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
09:08:26 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
09:08:48 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.
09:09:24 (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
09:10:28 To move the public comment to after approval of the
09:10:31 (Motion carried).
09:10:34 Do any council members have any changes to the agenda?
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 >>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
09:13:27 A model would become part of the legal evidence of a
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
09:14:16 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
09:15:13 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 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
09:18:37 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 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
09:19:44 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
09:20:46 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
09:21:03 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 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
09:22:42 >>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
09:23:50 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
09:24:27 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.
09:25:24 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
09:26:53 We are a little unclear on the policy.
09:26:55 But we have spoken to your staff and have a completed
09:26:58 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.
09:27:17 >>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
09:27:32 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
09:28:08 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 >>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).
09:29:36 >>> Good morning.
09:29:36 Terry Neal, 4703 East River Hills Drive, Tampa,
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 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
09:31:28 >>> 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 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 >>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
09:34:07 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 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
09:35:13 So basically we are just trying to get some
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
09:36:32 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 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 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 >>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?
09:41:59 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 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 >>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
09:44:58 >>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 >>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
09:46:50 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
09:47:31 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 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 >>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
09:50:12 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 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
09:51:22 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 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 >>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 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?
09:53:02 >>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
09:53:44 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.
09:54:45 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 >>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
09:56:21 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
09:56:39 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 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
09:57:48 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
09:58:09 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 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 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
09:59:53 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
10:00:09 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
10:00:22 >> 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
10:01:05 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
10:01:37 I don't see any down side to not passing this
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
10:01:58 >>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 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
10:02:16 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
10:03:17 >> Second.
10:03:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to move the
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 >>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
10:05:12 We identified those parcels that were available for
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 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
10:06:17 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 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
10:07:01 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
10:08:21 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 >> 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
10:09:57 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
10:10:34 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
10:11:30 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
10:14:40 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
10:14:50 >>> 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
10:16:35 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 >>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.
10:20:16 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
10:21:33 >>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 >> 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 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 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
10:22:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Oh, right.
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
10:24:48 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
10:25:32 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
10:26:27 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 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
10:30:32 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
10:31:45 >>> 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
10:33:18 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
10:34:02 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 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 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.
10:36:18 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 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
10:38:58 >>> 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
10:39:07 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
10:40:03 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 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
10:40:32 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
10:40:41 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
10:41:55 They don't even have the equipment to do it which is
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 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
10:42:36 >>> I disagree, because with a --
10:42:39 >>ROSE FERLITA: I don't think you and I need to have a
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 >>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
10:43:30 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
10:45:33 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
10:45:51 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 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.
10:46:40 >>> 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
10:47:29 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 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
10:48:06 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
10:48:17 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
10:48:40 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?
10:49:25 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
10:49:47 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
10:50:21 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
10:51:00 It would be an inverse come deny nation, it would be a
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 I mean, so the truck -- and I understand about
10:52:04 interstate commerce and the truck is in good operating
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 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 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 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 >> 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
10:55:31 >>DAVID SHOBE: Actually, Ms. Alvarez, the exemption
10:55:33 that Ms. Meadows was speaking of is under C-3,
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 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 >>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 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 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?
11:00:58 >>> 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
11:02:01 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
11:02:18 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
11:02:28 >>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
11:03:24 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
11:03:41 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
11:03:58 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 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 >>> 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 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 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 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
11:11:55 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 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
11:13:11 >>> 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 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 Are you comfortable with the direction we are taking
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 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
11:15:17 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
11:16:21 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
11:17:15 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
11:17:33 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
11:18:57 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 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
11:19:36 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 >>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 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
11:20:59 And that we must do it.
11:21:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's also known as the Kum ba yah
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
11:21:37 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 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
11:22:32 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 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
11:24:01 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
11:24:58 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
11:26:10 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 And so we really have that as a cap that we should not
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
11:27:34 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
11:28:56 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 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
11:29:32 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
11:30:30 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 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 >>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
11:32:42 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 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 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 >>> 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
11:37:57 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
11:38:36 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 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
11:40:55 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
11:42:13 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
11:43:50 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 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
11:44:42 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 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
11:45:50 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
11:46:21 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 >>> 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
11:49:31 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
11:50:07 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
11:52:26 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 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
11:54:50 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
11:55:05 I'm going to weigh in on it.
