can come in, get your approvals, move ahead on

11:16:28 residential project, as long as within three years we

11:16:30 are going to have a facility under construction, and

11:16:33 moving towards having capacity in a school.

11:16:37 Let's just say we have a plan for five years out.

11:16:39 And you want to go ahead.

11:16:41 There's a way, proportionate fair share will allow to

11:16:44 us collect some funds from the development to expedite

11:16:47 that project.

11:16:50 And we are still developing some of that.

11:16:54 And that draft you have there is a first stab at how

11:16:57 proportionate fair share would work.

11:17:00 And then intergovernmental coordination.

11:17:02 Obviously, it's going to require a lot of coordination

11:17:05 among jurisdictions because you are sharing the same

11:17:08 school system and you are approving developments

11:17:11 separately.

11:17:15 What we need to develop as part of this pilot program

11:17:21 are really two separate document, if you will.

11:17:26 The interlocal agreement, which is what you have

11:17:28 before you, and then there's the comprehensive plan

11:17:32 portion.

11:17:33 There will be a whole new element added to the

11:17:35 comprehensive plan.

11:17:36 As part of the pilot were to draft that.

11:17:38 That's the public school facility element, PSFE.

11:17:43 You may see that acronym over and over again in the

11:17:46 come months.

11:17:48 The public facility element, what we are hoping to do

11:17:51 is have one public school facility at that all four

11:17:56 local governments would adopt.

11:17:57 You each have your own special interlocal agreements

11:18:00 with a unique flavor of how things happen to your

11:18:04 government are established.

11:18:04 But if we can have one public school facility element

11:18:07 in the comprehensive plans, that would kind of give

11:18:09 some type of stability and uniformity to the process.

11:18:13 In addition to having that special element in the

11:18:16 comprehensive plan, we would also need to make changes

11:18:18 in the capital improvement element and the

11:18:20 intergovernmental coordination element.

11:18:22 The capital improvement element will identify for you

11:18:26 the five-year work plan for the school system.

11:18:28 That will become a capital projects plan just like you

11:18:31 already have in your comprehensive plan now for any of

11:18:34 the other improvements, your stormwater,

11:18:36 transportation needs, and parks, planning.

11:18:38 Those schedules are already in your comprehensive plan

11:18:41 in the capital improvement.

11:18:42 We will be adding the school component to that as part

11:18:46 of the plan.

11:18:47 And intergovernmental coordination component in that

11:18:51 will also identify some of that coordination among the

11:18:54 different local governments and how that will work

11:18:56 out.

11:18:57 But that doesn't implement concurrency.

11:19:01 That's all that we have to do for the pilot project.

11:19:05 That sets the stage of what we are going to do for

11:19:08 concurrency.

11:19:08 But you must adopt local concurrency ordinances to

11:19:12 actually make it happen.

11:19:13 That's not part of the pilot program.

11:19:15 That's the next step.

11:19:17 If we feel comfortable with the model or we feel we

11:19:19 need more work on the model, after we passed the pilot

11:19:22 program, you will obviously continue to be working

11:19:25 with you, and the other three jurisdictions to get

11:19:28 that to happen.

11:19:30 But we will need a uniform concurrency management

11:19:34 system.

11:19:36 Obviously when you bring in new development in the

11:19:37 City of Tampa, we need to be able to judge it the same

11:19:40 as when new development comes in in Temple Terrace and

11:19:45 incorporated -- unincorporated county in Plant City.

11:19:49 So the elements will specify that.

11:19:51 I turn it over to Michael Lauer to talk to you about

11:19:55 the interlocal agreements and the various components

11:19:58 of that.

11:19:58 If you want to ask me questions now or you want to

11:20:01 wait.

11:20:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

11:20:03 I don't know if it's to be directed to you or Mr.

11:20:11 Lawer but I think the City of Tampa is very

11:20:13 responsible in meeting our concurrency demands and in

11:20:16 planning for the future, and looking at infrastructure

11:20:19 needs.

11:20:19 What if we can't a increase that, because one of the

11:20:25 on the jurisdictions is not cooperative?

11:20:29 >>> I think Michael might be able to go into a little

11:20:31 more detail but that's the intergovernmental component

11:20:33 of this.

11:20:34 Where we identify a process by which those decisions

11:20:41 can be made.

11:20:41 Michael, can you comment a little more on that?

11:20:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think it's a basic --

11:20:48 >>> I don't know if we have a clearance yet.

11:20:50 But I know the intent was in the intergovernmental

11:20:53 component, we would describe how we work together on

11:20:58 this.

11:20:59 And that we must do it.

11:21:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's also known as the Kum ba yah

11:21:09 component.

11:21:09 >> Michael Lauer with planning works.

11:21:14 I still feel that I'm fortunate enough to be selected

11:21:17 for this project.

11:21:20 We have a daunting number of decisions to make.

11:21:23 And the question you asked is an excellent one about

11:21:27 what happens if we don't reach agreement?

11:21:30 And I'm fraud I don't have an answer with me today.

11:21:33 I didn't drag my attorneys along that are part of the

11:21:35 team.

11:21:37 So far, I think working with the individual

11:21:42 communities, we have done a great job of identifying

11:21:45 the issues that we have to resolve and coming up with

11:21:47 a consensus approach.

11:21:50 Obviously, the decision makers for each of the

11:21:53 jurisdictions still have to put their blessing on it.

11:21:58 And hopefully we'll have things resolved well enough

11:22:01 ahead of that before we get to them.

11:22:06 So have I sufficiently dodged your question?

11:22:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Maybe in two weeks when we come

11:22:11 back you will have a chance.

11:22:13 >>> I will bring you an answer at that time.

11:22:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mike, something on that.

11:22:17 I don't know that we should answer that question right

11:22:19 now.

11:22:19 And the reason I say that is, I have been trained as a

11:22:23 mediator a long time ago.

11:22:26 And as a mediator I would always encourage the parties

11:22:29 to go into the negotiation process with a positive

11:22:31 attitude.

11:22:32 And Linda, I'm not one to teach but a positive

11:22:35 attitude because you have a positive attitude about

11:22:38 everything.

11:22:38 And I mean that sincerely.

11:22:40 I think that we should be optimistic in going into

11:22:43 this, working with all of our jurisdictions, and even

11:22:47 though in the past they might not have done what we

11:22:50 necessarily agreed with on some of these issues, I

11:22:51 think we should go in with a positive attitude and

11:22:54 hope that we can work toward mutual grounds on this as

11:22:58 opposed to saying, now, looking at the dark side and

11:23:01 saying "what if it doesn't work out?"

11:23:04 There's plenty of lawyers to give us advice on what if

11:23:07 it doesn't work out.

11:23:08 That's just my opinion.

11:23:10 >>> Thank you for the assistance on that dodge.

11:23:14 Way want to do today is really talk about the issues

11:23:17 you are going to be facing as we go through the

11:23:20 interlocal agreement.

11:23:22 We would like to be brief with my points on this so

11:23:25 you have the opportunity to ask some questions.

11:23:29 The first issue that we will need to address is

11:23:32 define, what is our level of service?

11:23:34 And the starting point of the committee has said,

11:23:38 well, our level of service should be what our

11:23:42 capacities of our schools are.

11:23:44 However, the requirement under 360 is we have to have

11:23:46 a financially feasible work program.

11:23:49 So we have to achieve our level of service with

11:23:52 identified funds, within five years.

11:23:56 We may not be able to achieve our desired level of

11:23:59 service.

11:24:01 And that gets us to the point of identifying

11:24:04 additional funds to get to that level of service, or

11:24:07 reducing our level of service.

11:24:09 That's ultimately what we will need to do.

11:24:11 So in defining our level of service, we are going to

11:24:13 have to balance that with our ability to fund that

11:24:17 level of service.

11:24:21 The second issue that we will need to talk about --

11:24:25 and I'm going to briefly run through this and get into

11:24:27 more detail on each of them in a minute -- is defining

11:24:31 our service, in which area do we measure capacity?

11:24:35 Do we look district wide?

11:24:37 Do we look less than district wide?

11:24:40 There are any number of ways to address that.

11:24:43 How do we monitor this?

11:24:45 How do we track concurrency over time?

11:24:47 How do we track the allocations that we have made via

11:24:51 our development approvals?

11:24:53 How do we make sure those are in sync with the

11:24:55 capacity?

11:24:58 Who will this apply to?

11:25:00 Who do we -- which projects get tested? Which

11:25:04 projects are already through or passed the concurrency

11:25:07 test and are considered part of our development

11:25:09 pipeline, or already approved projects?

11:25:13 We also need to address the process.

11:25:18 How do we evaluate concurrency and work through the

11:25:22 proportionate share mitigation if we don't have

11:25:25 adequate capacity?

11:25:26 So this are the topics I am going to cover here.

11:25:29 I want to start with the level of service standards.

11:25:34 It should be a fairly simple thing to say when is a

11:25:41 school -- it not because we have class size that we

11:25:44 start with but there are a number of different

11:25:46 programmatic ways to address that.

11:25:48 So we have permanent classrooms, and I think our

11:25:53 Executive Committee, that's really the starting point

11:25:55 for all of this.

11:25:56 But we also have to consider the impact of the class

11:25:59 size reduction requirements, which seems to reduce the

11:26:02 overall capacity of all of our schools.

11:26:06 We have to consider the capacity of the core

11:26:07 facilities.

11:26:10 How many students can we get through a lunchroom?

11:26:14 If we have to start lunch at 9:30 in the morning and

11:26:16 end at two in the afternoon that doesn't work very

11:26:19 well for elementary school kids.

11:26:20 We have clearly outstripped our core capacity.

11:26:23 When we look at core facilities we are log at

11:26:25 recreational space, libraries, restrooms, all the core

11:26:32 facilities.

11:26:32 And so we really have that as a cap that we should not

11:26:36 exceed.

11:26:37 We also need to consider programmatic adjustments.

11:26:41 While those can be everything from what kind of

11:26:44 special programs you have, whether you have split

11:26:49 sessions, whether you have year-round schools, whether

11:26:53 you have floating teachers that fill in all the

11:26:56 classrooms while the other teachers are during their

11:27:00 planning periods, and there are a whole host of

11:27:04 different programmatic adjustments.

11:27:06 As we go through this, the Executive Committee's

11:27:09 position for starting point is, we really need to

11:27:11 consider permanent classroom capacity as a starting

11:27:15 point based on the class size reduction requirements,

11:27:19 and some programmatic adjustments that are already

11:27:23 built into that determination which is made in the

11:27:29 Florida inventory of schoolhousing report or Fish

11:27:33 report.

11:27:34 One of the things you will have to get used to is we

11:27:36 are going to bombard you with a host of acronyms which

11:27:39 mean nothing to you.

11:27:40 And I will hope that you will make us speak English

11:27:43 when we do that to you.

11:27:46 So in defining capacity, we are starting with that

11:27:49 permanent core capacity.

11:27:52 That means we are not counting as part of our base

11:27:54 capacity relocatable buildings.

11:27:59 Those aren't built into that facility capacity.

11:28:02 They may be used as a buffer to accommodate overflow

11:28:06 capacity until we build a new facility, so they can

11:28:11 maybe accommodate different students but they are not

11:28:13 figured into our baseline capacity.

11:28:19 When we measure our capacity it not only the

11:28:21 facilities that are on the ground but it's also the

11:28:23 facilities that are planned within the next three

11:28:26 years, plan to be available within the next three

11:28:29 years so we have to account for that.

11:28:32 I am going to switch over to service areas unless you

11:28:34 want to stop me on the capacity issues.

11:28:37 On the service area we have a choice of having

11:28:39 district-wide or something less than district-wide.

11:28:44 The consensus of the Executive Committee is the

11:28:49 district-wide will not work and no jurisdiction I know

11:28:52 in Florida or elsewhere uses district-wide levels of

11:28:55 service.

11:28:56 And the reason being, it's pretty obvious, if we are

11:28:59 dealing with elementary school capacity, and we don't

11:29:03 have capacity in Furb hawk but there's some up in

11:29:07 Lutz, are we really going to move the elementary

11:29:09 school kids all the way up there?

11:29:11 No.

11:29:11 What we have is a rippling effect.

11:29:13 So in general, the larger your districts are, the

11:29:18 easier it is for the development reviewer.

11:29:20 So that's a positive thing about having a larger

11:29:23 service area.

11:29:24 Because I can just total up the capacity in all of

11:29:27 those schools and measure it against the development

11:29:31 application.

11:29:32 So that's an argument for a larger one.

11:29:35 However, it does require more adjustments to

11:29:39 attendance zones because you have to ripple that

11:29:41 capacity all the way through the system in order to

11:29:44 take advantage.

11:29:45 If I'm in fish hawk and need that capacity in Lutz, I

11:29:48 would have to shift those kids all the way through the

11:29:51 system to use it.

11:29:54 It also means that we'll be shifting burdens from high

11:30:00 growth areas to low-growth areas.

11:30:03 What the committee has recommended unusually -- and

11:30:05 this will depend on some interpretations that DCA is

11:30:09 going to make and some other factors -- is to use

11:30:11 attendance zones as the concurrency service areas.

11:30:15 Each school's attendance zone would be where we

11:30:19 measure school concurrency.

11:30:21 Now, the 360 requires that we consider the capacity in

11:30:24 that service area, plus those in adjacent attendance

11:30:29 zones.

11:30:30 So we consider the capacity of the elementary schools

11:30:34 served by development, and any capacity that's in the

11:30:38 adjacent attendance zones.

11:30:49 Thank you.

11:30:49 Is that on?

11:30:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: There it is.

11:30:52 It's on.

11:30:53 >>> For instance, that's at the -- that's the

11:30:56 elementary school.

11:31:00 You can see that one of the disadvantages of this is

11:31:06 it's a little more complex to measure capacity.

11:31:11 Because where you are located with a development makes

11:31:13 a big difference of whether mitigation is going to be

11:31:17 required or not.

11:31:18 Where whether we have capacity or not.

11:31:19 And these colors are just to distinguish the

11:31:22 attendance zones that don't relate to capacity or any

11:31:26 other data.

11:31:27 >> So give us some example, you know.

11:31:29 If developer A wants to build in one of those --

11:31:35 >>> Yes.

11:31:35 Pick a site.

11:31:37 Right here, we have got a school, development proposed

11:31:42 on that fingernail --

11:31:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Westshore.

