Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

Tampa City Council
Thursday, December 7, 2006
9:00 a.m. Session

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

[Sounding gavel]
09:08:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
09:08:15 The chair will yield to Ms. Linda Saul-Sena.
09:08:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It is my great pleasure this
09:08:21 morning to introduce my friend and Tampa's poet
09:08:24 laureate, James Tokley.
09:08:26 James will provide us with our thought for today.
09:08:31 Then we'll stand for Mr. Tokley and then remain
09:08:36 standing for the pledge of allegiance.
09:08:37 Thank you so much for joining us today, Mr. Tokley.
09:08:47 >> James Tokley: Good morning all.
09:08:54 When it seems at first that all was lost the battered
09:08:58 ship would sink before it reached the bay the captain
09:09:01 prayed and he found a way.
09:09:04 When it seems there would not be a cure nor for the
09:09:10 pain endured by countless patients day to day, the
09:09:16 they prayed and they found a way.
09:09:18 When the lights went out all over the world and peace
09:09:20 was a word that few could say, those few stood fast
09:09:25 with banners unfurled for the sake of piece, they
09:09:29 found a way.
09:09:30 And as for us, what shall be said when the spirit
09:09:35 calls us in to account for the past, we might have
09:09:38 tread
09:09:39 Or the beacon light we could have been
09:09:41 When the question fall as round our ears
09:09:44 And convicts both what we do and say
09:09:48 Who say do prayer they calm their fears
09:09:52 And by their actions found a way
09:09:55 For the choice is not an easy one
09:09:58 To lead with compassion day to day
09:10:00 To do in faith what must be done, to seek the truth,
09:10:06 to find a way
09:10:09 To stand as one before your peers,
09:10:14 To face the void of time and space
09:10:18 When the world says, no, I found a way.
09:10:25 [ Pledge of Allegiance ]
09:10:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
09:10:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
09:10:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
09:10:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
09:10:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
09:10:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Before we begin our meeting, I would
09:10:51 like to let everyone know that Mr. Shawn Harrison will
09:10:55 not be in attendance this morning.
09:10:57 He's in Nevada at a National League of Cities meeting
09:10:59 and he wants to wish the new council members a welcome
09:11:02 and sorry that he's not here.
09:11:05 Also, from the mayor, she would like to apologize that
09:11:08 she is not here for the swearing-in.
09:11:10 She really wanted to be here but she's home with the
09:11:13 flu.
09:11:13 But she says she knows you're going to do a good job
09:11:16 and she'll see you when she gets back.
09:11:19 So she says congratulations to you.
09:11:21 And while I am saying that the mayor needs to hurry up
09:11:24 and get well and get back to work.
09:11:26 So we are wishing her a speedy recovery,
09:11:31 Also Mr. Jim Stefan is out sick.
09:11:34 So at this time I would like Ms. Foxx-Knowles to do
09:11:40 our swearing in.
09:11:45 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: Good morning, council.
09:12:29 (swearing-in)
09:13:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Congratulations, Mr. Reddick.
09:13:55 Congratulations, Mr. Fletcher.
09:13:59 You may now come join the City Council.
09:14:01 Roll call.
09:14:02 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Here.
09:14:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
09:14:04 >>SHAWN HARRISON: (No response.)
09:14:06 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
09:14:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
09:14:09 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.
09:14:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
09:14:12 At this time we are going to go to our sign-in sheet.

09:14:15 We have Mr. Randy Goers.
09:14:22 >>RANDY GOERS: Community planning division.
09:14:24 I have a resolution we are walking on that was
09:14:27 submitted during the doc agenda for the adoption
09:14:29 hearings of the plan amendment.
09:14:32 This is the march cycle plan amendment.
09:14:36 We have the Rattlesnake Point, the school and the
09:14:40 drive plan amendments.
09:14:41 There was an error in the boundary for the Adamo drive
09:14:46 and before we could correct it, it was too late to get
09:14:49 it into the doc agenda so I would like to walk that
09:14:52 on.
09:14:55 The city has 60 days in which to take the option for
09:14:59 the cities to receive that, around December 1st,
09:15:02 we have until February 1st in which to adopt or
09:15:05 take action on the plan amendment.
09:15:07 So the resolution is asking for setting public
09:15:10 hearings on 501 on January 11th, then on the
09:15:15 25th of January for the final hearing.
09:15:19 >>GWEN MILLER: So council needs to make a motion.
09:15:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved to set the hearings, 5:01
09:15:26 on January 11th.

09:15:29 (Motion carried).
09:15:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Cathy Coyle.
09:15:34 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
09:15:38 I will hand this out.
09:15:47 What I am handing you is a draft provision to create a
09:15:50 new wet zoning classification 4 PGC public golf
09:15:55 course.
09:15:56 This is essentially for any of the golf courses that
09:15:58 are owned and operated by any -- public or
09:16:01 governmental entities.
09:16:03 We are requesting at this time that this be placed for
09:16:06 public hearing in January, if possible.
09:16:10 I'm trying to think of the date.
09:16:12 It would be in the morning.
09:16:14 It would be January 11th or January 18th.
09:16:17 Specifically for a public golf course.
09:16:20 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a full agenda on the 11th.
09:16:22 What about the 18th?
09:16:25 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The 18th is fine.
09:16:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Moved to set that on the 18th.
09:16:30 >> Second.
09:16:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Cathy, what's the origin of this?

09:16:35 They are not wet zoned right now?
09:16:39 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Specifically babes Zaharias is not
09:16:44 wet zoned.
09:16:44 Our residential districts are not allowed to be wet
09:16:47 zoned.
09:16:47 So this is to create that provision that any
09:16:50 governmental public golf course could have the beer
09:16:55 cart, which they cannot operate currently.
09:16:57 And all the other golf courses do.
09:16:59 But this would allow that provision.
09:17:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We have a motion and second.
09:17:04 (Motion carried).
09:17:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: At what time?
09:17:09 >>GWEN MILLER: 10:00.
09:17:16 Gregory Hart.
09:17:26 >> Good morning.
09:17:27 Gregory Hart, manager, present this morning to provide
09:17:32 you with our staff update on the disparity study.
09:17:35 And I'll be brief.
09:17:37 I have just a few updates to bring to you.
09:17:43 In that regard, I and members of the city internal
09:17:47 task force did meet with Mason Tillman associates

09:17:50 consultants on Tuesday, November 21st, here at the
09:17:53 muss nice pal office building.
09:17:55 The -- municipal office building.
09:17:59 The purpose was to receive the city's progress report
09:18:01 from Mason Tillman and associates, which was going to
09:18:04 address validating the 419 firms.
09:18:08 Regarding Mason Tillman's supplemental scope of work.
09:18:13 I'm pleased to report that tasks 1 through 5 have been
09:18:16 completed.
09:18:18 My office is now waiting final report which will
09:18:21 address the number of firms which can be validated
09:18:23 available for inclusion in the study and the impact on
09:18:25 disparity.
09:18:27 We can expect delivery of a written report that
09:18:29 provides the findings of the tasks 1 through 5 next
09:18:33 week.
09:18:34 My office will also provide recommendations on what
09:18:37 actions need to be taken in response to the Mason
09:18:40 Tillman findings regarding the 419 firms.
09:18:46 In conclusion I would like to note that the internal
09:18:49 working group, which includes myself, is currently
09:18:52 reviewing elements of the small business enterprise

09:18:55 program, in respect to the executive order
09:18:58 implementing rules of that program.
09:19:00 We hope to maximize opportunities for expanding the
09:19:05 neutral gender of that program.
09:19:08 The disparity study strongly recommends all options
09:19:11 for increasing participation through race neutral
09:19:14 programs and policy initiatives.
09:19:16 So that's where we are.
09:19:18 We are hoping to bring closure in relatively short
09:19:26 time, supplemental work schedule.
09:19:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Will it be a final draft or just a
09:19:34 draft?
09:19:35 >> It will be a final report on the exercise of the
09:19:39 one through five tasks and depending on those findings
09:19:43 could bring closure to the work study.
09:19:46 >> When you say one through five.
09:19:50 >>> They may or may not need to proceed with the
09:19:53 remaining tasks in the original scope of work.
09:19:56 That will be dependent upon the findings of the
09:19:58 initial one through five tasks.
09:20:00 To answer your question, Madam Chair, it's quite
09:20:03 possible that we may not need to move through those

09:20:07 remaining four or five tasks.
09:20:15 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to make a motion for an
09:20:19 ordinance?
09:20:20 >>> We will have a draft and bring that to you.
09:20:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think this council is really
09:20:25 interested in the implementation and the
09:20:27 recommendations.
09:20:29 And the other thing that we are interested in is a
09:20:33 regular information to us, perhaps on a quarterly
09:20:36 basis, of how we are doing in terms of working with
09:20:41 minorities, contractors, and minority bids, and what
09:20:46 would be helpful, perhaps, is if you share with us a
09:20:49 time frame when you have the final report, and when we
09:20:53 can -- what specific things you need to do to
09:20:56 implement this report.
09:20:58 And when we could expect to begin to see some results
09:21:01 from that.
09:21:03 That would be really helpful.
09:21:04 Because the report is one thing.
09:21:06 But what we are really interested in is the action
09:21:08 that comes from that.
09:21:11 >> Yes, council, we would be more than happy.

09:21:13 And quite frankly provide you with an outline in terms
09:21:18 of how frequently quarterly or whatever your desires
09:21:22 are to bring forth periodic reports on the
09:21:25 implementation of the program.
09:21:29 >> Should we schedule perhaps, I don't know, ten
09:21:35 minutes at a time certain maybe, to hear more
09:21:40 thoroughly what the implementation will be?
09:21:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Wait till Mr. Hart gets the report, and
09:21:47 he will know how much time we need.
09:21:50 Wouldn't that be best?
09:21:51 >>> That's great.
09:21:51 >>GWEN MILLER: He can tell us -- let us know how much
09:21:54 time you need and we'll put you on the agenda for
09:21:56 that.
09:21:58 >>> That would be fine, thank you.
09:21:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions?
09:22:00 Thank you, Mr. Hart.
09:22:02 Mr. George Martin.
09:22:14 >> Coming to appear before City Council to replace
09:22:17 portions of exhibit -- the reason is the legal
09:22:23 description when it was originally scanned in the doc
09:22:27 agenda process, for some reason had some glitches.

09:22:31 There are some asterisks replacing other symbols.
09:22:37 There are some other numbers.
09:22:39 We are replacing a portion of the exhibit which is
09:22:42 being typed in the legal description to ensure that
09:22:45 it's clear and correct legal.
09:22:53 >> Item what?
09:22:54 >>> 15.
09:22:55 One-five.
09:22:57 >> Oh.
09:22:58 >>> It's an agreement with the Florida Department of
09:22:59 Transportation for the Green Trails.
09:23:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask a question?
09:23:11 I had written "hooray" next to this because I know we
09:23:14 had been really eager to hammer this out.
09:23:16 It's taken too long and if we don't get the money by
09:23:19 the end of the year it disappears.
09:23:20 I'm really glad that we are going to be able to agree
09:23:23 with what's being sent and we can proceed with our
09:23:25 project and I hope next time it can happen more.
09:23:30 >> We certainly hope so.
09:23:48 >>ABBYE FEELEY: I came before you last week to ask for
09:23:50 a rezoning to be rescheduled.

09:23:52 There had been an administrative error in the publish
09:23:56 of a notice.
09:23:58 At the time I forgot to ask about waiving the $300 fee
09:24:02 because it was an administrative error on my behalf.
09:24:05 >> So moved.
09:24:06 >> Second.
09:24:06 (Motion carried).
09:24:30 Mr. Rolando Santiago.
09:24:34 Okay, we will go to approval of the agenda.
09:24:36 Any items we need to pull from the agenda?
09:24:48 Any items to pull from the agenda?
09:24:50 >> Move to approve.
09:24:51 >> Second.
09:24:51 (Motion carried).
09:24:52 >>GWEN MILLER: We go to item number 2.
09:24:57 I have a resolution.
09:25:03 >>> Cindy Miller, director of growth management,
09:25:06 development services.
09:25:06 I'm here for staff reports, unfinished business, items
09:25:10 2, 3 and 8.
09:25:11 For item number 2, this is a land sales agreement that
09:25:16 the city is proposing with FS properties, Inc., for

09:25:22 property in the Port Tampa area.
09:25:23 I think it would be helpful for me to outline, for a
09:25:28 transaction of this nature, that this is a negotiated
09:25:30 sale that the city is -- administration is presenting
09:25:33 to City Council.
09:25:43 >>GWEN MILLER: We are waiting for ours to come on so
09:25:50 yours will come on.
09:25:51 >>> The subject property is a parcel 50 by 100 feet.
09:25:56 Now, if you normally would see a 50 by 100-foot
09:25:59 parcel, you would say that's a nice, small, buildable
09:26:02 lot.
09:26:03 But I think if you look at this aerial photo, you will
09:26:06 see that it's landlocked, it does not have a street
09:26:11 running in front of it, it is surrounded by other
09:26:15 parcels.
09:26:15 Let me identify for you the description that we have.
09:26:19 This parcel is part of old city landfill number 32
09:26:24 Which was retained for possible future use by
09:26:27 wastewater but then they indicated they no longer had a
09:26:30 use for it so that is why we kept this parcel when
09:26:33 other parcels around it are not owned by the city.
09:26:36 What we do with negotiated sale is our real estate

09:26:42 staff will come to me with a recommendation, it will
09:26:44 be negotiated as to being made available on the open
09:26:47 market through an RFP processor a bid.
09:26:50 The reason we have looked at this particular one,
09:26:53 first of all, we do circulate it to other city
09:26:55 departments just to make sure -- then my staff
09:26:59 prepares a memo to be sure that it's a specially
09:27:02 negotiated sale process, and we do submit a memo to
09:27:05 City Council before we initiate that process.
09:27:12 We had submitted other departments in April and I find
09:27:14 the memo in August indicating my approval for a
09:27:17 negotiated sales process.
09:27:20 When we then obtained an appraisal for the property,
09:27:26 we had to give the appraiser some very specific
09:27:30 instruction.
09:27:33 Since this is part of the landfill and the adjacent
09:27:36 parcels were part of that landfill, the appraiser
09:27:39 needed to know whether they should include the
09:27:41 appraisal that it is either -- is clean or not clean.
09:27:46 Very frankly from our professional standpoint in real
09:27:49 estate division had we given the instructions they
09:27:51 were not clean, we would have had a zero or negative

09:27:53 value.
09:27:54 We therefore ask them to appraise it as if it was
09:27:57 fully cleaned up.
09:27:58 So, therefore, their land appraiser report that was
09:28:01 submitted by the appraiser indicated that we should --
09:28:06 it should be appraised at $7,000, assuming it was a
09:28:09 fully clean parcel.
09:28:11 The adjacent property owner is the party with which we
09:28:18 had negotiated.
09:28:19 Let me put one other item on the Elmo.
09:28:29 The yellow cross-hatch area that is outlined in black
09:28:33 is the area that FS property owns.
09:28:37 The area outlined in yellow, that small parcel which
09:28:42 is not outlined, is the small parcel that we are
09:28:45 proposing to sell.
09:28:48 The FS properties has obtained an estimate to clean
09:28:51 the property that they currently own, which is a
09:28:55 former City of Tampa landfill as well as this parcel,
09:28:58 and the projected estimated cost is over $1.2 million.
09:29:02 So, therefore, we believe that since we have an
09:29:05 interested party who is a majority land owner, they
09:29:08 have a significant clean-up cost in order to make the

09:29:10 parcels usable, we also believe that in isolation our
09:29:14 parcel is worth very little, but that it's part of a
09:29:18 larger major development that is cleaned up and used
09:29:20 for much higher economic use in the future.
09:29:23 We believe that this is an appropriate transaction.
09:29:26 And I'm available as is Mr. Herbacker from the real
09:29:32 estate division to answer any questions.
09:29:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Ms. Miller and Mr.
09:29:36 Fecker and Mr. Snelling.
09:29:39 You put a lot of work into this and I appreciate it.
09:29:42 If you could put the picture back up.
09:29:48 Who initiated this?
09:29:49 Was real estate sitting around and saw this parcel and
09:29:52 out of our thousands of parcels, said we need to sell
09:29:55 this?
09:29:57 Or were we approached by that developer?
09:30:07 >> Good morning, council.
09:30:08 I am Herb Fecker, for the record, manager of the real
09:30:12 estate division.
09:30:13 It's my understanding, Mr. Dingfelder, that this has
09:30:17 been an ongoing process of this property by the
09:30:22 proposed purchaser, and they would have approached the

09:30:25 real estate division in times past for this final
09:30:28 portion.
09:30:30 >> So have they purchased other sections of that green
09:30:34 area from the city as well?
09:30:36 >>> That's correct.
09:30:38 >>> That's correct.
09:30:38 That was a former landfill area which the city had
09:30:42 made available but this small portion that came
09:30:45 because we thought it wove a use by other city
09:30:51 departments.
09:30:51 >> The concern I have -- and frankly, I can't take
09:30:54 concern for it -- the concern I had is for Port Tampa
09:30:56 city, the neighborhood down there had contacted me a
09:30:59 month ago when this first came on the agenda, and they
09:31:02 said, $7,000 for a buildable 50 by 100-foot lot,
09:31:08 anywhere in South Tampa, seems way low.
09:31:11 And there are some extenuating circumstances.
09:31:13 I understand that.
09:31:14 But I think -- and I happened by coincidence to go
09:31:19 down to their neighborhood association meeting last
09:31:21 week and this was on their agenda.
09:31:26 They specifically asked me, why can't the city just

09:31:28 put this up for bid, see what happens?
09:31:31 If nobody steps forward, then we have already got a
09:31:34 contract in place for $7,000.
09:31:36 But if we put it up for bid, and somebody bids, you
09:31:39 know, 10, 15,000, whatever, then the city has made a
09:31:42 little more extra money.
09:31:44 It seems reasonable to me.
09:31:48 It might also inspire this property owner if he wants
09:31:52 to finish out that corner of his project then maybe he
09:31:55 wants to give us more than the $7,000 that's on the
09:31:58 table right now.
09:31:58 I think everybody knows, you know, what empty lots are
09:32:03 going for in South Tampa.
09:32:06 Sometimes as much as 2 or $300,000.
09:32:10 I'm not saying that this would get that.
09:32:13 But I think it's worth the extra effort.
09:32:15 I asked Mr. Fecker yesterday how much it cost to
09:32:20 advertise and you indicated a couple hundred dollars
09:32:22 perhaps.
09:32:22 >> It's a negligible cost to advertise.
09:32:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Right.
09:32:26 So as much as I respect all the time that staff has

09:32:29 put into this and everything, I have a problem
09:32:31 supporting it at this time, just for those reasons.
09:32:34 And out of respect for the neighborhood, too.
09:32:39 >> Thank you.
09:32:41 I have a question.
09:32:41 When we put things out can we put the information out
09:32:47 on the Internet?
09:32:48 >>> There is not necessarily a law in either.
09:32:50 We have to advertise usually under legal notices.
09:32:52 But we usually will advertise both in the newspapers
09:32:56 of general circulation as well as put it on our web
09:32:58 site.
09:32:59 And the public is able to access in various locations.
09:33:03 >> Do we do this on a regular basis for various city
09:33:05 properties?
09:33:08 >>> We do advertisements for various city properties.
09:33:11 However, some of them that are -- that have been most
09:33:14 recently advertised have been larger commercial sites.
09:33:17 As an example you have a transaction before you last
09:33:20 week, a fire station.
09:33:21 Usually those are the ones that we will do an RFP.
09:33:24 When it comes to something that is a residential lot,

09:33:26 we are usually having that through our housing and
09:33:29 community services division.
09:33:31 So we are about to come before you in the first
09:33:34 quarter with some transactions there.
09:33:36 And those are advertised, depending on whether it's on
09:33:40 the CRA processor whether it's under the overall city
09:33:44 process for advertising.
09:33:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have one other question.
09:33:48 I don't think it was necessarily city land but we did
09:33:51 approve a large project in this vicinity in the last
09:33:54 couple weeks as the Ashcroft?
09:33:58 >>
09:33:59 >> Ashton woods is nearby.
09:34:05 >> Does anybody have any recollection or any knowledge
09:34:09 of what the lot price was that Ashton eventually ended
09:34:13 up pay are fog those lots?
09:34:15 >>> It was not a transaction of the City of Tampa.
09:34:18 They had already assembled their parcels.
09:34:20 >> Because I think what's happening is this entire
09:34:23 previously undeveloped and sort of isolated area is
09:34:26 now redeveloping.
09:34:27 I mean, Ashton, you know, has approached the city.

09:34:30 We entered into an agreement with them about
09:34:33 redeveloping their parcel.
09:34:34 I think that north-south section there along there, if
09:34:41 I am not mistaken, is that the end of Manhattan?
09:34:48 >>> I don't have it in the north-south configuration.
09:34:50 >> I'm disoriented.
09:34:52 But I think the extension of Manhattan is along there
09:34:54 and that's how Ashton is going to be accessing their
09:34:57 property.
09:34:57 I just think that even though it looks very isolated
09:35:00 and undevelopable, I think in the near future this
09:35:03 entire area is going to be redeveloped.
09:35:12 >>> Again from an overall standpoint, our
09:35:16 recommendation for having this negotiated sale,
09:35:17 because of the nature of it being a former landfill,
09:35:20 having the commitment from a developer that they will
09:35:22 clean up the adjacent parcels of their own as well as
09:35:25 ours, and also based upon the recommendation of
09:35:29 environmental staff for the city, not just our real
09:35:31 estate section, again we just think that this would be
09:35:35 a better utilization, and having the commitment is not
09:35:39 just a high bid situation.

09:35:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Miller, so you're anticipating
09:35:44 that the costs of this landfill will be a lot more
09:35:47 than $7,000.
09:35:49 >>> The estimates for the yellow hatch marked area,
09:35:53 which includes the property currently owned by FS, as
09:35:57 well as this parcel adjacent to it that the city owns,
09:36:00 is over $1.2 million, a former city landfill.
09:36:06 >> Well, I don't think they are getting a bargain then
09:36:08 if they are buying the land for $7,000 but they are
09:36:11 also going to clear it up for 1.2 million or
09:36:13 something.
09:36:16 I have to agree with the administration that this is a
09:36:21 good thing to do.
09:36:25 So I'll support it.
09:36:31 >>FRANK REDDICK: Has there been an environmental
09:36:33 assessment done on the parcel that's looking to sell?
09:36:36 And has there been a clean-up cost associated
09:36:40 specifically with that parcel at this point?
09:36:47 >>> Just had some conversations with our environmental
09:36:48 staff and other division and they at least anecdotally
09:36:53 identified for you the depth of the landfill area.
09:36:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The general landfill area, Mr.

09:37:00 Fletcher, is considered generally speaking to contain
09:37:02 at least four feet of debris and garbage, plus an
09:37:05 additional two feet of clean fill on top.
09:37:08 Now it may be more.
09:37:09 It may be less as it's spread throughout the landfill
09:37:12 but that's the general approach.
09:37:15 >>> And as part of this transaction, is there a
09:37:18 legally binding commitment to do the clean-up on the
09:37:23 site that's been committed to?
09:37:24 Or is that just simply part of their plan?
09:37:28 >>> To my knowledge that would be part of their plan.
09:37:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council?
09:37:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What is the size of the other
09:37:38 property that this person owns?
09:37:40 It looks like a number of acres.
09:37:46 >>> We really don't have that.
09:37:48 Let me double check.
09:37:49 Let me review one item here.
09:38:10 It is a number of acres, councilwoman, but I don't
09:38:13 know the exact amount.
09:38:14 Just looking at it -- and I'll put this back up --
09:38:17 just looking at it, the parcel that is 50 by 100 that

09:38:20 the city owns compared to the rest looks to be about
09:38:25 1-15th or so of the total area, perhaps
09:38:29 1-20th.
09:38:31 So it's going to be 19 times larger.
09:38:33 >> What I am trying to do is extrapolate the cost.
09:38:35 If the total cost of the clean-up is 142 million, you
09:38:38 divide by 15, let's say, then that would be less than
09:38:41 $100,000 of parcel.
09:38:44 It would be significant.
09:38:46 Probably about 70,000.
09:38:48 So if you are getting a parcel for
09:38:53 $77,000, that's still, in South Tampa terms, a pretty
09:38:57 good deal.
09:39:05 >> It was based upon the parcel being cleaned because
09:39:08 there is infrastructure that does not go to that
09:39:11 parcel.
09:39:12 Other parcels in South Tampa that are valued at a
09:39:14 higher rate already have streets going to it.
09:39:17 So this parcel does not.
09:39:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How long has this landfill been going
09:39:23 on?
09:39:24 How long has it been here?

09:39:26 >>> Well, the landfill has been a closed landfill for
09:39:28 a number of years so I don't know if -- those of you
09:39:33 who have been in Tampa a lot longer than I have.
09:39:38 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Every time somebody is trying to buy
09:39:41 something called surplus, all of a sudden it becomes
09:39:44 valuable property.
09:39:44 And we have associations and on the people want in on
09:39:56 it but I don't see anyone else coming up with
09:39:58 1.2 million.
09:40:00 I feel sorry and I respect the civic association for
09:40:02 making their feelings known about it.
09:40:05 But this thing has been there for a long, long time
09:40:08 and nobody has ever questioned it.
09:40:13 I would go along with the administration on this.
09:40:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just one more thing.
09:40:21 Let me get some clarification, also.
09:40:23 Is there a time certain on this pending contract?
09:40:28 Is it a deal breaker if we delay it a month?
09:40:31 And see if we can get a higher bid from the
09:40:36 neighborhood?
09:40:37 I mean, not from the neighborhood, from anybody.
09:40:39 Not from the neighborhood.

09:40:40 [ Laughter ]
09:40:41 I got the neighborhood letter here.
09:40:44 >>> Without the contract in front of me, I don't
09:40:46 believe it's time sensitive.
09:40:47 >> And you didn't seem to indicate there was a time
09:40:51 issue yesterday.
09:40:52 My whole point, council, is we don't know what the
09:40:54 value of this is.
09:40:55 The appraisal value of 7,000 which seems very low to
09:41:00 all of us, the appraisal did not take in any
09:41:03 environmental into consideration one way or the other.
09:41:05 I would say let the market decide.
09:41:08 You know, if we put it out there for sale, and
09:41:14 frankly, I think some of our contracts tell people
09:41:17 that if you buy this, you must develop this within a
09:41:19 certain period of time.
09:41:21 We put a clause in many of our contracts like that.
09:41:24 And I would suggest that if we put it out on the
09:41:26 street, A, we tell people that it might have
09:41:28 environmental issues.
09:41:29 Although frankly, council, if you look at it, it's up
09:41:32 in the corner of the landfill, of the so-called

09:41:35 landfill, and the neighborhood who has experience with
09:41:37 this area says that because it was up in the corner,
09:41:40 and you can see it looks like it's somewhat treed or
09:41:44 something, that this particular parcel would not
09:41:46 necessarily add impact to the remainder of the
09:41:50 property.
09:41:50 Because as you guess, you probably bound it in the
09:41:54 middle and it slopes down.
09:41:56 But I haven't been tromping around there but I would
09:41:59 say let the market decide.
09:42:00 Give at month.
09:42:01 We don't have to kill this thing.
09:42:03 We can just defer it till January.
09:42:04 In the meantime, Mr. Fecker can advertise it F.nothing
09:42:09 comes in higher then we sell it for $7,000 and we are
09:42:11 all happy.
09:42:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I second the motion.
09:42:16 >>> Just one other issue.
09:42:17 It appears from the discussion that we have, a buyer
09:42:21 willing to do clean-up of the site, necessary to
09:42:25 develop the property, I would hope that ultimately
09:42:30 that is done either through a condition of the sale

09:42:34 that that be completed, whether that be by this
09:42:37 purchaser or another purchaser.
09:42:38 I agree that the purchase price sounds rather low, and
09:42:42 perhaps the market could bring in some more money into
09:42:45 the city.
09:42:45 But I would not want to lose the opportunity to have
09:42:50 an old city landfill cleaned up by a third party,
09:42:54 because I think that probably is a pretty significant
09:42:59 step in the public interest as well.
09:43:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Miller, has this person put a
09:43:05 contract on the landfill already?
09:43:07 >>> You mean from the standpoint -- before we come to
09:43:12 you, we have them sign the contract.
09:43:14 So therefore they have already signed the contract for
09:43:15 the purchase.
09:43:16 At this point it would be pending your approval.
09:43:19 >>GWEN MILLER: So if we go out to bid, would we lose
09:43:23 that 1.5 million?
09:43:26 Would they change their mind --
09:43:28 >>> I can't predict.
09:43:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: They have already purchased all the
09:43:31 rest of the entire green area.

