Tampa City Council
Thursday, January 18, 2007
9:00 a.m. session
The following represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
The original of this transcript was produced in all
capital letters and any variation thereto may be a
result of third party edits and software compatibility
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
09:07:39 >>GWEN MILLER: The meeting is called to order. The
09:07:41 chair will yield to Ms. Linda Saul-Sena.
09:07:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It is my great pleasure today to
09:07:50 introduce my friend Bob Gilbertson.
09:07:53 Bob Gilbertson has been the Executive Director of
09:07:57 Tampa's YMCA regional director for 25 years.
09:08:02 And it is with mixed heart that I am introducing him
09:08:06 because he's getting ready to move to Seattle,
09:08:08 Washington, where he will be their Executive Director,
09:08:12 and they are the tenth largeeth Y in the country.
09:08:16 What he's done for our community in his years as
09:08:18 director is he's taken the Y from being a relatively
09:08:21 small organization, built suburban branches that have
09:08:25 generated the revenue to build urban branches, and
09:08:32 brought the physical, intellectual and social support
09:08:35 that the Y offers to a wide breadth of people in our
09:08:38 community and he has done it with such a joyful
09:08:42 demeanor and with such friendly feelings towards
09:08:45 everyone in the community.
09:08:47 He will be so deeply missed.
09:08:50 Bob says he's going to come back after Seattle.
09:08:53 So let us stand for the invocation by Bob.
09:08:56 And then remain standing for the invocation.
09:09:08 >> God of Abraham, grant us be the strength of
09:09:11 character to extend respect and personal dignity and
09:09:17 opportunity to all regardless of their background or
09:09:25 cultural view.
09:09:28 Let us work to understand each of these cultures that
09:09:33 we are presented with, and the religious beliefs that
09:09:38 each group has, so that we can live in harmony and
09:09:46 (Pledge of Allegiance)
09:10:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
09:10:07 >> A quick statement.
09:10:08 I wanted to thank the council for something that you
09:10:11 may not know that's going on, and that is the YMCA has
09:10:15 been trying to mobilize its volunteers.
09:10:18 Some of you know there are about 30,000 households
09:10:21 that are members of the YMCA across the Hillsborough
09:10:24 County area, and particularly in Tampa.
09:10:27 And what we found was that there were lots of needs in
09:10:30 this community.
09:10:31 And we found that out in particular through the
09:10:35 housing and zoning departments of the city.
09:10:38 And so what we did is we mobilized volunteers to go in
09:10:42 and help people with infractions, that they might have
09:10:47 on their residency.
09:10:49 And last year we did 120 homes.
09:10:52 This next year ware going to do 180 homes.
09:10:55 And we really couldn't do it without the city
09:10:58 identifying many of those homes for us.
09:11:00 And it's oftentimes homes of the elderly and folks
09:11:03 that can't get out and fix some of the things that
09:11:07 would be code violations.
09:11:08 So we really appreciate that.
09:11:11 And we are going to continue to work to expand that in
09:11:13 this community, because volunteerism is something that
09:11:17 Tampa has always been known for.
09:11:19 We want to continue it.
09:11:20 Thank you.
09:11:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:11:22 Roll call.
09:11:35 (Roll call)
09:11:35 >> At this time I would present a commendation to
09:11:38 detective Gary Bradford.
09:12:02 Good morning.
09:12:03 I hate to give this commendation because we are losing
09:12:05 a great guy and a great friend.
09:12:07 But to detective Gary Bradford, commendation, it is
09:12:15 with great pleasure that we the members of the City
09:12:17 Council give this commendation in sincere appreciation
09:12:21 for your 25 years of dedicated service to the Tampa
09:12:24 Police Department and to the citizens of Tampa.
09:12:28 Your assignment of patrol officer district 2, where
09:12:31 you serve citizens in East Tampa, it has been a great
09:12:37 experience, and after being promoted you continued to
09:12:40 serve the district 2 area as the supervisor.
09:12:43 With such pride and distinction, we also serve
09:12:46 students, parents, citizens in the community affairs,
09:12:54 whether your assignment as a assigned detective and
09:12:58 political affairs in the office also advised your
09:13:06 colleagues and their families and our citizens as
09:13:08 For these and many other reasons, we salute you,
09:13:11 detective Brad forward -- Bradford and wish you the
09:13:15 best in your endeavors.
09:13:17 [ Applause ]
09:13:24 >>> I always get nervous when I go in front of City
09:13:27 7% pay raise.
09:13:32 [ Laughter ]
09:13:32 I want to take an opportunity to thank some people in
09:13:34 the room.
09:13:35 First of all, Kevin Dirk who gave me an opportunity to
09:13:39 work with the PDA full time for a few years.
09:13:42 I appreciate it.
09:13:43 I tried to do my job the best I could.
09:13:46 I would also like to thank Jim diamond, the personnel
09:13:49 detective who hired me in 1982.
09:13:51 He has regretted it ever since.
09:13:55 But I made it.
09:13:56 Also, I would like to thank Sharon Slater and Judy
09:14:01 Collins for the help and support they gave me at the
09:14:03 PBA office and I miss them.
09:14:06 They are good people.
09:14:09 I have known Chief Hogue since he was a sergeant.
09:14:18 I have known the chief a long time and he's a good
09:14:21 And everyone on City Council, council Miller and
09:14:25 everybody up there.
09:14:27 People have come before you.
09:14:30 Charlie Miranda, Rose, Kevin White, a lot of people
09:14:33 that I had an opportunity to work with.
09:14:37 The police department is one of the finest agencies in
09:14:40 the country and I'm proud to be a member there and
09:14:44 proud to retire from there.
09:14:45 Thank you very much.
09:14:54 >> Certainly Gary's leaving the Tampa Police
09:14:55 Department is a loss for this organization.
09:14:58 As with most police officers, there have been many
09:15:03 times and many instances and many things that he's
09:15:06 done over the course of his long career but it's gone
09:15:10 And he has done heroic things and he's done
09:15:14 compassionate things.
09:15:15 But that's just what he's done through a whole career.
09:15:19 And nobody recognized it but he's done many of those
09:15:24 things without his long career.
09:15:26 And I know that we're going to miss him.
09:15:28 He did an outstanding job with the union, looking
09:15:34 after the rights and benefits of police officers.
09:15:37 And they couldn't have a better representative than
09:15:41 their president Kevin Dirkin, and I would like to say
09:15:51 that I'm going to miss him.
09:15:52 He was a good friend over many years and has done a
09:15:55 great job for us.
09:15:56 Thank you.
09:16:05 >> Thank you for the opportunity to address you today.
09:16:07 We would like to commend Gary Bradford for all of his
09:16:12 outstanding work he's done for the police benevolent
09:16:16 There are many forums that we could have acknowledged
09:16:20 Gary, at a board meeting perhaps or some other
09:16:23 But it seems very appropriate to address him in a City
09:16:25 Council chambers where he set the standard for us.
09:16:31 Our organization is not going to serve our members
09:16:34 unless we have a solid relationship with all of our
09:16:38 elected officials, and that's all of you.
09:16:41 Gary did an outstanding job on behalf of the police
09:16:45 benevolent association.
09:16:46 And their countless days, nights, weekends, holidays,
09:16:52 fund-raising events, rubber chicken dinners here
09:16:56 between here and Tallahassee on occasion, and Gary
09:16:59 never complained.
09:17:00 He always went.
09:17:01 Anytime I ever needed somebody to interact with,
09:17:06 elected officials, it was Gary.
09:17:08 He was the go-to guy.
09:17:11 A couple years back, he landed in some hospital in
09:17:19 Tallahassee but came right back.
09:17:25 I already miss him.
09:17:29 On behalf of the PBA and on behalf of the police
09:17:32 office that we represent I would like to thank Gary
09:17:35 publicly and personally and present him with this
09:17:42 One more comment.
09:17:48 Gary in, grateful appreciation for your many years of
09:17:51 service to the men and women of the PBA.
09:17:55 Thank you very much.
09:17:57 [ Applause ]
09:18:00 >> At this time, Mary Alvarez will present the Officer
09:18:04 of the Month.
09:18:05 >> Gary, before you step away, I just want to say, I
09:18:08 think for all of us sitting up here, we have welcomed
09:18:12 and very heartened over the years to have your advice
09:18:18 and counsel on issues as it relates to the City of
09:18:20 Tampa's relationship with the men and women of the
09:18:23 police department, and I think we all could say that
09:18:25 everyone always has felt a little bit safer with Gary
09:18:28 Bradford in their corner.
09:18:30 Gary, we'll miss you.
09:18:32 Good luck in your future endeavors.
09:18:35 >> Hear-hear.
09:18:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It's my great pleasure this morning to
09:18:41 present the Officer of the Month award to detective
09:18:49 And I'll go ahead and allow the chief to do the honors
09:18:53 at this point.
09:18:57 >>CHIEF HOGUE: Once again I would like to say thank
09:19:00 you to councilwoman Alvarez and everyone else for
09:19:03 recognizing an Officer of the Month, and of course you
09:19:09 support the Officer of the Month program.
09:19:11 The Officer of the Month for January 2007 is detective
09:19:16 Eric Houston, who is standing next to me.
09:19:19 This is an exceptional individual in the police
09:19:24 First off, he's a homicide detective.
09:19:26 And among other assignments he's had over the course
09:19:29 of his career, the police department, only the very,
09:19:34 very best detectives become homicide detectives.
09:19:37 And I think that's pretty obvious.
09:19:40 You cannot mess up a homicide investigation.
09:19:43 There just is no room for error in those.
09:19:46 It's too important.
09:19:47 It is the most important thing that we do from a
09:19:50 criminal aspect.
09:19:51 And Eric is known and respected at the police
09:19:58 department and state attorney's office, not only for
09:20:00 his intellect, and his attention to detail, but for
09:20:04 his tenacious attitude that he goes about every case.
09:20:08 About a year ago, major McNamara started a cold case
09:20:13 squad, and nobody better to do that than Eric Houston
09:20:17 because he pays attention to details.
09:20:22 And he made three cold case murders, one from when a
09:20:31 teenager was murdered, and he went out and
09:20:34 reinterviewed and reinvestigated and took old evidence
09:20:37 and made it fresh and made an arrest in that case.
09:20:43 He also made an arrest from a 2000 case where he
09:20:46 developed some new leads out of some old evidence.
09:20:49 And once again, just the tenacious, hard work, going
09:20:55 back and going over every detail in the case, going
09:20:57 back and contacting old witnesses, and he made an
09:21:01 arrest in that case, also.
09:21:04 Additionally, in 1983 murder, another one from 1983,
09:21:10 some technology advances in DNA allowed him to submit
09:21:13 some evidence that identified a known suspect at the
09:21:18 We just couldn't get enough evidence to prove it.
09:21:21 And that evidence resulted in the arrest of a third
09:21:24 individual for murder.
09:21:27 For cases that have been not forgotten but put aside
09:21:30 because he would couldn't make a case on the
09:21:36 I would like to say that is a particularly difficult
09:21:39 job to go back and resurrect old cases but he's been
09:21:46 phenomenal at it and he assures me in the very near
09:21:49 future he has two more cases that he thinks he's going
09:21:51 to be making arrests on.
09:21:56 So he is really doing a phenomenal job there.
09:21:58 He certainly deserves this recognition, not only just
09:22:00 for what he's done here but for yourself and years of
09:22:02 service at the police department, because when he was
09:22:05 in quality control, he was known as the kind of
09:22:10 investigator that would eventually rise to the rank of
09:22:13 homicide investigator.
09:22:14 I would like to present to City Council our Officer of
09:22:16 the Month for January 2007.
09:22:19 [ Applause ]
09:22:25 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, chief.
09:22:26 And on behalf of the City Council, we commend you --
09:22:32 present your commendation to detective Eric Houston in
09:22:35 recognition of your dedicated service.
09:22:37 Detective Houston has been selected police Officer of
09:22:40 the Month of January 2007.
09:22:42 His outstanding investigative skills and intuition led
09:22:46 to an arrest for an unsolved cold case.
09:22:49 For copying our city safe the Tampa City Council
09:22:51 hereby commends you on a job well done.
09:22:53 And I want to congratulate you.
09:22:55 [ Applause ]
09:23:08 Now we have a few community members.
09:23:11 >> Danny Lewis from Bill Currie Ford.
09:23:14 I'm proud to represent Bill Currie Ford and present
09:23:17 you this watch from the Tampa police, this watch with
09:23:23 a logo.
09:23:24 We appreciate it.
09:23:34 >> I would like to present you with a free weekend
09:23:40 Thank you very much for everything you do.
09:23:48 >> Katie Carney from the Florida Aquarium.
09:23:50 We would like to thank you for everything that you do.
09:23:56 And we have free passes for you and your family to the
09:23:59 Florida Aquarium.
09:24:01 Thank you very much.
09:24:02 >>> My name is -- from Florida executive realty.
09:24:08 A gift certificate to the movie theater.
09:24:22 >> Lowry Park Zoo would like to give you passes for
09:24:30 you and your family.
09:24:31 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Congratulations.
09:24:38 I have a list of things here for you, so you have to
09:24:41 either take a seat or stand down.
09:24:45 You are going to be extra heavy.
09:24:47 You are going to gain about ten pounds.
09:24:49 The chief is going to have to be working out with you.
09:24:52 Bryn Allen studios will provide with you a $100 gift
09:24:57 You and your family.
09:24:58 And you just have to go over there and schedule that.
09:25:01 Hillsborough County towing association is presenting
09:25:03 with you a $50 gift certificate to your choice of
09:25:05 Outback or Lee Roy Selmon Expressway, Carabbas, if you
09:25:10 Po boy's creole restaurant is presenting you with a
09:25:13 $50 gift certificate to enjoy lunch or dinner there.
09:25:17 Stepps towing will be providing you with a small
09:25:21 trophy with your name on it.
09:25:23 And a $50 gift certificate for restaurants, probably
09:25:29 In addition to that, we have Charlie's steakhouse
09:25:37 providing with you a gift certificate, $100, eat lots
09:25:40 of stake and get big and heavy you are going to have
09:25:44 to go work out.
09:25:48 On behalf of all these people we would like to
09:25:50 congratulate you for your dedication to the City of
09:25:51 Tampa and making this a better place to live and work
09:25:54 and making it safe for our citizens.
09:25:58 [ Applause ]
09:26:05 >>> Thanks, everybody.
09:26:06 Thanks very much.
09:26:07 The cold case unit, I mean, I'm proud to be there, and
09:26:11 I'm confident over the coming months and years that
09:26:15 there's plenty of other cases we'll be able to solve.
09:26:19 It just takes a little time especially with the DNA
09:26:22 That takes time.
09:26:23 But I have no doubt that you are going to hear more
09:26:28 from us as far as solving cases.
09:26:31 Thank you.
09:26:32 [ Applause ]
09:26:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you very much.
09:26:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to introduce my new
09:26:46 It is a pleasure to introduce DEBENSKI, a student at
09:26:55 the University of South Florida in the architecture
09:26:58 And he will be working with me this semester.
09:27:04 >> I would like to say hi to everyone.
09:27:06 It's a pleasure being here.
09:27:07 I hope to learn a lot.
09:27:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
09:27:12 >>GWEN MILLER: At this time I will turn to Bonnie Wise
09:27:16 who would like to do a presentation.
09:27:20 >>BONNIE WISE: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
09:27:23 Bonnie Wise, director of revenue and finance.
09:27:25 It's certainly hard to follow the previous
09:27:29 However, I am excited today to present to Lee
09:27:32 Huffstutler and to the City of Tampa the award of
09:27:35 financial recording and achievement from the
09:27:37 government finance officers association.
09:27:40 This is a certificate of achievement for excellence in
09:27:42 financial reporting and it's awarded to the city by
09:27:46 the government finance officers association of the
09:27:48 United States and Canada for comprehensive annual
09:27:52 financial report as you have heard called the capper.
09:27:55 There's a certificate of achievement.
09:27:57 It's the highest form of recommendation in addition --
09:27:59 recognition in the area of government accounting and
09:28:01 financial reporting and is from the DFLA so I am very
09:28:09 pleased with the capper, September 30, 2005.
09:28:13 As you know, we are now completing our 2006 capper
09:28:16 which will come before you within the next few months.
09:28:19 This has my name on it but certainly it was not me who
09:28:23 did the work, it was Lee Huffstutler, chief accountant
09:28:29 and his accounting team.
09:28:31 With this I would like to give him this presentation.
09:28:38 [ Applause ]
09:28:45 >>SHAWN HARRISON: The next item is approval of the
09:28:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved, Mr. Chairman.
09:28:50 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second to approve the
09:28:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I guess it's sort of
09:28:56 off-the-agenda, but the Gasparilla children's parade
09:29:01 and the main parade coming around the corner, I want
09:29:03 to see if Debby Harrington or somebody else from her
09:29:05 staff to come over at some point later in the meeting
09:29:08 and just give us an update on the parking
09:29:10 arrangements, travel arrangements, all the different
09:29:17 It's probably not really an agenda item but just a
09:29:20 heads up to the administration if they can send
09:29:23 somebody over.
09:29:23 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Good idea.
09:29:25 We have a motion and second for approval of the
09:29:27 All in favor?
09:29:30 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
09:29:31 The agenda is approved.
09:29:32 Staff reports.
09:29:36 Do we have anyone signed in?
09:29:37 Staff reports?
09:29:39 All right.
09:29:39 Item number 4.
09:29:41 Water department.
09:29:42 Mr. Baird.
09:29:45 >>BRAD BAIRD: Water department.
09:29:49 We talked about item number 4, painting the water
09:29:52 tower, recognize football and girls volleyball from
09:29:56 winning state championships.
09:29:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: One of the more serious items you
09:30:01 ever had to deal with, Brad.
09:30:02 >>BRAD BAIRD: Yes.
09:30:04 Did have a meeting with the athletic director and
09:30:07 president of the booster club and subsequent
09:30:09 discussion was the grid iron club president.
09:30:12 And based on those discussions, we obtained an
09:30:16 estimate to paint 5-foot letters on the tower.
09:30:20 The estimate came in at $5,000.
09:30:23 And currently, all three representatives of plant high
09:30:31 are working toward trying to come up with the $5,000
09:30:36 to make that happen.
09:30:37 If they do, we will paint the letters on the water
09:30:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's really exciting.
09:30:48 All of South Tampa and plant nation is very excited.
09:30:56 I want to put in a plug if anybody is watching and
09:30:58 wants to contribute to this issue, this is not
09:31:02 something that's being funded by the city.
09:31:04 They should contact the plant high approximate
09:31:06 boosters, I guess.
09:31:08 >>> Yes.
09:31:09 I would say to contact Laura FIGARETTA, athletic
09:31:17 director at Plant High School.
09:31:19 Thank you very much.
09:31:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:31:24 Item number 5.
09:31:25 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
09:31:27 You requested a recommendation on the issue of notice
09:31:31 of temporary wet zonings.
09:31:33 Catherine Coyle and I have been working revamping the
09:31:35 entire process for temporary wet zonings as well as
09:31:40 all of chapter 3.
09:31:41 And we are supposed to have a draft ordinance ready.
09:31:44 We will have that ready by February to pass around to
09:31:48 interested parties and actually take this opportunity
09:31:49 to request a workshop date with City Council on March
09:31:52 22nd to review all of these issues.
09:31:56 >> So moved.
09:31:56 >> Second.
09:31:57 (Motion carried).
09:31:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, for clarification, did you
09:32:03 want that under unfinished business and normally
09:32:06 limited to five minutes?
09:32:07 Did you want it at the end of the end of the meeting?
09:32:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: As the motion maker I would like to
09:32:14 set an 11:00 workshop because I think frankly it's
09:32:16 going to require much longer than five minute
09:32:22 March 2nd.
09:32:33 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
09:32:34 As you may recall, this issue came up regarding the
09:32:37 billboard, which was relocated on Howard Avenue.
09:32:41 I had an initial conversation with national
09:32:43 advertising which is the owner of that billboard, when
09:32:48 they indicated some willingness at the pedestrian
09:32:53 We are going to try to meat on-site, depending on
09:32:56 everybody's schedule, so we can discuss in more detail
09:32:59 what can be done down there.
09:33:00 Because of its location to the right-of-way.
09:33:04 So that's our plan.
09:33:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
09:33:14 That is very constructive.
09:33:18 And that came out of our general discussion.
09:33:20 But I believe that that's very situation specific,
09:33:25 that we have a greater overarching discussion on some
09:33:34 When would you be able to come back?
09:33:36 >> Well, that special workshop relates to if T fact
09:33:42 that we are in mitigation with one of the billboard
09:33:46 companies and we have been working with a potential
09:33:48 settlement agreement, and what I would like to be able
09:33:50 to do is finish that process.
09:33:52 And I think that process will be completed in the next
09:33:54 two or three weeks because I think as a result of what
09:33:57 happened we had some really productive conversations.
09:34:02 Because of litigation, I don't want to get into too
09:34:04 much detail right now, but I'm very hopeful I will be
09:34:07 able to come back to you within the next month
09:34:09 regarding that agreement, and that larger
09:34:21 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.
09:34:28 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
09:34:30 Opposed, Nay.
09:34:31 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Cole, has there been any
09:34:35 discussions or any talks with the legislative
09:34:38 delegation pertaining to this problem?
09:34:41 Because I know it's not just the City of Tampa's
09:34:44 problem with billboards but I'm sure it's, you know,
09:34:49 So have you done anything about that?
09:34:51 Or has anybody taken the lead in talking with the
09:34:55 delegation to see if there's something that we can do
09:34:58 about that?
09:35:01 >>JULIA COLE: Frankly, I remember last session the
09:35:03 issue came up and every time the issue has come up
09:35:06 with municipalities and the county governments and I
09:35:09 was involved in county government, and uniformly every
09:35:14 time that something has been pushed forward in the
09:35:17 legislature, it has in fact ended up being a more
09:35:22 sign-friendly regulation.
09:35:24 So I don't think that there's anything specifically
09:35:29 I can check with our folks with the legislative
09:35:32 delegation to find out.
09:35:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, you know, we have new people out
09:35:36 there now.
09:35:37 And maybe they will be more in tuned to what's
09:35:41 happening with the proliferation of billboards in our
09:35:45 So I would suggest that you do find out where we are.
09:35:49 And maybe with the new people on there, they might
09:35:55 want to do something about it.
09:35:57 >> When we come back at the beginning of March, I can
09:35:59 also advise you what I found out.
09:36:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Fletcher?
09:36:06 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: I was going to second the comment
09:36:08 about the strength of the outdoor advertising industry
09:36:13 in Tallahassee and the trend has been to regulate
09:36:19 signs rather than to take action to limit the
09:36:23 proliferation of signs.
09:36:24 So while I think it's a worthy effort, I would support
09:36:28 it 100%, I think we probably need to focus on what we
09:36:32 can do here locally because I don't think Tallahassee
09:36:35 is going to take care of the problem for us.
09:36:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And I appreciate that, Mr. Fletcher,
09:36:41 but like I said, since we have new people up there,
09:36:43 they might listen a little better since when do have a
09:36:46 democratic --
09:36:51 >> I hope you're correct.
09:36:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Maybe they'll listen but it seems to
09:36:59 me like they tie our hands at the local level.
09:37:02 And I think it needs to be untied a little bit at the
09:37:05 state level.
09:37:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think this is an issue that's
09:37:10 been addressed by the Florida League of Cities.
09:37:12 And I think what we should do is lend our support to
09:37:14 the Florida league.
09:37:15 So I would like to ask that on behalf of council that
09:37:18 our chairman write a letter to the Florida League of
09:37:20 Cities asking how we can be helpful during this
09:37:24 legislative session to make sure that local
09:37:26 municipalities maintain the ability to direct the
09:37:31 placing of signs.
09:37:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I support that.
09:37:35 Is that a motion?
