Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council
8/3/2006
9:00 AM

>> Tampa city council is called to order.
The chair will yield to Mr. Kevin White.
>> Kevin White: Thank you, madam chair.
This morning's invocation will be given by Harold Scott
who is the member of -- supervisory staff of code
enforcement, also a deacon and vice chairman at the
missionary Baptist church, been employed with the City
of Tampa for over 30 years and is a very good friend.
I welcome him to our chambers this morning.
Please rise for the invocation and remain standing for
the pledge of allegiance.
>> Let us pray.
Bless his holy name, we come -- for kept us throughout
all these years.
Such a merciful and good father, good mother, we can't
praise you enough.
We ask that you would go with this administration, with
each and every council person individually and
collectively.
Go with our great mayor, that she may be continue
blessings upon this community in Jesus name.
We ask that you would bless the children of the world.
Go with the boys fighting in war in the foreign land.
They have troubled situations and families.
We wish that you would comfort their situation.
We know you can destroy, you can defend.
Keep us safe in every way.
Bless our going out and coming in.
In Jesus name we pray, Amen.
>> I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United
States of America.
To the republic for which it stands, one nation, under
God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
>> Roll call.
>> Dingfelder.
Saul-Sena, Alvarez, Ferlita, White, Miller.
>> At this time I'll yield to Mr. Shawn Harrison.
>> Shawn Harrison: I wanted to let everyone know that
my aide's husband was under the weather.
He was sent to the hospital a couple nights ago with
some chest pains.
Luckily, home resting.
We keep him in our prays and wish him a speedy
recovery.
>> I'd like to make an announcement.
The mayor is having her leadership luncheon at twelve.
If we need to go, we need to go at 11:30.
At 11:30 our council meeting will end and we'll return

back at 1:30. 2
All council members are going?
We'll be leaving at 11:30.
We need approval of agenda.
I would like to move up public hearing for second
reading and public comments, do it before we leave.
Any other items we need to move up?
Ms. Saul-Sena?
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Thank you.
I wanted to clarify that today we're -- I don't see it
on the agenda, but it's really possible I'm not looking
at the right place.
We're at 1:30 discussing the -- here it is.
We have two things scheduled for 1:30, number 60 -- I
was going to suggest that we -- in fact, I really
encourage us to take No. 60 first.
>> I believe we continued that.
Mr. Smith has signed up to ask for a continuance on
that, I believe.
>> Gwen Miller: It's going to be continued.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: I thought we were going to discuss
ourselves being a local government -- government of
local certification.
>> When Mr. Smith gets here --
>> I believe Mr. Smith was going to -- is signed up to
ask for a continuance in number 60.
Let council know we are still going to move forward
with the presentation from Dennis Fernandez as relates
to the certified local government.
There he is.
>> Gwen Miller: Not yet, Mr. Smith.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: It's a question about the role of
the agenda.
>> He can make the request, just to clarify.
>> Gwen Miller: You can make the request, but you can't
go into detail.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: The question is are we going to
discuss that at 1:30 prior to number 11, the certified
local government.
>> No.
I thought what we would do is take them up in the order
in which they show up on the agenda.
Number 11 is the Kress issue.
>> I guess my question was, the issue -- forgive me for
interrupting.
My question was with regard to No. 60, did council
member Saul-Sena believe there was going to be a
presentation with regard to the local government issue
at that time for No. 60?
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Yes.

We brought this up last week. 3
We discussed this.
>> Right.
What is happening -- the reason I wanted to get on your
agenda to start with was to reiterate what we discussed
two weeks ago which was the ordinance itself -- we have
a proposed ordinance that will be coming back to
council -- is not ready, will not be ready.
We'll seek a continuance of the cigar factory issue as
well as a date certain for the ordinance.
We can't continue the cigar factory hearing until it
officially convenes at 1:30.
We will be attempting to set the date to come back with
you for the ordinance at that time.
In talking with the parties, it looks like October 12
th will work for everybody concerned.
That will be the date we'll recommend.

We're already starting the meetings with the various
stakeholders in August.
11th, 18th, et cetera.
We'll move the process forward.
My purpose for coming before you this morning is to
make sure those parties interested in speaking to the
ordinance didn't speak two weeks ago know we will not
be specifically addressing the ordinance today at 1:30.
Because we're not addressing the ordinance and
revisions are tied to the cigar factories, we're
requesting a continuance of the cigar factory issue as
well.
This is a courtesy to make sure folks are on notice
with regard to those issues and make whatever travel
plans or other accommodations.
There's a second issue I need to speak with you about
right now.
That is item five, I believe, on the agenda.
That was the question with respect to an abatement.
I will be brief, madam chair woman.
The point there is it's premature for us to recommend
an abatement.
We reviewed the case law on it.
Case law is a little sticky.
We think it's appropriate to have -- to be further down
the line with respect to the process before we abate
anything because we need to specifically identify what
we're going to abate.
So we can't do anything very global until we have some
information that will inform our suggestion to you with
respect to what might be abated.
I thought we'd get that on the -- out of the way early,

if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. 4
>> Did you have a date, Mr. Smith, that you're
suggesting to council, No. 5?
>> It will depend upon what kind of study we can find
that staff does.
The way the law reads, in essence, it's similar to
narrowly tailoring what you do.
We need to find what the recommendation will be for
staff.
I wouldn't want to speculate.
We'll have to wait -- if you want to ask us to come
back in three weeks or four weeks or some date certain,
that's fine, too.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Thank you.
>> That's what I was going to ask you, Mr. Smith,
whether you wanted us to continue it or what is it you
want us to do, but I think you answered the question.
>> David Smith: Why don't we recommend September
7th.
That gives us enough time toe talk to staff and see
what direction that they may be headed in this regard.
>> Rose Ferlita: There were some other concerns I had,
but I can take them up as we go.
One particular I want to address in terms of the agenda
is item 15 under my consent agenda.
Typically, as a matter of course, and I saw him walk
in, chief Jones, I have a very good relationship in
terms of communicating.
I'm sorry to say that I have not been able to
communicate with him on item 15.
I would like to continue this basically because it's a
procedural process that we're going into that to me
represents a major change in delivery of service for
fire rescue.
And I would like the opportunity to talk to the chief
again.
Let me clarify that.
I have not contacted him, although he always makes
himself available.
Chief, I'm not prepared to go forward til I'm prepared
to say this is a good thing for us to do.
I'd like to continue this for two weeks.
>> Second.
(Motion carried.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Under Mr. Harrison's transportation
committee, I wanted a lit discussion on 38, that's the
40th street.
>> Gwen Miller: Okay.
Any other items?
>> On page 10, item 44, August 17, 6 p.m.

We're recommending this resolution be continued to the 5
August 17 night meeting to discuss the date at that
time depending on the outcome.
>> Gwen Miller: Mr. Santiago.
>> I'm here on that particular item.
The petitioner is here.
They're asking that this vacation be rescheduled to
September 7th, to be heard on that date.
If I may briefly, it's a little bit -- this matter is a
little convoluted.
Council likes to hear rezonings together.
It was miss noticed by the petitioner.
They're going to have to continue this matter.
However, you do have the rezoning scheduled for August
17th.
Ideally what they're asking for is expecting --
obviously they want you to look -- they look forward to
the rezoning being approved.
In that eventuality, the second reading would be on
August 7th.
That's why they're asking this matter to be continued.
It's a tight time line.
They're prepared to effect notice of that.
Mr. Davis is here.
He can address that.
The rezoning is not before you.
Please don't address issues of the rezoning.
>> That's not a night hearing.
>> Gwen Miller: Let's see what Ms. Cole has to say.
>> I think the idea is to allow the vacation request to
go prior to you having second reading on the rezoning.
The rezoning second reading is scheduled for the week
before which I think is August 31st, something like
that.
We'd have to continue out second reading of the
rezoning petition to September 7th as well.
And your second readings are typically done during a
daytime meeting as are your vacations.
>> Gwen Miller: August 31st and September --
>> First reading would continue to go forward on August
17.
And second reading would have to be continued, but we
cannot continue that today until September 7th and
what I believe is being requested today is to scheduled
the vacation public hearing for September 7th to go
prior to second reading of the rezoning.
>> If I can just explain.
On August 17 at six p.m., there is a rezoning relating
to property that includes the property that would be
vacated.

So, in effect, what you will have on August 17th is a 6
discussion of a rezoning relating to property which has
yet to be vacated by the City of Tampa.
What's in effect going to have to happen is the city is
going to have to vacate that land before you can adopt
the ordinance that allows that land to be redeveloped.
It's a little bit convoluted.
The reason I understand is because there was a miss
notice on this particular item here.
It's confusing.
I understand that.
And I'm also concerned about the fact that.
>> What about us.
>> Martin Shelby: It is confusing.
That's why I would look for a way for it to be
simplified.
There's no mistake that August 17th the council is
going to be doing something that really is contingent
upon the city -- you ultimately making a decision on
the vacation.
Obviously one cannot redevelop land over which the city
has the right-of-way.
>> Rose Ferlita: I was going to ask you, Mr. Shelby,
you're saying it's okay to continue it until August 17
or go to September 7 along with the rezoning?
>> Martin Shelby: Well, the issue is -- I believe the
issue here is they are looking for a date to be set so
they can set the notice with sufficient time to be able
to have it heard.
>> Gwen Miller: Go ahead, Mr. Davis.
>> First of all, let me introduce myself.
Richard Davis, here on behalf of SEMBLer, who are
developing the proposed sea board square project.
What happened here is we do have a rezoning moving
forward.
That is scheduled for the first public hearing on
August 17th.
Part of our proposed project is to relocate a portion
of 11th street within the boundaries of our project.
And that is -- requires a vacation of that portion
that's going to be realigned and we're shifting its
location.
What happened was, and we do apologize to everyone.
We had a problem with notice and it was not timely.
It missed by one day.
All we're looking to do here today is to be able to guy
head with our first reading on the zoning on August
17th and you will see at that point how the
relocation of 11th street operates within the
boundaries of our project.

And then come back on that September date, hopefully 7
with second reading on our rezoning, and then the first
public hearing on the road vacation.
Everything does hang together.
We certainly apologize, council members, for missing
the notice by one day.
That's what we're really shooting for here.
That's what we would respectfully request.
>> On its face its looks a little confusing.
Clearly, as our attorney explained it as Ms.~Cole as
well, separate and divorced from each, we'll have the
public hearing 8/17 first reading.
Hopefully all will go well for you and your client.
On 9/7, what we're agreeing to today is simply making a
motion to have that be our date for the vacation.
Of course, as Marty said, the rezoning will be
contingent on the vacation, but separate reviews.
Is this the time, Mr. Shelby, that we'd make a motion
if we so like?
>> Martin Shelby: Yes.
>> I think we had a second.
>> Gwen Miller: August 17th.
>> We already have the zoning scheduled.
>> Rose Ferlita: 8/17 is the first reading for zoning.
Today we're looking at making a motion to have 9/7 as a
date for their vacation.
>> Gwen Miller: Make a motion for 9/7.
>> We have a motion and a second.
All in favor say AYE.
Opposed nay.
(Motion carried.)
>> Gwen Miller: Anything else we need to pull up on the
agenda?
>> Council, I believe our request for introductions and
continuances, if we can go down to sign-up sheet.
Mr. Smith, do you still have some more to say?
All set?
Okay.
>> Unless you want to make the motion now on number 6,
to continue that to September 7th.

>> Gwen Miller: Number 5.
>> Rose Ferlita: Move to continue to September 7th.
>> Second.
(Motion carried.)

>> Gwen Miller: Ms.~Cole.
>> Julia Cole, I submit add request to have item six
continued to continue researching the issue and also to
allow the opportunity to pull regulations from

different jurisdictions. 8
>> Motion.
>> Second.
(Motion carried.)

>> Gwen Miller: Mr. Daignault.
>> Good morning, council, it's with a great deal of
pressure that I'd like to introduce you to our new
public works director.
Mr. Irvin Lee, he's a retiring US Air Force colonel
after service.
His duties include construction manager, commander of
10th civil engineering squadron, commander of 2nd
squadron.
Commander of the sixth mission support group here at
MacDill air force base and chief operations at
Randolph air force base in Texas.
Irv has a bachelor's degree, master's degree in
industrial engineer from Georgia Tech.
Since Georgia Tech is not in the SEC, we won't hold
that against him.
He also has a master's degree from the air war college.
He's a registered professional engineer in the district
of Columbia.
He and his wife, SHANDRA have two children, Steven and
CHARIS.
Today is his first day of work.
We will be setting up meetings for him to come around
and meet you and I'd I'll come around and ask for your
confirmation.
(Applause.)
>> Just briefly, my family and I are excited about
making Tampa home.
I'm really -- even though I am a devoted ACC fan, we
look forward to being part of the great things that are
going on here in Tampa.
>> Gwen Miller: Thank you.
Congratulations on your appointment and welcome to the
City of Tampa.
>> I just wanted to say as chair of our public works
committee and knowing colonel Lee, we worked together
on some traffic issues when he was out at the base.
When Steve told me that he was going to be the guy for
public works, I was very excited.
Welcome and we look forward to working with you.
>> Gwen Miller: Ms. Cindy Miller.
>> Good morning, council.
My name is Cindy Miller, director of growth management
and development services.
I'm here to give a very brief summary of the status of

the RFP process. 9
I think we needed to make some clarifications over the
last couple days.
I appreciated the opportunity to do that.
Just to be very clear, the armory and the property it's
located on, the entire block, is owned by the national
guard, not by the City of Tampa.
It is owned by the Florida National guard through the
armory board department of military affairs, State of
Florida.
The city does have a reverter interest in it.
But we are not the owners or occupants of the location
of the armory or the adjacent property.
There is a memorandum of understanding that has been
executed with the national guard that set out a process
and an RPF proposal process.
RFPs were issued earlier this year.
There was a pre proposal meeting held April 25th.
Proposals were received on June 12th.
They were then made available for what I would call
public display at the west Tampa library so we could
receive comments from the citizens of Tampa.
There were also presentations and a public input
session at the convention center a couple of weeks ago.
The review committee met on August 1st, just a couple
days ago.
In the memorandum of understanding, the review
committee is established to evaluate all proposals
subject to the approval of the national guard.
I want to make that clear.
The review committee is to evaluate all proposals
subject to approval of the national guard.
So, therefore, the committee did meet, did review the
proposals, and did establish their -- what I would say
a priority listing.
However, all proposals still need to be submitted to
the armory board itself.
The armory board is meeting on August 12th.
I will be present there to be able to address any
questions they may have.
The review committee consisted of two city staff, two
national guard representatives and two citizens from
the adjoining area.
What I do want to mention to you, because it is
something that I will need to come back to you
regarding, is that all of the proposals submitted would
have some form of comprehensive plan amendment and will
have some form of rezoning.
So I will need to work very closely with your legal
council as well as Mr. Smith's office so that we have

the right format as we come back to you with the 10
results of the armory board meeting.
So the next step is the armory board meeting, in about
a week and a half.
And with your permission, I'll report back to you after
that meeting.
>> Gwen Miller: Thank you.
We appreciate that.
Mr. Darrell Smith.
>> Good morning, madam chair.
Darrell Smith, chief of staff.
It's a pleasure to come before you this morning, to
introduce another addition to our staff in the City of
Tampa. I'd like to introduce our new internal audit
director, Roger STROUT, comes to us from the corporate
sector.
He has been most recently working with Georgia Pacific
for the last 19 years.
He's been in charge of business systems managers,
operations, information technology management
operations and as an audit manager.
He and his wife live in Wesley chapel now.
They will be relocating to the City of Tampa.
He will be meeting with you in the coming weeks and
after he establishes residence within the city, we'll
submit his appointment for your confirmation.
Please join me in welcoming Roger STROUT.
(Applause.)
>> Honorable council members and madam chair woman it
is indeed a pleasure to be here this morning.
I am very excited about being a part of this management
team for the city.
It's indeed a pleasure and a privilege, and I'm looking
forward to leveraging, quite frankly, my many years of
experience not only in internal audit, but I
intentionally moved into the information technology
area so I could better integrate information technology
and internal audit and additionally process
improvement, one of my favorite areas I've enjoyed
working in.
I look forward to leveraging that as well for the
benefit of our taxpayers.
>> Thank you.
>> Sir, I don't know if you've heard of the phrase
triple bottom line.
Are you familiar with that?
It refers to money, human resources and the
environment.
So I hope that as you look at the city's resources you
think of it in terms of the triple bottom line because

all three things are important to us, and we need to 11
maximize their potential.
>> Absolutely.
Thank you very much for that point.
>> Gwen Miller: Congratulations and welcome to the City
of Tampa.
Mr. Santiago?
>> Good morning, madam chair, Roland Santiago, here on
item 33, we're asking that matter be concerned
continued to your next session.
Technical issues regarding construction for that
program.
Accordingly we need time to get that pointed out.
We ask you continue that for two weeks.
(Motion carried.)
>> Also here on item 47, the 40th street lap
agreement, last night filed with the clerk in your
office, a revised resolution -- the resolution that
came through did not have account numbers.
They have since been verified.
The resolution has been updated.
I provided that for you.
There was also a scrivener's error that we got from
FDOT.
Was eve got the latest and greatest of the resolution
and the agreement.
If you have any questions, I'm here with regard to the
resolution and Mr. Daignault is here also.
Substitute resolution and agreement.
That is all.
>> Gwen Miller: All right.
Thank you.
We need to approve the agenda.
>> Rose Ferlita: Second.
(Motion carried.)

>> Gwen Miller: We're here to introduce the mayor of
the City of Tampa, Pam Iorio.
>> Mayor Pam Iorio: It's my pleasure to present to you
the proposed 2007 budget for the City of Tamps.
This year's budget theme is a commitment to the basics.
That's how we'll build a strong city by building the
basics, emphasizing the basics.
This year's budget of $728 million represents an 8%
increase over last year.
For the 18th year in a row there will be no millage
increase and there are no proposed fee increases this
year.
I want to highlight some of the areas of the budget
that have increases this year.

I also want to talk a little bit about process. 12
Over the year, I meet with all of you and you share
with me very directly what your concerns are about the
community and what you would like to see funded.
I listen very closely to those concerns.
You will see those concerns reflected in this budget.
I appreciate that give and take that we've enjoyed over
the past years and know it will continue in a positive
light.
That's how we get things done as a team.
I very much appreciate that team approach.
We build our budget by first focusing on police and
fire. That's how we start off.
Our crime rate is the lowest it's been in 30 years.
Last year it decreased by over 16%.
You have to go back to 1977 to find a crime rate as low
as it is today.
Cue does to our men and women of the Tampa police
department headed by chief HOGUE.
They do an outstanding job.
The police chief shared with me the six-month figures
for 2006.
Our crime rate has dropped another 12.4%.
It is something to be awfully proud about, isn't it?
So we make sure every year that the police have the
necessary tools that they need.
And so when we build our budget each year it starts
with police and fire and always will for as long as I'm
mayor.
When they need additional funding and additional
staffing, their needs come first.
You know, most of you were with me for the ground
breaking of the district three police station in east
Tampa.
We put some additional moneys in the budget to complete
that project.
That is going to be I think a real benefit to east
Tampa and something we're going to be very proud of.
Next we look for the fire department, continued
commitment to the growth of that department.
We made a commitment to seven new firefighters a year.
That will continue for another eight years.
This year we added an additional nine personnel to
station nine in west Tampa.
In addition to the seven new firefighters a year, you
have to continue to beef up our rescue cars.
As we continue to grow, we need more rescue cars.
Those rescue cars take nine new personnel each year.
That's what we have in the budget.
We have in the budget improvements to many of the fire

stations throughout our city. 13
This was an issue particularly in my first year that
had great deal of conversation with city council about
the state of our fire stations.
We're addressing that through CIT.
That's very important.
Next we look at parks and recreation.
That is our second largest department in the city, over
160 parks, services every part of our city.
Think you agree with me that's something we're very
proud of, the caliber of our parks and recreation
department.
This year additional staffing, many renovations.
We're going to design the recreation center in sulfur
springs.
Sulfur springs, as you know, if there's ever a part of
our city that needs a recreation center, it's sulfur
spring.
Census track shows they have actually more children in
their census track than any other part of our city.
A lot of unmet needs there.
So I know this is something that many of you have been
anxious that we get started on.
We will begin the design this year of a new recreation
center, something that we hope will be very similar to
the Loretta Ingram center in Lincoln gardens.
That model, without the swimming pool.
I think it's something that will be sorry needed.
The balustrade will be refurbished.
That's a signature project in our city.
It needs to be maintained.
Construction will begin on the new gymnastics center in
Tampa.
Subject of many community meetings.
I know the residents up there will look forward to
that.
We will break ground on that this year.
The pier and the boat ramp will undergo extensive
renovations.
As you know we put some money into BALLIS point just
the other weekend and saw a lot of people with children
playing on the new playground equipment.
It's a great addition.
We need to put more money into the pier and into the
boat ramp.
That's what we're going to do.
Special project will be constructed this year, the
freedom playground at Mack for land park.
This will be the first ever playground, the City of
Tampa designed specifically for children with

disabilities and is being done in conjunction with a 14
group of very concerned citizens who have raised
considerable monies themselves.
We're very pleased we'll be able to see that project
come to fruition this year.
Investing in neighborhoods.
You know that's been a theme of our administration and
one that I know is shared by all seven of you.
Every one of you, you care about the neighborhoods, you
want them to be better.
When I first got into office, I was a little bit
surprised that only $2.6 million a year in total was
spent in neighborhoods for street resurfacing,
sidewalks, signage replacement and traffic.
That number, just too low to even begin to address the
needs we have through out our city.
So we raised it every single year.
This year we're allocating $6.2 million to our
investing in neighborhoods program.
I still think it's too low.
I still think we need much more.
Our goal is to continue to increase it every single
year.
Now, our neighborhoods, that's what poor people, when
they pay their tax dollars, they want to see the
improvement in their neighborhoods, streets resurfaced.
When people come up at neighborhood meetings and ask
when are you getting a sidewalk, you find they're on a
long waiting list.
We want to address that.
We have since I've been mayor.
We're going to continue to do that.
I believe in investing in neighborhoods.
I want to talk about our stormwater plan.
I want to thank you for your support of the stormwater
plan.
Last year at this time we implemented it.
Long overdue for a city of our size with the kind of
drainage problems that we have historically had.
It's been very successful.
The projects that we said we would do, we're doing
them.
They're either underdesigned, under construction or
have been completed.
They're -- we've completed a number of projects.
You have something on the and Dane today that talks
about the final phase of the west Tampa project.
That has been steady progress all along.
I give a lot of credit for the stormwater department
for their can-do attitude and taking a new program and