11:31:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We have to evaluate the capacity.

11:31:49 Is there capacity in that school?

11:31:51 If there is, the development moves forward.

11:31:54 If there is not, we evaluate the capacity of each of

11:31:58 the surrounding elementary schools, each of those

11:32:01 attendance zones there.

11:32:03 And there are five of them.

11:32:05 Is there capacity in any one of those that can

11:32:08 accommodate it?

11:32:08 If so, the development may still go forward and it's

11:32:11 up to the school board to figure out how to reallocate

11:32:15 students.

11:32:15 If not, then mitigation would be required.

11:32:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So you wouldn't flex beyond the

11:32:21 adjacent schools.

11:32:22 That's the bottom line.

11:32:23 >>> That's correct.

11:32:24 Yes.

11:32:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Sir, it would be possible to use

11:32:33 city boundaries for the municipalities within

11:32:36 Hillsborough County as areas?

11:32:38 Because we, the city, control the zonings within the

11:32:41 city.

11:32:42 We could have a school that's perfectly fine, but

11:32:46 let's just say for conversation an adjacent

11:32:49 municipality would suddenly allow a huge development

11:32:51 which then overcrowds our school and precludes our

11:32:54 ability to build around here.

11:32:56 Could it be possible, could we ask you or direct you

11:32:59 to have the city, as a self-contained unit, so we can

11:33:05 control the land use decisions which then impact the

11:33:07 schools in the city?

11:33:08 Because as I said, I think we make really responsible

11:33:11 decisions.

11:33:11 And I would like that correlation between our ability

11:33:14 to make land use decisions and the sufficiency of

11:33:19 schools within the city.

11:33:21 >>> And that's a question that many jurisdictions have

11:33:24 asked.

11:33:24 There are a couple of issues with that.

11:33:27 One, that is difficult to work within a county-wide

11:33:33 school system.

11:33:35 But the thing that makes it most difficult is the

11:33:37 requirement under 360 you consider capacity in the

11:33:43 adjacent attendance zone.

11:33:43 So if you have a city-wide concurrency service area,

11:33:48 then I would still have to consider capacity in the

11:33:51 county, capacity in Temple Terrace.

11:33:53 So I don't think that accomplishes what you would like

11:33:58 to accomplish.

11:33:58 That's one of the issues, as I said, a number of

11:34:01 communities raised and are exploring how we deal with

11:34:03 that issue that, one, development in one area may

11:34:08 absorb capacity in an adjacent area.

11:34:13 It's disturbing to a lot of folks, and we don't have a

11:34:17 good solution to that problem yet.

11:34:21 >>MARY ALVAREZ: As you know, we are experiencing a

11:34:27 really big growth, not only in the downtown areas as

11:34:30 far as condos and development and all the way into the

11:34:35 Channelside district.

11:34:39 The question is, where will we put these children?

11:34:42 There's going to be children living in there.

11:34:45 There's no ram to put schools in that area.

11:34:48 Where would you send them?

11:34:49 Where would we send them?

11:34:51 >>> That is going to be a major capital facilities

11:34:54 planning challenge, because you have got a shortage of

11:34:57 space to put them. And I don't have the answer right

11:35:00 here, but standing beside me waiting to answer

11:35:03 is Cathy, so --

11:35:05 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I know we have the downtown

11:35:07 partnership school.

11:35:07 But that's pretty much at capacity now.

11:35:10 >>> Exactly.

11:35:10 We are looking at that.

11:35:12 As you know, many of the examples that you mentioned,

11:35:16 those projects would not generate large numbers of

11:35:19 students, even though -- even though it seems like a

11:35:21 large amount of development.

11:35:23 We have our standard student generation rates by which

11:35:25 we examine that and project our enrollments.

11:35:28 We are working though with developers.

11:35:30 For instance, with the Tampa Heights project, with the

11:35:35 Central Park Village, we are working to get school

11:35:37 sites within those areas.

11:35:38 We also have some other sites in the city that are,

11:35:43 for instance, at Manhattan, that there's an

11:35:46 opportunity there that we could build a school.

11:35:49 That's not downtown but that's within the city limits.

11:35:52 We also have an opportunity across from Robinson high

11:35:55 school, the property that he would acquired, that he

11:35:59 would swapped.

11:36:00 And we had that opportunity to build an elementary,

11:36:04 perhaps even more there.

11:36:05 So we are looking at those possibilities.

11:36:07 And we're keeping track of that as well.

11:36:11 We are cognizant of that.

11:36:12 Those are just examples of what we can do.

11:36:14 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay.

11:36:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just wanted to say, on the

11:36:20 concurrency issue, the way I understood the map, I

11:36:24 think it's excellent if we can keep those concurrency

11:36:29 zones to be limited to the attendance, to that school,

11:36:35 and then to the surrounding, you know, three or four

11:36:39 schools that might surround it.

11:36:40 And the reason being, from the city, the city-county

11:36:44 perspective, the only times we would really run into

11:36:48 problems are on our edge schools.

11:36:53 Under the approach that you're suggesting.

11:36:55 And I'm not saying that that's not an issue and that's

11:36:58 not a problem.

11:36:58 But at least you wouldn't be saying, you know, well,

11:37:02 they can continue to build, you know, in the south

11:37:06 county as long as we have plenty of schools in the

11:37:09 inner city to support that.

11:37:10 That's not the way you're suggesting, correct?

11:37:13 >>> That's correct.

11:37:13 And that's I think part of the Executive Committee

11:37:18 that we are working with is to keep those small so we

11:37:21 limit the impact of those student shifts.

11:37:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Be healthy on the families, too.

11:37:31 We don't want to be busing kids all over the place on

11:37:33 these concurrency issues.

11:37:35 >>> Not to mention transportation costs.

11:37:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Not to mention transportation

11:37:42 costs.

11:37:42 >>> I guess I just did, didn't I?

11:37:45 Within the Edgewater plan this is clearly going to

11:37:50 require a great deal more coordination between the

11:37:53 city and the school board as we go through this

11:37:56 process.

11:37:57 School board right now our agreement requires

11:38:00 quarterly meetings.

11:38:01 We are anticipating -- well, in agreement, we have got

11:38:05 some details about what takes place, what has to take

11:38:07 place at various time frames, and that includes

11:38:14 establishing what is the enrollment at any given time?

11:38:18 What is in the pipeline?

11:38:19 What's already approved?

11:38:21 How much of that development that's already been

11:38:24 approved has to be counted against capacity?

11:38:30 If you think about it, what is the demand?

11:38:32 The demand consists of the students in the seats

11:38:35 today.

11:38:36 But it also consists of students that we are

11:38:39 anticipating who will come from development that is we

11:38:41 have already approved.

11:38:42 And we have got to account for some of those.

11:38:48 We also need to keep track of any kinds of -- all of

11:38:52 those approvals that are going on including approvals

11:38:54 that may not be subject to the concurrency test.

11:39:00 And I'll talk more about that in just a second.

11:39:05 As we are testing development, when do we test it?

11:39:09 When do we figure out whether we have schools or not?

11:39:15 It we need to look at it at final site plan approval

11:39:20 for multifamily projects.

11:39:22 That's when concurrency is a applied according to the

11:39:28 statute.

11:39:28 However, we are also exploring other options.

11:39:30 Because quite frankly, if working as a developer

11:39:33 coming in, I don't want to get to my final plot and

11:39:47 discover I don't have con urn -- concurrency issue.

11:39:52 Also, for a time to get them constructed we want to

11:39:55 make sure that we have some options to at least

11:39:58 informationally coordinate with the school board, and

11:40:01 there may be some opportunities to establish some

11:40:03 earlier agreements.

11:40:09 When we are reviewing developments, I think Cathy

11:40:12 alluded to, this we'll look at the student generation

11:40:15 rates much as you with look at the trip generation

11:40:19 rates on transportation concurrency and find out how

11:40:22 much demand will be created.

11:40:29 That means we have to also -- student generation rates

11:40:34 will change over time.

11:40:36 And the school board has retained a consultant to

11:40:40 update the student generation rates, and that report

11:40:42 is, I think, just on the verge of being completed at

11:40:45 this time.

11:40:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Madam Chair, are we going to have

11:40:49 some flexibility jurisdiction by jurisdiction on that

11:40:53 issue?

11:40:55 In other words, the timing issue?

11:40:59 Because personally, I think it would be a travesty to

11:41:05 allow it to get past zoning without addressing that

11:41:10 concurrency issue.

11:41:11 I mean, we address, you know, many other concurrency

11:41:15 issues at zoning.

11:41:16 And I think it's an appropriate time to address it.

11:41:19 When it goes all the way to plat, then it's just a

11:41:22 staff issue.

11:41:27 There's in a public involvement.

11:41:28 Basically no public awareness at all.

11:41:36 Even though the plats come back for some perfunctory

11:41:39 approval --

11:41:40 >>> I would agree that's very late in the process and

11:41:42 that's why we are looking at other options to evaluate

11:41:44 it earlier but the statute does specify the

11:41:47 concurrency is tested at that last stage.

11:41:51 As I said from the development community's

11:41:52 perspective, and from the city's perspective and

11:42:00 school board's perspective it's in their tonight get

11:42:03 the answers sooner in the process.

11:42:05 >> So we have to determine if we have flexibility to

11:42:07 make it earlier?

11:42:09 >>> We are working with DCA to find out the extent of

11:42:11 that.

11:42:13 With Orange County they had in their charter provision

11:42:16 that did allow for evaluation, peak concurrency at the

11:42:22 time of zoning.

11:42:23 But we have an interesting charge.

11:42:27 We are working with a new statute that was drafted by

11:42:32 individuals who may not be considered all -- not have

11:42:36 considered all aspects of the school concurrency they

11:42:40 were trying to implement so that's part of this pilot

11:42:42 program to try to work through some of these thorny

11:42:45 issues and figure out solutions to them, and recommend

11:42:47 changes to the statute if need be.

11:42:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I really support the issue that you

11:42:56 Mr. Dingfelder raised.

11:42:57 From the city's perspective, I want to see a nexus

11:43:00 between rezoning and capacity.

11:43:08 Can we move this along, by the way?

11:43:11 We break at noon.

11:43:13 >>> Yes.

11:43:13 I'm almost done.

11:43:14 I'm down to my last section here.

11:43:18 Two more issues.

11:43:19 One of them is the exemptions.

11:43:21 And this is something that you should consider.

11:43:25 Early discussions suggested that minor subdivisions

11:43:27 fewer than five lots or dwelling units should be

11:43:29 exempt from this process.

11:43:33 Whether you choose to exempt those, to consider those

11:43:37 de minimus developments is a question that you may

11:43:40 want to discuss amongst yourselves, because

11:43:42 particularly in the city you have a lot of in-fill

11:43:44 projects, a lot of small projects, and that in the

11:43:47 city that makes up a very large proportion of your

11:43:49 development.

11:43:50 So we are going to have additional discussion on that.

11:43:54 And the final point is proportionate share mitigation.

11:43:57 What happens when there isn't capacity?

11:44:01 And the development agreement turns that question over

11:44:03 to the school board.

11:44:05 We don't have capacity.

11:44:08 How can we make that -- how can we achieve that

11:44:11 capacity?

11:44:11 And the applicant who doesn't have capacity in the

11:44:14 plan has to figure out how to get the required

11:44:19 improvement in the five-year work program that

11:44:21 provides that capacity, and how to get that funded.

11:44:26 So that's a negotiated process that will take place on

11:44:30 a case-by-case basis.

11:44:32 And the other options for mitigation obviously are to

11:44:36 wait until there is capacity there, or to reduce

11:44:39 command.

11:44:42 Reducing demand can happen in any number of ways.

11:44:45 One, scale back the project.

11:44:47 Two, could be a seniors only project.

11:44:50 Adjust the type of development for a project that has

11:44:52 a lower student generation rate.

11:44:54 There are a number of different ways to address that.

11:44:56 But bottom line most cases, mitigation would consist

11:44:59 of providing some combination of land facilities.

11:45:03 On that note, I'm through.

11:45:06 Unless you have questions for me.

11:45:09 >>GWEN MILLER: No questions.

11:45:11 >>ROSE FERLITA: Blah

11:45:15 >>ROSE FERLITA: I had to ask our attorney.

11:45:15 I was listening outside.

11:45:17 I didn't want you to think I was rude I have attended

11:45:20 a couple of additional seminars about this that the

11:45:23 school board offered over at the school board

11:45:26 building.

11:45:26 And I'm very grateful that you came here.

11:45:29 Randy, thank you for organizing this.

11:45:30 Because this is very, very complicated.

11:45:33 And we are talking about what we can do or not do

11:45:35 within our boundaries and how that works, you know,

11:45:38 with the rest of the county.

11:45:39 So I think it's going to be something that we need to

11:45:42 hear as much as we can.

11:45:43 So basically thank you all for being here.

11:45:45 I appreciate it.

11:45:48 >>RANDY GOERS: Thank you for making the time for the

11:45:49 workshop.

11:45:50 One of the items that I omitted in my opening remarks

11:45:52 and why we are asking for a consensus decision is

11:45:55 under the terms of the agreement that DCA has with the

11:45:58 school board is that by March 1st, we need to, as

11:46:04 part of our consensus, is to provide DCA with a draft

11:46:08 and approve -- consensus approved draft of the

11:46:11 interlocal agreement.

11:46:11 That's why we are asking that when come back in two

11:46:14 weeks for council to set a meeting where we can get a

11:46:17 consensus from City Council and a direction we are

11:46:19 going.

11:46:21 The other three jurisdictions will also be having a

11:46:25 similar meeting to reach a consensus decision.

11:46:28 And again it's just, I think if you have the option of

11:46:32 setting a public hearing where you can have public

11:46:34 comment, at the end of that public hearing, then a

11:46:38 motion to consider the draft that we have and forward

11:46:43 it to DCA as a consensus for them to consider as an

11:46:49 ongoing part of the pilot project.

11:46:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

11:46:52 That's a big deal.

11:46:54 And it's a very big deal for to us buy into this.

11:46:57 And I want to see -- I'm very concerned about one of

11:46:59 the proposals of the joint group which looks at the

11:47:03 economic -- what kind of funds we have to raise in

11:47:06 order to provide adequate schools.