09:37:36 >> That's a motion.
09:37:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
09:37:38 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
09:37:41 Thank you.
09:37:42 Number 7.
09:37:51 >>> Good morning and happy new year.
09:37:53 I believe this is my first appearance before you.
09:37:56 Gregory who have, management -- Hoff to provide with
09:38:03 you the disparate process.
09:38:05 The Mason Tillman did complete the report on schedule
09:38:10 before the end of the year.
09:38:12 And I have the results for you.
09:38:15 As you recall, the objective for conducting was to
09:38:23 analyze 419 additional businesses during the study
09:38:27 period, and those businesses, willingness to do work
09:38:31 with the city.
09:38:34 All firms validated as being available were added into
09:38:37 the additional research methodology and then a
09:38:39 disparity recalculation was to be performed.
09:38:43 Well, the findings from the supplemental research
09:38:45 concluded that an additional 98 firms will be added to
09:38:49 the existing availability database.
09:38:52 And the city's disparity analysis recalculated.
09:38:56 That was performed, and the outcome from the addition
09:38:59 of 98 firms resulted in a change for Caucasian women
09:39:05 owned businesses but only in the industry
09:39:07 classification of construction-related prime
09:39:11 That would be, for example, your architectural
09:39:13 engineering type of contracts and services.
09:39:19 What does that mean?
09:39:20 It means that firms in this classification were no
09:39:26 longer underutilized whereas prior to the analysis of
09:39:30 419 firms they were considered to be underutilized in
09:39:33 the prime contract category.
09:39:36 For all other minority groups there were no changes in
09:39:38 the prime contract disparity previously reported in
09:39:41 the original report.
09:39:45 As a matter of fact, let me just state very quickly
09:39:48 what the original disparity study report concluded.
09:39:54 Under subcontracting activity performed by the City of
09:39:56 Tampa, the original report found that although we have
09:40:00 historically used goal setting technique to ensure
09:40:05 subcontract participation after the original disparity
09:40:08 study analysis was performed, it concluded that the
09:40:11 City of Tampa was doing an outstanding job in that
09:40:15 area of subcontracting and that there were no longer
09:40:18 any significant disparity results for women for ethnic
09:40:23 minority groups for subcontracting.
09:40:27 Going forward, what we will likely propose to do is to
09:40:32 continue to enact policies and procedures to promote
09:40:37 and encourage subcontracting for minorities in
09:40:42 women-owned firms.
09:40:45 Now, under the Plame contracting, that would be in
09:40:49 formal contracts, and formal contracts, that were let
09:40:53 by the city, the original disparity study found that
09:40:56 there was underutilization of minority and women in
09:40:59 all five industries.
09:41:01 And those industries were just as a matter of
09:41:04 reference construction, construction related services,
09:41:07 professional services, nonprofessional services, and
09:41:11 It's important to be mindful that our existing
09:41:14 programs do not include remedies and or initiatives to
09:41:20 promote or encourage prime contracting by minorities
09:41:24 and women.
09:41:25 However as going forward in presented in the study, we
09:41:28 are going to propose and follow up on the
09:41:32 recommendations to implement the initiatives to
09:41:35 increase the opportunities in the award of prime
09:41:39 contracts to minority and women owned businesses.
09:41:43 Now under this category, what the supplemental study
09:41:47 concluded was that the physically limited effect of
09:41:51 adding these additional 98 firms resulted in Caucasian
09:41:55 women-owned prime contract firms in the category of
09:41:58 architectural and engineering would no longer be
09:42:02 addressed in strong remedy fashion under prime
09:42:09 So over all the additional firms had a statistically
09:42:11 limited impact.
09:42:13 Therefore, the Mason Tillman recommendation was that
09:42:17 no modifications are required in the City of Tampa's
09:42:20 disparity study as originally submitted.
09:42:23 So it will remain in an impact, and the
09:42:27 recommendations that were presented and brought forth
09:42:30 from that original study will be addressed.
09:42:34 We intend to pursue strategies to implement those
09:42:36 recommendations going forward.
09:42:40 Therefore, the city's next step will be to continue
09:42:42 implementing the activities addressed by the study,
09:42:44 some of which have been underway for some time now.
09:42:48 One very important recommendation in the study which
09:42:50 is underway is creating the external stakeholders task
09:42:57 We have identified and appointing through
09:43:02 administration 14 local prime and small business
09:43:08 owners to the task force.
09:43:10 The representation on that task force includes people,
09:43:14 business owners, and each of those industry classes.
09:43:18 We have minority, African-American, Hispanic, women
09:43:21 owned businesses, from the construction,
09:43:23 construction-related, professional services, goods and
09:43:26 services category, who will participate on the task
09:43:32 We have calendared meetings already for the task
09:43:35 force. The first meeting is scheduled for January
09:43:39 The second is scheduled for February 7th.
09:43:42 And more than likely there will be a third meeting on
09:43:45 February 21st, I do believe.
09:43:52 We will present the findings and the recommendations
09:43:55 to the task force as has been recommended in the
09:43:59 And we will gain some input and some direction, if you
09:44:06 will, from the task force for each of the
09:44:13 recommendations and implement a strategy.
09:44:14 The outcome of all of that will be to come back to you
09:44:19 with the proposed policy, an ordinance for a new WMBE
09:44:27 program, in addition to an ordinance for our existing
09:44:31 STE -- the small business enterprise program, wherein
09:44:35 we are addressing need need the need and the effort to
09:44:38 include small businesses and city contracting to race,
09:44:44 gender and neutral means.
09:44:46 That concludes my update for you this morning.
09:44:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
09:44:55 Excuse me.
09:44:55 Thank you for that comprehensive report, Mr. Huff.
09:44:59 What I was wondering about -- and this is something
09:45:02 perhaps that you can take back to the administration.
09:45:06 But as we go into the budget process, later in the
09:45:10 spring and into the summer, you and I talked about the
09:45:18 need for -- I think what you just said, to promote and
09:45:24 encourage the WMBE and the small businesses to get
09:45:28 involved with the city, and I think any local
09:45:31 government can always do a better job, do a better job
09:45:34 of that.
09:45:34 Because many times that's often just a function of
09:45:38 Would you agree with that?
09:45:40 Just in terms of budgeting, and having the money to
09:45:43 help support that type of enterprise?
09:45:47 >>> In part, yes, sir.
09:45:48 >> So what I'm thinking is as we go into the budget
09:45:51 process, I want us all to perhaps remember that, and
09:45:55 to emphasize that if we have the opportunity to spend
09:46:00 some more dollars, I'll bet it money really spent to
09:46:06 help small businesses and WMB e-businesses to get
09:46:09 involved in the training and that sort of thing, and
09:46:16 I hope we can work with the administration on that.
09:46:19 >>> Yes, sir.
09:46:19 And thank you for that insight.
09:46:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: One of the things that I heard in
09:46:23 the past is that small, particularly construction
09:46:27 companies, have trouble getting adequate insurance,
09:46:31 that that's been one of the hindrances in pursuing
09:46:34 larger contracts with the city.
09:46:35 And I wondered if we currently facilitate that at all
09:46:39 for small minority companies.
09:46:43 >>> We don't facilitate that in a very direct way.
09:46:48 However, there are a couple ways to address that.
09:46:50 You have your typical required liability insurance.
09:46:55 And then you have your bonding performance insurance.
09:46:58 One of the recommendations with regard to liability
09:47:02 insurance was to look at each and every one of our
09:47:05 contracts to scrutinize the extent to which the city
09:47:09 has liability exposure.
09:47:11 And then, as best we can, reduce those liability
09:47:15 limits, if appropriate, to lessen the burden upon our
09:47:21 And we have begun to do that.
09:47:24 >> What I would request is that when you meet with
09:47:26 this group of representatives from different groups,
09:47:29 that you put that on the agenda, hear from them what
09:47:32 their needs are, and maybe brainstorm a bit with them
09:47:35 how we can do a better job.
09:47:37 It sounds like you're initiating that but I know that
09:47:39 has really been a burden that has kept a lot of people
09:47:42 from being able to be active on certain projects, and
09:47:45 perhaps we can creatively come up with a way to
09:47:48 address that.
09:47:55 >>> Mr. Huff, with this task force you mentioned, are
09:47:58 you totally responsible for pointing those individuals
09:48:03 to the task force?
09:48:09 >>> The names were submitted to the mayor and the
09:48:10 appointment was made through the mayor's office.
09:48:12 >> How many women so far, how many African-Americans
09:48:19 do you have on the task force?
09:48:36 >>> My estimate, approximately five.
09:48:40 >> Another question.
09:48:42 Is Joe Robinson one of the members of the task force?
09:48:46 >> No, sir.
09:48:47 >> Is there a reason why he is not?
09:48:49 He's one of the most knowledgeable persons by the
09:48:53 minority business program and very outspoken before
09:48:58 the city, and I'm astonished that one of the most
09:49:08 vocal minority citizens, persons in this community
09:49:12 that is well-known for this one issue, that would
09:49:21 discuss and talk about it, is not part of this task
09:49:24 I thought for one who is knowledgeable and very
09:49:27 credible would not be a part of the task force.
09:49:31 So I hope he's someone you consider and making him a
09:49:37 part of this task force.
09:49:38 >>> Yes, sir.
09:49:44 >>SHAWN HARRISON: The same thing that was just asked.
09:49:48 I think you said five women, African-American members
09:49:51 of this task force.
09:49:55 >>> To be more specific, sir, in the area of
09:49:58 construction services, there were four appointees.
09:50:03 One African-American, one Hispanic American, one
09:50:06 Caucasian, one business and one non-WMBE being a prime
09:50:14 contractor. The same hold true for construction
09:50:16 related category.
09:50:17 We have four representatives, professional services,
09:50:20 we have one representative for the nonprofessional
09:50:24 services, there's one representative, woman-owned
09:50:27 business, one representative who is an
09:50:37 African-American, and in the community subgroup, if
09:50:41 you will, the mayor's African-American advisory
09:50:43 council has one representative, the Hispanic council
09:50:46 has a representative and the Hillsborough County NAACP
09:50:49 has a representative.
09:50:50 So there was an attempt, if you will, to cast the net
09:50:57 and ensure that the constituents we serve in the
09:51:01 stakeholder communities that have had an interest in
09:51:03 our program, that they have representation in the --
09:51:07 on the external task force.
09:51:10 I hope that answer it is question, sir.
09:51:11 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I think it does.
09:51:13 I get the point that I think is important is that if
09:51:16 this is the -- obviously there's a clear goal that we
09:51:19 have in doing this study and in having a WMBE program
09:51:24 and the people serving on that task force ought to be
09:51:26 the people who are most knowledgeable about the trials
09:51:29 andn and tribulations that they have faced in owned
09:51:35 business through the program.
09:51:36 So it sounds to me like that's the way we ought to go.
09:51:39 I echo Mr. Reddick's recommendation about Mr.
09:51:46 There is no more vocal person who comes down week in
09:51:49 and week out and talks about these issues and if
09:51:52 there's room for him on that task force, I think we
09:51:55 would all be well served by that.
09:51:58 >>GWEN MILLER: The question I have, on the agenda,
09:51:59 would they be discussing ways to advertise, to let
09:52:04 them know how to get a part of the WMBE program, how
09:52:08 to get a job and so forth?
09:52:10 You say -- we need more African-Americans to apply and
09:52:14 be a part of this.
09:52:15 So would that be on the agenda?
09:52:17 >> We'll certainly be soliciting their input and their
09:52:21 advice on how to do that as well.
09:52:23 >> And some them the way so they don't feel like they
09:52:31 are missing something?
09:52:31 Would that also be -- not teach them but when they
09:52:37 should apply and how to apply and so forth?
09:52:39 >> Yes, we'll be presenting to them our current
09:52:43 processes of administration our programs, including
09:52:49 our forms and ways of doing so, user-friendly, do they
09:52:54 serve the objective that we intend to meet, and if
09:52:57 they have got a better way to ask things such as the
09:53:00 application completed or submitted.
09:53:03 For example, electronic application, which we
09:53:09 currently in some form do provide on the web site.
09:53:11 So the answer to your question is yes, ma'am.
09:53:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Some people do not go to the web site.
09:53:17 Are there other mechanisms how they can advertise it?
09:53:20 >>> Yes.
09:53:21 >>GWEN MILLER: The paper and so forth.
09:53:29 Mrs. Alvarez?
09:53:30 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How big is your staff?
09:53:32 >>> Eight individuals.
09:53:33 Eight people.
09:53:34 >>: So you have enough people that could help you with
09:53:37 this program as it's coming on.
09:53:39 Because it looks to me like it's going to be quite
09:53:43 extensive, especially to do the task force.
09:53:55 How many people on the task force?
09:53:57 >>> 14.
09:53:58 >> 14.
09:54:00 Is there ram for expansion?
09:54:02 >>> Certainly.
09:54:03 We would be open to expanding the task force.
09:54:06 There was no set guideline or strict approach to the
09:54:14 We just wanted to be sure we had the representation,
09:54:18 and a group that was manageable, if you will, amongst
09:54:22 >> Are you doing any WMBE work now?
09:54:28 Where people are coming in, if they want to do work
09:54:31 for the city?
09:54:31 >>> Oh, absolutely.
09:54:32 >> They are?
09:54:33 That hasn't stopped at all?
09:54:35 >>> No, it hasn't.
09:54:36 And I'm glad that you did raise that issue.
09:54:38 Because the current WMBE program and the initiatives
09:54:42 have remained in effect throughout the disparity study
09:54:48 Your program, the city's program, is still being
09:54:50 Nothing has been discontinued or changed yet.
09:54:54 So we are still evaluating all contracts for
09:54:58 subcontracting opportunities.
09:55:00 We are still setting subcontract goals on these
09:55:04 All of the initiatives and policies and procedures
09:55:06 that have been in effect over the years is still in
09:55:09 place and still being performed.
09:55:11 >> So are you taking the suggestions from the
09:55:13 disparity study into consideration at this point, and
09:55:18 already doing the procedures on it?
09:55:19 Or are you just waiting until everything comes
09:55:24 >>> There are some of the recommendations that we are
09:55:26 either partially implementing and are now fully
09:55:31 Others have yet to be implemented.
09:55:32 To answer your question, yes, we are going to take
09:55:34 those recommendations.
09:55:35 We are going to enhance our WMBE program.
09:55:37 We are going to revamp it, come back with some new
09:55:40 policy statements, perhaps even the suggested or
09:55:45 recommended ordinance for new program going forward.
09:55:53 >> Is there a document being prepared now, or --
09:55:57 >>> Yes, we have a boilerplate draft.
09:56:00 We have done all that we thought we could do, taking
09:56:07 the final disparity study results.
09:56:09 >>GWEN MILLER: And the task force meets in February
09:56:15 and I think bring back the ordinance?
09:56:18 >>> Absolutely.
09:56:19 After the task force process, we'll come back with the
09:56:24 policy statements, the draft ordinances, for
09:56:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is kind of related, not
09:56:36 directly but tangentially.
09:56:39 The panel met with the Chamber of Commerce and one of
09:56:41 the representatives there is a woman named Rene
09:56:45 Benton, who is the director of workforce.
09:56:48 And council hasn't had a presentation by her.
09:56:52 So I would like to move that she make a 4-minute
09:56:56 presentation to council under staff reports on March
09:57:00 Because what she does is really helpful in the
09:57:03 It benefits our citizens in terms of job
09:57:06 And I think that it would help her be aware of the
09:57:10 different programs she offers because it's something
09:57:12 that we can be helpful within in the city.
09:57:15 So I would like to make a motion that Rene Benton come
09:57:18 to our agenda on March 1st.
09:57:21 >> Second.
09:57:21 (Motion carried).
09:57:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 8.
09:57:37 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney, here to speak on item
09:57:39 number 8.
09:57:42 Workshop and potential ordinance restricting
09:57:44 residential locations for those convicted of certain
09:57:47 sexual offenses.
09:57:49 As per the direction of this council.
09:57:51 This is an emotionally charged, politically sensitive
09:57:55 and legally complicated matter.
09:57:57 I would like to preface what is about to be presented
09:58:01 so that everyone here and of course in our viewing
09:58:05 audience understands that this board, as all of the
09:58:08 presenters as well, have the common goal of protecting
09:58:12 our young people from this sort of heinous offense.
09:58:16 Any caution suggested will be for one of two reasons,
09:58:23 either to make sure that the actions are not
09:58:25 counterproductive, that is they lessen rather than
09:58:29 increase the protection of our young people, or the
09:58:30 ordinance would be subject to challenge and may not be
09:58:34 We can obviously be a little riskier on the second
09:58:37 issue and allow someone to bring a challenge in the
09:58:40 But we cannot be very risk acceptive on the first one.
09:58:45 That said, I want to give you briefly our plan of
09:58:48 I know some of you are very familiar with some of
09:58:50 these issues and some of you are not so we are going
09:58:52 to have a presentation to bring everyone up to speed
09:58:55 as quickly as possible.
09:58:55 The issue is essentially what do we want to do as a
09:58:58 community to compliment or supplement the existing
09:59:01 state law?
09:59:03 In order to do that, you need to know what the
09:59:06 existing state law does.
09:59:07 It's important that you understand the definitions of
09:59:09 the key terms.
09:59:11 In order to provide you that background, we have
09:59:14 captain SHEREE Atkins and Dana Berry is also here with
09:59:21 us although SHEREE is the spokesperson.
09:59:26 She's the person involved it in the field with the
09:59:29 sexual predators identification and notification
09:59:32 That is what this is all about.
09:59:35 They will introduce, or Sherri will introduce the
09:59:38 existing law and provide you an understanding of the
09:59:40 crucial terms.
09:59:41 We then will have Gayle Reddick who is here from
09:59:44 department of corrections to provide you the state's
09:59:46 perspective and the issues that are of concern to the
09:59:48 corrections department.
09:59:51 I will then provide you a brief summary, almost a
09:59:56 brief summary, of the crucial legal considerations
09:59:58 that need to inform you of your deliberations, the
10:00:02 type issues you need to address and that you need to
10:00:04 address with care.
10:00:09 Actually, I should also say that Julie CABRIGARAS and
10:00:16 Rebecca Kert have done far more than I on this so as
10:00:19 we get to the question and answer process and deal
10:00:21 with certain issues under the proposed ordinance, I
10:00:22 may need to obtain assistance from either Julie or
10:00:27 Rebecca to answer questions.
10:00:28 But between the three of us and with the assistance of
10:00:30 the various law enforcement folks here, I think we can
10:00:33 respond to any questions you might have.
10:00:38 Basically, we need to get started and we'll have TPD
10:00:41 provide you the overview.
10:00:48 >> Good morning.
10:00:50 I'm captain Sherri Atkins.
10:00:56 As Smith said said with my expert which is Dana Berry.
10:00:59 So if I can't explain something properly she might be
10:01:01 able to do a little better.
10:01:03 I sent some information, but I also have hard copies.
10:01:06 And if you don't have them in front of you, would you
10:01:09 like to have them?
10:01:12 >> I have several pages of PowerPoint.
10:01:59 And the beginning of it is quite lengthy in describing
10:02:02 what the legislature describes as offender versus
10:02:07 So if we flip through quickly you will see it started
10:02:10 in 1997 and not all offenders are sexual predators so
10:02:15 you understand that.
10:02:16 And this is all legal jargon as to what gets you
10:02:21 through sexual offender, then gives you the statute of
10:02:25 what are in this for sexual offender to. Become a
10:02:30 sexual predator, there are several ways to do that.
10:02:34 One is a non-sexual predator, which is the page right
10:02:40 And then following that are several, 794 statutes,
10:02:44 that make that somebody a predator.
10:02:47 And it continues on with additional statutes.
10:02:52 Then if you go to the second, that's saying that if
10:02:56 you committed a second one after 1993, that it also
10:02:59 makes you a sexual predator.
10:03:03 So the legal jargon goes on and on and on.
10:03:07 What I would like to tell you, if you flip through --
10:03:11 and find where I have the thousand foot law, 794-point
10:03:16 065 which is past the 12 different things that the
10:03:19 sexual predator must do once they become assigned as
10:03:23 one by the state, this is where I believe you guys
10:03:27 want to focus in on.
10:03:29 Because it's my opinion that if the state decides that
10:03:32 the thousand foot rule applies to the person, then all
10:03:36 ordinances would have to apply to that.
10:03:40 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I think I lost you.
10:03:42 >>> If you go past the sexual offender or predator,
10:03:46 because I will outline in detail what they must do as
10:03:49 far as registration.
10:03:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's where we start?
10:03:56 >>> Past that, because in defining -- defining what it
10:04:00 is you want to target for the city ordinance it would
10:04:02 go into the thousand foot law.
10:04:04 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay.
10:04:08 >> In the future, numbering the pages really helps.
10:04:11 >>> Thank you.
10:04:20 >> What must the sexual offender do under the current
10:04:23 state law and the current local law, if anything?
10:04:34 Just so we understand the program.
10:04:38 >>> If you want to back up then, and we will go to "I
10:04:43 am the sexual offender or predator, I must ...)
10:04:47 Must report within 48 hours of establishing or
10:04:49 reestablishing a residence in the State of Florida.
10:04:54 You have to let them know where they are going to live
10:04:56 and approve that residence based on the sanctions that
10:04:58 have been imposed on them.
10:05:04 If you flip to the next page, within 48 hours after
10:05:06 the initial report the state requires, number one,
10:05:08 unless you reported in person to the driver's license
10:05:11 office under the department of highway safety motor
10:05:13 vehicles to obtain a valid Florida driver's license
10:05:19 Those two things must be done right away.
10:05:22 Every time they fail to do this, failure to comply
10:05:25 with this requirement, it's a flown of the third
10:05:28 degree -- felony of the third degree.
10:05:32 Then December 1st must report twice a year each
10:05:36 year to the sheriff's office in the county in which I
10:05:38 reside and register during the month of my birthday.
10:05:43 And then they continue on, four and five.
10:05:48 Do you want me to go into detail on those?
10:05:53 Are we go good with that?
10:05:56 So here is where the Hillsborough County sheriff's
10:05:59 office really plays their part in this.
10:06:02 Because they are the ones that are the ones that are
10:06:03 dealing with the registration of the offenders and
10:06:07 >>SHAWN HARRISON: The pages we just flipped through
10:06:11 that says "this is what I have to do," these apply to
10:06:14 offender or predator?
10:06:16 >>> Yes.
10:06:16 Depending on what the sections are.
10:06:18 They are given all those papers that they must do this
10:06:21 and must do that.
10:06:24 >> Is there any registration difference between a
10:06:27 predator and an offend er?
10:06:29 >>> Depending on the sentence.
10:06:31 They are all the same.
10:06:32 >> All the same.
10:06:33 So can we dispense with the notion, I guess, that
10:06:37 there is some, other than what you are convicted of,
10:06:40 the registration, and reporting requirements apply to
10:06:44 Or predators regardless?
10:06:46 >>> Yes.
10:06:49 So here's where we want to hone in where we get to the
10:06:52 thousand foot law.
10:06:53 These are the people that we'll be dealing with the
10:06:55 residency restrictions.
10:06:56 So it's my opinion then that if they have the thousand
10:07:00 foot law restriction by the state that those are the
10:07:02 people that you are wanting to target, if you will,
10:07:05 for the city ordinance.
10:07:07 So those are outlined under that particular page right
10:07:11 And in addition -- certain convicted sexual offenders
10:07:28 and predators are convicted of battery, lewd and
10:07:33 lascivious acts in the presence of a person less than
10:07:37 16 years old, sexual performance by a child or selling
10:07:41 or buying of minors and the victim is under 16 and was
10:07:44 committed after October 1, 2004.
10:07:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: What's the magic date?
10:07:51 >>> October 1, 2004.
10:07:53 >> Why that date?
