Tampa City Council
May 11, 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.
09:04:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
09:04:50 The chair will yield to Mrs. Shawn Harrison.
09:04:53 >>SHAWN HARRISON: It's my pleasure to morning to
09:04:56 introduce my friend, pastor Jim Witken of Temple
09:05:01 Heights Baptist church.
09:05:02 If you will stand for the invocation and remain
09:05:05 standing for the pledge of allegiance.
09:05:08 >>> Heavenly father, we thank you, Lord, for the
09:05:10 opportunity of being here today.
09:05:11 Lord, I thank you for the dedication of each
09:05:14 commission member for this truly is the Lord's work.
09:05:21 We pray that Thy will be done N. your name we pray.
09:05:27 (Pledge of Allegiance).
09:05:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
09:05:48 [Roll Call]
09:05:51 At this time I will yield to Mr. John Dingfelder, who
09:05:53 will do a commendation.
09:05:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
09:05:57 Pat, are we still waiting for some folks for the
09:06:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Good morning, council.
09:06:38 It's really a privilege and honor to welcome some of
09:06:41 the members of our WMNF-85.5 FM radio family.
09:06:47 And the reason we are giving this commendation today
09:06:51 is not only WMNF radio has been in existence for I
09:06:56 think 27.5 years --
09:07:02 >>> 26 and a half.
09:07:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But they have been putting on this
09:07:07 annual event called tropical Heat Wave, that I guess
09:07:11 has it always been in Ybor City?
09:07:13 >>> Always around Cuban club.
09:07:15 >> For 25 years.
09:07:16 It's their 25th anniversary.
09:07:18 So it's a wonderful, wonderful event.
09:07:21 They raise good money to keep the station on the air.
09:07:25 And I thought it would be appropriate to give them a
09:07:30 commendation from City Council in regard to that.
09:07:33 So with that, let me read what it says.
09:07:41 We have some board members here.
09:07:44 Tampa City Council recognizes the efforts of WMNF 85.5
09:07:47 community radio in bringing music and dance to Tampa
09:07:50 he's Ybor City for the 25th annual tropical Heat
09:07:53 Wave on Saturday, may 20th, 2006.
09:07:57 Other bay area radio stations have come and gone but
09:08:00 WMNF has been a constant source of news and
09:08:05 entertainment for almost 27 years.
09:08:08 Since 1982, WMNF radio has encouraged dancing in the
09:08:14 streets to exotic eclectic entertainment with the
09:08:19 tropical Heat Wave.
09:08:20 It has brought thousands of visitors each year to our
09:08:22 city to celebrate unique music and live performances.
09:08:25 Heat Wave events centering around the Cuban club in
09:08:30 Ybor City will make for a festive event enhance the
09:08:35 food and community vendors who add to the flavor along
09:08:37 9th Avenue between 13th and 14th street.
09:08:40 WMNF tropical Heat Wave is known throughout the
09:08:44 country and locally.
09:08:45 It attracts traditional and alternative musical acts
09:08:48 from all over the world.
09:08:49 More than 30 bands perform on six stages throughout
09:08:52 the evening.
09:08:54 Tampa City Council congratulates WMNF 88.5 on the
09:08:57 25th anniversary of presenting tropical Heat Wave
09:09:00 and encourages citizens to come to Ybor City this year
09:09:03 and for many years to come to enjoy this festive and
09:09:06 fun occasion.
09:09:15 >> It's happening once again, Saturday, May 20th.
09:09:18 It's an amazing event, you have to come to tropical
09:09:22 Heat Wave.
09:09:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to congratulate WMNF
09:09:27 for consistently providing a source for community
09:09:31 You are one of the few opportunities for the public to
09:09:33 get information about things that are local,
09:09:37 significant, you provide alternative voices and
09:09:41 certainly alternative music.
09:09:42 And I can't stay as late as tropical Heat Wave as I
09:09:48 used to but it's always been a great venue for music
09:09:51 that you just don't get to hear around here that much.
09:09:53 So thank you.
09:10:03 Saturday, May 20th.
09:10:05 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a commendation to give to this
09:10:29 great young lady who really is the heart of the City
09:10:32 of Tampa, because this is coming up very, very soon.
09:10:37 Tampa Bay convention visitors bureau would like to
09:10:40 honor, give this to them in recognition of travel for
09:10:45 many economic, social and cultural impacts in the
09:10:48 Florida and the Tampa Bay area.
09:10:50 We the members of the Tampa City Council are
09:10:53 privileged to present this commendation observance of
09:10:57 national tourism which has been recognized the week of
09:11:00 May 12 through May 20, 2006.
09:11:03 Tampa City Council is fully aware that we are in the
09:11:06 Florida tourism business.
09:11:09 For everyone's benefit, people come from the world to
09:11:16 beaches, historic attractions, children, retirees, and
09:11:22 businesses related to people.
09:11:25 To have a city like Tampa as one of the outstanding
09:11:29 outstanding tourist destinations in the State of
09:11:33 Tampa City Council sincerely appreciates the
09:11:35 contributions of the Tampa Bay convention and visitors
09:11:37 bureau to the economic, social and cultural well-being
09:11:41 of the citizenry.
09:11:43 I would like to give this to you.
09:11:47 >>> Thank you so much.
09:11:48 Thank you.
09:11:51 Thank you so much, council.
09:11:52 On behalf of Paul KATOE and the Tampa Bay convention
09:11:56 visitor bureau staff -- you got me all tongue tied
09:12:01 now -- I would like to thank you.
09:12:02 I hope you will join us for all the events we have for
09:12:05 national tourism week.
09:12:07 We'll have the bed races, and all the fun stuff out
09:12:11 here in Lykes park in front of the police station on
09:12:17 Monday, May 15th.
09:12:19 And lots of fun events throughout the week for
09:12:21 national tourism week.
09:12:22 So thank you so much for this commendation.
09:12:24 We really appreciate it.
09:12:28 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thanks for what you guys do.
09:12:34 We're looking forward to supporting it.
09:12:36 The second concern I have is, Madam Chairman, I want
09:12:38 to know how you -- I've never heard anybody read so
09:12:44 much stuff off that.
09:12:49 >>CHAIRMAN: It's a lot to say.
09:12:52 >>> Thank you so much.
09:12:54 And we really appreciate all that you do.
09:12:56 And every time we called and asked for something,
09:12:59 you're always there, all of you are always there, and
09:13:01 you don't know what that means to us.
09:13:05 And all the events that we have coming and the
09:13:07 economic development, the hospitality industry has on
09:13:12 this City of Tampa and Hillsborough County.
09:13:14 You're always there for us.
09:13:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You just keep promoting streetcar.
09:13:21 >>KEVIN WHITE: If the rest of the council members had
09:13:26 interaction like we have, you have been there, and for
09:13:30 everything you do in the community over and above the
09:13:34 job that you have.
09:13:35 >>> Thank you so much.
09:13:36 I really appreciate it.
09:13:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a good week.
09:13:39 At this time, we are going to go to our requests for
09:13:42 changes in the agenda.
09:13:43 We have Ms. Cathy Coyle.
09:13:46 Is Cathy here?
09:13:47 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
09:13:56 I did forward a memorandum to you, I believe
09:14:00 yesterday, requesting two walk-on items for two wet
09:14:04 zoning cases.
09:14:05 There are three on the agenda currently for you
09:14:07 scheduled for June 15th.
09:14:09 These two were also in our office.
09:14:11 Due to various staff shortages that we have in one of
09:14:14 our divisions, and the legal descriptions, these were
09:14:20 delayed slightly in our office.
09:14:22 We do have them certified.
09:14:23 They have been transmitted to the clerk.
09:14:25 They weren't able to make the deadline for the doc
09:14:27 agenda system.
09:14:28 If you will be able to schedule them with the other 3
09:14:31 because they were supposed to be in with that.
09:14:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
09:14:35 >> Second.
09:14:35 (Motion carried).
09:14:37 >>CATHERINE COYLE: WZ 06-81 and 06-75.
09:14:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:14:43 Mr. Roland Santiago.
09:14:47 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: I'm here this morning on item
09:14:50 number 41.
09:14:52 You should have received a memorandum I prepared for
09:14:54 you yesterday.
09:14:55 It should have been delivered.
09:14:58 Item 41 is a release of easement that the city has
09:15:01 over Tampa aviation authority property.
09:15:04 We are actually swapping easements.
09:15:06 We are releasing one, getting another.
09:15:08 But the resolution authorizing the acceptance of the
09:15:10 new easement has yet to transmit its way through the
09:15:14 doc agenda process.
09:15:15 That being the case this got a little bit ahead of it.
09:15:19 I would ask that you pull this for two weeks until
09:15:21 such time as that other resolution finishes its way
09:15:26 through the doc agenda process.
09:15:28 >> So moved.
09:15:29 >> Second.
09:15:29 (Motion carried).
09:15:30 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to approve the agenda.
09:15:32 >> So moved.
09:15:32 >> Second.
09:15:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in council that would
09:15:35 like to pull an item from the agenda?
09:15:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
09:15:53 At 9:30 when the public hearing on Kennedy Boulevard,
09:15:57 I am going to request that it be continued until 6-8.
09:16:04 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to handle that.
09:16:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Number 19.
09:16:13 A little later in the morning.
09:16:14 I'll keep you posted.
09:16:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 19.
09:16:16 Any other council members have anything?
09:16:20 Do we get approval?
09:16:22 >> So moved.
09:16:22 >> Second.
09:16:23 (Motion carried).
09:16:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Now we go to staff reports on
09:16:26 unfinished business.
09:16:27 Item number 2.
09:16:40 >>> Gerald Smith, chief of staff, here to speak to
09:16:43 item number 2, which is relating to an update
09:16:48 regarding the city's reimbursement to the county for
09:16:51 the administration of the $1500 grant program that the
09:16:55 county has developed for military members serving in
09:16:59 the combat zones.
09:17:00 And the Board of County Commissioners developed and
09:17:05 adopted that policy in October of 2005.
09:17:09 And all to the budget funds to support the program for
09:17:14 FY 06 and FY 07.
09:17:17 And the policy adopted by the board of county
09:17:20 commission applied only to residents of the
09:17:24 unincorporated portions of the county.
09:17:27 The funding for that program came out of the MSTU
09:17:31 funding which is dedicated to supporting requirements
09:17:35 in the unincorporated portions of the county.
09:17:38 And the BOCC invited the municipalities in the county
09:17:42 to join with the county and participate in the program
09:17:48 and funding to be provided by the municipalities.
09:17:52 Certainly, in support of our military members that
09:17:55 reside in the community and go overseas to serve in
09:17:59 hostile fire zones is a very important priority of the
09:18:02 city, and we worked closely with the county during the
09:18:07 development of this program.
09:18:09 However, we did have some concerns.
09:18:12 And the concerns primarily focused on our belief that
09:18:17 this type of a responsibility should come out of the
09:18:20 countywide general revenue fund that is normally used
09:18:25 to support such programs as the veterans services
09:18:29 office that provides services to all military members
09:18:33 residing within Hillsborough County.
09:18:38 Social services are provided out of a general wide,
09:18:42 countywide fund, and we felt that this also was an
09:18:46 entitlement that should be coming out of that general
09:18:49 revenue fund.
09:18:50 And of particular concern to us was we did not know
09:18:55 what the extent of the program would be with regard to
09:18:57 the impact on the city.
09:18:59 It had not been done.
09:19:01 There was no way for us to quantify exactly how many
09:19:05 members of the city would qualify, meaning that they
09:19:08 are military members residing within the city, and own
09:19:13 homesteaded property.
09:19:15 The homesteaded property is a requirement for being
09:19:17 eligible for the grant.
09:19:20 So we had in a way of knowing what members would be
09:19:23 involved with the city.
09:19:25 And we had no funds in the budget when the board of
09:19:29 county commission passed this program in October of
09:19:33 I'm sorry, '05.
09:19:36 So we continued to work with the county.
09:19:41 Council motion in August of 2005 encouraged the
09:19:44 administration to request participation along with the
09:19:47 county in this program.
09:19:50 And council motion also went into the idea of the city
09:19:55 paying the appropriate administrative charges that
09:19:57 were associated and incurred by the county as they
09:20:02 processed applicants through the veterans service
09:20:05 And the program was to ask the veterans office to
09:20:10 process applicants that do reside in the city and have
09:20:15 homesteaded property and advice those applicants that
09:20:20 the city would not be able to provide a specific
09:20:23 reimbursement amount until we had a better indication
09:20:26 of how many would qualify for the grant, because of
09:20:30 the impact on the budget and the fact that the funds
09:20:34 would have had to come out of the contingency fund.
09:20:40 As we continued to work through that program, the
09:20:46 Board of County Commissioners started rethinking the
09:20:48 program and in fact in April of this year, a month
09:20:53 ago, the board passed a revised policy that stated
09:20:58 that this program would be funded out of the
09:21:02 countywide general revenue fund.
09:21:05 It would apply to all residents that qualify
09:21:10 throughout the county, and there was no mention of an
09:21:13 administration charge associated in that revised
09:21:18 And based on that, it would appear, as the county has
09:21:24 taken the responsibility to fund all of the residents
09:21:28 for FY 06 and 07 that are in this category.
09:21:34 And again there has been no reference with regard to
09:21:39 the county and the city discussions of an
09:21:42 administrative fee associated with this county
09:21:46 responsibility, and typically we do not and have not
09:21:50 had specific administrative fees charged for city
09:21:54 residents using county services out of the general
09:21:58 revenue fund for those services, because they are
09:22:02 expected and come out of the countywide general
09:22:05 revenue fund.
09:22:06 To date, the veteran service office has provided
09:22:11 funding for 26 City of Tampa residents, and four more
09:22:16 are pending, so we are at 30.
09:22:19 And as far as Tampa participation in the program and
09:22:22 what that number will end up at, for 05, FY 06 is yet
09:22:31 to be determined.
09:22:31 >>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Smith, for clarifying
09:22:34 I think a part of this was ambiguous, and I got, as I
09:22:40 mentioned, I think a couple, three weeks ago, I got a
09:22:43 call from commissioner Norman at the county and was
09:22:46 just asking for clarification, because evidently it
09:22:51 seemed ambiguous that the city was going to
09:22:53 participate in the administration of this.
09:22:58 I was not aware on the other behalf.
09:23:03 But it seems that what we agreed upon -- and I guess
09:23:08 what actually happened were two different things.
09:23:13 And I realize that you're talking about county funds
09:23:16 and the tax dollars, that from what I remember, we
09:23:22 specifically stated that the city was going to attempt
09:23:26 to participate in some sort of the administration of
09:23:30 this program based on, I guess, the actual number of
09:23:35 military personnel that participated in the combat
09:23:39 zone that actually reside or have homesteaded in
09:23:43 Hillsborough County.
09:23:43 With that being said, I don't know what some of the
09:23:46 other colleagues might have to say.
09:23:49 But I just wanted to ask Madam Chair and other council
09:23:51 members -- my aide just informed me that there was at
09:23:56 least one person that wished to speak on this item.
09:24:02 I realize we can do it at agendaed public comment.
09:24:06 But we have a lot of staff reports and I would not
09:24:08 want to have to call Mr. Smith back and here 30
09:24:13 minutes from now to maybe address a question
09:24:16 So after council member comments, I would at least
09:24:19 like to accommodate whomever, in public comment.
09:24:25 >>> Darrell Smith: If I may respond to Councilman
09:24:28 Yes, sir, you're right, in August of 2005, council
09:24:30 motion did request the administration participate with
09:24:35 the county and to look into the administrative
09:24:37 reimbursement for that participation.
09:24:40 But the playing field really changed in April of this
09:24:43 year when the Board of County Commissioners changed it
09:24:47 from the unincorporated funding to a countywide
09:24:52 It's coming out of countywide general revenue funds
09:24:57 So it's not really appropriate that the city would
09:25:00 typically pay an administrative charge for funds that
09:25:04 come out of that, and it might set a precedence that
09:25:07 would apply to other areas.
09:25:08 >>KEVIN WHITE: And these were questions -- not that I
09:25:12 agree or disagree -- but these are questions I was
09:25:15 being asked from the community as well as other
09:25:17 elected officials that needed to be clear.
09:25:20 And it's not -- being a former military person myself,
09:25:25 I know I would want every affordable opportunity, tax
09:25:34 break or any other break I could get for serving my
09:25:36 country, and you being former military as well, I'm
09:25:40 sure would like to do anything as well, too.
09:25:44 But like I said, I think from a point of clarity, from
09:25:47 the community standpoint, the military standpoint, and
09:25:50 other elected official standpoint, there seemed to be
09:25:55 a lot of ambiguity.
09:26:01 And we can put this to rest one way or the other, and
09:26:05 we can all move on.
09:26:20 >> How about the county?
09:26:21 Do we know that number approximately?
09:26:23 >>> There were 70.
09:26:25 Projecting a total of 70 for each of the fiscal years
09:26:30 of providing support.
09:26:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think the city's contribution to
09:26:47 that tax, the general tax and the county is about
09:26:53 Isn't that about the ratio?
09:26:56 >>> No, sir, that applies primarily to our
09:26:58 participation with Raymond James stadium as far as any
09:27:03 costs that are absorbed there.
09:27:04 The city participation actually in the county general
09:27:07 fund, city residents pay 6.53 mills to contribute to
09:27:12 that fund, and the county residents pay -- we pay to
09:27:17 the county, citizens in the City of Tampa pay to the
09:27:22 county for property taxes higher at 6.925.
09:27:27 So city residents actually pay more into the county
09:27:30 fund than they pay for the city property tax bill.
09:27:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Because by my calculations,
09:27:38 although it's a close call, if we are at 30 and they
09:27:40 are at 70, we're probably paying at least or perhaps a
09:27:47 little bit more than our disproportionate share
09:27:52 considering the number of participants that we have.
09:27:57 And I think we're proud to pay that H. I don't think
09:27:59 we are complaining about paying that.
09:28:00 But by your analysis, is it pretty fair and pretty
09:28:03 equitable at this point in terms of the way it's
09:28:06 balanced out?
09:28:08 >>> Again their projection of 70 is for the entire
09:28:10 fiscal year, and to date we have 30 identified within
09:28:14 the city.
09:28:14 So what their total number is going to be at the end
09:28:17 of the fiscal year I don't know, and the actual ratio.
09:28:20 But I would point out when they were first developing
09:28:22 the program, their projection was the 100 within the
09:28:27 county so you can see why we were concerned up front
09:28:30 that this will be a very large number as far as the
09:28:32 impact on the budget.
09:28:33 But if we are at 70 for the county projected and we
09:28:37 are at 30 for the city, I don't think --
09:28:45 representation or the methodology applied for that,
09:28:49 because we did not apply to other social services that
09:28:54 the county provides out of the general revenue fund.
09:28:58 >> My point is even if there was, we are about there
09:29:00 any way.
09:29:01 I don't mean we should be contributing a third extra
09:29:04 but we already are contributing a third, that out of
09:29:07 the general revenue, about a third or more comes from
09:29:10 the City of Tampa anyway.
09:29:11 I've seen the gross numbers, and that's my
09:29:14 So I think that it sounds like we are right on track
09:29:18 with that.
09:29:19 And it's fair and it's working out well.
09:29:22 And it's very similar to the other programs like you
09:29:25 We have health care.
09:29:26 We pay into the general revenue and the county takes
09:29:30 care of the health and social service as cross the
09:29:33 county regardless of whether or not you live in South
09:29:35 Tampa or Valrico or wherever.
09:29:37 And we don't get into that.
09:29:38 And I would say that I'm proud of the county for
09:29:41 jumping into this and I'm proud we can be part of it.
09:29:44 >>SHAWN HARRISON: When we asked for this, Mr. Smith,
09:29:48 we did it because we thought it was the right thing to
09:29:51 And it's still the right thing to do although the
09:29:54 numbers are really not what anyone expected.
09:29:56 And so I suspect these why the county is not really
09:29:59 pushing us to assist with the administrative costs.
09:30:05 I mean, the administrative costs for those 30 people
09:30:09 is probably de minimus, I can't imagine more than a
09:30:13 couple hundred dollars or so.
09:30:15 The bottom line is, we as a city ought to be doing
09:30:18 everything we can to help with the program, if the
09:30:23 county asks, I think we should be prepared to help,
09:30:26 bring it back to us and we can discuss that.
09:30:28 They are not acting right now.
09:30:30 And hopefully we'll continue to be able to provide
09:30:33 this benefit to our armed services members.
09:30:37 And we ought to be doing everything we can from the
09:30:39 city's perspective to see what in addition we can do
09:30:42 other than this county rebate that's being offered.
09:30:45 If there's anything more we can do from the city's
09:30:47 perspective, we should.
09:30:49 30 out of 70 is almost half of the people that are
09:30:51 taking advantage of this program live in the city.
09:30:56 Yet the city's population, vis-a-vis the county, is
09:30:59 only a third of what the total county population is.
09:31:02 So it does seem like there's an inordinate amount of
09:31:05 people taking advantage of this that live within the
09:31:07 city as opposed to the unincorporated county.
09:31:11 >>> From a precedent standpoint, I think we need to be
09:31:14 consistent with how the county applies the general
09:31:18 revenue funds.
09:31:20 We need to keep that in mine as we -- mind as we
09:31:25 consider this program.
09:31:25 >>ROSE FERLITA: Given what Mr. Harrison just
09:31:29 discussed, I understand the breakdown in what we pay
09:31:33 and what they pay millage versus millage, et cetera.
09:31:35 But we are almost into half of the year, and we are
09:31:38 talking about 30 people, anticipated 800, certainly
09:31:44 below what they anticipated.
09:31:45 I think that the administrative costs are going to be
09:31:51 so minimal that hi think it would send a good gesture,
09:31:54 a good hand extension, if we considered paying that.
09:31:58 And of course obviously if it gets to be so much that
09:32:00 we can't, then we certainly review budget items
09:32:04 But when we are talking about 30 people and the
09:32:06 administrative costs of 30 people, maybe even 100
09:32:09 people that are in the city, I think it would be a
09:32:11 nice gesture that we would offer to try to pay that
09:32:14 regardless of what the breakdown is and the ratio and
09:32:17 the share, et cetera.
09:32:18 But sure would be nice to offer them than wait to be
09:32:22 I think that's something we should look at as
09:32:28 something we want to offer for the military that we
09:32:30 are trying to do this for.
09:32:32 Administrative feewise, this is nothing.
09:32:34 This is nothing compared to other things that we
09:32:37 exhaust funds on.
09:32:38 And as I said, if it gets a lot out of hand and just
09:32:44 absolutely hampers your budget, then look at it in the
09:32:47 next cycle.
09:32:48 But for right now, sure would be nice for the people
09:32:51 in Tampa getting this in terms of military seeing that
09:32:54 we are going over and above and not waiting for
09:32:57 chairman Norman to ask.
09:32:58 I just think that's something as a courtesy we should
09:33:01 Just my opinion.
09:33:02 I know we are not making any motion on anything today,
09:33:05 I don't believe.
09:33:06 But that is something that I think would make Tampa
09:33:08 stand out, and if it's for our military I think it's a
09:33:11 wonderful thing for to us stand out.
09:33:14 >>> Darrell Smith: Yes, ma'am.
09:33:16 And we are not talking about whether or not we are
09:33:18 going to support this program and support our
09:33:21 We are going to do that.
09:33:22 The only thing --
09:33:23 >>ROSE FERLITA: I understand that.
09:33:24 >>> Is whether or not we voluntarily would come back
09:33:26 and pay an administrative fee that we do not think
09:33:30 from the administration standpoint is appropriate and
09:33:32 could be precedent setting for other programs.
09:33:35 >>ROSE FERLITA: Well, precedent setting for the
09:33:37 military is a wonderful thing and I understand it's
09:33:39 not about the administration saying no, we are not
09:33:41 going to help the military.
09:33:42 We are.
09:33:43 But I'm just talking about maybe the opportunity to go
09:33:45 one step further and make this gesture as a courtesy
09:33:49 to the county before commissioner Norman asks.
09:33:51 I just think it's just not something that's going to
09:33:53 break our budget.
09:33:59 So precedent setting, fine, that we are asked to go
09:34:02 over and above partnership with the county that's a
09:34:05 wonderful testament to me but that's just my opinion.
09:34:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Continue to communicate with the county
09:34:11 and make sure everything is running smoothly and these
09:34:14 veterans will not be left out.
09:34:16 >>> Yes, ma'am.
09:34:16 I assure you we'll continue working in that direction.
09:34:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: One other thing.
09:34:22 My concern, not only precedent set regardless of where
09:34:24 the moneys go, but also effectively at the end of the
09:34:26 day double taxation to our taxpayers.
09:34:30 >> Exactly.
09:34:31 >> And that concerns me greatly.
09:34:33 That's all.
09:34:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Questions, Mrs. Saul-Sena?
09:34:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
09:34:37 I think it would be helpfulful for the public who
09:34:39 might be interested if someone in the administration
09:34:43 could do a very simple diagram explaining how the tax
09:34:47 moneys work and how city residents pay county fees as
09:34:54 well as city fees, and how sometimes the county
09:34:57 appears to be very generous but it's actually with the
09:35:02 money that the city folks spend in the first place and
09:35:06 spending it again.
09:35:07 That's come up in a variety of different instances and
09:35:10 it's not clear.
09:35:11 It's very confusing.
09:35:12 But a simple diagram would help clarify it for the
09:35:15 If you could provide that to council members, then we
09:35:18 could share it with our constituents.
09:35:19 That would be very helpful.
09:35:22 >>> An excellent idea, and that you give us 30 days.
09:35:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Great.
09:35:27 When issues like this come up, if you could use that
09:35:30 each time, to remind us how our taxes are structured,
09:35:34 I think it would be a useful tool.
09:35:36 30 days.
09:35:39 >>KEVIN WHITE: My aide just came in and said there was
09:35:42 somebody that wanted to speak on this particular
09:35:44 I just didn't want to have to call Mr. Smith back.
09:35:46 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move to waive the rules.
09:35:56 >> Second.
09:35:56 (Motion carried).
09:35:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there someone in the public that
09:35:58 wanted to speak on item number 2?
09:36:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If we had known it was you --
09:36:07 >>> Thank you, Madam Chair. The clerk told me this is
09:36:10 the time that I should give her the handout for you
09:36:14 good people.
09:36:30 >>> My name is Ralph Hughes, it pertains to the active
09:36:41 combat duty program that was created about 8 months
09:36:44 ago by commissioner Norman and voted unanimously by
09:36:47 the Board of County Commissioners.
09:36:50 It was subsequently adopted unanimously by the city of
09:36:54 Temple Terrace.
09:36:54 This was last month.
09:36:56 I'm not talking about administrative fee.
09:36:58 I'm talking about paying the taxes.
09:37:02 I might digress and say you have 30 in the City of
09:37:05 And if this $1500 was a maximum, and it won't be,
09:37:10 you're talking about, if you pay the taxes for those
09:37:12 in the combat zones for 45 days, in 2005, the very max
09:37:19 would be $45,000.
09:37:21 So those who are concerned about budgetary restraints,
09:37:24 I just want to point that out and put it in
09:37:28 I really don't believe the council fully understands
09:37:30 this program.
09:37:31 I believe if you did you would have voted unanimously
09:37:34 to adopt it at the time if you really fully understood
09:37:39 I say this for the following reasons: A comment was
09:37:42 made by a member of council at one of your recent
09:37:50 About Patriotism.
09:37:51 It has to do with showing compassion and concern for
09:37:54 those residents of the City of Tampa that generally
09:37:56 are the bread winners in the family that serve in the
09:37:58 combat zone for at least 45 days in 2005.
09:38:04 Needless to say they have a tremendous amount of
09:38:07 pressure on them because they do. The least we can do
09:38:09 is offer them this meager financial assistance and
09:38:12 give them one less thing to have to worry about.
09:38:14 Another comment made by a member of council is that
09:38:16 the county collects a substantial amount of countywide
09:38:19 property taxes from the property owners in the city,
09:38:22 therefore the county should pay for this program.
09:38:23 This is categorically untrue.
09:38:28 City of Tampa residents and property owners receive
09:38:30 far more services than from the county than the
09:38:32 countywide property taxes receive from the city
09:38:36 property owners.
09:38:39 Obtained from the director last week the county
09:38:43 received 143,800,000, this year from the City of Tampa
09:38:48 property owners.
09:38:49 I provided you a list of 20 county-wide services.
09:38:52 So I won't read them off because you got them before
09:38:55 I will just mention about seven.
09:38:57 Senior citizens.
09:38:59 In-home respite care.
09:39:01 Senior nutritional program.
09:39:02 Animal control enforcement.
09:39:04 Animal shelter.
09:39:05 Animal adoption, spaying and neutering, child and
09:39:10 court diversionary programs, guardian ad litem
09:39:18 Management, water, waste, wetlands management, health
09:39:21 care, ombudsman, veterans, sunshine, region a parks,
09:39:29 operations and maintenance, environmental lands,
09:39:31 ELAPP, maintenance, therapeutic programs.
09:39:35 Jail operations, court bailiffs in issuing warrants
09:39:38 for the courts.
09:39:42 County general.
09:39:45 , over 55% is the county fund to spend on public
09:39:51 Is that the 30 second warning?
09:39:55 >>GWEN MILLER: That's the 30 minute --
09:39:56 >> 30 minute?
09:39:57 >>GWEN MILLER: 3 minutes is up.
09:40:03 >> One additional.
09:40:05 >> You're very kind.
09:40:06 That's more than $270 million this year.
09:40:09 And public safety alone represents $70 million of the
09:40:12 countywide services.
09:40:21 It exceeds the amount of revenue paid by property
09:40:23 owners in the city, to the county, and the if you
09:40:25 revisit this program and adopt thereby showing concern
09:40:29 and compassion for the residents of the City of Tampa
09:40:32 that serve in combat zones.
09:40:35 As I walk away, I'll say you are talking by your own
09:40:41 figures 45,000 topside for the entire City of Tampa to
09:40:45 pay the tax for those in combat zones for 45 days last
09:40:50 Forget about administrative fees.
09:40:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:40:53 >>KEVIN WHITE: One point of clarification.
09:40:58 In that last paragraph, public safety alone represents
09:41:01 70 million.
09:41:11 Is it within the confines of Hillsborough County?
09:41:16 >>> That is the public safety services provided by the
09:41:18 sheriff, not law enforcement.
09:41:20 The city has its own as you well know.
09:41:22 This is a jail.
09:41:23 And every other service that's paid for by county
09:41:26 residents of course goes through the sheriff's office.
09:41:34 There's 217.
09:41:38 10 million of this funding is public safety and 30%,
09:41:41 just 30% is $7 million for the residents of the City
09:41:46 of Tampa. So the county really pays a lot more
09:41:51 services -- and provides a lot more services than the
09:41:55 property tax revenues provided to the county, by
09:42:00 property owners of the City of Tampa.
09:42:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:42:04 We now go to item number 3.
09:42:05 Mr. Shelby.
09:42:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, as a follow-up to the items
09:42:15 regarding the grand tree issue with Dr. Hall, I did
09:42:20 have an opportunity to speak with Julia Cole,
09:42:22 assistant city attorney.
09:42:24 I council, as I assumed when I first heard this issue
09:42:31 come up last week, it is likely that this can come
09:42:36 before council in a quasi-judicial setting where
09:42:39 council are finders of fact.
09:42:43 I believe that the appropriate motion would be to
09:42:46 request that a representative of parks and rec or our
09:42:49 legal department speak with Dr. HARRA as to mow to
09:42:52 proceed, what steps he should take to address the
09:42:56 And my understanding, finally, council, is that a
09:42:59 meeting is scheduled with Julia Coles and with parks
09:43:04 and rec next week to discuss this matter.
09:43:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you for investigating it on
09:43:10 our behalf.
09:43:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Coles?
09:43:14 >>JULIA COLE: I understand that did contact Mr. HARRA
09:43:24 to discuss with him the process.
09:43:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:43:29 Item number 4.
09:43:29 Legal department to speak on that.
09:43:32 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
09:43:38 I understand that the department has provided
09:43:45 information regarding this matter in written form.
09:43:55 I have to apologize.
09:43:56 I don't know if anybody from parks and rec is here
09:43:59 regarding this matter.
09:44:01 Ms. O'Dowd has been handle it and she's out of the
09:44:04 office today.
09:44:04 If there's any questions I can find that out and bring
09:44:08 it back to you.
09:44:11 >>ROSE FERLITA: Other than comments and personal notes
09:44:13 to you, let me offer my sympathy and prayers in your
09:44:18 >>> Thank you.
09:44:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I received a memo.
09:44:22 I was reassured to see that these parks are being
09:44:27 dedicated and I just have a legal question.
09:44:29 When dedicated -- if there were to be something done
09:44:35 with the dedicated park, it's my understanding that
09:44:38 there is a public referendum on dedication so that the
09:44:41 public has a chance to weigh in on giving it up.
09:44:45 Is that not correct?
09:44:47 >>> Without going back and researching it, I
09:44:49 understand that there is a provision.
09:44:53 >> The referendum comes in to play only if you are
09:44:57 trying to sell the property or lease it for private
09:44:59 use but the referendum doesn't come into place for
09:45:02 un-- the undedicated park you have to change the
09:45:06 ordinance changing the line of dedicating.
09:45:09 You cannot sell or lease the property if it's
09:45:12 dedicated for nongovernmental park or public uses
09:45:15 because the dedication language is in an ordinance,
09:45:17 it's not in the charter.
09:45:18 So you can undedicated and then sell it if you want
09:45:21 If you wanted to change the dedication rather than
09:45:24 selling it, you have to go back to the ordinance,
09:45:26 amend the ordinance and take that particular park out
09:45:30 of the ordinance.
09:45:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Does that require public hearing?
09:45:35 >>SAL TERRITO: It's the same process you go through to
09:45:37 change any ordinance.
09:45:39 It will be two readings and so forth.
09:45:41 >> The reason this came up, the public feels dedicated
09:45:46 parks are really safe for pros territory and what you
09:45:49 just shared with us that I didn't realize was that to
09:45:52 undedicate them is much more low profile than a public
09:45:57 So I would like to request that we look into creating
09:45:59 a bit more public process for changing the status of
09:46:04 the dedicated park, other than in an ordinance change
09:46:07 which could be done in the middle of the summer
09:46:09 without the public being aware of it.
09:46:11 I think that there needs to at the very least be some
09:46:15 sort of signage installed at the park making the
09:46:20 public aware if an undedication is being proposed to
09:46:25 City Council.
09:46:27 So my verbiage would be I would like the legal
09:46:32 department to research changing the ordinance that
09:46:36 looks at dedicated park to some sort of public
09:46:39 notification similar to rezoning in terms of signage
09:46:42 and contacting the neighborhood organization if a park
09:46:47 status is to revert from dedicated to undedicated.
09:46:56 >> Second.
09:46:56 (Motion carried).
09:46:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 5.
09:47:04 A written report from code enforcement.
09:47:08 Motion to receive and file.
09:47:08 (Motion carried).
09:47:12 Item 6.
09:47:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me.
09:47:15 I have spoken with the new head of information
09:47:17 services, appears to be a very progressive person.
09:47:20 I'm very interested in the phone number being
09:47:24 published on the city's web site.
09:47:28 It says it's published under blah-blah-blah.
09:47:32 I think it needs to be posted on the city's web site
09:47:37 because somebody is in a panic over the weekend like
09:47:41 house being tore down or tree being demolished,
09:47:45 something that's wrong, that the code enforcement
09:47:47 issue should not have to, in my opinion, go through
09:47:52 all the different component of the city web site to
09:47:54 find this member.
09:47:55 So what I would like to do is request that the
09:47:58 department that Dees with the city's web site post
09:48:00 this number on the front page in a prominent place.
09:48:06 As a recommendation from the council for them to look
09:48:08 at doing this.
09:48:09 Now that we have identified that there will be a
09:48:11 number, that it be easily accessible by the public.
09:48:14 And that it be placed in a prominent place in the
09:48:18 phone book when they come out.
09:48:19 So I guess I would like to request a report back in
09:48:22 two weeks on their research in doing those two things
09:48:26 to make it prominent and accessible to the public.
09:48:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll just say with my second for
09:48:33 anybody that's watching the phone number is 690-4631,
09:48:40 for anybody who is watching.
09:48:44 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's a wonderful thing, Mr.
09:48:45 Dingfelder, thank you, but while I have access to that
09:48:49 number you need somebody to man that number.
09:48:51 You can dial it and leave a message.
09:48:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: One would hope if they call the
09:48:55 weekend phone number that somebody is checking it out.
09:48:58 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think that goes without saying but I
09:49:00 just want to reit -- reiterate that.
09:49:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The tree number is now staffed.
09:49:07 I forget what the -- the last four digits are "tree."
09:49:14 It usually takes awhile to call and have the person to
09:49:16 call back.
09:49:17 I think this is an area where we need to improve our
09:49:22 And I think that access to the phone number, increase
09:49:25 the number of calls, and hopefully the will rise to
09:49:30 the occasion.
09:49:30 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
09:49:32 (Motion carried).
09:49:34 Item number 6.
09:49:37 We have a memorandum on that.
09:49:45 >>> I haven't had a chance to --
09:50:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: There's a memo.
09:50:08 >> What I am trying to see is --
09:50:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Curtin lane, conducted on 3900 West
09:50:17 Kennedy Boulevard and 3502 Henderson Boulevard, row
09:50:21 veal all three locations have signs that feature the
09:50:25 electronic programmable marquee with lighted image.
09:50:37 >> What I would like to do, I appreciate this
09:50:40 Since making this request for code enforcement to be
09:50:43 aware of these signs, I've seen others, and I've
09:50:46 gotten calls about others.
09:50:47 I would just like to generally thank code enforcement
09:50:51 for paying attention.
09:50:53 But encourage them to be aware of additional locations
09:50:56 where the signs that are not supposed to move more
09:50:59 than once in 24 hours are moving.
09:51:03 I have driven by others.
09:51:04 And I don't always write down the address.
09:51:08 But movable signs are not supposed to move more than
09:51:10 once in 24 hours.