running with it. 15
When I first stood in front of you and talked about
having a stormwater department, stormwater fee and a
five-year stormwater program, I mentioned that one of
the benefits of that is that when other layers of
government and agencies see that you're doing
something, that you're putting money into solving a
problem, then they're willing to help.
But if they don't see a plan, they're not going to put
money into helping local government.
Well, that turned out to be the case, that other
government agencies have seen that we have a plan and
that we're implementing the plan.
We received a preliminary commitment from swift mud for
$8.5 to help us with our Dale maybe by from Neptune to
Henderson.
500 million from the state for that project, also.
Our staff has been able to do a great job of leveraging
to get other money from other agencies.
It's making a huge difference.
In fact, it's now a $70 million five-year stormwater
program.
By the end of next fiscal year, we should start
construction on the Dale Mabry Henderson to NEPTUNE
project.
I can't underscore how important that project is. When
I first became mayor, I asked the question, how come
that intersection always floods so horribly and is
there a plan to do anything about it?
It turns out that the plan is an expensive one, takes a
lot of work.
As you know, it's under design right now.
It took the implementation of a fee, took the
implementation of a five-year plan, took the ability to
leverage and get money from other sources, but we are
going to make that happen.
Apparently a lot of drainage basins all come into that
one point.
As you know, the flooding there is terrible.
People get their cars flooded, businesses.
It's probably our worst flooding problem in the city.
It's also a hurricane evacuation route.
Think about that, how this is really an issue that has
to be addressed.
So from the time that this budget is adopted October
1st to the end of next fiscal year, sometime in that
time frame, hopefully we'll all be out of Dale maybe by
for a ground breaking for this very important
stormwater project.
We decided we can only have groundbreaking for

stormwater because ribbon cuttings are hard. 16
We added another year of project when we adopted the
stormwater plan, we added another year.
We added the 2011 projects.
I believe I sent all of those to your office about a
week ago, so you can take a look at what those projects
will be.
Road construction.
We have some very significant projects underway.
Manhattan is under construction, cross creek is under
construction.
We have tremendous rising construction costs.
This is not just the City of Tampa, Hillsborough
County, State of Florida.
In fact, you saw with the State of Florida DOT trying
to build the section of interstate, one bid came in
$100 million over budget.
This is a problem we have of rising steel, concrete and
asphalt.
However, given that, we are committed to getting these
projects going even though they are a challenge.
As you know, the 40th street section B which is the
bridge segment.
That will be the most expensive segment.
We will be awarding that and we will be breaking ground
in September on that very important project.
But in order to do that, as you know, we've had to
borrow money from A, section A.
We'll be back in front of the MPO talking about how
we're going to make up the money for sections A and C.
Sections A and C are currently still the acquisition of
right-of-way phase.
We're not ready to go to construction A and C.
We're still acquiring the right-of-way.
We've made a commitment to this project.
It is critical that it be done.
We can't let rising construction costs deter us.
This is a partnership between the feds, the state, the
county and the city.
We have to do everything we can in partnership to find
the money for segments A and C.
But we are prepared in the coming months to move
forward with B, the bridge segment.
That is going to be a wonderful improvement east Tampa
has been a focal point of this administration, and this
year the tiff has produced $5.4 million in revenues.
Talk about increases in property values in that
community and investment interest.
Monies will go for park and REC improvements,
transportation projects, housing rehabilitation which

has been very successful in east Tampa. 17
Stormwater retention ponds convergence to community
lakes and parks.
I think that's going to be a great addition for the
east Tampa community.
Beautification efforts.
We're going to hire two environmental detectives to
eliminate illegal dumping.
We're going to expand our summer hiring program.
We have hired a number of young people for summer
employment.
It has proven to be a very successful program.
Our downtown number of projects, I think the statistic
that there are 26 residential projects between
channelside and the downtown core, either under
construction or approved for rezoning.
That is an unbelievable number of projects that are
planned for our downtown core, about 10, 11,000 units
which by the end of this decade could result in 17,000
residents living in our downtown core.
What a change from just a few years ago.
We're continuing our two-waying of the streets.
As you know, Madison was our first street.
We're going to take on the next one for this coming
year.
We're going to do one street at a time.
We do the improved crosswalks in two-waying.
I want to point out, council members, that this is the
first year in the City of Tampa's history that the tiff
pays entirely for the convention center debt.
I think that's something to note, first time ever since
that debt was issued.
And now, to talk a little bit about our enterprise
departments.
As you know, we have an aging pipe system underneath
our streets.
Waste water, we just issued $36 million in bonds to fix
a lot of pipe issues. This is a water pipe, and we
will be issuing another $32 million in bonds shortly to
fix our water pipes.
Our water and waste water pipes, some are nearly 100
years old.
All of you probably know because you see it all the
time, that you'll read and hear about the fact that
they've burst many times they will simply burst and we
end up having to clean up -- in the case of waste water
we have serious clean-ups.
In the case of water, we had one downtown.
It's an aging pipe system.
These are really modest bond issues to deal with this

issue, but we are committed to it. 18
It's not always the most interesting thing in the world
to deal with replacement of pipes that are underground
and that no one sees.
But it's extremely important to the health and the
vitality of our enterprise functions.
The water and waste water functions that our residents
depend on every single day.
This is a very core, key function.
You know, I want to give KUDOS to the enterprise
functions, headed solid waste, waste water, they have
increased fuel costs and they have increased chemical
costs, but there are no fee increases this year.
It's a good job that they do in managing the resources
they have that has allowed us to present this kind of
budget to you this year.
Now I want to talk about reserves.
This is probably not the most interesting part of the
budget.
But as I've looked at our budget over the past three to
four years, I've seen that it's probably one of the
most significant and needs much more attention from the
administration and from city council. We have looked
at the statistics of the many communities that have
been hit by hurricanes over the past two years.
Our insurance costs have gone up.
This year we get to pay considerably more for insurance
for far less coverage.
It really tracks exactly what's happening to homeowners
throughout this state.
Less coverage, higher costs.
In fact, we only have -- we're only covered as a city
government now for $30 million of wind damage.
We are essentially self-insured without having a
self-insurance fund.
Our top ten insured assets total $1.8 billion.
Those are only the top ten.
That doesn't get into all of our park and REC
facilities and all the other things the city owns.
We're just taking the big assets.
In 2004 when we weren't even hit with a hurricane, we
had $12 million in FEMA reimbursable expenses for a
city not hit by any storm directly.
As you know, FEMA pays a portion and the local
government pays 12 and a half percent.
And then we've got the cost of a continuation of
government operation if we had a catastrophic hit.
We now have a great plan in place for a continuation of
government operations, but it will be costly if that
day ever comes, to move city government to another

location, to continue the operation, to make sure that 19
the needs of our citizens are met, there's a huge lag
time between the time that you expend money and the
time that FEMA reimburses.
This is a real cash flow issue for any community.
The last year we started a restricted reserve funds.
This year we're increasing it another five million.
Lit be at eight million.
Our goal is 15 million.
That is a very modest goal.
I have to tell you that if there's one of you up there
who doesn't think this hurricane reserve fund is
needed, there's one of you that thinks that 15 million
is to much, I'm here to tell you that that thinking
would probably need to be readjusted because this city
must have more in reserves in order to deal with a
possible catastrophic event.
We are underreserved as a city.
We need to address it.
I know it's difficult in a budget year to take a chunk
of money and put it in reserves when you could put it
into a project that is perhaps of more interest, but
reserves are critical to the financial future of our
city.
So this year, in addition to the 8.3 of general fund
reserves that we typically have -- other reserves are
typically for things like fuel cost increases, or if
revenues don't come in as we expected them to, those
are typical reserves.
In addition to that reserve fund, we have an emergency
reserve fund of $8 million again with a goal of $15
million.
Every year you will see us adding to that.
If I didn't think it was essential for the health,
safety and welfare of our citizens, I wouldn't be
recommending it.
I can tell you it is essential for our citizens.
Now, I'd like to spend a couple minutes talking about
the challenges that we face in the future because when
we look and put together our budget, we don't look at
just a single year.
I know the focus, as we present a budget to you is a
snapshot in time of one year.
But we look at what we know will be the challenges we
face in the coming years.
Our property tax revenue has been healthy this year,
but other revenue sources have been flat.
That's why the overall increase to our budget is 8%.
What other obligations do we have?
I already talked about the reserves and the need for

that to increase each year until we get to $15 million. 20
Even then it should be relooked at in light of
inflation, in light of what happened in other
communities and their cost out lay.
The fire department, we know what needs are there.
Over the next five years, we will be spending an
additional $6 million in personnel alone.
That's just the fire department.
We have not only the obligation to the seven new
firefighters a year, not only the obligation for more
reserve trucks and personnel, but we are opening new
fire stations in new Tampa which will take additional
personnel to staff them.
This is all part of our five-year plan.
We know the costs are coming.
We discussed this with you with the CIT budget in terms
of the hard capital costs, but the operational costs
will be $6 million over the next five years.
When we open the new gymnastics center in new Tampa
which will be a great addition, that has to be fully
staffed.
They're great community assets, but they are costly in
terms of staffing needs.
There's no doubt about that.
I need to broach with you another issue that is not in
this budget but is one you need to have on your radar
scope as you move forward and make decisions on behalf
of the city.
It's the need for a new communications system for the
police department.
Our police department currently has a radio system that
is not compatible with the sheriff's system, nor
compatible with the systems of other law enforcement
agencies in the region.
It's outdated.
It needs to be updated.
We have gotten such wonderful cooperation from the
sheriff on this.
It's really been a pleasure.
This will be an $11 to $13 million expenditure.
It needs to be done in the next year or two.
The police chief hopes to use UASI money for a good bit
of it.
That's the money we get from the federal government to
address homeland security issues as a region.
We're still working on that.
We hope to be able to use a good piece of that money
for the purchase of this new radio system.
But there will be city money required, two to three
million at least of city money required to do this.

This is a real priority. 21
It's one that our police chief has been working on now
for a couple of years.
It is a serious issue.
This issue of communications compatibility and
upgrading our radios for the men and women of our
police department, critical, must be done.
Again, not reflected in this year's budget because
we're not quite ready to put the entire financing
before you.
It's an issue you have to be aware of as we go forward
because it's another unfunded need out there that
clearly needs to be addressed. Fuel prices, our FY 06
budget is $2 million over because of fuel.
With the expectation of rising fuel cost we expect a
similar hit to our 07 budget.
I want to talk little about the critical road projects
that are not funded.
I talked about 40th street, A and C.
We will be addressing that through the MPO.
We will be addressing that again with the state, with
the county.
It's got to be a partnership to pull all this together.
It has to be done.
The bridge project in new Tampa, terribly underfunded.
We know that already.
We have about $13 million put aside for that.
We think the bid is going to be substantially higher.
We know going into this budget year we don't have the
money for that bridge project. We have to face that
fact.
The seconds phase of cross creek.
As you know, cross creek, it's under construction right
now, but it stops right around heritage aisles. It
must be continued all the way to Morris bridge road or
you're going to end up with a same bottleneck, just a
different set of residents talking about the bottleneck
as the road goes from four to two lanes.
So we have put moneys into this year's budget.
It's actually directing the federal dollars we've
received towards the initial planning and design for
what we call cross creek east.
But let's be realistic.
We don't have the moneys in the budget for the
construction of cross creek east.
That money is not anywhere in our budget.
As you know, we've had a south of Gandy transportation
study that's been underway and been completed.
You will be receiving a full report on that.
I think an excellent job has been done.

In that report it's recommended that a number of 22
transportation projects be completed.
We have no funding in this budget this year for any of
those named transportation projects in that study.
Our wonderful destination park, it's going to be a
focal point for our downtown, there is no funding in
the budget for that park.
Ashley street which is currently being designed and
will be our beautiful gateway, there's no funding for
Ashley street to be redone.
And rising construction costs.
You know, I mentioned about the 6.2 we're putting into
investing in neighborhoods.
That is an awfully small amount for our city government
to be putting into street resurfacing and sidewalks and
signage replacement.
For a city of our side with the number of needs we
have, that's a number that must increase over the
years.
I bring up these points because it's all part of a
bigger picture, isn't it?
We can always talk.
The budget is a time when you can talk about what is
being funded and the accomplishments you're making and
the progress to be made.
But the bigger picture, too, involves all the needs of
the community.
And what we need to do and what the blue printed needs
to be for the future in order for us to meet those
needs, I'm a big believer in the basics, I think that's
what will make Tampa a great city, whenever a
Neighborhood is strong, when the basics are taken care
of, then that's a city that we can really be proud of.
You know, Tampa is unlike a lot of other cities, in
fact we have home to a number of regional facilities
that we pay for, the convention center, the performing
arts center, the debt service on these various
facilities, the aquarium, the St. Pete times forum.
That one we don't pay for, but that is a regional
facility that is part of our community.
And here is an interesting fact -- this is a fact that
I think all of you could carry with you as you go out
into the community.
Tampa has the third highest percent population change
due to commuters coming into the city each day of any
city over 250,000 in the country.
We rank right behind Washington DC and Atlanta in terms
of the sheer number of people who commute into our city
on a daily basis.
So today as we sit here and we have a population of

330,000, right now, as I give this talk, our population 23
is 440,000.
That's the number that we serve during the course of
any given day.
That is the impact on our infrastructure.
Now, our taxing structure doesn't recognize this fact.
I know this is an issue for many sit tease across the
United States.
We're not alone in that.
Our taxing structure doesn't -- is based on population,
not based on this influx of commuters into your city on
any given day.
That's part of this bigger picture of what we need to
do to invest in a quality city for everyone who lives
here and who comes into our city on a daily basis.
This building -- this budget has been a great team
effort as you know.
Bonnie wise does an excellent job with her entire
staff.
She will be making an in-depth budget presentation to
you.
I want to thank all the department heads who worked for
so many months on this budget.
They have a long list of needs that are legitimate
needs and if they were funded would better serve the
public.
They come away I know feeling involvement degree of
disappointment with the budget process because of the
lack of revenue to fund all their very important
projects that they know would better serve the citizens
of Tampa.
They're a great team and they all work together very
well.
They all recognize that we have to focus on those needs
that are basic needs for the citizens of Tampa.
They're a wonderful team and they do a great job and
serve the public beautifully. Our budget is easily
accessible to the public.
It's on the web site, the entire budget, for anyone to
access.
We have a budget video that starts airing today and
everyone will be able to see the highlights.
Bonnie will talk about a new web feature where people
on the web site will be able to accesses our public
works projects, our capital projects and see what the
status is of those projects.
Of course, today at noon we have a luncheon with our
neighborhood leaders that we have every year where we
give this budget presentation to our neighborhood
leaders and have them see firsthand what this budget

can contains and how it affects their lives. 24
Again, our theme this year is a commitment to the
basics.
This is something I deeply believe in.
This I believe is the greatest city in the United
States.
It's got all the assets of a great city.
If we continue to invested in the basics and the
foundational items that make for a great city, if we
continue to take the tax money that we receive and
really turn it right back into what's important to the
citizens and make this city even stronger, we are
completely unbeatable as a city and a quality place to
live.
We owe that to the people we serve.
We owe it to them.
I appreciate so much the ability to work with you
throughout the year to put together the documents that
are before you today.
It's a long process. It is to me the most important
process that we undergo because it is the blueprint for
the future of our city.
You can see now that I've been mayor for several years,
you can see certain trends because of what we've set
out, certain trends of investing in the basics and
trends in terms of police and fire and parks and REC,
now the trend toward greater emphasis on reserves.
These are all decisions that we believe are in the best
interest of our citizens for the long haul.
We'll continue to make those kinds of decisions that we
think are in the best interest of Tampa for generations
to come.
I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have
before I turn this over to Bonnie.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Thank you, mayor Iorio.
This was such an excellent presentation.
I can't think of another budget that not only discuss
very specifically what we're funding, but also what we
aren't funding.
I think the broad picture you've given us of what our
needs are is so clear, and the things we as sure to but
don't quite have the resources to do now, I really like
your emphasis on the neighborhoods and their needs.
I wish we won the lottery and had several hundred
million to add to this so we can do everything.
I think the priorities you've selected really reflected
the needs of this community.
I think this is excellent.
Thank you very much.
>> Mary Alvarez: Mayor, I am so proud to be a citizen

of Tampa and being on this council this last three 25
years.
This has been the most rewarding experience of all my
life.
I'm going to really miss this this next year.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: I'm going to miss you.
>> Mary Alvarez: When I go through the neighborhoods
now and they tell me what a great job you are doing
along with our council members, it just swells my heart
to know all this has happened because of you and your
staff and that you have really taken it to the next
highest level.
It's been wonderful.
Every phase of our city, every phase of our
neighborhoods, you can see the improvements, you can
see everywhere you go there's been some kind of
improvement.
Even though there's little more they can do, we know
it's coming.
That is so important for our citizens, to know that we
have a budget that we can really say this money is well
spent.
And I want to thank you and your staff for doing the
great, great job.
You have picked a great staff.
I love working with every one of them.
They've been super, very much in tune to everything.
And they're young, energetic.
And you're young and energetic.
That's really what counts.
I just wanted to tell you that in the last three years
this has been the most rewarding experience of my life.
I want to thank you.
>> Mayor Pam Iorio: Mary, that means a lot.
It means a lot to the staff who is here.
It really does.
To be recognized like that means a lot to them.
This is a complete team effort.
Every time I get any praise for it, I always want to
say it's the council, too, the team, the council and
the may juror your and the staffer.
We all work together.
They're a great team.
You're going to be terribly missed.
You care a lot about this community.
I thank you for your comments.
>> Mary Alvarez: When you do have your ground breaking,
call me.
>> Mayor Pam Iorio: I'll call you.
>> Mary Alvarez: At least in the next year.

I know I would have been part of what was going on -- 26
I'm only kidding.
If you want to call me, I'll be there.
>> Kevin White: Madam mayor, I want to say thank you as
well.
I don't want to repeat and regurgitate everything said
earlier.
I'd like to thank you for making east Tampa one of your
priorities.
The 40th street project and several of the other
projects which gives me an opportunity to take PART in
all of those activities and make sure that they stay on
the right track, keep them moving forward.
And staff, all the staff I've worked with, Ed Jenson,
mark HUEY and Bonnie wise and Jim Stefan on a
day-to-day basis as well as Tampa fire rescue and
police department, I thank them on a daily basis
because they are such a vital component.
One of the other departments that a lot of people won't
want me to thank, Mr. Curtis lane, code enforcement, a
vital component of east Tampa and they make a big
difference, too.
To all the staff, I thank you.
>> Mayor Pam Iorio: I know they appreciate that.
Councilman, you're one that took a look at the budget
this past year.
You saw an unfunded item way down on the list where the
firefighters needed new beds, you took the initiative
to get rooms to go to donate the beds.
I know the firefighters very much do.
Thank you for taking that extra special effort to help
fund one of the many unfunded needs.
>> We can't take total credit for that.
There were several other entities behind the scene who
unfortunately aren't getting a lot of credit for that.
That list was published.
I don't think this is the right time to go down the
laundry list.
There was a lot of other people's efforts involved in
the community.
I'm glad to be able to spearhead something and make
some things happen for the city.
>> Mayor Pam Iorio: Thank you for your continued
support for all the progress being made in east Tampa.
>> Gwen Miller: Mr. Dingfelder.
>> John Dingfelder: Thank you, madam chair, madam
mayor.
As always, excellent presentation.
One of the things I want to reemphasize, when Bonnie
and Jim and I and you as well talked about the reserve

funds, I think it's so important to the community. 27
The whole south, the whole State of Florida, we've all
sort of been taking a beating, and you watch this stuff
on TV, the City of Tampa and Tampa Bay has been very
lucky.
We all watch it on TV, sometimes in great horror.
As elected officials, when we see the damage that
hurricanes and other related floods and things cause to
our infrastructure, we realize it's a very responsible,
very conservative position to build these reserve
funds.
I think it's one of the best things that we can do.
$15 million is probably the best we can hope for right
now.
I think we need to keep building it.
I'm sure that when Bonnie gets up, she'll tell us more
about that.
Another thing I wanted to mention and commend the city
and you on is the clean cities program.
I think that it's gotten off to a real great success.
I've noticed all over the city great improvements, and
just focusing our efforts on making this a cleaner and
more presentable city.
It's so important.
It makes us feel better about ourselves.
And the last thing, the recent reorganization of our
planning structure within city government, I think is
very important.
I think what's more important than good planning for
our future and for our children and to know where we're
going to go as a city and to consolidate all of our
planning efforts, I think if there's any departments
that perhaps need some more folks and more growth over
the next couple years, it's our planning divisions.
When I used to work at the county, over the last ten
years, the county has grown their planning efforts and
you can tell.
In some ways with their GIS systems and that sort of
thing, they're ahead of us.
We need to do some catching up on that.
I think you're headed in the right direction in that
regard.
I applaud you for all this.
Once again, I thank staff, especially Steve Daignault
who I work with on daily basis on a lot of issues, but
all of staff who I work with, thank you so much.
>> Gwen Miller: Mr. Harrison?
>> Shawn Harrison: Thank you madam chair and madam
mayor for the presentation.
We won't agree on all issues.

You know I have taken a position that I think it is 28
important in this period of good times for the city as
far as our tax rates go that we ought to be able to
give a little bit back.
I will study what you have put forth here and you and I
will continue to have dialogue about that issue.
I agree, I think we all grew that a healthy reserve
fund is very important for the city.
I applaud your efforts at increasing that reserve fund.
I want to say that new Tampa and north Tampa
appreciates the attention that you have paid.
We have projects underway in north Tampa now that I
thought we might not ever see in my eight years as a
city councilman.
We are moving.
A couple of projects, cross creek, I agree with you
wholeheartedly.
We need to move forward with the design of that eastern
leg.
You will bottleneck as soon as you get there.
The gymnastics center, recreation center, the bridge,
these are all things new Tampa has been waiting on.
At the MPO policy committee, we agreed unanimously to
put $9 million into the 40th street project to finish
the final segment.
That will officially voted on at the MPO meeting in
September.
We had unanimous consent for that.
We are working together to make sure that number one
transportation priority gets done.
Thank you on behalf of my constituents.
I look forward to a continued debate on our millage
rate.
I just wanted to say thanks.
>> Mayor Pam Iorio: Thank you.
>> Gwen Miller: Ms. Ferlita.
>> Rose Ferlita: A very well thought out budget.
It catches our attention when you start with police and
fire rescue.
As public safety chairman, I applaud the fact that the
dollars went into these departments and not to discount
what everybody all the way down the line does this is
an opportunity that we look at what you presented, do
what we're supposed to do, checks and balances. Next
month I look forward to a beneficial discussion about
what we agree with and what we don't.
Overall I'd like to thank everybody involved in the
budget, that's staff, department heads and hourly wage
employees and everyone else who has made this city one
for others to respect and envy.

I thank you for this process. 29
We look forward to dialogue next months.
>> Gwen Miller: Nothing else for me to say mayor.
My colleagues are pouring it on to you this morning.
>> Mayor Pam Iorio: Now that I warmed up the podium
I'll turn it over to Bonnie wise.
I thank you for your kind attention.
There will be two public hearings for the public to be
able to engage in dialogue, also.
Thank you for the continued positive final work that
means so much to everyone in this city.
Thank you very much.
>> Gwen Miller: Thank you for a very, very good
presentation.
(Applause.)