10:07:54 >>> I believe that's when the legislature met and
10:07:56 enacted that.
10:07:59 All sexual predators or sex offenders labeled as sex
10:08:04 offenders under probation and the victim was under 18
10:08:08 at the time of the offense and after October 1st,
10:08:11 1995, may not reside within a thousand feet of any
10:08:14 school, park, bus school, any place where children
10:08:20 regularly congregate.
10:08:40 So if I may continue then, pretty much the agency that
10:08:48 regulates all them and checks on them, as far as their
10:08:53 registration goes.
10:08:55 From here, if I may introduce what our department does
10:08:57 so you have a clear understanding of the Tampa Police
10:09:00 Department's part in monitoring sexual predators radar
10:09:09 It's been recognized nationally for its spin program.
10:09:13 We are mentioned in several periodicals and documents
10:09:15 what we do.
10:09:16 We were also nominated for the award in 1997 for
10:09:20 monitoring of sexual predators and offenders.
10:09:23 So we have a coordinator which is Dana Berry and she
10:09:27 checks FDLE web site and checks the cards for monitor
10:09:31 and to change and amend our list.
10:09:36 If I might show you in my hand, this is an example of
10:09:39 the printouts of all our --
10:09:42 >> Put it on the overhead?
10:09:44 Just lay it down.
10:09:46 >> I can.
10:09:48 Does that show?
10:09:51 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Back it up.
10:09:56 >>> This is only one page.
10:09:58 As you can see, I have several pages.
10:10:00 A whole packet here.
10:10:01 And what we do is divide them up by sectors and zones
10:10:04 within our city.
10:10:05 And this is sent out to all the officers via Internet
10:10:09 and she amends this regularly, checks the teletype,
10:10:14 checks FDLE, and checks their address, date of birth,
10:10:22 their picture from. Here she also enters everything
10:10:24 into our computer system.
10:10:27 Our dispatch system.
10:10:28 So when an officer gets dispatched to a location,
10:10:31 let's say it's an apartment complex, that address is
10:10:35 flagged, with the information of the sexual predator
10:10:37 or offender that we have at that location.
10:10:39 So the officers know before they go to any address
10:10:42 that an offender or predator resides there.
10:10:45 In addition, if I am an officer on the street and I
10:10:47 run into somebody I'm not familiar with them and put
10:10:50 them their in our system, that also flags them.
10:10:53 Anytime we come in contact, yes.
10:10:58 FDLE has that on their web site.
10:11:04 >> Do you have laptop computers in your cars?
10:11:07 >>> Yes, ma'am.
10:11:07 So all that information pops up.
10:11:10 And anytime we come in contact with an offender or
10:11:13 predator, our officers write a good information report
10:11:17 detailing their contact, the reason why we have they
10:11:21 have contact with them, and use them every time and if
10:11:25 there's any violation, then she reports that violation
10:11:28 and files that with the state.
10:11:34 The state has very minimum requirements in the
10:11:37 checking offenders and predators and the Tampa Police
10:11:39 Department goes above and beyond that.
10:11:42 We check them monthly.
10:11:43 Sometimes more than monthly depending on the
10:11:46 And every one of those checks an encounters is
10:12:00 Because of our efforts, in 2005, we arrested and
10:12:12 charged 187 offenders with different violations.
10:12:15 And last year we arrested or charged 157 offenders.
10:12:18 So our track record is quite good if they do any
10:12:21 violations, then we are right on top of it and make
10:12:24 the arrest.
10:12:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Captain, I notice, you have that
10:12:31 reverse 911.
10:12:33 >>> Yes, I'm sorry, I forgot to tell you that.
10:12:38 With the information that a new offender has moved
10:12:40 into our city a reverse 911 is sent out to that whole
10:12:43 area to advise them that that person is living in that
10:12:46 particular location.
10:12:47 >> How about the 1,000 -- when that person moves to a
10:12:50 new address, does the spin program check out the
10:12:55 1,000-foot rule as related to parks and schools and
10:12:57 that sort of thing?
10:12:59 >>> That is not done by us.
10:13:00 That is done by the public corrections.
10:13:05 >>: So currently we don't have resources dedicated to
10:13:08 checking 1,000-foot?
10:13:10 >>> No, we do not.
10:13:17 Other questions about how we handle our offenders or
10:13:36 >>> They are going to stay around if in case you have
10:13:39 other questions that may come up. That may have been
10:13:41 a little disjointed for some of you but there's 17
10:13:44 different crimes that are sexual offenses.
10:13:46 The state has taken four of those and said, that type
10:13:49 of sexual crime gives rise to your obligation to
10:13:53 identify, they could be a participant in this
10:13:56 monitoring program.
10:13:57 That's in the summary sheet you have that says state
10:14:01 imposed residency restrictions.
10:14:02 Then there's apply to those types, and there's an
10:14:07 additional set that apply to those identified as
10:14:09 sexual predators.
10:14:10 So they do make a distinction.
10:14:13 There's additional areas of exclusion.
10:14:16 Just wanted to make sure that was clear.
10:14:17 Let me also allow Gayle Reddick an opportunity from
10:14:21 the department of corrections, she may be able to
10:14:23 clarify any of these issues.
10:14:24 And then we'll come back.
10:14:32 >>> I am Gayle Reddick with Florida Department of
10:14:36 I'm here to answer what questions you may have in
10:14:38 regard to your ordinance.
10:14:42 >>SHAWN HARRISON: we don't have an ordinance yet so we
10:14:45 don't know what questions to ask.
10:14:47 >>> If you have an ordinance, I'm sorry.
10:14:50 >> Well, let me ask you a question.
10:14:52 First, let me say that that name sounds really
10:14:58 >>> No relationship.
10:14:58 I'm constantly asked.
10:15:02 >>FRANK REDDICK: If it's complemented, what effect
10:15:07 would it have with your department?
10:15:12 >>> The impact it will have on the department of
10:15:14 corrections as you know, the offenders that were
10:15:16 placed under supervision are placed under supervision
10:15:19 by the court.
10:15:20 Once the court places a sex offender or predator under
10:15:23 supervision, the department of corrections is
10:15:25 responsible to make sure that those conditions are
10:15:30 We have probation officers working very, very closely
10:15:33 with sheriff gee and his staff.
10:15:36 We work closely with Chief Hogue and his staff.
10:15:41 Dana Berry.
10:15:43 Most of those violations that she indicated, I'm quite
10:15:45 sure she will tell you that she is in regular
10:15:47 communication with every one of those probation
10:15:49 offenders officers.
10:15:51 Before they arrest -- they call the officer to make
10:15:55 sure that any of the violations are legitimate
10:15:59 Usually my officers are the ones that generated the
10:16:01 violations saying, hey, we need to arrest John Doe
10:16:05 based on him or her being in violation status.
10:16:07 The impact that this would have, if the ordinance is
10:16:10 passed, then the offenders will be pushed out of the
10:16:13 city, and into the county area.
10:16:16 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Ma'am, before you go into that, we
10:16:18 don't even know what the ordinance is that you're
10:16:20 referring to.
10:16:22 >>> My understanding -- and you can correct me if I am
10:16:24 wrong -- I keep saying ordinance because it was
10:16:26 introduced to me that you are considering doing a
10:16:29 1,000-foot rule of an ordinance if that's impacted.
10:16:33 That's what I'm addressing.
10:16:34 I'm so sorry.
10:16:36 I'm sorry if you were not aware of that but I was
10:16:39 advised the possibility that an ordinance will be
10:16:41 coming about.
10:16:42 >>SHAWN HARRISON: There is, but we don't have that
10:16:45 So we started at 2500 feet because that's what
10:16:49 Gainesville does.
10:16:50 So are you talking about if the City of Tampa
10:16:53 implemented the same ordinance that Gainesville has?
10:16:56 >>> I don't know about Gainesville.
10:16:58 It indicated if the ordinance is implemented in
10:17:00 Hillsborough County based upon what was advised to me.
10:17:03 Now Gainesville, I'm not aware of that.
10:17:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let's see if we can get it sorted
10:17:17 out here.
10:17:18 There's been a proposal because the city of
10:17:19 Gainesville, I guess, adopted an expansion.
10:17:22 Currently everybody has the 1,000-foot rule, right?
10:17:27 I guess that's statewide.
10:17:29 >>> Yeah.
10:17:30 >> And the city of Gainesville goes 2500 feet.
10:17:37 I don't know about the city Gainesville as far as
10:17:39 where that would push people.
10:17:40 I think a minute ago, DOC had some concerns that if we
10:17:45 adopted a 2500-foot rule, where that would leave
10:17:51 sexual predators the ability to go or not go.
10:17:55 Help me out there.
10:17:56 Where are we headed on that?
10:17:58 >>> Well, if you implement a rule that -- a 1,000 foot
10:18:05 rule that offenders cannot live within 1,000 feet of
10:18:09 daycare, then that will impact on offenders that we
10:18:13 supervise, sex offenders and predators, will be moved
10:18:17 out of the city area into the county area.
10:18:19 And this in turn will have my staff population to
10:18:25 where the offenders are being supervised.
10:18:30 >> That's if we do a thousand foot?
10:18:33 >>> Even if you do 2500 the -- the reason I say for
10:18:37 the population, if this ordinance is implemented with
10:18:40 the department of populations, not being in
10:18:42 disagreement with it at all.
10:18:43 The only thing we are saying is the population we are
10:18:46 dealing with, these are offenders that have difficulty
10:18:49 obtaining employment, getting good jobs, and being
10:18:52 automobile to have resources in order to go from one
10:18:55 job to another.
10:18:56 And we will have to work very, very closely.
10:18:59 Our main job is public safety.
10:19:01 Protect the public.
10:19:02 And that's the reason why we work very closely with
10:19:04 local law enforcement to make sure that if an offender
10:19:07 is on the street that he or she complies with the
10:19:10 conditions of probation.
10:19:12 >> So the DOC's recommendation that we leave the
10:19:15 status quo, because you got it under control and it's
10:19:20 >>> The department of corrections will support
10:19:21 whatever the City Council -- I'm just letting you know
10:19:25 the impact.
10:19:26 >> Is there a positive impact that we enact something
10:19:29 or negative impact?
10:19:31 >>> Well, the impact is the population would have to
10:19:34 move out of the city.
10:19:35 >> There are probably people in the city that would be
10:19:37 happy with that.
10:19:38 But how would that affect the entire community, the
10:19:42 entire county community, region or whatever?
10:19:46 >>> Offenders that stay from one location to the next,
10:19:50 most of those, they are going to move out of the city
10:19:53 area into another area.
10:19:54 So the resources will be moved to wherever the
10:19:58 offender population will find a place to stay.
10:20:01 >> So is there any down-side to this community?
10:20:05 Is there any down-side to that to this community?
10:20:08 >>> That's something that the community has to look
10:20:10 >> I mean for the public safety perspective.
10:20:13 We are not public safety experts.
10:20:15 >>> Right.
10:20:16 It's not a public safety issue at all, if they move.
10:20:18 It would just be an impact otofenders, that would be a
10:20:22 public safety on their part based on the fact that
10:20:24 they will not have a place to stay.
10:20:27 And they would have to find places.
10:20:29 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, I'm a little
10:20:33 I am on some cold medication this morning but I'm
10:20:35 still not sure I understand.
10:20:37 I thought we had a thousand foot rule already in
10:20:39 I thought everybody had a thousand foot rule already
10:20:41 in place.
10:20:42 And what you're saying is if we go to a thousand foot
10:20:44 rule, everybody is going to move out of the city.
10:20:46 And I don't see how that could be possible since we
10:20:51 already have the thousand foot rule in place.
10:20:53 But we have been talking about, and we still don't
10:20:56 even know if that's still what we are talking about,
10:20:58 is if we go to 2500 feet, which is what Gainesville
10:21:01 has done, then I know that there were some concerns
10:21:04 raised by our legal department, because that may have
10:21:06 the effect of forcing everyone out of the city, which
10:21:10 could be in some sort of Constitutional concern about
10:21:14 expos facto law, or banishment or something along
10:21:20 those lines, so maybe this is a good time for you,
10:21:22 David, to step in and say what do we have right now?
10:21:28 >>> Thank you.
10:21:30 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
10:21:32 Let me also distribute to you.
10:21:34 I referred to the short form summary, and it was
10:21:37 pointed out to me you didn't have it.
10:21:38 So let me provide this to you which makes things a
10:21:41 little simpler.
10:21:55 >> There was a question for the department of
10:21:58 corrections before she finishes out.
10:22:00 >>DAVID SMITH: Before I start we have a gentleman from
10:22:08 DOC to clarify.
10:22:11 >>> Basically, what Ms. Reddick was trying to get
10:22:14 across is, if an ordinance is passed, if an ordinance
10:22:17 is passed from 1,000 feet to 2500 feet, common sense
10:22:21 would dictate the offenders would have to move to
10:22:24 comply with the ordinance.
10:22:26 From a public safety standpoint it will not impact at
10:22:28 all as far as our supervision.
10:22:30 It will not impact as far as the city because we are
10:22:34 going to do the same job we are doing with the
10:22:36 1,000-foot rule.
10:22:37 The department of corrections is neither opposed to
10:22:41 the 2500 ordinance, we would continue to do the same
10:22:44 It will impact us to a small extent because our
10:22:48 officers are assigned a certain number of cases by
10:22:51 statute with sex offenders, and if the population
10:22:55 moves, and we'll have to relocate those resources to
10:22:58 the officers to where the offenders live.
10:23:01 But from a public safety standpoint it will not impact
10:23:03 at all from the department of corrections standpoint.
10:23:05 We'll continue to do the same job.
10:23:07 So does that clarify a little bit?
10:23:09 Any other questions?
10:23:14 >> I have a question.
10:23:14 The thousand foot rule in state law right now, a
10:23:19 lifetime restriction, is that correct?
10:23:21 >>> Yes.
10:23:21 >> You all monitor folks that are under court
10:23:26 >>> And or the -- and/or the parole commission.
10:23:32 People that are out on parole release.
10:23:35 >> For individuals that have completed their time of
10:23:38 supervision, who monitors and enforce it is thousand
10:23:41 foot rule?
10:23:42 >>> That would be the Hillsborough County sheriff's
10:23:44 >> So at that point you all --
10:23:50 >>> Then we don't monitor them any further.
10:23:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
10:23:59 >>FRANK REDDICK: My understanding is approximately 500
10:24:02 sexual predators in the city.
10:24:04 >>> Not 500 sexual predators.
10:24:06 We have approximately --
10:24:10 >>> Approximately 50.
10:24:11 >> Approximately sexual predators in the city.
10:24:13 That may vary by just a few.
10:24:20 >> I heard 500 from somebody.
10:24:21 >>> Those are the ones that are under the supervision
10:24:23 of the Department of Corrections
10:24:25 There are probably many more in the city that the city
10:24:29 is monitoring.
10:24:31 >>FRANK REDDICK: Okay.
10:24:32 And with it, proposed 25 ordinances.
10:24:43 >> Is it clear that I'm hearing that there is from
10:24:50 your standpoint --
10:24:52 >> Well, we are going to do the same job whether they
10:24:55 are living in the city or the county.
10:24:57 >> You have to rearrange some of yours, actually?
10:25:00 >>> Yes.
10:25:00 >> Would it be -- would your numbers increase to 50?
10:25:09 >>> The 500 is not going to impact us unless it's
10:25:14 already under supervision.
10:25:16 >> So removed from the city police department to the
10:25:27 >>> If I may, I don't know all the logistics, as far
10:25:30 as if the city ordinance is enacted in addition
10:25:35 sanctions of people that already have a thousand foot,
10:25:37 I don't know who is to be responsible for determining
10:25:40 whether that residency fits the city ordinance,
10:25:43 whether it's going to be up to DOC or us to decide
10:25:46 I don't have that answer.
10:25:47 I don't know how it's looking in the other -- working
10:25:50 in the other jurisdictions.
10:25:54 >> To address that point, I think that would be
10:25:56 something we would need to address in the ordinance or
10:25:58 some other way to make sure that this additional
10:26:00 criteria is fully evaluated and going forward that
10:26:06 would probably require additional city resources to do
10:26:09 that and perhaps an agreement with DOC or whoever
10:26:13 But that would be an issue we would need to work
10:26:15 through definitely.
10:26:16 But I don't know that it's a huge impediment.
10:26:21 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
10:26:23 That's why we are having this workshop.
10:26:25 This is literally not the first noticed hearing we are
10:26:28 required to do under 166 in the charter.
10:26:31 And we are going to walk you through some of these
10:26:33 issues again.
10:26:35 First to clarify and then talk about each of the
10:26:37 specifics so that we can get guidance from this
10:26:39 council as to which direction, where to go.
10:26:41 Then we will take the very rough draft ordinance that
10:26:44 we provided you which was a take-off from the
10:26:47 Gainesville ordinance and come back with a much more
10:26:49 finished product.
10:26:50 So I realize this has been a lot more disjointed than
10:26:53 I anticipated but let me try to recapitulate and see
10:26:59 if we can get everyone back at least understanding the
10:27:01 fundamental concepts.
10:27:03 If you will look at this short document that I gave
10:27:05 you that says state imposed residency restrictions,
10:27:08 this is important because it defines one of the most
10:27:10 critical terms -- hate to use the word terms -- but
10:27:16 defines who is subjected to the requirements meaning
10:27:19 what type of sex offender is going to be subjected to
10:27:22 what we may do as an ordinance.
10:27:23 This is what the state does.
10:27:25 So you can see that the state defines the type of
10:27:28 sexual offender and the type -- and the sexual
10:27:32 predator who will be governed by it.
10:27:33 Our recommendation to you will be if you move forward
10:27:37 with this ordinance that we follow the state.
10:27:39 So in terms of the definition of who is affected or
10:27:41 who is regulated, our recommendation will be follow
10:27:43 the state.
10:27:44 And there will be reasons for that as I'll explain as
10:27:47 we get to some of the legal issues.
10:27:49 So that's important for you to understand.
10:27:51 But let me give you a brief explanation.
10:27:59 First of all, I know you you have a thick memorandum
10:28:02 that Julie spent night and day on.
10:28:04 And thank you very much, Julie.
10:28:06 She spent very hard on this.
10:28:07 And a lot of backup material.
10:28:09 Let me try to get you the critical points.
10:28:11 First of all we do have the authority.
10:28:12 The city has the authority pursuant to the state
10:28:16 Constitution in 166.021 so that's not an issue.
10:28:21 The second thing of concern is whether there is state
10:28:24 preemption because there's a state statute on point.
10:28:27 The statute does not expressly preempt.
10:28:30 Those of you who are lawyers know -- and those of you
10:28:33 who don't, I'll explain there's only two bases for
10:28:37 preemption, meaning it says right there the state
10:28:40 shall be the bowel body regulating this activity.
10:28:44 Or there is arguably preemption by implication.
10:28:46 We do not have express preemption.
10:28:49 Looking at preemption by implication is not a bright
10:28:53 You have to look at the nature of the regulatory
10:28:56 schematic and determine whether or not the intent was
10:28:58 to preempt.
10:28:59 Our opinion at this juncture is they did not.
10:29:02 There are other jurisdictions who have enacted
10:29:05 ordinances of this kind within our state.
10:29:07 To our knowledge they have never been challenged on
10:29:10 the ground the state preemptd this area.
10:29:12 That doesn't mean someone can't raise that challenge.
10:29:14 We are not aware of that.
10:29:16 You need to also know and make sure you have all your
10:29:20 information that there was a state bill filed last
10:29:23 year, and there was some concern on behalf of some
10:29:26 legislators that we need a uniform approach.
10:29:30 So they were looking at expanding the 1,000 feet to
10:29:34 2500 feet on a statewide basis.
10:29:36 That bill did not pass.
10:29:38 I believe it passed in the house and died in the
10:29:41 It had expressed preemption.
10:29:44 That would lead me to conclude that if they felt the
10:29:47 need to add that into the law, it doesn't currently
10:29:50 exist, and probably was not intended by the state.
10:29:54 I realize these are somewhat more esoteric than maybe
10:29:58 you need to hear but I do believe we can move forward.
10:30:02 We are not preempted.
10:30:04 >> Do we know why the Senate in the legislative
10:30:08 history on why the Senate rejected the 2500 uniform?
10:30:11 >>> Don't know that it was rejected or that it just
10:30:14 died, you know, did it not get through the Senate.
10:30:16 We will get more legislative history on that.
10:30:19 And what we will also --
10:30:21 >> You know, what the committee at least spoke to on
10:30:23 the 2500-foot issue.
10:30:25 >> We will get you that information.
10:30:27 And we will also check with the legislators, who were
10:30:31 initiators of that, to see whether or not they are
10:30:33 going to do something similar this time.
10:30:36 We have a request in to Debby Stephenson.
10:30:38 We are hoping to get a response and provide you that
10:30:44 There is also a case that has been filed recently that
10:30:47 we just became aware of.
10:30:48 I believe it's at the trial court level where a Palm
10:30:51 Bay county ordinance has been challenged.
10:30:54 From a brief cursory review, I got a few minutes ago,
10:30:57 it doesn't appear to be a challenge based on
10:30:59 preemption but a challenge based upon Constitutional
10:31:04 right of privacy and freedom of movement.
10:31:06 No outcome from that case I have seen yet.
10:31:08 We'll obviously keep you apprised of that.
10:31:12 That having been said you need to know there's other
10:31:14 authority out there where this has been challenged in
10:31:16 other states, and it has been significantly upheld.
10:31:19 The problem areas are as councilman Harrison mentioned
10:31:24 earlier, an issue with respect to expos facto.
10:31:30 Essentially that means that you cannot pass a law that
10:31:33 retroactively punishes someone.
10:31:35 That is generally deemed to be true when you have a
10:31:38 criminal sanction or it is penal in nature.
10:31:41 If you have a regulatory structure, that is civil and
10:31:45 regulatory and generally not found to be expos facto.
10:31:50 There are some issues dealing with severity but that
10:31:53 relates more back to whether it's penal in character
10:31:56 rather than civil.
10:31:57 And there have been -- most of the cases have
10:32:00 indicated this area.
10:32:02 You avoid certain problems.
10:32:04 And I'll walk you through those.
10:32:06 It's regulatory.
10:32:07 So it's not an expos facto violation.
10:32:13 For your consideration, among other things it means we
10:32:17 need to avoid other kind of excessive sanction.
10:32:21 For example, mostly, people who preexist in terms of
10:32:25 where they live we don't evict.
10:32:26 If you are in that residence prior to the
10:32:29 effectiveness of a law or ordinance, you are not
10:32:33 If you were to do something like that, there's case
10:32:35 law that suggests that would be considered excessive,
10:32:38 penal, and expos facto.
10:32:41 Gainesville, for your information, has that very
10:32:43 exception in it.
10:32:46 Essentially what that means, if you grandfather in the
10:32:49 preexisting parties who would otherwise be subject to
10:32:52 the restrictions.
10:32:54 Another area of challenge is due process.
10:32:56 This really -- due process is not always uniformly
10:33:01 articulated by courts when they find on this basis.
10:33:04 So let me try to give you the key areas here.
10:33:08 One critical area is a statute must be clear.
10:33:12 You must be able to conform your behavior to the
10:33:15 requirements of a law.
10:33:17 That's part of what due process is about.
10:33:20 So one of the things we recommend you consider if you
10:33:21 are moving forward with this ordinance is we make sure
10:33:23 we are clear as to what areas are proscribed.
10:33:27 So you have already talked about the parties effected.
10:33:31 Now we are talking about the areas from which you are
10:33:33 prohibited to locate your residence.
10:33:37 Once you move as opposed to preexisting living there.
10:33:41 That intent has a unique application.
10:33:44 For example, we would recommend you not simply say
10:33:48 Our definition of parks, as you may know, is very
10:33:53 Things like medians and areas off of roadways are part
10:33:58 of our Parks Department because they maintain them.
