Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

09:15:17 Tampa City Council
09:26:21 9:00 a.m. session
09:26:22 DISCLAIMER:
09:26:22 The following represents an unedited version of
09:26:22 realtime captioning which should neither be relied
09:26:22 upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
09:26:22 transcript.
09:26:22 The original of this transcript was produced in all
09:26:22 capital letters and any variation thereto may be a
09:26:22 result of third party edits and software compatibility
09:26:22 issues.
09:26:22 Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
09:26:22 proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
09:28:01 [Sounding gavel]
09:28:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
09:28:05 The chair will yield to Ms. Rose Ferlita.
09:28:13 >>ROSE FERLITA: Good morning.
09:28:16 It is my absolute unique pleasure this morning to
09:28:19 introduce my guest, the senior pastor of Idlewild
09:28:24 Baptist church.
09:28:24 I had the pleasure of attending services at Idlewild
09:28:27 Baptist church.

09:28:28 And it has currently a membership of over 9,000.
09:28:31 Under the leadership of pastor wooden, the 143-acre
09:28:35 campus and the 440,000 square foot building are now a
09:28:40 reality.
09:28:41 I bring that up because that's certainly impressive.
09:28:43 But I will tell you what I find most motivating and
09:28:47 most impressive, the fact that I experienced what I
09:28:49 have experienced when I attended services at Idlewild
09:28:52 Baptist with the dynamic inspiration, I can enjoy,
09:28:58 anyone can enjoy if you have the honor of listening to
09:29:01 pastor wooden.
09:29:02 Whether the location has changed whether the size of
09:29:06 church has changed or whether the numbers of the
09:29:09 parish has changed, one thing that has not changed is
09:29:12 pastor wooden's passion to teach people about Jesus
09:29:19 Christ.
09:29:20 I have had the pleasure of having him as senior pastor
09:29:22 for the last 16 years.
09:29:27 He is a great inspiration to very, very many people.
09:29:31 We have tried to get together before in circumstances
09:29:34 that have not permitted it so I'm happy that before
09:29:37 the end of my tenure I was able to finally ask him to

09:29:41 come here and pray with us.
09:29:42 I truly, truly appreciate pastor Wooten.
09:29:46 I would ask that everyone stand and join Dr. Wooten in
09:29:49 prayer and please remain standing for the pledge of
09:29:51 allegiance.
09:29:54 >>> Thank you.
09:29:54 May we bow our heads?
09:29:56 Lord Jesus, it is our privilege today to come into
09:29:59 your presence and your word reminds us this is the day
09:30:02 the Lord has made, that we can rejoice and be glad in
09:30:06 it.
09:30:07 Lord, City Council today is asking that we invoke your
09:30:13 presence not only to this building but into their
09:30:18 hearts and minds as they each pray for wisdom, wisdom
09:30:21 to deal with issues like budget, allocations and wet
09:30:24 zoning and rezoning and property rights, and the
09:30:27 things that, Lord, they want to do for the betterment
09:30:30 of the people and for this wonderful city that we live
09:30:34 in.
09:30:34 God, we do pray for the peace in this city.
09:30:37 We thank you for those people who protect us day in
09:30:40 and day out, lay their life on the line, and Lord for

09:30:44 this City Council today that makes decisions every day
09:30:47 that affect us.
09:30:48 We do ask Jesus for your wisdom and we thank you that
09:30:52 that wisdom from above, it's peaceable, it's gentle,
09:30:58 it's easy to been treated, it's without hip October
09:31:04 crass I.
09:31:05 It's to that end that we pray.
09:31:07 It's in our savior's name that we ask.
09:31:10 And all God's people said together:
09:31:13 Amen and amen.
09:31:16 [ Pledge of Allegiance ]
09:31:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
09:31:34 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
09:31:37 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
09:31:38 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.
09:31:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
09:31:41 Before we begin our program -- our agenda, I would
09:31:44 like to introduce special citizens we have from magnet
09:31:51 elementary school, Ms. Palmer with the international
09:31:54 studies third grade teacher.
09:31:55 Would you all please stand so you can be recognized?

09:31:59 Would anyone like to speak on behalf of the group?
09:32:03 [ Applause ]
09:32:11 >>> I'm Ms. Shaw, teacher of this particular class.
09:32:16 But I do want to say thank you so much for allowing us
09:32:19 to come in to see your meeting.
09:32:21 We are learning about how citizens and government help
09:32:24 each other solve problems, and that's why we are here.
09:32:27 Thank you for having us.
09:32:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:32:30 At this time we will have a commendation presented by
09:32:32 Mr. White.
09:32:42 >>KEVIN WHITE: At this time, I would like code
09:32:45 enforcement inspector Mr. Ralph Kelly and all of the
09:32:48 other members of code enforcement, if they would come
09:32:52 up and any members of west riverfront association, if
09:32:54 they would come forward, please.
09:33:13 It is with great pleasure this morning that we are
09:33:17 able to bring code enforcement inspector Ralph Kelly
09:33:20 before you.
09:33:21 So many people in the west riverfront neighborhood
09:33:25 have commended Mr. Kelly for his efforts, that have
09:33:28 gone over and above and beyond his normal call of

09:33:32 duty.
09:33:32 Mr. Kelly has gone out and provided services with the
09:33:36 west riverfront neighborhood on his own time, and has
09:33:41 just been an exemplary example and representative of
09:33:44 our city, as well as our code enforcement team as a
09:33:47 whole.
09:33:48 And at this point in time I would like to read a
09:33:50 commendation from Tampa City Council.
09:33:52 Then I would like maybe someone from the west
09:33:56 riverfront association to say a few words on behalf of
09:33:59 Mr. Kelly.
09:33:59 And then we'll have Mr. Kelly say something.
09:34:03 Tampa City Council commendation presented to Ralph
09:34:06 Kelly, the Tampa City Council would like to take this
09:34:09 opportunity to commend you for your dedicated service
09:34:11 to the citizens of West Tampa area and especially to
09:34:14 the west riverfront neighborhood crime watch
09:34:18 association.
09:34:18 Your commitment and attention to the needs of the
09:34:20 neighborhood far exceed the requirements of your job
09:34:23 and have not gone unnoticed.
09:34:25 You are always very helpful, attentive and courteous

09:34:29 and go out of your way to support the neighborhood
09:34:31 groups in their earth to -- effort to address their
09:34:35 code enforcement issues.
09:34:36 We express our appreciation to you, the City of Tampa
09:34:41 and code enforcement, presented to Mr. Ralph Kelly.
09:34:45 [ Applause ]
09:35:03 >>> Good morning.
09:35:04 I'm excited this morning and thank you for having us.
09:35:08 And thank you, Councilman White, for presenting this
09:35:11 to him.
09:35:16 He has been so helpful in the West Tampa neighborhood,
09:35:19 not only our neighborhood but all of the neighborhoods
09:35:21 in West Tampa.
09:35:23 We organized in '93, and I have been the president
09:35:26 since '93, and usually when things are not right, I
09:35:31 get on the phone and call Mr. Kelly, and he's always
09:35:35 at our meetings.
09:35:38 He always attends our Monday meetings.
09:35:40 We have Monday meetings every month.
09:35:41 And he hardly ever misses a meeting.
09:35:47 When we have our neighborhood clean-up, he's out in
09:35:49 the neighborhood, overgrown lots, whatever, he keeps

09:35:54 everything going in our neighborhood.
09:35:57 And I just think this is a long time waiting for him
09:36:02 and he deserves this today.
09:36:04 I'm so happy for him.
09:36:05 I'm just speechless.
09:36:07 I don't have words to say at this point.
09:36:09 So we are having our neighborhood meeting tonight and
09:36:13 he will be there tonight.
09:36:15 [ Applause ]
09:36:26 >>KEVIN WHITE: We are going to have Bill Doherty to
09:36:32 say a word, please.
09:36:33 >>BILL DOHERTY: City of Tampa code enforcement
09:36:35 department.
09:36:36 On behalf of the department we are extremely proud of
09:36:41 Ralph, and quite frankly, he does this kind of stuff
09:36:46 all the time.
09:36:50 Ralph is an example of an individual that does
09:36:52 outstanding community service.
09:36:56 Thank you.
09:36:58 [ Applause ]
09:37:08 >>> Council members, Rose Ferlita, Mary Alvarez, Ms.
09:37:15 Miller, Mr. Harrison, Ms. Saul-Sena, I want to

09:37:22 appreciate everything that you guys did and have done
09:37:25 all the time, for code enforcement and everybody in
09:37:30 the City of Tampa.
09:37:32 I'm very happy for you guys with this commendation.
09:37:38 This means a world of good to me.
09:37:40 I'm speechless right now.
09:37:42 But I tell you one thing.
09:37:45 I'm very glad to be here.
09:37:46 And I will continue the same way that I have been
09:37:50 operating all these years in the City of Tampa.
09:37:53 I want to also thank Mr. Bill Doherty, Mr. Lane, and
09:38:00 my supervisor Larry right here.
09:38:06 He's a good man.
09:38:07 He keep me on my toes all the time.
09:38:09 And I want to appreciate everything everybody does for
09:38:12 code enforcement, because I believe that code
09:38:15 enforcement is doing a beautiful job in the City of
09:38:17 Tampa.
09:38:18 For this I'm very proud to be a code officer.
09:38:21 Thank you.
09:38:23 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ralph, we are proud of you.
09:38:31 You go beyond the call of duty every time we even call

09:38:34 on you.
09:38:35 So I want to tell you that I'm really proud of you.
09:38:38 And this commendation has been long in coming.
09:38:42 So congratulations.
09:38:45 >>> Thank you.
09:38:50 >>ROSE FERLITA: Ralph, certainly not only that you
09:38:52 deserve that but it is certainly well warranted.
09:38:55 Because I have never seen you speechless in your life.
09:38:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Congratulations.
09:39:07 Continue to do the good work that you're doing.
09:39:15 We go to our sign-in sheet.
09:39:18 Mr. Sal Territo.
09:39:23 >>SAL TERRITO: I would like to pull item number 30
09:39:25 which is the counterpart to item number 9 for the CRA
09:39:28 agenda dealing with the interlocal agreement that we
09:39:30 are going to have to retool.
09:39:33 >> So moved.
09:39:33 >> Second.
09:39:33 (Motion carried).
09:39:39 >>SAL TERRITO: I'll wait a second.
09:39:54 Number 30 and number 9, did you say?
09:39:56 >>SAL TERRITO: I thought I would wait because it's

09:39:59 hard to hear in here.
09:40:00 I put something in each of your mailboxes last night
09:40:03 dealing with a lease termination with the Tampa
09:40:06 housing authority.
09:40:06 We entered into a lease with the Tampa housing
09:40:08 authority back in 1977 to do some recreation
09:40:12 activities on a piece of their property.
09:40:14 They are now involved with the rezoning which is
09:40:17 coming before you tonight.
09:40:18 That property is going to be changed somewhat because
09:40:20 of the reconfiguration of the development that's going
09:40:23 to go on there, and we need to terminate the lease to
09:40:26 give them the opportunity to do that.
09:40:27 Lease termination will be continued upon them
09:40:30 receiving rezoning.
09:40:31 If for some reason you decide you don't want to go
09:40:34 through with that process then we'll continue with the
09:40:36 lease we have right now.
09:40:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I personally don't have a problem
09:40:42 with it.
09:40:42 But I do have a problem with the process.
09:40:44 I think that it's very confusing to council that this

09:40:48 came up this morning, the rezoning discussion tonight.
09:40:51 Sometimes we have vacations that come up in the
09:40:54 afternoon.
09:40:54 I think that when we are dealing with a specific site,
09:40:57 it would be he very helpful to council to have all of
09:41:00 the issues come before us at the same time,
09:41:02 particularly when they are contingent upon each other.
09:41:05 I think it's confusing to the public and for council
09:41:08 members to have them disbursed throughout the day.
09:41:17 I would prefer to continue it till this evening when
09:41:21 we discuss the Central Park Village which I understand
09:41:25 will not be at 5:00, because of a misnotice, will be
09:41:28 at 6:00.
09:41:29 So the public needs to come at 6:00 tonight on that.
09:41:32 I would prefer in conjunction with the whole general
09:41:38 discussion.
09:41:39 If we need to vote on this prior, that's fine.
09:41:41 I think it's clearer for us.
09:41:46 That's a motion.
09:41:46 >>GWEN MILLER: second to the motion.
09:41:49 Mr. Harrison?
09:41:51 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Is it something we need before we

09:41:54 take the action tonight?
09:41:57 >>> The action tonight is going to be an ordinance.
09:41:59 It can be done in any order because the lease
09:42:01 termination is contingent upon the zoning going
09:42:04 through.
09:42:04 So it won't become effective until the zoning is
09:42:07 approved, if it's approved.
09:42:09 If it's done afterwards, in effect the condition
09:42:12 precedent -- the order is not a sticking point.
09:42:18 >> So if we don't do the zoning tonight it doesn't mat
09:42:20 er?
09:42:21 >>> That's correct.
09:42:21 And I apologize for getting on the agenda.
09:42:23 For some reason it got lost in doc agenda somewhere.
09:42:26 It was on the agenda and never got through.
09:42:28 So I apologize for getting it to you at this late
09:42:30 date.
09:42:30 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't have any problem with it
09:42:33 either but we have 19 items on the agenda tonight.
09:42:35 If this is going to, you know, take any discussion,
09:42:38 I'd rather just go ahead and get it done now.
09:42:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's not going to take any

09:42:43 discussion.
09:42:43 I just think for the clarity of the public.
09:42:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would move for putting it tonight
09:42:51 just because I don't have a clue what it is, I don't
09:42:53 know, you know, want to start whipping out maps now
09:42:58 and start talking about it.
09:42:59 I don't think it makes sense because we are going to
09:43:01 be looking at that entire project.
09:43:02 And then tonight you can explain it in the context of
09:43:05 that project.
09:43:06 Otherwise, you are going to explain it now and then
09:43:09 wave to take more time and do it all over again
09:43:11 tonight.
09:43:11 So to me it just would seem to mesh better with the
09:43:14 discussion this evening.
09:43:16 And the vote itself is going to take all of about
09:43:19 three seconds, once we get to it tonight, right?
09:43:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions on the motion?
09:43:27 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
09:43:29 Opposed, Nay.
09:43:29 (Motion carried).
09:43:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: With regard to additional items on

09:43:35 the sign-in sheet, Cindy Miller is here for item
09:43:39 number 46.
09:43:41 Steve Daignault.
09:43:43 After approval of the agenda I would ask for staff
09:43:46 reports, to come up under staff reports, 46 and 17.
09:43:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Now we go to approval of agenda.
09:43:59 Need a motion.
09:44:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was going to move to pull 17 and
09:44:04 18.
09:44:04 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Second.
09:44:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: For some discussion.
09:44:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Any other items to pull?
09:44:14 >>THE CLERK: You have item number 44 on the agenda.
09:44:17 They are asking for that to be continued to November
09:44:20 2nd
09:44:31 There's a corresponding one that needs to go in
09:44:35 conjunction with it.
09:44:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
09:44:39 (Motion carried)
09:44:43 Planning Commission would also like to pull --
09:44:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry to interrupt.
09:44:47 I believe that motion was to continue item 44.

09:44:51 There are any other changes or additions to the
09:44:55 agenda?
09:44:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 9 is to be withdrawn.
09:45:04 I'm sorry, 10.
09:45:06 >> So moved.
09:45:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What is that?
09:45:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission said they have not
09:45:11 had a chance to study it and they wanted to pull it so
09:45:14 they have more time to review it.
09:45:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe if you could take that in
09:45:18 order because I believe staff is here to address that
09:45:20 issue.
09:45:25 >> Do you need a motion?
09:45:26 >>GWEN MILLER: We have items we need to pull.
09:45:28 Now we need a motion to adopt the agenda.
09:45:30 >> So moved.
09:45:31 >> Second.
09:45:31 (Motion carried).
09:45:31 Ment.
09:45:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Now we go to Cindy Miller.
09:45:39 >> Cindy Miller: Director of growth management
09:45:42 development services.

09:45:43 I just wanted to provide a one-minute briefing on item
09:45:46 number 46, which is the approval of the grant of
09:45:49 500,000 in home money for a multifamily affordable
09:45:54 housing project for seniors.
09:45:55 This is the -- the sponsor of the project is St.
09:45:59 Lawrence housing.
09:46:00 I want to give you the briefing because I know that
09:46:02 council are very interested in affordable housing and
09:46:04 providing for our citizens.
09:46:06 I wanted to assure you that for this grant, the
09:46:12 development division and through our department had an
09:46:15 application process.
09:46:15 The applications that were reviewed then by an
09:46:18 independent underwriter to make sure that there was
09:46:21 financial feasibility.
09:46:22 And so, therefore, we do have assurance from our
09:46:24 standpoint that this $500,000 will be represented for
09:46:29 business plan for the affordable housing for seniors.
09:46:32 All of the units which are 80 units will be ADA
09:46:35 compatible and other enhancements to serve seniors
09:46:40 within this facility to be constructed.
09:46:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council members?

09:46:47 Committee reports.
09:46:48 Mr. Steve Daignault.
09:46:52 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Administrator, public works,
09:46:55 utility services.
09:46:56 I know you all are aware that the city has a water
09:47:00 permit, a water permit limits us to the amount of
09:47:05 water we can take out of the Hillsborough River.
09:47:07 We are at that permit level.
09:47:09 We are at the max end.
09:47:11 And what that means is we have to start buying more
09:47:13 and more water from Tampa Bay water.
09:47:17 The most significant thing that we can do for
09:47:19 ourselves is to enhance and broaden our reclaimed
09:47:22 water program.
09:47:24 The item number 17 -- and 17 and 18, or 16 and 17 now,
09:47:31 is to go to the next step, to look at where we could
09:47:37 expand our reclaimed water to.
09:47:42 As you know, the world has turned a few times since
09:47:47 one was developed.
09:47:48 What's happened is areas of the city like Gandy and
09:47:52 Westshore have developed in a whole different way than
09:47:55 what we expected before.

09:47:56 So we want to be able to look at all of the
09:48:00 possibilities.
09:48:00 If we extend a pipe, for example, from Star 1 all the
09:48:06 way down to Westshore and Gandy, what other things do
09:48:11 we collect along the way?
09:48:12 Currently we do not have a reclaimed water pipe that
09:48:15 goes from the Howard KERN plant up to the heights, for
09:48:21 example F.we do connect those two dots, what do we
09:48:25 collect along the way?
09:48:26 Well, we add links, we add the riverwalk, we add the
09:48:31 towers downtown.
09:48:32 So the cost benefit analysis that we want to look at
09:48:36 so that we can again maximize our use of reclaimed
09:48:42 water, come back to you with a plan and a
09:48:45 recommendation that would have a very feasible and
09:48:49 attractive program, both for the city and for the
09:48:54 residents and the commercial uses.
09:48:57 Again, if this all goes back to -- we need to reduce
09:49:01 our use of potable water, and it will help all of us,
09:49:04 and it will help our rates if we do that.
09:49:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena?
09:49:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to say that the most

09:49:11 important concept isn't even recycling, it's
09:49:15 conservation.
09:49:16 Conservation is the single-most efficient thing that
09:49:20 we can do.
09:49:20 And I was very concerned when I read in the paper a
09:49:23 few days ago that we were considering lifting our
09:49:27 water restrictions.
09:49:28 That would be so counterintuitive.
09:49:32 It was in the paper a couple weeks ago.
09:49:34 Mr. Daignault said it.
09:49:35 That is completely counterintuitive.
09:49:39 We don't have any water flowing down the river.
09:49:42 The river is like -- I think it's conservation and not
09:49:48 messing with our water restriction.
09:49:50 I just want to throw that out.
09:49:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
09:49:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Did you want to say anything to
09:49:55 that before I go to a different issue?
09:49:58 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: We are not at this point coming
09:50:00 back and asking to change the restrictions.
09:50:05 As Ms. Saul-Sena pointed out, there's not a lot of
09:50:09 water coming down -- water coming down the river right

09:50:12 now.
09:50:12 And until we see what's going to happen to this winter
09:50:15 because we are approaching the dry season, until we
09:50:17 see what's going to happen this winter and actually
09:50:20 start experiencing more rain we are not coming forward
09:50:22 asking for that restriction to be lifted.
09:50:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think overall we ended up with a
09:50:28 pretty dry summer.
09:50:29 And, therefore, the reservoir is do I know, the river
09:50:33 is down, reservoir is down, and I think it's very
09:50:37 prudent for to us stick with the restrictions and
09:50:42 everything that went with it.
09:50:43 My question goes back to the reclaimed water system,
09:50:46 which we call star.
09:50:52 A couple of things on that.
09:50:54 We are hiring a consultant to look at expanding the
09:50:57 system to large commercial users, and that's good.
09:51:05 >>> And not just large commercial.
09:51:07 Again, everything.
09:51:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And that's a good thing.
09:51:10 We should expand it wherever we can.
09:51:12 Because that is good from a conservation perspective,

09:51:16 and just overall good policy.
09:51:18 One of the things I wanted to make sure, and I wanted
09:51:20 to get your assurances on the record here today,
09:51:22 because I haven't looked at the scope of services for
09:51:25 this particular contract.
09:51:26 But I want to make sure that this contractor also
09:51:30 looks at all the possibilities, the possibility of
09:51:33 reducing the rate for the reclaimed water as a
09:51:39 possible incentive.
09:51:40 And they need to be able to financially crunch all
09:51:42 those numbers, because right now we don't have enough
09:51:47 people signing up.
09:51:48 My understanding talking to Brad and Sandy yesterday
09:51:51 that, you know, we have about one fourth of the
09:51:54 potential customers who have signed up as compared to
09:51:58 who could sign up.
09:51:59 And that's not good.
09:52:02 So we need to do a better job of incentivizing the
09:52:06 program.
09:52:06 I want to make sure the consultant will look at that.
09:52:08 So you will give me your assurance that he will?
09:52:12 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Absolutely.

09:52:13 We want to do that.
09:52:14 >> Then the second thing is, and along the same lines
09:52:16 in terms of financial is the possibilities of
09:52:22 refunding and eliminating the hookup charges as
09:52:25 another incentive.
09:52:26 Because right now, if you come in, and you have never
09:52:33 been involved in the star system, it costs you, I
09:52:35 think, $300-plus dollars to hook up.
09:52:38 On top of that you have to go find your own contractor
09:52:41 to hook up your own system, et cetera, et cetera.
09:52:44 At the end of the day it ends up being a bit of a
09:52:46 financial issue to hook up.
09:52:49 And, again, you have to look at everything.
09:52:55 Again we want to make it attractive.
09:52:57 We want customers.
09:53:01 Take it off the table.
09:53:04 We want to look at everything possible.
09:53:05 We want to bring back, again, reclaimed program.
09:53:16 And then a credit for this one.
09:53:18 She said, at this point, the turn "star" -- if you did
09:53:24 a public survey it probably has a negative connotation
09:53:27 because it's been around for a long time and there's

09:53:29 been a lot of articles and this and that.
09:53:31 So maybe, if we are going to start fresh, maybe we
09:53:34 should have a contest with the children in the public
09:53:38 school, and all the schools, and say, let's help us
09:53:41 rename the program, you know, if we are going to start
09:53:45 anew, we are going to get the system up and running
09:53:48 and better, and a new improved star.
09:53:51 Maybe we should start with a new name, too.
09:53:53 So that's just a little side thing that I would like
09:53:56 you all to consider that.
09:53:59 >> Great.
09:53:59 Thanks.
09:54:01 Customer a fair folks and we can get them started on
09:54:03 it.
09:54:04 >> We don't need a consultant for that one.
09:54:06 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Daignault, the size of the
09:54:10 award, I think, is what caused a little heartburn from
09:54:14 some of us, me especially, $300,000 for consultant.
09:54:19 It seems like a great deal of money.
09:54:22 But how big is the universe of this study going to be?
09:54:28 Are they going to include ways up to the north now?
09:54:31 Are we only talking about how we are going to make

09:54:33 star, which is exclusively South Tampa, more
09:54:38 effective?
09:54:40 >> Well, we certainly don't want to limit it to just
09:54:42 South Tampa.
09:54:43 But we also need to keep it in the realm of reality.
09:54:48 Again, we are trying to make this feasible both for
09:54:51 the city to build, and for residents and commercial
09:54:56 entities to recoup the benefits from.
09:55:03 The travel, or the water for New Tampa, is something
09:55:08 that we, as you know, we have dealt with, Tampa Bay
09:55:11 water and water management district for a long time.
09:55:21 But Tampa Bay water is changing its initiatives, and
09:55:24 so they are back ago way from a piece of that pipe
09:55:29 which now is going to fall to the city to build.
09:55:33 And that's the piece from the current plant up to the
09:55:36 river.
09:55:38 Pretty significant.
09:55:39 You know we are talking about possibly $100 million.
09:55:42 We are talking about a lot of money.
09:55:45 That's a separate initiative getting that water all
09:55:47 the way up to New Tampa, and into Pasco County.
09:55:51 It's something that we would look at.

09:55:53 But it's not very -- it's very expensive.
09:55:57 A lot of players have to be involved in getting
09:55:59 that --
09:56:07 >>SHAWN HARRISON: That's the greatest need and
09:56:08 probably the greatest interest would be in New Tampa
09:56:11 where they have the great big thirsty yards, where
09:56:15 people I think would be happy to sign up for this.
09:56:20 It seems to me like it has run its course in South
09:56:24 Tampa.
09:56:25 Whether that's because of mother nature or because of,
09:56:29 you know, other factors, I have to question whether or
09:56:33 not over $300,000 is really a wise use of our money
09:56:40 for just basically extending it in this one geographic
09:56:44 area where it's already serving.
09:56:46 And people don't seem to be too interested in it.
09:56:52 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Again, it is only available in a
09:56:54 very limited area.
09:56:56 There are, as I said, been a lot of changes, a lot
09:57:00 more growth and development, a lot more high end
09:57:02 development since the time Star 1 was planned and put
09:57:07 in place, and that's what we want to figure out, is
09:57:10 where should we expand this to so that we can get

09:57:14 people who will sign up, who will hook up, and who
09:57:18 will use reclaimed water?
09:57:19 Again, we have got to get off the use of potable for
09:57:24 irrigation purposes.
09:57:24 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I agree with that.
09:57:26 Madam Chair, if I may continue my train of thought.
09:57:29 I agree that those expensive new developments in South
09:57:38 Tampa, condominiums -- we are not seeing new
09:57:41 subdivisions of single-family homes with big yards
09:57:43 being developed anywhere.
09:57:45 And so I think this study has to include, I think has
09:57:50 to be expanded city-wide.
09:57:52 I think you have to look at the areas where the need
09:57:55 is the greatest.
09:57:56 And we know the cost is going to be huge to get it up
09:57:59 there.
09:57:59 But if we know there's a great need up there, then
09:58:03 maybe we can help address the plan for the cost of
09:58:05 getting it up there.
09:58:06 And I would like the study to include -- I would like
09:58:09 it to be city-wide, not just South Tampa.
09:58:12 >>> Yes, sir.

09:58:12 I understand.
09:58:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Can you make that commitment now?
09:58:18 >>> No.
09:58:23 >> It is what it is.
09:58:25 >>> Again, we don't want to take anything off the
09:58:26 table.
09:58:27 We certainly will -- if the determination is the New
09:58:29 Tampa area is the only area that it makes -- that
09:58:33 there is a cost benefit analysis that makes it
09:58:35 worthwhile to pursuing, then we will know that.
09:58:39 So again we are not taking New Tampa off the table
09:58:44 here.
09:58:44 We just know what the cost is.
09:58:47 Again it's pretty significant to get that pipeline up
09:58:51 there.
09:58:55 We will go back to look to see if it's something that
09:58:59 we want to pursue heavily in this scope.
09:59:01 If it is not currently in there, we will negotiate a
09:59:04 price, and we have to come back to council to get an
09:59:06 approval, if it's an increase to include that area.
09:59:10 But just if I could for a moment, the areas like the
09:59:15 Westshore-Gandy area, what you have there -- and I

09:59:19 realize you are saying it's condominium and that sort
09:59:21 of thing -- what it means is not have one or two or
09:59:24 three, just a few pipe connections or metered
09:59:28 connections where they do irrigation, and they are
09:59:31 going to use a lot more water.
09:59:32 So the cost of getting to that one location and the
09:59:35 amount of water they would use is a better deal for
09:59:40 the city than having to cover lots of different
09:59:43 houses, individual houses spread out over a larger
09:59:46 area.
09:59:46 So again we are looking for bang for our buck.
09:59:49 We are looking for specifically to get as much water
09:59:53 use away from potable as we can at the lowest possible
09:59:56 cost.
09:59:58 That's part of our goal.
10:00:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Daignault, is this going to be a
10:00:07 city-wide or just South Tampa?
10:00:10 >>> This is going to be for city-wide.
10:00:12 It is not just South Tampa.
10:00:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Right.
10:00:15 So in that case, Mr. Harrison's concern about South
10:00:20 Tampa, it's going to come through East Tampa, Ybor

10:00:25 City --
10:00:28 >>> If the cost goes up because we specifically say we
10:00:30 want to will at the New Tampa area, we will come back
10:00:33 and talk to you.
10:00:33 >>GWEN MILLER: But you do not know East Tampa, West
10:00:38 Tampa, Ybor City?
10:00:40 >>> We absolutely will.
10:00:41 We are not taking anything off the table.
10:00:42 Nothing will come off the table.
10:00:44 We want our consultant to find places where we can get
10:00:48 high return, high use for this water.
10:00:52 That's what we want.
10:00:57 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Daignault, I agree with Mr.
10:01:03 Harrison that he would should be city-wide.
10:01:04 Because of the West Tampa area, and the West Tampa
10:01:06 area we have got the Raymond James stadium, we have
10:01:08 got the Tampa Bay Buccaneers new facility there.
10:01:11 I don't know whether they are using potable water or
10:01:15 what kind of water, but they use a lot of water
10:01:17 because of their training.
10:01:18 We have got International Plaza over there that use as
10:01:21 lot.

10:01:21 So there's a lot of things in that area that use a lot
10:01:24 of water.
10:01:26 And if they are using well water or whatever it is, I
10:01:29 don't have any idea.
10:01:31 But it seems to me like it would behoove the city to
10:01:35 put in some reclaimed water in that area, not just for
10:01:39 the residents, which are part of it, but for those
10:01:44 huge facilities that are in there right now.
10:01:47 >>> Absolutely.
10:01:48 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And of course then we have going all
10:01:50 the way to the airport.
10:01:53 They use a lot of water in that area.
10:01:55 >>> And we are very close to the airport already.
10:01:58 >> Absolutely.
10:01:59 So I would support this, if I knew that this study
10:02:03 would come back with some positive input that would
10:02:08 take care of these people, you know.
10:02:11 These things are going on in there.
10:02:15 >>> We want them to look at all the possibilities.
10:02:17 And we want to look again at the cost benefit ratio.
10:02:21 >> Because if anybody is going to be able to support
10:02:23 the stars, or the moons or whatever we want to call

10:02:27 it, it will be these large facilities.
10:02:32 >>> You're correct.
10:02:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Ferlita?
10:02:34 >>ROSE FERLITA: Steve, a couple of things.
10:02:36 Secondly before first.
10:02:38 I am not really sure that I'm comfortable with the
10:02:40 justification that you have given, or maybe not given,
10:02:44 justification for the cost.
10:02:45 Let's talk about that in a minute.
10:02:47 Although I understand what, say, for instance Mr.
10:02:50 Harrison is trying to focus on.
10:02:53 I happen to agree with you, because of where I live in
10:02:56 South Tampa.
10:02:57 And it's very surprising.
10:02:58 But, you know, one bad example goes a lot further than
10:03:02 a good experience.
10:03:03 And I know when we first started, and I can't even
10:03:06 remember if you were here at that point and we started
10:03:10 hooking up the first ones on Davis Island.
10:03:13 It was really bad.
10:03:14 The contractor we picked was pitiful. Anyway, that
10:03:19 started rumbles and nobody wanted to do it because

10:03:21 they didn't want to be the second victim or third
10:03:24 victim and they didn't want to connect.
10:03:25 And that was one of the factors that didn't help us a
10:03:29 great deal on our marketing, which is a shame, which
10:03:31 is what it is.
10:03:33 Say, for instance, in Hyde Park.
10:03:35 I have been a reclaimed customer for a long time.
10:03:38 I think it's a good thing to use as an example because
10:03:41 you are using that which is potable water and that's
10:03:44 certainly a good thing to do.
10:03:46 But you will be very surprised, maybe some of my
10:03:49 colleagues, would be very surprised about how many
10:03:51 people in that same area are not hooked up because of
10:03:55 the bad experience that I just said on Davis Island,
10:03:58 because of the fact that there was confusion, that you
10:04:01 had to have somebody from the city go out there and
10:04:04 connect it for you.
10:04:05 Not anybody else, just the city.
10:04:06 And, boy, look out because the city was going to gouge
10:04:09 you.
10:04:09 That was the perception.
10:04:10 And I think we have gone beyond some of that.