09:43:33 >>> If somebody bids, though --
09:43:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just on the corner, that one little
09:43:39 lot.
09:43:39 But they are not going to back off on the whole
09:43:41 project just because they lose out on that one little
09:43:44 lot in the corner.
09:43:48 Wouldn't go that far and acquire all the other 30 lots
09:43:50 and then say, oh, my God, I'm going to back away from
09:43:53 this.
09:43:53 >>GWEN MILLER: But clean it up for 1.5, and they might
09:43:58 say, well, have the person who buys it clean it up for
09:44:02 the 1.5.
09:44:03 They are not going to clean it up.
09:44:05 That's what I'm talking about.
09:44:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The people already own the rest of
09:44:08 the parcel.
09:44:09 They are doing that independent of that.
09:44:11 So the question of whether they include this is part
09:44:13 of their overall plan.
09:44:14 But already 8, 9 of the entire area.
09:44:22 So my motion would be to put this off for a month and
09:44:25 see if somebody comes in offering us a lot more money,

09:44:27 but with the understanding, whoever purchases this
09:44:30 will have to clean it up, which frankly they have to
09:44:32 do anyway because you are not allowed to build on an
09:44:35 old, you know, landfill site.
09:44:38 So it's sort of an understood, but I think, you know,
09:44:41 clarifying is part of the contract.
09:44:45 >> May I just express one more concern?
09:44:47 In isolation, the 50 by 100 lot again is isolated
09:44:52 without streets going to it.
09:44:54 I'm not sure that other proposers or bidders coming in
09:44:58 could be able to have a viable economic development
09:45:01 for this parcel if it is a single owner.
09:45:04 That's my one concern.
09:45:05 I certainly will defer to council.
09:45:08 And then from an overall standpoint.
09:45:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And then the market will decide
09:45:14 that.
09:45:14 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Miller, did I hear right, or maybe
09:45:19 I was dreaming a little bit, but that they own the
09:45:22 rest of this parcel except for that one piece?
09:45:26 >>> They own the yellow on the aerial that I'm
09:45:28 showing, the yellow hatch mark area.

09:45:30 >> And which part?
09:45:32 >>> The yellow hatch mark that is surrounding.
09:45:34 >> The one little thing there?
09:45:35 >>> They own that and the corner and the upper right
09:45:39 of that parcel in question, which is 50 by 100 feet.
09:45:43 >> If they own all of that, like you said, why are we
09:45:48 even talking about this?
09:45:50 Give it to the guy.
09:45:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's the point.
09:45:56 >> They may be selling it to them for $7,000 but they
09:45:58 are willing to pay $1.2 million to clean it up.
09:46:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: There's a motion.
09:46:05 >> Clarification on the motion, to continue it for one
09:46:07 month?
09:46:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How much time, Mr. Fecker, to
09:46:12 advertise?
09:46:13 >> Probably six weeks.
09:46:14 >> It will take at least six to eight weeks.
09:46:22 >>> One month with, the holiday season it would take
09:46:24 longer than one month to get it appropriately
09:46:26 advertised and back to you.
09:46:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why does it take six to eight weeks

09:46:31 to advertise?
09:46:33 >>> I think from a practical standpoint, basically,
09:46:36 most businesses are not going to be during the holiday
09:46:39 season starting in the next few weeks, there's at
09:46:41 least two weeks I think you have to take out of the
09:46:44 process.
09:46:45 We have to make it available for folks to look at,
09:46:47 give them probably 30 days.
09:46:48 We usually do an RFP process for approximately 30
09:46:51 days.
09:46:51 So, therefore, to be able to have the holiday season
09:46:55 30 days for an RFP process, then be able to evaluate
09:46:58 it, have a contract signed.
09:47:02 And bring it back to you.
09:47:03 It's going to take anywhere from 45 to 60 days.
09:47:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Was it my motion originally?
09:47:11 And then you said you second it.
09:47:13 So I just modify my motion to say we'll defer this,
09:47:16 we'll continue it for eight weeks, allowing Mr. Fecker
09:47:21 and Ms. Miller to put this out on the street.
09:47:24 And I'll just note that the civic association Port
09:47:27 Tampa just sent us a letter, and I'll just say the

09:47:30 bottom of it, assistants lots are selling for much,
09:47:34 much more we ask that council protect the interest and
09:47:36 open the sale of this property for public bids.
09:47:39 You know what?
09:47:39 If nothing comes back, you know, it's nothing
09:47:42 ventured, nothing gained.
09:47:43 So we have no testimony whatsoever from the developer
09:47:48 about how this could slow it down or anything like
09:47:50 that.
09:47:50 That's all conjecture.
09:47:52 And so, anyway, that's the motion.
09:47:54 Let's put out a fair bid on the street with reasonable
09:47:56 conditions, just lake all of our other bids and see
09:47:59 what happens.
09:48:01 Continue it for eight weeks.
09:48:04 >>THE CLERK: Eight weeks would be February 1st.
09:48:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
09:48:08 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
09:48:10 Opposed.
09:48:10 >>THE CLERK: Alvarez, no.
09:48:12 >>MARY ALVAREZ: No.
09:48:13 I don't think it's right.

09:48:18 He wants to buy it and putting it out for another
09:48:22 eight weeks is ridiculous.
09:48:28 >>> Cindy Miller: Number 3 is a resolution between
09:48:31 the City of Tampa SunTrust bank, the ATM location at
09:48:35 the downtown Tampa police headquarters.
09:48:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Miller, my questions were asked
09:48:41 on that.
09:48:42 Ms. Ferlita is not here anymore.
09:48:43 I don't know if anybody has any issues on that.
09:48:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 8 then.
09:48:50 >> Move the resolution.
09:48:53 >> Move number 3.
09:48:54 >> Second.
09:48:54 (Motion carried).
09:49:00 >>> Cindy Miller: Item number 8, I think it would be
09:49:03 helpful if I use a time line for you.
09:49:29 >> Code enforcement department to appear and provide a
09:49:31 report providing code enforcement case that 13930,
09:49:38 Scott branch, members of my staff, and Mr. Del Acosta
09:49:47 is here to address specific questions.
09:49:49 I believe you see from the time line, and I will just
09:49:51 hit some of the pertinent items.

09:49:53 This is a case that's basically been pending.
09:49:55 In some way, shape or form since December 20th of
09:49:59 2004, when the ARC staff received calls from neighbors
09:50:02 pertaining to a driveway that was poured over the
09:50:05 weekend without permit.
09:50:07 There had been violations that had been placed on it.
09:50:11 It has been heard by the Code Enforcement Board
09:50:14 throughout 2005 and into 2006.
09:50:17 The basic situation is that the driveway in question,
09:50:21 according to A.R.C. staff, is that -- and
09:50:24 transportation -- that it encroaches on the
09:50:26 right-of-way, and does not get a certificate of
09:50:29 appropriateness through the A.R.C., nor does it have a
09:50:33 building permit for this type of structure, that would
09:50:36 be issued through the construction service center.
09:50:38 So therefore the case is now pending before both the
09:50:42 A.R.C. and the Code Enforcement Board.
09:50:44 If you would like to have more detailed information,
09:50:46 as I said, Mr. Del Acosta is here as well as the legal
09:50:49 representative for the Code Enforcement Board and for
09:50:51 the A.R.C.
09:50:57 >> This is a tangential question.

09:50:59 When somebody build something without a permit, do we
09:51:03 take some action against the person, not the property
09:51:06 owner, but the person's license who build whatever it
09:51:10 was about --
09:51:15 >>DEL ACOSTA: Architectural review commission. That
09:51:18 would be a function of the building department.
09:51:27 I don't known we know what that is.
09:51:29 There's in a building permit.
09:51:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But the property owner probably
09:51:33 didn't build their own driveway.
09:51:35 >>> You have to have the property owner.
09:51:36 >> This is a question for Ms. Miller.
09:51:38 What council is attempting to do generally is to get
09:51:41 people to comply with the regulation that wove spent
09:51:44 so much time developing.
09:51:45 And when people build things on a Saturday with no
09:51:48 permit it makes us crazy.
09:51:49 And so what I'm asking is, do we currently have a
09:51:52 process so that when something is built without a
09:51:55 permit, do we go through the property owner to find
09:51:58 out who built it and go after them in terms of
09:52:01 revoking their professional license for building

09:52:03 without permit?
09:52:05 >>> Councilwoman, if it is a licensed contractor, we
09:52:08 can institute a complaint and it can go through the
09:52:11 licensing board.
09:52:12 >> The question I'm really kind of asking is, do we?
09:52:15 I mean, I understand we can, but do we actually do
09:52:19 that?
09:52:20 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
09:52:22 There is an opportunity, and I know that the
09:52:25 construction department do go after people who are
09:52:29 acting as a licensed contract fer they do not pull
09:52:31 permits, if they can ascertain who that person is.
09:52:34 If it is an unlicensed contractor, my recollection, I
09:52:37 haven't done this stuff for a long time, but my
09:52:40 recollection is they can also be cited by the
09:52:42 construction industry licensing board, and they can be
09:52:45 criminal sanctions against them, and, yes, the
09:52:48 building department do go after those people. In fact
09:52:52 I believe there's two people in the police department
09:52:54 who were formerly with the building department to go
09:52:57 ahead and go after that kind of unlicensed contractor.
09:53:00 >> That's excellent, because in this whole litany of

09:53:03 problems, the very first step of something built
09:53:06 without a permit.
09:53:07 And we are simultaneously following this trail but
09:53:10 also going after the legal constructions.
09:53:16 I'm glad to hear we are going after them, and parallel
09:53:20 with this later on I'll ask for a report on how we are
09:53:23 doing with that.
09:53:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have some procedural concerns
09:53:29 about -- necessarily hearing from him because what I
09:53:33 am trying to figure out is, there's a lot of history
09:53:35 here, and I don't think we need to belabor that
09:53:38 history.
09:53:39 But what I am trying to figure out is where is the
09:53:41 gentleman today in the process?
09:53:43 And I'm looking down at the very bottom of this list.
09:53:46 And it seems to indicate, yes, in front of code
09:53:50 enforcement but more importantly my question is where
09:53:53 is it in front of the A.R.C. process?
09:53:55 When he came in front of us at a provider council
09:53:58 meeting that started this, I suggested that perhaps,
09:54:00 if we had he had a problem with the decision made by
09:54:02 the A.R.C., then he can take it through a regular

09:54:05 appeal process, and that would normally, I would
09:54:10 think, come to us and then we could hear the case and
09:54:12 see if he had a matter of appeal.
09:54:16 So either one of these.
09:54:22 >>> My understanding is he was scheduled for last
09:54:24 month for certificate of appropriateness, or
09:54:26 modification to a certain of appropriateness before
09:54:29 the A.R.C., requested a continuance which was granted
09:54:31 until January.
09:54:32 And that's where he is in that process.
09:54:34 You are correct, the appeal would come to City
09:54:36 Council.
09:54:36 And on that note, I would also council -- that would
09:54:49 come before you.
09:54:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It looks like the code enforcement
09:54:52 part is going to come after the A.R.C., the decision,
09:54:56 although it won't come before it comes back to us.
09:54:58 So I don't know if we could ask code enforcement to
09:55:01 hold off a little longer until it gets in front of us
09:55:05 on appeal.
09:55:17 >>> My only concern would be in the event the issue --
09:55:20 the specifics that he talks about is in the event they

09:55:22 come before you, in the event of an appeal, then you
09:55:24 are having these conversations that are outside of the
09:55:27 record that you would be reviewing.
09:55:29 And I would ask City Council not to enter into any of
09:55:33 the specifics about this particular case.
09:55:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Sorry, then you can't speak.
09:55:39 >>> Just about the --
09:55:40 >>GWEN MILLER: No.
09:55:43 Can't let you speak.
09:55:44 >> Anyway, we have a report from staff.
09:55:46 I think you have an opportunity to make your case in
09:55:48 front of the A.R.C. if you are not happy with their
09:55:50 decision.
09:55:50 Then you would be able to appeal to the us.
09:55:52 Then we'll be able to hear it in the normal process.
09:55:55 And I think that's probably a lot cleaner.
09:55:57 In the meantime, the only motion that I'll make today
09:56:01 is I'll make a motion requesting that Mr. Lane request
09:56:07 that the Code Enforcement Board again defer that case
09:56:10 beyond January 24th, probably out into march, so
09:56:16 if there is an appeal that Mr. Brant would have an
09:56:18 opportunity get to us on appeal.

09:56:25 >>> Miller, assistant city attorney.
09:56:28 It came in front of the Code Enforcement Board back in
09:56:31 June and he was found guilty of the violation.
09:56:34 And he was given 120 days to come into compliance, and
09:56:38 the 120 has ran.
09:56:40 Now Mr. Brant did file a challenge to an affidavit of
09:56:45 noncompliance.
09:56:46 But the only thing pending before the board is the
09:56:51 challenge of whether or not he's --
09:56:56 >> It looks like according to this list the A.R.C.
09:56:59 continued modification application, and it's all tied
09:57:01 up and related to the same pitiful little ten foot
09:57:05 driveway that he's trying to do.
09:57:07 So is there any harm in deferring you had an
09:57:15 opportunity to perhaps appeal it to us?
09:57:18 >>> I don't know if there's any harm in it.
09:57:20 I just wanted to let now where this was procedurally.
09:57:22 But it had already been through the board as far as a
09:57:25 hearing.
09:57:26 Now it's just a challenge of whether or not on the
09:57:30 121st day whether or not he was in compliance.
09:57:33 And then you are asking also like Curtis Lane, the

09:57:35 department of code enforcement, and it's really in
09:57:40 front of aboard itself.
09:57:42 In front of a separate --
09:57:46 >> Sometimes we ask Mr. Lane to make a request to the
09:57:49 board but the matter be deferred a little longer until
09:57:51 they can be resolved through the other process, and I
09:57:54 think that's where we are today. And when he came in
09:57:59 front of us the last time he said he wasn't even aware
09:58:01 an A.R.C. decision could be appealed, okay.
09:58:05 And whether or not that's true, I can't speak to it
09:58:08 but that's what he told us.
09:58:09 So what I'm trying to do is let him get all his due
09:58:15 process done before we start smacking him hard on the
09:58:18 code enforcement side.
09:58:20 So that will be my motion.
09:58:21 Just a request that Code Enforcement Board defer this,
09:58:24 perhaps until March, so he can have an opportunity to
09:58:31 get this appeal resolved.
09:58:33 >> Second.
09:58:34 >> Motion and second.
09:58:34 Question on the motion?
09:58:35 All in favor of the motion say Aye.

09:58:37 Opposed, Nay.
09:58:38 Okay.
09:58:39 Item number 4.
09:58:48 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
09:58:49 I have provided you with a copy of the habitat
09:58:52 management plan and here today are Greg Howe and Steve
09:58:55 Graham from the national resources section of parks
09:58:57 and recreation, as well as Tanya Stewart representing
09:59:00 K-bar if there's any questions.
09:59:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
09:59:05 I would like our tree guru to come up and reassure me
09:59:08 about this agreement.
09:59:11 Mr. Graham.
09:59:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you know the tree guru?
09:59:18 >>STEVE GRAHAM: I have been called a lot of things.
09:59:23 Good morning, Madam Chair, members of council.
09:59:25 I want to welcome Mr. Reddick and Mr. Fletcher to the
09:59:28 board.
09:59:29 Congratulations.
09:59:30 And as Julia said we are here for item number 4, the
09:59:34 K-bar ranch management agreement.
09:59:36 And this is really more of a formality review the

09:59:51 management plan, the structure of the management plan.
09:59:53 We are happy with that.
09:59:54 We think that it will work.
09:59:56 We think that it's biologically sound and we are
09:59:59 supportive of it.
10:00:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Steve, is there anything new or
10:00:04 different to this one as compared to any ones we have
10:00:08 done in the past?
10:00:10 >>> No, I don't believe so.
10:00:11 I think again this is the formality.
10:00:13 We have hashed out over the last nine months, twelve
10:00:17 months, the details.
10:00:19 And I think they all have certain things in common.
10:00:23 So I think it's consistent with all the others that
10:00:25 you have seen and approved.
10:00:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How about the follow-up from your
10:00:32 side, from your staff side?
10:00:34 Do they all have the ability and the staff to get out
10:00:38 there and make sure that they are complying with the
10:00:41 provisions of the agreement?
10:00:43 >>> Certainly that's our intention, yes.
10:00:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There was a big story in both

10:00:54 papers this morning showing a very scary map of our
10:00:57 area as absolutely paved over 50 years from now, I
10:01:01 think solid urbanization.
10:01:03 And it really was a wake-up call, I think, to all of
10:01:08 us as people who make land use decisions to make sure
10:01:10 that we are going to have wildlife corridors that are
10:01:13 intact, wetlands that are protected, uplands that are
10:01:16 protected.
10:01:17 So this is very timely.
10:01:18 And I'm not -- I don't ever remember getting a report
10:01:21 back one or two years after we approve something like
10:01:25 this, and it starts to be built out, a report back
10:01:27 from our staff on how it's really going.
10:01:30 Are the setbacks what they are supposed to be?
10:01:34 Does somebody do what they were supposed to do in
10:01:36 terms of keeping -- protecting the areas, the plans
10:01:43 that we approved said would be protected?
10:01:45 And I guess what I am interest in is some kind of
10:01:52 biannual, meeting every six months, report back from
10:01:55 you, Mr. Graham, and whoever else would be
10:01:59 appropriate, on how these plans that wove approved,
10:02:02 particularly in the New Tampa area where we have the

10:02:06 major projects going on, to ensure that we -- as a
10:02:11 development are played out that we are protecting the
10:02:15 areas that are supposed to be protected.
10:02:17 And looking back at the places where we are doing
10:02:19 off-site restoration to make sure that it's really
10:02:22 happening the way that it's supposed to.
10:02:26 So I'm fine with this.
10:02:28 But I think what I would like to do before we vote on
10:02:30 it is to request a report, an assessment of how we are
10:02:33 doing in our protection as they are in the plans at
10:02:46 least.
10:02:46 >>STEVE GRAHAM: There are certain things that all the
10:02:49 management plans have in common.
10:02:50 And one facet is the provision for monitoring the
10:02:58 ports in addition to identifying a responsible party
10:03:00 for the management activities.
10:03:02 There's a success criteria and there's a monitoring
10:03:06 requirement, a number of years, in this case the K-bar
10:03:09 significant wildlife habitat, I think it's ten years.
10:03:13 So we have that safeguard.
10:03:15 And we have the ability to go out and evaluate that,
10:03:20 as well as some of the other connecting pieces.

10:03:23 The other thing I would say about K-bar that makes us
10:03:25 unique and is to be applauded is this is our first
10:03:28 wildlife corridor.
10:03:29 And so that's really significant.
10:03:32 And it connects to us through the county.
10:03:34 And there's more tenuous connections.
10:03:37 Through our planning process, ideally, it would be
10:03:41 nice if this were done 30 years ago but we are trying
10:03:43 to do what we can do at this point.
10:03:46 >> Need to move the resolution.
10:03:48 >> So moved.
10:03:48 >> Second.
10:03:48 (Motion carried).
10:03:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What I would like to do, the staff
10:03:55 looks at these evaluations on an annual basis but it
10:03:58 never plays back to council.
10:04:01 So as a New Year's gift perhaps the second meeting in
10:04:04 January, which is the 18th, I would like to -- I
10:04:10 don't know if that gives you enough time, let's make
10:04:13 it the February meeting -- to hear back from staff.
10:04:16 Actually K-bar is the most sophisticated but on some
10:04:21 of the previously approved large-scale projects, areas

10:04:25 that have to be protected and mitigated on how we are
10:04:28 doing.
10:04:28 Is that a clear enough motion?
10:04:30 Did you understand that?
10:04:34 I'll direct it toward the administration, whoever is
10:04:37 listening, that we hear back on how we are doing with,
10:04:40 for example, some of the Tampa Palms and Hunters Green
10:04:47 mitigation.
10:04:48 >>> And Julie suggested I give you some idea, it's
10:04:55 fairly current every six months.
10:04:56 So we would be happy to formalize that and put it into
10:04:59 one document and give you a synopsis of where we are
10:05:02 at.
10:05:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That would be excellent.
10:05:05 How much time do you think would be necessary for you
10:05:09 all to come back to council with some of these
10:05:13 reports?
10:05:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you want a written report or come
10:05:16 back?
10:05:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, I would like it to be at the
10:05:19 beginning of the meeting under staff reports.
10:05:21 And it would be written.

10:05:21 But then somebody would be there to answer questions.
10:05:24 >>GWEN MILLER: A written report.
10:05:26 Okay.
10:05:28 Did we get a second?
10:05:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I need to know when I am going to
10:05:33 make this motion.
10:05:33 Is 60 days a reasonable amount of time?
10:05:39 >>> Yes, 60 days.
10:05:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Then I would say February 1st
10:05:43 at the beginning of the meeting under staff report.
10:05:46 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
10:05:48 (Motion carried)
10:05:50 Mr. Reddick.
10:05:53 All right.
10:05:53 Number 5.
10:05:54 Need to move the resolution.
10:06:00 >> I had requested to enter a substitute resolution
10:06:02 regarding the appointment of Davis to the A.R.C. The
10:06:09 change is that Ms. Davis will be appointed to the
10:06:11 northeast quadrant, and from the term commencing with
10:06:16 the present --
10:06:17 >> Ms. Saul-Sena.

10:06:18 >> Thank you.
10:06:18 Next week, I believe, the clerk's office is giving us
10:06:21 sort of an overall report where we are with
10:06:23 appointments.
10:06:23 And what I would like to do if you don't mind is just
10:06:26 continue this for one week so we can hear the clerk's
10:06:28 report and then see how this appointment fits in with
10:06:31 all the others.
10:06:31 My motion would be to continue this for one week.
10:06:34 >> We have a motion and second.
10:06:35 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
10:06:37 Opposed, Nay.
10:06:38 (Motion carried)
10:06:39 Item number 6.
10:06:45 >> Urban Lee, director of public works.
10:06:48 I'm here to update you on item 6, and also information
10:06:52 on items 9 and 10.
10:06:59 You are aware that there are vehicles on the market
10:07:05 that will satisfy some of the city's transportation
10:07:08 needs.
10:07:08 One of the challenges that we have found and that we
10:07:11 face are the fact that the initial cost of these

10:07:14 hybrid vehicles is -- in balancing that out with the
10:07:17 savings from fuel economy and anticipated maintenance
10:07:21 costs.
10:07:21 So based on the current prices, of gasoline, and what
10:07:27 we anticipate to be savings associated with hybrids,
10:07:31 doesn't necessarily offer that acquisition cost.
10:07:36 So what we would like to propose to you is, if you
10:07:40 want us to consider using hybrid vehicles, we would
10:07:44 need to somehow develop a plan to acquire one of the
10:07:49 vehicles sort of a pilot program and incorporate that
10:07:52 into the budget process.
10:07:55 One of the facets in the current market climate is
10:08:02 Toyota has stopped bidding on state contract because
10:08:04 of the -- of the fact that they are very attractive in
10:08:09 the retail market and they don't have enough vehicles
10:08:11 to satisfy that need.
10:08:12 So obviously giving us the discount that they afford
10:08:18 to municipalities is just not cost effective at this
10:08:21 time.
10:08:22 So they aren't including those in the state contract.
10:08:24 So bottom line, the savings we could potentially
10:08:31 realize from acquiring it don't offset that initial

10:08:34 cost.
10:08:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
10:08:36 You used a really important line which is the bottom
10:08:38 line and by that you meant the dollars and cents.
10:08:41 There is a big way of thinking out there called the
10:08:44 triple bottom line where you look at the impact on
10:08:46 people, you look at the environment, and then you also
10:08:50 look at the dollars and cents.
10:08:52 And I think if you were to look at this question
10:08:54 through the lens of a triple bottom line you might
10:08:57 come to a different conclusion.
10:08:58 So what I would like to you do is take some more time
10:09:00 and think about this, and look aggressively at
10:09:06 state -- I'm sure that with more progressive thinking,
10:09:09 with the realization that gas prices are going to do
10:09:15 nothing but continue to escalate, that we could look
10:09:17 at better pricing through the state, and the long-term
10:09:20 sustainability, which is what we are really all
10:09:23 concerned about.
10:09:23 And I'm not saying convert our entire fleet.
10:09:26 I am saying look at the vehicles where this would be
10:09:29 the most efficient to use, through the lens of the

10:09:33 triple bottom line.
10:09:34 And I'll share literature if you don't have it on that
10:09:36 with you.
10:09:36 But I think it's too narrow and limited a focus to
10:09:41 just say the acquisition dollars for these vehicles is
10:09:43 higher, which is true.
10:09:45 But if you look at the total picture of maintenance
10:09:47 and the impact on our environment and our citizens,
10:09:50 that it makes sense in some cases.
10:09:52 And I think it's something that we should begin to
10:09:54 pursue.
10:09:55 >> Okay, we would be happy to go back and look at it
10:09:57 and discuss it further with you.
10:10:04 We can provide information to all council members.
10:10:14 >>FRANK REDDICK: What is the cost of one of these
10:10:16 vehicles?
10:10:17 >> Well, the Ford Focus is more or less a standard
10:10:23 sedan requirement. The Focus is about $22,000 initial
10:10:25 acquisition -- excuse me, the Prius has about a
10:10:30 $22,000 acquisition cost. That's on the state
10:10:32 contract. The Ford Focus is about 11,500.
10:10:35 So it's quite a substantial difference.

10:10:38 The Ford Escape, the high blood pressure red version
10:10:41 of the escape comes in about 24-seven and the
10:10:45 conventional Ford escape is about 18,800.
10:10:51 >> How about the mileage comparison?
10:10:56 Obviously most of it is in-city driving, I presume.
10:11:00 >>> Yes.
10:11:01 And when EPA mileage estimates, the best case
10:11:05 scenario, and we may not necessarily have that.
10:11:07 However, we did a calculation based on the pre-use,
10:11:11 and -- PRIUS, and we would have to drive 27,000 miles
10:11:16 a year for five years just to break even considering
10:11:19 the current cost of gas and the initial --
10:11:21 >> What is our typical mileage right now?
10:11:24 >>> I don't have that number but I can get it.
10:11:26 We can provide that as part of our follow-up.
10:11:28 >>GWEN MILLER: How many years do we keep the car?
10:11:35 This car would last longer than seven years, the
10:11:39 hybrid?
10:11:40 >>> That's something we have to look at.
10:11:41 Right now, for example, because of the age of some of
10:11:45 these vehicles and the technology involved, we don't
10:11:47 have the life cycle data to make projections on

10:11:53 long-term maintenance.
10:11:54 Initial estimates are, we don't have the specifics.
10:12:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: One of the things that appeals to
10:12:06 me about the city having some of these types of
10:12:08 vehicles, there's another agency.
10:12:11 What agency is it, Linda?
10:12:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The Planning Commission.
10:12:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The Planning Commission, that it's
10:12:17 noticeable when you get behind one of these Planning
10:12:19 Commission cars they have it painted up and it says
10:12:22 hybrid vehicle and that sort of thing.
10:12:24 And I think the nice thing about it is that it's
10:12:27 perhaps the city would be leading by example for the
10:12:30 rest of the community, you know.
10:12:32 And I'm guilty.
10:12:33 I have got a big gas hog truck and I should get rid of
10:12:37 it.
10:12:38 But, anyway, I think that's one of the side benefits,
10:12:43 sort of one of the unknown benefits that Ms. Saul-Sena
10:12:45 was referring to that the government perhaps could be
10:12:48 leading by example.
10:12:50 And if all governments did it, then all communities do

10:12:53 it, then we would be less energy dependent.
10:12:57 >>GWEN MILLER: And would you get rid of your truck.
10:12:59 >>> And I would get rid of my truck.
10:13:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to suggest two things.
10:13:03 One is that you come back in three months, having
10:13:05 spoken with the mayor, and the mayor's environmental
10:13:08 advisory group, because I know that the mayor's
10:13:10 advisory group, environmental advisory group, is very
10:13:13 supportive of this.
10:13:14 And I think the mayor is supportive.
10:13:16 And I want you all to have the opportunity to consider
10:13:19 the triple bottom line and also share that with
10:13:23 council members.
10:13:24 So perhaps at the beginning of April, that would be a
10:13:27 lovely time.
10:13:33 The beginning of April, which is April -- why don't we
10:13:40 say April 12th, under the reports at the
10:13:43 beginning, to evaluate it.
10:13:46 And if in fact what you said is true, you said you
10:13:49 don't have the long-term maintenance costs because
10:13:54 they haven't been out so long but after seven years if
10:13:57 the cost is the same.

10:13:58 What I would say to you is it's a win because if you
10:14:01 consider all the costs in terms of pollution and in
10:14:04 terms of the environment, it's a win to use less
10:14:09 gasoline and less dependent on foreign oil, it would
10:14:13 be altogether a good thing and something I think we
10:14:16 should explore.
10:14:17 What I would like to you do is see what vehicles it
10:14:23 would be most useful for and I would be happy to share
10:14:25 information with you on triple bottom line.
10:14:28 My motion is we hear back from you in April.
10:14:31 >> Second.
10:14:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
10:14:33 (Motion carried).
10:14:37 >>> The next item is item 9.
10:14:38 We have had some very productive discussions on the
10:14:41 street, sidewalks.
10:14:47 The home builders association met with them actually
10:14:50 yesterday.
10:14:51 Very productive discussions.
10:14:52 And what we would like to do is to continue these
10:14:55 discussions.
10:14:58 We are sharing data with them.