10:34:01 That would be a nightmare.
10:34:02 So what we are recommending we do, again, as
10:34:05 Gainesville has done, we list the parks.
10:34:08 You may want to also consider not listing certain
10:34:11 You may not want to include Lykes park, Cotanchobee
10:34:17 park, or Massey park all of which are downtown parks.
10:34:21 You may consider those parks not a threat because they
10:34:25 are not typically frequented by unaccompanied
10:34:28 Another thing we would need to consider, for example,
10:34:30 is Bayshore.
10:34:31 Bayshore is a linear park.
10:34:33 That's a huge increment of properties therefore
10:34:37 Is Bayshore the sort of park that presents this risk?
10:34:40 That's for your consideration, not mine.
10:34:41 But I want to make sure you are at least considering
10:34:44 all the relevant factors.
10:34:46 Yes, sir.
10:34:55 >> If we define parks as broadly as possible, does
10:34:59 that create any additional legal jeopardy for the
10:35:01 city, so long as we make it clear how a park is being
10:35:07 >>> Two issues.
10:35:08 And I haven't gotten to the second part of that.
10:35:10 The first is to make sure there's clarity so the party
10:35:13 affected knows where he or she cannot live.
10:35:16 So that's why I'm recommending you not include these
10:35:25 So as long as we define parks and defining what's
10:35:31 excluded accomplishes the same thing.
10:35:32 In your area of town as you know throws a lot of
10:35:35 private parks.
10:35:35 When don't want to exclude them from the regulation.
10:35:38 So what we would recommend is we list the city, and we
10:35:42 talked to parks.
10:35:43 There's a lot of work involved in this.
10:35:45 Tom Johnson has given us a list of the parks that he
10:35:48 thinks are, A, true parks, B, places where children
10:35:52 congregate, and in New Tampa, we are trying to get a
10:35:55 list of the private parks, not all of which are
10:35:58 We started with that list and found out some parks
10:36:01 aren't of that nature.
10:36:02 So there's other parks in the area we need to include.
10:36:05 Either either way, as long as there's clarity.
10:36:08 The second issue that relates to this is the
10:36:10 banishment issue.
10:36:11 And one of the things that has been found to be
10:36:16 potentially criminal in nature by some of the courts
10:36:20 is banishment, meaning if you are literally banishing
10:36:24 people from your community, there is no place they can
10:36:26 live in your community.
10:36:28 That may be seen as penal.
10:36:29 That may be seen as an expos facto violation and
10:36:33 therefore we would have a problem.
10:36:34 So what beer we are doing and recommending -- not
10:36:38 recommending -- what we are doing in asking you to
10:36:40 consider carefully which parks you include, that we
10:36:42 try to make sure that we have some areas so our
10:36:45 ordinance is not subject to a claim that is tantamount
10:36:48 to banishment.
10:36:50 I think you heard someone else mention that
10:36:52 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I mentioned that because I heard you
10:36:55 mention that as a concern.
10:36:59 That particular concern maybe for some of us but he
10:37:03 would don't want to pass something we know once gets
10:37:05 passed is going to be, you know, on its face
10:37:12 My concern is if we start making policy decisions
10:37:16 about where children congregate, invariably, we are
10:37:22 going to miss some places where children are
10:37:25 And, therefore, you mentioned Bayshore.
10:37:27 I suspect there will be a lot of people that say
10:37:31 there's lots of kids out on Bayshore with their
10:37:34 parents rollerblading or riding their bicycles or
10:37:36 whatever on their linear park, and if that was going
10:37:40 to be excluded then everyone that lives along the
10:37:42 Bayshore would say, why have you chosen to exclude us?
10:37:46 So I see some real problems with making that analysis.
10:37:53 >>DAVID SMITH: It is definitely going to be a
10:37:55 balancing issue.
10:37:58 And what we to do is help you with the criteria you
10:38:02 are using to select.
10:38:03 And it may be that we want to include all parks where
10:38:06 children commonly congregate without adult
10:38:10 So if you decide, for example, that Lykes park is one
10:38:13 where children almost rarely are without their parents
10:38:16 that's not on the list.
10:38:19 I certainly don't hang out at Bayshore and count the
10:38:24 number of unaccompanied children but someone may be
10:38:26 able to give us that data and that allows us to give
10:38:30 an informed decision.
10:38:31 There's been more and more challenges arising in this
10:38:34 area because regulations have become more ubiquitous.
10:38:38 You don't want to suggest -- I want to make sure we
10:38:42 consider the factors.
10:38:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A picture is worth a thousand
10:38:47 words, David.
10:38:47 But we were provided with a graphic.
10:38:49 I don't know who prepared it, staff, TPD.
10:38:53 Could somebody put up that graphic about the 2500
10:38:57 feet, and explain how that works and what it means?
10:39:05 And also what the parameters were to come up with this
10:39:09 graphic in terms of parks.
10:39:12 And schools and daycares and that sort of thing.
10:39:16 >> Sherri will probably be able to answer that better
10:39:18 than I.
10:39:20 >>> Julie got this from the Hillsborough County
10:39:21 sheriff's office since they are the one that is assist
10:39:24 us in determining residency.
10:39:26 So when you look at it, you will see the legend there
10:39:29 talks about city and county parks only.
10:39:31 So I do not believe they include any private
10:39:34 community, residential parks, city and county parks
10:39:38 When you are looking at Tampa schools and daycares,
10:39:43 and then those are the parameters on there. Doesn't
10:39:48 include libraries or other things like that.
10:39:50 Then the yellow area that's implicated is the area
10:39:55 where they can reside with a 2500-foot sector.
10:40:01 >> So if we adopted a 2500-foot buffer, can you
10:40:05 identify some of those yellow areas?
10:40:08 Because those yellow areas would be the only places
10:40:10 remaining where a new sexual offender, predator,
10:40:14 somebody new to the system or somebody who is moving,
10:40:17 could relocate to.
10:40:18 >>> Yes, sir.
10:40:18 The yellow areas predominantly are from the Tampa
10:40:21 Palms area.
10:40:22 >> Can you point us to that?
10:40:24 >>> Yes, sir.
10:40:24 In the Tampa Palms area, unincorporated area still.
10:40:29 Then if you move to the northern part of the city --
10:40:33 >> USF?
10:40:34 >>> Yes in, that area.
10:40:35 Over by the airport, I don't even know if there's any
10:40:37 residences in there.
10:40:39 And then on the causeway --
10:40:44 >> Westshore mall, Beach Park area?
10:40:47 >>> Yes, sir.
10:40:48 And the fingers that point out to the water.
10:40:52 Moving south we have some areas off of Westshore
10:40:59 Ballast Point area.
10:41:02 Probably somewhere off of Bay to Bay, Euclid, I
10:41:05 imagine a pocket.
10:41:06 Then if you move east there's the Grant Park area.
10:41:09 And then farther south of where the port is, and the
10:41:15 yellow area.
10:41:15 >> At the bottom?
10:41:22 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I think you just said this does not
10:41:24 take into account private parks, or some of those more
10:41:29 elaborate definitions of parks that the City of Tampa
10:41:34 >>> Yes, sir.
10:41:35 It may be more defined after that.
10:41:37 >> Right.
10:41:38 I'm certain that you are not counting the parks that
10:41:41 are within gated communities but are still parks and
10:41:45 places where children congregate, and those yellow
10:41:48 areas are going to probably shrink even more.
10:41:51 >>> Absolutely.
10:41:52 >> That's one of the problems we ran into when one of
10:41:54 our local newspapers published a map, without
10:41:56 everybody understanding what the definitions really
10:42:00 And I think that we must be careful when we start
10:42:04 publishing maps without all of us first defining --
10:42:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But help me with my confusion.
10:42:13 Mr. Harrison, if you are saying if we add some
10:42:15 additional parameters, then we might get rid of some
10:42:18 of those yellow areas, and does that head us toward
10:42:23 the banishment thing that I thought Mr. Smith said
10:42:28 leads us into an understand Constitutional ordinance.
10:42:33 Because when we swore in to be part of this council,
10:42:35 the first thing we swore is to up hold the law of the
10:42:39 United States.
10:42:40 And so we never want to knowingly adopt an
10:42:43 unconstitutional ordinance.
10:42:44 That is not to say that we are not concerned about
10:42:46 We have to do everything we can to protect our
10:42:49 And, captain, that's what you and your people do day
10:42:53 in and day out.
10:42:54 And these crimes are disgusting and despicable.
10:42:58 But at the same time it's not this council's purview
10:43:00 to be adopting any ordinance that clearly has
10:43:03 unconstitutional ramifications.
10:43:05 I think we have a delicate balance.
10:43:08 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Smith is not going to present an
10:43:11 ordinance that he thinks is unconstitutional.
10:43:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But at this time map that concerns
10:43:15 me greatly.
10:43:19 >>> Let me jump in.
10:43:20 Way think we are presented with here is a choice.
10:43:22 The choice is between defining areas within our
10:43:28 current geography in which people will be allowed to
10:43:31 have -- that committed these offenses and probably
10:43:34 quite honestly shouldn't be living in our community.
10:43:38 And defining those pockets of the city in which they
10:43:41 can live.
10:43:43 And that's what this map shows a version of, which may
10:43:46 need to be refined.
10:43:49 That's the one option that we are presented with here
10:43:51 of shifting these people around within the city.
10:43:54 The other option, which quite honestly I'm not
10:43:59 terribly comfortable with, because as I said the last
10:44:01 time we talked about this, children in our community
10:44:03 are just as important regardless of what part of the
10:44:06 city they live in, whether it's Grant Park or New
10:44:09 Tampa or South Tampa, and quite honestly this map --
10:44:18 all over the place. The other option would be just an
10:44:21 ordinance that would ban them from living in our
10:44:23 Now, what I heard was not that that was
10:44:25 unconstitutional, but that it could only be applied
10:44:30 prospectively, can only be applied in the future,
10:44:33 cannot be applied to any of those individuals that
10:44:35 have presently been adjudicated and that are living
10:44:41 here now.
10:44:42 And quite honestly, I don't know if that's a real good
10:44:46 But if I was going to make that decision, I would
10:44:48 prefer the option where we simply say these people
10:44:52 don't live in our community anymore.
10:44:54 And that would be my personal preference.
10:44:58 But I will let Mr. Smith speak to that.
10:45:02 And maybe when he comes back he can address that more
10:45:05 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
10:45:07 I think you correctly characterize what I was
10:45:10 attempting to say with regard to banishment.
10:45:12 There is case law out there, and more recent that is
10:45:17 concerned that banishment per se may be
10:45:21 There is no direct precedent saying that.
10:45:23 That is a concern that's been articulated both in
10:45:28 DICTA and in discussions that when wode a court make a
10:45:32 holding, that if there were nowhere in the community
10:45:35 to live which we think in itself may be
10:45:39 That's DICTA.
10:45:41 But with that being said I think it's important to let
10:45:43 you know that seems to be the majority of movement in
10:45:45 that direction.
10:45:46 So, you know, do what you will with that.
10:45:50 But what I would like to also point out about this
10:45:52 map, this map does not include two other types of
10:45:56 areas the state law addresses, school bus stops, I
10:46:01 believe it does, and places where children congregate.
10:46:06 I need to tell you as your attorney the term "places
10:46:09 where children congregate," I understand the concept,
10:46:14 I've got three grandchildren, all under four.
10:46:16 But we need to be able to know what that means.
10:46:19 And I'm not sure that an offend worry know what that
10:46:25 Anyway, you know that.
10:46:27 And what we are going to recommend to you in your
10:46:29 ordinances, in the ordinance if you move forward, is
10:46:32 that we try to strike a balance on these types of
10:46:36 One of the last things I want want to make sure now
10:46:39 about is the last part of the due process challenge.
10:46:41 And this is what is the basis for the Doe versus
10:46:46 Schwarzenegger case in California.
10:46:47 That was challenged on some of these grounds
10:46:50 banishment, an injunction was issued, and the federal
10:46:53 court uses an injunction, with the view that you are
10:46:55 likely to prevail on the merits.
10:46:57 What that court also found, however, was that it is
10:47:01 not a due process because this individual in
10:47:03 particular had no opportunity to establish that he was
10:47:06 no longer a threat.
10:47:07 I think he happened to be an elderly gentleman.
10:47:10 I think he may have been on Hospice and legally blind.
10:47:13 Obviously, you need to have some basis by which people
10:47:17 are removed from the system.
10:47:19 Partly why we are recommending if you move in this
10:47:21 direction you should follow the state guidelines, is
10:47:23 the state has a process by which I think you can be
10:47:27 removed from the system.
10:47:29 I can't tell you how easy or difficult that is.
10:47:31 But at least they have a process.
10:47:33 And he would think that's going to be important in
10:47:35 order to allow this to work.
10:47:38 Now, when you start doing things like that, what does
10:47:41 that do with regard to the banishment issue?
10:47:43 It may be that when a judge looks at and balances all
10:47:47 the facts and circumstances, they may have a different
10:47:50 As you know, municipalities like counties are
10:47:57 generally given the benefit of the doubt when it comes
10:47:58 to our law making.
10:48:00 It's a problem more in the area of quasi-judicial
10:48:03 determinations which you hear from me a lot about.
10:48:05 But in the legislative area, it's a fairly debatable
10:48:09 And we are given a lot of room.
10:48:11 Of course if it's unconstitutional, it's
10:48:15 But they won't generally low for a basis to throw
10:48:18 ordinances out.
10:48:19 I see some questions.
10:48:20 I should stop.
10:48:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I think in the beginning you said we
10:48:28 should follow the state guidelines.
10:48:30 >>> In terms of the definition of who is regulated,
10:48:33 yes, ma'am.
10:48:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And the area that we are talking about
10:48:37 that the state has, the 1,000 feet?
10:48:40 >>> Yes, ma'am.
10:48:42 >> Now the banishment that we are talking about, if
10:48:46 it's talking about banishment and we are saying that
10:48:48 you can't live -- say the 2500.
10:48:53 Telling them that you can't live in where closer to
10:48:56 the 2500, we don't want you in our community, isn't
10:48:59 that part of the penal process that the courts are
10:49:03 saying we shouldn't do?
10:49:06 >>> It makes it much more difficult to defend the
10:49:09 ordinance if we have found to have banished people
10:49:12 from the community.
10:49:13 And these all I was trying to indicate.
10:49:16 Let me make sure we are Clare on the facts.
10:49:18 Because as councilman Harrison mentioned, as all of
10:49:22 you realize, it's often the definition of the facts.
10:49:25 If some people have an opinion from some agency they
10:49:29 may not have an opinion from that agency.
10:49:31 This definition or this map, we need to get empirical
10:49:35 We need to get accurate mapping, need to know exactly
10:49:39 what was mapped from and to and see what the impact
10:49:41 This was done by the county sheriff's office.
10:49:43 I'm not suggesting they are not competent.
10:49:45 I'm sure they are.
10:49:46 But we want to make sure we know the methodology that
10:49:48 was employed.
10:49:49 For example, what definition of parks did they use for
10:49:52 city parks?
10:49:52 As I just explained to you, we have meetings and other
10:49:55 things that are city parks, did they use that
10:49:58 If we use a different definition of park, maybe when
10:50:02 don't have a complete exclusion from our community.
10:50:04 So that's an empirical question we need to get
10:50:07 answered for you between now and when we go to first
10:50:10 reading if that's the direction of this council.
10:50:12 The issue about banishment, if you're thinking about
10:50:15 passing an ordinance, and say we are simply going to
10:50:18 banish people from our community, with these offenses,
10:50:21 at a point forward, I would like to do a little more
10:50:23 research on that.
10:50:25 I raise it to you as a caveat because it concerns me
10:50:28 because of so many things we read, and Julie has red
10:50:32 more than I have.
10:50:32 So if that's a serious trend or direction from this
10:50:36 council, I would like to come back with a more define
10:50:39 tiff research.
10:50:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Have they lost the sexual predator or
10:50:45 sexual offender lost their civil rights, can they go
10:50:50 out and vote, do anything like that?
10:50:52 Or are they just -- not a person anymore?
10:50:57 >>> You are getting into an area that I am not fa that
10:51:00 familiar with but it's my understanding unless you
10:51:02 have your rights restored you cannot vote.
10:51:05 >> Voting requirement issues.
10:51:07 >>> If it's a felony, they would have a felony to be
10:51:12 in this category, then yes.
10:51:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm very interested in numbers of
10:51:16 people that would be affected by this.
10:51:18 I don't have a good sense.
10:51:20 And this is the information I would like to you bring
10:51:22 back to us in future conversations.
10:51:25 How many sexual predators and offenders currently
10:51:27 reside in the city?
10:51:28 How many reside in the county?
10:51:30 And what the annual increase in that number is.
10:51:35 I believe I'm hearing from you that we are talking
10:51:37 about future offenders because we can't make this
10:51:41 laureate row active.
10:51:43 The other conversation I had yesterday when I was
10:51:46 briefed with the officer, which was very, very
10:51:48 helpful, was that because this wouldn't be retroactive
10:51:52 and because it's very difficult for people who have
10:51:56 been convicted of this to find housing, that if they
10:51:59 found a place to live, chances are they are going to
10:52:01 live there good long time.
10:52:03 Because what I'm interested in, of course, is being
10:52:06 And if this will not address the people who are
10:52:11 currently housed in the city, I want to know, how many
10:52:15 future people this will address.
10:52:18 What I'm most interested in is protecting our
10:52:21 children, as are all my colleagues.
10:52:24 But I would really appreciate a sense, particularly
10:52:28 from the police officers, of whether this is the most
10:52:33 effective way to protect our children.
10:52:35 If this results in people going underground, not
10:52:40 telling us where they live, but going below the radar
10:52:42 screen and off the charts, then that might be less
10:52:46 productive in terms of protecting our children than
10:52:49 knowing where these people are and having them stay
10:52:51 right there for the next 50 years.
10:52:54 So that's the kind of information that's important to
10:52:56 me in making this decision.
10:52:59 >>> I'm glad you raised that point.
10:53:00 We did provide as part of your background material
10:53:03 some studies, some of which indicate that increased
10:53:05 enforcement measures have in some areas driven people
10:53:15 There's a lot of things, in the methodology a lot of
10:53:19 factors but there is at least that data out there,
10:53:22 whether it's anecdotal, I don't know.
10:53:25 >> Of a you speak, I would like to hear back from the
10:53:27 police on that point.
10:53:28 >>DAVID SMITH: Okay.
10:53:30 And I know you do have people from the public who
10:53:32 would like to be heard.
10:53:33 It's up to you at a workshop whether you hear from
10:53:35 them but I do know there's some interested persons who
10:53:37 have shared their views with us and probably with some
10:53:40 of you, maybe councilman Harrison, because they are in
10:53:43 your district, their concerns about this issue.
10:53:49 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: I want to thank you for the hard
10:53:50 work that you and your staff have done.
10:53:52 It's excellent work that has been done that I have
10:53:54 seen so far.
10:53:55 And I want to thank you for that.
10:53:57 I did want to mention a part of the draft ordinance.
10:54:00 I think it's in the draft ordinance, that I really do
10:54:03 like, that regardless of what we do on this boundary
10:54:06 issue, I think we should really look at.
10:54:11 And that is the requirement that land owners and
10:54:17 property owners do a check on the individuals that
10:54:18 they are renting to.
10:54:20 That, I think, will provide us with a whole lot more
10:54:24 people out there with eyes and ears looking out for
10:54:27 our kids and making sure that when they are leasing or
10:54:31 getting a roommate or doing whatever else that the
10:54:34 property owners do when they are bringing people into
10:54:39 their properties, that they are looking at as well,
10:54:41 and making that a violation of code enforcement can
10:54:43 take action on, I think, will give us an additional
10:54:48 tool in trying to keep track of these people.
10:54:51 And I think regardless of where the rest of this
10:54:53 discussion goes, I would encourage that we do move
10:54:56 forward on that part.
10:55:01 >>GWEN MILLER: We are also concerned about the safety
10:55:03 of our children.
10:55:04 You have put a lot of work into this.
10:55:06 But I would like for you to continue to put some more
10:55:08 work into it.
10:55:10 We want everything enforced.
10:55:13 We don't want something on the just there.
10:55:16 I want to make sure you do something that we can
10:55:18 enforce that we make sure that everything is done
10:55:21 correctly and that way when don't have this problem of
10:55:23 where they are, are they under the ground or wherever
10:55:26 they are, I know you are going to bring us something
10:55:28 back that we can deal with and that we can afford.
10:55:31 >>DAVID SMITH: I would like to point out to council
10:55:35 the second page of what I gave you, because we think
10:55:37 this is one of the most critical aspects of anything
10:55:39 you do, and that is the exceptions.
10:55:42 We have a question when we come back to that.
10:55:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I love Mr. Fletcher's idea, because
10:55:51 just the idea of having, you know, a thousand
10:55:54 landlords out there across the city.
10:55:56 We could notify those landlords and say, you are
10:55:59 within a restricted area, and therefore under our
10:56:01 ordinance you are not allowed to lease to these types
10:56:05 of sexual predators and offenders, it's now your
10:56:09 obligation to look on the blah-blah-blah web site,
10:56:12 now, and make sure that person is not on there, and if
10:56:18 he is, and we catch you, there will be code
10:56:22 I think it's just an excellent idea.
10:56:26 >>> One of the things that we can confirm for you,
10:56:29 from TPD, and that is probably most of the people we
10:56:32 are talking about are renters as opposed to owners.
10:56:36 So that is why that's a very effective way to address
10:56:39 the issue.
10:56:40 If I could draw your attention briefly -- and I know
10:56:42 this has taken a lot of your time.
10:56:44 We have some other that is may want to say something.
10:56:47 If you look at the Gainesville residency restrictions
10:56:49 exceptions, these are the areas that I think can make
10:56:52 or break an ordinance, if we are going with a
10:56:56 regulatory scheme as opposed to banishment.
10:56:58 And that is these exceptions.
10:57:00 Sexual offender, predator, established, continuous
10:57:03 permanent residence prior to the date of the
10:57:06 ordinance, meaning their grandfathered in.
10:57:09 We think that needs to be an exception to to avoid
10:57:15 losing on a challenge.
10:57:16 The school or daycare center wasn't licensed -- it was
10:57:21 licensed after the fact.
10:57:22 Again they don't have to move because a daycare center
10:57:24 moves to their neighborhood.
10:57:25 Again that's part of the grandfathering in.
10:57:27 Third is the offender was a minor.
10:57:30 And that means basically at the time of the offense
10:57:33 the person is a minor.
10:57:35 Now, it has not been convicted of another offense as
10:57:39 an adult.
10:57:40 Some people like that.
10:57:41 Some people say, well, you're talking about a
10:57:44 17-year-old and a 15-year-old.
10:57:46 But that's one thing.
10:57:47 But a 17-year-old and 6 year old is something entirely
10:57:50 So we can look at that issue.
10:57:52 But he would think basically the idea of the first
10:57:54 offense being as a minor and nothing else happening as
10:57:57 an adult is an issue to be considered.
10:58:02 And the last thing is the sexual offender is currently
10:58:05 a minor, meaning they live with the parents in most
10:58:10 And to force the whole family to move, because one of
10:58:14 the minors in that family is an offender is not
10:58:18 something Gainesville enforced at least.
10:58:22 So I know you have a lot of information.
10:58:25 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Going back to the habitual offender
10:58:28 being a minor, do they go to a different school or
10:58:30 something like that?
10:58:32 Because they are not supposed to be within so many
10:58:38 >>DAVID SMITH: That's a good question because if you
10:58:39 are a minor you are typically still going to school.
10:58:42 >> Exactly.
10:58:43 >>> And I don't think we can deprive them of a right
10:58:45 to an education.
10:58:46 Do you?
10:58:49 So the state law has the same exception.
10:58:52 State law doesn't apply to minors either.