10:04:12 So, yes, we want to expand.
10:04:15 Yes, we want to make it as much used as possible
10:04:17 because we are going to make more money and volume.
10:04:19 But at the same time, I still think we need to have a
10:04:22 market attack in South Tampa and in those areas that
10:04:25 you are talking about, south of Gandy, because there
10:04:27 are some people that have just kind of sat back and
10:04:30 wanted to wait.
10:04:31 I think things are better.
10:04:33 I certainly don't have a complaint with but you still
10:04:37 have a market that has not been tapped enough.
10:04:39 So keep that in mind as well.
10:04:41 Not to discount what Mr. Harrison said or what Mrs.
10:04:44 Alvarez said.
10:04:45 The more customers we get, the better the process is.
10:04:48 Now, we still have a little bit of concern, Steve, on
10:04:53 the appropriation of the $312,000.
10:04:56 It seems a bit much.
10:04:59 We have been looking at this system for a long time.
10:05:01 Try to help me feel good about it so I can support it.
10:05:04 I'm sorry to put you on the spot.
10:05:06 >>> That's quite all right.

10:05:07 >> I think it's wonderful you're the director of the
10:05:11 department.
10:05:12 >>> This is not to go back and review the current
10:05:17 system.
10:05:18 This is to look for new customers, new opportunities,
10:05:22 as we expand this system.
10:05:24 We want to make the next step of star again feasible
10:05:29 for the city, and a good deal for all the folks who
10:05:32 are connecting it.
10:05:35 I am going to say a few things and it's not that we
10:05:37 jumped there, but these are the sorts of things, for
10:05:40 example, we don't have an industrial rate for reclaim
10:05:43 water.
10:05:50 If we get reclaimed water through downtown Tampa and
10:05:52 we are able to develop an industrial rate based on a
10:05:55 large volume user, perhaps we can attract the people
10:05:59 who use potable water now for recycling through
10:06:07 cooling powers.
10:06:08 That's a big user.
10:06:09 If we have a pipe and it's available and we make it
10:06:12 attractive, then they will convert and use that
10:06:15 service.

10:06:15 But if we don't, and if we can't, and if the cost to
10:06:18 put that pipe in doesn't allow us to have a rate even
10:06:22 an industrial rate that people will use, then it
10:06:25 doesn't work and we ought to be looking elsewhere.
10:06:28 New Tampa or West Tampa or someplace else.
10:06:30 So we want to look at all of those possibilities.
10:06:33 And this is the only way we can do that. And we do
10:06:37 need somebody who understand it is construction
10:06:40 requirements, who can understand the water uses, talk
10:06:43 to those water users, see what level would you be
10:06:48 willing to convert, and what cost would you be willing
10:06:51 to pay for that water?
10:06:55 Those are the sorts of things we have to look at both
10:06:58 for industrial and multifamily, et cetera, et cetera.
10:07:01 >>ROSE FERLITA: Steve, just one thing I think is
10:07:03 important to kind of just bank this.
10:07:08 You and I won't be here at the time that something
10:07:10 like this will be considered and we won't have this
10:07:13 dialogue, at least not in this relationship.
10:07:15 One of the complaints as I said, I think the good
10:07:17 citizenship input is great, the advantage of course
10:07:21 you can water at any time you want to.

10:07:23 But the third thing is, what I find people here saying
10:07:26 is, what's the big deal?
10:07:29 It's no savings to me.
10:07:30 That's more of the -- maybe as things go along in
10:07:36 years to come if you get enough people in the system,
10:07:38 maybe you could consider enticing even more people to
10:07:42 drop the rate based on the number of commerce.
10:07:45 So it's too premature to discuss now.
10:07:47 I am just giving you the feedback of some people in my
10:07:50 immediate area that don't have it and that's one of
10:07:52 the reasons.
10:07:53 >>> It's part of our goals through this process, we
10:07:55 want to figure out a way to be able to get that rate
10:07:58 down.
10:07:58 And you have to balance the rate with as you point out
10:08:01 the number of customers you have.
10:08:03 So if we can identify real users and their volume, and
10:08:10 maybe even we operate at a little bit of a loss, and
10:08:13 we are operating at a loss now, but maybe we operate
10:08:15 at a little bit of a loss.
10:08:17 But it's more beneficial and it attracts more
10:08:19 commerce, that's where we want to go so we need to

10:08:21 figure that out.
10:08:23 >> Then of course this is preaching to the choir.
10:08:25 But in closing, I do want to comment that I agree with
10:08:27 Ms. Saul-Sena.
10:08:28 I think that, you know, taking away the watering
10:08:31 restrictions, we always have to be vigilant at that
10:08:38 conservative attitude.
10:08:39 I this think we need to reevaluate where we are before
10:08:42 we relax those restrictions.
10:08:44 Thank you.
10:08:45 Thank you for everything you do.
10:08:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: With the time line on this, Mr.
10:08:51 Daignault, how long is it for?
10:09:03 >>BRAD BAIRD: Director, water department.
10:09:06 In the time line is to have a report in late spring to
10:09:11 bring back to council as a result of that.
10:09:16 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: May 2007 is what we put in the
10:09:19 little paper that we provided.
10:09:21 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So that's about seven months.
10:09:24 Seven-month contract.
10:09:25 Okay.
10:09:26 Thank you.

10:09:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
10:09:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
10:09:29 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: It has a list of the areas that we
10:09:39 are looking at.
10:09:39 It does respond to Ms. Alvarez' concerns in terms of
10:09:43 addressing international mall, Tampa Airport, Tampa
10:09:46 sports, HCC.
10:09:49 That's the good news.
10:09:50 They have not addressed new or north Tampa.
10:09:53 So I think that perhaps Mr. Harrison, we could
10:09:56 probably take a week and tweak this up to include new
10:09:59 Tampa as part of the services.
10:10:04 My bigger concern is this, Steve.
10:10:06 You said we can go back and look at everything.
10:10:12 Okay.
10:10:15 A few minutes later you said, I am going to quote you,
10:10:17 we are not going back to review the existing system,
10:10:20 this is about expanding the existing system.
10:10:23 Then when I actually got to reading the scope of
10:10:25 services, you're exactly right.
10:10:27 It says that this project for this consultant for
10:10:30 $300,000 says the workshop consists of preparation of

10:10:32 the study of potential new customers within the city,
10:10:36 the potential new customers to be considered 50s
10:10:39 oops primarily of large potable users, et cetera.
10:10:42 That's fine.
10:10:43 Those are important issues.
10:10:44 But that's not the issue that I'm talking about and
10:10:46 it's not the issue that you rose mentioned a minute
10:10:48 ago, which is the fact that we need to go back and
10:10:51 review the existing customer base in terms of the
10:11:00 total program.
10:11:01 So Brad, if I am missing something in here and there's
10:11:04 something else that says that that's part of this,
10:11:07 that's fine.
10:11:12 >>> Certainly the folks in the Star 1 area will always
10:11:14 have the option that they currently have.
10:11:17 That option to get into the program as it was
10:11:21 presented to them initially will always be an option
10:11:24 to them.
10:11:27 We want to see what other arrangement we can make
10:11:31 throughout the city.
10:11:33 And that is a more beneficial deal or arrangement for
10:11:37 the folks in Star 1, and -- we make that available to

10:11:41 them and they choose to sign up under the new
10:11:43 conditions, we'll get there.
10:11:45 But again --
10:11:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But what I'm saying -- and I said
10:11:49 this separately to you and Brad -- what I'm saying is
10:11:53 we have to get out of the box of saying, this is the
10:11:56 current condition, the people in Star 1 are stuck with
10:11:58 that current condition.
10:11:59 >>> They are not stuck with it.
10:12:01 >> Well, they are stuck with it today until we can
10:12:03 have a consultant actually review this and perhaps
10:12:06 come back with a new program for the existing Star 1
10:12:09 customers.
10:12:10 But this particular consultant, scope of services,
10:12:14 does not tell this consultant to look at that, if that
10:12:18 is a possibility.
10:12:20 Unless you can cite to me a sentence or two here that
10:12:24 does.
10:12:24 I don't think that would be the intent of this
10:12:26 agreement.
10:12:26 So I would like to see this agreement expanded to
10:12:28 include specifically that, to go back to the drawing

10:12:31 board, and look at, in addition to everything else we
10:12:34 are doing here, to look at what is happening with the
10:12:39 Star 1 customers and what can we do to ma make that
10:12:42 better?
10:12:54 >>> The scope of this contract for CDM, the work order
10:12:58 with CDM, includes hey drawl I can modeling, it
10:13:02 includes developing the business -- those things were
10:13:07 already done with Star 1.
10:13:08 But it also includes a section where we look at the
10:13:12 financial strategies.
10:13:14 And that is where we can -- where this scope is broad
10:13:18 enough to consider, you know, what can we do
10:13:23 retroactively, or what could we apply to the Star 1
10:13:26 customers as part of section 2.5.
10:13:33 Financial strategies.
10:13:34 And I think --
10:13:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If that's the approach you are
10:13:38 going to take, with this consultant, based upon 2.5 --
10:13:42 >>> Yes.
10:13:43 >> Then that's fine.
10:13:44 Then I can live with that.
10:13:45 And, also, if you want to expand that to New Tampa, it

10:13:49 says -- it also does say the potential new customers
10:13:54 be considered include but are not limited to the
10:13:56 following users, then we have that.
10:13:58 So I guess verbally you want to say that you can
10:14:00 expand that -- we'll take you on your word.
10:14:07 >>> Yes, that is correct.
10:14:10 >>SHAWN HARRISON: What we are saying is we want it to
10:14:13 be looked at city-wide, that's all.
10:14:14 And if this contract will allow us to do that while
10:14:18 keeping the focus on the biggest bang for the buck,
10:14:20 which is Star 1 and the immediate surrounding area,
10:14:24 how we get them interested, but also, is there a
10:14:28 desire for this service city-wide?
10:14:30 You may find in New Tampa, they are not interested in
10:14:33 it.
10:14:33 Take it off the table.
10:14:38 But if we are not going to look at it city-wide then I
10:14:41 am having trouble figuring out why we should support
10:14:44 it for just that one area.
10:14:47 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: This work order was crafted so we
10:14:50 would look at whatever makes sense from a business
10:14:53 perspective, which when you have a pipeline that would

10:14:57 go beyond Hillsborough Avenue say north of the
10:15:02 stadium, it begins to not make financial sense.
10:15:06 So in terms of the rest of the city east of the river
10:15:12 and north Tampa, knew Tampa, Pasco County, we have
10:15:16 included that in a separate agreement that City
10:15:19 Council approved about a year ago to look at the large
10:15:26 users and the business case in those areas. And that
10:15:29 is being done by a separate engineer, as part of the
10:15:37 study that when looked at in the downstream
10:15:39 augmentation of regional reuse project, and if that
10:15:46 work is incomplete or not satisfactory, we can
10:15:48 certainly look at that and amend that agreement to
10:15:51 include the rest of the city.
10:15:53 But this agreement again is to look at the best
10:15:57 business case in the area, which has high use, and its
10:16:05 proximity to the plant lends itself to a successful
10:16:09 project.
10:16:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
10:16:14 Mrs. Saul-Sena?
10:16:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Very briefly.
10:16:16 I am going to support this.
10:16:17 I think this is very important.

10:16:18 But I would like water to present us every month a
10:16:21 report on how we are dealing with usage and flow.
10:16:24 I know that the information is available to you.
10:16:28 If you report it to us on a monthly basis as part of
10:16:30 our staff report, it would keep our water needs front
10:16:35 of mind, top of mind, and I think the council and
10:16:38 public need that after we have -- after we vote on
10:16:41 this, if we do it later, I am going to make a motion
10:16:45 we have that monthly report.
10:16:49 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to take a break in our
10:16:53 agenda.
10:16:54 Ms. Saul-Sena would like to present a commendation.
10:16:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you very much.
10:16:58 To Mr. Alan white if you could come up, please.
10:17:18 This is a surprise.
10:17:19 Mr. White is here to talk about the river.
10:17:22 Because he has been our spokesperson for the river
10:17:24 over the last 20 years.
10:17:25 But council wanted to honor you today with an official
10:17:28 commendation.
10:17:29 And I would like to read this: Tampa City Council
10:17:32 presents a commendation to Alan white, for your

10:17:35 knowledgeable and compelling advocacy of the
10:17:38 Hillsborough River.
10:17:39 Mr. White known efficiently as Mr. River has worked
10:17:42 for over 20 years to protect and improve the quality
10:17:45 of the river, working closely with the local
10:17:47 municipalities, citizens and neighborhoods.
10:17:51 Tampa City Council wants to recognize you for your
10:17:54 outstanding contributions to our jewel, the
10:17:56 Hillsborough River.
10:17:57 And we honor you today for the countless hours you
10:18:00 spent on improving the quality of our community.
10:18:03 Thank you for your work on behalf of all Tampa
10:18:06 citizens.
10:18:09 [ Applause ]
10:18:16 Last Saturday night, the Hillsborough River was graced
10:18:20 with a concert by the Florida orchestra, adjacent to
10:18:24 the Sulphur Springs tower.
10:18:26 That evening, which is magical and attended by 4 that
10:18:30 you citizens, would not have been possible without
10:18:32 Alan's work over these many years.
10:18:34 It was a beautiful night, and I felt this was your
10:18:38 official honor of City Council, recognition.

10:18:47 >>> Thank you very much.
10:18:47 I do get a few minutes?
10:18:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Sure.
10:18:52 >>> I did bring someone along -- something along I
10:18:55 want to pass out.
10:18:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Actually this is for something
10:19:00 scheduled at 10:00.
10:19:02 >>> On the river board.
10:19:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: May we do that?
10:19:13 >>> Thank you very much.
10:19:14 First of all, I want to clarify.
10:19:17 You work for the Planning Commission, the staff of the
10:19:19 river board and the Tampa advisory council, getting
10:19:24 involved in river issues as we moved along.
10:19:29 What I have passed out is a brief summary, very brief
10:19:34 after 20 years, but these are issues that we really
10:19:37 hit upon about the Hillsborough River.
10:19:39 The river board -- still waters run deep but we get
10:19:46 involved with a lot of things involving the river,
10:19:49 including water quality, water quantity, marine patrol
10:19:55 issues, public safety, public access, shoreline,
10:19:59 preservation, protection of wildlife located in the

10:20:05 corridor, very intently involved with minimum flows
10:20:08 and levels.
10:20:08 We have been for a number of years, I think since the
10:20:11 mid 1990s.
10:20:15 But I'll give you an idea of what we do and what we
10:20:20 have done over the years.
10:20:22 I didn't include everything that he would do on a
10:20:24 monthly basis, such as redoing permits and those types
10:20:32 of issues.
10:20:33 We have done everything we can with the corridor, the
10:20:36 environmental attributes are phenomenal.
10:20:38 I can say probably over the last 23 years of working
10:20:41 with the river, that the river water has improved.
10:20:46 We want to see that trend continue.
10:20:48 I think it's very important to all the issues and all
10:20:52 the different water use issues, particularly, as far
10:20:56 as potential impact to the river.
10:20:58 Not just the lower river but the entire river.
10:21:01 And we need to tie all of those projects and programs
10:21:04 together till we have a full understanding.
10:21:10 I thank you very much for the wonderful tribute, I
10:21:14 guess, and I hope to continue to have your support and

10:21:18 help with issues.
10:21:19 I'm sure we'll be coming to you.
10:21:21 Thank you.
10:21:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:21:23 >>ROSE FERLITA: I would like to say thank you as well.
10:21:27 If more people were committed to what they believe in
10:21:29 to the extent that you are, we would be better off
10:21:34 than we are.
10:21:35 Anytime I have questions about water or water
10:21:39 concerns, or river protection, if I can't get to Alan,
10:21:42 Alan comes to my place of business and he's a great
10:21:47 in-service for me.
10:21:48 There's a ton of stuff I should know and I don't.
10:21:51 You have been much of certainly a good resource for
10:21:54 me.
10:21:55 That is so well deserved.
10:21:57 Congratulations.
10:21:57 I'm glad Linda did that.
10:21:59 Thank you for all you do for this community.
10:22:04 >>GWEN MILLER: I notice a number of people in the
10:22:06 hallways can't come in and find seats.
10:22:08 If you want to go down to the first floor to the

10:22:10 Mascotte room, the TV is on down there so you have a
10:22:13 choice to go down there and come up later.
10:22:16 Okay.
10:22:16 We are going to go back to our staff report.
10:22:18 We have Mr. John McKirchy.
10:22:28 >> The item before you has to do with the Planning
10:22:30 Commission staff as opposed to Planning Commission.
10:22:32 This ordinance does not have to go before the Planning
10:22:35 Commission.
10:22:35 >>CHAIRMAN: Item number 10.
10:22:47 >>> You requested the report of what portions of the
10:22:51 city code need to be reviewed by the Planning
10:22:53 Commission.
10:22:56 We were directed by City Council to work closely with
10:22:58 Planning Commission staff and we did so.
10:23:00 I met with Planning Commission staff July 31, and we
10:23:04 went -- I gave them a list of the items and the city
10:23:09 code that I believe were required by statute to be
10:23:13 reviewed by the Planning Commission.
10:23:15 So you worked with Planning Commission staff at that
10:23:17 time.
10:23:18 I also presented an oral report to this council on

10:23:23 August 24th.
10:23:25 I handed out the same handout, which basically listed
10:23:30 all the items that were proposed for deletion, which
10:23:34 were not in the proposed ordinance.
10:23:36 Planning Commission staff was present at that time.
10:23:38 And also received a copy of the handout on August
10:23:42 24th, the same handout that they received July
10:23:44 31st.
10:23:47 This is before the City Council for first reading.
10:23:51 The subject matter of the ordinance is to amend the
10:23:55 city code section that delineates what comprises the
10:24:00 Land Development Code.
10:24:01 Anything in the Land Development Code must be reviewed
10:24:04 by the Planning Commission.
10:24:06 We continue to seek input from Planning Commission
10:24:09 staff, public hearing scheduled on this matter if the
10:24:15 council so desires.
10:24:16 It can schedule the public hearing at one of the
10:24:20 meetings in December to allow the Planning Commission
10:24:27 staff to participate in this process, and provide
10:24:29 their comments on particular items that are of
10:24:34 particular interest to them.

10:24:35 There are approximately 170 different sections of the
10:24:37 city code that are implicated in this.
10:24:40 Most of them I don't think there's going to be any
10:24:42 controversy on this.
10:24:43 There's going to be agreement that they are not
10:24:45 required by statute to be in the Land Development
10:24:48 Code.
10:24:49 They are not required by statute to be reviewed by the
10:24:52 Planning Commission when they are amended or adopted.
10:24:54 And any items -- a few items, there might be issues on
10:25:00 can be addressed in this process in the time between
10:25:03 now and scheduling the public hearing in December
10:25:08 2006.
10:25:09 If there's any questions I will be happy to.
10:25:12 >>GWEN MILLER: My question is the Planning Commission
10:25:15 sent us a letter --
10:25:18 >>> That's correct.
10:25:18 I said I met with the Planning Commission staff July
10:25:21 31st.
10:25:21 I also presented a verbal report on August 24th,
10:25:25 2006, to the City Council.
10:25:26 The Planning Commission staff was present.

10:25:29 We provided -- responded in writing to the Planning
10:25:32 Commission, provided each of you with a copy of our
10:25:34 written response.
10:25:35 We just got the letter from Mr. Hunter yesterday, and
10:25:38 we responded in writing with a copy to you, a copy to
10:25:42 Mr. Hunter, and they were simply incorrect.
10:25:45 I don't know.
10:25:46 I don't understand what the miscommunication was.
10:25:52 If you had a copy of the ordinance in front of you,
10:25:54 you know there's only one section that lists, on one
10:25:58 page it lists the sections scheduled for deletion.
10:26:01 Every single one of those section was one exception
10:26:04 was in the handout. The only exception was chapter
10:26:06 13, landscaping, tree removal, site plan, was added.
10:26:11 So there's one new item that was added since they
10:26:14 received this handout July 31st.
10:26:17 >>GWEN MILLER: One item that you are adding?
10:26:22 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney. The only item that was
10:26:24 added was a landscape provision.
10:26:27 We do not think that's what the question is.
10:26:29 They want to have a roll in the process but our
10:26:31 initial implications are we don't want to you change

10:26:34 anything.
10:26:34 We don't have to involve them in the process because
10:26:36 we are not changing any ordinance that they have
10:26:40 purview over.
10:26:40 We didn't seem to want to discuss it with us so we
10:26:43 went forward, and have provided you a suggestion, and
10:26:46 we think it's appropriate.
10:26:47 They did get the copies, as John indicated, both in
10:26:50 July and again in August.
10:26:52 So they had all the information.
10:26:53 So that's important to recall.
10:26:57 We thought we had direction from the City Council.
10:27:00 We are responding in that direction and moving
10:27:01 forward.
10:27:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
10:27:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What's on the agenda today is
10:27:06 proposed first reading, proposed first reading for
10:27:12 this ordinance change, right?
10:27:13 That's on for today?
10:27:15 >>> Yes.
10:27:15 >> And second reading would be in two weeks?
10:27:17 >>> Correct.

10:27:18 >> Okay.
10:27:19 I think that -- I hear what you are saying.
10:27:23 And I know what -- and was said to be true.
10:27:27 I heard it from all sides.
10:27:28 There has been discussion was the Planning Commission
10:27:30 staff.
10:27:30 However, so I am not going to agree with that on their
10:27:34 part.
10:27:34 However, in deference to Mr. Hunter and to the
10:27:37 Planning Commission and to the Planning Commission
10:27:40 staff, who we work with on a day in and day out basis,
10:27:44 if they requested a little bit more time, I don't
10:27:46 think it would cause any problem to delay this two
10:27:49 weeks, to defer this two weeks.
10:27:51 That way, if there's any discussions to be had, be it
10:27:56 with staff or with us or what have you, it gives
10:27:58 everybody a little more breathing room.
10:27:59 I think that where we are headed is probably -- it's
10:28:03 likely to be headed in the right direction.
10:28:05 Frankly, I think it was my motion to start with.
10:28:07 But at the same time, I think just in the spirit of
10:28:09 cooperation, up the street, two weeks wouldn't hurt

10:28:13 anything.
10:28:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I agree with Mr. Dingfelder.
10:28:17 I think we do work very closely with the Planning
10:28:20 Commission, and so we need to be cooperative and
10:28:26 respectful.
10:28:26 I am willing to wait the would weeks.
10:28:29 >>DAVID SMITH: We certainly agree as well.
10:28:32 We do have a good working relationship with the staff.
10:28:35 I indicated in my last paragraph that it is certainly
10:28:38 within the purview of this board to wait.
10:28:41 He's asking for 30 days.
10:28:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Actually, I haven't seen the letter.
10:28:45 >>> Unfortunately as you heard, we got it yesterday.
10:28:48 John and I were literally preparing the letter last
10:28:50 night.
10:28:51 I think I signed it about 6:30.
10:28:53 And I understand part of their concerns are also that
10:28:57 they are busy.
10:28:58 And as we all are.
10:29:00 I don't think the city is going to be jeopardized if
10:29:03 we wait a couple of weeks.
10:29:04 We probably would not be jeopardized if you want to

10:29:06 wait 30 days.
10:29:07 But we would rather move this forward.
10:29:10 It's been pending for a long time.
10:29:12 We have a lot of things on our -- calendar.
10:29:16 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Let's give them the two weeks and see
10:29:18 what happens.
10:29:19 >>ROSE FERLITA: I agree with my colleagues.
10:29:21 David, let me tell you straight up, I have never had
10:29:24 any reason to believe you are telling me something
10:29:27 other than exactly the truth and I understand where
10:29:29 you are going with it but I think John is right.
10:29:31 He would don't want to hold it indefinitely.
10:29:33 Our position may or may not change.
10:29:35 But he's requested it.
10:29:36 I think in the spirit of cooperation, it's not going
10:29:39 to interfere with ultimately what happened.
10:29:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I make a motion that we revisit this
10:29:45 in two weeks.
10:29:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 10.
10:29:48 We have a motion an second.
10:29:49 (Motion carried)
10:29:51 Thank you.

10:29:52 We now go to item number 2.
10:30:05 >> Department of code enforcement, here this morning
10:30:07 on of our director to speak on item number 2, streets
10:30:12 and sidewalks.
10:30:14 Administration is to appear, provide a report on
10:30:16 safety issues.
10:30:17 And code requirements for individuals standing in the
10:30:20 medium as cross from Bruce B. Downs Boulevard for
10:30:27 advertising purposes.
10:30:30 Bruce B. Downs is not within the incorporated city
10:30:32 limits of the City of Tampa.
10:30:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You're kidding.
10:30:36 >>> Seriously.
10:30:37 And we have coordinated with the county for quite some
10:30:43 time regarding this matter.
10:30:44 We also recently sent a document reiterating our
10:30:49 cooperation with the county on those matters.
10:30:53 Two things I wanted to mention right now.
10:30:56 Obviously the fact that it is in the county.
10:30:59 And second thing being that individuals actually
10:31:05 hand-holding signs.
10:31:06 You see hungry Howie's or with the arrow, things like

10:31:11 that.
10:31:14 That's actually exempt even according to state
10:31:17 statute.
10:31:17 It's an exemption within the sign code.
10:31:21 That's actually one exemption even if it were in the
10:31:24 city limits.
10:31:27 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Kevin, thank you.
10:31:28 Actually, what is happening is they are being very
10:31:32 creative about -- and I'm sure they are very well
10:31:35 aware of that exemption, and they are not holding
10:31:38 these signs.
10:31:38 You cannot hand-hold a sign that is 6 feet tall and 4
10:31:42 feet wide.
10:31:46 These are not "vote for John Smith" signs that you
10:31:50 hold up with one hand.
10:31:52 These are literally huge placards.
10:31:54 What's happening is the people will camp out literally
10:31:57 all weekend, or sit by their car or inside their car,
10:32:03 and then they will have this sign sitting beside the
10:32:06 car.
10:32:06 And I guess when the police officer, code enforcement
10:32:08 or somebody rolls up, they hop out and touch the sign.

10:32:12 And say, look, here I'm holding it.
10:32:16 And so I think that there's an issue but that.
10:32:20 There is clearly a safety issue to me.
10:32:24 And that is these things, they obstruct views.
10:32:28 Of motorists who are trying to tackle.
10:32:33 I think they are dangerous for the people out there
10:32:35 trying to hold the signs.
10:32:36 I don't know why anyone would stand in the middle of
10:32:38 Bruce B. Downs and hold a sign with the amount of
10:32:40 traffic that goes down that road.
10:32:43 So I think that what we should do is send you guys out
10:32:50 there on a Saturday or Sunday and you all take some
10:32:54 pictures, and then you come back to us in two weeks,
10:32:57 when maybe the word is out, you all come back in two
10:33:01 weeks and tell us whether or not the things that you
10:33:03 have seen you believe fall within that definition.
10:33:08 And get the county to help you out on it.
10:33:14 >> Coordinate with the county, absolutely.
10:33:15 They may not be aware of those issues that you
10:33:18 mentioned, the signs sitting on the ground.
10:33:21 Those signs can be impounded.
10:33:23 If they are not standing there with a stick in their

10:33:26 hand those signs can be impounded.
10:33:28 >>SHAWN HARRISON: They are going up at 7:00 on a
10:33:32 Saturday morning and coming down at 7:00 that evening.
10:33:34 And there's a person always somewhere within a few
10:33:37 feet.
10:33:38 But they are not holding those signs and waving them
10:33:42 at motorists.
10:33:43 >>> We can impound those signs, if they refuse to
10:33:47 remove those signs themselves, well actually impound
10:33:50 them.
10:33:50 Or at least the county can.
10:33:56 In the right-of-way we are talking about.
10:33:57 >> And the New Tampa overlay district that we created
10:34:01 does not apply to the 200-foot right-of-way that is
10:34:05 Bruce B. Downs.
10:34:08 >>> In our research and in coordination with land
10:34:11 development, that is true.
10:34:20 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Several years ago I recall talking
10:34:23 about asking the county for an ordinance.
10:34:25 >>> I know we have been in contact with the director
10:34:27 of Hillsborough County code enforcement and they do
10:34:29 have similar ordinances as far as the use of signs in

10:34:32 the right-of-way, that sort of thing.
10:34:35 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion an second.
10:34:37 (Motion carried)
10:34:42 Mr. Shelby, number 3.
10:34:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Rule 4-C of the council's rules of
10:34:53 procedure state when a matter subject of an agenda
10:34:56 item is considered by the council and four votes are
10:34:58 not obtained either in support or in opposition to the
10:35:00 matter, the matter shall automatically be brought
10:35:03 before the council at the next regular council meeting
10:35:05 as unfinished business.
10:35:07 Council, this is a motion that the legal department be
10:35:11 requested to draft an ordinance amending the historic
10:35:14 preservation ordinance to incorporate option number 3
10:35:18 as submitted by Mr. Smith at the meeting, I believe it
10:35:21 was, two weeks ago, the issue was that council member
10:35:25 Ferlita was not present for the bulk of the discussion
10:35:29 because she was at a funeral representing the council
10:35:33 as public safety chair.
10:35:35 And she wished to have that opportunity to review the
10:35:37 record.
10:35:37 My understanding, that is correct and she has had that

10:35:42 opportunity.
10:35:42 Council, there was an issue raised by a constituent as
10:35:45 to whether council wishes to have discussion prior to
10:35:48 the vote.
10:35:50 I read to you in its entirety rule 4-C that does not
10:35:54 discuss the fact that you will not take public comment
10:35:58 before.
10:35:59 Normally, and traditionally, what happens is rule 4-C
10:36:02 is raised in a quasi-judicial setting when you have a
10:36:05 motion on a vote to close a public hearing.
10:36:08 So it's council's discretion as to whether it wants to
10:36:12 take any public comment if there is any public comment
10:36:14 prior to the vote, or you can wait until agendaed
10:36:18 public comment after your vote.
10:36:21 Generally speaking, council, it is my recommendation,
10:36:23 generally, and I feel rather strongly about this,
10:36:27 council should not take official action until you give
10:36:31 the public the opportunity to speak to an issue.
10:36:35 Staff reports, normally a report.
10:36:37 But if you are going to take any official action, I
10:36:40 would suggest that you give the public an opportunity
10:36:41 to speak to any item, regardless of whether it's this

10:36:44 item or any other item.
10:36:46 By the way, this is not a due process issue.
10:36:50 And the rules of procedure allow you to set up
10:36:52 whatever parameters you want with regard to how long,
10:36:55 or subject matter, whether you want to have things
10:36:59 repeated or not.
10:37:00 You have the opportunity to set whatever guidelines
10:37:02 you want to take public comment on this issue.
10:37:06 Or you can wait to agendaed public comment to allow
10:37:11 council to speak at council's discretion.
10:37:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby, we have public to speak and
10:37:20 they will be speaking two or three times, right?
10:37:22 >>> That is a you take when you allow public comment.
10:37:25 That's a very important point.
10:37:26 But council did have the discussion of whether to move
10:37:30 agendaed public comment before taking the issue,
10:37:32 because the risk you take is that if everybody speaks
10:37:35 to each individual item at 3 minutes, you know, you
10:37:37 will have three minutes.
10:37:38 But that's a risk you take.
10:37:43 67 can we hold this till after public comment?
10:37:46 >>> You can.

10:37:47 However you wish to.
10:37:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's hold number 3 until after public
10:37:50 comment.
10:37:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
10:37:54 >> Second.
10:37:54 (Motion carried).
10:37:54 >>GWEN MILLER: We go to item 4.
10:38:00 Legal department is here?
10:38:03 Transportation?
10:38:09 >>SAL TERRITO: Legal department.
10:38:10 You asked the legal department to look into whether
10:38:12 there are any other funding sources for the streetcar.
10:38:15 We have addressed that basically with your three CRA
10:38:19 budgets this morning.
10:38:20 Money was put into three of the budgets to address
10:38:23 some of the streetcar funding sources.
10:38:26 That's the only part.
10:38:31 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Territo, I appreciate that.
10:38:34 I think CRA did the right thing.
10:38:36 But one of my questions was whether the moneys that
10:38:39 were -- the funds that were going to be appropriated
10:38:43 for the streetcar would be capital improvements, or

10:38:50 could they use this for other than that?
10:38:54 >>> They are going to primarily use it for capital
10:38:56 type projects but looking into the flexibility of
10:38:58 that.
10:38:58 We have it in the budget so we can spend the money in
10:39:00 the appropriate way and then looking into how flexible
10:39:03 we can be with that issue.
10:39:05 >> Could they use it for promotions and things like
10:39:07 that?
10:39:08 >>> I haven't looked at that specific issue.
10:39:10 There are lots of issues that are certain areas you
10:39:12 can spend certain you can't.
10:39:14 That is all of those issues.
10:39:16 They are going to spend it in as flexible way as the
10:39:18 law allows you to spend it.
10:39:22 >>MARY ALVAREZ: All right.
10:39:23 >>SAL TERRITO: There are restrictions on the use of
10:39:28 TIF funds.
10:39:29 >> That's why I am asking.
10:39:30 I would really like to find out what it is that they
10:39:33 can probably use it for other than the capital
10:39:35 improvements.