10:14:59 And essentially what we propose, we would like to
10:15:02 develop some options and come back to you all with
10:15:04 some specific ideas.
10:15:07 You know, we discussed the cost questions.
10:15:12 Some of the ordinance challenges.
10:15:15 And we would like to work with them and come back with
10:15:18 some options.
10:15:19 >> How much time would you want?
10:15:20 >>> Considering the holiday are upon us, how about
10:15:23 sometime in January?
10:15:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Toward the end of January.
10:15:31 >>GWEN MILLER: We go to the last meeting in January.
10:15:34 Is that okay?
10:15:35 >>THE CLERK: January 25th you have a continued map
10:15:52 amendment at 9:30.
10:15:54 >>GWEN MILLER: That's fine then.
10:15:56 Did you get the date?
10:15:58 February 25th.
10:16:02 (Motion Carried)
10:16:04 Another item.
10:16:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Item 10.
10:16:07 Roy LaMotte is out this week and has done a tremendous

10:16:10 amount of work on this item.
10:16:14 And I would request an extension to allow him to come
10:16:17 speak on this.
10:16:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: For what date?
10:16:21 >>GWEN MILLER: He didn't give a date.
10:16:23 Same date would be fine.
10:16:24 25th.
10:16:25 We have a motion and second.
10:16:28 All in favor say Aye.
10:16:29 Opposed, Nay.
10:16:32 We go to item number 7.
10:16:42 >>> Karen Palus, parks and recreation director.
10:16:45 I want to welcome our two new council members.
10:16:48 I look forward to working with you in our Parks and
10:16:50 Recreation Department.
10:16:51 I was asked to appear regarding an update on
10:16:56 concessions at Marjorie Park and full update on the
10:17:00 marina.
10:17:01 However, Mr. White and Ms. Ferlita are in a longer
10:17:05 here.
10:17:05 So I guess I will get with you and share the
10:17:08 information that I provide for this morning.

10:17:10 Marjorie Park marina has been open for some time.
10:17:13 We have been diligently working through some of our
10:17:16 challenges there, as far as marinas go.
10:17:20 We have successfully filled all of our monthly slips
10:17:22 and worked very diligently on filling our transient.
10:17:25 The food concession there, we have not embarked on
10:17:28 that adventure just yet.
10:17:29 We have been working with our point of sales system
10:17:33 for fuel which allow us to also then handle additional
10:17:36 food items, potentially in the future.
10:17:39 We are currently working on a business plan, and we
10:17:44 hired in July, a marine coordinator, along with our
10:17:49 superintendent and operations chief are working in
10:17:51 that process, to determine whether we need to do some
10:17:54 type of vending or whether we want to do something
10:17:58 in-house.
10:17:59 We have the necessary staff to be there day in and day
10:18:02 out to be able to provide ice, so these little
10:18:05 amenities and such.
10:18:06 One of the things we have accomplished recently is a
10:18:09 survey from our customers and our patrons to find out
10:18:12 exactly what they would be most interested in for that

10:18:15 area.
10:18:15 So it was not a full-fledged restaurant by any stretch
10:18:19 of the imagine.
10:18:20 It would just be small prepackaged items, and we'll
10:18:24 continue to work with our budget and our purchasing
10:18:26 department, once we come up with proposals that we
10:18:29 think are appropriate for that venue, and that we can
10:18:31 appropriately staff and manage.
10:18:37 The staff would come from the Parks and Recreation
10:18:38 Department.
10:18:39 Because that is something we need to determine.
10:18:41 And we do have the marina coordinator and part time
10:18:45 staff there.
10:18:45 It's not a full-time 24/7 -- or 24-hour operation,
10:18:50 seven days a week.
10:18:51 It's more of an early morning, late afternoon, and
10:18:55 meet with our customers especially on weekends with
10:18:59 our fishermen and boat travelers.
10:19:01 So there are some things to work out, some challenges.
10:19:04 We have had some issues due to mother nature and
10:19:07 lightning and such.
10:19:08 We think we kind of tweaked some of that and we'll be

10:19:11 able to look a little further into what we can
10:19:13 provide.
10:19:13 The vending option is a viable option and that's been
10:19:16 something that's been done, vending machines and candy
10:19:22 machines.
10:19:23 There are bait machines out their belief it or not.
10:19:27 There is live bait available.
10:19:29 We may look -- I thought I would get a charge out of
10:19:33 you this morning.
10:19:33 Live bait, believe it or not.
10:19:36 And there's been some avenues at 24-7 hour access to
10:19:41 it.
10:19:42 But there are some hurdles still that we are will go
10:19:46 forward to do. Other than that Marjorie Park marina
10:19:49 is up and operational.
10:19:50 We have our laundry facilities.
10:19:52 We have our pump-out facilities, fuel and staffing.
10:19:56 We got nothing but wonderful reviews on that facility
10:19:59 as it's been in operation.
10:20:01 >> Thank you.
10:20:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a couple things, Karen.
10:20:07 Welcome back.

10:20:09 And congratulations.
10:20:13 I haven't seen the baby.
10:20:15 Maybe others have.
10:20:16 >>> I have lots of pictures.
10:20:17 >> We want to see a couple questions on Marjorie Park.
10:20:22 I have been requested as to whether or not we can rent
10:20:26 that lovely building in the evening for small
10:20:28 functions, and that sort of thing.
10:20:30 And I think your staff said you all were working on
10:20:32 that?
10:20:33 >>> Yes, absolutely.
10:20:34 We have that available.
10:20:35 We had our first individuals approach us for that and
10:20:39 we worked out the arrangements and such so we can
10:20:41 provide some small functions.
10:20:43 It's a limited capacity area, and we need to make sure
10:20:46 we can still provide the services we need for our
10:20:48 monthly customers and our transient folks.
10:20:52 Nice venue.
10:20:52 >> Especially in the evening, in the outdoor area and
10:20:55 all that.
10:20:56 >>> We have a 60th birthday party for one of the

10:20:59 residents on Davis Island for her father.
10:21:03 >> I'm thrilled that we have now filled up the monthly
10:21:06 slips.
10:21:06 Are we at the point now where we are developing a
10:21:09 waiting list?
10:21:11 >>> We still have a waiting list.
10:21:12 In fact, we are still at 74 people on our current
10:21:15 list.
10:21:16 >> So I guess that would lead me to the logical next
10:21:19 question which many people on Davis Island have asked,
10:21:22 when are we going to build out the remainder of the
10:21:28 vacant areas, you know?
10:21:29 I know it costs money.
10:21:31 I know it was more than a million dollars the last
10:21:34 time we looked at it.
10:21:35 Is there a plan?
10:21:36 >> The plan is to continue to look at it.
10:21:40 We now have funding currently available.
10:21:41 It is a large amount of money.
10:21:43 It continues to grow.
10:21:44 But the advantage is, when it was done originally, it
10:21:52 would be much easier to bring in those new floating

10:21:55 docks and such.
10:21:57 The capability is there.
10:21:57 We set ourselves up.
10:21:59 However, it is the funding issue, that we have the
10:22:02 ability to purchase about 75 more -- put 75 more slips
10:22:06 in.
10:22:07 So we have one spot.
10:22:08 But it's for smaller vessels, the 20 to 30-foot which
10:22:11 is a good bit of the 74 that are on the list that were
10:22:14 not -- we are not able to work with us, to stay with
10:22:19 30, 40, 50-foot slips.
10:22:22 >> I recognize it's money up front.
10:22:24 And it takes a long time to receive that money.
10:22:27 But the way that private facilities are vaporizing all
10:22:32 around the bay area, I think it is a nice service to
10:22:35 the public to do that.
10:22:37 Plus it would probably make our marina operations more
10:22:39 profitable as well.
10:22:41 So I also remember during the budget process that I
10:22:45 think I saw on the long-term capital budget that this
10:22:48 item was there.
10:22:49 And I can't remember if it was there for the next year

10:22:51 or --
10:22:53 >>> In the budget process, one of the items that we
10:22:55 identified was to look at a contractual opportunity
10:22:58 with all of our marina.
10:23:00 And that being the Bayshore facility, the Marjorie
10:23:02 Park facility, sea basin and convention center dock.
10:23:10 However, as we continue to work at that we look at
10:23:14 budget and finance.
10:23:14 There's a lot of hurdle that we have got to work
10:23:16 through that would allow us that potential.
10:23:21 We have met with several organizations.
10:23:22 I know you have been involved with some of those, that
10:23:26 there may be an opportunity in the future to look at
10:23:29 that.
10:23:29 However, we have got an ordinance issue to resolve.
10:23:33 There is a bond issue to resolve.
10:23:35 And there is also a grant I shall to you resolve.
10:23:37 So those are three large hurdles that we'll need to
10:23:41 continue to work on and find out what we are able to
10:23:43 do to allow for this potential in the future.
10:23:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Nothing is easy.
10:23:48 And putting aside the private-public partnership, if

10:23:51 we just looked at doing it from the public side, I
10:23:56 would love to see maybe four or five months from now
10:23:59 as we get into the spring and the budget, I would love
10:24:02 to see a fiscal analysis of, you know, how much we
10:24:06 think it would cost to put in those additional 75
10:24:08 slips, and how long it would take to amortize that
10:24:11 out, and some ideas of where we could get the money
10:24:14 from.
10:24:16 Because there's a real opportunity there that we are
10:24:20 missing out on.
10:24:21 And, you know, it's a wonderful service to the public.
10:24:25 >> Would you like that specifically for Marjorie, or
10:24:29 are you interested in --
10:24:31 >>> Well, probably just Marjorie because it's so easy.
10:24:36 Like you said, we are set up.
10:24:38 We are ready to go.
10:24:39 And all you have to do is find a million bucks and
10:24:42 plop them in.
10:24:43 I think the Bayshore presents a lot more challenges.
10:24:46 >>> It does.
10:24:46 >>GWEN MILLER: A written report?
10:24:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll hear from Mrs. Saul-Sena

10:24:51 first.
10:24:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was actually at the marina
10:24:54 yesterday.
10:24:54 I was taking a new reporter there to show them an
10:24:56 example of what a beautiful facility we have created
10:24:59 for the public.
10:24:59 And I noted the fact that there's so much opportunity
10:25:02 to create additional slips which the public really
10:25:05 wants.
10:25:05 So I will second Mr. Dingfelder's motion and I will
10:25:11 encourage us to do that.
10:25:12 I want to encourage you to use the word day slips
10:25:15 rather than transient.
10:25:16 And if you don't know the history, we'll fill you in.
10:25:19 But it's that is such a nice facility.
10:25:24 And it was -- I really compliment your department.
10:25:27 I compliment city contracting and David Vaughan and
10:25:32 our city architect, everyone that participated in the
10:25:36 wonderful transformation of what has been a really
10:25:39 rotten mediocre building to something that is a show
10:25:42 place.
10:25:42 And I think that using that area to its fullest

10:25:44 potential makes a lot of sense.
10:25:46 Whenever I have been there, it's been very quiet.
10:25:50 As long as it's there and it's beautiful, we might as
10:25:51 well use it.
10:25:55 >>> They work very hard.
10:25:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: In deference to Ms. Alvarez, let's
10:25:58 make this the first meeting in April.
10:26:02 >>> Second.
10:26:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And come back with a short staff
10:26:07 report to discuss the items that I mentioned.
10:26:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
10:26:11 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
10:26:13 Opposed, Nay.
10:26:14 Item number 11.
10:26:25 Anybody here for item 11?
10:26:27 Transportation?
10:26:32 >>> Jean Dorsett, transportation division, here to
10:26:35 give you an update on the Tampa downtown vision plan.
10:26:41 Just a quick background of vision plan when initiated
10:26:44 by the MPO about a year ago, and is being facilitated
10:26:48 by the Tampa downtown partnership.
10:26:54 In case there are any questions about the projects

10:26:56 that we are carrying out through the partnership.
10:26:59 And also just another point of clarification.
10:27:02 The Tampa downtown vision plan is a separate report
10:27:09 from the Tampa downtown transportation model that we
10:27:12 are currently working on scoping and getting kicked
10:27:15 off in the very near future, to clarify those are two
10:27:19 separate items, yet certainly we are making sure that
10:27:23 there's connectivity between the two.
10:27:26 So just again as an update on the Tampa downtown
10:27:29 visioning plan, as I said, this was initiated by the
10:27:33 MPO, approved by the MPO board.
10:27:36 Actually it's more endorsed by the board, in August of
10:27:39 this year.
10:27:40 The vision plan provides a frame Bork for the
10:27:44 implementation of transportation strategy that will
10:27:49 address future and current mobility needs in downtown
10:27:51 Tampa.
10:27:52 The objective of this plan was to provide guidance for
10:27:54 future transportation and land use decisions, in order
10:27:59 to provide a safe and accessible downtown
10:28:02 transportation network that supports all modes of
10:28:04 travel.

10:28:05 As I said, the implementation of the plan is being
10:28:09 carried out through interjurisdictional meetings with
10:28:12 various parties and being facilitated through the
10:28:16 Tampa downtown partnership through their
10:28:19 transportation committee.
10:28:22 What the committee did was lay out a laundry list of
10:28:26 specific action items and policies that are being
10:28:31 pursued, mainly through the City of Tampa.
10:28:34 We provided an update to the transportation committee
10:28:37 recently on the progress made on various items, and
10:28:42 with that I'll open it for any questions you might
10:28:44 have about specifically what we are working on.
10:28:48 And again just wanted to make sure this was the item
10:28:50 that you wanted an update on because there is the
10:28:53 downtown transportation model that we are currently
10:28:55 scoping.
10:28:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Have you provided us a copy of the
10:29:00 report that you provided the downtown partnership?
10:29:04 >>> Honestly, I would have to -- I don't think so.
10:29:13 We, City Council, has been very supportive of this.
10:29:15 We recognize it as being very important.
10:29:18 And we want to be aware of what's going on, how the

10:29:21 implementation is going.
10:29:22 So if we could get a copy of that report.
10:29:24 And then you mentioned the scoping on this other
10:29:27 report.
10:29:27 What is the time frame on that?
10:29:30 >>> Well, what we are doing currently with that is we
10:29:31 have got several studies that we are scoping
10:29:35 currently.
10:29:36 We have the Tampa comprehensive plan, the
10:29:39 transportation element of that plan, which includes
10:29:41 the TPEA update which we talked about recently.
10:29:45 We have got an impact fee study city-wide that we are
10:29:48 planning to do.
10:29:49 We have got some work on the fair share ordinance, the
10:29:57 requirement to passed by ordinance, by council.
10:30:00 We have got these different work efforts that we are
10:30:03 scoping.
10:30:03 We have been looking to see what moneys we have
10:30:05 available so we can kind of put our funds together and
10:30:09 do what we can do on each of the efforts.
10:30:11 So we are working on all these things concurrently.
10:30:14 And that's -- we don't have the scope ready to go

10:30:18 today.
10:30:18 But part of the scope is going to be based on the
10:30:21 amount of money we have to spend for the study.
10:30:25 >> So when do you think you can share some
10:30:28 information?
10:30:30 >>> I would say, if we -- we would be coming back in
10:30:33 January.
10:30:33 We could give you an outline of what our scope is
10:30:36 going to be and what the time frame for that study
10:30:38 will be.
10:30:42 Maybe mid January we could be ready to go with a time
10:30:46 line and a specific scope.
10:30:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My question is tangentially related
10:30:56 to what you have been discussing and that's
10:30:57 specifically Channelside.
10:30:59 I have been hearing through the grapevine that there's
10:31:04 some concerns about the amount of development that we
10:31:06 have been approving in Channelside in terms of units,
10:31:10 number of cars, number of parking spaces, vertical
10:31:13 parking spaces, and can the streets of Channelside
10:31:16 really handle that?
10:31:18 Especially in peak hour.

10:31:22 Do you have concerns about that?
10:31:23 Does staff have concerns about that?
10:31:28 It's something that he would approved three high-rises
10:31:30 in Channelside, boom, boom, boom, in one night, and
10:31:33 traffic issue never really came out.
10:31:38 We want to encourage redevelopment in downtown, and
10:31:42 its periphery, but what about that issue?
10:31:47 >>> This is similar to the issue that came up with the
10:31:49 south of Gandy area, and we are engaged in a similar
10:31:55 type study.
10:31:55 Currently we go on a site specific analysis for the
10:31:58 rezonings that come in.
10:31:59 This would give us the bigger picture, the future
10:32:02 picture, similar to what we have done for the Ashley
10:32:04 corridor.
10:32:05 There's a study being managed through a contract
10:32:07 administration looking at the actual corridor --
10:32:10 Ashley corridor along with the waterfront park and we
10:32:12 have done a model for that corridor, looking at fought
10:32:15 impacts.
10:32:15 We would do something similar for the downtown area,
10:32:18 including Channelside, including the arts district, to

10:32:21 see what this future impacts are going to be in the
10:32:26 big picture and come back with some recommendations
10:32:28 for improvements that we either want to make as
10:32:30 capital projects or something we would want the
10:32:32 developers to build on as a future project.
10:32:36 >> So is the Channelside portion of that study being
10:32:38 done right now?
10:32:39 Or is it something we have to --
10:32:41 >>> No, that would be part of the boundary of the
10:32:44 scope that we are putting together.
10:32:48 >> Does the TIF contribute to that?
10:32:51 >>> That is a question for the manager to explore,
10:32:54 what those funds are available for use.
10:32:57 We have identified all of our transportation money,
10:33:00 gas tax moneys that we have available, prior balances
10:33:03 that weren't spent.
10:33:04 We have kind of scraped all of that together.
10:33:08 The other question is, you know, what funds would
10:33:11 qualify for use on that?
10:33:13 >> When we commission that study, how long will it
10:33:16 take to have a product?
10:33:18 The reason I ask is, of these rezonings continue to

10:33:23 come in, we are without that information.
10:33:25 >>> Right.
10:33:25 I would say offhand it would probably be at least
10:33:28 eight months, just because there was a certain amount
10:33:30 of data collection, structuring that has to be done,
10:33:36 model development.
10:33:37 There are certain steps you have to go through.
10:33:41 But we'll condense it certainly as much as we can.
10:33:43 >> Maybe we could suggest that we could do it in
10:33:46 different stages.
10:33:47 And put Channelside toward the front of that.
10:33:49 Because Channelside is the hot area.
10:33:53 >>> We could look at doing something like that without
10:33:55 distorting the bottom line information.
10:34:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have to say that this is kind of
10:34:06 painful, because, for example, we did the Gandy and
10:34:09 Westshore study after we had approved it, great number
10:34:13 of units.
10:34:14 We are doing this study after.
10:34:15 But after is better than five years from now.
10:34:18 So what I would like to request -- I just wish we
10:34:21 could find the fast forward button and get the studies

10:34:23 done so we could make sure before we approve things
10:34:26 that our infrastructure is adequate.
10:34:28 And right now, because of the way things are
10:34:30 structured legally, we are not able to use, and
10:34:34 inadequate transportation is a reason for denying
10:34:37 rezoning and that is not a comfortable position to be
10:34:41 as a person make a decision.
10:34:43 I'm afraid that future people are going to want to
10:34:45 strangle us because we are going to be in such
10:34:47 gridlock, and that's an honest concern.
10:34:50 So I would like to move that in the January
10:34:56 18th -- that's a really busy day.
10:35:01 January 25th, in the morning, that we receive a
10:35:04 report back from you on the scoping, how it's
10:35:07 progressing, what's the anticipated time of receiving
10:35:11 the report with an eye towards Mr. Dingfelder's
10:35:15 suggestion getting the information on Channelside
10:35:17 sooner rather than later.
10:35:21 That's my motion.
10:35:22 >> We have a motion and second.
10:35:23 (Motion carried).
10:35:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would also like to ask you, is

10:35:27 the report on Ashley done?
10:35:29 >>> The modeling is done.
10:35:32 It's been done -- I don't know that the final report
10:35:35 on that has been --
10:35:37 >> When would you like to come back to us with that
10:35:40 information?
10:35:41 >>> I would like to speak with David Vaughan who is
10:35:44 the project manager.
10:35:45 But I would think that certainly sometime in January
10:35:48 we could get an update on the report.
10:35:50 I know they completed the modeling portion of that
10:35:52 study.
10:35:55 What they are currently doing, I guess, is looking at
10:35:57 those results in terms of what the desire was to do
10:36:00 with making some changes to the lanage on Ashley.
10:36:06 >> Frankly that is not a crisis, we are not being
10:36:10 pressed to make zoning like this on Ashley.
10:36:13 I think February 3rd would be fine.
10:36:16 -- February would be phenotype.
10:36:17 I would like to make a motion that February 8th
10:36:19 under staff reports that you share what you have
10:36:21 learned, what you have determined for Ashley.

10:36:24 >> Second.
10:36:24 (Motion Carried).
10:36:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 12.
10:36:35 >> McKirchy, city attorney's office.
10:36:39 From the small scale plan amendment hearings.
10:36:41 And we are bringing the formal resolution before you
10:36:45 setting the small scale plan amendment public hearings
10:36:47 for January 11 and January 25.
10:36:52 >> So moved.
10:36:53 >> Second.
10:36:53 (Motion carried)
10:36:59 Mr. Shelby, you were saying something for 10:00 needs
10:37:02 to come up.
10:37:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If council wishes to call up the
10:37:07 10:00 public hearing, I believe it's item number 50,
10:37:09 there was a request made, if council would consider
10:37:15 doing that because I believe that's a request for
10:37:17 continuance that council may want to address and there
10:37:19 are several people in the audience.
10:37:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 50.
10:37:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move we open this continued public
10:37:25 hearing number 50.

10:37:27 >> Second.
10:37:27 (Motion carried).
10:37:27 >> Barbara LaPore, land development.
10:37:44 I received a letter, an e-mail from Brian Cherry
10:37:47 requesting continuance until the January 11.
10:37:54 Due to problems with transportation.
10:37:56 They scheduled a meeting with the transportation under
10:38:00 December 17th -- and due to the outcome of this
10:38:07 meeting they would like to continue to January 11,
10:38:10 2007.
10:38:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is that request from city staff?
10:38:15 >>BARBARA LEPORE: The request from the agent.
10:38:20 >>GWEN MILLER: January 11th.
10:38:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can we do it any week?
10:38:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Can you do it on the 25th?
10:38:34 >>BARBARA LEPORE: It can be after the January
10:38:36 11th.
10:38:39 We have a lot of wet zoning cases.
10:38:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's go out to January 25th.
10:38:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 25th.
10:38:45 So moved.
10:38:47 >> Second.

10:38:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you want to hear from anybody who
10:38:49 wishes to speak to the continuance.
10:38:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that came
10:38:52 to speak on item 50?
10:38:55 You can speak on the continuance.
10:38:56 Anyone to speak on item 50 to speak only on the
10:38:59 continuance.
10:39:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Whether you support or oppose the
10:39:01 continuance.
10:39:12 >>> Welcome to our new members of City Council.
10:39:16 I think the only concern is that there is -- there is
10:39:23 quite a bit of momentum in the neighborhoods.
10:39:27 There's been a lot of discussions and meetings and the
10:39:30 25th is a long time to go to keep them going and
10:39:33 that's my only concern about this, that far in
10:39:36 advance.
10:39:36 I understand your calendar is full.
10:39:38 We did stay till 5:00, some of us stayed, till after
10:39:42 5:00 last time.
10:39:45 This is an issue that has grown, in many
10:39:48 neighborhoods, and their concerns about it.
10:39:51 That is my only concern about the continuance.

10:39:55 I do not disapprove of the -- the discontinuance.
10:40:01 I am just concerned about the date.
10:40:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:40:04 Next.
10:40:13 >>> My name is Agnes, 2112 eagle.
10:40:17 I'm not sure about the momentum, whether we continue
10:40:20 with it now.
10:40:21 But I will make one request.
10:40:22 If City Council does agree to con answer to the
10:40:26 25th, it's an evening meeting, and it's much
10:40:30 easier for people to come to evening meetings. I
10:40:33 don't want -- evening would be better.
10:40:46 >>GWEN MILLER: What's the pleasure of council?
10:40:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think -- we have had citizens who
10:40:52 spent so many hours waiting in our chambers for this,
10:40:55 in deference to their request.
10:40:56 I would like to move that we do this -- are we
10:40:59 starting at six or five on the 25th?
10:41:02 >>THE CLERK: I believe you are starting at 6:00.
10:41:10 >> I think if we were to start this at 5:00, that
10:41:12 would be --
10:41:14 >>GWEN MILLER: 5:01.

10:41:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 5:01.
10:41:17 That way people wouldn't have to wait around.
10:41:19 The petitioner, the neighbors, I think that would be
10:41:21 an easier thing for everybody.
10:41:23 So I would like to amend the motion to start this at
10:41:27 5:01.
10:41:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
10:41:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm in support of that.
10:41:31 I think the evening would probably be better.
10:41:34 But speaking to Ms. Pollyea, I think one of the
10:41:38 benefits to extending this a little further out is we
10:41:41 have been very clear, I believe, with the petitioner
10:41:43 telling them that if they are talking about leasing
10:41:45 parking lots, that they need to get that in writing.
10:41:48 And I think that it's probably difficult to negotiate
10:41:51 all of that so to give them a little more time there's
10:41:55 a better chance they are going to be able to come back
10:41:57 to us with documents in writing which is one of the
10:41:59 things that council stress board of director last
10:42:00 year.
10:42:01 So I'll support the motion.
10:42:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Did you want to say anything?

10:42:07 >>> I would ask you respond on the record if you have
10:42:09 any objection or if you consent to the 5:01 on January
10:42:12 25th, 2007.
10:42:14 >>> Brian chase, representing petitioner.
10:42:15 We don't have an objection to the 25th at 5:00.
10:42:19 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to continue
10:42:21 item number 50 to January 25th at 5:01.
10:42:27 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
10:42:30 Opposed, Nay.
10:42:30 (Motion carried).
10:42:32 We go back to our agenda.
10:42:34 Would anyone like to request reconsideration matters?
10:42:43 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak
10:42:45 on any item on the agenda that is not set for public
10:42:47 hearing?
10:42:49 Any item on the agenda that is not set for public
10:42:51 hearing?
10:42:56 >>> My name is Pete Jones, address 301 Druid hills
10:43:00 road.
10:43:01 Glad to have the newcomers here.
10:43:02 I'm sure you will get to know me like everybody else
10:43:05 has.

10:43:05 I will bug you until there's no end.
10:43:08 I'm talking about code enforcement and item number 8.
10:43:17 I have tracked code enforcement in the City of Tampa
10:43:20 for almost 20 years.
10:43:22 I have looked and looked and looked to try to find out
10:43:24 what is the problem.
10:43:25 Well, now we have Curtis Lane.
10:43:27 And this man is doing a bang-up job.
10:43:30 It's unbelievable.
10:43:31 I can call about a complaint.
10:43:32 He already knows about it or he gives it to someone
10:43:36 that knows about it immediately.
10:43:39 There's in a more "we didn't know about it."
10:43:43 They know about 99% of all the complaints in the city.
10:43:45 The problem is, if the Elmo will go on, it seems that
10:43:51 our legal department is seriously hampering code
10:43:56 enforcement from doing their job.
10:43:59 This is seven pages of documents, okay, that was put
10:44:02 out in '05, December of '05, from code, from Santiago
10:44:08 to the real estate department.
10:44:11 In a year's time, only 35 of the 78 properties were
10:44:15 forwarded on to legal.

10:44:19 Out of the 35 properties that were forwarded, only
10:44:24 five were felt like they needed to be foreclosed on.
10:44:30 It doesn't add up.
10:44:33 Every single one of the pieces of property on here are
10:44:36 non-homesteaded properties.
10:44:38 They were all buildable properties, per the report.
10:44:41 And I believe you all got a copy of this report.
10:44:45 They all have fines.
10:44:49 When calling the legal department and asking the other
10:44:51 30
10:44:52 Why they were not chosen, I get no answer.
10:44:55 They say, well, it could be an environmental property,
10:44:59 it could be an unbuildable lot, it could be
10:45:01 homesteaded, it could be this.
10:45:03 But nothing in specifics.
10:45:04 So the five in the court system now is ridiculous.
10:45:09 Because they need to give a reason why the other
10:45:12 properties are not.
10:45:14 If you look in today's Tampa Tribune -- and I'm sorry,
10:45:17 I am probably going over my three minutes -- code
10:45:20 enforcement.
10:45:21 Okay.

10:45:22 Since 1998, $89,000 in fines.
10:45:27 And this is not even on the foreclosure list.
10:45:31 What's going on?
10:45:33 On this list you will find Hillsborough County
10:45:36 schools, on Columbus.
10:45:38 Okay?
10:45:40 $389,000 worth of fines.
10:45:43 The school board took over the property.
10:45:45 Why is it even on the books?
10:45:46 Come on.
10:45:48 This is stupid.
10:45:51 Code enforcement did all of this report.
10:45:54 Okay.
10:45:56 They didn't have to go to real estate.
10:45:59 Now I got less than half done in a year, okay?
10:46:01 And they did the exact same study.
10:46:03 Then it goes on to legal.
10:46:05 And legal did the exact same study.
10:46:09 Now, this is a waste of money.
10:46:10 Besides, we are not getting anywhere.
10:46:14 The mayor promised -- and I wrote her an e-mail, God
10:46:17 bless her soul, this morning.

