Help & information    View the list of Transcripts



Tampa City Council
Thursday, October 12, 2006
9:00 a.m. Session

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


[Sounding gavel]
09:08:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
09:08:10 The chair will yield to Ms. Rose Ferlita.
09:08:13 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, colleagues, ladies and
09:08:17 gentlemen, good morning.
09:08:18 It is my pleasure this morning -- my guest this
09:08:27 morning is Father Bernard.
09:08:30 He is a graduate of the Catholic University of Paris,
09:08:34 spent one year in China as a volunteer, actually

09:08:37 spending six months in America to improve his English.
09:08:44 After this he will go to Taiwan for two years to learn
09:08:47 mandarin, then go to the people's republic of China.
09:08:52 Wonderful, wonderful man.
09:08:54 I'm excited that he said yes.
09:08:56 I'm not sure he knew what he was getting into.
09:08:58 On the way here, when Della and I picked him up, his
09:09:03 first observation was that there was much less stress
09:09:07 here than there is in Paris.
09:09:11 Thank you for joining us.
09:09:13 I ask everyone toe stand and join us in prayer and
09:09:15 remain standing for the invocation.
09:09:21 >>> Let us pray.
09:09:24 O God to ho preservice the universe, we ask you this
09:09:30 morning to bless our Tampa City Council members, for
09:09:38 the betterment of our beloved city and its citizens.
09:09:43 Enlighten their minds and hearts, as they judge the
09:09:50 items that will be put before them today.
09:09:53 To you be all glory and honor and to the ages forever.
09:09:56 Amen.
09:09:59 [ Pledge of Allegiance ]
09:10:14 >>ROSE FERLITA: Before we begin, I just wanted to make

09:10:17 one comment.
09:10:20 Something that you would appreciate.
09:10:23 Father Bernard was telling us he was happy to come but
09:10:27 it is certainly different than in Paris because he
09:10:29 would not have been allowed to do this in Paris.
09:10:31 That's one of the rights and freedoms that we have and
09:10:33 sometimes take for granted.
09:10:35 Father, thank you again for coming.
09:10:37 I truly appreciate it.
09:10:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, father, too. I hope you
09:10:40 enjoy your stay here.
09:10:42 Roll call.
09:10:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
09:10:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
09:10:48 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
09:10:49 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.
09:10:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
09:10:53 At this time I am going to yield to Mary Alvarez.
09:10:55 >>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
09:10:57 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
09:11:00 We have students from the Brandon academy middle
09:11:03 school government club.

09:11:04 And they will be here visiting us today.
09:11:06 And they are sixth graders at the Brandon academy in
09:11:12 Brandon.
09:11:13 And they have all signed up voluntarily to learn more
09:11:15 about how government works and functions.
09:11:18 So I would like to introduce them one by one.
09:11:21 And the first one is Elizabeth shilling.
09:11:27 Please stand up, Elizabeth.
09:11:32 Zack Whitney.
09:11:35 Sean Humphrey.
09:11:38 Aaron Yoloh.
09:11:42 And one parent, Linda Dehumphrey.
09:11:47 And they are all with Raphael Gonzalez.
09:11:53 I hope a little tour around City Hall will remind you
09:11:56 a little bit of how government works.
09:11:58 Please feel free to stay as long as you want and see
09:12:02 how we work up here.
09:12:03 Thank you so much for coming.
09:12:05 >>GWEN MILLER: And I also have some visiting students
09:12:07 I would like to introduce this morning.
09:12:09 They are from the third grade class of the
09:12:11 international studies from McFarland park magnet

09:12:16 elementary school, and their teacher TIA Madia.
09:12:24 Will you all please stand?
09:12:26 [ Applause ]
09:12:29 And if the teacher would like to say something about
09:12:33 your students, you can come forward and speak.
09:12:42 Come to the mike.
09:12:46 >>> My name is Andrea Palmer.
09:12:50 We are so happy to get to do this.
09:12:52 Part of our program that we are working on is how we
09:12:56 govern ourselves.
09:12:57 We have been studying how to be a good citizen.
09:13:00 And we hope to have some answers to those.
09:13:04 So thank you for letting us be here today.
09:13:07 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to have two more third
09:13:10 grade classes coming next week and the following week.
09:13:13 The classes were so large we couldn't bring them all
09:13:15 this morning so we'll do it in threes.
09:13:17 Next week we'll have a group and the next week another
09:13:20 third grade class.
09:13:21 >>MARY ALVAREZ: McFarland park elementary is where I
09:13:25 went to school.
09:13:26 My alma mater.

09:13:28 Thank you.
09:13:30 >>GWEN MILLER:
09:13:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We also have the mayor's youth
09:13:40 core.
09:13:41 They are in the front group there.
09:13:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Do we have someone to introduce them?
09:13:51 >>> Becky Hinestead, the coordinator of the mayor's
09:13:56 youth your.
09:13:57 We'll have another group this evening.
09:14:01 Thank you for allowing us to be here.
09:14:02 >>GWEN MILLER: We are very happy to have you here.
09:14:05 [ Applause ]
09:14:10 We are going to go to our sign-in sheet.
09:14:13 First we have David Smith.
09:14:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Are you going to have number one, Mr.
09:14:23 Smith?
09:14:26 >>DAVID SMITH: Yes.
09:14:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Marty Shelby.
09:14:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: First of all, I would like to ask for
09:14:35 an add-on for the agenda per council's direction with
09:14:38 regard to review of the application for the City
09:14:41 Council vacancies.

09:14:42 I would like a discussion some direction on that.
09:14:52 >> So moved.
09:14:52 >> Second.
09:14:53 (Motion carried).
09:14:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Secondly, I have also become aware
09:14:59 that a memo has been received by council to remove
09:15:02 item number 30 from the agenda because it was
09:15:04 previously approved.
09:15:08 >> So moved.
09:15:08 >> Second.
09:15:09 (Motion carried).
09:15:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Also a petition to set a public
09:15:13 hearing on plan amendment.
09:15:15 I believe there is a substitute filed because one of
09:15:17 the plan amendments has been withdrawn so number 50
09:15:20 will be a substitute.
09:15:21 And finally, with regard to number 66, which is the
09:15:25 cigar factory, I believe council would like to add on
09:15:28 a discussion, Mr. Smith had intended to, but it's not
09:15:34 on today's agenda, to have a discussion of the
09:15:36 historic preservation ordinance.
09:15:38 I would like to ask council if they would join that as

09:15:41 item number 66.
09:15:43 >> So moved.
09:15:44 >> Second.
09:15:44 (Motion carried).
09:15:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to clarify something on what
09:15:50 we just did.
09:15:51 66 is set for a time certain.
09:15:53 But what I was thinking is, could we have that
09:15:55 discussion prior to?
09:16:00 I don't see why we couldn't add that onto the staff
09:16:03 report at the beginning of our agenda.
09:16:07 That was the intent of my motion.
09:16:09 >> Well, if you wish to have the discussion of the
09:16:11 historic preservation added to staff reports, I
09:16:16 believe that would be appropriate.
09:16:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And then we could have audience
09:16:20 participation, and then we could go to number 66 at
09:16:23 10:00.
09:16:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If that's council's desire, that's
09:16:26 fine.
09:16:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That is the intent of my motion.
09:16:29 >>GWEN MILLER: We go to the approval of the agenda.

09:16:32 Is there any items we need to pull from the agenda?
09:16:35 Mr. Dingfelder?
09:16:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Two items.
09:16:39 On 34.
09:16:42 I sent an e-mail yesterday to staff, if somebody could
09:16:45 come and talk to us when we get to that item 34.
09:16:49 That's a Cindy Miller type of item.
09:16:52 And then -- so I would like that pulled separately, if
09:16:57 the chair would indulge me.
09:17:01 Then the other one I need to abstain on, the which is
09:17:08 item 43.
09:17:09 I can discuss that now or whenever.
09:17:13 >>GWEN MILLER: You can do it now.
09:17:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Shelby?
09:17:18 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I received your e-mail, council
09:17:21 Dingfelder.
09:17:21 You believe this, as I understand it correctly, that
09:17:24 it may pose an appearance of a conflict of interest,
09:17:27 and you wish to abstain on the basis of the fact --
09:17:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My family's direct interest, CC
09:17:40 productions.
09:17:41 >> To the benefit of a relative of yours?

09:17:46 >> Correct.
09:17:47 My spouse has a business relationship related to this
09:17:51 event.
09:17:53 >> Thank you.
09:17:53 On that basis I'll prepare the document for you to
09:17:56 file with the clerk of the court.
09:18:02 With the city clerk's office.
09:18:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I don't want to hold item 41 and 42
09:18:09 but I want to make comments on them when that comes up
09:18:12 under transportation.
09:18:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Any other items to be pulled?
09:18:14 Need a motion toe approve the agenda.
09:18:16 >> So moved.
09:18:17 >> Second.
09:18:17 (Motion carried).
09:18:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Now we go to our regular agenda, staff
09:18:24 reports, item number 1.
09:18:32 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney, speaking on item number
09:18:34 1.
09:18:35 Number 1 deals with the approval of the interlocal
09:18:38 agreement with Hillsborough County at the Tampa
09:18:42 Convention Center, although the agreement is a very

09:18:49 difficult agreement and could be more balanced to try
09:18:52 to keep our relations on an even keel here.
09:19:01 But we need this.
09:19:05 It's approximately a $6 million job.
09:19:07 It's very important that we get this roof repaired.
09:19:11 We don't have time to DALLY on it.
09:19:16 We need this approval.
09:19:18 Administration is recommending it for your approval.
09:19:22 Our friends to the east promised they are working with
09:19:24 us in good faith.
09:19:25 We are certain, therefore, they will not invoke the
09:19:30 clause in interlocal agreement and that they will in
09:19:33 fact fund the repairs as part of the agreement, by no
09:19:36 later than August of 2007, which looks like it is the
09:19:39 date.
09:19:40 We wish it were sooner.
09:19:41 But for reasons that we don't fully fathom, it looks
09:19:46 like we are waiting for August of 2007.
09:19:49 We are moving forward with design work, is my
09:19:52 understanding.
09:19:53 So we'll try to use that time as wisely as we can.
09:19:57 But that's essentially where we are.

09:19:59 And on that basis the administration has asked me to
09:20:02 recommend that for your approval.
09:20:05 And I'm doing so.
09:20:06 If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer.
09:20:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Two quick comments.
09:20:11 First of all the tourist development council
09:20:12 unanimously encouraged the commission to fund the
09:20:15 entire amount out of tourist development dollars,
09:20:17 which they failed to do, but the tourist development
09:20:20 council recognizes the centrality of the convention
09:20:25 center in encouraging tourism in our area so it wasn't
09:20:28 for lack of trying by other folks.
09:20:29 Secondly, I did look into finding the funding to put a
09:20:34 green roof on the convention center.
09:20:36 It's a very large roof.
09:20:37 It's 19 acres.
09:20:38 It's going to cost 6 million to do a regular roof.
09:20:41 It would cost approximately 10 million to do a green
09:20:44 roof.
09:20:44 Based on that, and the fact that funding at that level
09:20:48 is tough to come by, I won't be pursuing that.
09:20:51 But a group of people in our community interested in

09:20:53 sustainability are looking at money for green roofs
09:20:57 for city buildings in the future with an understanding
09:20:59 that ultimately it's a better infrastructure
09:21:03 investment because it lasts longer, saves air
09:21:05 conditioning, and is altogether a good thing.
09:21:07 I'm sorry we are not able to pursue it with the
09:21:10 convention center but we will be looking at other
09:21:12 opportunities for green roofs in our community.
09:21:15 Thanks.
09:21:17 >> I would like to move the resolution.
09:21:19 >> Second.
09:21:19 (Motion carried).
09:21:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 2.
09:21:30 >>> Donna Wysong, legal department.
09:21:32 I'm here today on item number 2 and 3.
09:21:35 Back in July, you requested staff and the legal
09:21:38 department to come back to you with recommended
09:21:41 changes to the hardship criteria that the VRB uses to
09:21:46 make a determination under any variances.
09:21:50 I submitted a memo to you earlier this weeklies ting
09:21:53 some of the recommendations that legal department and
09:21:55 staff have come up with.

09:21:56 However, I would ask that you delay consideration of
09:21:59 the changes today, because councilman Dingfelder has
09:22:03 called a meeting where he has invited former members
09:22:06 of the VRB and other people who might have some
09:22:09 valuable input to this process, and he has scheduled
09:22:12 that meeting for October 25th.
09:22:14 So if we could delay consideration of those
09:22:17 recommended changes until after that date so that we
09:22:19 can get that very valuable feedback.
09:22:22 Also, in addition to the hardship criteria issue, you
09:22:27 asked us to look into the changing the appellate
09:22:31 process to allow City Council to be able to reverse
09:22:37 the decision on the first appeal.
09:22:39 I put the language in the memo.
09:22:41 I basically added the words "or reverse" affirm or
09:22:45 reverse.
09:22:46 However, this discussion really needs to take place in
09:22:49 the broader discussion, and I think Mr. Shelby is
09:22:52 going to handle that.
09:22:54 It's a broader discussion of whether this should be
09:22:55 handled by a hearing master.
09:22:57 So I put the language in the ordinance.

09:23:00 And it's in your memo.
09:23:03 Once again I'll let Mr. Shelby handle a discussion of
09:23:06 that.
09:23:07 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Wysong, how many times -- how much
09:23:12 does it cost anytime they go from one appeal to
09:23:15 another appeal to another appeal?
09:23:17 Does it cost them any money?
09:23:19 >>> Well, they do have to notice the appeal the first
09:23:22 time.
09:23:22 If it comes back after being remanded to the VRB and
09:23:28 it comes back we don't require them to notice again.
09:23:30 However, in terms of whatever it may be costing the
09:23:32 individual to not go forward own a project or
09:23:35 whatever, I can't say.
09:23:40 >> Are there fees involved in bringing up the MPOs or
09:23:43 anything?
09:23:43 >>> No, no fees involved.
09:23:47 Just the notice requirement.
09:23:51 >> The notice is in the mail and so on?
09:23:53 >>> Correct.
09:23:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There's also the cost, what council
09:23:59 gets in the packet, which is copies to the council

09:24:02 members, copies of the clerk, of the transcript, the
09:24:06 record that needs to be reviewed.
09:24:08 There's a cost in that.
09:24:10 >> So it could be upwards of 5 or $600?
09:24:13 >>> It can be.
09:24:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: They have to get it transcribed
09:24:16 themselves, right?
09:24:16 It's not that we transcribe it.
09:24:18 That can be pricey.
09:24:23 >> So, Mr. Shelby, you're going to be to us with
09:24:28 these?
09:24:28 >>> Well, with regard to the item 2, if you take them
09:24:32 one at a time.
09:24:32 I believe, councilman Dingfelder, do you want to
09:24:36 discuss the discussion meeting?
09:24:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Pursuant to council's motion awhile
09:24:41 back, Mrs. Wysong was referring to, we have scheduled
09:24:44 a public meeting.
09:24:45 We have noticed for October 25th at 12 p.m. in the
09:24:50 council conference room up here on this floor, the
09:24:52 third floor, we have invited past and present members
09:24:55 of the VRB and the public and the press to have a

09:24:58 discussion about the hardship criteria.
09:25:03 And then we will get back with you in our report about
09:25:07 that meeting.
09:25:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: With regard to item number 3, I want
09:25:13 to thank Ms. Wysong for doing the changes.
09:25:16 That is a very significant, albeit minor change in
09:25:21 verbiage, but it does have a significant impact.
09:25:24 With regard to the whole concept of the hearing master
09:25:26 process, what goes to appeal and what does not, I wish
09:25:31 to bring to council's attention that in discussion
09:25:34 with Mr. Smith, and Ms. Cole particularly about the
09:25:39 process, there are many ways to go about it.
09:25:41 And I believe the legal department is working on
09:25:44 bringing council with changes to the code that will
09:25:48 allow council to make particular decisions,
09:25:52 appropriate decisions, and I'll be working with Mr.
09:25:55 Smith and Ms. Wysong, thank you, to see what we can
09:25:59 bring back to council.
09:26:00 If council wishes to make this change, I believe what
09:26:03 will be the appropriate time to do that?
09:26:05 Or should we hold off until we come back?
09:26:07 I don't know when that would be coming, actually.

09:26:12 >>> Well, I guess that is a timing issue.
09:26:14 If they want to do something in the short run to fix
09:26:17 this rather lengthy appeal process, then they can
09:26:19 direct me to amend the ordinance and then I would
09:26:22 bring it back for first reading at some point.
09:26:24 I guess it just depends on the timing as to how.
09:26:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would -- this is a conversation
09:26:34 that I think needs to be looked at, probably not just
09:26:38 in terms of fixing, but what powers do we want to
09:26:41 maintain?
09:26:41 Which ones do you want to delegate?
09:26:44 I think it needs to be a broad conversation.
09:26:47 So rather than doing this as a stop gap measure I
09:26:50 would rather have the larger conversation.
09:26:52 And I hope that when we do that we'll set the time to
09:26:56 really look at the different pros and cons of, you
09:26:59 know, having this decision making.
09:27:03 >>> It is important to note if you make this change,
09:27:06 direct me to make this change today, that this would
09:27:08 affect not only the VRB but also affect the
09:27:11 architectural review commission and the Barrio Latino
09:27:15 commission as well.

09:27:16 And it would have to go to the Planning Commission for
09:27:18 review as well.
09:27:22 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Let's go through this process.
09:27:25 Goes to the VRB.
09:27:26 They deny it.
09:27:28 They come to City Council.
09:27:30 We send them back to them we can't agree or whatever,
09:27:35 remand it back.
09:27:36 Then they can't agree again, so then they send it back
09:27:39 to us.
09:27:41 It's like a death penalty appeal.
09:27:44 [ Laughter ]
09:27:50 There has to be some way that we can streamline that
09:27:53 part of it, you know.
09:27:54 So can you look into that?
09:27:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, just to refresh your
09:28:00 recollection, this appeal method as you know is
09:28:02 relatively new and was done as a result of a court
09:28:05 decision by the late Judge Simms there. Was a point
09:28:08 where council was having to hear every appeal as a
09:28:12 first of first impression, as council knows takes up a
09:28:16 good portion of its morning agenda.

09:28:17 So this was done to address the concerns that were in
09:28:22 that opinion and create a certiorari standard, a
09:28:25 certain, you know, basis, almost like a court review.
09:28:29 And the purpose of that -- and I heard a history of
09:28:32 it -- is because there was a time when things went
09:28:35 directly to circuit court, and certain people,
09:28:38 neighborhood associations, did not have the
09:28:40 wherewithal and challenge to -- money to challenge in
09:28:44 the court so I guess to come back to council.
09:28:47 So believe me, this was a good idea at the time, and
09:28:51 there were different ways to approach it.
09:28:53 And there are different -- there are huge potential
09:29:00 variations in how council can handle it.
09:29:03 I spoke with Mr. Territo about the way it's handled in
09:29:07 Lee County.
09:29:08 Lee County has upwards of three quarter of a million
09:29:11 dollar budget with five hearing officers. It's not to
09:29:16 say this is what the city wants to do but there is a
09:29:18 whole range to go about it.
09:29:20 I don't want to speak for Mr. Smith but he has been
09:29:22 talking about how the ordinance can be created to
09:29:24 allow council certain parameters in which to operate

09:29:27 if they wish to create a hearing officer.
09:29:30 But there are many things that need to be addressed.
09:29:32 What I just don't want to have happen, council, is to
09:29:39 not fully understand or to reject something because
09:29:43 it's not been fully hashed out.
09:29:46 Basically what I'm asking for is, if council wishes to
09:29:49 address this as a stop gap, county do so.
09:29:54 If council wishes to take it with a time certain that
09:29:57 we can actually sit down and have a workshop, we can
09:30:00 set that now.
09:30:01 But here's my point.
09:30:03 My point is that this could be a major paradigm shift
09:30:08 in the way council runs business.
09:30:12 And that could be a good thing, but it has to be done
09:30:14 with eyes open.
09:30:18 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And I agree with that, Mr. Shelby, I
09:30:21 really, really do.
09:30:22 Because we as a council, we get these appeals, we get
09:30:24 these transcripts, we spend hours looking at these
09:30:27 transcripts, we come back the next morning and they
09:30:29 say, it's withdrawn, you know?
09:30:31 I mean, there's got to be something that we can do

09:30:34 about that.
09:30:37 I don't know, Ms. Wysong, that's your job.
09:30:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Looking at our calendar, I think
09:30:44 that this would require some real thought.
09:30:49 And my question would be, would Mr. White and Ms.
09:30:54 Ferlita like to be part of the conversation?
09:30:56 Should we put it off till December?
09:31:00 [ Laughter ]
09:31:04 >>GWEN MILLER: We know what they are going to say.
09:31:08 >> I would like to put this on our calendar at 11:00
09:31:12 on December 7th for a full conversation about the
09:31:15 different implications and keeping this
09:31:17 responsibility, and I would like Mr. Shelby to work
09:31:22 with Ms. Wysong with a really clear explanation of the
09:31:28 pros and cons of the different choices.
09:31:29 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mrs. Saul-Sena, just before your
09:31:33 motion, and we are done with this, I know that we are
09:31:42 not going to be -- I try to control him but it's
09:31:46 difficult -- all I want to tell you is we are not
09:31:51 going to be here to experience how much bet theory
09:31:53 goes or what.
09:31:54 I don't have a problem with you making it before then

09:31:56 simply because if we have input to give that you might
09:31:59 help, fine.
09:32:01 And I'm sure my colleague Mr. White feels exactly the
09:32:03 same.
09:32:04 We are not going to be here when it comes into effect
09:32:06 but if we have some experience that you can either
09:32:09 take or not take, benefit from, it's okay.
09:32:11 I don't care either way.
09:32:12 It's up to you.
09:32:17 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a little later discussion of
09:32:20 the potential charter review issues we are going to be
09:32:23 taking up.
09:32:23 And this isn't a charter issue.
09:32:25 But if we are going to go down the path of charter
09:32:28 review now, this might be something that we consider
09:32:32 asking our folks to take a look at as well.
09:32:36 So I would just ask everyone to keep that in mind if
09:32:39 we are going to take a look at the charter.
09:32:41 This might be something they can -- we can look at as
09:32:44 well.
09:32:44 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm of the opinion of Mr. Shelby and
09:32:51 Ms. Wysong, to explore the options rather than bring

09:32:54 it to the charter review.
09:32:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is there a motion on the floor?
09:33:01 >>GWEN MILLER: No, we don't.
09:33:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I actually did make a motion.
09:33:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Would you change that motion for Ms.
09:33:09 Ferlita and Mr. White to be a part of this?
09:33:11 They might have some excellent ideas and we need that
09:33:14 input before they leave.
09:33:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Hear, hear.
09:33:18 I would like to change the date of this conversation
09:33:21 to November 2nd.
09:33:23 >>ROSE FERLITA: I can't be here.
09:33:26 [ Laughter ]
09:33:35 >> Second.
09:33:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
09:33:37 (Motion carried).
09:33:40 11:00.
09:33:41 On the 2nd.
09:33:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And discuss the appeal process and
09:33:50 hearing master option.
09:33:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Ms. Wysong.
09:33:54 Item number 4.

09:33:56 Is anyone here to discuss it?
09:33:58 >>DAVID SMITH: David Smith, city attorney.
09:34:06 I'm not real sure what we are discussing but I'm
09:34:08 certainly here to help out.
09:34:12 I have not had the opportunity to have a discussion
09:34:14 with council member Harrison has in mind but I really
09:34:18 don't have anything specific to say.
09:34:19 I think the intent of it, as I understood, was it was
09:34:23 the desire to have an internal discussion to get a
09:34:26 sense of council and whatever issues, I don't know.
09:34:28 I think that happened when I was enroute in the
09:34:30 elevator at the last meeting, which, by the way, I'll
09:34:33 try to make it a point to be here at the end of the
09:34:36 meeting, because those are the times that council
09:34:39 members discuss items that are unique interest to
09:34:43 them.
09:34:44 And I don't hear that.
09:34:46 I don't get the flavor of exactly what you are trying
09:34:48 to accomplish.
09:34:49 I'm not sure why I am radioactive, I have no phone on
09:34:53 today.
09:34:53 But I am here to do whatever I can do.

09:34:57 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, I don't have anything
09:35:00 in mind really, Mr. Smith.
09:35:02 This is something that we talked about a couple of
09:35:04 years ago.
09:35:04 I think we just decided to put it on the table because
09:35:09 wasn't something we had to deal with at the time.
09:35:11 We are now approaching a March election.
09:35:14 That's the time if we are going to make decisions
09:35:22 before the charter it would go to the voters.
09:35:24 I think if we make any changes to the charter, there's
09:35:28 some deadline that the supervisor has by which we have
09:35:30 to put those things on the ballot.
09:35:32 I just think the timely conversation, and if my
09:35:34 colleagues think that it's appropriate for us to take
09:35:36 a look at some of our charter provisions, which I
09:35:41 think we all believe probably need to be looked at,
09:35:44 then we ought to start having that discussion and go
09:35:47 forward with it.
09:35:48 So I don't have anything in particular.
09:35:52 I think if we are going to do something, now is the
09:35:54 time to do it.
09:35:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I don't have any particular issues.

09:35:57 I know last time we looked at it, we cleared up some
09:36:05 gender issues, and I think it would be worth getting
09:36:11 us a copy, taking a look at it, putting it on the
09:36:13 agenda, and finding out when the deadline would be, if
09:36:16 there were anything.
09:36:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: David, you may have not have an
09:36:28 answer to this at the second because it's a new
09:36:30 discussion.
09:36:30 I don't even know if you were here when we had the
09:36:32 discussion last time.
09:36:33 But what I'm wondering about is is the march election
09:36:41 necessarily the only election that these issues could
09:36:42 be put on the ballot?
09:36:43 In other words, is it possible if we couldn't get the
09:36:46 language, et cetera, and the issues worked out, that
09:36:49 we could just defer that until the presidential
09:36:53 election in 2008, the general election in 2008, but
09:37:01 obviously only city voters would be voting on those
09:37:04 issues?
09:37:04 Unless you -- unless you know the answer to that --
09:37:09 >>> What I would suggest you do is a couple of things.
09:37:11 Number one, I need to come to you with an outline of

09:37:13 the process, no exactly what the requirements are.
09:37:16 I do not know what the time frames are.
09:37:17 My suspicion is, and I think this is accurate, but I
09:37:21 will confirm it, is that you can have any election and
09:37:26 you can have a special election.
09:37:27 A special election is not a good idea because it's
09:37:30 expensive.
09:37:30 And it doesn't have to be in the March election.
09:37:34 Can be in the November election or the next.
09:37:37 Anytime you have an election which is the most prudent
09:37:40 way to do it because that's the most cost effective
09:37:42 way to do it.
09:37:43 It is a complicated process.
09:37:44 I would mention a couple of things that would concern
09:37:46 me.
09:37:47 And sorry to interject myself in this.
09:37:51 But we are really swamped with a lot.
09:37:55 I'm sorry, we are trying to catch you up
09:37:57 legislatively.
09:37:58 But we'll do whatever we need to do.
09:38:00 I'm concerned about the timing.
09:38:01 I'm also concerned that you are going to lose two of.

09:38:04 >>MORRIS MASSEY: Experienced participants that won't
09:38:06 be here for this discussion.
09:38:07 You may have two interim participants.
09:38:10 I'm not sure that's the most prudent way to proceed.
09:38:13 I understand.
09:38:13 You should discuss charter if that's what you want to
09:38:16 discuss.
09:38:16 I would probably encourage you because it also helps
09:38:19 the workload that we do so after the March election so
09:38:22 you have a full new board, whoever that is, the ones
09:38:25 that are really going to deal with the process
09:38:27 throughout.
09:38:28 I think that would be a prudent thing to do.
09:38:30 And I would like an opportunity to look at it.
09:38:32 I do not know what all the election requirements are.
09:38:36 I obviously can find that out.
09:38:37 But I do know -- I was partially involved towards the
09:38:41 early part when I arrived.
09:38:43 Do you have an ordinance process for amending the
09:38:46 charter.
09:38:46 And because we have an ordinance process, we have the
09:38:51 one issue concept.