11:47:08 And I understand that the other day the school board

11:47:10 asked for some economic study to be done.

11:47:13 And I wondered how quickly we get the results of that,

11:47:15 how much a half cent sales tax would generate, in

11:47:20 concert with certain -- I forget the word.

11:47:26 Per structure requirements.

11:47:31 And the reason I'm specifically concerned is because I

11:47:35 believe that while legally the municipalities have the

11:47:41 ability to go up to 10 cents in sales tax, I believe

11:47:44 that realistically we do not have that ability, the

11:47:48 half cent, the school system is looking at, is the

11:47:50 last half cent available to local communities to do

11:47:54 whatever we think we need to do.

11:47:56 And I am not -- and I sit on the MPO and I'm keenly

11:47:59 aware of our huge transportation deficits.

11:48:03 Unincorporated Hillsborough County has a 5

11:48:05 billion-dollar projected deficit unmet needs.

11:48:10 And I don't know that it's appropriate to project the

11:48:12 entire potential half-cent sales tax for schools,

11:48:15 which I totally appreciate the need for, and not

11:48:18 address transportation.

11:48:19 And I really think that we need to be very careful as

11:48:23 we approach this to see what's going to be generated

11:48:26 by one, what can be generated by the on the, and I

11:48:29 think I hear you saying you want us to make some kind

11:48:32 of decision in two weeks by March 1st, or in three

11:48:35 weeks.

11:48:35 >>> Not a decision.

11:48:37 Whether or not from where -- we are headed in a

11:48:42 direction in our charge under the requirements of

11:48:46 chapter 163, are we moving in the right direction to

11:48:50 produce the model for DCA and addressing concurrency?

11:48:53 Not a decision --

11:48:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Not by March.

11:48:56 I want to know, are you asking us, do we do -- what

11:48:59 kind of --

11:49:02 >>RANDY GOERS: What we are going to be asking -- again

11:49:03 I apologize that the level of the request for your

11:49:07 decision is a little gray, because we are trying to

11:49:10 get a consensus of the four jurisdictions without

11:49:13 having all four jurisdictions sitting in one place and

11:49:16 saying we have a consensus on something that's going

11:49:19 to change.

11:49:20 A draft interlocal agreement that we are providing to

11:49:23 you that we have to get to DCA by March 1st is

11:49:26 going to change because part of it is not going to

11:49:29 complete and there are issues that need to be

11:49:30 discussed.

11:49:31 But the part I think we are looking for consensus on

11:49:34 is the fill -- philosophy of level of service, if it's

11:49:37 less than district wide level service, that the items

11:49:42 and the proportionate mitigation and the direction we

11:49:44 are going make some sense and still needs to be worked

11:49:47 out, that the service areas, that can be a T attendant

11:49:52 zones as opposed to the large service areas, that

11:49:54 that's the direction we want to go.

11:49:56 So we are looking for for a consensus on some broad

11:49:59 direction as opposed to the details of the interlocal

11:50:03 agreement.

11:50:07 And had we not had the pilot project with some

11:50:10 specific deadlines, we wouldn't be coming to you at

11:50:14 this point asking to you make -- to review that and

11:50:16 give us some sort of direction.

11:50:18 But we want to know -- and we have looked at from the

11:50:22 Executive Committee -- if there's a large issue that

11:50:25 we shouldn't be going with attendant zones or

11:50:27 shouldn't be going with less than district wide level

11:50:30 of services, that's what we need to know.

11:50:32 The recommendation of the Executive Committee was not

11:50:35 to go in those directions, was to keep it less than

11:50:38 district wide level of service, attendant zones,

11:50:40 continue to refine the information and proportionate

11:50:43 share, and that's what we're looking for, is make sure

11:50:46 we are on the same page here, that we haven't missed

11:50:49 something that maybe the community might want in terms

11:50:50 of different way of producing this.

11:50:56 >>SHAWN HARRISON: There's a lot of stuff to digest in

11:50:58 here so it will take us two weeks to do that.

11:51:01 One of the things that I hear constantly from my

11:51:04 community is the residents in certain areas of the

11:51:12 unincorporated area of the county are very good at

11:51:16 deflecting school construction in their area, forcing

11:51:21 the school construction into my area, and then when

11:51:26 it's time to change the boundaries of the schools in

11:51:28 my area, my people get moved to schools they don't

11:51:33 want to attend, and the people in the unincorporate --

11:51:37 unincorporated area are coming to the schools that

11:51:39 they don't want to build that are in my neighborhood.

11:51:43 And I would like to see us change that.

11:51:47 So I'm going to vote on this from my role as a City

11:51:51 Councilman representing only my constituents within

11:51:54 the city limits.

11:51:55 I want to -- I want that to be a real consideration,

11:52:00 that if parts of the county are going to just say no,

11:52:03 sorry, we are going to stick our hands in the hand and

11:52:05 not allow to you build schools for us, they got to

11:52:07 live with those consequences, not my constituents in

11:52:10 New Tampa who say, build as many schools awes want, we

11:52:15 welcome them in New Tampa.

11:52:16 But when it comes time to change our boundaries, we're

11:52:19 the ones that are being punished and not the people

11:52:22 who are forcing those schools to be built in other

11:52:25 areas.

11:52:26 It's grossly unfair.

11:52:29 And when we go down and talk to the school board about

11:52:31 that, we seem to fall on deaf ears.

11:52:34 >>RANDY GOERS: There's two piece that is are still

11:52:37 being developed as we move forward.

11:52:38 This is just the interlocal agreement which

11:52:40 establishes some of the framework, and the way we are

11:52:43 going to implement the program.

11:52:46 The public schools facility element is really where we

11:52:52 set out the plan for where the need for schools are.

11:52:54 The policies how all four jurisdictions will work and

11:52:58 how they are going to be implemented.

11:53:00 Of the course part of the legislation that requires

11:53:02 that the five-year capital improvement plan for the

11:53:05 school board is a financially feesible school board --

11:53:08 or school plan, means that we are only talking about

11:53:11 the schools that are on that plan that can be built.

11:53:14 So we have already made decisions in terms of where

11:53:17 they are going to be cited or the areas where they are

11:53:20 going to be needed.

11:53:22 There's a couple of other mechanisms moving forward

11:53:24 with what the legislation is requiring is that a lot

11:53:26 more of that information come to the forefront

11:53:28 earlier, and be improved by the four local

11:53:30 jurisdictions, all local jurisdictions and their

11:53:33 school boards, much earlier than is going out and

11:53:36 having the approvals or building schools.

11:53:40 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I guess what I'm saying is if the

11:53:41 idea here is still going to be pretty much business as

11:53:44 usual with everything, and you just want our consensus

11:53:48 to say it's okay to just keep going as is, then I

11:53:53 suppose what I'm saying is I'm not going to do that.

11:53:55 I'm not going to support it.

11:53:57 If you're going to require impact fees for

11:54:00 developments within the city limits, then those people

11:54:05 that are paying those impact fees ought to be able to

11:54:08 attend their schools that their impact fees are paying

11:54:12 for.

11:54:12 And not be sent all over the place outside the city

11:54:18 limits or into different areas, because they are

11:54:22 buying into a specific area.

11:54:24 They want to live in this neighborhood.

11:54:26 They want that community school in that neighborhood.

11:54:29 And they are not getting that.

11:54:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison --

11:54:39 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm not talking about busing.

11:54:41 I'm not talking about that.

11:54:42 I'm trying to be diplomatic.

11:54:44 There are parts of the county that have been very

11:54:46 successful in deflecting new schools being built

11:54:49 there.

11:54:50 And what's happening is generally impacting the most

11:54:55 my constituents in New Tampa.

11:54:57 And that's a problem.

11:55:00 And this is our opportunity now to weigh in on that

11:55:04 problem.

11:55:05 I'm going to weigh in on it.

11:55:07 >>GWEN MILLER: But I think that problem is in all

11:55:09 areas.

11:55:10 Some kids are still being bused to other areas, and

11:55:13 schools in their district think cannot attend.

11:55:16 I have some kids in my area that can walk to schools

11:55:18 but are being bussed to other areas.

11:55:20 >> Well, busing is a whole different issue.

11:55:22 And we don't need to wade into that rate here and now.

11:55:26 >>GWEN MILLER: I'm saying it's happening in other

11:55:30 areas.

11:55:31 >>SHAWN HARRISON: And you probably have in your area,

11:55:32 you have some great new schools being built and you

11:55:34 probably have people that want to go to those schools.

11:55:37 >>GWEN MILLER: And can't go.

11:55:38 That's right.

11:55:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: With all due respect, I don't think

11:55:45 I'm comfortable with what's before us to be voted on

11:55:47 in two weeks.

11:55:48 I just am not.

11:55:50 I need more information.

11:55:51 I need to meet with you all.

11:55:52 I say to fellow council members either we do this

11:55:55 collectively or we do this individually.

11:55:56 But I am really not comfortable that I feel that we

11:55:59 are being told everybody has to work together, and we

11:56:03 don't necessarily get the safeguards that we as a city

11:56:06 want for our citizens and our developers.

11:56:09 If we are behaving more responsibly, I want us to be

11:56:12 recognized for that.

11:56:13 And I don't want to be held to maybe a watered down

11:56:17 standard when we want a better standard.

11:56:22 >>> I understand.

11:56:23 And if I can step back.

11:56:25 Not asking you to approve an agreement.

11:56:26 We are asking you to let us know if we are moving in

11:56:28 the right direction on some of the major provisions.

11:56:30 All of your comments that you're making are comments

11:56:32 that we want to get and to ensure that they are part

11:56:35 of the interlocal agreement, the public facilities

11:56:38 element has been adopted, and implementation and

11:56:41 concurrency afterwards.

11:56:43 I apologize because the process is requiring us to

11:56:45 come to you with this -- the draft of the interlocal

11:56:50 agreement and asking you to make -- sort of reach a

11:56:54 consensus on a direction.

11:56:55 But that's the good news-bad news of the pilot project

11:56:59 for DCA.

11:57:00 The good news is we do have an opportunity to work on

11:57:02 this with the consult that DCA is providing. The bad

11:57:06 news is we have to do it on their terms.

11:57:08 So what I'm suggesting is that in two weeks we can

11:57:13 come back.

11:57:13 We can take the comments that you had, work them

11:57:16 through the Executive Committee which is going to be

11:57:18 meeting on Friday.

11:57:18 If there are any changes or any addendums that we

11:57:22 should make to the interlocal agreement to make sure

11:57:24 that DCA understands some of the concerns that you

11:57:26 have expressed, we can make sure that's attached.

11:57:30 Another part is that DCA needs to understand your

11:57:32 concerns.

11:57:32 Because they are producing a model that other local

11:57:35 governments are going to use.

11:57:36 So the conversation we are having here is going to

11:57:39 happen at every local government across the state.

11:57:41 So we need to make sure that the results of those

11:57:44 conversations are integrated into the interlocal

11:57:46 agreement element in the concurrency element that

11:57:51 comes along.

11:57:51 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I feel the same way.

11:57:55 You come to us at 11:00 o'clock and you gave -- we

11:57:59 gave you the time for you to come talk to us.

11:58:01 But there's a lot for us to digest here and I don't

11:58:04 know, I know you have a deadline.

11:58:08 I don't know whether you can extend it or not.

11:58:10 But it's going to take us awhile to digest this.

11:58:12 I mean, what we are going to do here is going to

11:58:18 affect the city and the school board for a long, long

11:58:21 time.

11:58:21 So I don't know whether we ought to have just another

11:58:23 workshop, and go point -- not point by point but tell

11:58:28 us exactly what it is.

11:58:29 I mean, I was trying to follow what Mr. Lauers was

11:58:35 saying, and I don't know what page he was on.

11:58:38 So I need -- I need more study on this thing.

11:58:43 And my colleagues are making a lot of sense.

11:58:49 And they are asking a lot of good questions.

11:58:51 And I have the same concerns.

11:58:53 So if we can schedule something that we can either

11:58:56 talk to us individually or talk to us collectively,

11:59:00 and go point by point and what it is that we are

11:59:04 supposed to do, I'll be more than happy to make time

11:59:06 for you.

11:59:07 >>RANDY GOERS: We can do either way.

11:59:09 If you wish to have a conference, we can do that.

11:59:12 Or if you want to come back for a workshop or at the

11:59:15 time of the meeting, we can do that again.

11:59:19 What we are asking in two weeks, is either it can be a

11:59:22 workshop or meeting where you hear and then make a

11:59:25 recommendation, or it could be a public hearing where

11:59:27 you receive public comment.

11:59:28 But putting in perspective what ware producing here is

11:59:34 a mod toll use and develop the procedures later on.

11:59:37 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's exactly right.

11:59:38 You're saying it right.

11:59:39 But the thing about it is when don't know -- I

11:59:42 don't -- maybe somebody else can get it, but right now

11:59:45 I don't know.

11:59:45 >>RANDY GOERS: And we would be happy to meet with you

11:59:49 and work out those questions.

11:59:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let's meet individually.

11:59:52 >>ROSE FERLITA: I certainly appreciate everything that

11:59:54 my colleagues have said.

11:59:55 But I get a different impression about what this

11:59:58 meeting was about.

11:59:59 I think.

12:00:00 And Randy, you correct me if I have the wrong

12:00:04 impression.

12:00:04 I don't think that you collectively as a group came

12:00:06 here expecting that we would rubber stamp this or

12:00:10 expecting that we would be of the same opinion as the

12:00:12 county commissioners, as perhaps when you go into the

12:00:16 other municipality of Temple Terrace, you are going to

12:00:18 have some issues there, because that's what

12:00:21 legislators should do that represent a certain area.

12:00:24 We want to feel good about the fact that we think we

12:00:26 are protecting our constituents in terms of the

12:00:28 impacts versus the school versus the capacity versus

12:00:31 whatever.

12:00:31 But you have got the challenge, tore charge, to try to

12:00:34 make everybody agree on some things, and then give you

12:00:38 their opinion on what they don't agree on, which is I

12:00:41 think that's what this is.

12:00:42 In two weeks when you come back -- and I think my

12:00:45 opinion is, everybody has their own, certainly,

12:00:48 meeting us individually, I can tell you, I think this

12:00:51 is good, but at this point now in time my charge is to

12:00:54 represent City of Tampa residents city-wide.