09:51:11 I know all of us have seen examples of this not being
09:51:15 >>KEVIN WHITE: Ms. Saul-Sena, I got a call this week
09:51:20 on Kennedy Boulevard for one in particular, auto
09:51:23 dealership, Kennedy east of Dale Mabry.
09:51:27 And I guess there was ambiguity there, and code
09:51:32 enforcement had been out, and there was ambiguity
09:51:35 about the messagage on the sign.
09:51:42 Is it the message that's flashing that is not supposed
09:51:45 to change in more than 24 hours?
09:51:47 And that's what I was under the impression.
09:51:49 And that's what code enforcement told me after a
09:51:52 little follow-up.
09:51:53 So I think if they are advertising if they say
09:52:01 cherries 99 cents a pound it has to say 99 cents a
09:52:04 pound for a 24-hour period, flashing, scrolling, or
09:52:08 But there are several others that are on Dale Mabry
09:52:12 that advertise, and that have several different
09:52:19 And that's the thing.
09:52:21 Are we saying that the entire message, that we are
09:52:24 going to advertise cherries, plums for 24 hours?
09:52:31 Or is it cherries for 24 hours?
09:52:33 Because there's another one on Dale Mabry that
09:52:35 And in order of fairness, we want to respect
09:52:39 everybody, every particular neighborhood, every
09:52:43 particular major thoroughfare.
09:52:44 But we need to be fair and consistent when we enforce
09:52:50 these rules.
09:52:50 And it should be a level playing field.
09:52:56 >>ROSE FERLITA: I want to tell you, Mr. White, I don't
09:53:00 know if Ms. Cole is prepared to answer that.
09:53:02 We have had some discussion busy whether or not we
09:53:04 have the right to regulate content in terms of signs,
09:53:09 in the proposition that Mrs. Saul-Sena is bringing up.
09:53:11 And I think we are pretty much wrapped up with our
09:53:14 updates on the sign committee.
09:53:16 We should be coming to you soon.
09:53:17 But to answer in the interim, maybe Ms. Cole can
09:53:20 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
09:53:22 To address that issue.
09:53:24 The way the sign code is currently written, all
09:53:28 activated signs are illegal and it doesn't matter what
09:53:31 the message is per se, it's really that there should
09:53:33 be no moving whatsoever, and in fact there really
09:53:35 should be no electronic messages whatsoever,
09:53:39 activating messages whatsoever.
09:53:41 Our sign code does allow changeable copy signs that
09:53:44 are changed once every 24 hours.
09:53:47 And there has been an interpretation given the new
09:53:51 technology that if you have a sign which contains
09:53:55 electronic changeable copies versus by hand,
09:53:58 changeable copy like you see at a gas station, nothing
09:54:03 moves within a 24-hour period.
09:54:05 >>KEVIN WHITE: Or change 12 times in 24 hours.
09:54:09 >>JULIA COLE: And I appreciate what you all are
09:54:11 saying, and maybe code enforcement is having an issue
09:54:15 issue with that.
09:54:15 And I certainly would be happy to get with them.
09:54:17 But our code is very clear.
09:54:20 There can be no movement of your sign.
09:54:22 The copy can change once every 24 hours.
09:54:25 But that's it in terms of any kind of movement of the
09:54:29 >>KEVIN WHITE: So if it's lighted, it needs to stay
09:54:33 100% lit.
09:54:35 It can't flash and or scroll.
09:54:38 >>> Correct.
09:54:39 >> It just needs to be lit on and that's it.
09:54:42 >>> That's correct.
09:54:43 And pursuant to this previous interpretation for
09:54:47 changeable copy front, the copy can change once in
09:54:51 every 24 hours but nothing can move other than that
09:54:53 change of the copy once every 24 hours.
09:54:55 >>KEVIN WHITE: Because I think that's -- in talking to
09:55:03 code enforcement, I think there needs to be a little
09:55:06 more -- it was like -- I don't want to say that I --
09:55:26 for a 24-hour period, and this particular sign would
09:55:30 be in compliance, whether it flash, whether it scroll,
09:55:35 whatever the case may be, but one message to stay
09:55:41 consistent for that 24-hour period of time.
09:55:44 That particular inspector -- and that's okay in the
09:55:49 event that inspector's area.
09:55:51 And we are obviously -- have the same code.
09:56:03 >>JULIA COLE: And I think as Mrs. Ferlita stated this
09:56:06 is an issue we have been dealing with in the sign
09:56:08 committee and we are going to be coming back to you
09:56:10 and I think certainly some clarification in the code
09:56:12 may be required, because I think that we have a sign
09:56:21 code to talk about.
09:56:22 >>KEVIN WHITE: I don't want to minimize anything.
09:56:25 But would you say leave everybody alone until he would
09:56:30 come up with something that's concrete?
09:56:40 I mean, barring vulgarity.
09:56:42 But just a standard message?
09:56:48 Or am I just oversimplifying the situation?
09:56:51 >>> I think the conversation that the attorney's
09:56:54 office needs to have with code enforcement to clarify
09:56:56 what the regulations are, previous interpretations of
09:57:00 the sign codes that still stand, and that can be
09:57:04 enforced as it stands right now.
09:57:06 But I think from what I'm hearing, and I haven't had
09:57:08 any conversation was the code enforcement folks
09:57:10 regarding this particular issue, but it would be
09:57:13 appropriate for me to go ahead and discuss with them
09:57:17 with some clarification.
09:57:20 And we are moving forward to code enforcement with how
09:57:24 we deal with everybody.
09:57:29 >>KEVIN WHITE: Just standard operation until we get
09:57:31 our procedures together and we can pass it out and
09:57:36 disseminate to the everybody at the same time and say,
09:57:38 hey, this is it, clear-cut, and there it is.
09:57:41 And I think that's the way to go.
09:57:53 >>ROSE FERLITA: But if we have a complaint I don't
09:57:54 think we can say we are not defining it right now,
09:57:59 wait until we update it.
09:58:02 >>KEVIN WHITE: This is the proactive part.
09:58:05 As a business owner.
09:58:07 >>ROSE FERLITA: Okay, but this is my point.
09:58:09 We can give you as much clarification, we meaning the
09:58:12 sign committee, as you want.
09:58:13 But the point is, even if we revise what we have got,
09:58:17 so you understand what you can and can't do on the
09:58:19 electronic messaging sign, Mr. Rotella and myself were
09:58:23 part of the committee who met with the mayor.
09:58:25 And even when we do come back with clarification about
09:58:28 what they can and can't do, Julia, correct me if I am
09:58:31 wrong, if you disagree, or Mr. Shelby, the point is
09:58:34 that we ask for the administration to look into some
09:58:37 funding for code enforcement to have maybe one
09:58:42 inspector, two inspectors, to exactly do it.
09:58:52 When we start defining it and redefining it, it's
09:58:55 actually going to be the same.
09:58:57 It all comes back down again to enforcement.
09:58:59 We don't have any staff that's scheduled to do that.
09:59:02 So we are going to give you all kinds of
09:59:06 We asked if there was any moneys in the budget.
09:59:09 And we were clearly told we can't do that.
09:59:11 I don't know where we are going to go with that.
09:59:15 All I know know, my committee has worked very hard,
09:59:18 done a wholesale revamp of the whole thing.
09:59:20 What we do after that, I take it from this dais, we'll
09:59:26 have to see, but as many things as we discussed, it's
09:59:29 all about enforcement and there are no new dollars in
09:59:35 the budget to do that.
09:59:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I agree that enforcement is the key
09:59:39 and we have the mechanism to fine people, and use the
09:59:42 fine to help pay for the inspectors to enforce it.
09:59:45 And I think that's something that in the upcoming
09:59:48 budget cycle council should look at, which is using
09:59:51 code enforcement fines specifically for signs
09:59:55 enforcement to pay for the inspectors who will then
09:59:57 look at sign enforcement.
10:00:08 I'd like to make a motion that code enforcement report
10:00:10 back to council in 60 days on how we are coming with
10:00:14 these particular violations.
10:00:21 The ones that are cited here.
10:00:24 I can't demand, I can encourage that legal write, a
10:00:28 clear message to code enforcement.
10:00:31 But my request is we get a report back in 60 days for
10:00:34 how these cases are moving through the system.
10:00:36 And I would also like code enforcement to look at what
10:00:39 the existing fine -- I don't know if we have fines.
10:00:41 I would hope that we do but I don't know that we do --
10:00:44 what kind of revenue they could see generated if we
10:00:47 actually enforced our sign ordinance in terms of using
10:00:50 that money in the future for paying inspectors.
10:00:59 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
10:01:00 (Motion carried).
10:01:02 Item number 7.
10:01:03 Mr. Greg spearman.
10:01:10 >>> Greg spearman, director of purchasing.
10:01:12 I'm here to speak on item 7.
10:01:14 And we have contacted the consultant mason tillman,
10:01:18 and they have recommended to us that we have a review
10:01:20 of the program two years after the recommendations
10:01:24 that have been implemented.
10:01:25 The city believes that we would need three, somewhere
10:01:30 up to two and three years after being implemented, and
10:01:35 come back here.
10:01:38 >>KEVIN WHITE: You weren't speaking on item number 7.
10:01:43 >>> I'm sorry.
10:01:43 Way stated earlier is we contacted the consultant
10:01:46 mason 'tilman and they have recommended to come back
10:01:49 in and do a review after two years after the
10:01:52 recommendation has been implemented.
10:01:54 The city believes it would need three.
10:01:56 So somewhere between the two to three-year period
10:01:59 after the recommendations have been implemented we'll
10:02:01 have the consultant come back in and have them look at
10:02:04 how well the program is working.
10:02:05 >>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Spearman, since mason tillman came
10:02:10 up with the great majority of the recommendations, I'm
10:02:13 sure along with staff, do you not feel that the
10:02:17 purchasing director -- as the purchasing director that
10:02:20 they might be of some valuable input during the course
10:02:25 of trying to work with the administration, in trying
10:02:30 to assemble and adopt some of the recommendations,
10:02:34 maybe even clarifying some of the points?
10:02:37 And that's exactly what I was trying to --
10:02:39 >>> That's all way was trying to get at.
10:02:42 >> Right.
10:02:43 We have a thousand dollars for this and we haven't
10:02:45 even spent half of that.
10:02:46 So if we came up with a scope of work, when don't have
10:02:58 to use all that money.
10:02:59 Just encourage them to work with us. If we could come
10:03:01 up with a certain dollar amount.
10:03:03 70 or $80,000.
10:03:15 Have an outside independent third party that can say,
10:03:18 hey, this is what we are recommending.
10:03:19 And it's still up to your department and the
10:03:24 And you won't have the opening say-so about the
10:03:29 And whoever the council is a year or two from now to
10:03:36 do the review to find out from whence we have come
10:03:41 from where we have started.
10:03:42 That's just one of the things that I think is so
10:03:45 critical in even implementing the disparity study.
10:03:49 And I think if we are going to do it, there's in a
10:03:51 sense of doing it halfway.
10:03:53 We have the money allocated already.
10:03:54 It's not ready to go anywhere else.
10:03:59 I think we need to capture a portion of it, to use it
10:04:02 for what we intend to use it for.
10:04:04 And I want your opinion.
10:04:06 Do you think that would help you in job endeavors in
10:04:10 moving this forward?
10:04:12 >>> I think, Councilman White, it's the
10:04:14 administration's intent to fully utilize consultants.
10:04:19 >> What is your intent?
10:04:20 Not the administration's.
10:04:22 They are working with you.
10:04:28 >>> I think the first thing we have to do is to look
10:04:31 at the recommendation.
10:04:31 I guess the consultant did recommend putting together
10:04:35 an economic development task force.
10:04:40 Also instructed the legal department to construct an
10:04:44 Once we look at the recommendations, what the
10:04:45 ordinance crafting is going to be like, I think after
10:04:48 that point, we could look at utilizing a consultant.
10:04:54 >>KEVIN WHITE: Let me put it differently.
10:04:56 Do you think it's a good idea to use a certain portion
10:04:58 of the $300,000 to retain a consultant on a specific
10:05:03 scope of work to assist you, your department, and this
10:05:07 administration along with the implementation, and
10:05:13 guidance phase to get to where we need to be at the
10:05:17 end of the road, as well as if we can't do the review
10:05:21 and remind in a year that we need to do two years or
10:05:24 two and a half.
10:05:25 That's fine.
10:05:26 But I think we need to have outside, independent,
10:05:33 third-party input along the way to make sure that this
10:05:37 doesn't get thrown on the back burner as it has in the
10:05:40 And I just want to make sure we are not throwing away
10:05:44 good money after bad.
10:05:45 And if we already have the money earmarked, we need to
10:05:48 keep the train moving in a positive direction.
10:05:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Objection, badgering the witness.
10:06:06 >>> Darrell Smith, chief of staff.
10:06:07 The administration is committed to proceeding with the
10:06:10 results of the disparity study and we have been very
10:06:12 clear with that.
10:06:13 And it's very early for us to commit to the
10:06:16 utilization of a consultant, and to follow an action.
10:06:21 I would ask that council give it some time to digest
10:06:24 the recommendations made by the consultant, and come
10:06:27 back to council after we are in a position to look at
10:06:31 both the legal ramifications in the results as well as
10:06:35 the practical applications of the disparity study
10:06:44 >>KEVIN WHITE: I have absolutely in theory no problem
10:06:46 with what you just recommended.
10:06:47 The problem is, there's an election coming up next
10:06:50 This administration could change.
10:06:53 That's what I have a problem.
10:06:56 Not that it's likely but it can.
10:06:58 And I want to ensure the next administration,
10:07:02 especially if it's this one or if it changes totally,
10:07:05 that their focus knows what the focus of this council
10:07:08 is and the intent of even spending the money for this
10:07:12 disparity study.
10:07:13 And I think that it shows that this council is
10:07:18 committed to making sure the right thing is done.
10:07:20 And until this disparity study has shown in the past,
10:07:25 no, things haven't been done right, and I just think
10:07:27 we did a great gesture when we got this thing started.
10:07:30 And saying that we are going to do it.
10:07:32 Now that -- we have contractors that can't wait that
10:07:39 We have people that could have been millionaires by
10:07:43 now in the City of Tampa if this had been done right,
10:07:46 and done right the first time.
10:07:48 And we need to make sure that this continues to go,
10:07:51 and the train keeps moving forward, and we always got
10:07:54 the money.
10:07:55 We got the money already.
10:07:56 So mason tillman is knee deep in this.
10:08:00 So why we are bringing another agency at this point.
10:08:03 All I'm saying is, let's capture a certain amount, if
10:08:10 and define some scope of work, however big, however
10:08:13 small, to keep them involved in the process over the
10:08:16 next year, year and a half, mason tillman and other
10:08:20 minority firms.
10:08:21 So we still include them in the WMBE study.
10:08:24 And then we move forward.
10:08:27 And whether it's 50,000 or 80,000, whatever the case
10:08:30 may be, let's make a commitment from the City of
10:08:34 Tampa, from the administration, saying we are
10:08:37 committed to helping us move forward, and we are not
10:08:40 going to alloy it to be set on the back burner.
10:08:44 >>> You have that commitment from the administration
10:08:46 already, sir, and I would address the money aspect of
10:08:51 Yes, there was a figure in the beginning in terms of
10:08:56 Yes, the aviation authority came on board.
10:08:59 We were able to accomplish this study, less money.
10:09:03 But all the budget department appropriated for the
10:09:07 disparity study was the $130,000 or whatever it cost
10:09:11 to conduct the disparity study.
10:09:13 There is no other funding set aside for any further
10:09:18 investment in this without a new project.
10:09:24 >> We allocated $300,000.
10:09:27 Coming in which the aviation authority did.
10:09:28 I know, I initiated it it.
10:09:31 Now, to even go a little further with the
10:09:34 administration, I think it -- and you're saying this
10:09:39 administration is committed.
10:09:41 And I believe that.
10:09:43 I wholeheartedly believe that.
10:09:46 But like I said, the administration can change in a
10:09:51 I'd like, if you want to show and continue to show the
10:09:54 commitment, then let's earmark another few dollars.
10:09:58 It doesn't have to be anything significant and or that
10:10:02 It's 25,000, 30,000, whatever the case may be, we do
10:10:05 studies all the time that cost us 3, $4, 000,000 and
10:10:10 we finally say, oh, well, it's a tracking study,
10:10:15 Well, we don't need traffic lights, and that money is
10:10:20 gone, we did a study to appease the concerns of the
10:10:24 Now we know the concerns of the people.
10:10:25 We know the concerns were true, that the
10:10:28 representation was fair and equitable.
10:10:30 We need, as an administration, we need as a council,
10:10:35 and I think we need as the mayor to step up and say,
10:10:38 hey, we are going to continue what we started, and I'm
10:10:41 going to continue to show my commitment to the
10:10:44 community that has been disenfranchised in the City of
10:10:47 Tampa and we are going to make you go forward as we
10:10:53 move forward in the city.
10:10:55 We have $29 million of contract bidding getting ready
10:10:58 to start less than ten blocks away from here and
10:11:01 everything else we have getting ready to go online
10:11:03 with the City of Tampa and any other developers that
10:11:06 are coming in, we need to be able to say, we have
10:11:09 commitments for diversity for minorities, for
10:11:12 Hispanics, for women, and the community of Tampa,
10:11:15 Florida, and you are going to have to abide by these
10:11:19 rules and make some of our people, some of our
10:11:21 constituents, some of our residents major players in
10:11:23 your project.
10:11:24 And I think that commitment will only come from that
10:11:27 side of the table.
10:11:31 >>> A couple of points. The results of the diversity
10:11:33 study that were briefed to council one week ago, and
10:11:38 to the administration one week and a day ago, needs
10:11:40 significant review by both legal and the
10:11:44 >> I understand.
10:11:45 >>> Those results were covering data from 2001 to
10:11:52 Significant changes have been made within the
10:11:55 administration since 2004 to date that will provide
10:12:00 significantly improved operation with regard to the
10:12:04 application of this program.
10:12:07 We are not prepared to recommend that with one week of
10:12:10 looking at the results that we would go to an approach
10:12:14 that would use a contractor in conjunction with our
10:12:19 other initiatives.
10:12:20 That may be an initiative that we go after, but we
10:12:24 want the opportunity to take a look at the results and
10:12:27 see if in fact we need additional outside help during
10:12:31 the next year or two years.
10:12:34 Our preference, and the contractor, is committed to
10:12:37 come back normally within two years, and look to see
10:12:41 what results have been since the first disparity
10:12:45 So I think it's a little bit too quick to jump into
10:12:49 committing to a contractor to work with us.
10:12:52 The administration is committed to looking at the
10:12:57 recommendation and where appropriate moving toward an
10:13:00 ordinance, if it's legally justified.
10:13:02 I would say one other thing, please, and I'll end.
10:13:06 The disparity study with regard to what is measured
10:13:10 and controlled by the WMBE program by executive order
10:13:13 did not show a significant disparity within the City
10:13:16 of Tampa
10:13:20 There is no significant disparity in the
10:13:23 subcontracting, which is the area measured by the WMBE
10:13:27 So we have actually succeeded in that area rather than
10:13:31 what some have termed as failed.
10:13:33 >>KEVIN WHITE: The numbers and the percentiles, you're
10:13:47 right, don't lie.
10:13:48 I haven't had the opportunity to crunch the actual
10:13:50 I want to say unfortunately for the administration.
10:13:53 That's what I do for a living, and I crunch them very
10:13:56 But if we get ten contracts to ten contractors within
10:14:01 the City of Tampa, three Hispanic, three female, three
10:14:07 black, and the way the study is broken down, and then
10:14:13 one white male prime contractor.
10:14:15 So what we are looking at is, we can say, wow, the
10:14:18 program works great, we have 90% minority
10:14:22 participation under that scenario.
10:14:25 The problem with that scenario -- and I'm just
10:14:27 throwing out some arbitrary numbers-but the analogy is
10:14:32 real close.
10:14:33 The 90% got less than one tenth of the economic dollar
10:14:39 of that whole bid, so there is still a huge disparity.
10:14:44 Not in the disproportionate amount of the contracts
10:14:47 awarded, but in the economic and financial gain and
10:14:50 prosperity of the contract.
10:14:52 So what have we accomplished?
10:14:55 We are just juggling things around.
10:14:57 And I'm not saying that -- and I know that's the way
10:15:00 it was then, and I know this administration has made
10:15:03 significant strides in improving.
10:15:07 Let there be no doubt about that.
10:15:08 And I understand.
10:15:10 And the numbers that we have to work with when I was
10:15:14 in that meeting, that we were talking about, I realize
10:15:16 that was from the previous administration.
10:15:19 But as I also said in that meeting, if this
10:15:23 administration doesn't take a stand to say that we
10:15:27 need to move forward, those numbers that were
10:15:29 represented by the last administration will continue
10:15:32 to be represented by this administration if we don't
10:15:36 take a proactive stand and move forward.
10:15:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think Mr. White has expressed
10:15:46 some very sincere concerns that when all share,
10:15:52 including you, Mr. Smith.
10:15:54 We all want to make sure that the City of Tampa is
10:15:56 doing the best we can to eliminate any disparity in
10:16:01 terms of our contractor.
10:16:03 I think that what we should, do there should be a
10:16:13 report to this council on an annual basis.
10:16:15 We shouldn't have to wait.
10:16:16 How many years have we waited for that?
10:16:23 I think it should be an annual process.
10:16:25 But every year the administration should report to
10:16:27 this council, and therefore to the city, on our
10:16:31 progress in that area.
10:16:33 And that just seems like a no-brainer.
10:16:37 I'm going to leave that -- I'll throw that back into
10:16:41 your court, Mr. Smith, in terms of how the best way to
10:16:43 do that is.
10:16:44 And you can get back with us, you know, by memo or
10:16:48 something like that if you think it should be a motion
10:16:50 or ordinance or, you know, a policy or what have you.
10:16:54 But I think that's appropriate.
10:16:56 The other thing I wanted to ask is, in my area of
10:17:00 public works this week, I noticed that a large prime
10:17:05 contractor, Mr. White, a large prime contractor that
10:17:09 we have is Dallas one.
10:17:11 And Dallas one gets millions and millions of dollars
10:17:14 because they do a good job for us with underground
10:17:17 sewer pipes and water pipes and that sort of thing.
10:17:19 And I asked the question this week of -- I don't think
10:17:24 Dallas one is necessarily a minority contractor but I
10:17:27 asked the question of how did they do, and Mr.
10:17:30 Spearman, maybe you have an answer to this question,
10:17:32 how did they do in regard to using minority
10:17:37 And do you know, Mr. Spearman?
10:17:45 >>> They got a $3 million contract that we are
10:17:49 >> I don't have a specific answer for minority
10:17:53 I understood the question to be the number of minority
10:17:56 employees, and that number is 62.
10:17:59 For a company.
10:18:02 They have met the good faith efforts every time they
10:18:05 have come up for review so we have not had any
10:18:08 problems of them complying with the program
10:18:10 >>: So one of the ways that they can meet their
10:18:13 requirement is by having a certain appropriate number
10:18:16 of minority employees?
10:18:18 >>> Actually, there are two requirements of the WMBE
10:18:22 We look at the affirmative action efforts and how
10:18:25 successful they have been in that arena.
10:18:28 If we have a contract with a company, of $10,000 more,
10:18:36 and they have been very successful in that area.
10:18:38 But we also look at them in terms of their
10:18:41 requirements with regard to meeting the goals.
10:18:43 And they have done that as well, too.
10:18:45 So we have not any issues with Dallas one.
10:18:49 >> That's the kink kind of thing we need to stay
10:18:52 vigilant on.
10:18:52 I think there's a lot of ways we can do it.
10:18:54 And I'm sure, Mr. Spearman, that you and Mr. Smith
10:18:57 will continue to lead us in that direction.
10:18:59 >>> Absolutely.
10:18:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. White made quite a few good
10:19:07 And I have to agree with him on some of the points.
10:19:11 But one of my questions was -- and I believe it was
10:19:15 answered by Mr. Smith about what happened between
10:19:17 October 1st, 2004, and September 30th.
10:19:20 If we knew that there was some disparity problems in
10:19:24 there -- and I believe you answered that you have made
10:19:26 some strides in that.
10:19:27 So I was glad to hear that.
10:19:30 The other question I had was that since we budgeted
10:19:33 $300,000 for this study, and you only used 130,000 of
10:19:40 it, what happened to the 170?
10:19:43 Did it go back into the general fund?
10:19:45 Or where did that go?
10:19:49 >>> We actually allocated for the study in terms of
10:19:51 what the actual cost of the study was.
10:19:54 >> But we budged 300 for it.
10:19:57 >>> I'm not absolutely certain about the 300 that you
10:20:00 But I do know that once we selected a consultant and
10:20:02 we knew what the costs would be for the city's share,
10:20:05 that we did put that money in an account, set aside
10:20:09 that money in an account.
10:20:10 >> And I have to agree with Mr. Smith and the fact
10:20:16 that this study is only about a week old.
10:20:18 And they do need time to digest it, to have legal look
10:20:25 at the ramifications of everything.
10:20:27 So I think he was right on that.
10:20:29 But we can't let down our guard.
10:20:33 And I'm glad to hear that you all have made some
10:20:36 strides in these things because it's very important --
10:20:39 it's important to the city that they know that this
10:20:42 council and the city administration is really working
10:20:46 for a level playing field for everybody per se.
10:20:52 I like Mr. Dingfelder's idea of doing an annual
10:20:55 It doesn't have to be a major study or anything but to
10:20:58 come back with a report and see exactly what it is
10:21:01 that we have accomplished.
10:21:02 You can start with the October 1st through
10:21:06 September 30th report.
10:21:07 Right now come back and tell us what your changes have
10:21:13 What type of improvements have been done?
10:21:15 And I believe that's a really good idea.
10:21:19 And to continue it on yearly, and like Mr. White said,
10:21:24 we don't know what the next administration is going to
10:21:27 Hopefully that they will be the same.
10:21:32 But I believe that if we put it down somewhere, a
10:21:36 manual report has got to be done by the WMBE people,
10:21:40 by your department, then we should have this and this
10:21:44 could be in perpetuity.
10:21:46 So I think these are good points.
10:21:48 Mr. White has been very, very passionate about this
10:21:56 program here.
10:21:56 And I want to see that we continue to make strides, as
10:22:01 I believe we have already done.
10:22:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I concur with all the sentiments of
10:22:06 my colleagues.
10:22:07 And I think that it needs to be done by a combination
10:22:12 of your department and audit.
10:22:13 Because your department is an advocate for inclusion.
10:22:17 Audit are the really objective people who look at the
10:22:21 departments that might not be so forthcoming, and they
10:22:24 need to look at how all these departments are
10:22:26 functioning and making sure that they are meeting the
10:22:29 goals and making improvements that we are identifying.
10:22:32 So to make sure that there's a response to this, I'd
10:22:36 like to make a motion that -- I guess should go in
10:22:43 terms of our calendar year because that's when we have
10:22:46 a view of things.
10:22:47 But by September 13th of each year, I'll start
10:22:52 with the next year to give us some time to get going,
10:22:55 but September 30th of '07 that we get a report
10:22:59 back from the administration on how well we are
10:23:03 meeting the goals that were identified in the study
10:23:07 that we received yesterday.
10:23:10 >> That would be an than crease?
10:23:15 >> Absolutely.
10:23:15 >>KEVIN WHITE: Also to notify me wherever I am at that
10:23:18 point in time.
10:23:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You will be our guest of honor
10:23:23 making a cameo appearance.
10:23:25 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second, but I would like to ask.
10:23:29 I would like to see a report from October 1st to
10:23:32 September 30th, 2005.
10:23:34 Just to see how we are doing.
10:23:36 And so I would like to make an amendment to the
10:23:41 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
10:23:42 (Motion carried).
10:23:45 I have a question.
10:23:46 We talk about prime African-American contracting.
10:23:50 Does your department have seminars or workshops to
10:23:53 bring them in?
10:23:53 Because when don't know why when don't have any.
10:23:55 Is there any way you can bring them in and work with
10:23:58 Because there will be a time in the near future that
10:24:00 we can get them from the African-American contractor.
10:24:03 >>> Yes, we can, Madam Chair. The purchasing
10:24:05 department has partnered with the MWNE department, to
10:24:11 have workshops at the empowerment center.
10:24:13 We have done that.
10:24:14 We'll continue to do that.
10:24:15 And one of the goals this year coming up is to have
10:24:18 more outreach.
10:24:19 Because that's one of the recommendations we will
10:24:22 certainly look into and try to get more Plame into the
10:24:31 >>KEVIN WHITE: I just want to say, Mr. Spearman, thank
10:24:33 you for your input.
10:24:35 Thank you for getting mason tillman to the
10:24:37 administration and the legal staff, even though we are
10:24:42 asking to give an update annually, let's let know let
10:24:46 that slow the process down or the ordinance in
10:24:48 recommending any of these recommendations.
10:24:53 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, let not my being quiet
10:24:57 be miss con Stroud.
10:24:59 I think we certainly explained what the sense of this
10:25:01 board is in terms of being fair to all members of our
10:25:06 Close that discussion by saying that I think Mr. White
10:25:08 has done well with what he has, and I can see what he
10:25:10 has been putting in.
10:25:12 I would like to congratulate him for very recently
10:25:15 getting hi his MBE in organizational management.
10:25:18 And I think from a practical standpoint that's very
10:25:20 obvious, Mr. White.
10:25:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Colleagues, we have two petitioners
10:25:24 have requested to come up.
10:25:30 It was continued.
10:25:33 Number 60 and number 63.
10:25:34 Number 63 was a conned hearing.
10:25:36 And number 60 said they have a plane to catch.
10:25:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let's take 63 first.
10:25:47 Continue to what?
10:25:52 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
10:25:54 Todd Pressman is the agent ago for item number 63 on
10:25:57 the agenda.
10:26:02 It was a wet zoning.
10:26:03 There is a rezoning for this property.
10:26:05 He requests it continue to the nature of June 8th
10:26:08 to run with the rezoning of the property.
10:26:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
10:26:12 would like to object to the continuance to item number
10:26:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move the continuance.
10:26:19 >> Second.
10:26:20 (Motion carried).
10:26:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner for number 60.
10:26:29 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
10:26:31 Mr. Michelini -- it's not item number 60 on your
10:26:34 He was going to attempt to walk on an item.
10:26:37 WZ 06-60.
10:26:39 You don't have it before you.
10:26:43 He had a plane to catch apparently.
10:26:47 >>ROSE FERLITA: I thought Pressman was continuing the
10:26:54 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Mr. Michelini, I think, left.
10:26:57 He had a plane to catch.
10:27:03 >> We can do it at the end of the meeting then.
10:27:04 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Okay.
10:27:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Then we go ahead and move on to item
10:27:08 number 8.
10:27:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, this is file E-2006, chapter
10:27:21 To refresh council's recollection, this is a result of
10:27:24 a letter of transmittal from William Robinson that Mr.
10:27:27 Grandoff presented.
10:27:29 I am handing out to council with a copy to the clerk.
10:27:32 To refresh your recollection, a copy of the letter of
10:27:35 that transmittal.
10:27:36 I'm also attaching, council, to that the appropriate
10:27:41 section of 27-395, subsection 3, and I have
10:27:47 highlighted the paragraph which is the subject of this
10:27:51 Council, this is unusual coming before council under
10:27:59 this subsection.
10:28:00 Council is aware that it has forwarded to the Planning
10:28:04 Commission changes to address some concerns that have
10:28:07 been raised by this subsection.
10:28:09 But being as it may, this is a subsection that does
10:28:14 Council, you are being asked to solely make a finding
10:28:17 of fact today.
10:28:21 Not to address the merits of the request, not to
10:28:23 address whether you would accept the application when
10:28:27 it comes time for public hearing, but just solely
10:28:32 whether it addresses -- and to quote the language --
10:28:37 the City Council may determine that this time period,
10:28:40 the 12 months does not apply.
10:28:42 So basically it's a request to shorten the time
10:28:46 The council may determine that this time period does
10:28:48 not apply if the new site plan zoning request has
10:28:52 addressed the grounds for denial identified during the
10:28:56 public hearing.
10:29:00 And the issue is not necessarily whether it fully
10:29:05 satisfies the grounds, but whether it addresses it.
10:29:09 My understanding is that Ms. Coyle is here to
10:29:12 represent the staff's opinion, should council wish to
10:29:16 hear it.
10:29:17 Likewise, Mr. Grandoff is present.
10:29:20 And he would use his three minutes to expand upon the
10:29:25 specific facts of his request.
10:29:30 This is not a quasi-judicial setting.
10:29:32 This is not a legally advertised public hearing.
10:29:34 This is just a provision that presently exists under
10:29:38 27-395 that allows a petitioner who has been denied to
10:29:42 come back to council to request procedurally the
10:29:46 opportunity to file sooner than the 12 months that
10:29:50 would normally apply.
10:30:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What are the options available to
10:30:03 City Council?
10:30:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: To allow him to refile, not to
10:30:06 refile, but to file a new site plan petition within
10:30:11 the normal course of procedure, through the normal
10:30:16 scheduling process, and the normal design review
10:30:19 process,, to return on the agenda but allow it to do
10:30:24 that in advance of the 12 months from the date of
10:30:27 >>: Or not.
10:30:28 >>> Or not, exactly.
10:30:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It looks like the first threshold
10:30:31 in that paragraph you have highlighted in 27-395, Ms.
10:30:37 Coyle, it says substantially similar request.
10:30:42 I think that's the language.
10:30:43 It says denial of the site plan controlled rezoning
10:30:45 application by council shall preclude consideration of
10:30:48 rezoning application which has a substantially similar
10:30:51 request as described in the original application.
10:30:54 So I think the first hurdle we have to overcome is, is
10:30:59 the proposed site plan, even thousand haven't seen it
10:31:01 yet but as it's been described to you and to us, is it
10:31:05 substantially similar?
10:31:06 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
10:31:07 From the e-mail correspondence that we received from
10:31:11 Mr. Robinson, the petitioner, they would be requesting
10:31:14 31 units at a height of 148.3 feet with the
10:31:18 contemplation that they will be providing a pocket
10:31:22 So the number of units are being reduced.
10:31:24 The height is 148 feet.
10:31:26 So still considered a high-rise and the park
10:31:29 department is -- development is in the proposal.
10:31:31 >> So in your opinion it is substantially similar?
10:31:34 >>> It is similar, yes.
10:31:35 >>: So the next part, are we willing to modify the
10:31:38 12-month rule because we believe that the applicant
10:31:43 had addressed the concerns with this -- that this
10:31:46 council had at its denial?
10:31:48 Is that where we are?
10:31:50 >>> Yes.
10:31:52 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, I think we have heard the last
10:31:55 two weeks ago that you all felt that they had.
10:31:59 At least their record reasons for that.
10:32:06 I know we all may have had our own subjective reasons
10:32:08 for denial.
10:32:09 But at least debated on the record, do you all believe
10:32:14 that this new petition addressed those grounds for
10:32:20 >>> The first part of that question, I'm not sure it
10:32:22 was put on the record in the past.
10:32:23 That wasn't me that said that.
10:32:25 I'm not sure if it was Ms. Lamboy that alluded to
10:32:33 >> I remember someone from staff saying, last week,
10:32:35 that yes, it did.
10:32:36 And now it was simply our decision as to whether or
10:32:39 not we wanted to reduce the 12-month time frame.
10:32:43 >>> Well, I can say at this point I've read through
10:32:45 the transcript.
10:32:46 And what I read was the different discussions that the
10:32:51 council members had about the case, and council did
10:32:54 weigh the park element of the bonus criteria. You
10:32:57 considered whether or not the additional height could
10:32:59 be given for that bonus element.
10:33:03 Several members echoed that the 120-foot height was
10:33:06 the cap.
10:33:06 I believe three of you spoke to that.
10:33:08 And finally, Mr. Dingfelder was the council member who
10:33:12 framed the denial motion.
10:33:14 And he said very specifically that the competent,
10:33:18 substantial evidence, that today there is reasonable
10:33:21 beneficial use on that property and that is a 10 to
10:33:25 12-story building, 125 feet with 30-something units.
10:33:30 That's a reasonable beneficial use of the property.
10:33:32 That's what the law requires that we approve.
10:33:34 That got approved many years ago.
10:33:37 That's what they can build as a matter of right.
10:33:39 I believe the competent substantial evidence however
10:33:41 says we do not have to approve and we should not
10:33:43 approve the bonus height and the bonus density at the
10:33:47 When I read all of that combined I believe that what
10:33:49 council raised was appropriate, that whether or not a
10:33:53 PD isn't something you get by right, it is something
10:33:56 you have to essentially provide that evidence to
10:33:58 council to get that bonus.
10:34:00 And what he provided wasn't enough.
10:34:02 He's coming back with additional height above the 120
10:34:06 feet, which many council members weighed in on the
10:34:09 120-feet was the cap.
10:34:11 So at this point I can't say that he has addressed
10:34:17 >>HEATHER LAMBOY: Land development.
10:34:19 I would say that many of the criteria were addressed.
10:34:22 The criterion regarding density was addressed.
10:34:25 The criterion, however, regarding height was not
10:34:29 So in this time that you had to think about it, we
10:34:31 have also reviewed the transcript again, just to see
10:34:34 what exactly the rationale was for the deny, and that
10:34:38 is why we are coming back to you with this opinion.
10:34:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So Ms. Lamboy or Ms. Coyle, the fact
10:34:48 of the matter is that if we don't go forward with this
10:34:54 the waiver, they could still build a 31 units, and the
10:35:01 120 height.
10:35:04 >>> Correct.
10:35:04 >> But they don't have to give them the park easement.
10:35:08 >>> Correct.
10:35:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Based on the information provided
10:35:14 by our staff --
10:35:17 >>> I believe Mr. Grandoff may want to address, also.
10:35:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The question is we have neighbors
10:35:25 Do you want to open it up?
10:35:29 >> Under staff reports and unfinished business, Mr.
10:35:29 Shelby, are we required to hear from both?
10:35:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And do you want to open it up to
10:35:34 the public?
10:35:35 >>> This is not a public hearing.