09:38:52 So we may have to do it with a series of ordinances,
09:38:55 so the public doesn't have to vote up or down on
09:38:59 multiple issues.
09:39:00 They get to choose, you know, whatever it is that
09:39:03 comes out, bifurcated into a county mayor and the veto
09:39:10 power was a separate issue because that was seen as
09:39:12 two functional governmental concepts, the public has a
09:39:15 right to vote on separately.
09:39:17 So that separation of issues is complicated.
09:39:20 We are all smart people.
09:39:22 I'm sure we can figure it out.
09:39:24 I just caution you, given the constraints we have, and
09:39:28 obviously an extremely important process.
09:39:30 It's one that this charter that we have, has been here
09:39:33 for awhile, it's got its blemishes but seems to pretty
09:39:40 well.
09:39:41 There are some instances in the charter that when
09:39:42 don't actually comply with current statute.
09:39:44 So we don't want to do it two and three times.
09:39:47 We want to dot once.
09:39:49 We want to cover all the issues we need to cover.
09:39:51 So maybe what I can if you like is come back with -- I

09:39:56 would like to give you a written explanation of the
09:39:57 process, because then you have it.
09:39:59 And I'm also committed to that view of it.
09:40:01 Writing takes a little longer time.
09:40:04 I'm giving awe quick update.
09:40:05 I would like to come back to you with a written
09:40:07 summary of exact lib how this unfold so that you can
09:40:12 consider it carefully because it is a very important
09:40:14 consideration.
09:40:16 >>GWEN MILLER: I agree, Mr. Smith.
09:40:17 And you are thinking the same thing I am thinking.
09:40:20 But we have two members leaving and two replacing.
09:40:23 I think they need to be a part of this.
09:40:27 I'm like Ms. Saul-Sena.
09:40:29 We have some things that really need change, and
09:40:32 unless you go through it and give us a written report,
09:40:35 we can see what we might not know now.
09:40:38 So coming back with a summary will be fine.
09:40:40 Mr. Harrison?
09:40:41 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Part of what we had talked about a
09:40:43 couple of years ago was it's true that we may not know
09:40:48 of anything that we from our own personal experience

09:40:52 think ought to be changed.
09:40:53 But the idea was, we appoint some citizens to review
09:40:57 the charter.
09:40:58 And then they make recommendations.
09:41:01 And T.H.A.N., I know we have given this to T.H.A.N.
09:41:04 and they were supposed to be looking into it.
09:41:07 And I don't think we ever heard back from them, or
09:41:10 else we did report back to them.
09:41:12 We just never did anything with it.
09:41:14 But they should be part of the process.
09:41:16 And so I had something in mind that was a little bit
09:41:19 more comprehensive than us just sort of going through
09:41:22 and saying we want to change this word or -- that kind
09:41:25 of process.
09:41:27 So maybe what we also need to do is to dust off where
09:41:31 T.H.A.N. was in this process.
09:41:34 And David, when you report back to us, maybe you can
09:41:37 include where we were in that as well.
09:41:40 >>> Be happy to.
09:41:41 >>SHAWN HARRISON: And I would like to know what is the
09:41:43 deadline if we want to put it on the March ballot?
09:41:46 What is the deadline for putting it on the March

09:41:49 ballot?
09:41:50 And we don't have to do it in the regular city cycles,
09:41:53 then we are fine.
09:41:54 We can convene a full board and --
09:41:58 >>> And I would like to be sure I give you correct
09:42:00 answers to those questions so let me look at precise
09:42:03 provisions in the statute, and charter.
09:42:09 >>SHAWN HARRISON: It sounds clearly we need to make
09:42:11 some changes.
09:42:12 As you said we have some things in the charter that we
09:42:14 are not complying with state law so obviously there
09:42:16 needs to be some changes.
09:42:18 >>> What we do in that instance, we comply with state
09:42:21 law because we have to.
09:42:22 It's just the charter doesn't have the same language.
09:42:24 I mean, we can live with it.
09:42:26 But if we are going to make changes we might as well
09:42:28 correct those types of things as well.
09:42:30 >> So is three weeks enough time to provide --
09:42:35 >>> I would hope so.
09:42:37 Let's try to do that.
09:42:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I won't be supporting any measure that

09:42:45 will be coming up to change the charter at this point.
09:42:50 I'm going off the board in March.
09:42:54 My two colleagues on the left will not be here.
09:42:58 I don't think it's fair for us to do anything till we
09:43:01 get a new board in here.
09:43:02 So I won't be supporting any measures to change it.
09:43:05 But you can bring your summary.
09:43:07 We can talk about it.
09:43:08 But it won't have my support.
09:43:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: One of the things that I have
09:43:15 spoken to in the past about the charter is the fact
09:43:18 that we don't have staggered terms.
09:43:22 And so, therefore, theoretically, you know, all seven
09:43:26 of us and the mayor as of this March could be gone,
09:43:32 and then you have got a whole new eight people running
09:43:35 the city.
09:43:36 And that's pursuant to the current charter.
09:43:41 I think that's a little dangerous.
09:43:43 It never happened but it could happen.
09:43:45 Maybe some people would say it might be a good thing,
09:43:47 I don't know.
09:43:48 But, anyway, I think that's something that if we do

09:43:52 any type of charter or review either internally or
09:43:56 whatever, I think that's an issue that needs to be
09:43:58 looked at.
09:44:00 Most governments have staggered rotating terms.
09:44:03 So you lose three, four stay, and then they rotate on
09:44:08 like that.
09:44:09 So I think that's something he would should look at.
09:44:13 >>ROSE FERLITA: You know, Mr. Smith, what Mr.
09:44:16 Dingfelder brought up, I believe I brought up last
09:44:19 term.
09:44:20 And that effectively could happen.
09:44:22 And that's a concern.
09:44:23 But, at the same time, I agree with my colleague Ms.
09:44:27 Alvarez that we looked so long, and I think you guys
09:44:30 are pretty packed right-of-way now with issues and
09:44:31 concerns and things you are trying to resolve in the
09:44:35 whole process, some leaving, some coming, some
09:44:37 interim, some being elected.
09:44:39 I would just caution my colleagues that we have done
09:44:43 with this whole time, and it would seem to me the next
09:44:46 cycle would be a better time to be more comprehensive
09:44:49 and think about it, and then of course get some input

09:44:53 from you guys when you're not so pressed.
09:44:57 Just my observation.
09:45:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Smith.
09:45:04 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Three weeks from today.
09:45:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
09:45:06 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
09:45:08 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
09:45:09 Opposed, Nay.
09:45:11 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Nay.
09:45:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Now I think what go to what Mr.
09:45:17 Shelby suggested on the agenda, and that is a
09:45:19 discussion of preservation.
09:45:21 By Mr. Smith.
09:45:34 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
09:45:36 You may recall, I think this discussion literally
09:45:39 started in February of 2006 pursuant to a motion and
09:45:43 approval by this council, a 5-2 vote.
09:45:47 We were directed to look at the issue of creating a
09:45:50 revised ordinance that would include, for lack of
09:45:55 better terminology, opt-out provision.
09:45:57 I indicated at that time, I was concerned about a
09:46:00 couple of issues that I wasn't sufficiently conversant

09:46:05 with and wanted to make sure we looked at that and
09:46:07 came back to you and helped you understand all the
09:46:10 implications.
09:46:12 One of them was what we call the certified local
09:46:14 government program.
09:46:15 We have reviewed that issue.
09:46:17 I believe Dennis Fernandez has talked to you briefly
09:46:19 about it.
09:46:20 And the certified local government issue is unaffected
09:46:24 either way.
09:46:29 Did you have the specified individual professionals
09:46:31 that participated in the review and determination?
09:46:34 There's in a reason to change that.
09:46:35 I don't think anybody wants to change that.
09:46:37 I don't think council wants to change that.
09:46:40 So the idea is, as I understand it, unless you tell me
09:46:44 something differently, we are to proceed to keep
09:46:47 certified local government program intact.
09:46:50 What the issue then really devolves down to is what
09:46:55 role do you provide for consent in the process?
09:47:06 Our department is concerned about an opt-out approach.
09:47:09 There is some case law out there that suggests that an

09:47:12 opt-out could be what is known as an improper
09:47:16 delegation of legislative authority.
09:47:17 There's also potential due process consideration.
09:47:21 What that essentially means is you are the legislative
09:47:23 body.
09:47:25 You set the criteria.
09:47:26 And then the judicial role, awe reply them.
09:47:31 We cannot have others make that determination and if
09:47:34 there's an opt out you have the appearance of the
09:47:36 individual property owners deciding, it doesn't apply
09:47:38 to me.
09:47:39 Nonetheless, there is the possibility of having
09:47:42 consent, very actively involved in the process.
09:47:47 There are jurisdictions that allow owner-initiated
09:47:52 processes.
09:47:53 Clearly, an owner doesn't initiate it unless he or she
09:47:56 is prepared to consent to the outcome.
09:48:00 That is something that provides an increment of
09:48:02 protection.
09:48:02 Some would challenge that as having the same frailties
09:48:06 as the opt-out.
09:48:07 We don't think so.

09:48:08 We think it's defensible if that's the route council
09:48:14 wants to go.
09:48:14 There's a third alternative, however, that I think
09:48:17 came out of the discussion.
09:48:18 As you recall, this got a little protracted because I
09:48:21 was meeting with all the various interested parties
09:48:23 who chose to come to discuss this and there were a
09:48:29 fair number of folks who did, people from Tampa
09:48:31 Preservation, Inc., and other stakeholders.
09:48:34 There were also representatives of some development
09:48:36 interests and attorneys who represent developers.
09:48:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry to interrupt and please
09:48:42 forgive me.
09:48:45 Mrs. Wysong brought to me a point of order.
09:48:48 I want to make sure we are proceeding in a correct
09:48:49 manner.
09:48:50 The cigar factory issue was set for a time certain at
09:48:54 10:00.
09:48:55 >> Right.
09:48:56 But this is a general discussion about historic
09:48:57 preservation.
09:48:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's correct.

09:49:00 And that's why I didn't have a problem with it but
09:49:02 it's been brought to my attention that a
09:49:04 representative of the cigar factory, owners, is
09:49:07 concerned that his clients are not here for this
09:49:09 discussion, because it was his understanding it was
09:49:11 set for a time certain of 10:00.
09:49:13 I just wanted to bring that to Mr. Smith's attention,
09:49:15 to council's attention.
09:49:19 If you are discussing generally a legislative matter,
09:49:21 not relative to the public hearing, I think that would
09:49:24 be sufficient.
09:49:24 I just want to bring to Mr. Smith's attention -- and I
09:49:27 apologize to do it in this manner -- but it was
09:49:30 brought to my attention there may be an objection
09:49:32 raised because it's discussing the matter of the
09:49:34 public hearings outside of the time certain.
09:49:38 >> You know what my recommendation would be.
09:49:40 I would recommend we wait the ten minutes.
09:49:43 I think you can distinguish it.
09:49:44 >>SHAWN HARRISON: That's fine.
09:49:48 David, before we go there, I just want to make sure
09:49:51 that I heard you correctly, because this was a very

09:49:54 large issue that was raised when we were talking about
09:49:57 this before.
09:49:58 And that is, the CLG, which is the certified local
09:50:02 government?
09:50:06 >>> Yes, sir.
09:50:06 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Our status as a certified local
09:50:08 government will not be impacted if we go with the
09:50:14 opt-out provision.
09:50:16 You have other concerns about opt-out, which means,
09:50:19 you know, will possibly mean we won't go there.
09:50:23 But as far as the impact of us losing any sort of
09:50:27 certification, us running afoul of the federal
09:50:33 department of interior standards or anything like
09:50:34 that, the opt out provision or the consent provision,
09:50:38 if we were to amend our ordinance to include that,
09:50:40 would not impact either one of those.
09:50:43 >>> That is my understanding.
09:50:44 But since we are going to have a little bit of a
09:50:47 hiatus I will also consult with Donna Wysong and
09:50:50 Dennis Hernandez to make sure my understanding in that
09:50:53 regard is correct.
09:50:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Earlier today, I said that we

09:50:59 change the public comment to be after the city's
09:51:01 presentation on this.
09:51:02 So I would like to allow the people who are here to
09:51:04 comment on this, to not be now under public comment
09:51:07 but wait until after.
09:51:15 If we are putting this off for ten minutes.
09:51:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can't we just go to committee
09:51:22 reports?
09:51:24 Do something perfunctory.
09:51:29 >>GWEN MILLER: We might have people that want to speak
09:51:40 on something else that want to leave so we would be
09:51:42 keeping them here for quite awhile.
09:51:44 So I would just rather go and follow our agenda, and
09:51:48 then when we come to that.
09:51:54 >>> Cindy Miller: I am here for items removed from
09:51:57 the agenda.
09:51:57 I believe it's next on the agenda.
09:52:01 Cindy Miller, director, growth management services.
09:52:04 I believe Mr. Dingfelder had a question on item number
09:52:06 34, and possibly Ms. Saul-Sena also had a question of
09:52:11 the community development block grant program.
09:52:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If you want to address 34.

09:52:25 34 is an agreement, I guess, between the city and some
09:52:28 group called Joshua capital group, Inc., nonprofit,
09:52:31 $50,000 for faith based capacity building trainings
09:52:35 and technical assistance.
09:52:37 I'm not really sure what all that means.
09:52:39 And that's why I asked you to come and explain the
09:52:42 program, explain how we selected this group.
09:52:44 I notice that they are based in Valrico.
09:52:47 I am going to hope that they have perhaps a Tampa
09:52:49 office.
09:52:49 But, anyway, help me out.
09:52:55 >>> Let me go through the process of community block
09:52:57 grant program because I think that will assist in how
09:53:00 it occurred.
09:53:00 You have a number of organizations that we have the
09:53:05 contracts identified.
09:53:06 This is what we are asking for your approval.
09:53:07 The community development block grant process really
09:53:10 begins almost a year before.
09:53:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me catch up.
09:53:15 That answers part of my question.
09:53:17 This was a higher standard CDBG process, and they put

09:53:22 in sort of a grant application or an application
09:53:27 specifically targeting this --
09:53:31 >>> Right. Along with a number of other
09:53:32 organizations.
09:53:33 And the action plan after the proposal evaluated for
09:53:39 various types of organizations, by community-based
09:53:42 group of citizens that came before you with City
09:53:44 Council back in July, the action plans, and is part of
09:53:47 the public hearing process for tonight's meeting.
09:53:49 So these are all of the agreements that you all have
09:53:52 had before you in a public hearing back in July.
09:53:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is this money different than the
09:54:01 other money that I heard about that we have budgeted
09:54:03 for faith based initiatives?
09:54:08 >>> Yes.
09:54:09 Let me go right to the organization.
09:54:11 Even though they are located outside of the city
09:54:13 limits, the services must be performed within city
09:54:16 limits.
09:54:17 And when you are looking at capacity building, this is
09:54:19 assisting other organizations to develop the resources
09:54:22 to get the training, to be able to help pursue their

09:54:27 own mission and accomplishments in public and
09:54:31 community services so they can be more independent.
09:54:33 So these are the kinds of services that the entity
09:54:36 will provide to other groups within the City of Tampa.
09:54:39 And we do monitor the community development, we
09:54:42 monitor, make sure through site visits, review with
09:54:47 documentation that those services are performed in the
09:54:49 City of Tampa.
09:54:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It disturbs me a little bit that we
09:54:53 are kind of adding layer upon layer upon layer.
09:55:01 If we have money for faith based initiatives and it's
09:55:03 important to council members, that's okay.
09:55:05 But to deliver the actual services.
09:55:10 But now we have an extra layer of the group that's
09:55:12 going to help the group that's going to help the
09:55:14 group.
09:55:17 >>> All I can say is it was re reviewed by citizens of
09:55:20 Tampa, part of the advisory committee, and when the
09:55:22 public hearings occurred, it was the type of thing
09:55:24 that these programs were supported or at least not met
09:55:30 with any objection at the time, and again we did site
09:55:32 visits in anticipation to make sure we would know what

09:55:36 their services would be and we be monitoring during
09:55:38 the coming year.
09:55:39 So it has been, I would say, I know it looks like
09:55:46 perhaps another level of bureaucracy but by building
09:55:50 the capacity of not for profits either faith based or
09:55:53 otherwise, helps them to be able to obtain resources
09:55:56 other than government resources.
09:55:58 And I think that's the important part.
09:56:00 Capacity building is capacity building through whether
09:56:03 it's donations or being able to develop programs that
09:56:06 can be supported, not just through local governments.
09:56:09 So I think that's really the key here, is capacity
09:56:11 building so that they can provide services that
09:56:14 government don't does not provide.
09:56:15 I think that's the key area.
09:56:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are they going to work specifically
09:56:19 with the two or three groups that we are funding?
09:56:22 Or are they going to work with all groups?
09:56:24 >>> This would be more broadly based.
09:56:27 Not the faith based initiative.
09:56:29 Mr. Harrison has much more information than I do
09:56:31 because that's not administered by my department.

09:56:33 It's that the faith based organizations that are
09:56:36 receiving the grant.
09:56:37 Again they are rather small grants but very specific
09:56:39 services.
09:56:40 This is to enable to assist faith based organizations
09:56:46 on abroad basis throughout the city to be able to
09:56:49 develop their initiatives in the funding.
09:56:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Again I would caution us as a
09:56:56 government to be very careful about crossing the, you
09:56:59 know, church-state line.
09:57:01 And I guess we just need to watch this very carefully.
09:57:06 >>> And I can assure you when we do the site visits
09:57:10 not just for this organization but any organization,
09:57:11 one of the things that our staff specifically looks at
09:57:14 is making sure that the appropriate lines, if there is
09:57:20 a specific service by faith based organization it is
09:57:24 providing the social service and not the religious
09:57:33 service.
09:57:33 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to see if there's anyone
09:57:35 else in the public that wants to ask for
09:57:38 reconsideration.
09:57:40 We go to our audience portion.

09:57:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to request if there's
09:57:45 anyone here from the audience who wants to speak on
09:57:47 the issue of historic preservation this that they be
09:57:52 allowed to speak after the staff.
09:57:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
09:57:56 (Motion carried).
09:57:57 >>GWEN MILLER: you may come up and speak now.
09:58:01 >>MARGARET VIZZI: 213 South Sherrill.
09:58:05 Regarding the issue of the charter when the council
09:58:11 discussed it maybe years ago now and put a committee
09:58:13 together and went through it and there were minor
09:58:15 changes, and what we mainly picked up were some things
09:58:18 that went according to state law, because he did a lot
09:58:23 of research on those kind of issues, and we did not
09:58:26 see any major other revision, but because seemed that
09:58:31 council wasn't ready to do anything, we said we'd
09:58:34 leave it until council -- we went through the whole
09:58:37 thing, had a committee, we had our books, and we read
09:58:40 the charter, and we knew what it was all about.
09:58:44 So whenever council is ready for any of our input
09:58:47 we'll be ready to give it so just let us know when you
09:58:50 would like to hear from us.

09:58:52 As far as the issue of the VRB, we had some discussion
09:58:55 about that last night at the T.H.A.N. meeting, because
09:58:58 neighborhoods are very concerned about relaxing
09:59:02 standards for granting variances.
09:59:04 Because the hardship now, it's supposed to be a
09:59:09 problem with the land.
09:59:10 It's not supposed to be a personal hardship.
09:59:15 And if that changes, there will be many, many, many
09:59:19 requests for variances.
09:59:23 And the neighborhood had really worked hard on the
09:59:33 zoning code as far as setbacks, the tree code, sign
09:59:36 code and everything else.
09:59:37 And these are codes that are supposed to be followed.
09:59:46 And to make it easier for variances to be granted
09:59:49 makes it almost useless because there will be those
09:59:51 who will be asking for more variances than there are
09:59:54 now.
09:59:55 As far as council giving up its review of the VRB, we
10:00:00 have a concern about that, too, because we feel that
10:00:05 we can at least come to council if we want to appeal.
10:00:10 And so there's a concern about council giving us that
10:00:15 right of hearing these appeals.

10:00:18 So I just wanted to double check the meeting on
10:00:25 October 25th at noon, open to the public.
10:00:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Absolutely.
10:00:28 It's going to be up here and we are going to have
10:00:32 lunch and I encourage you to come.
10:00:35 >> Up here?
10:00:35 >>> Up here.
10:00:36 >> Because last night we had a little -- we didn't
10:00:39 know if it was an open meeting or not.
10:00:41 >>> Always.
10:00:42 >> And has there been any discussion of the charter?
10:00:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Three weeks Mr. Smith is-he-
10:00:49 >>SHAWN HARRISON:
10:00:51 >> Three weeks Mr. Smith will give us the report back
10:00:53 so if you will give it to him so it will be part of
10:00:55 the study.
10:00:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:00:58 Next.
10:01:03 >>> My name is Moses Knott, Jr.
10:01:05 I reside at 2902 East Ellicott street three nights a
10:01:09 week.
10:01:10 I just thank God for his grace and his mercy.

10:01:14 Then I thank God for the Florida gators.
10:01:31 Anyway, I want to talk about something, I don't have
10:01:35 much education to be talking about this.
10:01:37 But this appeal thing -- Mr. Knott, you don't say your
10:01:44 words right, don't know what you're talking about.
10:01:46 But on the appeal thing we are talking about this
10:01:48 morning, you know we thank God for Mr. Shelby and Mr.
10:01:55 Smith on directing you all.
10:01:59 Years ago, this city got sued for millions and
10:02:04 millions of dollars, you know, voting on things,
10:02:10 against stuff, and what I want to say, though, you put
10:02:23 a check on Mr. Smith there awhile ago.
10:02:38 But when you first come here you come to the big
10:02:40 house, you know.
10:02:43 And I come from the big house.
10:02:54 Speak by the minute and two minutes, you know.
10:03:00 But, anyway, on the appeal thing, though, you know,
10:03:04 again another thing I'm talking about something now,
10:03:10 about two years ago, passed a law up there.
10:03:20 One guy vote, the winning vote, you know, and this guy
10:03:26 had to explain why he went against it, why I'm voting
10:03:30 against this here.

10:03:32 And I think that was very important.
10:03:34 Because in the old school, in Ybor City had two people
10:03:46 didn't vote no matter who it was, and I want no
10:03:51 liquor, I don't want no liquor, they voted against it.
10:03:54 But I'm so glad they passed that law.
10:03:56 But then again, like I said, I come to this podium.
10:04:03 Thank God for his grace and his mercy, you know.
10:04:07 But in law they don't believe in grace and mercy in
10:04:09 law.
10:04:09 In law, the law is the law.
10:04:12 But way want to say is one group of people that do
10:04:17 believe in mercy, and that's a jury.
10:04:19 You know, Mr. White know what I'm talking about.
10:04:32 Get up there, and turn them loose.
10:04:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:04:37 Would anyone else like to speak?
10:04:38 We now go to our audience for first reading.
10:04:41 Mr. White, would you read number 5, please.
10:04:48 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance of the city of Tampa,
10:04:51 Florida amending the City of Tampa code of ordinances
10:04:54 chapter 22, section 103, the City of Tampa streets and
10:04:57 sidewalks ordinance, removing the waiver provision

10:05:00 from the sidewalk installation requirement for single
10:05:02 family residential building, or use in an enterprise
10:05:05 zone designated by the City Council for waiver that
10:05:09 the waiver is creating significant gaps in the city's
10:05:12 system of sidewalks, providing for severability,
10:05:15 providing an effective date.
10:05:15 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
10:05:17 Question, Mr. Dingfelder.
10:05:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Does anybody know what we do with
10:05:20 the CRA in regard to the sidewalk provision?
10:05:34 The specific sidewalk provision.
10:05:37 Generally we require sidewalks in building
10:05:41 construction.
10:05:41 Previously in the enter praise zone we gave a waiver
10:05:43 for that.
10:05:46 Now, under this ordinance we are about to pass, we are
10:05:49 taking that waiver away.
10:05:51 So in enterprise zones we are require sidewalks to be
10:05:55 built and I read the explanation, and I guess I'm okay
10:05:57 with it.
10:05:58 But I'm curious, in CRAs, do we have any different
10:06:02 or separate policy?

10:06:05 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, Mr. Territo is right here.
10:06:09 >>SAL TERRITO: Legal department.
10:06:10 We don't treat the CRA any different than the rest of
10:06:13 the city. The CRA is not addressing those kind of
10:06:16 regulatory issues.
10:06:18 Those are City Council issues, not CRA issues.
10:06:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
10:06:24 >>> You are not really dealing with different sets of
10:06:25 regulations per se.
10:06:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Right.
10:06:29 Although the Carrs are blighted we treat them very
10:06:33 differently.
10:06:33 It might have been logical that someone could have
10:06:35 treated CRAs differently for the same reasons are
10:06:39 you are treating other enterprise zones differently.
10:06:42 >>> I am not aware of any of the CRAs being treated
10:06:44 than the rest of the city.
10:06:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The other comment I had about this,
10:06:49 and it's sort of tangentially related, Madam Chair, I
10:06:55 have been getting complaints, I don't know if you
10:06:58 have, too, about the fee increase we had when we
10:07:01 raised the cost for sidewalks.

10:07:05 The development community is pretty upset about it.
10:07:08 And I'm not regularly a defender but in this case I
10:07:13 think we need to revisit it.
10:07:16 When we are done I will make a motion.
10:07:19 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, I have not heard those
10:07:22 complaints.
10:07:23 >> Me either.
10:07:26 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm surprised to hear that.
10:07:28 But I will say in defense of the ordinance, this was
10:07:31 something that we enact add good six years ago or so,
10:07:35 and it has been, I think, extremely successful.
10:07:38 And I think we should continue it and am fully in
10:07:43 support of the proposal.
10:07:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You're in support of waiving
10:07:49 sidewalk --
10:07:51 >>SHAWN HARRISON: No.
10:07:53 >> Requiring.
10:07:53 >> Keeping them.
10:07:55 >>CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second.
10:07:57 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
10:08:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If I could, before I lose the
10:08:03 thought.

10:08:04 I would like a report back from Mr. Daignault, let's
10:08:08 say in three weeks, on the justifications for
10:08:12 increasing the sidewalks.
10:08:15 We sort of did it very willy-nilly and I think it
10:08:19 almost trippled.
10:08:20 It went up from like $17 of linear foot to like $55 a
10:08:24 linear foot.
10:08:26 And I have received complaints.
10:08:29 I think there's probably a lot more single-family
10:08:32 redevelopment in my district than anywhere else and
10:08:34 maybe that's why I get the complaint.
10:08:37 But, anyway, I not anything we have to get into today.
10:08:40 But I would just like a report from Mr. Daignault.
10:08:43 And also to invite the development community to come
10:08:45 talk about if they have an issue on the cost per foot
10:08:50 for linear sidewalks, replacement costs.
10:08:55 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I think the reason we had that
10:08:58 sidewalk is because of the concrete costs.
10:09:02 But I don't believe that -- I haven't received any
10:09:08 complaints about it.
10:09:09 And so if you have -- because you live in the West
10:09:15 Tampa, but I think the city was actually losing money

10:09:24 on putting in the sidewalks.
10:09:27 So I don't know.
10:09:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The ironic thing about it is the
10:09:32 development community, and many times they do it, we
10:09:36 can put it in for half of the cost of what you are
10:09:39 charging us.
10:09:40 So we'll go ahead and put it in as compared to putting
10:09:42 money in the sidewalk replacement thing.
10:09:44 So what that says to me is ware not really charging
10:09:47 what the fair market value is of the linear foot of
10:09:50 sidewalks.
10:09:52 We have inflated that somehow.
10:09:54 And to me, what we should be charging is what should
10:09:56 be the actual cost.
10:09:58 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I guess because costs fluctuate?
10:10:07 >>SHAWN HARRISON: My understanding is the ordinance
10:10:09 requires people to put the sidewalks in themselves no
10:10:13 matter what their cost is.
10:10:15 And it's only very limited circumstances where we even
10:10:20 give people the option of paying into that fund.
10:10:24 So I think when Mr. Daignault comes back, I think we
10:10:28 need to make sure it's being administered the proper

10:10:31 way because it was the intention you are going to go
10:10:33 out and build the sidewalk, you are not just going to
10:10:36 put money into a fund.
10:10:44 >>> Three week discussion.
10:10:45 >> Second.
10:10:45 (Motion carried).
10:10:45 >>CHAIRMAN: Number 3.
10:10:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry to interrupt.
10:10:50 I apologize.
10:10:51 With regard to, I believe, item 6, council had
10:10:55 received a fax, hand delivered request, from, I
10:10:58 believe, Mr. Marchetti who is present requesting
10:11:02 continuance.
10:11:02 I don't know if council wishes to address that.
10:11:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Is Mr. Marchetti here?
10:11:11 >> Marchetti for the record.
10:11:14 Continue this case for two weeks, give me an
10:11:16 opportunity to work with the city attorney's office.
10:11:18 I have some concern with respect to the architectural
10:11:21 review commission's decision.
10:11:22 I just returned from vacation.
10:11:25 I want to make sure it's an accurate depiction.

10:11:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
10:11:36 (Motion carried)
10:11:37 Number 7.
10:11:39 >>ROSE FERLITA: Okay, try this one.
10:11:40 An ordinance authorizing the installation and
10:11:44 maintenance of an encroachment awnings and
10:11:47 architectural decorative features, by MW Hyde Park LLC
10:11:53 over the right-of-way known as Swann Avenue and Dakota
10:11:56 Avenue near the intersection of Swann and Dakota
10:11:59 avenues, as more particularly described herein subject
10:12:01 to certain terms and conditions agreement providing an
10:12:04 effective date.
10:12:05 (Motion carried).
10:12:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Public Safety Committee report, rose
10:12:10 Ferlita.
10:12:10 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move 8 through 11, please.
10:12:14 (Motion carried).
10:12:15 >> Parks, recreation, Mary Alvarez.
10:12:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like to move items 12 through
10:12:19 14.
10:12:20 >> Second.
10:12:20 (Motion carried).

10:12:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Finance Committee, Mr. Kevin White.
10:12:27 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move 17 through 27.
10:12:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder, public works.
10:12:42 >> I would like to move items 16 and 17 and
10:12:45 specifically on number 15, this is for the aquifer
10:12:50 storage and recovery.
10:12:53 Some of students that we have in the audience might be
10:12:55 interested in this.
10:12:56 But Brad says we have an opportunity to store up to, I
10:13:00 think, one or two billion gallons of water in the
10:13:02 aquifer of the storage program.
10:13:05 So that might be something the students would be
10:13:07 interested in.
10:13:08 But, anyway, move items 15 and 16.
10:13:11 >> Second.
10:13:11 (Motion carried).
10:13:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Now finance, Kevin White.
10:13:15 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move 17 through 27.
10:13:17 >> Second.
10:13:17 (Motion carried).
10:13:20 >> Building and zoning, Linda Saul-Sena.
10:13:23 >> I would like to move resolutions 28 through 29,

10:13:28 remove 30 and 31 through 40.
10:13:35 >> Second.
10:13:35 (Motion Carried).
10:13:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Transportation, Shawn Harrison.
10:13:43 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I think we have some discussion.
10:13:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder abstained.
10:13:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Item 41 and 42, these are both
10:13:53 about work in the Kiley Gardens.
10:13:55 And I had the opportunity to speak with both
10:14:00 professionals that we are signing contracts with.
10:14:04 And went over their scope of work.
10:14:05 And both companies reiterated their commitment to
10:14:08 making improvements that will not in any way preclude
10:14:12 the reworking of Kiley Gardens in the future.
10:14:15 So I was very reassured by the conversations.
10:14:18 I want to thank Mr. Vaughan for providing the contact
10:14:22 information and I feel very comfortable having the
10:14:25 contract move forward.
10:14:27 Saul-Sena
10:14:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Would the Kiley Gardens waterproofing
10:14:32 and all that, would that be considered green?
10:14:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, absolutely.

10:14:44 That's because 20 years ago we didn't have waterproof
10:14:46 materials.
10:14:47 This time we are going to dot better.
10:14:50 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move items 41, 42, 44 through 47.
10:14:54 >> Second.
10:14:54 (Motion carried).
10:14:55 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move item 43.
10:14:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Pursuant to my discussion earlier
10:15:01 I'll abstain for the reasons stated.
10:15:06 >> Motion and second.
10:15:06 (Motion carried).
10:15:07 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move the new items 48 through 56.
10:15:14 >> Second.
10:15:14 (Motion carried).
10:15:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Now we go back to Mr. Smith,
10:15:23 discussion.
10:15:26 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
10:15:28 I will briefly summarize, so the conversation occurs
10:15:34 after 10:00.
10:15:35 You recall back in February 06, by a 5-2 vote this
10:15:38 council directed the legal department to look at the
10:15:41 historic preservation ordinance to provide for an

10:15:43 opt-out provision.
10:15:47 Included in that discussion was a discussion regarding
10:15:48 the possibility of looking at the impact if any it
10:15:50 would have on the certified local government, which is
10:15:54 a preferred program dealing with historic structures,
10:15:58 allow certain benefits and advantages and
10:16:01 encouragement for people to participate in the
10:16:03 process.
10:16:04 I indicated at that time I wasn't sure what the impact
10:16:07 of an opt-out would be, with regard to that status,
10:16:10 and I knew you would want to make sure you considered
10:16:13 that as part of your deliberation.
10:16:15 I think that sort of brings us up to speed with where
10:16:18 we are now.
10:16:19 I talked about the fact that the legal department is
10:16:21 concerned, with an opt-out approach, pure opt-out
10:16:24 approach, from the standpoint that it can be
10:16:27 challenged as perhaps being an improper delegation of
10:16:30 legislative authority or perhaps denial of due
10:16:32 process.
10:16:32 But, nonetheless, this council clearly indicated their
10:16:36 desire to infuse consent into the process and there

10:16:42 are alternative ways to do that.
10:16:46 You can abstract from the concerns, to an opt-out.
10:16:50 That would be a second level approach, which is, you
10:16:53 have an owner-initiated process, so the consent
10:16:57 literally comes from the initiation itself.
10:17:01 You need to know that is an approach that is not
10:17:06 favorably received by the people in the preservation
10:17:11 community.
10:17:11 They don't consider that to be too much different from
10:17:13 an opt out.
10:17:14 Some of them take the position it is subject to the
10:17:16 same Constitutional frailties of an opt out.
10:17:21 We believe it is different.
10:17:22 And we believe it is sustainable if you want to go in
10:17:24 that direction.
10:17:25 But we have a third approach that we think may address
10:17:28 the concerns this council has while trying to minimize
10:17:35 an impact on historic preservation processes that
10:17:39 seemed to be working fairly well in the city with some
10:17:42 obvious exceptions or we wouldn't be here.
10:17:44 Councilman Harrison asked me whether the CLG would be
10:17:48 affected by the opt out.