>> Bonnie Wise: Thank you.
Bonnie wise, direct tore of revenue and finance.
I'm going to go into a little bit more detail and I'll
try not to repeat too much of what mayor Iorio said.
The budget theme, a commitment to the basics.
I want to thank the mayor and the council members for
the guidance you have given to me and my staff
throughout the year.
I especially want to thank the budget staff who has
worked tirelessly through out this process, Alan
Brazier and sue winter who put the budget books
together.
The department directors and administrators throughout
the entire process, the interaction amongst the
departments has been terrific.
Especially to you city council members, we had five
work shops for this budget process.
, and that I know took a lot 06 your time, a lot of
your energy and to get your input throughout that
process is what helped make this budget more reflective
of what our community is looking for.
As we mentioned, this is for fiscal year '07, a
commitment to the basics.
The budget this year is $728 million.
This is an 8% increase over last year.
You can see where the increase has been.
It's really been in the tax operating area of eight and
a half percent.
We had small increases in enterprise funds, internal
service funds and other funds increase 7.4%.
As I mentioned, overall 8%.
We had a big increase in the bond area.
The $54 million increase is mostly 33 million in the
tax operating funds.

This is the 33 million. 30
Basically where did it go.
Predominantly in these areas, fire rescue, that budget
increased about $3.4 million.
We have added 19 new personnel and fire.
The seven new firefighters that the mayor mentioned
plus the paramedics and lieutenants and other unsworn
officers.
Parks and recreation increased approximately three
million, various new positions there, new positions in
clean city.
Public works increased about $3 million, police
increased approximately 50 mill young.
As the mayor mentioned, our emergency reserve, $5
million.
Because the CRA is really expanding in our community,
the mayor mentioned specifically east Tampa.
But over all the city's contribution was an increase of
$4.5 million over last year.
We really are seeing huge growth in our CRA areas.
This is a pie chart of our major revenue sources.
You can see there we do get focused -- tend to get
focused on property taxes.
That is a large part of our tax operating revenue.
It's $168 million, about 40% of our tax operating
funds.
You can see there that other taxes and charges, that
includes CIT, local option gas tax, state revenue
sharing and other intergovernmental revenues are all
part of that other categories.
We have sales tax of 32 million.
Fees and charges include occupational license fee, EMS
services, convention services, those types of charges.
Electric Fran size and utility taxes, about $77
million.
So I know that we talk a lot, as I mention, about
property taxes.
Once again, about 40% of our tax operating revenue.
This is what's hang in our city of the taxable property
valuation.
You can see we have an increase in 2007, just over 20%.
So 20.7% increase in our valuation of property in our
city this coming year. Of that about 14% is new
construction.
It's still very high, a little bit lower than last
year, but still at a very high level.
This is the history of the property taxes paid to the
city.
So once again, over 20% increase.
A mill this year would generate about $25.6 million.

As the mayor mentioned, for the 18th consecutive year 31
we are proposing to maintain the millage at the current
level, no millage increase.
You often ask me for a City of Tampa resident, when
they get their property tax bill, how much of that gets
paid actually to the City of Tampa.
It's about 27% of the tax bill that goes to the City of
Tampa.
The rest goes to the county, to the school board, swift
mud and other jurisdictions.
Although the property tax revenue has steady increased,
we have other revenues that are remaining pretty flat.
You can see there that sales tax has increased
somewhat, really only over a little more than a 2%
increase.
These are based on numbers we get from the state each
year.
This is another chart of our franchise fee, utility and
communication services tax.
You can see there where those three revenue sources
are, too, remaining very flat.
So really basically a 1% increase from budget last year
to this coming budget.
How are we spending our money?
This is a pie chart of our $422 million in tax
operating funds.
You can see there that almost half of it goes to public
safety which includes TPD, Tampa fire rescue, code
enforcement, and we have there parks and recreation,
$58 million which is 14% of the budgeted.
It's parks and recreation and other convention center
and the museum related facilities.
Public works, 10%, debt service 5%.
We have a big portion in CIP and CIT for our vehicles.
The rest is central government, $50 million that's
everything from purchasing, to HR, revenue and finance,
legal.
This is how our property taxes compare to the police
budget.
This is all the personnel operating their vehicles,
their CIP.
You can see there almost $168 million with property
taxes with the police budget almost $131 million.
I wanted to add this slide this year because to compare
our property taxes to police and fire.
You can see there that our property tax revenue doesn't
even cover the essential services of our police and
fire budgets.
We have had some growth in our personnel over the past
year.

In the general fund category, you can see we're at 32
3, -- 19 of those are in fire, four in police, 12 in
parks and REC, and various others in other departments.
Those are the main increases this year.
In the other category that's predominantly the
enterprise funds, 32 of those are in the solid waste
area.
As you know, we have taken over the solid waste
collections in the northwest and downtown area.
We had to hire additional personnel.
You'll see on the budget side we have less contract
fees because of that.
Our police department continues to be the largest
department, 1369 employees in police.
Parks and RECS with 700.
Waste water is the largest, 378 and water at 275.
Compared to our peers, we tend to have largest sworn
police officers per thousand in population.
This year we have 3.07 sworn officers per thousand of
population.
I think is big part contributed to that statistic the
mayor shared earlier, about the influx of people coming
into our city on a daily basis.
The mayor talked a lot about the emergency reserves.
This is something that as finance director I've been
struggling with.
It is very difficult to determine what is the right
number to have in emergency reserve.
Of course, we don't really know.
But we know that our property insurance, you all have
heard me talk about this workshop after workshop.
What has happened in our property insurance.
The mayor mentioned the value of the city property is
$1.8 billion.
That's all the property.
But we have $30 million in storm coverage. And with a
very high deductible.
So it is really something that we had to address.
It's the inability to even obtain adequate insurance
coverage.
I talked to my colleagues throughout the state.
We talk about it at the GFOA, government finance
officers association.
It's something we're looking to guidelines, looking to
policies to establish good fund, emergency funds.
Right now what we're looking at is 5% of the general
fund department's budgeted.
That would put us at about $15 million.
It is something we do need to evaluate on an ongoing
basis. There you see the $8 million, 3 million we

started last year plus 5 million this year. 33
We have other recurring reserves that you will see in
the budget.
That's in the form of contingencies and revenue
reserves.
That is something, like the mayor mentioned, when fuel
costs increase more than we anticipate.
That happened this year.
Fuel was $2 million over budget.
If we have other revenue shortfalls, that's where that
comes up, if something project ends up being more
expensive, that's what that green bar is.
But the emergency reserve is really for these emergency
procedures.
It is really to remain there and not to be tapped but
for an emergency.
Another fact, when Wilma was coming through last year
which, of course, Wilma fortunately did not hit this
area, we had to mobilize to get ready for Wilma.
Our one day of mobilization cost us about $550,000.
So even when we don't get hit, fortunately, we have to
be prepared.
We spent a lot of time in June going through the
community investment tax.
We had the various community meetings.
You all approved a plan that covered 2007 through 2011.
This coming year we are expecting 17.5 million in CIT
revenues.
As we talked about before, the CIT is going to touch
every area of our city.
Here we have the program, a million dollars for general
parks and recreation neighborhood programs.
This is everything from fencing, athletic courts, ADA
repairs, playground equipment.
That's going to be a million dollars this year.
The mayor talked a lot about our bond issue that we
have proposed for CIT.
This is a $17 million bond issue, ten projects that
really gives us the opportunity to get those large
projects funded. Fire rescue is a big part of our CIT
program.
We know we have these station that is are coming on,
the two replacement and two new stations.
So over $2.2 million for fire rescue.
Really implementing a plan to better take care of our
existing fire rescue.
The roof program, paint program, flooring program, this
is going to be on an ongoing basis.
We use station 22 which is going to be a new station in
the upcoming years.

And as we talk about CIT is a great source for paying 34
for the capital, but it doesn't pay for the people and
it doesn't pay for the other items associated with
that.
So station 22, for example, we are estimating will
cost, between the people and the gear and the trucks,
the engines, a little over $3 million.
So in addition to the building itself, we have those
other factors.
That's what the mayor was talking about, when we do a
budget now, we can't just think about what's going to
happen in the next 12 months.
We have to think about what the ramifications are, what
the obligations are, what the responsibilities are as
we move forward in the coming years.
We also have $2 million for the very important
investing in neighborhoods programs, for resurfacing,
sidewalks, signs, traffic.
We are continuing $4.6 million.
This only pays a portion of our entire vehicle program.
It does help us maintain our vehicles. We'll have debt
service associated with the program.
We have bonds issued in 2001.
We have our 2007 bonds.
5.4 million for debt service.
We added in our CIT about $755,000 for any of those
projects, whether it's parks, whether it's fire,
whether it's in the bond program, that we need that
money for the reserve.
And police, continuing with the take-home program, we
have just over a thousand marked and unmarked vehicles
in police alone.
We replace a seventh of the fleet each year, about $4
million for this vehicle program.
And fire rescue, we have about a million and a half
dollars budgeted for this coming year for vehicles.
In 06 we had three new engine and four new rescue.
>> Are those the old?
>> Bonnie Wise: Those are the brand new ones.
Isn't that a great photo?
I love that one. That's a million and a half dollars
sitting there.
It's not just police and fire vehicles.
It's city-wide vehicles.
We have over 3,000 vehicles in the city, 3,050, so
everything from sedans, light trucks, heavy trucks, the
garbage trucks.
It is a very comprehensive plan to make sure that our
trucks -- our sedans and light trucks, that none are
over seven years.

We need them to be fuel efficient, not to break down. 35
We really need to maintain them.
I'm going to talk now about the enterprise funds.
As the mayor mentioned, there are no rate increases
anticipated for this year.
Waste water, the largest department at 91 million,
solid waste at 70, water at 68, parking at 17.
A big emphasis over the past few years has been really
determining what are the needs of the pipes, the
infrastructure under the ground and the water
department did this several years ago, waste water,
stormwater, all going through this analysis of what is
the condition of the pipes.
As you know, MR 60-plus years old. Waste water had a
bond issue this fiscal year we're in a few months ago,
$36 million.
Very pleased we maintained our AA minus rating.
We have a lot of bond issues scheduled for the coming
year.
Really it's an opportunity to give these departments
the ability to really fix what's under the ground.
We have 32 million in water.
In addition we have a CIAAC bonds issue proposed,
approximately 20 million for stormwater.
That together with other monies from swift mud and the
county will help fund that program of $31 million.
This is an average utility bill, a little over $70.
As we mentioned, no rate increase. In Hillsborough
County, the same customer would pay just under $93, in
Temple Terrace, about $86, in spurring, about $82.46.
You can see we're very competitive in the area.
Water is having a decrease in their budget this year.
It is due to their upcoming bond issue.
It gives them the ability to fund capital projects from
the bond proceeds rather from operating.
So they did have an increase in personnel, 1.7 million.
We did fund the debt service there. Their chemical
costs increase about 500,000 coming this year.
As I mentioned, a lot of their infrastructure is very
hold, some older than 60 years old.
We'll have the two bond issues that I mentioned.
The CIAC area is downtown in south Tampa, about 15
mailings of transmission -- miles of transmission
lanes.
This is the main break that the mayor referred to
earlier.
This was downtown just a few weeks ago.
You can see how disruptive, that occurring in the
middle of our downtown is.
And I always have to have one pipe for you.

This is a water line corrosion pipe. 36
And this is the type of infrastructure that must be
replaced in our city. Waste water, their budget is
increasing about $2.3 million for waste water as well,
chemical increase about 540,000, personnel about 1.8
million.
We have their debt service factored in here from the 06
bond issue. They're having to use some of their
general reserves for their program.
Infrastructure, 50 to 90 years old, and -- but they are
already beginning to embark on their replacement
program.
Here is a main break, on 12th street.
This was in May.
You can see there that it would be very difficult for
that pipe to hold anything in.
The cost of that break is anticipated to be about
$500,000 when something like that occurs.
Solid waste increases about 2.5 million.
I mentioned before that we added about 32 new
positions.
However, since we're not contracting for that work,
that reduced the contract side about 1.1 million.
Their fuel and motor pool costs are increasing about
500,000.
And this is one of the many rear-loading trucks.
You may have seen this downtown, may have seen it in'
bore or some of the alis.
It's able to get in some smaller areas.
Our parking increases about a million dollars to that
budget, predominantly in personnel and some in CIP.
And stormwater, of course, increasing about a million
dollars, nine new positions in that area.
And as the mayor mentioned, 06 was the first ever
comprehensive plan.
Now we've added another year to the five-year plan.
It's really always going to be a five-year plan on an
ongoing basis.
We'll have those bonds issued in fiscal year 2007.
Those would be some of the major projects that will be
financed from our bond issue.
Here are some flooding photos.
Coach man avenue, once we eve heard about for quite
some time and Dale MABRY and NEPTUNE, completely
underwater.
Our capital improvement plan is about $77 million this
year.
As I mentioned, a big portion of that will be funded
with bonds and 49 million with operating funds. The
mayor talked about the investing in neighborhoods

program, $6.2 million. 37
The city repairs about 4300 potholes annually.
We have 958 miles of sidewalks.
We hope to do five new miles this year, three miles
reconstructed.
We hope to replace 5,000 signs this year with four
intersections receiving illuminated signs.
Here are some street resurfacing, and traffic calming.
In this case it's a speed table, but medians and other
improvements are used to slow the traffic in our city.
Here you can see over time how the investing in
neighborhoods program has increased substantially, 138%
since fiscal year '03 and since last year a 13%
increase, really with a huge increase on signs.
40th street continues to be the main priority for the
administration.
Here is our map of 40th street, as the mayor
mentioned, we're continuing to purchase right-of-way on
segments A and C.
Segment B will be awarded this month.
And cross creek boulevard, cross creek east, we're
going to be doing the PD&E at $300,000 for this coming
year.
This is a photo of cross creek one, the first one.
It's type utility relocation that gets done prior to
the road construction at Manhattan avenue awarded in
'06.
We'll complete it in fiscal year '07, $9.3 million
project.
District three police headquarters, this was awarded at
$7.2 million to be completed in summer of '07. This is
a an example of utilizing various resources, CIT
dollars, CDBG money, tiff money, community investment
tax money, really having to pull from all areas of our
city.
This is the new rendering, this project will be over $5
million, 3.3 appropriated already.
Two million one is in our CIT issue.
The mayor mentioned a new capital improvement program.
I'll do a very quick demo for you but it is really an
ability for our citizens to go on line and see what is
happening in their area.
They can click on the map and see what's close to their
particular location and really get information about
future city funding.
This was really a joint effort, Jeff MCGILVERY spent a
lot of time, Shelly Thompson, done tailor.
This was groups getting together to make this happen
for you and our citizen.


As the mayor mentioned, the budget presentation, all 38
the books are on line and the video is on line already.
Today, of course, the budget presentation, two public
hearings, September 14 th and September 28th.
Here at city hall at 5:01 p.m.
This is the distinguished budget award.
This is something that comes from the GFOA.
This is the 19th year that our budget has received
such an award, and we are very proud of the
presentation.
With that, if I could just do a quick demo, or if there
are questions before that.
>> (off MIC).
>> Bonnie Wise: Thank you.
That's something I hear from the mayor constantly.
As I mentioned, signs increasing about 34% from last
year, resurfacing about 38%, sidewalks about 3%,
traffic calming, 12.5%.
I would agree with you, even though there are big
percentage increases from the prior years and we are
really making a concerted effort to increase this area,
we need to do more.
I would agree.
>> Mary Alvarez: (off MIC) do you know about that, or
Mr. Daignault?
Tampa street, it's been going on for years now.
>> Steve Daignault: Steve Daignault, administrative
public works and utilities.
Tampa is a state road.
It's one of those we need to work with FDOT on.
We'll continue to do that.
>> Mary Alvarez: Please do.
I've been on council for seven years.
For seven years that road needs work.
Those potholes and the resurfacing is gone on it, on
some of the areas.
That's the way I come in to work.
So I see that.
And Columbus drive is the say way.
MacDill avenue between Columbus drive and Martin
Luther king, terrible roads. Those roads lead to the
hospital.
So we need to put some money in those areas and get
them done.
I would just encourage that.
As far as traffic calming, we've got to shorten that
list somehow.
>> Steve Daignault: Yes, ma'am.
We E eve had some opportunity with some CDBG dollars
being available and we put those to good use.

We've been able to get our forces on them very quickly. 39
When those opportunities come, we'll do that.
We'll continue to look for opportunities to get more
money into this area.
>> Mary Alvarez: Thank you.
>> Shawn Harrison: Bonnie, are you done?
>> Bonnie Wise: I was going to show you quickly our new
program.
I'll keep it brief. When you come to the city's web
site, this is the home page, and wow would quick hear
on this map, the CIP map.
And it will load the various projects in the city.
Now, not every project in the city, of course, is
mapped, because, for example, our parks and recreation
projects, they're going to be doing a million dollars
in CIT for various play grounds and fencing and that
kinds of thing.
That type of project is not mapped.
For example, you could scroll over each of the items
and it will say what the project is.
So I'll click on this flooding relief project so you
can see what it would look like.
This then this would come up regarding the project.
You can see more.
It will give you information, where it is, what index
code, how much and the description of the project.
If you want to see a satellite view of it, you could
click and you can also expand as necessary. Another
way to do it --
>> Can you see Chuck out there with a shovel?

>> Bonnie Wise: You can see your home roof top.
Another way to do it, let's say you know the project
title that you want to look at.
You can click there and look at a list of project
titles.
I'll click on Manhattan, click on that, select a
project.
Here you have information on Manhattan.
Once again, you could click on the map.
You could expand the map.
You could continue to expand.
And it will go down closer and closer.
If you blank, you could click on these bin knock
particulars or find an address.
Of course I put in my home address yesterday and tried
it out and to see what projection are close to a
particular location.
Or you can go by department.
You could click on department.

I'll click on stormwater, and here we have various 40
flooding relief.
I'll just do 46th street and river hills drive.
And it has the particular project.
You can also move within the map.
So if you need the map to move side by side, you just
hold down and move on over.
So this will link to all the projects in the CIP book.
As I mentioned, there are some projects that are not
mapped.
They're listed on the side here or they're in various
locations, so like the 25-mile-an-hour speed signs.
If you don't see like a particular park, for example,
it doesn't mean it's not getting funding.
It just means it's part of the parks and recreation
overall program.
So if you -- this is available now and I think really
another opportunity for citizens to learn more about a
particular CIP project and what's coming in the future.
>> John Dingfelder: This is a really nice feature for
our citizens to be able to jump right in and see what
we're doing with their tax dollars.
The only thing I would suggest, I notice on the
Manhattan project, it only showed $108,000 because it
just showed the '07 budget.
I think it would be helpful if it showed the total
budget.
That's an $8 million project.
Most was probably budgeted in '05-06 budget.
>> Bonnie Wise: That's one of the issues. This is
based on the '07 budget.
If it's something is not in the '07 budget, it's not on
here.
If it was funded in previous years, it's not on here.
We'll have the ability to add more information.
This is really, like I said, it's what is funded in the
'07 budget.
>> John Dingfelder: Good.
Thank you.
>> Shawn Harrison: I agree with councilman Dingfelder.
That is a very nice feature.
We ought to expand that, so if you want to figure out
what's the closest park to your house, you go to the
map and it tells you what location and all.
That's a great feature.
Question about insurance, Bonnie.
We heard that we've got $30 million of insurance
coverage for $1 billion of assets or something along
those lines.
How much is our yearly premium for that 30 million for

that insurance? 41
>> Bonnie Wise: About $4 million.
We have $30 million in storm coverage.
We have another $200 million in coverage for other
perils.
For example, if we had a fire, something unrelated to a
storm, we do have more insurance.
Last year, though, we had $500 million of coverage and
there wasn't a distinction between whether it was storm
coverage or other perils.
This year in the insurance market, unfortunately they
are making that distinction.
>> Shawn Harrison: We had $500 million total last year.
>> Bonnie Wise: 500 million last year.
This year we have 30 million in storm and 200 for other
perils.
>> Shawn Harrison: Wow.
>> Bonnie Wise: We had the opportunity to pay over a
million dollars more for that coverage, too.
>> Shawn Harrison: You and I have briefly touched on
this.
This is a serious question.
Is it time for us to start considering just being
self-insured?
And I don't know that we're quite ready for that debate
yet.
But you have to wonder, is $4 million in yearly
premiums worth it for $30 million of wind damage?
I would guess that that is the bulk of our -- the wind
coverage is probably the bulk of our total premiums
that we pay. It's a good topic for a healthy debate.
I know in ply private world, representing several
long-term care nursing facilities, they're just going
bare.
Their insurance coverage has quadrupled.
They're being forced into those decisions.
We as government have the ability in the event of a
catastrophic loss to make that up by way of assessments
or things like that, where in the private sector they
don't.
I think it's a theoretical discussion that we probably
ought to start having now that we're midway through
hurricane seize son and, knock on wood, nothing serious
yet, although Chris is apparently out there on the
horizon.
>> Bonnie Wise: I would agree it's a very serious
issue.
I mentioned that my colleagues throughout the state are
really struggling with this, talking with the League of
Cities.

We are not alone in this insurance issue. 42
>> Shawn Harrison: I'm sure we're not.
>> John Dingfelder: A couple things, Mr. Harrison, a
good point on the insurance. I was going to suggest
maybe the Florida League of Cities creating a big pool
on this issue or even the national League of Cities.
Maybe we can spread this across the country.
So I'm glad you're having that discussion with your
peers.
A couple of questions and they're sort of all over the
place.
Chief HOGUE, could I ask you real quick.
The 3.07 officers per thousand, can you talk about that
a little bit?
I saw we're sort of at the top of the heap in terms of
being better staffed than Miami, Orlando, et cetera,
St. Petersburg and even Hillsborough County. Is that
intentional?
Is that a goal?
Is that a good thing?
>> That's a very good thing from a police chief's
perspective.
It gives you personnel to do extra things with.
Essentially what you have is a cad ray of officers that
have to respond to calls, it's people calling and out
running around.
That 3.07 officers per thousand population gives us a
chance to form those squad and SAC squads you hear me
talk so much about which are very instrumental in us
seeing -- in about the last three and a half years,
something in the vicinity of about a 40% reduction in
crime.
That's really what's allowed that to occur.
>> >> John Dingfelder: So you can be more proactive.
>> Yes, sir.
>> John Dingfelder: In regard to the downtown tiff, I
know for the past couple years we've been talking about
it's growing, growing, about to get over the top.
Are we there now?
>> Bonnie Wise: This is the first year and we are
there.
Separately we'll be coming to you as a CRA board to
talk to you about that budget.
The first time the TIFF budget will exceed the
convention center debt service.
>> John Dingfelder: About how much?
>> Bonnie Wise: About $2 million.
>> John Dingfelder: We'll actually have some options as
to what we might be doing with that extra money.
>> Bonnie Wise: Right.