10:35:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It's not set for a public hearing.
10:35:40 >> Exactly.
10:35:40 So based on that --
10:35:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Council needs to make a decision.
10:35:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Based on, as I started to say
10:35:48 before people talked --
10:35:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I have had an opportunity to
10:36:00 speak with Mrs. Cole about this.
10:36:04 The basis for the council is from Mr. Robinson
10:36:11 delivered by Mr. Grandoff, and I believe without any
10:36:14 argument, but to set forth any facts within his
10:36:17 allotted time, it would be my recommendation just to
10:36:21 allow him to expand upon any factual basis that he
10:36:24 believes council needs to make its decision.
10:36:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Grandoff.
10:36:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do we need to waive the rules to
10:36:34 allow him and the public to speak?
10:36:36 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: no objection to the public speaking
10:36:39 at all.
10:36:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: This is not public hearing.
10:36:42 This is not quasi-judicial.
10:36:49 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
10:36:50 Because this is not a quasi-judicial proceeding you
10:36:52 are not required to open it up to members of the
10:36:54 public or to the petitioner.
10:36:56 However, fur going to open it up, I would recommend
10:36:58 you open it up to everyone.
10:37:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think what I started to say was
10:37:02 based on what our staff said, I would like to make a
10:37:06 motion that we not reopen this.
10:37:08 That we not consider this request that we received in
10:37:12 writing, and that we let the petitioner go for 12
10:37:15 months and come back.
10:37:17 >> Second.
10:37:17 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
10:37:18 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, I think I get the
10:37:22 sense that our attorney is recommending that Mr.
10:37:27 Grandoff be given the opportunity.
10:37:29 Am I reading it correctly, Mr. Shelby?
10:37:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Not the why, just the what.
10:37:34 >>ROSE FERLITA: The what is fine.
10:37:38 And I'm okay with that so the record is clear about
10:37:40 what is going on here and what Mr. Grandoff wants to
10:37:43 But what my concern is, if we let him speak we should
10:37:47 let other people speak -- people speak.
10:37:50 That's an issue of fairness from the standpoint of
10:37:52 legality and appropriateness, I don't know.
10:37:55 But that's my "what."
10:38:00 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Item 8 is both the written and verbal
10:38:03 request from John Grandoff, petitioner.
10:38:05 So it's not a public hearing.
10:38:06 And I don't believe we need to open it.
10:38:09 That's my take on this.
10:38:10 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council's prerogative.
10:38:14 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I think that what happened two weeks
10:38:16 ago, I think that we got a recommendation from staff
10:38:19 that his request did address the reasons for the
10:38:24 Therefore, the only thing we were left to do was just
10:38:27 decide from a nonquasi-judicial standpoint, but from a
10:38:31 purely legislative standpoint, did we want to reduce
10:38:33 the two-week period?
10:38:36 Or the 12-month period?
10:38:37 We could have voted on that two weeks ago but we were
10:38:39 requested by staff to have an opportunity to review
10:38:42 And now what's happened in the two-week period is we
10:38:45 are now hearing that he has not addressed the reasons
10:38:49 for the denial.
10:38:50 So I think, as a matter of fair fairness, we ought to
10:38:55 give him an opportunity to say whether or not, since
10:38:58 this has changed, we ought to hear from him, but I
10:39:01 also think we ought to hear from the public because we
10:39:03 are getting ready to go down a path here we don't want
10:39:05 to go down.
10:39:07 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, this letter that we got doesn't
10:39:10 even have a date on it.
10:39:11 So we don't know when this was written.
10:39:13 Was it written yesterday, the day before, two weeks
10:39:16 It doesn't have a date on it.
10:39:19 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Mr. Robinson filed it two weeks ago
10:39:23 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the Noor
10:39:26 >> What was the motion?
10:39:28 >>GWEN MILLER: To allow.
10:39:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to hear from everyone.
10:39:36 If we are going to hear from one person we should hear
10:39:39 from everyone.
10:39:40 I withdraw my motion for now and hear from everyone.
10:39:44 >>ROSE FERLITA: I don't think there are that many
10:39:46 people out there.
10:39:46 The amount of time we are talking it would have been
10:39:49 more time than it takes for them to get up.
10:39:53 >>GWEN MILLER: So motion to waive the rules.
10:39:54 >>: Second.
10:39:55 (Motion carried).
10:39:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby.
10:39:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: For clarification of council, this is
10:39:59 not a public hearing.
10:40:00 There is no petitioner.
10:40:03 Council has the opportunity, if it wishes three
10:40:06 minutes per speaker, that would be fine.
10:40:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Three minutes.
10:40:11 >>CATHERINE COYLE: One additional comment.
10:40:15 I understand council is opening up simply for the
10:40:17 determination of whether or not that petitioner has
10:40:20 addressed the reasons for denial but not to rehash the
10:40:23 entire petition, or to rehash --
10:40:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
10:40:27 We have a motion and second to waive the rules.
10:40:28 All in favor say Aye.
10:40:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Nay.
10:40:35 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Suite 3700 Bank of America Plaza.
10:40:39 I explained to you why we are here.
10:40:42 My client designed an RM 35 site plan that can be
10:40:46 permitted today through a CSE.
10:40:48 All we want to do is see if there is any interest in
10:40:51 having a dialogue about Bayshore, and that's important
10:40:56 because one of your reasons for denial was Mrs.
10:41:01 Weekly's testimony --
10:41:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I hate to object or to
10:41:06 interrupt here.
10:41:06 With regard to the why, I would just ask the threshold
10:41:10 question is factually whether you believe it addresses
10:41:14 it and if you can go into the facts, I would
10:41:16 appreciate it.
10:41:17 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Yale go down the litany.
10:41:21 We want to add.
10:41:24 On Bayshore, add 28 feet to the 120 feet we were
10:41:27 permitted to do.
10:41:28 If you simply looking at the ceiling tiles for, you
10:41:34 count 14 ceiling tiles is about the height we want to
10:41:37 provide, in exchange for giving up your 4,000 for
10:41:42 The code says address the reasons for denial.
10:41:45 Those reasons were height, density, which we reduced
10:41:49 to 31 units as a permitted density, traffic, there
10:41:52 won't be any traffic if we are a permitted density.
10:41:56 No traffic objection ifs we are at the permitted
10:41:58 density of 31 units.
10:42:00 The grand tree was on the site.
10:42:02 We have addressed those.
10:42:06 You have the prerogative to tell me, Mr. Grandoff, no
10:42:09 way, we'll see you in 12 months.
10:42:11 We just want to know, if there's any indication you
10:42:15 want to have a spirited intellectual dialogue about
10:42:17 preserving of this on Bayshore, we would like to draw
10:42:21 If not we'll do an RM 35 condominium and be done with
10:42:25 That's simply all we want to ask for.
10:42:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
10:42:28 wanted to speak on this item?
10:42:35 >>> Good morning.
10:42:35 Marilyn weekly.
10:42:37 I reside at 2619 Bayshore Boulevard.
10:42:40 And I'm exhausted with this issue as well.
10:42:43 Many of our neighbors are, too.
10:42:46 I am going to be very brief and address exactly what
10:42:48 the issue is.
10:42:50 Everyone that spoke at the meeting, when the public
10:42:52 was allowed to speak, addressed the one issue that was
10:42:55 of underlying greatest importance for all of us, and
10:42:58 that is the height.
10:42:59 It was preserving what we have left.
10:43:04 And the only way we know how is to maintain the zoning
10:43:08 height of 120 feet.
10:43:10 Everyone that came up here with the exception of one
10:43:12 person, that was the main concern, and it continues to
10:43:15 be the main concern.
10:43:18 And this plan is not addressing the main concern,
10:43:22 which is limiting the height at 120 feet.
10:43:25 The other concern was this park is not going to be
10:43:30 City of Tampa property.
10:43:31 It is going to be owned by the owners of the
10:43:34 condominium who as yet do not even exist.
10:43:37 So how can they be -- be held responsible for allowing
10:43:42 us in perpetuity to lease this land?
10:43:45 I mean, there's so many questions involved with this
10:43:51 VISTA, that there are more problems in the fought than
10:43:54 there are any benefits that I can see at this
10:43:57 particular point.
10:43:57 So looking at those two irregardless of density, the
10:44:00 height and the question of whether this park will
10:44:03 actually be a public park, or what it's going to end
10:44:07 up being, that is my grounds for stating that this
10:44:10 should be denied, and they should be told, this is
10:44:13 what we want, this is what you can do.
10:44:16 Do your RM-35.
10:44:18 Make it as beautiful and as expensive as you want, and
10:44:22 let us go on with our lives.
10:44:23 We don't have time for this.
10:44:25 Thank you very much.
10:44:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:44:26 Would anyone else like to speak?
10:44:28 What is the pleasure of council?
10:44:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to deny the request, to come
10:44:36 back in 12 months.
10:44:38 >> Second.
10:44:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
10:44:39 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, I have often said that
10:44:43 the devil as you know is better than the one that you
10:44:45 don't know, and in that regard I would probably
10:44:49 typically say let's give them a shot to see what they
10:44:52 can come up with.
10:44:53 But this neighborhood is weary.
10:44:56 They don't want to come back.
10:44:57 They are willing to accept the RM-35, whatever that
10:45:00 might be.
10:45:01 We have heard that from Mrs. Weekly.
10:45:04 I don't want to drag anyone back down here again if
10:45:07 that's the will of the neighborhood.
10:45:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just for record purposes, the
10:45:15 original motion we heard about a month ago was
10:45:18 And, anyway, seriously, I think it was very helpful
10:45:26 that staff went back and lad at what the motion was
10:45:30 and lad at the record.
10:45:31 And because it refreshes our memory.
10:45:33 And in looking at it, it looked like the majority of
10:45:36 us said, let's just stick with the 120 feet.
10:45:38 Let's just draw the line on the height.
10:45:40 Obviously, they want to exceed the 120 feet.
10:45:43 So by definition it doesn't satisfy this condition.
10:45:48 I appreciate you looking at that, Cathy, and Heather,
10:45:51 and I'll support the motion on that basis.
10:45:53 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
10:45:54 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
10:45:56 Opposed, Nay.
10:45:56 (Motion carried).
10:45:58 Number 9, Mr. Shelby.
10:46:01 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Thank you for the opportunity to
10:46:03 speak this morning.
10:46:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: This is pursuant to council's rules,
10:46:08 4-A, where a sufficient number of votes were needed to
10:46:13 take action on the ordinance issue involving the enter
10:46:18 priss zone development agency board.
10:46:24 I think Sal Territo is here if you wish to address
10:46:31 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I think I was here for that vote.
10:46:37 I remember voting because of eleven commissioners.
10:46:45 >>SHAWN HARRISON: It came back, Mary, and you had
10:46:51 stepped out.
10:46:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How did it come back?
10:46:55 >>GWEN MILLER: We waived the rules.
10:46:58 >>THE CLERK: I believe that motion came back after the
10:47:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I was here till about three.
10:47:04 THE CLERK: You were not there at the time of the
10:47:11 >>: We were here till a quarter to five.
10:47:13 >>SAL TERRITO: The ordinance passed back in November
10:47:16 had a provision limiting the number of members of the
10:47:18 enterprise zone denying.
10:47:19 It was this council's wish to increase that to eleven.
10:47:23 When we went back to look at it, you were limited to
10:47:26 And then there was an ordinance, it required an
10:47:29 ordinance change to change the number from nine to
10:47:31 eleven, and there were not sufficient votes to get to
10:47:35 the this issue at this point right now.
10:47:37 That's where we have.
10:47:37 I have an ordinance with me.
10:47:39 It's up to you what you want to do with this.
10:47:40 >>MARY ALVAREZ: What's the ordinance?
10:47:44 >>SAL TERRITO: It would basically move the board's
10:47:47 number from nine to eleven.
10:47:50 >>GWEN MILLER: We can leave it as is or nine.
10:47:54 >> The motion on the floor is to change it.
10:47:57 >>SAL TERRITO: The motion is to change it, a 3-2 vote.
10:48:02 It requires you bring it back today. I have it with
10:48:05 me today.
10:48:15 The ordinance that you passed back in November also
10:48:18 said that the chairman and vice chairman would be
10:48:20 chosen by ordinance.
10:48:21 The statute doesn't require that.
10:48:23 So what I have before you, if you want to pass this
10:48:25 one, will change the board number from nine to eleven
10:48:29 and also allow to you make the appointments by
10:48:34 If you vote against this -- I have an ordinance also
10:48:38 here that would change the vote to a resolution rather
10:48:42 than -- to achieve a chair and vice chair.
10:48:46 >>ROSE FERLITA: Do you have like six watches?
10:48:51 >>SAL TERRITO: I have two ordinances now.
10:48:57 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Territo, would you explain again
10:48:59 about the resolution for the chairman and vice
10:49:04 >>SAL TERRITO: The statute allows to youchas the
10:49:06 chairman and vice chairman by resolution.
10:49:09 The ordinance that was passed back in November
10:49:11 recreating an enterprise zone said it had to be done
10:49:14 by ordinance.
10:49:15 That is not necessary.
10:49:17 So it was your pleasure to do it by resolution which
10:49:19 will make it easier in the future to make changes to
10:49:22 Then this ordinance would allow you to vote, increase
10:49:26 the board to eleven and to choose the chair and vice
10:49:29 chair by resolution.
10:49:30 Rather than by ordinance.
10:49:34 >>MARY ALVAREZ: But that's state statute.
10:49:37 >>> The state statute is you have to make the choice
10:49:39 for the chair and vice chair, that's correct.
10:49:41 And by changing it to a resolution would make it
10:49:43 easier in the future to make that change.
10:49:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: then let's do it.
10:49:49 >>ROSE FERLITA: I can't anticipate what anybody else
10:49:51 is going to do.
10:49:52 I stated my reasons for not getting more people.
10:49:56 Nine was good and nine is still good for me.
10:49:58 But in the event the majority rules and we go with
10:50:00 eleven, this is my next procedural question.
10:50:04 Having given it to the council members an opportunity
10:50:06 to cast two more votes, that would alter some of the
10:50:10 vote count on some of the ones that are now up in
10:50:15 10th position or 11th position.
10:50:17 That seems to me to be a reason why we have to revoke
10:50:20 that and relook at the potential candidates that wave
10:50:26 >>> I think the correct procedural matter -- it's up
10:50:29 to you -- but to address this issue.
10:50:31 If you move it to eleven, then take the vote on the
10:50:33 eleven again.
10:50:34 >>ROSE FERLITA: in the issue of fairness.
10:50:37 That's pretty easy to understand.
10:50:38 If some of the twos have one more vote then they would
10:50:42 be up to the three category F. two more votes they
10:50:45 would be the four.
10:50:46 So that's going to totally skew the --
10:50:48 >>> And this all should be done obviously in two weeks
10:50:50 when the ordinance comes back.
10:50:52 If adopted we could prepare a resolution at that time,
10:50:54 or if you choose, once you make the vote, to choose
10:50:57 the number --
10:50:58 >>ROSE FERLITA: We will revote.
10:51:00 >>> Correct.
10:51:01 >>ROSE FERLITA: I just don't want anybody to be
10:51:04 We have to.
10:51:04 Of course we have to.
10:51:08 >>SAL TERRITO: I think it's your call how you want to
10:51:10 do that.
10:51:11 I think it's cleaner if you revote.
10:51:13 Because what you have done in the past, all you really
10:51:16 have right now are the nine members.
10:51:17 If you want to go with those nine, I think it makes
10:51:20 sense to go back and revote for those nine because the
10:51:23 two that you voted for are not eligible because the
10:51:25 board is not up to eleven members yet.
10:51:28 At least you have those two that you have to address.
10:51:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let's cross that bridge when we
10:51:33 come to it.
10:51:34 >>GWEN MILLER: I am not going to support it because we
10:51:35 have said in the past we are not in the business of
10:51:37 waiving the rules and once we start we keep waiving
10:51:40 rules we are going to change, and I don't think we
10:51:42 should make any waives with just this one.
10:51:47 Two or three weeks ago, we talked about change the
10:51:51 Now we come right back again, are going to change the
10:51:54 rules and waive that.
10:51:55 I am not going to support it either.
10:51:56 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I know I voted no the first time.
10:52:00 I don't know, I guess I was out.
10:52:03 But I'm not going to support the eleven.
10:52:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move an ordinance of the City of
10:52:12 Tampa amending ordinance 2005-314 adopted by the City
10:52:16 Council of the City of Tampa on November 17th,
10:52:19 2005, by amending section 3-A to provide for a board
10:52:24 consisting of eleven members that required the
10:52:27 chairman and vice chairman to be appointed by
10:52:29 ordinance, providing an effective date.
10:52:32 This is an attempt to move it along.
10:52:35 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
10:52:36 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
10:52:38 We are ready to vote?
10:52:39 All in favor of that motion say Aye.
10:52:41 Opposed, Nay.
10:52:45 >>THE CLERK: (off microphone).
10:52:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Since it passed we need to go back and
10:52:53 >>SAL TERRITO: The ordinance will come back to you in
10:52:56 two weeks.
10:52:56 At that particular time I suggest you do the vote at
10:52:59 that point.
10:52:59 >>GWEN MILLER: After we read the ordinance.
10:53:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are we going to get that sheet
10:53:05 again and have to check that off?
10:53:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It may not have been totally fair
10:53:15 because now we pick the top eleven which will change
10:53:18 the math.
10:53:18 >>ROSE FERLITA: I mean, come on.
10:53:21 We have accommodated for two more as it is.
10:53:23 If we had known we were going to have eleven votes --
10:53:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We'll do it again.
10:53:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Not to complicate things, which I
10:53:31 tend to do unfortunately sometimes.
10:53:32 But council wants to vote to accept the first nine
10:53:39 vote getters and then take votes amongst the
10:53:41 remaining, or --
10:53:43 >>GWEN MILLER: In a, we should revote all over again.
10:53:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Hold the 16 again.
10:53:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Some of those names were actually
10:54:01 submitted, they would have to be separated.
10:54:04 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
10:54:04 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, if I mate suggest, when
10:54:09 we vote, before we actually cast our votes, if anyone
10:54:11 would like to come in and address us about why they
10:54:15 want to serve on this, that we give them the
10:54:17 opportunity, which I'm not sure was afforded the last
10:54:29 >>KEVIN WHITE: I don't have a problem with that.
10:54:31 I don't know if we have time.
10:54:35 >>> We'd like to get this done by, I think, June
10:54:40 It's not a restraint.
10:54:43 You have the time to do it in whatever order you want
10:54:45 >>KEVIN WHITE: All I'm saying if we call told the
10:54:49 individuals on this list we have to be here next
10:54:51 Thursday because we have to move this along for two or
10:54:54 three weeks.
10:54:55 >>> The second reading will come back in two weeks.
10:54:57 It's two weeks from today that you have the second
10:54:59 reading on this.
10:55:05 >>KEVIN WHITE: The people may not be available.
10:55:10 >>GWEN MILLER: If all 16 want to speak, we need to let
10:55:13 all 16 speak.
10:55:17 >>SHAWN HARRISON: If they come in two weeks, we'll
10:55:19 give everybody a minute if they want and they can just
10:55:23 state their case.
10:55:24 It's democracy.
10:55:25 >>ROSE FERLITA: Democracy is what we were starting
10:55:28 with in the first place, as far as I'm concerned.
10:55:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby?
10:55:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Sorry.
10:55:40 For the purposes of the record, is that a motion?
10:55:43 >> Yes.
10:55:43 I'll second it.
10:55:44 >> For what date and time?
10:55:46 Two weeks?
10:55:47 >> Two weeks.
10:55:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: May 25th.
10:55:54 Do you want to do it at the time of 9:30 then?
10:55:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Are we going to read the ordinance
10:55:59 first or let them speak first?
10:56:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY: To remained council that the original
10:56:05 motion is to come back next week with a resolution
10:56:08 based on the vote.
10:56:09 And I guess I'm going to ask council to remove that
10:56:13 from next week's agenda.
10:56:15 Because it will obviously change.
10:56:18 The resolution is going to change.
10:56:23 >>KEVIN WHITE: We can't vote until we hear the people
10:56:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: So what will happen then, if there's
10:56:28 a motion for that and the motion passes and it won't
10:56:31 come back on next week's agenda there's a motion on
10:56:33 the floor to have the people come if they wish to
10:56:35 speak in two weeks, at which time there will be a
10:56:37 second reading, and the ordinance will pass, it's my
10:56:44 assumption, and I will hand out the ballots, and then
10:56:46 there could be returned to them.
10:56:47 And I will bring back the final results the
10:56:50 father-in-law week if that's acceptable.
10:56:52 >> Why not the results rate now?
10:56:59 >> Okay.
10:56:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Who is going to communicate with these
10:57:07 >> That's the question.
10:57:08 I don't know.
10:57:10 Or we could ask Mr. Cullins if you wish, if they still
10:57:24 wish to speak that will be their opportunity.
10:57:26 >> And when cast our votes at the time.
10:57:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's what I'm hearing council say.
10:57:30 >> You aren't hearing this council member saying it.
10:57:33 This council member is saying we need to move on with
10:57:38 those people out there.
10:57:40 >>GWEN MILLER: The motion to have everyone come speak
10:57:41 in two weeks.
10:57:42 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
10:57:44 Opposed, Nay.
10:57:45 (Motion carried).
10:57:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let's go.
10:57:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 10.
10:57:52 >>THE CLERK: We do have one item on the floor with the
10:57:54 motion made by council member Alvarez to remove the
10:57:58 item from next Thursday's agenda.
10:58:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
10:58:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
10:58:03 (Motion carried).
10:58:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 10.
10:58:16 >> Continuance to the 17th.
10:58:17 >> So moved.
10:58:18 >> Second.
10:58:18 (Motion carried).
10:58:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 11 is a closed public
10:58:24 All wave to do is vote on that.
10:58:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is council familiar with that
10:58:30 particular parcel?
10:58:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
10:58:39 The motion was to -- all in favor of approval say Aye.
10:58:46 >>THE CLERK: This is for second reading so you will
10:58:49 need to take voice roll call.
10:58:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Read it again?
10:58:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Sure.
10:58:56 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'll read it.
10:59:03 An ordinance -- move the following ordinance upon
10:59:07 second reading, an order Inc. rezoning property in the
10:59:09 general vicinity of 3615 West Gandy Boulevard in the
10:59:13 city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described
10:59:14 in section 1 from zoning district classifications CG
10:59:17 commercial general to PD restaurant with a drive-in
10:59:20 window providing an effective date.
10:59:22 >> I have a motion and second.
10:59:25 Voice roll call vote.
10:59:27 Vote and record.
10:59:29 >> Vote and record?
10:59:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Vote and record.
10:59:31 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We don't have anything.
10:59:37 >>THE CLERK: It not working.
10:59:46 >>THE CLERK: It carried unanimously.
10:59:49 >> In a.
10:59:49 No, in a, in a.
10:59:53 >>THE CLERK: Showing two nos and five yeses.
11:00:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: In the name of small and
11:00:01 independent businesses --
11:00:04 >>THE CLERK: I'm not getting the display on my end.
11:00:08 >> We will do a voice roll call.
11:00:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No, in the name of small businesses
11:00:13 and independent businesses, I'll vote no.
11:00:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.
11:00:16 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
11:00:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
11:00:20 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
11:00:21 >>ROSE FERLITA: In the spirit of being a small
11:00:23 business and being able to compete with the big guys,
11:00:25 yes, I am going to support the opportunity for
11:00:27 Starbucks to compete.
11:00:33 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder and
11:00:34 Saul-Sena voting no.
11:00:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone in the public like to ask
11:00:43 for reconsideration?
11:00:44 Anyone in the public like to speak to any item on the
11:00:46 agenda not set for public hearing?
11:00:48 If you want to speak on any item on the agenda not set
11:00:50 for public hearing, you may speak now.
11:01:08 >>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: I reside at 2902 East Ellicott
11:01:11 street and I just thank God for his grace and his
11:01:17 I'm going to say it till I die.
11:01:20 I got a good reason to say that.
11:01:25 My mama dropped me off they gave me every chance.
11:01:32 And I -- Ms. Chairman, I want to speak on a couple
11:01:39 things here this morning about article 4 and article 5
11:01:42 about the code enforcement thing, you all talk about
11:01:44 the signs this morning.
11:01:46 And then sitting over here a few minutes ago, about
11:01:51 changing the rules.
11:01:52 I'm going to go back to the code enforcement thing
11:01:55 You know, down through the years, it's been a battle
11:01:58 with me through the code enforcement.
11:02:01 But one big reason, I told you all time after time,
11:02:08 these people is more powerful than any in town.
11:02:13 I told you many times when the code enforcement car
11:02:15 come into my neighborhood, everybody run in the house
11:02:18 and hide.
11:02:20 These people were afraid.
11:02:21 But what I'm saying, though, you all council give this
11:02:27 code enforcement orders to go out and do things to
11:02:30 peoples, you know.
11:02:35 Do it or pay a feign.
11:02:36 And always talk about grace and mercy.
11:02:39 And don't know what grace and mercy is.
11:02:43 You all go by a law book.
11:02:45 And me, I read the Bible book.
11:02:48 And I got about 20 years in Bible class, and I don't
11:02:52 know how many years you all spend in the law book.
11:03:00 But it bothers me.
11:03:01 You all talk about the signs going to turn around and
11:03:03 fine somebody for when they turn on the signs, what
11:03:08 the sign looks like.
11:03:09 And you all talk about fine, fine.
11:03:12 Down through the years I have been in many courtrooms,
11:03:14 and you all don't believe in grace and mercy.
11:03:17 But me personally, code enforcement has been in many
11:03:26 And I want to tell you, a black judge charged me in
11:03:33 here and had me charged with six or seven charges.
11:03:38 >>CHAIRMAN: Does somebody have a cell phone on?
11:03:45 >>> Oh, no!
11:03:46 >>KEVIN WHITE: That was God calling to say --
11:03:55 >>GWEN MILLER: If we had a fine, we are going to fine
11:04:01 >>KEVIN WHITE: $20.
11:04:05 >>> All cut my phone off so I can come in here.
11:04:12 But anyway, way wanted to say about this thing,
11:04:15 though, this council is about did most educated,
11:04:25 acknowledged and powerful.
11:04:30 You know, I knew this was going to be trouble here.
11:04:58 Mr. White, I appreciate what you said.
11:05:02 You are going to make me trust you.
11:05:03 But I appreciate what you said about this outbreak.
11:05:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Knott.
11:05:08 Would anyone else like to speak?
11:05:14 >>> 3614 Osborne Avenue.
11:05:18 Good morning.
11:05:21 I don't specifically have nothing to speak about.
11:05:24 But I just want to clear up some matters that have
11:05:30 been said about me in the public --
11:05:35 >>GWEN MILLER: It's not on the agenda.
11:05:37 We can't let you talk about it.
11:05:38 >>> Okay.
11:05:38 >>GWEN MILLER: You have to wait till the end of the
11:05:42 >>> Ooh, I got to go to lunch.
11:05:44 Got to go to work.
11:05:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Well, we have to go to lunch, too.
11:05:48 >>KEVIN WHITE: You can go to lunch with us and tell it
11:05:51 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You can go to lunch with Mr. White.
11:05:55 >> Thank you, all.
11:05:57 Thank you for your time.
11:05:58 I just want to say, Mr. White, you did an excellent
11:06:01 job this morning.
11:06:01 >>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you, sir.
11:06:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Next?
11:06:04 Does anyone else want to speak?
11:06:06 >>> Michael Farmer, 2619 security street.
11:06:11 I'm just here to thank the City Council for their
11:06:14 input of the clean-up in our area --
11:06:21 >>GWEN MILLER: It's not on the agenda, Mr. Farmer.
11:06:24 >>> I know.
11:06:25 Thank you.
11:06:25 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You're welcome.
11:06:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Next.
11:06:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Few and far between.
11:06:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Next?
11:06:37 >>> God to preach on the second coming of the Lord
11:06:47 Jesus, the almighty God Jesus Christ, today, yesterday
11:06:51 and forever.
11:06:52 I have something stow read here.
11:06:54 >>GWEN MILLER: No, no, reverend, you have got to talk
11:06:56 about the agenda.
11:06:58 Excuse me, sir.
11:06:59 You cannot read nothing to us.
11:07:01 >>> A can't hear you, ma'am.
11:07:03 >>GWEN MILLER: You can't read anything to us.
11:07:04 You have to talk to us about what's on the agenda.
11:07:07 >>> Romans 13 --
11:07:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:07:09 You're welcome.
11:07:10 Thank you, sir.
11:07:13 >> Can't talk about now.
11:07:14 >> You have to speak about something on the agenda.
11:07:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: On the agenda.
11:07:18 >>GWEN MILLER: He can't hear.
11:07:19 Would you tell him?
11:07:27 >> At the end.
11:07:28 >> Oh, I apologize.
11:07:29 Thank you.
11:07:30 >> Would anyone else lick to speak?
11:07:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: On the agenda.
11:07:34 >>GWEN MILLER: An item that's on the agenda.
11:07:36 Seeing no one else, we are going to waive the rules
11:07:39 Since we are waiving rules we are going to go to item
11:07:45 number 49.
11:07:55 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney, here to speak with you
11:07:58 on item number 49 which is the second reading.
11:08:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe we have to open the public
11:08:03 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second to open.
11:08:06 (Motion carried).
11:08:09 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney speaking on item number
11:08:12 This is the second reading on the amendment to the
11:08:14 ordinance dealing with cable television service.
11:08:16 As you recall from two weeks ago, this is primarily
11:08:19 cleaning up a couple of vestiges of the prior system.
11:08:22 And I can elaborate further if you want but I would
11:08:24 rather use your time wisely.
11:08:27 The next issue which will be the Fran chase agreement
11:08:29 which I think will take considerably more time.
11:08:31 If you have any questions on the ordinance I will be
11:08:33 happy to answer them.
11:08:33 >>GWEN MILLER: are we asking if anyone wants to speak
11:08:38 on this item?
11:08:42 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Not on item 49.
11:08:44 >> Second.
11:08:44 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You have to read it.
11:08:46 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't want to do that.
11:08:51 >>CHAIRMAN: If anyone is going to speak on this item,
11:08:54 they need to be sworn in, too?
11:08:57 You say open and close.
11:08:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Be sworn if anybody wishes to speak.
11:09:06 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to close.
11:09:09 67 wait, does anyone want to speak on this item,
11:09:12 number 49?
11:09:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Seeing none, Madam Chair.
11:09:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to close the public hearing.
11:09:18 >> So moved.
11:09:19 >> Second.
11:09:19 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to adopt the following
11:09:21 ordinance upon second reading an ordinance of the city
11:09:23 of Tampa, Florida amending City of Tampa code chapter
11:09:26 7 cable communications article 1 in general section
11:09:29 7-4 prohibiting Fran chasees from submitting waivers,
11:09:34 exceptions and declaratory rulings to state and
11:09:36 federal regulatory agencies without written notice to
11:09:39 the city unless said notice is reasonably
11:09:42 contemporaneous with the submissions amending article
11:09:44 1 in general section 7-7 providing in the event of
11:09:48 conflict between chapter 7 and a cable franchise, the
11:09:51 cable franchise shall control, amending article 3,
11:09:54 franchise conditions, section 7-67 by deleting
11:09:56 franchise fees, amending article 3, franchise
11:09:59 conditions, section 7-69 providing for overnight
11:10:02 delivery of notice to the city by a franchisees
11:10:08 surety, amending article 5, system operation section
11:10:11 7-110, providing that additional testing required by
11:10:14 the city must be permitted by federal communications
11:10:17 commission regulations, amending article 5, system
11:10:20 operation, section 7-115, deleting a prohibition of
11:10:24 franchiseees from engaging in radio or television
11:10:28 sales or service providing for repeal of all
11:10:30 ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
11:10:32 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.
11:10:34 Vote and record.
11:10:42 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
11:10:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Waiving the rules again.
11:10:46 Item 56.
11:10:51 >> Move to waive the rules.
11:10:52 >> Second.
11:11:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Will this be finished by the lunch
11:11:06 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to give it a shot.
11:11:08 Go ahead.
11:11:12 Need to open.
11:11:13 >> So moved.
11:11:13 >> Second.
11:11:13 (Motion carried).
11:11:14 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney here to speak with you on
11:11:18 item number 56, which is a resolution approving a
11:11:22 cable franchise agreement for Verizon Florida, Inc.
11:11:26 Although there's been a lot of effort of late to
11:11:28 perhaps confuse what the issue may may be, essentially
11:11:32 your determination is to decide whether to grant a
11:11:35 franchise agreement and introduce competition into the
11:11:38 cable television marketplace.
11:11:40 You should grant the franchise if you find it meets
11:11:42 the criteria.
11:11:46 I provided you a memorandum dated may 10, 2006,
11:11:50 providing you an identification of what those criteria
11:11:53 are, and explaining why the staff analysis is that it
11:11:56 meets those criteria.
11:11:58 The statutory provisions are included in your
11:12:01 I won't provide you the dry detail of the law.
11:12:04 But what I will do is indicate briefly the
11:12:07 right-of-way issues are not a problem.
11:12:10 Verizon is providing a fiber-optic service.
11:12:13 They are essentially placing the cable system in the
11:12:16 ground pursuant to their rights to do so as a
11:12:19 telephone service provider.
11:12:20 So that is not even implicated by the cable ordinance.
11:12:25 We have the capacity in the rights-of-way.
11:12:28 They are not interfering with other uses of our
11:12:31 And it is no material addition to the use of the
11:12:35 The economic benefits in the public need are going to
11:12:37 be serviced by availability of competition to the
11:12:40 We think it will have a positive economic benefit on
11:12:42 the public at large and will provide additional choice
11:12:45 for the cable television viewing public, which is one
11:12:48 of the other societal benefits.
11:12:50 The other criteria you need to consider in making this
11:12:53 determination is the financial ability, competency and
11:12:56 expertise of the cable provider, Verizon Florida,
11:13:00 Inc., and their education packet provided awe
11:13:02 substantial amount of information on their financial
11:13:06 They are a considerable size company and are an
11:13:09 affiliate of Verizon USA, a rather large company.
11:13:12 The financial resources are abundant, the competence
11:13:15 and expertise seems to be apparent.
11:13:17 I don't think there's any debate with regard to those
11:13:20 One of the other factors, believe it or not in, our
11:13:22 ordinance is that they are of good character.
11:13:24 I think most of you who have been in this community a
11:13:27 long time are familiar with Verizon, know they have
11:13:28 been a supporter of many community activities.
11:13:31 You are probably familiar with many of the persons
11:13:32 that work at Verizon.
11:13:33 One of them you will hear from shortly.
11:13:38 The state statute indicates that we should favor
11:13:41 competition in this arena and any other communication
11:13:43 services arena.
11:13:45 We think this approval of the franchise agreement will
11:13:47 be that.
11:13:48 Verizon can speak more specifically to some of the
11:13:50 other staff findings and some of the unique
11:13:54 I think it's important, however, that we not get
11:13:56 sidetracked on the petty issues and allegations of
11:13:59 level playing field problems.
11:14:01 I provided you a memo today summarizing our view that
11:14:04 we do not believe we have a level playing field
11:14:07 Since there has been a threat of litigation in that
11:14:10 regard I will be careful with regard to what I will
11:14:13 But I will indicate that the support requirements are
11:14:18 exactly the same in this Verizon franchise agreement
11:14:22 before you today as they are in the Bright House
11:14:25 The level playing field requires among other things
11:14:27 that those be essentially similar.
11:14:30 That's one of the more significant aspects of what the
11:14:32 franchise agreement requires of a franchisee.
11:14:36 They are identical.
11:14:37 There's been some discussion regarding the liquidated
11:14:40 damages remedy being different.
11:14:43 We don't believe that's a material issue.
11:14:46 Liquidated damages have never been implicated in the
11:14:48 past with regard to the incumbent.
11:14:50 We don't anticipate it will be an issue with you
11:14:52 regard to either one of them at any time.
11:14:54 If there is a need to change, however, we will
11:14:56 certainly look at that issue.
11:14:58 There's been some discussion regarding the apparent
11:15:02 difference in the indemnification paragraph.
11:15:04 There's a reason why the paragraphs ever different but
11:15:07 again we are more than happy to sit down and talk
11:15:09 about that issue with Bright House if they persist in
11:15:12 their belief it is a significant difference.
11:15:15 There was an error mentioned in the letter of
11:15:17 opposition stating that the new franchisee will now be
11:15:23 obligated to wire all government buildings.
11:15:26 I think they will in fact be obligated to wire all
11:15:29 government buildings within the city.
11:15:31 Not withstanding our view that we do not have a level
11:15:33 playing field problem we aregoing to listen to
11:15:36 positions in that regard at any time, and if we
11:15:38 believe there is a problem, we will come to you with a
11:15:41 corrective Maurer.
11:15:42 It is virtually impossible to negotiate two agreements
11:15:46 of this complexity at the same time.
11:15:49 When one is an incumbent and the other is seeking to
11:15:52 compete, there is incentives in that process that
11:15:55 could protract the negotiations which would not be
11:15:58 beneficial to the consuming public.
11:16:00 I think the most important consideration we have today
11:16:03 is what can we do to create that competition, and
11:16:07 create it quickly as long as we have viable, valid
11:16:10 entities providing that competition.
11:16:13 Finally, I would say that I think we should not get
11:16:17 distracted by the PEG issues.
11:16:20 If we need to consider that I would recommend that we
11:16:22 do that at an appropriate time, bring in all the
11:16:25 appropriate personnel before you, including the staff
11:16:27 who handled those issues in the city, and the state
11:16:30 holders who are involved in those issues.
11:16:32 The issue today is simply whether or not to grant this
11:16:36 franchise. The franchise that is exist require we
11:16:39 have parallel PEG provision.
11:16:41 On that basis we are recommending your approval of
11:16:42 this franchise agreement as it is before you now.
11:16:45 Thank you very much.
11:16:47 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Smith, I asked you for a bullet
11:16:52 comparison between the Verizon deal that the county
11:16:55 negotiated and the one proposed to us and I never
11:16:57 received that.