10:17:50 I told you it would be my understanding it would not,
10:17:52 but I would confer with those who are far more
10:17:54 conversant on these matters than I.
10:17:56 That would be Donna Wysong and Dennis Fernandez.
10:17:59 I guess I have been hanging around policy makers too
10:18:01 long and I have lost my legal perspective.
10:18:04 As you may imagine, there is an argument that can be
10:18:06 made that the CLG process could potentially be
10:18:10 affected by an opt out.
10:18:12 And let me explain what that is.
10:18:14 Essentially what the CLG process does, in order to
10:18:22 qualify it establishes a structure for your ordinance,
10:18:25 it requires that you apply criteria, and that those
10:18:28 criteria be applied by designated professionals.
10:18:33 The argument about a criteria could be made that if
10:18:38 you have an opt out you are not applying those
10:18:40 criteria.
10:18:40 They are being applied by the property owner.
10:18:43 That's an argument that some would make or could make.
10:18:47 It certainly passes the test and it needs to be
10:18:51 considered.
10:18:52 As a consequence of our concern for an opt out in the

10:18:57 legal department, we looked at the possibility of
10:18:59 bringing consent to the process in a different way, in
10:19:02 a way that would be presumably satisfactory to some of
10:19:04 the property owners who are concerned about the
10:19:07 process, and yet not do undue harm to historic
10:19:12 preservation as an ongoing goal of the city.
10:19:17 And what we looked at was the very criteria we are
10:19:22 talking about.
10:19:23 The criteria are those of the national register of
10:19:25 historic places in our ordinance.
10:19:28 What we can do is we can look at adding criteria to
10:19:33 that provision of the ordinance -- it's not my phone,
10:19:36 I don't have a phone -- we can add criteria to that in
10:19:40 the ordinance, additional factors that can be
10:19:45 considered by the HPC and designated and more
10:19:48 importantly by this council.
10:19:49 I think part of the frustration this council
10:19:51 experienced was you have little or no role when it
10:19:54 came back to you after having gone through that
10:19:56 process.
10:19:56 And what specifically am I referring to?
10:19:59 I'm referring to adding to the criteria which

10:20:06 essentially parallel the national historic, places
10:20:10 such as these, whether the owner consents to or
10:20:13 supports the designation.
10:20:15 Obviously that's an owner consent factor.
10:20:17 It is a factor you can consider as part of your
10:20:20 deliberations so that you are not as you currently are
10:20:29 considered to be barred from adding that as a factor.
10:20:33 Additionally, whether the owner has in some form
10:20:35 established an economic hardship.
10:20:38 An economic hardship is there in a sense.
10:20:40 But it is used almost as an opt out.
10:20:43 It seems to me it might be a more realistic thing to
10:20:46 include it as part of the process and part of the
10:20:49 deliberation of designation, because it is the primary
10:20:52 concern that we hear expressed most often.
10:20:55 And I think it's a concern that I heard in the
10:20:57 deliberations of this council.
10:20:59 And the last criteria -- and these are partially much
10:21:04 like historic designations as well -- whether there
10:21:08 are economic incentives available to offset any
10:21:11 economic hardship.
10:21:15 Part of the discussion you may recall was a desire to

10:21:21 add the perceived regime.
10:21:24 I think -- maybe not enough carrots.
10:21:29 Make we can add more carrots.
10:21:33 One of the factors that that court considered in
10:21:36 determining that it was not a taking was the fact that
10:21:38 the property had the ability to transfer development
10:21:41 rights to other properties in the vicinity which in
10:21:45 fact were owned by the owner of the station.
10:21:50 So it seems that certainly in this regard the idea of
10:21:56 mitigating the economic impact is part of the calculus
10:22:01 so it doesn't seem inappropriate for to us establish
10:22:04 an ordinance that allows you to consider that as part
10:22:06 of the calculus as well.
10:22:08 So where does this essentially leave us?
10:22:11 Oh, correct.
10:22:12 By the way, I would be remiss not to mention that
10:22:14 Donna Wysong has been working extremely hard in this
10:22:17 area.
10:22:19 I am primarily providing you with a distillation of
10:22:22 her wisdom and probably not doing it justice.
10:22:24 I appreciate everything she has done.
10:22:26 She has been very, very helpful.

10:22:29 The other issue that she is suggesting that we
10:22:32 consider adding to this list is -- and I'll give you
10:22:35 the language, but again nothing is in stone -- a
10:22:39 building, structure or object which exemplified a
10:22:43 unique architectural type, or has an association with
10:22:46 important cultural events or social aspects in the
10:22:50 history of the City of Tampa, the State of Florida, or
10:22:53 the United States.
10:22:58 Now this would be added to the existing criteria which
10:23:00 means this body would be able to look at the unique
10:23:06 contribution of any structure designation to the
10:23:09 cultural and other history of the City of Tampa
10:23:11 itself.
10:23:12 So that may be -- there may be certain cultural
10:23:15 aspects or certain cultural assets, excuse me, that
10:23:18 are so unique and valuable.
10:23:20 Nonetheless they seem to be part of your calculus.
10:23:23 So our recommendation is, we think that this last
10:23:26 approach is certainly the most defensible approach.
10:23:30 And we think it provides this body more flexibility
10:23:35 than you currently have, and provides the property
10:23:37 owner the opportunity to make his or her case with

10:23:41 respect to the impact on their property, and why they
10:23:44 should not, if that's what they choose, be designated.
10:23:48 Additionally, you know but I'll remind you because
10:23:53 some people watching it may not remember, you're
10:23:55 looking at the processes, you are looking at the
10:23:58 A.R.C. process,.
10:24:00 Many of the concerns correctly or incorrectly deal
10:24:02 with a perception of the processes aren't very
10:24:05 manageable, you need an architect, you need a lawyer,
10:24:09 it's protracted, you get conflicting results, you gets
10:24:12 your project designed, consistent with the criteria.
10:24:17 I'm not saying -- some of the allegations.
10:24:21 By making those processes better, I think it also has
10:24:25 a significant impact on ameliorating some of the
10:24:28 concerns of the property owners that have been
10:24:30 subjected to the processes or subjected perhaps is a
10:24:32 judgmental term, enjoys that process, or goes through
10:24:36 that process, to put it as neutrally as possible.
10:24:39 The point is, we are recommending that this council
10:24:43 consider the third option.
10:24:44 Obviously, we think the third option is the most
10:24:49 defensible.

10:24:50 We think it provides the reasonable relief sought,
10:24:54 addresses the concerns that council had, and also does
10:24:58 the least damage to the existing historic
10:25:00 preservation.
10:25:03 I use that term excessively, I realize that. Anyway,
10:25:07 that's pretty much the recommendation.
10:25:08 I would be happy to try to answer the question.
10:25:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Smith, the last memo that I had
10:25:15 was September the 18th.
10:25:16 Would you have one that was after that from Ms.
10:25:20 Wysong?
10:25:21 >>> No, Ms. Wysong did prepare for me, pursuant to our
10:25:24 discussions, some recommended language which I gave
10:25:26 you.
10:25:27 But that language is conceptual.
10:25:29 What I would suggest we try to accomplish today -- and
10:25:32 the reason we are back to council -- is to get a clear
10:25:35 direction from council as to what role you want
10:25:39 consent to play in the new ordinance.
10:25:42 Bear in mind that we will make those changes and try
10:25:52 to get back to you.
10:25:54 Now withstanding that, we will not be able to complete

10:25:56 this project, whistle some of our members who are part
10:26:01 of this process are still here.
10:26:03 Perhaps a first reading.
10:26:05 I'm not even sure about that because the Planning
10:26:07 Commission doesn't meet again until November.
10:26:09 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You keep talking about number 3.
10:26:12 And number 3 that I have here is a two-tiered system.
10:26:20 >>> A tiered system, we looked at that.
10:26:22 And there's a possibility of doing something along
10:26:24 those lines.
10:26:25 But the consensus of most of the participants of our
10:26:28 discussions, they simply add to the complexity.
10:26:30 >> This is why I am asking.
10:26:32 Because it seems to me like there might have been
10:26:38 another memo coming out.
10:26:39 I'm not sure.
10:26:40 When you are talking about other alternatives.
10:26:47 But the one that I have here don't jive with what you
10:26:50 are talking about.
10:26:51 >>> I understand.
10:26:52 And partly because we have been working on this as we
10:26:55 go.

10:26:56 And you do not have specific language in front of you.
10:26:59 And we are really not trying to cause specific
10:27:04 language.
10:27:04 That's something that should be considered as part of
10:27:05 the deliberation of your ordinance.
10:27:07 The point is to really get the sense of council with
10:27:09 respect to consent, and the role that you would like
10:27:12 to us provide for and come back to you with a draft
10:27:15 ordinance.
10:27:16 It will be revisited.
10:27:17 Everyone will have an opportunity to provide their
10:27:21 analysis, with specific language at the time.
10:27:26 Sorry for the confusion.
10:27:29 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Smith, forget the fact that
10:27:32 anyone cannot always make an argument, and goodness
10:27:37 knows that's what we get paid to do.
10:27:40 Let's take for a minute the opt out provision, and you
10:27:45 have given us some clear understanding of why that may
10:27:47 not be a good idea.
10:27:49 The consent issue, as you just said, that might be
10:27:53 argued, well, that's sort of opt out in disguise.
10:27:58 But my question comes back to, based on what you and

10:28:01 Ms. Wysong have done, in your research, if we went
10:28:04 with it and basically an owner consent provision,
10:28:08 which would effectively veto what we were thinking
10:28:17 about doing as far as declaring a building, you know,
10:28:22 part of the historic -- that didn't come out very
10:28:25 well.
10:28:25 If we go with consent as being the first and foremost
10:28:30 criteria, and if you don't have consent you don't get
10:28:33 designated.
10:28:35 Does that put in jeopardy our certified local
10:28:37 government status, or put in jeopardy the federal
10:28:42 guidelines that we are operating under now?
10:28:46 >>> And let me try to answer that with the precision
10:28:48 appropriate to the topic.
10:28:49 As you know, as a lawyer, sometimes these issues are
10:28:51 not as precise as we would like them to be.
10:28:55 It really is a gradient of risk, if you will.
10:28:59 The opt-out is the most risky in terms of jeopardizing
10:29:02 the CLG because are we even applying the criteria?
10:29:06 When you come down to owner initiated, that is our
10:29:12 zoning process in many ways so it has certain
10:29:14 additional implement of protection or reasonableness

10:29:17 to it.
10:29:17 But it does have some risk.
10:29:20 It's almost impossible for me to quantify the risk for
10:29:23 you, unfortunately.
10:29:24 That's why I want to make sure you understand.
10:29:27 When you come down yet one more level, and that's what
10:29:30 I am talking about adding total criteria, that's the
10:29:33 least risky, most defensible F.this council chooses to
10:29:37 take the second level, and you may consent for owner
10:29:40 initiation, we will obviously defend that and we will
10:29:43 make every argument we can to defend that.
10:29:46 I'm not trying to simply save myself work.
10:29:48 But I do think that the third option from our he
10:29:55 perspective will make it easier for us to defend it
10:29:58 and will, I think, provide less heartburn for the
10:30:02 preservation community.
10:30:07 It's not a yes or no, I realize that.
10:30:09 But if you go the route of consent up front in terms
10:30:13 of owner initiated, we'll certainly defend it and feel
10:30:18 confident that we can prevail.
10:30:20 >>SHAWN HARRISON: That's way want to hear, confident
10:30:23 that we can prevail.

10:30:24 Those what I wanted to hear.
10:30:25 That gives us the option if we want to go there, and
10:30:28 not having heard from anyone in the audience yet --
10:30:30 and I'm not saying at all that we will go there.
10:30:33 But if we do decide that is a possibility, then you
10:30:36 can defend that legally.
10:30:38 >>DAVID SMITH: Yes, sir.
10:30:41 And you will hear the argument to the contrary this
10:30:43 morning.
10:30:43 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm certain we will.
10:30:44 >>DAVID SMITH: And a lot more convincing than I
10:30:53 thought it would.
10:30:54 >>ROSE FERLITA: I'm sorry to bother you.
10:30:56 I got called out for a second.
10:30:58 We talked about this briefly yesterday.
10:30:59 When you read option 3 again, just whatever.
10:31:02 >>DAVID SMITH: The third option is to add -- adding
10:31:08 the four criteria that exist on the national historic
10:31:11 places.
10:31:12 The following criteria: Whether the owner supports
10:31:14 the designation and gives owner consent.
10:31:19 Whether the owner at some point adequately establishes

10:31:22 economic hardships attendant to the designation.
10:31:25 And last, whether economic incentives are available to
10:31:31 mitigate the hardships that the owner may have
10:31:33 adequately established.
10:31:35 So we are really talking about owner consent, owner
10:31:38 hardship, and whether we as a city have other
10:31:44 incentives that mitigate the designation.
10:31:47 In many cities, as you know, there's a collaborative
10:31:50 public-private partnership in a lot of these areas.
10:31:53 And we may need to be a little bit more of a
10:31:59 participant in that process.
10:32:01 And the other one that Ms. Wysong was mentioning, was
10:32:04 an elaboration of bringing in the significance of the
10:32:09 potentially designated landmark to the City of Tampa,
10:32:12 the State of Florida, and the United States.
10:32:15 >>ROSE FERLITA: Okay, thanks.
10:32:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council members?
10:32:19 Okay.
10:32:19 We are going to go to the audience.
10:32:20 Anyone in the public that would like to speak may come
10:32:23 and speak now.
10:32:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Speaker waiver form, Madam Chair.

10:32:51 If you could just acknowledge your presence.
10:32:53 Delma Alvarez.
10:32:57 Raise your hand.
10:32:58 Thank you.
10:32:59 Kenneth Garcia.
10:33:00 Thank you.
10:33:02 Roger DURANT.
10:33:07 Marguerite Hart.
10:33:08 That's four additional minutes, please.
10:33:12 >>DAVID SMITH: Excuse me.
10:33:17 Before we get started, one thing I would like to
10:33:19 caution everybody with respect is, I did not speak
10:33:22 about the cigar factories. The cigar factories is an
10:33:26 item that is likely to appear in front it it of the
10:33:30 BLC.
10:33:32 They can address religion.
10:33:34 I notice you have -- I want to make sure ware on the
10:33:37 record.
10:33:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Point of order, council.
10:33:40 I apologize.
10:33:41 The speaker waiver form has been brought by the deputy
10:33:46 clerk, that is for the purpose of a public hearing.

10:33:49 But if council will allow her to have a few minutes
10:33:52 for citizen comments.
10:33:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
10:33:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The question was, the speaker waiver
10:34:01 form is specifically for public hearing.
10:34:04 If council wishes to add the extra minutes for citizen
10:34:06 comments or public comment as to this issue.
10:34:09 She submitted a speaker waiver form.
10:34:11 Council member Saul-Sena made a motion.
10:34:13 >>ROSE FERLITA: And I'll second it.
10:34:16 Besides that, if she doesn't take the minutes, the
10:34:21 other -- so I think to make it smoother.
10:34:25 It's no big deal.
10:34:26 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
10:34:27 (Motion carried).
10:34:32 >>> Chairwoman Miller, fellow council members, good
10:34:34 morning.
10:34:34 My name is Fran Costentino, fourth Avenue, and I'm
10:34:39 president of the east Ybor historic and civic
10:34:42 association, Inc. When I came to you in 2001, I was
10:34:46 welcomed with open arms, and you asked me what took me
10:34:50 so long to come forward to extend our local historic

10:34:53 boundaries east of 22nd street in Ybor City.
10:34:56 Because of your actions back then, property values
10:34:59 have risen and we have reand more are being
10:35:05 rehabilitated and nominated.
10:35:07 Because of your innovative and aggressive approach for
10:35:10 preservation, you have helped us rid the historic area
10:35:14 of drug infested and prostitute holes where we now
10:35:19 have people living in neighborhoods with a civic
10:35:21 association and a community park.
10:35:23 The ordinance that you applied then had an owner
10:35:27 consent opt-out provision, we would not be where we
10:35:29 are today.
10:35:30 Your progressive thinking and common sense accomplish
10:35:33 the extension of this historic district.
10:35:36 Now the owners of these properties are reaping the
10:35:39 rewards of higher property values and less crime than
10:35:43 we could ever imagine in the neighborhoods east of
10:35:47 22nd street.
10:35:48 As many of you know the East Ybor Historic Association
10:35:51 has initiated an education program that included a
10:35:54 petition drive and a PowerPoint presentation which we
10:35:58 call Save Our Heritage: People of our History. By

10:36:03 February 2nd of 2006, we have sent out weekly guilt
10:36:06 trips -- I mean "updates," 33, in fact, in order to
10:36:12 maintain the interest and enthusiasm for this very
10:36:15 worthy cause.
10:36:17 We created an online petition which now totals 1,348
10:36:21 signatures, and also 1,876 hard copy petitions, for a
10:36:27 grand total of 3,224 votes -- I mean signatures.
10:36:35 Our approach to this controversial issue.
10:36:38 With their blessing and the help of sister Kim
10:36:44 Madonna, we went out to educate our children.
10:36:48 Our future preservationists, with an awesome
10:36:51 PowerPoint presentation.
10:36:55 We visited St. Joseph Catholic school, villa Madonna,
10:36:59 St. Mary Episcopal, Anderson, where we shared the
10:37:04 importance of historic preservation to approximately
10:37:07 1,000 children who also teach our motto, save our
10:37:13 heritage, preserve our history.
10:37:15 We are continuing our education approach and so far
10:37:17 this year scheduled an academy press, downtown
10:37:21 partnership, Christ the king, DeSoto elementary for
10:37:24 the great American teach-in.
10:37:26 More will follow.

10:37:28 The children participated in an essay contest where we
10:37:32 awarded and are the first, second and third place
10:37:36 ribbon to the winners.
10:37:37 We were going to bring them to read their essays to
10:37:40 you but were unsure exactly what would happen today.
10:37:42 If this gets continued to a later date they have
10:37:44 expressed a great interest to coming down to City Hall
10:37:47 to read and share their essays with you.
10:37:50 I will also be happy to show the PowerPoint
10:37:52 presentation.
10:37:53 We bring this up because we feel that the City of
10:37:55 Tampa should also consider education as a possible --
10:37:59 another possible approach.
10:38:02 Protecting the city legally is important.
10:38:04 For we feel it is our duty of the city to educate the
10:38:07 public.
10:38:09 If the residents were educated about the process, we
10:38:12 could possibly use the "Fear Factor."
10:38:14 We could also work on making the process less
10:38:17 burdensome and have more of a process handled by staff
10:38:20 instead of going before the A.R.C. and the barrio.
10:38:23 We have to figure out a way when the legal notices go

10:38:27 out to the public some educational material must also
10:38:30 be included.
10:38:32 When we went through the process in Ybor, I had people
10:38:35 calling me saying that the government was taking their
10:38:37 home.
10:38:38 One poor senior citizen called and asked where she had
10:38:41 to go to pick up her check because the government was
10:38:44 making her sell her house.
10:38:45 This is sad.
10:38:46 And the city has to be prepared to deal with all its
10:38:50 citizens.
10:38:50 The educated and the well to do who can afford a
10:38:53 lawyer but especially those who can't.
10:38:56 We the board and members of the historic civic
10:39:00 association, Inc., are pleading with you today to
10:39:03 consider our history and your legacy.
10:39:06 There is no need to change and fix historic
10:39:10 preservation ordinance because it isn't broken.
10:39:12 When it comes to our history, owner consent should not
10:39:14 be an option.
10:39:17 If we are not going to protect our historical landmark
10:39:20 then you might as well be, the people of Boise, Idaho

10:39:27 or Topeka, Kansas, there would be in a difference.
10:39:30 Please, please rescind your request to amend our
10:39:33 ordinance.
10:39:33 Thank you very much for your consideration.
10:39:35 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you thank you, Mrs.
10:39:39 Costantino.
10:39:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The language of the petition, you
10:39:43 don't have to read all the names of the petition.
10:39:45 But the language of the petition, what was it that
10:39:49 people were being asked to vote or to sign onto?
10:39:55 >>> Just a form to save our heritage and not to change
10:39:58 the ordinance.
10:39:59 But I brought the petitions with me, a hard copy, and
10:40:03 the essays from the children, but I did not bring
10:40:06 that.
10:40:06 It is on line.
10:40:08 >> At the top of the petition does it say what they
10:40:09 are signing?
10:40:10 >>> Yes.
10:40:11 Oh, yeah.
10:40:12 Oh, yeah.
10:40:12 The hard copy one says, save our heritage, preserve

10:40:19 our history, I hope you will support our campaign.
10:40:29 Because that's what the issue was back in February.
10:40:32 But now we have changed it and sort of like stayed
10:40:34 away from that.
10:40:37 And just stuck to the issues.
10:40:44 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Ms. Costantino, I have a question
10:40:48 for you.
10:40:48 In the middle of your presentation you said everyone
10:40:50 recognizes that the process needs to be changed, and
10:40:55 try to make it more streamlined, more user friendly,
10:40:58 take away, if possible, some of the board review of
10:41:03 these applications, and give them over to more of a
10:41:06 staff review.
10:41:08 And I think everyone agrees with that.
10:41:09 But at the end of your presentation, you said don't
10:41:11 change it because it works perfectly fine.
10:41:14 And so --
10:41:18 >>> The tweaking from what you all said this morning
10:41:20 has changed since this was prepared.
10:41:22 We all know the system has to be tweaked.
10:41:24 But the meat of it is the owner consent of the of the
10:41:27 opt out. That comes down to the real meat and history

10:41:30 of it.
10:41:31 That's what we don't want changed.
10:41:33 When we went and extended our district there was no
10:41:35 opt out.
10:41:36 Or we would probably not have extended our historic
10:41:38 district from 22nd to 26th but that was not an
10:41:42 option will back then.
10:41:44 Even though we had some people coming forward in
10:41:46 objection we were able to move through.
10:41:51 Thank you very, very much.
10:41:52 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Next?
10:41:56 >>> Anna Thomas, president of historic preservation.
10:42:00 I have not been sworn in.
10:42:01 I do need to?
10:42:02 Okay.
10:42:03 First of all good morning to all of you.
10:42:05 I would like to thank David Smith and Donna Wysong for
10:42:08 the work that they have done in trying to include the
10:42:10 community in this decision making and data research
10:42:16 process.
10:42:16 Last week, each of you council members were delivered
10:42:20 a binder.

10:42:22 I hope all of you received it.
10:42:24 It contained information on our history and
10:42:30 partnership over many years with the city on
10:42:32 preservation matters.
10:42:34 The economic impact, the positive economic impact,
10:42:38 that historic preservation has locally and at a state
10:42:41 level, more information about the local government,
10:42:45 part of what we gave you included what Dennis
10:42:48 Fernandez, I think, has presented previously.
10:42:51 More information about local landmark designation, and
10:42:54 financial incentives, what can be done to develop more
10:42:58 of these incentives?
10:42:59 I wholeheartedly agree with David Smith that when do
10:43:03 need to be looking at more creative ways of offering
10:43:06 financial incentives to building owners.
10:43:10 We want to make this a process that is advantageous,
10:43:13 that encourages people to do the right thing with
10:43:17 regard to preservation, not put up walls that are very
10:43:19 difficult to scale over or to comply.
10:43:24 Part of the packet that you all received included
10:43:32 information.
10:43:32 The majority of the research that we have been

10:43:37 provided through the state office in Tallahassee
10:43:38 indicates that many Florida cities do not feel it
10:43:41 necessary to provide an owner consent feature within
10:43:45 their ordinance, and to the best of my knowledge they
10:43:47 have not been met with Constitutional challenges to
10:43:51 the way their ordinances are crafted.
10:43:56 I would also like to mention to you that, really doing
10:44:03 a great job with the architects of this community to
10:44:07 work with building owners who might find the process a
10:44:10 little bit arduous, don't know where they need to go
10:44:13 to get resources and materials, looking at very
10:44:16 creative ways of trying to establish a coalition which
10:44:22 provides volume discounts for owners that are trying
10:44:26 to restore their buildings to the secretary of the
10:44:29 interior standards.
10:44:33 We asked last week -- and I think this is part of what
10:44:37 Mrs. --Costantino is referring to -- to the A.R.C.
10:44:43 process to be revamped through its improvements and
10:44:46 implementing.
10:44:47 Let's see what advantages that offers to the community
10:44:52 as they are trying to restore their property, see how
10:44:57 that works, then move onto the issue of the ordinance.

10:44:59 But I would have to say it is Tampa's preservation
10:45:04 position that the ordinance has worked well, it has
10:45:06 served the community well.
10:45:08 It really does not need to be changed.
10:45:10 And we really cannot support revisions to an ordinance
10:45:14 that would weaken it.
10:45:16 If we decide to go to the tiered system, then it would
10:45:19 be very important that Mr. Smith and Ms. Wysong be
10:45:24 allowed time to research the system, do a little bit
10:45:36 of research how that's worked in other communities, we
10:45:39 just ask for extra time for them to be able to do that
10:45:42 and do it well
10:45:45 Mr. Shelby, do I need to offer a copy of what I gave
10:45:47 council last week into the record?
10:45:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you wish to have it made part of
10:45:52 the record.
10:45:55 >>> Okay.
10:45:55 Thank you.
10:45:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You can give that to the clerk,
10:45:58 please.
10:46:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Next.
10:46:13 >>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: I resign at 2902 east Ellicott.

10:46:19 And under the preservation thing, I never spoke too
10:46:22 much on that.
10:46:24 Because we had a mess years ago, with Mayor Freedman,
10:46:38 and she based her campaign on she's going to build a
10:46:41 brand new city, and she come in my part of the town,
10:46:44 and started tearing down houses by the thousands, call
10:46:47 them crack houses, and about two years later the
10:46:52 people come up, you know, but some of the -- so much
10:46:59 property got tore down in my part of town, three or
10:47:02 four city blocks, all the houses got torn down.
10:47:04 But I thank God for these peoples.
10:47:07 I don't know but the people that come up with this
10:47:11 idea, and then after they wracked our part of town,
10:47:16 went down to Ybor City, but the lady that represents
10:47:19 Ybor City, they put up a fight.
10:47:25 Old wood frame houses, you know.
10:47:29 And what I'm saying, though, that I used to own about
10:47:40 five or six wood frame houses and they called them
10:47:42 crack houses.
10:47:44 And a lot of those older houses could have got saved.
10:47:52 Now, over there now, our poor people, we got to go get
10:47:59 a $200,000 house, I think $200,000 affordable houses

10:48:05 now.
10:48:18 I just thank God for the people, and like I said, some
10:48:22 houses, spoke awhile ago, and then the lady, she come
10:48:30 to you all, she supported that.
10:48:39 I just thank God.
10:48:43 But tear down everything, you know.
10:48:49 And they was going to tear the whole city down.
10:48:53 Thank you.
10:48:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:48:54 Next.
10:49:09 >>> It's been awhile.
10:49:11 Sorry.
10:49:14 I'm president of Bayshore Gardens neighborhood
10:49:16 association.
10:49:17 The Board of Directors did vote in support of
10:49:20 maintaining the code as it is.
10:49:22 And we did send a letter to you all.
10:49:27 I'm here today personally because I grew up in this
10:49:29 city.
10:49:30 And I saw what happened in the '60s when we ripped
10:49:33 apart Ybor City, and the idea of urban renewal, and
10:49:37 what it did to this community, and the hardship that

10:49:41 it's still creating.
10:49:44 And I'm just speaking -- I want to make sure we are
10:49:48 clear on that point.
10:49:49 I'm afraid if we leave it to individuals to choose
10:49:52 that too many will opt out.
10:49:54 I personally sat through quite a few A.R.C. hearings.
10:49:59 I not for the weak of heart, I have to tell you.
10:50:01 And I do empathize with the concerns of property
10:50:05 owners who appear for the process, with respect to
10:50:09 A.R.C. and the good work that they do.
10:50:11 It is an arduous, frustrating process, designed by
10:50:16 communities.
10:50:16 It's not a good way to conduct making decisions or
10:50:20 anything, especially historic structures.
10:50:24 I've seen architects just walk out in frustration
10:50:28 after being told something different meeting by
10:50:31 meeting by meeting.
10:50:33 I was thrilled last week to hear that City Council is
10:50:36 looking at the A.R.C. process itself to make it a fair
10:50:41 and reasonable process to go through.
10:50:43 It needs to be tweaked and improved, standardized, but
10:50:46 not thrown out.

10:50:48 The code is fine.
10:50:50 It is the process of the issue for property owners.
10:50:53 And I am surprised with that.
10:50:55 I feel very strongly that the city should preserve and
10:51:00 cherish our past.
10:51:05 Please make it better for property owners to entice
10:51:11 them into improving their property owners within the
10:51:15 approved A.R.C. process, other ways of looking at this
10:51:18 issue.
10:51:19 What would Tampa be without the H.P. plant hotel which
10:51:23 my father lived in World War II and said it was a
10:51:28 falling-apart building but we maintained it, preserved
10:51:31 it.
10:51:32 It was saved.
10:51:33 What we have in historic Hyde Park.
10:51:35 When I moved to that neighborhood it was a
10:51:36 downtrodden, very poor community.
10:51:39 What would we do without 7th Avenue?
10:51:43 This is part of what makes Tampa unique. This is our
10:51:46 heritage.
10:51:47 We need to work at preserving it.
10:51:50 Again, please don't throw away the code.

10:51:54 Just make it a better process so that owners will be
10:51:57 more encouraged to participate in it willingly.
10:52:00 To protect the heritage and protect our past.
10:52:03 Thank you.
10:52:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:52:04 Next.
10:52:12 >>> Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
10:52:13 Madam Chairman.
10:52:15 My name is Jim Singleton.
10:52:17 I'm a Tampa native.
10:52:18 I have lived here all my life.
10:52:20 I belong to the society incorporated since 1979.
10:52:25 And I have been performing various excavations, Fort
10:52:31 Brooke area, for 35, 36 years.
10:52:34 So my passion is history.
10:52:38 I want to start out by just showing you an item and
10:52:40 I'm going to tray to prove a point here.
10:52:48 Does anyone recognize this right here, of what this
10:52:50 is?
10:52:52 >> Can't see it.
10:53:09 >> That right there was located right across the
10:53:12 street from here.