10:39:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yesterday, at the MPO roadways
10:39:43 committee we discussed whether we can use money from
10:39:47 developer donations during zoning for some sort of
10:39:51 operating fund for our transportation system.
10:39:54 And someone there said that the comprehensive plan
10:39:58 would need to be changed to allow us to do that.
10:40:01 So I would like to request that with all due speed
10:40:05 that we look at making that change in our
10:40:07 comprehensive plan so that we would be able to put
10:40:12 money into operating dollars for our transportation
10:40:15 system as part of our rezoning consideration.
10:40:19 That's a motion to ask legal to will at that.
10:40:21 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
10:40:24 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Wait a minute.
10:40:27 I'm not understanding where you are trying to go with
10:40:29 this.
10:40:30 Is this impact fees that people would be paying, or
10:40:33 during the City Council hearing they come up and then
10:40:35 we request them to pay?
10:40:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's during the impact fees which
10:40:41 currently can only be spent very narrowly on roadway
10:40:44 improvements.

10:40:45 It doesn't even say sidewalks.
10:40:46 Although graciously our transportation department has
10:40:49 interpreted this to include sidewalks.
10:40:51 But it specifically precludes money for transit.
10:40:55 And I think that as we become more dense that people
10:41:00 should be paying some of their transit fees or some of
10:41:04 their parking space in lieu fees to support transit in
10:41:07 addition to roadway improvements or as part of roadway
10:41:10 improvements.
10:41:12 It's called a transportation.
10:41:13 It not just called roadway.
10:41:14 But I understand that wave to change our comprehensive
10:41:17 plan to expand the understanding of transportation as
10:41:22 including transit, which to me is kind of ridiculous,
10:41:24 but evidently it's a legality and we need to broaden
10:41:27 that interpretation.
10:41:29 So my motion is to have legal look at that, to tell us
10:41:33 how we need to move ahead, to look at our
10:41:37 comprehensive plan, to make sure that transportation
10:41:41 impact fees can be spent on transit improvements, as
10:41:44 well as roadway improvements, and everyone I would
10:41:48 like to just look at operating moneys as well as

10:41:53 capital costs.
10:41:54 I don't know if that's possible.
10:41:56 But what I would like to do is give legal a couple of,
10:41:58 you know, two months to look at this and come back to
10:42:01 us and tell us what we would need to do or what
10:42:03 constraints are there or what we need to have to do to
10:42:08 transcend those constraints.
10:42:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I like the idea and I would like to
10:42:13 expand it a little further and I'll give you an
10:42:15 example.
10:42:16 Tonight we are going to be looking at Central Park
10:42:17 Village going from 400 units up to 2,000 units.
10:42:21 That's the suggestion.
10:42:23 When I asked about transit, they said, oh, they are
10:42:25 going to build some shelters, bus shelters.
10:42:29 Okay, that's good, they are going to build bus
10:42:31 shelters.
10:42:32 And red miller is here.
10:42:35 He can but you know what?
10:42:36 We have a big gap in between.
10:42:38 We don't have money to pay for the drivers or to fuel
10:42:40 the vehicles.

10:42:41 We don't have the money to operate those transit
10:42:43 systems for these additional 2,000 units.
10:42:46 So I think that's sort of a classic example of what
10:42:49 this thing is talking about.
10:42:50 I would like to expand it a little for them to also
10:42:52 look at how we can include that in some of the
10:42:54 rezoning processes in the PD.
10:42:56 Not just the impact fees.
10:42:58 But also, you know, when they come in with a
10:43:03 2,000-unit project, can we include that as part of our
10:43:07 PD requirement that says, you know, you will make a
10:43:11 contribution to some type of operating for transit?
10:43:16 And, Shawn, it not like I'm saying we are going to
10:43:20 vote on this today.
10:43:20 I would just like to know what our action was, in that
10:43:23 regard.
10:43:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: that's exactly why I am supporting it
10:43:28 because I think the legal department can come back, or
10:43:30 even the transportation department can come back with
10:43:33 some ways of expanding this.
10:43:35 And, yes, the problem is that we won't have -- I don't
10:43:42 believe we will have the opportunity to add anything

10:43:43 to the Central Park Village plan.
10:43:49 It's a future project, I understand that.
10:43:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And when we get to --
10:43:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I think it's a good idea so I will
10:44:01 support that.
10:44:01 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I fully support Ms. Saul-Sena's
10:44:08 approach of expanding impact fees.
10:44:10 I think that makes a lot of sense.
10:44:12 Mr. Dingfelder, if what you are asking is let's see if
10:44:17 they can come up with some alternatives.
10:44:19 I thought we had done that long ago.
10:44:23 Where we were looking at different, you know,
10:44:25 alternative that we have to address transportation
10:44:28 issues in the zoning process itself.
10:44:30 And maybe you gave that report and I just wasn't her
10:44:34 that day or maybe the report hasn't been given.
10:44:36 Does anyone know if we are already looking at that?
10:44:39 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
10:44:40 We are looking at expanding the application of our
10:44:43 transportation impact fees, both for mass transit and
10:44:47 other means of moving people throughout the city.
10:44:50 This is all going to be part of the analysis we are

10:44:52 doing in conjunction.
10:44:55 Looking at TPA, in developing our capital improvement
10:44:59 plan.
10:44:59 These as you know are all tied together in the manage
10:45:01 it act.
10:45:02 So it is an opportunity while we are going through
10:45:05 that process to also see what creative ways we can
10:45:08 assist those other ways for moving people throughout
10:45:13 the city including street car.
10:45:14 So we will be looking at that.
10:45:16 We don't have a report in terms of where we are
10:45:18 because that's going to be a very involved process.
10:45:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My frustration frankly, Mr. Smith,
10:45:24 is this wasn't done two years ago because we are just
10:45:26 looking at the audience of people who represent
10:45:28 large-scale projects which represent miss
10:45:32 opportunities for revenue things that we desperately
10:45:34 need.
10:45:35 My question to you is what is the time frame which
10:45:37 council can expect to get something in our hands that
10:45:41 we could potentially use for this?
10:45:45 >>DAVID SMITH: It's a good question.

10:45:46 And probably need a little help from Roy on that.
10:45:49 But what we are doing is, you may remember when you
10:45:52 had the briefing, the discussion session at the
10:45:54 convention center, the process is going to be driven
10:45:58 by the plan that needs to be developed.
10:46:01 >> Are we talking '08?
10:46:03 >>DAVID SMITH: Let's see if Roy can give us a -- I
10:46:08 don't think it's quite that far.
10:46:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What I am going to do is -- I think
10:46:14 what I am going to do -- I would like to hear when
10:46:16 it's supposed to come back and maybe get some interim
10:46:18 reports, if there's something we can do more quickly.
10:46:22 >>DAVID SMITH: Your current direction, I think you
10:46:25 asked us to come back in two months with some ideas on
10:46:28 how to approach this.
10:46:29 And we'll do that and maybe Roy can tell you when we
10:46:33 might be looking at implementation and coordination.
10:46:36 >> Thank you.
10:46:37 So my motion would be to hear back from legal in two
10:46:40 months.
10:46:41 >>GWEN MILLER: You have to withdraw your other motion.
10:46:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm just clarifying.

10:46:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Clarifying.
10:46:48 Motion and second.
10:46:49 (Motion carried)
10:46:57 That's okay, Mr. LaMotte.
10:46:59 We go to item number 5.
10:47:18 >>JULIA COLE: legal department.
10:47:19 I have submitted to you, I think it was, two weeks ago
10:47:22 a proposed transit shelter ordinance, in response to
10:47:25 your request to draft an ordinance and bring that
10:47:28 forward.
10:47:29 I did want to point out a few things.
10:47:31 And I did -- I reviewed other jurisdictions, and the
10:47:38 language within that ordinance is similar to the
10:47:40 language which other jurisdictions have used as to
10:47:44 advertising on transit shelters.
10:47:47 Hartline has had an opportunity to review that and
10:47:49 they have provided me with comments which I have gone
10:47:51 ahead and placed into the ordinance.
10:47:54 I would like to point out two issues for your
10:47:56 consideration.
10:47:59 One is the transit shelters, in discussing this matter
10:48:03 with Hartline, I'm looking at the way the city is laid

10:48:06 out.
10:48:08 The location would include certain amount of
10:48:11 residentially zoned areas, so long as they are on
10:48:14 arterial or collector roadways.
10:48:17 And I did want to point that out, bring that to your
10:48:21 attention. The second issue isn't part of the
10:48:24 ordinance but something that was brought to my
10:48:26 attention by Mr. Snelling, and I think we do probably
10:48:29 need to look at that issue, is if you are looking at
10:48:32 transit shelters, in the historic district, whether or
10:48:35 not they would have to also go through the process in
10:48:40 order to place their settle shelter in that area.
10:48:44 I do need to research that issue a little further.
10:48:46 I'm not sure that we necessarily need to amend that
10:48:49 ordinance.
10:48:49 There might be another code provision which complies
10:48:51 with that.
10:48:52 And moving forward, I would request that if we can
10:48:59 transmit that the to the Planning Commission and bring
10:49:03 this back for first reading.
10:49:04 >>MARY ALVAREZ: When you say transit shelter in the
10:49:07 historic district, are you talking about the streetcar

10:49:10 shelters, too?
10:49:11 >>JULIA COLE: That's potentially, that could have
10:49:15 advertising.
10:49:16 I think some of those have already been located but
10:49:18 this is really the new locations of transit shelters
10:49:20 which could be streetcar transit shelters which now
10:49:24 will allow advertising on them.
10:49:27 >> So the one that is are there now can advertise?
10:49:31 >>> Under this ordinance, they would be allowed to
10:49:34 then retrofit that transit shelter to place an
10:49:38 advertisement on it.
10:49:43 I believe there are representatives from Hartline
10:49:45 here.
10:49:47 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I think that we should do everything
10:49:48 that we possibly can to have Hartline as
10:49:55 self-sufficient as they can be.
10:49:57 I'm fully ready to move on to allowing us to move this
10:50:00 so that Hartline can advertise on their bus shelters.
10:50:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Does Mr. Miller want to speak?
10:50:08 >>SHAWN HARRISON: You don't disagree with me, do you?
10:50:17 >>> Ray Miller, Executive Director of Hillsborough
10:50:20 area regional transit authority.

10:50:22 Thank you for the attention that you have given this
10:50:25 important issue.
10:50:26 And it's not all just about money.
10:50:29 Actually almost more and more, it's about the
10:50:34 shelter -- heart owns about 250 shelters.
10:50:38 But we are quite hopeful that we can over a period of
10:50:41 time double that number to provide the shelter
10:50:48 especially during the harsh weather period.
10:50:50 We certainly do appreciate your understanding of this
10:50:53 issue, your support for this issue.
10:50:58 And I would be happy to answer any questions that you
10:51:00 might have.
10:51:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council members?
10:51:04 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Miller, we have had this
10:51:05 conversation and I am going to say it again.
10:51:08 Because it's almost like I'm supporting when I am not
10:51:12 in support.
10:51:13 We have had some conversations, and I have committed
10:51:14 to you, or will commit to you ongoing, what happens in
10:51:17 the future.
10:51:19 That anything I can do to promote the interest of
10:51:22 Hartline and the service that Hartline has given us,

10:51:24 and the improvements that you have made as director of
10:51:28 Hartline, they have not gone unnoticed.
10:51:33 At the same time I'm saying I'm not supporting this.
10:51:36 I am supporting -- it's really kind of a quandary and
10:51:41 difficult position to be in and we talked about this
10:51:43 and I think it's no secret.
10:51:44 Simply because of the fact that sill sophically as the
10:51:47 chairman of the sign committee that is trying to wrap
10:51:50 things up before I leave this office, it's difficult
10:51:53 to say it's okay to put those signs on your shelters.
10:51:57 I think it's a wonderful idea.
10:51:59 I think the idea that it gives you more revenue, to
10:52:02 give us more service, and in the city, and
10:52:06 unincorporated areas it's definitely needed.
10:52:09 It's very difficult for me to say in a to this one.
10:52:12 I am going to have to vote against it but I think you
10:52:14 understand and hopefully it will be a 6-1 vote.
10:52:17 I can't tell anyone else how to vote.
10:52:20 >>> I hope that's the outcome.
10:52:22 >> You have done an incredible job.
10:52:23 >>> I appreciate it.
10:52:24 Thank you.

10:52:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
10:52:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Roy, you have been doing a great
10:52:33 job there.
10:52:33 Thank you for all your hard work.
10:52:35 The question I had, I guess, is really directed to Ms.
10:52:39 Cole.
10:52:40 In regard to the to the content of the advertising, is
10:52:45 there any regulation on that?
10:52:48 Who would be the controller of the content?
10:52:51 For the advertising?
10:52:55 >>JULIA COLE: That would be solely within the purview
10:52:57 of Hartline.
10:52:58 This is allowing the opportunity if they wish to
10:53:00 undertake that opportunity with their responsibility
10:53:02 to determine who will be in charge of putting up the
10:53:06 advertising, and then the contents.
10:53:09 >> Is that fairly clear?
10:53:14 That the city doesn't get dragged into these kind of
10:53:17 legal battles?
10:53:18 >>> Well, the way the ordinance is drafted is
10:53:22 placement.
10:53:24 I think we would need to think about whether or not

10:53:27 saving specifically in the -- stating specifically in
10:53:30 the ordinance that it's within the soul purview of
10:53:33 Hartline.
10:53:34 If you want to think about that.
10:53:35 And we could go ahead and add that as appropriate.
10:53:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Can we move the ordinance?
10:53:45 >>JULIA COLE: What I would request is you vote to have
10:53:47 this transmitted to the Planning Commission and I'll
10:53:50 look at the -- if it's appropriate we can add that.
10:53:56 Always Alvarez so moved.
10:53:57 >> So moved.
10:53:57 (Motion carried).
10:53:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 61.
10:54:06 Item number 6.
10:54:10 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, request this be
10:54:17 withdrawn.
10:54:18 When thought we could provide the space at the
10:54:20 convention center for free, like as co-sponsor.
10:54:23 I don't think we can.
10:54:24 And that's going to force them to rethink what their
10:54:27 options are.
10:54:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 7.

10:54:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Didn't speak about this issue.
10:54:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, just so the agenda is
10:54:41 clear.
10:54:41 Is that to be done by motion?
10:54:44 >> Move to withdraw number 6.
10:54:47 >> Second.
10:54:48 (Motion carried).
10:54:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 7.
10:54:57 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Wright.
10:55:01 >>
10:55:03 >> Paula dye is not available this morning so I am
10:55:06 taking her place my name is TONI Rearden, consultant
10:55:14 to Tampa Bay water, here in response to a motion made
10:55:18 by councilman Saul-Sena and Alvarez to the downstream
10:55:23 augmentation project.
10:55:25 I called councilwoman Saul-Sena and told her that the
10:55:27 agency had decided not to pursue this project, and she
10:55:32 said, come and tell us that for the record.
10:55:35 So my presentation will be real short.
10:55:40 At the October meeting which was held last week, the
10:55:43 Tampa Bay Board of Directors had as a major agenda
10:55:46 item consideration of a project or projects that would

10:55:50 be designed to take care of the region's water needs
10:55:54 through the year 2012.
10:55:56 The project that is to be the subject of this
10:55:59 morning's discussion was not selected by the board for
10:56:03 pursuit.
10:56:04 They chose another project.
10:56:06 As a result of that, this project is shelved.
10:56:13 And really there's nothing else to say unless you have
10:56:15 questions.
10:56:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to thank you so much for
10:56:20 coming down and sharing that with us.
10:56:21 It's really good news from the perspective of the
10:56:25 friends of the river and the river round table people
10:56:27 who have come to speak on that.
10:56:28 And so I congratulate Tampa Bay water on the clarity
10:56:32 of their decision making and thank you for coming and
10:56:34 sharing that.
10:56:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mrs. Rearden.
10:56:44 8.
10:56:48 >> Alan Wright, river board.
10:56:50 >> Thanks very much, Ms. Saul-Sena, for getting that
10:56:53 on the record.

10:56:54 We are here today to push more conservation.
10:57:01 We are running into real problems with water
10:57:03 resources.
10:57:03 And several other counties and cities passed these
10:57:09 ordinances, plants native to Florida species, also
10:57:12 enacted any new developments to put in new
10:57:14 technologies for irrigation, and that is a more
10:57:22 effective way, and basically, when came here to speak
10:57:30 on those notes.
10:57:36 >> I guess maybe ask for some clarification, shelving
10:57:40 the project means that Tampa Bay water, oftentimes
10:57:42 they can go back and take a look at this project again
10:57:45 at a later date.
10:57:47 I don't know what that might be.
10:57:49 The other thing is, besides Tampa Bay water's
10:57:51 projects, augmentation, there's a meeting today taking
10:57:58 place providing minimum flows and level.
10:58:02 And that minimum flow and level proposed rule is
10:58:06 provision for using treated wastewater to supply a
10:58:12 portion of the minimum flow, in the event that there
10:58:16 are in a other alternatives to provide that.
10:58:21 So we want to express our concerns about the

10:58:26 constituents that might be found in treated
10:58:29 wastewater.
10:58:30 I have to say, our water supply system to the area,
10:58:37 I'm very supportive and use Tampa water every day and
10:58:40 I'm fine.
10:58:44 There are issues that are coming up.
10:58:46 There's a book out which shows water supply all over
10:58:54 our country and all over the world and it draws a line
10:58:57 to pollutants that we are creating in our water supply
10:59:00 that are either not being found or not being -- and
10:59:13 other illnesses that are being detected at this point
10:59:17 in time that have come in contact with the water
10:59:20 supply nationwide.
10:59:23 And not quite sure how that is creeping up in the food
10:59:27 chain.
10:59:28 But they are making strides in doing that.
10:59:30 And these one reason that we are concerned about using
10:59:33 treated wastewater, ecological impact that could
10:59:38 possibly have in the water in Tampa Bay.
10:59:46 >> Actually the EPA has put a national interest and
10:59:50 speeding up research. The European union requires
10:59:57 reverse osmosis because they have had problems.

11:00:01 Also another note.
11:00:02 We recently sent a letter both to the Hillsborough
11:00:04 River board, SWFWMD, and reviewing some technical
11:00:11 paper, and regards to the minimum flow.
11:00:15 It came out that there was a concern regarding fresh
11:00:23 water.
11:00:23 That's the first time I came across that, fresh water
11:00:27 equivalent.
11:00:28 And it seems too many processes are going on.
11:00:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm thinking that what we need is a
11:00:45 really in-depth discussion of this whole question of
11:00:50 the minimum flow.
11:00:51 And I know that today is a meeting on it.
11:00:53 And I know that -- what would your recommendation be
11:00:57 about what would best protect the river environment?
11:01:01 >>> I think at this point in time, the draft proposal
11:01:05 that was drafted by the water management district
11:01:07 staff, has been taken to the governing board on the
11:01:12 26th.
11:01:12 The governing board then forwarded that to independent
11:01:19 peer review panel.
11:01:23 They have nothing to do with this area.

11:01:25 What they do is look at the scientific merit and
11:01:27 basis, which the report is based, minimum flow.
11:01:37 At that point in time we would know what that panel is
11:01:39 saying, whether it's scientifically sound or whether
11:01:42 there are some gaps or problems that need to be
11:01:45 readdressed.
11:01:46 At that point, we can make comment.
11:01:48 In the meantime, we have sent a letter, as well as the
11:01:52 EPC, Hillsborough -- friend of the river and other
11:01:56 community groups, to the water management district
11:01:58 which those comments are being heard by the peer
11:02:02 review panel as they go through and look at that
11:02:04 draft.
11:02:05 And we should have some answers back from them after
11:02:09 they do that.
11:02:11 >> What is the time plan?
11:02:13 >>> Probably mid January, they would be sending that
11:02:15 back to the governing board.
11:02:17 >> So maybe we could schedule something in early
11:02:19 January that has a discussion on minimum -- flow.
11:02:24 >>> I would like to schedule it the first week in
11:02:26 January.

11:02:30 January 11th.
11:02:32 What I would like to do is move to invite you back,
11:02:34 January 11th at a time certain like 10:00 to have
11:02:40 additional discussion about minimum flow.
11:02:45 >>> The question is 10:00 is when you normally
11:02:47 schedule your first reading,.
11:02:51 >> 10:30.
11:02:53 >>> I'm sorry.
11:02:54 You say time certain.
11:02:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, I would be very happy to stop
11:03:02 the agenda at 10:30 and discuss it.
11:03:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry. But normally unfinished
11:03:06 business staff reports are limited to five minutes.
11:03:08 I wonder if you want to set out the time frame in
11:03:10 advance.
11:03:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
11:03:13 Can it come under unfinished business?
11:03:16 >>> We don't have enough time.
11:03:17 That's counter to the whole reason of having short
11:03:19 reports during unfinished business.
11:03:21 >>GWEN MILLER: This is going to be five minutes,
11:03:26 unfinished business of five minutes.

11:03:29 >> Maybe you can give us a documentation in advance
11:03:32 and give us a really succinct --
11:03:36 >>> The other thing is with the water department since
11:03:38 they have an opportunity to have input as well because
11:03:40 they are very involved.
11:03:43 >> LINDA SAUL-SENA: So have a staff report with a
11:03:46 report from both you and the water department under
11:03:50 unfinished business on January 11th at 9:00.
11:03:54 >> Second.
11:03:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
11:03:57 (Motion carried).
11:03:58 Thank you.
11:04:04 Item number 8.
11:04:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I am going to make a Q.i
11:04:08 believe number 8 is -- if council wants to go forward
11:04:13 as an item available for first reading.
11:04:16 My suggestion is you hold this until after public
11:04:19 comment in case anybody wants to address the
11:04:22 ordinance.
11:04:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
11:04:24 Item number 9.
11:04:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Item number 9 is also pursuant to

11:04:27 rule 4-C.
11:04:28 The council's rules of procedure.
11:04:30 This is here on a motion to deny the petition.
11:04:37 And I believe the motion was not adopted on a vote of
11:04:45 2 people in favor.
11:04:49 Let's see if I have this correct.
11:04:54 >> The motion was made by council member Ferlita,
11:04:57 seconded by council member Harrison to deny the
11:05:00 petition based on section 27-32 (6) pertaining to
11:05:05 compatibility.
11:05:06 Motion was not adopted with Alvarez, white and Miller
11:05:09 voting no, Dingfelder abstaining and Saul-Sena was
11:05:12 absent at vote.
11:05:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I need to go ahead and abstain.
11:05:18 >>GWEN MILLER: We are not going to do it now.
11:05:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: This one you can do it now.
11:05:21 Number 8 is the one I asked you to hold.
11:05:23 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
11:05:24 Mr. Dingfelder.
11:05:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll go ahead and abstain from
11:05:27 number 9 based on the fact that Mr. Versaggi is a
11:05:30 client of my firm and that poses a conflict.

11:05:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe you filed a paper with the
11:05:36 clerk.
11:05:37 So council, basically there was a motion to deny,
11:05:40 which did not get the requisite four votes.
11:05:42 There were two votes in favor of denial, three votes
11:05:44 against the denial.
11:05:47 Ms. Saul-Sena was absent at the vote.
11:05:49 Are you prepared to vote on this issue dah?
11:05:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
11:05:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Now where the public hearing was
11:05:54 closed by a vote of council so there is no need for
11:05:57 additional testimony at this time.
11:06:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
11:06:00 So we go for the vote.
11:06:02 All in favor of denial say Aye.
11:06:05 Opposed, Nay.
11:06:10 >>THE CLERK: (off microphone).
11:06:17 >> You need motion for approval.
11:06:18 I so move.
11:06:21 >> Second.
11:06:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There hasn't been a reading on the
11:06:24 ordinance prior to the vote to approve it so I would

11:06:28 ask that you read it by title, please.
11:06:37 >>THE CLERK: The ordinance that I have in the folder
11:06:41 showing site plan September 29th --
11:06:45 >> Is that the correct site plan?
11:06:48 Yes, it is.
11:06:50 >>MARY ALVAREZ: An ordinance rezoning property in the
11:06:51 general vicinity of 3613 South MacDill Avenue and 3101
11:06:55 and 3103 west Euclid Avenue city of Tampa, Florida and
11:06:59 more particularly described in section 1 from zoning
11:07:01 district classifications RS-60 residential
11:07:04 single-family to PD, planned development,
11:07:06 single-family attached, providing an effective date.
11:07:09 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
11:07:11 Opposed, Nay.
11:07:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:07:21 would like to ask for reconsideration?
11:07:24 We now go to our audience portion.
11:07:26 Is there anyone in the pun audience that would like to
11:07:28 speak to any item on the agenda not set for a public
11:07:30 hearing?
11:07:31 They may come speak now for three minutes.
11:07:42 If you are going to speak, please come up and speak.

11:07:44 If you are going to speak, please come up and speak.
11:07:49 >>DAVID MECHANIK: 305 south Boulevard, Tampa, Florida
11:07:54 I'm here on item number 2.
11:07:57 And I'm not here on behalf of any particular client.
11:08:01 Just as an interested citizen in connection with the
11:08:06 option that you all are considering for inclusion in
11:08:08 the historic preservation ordinance.
11:08:11 And speaking to the memo --
11:08:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 3.
11:08:16 >>DAVID MECHANIK: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
11:08:18 Didn't have my agenda right there.
11:08:20 On item 3.
11:08:22 I would just like to speak in favor of the option that
11:08:26 requires that the landmark designation be owner
11:08:30 initiated.
11:08:32 Whaley think the idea of owner consent sounds good, I
11:08:38 think the reality is, when owner consent is simply a
11:08:42 factor that can either be considered or not considered
11:08:45 in the final decision whether to landmark a building,
11:08:49 what's really going to happen is the same procedure
11:08:51 that exists today will occur.
11:08:54 The people who are interested in designating a

11:08:57 building a landmark will ask the owner, well, why
11:09:00 don't you consent to having your building be land
11:09:04 marked?
11:09:04 Well, the response will be typically, because it's an
11:09:07 economic hardship, I don't want to have to go to the
11:09:10 expense of maintaining the building in the way that it
11:09:14 would be required.
11:09:15 I don't want to have to go to the A.R.C. for the
11:09:18 various approvals and so forth, which is, as we
11:09:21 understand, a difficult and time consuming and
11:09:24 sometimes expensive process.
11:09:27 So at the point where the person says, well, I believe
11:09:29 it's an economic hardship, the option will be, well,
11:09:32 there's a procedure in the ordinance for an economic
11:09:34 hardship and you should present that case and that
11:09:37 will be the opportunity for you to avoid designation
11:09:40 of your building as a landmark.
11:09:42 Well, the problem is, the economic hardship procedure
11:09:46 is very, very difficult.
11:09:47 It's very expensive.
11:09:50 I handled some cases.
11:09:52 There are very few cases that have actually prevailed

11:09:55 under that procedure.
11:09:57 It's a very expensive process.
11:09:59 You need to hire appraisers, architects, people who
11:10:04 are experts in renovation of historic buildings, and
11:10:07 it is a very, very difficult process.
11:10:09 My understanding of the intent of City Council's
11:10:12 original motion to allow for property owners to have a
11:10:17 say in the destiny of their building is to try to take
11:10:22 that out of the onerous and expensive and difficult
11:10:27 proceedings.
11:10:28 So where the owners consent is just a consideration, I
11:10:31 believe, is really not a meaningful option and not
11:10:34 really reflective of the intent of the council when
11:10:37 you voted 5-2 to allow for the owners to have some
11:10:42 control over the destiny of their building.
11:10:44 And so I would respectfully ask that you support the
11:10:47 idea owner initiated as being the option.
11:10:54 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mrs. Saul-Sena?
11:10:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I wanted to share that Mr. Mechanik
11:10:58 is a very excellent attorney and did he that on behalf
11:11:00 of the client, they were successful and when lost a
11:11:03 significant building.

11:11:03 So it is possible.
11:11:08 >>> There is in a doubt but I can tell that you was a
11:11:09 very expensive and time consuming process, probably
11:11:13 taking close to a year to accomplish.
11:11:16 Thank you.
11:11:16 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Next?
11:11:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And painful.
11:11:22 >>> My name is Tony, pastor of victory
11:11:29 Baptist church, and in reference to item number 71,
11:11:34 case WZ-06-97.
11:11:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Sir, that's going to be --
11:11:41 >>THE CLERK: That's a public hearing.
11:11:42 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes, sir, that's a public hearing.
11:11:44 You will be called up specifically when we get to that
11:11:46 item and you will have three minutes to speak at that
11:11:47 time.
11:11:48 >>> Okay, very good.
11:11:49 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, sir.
11:11:51 Next.
11:11:52 >>> Susan Rowland, East Broad Street, I want to speak
11:11:56 to item 32.
11:11:59 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Okay.

11:12:02 >>> A situation where there is a pocket park in my
11:12:07 neighborhood.
11:12:07 Apparently the residents that utilize that park, this
11:12:11 park was loaned to the neighbor next door to the
11:12:16 staging area for construction materials and the
11:12:18 construction equipment for renovation of a personal
11:12:21 home.
11:12:22 No one in the neighborhood was notified.
11:12:25 No public hearing was held.
11:12:27 We have called code enforcement and Parks Department
11:12:29 trying to get it set for a year, and it obviously got
11:12:34 nowhere.
11:12:35 Now, I find out that the city basically loaned this
11:12:38 park to one individual, the only park in our area
11:12:42 where you can put it into the river and in a one was
11:12:46 told about it.
11:12:47 The only reason we know about it now is I was looking
11:12:49 at the agenda to see exactly where the historic
11:12:51 preservation item was, last month.
11:12:55 So no one except me and the president of the
11:12:57 neighborhood association as of today knew anything
11:13:01 about this.

11:13:02 We are very upset.
11:13:05 Nobody gives me a park on my own if I want to renovate
11:13:09 my house nor anybody else that I am aware of so I am
11:13:12 very concerned about this.
11:13:12 Thank you.
11:13:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:13:14 Next.
11:13:21 >>> Ken Larson.
11:13:21 I own the cigar factory called the Corrina building,
11:13:29 and that's where the historic designation et al.
11:13:35 I think it's taking property without compensation.
11:13:40 My right to tear it down would be removed without
11:13:42 payment.
11:13:43 I own that right, right now, and it would be removed
11:13:47 for me,.
11:13:48 Just because the state legislature authorizes it
11:13:50 doesn't make it right.
11:13:51 I am certainly not planning to tear it down but I have
11:13:54 the right to.
11:13:58 They are meant to look original and protect from
11:14:00 hurricanes.
11:14:01 I select the windows that meet the storm codes.

11:14:03 In the future, you plan to have me go, if this
11:14:06 ordinance is passed, before a committee to gain
11:14:08 approval from some individuals.
11:14:13 I lose the right to select my windows, again without
11:14:16 compensation.
11:14:18 Higher valuation is the enemy of our business.
11:14:23 My insurance company canceled me, I believe because of
11:14:26 a threat of incredible expense to repair as imposed by
11:14:30 historic preservation.
11:14:36 I get in tax relief, only higher expenses.
11:14:40 I no longer can buy wind insurance.
11:14:47 I don't want -- I spent 24 years rebuilding to make
11:14:53 condos to please the tax assessor.
11:14:55 I want to be left alone, have my -- to continue the
11:15:00 property the way it is.
11:15:08 Cap the tax on homestead property.
11:15:11 24 years of improvements to get a tax abatement.
11:15:18 Make it historic only with owner's consent.
11:15:21 Thank you.
11:15:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thanks for coming down and giving
11:15:24 us that information.
11:15:26 We have to deal in fact.

11:15:28 And you mentioned this issue of insurance.
11:15:32 Do you have any letters or documentation to take it
11:15:37 beyond speculation that this is why?
11:15:40 I mean, there's a lot of things going on in the
11:15:42 insurance industry and perhaps some of it is a mystery
11:15:45 to all of us but do you have any information or
11:15:47 specific facts to lead us to believe, you know, that
11:15:51 what you said is true?
11:15:53 >>> The company was nationwide insurance.
11:15:56 And they are very reticent to commit themselves to any
11:16:01 particular reason.
11:16:01 They don't want to get sued either.
11:16:05 And then of course an agency called fear now.
11:16:16 And excludes floods.
11:16:18 And they trippled the rates from before.
11:16:20 Now what am I paying for?
11:16:21 Liability.
11:16:23 Fire.
11:16:25 I have a full sprinkler system.
11:16:27 I just paid to have that overhauled.
11:16:30 The only thing I am paying that ridiculous rate for is
11:16:33 liability.