10:46:19 I said, you have got to low into this foreclosure
10:46:21 policy.
10:46:23 It is not working.
10:46:26 It's too stringent.
10:46:28 I'm running out of time.
10:46:29 Okay.
10:46:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Flip over your document.
10:46:33 >> Oh, I'm sorry.
10:46:44 Why was that put into code enforcement?
10:46:46 To improve the department.
10:46:47 These people are busting their -- it's ridiculous.
10:46:51 And, also, I have got a list from code enforcement
10:46:55 themselves on addresses that need to go or that should
10:46:58 be on the list.
10:47:01 They are not even on the list to be inspected for
10:47:08 foreclosure.
10:47:09 >>GWEN MILLER: You have to wrap it up now.
10:47:13 >>> I have two different reports.
10:47:14 Somebody has got to take the bull by the horns and
10:47:17 correct this.
10:47:18 >>GWEN MILLER: They are listening to you, sir.
10:47:20 >>> Oh, I'm sure they are.

10:47:21 >>GWEN MILLER: They'll know what to do.
10:47:25 They'll check it out.
10:47:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Johnson, I want to thank you for
10:47:29 bringing this up.
10:47:30 It seems about every year about this time we have the
10:47:32 same problem.
10:47:33 I don't know.
10:47:34 I'm just as frustrated as you are.
10:47:36 We keep going on and on and on.
10:47:38 I have been in council now seven and a half years.
10:47:40 And it's always the same old problem.
10:47:42 We just can't get these cases done.
10:47:44 And look at the one that we had on Marjory Avenue.
10:47:49 They had from December of 2004 and it's still going on
10:47:55 to December of 2006.
10:47:57 That's two years.
10:47:59 It's ridiculous.
10:48:00 >> I would request that City Council ask both the
10:48:02 legal department, the real estate department, why this
10:48:06 is taking so long, to come back with a full report of
10:48:10 the other 30 that didn't go into the court system,
10:48:14 why?

10:48:15 They can't tell me.
10:48:15 From what I understand.
10:48:17 There's not a reason why they didn't.
10:48:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We seem to be making changes to the
10:48:22 code enforcement code, and trying to help them along,
10:48:28 we have given them employees.
10:48:31 We have done everything that we as a council can
10:48:34 possibly do.
10:48:36 But it just doesn't go any further.
10:48:37 I don't know.
10:48:38 And I'm -- like I said, I'm just as frustrated as you
10:48:42 are.
10:48:42 And maybe we should have legal, real estate, code
10:48:45 enforcement come up and talk to us again.
10:48:47 But this is ridiculous.
10:48:48 We have got properties out there that really, really
10:48:51 need to be taken somewhere.
10:48:54 And I don't know whether it's the Code Enforcement
10:48:56 Board that's stopping this or what.
10:49:00 >>> It's up to the legal.
10:49:01 I'm sorry.
10:49:02 But it's all the way up to legal department.

10:49:04 They sat on their hands too long.
10:49:06 So has real estate, sat on their hands too long.
10:49:09 If I can bring up one other thing.
10:49:10 I know I'm out of time.
10:49:12 >>> I only ask you, what is it that you want to tell
10:49:14 us?
10:49:16 >>> Thank you. The new city policy by the legal
10:49:18 department regarding employees, going onto personal
10:49:24 property, okay?
10:49:25 This came out November 17th.
10:49:28 And David Smith specifically said that especially code
10:49:30 enforcement officers, they cannot go on private
10:49:33 property or commercial property unless it is a common
10:49:37 area.
10:49:37 That's all fine and good.
10:49:39 And I understand the fourth amendment.
10:49:40 I totally stand behind it.
10:49:42 But this immediately hampers code enforcement from
10:49:46 doing their job.
10:49:47 Now, if code enforcement officer comes up to an
10:49:50 apartment complex and the owner is not going to give
10:49:52 them permission to come onto the property involved,

10:49:55 yeah, they can come to the common area, okay.
10:49:57 Tenant is not going to because they are scared to
10:49:59 death that they'll get evicted.
10:50:01 How is a code enforcement going to go around to the
10:50:04 back to check the garbage, to see piles and piles of
10:50:06 garbage?
10:50:07 I mean, come on.
10:50:08 Another thing.
10:50:08 I was watching the Variance Review Board and laughed
10:50:12 because they were talking about how to put a fence on
10:50:14 a piece of property.
10:50:15 According to Mr. Smith, anything from the sides back.
10:50:19 It's the homeowner's domain and he will not prosecute.
10:50:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: unbelievable.
10:50:27 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to check into it, Mr.
10:50:29 Johnson.
10:50:30 We are going to try to find the real answer.
10:50:31 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I am going to ask for the legal
10:50:33 department to come and talk to us about this.
10:50:35 And if we have to get whatever other department to
10:50:39 come to talk to us, I want answers.
10:50:42 I am tired of this.

10:50:47 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
10:50:48 I might recommend that maybe 30 days ask the legal to
10:50:53 come back with a report.
10:50:57 This issue of going onto private property, I haven't
10:51:00 been involved in that but I can tell you in my
10:51:02 experience fourth amendment won't allow to you go onto
10:51:05 private property for code enforcement action.
10:51:07 People are allowed on private property if they have
10:51:10 applied for a permit because that gives them
10:51:12 permission.
10:51:12 So there's a little difference about the review board,
10:51:15 the code enforcement process.
10:51:17 But in that time period, that policy which is related
10:51:21 to Constitutional requirements can be given.
10:51:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: But I think that Mr. Johnson needs a
10:51:29 watchdog for code enforcement out there.
10:51:31 And if he needs answers from the legal department,
10:51:33 real estate or something, he needs to get that answer.
10:51:35 It's public information.
10:51:43 >>> I would like to see legal department come out with
10:51:45 a and what they can do to help to enforce the codes
10:51:48 and the ordinances that the City Council passes rather

10:51:51 than looking for ways not to enforce it.
10:51:55 It sounds like they are not working for us.
10:51:59 They are working against us.
10:52:02 >> I hope it's not the issue.
10:52:04 But that's my motion.
10:52:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Did we get a second?
10:52:09 >>MARY ALVAREZ: 30 days.
10:52:10 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
10:52:12 Question on the motion.
10:52:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Johnson, thank you for your
10:52:17 vigilance and your diligence in this matter.
10:52:19 And I'm very impressed with how long you have been at
10:52:21 it and stayed on top of it.
10:52:24 It benefits not just your neighborhood but the whole
10:52:26 city.
10:52:28 I recall about, what was it, about two years ago, two
10:52:32 and a half years ago, where the legal department asked
10:52:34 for additional funding, additional staff, specifically
10:52:37 for this issue.
10:52:39 They said they were going to create a separate
10:52:41 department to initiate foreclosures and that sort of
10:52:44 thing, go into circuit court, and be more aggressive.

10:52:48 So I think this is very timely.
10:52:50 I think that they have had good opportunity.
10:52:52 And I don't have a clue.
10:52:55 In what their success rate is.
10:52:57 I'm hoping they are going to come in 30 days and tell
10:52:59 us how successful and aggressive they have been.
10:53:01 But, Mary, I think your motion is very well stated and
10:53:09 I support it.
10:53:11 (Motion Carried).
10:53:11 >>THE CLERK: The motion coming back on the -- the for
10:53:17 enclosed properties.
10:53:21 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I want a full report on everything.
10:53:23 I want to know why we aren't sending more to the
10:53:30 courts.
10:53:30 But I want a full report on why Mr. Johnson has to
10:53:33 continually bring us these issues.
10:53:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would just add to that, I'll give
10:53:39 you this document, madam clerk.
10:53:41 You probably have it.
10:53:45 But this would be a good starting place in terms of
10:53:47 what is the status of all these properties.
10:53:50 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Julia.

10:53:57 >>GWEN MILLER: We go to our committee reports.
10:54:04 Public safety.
10:54:05 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like to move item 13.
10:54:08 >> Second.
10:54:08 (Motion carried).
10:54:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Parks and recreation, Mary Alvarez.
10:54:12 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like to move item 14 and the
10:54:15 substitute resolution for item 15.
10:54:18 Dip ding second.
10:54:18 (Motion carried).
10:54:21 >>GWEN MILLER: public works, Mr. John Dingfelder.
10:54:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move item 16 through 20.
10:54:30 >> Second.
10:54:30 (Motion carried).
10:54:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll take Ms. Saul-Sena's.
10:54:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.
10:54:41 >>GWEN MILLER: She's coming.
10:54:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
10:54:47 You all moved more quickly than I thought.
10:54:50 I would like to -- Madam Chairman, I thought I was
10:54:54 staying with building, zoning, and preservation.
10:54:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Take it next time.

10:55:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move resolution 21
10:55:07 through 24.
10:55:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
10:55:09 (Motion carried).
10:55:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Building and zoning, Ms. Linda
10:55:14 Saul-Sena.
10:55:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move resolutions 25
10:55:26 through 44.
10:55:29 >> Motion and second.
10:55:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Through 39.
10:55:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 39.
10:55:36 (Motion carried).
10:55:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Transportation, Ms. Mary Alvarez.
10:55:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like to move item 40, 42, 43,
10:55:51 resolutions, and set public hearings for 44 through
10:55:55 47.
10:55:56 >> I have a motion and second.
10:55:56 (Motion carried).
10:55:58 >>GWEN MILLER: We now go to our public hearings.
10:56:02 Anyone in the public that's going to speak on items 48
10:56:04 through oh 353, please stand and raise your right
10:56:17 hand.

10:56:18 >>THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell
10:56:21 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
10:56:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I ask that all written communications
10:56:26 relative to today's hearing that have been available
10:56:28 for public inspection in council's office be received
10:56:30 and filed into the record at this time.
10:56:35 By motion, please.
10:56:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Need a motion.
10:56:39 >> So moved.
10:56:39 >> Second.
10:56:39 (Motion carried).
10:56:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Secondly, a reminder if any members
10:56:45 of council had any verbal communication was any
10:56:47 petitioner, his or her representative or any member of
10:56:49 the public in connection with any of today's hearings,
10:56:52 that member of council should, prior to action,
10:56:54 disclose the following.
10:56:56 The person or persons, groups or entity with whom the
10:56:59 verbal communication occurred and the substance of
10:57:01 that verbal communication.
10:57:03 And finally, ladies and gentlemen, I put a little sign
10:57:05 up there to remind you.

10:57:06 Please, for the record, when you state your name,
10:57:09 reaffirm that you have been sworn.
10:57:10 Thank you.
10:57:10 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open item 48.
10:57:13 >> So moved.
10:57:14 >> Second.
10:57:14 (Motion carried)
10:57:21 Barbara Lynch, with land development group.
10:57:24 Welcome to the new members.
10:57:26 I have been sworn.
10:57:27 And I will need the overhead, please.
10:57:32 Petitioner is requesting to vacate an east-west and
10:57:35 north-south alleyway in South Tampa, generally in the
10:57:38 area of west -- powers, MacDill and the Crosstown.
10:57:45 Petitioner's property is shown in red.
10:57:47 And the area to be vacated is shown in yellow.
10:57:53 The alley runs from Carolina Avenue to Watrous Avenue
10:57:56 and lies between prospect road and CSX railroad
10:58:00 right-of-way.
10:58:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: who is the petitioner?
10:58:04 >>> Petitioner on this are residents abutting this
10:58:06 alleyway.

10:58:09 I'll show you some photos of this.
10:58:12 The first photo is the alleyway looking east from
10:58:15 Carolina Avenue.
10:58:18 And the petitioner's property is this.
10:58:25 And this is the alleyway continuing east from
10:58:27 Carolina.
10:58:27 This is about midpoint.
10:58:31 Then runs to the railroad right-of-way.
10:58:39 This looks back at the same alleyway west from the
10:58:42 railroad.
10:58:46 And the next photo is the railroad right-of-way
10:58:49 abutting the east side of the alley.
10:58:53 This is where the alley turns more in the more
10:58:57 northeasterly direction.
10:58:58 And then the next photo is the alleyway looking north
10:59:00 from the east-west portion of the alleyway.
10:59:06 Another photo of the railroad right-of-way that abuts
10:59:08 this portion.
10:59:12 And this is the alleyway log south from Watrous
10:59:15 Avenue.
10:59:20 The next photos are just some of the abutting streets
10:59:22 that are not to be vacated.

10:59:24 This is Carolina Avenue looking south from Neptune
10:59:26 street.
10:59:31 And this is Carolina Avenue looking north at the
10:59:33 intersection of the alleyway and Neptune street.
10:59:38 And this is Neptune street looking west from Carolina
10:59:40 Avenue, not to be vacated.
10:59:45 When I originally wrote my report, we were going to
10:59:49 suggest recommending this be approved to be vacated
10:59:51 with easements reserved for utilities and drainage.
10:59:55 However, I had a last minute transmission from CSX
10:59:58 objecting to this.
10:59:59 I just received it the other day.
11:00:00 I made copies of the objections.
11:00:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Could you go back to the aerial
11:00:14 shots?
11:00:16 Whatever it is.
11:00:17 The map.
11:00:23 When it dog legs down at the bottom of that, does it
11:00:32 connect to anything?
11:00:33 It looked like it was sort of used.
11:00:37 Maybe not intensively used.
11:00:38 >>BARBARA LYNCH: Well, what happened is all the owners

11:00:41 were cited to clean up the alley.
11:00:43 I was told it was overgrown and there were people
11:00:46 actually living in the east-west portion here.
11:00:49 So the neighbors all pitched in and cleaned up the
11:00:51 property.
11:00:52 So that's why it looks so maintained right now.
11:00:55 It doesn't connect to a roadway.
11:00:57 It comes out here.
11:01:00 Carolina Avenue here is a one way going north and
11:01:03 Neptune is one way heading west so this road is
11:01:06 operating going north and west.
11:01:09 >> I guess the only ones that are affected are the
11:01:12 petitioners themselves or the apartment complex.
11:01:15 >> Yes.
11:01:16 And the public complex already has a fence.
11:01:19 And if this east-west portion is closed the property
11:01:22 should revert to the people to the north because it
11:01:24 came out of their subdivision.
11:01:28 >> And as far as now on the CSX side, on the
11:01:31 north-side, now CSX is objecting, this he say they
11:01:36 need access to the track in case there's an emergency
11:01:38 and get maintenance equipment to the line.

11:01:40 >>GWEN MILLER: How many tracks?
11:01:46 They could not get in if they close the alley?
11:01:49 >>> I think they could get in from Watrous.
11:01:52 But I don't know what they need.
11:01:56 And they -- I think they have 50 feet of right-of-way
11:02:01 without the five.
11:02:03 That's the alleyway there.
11:02:06 >>GWEN MILLER: CSX needs to have access --
11:02:10 >>> I think they would have access to their track.
11:02:12 I think they just want the additional five feet for
11:02:15 maintenance.
11:02:16 >> As you continue on the tracks behind the
11:02:18 apartments, on that same map?
11:02:22 Do you think they have any -- is there any
11:02:25 right-of-way there?
11:02:25 Is there any --
11:02:28 >>> No.
11:02:28 >> So it's probably vacated long ago.
11:02:31 >>> Or never platted.
11:02:32 >> Never existed.
11:02:33 >>> There's in a platted right-of-way abutting the
11:02:37 track there is.

11:02:37 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Lynch, the property you showed us
11:02:43 with all the vegetation, who did that belong to?
11:02:46 >>> I think that's a combination -- it's very hard to
11:02:49 tell where that 5-foot alleyway because you are
11:02:52 talking about the north south portion.
11:02:54 I think the overgrowth is probably on the CSX.
11:02:56 >> And they are not maintaining it like they should?
11:03:00 >>> I don't know.
11:03:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: They never did.
11:03:04 >>> I don't know if they claim it or not but to go
11:03:06 back to this one photo here.
11:03:12 When I turned the corner it was very overgrown.
11:03:17 And that's at the south end of the north-south
11:03:19 portion.
11:03:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The tracks or on this side.
11:03:26 So that would be part of the right-of-way that belongs
11:03:28 to CSX?
11:03:30 >>BARBARA LYNCH: The weird thing is there's a utility
11:03:33 pole right there.
11:03:34 So either that utility pole is in the alley or it's
11:03:36 outside and in the railroad right-of-way.
11:03:39 >> You had some more vegetation photos.

11:03:42 >>> Yeah.
11:03:43 This next photo is a little further north.
11:03:47 I just stepped a little over in the other shot, to
11:03:50 include the tracks, which are here.
11:03:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Further beyond the tracks is the
11:03:54 Crosstown.
11:03:55 >>> Yes.
11:03:55 They have about 130 feet of right-of-way.
11:03:57 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Are there any entrance points in there
11:04:00 that the CSX could get into?
11:04:02 You mentioned something about the other part at the
11:04:09 end.
11:04:10 >>BARBARA LYNCH: Not along the portion to be vacated,
11:04:14 they could come in at Watrous and go down the track.
11:04:18 I would think they are maintaining the tracks along
11:04:20 the whole pathway now.
11:04:24 >> So they are only interested in keeping their tracks
11:04:26 clean.
11:04:27 They are not interested in keeping the other property
11:04:28 clean.
11:04:33 >>> They weren't really specific about why they are
11:04:36 objecting.

11:04:36 They were late on the review.
11:04:37 I did try to get a response several times and got no
11:04:40 response at all.
11:04:40 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And you just got it today?
11:04:43 >>> Two days ago.
11:04:44 >>CHAIRMAN: Do you want to say something first?
11:04:47 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Legal department.
11:04:53 I have prepared an ordinance for you that should be on
11:04:56 file, in anticipation of the hearing.
11:05:00 For the new council members, I could explain a little
11:05:02 of the process for right-of-way vacations.
11:05:07 It is your first one.
11:05:08 When staff prepares a report, that report comes with a
11:05:12 recommendation of approval, we will prepare an
11:05:14 ordinance in anticipation, it contains contingencies
11:05:17 requested by the parties.
11:05:17 So you can act on it that day.
11:05:21 When there is an objection, typically, we won't do
11:05:24 that.
11:05:24 We will not prepare the ordinance.
11:05:26 Because there are questions.
11:05:27 So there may be some discussion at these hearings in

11:05:30 which, you know, could lead to additional components
11:05:35 or even denial of the actual petition.
11:05:37 In a nutshell if there's no objection we will
11:05:39 typically prepare the ordinance for you.
11:05:41 Now, what's before you today, it's what's called a
11:05:43 right-of-way vacation.
11:05:45 We are going to be releasing our interest in a public
11:05:47 right-of-way.
11:05:47 A right-of-way could be an alley, could be a road, it
11:05:50 will be identified as such.
11:05:52 As you sit there today and you hear the testimony
11:05:56 being presented, the standard of review that's
11:05:59 generally recognized by the courts of Florida is the
11:06:04 city holds these rights-of-way in trust for the
11:06:07 public.
11:06:08 It's almost verbatim from the case.
11:06:11 As you hear the testimony today, which you are going
11:06:14 to be asking yourself, is the release of this
11:06:17 right-of-way going to benefit the public?
11:06:21 So you have the very same standard.
11:06:24 You hold it in trust.
11:06:25 You should be releasing it if it will also hold the

11:06:28 public.
11:06:28 An example would be if you have an alley that is not
11:06:31 used, the question as to whether it's used or not is
11:06:35 going to be answered by the department of
11:06:36 transportation.
11:06:37 They review these petitions.
11:06:39 If they have no objection, you could ask the question,
11:06:41 or you could infer from that that there is no use of
11:06:44 that alleyway.
11:06:47 So that right-of-way isn't going to be used for its
11:06:51 purpose as a road.
11:06:51 Then the very next question is, is it being released
11:06:54 to serve a public interest as well?
11:06:56 Maybe there's a lot of criminality.
11:06:58 Maybe there's dumping.
11:06:59 Maybe the maintenance of that alleyway is outweighed
11:07:06 by usability.
11:07:07 Those are the types of things that you would be
11:07:09 considering when the testimonies and all the evidence
11:07:13 presented to you today, that is the balance of scale.
11:07:15 If you find that it serve it is public interest that
11:07:18 they did the right-of-way, then you would be well

11:07:21 advised to vote to vacate it.
11:07:22 If you do not find that that scale is tipped, then you
11:07:26 would also be well advised to not approve it.
11:07:30 Having said that, I welcome answering any questions
11:07:37 for you.
11:07:38 If you don't have any questions, I'll go ahead and
11:07:40 turn it over to petitioner.
11:07:41 And you know what the standard of review is.
11:07:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's a great explanation.
11:07:48 I wish somebody had given me that explanation a long
11:07:50 time ago.
11:07:51 Thank you.
11:07:53 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Let me just give you a brief
11:07:55 history of what happened here.
11:07:57 The neighbors abutting the alleyway called the City of
11:08:02 Tampa police department, standards enforcement,
11:08:07 because there were a number of activities going on in
11:08:09 the bushes and the shrubbery area, directly behind
11:08:12 their homes.
11:08:15 This is an example, I think, that Barbara showed you
11:08:18 some other pictures a second ago.
11:08:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Before you begin, have you been --

11:08:24 >>> I have been sworn.
11:08:25 Not on camera but I was sworn.
11:08:29 The overgrowth was continuous throughout the alley and
11:08:33 it was completely impassable.
11:08:35 It was not being used.
11:08:37 It was a small path that went through there.
11:08:39 And there was a small village that had been set up
11:08:42 behind there with probably at least four or offensive,
11:08:45 maybe six people living back there.
11:08:47 They had cook stoves.
11:08:49 They had a little TV.
11:08:53 They had a variety of other things.
11:08:55 What standards did was to cite the property owners for
11:08:58 not maintaining the alley, which was impassable, and
11:09:02 that is why we are here today, is to really secure the
11:09:05 areas so they can get access to it and maintain it.
11:09:08 The alley that you see there that's been cleaned up
11:09:11 was paid for by the adjoining property owners to the
11:09:15 tune of about $2500.
11:09:23 Once that was done, the police came through and the
11:09:25 individuals that had tenths and little sheds, they
11:09:28 were all removed.

11:09:30 But the problem still exist because if you look on
11:09:34 this photograph, the access point off of Carolina is
11:09:39 still there.
11:09:44 And they are concerned about people coming in and
11:09:49 setting up another homestead in that area.
11:09:52 This is the overgrowth.
11:09:56 I have a picture.
11:10:00 >> It's a little dark.
11:10:03 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I can pass it.
11:10:06 >> I can see it better up there.
11:10:07 Thank you.
11:10:08 >>> This piece is the dog leg that turns back towards
11:10:12 Watrous.
11:10:13 And you can see the CSX right-of-way is still clear.
11:10:19 If you look very closely, you can see a post here.
11:10:25 That is more than five feet from this wall.
11:10:28 What we are asking for is five feet from this wall
11:10:31 going in this direction.
11:10:32 That's almost 15 feet.
11:10:33 And that's where the utilities are running.
11:10:36 And the T city also reserved the utility easement
11:10:39 across it.

11:10:40 So the only thing we are talking about being able to
11:10:43 secure the area for the property owners and not be
11:10:46 unduly burdened by having to call the police and
11:10:50 maintain areas that are outside of their fence line.
11:10:53 This is the other side of the CSX railroad
11:10:57 right-of-way, which is not maintained.
11:11:00 It's only maintained at the corner of Watt Watrous.
11:11:07 This is a little better photograph.
11:11:08 You can see how wide that is up near the fence line.
11:11:13 But the five feet actually extends from the wall
11:11:16 outward.
11:11:18 There's a City of Tampa stormwater inlet that you can
11:11:21 see.
11:11:21 I don't know if you can see this.
11:11:28 Here is the bottom picture.
11:11:29 This is an underground telephone, CSX right-of-way
11:11:34 posters over here.
11:11:37 You couldn't get equipment down through that five feet
11:11:40 for CSX if you had to, but they still have access to
11:11:43 their tracks.
11:11:44 We are not obstructing their access to the tracks.
11:11:47 They would come down Watrous.

11:11:49 They wouldn't come through the alley off of Carolina.
11:11:52 They couldn't get through if there's trees in there,
11:11:54 and actually it took a cleaning crew two or three days
11:11:59 to get through to the point where they see it and you
11:12:01 have the photograph that you see now.
11:12:04 >> Steve, real quick, five feet along the water
11:12:07 tracks.
11:12:07 How about after your turn?
11:12:09 >> It's 15 fate once you make the dog leg back to the
11:12:13 west.
11:12:13 >> But the only beneficiaries of that turn after you
11:12:15 turn are your clients, who are the petitioners.
11:12:19 >> That's correct.
11:12:19 And that's where the --
11:12:20 >> I think we can shorten this up.
11:12:22 Why don't you see if there's anybody in opposition to
11:12:24 that?
11:12:24 >> Let.
11:12:25 THE COURT REPORTER: Just put on the record it has the
11:12:27 full support of the New Suburb Beautiful neighborhood
11:12:30 association.
11:12:31 18 property owners who are the joint petitioners on

11:12:33 this property.
11:12:34 On the proposal.
11:12:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:12:37 wants to speak on item number 48?
11:12:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
11:12:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
11:12:41 (Motion carried).
11:12:42 >>CHAIRMAN: Mr. Santiago, do you have an ordinance?
11:12:55 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Get it down in about ten minutes.
11:12:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move an ordinance moving a ban
11:13:01 doing all that alleyway run ago long side and west of
11:13:03 the CSX rail line right-of-way south of Watrous Avenue
11:13:10 southeast of prospect road and east of South Carolina,
11:13:14 in the New Suburb Beautiful, a subdivision in the City
11:13:17 of Tampa, Hillsborough County the same being more
11:13:20 fully described in section 2 here providing an
11:13:22 effective date.
11:13:24 (Motion carried).
11:13:24 >> Steve, I think you might have done this pro bono so
11:13:27 thank you on behalf of the neighborhood.
11:13:30 >> Move to open number 49.
11:13:33 >> So moved.

11:13:33 >> Second.
11:13:33 (Motion carried).
11:13:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 49.
11:13:43 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: This matter is for hearing today
11:13:45 is a hearing on a petition to expand the boundaries of
11:13:53 the New Port Tampa Bay community development district.
11:13:59 A community development district is created by Florida
11:14:02 statutes, chapter 190 to be exact.
11:14:05 It is an independent effectively taxing district, very
11:14:09 similar to those identified chapter 189.
11:14:11 But the term of art, I understand, has been coined by
11:14:14 somebody else but it's like having a homeowners
11:14:16 association on steroids.
11:14:18 They can do everything the HOA does except they can
11:14:21 tax you as well.
11:14:23 There really are some distinctions between what an HOA
11:14:27 does and what a VBD does but to bring it into an
11:14:30 example.
11:14:31 They are created by an ordinance of the City of Tampa.
11:14:35 This one was created approximately about a year and a
11:14:37 half ago.
11:14:39 They established their boundaries.

11:14:41 There are a set of criteria reviewed by the city when
11:14:44 it was created.
11:14:45 They are now here before you today to amend those
11:14:48 boundaries.
11:14:50 Florida statutes provides the process for the review
11:14:53 of this petition.
11:14:54 It has been received, has been reviewed.
11:14:57 An ordinance has been prepared in anticipation.
11:15:00 If there are no objections to the report with regard
11:15:01 to that are petition.
11:15:03 The petitioner is here to answer any questions you may
11:15:05 have.
11:15:05 And certainly if you have any questions about that,
11:15:08 the process, I can answer it to the extent that I can.
11:15:11 But you have very competent counsel here, extremely
11:15:14 experienced in these matters so you have a wealth of
11:15:17 information with Mr. Straley as well.
11:15:21 I will turn it over to Mr. Straley.
11:15:27 >>> I'm mark Straley, the attorney for the petitioner.
11:15:30 What we are proposing to do here is to make some
11:15:33 technical amendments to the boundaries of the existing
11:15:37 New Port Tampa Bay community development district.

11:15:40 The staff is recommending approval.
11:15:42 I don't believe there's anyone here in opposition.
11:15:45 But I would be happy to answer any questions about
11:15:47 this petition that council might have.
11:15:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that came
11:15:52 to speak on item 49?
11:15:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
11:15:55 >> Second.
11:15:55 (Motion carried)
11:15:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance of the city of
11:16:02 Tampa, Florida authorizing the establishment of an
11:16:04 amended boundary for the New Port Tampa Bay community
11:16:07 development district providing for amendment of the
11:16:10 boundaries of the district by adding additional
11:16:12 parcels of land that will be served by the district
11:16:14 and to remove a single parcel of land that will be
11:16:17 dredged and become submerged lands, which will result
11:16:20 in a net gain of 2.87 acres MOL, for total of 54.13
11:16:26 acres comprising the district, situated entirely
11:16:30 within the boundaries of the City of Tampa,
11:16:32 Hillsborough County, Florida, said district being
11:16:34 generally located near the intersection of Gandy

11:16:36 Boulevard and South Westshore Boulevard, the amended
11:16:39 boundary being more particularly described in section
11:16:41 2 hereof, pursuant to chapter 190, Florida statute,
11:16:45 providing for severability, providing for an effective
11:16:48 date.
11:16:50 >> Second.
11:16:50 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
11:16:51 (Motion carried)
11:16:54 Item number 51 is a continued public hearing.
11:17:01 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Historic preservation manager.
11:17:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Have you been sworn?
11:17:07 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: I have been sworn, thank you.
11:17:08 I think we can open items 51 and 52 simultaneously.
11:17:12 >>GWEN MILLER: They are continued so we don't have to
11:17:15 open them.
11:17:18 >>> This is a request to amend the boundaries of the
11:17:20 Tampa Heights local historic district to include two
11:17:24 satellite properties.
11:17:27 Item 51 is 110 west Amelia.
11:17:36 That site displayed on your Elmo.
11:17:38 This was relocated from 605 east Frances Avenue as
11:17:41 part of the FDOT expansion of the interstate.