10:53:12 The old Hillsborough County courthouse built back by
10:53:16 the same gentleman who built the University of Tampa
10:53:18 back in the Tampa Bay hotel.
10:53:31 Due to having to do with city officials and so forth
10:53:34 that was deemed not really worth saving.
10:53:36 Now, the late Hampton Dunn and Tony Pizzo, that would
10:53:46 be one of the most beautiful courthouses in the State
10:53:48 of Florida.
10:53:52 Everyone here should recognize that.
10:53:54 Now it just so happens that if you look at, I think on
10:53:58 page 77 but I'm not sure, you will see a picture of
10:54:02 the old criminal courthouse that showed 4 columns.
10:54:08 Fortunately for me, even though all this transpired
10:54:10 before I was born, fortunately for me, the previous
10:54:14 owner of my house, he was a judge, and he had some
10:54:18 things removed out of the courthouse, and I now have
10:54:20 those in my house.
10:54:23 That is the only connection I have with the old
10:54:26 courthouse.
10:54:27 Now, Fort Brooke in 1824, put the Tampa Bay area on
10:54:31 the map.
10:54:32 But it was the cigar factory -- I know we are not

10:54:36 supposed to be talking about the cigar factory -- but
10:54:39 the cigar factories fell in with other building
10:54:42 structures.
10:54:43 It basically is what put Tampa on the map.
10:54:45 Now, as far as designation, as far as historic, I
10:54:52 refer to a historical house and I am doing a complete
10:54:55 restoration.
10:55:00 Because that should be done.
10:55:01 What I feel, it's immaterial of what is the truth,
10:55:07 meaning history.
10:55:08 It has already transpired.
10:55:09 If you have a structure that is truly a historical
10:55:12 structure, myself being the owner should play no part
10:55:20 in whether it is called historical or not because
10:55:23 history has decided that for us, not ourselves.
10:55:25 Now, I do believe that there should be some sort of
10:55:34 tax breaks and like that to encourage owners of these
10:55:38 historic structures but as far as changing the
10:55:39 ordinance from the way it is -- and I agree with Fran
10:55:42 and the others -- that maybe some tweaking.
10:55:45 But I really do not believe that it should be changed.
10:55:48 Thank you.

10:55:53 >> Sir, did you want this back or did you want it to
10:55:56 go in the record?
10:55:57 Put it in the record.
10:56:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a point of order.
10:56:03 David.
10:56:06 I'm very confused on this, we can't speak about cigar
10:56:10 factories.
10:56:11 >>> He's not a member of the board.
10:56:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Regardless, I think this came to us
10:56:17 because of cigar factories.
10:56:19 If when don't want to talk about the cigar factories
10:56:22 specifically --
10:56:23 >>> We are later.
10:56:24 >> We can talk about these cigar factories
10:56:28 specifically later because there's seven or eight of
10:56:30 them that are scheduled for that public hearing later
10:56:32 but I think generically, I think anybody should be
10:56:34 able to talk about cigar factories generally, because
10:56:38 cigar factories are one of the things that are older
10:56:40 than 50 years old, just like there's old homes that we
10:56:43 could talk about in relationship to this ordinance.
10:56:46 >>DAVID SMITH: We have no problem with discussion

10:56:49 occurring about a cigar factory.
10:56:51 My admonition was with board members to not discuss it
10:56:56 because we don't want the appearance of prejudgment.
10:56:58 >> So throws a handful of board members and they know
10:57:00 who they are.
10:57:01 But everyone else can talk about cigar factories
10:57:04 generically all they want.
10:57:05 >>> If they want to.
10:57:06 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I just want to remind everyone that
10:57:11 this is -- sir, you are the second or third speaker
10:57:14 that said tweak but don't change.
10:57:16 Tweak and change are the same thing.
10:57:18 In order to tweak, we have got to make revisions to
10:57:22 our ordinance.
10:57:23 Mr. Smith, I mean, we can't just simply say we are
10:57:28 going to revise the process but not change our
10:57:30 orthopedics, can we?
10:57:31 >>DAVID SMITH: I think the issue, what we are here
10:57:39 today to give direction to council.
10:57:41 You have already spoken 5-2.
10:57:43 You are our clients.
10:57:44 You have directed us to do something in this regard.

10:57:46 And we are coming back to you with more information
10:57:50 that will help you direct us.
10:57:54 To what degree do you want to inform the drafting of
10:57:58 the ordinance?
10:57:59 That's really the issue before you today.
10:58:01 And I think what you're hearing from those who are
10:58:04 saying tweak the process, they are really saying -- I
10:58:12 heard them say don't opt out.
10:58:14 Some don't want consent in there at all.
10:58:16 It would be nice if they would address the levels of
10:58:19 consent.
10:58:20 I think we all know historic process, historic
10:58:24 preservation is a good thing.
10:58:25 I think you are hearing today about the level, and it
10:58:28 would be very helpful if they would address that issue
10:58:31 for you.
10:58:31 I think what I heard so far is none.
10:58:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I want to remind the audience that we
10:58:36 as a council are not against historic preservation.
10:58:38 This came about because of certain things that have
10:58:42 happened in the past.
10:58:44 We love historic preservation just as much as you do.

10:58:49 We are concerned about our city.
10:58:51 We love our city.
10:58:52 But please don't think that we are against it because
10:58:54 we are not.
10:58:55 We are just trying to make the process a little better
10:58:58 for everyone, not for just the preservation but for
10:59:00 the citizens.
10:59:01 So when you come up here, don't stand there and accuse
10:59:05 us, because it's not that -- we are not being contrary
10:59:10 about this.
10:59:10 We are here trying to hear everybody's side of this
10:59:13 issue.
10:59:14 And, you know, I am a preservationist at heart, too.Dy
10:59:19 my part in Ybor City.
10:59:21 So, you know, I'm taking a little offense on how these
10:59:25 things are being presented to us.
10:59:26 So please be a little bit more cautious.
10:59:28 Thank you.
10:59:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to encourage the
10:59:32 audience, when you come and speak, to be extremely
10:59:34 specific.
10:59:36 There is a process, and there's an ordinance.

10:59:39 Be clear of what you are speaking to and what you want
10:59:41 done.
10:59:41 I think that would help council.
10:59:43 Thank you.
10:59:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Next.
10:59:50 >>> Princey HOFF, president of the neighborhood
10:59:54 association.
10:59:54 We as a board do not support an out clause.
10:59:59 If you want to tweak the ordinance to include if you
11:00:06 want to add a provision to allow one of these criteria
11:00:10 to be owner consent, I personally don't have a problem
11:00:14 with that.
11:00:15 I think that should be weighed as much as everything
11:00:17 else is weighed.
11:00:18 And I don't think that that should have -- if the
11:00:24 owner does not want to do a consent that that should
11:00:26 override all of the other factors involved with that
11:00:29 piece of property.
11:00:30 We are in the process of trying to get a new local
11:00:33 historic district in our neighborhood.
11:00:35 And for us to have this at this point in time where we
11:00:42 are trying to define the outline of our historic

11:00:45 district for Hampton terrace, okay, this owner opts
11:00:51 out and this owner opts out, we are going to have
11:00:58 polls all over the place because people don't
11:01:00 understand what having a historic preservation can do
11:01:02 for them.
11:01:04 And I think that by educating the owners of these
11:01:08 properties, through incentives and what they are doing
11:01:11 for the legacy of themselves and their property, I
11:01:14 agree the who the has been here longer than the owners
11:01:17 in most cases.
11:01:18 And we are leaving a legacy for people who come well
11:01:22 after us.
11:01:22 Many of you have traveled to Europe, you understand
11:01:27 the gorgeous old buildings, and that's what drives a
11:01:31 lot of us to go over there is to see these and see how
11:01:35 the Europeans have preserved their structure.
11:01:38 We need to follow suit.
11:01:39 They have been doing that for hundreds of years.
11:01:42 There is no reason why the United States cannot learn
11:01:48 from the Europeans on how to improve their history.
11:01:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:01:54 Next.

11:01:59 >>> Good morning.
11:02:00 Roger Grink, an architect, also one of the people who
11:02:12 sits on the architectural review commission, here to
11:02:15 speak as president of the Historic Hyde Park
11:02:18 Neighborhood Association.
11:02:18 I would like to comment on some of the ideas that have
11:02:25 been coming before us, and I would like to say first
11:02:28 of all that the Historic Hyde Park neighborhood
11:02:30 association supports a constructive discourse on the
11:02:35 role of preservation, zoning, and urban design in our
11:02:38 community.
11:02:40 We join other historic neighborhood associations in
11:02:45 absolutely opposing any legislation which would weaken
11:02:48 the quality of our city's historic fabric.
11:02:56 Some of the ideas.
11:02:57 Owner initiated designation.
11:03:00 At the basis of this question is the concept of what
11:03:03 constitutes a healthy community, along with
11:03:08 universally accessible education, medical care,
11:03:12 quality employment, clone air, water, affordable
11:03:15 housing, are a community's needs for meaningful arts
11:03:18 and culture.

11:03:20 No society that has been cut off from its roots, from
11:03:23 its history, has ever endured.
11:03:27 It is a secure knowledge of where we have come from,
11:03:31 which enabled us to respond positively to challenges
11:03:35 that we face today and will in the future, both as
11:03:38 individuals and as a group or city.
11:03:43 Those cultural objects and artifacts which bear
11:03:46 witness to our past have more importance to our
11:03:50 society in what they represent, more so than the
11:03:55 intrinsic value of the objects themselves.
11:03:57 For this reason alone, the community's rights must
11:04:01 take precedence over the individuals.
11:04:06 The exchange of certain property rights from the
11:04:11 individual to the community has been equitably carried
11:04:14 out in many communities through lucrative tax
11:04:18 incentives and sale of development transfer rights.
11:04:23 For Tampa to rely on individual owners whims as to
11:04:29 whether to preserve our history, for Tampa not to join
11:04:33 other progressive cities which enjoy creative tech
11:04:35 next to save cultural artifacts, will relegate our
11:04:39 city to a dark future, economically and socially.
11:04:44 Owner consent.

11:04:45 Designation is a safeguard against mismanagement and
11:04:48 abuse of a community resource.
11:04:55 Does ownership grant the right to destroy community
11:04:57 asset?
11:04:58 Do we have laws to protect trees on private property?
11:05:01 Do we have laws to protect air and water as it is over
11:05:04 and runs across private land?
11:05:09 Whistle many take seriously their responsibilities as
11:05:11 custodians of public resources, community assets are
11:05:16 far too precious to be left to the good will of owners
11:05:19 alone.
11:05:23 Degrees of importance should play a role in the
11:05:25 evaluation of historic buildings.
11:05:28 It's not difficult.
11:05:29 We all can think.
11:05:30 The importance --
11:05:32 >>CHAIRMAN: Finish your statement.
11:05:35 >>> The importance of the structure, however, is
11:05:37 dependent -- is not, it is totally independent of how
11:05:42 the owners' understanding and or appreciation of the
11:05:48 role of that asset and the role it plays in the
11:05:51 community.

11:05:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:05:53 Next.
11:06:02 >>> Vivian Salaga, president of the Florida
11:06:05 association of the American institute of architects.
11:06:09 In my position as president of this association, I can
11:06:14 attest that our organization is often called upon to
11:06:19 advocate for or against issues as they relate to the
11:06:25 building environment.
11:06:27 The modifications to the city ordinance as related to
11:06:31 preservation of Tampa's unique architectural heritage
11:06:34 are indeed important to us as a statewide
11:06:38 organization, and a component of a 76,000 member
11:06:45 national organization, because of the precedent it
11:06:51 sets throughout the state and throughout the country
11:06:56 when communities begin to modify their preservation
11:07:00 ordinances.
11:07:02 And the Pandora's boxes that it may open not only in
11:07:07 our own community but elsewhere in the state and the
11:07:10 country can be impacted -- impacted by council's
11:07:16 decision on this issue.
11:07:19 The heritage architecture of the State of Florida, and
11:07:21 specifically of what is found in the City of Tampa, is

11:07:26 an endangered species.
11:07:30 It's not protected.
11:07:36 Looked around downtown Tampa, some of its near
11:07:38 neighborhoods, to see what the impacts of past
11:07:40 presumed development for the sake of the community has
11:07:46 caused in the deterioration and the deleterious effect
11:07:51 it has had on the architectural fabric of the city and
11:07:55 the quality of its neighborhoods.
11:07:59 The national and statewide initiative for the AIA in
11:08:02 2007 is the same ability and under the umbrella, a
11:08:09 significant recognition that preservation of our
11:08:12 heritage architecture is indeed the penultimate act
11:08:20 that any neighborhood can engage in.
11:08:22 What our leaders do to protect our path is critical to
11:08:25 the future of our city, our neighborhoods, the
11:08:29 embattle of life within those cities and
11:08:30 neighborhoods, nowhere in the consideration being
11:08:35 offered here today do we see how the opt-out
11:08:39 consideration by owners has any indication of what
11:08:47 their opting out brings beneficially to the
11:08:50 neighborhood, the community, and the quality of life
11:08:52 in the City of Tampa.

11:08:55 And to the sustainability of the heritage, the
11:09:00 architecture, and the culture of our community.
11:09:08 We along with others in this room strongly urge
11:09:10 council not to adopt the opt-out clause in the
11:09:14 ordinance.
11:09:15 It has a negative impact in the sustainability of our
11:09:22 communities, our culture, and our neighborhoods.
11:09:26 Thank you very much.
11:09:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Salaga, I know you have been
11:09:32 involved in a lot of the preservation buildings and
11:09:35 you have done a beautiful, beautiful job.
11:09:37 I have a question for you.
11:09:41 Was that owner originated? Did you come and ask to be
11:09:47 designated?
11:09:49 >>> For my own buildings, I indeed did.
11:09:52 Not only do I feel a responsibility to preserve and
11:09:55 protect the architecture of the city, but,
11:09:59 interestingly enough, it has a significant positive
11:10:06 economic impact on the neighborhoods and the
11:10:07 redevelopment activity in the neighborhood, and the
11:10:11 value of the building itself.
11:10:14 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay.

11:10:15 That's all I wanted you to say, was that you --
11:10:18 >>> Absolutely.
11:10:19 >> It was originated by you.
11:10:21 >>> Yes, it was.
11:10:22 >> Nobody came over there and said, we want you to do
11:10:24 it.
11:10:24 >>> Well, ours only happens to fall in the boundaries
11:10:29 of the Tampa Heights historic district.
11:10:32 But I felt -- I mean, I accepted that.
11:10:37 >> But you originated it?
11:10:40 >>> No, I couldn't have, because my building is in the
11:10:43 historic district.
11:10:44 If I wanted to opt out, I could not have done that,
11:10:47 nor would I have wanted to.
11:10:50 >>MARY ALVAREZ: when you came up for the tax credit
11:10:56 you asked for it.
11:10:57 >>> Of course, we did.
11:10:58 >> And that's fine, you know.
11:11:01 But what --
11:11:03 >>> We are in the district.
11:11:04 >> But it originated with you.
11:11:08 >>> No, it actually originated with the fellow whom we

11:11:11 hired as our historic tax consultant who said if we
11:11:14 did this, if we did A, B, C and D, we would have some
11:11:19 significant economic advantages.
11:11:24 X, Y and Z if we did that.
11:11:27 And additionally, and more importantly, it benefited
11:11:31 the greater neighborhood community where our buildings
11:11:37 lie.
11:11:40 >> Thank you.
11:11:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm confused now.
11:11:44 Just a clarification.
11:11:45 The regulatory -- the historic designation that was --
11:11:50 I don't even know where your building is or what it
11:11:52 is.
11:11:53 >>> Tampa Heights.
11:11:54 >> But it was placed on there because you are in Tampa
11:11:56 Heights, so your building along with all the other
11:11:59 historic buildings within Tampa Heights all got
11:12:02 designated as one.
11:12:03 That was not voluntary, correct?
11:12:05 >>> Correct.
11:12:07 >> You had an old building.
11:12:09 This City Council designated Tampa Heights as a

11:12:12 historic district.
11:12:13 It was not voluntary at all and there was no opt out
11:12:17 at all.
11:12:17 >>> No.
11:12:22 However, it brings to potential owners such
11:12:25 significant economic advantages, that you would be
11:12:31 stupid, quite frankly, to not take advantage of them
11:12:33 and protect the buildings in the manner in which they
11:12:36 should be.
11:12:37 >> And the only thing that you have done voluntarily
11:12:45 now is take advantage of the tax credits, which just
11:12:47 makes good common sense.
11:12:48 >>> Yes, the tax credits are always a voluntary -- the
11:12:53 owners cannot take advantage of the tax credits, but
11:12:57 to restore the building we needed to follow all of the
11:13:06 guidelines and restore it.
11:13:07 But it is
11:13:18 >>> I'm Myra barrio, 3006 Main Street in the Inc.
11:13:24 danger erred city of West Tampa.
11:13:31 I'm here to speak from a different perspective because
11:13:34 I unfortunately live in a district that has not been
11:13:36 designated, it is one of Tampa's oldest historic

11:13:39 districts.
11:13:40 And yet we have not been designated a local historic
11:13:45 district.
11:13:47 And we are in the process of having forums and
11:13:50 discussions in our community.
11:13:52 I hope all of the City Council members will recall the
11:13:57 West Tampa economic development plan.
11:14:00 We have spent, in our community, two years.
11:14:30 We have worked for two years with the economic develop
11:14:34 development plan which I think the City Council has
11:14:35 approved, am I correct?
11:14:39 Have you seen this document?
11:14:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I can't remember the status of it
11:14:42 but.
11:14:44 >>> Well, if you read the document, you will notice
11:14:46 that one of the greatest and most important assets
11:14:49 that the community could find for the redevelopment of
11:14:54 West Tampa was to preserve its historical assets.
11:14:58 Obviously we are urban, centrally located community,
11:15:03 and that's an asset.
11:15:05 But what we also -- even more important was the fact
11:15:09 that we are a national historic district.

11:15:13 At the same time, and West Tampa is a great case study
11:15:16 for historic preservation.
11:15:19 At the same time that we have been working so hard in
11:15:22 West Tampa to redevelop our community, and to promote
11:15:26 our historical values, the request for the change of
11:15:32 the ordinance came up in the City Council, and it
11:15:36 caused great concern to those of us who perceive that
11:15:41 as possibly an end to historic preservation and to the
11:15:46 Historic Preservation Commission of which I am a
11:15:49 member.
11:15:52 That's how perceived that.
11:15:54 Now maybe I'm wrong.
11:15:55 But to me it was an extreme measure.
11:15:57 It was throwing out the baby with the bath water.
11:16:01 And that's how most of the people in my community
11:16:05 perceive your action and your vote.
11:16:06 And I want to be very clear about how it is perceived.
11:16:13 And in West Tampa, it's a very sensitive issue because
11:16:15 we have been working very hard to create a community
11:16:19 that will preserve our history.
11:16:24 People talk about urban renewal and the terrible
11:16:26 destruction that happened in Tampa for many years.

11:16:30 Most of that destruction happened in West Tampa and it
11:16:34 wasn't years ago, it was last year.
11:16:37 And I'll show this to you.
11:16:50 It is the street of Laurel.
11:16:51 It happened hast year.
11:16:53 I want to show you pictures of everything that was
11:16:55 demolished.
11:16:55 It's all gone now.
11:16:56 That includes churches.
11:16:57 It includes the oldest school in West Tampa.
11:17:01 It includes many beautiful homes.
11:17:04 So we could all get to downtown on the Internet state
11:17:07 five minutes faster.
11:17:09 Demolition is our concern.
11:17:12 In West Tampa.
11:17:18 Historic preservation ordinance is the only thing that
11:17:20 prevents the continued demolition of our community.
11:17:24 Thank you.
11:17:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:17:25 Next.
11:17:38 >> I am Stephani Ferrell, historic preservation
11:17:41 architect and developer.

11:17:42 And I have three points to make this morning.
11:17:45 One is that in discussing the owner initiated or owner
11:17:51 consent concept that David Smith outlined for you this
11:17:56 morning, I would suggest that either of those
11:17:59 approaches will take away your ability and your
11:18:03 authority to designate historic properties and would
11:18:06 not be appropriate.
11:18:07 So if there were an endangered site with an overriding
11:18:12 importance and there was not owner consent, could you
11:18:14 not save it.
11:18:16 And I think that would not be a responsible or wise
11:18:20 way to deal with our historic resources.
11:18:25 Roger and several others talked about the significance
11:18:28 of our resources and their importance to our
11:18:30 community.
11:18:30 I won't go into that again.
11:18:33 But certainly I concur.
11:18:35 But I wanted to talk to you about if you did that, you
11:18:38 would be limiting your own authority and your own
11:18:41 ability to help our community preserve those
11:18:43 resources.
11:18:44 So I am absolutely opposed to that.

11:18:47 I also wanted to talk briefly about the A.R.C.
11:18:50 process.
11:18:51 I believe it worked mostly well.
11:18:54 I have seen it improve over time due to both historic
11:18:58 preservation staff and legal department guidance, the
11:19:03 A.R.C. and BLC stay on target most of the time, and I
11:19:06 find it to be reasonable.
11:19:08 It needs a little bit of work.
11:19:10 It may not need ordinance changes to do that.
11:19:14 It may just need, you know, administrative changes.
11:19:17 And lastly, I would like to suggest the design
11:19:20 guidelines for both bodies which are currently part of
11:19:24 the historic preservation ordinances, they were
11:19:29 developed originally to be guidelines and guidance to
11:19:33 both the reviewing bodies and to the property owners
11:19:38 and applicants.
11:19:41 They were at some point maybe five or six years ago
11:19:43 adopted as part of the ordinance.
11:19:46 I would suggest they be removed from the ordinance so
11:19:50 they can be amended much more easily, and they are not
11:19:55 like zoning regulations.
11:19:57 So I would like to suggest that be a change to be

11:19:59 considered to the A.R.C. and BLC portions of the
11:20:04 historic preservation code. And I would be happy to
11:20:06 answer any questions.
11:20:07 Thank you very much.
11:20:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:20:12 Next.
11:20:14 >>> I have been sworn.
11:20:18 I am just here today as your average Tampa citizen.
11:20:21 I'm not here representing anyone.
11:20:23 I believe it's more of Tampa -- if more of Tampa
11:20:28 citizens knew what was going on this room would be
11:20:29 overflowing.
11:20:41 The process needs to be worked on.
11:20:45 There are many people who can work together, put their
11:20:49 heads together and figure out how to make the process
11:20:52 work more effectively.
11:20:53 Also, an issue, and why this comes before you is a
11:20:57 property rights issue, by some of the developers, the
11:21:00 people that own the buildings. They have bought
11:21:00 property rights. You have a right to buy property in
11:21:00 the City of Tampa.
11:21:07 You also have a right to sell it. So I don't buy this

11:21:09 "economic hardship" deal. If you don't want to
11:21:09 restore a historic property, there's somebody else in
11:21:09 the city that probably wants to. So just like you can
11:21:09 buy it, you can also sell it to someone else. I think
11:21:09 that's how it should be handled, and not changing the
11:21:09 law.
11:21:35 >> Joanna Peck, consultant, reside at 4060 Passa Court
11:21:35 in Hernando Beach. I am also a member of CPI.
11:21:41 I have made it very clear how I feel about the
11:21:43 process.
11:21:46 I have written correspondence to you, favorably
11:21:48 received. Spoken to staff. They favorably received
11:21:51 it as well.
11:21:56 Obviously, it's a perception in the community that
11:21:59 it's not working well, but the problem is perception
11:22:05 and that's why we are here today.
11:22:08 The purpose of preservation is not about restoring
11:22:14 buildings at all, in fact, but is about trying to
11:22:16 preserve what makes the community unique.
11:22:19 And in Tampa, you know, location, plenty of things
11:22:24 that are here, but the buildings are part of that,
11:22:27 what the community needs.

11:22:34 Who gets to choose what gets preserved?
11:22:37 What makes -- what is retained that makes Tampa
11:22:42 unique.
11:22:43 Somebody that owns the building for years, ought to be
11:22:47 designated, the building is gone forever.
11:22:49 Even though it's been around for 75 years.
11:22:51 That's not being responsible as the City of Tampa.
11:22:59 You did talk a little about what's legally defensible.
11:23:02 Whether putting owner consent, in some variation, is
11:23:05 legally defensible, is questionable.
11:23:07 However, not having that in there is legally
11:23:10 defensible.
11:23:11 By almost everybody that I have spoken to.
11:23:14 So not putting it is a very safe way to go and gives
11:23:22 you the ability of what is your role to do for the
11:23:28 people of the City of Tampa.
11:23:31 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Wysong, what's the criteria for
11:23:36 demolition of properties?
11:23:37 We keep hearing about demolition.
11:23:41 What is the criteria for the demolition of historic
11:23:44 properties?
11:23:49 >>> Are we discussing properties that have a historic

11:23:51 designation?
11:23:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: No, talking about a building over 50
11:23:56 years old maybe not designated.
11:23:58 >>> In the City of Tampa a building that's over 50
11:24:00 years old prior to demolition permit being issued is
11:24:04 forwarded to the historic preservation staff, who
11:24:06 reviews it.
11:24:07 If the building is determined by staff not to meet the
11:24:10 criteria, then we will approve that demolition.
11:24:17 So far in calendar year 2006, we have done about 600
11:24:22 of those demolitions.
11:24:24 If the building appears that may meet the criteria
11:24:27 within chapter 27, then we schedule that before the
11:24:30 Historic Preservation Commission for their
11:24:33 consideration.
11:24:33 We have done about three of those buildings this year.
11:24:37 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Another question.
11:24:41 There's been talk about the historic district in Ybor
11:24:45 City, and also in West Tampa, the homes that could
11:24:49 have been saved by designation.
11:24:53 Ybor City has the historic designation, because it was
11:24:57 in the historic district, and D.O.T. came in there,

11:25:00 took them out because of the highway expansion, West
11:25:03 Tampa did the same thing.
11:25:06 Could the historic --
11:25:10 >>> The historic preservation ordinance wouldn't have
11:25:12 prevented the interstate from being expanded but what
11:25:15 I think you can see is the difference in how they
11:25:20 handled where 33 structures were rehabilitated and
11:25:26 sold to the trust fund which now offers low-interest
11:25:30 loans, to individuals within qualified areas, and
11:25:33 within the national registered district of West Tampa,
11:25:36 which had two structures relocated and the rest
11:25:41 demolished.
11:25:43 Other consideration to the national district?
11:25:47 There will be some amenities added to West Tampa that
11:25:51 you won't see in other areas that aren't national
11:25:53 register districts.
11:25:54 However, there was, no doubt, an emphasis on saving
11:25:59 the homes in Ybor City, because that also has a local
11:26:02 historic district designation.
11:26:04 >> I am well aware of that part of it.
11:26:07 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
11:26:10 One thing that is not on the agenda today is historic

11:26:13 districts.
11:26:13 We are not altering the historic designation process.
11:26:17 This is only landmarks.
11:26:18 For example, the question you had with Mrs. Salaga is
11:26:23 a house in her district.
11:26:26 Only about designating landmarks.
11:26:28 I think if we can get folks back on those issues you
11:26:31 might proceed more at pace.
11:26:32 >>MARY ALVAREZ: This is a good time for us to have a
11:26:35 question-and-answer period, too.
11:26:37 >>> If you want to do that, that's your prerogative.
11:26:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Smith, this is a question.
11:26:46 If we were to change the ordinance to allow owner
11:26:49 consent to be a consideration, would there be any
11:26:53 ability for council to protect something that we
11:27:00 designate as a landmark?
11:27:02 >>> I think if we have owner consent as a factor as
11:27:04 opposed to owner initiated then it's going to go
11:27:06 through the same process it goes through currently.
11:27:10 It goes to HBC for review.
11:27:13 HBC will have the opportunity to take into account as
11:27:17 a factor but not necessarily as a disposition.

11:27:19 If you take the opt-out, or if you do an initiation,
11:27:23 we then have to look at that specific provision in the
11:27:25 ordinance, and see how you wanted to address
11:27:27 demolition, which you could address in a different
11:27:29 way.
11:27:30 So we really are going to have to come back to you
11:27:33 with an ordinance, where some of this process will be
11:27:38 dealt with.
11:27:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: David, you said we are really not
11:27:47 talking about historic districts, focusing on historic
11:27:51 landmarks.
11:27:52 I degree and disagree.
11:27:55 And you can correct me if you think I'm wrong.
11:27:59 But I think that the only difference between the two
11:28:02 is that historic district is a big consolation, a big
11:28:07 grouping of historic landmarks.
11:28:09 Okay.
11:28:10 And the only thing that makes those little cigar
11:28:14 factories different than the historic districts is the
11:28:16 fact that somehow or another by a freak of geography
11:28:21 they got isolated in an area that's not a historic
11:28:23 district.

11:28:24 But other than that there's no difference.
11:28:26 There's no difference between a wonderful cigar
11:28:29 factory that is lucky enough to be in the Ybor City
11:28:32 district.
11:28:34 As opposed to historic cigar factory that is isolated
11:28:38 over in West Tampa which is not a district or Palmetto
11:28:41 district.
11:28:42 But why is one any lessor more valuable than the
11:28:46 other?
11:28:48 I'm just saying, Mary, if we cherish -- and I know you
11:28:53 do, I know you cherish the historic Ybor district.
11:28:56 And the other district.
11:28:57 And I know that.
11:28:58 But my point is, there's no difference between the
11:29:01 two.
11:29:01 It's just one happens to be over there isolated but
11:29:06 the building is historically valuable, all these
11:29:10 experts say it is, and they just happen to be
11:29:16 geographically isolated.
11:29:18 But at the end of the day, why should we treat them
11:29:20 any different?
11:29:21 And why should we treat those property owners any

11:29:24 better or worse?
11:29:25 This is about equal protection.
11:29:27 Just because that property owner bought one that's
11:29:29 isolated over in West Tampa, he shouldn't be treated
11:29:32 any better or worse than a property owner who happens
11:29:34 to be in the district.
11:29:40 >>> No shock to you, I agree and disagree.
11:29:43 Conceptually and policywise, I understand your
11:29:45 argument.
11:29:46 And I think that flows.
11:29:47 The ordinance, however, is separated.
11:29:50 We are --
11:29:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And that's fine.
11:29:53 Thank goodness we're not.
11:29:59 >>> Thank you.
11:29:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Next.
11:30:02 >>> Elizabeth Johnson.
11:30:03 I have a speaker waiver form and I want to put
11:30:05 something on the record.
11:30:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There are three additional names.
11:30:21 Beatrice Guinta.
11:30:30 There you are in the back.