11:16:34 I have had one lawsuit in 24 years.
11:16:37 >> But as of today, your property has not been
11:16:40 historically designated but they are treating you this
11:16:43 way anyway.
11:16:43 >>> Well, they read the paper.
11:16:45 And they see this threat.
11:16:47 Who wants to put in $2,000 windows, 138 of them, after
11:16:52 a hurricane?
11:16:57 So this threat of action has actually put the curse on
11:17:03 us.
11:17:04 Thank you.
11:17:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:17:05 Next.
11:17:09 >>> Michael Villa.
11:17:12 I'm speaking on item 3.
11:17:17 My mother's family settled in Fort Brooke, my father's
11:17:21 family in Tampa in 1899.
11:17:23 I grew up in West Tampa, leased cigar factories. I
11:17:27 certainly understand the dilemma these folks are
11:17:29 facing and the concerns.
11:17:30 But be that as it may, these factories are absolutely
11:17:37 the core founder of this community.

11:17:41 It's how this community was.
11:17:43 It was known as a cigar city.
11:17:45 I think it's part of the heritage.
11:17:47 I think if we are not careful we are going to see
11:17:50 these things going by the wayside.
11:17:52 A lot of these owners have no intention of tearing
11:17:55 these buildings down.
11:17:56 But that's not to say they are always going to be the
11:17:58 owners.
11:17:59 And it's important that we are able to show our
11:18:03 children where their fathers and great grandfathers
11:18:07 spent their lives building the community.
11:18:09 My father was a cigar roller in West Tampa factory.
11:18:12 So I'm somewhat biased.
11:18:15 Also, I think that anytime you screw around with the
11:18:21 historic preservation ordinance, you're creating a
11:18:26 slippery slope.
11:18:27 It's a precedence that occurs.
11:18:31 It's a precedence that land use attorneys can go into
11:18:33 at any time and use to fight the different case.
11:18:35 So I'm pleading with you to,a, leave this ordinance
11:18:40 alone, but if you can't find your way to do that, for

11:18:43 God's sakes, then go with David's suggestion, and
11:18:47 let's make that part of the decision.
11:18:50 Thank you.
11:18:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:18:52 Next.
11:18:57 >>> Richey Smith, Tampa Preservation, Inc. Tampa
11:19:00 Preservation, Inc., still maintains that the ordinance
11:19:04 as written today is a viable ordinance and it is for
11:19:11 this time.
11:19:12 And one of the benefits would be from designation
11:19:16 would be that these buildings could band together and
11:19:23 be able to negotiate and purchase building materials
11:19:28 and other things, that they could do it as a group
11:19:33 rather than individually, and that could also probably
11:19:35 expand to insurance, too.
11:19:38 We only have to look at the historic district, Ybor
11:19:43 City, to see that there have been successful
11:19:46 readaptations and uses as cigar factories.
11:19:51 You can see specifically an adaptive reuse.
11:19:57 It also takes advantage of the property tax abatement
11:20:01 for ten years that is available to people who take
11:20:06 advantage of that process.

11:20:13 Additionally we feel if you choose owner initiative,
11:20:16 the City Council is basically kind of relinquishing
11:20:22 their ability to recognize significant structures
11:20:25 within our community, and tying your hands to be good
11:20:33 stewards for building future generations.
11:20:35 So we encourage you, if you do change the ordinance,
11:20:40 to take the option 3 that David Smith presented at the
11:20:46 last hearing two weeks ago, and that is to put owner
11:20:50 concurrency or owner approval into the section that
11:20:56 considers other criteria towards designation.
11:20:59 Once again, we thank you for your attention and
11:21:02 consideration of historic preservation, and also we
11:21:05 would like to thank our legal staff for allowing us to
11:21:08 be a partner at the table during all these
11:21:11 discussions.
11:21:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:21:16 Next.
11:21:22 >>> Beverly Morrow, southeast Seminole Heights.
11:21:26 Throughout history, there have been important issues
11:21:28 that received little support and much opposition.
11:21:33 A little over 100 years ago there was such an issue
11:21:36 that has greatly impacted our society and our way of

11:21:39 life today.
11:21:41 When first introduced it was thought to be extremely
11:21:44 radical, and leaders in industry were opposed to the
11:21:51 change and pricked that it would lead to the absolute
11:21:54 demise of our economic system.
11:21:57 Parents, especially those who are opposed, and thought
11:22:02 their parental rights weren't being ignored.
11:22:08 Opponents opposed the change, others were opposed
11:22:13 because they would lose much of their cheap labor.
11:22:16 What was this ready Cal change?
11:22:18 It was mandatory public education for our children.
11:22:23 Today we can all be grateful to those people who
11:22:26 against great odds were willing to support what was
11:22:32 then thought of as a radical change.
11:22:34 Simply stated they were willing to sacrifice the short
11:22:37 term interests of -- supporters with a long-term
11:22:42 interest and enrichment of our society.
11:22:45 Not only has our society survived this radical change.
11:22:49 It has thrived.
11:22:50 We cannot begin to measure all the benefits of
11:22:53 mandatory public education for our children.
11:22:55 But it was viewed as a very radical and unpopular idea

11:22:59 at the time.
11:23:03 I see analogy in the issues before City Council today
11:23:06 about Tampa's cigar factories.
11:23:09 The cigar factories in Ybor City and in West Tampa are
11:23:14 an important and irreplaceable part of our city's
11:23:18 history.
11:23:18 They serve to educate us through this rich history.
11:23:23 Think about some of the other landmark places that
11:23:25 make Tampa so unique -- the Tampa Theatre, the Kress
11:23:31 building, the Florida an hotel, the old Tampa Bay
11:23:35 hotel, which has university of Tampa and plant museum
11:23:41 and the old union station, to name but a few.
11:23:44 They all represent unique sites and add to the rich
11:23:47 history of our great city.
11:23:49 Yet they all have one other thing in common.
11:23:55 They have been at risk of either being torn down, or
11:24:00 altered beyond recognition, until a few people began
11:24:03 to understand their historic value was worth
11:24:05 preserving.
11:24:07 We should all be very grateful to the long-term vision
11:24:12 of the few farsighted and dedicated citizens who
11:24:17 spearheaded the movement to save them, for our

11:24:20 children and for the generations of children who will
11:24:22 come after us and will be able to enjoy them,
11:24:26 appreciate them, and learn from them.
11:24:30 Let us learn from our history.
11:24:33 Thank you very much.
11:24:36 6 thank you.
11:24:37 Next.
11:24:42 >>> Good morning.
11:24:42 Back again.
11:24:47 This is the ninth time we discussed this since August
11:24:51 2004, and I don't want to repeat everything I said
11:24:54 every time.
11:24:54 But no one here, people that I have been involved
11:25:01 with, wants to tear down did buildings, alter them in
11:25:05 any particular way.
11:25:07 We just simply wanted, as we voted 5-2 in February,
11:25:11 that legal was directed to come back with a program
11:25:16 for an owner's consent, or owner initiated program to
11:25:24 volunteer for this program.
11:25:28 The ordinance that protects the property, if it's 50
11:25:31 years or older, you cannot tear it down without coming
11:25:34 before the board, for tearing these buildings down is

11:25:37 not an issue here.
11:25:40 I just simply want to say again, this is not a fair
11:25:45 process for the cigar factory owners.
11:25:49 It's extremely expensive.
11:25:54 The council is trying to, if this passed, tell us how
11:25:57 to spend the money, how to maintain the building, and
11:26:00 I just don't think any of this is fair.
11:26:03 No one has argued the fact that these buildings are
11:26:06 historic.
11:26:06 And no one that is here before you, to my knowledge,
11:26:10 has done anything to the buildings other than try to
11:26:12 maintain and keep them up.
11:26:16 So I'm here just to express that I still don't think
11:26:18 this is right.
11:26:19 If this was a fair and equitable way, we would have
11:26:22 all lined up to please allow us to join in this
11:26:26 preservation ordinance and allow us to volunteer for
11:26:30 it.
11:26:30 But it isn't fair.
11:26:32 And it's extremely expensive the way it's set up.
11:26:36 Thank you.
11:26:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Would you put your name on the record?

11:26:38 >>> Jeff freeman.
11:26:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:26:41 Next.
11:26:47 >>> Roger burns.
11:26:47 I'm an architect.
11:26:49 I especially wish to speak to you all, but to Gwen and
11:26:55 Kevin.
11:27:00 If you sincerely think about it, I think you would
11:27:03 understand that there were events in the
11:27:07 African-American community which many people outside
11:27:11 of the community do not understand, do not place value
11:27:15 on.
11:27:18 For instance, the Jackson house.
11:27:22 That property could today be endangered excuse me, I'm
11:27:41 rather emotional about it.
11:27:44 The owner consents, may not understand the value of
11:27:59 the property.
11:27:59 We have to have an understanding of the owner.
11:28:02 The Jackson house, if that were to be purchased by you
11:28:20 know what I'm talking about, the house that -- okay,
11:28:23 that's the point.
11:28:26 >>KEVIN WHITE: Out they came and asked for it.

11:28:31 >>> If it were owned -- if the land were purchased by
11:28:33 a corporation, would you say, well, somebody has
11:28:37 purchased it.
11:28:39 That's their right.
11:28:40 >>KEVIN WHITE: These after the fact.
11:28:43 This is before.
11:28:44 >>> Hypothetically.
11:28:45 I understand that.
11:28:47 Certainly there are other buildings and events in your
11:28:52 community which have not been land marked.
11:28:59 >>KEVIN WHITE: In the Tampa Bay community?
11:29:02 >>> No.
11:29:02 In the African-American community.
11:29:05 Just as these buildings mean so much to the Hispanic
11:29:09 community, the cigar factory buildings.
11:29:16 They in turn mean a lot to the entire community.
11:29:18 Yes.
11:29:21 But simply because an owner does not recognize the
11:29:24 value, does not mean that these buildings do not have
11:29:29 value.
11:29:34 They must be preserved, not simply in honor of the
11:29:37 people who worked in them and sweat and lived and

11:29:44 loved, but also they have to be preserved for the
11:29:47 children coming forth, so they know they can learn the
11:29:52 struggles of our forefathers.
11:29:56 That's what this is all about.
11:30:02 Teaching.
11:30:02 It's about our history.
11:30:07 It's about our culture.
11:30:08 We have one of the richest cultures and we are
11:30:12 systematically going about dismantling it here at this
11:30:16 hearing.
11:30:17 I'm asking you, please, do not change the ordinance.
11:30:21 Thank you.
11:30:27 >>KEVIN WHITE: I want to respond briefly. The cigar
11:30:30 factories that we are talking about, they are located
11:30:32 not only in the African-American community but every
11:30:34 community within the City of Tampa.
11:30:35 >>> I was trying to make a comparison.
11:30:36 >>KEVIN WHITE: I understand that.
11:30:38 I know where you are going.
11:30:39 But there's one philosophical difference, I guess,
11:30:41 that we have.
11:30:42 And you said the owners.

11:30:43 And that's the key issue.
11:30:46 It's the owners.
11:30:47 If I own something, it's my responsibility what I want
11:30:49 to do it with.
11:30:51 Now, if you or a particular group want to preserve
11:30:57 something, none of these property owners are saying
11:31:00 that I'm tearing anything down or I want to destroy or
11:31:05 I want to defame or deface any of these buildings,
11:31:09 although theoretically they can.
11:31:12 They can do whatever they want at this time.
11:31:15 >>> Yes, Kevin, and --
11:31:17 >> There are groups that want to do that, I'm sure,
11:31:21 every one of these owners that actually own these
11:31:24 buildings here will gladly say, you can have it and
11:31:28 you can do whatever you want to do with it, but give
11:31:31 me a check and let me go.
11:31:37 >>> It is through tax benefits.
11:31:39 >> If they want that.
11:31:40 They are not asking for that.
11:31:41 They own the building.
11:31:43 If I own it, it's up to me what I want to do with it.
11:31:47 You cannot enforce penalties upon people who already

11:31:50 own their property.
11:31:54 That's our philosophical difference.
11:31:57 And I understand history, posterity better than anyone
11:32:01 else in here, and there's nothing more that I want
11:32:04 preserved that I am not willing to step on the rights
11:32:07 of the people who bought and owned these buildings and
11:32:13 have invested several thousands of their own money to
11:32:21 bring them up to code or keep them in code or done
11:32:25 anything.
11:32:25 And I understand.
11:32:26 And I'm wholeheartedly with you.
11:32:30 May not seem like it.
11:32:31 I have been to Mr. Ellis' cigar factory.
11:32:35 I have been in that.
11:32:35 A couple of years ago.
11:32:37 I have been through this.
11:32:40 They run a viable business right out of there.
11:32:42 But that would be an economic hardship.
11:32:45 It's just not economic.
11:32:47 It's a hardship, period.
11:32:50 >>> Owning a building is an economic hardship.
11:32:52 >> Absolutely.

11:32:55 >>> And what happens, Mr. White, Kevin, is that under
11:33:00 duress, the insurance company says, oh, we are not
11:33:03 going to insure this building because the windows
11:33:07 don't meet code.
11:33:09 Under duress, the owner then chooses an inappropriate
11:33:13 window.
11:33:14 And soon, as somebody said prior to my coming up here,
11:33:17 soon what happens is slowly the building changes.
11:33:22 It is not recognizable.
11:33:24 It does not have the historic value that it once had.
11:33:26 It is turned into another building.
11:33:32 >>KEVIN WHITE: By the way, we had 15 or 25, whatever
11:33:37 the number was, we had a certain number of cigar
11:33:39 factories.
11:33:41 >>> Out of 200.
11:33:44 >>KEVIN WHITE: We have had hundreds of other things
11:33:47 that we had zero of now.
11:33:50 But we had 15 of the owners, or a certain portion, I'm
11:33:57 sorry, of the owners that still exist that wanted this
11:34:00 process.
11:34:01 I think the thing to do would be to grasp and
11:34:05 gravitate toward those owners that are crying out for

11:34:08 the designation, and grab those whistle we can,
11:34:13 instead of losing those through this arduous process,
11:34:16 and then let the ones that are in the process say what
11:34:19 a wonderful thing this is to some of those others and
11:34:24 say, hey, guys, you need to come and do this.
11:34:27 It's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
11:34:30 I have been doing this whole process for a year, year
11:34:32 and a half, making everybody mad, and everybody wanted
11:34:35 to bail out and not having anything in the future.
11:34:38 There are several that want it.
11:34:40 And I'm saying having a little bit of something is
11:34:43 better than having nothing at all at the end of the
11:34:45 day.
11:34:46 And then at the other percentile can come along and
11:34:50 see the benefits of what you and the other
11:34:53 preservationists are trying to express and show them.
11:34:56 You can't show everybody the light.
11:34:58 Everybody is not going to always agree with you.
11:35:01 >>> And that is my point.
11:35:02 That was my point.
11:35:04 You cannot show everybody the light.
11:35:06 Some people just won't get it.

11:35:07 >>KEVIN WHITE: Absolutely.
11:35:09 >>> That doesn't mean that their lack of understanding
11:35:14 is acceptable.
11:35:16 >>KEVIN WHITE: I understand.
11:35:18 But we have some now.
11:35:19 And we have more that want to get in the process.
11:35:22 So let's grasp what we have and what we can --
11:35:27 >>> We are doing that.
11:35:27 We are doing that.
11:35:31 >>KEVIN WHITE: Then we'll get the rest.
11:35:33 >> We all live in a community. And we all need to work
11:35:34 together.
11:35:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:35:35 Next.
11:35:44 >>> Good morning, council.
11:35:46 Roseanne Garcia, Customized Tours And Events.
11:35:52 In 1992 I started a company to promote the heritage of
11:35:56 Tampa and Ybor City.
11:35:58 I come to you to speak about those hundreds of people
11:36:02 who have fallen in love with Ybor City and Tampa
11:36:06 because of the yarns that we have woven, of the
11:36:13 history that is written, and the history as we

11:36:16 remember it about our beautiful city.
11:36:18 And we have talked about the visionary that built the
11:36:24 city, and the skyline of Tampa.
11:36:29 And we are all very proud in our company to talk about
11:36:34 it and we ask you today to follow in the footsteps of
11:36:38 those visionaries who started this great city.
11:36:42 With the economic boost that the cigar industry
11:36:47 brought to Tampa, for the skyline that distinguishes
11:36:54 us from other great cities, and to please sit down and
11:36:59 work a plan that will help these new visionaries.
11:37:09 These few remaining factories to be able to preserve
11:37:13 the look of the exteriors of these beautiful
11:37:17 factories, of our beautiful heritage, to be able to
11:37:21 afford, to repair and restore these factories that
11:37:25 they have taken the responsibility in purchasing, and
11:37:36 do not want them to tear down but please work out some
11:37:39 kind of compromise with these owners, and with
11:37:42 architects, and with builders, to keep the
11:37:46 preservation of these factories intact at a lower
11:37:51 price, at a lower upkeep, at a better insurance rate.
11:37:57 Do something.
11:37:58 But this is what our visitors and tourists are so in

11:38:04 love with when they come to visit our city.
11:38:07 It is not the Hoochie coochee stuff that you buy in
11:38:14 the shops.
11:38:15 It is forever more recognize a three-story rectangular
11:38:22 building that enters everyone on the east side of the
11:38:25 building or on the west side, where the light filters
11:38:31 in evenly throughout the factory, because the owners
11:38:35 knew what to do, so that the air flow would be even.
11:38:41 There are so many things that our children and our
11:38:42 seniors are excited about when they go through these
11:38:45 factories.
11:38:48 Please be visionaries.
11:38:50 Take the opportunity.
11:38:51 It doesn't take anything more than sitting and
11:38:54 figuring it out and you can do it.
11:38:57 Please figure it out.
11:38:59 We love our city.
11:39:02 We have a passion for it.
11:39:03 And I know that each one of you who sits on City
11:39:05 Council works hours and hours and hours above and
11:39:09 beyond what you are for because you love it.
11:39:17 Thank you.

11:39:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:39:18 Next.
11:39:26 >>> My name is Bubba Ellis.
11:39:28 I'm at 1906 North Armenia. Director of the movie
11:39:29 "Groundhog Day," I've been living the same way for
11:39:29 three years, without the cavity part.
11:39:43 Contradictory to the deliberation that the council has
11:39:46 given this issue, I feel that the historic
11:39:49 preservation committee has acted without concern or
11:39:52 soliciting toward the cigar factory owners.
11:39:55 When HPC indicated they tried to negotiate this, I
11:39:59 almost fell out of my chair or whatever I was sitting
11:40:01 in at the time.
11:40:03 The only meeting that they initiated was, you know,
11:40:06 when they brought us in, and said to the cigar factory
11:40:13 owners, everybody open wide, say AH, we are cramming
11:40:18 local landmark designation down your throat.
11:40:21 The only other meeting we had with them was at our
11:40:23 initiation when we met with Cynthia Miller to voice
11:40:27 our opposition to the local landmark designation.
11:40:32 In a small way I feel like the HPC wants to
11:40:35 nationalize our properties.

11:40:36 I'm not saying the exact same thing that the people
11:40:39 experienced but I am saying that the HPC is telling
11:40:41 us, look, we don't own your property and we don't chip
11:40:44 in on the mortgage, but here is what you can and can't
11:40:47 do to your own building.
11:40:48 And also we would like you to personally put up the
11:40:50 fee for to us review your plans.
11:40:52 Now I feel like I'm getting a shakedown from Michael
11:40:55 Corleone in godfather II.
11:41:01 We have also been told we can do a hardship study,
11:41:04 asking to us pay thousands of dollars for an economic
11:41:06 hardship study sounds like an economic hardship
11:41:09 itself.
11:41:11 I'm asking you all to vote no on this particular
11:41:19 motion, and to have another motion that allows owner
11:41:24 consent to be the only criteria.
11:41:29 With all due respect to Mr. Smith, all I ever
11:41:34 remember, this council voted 5-2 to direct him to give
11:41:38 us an opt out for us.
11:41:40 I don't remember you all saying come back with two or
11:41:43 three or four other options, which he did.
11:41:46 So I'm at a loss to understand where that came from.

11:41:52 The cigar factory that we bought in West Tampa was
11:41:56 vacant for four years before we bought it.
11:41:58 Anybody could have stopped in, written that family a
11:42:03 check, and had it local land marked right off the bat
11:42:06 if they were so excited about doing that.
11:42:09 In 1997 we were looking for a little more space.
11:42:13 We saw that factory.
11:42:17 The only way it made sense was if we buy the bottom
11:42:20 floor for our furniture business and lease the top
11:42:22 floors.
11:42:23 Just the process of buying the building was an
11:42:26 adventure.
11:42:27 Everything had to fall in place.
11:42:29 We had to find evaluation, structural, plumbing,
11:42:31 electrical, termites.
11:42:34 They had to tent the building, bring in crews from
11:42:37 Pinellas, Polk, in addition to Hillsborough just
11:42:40 because the building is so big.
11:42:41 I don't remember the HPC being around to write me a
11:42:44 $30,000 to have that willed building tented.
11:42:47 That would have been nice.
11:42:49 But we also needed a bank that would give us a loan on

11:42:53 a building that was in the condition it was in.
11:42:55 And frankly, they were nervous about the area.
11:42:59 Thank you very much for your time.
11:43:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:43:01 Next.
11:43:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Could I ask Mr. Elson a question?
11:43:14 You bought that building as part of your business
11:43:16 decision?
11:43:17 >>> Correct.
11:43:18 >> At this point in time, the land values are going up
11:43:22 significantly in West Tampa.
11:43:24 And you're in West Tampa, right?
11:43:26 >>> That's correct.
11:43:26 >> If somebody comes along and offers you -- and I'm
11:43:30 not talking about historic preservation, I'm talking
11:43:32 about other business people, developer or whatever,
11:43:34 and they come along and offer you, let's say, 100,000
11:43:38 or $500,000 more than what you think the property is
11:43:42 worth today, you would probably take it, right?
11:43:45 >>> Yeah.
11:43:47 It would have to knock our socks off.
11:43:50 We love being there.

11:43:51 >> But you made a business decision, and you wouldn't
11:43:53 ask them whether or not they are going to tear it down
11:43:56 because they got money, right?
11:43:58 >>> That's probably true.
11:44:03 It's a business decision.
11:44:07 >> At that point in time, all your good intentions, as
11:44:10 you said in front of us, and I believe you, you have
11:44:12 no interest in tearing it down, they don't mean a
11:44:15 thing to this counsel or this community because you
11:44:18 made a business decision to move on, right?
11:44:21 >>> Correct.
11:44:23 Hypothetically speaking.
11:44:25 Hypothetically answer to your hypothetical question.
11:44:27 >> Because the last time at the tax rolls, it appears
11:44:30 to me that most of these properties that the land
11:44:31 value is now about double, at least the two
11:44:35 properties, I don't know it was your yours.
11:44:39 >>> I would like to address that but go ahead and
11:44:41 finish your question.
11:44:42 >> Is now overtaking and in many cases surpassing the
11:44:45 building value.
11:44:46 >>> As far as I know that's incorrect.

11:44:48 >> I read it on Ralph furnisher's documents.
11:44:50 >>> You know, I'm not sure what kind of model they
11:44:52 used for that.
11:44:53 All I know is the insurance that we pay, they make us
11:44:56 carry 1.5 -- they gave that building a value of
11:45:01 1.5 million.
11:45:02 The land was 300,000 or so.
11:45:06 So, I mean, you're talking, you know, tax rolls.
11:45:10 I'm talking reality.
11:45:13 Frankly.
11:45:13 >> But going back to my earlier point, regardless of
11:45:16 the land value, at some point in time, if there's a
11:45:19 decision to be made about selling it, you're going to
11:45:21 sell it, because if it's a good business decision and
11:45:26 you're not going to ask any questions.
11:45:29 >>> Possibly.
11:45:30 But I got to say, it probably wasn't a good business
11:45:33 decision to buy that building, frankly.
11:45:35 I mean everything we had to go through from the bank
11:45:38 to get a loan for it.
11:45:40 We rolled the dice.
11:45:43 And now the HPC wants to, you know, piggyback pretty

11:45:48 much is the way I want to look at it.
11:45:50 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Ellis, going back to Mr.
11:45:54 Dingfelder's, if anybody comes over and asks, tells
11:45:57 you that they want to buy the building for, say, $2
11:46:00 million, and you would say, yes, go ahead and sell it,
11:46:03 do you think that person is going to tear down that
11:46:05 building?
11:46:06 >>> Absolutely not.
11:46:08 >> Exactly.
11:46:09 Because they will come in, owner initiated type of
11:46:14 preservation ordinance, that's what they would be
11:46:16 coming in for.
11:46:17 They are not going to tear down a building that's
11:46:19 going to be worth $2 million.
11:46:22 As a matter of fact, have you done anything
11:46:24 detrimental to the building on the outside?
11:46:26 >>> Absolutely not.
11:46:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
11:46:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:46:29 Next.
11:46:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Approximate point is that at
11:46:36 certain points the acre or two acres that he's sitting

11:46:39 on, okay, will overshadow the value of that acreage
11:46:43 will overshadow the building.
11:46:47 Because at the density that you can build town homes
11:46:50 and condos at $500 -- and sell them at 500,000 a pop,
11:46:55 I don't know what kind of acreage he had.
11:46:57 But that's my whole point.
11:46:59 At a certain point, some smart developer businessman,
11:47:02 if he knows those are not protected, will say, I don't
11:47:04 care about that building, I don't need that building,
11:47:07 I don't want that building, I want that dirt because
11:47:09 that dirt is in a prime location right off the
11:47:11 interstate, and it's ready to go.
11:47:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Dingfelder, that building is over
11:47:17 50 years old.
11:47:18 I would venture to say it's close to 100 years old.
11:47:20 And nobody is going to be able to tear that building
11:47:23 down.
11:47:25 >> Like the Lykes building?
11:47:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Oh, no, if we have an ordinance that
11:47:32 says they come to us to the City Council.
11:47:34 I hope to not be here when that happens.
11:47:37 And I just have to say I was.

11:47:39 >> I was painfully here when that happened and if
11:47:42 somebody wants to spend enough money on legal fees,
11:47:45 they will successfully wear down City Council.
11:47:47 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm being worn down now.
11:47:52 How many more times are we going to listen to the same
11:47:54 argument over and over again?
11:47:55 I'm already tired of this.
11:47:56 >>GWEN MILLER: We have to move on.
11:48:01 >> Rule 4-C here and all of a sudden we have this bag
11:48:04 of worms all over again.
11:48:05 Let's get on with it.
11:48:06 Either yes or no.
11:48:07 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to get on with it.
11:48:09 The next speaker.
11:48:14 Next speaker.
11:48:18 >>> Fran Costantino, Bayshore Boulevard.
11:48:22 I didn't think we were going to be able to speak today
11:48:24 so I did not consult with my board or any of our
11:48:27 members.
11:48:27 But council, I don't have to remind you all that this
11:48:29 is not eminent domain.
11:48:31 I know those of you that are hanging your hats on

11:48:33 property rights, with all due respect, I know that you
11:48:39 come here and you see people's property rights every
11:48:45 single Thursday of this year.
11:48:46 If I want according to the ordinance you have lost
11:48:51 your mind, you cannot put it there.
11:48:53 If I want to put cut a grand oak down, well, according
11:48:56 to chapter 13, you can't.
11:48:58 Or maybe I feel like that's my property right.
11:49:02 I feel like five or six people are imposing upon the
11:49:06 300 constituents of this city what they want to do
11:49:11 with our heritage and our history.
11:49:13 And there's nothing wrong with our ordinance.
11:49:15 You look at that ordinance like horses and trees.
11:49:19 That ordinance is written where it protects those
11:49:21 properties without owner consent.
11:49:23 If you change that ordinance today, ladies and
11:49:26 gentlemen, our history will be history.
11:49:29 Thank you.
11:49:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:49:31 Would anyone else like to speak?
11:49:38 >> Can I use my last minute?
11:49:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Do we get a second?

11:49:58 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes, because think we are going to
11:50:00 spend more time discussing it.
11:50:04 >>CHAIRMAN: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
11:50:06 One minute.
11:50:08 >>> One minute.
11:50:08 I just want to comment about how they bought the
11:50:10 property and now we are changing the rules on them.
11:50:12 I bought my property in Seminole Heights, in about
11:50:15 five years after I purchased it.
11:50:17 They in an overlay district.
11:50:19 I now restricted to what I can do with my front porch.
11:50:22 I'm restricted to where I can put fences.
11:50:23 You know, legal according to the City of Tampa code,
11:50:26 it's not legal where I live.
11:50:27 I didn't vote on that.
11:50:29 It was brought to City Council, proposed by the
11:50:33 neighborhood association.
11:50:35 I was not on the board at that point in time.
11:50:38 So they do change the rules on you after you buy it.
11:50:41 In my mind the rule changes were for the good of the
11:50:44 neighborhood.
11:50:44 And in this particular case I think those rule changes

11:50:47 would also be for the good of the neighborhood.
11:50:49 Thank you.
11:50:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:50:57 >>> My name is Heyward Chapman.
11:50:59 I represent the ownership of 500 -- 900 north Howard
11:51:02 N.answer to Mr. Dingfelder's question, I was unable to
11:51:05 respond to the last time, was the former owner bought
11:51:08 and sold this building as a business transaction,
11:51:11 irregardless of a cigar building but it is a factory
11:51:17 used as a clothing business for many more years than
11:51:19 the use for a cigar building.
11:51:21 And the present ownership bought it the same way.
11:51:23 Straight on real estate deal.
11:51:27 Bringing you up to date since last time we were here,
11:51:31 the Centro Espanol on Howard Avenue has gone through a
11:51:36 little over $7 million on grants to repair that
11:51:39 building.
11:51:40 The building was given to the Tampa city urban league
11:51:44 for free.
11:51:45 Now, I understand the transaction that's on the table,
11:51:49 church without walls, is willing to accept this as a
11:51:52 gift, and forgiveness of the approximately

11:51:56 $1.8 million lien debt against the property, for the
11:52:02 purpose of owning it they will now spend $5 million
11:52:05 additional.
11:52:06 7 and 5 is the 12th for the building.
11:52:09 That's pretty pricey.
11:52:15 That's the facts.
11:52:18 Leaving you with that, Howard Traxner in the St. Pete
11:52:22 Times today said, leave my house alone, big brother.
11:52:26 And that's where I stand.
11:52:27 With Howard.
11:52:30 Thanks very much for your consideration.
11:52:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone else that would like to
11:52:33 speak?
11:52:42 >>> Elisabeth Johnson, 1819 Richardson place.
11:52:45 I would like to revisit where we are.
11:52:46 Because the compromise that has been proposed is not a
11:52:49 compromise that anybody really likes.
11:52:52 You know, the preservationists would really rather see
11:52:57 the ordinance stay intact.
11:52:59 So I can't even stand up here and say I really support
11:53:04 what Mr. Smith has done, because I believe that the
11:53:07 preservation determination ought to be made by the

11:53:11 secretary of interior standards.
11:53:13 But I want to remind you where we are.
11:53:15 We are just exploring at this stage, and there's going
11:53:19 to be two public hearings after that.
11:53:22 And usually what happens when people are vigorous on
11:53:25 one side and vigorous on the other side might mean
11:53:28 that you ought to think about a compromise in the
11:53:30 middle.
11:53:31 And again, I can't stand up here and say that owner
11:53:35 consent or owner initiation in any fashion is good.
11:53:39 But what I do respect is Donna and David Smith trying
11:53:43 to at least develop a solution that we are going to
11:53:45 have two public hearings on.
11:53:47 I want to correct a couple other things.
11:53:49 If you do nothing with your property, nothing will
11:53:52 happen.
11:53:53 You don't have to go to the A.R.C.
11:53:56 And I wonder if they are getting correct legal advice
11:53:58 from the lawyer sometimes that represents them.
11:54:01 Because regarding what Mr. Mechanik said regarding the
11:54:04 hardship criteria, it is not difficult.
11:54:07 I have told you before, that my husband and I

11:54:10 successfully met the hardship criteria within a
11:54:13 historic district.
11:54:15 The only difficulty in that hearing was that Mr.
11:54:18 Grandoff showed up at my hearing and spoke against me.
11:54:21 So either Mr. Grandoff was passionate about historic
11:54:26 preservation at the time, or he came to my hearing
11:54:29 because he wanted to, I don't know, reprimand me for
11:54:35 exercising my first amendment right.
11:54:37 So even -- our lauded property rights lawyers have
11:54:44 spoken in favor of preservation a times, or else they
11:54:48 spoke against somebody who is exercising first
11:54:50 amendment rights.
11:54:53 The idea that people, the preservationists put their
11:54:59 money where their mouth is.
11:55:01 I have become friends with so many people in this room
11:55:02 who have put their money where their mouths are.
11:55:07 If you look at what happened in my instance because I
11:55:09 spoke for preservation, if you look at what TPI did
11:55:12 with the Guida house, again, you are not causing these
11:55:18 owners to have to do anything, if they just say they
11:55:23 are doing under oath what they are going to do which
11:55:26 does not change anything.