11:17:44 The property has been purchased by individual property
11:17:48 owner who is in favor of the designation and wishes to
11:17:51 use tax credits to rehabilitate the property.
11:17:53 The property does need to be designated in order to
11:17:56 take advantage of those tax credits.
11:18:01 And for us not to lose a contributing structure.
11:18:05 The second property was located at 2205 north OLA.
11:18:12 It's currently located at 316 west Park Avenue.
11:18:15 This is with a private relocation.
11:18:18 The structure was going to be torn down.
11:18:20 The property owner offered the structure up for
11:18:22 relocation.
11:18:23 The current property owner purchased the property,
11:18:26 relocated to a site, and is now in the process of
11:18:29 rehabilitating the structure.
11:18:30 It was built in 1903.
11:18:34 This is just the initiation of the designation.
11:18:37 We'll go to the city-county Planning Commission to
11:18:39 come back to the council for two public hearings.
11:18:42 Thank you.
11:18:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone in the public want to speak
11:18:46 on item number 51?

11:18:48 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
11:18:49 >> Second.
11:18:49 (Motion carried).
11:18:55 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move the resolution.
11:18:57 >> Second.
11:18:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion, Ms. Saul-Sena?
11:19:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to say this is such a
11:19:02 success story that this home was successfully
11:19:04 relocated, it's contributing to the historic fabric,
11:19:08 it's a win-win-win.
11:19:10 And I want to thank you for bringing it to us.
11:19:11 It seems it's something that was not as controversial,
11:19:14 didn't inspire that much conversation but this
11:19:16 deserves some recognition because it's such a positive
11:19:21 addition to the neighborhood.
11:19:24 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to move the
11:19:25 resolution.
11:19:26 (Motion carried)
11:19:29 Number 52.
11:19:31 >>> 52 is the property on park.
11:19:32 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the public hearing on
11:19:34 52.

11:19:35 Always Alvarez so moved.
11:19:36 >> Second.
11:19:36 (Motion carried).
11:19:37 >>CHAIRMAN: Need to move the resolution.
11:19:40 >>MARY ALVAREZ: There's an ordinance.
11:19:44 >>GWEN MILLER: No, 52.
11:19:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm sorry.
11:19:46 Move the resolution.
11:19:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second, again.
11:19:50 (Motion Carried).
11:19:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 53 is a continued public hearing.
11:20:01 >>> Ron Beeler with historic preservation.
11:20:02 I have been sworn.
11:20:03 This kind of piggybacks on what Dennis has shown us, a
11:20:06 contributing structure that was relocated in West
11:20:09 Tampa.
11:20:09 The address of this property prior to the move that
11:20:13 took place in 2003 was at 1924 west Laurel Avenue,
11:20:20 moved to 1917 west LaSalle Avenue.
11:20:23 This is a contributing structure with the West Tampa
11:20:25 multiple properties group.
11:20:27 Before I continue, I would like to submit this into

11:20:29 the file, the application.
11:20:41 Go to the Elmo, this is a map of the area showing
11:20:43 exactly in red where the house was located prior to
11:20:46 the move.
11:20:47 And one parcel to the south.
11:20:51 This is the interstate here.
11:20:52 This is Main Street to the north.
11:20:54 This is Howard.
11:20:59 The aerial so you better understand what has taken
11:21:02 place.
11:21:03 It was moved from the northern property to the
11:21:05 southern.
11:21:07 Now it does face LaSalle.
11:21:12 Just some brief photos.
11:21:16 This is the front elevation and side elevation prayer
11:21:18 to the move.
11:21:24 This is after rehabilitation. Moving to the interior,
11:21:27 this is the front room.
11:21:29 Front door.
11:21:30 And some of the interior walls and the flooring.
11:21:33 Which is here.
11:21:39 After the rehabilitation, new food flooring.

11:21:41 You see the transom and the door and window trim was
11:21:45 reinstalled.
11:21:45 And the B board interior walls.
11:21:52 This is prayer to rehabilitation, deteriorated state.
11:21:56 You see some of the cabinetry here, the windows and
11:21:58 the trim.
11:22:03 >> Oh, look at that.
11:22:05 >>> And then after rehabilitation.
11:22:06 The new cabinets.
11:22:07 They are period appropriate.
11:22:08 The composite tile.
11:22:10 And the windows and trim.
11:22:11 And the B board walls as well.
11:22:16 This meets the department of criteria.
11:22:21 We are recommending that you approve this.
11:22:24 That's the presentation.
11:22:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:22:28 wants to speak on item 53?
11:22:30 Always Alvarez move to close.
11:22:31 >> Second.
11:22:31 (Motion carried).
11:22:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move an ordinance

11:22:40 approving an historic preservation property tax
11:22:44 exemption application relative to the restoration,
11:22:46 renovation or rehabilitation of certain property owned
11:22:49 by Glen L. Harris located at 1917 west LaSalle street
11:22:53 formerly located at 1924 west Laurel Avenue, Tampa,
11:22:55 Florida in the West Tampa national historic district,
11:22:58 based upon certain findings, providing for notice to
11:23:01 the property appraiser of Hillsborough County,
11:23:03 providing for severability, providing for repeal of
11:23:06 all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective
11:23:08 date.
11:23:09 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
11:23:10 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
11:23:12 (Motion carried)
11:23:14 Item 54 is a continued public hearing.
11:23:16 Is there anyone in the public that's going to speak on
11:23:19 item 54?
11:23:20 Please stand and raise your right hand.
11:23:26 (Oath administered by Clerk)
11:23:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ms. Coyle, this is a continued appeal
11:24:13 hearing.
11:24:13 We have two new council members obviously that haven't

11:24:17 had the benefit of reading the backup material.
11:24:20 Maybe you would like to create a context to allow them
11:24:23 to speak.
11:24:25 Thank you.
11:24:26 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
11:24:29 I'm sorry?
11:24:36 The property is located at 4810 west McElroy Avenue.
11:24:42 Zoned CI.
11:24:43 And they are requesting a proposed use of single
11:24:44 family attached residential.
11:24:45 We did provide the site plan for you.
11:24:50 Just for orientation.
11:25:04 What you will notice is a layout of the attached
11:25:07 housing.
11:25:08 For new council members, attached housing is when you
11:25:10 have units that are attached by sidewalls, with a
11:25:13 range of 3 to 8 attached in a row.
11:25:17 You will see that there are 25 units laid out with an
11:25:19 interior drive.
11:25:21 The request went to the special use 1 process which is
11:25:24 an administrative approval and the commercial
11:25:26 districts including CI.

11:25:28 That request is appropriate.
11:25:29 We review based on the criteria and the code.
11:25:31 There are two specific criteria which they must meet
11:25:34 in order for to us approve.
11:25:35 The first one is the site shall maintain access to a
11:25:39 collector or arterial street.
11:25:41 McElroy and Paul Avenue are both classified as local
11:25:45 streets.
11:25:46 And when this type of development is located within a
11:25:50 commercial district or an office district, they shall
11:25:53 meet RM-24 setbacks.
11:25:56 You will note in the staff report under the waiver
11:25:58 section that there is a waiver for access to local
11:26:01 streets and a waiver for reduction in the setbacks.
11:26:07 Each of the units does have a two-car garage which
11:26:10 meets the intent of the design criteria and the zoning
11:26:12 code.
11:26:13 And I did note on page 2 of the report the special use
11:26:17 appeal process for your review and consideration.
11:26:21 And I noted on the bottom of page 3 that single-family
11:26:24 attached units are required to maintain access to
11:26:28 arterial streets.

11:26:30 Given that this site is currently zoned CI, which
11:26:33 permits a wide array of uses, the proposed townhouses
11:26:36 actually would be an intensification of the property.
11:26:39 Other planned development zonings have been approved
11:26:41 around this property as well which has been developed
11:26:43 to similar residential uses.
11:26:45 This property is just east of the large New Port
11:26:49 development, PDA, that was approved several months
11:26:52 ago.
11:26:53 Historically land does not oppose this transition.
11:26:57 However, the code criteria limits my ability to
11:26:59 approve this administratively.
11:27:01 All of the objections from the previous hearing have
11:27:03 been removed.
11:27:04 They did correct the landscape table and they did
11:27:08 correct the transportation and stormwater notes that
11:27:10 were needed.
11:27:11 So staff has no further objections.
11:27:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
11:27:20 >>> Michael Horner, 14502 Dale Mabry Highway Tampa
11:27:24 representing applicants.
11:27:28 I have been sworn.

11:27:30 I see Ms. Coyle has given a pretty good summary, Madam
11:27:32 Chair, of our proposal, I was before you a few weeks
11:27:35 ago, we had outstanding objections, we have taken time
11:27:38 to go back out there.
11:27:40 Revised the plans, revised the notes, remove a couple
11:27:42 waivers, and we stand before you this morning with no
11:27:45 objections from staff.
11:27:48 Essentially, this is for 25 single-family attached
11:27:51 town homes.
11:27:52 These will be upper scale, predicated upon the value
11:27:54 increases in that part of the city.
11:27:56 1800 to 2500 square feet.
11:27:59 Height about 33 to 35 feet tall.
11:28:03 Approximately two access drives, before the existing
11:28:11 CI pattern.
11:28:12 We are not adding access, we are not row moving
11:28:14 access.
11:28:16 Open space, we are required to have about 8700 square
11:28:19 feet.
11:28:19 We are proposing over 14,000.
11:28:21 In terms of parking as Cathy outlined, we meet the
11:28:26 2,000 plus we exceed the required two guest spaces

11:28:28 which is six.
11:28:30 We are providing for eight.
11:28:31 We also have overflow spaces provided.
11:28:36 Zoned CI we are proposing residential single familiar
11:28:38 family attached.
11:28:39 There will be no trucks, traffic, no storage, no
11:28:41 turning maneuvers, no dumpsters, we'll have curbside
11:28:45 pickup, we'll actually have less impervious surface
11:28:49 proposed as opposed to the existing by virtue of a
11:28:52 large bulk underneath the ground plus a small surface
11:28:55 pond.
11:28:55 This is a UMU 60 planned sector zoned CI.
11:29:00 CI allows the 45-foot tall building.
11:29:03 CI allows the ten foot set back.
11:29:09 We are asking for your support.
11:29:13 We are still coming for the elevation reviews but you
11:29:16 can see the orientation is internalized for the
11:29:19 parking similar to our South MacDill site, Mrs.
11:29:22 Saul-Sena.
11:29:23 So when you come down McElroy or Paul you are not
11:29:26 greeted with huge garage doors facing you.
11:29:31 Now we can require the garage doors to face the

11:29:33 outside.
11:29:34 It not the orientation my client is will go for.
11:29:36 If we met the orientation of the required front
11:29:40 setback, council, we would result in approximately --
11:29:55 a proposed setback of ten.
11:29:57 This is the RM standard set back of 25.
11:29:59 You can see what that setback does.
11:30:05 By allowing the ten-foot setback we can spread these
11:30:09 units out, open the interior drive aisle, allow more
11:30:12 parking and have garage door orientation.
11:30:14 I'm done.
11:30:15 Thank you.
11:30:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:30:16 wants to speak on item number 54?
11:30:18 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
11:30:22 Somebody?
11:30:25 >>> I have been sworn.
11:30:26 I am Jack McGahee, the owner of the property.
11:30:32 I have, for the last 39 years, I have been in the boat
11:30:36 and motor business within a half a mile of this site.
11:30:41 And first at what is now bayside marina, over at
11:30:49 Imperial which is now -- whatever they call it.

11:30:53 New Port Tampa Bay.
11:30:59 I can't think of a more fitting use for this property
11:31:06 than what is proposed.
11:31:08 And so I would appreciate your consideration on this.
11:31:14 Thank you.
11:31:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
11:31:16 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
11:31:18 >> Second.
11:31:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close.
11:31:20 (Motion carried).
11:31:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Reddick, do you want to try this?
11:31:30 Yes, Mr. Dingfelder?
11:31:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Previously the neighborhood
11:31:36 association had some concerns?
11:31:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: This is an appeal.
11:31:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why don't we have the neighborhood
11:31:55 association contact us?
11:31:58 >>> Mr. Al Steenson, we sent him all the revised
11:32:01 plans.
11:32:01 Did he go on record prior to our hearing three weeks
11:32:04 ago and indicated he had a different view personally
11:32:07 than the association.

11:32:09 The association did not want any changes to the code,
11:32:13 they felt the code was adopted for certain reasons,
11:32:15 therefore they would like to see no changes, leave the
11:32:17 CI alone.
11:32:18 That being said, he's not here today so I don't know
11:32:21 what --
11:32:22 >> He might be recuperating from his surgery.
11:32:25 >>> I did contact him.
11:32:26 Dy send him e-mails.
11:32:38 >> Move an ordinance approving special use permit S-
11:32:41 on appeal from a decision of the zoning administrator,
11:32:44 approving single family attached residential in a CI
11:32:47 commercial intensive zoning district, in the city of
11:32:50 Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in
11:32:52 section 1, waiving the required access to an arterial
11:32:56 or collector street, to reduce the front yard setback
11:32:59 from 25 feet to 10 feet, Paul Avenue, and 20 feet to
11:33:05 10 feet, McElroy Avenue, providing an effective date.
11:33:08 >> We have a motion and second.
11:33:09 (Motion carried)
11:33:15 Madam clerk, on item number 55?
11:33:21 57?

11:33:22 >>THE CLERK: Item 55 you have a request from Terry
11:33:25 Cullen, Planning Commission, to remove that item from
11:33:28 the agenda at this time.
11:33:30 And they will arrange with council member Saul-Sena a
11:33:33 date to come back.
11:33:34 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
11:33:36 >> Second.
11:33:36 (Motion carried).
11:33:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 56.
11:33:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Workshop.
11:33:47 >>GWEN MILLER: And 57.
11:33:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Is anyone here for item 56?
11:33:52 >>RANDY GOERS: Community planning division.
11:33:58 I left my agenda in the office.
11:34:00 I couldn't remember if that was the item or not.
11:34:04 Hopefully, there will be a short PowerPoint
11:34:07 presentation that we can present the public school
11:34:10 facilities element.
11:34:11 This is a workshop.
11:34:13 There is no official action being taken today.
11:34:15 It's designed to bring you up to date on the status of
11:34:19 the public school facility element and requirements

11:34:22 and so forth.
11:34:28 Let me see if I can find the mouse.
11:34:42 They are moving it for me.
11:34:43 That's good.
11:34:43 Let me give you a little brief intro into the process.
11:34:47 In 2005, the legislature approved an amendment to the
11:34:51 comprehensive plan, growth management act, referred to
11:34:55 as Senate bill 360 that established new requirements
11:34:58 for local government to comprehensive planning.
11:35:02 One of those requirements was provision called
11:35:05 concurrency for public school facility.
11:35:09 Concurrency, before development can take place, we
11:35:14 need tone sure there's adequate public facilities
11:35:18 already that will be timed to serve the development
11:35:20 when it comes online.
11:35:22 Schools --
11:35:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question.
11:35:25 If the concurrency came around into being like 20
11:35:28 years ago, what happened to the educational part of
11:35:32 that?
11:35:35 >>> There was -- it was initially included.
11:35:39 There was a lot of discussion.

11:35:40 But then there were some state decisions to exclude
11:35:46 the facilities at that time.
11:35:47 >> So it got pulled out?
11:35:49 >>> Yes.
11:35:49 Or it never really made it to the final number.
11:35:51 But it never got into the acted.
11:35:53 But I think over the years, they found it with the
11:35:56 growth and in the planning.
11:35:59 There's a need now to bring the two forms together.
11:36:03 So Senate bill 360 was approved.
11:36:07 It requires all of the governments to implement school
11:36:09 concurrency.
11:36:10 No later than July 1st, 2008.
11:36:13 There were six pilot communities selected by the
11:36:15 department of communities there as to develop an
11:36:19 element and interlocal agreement that could be used,
11:36:22 not only for the local governments that developed it
11:36:24 but as models for other local communities.
11:36:27 Hillsborough County was selected as one of the model
11:36:30 communities that we have been working with the school
11:36:31 board as well as the other three local jurisdictions
11:36:34 to develop a model, or develop our public school

11:36:40 facility element in the amendment to our interlocal
11:36:43 agreement, which will be used as a model for the
11:36:45 state.
11:36:45 So let me give you -- what I am going to do today is
11:36:49 have Lorraine give you sort of a summary of the school
11:36:53 facilities element in the interlocal agreement, as
11:36:57 she's been doing this already for the local
11:36:59 governments, as she's very familiar with that.
11:37:01 I will come back and give you sort of what we think
11:37:05 are some of the impacts for the City of Tampa and some
11:37:07 of the items that I think we are going to be following
11:37:10 up as we go through the adoption process.
11:37:16 >>> Lorraine Duffey Suarez, the manager of growth
11:37:18 management for Hillsborough County public schools.
11:37:25 Randy gave you the overview.
11:37:27 To have a public school concurrency program there's
11:37:29 really three different pieces.
11:37:31 You have the comprehensive plan piece that I am going
11:37:32 to talk to you about today.
11:37:34 You have the interlocal agreement, which we already
11:37:37 have an existing interlocal agreement, but that will
11:37:40 need to be amended between the school board and the

11:37:42 city.
11:37:43 And then the third piece is a school concurrency
11:37:48 ordinance.
11:37:49 You already have concurrency ordinances for the other
11:37:51 six facilities that are regulated.
11:37:53 But there will be a requirement to have a new
11:37:56 ordinance.
11:37:57 The state is preparing a model for that.
11:37:59 Our pilot did not get into the ordinance.
11:38:01 But I am going to go through the public schools
11:38:04 facilities element with you today to give you the
11:38:07 overview for that.
11:38:08 And we'll tell you that a lot of the components of the
11:38:11 element get transferred verbatim into the interlocal
11:38:15 agreement.
11:38:16 You know, which comes first?
11:38:18 It's hard to say at this point because we did them
11:38:20 simultaneously but essentially those things that you
11:38:22 agree to in your comprehensive plan to set the
11:38:24 direction of where schools and cities will be
11:38:28 coordinating, interlocal agreement get signed. The
11:38:32 school board as you know does not adopt the

11:38:34 comprehensive plan.
11:38:35 The city interlocal agreement is the way for the
11:38:39 school board to agree to do what they need to do and
11:38:42 make this process work.
11:38:46 So if we could put the item back up.
11:38:50 These are the goals and objectives.
11:38:52 I am just going to give you maybe a bullet point or
11:38:54 two on each of the goals and objectives in the public
11:38:57 school facilities element.
11:38:59 Population projections.
11:39:02 There's a requirement first of all -- there's two
11:39:04 goals, one that we coordinate, maintain a high level
11:39:07 of coordination and, two, how we implement school
11:39:09 concurrency.
11:39:10 So with respect to coordination and maintaining a high
11:39:13 quality education, population projections, both the
11:39:17 element proposes that the school board would continue
11:39:21 to coordinate as they already do with the local
11:39:24 government, Department of Education, to prepare
11:39:28 professionally developed population projections, we'll
11:39:31 universities use projections you use, and the ones
11:39:34 that they give us to try to come up with reasonable

11:39:36 expectations of student enrollment.
11:39:39 As you all know, quite a bit of volatility in the
11:39:42 market lately, so throws a lot of change going on
11:39:45 right now.
11:39:45 So I think it's more important than ever that we try
11:39:49 to sit down closely and coordinate that aspect.
11:39:52 With respect to growth and development trends, the
11:39:57 council of governments will meet annually and discuss
11:40:00 those trends.
11:40:01 That's already part of the interlocal agreement that
11:40:04 there be an annual meeting to discuss school issues at
11:40:07 the council of governments.
11:40:09 But also as part of that, the school board will need a
11:40:13 listing of vested projects, that each local government
11:40:15 has, because in order to estimate the capacity of our
11:40:20 schools, we need to know what's vested and not subject
11:40:23 to this concurrency ordinance, and -- I guess we could
11:40:28 just say not subject to school concurrency, those not
11:40:31 subject to school concurrency, so that we can account
11:40:34 for that capacity when those projects do come in,
11:40:36 because we will be seeing them as part of the
11:40:38 concurrency.

11:40:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: At what stage does the project
11:40:43 become -- at the approval stage?
11:40:48 At a city approval stage?
11:40:49 Or building code --
11:40:52 >>> School concurrency is going to be evaluated at the
11:40:54 point of subdivision platting, or -- the way the
11:40:58 statue Utah reads, the final site plan approval.
11:41:01 So I think we will be working with your legal
11:41:03 department to determine exactly.
11:41:07 >> The PD approval?
11:41:11 >> That's not a final site plan.
11:41:13 Final site plan would be like a subdivision.
11:41:18 But we are going to work with the legal teams from
11:41:20 each of the local governments because it has to be
11:41:22 very similar.
11:41:22 You can't have one local government, you know, vesting
11:41:24 someone because they have a comp plan category and
11:41:28 another one saying you need a building permit because
11:41:30 there's no equity, and remember we have one school
11:41:32 system, so we want to make sure that we have
11:41:36 uniformity.
11:41:36 >> You think that should be uniform throughout the

11:41:39 state?
11:41:40 >>> You would think.
11:41:42 But you well know there's a concept of concurrency,
11:41:45 and I work worked with Mr. Dingfelder back when he was
11:41:48 at the county attorney's office and he knows there's a
11:41:50 lot of discrepancy between local governments and how
11:41:53 they viewed vesting.
11:41:57 I don't presume to say how the City of Tampa will
11:42:01 staff the project.
11:42:03 With respect to schools, facilities sitings and
11:42:06 availability, that is really an interlocal agreement,
11:42:13 in that section we set out the procedures by which we
11:42:15 will cite new schools.
11:42:17 It's already in there now.
11:42:19 It doesn't appear that there's much change going on in
11:42:22 that section.
11:42:24 We will also coordinate with each of the local
11:42:26 governments on the infrastructure needs on those
11:42:29 facilities, new schools as they come in, what
11:42:32 additional infrastructure might be needed.
11:42:34 >> Before you go any further, my question would be,
11:42:39 with the school facilities sitings, where would you

11:42:42 put a school in the Channel District?
11:42:45 >>> Well, we are actually trying to be quite
11:42:47 innovative.
11:42:48 For instance, we have the K-8 Rampello school. We may
11:42:55 not have a school, and I don't think we have a plan
11:42:56 for a school in the Channel District proper.
11:42:58 However, Rampello may serve that purpose.
11:43:03 We have a new school planned for -- I am going to go
11:43:05 through some of that -- in the Tampa heights area.
11:43:08 We also are looking at in the Central Park Village
11:43:12 plan to working, we are already working with the
11:43:15 housing authority to have a middle school in there.
11:43:19 So it might not be right in the Channel District, but
11:43:22 it will be --
11:43:24 >> Okay, so in other words it would be mitigation
11:43:26 then.
11:43:27 >>> It wouldn't be for mitigation, it would just be
11:43:30 the location of the school would be suitable and
11:43:33 appropriate.
11:43:33 >> So would you be using school buses to go back and
11:43:35 forth.
11:43:36 >>> Probably, yes.

11:43:38 >> Because I couldn't figure out where we would put a
11:43:42 school in that area.
11:43:43 >>> Well, interestingly, we already have the Rampello.
11:43:49 We are trying to be very creative in the urban area.
11:43:52 I will talk a little about that point actually.
11:43:55 >> Before you go further, we are talking about the
11:43:58 downtown partnership school.
11:43:59 Aren't they pretty much at capacity now?
11:44:02 >>> Yes, they are.
11:44:03 >> So what happens to the children that are coming in
11:44:07 and will be moving into the Channel District?
11:44:09 >>> A lot of those children, there's really not an
11:44:11 attendance boundary for that school, is my
11:44:14 understanding.
11:44:15 Those are parents from downtown bring their children
11:44:17 in.
11:44:17 So perhaps there will be a component that becomes
11:44:20 boundary.
11:44:22 Those decisions. Been made.
11:44:24 So we have flexibility if we need to move and make
11:44:36 room for them.
11:44:37 DeSoto is just across the road.

11:44:39 >> The west side.
11:44:43 Which is not very close to this side, to the east
11:44:47 side.
11:44:48 >>> Well, unfortunately, sometimes it's hard to find
11:44:50 something right downtown.
11:44:51 But close by is what we look for.
11:44:56 I think right now, those children -- I'm trying to
11:44:59 remember because I do all the reviews.
11:45:01 I think it might be just the Channel District.
11:45:03 >> That would be the middle school there, wouldn't it?
11:45:06 Just the middle school?
11:45:07 Elementary?
11:45:08 >>> Elementary.
11:45:17 I get a lot of -- did a lot of reviews for the
11:45:20 projects downtown and it shows quite a bit for that
11:45:23 school.
11:45:23 I know we are going to need another school.
11:45:25 That's a good indication.
11:45:26 I'll tell you a little about how --
11:45:28 >> And you are talking about Just.
11:45:30 But then you have the Tampa Heights people in there
11:45:33 that would be using Just.

11:45:35 >>> And we have a new school program for this region.
11:45:39 We unofficially call it East Tampa heights school.
11:45:42 >> Okay.
11:45:43 >>> We don't have a site for it.
11:45:44 At the end I have a little list of what we have
11:45:47 budgeted.
11:45:47 But we don't have sites for.
11:45:49 We actually have, in our five year plan, budgets for
11:45:52 new schools to serve some of this area.
11:46:00 >> When you ask the developer of the Tampa Heights
11:46:03 site --
11:46:04 >>> That's what we did with Central Park.
11:46:06 That's how we worked it out.
11:46:08 And we haven't been able to find a suitable site in
11:46:10 working with them.
11:46:11 You know, we tried.
11:46:15 There's a not a large land area in which -- we need
11:46:19 it.
11:46:19 We can work on smaller sites but we need big enough to
11:46:22 have some play fields for elementary, for instance.
11:46:27 But we haven't given up.
11:46:28 We continue to -- we work with the city staff as well.

11:46:31 And we meet with them monthly to discuss this.
11:46:34 It comes up almost every month.
11:46:37 So we are trying.
11:46:37 >> I promise I won't talk to you anymore.
11:46:46 >>> Okay.
11:46:49 Enhancing community design.
11:46:53 Essentially the components in that section are -- you
11:46:57 think physical design.
11:46:59 I know that's what comes to people's minds.
11:47:01 But designing schools to be part of the community.
11:47:04 All of our new construction, we try to, you know, if
11:47:08 it's not in the coastal high hazard, an emergency
11:47:10 shelter.
11:47:11 And those important as a community asset.
11:47:15 Bike and pedestrian paths, we try to align with the
11:47:19 local governments to make sure we have
11:47:21 bicycle-pedestrian paths as needed.
11:47:23 Sharing of the uses.
11:47:24 We have a good record of shared use of park land,
11:47:28 locating next to a local government park and sharing.
11:47:31 We don't have to build the play field.
11:47:34 We will put our schools right next to the park and

11:47:37 enter into an interlocal agreement.
11:47:39 We have standing agreement.
11:47:40 And lands for everybody, because everyone has a little
11:47:45 piece of the financial obligation to that.
11:47:47 And it's also safe for the community to have one
11:47:51 central location.
11:47:52 Renovation and rehabilitation, which is probably the
11:47:54 majority of the City of Tampa.
11:47:57 New Tampa's growth, and some of the downtown.
11:48:00 But renovation and rehabilitation is also a strong
11:48:03 component for us.
11:48:04 And every year, the offensive year plan, we give to
11:48:11 the staff and meet with you on it.
11:48:13 It would be part of the concurrency program so you see
11:48:15 where we are spending school money with respect to
11:48:17 capacity.
11:48:18 But you also need to take note where we are spending
11:48:24 the keep your schools alive that are in the
11:48:27 established community so it's not only adding capacity
11:48:29 that we need to be responsible for.
11:48:31 We need to be responsible for keeping and maintaining
11:48:33 the schools that wave that serve our established

11:48:36 community.
11:48:37 So some people might want to direct school boards to
11:48:42 spend all of our money on building of capacity.
11:48:45 We know it's just as important for to us maintain the
11:48:48 inventory that we have, that he would often say we
11:48:51 have historic structures in the county and when want
11:48:56 to maintain those properties appropriately.
11:48:58 With respect to land use and school facility
11:49:02 coordination, managing the timing, the dedication of
11:49:06 land, and if concurrency program.
11:49:22 Gold level of service standard.
11:49:24 I know I talked to you before about the level of
11:49:26 service standard.
11:49:26 But we have two new people so I am going to do a quick
11:49:29 overview.
11:49:30 There's various ways you can measure school capacity.
11:49:36 Seats.
11:49:37 Seems obvious.
11:49:38 Number of seats that you have.
11:49:39 But there's programs.
11:49:40 You know, what promise you offer in the school can
11:49:43 dictate how many students you can place in the school.