11:30:30 Robert Williams.
11:30:32 Raise your hand.
11:30:33 I'm sorry, Robert Williams?
11:30:37 Okay, I don't see anybody responding.
11:30:40 And is it hickey?
11:30:50 Okay, one additional name for an additional minute.
11:30:55 >>CHAIRMAN: You may start now.
11:30:58 >>>
11:31:08 The question today, Elizabeth Johnson, 1819 Richardson
11:31:12 place.
11:31:12 Again the question that your city attorney has posited
11:31:17 to you is do you want consent in the ordinance?
11:31:19 I would say speaking personally, as someone that's
11:31:21 been active in preservation, no.
11:31:25 I am not going to give you -- you might like my
11:31:32 presentations better.
11:31:34 But going back to February 2nd, you need to
11:31:38 remember why we are here.
11:31:40 On February 2nd, that public hearing never opened.
11:31:43 And Julia Miller sitting here with a bunch of
11:31:47 preservationists wanting to speak.
11:31:50 So when I hear, we have been directed to look into

11:31:53 owner consent, I get very concerned, because those
11:31:57 individuals aren't there.
11:31:58 So what I have given to you is put in the record is
11:32:00 what they plan to say on February 2nd.
11:32:03 And these are experts in that community.
11:32:08 The code is fine.
11:32:10 It's the process.
11:32:12 So any of those proposed things, obviously the last
11:32:18 one is more preferable.
11:32:19 But it's the process that needs to be structured.
11:32:27 Also, the idea about districts versus landmarks.
11:32:30 I'm very happy to hear that districts are being
11:32:33 changed.
11:32:33 But at some point in the summer, that was being
11:32:36 discussed, and we talked about changing, and that was
11:32:42 obviously a concern.
11:32:43 So we don't want to touch the district.
11:32:45 But in answer to Mr. Dingfelder's question, I think
11:32:47 he's exactly right.
11:32:49 And you see that answer in what Ms. Miller and Ms.
11:32:54 Merritt provided.
11:32:56 They said allowing owners to opt out in this instance

11:32:59 would create a dangerous precedent, undercutting the
11:33:02 city's ability to designate other landmarks in the
11:33:05 future, exposing the city to a barge of fought
11:33:08 requests by other property owners to carve out more
11:33:12 exemptions, and also adoption of an opt out policy
11:33:14 would be tantamount to establishing a strictly
11:33:18 volunteer preservation program which would make the
11:33:20 preservation of Tampa heritage dependent upon the
11:33:23 whims of individual property owners, rather than over
11:33:26 the collective wisdom of city officials.
11:33:29 So Mr. Dingfelder is correct.
11:33:31 You start creating opt-out for your landmark, it's not
11:33:35 going to be too long before smart land use lawyers in
11:33:38 this city come to you and say, we want to opt out the
11:33:42 district.
11:33:43 They tried it this summer.
11:33:44 And, as a matter of fact, there were, a public records
11:33:48 request, significant changes being made to the
11:33:50 district.
11:33:51 And because of a lot of volunteer participation, those
11:33:55 were abandoned, thankfully.
11:33:59 I also think it's important, I'm glad Mr. Harrison --

11:34:03 because I think some of the questions that you asked
11:34:05 were important.
11:34:06 But when I put all of what Ms. Miller said, and Julia,
11:34:12 against the idea that opt-out or owner initiated, I
11:34:15 haven't heard how they are any different, is
11:34:18 defensible, I really do question whether or not the
11:34:22 legal resources can be brought to bear on that,
11:34:24 because this to me is very sensible.
11:34:28 And they talk about the other issues, the delegation
11:34:32 of legislative authority that would be improper.
11:34:35 So I would ask you to proceed very cautiously.
11:34:39 Again, I have to remind you, how did this start?
11:34:42 A few developers came to you, spoke to you, a public
11:34:46 hearing was not even opened, and now we are at the
11:34:49 point where somehow we are looking at opt-out.
11:34:55 I do want to be positive.
11:34:58 And Ms. Alvarez, I was so excited to read in the paper
11:35:01 about you not liking the hideous billboards that went
11:35:06 up in West Tampa.
11:35:07 When I drove up the street and saw that, and I would
11:35:10 love to talk to you about that, because, you know, to
11:35:16 approach some of those government people that's going

11:35:18 on.
11:35:18 I know you are passionate about preservation.
11:35:20 And I know each one of you is passionate about this
11:35:22 city.
11:35:23 But we gave solutions.
11:35:27 When we talk about development rights, that was such
11:35:31 an exciting idea.
11:35:33 The idea that the owner of a cigar factory, if he
11:35:39 comes to the preservation, can get rights that would
11:35:42 be phenomenal.
11:35:43 And I have so many more exciting things but my.
11:35:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
11:35:53 Next.
11:35:57 >>> Suzanne Crea, Suwanee Avenue.
11:36:05 I hadn't planned on speaking today.
11:36:06 But I decided to speak because what I think I'm saying
11:36:10 for all of you is you're sort of facing a moral
11:36:14 dilemma here, because we have a property rights issue.
11:36:16 And I can well understand how any one of you would be
11:36:21 hesitant to take away a right from some person.
11:36:27 I can understand that.
11:36:28 And that's what every law does.

11:36:33 So there are laws that no longer allow people to beat
11:36:37 their wives, which at one point was both lawful and
11:36:43 quite sen.
11:36:44 And I'm not saying it's not practiced today but it's
11:36:50 neither.
11:36:51 But at some point it was realized for the greater
11:36:53 good, for the good of the woman, or for the good of
11:36:58 the children, for the good, frankly, of the beater
11:37:03 himself, it was legislated that this should not be
11:37:05 done and this restrained people and it benefits our
11:37:09 society, period.
11:37:14 Okay.
11:37:14 So how is historic preservation?
11:37:21 I think it's a right issue that people don't like laws
11:37:24 applied to them, they like them applied to somebody
11:37:26 else but they don't like their own rights infringed
11:37:29 upon.
11:37:30 I feel here that for the sake of our community, for
11:37:36 the sake of the identity of our city, that this is a
11:37:39 right that does benefit everyone, including the
11:37:42 property owners, and that isn't to say that I don't
11:37:46 think that it would be nice if they were further

11:37:50 benefited by getting more tax benefits, more
11:37:53 et cetera, more financial benefits.
11:37:56 So I understand very much your dilemma.
11:38:02 I appreciate your dilemma.
11:38:03 But I do believe it is for the greater good.
11:38:05 Thank you.
11:38:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:38:15 >>> Good morning.
11:38:15 My name is Gus Paris.
11:38:18 And I thank you for the opportunity to address the
11:38:20 council this morning.
11:38:25 I come as the chairman of the heritage committee and
11:38:28 American architects, and as a native of Tampa, deep
11:38:31 concerns about our architectural heritage.
11:38:36 I would like to present to you today two items which I
11:38:39 think are very, very important.
11:38:45 First I want to tell but the American heritage
11:38:48 architects that was formed in March of this year and
11:38:50 whose mission it is to preserve and protect the Tampa
11:38:53 Bay areas architectural, historical, cultural heritage
11:38:58 while advancing public interest in education in
11:39:01 architecture, to build environment and design in

11:39:04 general.
11:39:16 Stephani Ferrell, the developer, John Harrison,
11:39:20 developers of the sanctuary project, as well as other
11:39:24 architects with the preservation experience such as
11:39:27 myself, Antonio Amadeo, Gary Smith, and Marsha
11:39:34 Sherman.
11:39:35 The committee also approves nonarchitects as advisers
11:39:42 such as Nicklaus Jamal, owner of the cigar factory,
11:39:47 Sammy Salaga, Jason Gustro and Manny LEMAN.
11:39:55 One of the to act as resource to offer advice to
11:39:58 owners of historic buildings and means and methods of
11:40:01 responding to requirements of historic guidelines, as
11:40:03 well as assisting them and achieving the maximum
11:40:06 return for their investment, as they respect the
11:40:09 historic character of their project, which has great
11:40:12 value, to them and to the community.
11:40:19 When we met in March, obviously the whole saga begins
11:40:27 on both.
11:40:28 We didn't form as a committee to address this specific
11:40:32 issue.
11:40:32 We really formed as a committee to agrees our heritage
11:40:39 in the Tampa Bay area.

11:40:40 But we looked at the problem of how do we deal with a
11:40:45 change in the way historic preservation has come
11:40:48 about?
11:40:49 And Ms. Alvarez, you're right.
11:40:51 We are going from a period of time when people
11:40:54 voluntarily became historic preservation building
11:41:00 owners, and asked for their designations, to a time
11:41:04 when most of that has been completed and now we are
11:41:06 looking at taking active, positive steps to look at
11:41:11 our community and look at what structures need to be
11:41:16 designated.
11:41:16 And we are faced with the problems that brings forth.
11:41:22 So we came up with five points about what we should do
11:41:26 to assist in this problem.
11:41:28 One is that those buildings should be in a unique
11:41:31 category or district, and that is as it's being done.
11:41:36 This will be a district-based on geography and site
11:41:43 specific.
11:41:44 Two, the unique guidelines to device for each of the
11:41:48 specific needs of these facilities.
11:41:54 Sorry, I'm out of time.
11:41:56 Three was financial incentives.

11:41:58 You were to require additional financial incentives
11:42:02 for each of these, for a transfer of development
11:42:06 rights, and we proposed this concept to many, and I'm
11:42:10 glad to see it is coming before you.
11:42:17 Five, providing assistive program utilizing the
11:42:22 architectural committee of the Tampa Bay chapter to
11:42:23 serve as a pro bono resource to help historic building
11:42:27 owners.
11:42:28 And I met with several owners.
11:42:31 >>GWEN MILLER: For the record you have to wrap it up.
11:42:34 >>> So we urge --
11:42:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez has a question.
11:42:38 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I was just going to ask him to
11:42:40 continue on, and did he.
11:42:41 Thank you.
11:42:43 >>> Thank you.
11:42:43 Just to conclude, we urge you to carefully confer
11:42:49 this -- consider this matter and do what is
11:42:52 appropriate for the City of Tampa.
11:42:54 Thank you.
11:42:56 >>MARY ALVAREZ: First of all, I want to answer Mr.
11:43:08 Dingfelder about what the difference is.

11:43:09 The difference is the city had to because of the local
11:43:12 designation, okay?
11:43:13 And in West Tampa, the owners should have been asked
11:43:17 and not told.
11:43:18 The reason we are here today is because of that
11:43:21 opt-out provision that we had, and it was because of
11:43:25 the HBC coming to us to do the multiple designation of
11:43:31 the cigar factory.
11:43:34 Instead of the individual owners coming up and asking
11:43:38 for the designation.
11:43:40 That's the difference.
11:43:42 That was a difference, as I see it.
11:43:44 This is my opinion, okay?
11:43:46 You may have another opinion.
11:43:47 But that's the reason we're here today, is because of
11:43:52 the multiple owners designation that came up.
11:43:55 Instead of just coming up separately.
11:44:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: One thing we agree on, that's why
11:44:04 we are here today.
11:44:06 I mean, we agree on that.
11:44:07 That's why we are here today.
11:44:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Right.

11:44:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Because we trade to bring them in,
11:44:12 perhaps involuntarily, and they objected.
11:44:15 But where we differ --
11:44:19 >> Involuntarily.
11:44:21 That's two things we agree on.
11:44:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
11:44:24 But where we differ is -- and maybe Dennis or someone
11:44:29 can help us with the history, or many people involved
11:44:33 in the process 20-some years ago when that district
11:44:36 got created, Ybor, and then the other district got
11:44:38 created more recently, and maybe when some of you guys
11:44:42 were on council, is you didn't go and ask each
11:44:44 property owner -- let me finish.
11:44:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Didn't have to.
11:44:48 >>> Yes, did you.
11:44:51 Or you didn't have to and that's my point.
11:44:53 It was a piece --
11:44:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez.
11:44:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me finish.
11:44:58 It was a piece of geographic land that happened to
11:45:01 be -- it was no different.
11:45:04 It was owned by individual property owners.

11:45:06 You didn't ask for their permission.
11:45:09 You took them involuntarily, involuntarily, you
11:45:12 created that district, involuntarily, just like we are
11:45:17 doing individually.
11:45:19 Involuntarily.
11:45:23 >>GWEN MILLER: We have more speakers.
11:45:24 Come up.
11:45:25 Next, sir.
11:45:35 >> Chapman, 6306 South MacDill Avenue.
11:45:38 And represent the ownership of 900 north Howard and
11:45:42 the corner of cypress and Howard.
11:45:44 First let me just say that I understand English law,
11:45:49 rule of thumb, and if we were -- we would be here way
11:45:54 longer talking about this.
11:45:56 So the historic buildings and the cigar building
11:46:02 owners, there isn't a single owner that I didn't know
11:46:05 that aren't proud of the building that they own and
11:46:07 want to do something to do a good job on it.
11:46:11 It's the property rights that we are talking about,
11:46:13 and telling us what to do with the building and how to
11:46:15 do it, and the real process that you have to go
11:46:18 through, and the additional expense to go through that

11:46:21 are outside the guidelines of the secretary of
11:46:23 interior.
11:46:24 There's an example.
11:46:26 The Centro Espanol on Armenia was owned by the local
11:46:32 area, and I when Bob Martinez was mayor he installed a
11:46:38 roof on that building for in excess of a million
11:46:40 dollars.
11:46:40 Then it was given to a nonprofit.
11:46:46 They had grants of $4.3 million spent on the building.
11:46:50 Another loan of $1.8 million spent on the building.
11:46:54 Still not complete.
11:46:56 And think about giving it back to the county.
11:47:01 A building on the corner on Howard at the interstate.
11:47:06 Bought it from the city.
11:47:08 Paid -- started out at -- a two-year process to
11:47:16 renovate and repair the building.
11:47:18 And recently obtained or asked for a two-year
11:47:22 extension to repair the building.
11:47:24 And the process was difficult.
11:47:27 The City of Tampa had -- and these folks that are
11:47:34 remind board of director historic preservation, keep
11:47:36 it, row store it, preserve it, do whatever that their

11:47:41 wishes would want.
11:47:43 As well as the building on Armenia. It's my position,
11:47:48 and I think some of the others agree with me, an today
11:47:52 I do not want to sell the building on Howard Avenue.
11:47:59 There's another person in this room that family owned
11:48:02 it previous.
11:48:03 But these people that are wanting to control what is
11:48:07 to be done with this particular building.
11:48:09 I'll meet with them and sell it to them.
11:48:11 Let them own it.
11:48:13 Let them put their money where their mouth is.
11:48:15 And then let them do what they are saying that we
11:48:18 should do or I should do with that building.
11:48:21 Thank you.
11:48:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.
11:48:28 I think you heard my comments, Ms. Alvarez, before.
11:48:31 But I appreciate you coming up here and you and I have
11:48:33 spoken in the past and we had some agree or disagree
11:48:38 type conversations.
11:48:40 >>> Sort of like Mr. Smith, yes, sir.
11:48:43 >> It appears to me that you and your five or six
11:48:46 other peers involved in this process are looking to be

11:48:49 treated differently than the cigar factories that are
11:48:53 in the historic districts.
11:48:58 Is there anything unique or different about your cigar
11:49:01 factory that we should allow you, other than the fact
11:49:05 that geographically you are not in the district?
11:49:08 But is there any other reason why you should be
11:49:10 treated differently than the private property owners
11:49:13 who has the same private property rights who owns a
11:49:16 cigar factory in one of the districts?
11:49:18 >>> May I respond?
11:49:21 Thank you.
11:49:21 I don't keep up with the Joneses.
11:49:24 I don't keep up with these other people that you are
11:49:27 talking about in Ybor City.
11:49:28 I don't know what their rights were, that they gave
11:49:30 away, did not give away, negotiated, trade, or
11:49:34 whatever they did.
11:49:35 However, for whatever reason that they did.
11:49:37 I'm not privy to that.
11:49:39 I'm hear today telling you that.
11:49:41 I'm here today telling you about my rights and my
11:49:44 building, and I'm standing for those.

11:49:47 I have to understand what they were treated or how
11:49:50 they were treated.
11:49:51 But maybe their rights were violated.
11:49:54 And I have talked to a couple of owners that said, I
11:49:57 don't want to go through this process.
11:49:59 They don't want to come down here.
11:50:01 They don't want to go through all the time.
11:50:03 It's taken a lot of time, a lot of money.
11:50:06 It hasn't been free.
11:50:08 Our attorney is not on a pro bono.
11:50:10 So we are paying the bill to fights faith for our
11:50:13 property rights.
11:50:14 So if their property rights were given away, traded,
11:50:19 I'm not here today that I can answer the question.
11:50:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But physically or personally,
11:50:24 there's no difference between your situation and your
11:50:28 building than anybody else's historic building.
11:50:32 When you all bought these buildings, you bought them
11:50:35 as a trust.
11:50:35 You bought them -- you recognized the history that was
11:50:40 there, within that building, and you bought them as a
11:50:42 trust.

11:50:43 You just like the people in Ybor City.
11:50:46 So to me, I don't see any difference between -- and
11:50:50 you believe in equal protection under the law, I'm
11:50:53 sure, that part of the Constitution.
11:50:55 Why should we treat you any different because you are
11:50:58 on Howard as opposed to treating them any different
11:51:00 because they are on 7th Avenue.
11:51:03 >>> Since you are a lawyer and I am not, I think we
11:51:05 are getting into an area I think as a novice I can
11:51:09 talk a little about but I am not here today to make
11:51:11 that presentation and I would certainly prepare a
11:51:13 brief if it comes down to it, if we go to the supreme
11:51:16 concerning these issues I'm sure you will hear my side
11:51:19 of the story in detail.
11:51:20 However, I hope it doesn't go that far.
11:51:26 But I can tell you history of my particular building.
11:51:29 It was a clothing business much longer an cigar
11:51:33 business.
11:51:34 It was a cigar business such a short period of time
11:51:36 because it was built to make cigars and closed that
11:51:41 building down, and in that era, there were a lot of
11:51:44 fires because they lost all their workers.

11:51:46 Buildings burnt.
11:51:47 There were some insurance things and it's nice history
11:51:50 to read about.
11:51:51 But then another building was built.
11:51:54 This guy from New York that built this building, he
11:51:56 lost all his workers.
11:51:58 So that's a little past, if you would.
11:52:03 I happen to have a house that may be old, too, that my
11:52:07 sister lived in.
11:52:08 >> What year did these occurrences occur, back with
11:52:11 the cigars?
11:52:12 >>> Oh, back in the roaring '20s, I guess.
11:52:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, sir.
11:52:23 One more question.
11:52:27 >>SHAWN HARRISON: It's not really a question for you,
11:52:28 sir.
11:52:29 But when keep talking about what is the difference?
11:52:31 And here are the differences as I see it.
11:52:33 If you're going to buy a house or a cigar factory, or
11:52:38 a raw piece of land, in an area that's already been
11:52:41 designated a historic district, you're assuming the
11:52:44 risk of doing that.

11:52:45 You know that there are restrictions that you are
11:52:48 going to have to live with.
11:52:49 You may not like it but you are going to make that
11:52:51 decision.
11:52:51 You're going to live with that.
11:52:53 It's like buying a house in a master plan community
11:52:56 somewhere with deed restrictions.
11:52:58 There are certain things you can or cannot do.
11:53:01 What we are doing here is we are imposing a
11:53:05 designation on buildings that didn't otherwise have
11:53:10 some sort of public record notification.
11:53:15 And it's coming in after the fact.
11:53:16 And Mr. Dingfelder, I understand your point, it's
11:53:19 historic, in a historic district versus historic
11:53:22 outside of the district.
11:53:23 What's the difference?
11:53:24 Well, maybe there is no difference because of what
11:53:27 happened in that particular location.
11:53:29 But there is an assumption of the risk that is not
11:53:37 distant in the situation we are talking about here
11:53:39 other than the fact you are buying a building that's
11:53:40 more than 50 years old and you just can't go out and

11:53:43 tear it down.
11:53:44 And when all understand that.
11:53:45 And these folks that bought these buildings knew that.
11:53:47 And that's not what anybody is arguing here today.
11:53:50 So if we ever get to the point of designation of the
11:53:55 district, that's a whole different kettle of fish and
11:53:58 ware not there today.
11:53:59 But that's a real distinction that I see.
11:54:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I say one thing in response?
11:54:06 Mr. White?
11:54:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Shawn, I think your point is well
11:54:13 taken.
11:54:14 But when was the district created in Ybor?
11:54:17 20 oh some years ago that City Council had to have the
11:54:20 courage to do exactly the thing to more property
11:54:22 owners than we are being asked to do to these seven or
11:54:26 eight property owners.
11:54:28 It's the same exact thing.
11:54:29 The only difference is the change in the times in
11:54:32 history.
11:54:33 They had to take on that entire district.
11:54:36 Hyde Park, Ybor City, hundreds and hundreds of

11:54:40 property owners, and they had to do exactly the same
11:54:43 thing we are doing today.
11:54:44 Because at that point in time there was no district.
11:54:46 At that point in time there was no preservation.
11:54:49 And they took away a little bit of those rights on
11:54:52 behalf of the entire community.
11:54:54 That would be my response.
11:54:55 >>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
11:54:58 Mr. Harrison echoed some of the seventh same
11:55:00 sentiments I was going to.
11:55:01 One of the differences here is that the level of
11:55:07 historical designations were a blighted area.
11:55:12 This was random selection throughout the entire city.
11:55:17 It's not one area.
11:55:20 We are picking up cigar factories throughout the
11:55:24 entire city.
11:55:24 Well, we have West Tampa.
11:55:26 We have Ybor City.
11:55:27 Palmetto Beach.
11:55:28 They are all over.
11:55:32 But we are talking about areas versus just -- a
11:55:38 building.

11:55:39 But I wanted to respond to what you said to this
11:55:41 gentleman about the -- and maybe I missed something,
11:55:46 for clarification.
11:55:47 You're saying when this gentleman bought the cigar
11:55:49 factory that he now owns, what you're saying, it was a
11:55:56 clothing store before it was -- longer than it was a
11:55:59 cigar factory, you said bought it in trust, and I
11:56:02 don't know what you meant by that.
11:56:06 But if I buy something, I'm either buying it to use it
11:56:11 or buying it just to buy it for whatever reason, just
11:56:14 because it was what it was.
11:56:18 If this building becomes -- this building that we are
11:56:22 in has historical sentimental value but if this
11:56:26 building ever comes up for sale, for whatever reason,
11:56:29 and I opt to buy this building we are in right now,
11:56:32 and this building has not been historically preserved,
11:56:39 am I obligated, or to not demise it and put a condo
11:56:48 project or whatever, deed restrictions are not
11:56:53 applicable at the time that I purchased this building.
11:56:56 And I think that's one of the -- that's one of the
11:57:00 main objections, and these one of the main things that
11:57:04 stick in my craw.

11:57:05 I don't have a problem with preservation.
11:57:07 I don't have a problem with saving every cigar factory
11:57:13 and every historical landmark we have in this city.
11:57:15 And I honestly believe that this needs to be preserved
11:57:19 to some extent.
11:57:20 There's been several buildings downtown that I
11:57:23 actually think has more significant and historical
11:57:26 value than some of the cigar factories than we are
11:57:30 talking about today that have been torn down right
11:57:32 here in our downtown core, to build condos.
11:57:36 But at the end of the day, we'll see where this goes.
11:57:39 But I just don't see at this juncture when we are
11:57:48 waying -- weighing those particular rights without the
11:57:52 owners.
11:57:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: He asked me a question.
11:57:58 I have one statement in response.
11:58:02 Morally, morally.
11:58:04 Legally is what we are doing.
11:58:05 What I was referring to is morally, it's a sacred
11:58:09 trust to buy these type of buildings.
11:58:11 Okay?
11:58:12 We are trying to define what the legal ramifications

11:58:15 are.
11:58:19 But where I was coming from is to me, morally, it's a
11:58:23 sacred trust.
11:58:24 You know you're buying something, legend in the
11:58:29 building that created what this city is all about, the
11:58:33 morally sacred trust.
11:58:37 >>KEVIN WHITE: Maybe our standpoint may be an investor
11:58:40 or just a entrepreneur standpoint.
11:58:42 I mean, we are trying to hope that each and every one
11:58:47 of these people, individuals, and the same things that
11:58:52 we agree upon, and just like on this dais you know
11:58:56 they are not.
11:58:57 So we have to -- sometimes in government we have to,
11:59:07 and we have I know sometimes that happens and that
11:59:14 will happen.
11:59:15 But I think we need to be very careful about how and
11:59:18 when we do it.
11:59:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, a reminder that you are
11:59:28 coming up to the noon hour which under council rules
11:59:31 requires recess unless there is unanimous vote to
11:59:33 waive that.
11:59:34 I believe it's two additional speakers on this item.

11:59:36 And there's also a request, because it's going to be a
11:59:39 continuance on items number 63 and 64, there's been a
11:59:43 request if you could take those continuances before
11:59:45 the lunch break to allow the staff and the attorneys
11:59:50 to not have to come back after lunch, if council
11:59:52 chooses to continue, which they are required to do,
11:59:54 unless you unanimously waive the rules.
11:59:57 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I actually move to continue 63 and
12:00:00 64 so we can get that done.
12:00:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
12:00:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Are you asking to --
12:00:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Dower want to finish this part?
12:00:15 >>ROSE FERLITA: I have an appointment at noon so I
12:00:18 can't.
12:00:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe the request, Ms. Zelman,
12:00:25 there was a memo by Cathy Coyle who stated -- I
12:00:32 believe Mrs. Zelman has requested three weeks on 64,
12:00:35 and 63 has to travel so three weeks?
12:00:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is that enough time?
12:00:45 >>> Oh, yes.
12:00:46 >>CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second.
12:00:49 (Motion Carried).

12:00:51 >> Now what is the pleasure of council?
12:00:53 >> Reconvene at 1:30.
12:00:57 We have a motion and second to continue after lunch.
12:01:02 It will be 1:30.
12:01:05 We will convene where we stopped.
12:01:13 (recess)
13:43:27 [Sounding gavel]
13:49:40 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Tampa City Council is called back
13:49:41 into special.
13:49:42 Roll call.
13:49:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
13:49:47 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
13:49:48 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
13:49:50 >>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
13:49:54 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Chairman miller is in the back.
13:49:56 She'll be out in just a moment.
13:49:58 So we will continue with where we were.
13:50:00 I think that we had a couple more speakers.
13:50:11 >>> Jeff freeman.
13:50:13 And I have the property at Albany and cherry street,
13:50:18 the Alvarez cigar factory.
13:50:21 I know we aren't supposed to speak directly to the six

13:50:24 factories but that's my concern, that's why I'm here.
13:50:26 I still have a business operating there, which has
13:50:30 been there almost 20 years.
13:50:32 And I purchased the property, and there wasn't any
13:50:35 stipulation about it was designated anything, and no
13:50:38 one told me that I would have to go before boards in
13:50:42 the city, and anybody would tell me how to maintain
13:50:46 it.
13:50:48 I just operate a small sewing operation and hope to be
13:50:54 there in the future.
13:50:56 I heard people speak about people in the neighborhood,
13:51:01 and they have had so many meetings.
13:51:02 In a one has ever asked me to attend a meeting to
13:51:05 discuss with me my feelings about the property that I
13:51:09 own, where am I coming from, what do I want to see in
13:51:14 the future, which surprised me, because two people
13:51:17 here mentioned that they want a continuance for that
13:51:24 very reason, and no one ever contacted me.
13:51:28 I'm not in the development business.
13:51:30 I don't choose to be.
13:51:32 Maybe some day someone will come in and buy the
13:51:34 property and want to develop it.

13:51:36 And I think the system ought to be where you would
13:51:38 want to come and join in the historic preservation and
13:51:43 take advantage of all these tax advantages that
13:51:50 supposedly exist and I'm not one of those people.
13:51:53 It seems to me like a good business if you're an
13:51:57 architect or involved in construction, but it doesn't
13:51:59 help me in my business.
13:52:04 I have had it almost 20 years.
13:52:05 I have never applied for a demolition permit.
13:52:07 I have no intention of demolishing the building.
13:52:12 I simply just want to be left alone.
13:52:15 No one has ever contacted me in the 20 years and asked
13:52:20 could we go through your building, some really
13:52:23 interesting features and we'd like to show it off.
13:52:26 It's never happened.
13:52:29 I just simply would like to be left alone.
13:52:32 I was born and raised in this city.
13:52:35 And I only have good intentions for the property.
13:52:41 Some day maybe I'll come and ask you, please, what do
13:52:43 I have to do to qualify for this historic landmark?
13:52:50 But right now I don't.
13:52:53 So those are my feelings on it.

13:52:55 And I didn't want you to think I was complacent by not
13:52:58 getting up and saying anything.
13:53:00 Thank you.
13:53:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
13:53:03 Would anyone else like to speak?
13:53:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I ask Mr. Freeman a question?
13:53:09 As we know, life is fragile.
13:53:12 And I may drop dead today, tomorrow, or you might,
13:53:15 okay?
13:53:16 And to me that's the concern.
13:53:18 I believe you.
13:53:19 You have been there operating the business 20 years.
13:53:22 You know, you're fine, you want to be left alone.
13:53:25 If you drop dead tomorrow, then your estate, your
13:53:29 heirs, your children, what have you, get the building,
13:53:31 and then it's all up in the air again.
13:53:34 >>> No, actually it's not.
13:53:35 You have an ordinance that protects any piece of
13:53:38 property that's 50 years or over.
13:53:41 Min qualifies for that.
13:53:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And the ordinance has never been
13:53:46 used effectively to preserve any building under that

13:53:48 provision.
13:53:48 I mean that's the reality of it.
13:53:50 Yes, there's an ordinance that says it has to go
13:53:52 through a process.
13:53:53 But even the Lykes building downtown, the Swann
13:53:56 building on the Bayshore, it all fell under these
13:54:00 ordinances and eventually fall under the wrecking
13:54:02 ball.
13:54:03 So that's my concern.
13:54:04 I don't doubt you.
13:54:07 I think you're very sincere.
13:54:13 >>> I'm not violating anything, any public trust for
13:54:16 the building or anything.
13:54:17 I'm using mine every day.
13:54:19 There's people up there working right now wondering
13:54:21 what I'm doing down here.
13:54:22 I just want to get back to it.
13:54:24 But in my opinion you already have that kind of
13:54:27 protection.
13:54:28 >> As you recall a year ago I sort of suggested that
13:54:30 we visit that issue.
13:54:32 >>> And no one ever contacted me.

13:54:34 >> No, no, no.
13:54:35 And the attorney that I thought represented all of you
13:54:37 guys, maybe not you, said that you all weren't
13:54:40 interested in that.
13:54:41 Way was saying was, let's create an ordinance that
13:54:44 will at least protect buildings, these seven or eight
13:54:48 buildings, from the wrecking ball where you guys would
13:54:51 voluntarily agree never to demolish them.
13:54:54 We put something on the deed that would say they would
13:54:57 never be demolished and we asked Mr. Grandoff, and on
13:55:00 behalf of all buildings, they respectfully declined.
13:55:03 So that's kind of -- it was like an alternative idea.
13:55:06 And then when you all declined then we proceeded along
13:55:09 where we are now.
13:55:12 >>> Well, however you got to this point, the City of
13:55:15 Tampa got here, no one has ever contacted me about
13:55:18 anything in this period of time and it's been going
13:55:21 on, this is the third year we are doing this.
13:55:25 You're not happy with your 50 year ordinance because
13:55:27 whatever happened to the Lykes.
13:55:31 But I don't think this is the way to do it.
13:55:33 I feel like -- I have so many people to testify to

13:55:40 have no interest in this whatsoever.
13:55:41 It's not their money they are dealing with, their
13:55:43 livelihood.
13:55:44 In fact, if it does pass, it could only enhance some
13:55:49 of theirs, it's not going to enhance mine.
13:55:52 Because it's my business.
13:55:53 I simply have a small sewing operation.
13:55:58 A sewing machine.
13:55:59 So I haven't been interested.
13:56:02 And I am still not interested.
13:56:04 And when this process is over, and I cam back here
13:56:08 from February to August to hear the opt out program,
13:56:11 because I thought it was going to be presented, and
13:56:14 I'm still waiting to hear that.
13:56:18 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I have a question for you.
13:56:19 How big is your sewing operation?
13:56:21 How many people do you employ?
13:56:25 >>> Right now we have 27 people in our employ.
13:56:29 It's a seasonal business.
13:56:30 We make products for outdoor use, casual furniture,
13:56:35 and you can't really give that away right now.
13:56:38 But in the spring, of course, our employment numbers

13:56:41 go up, and we have about a five-month period where we
13:56:46 really do a lot of work.
13:56:48 >>SHAWN HARRISON: All right.
13:56:50 So if this designation were to be imposed upon you,
13:56:57 what your impact me as far as running your business,
13:57:02 being able to do anything, any sort of adaptations to
13:57:08 your building that were necessary?
13:57:10 What would the real world implications of that be?
13:57:14 >>> I'll give you a case in point.
13:57:21 100 years olds, hold up one of the shutters, in the
13:57:25 windows broke.
13:57:27 I guess the metal just wore at 100 years old.
13:57:31 So now I need to repair it so that shutter doesn't
13:57:34 fall off.
13:57:36 The other bracket is supporting half of it.
13:57:41 In order to replace it, I would have to replace the
13:57:45 whole window, which would mean I would have to go
13:57:48 before the A.R.C., God forbid, and go through this
13:57:53 what do you approve, what do you not approve,
13:57:55 architectural drawings, engineering drawings, before
13:57:58 and after, and all that.
13:57:59 I just fixed it so it doesn't fall.