>> John Dingfelder: Jim, looking at the books, I was 43
looking at the nondepartmental detail, on page 59 of
the budget supplement book.
I'm wondering, a lot of these other pages show a
comparison of prior years versus this year.
I didn't see that for the nondepartmental budget.
Am I just missing it?
Is it on a different page or something?
>> Jim Stefan, budget officer, the only thing you're
missing, the pages before have by index code and sub
object code.
That it don't have the individual agencies.
If you want, we can try to put something together for
you real briefly that shows the last couple years on
it.
>> John Dingfelder: I think it would be helpful.
For people watching on television, these are all the
extra monies that we spend to non-city agencies, like
Lowry park zoo, Tampa theater, et cetera, et cetera.
I'm just -- I would be curious to see if we're static
or going up or down on each of those.
A few sores, council, thanks for indulge me.
Bonnie, $2 million as part of the CIT.
Refresh my memory on that.
I do remember seeing it, but I can't remember what
we're doing at Cotanchobee park.
>> Bonnie Wise: We received monies from the Florida
trust.
We have an obligation to complete that.
So that to help.
That's where the history center is going to be.
So we have an obligation through that.
>> John Dingfelder: Further down and more enhancements
to the park?
>> Bonnie Wise: It is.
>> John Dingfelder: Two more.
Let me start with this.
Steve or Chuck, either one, we've had discussions in
the past, and Linda I know you remember, about this
environmental clean-up boat
I was -- I don't know if it's in here or not because we
just got these books this morning.
But I think council has stated on several occasions
that we'd like to see the purchase of the environmental
clean-up boat to cruise up and down the river and also
go out on the bay and clean up the floating debris.
>> We're getting granted money to pay for the boat and
it was a question of staffing it.
>> John Dingfelder: I'm wondering is that reflected in
the budget?

>> Nothing in the budget for operating costs or for 44
purchasing the boat.
As Ms. Saul-Sena said, if we purchase the boat, it
would be with granted money.
We have no operating expenses, and in the current
stormwater fee there are continuous demands that would
either have to be reduced somehow or the fee adjusted
before we could have operating expenses to operate such
a boat.
>> John Dingfelder: I know it was this councilman's
suggestion that we go through the granted process and
buy the boat this year and then figure out the
operating expense next year.
Has that been discussed?
Is that in the works in terms of a grant application?
>> I do not believe we have a granted application out
for that barge, that boat at this time.
Typically we would want to know where the operating
expenses are going to come from before we incurred that
expense.
>> John Dingfelder: We'll have some discussions over
that, maybe before the next budget hearing.
And the last thing I wanted to discuss, and this is
sort of a big policy question.
Maybe Dale Smith, you might want to chime in on this.
In regard to the transportation shortfalls that the
mayor mentioned, sort of left that dangling out there,
perhaps intentionally, I don't know.
We have some major transportation shortfalls in the
city, in the county, across the region.
And from a political perspective, Darrell, are we
looking at some options to address this?
I know Mr. Harrison does a great job on the MPO, but
the MPO can only do so much.
At a certain point, with all these transportation
shortfalls, we have major traffic issues in every part
of the city.
And they're not getting better.
They're getting worse.
We have an extra hundred thousand people that come into
the city every day and leave.
We have to figure out a way to move them around better.
>> Darrell Smith, chief of staff.
We certainly do have tremendous needs in the
transportation area with regard to the city.
As you've already seen, we don't have the capability
within the city's budget to handle the volume of
transportation needs we have and the costs associated
with them, even current costs not even considering the
future costs.

So from the city perspective, we are going to be 45
required to continue to work with the federal and state
government to try to secure funds in working with the
MPO to try to secure funds in the out years.
Transportation needs to be handled from a county-wide
perspective in our view.
We continue to work and seek a regional approach to
transportation with an emphasis on mass transit.
You cannot continue to build highways and ignore the
requirements that we have for mass transit in the sit
at this time and in the outlying areas from the city.
So we view it as a problem that is larger than the
city's capabilities of handling.
And we view it as something that we need to partner
with the county and other counties in the areas to
handle that requirement in order to accomplish any
success.
>> John Dingfelder: Thank you.
I remember four, five, maybe longer, years ago, there
was a committee of '99 that came up with numerous
recommendations for funding sources.
And then it sort of -- various ideas died.
I'm hoping over the next year or two, we can revive
some of those ideas.
Is that the mayor's idea as well?
>> Yes, sir. I think you're going to see a lot of
issues initiatives coming from the regional aspects and
from the mayor over the next year to try to put
together a regional partnership so we can make some
progress and have some synergy to focus on
transportation needs.
>> John Dingfelder: Thank you.
Thanks to everybody.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: I wanted to compliment Bonnie, you
and your staff, on the number of meetings that you had
prior to this which allowed those of us who attended
the meetings to have in depth conservations with all
the department heads and your staff on our particular
concerns.
I want to really staff that Mary Alvarez wins the good
at ten dances reward. I believe she's the only council
member who attended all five of those discussions.
Mary we will miss you so much because you really
have -- as a representative of Tampa City Council, kept
such a close eye on this.
As former finance chairman and even not as a finance
chairman, you have truly served us well in your
scrutiny.
I wanted to thank you for that.
I wanted to thank your staff for being so much more

responsive than in the past. 46
>> Mary Alvarez: I was very pleased that I could do
that.
I learned a lot o in those budget hearings.

That's why when we hear the unfunded requests, it kinds
of puts a perspective on what the budget is and what we
can do and what we can't do.
And I encourage all my council members to see -- to go
to these workshops.
Because this is where you learn a lot.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Thank you.
I appreciate your input.
>> Bonnie Wise: It helps us build a better budget.
>> Gwen Miller: Thank you for the presentation.
I know the public is going to enjoy clicking on there.
>> Bonnie Wise: Thank you.

>> Linda Saul-Sena: Want to take a minute?

>> Gwen Miller: We're going to vote to have public
comments?
Any member of the public want to speak on any item on
the agenda not set for public hearing?
>> John Dingfelder: There's no one left.
>> 4703 east river hills drive, Tampa, Florida.
Mayor, if you can hear me, if we have a ground breaking
and a little construction on 40th street in
September, I'll bring the coffee.
Einstein said insanity is doing something over and over
again and expecting the same result.
--
>> Expecting a different result.
>> Expecting the same result.
I have to give mayor Iorio credit in I think the staff
has done things differently and getting a different
result.
I do have concerns on some things on the agenda and the
presentation.
CRAs do create a problem.
They do good things for the areas in which they're
designated, when we get too many CRAs in the city
like channel-side, you can hire an arts director for
$40,000.
That's a problem for me when we have sidewalks that
need to be built. The budget only allocates 1% for
neighborhoods.
The mayor has raised that.
I think it's a great idea.
But we need to bring that up, also.

Things like abatements. 47
40th street has asked for an abatement on zoning
issues and other things so we can create an
economically viable corridor for 40 th street.
Now we're looking at Bayshore.
We're going to have major issues on 40th street if
Bayshore boulevard gets abatements and 40th street
has been told not to.
Honestly we can make Tampa a great American city again.
We can turn it into the place that we want it to be.
40th street is not going to be Bayshore boulevard,
but why can't we have a better place for everyone?
So take those logs, when you look at abatements for
Bayshore and spread them all over the city and make
them applicable to every neighborhood.
Lastly, the only disappointment I have about 40th
street today is that we're not approving the bid.
But I guess that's going to be coming before you soon.
Please, let's get that lap agreement approved, get
40th street moving.
As I said, September we have a ground breaking.
I'd suggest actually putting a pier in the river just
to show a commitment.
But like I said, I'll bring the star bucks and maybe
even some doughnuts, too.
Thank you very much.
>> Gwen Miller: Thank you.
Next.
>> Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
My name Moses Knott, 2902 east Ellicott street.
I thank God for his grace and his mercy.
A lot of people don't need God's grace and mercy.
I can't make it without it. I'm getting along good.
Don't care about nothing else.
Lost the love of money.
Ms. Chairman, I want to speak on this mayor's budget
this morning.
You know, I really appreciate the mayor.
I told you us poor people -- I represent the poor
peoples.
I'm speaking this morning for poor peoples, this budget
thing, I don't see much in there for us poor peoples.
I really don't.
I appreciate the mayor for making an effort and the
brother got through talking about 40th street.
I want to agree on everything he said.
I want to talk about something else.
I'm going to tell you what I'm really displeased at.
When they put that brand new police station over there,
us poor people didn't have anything to do with that.

The middle class people always say we got poor, middle 48
class and the rich.
The middle class, they the one y'all be dealing with
all the time.
They think that y'all are level.
The black people have an intention of sticking
together.
They talk about the police department all the time.
The mayor said this morning she give the police every
tool they need, she's going to give it to them.
I know we need the law.
I know we can't make it without the law.
But there's a drawing line somewhere.
This police station thing I think cost how many million
dollars that thing cost.
That should have been later.
We need money over there -- Ms. Miller, you're one of
the greatest black ladies in this town.
I ain't saying it just to be saying it.
It's true.
I've been coming here for years, we need a place to
walk.
Do you know where Ms. Miller go walking at?
On Hillsborough County property.
That's where she goes balking walking when she needs
exercise.
There's nowhere to go walking.
I've been talking about a bicycle trail for years and
years come together this podium.
Know they're talking about in north Tampa, they put in
one.
Excuse me, I'm not your part of town.
I get jealous up there.
Now we have disabled children -- I mean first class
children in the neighborhood, they don't have nowhere
to walk, nowhere to ride a buy cycle or nothing.
Back to the police station thing, that should have
never happened, should have happened later.
We need that money bad in other plies.
I mean real bad, like 22nd street and 34th street.
You can't get down through there.
In the evening time around four or 5:00, you can't get
down there.
Now there's a big flood area.
I've been coming to this podium for years and year
talking about roll let park.
You can't cross the bridge, a two-foot sidewalk.
When a woman walk down there with children, she has to
get across that narrow sidewalk.
I wish you would go and look at that.

It wouldn't cost that city much month knee to put a 49
ramp across there.
Thank you very much.
>> Gwen Miller: Thank you very much.
Mr. Daignault we'll go to you, item three.

It's not going to be you.
Mr. Lamotte.
>> Good morning, madam chair and members of the
council, my pleasure to be with you this morning.
Hopefully you received written materials for us, this
item, number of compact spaces that should be provided
in parking lot.
Parking facilities are changed tremendously over the
past 20 years.
Design of parking areas must meet three sets of
criteria, convenience, efficiency and compatibility.
Parking facilities can use large amounts of land, they
must be planned and designed carefully to use the land
effectively.
We heard about planning this morning.
This falls in line.
We use a flexible approach when determining our parking
space requirements on each department.
Design vehicle requirements are also major
consideration.
The dimensions must fit the user.
The small vehicles have changed, they're about five
feet nine inches white and 14 feet seven inches long.
Our large vehicles are six and a half feet wide and 17
feet and 11 inches long.

The ratio from small vehicles to large vehicles is
evaluated depending on our geographic Cal area.
California they have many more small areas.
In the south and in the west very have a tendency to
have large vehicles.
In general, the ratios range between 30 to 60%.
Designers of parking facilities must design our
facilities to have on an average 50% Ben the large and
the small.
Here in the City of Tampa, and I think that's one of
the things that concerns you the most, was we're
allowing 65% of the total spaces to be compact spaces.
This was changed from a 50% ratio several years ago.
I provided you an exhibit, exhibited A.
Can I put that on the Elmo if you wish.
It's suggesting our zoning requirements be changed from
the ratio of 50 to 60.
If desired, and we want to be more in line with the

rest of the country, I'm suggesting we consider a ratio 50
more similar to Miami-dade.
Basically that is a sliding scale.
So the more number of spaces you have, the higher the
ratio goes between compact to standard spaces.
>> Why?
>> Why?
Because basically the more spaces you have, the more
opportunity there is for the distribution level of the
vehicles that enter the lot or garage facility.
>> John Dingfelder: It doesn't make sense to me in
terms -- I'm sorry, madam chair.
It doesn't make sense to me in terms of just math and
logic.
If you have -- if you build it and you assume it's
going to be full and 50% of the vehicles out on the
road are large and 50% are small, why wouldn't it
reflect that as opposed to being sliding?
>> Again, it's a projection. I know I had some
conversation with the folks in Miami-Dade.
I did ask that question.
That's the ratio they decided upon.
If you look at the majority of the chart, basically
we've got about 34% of it is where the average falls as
far as having compact to small.
I'm giving you some options.
You can choose and pick between them.
I've given a couple of recommendations.
If that's not one you desire, we certainly can adhere
more closer to what I believe is a better ratio for you
to have. Again, it's your prerogative which one you
like to choose, councilman Dingfelder.
I can't answer that ratio difference.
That's their election.
You see the majority of the country, Houston Texas,
involvement of the other areas here, the more familiar
areas of Jacksonville or Hillsborough County, they're
allowing very small percentages for compact spaces.
I think it was done in the past.
It was changed to enhance economic development.
But it sounds like we went way too far to the other end
of the spectrum.
>> John Dingfelder: I would be in favor going from 65
to 50% but leave it on a flat basis.
I don't understand why it would slide as to the size of
the lot.
We can discuss it further.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: I believe that council brought this
to you because we were seeing site plan after site plan
with a vast majority of compact spaces and that didn't

mirror the reality we see in our lives, in our 51
community.
I really appreciate this report.
It's very, very thorough.
When I look at the percentages shared, the majority of
Sunbelt cities have 40% compact spaces as opposed to
our 65%.
Perhaps it's because I have two teen-age daughters who
are learning to drive and park, but I can tell you
these spaces are tight.
And I think it would be appropriate to ask you to
change -- to direct legal to change this.
My -- I think the 50% that you suggest is modest.
I think that the majority of numbers we see here, such
as Hillsborough County is 20%, city of Jacksonville
25%.
I think a 40% compact space is over generous on our
part and that's what my recommendation would be.
So I'd like to make a motion to direct legal to
recommend that a maximum of 40% of those spaces are
allowed to be compact.
>> John Dingfelder: Maybe instead of grabbing a number
out of the sky, I said 50, you said 40, why don't we go
to the motor vehicle registration in Hillsborough
County, I think they register things by weight.
I think there's some -- at least look at -- see what
our registration is.
And that might better reflect what we should do.
>> We will be glad to go back and do some additional
research if directed.
>> John Dingfelder: I think you've done a great job on
the national seen and looking at standards and all,
instead of trying to guess, I think motor vehicles
could maybe tell us what's registered in Tampa and
Hillsborough County and we could go from there.
>> Gwen Miller: I think it's fine.
You can bring it back to us -- about a month would be
fine.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: I just want to share that I think
that we've got to look, in addition to looking at the
percentages of compact to regular size spaces, I think
we need to look at the safety within parking structures
and the parking structure outside of Walters crossing
is -- I think we should use as a benchmark of what we
don't want to allow in the future in terms of
circulation -- ease of circulation and safety and
sidelines and that sort of thing.
I look forward to this coming back in a month with a
breakdown -- with a recommendation based on what kind
of vehicles we have in our community.

>> John Dingfelder: Marty said do it as a motion. I'll 52
move for one month continuance.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Do you think one month is
necessary?
>> John Dingfelder: Yes.
>> Second.
(Motion carried.)
>> Gwen Miller: Item one is the resolution we need to
pass.
Does legal want to say anything?
Move the resolution?
I have a motion and second. Move the resolution and
second.
(Motion carried.)
Item two is the same thing.
(Motion carried.) item four is the same thing.
(Motion carried.)
>> Gwen Miller: We now go to our committee reports,
public safety, vice chair, Mr. John Dingfelder.
>> John Dingfelder: I'll move items 12 through 17.
>> Second.
>> There was a motion made to hold 15 for two weeks.
>> John Dingfelder: Sorry.
I didn't hear that.
I'll move items 12 through 14, 16 and 17.
(Motion carried.)
>> Gwen Miller: Have a motion and seconds.
Public works, Mr. John Dingfelder.
>> John Dingfelder: I'll move items 20 through 23.
I just wanted to commend the solid waste staff.
Item 21o 21 is a our agreement with TECO.
It's my understanding that we've renegotiated part of
this and we're going to be earning more money from the
city.
It could amount to, possibly up to a million dollars a
year depending on the cost of electricity Nationwide.
I commend the solid waste department.
I commend the legal department and I appreciate TECO
working with us on that issue.
With that I'll move 20 through 23.
(Motion carried.)
>> Kevin White: Move 24 through 29.
>> Second.
(Motion carried.)
>> Linda Saul-Sena: I'd like to move resolution 30
through 32 and 234nd and 35.
(Motion carried.)

>> Shawn Harrison: Move items 36, substitute on 37 and
39 through 43.

(Motion carried.) 53
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Mr. Harrison brought it up earlier,
yesterday at our MPO policy committee meeting oops we
recommended to the full MPO that they fund the $9
million shortfall so we're able to move ahead on
section B.
$9 million is a significant shifted when you're looking
at it as a percentage of 22 million.
I think it's because the City of Tampa has made such a
significant commitment in city funds, and we've all
underscored the importance of 40th street that we're
able to do this.
>> Shawn Harrison: Yes, there was zero in the budget
and we put 9 million in.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Profound.
>> Shawn Harrison: I move item 38.
(Motion carried.)
>> Shawn Harrison: Did we take care of 44 already?
I move items 45 through 49.
>> Second.
(Motion carried.)

>> Gwen Miller: Our public hearings for second reading.
Anyone in the public that wants to speak on items 50
through 56.
Please stand and raise your right hand.
>> Gwen Miller: Open the public hearings?
>> Second.
(Motion carried.)
>> Martin Shelby: All written communications have been
available to the public, I ask they be moved into the
record.
Nothing to be received?
Council, if you do speak, please reaffirm you have been
sworn.
>> Gwen Miller: Anyone on the public that wants to
speak on item 50?

>> John Dingfelder: I'd like to move an ordinance
approving special use permit, S 2, approve an off
street commercial parking lot in a CI commercial
intenstive residential single family, in the general
vicinity at North Florida avenue allowing access
providing an effective date.
>> Gwen Miller: We have a motion and second.
Roll call.
(roll taken).
>> Gwen Miller: Anyone in the public want to speak on
item 51?
Motion and second to close.

(Motion carried.) 54

>> Linda Saul-Sena: I like to move the following
ordinances, an ordinances repealing ordinance
No. 2005-339, making lawful the sale of beverages
regardless of alcoholic content, beer, wine and liquor,
for consumption on premises only, at or from that
certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 1241 east
Fowler avenue, waiving certain restrictions as to
distance providing for repeal of all ordinances in
conflict providing an effective date.
(roll call).
>> Gwen Miller: Anyone in the public want to speak on
item 52?
Motion and second to close.
(Motion carried.)
>> Shawn Harrison: Move to adopt the following
ordinance upon second reading, an ordinances making
lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol of more
than 1% by weight and not more than 14% by weight and
wines regardless of alcoholic content beer or wine for
consumption on the premises only in connection with a
restaurant business establishment at or from that
certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 17503.
>> Gwen Miller: Motion and seconds.
(roll call).
>> Gwen Miller: Anyone in the public want to speak on
item 53?
(Motion carried.)
>> Mary Alvarez: Move to adopt the following ordinance
upon second reading.
An ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages
containing alcohol regardless of alcohol content, beer,
wine and like core, for con assumption on the premises
only in connection with the restaurant business
establishment on that certain lot, plot or tract of
land located at 1600 east 8th avenue, unit 1-131,
Tampa, Florida, as more particularly described in
section 2 hereof, waiving certain restrictions as to
distance based upon certain findings, providing for
repeal of all ordinances in conflict providing an
effective date.
(roll call).
(Motion carried.)
>> Gwen Miller: Anyone in the public want to speak on
item 54?
Motion and seconds.
(Motion carried.)

>> Rose Ferlita: Move to adopt following ordinance, an

ordinances making lawful the sale of beverages 55
containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight and not
more than 14% by weight and wines regardless of
alcoholic content, beer and wine, located 4910 North
Florida avenue, Tampa, Florida, as more particularly
described in section 2 here of waiving certain
restrictions as to distance based upon.
>> Gwen Miller: Motion and seconds.
(roll call).
(Motion carried.)
>> Gwen Miller: Anyone speak on 55?
(Motion carried.)
>> Kevin White: Adopt ordinance upon second reading
moving ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages
containing alcohol regardless of alcohol content for
consumption on premises in connection with the
restaurant business establishment on that certain lot,
plot or tract of land located at 400 north Ashley
drive, waiving restrictions as to distance based upon
certain finding providing for repeal of all ordinances
in conflict.
>> Gwen Miller: Motion and second.
Roll call.
(roll call).
(Motion carried.)
>> Gwen Miller: Anyone in the public want to move speak
on item 56?
Motion to close.
(Motion carried.)
>> John Dingfelder: Rezoning property in the general
vicinity of 2114 west Columbus drive in the City of
Tampa, Florida, for more particular live described in
section 1, from zoning district classification RM 16.
(roll call).
(Motion carried.)
>> Gwen Miller: Back to page 3, item 8, legal
department to presented an ordinance, do we have that?
>> Linda Saul-Sena: The title is on your agenda.
Ms.~Cole is coming to speak on it.

>> Julia Cole, legal department. I believe you have
that ordinance in process.
Is that correct?
>> Gwen Miller: We don't have the ordinance.
>> John Dingfelder: Where is the title of the ordinance
at?
>> Item 8.
>> John Dingfelder: I thought you said ten.
>> Gwen Miller: Number 8.
>> Move ordinance rezoning property in the general

vicinity of west 56

>> Gwen Miller: Item nine, Mrs. Shelby, you want to
bring us up to date.
>> 9 is going to take a bit of time.
>> Gwen Miller: Public hearing is closed.
>> Council, in the time between the public hearing
being closed and today, the staff has had an
opportunity to review what has been provided based on
the hearing and it does wish to presented additional
evidence with regard to an amended report based on what
was presented at the hearing which they had an
opportunity to review.
It would be my recommendation --
>> Gwen Miller: We'll bring that back -- continue that
to 1:30.
Item 10.
>> Just for clarification, it will be at 1:30, but
after the Kress --
>> Gwen Miller: Up to council.
We've got some more to handle at 1:30.
>> John Dingfelder: We should let the people know what
the order is going to be.
>> They're going to have to wait until 2:30, because
we've set aside an hour for Kress.
>> Actually you haven't set aside a time officially.
>> Gwen Miller: We didn't set a time.
>> John Dingfelder: Let's aside right -- decide right
now.
>> Gwen Miller: We still have motions, we still have
ten and eleven we need to do.
Plus we have --
>> Cathy Coyle: You called number ten.
I don't mind waiting until after lunch so there can be
a discussion.
>> Gwen Miller: I didn't know they were talking,
Mrs. Coal.
>> Cathy Coyle: Item ten will be a presentation.
I know you need to leave now.
>> I have a question.
It kinds of looks like we were talking about the Kress
thing, say number nine which I think was an extenuating
circumstance, as Mr. Shelby says, it's going to take a
little time.
Can we take Kress at 1:30 -- as we go forward hopefully
we'll finish everything. Because of the length of the
administration's presentation this morning, I don't
know where we're going to be.
But my request would be, if the rest of the council
would agree, to do the Kress first and then come back

to wherever we start here and do nine? 57

>> Linda Saul-Sena: I think that's respectful --
>> Gwen Miller: We have more than nine and ten.
We have 57.
We'll take Kress first and then 60 and go to the rest
of our agenda starting with nine after that?
>> After those two.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Kress and then what number?
>> Gwen Miller: 66.
>> That's fine.
So I have a sense of what we're doing.
>> Madam chair, don't we have to decide how long we're
going to give this Kress thing?
>> Gwen Miller: We'll do that when we come back.
We've got to leave in two minutes.
>> Shawn Harrison: Madam chair, I don't know what
happened on nine, I got a copy of the tape.
I was told to review the tape, told I was going to make
a decision based on reviewing the tape.
And now we're reopening the hearing.
>> What I'm asking to do is I've just been informed
about additional things that came up this morning.
I want an opportunity to speak to Ms. Coil.
My suggestion is not to take it up at this time and
resolve it when we come back from lunch.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: After Kress.
>> After Kress per council's unanimous consent.
>> Rose Ferlita: Do we need a motion for that?
>> (off MIC).
>> Gwen Miller: All in favor of the motion?
(Motion carried.)
Council will stand in recess until 1:30.
This is a tested of the captioning system.