12:00:57 And don't think that this fares well for the people

12:01:00 that I represent.

12:01:01 I think you get all of these comments, good, bad,

12:01:05 negative, you know, generically yes, generically no,

12:01:08 and then Tau that back.

12:01:10 But what you are trying to do is comply with the

12:01:12 requirement that you have in terms of looking at this

12:01:14 interlocal agreement, and asking different legislators

12:01:17 in different parts of this county, what do you think

12:01:19 is good?

12:01:20 What do you think is bad?

12:01:21 And we weigh in on it.

12:01:22 I think that's what it is.

12:01:23 I don't think that they would expect us to say

12:01:26 everything is just fine and wonderful, and we join the

12:01:29 seven county commissioners over there and we all

12:01:31 agree.

12:01:32 Hardly!

12:01:33 But I think that's what you're doing.

12:01:34 Collecting data.

12:01:35 Collecting opposition.

12:01:36 Collecting agreement.

12:01:37 And then showing that you did what the dictates of

12:01:40 this are.

12:01:41 Is that where you are trying to go?

12:01:43 >>RANDY GOERS: You put in the a very succinct-terms.

12:01:48 There is the possibility in the next meeting that when

12:01:52 the interlocal agreement is -- the decision is

12:01:56 transmitted to DCA, all of their collective comments

12:01:59 from the meeting can be inserted into it.

12:02:01 Not inserted but attached it with.

12:02:03 So if there are issues that you want to make sure that

12:02:05 you have concerns with, those can be transmit add long

12:02:08 with it.

12:02:09 It's not that we are again asking -- and you put it in

12:02:12 the right frame -- we are not asking you just to

12:02:14 approve this on its own and send it up but if there

12:02:18 are any concerns or questions or issues that you have

12:02:20 that you want to make sure remain part of the process,

12:02:22 those can go up as well.

12:02:24 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's what I understand.

12:02:25 I'll take this and do my homework.

12:02:27 And then I think you are not necessarily asking for

12:02:30 support as it is defined.

12:02:32 You're asking for input.

12:02:35 Okay.

12:02:35 Then that's fine.

12:02:36 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to have -- discontinue the

12:02:40 conversation now.

12:02:42 We are going to have the next meeting.

12:02:44 A.

12:02:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Two weeks.

12:02:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Two weeks?

12:02:47 >>ROSE FERLITA: And if it's possible, if we need to,

12:02:51 would you all meet with us individually?

12:02:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Remember the 23rd we are going to

12:02:55 break early and leave to go.

12:03:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We are leaving at 1:30.

12:03:05 Move to reschedule or --

12:03:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Continue?

12:03:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 1:309 on the 23rd.

12:03:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Coming back at 1:30.

12:03:15 Probably won't finish the agenda either.

12:03:17 >>ROSE FERLITA: But if we meet them W them

12:03:20 individually, we won't have such dialogue and each of

12:03:23 us might have particular questions that will be

12:03:25 addressed.

12:03:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Meet with each of us individually

12:03:30 before the 23rd.

12:03:30 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Question for council.

12:03:32 Does council wish to receive public comment on this?

12:03:34 Because presently if it's scheduled as a workshop,

12:03:37 council's rules state that you have to open it to the

12:03:39 floor before taking comment.

12:03:40 If you schedule it as unfinished business, then what

12:03:44 you can do is you can take public comment, agenda

12:03:47 public comment early on, and not necessarily have to

12:03:49 open the floor.

12:03:52 However council wishes to structure.

12:03:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You can even schedule as a public

12:03:58 hearing if you want to open it to the floor.

12:04:00 It's council's decision.

12:04:01 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I move to put it on as unfinished

12:04:04 business, we just continue this discussion, not at a

12:04:07 time certain.

12:04:08 Well, we'll just take it when we get to it.

12:04:13 That's my --

12:04:19 >>ROSE FERLITA: Well, in terms of public comment, if

12:04:21 we are trying to forgo that, John, are you all not

12:04:24 offering different public workshops where people can

12:04:27 comment or no?

12:04:28 So would that suffice without --

12:04:32 >>GWEN MILLER: In that case we don't need public

12:04:34 comment.

12:04:34 They are having workshops.

12:04:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If it's on the agenda they will still

12:04:39 have opportunity at agendaed public comment to speak

12:04:41 for three minutes.

12:04:43 >>THE CLERK: On the 23rd I want to remind council

12:04:46 at 9:30 you do have a public hearing on the old Tampa

12:04:48 Police Department community redevelopment area.

12:04:51 Plus you also have three continued -- or one continued

12:04:54 closure, two continued closures and also landmark

12:04:59 public hearing.

12:04:59 >>RANDY GOERS: The 23rd was not a magical date.

12:05:06 It could be next week.

12:05:07 >>ROSE FERLITA: Can it be later?

12:05:09 A week later, Randy?

12:05:11 >>RANDY GOERS: We would not like to dot later because

12:05:14 March 1st is our -- well, the 23rd?

12:05:17 I don't think -- there is not one before March

12:05:20 1st.

12:05:25 >>GWEN MILLER: March 23rd -- I mean February

12:05:29 23rd, unfinished business.

12:05:31 All in favor of the motion say Aye.

12:05:33 Opposed, Nay.

12:05:34 (Motion carried).

12:05:34 Thank you.

12:05:35 Council members, we usually take our break till 1:30.

12:05:39 Do we want to shorten it till 1:00?

12:05:42 Okay.

12:05:42 So we are going to adjourn until 1:00.

12:05:44 (City Council recess)


Tampa City Council.

Thursday, February 9, 2006.

[Sounding gavel]

>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called back to


Roll call.





>>ROSE FERLITA: (No response.)

>>KEVIN WHITE: (No response.)


We are on item 45 on our agenda.

Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak

on item 45?

>>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.

Just to refresh council's memory on this item.

Mr. Snelling went through the changes to the ordinance

last time for first reading.

We did try to assemble what we determined to be

noncontroversial or items from the committee that were

in agreement, except for the section related to the

removal of the grand tree that is causing structural


There are people from the public here to speak on the


And if council has any questions, I would be happy to

answer them.

>>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council members?

Mr. Dingfelder.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's been brought up, I think, on

more than one occasion about there was some language

in there that said that if a tree -- I don't have the

page exactly but if a tree was harming a structure,

then I think it said "or within one year it could be

perceived that it was harm the structure."

Do you remember that?

And then the "or within one year" got yanked out


>>GLORIA MOREDA: Yes, that language is not in the

current draft.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are we on first or second reading?

>>GLORIA MOREDA: Second reading.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would like for us to at least

consider putting that back in.

I think it's reasonable.

Because there's so many checks and safeguards on that

provision in terms of staff, staff reviewing the tree,

and that sort of thing, that I think we should

consider putting that back in.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: I would agree.

Why should we wait until the structure is damaged if

all the experts agree the structure will be damaged?

Let's nip it in the bud.

And that will actually help us on the flip side, if

you go in and you find out that that tree caused so

much damage that you just cannot tear the structure

down and rebuild it.

Then what we would be doing is actually preventing

that from occurring rather than being able to take it

out in advance of any real damage.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: There might be some other issues.

>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?

We go to the public.

Would anyone in the public like to speak on item 45?

>> Good afternoon.

My name is Cliff Fernandez.

I represent the Tampa Bay Home Builders Association.

My address is 3318 South Westshore Boulevard and I

have been sworn.

We would first like to thank council for generously

granting one final workshop to clarify the points in

chapter 13.

And we would also like to thank all that were involved

in the workshop process, regardless of which side of

the issue that they were on.

Our participation has given us a better understanding

of opposing views and I'm sure that all that were

involved in the workshop will come away from it with

that feeling.

We were able to come to agreement on many issues.

Not all of those issues are in front of you today.

I would like to have council know that the builders

association for the most part supports this ordinance.

I would like the council to know the council in no way

shape or form accepts I will removal of trees and

supports fines on those individuals who do illegally

remove trees in the city.

We have some concerns going forward, like we would in

any discussion with opposing views.

However, we would like to see the city add to this

ordinance that the five-year -- every five years, city

funds a tree canopy study.

This would and prior to any further changes made in

chapter 13 that the first update to an existing study

that has been done at the University of South Florida,

that that be accomplished prior to any further


Other than that I think we are in agreement with

everything that is here before you today and would

support it.

>>ROSE FERLITA: I'm sorry that I got here late.

Very briefly, your objection I heard at the last

minute and were there any other concerns by the

builders association?

>>> The builders association is in agreement with the

basic chapter 13 modifications that you have in front

of you.

The two items that we would like to see added to

what's in front of you, as Mr. Dingfelder called out,

that we just not wait until the tree is actually doing

damage, but that an engineer's report, an arborist, an

architect, state that within one year the tree is

likely to do damage.

That is still that final determination is made by the

city staff, so that city still has the ultimate review

on that.


The other thing is we believe a canopy study should be

done prior so that we can measure the effectiveness of

our code.

I mean, if we have a canopy study done, it's showing

that it's lacking, we are lacking tree canopy, we

should take additional measures to protect the canopy.

I mean, the canopy is what is the benefit to the


It's not an individual tree.

But the canopy as a whole.

And that's what we should be monitoring.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to thank you

individually, Mr. Fernandez, and all the other

representatives from the building community and the

development community who participated.

I really believe that during the course of the year

and a half maybe that it took to us get to this point

that we developed a lot of appreciation for each

other's concerns and values, and I know that you're

sincere in saying that you all want the city to be as

beautiful as possible with the tree canopy, because it

benefits all of us.

And I think that your specific recommendation about

doing a thorough inventory of the city street canopy,

so that we can use that as sort of a baseline to see

where we are, and then to assess in the future, are we

losing canopy, are we gaining canopy?

I think that's an excellent suggestion.

I thank you for it.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Just a question.

The issue about tree study or when it's done or how

often it's done, that's an administrative decision.

How can we weigh in on that?

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Putting it in the ordinance.

And if you put it in the ordinance.


Cindy, thank you.

I didn't hear that part and I'm sorry, I ran down the

street to get back here and I didn't do a very good


But I think that is a very reasonable request from the

builders association.

I declared earlier, and I'm not sorry that I did,

although I didn't have to from what my understanding

is, and met with them.

And I think that there was some sympathy from the

builders association that they didn't want to destroy

a tree canopy, that they realized they had to have

some safeguards.

And Mr. Fernandez, right?


I mean, when we talked at my drugstore, we talked

about lots of issues, some that you agreed with and

some that you didn't.

I came into this afternoon's session -- as a matter of

fact, I asked the chairman to hold it for a minute

because I wanted to weigh in on it.

I was not in the chamber when we voted the first time.

On the last, not to be -- has nothing to do with this

but on the last issue, I think even Mr. Dingfelder

said that when we were talking about the noise

ordinance, our obligation was to be fair, straight

across the board be fair.

The neighborhood that was worried about noise and the

businesses causing noise, et cetera.

I looked at an article this morning from the Tribune

that talked about situations in different communities,

et cetera, and I think nowhere throughout -- it says

North America, there is another city considering a

two-year moratorium.

Obviously, I mean, I will continue to support what

South Tampa wants about tree canopies and trees,

et cetera.

Oftentimes -- and I'm sure it will continue -- I have

been called to come out and look at a site on a Sunday


My concern was that it looks like Mr. Fernandez has

kind of filled that gap for me.

My concern was back to the property rights.

I think we did this two-year moratorium simply to put

something in place for the bad guys.

And the builders -- and I'm not pandering to them --

are not always the bad guys.

You may have one guy that decides he wants to do

development of that site.

And I was concerned really as I came back here that

this was going to be more -- not asking for permission

but being prohibited from doing something.

The fact that we were the only municipality that has a

two-year moratorium concerns me.

And I'm wondering where that's going to go.

And I guess time will tell that.

I think there's a trigger mechanism if somebody has an

appeal with a legitimate reason to come in with a

hardship that they will do that.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm certainly

supportive of this from the standpoint of tree canopy.

But the builders sure gave me some good points that I

had to support as well.

And when I got here, I guess that wasn't something,

cliff, that you were pushing.

I hope that this is not a knee jerk reaction, an

emotional knee jerk reaction and is something that

will still be protective of the tree canopy, but at

the same time not infringe on property rights.

And I think if we come up with situations in the next

few months that cause this to be something that

doesn't seem to be fair, we can come back with an


And I certainly would support that.

I really wanted to ask somebody from the legal

department -- and I don't know if Julia or somebody

could ask this.

Based on how we finally crafted this on a two-year

moratorium, is that something that's defensible?

I know we have looked at the issue on Grenada but we

are looking at the one issue versus a ton of

development from builders that don't encourage, don't

endorse, don't participate in violations like this.

So, I mean, are we going too radical because we want

to protect it, or are we being fair?

I'm just asking for your opinion in terms of what we

finally came up with.

>>DONNA WYSONG: Legal department.

I can't answer the question as to whether you're

radical or fair.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Based on the two year moratorium that

there is no place else in this nation, do you feel as

an attorney that is representing us or advising us, is

that something that's defensible?

Because you have some hardships sometimes.

>>> Right.

>> I know what you're saying, the trigger is they can

come back and appeal it.

But we are kind of making them come back and appeal,

because of the prohibition, not coming back to appeal

in terms of permission if they fit the one, two,

three, four, five criteria.

That's what my concern is and I just needed to put

that on record.

And I guess since I spoke with some of the

representatives on the builders association that they

have softened their position.

They have certainly said from the beginning that if a

tree study had been followed through, it died

someplace, and we all agreed to do that.

It died.

And if we had looked at that, then that would tell us,

was there really one situation that we are reacting


Or were there 20 situations? I don't think so.

But if the administration had put the tree study in

place, maybe we would have more data to look at to see

whether or not this is an overreach or it's a

reasonable response or whatever.

Do you see where I'm going with this, Donna?

>>> Absolutely.

We intentionally wrote that particular section in the

ordinance so that it is very narrowly tailored to fit

a certain situation, and we did put that relief valve

in there so if there is a legitimate problem with the

building, county come down.

All they have to do is come and talk to you all.

And county come down.

So it's very narrowly tailored, fit a very narrow

situation, and it has that relief valve in it.

So we feel very comfortable that it is defensible.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Just the one last comment on record is

I think this same council last week or the year before

talked about the over abundance of appeals, and issues

we have to deal with and why the council is longer in

session and not, and should we do this, and should we

do this through the magistrate, or zoning person that

will look at stuff.