11:55:27 What you are changing is the future like Mr.
11:55:29 Dingfelder said.
11:55:29 You are preventing property rights from some day
11:55:31 saying that these treasures ought to be eliminated
11:55:34 because it's more fun to have a PD and a condo there.
11:55:39 Finally, I would like to say that you all do
11:55:42 understand property rights.
11:55:43 You know, Ms. Ferlita, I usually walk by your house --
11:55:49 I waddle by your house now.
11:55:52 But we talked once about the house on Inman and
11:56:00 Willow, and I believe you asked what's going on with
11:56:02 that, and I said it's very hard to demolish a house in
11:56:05 Hyde Park.
11:56:06 Way sensed is that even though you are such a great
11:56:08 champion of property rights, you all can understand
11:56:10 the value of this beautiful neighborhood we live in.
11:56:16 You know, do the right thing.
11:56:17 Thanks a lot.
11:56:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:56:18 Would anyone else like to speak?
11:56:20 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: I represent several property owners
11:56:28 involved in the historic preservation.

11:56:31 At issue with regard to cigar factory owners.
11:56:35 On February 2 you made it crystal clear motion, quote,
11:56:41 okay, Mr. Harrison speaking: Okay, and my second
11:56:44 motion will be to instruct legal to come back with an
11:56:47 amended ordinance that will make the designation of
11:56:49 individual properties either a voluntary process at
11:56:52 the initiation, or the City of Tampa, or the HPC could
11:56:57 initiate that process, but the property owners would
11:57:00 be given an opt out provision so that it would -- we
11:57:05 would never get to the point where we are here at the
11:57:07 first public hearing with a property owner that is not
11:57:10 here voluntarily.
11:57:14 Ms. Alvarez, second.
11:57:15 The motion passed.
11:57:17 The motion was crystal clear.
11:57:19 The compromise that is on the table now confuse it is
11:57:23 issue and makes owners consent one of several
11:57:25 elements.
11:57:27 You do not have an ordinance on the books yet.
11:57:31 TVRs, transfer development rights, incentives, and
11:57:38 availability of mitigating hardship.
11:57:41 So there's in a ordinance in place for three of the

11:57:45 factors that you want to now include.
11:57:47 The proposals on the table now with consent in the
11:57:51 element is the process we have now.
11:57:53 Consent is an element.
11:57:55 You only get folks that are not consenting, and you
11:57:58 weigh whether they want to be here or not.
11:58:00 That's what we are doing now.
11:58:01 In deference to Mr. Smith, and I recognize he was
11:58:07 trying to attempt a compromise.
11:58:09 Go back to the motion of February 2 and follow that
11:58:11 motion as you intended and adopt the ordinance as
11:58:13 instructed.
11:58:15 We respectfully request that this whole process please
11:58:17 come to an end.
11:58:18 Please include consent as the only factor and let's be
11:58:22 done with it so my clients can get back to their
11:58:24 businesses.
11:58:25 Thank you for your time.
11:58:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:58:26 Would anyone else like to speak?
11:58:28 Ms. Ferlita?
11:58:29 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Smith, thank you, Mr. Grandoff.

11:58:33 Can you respond to that?
11:58:35 I don't consider that accurate in terms --
11:58:38 >>DAVID SMITH: I comment I thought what we were going
11:58:40 to do is you were going to finish all your public
11:58:42 comment.
11:58:42 >>GWEN MILLER: We did.
11:58:44 In a one else wanted to speak.
11:58:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I want to bring council's attention
11:58:51 you are approaching the noon hour.
11:58:53 Would require a unanimous vote in order to continue
11:58:57 through lunch or take any particular time for lunch.
11:59:03 >>GWEN MILLER: No.
11:59:05 Mr. Grandoff.
11:59:08 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a question about the 12:00
11:59:10 issue.
11:59:10 I have to leave probably no later than 12:15.
11:59:13 I will not be back until this evening's meeting.
11:59:15 So I suggest we get this out of the way now before we
11:59:19 break for lunch.
11:59:20 And we move on one way or the other.
11:59:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I would just point out, Madam Chair,
11:59:27 you do have the right to designate and to enforce the

11:59:31 rules that limit more than one comment at the same
11:59:35 time.
11:59:35 >>GWEN MILLER: I will do that.
11:59:36 Mr. Dingfelder?
11:59:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
11:59:39 Just briefly.
11:59:40 I was will go at Mr. Shelby's book of codes.
11:59:47 I was looking at Mr. Shelby's book of codes.
11:59:50 And I found the following codes that infringe on all
11:59:55 of our property rights right now.
12:00:02 >>GWEN MILLER: I just want council members to --
12:00:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's sort of an important
12:00:08 amendment.
12:00:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you want to come back?
12:00:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I just want to be able to clear,
12:00:14 there was no particular vote at this point.
12:00:16 Is there a motion to waive the rules?
12:00:19 >> Move to waive the rules and continue at least 15
12:00:22 minutes.
12:00:23 >> At least 15 minutes.
12:00:24 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
12:00:26 >>KEVIN WHITE: Nay.

12:00:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That motion failed.
12:00:35 >> You want to continue this to when?
12:00:38 >> For 15 minutes.
12:00:39 Because at 5:00 we can't do Hyde Park village.
12:00:46 So continue until 5:00 tonight.
12:00:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Kevin said he wanted to go to lunch
12:00:53 now.
12:00:55 >>KEVIN WHITE: No.
12:00:58 I have an appointment at 12:15.
12:00:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My motion is to go to 12:15.
12:01:04 >>ROSE FERLITA: We aren't going to finish at 12:15.
12:01:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Put it at 5:00 tonight.
12:01:14 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The people that are here have to come
12:01:16 back.
12:01:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What else?
12:01:19 Let's vote on my motion to continue this, and if we
12:01:22 don't then we pick it up at 1:30.
12:01:31 >>CHAIRMAN: It failed so we can't go till 12:15.
12:01:40 >>KEVIN WHITE: We are wasting time here.
12:01:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I made a motion that we continue
12:01:49 this item until 5:01.
12:01:52 >> Second.

12:01:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Why can't we finish it at 1:30 when we
12:01:56 come back?
12:01:59 Kevin will be back.
12:02:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There's a motion and second on the
12:02:02 floor, Madam Chair.
12:02:04 Is there a motion to continue this motion until 1:30?
12:02:08 Because --
12:02:11 >>SHAWN HARRISON: The motion is 5:01.
12:02:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Then I suggest that somebody make the
12:02:16 motion to table that --
12:02:17 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion on the floor to
12:02:19 continue this item to 5:01 this afternoon.
12:02:21 All in favor of that motion say Aye.
12:02:22 Opposed, Nay.
12:02:23 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Nay.
12:02:32 (Motion carried)

12:02:37 Tampa City Council
13:33:24 1:30 p.m. session
13:33:25 DISCLAIMER:
13:33:25 The following represents an unedited version of
13:33:25 realtime captioning which should neither be relied
13:33:25 upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
13:33:25 transcript.
13:33:25 The original of this transcript was produced in all
13:33:25 capital letters and any variation thereto may be a
13:33:25 result of third party edits and software compatibility
13:33:25 issues.
13:33:25 Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
13:33:25 proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
13:45:38 [Sounding gavel]
13:45:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called back to
13:45:40 order.
13:45:41 Roll call.
13:45:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
13:45:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
13:45:50 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.
13:45:51 >>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
13:45:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
13:45:53 Before we begin, Ms. Alvarez has an announcement.

13:45:57 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like a motion to set up a CRA
13:46:00 meeting for next Thursday to take up the resolution
13:46:05 that we had on this morning's agenda on the CRA for
13:46:09 next Thursday at 8:30 a.m.
13:46:14 >> Just for that one item?
13:46:17 Make it 8:50?
13:46:20 If it just takes a few minutes.
13:46:23 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Huey asked for 8:30.
13:46:28 >>KEVIN WHITE: 8:45.
13:46:31 >>ROSE FERLITA: or 8:40.
13:46:34 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Set up for 8:30.
13:46:36 I need a motion.
13:46:44 >> 8:30 or when four council members get here.
13:46:47 >> So moved.
13:46:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
13:46:50 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We have a motion and second for next
13:46:53 Thursday, 8:30.
13:46:59 All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying
13:47:01 Aye.
13:47:07 Opposed?
13:47:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Opposed, none.
13:47:13 We are going back to our agenda, item number 9.

13:47:17 Number 8.
13:47:18 Ms. Coles?
13:47:19 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
13:47:22 You have before you an amendment to our banner
13:47:25 ordinance to allow banners on an expanded portion of
13:47:30 Kennedy Boulevard and also as you requested last week,
13:47:33 along Nick Nuccio parkway in, front of you for first
13:47:39 reading.
13:47:39 Then we will go ahead and schedule it for second
13:47:42 reading.
13:47:42 Dy want to hand out to you, requesting that I hand out
13:47:48 a letter in support of that and also let you know that
13:47:51 Westshore alliance could not -- could not come back
13:47:57 this afternoon.
13:47:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Does that include political
13:48:01 banners?
13:48:04 [ Laughter ]
13:48:06 >> You're in a rare mood.
13:48:10 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance of the city of
13:48:31 Tampa, Florida amending the city of Code 17.5 article
13:48:34 2 section parts or ordinance in conflict therewith,
13:48:40 providing for severability, providing an effective

13:48:41 date.
13:48:41 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
13:48:43 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
13:48:44 Opposed, Nay.
13:48:47 We now go to our committee reports.
13:48:49 Public safety, Ms. Rose Ferlita.
13:48:53 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move resolution number 11.
13:49:02 (Motion carried).
13:49:03 >>CHAIRMAN: Parks and recreation, Mary Alvarez.
13:49:05 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I want to move item 12 to 14.
13:49:18 (Motion carried).
13:49:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Number 15 to be received and filed and
13:49:22 to transmit to the Planning Commission.
13:49:25 >> Second.
13:49:25 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
13:49:26 (Motion carried).
13:49:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Public works, John Dingfelder.
13:49:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: As we look at number 15, which is
13:49:37 about special events, it seems to me that this is the
13:49:40 kind of thing that's really appropriate for council to
13:49:47 consider and I really like the Planning Commission and
13:49:49 I respect them, but I don't see where something like

13:49:51 this goes to the Planning Commission.
13:49:53 I honestly don't.
13:49:53 It doesn't really address land use relationship.
13:49:58 And I hope that when we as a council go back and look
13:50:01 at our comprehensive plan, we look at things like
13:50:04 this, and say, this is just not something, in my
13:50:10 opinion, that is necessary to go to the Planning
13:50:14 Commission for them to weigh in on.
13:50:16 It's about sponsoring public events.
13:50:18 I just don't get it.
13:50:21 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I can't answer that either, but maybe
13:50:24 Ms. Cole or somebody from the legal department can
13:50:26 address that.
13:50:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe this is what Mr. McKirchy
13:50:32 was on this more than morning relates to item number
13:50:35 10, and I believe it's part of that section, am I
13:50:38 correct, Ms. Cole?
13:50:45 Julia: This is going into considered 17.5 as part of
13:50:50 our Land Development Code currently and that's why we
13:50:52 are requesting to remove, and that's part of the
13:50:56 traverse this morning.
13:50:58 And John McKirchy.

13:51:02 But this still needs to be transmitted.
13:51:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
13:51:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
13:51:09 Move to approve items 16 through 21.
13:51:15 >> Second.
13:51:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
13:51:16 (Motion carried) Finance Committee, Mr. Kevin White.
13:51:22 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move items 22 through 29.
13:51:27 But 26, 27, 28, this is an organization that didn't
13:51:32 want any alcohol in their neighborhood?
13:51:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
13:51:38 I would like to -- go ahead and take them off.
13:51:43 [ Laughter ]
13:51:47 >>KEVIN WHITE: you argued long and arduous about that.
13:51:51 It's kind of ironic.
13:51:54 Do we have a representative from 26, 27, 28 in the
13:52:00 audience?
13:52:00 No?
13:52:03 I'll go ahead and move 23 through 29.
13:52:06 >> Second.
13:52:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I will vote no for 26, 27 and 28.
13:52:17 >>KEVIN WHITE: I move 22 through 25, and 29.

13:52:24 >> Second.
13:52:24 (Motion carried).
13:52:25 >>KEVIN WHITE: I would like to move 26 through 28.
13:52:31 >> Second.
13:52:31 (Motion carried).
13:52:38 >> Nay.
13:52:38 >> Nay.
13:52:40 >> These hypocrisies.
13:52:45 >> Thank you, Mrs. Saul-Sena.
13:52:47 Good point.
13:52:49 >>ROSE FERLITA: Did we not approve one-day wet zonings
13:52:53 for St. Joseph last week?
13:52:56 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's different.
13:52:59 [ Laughter ]
13:52:59 >>ROSE FERLITA: I won't get into any discussion.
13:53:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena, number 32, would like
13:53:17 to continue that for a week.
13:53:19 >> Okay.
13:53:20 >> Building and zoning, Mrs. Saul-Sena.
13:53:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Number 32 was an issue raised by
13:53:25 one of the speakers during public comment.
13:53:27 We received a request by staff to hold it for one week

13:53:31 so they can do some additional investigation, which is
13:53:33 very timely.
13:53:34 So I would like to move resolution 30 and 31.
13:53:38 >>KEVIN WHITE: Second.
13:53:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And 33 through 43 and 45 through
13:53:43 48.
13:53:44 >> Second.
13:53:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
13:53:47 All in favor --
13:53:48 >>THE CLERK: Item 30 you already removed that.
13:53:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion, Mr. Dingfelder.
13:53:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where is the agreement that we
13:53:57 pulled off of the CRA this morning?
13:54:01 >>GWEN MILLER: 30.
13:54:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That was 30?
13:54:08 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
13:54:09 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
13:54:11 Opposed, Nay.
13:54:11 (Motion carried).
13:54:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Number 44 move to continue till
13:54:15 November 2nd.
13:54:16 >> Second.

13:54:17 (Motion Carried)
13:54:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do I need to make a motion --did I
13:54:24 make a motion to hold 32 till next week?
13:54:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes, did you.
13:54:35 >>GWEN MILLER: 46 through 48, did you do those?
13:54:42 >> Yes.
13:54:42 >>GWEN MILLER: New business.
13:54:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move 49 through 63.
13:54:50 >> Second.
13:54:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
13:54:52 (Motion carried).
13:54:53 >>CHAIRMAN: we now go to our second reading.
13:55:10 62 -- 64 through --
13:55:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Which numbers?
13:55:14 I'm sorry.
13:55:25 Start with 67.
13:55:27 Would anyone like to speak on 64 through 67?
13:55:29 Would you please stand and raise your right hand?
13:55:31 (Oath administered by Clerk).
13:55:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, quick housekeeping.
13:55:44 I ask that all written communications relative to
13:55:46 today's hearings that have been available for public

13:55:48 inspection in council's office be received and failed
13:55:51 into the record at this time.
13:55:53 I believe you have some.
13:56:11 Any documents relative to today's hearing.
13:56:14 Can I have a motion?
13:56:14 >> So moved.
13:56:15 >> Second.
13:56:16 (Motion carried).
13:56:17 >> Need to open those items.
13:56:21 >> As quick as I can.
13:56:22 Just remember, with any quasi-judicial hearings that
13:56:25 you are going to be hearing, any ex parte
13:56:27 communications, please disclose those prior to the
13:56:30 vote.
13:56:30 And ladies and gentlemen, finally for the purposes of
13:56:32 the record, when you state your name, please reaffirm
13:56:34 that you have been sworn and I'm putting this little
13:56:37 sign right in front to remind you and I appreciate
13:56:39 your assistance.
13:56:40 Thank you.
13:56:40 >>CHAIRMAN: We need to open those items.
13:56:43 >> So moved.

13:56:44 >> Second.
13:56:44 (Motion carried).
13:56:47 >> Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak
13:56:49 on item 64?
13:56:50 >> Move to close.
13:56:51 >> Second.
13:56:51 (Motion carried).
13:56:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder, would you read that,
13:56:57 please?
13:56:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move the following ordinance upon
13:57:02 second reading, an ordinance of the city of Tampa,
13:57:04 Florida amending the City of Tampa code of ordinances
13:57:07 chapter 22, section 103, the City of Tampa streets and
13:57:11 sidewalks ordinance, removing the waiver provision
13:57:14 from the sidewalk installation requirement for single
13:57:16 family residential building or use in an enterprise
13:57:19 zone designated by City Council for the reason that
13:57:21 the waiver is creating significant gaps in the city's
13:57:25 system of sidewalks, providing for severability,
13:57:27 providing an effective date.
13:57:28 >> I have a motion and second.
13:57:30 Voice roll call.

13:57:36 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Harrison and Ferlita
13:57:38 being absent.
13:57:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
13:57:41 wants to speak on item 65?
13:57:43 >> Move to close.
13:57:44 >> Second.
13:57:44 (Motion carried).
13:57:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just have to say that this is
13:57:50 adjacent to what used to be my favorite movie theater
13:57:52 in all the world and I truly miss it.
13:57:56 Move the following ordinance upon second reading, an
13:57:59 ordinance authorizing the installation and maintenance
13:58:01 of an encroach.
13:58:03 Awnings and architectural decorative features by MW
13:58:07 Hyde Park LLC over the right-of-way known as Swann
13:58:10 Avenue and Dakota Avenue near the intersection of
13:58:13 Swann and Dakota Avenue, as more particularly
13:58:15 described herein subject to certain terms, covenants,
13:58:17 conditions and agreements as more particularly
13:58:19 described herein providing an effective date.
13:58:22 Except for the Tampa Theatre, of course.
13:58:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Voice roll call vote.

13:58:31 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Harrison being
13:58:33 absent.
13:58:34 >>GWEN MILLER:
13:58:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
13:58:35 wants to speak on item 66?
13:58:38 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close.
13:58:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Is this the Morris project?
13:58:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Are you going to speak?
13:58:51 Are you all speaking?
13:58:52 Are you all going to speak?
13:58:55 Mr. Grandoff, are you all going to speak?
13:58:58 Is somebody going to speak?
13:58:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, come on.
13:59:00 Time is awasting.
13:59:03 >> My name is Delphi Jones.
13:59:08 I have been sworn in.
13:59:10 My concern is about the Morgan project, the developer,
13:59:19 when he came to us at the CBC office, asked for
13:59:27 controls, because the neighbors were concerned about
13:59:30 perhaps ter mates or something because the building is
13:59:35 as old as I am and I'm 47.
13:59:37 So we were concerned about that getting out in our

13:59:40 neighborhood.
13:59:41 Then we came to City Council, and put on record that
13:59:44 he would deal with them, whatever.
13:59:46 Well, now, it seems like he's knot not following what
13:59:51 he said he was going to do.
13:59:52 So from my understanding he just put out like baits
13:59:57 which to me is not acceptable because that's not the
14:00:00 understanding that we had in the meeting.
14:00:03 So that's my major concern.
14:00:06 We have a lot of elderly people in the community.
14:00:09 And with him do what he's doing, it can't be
14:00:15 acceptable.
14:00:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
14:00:17 Next.
14:00:21 >>> Michael Randolph.
14:00:23 I have been sworn in.
14:00:24 I want to thank Mrs. Miller, Mrs. West on the city
14:00:31 side of the table and working with us.
14:00:34 As per your recommendation, with the concerns that the
14:00:35 residents have will be addressed.
14:00:44 The CDC stands behind this project.
14:00:46 We think it's something that's going to be good for

14:00:48 West Tampa.
14:00:49 We think it's good for folks that wouldn't normally
14:00:54 put more houses in the neighborhood.
14:00:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
14:00:59 When you were here last week or two weeks ago, Mr.
14:01:04 Randolph, you talked about the $500,000 that you all
14:01:08 would be receiving from the developer, and we tried to
14:01:12 be specific about the amount of the 500,000 received
14:01:15 for administrative overhead.
14:01:16 And we had a lot of conversation about the
14:01:21 appropriateness.
14:01:22 And has that all been written down?
14:01:30 >>> It hasn't been written down but the developers
14:01:33 went back, and 100% of the commitment of the $500,000
14:01:39 to this project will be given to affordable homes, and
14:01:42 any administrative costs that come out of that will be
14:01:44 something separate.
14:01:46 >> To clarify, the entire $500,000 will not include
14:01:50 administrative overhead?
14:01:51 >>> Absolutely.
14:01:52 100% of those dollars goes directly to affordable
14:01:55 homes in the West Tampa area.

14:01:58 The only change that has been made as a result of
14:02:00 conversation with the city is instead of the $400,000
14:02:05 going to the down payment assistance it's going to be
14:02:08 split in half.
14:02:08 Half will go to people who need to repair their homes
14:02:13 and half to folks who need assistance for the down
14:02:16 payment assistance program.
14:02:17 >> And you all will oversee the repairs?
14:02:27 >>> For example, it relates to repairs.
14:02:29 Someone will come into the city for what they get now,
14:02:33 up to $50,000. The city will evaluate whether or not
14:02:35 that person is eligible, the information, will look at
14:02:39 the finance, and they might come up with a situation
14:02:42 where if a person is eligible but it's going to cost
14:02:46 $55,000 as opposed to 60,000.
14:02:50 That's $5,000, for the $5,000 grant, to make that
14:02:56 55,000 happen to the person who gets, say, rehab for
14:02:59 the house.
14:02:59 The same thing would be on the down payment system.
14:03:02 A person goes in.
14:03:03 They get 60,000 from the city.
14:03:05 They get X number of dollars from the bank.

14:03:08 They still can't make it because it's 10,000 short.
14:03:12 Again the city would send that name to us, then the
14:03:15 person would get their grant.
14:03:16 So everybody that comes to our door that's going to be
14:03:18 eligible for the program has to come from the city,
14:03:21 half approved from the city first and we get the
14:03:24 resource to supplement those things to make it work.
14:03:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Randolph, for some reason I wrote
14:03:31 down $525,000.
14:03:35 It is 500?
14:03:38 I wrote down 525.
14:03:40 >>> Thank you, councilman Alvarez think of any
14:03:44 more moneys?
14:03:45 [ Laughter ]
14:03:47 >> Every little bit counts.
14:03:48 >>> You're right about that.
14:03:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Michael, for working so
14:03:52 hard on this.
14:03:53 As you may recall, a couple meetings back, I was
14:03:57 hoping that this would be more in the way of a loan,
14:04:00 revolving loan.
14:04:02 Did anything revolve on that?

14:04:04 >>> We went back to the neighborhood again, and they
14:04:07 didn't feel --
14:04:09 >> I can see why the neighborhood would.
14:04:16 I don't know if that's good policy even from your
14:04:18 perspective.
14:04:29 >> We gave them the benefit and the down side of it.
14:04:32 We tell them that every time you come here you stress
14:04:36 the reference to the loan program, the city program,
14:04:39 and again they wanted to go with the grant program.
14:04:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
14:04:47 >>> Thank you.
14:04:47 Dy take that back each time.
14:04:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Randolph.
14:04:51 Petitioner, would you come up and speak?
14:04:56 >>> Brian Sykes, Tampa, Florida representing
14:05:00 petitioner.
14:05:00 I have been sworn.
14:05:02 To direct the pest issue, number one, we had talked to
14:05:05 two different pest companies, and one developer
14:05:08 actually hired a group called young pest control.
14:05:12 Young has been around Tampa since I believe the 50s,
14:05:14 late 40s, early 50s, so they are licensed

14:05:18 exterminators, have a lot of confidence.
14:05:21 In evaluating the building, determined, number one,
14:05:25 that there was not a significant pest problem with
14:05:28 respect to rats.
14:05:31 The building was vacant.
14:05:32 There are not, you know, candy machines or bags of
14:05:36 food laying around for the rats.
14:05:38 There's not a lot of sources of food for them.
14:05:40 They determined -- came up with a plan of action for
14:05:43 dealing with any rats that might be in the building.
14:05:45 With respect to tenting the building, the buildings
14:05:48 there are not rood wood structures.
14:05:50 They are either steel structure or masonry structures.
14:05:56 Tenting is specified used in termite control versus
14:06:00 pest control such as whether it be roaches -- rodents
14:06:04 or what have you.
14:06:04 It would be the recommendation of the exterminate or
14:06:06 that we go with the program that involved not only
14:06:09 spraying but also putting out the traps, and that the
14:06:13 tenting was not worth for what we wanted to do.
14:06:15 Again, we have hired Young exterminating.
14:06:20 If there's something additional we need to do we will

14:06:22 look at it but we were relying on professional opinion
14:06:24 on what should be done to maintain the integrity or
14:06:28 safety of the neighborhood.
14:06:32 >> You are going to be tearing them down pretty soon,
14:06:34 aren't you?
14:06:41 It would seem L almost superfluous.
14:06:45 >> We are not -- we just took the opinion, again.
14:06:50 None of us are experts in pest control, that I'm aware
14:06:52 of, at least.
14:06:53 And, you know, we took Young's word on what they said
14:06:56 would be the best route to go.
14:06:58 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Are you putting down bait or putting
14:07:00 out traps?
14:07:05 >> I think put down baits and traps.
14:07:12 >> Is bait poisonous to other animals that might get
14:07:16 to it?
14:07:17 >>> I couldn't even venture a guess on that.
14:07:20 >> I'm sure there's cats -- especially cats that go
14:07:23 around, and might be eating the bait.
14:07:26 But I'm just wondering.
14:07:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think we heard very clearly from
14:07:33 the neighborhood, their concerns are that you heard.

14:07:36 Did you share their concerns directly with the owners?
14:07:44 >>> She's president of the development group, the one
14:07:46 that had a lot of conversations with Young.
14:07:49 I think it's more appropriate for her to handle it.
14:07:52 >> Stacie: Yes, we did.
14:07:53 We explained exactly why we were hiring them, the
14:07:56 concerns of the neighborhood.
14:07:57 They met with the general contractor who began
14:08:00 demolition on-site and visited each individual
14:08:03 building that needs to be looked at.
14:08:04 They came back with a recommendation, and we hired
14:08:07 them to do exactly what they recommended, with no
14:08:09 changes or anything about that.
14:08:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Someone from the neighborhood who
14:08:17 spoke I thought was pretty clear.
14:08:18 Her concern was that the neighborhood would be
14:08:26 affected negatively by rodents leaving these buildings
14:08:29 and going to them.
14:08:30 And I can really understand and respect that concern.
14:08:37 And I'm wondering if you need to do something
14:08:40 additional, like why Young meet with the neighborhood
14:08:43 and talk about what they are going to do about

14:08:49 escaping these buildings during demolition.
14:08:51 I don't know what it is.
14:08:52 But I think that the neighborhood deserves that
14:08:54 respect and consideration.
14:08:56 >>> I agree with Brian and how to control that and I
14:09:02 think we hired a professional to do that.
14:09:04 I would be happy to have them meet with anybody and
14:09:09 how they are going about it.
14:09:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Has young started to put down the
14:09:13 traps?
14:09:13 >>> They have sprayed and put down the traps and bait.
14:09:15 They have done a whole program already to date.
14:09:19 Only to bring them back to do additional work if it is
14:09:21 necessary.
14:09:22 >>GWEN MILLER: So this is going to be a one-time
14:09:24 thing?
14:09:27 >>> They did it for each and every building.
14:09:29 And they are supposed to go back right prior to
14:09:32 demolition and add additional spraying right before
14:09:36 the demolition, in contract with the actual person who
14:09:40 is doing that.
14:09:42 >> So the rodents and things, can they come out --

14:09:50 >>> The buildings are not secure right now.
14:09:51 They are in the process of abatement and demolition on
14:09:55 the building. The traps are on the exterior of the
14:09:58 building, and the interior of the building has been
14:10:00 sprayed.
14:10:02 >> Were you sworn for the record?
14:10:03 >>> Yes, I was.
14:10:04 Thank you.
14:10:06 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I was just going to say, I agree with
14:10:09 Mr. Sykes' argument on that, that if there's no candy
14:10:18 or vending machines or food in there, I don't
14:10:20 understand why -- unless it's just for them to have a
14:10:25 place to sleep, and then to go out into the community,
14:10:29 I don't know.
14:10:30 But I'm satisfied with your argument on that.
14:10:36 And you all are doing the best you can with what you
14:10:38 have.
14:10:39 And these buildings will be demolished.
14:10:42 So other than the fact that you guys can go out and
14:10:45 talk to the neighbors again, and kind of allay their
14:10:52 fears.
14:10:53 I wonder if they have ever seen any rats running

14:10:55 around.
14:10:56 >>> I was informed from Young that they did not see
14:10:59 any rodent problems or infestation but they were going
14:11:02 to do the work anyway.
14:11:03 Again I would be happy to have him contact the CDC
14:11:07 directly and speak with Ms. McNair or the groups.
14:11:12 >>GWEN MILLER: That would be great.
14:11:14 Thank you.
14:11:15 Need to close.
14:11:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wait.
14:11:19 Last time they were here they were going to redo -- I
14:11:22 think the staff or somebody was going to report back
14:11:24 or something.
14:11:36 >> I was meeting the other day with Wilson and I heard
14:11:38 they had redesigned them and they were better.
14:11:46 >>WILSON STAIR: Urban design manager.
14:11:48 I have not been sworn in.
14:11:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Would you raise your right hand?
14:11:51 (Oath administered by Clerk).
14:12:00 >>WILSON STAIR: Yes, we have met with Kim Moran, and
14:12:09 his architect, and they have illustrated each of the
14:12:11 stoops and how they would be more accessible.

14:12:15 And I think that's the question you raised.
14:12:19 >> Are you better satisfied with what they redesigned?
14:12:22 >>> Yes.
14:12:22 But they are here to show you quickly what they have
14:12:26 done.
14:12:38 >>> Brian Sykes.
14:12:39 I want to make one clarification.
14:12:41 We did not redesign anything.
14:12:42 All we did was culled out the stoops and their
14:12:46 dimension a little more than what had been culled out
14:12:51 originally.
14:12:52 We have broken it down by blocks.
14:12:54 And starting with block A, there are four different
14:12:56 types of porches this is a cross section, side
14:13:08 section, of a typical porch A for block A.
14:13:13 The porch is 11 feet in width.
14:13:16 It does have a front gate entry which leads down --
14:13:19 I'm sorry, hags a side gate entry which leads down to
14:13:22 the sidewalk, allows for pedestrian access, and
14:13:26 ingress into this unit from the ground level.
14:13:29 It's 11 feet in width and approximately 5 feet in
14:13:32 depth from the back of the building to the front part

14:13:34 of the porch.
14:13:39 The second typical porch is what we call a type B
14:13:43 porch.
14:13:45 Type B porch is 8-foot by 8-foot.
14:13:49 It has two access gate points.
14:13:52 One on the side.
14:13:53 One in the front.
14:13:54 These are corner units which will be typical as here
14:13:59 in apartment buildings where you can have a point of
14:14:01 access from the street here and pointed of access from
14:14:04 the street or sidewalk here.
14:14:05 The third sidewalk is block A is a type C sidewalk.
14:14:11 Type C sidewalk again is 11 feet in width, 5 feet in
14:14:16 depth and an additional two feet of steps going down
14:14:20 from the front.
14:14:21 This is a front entry porch versus a side entry porch.
14:14:27 And last but not least for block A is the type B
14:14:30 porch.
14:14:32 Block D porch.
14:14:34 The D porch is eleven feet in width.
14:14:36 Five feet in depth from the back of the door to the
14:14:41 porch with two additional feet of steps and kind of a

14:14:45 front side gate to it.
14:14:46 Again providing direct access up to the roadway.
14:14:50 Going onto block B, we have two main different
14:15:04 types of porches -- type E and type K. We skipped F
14:15:06 for some reason.
14:15:09 The type E porch is a 5-foot in depth to two feet of
14:15:14 steps going down.
14:15:16 Also, to add to visual interest, we added a right
14:15:21 angle for the steps. Again a side entrance, or a
14:15:24 front side entrance onto the sidewalk.
14:15:26 Again it's eleven foot in width.
14:15:29 >> You all are going to become our poster children for
14:15:33 good porches.
14:15:34 These are great.
14:15:34 These are great.
14:15:35 Good work.
14:15:41 >>> Our next porch is type K.
14:15:43 Type K is 14 feet in width.
14:15:46 7 feet in depth with an additional 2 feet.
14:15:49 Again we have the tiered corner steps with the access
14:15:52 on this one being over here towards the corner again.
14:15:57 That takes care of blocks B and C.