10:58:54 >> It doesn't apply to minors?
10:58:55 >>> No, ma'am.
10:58:56 In terms of the exclusion.
10:58:57 The residency exclusion.
10:59:00 >> So they can go to school --
10:59:02 >>> Yes, ma'am.
10:59:04 >> But can't live near the school.
10:59:06 [ Laughter ]
10:59:07 >>> They can live in -- they can go to school.
10:59:09 That doesn't mean there aren't some other terms of
10:59:11 probation or court-ordered approaches to it.
10:59:15 But I'm sure if a person is a minor, and a threat to
10:59:18 the community, there's going to be some restriction
10:59:21 honest that person.
10:59:21 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You would think so.
10:59:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else?
10:59:26 >>SHAWN HARRISON: David, I agree with all of the
10:59:31 I think that they make sense.
10:59:37 Do we have an actual draft ordinance that you all can
10:59:40 present to us so we can at least start looking on
10:59:42 paper, black and white, as to where we have a starting
10:59:47 >>> Yes, sir, we do. The ordinance was provided in
10:59:49 your initial thick packet was the modifications we
10:59:53 made to the Gainesville ordinance.
10:59:55 Not an excessive amount of modifications.
10:59:59 Ms. GARIS made another set of recommendations based on
11:00:02 my conversation was her and provided a copy yesterday.
11:00:05 I realize, you know, this isn't a hearing, it's a
11:00:09 workshop, so you haven't had much chance to digest
11:00:13 And I'm not exactly slur where we are.
11:00:15 I would like to get a sense of council to see where we
11:00:18 want to go from here.
11:00:19 But we do have an ordinance.
11:00:21 I don't know if you have all the information you need
11:00:23 for to us walk you through it.
11:00:24 We would do that if you would like.
11:00:26 Or if you want some of the information back that you
11:00:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have another quick question of
11:00:34 staff, if I could, Mr. Fletcher.
11:00:36 I'm sorry.
11:00:37 Captain, when you and I spoke -- and I can't remember,
11:00:40 there was so much in front of us.
11:00:42 But when you and I spoke, we spoke about administering
11:00:47 any type of additional program.
11:00:48 And I don't know what your current spin program costs
11:00:51 to administer.
11:00:54 I'm sure it's a sizable cost now which is well worth
11:00:58 But has there been any estimate in terms of what
11:01:02 additional manpower or staff, sworn or unsworn, would
11:01:05 be required to administer any type of new program?
11:01:09 >>> I think a lot would be how far the city ordinance
11:01:11 is required to go and what it would entail.
11:01:14 Obviously if it entails physically going out and
11:01:16 measuring locations and things of that nature, if we
11:01:19 have approximately 40 to 100 shifts a month, that
11:01:22 would be a lot of man hours to do something like that,
11:01:29 or work hours, something like that.
11:01:31 So it just depends on what you ask, if you try to
11:01:34 draft something, we will need additional work hours
11:01:36 and personnel, and probably code enforcement will need
11:01:39 that, too, and the whole staffing in order to comply
11:01:43 with everything.
11:01:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would suggest that when we come
11:01:46 back, just like any ordinance we would pass, that we
11:01:50 look at the fiscal impact as well as we are looking at
11:01:54 the legal impact and any other administrative impact
11:01:57 that you might see.
11:01:59 >>> If they have to confer with D.O.T. to know what
11:02:02 their part would be in that and how we would react to
11:02:08 >> I had asked a question earlier about the people
11:02:10 staying in place --
11:02:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Or going underground, yeah.
11:02:16 >> Can you speak to that point?
11:02:18 >>> I don't have expertise on that.
11:02:20 It would probably be in the best interest of somebody
11:02:22 who has a lot of expertise.
11:02:24 I know that I feel --
11:02:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: When we discuss this again, I think
11:02:36 that information is really important.
11:02:38 And if you can suggest, could be able to speak to
11:02:41 that, that would be helpful.
11:02:44 And do you work directly with any psychiatrists or
11:02:52 health care officials who can talk about the
11:02:54 prevalence of sexual offenders and predators in our
11:02:57 community, how widespread, whether they are up or
11:03:04 >>> I'm sorry, I don't.
11:03:05 >> I have a feeling it's more than what they used to
11:03:07 be but perhaps because we have better reporting,
11:03:11 people coming forward and saying Is was victimized, I
11:03:13 was molested and now they are coming forward, I don't
11:03:16 know what the numbers are but I think that would be
11:03:18 extremely helpful.
11:03:19 I don't know if the health department is the
11:03:21 appropriate source or perhaps the University of South
11:03:22 Florida school of public health but I want to get a
11:03:28 sense of that and whether health care professionals,
11:03:31 they think this would be helpful to us in terms of
11:03:33 protecting our children.
11:03:36 >>> I'll work with the office and see if we can find
11:03:39 the right person to come forward.
11:03:41 >>SHAWN HARRISON: TPD does a great job.
11:03:44 And you are going to continue to do a great job
11:03:46 because this council will give you the resources you
11:03:49 I think what you heard from oh two of my colleagues is
11:03:52 we don't believe in unfunded mandates, and if we are
11:03:54 going to pass something that is going to require a bit
11:03:57 more work on your part, I think you can rest assured
11:04:00 that we will be there on the financial end as well to
11:04:04 make it easier.
11:04:05 So don't worry about that.
11:04:07 I don't think that you all ought to be going out and
11:04:11 measuring at this point.
11:04:11 I really don't.
11:04:12 I think if you are coming in and you are registering,
11:04:16 you say, here's where I want to live, and you all take
11:04:19 a look at this map and you say, okay, can't live
11:04:21 there, or, all right, we are pretty close, we are
11:04:24 going to take a look at it, and by the way, that's
11:04:27 going to cost X amount of dollars for to us send
11:04:29 people out to do that, and that's part of your
11:04:32 registration requirements.
11:04:34 >>> We would have to have an additional notification
11:04:37 letter they would have to sign in order to have
11:04:39 knowledge and approved knowledge where they could live
11:04:43 and where they couldn't.
11:04:49 >>FRANK REDDICK: Do you have a listing or some idea
11:04:51 where most of the offenders are lifting within the
11:04:55 Is there one area more populated than others?
11:04:59 >>> They are spread out throughout the entire city.
11:05:01 >> But is their percentage higher than, say, in
11:05:03 south --
11:05:04 >>> If you are looking at my stats, these are divided
11:05:06 within sections of each one of our districts and they
11:05:08 are all about equal, if you look at district 1, which
11:05:11 is going to be South Tampa area to Tampa Bay stadium,
11:05:14 they are going to have a stack like this, a stack like
11:05:16 It's pretty much spaced out.
11:05:20 >>FRANK REDDICK: When I look at your map and I saw --
11:05:28 when I look further north of that, just a few blocks
11:05:32 away, you have a major playground, and you have almost
11:05:37 three schools next to Williams park.
11:05:40 And there has been talk pertaining to this issue and I
11:05:48 notice it was not included.
11:05:49 So I'm just wondering if there were certain areas.
11:05:55 >>> Did you want to see the current boundaries that we
11:05:58 have and where they reside?
11:06:00 >> No.
11:06:01 I just wanted to ask that question.
11:06:02 >>> They are spread out.
11:06:09 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Smith, the ordinance that you
11:06:10 presented us this morning, I believe that you left out
11:06:14 the school bus stop.
11:06:17 >>> I believe they are not included as areas of
11:06:20 And I think partly our recommendation in that regard
11:06:23 is that -- and I understand why people would want to
11:06:26 have them included -- but the problem again is
11:06:29 definiteness, changeability.
11:06:32 My children are not close to school age any longer,
11:06:36 but I understand school bus stops also change over
11:06:39 But the state law does talk about school bus stops
11:06:42 with respect to -- I don't think it does with regard
11:06:49 to specified offenders.
11:06:50 And that's your decision, not mine.
11:06:52 >> Why not put it in there, when bus stops change?
11:07:02 >>> We can do it if that's what council wants to do.
11:07:04 You can see the problem.
11:07:05 We have moving target.
11:07:06 We can't map it until we know what areas of exclusion.
11:07:09 And then you are having trouble finding out what areas
11:07:12 of exclusion because you don't want the map to be a
11:07:14 banishment unless you want to literally banish.
11:07:16 That's why this is a very difficult issue.
11:07:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: But I think if we put in the there --
11:07:23 it seems to me like everything I read in the newspaper
11:07:25 these days, it's happened at the school bus stop.
11:07:29 You know, where the predators are coming over and
11:07:31 kidnapping these children.
11:07:33 So we need to do something about that.
11:07:35 And I think by putting it in, so what if it changes?
11:07:38 At left we know if this happened around the school bus
11:07:41 stop, then there's a way to arrest the person.
11:07:48 >> What I would request that we do is in a very linear
11:07:52 way, this council make decisions in a couple of areas.
11:07:55 If you are moving forward with this ordinance, first,
11:07:59 by motion and vote of at least four of you, so I have
11:08:02 the direction of council as opposed to information --
11:08:06 determine those who are affected by the regulation.
11:08:08 So if you agree with our recommendation that it should
11:08:10 be those who the state wants to regulate, that answers
11:08:13 one of our critical variables.
11:08:15 The second thing I would need to you do is then
11:08:18 determine what areas of exclusion.
11:08:21 If you are going to go the total banishment route, we
11:08:24 don't need to go through all of that.
11:08:26 >> Actually, let me ask the question.
11:08:28 You have in your document here a number 2 at the very
11:08:31 end that talks about tier 3 levels, sexual
11:08:37 Is that the category you're referring to?
11:08:38 Or is that a different category?
11:08:42 Council should also a consider applying the residency
11:08:45 restriction to only tier 3 level sexual
11:08:47 offender/predators as to defend against the procedural
11:08:50 due process challenge.
11:08:55 >>> Julie: Legal department.
11:08:58 That's the Adam Welch for children, which requires
11:09:05 states to classify sexual offenders into three tiers,
11:09:11 the third tier being the most dangerous.
11:09:14 It's just a way of classification that you can
11:09:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a few concerns with what we
11:09:32 have heard today.
11:09:35 I think we need information back, before we direct you
11:09:38 to go with some part of the ordinance, or another part
11:09:40 of the ordinance, whatever, I think we need
11:09:42 information back on what happened in Tallahassee last
11:09:45 year in terms of that committee, and what their
11:09:48 conclusions around the 2500-foot rule, because I think
11:09:53 that's relevant to what we are doing.
11:09:55 I also think it's relevant to specifically know what
11:09:58 those same folks in Tallahassee are planning on doing
11:10:00 if anything this coming year.
11:10:02 You know, in Tallahassee, things just don't go away.
11:10:05 If they die last year, there's a good chance they are
11:10:07 coming back this year.
11:10:08 So I don't know that we need to reinvent locally if
11:10:13 Tallahassee is going to be taking charge of this and
11:10:16 preempting this, thumb one.
11:10:17 Number two, I think there was direction from council
11:10:19 to investigate the other jurisdictions within this
11:10:22 county, including Hillsborough County.
11:10:24 I think I was informed yesterday that there had been
11:10:27 discussions with Temple Terrace, and might go along
11:10:32 with whatever we do.
11:10:34 But Hillsborough County, which I think is a very big
11:10:37 factor in this, I heard a lot of discussion about, you
11:10:40 know, if we have any type of even near banishment from
11:10:46 here, that the folks would end up out in the county.
11:10:49 And I think we can't operate in a vacuum.
11:10:51 We have to operate in conjunction with our brethren in
11:10:55 Hillsborough County.
11:10:55 Because this is not just a City of Tampa issue.
11:11:00 It's Hillsborough County sheriff's office.
11:11:01 We need to work with sheriff gee and department of
11:11:05 corrections and TPD on this issue sort of on a
11:11:08 regional basis.
11:11:09 So I have said a lot in regard today, but do we know
11:11:13 what the county is doing, if they are doing anything
11:11:15 on this?
11:11:16 What their response is to us?
11:11:19 And if when don't, I think that's part of the
11:11:22 information that he would need back before we know if
11:11:24 we are going to move forward.
11:11:26 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
11:11:27 We did file council -- follow council's direction and
11:11:31 commence dialogue with the various jurisdictions.
11:11:33 There's been more dialogue with Hillsborough County
11:11:35 because potential of impact is more significant.
11:11:38 It's my understanding, and Julie and Rebecca were
11:11:42 participants, so correct me if I am wrong -- it's my
11:11:45 understanding the county is a little further back in
11:11:47 the process.
11:11:48 We are still working on the mapping.
11:11:49 They are trying to figure out what the impact would be
11:11:52 based upon the distance of exclusion that they use.
11:11:59 Julie, is that about right?
11:12:03 >>> The only thing that I am aware of that the county
11:12:05 is doing differently in their mapping, they are
11:12:08 mapping school bus stops.
11:12:10 And they sent me a map yesterday.
11:12:13 And I can provide that to you.
11:12:18 Within the city.
11:12:23 >> If an administrator has a serious issue, having
11:12:25 discussion busy the same ordinance, do they have a
11:12:31 >>> I'm not sure what their schedule is.
11:12:33 But they have been speaking with the county
11:12:36 commission, and one of their attorneys.
11:12:47 >>> We thought Ms. McDonough would be here from the
11:12:52 county attorney's office.
11:12:53 We can get that information as well.
11:12:56 We'll either have a representative or get complete
11:12:59 chapter and verse on that.
11:13:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move to waive the
11:13:03 rules to allow the public to speak on this issue at
11:13:06 this time.
11:13:07 They have been sitting here and came down.
11:13:10 >> Second.
11:13:10 (Motion carried).
11:13:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:13:13 wants to speak on item number 8?
11:13:25 >> My name is Lynn Sherman, a resident of new Tampa,
11:13:28 and I would like to first start by thanking the
11:13:30 council and especially councilman Harrison, who
11:13:33 listened to us when we first called, and of course the
11:13:36 city attorney's office who has really been doing a lot
11:13:38 of work.
11:13:39 I would like to take a minute to give you kind of a
11:13:42 brief history as to why Heather and I are here, what
11:13:46 happened in our neighborhood that brought this to our
11:13:48 attention, and to everyone else's attention.
11:13:53 We had an offender move into our neighborhood that we
11:13:55 were not notified of because he was no longer on
11:13:59 He moved from a different state.
11:14:01 It was strictly just word of mouth.
11:14:05 Type in the zip code and he came up and we found out
11:14:08 he was living in our neighborhood.
11:14:09 Not only in our neighborhood, but directly across the
11:14:12 street from our park in what's in 500 feet to 1,000
11:14:18 yards from two schools, elementary school and middle
11:14:23 And had this gentleman still been living in the state
11:14:27 of Alabama, although he's no longer on probation, he
11:14:30 still was under a lifetime restriction of where he
11:14:33 could live in terms of proximity from schools and
11:14:38 So we started making phone calls to councilman
11:14:44 Harrison, to Congresspeople and just trying to get
11:14:48 ourselves educated and get everybody else educated in
11:14:51 trying to protect our children.
11:14:52 Our neighborhood, which is in New Tampa, this had
11:14:56 nothing to do with because he lived in New Tampa, and
11:15:00 this had to do with protecting our children.
11:15:04 Our neighborhood pretty much shut down.
11:15:05 And Heather can address it a little more because she
11:15:07 actually lives right where the park is.
11:15:09 But no one going outside and people in the community
11:15:14 center, and out in the community center was empty.
11:15:19 It really affected us.
11:15:20 As a matter of fact, I received a phone call the other
11:15:22 day from a realtor, from someone who they had an
11:15:27 appliance who wanted to put an offer on the house and
11:15:30 they wanted to make sure this person was no longer
11:15:33 living there, and kind of get a status.
11:15:36 So this really does affect a lot of people.
11:15:40 And we appreciate the time you all have taken.
11:15:42 And the city attorney's office interaction in this and
11:15:47 moving forward to protecting our children.
11:15:52 >>> Heatherralred, resident of New Tampa.
11:15:57 Dy have the unfortunate experience of living down the
11:15:59 street, and I couldn't go to the playground anymore
11:16:02 with my children.
11:16:03 Fortunately he lived for two months because he was a
11:16:05 renter living with his mother, even though he was 22,
11:16:08 he had nowhere else to live and therefore was not on
11:16:10 the leave lease so that's another landlord issue that
11:16:13 I hope you can address. The other thing that I
11:16:15 thought of that could help us as a city and as a
11:16:17 county, if we have some kind of thing to address the
11:16:20 current register off fenders and predators that would
11:16:23 be listed under these regulations, and if they choose
11:16:27 to move into the city from other areas, other states,
11:16:30 and other counties, or move into the county or move
11:16:33 within the county after this ordinance gets passed,
11:16:37 that they therefore here on out have to follow. That
11:16:41 so even though they may be living within a thousand
11:16:43 feet now, if they choose to move to where he just
11:16:45 lived, he left our neighborhood, by the schools and
11:16:48 park and Lowry Park Zoo with, sy just as bad.
11:16:52 So we want to see if there's a way to control that.
11:16:59 >>> I just want to add, while we are talking about
11:17:03 this, how important it would be, like on tier 3.
11:17:10 This person was considered a sex offender because he
11:17:14 was 17 years old when he committed the crime,
11:17:17 convicted of first degree rape of a five-year-old
11:17:21 So when we are looking at it, I think it's important,
11:17:25 that something needs to be done.
11:17:29 As you go back and you sort of think about this and
11:17:32 you have your deliberations, please just kind of keep
11:17:35 in mind some of the different circumstances that we
11:17:37 may be dealing with.
11:17:39 And I understand that we need to be fair to everybody.
11:17:46 Even offenders have rights.
11:17:47 As hard as it is for a lot of us to kind of admit to
11:17:52 But just remember what the bottom line is.
11:17:54 Thank you.
11:17:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:17:58 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Ladies, thank you for bringing this
11:18:01 And it's taken a lot of time.
11:18:03 And it's been uncomfortable.
11:18:05 And we have been back and forth with different
11:18:08 But I think that we are on the right track in moving
11:18:12 down this process.
11:18:13 And Madam Chair, I will say for these two young
11:18:17 ladies, I first became aware of this not because they
11:18:19 contacted me as a councilman but because my wife was
11:18:23 on the e-mail list, and this just circulated around
11:18:26 through the neighborhood.
11:18:27 So what these folks are doing out here is protecting
11:18:32 They are looking out for one another.
11:18:33 And it happened in New Tampa, South Tampa, east, west,
11:18:37 doesn't matter where you are.
11:18:38 When you have parents that are actively engaged, and
11:18:42 they are notifying all of their neighbors about these
11:18:44 issues, it comes to our attention as well.
11:18:49 But what we are here today to do is to make it easier
11:18:54 for you all to keep your neighborhood safe, too.
11:18:56 We need to be here in partnership with you.
11:18:58 So thank you for bringing -- my wife into this, and
11:19:02 then ultimately me.
11:19:10 If I could respond to what councilman Dingfelder
11:19:14 suggested about the Senate.
11:19:15 John, I know we want our background to find out why
11:19:18 this thing died, and we don't know what that will be.
11:19:21 But I don't think that that should delay us by one
11:19:24 minute on moving forward with what we are going to do.
11:19:27 Tallahassee may come in this session and they may do
11:19:29 something that's even stronger than what we are going
11:19:31 to do.
11:19:32 But he think that we are on the right track and we
11:19:34 ought to continue and not to delay it, but try to
11:19:38 figure out why it got cut off in committee in
11:19:45 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Actually, I was going to ask the
11:19:54 guests some questions but I'll pass.
11:19:57 >> you brought this to our attention, obviously a very
11:20:23 important issue.
11:20:23 What concerns me is the way you describe you-all's
11:20:29 That shouldn't have happened either under the existing
11:20:31 state law.
11:20:32 But that is what is most troubling to me.
11:20:36 >> October 1st, 2004.
11:20:37 And that is why I like the idea of moving within the
11:20:41 area after the date of the ordinance, that they then
11:20:46 have to abide by it.
11:20:48 He can go anywhere he wants and all the current
11:20:50 offenders and predators that aren't under supervision
11:20:52 or probation go anywhere they want.
11:20:54 And he was loitering at a bus stop, at our community
11:20:58 You name it, he was there.
11:21:07 >> I know she said rights.
11:21:15 It amazes me that he's able to do that.
11:21:18 So thank you for bringing that to our attention and
11:21:22 I'm sure we are going to continue to work on this and
11:21:24 bring this to resolution and try to find a way to make
11:21:28 sure that doesn't happen in the future.
11:21:30 Thank you.
11:21:34 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I just wanted to make a comment that
11:21:36 being the victim of a hit and run, sex offender, we
11:21:40 were able to convict this person, and he is now
11:21:44 serving five years in jail.
11:21:46 This happened just a few months ago.
11:21:48 So we got him.
11:21:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Keep up the good work.
11:21:54 You all did a great job.
11:21:57 Mr. Smith, do you want some direction?
11:21:59 Let's give Mr. Smith some direction.
11:22:03 >> I suspect you have seven opinions.
11:22:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Since you mentioned my name, if I
11:22:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Alvarez had her hand up first.
11:22:17 >> I think it's important to clarify.
11:22:19 Mr. Harrison, my suggestion is not about delaying or
11:22:22 trying to delay this for purposes of delay.
11:22:24 What I said was, I said I think we not only need to
11:22:30 find out what the Senate did last year but what they
11:22:32 are doing this year and also I'm very concerned about
11:22:34 what the county's position is on that.
11:22:37 And I think this council unanimously has made that as
11:22:43 part of its motion awhile back.
11:22:44 And you guys -- I'm not saying you didn't follow up on
11:22:47 that, David, but I think if that discussion is still
11:22:49 going on in the county, then we need to continue to
11:22:52 have that dialogue with the county.
11:22:55 Hopefully, the idea was that we could all do something
11:22:58 in tandem.
11:22:59 Because I think it would be really tough on law
11:23:01 enforcement to have -- and I'm seeing captain shake
11:23:07 her head and agreeing with me -- -- L we have one type
11:23:11 of law in the city, one in the county, and what's that
11:23:14 going to do with jurisdiction over both areas,
11:23:16 et cetera, et cetera.
11:23:17 So that was part of it.
11:23:18 The other part of my concern that we need additional
11:23:20 information, the administrative costs of this.
11:23:22 I don't think -- it's not prudent for this council to
11:23:27 run into any ordinance without knowing what the fiscal
11:23:31 impact is.
11:23:31 I don't know what it is.
11:23:32 Is it ten dollars or a million dollars?
11:23:35 But I don't know the answer to that.
11:23:36 And I think that it's important that we know the
11:23:39 answers to all those questions.
11:23:44 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Just one thing.
11:23:47 I do feel that we need to include the school bus stops
11:23:51 in this ordinance.
11:23:51 I would like to make that motion.
11:23:53 >> Second.
11:23:56 >>GWEN MILLER: What else?
11:23:58 Mr. Harrison?
11:24:00 >>SHAWN HARRISON: First thing, David asked us to
11:24:04 My recommendation would be we follow state
11:24:07 recommendations for offender or creditor, or this
11:24:10 ordinance applies to those who are defined by state
11:24:12 law within the thousand foot rule.
11:24:16 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
11:24:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Any others?
11:24:20 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Then we have the bus stop.
11:24:22 Motion and second on those, too.
11:24:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: This isn't part of the legislation but
11:24:29 when we discuss it again I would like to discuss with
11:24:33 experts on numbers, how many people.
11:24:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison, one more.
11:24:47 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have to figure out the distaps.
11:24:49 1 that you, 2500, or somewhere in between?
11:24:52 I am going to make a motion it's 2500 right now so we
11:24:54 have a starting point.
11:24:55 All right?
11:25:00 >> I'm going to offer a friendly amendment to that.
11:25:02 And it truly is.