11:49:50 The size of your core facilities.
11:49:51 Your cafeterias, your restrooms, your hallways.
11:49:55 So we look at various options.
11:49:57 And we ended up approaching what we call the fish
11:50:02 capacity which is Florida inventory of schoolhouses.
11:50:06 The number the state issues to us based on each
11:50:09 individual school, they have calculated each
11:50:11 individual school, and the fish capacity and give us a
11:50:16 number.
11:50:17 722 schools, you might say.
11:50:19 Now for elementary school they assume every seat will
11:50:21 be filled.
11:50:22 Once we get to the middle and the high school level,
11:50:31 there's a certain percentage of classrooms that are
11:50:34 empty to the during the day. In middle school we
11:50:36 might say all the seats times 90%.
11:50:39 It's not 100% capacity.
11:50:41 We don't want to put in the so there's no empty spaces
11:50:44 because there are empty spaces as children move.
11:50:46 That utilization number is 95%.
11:50:49 So the proposal is to use that "fish" standard.
11:50:53 We want to make sure it was something that was stable.

11:50:56 You need to understand.
11:51:00 And stay basically defensible so people can understand
11:51:04 it.
11:51:04 The building community, for instance.
11:51:06 When we say throws not enough seats.
11:51:08 They do program capacity which is an interesting
11:51:10 concept of what programs.
11:51:12 But obtain permits for next year and then there's no
11:51:16 reliability.
11:51:17 And we work with a group of stakeholders and the local
11:51:20 government, we came up with this standard as a
11:51:22 proposal.
11:51:25 Then you have to decide whether you are going to
11:51:27 measure your concurrency.
11:51:28 Concurrency service areas have to be defined.
11:51:31 You have those for your other service areas.
11:51:33 I think some of -- the citizens of Tampa, some of
11:51:36 them, city-wide.
11:51:39 School concurrency, we have opted to the most
11:51:42 restrictive and probably the most onerous to maintain
11:51:46 but that is each individual school boundary.
11:51:49 So the development comes in, and it's in the gory

11:51:53 district.
11:51:54 That's where we start looking.
11:51:55 What the capacity is at gory.
11:51:58 The reason we chose such a small increment is because
11:52:04 the statute requires that it is not capacity as the
11:52:10 concurrency service area, where that development
11:52:12 occurs.
11:52:12 We must look at the adjacent service areas.
11:52:16 And if there is capacity in any of the adjacent
11:52:19 service areas, that development gets to go -- if we
11:52:23 have larger areas, and we were at capacity, we would
11:52:30 have to go to the next large area and we would have
11:52:32 to -- I like the way they put it -- shift the impact.
11:52:41 It's probably a more onerous standard for us because
11:52:45 it's a lot to monitor.
11:52:47 We have over 200 schools.
11:52:48 Every time a development comes in we are going to have
11:52:50 to look at each level of school, elementary, middle,
11:52:53 high school.
11:52:55 To see if there was an adjacency standard, and how we
11:53:04 place the children.
11:53:05 But we were concerned it would require busing children

11:53:07 further distances.
11:53:09 We are a huge county.
11:53:10 And we just didn't want to get into the issue of
11:53:12 doing, again high quality of education is our first
11:53:15 goal, make sure we maintain that.
11:53:18 So is that understandable?
11:53:19 And I have a map.
11:53:25 >> A quick question.
11:53:26 The school board changes the area for the schools how
11:53:29 regularly?
11:53:30 >>> Actually, up until recently it had only been
11:53:34 pretty much when they opened a new school.
11:53:36 As part of our -- the rest of the statute, which says
11:53:40 you must maximize the use of your facilities, we, last
11:53:45 spring, spring of 2006, we began a long-term program
11:53:52 the next year and a half, two years, of reassessing
11:53:55 the boundaries.
11:53:56 This is a new process for the school board to go
11:53:59 through the county.
11:53:59 But the fact is we want to balance out those schools
11:54:03 so that when the concurrency comes in to play, we
11:54:06 don't have constrained service areas when we come out

11:54:12 of the box.
11:54:13 We want to balance that.
11:54:15 So how often we need to do it beyond that, I can't
11:54:17 say.
11:54:18 At this point we are undertaking like I said a year,
11:54:21 two and a half year process to look at the boundaries
11:54:23 that we have.
11:54:27 >> What comes to mind -- and this goes back to the
11:54:30 topics in line with this topic -- is who is the
11:54:34 gatekeeper, you know, for the decisions?
11:54:37 Because if you're indicating that it wouldn't come in
11:54:45 to play until the platting, that sort of thing.
11:54:50 If it's not council at the rezoning saying is there
11:54:53 concurrency, you know, is there -- are the schools
11:54:56 available, then is it a staff person at a later level?
11:55:01 Will they go to pull building permits?
11:55:04 >>> They will go through a concurrency capacity
11:55:06 review, just like -- I would expect that they would do
11:55:10 for other infrastructure.
11:55:12 It doesn't happen in zoning now for, say,
11:55:15 transportation.
11:55:15 And I know the city, you are pretty much an exception

11:55:19 area for transportation.
11:55:20 But there's a certain point in the process, and in my
11:55:23 familiarity as you know is most likely the
11:55:25 Hillsborough County.
11:55:28 After you are zoned you go through a concurrency
11:55:31 check.
11:55:32 And all of the infrastructures -- until you pass that
11:55:37 next test, and that's why you have a standard and you
11:55:39 have yes or no.
11:55:44 Now you are going to talk about probably actually
11:55:46 coming right up, if there is no capacity in your
11:55:49 service area, and if there's in a capacity in any of
11:55:51 your adjacent areas, there are still alternatives,
11:55:56 fair-share mitigation is an opportunity for developers
11:56:00 to contribute to, say, a wing on a school.
11:56:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let's say there's a building permit
11:56:08 elevator who is making --
11:56:10 >>> They would contact the school board first.
11:56:12 >> That's what I was going to ask, as part of this
11:56:14 decision.
11:56:14 >>> That is in the interlocal agreement part of the
11:56:17 responsibility of the school board to provide that

11:56:18 information to the local government, you know.
11:56:22 They will send out the request and we will make that
11:56:24 determination as to whether there's capacity or not
11:56:27 capacity, based on the standards we all agreed to that
11:56:29 are in the ordinance, in interlocal agreements, and in
11:56:32 the element.
11:56:33 Those standards appear in all three.
11:56:36 >> I would trust you guys to be the most appropriate
11:56:38 gatekeepers.
11:56:39 >>> Yes, we are the one whose make that determination,
11:56:41 and then it goes to your staff.
11:56:44 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Lorraine, are we doing something like
11:56:46 that now?
11:56:47 I remember seeing a sheet of paper coming back to us
11:56:50 when we are doing zoning cases telling us what schools
11:56:57 have capacity or no capacity.
11:56:59 So --
11:57:01 >> At the zoning stage right now, I provide to all the
11:57:05 local governments way call a snapshot.
11:57:07 This is what it looks like today.
11:57:09 They are not getting a permit today.
11:57:11 They are not coming in for a plaque today.

11:57:13 But I get a snapshot to provide that information to
11:57:17 all the local governments.
11:57:18 But it's not binding in the sense that it's not
11:57:21 allowing them to go forward.
11:57:24 At times like that I think the development community
11:57:26 becomes savvy to the fact they probably should check
11:57:28 that before they get to the zoning stage if they are
11:57:32 planning to move forward real quick.
11:57:35 They find out what roads have capacity before they
11:57:37 make a commitment to build a project.
11:57:40 >> I have a couple more questions on this.
11:57:43 The process for establishing level of service, the
11:57:48 FISH standard that you are discussing, if I understood
11:57:51 it correctly, that is somebody in Tallahassee who
11:57:53 makes that determination essentially on the capacity
11:57:56 of each school.
11:57:57 Is that correct?
11:57:58 >>> That's correct.
11:57:59 That comes down to the Department of Education.
11:58:01 >> How often do they revise these determinations?
11:58:04 >>> I understood their last revision was in 2004 with
11:58:07 the class size reduction.

11:58:11 They reduced the capacity of schools based on that.
11:58:15 Actually, this is a recent comment that comes to us
11:58:20 that perhaps what we need to do is make sure we date
11:58:23 it.
11:58:24 FISH capacity has a certain date.
11:58:27 Because in case they do change it, we want to make
11:58:30 sure that we don't get caught up in that change.
11:58:32 >> As I am hearing you describe this process, that's
11:58:34 my concern, is that you have potential for somebody to
11:58:38 come in, invest in property and then find out when
11:58:43 they are finally to their plat approval process,
11:58:45 hopefully not too many years down the road, that you
11:58:48 may have a different standard than when they made
11:58:50 their investment, and the potential for a moving
11:58:53 target, which is from a property owner standpoint
11:58:57 something that can be frustrating.
11:59:00 And so I would just encourage you to try and set the
11:59:04 standards as best you can so that there's
11:59:06 predictability in the process.
11:59:08 I think that's the most important thing is everybody
11:59:11 goes in with their eyes open.
11:59:12 >> Right.

11:59:13 And I think the comment that everybody received was
11:59:16 put a date, the FISH has a certain date, because that
11:59:20 does tie you down to what that number was.
11:59:22 Of course if the state changes that number we will
11:59:24 have to make some accommodation in the future but at
11:59:26 lowest that day --
11:59:28 >> And then when changes you can go through a public
11:59:30 process and provide notice and let everybody comment
11:59:32 and make sure that the new standards are something
11:59:35 that everybody --
11:59:37 >>> And perhaps FISH won't work anymore.
11:59:40 But if FISH changed dramatically.
11:59:44 >> Right.
11:59:44 And I'm also concerned that the school board is the
11:59:46 body that sets that CPAs, that you all retain that
11:59:51 authority.
11:59:52 Clearly within your scope.
11:59:54 And I think that's important.
11:59:55 That's why I ask who sets that standard.
11:59:58 >> The standard comes through the Department of
11:59:59 Education to the school district.
12:00:01 They view it fairly comprehensive review on each of

12:00:06 the school facilities, and based upon that have
12:00:09 determined the numbers.
12:00:14 I know it was a big change in 2004.
12:00:17 My impression was, it must have been fairly stable up
12:00:19 until that point.
12:00:20 Because everyone was shocked when it changed.
12:00:22 >>GWEN MILLER: I need to interrupt you for one second.
12:00:24 We have a rule at 12:00 we break for lunch.
12:00:26 So council members, what is your pleasure?
12:00:31 >> I have about another three minutes.
12:00:36 >>RANDY GOERS: About five to seven minutes.
12:00:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I move the school board element --
12:00:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I second the motion but I just
12:00:46 wonder about the time thing.
12:00:50 >> Do you want to find out very quickly how long that
12:00:52 would run?
12:00:52 I don't know if Ms. Coles is present.
12:00:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Coles is upstairs.
12:00:56 If you are upstairs listening, Ms. Coles, would you
12:01:00 please come down?
12:01:03 >> She's right there.
12:01:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: We are trying to get a sense of the

12:01:06 discussion for the workshop.
12:01:07 >> It doesn't appear there are many people here that
12:01:09 want to talk about it.
12:01:10 I do want to bring some information to you.
12:01:12 I can probably present in the 10, 15 minutes but I
12:01:15 don't know how much discussion you are going to want
12:01:17 to have and I am looking for some direction.
12:01:19 >> I really would prefer we break for lunch and come
12:01:22 back.
12:01:22 Because I think that the sign code, the sign thing is
12:01:25 important.
12:01:25 And I want to give the school conversation -- frankly,
12:01:31 I'm supposed to be at a luncheon.
12:01:35 I would like to stop with our conversation now and
12:01:39 reconvene at 1:30.
12:01:46 >>GWEN MILLER: We'll be in recess for lunch until
12:01:48 1:30.

13:18:35 (1:30 P.M. Session)
13:18:35 DISCLAIMER:
13:18:35 The following represents an unedited version of
13:18:35 realtime captioning which should neither be relied
13:18:35 upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
13:18:35 transcript. Because this document has not been
13:18:35 edited, there may be additions, deletions, and/or
13:18:35 words that did not translate correctly.
13:33:15 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Here.
13:34:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
13:34:57 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
13:35:00 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.
13:35:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
13:35:05 We're going to start again or just continue?
13:35:08 >> We can move right along on the workshop, if you
13:35:11 like.
13:35:12 I did bring copies of the presentation that we have.
13:35:20 I saw the text might be hiding some of the stuff we
13:35:24 have.
13:35:35 >> One thing I did notice, many of the questions you
13:35:37 all raised I know are questions that we will be

13:35:41 addressing as far as the presentation goes.
13:35:43 If it's possible, if you could keep your questions
13:35:48 till the end.
13:35:49 >>GWEN MILLER: I have asked them that, but they don't
13:35:51 pay me any attention.
13:35:53 >> And I know this is a very key topic for many of
13:35:56 you.
13:35:56 It's hard to keep those questions till the end.
13:35:58 >>GWEN MILLER: I told them to write them down and
13:36:00 after the presenter finishes, but they don't know how
13:36:03 to do that.
13:36:04 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We don't know how to write.
13:36:06 >>GWEN MILLER: I'm going to hold their hands and not
13:36:08 let them speak no more.
13:36:10 >> If we can get that presentation back up there for
13:36:12 those folks who want to follow along.
13:36:16 I believe I had left off about the process for school
13:36:19 concurrency implementation.
13:36:21 I talked about the concurrency service area, and then
13:36:24 the process, and we just started talking about that,
13:36:28 is, of course, to determine if a project is subject to
13:36:33 school concurrency.

13:36:34 I mentioned that earlier.
13:36:36 Then we would have to -- the application would come
13:36:39 through to the School Board and to have a finding if
13:36:47 capacity or if there isn't capacity.
13:36:49 And then the local government based upon the
13:36:51 information provided by the School Board would either
13:36:53 issue the permit or not issue the permit.
13:36:56 So that's generally the process that would be filed.
13:36:59 Obviously, the ordinance itself, which has not been
13:37:01 drafted would have all the specifications on how that
13:37:05 would work.
13:37:09 Next, I have proportionate fair share mitigation.
13:37:13 In the event a project would come in and there was not
13:37:16 capacity in the concurrency service area in which it
13:37:19 falls, nor was there capacity in any of the adjacent
13:37:23 service areas, there is then another process and
13:37:27 again, people are probably more familiar with
13:37:31 transportation mitigation.
13:37:32 They could mitigate their impact.
13:37:34 And the way they could mitigate their impact, there's
13:37:37 a menu of choices.
13:37:38 And you can put whatever items you want in there,

13:37:40 leave some out.
13:37:42 But we have pretty much put in every option that we
13:37:45 could think of at this point.
13:37:47 That doesn't mean that the school district would
13:37:49 accept in every case that option, but we put them all
13:37:54 out there for folks to be considered.
13:37:57 I mentioned earlier, put a wing on a school.
13:38:00 We actually had a case the other night, the county,
13:38:02 where someone has donated enough money to put a wing
13:38:05 on a school to meet the needs of the project that they
13:38:08 are -- to address the need that they are generating.
13:38:11 Another option is to fund a school we have planned to
13:38:17 fund but not right then.
13:38:19 To advance that money, prepay impact fees, for
13:38:22 instance, that would be an option.
13:38:23 Creating an educational district.
13:38:26 Educational facilities district, that's like the CDB
13:38:30 you were talking about this morning, but you would be
13:38:31 a smaller, it would be for just schools and then
13:38:34 charter schools.
13:38:35 That's another option.
13:38:36 A charter school can be used for proportionate fair

13:38:39 share mitigation.
13:38:40 The caveat we have placed on that is, that school
13:38:43 would have to be constructed to the standards of the
13:38:49 school district.
13:38:49 In the event we have to take the school over, if the
13:38:52 charter fails, we would want it to be built to the
13:38:54 standards the school district uses.
13:38:56 Right now, charters do not have to meet that standard.
13:38:58 Only charters that would be proportionate fair share
13:39:01 mitigation would be subject to that ruling.
13:39:04 The requirement of the state is that any project that
13:39:10 is used for proportionate fair share mitigation must
13:39:12 be financially feasible.
13:39:15 Sorry.
13:39:15 On our financially feasible plan, our five-year plan.
13:39:18 So if you want to do a proportionate fair share
13:39:21 project, it either has to be on our plan or you have
13:39:23 to get it on to the plan through an amendment to the
13:39:27 comprehensive plan or through our work plan.
13:39:35 Everything is tied together to make sure that it's
13:39:37 financially feasible, that we can meet the level of
13:39:39 service that we met.

13:39:40 We can't adopt a level of service to say, oh, we'd
13:39:44 love to have only this many children in a school but
13:39:49 we can't afford to do that.
13:39:51 Have to have a reasonable level of service standard
13:39:53 that will allow development to continue at the
13:39:55 expected rate of our population projections.
13:39:58 So it's important that we coordinate our population
13:40:00 projections and our school facilities planning to make
13:40:03 sure that those two mesh.
13:40:09 I'm just going to go to the next one here.
13:40:16 These are maps showing our concurrency service areas.
13:40:21 Each one of those areas you see dots in are schools.
13:40:24 And the red ones on the left-hand side are those
13:40:27 concurrency service areas that are already over
13:40:30 capacity.
13:40:31 However, once our five-year plan is implemented, we
13:40:35 have additions we're putting on at 40 schools.
13:40:37 We have several new schools that we're building over
13:40:40 the next five-year period.
13:40:42 Once we meet -- we build all of those facilities, you
13:40:47 can see the level of service now becomes acceptable
13:40:50 for the elementary level.

13:40:53 The same thing at the middle school level.
13:40:55 The red indicates those areas that are over capacity
13:40:57 and then the green shows you that once we build the
13:41:00 facilities, that we already have financing.
13:41:02 That's so important that we have the appropriate
13:41:04 financing in place to build these.
13:41:07 If we don't have the financing, we can't just say,
13:41:10 yes, we'll build a new school but not demonstrate that
13:41:12 we have the money to do it.
13:41:14 Every year our financially feasible work plan will be
13:41:17 brought before the cities and the county for their
13:41:20 review.
13:41:21 And then, again, for high schools, as you see, this
13:41:23 was actually last year's numbers.
13:41:25 We've opened -- we opened two new high schools last
13:41:28 year.
13:41:29 I mean, this particular school year.
13:41:31 And we have two new high schools scheduled to open in
13:41:35 2009 and one in 2010, I believe.
13:41:38 Two in 2009 and a third one to open in 2010, as soon
13:41:43 as we can find a site for it.
13:41:45 Here are some of the capacity enhancements additions,

13:41:47 wings, renovations, added seats that we've done
13:41:52 recently.
13:41:53 Some of them may not specifically be in the city.
13:41:57 I see we serve a substantial city population in some.
13:42:01 Forest Hills, Mendenhall, Mabry, Mitchell, Tampa
13:42:04 Palms, Tampa Bay Boulevard.
13:42:04 Roosevelt is opening soon.
13:42:07 Chiles and Adams.
13:42:07 We've added additional capacity to all those schools
13:42:10 in the last couple of years.
13:42:12 We also have new schools on the drawing board as I
13:42:14 mentioned.
13:42:15 Oak Park School, the replacement school for Oak Park
13:42:17 will be opening in the spring of 2007.
13:42:22 High school VVV is a school that we are trying to
13:42:26 site.
13:42:26 We don't have a site.
13:42:27 Someplace in the central part, maybe North
13:42:29 Hillsborough or it might be in the city.
13:42:30 Until we find a location, we can't say for sure
13:42:35 exactly where it is.
13:42:35 The idea is to relieve some of the New Tampa high

13:42:37 schools and some of the central city high school.
13:42:42 It will definitely provide some enhancement capacity
13:42:45 to the city when that's built.
13:42:47 A middle school in region four, central Tampa, that
13:42:50 could be the Meatcham.
13:42:56 Meatcham I mean the Central Park area.
13:42:57 Could be Middleton.
13:42:58 Until we find an exact site, we can't say for sure.
13:43:00 An elementary school in region four, that's also
13:43:02 central Tampa.
13:43:03 That could be the Tampa High School.
13:43:05 Elementary school "R" that could be for New Tampa.
13:43:07 It could move a little further south depending on
13:43:07 where we find land.
13:43:14 We are actively in negotiations and chatting with some
13:43:16 developers on that.
13:43:18 You never know where those will end up.
13:43:27 Additional renovations and remodels coming up.
13:43:33 Additions.
13:43:34 We received substantial funding from the legislature
13:43:36 this year to add additions, as I mentioned 40 schools.
13:43:39 We're putting additions on Clark elementary, hunter's

13:43:42 green, Benito, freedom and Wharton.
13:43:44 All scheduled for 2008.
13:43:46 And that will provide additional capacity.
13:43:50 Mostly, we believe, probably for the class size
13:43:53 reduction because then we would be on a classroom by
13:43:56 classroom.
13:43:56 Right now, that program works on an average in each
13:43:59 school.
13:44:00 By 2008 we'll have to do it classroom by classroom.
13:44:04 While we'll get additional capacity out of these,
13:44:07 we'll also have to meet the class-size amendment with
13:44:10 that.
13:44:11 It will be a balancing act.
13:44:12 Renovations and remodel.
13:44:14 I mentioned that earlier, important to maintain the
13:44:17 inventory and stock so we don't have to build new
13:44:19 schools but also because they are such an important
13:44:23 component of the community.
13:44:23 We have the following renovations and remodel
13:44:26 scheduled.
13:44:27 I can't tell you exactly what's in place for -- what
13:44:30 is going to happen there, because the budget just

13:44:32 tells me how much we plan to spend and when we plan to
13:44:34 spend it.
13:44:35 As you see, Chiaramonte, Ballast Point, Westshore,
13:44:40 West Tampa, Orange Grove and Wilson are all scheduled
13:44:43 in the next five years to undergo some renovation or
13:44:47 remodeling.
13:44:48 Concurrency, how it works, and I think I mentioned
13:44:49 this a few times, but first we'll determine the impact
13:44:53 of development.
13:44:53 Number of students.
13:44:54 We have a student generation rate that was actually
13:44:56 created as part of the impact fee ordinance where the
13:45:01 consultants, Dr. Nichols from University of Florida
13:45:04 did sampling of different housing types and developed
13:45:07 for us, specifically Hillsborough County, student
13:45:09 generation rates.
13:45:11 So if a single-family how many -- you know, a
13:45:14 single-family home generates .188 elementary students,
13:45:21 multifamily is slightly less than that.
13:45:24 With the reports you see that you get from us, if you
13:45:27 look on the little chart, and it will say 100 dwelling
13:45:30 units and tell you how many students are projected,

13:45:33 that's using the student multipliers that are
13:45:35 contained in the impact fee.
13:45:38 The plan or the interlocal agreement I believe calls
13:45:41 that we update those or review those at least every
13:45:44 two years to make sure those are still valid.
13:45:46 So we would determine the number of students and
13:45:49 that's the process we would use.
13:45:50 We would use a standard number.
13:45:52 We would check the capacity to the concurrency service
13:45:55 area.
13:45:55 We would probably pick a stable day like the 40th
13:45:58 day of school rather than have it as a moving target.
13:46:02 I think from the development standpoint as was
13:46:04 mentioned earlier, you don't want this to be an
13:46:06 ever-changing process.
13:46:08 They want to have some surety if they are looking
13:46:10 today, it will be the same tomorrow.
13:46:12 So we would check the capacity certain date and time.
13:46:17 If capacity isn't available, we look at the adjacent
13:46:19 service area.
13:46:20 The map you see there, I think that's Broward
13:46:22 elementary and those are the surrounding ones.

13:46:24 If Broward elementary was full, we could look at all
13:46:28 of the adjacent ones for capacity and developments
13:46:31 would still be able to go forward if there were seats
13:46:34 available in any of those.
13:46:36 And if there are no -- if there is no capacity
13:46:39 available in any of those, then we can get into
13:46:42 negotiations for proportionate share mitigation.
13:46:45 Again, those proportionate share mitigations must be
13:46:49 projects planned in our five-year plan and get moved
13:46:51 to our five-year plan.
13:46:54 Randy will now talk to you probably in a little more
13:46:56 detail about some of the organizational issues and
13:47:01 some of the legislative issues that you'll be seeing
13:47:03 as we move forward on this.
13:47:10 >> As we looked through the process, we uncovered a
13:47:14 few major issues that make probably the management and
13:47:17 the administration of the concurrency system a little
13:47:19 bit of a challenge.
13:47:21 One has to do with just the fluctuations of school
13:47:23 enrollment each year.
13:47:24 If there was no development in any place, we know that
13:47:27 school enrollment changes throughout the year as we

13:47:29 have people move in and people within the region
13:47:32 change schools or move into a different area.
13:47:34 So we know that schools, just their enrollment at
13:47:38 every school changes every year.
13:47:40 That changes, of course, their capacity which changes
13:47:42 how much development can be allowed in any of those
13:47:45 concurrency service areas.
13:47:47 Each year we know there will be a recalibration of the
13:47:49 capacity for each of the schools as we go through our
13:47:52 system, in some schools, it may look like one year
13:47:55 there's absolutely no capacity.
13:47:56 The next year for whatever reason, the people moving,
13:48:00 changing, kids getting older, that the capacity shows
13:48:04 up.
13:48:06 We looked that each year there would be an update of
13:48:09 the capacity numbers as we work through the system.
13:48:12 The one thing that we can do on that is basically --
13:48:15 in the right-hand column is try to put some sort of
13:48:18 solution as to how we would handle each of those
13:48:21 issues.
13:48:21 We have an ongoing monthly meeting with the School
13:48:24 Board where we can try to understand what are some of

13:48:26 the internal dynamics of their school enrollment so we
13:48:29 can sort of use that as a method for projecting the
13:48:32 impact each year.
13:48:34 We also know there will be changes in school funding.
13:48:37 Earlier this year, the school -- the School Board or
13:48:40 the county approved the impact fee ordinance which
13:48:42 allowed additional funding.
13:48:45 And that changed a lot of the maps that we had.
13:48:47 The maps that we have in here really were basically
13:48:49 for the school impact fee funds show up.
13:48:53 So the future solution is actually much better than
13:48:56 what's shown on these maps.
13:48:57 Each year, there are changes in school funding will
13:49:02 affect what they can build in their capital
13:49:04 improvements program which, again, then affects how
13:49:07 much capacity they can hold in their schools.
13:49:09 So we looked at that -- for the city, the impact is,
13:49:12 we want to be sure that the city that we're planning
13:49:16 for the facilities that serve the development that we
13:49:19 anticipate down the road, especially in the years
13:49:21 four, five, six and seven.
13:49:23 So the idea is to make sure that we're really

13:49:25 monitoring our growth trends, communicating with the
13:49:27 School Board, making sure that they have that
13:49:29 information in their capital improvements plan.
13:49:31 So if we see a need, say three years down the road
13:49:34 because of a major project on the drawing board, we
13:49:37 want to let the School Board know that's an area they
13:49:39 need to be targeting funding or planning of schools in
13:49:42 that area rather than waiting until too late and they
13:49:45 have to go scrambling looking for land.
13:49:47 Then untracked growth, unplanned demand for schools.
13:49:50 These are things we're trying to attract now.
13:49:52 These are the developments that pop up that none of us
13:49:54 thought about.
13:49:55 The plan amendments that come up out of nowhere that
13:49:58 have four, five hundred or a thousand units that we
13:50:00 really didn't think about or a rezoning where the
13:50:03 market has sort of found a place and a rezoning
13:50:06 happens.
13:50:07 We're trying to work internally with the zoning
13:50:09 department and the construction services department,
13:50:11 really a better and a more reliable -- I don't want to
13:50:14 say reliable -- but more ongoing tracking of what's

13:50:17 proposed.
13:50:18 What's proposed, what looks like it's going to be
13:50:20 approved, so we can have that information a little
13:50:22 more readily available for the School Board.
13:50:26 And then our population projections.
13:50:28 We're finding that we have general population
13:50:31 projections citywide and countywide, which I think are
13:50:34 pretty good.
13:50:35 Internally, when they get allocated into census tracts
13:50:39 or traffic analysis zones, the practice has been just
13:50:42 sort of put them in on a best guess.
13:50:45 And when we look back at some of the census track
13:50:48 populations versus what we see the development that's
13:50:51 been approved, we see some disparities.
13:50:54 And we know the School Board is using population
13:50:56 projections that base their school planning.
13:50:59 Again, we want to make sure that the population
13:51:01 projections we're using even at the census track level
13:51:05 are fairly close to what we think is going to occur so
13:51:07 they have the best information to manage their
13:51:10 planning.
13:51:14 Those legislative issues, this one -- I'm not sure how

13:51:18 far away this one is being resolved.
13:51:20 It's more of a quirk in the interpretation of the
13:51:24 legislation.
13:51:24 The legislation requires that the public schools
13:51:27 facility element meet adopted level of standards
13:51:30 within five years.
13:51:30 There was a ruling -- there's a long story short,
13:51:34 ruling out of the governor's office, they kind of
13:51:36 adhered to an old rule interpretation.
13:51:38 We said you had to meet level of service standards
13:51:40 every year.
13:51:43 If you remember those maps that we had earlier, a lot
13:51:45 of red in the first year, there's no way that we can
13:51:49 meet level of service standards in year one, two, and
13:51:51 three.
13:51:52 So we feel working with the School Board that we're in
13:51:54 line with the statute -- we're planning an element
13:52:00 that's going to achieve the level of service standards
13:52:03 within five years.
13:52:04 There's still some debate I think at DCA and the
13:52:07 governor's office as to really how they're going to
13:52:10 enforce that.