14:16:00 The next block --
14:16:07 >> We get the point.
14:16:08 Thank you very much.
14:16:12 >>> To give you an idea.
14:16:13 We have 116 first-floor units.
14:16:17 There were only ten units that do not have a direct
14:16:20 porch on them.
14:16:21 So we have maximized the number of porches. If you
14:16:23 are on the ground level you have a porch in 99% of the
14:16:27 cases.
14:16:29 That includes town homes.
14:16:36 >> I think it's fantastic.
14:16:37 I go to these conferences and they talk about good
14:16:40 planning and good planning talks about good type of
14:16:42 design that puts eyes on the street, as it calls it.
14:16:45 It's a public safety issue.
14:16:47 The police definitely like it.
14:16:48 I talked to the police about it.
14:16:50 And I think it will make for a much better
14:16:53 communicate.
14:16:54 So I applaud you guys for listening and responding so
14:16:56 well.

14:16:58 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the public hearing.
14:17:00 >> So moved.
14:17:01 >> Second.
14:17:01 (Motion carried).
14:17:02 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I move to adopt the following
14:17:05 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance providing
14:17:08 for an area rezoning the general location of which is
14:17:11 1526 West Cypress Avenue, 1517 and 116 west lemon
14:17:15 street, 707 north Rome Avenue, 1519, 1517, 1516, 1515,
14:17:21 1513, 1544, and 1506 west Cass Street, 502, 708 and
14:17:29 710 north Oregon Avenue, 1523 and 1525 west Carmen
14:17:33 street, and 1505, 1507, 1509, 1511 and 1515 West Gray
14:17:38 Street in the city of Tampa, Florida, and more
14:17:41 particularly described in section 1 from zoning
14:17:43 district classifications IG industrial general,
14:17:46 industrial vacant single, family warehouse, to PD --
14:17:51 L-A, planned development, alternative mixed use,
14:17:54 providing an effective date.
14:17:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
14:17:57 Voice roll call.
14:17:59 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Harrison being
14:18:03 absent.

14:18:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for our legal
14:18:07 department.
14:18:10 My understanding is the agreement between the
14:18:12 petitioner and the CDC is a private agreement.
14:18:15 Is there an ability for council to monitor how this
14:18:18 commitment for low income housing or loans or grants
14:18:23 or whatever goes?
14:18:28 >>JULIA COLE: It is a private agreement, the way to
14:18:30 accomplish that is maybe request that the applicant
14:18:32 come back and let now what's gone on with all of that.
14:18:38 And I do know that -- and I'm sorry, I can't recall
14:18:41 the gentleman's name -- he has had ongoing
14:18:43 conversation was the city about how this is all going
14:18:45 to result ultimately.
14:18:47 So that would probably be the best way to do it.
14:18:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm concerned that every day,
14:18:52 affordable housing is something we care about but we
14:18:54 have some kind of public role to make sure that it
14:18:57 really happens, and to find out how successful it is,
14:19:00 how many people are benefited, how many units are
14:19:02 affected.
14:19:03 So I guess what I would like to you do, I guess what I

14:19:07 would like to do is to ask legal to come back to
14:19:09 council in 30 days with a suggestion on how to sort of
14:19:12 formalize that.
14:19:13 Because I think it's something that is of great
14:19:16 concern, particularly when we look in other areas, as
14:19:19 people looking at bonus densities and things, and they
14:19:22 are looking at how -- and they are saying we'll do
14:19:26 affordable housing.
14:19:27 Exactly what is it and how can we as a city make sure
14:19:30 that what they say they are going to do gets done and
14:19:33 what's the most appropriate way to do that?
14:19:38 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Janett Fenton is our liaison with the
14:19:43 CBC and she's a staff person there, that will be there
14:19:47 with the CBC to monitor this.
14:19:50 I see Ms. Miller is here.
14:19:56 >>> Thank you, council.
14:19:57 Sharon west is manager of the housing community
14:19:59 development division that does handle or work with
14:20:02 affordable housing and with federal grants and state
14:20:05 grants, already has set up a dialogue with the West
14:20:07 Tampa CDC, and will be working closely with them.
14:20:11 I think the best way to phrase it is that our programs

14:20:14 and theirs will dovetail with each other but we will
14:20:16 be able to work together on it.
14:20:18 I will be happy to refer back to you, say, in 30 days
14:20:21 as to what's arranged.
14:20:23 But if you like us to go ahead and submit a memo to
14:20:25 you.
14:20:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved we get a report back from
14:20:30 you in 30 days how it's going to go.
14:20:32 I assume since the city is involved that there will be
14:20:34 transparency.
14:20:35 A written report is definitely sufficient.
14:20:38 Thank you.
14:20:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
14:20:39 Is there --
14:20:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That was a motion.
14:20:44 >> Second.
14:20:44 (Motion carried).
14:20:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
14:20:47 wants to speak on item 67?
14:20:54 >> Move to close.
14:20:55 >> Second.
14:20:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Ferlita?

14:21:03 >> I was absent.
14:21:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Oh, you were absent to too?
14:21:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Who was here?
14:21:10 >>GWEN MILLER: He was out, too.
14:21:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'll read it and see where it goes.
14:21:21 Columbus drive.
14:21:22 Move to adopt the following ordinance upon second
14:21:24 reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the general
14:21:29 vicinity of 4412 and 4422 east Columbus drive in the
14:21:32 city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described
14:21:34 in section 1 from zoning district classifications CI
14:21:37 commercial intensive and IG industrial general to PD
14:21:40 planned development professional residential,
14:21:41 facility, medical and drug treatment, rehabilitation,
14:21:44 administrative office, support services, providing an
14:21:47 effective date.
14:21:47 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
14:21:50 Voice roll call.
14:21:52 Did we get a second?
14:21:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
14:21:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Voice roll call.
14:21:58 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Harrison and Ferlita

14:22:02 absent.
14:22:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone that wants to speak on
14:22:10 item 68?
14:22:11 >> Move to close.
14:22:11 >> Second.
14:22:12 >>THE CLERK: On 68 you need to open the public hearing
14:22:15 first.
14:22:16 >> So moved.
14:22:17 >> Second.
14:22:17 (Motion carried).
14:22:25 >> Move to close.
14:22:25 >> Second.
14:22:26 (Motion carried).
14:22:26 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move the following ordinance upon
14:22:30 second reading, move an ordinance of the city of
14:22:32 Tampa, Florida creating -- oh, first reading, I'm
14:22:36 sorry.
14:22:44 It's on my agenda.
14:22:49 >>THE CLERK: Don't have an ordinance for this.
14:22:56 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Public hearing.
14:22:58 >>> It would actually be on the agenda item.
14:23:06 >>THE CLERK: I have attached an to the agenda item a

14:23:10 draft copy dated August 15th.
14:23:20 >> As far as reading, I can provide a copy.
14:23:40 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance creating section
14:23:43 27-152 to be entitled dog friendly restaurants of the
14:23:46 City of Tampa code of ordinances providing for
14:23:49 exemption from state law to allow dogs in outdoor
14:23:51 areas of public food service establishments during
14:23:54 operating hours providing for regulations, providing
14:23:56 for application and permit procedures, providing for a
14:23:58 complaint procedure, providing for revocation,
14:24:01 amending section 27-523 definitions: By adding a
14:24:05 definition for "public food service establishment" and
14:24:08 "employee" providing an effective date.
14:24:09 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
14:24:11 (Motion carried).
14:24:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
14:24:16 wants to speak on items 9 through 78?
14:24:18 Would you please stand and raise your right hand?
14:24:20 >>THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell
14:24:31 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
14:24:33 >> Need to open item 69.
14:24:36 >> So moved.

14:24:36 >> Second.
14:24:36 (Motion carried).
14:24:38 >>BARBARA LYNCH: Land Development Coordination.
14:24:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Were you sworn in?
14:24:46 >>BARBARA LYNCH: Yes, I was.
14:24:47 I'm sorry.
14:24:49 This general vicinity of this vacating is in East
14:24:51 Tampa near orient road and the petitioner wants to
14:24:57 vacate an unimproved portion between 71st and
14:25:01 orient road between 7th Avenue to 8th Avenue.
14:25:15 The first picture is looking south on 8th Avenue.
14:25:19 The next photo is a picture of 72nd street looking
14:25:23 north from 7th Avenue.
14:25:28 This is a picture of petitioner's property south side
14:25:31 of 8th Avenue to 22nd street.
14:25:35 And another photo of the petitioner's property at the
14:25:38 northwest corner.
14:25:44 And the final picture of the petitioner's property,
14:25:47 the corner of 8th Avenue and 72nd street.
14:25:53 And this is the abutting property owner at the
14:25:55 southeast corner of 2nd and 8th Avenue.
14:26:01 72nd and 8th Avenue.

14:26:04 And the corner of 8th Avenue and 72nd street.
14:26:07 And this is 8th Avenue looking east from 72nd
14:26:10 street.
14:26:15 Staff has no objection.
14:26:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can you show that drawing which
14:26:19 shows what we are vacating in terms of a map?
14:26:22 That's always the most critical.
14:26:26 >>BARBARA LYNCH: Sure.
14:26:28 The petitioner's property is in red.
14:26:30 And they have to vacate this other portion of 72nd
14:26:37 street.
14:26:37 >> And right now it's closed off already?
14:26:39 >> I think for a long time.
14:26:42 Let me pull this picture.
14:26:49 >> And how about 8th Avenue?
14:26:51 >>> 8th Avenue has functioned running east from
14:26:54 72nd to orient road.
14:26:57 >> That's 7th.
14:26:58 >>> I'm sorry.
14:27:00 Actually, there is a second vacating that has been
14:27:02 filed from 8th Avenue that's going to be heard
14:27:07 probably in December, I believe.

14:27:09 And it's for this other portion of 8th, this way.
14:27:13 And this is unimproved.
14:27:18 I believe this has sort of encroached into that
14:27:22 right-of-way.
14:27:22 >> And what happened on the other side -- slide it
14:27:25 over.
14:27:25 Maybe I can see all of it.
14:27:27 There.
14:27:29 So there is a north-south access.
14:27:32 >>> Yes.
14:27:33 But this doesn't come through here.
14:27:35 And this of course isn't included either.
14:27:41 So what happened when they are going to construct a
14:27:44 turn-around, reducing this vacating by 60 feet.
14:27:48 And this will be reduced by 100 feet so they are going
14:27:50 to construct a turnaround for any traffic that comes
14:27:53 around 8th for them to get a turnaround, and
14:28:01 accommodate someone.
14:28:02 >> And the rest of 8th is all improved?
14:28:05 >>> Yes.
14:28:06 >> Sure?
14:28:07 >>> Well, it's hard to tell from the trees but

14:28:10 overgrowth, and there's fencing in there.
14:28:13 Let me get a picture.
14:28:24 This is 8th looking west at 72nd street. This is
14:28:30 sort of parking paving.
14:28:31 It's not roadway.
14:28:37 Staff has no objection and petitioner agreed to the
14:28:41 requests by D.W. transportation, and construct a
14:28:47 turnaround.
14:28:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay, petitioner?
14:28:56 >>> David Sterling, west Azeele, Tampa Bay metals
14:29:01 company.
14:29:01 I have been sworn.
14:29:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?
14:29:04 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
14:29:06 item 69?
14:29:08 >> Move to close.
14:29:08 >> Second.
14:29:09 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second to close.
14:29:11 (Motion carried)
14:29:12 Ms. Ferlita, are you ready to read now?
14:29:15 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance vacating, closing,
14:29:20 discontinuing, and abandoning a certain right-of-way

14:29:24 all that portion of 72nd street bounded by 8th
14:29:27 Avenue to the north and 7th Avenue to the south in
14:29:29 orient park, a subdivision in the City of Tampa, the
14:29:32 same being more fully described in section 2 hereof,
14:29:35 providing an effective date.
14:29:37 (Motion carried).
14:29:37 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open 70.
14:29:46 I want to get out of here.
14:29:48 Number 70.
14:29:49 All in favor?
14:29:50 (Motion Carried)
14:30:04 Okay, Mr. Santiago.
14:30:05 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: I'm her on item number 70 which is
14:30:08 a public hearing related to a development agreement
14:30:10 between Ashton Tampa residential LLC and the City of
14:30:13 Tampa regarding parcels of property known as Port
14:30:18 Tampa.
14:30:19 This is chapter 163 Florida statutes development
14:30:21 agreement.
14:30:22 The petitioner is here.
14:30:25 Mr. Thom Snelling is here.
14:30:26 As a reminder I will be turning over the floor to Mr.

14:30:29 Snelling to present to you the substantive elements of
14:30:31 the agreement from the city's perspective.
14:30:33 Petitioner is here represented by Ms. Gina Grimes.
14:30:36 The two will render a short presentation for you.
14:30:45 This is a public hearing required by statute.
14:30:47 There will be a subsequent statute.
14:30:49 That's why this particular one is a little unique, for
14:30:53 the viewing public out there.
14:30:55 This is a public hearing.
14:30:57 Having said that, let me introduce to you Mr. Thom
14:30:59 Snelling who will give you the background on this from
14:31:01 the city's side of the agreement.
14:31:12 >>THOM SNELLING: Growth management.
14:31:25 This is a development agreement between the City of
14:31:28 Tampa, as Roland said, Ashton group.
14:31:33 The development agreement is being handled in this
14:31:35 fashion.
14:31:35 You have been briefed by -- and understand some of the
14:31:39 details on how it is.
14:31:40 A couple important items.
14:31:41 I did want to cover, just to orient you here.
14:31:44 This is Manhattan Avenue.

14:31:46 This is north this way.
14:31:47 This is Manhattan.
14:31:49 Over here is Westshore Boulevard.
14:31:52 And this area here -- to kind of understand where you
14:31:58 are.
14:31:59 And there's a portion of the development here.
14:32:01 And the rest are lots in here totaling approximately
14:32:04 128 individual single-family home lots.
14:32:07 It is a single-family residential detached housing
14:32:10 development.
14:32:12 And with accompanying infrastructure putting roads,
14:32:16 water, sewer, et cetera.
14:32:18 This development agreement grants no additional
14:32:20 entitlements other than what the current code would
14:32:23 allow them to develop on an RS-50 zoning district.
14:32:27 They are requesting no waivers in this development
14:32:29 agreement.
14:32:30 And in reality, this document is really a document
14:32:35 which establishes the method and manner in which this
14:32:38 project will be reviewed.
14:32:43 That's really it.
14:32:44 It's a single-family development.

14:32:47 It's being treated as a single type of project.
14:32:49 And because of its uniqueness that was Platt platted,
14:32:52 you know, at the turn of the century, it was felt it
14:32:55 was in the best interest of the city to approach this
14:32:59 project in this fashion and to craft the development
14:33:02 agreement that would allow this project to be
14:33:04 developed over two to three to four-year period as a
14:33:08 single project all on the same code, and review
14:33:12 conditions.
14:33:14 I'll answer any questions you have.
14:33:15 The petitioner is here, if -- they may want to add
14:33:18 some words to that.
14:33:19 All of city staff has reviewed this, water, sewer,
14:33:22 parks, public works, the legal department.
14:33:25 They are all in agreement to what this development
14:33:27 agreement is proposing.
14:33:30 And they are all here individually to answer any
14:33:33 particular questions you may have with relation to
14:33:36 this particular question.
14:33:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was looking on the page 20
14:33:45 paragraph A at the bottom of the page, says D-1-A.
14:33:49 Is that canal street?

14:33:50 >>THOM SNELLING: Yes, sir.
14:33:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I had a little bit of concern.
14:33:53 I just saw this now and I apologize for not bringing
14:33:56 it up earlier.
14:33:57 I have a little bit of concern.
14:33:59 It says on the next page, until such time as the
14:34:04 drainage facility, which is canal street, is replaced
14:34:07 by the city, the right-of-way dedicated on the canal
14:34:10 shall not be utilized as a public road or street.
14:34:14 I understand the intent of that.
14:34:15 Right now canal street exists as a ditch probably.
14:34:18 And they are going to improve that ditch all the way
14:34:20 out to the bay which is what I heard, and that's
14:34:22 great.
14:34:23 But what if the city at some point decided that we
14:34:25 wanted to pave it over as a street and just -- what do
14:34:31 they call it? -- make a culvert, box culvert or
14:34:36 some other type of culvert underneath.
14:34:39 This paragraph, maybe legal can help -- does this give
14:34:42 us the ability to do that?
14:34:44 >>> To go forward and pave the street as we wish?
14:34:49 At a time to put a road in there and box culvert it?

14:34:52 >> It says until such time as this drainage facility
14:34:55 is replaced by the city.
14:34:57 But would that give us the latitude in case we did
14:34:59 want to pave it over and put the stormwater
14:35:02 underground?
14:35:03 >>> Yes, because I think the operative word -- and
14:35:05 someone from stormwater can interject -- but I think
14:35:10 the term drainage facility, we think of a facility as
14:35:13 just a box culvert or underground sewer.
14:35:15 And open cut ditch is a replacement facility and
14:35:19 replacing that with a box culvert, I think, is within
14:35:22 those parameters. That would be my take.
14:35:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Roland, are you comfortable with
14:35:27 that interpretation?
14:35:30 We can talk about it.
14:35:40 >>GINA GRIMES: Hill, Ward, Henderson, 101 East Kennedy
14:35:43 Boulevard.
14:35:45 Mr. Dingfelder, to answer your specific question I
14:35:48 think that language was to specifically address that
14:35:50 issue because it's stated until such time takes
14:35:53 drainage facility is replaced that that right-of-way
14:35:55 that was dedicated by plat can be continued to be used

14:35:59 as a stormwater facility.
14:36:00 So it contemplates that potentially in the future the
14:36:02 city may want to use it for right-of-way.
14:36:05 But until such time as there's some alternative
14:36:08 drainage facility, the right-of-way would be continued
14:36:13 to be used for stormwater.
14:36:15 >> So I guess you're going on record saying that's the
14:36:18 intent.
14:36:19 >>> Yes, yes.
14:36:20 >> And that's important, too.
14:36:21 >>> It is dedicated right-of-way.
14:36:22 So it's a very good question.
14:36:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry to interrupt, have you been
14:36:27 sworn, for the record?
14:36:29 >>GINA GRIMES: Yes, I have.
14:36:32 The only item I wanted to add was related to the civic
14:36:34 association of Port Tampa city.
14:36:35 We met with them two times, and I would like to
14:36:39 present to you their letter of support.
14:36:42 They state in their letter they are pleased with the
14:36:44 plans presented and feel the project is going to
14:36:46 complete the southwest section of the neighborhood.

14:36:48 In the letter, they also had several different
14:36:51 provisions that they wanted a commitment from, the
14:36:54 developer on, and all of these provisions are already
14:36:56 addressed in the development agreement that's on file
14:36:59 with the city.
14:37:00 I won't go through them.
14:37:02 But they do acknowledge that they are addressed in the
14:37:04 agreement and they actually cite the page and
14:37:08 paragraph where these agreements on the part of the
14:37:10 developer --
14:37:12 >>ROSE FERLITA: Ms. Grimes, excuse me.
14:37:16 >>> I would like to put it into the record with the
14:37:18 clerk if that's okay.
14:37:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
14:37:21 wants to speak on item number 70?
14:37:25 >> Move to close.
14:37:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think Mr. Santiago is going to
14:37:29 give us his confirmation.
14:37:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Santiago?
14:37:42 Mr. Dingfelder wants your version of it.
14:37:47 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: I had a chance to review that and
14:37:49 I would concur with Gina that the agreement

14:37:52 contemplates right now it's being used as stormwater
14:37:55 drain and will continue to use it until such time as
14:37:57 the drainage facility is replaced by the city.
14:38:00 So whatever is the preclusion to use it or take
14:38:04 advantage of the fact that it's already a dedicated
14:38:05 right-of-way to be used in this fashion, we are
14:38:08 agreeing, in its current fashion it's a drainage
14:38:12 facility.
14:38:12 We will continue to let it be used as a drainage
14:38:15 facility, until such time that the drainage facility
14:38:17 is replaced by the city.
14:38:19 So --
14:38:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Would mean we could put it
14:38:23 underground and then pave over the top of it?
14:38:26 >> I think that is a creative solution but I would
14:38:29 refer to a design professional but I certainly think
14:38:31 there's latitude in the language for there to be a
14:38:33 future, once they --
14:38:38 >> That's all I wanted to be sure of.
14:38:39 Thank you.
14:38:39 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to close.
14:38:41 (Motion carried).

14:38:42 Do you have an ordinance?
14:38:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe under 163 you are not
14:38:49 required to take any action today.
14:38:51 It will come back for a second public hearing, which
14:38:54 is required under 163, during which time you will a V
14:38:57 a resolution that you can move.
14:38:58 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: That's correct.
14:39:00 You can just close the hearing and we will hold
14:39:02 another hearing next week.
14:39:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
14:39:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just wanted to say that the
14:39:07 meeting with the developers and in talking to the
14:39:09 neighborhood about this, I think it sounds like a very
14:39:11 exciting project.
14:39:12 The fact that it's larger is probably helpful to that
14:39:15 neighborhood.
14:39:16 A lot of the projects that have come into Port Tampa
14:39:19 are just like two houses here and three house there is
14:39:21 and they don't really do a whole lot to improve the
14:39:24 entire area.
14:39:24 But I think this project is 100 something houses will
14:39:28 do a whole lot to approve that especially as related

14:39:31 to the drainage.
14:39:32 So I think that's good.
14:39:35 >>ROSE FERLITA: Just another comment about this
14:39:37 particular petition. The fact that Ms. Beuford is
14:39:40 very careful and watchful around her neighborhood.
14:39:42 So this document that shows her support in the civic
14:39:45 association support tells me that they are extremely
14:39:48 supportive of the developer and I think it's a
14:39:50 wonderful project.
14:39:51 So I commend you for what you have presented.
14:39:53 Thank you, Ms. Grimes.
14:39:55 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open item 71.
14:39:59 >> So moved.
14:39:59 >> Second.
14:40:00 (Motion carried).
14:40:32 >> I'm with land development here for WZ 06-97 for the
14:40:38 location of 6102 South MacDill Avenue, with the
14:40:43 petitioner requesting 2(COP) R wet zone in order to
14:40:48 sell beer and wine with the restaurant.
14:40:53 The sale of beer and wine would be incidental to the
14:40:56 use.
14:40:58 There are properties which are wet zoned which are

14:41:02 residential and institutional in the 1,000 walking
14:41:07 distance, petitioner will request some waivers to
14:41:18 waive the distance separation, and land development
14:41:21 has no objection to the request.
14:41:23 The petition was for Tampa police for their review.
14:41:31 On the site you can see MacDill.
14:41:47 The petitioner is requesting a 2(COP-R).
14:41:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
14:41:52 >> ERGIN Tek.
14:42:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Were you sworn in, sir?
14:42:11 >> Yes.
14:42:27 I open a restaurant in Tampa the last five years.
14:42:46 Petitioner in business for the last one and a half
14:42:50 years.
14:42:51 And all can say is the business did not allow
14:42:59 beverages
14:43:08 There used to be a liquor bar that had another problem
14:43:11 with the neighborhood.
14:43:11 Of course, wet zoned before.
14:43:17 So legally for us to get the license, this is from the
14:43:26 churches.
14:43:26 Legally we are qualified to get a license.

14:43:30 And I have some support from neighborhood and
14:43:33 associations.
14:43:34 And I would like
14:43:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order to staff.
14:43:47 Just clarification.
14:43:49 There's some confusion in the agenda on the site that
14:43:54 shows 2(COP) and then the ordinance says 2(COP-R) and
14:43:58 then the front page of the staff report says 2(COP),
14:44:00 but further in the ordinance, says 2(COP-R).
14:44:06 >>BARBARA LEPORE: On my staff report says 2(COP-R).
14:44:09 >>GWEN MILLER: I guess I'm on the front page of the
14:44:12 staff report. Anyway, one of the pages is dated July
14:44:20 20th.
14:44:21 Is that an earlier one?
14:44:23 >>BARBARA LEPORE: When they apply for wet zoning they
14:44:30 apply for 2(COP) and later on they change it to
14:44:33 2(COP-R) with the conjunction with the restaurant.
14:44:37 >> So what we are about today is just 2(COP-R).
14:44:42 >>> Yes.
14:44:42 >> That explains the confusion, thank you.
14:44:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
14:44:45 wants to speak on item 71?

14:44:56 >>> My name is Tony Swant, west port court in Tampa,
14:45:02 Florida.
14:45:02 I'm the pastor of the Baptist church and administrator
14:45:05 of the victory Christian academy located at 6202 South
14:45:09 MacDill.
14:45:10 And I have been sworn.
14:45:12 And we oppose the wet zoning petition on the grounds
14:45:15 that the requesting establishment is located within
14:45:20 200 yards of our local church, as well as a school,
14:45:27 and the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in
14:45:31 such close proximity to these institutions represent a
14:45:34 clear danger to the safety of our children at the
14:45:40 school as well as in the neighborhood.
14:45:42 So we are asking that you please up hold the ordinance
14:45:47 that's on the books and not allow them to have a wet
14:45:50 zoning license.
14:45:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
14:45:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question to the pastor.
14:45:57 As I recall this corner -- maybe somebody could help
14:46:04 me out on the overhead.
14:46:13 It's a little hard to see.
14:46:14 But if could you look at the overhead there.

14:46:16 I think your church is beyond Interbay and on the
14:46:23 left?
14:46:24 >>> The church is on the east side of MacDill
14:46:26 heading south toward the airport space about 60 yards
14:46:31 south of Interbay.
14:46:34 >> Past the intersection?
14:46:38 >>> Yes.
14:46:38 >> And I don't think I could support this if they were
14:46:42 just looking for a package store where people could
14:46:44 take it but what they are talking about is beer and
14:46:47 wine associated with a restaurant, just beer and wine
14:46:49 drinking inside the restaurant.
14:46:51 >>> Our experience has been that once the consumption
14:46:53 of alcohol takes place so closely to a church that it
14:46:57 does affect the neighborhood, and we have seen the
14:46:59 results of people who are under the influence of
14:47:02 intoxicants within close proximity to the institution.
14:47:07 That's why we are opposed to it.
14:47:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay, thank you.
14:47:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Before you go, I would like to ask you
14:47:13 a question.
14:47:15 Your school, what time do they close?

14:47:18 >>> It closes at 2:30 p.m. but we also have an
14:47:22 after-care that stays open till 5:30.
14:47:26 >> How old are your children that you take care of?
14:47:28 >>> We have from K-5 all the way through high school.
14:47:31 >> Through high school.
14:47:32 I would like to ask Mr. Tek a question.
14:47:38 Thank you.
14:47:38 What time does your restaurant open?
14:47:41 >> The last time we opened at 11 a.m
14:47:52 And 4:00 when people come up, five, six, search.
14:47:58 And we do not -- it's only for dinner.
14:48:08 As I mentioned, way want to sell over there, and has
14:48:17 nothing to do with sell alcohol out of the restaurant
14:48:19 and deliver it and let anyone to take it out.
14:48:33 All we can see that people -- around ten people
14:49:07 Even neighbors signed a copy of the petition.
14:49:10 If there's anything that I should do, I will do my
14:49:13 best.
14:49:16 >> Thank you very much.
14:49:16 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to close.
14:49:21 >>> My name is Grady Sipes and I have been sworn.
14:49:24 I live at 304 west bakey Avenue, Tampa, Florida.

14:49:30 There's a couple of things I would like to address.
14:49:32 Also, I don't want it to interfere with my three
14:49:36 minutes but we have youth services at the church and a
14:49:38 lot of things in the evening.
14:49:39 It's not just the daycare during the day, where there
14:49:42 are children there.
14:49:43 And because someone says it will be limited to
14:49:46 evening, are you all going to come down and monitor,
14:49:51 see what happens at lunch?
14:49:52 I respectfully rise in opposition to item number 71,
14:49:55 the wet zoning request before you today.
14:49:58 The code clearly states the restrictions applicable to
14:50:01 wet zoning.
14:50:03 And this request violates four things.
14:50:06 An established church, an established daycare center,
14:50:10 a school, and a residential area.
14:50:13 Our neighborhood is somewhat of a blighted area.
14:50:16 There are many people that live in the area that are
14:50:21 battling dependencies on alcohol and drugs.
14:50:24 There are also many registered sex offenders that live
14:50:27 in the area.
14:50:28 As the mark Foley incident recently illustrated,

14:50:32 alcohol, people with alcohol dependency, and sexual
14:50:35 predators, are not a wise mix especially when there
14:50:38 are schools and daycare centers nearby.
14:50:43 Victory Baptist church has a community outreach
14:50:46 program that has been successful in helping some of
14:50:48 these people in their difficult struggle to overcome
14:50:52 these dependencies. This should be commended and
14:50:54 certainly doesn't need competition with another
14:50:58 establishment offering ready access to alcohol.
14:51:01 One of the dependencies many of these people are
14:51:04 fighting.
14:51:04 That's like pouring gasoline on a fire you are hoping
14:51:07 to extinguish.
14:51:11 In addition once you open the flood gate with an
14:51:16 exception more businesses will open with exemptions.
14:51:19 The neighborhood already has bars a few blocks away on
14:51:22 MacDill and Gandy Boulevard.
14:51:24 If you grant wet zoning and the establishment goes out
14:51:26 of business the wet zoning will remain on the property
14:51:28 and a knew tenant can come in with a different
14:51:30 concept.
14:51:31 So there are no promises.

14:51:33 Today you are worried about people tearing down cigar
14:51:36 factories.
14:51:36 We are worried about whether they are going to keep
14:51:40 their word or not.
14:51:41 Well, I agree.
14:51:42 You have got to worry about the future.
14:51:46 Codes were established for a reason, and they must be
14:51:48 enforced consistently.
14:51:49 Among these reasons are to improve our communities,
14:51:54 reduce crime, and protect our youth.
14:51:57 Under Mayor Iorio, we have seen a concerted effort to
14:52:00 enforce compliance with existing zoning ordinances.
14:52:04 And the result has been good for the community.
14:52:07 I ask why does the City of Tampa enforcing some
14:52:10 ordinances and then making exceptions for others.
14:52:14 Why even have city codes if they are not to be
14:52:16 consistently enforced?
14:52:18 If an ordinance is deemed to be unfair, then the
14:52:22 proper methods is to change the ordinance.
14:52:24 Not to make exception after exception.
14:52:27 We have heard much spoken here today about protecting
14:52:30 historic buildings and cigar factories.

14:52:33 I ask you to do something to protect people.
14:52:36 Especially our youth and people that might be
14:52:39 struggling against an alcohol dependency.
14:52:41 I respectfully ask you to deny this request.
14:52:44 Thank you.
14:52:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
14:52:46 Next.
14:52:54 >>KEVIN WHITE: The same church that the pastor --
14:52:59 okay.
14:53:00 >>> Angela Dotman, 33061 here in support of Mr. Tek
14:53:06 and the restaurant in receiving a beverage license for
14:53:09 beer and wine only.
14:53:12 As a member of the Interbay community it was wonderful
14:53:15 when this restaurant came to South Tampa.
14:53:17 And south of the Gandy area is growing every day, and
14:53:23 saw proposals for new construction in the area.
14:53:28 And the restaurant is a place that can allow people to
14:53:31 come and build their homes and join our communities.
14:53:36 A lot of people come to the restaurant not only for
14:53:40 the food but the staff there is wonderful, they are
14:53:42 friendly, they are charming, and it's a nice
14:53:45 experience.

14:53:45 And many people from the Interbay community, we have
14:53:50 people from Lutz and Palm Harbor and people come from
14:53:54 Orlando because it's a wonderful experience.
14:53:57 Many of them are disappointed when they walk in to
14:53:59 enjoy a very high quality meal, a wonderful evening,
14:54:04 and they are not allowed to have a glass of wine.
14:54:08 I'm not sure about you, but a lot of people enjoy
14:54:12 that, and it's not in the intention of people coming
14:54:14 to a bar to sit all night and stay until three in the
14:54:19 morning for pure enjoyment with their meal, and there
14:54:23 are a lot of families that dine there, and they as
14:54:26 well as their children have signed a petition in
14:54:29 support of a beverage license.
14:54:31 So I don't think there's much -- I think it can only
14:54:36 broaden the horizons and make our community much more
14:54:40 beautiful.
14:54:41 Thank you.
14:54:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Were you sworn in?
14:54:47 >>> I have been sworn, thank you.
14:54:50 >>GWEN MILLER: If you are going to speak, please get
14:54:51 up and come to speak so we can move quickly.
14:54:57 >>> Good evening.