13:58:01 It's still there.
13:58:03 When someone buys it to develop it for lofts, or
13:58:06 offices or whatever they might make out of it and they
13:58:09 want to go back and fit it exactly as it was 100 years
13:58:13 ago, let them do that.
13:58:14 I don't want to have that facing me.
13:58:16 I don't want to have to do that.
13:58:17 I just want to be able to open that, put windows back
13:58:22 in it, put glass back in it, maintain my building so I
13:58:26 can operate my business.
13:58:27 And I'm afraid of the process, and all of these
13:58:34 conversations going behind -- I've never been included
13:58:38 in it.
13:58:40 Ms. Alvarez had a meeting at the library.
13:58:42 I get invited to that.
13:58:43 And I went to that.
13:58:44 And thank you so much.
13:58:46 Other than that, I have never been invited to
13:58:48 anything.
13:58:49 And when I do, the speakers are all architects.
13:58:54 Developers.
13:58:55 Those are the people who speak out, how wonderful this

13:58:58 is, and the tax credits and all that.
13:58:59 If you spend $1 million in your building you'll get to
13:59:04 write off 200, I think it is.
13:59:06 Where do you get the other $800,000?
13:59:10 I don't have that.
13:59:12 When I bought the building, nobody wanted it.
13:59:15 It was falling down.
13:59:17 It was in a rough neighborhood.
13:59:21 The neighborhood, yes, has improved now over the
13:59:23 years.
13:59:24 I'm thankful.
13:59:29 Again, those are my feelings.
13:59:31 I hope I answered your questions.
13:59:32 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes, did, thank you.
13:59:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I clarify, Madam Chair?
13:59:41 Someone is shaking their head.
13:59:44 >>> Well, that may be.
13:59:46 >>SHAWN HARRISON: And I saw other heads shaking back
13:59:48 there.
13:59:48 This man owns the building.
13:59:52 And I asked what would the real world implications of
13:59:56 that be?

13:59:57 And he certainly has an opinion of what those real
13:59:59 world implications are.
14:00:00 And if that's not what it is, we are not doing a very
14:00:03 good job of educating people about what this whole
14:00:07 process means.
14:00:10 And that doesn't necessarily mean that the process
14:00:13 doesn't need to be changed.
14:00:16 But one of the things here is, if that's correct, and
14:00:22 we just said -- in order for me to fix a window on my
14:00:27 building I have got to go through the A.R.C.
14:00:29 process --
14:00:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Clarify that because Dennis is
14:00:35 shaking his head, no, that that's not correct.
14:00:38 I think he should have the opportunity to clarify.
14:00:41 People do have misconception busy this property.
14:00:43 >> Then maybe we ought to ask the owners to come back
14:00:45 here and further elucidate on additional issues that
14:00:48 they think that they have got.
14:00:50 Because if we are going to go back on --
14:00:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But he spoke to something that was
14:00:55 fact.
14:00:56 I think we should give staff an opportunity to say

14:00:58 what is fact from their perspective.
14:01:00 They know the ordinance better than anybody.
14:01:02 >>SHAWN HARRISON: So what that gentleman just said, is
14:01:04 that wrong, Mr. Fernandez?
14:01:09 >>> The general maintenance of any of the buildings
14:01:12 designated a landmark or local historic district in
14:01:15 genre pair and maintenance, with like materials, is
14:01:18 not something that's required even to have a
14:01:20 certificate of appropriateness.
14:01:22 If it were something that was damaged that was
14:01:25 unforeseen by storm, once again you just replace, add
14:01:29 to it, was in that condition prior to that happening.
14:01:33 When you initiate rehabilitation methods, you know,
14:01:37 exchanging multiple windows, that type of thing, that
14:01:40 you would need a certificate of appropriateness.
14:01:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So you don't have to go to the
14:01:44 A.R.C.
14:01:44 That's what you said with certificate of
14:01:46 appropriateness.
14:01:46 You don't have to go to the A.R.C. for general
14:01:49 maintenance.
14:01:50 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: That's correct.

14:01:51 For general maintenance, if you are just repairing
14:01:53 something to the condition that it was before, a
14:01:58 nonarchitectural feature that's just basically
14:02:01 functional, there is no requirement.
14:02:07 When you make a change in the building and something
14:02:09 that minor you are dealing with one specific component
14:02:12 would be a staff function.
14:02:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Who decides what general maintenance
14:02:15 is?
14:02:16 >>> General maintenance is essentially just
14:02:17 maintaining the building in the condition that it is.
14:02:19 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Is that defined somewhere in the
14:02:22 code that somebody that owns one of these buildings
14:02:25 can just look at very quickly and say, all right, way
14:02:27 want to do is general maintenance?
14:02:30 >>> That's more of a preservation term that would be
14:02:32 covered more than standards, when voted upon by the
14:02:42 commission.
14:02:42 >>SHAWN HARRISON: But doesn't that sort of illuminate
14:02:45 the problem that it's very clear to you, but it's not
14:02:49 clear to somebody that owns the building.
14:02:52 >>> I'm not disagreeing with you.

14:02:53 I think that that needs to be further clarified, but
14:02:56 within the realm of the architectural review
14:02:58 commission and Barrio Latino commission codes.
14:03:02 That's not properly housed within the Historic
14:03:04 Preservation Commission code.
14:03:07 Because that is a rehabilitation specific issue.
14:03:10 And I'm not disagreeing with you that the
14:03:13 architectural review process nodes revision, needs
14:03:16 clarity, and design guidelines need that.
14:03:19 I deal with it every day when I walk in to discuss
14:03:22 designation.
14:03:23 I carry that with me, even though I don't actually
14:03:27 administrator that particular program.
14:03:34 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Alvarez, let's take his example
14:03:36 again of his shutters falling down and one of the
14:03:38 hinges is broken, that hinge is apparently 100 years
14:03:42 old, and it was holding up this building but it's
14:03:45 broken and so on.
14:03:46 Are you saying that he doesn't have to go and buy a
14:03:51 hinge that looks like the one that had -- because it's
14:03:55 going to have three other hinges.
14:03:57 So what's going to happen to the other three hinges if

14:03:59 he puts on one that doesn't look the same?
14:04:05 >>> That's a small detail.
14:04:06 You really do, from the secretary of interior
14:04:09 standards, that you would want to have the shutter
14:04:12 back on the building if possible.
14:04:14 And you would employ the most sound method to do that
14:04:18 possible.
14:04:18 It wouldn't be going back and fabricating a hinge to
14:04:22 mimic that of a 100-year-old hinge.
14:04:25 That's really going beyond what even the secretary of
14:04:27 interior standards or local designations or design
14:04:31 guidelines require.
14:04:33 Some people choose to do that.
14:04:35 I think Mr. Jamal is going to a level where he's
14:04:39 actually doing a restoration and reconstruction but
14:04:42 that's not what's required through our ordinances.
14:04:44 Our ordinances look for rehabilitation which is taking
14:04:47 historic buildings and making certain changes that are
14:04:51 necessary to keep those an active part of the housing
14:04:54 or the commercial building stock.
14:04:57 It's not to freeze a building like Monticello to where
14:05:02 it's a museum.

14:05:03 You know, that's not what the designation even strives
14:05:07 for.
14:05:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: As far as the use of the building
14:05:15 are people allowed to do inside the building what they
14:05:17 want?
14:05:18 >> They are.
14:05:18 The designations don't apply to the interiors of
14:05:21 buildings unless they choose at their initiation to
14:05:24 enter into one of the tax programs.
14:05:26 >> Well, I think what you just shared with us is
14:05:29 exactly the lack of communication, lack of clear
14:05:33 guidelines that is what's making people nervous and
14:05:37 crazy, and what I would like to encourage my
14:05:40 colleagues to do is to wait till Joanne peck's letter
14:05:45 with suggestions in it get implemented and wait until
14:05:48 Cindy Miller comes back and says, this is in place,
14:05:51 this is in place, and see how that goes before we
14:05:54 change the ordinance.
14:05:55 And we need to do a better job of communicating with
14:05:57 people like this gentleman so that he isn't worried
14:06:00 about what might be happening in the future.
14:06:02 If you have an old building and you just keep using it

14:06:05 the way that it's through using it, you don't have to
14:06:08 do anything special whether it's designated or not.
14:06:10 The designation speaks to its protection in the
14:06:13 future.
14:06:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone else want to speak?
14:06:18 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: John Grandoff, Suite 3700 Bank of
14:06:22 America Plaza.
14:06:24 I represent Jeff Freeman, Heyward Chapman, the Aliva
14:06:28 family, the Ellis family and the Larcy family, cigar
14:06:31 factory owners, and also several other owners of
14:06:33 property in Tampa on this issue.
14:06:35 I have a couple points I want to make.
14:06:37 I want to cut back to this issue that Jeff was
14:06:39 speaking about.
14:06:40 Let's change the scenery for a second.
14:06:42 We designate the building, Jeff gets a letter from his
14:06:47 insurance carrier and says, yes, three problems.
14:06:49 Windows are too old, you need to take them out. The
14:06:52 black shutters that you have on all of these
14:06:53 factories, I know you have seen those, take the black
14:06:58 shutters off and the parapet wall on top of the
14:07:01 building is too risky for us, we are not going to

14:07:03 underwrite that risk anymore, take it all down.
14:07:06 If that building is designated, he's in the horns of a
14:07:10 dilemma.
14:07:10 He can't insure a building because of these hazard
14:07:13 issues.
14:07:13 But A.R.C. is saying, you can't take any of those
14:07:16 shutters down, you can't replace any windows and the
14:07:20 parapet wall stays exactly where it is.
14:07:22 That's the problem.
14:07:23 You are just going to replace this hinge then
14:07:25 everything is good.
14:07:26 What happens when you replace three hinges that are
14:07:28 from Home Depot and tough fourth hinge that was still
14:07:31 built 100 years ago, and the building is designated
14:07:34 and you have a herd of people saying, this building is
14:07:38 not in compliance, and now he's stuck.
14:07:39 That's the problem.
14:07:40 The problem is it's tremendously unfair, and it
14:07:45 disregards the fundamental right of a property owner
14:07:48 to do what he wishes within the -- with the property
14:07:51 within the bounds of the law.
14:07:52 On February 2nd, you made a motion made by Mr.

14:07:55 Harrison.
14:07:56 He made two motions.
14:07:57 The first was to continue the matter to August
14:07:59 3rd.
14:08:00 He made a second motion.
14:08:02 And my second reading verbatim, and my second motion
14:08:05 would be to instruct legal to come back with an
14:08:07 amended ordinance that would make designation of
14:08:10 individual properties either a voluntary proffer at
14:08:15 the time of admission or initiate that process but the
14:08:19 property owners would be given an opt out provision so
14:08:21 that we would never get to the point where we have
14:08:24 here at the first public hearing where the property
14:08:27 owner that is not here voluntarily.
14:08:30 This is David Smith speaking now: This is respect to
14:08:33 the landmark status only, not historic district.
14:08:36 Mr. Harrison said landmark status only so that this
14:08:39 obviously is not an issue.
14:08:41 The motion was documented 5-2.
14:08:43 You gave clear instruction for the city attorney to
14:08:44 come back with an owner's consent requirement.
14:08:47 With all due respect the current issue where you are

14:08:50 going to put owner's consent as a factor, we are
14:08:54 asking for a continuation of what we have been doing
14:08:57 for years on end.
14:08:58 My clients have been stuck in this process for three
14:09:01 years.
14:09:01 I have been coming down here saying, we want to be out
14:09:04 of it.
14:09:04 I think you need to have an owner's consent
14:09:07 requirement at the top of the issue.
14:09:08 It's very clear, he was the owner then or he's not but
14:09:11 to make it a fact creates another political football
14:09:15 when you have an unpopular owner down here, and he has
14:09:18 to face the crowd, and it's just a factor.
14:09:21 Making it a factor, you think you're ducking the issue
14:09:24 of the February 2 motion.
14:09:25 You need to hit it straight on.
14:09:27 You need to put owner consent in the motion the way
14:09:30 the ordinance was adopted.
14:09:31 That is the specific direction from the City Council
14:09:33 at that time.
14:09:45 We talk about incentives, free market, and if the
14:09:49 government wants to encourage own towers do this

14:09:50 process, if they make the process better -- if this
14:09:57 process was better an owner's consent would not be an
14:10:00 issue.
14:10:00 Would you come to the marketplace and would you do
14:10:02 this process.
14:10:03 The problem is in the process and in the
14:10:06 involuntariness of it.
14:10:08 You will do this process, whether you like it or not.
14:10:12 You will be subjected to the will of the masses,
14:10:14 overriding your property interest.
14:10:16 Put yourself in their shoes.
14:10:19 Sitting in their living room, in your own very home
14:10:22 who should better decide what to do with your home
14:10:25 than this?
14:10:25 >>GWEN MILLER: All right, that's it.
14:10:27 Mr. Dingfelder has a question.
14:10:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You started off with an elaborate
14:10:37 insurance example.
14:10:39 Can you give us evidence of the letter like that?
14:10:45 >>> No.
14:10:45 >> Have you ever seen a letter like that?
14:10:47 >>> No.

14:10:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: But he has.
14:10:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Have you seen a letter that
14:10:53 describes the conditions?
14:10:54 Take the parapet wall, take down the shutters,
14:10:57 et cetera?
14:10:57 It sounds like a very elaborate example.
14:11:00 >>> In this insurance environment --
14:11:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's conjecture on your part, and
14:11:06 you don't have one to give us.
14:11:08 >>> No, I don't.
14:11:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You talked about the Constitution
14:11:19 or the inherent right.
14:11:20 Are you saying that if we pass -- and we already have
14:11:25 an ordinance.
14:11:26 But if we subject this ordinance to these property
14:11:29 owners, on an involuntary basis, are you saying that
14:11:33 under our Constitution, that constitutes -- that's
14:11:37 taken?
14:11:37 >>> Yes.
14:11:39 >> Okay.
14:11:39 Therefore you differ with Penn Central, with the U.S.
14:11:42 Penn Central case.

14:11:44 >>> It's good law, I can tell you why.
14:11:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me read what Penn Central says
14:11:51 very briefly, okay?
14:11:52 It says the first is recognition that in recent years
14:11:59 large numbers of historic structures, landmarks and
14:12:01 areas have been destroyed, without adequate
14:12:03 consideration of the values represented therein or the
14:12:06 possibility of preserving the destroyed properties for
14:12:08 use in economically productive ways.
14:12:10 The second is a widely shared belief that structures
14:12:13 with special historic cultural significance enhance
14:12:17 the quality of life for all not only to the buildings
14:12:20 and their workmanship represent the past and our
14:12:24 heritage but serve as examples of quality for today.
14:12:26 Another court in Florida today described Penn Central
14:12:30 and said the court held that the denial of the request
14:12:32 to develop the air rights above Penn Central station
14:12:35 did not constitute a taking, that the ordinance did
14:12:39 not interfere with the owners investment expectations
14:12:43 and the claim may be stated only when the owner
14:12:46 demonstrates the property has been left with no
14:12:48 reasonable beneficial use.

14:12:50 Your client, every single one of them, have testified
14:12:52 in front of us they have a beneficial reasonable use
14:12:55 of their property.
14:12:56 Reasonable and beneficial use of their property is to
14:12:58 make furniture, to sew clothes, to do whatever it is
14:13:01 they are doing in that building.
14:13:02 They have a Constitutional use of that building.
14:13:04 Okay.
14:13:04 Now you are calling it a taking.
14:13:06 If we try and regulate their building you're calling
14:13:08 it a taking.
14:13:10 That differs with the U.S. Supreme Court which says
14:13:13 that it's not a taking.
14:13:17 >>> I read the Penn Central case.
14:13:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm sure.
14:13:22 By the way, let me brief council real quickly.
14:13:24 In Penn Central, they wanted to build a 50 story
14:13:27 building above the Grand Central station.
14:13:29 Okay.
14:13:29 They wanted to build it in the air rights above it.
14:13:32 The supreme court ultimately, the lower court, I'm not
14:13:35 sure what happened, but ultimately the supreme court

14:13:38 in 1970-something, 78, said no.
14:13:41 But because it preserves historically you cannot use
14:13:45 the character of that building by doing that.
14:13:47 And then the court went on to say there are 1700
14:13:50 municipalities.
14:13:53 1700 municipalities that had historic preservation
14:13:56 ordinances.
14:13:57 We are not alone in this.
14:13:58 I'm sorry, John, go ahead.
14:14:00 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: That's okay. The Penn Central case
14:14:04 is good law.
14:14:05 There's nothing wrong with historic regulations on
14:14:08 property.
14:14:08 This is the Penn Central case.
14:14:10 You remember, it says Pan Am on the side.
14:14:15 They denied the owners the right to develop the
14:14:22 building, the cross-hatch.
14:14:24 You are not going to be able to develop that.
14:14:26 That's going to stay the way it is forever.
14:14:28 The wrinkle in the Penn Central case is back in the
14:14:32 opinion, justice Douglas said this, figured out that
14:14:36 New York had what it calls transfer development

14:14:40 rights.
14:14:40 So the city of New York avoided the taking problem by
14:14:43 saying, we are not going to let you develop a
14:14:45 cross-hatch but go down Manhattan, further down Fifth
14:14:48 Avenue and you have a building down there, you can
14:14:50 build that building down there.
14:14:52 So they took it from the top of the building, but they
14:14:55 gave it back to them on another building they owned
14:14:58 down the street.
14:14:58 We don't have that in Tampa.
14:15:03 Had nothing to do with these issues.
14:15:07 >> The case I just read from was a preservation case
14:15:09 in Miami and basically it's kind of funny.
14:15:11 They were trying to preserve parrot jungle that was 50
14:15:21 plus years old.
14:15:23 They didn't talk about transfer of property rights.
14:15:25 They just said a legitimate regulation.
14:15:27 I'm sure you read this case, too. Legitimate
14:15:30 regulation, historic preservation.
14:15:33 It seems pretty similar to what we are trying to do
14:15:37 here.
14:15:37 In Miami they look at tourism as their cultural

14:15:40 heritage.
14:15:41 Here we look at cigar factories. I'm a member of
14:15:47 several Historical preservation societies. I like it.
14:15:52 I majored in history. I don't have an issue with it.
14:15:53 It is an abuse of process in the City of Tampa.
14:15:55 And it begins with the failure of owners consent.
14:15:58 And it goes totally counter to the motion that you
14:16:01 adopted on February 2nd.
14:16:05 >> Point of order, point of order.
14:16:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Your time is up, Mr. Grandoff. You
14:16:11 have had three minutes.
14:16:11 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I have a question.
14:16:13 Mr. Grandoff, would you agree to an owner initiation
14:16:17 process?
14:16:20 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Yes.
14:16:21 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How would you think we would go about
14:16:23 this, without the HPC originating it?
14:16:26 Because I remember that every time we had a
14:16:30 designation that comes to us, its owner origination,
14:16:36 pretty much.
14:16:37 So, I mean, you know, I don't understand how all of a
14:16:40 sudden we became -- we were going to do it for the

14:16:43 multiple cigar factories.
14:16:45 If they really want it, why can't the owners just come
14:16:47 to us and say, we want our cigar factory done?
14:16:53 And we say, you want it, you got it.
14:16:57 >>> I'm working on one right now, I'm representing one
14:17:00 that wants to do it into Robles Park, magnificent
14:17:04 project but he wants to do it.
14:17:06 >> He wants to do it.
14:17:07 That's the difference right there.
14:17:08 You were going to say something and I was going to --
14:17:11 go ahead.
14:17:14 >>> To show you my clients are genuinely in favor of
14:17:16 historic preservation, when it's fair, in the Mascotte
14:17:20 room, we were killing some time, there's a plaque down
14:17:24 there that says mayor Bob Martinez in the City Hall
14:17:26 historic advisory committee thanks the following for
14:17:29 their donation to the Mascotte room.
14:17:31 I am not going to mention the dollar amount.
14:17:32 Had to do with restoration of the City Hall, the very
14:17:35 building we are in.
14:17:36 And this is hanging downstairs in the Mascotte room.
14:17:39 Landmark bank.

14:17:40 Tampa Tribune.
14:17:41 Tampa electric.
14:17:42 Sun Bank.
14:17:43 Southeast Bank.
14:17:44 Shimberg enterprises.
14:17:45 NCNB.
14:17:46 First national banks.
14:17:47 Mr. and Mrs. Lester K. Olson.
14:17:50 At the top of the list, Mr. and Mrs. C. Heyward
14:17:54 Chapman.
14:17:54 This gentleman had apart in the restoration of this
14:17:57 building.
14:17:57 He's genuine about what he wants.
14:17:59 It goes to the point that it's a bona fide issue but
14:18:02 the owners consent has got to be the fundamental
14:18:06 issue.
14:18:06 The city in Tampa in fact designates this building in
14:18:10 its own municipal power.
14:18:12 And we ask that you please amend the ordinance as
14:18:15 moved in the motion on February 2.
14:18:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you have a question?
14:18:20 All right, next.

14:18:25 >>> Becky Clark, 5139 south Nichols street.
14:18:29 I think Mr. Dingfelder was right on target.
14:18:32 There is no requirement for the owner consent to be in
14:18:36 here.
14:18:39 There is a Constitutional use through preservation
14:18:43 ordinance.
14:18:43 You have an ordinance that has been modeled after
14:18:46 ordinances that have been tested over and over again.
14:18:49 It is not mandatory.
14:18:53 I suggest the designation will not create any
14:18:57 hardship, it is not a taking of anyone's building.
14:18:59 As Mr. Dingfelder pointed out, can keep using the
14:19:03 building.
14:19:04 I would also encourage you to not rewrite an ordinance
14:19:07 just because of several property owners.
14:19:10 The ordinance is there.
14:19:12 And we are talking the designation ordinance, not
14:19:16 right now the procedural ordinance.
14:19:22 That ordinance is there for the public gad oh to
14:19:25 protect all of the resources, not just individual.
14:19:29 Please keep that in mind when you're making your
14:19:32 decision.

14:19:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
14:19:37 Mr. Smith.
14:19:37 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
14:19:39 I would like to try to encapsulate where we are and
14:19:42 remind you that you probably remember, but
14:19:44 nonetheless, this is dealing with the designation of
14:19:47 landmarks outside of an historic district only.
14:19:51 That's the issue that we are speaking about today.
14:19:54 I'd like to address the due process argument first.
14:19:57 There is an issue, an argument made that there's no
14:19:59 notice and opportunity to be heard by some of the
14:20:02 participants.
14:20:03 You are free today to indicate that you are not going
14:20:05 to consider consent a factor at all.
14:20:08 People who are here today, who have been heard on that
14:20:11 issue, may have changed your mind or they may not have
14:20:13 changed your mind.
14:20:14 So in my opinion they have had notice and opportunity
14:20:17 to be heard and do you not have a due process problem.
14:20:19 In addition, before an ordinance is passed, there will
14:20:21 be notice, there will be two public hearings, and
14:20:23 there will be additional opportunity to be heard.

14:20:25 So we do not have, in my opinion, a due process
14:20:29 problem.
14:20:29 Process will be afforded.
14:20:32 The context is important.
14:20:36 We have litigation pending as you know with Citivest.
14:20:39 The trial court decided contrary to what I thought he
14:20:42 would. I thought he would decide in our favor on the
14:20:47 certiorari.
14:20:48 I had concerns as I mentioned to you privately with
14:20:50 regard to the second aspect of the case but we are not
14:20:52 even there yet.
14:20:53 Nonetheless, it's on appeal.
14:20:55 It's now I think six months.
14:20:56 We are hoping that would mean an opinion is
14:21:00 forthcoming.
14:21:01 Typically you write an opinion when we may be changing
14:21:04 what happened.
14:21:04 You can't count on that.
14:21:05 Cot still be at DCA which could be a procurement which
14:21:10 means trial court opinion.
14:21:14 We would have a problem with PCA because we would have
14:21:17 no basis for appealing it.

14:21:18 We have got to amend this ordinance.
14:21:20 There's a couple of things you know we need to change
14:21:22 to clarify, we think it should have been clear, the
14:21:24 judge didn't say it that way.
14:21:25 If we don't Winona peel, we better make sure we change
14:21:29 those provisions.
14:21:29 My point is, this process is going to occur in several
14:21:33 stages.
14:21:34 We have got to amend the ordinance to make sure we
14:21:36 don't have those kinds of problems remaining as a
14:21:40 scheduled problem.
14:21:41 Since this council has indicated a desire to also
14:21:44 address the issue of consent I'm before you today
14:21:48 trying to get final direction in that regard.
14:21:50 And as I indicated, our recommendation to you was the
14:21:53 easiest way to do that is to include it as a factor.
14:21:57 You heard arguments why that's in the petition.
14:21:59 From the property owner standpoint you heard argument
14:22:01 as to why it's too much from some of the
14:22:04 preservationist's standpoint.
14:22:06 That is still what we are recommending to you today.
14:22:08 What I would like to do, to try to simplify this

14:22:11 process, because it was confusing, is provide you a
14:22:13 copy of the options.
14:22:23 And I'll remind you that we need to come to you with
14:22:25 an ordinance.
14:22:26 This is just conceptual.
14:22:27 This is me getting an understanding of exactly what
14:22:29 this council's view is.
14:22:32 So that we can draft the ordinance in a manner
14:22:36 consistent with your direction.
14:22:37 And so the three types of consent that we're
14:22:40 discussing is the opt-out provision that allows an
14:22:44 owner to opt out of the designation review process.
14:22:47 The second one is owner initiated.
14:22:50 That means the property owner must request to be
14:22:52 designated as a landmark when they are in a
14:22:55 stand-alone area, I.E., not a district.
14:22:59 Third is to incorporate consent into the factors to be
14:23:01 reviewed and determining designation of the landmark.
14:23:04 This will include consent in the abstract.
14:23:07 It will include economic hardship.
14:23:08 And it will include incentives to mitigate the impact
14:23:12 of economic hardship.

14:23:13 And let me elaborate just a little bit on those three.
14:23:16 And if you go with number 3, we'll come back to you
14:23:18 with specific language.
14:23:20 Why would consent be a factor?
14:23:22 Consent could be a factor and it could be a variable
14:23:25 factor, a factor that you and the APC could determine
14:23:29 to get.
14:23:30 For example, if I owned the property for 20 or 25
14:23:32 years, I purchased before we even had a designation
14:23:36 ordinance.
14:23:36 You can't say I knew, it was likely to be designated.
14:23:41 That person may have an equitable argument, not an
14:23:43 argument with regard to resource but equitable
14:23:46 argument in his or her approximate respective of
14:23:50 ownership different from the person who bought it last
14:23:52 year who knew about the ordinance and knew he or she
14:23:55 was assuming a risk.
14:23:56 That would be up for this body or HPC to decide how
14:24:00 much weight to give that.
14:24:03 Economic hardship.
14:24:04 Obviously that's a highly variable issue.
14:24:07 You need to get facts on that.

14:24:08 It would be appropriate for this board and for HPC to
14:24:11 get facts with respect to economic hardship.
14:24:13 And yet that's separate and distinct, because consent
14:24:17 alone as I indicated has its own variations.
14:24:20 Finally, a third related consent factor would be the
14:24:23 availability of mitigating the economic hardship.
14:24:27 That was one of the factors Mr. Grandoff spoke to on
14:24:30 Penn Central.
14:24:31 Penn Central did speak to the fact that TDR.
14:24:35 s were available and one of the factors the court
14:24:37 looked at in rendering its decision.
14:24:39 We don't have TDRs yet.
14:24:41 It's something I would recommend we do, if it's
14:24:43 something this council wants to do, it's something
14:24:45 this council will do to help determine where you want
14:24:48 density and where you don't want density, so you need
14:24:50 to know where you want the development rights to be
14:24:52 transferred to in order to have a transferrability
14:24:55 provision.
14:24:56 We are not going to have that in a time frame that
14:24:59 will allow to us address the potential outcome of
14:25:02 Citivest.

14:25:02 So what we are doing today, what we are asking you is
14:25:05 give us general direction, allow to us draft the
14:25:07 general approach if you go for option number 3 that
14:25:09 allows us to then continue to work on those issues, to
14:25:12 provide the additional kind of incentives that will in
14:25:15 fact incent a property owner not to have a problem
14:25:19 with this process.
14:25:20 Those are the three types of consent that I need your
14:25:23 direction on.
14:25:24 Lastly down at the bottom you will see where there's a
14:25:26 separate possibility of adding language that makes the
14:25:29 uniqueness to Tampa history and culture another
14:25:33 factor.
14:25:33 Some people would argue perhaps the cigar factory is
14:25:36 that type of institution or that type of asset.
14:25:39 So looking at your direction primarily on the top
14:25:43 part, this process will be -- we will have to be going
14:25:48 back and forth with you on this.
14:25:49 But we did meet with the various participants.
14:25:53 We were trying to see if we could craft something that
14:25:56 would avoid you having to go through a very elaborate
14:25:59 public hearing process.

14:26:01 I thought we had made progress on the adding consent
14:26:04 as one of the factors.
14:26:06 I think there is some view on behalf of some of the
14:26:09 objectors, certainly best of the three alternatives
14:26:13 but apparently not sufficient. Anyway, that's the
14:26:16 background.
14:26:17 Sorry I have gone on a little too long.
14:26:19 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Smith, the in theory if we were
14:26:28 going to go with this third option and say we are
14:26:30 going to consider economic hardship and incentives to
14:26:32 mitigate that economic hardship, could we say that,
14:26:36 all right, we know that the example that the gentleman
14:26:39 gave, $100,000 worth of work, I get $200,000 back in
14:26:45 some sort of tax benefit, what about the other 800
14:26:49 that you're forcing me to pay?
14:26:52 Could we say, all right, we will abate your ad valorem
14:26:57 taxes for a period of time where you recoup that
14:27:01 investment, talking about theory right now, not
14:27:04 suggesting that any of this is, you know, practical,
14:27:08 but would that be something that we could do?
14:27:11 In other words, put an owner into a revenue neutral --
14:27:19 apparently we started off with a real whopper here.