>> Gwen Miller: Tampa City Council is called back to
order.
Roll call.
(roll call).
>> Gwen Miller: We're now at 1:30, item 11.
>> Julia Cole, legal department.
Mr. Shelby was going to discuss with you prior to us
moving forward the procedure for today's consideration
of the special Madge straight's recommendation.
Hopefully he's going to.
>> Gwen Miller: There he is.
We'll discuss it now.

>> Gwen Miller: You need your MIC.

>> Thank you, council. 58
My understanding is up to this point council has been
provided with transcripts and the recommendation of the
special Madge straight and the proposed mediated
settlement agreement which I understand was reached
pursuant to Florida statute 70.51 which is also known
as the Harris act.
This is in the matter of the historic designation of
the new bury and wool worth's facades.
Section 70.51 provides method for the property owner
and the city to mediate this sort of land use dispute.
When section 70.51 is invoked by a property owner which
it was in this case, only the property owner and the
city are parties to the proceedings.
However, pursuant to the statute, substantially
affected persons who provided notice of their intent to
participate may participate in the proceedings.
It's my understanding that one party did.
This participation is limited to addressing the issues
raised regarding the proposed alternatives.
As I said in this instance, only Beth Johnson on behalf
of Tampa preservation, incorporated, timely provided
notice of their intent to participate in the
proceedings.
Ms. Johnson, again, you the transcripts in front of
you, on behalf of TPI participated in all of the
hearings on behalf of our client.
Now, I should point out, council, that the agreement in
front of you is being heard today in a hearing that is
not a -- actually not a hearing.
It's really a discussion and it is not a quasi judicial
matter.
If you approve the settlement agreement, that will
require a separate quasi judicial meeting which is the
process, depending on how you proceed, will determine
the separate process that will have to take place.
Since this is not a public hearing, you are not
required to hear from anyone except that I would
recommend that you allow your staff and the legal
department who represents the city to describe the
agreement.
I would also ask council that, if you do decide to open
it up for comment by the property owner and TPI, that
you do it and limit it to those parties, and at the
outset, set forth the parameters of time constraints.
Again, council, you're under no obligation with regard
to this, but in the interest of fairness, what you do
for one party, I would suggest you also do for the
other party.
>> Gwen Miller: Ms.~Cole?

>> Julia Cole, legal department. 59
I'm going to briefly describe to you what is in front
of you.
I don't know if, before I get started, you want to make
a motion to indicate what kind of public hearing --
public input you are going to allow.
I'm told by the property owner which is Kress square
LLC, if they are allowed to speak -- they're not
requesting to speak.
If they do, are given time to speak, they only need
five minutes.
I don't know if you want to do that before I move
forward with the presentation or if you want me to move
forward with my presentation and if you have any
questions, open it up.
>> Shawn Harrison: Does that five minutes include the
city's time as well?
>> No, I would say at your staff and legal department,
we should have whatever time is appropriate -- the
property owner is not requesting time to speak.
If you do open it up from TPI and Beth Johnson who
represent TPI, then you should also open it up to the
property owner.
>> Gwen Miller: Mr. Harrison?
>> Shawn Harrison: I was going to ask Mr. Smith how
long he thinks lit take.
The idea here is fairness.
Whatever we give one side, we need to give to the other
side.
David Smith: I think it's important that your staff and
your attorneys advise you with regard to the context.
If we're going to have others speak, they should have
equal time to speak.
I think that's appropriate.
Having looked at the transcript and having looked at
what has transpired, I can't imagine there's too much
new to add, if others have a different opinion and
there's things they haven't told us before, I guess
they need an opportunity to say that now.
I can't imagine it would be terribly voluminous.
Maybe it would help if Julia gave you the context.
You then have that context and you can figure out what
kind of time might be appropriate.
That may help you in making that decision.
>> Shawn Harrison: I thought you were going to answer
that question.
Any idea?
15 minutes, 30 minutes?
>> David Smith: You're talking about total staff and
the parties?

>> al coal 15 minutes is about all the time it will 60
take.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Then I would like to recommend that
each side have no more than ten minutes to speak after
the staff makes their presentation.
By each side I mean the property owner and Tampa
preservation have --
>> Gwen Miller: No, no, Ms. Beth, you cannot talk.
Hold it just a second.
We're discussing.
You're not talking now.
Ms. Alvarez?
>> Mary Alvarez: According to the transcripts I did
read, the hearing master clearly stated in his
transcripts that TPI was not a party to this.
So I can't see why we need to open it up to anybody
else other than staff.
>> Gwen Miller: Mr. Dingfelder?
>> John Dingfelder: Why don't you resolve the time
issue first.
My comment I need to raise next.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Ms.~Cole, didn't you state that we
should, because TPI is a party of record, that they
should be able to speak, also?
>> It's my strong feeling that we should get to hear
from both sides for ten minutes.
That would be my motion.
>> Second.
>> Gwen Miller: We have a question and a motion.
Mr. Shelby?
>> Martin Shelby: Just a commented to clarify what
council member Saul-Sena stated.
For the purposes of the posture of this mediation,
Tampa preservation, Inc., was a participant in this
matter in the fact that they were allowed to
participate, in the fact that they timely responded to
that opportunity.
As to being a party in this matter, I would draw that
distinction that they are not a party in this matter
with regard to legal standing.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: They're a participant?
Then I change my verbiage.
>> Gwen Miller: Motion has been withdrawn.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: No, I didn't withdraw my motion.
I changed the word party of record to participant.
>> Gwen Miller: Motion still on the floor.
Ms. Alvarez?
>> Mary Alvarez: I'm not going to support it.
I stayed up til midnight reading these transcripts, the
magistrate himself throughout, a number of them said

even if they were a party to it, they were not -- I 61
appreciate that they were able to talk to the special
Madge straight through out these hearings and everybody
had their say in it, but as far as we're concerned we
don't need to hear from the participant.
And this is where I will not support your motion on
that.
>> Gwen Miller: Another question.
We have a motion and a second on the floor.
All in favor?
Opposed?
>> Gwen Miller: Ten minutes each.
>> John Dingfelder: For TPI and the participate?
>> Ten minutes is fine.
>> John Dingfelder: Now that that's resolved, as I was
looking through the transcript, and it gets a little
confusing not having been there, I want -- staff, I'd
like you to tell us all the steps, not only tell us
what we have?
Front of us, but tell us what the steps were that got
us here, because it appears to me that there were
negotiations held that weren't necessarily in front of
the master and, therefore, were not transcribed.
I don't know if that's true or not.
But that's what it appears.
So I want to know from the last time this issue was in
front of us, whenever it was, six months ago, what's
transpired and how we got here today, before you get
into the merits and the substance.
>> If I can be clear on what you're requesting, you
want to know what occurred from the time you had your
last hearing when there was some discussion about
whether or not we can craft some kind of agreement.
>> Better revise that 15 minutes.
That's more a half hour or 45 minutes. It could take a
lot longer.
>> John Dingfelder: It doesn't have to be in a
blow-by-blow.
But there are things that didn't get transcribed where
the substance and the merits were discussed.
I would like to know who participated in that and what
transpired and that sort of thing.
>> Okay.
Did you participate in all of those?
>> I participated in some.
The architect for the property owner spent some time
out on the site and had some additional discussions as
it relates to Exhibit E and some of the more specific
items in the agreement.
>> John Dingfelder: If somebody could summarize it.

David, that's fine. 62
>> David Smith: As you may recall, the discussion dealt
with whether or not there was an alternative way to
arrive at the same result, could we through a zoning
approach or some other series of agreements protect the
facade so they would be preserved but yet not have to
go through the designation and the ARC and that
particular venue and that particular process.
That was the context.
Given that context, there were some discussions with
the property owners.
I participated in some of them.
I think Julia was there.
There was at least one meeting I recall in our
conference room in which I believe Kathy was there,
Dennis Fernandez was there.
I don't know whether Cindy Miller was there or not.
Jim SHIMBERG was there.
I think somebody from the property owner was there.
Mr. Grandoff was there?
And Mr. OTTO, the architect. We had discussions about
is there a way to, in fact, accomplish those objectives
short of going through the ARC process.
We talked about how that might happen.
As I recall from that conversation, it wasn't entirely
fruitful.
There were some concerns on behalf of the property
owner that our view was we couldn't meet.
They had requirements they wanted as minimums and they
were unacceptable.
I actually thought with every deal there could have
been, wasn't going to be possible.
Nonetheless, there were subsequent discussions, I don't
know how much by e-mail, telephone and how much in
person, and people got back to the table to talk again.
Wasn't involved in some of those later discussions.
I was actually surprised when they ended up getting
back on the same page and had a proposal that was going
to essentially, as you will see from the summary,
address the issue through the zoning context and not
have the designation in effect, but have the same kind
of process, have standards that are articulated that
would describe exactly what would occur during the
demolition process, how there would be protections of
the facades and the structures that were designated or
considered to be important, how those were to be
reconstructed, and what types of materials would be
used and what sorts of processes would be apply,
essentially the same thing you would do at ARC, but it
wouldn't be done through ARC.

For reasons that may or may not have merit, there seems 63
to be a lot of concern by some property owners about
ARC and the people -- ARC and BLC and the people that
apply those standards.
I can tell you that was an extreme concern of theirs.
Anyway, those discussions continued. They arrived at a
settlement proposal, kind of a memorandum of
understanding.
There were debates about what the standards would be.
This is clearly not a legal issue.
So Dennis Fernandez talked with Mr. OTTO, their
architect.
They went out to the site.
They looked at the property.
They seemed to come -- I thought they came to a meeting
of the minds in termination of what Dennis thought
would be adequate to serve the purposes of the city's
policy objectives and yet allow things to move forward
and an exhibit was created which was Exhibit E, which
details the standards that applies and the processes
that will be used to accomplish this alternative method
of get together the same spot.
I don't mean to be vague, but I think you just want a
general statement.
You'll get more specifics when Julia goes through it.
They had already invoked the 70.51 process.
A Madge straight had already been selected.
One of the first things a magistrate is supposed to do
is see if the parties can settle.
He met with the parties. I wasn't at the meetings with
the Magistrate.
I assume he was advised that settlement was a distinct
possibilities but there was more work that needed to be
done.
I believe they just convened the meeting.
It let people continue to talk about the issues to see
if those sticking points could be resolved.
I think that happened twice.
Ultimately, I guess the third time the parties had
reached an agreement.
The parties in this case are the city and the property
owner.
That's how 70.51 continue plates things.
The parties came to an agreement and presented that
proposal to the Magistrate.
TPI was there because hey had properly and timely filed
a notice they wanted to participate.
They're entitled to attend the hearing and participate.
They have to take the cases they find to some extent.
From my view of the transcript, Mr. Bentley said I'm

not going to limit your time or topics. 64
TPI said whatever it was they had to say at that
process, I think objective to some of the procedures.
I don't know if we want to go through that right now.
I'm sure they'll articulate that view when that
happens.
That came through.
Essentially the Magistrate issued a finding or an order
that incorporated settlement agreement.
I guess that's what we call it, settlement agreement --
property development agreement that had been arrived at
between the parties.
There was still some objections to that on behalf of
the representative for TPI.
I think that's in the transcript.
I think you've seen it -- I hope you have a copy of the
red line version of the comment that TPI had.
You'll see they primarily deal with about four issues.
And but nonetheless the parties had accepted all that
they felt was fair and appropriate to accept of those
objections and move forward with the settlement and
that's what the Magistrate recommended with the set of
findings.
That's the summary of the process.
I hope I didn't leave anything out.
If I did, I'm sorry.
Yes, sir?
>> John Dingfelder: Quick procedural question.
What happens if the city council does not approve this
settlement agreement?
>> David Smith: Then it's not settled.
>> John Dingfelder: I understand that.
What happens after that?
>> David Smith: It depends on what recourse the
property owner chooses to pursue.
I don't think you can appeal a denial of a magistrate's
recommendation.
>> Julia COLE.
What would happen is this 70.51 has two stages, the
first stage is the facilitation of the dispute
resolution which is what's in front of you now.
If this the not resolved today, the property owner
would have the opportunity to go into the second
portion of this process which is a determination by the
special magistrate as to whether or not the
designations of the facades burdens the real property.
Once we get to the end of that phase, you will receive
another recommendation from the special magistrate as
to your options, the city's options and you would act
upon that.

Assuming that we don't still resolve the dispute, the 65
property owner would be free to go into a sir.
>> THE COURT:
70.51 doesn't in and of itself create a separate cause
of action.
>> John Dingfelder: That's why I wanted you to run
through all this, because the Magistrate, he blessed
the settlement agreement.
But he didn't really -- from what I'm reading, it's not
like he did his own analysis or anything like that.
He didn't make any findings himself, didn't say that we
were bad in our process or any of that.
He just said, okay, city staff, city attorney's office
looks like they've come to a resolution with the
property owner.
It looks good to me.
I'll give it my blessing.
That's where we are today.
>> David Smith: Essentially his involvement was more in
the nature of a conduit.
He did very little at this phase.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Mr. Smith, could any zoning
decision made by city council be challenged under the
statute that this decision was challenged?

>> It's very broadly defined as to what those different
things are.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: In other words, any time council
makes a decision, the property owner has the right to
use this to create a discussion about it, and then the
city staff is supposed to see if they can work
something out with the property owner.
But it doesn't put city council which made the original
determination under any responsibility to agree with
what you all negotiated?
>> David Smith: That's correct.
It's an alternative dispute resolution device.
It's intended to see if things can be resolved short of
litigation.
If so, then we say, court resources, presumably time
and money.
If not, we're back to square one.
>> Gwen Miller: Ms. COLE?
>> Thank you.
Since Mr. Smith really explained the process, I'll go
directly into what this agreement says.
I will also get up and describe Exhibit E.
It's really the heart of the agreement.
Essentially what this agreement does, is it creates the
parameters for the development of this mixed use

project with preservation of the facades and 66
incorporating the facades into the project.
Under the agreement, the developer would be required to
submit a shoring and stabilization plan to the city
which the city would have to approve during the
demolition phase under which they would have to show
how they're going to keep 2 facades in place and keep
them protected during demolition.
This plan and all the plans need to be reviewed.
They will be reviewed by the zoning administrator and
whoever the zoning administrator feels is appropriate,
including Dennis, including Wilson stair at the 30 and
60 and 90% completion phase as is required under their
current zoning.
The second thing is the developer would be required to
comply with Exhibit E.
I'm going to ask Dennis to get up and explain Exhibit
E.
That's really the process under which the facades need
to be incorporated and preserved -- incorporated into
the project and preserved. The third thing that's
important is the agreement would have -- this agreement
would become part of the zoning.
I think the big question is how do we enforce this
agreement and how is it enforced in perpetuity.
A portion of this says this agreed will be made and
noted on the site plan which will be considered not a
substantial deviation so it can be done pursuant to
staff.
It will be made part of the site plan and treated as
any other zoning condition is treated.
As I said, the plan, both the shoring plan and the
plans which are required pursuant to Exhibit E, will be
reviewed at the 30, 60 and 90 phase by all appropriate
staff.
I think the other important point, if this agreement is
approved, it's not the end.
This agreement contemplates that the facades will not
remain designated and we will have to go back through
public hearing process in order to undesignate.
Your ordinance requires that in order to undesignate a
property, you have to go back through the process from
the beginning.
I would probably recommend that in this case so that we
could go ahead and have -- if you approve this
agreement, we can take this back to the HPC and move it
back through the process and you will have several duly
noticed public hearings on this matter.
That's something that does remain on the table.
I want to make sure you're aware of that.

I'm going to ask Dennis to get up and explain to you 67
Exhibit E.
That's the process under which this will be approved
assuming you approve this agreement.
Ms. Alvarez has a question.
>> Mary Alvarez: Before you go, based on what
Mr. Dingfelder said on the settlement agreement, what
were the findings of the Magistrate?
What did he have to say?
>> Julia COLE: Really, the only role of the special
magistrate is to facilitate a resolution.
Whenever you go into a mediation, sometimes you need
the mediator more than others.
Sometimes you have an idea of what you think you can
accomplish and sometimes you don't.
In this instance have had been some discussions prior
to going into the mediation process as to methods under
which we could potentially settle and recommend
settlement to you.
So in this case we brought those requirements forward.
We brought those forward to the special magistrate.
He reviewed those.
He heard special information that was given to him
during the process.
There were two public hearings in this matter, and he
does make a recommendation, no specific findings, but
his recommendation is after hearing what the parties
had proffered to him, hearing the testimony from the
participants, he recommends that you approve this
settlement agreement.
So that's really -- his findings are his recommendation
which says he recommends that you approve it.
>> I want to clarify, this may not have been part of
the discussion you had with council, but there was some
discussion as to how this was brought forth.
I guess there was some question or argument as to
whether this constituted an enforcement action.
That was brought to his attention.
I believe in the transcript he made reference to the
fact that he found this to be the subject of an
enforcement action on a motion to dismiss, is my
recollection.
>> Mr. I answer your question, Mr. Shelby, let me
finish answering Ms. Alvarez's question.
It isn't fair to say he makes no findings.
He does in his recommendation, the special magistrate
says -- I'm quoting -- will provide the city will great
assurance that this historic facades will be thoroughly
protected and appropriate integrated into the
petitioner's proposed project.

He makes a finding that ample opportunity to exercise 68
significant oversight and control over the project's
construction has been shown.
He goes on to say that the memorandum -- the city has
emphasized throughout the memorandum the importance of
protecting the historic buildings.
He does make findings that through this agreement the
city will be protecting the facades even if they're not
remaining designated.
>> What page?
>> Page five under the recommendation of the special
magistrate.
He goes on into other things.
But that's the gist of it.
Getting to Mr. Shelby's question, when this was
originally filed, the city did move to dismiss a
portion of -- move to dismiss the petition for failing
to comply with the statutory requirements.
TPI raise $an issue as to whether or not -- raised an
additional issue as to whether or not there was a
proper development order under which this process could
be brought.
I also raised an issue about whether or not this was
properly an enforcement action.
Ultimately the special magistrate denied that defining
that the action in front of him was appropriately
deemed an enforcement action which would be subject to
the statutory privilege.
It specifically defines what a development permit is.
It does not specifically define what an enforcement
action is.
In a case like this it's supposed to be construed in a
very broad manner.
After reviewing that, hearing arguments of counsel, the
special magistrate did allow the petitioner's to
proceed forward under their findings.
>> Gwen Miller: Mr. Fernandez.
>> Dennis Fernandez, historic preservation manager.
My role throughout this process was to primarily assist
in developing Exhibit E which is referred to as tin
corporation and renovation parameters for preservation
of the facades located at woolworth square.
I worked with Dr. Fetterhoff to come up with language
which broke down the important character defining
features of the facades and then enacted a plan of
sorts in Exhibit E to be able to protect those facades
and rehabilitate them.
Throughout this process, I relied on a preservation
hierarchy in which the first course of action was
always to preserve and protect those historic

components that were discussed throughout these 69
exhibits.
The second was to repair, when necessary, and then the
last recourse of action would be to replace with a
material that would be deemed appropriate through
review at a later date.
Essentially with the shoring plan that would be
submitted, the goal is to retain the facades in place,
protect those character-defining features.
One those facades are to be rehabilitated, then there
would be a process where the agent would come in and we
would deal with them on an item-by-item basis, to
ensure that what is being done to the facades does
correlate with this agreement.
In my opinion, the agreement comes very close to what
the secretary of the interior standards would require.
I use that as a basis for evaluating the proposal
throughout.
You can see through some of the detail of Exhibit E, we
deal with the features really from the roof down to the
base of the building, covering windows, ceramic tile,
architectural detail, glass, all those are specified.
So I feel comfortable that this is an agreement that
essentially will result, if executed correctly, in the
facades being successfully incorporated into this new
development.
I'd be happy to answer any questions for you.
>> Gwen Miller: Mr. Dingfelder?
>> John Dingfelder: In the bigger picture, Dennis, I
have a couple questions.
One, how does this process that staff and legal is now
suggesting we approve, how does the process differ from
what we -- what staff and legal and the mayor suggested
on the day that we designated?
It was my understanding there was a lot of hustle
around that day and we adjourned for lunch and
everybody met and then you all came back.
I don't remember all the details.
And then staff and legal suggested to us what sounds to
me a lot like where we are today.
So are there any substantive differences from where we
were that day than where we are today?
That's my first question.
>> As far as what was occurring on that day, wasn't
involved to the point where I could make a direct
correlation.
I can tell you what's being proposed as far as the
rehabilitation has come further from that day than
where we were.
We've agreed on a method to retain and rehabilitate the

facades. 70
There's been some compromise along the way and some
discussion of terminology.
>> John Dingfelder: The concept is pretty much the
same, it's just you worked out and further refined the
details.
Is that fair to say?
>> David Smith: The concept with respect to addressing
an outside of the ARC context is, in fact, the same.
That day, however, there was not very much detail or
specificity and probably not even real good clarity to
exactly how this would evolve.
As I indicated when we started those discussions -- in
fact, at least at one point I thought it wasn't going
to proceed and it wasn't going to proceed as to some
objections of the property owner as to who thy thought
would be involved.
I think the critical issue of the property own
irrelevant was who was going to be applying these
things.
It really differs by who is enforcing it, who is
applying the criteria.
>> John Dingfelder: Then that leads to my second
question, Mr. Fernandez.
I guess the other part I'm confused about is, if we all
as a community believe in historic designations and
believe in historic preservation -- but this
alternative basically says we're going to accomplish
those end goals administratively instead of through the
ARC process that we have, then I would ask why do we
have the ARC process at all?
>> I think first of all, this is a very unique
situation in that you are dealing with something that
probably for the first time has been recommended for
designation, and that's a portion of a building.
I believe what the difference is there, you're dealing
with an architectural element that gives you reference
to a particular period or, in this case, particular
period and event.
I think that differs greatly from an entire building,
when you're designating an entire building.
I think the way the structure of the ordinance has been
applied is that the HPC's role has traditionally been
to make recommendations to city council on what meets
criteria for historic preservation.
There hasn't been a great deal of latitude in any other
measure to be able to accomplish protecting those
facades or those buildings along the way.
This was a unique situation.
I believe in my opinion that this is probably a

situation that could have been incorporated into the PD 71
process to guarantee that, much like this agreement
that, the facades would remain, would be incorporated
appropriately into the new development.
I do not think that this is the same as if we were to
address the Kress building as a whole in which the
entire property is designated and, I believe, there
should be a more structured and the individuals who are
reviewing that rehabilitation should be more versed in
their particular disciplines of how they serve on the
architectural review commission.
One of the issues that I was adamant about was being
included in the review process.
So it was going beyond just the zoning administrator's
review because some of the issues in the rehabilitation
plan do get very specific as to appropriate materials,
appropriate textures and whatnot.
That was something that was added in to this plan, is
that the his tore preservation administrator, myself,
would be involved in that review.
That would be allowed mainly because it's assumed that
the destination would --
>> John Dingfelder: I guess that would lead to my last
question.
Is it your opinion, is it the HPC's opinion that
facades, the preservation of certain facades are less
important than the preservation of a building?
>> I can't give you the HPC's opinion because this
hasn't been to the HPC. I can give you my professional
opinion.
I don't know if they're less important.
But I think there's a means other than a traditional
means to actually accomplish that.
I don't believe that, if you look at preservation as a
whole, that facade designation is encouraged.
It really is a last effort to try to accomplish an end.
The preference would obviously be in preservation to
protect the entire building and not just a portion of
the building.
You know, with all the discussion of the ordinance
revisions and whatnot, one of the goals that I have is
to give the HPC a different means of commenting on
these unique situations other than just recommending
for a designation.
Maybe perhaps involvement through a PD comment or
something along the way.
But in this case, I do think this is a unique
situation.
I don't believe -- win of my main concerns was that
this was going to set some type of precedent.