11:16:57 >>DAVID SMITH: Okay, you should have received that.
11:17:01 Do you have an extra copy of that?
11:17:09 The assistant city attorney Justin Vaske indicated to
11:17:13 me he provided it this morning.
11:17:14 Sorry it's so late but it's more complicated than you
11:17:17 might imagine.
11:17:39 Some of your questions may be answered by the
11:17:41 I'm happy to answer questions at this time.
11:17:43 But if would you like to hear from the others in the
11:17:45 audience that are here to speak that might be the best
11:17:47 use of your tame.
11:17:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
11:17:51 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
11:17:53 this item?
11:17:53 You may come up and speak now.
11:17:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a reminder as to your rules,
11:17:59 this is a nonquasi-judicial public hearing.
11:18:01 Council's rules ask for three minutes, also speaker
11:18:08 waiver form.
11:18:09 There is a speaker waiver form.
11:18:10 Will you please acknowledge your presence by waving
11:18:14 your hand?
11:18:14 Carla Foaling.
11:18:18 Laurie Edwards.
11:18:19 Brian Gall.
11:18:23 Three additional minutes.
11:18:25 >> I'm Howard Ciamporcero, president of the Southeast
11:18:30 Region of Verizon, 201 North Franklin, Tampa.
11:18:35 Madam Chairman, council members, I can't tell you how
11:18:37 pleased I am to be here today.
11:18:40 It's been a wait.
11:18:42 Everybody worked very hard and we are finally here.
11:18:44 This is the day.
11:18:45 Wired cable television service lowers prices and
11:18:49 improves service.
11:18:50 The federal communications commission, the general
11:18:52 accounting office, the consumer institute of America,
11:18:55 and most economists all agree, with new competition
11:19:01 prices will not only stop going up, and they have been
11:19:04 going up at a rate higher than inflation for the past
11:19:06 decade, they will begin to come down.
11:19:10 The FCC says between 15 and 40%.
11:19:13 We have already seen substantial discounts in
11:19:16 Hillsborough County and Temple Terrace where we begin
11:19:19 offering service.
11:19:21 Our competitor begins offering discounts.
11:19:25 If you approve the franchise today, we will begin
11:19:29 taking orders on Monday.
11:19:32 Let me say that again.
11:19:33 We are ready to begin taking orders on Monday.
11:19:36 For more than 40,000 homes.
11:19:39 Sulphur Springs, Seminole Heights, Beach Park,
11:19:43 Wellcraft, Hyde Park and the city areas of university,
11:19:46 Temple Terrace and Wesley chapel.
11:19:49 We will be out there very quickly.
11:19:54 Great respect for the incumbent, by the way.
11:19:58 They have said pretty much in every jurisdiction we
11:20:00 have gone into, let's not rush into anything.
11:20:03 We need some delay.
11:20:04 We need a week.
11:20:05 We need a month.
11:20:06 We need three months.
11:20:07 We need six months.
11:20:08 Whatever it is, their biggest concern is keeping us
11:20:13 from getting on the ground and showing people what we
11:20:16 Please do not listen to that siren song.
11:20:19 We have already gotany approvals in most of the
11:20:21 surrounding communities.
11:20:23 Just this week in Pasco County, a couple months ago in
11:20:26 Hillsborough and Manatee counties, as well as the
11:20:28 cities of Temple Terrace and Bradenton.
11:20:31 And I can tell you the public loves to have a choice.
11:20:34 They may not choose us.
11:20:36 They maychas them.
11:20:37 But they love to have the choice.
11:20:41 The incumbent may try to tell you that the franchise
11:20:44 doesn't meet level playing field concerns.
11:20:46 I want to tell you that there are things that we do in
11:20:48 our franchise that are significantly different from
11:20:53 what they do, and they do more.
11:20:54 For example, our system is an all-fiber, underground,
11:20:58 essentially storm-proof system, very high capacity.
11:21:02 It's 860 megahertz just for TV.
11:21:06 The incumbent has 750 megahertz and they can include
11:21:10 data in that, I believe.
11:21:11 So it's a state-of-the-art, much better system than
11:21:16 any system in the country.
11:21:18 Not theirs.
11:21:19 They are a good company, they have a good system.
11:21:21 But it's better than any technology that's out there.
11:21:27 Our franchise provides for two additional PEG channels
11:21:30 when we go digital.
11:21:32 Theirs does not.
11:21:33 Our franchise is guaranteed, even if the law changes.
11:21:36 And you know I have been up in Tallahassee the last
11:21:38 month trying to make some adjustments in the law
11:21:41 because there's so many franchise utilities out there.
11:21:46 This dole locks Tampa in to a deal whether the law
11:21:51 changes or not.
11:21:52 Their franchise doesn't do that.
11:21:54 If the city and the incumbent want to sit down and
11:21:58 talk about adjusting PEG requirements or PEG support,
11:22:02 we are happy to do that.
11:22:03 And anytime anybody wants to talk.
11:22:05 But please, don't let anyone tell you that it requires
11:22:07 a delay.
11:22:10 We have been, I think, a good corporate citizen in
11:22:12 We trade to be.
11:22:13 We have invested more than $250 million in this
11:22:17 And by the way, if he would don't get the right to do
11:22:19 TV, we can't do that anymore.
11:22:21 It only makes sense to put this network in, if you can
11:22:25 do telephone data and television.
11:22:29 It's one of the biggest public works projects in the
11:22:32 We can only go forward if we can provide all the
11:22:34 services over it.
11:22:37 We give to local charities.
11:22:38 You know, we don't look for a lot of recognition for
11:22:41 But we give about a million dollars a year to local
11:22:45 We employ more than 5,000 people in the city.
11:22:48 And we have hired and trained another 500 people just
11:22:53 to do this, to go into the video business.
11:22:56 We have been training day and night.
11:22:58 We have been training in three shifts.
11:23:00 They are ready to go.
11:23:01 Please give us the chance to show the public what we
11:23:03 can do.
11:23:05 Finally, I want to thank city staff, particularly
11:23:09 David who has worked very hard on this.
11:23:10 The reason -- one of the reasons it took awhile is
11:23:13 that our technology is very different, and a -- and a
11:23:18 franchise is a very complicated piece of legalese.
11:23:21 So it has to be adjusted for the different
11:23:27 That's taken awhile.
11:23:28 But it's been done.
11:23:29 Everybody has been diligent about that.
11:23:31 We really appreciate everyone's work.
11:23:34 So thank you very much.
11:23:35 It's a great day for Tampa.
11:23:37 And I beg you to give us the business, let us show
11:23:44 everybody what we can do.
11:23:45 Thank you very much.
11:23:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
11:23:50 The city has suffered from torn-up yards and broken
11:23:56 pipes in the last year or so.
11:24:00 And I know you all have tried your best.
11:24:02 But it's just a function of going into a very crowded
11:24:05 And frankly you have improved greatly in that regard.
11:24:09 So we have all lived with those broken pipes and
11:24:12 busted up yards in the name of competition and lower
11:24:16 At the beginning of the presentation you indicated
11:24:19 prices might be dropping.
11:24:21 But I think the big question to both you and your
11:24:25 competitor Bright House is when are we going to see
11:24:32 lower prices, the tangible results of this
11:24:36 >>> Monday.
11:24:37 Good question, and the answer is immediately.
11:24:39 Because we will begin offering right away 180 channels
11:24:44 expanded basic for $39.
11:24:45 That is an improvement, as I understand it, over what
11:24:48 is currently out there.
11:24:49 And when we have begun to make that offer, for
11:24:52 example, Temple Terrace, if you call in and say I'd
11:24:55 like to disconnect Bright House because I want to buy
11:24:59 Verizon, my understanding is that they immediately
11:25:02 offer a discount, a fairly substantial discount.
11:25:05 So as I say, when will you see the benefits?
11:25:08 You will see them on Monday if you go today for us.
11:25:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
11:25:12 Well, I hope you're correct.
11:25:14 Because I think what we saw in the telephone business,
11:25:19 in the big picture telephone business, lots of
11:25:22 promises that competition was going to reduce prices
11:25:25 but I'm not really sure that any of us really saw
11:25:28 And I'm not criticizing Verizon but nationwide, I
11:25:31 don't know.
11:25:32 There was so much trading of companies and everybody
11:25:35 buying and selling each other, didn't really go down
11:25:40 to the average concern but I'll be optimistic and
11:25:43 hopefully if we pass this hopefully on Monday we'll
11:25:45 see better prices.
11:25:47 >>> Thank you.
11:25:47 And better service.
11:25:48 The service is different as well.
11:25:50 It moves people to improve their service.
11:25:52 When we begin selling data, bright house immediately
11:25:56 upgraded it's network and its service: So I think you
11:26:00 see both price and service benefits.
11:26:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.
11:26:04 When this was first proposed, I heard a few concerns
11:26:07 from the community that you all were going to sort of
11:26:09 cherry pick neighborhoods that you were going to go
11:26:11 and install service in the affluent neighborhoods and
11:26:14 disregard the less affluent neighborhoods.
11:26:16 Can you address this?
11:26:18 >>> Yes.
11:26:19 Well, that is only an issue really at the state level
11:26:23 where the legislation didn't have the buildup.
11:26:27 In Tampa, we are required to build out.
11:26:30 And in fact we began building out very quickly in
11:26:33 Seminole Heights, Sulphur Springs, East Tampa.
11:26:35 If you go -- I think anybody who has been out on the
11:26:39 streets, we have been there and we are going to
11:26:41 continue to be there.
11:26:42 Our plan to build out the entire city as fast as we
11:26:46 And we started -- the first place we started is the
11:26:49 university, which those are not all rich neighborhoods
11:26:53 as you know.
11:26:53 We go by wire center, not neighborhood.
11:26:55 And the wire centers typically cover very diverse
11:27:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Alvarez.
11:27:03 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
11:27:05 Good to see you again.
11:27:15 In the thing that you showed us here, I see where
11:27:17 Verizon and the agreement with Hillsborough County has
11:27:19 basic -- tier to the next level.
11:27:23 What does that mean?
11:27:24 >>> Could you repeat that?
11:27:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The Verizon Florida agreement with
11:27:29 Hillsborough County has basic tier plus next level and
11:27:35 it says tier agreement for the City of Tampa.
11:27:39 Will you tell us what that means?
11:27:40 >>> I assume you are referring to the free service
11:27:43 that we provide to city buildings?
11:27:50 Oh, okay.
11:27:53 This I think is what you want.
11:27:54 You want your PEG channels to be on the basic tier to
11:27:59 make sure everybody gets them.
11:28:06 >> What's the next level?
11:28:08 >> Next level would be expanded basic.
11:28:18 >> When negotiating the franchises -- I apologize for
11:28:21 not knowing the details.
11:28:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's okay.
11:28:25 >> I haven't seen it before right now but I think your
11:28:27 question, you were asking what this basic, the next
11:28:34 level means.
11:28:35 I think that refers to language that's in the
11:28:38 Hillsborough agreement about the level of service
11:28:40 being provided to public buildings.
11:28:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Just public buildings?
11:28:45 >>> I believe so, yes.
11:28:48 Again, can you point out where that is to me?
11:28:50 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Where it says the location of PEG
11:28:54 >>: Oh, I'm sorry.
11:28:56 My answer was incorrect.
11:28:57 I apologize.
11:28:59 This refers to the location of the PEG channels in the
11:29:04 channel lineup.
11:29:04 Okay, the location of the PEG channels, in the channel
11:29:07 lineup for both the City of Tampa and Hillsborough
11:29:10 County, is in the basic service field.
11:29:15 It's in the basic service field.
11:29:17 I don't know why this is written that way.
11:29:20 >>JUSTIN VASKE: Legal department.
11:29:24 That references levels in this -- what that was
11:29:30 referring to is discuss the service that Verizon would
11:29:33 give to public facilities.
11:29:36 >>> I think the point that's important here is is to
11:29:39 make sure the widest range of subscribers are able to
11:29:43 see the PEG channels.
11:29:45 And both in Hillsborough County and in here in the
11:29:48 city, we have contractually promised that our PEG
11:29:52 channels and all of this government programming will
11:29:56 be on the basic tier, meaning that anyone who
11:29:59 subscribes to only the basic service, or the basic
11:30:02 service expanded and premium service, will be able to
11:30:08 see City Council meetings and the like.
11:30:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Have you all already started servicing
11:30:16 facilities, or new service to -- because I've heard
11:30:21 some people say that they do have Verizon, but they
11:30:23 don't get the channels yet.
11:30:27 >>> Okay.
11:30:29 Until we have a cable franchise, we can't offer cable
11:30:33 That's why we spent so much time in negotiating a
11:30:36 franchise with the city, because the law says, without
11:30:40 a cable franchise, you can't offer cable.
11:30:43 That's the whole point of why we are here today.
11:30:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you very much.
11:30:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena had a question about PEG
11:30:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: People keep saying PEG channels.
11:30:58 >>> It's P. E. G.
11:31:01 It stands for public, educational and governmental
11:31:05 And what the whole PEG discussion is about is pursuant
11:31:09 to federal law, when cable provider comes into a
11:31:14 community to offer cable services, the cable provider
11:31:18 has an obligation to make sure its fulfilling
11:31:22 community needs.
11:31:24 So the city would have a community needs assessment,
11:31:29 came to Verizon, and said, look, this is the type of
11:31:33 public, educational and governmental programming that
11:31:36 we want to make sure all residents have access to.
11:31:40 So we said, okay.
11:31:42 And we provide, pursuant to our agreement, six PEG
11:31:48 Then the city said, well, look, in the fought, there
11:31:51 may even be more public, educational and governmental
11:31:55 programming that we want to share with our residents.
11:31:58 And we said, okay.
11:32:00 If that's the case, when we go all digital in the
11:32:03 future, if the city needs more PEG channels, we'll
11:32:06 provide two more.
11:32:08 If the city does not, then we won't.
11:32:13 So that's up to the city.
11:32:14 City's choice.
11:32:15 >> Is the PEG channel included in the packet?
11:32:18 >>> Is the PEG channel included in the packet?
11:32:20 The PEGs are listed in the proposed agreement in one
11:32:23 of the -- they are T PEG channels are listed in one of
11:32:26 the exhibits.
11:32:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Going to the PEG channels I think
11:32:34 it's pretty clear part of the basic service, as they
11:32:36 should be, and on the existing service, they are
11:32:40 conveniently located at channels 15 through 23.
11:32:44 Close to the networks.
11:32:47 22, 23?
11:32:50 >>MARY ALVAREZ: 23 is TBS.
11:32:55 I'll watch it.
11:32:57 >> But TBN is part of the -- oh, TBS.
11:33:04 Turner. Anyway, but the PEG channels are located near
11:33:09 the community networks at the bottom of the dials, no
11:33:12 one says "dials" anymore.
11:33:15 Will your service conveniently locate the channels
11:33:17 near the networks?
11:33:19 >>> We will use our best efforts to make sure that the
11:33:25 public, educational and governmental channels are
11:33:27 conveniently located.
11:33:29 We can't necessarily promise that they will be in the
11:33:31 exact same spot that they are in today, because our
11:33:34 network, unlike the incumbent's network, is not
11:33:38 limited just to the city.
11:33:40 It's broader.
11:33:40 So we try to slot -- we use our best efforts to slot
11:33:44 the PEG channels at a most convenient location.
11:33:48 They will be in the basic tier, so available to
11:33:52 But we can't guarantee they'll be on 15, 8, whatever
11:33:56 those exact --
11:33:57 >> Would they be in the bottom 30 or 40?
11:34:00 >> Yes.
11:34:01 In that basic package.
11:34:02 So if you have in the basic package let's say 30
11:34:06 channels, they will be within that 30 and conveniently
11:34:10 It's our goal to make sure that the basic subscribers
11:34:14 have access to them.
11:34:19 >> And we are going to try to provide a competitive
11:34:21 We know some people like the service.
11:34:23 We are going to put it into place.
11:34:24 That's the great asset of competition here.
11:34:28 We are going to try to make it more convenient rather
11:34:30 than less convenient.
11:34:33 >> Will you put your name on the record for me,
11:34:37 >>> Alan Ciamporcero, Verizon.
11:34:42 >> My name is Allison Hicks.
11:34:48 >>GWEN MILLER: A couple questions.
11:34:50 First of all, the Peg channels.
11:34:54 Are we talking about like the City of Tampa government
11:34:57 channel, like Tampa City Council and all of those
11:35:00 other channels will be viewed on Verizon if that is
11:35:08 >>> Yes.
11:35:09 >> Second of all, this is for you, maybe Mr. Smith can
11:35:13 chime in at any time.
11:35:14 One of the things that concerns me, and maybe it's a
11:35:19 point of clarification only, is the fairness and
11:35:24 equitable issues that Mr. Smith says that should be
11:35:30 totally clear, or our legal staff has no problem with.
11:35:36 You need to clear that up for me, because that's
11:35:39 something that I'm having a little bit of an issue
11:35:43 Well, a big issue, not a little issue.
11:35:46 Bright House when they came in with their initial
11:35:49 agreement, I believe 6.5 million, and Verizon having
11:35:55 one million.
11:35:56 So if you could just clarify some of the points that
11:36:00 you're saying that it is a fair, equal and local
11:36:04 playing field, and just seamed so on its surface.
11:36:09 So if there's something underlying that makes that,
11:36:12 please explain to me.
11:36:15 >>> Let me give you some background. The level
11:36:17 playing field statute indicates that a determination
11:36:20 is made by looking at the agreement in its entirety,
11:36:22 not any given provision, but in its entirety.
11:36:26 And you need to look at the agreement in its current
11:36:30 When the Bright House franchise agreement was
11:36:32 negotiated, they had somewhere between 60 and 70,000
11:36:36 Verizon has none.
11:36:38 >> Absolutely.
11:36:38 >>> So it depends on how you wish to analyze the
11:36:42 But all our analysis is quite candidly, I don't want
11:36:46 to say this with Verizon here, we have a better deal
11:36:48 with Verizon.
11:36:49 I think they are going to pay more over time and maybe
11:36:53 revisit that issue with us. But we try to calculate
11:36:55 it on a basis but also took into account their
11:36:58 buildout and yearn-out.
11:37:00 Even though they are paying a million dollars with no
11:37:02 subscribers, the first calculation, in our opinion,
11:37:06 will yield an equal to or perhaps even better present
11:37:09 value return than will Bright House.
11:37:13 But to the extent that appears to be an issue we'll
11:37:15 address that in the future.
11:37:17 When you're trying to create a comparable analysis
11:37:21 that deals with dollars, you always try to reconvert
11:37:24 to the present value or some other kind of common
11:37:26 In this instance, you're also dealing with certain
11:37:29 assumptions, certain anticipated market penetrations,
11:37:33 and other kinds of considerations.
11:37:34 This analysis was done not by me but my John McGraft
11:37:40 of our department that works in this area.
11:37:41 And he indicated that this analysis is certainly one
11:37:47 we can agree to, and that it does meet the level
11:37:50 playing field requirement in terms of parity.
11:37:53 I know that's a little bit off key.
11:37:57 It's a little complicated.
11:37:59 >>KEVIN WHITE: Maybe I can better understand it.
11:38:02 We are equating this, we are -- Verizon is a very
11:38:06 known commodity to our community for phone service.
11:38:09 But unknown to the cable industry.
11:38:12 So bear with me for a second.
11:38:15 But we are trying to get an unknown the ability to be
11:38:20 able to compete in the fair marketplace, in a known
11:38:30 But giving them an opportunity to come in, based off
11:38:33 of the dollar amount up front.
11:38:35 But they are offering other things underlining to try
11:38:39 to make that fair and equitable, is what you're
11:38:42 saying, I think.
11:38:43 >>> I want to make sure that I'm clear, that it is our
11:38:45 analysis --
11:38:48 >>KEVIN WHITE: Equitiability status just on the --
11:38:51 just on the dollar amount.
11:38:52 It's among several other things.
11:38:56 And what Verizon is saying they are going to provide
11:38:58 the community, and other issues.
11:39:02 >>> But I don't want to mislead you. The dollars are
11:39:04 very important to that analysis and our view is we
11:39:06 have reached an essentially comparable approach with
11:39:09 Verizon when compared to Bright House.
11:39:12 And you take into account all the factors relevant to
11:39:15 the business.
11:39:15 But one thing I should do, we should probably also
11:39:18 give Verizon an opportunity to speak to that issue.
11:39:20 They may have different views than I do.
11:39:22 Because I know Bright House will speak to it.
11:39:23 >>KEVIN WHITE: I understand.
11:39:28 I'm just teetering here a bit.
11:39:32 I'm just trying to be -- each petitioner that comes
11:39:40 before us.
11:39:41 And maybe if I were Bright House I would be asking for
11:39:44 some of my money back.
11:39:45 >> They probably will be.
11:39:48 >> And in the spirit of courtesy, you're probably --
11:39:55 right, it probably will be.
11:39:56 I'll listen to the rest of the presentation.
11:39:58 But I just feel that --
11:40:00 >> Do rest assured we know we have that obligation.
11:40:03 We are obligated by law to end up with a level playing
11:40:05 field that does not provide an unfair, competitive
11:40:08 advantage to either the incumbent oh or the new
11:40:13 And Bright House is very articulate, they are well
11:40:16 I will be speaking with them I'm sure in the future.
11:40:18 And if they convince us we need to make changes, we
11:40:21 will make changes.
11:40:22 And so we want to have opportunities to address this
11:40:25 But baste on -- based on all the relevant data we have
11:40:29 before us today we agree we meet the level playing
11:40:32 field requirement.
11:40:32 >> And let there be no doubt that the competition is a
11:40:36 very healthy thing, and I have absolutely no problem
11:40:40 with competition in this free trade society.
11:40:43 I want to make sure that everybody again --
11:40:54 >> Yes, sir.
11:40:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison?
11:40:59 >>SHAWN HARRISON: As one of the people who had their
11:41:00 yard torn up seems about two years ago, I have been
11:41:03 anxiously awaiting this day when all of that work was
11:41:08 going to actually start to reap some benefits.
11:41:10 Here is my question for you, Mr. Ciamporcero.
11:41:15 We all want competition and we want to the start on
11:41:19 You all have negotiated a deal with the county
11:41:22 recently that is different than the one that is being
11:41:28 proposed here today.
11:41:29 And I understand when you go into any new
11:41:32 jurisdiction, you negotiate from the beginning.
11:41:37 You try to get the best deal for you.
11:41:40 And the city tries to get the best deal for the city.
11:41:42 And in the meantime, it's our job up here to make sure
11:41:46 the residents and taxpayers are getting the best deal
11:41:49 that we can get for them.
11:41:51 And that may not necessarily be what has been
11:41:56 So here's my question.
11:41:58 The initial Peg and I-Net grant of a million dollars
11:42:03 that you all are paying the city, is that going to be
11:42:06 passed through to your customers?
11:42:08 >>> Yes, it will.
11:42:09 And federal law provides that that's a right of anyone
11:42:14 providing cable service.
11:42:15 >> Okay.
11:42:16 And the 65-cent should be.
11:42:20 I have no qualms about that.
11:42:21 The additional 65-cent per subscriber per month that
11:42:26 the city is charging you that the county is not, will
11:42:29 that also be passed through to your consumers?
11:42:31 >>> Yes, it will.
11:42:32 >> And how much does it cost you to have a Peg channel
11:42:35 per year?
11:42:39 >>> You know, our system is very different.
11:42:41 It's got a lot of capacity.
11:42:43 What the cable industry has said as recently as a
11:42:46 couple weeks ago up in Tallahassee is it cost them
11:42:49 about a million dollars of channel.
11:42:50 I don't know what it's cost because our system is so
11:42:55 very different.
11:42:56 I don't think it's anything like a million dollars.
11:42:57 But it's significant.
11:42:58 >> Okay.
11:43:00 And whatever that number is, is that a cost of doing
11:43:03 business that gets passed on to consumers?
11:43:05 >>> I think in a competitive market, absolutely every
11:43:08 cost that any competitor has, there's no monopoly
11:43:11 margin to skim off basically.
11:43:15 It's all a cost.
11:43:17 We are going to pass it through.
11:43:18 They are going to pass it through one way or another,
11:43:21 >> Okay.
11:43:23 There is no monopoly anymore.
11:43:25 >> No.
11:43:25 >> There's been a monopoly for several years.
11:43:28 There is none anymore.
11:43:29 And in a different way, for all of us now.
11:43:31 And the old ways of doing business when you had a
11:43:34 monopoly, they don't apply anymore.
11:43:39 I'll save that thought for later in this discussion
11:43:42 but thank you for being honest about those
11:43:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:43:45 Next speaker.
11:43:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Speaker waiver form.
11:44:00 One minute. Christian Carvelo.
11:44:06 One minute.
11:44:07 Thank you.
11:44:08 >>> Good morning, council members.
11:44:09 Steve Anderson.
11:44:11 With Ruden McClosky representing Bright House
11:44:19 We have great respect for Verizon and their team.
11:44:22 We welcome them to City of Tampa.
11:44:25 We have already welcomed them to Hillsborough County.
11:44:28 And we welcome the competition that they will bring
11:44:36 once they come to you, when the city attorney's office
11:44:40 comes to you with a contract that complies with the
11:44:43 Florida statutes 166.046 states in part: No
11:44:50 municipality or county shall grant any overlapping
11:44:55 franchises for cable service within its jurisdiction
11:44:59 on terms or conditions more favorable, or less
11:45:03 burdensome, than those in any existing franchise
11:45:07 within such municipality.
11:45:10 Very simple.
11:45:12 It's called a level playing field law.
11:45:14 And it's intended to do just that.
11:45:16 Create a level playing field.
11:45:19 Specific words that are significant, that go to some
11:45:23 of the comments that have been made this morning.
11:45:26 No municipality shall grant -- doesn't say the
11:45:30 municipality won't allow a franchise to exist for ten
11:45:33 years that turns out not to be fair.
11:45:37 It says it won't enter into a franchise agreement that
11:45:41 is not level.
11:45:47 And that's our problem today with this deal.
11:45:49 We hate to be here because we truly do not have a
11:45:52 problem with Verizon being here.
11:45:54 We really would prefer not to be asking for a delay
11:45:57 for Verizon.
11:45:58 But we do have a very substantial problem with
11:46:02 provisions of this franchise agreement.
11:46:06 The Verizon agreement before you does not comply with
11:46:09 the level playing field law.
11:46:11 In addition to the $2.7 million annually that Bright
11:46:14 House pays directly to the City of Tampa as a
11:46:19 communications service tax, in addition to that, the
11:46:21 city would require Bright House to pay $6.25 million,
11:46:30 but with the -- over the term of the franchise.
11:46:33 That money is due and payable, most of it has already
11:46:36 been paid, regardless of whether Bright House has
11:46:41 70,000 customers or ten.
11:46:44 Regardless of whether Britt house networks makes a
11:46:47 profit or loses money.
11:46:49 That's $6.25 million is due and payable on definite
11:46:53 dates, with no contingencies whatsoever.
11:46:57 Verizon, on the other hand, must only pay $1 million
11:47:01 initially in fixed payments.
11:47:03 The remainder as you heard is 65 cents per customer.
11:47:09 I would also like out to you that Verizon under the
11:47:12 terms of this agreement may terminate its franchise
11:47:14 agreement, move out of the city, cease doing business
11:47:16 in the city, after three years if it determines that
11:47:19 it's not making enough money.
11:47:21 That's a provision we don't have either.
11:47:25 In order to pay the amount, the differential between
11:47:29 the 6.25 and the 1 million, in order to make up that
11:47:33 over $5 million, Verizon will have to achieve market
11:47:37 penetration levels unheard of.
11:47:42 Unheard of
11:47:49 We can provide some specific examples if council
11:47:51 But let me just say that the numbers of customers they
11:47:54 would have to have would represent an absolutely
11:47:59 unheard of market penetration anywhere in the country
11:48:02 by any new franchisee.
11:48:05 But the point is this, putting that issue aside.
11:48:09 If they don't achieve that historical market
11:48:13 penetration in Tampa, Florida, they don't have to pay.
11:48:18 If they only get a thousand customers, they only have
11:48:20 to pay 65 cents per customer.
11:48:26 And they don't have to pay until they get these
11:48:30 It's not a level playing field.
11:48:31 It's not fair.
11:48:32 I couldn't imagine a more significant differential or
11:48:41 Could I have another three?
11:48:43 >>SHAWN HARRISON: That was it.
11:48:44 How much longer?
11:48:47 >>> I'm sorry, I thought I had two.
11:48:48 I requested --
11:48:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Speaker waiver form?
11:48:54 >>> I have about two more minutes.
11:48:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to waive the rule, three more
11:49:01 >> Second.
11:49:01 (Motion carried).
11:49:02 >>> Thank you very much for that courtesy.
11:49:06 I'll make it quick.
11:49:09 For two years, my client has been asking for meetings
11:49:12 with policy level decision makers at the City of
11:49:15 We have great respect for the legal staff and Mr.
11:49:19 But you've seen the letters that we have sent over the
11:49:22 last year and a half.
11:49:23 There have been other requests, to please bring Bright
11:49:26 House to the table before the Verizon deal was brought
11:49:29 to you.
11:49:30 So that issues like this could be avoided.
11:49:33 For two years we've asked for that basic consideration
11:49:37 so that we would have a level playing field.
11:49:40 But now the issue has been laid in your lap.
11:49:44 I would like to clarify, it's already been said,
11:49:48 competition is here, competition is great.
11:49:50 We are competing, in Verizon's markets.
11:49:53 They are competing in ours.
11:49:55 This is not about stopping competition.
11:49:57 This is about making sure we have competition.
11:50:01 Because, ladies and gentlemen, competition only works
11:50:04 if there is a level playing field.
11:50:07 There's a reason for that law.
11:50:09 Verizon could come in and offer competition.
11:50:12 We can talk about it all day.
11:50:13 But if the two parties are not operating on equal
11:50:17 terms, on very substantial items like this, there is
11:50:21 no competition.
11:50:24 We're not here to thwart it.
11:50:27 We are not here to slow it down.
11:50:29 You've heard that Mr. Smith did indicate he thought it
11:50:32 would be impossible to negotiate two such contracts
11:50:37 Hillsborough County just completed it three months
11:50:40 As a result of Hillsborough County completing
11:50:44 negotiation was Verizon, and negotiations with us,
11:50:47 almost simultaneously, Hillsborough County has two
11:50:53 franchise agreements that are almost identical.
11:50:55 Very, very similar in nature.
11:50:56 And their chances of having to experience protracted
11:51:04 extensive litigation are remote as a result.
11:51:06 Maybe it involves a little extra effort but it sure
11:51:08 worked there, and I believe it would work here.
11:51:11 Thank you for your consideration and allowing me the
11:51:15 I would just say, we would ask that this council not
11:51:18 approve the Verizon contract, send it back to the city
11:51:21 attorney with directions to bring Bright House to the
11:51:25 table and present you ultimately with a contract that
11:51:31 is on a level playing field.
11:51:34 Thank you.
11:51:34 >>CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dingfelder?
11:51:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Anderson, right now you folks
11:51:40 have about, what, 60, 80,000 customers?
11:51:43 >> 79,000.
11:51:44 >>: 79,000.
11:51:46 By my calculation, if Verizon had 80,000 customers --
11:51:52 and I'm not saying that's necessarily possible,
11:51:56 competing probably for the same customers, but if they
11:51:58 did, if my math is correct, you multiply the 80 that
11:52:01 you times 65 cents a month it you have probably done
11:52:07 some of the math, 600,000 dollars a year, over ten
11:52:11 years, $6 million over 15 years, $9 million.
11:52:16 So none of us have a crystal ball.
11:52:19 We don't know where these customers are going or if
11:52:22 there are going to be more customers but at the end of
11:52:24 the day it sounds like we are in sort of the same
11:52:27 ballpark, in the millions of dollars.
11:52:30 >> Well, Mr. Dingfelder, my math isn't any better than
11:52:33 Thanks for raising that. But we have 79 that you
11:52:37 Sat late has another 27.
11:52:39 The universe of customers is finite.
11:52:42 It's approximately 110,000 customers out there in
11:52:45 Tampa, in the City of Tampa.
11:52:46 So we have got 79.
11:52:48 Satellite has 27.
11:52:51 How is Verizon going to get 80?
11:52:54 I mean, yeah, they may chip into our market some.
11:52:56 They may chip into satellite some.
11:52:59 But they are certainly not going to take 100% of our
11:53:02 customers, nor are they going to take 100% of
11:53:07 And --
11:53:09 >> I guess my point is, that Mr. Smith and his staff
11:53:12 working on this for the last year or six months or
11:53:15 whatever it's been, this number 65 cents didn't come
11:53:19 out of no where.
11:53:20 I think it probably came out of an attempt to balance
11:53:25 the playing field with some numbers that came close.
11:53:29 And again, it's never going to be precise.
11:53:31 But it does sound like it's in the multiple millions
11:53:36 of dollars over a 15 years amortization.
11:53:38 >> But it can be precise, Mr. Dingfelder.
11:53:41 That is exactly the point.
11:53:42 What you're talking about is crystal balling it and
11:53:46 who knows?
11:53:47 I can tell you from all the studies we have done
11:53:48 around the country, their penetration is not going to
11:53:51 come anywhere close to what you're talking about.
11:53:54 And they are a great company and they are going to
11:53:57 market the heck out of it and they are going to do the
11:53:59 best job they can.
11:54:00 But I defy Mr. Smith or Allen or any anyone else to
11:54:06 get up and show you a model, show you a study that
11:54:09 demonstrates that they can achieve market penetration
11:54:12 within the next three years that would equal what
11:54:15 we're paying.
11:54:18 We are in the business.
11:54:18 Bright House is in the business.
11:54:20 I have asked repeatedly.
11:54:21 There are no such models that would support this.
11:54:23 So you get back to crystal balling it, and that's our
11:54:27 point. The law says you won't grant a franchise that
11:54:32 is substantially different and being better.
11:54:34 You can have exactly the same thing.
11:54:38 Verizon should pay $6.25 million, without any
11:54:42 contingencies, just as Bright House has had to do.
11:54:45 What's wrong with that?
11:54:46 Are you going to, as Verizon comes in the market
11:54:50 beings are we going to then get a reduction?
11:54:53 That's not in our agreement.
11:54:54 We pay you whether we have got the customers or not.
11:55:01 >> When you're done I probably would ask Mr.
11:55:03 Ciamporcero to respond to that as to why they would
11:55:07 not recommend the 6 million up front as opposed to
11:55:11 trying to spread this out.
11:55:12 >> I would suggest because they want the best deal
11:55:14 they can get and it's a better deal than we got and
11:55:17 you combine the 65 cents, which is, hey, if we do good
11:55:22 we'll pay, with the three-year out period.
11:55:28 What you have is a very disproportionate or
11:55:31 unweighted, unbalanced set-up here.
11:55:38 I want to say, we are not here opposing Verizon.
11:55:41 And I truly hate the fact that we are here having this
11:55:48 Because it is not us against Verizon.
11:55:50 It is really Bright House saying, City of Tampa, you
11:55:55 haven't treated us fairly, and you're asking us to
11:55:58 compete in a very unbalanced field.
11:56:02 Thank you.
11:56:03 >>CHAIRMAN: Mr. White?
11:56:04 >>KEVIN WHITE: Madam Chair.
11:56:08 Mr. Anderson just touched on some of the things that I
11:56:10 was going to ask, was there a performance model or a
11:56:18 sales marketing sampling.
11:56:21 And even so, I believe the number you said was 79 that
11:56:25 you customers that you all have currently.
11:56:28 Even if you take that projection, that you are going
11:56:33 to wipe out 50% of Bright House's market.
11:56:39 Those numbers still don't equate.
11:56:42 But the question is for legal, Mr. Smith, if I didn't
11:56:47 read this portion, is this an actual opt-out option,
11:56:50 if you will, that this agreement is given to Verizon,
11:56:54 if it doesn't work within three years, you all can
11:56:58 pack your bags, you all don't owe us anything and we
11:57:01 are done?
11:57:02 >>> They do have a termination provision that triggers
11:57:04 at the three-year mark, it's predicated to whether or
11:57:06 not they are going to be providing service nationwide
11:57:09 as well.
11:57:10 I think you need to look at that provision in the
11:57:12 context of economic reality.
11:57:15 If they are going to spend $250 million providing this
11:57:18 service, that's an unlikely prospect.
11:57:21 >> How much is that number again?
11:57:22 >>> I believe Mr. Ciamporcero said about 250 million
11:57:27 into their network.
11:57:27 >> They are going to spend 250 million, 1.65 to jump
11:57:32 out and make it even.
11:57:36 That's a very, very valid question.
11:57:38 >>> It's a valid question but it presupposes that the
11:57:40 dollars they are paying back are less.
11:57:43 All you have currently is the testimony of a person
11:57:45 who speaks to you as an advocate.
11:57:47 I think you need to listen to your staff.
11:57:49 I asked the same question.
11:57:50 Because I'm the one that has to defend this in court.
11:57:53 And that is the process that's been established.
11:57:56 For if we have a difference of opinion, the assertion
11:57:59 of what the economists say, what are the projections,
11:58:04 what are the present calculations.
11:58:06 Let me finish.
11:58:07 We are very concerned this is in fact a level playing
11:58:09 field because if it is not we have got a problem.
11:58:11 We believe it is.
11:58:12 I relayed on the people who advised me in this regard.
11:58:14 And I believed them.
11:58:16 And I have confidence in their ability.
11:58:18 If it isn't, there's a process we are establishing
11:58:21 whether or not it's a level playing field.
11:58:22 That process will be we either renegotiate if someone
11:58:26 convinces me that my folks are wrong, which I haven't
11:58:28 done yet, or we allow an independent arbiter to make
11:58:32 that determination.
11:58:33 He's called a judge.
11:58:34 The process that occurs in front of a judge is very
11:58:36 different than a process that occurs here.
11:58:39 We will have expert testimony.
11:58:40 We will have facts.
11:58:41 We will have cross-examination.
11:58:42 We'll have rebuttal.
11:58:43 We'll I think that's the appropriate venue where that
11:58:46 kind of decision is made.