11:25:05 Because as Mr. Fletcher pointed out, I think, and
11:25:09 maybe I'm wrong on this, in looking at the map that's
11:25:12 on our overhead, if we have 2500 feet, and these areas
11:25:19 that are vulnerable and we are pushing this issue to
11:25:23 about ten small geographic areas around the city, and
11:25:28 we are saying those are the acceptable areas, we want
11:25:30 future sexual predators to live, and I think that is
11:25:35 not fair to the property owners and the people who
11:25:38 live in those areas.
11:25:39 I don't know who they are.
11:25:40 I don't know exactly where they are.
11:25:42 But I can see them on the map here.
11:25:44 So I think that the best way to go would be 3,000 or
11:25:50 3500 feet.
11:25:51 Because at left that way we are not going to be
11:25:53 jeopardizing one particular part of the city to
11:25:56 benefit another part of the city.
11:26:01 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I wasn't ready for that one.
11:26:03 [ Laughter ]
11:26:07 What we going to suggest is we start at 2500 and
11:26:11 include the more expansive definition of parks and bus
11:26:13 stops, and then we get the map back to see.
11:26:17 Because I think what will happen is those yellow areas
11:26:21 will shrink significantly after that.
11:26:25 Those areas of New Tampa are mostly cows where all of
11:26:29 that yellow is.
11:26:37 But if you are within so many feet of a school, bus
11:26:40 stop or whatever, when those areas fill in those areas
11:26:43 will become off limits as well.
11:26:45 I was going to say 2500 feet to start, and we go up,
11:26:48 we go down from there, but that we include the
11:26:51 definitions of parks as per however the City of Tampa
11:26:56 defines parks under its comprehensive plan.
11:27:00 A half acre pocket park, a gated community somewhere,
11:27:04 versus Cotanchobee park, versus Bayshore linear park.
11:27:09 If it's a park right now, it's a park for the purposes
11:27:11 of this ordinance.
11:27:12 And at least that way then we can all look at the map
11:27:16 and say, all right, this is what we want to do.
11:27:21 >>FRANK REDDICK: We can go out different numbers, 25,
11:27:29 30, we can go all the way to Hillsborough County.
11:27:31 But I'm wondering if legally would it stand up in
11:27:38 court if its challenged, one.
11:27:40 And, two, I would like to recommend that we have Mr.
11:27:48 Smith come back with a recommendation that he feels
11:27:51 that it would be legally binding, and that we would
11:27:54 have a chance to implement.
11:28:00 I think if we are will go at 2500, we want to extend
11:28:03 it farther than that, I just don't feel comfortable
11:28:08 taking undue burden on other citizens, just for public
11:28:17 relations, which is good.
11:28:22 There's still a problem.
11:28:23 Personally, I wouldn't have a problem putting them in
11:28:29 the back of a truck and take them somewhere and dump
11:28:33 But the thing is, I know we can't do that.
11:28:35 It might be wise if we have the attorney review it and
11:28:36 recommend the distance law.
11:28:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Smith, didn't you say the state
11:28:52 recommended or the state is 1,000 feet?
11:28:54 >>> The state law currently is 1,000 feet, yes, ma'am.
11:28:57 By the way, just to clarify, it does not include bus
11:29:00 stops. The state does not. Unless it's a condition
11:29:03 of your release.
11:29:09 Just map, whatever you want us to map.
11:29:11 I just wanted to make sure I clarify that point.
11:29:14 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like bus stops included.
11:29:17 >>> You have about four motions pending.
11:29:20 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I just wanted to respond to Mr.
11:29:23 What's happening here is we are at a standoff.
11:29:26 Somebody has to make the first move.
11:29:27 Somebody has got to put an ordinance down on paper so
11:29:30 that the county can look at it, the city can look at
11:29:32 it, TPD, Department of Corrections, so that
11:29:36 everyone -- so that we can start getting this into a
11:29:40 public hearing and we can take this evidence and we
11:29:42 can make a decision on what he would want to do.
11:29:44 If we just throw this back to David Smith's office and
11:29:48 say, you know, what do you recommend, I think what
11:29:51 David is saying is, you're the policy makers, you make
11:29:55 a recommendation, we'll map it out for you, then we'll
11:29:58 bring it back with our concerns.
11:29:59 But until we get to that point it's all just talk.
11:30:02 And we have been talking for two months on it.
11:30:07 We have got to get something in place on paper so we
11:30:12 can vote up or down at some point.
11:30:14 >> What I would like to suggest is when a person comes
11:30:18 in, from another state, he's not grandfathered in.
11:30:20 We want him to follow the same rules everybody else
11:30:22 >> I heard the testimony from the young ladies, which,
11:30:25 by the way, is where my daughter lives with two of my
11:30:28 >> No grandfathering in.
11:30:31 >> Also the issue about the minor and who the victim
11:30:31 is. That discrepancy in age.
11:30:46 17 and 16 is one thing. 17 and 6 is --
11:30:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: For the sake of Mr. Smith and for
11:30:52 counsil's decision-making process, I thought you could
11:30:54 do it as a general motion if you all came to
11:30:56 consensus, unanimous consent and vote on the motion.
11:30:58 Obviously there are discrepancies when you come to
11:31:01 certain issues.
11:31:01 So perhaps it would be best to take them individually,
11:31:05 and to discuss them individually, because there is not
11:31:08 a consensus with regard to some issues.
11:31:10 For the sake of clarity if you could do it step by
11:31:15 I thought that would be the case if there was
11:31:17 consensus, but I am hearing there is not.
11:31:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Smith will go back and check, make
11:31:23 a motion.
11:31:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I think it's going to require a
11:31:26 decision of a majority of four for each of the issues
11:31:28 in order for Mr. Smith to get direction from council.
11:31:30 >>GWEN MILLER: All right, Mr. Smith, you have to read
11:31:32 them back to me.
11:31:35 We are going to vote on them one at a time.
11:31:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me, this is germain to the
11:31:40 whole conversation.
11:31:41 My concern is that if the state does something this
11:31:47 session, it will make our lives easier because then he
11:31:51 would don't have to do it locally, and furthermore
11:31:54 whatever they do will approve what we are doing.
11:31:56 So I would like to request we take like a 2-minute
11:31:59 breather, get our administration person, unless you
11:32:05 all know the answer, know if this is on the docket, is
11:32:09 this likely to pass, and if it is, then we can save
11:32:11 ourselves a lot of work.
11:32:13 So I would like someone here knows whether it is and
11:32:17 whether it's likely to pass.
11:32:19 >>DAVID SMITH: No, unfortunately we do not.
11:32:21 >> Could we just take a minute and get that
11:32:23 >>> We could, but part of what you are seeking, when
11:32:25 you said likely to pass --
11:32:27 >> Yeah.
11:32:28 >>> I don't know if we can get that answered no matter
11:32:30 But I understand the point.
11:32:31 The same point Mr. Dingfelder is making.
11:32:33 If they pass a law and they preempt, we have a lot of
11:32:37 anguish that they are going to say is irrelevant.
11:32:40 By the same token if they don't and we find ourselves
11:32:43 in March or April or May when the session is over, we
11:32:46 have lost five months or four months.
11:32:53 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: The deadline for this legislature
11:32:56 isn't for 45 days.
11:32:57 So we have got a lot that can happen between now and
11:33:01 the end of the legislative session.
11:33:03 And while I tend to agree it would be good to find out
11:33:08 what they have in mind, in Tallahassee, 50 days is an
11:33:12 extremely long time, and a lot can happen.
11:33:14 And I don't think we would really have a way of -- for
11:33:18 advocating whether or not something was going to pass.
11:33:21 But I would suggest that we talk to the right people
11:33:25 in the legislature to find out what they had in mind,
11:33:27 at least, before this comes back, so that we can
11:33:30 address it if possible.
11:33:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
11:33:34 Number 1.
11:33:35 >>DAVID SMITH: The first motion as I recall was to
11:33:38 follow the state regulation.
11:33:41 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.
11:33:43 (Motion carried)
11:33:45 Number 2.
11:33:45 >>DAVID SMITH: The second one was that in the mapping
11:33:49 of the exclusionaries, we should include school bus
11:33:54 >> So moved.
11:33:55 >> Second.
11:33:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ms. Alvarez's motion.
11:34:04 (Motion carried).
11:34:05 >>> The third one is we start with the 2500 feet as
11:34:08 the exclusionary.
11:34:13 >> Definition of parks.
11:34:15 >>> That's the fourth.
11:34:17 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Fletcher, did you want us to
11:34:19 vote on the definitions before we voted on the -- that
11:34:24 was my motion.
11:34:26 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.
11:34:27 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Could I offer hopefully a friendly
11:34:34 amendment on that?
11:34:35 Because I think this is connected.
11:34:37 I would like that when you come back -- I would like
11:34:39 an answer about the legal limitations prohibitions.
11:34:44 And while I'll support 2500 as opposed to start so we
11:34:49 get this step moving forward, I would really like to
11:34:52 know the answer to that.
11:34:53 Because as I said, I am just not comfortable with
11:35:00 moving people around and I feel these people just
11:35:05 shouldn't live in our community.
11:35:07 >>SHAWN HARRISON: The idea of a total ban from the
11:35:09 City of Tampa.
11:35:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question, question, question.
11:35:14 Which I think goes hand in hand with what I say.
11:35:16 I would like to see this as an additional option in
11:35:18 the draft, maybe in a draft ordinance, "B," that would
11:35:23 be a 3,000-foot or 3500-foot distance separation with
11:35:28 an associated map for to us look at.
11:35:34 Because I think effectively we are all saying the same
11:35:38 Mr. Fletcher says -- I think if Mr. Smith says that an
11:35:43 absolute prohibition on future offenders might be
11:35:45 legal, then why would we leave these yellow areas --
11:35:54 >> That was going to be my point.
11:35:56 If it's council's direction that we determine the
11:35:58 complete ban is legally enforceable, are there four
11:36:01 votes that want to completely ban people in the
11:36:05 defined category, within the city?
11:36:08 Because that makes the distance as the exception
11:36:13 relevant because that's related to who is covered.
11:36:15 If that is the sense of this council, I think I would
11:36:19 at least like to know that.
11:36:21 This is the only time you guys can talk.
11:36:22 And if there isn't, then we'll go --
11:36:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, that's my motion, is to
11:36:28 suggest, as an option B, from Mr. Harrison's 2500
11:36:34 feet, and option B that we would go to at least
11:36:38 explore the possibility of an absolute ban.
11:36:40 However we get there, 3,000, 3500 feet or just call it
11:36:44 an absolute ban, prohibition, whatever, and that you
11:36:49 do the associated research with that, but have that as
11:36:54 an option, that's my motion.
11:36:59 >> What I am trying to figure out is if there's four
11:37:03 >> Well, that's my motion.
11:37:09 Then I agree with Mr. Harrison.
11:37:10 Let's vote on Mr. Harrison's, then vote on mine.
11:37:19 There was a main motion on two friendly amendments
11:37:21 which are actually not necessarily -- my suggestion is
11:37:26 to vote on Mr. Harrison's and then --
11:37:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison agrees with Mr. fletch.
11:37:35 >> I would appreciate it separately because that way
11:37:37 you would be clear as to alternative.
11:37:39 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
11:37:40 We are going to vote on the 2500.
11:37:51 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: The motion was to request an
11:37:54 opinion from legal counsel as to the
11:37:58 Constitutionality, and also the associated limitations
11:38:02 on the applications.
11:38:04 I think that's going to be important to the
11:38:07 An ordinance banning the defined sexual offenders from
11:38:13 residence in the city.
11:38:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I think I would agree with that.
11:38:19 But are we saying then -- sending them to Hillsborough
11:38:22 Is that what you are saying?
11:38:27 >> I think that is definitely part of the discussion.
11:38:29 And I think that is definitely part of the debate.
11:38:31 But I can't sit here in good conscience and say that I
11:38:34 think that a 17-year-old that raped a 5-year-old child
11:38:38 should live in our community.
11:38:40 I understand all the legal issues -- I just want to
11:38:43 know what our limits are so we can have that as part
11:38:45 of our discussion.
11:38:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We are going to have a lepers
11:38:53 colony for all the people to live in.
11:38:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Sounds good to me.
11:38:57 I'm supporting the motion before us because I want to
11:39:00 explore the legality and what I am going to need
11:39:04 before I actually vote on an ordinance is brought back
11:39:07 to us is information from the police and from people
11:39:10 in public health as to whether doing this, which is
11:39:14 certainly a field for legislators, the most effective
11:39:18 way to keep people out of their community.
11:39:22 You all heard the phrase unintended consequences.
11:39:25 I would hate to do something that sounds good legally,
11:39:28 but where the consequences is people go underground,
11:39:35 and we have a greater proliferation and we don't know
11:39:37 where they are.
11:39:38 So those are the considerations that I need to take
11:39:42 into account before voting on an ordinance.
11:39:45 You know, if this is the silver bullet, I want to do
11:39:51 whatever is best.
11:39:54 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of Mr. Fletcher's vote say
11:39:57 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
11:39:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think my motion is subservient.
11:40:03 >>DAVID SMITH: I believe Mr. Harrison's motion was to
11:40:07 include parks with the most expansive definition
11:40:09 possible in the mapping.
11:40:11 >> Second.
11:40:16 (Motion Carried)
11:40:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is there any additional direction
11:40:24 from council?
11:40:25 >> In the county or do you need a motion on that?
11:40:27 >>GWEN MILLER: I want the want not grandfathered in.
11:40:33 >> I believe I understand the direction of council to
11:40:35 be as expansive as we can possibly be and be legally
11:40:40 We'll have a high probability of being --
11:40:46 >>CHAIRMAN: They are not going to be grandfathered in.
11:40:48 >>> There's case law in some other states that deal
11:40:51 with some of the issues.
11:40:51 I just want to clarify.
11:40:54 Part of the problem when you start log at case law and
11:40:56 other jurisdiction, it's not necessarily controlling.
11:41:01 It's more in the nature of advisory, and recommended.
11:41:06 So we can provide you an opinion.
11:41:07 But it may be an opinion that is not something that
11:41:10 you want to bet the ranch on because we can't bet the
11:41:13 ranch on it.
11:41:14 And the last thing I want to say, I want to thank all
11:41:17 of you for your patience and your cooperation.
11:41:19 I'm sure you realize that when I talk with you one on
11:41:22 one, I hear what you have to say.
11:41:24 But I can't necessarily act on what you tell me, until
11:41:27 we have the kind of vote we have today.
11:41:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you need a motion to continue to
11:41:32 explore the Tallahassee and the county issues?
11:41:35 >>DAVID SMITH: In a, we will do that because that's
11:41:37 relevant to what you are doing and what we are doing.
11:41:38 If we get preempted and it looks strong like we are
11:41:41 going to get preempted I am going to let you know that
11:41:44 because we are going to be putting a lot of hours in
11:41:46 on this issue and if they say you don't have a say on
11:41:49 it, I am going to let you know that.
11:41:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Smith, for all the work
11:41:53 you have done and will do.
11:41:56 The police department and everyone else.
11:42:00 All right.
11:42:02 Mr. Graham has another hearing so we are going to move
11:42:04 toe item 56.
11:42:07 So he can go to his other hearing.
11:42:09 Appeal hearing item number 56.
11:42:17 Item 56.
11:42:18 >> I belief that requires the witnesses to be sworn.
11:42:21 >>GWEN MILLER: It does.
11:42:22 Anyone to speak on item 56, would you please stand and
11:42:24 raise your right hand?
11:42:25 (Oath administered by Clerk).
11:42:40 >>STEVE GRAHAM: Parks and recreation.
11:42:43 And I'm here for agenda item number 56, which speaks
11:42:48 to the appeal of an administrative decision to allow
11:42:52 the removal of a grand tree at 3404 west Obispo
11:42:58 street, because of it causing structural damage to the
11:43:06 This relates to section 13-45 of the Tampa municipal
11:43:10 code, which has a provision for allowing,
11:43:14 administratively allowing the removal of the grand
11:43:17 tree, if it is either, A, causing -- either, A,
11:43:23 hazardous condition, or, B, if it is causing
11:43:27 structural damage to a residence.
11:43:32 Anyway, I'll give you the gist of the provision within
11:43:36 the code.
11:43:37 It says under C, 14-45, C, removal of grand tree
11:43:42 causing structural damage to existing building, grand
11:43:46 tree shall be permitted to be removed.
11:43:50 And skip over, when a determination that a grand tree
11:43:54 has grown in such a manner that it is causing
11:43:56 structural damage to the foundation, structural walls,
11:43:59 or structural roof of the existing building.
11:44:03 And you will recall that definition -- or that
11:44:05 statement was later expanded to include any damage
11:44:08 that might occur within the next year.
11:44:12 So it kind of goes into the future as well, if we
11:44:16 anticipate damage.
11:44:18 So on at least two occasions, I have looked at this
11:44:23 And for this type of inspection, it is done in tandem
11:44:26 with the Construction Services Center.
11:44:30 Essentially what happens, evaluate the condition of
11:44:33 the grand tree and chief building inspector in, this
11:44:36 case Jim Stefanson, who just walked in, determines
11:44:40 whether or not it's causing structural damage.
11:44:42 So we were there on September 6th, and November
11:44:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Could you put up the picture?
11:44:49 >>STEVE GRAHAM: I can.
11:44:54 And the picture should help make this a little more
11:45:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Not that when don't take your word.
11:45:06 >>STEVE GRAHAM: No, that's okay.
11:45:19 As you can see the grand tree, it appears to be very
11:45:26 And in fact that's not the issue today.
11:45:31 The tree is in good condition.
11:45:32 What we determine when we made our inspections, Jim
11:45:36 and I made them together, is that the tree -- and I am
11:45:40 going to remove this picture and show you two more.
11:45:48 Before I leave this picture, I want to point out
11:45:51 immediately behind the tree is a porch with the
11:45:56 It's a two-story porch.
11:45:57 And there's a section above the porch that is close,
11:46:02 actually under roof, living area.
11:46:04 And so when we made our determination, we wouldn't
11:46:07 necessarily, in all cases, permit the removal of the
11:46:10 grand tree causing damage to a porch but in this case
11:46:14 we felt because the two-story nature of the structure
11:46:17 and the fact that it was space under roof that this
11:46:23 particular section of the code was applicable.
11:46:25 So that's kind of the overall picture that Iowaned to
11:46:28 show you.
11:46:28 Now let me show you something that is a little more
11:46:33 >> Is that screened ups or glass upstairs?
11:47:01 >> A closed-in porch.
11:47:02 >> So there is variation to what we particularly
11:47:04 permit for grand trees causing structural damage.
11:47:07 However, let me show you a couple of pictures on
11:47:12 either side of this tree.
11:47:15 It is literally enveloping the corner of the porch,
11:47:19 and if not for the
11:47:22 Captioning you would probably see some of the --
11:47:26 >> there we go.
11:47:28 There we go.
11:47:30 >> Down.
11:47:31 >> You have a picture above that?
11:47:35 >> There's no damage above.
11:47:36 The damage that we are noticing is to the foundation
11:47:41 itself, which is causing stair-step cracking.
11:47:45 And the pier.
11:47:49 And it is a stair step crack along -- and then to show
11:47:54 you the other side of the tree,
11:48:03 >> The beginning of another crack along the
11:48:19 We felt like that jeopardized the integrity of the
11:48:22 It was a difficult decision.
11:48:23 We spoke with the appellant on one indication, and --
11:48:31 occasion and we did in fact struggle with this because
11:48:34 it wasn't an impact fee, the tree is healthy.
11:48:37 But we did feel at the end that it was a valid reason
11:48:41 for permitting the removal.
11:48:43 The noticing requirements, everything seems to be in
11:48:48 And Ms. Saul-Sena, I know you asked, a 44-inch Laurel
11:48:53 oak, grand tree Laurel oak, and let's see if I'm
11:48:57 leaving anything else out.
11:48:59 I'll go back to my report.
11:49:05 It appears the root system and trunk itself are both
11:49:07 in contact with foundation of the porch and has -- is
11:49:11 causing damage, and potentially cause more damage.
11:49:16 So it's our recommendation, it was our decision to
11:49:18 permit the removal based on meeting the criteria for
11:49:23 And since then, we have received an appeal within that
11:49:27 14-day period.
11:49:30 Are there any questions?
11:49:32 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Graham, who was there first, the
11:49:34 tree or the porch?
11:49:36 >>> Pardon?
11:49:37 >> Who was there first, the tree or the porch?
11:49:40 >>> That's difficult to say.
11:49:43 I would say the porch was probably there first.
11:49:47 >> You think?
11:49:50 >>> And the volunteer came up afterwards.
11:49:53 >> How fast does a Laurel oak tree grow?
11:49:55 >> Laurel oaks are very fast growing trees and they
11:49:58 can get to be grand tree size within 35, 40 years.
11:50:01 >> So you think that that porch was there before?
11:50:04 >>> I believe so.
11:50:05 >> Okay.
11:50:06 And so the roots are growing underneath the porch
11:50:09 that's causing the structural damage?
11:50:12 >>> Well, it's not suspended entirely.
11:50:15 There is a block foundation around the parameter of
11:50:18 the porch.
11:50:19 And that's what has been breached.
11:50:26 >> So that's what's causing the damage to it?
11:50:28 >>> As I said, Jim Stevens is here.
11:50:31 He might be able to elaborate on that.
11:50:34 I do have a report from him, too, that should be in
11:50:36 your packet, and succinctly states that he's inspected
11:50:41 the tree at 3404 Obispo, and that in his opinion it's
11:50:46 causing structural damage and that he would recommend
11:50:52 >> Other questions by council members?
11:50:54 Ms. Cole.
11:50:57 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
11:50:58 I probably should have started to tell you why you are
11:51:01 here and what the new process is.
11:51:04 You may recall that you recently amended the code,
11:51:07 your tree code, as it pertains to removal of grand
11:51:12 trees, because of structural damage.
11:51:15 The way you amend it it was to say that if you -- if
11:51:19 there was an approval for removal of a tree due to
11:51:24 structural damage, in the two-year prohibition,
11:51:28 demolishing the structure so that is in place.
11:51:31 Also, the review that you all are looking at is
11:51:35 de novo review, with some of the changes we made in
11:51:38 our last round in which you take the information from
11:51:43 Steve and the Parks Department and also the
11:51:45 information in your packet from the building
11:51:46 department, and you hear testimony from the adjoining
11:51:50 property owner who -- one of the adjoining property
11:51:53 owners who is the one who filed the appeal in this
11:51:55 case, and from the homeowner, and you will low at all
11:51:58 that information and make a determination as to
11:52:00 whether or not the tree has grown or will likely grow
11:52:04 within a one-year period to cause structural damage
11:52:08 for the structure in question.
11:52:09 I'm available for questions.
11:52:10 At this point I would recommend that you go ahead and
11:52:12 hear from the petitioner.
11:52:13 And then after the petitioner speaks, we hear from the
11:52:16 property owner.
11:52:16 Thank you.
11:52:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
11:52:22 >>> Ron Nobel, 501 East Kennedy, representing the
11:52:26 petition and Susan Keffer is active duty at
11:52:30 MacDill Air Force Base and requested that she be
11:52:32 here today and she was not able to come today based on
11:52:35 her active duty.
11:52:36 There's also a number of other neighbors that were
11:52:39 ined in coming today.
11:52:40 I also live in this neighborhood.
11:52:42 I live directly across the street from the subject
11:52:45 And I'm essentially handling this on behalf of my
11:52:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a point of order, Mr. Shelby.
11:52:55 Going door to door, not selling vacuum cleaners, about
11:52:59 you I was going door to door on this street the other
11:53:02 day and just happened to come across, looked at the
11:53:06 one at MacDill, Ms. Keffer, and she pointed out the
11:53:11 tree to me and she said there is a hearing.
11:53:13 So just as a matter of ex parte communication, she and
11:53:16 I didn't discuss it.