So I'm hoping that after we put this in place, we are

not going to have a bunch of appeals come to us

because then we need to look at it again.

From the prohibition standpoint to the permission

standpoint in asking for council's opinion.

>>> And certainly at that time if you find that that's

the case, it's your ordinance.

You can change it.

It's my understanding that this is a situation that

has occurred maybe only once or twice.

It's not something that happens --

>>: That is exactly my point.

And I was thinking that the builders' representatives

would say that.

And as you all have -- you have eased your position,

and I appreciate that, because it makes these hot --

these lights a lot less hot for me because I think you

brought up valid points the other day.

I'm willing to go with this.

But as in many cases if this ordinance is not crafted

like it should be, I'm sure you won't be shy and come

back and say, see, you were looking at what happened,

and what doesn't happen is something that's not

considered in the stringency of this ordinance that

you guys are proposing.

So I -- and I'm not trying to play both sides.

Absolutely not.

But I'm hoping that you understand.

Your points were well taken.

Your position is very gently.

And we'll see what happens.

Yes, I'd like to hear from you.

>>> Cliff Fernandez, building association again.

Gary brown has kindly given me his time to speak.

This is definitely a softening of our position.

And I think in any legislative process, you have

opposite ends of the spectrum.

And this is what it's all about.

And you come together with a middle ground that makes

sense for all parties involved.

In the light, the whole scheme of things, we believe

that having a regular canopy study on a five-year

basis is factual.

It allows for good government decisions to be made.

Is the canopy thriving?

Isn't the canopy thriving?

Do we need to bring in additional measures or don't we

need to bring in additional measures?

We have concerns about the two-year prohibition.

We articulated those to you, and I thank you very much

for your time to listen to us.

And we still believe those concerns.

However, in the whole scheme of things, we believe

that the canopy study is more important.

And if it does cause the problems with the


, does cause problems in the future I'm sure there

will be opportunities to come together.

A concern there was that there were unforeseen

circumstances to it and that the property owners -- it

really wasn't a builder issue.

It was a property owner issue.

You know, the two-year prohibition has very little

impact on the building community.

But it has major impact on the property owner and

informs N forms of disclosure and things that can

happen where people have liability after the fact.

Those are what-if situations.

They may or may not happen.

If they happen, I'm sure this board will look at those

and make the modifications that need to be made.

But our biggest concern was having the canopy study


>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, just one last comment.

Cliff, bear with me for a second.

I'm glad -- this was hard for me since you and I


Because I wanted to are fair to both sides and I think

that's what legislation is about.

And just like anything else -- and then I'll keep

quiet and have said my piece -- in my profession if

there's one pharmacist, for instance, that sells drugs

illegally, he gets arrested and all of a sudden all

pharmacists are not ethical.

About three years ago -- and I speculated this would

happen -- there was someone in your industry in, your

profession that did something that probably you guys

wouldn't approve of.

That happened.

So all of a sudden the overreaction was, what are the

builders doing?

They are going out at night, telling the owners to

chop this down and then we'll buy your property at

inflated costs.

So those type of things I think in any profession are

stuff that hurt the people that are ethical.

So again I think in closing, I hope you understand --

and it seems like from your comments today you do --

this is not about targeting the people that do it the

right way.

It was a pretty radical approach about doing something

to people that don't do it the right way and then you

guys get the black eye.

>>> Sure.


>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is that the end of the public


Because I'll go ahead and move to close.

>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: I have a question for staff.


>>SHAWN HARRISON: The appeal provision, we had asked

that that was clear that there was no cost to the


>>GLORIA MOREDA: There is nothing in the code that

indicates there is a fee.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: So as long as it's clear that you do

find yourself stuck in that two-year provision that

whatever the appeal process is, does it come directly

to us?

>>> It will go to you.

>> Come directly to us and there is no charge for



>>GLORIA MOREDA: I do have a question related to

the -- are you saying that you would like the

commitment for the study for the canopy to be put in

this ordinance? Because the city is going through the

review with the Parks Department, Cindy Miller and

Karen Palus are working on the further revisions to

the tree and landscape code.

Code code I was going to speak to that.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: I'll wait till you speak to that.


Let me just put out my ideas.

The public hearing is still open.

>>GWEN MILLER: Let's see if anyone else wanted to


Anybody EMS in the public to speak in?

Anybody else?

Okay, now Mr. Dingfelder.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: A couple of changes that I think we

are all sort of in agreement, I hope, on section 13-45

(G) 2-C, right now it says removal of grand tree

causing structural damage to existing building, grand

trees shall be permitted to be removed when the

director of business, housing, development, or his or

her designation nay knee, director of parks and

recreation, makes a determination that the grand tree

has grown in such a manner that is causing structural

damage to the foundation.

What I am going to suggest is that's where we put in

the one-year provision.

In other words, it would now read that the city staff

people make -- if they make a determination that the

grand tree has grown, or within one year will grow, in

such a man theory is causing structural damage.

That's suggestion number one.

And I can give these to staff.

Suggestion number 2 is as a completely different

subsection, something along the lines that the city

will conduct a tree canopy study at least once each

five years funded by the tree fund.

Now I don't know, funded by the tree fund is sort of


I don't know if we should do that or not.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, we should.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think that's the intent of

council it should be funded by the tree fund

comes up with a reason why they shouldn't they can let

us No. legal is making these changes. The city will

conduct a tree canopy study at least once each five

years funded by the tree fund.

And then finally, Mr. Harrison, I think your comment

is very well taken.

And since we are going back to first reading, I think

that the appeal provision should say at the end there

will be no charge for this appeal.

And that way 20 years from now it will still say there

will be no charge for this appeal.

So that would be the three changes.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: And what about -- I think that they

were asking for the five-year study not just to

conduct it but to say that we're not going to make any

more changes to this.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It has to be up to then us, and our

integrity to give our word we won't do that because if

you put it in the ordinance it's kind of weird.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, I think that I understand that


And I'm not sure that we have to hamstring ourselves.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The first study will occur in 2006.

And then that way it gets done.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: But I think what they're saying is,

okay, we have now gone through this exhaustive year

and a half process, we don't want to have to go

through it again next year because some other issue

arises so let's all take a breath for five years,

let's do a study, and then at that point --

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: No, saying do the study.

Then if we need to make changes make the changes.

But they are saying don't do any changes until you do

the study.

But they want to do the study now.

That's what they told me.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't mind having language in

there that says we are not going to make any more

substantial revisions to this code without first

conducting a tree study.

>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Miller, come up.

>>> Cindy Miller, director of business and housing


We are hearing the direction of City Council.

Although I can't directly speak for Karen Palus, but I

know Steve Graham just came in from her staff, I think

we can make the commitment to come back to you, With

any further changes until such time that study has

been initiated and completed.

I don't think you need to work it into -- it would be

that, yes, I had an earlier discussion with Karen

Palus, director of parks and recreation, and was

talking about the tree study because I also had

conversations with representatives from the builders


And in that discussion with Karen and with Steve

Graham, the tree study is a good idea.

So from that standpoint, you know, we'll start getting

that initiated and we'll come back to you until such

time as we have the results.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, I want to tell you why

I'm excited about what Mr. Harrison said about a

no-charge issue.

The other night some of us were at the town hall

meeting that the mayor scheduled at plant hall.

Not to do with this.

But there was an elderly gentleman that raised a good


He didn't want to go through the process of what was

happening on his block, and I don't want to bring that

up in terms of preservation, but sometimes when you

get elderly people that are involved with this process

and have an old house in South Tampa -- and that's

very typical -- and the tree is knocked down for

structural interruption, et cetera, they get older.

They need to go to nursing homes or assisted living


And so it would be unduly fair for them, unduly

unfair, for them to have to come back and pay a fee to

plead their hardship case.

So I think that makes it helpful.

That makes the process more user friendly.

So I think absolutely if people have a hardship, if

they want to talk to this counsel or the next council,

it absolutely should not be at any charge.

Because based on health issues they don't know what's

going to happen in a year, half a year, or year naval.

>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby, since we have to go back to

first read doing we just continue this or how do we

handle it?

>>MARTIN SHELBY: My suggestion would be to -- what is

the best way to do this?

It has to come back for first reading so it has to be

set for first reading and then advertised for a second


>>> Steve Graham, Parks and Recreation Department.

Sorry to come in hate but I understand there is a

question about whether a grand tree is causing

structural or damage to a house, and there's some

discussion on whether or not there should be a clause

added to predict that it may cause damage.

There's absolutely no professional in any industry

that can make that type of call.

What we do is best available information.

We do have certain tools that we can and often do

employ in these types of inspections to see physically

where the roots are, and if they are causing damage,

what other options avail themselves short of taking a

tree out or short of demolishing a house?

And oftentimes there are other alternatives.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The language that I suggested, that

they suggested and that I am agreeing to, says, you

know, it's the basic language that's in there, and

then we would add "or will cause damage within one



They can come in to you perhaps and show a hairline

fracture on the structure and say, isn't it likely

that within one year, or isn't it true that within one

year, and here's our engineer, and he's going to

disagree with you, and they are going to say within

one year we believe this little hairline fracture is

now going to become a big fracture in the side of a

concrete block house, and we think that the tree

should be taken out as a result.

But at the end of the day, if you don't agree with

that, it still rests with the city.


So if we put it in there, yes, it gives them the

ability to argue it.

That's fine.

But it doesn't give them anything more than that.

And if you listen to their arguments, read their

engineering reports and still disagree, you have the

right, you and the other rest of the city staff that's

looking at this, maybe city engineers or what have

you, you have a right to disagree, and then ultimately

that appeal could come to us, too, which does on


>>> Well, ultimately you have to make that decision.

But with all due respect, I just don't think there's

anyone that can say with any certainty that this crack

is caused from this tree.

And oftentimes having looked at a lot of these with

the chief building inspector, and we have looked at

them in many cases, he's pointed out to me where there

are cracks, that is not related to the tree.

So it's not black and white.

And I think to add that additional clause in a sense

kind of muddies the water.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I agree, probably could muddy the


But in the spirit of compromise, that might be where

we need to end up.

Thank you.

>>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, it would be my

recommendation that if council wishes a motion be made

to direct the legal department to make those changes

and to have it brought back for a first reading at

10 a.m., I was going to suggest two weeks.

But the 23rd is going to be very rough for council

so perhaps three weeks, March 2nd.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's not going to be

controversial -- may I speak to that?

I would like to Britt back sooner rather than later.

Number one because we have been working on this

forever: And number two we can't be working for

people oh to meet green space requirement until we get


So I think at that point it's going to fly by.

So I move to bring it back on the 23rd at 10 a.m.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm still not clear on the tree

canopy study.

And maybe I'm the only one in the room that's not

clear on it.

But I do think that since the suggestion was made by

the builders association, I want to hear back from one

of them as to whether or not they understand what

we're doing and they are comfortable with that.

But I still don't understand if what they ask for is

what Mr. Dingfelder --

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I clarify way said first

before --

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Clarify what you said.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What I think is probably the best

approach, in light of what you said, Shawn, is I think

the language says the city will conduct the tree

canopy survey within the year 2006, so it gets done,

and then every five years thereafter.

I think beyond that, I think we all have a gentle and

lady's agreement we are not going to go forward with

any more modifications.

I don't think we need to put that in the ordinance.

>>> Yes, and that is what we are asking for.

We have asked that no modifications be made to chapter

13 until this study, this update of the existing study

is made.

That is exactly what we are asking for.

>>ROSE FERLITA: I know it's Mr. Dingfelder's motion

but let me ask Marty, now and in five years, is there

a clause or does there need to be a clause or would we

consider a clause that says unless something else

triggers an inventory sooner?

>>MARTIN SHELBY: Council can, with very short notice,

put an amendment to this whole ordinance that would

take out a clause if it wishes to.

>>ROSE FERLITA: That's fine.

Because, cliff, if it looks like there's something we

need to revisit because something, you know, something

has happened.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Tree blight.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Yeah, okay.

Then whatever council is sitting here at the time

should look at the ordinance and change that in terms

of an amendment.

I think that's reasonable.

And if somebody can show due cause then that action is

at least five years, but maybe sooner if necessary.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll accept that as a friendly

amendment. Let's say at least every five years.

'06 and then at least every five years henceforth.

>>GWEN MILLER: He didn't make a motion.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, he did.

>>GWEN MILLER: No, did he not.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The motion is to bring this back,

to T changes articulated by Mr. Dingfelder, brought

back to the council on the 23rd at 10 a.m.


>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

(Motion carried).

>>> Cliff: This doesn't have anything to do with the

trees necessarily but we were here at the first

meeting and were unable to speak.

Now we are back to second reading and now going to a

first reading.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We are going to fix that.

It's a screwy process.

Right, Marty?

>>GWEN MILLER: Item 46.

Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on

item 46?

>> Move to close.

>> Second.

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close.

(Motion carried).

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to adopt the following

ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance of the

city of Tampa, Florida granting the New Port Tampa Bay

community development district authority to exercise

special powers set forth in chapter 190 .012-2-A-F) to

establish indoor and outdoor parks and recreational

facilities, fire prevention and control facilities,

school buildings and related structures, security

facilities, mosquito control programs, and waste

collection and disposal programs providing an

effective date.

>>GWEN MILLER: Roll call vote.

>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita being absent.

>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

would like to speak on item 47?

>> Move to close.

>>GWEN MILLER: Come on.

>> Donald hall.

I'm representing applicant, address 208050 U.S. 19

north Clearwater and I have been sworn.

We would request that the board approve our

application for the 4(COP-X).

Thank you.

>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What is the proposed use?


>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is this a restaurant, a bar?

>>GWEN MILLER: What is it?

>>> Proposed restaurant and bar.

At the motel.


>>> Yes.

On Fowler Avenue.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: was there a reason it was an X as

opposed to an R?

>>> We had originally come in at 4(COP) and we were

following the recommendation of staff to go to


And we adopted that recommendation.


>>CATHLEEN O'DOWD: Legal department.

I don't know that there was a discussion of making

this an R at any point because of its connection with

the hotel.

The concern by staff and TPD was that they were

seeking the ability to sell alcoholic beverages in

sealed containers for consumption off premises so we

were focusing on that issue.

During the first public hearing.