11:58:47 I don't think you can do much more other than realize
11:58:51 that you have got two different people telling you two
11:58:53 different things.
11:58:53 Actual two people on one side, one person on the
11:58:58 >>KEVIN WHITE: Let me ask this, and then I guess we'll
11:59:00 probably go to lunch because it's after the noon hour.
11:59:05 I see Mr. Smith in the back.
11:59:08 We have rules printed in your docket that we will go
11:59:11 to lunch.
11:59:12 But Mr. Smith -- you threw me off there with all the
11:59:21 Oh, the litigation portion.
11:59:23 You are saying if we do this, you know, we possibly
11:59:26 face litigation, if we approve one.
11:59:29 Is there any possible -- any possibility of going to
11:59:33 litigation, if we don't?
11:59:36 And --
11:59:39 >>> If we don't what?
11:59:40 >> If we don't approve it right now.
11:59:43 We are sure that if we approve this today that Bright
11:59:45 House is going to sue us on the basis --
11:59:48 >>> I'm not sure of that.
11:59:49 >> Well, we may not be sure but it would be asserted.
11:59:54 And upon getting all the facts, after listening to
11:59:59 everyone, I want to move this off the table one way or
12:00:02 the other today is what I would personally really like
12:00:06 to do.
12:00:07 And hopefully make everybody happy in the interim.
12:00:11 But I'm just -- if we approve this, it appears Bright
12:00:16 House is saying we're harmed.
12:00:19 And I'm sorry, 5.5 million now is enough to make me as
12:00:27 an individual throw up a red flag.
12:00:31 Whether the level playing field is level or whether
12:00:34 just the assumption is there.
12:00:36 I'm just saying, let's please just come up with
12:00:42 You want me to listen to the administration side.
12:00:44 Give me something that Verizon -- that outweighs that
12:00:49 other 5.5 million and by the time we come back from
12:00:52 lunch, please.
12:00:53 I'm just saying, as this individual council member,
12:00:57 gather that stuff up while we are at lunch here, and
12:00:59 when we come back, please help me out.
12:01:04 I can't speak for anyone else.
12:01:06 But help me understand where that's coming from.
12:01:09 Because I want to move this forward.
12:01:11 And I want to move forward positively for everyone.
12:01:14 And I above all, the people that are watching us on
12:01:17 cable, I want my cable bill to go down.
12:01:20 However it has to do that I'm all for it.
12:01:22 If it's competition or whether Bright House needs to
12:01:24 readjust, whatever the case be, I'm all for
12:01:27 competition and fair trade.
12:01:29 >> I'll be happy to do that.
12:01:30 I think it would be important to understand the policy
12:01:32 that informs the -- forms the legislation which I will
12:01:36 do as well.
12:01:37 And I think Mr. Dingfelder had asked a question of Mr.
12:01:40 Ciamporcero that never had a chance to answer but I
12:01:43 assume in the sake of fairness, if you are going to
12:01:45 have two advocates you need to hear from both
12:01:48 So we'll do that after lunch as well.
12:01:53 >>SHAWN HARRISON: while we are all going to lunch and
12:01:54 thinking about things, why don't we look at at the
12:01:58 county deal?
12:01:59 Why don't we look at having the same deal for our
12:02:01 residents and Hillsborough County had.
12:02:03 And why don't we ask Bright House during that interim,
12:02:06 is that something you would accept as well?
12:02:12 >>> The issue really is whether or not we want to
12:02:14 reduce our PEG channels to be equivalent to
12:02:18 Hillsborough, if I am understanding you correctly.
12:02:20 My recommendation to you, I only have in front of dah
12:02:23 a franchise agreement that has been approved by the
12:02:25 administration, recommended to you for approval.
12:02:29 In my brief conversation was the administration, in
12:02:32 regard to making changes on PEG, I'm unprepared to do
12:02:35 that at this juncture.
12:02:37 If there is thought on council to revisit that in a
12:02:40 global way that's something within the purview of
12:02:43 council but not something that administration is going
12:02:44 to consider in the context of the franchise agreement.
12:02:47 They do not want to delay the competition.
12:02:49 So I think that issue is something that can be taken
12:02:51 up at the appropriate time later but I don't think
12:02:54 that's something that's going to be before you today.
12:02:56 I will be happy to make the phone calls.
12:02:58 But I think I know what the answer is going to be.
12:03:00 >>SHAWN HARRISON: It wouldn't delay anything.
12:03:02 It would many changing 6 to 4, and 65 cents to zero in
12:03:06 the contract.
12:03:07 >>> The problem is we don't have Bright House's
12:03:09 agreement before you.
12:03:10 And I will explain some of the flaws and the logic
12:03:12 that Mr. Anderson presented when we come back from
12:03:15 lunch in that regard as well.
12:03:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby?
12:03:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just to bring to council's attention
12:03:19 the noon hour.
12:03:20 >>GWEN MILLER: We are now in recess --
12:03:23 >>> Just a clarification.
12:03:24 If you change 65 cents to zero then that playing field
12:03:27 really -- the argument that Mr. Anderson makes really
12:03:31 takes off.
12:03:31 >>GWEN MILLER: 1:30. We are in recess until 1:30.
12:03:47 (Recess taken from 12:05 until 1:30 p.m. session)
13:38:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called back to
13:38:43 Roll call.
13:38:44 [Roll Call]
13:38:48 >>CHAIRMAN: Before we go back to our morning agenda,
13:38:51 we are going to do our committee reports.
13:38:54 Ms. Ferlita, would you kindly present your committee
13:38:56 report, please?
13:39:00 Page 4.
13:39:04 Public safety, Ms. Rose Ferlita.
13:39:08 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you.
13:39:09 Move resolutions 12 through 17, please.
13:39:12 >> Second.
13:39:12 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
13:39:14 (Motion carried).
13:39:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Public works, Rose Ferlita.
13:39:27 >>ROSE FERLITA: Okay, fine.
13:39:30 21 through 27, please.
13:39:32 >> Second.
13:39:33 >> Motion and second.
13:39:34 (Motion carried)
13:39:36 Finance Committee, Linda Saul-Sena.
13:39:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move resolutions 28 through 31.
13:39:42 >> Second.
13:39:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
13:39:44 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
13:39:46 Building and zoning, Linda Saul-Sena.
13:39:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move resolutions 32 through 43.
13:39:57 Excluding 41.
13:40:00 >> Motion and second.
13:40:01 (Motion carried).
13:40:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Transportation, Shawn Harrison.
13:40:07 >> Move 44.
13:40:08 >> Second.
13:40:08 (Motion carried).
13:40:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I go ahead and --
13:40:17 >> Parks and recreation.
13:40:18 >> Thank you.
13:40:18 Move resolutions 18 through 20.
13:40:22 >> Second.
13:40:22 (Motion carried).
13:40:23 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to wait a few minutes
13:40:26 before we go -- another councilman will be here.
13:40:30 Mr. David Smith is here, wants to come up and say
13:40:34 So we will go to Darrell Smith while we wait for
13:40:37 council members.
13:40:39 >> Good afternoon.
13:40:40 Darrell Smith, chief of staff.
13:40:42 I would like to take the opportunity to correct the
13:40:44 record from this morning's presentation having to do
13:40:47 with the military tax exemption discussion that we
13:40:53 During that discussion, I incorrectly reported 70
13:40:58 being the member of total applicants that have been
13:40:59 processed by the county.
13:41:03 70 is actually the number that the county projects as
13:41:07 the total that would come out each fiscal year from
13:41:10 the three municipalities being included in the revised
13:41:15 The total number processed to date by the county is
13:41:20 Significantly more than I had given you the impression
13:41:22 of this morning.
13:41:23 So I apologize for that mistake and will answer any
13:41:27 questions that you have.
13:41:29 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Smith, how many live in the city?
13:41:34 >> 371 from the unincorporated Hillsborough County,
13:41:37 and the city total so far, that have been processed,
13:41:41 26 have been paid, and 4 are pending payment at this
13:41:45 So so so it's less actually.
13:41:49 >>> Yes, ma'am.
13:41:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
13:41:51 Any questions?
13:41:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I really feel like we should -- we
13:42:06 should start.
13:42:06 >>GWEN MILLER: We still have several things to do.
13:42:10 Item number 63, Mr. Shelby?
13:42:23 Item 62.
13:42:24 We have two citizens who want to oppose the
13:42:26 continuance on item 62.
13:42:28 Are you still here?
13:42:29 Will you come up and tell us why, only against the
13:42:33 continuance, nothing else.
13:42:36 >>> 4041 Riverview Avenue.
13:42:40 And 4039 Riverview Avenue.
13:42:47 The reason we are objecting is that the neighborhood,
13:42:50 we are slowly but sugar being convinced that the
13:42:54 valued, our concern that these repeated requests for
13:42:57 continuance may be nothing more than a delaying tactic
13:43:03 of the petitioner to discourage the attendance and
13:43:05 wear down the original 20 neighbors that appeared
13:43:07 here, 20 neighbors that appeared here in objection of
13:43:11 the first scheduled meeting.
13:43:19 I believe this is the fourth time I have appeared, my
13:43:22 loss of time and funds, because of the impact this
13:43:24 will have on our neighborhood.
13:43:25 In conclusion, this large corporation has the
13:43:28 resources and has had the time to make their case.
13:43:32 They chose not to do so.
13:43:33 The fact they have chosen not to do so may in fact
13:43:36 shout out that they have no case or reason to rezone,
13:43:40 or basis to rezone.
13:43:43 20-plus neighbors have had it.
13:43:45 And we want this to come to an end.
13:43:48 I request denial of continuance.
13:43:53 It's just too much.
13:43:54 >>GWEN MILLER: For the record, Mr. Bentley is out of
13:43:59 the season, he's out of town is the reason he sent us
13:44:01 the letter.
13:44:02 >> As has been convenient to him on several other
13:44:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question of the staff.
13:44:07 I would like the staff to address how many requests
13:44:11 for continuance there has been on this and whether the
13:44:16 meetings are day meetings or night meetings.
13:44:18 Because I think another issue is for the ease of the
13:44:21 public in participation we should reschedule this, if
13:44:23 we do, for an evening meeting.
13:44:24 But I think council rule is three times and that's it.
13:44:29 >>THE CLERK: According to the record the first initial
13:44:31 public hearing was set for October 20th at 6 p.m.
13:44:35 At that night meeting it was requested to be continued
13:44:37 to February 9th at 6 p.m.
13:44:41 On February 9th.
13:44:50 On February 9th it was requested to be continued
13:44:53 to March 23rd at 6 p.m.
13:44:56 On March 23rd, it was continued to March 30th
13:45:00 at 11:15 a.m.
13:45:03 March 30th it was asked to be continued to May
13:45:09 >> How many continuances is that?
13:45:10 >> Five.
13:45:11 >> And I have been here at every one.
13:45:16 >>ROSE FERLITA: I want to listen to Ms. Saul-Sena.
13:45:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay, Ms. Saul-Sena.
13:45:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I respect you coming to so many
13:45:24 meetings to speak up for your community.
13:45:27 I know that it's the tradition of council to respect
13:45:31 requests that are moderate in number.
13:45:34 I think that these number of requests are immoderate.
13:45:38 And I can tell you that I'm going to move for denial.
13:45:41 But I'll bet you anything the petitioner will be back
13:45:43 at the subsequent council meeting asking for another
13:45:47 But I think that council has to be fair.
13:45:51 I think we have to be fair to the neighborhood as well
13:45:52 as the petitioner.
13:45:53 And I think October 20th, February 9th, March
13:45:56 23rd, March 30th, May 1st, enough.
13:45:59 >> This denial by council, that they can't come back,
13:46:09 let this denial by council be a a loud statement to
13:46:14 radiant that they cannot play with the council's or
13:46:16 the neighborhood's time.
13:46:18 These are neighborhood that paid 15, 18,000 plus in
13:46:22 property taxes.
13:46:23 We do not have the time to continue to play with this
13:46:31 >>ROSE FERLITA: Eights tough situation.
13:46:34 I know it's not a delay a lot of times, I'm not
13:46:39 requesting the credibility for representative to May
13:46:44 I agree with you, Ms. Saul-Sena, I think we have set a
13:46:47 precedent that said after a certain number of
13:46:50 However, the last time, if you recall, and if we
13:46:53 allowed another one, that's up to council to
13:46:55 determine, they were prepared to go forward with this
13:46:58 and at the last minute Mr. Dingfelder decided there
13:47:01 was a conflict and he walked away and there was simply
13:47:03 four of us and petitioners do not like to present
13:47:06 their case when it's just simply four council members
13:47:09 unless they know before, and they can get a sense of
13:47:11 what the sentiment is on that council.
13:47:13 I think that caught Mr. Bentley by surprise last time,
13:47:17 just bringing that into testimony simply for that to
13:47:19 be at least part and parcel to our decision.
13:47:23 >>> May I comment to that?
13:47:24 >>GWEN MILLER: No, you cannot comment.
13:47:25 >>MARTY BOYLE: Land development.
13:47:34 We would like to add, the last two continuances -- I'm
13:47:39 not prepared to speak to the beginning continuances --
13:47:42 the last one in particular, we suggested that they
13:47:45 continue, because there was an issue with you the
13:47:48 grand tree, so that they could redesign, so that they
13:47:52 could save the grand tree.
13:47:54 So I just wanted to bring that to light for your
13:47:56 >>SHAWN HARRISON: So what's the total of continuances
13:48:01 requested by the petitioner as opposed to either being
13:48:05 suggested by staff or council?
13:48:11 There's five total.
13:48:12 >>THE CLERK: According to the motions that were made,
13:48:18 October 20th night meeting there was a motion made
13:48:21 requesting the public hearing to be continued to
13:48:23 February 9th, at request of Heather Lamboy.
13:48:30 I don't know if that was on behalf of the petitioner
13:48:32 or not.
13:48:33 Then February 9th, the public hearing was
13:48:36 continued to March 23rd at 6 p.m. per the request
13:48:40 of Heather Lamboy and the verbal and written request
13:48:43 of Mark Bentley.
13:48:49 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I think we've to wait till we get a
13:48:52 full council anyway to get a vote.
13:48:54 >> I just want to be clear.
13:48:55 If the chair would ask if there is anybody who is
13:48:59 representing either Mr. Bentley or the petitioner,
13:49:03 another agent who is present here today, is there
13:49:06 anybody here who represents the party who is the
13:49:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Is anyone here to represent
13:49:12 Mr. Bentley?
13:49:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I wish to state just for the record,
13:49:18 council, that section 27-395 subsection B, applicant
13:49:23 say the applicator his authorized agent shall appear
13:49:27 in support of his application at the public hearing.
13:49:30 Failure to do so shall be grounds for denial of the
13:49:32 application, in the absence of good cause shown.
13:49:37 >> I think Mr. Bentley checked with me, and we always
13:49:41 have -- I say, sure.
13:49:49 >>MARTY BOYLE: Just for informational purposes I did
13:49:51 speak to his secretary yesterday and I did indicate
13:49:53 that they needed to be -- needed to be somebody here.
13:49:57 He said the reason to continue is he would be on an
13:50:00 But there needed to be somebody here, so that they
13:50:02 were aware of that.
13:50:04 I don't know if they didn't have anybody to send.
13:50:09 >>> I am here.
13:50:10 >>GWEN MILLER: You can't speak anymore.
13:50:18 We have another.
13:50:19 Come up and speak.
13:50:24 The petitioner is somebody I respect.
13:50:25 But they have a lot of resources.
13:50:27 If they couldn't have one representative that they
13:50:29 could arrange for another.
13:50:34 >>> Alton Kemp, resident, west Woodlawn.
13:50:40 As the gentleman stated, this is my third time here.
13:50:44 Each time has been a continuance.
13:50:47 And as you said, I just want to reiterate.
13:50:51 We come down, we don't know what they are going to do.
13:50:54 When it started out, there was a lot of people.
13:50:57 And I would just like to say this briefly and I'll sit
13:51:06 A little over two years. The last time I was here I
13:51:08 parked out here not understanding the parking sign, I
13:51:11 got a ticket.
13:51:11 And I'm back here again.
13:51:13 And what I'm saying, I I have got to learn where to
13:51:18 And I paid the meter.
13:51:19 I didn't park illegally.
13:51:21 But the time schedule.
13:51:22 What I'm saying is, I come down, just as these
13:51:25 gentlemen came down, and these things keep happening.
13:51:28 And I don't think it's right to ask, as residents, to
13:51:31 keep coming down, and then find out it's continued,
13:51:35 Thank you for your time.
13:51:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
13:51:37 We are going to have to hold it until we get a full
13:51:40 When we come to the we'll vote on it.
13:51:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move for denial based on the fact
13:51:50 that there's no representative from the petitioner.
13:51:54 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, I won't vote for a denial yet
13:51:58 because we are still not done with the meeting.
13:52:00 I would vote to not continue it, if you want to make
13:52:03 that motion.
13:52:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
13:52:06 I will make a motion to not continue it.
13:52:08 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Second.
13:52:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
13:52:10 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
13:52:12 Opposed, Nay.
13:52:12 >>ROSE FERLITA: Nay.
13:52:14 Madam Chairman, given that Ms. Marshall has said that
13:52:18 three of those five were requested by staff, then went
13:52:21 back to two, and go to three.
13:52:23 I think the only shortcoming is they don't have
13:52:25 anybody here.
13:52:26 But based on the circumstances, I'm not going to --
13:52:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would request the staff come back
13:52:34 and be considered again by a full council, with very
13:52:37 specific record indicating whether the first two
13:52:40 requests for continuance were from staff or from the
13:52:44 petitioner's representative.
13:52:45 >>ROSE FERLITA: I have a question.
13:52:47 Mr. Shelby, given that the votes went like they were,
13:52:52 Ms. Saul-Sena wants to do that, is that saying we are
13:52:54 going to revote today?
13:52:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No.
13:52:57 Actually the motion failed.
13:52:58 Under rule 4-D when a motion made on a procedural
13:53:01 issue relates to the conduct of the present meeting
13:53:03 fails to obtain four votes the motion fails and is not
13:53:07 That's where your motion to continue, which is
13:53:15 Not granting a continuance.
13:53:18 So no action is taken.
13:53:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
13:53:23 We are going to go on with Verizon.
13:53:29 Mr. Smith?
13:53:30 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
13:53:40 One of the things I should probably mention at the
13:53:43 outset and I'll mention now, I wanted to make sure the
13:53:46 complex was provided.
13:53:47 I I'll mention it to you briefly before.
13:53:50 There was action at both the federal and the state
13:53:52 level to make this process either a state or federal
13:53:57 Recently, the state legislature did not pass a
13:54:02 state-wide cable bill.
13:54:05 One of our local representatives, Mr. TARVIESSA, had a
13:54:12 debate that was very close to passage, ultimately did
13:54:15 not pass.
13:54:15 That process will preempt the local jurisdiction.
13:54:18 It will become a state certification.
13:54:21 If that happens next year.
13:54:23 There's also effort at the federal level to do the
13:54:26 same thing.
13:54:26 Part of the concern that's motivated by the review
13:54:30 that local governments provide too much of an
13:54:32 impediment and they were too difficult to deal with.
13:54:35 I beg to differ with that, but nonetheless some people
13:54:37 are spreading such false rumors.
13:54:41 What I would like to do is provide you a couple of
13:54:43 quick and very important context for you to consider.
13:54:48 There's a federal cable act that applies to this
13:54:52 And that cable act, in committee report, I will recite
13:54:58 it says the committee believes that steps must be
13:55:01 taken to encourage the further development of best
13:55:05 competition including encouraging cable overbills, and
13:55:09 that means second providers to the market.
13:55:12 Whenever a second provider occurs in any market it's
13:55:14 difficult to deal with a Monday open list because
13:55:16 there are certain advantages.
13:55:17 So part of the federal law is encouraging jurisdiction
13:55:21 such as ours and others to do what we can to allow
13:55:24 competition to occur.
13:55:26 I believe Mr. White had indicated prior to the lunch
13:55:28 break whether or not we had a risk on the side of
13:55:33 denying this in terms of litigation. The answer is
13:55:35 yes, there is a view that is argued by some that the
13:55:42 cable act requires a franchise if the franchisee meets
13:55:45 your requirements.
13:55:46 Unfortunately, or fortunately for us, Verizon has now
13:55:48 been rattling that saber out that they don't negotiate
13:55:55 by threat or intimidation so we don't have that
13:55:57 However, as your attorney, if we do have that kind of
13:56:01 litigation, unlike the level field it's for which we
13:56:04 can responsible for damages.
13:56:05 Under the level playing field the Florida law, in the
13:56:07 one that has been indicated as being possibly
13:56:10 implicated by one of our opponents today, it is
13:56:17 injunctive relief, there is no damage remedy.
13:56:21 We would not be reliable for attorney fees.
13:56:25 Just to answer the question asked regarding litigation
13:56:28 One thing I would like to mention to you with respect
13:56:30 to the level playing field there is not a plethora of
13:56:34 case law that interprets it but the case law that
13:56:37 exists mostly in other jurisdictions says the
13:56:38 following, and this is the case law we relied on in
13:56:41 advising you as we are advising you today.
13:56:45 An additional franchise, that is an additional
13:56:48 provider, cannot be granted on terms more favorable or
13:56:50 less burdensome than those in an existing franchise.
13:56:54 So that is the test to apply.
13:56:58 It does not require that the terms of an additional
13:57:00 franchise be identical to those of an incumbent's
13:57:05 Further quoting the case law, it is the totality of
13:57:08 the terms that controls the determination of whether
13:57:12 one certificate is more favorable than another.
13:57:15 Additionally, quote, it requires consideration of the
13:57:18 entire package of terms and conditions required of
13:57:22 both cable providers adequately to determine whether
13:57:25 one has been favored or the other.
13:57:29 If you look at the legislative history of some of
13:57:31 these things, it is apparent that there's two concerns
13:57:35 at issue here.
13:57:36 One is common whenever you have a monopoly situation,
13:57:40 and that is barriers to entry, which are very
13:57:44 difficult to overcome and that's why monopolies
13:57:46 typically evolve because someone gets in a favorable
13:57:49 position and the ability of others to answer that
13:57:51 competition is too steep a price to pay.
13:57:54 So that's a very important consideration.
13:57:56 That would be what your costs up front are.
13:57:59 An additional fact is obviously that it also must be
13:58:02 fair and reasonable.
13:58:03 And let me discuss both of those in a little more
13:58:07 If you look at the level playing field issue at the
13:58:09 outset, the barriers to entry issue, the incumbent had
13:58:14 70,000 subscribers at the initiation.
13:58:17 Its predecessor paid approximately $3.5 million,
13:58:21 divided over the subscribers on the monthly base
13:58:23 advertise same way we are calculating it in the
13:58:25 current franchise is 28 cents per subscriber compared
13:58:28 to the one at 65 cents in the new franchise agreement.
13:58:31 It would appear at least at the entry level that the
13:58:33 level playing field would be tilted significantly in
13:58:36 favor of the incumbent.
13:58:38 Case law also supports using a per-subscriber
13:58:42 When you talk about comparability and level playing
13:58:48 The incumbent has enjoyed the monopoly status for six
13:58:52 Another relevant fact for your consideration is in
13:58:54 paragraph 4.6 of the Bright House franchise agreement,
13:58:58 the payments made by Bright House are included in the
13:59:01 It is uniquely a matter of a Monday open list to have
13:59:05 the kind of flexibility to recoup costs such as that
13:59:08 in the rates.
13:59:09 They do not have the inhibiting influence of
13:59:14 Finally if you look at the level playing field from
13:59:16 the standpoint of where are we just generically and
13:59:18 simply, although this is not a generic and simple
13:59:21 question, the analysis that was provided to me by
13:59:24 staff using a 20% penetration by Verizon, which are
13:59:29 numbers that they are realizing elsewhere in numbers
13:59:32 that literally were confirmed in a neighboring county,
13:59:36 are actually in excess of that 30% were found.
13:59:39 20% penetration based upon recurrent situation would
13:59:44 result in about a $4 million payment over the life of
13:59:46 a franchise compares to a 6.5 or $6.4 million amount.
13:59:50 A 30% penetration is approximately $6 million over the
13:59:52 life of the franchise.
13:59:54 That in our opinion is essentially comparable.
13:59:57 And it's our understanding based upon analysis and the
14:00:00 experts we relied on is that's a very realizable
14:00:04 Based upon those factors, it is our opinion to you, as
14:00:08 your attorney, that we do not have a level playing
14:00:10 field problem with this franchise agreement.
14:00:13 So that is our recommendation.
14:00:14 I know there's other issues to discuss.
14:00:17 I believe Mr. Dingfelder had asked a question of
14:00:21 Verizon at the outset.
14:00:23 Let me mention one other thing, a question Mr.
14:00:25 Dingfelder had which is a very good question in the
14:00:27 He was concerned about the three-year cancellation
14:00:31 I think it's important to recognize why I don't
14:00:33 consider that to be a significant issue.
14:00:36 If we don't have a 3-year term nation provision in
14:00:39 there, they can terminate anyway, as can the
14:00:42 We do not force people to provide cable television
14:00:46 We do not have specific performance of the contract in
14:00:49 that sense of the word.
14:00:50 And there's really not a big damage issue.
14:00:52 And actually if they were to determine after three
14:00:54 years I'm sure that would be Bright House's dream.
14:00:57 So I think in reality, that's not literally in real
14:01:00 world an issue, not a real world I shall knew terms of
14:01:03 I don't think it's a real world I shall knew terms of
14:01:06 It is simply something that someone can raise to
14:01:09 confuse the issue.
14:01:10 I think it would be appropriate for him to respond to
14:01:16 Mr. Dingfelder's question.
14:01:17 I think we have some questions first.
14:01:18 >>ROSE FERLITA: And we need to lead into that.
14:01:21 But John, if you don't mind I want to ask something in
14:01:23 reference to that as you go forward with Mr. TAMESERR
14:01:32 They can opt out anytime they want as does Bright
14:01:35 House, why have it in there?
14:01:37 >> That's exactly the argument I made at the time we
14:01:39 negotiated that.
14:01:40 >> Who negotiated that particular --
14:01:43 >>> I believe that in fact is the petitioner's
14:01:47 position expressed at the time.
14:01:48 But it doesn't make any difference either way.
14:01:50 >> I don't know who suggested that if it doesn't mean
14:01:53 >>> Well, there's a lot of different factors that go
14:01:56 into Verizon's position.
14:01:57 I can't begin to surmise.
14:02:00 Let me tell you why I think it was in there.
14:02:01 They are negotiating these provisions all over the
14:02:04 >> I know, but I don't want to cut you short.
14:02:06 I just heard you, tuned in to one point that also
14:02:09 concerns me as it obviously does Mr. Dingfelder and
14:02:11 perhaps some of my other colleagues.
14:02:12 If it's really in there just for the heck of it, it
14:02:15 doesn't mean anything, that means after their $250
14:02:18 million investment they could walk away if they wanted
14:02:20 to, which would be kind of silly.
14:02:23 But if they wanted to do that, they could.
14:02:25 Then who decided to have this bright idea about
14:02:27 putting in a three-year opt out for cancellation
14:02:31 Why is that in there as opposed to a two-year opt out
14:02:34 cancellation, ten year, 3.5 month.
14:02:37 Why is it even in there?
14:02:38 And who is taking ownership in terms of putting that
14:02:41 language in the contract?
14:02:42 >>DAVID SMITH: The agreement was negotiated both by
14:02:44 myself and Eric Edgington on behalf of Verizon.
14:02:47 >> But who put that clause in?
14:02:49 >> That was their clause.
14:02:52 >> So my question would be directed to them in terms
14:02:54 of why is that in there if it really doesn't can't
14:02:59 Is that right?
14:02:59 They can walk away with no kind of penalty early or
14:03:03 At the same time, then, depending on who decided to go
14:03:06 with Verizon versus Bright House, what happens to
14:03:08 those guys?
14:03:11 I'm just trying to get a sense of why that's in there.
14:03:14 >>> I think that was a business point for them, and
14:03:17 because the legal reality was not very different at
14:03:22 And they should speak to that issue because my
14:03:24 preference was it not be in there but the very reasons
14:03:26 you articulated.
14:03:29 >> Okay.
14:03:29 I don't mean to take the lead for Mr. Dingfelder.
14:03:32 He's some concerns as I did.
14:03:34 So if it's okay with you, Madam Chairman, I can yield
14:03:37 to him and then come back and I want somebody to tell
14:03:39 me why they randomly picked three years.
14:03:41 And it obviously wasn't you, Mr. Smith.
14:03:43 >>DAVID SMITH: Correct.
14:03:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think Mr. Ciamporcero was going
14:03:53 to address the question.
14:03:54 >> I'm trying to remember, Mr. Dingfelder, exactly
14:03:56 Watt was.
14:03:57 But I think, if I recall --
14:03:59 >> I guess the question is, what's the justification
14:04:00 of 65 cents per customer, how does that work out?
14:04:04 David mentioned penetration but I don't know
14:04:07 penetration as a percentage of what total.
14:04:09 >>> Penetration, as I said, not to put our business
14:04:17 plans on the table for everybody to see, 30% is for us
14:04:23 a lower target.
14:04:24 We would love to -- in business now about a year, we
14:04:33 had 30% in a couple of communities in Texas so we aim
14:04:36 to get at least 30%.
14:04:38 I know if that's all we get I'm going to be in
14:04:40 trouble, frankly.
14:04:42 So I expect to blow right through 30% in a couple of
14:04:47 So that would be more than --
14:04:48 >> Percentage doesn't mean anything to me unless in
14:04:50 terms of trying to multiply this out and say what
14:04:53 is --
14:04:54 >>> 30% of $6 million in terms of pay.
14:05:00 >> The analysis as I understand, John McGrath, he
14:05:04 took the current customer base which was about $78
14:05:07 when he did the analysis.
14:05:08 I believe Mr. Henderson indicated now 38,000.
14:05:11 He indicate projections in terms of population growth.
14:05:14 You normally -- anytime you are figuring something out
14:05:17 over a 15-year period you are going to have a certain
14:05:19 amount of assumptions, projections.
14:05:21 So did he the analysis based upon population growth,
14:05:25 percentage of the market, and that's 30%, the
14:05:27 percentage of the market, with some modest growth.
14:05:29 Now, you pick the percentage that he went and compared
14:05:32 several cable overrides to that were in the local area
14:05:36 and said, it's very achievable to reach that number.
14:05:39 And probably low in light of Verizon's -- I don't want
14:05:44 to pre-judge anybody's position or selection but the
14:05:47 record being a fairly good provider of those funds and
14:05:51 So that was the analysis that deals with the current
14:05:54 households projection of reasonable households over a
14:05:57 period of time.
14:05:58 And then the presumed penetration of the market
14:06:01 available for those households.
14:06:02 That's resulted in a number that is roughly fixed to
14:06:05 6.2 million.
14:06:06 s ass I recall John's numbers he was at 6.2 million.
14:06:10 >> And that's adjusted for cost of money?
14:06:13 >>> I do not believe it is adjusted entirely for the
14:06:15 cost of money, no.
14:06:19 It's a very difficult analysis.
14:06:22 And John unfortunately is no longer with the city.
14:06:25 But I don't know whether he adjusted it for present
14:06:27 value or not.
14:06:28 >> Okay.
14:06:30 I had a thought as we were wrestling with this earlier
14:06:35 and over lunch, is if the concern on the level playing
14:06:38 field is $6.25 million, they are offering a million
14:06:42 dollars up front leaving $5.52 million, we could
14:06:45 easily resolve this by saying -- putting in one line
14:06:50 in that provision that says if at the end of 15 years
14:06:54 that 65 doesn't add up to $6.25 million they would
14:07:00 make up the difference.
14:07:01 That sound very level.
14:07:06 And you don't have to answer because I'm just throwing
14:07:08 out to you on the podium right there.
14:07:11 >>> Yes, I understand but --
14:07:12 >> I mean the bottom line is the difference.
14:07:14 You look at the difference.
14:07:16 If it's 65 cents added up after 15 years to $4 million
14:07:20 then they are still short a million dollar.
14:07:23 The million dollar to get to the $5.25 million.
14:07:27 >> I think the problem is we are looking for a lineary
14:07:32 You have to look at a variety of factors -- factors,
14:07:36 one of which is the subscribers at the outset.
14:07:39 How does this play into the entry?
14:07:41 Right now there's a significant barrier to entry
14:07:44 comparison to the incumbent.
14:07:45 So woo we then say we are going to charge them, now,
14:07:49 virtually nothing until I have subscribers?
14:07:51 Because the incumbent came in with 70,000 subscribers.
14:07:54 So a complete equality as in an isomorphic
14:07:58 relationship is going to be very difficult to reach
14:08:00 Are we going to have to them start paying when they
14:08:03 reach 70,000?
14:08:04 There's a number of different ways you can do it.
14:08:06 >> See, the way I was thinking about it doesn't cause
14:08:09 a barrier at all.
14:08:10 For one thing they are passing through the 65 cents so
14:08:13 it doesn't cost them a penny.
14:08:15 Every new subscriber is going to pay their own 65
14:08:18 The only thing it's going to cost them after 15 years
14:08:21 if they haven't hit the 5.25 million mark then they
14:08:24 make up the difference.
14:08:25 Well, after 15 years the whole thing is pretty level
14:08:28 anyway in terms of entry to market and not entry to
14:08:31 market. At that point, they have done whatever they
14:08:33 And they could just make up the difference then.
14:08:43 >>> Negotiating provisions in a collegial context --
14:08:45 >> You never asked us before.
14:08:46 >>> Right.
14:08:47 And I probably won't just because it's so difficult.
14:08:50 You have issues that are important to you, and you
14:08:52 have a lot of views many of which are very good, but
14:08:56 so do other members on the council, and it's very
14:08:58 difficult to come up with a position that may be
14:09:00 exactly what you would negotiator exactly what Ms.
14:09:03 Ferlita would negotiate.
14:09:04 So I think what we try to do is try to do the best we
14:09:07 can in light of all the variables and bring awe
14:09:10 Believe me, this was a heavily negotiated agreement.
14:09:13 It didn't proceed very rapidly for awhile. I think I
14:09:16 indicated in my memorandum, I had my years as to why
14:09:20 that was the case.
14:09:20 I think our leverage increased and we got a better
14:09:23 I think it is a deal that does comply with the level
14:09:26 playing field.
14:09:27 I want to make sure I'm clear on that.
14:09:29 And I think it's the position at this juncture that's
14:09:31 being presented to you by the administration having
14:09:33 been negotiated by me.
14:09:35 So I think like all contracts, you know, it's
14:09:39 presented to you as a whole.
14:09:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And we appreciate your hard work on
14:09:44 this thing.
14:09:45 And that's not our point.
14:09:47 >>> I know.
14:09:49 >> But we are here today to possibly approve this.
14:09:51 But we want to make it the best possible contract for
14:09:54 everybody involved.
14:09:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would suggest that we hear from
14:10:00 the public.
14:10:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone else to speak from
14:10:07 Bright House or Verizon?
14:10:08 Now we go to the public.
14:10:09 Anyone from the public who wants to speak on item 56.
14:10:15 >>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: I resign at 2902 East Ellicott
14:10:29 And this here is very, very important to me.
14:10:31 I represent the poor peoples.
14:10:33 And when I say poor, I mean poor, I mean all black
14:10:36 poor, everybody.
14:10:37 But when I first heard about this a couple of months
14:10:44 ago that this was going to happen, most people can't
14:10:46 afford cable.
14:10:47 Right now only about 20%.
14:10:48 And another thing, they say they are going to carry
14:10:52 this to the council.
14:10:54 Many poor people, they say, man, I can't see you, I
14:10:58 can't see you.
14:10:59 And they turn to a satellite dish and the satellite
14:11:03 dish do not carry the City Council.
14:11:04 So I got cable now, for one big reason.
14:11:08 I got part-time job.
14:11:12 I got a part-time job.
14:11:13 But I got cable now.
14:11:16 Didn't have it for about a year or better.
14:11:18 And what I'm concerned about, years ago, they came to
14:11:27 the neighborhood, and everything happened in the
14:11:33 So when it first come out, they had the senior
14:11:38 citizens, and every poor person, they had it for $11.
14:11:44 And all -- Bright House got it and they cut the city
14:11:50 Another thing, they say it's going to be cheaper.
14:11:54 They say on here, $39 for 179 channels, something like
14:12:02 I think Bright House charge for that about $80 or
14:12:06 more, what I say now, about the same kind of service.
14:12:09 But I get City Council.
14:12:11 And another thing I was interested in, that they were
14:12:16 saying it would be something like 30 to 35% cheaper.
14:12:21 But all black people being criticized real bad because
14:12:26 they got the Mexicans digging the ditches all over
14:12:29 And the black people being criticized, well, some of
14:12:34 the black people say, ain't enough money to dig
14:12:40 ditches out there.
14:12:41 So it's -- you know, I got a grandson arriving, he get
14:12:48 paid big money.
14:12:49 So why the black people don't dig the ditches, you
14:12:52 They use cheap labor.
14:12:53 Then another thing I heard on the news, they got a --
14:13:00 everybody is in the cable business saying that Verizon
14:13:04 was going to be in the upscale neighborhoods only.
14:13:10 Mr. White, when you were asking about that awhile ago,
14:13:12 did he not mention East Tampa.
14:13:16 So I wish when you come back up here to ask about
14:13:21 And I'm very concerned about the senior citizens.
14:13:23 Because I would love to get back on the senior
14:13:27 Now say the same thing.
14:13:31 But anyway, though, I wish -- you been doing a very
14:13:35 good job all morning.
14:13:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Next.
14:13:57 >>> Good afternoon.
14:13:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: He would I call your name raise your
14:14:04 Pamela GAYRUSK.
14:14:10 >>> They gave me their time.
14:14:13 Three staff members.
14:14:15 >>GWEN MILLER: They have to be here.
14:14:16 >>> Okay, that's fine.
14:14:17 I'll talk in my New York and I'll be very fast.
14:14:21 May I begin?
14:14:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes, you may.
14:14:25 >>> Good afternoon.