11:53:17 She urged me to -- well, yes, we did discuss it.
11:53:21 She urged me to save the tree but that was the extent
11:53:27 of our discussion.
11:53:28 Just as a matter of full disclosure, I just wanted to
11:53:32 put that on the record.
11:53:34 >>> I appreciate you saying that, councilman, because
11:53:37 it really leads to my next point.
11:53:39 All the neighbors were interested in coming down for
11:53:41 the hearing today. They were saying, Ron, should we
11:53:43 take off work, come down here?
11:53:45 I said there's strength in numbers but tell me what
11:53:48 would you like to say to council?
11:53:49 And that was really their message, save this tree.
11:53:52 We want this tree.
11:53:53 At this time gateway to our neighborhood.
11:53:54 I said, I'll tell you what, I will convey that to
11:53:57 You don't need to take off work for that, it could be
11:54:00 along agenda, we are last on the agenda.
11:54:04 I appreciate you moving it up for Mr. Graham.
11:54:06 We did have a number of neighbors interested in coming
11:54:09 I don't think the strength of our appeal is running
11:54:11 people up to say we love this tree, save this tree,
11:54:14 it's essential to our neighborhood.
11:54:16 I did meet with Mr. Graham on-site and I have to tell
11:54:19 you it's been very, very helpful in getting me
11:54:23 prepared and educated about this.
11:54:24 And it was a difficult decision for staff.
11:54:27 They walked me through this actual application and
11:54:31 they said there's very few cut and dried cases but
11:54:34 this is one that really gave them a lot of question.
11:54:37 So since it's the first time that I have been three
11:54:41 one of these appeals, I went down to parks and
11:54:44 I went to the clerk's office to try to get some of the
11:54:46 old appeals that had gone with appeals for removal
11:54:51 approvals and found there had not been one.
11:54:54 I followed up with Mr. Graham and he said, that's
11:54:56 right, wave not seen an appeal of one of these to
11:54:59 remove a tree.
11:55:01 We have seen some that have been denied but this is a
11:55:04 huge surprise to me.
11:55:05 I would have thought every time a grand tree was
11:55:09 approved for removal the neighbors would be appealing
11:55:11 but that doesn't appear to be the case.
11:55:13 Maybe we are breaking new ground on that.
11:55:15 Parks and recreation staff, you know, they were
11:55:17 pleased that there were additional neighbors getting
11:55:19 interested in something like this.
11:55:21 And I guess I want to move more to the substantive
11:55:25 part of our appeal now.
11:55:32 As Mr. Graham said, this has been designated a
11:55:35 hazardous tree, which is defined in the code, and this
11:55:38 tree has been deemed hazardous for structural damage.
11:55:42 Now, I don't have any doubt -- and I don't have any
11:55:45 quarrel with the fact that this -- can we pull that
11:55:49 back a little bit, please? -- that this building, this
11:55:53 structure does have structural damage.
11:55:55 This is a duplex.
11:55:56 It's a nonconforming duplex in the neighborhood.
11:55:59 It's a fairly old structure.
11:56:04 It has been the subject of multiple repairs and
11:56:06 structural damage for years and years and years.
11:56:09 In the last couple of years.
11:56:10 And these pictures don't do a very goodbye Jo -- good
11:56:13 job on film but if you are standing up on the
11:56:15 structure you can see that it actually bows in the
11:56:20 The building has structural damage.
11:56:22 That's not part of our dispute today.
11:56:25 The building is structurally unsound.
11:56:27 >> Related to the tree?
11:56:28 >> Unrelated to the tree.
11:56:30 Based upon its age.
11:56:31 And that's why I want to enter this photograph into
11:56:33 the record. This is the opposite side of the
11:56:36 Furthest away from the tree.
11:56:38 The holes that you see in the bottom of the home is
11:56:40 where contractors went in to literally shore the
11:56:43 foundation of the home because it was bowing and what
11:56:46 we were told by the contractors in fear of cracking in
11:56:48 half literally.
11:56:50 So the home has structural damage.
11:56:51 There's no doubt about that.
11:56:54 What we don't have, though, today is a hazardous tree.
11:56:58 And the hazardous tree based on structural damage
11:57:01 under the new code provision, it has to be a tree
11:57:04 causing damage to the foundation, structural walls, or
11:57:07 structural roofs of an existing building.
11:57:10 And Mr. Graham was careful to describe what exactly
11:57:13 the structural damage is here.
11:57:15 The structural damage is not for the foundation and
11:57:19 structural walls or structural roof of this building.
11:57:30 It is encountering and causing damage, if any minimal
11:57:42 damage, to the porch, and the structure above is it
11:57:44 not structural walls, it's a screened-in porch.
11:57:48 So that is a designation process that when do take
11:57:53 issue with, and actually defining it as a hazardous
11:58:02 And I think the code requirement is a real answer here
11:58:05 to our appeal, regardless of whether we want to agree
11:58:09 that this is damage caused by the tree or not, I think
11:58:12 we can rely on the fact that it's not structural
11:58:15 walls, I not structural roof, because it is a porch.
11:58:22 One of the issues that Julie brought up is you have a
11:58:27 new two-year requirement on demolition. This is an
11:58:30 old structure and you can see it's a damaged structure
11:58:32 and may be a structure slated for demolition down the
11:58:35 Whether the property owners had planned to do that,
11:58:37 whether they want to demolish it and rebuild a new
11:58:39 home like so many other lots that redeveloped on this
11:58:43 block, I really don't know.
11:58:44 However, if that is the goal here, redevelopment is
11:58:46 the goal, with the current front yard setback
11:58:49 requirement, this tree is not in the way of the
11:58:52 redevelopment of this lot.
11:58:53 And I would surmise that this tree has a lot greater
11:58:57 life span than this existing building does out here.
11:59:02 And the existing building will come down some day.
11:59:05 But my point is, with the current front yard setback
11:59:08 applicable to a single family replacement home on
11:59:10 there, that tree will be almost in the middle of the
11:59:12 front yard.
11:59:13 It would not be within the envelope footprint.
11:59:21 Mrs. Alvarez, it is not the root structure that is
11:59:24 causing any damage to this porch.
11:59:27 It is simply the roof above ground pushing into the
11:59:35 Again with the structural damage to say the crack on
11:59:42 the porch, the structural damage to support a
11:59:44 hazardous tree designation, is difficult.
11:59:49 When I was searching for resources on how to approach
11:59:52 this, and couldn't find any other appeals to look at,
11:59:55 I was going through a program called shades of Tampa.
11:59:59 Are you familiar with shades of Tampa on City of Tampa
12:00:03 A wonderful show they did, when I washed it, it was
12:00:08 It's literally the back of the tapen stead of a porch
12:00:11 column it's a fence column on a historic structure.
12:00:14 And one thing we haven't even explored are the 3 to 5
12:00:19 alternatives that they have gone through in the shades
12:00:22 of Tampa TV show.
12:00:27 3 to 5 alternatives, as opposed to removing a tree,
12:00:30 root shoring, shoring up the structure itself, all
12:00:34 alternatives that Steve is going to work with property
12:00:36 owners on, to prevent grand tree removal status.
12:00:42 Speaking as a neighbor, this is where the street
12:00:44 dead-ends into Concordia, right where Roosevelt
12:00:47 elementary is.
12:00:48 This tree really serves as the buffer to our
12:00:51 neighborhood, our entire block there to Roosevelt
12:00:55 It's the only grand tree on the block.
12:01:16 I tried to take a picture too but my camera didn't
12:01:18 work well.
12:01:19 There's Concordia and Obispo, another -- they love the
12:01:28 tree because it shades the home in the summer and
12:01:30 really helps there.
12:01:31 And I assume you are probably standing on Roosevelt
12:01:36 elementary on the sidewalk when you took that.
12:01:39 This is where Roosevelt does all the loading and
12:01:41 unloading in the morning.
12:01:42 We have a tremendous intrusion into our neighborhood
12:01:45 from the elementary school.
12:01:48 And this tree serves as a tremendous buffer.
12:01:50 The other thing you can see is another tree, that's
12:01:53 the oak on my property that is coming out and
12:01:56 forming -- thank you.
12:02:03 Not yet grand oak status but essentially serves takes
12:02:07 gateway to our block here.
12:02:10 I have taken up enough.
12:02:11 I appreciate you seeing us earlier on the agenda.
12:02:14 Would like to reserve any time I have to respond to
12:02:17 any additional staff or property owner statements, or
12:02:20 if you have any questions for me.
12:02:21 Thank you very much.
12:02:25 >>GWEN MILLER: We will hear from the property owner.
12:02:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to waive the rules.
12:03:03 >> Thank you.
12:03:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The fact it's the noon hour and
12:03:07 council rules do require that you waive the rules.
12:03:09 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to waive the rules.
12:03:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: We have a procedural due process
12:03:15 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
12:03:17 Since we do have an appeal that is actually being
12:03:19 brought by an adjoining property owner as opposed to
12:03:21 the actual person who owns the property, who has
12:03:24 requested the owner not remove the tree, I would
12:03:27 recommend you grant the same amount of time that you
12:03:29 granted the petitioner, time to the property owner.
12:03:33 I think that's fair procedure and due process.
12:03:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: For the record, I believe it's our
12:03:40 intent at the end of the meeting that we take a lunch
12:03:43 so anybody not here for this issue should know.
12:03:45 >>GWEN MILLER: everybody after number 56 we will take
12:03:49 a break for lunch at be back at 1:30.
12:03:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Or thereabouts.
12:03:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Or 2:00.
12:03:57 So we will be breaking after this.
12:04:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We'll break for an hour and a half,
12:04:03 I guess.
12:04:08 >> Madam Chair, at some point, I think we have a good
12:04:10 explanation of the procedural process.
12:04:12 There's some point, since this is a de novo hearing, I
12:04:17 would like an explanation of the burden of paragraph.
12:04:21 >>JULIA COLE: My intention is essentially the public
12:04:25 hearing is closed and I will provide you with that
12:04:29 >> Thank you.
12:04:30 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There was a request before council
12:04:37 would break for lunch, sorry to interrupt, but bring
12:04:39 to your attention that number 45 will be requesting a
12:04:42 It's my understanding although you have to confirm it,
12:04:44 there are no objections to that continuance.
12:04:46 So perhaps when you break, before you break for lunch
12:04:48 if council would wish to continue or take up number 45
12:04:52 so they don't have to come back.
12:04:54 That's council's prerogative.
12:04:55 >>GWEN MILLER: We will do that.
12:04:56 Thank you.
12:05:00 >>> My name is Amy house ter, I own the property at
12:05:07 3404 Obispo.
12:05:09 I have brought some properties that I think shed some
12:05:11 light on the questions we have there.
12:05:13 It is an enclosed second story.
12:05:19 >> That's a screen at the top but you can see that is
12:05:29 actually angled.
12:05:31 This is supposed to be vertical. The porch is
12:05:34 literally bowing out at the middle between the first
12:05:36 and second floors due to the pressure being forced at
12:05:39 the bottom.
12:05:40 The second picture shows how this is tilted forward.
12:05:43 It is literally falling out.
12:06:02 A 4-foot level being held up against the column which
12:06:05 should be vertical.
12:06:06 And on that 4-foot level you can see approximately
12:06:09 just at the base of that about 3 inches at a level
12:06:12 where that is literally pushing out.
12:06:14 That porch is being -- is all one structure.
12:06:17 This roof is all -- it's not like it's a separate
12:06:24 It's the original porch.
12:06:25 And it is all under one roof.
12:06:27 This is the roof and the porch.
12:06:30 If that goes, that quarter of the house is gone.
12:06:38 We do also have a grand oak tree in the back, which is
12:06:41 the other picture.
12:06:42 It's not the only grand oak tree on the street.
12:06:44 We have one just like it in the backyard.
12:06:47 So we don't have a lot of space for -- for a lot of
12:06:52 other trees.
12:06:53 We are just trying to save our building.
12:06:55 It's totally being destroyed by this tree.
12:06:58 This is another picture of the inside porch where you
12:07:00 can see, this is like a little cabinet structure.
12:07:06 These are actual vertical.
12:07:07 You can see how these piers and columns are completely
12:07:11 bowed out under the pressure. That pressure comes
12:07:14 from right here, this corner.
12:07:18 You can see it is literally lifting this pier.
12:07:22 That tree is picking up, is pushing in so hard at that
12:07:25 corner, it's pushing that pier up.
12:07:30 Mr. Nobel said that all the neighbors pretty much were
12:07:33 all in favor of keeping this tree.
12:07:35 But I have letters from the guy who owns the
12:07:38 nonconforming duplex to the left where the tree
12:07:42 adjoining saying he's all for removing the tree and I
12:07:45 have a letter from Mrs. Warner who lives next to Mrs.
12:07:49 Keffer on the other side of her also stating she is in
12:07:51 support of removing this tree.
12:07:54 Long-time property owners on this street, and it is
12:07:57 doing damage.
12:07:59 And Mr. Nobel also stated that our building was
12:08:03 And I'm not sure if qualified to say my building is
12:08:10 We have spent thousands of dollars to shore up that
12:08:12 building and make it safe for the tenants who live
12:08:16 I'm not sure that he's an engineer to say that those
12:08:19 roots are not -- are not damaging.
12:08:23 I haven't seen anything, and nothing has been given to
12:08:25 me showing that he had an engineering firm look at
12:08:31 But I have brought with me a person with professional
12:08:38 expertise looking at structural damage who looks at
12:08:40 the city for many years as inspector if you needed
12:08:44 some professional -- somebody who would have that
12:08:47 expertise, a building inspector that inspected it and
12:08:54 concurs that it was structurally damaging.
12:08:57 And this is what they do.
12:09:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is it your intention to keep this
12:09:07 >>> For awhile.
12:09:08 We just put a roof on it this summer.
12:09:10 That's a brand new roof that was put on in July.
12:09:13 And we do have a two-year building moratorium, if they
12:09:17 allow to us take the tree down.
12:09:18 We can't do anything for at least two years.
12:09:20 Eventually, the building will need to come down.
12:09:23 I mean, it is not in the best shape.
12:09:25 We have done the best we can to maintain it with
12:09:27 structural work, and keeping it up, in order to get a
12:09:31 good -- but we need to pay our taxes and mortgage but
12:09:34 eventually it's going to come down and be just like
12:09:36 the house as cross the street which are these huge
12:09:39 brand knew homes.
12:09:40 >> Well, let me rephrase it.
12:09:41 Is it your intention to remove this tree to enable you
12:09:46 to --
12:09:47 >>> No.
12:09:47 It doesn't make any difference.
12:09:49 Like he said it's at the front corner of the house it
12:09:52 doesn't make any difference to the building.
12:09:54 >> Except when this comes down, the tree is removed,
12:09:57 there won't be a tree there, there won't ab house
12:10:01 there but there won't be a tree either.
12:10:03 >> We haven't researched it that way.
12:10:06 We have asked for removal on a structural basis, not
12:10:08 for any other reason.
12:10:10 I don't know.
12:10:11 He was stating that it was within the setback so it
12:10:14 would not make any impact.
12:10:15 I mean, the house would have to be behind that anyway.
12:10:18 >> It just makes it easier to build something new if
12:10:21 the tree is removed.
12:10:24 >>> I would think so, yes.
12:10:25 But we have not investigated that.
12:10:28 We haven't researched that with the city building
12:10:30 department or anything else.
12:10:33 That wasn't the reason that we were granted removal.
12:10:36 It was a structural issue.
12:10:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Have you had an engineer look at it
12:10:43 where they come back and certify that it is the tree
12:10:46 that's causing your structural damage?
12:10:49 >> We did not hire a private engineering firm.
12:10:52 We felt that the city building inspector's
12:10:55 recommendation is what we needed.
12:10:58 I didn't know there was a --
12:11:02 >> I thought maybe somebody else other than the city
12:11:05 telling you; you know, that this is causing -- that
12:11:08 this is the tree that was causing your structural
12:11:11 >>> Well, you know, it looked to us fairly clear.
12:11:13 And then when they validated that, we thought that was
12:11:17 the end of it.
12:11:24 >> To me, all this turns on what the opinion of a
12:11:29 professional engineer who has looked at this has to
12:11:32 say about it.
12:11:33 And I think you indicated there was a witness
12:11:36 available who could speak to that.
12:11:39 And that is what I would like to hear at this point.
12:11:46 Sir, were you sworn in?
12:11:48 >>> No, I was not.
12:11:52 (Oath administered by Clerk).
12:11:57 >>> Carl Johnson, 1505 west Morrison Avenue, Tampa
12:12:03 As far as MIA state certified engineer, I am not.
12:12:07 I am a state certified general contractor, state
12:12:10 certified mechanical contractor, state certified
12:12:13 storage systems contractor, state certified inspector,
12:12:16 state certified plans examiner.
12:12:19 I formerly was with the City of Tampa for 25 years,
12:12:22 retired three years ago.
12:12:23 When I retired I was the chief construction inspector.
12:12:26 I know Mrs. Houser and her husband.
12:12:31 And when they were filing for the tree removal permit,
12:12:37 we had discussed it briefly, but I never really gave
12:12:39 it much thought.
12:12:41 When the appeal was filed, she asked me at that time,
12:12:45 she says, I know you have had a lot of exposure to
12:12:47 these type of cases, your structural background,
12:12:50 you're state certified general contractor.
12:12:53 Come out and give me your assessment of what we are
12:12:55 log at here.
12:13:00 The question came up earlier.
12:13:01 And I know exactly where you are going when you talk
12:13:03 about screened in porches.
12:13:05 And it's important for you to understand when you look
12:13:08 at this type of structure, very common type of
12:13:15 constructions, back in the early 1900s, this second
12:13:24 floor roof the way it cantilevers over, the way the
12:13:30 house is designed, the roof itself can support those
12:13:35 And that's not how this building wag built.
12:13:37 When you look at the building from the side, when you
12:13:40 get down and you analyze the structure itself, the
12:13:45 columns from the front porch -- and I'm will go to see
12:13:47 if I have a better picture of this -- the porch down
12:13:55 here is concrete slab with stem wall foundation.
12:14:02 And the columns on top of that are poured concrete
12:14:07 block that are poured with concrete, and they are the
12:14:10 supporting columns for the second floor porch.
12:14:13 Built on top of the porch are support columns that
12:14:16 come up and support the actual root structure.
12:14:20 What's happening now, and what you are looking at --
12:14:24 and that's why this picture here is so important.
12:14:27 I was out there log at itment
12:14:29 I asked Ms. Houser's husband to give -- he himself is
12:14:34 a contractor -- to get a level out of his truck so we
12:14:37 could take a look at the supporting columns on the
12:14:39 second floor.
12:14:42 Just within four feet they had a three-foot kink in
12:14:50 the column so the tree is lifting the structure up,
12:14:53 and it's causing a buckle in the middle here.
12:14:59 It's causing some structural damage to the whole front
12:15:02 section of the house.
12:15:04 Mr. Nobel had made a comment about the house caving in
12:15:07 in the middle.
12:15:09 I don't see evidence of that.
12:15:11 In the houses that you see that are 80, 90 years old,
12:15:14 my house in Hyde Park that I have been remodeling
12:15:18 seems like forever, I was under the house the other
12:15:22 There's some very lengthy beams under there, and my
12:15:25 house is swayed.
12:15:27 The house has structural damage?
12:15:29 Not at all.
12:15:30 It's going to have a tendency to bow and try to give.
12:15:33 But there comes a point when you start a crushing
12:15:36 I know for a fact that Steve and Amy have had a
12:15:41 reputable pier and foundation restoring contractor
12:15:44 come out there to restore the piers underneath the
12:15:47 structure to save the structure.
12:15:53 I know just from discussing with her husband -- and
12:15:57 Ms. Saul-Sena, I don't think she understood what you
12:16:00 were saying and I know where you are going -- there
12:16:02 are intentions to tear the structure down?
12:16:04 They have never led me or anyone else to believe that.
12:16:08 They are trying to save the front of the structure.
12:16:10 Obviously nobody can predict what is going to happen
12:16:13 in the future.
12:16:14 But that's not their intention for tearing this down
12:16:16 and trying to save the structure itself.
12:16:19 That's my assessment.
12:16:20 It is causing structural damage. The whole front of
12:16:22 the porch, even though it is a porch, is supporting
12:16:26 the roof on the second floor.
12:16:28 And is supporting the front quarter of that roof.
12:16:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Carl, for your service
12:16:38 to the City of Tampa.
12:16:39 We all remember that.
12:16:40 >>> I appreciate that.
12:16:41 >> I had a question to Mr. Stevens and also to Mr.
12:16:46 Graham eventually.
12:16:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else that's going to speak that
12:16:53 hasn't been sworn in, will you please stand and raise
12:16:56 your right hand?
12:16:57 (Oath administered by Clerk).
12:16:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I guess I'm a little confused.
12:17:05 Mr. Graham was testifying sort of piggybacking on your
12:17:09 He indicated there are some hair lane fractures.
12:17:12 And I don't know if you want to pick one of these
12:17:14 pictures up but there's some hairline fractures down
12:17:16 at the foundation on the concrete blocks, in that
12:17:20 And that's of concern.
12:17:22 I mean, I'm not going to dismiss that because that
12:17:25 would indicate that something is happening.
12:17:26 But, at the same time, then we have this new
12:17:28 testimony, from Mr. Johnson and the folks who own the
12:17:33 property, to indicate that now we have this bowing and
12:17:37 tilting of that vertical column on the porch.
12:17:41 Now, to me, and I guess my question is, are you seeing
12:17:46 that level of displacement on the foundation, on the
12:17:50 bottom foundation that would cause that type of bowing
12:17:54 and tilting?
12:17:55 >>> Yes.
12:17:56 And what we have to remember here -- and give you my
12:18:01 history of general contractor before I went to the
12:18:04 I was inspect for 14 years, chief building inspector.
12:18:07 What wave to keep in mind, we talk about this as
12:18:10 structural damage but you have to remember, if you are
12:18:13 out a little bit at the bottom, we are going to be
12:18:15 out -- every increment you move on the bomb only of
12:18:22 that we are doubling and trippling that as you go up.
12:18:25 So, yes, it could easily cause that.
12:18:27 Let me show you -- I don't know if you can see this or
12:18:36 And this is structural damage because this column is
12:18:40 supporting a livable area, occupiable area so it makes
12:18:46 it structural.
12:18:48 As the tree root comes out you will see probably an
12:18:50 inch where that column has been raised off of the
12:19:00 You take that inch and multiply that as it goes up,
12:19:05 that's where the damage comes in.
12:19:06 >> If this is new construction and we have a tree and
12:19:08 somebody wants to build a porch or some other
12:19:11 structural component nearby, typically, and we see
12:19:16 this over and over again.
12:19:17 Mr. Stevens, do you have to vault?
12:19:20 You have to sort of vault?
12:19:22 >>> That's right.
12:19:23 There are several different ways you can do that.
12:19:24 >> Cantilever your construction?
12:19:27 >> Bridge over.
12:19:28 >> And that's what I'm wondering about, I think we all
12:19:33 want to explore all options before we remove a
12:19:36 beautiful tree like this.
12:19:37 And, Steve, my next question comes to you, how much
12:19:43 would it cost to remove this grand tree?
12:19:45 If they go out on the open market, they hire a tree
12:19:48 gay to come remove this tree, I would guess it might
12:19:53 cost 1,000, 2,000, something like that, to remove that
12:19:58 wood, that amount of wood.
12:20:00 Is that the ballpark?
12:20:07 >>> Between 2500 and 3500.
12:20:11 >> For that amount of money, 25 or 3500 dollars, is it
12:20:14 possible, Mr. Stevens, that they could prop the porch
12:20:20 up and cantilever around the root system?