I don't know if the petitioner can meet the

requirements of the 4(COP-R).

So I don't know if they have had an opportunity to

look at that issue.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: They are putting a bar.

It's a hotel, not a restaurant.

It's a hotel.

>>GWEN MILLER: What's the name of the hotel?

>>> The sapphire motel on 210 east Fowler Avenue.

Right off the interstate.

There's 152 units there.

The area is being redeveloped.

My client wants to -- there's presently a restaurant

facility in there that's closed right now.

And he's going to want to put a substantial investment

in that to put a sports bar and restaurant and also

banquet facilities that they can serve the alcohol at.

>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, sir.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: I would like to hear from TPD.


>>GENE HAINES: I was not sworn.

(Oath by clerk)

Gene Haines: 210 east Fowler, it's across the street

from another motel. The reason I had asked petitioner

to do the X was so that it would not present an

off-premises consumption.

And I didn't even think about of it at the time I

recommended it and knowing if they were asked about

the R.

I just gave the X so there would be -- there's a Citco

there already and other places.

But the requirements I didn't get into that but it may

not fit.

It's a small little restaurant attached to the hotel


>>SHAWN HARRISON: But there will be no package sales.

>>> Correct.

That's what I was trying to prevent.


>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

689 Mr. Dingfelder, are you with that one?

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I guess I'm a little confused.

Maybe other council members who have been here

longer -- just let me ask you guys the question.

If they go up and they order a beer, does the beer

have to be opened?

Does the pop have to be popped off?

Or can they say "I'll take the beer back to my room?"

Because if they can take the beer back to the room

they can just as easily take it off site.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Consumption on premises only.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: The question is, is the whole hotel

wet zoned then?

If the whole hotel is wet zoned then I guess we would

be all right.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So we have defined it?

Okay, I'm fine with it.

Move the ordinance upon second reading an ordinance

making lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol

beer, wine and liquor 4(COP-X) for couples on premises

only at or from that certain lot, plot or tract of

land locate at 210 east Fowler Avenue, Tampa, Florida

as more particularly described in section 2 hereof

providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict,

providing an effective date.

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

Voice roll call.

>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena being


>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

would like to be speak on item 48?

>> Move to close.

>> Second.

(Motion carried).

>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to adopt the following ordinance

upon second reading.

Move an ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages

containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight and not

more than 14% by weight and wines regardless of

alcoholic content, beer and wine, 2(COP-R), for

consumption on the premises only in connection with a

restaurant business establishment at or from that

certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 402

south Dale Mabry highway, Tampa, Florida as more

particularly described in section 2 hereof waiving

certain restrictions as to distance based upon certain

findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances in

conflict, providing an effective date.

>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

Voice roll call.

>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena being


>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

would like to speak on item 49?

>> Move to close.

>> Second.

(Motion carried).

>>ROSE FERLITA: Move to adopt the following ordinance

upon second reading, an ordinance making lawful the

sale of beverages containing alcohol more than 1% by

weight and not more than 14% by weight and wines

regardless of alcoholic content beer and wine 2(COP-R)

for couples on 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.

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

Voice roll call.

>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena being


>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

would like to speak on item 50?

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.

>> Second.

(Motion carried).

>>MARY ALVAREZ: I move to adopt the following

ordinance upon second reading.

An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity

of 305 west Emma in the city of Tampa, Florida more

particularly described in section 1 from zoning

district classifications RS-50 residential

single-family to PD-single family residential

providing an effective date.

>> Second.

>>GWEN MILLER: Voice roll call.

>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena being


>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

would like to speak on item 51?

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.

Wait a minute.

>>GWEN MILLER: Don't want to hear Joe.

Okay, you will have to speak.

>> Joe Robinson, Palmetto street, Tampa, Florida.

Great City of Tampa, and resident of West Tampa where

this property is located.

Own the Golden Nugget. This is second reading.

And I'm here to ask council's support for that.

We need redevelopment in West Tampa.

And I been here all morning and I'll be here till the

close to just observe what's going on and I

respectfully request we move this forward so we can

move on with West Tampa becoming Tampa's next second

great city.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: All right.

Thank you.

>> Move to close.

>> So moved.


[Motion Carried]

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to adopt the following

ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance rezoning

property in the general vicinity of 2502 north Howard

and 2302 west Beach Street in the city of Tampa,

Florida and more particularly described in section 1

from section from zoning district classifications

RS-50 residential single family CI commercial

intensive and PD restaurant bar to PD mixed use

providing an effective date.

>> Second.

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

Voice roll call.

>>THE CLERK: Motion carried.

>>GWEN MILLER: Item 52.

It's a continued public hearing.

Does staff want to speak on that?

Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak

on 52?

>> Move to close.

>> Second.

(Motion carried).

>>MARTIN SHELBY: This requires a super majority vote.

>>GWEN MILLER: We are all here.

>>MARTIN SHELBY: Council's attention.


This was a project that they submitted some additional


And maybe everybody has been briefed on that.

I would disclose they came and briefed me


The petition der.

But, anyway, I just want to make sure that we didn't

need to put any of that information on the record?

>>MARTIN SHELBY: It was. The last time.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: On for first reading again?

In that case I missed it.

I apologize.

>>GWEN MILLER: There is a motion to close.

Mrs. Saul-Sena, will you read that?

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move to adopt upon second

reading, an ordinance amending the Tampa comprehensive

plan future land use element, future land use map, for

the property located at 770 West Courtney Campbell

causeway from community mixed use 35 to urban mixed

use 60 providing for repeal of all ordinances in

conflict, providing for severability, providing an

effective date.

>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

Voice roll call.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just for clarification, 7700 west

Courtney Campbell.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Oh, I'm sorry.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: What did you say?


>>MARY ALVAREZ: Oh, gosh.

>>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.

>>GWEN MILLER: Item 53.

>>MARTIN SHELBY: We have to swear witnesses.

>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public that's going to

speak on 53 to 56, would you please stand and raise

your right hand.

(Oath by clerk)

>>GWEN MILLER: Does staff want to speak on this?

Does anyone in the public want to speak?

>>THE CLERK: On number 53 you will need to open your

public hearing.

>> Move to open.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: I thought we already did.

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to open number 53.

(Motion carried).

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close.


>>> Joe Robinson: 2338 Palmetto street.

Yes, I did attend St. Peter Claver Catholic school

because I'm Catholic.

And I was there from the 50s.

I started kindergarten in 1959 at St. Peter Claver.

And St. Peter Claver is in an area that's getting

ready to go through a transformation with major

redevelopment known as Central Park Village, right

across the street.

And this designation would ensure that a landmark

historical black Catholic school, which is one of the

few in the United States of America, I think it was

the first, will be in existence long after I'm gone.

And I know there's a lot of issues with preservation

and landmarking in Tampa on certain buildings.

But this is one that if it isn't protected, I believe

that it will probably be knocked down because it is

right on the -- right in the heart of the Central Park


But if they can take care of the village, and St.

Peter Claver is a landmark, they can easily integrate

into any design for replacement of the Central Park

Village housing to integrate this school, and it will

also keep a local school in the area, because Miami

Beach um may not stay there depending on how the

school board negotiates -- negotiates with the housing


So as a person who attended St. Peter Claver in '59

and I had to leave with when the interstate came in,

third grade I went to St. Joseph's, I'm saying please,

City Council, let's make this a landmark so when I'm

gone everybody will remember it was a good school

where Joe Robinson got a good cakes.

>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone else that would like to


>>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to close.

>> Second.

(Motion carried).

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to adopt the following

ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance of the

city of Tampa, Florida designating the St. Peter

Claver school located at 1401 north governor street as

more particularly described in section 4 hereof as a

local landmark, providing for repeal of all ordinances

in conflict, providing for severability, providing an

effective date.

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

Roll call vote.

>>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.

>>GWEN MILLER: We need to open item 54.

>> So moved.

>>THE CLERK: Continued.

>>GWEN MILLER: Continued, okay.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Another request.

>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe council has a request from

Mr. Santiago, assistant city attorney.

>>JAMES COOK: Land Development Coordination,

requesting a two week continuation.

>>GWEN MILLER: Requesting to continue 54 for two


>>THE CLERK: That would be February 23rd at 10


>>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.



55 is to continue.

>>JAMES COOK: I have been sworn in.

Petitioner's representative Mr. Sheer is here to

request a continuation on this matter for two weeks

also which would be the same date and time.

>>GWEN MILLER: 10:00.

>> So moved.

>> Second.

(Motion carried).


>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Before we get to that, I have a

small housecleaning item to bring up and I want to

make sure to get it N.council members have all been

invited to a public officials luncheon on February

23rd when I previously scheduled a meeting about

the comp plan.

So I would like to reschedule the discussion of the

comp plan until 12:00 on March 2nd, which is a


Terry Cullens said co-accommodate us and -- could

accommodate us.

In the Mascotte room from 12:00 to 1:30.

Comp plan.

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

(Motion carried).

>>MARTIN SHELBY: Special meeting?

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Special discussion.

>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone that's going to speak on item 56

needs to stand and raise your right hand.

>>THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell

the truth and nothing but the truth?

>>GWEN MILLER: Need to open the public hearing.

>> So moved.

>> Second.

(Motion carried).

>>> Rebecca Curt, legal department.

This is an appeal from a denial as an application to

remove a grand tree because it is hazardous.

Under chapter 13 I want to remind City Council this is

a de novo review -- not a de novo review and is

appropriate to hear from the applicant intelligence --

as well as any members of the public.

>> Good afternoon.

Linda Pearson, 1200 West Platt, sweet 204, Tampa.

I am going to ask for your indulgence.

Mr. Graham is here.

Do you want to hear staff report first?

And then we can go into our appeal?

What is your pleasure?

>>GWEN MILLER: Yes, let's have a staff report.

>>STEVE GRAHAM: Steve Graham, Parks and Recreation


And you should have had the report submitted from the

dock agenda on our evaluation of the grand tree at 717

south Brevard.


We evaluated the tree and still the request to remove

the tree does not meet the criteria for removal.

The tree is not hazardous, we feel contributes, adds

value to the community.

And we were disappointed to see that some pruning had

occurred to it in the interim.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask a question?

First of all, do you have a photograph of the tree?

Secondly, was the pruning permitted?

>>> I do have a photograph of the tree.

It's a large tree.

And I'll show you a couple of different sheets that

will help clarify it in general.

And the pruning that occurred on the tree was not


And I guess what's disappointing on that is that so

often we get called out on speculation to do courtesy

reviews in terms of what-if, if we want to put a

structure on the house war the limitation was respect

to the grand tree?

How close can we come?

Which branches can we remove?

And we have done that no less than a half dozen times

on this particular piece of property including with

this petitioner.

And we are very enclosure as to which branches could

be removed should you decide to move forward, and

demolish the existing house and build, and so when we

went out to evaluate the tree on the basis of this

appeal, to remove the tree, we discovered it had been

pruned without permit.

And I'll show you the pictures.

This is kind of a general shot of the tree.

It is tall and kind of irregular in shape.

But it sits on the rear property line.

And it does encompass both the adjoining property and

the subject property.

And I'll show you a couple of pictures of the pruning.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What is the circumference of the


>>> It's greater than 34 inches.

That's not what you wanted to hear, though, is it?

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would you put it up higher so we

can see the bottom?

>> You can see the one limb to the right, my right.

In the foreground has been cut that. Was a low,

sleeping ground runner.

And then maybe this shot is a little clearer.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You have been there so often.

How fresh is that cut?

>>> Yes, it's fresh.

It's been made in the last three months.

Let me see if I can find the diameter -- diameter.

It's been awhile since we measured it.

Fortunately I have the entire file, which is pretty


>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Steve, while you're will go for


I was reading your correspondence or somebody's


I guess you probably read this from Karen Palus dated

February 2nd?

It's about the investigation of property, sort of the

little one-page history.

February 2nd.

>>> Is that the --

>>: To Chairman Miller, February 2nd.

>>> Okay.

I'm with you.

I'm familiar with that --

>>: Are you familiar with that letter?

>>> Yes.

>> In if I can direct everybody to that letter if you

have a copy of it.

>> Where is it?

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't know.

Watts in my packet.

Dated February 2nd from parks and rec.

Anyway, there's some interesting facts on there that I

just want you to clarify yourself, because I would

guess you probably have personal knowledge of this.

You indicate here that you had met Mr. Ar a deck and

you indicated -- before he purchased and you indicated

to him it was a they will think tree?

>>> This that too is correct.

>> You didn't see any justification for the removal?

>>> That's correct.

>> That's kind of my point.

>>GWEN MILLER: Find the picture?

>>> I have the picture.

I'm looking for the diameter.

For some reason I haven't come up with it.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You can show that later.

>>> I'll be happy to provide that at a later date.

But it was well in excess of the 34 inches that we use

as a trigger, threshold for evaluating grand trees.

And that's really the extent of our presentation.

Unless there are questions.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like our attorney to

clarify what measure -- what parameters are we

supposed to be considering at this hearing?

>>> Legal department.

From this appeal you are supposed to be looking at

whether or not this was properly denied, whether the

application to remove the grand tree because it is

hazardous was properly denied by staff.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And the standard is the testimony

of our staff saying it's healthy?

>>> There is actually, in your code, an exhibit 1,

tree hazard evaluation form which has three different

criteria and a point system which staff goes through.

And staff could probably explain to you in greater

detail their evaluation of the hazard evaluation form.

>> Do we have a copy of how the staff rated things?

>>> I don't know if staff provided that or not.

>>> We do.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did you receive this?

I might suggest that in the future, when we are

supposed to be looking at this, that you create a real

complete package for each of the council members so

that we are really clear on how we are supposed to be

evaluating this and what the points are, and the

comments that Mr. Graham just shared with us.

Don't have it in my packet.

I have the comments of the petitioner but not of the


>>MARTIN SHELBY: I'll take responsibility for that.

I do that.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let's hear from petitioner, I


>>> Graham: This is part of the chapter 13 and there

are three areas we look at in evaluating the condition

of the tree in general.

And in actuality what we go through is a bunch more

detailed process in evaluating the condition of the


But generally, we look at the failure which looks at

the size of components of the tree that are likely to


If there is a defect.

And we also look at the size of the defect and how

much that is in relation to the total.

And we look at potential targets.