14:14:25 I'm Louise Thompson.
14:14:27 I'm the Executive Director of Tampa Bay community
14:14:30 network, one of the stakeholders that was mentioned
14:14:33 earlier briefly.
14:14:36 I have been for about six years involved, six, seven
14:14:39 years involved in public access television on some
14:14:42 level, even on a board level, or now in a management
14:14:46 With that, I have been able to attend conferences by
14:14:50 professional organizations like alliance for community
14:14:53 media, the national association of telecommunications
14:14:58 public administrators.
14:14:58 I have attended every single franchise renewal
14:15:02 conference and workshop that is available.
14:15:04 I'm not a lawyer.
14:15:06 We have reviewed and had our attorney and had top
14:15:12 people who would help us at the alliance community
14:15:15 media, Washington D.C. based telecom lawyers.
14:15:20 We are happy it with.
14:15:21 We think it's a heck of a lot better than the shake we
14:15:23 got in Hillsborough County.
14:15:25 And we think it's better for the citizens of Tampa.
14:15:31 I dropped off for you yesterday a binding full of
14:15:34 reports and audits and performance audits.
14:15:39 I have financial audits.
14:15:40 I didn't give you everything.
14:15:41 I understand, though, yesterday that a Bright House
14:15:44 networks decided to send you their viewer survey to
14:15:50 sort of indicate that nobody watches our channel.
14:15:52 All of us, all our Peg channels have done viewer
14:15:59 I did one in December, had a very independent place do
14:16:05 That organization found that 36% of people who had
14:16:10 cable watched our channel.
14:16:12 You will find 36 to 40% of people, a great deal many
14:16:16 more than go to the library and visit our parks, watch
14:16:20 our channel.
14:16:22 We have been able to highlight just hundreds and
14:16:28 hundreds of nonprofits that never could have gotten
14:16:32 any coverage whatsoever without it, local issues,
14:16:37 increased community dialogue.
14:16:40 We have been able to do so many wonderful things and
14:16:42 keep the local here.
14:16:46 We think our survey will refute Bright House.
14:16:49 First of all, we used 400 people which made it a more
14:16:53 valid survey than theirs.
14:16:54 Secondly, we all make available to you at any moment
14:16:58 that you like the full report which indicates all the
14:17:01 We have asked for the questions asked by the Bright
14:17:03 House survey and never get it.
14:17:06 We have not been able to get it.
14:17:07 So wee we think that is skewed.
14:17:09 So I don't think that that's a reason -- I know it's
14:17:14 come up for you somewhere.
14:17:16 We have garnered a lot of support.
14:17:18 We would like you to provide the competenttician.
14:17:23 And I heard several of you mention competitive rates,
14:17:28 councilman Dingfelder and so forth.
14:17:30 And there is a newspaper article that if you go to
14:17:34 Pinellas County, which has Bright House, the standard
14:17:39 tier you see on your rate is $15 lower.
14:17:46 A few weeks ago I called Bright House and said, hey,
14:17:49 how can I lower these bills?
14:17:50 Do you have any packages going on?
14:17:52 Do you have any promotions?
14:17:55 (Bell sounds).
14:17:55 And when I said the word Verizon is coming I got a
14:18:00 discount of $23.
14:18:01 So does it happen?
14:18:02 Should you do it?
14:18:09 Let us get some competition in this town.
14:18:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
14:18:22 >>> Good afternoon.
14:18:22 My name is Marilyn Smith, grandmother at-large.
14:18:26 I am a voting citizen.
14:18:29 And as you know, of you know who I am.
14:18:35 I'm on the cable advisory board.
14:18:36 I am not here in that capacity.
14:18:38 But I will use all of my experience in the many
14:18:41 volunteer hours I have given to the business of cable
14:18:46 for the community.
14:18:49 To set the record straight, you have not been told the
14:18:53 truth about negotiations with the county.
14:18:58 Just last week, item 25 came up and it was to the real
14:19:10 franchise talks and negotiations going on.
14:19:18 There is no Bright House over there.
14:19:23 You were not told the truth.
14:19:24 I know that.
14:19:25 It's on public record.
14:19:28 I don't care what he said.
14:19:31 You should not be painted into the corner.
14:19:34 It is easy to play games with these folks.
14:19:39 Sometimes it becomes a very bad word.
14:19:45 And negotiations, by David and the staff, and the
14:19:51 telecom division of this city.
14:19:53 They have worked hard.
14:19:54 They are very good people.
14:19:56 Please do not be punitive to the citizens of Tampa
14:20:00 just because the other boys down the street in
14:20:05 government are punitive.
14:20:11 Why try to squash public and educational television
14:20:17 along with the other?
14:20:19 Because if you don't put those channels in there and
14:20:23 volunteer where they could go on -- and you can do
14:20:26 that -- not a big deal.
14:20:31 You are then taken the public out of another way of
14:20:35 interfacing with this government.
14:20:36 And there's an awful lot of people who cannot come
14:20:38 down here.
14:20:40 I am fortunate that I can participate in both
14:20:43 Some people don't see it that way but I do.
14:20:56 They have had a monopoly and they want all the money.
14:20:58 We want competition.
14:20:59 And we want a good program.
14:21:02 And Verizon has come up with a wonderful program that
14:21:05 we can live with.
14:21:07 I've seen what a bad program is.
14:21:12 Oh, yeah, so have a lot of other citizens.
14:21:14 And believe me, I'm only paid $15 as a volunteer
14:21:18 because I don't give a hoot what goes on on the other
14:21:21 So I'm telling you now please let's go with a very
14:21:26 good program.
14:21:30 Thank you.
14:21:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
14:21:31 Anyone else?
14:21:39 >> Michael farmer, 2619 Struthers.
14:21:43 I would encourage to you go ahead and approve this for
14:21:50 Bright House is a monopoly.
14:21:54 Just to see cable bills come down.
14:21:58 I have cable only when football is on, and then I turn
14:22:01 it off.
14:22:04 I'm on a fixed income.
14:22:05 I'm retired.
14:22:06 So, you know, just to have something for the citizens
14:22:11 of Tampa, to have an option of having another cable
14:22:17 company to be able to choose from, especially when
14:22:22 they're cheaper.
14:22:23 And if Verizon is going to be cheaper maybe Bright
14:22:25 House will come down on their deal like the lady say,
14:22:28 she has 2 or $300 that. Shows you right then, by
14:22:32 having competition, we can see cable bills go down.
14:22:36 And if somebody else wants to come in, too, let them
14:22:40 come in also.
14:22:42 I think what the citizens are more interested in is
14:22:44 having good television programming for them, their
14:22:49 children, their families, and the more competition
14:22:54 that we have to bring it down where we as citizens,
14:22:59 like $11.
14:23:02 If you can put something on there that's good for
14:23:04 families that don't have to pay that much, it's a good
14:23:07 thing for all of us.
14:23:09 So I would encourage you to go ahead and approve this
14:23:11 franchise for Verizon.
14:23:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
14:23:20 >>> I'm Ann Goldenberg, executive director of the
14:23:26 Tampa Educational Cable Consortium and represent the
14:23:29 educational interests in cable television and the
14:23:31 burgeoning communications technology that enable us to
14:23:34 serve our community.
14:23:36 We were formed in 1980 with a partnership with the
14:23:39 city when the first cable franchise, Tampa Cable
14:23:44 Television, was negotiated.
14:23:45 And the whole idea was that we were going to use the
14:23:49 joint resources and relationship with the educational
14:23:51 community, and try to do what we could to make sure
14:23:55 that we extend services and opportunities to all of
14:23:58 our citizens.
14:24:00 In the 20 years plus since then, we have been
14:24:04 operating two channels, the Education Channel and the
14:24:07 Explorer Channel.
14:24:08 We have served probably over 70,000 telecorps students
14:24:12 in our area at HCC and the University of South
14:24:15 We have had 20,000 kids through the homework hotline.
14:24:20 So we are very interested in making sure that this
14:24:23 most valuable technology, cable television, is
14:24:26 available for our community benefit.
14:24:29 We like the fact that the channels would remain whole,
14:24:34 we would still have both channels for the next 15
14:24:36 years in the Verizon contract.
14:24:37 It's very important.
14:24:38 We are a growing community.
14:24:39 We want to make sure that if there is more educational
14:24:42 opportunities for our residents and our citizens and
14:24:45 our kids, that we can do it.
14:24:47 We know with things like gas prices going up,
14:24:50 telecommunication will probably become an even more
14:24:53 important part of what we need to do.
14:24:57 All of our educational institutions over the last 20
14:24:59 years have moved heavily into providing distance
14:25:02 learning, and we want to keep doing it for our
14:25:04 So I want to let you know that those were the issues
14:25:07 of the education community, that they are satisfied in
14:25:08 this contract.
14:25:09 And we want to keep doing business.
14:25:11 And we hope that the competition comes -- we want to
14:25:19 obviously the educational community, although it's
14:25:21 access to everybody, which is why we also, every
14:25:24 product that we make, is also available in the library
14:25:26 for people, because it's for our community's benefit.
14:25:31 I want you to know that and I hope you will move
14:25:34 forward in protecting the educational ability to serve
14:25:37 the community, protecting our citizens' ability to
14:25:39 have choice.
14:25:40 Thank you.
14:25:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to make sure.
14:25:43 Are you the E in PEG?
14:25:48 >> Yes.
14:25:49 I'm the E in PEG.
14:25:50 Sometimes it's educational access.
14:25:52 There's a lot of sometimes confusion about the jargon
14:25:55 Thank you for asking that.
14:26:00 >> Ms. Goldberg, thank you.
14:26:02 What a great job you do at the Educational Channel.
14:26:05 At this point there's a million dollars that, Mr.
14:26:10 Smith, I don't know if you described where the
14:26:11 administration anticipates that million dollars going.
14:26:15 I think since we of the city channel and the education
14:26:18 channel and some others, I would hope that at least
14:26:22 education channel might be part of that split for the
14:26:24 million dollars.
14:26:26 >>DAVID SMITH: Yes, sir.
14:26:27 Unfortunately I do not have that kind of breakdown and
14:26:29 Mindy had the bad taste of going on vacation.
14:26:32 I know she's watching on line, by the way.
14:26:34 But I assume those dollars will be provided to the
14:26:37 various needs.
14:26:39 And that will include educational channels.
14:26:42 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Ma'am, would you come back up?
14:26:45 What are your two channels, education and --
14:26:47 >>> And the Explorer Channels. The second channel
14:26:49 that's been operating.
14:26:50 It is primarily science based.
14:26:55 When we first went on the air with that channel we had
14:26:57 many, many concerns from communities to showcase the
14:27:02 NASA missions.
14:27:03 Because we make commitments to educational providers
14:27:05 for telecourses, we can't preempt them when a mission
14:27:07 So our first impact was because it's an additional
14:27:13 channel to request that they go on the air with
14:27:16 complete coverage of the NASA missions. That channel
14:27:17 has continued to evolve, to be a lot of science,
14:27:20 continued teacher education, things like that.
14:27:24 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I flipped to it several times and it
14:27:26 always seems to be a shot at the earth, and going over
14:27:30 some certain part of the earth, like ad nauseam all
14:27:34 the time.
14:27:34 Don't remember seeing anything else on the channel.
14:27:36 And you mentioned something about interactive test
14:27:39 taking or something like that.
14:27:40 So tell me a bit about that.
14:27:42 >> Well, one of the issues that we had a number of
14:27:44 years ago that everyone is aware about and said our
14:27:46 kids are having trouble in math.
14:27:47 Obviously our school system wanted to do something
14:27:51 about it and we partnered with them to have a live
14:27:52 homework hotline, and that means on Wednesday night we
14:27:56 have live teachers who answer calls interactively when
14:28:01 they call.
14:28:02 They are there but they are not on the camera.
14:28:04 But they also answer your questions in cooperation
14:28:06 with the school system, we also made a series of
14:28:09 tutorials called frequently asked questions.
14:28:12 Kids have problems in the same area that many of us
14:28:14 And those are online and available for free downloads
14:28:17 for any of the students who would like to see those.
14:28:20 And it's time based.
14:28:23 It's a television program that goes on the air certain
14:28:25 Sometimes when people are doing homework, it's not the
14:28:28 same time.
14:28:28 That's why we ask the frequently asked questions.
14:28:31 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How did you get that message out to
14:28:41 the public?
14:28:43 >>> We do a lot of things. Because our primary target
14:28:46 are middle students on the math frequently asked
14:28:49 questions and math homework hotline, we have a meeting
14:28:52 at the beginning of the year with all the math
14:28:54 We tell them this is available, what it is, we give
14:28:57 them posters can be put in the classrooms, we give
14:29:00 them pencils or stickers that can be given out to all
14:29:03 the math students.
14:29:04 So we really rely on the math teachers for word of
14:29:07 mouth, for the children we are trying to help.
14:29:10 We also have programming on the air that is promotions
14:29:11 that says what it is.
14:29:14 But those are the primary ways that we try to speak
14:29:16 directly to the audience who we know that they are
14:29:20 getting better in math.
14:29:23 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Did you get that message out to the
14:29:26 private schools and to the charter schools?
14:29:30 >>> Yes. We are for everyone.
14:29:33 We are inclusive.
14:29:34 We want everyone who wants education.
14:29:36 We want them to succeed and to pass.
14:29:40 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you very much.
14:29:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
14:29:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Smith, Mr. Knott brought up an
14:29:50 interesting point about the senior discounts.
14:29:52 Is there something in the contract that alludes to
14:29:58 that somewhere along the line there?
14:30:00 >>DAVID SMITH: Are you referring to me as a senior?
14:30:02 >> Yes, you, not me.
14:30:06 >> Talk about a self-serving interest.
14:30:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: No income, like Mr. Knott said, that
14:30:18 whatever it is. Not me.
14:30:22 >>> Mindy, I'm going to get you for this. This is
14:30:22 really Mindy's area. And I don't know exactly what
14:30:28 they are going to offer.
14:30:29 Maybe Verizon can tell you what they offer.
14:30:31 One thing I would point out, by the way, the last
14:30:33 speaker ---Sal stepped out.
14:30:39 But I don't have the answer to that question.
14:30:40 So what I would like to do is see if Verizon has an
14:30:44 answer that. Predated my time in Tampa.
14:30:46 We started in 79.
14:30:48 I wasn't a senior at that time.
14:30:50 >> I was just wondering if there is anything in the
14:30:52 contract that alludes to that.
14:30:55 >> No, ma'am, there is not.
14:30:56 Under the old regime back when we had one provider,
14:31:00 there were rate issues, rate sitings. Things of that
14:31:04 We don't have it now. The pre-supposition is with
14:31:07 competition we'll address those issues.
14:31:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
14:31:14 All right.
14:31:16 We need to close the public hearing.
14:31:17 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I do have some questions.
14:31:21 We heard, I guess, from the public.
14:31:25 Would you come back up?
14:31:26 Earlier before lunch, I talked about the deal that the
14:31:29 county got.
14:31:32 Is this something that you all had considered offering
14:31:35 to the City of Tampa, the same terms?
14:31:37 How did we arrive at today where we are, where the
14:31:41 deal is substantially different than the county?
14:31:45 >>> We really couldn't.
14:31:48 In the county there was no existing franchise.
14:31:51 And I guess there still isn't with Bright House.
14:31:56 So the playing field issues didn't come into force.
14:31:59 In the city, we had to deal with the exist willing
14:32:06 Bright House franchise and we did that as you heard
14:32:09 with an upfront payment.
14:32:11 But if we had said we will only do what we did in the
14:32:15 county, and would have said so long, I'm not going to
14:32:21 buy that lawsuit, so we really have no choice here.
14:32:24 Until the state law gets changed, that can't be done.
14:32:27 Of course, we are committing to stick with this even
14:32:31 if the law does get changed.
14:32:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena?
14:32:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Could you explain clearly and
14:32:42 quickly, succinctly, what the state or federal law
14:32:46 would do in terms of local, and what this contract
14:32:50 means, what would happen?
14:32:53 >>> The federal law which is the one that's alive
14:32:55 right now and could pass in the next couple of months
14:32:59 would essentially say you could go to the FCC and get
14:33:02 a nationwide franchise, and would you not need to go
14:33:06 community by community.
14:33:08 That's important for us in places like Pinellas where
14:33:11 you have got 26 jurisdictions in Pinellas County
14:33:17 But it does provide for PEG channels, provides for PEG
14:33:22 support, not at this level but at the lower level.
14:33:25 So what you're doing if you vote for this is sort of
14:33:31 locking an agreement.
14:33:33 People are watching.
14:33:35 >> Thank you.
14:33:35 My point, fellow council members, this is really
14:33:38 I would just indeed see they have PSA's on TV.
14:33:42 They have billboards at the airports and telecom, all
14:33:46 decision busy cable should be made at the federal
14:33:48 That would yank out from under us in terms of higher
14:33:54 What we are getting from our local providers would be
14:33:57 much higher than what the federal level will require.
14:34:00 I want council to be in control of the City of Tampa
14:34:04 And that's one of the reasons why I am eager for us to
14:34:07 act rather than letting the federal rule supersede
14:34:11 Thank you.
14:34:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I come back to two points I've
14:34:18 raised earlier.
14:34:19 One is, I think that many people -- and I know every
14:34:24 single council person up here gets approached in the
14:34:27 grocery store and somebody says, oh, I watched you on
14:34:31 channel 15.
14:34:31 And I think that channel 15 is where City of Tampa
14:34:34 television should stay.
14:34:35 Regardless of whether or not it's on Bright House or
14:34:38 And I think that's a small concession to ask.
14:34:40 And I think we could put that in the contract with
14:34:44 loon one line and bring it back the tonight because we
14:34:46 are here tonight and I'm sure you would be if we had a
14:34:48 minor modification like that.
14:34:50 And the other suggestion is perhaps a little bit
14:34:54 bigger suggestion, and it goes back to way said.
14:34:57 And council, I don't think this is a big deal.
14:34:59 Because we all know this needs to be a level playing
14:35:03 We have said that over and over.
14:35:04 There's a lot of language in here that's hard to
14:35:06 decipher and hard to see if it's level.
14:35:08 One thing that's very easy to see if it's level is the
14:35:12 6.25 million level.
14:35:13 And the way I think we could do that without burdening
14:35:16 them O on the front end is we could perhaps burden
14:35:18 them on the back end and say, if this 65-cent plus the
14:35:23 million dollars doesn't add up to 6.25 million by the
14:35:27 end of the term of the contract in 15 years in 2021,
14:35:30 then they would make up the difference -- in this case
14:35:37 they are going to give us a million.
14:35:40 I think that's fairly modest.
14:35:43 You can tell me why you disagree, whatever.
14:35:46 But I just think that it's fairly modest request.
14:35:48 I think it really takes the wind out of much of Mr.
14:35:51 Anderson's argument in terms of, you know, it's not
14:35:55 exactly what their deal is financially.
14:35:57 But it gets closer, I think, and clearly if it went to
14:36:01 a judge some day, if Mr. Anderson and his team
14:36:05 challenged it, I think the judge would see we were
14:36:08 really making a very, very good faith effort to level
14:36:10 the playing field in that regard.
14:36:12 So Mr. Kim, you're free to rebut.
14:36:17 >>> I'm afraid I have to give the primmer, or try.
14:36:22 The issue is we are going to into a market that's
14:36:25 When they paid their $6.5 million or whatever portion
14:36:28 of it they paid, they were essentially getting the
14:36:32 entire market.
14:36:33 They knew that.
14:36:34 The city knew that.
14:36:35 In fact there were a number of different groups vying
14:36:38 for the franchise for that very reason.
14:36:40 We don't know that we'll ever get -- as I say, my
14:36:43 target is 30.
14:36:44 I'd like to blow through that to 20.
14:36:46 What if I only get 10?
14:36:48 What if I only get 15?
14:36:49 Then I'm having to pay far more than my fair share of
14:36:54 these support costs.
14:36:56 And frankly, I have to tell you that if that were the
14:36:58 case, I don't think we would be able to afford to do
14:37:02 And if can't afford to do it, I don't think anybody
14:37:05 would be able to afford to do it.
14:37:07 I don't think would you ever get competition here.
14:37:09 >> That $215 million, is that what you plan on
14:37:13 spending in the city or Hillsborough County?
14:37:16 >>> If we can upgrade our entire network in Tampa,
14:37:22 that's about what it would cost.
14:37:23 But that depends on our having reasonable terms and
14:37:27 conditions to go into the related businesses.
14:37:30 >> As Mr. White said, when you are talking about $250
14:37:33 million, and I'm talking about 15 years from now to
14:37:36 make up the difference, it just seems we might be
14:37:41 argue being nothing.
14:37:43 And the other thing is, everybody including you and
14:37:47 Mr. Smith have indicate that the lead came up with the
14:37:50 65 cents.
14:37:51 She did it on a very conservative basis of 30%
14:37:54 Or thereabouts.
14:37:56 And that's where I would like to perhaps ask Sharon to
14:37:59 come up and give us all those numbers.
14:38:01 But we won't do that.
14:38:03 But that seems to be where your coming from.
14:38:05 So if there's good confidence you all are going to be
14:38:09 there, then why not in 2021 have that commitment to
14:38:12 the city?
14:38:13 >> Because there really isn't.
14:38:14 It's a brand new business for us.
14:38:17 We don't have one customer yet in Tampa.
14:38:19 And that's our problem.
14:38:22 >> I have confidence in you.
14:38:31 >>KEVIN WHITE: I think that's Bright House's stance on
14:38:35 the crystal ball method.
14:38:37 You're right.
14:38:38 Downtown have one customer yet.
14:38:39 They have them all.
14:38:43 When you're trying to do these projections, it's an
14:38:46 anticipated market.
14:38:52 What your marking strategy is, what the scheme is, the
14:38:55 platform, I don't know.
14:38:57 I mean, I may tell you Mr. Smith cleared up a lot of
14:38:59 the ambiguity for me as far as the level playing
14:39:04 Not completely.
14:39:05 But lifted the cloud a little bit for me that he
14:39:08 explained that he feels he has the expertise, he's
14:39:16 been doing this a long time, and I will defer to a lot
14:39:19 of Liss judgment, because I'm not an attorney.
14:39:22 But, you know, based off of the 65 cents and we were
14:39:33 looking at the 70,000-plus customer that is Bright
14:39:35 House has, 3.5 million at 20 years, the reason that
14:39:42 you're saying, well, Bright House had to pay
14:39:44 6.5 million because they had the monopoly, or they
14:39:49 have the great majority that are all of the customer
14:39:51 base at this point in time, there is something to be
14:39:53 said for being the innovator and the pioneer.
14:39:58 At this time cost of doing business.
14:40:00 And where I'm still struggling is the fairness issue,
14:40:09 the cost of doing business.
14:40:10 If I had come in and laid out all of the groundwork,
14:40:15 you're going to come in and capitalize and monopolize
14:40:18 on everything that I've done and I've built.
14:40:21 When we talk about -- I'm not that familiar with cable
14:40:25 franchises but I'm very familiar with automotive
14:40:30 And with franchises you have to be within a certain
14:40:34 geographical area, things of that nature, that don't
14:40:37 really apply here.
14:40:38 You're doing the same thing.
14:40:39 But there's still rules that apply to governing
14:40:43 franchises, and must comply with certain aspects of
14:40:50 franchise agreements.
14:40:52 And maybe the 3-year rule was a big cloud as well, and
14:40:59 maybe that should have never been put in.
14:41:09 And we are talking about Bright House, I guess, six
14:41:15 years, or Jones intercable before that and whatever it
14:41:19 was before that.
14:41:21 And like I said, there is something to being the
14:41:25 innovator and the pine necessary, and should they be
14:41:29 penalized -- and Mr. Dingfelder was offering what
14:41:33 would be a very valuable solution, or maybe we can go
14:41:35 back and ask Mr. Anderson, as Bright House's
14:41:41 representative, maybe since they haven't paid the
14:41:43 entire 6.5 million yet, maybe we can get them some
14:41:46 relief on the backndn end.
14:41:48 If everything is speculative upon you making it.
14:41:53 Obviously they have made it.
14:41:55 So now we have established the entire market.
14:41:58 And now you want to come in.
14:42:00 And fair trade -- competition is healthy.
14:42:05 I totally agree.
14:42:06 But I've made the market.
14:42:08 I've set the market trend.
14:42:11 I'm McDonald and I've come in and made the greatest
14:42:14 hamburger that's ever been invited and I sell it for a
14:42:17 Now Wendy's wants to move in on the corner and they
14:42:21 want to sell it for 75 now.
14:42:26 And I agree, the customer ought to have the
14:42:28 opportunity to make the choice.
14:42:32 But when you are doing the same thing and dealing with
14:42:34 a governmental entity, it just seems like you ought to
14:42:42 have some sort of the same regulatory sanctions.
14:42:48 You are going to pull your hair out.
14:42:50 I'm sorry.
14:43:03 >>> We are getting very good questions to respond to.
14:43:07 I think we are in a period of transition from one
14:43:10 model to another.
14:43:11 There's a whole new world coming.
14:43:13 And we are right on the boundary lines.
14:43:16 That's happened in the business where we had a
14:43:19 monopoly and they were permitted to come into our
14:43:23 You know what they have to file to come into our
14:43:26 A $250 certificate with the PSP.
14:43:28 They have no requirements to go anywhere, do anything.
14:43:31 The same thing is happening here.
14:43:32 How do you get from a monopoly market --
14:43:35 >> It started out that way.
14:43:37 Good point.
14:43:40 You should have started out that way.
14:43:42 That's a very good point.
14:43:43 >> And in addition, from your point of view you don't
14:43:48 want us to be the last one in the market either.
14:43:50 This isn't about just two people.
14:43:52 In four or five years from now you are going to be
14:43:54 able to get the show six or seven different ways.
14:44:00 And in this city you have got a lot of systems that
14:44:04 can also spread out, as long as you make their
14:44:06 conditions comparable to when somebody is coming into
14:44:09 the market, and fair, comparable to what they are
14:44:13 doing, yet fair for entry, you will get a lot of new
14:44:16 economic activity and investment.
14:44:19 Everybody has to look the same exactly.
14:44:21 Nobody is ever going to come in.
14:44:22 >> If everybody had to look the same.
14:44:25 But I have two quick questions.
14:44:31 What happened was not mentioned -- with Tampa was West
14:44:36 Tampa nor East Tampa.
14:44:37 >> It will be built, though.
14:44:39 >> And what is the time frame, anticipated tame frame
14:44:42 for that?
14:44:48 >>> While he's looking for the times and dates one of
14:44:50 the things in the franchise agreement is they are
14:44:52 required to build out the entire city within favor
14:44:56 That's not in the current state law that's trying to
14:44:58 get passed.
14:45:01 It's got to be more like three.
14:45:03 >> One of the other great analogies, when it was
14:45:06 mentioned -- when cell phone service came out and
14:45:10 there was only one or two providers, now you have 20
14:45:12 or 25 different providers, whatever there may be.
14:45:16 And phone rates were 89 cents a minute.
14:45:20 And there were no nights and weekends free and no
14:45:26 roaming free and now competition has driven to be so.
14:45:31 But neither here nor there, I'm a little more
14:45:35 comfortable, not 100% convinced but a lot more
14:45:38 comfortable with that at the moment.
14:45:44 >> I don't know whether he has your answer but there
14:45:46 are some things I would like to point out.
14:45:48 >> As long as the contract says within the next favor
14:45:52 I would want it much more expedient than that if that
14:45:56 >> I think he told me that Seminole Heights -- we are
14:45:59 doing Seminole Heights.
14:46:00 And that is part of the center that includes --
14:46:03 >> In West Tampa.
14:46:04 >> So it will probably begin next year.
14:46:11 The wire center covers --
14:46:15 >>ROSE FERLITA: And that will accommodate part of West
14:46:17 >>> Part of West Tampa and there's a separate CO here,
14:46:21 >> If this passes, you need to pay Ms. Smith, put her
14:46:26 on the payroll back there.
14:46:35 As much as you're advocating for them.
14:46:40 >> She read the contract.
14:46:42 >> She does more homework than us sometimes.
14:46:44 >>SHAWN HARRISON: There seems to be great interest
14:46:48 upon everybody's behalf in the six PEG channels,
14:46:52 keeping that as is.
14:46:53 And that doesn't provide particular heartburn to me.
14:46:56 But what does is the fact that my district is on the
14:47:01 edge of the city and the county.
14:47:03 On the south side of Cross Creek Boulevard in New
14:47:04 Tampa, you're in the city.
14:47:06 And on the north side you're on the county.
14:47:08 And you have been out there.
14:47:09 And you're going to start providing service on Monday,
14:47:13 as you say, out there.
14:47:15 Not in other parts of the city yet but you're working
14:47:18 on it.
14:47:18 So on Monday, one of my neighbors that lives in the
14:47:22 city is going to be paying more for the exact same
14:47:26 Verizon cable service, TV service, that our neighbor
14:47:31 across the side of Cross Creek is going to be paying,
14:47:34 because you are not being forced to pass through the
14:47:41 honor of doing business in the county like you are
14:47:44 being passed through in the city.
14:47:46 So here is my question.
14:47:49 And Mr. White, I think, is on the right track by
14:47:51 saying we need to make sure the playing field is level
14:47:55 either way.
14:47:56 And that means either you pay up on the front end, or
14:47:58 else we don't pay anything.
14:48:00 And we see about releasing Bright House from further
14:48:06 And I haven't heard from Bright House about that.
14:48:08 If we leave the six PEG channels as is, and you all
14:48:12 don't pay the million up front, and you don't pay the
14:48:15 65 per month subscriber, which provides cheaper cable
14:48:19 service to our citizens, is that something that you
14:48:22 all would be willing to do?
14:48:28 >>> I hate to try to negotiate the complicated deal --
14:48:34 >>> I'm sorry to interrupt but let me explain what we
14:48:36 have going on here.
14:48:37 Part of the problem is a negotiated instrument as a
14:48:41 Mr. Dingfelder mentioned an excellent approach to a
14:48:43 given aspect of it and you have some excellent ideas
14:48:45 regarding the possibility of maybe going to the
14:48:47 general revenue, which is what the county does.
14:48:50 Basically the taxpayers pay.
14:48:52 You either have a user fee or get it out of general
14:48:56 revenue. The question is who pays for it?
14:48:58 The user or the general taxpayer?
14:49:01 The view of this administration is it's paid by the
14:49:03 Way would like to say, because I think this is very
14:49:05 important --
14:49:06 >> Is that where the Bright House money goes right
14:49:10 To support these channels?
14:49:12 >>> The CST money --
14:49:16 >> The $6 million?
14:49:22 >>> Not sure if I can tell where you the exact dollars
14:49:24 >> I was under the impression a lot of that money went
14:49:26 to support the channels that we're talking about.
14:49:31 >>> Sharon: Coordinator.
14:49:35 Tax revenue coordinator, Sharon Fox.
14:49:38 That's Mindy's budget.
14:49:40 I can tell you there are several elements in the
14:49:42 communication services tax.
14:49:46 Part of that was what we used to get as cable
14:49:49 franchise fee.
14:49:50 And that money comes into the city.
14:49:54 And I'm going to still distribute it out to the cable
14:49:57 division, that she runs her department with that, in
14:50:02 addition to PEG access, which supports PEG in other
14:50:07 But I can't tell you right now the dollar figure.
14:50:09 I would need to consult with Mindy.
14:50:12 >> I guess Mr. Smith's point was if we reduce Bright
14:50:15 House's $6 million, or we otherwise reduce these
14:50:18 moneys that are coming in, then the PEG channels would
14:50:22 then have to be supported by general revenue.
14:50:25 >>> That's exactly true.
14:50:26 And general revenue, that's taxpayer funded.
14:50:32 So it's not like the expense goes away.
14:50:35 It's just which pocket does it come out of?
14:50:38 So if you decided that you weren't against the concept
14:50:44 of additional PEG support, that means that you've got
14:50:48 three choices.
14:50:49 You either can continue to provide PEG access at the
14:50:54 level that you're providing, and all of the taxpayers
14:50:58 in the City of Tampa have to make their contribution
14:51:00 through added ad valorem taxes or other loss of
14:51:05 service, because something else, the ad valorem taxes
14:51:09 paid for are now going to PEG support.
14:51:12 You can choose not to have any PEG channels.
14:51:16 Or you can continue to T way that we are now, which is
14:51:21 what we advocate in this contract.
14:51:28 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't know that I understand that.
14:51:30 You're saying that the City of Tampa is going to
14:51:33 subsidize these channels if we don't require --
14:51:39 >>> That's exactly what Hillsborough County is doing.
14:51:41 They are not charging on individual bills.
14:51:44 They have chosen that all Hillsborough County
14:51:47 taxpayers will provide the support to keep their
14:51:53 stations alive.
14:51:56 So it's not free.
14:51:58 Right now, Bright House has incorporated the PEG
14:52:04 support in their rate.
14:52:07 So we have additional PEG support that they have been
14:52:11 paying, but they get it back through their rates.
14:52:14 So it's just a matter of of whose pocket it comes out
14:52:18 Doesn't go away.
14:52:19 >> Do we know how much it would cost them, if this
14:52:24 million -- this 65 cents a month were not being
14:52:28 charged, how much would it cost the City of Tampa to
14:52:30 maintain six PEG channels?
14:52:34 >> I can't give you that information.
14:52:36 That's Mindy's area, her expertise, I'm sorry.
14:52:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: In an effort to move this
14:52:42 conversation along, I would like to suggest that we
14:52:45 don't want to charge everybody in the city for this.
14:52:50 We want to charge the people who are cable subscribers
14:52:54 who are benefitting, although I think it's a benefit
14:52:56 to everyone.
14:52:56 But I think in terms of fairness, cable subscribers
14:52:59 should pay for the PEG stations available on cable.
14:53:02 So I would like to move to close the public hearing.
14:53:04 >>ROSE FERLITA: Wait a minute.
14:53:11 Mr. Smith, you might as well stand there so I don't
14:53:14 know who is going to answer this.
14:53:17 It might be you, it might be Mr. Ciamporcero.
14:53:22 We have had a lot of discussion busy what's fair,
14:53:24 what's playing field, what's not playing field.
14:53:27 We have a budge of people here.
14:53:29 Our friends.
14:53:29 Mr. Anderson over here who is also a friend of some of
14:53:32 And everybody is pretty much calm because it's like we
14:53:35 want it, we don't.
14:53:37 Obviously by the line of questioning that you have
14:53:40 gotten from my colleagues, and not so many from me
14:53:43 yet, but we obviously have a lot of problems either
14:53:46 In terms of fairness to Mr. Anderson's client, or
14:53:50 embracing competition, which I think has been said
14:53:52 numerous times, that we want to continue encouraging
14:53:57 It's healthy.
14:53:58 In terms of what Ms. Thompson said, I'm agreeing with
14:54:02 her, that I think we need six PEGs, whether or not Mr.
14:54:05 Anderson thinks so or not.
14:54:07 It's just going to be a variation of what people
14:54:10 think. This is my substance so far.
14:54:13 And depending how these questions are answered I don't
14:54:16 know if I'm supporting its issue on its face or not or
14:54:19 with some changes or whatever.
14:54:20 Mr. Anderson is obviously here to protect his client.
14:54:23 That's a given.
14:54:26 It is similar, I would think, like somebody going to a
14:54:30 car dealership.
14:54:33 I want to buy a car, I'm going to negotiate depending
14:54:37 on how starving is the dealer is that month or how
14:54:40 anxious I am for that model.
14:54:43 That's the deal.
14:54:44 I agreed to what I agreed to.
14:54:45 So did the dealership.
14:54:48 So did the administration.
14:54:49 The flip side is the Verizon customer comes in.
14:54:53 They want to buy a car. They negoiate.
14:54:54 You negotiate.
14:54:55 You feel, whether I agree with you or not I don't
14:54:57 know, that you made a good deal at the dealership.
14:55:03 Although Mr. Anderson thinks that his client is not
14:55:05 getting as good a deal as Mr. Ciamporcero client,
14:55:13 terminates, and that's where he is, that's where they
14:55:16 So as the new kid on the block they think they can
14:55:18 offer something, and perhaps renegotiate with the
14:55:22 I clearly understand.
14:55:23 Let me say this.
14:55:24 I should have enunciated this before I starred.
14:55:26 But under the charter, I understand that it is the
14:55:30 administration's right, not ours, to negotiate a
14:55:33 contract like this.
14:55:34 However, ultimately, we have the fine privilege, as
14:55:36 Mr. Anderson said, I believe, that we wait and have it
14:55:40 sit in our lap.
14:55:41 That's where we are now.
14:55:42 Although we had no active participation in negotiating
14:55:44 this for you or against Verizon or for Bright House or
14:55:47 for whoever were the parties involved.
14:55:50 My question is this:
14:55:53 The issue about putting the three-year termination
14:55:57 opportunity in it was something you didn't do, and he
14:56:00 did, but yet at the same time it doesn't matter
14:56:03 because they could do this and walk away sooner than
14:56:06 that if they wanted to.
14:56:09 I don't understand the reason for putting that
14:56:11 language in.
14:56:13 The second thing is, is the fact that happened, the
14:56:17 people that have decided to bail from Bright House,
14:56:20 and whoever brought that -- I think Louise did.
14:56:24 She's absolutely right.
14:56:25 I heard another situation earlier today that there's
14:56:26 an advertisement going on that gives somebody, road
14:56:29 runner, for much cheaper than I'm paying as a Bright
14:56:32 House customer.
14:56:33 Well, that's one of those things that not necessarily
14:56:36 a flea market approach but if you know the competitor
14:56:38 is coming with less all of a sudden the cost of doing
14:56:41 business with me is going to go down.
14:56:42 That's the reality of the marketplace.
14:56:44 So I understand that.
14:56:45 I don't fault them.
14:56:46 I don't support them.
14:56:47 That's just how they are reacting to than anticipated
14:56:52 But if they decide to leave, the people that think
14:56:54 they are getting a better deal on this side, the same
14:56:58 people that I think Mr. Dingfelder talked about, that
14:57:03 had their yards torn up and right-of-way torn up and
14:57:07 inconvenience, and I know it took four iterations
14:57:10 before they put mine the way it was before.