11:55:07 >>GWEN MILLER: But I think that problem is in all
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
11:55:31 >>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 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 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 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 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
12:01:33 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 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 >>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 >>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 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
12:05:25 >>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 So we are going to adjourn until 1:00.
12:05:44 (City Council recess)
Tampa City Council.
Thursday, February 9, 2006.
>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called back to
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
>>ROSE FERLITA: (No response.)
>>KEVIN WHITE: (No response.)
>>GWEN MILLER: Here.
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
>>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council members?
>>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
>>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
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
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
>>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
>>> The builders association is in agreement with the
basic chapter 13 modifications that you have in front
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
The other thing is we believe a canopy study should be
done prior so that we can measure the effectiveness of
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.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Okay.
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
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
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
Obviously, I mean, I will continue to support what
South Tampa wants about tree canopies and trees,
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.
>> 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.
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?
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.
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.
So all of a sudden the overreaction was, what are the
They are going out at night, telling the owners to
chop this down and then we'll buy your property at
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
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.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Thanks.
>>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.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Go ahead.
>>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
>>> 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.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
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?
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 F.legal
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
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
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
>>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.
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.
>>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
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
>>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
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
>>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.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
>>> 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
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We are going to fix that.
It's a screwy process.
>>GWEN MILLER: Item 46.
Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
>> Move to close.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close.
>>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
>>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).
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What is the proposed use?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: 4(COP-X).
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is this a restaurant, a bar?
>>GWEN MILLER: What is it?
>>> Proposed restaurant and bar.
At the motel.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The motel?
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.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Kate?
>>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 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.
>>GWEN MILLER: 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
And I didn't even think about of it at the time I
recommended it and knowing if they were asked about
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
It's a small little restaurant attached to the hotel
>>SHAWN HARRISON: But there will be no package sales.
That's what I was trying to prevent.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: I agree.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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
>>MARY ALVAREZ: All right.
>> Move to close.
>> So moved.
>>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.
>>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
>> Move to close.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: This requires a super majority vote.
>>GWEN MILLER: We are all here.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Council's attention.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Madam Chair.
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.
>>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
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
Voice roll call.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just for clarification, 7700 west
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Oh, I'm sorry.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: What did you say?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: 770.
>>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
>> Move to open.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I thought we already did.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to open number 53.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: 53.
>>> 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.
>>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
>>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.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
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.
>>GWEN MILLER: 56.
>>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
In the Mascotte room from 12:00 to 1:30.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
>>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.
>>> 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
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
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
It's about the investigation of property, sort of the
little one-page history.
>>> Is that the --
>>: To Chairman Miller, February 2nd.
I'm with you.
I'm familiar with that --
>>: Are you familiar with that letter?
>> 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
>>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
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
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
>>> 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
And it may have been this one that you were referring
>>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?
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
>> 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?
>>STEVE GRAHAM: Yes.
>>> 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.
By Mr. GRAHAM.
That's what Mr. Graham had told him.
We do not believe that was the case however with
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
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
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.
>>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
>>> 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?
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
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
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
>>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
>>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
>>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?
>>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
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.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor say Aye.
>>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
>>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
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?
>>ROSE FERLITA: It is.
>>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
>>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
>>> 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
>>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
>>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
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
>>SHAWN HARRISON: This tree is on his property.
Is there evidence that this tree is hazardous to his
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
>> And whether you prune two feet back or trim six
feet you still have so much that's over there.
>> 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.
>>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?
>> You are going to go forward with that.
So even if we decide this tree to be taken out that
would still continue?
>>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
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.
>>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
>>KEVIN WHITE: Move to receive and file all document.
>>GWEN MILLER: Second?
>>SHAWN HARRISON: Second.
>>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
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.
>>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
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.
>>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
>>SHAWN HARRISON: 11:45.
>>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.
>>SHAWN HARRISON: 1:30.
We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Mr. Shelby, do you have anything?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: No.
>>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.
>>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.)