And we assign a value for each of those and then

there's a scale of 12 would be history, that tree is

completely out of the question.

And anything less than that is various degrees of

problems that may or may not be addressed.

And in this case everything that we saw was remedial,

in case there was a decay spot on a limb or something

that can be pruned out, that can be fixed.

So in this case we didn't see anything that was

irreversible that would condemn the tree.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What did it rank?

>>> It ranked 6 out of 12 which is a reasonably good

rating for mature tree.

>> And to make sure you leave a copy of that for our


>>> Okay.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Graham, on the appeal form that

Mr. Arodak talked about, his a reason for appealing

the decision was it was a hazard and unhealthy, two

trees -- I don't know what the first word is --

occupied by senior citizen, which is a neighbor.

Did you see anything that was over the neighbor's

yard, that might have been a canopy or something that

might have been doing something to the neighbor's


>>> That question came up.

Just to start at the beginning, there are two things

that we look at in a very narrow purview, permitting

administratively, a grand tree to be removed.

One is whether or not the tree is hazardous.

And that's what we are looking at today. And the

other one pertains to whether or not causing damage to

a structure.

Those are the two things that we can look at


So with respect to the hazard, we have looked at it

not only in relation to the subject property but also

surrounding properties.

And yes, there is a large two-story older structure to

the Bayside of this subject property but we do not see

anything that suggested that there would be any

inherent danger or risk in leaving the tree.

We didn't see anything.

>> Did you see anything that they might have been able

to trim that part of it so it wouldn't be in the

neighbor's property?

>>> There generally are pruning opportunities

depending on what you are trying to achieve.

I didn't see anything in terms of weak limb

connections or internodal defects in the stem that is

would cause breakage.

So the purpose for pruning really is if the tree is

coming into contact with a root or the structure and

rubbing against he is it.

If he wants a reasonable clearance from the house,

that would be acceptable pruning.

Or if he wanted to promote the density of the canopy

or the crown, you can do some tip pruning which

increases the density of the foliage.

But other than that, there wouldn't be any really

useful or meaningful reason to prune the tree.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: What about the picture that you showed

where you saw some pruning on there.

And one of them looked like it was an old pruning or

cut on the tree.

One looked like it was pretty old.

>>> Being an old tree, there are some old pruning cuts

on it.

And it may have been this one that you were referring


>> Yes.

>>STEVE GRAHAM: The importance of the limbs were

underscored during the tropical season.

They are very important.

They are a critical component to stability during

severe wind events.

And it's hard to see exactly what's happened here

because it's hard to capture it in a photograph.

Just because of the scale.

But there were several limbs that came out and were

helped to balance and provide a counterbalance for the

tree in terms of its overall structural stability.

And those are gone now.

>> Let me ask you one more question.

The same picture that you're showing me.

Those look like suckers, those vines and so on.

Doesn't that take away the energy of a tree?

Doesn't that make it hazardous?

>>> No.

Vines almost never would cause any serious damage to a

tree, with few exceptions.

There are a few species of vines that actually send

their root are into the tree, and PARASITIZE and cause


But they add Waite weight, hold moisture and over time

that can cause more cosmetic problems, and if they are

really particularly rampant and overgrow the tree they

can shade out the sun -- shade out the sunlight from

the leaves and block out photo synthesis.

So, yes, they can be kept under control or they can be

a problem.

>> But these are okay?

>>> Yes, never serious enough to remove a grand tree.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.

>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So my understanding of the legal

point here is the petitioner's responsibility is to

prove that the tree is unhealthy?

Is that it?



>>> Linda Pearson again for the record.

I prepared packets for each of you if I could submit

them to the clerk.

By the way, Mr. Arodak is the new owner of the


He was not involved with the multiple inspections.

He purchased the property in July of last year.

He has been dealing with this request only since


>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chairman.

Could I ask you about the issue that was raised by Mr.

Graham that Mr. Arodak had a conversation with him

prior to his purchase of the property, at which point

Mr. Graham said to him that the tree was healthy?

>>> Talking about pruning, yes, and he advised him on

some important pruning measures that could be taken.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So prior to his purchasing the

property he understood the tree was healthy?

>>> That was what he had been told, yes.


That's what Mr. Graham had told him.

We do not believe that was the case however with

further investigation.

And I'll share that with you in your packet of



Mr. Steve Graham.





You will notice the two story building that is the

historical structure that is referenced in the back


The reference of the trees during the hurricanes were

blowing up against the eves of the 1900 residence.

Subsequent to cleaning up the backyard, and removing a

lot of debris that is in the backyard, Mr. Arodak

consulted with harborists in your booklet, tree

specialists came out to look at the property and gave

the property that the 45-degree ang that will that

tree is leaning toward the historic home, and that the

tree will continue to grow in that direction, is

putting that home in danger.

The 93-year-old resident that is in that home has

asked for the tree to come down, and there is a letter

in support from Helen Olson and your backup as well.

We'll get to that in a moment. The second letter is

from Bill Hall, who has been an arborist with Busch

Gardens and the State of Florida as a tree fungai


He's also seen a large cavity.

I think it's about 10 feet off the ground, that shows

that the tree does have disease in the center of it.

He finds the tree hazardous, considering the size, the

age of the try and angle it's growing, what have you.

And he recommends that the tree be removed before they

fall over onto the neighbor homes.

We then had a couple structural engineers come out and

look at the properties adjacent.

In your second tab, there is a letter by -- sorry --

SDS, which is Suncoast design services, Inc. They did

look at the tree.

And their inspection noted that one of the trees is

within two feet to an existing garage on an adjacent

property immediately to the west, which is owned by

Susan and Steven -- or Steven and Susan collie but

that existing garage, and the tree has, quote, already

impacted portions of the garage foundation and may

soon impact the structural integrity of the building


We understand that the garage is part of the historic

property and is located within the historic district."

I would like to note that in this entire block, there

are only two homes on that block that are not

contributing in significant historic structures.

One is the Arodak piece and there's one over on Swann

that is not historic.

All the other homes in this block are contributing and

on the list of contributing structures in the historic


His inspection further noted the sharp inclination of

the angle, that a large portion of the canopy is

hanging over the property at 723 south Brevard.

And that it weakens the tree system.

The root system creates a hazardous condition to the

frame structures and human lives.

It is hanging over the bedroom of the 93-year-old.

One of the huge limbs.

And his recommendation is also that the tree be

removed to eliminate any potential hazards.

The second structural inspection report was done in


By the way, that report was done in February of this


The second one was done in August of last year, in

which the professional engineer Roger Cheoning, found

it is a potential hazard for several properties.

We've met out on the site on January 10th with the

abutting neighbors.

They have submitted letters in support of the removal

of the trees when it went before parks and rec.

They also submitted letters which we have put copies

in your backup.

We showed the subject property on the map with either

letters or verbal support from the adjacent property

owners on all of the sides.

There's an affidavit from the owners at 714 south


These folks have the garage that is at risk from the

roots, that there is a hairline crack there that one

of the inspectors talked about which is currently

impacting their foundation today.

For their garage.

The second one is from the resident at 712 south

fielding, northwest of the subject property.

The third letter of support is from the neighbor to

the north side of the property.

You will notice that she has, I believe, submit two

letters, one to the parks and one to you directly.

The third letter is from Helen Olson, who is on the

south side.

She owns the 1940 historic boarding home that is at

risk if the tree angle should continue to fall and

destroy portions of her historic structure there.

The next residence are the Cory's again, their second

letter of support.

I met with them.

They definitely want the tree down.

They live directly behind it.

And there is a final letter, I believe, their second

letter in support of the removal.

I have some photographs that I want to show you, too.

One is the pre-pruning photo that you have seen

already that shows the tree at a 45-degree angle.

It's a large tree.

And it is leaning at this angle right now.

All the weight of the tree, the canopy, is toward --

>>GWEN MILLER: Use the mike so we can hear you.

>>> The historic structure to the south.

And over the applicant's property.

The second photo that we have --

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chair.

I have a question about the photo.

>>> Okay.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It appears these two giant limbs

were chopped out without permission.

Can you address that?

>>> Yes, I'll be happy to.

One of the limbs -- .

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: It looks like your last picture in

that section.

>>> I was going to go through each of them.

I'll turn to that one.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have to leave and I really want

you to address that.

>>> There was one cut after the hurricane that fell

and it was trimmed after the hurricane.

The situation when he bought the property the limbs

were hanging down, co-not walk between his house and

the historic structure to get even in the backyard.

Now, it's my understanding that there was --

>>: Isn't the petitioner's property vacant?

>>> No.

He's living there.

He just bought it.

He's remodeling it and he and his wife reside there

and they have for the last several months.

And they plan to remain there actually.

They are not tearing the house down.

They are Rood remodeling it.

They want to make it a lovely home.

That is their home now.

They met with several of the inspectors through this


First of all, they made application in October.

The Parks Department letter got to them, I don't know,

they said it was delayed, and that he received it

three days prior to his appeal deadline.

He said, I can't get an appeal together in three days.

And he met with the attorney and he was advised, why

don't you just reapply, and then -- so he reapplied.

It was denied in December, again.

And for the same reasons.

But in the meantime, he has had additional inspectors

come out, who actually climbed up in the tree and

looked around in it.

And one of the photos that you will see demonstrates

the post pruning photo, that is correct.

There was trimming on the underside and the limbs that

were blowing every time there was a storm and scraping

the eaves of the nearby two-story, what were cut,

because the gentleman was very unnerving.

There was damage to the eaves of his house.

And so those were done.

The very last picture that you see is the top of the

tree where you can see the difference in the condition

of the tree which we considered to be diseased.

There are two areas that the arborist found that have

fungous in them.

I will try to point them out to you.

And the kind of lopsided photo. It was lopsided for

me to get more in it.

I want you to understand that.

It was a very hard tree to photograph.

It's a small backyard and you can't back up far enough

to see the whole thing.

But there is a ten-inch section here that the arborist

found fungus in, and another about ten-inch wide

section that he found fungus in, and that was one of

the things that led to his recommendation.

Plus the 45-degree angle that it was at that he

recommended that it be removed.

Now, back to your question on the pruning --

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Because there's pruning of like

little stuff that might be scraping and what I would

consider that looks to be like 30-inch limb which is

more like butchering than pruning.

>>> From what I'm told that is the one that in the

last hurricane was falling, and when he bought it it

was cut because you could not get in.

>> The most recent one.

The one that Mr. Graham referred to.

>>> I'm adviced that Mr. Arodak did meet with the

Parks Department staff there. Were sketches provided

to him of what pruning could occur.

So I'm confused about what Mr. Graham says that the

pruning was done illegally, but yet he's had staff out

there from the Parks and Recreation Department on two

different occasions that inspected and advised on

where it could be pruned.

Now, whether those sketches were provided to a

professional tree company, he did not do the pruning

he had a professional tree pruning company do it.

He wasn't there and present.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Was it permitted?

>>> This is Mike Arodak from 717 Brevard.

I had a tree service come.

I hired them and they did the pruning.

I don't know if they pulled permit or not.

But I move another tree and I pull permit for it.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is the tree.

>>> This tree, I don't know if they prune or not.

I have no idea.

>>KEVIN WHITE: You had a professional landscaper?

>>> I had a licensed tree company.

>>> That's correct.

I guess perplexing is the fact that we have a

situation where there is a tree.

It is meeting the definition of a grand tree.

But if it looks like a grand tree, the answer is

simply, no, it does not.

It is growing at a 45-degree angle.

There is no growth on one side.

It is all on one side hanging over the garages of two

adjacent property owners and over the residence of the

is it 40s historic structure, which we provided the

backup from the historic department of the structure

itself, and as well as the condition being good when

it was designated in 2003.

I will tell you that I find it perplexing that they

say they have a huge file on this case.

Because I sent my planner out to the Parks and

Recreation Department on two occasions, and there was

no file that could be found on this.

She made an appointment and went back a week later and

found a file that had the same information that he

provided to you today, and a few other things that are

in your backup.

And that is the extent of the file that we were shown

when we went out there.

So I beg to differ with Mr. Graham if that there's a

huge file.

And I also beg to differ with him relative to the fact

that that it is evidently a diseased tree in the eyes

of other experts who are qualified to make those


And that it is a hazard based on the two professional

engineers who have looked at from the a structural


I'm not a structural engineer.

I'm not an arborist.

So I rely on the folks that those folks provide to me

in making this recommendation.

I have gone out --

>>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Robinson wasn't one of your

engineers, was he?

I see him still sitting there. I know he's an


>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is a very factually based


And I would like to continue this, at least two weeks,

so that we can get our staff out there to measure and

ensure that it's a grand tree.

And I felt that the two experts that Ms. Pearson cited

aren't here to testify and the report is a two

sentence report.

I have inspected the tree and its potential hazard.

There's nothing technical about it.

It says old oak tree in the backyard is growing at an


I mean, it's not very technically oriented.

And I just don't think we have enough information to

make a good decision.

So I'd like to move that this be continued two weeks

to give our staff a chance to create a more complete

record, and frankly I'm disappointed, but also to

allow the petitioner's engineers a chance to elaborate

a little more.

This two sentence report is not very factual.

>>> And that's why we brought you the second one dated

February 3rd, which is the first page.

>> August 31 is very vague.

>>> Yes, are you are correct.

And we asked for a second opinion based on that.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, I move to continue this for

two weeks.

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion fails.


>>> Rebecca Curt, legal department.

I would like to remind council that what is before you

is a determination of a hazardous tree.

There's been a lot of conversation about structural

damage, which is a separate review done by staff which

in fact was not done in this case.

In addition, there was testimony about some possible

code violations which would also be separate.

But the structural damage is not reviewed by staff.

So that's not in front of you today.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: What isn't in front of us today?

>>> A determination whether or not this is a hazardous

grand tree.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Go ahead, say something.

You wanted to say something after that.

>>> Steve Graham: There's two things I add.

I apologize when don't have a measurement on the

diameter of the tree.

But I can assure you it's well in excess.

There's no question that it is a grand tree, in size

and in condition.

And as far as the lien of the tree, there's a big

difference when we are talking about biological

structures and building structures A.tree that is

leaning because of root failure is in fact a hazard.

But a tree that grows at a lean develops compensating

wood that supports it.

And it's just as stable as a tree going upright.

So lean is completely irrelevant in this hearing.