14:57:12 Where did they stand?
14:57:13 It's like, my God, I think I have to go back to Bright
14:57:17 I don't have a level of comfort for the people that we
14:57:19 are supposed to be representing, for the people that
14:57:21 you serve, are saying are going to have a cheaper
14:57:25 praise for a better product.
14:57:28 Now, when we talked about -- Mr. Dingfelder talked
14:57:32 about, okay, you gays come in very aggressively.
14:57:35 And Mr. Anderson had a very good point, and many
14:57:38 points when-talked to me,.
14:57:41 Just yesterday I talked to Anna Cruz and Ms. Bowling
14:57:46 and they had an incredible argument on their said.
14:57:50 They said the argument and technology far surpasses
14:57:53 what Bright House has.
14:57:54 And this is going to be something that should be
14:57:56 embraced by the neighborhoods and by the constituents
14:57:58 of this city.
14:58:01 I saw you walk back and forth.
14:58:03 At first you came up to us.
14:58:05 I hope you can remember all the questions I'm asking.
14:58:07 But you came up and said, conservatively, 30% of the
14:58:10 market share.
14:58:11 However, if it's 30%, I'm in a lot of trouble.
14:58:14 I might be working for maybe Bright House.
14:58:17 30% is really not accurate.
14:58:19 It's just a low-ball estimate.
14:58:20 We know we can live with that.
14:58:22 But because of the class of our product, we know we
14:58:28 are going to take much more of the market share, maybe
14:58:31 Then again when Mr. Dingfelder approached but his
14:58:34 offer you said, I don't know because you know we are
14:58:36 the new guy on the block and we don't have any
14:58:38 customers yet and what if we don't make 30%?
14:58:41 I don't know.
14:58:41 But just awhile ago you talked very strongly about the
14:58:44 product you are trying to market.
14:58:45 So I guess my dilemma in the maze of all these
14:58:48 questions that I'm shooting at you and Mr. Smith, I am
14:58:52 not sure where we are, given our charge.
14:58:56 Your charge is supposed to be, show us that dealing
14:58:58 with you on this franchise is good for you and good
14:59:01 for us, good for the constituents.
14:59:03 Bright House is saying give us a fair shake, give us a
14:59:06 But they were going to negotiate the deal long before
14:59:09 you ever came into the arena.
14:59:11 I think we have to have some assurance that the
14:59:15 confidence I saw in you earlier, sir, needs to still
14:59:19 be with you when we start talking about depend
14:59:21 depending on that over 30% market share that is
14:59:24 probably a long shot, and in 2025 or whatever it is
14:59:28 that your contract is finished that if there is a
14:59:30 shortfall then you are going to pay that to the city.
14:59:33 That would make it fair in my mind for all the
14:59:35 Maybe not as fair as Mr. Anderson wants but he already
14:59:39 made a deal.
14:59:40 And we are in the process of making a deal with you.
14:59:43 I have to direct my decision based on what we are
14:59:46 And I will tell you that given all the details of this
14:59:49 argument, or at least negotiation, Mr. Smith, in all
14:59:53 due respect, I don't think we did as good a deal as we
14:59:58 could have.
14:59:58 We have somebody doing stuff already and we are going
15:00:01 to negotiate with them.
15:00:03 But when we start having opt-out clauses, et cetera,
15:00:06 you have two guys wanting to do the same thing.
15:00:08 And I think we could have done better.
15:00:10 But that being said, that's my opinion.
15:00:12 And that's why I'm trying to compensate for the
15:00:15 negotiated contract that you all are in charge of
15:00:19 based on charter and I'm not.
15:00:21 I guess my bottom line is whoever makes me feel good
15:00:25 about him versus him, that's the one I'm going to
15:00:28 So who would love to start answering my questions and
15:00:31 we'll R we'll go from there?
15:00:33 >>> I would love to start answering your questions.
15:00:35 First of all, it's just the three years.
15:00:38 Remember, we started talking about this franchise
15:00:41 about a year and a half ago.
15:00:47 We haven't seen anywhere in the country a single video
15:00:52 So we put in all franchises because we -- when we make
15:00:55 a contract we don't just back out of our contracts.
15:00:58 We like to have it clear what's going to happen.
15:01:00 So we said, look, we don't know, if we are going to
15:01:05 compete in this business we need a three-year out.
15:01:08 Now we know we are a lot better at it than we did then
15:01:11 when we started negotiating this deal.
15:01:12 >> You don't need the 3-year out.
15:01:15 >> I don't need the 3-year out.
15:01:18 I don't know if they could.
15:01:20 >> Let's mark that as possible.
15:01:21 >> But that's a deal here.
15:01:23 It's a brand new business.
15:01:26 You know, in a new neighborhood, and if you were next
15:01:29 to somebody else, then you wouldn't know how you were
15:01:31 going to do.
15:01:33 >> But I would -- if I had done my work, I would make
15:01:37 sure that I'm able to compete with the guy I'm coming
15:01:40 in next to or I wouldn't open up.
15:01:41 And I think you guys are much more confident about
15:01:45 your product than I would be with mine.
15:01:47 I think you come in with a level of confidence that
15:01:49 negates that concern.
15:01:49 >> Well, it's negated in the beginning.
15:01:56 Now we are better off.
15:01:58 I should just say it's also a phone system.
15:02:00 It's also a data network. It's not just TV now.
15:02:03 So remember at the beginning when we started to do
15:02:05 this, we didn't know which of these products would
15:02:07 take off.
15:02:10 Hopefully, they all will.
15:02:11 Now we feel better about it because we have had a year
15:02:14 of experience.
15:02:14 So as I said, the three years isn't as important as it
15:02:18 was then, because now we have a track record.
15:02:21 But we in this community for a hundred years.
15:02:25 All the pain we have gone through the last two years
15:02:28 to put this in, all the bad publicity, do you think we
15:02:32 are going to walk away from this?
15:02:33 I would hope not.
15:02:36 >> That's what I'm trying to encourage you not to do.
15:02:40 We are not doing the questions but go ahead.
15:02:41 >>DAVID SMITH: I also respond in part to Mr.
15:02:45 Dingfelder's issue.
15:02:46 Part of the problem is whenever you're negotiating
15:02:49 anything you are negotiating in a context.
15:02:51 And also when you negotiate an agreement it is a
15:02:55 If we want to change the provision and provide the
15:02:59 very sound suggestion by Mr. Dingfelder, they may want
15:03:05 to revisit the subbasis.
15:03:07 We went through 38, 45.
15:03:09 We've all kinds of different numbers that we went
15:03:12 >> They might want top revisit what, Mr. Smith?
15:03:14 I didn't hear you.
15:03:16 >>> My point is a contract, I don't think it should be
15:03:19 negotiated in this context.
15:03:20 I think it should be presented to you as a whole.
15:03:22 You gays either vote it up or vote it down.
15:03:26 If people doing business with the city know they are
15:03:28 going to have to renegotiate their contract in front
15:03:30 of city we have a problem.
15:03:32 You have a lot of excellent ideas.
15:03:34 I can tell if you they are negotiating and we put that
15:03:36 provision on the table, and that Mr. Dingfelder
15:03:38 mentioned, there would be other responses in return.
15:03:40 >> Mr. Smith, out of a general comment, not
15:03:43 particularly this one, but why is it that the
15:03:45 administration doesn't make the opportunity to
15:03:47 communicate with us so we can give you some thoughts
15:03:49 so when it comes down to the negotiating part, you
15:03:53 would incorporate those ideas, at least for
15:03:56 That doesn't happen.
15:03:57 So that's a disadvantage that you have, you the
15:03:59 administration, have personally inflicted, I want to
15:04:02 tell you.
15:04:05 >>> But I think it's important to realize that these
15:04:07 things particularly complicated documents are very
15:04:11 And there is often a give and take.
15:04:14 And when you change one provision, it is usually
15:04:16 reasonable to revisit other related provisions.
15:04:20 Believe me, I have been doing it for a year and a
15:04:22 Every solution we came up with two one problem
15:04:25 resulted in four or five new problems.
15:04:27 And you can always revisit and agreement after it's
15:04:32 But I think it was our view, particularly with the
15:04:34 level playing field, that the case law supported a per
15:04:37 subscriber basis.
15:04:39 That's the best way to analyze that.
15:04:42 That's why we did it.
15:04:43 We didn't contemplate the idea that Mr. Dingfelder
15:04:45 mentioned so that was never negotiated either way.
15:04:48 It's an excellent idea.
15:04:49 But the problem is, I think we have negotiated this
15:04:54 It's a good agreement for the city.
15:04:56 It's an agreement that's legally defensible.
15:04:58 I think it's an agreement that we feel very
15:05:00 degenerative -- confident is a very good agreement in
15:05:03 light of the context.
15:05:04 Bear in mind, we were looking at the time -- and we
15:05:07 are still looking at it, the possibility of a federal
15:05:09 and state change.
15:05:11 I don't want to mislead but the provision of Mr.
15:05:17 There's a question about that.
15:05:18 I don't want top elaborate that.
15:05:22 But nothing is unproblematic in the practice of law.
15:05:26 You have a lot of issues here.
15:05:28 And I can't cannot always expose all of these issues
15:05:31 to you in a public forum and sometimes not even
15:05:33 private because I --
15:05:35 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Smith, again I hate to interrupt
15:05:37 you, but you can't expose all of that.
15:05:39 But still in the business of making a decision up
15:05:41 here, I'm afraid that most of us, if not all of us,
15:05:44 want to have all those facts very much clarified, so
15:05:47 that puts us at a handicap and ultimately there are
15:05:50 seven people who vote on this, and not you, with all
15:05:53 due respect.
15:05:54 That's a concern to me.
15:05:58 I mean, if you can't talk about it up here, you should
15:06:01 have talked about it before.
15:06:03 Gotten more input.
15:06:04 >>DAVID SMITH: The only issue that we did not speak
15:06:09 about was whether or not the provision that presents
15:06:11 them from canceling the franchise agreement, if the
15:06:15 law changes, whether that's enforceable or not.
15:06:18 That's just problematic.
15:06:20 >> I am just talking about the different suggestions
15:06:28 council members had or would have had if they had
15:06:30 conversation before you got here.
15:06:32 This is not the place to negotiate a deal.
15:06:34 You're absolutely right.
15:06:35 But this is not the place for me to make a decision
15:06:37 unless I'm very comfortable that all the facts are in
15:06:40 front of me, and that they were the highest and best
15:06:43 terms of a contract.
15:06:46 My dilemma right now is I'm not sure that they are.
15:06:49 And I'm taking Mr. Anderson and his client out of the
15:06:52 I'm talking about what you did with them.
15:06:58 >> And if you are not comfortable, you don't vote for
15:07:01 I understand.
15:07:04 You often are asked to make difficult decisions.
15:07:07 I'm before you today recommending it.
15:07:08 I think it is a good deal in light of all the factors.
15:07:11 And if you don't agree you won't vote for it but I
15:07:13 would hope you would because I think it is good for
15:07:14 the city.
15:07:22 >>MARY ALVAREZ: When Bright House took over from Jones
15:07:24 intercable back in 2000, was a new agreement talked
15:07:31 about at that time?
15:07:32 Or did we just absorb what Jones intercable had?
15:07:36 >> They had a new franchise agreement.
15:07:37 Their agreement started, what, 2000?
15:07:40 Basically at 2000.
15:07:43 They are six years into the contract agreement.
15:07:44 They have nine more years.
15:07:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So then when they took over from Jones
15:07:50 intercable, they were already -- they had already had
15:07:54 all of their network, all of their houses, all of
15:07:57 their customer base in here.
15:08:01 >>> Yes, they did. Time-Warner actually took over in
15:08:04 >> I don't --
15:08:06 >>> They took it over in 2002.
15:08:08 >> Time-Warner took over --
15:08:10 >>> In 2000, and Bright House I believe either
15:08:13 acquired them or acquired this franchise in 2002.
15:08:16 >> The fact remains that Bright House came in and
15:08:22 picked up all these customers from the 79,000
15:08:26 according to this, 79,000 customers from Time-Warner.
15:08:31 So they were already in here.
15:08:34 They had no -- other than what they paid Time-Warner
15:08:38 to bay out the franchise.
15:08:41 Is that right?
15:08:41 >>> That's correct.
15:08:42 >> So then we the city renegotiated the deal?
15:08:47 Or was it the same type of franchise -- was it the
15:08:51 same type of agreement?
15:08:53 >>> They continued under the existing franchise.
15:08:55 And one of the payments I think was 1.25 million.
15:09:04 >> Because they already had a dedicated customer base.
15:09:07 >>> Yes, ma'am.
15:09:07 >> Thank you.
15:09:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's a response to Mr. Smith.
15:09:14 David, you know I respect you tremendously.
15:09:16 I disagree respectfully with what you say.
15:09:20 This council can take this entire contract, and it
15:09:24 looks like 100 pages with the appendix and everything
15:09:28 And I'm suggesting one line edition that I have
15:09:31 already written out that you and they could go back to
15:09:34 the table this afternoon and look at, and massage and
15:09:38 come back to us tonight, and they can say whether or
15:09:41 not they agree to it, yes or no, and then we can say
15:09:43 "yes" or "no" whether or not we want to go forward.
15:09:46 It's a pretty simple deal.
15:09:49 It's not reopening the entire contract.
15:09:51 Nobody on council wants to reopen the entire 100
15:09:54 And you know what?
15:09:55 I don't think there's anybody on council that really
15:09:57 wants to say no to competition.
15:10:00 >> Then don't.
15:10:01 >> So we don't want to vote no.
15:10:02 So we shouldn't be faced with Aye or Nay, up or down.
15:10:05 That's not what we want the headlines to read tomorrow
15:10:08 morning, that this council said no.
15:10:09 But at the same time, this $6.25 million keeping
15:10:13 circling back.
15:10:14 The reason it's sort of new, at least new to this
15:10:16 councilman, is, A, I never saw the contract until this
15:10:19 week, and in finished form, and B, we never saw Bright
15:10:23 House's comments until this week, specifically about
15:10:26 the $6.25 million.
15:10:29 I think that it's a solution that they can finish up
15:10:36 at the end of the 15-year period.
15:10:38 If they are over fine, they walk away.
15:10:40 If they are over they make up the difference.
15:10:42 I have one line to add to the contract that would
15:10:44 And that's not a big deal and it -- we can tell them
15:10:48 right now, if I make a motion for a continuance on
15:10:50 this basis, it's not a motion to revisit anything else
15:10:52 in that agreement, period.
15:10:55 It's just for the limited purposes of accepting this.
15:10:58 I would also like to see us keep channel 15 where it
15:11:02 But that's not as big a deal. Anyway, Rose, I'm sorry
15:11:07 if I interrupted.
15:11:09 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's okay.
15:11:10 I just had one other question and I'm pretty much on
15:11:12 the same page as you, John, for that.
15:11:14 We just have to make that decision.
15:11:16 Mr. Ciamporcero, if somebody has full service, all the
15:11:21 things we talked about from Bright House and you guys
15:11:23 came in, it would be pretty much seemless or is it
15:11:26 going to be a lot of situations where there will be a
15:11:28 lot more external wires, et cetera?
15:11:33 >>> No.
15:11:33 We try if we can to use the current internal wires,
15:11:37 the fiber comes up to the house wall.
15:11:40 And then we took into coax cable.
15:11:44 If it's in good shape we can use it.
15:11:47 If they don't block it off.
15:11:50 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you.
15:11:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
15:11:56 >>DAVID SMITH: I appreciate, Mr. Dingfelder, your
15:12:02 opinion and we don't take anything personally.
15:12:05 The charter reads it's an agreement with
15:12:07 recommendation from the administration.
15:12:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I can make a recommendation to
15:12:11 the administration to revisit over the next five hours
15:12:13 or three hours, okay, and that's the best I can do
15:12:16 because I already listened.
15:12:20 >>ROSE FERLITA: But that doesn't guarantee that the
15:12:22 rest of us are going to go.
15:12:23 I had two issues.
15:12:25 You had one issue.
15:12:27 So then it's kind of --
15:12:29 >> It would be my motion --
15:12:34 >>ROSE FERLITA: Because I am not going to support it.
15:12:36 The condition I'm concerned about is the opting out
15:12:38 because --
15:12:46 >> They wanted to get it done tonight.
15:12:47 >> No, they wanted to get it done by eleven.
15:12:49 >> For me that's not a make or break.
15:12:52 I think the language is more important than the
15:12:55 I thought everybody kind of wanted to get it done
15:12:59 That's why I suggested tonight.
15:13:00 If you want to put it off a week.
15:13:03 >> At 3:00.
15:13:04 We have to be back at 5:30.
15:13:06 We have a longs agenda.
15:13:07 >> It's very important.
15:13:08 >>: We can wait a weak.
15:13:09 >>GWEN MILLER: We are still not getting anywhere.
15:13:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is a part-time job.
15:13:19 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We are going to be back at 5:30.
15:13:23 All you have to do is talk to them and say, are you
15:13:25 willing to make the change at 5:30 today or do you
15:13:28 have to go back and talk to some of your corporate
15:13:31 And we come back at 5:30.
15:13:33 And we can vote it up or down.
15:13:39 >> You have got three options.
15:13:41 You can vote in favor of it.
15:13:42 You can vote against it.
15:13:43 Or if you choose, you can vote to continue it.
15:13:47 I'm here simply presenting a recommendation from the
15:13:52 That's the context I'm in due to the charter.
15:13:54 This is the contract that's been recommended.
15:13:58 Nothing stops you from continuing, if you choose to
15:14:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We can recommend that.
15:14:03 >>: You can do whatever in that regard.
15:14:05 And then decide -- the administration can decide what
15:14:08 they want to do.
15:14:10 This is the contract we have negotiated.
15:14:11 Vote it up or vote it down.
15:14:17 >>ROSE FERLITA: I agree with you at the end because I
15:14:21 think they are going to be aggressive enough and
15:14:23 technologically advanced enough to do better than his
15:14:26 conservative estimate.
15:14:27 But if we don't do the thing about whether it's three
15:14:30 years or two years or whatever at any point in the
15:14:33 contract, they are able to get out of it, you're
15:14:35 saying at the end, if there's some shortfall they are
15:14:39 going to have to make it up.
15:14:40 Then me and Mr. Verizon, I'm going to say, Well, it
15:14:43 looks we aren't going to do it, 14.5 years later, I
15:14:46 go, I'm canceling.
15:14:48 >> The language will clearly say at the end of 15
15:14:49 years or any point short of that, where they are
15:14:52 pulling out, they would have to do the whole 6.25.
15:14:55 But they are not going to pull out.
15:14:56 But I agree with you.
15:14:57 Just in case they would, if they pull out at any time
15:14:59 in between, and --
15:15:02 >>ROSE FERLITA: If the opt-out doesn't preclude them
15:15:05 paying the difference, which I don't think -- I think
15:15:08 we are talking just hypothetically.
15:15:10 So long as there's not an opportunity for them to not
15:15:15 see the contract till the end or compensate for your
15:15:18 suggestion, then that's fine.
15:15:21 If you include that, then I'm very supportive. If you
15:15:22 don't, I won't.
15:15:23 >>DAVID SMITH: The provision is a one-time opt out.
15:15:27 It's not anytime after three years.
15:15:29 You have at the three year mark 90 days in advance you
15:15:31 have to provide notice or terminate.
15:15:32 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Smith, that was my concern.
15:15:34 >> I understand that.
15:15:36 I just wanted to make sure --
15:15:38 >>ROSE FERLITA: Again we keep saying but it's not, but
15:15:41 it's not, but it's not.
15:15:42 But you never know.
15:15:43 But we are still putting our constituents at risk that
15:15:46 decided to not do business with Anderson's group and
15:15:48 do business with Ciamporcero's group.
15:15:53 Do they have an opt-out provision?
15:15:54 >> They can opt out anytime they want to.
15:15:57 >> He's saying no.
15:15:59 You're saying yes.
15:16:01 >>> Yes.
15:16:05 >> If they have already paid.
15:16:05 >> That kind of forces them to stay and see the rest
15:16:08 of the game then.
15:16:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: In an effort to move things along
15:16:13 >> That's what you keep trying to do it but it doesn't
15:16:16 >> I think that what is before us is very satisfactory
15:16:20 and I'm going to try to vote on what is before us and
15:16:22 see if it goes.
15:16:23 So I would like to move to close the public hearing.
15:16:25 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
15:16:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close the public
15:16:29 Question on the motion.
15:16:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
15:16:32 I'd like to offer a substitute motion.
15:16:34 >>GWEN MILLER: We haven't voted the close the
15:16:38 substitute motion.
15:16:38 >> I know.
15:16:39 But I would like to offer a substitute motion that we
15:16:43 continue this matter, with the recommendation to the
15:16:47 administration that they continue to negotiate this,
15:16:50 specifically as related to the two items that I
15:16:52 mentioned, with the $5.25 million payable at the end
15:16:57 of the 15-year term, or whatever point short of that
15:17:00 that they pull out, and I'd like to see the channel 15
15:17:04 CTTV, channel 15 CTTV.
15:17:10 Those are two things I would like the administration
15:17:11 to continue to look at until this evening.
15:17:13 Mr. Harrison, what time would you suggest?
15:17:16 >>SHAWN HARRISON: At 5:30.
15:17:18 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Do you want to rush it or make it
15:17:23 >>> In case some of us are a couple minutes late I
15:17:25 don't want to miss the vote so let's say 6:30.
15:17:28 As close as possible between two other hearings.
15:17:33 I'll support that.
15:17:34 >> We have a motion and second.
15:17:35 Question on the motion.
15:17:37 Mr. Harrison.
15:17:38 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't see any harm in waiting for
15:17:40 three hours.
15:17:41 Either vote it up or down tonight at 6:30 no matter
15:17:44 So we'll wait until 6:30.
15:17:47 We are doing exactly what Mr. Smith we shouldn't be
15:17:49 doing, and that is we are negotiating on the fly here.
15:17:53 And I had some ideas that didn't get too far either.
15:18:03 My ideas were radical changes.
15:18:05 They weren't -- (Laughter).
15:18:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Shawn, you're always so radical.
15:18:12 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Smith, is there any harm in
15:18:14 coming back at 6:30?
15:18:18 >> I had a seminar at 3:00.
15:18:21 But -- you gays are going to do what you are going to
15:18:31 >> I call the question.
15:18:32 >> All in favor to continue till tonight at 6:30 all
15:18:35 in favor say Aye.
15:18:36 Opposed, Nay.
15:18:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Nay.
15:18:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
15:18:40 We are going to our second reading of public hearings,
15:18:42 page 11.
15:18:43 We need to open the public hearing.
15:18:47 50 to 54.
15:18:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I apologize.
15:18:53 I have to attend a meeting.
15:18:55 I'll be right back.
15:18:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Is anyone in the public going to speak
15:19:03 on 50 to 54?
15:19:08 You need to stand and raise your right hand.
15:19:11 50 to 54.
15:19:12 If you are going to speak on those items please raise
15:19:14 your right hand.
15:19:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I would ask that all written
15:19:30 communications relative to today's hearings that have
15:19:31 been available to the public be received and filed
15:19:35 into the record, please.
15:19:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
15:19:40 (Motion carried).
15:19:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Finally, if any member of council has
15:19:44 any ex parte communications, please disclose them
15:19:47 prayer to the vote.
15:19:49 And when you state your name, please reaffirm that you
15:19:51 were sworn for the record.
15:19:52 Thank you.
15:19:54 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open the public hearing.
15:19:56 We have a motion and second to open 50 to 54.
15:19:59 All in favor say Aye.
15:20:01 Opposed, Nay.
15:20:01 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
15:20:04 item 50?
15:20:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
15:20:10 >>> The Pinellas County's representative.
15:20:12 I am asking that you approve this as well.
15:20:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
15:20:16 >> Second.
15:20:16 (Motion carried).
15:20:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to adopt on second reading an
15:20:25 ordinance approving a special use permit S-2 approving
15:20:27 a 148-foot flag monopole in an RS 60 residential
15:20:31 zoning district in the general vicinity of 6001 south
15:20:35 Himes Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and as more
15:20:38 particularly described in section hereof waiving
15:20:41 section 27-134.1 by increasing the height from 140
15:20:45 feet to 148 feet waiving section 27-134-point 1 by
15:20:50 reducing the required minimum setback from 300 feet to
15:20:53 131 feet on the north and reducing the required
15:20:56 minimum setback from 300 feet to 112 feet on the east,
15:21:01 waiving section 27-272 by allowing residential uses to
15:21:05 be located on all sides of the property providing an
15:21:07 effective date.
15:21:08 >> Second.
15:21:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Vote and record.
15:21:23 (Motion carried).
15:21:24 >>> Thank you very much.
15:21:25 And I was sworn.
15:21:26 I'm sorry, I thought of it after I spoke.
15:21:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
15:21:30 wants to speak on item 51?
15:21:34 You want to speak on 51?
15:21:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
15:21:37 >> Second.
15:21:38 (Motion carried).
15:21:38 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to adopt the following
15:21:41 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance approving
15:21:43 a special use permit S-2 approving a school community
15:21:46 education facility in an RS-50 residential zoning
15:21:49 district in the general vicinity of 1905 east Waters
15:21:52 Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and as more
15:21:54 particularly described in section 1 hereof waiving
15:21:56 section 27-272 by allowing access to OGONTZ Avenue, a
15:22:01 local street, instead of having direct access to an
15:22:04 arterial or collector street, waiving section 27-130
15:22:07 by allowing an alternative landscape buffer from the
15:22:12 required 10 feet to 5 feet with trees, hedges and a 6
15:22:16 fat solid wood fence at the rear of the property,
15:22:19 providing an effective date.
15:22:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
15:22:22 Vote and record.
15:22:25 >>SHAWN HARRISON: You don't have to say anything.
15:22:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
15:22:34 wants to speak on item number 52?
15:22:36 >> Move to close.
15:22:37 >> Second.
15:22:37 (Motion carried)
15:22:38 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to adopt the following ordinance
15:22:51 on second reading, ordinance 2006-33 which made lawful
15:22:57 the sale of beverages regardless of alcoholic content
15:23:00 beer, wine and liquor 3 PS in sealed containers for
15:23:03 consumption off premises from that certain lot, plot
15:23:06 or tract of land located at 1313 south Dale Mabry
15:23:08 highway, Tampa, Florida correcting a scrivener's
15:23:11 error, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
15:23:15 conflict, providing an effective date.
15:23:17 >> I have a motion an second.
15:23:22 >> Could you remained me which is 1313 south Dale
15:23:24 Mabry Boulevard?
15:23:28 >>REBECCA KERT: Assistant city attorney. This is just
15:23:31 correct ago scrivener's error, after City Council had
15:23:33 passed this ordinance, the address had changed, and
15:23:35 the building was given a new address.
15:23:39 So this is merely correcting the address.
15:23:46 This is the Publix.
15:23:48 The liquor store at Publix?
15:23:51 >> Vote and record.
15:23:58 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder voting no.
15:24:04 >> Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak
15:24:06 on 53?
15:24:07 >> Move to close.
15:24:08 >> Second.
15:24:08 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move to adopt the following ordinance
15:24:10 upon second reading, ordinance rezoning property in
15:24:12 the general vicinity of 3802 and 3810 South Westshore
15:24:15 Boulevard in the city of Tampa, Florida more
15:24:17 particularly described in section 1 from zoning
15:24:20 district classifications PD bank with drive through to
15:24:23 PD bank with drive through, providing an effective
15:24:25 >> Motion and second.
15:24:27 Vote and record.
15:24:32 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena being
15:24:34 >> Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak
15:24:36 on item 54?
15:24:38 >> Move to close.
15:24:39 >> Send.
15:24:39 (Motion carried).
15:24:40 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move on second reading, an ordinance
15:24:49 rezoning property in the general vicinity of 2810 and
15:24:52 2805 west Saint Isabel street in the zoning district
15:24:57 from PD medical office to PD medical office providing
15:25:00 an effective date.
15:25:02 >> Motion and second.
15:25:03 Vote and record.
15:25:05 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena being
15:25:08 >>GWEN MILLER: On item 55 we need to open the public
15:25:11 >> So moved.
15:25:11 >> Second.
15:25:13 >> And to continue to 5:30 since the first public
15:25:17 hearing will be continued from April 27 to May 11 at
15:25:21 >> So moved.
15:25:22 >> Second.
15:25:22 (Motion carried).
15:25:23 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Number 56, move to continue that
15:25:29 till 6:30.
15:25:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. Number 57.
15:25:37 Continued public hearing.
15:25:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You may want to swear the witnesses
15:25:45 in for the following items.
15:25:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone that wants to speak on 57, 58,
15:25:52 and 59? That's it?
15:25:56 Oh, we got a lot.
15:25:57 >>SHAWN HARRISON: 57 through 63.
15:26:05 (Oath administered by Clerk)
15:26:19 >> Dennis Fernandez, historic preservation manager.
15:26:21 I have been sworn in, here on item number 57 which is
15:26:24 the recommendation from the Historic Preservation
15:26:26 Commission to initiate the designation of of the local
15:26:30 landmark for the group of historic bridges on the
15:26:33 Hillsborough River.
15:26:34 And I have a very short PowerPoint.
15:26:39 >> Dennis, you did such a good job and you have given
15:26:42 us such comprehensive information in the staff report,
15:26:44 can we rely on the staff report?
15:26:46 >>SHAWN HARRISON: You really don't need a PowerPoint.
15:26:50 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak
15:26:52 on item 57?
15:26:58 >> Move to close.
15:27:00 >>SHAWN HARRISON: If you agree with what we are doing,
15:27:08 you don't need to take any time.
15:27:10 >> A lot of time.
15:27:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Two names.
15:27:14 Helen Patrinoc. And Mona Laflia?
15:27:19 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Does anybody oppose this?
15:27:26 We would like to move on.
15:27:27 You have the right to speak but I'm suggesting in the
15:27:29 interest of time if you agree with this, I don't see
15:27:31 any opposition.
15:27:32 Most likely it's going to pass.
15:27:34 >> So you're okay with it?
15:27:36 >> We are fine with it.
15:27:37 >> Is there anyone in the audience that would like to
15:27:39 speak on this item?
15:27:40 >> Move to close.
15:27:41 >> Second.
15:27:41 (Motion carried).
15:27:43 >> Move the resolution.
15:27:45 >>: Second.
15:27:45 (Motion carried).
15:27:46 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
15:27:50 Great presentation.
15:27:57 >>THE CLERK: The item that we just passed, the
15:27:59 resolution, there was a substitution on one of the
15:28:01 pages, because of the change in the legal.
15:28:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move the substitute resolution.
15:28:07 >> Second.
15:28:07 (Motion carried).
15:28:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open number 58.
15:28:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I have a note here. This needs to
15:28:16 be opened and continued to the 5:30 p.m. session.
15:28:18 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Another one?
15:28:21 >>THE CLERK: Your first public hearing was continued.
15:28:23 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
15:28:27 >> Second.
15:28:27 >>ROSE FERLITA: Is there a reason why we have to do it
15:28:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Continue it till after you close the
15:28:36 public hearing.
15:28:38 >>THE CLERK: This is a two-part.
15:28:40 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's feign.
15:28:42 I'm just anticipating.
15:28:43 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Item 59.
15:28:46 >> Move to open.
15:28:47 >> Second.
15:28:47 (Motion carried).
15:28:47 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
15:28:50 I'm filling in for Jimmy Cook.
15:28:52 He's out today.
15:28:57 This case is C 06-02, petitioner petitioning to vacate
15:29:04 an alley running from 26th street to 28th
15:29:09 Staff has no objections.
15:29:10 There are utility easements being reserved.
15:29:12 The approximately square footage of the alley being
15:29:15 vacated is 9200 square feet.
15:29:17 You were provided photos in your packets.
15:29:20 Again the larger versions on the Elmo.
15:29:22 To walk you through briefly, this is the alley looking
15:29:24 west from 28th to 26th.
15:29:30 Looking east from 26th to 28th.
15:29:33 This is the petitioner's property.
15:29:37 The property abutting the alley on the south.
15:29:53 This is the portion not being vacated continuing west.
15:29:56 This is the overall area.
15:29:58 You will notice here the parcel, petitioner, the alley
15:30:01 running east-west.
15:30:02 Once again, staff has no objections.
15:30:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can you put that arrow back up?
15:30:14 On the cigar factory end of this, is that open or
15:30:20 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The entire alley currently is open.
15:30:23 >> You can drive the whole way up in there?
15:30:26 Some of those pictures clearly show some evidence of
15:30:30 driving up and down.
15:30:31 >>> When I say open, I mean open and not vacated.
15:30:39 >> It's pretty clear it's been an active alley for
15:30:44 On the cigar factory side, are you showing that shot?
15:30:49 >>> This is the cigar factory here.
15:30:51 And the ruts are in this portion of the alley.
15:31:08 >> Now show the alley again.
15:31:10 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Is there anyone in the public that
15:31:12 would like to speak on item number 59?
15:31:15 >>: Move to close.
15:31:16 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion to close.
15:31:19 Motion and second.
15:31:21 Question on the motion to close.
15:31:22 Mr. Dingfelder?
15:31:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
15:31:30 Are you here on this issue or what?
15:31:35 >>> I want to say that we do have the support of the
15:31:37 community association.
15:31:39 I have a letter from them.
15:31:41 Also, I talked to the owners in detail.
15:31:45 For the most part, there were some issues and actually
15:31:52 the problem -- the alley is not going to be abandoned
15:31:56 or closed.
15:31:58 It's included as part of a redevelopment of the cigar
15:32:02 But they are combining the two properties.
15:32:04 And this is the requirement.
15:32:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But the problem is regardless of
15:32:08 what you're going to do, if I'm the property owner
15:32:12 further up I can now go into the alley and put up my
15:32:16 fence halfway across the alley.
15:32:18 >>> That cannot be done because of the easements, part
15:32:21 of that Verizon Tampa wastewater, and permanent
15:32:25 >> Are we preserving a transportation easement for the
15:32:28 whole area?
15:32:30 Unless we do, then I would beg to differ.
15:32:47 >>> Legal department.
15:32:47 The staff report shows that we are reserving a Verizon
15:32:50 easement, a TECO gas easement.
15:32:54 There are no transportation easements.
15:32:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's the typical easement, but
15:33:02 that doesn't mean it's going to remain open without
15:33:05 fences across it, right?
15:33:08 There's no assurances.
15:33:09 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: There's no assurances.
15:33:12 It is subject to approval by the respective holders
15:33:18 but they are not allowed to put more than shrubbery.
15:33:23 >>> The portion of the alleyway that's currently next,
15:33:26 that will remain open as part of the redevelopment of
15:33:30 the cigar factory.
15:33:32 And I have the plans for that.
15:33:40 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Any questions?
15:33:43 We have a motion to close.
15:33:44 We have a a second to close?
15:33:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: One more question on this.
15:33:48 Haven't we in the past, Roland, wasn't something
15:33:52 created where we can grant the -- we can do something
15:33:57 with -- I know, I'm tired, it's the end of the day --
15:34:00 but an easement or still allow them to do this
15:34:03 development plan but not necessarily Vay can't
15:34:04 indicate the whole entire active alley?
15:34:06 This is in the historic area of Palmetto Beach, next
15:34:12 to the cigar factory and other homes, I'm going to
15:34:18 Is it an active alley?
15:34:20 I don't want to turn them down so they can continue to
15:34:22 do their plan.
15:34:23 What have we done in the past or what can we do?
15:34:30 >>> The picture, it spoke a thousand words.
15:34:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Cathy showed some great pictures.
15:34:40 But they showed tire tracks up and down the alley.
15:34:45 >>> The tools available to us and we have used in the
15:34:47 past have been the easement, particularly the one you
15:34:51 reference, the transportation easement.
15:34:52 The only other possible option that could be out there
15:34:55 would be for them to request an encroachment petition.
15:34:59 We have done that, in lieu of vacating.
15:35:02 But that's actual structures are going to go into the
15:35:06 >> If we add to the transportation easement and give
15:35:09 us a little more control on trying to keep that an
15:35:11 open alley, if folks can continue to run up and down,
15:35:15 the public.
15:35:15 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Yes, sir.
15:35:17 Right now because the city easement prohibits the
15:35:19 installation of anything over that area, it would be
15:35:24 open, if you look at it.
15:35:25 It just wouldn't have that quality a person could
15:35:28 traverse it.
15:35:29 That would be the difference between the utility
15:35:31 easement, which is specific for utilities.
15:35:34 Even though the easement prohibits the installing of
15:35:38 any sort of barrier, if we add the transportation
15:35:41 easement, it would bring in that quality, basically we
15:35:44 are just changing the name, goes from being a
15:35:46 right-of-way to a transportation easement, but the fee
15:35:49 aspects are transferred.
15:35:51 >> And they can still do what they want to do.
15:35:53 Petitioner, are you all right with that if we maintain
15:35:55 a transportation easement?
15:35:57 >>> That's fine.
15:35:57 Our development plans show that that will remain open.
15:36:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll offer a substitute motion to
15:36:04 send to the legal to add a transportation easement.
15:36:08 A motion, bring it back within a week.
15:36:10 THE CLERK: You need to close the public hearing first.
15:36:13 >> Move to close.
15:36:14 >> Second.
15:36:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close for a continuance for
15:36:17 a week?
15:36:20 Move to close.
15:36:21 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second.
15:36:22 (Motion carried).
15:36:24 Now you need a motion.
15:36:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Have legal add a transportation
15:36:33 >> Second.
15:36:33 (Motion carried).
15:36:35 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Item number 60.
15:36:44 Motion and second to open.
15:36:45 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
15:36:47 I believe I have good news.
15:36:49 Mr. Michelini is the petitioner's agent for this case.
15:36:52 And he is not here.
15:36:56 He's on a plane.
15:36:57 So I don't know if anybody else is here for him.
15:37:07 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Is there anyone here representing
15:37:08 petitioner on item number 60?
15:37:10 >> Move to continue.
15:37:12 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Is there anyone in the public here
15:37:14 to speak on item number 60?