I do see there is a difference between designating a 72
portion of the building and an entire building.
>> Gwen Miller: Ms. Johnson?
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Is the city done?
>> Gwen Miller: Are you done?
>> I think it would be appropriate to allow the
property owner to go first.
If he wants to reserve time, he should have that
opportunity as well.
>> Gwen Miller: The property owner is coming up.
Who is the property owner?
You can come up and speak.
>> Good morning or good afternoon, my name is John
GRANDOFF.
I represent dorn and Kress square.
Also co-council Jim shim Berg and Dr. OTTO Fetterhoff.
I'd like to reserve three minutes of my time for
rebuttal.
I'll be as prompt as possible.
First of all, why you're here is to consider the
recommendation of Mr. Bentley which has been presented
to you in the formality he wrote it.
The statute we're operating under is intended by the
legislature to be liberally construed to fully affect
its purpose and intent of resolving disputes.
That's the charge that the legislature gave us when
they created 70.51.
This is a unique situation that started with a plan
development rezoning which was encouraged by the city
council encouraging preservation of the facade.
Remember the Kress building being preserved by my
clients.
They are preserving that building and restoring it.
Mr. Bentley's findings, let me talk about exhibit E
that's in front of you.
This answers Mr. Dingfelder's question as to what
happened between the meeting back in the spring when we
tried to resolve things and today.
What happened was Exhibit E was crafted, and if you
read it, it is very, very detailed on the preservation
and incorporation of the facades into the project.
That is what we accomplished.
If you go into Mr. Bentley's recommendation, I'd like
to read from it verbatim because it says exactly what
his findings are.
On page three in the middle of the page, both of the
parties preservation experts testified that significant
progress had been made regarding technical issues
resolving the facades into the proposed development
project.

He continues on page five and finds, the memorandum 73
negotiated by the parties includes comprehensive detail
measure to ensure the integrity and protection of the
building facades in question during the project's
review, demolition and development processes,
specifically the five-page memorandum incorporates a
very detailed nine-page incorporation and reservation
plan which provides the city with significant oversight
and control of the project from the demolition stage
through project completion.
Exhibit E provides a process identifying a
documentation -- an temporary and permanent shoring and
protection plan.
The required use of salvaged materials in the
remediation, repair and replacement of the facades
along with numerous other carefully considered to
ensure the authenticity of the facades.
This is Exhibit E.
The memorandum will provide the city with great
assurance that these historic facades will be
thoroughly protected and appropriately integrated into
the project.
The comprehensive terms and conditions will clearly
provide the city and its preservation experts ample
opportunity to exercise significant oversight and
control at all stages of the project's construction.
Listen to that sentence.
This is not good-bye.
This is the beginning of the process.
The city is not losing control of this process.
Under the charter system of this government, the city
administration will have direct influence and over
cited on this pro sect from beginning to end according
to this memorandum an Exhibit E.
Mr. Bentley also finds the memorandum contains very
elaborate details and precise terms and conditions to
facilitate control of the petitioner's project in a
matter that ensures integration of the facades in
question and is intended to strike a balance between
each party's -- city and lander -- goals and
objectives.
The legislature said, as I said originally, the intent
is to resolve disputes.
That's exactly what we've accomplished in this
document.
He continues and finds, I strongly encourage the
members of city council to review the transcripts, the
transcripts include the testimony of the parties and
the experts along with other interested individuals.
That's TPI.

Therefore, would consider within the context of the two 74
landmark designations and subsequent mediation,
clarifications of the terms of the zoning conditions,
reflect the party's efforts to achieve a meaningful
compromise.
The testimony contained defines those issues of
significant importance to all the participants in the
proceeding and emphasizes the equally important efforts
of all involved.
Accordingly I would encourage the city council to
consider and accept the well thought out settlement
agreement -- this is how the process is supposed to
operate.
We urge you to accept the memorandum of settlement,
specifically incorporating Exhibit E.
So we may move forward with the project.
I reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.
Mr. Shim Berg for a moment.
>> There's one important aspect to this that has to do
with the woolworth building and the things that took
place during the civil rights movement.
I've spoken to my client extensively about this, also
spoke to Mr. Fred Herns this week.
As Mr. Herns mentioned, when he takes people on tours
of downtown, when he tries to explain what happens, you
might be able to make out where the letters used to be.
There's no appropriate type of recognition.
My client has agreed to work with Mr. Hern's,
representative joiner and other members of the
committee to try to come up with an appropriate type of
recognition at that location to commemorate that
historic event.
That really doesn't have anything to do with whether
these facades are preserved through designation or this
agreement.
We are committing to that 100% today. That's the only
thing I wanted to say.
We'll be here to answer any questions.
Thank you very much.
>> Gwen Miller: All right.
>> I've got some evidence that I'm putting into the
record.
I've also want to reserve three minutes of my time for
rebuttal.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Let's ask our attorney because this
is not a usual -- let's ask Mr. Shelby.
>> Martin Shelby: Council, I just want to be clear on
this. Normally what happens is, when you have a
petitioner or a movant here, you usually give them an
opportunity for rebuttal to have the last word.

That's traditionally appropriate to do. 75
And they are a party.
With regard to Ms. Johnson representing Tampa
preservation, incorporated, her role as a participant
is limited under the statute.
Therefore, I think it would be appropriate to give her
the opportunity to speak, but I don't believe in terms
of burden or whatever -- I believe ultimately it would
be appropriate to have one of the parties who
researched their time be given that opportunity for
rebuttal.
They reserved that --
>> But we're like the appellate here.
I have to say, this is a procedural issue.
They're not the petitioners as if they're coming here
for a PD rezoning.
This is not even a public hearing.
>> Gwen Miller: This is part of your time --
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Excuse me, no.
This is figuring out whether she has ten minutes or
seven.
I'd like to ask Mr. Smith, point of order.
Isn't the city the party before us today?
>> David Smith: If you're asking me the answer to the
direct question, I'll answer it directly, I think we've
got to follow the policy and procedure we've used
before.
What we've done historically -- we haven't had this
kind of hearing here.
So we use the closest analogue.
I agree with Mr. Dingfelder.
You can't keep going back with rebuttals.
You don't even have to let Ms. Johnson speak.
I think you're letting her speak.
I think she's given you a lot of information which we
haven't even seen yet.
I don't know that all of it is appropriate and within
the scope of her testimony.
We're providing her ten minutes to say what she wants
to say so she'll have preserved for the record any of
the things she wants preserved for the record.
There are two issues she can address if you let her
speak at all.
Those are the procedural issues that she has.
The second is the alternatives under 70.51.
That's the scope of what she can speak to.
I assume she is going to speak to those issues. She
will give you her procedural objections including the
one she currently objects to this process as well.
That should be on the record and she can put all that

on the record and she can tell you what the alternative 76
solution was that she would advocate which is what
70.51 advocates.
Lit be over.
You can deliberate and make a decision.
Thank you.
>> Gwen Miller: Ms. Beth, go ahead.
You've got the --
>> 1819 Richardson place.
Elizabeth Johnson.
I represent Tampa preservation Inc.
Another procedural issue is whether or not Mr. Harrison
is going to participate in the subsequent proceedings
because he didn't participate with the PD rezoning.
This is a black day for preservation in the City of
Tampa.
What I heard --
>> Point of order.
I think if that's an issue that Mr. Harrison wants to
deal with, we probably should deal with it up front as
opposed to later so we don't get --
>> Shawn Harrison: Why did I not participate?
Did I have a conflict or I just wasn't here?
>> If I recall correctly and I'm basing this upon my
recollection, this was within a certain geographic Cal
boundary in a proximity that may or may not -- at the
time the issue was whether or not it inured to your
special private gain.
It coming up without my opportunity to do research it
was that you, in an abundance of caution --
David Smith: I was just going to say David Smith, city
attorney.
You were not in the notice area.
I think what Mr. Shelby is about to tell you is you, I
think, opted not to participate out of an abundance of
caution.
It wasn't our view you had a conflict and had to recuse
yourself.
I think we worth involved in that initial colloquy.
That's what I recall happening.
Is that consistent with what you recall Mr. Shelby?
>> Martin Shelby: Yes.
At a subsequent point your did participate after I had
a chance to do research and make the determination,
based upon the process that was coming before you and
based upon your relationship to that process that it
did not inure to your special private gain and you did
not abstain in subsequent proceedings.
>> I just consulted with Ms.~Cole again because I
remember she raised this with me after the fact.

It was our opinion you did not have a conflict and our 77
advice to you would have been under 280.06 you should
participate.
>> Shawn Harrison: Is that your advice right now?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Obviously we'd like to add that to our list of
procedural objections.
At the time you said you had property away -- a block
away from the subject property.
That is why you recused yourself in the PD zoning.
We urged that the decision by the city council to
designate two facades as historic under the city's code
is not a development order under the statute.
We also argued that Mr. Bentley whose firm is a member
of the coalition for property rights is not a wise
choice.
It defines its membership as landowners, bankers,
attorneys and others who also share one common thread,
a sense of alarm at the increasing regulation of land
use.
The city wants to say that this is a proposed agreement
between the city and the developers, but it comes to
you as a recommendation.
Additionally the city has pointed out to me that just
because a member of Mr. Bentley's firm is a member of
the CFP, that doesn't mean he has any type of bias.
So be it.
I agree.
And my mind of person's associations or even remote
association should make no difference as long as a
person does his job and is impartial.
But I note that the proposed presses investigation
ordinances says that Mr. Smith is ready to put forward
to you has language in it that says HPC members and
staff shall have no affiliation with preservation
groups.
So I ask why not builders groups, property rights
groups.
Mr. Smith to me can't have it both ways.
He can't say that affiliation with property rights
groups, no matter how remote makes no difference in a
person's impartiality and yet put a ordinance in front
of you that relies the point.
In the course of laying out my objections, I have to be
what critical, and I apologize, but somewhat critical
of the mayor who appeared to act from the first that
there were no previous promises to the HPC and this
council and who refused to meet with the preservation
community on the facade on March 9th accepting
Mr. Grand of's view that we should cool our heels out

on the couch while the developers lobbied her and who 78
perhaps doesn't understand the significant civil rights
history surrounding the building.
Does she now that 57 African Americans and some of the
people who knew these people or who participated in
this evidence fort, that they staged a sit-in at the
wool worth county in February 1960 to honor similar
civil rights protests?
Does she know there exists a reminder outside in the
sidewalk telling the very real history that this
community faced and it's here on the Elmo.
What it says is, leased by F. W. wool worth company,
crossing by permission only, permission revokable at
will.
Unless anyone who questions your view took the time to
read all the transcripts, all the HPC proceedings, all
the transcripts related to your rezoning, they are
remarkably ill informed.
As for the mayor, maybe she did read all these things,
maybe she stood on the sidewalk, as Mr. Fernandez did,
to look at that plaque and ponder its civil rights
meaning.
The fact that she signed your designations in to law
gives us hope.
All we know for certain is we never had a chance to
talk with her.
After the developer urged mediation with Mr. Bentley,
either request to meet with Cindy Miller were
foreclosed.
Has this plan to undo the designations been
orchestrated?
I'm not all that cynical about it.
But you have a right to form your own decision.
That's the one thing I can agree with today from
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Bentley is not a judge.
He does not have the authority to bind the council.
He didn't get elected and he doesn't answer to
constituents every day like you do.
He just so happens to be someone with a specialty in
70.51, but he has no civil rights background that I
know of, and in our personal opinion, perhaps too much
of a history with developers.
TPI offered a significant compromise mentioned but not
discussed at all in Mr. Bentley's recommendation.
The compromise was to preserve the designations as you
voted on them except to reduce the designations of the
new bury facade which is what some of you said you
wanted and most importantly, and listen to this, were
TPI to permit the owners to forego ARC review in this

one instance. 79
Why?
Because of the need for development downtown and in
recognition that our preservation ordinances are
currently being studied anyway. This compromise to
keep the designations but avoid review in this one Stan
stance was not one that we made lightly.
You can imagine that we do not adhere to the
developer's self serving comments that the ARC is
dysfunction.
They are the I don't man organization that protects our
resources in this community.
For administrators in the city to climb on that band
wagon does a huge disservice.
The point is in this instance our compromise to avoid
ARC review was very significant.
We also carefully wrote and submitted edits that we
believe met the agreements and local government status
of Tampa. Regarding the issue of the new bury facade.
I have to take issue with how Mr. Smith characterized
some of the history.
When this came back on March 16th on a
reconsideration which I highly objected to that process
anyway because I came screaming down Bayshore not
knowing this issue was going to come up again.
That's how it all participated.
He got up and said maybe they were over designated. I
take issue with that when you look at the transcript.
I think what the HDP had in mind was deconstruction and
reconstruction doable under the secretary of interior
standards.
But the city did not offer compromise that reduced
those facades.
This is an example of what you did on February 23rd and
March 29.
Not only are they completely undesignated.
Nobody with expertise is compelled to review the
developer's.
I have a lost respect for Cathy Coyle, but she is not a
preservation specialist.
The loophole language that she shall seek the consult
of any expert including the HPC administrator as needed
is sorely weak.
When I review the recommendation in the proposed
agreement, you could drive a truck through these facade
protections.
I'm afraid they literally will.
You might as well appointed the city's tree expert to
monitor these facades.
That's how ridiculous it is to leave it up to the

zoning administrator. 80
I want you to carefully look at what Dennis said
because Dennis, bless his heart, I think he has really
been through the ringer.
He said this is very close to the secretary of interior
standards.
He feels there will be protection if executed
correctly.
It's come further from the day than where we were
before. He's under oath but in a bad spot here.
This comes back to, I think, our substantive argument
that we want to make sure that you get.
Again, I thought I was going to have 30 minutes here.
If I sound a little discombobulated, forgive me.
Our substantive argument is that the recommendation
fails to preserve these facades in the way Mr. Bentley
proposes.
Exhibit E has words, incorporation and renovation
throughout.
According to the dictionary of building preservation,
renovation is the process of repairing and changing and
existing structure for modern use, whereas
rehabilitation and restoration, words the developers
have backed away from, mean to repair to good condition
with minimal changes.
The meaning is significant and the change appears
throughout the developer's document.
The developer shall to a reasonable degree research the
architectural documentation.
I don't know about you, but in my mind red flags go up
when a developer determines what is reasonable.
Remember, this is the same group quoted in the
newspaper as saying "you can stare at those same old
buildings and watch them deteriorate."
The article is at tab K.
Ms. Saul-Sena, you noted in the rezoning process, you
drive by those buildings and, my goodness, let's hope
they don't fall down before something is done.
I'm not sure this iners to them being the best stewards
of preservation.
The developer shall take reasonable measures to protect
any damaged portion of the facade which cannot be
remediated or repairs may be replaced.
>> Gwen Miller: Your time is up.
>> Our point is we made a highly significant
compromise.
One more thing is very important because it relates to
what Mr. Dingfelder said.
You asked Mr. Smith was there any other communication
that occurred.

There was a telephone conference on July 6 between the 81
mediator and Ms. COLE and Mr. ShimBERG.
At that point it was determined that the city should
finally argue its motion to dismiss.
I heard about a lot of meetings that went on today that
I didn't know about.
>> Gwen Miller: You have to wrap it up.
>> John Dingfelder: I'd like to hear the rest of it.
>> But what I'm most concerned about and I'll put these
procedural objections that I did not get to into the
record.
I trust Ms.~Cole on this, but there were a lot of
meetings that were going on between the developer and
the other side.
The other side being the city.
But the one that most concerned me was why the motion
to dismiss that had been promised to Ms. Saul-Sena not
ever argued?
And somehow it was determined at the very last minute
that that would be argued on July 7th.
There was a conference that determined that that I was
not privy to.
So I have some disquiet about that.
I have a lot of trust with the city.
But I wish that had not happened.
I have other procedural objections.
>> Gwen Miller: Okay.
You can put that in the record.
Mr. Smith?
>> David Smith: There are so many inaccuracies and
distortions in what you just heard, I'm really
embarrassed for her.
I would like to give Julia COLE to straighten out her
name.
I would like to do the same for me.
I'd also like to speak for Mr. Bentley who I really
don't know that well but I think who needs a defense as
well.
We'll do it now or after the property owner speaks.
I think it needs to be done.
>> Gwen Miller: Let's do it now.
>> Can I get my stuff?
>> David Smith: Absolutely.
David Smith, city attorney.
First overall, the July 6th telephone conference I
knew nothing about, but Julia COLE will explain what
the issue was on that.
I neglected to mention the numerous conversations I had
with Ms. Johnson.
I wasn't attempting to give you a diary of every event

that transpired in this, but only the substances. 82
First, we were specifically told the issue with
Mr. Harrison would not be raised.
That's fine.
You can tell us one thing and do another.
I find that a little offensive when you expect us to
live up to our word and you don't do the same.
Secondly, other objections were raced for the first
time today.
It would have been nice to hear about those at the
time.
Perhaps we could have done something differently.
None of them raised much of an issue.
Let me point out an inaccuracy with regard to the new
ordinances.
You were told that we prepared a new ordinance that is
not going to allow anyone to participate who is a
member of a preservation group.
That's, in fact, false.
There's two separate provision ins the new
ordinances -- by the way, it is a draft -- for working
purposes, for discussion purposes, to start the
dialogue.
A dialogue which begins next week.
Do you know who the first person is I'm meeting with?
Beth Johnson.
We are going to get the input from everybody.
Let me point out the provision, 27-230 A.
It identifies who can sit on historic preservation
commission.
Among other things, it indicates they must have
competence, experience or knowledge in historic
preservation, architecture, history, architectural
history, planning, archeology, development, real
estate -- basically is similar to what you currently
have.
I don't think we changed that, did we done that.
Donna did the draft.
The answer is we did not change that. Apparently the
offending provision is subpart D which talks about
staff.
What we did was we limited what staff could do.
>> John Dingfelder: Where are you reading from?
>> David Smith: Subpart D of the same section.
>> John Dingfelder: Of what?
>> David Smith: The draft ordinance -- it really is
irrelevant and shouldn't have been raised.
When someone raising an issue with respect to your
personal integrity and character, one must respond to
it.