14:27:23 >>DAVID SMITH: You did.
14:27:24 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't think -- my understanding is
14:27:26 you don't get to recover -- it's not like we are just
14:27:30 wiping off your tax bill for the next ten years or
14:27:32 anything like that.
14:27:33 You get some benefit back.
14:27:35 But I don't think it's complete.
14:27:38 >>DAVID SMITH: There is a program as I understand
14:27:40 it -- and I think Dennis is probably more versed with
14:27:44 this than I -- that you apply for ad valorem credits
14:27:46 over a period of time.
14:27:47 Do you want to explain the basis for that?
14:27:50 There's also federal tax as well.
14:27:52 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I know you think it's a good deal,
14:27:55 Mrs. Saul-Sena, but I don't think this they think it's
14:27:57 a good deal.
14:27:58 Let's see what the deal is.
14:28:03 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: I think I have to start off with a
14:28:05 small scenario. We have already beaten it into the
14:28:08 ground that the owners aren't required to do work.
14:28:11 An owner comes in, and they obviously need a roof.
14:28:15 And that roof costs them $100,000, whether the

14:28:19 building is historic, brand new, 100 years old or 50
14:28:23 years old, they still need a roof.
14:28:25 And that roof is going to cost a certain amount of
14:28:27 money.
14:28:29 The theory behind the ad valorem program, it might
14:28:32 cost a little more to do a roof that's historically
14:28:34 appropriate.
14:28:46 Say, for instance, like a $10,000 savings.
14:28:49 So over ten years you were to recoup $110,000 on a
14:28:53 particular rehabilitation method.
14:28:55 They still at the end of the day would have the new
14:28:58 roof.
14:28:58 The roof is something that most likely shouldn't be
14:29:03 reimbursed 100%, because it is an improvement to their
14:29:07 property.
14:29:08 It is a -- required maintenance of any building.
14:29:13 The theory behind the ad valorem is it offsets the
14:29:16 increased expenditure for rehabilitation of the
14:29:19 historic building.
14:29:20 Doesn't 100% cover that cost.
14:29:28 >> Thank you.
14:29:28 So Mr. Smith, we are talking about carrots, we are

14:29:31 talking about sticks here.
14:29:33 If we want to keep this process so that it is not
14:29:37 completely owner initiated, there have got to be a lot
14:29:41 more carrots than we have right now.
14:29:45 So my question is, what can we do as a City Council in
14:29:50 the line of some sort of ad valorem tax rebates for a
14:29:54 period of time?
14:29:58 >>DAVID SMITH: I believe this is a state program and
14:30:00 unfortunately municipalities are somewhat limited in
14:30:03 their own ability to give ad valorem.
14:30:05 We would be happy to look at it and see what
14:30:07 additional programs we might be able to institute
14:30:09 locally but it may also require state legislation in
14:30:11 order to allow not only the municipality but others to
14:30:14 provide that kind of relief.
14:30:16 I just don't know of any currently.
14:30:22 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I have a couple of other questions,
14:30:24 Madam Chair, if I could.
14:30:25 What about the reimbursement of legal and
14:30:29 architectural fees that are required?
14:30:31 Whenever you go before the A.R.C., obviously that must
14:30:35 cost a lot of money.

14:30:38 What about the concept of, you know, being reimbursed
14:30:41 for that, or there's some sort of -- again, some sort
14:30:44 of waiver of taxes or something along the lines so
14:30:49 that, you know, that doesn't cost you anything.
14:30:52 If you have to go through this burdensome process, it
14:30:55 doesn't cost you anything.
14:30:57 Is that a possibility?
14:31:01 >>> The sources of the revenue that we find to make
14:31:03 those reimbursements, I guess we could look at those
14:31:07 kinds of possibilities.
14:31:08 We have not seen any jurisdiction, however, that does
14:31:11 that.
14:31:13 That's not to tell you that it's an impossibility.
14:31:16 I'm just indicating that I'm not sure what the source
14:31:18 of funds would be for that program.
14:31:21 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Transfer of development rights.
14:31:23 We don't have it now.
14:31:24 It's something we might look at.
14:31:25 We don't even know from the property owners if that's
14:31:27 something they are interested in.
14:31:29 Briefly, what would that mean?
14:31:31 And how quickly can we put something like that into

14:31:34 place?
14:31:34 >>> We are currently looking at TDRs.
14:31:37 It's my understanding that staff is looking at the
14:31:40 revision of chapter 27.
14:31:42 We think transfer of development rights is a tool that
14:31:46 this council should have to use in lots of different.
14:31:49 But one of the applications.
14:31:50 It is an excellent tool for focusing development in
14:31:54 the areas where you want development to occur, and not
14:31:57 penalizing those people who are in those areas where
14:32:00 you do not want them or intense development.
14:32:03 So to provide the very mechanism that we are talking
14:32:06 about, to minimize, to mitigate, full, the economic
14:32:09 impact on a property owner for land use programs, to
14:32:15 encourage and see happen.
14:32:17 And historic preservation could be one of those.
14:32:19 >> Is that something that we could put into place?
14:32:22 >> It's something we could put into place, and we have
14:32:24 started the process.
14:32:26 I would not suggest that we're able to do that and do
14:32:29 that effectively in the immediate term.
14:32:32 I would suggest we look at the ameliorative measures

14:32:39 we have currently and or this issue.
14:32:41 with respect to consent.
14:32:42 And if you do have in there economic hardship and
14:32:45 economic incentives and some of the mitigating
14:32:47 factors, we can add to the arsenal of economic
14:32:50 incentives, as we go.
14:32:52 Which then changes perhaps this council and HPCs
14:32:58 balancing as they have applications before them.
14:33:00 >>SHAWN HARRISON: And the final thing is, the
14:33:04 cumbersome process of going through the A.R.C. or the
14:33:08 BLC and the uncertainty of it all, and the fact that
14:33:16 people are reluctant to go through that because it may
14:33:19 all depend on which board members are there one
14:33:21 evening or not, something gets continued and you have
14:33:23 a different board the next time, and you have got
14:33:25 factors like that that City Council, VRB, there are a
14:33:35 lot of unknowns.
14:33:36 Is there some way that we can put some type of staff
14:33:40 review on the front end of anything that's going to
14:33:45 ultimately come before the BLC or the A.R.C., so that
14:33:52 your first shot is with the staff member.
14:33:55 It's quick.

14:33:55 It's relatively painless.
14:33:58 And certainly not, you know, you don't have multiple
14:34:01 people putting in multiple opinions.
14:34:03 And then if you are unsatisfied with the staff
14:34:08 decision, then it can be appealed to either the A.R.C.
14:34:12 or BLC.
14:34:13 Would that be something that is possible?
14:34:18 >>DAVID SMITH: It is.
14:34:18 And Rebecca Kert is here.
14:34:21 She has been working with, I believe, Del and Cindy.
14:34:24 I'm not sure whether Dennis is in that loop or not.
14:34:27 But they are working specifically on the processes
14:34:32 that are used in BLC and A.R.C.
14:34:35 That's why you are hearing an argument from some, wait
14:34:36 and see, because those process changes may ameliorate
14:34:41 a lot of concerns.
14:34:42 But specifically to your question, yes, having a staff
14:34:44 interface initially is part of what they are looking
14:34:47 at.
14:34:47 Trying to have the process more user friendly, and
14:34:52 that is part of what they are looking at.
14:34:54 There is a matrix, I believe, that was presented to

14:34:57 council, I thought last week.
14:34:59 And I think Cindy Miller presented it to you.
14:35:02 And I think she may have mentioned Thom was working on
14:35:05 it too but it was very instrumental.
14:35:07 The answer is yes.
14:35:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Smith, the opposite number 2 owner
14:35:17 initiated, isn't it already in the ordinance?
14:35:20 We do have owner initiated poem coming over and asking
14:35:23 for it.
14:35:24 So wouldn't that be something that we don't have to
14:35:26 worry about?
14:35:27 I mean, it's already there.
14:35:28 It would be option number 3 that we are really looking
14:35:32 at.
14:35:32 >>DAVID SMITH: Well, number 2 would really be making
14:35:35 it solely owner initiated.
14:35:38 An owner can certainly initiate the process and come
14:35:41 to staff or HPC and begin the process.
14:35:44 I understand the concern of council to be is that
14:35:47 there's also an HPC initiated process.
14:35:50 So you are probably more correct to characterize
14:35:53 number 2 as owner initiated only.

14:35:55 I think that's what you are indicating.
14:35:57 >> Could we incorporate the two of them, the two and
14:36:00 three together?
14:36:01 >>> Yes.
14:36:02 >> Okay, that's good.
14:36:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Shelby found the statute that
14:36:12 addresses the ad valorem, Florida statute 196-1997
14:36:16 that says the governing body by ordinance may
14:36:19 authorize the exemption by ad valorem taxation of up
14:36:22 to 100% of the assessed value of all improvement to
14:36:25 historic properties which result from the restoration,
14:36:28 renovation or rehabilitation of such property.
14:36:30 So I think it's described very well by you or David or
14:36:35 Dennis.
14:36:36 >>> Dennis.
14:36:36 >> That this is already on the books.
14:36:38 So this is our ordinance, if you improve property, we
14:36:42 are not saying you have to, if you improve property,
14:36:44 and then awe reply for the ad valorem taxation.
14:36:48 We do it all the time.
14:36:49 We get them every week.
14:36:52 The other thing, David, I was going to say was the

14:36:56 consent option, the three of them, that's good.
14:36:59 Those are the three options to incorporate a consent
14:37:02 provision.
14:37:03 >>DAVID SMITH: Yes, sir.
14:37:05 >> But the fourth option that you just mentioned but
14:37:07 is not in writing, and I wanted council to remember it
14:37:09 is a fourth option, is to wait until Cindy miller is
14:37:12 done with that process, okay?
14:37:14 And wait and see what happens.
14:37:16 And don't touch the ordinance now.
14:37:18 Don't touch it now.
14:37:19 Just wait and see.
14:37:20 Let's see how that plays out.
14:37:22 Let's see, you know, if we can reach compromises on
14:37:25 how we implement the ordinance threw the A.R.C., BLC,
14:37:29 et cetera, and then if there's still a dire need to do
14:37:32 something, or you need to tweak it because of the
14:37:35 court case or whatever, then we can do that at a later
14:37:38 date.
14:37:39 But that's the option 4 that's not on this table.
14:37:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
14:37:44 I agree that option 4 was missing.

14:37:48 Council members, I want to share with you that I was
14:37:50 around when we first came up with a system and we
14:37:56 surveyed an area, found there were a lot of historic
14:37:59 homes that happened to be a certain percentage of
14:38:02 homes or whatever and we notified all the residents
14:38:05 and then we had a public hearing.
14:38:06 And I'm sure you are not surprised to hear that not
14:38:09 all the residents thought it was a great idea.
14:38:11 They didn't know what this was.
14:38:12 It hadn't existed before.
14:38:13 They didn't know what the rules would be.
14:38:15 Well, that was 30 years ago, and I was a young
14:38:19 planner.
14:38:19 Let me tell you, these historic districts -- that was
14:38:22 Hyde Park.
14:38:24 As a council member subsequently I voted on Seminole
14:38:26 Heights, Tampa Heights.
14:38:27 These neighborhoods have gotten nicer and nicer and
14:38:30 nicer.
14:38:31 And we have had -- we have seen the property values
14:38:34 increase at a much more significant value than the
14:38:38 areas around them that are not protected.

14:38:40 If we look at what historic preservation does for
14:38:43 people economically, it's significant.
14:38:45 And I encourage you to hear what Mr. Dingfelder just
14:38:48 suggested, which is that we make the process
14:38:51 improvements we have sort of identified and see how it
14:38:56 goes, and then in the future go back and see if we
14:38:59 need to make changes to the ordinance.
14:39:00 It is my strong feeling that a lot of the fears that
14:39:03 Mr. Grandoff's clients have are unfounded.
14:39:07 There really isn't anything that makes them, if you
14:39:11 have a building, do anything to it, you don't have to
14:39:14 make any kind of additional investment.
14:39:16 You don't.
14:39:17 You're not allowed to destroy it through neglect.
14:39:19 But you don't have to do anything special to it.
14:39:23 You're never allowed to destroy a building through
14:39:25 neglect.
14:39:27 So I wouldn't courage you to vote today to not make
14:39:30 any changes to our existing ordinance.
14:39:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez?
14:39:35 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Linda, I feel your passion of this.
14:39:37 And I'm just as passionate about this.

14:39:40 I agree that we need to wait until Cindy comes back
14:39:44 with some things.
14:39:44 But I still feel that we ought to do something about
14:39:48 an owner initiative item option 2 and 3.
14:39:51 And I don't think we need to worry.
14:39:55 Have them come back with an ordinance.
14:39:56 We take a look at it.
14:39:57 Then we still have an idea of where to go with it when
14:40:02 Cindy brings it back.
14:40:03 So I won't support that.
14:40:08 I would prefer that Mr. Smith bring back an ordinance
14:40:11 for us to take a look at, have our public hearings and
14:40:14 so on.
14:40:14 In the meantime, Cindy will have whatever she brings
14:40:20 back and then go from there.
14:40:22 But I think we need to move on.
14:40:24 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
14:40:25 Let me clarify something I answered with respect to a
14:40:28 question that Ms. Alvarez asked.
14:40:30 You asked can we do two and three.
14:40:32 You can do two different ordinances, one that does two
14:40:35 and one that does three.

14:40:36 If you have two, you don't need three.
14:40:39 I didn't want to mislead you on that.
14:40:41 I didn't know whether you were asking for it to come
14:40:43 back with two versions.
14:40:44 We can come back with three version ifs you want to.
14:40:48 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I like the idea that you have economic
14:40:51 hardship and the incentive to mitigate the economic
14:40:55 hardship.
14:40:56 I like that idea.
14:40:57 I really do.
14:40:58 But I won't vote for anything unless its owner
14:41:02 initiated.
14:41:03 I won't support anything else.
14:41:05 >>DAVID SMITH: It sounds to me if you go with owner
14:41:07 initiated, you don't need owner consent in the
14:41:10 criteria.
14:41:11 But you want something in the ordinance that deals
14:41:13 with the possibility of dealing with incentives,
14:41:16 and --
14:41:17 >>> Right.
14:41:18 Because if you're owner initiated, that means that
14:41:20 you're consenting to it.

14:41:22 >> Exactly.
14:41:23 That's why number 3 -- it would only be ---won't be a
14:41:27 hardship if you consented to it.
14:41:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Right.
14:41:32 I would like to see some better, like the economic
14:41:34 hardship application that we saw.
14:41:37 That was pretty onerous, it was like 12 pages.
14:41:41 >> Well, the other factor is you need economic
14:41:44 hardship and incentive addressed also at the
14:41:47 redevelopment phase, not just initiation.
14:41:50 When someone comes in to do something with their
14:41:52 property, the discussion you had, if you find in fact
14:41:55 that there is a particularly burdensome process, then
14:41:58 maybe that's appropriate to grant some kind of relief
14:42:01 at that point as well for someone who has already been
14:42:04 designated.
14:42:05 And the city is working with he or she of that
14:42:07 designation work.
14:42:10 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
14:42:11 David, if we decide to take a stab at number 3, this
14:42:17 process is going to -- process again -- this is going
14:42:21 to continue for some time.

14:42:23 And I'm not sure that I think that it's fair to keep
14:42:30 this process, whatever it may be, hanging over people
14:42:35 that have been under this process since who knows, I
14:42:39 guess February.
14:42:41 >>> February '06.
14:42:42 >>SHAWN HARRISON: So how would we address that issue?
14:42:46 Do we just say those who have objected are out of it
14:42:50 right now, we are going to undesignate those
14:42:53 particular properties, we will continue to try to come
14:42:57 up with a new ordinance that will put these mitigating
14:43:01 factors into it, and then at that point, once we have
14:43:05 a now ordinance, then the city if they so feel can go
14:43:10 ahead and designate those additional properties or
14:43:13 else we can decide, okay, we have got this new
14:43:15 ordinance now, maybe we don't want to initiate it with
14:43:18 respect to them.
14:43:22 >>> If I might remind you the problem we had in
14:43:24 February 06.
14:43:24 Part of the problem with the current ordinance is it
14:43:26 looks to pretty clearly not provide you that kind of
14:43:30 flexibility.
14:43:30 If you want to provide consent, or owner initiated --

14:43:35 I thought what you were going to say is you're
14:43:38 suggesting we have owner initiated on an interim.
14:43:40 Let's make that amendment, let's do that now, until we
14:43:42 come back with a more elaborated number 3, that also
14:43:46 perhaps has TDRs kind of things in it.
14:43:50 And I don't want to put words in your mouth but I
14:43:53 thought you we're saying you want a process that isn't
14:43:57 owner initiated, because right now you just have the
14:44:01 four criteria. Either it meets the four criteria or
14:44:04 doesn't meet the four criteria.
14:44:06 Having your ordinance the ability to take into account
14:44:08 owner consent.
14:44:09 So if you want to amend the ordinance to do that,
14:44:12 you're free to do that.
14:44:15 I'm not trying -- as to which route you want to go,
14:44:21 I'm trying to get a sense of way hear you saying.
14:44:23 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I remember we couldn't simply
14:44:25 undesignate them in February which caused this whole
14:44:28 thing.
14:44:30 We had a room full of people who had spoken in and,
14:44:33 no, we can't allow to you speak no matter how much we
14:44:37 want to because we can't do anything until we have an

14:44:39 ordinance in place.
14:44:42 So if we want to give them relief right now, we have
14:44:46 to go with owner initiated, while we work on a new
14:44:50 option with the first three.
14:44:52 >>> That is one way to do it.
14:44:53 Could you argue that the third alternative when
14:44:56 applied to them could also work.
14:44:58 >> But then they are still stuck in this, am I going
14:45:01 to be in?
14:45:02 Am I going to be out?
14:45:03 This sort of never land.
14:45:05 >>> Yes.
14:45:05 And one of the things I was going to do because we
14:45:08 have to amend the ordinance first is recommend that we
14:45:10 continue the cigar factory determination, to probably
14:45:15 a date in February, because it's going to take that
14:45:19 long to get this back to you, sent to the Planning
14:45:21 Commission, back to public hearings and approved.
14:45:26 It may hatch in less than that but as you know that's
14:45:28 pretty ambitious given the passion that exists on this
14:45:32 issue.
14:45:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

14:45:38 You just said something that was very confusing to me.
14:45:43 It sounded to me as if you said that -- maybe I
14:45:52 shouldn't put words into your mouth.
14:45:53 >>DAVID SMITH: That's all right.
14:45:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Council doesn't -- okay.
14:46:00 Explain to us -- what you just said, no matter what
14:46:06 happens, you won't be able to address the cigar issue,
14:46:09 the cigar took try until February, whether you choose
14:46:13 1, 2, 3, or no action.
14:46:15 >>> Yes.
14:46:16 >> Well, you know how we have a pending calendar,
14:46:19 which is -- couldn't we put this on this cosmic
14:46:26 pending calendar?
14:46:27 >>> No.
14:46:28 Because this was the public hearing.
14:46:29 It has to be continued to a great certain.
14:46:32 >> Great.
14:46:32 But couldn't we put out onto a date certain in
14:46:35 February?
14:46:35 >>> Yes, ma'am.
14:46:36 That's what I'm suggesting.
14:46:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. White.

14:46:39 >>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Smith, it seems like we keep
14:46:43 continuing to continue to continue.
14:46:45 And we have obviously preservationists here who feel
14:46:52 very strongly on their standpoint.
14:46:55 We have property owners and builders strongly on their
14:46:58 standpoint.
14:46:59 It seems like we are going to end up tweaking this.
14:47:06 It seems like the quote-unquote, I guess, opt out
14:47:11 provision so to speak is what causes a whole lot of
14:47:14 the controversy.
14:47:15 But I think, in all fairness, and one way or the other
14:47:19 to resolve the issue, I'm looking at all of the
14:47:23 different options that we have here.
14:47:27 Number 2, the owner initiated process, at this point
14:47:31 in time, seems to and appears to be I guess the most
14:47:38 fair at this point in time, that we are talking about
14:47:40 going back and maybe reincorporating, and that does
14:47:45 two things.
14:47:45 That gets the property owners who are here today the
14:47:49 option to go ahead and undesignate themselves, and
14:47:53 then start the process all over again, and once the
14:47:56 process is truly clear and defined, then they are no

14:47:59 longer options, and all the benefits that this process
14:48:04 will afford them.
14:48:05 Secondly, I don't think it's fair to continue this
14:48:10 without making a decision and going forward until
14:48:13 February when you are going to have three or two new
14:48:18 people up here who have not gone through this process,
14:48:22 and then it's going to continue again, and it's just
14:48:24 going to be a long, arduous dragged-out process,
14:48:28 because the property owners as well as the
14:48:29 preservationist itself, no matter which way the answer
14:48:32 comes in February, are going to say, well, how did it
14:48:36 come to a fair decision when you have two brand knew
14:48:39 people up there that aren't even vaguely familiar with
14:48:41 how this entire process came about?
14:48:44 So then no matter how the decision comes out at that
14:48:48 point in time nobody is going to win, and the attorney
14:48:53 and everybody will have an argument.
14:48:55 But I think that in the spirit of fairness as well as
14:48:58 moving this off the table, these something that we
14:49:02 ought to be able to look at, in the owner initiated
14:49:05 process now, and the property owners that want to
14:49:09 self-initiate this process is fine.

14:49:12 It also gives Cindy Miller's staff the opportunity to
14:49:15 come up with and tweak and craft the ordinance with
14:49:21 the number 3 option that we have on here that all
14:49:25 council members can live with.
14:49:30 But that's the way I'm looking at it.
14:49:32 I don't know if that makes sense to anybody else.
14:49:37 >>DAVID SMITH: It does.
14:49:38 I want to remind council the posture the cigar
14:49:42 factories are before you today is they have been
14:49:44 recommended for designation.
14:49:45 They have not been designated.
14:49:47 >>KEVIN WHITE: I understand.
14:49:50 But that wasn't a voluntary designation.
14:49:53 >>> You're correct.
14:49:55 I guess you have two options because the ordinance
14:49:56 doesn't give you any other options.
14:49:59 It looks like you either apply the criteria, you look
14:50:01 the criteria, and you say it meets the criteria, it's
14:50:05 designated.
14:50:06 Or you say it doesn't meet the criteria, I not
14:50:08 designated.
14:50:09 Or you remand it back to HPC if you think for some

14:50:12 reason HPC hasn't evaluated everything they need to
14:50:16 evaluate.
14:50:16 What that means is, these people are still in limbo.
14:50:19 I don't see a way to get them out of limbo.
14:50:21 So the question really is what you want to do with
14:50:25 consent.
14:50:26 And I understand the problem with losing 2,000
14:50:30 members.
14:50:31 But obviously it's going to be a problem in lots of
14:50:34 areas you are going to be dealing with in the near
14:50:35 future.
14:50:36 >> Not only that but the other thing about continuing
14:50:37 to drag this out and making this the process much more
14:50:41 arduous than needs to be, you are going to probably
14:50:44 end up losing half of the people that want to do this
14:50:47 now.
14:50:47 You have over 50% of the cigar factory owners that
14:50:50 want to do it.
14:50:51 When you can catch those people and capture them while
14:50:54 we have them, then at that point in time they might be
14:50:59 able to go to these two owners or the others and say,
14:51:01 man, this is the greatest thing since sliced bread,

14:51:05 you all need to join in this process and look what
14:51:07 this has done to benefit me and my property and my
14:51:11 organization.
14:51:17 Or it could go the other way.
14:51:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Now you have people waiting in limbo,
14:51:22 don't know whether they are in or out.
14:51:24 Since they have been in limbo, has there been any
14:51:27 process that you have to go through to get this --
14:51:29 >>> No, ma'am.
14:51:30 >>GWEN MILLER: So if we don't make a decision today
14:51:32 and they are still in limbo, is that going to harm
14:51:34 them and prevent them from doing anything they want to
14:51:37 do?
14:51:38 >>> No, ma'am.
14:51:39 They can speak for themselves.
14:51:40 >> Not going to be forcing them to do anything to
14:51:43 their building?
14:51:44 >>> No.
14:51:44 Demolition review, if they come in and want to
14:51:47 demolish.
14:51:48 >> So we can wait until we get this and tweak it the
14:51:52 way we want, then it's not going to harm them until

14:51:55 February.
14:51:55 I don't think nothing is going to happen until we get
14:51:58 tweaking to get everything ironed out so we can have
14:52:01 it smooth, operating so we don't have anybody confused
14:52:04 as to what's going on.
14:52:05 >>DAVID SMITH: That's correct.
14:52:08 I think council needs to decide what exactly they want
14:52:10 the ordinance to look like.
14:52:12 There is the possibility, as Mr. Harrison was
14:52:15 mentioning, was take number 2, have the ordinance
14:52:19 amended in that fashion and any of the other --
14:52:22 tweaking we may need to do for litigation and come
14:52:25 back to you with more he lab rat view of number 3 so
14:52:31 you have owner initiated in the interim, and not
14:52:34 initiate other than owner initiated in the interim.
14:52:38 A way to get around this quagmire.
14:52:41 That may be a way to do it.
14:52:43 As you know our recommendation is really number 3
14:52:45 because we think it provides a lot more flexibility
14:52:47 than minimal -- minimizing the harm on historic
14:52:52 preservation.
14:52:54 So you all noticed to make that decision.

14:52:57 >>GWEN MILLER: We discussed this.
14:52:58 We need to make a decision.
14:53:00 We have been here quite awhile now.
14:53:02 We have other items on the agenda.
14:53:06 We have to be back here at 6:00.
14:53:09 We still have a long way to go on this agenda.
14:53:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just remember what you have before
14:53:15 you now is a discussion of direction on the consent
14:53:17 document of historic preservation.
14:53:20 You still have to come back to item 66 to take action
14:53:23 on that.
14:53:24 So that's two separate issues.
14:53:28 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to come to a decision what
14:53:30 we are going to do so we can move on.
14:53:32 We have a lot on the agenda.
14:53:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: During the interim, I want you all
14:53:40 to be aware of this.
14:53:41 This is not chicken little in terms of my concern
14:53:45 about these buildings being knocked down.
14:53:47 The land value of these buildings, especially the ones
14:53:50 in West Tampa, are now far exceeding the value of the
14:53:53 building.

14:53:55 I pulled property records for the Howard building, one
14:53:58 of the Howard buildings and the Armenia building. The
14:54:01 Howard building owned by James properties, and I don't
14:54:04 know if they are here or not, has a value of 683,000,
14:54:09 it has out of that a land value of $420.
14:54:13 The land value is two-thirds of the total value.
14:54:16 The building is now one-third of the total value.
14:54:19 And Armenia, you have got virtually the same thing,
14:54:22 the total value $700,000, and the land value $530,000.
14:54:30 It's very relevant.
14:54:31 It mate not be as relevant in Palmetto Beach.
14:54:34 But in West Tampa it's extremely relevant because that
14:54:37 land value, as we know, because you have seen it up
14:54:39 and down Howard and Armenia, is going through the
14:54:42 roof.
14:54:42 So one of these days, it might not be these gentlemen,
14:54:45 but it might be their next of kin or whoever they sell
14:54:49 it to tomorrow, might say, you know what?
14:54:51 We don't want to keep that building, we are going to
14:54:54 knock it down.
14:54:54 It's a very real problem.
14:54:57 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It cannot be knocked down.

14:54:59 >> Of course it can.
14:55:00 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Cannot.
14:55:01 He said that has to go to the HPC.
14:55:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The same thing that happened to the
14:55:07 Lykes building.
14:55:08 >>GWEN MILLER:
14:55:09 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It's not going to happen.
14:55:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Then they get permission to knock
14:55:14 it down.
14:55:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It's a what-if situation, okay?
14:55:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question to David Smith.
14:55:21 I want to ask him a question.
14:55:22 >>GWEN MILLER: He can't hear you.
14:55:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes, he will.
14:55:25 David, number 3.
14:55:27 Option number 3.
14:55:30 I didn't hear a whole lot about option number 3 in
14:55:33 terms of -- if we decided to go down the path of
14:55:37 option number 3, what would we do with the pending
14:55:42 cigar factories?
14:55:44 >>DAVID SMITH: You would continue them, would be our
14:55:47 recommendation.