14:54:58 Tony summons, victory Baptist church, South Tampa,
14:55:01 6202 South MacDill.
14:55:03 And I have been sworn in.
14:55:06 Yes, I would like to oppose the sale of alcohol, to
14:55:12 permit a wet zoning in the establishment that is
14:55:15 located at 6102 South MacDill, for residents in the
14:55:21 neighborhood, also attend our local church there.
14:55:23 And I have seen the effects of what alcohol and you
14:55:27 all have yourself when people are under the influence
14:55:30 of alcohol.
14:55:30 So I am definitely not in favor of it and have a lot
14:55:33 of concerns about all of the wet zones that are
14:55:37 located even now in that particular area there.
14:55:40 Thank you for your time.
14:55:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
14:55:48 >>> My name is Jeffrey claymore and I have been sworn
14:55:52 in.
14:55:52 I am station out at MacDill Air Force Base.
14:55:56 And you go to restaurants, you go for good food.
14:56:00 Normally when we go to lunch we can't drink wine, we
14:56:03 can't drink alcohol.
14:56:04 Been in the military for 25 years now and I have seen

14:56:06 the effects of what one glass of beer, what two
14:56:10 glasses of beer does.
14:56:11 And it's not a good thing around kids, especially, you
14:56:16 never know how alcohol is going to affect you.
14:56:18 And whatever restaurant is located it's heavily
14:56:21 populated with traffic, especially in the evening
14:56:23 time, people coming back and forth to work, and it's
14:56:27 just not a good idea.
14:56:29 So I oppose having a wet zoning there.
14:56:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
14:56:35 Anyone else?
14:56:36 Petitioner, do you want to say anything else?
14:56:39 >>> Tek: All I am going to say to everyone, people
14:56:55 that are going to drink anyway, they are going to
14:56:57 drink.
14:56:58 You cannot stop their right of doing what they want.
14:57:01 And the petition is not to be a better example to
14:57:07 everyone, and before they go to petition, after they
14:57:09 get approved by zoning, they have to go, when they get
14:57:16 their license from the Department of Health
14:57:18 department, they have to go to Relations.
14:57:25 When they do that, cannot give to a person to get

14:57:33 drunk and get out of the restaurant and make a
14:57:35 problem.
14:57:35 There is a gas station next door.
14:57:36 There's a meat market maybe 200 feet away.
14:57:40 And people want to drink and be bad and do bad, they
14:58:00 can go.
14:58:06 I don't think -- I respect the religions as much as
14:58:15 anyone else.
14:58:16 And I don't drink personally.
14:58:18 And I never get drunk in my life.
14:58:20 And I know, I have seen people how they got after they
14:58:25 got drunk.
14:58:27 If they want to do that, they will get a six pack, go
14:58:31 to their home and get drunk.
14:58:34 But somebody in a gas station and walk out onto the
14:58:39 street near the restaurant in public, having it or not
14:58:44 having it.
14:58:45 So we all have the right to ... and I am not a U.S.
14:59:03 born resident.
14:59:16 They like to go after their work,
14:59:20 Very much.
14:59:26 I appreciate it.

14:59:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Thanks very much.
14:59:29 >> Move to close.
14:59:29 >> Second.
14:59:30 (Motion carried).
14:59:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move for approval.
14:59:33 I really feel that this is responsible.
14:59:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
14:59:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's in conjunction with a
14:59:40 restaurant, isn't a free standing bar.
14:59:42 I think the number of people who signed the petition
14:59:44 supporting it, they think it's a positive addition to
14:59:49 the community, indicates that this too will be
14:59:51 positive.
14:59:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Read the ordinance.
14:59:57 >> Move an ordinance for first reading an ordinance
15:00:00 making lawful the sale of beverage of alcohol more
15:00:05 than 1% by weight and not more than 14% by weight and
15:00:08 wines regardless of alcoholic content beer and wine
15:00:11 2(COP-R) for consumption on the premises only in
15:00:13 connection with a restaurant business establishment at
15:00:16 or from that certain lot, plot or tract of land,
15:00:16 located at 6102 South MacDill Avenue Tampa, Florida as

15:00:19 more particularly described in section 2 hereof
15:00:22 waiving certain restrictions as to distance based upon
15:00:25 certain findings providing for repeal of all
15:00:27 ordinances in conflict providing an effective date.
15:00:28 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
15:00:30 >>ROSE FERLITA: I am not going to support it although
15:00:35 I agree with Mrs. Saul-Sena, I don't think it's going
15:00:39 to be an issue of harm to anybody including the church
15:00:42 but I think a better way was conditional.
15:00:45 That wasn't brought up.
15:00:46 Based on that I won't support it.
15:00:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I didn't hear the Nay.
15:00:50 Was that a Nay vote?
15:00:52 >>ROSE FERLITA: No.
15:00:53 I gave the reason.
15:00:54 >>THE CLERK: Ferlita voting no.
15:00:57 >>GWEN MILLER:
15:01:00 >> Move to open 72.
15:01:02 >> Second.
15:01:02 (Motion carried)
15:01:02 >>BARBARA LEPORE: The next petition is WZ 06-126.
15:01:47 2333 west Hillsborough Avenue.

15:01:49 The petitioner 2(APS) incidental use beer and wine.
15:02:07 Kash N' Karry.
15:02:11 Over one acre.
15:02:13 The APS wet zoning for this location was granted in
15:02:18 1978, and 7010-A.
15:02:24 There are wet zoned properties which are located in
15:02:27 one building, 1,000 feet walking area, and also the
15:02:32 add there are properties within the 1,000 feet walking
15:02:37 area.
15:02:46 The land development has no objection to this wet
15:02:50 zoning.
15:03:19 (off microphone)
15:03:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You are not asking for the entire
15:03:40 site, they are just asking in the structure.
15:03:42 >>BARBARA LEPORE: That's correct.
15:03:50 >> Thank you.
15:03:53 >>> The application was forwarded to the Tampa Police
15:03:54 Department.
15:03:55 They have no objection.
15:03:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
15:03:58 >>> Scott Figle, 601 Bayshore Boulevard, suite 700, I
15:04:06 have been sworn.

15:04:09 I work for Kash N' Karry food stores, Inc., doing
15:04:12 business as Sweetbay supermarket.
15:04:16 We remodeled the Kash N' Karry to a Sweetbay. In so
15:04:19 doing, we have turned the liquor store beside of our
15:04:24 grocery store from a north-south posture parallel to
15:04:29 Armenia to an east-west posture parallel to
15:04:30 Hillsborough.
15:04:32 Again it's not changed the footprint at all of the
15:04:35 grocery store, simply moving the liquor store within
15:04:38 the grocery store.
15:04:39 The reason why we had to seek the 2(APS) for the
15:04:42 grocery store is now because the space is left vacant
15:04:45 and the liquor store is moved to the side.
15:04:47 Now we need to have that zoned 2(APS). There is a
15:04:51 sister companion petitioner coming up next on the
15:04:51 liquor store.
15:04:57 We will be seeking to have that wet zoned.
15:05:00 Those all that occurred, changed the location within
15:05:02 the store slightly.
15:05:03 We are not adding anything.
15:05:04 We are not increasing the size of the liquor store,
15:05:07 not changing the type of license that we were seeking.

15:05:13 Simply rezoning.
15:05:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else to speak on number 72?
15:05:21 >> Move to close.
15:05:22 >> Second.
15:05:22 (Motion carried).
15:05:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. White?
15:05:25 Down at the bottom.
15:05:28 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance repealing ordinance
15:05:30 7010-A making lawful the sale of alcoholic beverages
15:05:33 containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight and not
15:05:36 more than 14% by weight and wines regardless of
15:05:39 alcoholic content beer and wine 2(APS) in sealed
15:05:41 containers for consumption off premises only at or
15:05:44 from that certain lot, plot or tract of land located
15:05:47 at 2333 west Hillsborough Avenue, Tampa, Florida more
15:05:50 particularly described in section 3 hereof waiving
15:05:52 certain restrictions as to distance based upon certain
15:05:55 findings providing for repeal of all ordinances in
15:05:58 conflict, providing an effective date.
15:06:00 >> Second.
15:06:00 (Motion carried).
15:06:05 >> Need to open number 73.

15:06:08 >>BARBARA LEPORE: Land development.
15:06:28 Case number WZ 06-127 for location at 2333 west
15:06:33 Hillsborough Avenue.
15:06:33 The petitioner is requesting 3 PS wet zoning of 1,937
15:06:40 square feet area for consideration of the package
15:06:43 store to the conversion to the Sweetbay grocery store.
15:06:47 The site is over 1 acre.
15:06:53 Rented at 3 PS wet zoning.
15:06:56 You can see the current number.
15:06:57 It was in 1981.
15:07:09 To increase of 71 square feet wet zoning.
15:07:13 The alcohol sale would be incidental to the business.
15:07:18 And there are also within 1,000 feet.
15:07:29 There are no institutional properties.
15:07:32 Land zoning has no objection.
15:07:34 It was given to the Tampa Police Department there.
15:07:36 Was in a objection from them.
15:07:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
15:08:16 >> 601 Bayshore Boulevard, suite 700.
15:08:20 I have been sworn.
15:08:20 This is a companion petition 3(APS) for the liquor
15:08:23 store that I spoke about previously.

15:08:25 Again all we are doing is moving within the store from
15:08:27 a north-south posture to an east-west posture.
15:08:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
15:08:33 wants to speak on item 73?
15:08:37 I have a motion and second to close.
15:08:38 (Motion carried).
15:08:39 >>ROSE FERLITA: No institutional use within a thousand
15:08:49 feet.
15:08:50 Move an ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages
15:08:52 regardless of alcoholic content beer and wine and
15:08:55 liquor 3 PS in sealed containers for consumption off
15:09:00 premises only at or from that certain lot, plot or
15:09:02 tract of land located at 2333 west Hillsborough
15:09:05 Avenue, Tampa, Florida as more particularly described
15:09:08 in section 2 hereof waiving certain restrictions as to
15:09:11 distance based upon certain findings, providing for
15:09:13 repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an
15:09:16 effective date.
15:09:17 (Motion Carried).
15:09:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 74 is a continued public hearing.
15:09:26 Staff report on 74?
15:09:28 Is the petitioner here?

15:09:29 >>MARTY BOYLE McDONALD: Land development.
15:10:07 I have been sworn.
15:10:07 This first came before you two weeks ago and it's
15:10:10 actually a first reading continuance.
15:10:14 The site is located -- excuse me -- on the corner of
15:10:19 Kennedy Boulevard and Ashley as shown in the yellow.
15:10:29 On the zoning map, it is CBD-2.
15:10:33 You have a CBD-1 to the south.
15:10:36 Almost everything else around it is CBD-2.
15:10:41 Originally the staff report -- it's going from CBD-2
15:10:46 to a CBD-2.
15:10:50 Now -- it had been office.
15:10:52 Now proposing a mixed use office residential.
15:10:55 There are 244 units -- I'm sorry, 215 residential
15:11:01 units.
15:11:04 6,606 square feet of a lobby, cafe, exhibit area.
15:11:10 They are proposing 18,579 square feet of storage.
15:11:14 And approximately 16,000 square feet of amenities.
15:11:20 Maximum height 590 feet.
15:11:22 And it's 50 stories. The first ten stories are
15:11:25 dedicated for parking.
15:11:28 When we first came before you we had several

15:11:30 objections.
15:11:35 Excuse me, I'm losing my voice.
15:11:36 Several objections.
15:11:38 They have removed a couple of the objections from
15:11:41 Hartline, from parks and recreation.
15:11:44 However, land development's objection still stands as
15:11:48 you see on the staff report.
15:11:52 And landscaping still has an objection.
15:11:56 They have actually a waiver for the treescaping, the
15:11:58 planting of trees along the -- in the CBD, you are
15:12:02 required to do right-of-way plantings.
15:12:05 And an actual waiver of, I believe, at least one of
15:12:10 the trees, of the three that are required.
15:12:14 Transportation still objects to the waiver number 8.
15:12:17 There are 8 waivers on the site.
15:12:20 They indicate that they feel the reduction of the
15:12:22 drive aisle by 7.33 feet and a reduction of a wall to
15:12:31 18 feet is excessive.
15:12:42 They did add note number 18 that speaks to a
15:12:44 commitment to do an elevator on the riverwalk.
15:12:47 Note number 24, one of the concerns -- I don't know if
15:12:53 I need to remind you of this or not -- if you look at

15:12:56 the Elmo, this is the building line.
15:13:02 They do have a service entrance.
15:13:05 And the residential public entrance.
15:13:12 And part of the concern was how they do deliveries in
15:13:19 this area.
15:13:20 They committed to certain hours that that would be
15:13:23 allowed.
15:13:24 Land development still is concerned about that corner,
15:13:28 it being a pedestrian thoroughfare.
15:13:30 And having trucks maneuver within that area.
15:13:34 Planning Commission previously had no objections.
15:13:38 And they still have no objection.
15:13:40 And that's the end of our presentation.
15:13:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
15:13:44 >>DAVID MECHANIK: 305 south Boulevard, Tampa, Florida.
15:13:50 I have not been sworn.
15:13:51 (Oath administered by Clerk).
15:13:54 >>DAVID MECHANIK: Just to refreshing council, I
15:14:03 believe there were only two questions or requests by
15:14:08 City Council at the conclusion of our hearing.
15:14:12 One was to add a note, and that was what caused the
15:14:17 continuance.

15:14:18 We had to add a note to restrict the hours of
15:14:21 operation for deliveries, which we did have as Marty
15:14:24 noted.
15:14:25 The other was to clarify in writing a note that we are
15:14:30 committed to installing the elevator in coordination
15:14:34 with the city riverwalk staff, either on the north
15:14:38 side of Kennedy bridge or the south side.
15:14:42 There was some indication of preference by the city
15:14:44 staff to locate it on the north side of the bridge.
15:14:47 And we are agreeable to working with the city in
15:14:51 either particular location, and the note we added does
15:14:56 reflect that and it is now a commitment on the site
15:14:58 plan.
15:14:59 I would just like to clarify for the record that the,
15:15:02 I guess if you would call it a technical objection.
15:15:05 I'm not even sure why in connection with the tree
15:15:09 because we actually revised the note exactly as
15:15:12 requested by the staff.
15:15:13 So I don't see why there would be any objection
15:15:16 further to that.
15:15:18 Finally, there should be no transportation objection
15:15:22 because Mr. LaMotte testified at the last hearing that

15:15:25 he reviewed our parking layout and had no problem with
15:15:28 it whatsoever.
15:15:29 I think he is still here this afternoon and can
15:15:33 confirm that, so there should not be a transportation
15:15:35 objection.
15:15:36 With that I'll be happy to answer any question.
15:15:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
15:15:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The note 24 addresses the big
15:15:46 concern I had about the hours of operation for the
15:15:48 service entrance.
15:15:50 At the bottom of note 24, it gets a little vague.
15:15:54 It says appropriate signage will be placed within
15:15:57 service drive area denoting delivery times.
15:16:03 I guess way mentioned last time was a monument, a
15:16:06 little monument sign right out there by the street, so
15:16:10 that way any cop who goes by might see it and realize
15:16:17 a truck going in and out during peak hour time is
15:16:21 violating something.
15:16:23 Compared to perhaps putting an appropriate sign down
15:16:25 at the bottom of the service entrance.
15:16:29 >>> All I can tell you is "appropriate" was suggested
15:16:32 by Mr. LaMotte and I think he was referring to the

15:16:34 fact that there are city standards for times in terms
15:16:37 of size and all that, and we weren't going to
15:16:40 necessarily incorporate all that.
15:16:41 But we will do what the city requires.
15:16:46 >> Well, what staff might be looking for and what this
15:16:48 councilman might be looking for might be kind of
15:16:50 different.
15:16:51 But I'm not going to send you back to the drawing
15:16:53 board on that.
15:16:54 Is Mr. LaMotte here?
15:16:57 >> Yes, he is.
15:17:02 >>ROY LAMOTTE: Good afternoon. Transportation
15:17:05 manager.
15:17:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You heard my concerns the last
15:17:08 time.
15:17:09 You hear them now.
15:17:10 I guess best I can do at this point is to get some
15:17:12 assurance that is at some level of review that that
15:17:15 sign, or signs, are go to be right out there by the
15:17:19 sidewalk in the street.
15:17:20 And decent size so they will be effective for law
15:17:23 enforcement.

15:17:25 >>> They will be.
15:17:26 And they will be appropriately signed for urban core
15:17:28 environment.
15:17:29 We do believe that it be enforced.
15:17:32 In addition to that we also have the restrictive --
15:17:38 there can't be entry unless they are lowered.
15:17:40 >> That's not the way the drawings show.
15:17:42 The drawings don't show a ballard blocking entrance to
15:17:47 the service entrance.
15:17:50 >>> Let me clarify.
15:17:51 The signage again, council person, I know that you
15:17:56 asked for it.
15:17:57 We certainly will have it.
15:17:58 So it can be adequately noticed.
15:18:00 And it will be enforced.
15:18:03 I think that should suffice to be able to get
15:18:05 compliance here.
15:18:10 >> There's an overhead door, that I think if it's
15:18:14 closed at the appropriate times would discourage
15:18:16 people from using the service entrance.
15:18:18 But I don't see the bars, I see on the side, not in
15:18:22 front.

15:18:23 >>> We are insisting as well that the doors be shut
15:18:26 when they are not in operation.
15:18:33 >>> Albert Alfonso, Alfonso architects.
15:18:38 Mr. Dingfelder, the bars were really in response to
15:18:41 getting service vehicles off the street.
15:18:45 I think that's confusing two issues.
15:18:47 Certainly, we will make the commitment to make a very
15:18:50 large appropriate sign in that area out on the street.
15:18:56 We want to ensure safety as well.
15:18:59 So I make that commitment.
15:19:02 >> Okay, thank you.
15:19:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would suggest that if there's a
15:19:05 way of achieving this through design, like through
15:19:08 some sort of gate being down, like the truck can't
15:19:10 come in because the gate is down during this time,
15:19:12 that that's a lot more attractive than a lot of words.
15:19:17 And probably more effective too,.
15:19:20 >> Well, there is a gate.
15:19:22 >>> Ms. Saul-Sena, we will have both.
15:19:24 >> My concern is if the gate is up and somebody is
15:19:26 still using it then at least the police office worry
15:19:28 say, hmmm, that's probably inconsistent with the gate

15:19:31 being up.
15:19:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone in the public want to speak
15:19:34 on item 74?
15:19:37 Need to close.
15:19:39 Need to close the public hearing.
15:19:41 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move to close, Madam Chairman.
15:19:43 >> Second.
15:19:43 (Motion carried).
15:19:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Do we have an ordinance?
15:19:50 Ms. Ferlita, would you read that?
15:19:51 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance rezoning property in
15:19:58 the general vicinity of 1 Kennedy Boulevard in Tampa,
15:20:01 Florida from zoning district classification CBD-2,
15:20:06 central business district, to CBD-2, central business
15:20:10 mixed use restaurant, residential, providing an
15:20:12 effective date.
15:20:13 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
15:20:15 Question on the motion?
15:20:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to compliment the
15:20:18 petitioner.
15:20:18 I think this is going to be an absolutely stunning
15:20:22 building.

15:20:23 I think it's going to be a huge contribution to
15:20:25 downtown.
15:20:26 This is setting a quality standard in terms of the
15:20:29 amount of public art, and it looks like the quality of
15:20:32 public art, that I hope the future building -- I'm
15:20:38 very excited about it and the presentation is great.
15:20:41 (Motion Carried).
15:20:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 75 is a continued public hearing.
15:20:58 >>MARTY BOYLE McDONALD: Land development.
15:21:09 I have been sworn.
15:21:10 This is another case that came before you two weeks
15:21:13 ago and is continued to this date.
15:21:16 They had some technical issues to work out with their
15:21:20 site plan.
15:21:22 I'll refresh your memory by showing you the rezoning
15:21:25 map.
15:21:30 This is the subject site.
15:21:32 This is Gray Street.
15:21:34 And Hubert.
15:21:35 Previously before you, you approved a planned
15:21:41 development town homes in the area.
15:21:43 This was a PD with six town homes that was approved.

15:21:47 And this is under construction right now with some
15:21:49 town homes.
15:21:52 This is an aerial shot of the subject site.
15:21:58 To refresh your memory, that's the subject site.
15:22:04 Single-family home.
15:22:08 View down Hubert.
15:22:09 This is directly across the street, the PD that the
15:22:12 town homes are being built on currently.
15:22:15 This is the view looking north down Hubert.
15:22:18 You can see the interstate, commercial building behind
15:22:20 it.
15:22:21 Another adjacent single-family home.
15:22:31 Comments from land development, landscape specialists,
15:22:34 that they needed the tree survey and they needed to
15:22:38 fix their tree credit-debit table.
15:22:41 And provide for protection of any off-site or grand
15:22:46 tree.
15:22:47 They came in with a revised plan at the appropriate
15:22:50 time.
15:22:50 And they did take care of those issues.
15:22:54 Just to refresh your memory also, they are going from
15:22:57 RS-50 to PD.

15:22:58 They are proposing four single-family town homes.
15:23:01 They have approximately .278 acres.
15:23:06 From the elevation, I believe you only have one in
15:23:10 front of you.
15:23:10 You can see the Italian Mediterranean style.
15:23:14 Planning Commission had no objections to this
15:23:19 proposal.
15:23:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
15:23:20 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Suite 3700 Bank of America Plaza.
15:23:34 Represent chuck and Terry Corces.
15:23:39 Two weeks ago we had to resolve the landscaping
15:23:41 conditions.
15:23:42 We replaced -- placed those on the site plans.
15:23:45 We respectfully request your approval this afternoon.
15:23:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
15:23:49 wants to speak on item 75?
15:23:51 >> Move to close.
15:23:52 >> Second.
15:23:52 (Motion carried).
15:23:54 >>KEVIN WHITE: Movie an ordinance rezoning property in
15:24:02 the general vicinity of 504 north Hubert Avenue in the
15:24:05 city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described

15:24:07 in section 1 from zoning district classification RS-50
15:24:11 residential single-family to PD planned development
15:24:13 single-family attached, providing an effective date.
15:24:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
15:24:16 (Motion carried).
15:24:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Nay.
15:24:22 >>GWEN MILLER: We have to wait for Ms. Ferlita.
15:24:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, would you consider making a
15:24:46 motion, unanimous consent to waive that rule that
15:24:50 requires it to come back at the next meeting?
15:24:53 >> So moved.
15:24:55 >> You mean to wait till later?
15:24:56 >>GWEN MILLER: No.
15:24:57 Wait for Mrs. Ferlita to come in.
15:24:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You already had a vote.
15:25:02 >> We have to --
15:25:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Or just waive that rule and take
15:25:06 another vote.
15:25:06 >>GWEN MILLER: I could get a second?
15:25:08 >> Second.
15:25:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wait a second, wait a second.
15:25:12 This is for elevation?

15:25:16 >> The one we just voted on.
15:25:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, this is the Hubert elevation.
15:25:38 And I not clear.
15:25:39 I see two doors for four units.
15:25:44 >>ROSE FERLITA: Are you on 75?
15:25:47 I voted as we walked out.
15:25:48 >>GWEN MILLER: You voted yes?
15:25:50 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
15:25:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay, we passed then.
15:25:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just have to call the petitioner.
15:26:00 They may not get a positive vote the next time around.
15:26:03 There will be two other council members around the
15:26:05 second time around.
15:26:09 I haven't really scrutinized the site plan.
15:26:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, did you hear Ms.
15:26:14 Saul-Sena's comments?
15:26:16 >> Yes, I did.
15:26:16 >> On the first reading it passed.
15:26:18 Ms. Ferlita voted before she walked out.
15:26:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry.
15:26:23 Madam clerk, did you correctly tabulate the votes for
15:26:26 the record?

15:26:28 >>THE CLERK: I have the motion was made by Council
15:26:30 member White to place the ordinance on first reading.
15:26:32 Council member Ferlita seconded the motion.
15:26:35 And when the motion was read, I believe you had
15:26:37 already stepped out.
15:26:38 >>ROSE FERLITA: No.
15:26:39 I was standing up.
15:26:41 I know that I did because I had to do something.
15:26:45 >>THE CLERK: Alvarez absent at vote.
15:26:49 Dingfelder voting no.
15:26:50 >>GWEN MILLER: It passed.
15:26:52 Okay.
15:26:52 It passed.
15:26:55 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: 4 to 1.
15:26:56 Thank you for your time.
15:26:57 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
15:26:58 Item number 76.
15:27:00 Continued public hearing.
15:27:08 >>MARTY BOYLE McDONALD: I have been sworn.
15:27:09 This also came before you two weeks ago and had --
15:27:15 council asked and the neighborhood has some concerns
15:27:17 and council asked if they have certain things to the

15:27:20 site plan along with clearing up a couple of the
15:27:22 objections from staff.
15:27:25 I'll refresh your memory.
15:27:32 This is Grady street.
15:27:34 The subject site.
15:27:36 It's currently zoned commercial general and they are
15:27:39 asking plan development, retail sales, also an aerial
15:27:43 of the site.
15:27:48 A runs behind north Hale Avenue and Grady, Kennedy
15:27:51 Boulevard.
15:27:56 This is a view of the rear.
15:27:58 Currently there is a strip center on the site.
15:28:00 This is the view of the rear part of it.
15:28:02 This is north "A."
15:28:10 The view along Kennedy.
15:28:15 And I apologize.
15:28:16 I don't have a subject site.
15:28:17 I do have a strip center next to it.
15:28:19 I did not bring all of the pictures.
15:28:28 They are asking for two waivers.
15:28:30 Number one, from section 27-464 to allow 80% of the
15:28:34 parking fee located in the front of the parcel, and

15:28:37 also some section 27-244 to allow access to a local
15:28:41 road.
15:28:44 There is only one objection remaining from staff, and
15:28:47 that is from transportation.
15:28:49 They object to the driveway on north Hale. The code
15:28:53 requires residential parking to access arterial
15:28:56 collector street, north Hale is a local street.
15:28:59 That is a standing objection.
15:29:01 They have asked for the waiver from that.
15:29:02 They have added a note to their site plan saying that
15:29:05 they are complying with the Westshore commercial
15:29:08 district overlay.
15:29:11 Also, the neighborhood overwhelmingly seemed to feel
15:29:17 like they wanted security cameras pointed down north
15:29:19 "A" street.
15:29:22 Added note number 27.
15:29:24 Note number 28, they committed to the transport
15:29:28 delivery vehicles that bring the vehicles in, they
15:29:32 will not access the site or unload adjacent to the
15:29:35 site.
15:29:37 Note number 34, that no vehicle repair service will be
15:29:40 on-site.

15:29:42 And also note number 35, they committed that no test
15:29:46 driving would happen in the neighborhood, but there
15:29:49 must be a sales representative in the vehicle, and
15:29:54 they will have test drive routes for the sales people
15:29:58 taking it down Kennedy.
15:30:00 Other than the transportation objection, we have no
15:30:04 objection.
15:30:07 Planning Commission also finds it consistent.
15:30:10 That's the end of our presentation.
15:30:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.
15:30:14 I guess I was confused about the cameras toward the
15:30:19 neighborhood thing.
15:30:20 I thought the intent was just to shoot cameras up and
15:30:24 down "A."
15:30:26 And really to protect, you know, the wall and the
15:30:30 graffiti issue and that sort of thing.
15:30:32 I don't think anybody really wants them shooting back
15:30:35 toward those private homes.
15:30:36 >>MARTY BOYLE McDONALD: Did I say that?
15:30:39 >> I don't know if you said that.
15:30:43 I just saw a lot of nodding and shaking behind you. I
15:30:46 think the cameras should face north and south -- no,

15:30:49 excuse me, east and west up and down "A."
15:30:52 But not north and south.
15:30:53 >>MARTY BOYLE McDONALD: Read security cameras towards
15:30:57 North "A" but maybe they could clarify that a little,
15:31:01 go on the record and clarify that better.
15:31:04 >> I just want to make sure we are all on the same
15:31:07 page about that.
15:31:07 >>MARTY BOYLE McDONALD: Did you want a picture?
15:31:09 I have the layout.
15:31:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just was handed this.
15:31:15 Is this identified on this.
15:31:19 >>> They have a note on the site plan speaking to the
15:31:21 sign.
15:31:22 Note number 38.
15:31:29 They are not asking for any waivers from the Westshore
15:31:31 commercial overlay district for signage.
15:31:34 They are complying.
15:31:41 >> Compliance would have included a pylon but I think
15:31:43 they said voluntarily they would go to a monument.
15:31:47 >>> Yes.
15:31:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a staff question.
15:31:50 Have you been involved with this Kennedy Boulevard

15:31:54 plan.
15:31:54 I could have sworn we said, buildings were supposed to
15:31:57 be up to the front of the property, and that there was
15:31:59 not supposed to be parking in front.
15:32:02 I could have sworn that that's true.
15:32:04 >>MARTY BOYLE McDONALD: That's correct in the
15:32:05 Westshore commercial overlay district.
15:32:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, on the Kennedy Boulevard.
15:32:16 >>MARTY BOYLE McDONALD: Actually you will see in the
15:32:22 here.
15:32:23 We do say they do not meet that part of the code.
15:32:25 >> But do not have an objection?
15:32:27 >>> Yes.
15:32:28 >> Well, why didn't you say that?
15:32:30 >>> Well, I skipped over it.
15:32:31 I'm sorry.
15:32:33 >> I mean, I worked on this plan for so many years,
15:32:36 trying to get the street to be, you know, an urban
15:32:39 street.
15:32:40 >>> And I do apologize.
15:32:41 I was giving an overlay.
15:32:43 You weren't here at the first meeting.

15:32:44 I did --
15:32:45 >> But I'm here now.
15:32:46 >>> I did speak about it at the first time and I think
15:32:49 trying to do a quick -- sometimes when do you that you
15:32:51 skip over something that you should have.
15:32:53 But it does not meet that section of the code.
15:32:56 >> Therefore --
15:32:57 >>> Well, I do know that --
15:32:59 >> You said it's in compliance but I not in
15:33:01 compliance.
15:33:02 >>> I said that they have given a note on the site
15:33:04 plan saying they will comply except where noted.
15:33:09 And the waiver, they asked for a waiver of that.
15:33:12 I do know that Planning Commission and LBC did feel,
15:33:17 the petitioner felt even though you see cars up front,
15:33:21 that is not their parking.
15:33:23 That is their retail sales.
15:33:24 That is their --
15:33:27 >> The plan says that there should be a structure.
15:33:30 >>> Right.
15:33:31 >>: And this is not a structure.
15:33:32 This is nothing.

15:33:34 >>> I will let petitioner speak to you on that.
15:33:36 >> Okay.
15:33:36 But my question is, as a staff person, why didn't you
15:33:39 identify that as an objection?
15:33:41 >>> It is in the staff report.
15:33:43 >> In your staff report?
15:33:45 >>> Yes.
15:33:45 >>KEVIN WHITE: Excuse me.
15:33:50 Ms. McDonald, in the last night meeting you did
15:33:53 specifically say that it did not meet the criteria of
15:33:59 the type of use of this facility, that it basically
15:34:05 didn't make sense to hide the inventory in back of the
15:34:08 building so to speak, and that's why that objection.
15:34:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
15:34:17 >> Good afternoon, Mark Bentley representing KLM
15:34:21 realty.
15:34:22 On October 14th, council gave direction for us to
15:34:24 modify our plan and memorialize some of the
15:34:27 commitments we made that evening on our site plan
15:34:31 which we have done.
15:34:32 And also actually another item that we opted to take
15:34:37 on the site plan is apparently the Kennedy design

15:34:41 standards are only -- the jurisdiction is only Himes
15:34:46 Avenue and obviously we are west of Himes.
15:34:48 So we agreed to actually with a view towards the
15:34:51 future connection develop our property with respect to
15:34:56 the sidewalk which is an 8-foot sidewalk and pavers,
15:34:59 et cetera.
15:35:01 With respect to the parking issue, the Westshore
15:35:05 overlay requires that 80% of the parking be located
15:35:09 adjacent to or behind the building in this situation.
15:35:14 Your code actually makes a distinction, landscape
15:35:17 code, is this is a display area, this is our stock and
15:35:20 trade, Ms. Saul-Sena, it's knots parking.
15:35:22 Also I put on the Elmo, if you look right now the
15:35:24 entire project is impervious surface, and there's
15:35:27 actually more parking in front right now.
15:35:29 >> What's there now is not --
15:35:31 >>> No, I understand.
15:35:32 And hopefully you have had a chance to look at the
15:35:35 elevations and the renderings.
15:35:37 So if you have any specific questions I'll gladly try
15:35:39 to answer those.
15:35:42 >> Just a clarification for Mrs. Saul-Sena's benefit.