I'm sorry you don't have it before you. 83
>> John Dingfelder: You're talking about a draft
ordinance of the HPC procedures, but it's not in front
of us today.
>> David Smith: The draft ordinance that Ms. Johnson
referred to.
It is not before you today.
First of all, procedurally I object to anything she
discussed as outside the context of proper testimony.
If we're going to litigate this, that's fine.
Let's get it on.
We're going to preserve our objections as well.
I agreed to select Mr. Bentley for this position.
I agreed to selected him upon the recommendation of an
attorney who used him before in that capacity.
He lectures statewide on the issue of the Magistrate.
Mr. Bentley did essentially nothing in this.
If he had any personal bias it is not evidenced in what
transpired, so why is he an issue?
I submit he's an issue because when you don't really
have the facts to argue, you argue against the people.
You raise issues like the history of civil rights which
ought to be sacred.
It is irrelevant to this issue. Why is that being
interjected in this process?
I don't think that's at all appropriate.
All sides recognize the importance of that building and
it will be preserved. To make that an issue that that
somehow distinguishes the property owner from the
preservationists is offensive.
Mr. Bentley -- by the way, I was in that same firm, so
I guess I'm guilty by the same acquisition.
I have no idea what the other 180 lawyers do.
I don't know what their politics are or what
organizations they belong to.
To try to indict someone because another person in the
180 members of the firm are a member of -- I don't know
the name of the group.
Mr. Bentley is not a member of that group.
I think that's unconscionable to raise those issues to
disparage your opponent rather than dealing with the
issues. I'm not going to address the issue of
criticizing the mayor.
That is so ridiculous.
I don't want to get any angrier than I am.
I apologize that I'm so upset.
>> You have every right to be.
>> David Smith: I will shut up and let Ms.~Cole address
the issue addressed to her.
>> Just to address the timing of particular hearings,

let me first say that every effort was made in all the 84
public hearings before the special magistrate to
accommodate everybody's schedule.
This is the summer.
Everybody was going on vacation.
As it relates to the specific hearing Ms. Johnson is
speaking of, a motion to dismiss was pending for
sometime.
Mr. Bentley decided to call it up. He called it up.
Technically TPI is not a party to that type of
procedural motion.
However, it was determined it was not appropriate to
move forward unless we invited Ms. Johnson to
participate because of her schedule we were only to do
it the next day.
We attempted to call her that day.
We couldn't get in touch with her.
We scheduled it for the next day because she was going
to be out of town.
Statutorily Mr. Bentley was required to get his
recommendation done in a certain amount of time.
That's why it was done at the last minute.
But it was done at the last minute to accommodate her
schedule because she was traveling on another day that
other people were available.
But in other instances, and you'll see in the
transcripts, there was a lot of discussion about when
to reschedule things and it was taking into
consideration -- I think I was very clear on the record
that I thought it was not appropriate to schedule any
of these hearings when Ms. Johnson was out of town.
If I can make one additional comments relates to
Ms. Coyle and her role in this, as a zoning
administrator, in any instance in any zoning, any part
of the job she moves forward with, she is required to
coordinate with a variety of different persons,
entities and individuals within the city and sought
side the city.
So she is very clear on who she needs to talk to, who
she doesn't need to talk to.
In any event and at the suggestion of Ms. Johnson, we
did specifically indicate in there that the manager of
HPC would be required to be one of the persons that she
would have to discuss.
Thank you.
>> Gwen Miller: Mr. ShimBERG.
>> In closing, very quick.
We're talking about guilt by association.
I hope you won't hold it against my client that
Ms. Johnson and I practiced together at Holland &

Knight. 85
This is not a black day for preservation.
This agreement protects the city and protects these
facades in a way that is, as Mr. Fernandez said, very
close to what would have happened under the current
designation.
Second of all, I think it's very important to
understand that Ms. Johnson and her client have
judicial avenues available to them.
She'll have those available no matter which way you go
today in your decision.
This is not the avenue to be arguing legal motions like
that.
She's got plenty of opportunity to go into court and do
that if that's what she so chooses.
We believe this is a fair agreement that has give and
take on both sides.
Completely different than what we came to talk to you
about, the day you were in the process of
designating -- it doesn't -- wasn't defined at that
time.
At that time we asked for the ability to have a chance
to do that.
You said no.
Since then, through the 70.51, we had the opportunity.
Mr. Smith said she didn't think at many times during
the process we'd be able to come to an agreement.
Ms. Coyle and Mr. Fernandez have strong opinions about
a lot of these issues.
The fact that we were able to come to an agreement that
we were comfortable with and our client was comfortable
with -- and all of them have strong personalities, I
think is a win-win for everyone.
Mr. Bentley makes a finding that he does think it
adequately protects the city.
I would ask after all you've heard, you would approve
this, allow this agreement to become final.
Then that would start the process to undesignate the
facades.
It does not do that by this vote.
Although I would hope it would be some indication.
It is not undesignating.
It's just approving the settlement agreement and this
memorandum and this procedure.
>> Gwen Miller: Ms. Saul-Sena.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: I have a question for Mr. ShimBERG.
It seems to me that the compromise before us and the
compromise offered by Tampa preservation are similar in
that they both recognize that the facade will be
preserved, but in the compromise offered by Tampa

preservation, the ARC would not participate, the ARC 86
wouldn't participate in both cases the staff will make
the determinations.
The only distinguishing point is that in what TPI is
presenting, if the facades remain designated and what
Mr. Bentley is presenting, that the facades are not
designated.
That seems to me to be a really -- it's symbolic, not
substantive.
So my question is, why does your client have a problem
with that?
It seemed to me that what I heard from your client was
that the problem was with the ARC's involvement and the
ARC in either case won't be involved.
>> My client had objections to the designations
consistently.
We believe this is a better way to do it.
They had no problem with the Kress building being
designated.
They feel more comfortable with this process that's
been developed.
You've heard it's pretty similar.
We would urge you to follow this direction which is
acceptable to the city, the special hearing master and
our client.
If you'd like Mr. Jason to come forward, but I don't
think it's necessary.
If you believe it is substantially the same, then I
would think you wouldn't have a problem voting for
this.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Just to tell you my feeling about
it, I think that it is symbolic and that the symbolism
of designation is important.
And in terms of your client being able to move ahead
and get things done and make this thing happen, if you
go with what the Tampa preservation compromise
includes, you can go ahead and go.
If you go with what you want to do, you have to go
through the undesignation process.
And the reason that I have problems with that is that I
think that everybody recognizes that these are historic
buildings and historic facades.
Even if it's just a facade, it's still important and it
deserves the respect and the protection of that
designation.
So I'm saying, if you go with the other compromise,
it's a speedier, less cumbersome process.
>> I hear what you're saying.
Throughout this whole process we concluded that that
would not be the best way to go, although I do hear

what you're saying. 87
I think that having them preserved either way -- having
them remain in effect -- nobody is arguing, and we
talked about in a meeting we had a lunch, Mr. Jason and
I were talking about why we're in this position today,
a year after they probably should have started
construction.
He said probably because we tried to cooperate at the
very beginning.
If we would have just said, let's just take down the
other two buildings.
We might have had a big fight.
But we tried to do the right thing.
Many months we're fighting over the same thing,
somewhat symbolic as you said.
We think we've reached a pretty good agreement that
does what we think the city wants to do in a way that
is going to protect these facades.
We're not prepared to accept that compromise at that
time.
We feel comfortable with what we have.
>> Gwen Miller: Mr. Dingfelder.
>> John Dingfelder: Mr. Smith -- have you calmed down
now, David?
>> David Smith: Yes, sir.
>> John Dingfelder: Okay. The question I have has to
do with the preservation of these buildings in
perpetuity.
I understand that there's an offer and a proposed
settlement that would tie this back into the zoning
conditions an tighten up the zoning conditions.
That's all fine and good.
But a couple of things come to mind.
One, what if -- just because you get a rezoning, as we
know, especially downtown, you can get a rezoning and
let your property sit for 20 years without ever
building anything.
That's happened.
So I'm wondering what happens in terms of that notion
that Linda breaks up on occasion, the preservation
by --
>> Demolition by neglect.
>> John Dingfelder: Demolition by neglect.
Number two, what if they decided -- I'm not saying this
is the case.
I'm not sure what their balance are.
We never do.
But what if they decided -- they sold the property
tomorrow, which they could, or after we're done with
this, and then.

>> Gwen Miller: Go ahead, John. 88
They's listening.
>> John Dingfelder: I'll wait a second.
Number two, what if they decided that -- they sold it
and the next person said, what I really want this is a
surface parking lot.
I don't know if a surface parking lot needs a zoning
approval, per se.
So they just go down and ask for a demolition permit.
Is there anything in this agreement that specifically
precludes a petition for a demolition permitted on that
property?
Because I think that's one of the things that the
historic preservation process and the historic
designation itself gives the citizens of this city --
somewhat of a guarantee that these buildings and
facades won't get demolished.
So those are my first two questions and I have one more
to go with that.
>> David Smith: Okay.
Let me start with your first questions.
You noticed I consulted with Dennis.
Dennis is extremely knowledgeable in this area.
We do we lie on staff for some of the details of the
implementation.
Let me tell you what I think the answer to your
question is, and Dennis, if I get anything incorrect or
insufficient, please feel free to supplement.
The issue of demolition by neglect is a problem we've
had.
We've lost buildings already as a consequence of
nothing happening.
I think the situation is the same, however, whether we
go with the designation or the solution that
Ms. Johnson recommends or the solution that the parties
are involved with, and that is it's a code enforcement
issue.
You can't, however -- you can, however, post
construction.
Once that building is reconstructed and the facades are
approved or preserved, you cannot demolish --
>> John Dingfelder: You went a step ahead.
That's part of my third question.
My second question was, if they just wanted to level --
we go through all this, we approve it, we dedesignate
it, then they sell it and the next person says, I don't
want to build that high-rise, I just want to have a
surface parking lot or I don't want to have anything.
I just don't want to have to deal with those buildings
and those facades anymore.

What would keep them from just demolishing it, period, 89
if it's not designated?
>> David Smith: First of all, they can't demolish
without a permit.
They can't get a demolition permit if the building 50
years old or older.
>> John Dingfelder: They can't get a demolition permit
unless they go through a process.
>> David Smith: Correct.
Which is ARC and HPC.
>> If it's 50 years old and not a designated structure,
the HPC reserves it.
Staff would review it initially and then forwarded to
the full commission.
>> John Dingfelder: Historically we haven't been able
to pro serve anything through that process.
We haven't been able to keep a building from being
demolished through that process.
> that's the process we would follow.
>> John Dingfelder: Historically we haven't been able
to preserve anything through that process; is that
correct?
>> David Smith: That's correct.
(Applause.)
>> John Dingfelder: The last question I have is this --
>> Through the agreement and the memorandum, there is a
requirement that the developer, the agent submit a
shoring and protection plan prior to any demolition
being approved on the cited.
So prior to us issuing any type of approval to
demolish, that plan would have to be approved and filed
with the guarantees it is properly shored so it
wouldn't collapse through the partial demolition.

>> If you approve that agreement, if you don't approve
that agreement, that protection is not in place. If
you do approve it, that is in place.
The other issue I didn't address was the perpetuity
issue.
Once the construction has occurred, you then have the
same problem.
You to apply for a demolition permit.
The third part that was relevant to that is under the
zoning it's only designated for those towers W the
facade and with the requirements.
Meaning they can't do it unless they come back to you
and got your approval.
>> John Dingfelder: The last question is this, and it's
sort of a big picture question.
Form shopping.

From a precedentIAL perspective, I'm very concerned and 90
I think TPI is very concerned about form shopping.
In other words, the next historic designation that
comes along saying we don't like the ARC.
So we're going to file a 70.51 procedure and drag the
city through all this.
To me, David, you're very familiar with the concept of
form shopping.
In other words, if I don't like the decision in the way
the state court is treating me and I have an
opportunity to jump to federal court, maybe I'll jump
to federal court.
You jump around from court to court until you find a
forum that you like.
You're familiar with that in law.
It's not the right thing to do, but it happens.
What concerns me is this smacks a little bit of forum
shopping.
If they don't like the ARC process, then they're asking
us to pull them out of the ARC process because they
don't like it.
>> The comment was made that somehow we don't have
respect for the ARC.
I'd like to clarify that.
It was one of the points made earlier.
That should not even be attempted to be argued from the
facts, particularly given the fact that the other party
that made the argument is also prepared to abstract
from ARC.
I think agreeing to leave the ARC out of it, it does
not follow -- called a nonsector, that therefore, you
think they're inadequate.
Anyone who thought to the contrary, please disabuse
yourselves of that.
>> Staff does not and I do not.
Developers, that's their problem.
The other issue is forum shopping.
The problem with 70.51 -- Julia is our expert on that.
I'd like her to come up and assisted me on that.
It's not something used very often.
It's a mediation.
We are here recommending this process, this result,
because we think it accomplishes almost all of the
purposes.
In fact, we thought it accomplished about 98% of the
purposes even of the participants who were opposed.
We're bringing it to you for that reason.
If we have something that makes sense to try to resolve
outside of the a more litigious form, we would try to
do that. That's the limited purpose for it.

If we didn't get close -- if they insisted on some of 91
the things they insisted on, it wouldn't have gone
anyway.
They still would have to go to court.
They invoke the process and they run the risk that they
can put a settlement proposal together that is
sufficiently acceptable to the city that we could come
to you for approval.
If they're way out of line, that isn't going to work
I.'s going to waste their time and money.
They're going to still have to go back to litigate.
The real question is do you want to have another
alternative resolution possibility or not.
The state legislature has spoken to that and they do.
We can't prevent someone from triggering the process.
>> John Dingfelder: It's not that they're form shopping
and went to use the mediator, the Magistrate.
Procedurally you have a problem with that.
I don't have a big problem with that.
What I have a problem with when I'm talking about forum
shopping is they don't want to be in front of the ARC,
so instead they're forum shopping and they'll say we'd
rather work with staff.
That's the forum I'm talking about.
I'm trying to think about why that's not bad precedent.
Anybody who owns a historic building could make the
same argument.
You let them out of the ARC -- HPC/ARC process.
Then why don't you let us out, too?
>> David Smith: And I think as always is the case,
cases are determined by the facts.
The facts of this case is this is a were minimal
differences between where the parties were and where we
can get to something that allows everyone to move
forward.
So you can't simply say I don't like the ARC.
You have to challenge a permit, a development order or
enforcement action because it unduly burdens your
property.
Then you have to prove it unduly burdens your property.
If there's a solution the parties can arrive at that is
a fair solution, this provides you that forum to do
that.
That's really all I look at it as, as a forum to have
that discussion.
Sometimes you'll be successful.
The decision this time was we thought we were and we
were recommending it to you.
Sometimes you won't be successful.
I don't see how we can do away with that.

It does not establish a precedent with regard to ARC. 92
In addition, as you know, we are going to be coming
back with a new ordinance.
We are going to make changes to the process we think
will strengthen it.
Anyone who has views with respect to the prior process
will be prevented from bringing any challenges because
we'll have a new process in effect. It will protect
historic resources.
>> Gwen Miller: Okay.
What are we supposed to do now?
>> Julia COLE.
At this point you have a resolution before you.
You have three options.
You can reject the settlement agreement, move to
approve the resolution, or you do have the option to
approve something different.
If you did approve something different, then we would
have to stake that back to the property owner and they
would decide to approve that or not approve that.
>> Gwen Miller: What is the pleasure of the council.
>> Rose Ferlita: I have just one question.
As far as you know, City of Tampa, have any other
facades within the City of Tampa ever been given
historic status?
>> Unless Dennis corrects me -- I believe this is the
only one that's been designated.
This is the only facade which has been designated.
>> Gwen Miller: What is the pleasure of council.
>> Mary Alvarez: I'd like to move resolution approving
it.
>> Second.
>> Gwen Miller: Question on the motion.
Ms. Saul-Sena.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Thank you, madam chairman.
We all want to save these facades.
And I think that the compromise that Tampa preservation
put forth -- it's in the fat book that's gone around.
I don't think we got a specific printout of that. But
my understanding of what the proposal is that the
facades have remained designated, but basically the
property owner would work through section E which is
that they'll work with city staff, not through the ARC.
I think that's a better proposal because it protects
the facades for perpetuity.
We've all recognized their significance.
And we are representatives of our community.
It is our responsibility to protect and guard the
city's history and resources.
And the way that the -- the proposal that's before us

is a little vague and not clear. 93
It gives a lot of leeway to the developer to interpret,
to try to protect, to try to put forth.
Designation is a stronger, clear, respected method of
protection.
That's why I will not be supporting the motion and
offering a separate motion that we go with that
compromise, which is one of the things that Ms.~Cole
offered to us.
He said you don't have to object or agree.
You can come up with another way.
I'd like to propose another way.
>> John Dingfelder: Is that a substitute motion?
>> Linda Saul-Sena: That's a substitute motion, that
the property would remain designated, but it would not
go through ARC review.
It would go through the review of city staff as
outlined in Exhibit E.
If legal wants me to say it in a fancier way, I will.
I thought that was pretty clear.
>> Gwen Miller: That's the way we voted.
>> John Dingfelder: Accepting all parts of exhibit E,
the whole settlement agreement.
The only addition is that it remains designated through
that process.
In other words, normally if it's designated it has to
go through the ARC.
The difference Linda is pointing out or TPI is pointing
out is we'll leave it designated, make sure it stays
protected, but we'll skip the ARC and let them use
the --
>> Linda Saul-Sena: I think designation really does
offer additional protection.
It makes it official in the city books, if you look
this up, it's got to remain.
>> Gwen Miller: Mr. Smith?
>> David Smith: I didn't bring my Roberts rules of
order, so I can't help on the substitute motion.
The substance of the issue, I think Mr. Dingfelder
described it.
The question is whether or not -- the real primary
difference here is why we didn't need to have all the
heat and light we had.
The real primary thing is does it remain designated or
not.
If it remains designated, TPI said we would like it
designated, but we will accepted the review process
that leaves ARC out of it.
The settlement before you today, says the not
designated but we will use the same review process.

So the issue is whether or not it retains or does not 94
retain its designation.
What we have gotten the developer to agree to is, he
won't -- he's refused to agree to the designation.
He's refused to agree to the motion you're accepting.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Excuse me.
I believe that, from what we heard today, the reason
that the developer invoked all this mediation and
everything is because they didn't like what we did the
first time which is the usual designation processes
which includes the ARC.
What I'm proposing is a designation process which
doesn't include the ARC but does include all the
details that are spelled out in Exhibit E.
I think it's a really good compromise.
>> David Smith: Let me tell you the only other thing I
heard during the process that I remember the developer
saying.
It was partly a concern with respect do points of entry
in litigation.
He was very concerned about people litigating
subsequently with the review process and exactly what
staff does and how staff applies this.
So the primary concern -- one of the other primary
concerns they mentioned was the fact that this would be
a process that would not allow that kind of access,
which may be one of the reasons why Ms. Johnson
objects, because the other difference is participation
at site plan review, is because that could slow down
the process.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Then let me clarify what I'm
suggesting.
I have huge confidence in our staff and I think the 30,
60, 90 would be just fine, but I want it to retain the
designation.
>> Gwen Miller: Did we get a second?
We have a motion and a second.
>> Martin Shelby: I want to clarify procedurally what
you have.
What you have before you is a subsidiary motion to the
main motion?
>> Linda Saul-Sena: No.
>> Martin Shelby: Under Robert's rules of order a
substitute motion is a motion to append a motion --
>> Linda Saul-Sena: It's a significant amendment.
>> Are you say there's no such thing as a substitute
motion that takes precedence?
We've done that before.
>> Martin Shelby: Looking at page 26 of the table of
rules, newly revised 10th edition, barring the

opportunity to research this, I go to 79, which is 95
substitute, under the type of motion.
It refers me to see amend appending motion, number
eleven.
I go there and it shows me a subsidiary motion.
It is not an order when another has the floor, which
you did at this time, you did have the floor.
It must be seconded.
It is debatable because the motion that is seeking to
be amended because it is debatable.
It is amendable.
It requires majority rule and it can be --
>> Gwen Miller: She cannot make that motion?
>> Martin Shelby: She can. But you will vote as to
whether you will amend the main motion.
If you agree with what that motion is -- if you agree
with amending the main motion to reflect what council
member Saul-Sena says, you vote yes.
If you prefer to go back to the main motion, you vote
no.
>> Gwen Miller: All in favor of Ms. Saul-Sena's motion.
>> Mary Alvarez: I want to make the motion approving
the mediated settlement agreement as summarizing the
development review process between the City of Tampa
and Kress square I, Kress square II and Kress square
III LLC.
>> Second.
>> Gwen Miller: Mr. Dingfelder --
>> John Dingfelder: I'm going to state why I'm not
going to support it.
I think it sets a bad precedent.
It allows for forum shopping.
Any time anybody has a regulation they don't like or an
ARC or BLC or VRB process they don't like, they say, I
don't like it, I'm going to circle back.
I'd rather let staff do it.
That's not why we have these boards.
We have these boards set up for a reason.
I think from a process perspective, I think it's a
mistake to chop them out because somebody brought a
lawsuit.
I also have a great concern about this notion of
continuing neglect.
>> Gwen Miller: That's not part of -- that's another
motion.
>> John Dingfelder: This is the pending motion --
>> Mary Alvarez: Discussing my motion.
>> John Dingfelder: I'm going to vote against the
motion.
The last thing I want to say is I think we're treating

the facade as a second class citizen. 96
I don't think there's anywhere in the HPC designation
rules that says the facade is a second class citizen to
an entire building.
When a prior council, and maybe some of you were on it,
decided to include facades in the HPC regulation, you
didn't say sometimes we'll protect the facade and
sometimes we won't.
You said you think they're important.
I'm sorry Ms. Joiner left, but the reason I think
they're important is it's all we have to remember those
buildings.
Those buildings are going to be gone behind them, but
the facade the all we have to remember.
In this case we're remembering the historic and heroic
civil rights movement that occurred there, not the five
and dimes and the little tinker toys that were bought
and sold in those stores.
We're remembering the movements that occurred in and
around those buildings.
>> Gwen Miller: Mr. Dingfelder, you have go son for
long enough.
>> John Dingfelder: Some go longer.
I think it's important we preserve these buildings and
facades.
>> Gwen Miller: You said you weren't going to support
it.
Make it short.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Thank you, madam chairman.
I want to speak directly to the property owners.
These are very significant buildings.
Your steward S.H.I.P. of them is extremely significant.
These buildings need to be treated with respect and I
hope that in the future your track record will be more
stellar than your track record in the past.
We all are here because we recognize what these
buildings have meant and I really look forward to a
sterling job of renovation.
>> Gwen Miller: All in favor say AYE.
Opposed.
>> Gwen Miller: We go back to item nine.
Ms. Cathy Coyle, you said you had information on nine?
>> Cathy Coyle: I'm item ten.
>> Gwen Miller: Let's do item nine.
Ms. Julia COLE.
>> Is Mr. Horner the representative for this item?
Mr. Horner, are you present?
>> Yes, Mr. Horner is the representative.
I want him to accede to this on the record.
He want a voted taken today which is in front of you --

I guess it was a tie vote or non-vote. 97
>> Martin Shelby: Mr. Horner -- council I know this is
rather unusual, but some facts came to our attention
that Mr. Horner does have several options.
It's my understanding, Mr. Horner, based on your
discussion with staff, it is your client's position in
the procedural posture that you are now is to seek a
vote and move forward.
>> That's correct.
Mike horner for the record.
>> Martin Shelby: Thank you very much.
Council, just to bring to your attention, council, this
was brought back pursuant to rule 4-C.
There was a motion to deny which failed on a vote of
2-3 which meant that there were two votes to deny and
three votes against denial.
Pursuant to council's rules that's being brought before
the full council, two council members were not present.
Chair woman Miller and vice chair Harrison, have you
both had the opportunity to review the record and are
you prepared to vote?
>> Gwen Miller: Yes.
>> Shawn Harrison: Yes.
>> Martin Shelby: Just to refresh your recollection
with regard to posture --
>> John Dingfelder: Sit up straight.
A little levity.
>> Martin Shelby: Council has been through a lot this
afternoon.
So you know that what's before you right now, is a
motion to deny.
So an affirmative vote is to deny.
And if you are against denial, you vote no.
Is there any question?
>> John Dingfelder: Can you tell us, madam clerk, who
voted what?
>> The motion was made by Ms. Ferlita and Ms. Saul-Sena
seconded.
Miller absent, Harrison absent.
>> Rose Ferlita: I have two things to declare on the
record.
Saturday afternoon, Saturday evening, with reference to
this particular petition, Steve OTTO called me at home
and asked me to go through the procedural process that
we went through when something that like this happens.
For those of you who read his article, he made comments
subsequent to that.
That's one thing I needed to declare on the record.
Also there was one conversation with my legislative
aide.