15:37:16 Okay, make your motion.
15:37:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Two-week continuance.
15:37:21 >> Second.
15:37:21 (Motion carried).
15:37:22 >>KEVIN WHITE: I have a note from here on 60.
15:37:32 I don't see that on the agenda.
15:37:34 >>> He was going to appear to ask that, to be walked
15:37:39 For June 15th.
15:37:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you have a date?
15:37:44 I mean, do you have time?
15:37:46 Do you have a slot?
15:37:48 >>> Oh, well, it's in the morning so it's up to you,
15:37:51 if you want to schedule it that day or not.
15:37:55 >>KEVIN WHITE: It was previously approved, and this
15:37:59 was a scrivener's error, that they left out the --
15:38:03 >>> The bull run?
15:38:05 >>KEVIN WHITE: Bull run.
15:38:06 They left out the details.
15:38:07 The patio.
15:38:09 >>CATHERINE COYLE: They left out the patio.
15:38:11 That's correct.
15:38:12 >>> Make a motion that we reschedule or put on the
15:38:15 agenda for WE 06-60, 1241 east Fowler Avenue, for
15:38:20 6:15-06, June 15, 06, 10 a.m.
15:38:26 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second.
15:38:27 (Motion carried).
15:38:29 Item number 61.
15:38:33 We a need a motion.
15:38:35 >> Moved.
15:38:36 >> Second.
15:38:36 >>SHAWN HARRISON: To open 61.
15:38:38 (Motion carried).
15:38:39 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Legal department.
15:38:43 Item number 61.
15:38:45 Item 61 is a noticed public hearing today on a request
15:38:49 from the Roosevelt elementary school seeking to extend
15:38:52 the hours of temporary closure for a portion of TAKON
15:38:59 It is currently allowed to be closed from 7:30 in the
15:39:02 morning to 3:30 in the arch pursuant to ordinance
15:39:12 She's asking that the alley be modified to 6 a.m.
15:39:17 Her original petition was 8 but it's been amended to 6
15:39:29 >>> I haven't been sworn in.
15:39:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Would you raise your right hand,
15:39:32 (Oath administered by Clerk).
15:39:37 >>> Colleen Fasset, I'm the principal at Roosevelt,
15:39:41 and I have submitted a letter to chairman Miller to
15:39:45 amend the hours of the original request to an
15:39:47 agreement we made with the community last summer to
15:39:51 have TACON street closed to 6 p.m.
15:39:59 >>CHAIRMAN: Question, Mr. Dingfelder?
15:40:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was about to say good morning.
15:40:04 Good afternoon.
15:40:05 Thank you for coming down.
15:40:10 We received at least two different e-mails on this.
15:40:12 And one from Jonathan Floyd, 2220 TACON, and another
15:40:23 maverick Valdez, another TACON resident.
15:40:27 They said we thought we had a deal last year and now
15:40:32 they are changing it, they are opposed to it.
15:40:34 I guess they couldn't make it down here.
15:40:36 >>> They were opposed to the 6 to 8 time which was an
15:40:39 error in my part in sending it.
15:40:41 The request originally.
15:40:42 I looked to the records I kept from the meeting, and
15:40:45 that's the amendment to the amendment, I sent that to
15:40:49 councilwoman Miller so the request is from 7:30 a.m.
15:40:53 until 6 p.m., the hours that children are on campus.
15:40:56 >> Oh, from 7:30 in the morning.
15:40:58 Not the 6 a.m.?
15:40:59 >> That was incorrect, yes.
15:41:00 >> So this is 7:30 to 6 p.m.
15:41:04 Why are kids on campus at 6 p.m.?
15:41:07 >> When the ordinance was first written there were no
15:41:10 after-school programs.
15:41:12 But at this time, and for the past five to seven
15:41:15 years, Roosevelt has had a YMCA after school program
15:41:20 so children are there at after school care and for
15:41:24 parents to pick them up.
15:41:25 >> So this is for their safety?
15:41:27 >> That's right.
15:41:28 It's closed during the day.
15:41:29 And they are used to walking across that street every
15:41:31 day without looking either way, because the gates are
15:41:34 And we have had several cars come through there after
15:41:39 the open time, the 3:30 time and it's a dangerous
15:41:42 situation for those children.
15:41:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to close the public hearing?
15:41:50 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
15:41:52 item 61?
15:41:53 >> Move to close.
15:41:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you want to speak on item 61?
15:42:00 Come on up, please.
15:42:01 >>> I have not been sworn in.
15:42:08 (Oath administered by Clerk).
15:42:11 >>> My name is David Wilson.
15:42:12 I'm also a resident of west TACON.
15:42:18 Actually, last year after our meeting with the
15:42:21 principal and basically our neighborhood, Roosevelt
15:42:25 has really strived to work as a good neighbor.
15:42:28 One of the things that actually we had a meeting on
15:42:30 Tuesday, myself, Colleen, as well as another neighbor
15:42:37 on TACON who was not available to be here today.
15:42:40 We have real concerns with parking on Ferdinand in the
15:42:45 school area.
15:42:47 And Colleen has been wonderful.
15:42:49 She's been trying to address it with the parents.
15:42:53 So that they don't park, so that -- the streets are
15:42:56 only 20 feet wide.
15:42:58 When you have parking it makes it extremely tight for
15:43:00 traffic to come and go, obviously, as well as the
15:43:03 neighborhood is going to work about the same time.
15:43:06 It makes it very difficult.
15:43:09 Currently there is no parking on the east side of
15:43:12 south Ferdinand but there is no parking on the west
15:43:15 side of south Ferdinand.
15:43:18 There is parking allowed, except right in front of the
15:43:20 school area, which Roosevelt has gone and repainted
15:43:26 For the most part it's a great thing but there's still
15:43:28 some parents that don't really want to pay attention
15:43:31 to the fair zoning.
15:43:40 I think she's ready to pull her hair out at some of
15:43:44 these parents but I would like to help to be a good
15:43:46 neighbor to see if we can't get parking on the
15:43:48 remaining part between San Luis to the south and San
15:43:54 Pedro to the north.
15:43:55 On the west side of south Fernandez.
15:43:57 I have actually got a petition.
15:44:02 Didn't get signage until yesterday, as a result of the
15:44:04 meeting that we had with her on Tuesday.
15:44:06 So I actually got 17 people in the area that all
15:44:09 support it as well as I know Roosevelt supports.
15:44:12 We also have an e-mail, and I did bring some pictures
15:44:15 as well.
15:44:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: First issues first.
15:44:20 Are you guys now okay in rereading these e-mails, it
15:44:23 appears these gentlemen are okay, 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.?
15:44:27 >>> Yes, sir.
15:44:27 Because of the children.
15:44:29 >>> That's correct.
15:44:29 >>: Let's deal with that issue and then deal with the
15:44:31 other issue in a second.
15:44:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone else want to speak?
15:44:34 >> Move to close.
15:44:35 >> Second.
15:44:35 (Motion carried).
15:44:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Do we have an ordinance?
15:44:41 >>THE CLERK: I have not received one.
15:44:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Santiago, do you have one?
15:44:45 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: I need a motion to prepare one.
15:44:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
15:44:50 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
15:44:51 Opposed, Nay.
15:44:52 (Motion carried).
15:44:53 Now we have to Dale --
15:45:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We have a senior staff person in
15:45:16 the audience who was taking copious notes.
15:45:20 Debbie, would you look into the possibility of making
15:45:24 that entire three-block section, I think three blocks,
15:45:27 is it, sir?
15:45:29 From San Luis to San Pedro, on the east and the west
15:45:32 side of Ferdinand, no parking?
15:45:34 And maybe that will help get some of that traffic
15:45:36 through there.
15:45:38 And come back in two weeks.
15:45:40 With a report to us.
15:45:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there a second?
15:45:47 We have a motion and second.
15:45:48 (Motion carried).
15:45:52 >> And two weeks from now come back, and if you want
15:45:55 to talk to her, she's right there.
15:46:03 >>> We are just trying to help her, make it a safer
15:46:06 community for all of us.
15:46:07 Thank you.
15:46:10 >>ROSE FERLITA: Tune in to 15 maybe.
15:46:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 52.
15:46:14 Wave -- 62.
15:46:16 We have to carry it over.
15:46:20 Item 62.
15:46:21 >>THE CLERK: 62, that died.
15:46:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We are carrying it over to next week?
15:46:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Vote next weak.
15:46:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It's on a procedural motion which
15:46:42 this motion was, then by council's rules, if it
15:46:45 doesn't get the requisite four votes, it fails.
15:46:52 >>MARY ALVAREZ: What happens?
15:46:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Right now you are prepared to discuss
15:46:55 whether it goes forward or take a continuance.
15:47:02 >>GWEN MILLER: We still don't have enough votes so
15:47:04 wave to carry it to next week if somebody makes a
15:47:11 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move to continue to next week then.
15:47:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council has the item on the agenda.
15:47:21 There's been a written request from Mr. Bentley for a
15:47:24 His request is to May 18th.
15:47:27 You have heard from people in the audience who you
15:47:31 asked if there were any objections to continuance.
15:47:32 You heard that.
15:47:33 And now the posture is it is now before council as a
15:47:37 continued public hearing.
15:47:38 So any direction that council wishes to take.
15:47:44 >>ROSE FERLITA: I have explained it.
15:47:45 I think there were five continuances according to Ms.
15:47:48 Three were requested by staff. The last continuance
15:47:50 that Mr. Bentley made was at the eleventh hour when he
15:47:54 realized he only had four council members.
15:47:56 So Mayor Iorio normally, I would be in support of the
15:47:58 same thing.
15:47:59 We don't want a thousand continuances.
15:48:01 But given the structure of what the continuances were,
15:48:04 I don't have a problem with continuing it.
15:48:07 Everybody take up where you want.
15:48:09 That's a motion, I guess.
15:48:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I wish we would make up our minds
15:48:12 whether we are going to continue to 6:30.
15:48:20 I would agree that Mrs. Ferlita --
15:48:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
15:48:31 >>: On the motion which was made previously was to
15:49:01 I understand that that motion failed.
15:49:03 At this point, this is up for -- I understand the
15:49:09 motion to deny, that did not pass.
15:49:14 >>SHAWN HARRISON: The motion earlier was a motion not
15:49:16 to continue.
15:49:16 There was not support for that.
15:49:18 It's now back.
15:49:20 >>> Then at this point the posture is to move forward
15:49:24 with the public hearing. If you wish to continue it,
15:49:26 you still have that right.
15:49:28 >>ROSE FERLITA: That was my motion.
15:49:29 Was to continue for one week only.
15:49:31 Last continuance.
15:49:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Second.
15:49:34 (Motion carried).
15:49:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
15:49:37 Continued to 10 a.m.
15:49:39 >>SHAWN HARRISON: It will happen next week.
15:49:43 >>ROSE FERLITA: One way or the other.
15:49:45 >>GWEN MILLER: This is the last time. This is it.
15:49:55 Number 64 is a continued public hearing.
15:50:03 >>THE CLERK: Brand new public hearing.
15:50:09 >>> 63?
15:50:11 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to open 64.
15:50:18 >> Second.
15:50:18 (Motion carried).
15:50:19 >>CHAIRMAN: Anyone that's going to speak on item 64,
15:50:26 please stand and raise your right hand.
15:50:31 (Oath administered by Clerk).
15:50:52 >>> Land source development, the owner.
15:50:55 This is a little bit of a precedence from what I have
15:50:58 been told.
15:50:59 What we are doing is requesting an appeal hearing.
15:51:02 I submitted the paperwork, and haven't had a chance to
15:51:08 go over it and if they have I can be a little more
15:51:14 The property that was in question is the demolition
15:51:17 done by the City of Tampa, prayer to purchasing the
15:51:21 property, the demolition -- and I had spoken with the
15:51:25 demolition officer extensively trying to get the
15:51:30 demolition held off for an additional 30 days.
15:51:33 The property was on the demolition list for
15:51:36 approximately 14 months.
15:51:38 I was not the owner at the time of the demolition
15:51:44 Before the demolition and while I was under contract I
15:51:48 brought the property to City Council for rezoning.
15:51:50 That rezoning was approved. I did purchase the
15:51:56 The demolition when I closed on the property, I had
15:52:02 the title company get the payoff.
15:52:04 There was a $17,000-plus payoff.
15:52:08 Prayer to the demolition, when I originally contracted
15:52:11 on the property, got a Lem oh liquors company, a local
15:52:15 demolition company to go out there and give me a bid,
15:52:19 a company that the City of Tampa has used in the past.
15:52:21 That demolition amount is $10,900.
15:52:25 I got a $6,750 difference in the cost.
15:52:31 I was shocked whendy that so I started to do a little
15:52:33 bit of research and it just so happened while the
15:52:36 demolition company was out doing demolition, before I
15:52:40 had purchased the property, I took some pictures.
15:52:43 I spoke to some people.
15:52:45 I talked to staff at code enforcement.
15:52:51 Some of the issues that they told me were part of a
15:52:55 They are required to do a wet zone, asbestos in the
15:52:58 building, there's supposed to be a police officer
15:53:01 None of those things were done.
15:53:05 I had pictures while standing there by chance.
15:53:08 The demolition -- the second issue is the demolition
15:53:11 company that the City of Tampa is using is out of
15:53:14 They were on site for two days.
15:53:20 They were dumping in Pasco.
15:53:22 And I just think that's an egregious issue that the
15:53:26 City of Tampa is using a demolition company from a
15:53:29 different area.
15:53:32 So where I am at right now is, I have money sitting at
15:53:36 escrow in my title company to pay the full amount of
15:53:41 17,000-plus dollars, had a lien against the property,
15:53:46 and I'm requesting a reduction in that amount.
15:53:48 I don't think there was a real rational dollar amount.
15:53:53 I don't think using outside of the City of Tampa
15:53:58 company to do work is a good business practice.
15:54:04 And most important, the work that was said to be done
15:54:07 by the demolition company was not done.
15:54:11 Yes, the property was removed.
15:54:12 It was torn down.
15:54:14 It was done well.
15:54:16 The material, I agree, was removed from the site.
15:54:20 But there were issues and items in the demolition bid
15:54:24 that from what I was told were supposed to be taken
15:54:26 care of and they were not.
15:54:27 And that's where my biggest issue is.
15:54:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Did you share your $10,000 demo bid
15:54:40 with our staff prior to the demolition?
15:54:44 >>> No, I was told by the city that a significant
15:54:50 amount of tame to get a copy of the bid from the City
15:54:54 of Tampa.
15:54:56 No one nowhere it was or how to get it.
15:55:00 And I have also spoken with one of the gentlemen at
15:55:04 code enforcement and "was told that there was not --
15:55:08 the only way I was going to get the demolition stopped
15:55:11 was by getting a court injunction to the city.
15:55:13 Now --
15:55:15 >>DEL ACOSTA: My question was, did you share your bid
15:55:18 which you which you said was lower with the city staff?
15:55:21 >>> No, I did not.
15:55:23 >> Am I correct in hearing you say that you closed,
15:55:26 knowing that they had already demolishednd it and were
15:55:31 about to put the lien on?
15:55:33 >>> Correct.
15:55:33 The problem was that the demolition company that I had
15:55:36 used -- well, the other answer to that question is, up
15:55:41 until the time of the closing, we had to find where
15:55:45 the lien was.
15:55:47 Because it hadn't been recorded yet, because theeing
15:55:50 time frame was quick, from the time of the demolition.
15:55:55 >> Let me rephrase it then.
15:55:57 Did you close knowing it was probably going to be
15:55:59 about 17,000?
15:56:01 >>> No, I was expecting it to be approximately 11 to
15:56:04 $12,000 based on the bid I had from my demolition
15:56:06 company which was a company the City of Tampa has used
15:56:09 in the past.
15:56:09 >> How is it that the 17,000 came to be held in
15:56:12 >>> That was the bill from the City of Tampa.
15:56:15 And that's the amount that I put in escrow, just in
15:56:22 If I'm standing here and tell me no, then I pay the
15:56:27 To have a clear title, I transfer, that money needs to
15:56:30 be put in escrow.
15:56:31 >>: I'm trying to figure out how the amount came up.
15:56:34 17 that you.
15:56:34 It systems like the exact amount the lien was.
15:56:37 Somebody must have known at closing --
15:56:40 >>> Correct, we did know at closing the amount was 17
15:56:43 that you plus dollars.
15:56:44 So we did know at closing that was the amount.
15:56:47 I was expecting it to be more around the $12,000.
15:56:56 >> The closing?
15:56:57 >>> After I already spent the time doing the rezoning
15:56:59 and everything to close on the property.
15:57:01 Again, the issue is that I tried to get everything
15:57:05 taken care of before the demolition happened.
15:57:09 When I went to speak with the City of Tampa about it,
15:57:13 I was told this is what it is, and I just happened to
15:57:17 have picture while I'm out there where there was an
15:57:20 amount which was charged to the city from the
15:57:24 demolition company for work that wasn't performed.
15:57:28 And the fact that if they honored my request, and
15:57:31 waited 30 days, the City of Tampa wouldn't have had to
15:57:34 spend that $17,000 out of their budget for an
15:57:37 additional 30 days.
15:57:39 Again, when the everything that we started over that
15:57:44 14 months from the time the place burned to the time
15:57:47 it was demolished, I was not the owner of the
15:57:51 I was the owner of the property two weeks after that.
15:58:06 >>MARY ALVAREZ: What was the hurry in tearing down
15:58:08 that building?
15:58:09 >> Council member Alvarez, Bill Doherty, the director,
15:58:17 this was a property near the school, and the
15:58:19 property -- there were complaints of children going
15:58:25 into the property, and there was an actual need to
15:58:31 complete this as quickly as possible and I think were
15:58:33 trying to do it at the time the kids were out of
15:58:35 school in late December, early January.
15:58:38 So that was the reason for taking it down at that
15:58:43 If I may, I wanted to do a little bit of legal
15:58:46 presentation and put some testimony from Mr. Doherty
15:58:48 in rebuttal to the appeal of Mr. Umansky.
15:58:56 We are here on 120, City of Tampa code, that allows a
15:59:00 very limited appeal for a person who owns or has an
15:59:05 interest in property that had an assessment.
15:59:11 The scope of that appeal is to challenge, or to
15:59:15 question the amount paid by the city, but the amount
15:59:22 included in the assessment does not reflect the actual
15:59:24 cost of the city.
15:59:27 Actually not even a challenge to whether the cost is
15:59:30 reasonable or not.
15:59:31 Basically that was not what the city paid.
15:59:38 This is section 120.
15:59:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Would you like me to pass that out to
15:59:47 council, Mr. Martin?
15:59:50 >>> Absolutely.
15:59:51 Thank you very much.
15:59:52 I appreciate it.
15:59:57 >>SHAWN HARRISON: If that's the standard by which we
15:59:59 judge this, cut to the chase, how much have we
16:00:01 received for?
16:00:04 >>> Yes.
16:00:11 If you would take the stand.
16:00:12 Also, I would like Mr. Doherty to tell City Council --
16:00:21 >>> Good afternoon.
16:00:21 Bill Doherty, deputy director, City of Tampa.
16:00:30 We were charged by the contractor for $17.
16:00:42 Mr. Umansky is absolutely correct.
16:00:45 Our contractor is HB walker out of Orlando, Florida.
16:00:50 He is bound to follow ABCB guidelines, which he has a
16:01:00 company, and the other contractor would have, and
16:01:08 actually we know before the demolition is done, the
16:01:13 particular reason that we moved to knock the building
16:01:17 down was that it was a dangerous building.
16:01:19 The building had burned in November of 2004.
16:01:24 And we were working with a previous owner, and a lot
16:01:29 of complaints from the neighbors about that property
16:01:31 being overgrown with accumulation, with homeless
16:01:35 people hanging out there, kids from the school hanging
16:01:38 out there.
16:01:38 As a matter of fact, on December 12th of 2005, a
16:01:44 note will show that we did an emergency clean-up with
16:01:49 environmental clean-up by the contractor, due to
16:01:52 numerous complaints from neighbors, the and
16:01:55 neighborhood association groups, people hanging
16:02:00 What had happened which brought this together.
16:02:10 After we did the environmental clean-up, there was
16:02:14 overgrowth, accumulation, junk, trash, debris.
16:02:18 Still we had no help from the owner at the time to
16:02:23 move forward.
16:02:27 So two weeks later, we were continuing to get
16:02:29 complaints even after the clean-up.
16:02:31 But I decided that we were going to deny such
16:02:41 I will say we did have conversation with Mr. Umansky
16:02:45 who was not the owner at the time.
16:02:46 But the building was not structurally unsound.
16:02:55 This is a situation, a dangerous situation, where we
16:02:58 needed to move forward on it.
16:03:00 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Bill, do you have a receipt or
16:03:02 something in the file that shows how much the city
16:03:06 >>> Yes, we do.
16:03:19 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a couple more questions.
16:03:37 Mr. Dingfelder, then Mrs. Alvarez.
16:03:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question of legal.
16:03:42 The other part of that provision that I don't really
16:03:46 understand, or I understand the first part, the first
16:03:48 part says, the cost of such work as shown in the
16:03:53 notice of lien exceeds the actual cost thereof.
16:03:56 That doesn't really sound like it's in question.
16:03:59 But then it goes on to say, or is otherwise
16:04:02 erroneously entered.
16:04:09 What would that mean, what would an example of that
16:04:16 >>> Not a matter of fairness or matter of I could have
16:04:20 gotten it cheaper.
16:04:21 That seems to be a typographical error was performed.
16:04:24 Erroneous entry doesn't mean unfair or unjust.
16:04:27 To me that seems to be a corrective appeal for
16:04:32 somebody who says, hey, by the way, the city paid
16:04:36 $5,000, I'm assessed 20.
16:04:38 >> So this is an erroneous entry?
16:04:41 >>> I don't see it as a means of challenging the
16:04:43 amount that the city paid and they could have done it
16:04:49 >> Further down in the paragraph, it says, that we
16:04:52 shall fix such amount to be charged against the real
16:04:55 property as shall be just and proper.
16:04:57 So when you talk about justness and fairness, I don't
16:05:02 know, I haven't dealt with this paragraph before.
16:05:05 So that's why I'm asking.
16:05:07 >>> The way this is written, to me -- and I read
16:05:09 this -- there's no appellate opinions on this -- this
16:05:14 seems to be a way of he correcting a scrivener's
16:05:17 error, of correcting a missed entry on a recorded
16:05:22 This does not seem to be an appeal to challenge the
16:05:24 amount that was actually charged.
16:05:28 >> The strange thing, though, if in fact there was a
16:05:31 typo or some other type of clerical error, that would
16:05:35 have been fixed and we wouldn't be here.
16:05:37 >>> That's because we cannot go back to the recorded
16:05:39 instrument and fix that.
16:05:40 There would have to be some sort of determination.
16:05:42 >>: Oh, really?
16:05:43 >>> That's what this means to me.
16:05:45 If the City Council wants to use another
16:05:49 interpretation, as I said, the legal position of the
16:05:54 office of city attorney is that this is not a
16:05:56 challenge to fairness, this is a challenge to
16:05:58 erroneous information.
16:06:03 Furthermore, I wanted to address what the code defines
16:06:09 as a cost of the work.
16:06:11 And in section 19-129 of the code, subsection A, cost
16:06:18 of the work, the cost of demolition work shall be the
16:06:22 actual cost of demolishing and removing the structure
16:06:25 and shall include charge for demolition and removal,
16:06:27 the fees for demolition, the cost of serving notice as
16:06:30 required, the cost of obtaining title information, the
16:06:34 cost of lien recordation, and all other related costs
16:06:37 which shall be the cost of the work.
16:06:39 So therein you are going to find additional items that
16:06:47 his contractor is not going to include in those
16:06:50 On top of that the City of Tampa has an order, any
16:06:55 property that in that location needs to be checked for
16:06:59 asbestos, and when you have that kind of removal you
16:07:02 can't just go to the city's dump over here and take
16:07:05 care of it.
16:07:06 You have to take it to a proper landfill, that his
16:07:12 estimates are fair, and I think the assessment should
16:07:16 stand as it is.
16:07:17 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Mr. Martinez.
16:07:20 Actually opening direct examine and closing.
16:07:24 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm a little concerned about this.
16:07:26 This letter that I have gotten from Mr. Umansky says
16:07:30 that in October of 2004, the building had a
16:07:33 significant fire.
16:07:34 So then City of Tampa condemned the building shortly
16:07:38 Then September 19th of 2005, which is another year
16:07:45 almost that's gone by, and this building is still
16:07:48 standing, and he said that he contracted with the
16:07:52 owner to purchase the property, and then he contacted
16:07:55 code enforcement and notified them that he was
16:07:58 purchasing the property in January 2006 and he would
16:08:03 demolish the building.
16:08:04 So where was was the -- was it standing there for one
16:08:09 whole year how come all of a sudden you couldn't wait
16:08:12 for two more weeks?
16:08:13 It has already gone through two periods of children
16:08:15 being in school.
16:08:16 So where was the urgency to do this?
16:08:21 When you could have waited, I think, at least another
16:08:23 week or so until he was able to purchase the property
16:08:28 and then demolish it?
16:08:29 And I know that it's probably not the argument, I
16:08:35 understand, is the amount of the lien.
16:08:37 But it seems to me that there's a fairness issue in
16:08:40 this, too.
16:08:46 >>> As I said before, we negotiated with perspective
16:08:50 buyers all the time.
16:08:51 That building had a fire in November of 04.
16:08:54 But I think I said that it had an additional fire late
16:08:57 in the fall of 2005.
16:09:03 So the structure and integrity of that building came
16:09:06 into question.
16:09:06 I don't know if you have in the file a picture of
16:09:09 But we continued to get calls from the neighborhood.
16:09:16 I visited the site.
16:09:17 I visited the site with the fire marshal.
16:09:22 So the safety it children and the folks in the
16:09:28 neighborhood. And within the scope as deputy
16:09:34 director, I made a decision that we needed to move on
16:09:36 that building when we did.
16:09:39 Now, Mr. Umansky points out when he purchased it in
16:09:42 January, and there was no guarantee that he was going
16:09:48 to purchase that building.
16:09:55 >> The point is he contracted with the owner pending
16:09:57 the zoning of the property.
16:10:03 >>> That happens all the time, though.
16:10:05 And that wasn't the issue.
16:10:06 Our issue was the situation of the building demandeded
16:10:11 that when move on quickly but the structure of the
16:10:14 stability of that building was such we did not think
16:10:17 it was rate to put it in jeopardy.
16:10:21 >>: When the building first caught on fire in
16:10:23 November, of 2004, was the seeing right of the
16:10:28 building being compromised at that time or did you
16:10:30 wait --
16:10:31 >>> It was a pretty serious fair.
16:10:33 But we did not dollar it an emergency, in a.
16:10:35 But after the second fire, we didn't dollar it an
16:10:39 emergency because we decided to take emergency action.
16:10:47 >> And why are we cracking with demolition companies
16:10:53 out of the county, or out of the city, Noor matter,
16:10:57 and going to north Pasco to pull out the trash or dump
16:11:04 >>> The contractor was a low bidder, in competition
16:11:09 with local contractors.
16:11:10 And we had to go out of town to a landfill because he
16:11:14 was required to because of the asbestos.
16:11:19 >> Mrs. Alvarez, when we went to get our bids for
16:11:23 contractors to do demolition work, there was no
16:11:26 limitation on where they came from, if they worked in
16:11:29 the county, they were allowed to bid.
16:11:31 And I think they got a purchase order.
16:11:34 And that way when could go to them without bidding
16:11:36 every job.
16:11:38 They had a purchase order that the --
16:11:40 >> It's a perpetual type?
16:11:42 >>> It's a perpetual order.
16:11:43 And they were actually the lowest amount.
16:11:46 Now again, I think you mentioned earlier, and you drew
16:11:50 the distinction between Mr. Umansky going to X, Y and
16:11:54 Z company and getting an estimate.
16:11:56 The that's really showed them what was demolished.
16:12:01 Oftentimes we get an estimate from a contractor for a
16:12:04 demolition that is going to be for a lot more than the
16:12:07 actual estimate.
16:12:08 Secondly, that estimate doesn't have to address the
16:12:15 For example, you can't just take a demolished property
16:12:17 with across the board exposure of something like that.
16:12:22 It has to go to a special landfill, and that landfill
16:12:25 may be maybe six counties away.
16:12:30 And that landfill will charge you for square footage
16:12:34 of dumping the material.
16:12:36 So the price that you actually pay for demolition and
16:12:42 an estimate could be completely different, and yet not
16:12:46 be unfair.
16:12:47 What I am trying to get across here is that this is a
16:12:50 fair price.
16:12:51 It's consistent with all the other ones we do.
16:12:53 It was a necessary demolition in a location.
16:12:56 And I think it's a fair assessment.
16:12:58 The city should not be penalized for taking action,
16:13:01 and then now worry going to be out of pocket $5,000.
16:13:08 If he says co-get somebody to do it cheaper.
16:13:11 And everybody knows the story.
16:13:13 Hey, I have somebody who could do it for a quarter.
16:13:20 After the fact we always come up with somebody who
16:13:23 could have done it for less.
16:13:24 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We understand.
16:13:29 >> I just have two points.
16:13:31 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Hang on.
16:13:33 Do we have other questions of Mr. Doherty or Mr.
16:13:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: From Mr. Walker, you had, I guess, an
16:13:43 estimate and it was dated October 21st, 2005.
16:13:49 So then he didn't demolish it until January, three or
16:13:57 four months later.
16:14:00 >> You're looking at a work sheet that's based on the
16:14:05 final contract that shows exactly what the square
16:14:09 footage was.
16:14:10 And then you see a charge for asbestos survey.
16:14:13 And you are seeing a charge for asbestos removal.
16:14:16 And in December when we knocked the building down, the
16:14:23 conditions were pretty much the same.
16:14:28 We had a fire that went to the heart of the structural
16:14:31 integrity of the second floor.
16:14:32 But the conditions as far as the square footage, and
16:14:36 what their costs are going to be.
16:14:37 Sometimes that may vary a little bit.
16:14:44 And the contractor will come back and say there's more
16:14:47 debris or material to be removed.
16:14:50 But that wasn't the case in this case.
16:14:52 >>SHAWN HARRISON: all right.
16:14:55 You may make rebuttal if you like.
16:14:57 >>> I have two main points.
16:14:58 The first point is the structure was standing for 14
16:15:02 months before they removed it.
16:15:03 I feel like, in my experience, in dealing with the
16:15:07 City of Tampa, with multiple demolition that I've
16:15:10 done, another 30 days would not have hurt anybody.
16:15:13 And it was a reasonable request.
16:15:17 The second point, which is more important to me, is
16:15:20 that the City of Tampa paid $17,496 for a demolition.
16:15:26 What Mr. Doherty just said is that there is asbestos
16:15:30 Part of asbestos removal includes a wetdown, okay?
16:15:34 I was standing on-site.
16:15:35 There was no wetdown.
16:15:38 There's pictures you have where there was no wetdown.
16:15:40 The other thing, that because of the location of the
16:15:43 site, there was supposed to be a police officer
16:15:45 on-site making sure that the structure would not fall
16:15:50 into the street, and directing traffic around.
16:15:53 There was no police officer on-site.
16:15:55 The City of Tampa paid for those items to be present
16:16:00 and they were not.
16:16:02 That is being put onto me to pay for something that
16:16:06 wasn't completed.
16:16:07 So that's my issue.
16:16:09 So if it was 17,496, and that's for the work that was
16:16:16 done per the bid, per the requirement of the City of
16:16:18 Tampa for asbestos removal requirement, I wouldn't
16:16:21 have a problem.
16:16:21 But the work wasn't done.
16:16:24 And what was required was not completed.
16:16:26 The end result, yes, the building was removed.
16:16:29 But to get from A to B was not done properly.
16:16:33 The City of Tampa paid that amount of money for
16:16:35 something that was not done properly.
16:16:37 And now I'm the one that's responsible for that
16:16:43 The contracting company that I use, the demolitions
16:16:46 for the City of Tampa for many years, they went out to
16:16:49 the site.
16:16:49 They are well-known.
16:16:50 It's not my cousin Vinny out there doing it.
16:16:55 I'm insulted with B that.
16:16:57 It was a demolition company.
16:16:59 And I think that there's a fair and just adjustment
16:17:02 that needs to be done.
16:17:03 And I think it really needs todom come back to the
16:17:07 The contractor stole from the City of Tampa.
16:17:10 And that's my opinion.
16:17:12 Thank you.
16:17:21 >> Mr. Doherty had --
16:17:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order.
16:17:25 >> We are ready to close this.
16:17:26 Mr. Dingfelder has a question.
16:17:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My question to either the
16:17:30 petitioner or the staff, did the subject of fencing
16:17:36 this as a temporary Maurer come up?
16:17:37 I think you guys have a fencing contract or something
16:17:40 that would allow you to fence it and secure it.
16:17:43 And then wait the additional month till he buys it and
16:17:46 closes on it and let him demolish it.
16:17:50 Did that come up and why not?
16:17:53 >>> In a.
16:17:58 He --
16:18:00 >> You testified that he spoke with somebody in your
16:18:02 department about this.
16:18:03 >>> About a perspective purchase he was going to make.
16:18:06 Did he not step up to the plate and say I will secure
16:18:08 Did he not step up to the plate and say I have a
16:18:12 demolition permit for you.
16:18:13 Never had that conversation.
16:18:14 Never had that conversation.
16:18:18 >>: Did you deal with him?
16:18:20 >>> I dealt with Mr. Umansky on --
16:18:23 >> On this issue?
16:18:24 >>> Yes, I certainly did.
16:18:25 >>: He testified he spoke to somebody in the December
16:18:28 time frame prayer to the January demolition.
16:18:30 >>> I probably talked to him the week of December.
16:18:33 And I wanted Mr. Umansky to step up to the plate
16:18:38 saying I'm going to move in, secure this place, and he
16:18:43 did not do anything except to say he was going to
16:18:45 purchase it and give him a little more time.
16:18:47 And I said it was an emergency condition and we
16:18:54 weren't going to wait.
16:18:55 We had the police department, we had the school
16:18:57 calling us, kids playing out there.
16:19:00 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you, Mr. Harrison.
16:19:02 Mr. Doherty, if in fact some of the things the
16:19:08 contractor charged you for were not done, just a
16:19:10 question here.
16:19:11 Is this a contractor that we use frequently?
16:19:14 >>> I take issue with that.
16:19:15 He did not charge us for things that were not done.
16:19:18 As far as the demo, that is a call that is made by the
16:19:21 contractor and many times HGTP will lay that
16:19:26 It was not necessary for him to wash down or he could
16:19:30 get a waiver on that.
16:19:35 We didn't feel like we needed it that day.
16:19:38 >> When Lou at line item by line item on the
16:19:40 statement, those are not itemized.
16:19:43 Police officer charge and the wet --
16:19:47 >>> That's right.
16:19:50 >> And there's no further description to you --
16:19:55 >>> I testified to you that there is no charge for
16:20:03 other than a demo.
16:20:05 >>: Move to close.
16:20:06 >> Second.
16:20:06 (Motion carried).
16:20:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, I think the language is a
16:20:11 little bit loose especially as related to otherwise
16:20:16 erroneously entered approximate, and furthering the
16:20:18 paragraph of parenthetical says shall be just and
16:20:24 You know, I think this is one of those situations
16:20:26 where I would feel feelable perhaps splitting the baby
16:20:31 a little bit.
16:20:38 So maybe reduce it 3,000, is what I think about it.
16:20:43 Does that come out about right?
16:20:49 And that would be my motion.
16:20:50 In light of all the testimony, competent, substantial
16:20:54 evidence in front of us today, I would move that we
16:20:57 apply that with the paragraph under the provision, in
16:21:00 paragraph 4 that I just mentioned and reduce it by
16:21:10 That's a motion.
16:21:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Do we just make it up as we go here?
16:21:15 This is an appeal hearing.
16:21:19 I'm asking Mr. Shelby.
16:21:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: City Council by resolution, it could
16:21:25 be in the form of a motion, in which case the council
16:21:33 shall declare and fix such charge against the real
16:21:37 property shall be just and proper and shall have the
16:21:42 matter recorded in the office as the clerk of the
16:21:44 circuit court.
16:21:45 So, council, I believe it can be done by motion which
16:21:50 is a legal department resolution, if it requires
16:21:52 written resolution then that can be prepared for
16:21:55 council to read it.
16:22:00 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Martin?
16:22:04 >>> (off microphone)
16:22:06 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Reducing the lien by that amount.
16:22:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
16:22:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's the motion, to send it back
16:22:17 to legal with a reduction of 3,000.
16:22:28 >>SHAWN HARRISON: 3,397 dollars.
16:22:31 Can we round it to 3400?
16:22:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: All right, $3400 reduction.
16:22:36 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion.
16:22:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Come back -- what, one week, two
16:22:45 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second.
16:22:54 The motion does not carry.
16:22:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Unfinished business for next week's
16:23:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: we have to do it again?
16:23:10 >>SHAWN HARRISON: It will be on the agenda for next
16:23:12 Our colleagues can take a look at the tape and we'll
16:23:14 just come in and vote.
16:23:16 All right.
16:23:16 I think that concludes our agenda, clerk, other than
16:23:19 our information reports.
16:23:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to receive and file all
16:23:23 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second to receive and
16:23:26 fail all documents.
16:23:27 (Motion carried).
16:23:28 >>THE CLERK: Also items 45 through 48.
16:23:30 >>SHAWN HARRISON: 45 through 48.
16:23:36 Those are just wet zonings, I believe.
16:23:38 We need a motion simply to set items 45 through 48.
16:23:42 Motion and second, all in favor signify by saying Aye.
16:23:45 Information reports from council members starting with
16:23:47 Mrs. Ferlita.
16:23:47 >>ROSE FERLITA: Nothing.
16:23:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Nothing.
16:23:50 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Dingfelder?
16:23:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: (off microphone)
16:24:10 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Anything else?
16:24:12 I don't have anything either.
16:24:14 All right.
16:24:14 General public comment.
16:24:15 (Recess taken)