15:35:48 The existing building, what part are you saving an
15:35:52 converting into that little one-story, 3,000 feet
15:35:55 showroom?
15:35:58 >>> Councilman Dingfelder, we are preserving 3,000
15:36:01 square feet in this area right here.
15:36:02 So we are going from 22,000 square feet down to 3,000,
15:36:07 946 trip ends to 100 trip ends, 100% impervious
15:36:11 surface down to 60%.
15:36:15 >> My only purpose, trying to help you on this one,
15:36:17 the fact that they are not building anything new, they
15:36:21 are just knocking walls down and preserving and
15:36:24 redoing a little section of the building.
15:36:30 >>> Thank you.
15:36:32 >> Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak
15:36:34 on item 76?
15:36:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can just make a comment, Madam
15:36:38 Chair.
15:36:40 This is a continuation of the first reading.
15:36:42 If the people who are speaking have previously spoken
15:36:46 to this item, I would ask that unless it's specific to
15:36:50 a particular change that has changed between now and
15:36:52 the first reading, which from what I understand, are

15:36:56 just notes that are made at council's direction as a
15:36:58 result of the last public hearing, then unless you
15:37:01 wish to address those specifically, if you have spoken
15:37:03 previously at the first reading, you will have an
15:37:06 opportunity at the second reading, but please don't
15:37:08 speak twice at one reading.
15:37:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Sir, you cannot speak.
15:37:15 >>> I haven't spoken.
15:37:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
15:37:16 All right.
15:37:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Marty said you couldn't speak.
15:37:21 >>> Well, yes, that's right.
15:37:23 I can speak to anything as long as I have --
15:37:25 >> If you haven't spoken before.
15:37:26 >>> My name is John Rigg, west gray, and I have been
15:37:30 sworn in.
15:37:31 Speaking in opposition to this, because consistently
15:37:35 supported the Kennedy Boulevard gateway corridor.
15:37:38 Every time it's come up before you and all the
15:37:40 comments whether it be signage or parking, it's always
15:37:43 comes up about Dale Mabry, and Florida Avenue.
15:37:46 We don't want that.

15:37:47 A parking lot by any other name is still a parking
15:37:50 lot.
15:37:51 It does not conform with the Kennedy Boulevard
15:37:53 gateway.
15:37:57 Until two weeks ago, it seemed like that was going to
15:37:59 stay.
15:38:00 Suddenly this came up.
15:38:01 It's not within the vision of it.
15:38:03 We hope the leadership would continue on this and do
15:38:06 away with this.
15:38:08 The cardinal sin of the gateway corridor project has
15:38:10 been, and with your continued commitment and
15:38:13 leadership, will always remain a car lot.
15:38:15 It's inconceivable to envision at this eleventh hour
15:38:18 in front of this body would even have the floor to
15:38:21 request a flip-flop and approval a zoning change that
15:38:24 would create a used Carlotta long the Kennedy
15:38:26 Boulevard gateway corridor.
15:38:28 This project will eliminate a venue of small
15:38:31 businesses that create jobs.
15:38:33 This project will cut them.
15:38:34 It will stifle job creation at this location for

15:38:37 decades.
15:38:39 It demolishes 18,000 square feet of 21 square feet
15:38:45 which should reduce property tax to continue this well
15:38:51 established vision of the Kennedy Boulevard gateway
15:38:54 corridor, a vision without car lots.
15:38:56 Another used car lot on Kennedy Boulevard is not
15:38:58 progress, it is regression.
15:39:00 So please, please stop this now, and for all those in
15:39:04 the future and vote no on this or anyone else who
15:39:06 wants to put a car lot in.
15:39:08 It doesn't create jobs.
15:39:09 It doesn't foster small business.
15:39:13 It's just a parking lot.
15:39:15 It's contrary to everything.
15:39:16 Thank you.
15:39:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
15:39:17 Any questions, council members?
15:39:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
15:39:21 I have a question of staff.
15:39:27 In the Kennedy Boulevard plan, are there uses
15:39:33 addressed?
15:39:37 Are there land uses addressed?

15:39:39 >>MARTY BOYLE McDONALD: I do not know the answer to
15:39:41 that.
15:39:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: In the vision that's expressed the
15:39:47 kind of uses that I remember being encouraged are
15:39:49 retail uses, there are office uses, and multifamily
15:39:56 residential uses, and a car lot is not one of the uses
15:40:01 that is envisioned in the vision.
15:40:03 I don't think it's legally prohibitive, although I am
15:40:06 not certain.
15:40:06 But I certainly do know that it's not encouraged.
15:40:10 Can you get somebody to find out real fast?
15:40:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order for clarification.
15:40:19 Did someone say this is in the county?
15:40:22 >>> It's not.
15:40:22 There's a proposal to go all the way but it's not been
15:40:25 approved all the way.
15:40:27 I can double check.
15:40:29 I'm almost 100% sure.
15:40:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It looks like Mr. Bentley can
15:40:35 answer.
15:40:35 >>MARK BENTLEY: We are in the Westshore overlay.
15:40:38 >> Does that speak to car lots?

15:40:39 >>> No, it doesn't regulate any particular use.
15:40:42 Just more kind of general design standards.
15:40:44 And just one other point on the signage, too.
15:40:46 I know that's an important aspect.
15:40:48 We have agreed to monument sign, not hire intensity
15:40:52 than two signs.
15:40:53 We are going to reduce signage from 1,000 square feet
15:40:56 to two signs a total, I think, of 50 square feet.
15:41:02 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the public hearing.
15:41:06 >> So moved.
15:41:06 >> Second.
15:41:07 (Motion carried).
15:41:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move for disapproval of this,
15:41:11 because I don't think that the neighborhood -- I got a
15:41:15 letter from their representative, Edna Patrick, who
15:41:19 says we in the neighborhood do not want this use.
15:41:24 The staff has said it isn't compatible.
15:41:27 The specific proposal is surface parking on what's
15:41:35 supposed to be our scenic corridor.
15:41:37 I don't think this is appropriate.
15:41:38 I don't think this is what we as a city are spending
15:41:43 money on making improvements on the streetscape and I

15:41:48 don't -- because of the reasons the staff identified
15:41:50 in their report I don't think we should be supporting
15:41:52 this so I make a motion for disapproval.
15:41:56 >>JULIA COLE: I just want to remind you that we are
15:41:59 under the new chapter 166 requirement that you state a
15:42:02 specific code provision.
15:42:04 You need to at least give a specific code provision.
15:42:06 From what I am hearing you talked about issues of
15:42:10 compatibility.
15:42:11 If you had those in front of you, I would recommend --
15:42:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Should I say --
15:42:17 >>JULIA COLE: You should specific the specific
15:42:20 sections of the code which are being implicated.
15:42:23 >> Chapter 27-450, parking standards and amendment of
15:42:27 80% of all surface parking should be located at side
15:42:30 or rear of the property and that's not the case here.
15:42:38 Section 27-244-J allowing access to a local road,
15:42:44 MacDill Avenue.
15:42:56 I'm not that conversant with this new way of making --
15:43:01 >>> What it appears you are looking for is waivers
15:43:03 requested, and the waiver contained in 27-324 which
15:43:07 are in essence a hardship criteria so I would

15:43:10 recommend you also cite that question because the
15:43:13 sections you cited to are already sections that you
15:43:16 are asking the waiver from.
15:43:17 So that's the section 27-324 that deals with waivers
15:43:20 and the criteria for waivers which are asking for
15:43:23 hardship criteria. I would also draw your attention
15:43:25 to 27-321 subsection 6 which is compatibility.
15:43:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
15:43:34 What you just said.
15:43:37 [ Laughter ]
15:43:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: good practice but I think it died
15:43:42 for a lack of second.
15:43:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Died for lack of a second.
15:43:46 >>KEVIN WHITE: I move for approval.
15:43:50 >> Second.
15:43:50 >> KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance rezoning property in
15:43:57 the general vicinity of 4001 West Kennedy Boulevard in
15:43:58 the city of Tampa, Florida more particularly described
15:44:00 in section 1 zoning district classifications CG
15:44:05 commercial general to PD planned development retail
15:44:07 sales providing an effective date.
15:44:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I second it, if I could.

15:44:13 I'm sorry, Rose.
15:44:15 >>ROSE FERLITA: I just want to make a point and maybe
15:44:17 I should have made it before did he this but go ahead,
15:44:19 John.
15:44:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The reason I'll support this is on
15:44:22 balance we are removing a lot of building and a lot of
15:44:28 parking lot and replacing it with a lot less parking
15:44:30 lot and a lot less building, and a lot more greenery,
15:44:34 and less signage, and right now, if they don't get
15:44:39 approval for this, as was pointed out to us at the
15:44:44 first hearing with the current existing zoning they do
15:44:48 could do fast food restaurant, et cetera, et cetera.
15:44:50 So even though it might not be your vision of
15:44:53 Kennedy -- and I understand that and I respect that,
15:44:55 in this particular case, I think on balance, I just
15:44:58 have to support it.
15:44:59 >>ROSE FERLITA: Well, Madam Chairman, this is really
15:45:02 difficult for me.
15:45:02 And Linda, you bring up some good points.
15:45:05 I know that, I guess in talking to Mr. Shelby that if
15:45:10 this doesn't pass it comes up next week, is that
15:45:12 right? Well, I think on its face it's a good project.

15:45:15 I'm still concerned about the compatibility issue,
15:45:18 Mr. Bentley.
15:45:18 And if I do not support the motion, that will give me
15:45:23 the opportunity to look at it during the week, and
15:45:25 come back next week when you ask for revote.
15:45:27 So based on that, at this point, I'm not going to
15:45:30 support it.
15:45:31 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion for approval
15:45:33 say Aye.
15:45:34 Opposed, Nay.
15:45:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Nay.
15:45:38 >>ROSE FERLITA: No.
15:45:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Next Thursday in the morning at 10 a.m
15:45:44 Unfinished business.
15:45:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a staff question.
15:45:53 >>> Is this out of order or a possibility just to
15:45:56 delay it one week to get the case at issue could maybe
15:45:59 council just get first reading today and then we can
15:46:02 get at the issue and save us a week?
15:46:08 Maybe a council person who is maybe not inclined to
15:46:10 support obviously, at least we can get at the issue
15:46:12 and there's really no point on delaying this

15:46:14 unnecessarily for a week.
15:46:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Shelby indicated earlier that
15:46:23 we could waive our rules, as opposed to waiting for a
15:46:25 week.
15:46:26 We could waive our rules and have that vote tonight.
15:46:29 Because then we will have our two other members.
15:46:31 And I think, if I recall, I think -- I think both of
15:46:36 them were here last time.
15:46:41 I don't know if we took a vote.
15:46:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Make a motion.
15:46:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll move to waive the rules and
15:46:46 have this voted on tonight.
15:46:48 >> Second.
15:46:48 (Motion carried).
15:46:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: What time would that be?
15:46:54 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's not going to give me enough
15:47:01 time to look at it.
15:47:02 That's fine.
15:47:03 But as a courtesy to Mr. Bentley, I understand that
15:47:06 Mr. Harrison may or may not be at 5:01.
15:47:09 So why should we --
15:47:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you want to do six?

15:47:16 All right, let's do six.
15:47:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask a question?
15:47:19 I know that the public hearing is closed.
15:47:21 But would the public have the opportunity to send
15:47:24 e-mails to council members if they happen to be
15:47:26 watching this on TV between now and 6:00 when this
15:47:28 comes back?
15:47:29 I know they won't be allowed to testify verbally.
15:47:31 But they could send e-mails or notes or something to
15:47:35 share their feelings with council members.
15:47:39 As long as it's in the record.
15:47:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: What happens is those e-mails have to
15:47:43 be provided to Mr. Bentley in advance of your vote.
15:47:46 You will have to have Mr. Bentley representing the
15:47:50 petitioner have the opportunity to address council and
15:47:52 rebut those e-mails.
15:47:54 >> I thought we were closed.
15:47:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, but e-mails --
15:48:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Please do not send e-mails.
15:48:03 [ Laughter ]
15:48:04 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
15:48:09 All in favor of the motion say Aye.

15:48:10 (Motion carried)
15:48:12 6:00.
15:48:13 Okay.
15:48:14 Number 77 is a continued public hearing.
15:48:18 >>BARBARA LYNCH: Land Development Coordination.
15:48:20 I know that Mr. Dingfelder and Ms. Saul-Sena were not
15:48:23 here last week.
15:48:24 Neither was I.
15:48:25 I am just going to present this like a new hearing.
15:48:32 >>GWEN MILLER: 77.
15:48:46 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: On this item.
15:48:47 This is C 06-18.
15:48:49 You voted on this hatter -- matter last week and asked
15:48:52 that we modify to include a transportation ordinance.
15:48:56 The ordinance I have before you today includes that
15:48:58 request from council.
15:48:59 So effectively all we are doing is presenting the
15:49:02 substitute ordinance on the hearing that you already
15:49:04 held.
15:49:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But neither of us were here to hear
15:49:09 it.
15:49:09 >>GWEN MILLER: You didn't review the tape?

15:49:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No.
15:49:18 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It's conned.
15:49:26 Do you wish to have a big presentation?
15:49:27 Is that the request?
15:49:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't know anything about it.
15:49:33 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Sandy, do you recall if they voted
15:49:35 on it last week?
15:49:36 >>THE CLERK: Last Thursday they made a motion to
15:49:38 continue the public hearing to 10:00 today toe allow
15:49:41 the ordinance to be revised and include a
15:49:43 transportation easement and a verbal agreement.
15:49:47 >> So the hearing was continued so the hearing is
15:49:48 still before you?
15:49:49 >>>
15:49:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
15:49:53 >> You got the ordinance with the revision?
15:49:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Give us the short version so we
15:49:58 feel comfortable voting for it.
15:50:00 >>> Petitioner is requesting to vacate a portion of
15:50:03 Aileen street between Howard Avenue and Albany Avenue.
15:50:06 The petitioner's property is in red.
15:50:09 And the vacated area is in yellow.

15:50:15 For a little more clarification. The reason for the
15:50:17 partial vacating is this street is bisected by a large
15:50:21 stormwater ditch.
15:50:22 So it's already dead-ended.
15:50:28 This portion is currently unimproved.
15:50:32 This is a photo looking west from Albany.
15:50:38 This is a picture of the ditch, it's sort of
15:50:40 overgrown.
15:50:46 This is petitioner's property looking west from
15:50:50 Albany.
15:50:51 This is his driveway which abuts the right-of-way.
15:50:58 >> They didn't have any objection to vacate ago
15:50:59 street?
15:51:00 >>> No.
15:51:01 Because the likelihood of --
15:51:03 >> And Mrs. Alvarez always talks about let's turn
15:51:06 those into culverts instead of open ditches.
15:51:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry to interrupt.
15:51:10 And maybe Mr. Santiago -- the direction from council,
15:51:15 I believe, was as a result of council's desire to
15:51:18 maintain the ability to keep that as a street, because
15:51:21 this vacate would allow petitioner -- maybe Mr.

15:51:25 Santiago can give you the reasons for the request.
15:51:30 As to why it came through.
15:51:35 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Absolutely. The discussion last
15:51:37 week was in fact do we want to give up the street?
15:51:39 At that time the testimony last week was there is no
15:51:43 future plan for it, which is why transportation didn't
15:51:45 have an objection to vacating an actual street.
15:51:49 However, Mr. Harrison had the point what if that
15:51:52 changes in the future?
15:51:52 Because we are uncertain.
15:51:58 Let's do another like vacating but reserve a
15:52:02 transportation easement, so in effect all we are
15:52:04 really changing is the pattern but the easement
15:52:07 quality of that stays the same.
15:52:09 So really what we are doing is, if I can put it in
15:52:13 laymen's terms, taking 6 of one, half a dozen of the
15:52:16 other.
15:52:17 Right now, a dedicated platted right-of-way, it will
15:52:20 be a transportation easement, reserved in favor of the
15:52:23 city so if in the future we do want to go ahead and
15:52:26 build that road straight through, bridge, culvert,
15:52:30 whatever we want to do to traverse that culvert, the

15:52:33 ability and the right to do that exists.
15:52:36 One exclusion.
15:52:43 >>> The easement would be in the blue hatched area and
15:52:45 it would go from 50 for the first half, 100 feet down
15:52:48 to 60.
15:52:50 And this would allow Mr. Garcia to the area he needs
15:52:54 to build.
15:53:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
15:53:06 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: That is all.
15:53:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone tolls speak on item 77?
15:53:09 >>: Move to close.
15:53:10 >> Second.
15:53:10 (Motion carried).
15:53:11 >>GWEN MILLER: What's the pleasure of council?
15:53:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you have the revised ordinance?
15:53:22 >>ROSE FERLITA: Given that case was made by Mr.
15:53:24 Harrison about the easement and I don't have a problem
15:53:31 supporting it at the time.
15:53:32 Move an ordinance vacating, closing, discontinuing,
15:53:35 and abandoning a certain right-of-way a portion of
15:53:38 Aileen street at the intersection of and west of north
15:53:42 Albany Avenue in West Tampa heights subdivision, a

15:53:44 subdivision in the City of Tampa Hillsborough County,
15:53:48 Florida the same being more fully described in section
15:53:50 2 hereof providing an effective date.
15:53:51 (Motion carried).
15:53:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 78.
15:54:02 >>ERIC COTTON: This is a conned public hearing
15:54:04 regarding the R-zoning.
15:54:09 As of last Thursday there were eight outstanding.
15:54:12 >> Point of order.
15:54:13 Is that a Miami dolphins --
15:54:18 >>> Yes, it is.
15:54:19 >> You're out of order.
15:54:20 >>> I don't have my watch today.
15:54:22 I'm sorry.
15:54:22 There were eight outstanding ones as of last week.
15:54:27 Part of the packet I gave you, Joe Papy from hand
15:54:32 delivered a notice telling everybody you had until
15:54:35 yesterday at 4:00 to pay.
15:54:38 Two more people came in this morning and paid.
15:54:40 We tack their fees and their reports.
15:54:50 We have one outstanding entity that has not paled nor
15:54:53 filed their receipt status, which is Moes southwest

15:55:00 grill at 4614 Boy Scout Boulevard.
15:55:02 They did not file their report, did not file their
15:55:04 fee.
15:55:04 They have been eight five times.
15:55:07 They have been late.
15:55:08 We are asking for a 30 day is you spendings.
15:55:12 >> So moved.
15:55:13 >> Second.
15:55:13 >>GWEN MILLER: A positive day.
15:55:15 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
15:55:16 We have also passed out to you the code section that
15:55:20 you will be governed by, from your most recent code
15:55:23 change.
15:55:23 This is the first time that you had the ability to
15:55:25 assist rather than -- I have highlighted the section.
15:55:29 You have the ability at this point to suspend the wet
15:55:32 zoning for up to 30 days because it's technically a
15:55:35 first violation because it's the first time it's
15:55:37 coming before you in this format.
15:55:40 There are three criteria, the gravity of the action,
15:55:45 any previous violations committed by the violator.
15:55:47 If you do decide to revoke you can do it -- you can do

15:55:50 up to -- from nothing up to a suspension of 30 days.
15:55:54 If you do, then I would ask that you put in your
15:55:56 motion that it starts tomorrow and the end date is
15:55:58 November 26.
15:55:59 If you go to 30 days and that way we have a very clear
15:56:01 time because they will be out posting the property and
15:56:04 that will make it very clear for everyone.
15:56:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby?
15:56:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I know this is a technical seeing the
15:56:11 chamber is empty but this is a public hearing and
15:56:13 anybody who does face suspension does have the right
15:56:17 to be publicly heard.
15:56:18 I would just ask if there's anybody who wishes to
15:56:20 speak to that for purposes of the record to prevent
15:56:23 any challenges to this suspension.
15:56:26 >>GWEN MILLER: What's the pleasure of council?
15:56:28 >> I don't see anyone.
15:56:30 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think that that would be gentle in
15:56:32 terms of what we are doing because we have already
15:56:34 given them a week to come back.
15:56:36 Isn't that what we did last week?
15:56:37 So I think given the circumstances, suspension would

15:56:40 be reasonable and I make that motion for 30 days,
15:56:44 beginning tomorrow.
15:56:47 >>> Starting tomorrow and end on November 26.
15:56:49 That will be the 30 days.
15:56:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
15:56:53 (Motion carried).
15:56:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't know, Ms. Kert, but if they
15:56:59 do not comply within 30 days or after the 30 days it
15:57:02 Kos does constitute another violation, is that
15:57:04 correct?
15:57:05 >>REBECCA KERT: That's correct.
15:57:06 And if nobody comes in to pay, it will be brought back
15:57:09 for an additional consideration.
15:57:13 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
15:57:16 Thank you.
15:57:17 We go to information of council members.
15:57:20 Do you have anything?
15:57:22 >>KEVIN WHITE: Nothing.
15:57:24 >>ROSE FERLITA: I understand detective Miller was hurt
15:57:26 in the line of duty and we wish him a quick recovery.
15:57:33 He was hurt in pursuit.
15:57:37 Madam Chairman, very quickly.

15:57:40 Maybe like in a couple of weeks or something, I don't
15:57:42 know if Mr. Snelling was here earlier.
15:57:45 We had an issue one day of a resident who complained
15:57:48 to me that there was a new project on his street.
15:57:50 And so because of the safety regulations everybody on
15:57:53 that street had to have their addresses changed.
15:57:56 In the past, in some cases it goes from 110.5 or
15:58:03 110-A, so another South Tampa resident is concerned
15:58:06 about the -- he lives on Hawthorne and I don't have
15:58:11 that e-mail in front of me.
15:58:13 So if Mr. Snelling could come explain to us so the
15:58:16 general public understands what that issue is and why
15:58:18 causes some hardships.
15:58:20 Maybe within a couple of weeks.
15:58:21 That's the motion.
15:58:23 >>CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second.
15:58:24 (Motion carried).
15:58:25 >>ROSE FERLITA: Just for the record, the citizen that
15:58:28 was complaining about was Mr. Ed Gurney, 2923 west
15:58:32 Hawthorne road. That was the same thing that had
15:58:34 happened to another constituent.
15:58:36 I don't know what the outcome was.

15:58:38 Just for clarification.
15:58:42 It took people changing their letter head, address,
15:58:46 et cetera.
15:58:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Unfinished business.
15:58:49 >>ROSE FERLITA: I'm sorry?
15:58:52 That's a wonderful day, November 16th.
15:58:56 That's all.
15:58:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena?
15:58:59 Mr. Dingfelder?
15:59:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
15:59:02 Two items.
15:59:03 One is -- Rose, this is kind of in your neighborhood.
15:59:12 If you have driven Bayshore recently you might have
15:59:14 noticed it.
15:59:15 When Tampa General Hospital got approved in their most
15:59:18 recent rezoning, there was a condition added, and I
15:59:22 don't remember the exact details, but it said they
15:59:24 should increase signage around the hospital.
15:59:26 So it's easier for people to figure out how to get
15:59:29 into the hospital and into the emergency room.
15:59:31 That's good.
15:59:34 When I remember that motion, I thought that motion had

15:59:37 to do with signage, you know, at the bridge and going
15:59:40 over the bridge, and onto Davis Island.
15:59:44 But now, there is a huge pylon for what appears to
15:59:51 soon be a huge sign that's going up on the Bayshore,
15:59:54 actually two signs on the Bayshore.
16:00:00 There's already one sign on the Bayshore that's a
16:00:04 small TGH sign right by the ramp as you are going
16:00:08 north toward downtown.
16:00:10 But then they put in a new one, apparently with city
16:00:13 permission.
16:00:14 They are putting in a new one.
16:00:15 And I am not blaming TGH.
16:00:18 Bottom line is I want to get a report from staff next
16:00:20 week.
16:00:22 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Dingfelder, I will certainly
16:00:24 support that.
16:00:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just to come and show us what the
16:00:28 sign is going to look like, how big it's going to be,
16:00:31 and that sorted of thing.
16:00:32 I have had some discussions but I had no idea there
16:00:36 was going to be a brand new sign on the Bayshore.
16:00:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do we have any ability to address

16:00:46 that?
16:00:46 Because it's my understanding that Bayshore Boulevard
16:00:49 is protected by state law and you can't -- especially
16:00:55 off-site signs which are illegal.
16:00:58 So legal needs to weigh in, too.
16:01:00 >> We need a need a report from legal and from
16:01:03 transportation.
16:01:06 Ms. Ferlita?
16:01:12 And I'm not picking on TGH.
16:01:14 >>ROSE FERLITA: No, no, no.
16:01:18 But it's the same thing as always, Mr. Dingfelder,
16:01:20 surprises are sometimes not well received.
16:01:22 We have gotten some complaints about this awhile back.
16:01:25 Ms. Curry sent it to the message center because there
16:01:29 were some residents at 345 Bayshore about this
16:01:31 monstrosity coming up.
16:01:33 And like, oh-oh, here we go and what's coming.
16:01:36 I don't know, if it's appropriate or not appropriate,
16:01:42 we were interested in having them improve signage.
16:01:46 But we have had several conversations with that was
16:01:52 very surprised that this was happening.
16:01:54 We never got a response to that complaint.

16:01:55 And we turned it in as well?
16:01:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I turned it in several times.
16:02:00 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think there's some sort of gap in
16:02:02 communication there.
16:02:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The response I got was there was
16:02:08 going to be new signage on the bridge.
16:02:09 I didn't know there was going to be new signage on the
16:02:14 bridge.
16:02:15 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
16:02:17 We'll certainly talk to the department that's
16:02:19 responsible for regulating this.
16:02:21 And make sure that it complies to the extent our code
16:02:25 has jurisdiction, that it complies with our code.
16:02:27 And we'll look at the issue as to whether or not it's
16:02:29 granted by D.O.T.
16:02:31 So I will find out where the sign is, where it's
16:02:33 going.
16:02:35 It has not been erected as of yet.
16:02:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: There's a vertical pole and cross
16:02:41 beam that's up and erected.
16:02:43 >> On the north side of Bayshore?
16:02:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: On the side coming from -- coming

16:02:48 towards downtown.
16:02:49 >>DAVID SMITH: But on this side of the water?
16:02:53 >> From the waterside.
16:02:54 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Smith, there are three of them.
16:02:57 Judging by the foundation it's going to be like 48 by
16:03:00 60.
16:03:00 I mean they are huge.
16:03:02 I didn't know TGH had a permit.
16:03:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's on city right-of-way.
16:03:08 There's two of them actually.
16:03:10 There's one to replace an existing one, which, you
16:03:12 know, I guess is okay.
16:03:14 That's very near the bridge.
16:03:18 Right before you veer off to the right.
16:03:24 About a quarter mile -- there's another one that's
16:03:29 brand new, never been there before.
16:03:32 And.
16:03:36 >> Bay shove Boulevard is a city park.
16:03:40 >> I'll be going by there while it's still light.
16:03:48 >>ROSE FERLITA: What would do you with that?
16:03:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Report back next week.
16:03:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's my motion.

16:03:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
16:03:56 >>ROSE FERLITA: Let's do one week.
16:04:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Sorry, but that's really important.
16:04:02 (Motion carried).
16:04:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The other issue has to do with
16:04:06 signage, and that's political signage.
16:04:09 And I realize we are near the end of political -- that
16:04:12 political season, and about to start another one.
16:04:15 But I think we have some problems with our political
16:04:17 signage code.
16:04:19 As indicated by some recent events and issues and that
16:04:22 sort of thing.
16:04:24 There's nothing we can do about it.
16:04:26 There's not a whole lot we can do about it but here's
16:04:29 a major flaw already. The code says we'll give you 30
16:04:32 days.
16:04:32 Our standard, we'll give you 30 days to fix it.
16:04:35 In political terms, that's the whole shebang.
16:04:39 You get 30 days and you have accomplished what you
16:04:41 wanted to.
16:04:46 What's the word, now?
16:04:47 Just disregarded the law.

16:04:49 And that's what a lot of people are doing.
16:04:51 Unfortunately, that includes judicial candidates.
16:04:54 There's 4 by 8 signs all over town that are illegal in
16:04:58 the City of Tampa, or as you have spoken to in the
16:05:00 past. Anyway, we have a serious problem.
16:05:03 We need to amend and revisit the political sign code.
16:05:08 And I just ask staff -- and we can talk about how long
16:05:12 and that sort of thing.
16:05:13 But I want legal staff and staff to start looking at
16:05:18 this and come up with some ideas.
16:05:22 And here's another part of the problem.
16:05:24 Apparently, if you have a floppy sign that's not
16:05:27 backed by anything stiff then it falls into the
16:05:32 banner, the banner thing.
16:05:34 But if you have a stiff-back sign, then it could be
16:05:37 covered by the political sign.
16:05:39 And --
16:05:40 >>ROSE FERLITA: Before he finishes.
16:05:43 If you remember, I did bring that up and some people
16:05:46 construed it that I was picking on my opponent in the
16:05:48 primary so I let it go.
16:05:50 But I said then and you are saying it now and you are

16:05:53 absolutely right.
16:05:53 We have to give everybody their due process in terms
16:05:57 of violations but certainly not going to get done by
16:06:01 this cycle and I understand.
16:06:03 But that's way told you guys last time.
16:06:05 We need to look at it.
16:06:06 Because first of all you have code enforcement
16:06:08 baby-sitting the regular signs that are in the
16:06:10 right-of-way.
16:06:11 And instead of doing something else, you will have one
16:06:14 of the code enforcement officers or many of them
16:06:16 picking up these signs.
16:06:18 And in a couple of cases -- and we won't mention the
16:06:22 candidates.
16:06:24 It's not pointed at anybody.
16:06:26 But there will be a couple certain obvious
16:06:28 rights-of-way.
16:06:28 I suspect maybe that's code enforcement doing their
16:06:31 job.
16:06:31 Couple days later same thing.
16:06:33 And then they are pulled. So they are baby-sitting
16:06:35 people that are violators.

16:06:36 This is not about anybody in particular.
16:06:38 I had conversations, spoke to the Tribune and the
16:06:43 times reps out there. It is not about the violates or
16:06:45 but about the violation.
16:06:46 And you're absolutely right, John.
16:06:48 Give them a warnings.
16:06:49 You can't do anything, even if you have a huge 4 by 8
16:06:53 sign, if it's on private property, you have to give
16:06:55 them that warning.
16:06:56 By the time they are obligated to take it down, it's
16:06:59 accomplished what it needed to accomplish.
16:07:01 And I think everybody needs to be in control of their
16:07:04 own standards, you know.
16:07:07 But, at the same time, you have to do something about
16:07:09 that sign ordinance because it's awful.
16:07:12 It's really, really awful.
16:07:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So what would you like --
16:07:20 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
16:07:22 I am going to be bringing back on November 9th a
16:07:24 recommendation with the sign committee from includes
16:07:27 actually an amendment to the temporary on-site banner
16:07:31 regulation which would eliminate the need for permit.

16:07:35 What I can do is bring back part of that an amendment
16:07:39 to the political signs for your consideration at that
16:07:41 time as well.
16:07:43 So I think this --
16:07:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Then in a municipal election we'll
16:07:50 be the first ones covered by it.
16:07:52 >> Then I can call and complain what you guys are
16:07:54 doing wrong.
16:07:55 [ Laughter ]
16:07:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Oh, you are going to incorporate it
16:07:58 in what you are already doing?
16:08:00 >>JULIA COLE: To on-site banner that's already
16:08:03 covered.
16:08:04 November 9th I'm bringing it back.
16:08:06 >> Let me just incorporate it as a motion.
16:08:08 Add to whatever you are doing and add this to it.
16:08:11 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
16:08:12 (Motion carried).
16:08:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was wrong, there's one other
16:08:17 thing.
16:08:18 Judge Altonburn, one of his eagle scouts, has asked to
16:08:28 appear in front of us, he's a suggestion as part of

16:08:31 his eagle project.
16:08:32 And I think they are looking for not a time certain
16:08:38 perhaps, but at least a special item on the agenda.
16:08:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Commendation?
16:08:43 >> Not a commendation.
16:08:44 I think he wants to make a presentation and a
16:08:45 proposition to us.
16:08:48 So I will just mention his name so we can put it on
16:08:51 there, as a presentation by prospective eagle scout
16:08:57 Chris Longo who is in Judge Alton Burns scout troop
16:09:06 for November 16th.
16:09:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: At 11:00 o'clock?
16:09:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes, I guess.
16:09:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Find out what time and bring it back to
16:09:17 us.
16:09:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: They don't mention any time so why
16:09:19 don't we just say eleven.
16:09:23 >> Second.
16:09:23 (Motion carried).
16:09:24 >>ROSE FERLITA: Ms. Cole, hurry up because we have to
16:09:30 get back.
16:09:31 >>JULIA COLE: I was requested this morning a walk-on

16:09:35 item, dedicated for setting the public hearing, and
16:09:38 when we set the public hearing, the wrong legal
16:09:41 description was attached.
16:09:43 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
16:09:44 (Motion carried)
16:09:48 Mr. Harrison would like for construction services to
16:09:51 come in two weeks on staff reports to discuss flooding
16:09:55 issues in Heritage Isles.
16:09:59 Somebody make that motion.
16:10:01 >> So moved.
16:10:02 >> Second.
16:10:02 (Motion carried)
16:10:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else to come before council?
16:10:07 Clerk, do you have anything?
16:10:09 Receive and file.
16:10:11 >> So moved.
16:10:11 >> Second.
16:10:11 (Motion carried).
16:10:12 >>GWEN MILLER: We stand adjourned until 5:01.
16:10:17 (City Council meeting adjourned)