>>GWEN MILLER: This lean, was it growing as it was


>>> It has been growing at a lean for several hundred


>> But not --

>>SHAWN HARRISON: So Mr. Graham, in your profession

opinion is this is not a hazardous tree.

>>> No way, no shape, no form.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: From what I can see there are two

letters --

>>: Four.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: I am not talking about at the time

willers -- letters from neighbors.

I'm talking about their professional -- their


Their burden of proof.

There's two letters in here.

One dated February 3, 2006.

One dated August 31st, 2005.

>>KEVIN WHITE: Two more in front of that.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Were there?

I'm sorry.

>>KEVIN WHITE: One an arborist from Busch Gardens, one

pro tree specialist.

>>> Steve Graham.

And I have not had the report.

I haven't had a chance to digest it.

But it is cursory.

And I think they reference a few decayed spots in the


But in any grand tree you are going to see that.

The question is, has it compromised the structural


And it has not.


>>SHAWN HARRISON: What about the people next door,

this limb is literally growing into their house.

It's not their tree.

Can't they go out there and trim a limb if it's

starting to impact their property?

>>> The city has a process for pruning grand trees,


Now the picture you saw did not show the off-set or

the relationship of the arm to the house.

So it looked like that limb was right on the house.

But in fact -- and I'm guessing -- maybe 15, 20 feet

in between there.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: I guess my question is, when my

grand tree starts to impede on my neighbor's use of

their property, what recourse does my neighbor have to

say, get your tree off my property?

>>> Well, the way the law reads is that you're

entitled to self-help and that you can prune the tree

if it grows onto your property.

The only modifier to that is the local code.

The local code says yes, you can, sure enough, you can

as long as you dot according to ANSI proper pruning


Then you pull the applicable permits.

So, yes, the answer to your question is emphatically

yes, that if you feel you need to prune a grand tree

or any other kind of tree, you can.

It just needs to be done correctly.

>>GWEN MILLER: You need to pull a permit.

>>> And you need to dot legally.

You need to pull a permit.

>>KEVIN WHITE: I respect Mr. Graham's opinion on this.

Although I see that there are several hazards and I

would consider the tree a hazardous tree.

I don't think as a neighbor it's incumbent upon me to

pay to have an arborist prune the tree and to have a

big tree limb hanging over my 90-year-old mother or

grandmother's bedroom.

I don't see it.

And I see four professional opinions, no matter how

short the letters are.

Some of them are quite lengthy.

And as far as the fungus, the way the tree is growing,

growing at a lean, I personally would see that as a

hazard on my property, and as well as with the storms

that we do have in Florida, I don't know what the

integrity of the fungus is, when winds start to blow

at a certain mile per hour, that when this big limb

and this tree starts to sway, you don't know if it's

going to crack.

I don't want to have to have that burden upon my head

and I sure wouldn't want it hanging over me.

Madam Chair with, that said, since we have three other

council members that left to go somewhere else, and

certainly I don't think it's necessarily fair to our

petitioner and everything else, but I move to close

the public hearing, and rule in favor of the


>>SHAWN HARRISON: You move to close?

>>KEVIN WHITE: Close the public hearing.


>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor say Aye.

Opposed, Nay.

(Motion carried).

>>KEVIN WHITE: I move to rule in favor of Mr. Arodak

on his appeal and allow him to be able to remove the

grand tree based upon it appears to be a hazard based

on four professional opinions that we do have based in

the petition.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Just a couple of comments.

It's very rare that in this type of a neighborhood you

would have neighbors around a site that look at a tree

and say, I want you to take it out of here.

And that is certainly an issue that what he's heavily

with me with again all due respect to Mr. Graham.

It may be healthy but it's hazardous nonetheless.

With the heels of what we went through last hurricane

season I don't want to be a neighbor with that tree


So I am certainly going to be supportive of that.

And Mrs. Pearson, just a conversation between you and


You may have seen me doing all this stuff and it

appeared rude.

Theth is speculation on my part.

I know you guys have both been here since this


We have a job to do. We are trying to dot.

I think that the colleagues that left, presumably,

because they have to be at the mayor's conference

about the museum, is not a fair process to you.

And I would like to apologize for that, because if I

were sitting there, I would like seven people up here

listening to you, not either continuing it or being

distracted with something else.

But that's aside-bar issue.

I think we are very protective of trees.

We just went through a tree ordinance that we passed.

With lots of consideration for protection of trees.

Again, it may be healthy.

But it's hazardous.

It has the support of the neighborhood and I certainly

agree with Mr. White in, this particular incident this

tree should be taken down.

>>KEVIN WHITE: Is that a second?


>>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, don't think that I can

go along with the motion.

The four letters that are in the file are all written

on behalf of neighboring property owners.

And the neighboring property owners have the ability

to go out and utilize self-help to trim portions of

the tree that they think are dangerous or to get a

permit to do that.

And I believe -- I believe that the existence of those

letters doesn't go to the evidence, doesn't really go

to the burden of proof that the petitioner has, that

this tree is hazardous, vis-a-vis this property.

I don't know that we consider the hazardous

inclination towards adjoining property owners.

Marty, can you -- I don't even know if that's properly

before us.

>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe the code makes reference to

the property that's on the parcel.

That's my understanding.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: So is it hazardous only as to the

property that the tree sits on?

Or are we looking is it hazardous as to adjoining

property owners?

>>> Legal department: What it talks about is the

target rating, and the target, it gives several

different instances but it doesn't seem to say it has

to be on the property.

It talks about occasionally use as something you would

consider which would be jogging trail to intermittent


It doesn't really speak that it has to be definitely

the property.

>>GWEN MILLER: Now the hazard to the other lady's

windows or does the whole tree come out?

What is it?

>>> If-council has the ability to sustain staff's

position that the tree is not hazardous.

If council does decide it's hazardous they can allow

the tree to be removed or they have the ability to

order the tree to be trimmed, do something less than

full removal.

>>GWEN MILLER: We can give order to trim, or take out

the whole tree?

Council can do that?

Or that's left up to the petitioner?

>>> Council has the ability if they find it's a

hazardous tree to put reasonable conditions on what

they end up doing to remove that hazard.

And perhaps if that's where council is going, they

would like some recommendations, I probably wouldn't

be the best person to recommend those conditions.

>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Graham.

>>> Steve Graham: Parks and recreation department.

As far as ameliorating a hazardous condition if you

feel one exists there are two things you can do.

You can approve the removal of the tree, or you can

approve pruning of the tree.

In any event, the pruning should be done in accord

with the industry guidelines.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, I will go along with allowing

the tree to be pruned by the neighboring property

owners because I do think it is potentially hazardous

for them.

But if we can't take them into consideration, then

this is not a hazardous tree because it's on an empty

piece of property.

>>KEVIN WHITE: It is not.

>>GWEN MILLER: They live in it.

>>KEVIN WHITE: There's a home there. There are people

living there.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: This tree is on his property.

Is there evidence that this tree is hazardous to his


>>> No.

That's what I have been saying all along.

>> It's potentially hazardous to the neighbor's


>>> It would be potentially to the neighbor's


>>SHAWN HARRISON: That's the point I was trying to


I would go along with allowing it to be trimmed so

that it not hazardous to anybody.

But the hazard that we have been talking about here

today is not his own property.

It's the people that are next door.

>>KEVIN WHITE: I would love to hear from petitioner.

Petitioner says it's both.

But not only that.

My point, I kind of agree with what you're saying, Mr.


I thought I heard them say it was a hazard to the

actual petitioner's property.

But by the same token, even if it's hazardous to the

neighbor's property, from a total liability

standpoint, I don't want that liability of a

2,000-pound limb hanging over my neighbor's house,

and, you know, the possibility of taking legal action

if something happens because the neighbor, Mr. Arodak,

did not take care of history which is growing over my


Can you clarify that?

Or at least --

>>> Linda Pearson: I'll be happy to speak to that.

The situation is that the limbs as they currently

exist, and the tree is leaning, hangs over three

different properties.

The petitioner's property, which is this house.

The neighboring property, which is this house.

And the property to the rear, which would be both of

these houses here.

So it's actually four lots.

This house.

This house.

This house.

And this house.

From the diagram that I gave you in your booklet, and

the supporting letters from neighbors, this house of

Mr. Arodak hangs over here which.

It hangs over this garage.

And this garage.

And all of those neighbors have requested it be


And Mr. Harrison, I truly respect where you are

struggling with this.

I struggled with it myself.

But here's the bottom line.

You're asking a neighbor to incur the expense of an

arborist and a tree trimming, and a permitting, and a

review by staff, for something that isn't even in

their yard.

And the tree sits in the yard of Mr. Arodak, and he's

willing to accommodate them.

This is the process he has to do it through.

And it seems unfair to require the four abutting

neighbors to incur that expense, time and trouble for

something that he is willing to accommodate them with,

and that they fully support.

And therefore we request your indulgence and support

of the request.

>>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Graham, just one question for you.

If that does lean over all of the properties that Ms.

Pearson says it does, if we go through the proper

channels and each one of those neighbors want to incur

the expense and trim that entire tree in four

different directions to not hang over all four

properties, what are you left with?

A butchered tree at that point in time.

I mean, from the pictures that I saw, if we can go

through the process, and they get to trim everything

back to the property line, now you are going to lose

all the canopy and all you are going to have is seven

different ugly trunks that are going on in every

different direction.

Am I correct?

>>> No, we should be very clear on this.

Self-help says that you can prune to the property line

unless there's a local code that modifies that.

And there is.

You have to prune according to NCEA 300 pruning

standard which is what all professionals -- and I say

all professions because there are standards of


Not everyone that writes a letter of recommendation is

a professional.

But there are standards that they have to comply with.

And that does not allow for pruning to the property


>> I understand, there's 15 or 20 feet hanging over

these other peoples property.

>>> Right.

>> And whether you prune two feet back or trim six

feet you still have so much that's over there.

>>> Theoretically.

>> It's a grand tree.

It's a grand ugly tree.

And I think it's a miserable hazard and it's an

eyesore the way that it's described on these pictures.

And I'm sorry.

And I do wholeheartedly respect your opinion.

I really do.

But I see letters from four other -- and I think

probably the most compelling one for me is the

arborist from Busch Gardens.

And, you know, I think deal with so many out there,

I'm sorry, I just -- but I appreciate it.

Thank you.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Another staff question.

There's also, is there not, pending action in front of

Code Enforcement Board or some board because of the

improper pruning of this tree?

>>> Absolutely.

>> You are going to go forward with that.

So even if we decide this tree to be taken out that

would still continue?

>>> Yes.

>>GWEN MILLER: How can they take it out if it's


If we take it out then what happens?

Take it out and --

>>> It's still technically a violation.

I guess the board or hearing master would take that

into consideration.

How it would affect their opinion I don't know.

>>KEVIN WHITE: We just don't know which but either way

it would still go forward.

>>> Correct.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: What would be the maximum fine he

would face if it's found he improperly pruned it?

15,000 if you remove a tree.

>>> I can't envision that it would be 15,000 because

it's not effectively removed or irreversibly damaged.

County be corrected.

So it would be something less than $15,000.

>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?

>>SHAWN HARRISON: There's a motion on the floor.

>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second on the floor to allow

them to remove the tree.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. White's legal acumen has won the

day for me, and I will -- he's an acting attorney here


I was under the impression that there was no hazard

towards the property owner himself.

But if that is not the case, it does seem like there

are four houses here that are potentially impacted by


I agree it's not the most attractive of trees that

I've ever seen.

These not a reason to remove it.

But I also do want to say that in order for us to make

sure that we keep our ordinances strong, that we

continue to proceed with the improper pruning action.

He's going to pay the price for whatever he did before


He ultimately is going to be able to take it down.

But I want to make it clear that whatever board is

going to review that, us allowing the tree to be

removed does not in any way let him off the hook for

that prior pruning without a proper license.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Let me reiterate what Mr. Graham said,

what he did is punishable upon the code, true.

And that's a given.

Same time, it didn't irreversibly do anything to the


So I think that will be fair because you went and

killed the tree.

>>KEVIN WHITE: One other thing to add to that.

He said he hired a professional tree trimming company.

I think the onus is upon them too if they failed to

pull a permit.

>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the


(Motion carried).

>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to receive and file all document.

>>GWEN MILLER: Second?


(Motion carried).

>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. White, do you have anything?

>>KEVIN WHITE: No, ma'am.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Just got something to read about the

press conference that the mayor is having now about

the museum.

Some get to read, some get to hear.

Here it is.

>>SHAWN HARRISON: I just want to thank everybody that

helped out about the Toby O'Brien fund-raiser.

We had a huge success, we had 400 people, raised over

$18,000 for officer O'Brien, councilwoman Ferlita was

there, and assisted, brought some nice assistance for

the officer and family.

We thank you for a good cause.


On February 23rd, the junior league of women of

Tampa is has invited us to a public official luncheon

that's going to start at 11:30.

So we need to recess for lunch at, what, 11:15?

We'll recess at 11:15 on February 23rd and come

back at -- it ends at 12:30 so we'll come back at


>>SHAWN HARRISON: It says goes till 1:30.

Come back at 1:30.

>>MARTIN SHELBY: Can somebody please do that in the

form of an official motion?

And it will be noticed in the agenda.

>>CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harrison made a motion.

>> Second.

(Motion carried).

>>GWEN MILLER: On March 9th, the mayor is having

her taping and council members are to be there.

It's to start at 12 p.m.

So we immediate to leave what time, Thursday, March



>>GWEN MILLER: March 9th.

Need to put that in a motion.

>>MARTIN SHELBY: Return at what time?

>>GWEN MILLER: Just says it starts at 12.


We have a motion and second.

All in favor of the motion say Aye.

Opposed, Nay.

(Motion carried)


Mr. Shelby, do you have anything?


>>THE CLERK: I have one new item.

We have received a request from the winter pride Tampa

Bay, Inc. The city is co-sponsoring an event for

February 25th with the organization.

They would like to use the city seal.

Would like to have a motion to have legal prepare a

resolution for the temporary one-day.

>> So moved.

>> Second.

(Motion carried)

>>THE CLERK: That's all I have.

>>GWEN MILLER: We now go to our audience portion.

Anyone in the audience like to speak?

We stand adjourned until 5:30.

(Meeting recessed at 2:55 p.m.)