She had a conversation with Ms. McMahon who lives in 98
the property that abuts this project.
Ms. Curry spoke to Ms. McMahon.
She said the developer asked to meet with neighbors
abutting the property the night before.
She and her husband did attend --
>> Point of order.
Point of order.
Mr. Shelby, are these additional facts outside of the
record -- I understand the importance of them.
>> Rose Ferlita: The reason I'm saying -- it doesn't
matter to me.
What I'm saying, I think there was some nebulous, at
best, comments that indicated or caused me to think
that Mr. and Mrs. McMahon subsequent to that meeting,
the night before our council meeting, that they had a
difference of opinion about -- instead of not
supporting it, they were supporting it.
If you don't want me to bring it up, it's no problem
for me.
>> Martin Shelby: Council, what I hear is disclosure of
ex-parte communications which council does have a
requirement to disclose prior to the vote.
I do believe before you take the vote that the
petitioner will have an opportunity to, based on what
he heard, choose to rebut it or not.
>> Martin Shelby: After consulting with Ms.~Cole, I
would agree that -- before we continue, I would just
ask that for the purposes of disclosure that council
woman Ferlita complete her ex-parte communications so
that's on the record. And we can determine where we go
from there.
>> Point of order here.
I was always under the impression if we have an
ex-parte communication, we simply disclose we've had an
ex-parte communication.
By disclosing the substance of that conversation, it
could sway the opinion of this council which is
evidence that was not before it.
>> Rose Ferlita: I thought you're supposed to talk
about what you've talked about, not just I spoke to
her.
>> Shawn Harrison: I don't know.
I guess we have a difference of opinion. I thought you
said I've had ex-parte communication.
Boom.
It's over.
>> Martin Shelby: It's interesting this is all coming
up today.
Council, just so you know, the statute that governs

this asks you to disclose the persons, group or entity 99
with whom the verbal communication occurred and the
substances of that communication.
According to the statute, the purpose of that is to
allow the affected party to be able to hear that and to
rebut that if that person chooses.
>> In the posture of this ex parte communication being
disclosed, it is imperative that this council give the
petitioner the right to address that substance of that
verbal communication.
And if that has to be done in the form of putting it on
the record, I believe council would have to open the
public hearing.
>> Rose Ferlita: That's what I was going to say.
We have to open up the public hearing.
Nothing is easy anymore.
>> Gwen Miller: I'm going to call for the vote.
>> No, no, no.
>> John Dingfelder: Re-read what you said.
>> Have we reopened the public hearing?
>> Martin Shelby: The purpose of reopening the public
hearing is for limited purpose --
>> Rose Ferlita: Make a motion to open the public
hearing.
>> Gwen Miller: All in favor say eye.
(Motion carried.)
>> Rose Ferlita: Spoke to Ms. McMahon, she said
developer asked to speak with developers abutting the
property before the meeting.
She and her husband did attend.
She said they listened and went home.
The day after the meeting, two of the developers
appeared at her home unannounced and asked her to write
a statement that she and her husband did meet the night
before the meeting and heard the revisions they planned
to make.
She said she would not sign anything because she was
opposed to the project.
Since that meeting, Mr. McMahon called her home.
She and Mr. McMahon and her neighbors are all opposed
to this project and will not sign anything.
>> Gwen Miller: Mr. Horner, want to speak on that?
>> Thank you.
I have been sworn.
Representing Mize and Sefair.
Since we had that discussion on Thursday night.
At 8:00 Mr. And Mrs. McMahon attended the meeting.
I also had the follow-up discussion with Mr. and Mrs.
McMahon yesterday, my point was as I spoke with her
and I mentioned to her, after we addressed all the

conditions, height restrictions, the trees, et cetera, 100
et cetera.
I turned to her and she acknowledged on the phone, yes.
She said that makes me feel much better.
I said fair enough.
Those comments were not incorporated at the time
Ms. Ferlita received it.
That's the substance.
I wish I could go into an additional presentation on
the merits of the project.
Buff I won't.
>> Rose Ferlita: Move to close the public hearing.
>> Second.
(Motion carried.)

>> Martin Shelby: The motion is to deny.
>> Gwen Miller: I'll put on the record, I reviewed the
tape, also went out to the area.
As I listened to the tape I could see what the
community was talking about, when they say enough is
enough, this out there is really getting out of hand.
So I will be supporting to -- I'm going to support
denying it.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Let me just expand upon my
position, which is advocating denial.
We had competent substantial evidence on the record
about compatibility and that this proposal would not be
compatible and would not be -- it would be detrimental
to the adjacent single family detached development.
We heard this from a number of people.
>> Gwen Miller: All in favor of the motion say AYE.
>> Gwen Miller: If you're for it, you say no, right.
>> Martin Shelby: If you are in favor of denial, you
vote yes.
If you are against denial, you vote no.
>> Gwen Miller: All in favor of denial say yes.
All against the denial say no.
>> John Dingfelder: I'll move to approve --
>> Hang on a second.
There were issues about having to put additional things
on the site plan that night.
Is the site plan ready to go right now?
Are we ready to do first reading on it right now.
>> John Dingfelder: I'm glad you watched it.
I forgot that.
>> Marty mechanic don't, land development.
I did send it out to review.
There were no objections to the additional notes that
they have on the site plan.
I would need to get the clerk a copy of that site plan.

I can pass it out to council if they would like. 101
>> Shawn Harrison: All I'm asking is is the ordinance
ready to be read?
>> Yes.
Sorry.
>> John Dingfelder: I move to approve.
I believe there's competent and substantial evidence to
approve this.
If you do go out there, there are two crumby little
duplexes there with all due respect to those there.
There are duplexes there that need to go because they
don't enhance the neighborhood.
That's why I'm willing to support this project.
This will be better than what's there.
>> Gwen Miller: All those in favor.
>> You have to read the ordinance.

>> Linda Saul-Sena: I want to speak to this for one
moment.
You know how we're looking at our improvements to
Chapter 27 to require a look at what's going to happen
on all the facades, I want to point out to you all that
the facade of the building facing north is one
three-story blank wall.
Is this compatible with the neighborhood?
You need to ask yourself.
When this is book, you're going to drive by and go, oh
my gosh, I approved that, I feel guilty.
>> Rose Ferlita: Maybe we can do city art.
>> Gwen Miller: All those in favor?
Opposed.
We need to vote again.
All in favor of the motion to improve say AYE.
Opposed?

We'll go to number 60.
>> I make a motion to continue item 60 to October 12,
2006.
>> Second.
(Motion carried.)
>> I just want to make sure -- Marty, do we need to
open the public hearing and continue it so I don't have
to renotice on 60?
>> The other thing, Mr. Fernandez was going to make a
presentation on the certified local government.
Do you want that continued as well?
>> yes.
>> Okay.
Help me out here.
Did we take care of six already?

>> Yes. 102
That was this morning.
>> Item number ten.
>> I'm here can Cathy Coyle on the revision toss
Chapter 3 of the wet zoning.
We are prepared to go forward.
I'd like to point out to your attention that Mr. Lane
any said he had a long list of things that he would
like to work with staff on.
We'd ask for a two-week continuance.
>> So moved.
>> 17th is when we're going to -- that's a heavy --
so three weeks please, the 24th, ten a.m.
>> Thank you.
>> Motion and second to continue?
(Motion carried.)
>> Motion to open and second item 58.
>> Second.
(Motion carried.)

>> We're on 58.
We'll go back to 57.
If there's anybody in the audience that intends to
testify on any of our public hearing items, 57, 58 or
59, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn
in.

>> When you state your name, reaffirm that you have
been sworn.
>> Whose got 58?
>> Marty Boyle, land development, I have been sworn.
>> Marty who?
>> Marty McDonald.
Thank you very much.
ZO 6-64.
My colleague brought this forward to you.
She was supposed to be here today, but had to leave.
So this is going from an RS-50 designation to a planned
development.
If you remember, it's located 1709 west Kirby street.
And it's splitting a lot.
The lots are platted.
One lot is 50 by 82.
And the other lot is 60 by 82.
That's how they were originally platted.
The petitioner is proposing to come forward to have two
buildable lots.
There are, the PD, because they don't meet the minimum
standards of the RS-50, the lots will be 55 -- they're
going to replot to have 55, put frontages on each,

public right-of-way on Kirby. 103
The reason it's come back for a continuance is because
there were some technical issues with our landscape
specialist.
You will see notes added to the site plan.
And we now have no objections from our landscape
specialists.
They are going to relocate the sidewalk so it doesn't
interfere with the 38-inch OAK.
And also about the new retention pond, they added a
note stating there would be no excavation.
And -- it would be only hand excavation, excuse me.
And there would be no severing of roots over two inches
in diameter.
Those were the technical issues, why it had to come
back with you.
Staff has no objection, planning commission finds it
consistent with the comp plan.
I can show you pictures to refresh your memory if you
need me to.
>> Very good.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Quick question.
Steve Graham of parks sent me something recently, he
might have said something to everybody, a new sidewalk
material that you can put over trees that doesn't hurt
them.
Because you have such a significant tree, that the
sidewalk is going to go over, you might want to
consider doing that.
And it will save your tree.
I think we should start putting that on -- staff needs
to counsel petitioners about that where you have
tree-sidewalk conflicts like in this petition.
>> My name -- I'm the president of OCIP incorporated.
I'm going to build two new houses on this lot.
Right now we have an old frame house which is in
condition of -- in very, very bad shape.
We'll essentially have to take it down.
>> Do you agree with everything the staff said?
>> Yes.
>> Move to close.
(Motion carried.)

>> Shawn Harrison: Motion and second.
(Motion carried.)
On item 57, we need a motion to continue that.
>> Second.
>> Shawn Harrison: Motion and second. Any discussion
on that motion?
(Motion carried.)

>> That is continued to August 17 at 6 p.m. to run in 104
conjunction with the zoning petition.
>> Shawn Harrison: Item 59, move to open.
>> Second.
(Motion carried.)
>> Good afternoon, historic preservation department.
I have the add valorem package to submit.
This was for one of the houses relocated because of the
widening of I-4.
This is a structure located in Ybor City, this was
moved from 151814th avenue to 172015th avenue.
Build in 18932, currently owned -- 1932, currently
owned by the City of Tampa.
>> Shawn Harrison: Anyone in the public that wishes to
speak?
>> Shawn Harrison: So we have a resolution.
>> Rose Ferlita: Move an ordinance approving historic
preservation property tax exemption application
relative to rest store rigs, renovation, rehabilitation
of certain properties owned by the Florida department
of deposition located at 1720 east 15th avenue, Ybor
City providing for severability, providing an effective
date.
>> Shawn Harrison: Motion and seconds. Any discussion
on the motion?
(Motion carried.)
>> Shawn Harrison: Does that take care of everything?
We still have to do public comment and new business.
>> I have two items, council.
The chair, pursuant to council's rules, have received a
request for additional time of 15 minutes in addition
to their rebuttal time on two wet zoning petitions,
Hooter's 4125 west Hillsborough avenue, 06107,
Hooter's, 4420 west Gandy boulevard. It says please
accept this letter as request for additional time for
rebuttal presentation.
I would requested an additional 15 minutes.
I make this request in an about one dances of caution
and not because I expect to need the time, but to
assure compliance with the city Council's rules.
It states a petitioner may request additional time, and
I'll cut to the chase.
It may only be granted if the petitioner establishes to
the satisfaction of council that additional time is
necessary to afford procedural due process based upon
the complexity of the petition and code regulations
relative there to and the issues and objections
identified in the staff report.
Council members may -- shall vote to grant or deny the
request and determine the additional time necessary, if

any. 105
>> Move to deny and if they need it at the time, we'll
discuss it then.
>> Second.
(Motion carried.)
>> Martin Shelby: Council, finally I received a
telephone call from the administration relative to the
motion last week for the south of Gandy study, TCEA,
the police department headquarters is a secure
building.
This is a public meeting.
The police department is requesting it be held
elsewhere. Public works has looked into the convention
center, a smaller room.
It is available at the convention center for Tuesday
the 26th.
And I'm wondering what council's direction would be.
>> Move to change the venue to the convention center.
>> Second.
>> Martin Shelby: Tuesday the 26th from nine to eleven.
So the council is clear, there's a distinction between
a public hearing and an open public meeting.
While it is open to the public and the public can
attend, it is not set as a public hearing.
Therefore, it is not anticipated at this time there
would be opportunity for public comment.
It is information for council, for the consultant based
on the issues and only set for two hours.
Staff indicates they will need at least that much time.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: I would like to raise a question.
Don't you think the mascot room would be adequate?
>> Martin Shelby: No, for two withins.
It has been communicated to me there's audio visual and
he's requesting the use of a table where all council
and consultants can sit around the table.
>> Motion and second for the convention center.
(Motion carried.)
>> Shawn Harrison: Information reports and new business
by council members.
We'll start with Mr. Dingfelder.
>> John Dingfelder: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I've received over the last years complaints mostly
from the development community about how we handle
sidewalks in terms of sometimes we insist on the
sidewalks being put in.
And other times we don't.
If there's a conflict, we have to put the money into
the sidewalk fund.
I'd like us to get into that issue a little bit.
I will volunteer -- I will volunteer to hold a meeting

or two on the subject and then I'll report back to 106
council if necessary.
But I wanted your blessing on that.
>> Talk to Linda.
>> Shawn Harrison: I've got to tell you.
That is something we did about six years ago or so now.
It has been wildly successful and almost universally
unpopular.
That means I think you're doing something right.
>> John Dingfelder: The other thing that you may or may
not know, we just increased as of last week, the fee
for that sidewalk -- per linear foot.
We increased it dramatically.
>> To reflect the true cost.
>> John Dingfelder: Possibly to reflect the true cost.
The industry says it doesn't reflect the true cost.
>> Rose Ferlita: I want Mr. Harrison to repeat what he
said.
>> John Dingfelder: Probably jumping into another
hornet's northwest.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: I have two things.
I shared with you all an article, an editorial in the,
beltway around urban area would give green light to
sprawl.
You read about knit the paper.
This is the proposed ring road that would potentially
make Tampa into Atlanta.
I'd like to have report back -- I'd like to have a
discussion on this, perhaps the beginning -- or the
middle of September.
How about September 7th under unfinished business, a
report from city transportation department and what
they think about this and does city council have an
opportunity to weigh in on this.
I think it comes before the MPO and the expressway
authority.
It would hugely affect Tampa.
>> Rose Ferlita: After Mr. Harrison answers that
question -- I thought it was county.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: I'm not sure.
So that would be the 7th under unfinished business.
>> Shawn Harrison: Why don't we invite the expressway
authority to make a brief presentation and we'll all be
on the same page.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Perhaps it shouldn't be under
unfinished business.
Perhaps it should be under 10:00.
>> We'll invite them.
>> Council schedules public hearings at 10:00, is this
set for a time period to stop?

>> Shawn Harrison: The 7th looks relatively clear. 107
>> Linda Saul-Sena: 10:15.
That way it's after the public hearings that are
scheduled.
My intention would be, in politeness to the expressway
authority --
>> Shawn Harrison: Total amount of time, maybe 15
minutes.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: I would like for them to make their
presentation in no more than ten minutes.
City staff for five minutes and then we'll have
something to say.
Sounds more like 10:30.
10:30 time certain, expressway authority, our staff and
the legal department on what.
>> You're wanting expressway authority to have ten
minutes and city staff five minutes?
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Let's give them ten.
>> Rose Ferlita: There's three on September 7th
already.
This one was at 10:00.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: 10:30.
>> Shawn Harrison: We have a request.
Is that a motion?
>> Linda Saul-Sena: It's a motion.
>> Second.
(Motion carried.)
>> Shawn Harrison: We'll make sure that works with
them.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Secondly, actually four council
members were able to attend the discussion of Chapter
27's contentious issues yesterday.
We had a lot of interesting conversation.
I'd like for it to come back before council.
We came up with a lot of compromises.
We asked city staff to see if they could make the
compromises into something that's workable verbally.
And we told everybody that this would come back on
August 24th.
So I'd like to -- at I guess 10:30.
People wanted to know when.
I guess 10:30 is as good as it will get.
I think I said unfinished business, but I think it's
going to take more conversation.
>> Martin Shelby: Except, council, you're aware --
>> Shawn Harrison: We have a council meeting on the
24th?
Oh, I was looking at October.
>> Stormwater assessment at 9:30, application -- non-ad
valorem at 9:30.

Westshore area special assessment at 9:30. 108
Two continued closures, two closures.
Revisions to section 27-123, and 151 at ten.
>> Shawn Harrison: That's a huge day.
>> Linda Saul-Sena: Okay.
Let me try a different day.
How about the 14th?
We only have one thing on September 14th at 10:15.
>> That was the subject of the special discussion
meeting.
>> It's already coming back.
That day again would be.
>> 24th of August.
It's already set.
Lovely.
>> Mary Alvarez: Nothing.
>> Rose Ferlita: Mr. Chairman, just one quick thing.
I know we brought this up last week.
I have spoke tone a number of residents, particularly
Bayshore boulevard and south Tampa residents about the
replacement of the generator.
I've spoken with them several times.
Indicated I think would be more descriptive.
Talked to Mr. Daignault, talked to Rick Garrity at EPC
to see what that consent order demanded in terms of
location, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
I committed to bringing back a request from some of my
fellow south Tampa residents that if this was not
resolved by the time we come back to our next meeting
which is two weeks, that we would allow maybe one or
two representatives to come and speak before council
for three to five minutes.
That's a motion if you would support it, I would
appreciate it.
>> Second.
>> Shawn Harrison: Motion and second.
Exactly -- explain it again.
>> Rose Ferlita: They're wanting some explanation,
Mr. Harrison, from the administration as to why the
generator was placed in front of Monte Carlo and what
the alternatives are.
I know it's a financial impact at this point.
The complaint the citizens have -- it makes sense to
me, that it was not discussed.
Sometimes when you have to make decisions about health
or safety or welfare, et cetera, that if you talk to
people in advance, that they may be more amenable to
understanding what outweighs what.
Mr. Daignault has been in touch with them.
My other council members have been in touch with them.

I have made several, several conversations with many of 109
the people in that area.
They would like to come and find out what can be done,
what's an alternative location.
>> Under unfinished business?
>> Shawn Harrison: If you schedule it under staff
report, they'll each have three minutes.
>> Rose Ferlita: I'll tell them if they have certain
spokes people, it would be more logical.
I don't want to open it up to 59 minutes or something.
I think they would be appreciative of that.
I have talked to them from work, from home and I think
this is something we need to resolve and give them a
better explanation than we've given them so far.
>> Motion and second to make a staff report on that
day.
>> On August 17th.
That a large agenda.
>> Rose Ferlita: They're going to be thinking about
this for two weeks.
They may get some resolve.
It doesn't mean I won't keep working on it between now
and then.
If it's not done by that time, I think it's our
responsibility to give them a good answer, formal
answer, an answer that can be televised and we can have
some dialogue with the representatives here that choose
to come and speak.
>> John Dingfelder: I appreciated rose, you bringing
that up again.
Mr. Daignault and I along with other staff members,
Jimmy cook, we've been working on this to find an
alternate location.
As of yesterday we finally found an easement that might
work.
Then the next question is, and Mr. Met calf is looking
into this, is what is the price tag for moving it from
the bunker they want to put it on in Bayshore which I
don't think is a good idea.
I'm sure you don't either -- to somewhere else.
So Ralph met calf is pricing that out.
We'll see if we can get the mayor to go along with it.
We need the generator there.
We're in agreement on that.
We need to find a better location.
I'm hoping between now and the next two weeks, we can
get some resolution.
Hopefully we'll nothing but good news.

>> Rose Ferlita: That's what they want, some

explanation as to why it was put there and what we need 110
to do to move it.
>> Shawn Harrison: Motion and second.
(Motion carried.)
>> Kevin White: I got a phone call about the 40 th
street project. I want to let the general public know,
the four of us that sit on the MPO, that was a policy
committee meeting, the $9 million has not been
allocated and will not be until formally adopted until
next month's meeting, the 40th street --
>> Martin Shelby: It will not even be allocated then,
not voted on til November.
>> Kevin White: Further straightens it out.
Thank you.
Secondly, just briefly, another pioneer in the west
Tampa and central park area has been stricken with a
deadly illness and is requesting the prayers of the
city now.
Ms. Geraldine Barnes who has been on the forefront of
all of Tampa's rights, civil rights and the fairness
and equality of all citizens for the City of Tampa.
She is gravely under the weather at this time and is
asks for all the prayers of all her neighbors and
constituents.
We wish her very well and speediest of recovery.
>> Shawn Harrison: Yes, we all do. Thank you
Mr. White.
I don't have anything.
Motion to receive.
>> Second.
(Motion carried.)
>> Shawn Harrison: Anyone in the public like to speak
on any item.
>> Joe, ladies first.
>> My name is Karen ROTER. I'm here to ask council to
move an addenda item, on the agenda from August to
September 21.
Pam James got it on the agenda.
But we weren't able to get all the application process
taken care of for wet zoning request in Ybor City.
We're asking for it to be moved so we can get the
letters out and do all the things we need to do.
>> Martin Shelby: You should take that up with our
staff.
>> I tried.
She told me to come here.
>> Shawn Harrison: Are you planning to renotice?
>> That's what we were able to do on time is notice our
neighbors.
>> Shawn Harrison: When is it?

, when is the hearing? 111
>> Right now it's miss noticed for August.
>> Shawn Harrison: We've got to know what agenda --
>> It's on August 17.
She said to ask to have it move to September 21.
>> John Dingfelder: If she suggested it, they probably
have an opening.
>> Shawn Harrison: Is it a day hearing or night
hearing?
>> Day hearing.
>> WZ 116.
>> 951 east 7th avenue?
>> 1704.
>> Shawn Harrison: You're going to have to help us out.
>> I know.
I'm sorry. That was the file number she gave me.
>> That might be it.
>> Shawn Harrison: Talking about a wet zoning.
>> I went on line and it was on that agenda, WZ 06-116.
She said to ask for September 21, but I don't know why.
>> Shawn Harrison: We don't even know what it is.
>> Wet zoning requested, sidewalk cafe.
>> I believe the public hearing is set for August 17.
The agenda is not available on line yet.
And I believe she's asking for it to be rescheduled to
September 21st which is your normal third day.
I need to verify the street address again.
>> 1704 east 7th avenue Ybor City.
>> And the amendment fee paid.
>> She'd scheduling it.
>> Shawn Harrison: We don't know what the status of it
is.
I'm suggesting I don't -- you don't have to do this
today.
Get with staff.
They can come back to us next Thursday morning.
>> We won't be here.
>> Next meeting is the 17th.
>> That's what she's scheduled for.
>> I'm just here on her recommendation.
>> I'll second the motion pending staff's approval to
put it on that date.
>> Shawn Harrison: Motion and second.
All in favor signify by saying AYE.
(Motion carried.)
>> I wanted to be here this morning, but I wasn't able
to.
We recently had our swift mud basin board, we approved
that final millage rate in our money for cooperative
funding.

I'm here to say that the project that the mayor talked 112
about on Neptune and Dale maybe by was finally
approved.
We're going to be funding that for a three-year period,
$3.8 million from our basin board.
That's a total of 8 million.
In addition we set up a found for storm water, $1.5
million, another 500 or 600,000 in that fund.
The south Tampa and City of Tampa is the needy persons
for that funding.
I want to bring that to you.
We passed that.
Officially in the books.
The other issue is the report about armory proposal in
west Tampa.
There's been miscommunications.
It was my understanding that there was to be three
proposals short listed.
This is the first time I've seen the city go from six
firms to one firm and not have a back-up --
>> Rose Ferlita: Joe, that's been taken care of.
>> I've had people calling me up left and right.
>> Rose Ferlita: Cindy Miller came up this morning and
told us all about that and said six proposals will be
going to the national guard and they know about the
three that were denied -- not denied.
>> My phone ringing off the hook with that.
The final issue is the same way we did the armory, I'm
looking at in the future because I say in this central
Espanol with the urban league.
My suggestion is that once the dust settles and the
city has an opportunity, that we provide the same
solution or process for the urban league central
Espanol -- let's put it on the street for the public
proposals to resolve the use of that building in the
community.
Some people have suggested that we don't have any type
of a business location, for example for start of
business.
Somebody needs a secretary or office space, that that
building would be great for providing office space for
businesses that maybe one person that needs to -- they
have what's called shared office space, conference
room, office Suites rented out for different businesses
and the like.
I've requested council, if that ever becomes a
possibility, and I'm hearing it probably will, that
that building be put up again like the armory so we can
receive some credit proposals to resolve that solution
provided we can get a wafer or something from the bank.

>> Rose Ferlita: Thank you, Joe. 113
>> Shawn Harrison: Anyone else like to speak?
We're adjourned.
Thank you very much.