14:55:50 Why I said you continue them until February, the idea
14:55:53 being you will have a new ordinance applicable, and it
14:55:55 will be applicable at date of adoption and it could
14:55:59 applied to the pending matters that were then pending.
14:56:02 And if you're number 3, you evaluate the cigar
14:56:05 factories in light of all eight factors if we add the
14:56:09 one about historical.
14:56:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think option number 3 is a very
14:56:13 reasonable compromise between very, very divergent
14:56:18 positions.
14:56:18 So I am going to move that we direct legal to go ahead
14:56:20 and draft up the appropriate document language,
14:56:24 ordinance, everything else, to go with number 3 on Mr.
14:56:28 Smith's consent options.
14:56:30 That incorporate the consent into the factors used in
14:56:33 determining relevant hardships, that would also have
14:56:36 the economic hardship as factors, it would include
14:56:40 mitigation,TDRs, grants, rebates, all the things
14:56:46 that would be helpful to this process.
14:56:48 But it would still allow consent to be part of the
14:56:53 process and part of the decision making.
14:56:55 And if one of those cigar factories came back in front

14:56:57 of us, which they will, because, David, if we change
14:57:02 it we would probably remand it back, let the HPC look
14:57:06 at it with the new factors in there, then they would
14:57:09 decide.
14:57:10 And then if it came back to us we would still be able
14:57:12 to say, now what?
14:57:13 We think consent or the lack of consent is
14:57:15 overwhelming, and, therefore, we are not going to
14:57:18 approve this over their objection.
14:57:21 That's the way number 3 would work, right?
14:57:23 >>DAVID SMITH: I hear what you're saying, and we seek
14:57:29 to see if we can accomplish that.
14:57:35 There was some concern with regard to changing the
14:57:37 rules in midstream.
14:57:38 Now --
14:57:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That would apply to any of them.
14:57:44 >>DAVID SMITH: That would apply to those currently
14:57:46 pending.
14:57:47 But we would look at that and see whether or not a
14:57:49 loosening, if you will, or an addition of factors to
14:57:52 be looked at is such that it constitutes either the
14:57:56 due processor some other affront to -- I can't answer

14:58:02 that right now.
14:58:03 Cot very well be that we'll find case law that says
14:58:06 certainly in the private owner's perspective you are
14:58:09 adding additional factors that allow the property
14:58:11 owner to make argument that he or she otherwise didn't
14:58:13 have the opportunity to make.
14:58:15 We'll have to look at that.
14:58:16 I would hate to opine off the top of my head.
14:58:20 >>: So my motion is go with number 3, directed legal
14:58:23 to go ahead and draft the implementing ordinance, that
14:58:25 would incorporate everything that you have there in
14:58:27 number 3, and I think mentioned grants, rebates.
14:58:32 I think those are great ideas.
14:58:35 As well as TPR.
14:58:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
14:58:39 Question on the motion.
14:58:40 Mrs. Alvarez.
14:58:40 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Smith, suppose we take item 66 and
14:58:44 we say no to it instead of continuing to it.
14:58:47 That would start the process all over again, wouldn't
14:58:49 it?
14:58:52 >>DAVID SMITH: Could you find the properties do not

14:58:54 meet the criteria, and could say no to it.
14:58:58 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So if we denied this right now, item
14:59:04 66, that would start it all over again, because then
14:59:09 we would have -- if we would do what they say, but I
14:59:13 still like the owner origination in there.
14:59:15 That would start -- if you are owner initiated you are
14:59:20 going to have the consent of the owner.
14:59:21 I don't understand.
14:59:23 >>DAVID SMITH: If you have owner initiated, do you not
14:59:26 need three.
14:59:27 Three is a compromise that brings consent in, less
14:59:30 than number two does.
14:59:32 >>MARY ALVAREZ: But if you have the number two and you
14:59:35 add the economic hardship incentives to it, you don't
14:59:40 need consent because you're already consenting because
14:59:42 the owners are saying.
14:59:45 >>> Correct.
14:59:45 Consent because of non-issue, owner initiated.
14:59:49 >>SHAWN HARRISON: All right, Mr. Smith, to go down
14:59:51 that path a little bit more, if we take Mr.
14:59:55 Dingfelder's suggestion, and revise along with the
15:00:01 other mitigation factors, we do that now, we come up

15:00:04 to 66, and we apply -- we are now applying only the
15:00:12 four criteria?
15:00:13 Or does the pending ordinance doctrine give us the
15:00:16 ability to say, now what?
15:00:19 They don't meet the criteria.
15:00:21 I'm looking for a way, if there is a way, to serve
15:00:24 both things here.
15:00:26 Revise the ordinance.
15:00:27 Yet get these folks out of limbo, at a minimum, at
15:00:31 least until February.
15:00:35 When we have a new ordinance.
15:00:37 But at least they are off the hook for now.
15:00:41 >> Is this an oral board certification process?
15:00:43 [ Laughter ]
15:00:49 I would not want to answer that without really looking
15:00:51 at case law.
15:00:52 I understand exactly what you are asking.
15:00:54 I am not sufficiently conversant with the case law.
15:00:56 I know there is a pending ordinance doctrine.
15:00:59 It's been used both as a sword and shield.
15:01:03 But I don't know how its application would work here.
15:01:07 So I don't know.

15:01:12 They may have a different answer.
15:01:14 >>SHAWN HARRISON: But we could just say we are going
15:01:16 to open 66, we are going to hear the testimony,
15:01:18 however brief it needs to be.
15:01:20 And we just say, we just don't find that they apply.
15:01:25 >>> If you find those criteria do not apply then the
15:01:28 same ordinance questions.
15:01:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But then we could be sued.
15:01:34 A decision could easily be appealed, because I think
15:01:38 it would be arbitrary.
15:01:40 And I see a lot of nodding heads out there.
15:01:43 Even the lawyers.
15:01:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Calling for the question.
15:01:46 Motion on the floor.
15:01:48 Mr. Shelby.
15:01:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I would like the clerk to recite the
15:01:52 motion so we are all clear on exactly what is before
15:01:55 council.
15:01:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I move that we go with option
15:02:01 number 3 and direct legal accordingly.
15:02:04 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
15:02:07 Opposed, Nay.

15:02:12 >> 3 to 3.
15:02:13 >>: That means it gets continued to the next hearing.
15:02:15 One other issue.
15:02:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would that be tonight?
15:02:21 >>GWEN MILLER: No, next Thursday.
15:02:22 >>DAVID SMITH: One item to number 66 you could remand
15:02:27 that back to the HPC and then it will have to go
15:02:30 through a review, and perhaps by the time it comes
15:02:32 back, you may have a different ordinance.
15:02:36 Someone is going to vote.
15:02:37 I guess Ms. Ferlita will have to vote to break the tie
15:02:39 next week.
15:02:40 Right now, as I understand with a 3-3 vote on using
15:02:43 number 3.
15:02:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm not going to be here next week.
15:02:57 >> Neither am I.
15:02:59 [ Laughter ]
15:03:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Then I would like to make a motion
15:03:07 that we don't follow -- if the intent of council is to
15:03:11 get the cigar factory owners off the hook then what I
15:03:15 suggest what we do is nothing, my suggestion would be
15:03:15 that we leave the preservation ordinance intact, and

15:03:21 let Cindy Miller work on the process question.
15:03:26 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't think that does let them off
15:03:30 the hook.
15:03:31 Because right now they are in the middle of this
15:03:33 designation --
15:03:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We could vote on 66 and if you want
15:03:38 to find they are not historical, go ahead and find
15:03:40 that.
15:03:41 So my motion would be that we don't proceed with any
15:03:44 of the consent options before us --
15:03:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a point of order.
15:03:53 As Mr. Smith mentioned very astutely that the vote we
15:03:56 just took is going to theoretically carry over to our
15:04:01 next meeting, two of us are not going to be here, so I
15:04:04 don't think it's automatically, that we waive that
15:04:08 rule to two weeks.
15:04:09 I think we have done that before when somebody doesn't
15:04:11 look at the tape or whatever.
15:04:12 At least we'll have a full board and make a real
15:04:15 decision.
15:04:17 >>> But your absence is tantamount to a negative vote
15:04:19 because you won't vote for it.

15:04:20 You won't be here to convince your fellow council
15:04:23 members.
15:04:24 >>> It was my motion.
15:04:32 >> It would be presumptuous.
15:04:34 Anything could happen.
15:04:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can we hold it till tonight when
15:04:41 there will be all of us?
15:04:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We could change the rules.
15:04:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby, can we do that?
15:04:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You have a lot of options.
15:04:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can we bring it up tonight?
15:04:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.
15:04:56 Let me think how we are going to do that.
15:05:00 You had a motion that's been made and a tie vote was
15:05:03 taken.
15:05:04 Automatically under the counsel's rules come back to
15:05:06 the next regular meeting.
15:05:08 >> Then I move to amend the rules.
15:05:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Any of the foregoing rules may be
15:05:14 temporarily suspended by unanimous vote of the member
15:05:17 of the council then present.
15:05:19 Unless city charter or state or local law.

15:05:23 So you cannot take a unanimous vote.
15:05:26 If you wish to waive the rules, then --
15:05:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: move to suspend the rules so the
15:05:31 vote is finalized tonight.
15:05:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
15:05:34 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Will Ms. Ferlita have a chance to look
15:05:46 at the tape?
15:05:48 We are all having arguments you U up here.
15:05:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: She could choose whether she wishes
15:05:52 to or not.
15:05:53 I would just say from a process standpoint, this is a
15:05:56 legislative matter.
15:05:57 She could be brought up, perhaps council when they are
15:06:02 all present.
15:06:04 It is not necessarily from a due process standpoint
15:06:07 that she has to review the entire record.
15:06:13 It is not a quasi-judicial hearing, number 66.
15:06:17 This is a legislative issue.
15:06:20 >> We have a motion and second on the floor.
15:06:22 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
15:06:23 Opposed, Nay.
15:06:27 (Motion carried).

15:06:27 >>THE CLERK: Sorry, your second?
15:06:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to waive the rules and put it
15:06:35 on the thing tonight.
15:06:36 >>GWEN MILLER: So we bring it back tonight at 6 p.m.
15:06:39 >>JENNIFER HERNANDEZ: I do want to expand on item 66.
15:06:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you want to go to 66 now
15:06:48 officially?
15:06:49 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Sure, why not?
15:06:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Open the public hearing on number 66.
15:06:54 >>GWEN MILLER: As public safety chairman, I feel it's
15:07:00 appropriate to attend a visitation and memorandum
15:07:03 services to be held this afternoon for firefighter
15:07:07 John Duval.
15:07:08 I express my sympathy and that of my colleagues to the
15:07:16 family.
15:07:17 I will be in attendance at the evening council
15:07:20 meeting.
15:07:21 She would like us to do a moment of silence from the
15:07:24 board.
15:07:27 (moment of silence)
15:07:31 Amen.
15:07:36 >> Is this quasi-judicial?

15:07:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public that's going to
15:07:42 speak on item 66, would you please stand and raise
15:07:44 your right hand?
15:07:45 (Oath administered by Clerk).
15:08:04 >>JENNIFER HERNANDEZ: Historic preservation.
15:08:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order.
15:08:08 We all had a lot of discussion on these issues, even
15:08:10 if they aren't exactly these issues.
15:08:12 And I'm thinking that we should continue this item.
15:08:14 I'm not sure what the appropriate date would be.
15:08:18 Maybe till tonight even.
15:08:20 So we can see where we are going.
15:08:22 And I don't see a whole lot of point in getting into
15:08:25 all the testimony.
15:08:29 That's just my opinion.
15:08:30 I don't mean to be rude to anybody.
15:08:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Is that a motion?
15:08:38 We have a motion and second to continue item number 66
15:08:40 to this afternoon at 6 p.m.
15:08:42 All in favor of the motion.
15:08:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Please.
15:08:48 Two things.

15:08:48 Number one is, with regard to that item, that is a
15:08:55 city-initiated request.
15:08:58 Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to have --
15:09:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
15:09:04 wants to speak to the continuance?
15:09:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A 3-hour continuance.
15:09:12 >>> Elizabeth Johnson, 1819 Richardson place.
15:09:15 There are a lot of people who aren't going to be able
15:09:17 to come tonight.
15:09:18 We sat here for all day.
15:09:20 I know I'm one of them.
15:09:22 So it's just unfortunate.
15:09:26 I just think that there are a lot of volunteers who
15:09:29 have donate add lot of time and it's just unfortunate.
15:09:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
15:09:36 We have a motion and second on the floor.
15:09:37 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
15:09:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What's the motion?
15:09:41 >>GWEN MILLER: To continue item number 66 until
15:09:43 tonight.
15:09:44 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
15:09:45 Opposed, Nay.

15:09:47 (Motion carried) Mr. Shelby?
15:09:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I had a request for clarification on
15:09:51 the vote previously to continue to 6 p.m. to waive the
15:09:54 rules.
15:09:56 And I was not able to tell that person how the council
15:09:59 voted.
15:10:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: To waive the rules.
15:10:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I stand corrected.
15:10:14 >> I know we go to our audience for second reading.
15:10:17 Is anyone in the audience going to speak on 57 through
15:10:20 62, would you please stand and raise your right hand?
15:10:23 (Oath administered by Clerk).
15:10:31 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open items number 57 through
15:10:35 62.
15:10:35 >> So moved.
15:10:36 >> Second.
15:10:36 (Motion carried).
15:10:37 >>CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the public that wants
15:10:40 to speak on item 57?
15:10:42 >> Move to close.
15:10:43 >> Second.
15:10:43 (Motion carried).

15:10:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder, would you read it,
15:10:46 please?
15:10:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move the following ordinance on
15:10:50 second reading, an ordinance vacates closing
15:10:53 discontinuing and abandoning a certain right-of-way
15:10:56 all that portion of state street lying north of Cass
15:10:59 Street, south of Cypress Street, east of Rome Avenue
15:11:02 and west of Oregon Avenue in revised plat of Woodlawn
15:11:06 park subdivision, a subdivision in the city of Tampa,
15:11:09 Hillsborough County, Florida the same being more fully
15:11:11 described in section 2 hereof, providing an effective
15:11:13 date.
15:11:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Voice roll call.
15:11:18 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried 4 to 0.
15:11:23 >> Is there anyone in the public that wants oh to
15:11:27 speak to item 58?
15:11:30 >> 10th street representing developer of New Port
15:11:34 Tampa Bay.
15:11:35 I was not present at the first public hearing.
15:11:37 I understand that the council voted for it at the
15:11:40 first public hearing.
15:11:41 If you have any questions I would be happy to answer.

15:11:43 >>CHAIRMAN: Would anyone else like to speak?
15:11:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
15:11:47 >> Second.
15:11:48 (Motion carried).
15:11:48 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to adopt the following ordinance
15:11:52 upon second reading, an ordinance vacating, closing,
15:11:54 discontinuing, and abandoning a certain right-of-way a
15:11:58 certain portion of Bridge Street generally located
15:12:00 south of McElroy Avenue and north of Tyson Avenue in
15:12:04 bay bridge revised subdivision, a subdivision in the
15:12:07 City of Tampa, Hillsborough County Florida the same
15:12:09 being more fully described in section 2 hereof
15:12:11 providing an effective date.
15:12:11 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
15:12:13 Voice roll call.
15:12:23 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried 4-0.
15:12:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
15:12:27 wants to speak on item 59?
15:12:36 >> Tom Sherri, 1200 West Platt street.
15:12:42 We were here in front of council on the 28th for
15:12:46 the first hearing and you approved the petition to
15:12:49 vacate the alleyway.

15:12:52 However, you expressed concerns for a neighbor whose
15:12:56 property abutted the alleyway that she wanted access
15:13:00 to the alleyway to remove debris, and make renovations
15:13:05 to her home.
15:13:06 So we provided written agreement to her that we would
15:13:13 allow her access to the property, remove lumber, and I
15:13:24 hope that you received the letter that we provided to
15:13:27 her in your mailboxes.
15:13:30 The letter is right here, stating that she has access
15:13:37 to our property up until December 31st.
15:13:43 So with that being said, if you have any questions, I
15:13:46 would be happy to answer anything you have.
15:13:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Was that letter filed with the clerk
15:13:52 of the -- city clerk's office?
15:13:54 Did you provide a copy for the clerk's file?
15:13:59 >>> I believe there was a copy filed with the clerk.
15:14:03 No?
15:14:04 Well, I can give you a copy right now.
15:14:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
15:14:11 >> Second.
15:14:11 (Motion carried).
15:14:11 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to adopt the following ordinance

15:14:15 on second reading, an ordinance vacating, closing,
15:14:16 discontinuing, abandoning a certain right-of-way all
15:14:19 that alleyway lying north of north "B" street, south
15:14:22 of west Fig Street, east of north Rome Avenue, and
15:14:26 west of north Oregon, in fuller's subdivision, a
15:14:30 subdivision in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County,
15:14:33 Florida, the same being more fully described in
15:14:36 section 2 hereof, providing an effective date.
15:14:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Voice roll call.
15:14:43 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
15:14:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
15:14:51 wants to speak on item 60?
15:14:53 >> Move to close.
15:14:54 >> Second.
15:14:54 (Motion carried).
15:14:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move an ordinance, the following
15:15:00 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance approving
15:15:03 a special use permit S-2 approving a church in an
15:15:06 RS-50 residential single family zoning district in the
15:15:08 general vicinity of 1745, 1746, 1747, 1901, 1902,
15:15:14 1906, 1908, and 1910 LaSalle street and 1911 and 1917
15:15:19 arch street in the city of Tampa, Florida and as more

15:15:22 particularly described in section 1 hereof reducing
15:15:24 the required parking spaces from 90 to 69, reducing
15:15:27 the required yard setbacks from 40 to 20 feet for the
15:15:31 north setback, 40 feet to 15 feet for the south
15:15:34 setback, and 40 feet to 10 feet for the west setback,
15:15:36 a Lough grass parking spaces with the exception of the
15:15:39 drive aisle and handicapped parking, allowing direct
15:15:42 access to local roads, providing an effective date.
15:15:46 >> We have a motion and second.
15:15:47 Voice roll call.
15:15:55 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
15:15:59 >>GWEN MILLER: is there anyone president public who
15:16:03 wants to speak on item 61.
15:16:05 >> So moved.
15:16:06 >> Second.
15:16:06 (Motion carried).
15:16:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move the following ordinance on
15:16:12 second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the
15:16:15 general vicinity of 2503 north grove Avenue in the
15:16:17 city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described
15:16:20 in section 1 from zoning district classifications
15:16:23 RM-24, residential multifamily to CN, commercial

15:16:27 neighborhood, providing an effective date.
15:16:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Voice roll call.
15:16:32 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
15:16:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
15:16:38 wants to speak on item 62?
15:16:40 >> Move to close.
15:16:41 >> Second.
15:16:41 (Motion carried).
15:16:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to adopt the following ordinance
15:16:47 upon second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in
15:16:49 the general vicinity of 5440 South MacDill Avenue, in
15:16:53 the city of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly
15:16:55 described in section 1 from zoning district classifies
15:16:58 RM-24 residential multifamily and CG commercial
15:17:01 general to PD planned development, multifamily,
15:17:04 providing an effective date.
15:17:05 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
15:17:07 Voice roll call.
15:17:15 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
15:17:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
15:17:21 wants to speak on item 65?
15:17:23 Would you please stand and raise your right hand?

15:17:25 (Oath administered by Clerk) 6 we need to open 65.
15:17:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
15:17:37 >> Second.
15:17:37 (Motion carried).
15:17:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Staff?
15:17:58 >>> Debby Ginsburg.
15:18:05 This is the first two of public hearings to
15:18:08 designation the Tampa --
15:18:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Administration is recommending
15:18:13 approval?
15:18:14 >>> Yes.
15:18:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
15:18:17 >> Second.
15:18:18 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
15:18:24 >> Second.
15:18:24 (Motion carried).
15:18:25 >>CHAIRMAN: We go to information from council members.
15:18:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: We have one little item to take care
15:18:30 of first.
15:18:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Oh, no, this is going to take a long
15:18:34 time.
15:18:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It's going to take a very short time.

15:18:41 Copies of the draft application.
15:18:46 I provided an extra copy.
15:18:47 Just take a look at it, council.
15:18:49 If this meets with your approval as it is, I would
15:18:51 request that you set it on the agenda for approval and
15:18:57 direction to the clerk to be distributed for next
15:19:01 week's agenda under unfinished business.
15:19:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez has a question.
15:19:14 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I think the application is too long.
15:19:18 I don't remember having to fill in an application like
15:19:22 that when I ran for City Council.
15:19:25 So I believe that number 11 find out what city boards
15:19:32 or committees served previously on.
15:19:35 I have a problem with that one.
15:19:36 I have a problem with number 12, Hillsborough County.
15:19:42 And I also have a problem with number 18.
15:19:47 We can always ask whether they intend to run for City
15:19:52 Council.
15:19:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If could you do that, I'm sorry,
15:19:56 individually, just to speed things along.
15:19:58 If you could do it in the form of a motion with
15:20:01 particular issues.

15:20:04 11.
15:20:05 12.
15:20:06 18.
15:20:09 Or however you want to dot.
15:20:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Also number 20.
15:20:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can we discuss it on the 26th?
15:20:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No.
15:20:23 According to council resolutions, it will be available
15:20:25 to the general public for distribution after council's
15:20:27 approval for the final application at next week's
15:20:30 agenda.
15:20:32 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, I wasn't here when we
15:20:33 did this the last time.
15:20:36 Was there an actual application?
15:20:39 >> No.
15:20:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: This was the draft application and
15:20:43 the resolutions that I brought before you.
15:20:45 Part of the procedure would be that you would have the
15:20:46 opportunity to review a draft of an application on the
15:20:50 12th of October, which is today.
15:20:55 You would give any direction you wish to make.
15:20:57 I would bring back in the final application based on

15:20:59 your direction, and at that time you would formally
15:21:02 approve it and then direct the clerk to make it
15:21:04 available to the public for the clerk's office, and
15:21:07 through the city web site.
15:21:08 So what you have before you is an application that is
15:21:13 a draft that I am presenting to you, if you wish to
15:21:15 make changes to it, you can direct me to do so.
15:21:25 Either way it was the intention to have it approved
15:21:27 next week in its final form for distribution so that
15:21:29 people can fill it out and return it no later than
15:21:32 5 p.m. on Wednesday, November 15th.
15:21:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
15:21:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Very quickly.
15:21:37 11, 12 and 20 are three of the ones that Mary
15:21:41 expressed concern with.
15:21:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And number --
15:21:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I know.
15:21:47 11, 12 and 20 speak to what it's doing in government
15:21:52 boards, and number 20, what experience have you had in
15:21:55 the community?
15:21:57 Charitable, business, professional organizations.
15:21:59 I think those are three critical things that we should

15:22:01 ask them in writing, because if we don't ask them in
15:22:04 writing, then I will have to ask them in person, which
15:22:07 will take longer.
15:22:09 But let's let them take an extra ten minutes to write
15:22:12 it down.
15:22:18 When I suggested this, I suggested it because it's
15:22:19 easier request for them to just say "yes" or "no" or
15:22:22 number 18.
15:22:23 Otherwise, I will be asking that for each individual
15:22:26 candidate over and over and over again, which I think
15:22:28 will get burdensome and lengthen the process.
15:22:32 So why not just ask them the question.
15:22:34 They can put what they wanted.
15:22:36 We are not going to bind them to the.
15:22:38 It's not legally binding.
15:22:40 They just put it down yes or no.
15:22:44 >>KEVIN WHITE: 11, 12 and 20 seems like all three of
15:22:48 those could be summed up in one question.
15:22:50 What boards or civic activities have you ever served
15:22:52 on?
15:22:53 And under one category rather than three questions.
15:23:06 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I think Marty did a good job taking

15:23:08 a first crack at it.
15:23:09 Somebody might come along and say, I don't wanted to
15:23:12 fill that blank in.
15:23:13 That will be sort of a glaring, you know, omission and
15:23:17 we'll probably ask them about it but I don't think you
15:23:19 have to answer those questions.
15:23:20 Otherwise, do think that it's good to have everything
15:23:24 in front of us that way.
15:23:25 And then say attach a resume, or curriculum vitae or
15:23:29 something like that, so we are looking at everybody
15:23:31 that applied, we have everything right here in front
15:23:33 of us, we don't have to chase anything down ourselves
15:23:36 and we can make, you know, a decision, an informed
15:23:40 decision based on evidence in front of us.
15:23:42 I got in trouble by saying this is a caretaker
15:23:45 position.
15:23:46 I probably shouldn't have said that.
15:23:48 I do think it's a good overkill to go in and start
15:23:51 doing, you know, background checks and all that kind
15:23:53 of stuff.
15:23:54 But this is a reasonable document to have to fill out.
15:23:58 So I'm fine with this.

15:23:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Councilman Harrison, I specifically
15:24:05 butt in there a resume or any other supporting
15:24:08 documents may be attached.
15:24:09 That is specifically in the instruction.
15:24:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I move the document as it is.
15:24:14 >> Second.
15:24:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
15:24:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Before you vote.
15:24:18 Just so you know.
15:24:19 I spoke to Ms. Foxx-Knowles, and the only change that
15:24:25 I will be making to the final.
15:24:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just to announce, does it say about
15:24:30 when they are due?
15:24:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That will be announced next week when
15:24:36 council formally makes the motion.
15:24:40 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.
15:24:44 (Motion Carried)
15:24:47 Mr. Dingfelder?
15:24:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Awhile back there was a motion with
15:24:50 Ms. Advise any front of us to continue the front porch
15:24:53 discussion.
15:24:53 It was supposed to be continued to next week, the

15:24:55 19th.
15:24:56 Two problems.
15:24:57 A, I won't be here on the 19th.
15:24:59 B, Ms. Vizzi and I are meeting with staff, et cetera,
15:25:03 on November 8.
15:25:04 I would respectfully request that we defer that till
15:25:06 later in November, another meeting later, November
15:25:11 9th,.
15:25:15 The 23rd?
15:25:20 November 30th.
15:25:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
15:25:24 (Motion Carried).
15:25:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a reminder there will only be
15:25:33 five members present.
15:25:35 And if you want to make a motion for special
15:25:37 discussion meeting as a result of that decision?
15:25:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thanks for the clarification.
15:25:42 Also special discussion meeting to be held Wednesday,
15:25:45 November 8 at noon here in the third floor conference
15:25:49 room including staff, Ms. Vizzi and Mace to discuss
15:25:54 the front porches.
15:25:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.

15:25:58 (Motion carried).
15:26:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Julia Cole, glad you're here.
15:26:06 We have all discussed the hideous, horrible sign on
15:26:10 Howard, the enormous billboard that is a blight on our
15:26:14 historic district.
15:26:15 So I would like Julia Cole, as I our legal department,
15:26:20 to look at Florida statute 70-20 to see what the city
15:26:25 can do to address the illegal sign and can we get back
15:26:31 to the sign company?
15:26:32 What can we do and report back in 30 days about doing
15:26:36 something.
15:26:37 That's a motion. So we don't make mistakes in the
15:26:37 future.
15:26:47 See what our options are. See if there's something
15:26:48 better we can do.
15:26:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
15:26:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We can't do anything about that but
15:26:54 we can get better in the future.
15:26:57 I received an e-mail from Mr. Alan White who said
15:27:05 there is no flow over the river and he's concerned
15:27:07 that the city is considering easing water restrictions
15:27:09 and we obviously don't have much water going over the

15:27:13 dam.
15:27:13 So I know we are going to be discussion water flow in
15:27:14 a few weeks, but I would just like the administration
15:27:16 to note that since we don't have any water going over
15:27:18 the dam, this isn't the time to ease watering
15:27:22 restrictions.
15:27:26 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Two things.
15:27:27 I received a request from a group called Reality Check
15:27:30 Tampa Bay.
15:27:35 There is apparently some sort of land institute,
15:27:39 Southwest Florida Water Management District, there's a
15:27:41 bunch of organizations that are having some event on
15:27:43 Friday, May 18, 2007 at the convention center.
15:27:46 They have asked the City of Tampa to co-sponsor that.
15:27:49 And the only thing that the city would be required to
15:27:51 do is to provide the cost of the convention center for
15:27:56 free, which would be about a $5,000 savings to the
15:27:59 group.
15:27:59 I would like to ask for the city staff to come in in
15:28:04 two weeks and tell us whether or not they would agree
15:28:07 to do that.
15:28:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

15:28:08 (Motion carried).
15:28:09 >>SHAWN HARRISON: In New Tampa we have an overlay
15:28:17 district that prohibits off-site signs.
15:28:20 And what has happened, so if you are advertising
15:28:23 something, you could only advertise it on your
15:28:25 property.
15:28:26 You can't go off site and advertise.
15:28:29 What has been happening are there have been some
15:28:36 creative ways, and people sitting in the median on
15:28:39 Bruce B. Downs, and they are holding signs, which
15:28:42 apparently is okay, because they are not planted in
15:28:45 the ground.
15:28:49 And if you drive out there on any weekend, Saturday or
15:28:53 Sunday, literally every couple hundred yards people
15:28:56 advertising things and they are mostly condo sales.
15:28:58 Which is crazy.
15:28:59 I don't know driving on the road and say, hey, condos
15:29:05 for sale.
15:29:08 But you have competing condo sales going back and
15:29:10 forth across Bruce B. Downs and it's become being not
15:29:13 only an eyesore but it's sort of a safety issue
15:29:16 because these people are literally sitting in the

15:29:18 middle of the median of Bruce B. Downs, which is not a
15:29:21 safe place for anybody to be.
15:29:23 So I would like staff to come in, in two weeks, and
15:29:25 give us a report on what our options might be, to try
15:29:28 to put an end to that.
15:29:30 Code enforcement says there's nothing they can do,
15:29:34 it's a public safety issue.
15:29:35 I haven't heard from TPD.
15:29:38 >> Second.
15:29:38 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
15:29:39 (Motion carried).
15:29:40 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Just one thing.
15:29:44 I need to make a motion to cancel the CRA meeting
15:29:48 coming up next week.
15:29:52 10-19.
15:29:53 And reschedule it for 8:00 on October 26th.
15:29:56 They are coming up with a CRA budget.
15:29:58 And Mr. Huey has a few things that he needs to bring
15:30:01 up to us.
15:30:02 So I need to reschedule CRA to 8:00, 10-26.
15:30:08 >> Second.
15:30:08 (Motion carried).

15:30:08 >>KEVIN WHITE: A couple things.
15:30:15 First I would like to request commendation for code
15:30:18 enforcement, Ralph Kelly, for some extraordinary
15:30:22 effort to be done out in the West Tampa area.
15:30:25 I would like to make that for October 26th.
15:30:33 >> I have a motion and second.
15:30:34 (Motion carried).
15:30:34 >>KEVIN WHITE: The second thing.
15:30:44 A motion to have administration update us on the
15:30:47 findings of the disparity study every two weeks, and
15:30:51 two members won't be here next week when they come
15:30:54 with their update.
15:30:56 But I don't know if you read anything in the paper,
15:31:01 this morning, that actually we have been putting
15:31:04 contractors on the disparity study.
15:31:08 And I would like a little more comprehensive report
15:31:20 rather than "we are working on it," and specifically
15:31:24 what are we doing to get the corrected and updated
15:31:28 information so we can have an accurate study on this.
15:31:32 Because if we continue down the path that we are going
15:31:35 right now, it's going to be just like the other
15:31:38 disparity study that we did, we are going to spend

15:31:40 thousands and thousands of dollars.
15:31:42 And it's going to be all for knot, and -- all for
15:31:51 naught.
15:31:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You just complained it was a dead
15:31:56 issue.
15:32:00 >>KEVIN WHITE: I would like to make a motion to the
15:32:01 administration to report be a little more
15:32:04 comprehensive in nature than just 30 seconds.
15:32:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: $20 million.
15:32:15 >>KEVIN WHITE: Our portion is 130,000.
15:32:17 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
15:32:24 (Motion carried)
15:32:26 Anything else, Mr. White?
15:32:27 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to receive and file all documents.
15:32:31 (Motion Carried).
15:32:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Clerk?
15:32:34 Mr. Shelby, do you have anything?
15:32:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Sorry, council.
15:32:37 Just very briefly.
15:32:38 Council might have received an invitation to several
15:32:42 functions.
15:32:42 One is I know sponsored by Hillsborough County, and

15:32:46 the topic of obtainable housing.
15:32:49 And that's scheduled for October 27th.
15:32:55 8:00 in the morning.
15:32:59 And the other is the downtown partnership is having a
15:33:03 discussion of the Renaissance of Central Park on
15:33:06 Tuesday, October 17 at the convention center.
15:33:09 Both of them are not public meetings, and you are --
15:33:13 you may well be invited and may well attend.
15:33:17 I just caution you, just be careful about discussing
15:33:21 issues publicly in the presence of another council
15:33:24 member when a matter might ultimately have to come
15:33:28 before you on this collegial board.
15:33:30 So if you go, just be very cautious when you
15:33:33 participate, and the manner which you participate, and
15:33:36 the public council members are present.
15:33:38 Just a little advisory.
15:33:39 Thank you.
15:33:40 >>GWEN MILLER: And we have a luncheon, too.
15:33:47 CDB on the 19th.
15:34:01 >> That will be on the 26th.
15:34:02 >>GWEN MILLER: 26th?
15:34:04 We have a long day on the 26th.

15:34:06 And we are going to break for lunch and go to that?
15:34:14 We have a heavy schedule on the 26th.
15:34:38 We go to our audience portion.
15:34:41 We have two reporters out there.
15:34:42 Do you all want to speak?
15:34:43 You never speak.
15:34:46 We stand adjourned until 6 p.m
15:34:48