13:52:10 They've accepted our element as a model element which
13:52:13 is a good sign.
13:52:14 The School Board has been lobbying the governor's
13:52:17 office and DCA to accept our element on that basis.
13:52:21 So we're moving forward until such time there's a
13:52:23 different ruling or a different direction.
13:52:25 But that may change how we do some calculations.
13:52:28 It may change our level of service standards.
13:52:30 We may have to have a high level of service standard
13:52:33 in the first few years and then transition it down as
13:52:35 we move forward.
13:52:36 But that's something that we'll tackle as need be.
13:52:39 Now, as we move forward on some of the conclusions,
13:52:42 this kind of gives you an idea where we see some of
13:52:44 the good news/bad news of the system.
13:52:47 We took -- this is kind of a ballpark figure.
13:52:50 We took all the capacity that were in all of the zones
13:52:53 and sort of backtrack what had we think are the number
13:52:56 of dwelling units that could be accommodated.
13:52:58 We came up with a number of around 35,000 dwelling
13:53:01 units could be accommodated within the city at this
13:53:03 point in time before you really had to worry about

13:53:05 concurrency.
13:53:06 Doesn't mean they ought to be accommodated without
13:53:08 some sort of manipulation of the system, but that's
13:53:11 basically doing what the state says, shifting impacts
13:53:14 all around before you finally get to a point where you
13:53:17 can't shift any more.
13:53:19 35,000 dwelling units is about 10 years' worth of city
13:53:24 development.
13:53:25 What that told us, is we don't think concurrency will
13:53:27 be a widespread issue for probably about four or five
13:53:30 years, five, six years.
13:53:32 The good news is, we have the facilities in place to
13:53:34 take care of the growth that we anticipate in the next
13:53:37 few years.
13:53:38 It gives us that curb than we've been planning for the
13:53:41 years in the future where we think it will be an
13:53:43 issue.
13:53:44 Now, we need to -- as I mentioned, talk about the
13:53:48 years probably -- years four, five and six.
13:53:51 If you go back to the maps later on, you can look at
13:53:53 those, those areas in yellow, even though we're
13:53:55 meeting the concurrency, they are at, like, 98,

13:53:59 99 percent.
13:54:00 If you have a school that's 400 people, that's only 40
13:54:03 people.
13:54:03 Maybe 80 students before you hit capacity.
13:54:06 And there are a lot of those schools at that range.
13:54:09 Even though mathematically we're meeting the
13:54:12 requirements, there's a lot of room for some problems
13:54:14 that occur in years four, five, six.
13:54:16 So that's why we put the emphasis use our planning for
13:54:20 those areas now while we still have the time.
13:54:26 As the School Board said, there's a need for
13:54:29 additional school sites.
13:54:30 We think there needs to be an ongoing cooperative
13:54:35 strategy with the School Board.
13:54:36 The monthly meetings that Lorraine mentioned that the
13:54:39 city has with the School Board is really a lot about
13:54:42 what are some of the potential opportunities and where
13:54:45 can the sites be found and those needs.
13:54:47 That will be an ongoing effort.
13:54:49 As we mentioned, we don't think concurrency from a
13:54:52 point of approving development or mitigating
13:54:54 development is going to be an issue for a few years.

13:54:56 One thing that we do think is going to be a challenge
13:54:59 for us is really the issue of rezonings.
13:55:02 If I can go back to this one illustration, because it
13:55:12 says -- well, the area in the center.
13:55:15 Typically, if that area was at capacity now and if a
13:55:19 developer wanted to come in with a rezoning, the
13:55:23 information we would get from the School Board would
13:55:24 say there's no capacity at this school.
13:55:28 The tendency at the rezoning is to ask the developer
13:55:31 what he or she can do to help augment the problem.
13:55:36 Under the state statute, what we have, our option is
13:55:40 to, first of all, look at the areas around it.
13:55:42 If there's capacity there, we wouldn't be asking for
13:55:45 mitigation.
13:55:46 We would say, okay, you're set to go or the School
13:55:49 Board wouldn't be asking for mitigation.
13:55:52 It wouldn't be until all the areas are over capacity
13:55:55 before we can say, okay, now we can talk about
13:55:58 mitigation.
13:55:59 Yet, we still have the question, is it appropriate for
13:56:01 the local government to continue to allow rezonings
13:56:05 for higher density in an area where there's a school

13:56:07 that's over capacity?
13:56:08 So we've asked our Legal Department to begin looking
13:56:10 at that issue.
13:56:11 Because we know as the element comes in for adoption
13:56:15 that question needs to be clarified.
13:56:17 What are the local options that local governments have
13:56:19 generally?
13:56:20 If we do have options what criteria do we need to put
13:56:22 in there so it's a consistent decision on Council's
13:56:25 part?
13:56:25 You may find that there's a development that meets
13:56:28 every -- you know, that all the goals and objectives
13:56:31 the city has that would cause a negative impact.
13:56:35 You may find another development that's pretty good
13:56:38 but isn't really special and causes the same negative
13:56:42 impact.
13:56:42 What is the criteria for saying yes to one or no to
13:56:46 another or saying yes to both or no to both.
13:56:49 So those are the kind of questions in a rezoning, what
13:56:51 options do you have in a rezoning when it comes to
13:56:54 you?
13:56:54 And what criteria do we need to establish in the

13:56:56 ordinance so you have those tools at your disposal?
13:57:03 And then one thing we found, not all the zones have
13:57:09 the capacity at this point.
13:57:13 And I'm not going to be able to get to where I want to
13:57:16 unless I see the mouse.
13:57:19 Well, I'm not going to bring you back forward, but
13:57:22 there are a number of zones.
13:57:23 The picture I showed you, it's at the perfect world
13:57:27 when you have one zone surrounded by six other zones
13:57:29 or seven other zones surrounded by a bunch of others.
13:57:32 There are some zones in the city, say down in the
13:57:33 Ballast Point area or Interbay, we had one zone that
13:57:35 only had two zones around it.
13:57:37 Or in Hyde Park where the zones around it are small and
13:57:41 already at capacity.
13:57:42 Even though we say there's 35,000 -- potential for
13:57:46 35,000 units citywide, there are some zones that don't
13:57:49 have the same ability to expand or take advantage of
13:57:51 the trade-offs as other zones are.
13:57:54 We don't know how that will work in a development
13:57:57 scenario until we start seeing really where the trends
13:57:59 are going and how the planning will work.

13:58:03 We want to bring that up to you because not all zones
13:58:05 are created equally in the city.
13:58:07 Some will have a benefit because of where they are and
13:58:09 have a lot of tradeoffs and other zones will be land
13:58:12 locked.
13:58:13 But we wanted to bring that up to your attention in
13:58:15 advance.
13:58:16 This is almost impossible to read.
13:58:18 And I'll let Lorraine decipher it for you.
13:58:23 >> Thank you.
13:58:25 I think that's always important.
13:58:26 Actually, I'm glad Randy gave you a handout of that.
13:58:30 This is essentially the time line that we're looking
13:58:32 at.
13:58:33 Because we have we have a state mandated deadline of
13:58:37 July 1st of 2008.
13:58:39 Because we were a pilot community, we've done a lot of
13:58:40 the work up front already.
13:58:42 We're ahead of most of the other districts in the
13:58:44 state.
13:58:45 Of course, we're one of the larger districts in the
13:58:46 state as well.

13:58:48 So we've done -- laid a lot of groundwork and in
13:58:51 talking with you, I so appreciate you all taking the
13:58:54 time over the last several months allowing me to
13:58:57 educate you.
13:58:58 Of course, you have a couple of new people here, so I
13:59:00 would be happy to meet with you again because you
13:59:02 haven't heard it before.
13:59:04 We're looking at having the submission of the
13:59:06 comprehensive plan amendment occur right about now for
13:59:09 the beginning of the process.
13:59:12 They go to the Planning Commission for distribution
13:59:15 for that list sometime this month, and then we look at
13:59:19 a joint Planning Commission workshop early next year.
13:59:23 We probably -- we thought it would be more efficient
13:59:26 if the Planning Commission look at all four local
13:59:28 governments together.
13:59:29 They each have their own element and, of course, a
13:59:31 substantial -- provisions are the same.
13:59:34 We can't have a different level of service in Plant
13:59:36 City than we have in Tampa.
13:59:37 All those components, but different cities have some
13:59:39 of the different issues that are important.

13:59:41 Redevelopment, for instance, was something that was
13:59:44 brought forward for Tampa.
13:59:46 Temple Terrace, they have some growth that they want
13:59:48 to make sure their downtown is protected so they can
13:59:53 grow in their downtown.
13:59:54 Those are minor differences.
13:59:55 So as we start through that process, the typical plan
13:59:58 amendment that this would be an element adopted.
14:00:02 There are also changes related in the
14:00:03 intergovernmental coordination element as well as in
14:00:05 the capital improvement element.
14:00:07 The capital improvement element would be for you to
14:00:10 incorporate the financial aspects from the School
14:00:12 Board five-year plan into your plan, so that's the
14:00:18 financial feasible part of your comprehensive plan
14:00:21 program.
14:00:23 From there, we begin finalizing the interlocal
14:00:28 agreements.
14:00:29 What we would like to see is the time towards the end
14:00:32 of 2007, we would adopt the elements and have the
14:00:37 signatures on the interlocal agreement, because they
14:00:41 have to go together.

14:00:42 They are related.
14:00:43 If you're going to make a change in the element, it
14:00:45 has to be changed in the interlocal agreement.
14:00:47 The way the time line shows it right now, the proposal
14:00:51 would be for you to sign the interlocal agreements as
14:00:53 we transmit it to DCA for their first look.
14:00:56 Brought to my attention, well, you don't know what DCA
14:00:59 will say, maybe we should wait until the end of the
14:01:01 process to sign that.
14:01:03 In any event, goal is at the very end when you adopt
14:01:07 the element, you also sign the interlocal agreement.
14:01:09 And then during that time, we'll be working on the
14:01:11 ordinance.
14:01:13 Your legal staff, they all need to be generally
14:01:17 similar, all four local governments, because we have
14:01:19 the same standards.
14:01:20 But obviously, folks would want to have their own
14:01:23 attorneys work on that, and we may -- I have
14:01:26 approached DCA about some additional funding to see if
14:01:29 they would fund us to have another pilot program to
14:01:34 take the state model and adapt it for use by our four
14:01:38 local governments and get the attorneys involved in

14:01:40 tweaking that state model, see if it really works.
14:01:42 I haven't heard back from them yet but I felt it was
14:01:45 worth a shot.
14:01:46 We already have some working groups going on this and
14:01:49 we have some momentum.
14:01:50 It would be great if we could continue that.
14:01:53 That would be the goal and we would have the whole
14:01:55 program basically in place the beginning of 2008.
14:01:58 And that would be several months before it's due.
14:02:02 Of course, we all know, doesn't hurt to have a buffer.
14:02:06 So I think we stick to that plan, we'll be fine.
14:02:09 And also leaves a little opportunity for us to work
14:02:13 out some issues as they crop up.
14:02:15 The issue Randy brought up about the one-year or the
14:02:19 five-year, whether or not we have to meet concurrency
14:02:21 every single year, the level of service standard or at
14:02:24 the end of the five-year period, and that was a
14:02:26 perfect example he gave you.
14:02:28 We have all this read.
14:02:29 We're not going to meet it the first year.
14:02:31 We're planning our way out of something.
14:02:34 Some of the people at DCA understand that.

14:02:36 There was a workshop here in town Friday and
14:02:39 representative from DCA was there and said that they
14:02:41 are going to be proposing a rule change.
14:02:46 That's to try to address this issue.
14:02:48 So that's great, except for we know a new governor is
14:02:52 coming in, potentially new leadership at DCA.
14:02:55 So while that's the intent, we just can't bank on that
14:03:00 being the answer.
14:03:01 But I think we should stick together as a local
14:03:05 government and say, if you don't allow us to do this,
14:03:07 you're forcing our hand to have lower levels of
14:03:10 service than we as a community want to have.
14:03:12 The good news is, at least the staff feels momentum to
14:03:16 move ahead, and we have been, as Randy said,
14:03:19 advocating lead of cities I've spoken to.
14:03:21 League of counties -- we've spoken to everyone who
14:03:24 should know.
14:03:25 So thank you for your attention.
14:03:26 I can answer questions.
14:03:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez.
14:03:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Lorraine, we've talked about school
14:03:31 concurrency and capacity and all of that, but what

14:03:34 about the portables that are out there?
14:03:36 I thought they were supposed to be going.
14:03:39 >> The level of service standard that we have adopted
14:03:41 does not include the use of portables.
14:03:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So they would be going away.
14:03:46 >> Correct.
14:03:46 We do not intend to use the portable facilities as
14:03:49 permanent capacity.
14:03:51 You will have portables in cases of
14:03:53 renovation/remodeling.
14:03:55 And certain schools, as a new school is getting ready
14:03:58 to open, they might start growing.
14:04:01 There's a three-year window.
14:04:02 A developer can come in and apply for a permit, and if
14:04:06 we'll have that school built under construction,
14:04:09 existing or under construction within three years, it
14:04:11 counts as being there.
14:04:13 So obviously we might start off and use portables as
14:04:17 that overflow but not as permanent capacity.
14:04:19 Just as a school is developing or for
14:04:21 renovation/remodeling.
14:04:24 >>MARY ALVAREZ: What happens to the schools that

14:04:29 already have the portables and they are not slated for
14:04:32 any renovations or any --
14:04:34 >> No.
14:04:34 Our five-year plan right now proposes that they would
14:04:37 be gone.
14:04:37 >>MARY ALVAREZ: They would be gone.
14:04:39 >> Um-hum.
14:04:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay.
14:04:42 That's good.
14:04:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena.
14:04:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
14:04:45 I just wanted to make sure that as we develop this
14:04:47 plan, we recognize that a lot of the redevelopment
14:04:49 that's occurring in the city is within our historic
14:04:55 neighborhood.
14:04:56 And I wanted to ensure that we respect the historic
14:05:01 architecture of the schools as they are expanded.
14:05:03 We have some good examples, and we have some not good
14:05:07 examples.
14:05:07 As we moved forward, I wanted to make sure that was
14:05:10 part of the thinking --
14:05:12 >> I think school staff -- again, I've only been there

14:05:14 a year, but in my one year, I have heard only good
14:05:18 things about moving forward with additions and
14:05:21 remodellings.
14:05:23 We worked very closely with the community in recent
14:05:25 years.
14:05:26 So I say maybe if you look backwards, you wouldn't be
14:05:28 so happy, but if you look in more current years, you
14:05:31 would be very happy.
14:05:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to make sure we build
14:05:34 that in as part of our --
14:05:36 >> I believe the policy that talks about the historic
14:05:38 preservation, I don't know if there's a specific
14:05:41 one --
14:05:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's something I want to make sure
14:05:43 we build in.
14:05:44 Hillsborough High School is a great example of the
14:05:46 success.
14:05:47 And everyone is so proud of it.
14:05:49 And you all did such a super job.
14:05:51 As I'm looking on this list from 2006-2010, I see
14:05:56 Ballast point, historic building, in the past, it
14:06:00 hasn't been well --

14:06:03 >> Sensitive.
14:06:04 Not as sensitive.
14:06:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
14:06:06 But we can do better.
14:06:07 West Tampa, orange grove, Wilson, West -- I mean,
14:06:10 these are all historic schools that need to be added
14:06:13 on to with sensitivity.
14:06:16 >>MARY ALVAREZ: West Tampa is not historic.
14:06:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: They tore down the historical.
14:06:23 >>MARY ALVAREZ: What they have now is a flat-roof type
14:06:25 facility.
14:06:25 It's not very pretty.
14:06:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's true.
14:06:29 That's an example.
14:06:30 The expectation that we do better.
14:06:32 I mean a lot of these other schools like orange grove
14:06:35 is historic.
14:06:36 Westshore is.
14:06:37 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Tampa Bay Boulevard, they've already
14:06:39 done that.
14:06:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to make sure that's
14:06:41 built in.

14:06:42 You heard it here first.
14:06:45 >> I clearly hear what you have said.
14:06:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Fletcher.
14:06:48 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Thank you for coming and walking
14:06:51 us through all this.
14:06:52 I'm very impressed with what I've seen, with what
14:06:54 you've presented today.
14:06:56 And being new, I haven't had the benefit of your
14:06:59 previous presentations, but I did attend many of the
14:07:05 hearings in Tallahassee where Senate bill 360 was
14:07:07 passed.
14:07:08 I'm familiar with that legislative history.
14:07:11 And my primary interest in this is that -- that was a
14:07:19 tremendous victory to get school concurrency passed
14:07:21 from the standpoint of good growth management.
14:07:24 And it was a hard-fought victory.
14:07:27 And when concurrency was originally established in
14:07:29 other sectors, it kind of came in, it became effective
14:07:34 and then there was a lot of whittling away at the
14:07:39 edges of the concurrency requirements at the state
14:07:41 level.
14:07:44 And I don't want to see that happen here because it

14:07:47 was such a hard-won victory to get it passed.
14:07:52 And I commend you for thinking through this process so
14:07:55 well.
14:07:55 And I hope you will continue to do that, because
14:07:58 everybody will be looking to Hillsborough as a pilot
14:08:02 project to see how it's going to work.
14:08:06 And if you all continue to move forward with a program
14:08:09 that looks at not only how the school district is
14:08:13 going to implement it, but how the local governments
14:08:15 are going to implement it and how it's going to
14:08:18 directly affect folks that are out there doing
14:08:21 projects because if it is seen as a roadblock to good
14:08:28 projects, there's going to be pressure to start that
14:08:31 whittling around the edges.
14:08:34 And you'll see more of these things, well, if it's
14:08:37 planned, then it meets the concurrency requirement as
14:08:39 opposed to under construction.
14:08:41 And that's what happened in transportation to a
14:08:43 certain degree.
14:08:44 And that's what I don't want to see.
14:08:46 So I'm hopeful that you all will keep forward with
14:08:48 this effort and the city and the county will work well

14:08:53 with you to get this in place so we'll have a great
14:08:55 example of how this can work well and not have that
14:08:58 pressure and effort to whittle away at the victory
14:09:01 that we've got to state.
14:09:02 So I just wanted to thank you for your effort.
14:09:05 >> I'm liking having you.
14:09:07 I think it's very important that essentially we watch
14:09:10 each other's back on this.
14:09:13 It's easy to say, well, we really want that growth,
14:09:16 maybe we should less than level of service.
14:09:18 We don't want to reduce the level of service.
14:09:20 We feel from an educational standpoint we've selected
14:09:22 a good level of service, and maybe you could go a
14:09:24 little higher or little lower, whatever, but you can
14:09:27 get to a point where you've lost the effectiveness of
14:09:30 your school system.
14:09:31 I really appreciate those comments, and I think it's
14:09:33 important that we work together.
14:09:35 >>MARY ALVAREZ: One more question for you, Lorraine.
14:09:37 You mentioned charter schools would be an option.
14:09:40 From what I understand, charter schools don't have to
14:09:43 at this time have land mass to build the school.

14:09:50 Would that change if they were a part of the option?
14:09:56 You know what I'm saying, they don't use, they don't
14:09:59 have to have the acres that takes for an elementary
14:10:03 school, I can name you one right off the bat because
14:10:09 I'm familiar with it and they don't have the area, but
14:10:12 yet they were able to build on this.
14:10:15 And now they are experiencing parking problems.
14:10:21 >> Well, what we have put in there and it's a bit
14:10:24 controversial to say the charter, what we have in
14:10:26 here, has to build to the, as we say, the SREF
14:10:30 standards, which is the state building code for
14:10:32 schools.
14:10:33 Building code for educational facilities is what that
14:10:35 stands for, something along those lines.
14:10:38 And that does set out the parameters of what they
14:10:41 would need to build to.
14:10:43 So it does have some of the parking standards and the
14:10:46 construction standards for safety.
14:10:48 While charters currently need to meet the -- typical
14:10:51 charters, all local building codes, they don't need --
14:10:55 the school systems have a higher standard for safety
14:10:58 in particular.

14:10:59 They would need to be meeting those and all the other
14:11:01 building code requirements.
14:11:03 And because the idea of the charter is to have it sort
14:11:06 of optional away from the school district, I know some
14:11:11 charters would find that restrictive to have to adhere
14:11:14 to the standards, the state standards.
14:11:16 Only if there would be mitigation, they would have to
14:11:19 be.
14:11:24 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Would that be pretty much to
14:11:25 discourage charter schools from being built?
14:11:29 As an option?
14:11:30 >> No, it's not to discourage it.
14:11:33 It's to ensure -- I mean, we haven't had experience
14:11:35 here and I don't know how closely you follow things at
14:11:37 the School Board, but we've had to revoke a couple of
14:11:40 charters.
14:11:41 And now we've had to take in those students into our
14:11:44 school, assume that someone built a charter for
14:11:46 students to go to, a new development was allowed and
14:11:49 now there are 200 children in a school, in a charter
14:11:52 school.
14:11:52 And that charter fails, we need to be able to either

14:11:56 go into that school and educate those children, but we
14:11:59 can't operate a school that doesn't meet the
14:12:02 standards, our standards.
14:12:03 Then we have to try to absorb those kids into our
14:12:06 regular schools, which may be over capacity.
14:12:08 So there's an operational reason.
14:12:12 And actually this workshop I was at the other day,
14:12:16 there was discussion that some of those local
14:12:19 governments -- some of those school boards are talking
14:12:21 about also having minimum sizes.
14:12:25 If you were going to build a charter, it has to meet,
14:12:27 you know, for instance, we tend to build larger
14:12:30 elementary schools.
14:12:31 We don't want someone to come in -- what they have
14:12:33 said, we don't want someone to come in and build 150
14:12:36 student elementary school.
14:12:37 If it fails and we have to operate it, we cannot
14:12:41 operate a school that small efficiently.
14:12:42 So we haven't approached that issue here, but some
14:12:46 folks are even being more restrictive or thinking
14:12:48 about being more restrictive on the size so that the
14:12:52 school district can step in and operate that school.

14:12:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So when you're talking about the fish,
14:12:57 which is the inventory, are you all taking into
14:12:59 consideration the charter schools or the private
14:13:01 schools or forget the private schools, but the charter
14:13:04 schools?
14:13:05 >> You hit right on it.
14:13:06 Very controversial issue.
14:13:09 The state says that you have to account for the
14:13:13 capacity of charter schools.
14:13:16 Very difficult for the school district, because "A,"
14:13:20 those students are not part of the projections that we
14:13:23 have to plan for.
14:13:26 What we call our capital outlay students.
14:13:28 They are not included in that.
14:13:30 Second, if the charter -- you know, if the charter
14:13:35 goes under, we still have to absorb those students
14:13:37 into our capacity.
14:13:40 Counting the seats and then it goes away, you don't
14:13:44 have those seats.
14:13:45 Also, you know -- well, the children need a place to
14:13:48 go.
14:13:48 We need to be able to -- we can't assign them.

14:13:51 In other words, you -- if you get 300 kids, great, we
14:13:56 can't assign kids to the school, our students.
14:13:58 That was a very controversial issue.
14:14:00 The way we have addressed it in our program is to say
14:14:03 the student generation rates that I mentioned earlier
14:14:06 do not include students who don't attend the
14:14:09 traditional public schools.
14:14:10 The way those were calculated were based on the number
14:14:13 of students in the traditional public school system.
14:14:16 Charters a part of the public school system, but they
14:14:18 are not in the traditional public school.
14:14:21 Children home schooled, private schooled, charter
14:14:24 schooled are not part of our student generation rate.
14:14:26 And we said, so when a new development comes in and we
14:14:29 say it generates a hundred students, it might really
14:14:31 be generating 120, but 20 of those students are going
14:14:35 to alternative public schools.
14:14:38 So the state accepted that, in fact, they used it as
14:14:42 an example at the workshop on Friday as a way to
14:14:45 address the capacity by addressing it via the
14:14:47 generation of the students, if that makes sense.
14:14:50 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, it seems to me even though the

14:14:53 charter schools are not part of the school district,
14:14:56 they are a part -- they are a part of the county -- of
14:15:01 the public school system, they are.
14:15:03 So they should be counted into.
14:15:06 >> We're counting them in a different way.
14:15:08 We're counting them from the onset.
14:15:09 In other words, we're not generating students for
14:15:12 developments that go to the charter schools.
14:15:17 So I guess the example, our generation rates calculate
14:15:19 only the number of traditional public school students.
14:15:22 So, therefore, when we plan for a development, we
14:15:28 automatically assume a certain percentage of those
14:15:31 students aren't going to be going and those are the
14:15:32 students who are going to be in something other than a
14:15:35 traditional public school.
14:15:36 So they are counted -- they are just not counted in an
14:15:39 inventory, per se.
14:15:40 They are included in our public -- in our five-year
14:15:44 plan, but because we can't control what children go
14:15:48 there, it's difficult for us to count them as capacity
14:15:51 because they could go away tomorrow.
14:15:53 And we have approved -- you know, if you approve lots

14:15:55 of development counting on those seats and someone
14:15:57 decides to cancel their charter, those children need
14:16:00 to get absorbed into the traditional system.
14:16:02 And we have to make sure we have seats for them.
14:16:05 So it's a balancing act.
14:16:07 It was very controversial and the state accepted the
14:16:11 methodology we chose which is to say we're here to
14:16:14 take the students off the front end of the generation
14:16:16 portion rather than counting the seats.
14:16:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay.
14:16:19 I accept that.
14:16:20 Thank you very much.
14:16:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
14:16:21 Thank you.
14:16:22 >> Thank you all so much for the time.
14:16:24 I really, really appreciate it.
14:16:27 You'll be seeing us soon.
14:16:30 New folks, nice to meet you.
14:16:32 If you have questions, give me a call.
14:16:33 >>GWEN MILLER: We'll now go to our sign code workshop.
14:16:40 >>JULIA COLE: Julia Cole, Legal Department.
14:16:45 As you may recall and I know we have two new members

14:16:48 with us, we've been working on amendments to our
14:16:50 on-site sign code.
14:16:53 We're talking about on-site signs, not off-site signs,
14:16:56 for a little over two years.
14:16:57 Just a quick refresher, Rose Ferlita, who is now over
14:17:00 at the county, set up a sign committee, and we went
14:17:04 through the process for over a year and a half, maybe
14:17:08 even closer to two years of looking at our sign code
14:17:12 and then looking at the sign code of other
14:17:15 jurisdictions to see what kind of changes we should be
14:17:18 recommending.
14:17:20 I had given you a packet in a blue folder which is
14:17:26 some of the background information.
14:17:28 We had a workshop on this I want to say July or August
14:17:32 of this year in which we went through that packet, had
14:17:35 that conversation.
14:17:36 I know that the two members -- that's essentially the
14:17:40 information that we had.
14:17:41 And I just handed that out to everyone just so you had
14:17:43 it again.
14:17:45 And what had occurred since then is I came back before
14:17:49 you to request that the amendments to the sign code be

14:17:51 transmitted to the Planning Commission.
14:17:54 Prior to doing so, we had a public information session
14:17:56 to discuss the changes to the sign code.
14:17:59 Several people came to that public information session
14:18:01 and expressed concerns.
14:18:04 So what I suggested when I came back to you I think it
14:18:06 was three weeks ago to request this be transmitted
14:18:09 that we might want to have another workshop.
14:18:12 At the time that we were discussing whether or not to
14:18:14 send this to the Planning Commission, there were some
14:18:17 folks that came and spoke to you and expressed some
14:18:21 concerns about some of the limitations we're
14:18:23 recommending as well as some folks who are actually on
14:18:27 the sign committee to discuss electronic signs.
14:18:31 And the other issue that's come up in the meantime is
14:18:34 the discussion of political signs.
14:18:36 I'm not going to go back into discussing the entire
14:18:38 amendment to the sign code, because I think we've now
14:18:42 done that a few times.
14:18:43 You all have the information in front of you.
14:18:46 And certainly the two new Council members, I would be
14:18:49 happy to sit down with you and chat about that.

14:18:52 But there were a few outstanding issues that I did
14:18:54 want to speak to you about and also to let you know
14:18:58 some additional conversations that I've had.
14:19:00 And the first issue that I understand -- that I wanted
14:19:04 to talk to you about is the political sign issue.
14:19:07 If you can excuse me one moment, I made some
14:19:10 recommend --
14:19:21 >>GWEN MILLER: You can send them to us later.
14:19:23 >>JULIA COLE: In those recommendations, I actually
14:19:26 have done a few things and I can send those to you
14:19:28 later.
14:19:29 As you recall, we had some issues with political
14:19:31 signs, and you asked me to make some changes to the
14:19:34 political sign allowability.
14:19:36 The changes I'm suggesting are to put a cap on the
14:19:40 total amount of aggregate -- or that's allowed on a
14:19:44 particular parcel of 32 square feet.
14:19:47 I'm also setting up some limitations of time.
14:19:50 They can go up 60 days prior to the election and have
14:19:53 to be removed seven days after the election.
14:19:56 >> Not happening.
14:19:56 >>JULIA COLE: Making it very clear, first of all that

14:19:58 it can't be in the right-of-way, and also giving a
14:20:01 time frame for citations, that if you're cited, you
14:20:05 have five days to come into compliance or you're going
14:20:07 to be required to go through the code enforcement
14:20:09 process.
14:20:10 Now, I understand that the code enforcement process is
14:20:13 a time-consuming process.
14:20:15 I have spent some time looking at our code, looking at
14:20:18 the law.
14:20:20 Because we have our code enforcement process set up
14:20:22 the way we do, there is no ability necessarily to go
14:20:26 into criminal court about it.
14:20:27 Now, certainly we would have a right in an egregious
14:20:31 situation to go forward in civil court to request an
14:20:34 injunction to move the sign in a timely manner.
14:20:36 But the one thing that I am changing is it used to be
14:20:41 that there was really a 30-day window of time to come
14:20:44 into compliance.
14:20:45 And with this change, I am requesting that it is going
14:20:48 to go to five days.
14:20:50 I'm going to go ahead and see if I can't -- I'll just
14:21:04 send it to you.

14:21:07 >> The political sign you're talking about, you're
14:21:11 talking about the one that was on the Exchange Bank
14:21:14 building, the old building.
14:21:16 >> Um-hum.
14:21:16 That's the one I'm speaking of.
14:21:19 Well, I think that was the one that brought forward
14:21:21 some conversation over the time frames for coming into
14:21:24 compliance, because the way the code is and the way
14:21:29 it's been interpreted and it's treated like any other
14:21:32 code enforcement, you have 30 days to come into
14:21:34 compliance which everybody thought was very
14:21:36 interesting because the election was four days away or
14:21:41 maybe a week away.
14:21:43 I am saying a five-day compliance period to come into
14:21:47 compliance for these signs.
14:21:48 And we could tweak that, but at least I'm making it
14:21:51 clear as part of the political sign regulation that
14:21:55 it's a shortened window to come into compliance.
14:21:57 I did want to make one thing clear, though, in no
14:22:01 event can we draft a regulation which says that signs
14:22:05 that allow on-site advertising could not be used for
14:22:09 political signs.

14:22:10 And what I mean by that and what came up with this
14:22:13 particular sign is it was clear that that particular
14:22:16 sign that was a big banner on the side of a building
14:22:19 could not comply with the regulations for political
14:22:21 signs because it was well too large.
14:22:23 But they were also allowed to have a temporary on-site
14:22:27 banner to display commercial advertising, ultimately
14:22:33 we determined that sign was even too large to be a
14:22:35 banner, but we could not draft a regulation that says
14:22:39 you only can have political signs that are eight feet
14:22:42 by eight feet and that they can only have 32 feet in
14:22:45 aggregate and that's so you don't get political
14:22:47 signage anywhere else.
14:22:49 If you are allowed signage on your property, it can
14:22:51 always be used for noncommercial speech.
14:22:55 I did make it clear in my rewrite that this is over
14:22:58 and above what you're allowed on your property as a
14:23:02 matter of right.
14:23:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Finished?
14:23:04 >> On that issue I'm finished.
14:23:06 I'm not finished with everything.
14:23:07 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, I have another question.

14:23:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena has one.
14:23:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a quick question.
14:23:12 What's before us today is a question of transmitting
14:23:15 this to the Planning Commission.
14:23:16 My understanding of the process is then they would
14:23:18 take it up in January, I assume.
14:23:20 >>JULIA COLE: Actually, I probably couldn't get this
14:23:22 on their agenda now until February, because they need
14:23:24 30 days.
14:23:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Then it would come back to us after
14:23:29 that.
14:23:30 >>JULIA COLE: For first reading.
14:23:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And then a second reading.
14:23:33 >>JULIA COLE: Correct.
14:23:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I am so frustrated.
14:23:35 I just have to go on the record.
14:23:36 So by the time we vote on this, it will be after the
14:23:39 city election.
14:23:41 >>JULIA COLE: No, I would be able to do it by
14:23:43 February.
14:23:44 We would be able to get this in place by February.
14:23:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think what we should do, instead

14:23:48 of spending the time to discuss it all, I think we are
14:23:50 all familiar with it, get it over to the Planning
14:23:53 Commission and then we can talk about it, because it
14:23:55 will come back to us then for two public hearings.
14:23:57 I mean --
14:23:58 >>JULIA COLE: I can make a request from you asking to
14:24:00 get this on their January, even though we are
14:24:03 outside -- we may be able to get on their January.
14:24:05 I just know that they need at least 30 days to get it
14:24:08 on their agenda.
14:24:09 I might be able to ask them to put this on their
14:24:11 January, even if we are outside the 30 days.
14:24:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Rotella is in the audience.
14:24:17 He's been working on this for two years.
14:24:21 >>JULIA COLE: I just found out I was pregnant when
14:24:25 this started, and my daughter is over a year old.
14:24:32 >>GWEN MILLER: You need to remind them each time you
14:24:33 came before us, they kept adding and adding.
14:24:36 Wouldn't get one thing and quit.
14:24:38 Just kept going on and on.
14:24:39 >>JULIA COLE: I definitely recommend at this point
14:24:41 let's get this moving.

14:24:42 I'll take that forward and ask the Planning Commission
14:24:44 to get this on their January agenda.
14:24:47 There are two other issues if I can finish those up
14:24:50 quickly and there may be people here who want to
14:24:53 speak.
14:24:53 The last time we spoke about this, the electronic sign
14:24:56 issue still remains a pending issue.
14:24:58 As I've indicated to you in the past, the sign
14:25:00 committee did not have consensus on the electronic
14:25:05 sign issue, and you had heard from members of the
14:25:08 industry who said that they would like to see us "A"
14:25:11 allow electronic signs and "B" allow them in very
14:25:14 shortened intervals.
14:25:16 I think their recommendation is no regulation on it.
14:25:19 I was asked to go through and look at other
14:25:21 jurisdictions to see what they did.
14:25:23 And if I could just say one thing before I get to
14:25:25 that.
14:25:25 The way our sign code currently reads is no electronic
14:25:29 message signs are allowed.
14:25:31 But we allow signs to be electronic in nature.
14:25:34 They just cannot change more than once in a 24-hour

14:25:37 period.
14:25:37 And my recommendation is at the very minimum, we
14:25:39 codify that practice, because that practice has been
14:25:41 going on for many years.
14:25:43 But in deciding whether or not we want to allow a
14:25:45 shorter interval which of the 24-hour period interval,
14:25:49 I went and looked at several comparable type
14:25:52 jurisdictions, Orlando has a one-hour requirement,
14:25:55 meaning it can change once every one hour.
14:25:59 Jacksonville is every three minutes.
14:26:01 Ft. Lauderdale is every three seconds.
14:26:04 Hillsborough County is six seconds.
14:26:05 St. Pete is six seconds.
14:26:07 And I believe Pinellas County is also six seconds.
14:26:11 I should also tell you these jurisdictions all handle
14:26:14 their regulation in a different manner in how you
14:26:17 review and process applications for electronic message
14:26:20 centers.
14:26:21 And some jurisdictions such as Orlando only allow it
14:26:24 in their entertainment districts.
14:26:25 So that's something you might want to think about in
14:26:28 terms of making -- moving forward with that.

14:26:32 But I did want to remind you that is something that
14:26:34 there is divergent issues on and I actually would like
14:26:38 some understanding from Council where they would like
14:26:41 to see that go.
14:26:44 The third issue --
14:26:47 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Does that include the Tampa convention
14:26:49 center?
14:26:50 >>JULIA COLE: The Tampa convention center, actually I
14:26:52 talk about the other issue, government signs, the
14:26:54 Tampa convention center, the way our government sign
14:26:58 regulation currently reads, if you are a government
14:26:59 sign, you are exempt from compliance with regulations.
14:27:02 So, yes, the Tampa convention center can be
14:27:05 electronic.
14:27:06 The signs which are attached to our parking garage
14:27:09 which are electronic, can move.
14:27:12 Now, there are some other signs that like the sports
14:27:15 stadiums all owned by Hillsborough County, so those
14:27:17 are allowed to be electronic because they are
14:27:19 government signs.
14:27:20 There were a few signs, and I'm not off the top of my
14:27:22 head, can't tell you which ones are electron that I

14:27:25 can prior to this prohibition going in, there was a
14:27:29 variance that they had received.
14:27:30 Because you can't get a variance for prohibitive signs
14:27:33 and there was a period of time where you could ask for
14:27:35 and receive a variance as an electronic sign.
14:27:39 So that's an issue for you to think about and discuss.
14:27:42 And yes, we have allowed government electronic signs.
14:27:45 That is true.
14:27:46 And that is something that we are changing because the
14:27:50 recommendation also from the sign committee was that
14:27:56 government signs, unless they are necessary for health
14:27:59 and safety, are going to have to comply with the sign
14:28:04 code requirement.
14:28:05 Doesn't mean they are prohibited.
14:28:06 Just means they have to comply with the sign code
14:28:08 requirement.
14:28:09 But I did want to raise an issue about that.
14:28:12 Earlier this week, I believe it was Monday, I met with
14:28:17 the staff of folks from different CRA -- the CRA
14:28:22 areas.
14:28:23 And I also had a conversation with Christine of the
14:28:26 Tampa Downtown Partnership.

14:28:28 There is some concern that this recommended limitation
14:28:32 on government signs will affect signage programs that
14:28:35 they have for neighborhood identification signs, way
14:28:39 finder signs and community message centers.
14:28:43 And they are right.
14:28:43 If they want to do those types of signs, it would be
14:28:46 argued that those are not necessary for safety or for
14:28:49 health, even though you might argue that way finder
14:28:52 signs are necessary for directional.
14:28:54 So those signs would then be required to be either in
14:28:59 compliance with the existing sign code and then would
14:29:02 be required to ask for a variance.
14:29:04 I wanted to raise that issue to you.
14:29:05 They raised that issue and wanted to find out from you
14:29:08 if that is something that you wanted to leave from the
14:29:11 recommendation or it's something because that's an
14:29:13 issue you think -- they should be allowed to be there,
14:29:16 we could write some language into the code which would
14:29:20 exempt out those types of signage.
14:29:23 So I just wanted to bring that to your attention.
14:29:25 So really, what I'm looking for is the first direction
14:29:29 which is the political sign direction, and I think

14:29:31 what I'm hearing for you is go ahead and add in that
14:29:33 language.
14:29:34 I'll make it available if you have a problem.
14:29:36 I apologize.
14:29:37 I guess running around all day I somewhere misplaced
14:29:40 it.
14:29:40 And I'll e-mail that out and get that out to you all
14:29:43 if you have a problem with it.
14:29:45 I think it's really what your intent was to put in
14:29:47 these time limitations and to make it clear.
14:29:49 I think I've done what you've asked of me.
14:29:51 The second issue I'm looking for direction on is the
14:29:54 electronic sign and what variation would you like on
14:29:58 that.
14:29:59 An alternative is to allow it in certain areas.
14:30:03 And the third issue is whether or not you want know
14:30:05 add in this exception for government signs that are
14:30:09 necessary for way finder, for neighborhood
14:30:11 identification signs and for community message boards.
14:30:15 And that's really all I have.
14:30:17 It's really kind of asking for a little more direction
14:30:20 from you on those two issues.

14:30:21 And certainly, as I said, I'm available for other
14:30:23 conversations about what we're recommending.
14:30:27 And yes, you will have an absolute other time to talk
14:30:30 about this, the first and second reading.
14:30:31 I will request that this goes on the January
14:30:34 commission planning meeting.
14:30:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public want to speak?
14:31:02 >> Good afternoon, Ron Rotella, Westshore alliance.
14:31:09 Back in August of 2004, Linda said we've been working
14:31:13 on this for two years, when I started this process, at
14:31:17 least myself personally getting involved, I was not on
14:31:20 Medicare.
14:31:21 I'm on Medicare now.
14:31:23 That's how long I've been working on it.
14:31:26 And if you look at the attachment --
14:31:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You are such a joker.
14:31:32 >> What we've basically said was no city should look
14:31:39 like this.
14:31:42 And this example is a two-block area on Kennedy
14:31:46 Boulevard between Dale Mabry and Westshore Boulevard,
14:31:50 but this two-block area could be Fowler, Nebraska, any
14:31:54 major arterial in our city.

14:31:56 And as you know, the City Council ended up appointing
14:32:01 a committee, which I had the privilege to serve on
14:32:03 with others.
14:32:04 It was a pretty diverse group.
14:32:07 And we all agreed on one major principle, that the
14:32:11 City of Tampa should do something about the
14:32:14 proliferation of signs, and we are very, very generous
14:32:20 in our allowance of signage within the city as
14:32:24 compared to other jurisdictions, even Hillsborough
14:32:27 County.
14:32:28 So what I would urge City Council to do is I heard the
14:32:31 discussion on political signs.
14:32:33 And as you know, we did not deal with off-site
14:32:36 advertising.
14:32:37 We just dealt with on-site advertising.
14:32:39 We felt generally that government should comply like
14:32:45 anybody else, why should government not comply with
14:32:48 the sign ordinance?
14:32:51 So I would suggest and mirror Linda's comments is that
14:32:56 you forward the year-and-a-half years of work that has
14:33:02 been put on to the revisions of the on-site
14:33:05 advertising to the Planning Commission and get the

14:33:07 public hearing started on that.
14:33:08 And then you have a new Council and you'll have a new
14:33:11 Council after the elections but you have two new
14:33:13 members now, then you could appoint -- either
14:33:15 reappoint the existing sign committee or change it if
14:33:18 you didn't like the makeup.
14:33:20 And on some of these other issues, ask them to come
14:33:22 back with recommendations to you.
14:33:24 At least on this portion with the year-and-a-half
14:33:28 worth of work and a committee that pretty much was
14:33:32 consistent in its goal of reducing the proliferation
14:33:35 of signs is at least move forward with the on-site
14:33:39 advertising and then deal with the political or some
14:33:42 of the other things when you deal with other portions
14:33:46 of the sign code.
14:33:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
14:33:50 Anyone else like to speak?
14:33:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
14:33:56 Thank you so much, Mr. Rotella, for all the energy you
14:33:59 put into this.
14:34:00 When somebody saw this photograph, they said to me,
14:34:03 you-all just pasted this up to look this way.

14:34:05 I said, no, unfortunately, this is what you see when
14:34:08 you stand out there on Kennedy Boulevard looking West.
14:34:12 So I'm hopeful that what we do addresses this.
14:34:15 And when we take a photograph five years from now, we
14:34:18 see a much different streetscape.
14:34:20 So my motion would be to send what's before us with
14:34:23 the inclusion of the political signs to the Planning
14:34:28 Commission with the inclusion of the tightening up of
14:34:32 electronic signs and then we'll duke it out during our
14:34:35 public hearing.
14:34:37 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'll second that.
14:34:39 But I have --
14:34:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Wait.
14:34:40 Let's see --
14:34:42 >>JULIA COLE: Can I just ask a question?
14:34:44 I would also raise that issue about the other signage
14:34:47 in the neighborhood, the way finder signs.
14:34:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: With the inclusion of the way
14:34:53 finder signs.
14:34:54 I'm sorry.
14:34:55 It's on my list and I forgot to read it.
14:34:58 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I have a little bit of a problem with

14:35:00 the political signs, Julia, because we're talking
14:35:04 about, the only one I could see that we're talking
14:35:06 about is -- we're talking about a lot of them, but the
14:35:10 political sign I have a problem with are these
14:35:13 six-by-eights attached to a fence in a neighborhood,
14:35:17 to a fence.
14:35:19 And I really think that really makes a neighborhood
14:35:23 ugly.
14:35:24 And I think we need to do something about it.
14:35:31 I think we need to make it where the political signs
14:35:32 are small enough.
14:35:33 You don't have to have a big ol' sign showing that
14:35:36 you're running for office.
14:35:37 >>JULIA COLE: I have a provision that says they shall
14:35:41 not be attached to a building.
14:35:43 I can add "or fences."
14:35:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And maybe make the signs small enough.
14:35:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Not those wood signs.
14:35:52 Those big --
14:35:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Two by fives or fours.
14:35:56 >>GWEN MILLER: They are bigger than that.
14:35:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You are talking about the ones put

14:36:01 into the ground.
14:36:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes, on wood sticks.
14:36:04 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We don't have to have all these huge
14:36:06 signs all over the place or even billboards for that
14:36:09 matter.
14:36:10 >>JULIA COLE: What I could do, I have an aggregate
14:36:13 sign area of 32 square feet, meaning that's the most
14:36:17 amount of signage you can have on your property.
14:36:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Six by eight would be 48.
14:36:23 >>JULIA COLE: That would be the limitation.
14:36:25 The way it reads and the way it previously read and
14:36:28 the way constitutionally it needs to read is that you
14:36:30 get one sign for each candidate or issue so that
14:36:35 you're allowed to have more than one issue on your
14:36:38 property for total -- but no matter what, the total
14:36:42 amount not to exceed 32 square feet.
14:36:45 So you can either have one that's 32 square feet or
14:36:47 divide them up into little ones.
14:36:49 And with the change of it can't be on the building or
14:36:52 the fence, I don't know if that alleviates all your
14:36:54 concern.
14:36:55 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, when you go down, say, Armenia

14:36:58 Avenue and you see these huge signs that are attached
14:37:02 to the fences, maybe on the property owner's property,
14:37:06 but it looks terrible.
14:37:08 >>JULIA COLE: And I think that part of the problem --
14:37:10 I'm not even sure those would necessarily be legal
14:37:14 today.
14:37:14 The problem is, it's been not clear the process.
14:37:17 So I think that would be --
14:37:22 >>GWEN MILLER: What about the ones on plywood?
14:37:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's more than the square footage
14:37:29 that would be allowed.
14:37:30 >>JULIA COLE: I think it would be very difficult to
14:37:32 regulate the types of materials in that way, why metal
14:37:35 might look better.
14:37:36 To scale is a better way to address it.
14:37:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to compliment you all on
14:37:42 your work to getting it to this point.
14:37:44 So I want to send it off to the Planning Commission.
14:37:47 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'll second that.
14:37:48 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
14:37:50 All in favor of the motion, aye.
14:37:51 Opposed, nay.

14:37:52 [Motion Carried]
14:37:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you so much.
14:37:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Miller.
14:37:59 She's back.
14:38:01 >> Good afternoon, Council.
14:38:03 Cindy Miller, Director of Growth Management
14:38:05 Development Services.
14:38:07 I would like to ask -- and this is a continuation of
14:38:10 our discussion on item number 2 -- we do believe as
14:38:15 staff that we need to present some additional
14:38:16 information to you.
14:38:17 We would like you, however, rather than postponing or
14:38:21 continuing this item to February 1st, we would like
14:38:23 to ask that you just continue it till next week.
14:38:26 In the meantime, we will have some information --
14:38:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to rescind the motion we did
14:38:34 earlier today.
14:38:34 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
14:38:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to rescind.
14:38:36 All in favor, aye.
14:38:37 [Motion Carried]
14:38:38 Now make a motion --

14:38:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to continue till next week.
14:38:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
14:38:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second.
14:38:43 All in favor of the motion, aye.
14:38:44 [Motion Carried]
14:38:45 >> Thank you very much, Council.
14:38:46 >>GWEN MILLER: You're welcome.
14:38:47 We now go to information from Council members.
14:38:48 Mr. Fletcher, do you have anything?
14:38:52 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: I'm first on the list, thank you.
14:38:56 I don't really have anything to announce, but I did
14:39:00 want to -- I read in the paper about how you had been
14:39:05 working to get more accountability at the Regional
14:39:10 Transportation Authority, and that's a tough issue, it
14:39:14 really is.
14:39:14 And I just wanted to commend you for taking -- what
14:39:18 the paper reported at least wasn't there -- is a
14:39:21 hard-line for good government and ethics.
14:39:25 And I think that's important.
14:39:26 And it was just passed on briefly, at least what I saw
14:39:28 in the paper.
14:39:29 I just wanted to commend you for that and thank you

14:39:32 for doing that on behalf of the city.
14:39:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you for recognizing me for that.
14:39:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would you like to take the things
14:39:36 that John asked?
14:39:38 Those are commendations.
14:39:40 Read them.
14:39:43 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: John asked that the following
14:39:46 motions made today, to present Plant High School
14:39:48 volleyball team and coach Lorraina Taylor with
14:39:52 commendation for winning the class five-A seat
14:39:58 championship and coach Taylor for being named the
14:40:01 class 5-A coach of the year.
14:40:03 >> Second.
14:40:03 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
14:40:05 All in favor of the motion, aye.
14:40:06 [Motion Carried]
14:40:07 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Two, to present the University of
14:40:11 Tampa volleyball team with the commendation for
14:40:14 winning the university's first Division 2 National
14:40:18 Title and for coach Chris Catanach who was recently
14:40:27 named the American volleyball Coaches Association as
14:40:30 the 2006 Division 2 National Coach of the Year.

14:40:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
14:40:35 All in favor, aye.
14:40:36 [Motion Carried]
14:40:38 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: And finally, please wish the Plant
14:40:41 High School football team and their coach rob wiener
14:40:46 the best of luck as they travel to Miami to battle the
14:40:52 high school in their quest to bring the 4-A
14:40:55 championship to Tampa.
14:40:56 >> Go panthers!
14:41:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to set a meeting on
14:41:02 January 9th.
14:41:04 It's a Tuesday at 9 a.m. in the Mascotte Room to
14:41:06 create a historic preservation emergency S.W.A.T.
14:41:09 team.
14:41:10 So we'll put together city staff and private sector
14:41:13 people so that hopefully in the future if there were
14:41:16 to be an emergency, we would be prepared to figure out
14:41:18 how to stabilize the building.
14:41:21 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Did you talk to somebody about that,
14:41:23 Linda?
14:41:24 Somebody in the administration before we do that or do
14:41:27 we need to?

14:41:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, that's why I was initiating
14:41:30 it this way.
14:41:31 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I can't make that meeting.
14:41:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If you think rather than setting --
14:41:39 is it the date that's not a good date?
14:41:41 Would the next week be better?
14:41:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I have to check the calendar.
14:41:46 Now that we have so many different assignments.
14:41:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's true.
14:41:50 I'll hold off then until next week to give you an
14:41:53 opportunity to check the date.
14:41:57 Terry Cullen from the Planning Commission recognized
14:42:00 that we couldn't meet today, so I would like to
14:42:02 reschedule that for the first meeting in February at
14:42:04 the end of the meeting.
14:42:06 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
14:42:07 All in favor, aye.
14:42:09 [Motion Carried]
14:42:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: February, either the first --
14:42:18 >>MARTIN SHELBY: First meeting in February.
14:42:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: February the 1st at the end of
14:42:22 the meeting to have a discussion of concurrency with

14:42:25 Terry.
14:42:26 >>GWEN MILLER: It's passed already.
14:42:27 The next.
14:42:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I wanted to congratulate the folks
14:42:33 who have been very interested in seeing that the
14:42:36 Centro espanol stay as a public building for their
14:42:39 victory in getting the city to say that we would take
14:42:43 it on as a project.
14:42:44 Because I think that will make people in West Tampa
14:42:46 really happy.
14:42:47 >>GWEN MILLER: I agree with that.
14:42:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I agree with that.
14:42:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Lastly, I would like to commend
14:42:52 Ms. Alvarez, because that I think your motion to
14:42:56 encourage the county commission to invest in the
14:42:59 convention center roof was the catalyst in their
14:43:03 decision to do that very thing.
14:43:04 So thank you for your initiative.
14:43:07 I'm so glad that was successful.
14:43:09 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I felt pretty good about that.
14:43:11 I appreciate you thanking me about that, recognizing
14:43:14 me.

14:43:15 >>GWEN MILLER: That's it?
14:43:16 Ms. Alvarez.
14:43:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: First of all, to remind everybody that
14:43:22 we have a CRA meeting on the 21st at 8:30.
14:43:28 It might be a week early, but put that on your
14:43:30 calendars and make sure that we do have a CRA meeting.
14:43:33 And also want to congratulate both Mr. Fletcher and
14:43:37 Mr. Reddick for being our new Council members.
14:43:41 And I think you all did a tremendous job today.
14:43:44 And I want to thank you all for that and for taking
14:43:49 part in this type of government work that we do.
14:43:52 It's rewarding, at least to me it is.
14:43:55 I know it will be for you both.
14:43:56 And that's all I have.
14:44:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Reddick.
14:44:02 >>FRANK REDDICK: Well, I didn't have anything planned.
14:44:06 But I just want to thank this Council for giving me
14:44:10 the opportunity to serve with you, and I do look
14:44:14 forward to working with you.
14:44:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
14:44:16 Appreciate that.
14:44:18 Okay.

14:44:18 We need to make a motion for our committees that has
14:44:21 been assigned.
14:44:23 Committees going to be Building and Zoning, still
14:44:25 Linda Saul-Sena as Chairman, Shawn Harrison as
14:44:28 vice-chair.
14:44:29 The third person would be Charles Fletcher.
14:44:32 Finance Committee Chair would be Charles Fletcher as
14:44:34 Chairman and Linda Saul-Sena as vice-chair and Shawn
14:44:37 Harrison the third person.
14:44:42 Parks and Recreation, Frank Reddick chairperson,
14:44:45 Charles Chip is vice chair, and John Dingfelder will
14:44:45 be the third person.
14:44:45 Public Safety, Mary Alvarez chair, John Dingfelder
14:44:48 vice-chair, and Frank Reddick the third person.
14:44:51 Public Works, John Dingfelder is Chairman, and Frank
14:44:54 Reddick vice-chair, Mary Alvarez the third person.
14:44:58 Transportation is Shawn Harrison chairperson, Mary
14:45:00 Alvarez vice-chair, and Linda Saul-Sena is the third
14:45:04 person.
14:45:06 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
14:45:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
14:45:07 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

14:45:09 All in favor, aye.
14:45:10 [Motion Carried]
14:45:12 For the participation on our committees outside
14:45:15 boards.
14:45:15 Only change we have is Mary Alvarez -- Mr. Shawn
14:45:22 Harrison will now be on the Florida Aquarium Board.
14:45:31 Frank Reddick will be on the Tampa-Hillsborough County
14:45:34 Youth Council Center and on the Council of
14:45:36 Governments.
14:45:37 Ms. Mary Alvarez is going to be on the Lowry Park Zoo
14:45:40 Board.
14:45:42 And Public Transportation Commission, that's the new
14:45:49 one, she's already on the others, and she'll be on the
14:45:52 Metropolitan Planning Organization and on the Tampa
14:45:55 Bay Performing Arts Center.
14:45:57 All right.
14:45:57 Mr. Fletcher will be on the Tampa Bay Regional
14:46:00 Planning Board, the Public Safety Coordinating
14:46:02 Council.
14:46:04 Ms. Saul-Sena, no new ones, still all the same.
14:46:09 Need a motion to approve those.
14:46:10 We have a motion and second.

14:46:11 All in favor of the motion, aye.
14:46:13 [Motion Carried]
14:46:14 New business from the clerk?
14:46:16 >>THE CLERK: Receive and file items.
14:46:18 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
14:46:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
14:46:19 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
14:46:21 All in favor, aye.
14:46:22 [Motion Carried]
14:46:27 >>THE CLERK: The Chairman has received a letter from
14:46:28 Robert hunter requesting to schedule a meeting between
14:46:32 the Planning Commission and Tampa City Council in
14:46:35 order to present the transportation system that's
14:46:39 going to be presented I believe to all the
14:46:41 municipalities and the county.
14:46:44 Would like to present --
14:46:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's go to February.
14:46:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Shall we make it the same day as
14:46:52 the concurrency plan or too much?
14:46:54 >>GWEN MILLER: That's too much.
14:46:56 Let's change that to the next.
14:46:57 >>MARY ALVAREZ: February 1st.

14:46:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We just put the concurrency on
14:47:01 that.
14:47:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's go to the next week.
14:47:03 February the 8th.
14:47:05 We have a motion and second.
14:47:06 All in favor of the motion, aye.
14:47:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: At what point in the meeting did you
14:47:11 want that?
14:47:12 Unfinished business -- at the end of the meeting.
14:47:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
14:47:18 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Did you want to set a time just to
14:47:20 get an idea or just leave it open.
14:47:21 >>MARY ALVAREZ: End of meeting.
14:47:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: End of meeting.
14:47:26 Like in terms of a time limit.
14:47:29 Do you suspect how much time it may be just so the
14:47:31 Council can gauge its time?
14:47:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We came back from lunch.
14:47:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else, clerk?
14:47:36 >>THE CLERK: That's all I have.
14:47:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Now we go to the audience portion.
14:47:41 We stand adjourned.

14:47:43 (The meeting was adjourned at 2:47 p.m.)