12:20:23 And I think somebody mentioned, Mr. Nobel mentioned,
12:20:27 or else root trimming in conjunction with that, that
12:20:31 there are some reasonable alternatives that might be
12:20:35 Are there reasonable alternatives that might be
12:20:37 available that might be in the same financial ballpark
12:20:41 as removing the tree, for 25, 3500?
12:20:46 >>> That's really a question for an engineer to answer
12:20:48 your question.
12:20:48 Yes, it probably is.
12:20:52 The code doesn't really address that.
12:20:54 >> I understand that.
12:20:55 And that's why we get to this level.
12:20:57 >>> Believe me, I could tell you, Steve and I wrestled
12:21:02 with these things.
12:21:03 Because we don't like to see trees removed.
12:21:06 And if there's a way we could justify not being
12:21:09 removed, we generally tell the person that.
12:21:14 But my job is to say whether or not there's structural
12:21:20 Yes, there is structural damage caused by the tree.
12:21:23 >> Because I would love to defer this a little bit.
12:21:26 You presented a very persuasive case.
12:21:28 Mr. Nobel has presented a very persuasive case.
12:21:32 But I would like to defer this a little bit to give
12:21:34 you the opportunity to look at that, you know, work
12:21:37 with our guys.
12:21:38 Don't spend a lot of money.
12:21:39 Carl is a bright guy, too.
12:21:41 Work with the three of them to say, is there any
12:21:43 possible option to do some root trimming and to bridge
12:21:47 over those roots so you can save your porch and house,
12:21:54 which we want to, but at the same time the tree can be
12:21:57 saved and everybody go away happy.
12:21:59 I'm not saying no or yes, but maybe a month of
12:22:01 additional exploration. The tree has been there for
12:22:05 how long, Steve?
12:22:06 >>STEVE GRAHAM: Maybe 40 years.
12:22:09 >> I don't think a month will hurt anybody unless you
12:22:11 can tell me.
12:22:12 >> Is that a motion for continuance?
12:22:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Procedurally if we heard from
12:22:16 everybody that wants to be heard, I would like to make
12:22:18 a motion for continuance just to give the petitioner,
12:22:22 the property owner, an opportunity to explore that on
12:22:24 a voluntary basis.
12:22:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Cole.
12:22:32 >> Would you be interested in that?
12:22:37 I would ask you, you know, just very nicely.
12:22:40 I know you said you have owned it for awhile so you
12:22:42 are part of that neighborhood.
12:22:44 If you can agree to explore those options with Carl,
12:22:46 and with some of the other folks, and look into that.
12:22:50 >>> We got three bids on removing the tree because
12:22:53 we'd we have no idea if we can afford to even think
12:22:55 about this.
12:22:56 I thought itself was going to cost a lot more than it
12:22:59 It turns out we were press lieutenantly surprised.
12:23:02 All three bids came in at $2500.
12:23:04 So that is the cost of removing that tree.
12:23:06 >> But I would love for you, on behalf of the
12:23:09 neighborhood, just to look into the issue that I'm
12:23:11 talking about exploring bridging over.
12:23:14 I'm not asking to you do anything really, really
12:23:17 complex, I hope.
12:23:18 But maybe find a contractor, bridge it over, and then
12:23:23 rebuild it, something like that.
12:23:24 Maybe it might be $2500, also.
12:23:27 >> Okay.
12:23:29 I'll look into that.
12:23:30 I think we did clarify that the house was there first.
12:23:33 It was built in 1920.
12:23:34 And that tree is only 40 years old, it came a long
12:23:38 time after that.
12:23:39 >> We are aware of that.
12:23:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second for continuance for one
12:23:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That being a month.
12:23:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, date and time.
12:23:53 >>> I really appreciate that.
12:23:54 I will save the rest of what I have on rebuttal
12:23:56 because I think that's a good interim solution and we
12:23:58 will be happy to try to work on that with Amy and the
12:24:02 property owners.
12:24:03 Frankly, I would be willing to go back around the
12:24:06 neighborhood, seriously, if it's more than $2500 to
12:24:09 shore up that foundation, or whatever is going to be
12:24:11 done, I would be more than happy to see if we can
12:24:14 contribute financially.
12:24:15 It's a very important issue to us.
12:24:16 And I really appreciate the efforts and the time.
12:24:18 Thank you.
12:24:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Do we have a time?
12:24:26 >>THE CLERK: One month would be February 15th.
12:24:28 You currently have a CRA meeting scheduled for 8:30
12:24:31 that morning.
12:24:31 You have accommodations of police Officer of the
12:24:36 At this time you have two staff reports, unfinished
12:24:38 business items.
12:24:39 You have two wet zoning public hearings.
12:24:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 10:00.
12:24:43 >>GWEN MILLER: 10:00.
12:24:45 (Motion carried)
12:24:46 Mr. Santiago.
12:24:47 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Legal department.
12:24:50 I'm here on item number 45.
12:24:57 Right-of-way vacation under C-06-19.
12:25:00 There are still some technical issues, some discussion
12:25:03 with transportation.
12:25:04 The petition verse agreed together with those in
12:25:08 opposition that additional time for continuance to
12:25:11 February 22nd would be ample for them.
12:25:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
12:25:16 >> Second.
12:25:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 10 a.m. on the 22nd?
12:25:20 >>GWEN MILLER: 10 a.m.
12:25:20 (Motion Carried)
12:25:21 We'll stand adjourned until 2:00.
12:25:29 It's 12:30 now.
12:25:31 (Council meeting in recess)
Tampa City Council
Thursday, January 18, 2007
2:00 p.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.
14:04:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
14:04:35 [Roll Call]
14:04:35 >>CHAIRMAN MILLER: we are going back to our agenda.
14:04:40 We are going back to item number 9.
14:04:42 Ms. Cathy Coyle.
14:04:47 Is she here?
14:04:49 Okay, then we go to item number 10.
14:05:07 >>> I had yesterday distributed a copy, 436, and
14:05:14 distributed to legal, to the clerk, and to the city
14:05:19 And basically, we are asking for a resolution, support
14:05:25 of the council, to be placed on the ballot and an
14:05:29 opportunity for voters to extend a state ban on
14:05:32 offshore drilling for oil or natural gas within
14:05:39 sovereignty submerged land of the state.
14:05:48 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Fletcher, I congratulate you for
14:05:50 bringing this up.
14:05:51 It's a very good resolution and I certainly support
14:05:53 But I see that we are supporting senator Bennett,
14:05:58 because it seems like this comes up every four years
14:06:01 or something.
14:06:02 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Right.
14:06:03 And kind of the history.
14:06:06 In the U.S. Congress, senator Nelson has worked very
14:06:08 hard to extend the existing moratorium that's in place
14:06:12 for drilling off the coast.
14:06:13 That was extended in legislation, passed in through
14:06:19 December 2022.
14:06:21 What this would do is put a permanent ban in state law
14:06:24 that wouldn't have to come up every four years as you
14:06:27 are suggesting.
14:06:29 If the people in the State of Florida agree that
14:06:31 off-shore oil drilling shouldn't be going on, on our
14:06:35 coast, and risking tourism and obviously our economy
14:06:39 and the environment, and our beaches.
14:06:42 That's kind of the distinction between what happened
14:06:46 here and with the Florida legislature.
14:06:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
14:06:51 (Motion carried).
14:06:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
14:06:54 This brings up the fact that the legislature is going
14:06:59 into action in a couple of months, and I think it's
14:07:03 really appropriate for council as a whole to weigh in
14:07:06 on certain things that they do.
14:07:08 And I have spoken to Debby Stevenson, who is our
14:07:11 liaison for the legislature, and I said, you know, I
14:07:13 don't feel like we have had much of an opportunity to
14:07:16 share with you things that we are interested in.
14:07:20 And she said, well, meet with me.
14:07:22 I said, I would like to do that, but I think it would
14:07:24 be nice if all of council had that opportunity.
14:07:27 And I wondered about scheduling a special
14:07:29 discussion -- a special --
14:07:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Workshop.
14:07:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Workshop, thank you.
14:07:36 At nine one morning or noon one day where council
14:07:40 members who are available could come and talk about
14:07:42 things that are going to be on the agenda.
14:07:43 I know she's given us a list of things that the
14:07:46 administration has initiated.
14:07:48 But I said to her, you know, there are things that
14:07:50 council members are interested in, and that we could
14:07:53 take a stand on.
14:07:54 And this is a perfect example.
14:07:55 Thank you for providing it.
14:07:58 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I thought you were going to say we are
14:08:00 going to Tallahassee.
14:08:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, no, no.
14:08:03 But I would like to ask you since you are a recent
14:08:06 member of council, can you meet at nine in the
14:08:08 morning, or is noon better for you, or does it depend
14:08:11 on the day?
14:08:12 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Just depends on the day.
14:08:14 Whatever time is -- I'll find a way to be there.
14:08:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to propose that we do
14:08:24 that perhaps on February 7th.
14:08:29 I'm saying this now.
14:08:30 Maybe everybody's assistants who are listening can go
14:08:34 back and check their calendars and see if February
14:08:38 7thality 9 a.m. in the Mascotte room for a
14:08:41 special --
14:08:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We don't have a PCC meeting or --
14:08:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's what I mean.
14:08:53 So this can come back.
14:08:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Hold that motion till we get a full
14:09:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: February.
14:09:05 >>GWEN MILLER: We'll hold that until later in the
14:09:08 Ms. Coyle, number 9.
14:09:09 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
14:09:12 You're asking me to report and appear and provide an
14:09:15 update on a study and the hearing date that was
14:09:18 scheduled in April of 2007.
14:09:20 If you recall, I believe it was in November, I had
14:09:23 requested a continuance to January of this year.
14:09:26 And council decided to move it to April 12th, I
14:09:29 believe is the date.
14:09:35 If you do choose to move the date up, it would
14:09:37 essentially render the other one canceled, and then a
14:09:40 rescheduling, renotice requirement.
14:09:44 It's approximately 3100 to 3200 people that would,
14:09:51 and -- my division essentially $1300 to do so.
14:10:02 It took about six people in my office, a little over
14:10:06 two days to actually, to get the information.
14:10:13 >> Would you have to renotice then?
14:10:16 >> It would have to be a 30-day notice.
14:10:21 >> February 12th or something like that.
14:10:22 >> There's a 30-day notice requirement.
14:10:24 I think there might be a publication requirement.
14:10:26 So I was going to ask the clerk.
14:10:28 I don't know what the cost is for the publication as
14:10:30 But there is a 30-day notice requirement.
14:10:32 The soonest she would be able to go would be the end
14:10:34 of February.
14:10:36 But as I stated how long it takes to put the mailing
14:10:39 together, I would ask for potentially the first week
14:10:41 in March to make sure I can get a week built in so
14:10:44 that I can actually get over 3,000 letters out.
14:10:47 >> Is a representative here?
14:10:52 Would you come up?
14:11:05 >> Thank you, Chairman Miller.
14:11:09 President of the Interbay neighborhood association is
14:11:11 also here today.
14:11:12 I am with the Ballast Point homeowners alliance.org.
14:11:16 On September 21st you directed staff to renotice
14:11:19 and readvertise the first transmittal public hearing
14:11:21 to the neighborhood, and also send a letter to the
14:11:24 neighbors to tell them we are not going to have the
14:11:27 September 21st meeting that we are going to meet
14:11:29 with the community. This was five months ago.
14:11:31 They have not ever effected that notice that you
14:11:35 directed them on the 21st, council.
14:11:37 So we believe that you could ask staff to renotice the
14:11:42 hearing at a date that's good for you.
14:11:44 We have asked for the 14th, 21st or 28th.
14:11:47 And have them renotice and advertise, as you have
14:11:51 previously directed, council.
14:11:54 I don't know if you recall that myself and Mrs. Wells
14:11:57 made a formal protest of the deficient notice in this
14:12:00 And at this point, until staff does do the new letter
14:12:05 with a good description of the text amendment changes,
14:12:09 and a good map, that notice still has not been
14:12:13 So your direction to have the first transmittal public
14:12:16 hearing, and for them to do it.
14:12:18 I know staff is very busy, and 31 mailings is quite a
14:12:22 I was able to put out a thousand letters on one
14:12:25 Saturday regarding this issue to you my neighbors and
14:12:27 we have over hundreds of members who have joined the
14:12:29 Ballast Point neighborhood alliance.
14:12:31 >>GWEN MILLER: You will say February --
14:12:34 >> 21st, 28th --
14:12:37 >>GWEN MILLER: 30 days?
14:12:39 >>THE CLERK: I believe to resend the plan amendment is
14:12:42 going to require a new resolution to be prepared.
14:12:44 We also have to do the 30 day notice to the
14:12:46 neighborhood association, to surrounding neighbors.
14:12:49 Plus you have publication requirements to meet.
14:12:52 You're probably looking at sometime in March before it
14:12:54 can be --
14:13:01 >>> If I may.
14:13:02 This is a continuation of the transmittal public
14:13:04 hearing originally set on September 21st delayed
14:13:07 to November 18th.
14:13:08 Then again delayed.
14:13:11 Staff was looking for January 25th.
14:13:14 We are not starting this thing all over.
14:13:16 You have a very engaged and informed community.
14:13:19 And I remind you, the department of defense and the
14:13:22 City of Tampa is petitioner here.
14:13:26 We didn't ask for this action.
14:13:28 So if there's any notice issue, we believe -- I mean,
14:13:31 we believe the neighborhood community has expanded
14:13:34 overwhelmingly that they would prefer that this occur
14:13:38 sooner than later.
14:13:40 We are hostage because of this action.
14:13:42 And, council, if I may add one more thing.
14:13:47 The bedrock of our campaign is to have City Council
14:13:49 decide on land use.
14:13:51 We are talking Constitution.
14:13:53 Fundamental property rights of City Council to decide
14:13:56 our land use.
14:13:57 It's your job.
14:13:57 And this abatement and the proposals that the city has
14:14:03 proposed -- we ask for minimal intrusion onto our
14:14:09 property rights, cap the dwelling number and let
14:14:11 homeowners come to you, council, and you decide
14:14:14 whether or not they can develop their property.
14:14:16 Susan Rays is a retired woman in ho lived she had on
14:14:25 December 25th.
14:14:27 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I guess at this point it's a legal
14:14:31 Do we have to do the 30 day renoticing on this since
14:14:33 it's all been continued all along?
14:14:41 The city clerk indicated a resolution would have to be
14:14:44 passed at the next meeting.
14:14:46 And I believe the first meeting appropriate would be
14:14:49 the meeting indicated by Ms. Coyle so that was the
14:14:52 first meeting in March. That would still move it up a
14:14:55 month and a half minimum, one to three weeks.
14:15:01 >> The cost of readvertising and remailing.
14:15:04 >>GWEN MILLER: We still have to do a mailout?
14:15:09 >>> Yes, you do.
14:15:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Both of them?
14:15:12 >>> Yes.
14:15:12 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm sorry, what was that meeting
14:15:14 date, the first one in March?
14:15:16 >>THE CLERK: If you're looking at an evening session
14:15:20 your first meeting would be March 8th.
14:15:22 I believe it would have to be one in the evening.
14:15:26 >>GWEN MILLER: March 8th.
14:15:27 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Is that the absolute soonest
14:15:34 possibility that we can do?
14:15:35 And all of our legal staff are telling us our hands
14:15:38 are tied with respect to anything earlier than that,
14:15:45 Julie, will you step in?
14:15:46 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
14:15:48 The issue is that this has been a hearing that has
14:15:51 been continued out on the record.
14:15:53 So at this point, it has been properly noticed and
14:15:57 properly continued to meet in April.
14:15:59 If you go with a date in April, you won't need to
14:16:03 You won't need to readvertise.
14:16:04 At least that's my understanding.
14:16:06 That was all properly done.
14:16:07 I believe that was properly done.
14:16:09 If you want to do it sooner, then in essence, it's a
14:16:13 new hearing.
14:16:13 So you have to file all of the notice requirements
14:16:16 that would be required for any transmittal hearing,
14:16:19 which is a 30-day mailed notice.
14:16:21 The newspaper notice.
14:16:22 You would have to do a resolution scheduling that
14:16:24 public hearing.
14:16:24 So really your options are you can do it sooner.
14:16:27 But the soonest we can do from what I'm hearing is
14:16:29 beginning the middle of March or we can wait and do
14:16:31 the hearing at the April date that was already
14:16:36 continued from the previously noticed public hearing.
14:16:44 >> You don't have to have an evening meeting.
14:16:47 You can do it March 1.
14:16:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
14:16:49 We are moving it up.
14:16:53 In the daytime.
14:16:55 Can we compromise on that?
14:16:59 Mr. Welch?
14:17:01 Come back up.
14:17:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It should be at 1:30.
14:17:08 >>> We really request as soon as possible, council.
14:17:10 We are not lawyers.
14:17:11 And we approached the subject with staff.
14:17:13 And we have not received any feedback from them here
14:17:18 He delayed the hearing originally.
14:17:20 We were in a delay mode -- I'm not going to argue the
14:17:23 We'll take March 1st.
14:17:25 We thank you for listening to the community.
14:17:27 >>GWEN MILLER: March 1st on a Thursday?
14:17:30 >>> Yes.
14:17:31 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
14:17:35 >> I would like to clarify for the record.
14:17:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I'm sorry.
14:17:48 Was there a motion and a second?
14:17:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
14:17:51 Trying to get the date set.
14:17:52 >>THE CLERK: There's not a night meeting on March
14:17:57 1st. The night meeting is March 8th.
14:17:59 >>GWEN MILLER: The day will be fine then.
14:18:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm not sure when --
14:18:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: March 1st during the day.
14:18:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Madam Chair?
14:18:18 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I wanted to be clear for the record
14:18:20 the notice that Mr. Walsh referenced originally done
14:18:24 was done by the Planning Commission.
14:18:26 They are ones that effect notice.
14:18:27 It was not a default on the part of the city.
14:18:29 In fact, the legal representation, the notice that was
14:18:32 done did meet the minimum standards.
14:18:34 The letter that will be going out for the new hearing
14:18:36 will come from our office, will be sent regular mail,
14:18:40 and notice them of the hearing.
14:18:42 If you are asking for me to add maps and other
14:18:45 documentation with it, it could become very costly
14:18:48 with the additional weight of the documents
14:18:53 I'll take your direction.
14:18:54 As I said it's going to cost approximately 1300 to do
14:18:57 the regular mailing.
14:18:58 I calculated out if I had to do certificate mailing it
14:19:01 could be 4,000.
14:19:01 If I add weight it could be between 3 and 5,000 to
14:19:06 There are approximately 3100 people to be noticed.
14:19:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Welch?
14:19:16 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Without getting into the merits of
14:19:18 the case, the language that we are going to be
14:19:20 bringing before you does not trigger a map amendment.
14:19:24 It does not trigger rezoning. It does not trying area
14:19:27 change to chapter 27.
14:19:28 It is strictly changes to two policies essentially in
14:19:31 the comprehensive plan.
14:19:32 >>GWEN MILLER: So just notice and let them know where
14:19:35 the meeting is going to be.
14:19:37 Just the notice then.
14:19:40 Mr. Dingfelder, are you finished?
14:19:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have concern about a daytime
14:19:44 meeting just because I think this has been such a high
14:19:47 profile issue that I think we should encourage --
14:19:50 schedule a meeting that would encourage folks to
14:19:57 So I think the March 8th in the evening would be
14:20:00 better just because it would be an edge meeting.
14:20:03 But I'm flexible either way.
14:20:05 The one thing I wanted to say, especially with Ms.
14:20:09 Coyle up at the podium, is the amount of work that
14:20:14 staff has put into this has been tremendous.
14:20:16 And they have worked their tail off.
14:20:19 I think the city has been very, very responsive to the
14:20:23 community's concerns.
14:20:25 And I know that the appointments as we work on these
14:20:32 things, regardless of where we end up on it.
14:20:40 >> I just want to clarify for the record, I had Plant
14:20:45 planned on putting the web link on the letter as well
14:20:47 because we do have this information posted on the web
14:20:49 site that people can access the document directly.
14:20:54 It's a PDF document.
14:20:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My suggestion, because this is an
14:20:57 important issue that people have weighed in on
14:21:00 heavily, that we schedule it for the first in the
14:21:04 evening separate from an evening where we have zoning
14:21:07 to allow the public to participate easily, and so that
14:21:11 we don't put the people who come for rezonings off
14:21:15 when we discuss this.
14:21:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I suggested March 1st.
14:21:25 We don't have an evening meeting.
14:21:26 >>GWEN MILLER: At 5:01.
14:21:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm suggesting it may be easier for
14:21:33 the public to participate and to not then put our
14:21:35 zoning meeting on the 8th.
14:21:37 >>GWEN MILLER: So are you saying 5:01 or 6:00?
14:21:41 Or 5:30?
14:21:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Whatever is more convenient.
14:21:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Welch, 5:01, 5:30 or 6:00?
14:21:50 >>> 5:30 is excellent.
14:21:53 Mrs. Saul-Sena, thank you so much.
14:21:55 We knew when you came to council that you would listen
14:21:57 to us and we really appreciate it.
14:21:58 >>GWEN MILLER: So March 1st at 5:30.
14:22:03 >>MARY ALVAREZ: She didn't have any opposition so it's
14:22:06 >>> We are glad we get you one more time, Mrs.
14:22:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Sorry.
14:22:14 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Cathy, you just said what you are
14:22:16 proposing is really rather anti-climatic at this
14:22:21 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I'm hoping.
14:22:23 I have been working directly with several people in
14:22:26 the audience including Mr. Welch and Mr. Bianca.
14:22:30 They have the draft of the latest revision.
14:22:32 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm okay with a special meeting.
14:22:35 It sounds like it's not going to go till all hours of
14:22:38 the night.
14:22:39 Cathy, once we have that hearing, will that finally
14:22:41 resolve the abatement issue that he would brought back
14:22:44 last week?
14:22:45 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Keep in mind all this is is a
14:22:48 transmittal hearing. This is your vote to transmit to
14:22:51 Then the state will submit the Orc report whether or
14:22:56 not it meets state statutes.
14:22:58 And then come back before you for the adoption
14:23:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Take them.
14:23:05 Conformance as well?
14:23:06 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I don't plan in these changes to
14:23:08 change the land use map, the land use designations
14:23:11 that there are will remain the same.
14:23:13 The zoning changes remain the same.
14:23:15 No text changes to chapter 27.
14:23:17 >>GWEN MILLER: You have a motion and second to
14:23:20 continue item number 9.
14:23:23 Until March 1st at 5:30 p.m.
14:23:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council.
14:23:32 >> It's a resolution to set the public hearing for
14:23:35 March 1 at 5:30.
14:23:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll second and I think it's a
14:23:43 great opportunity to give the community an
14:23:44 opportunity, hold it at night, give them an
14:23:46 opportunity to come down here at night and give us
14:23:48 their opinion.
14:23:49 Hopefully, we have done such a good job of responding
14:23:51 to the community's concerns, it will be a short and
14:23:54 sweet meeting, and we'll move on.
14:23:56 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
14:23:58 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
14:24:00 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
14:24:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That will be on next week's consent
14:24:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Next week's agenda.
14:24:08 >> City Council has the option of taking number 43,
14:24:11 the ordinance on the abatement, now or taking in
14:24:15 regular order.
14:24:26 >>GWEN MILLER: We'll do it now.
14:24:31 >>> John McKirchy, legal department.
14:24:33 I would like to pass out a revised ordinance.
14:24:35 Also wanted to thank Mr. Ordate for joining us
14:24:41 throughout this odyssey.
14:24:42 This is not just about Mr. Wells doing a great job but
14:24:45 also the Interbay neighborhood association which is a
14:24:47 new neighborhood association.
14:24:48 He would appreciate your participation as well.
14:24:56 >>> This is an extension only of the ordinance that's
14:24:58 been effected throughout the process.
14:25:01 The only difference is that we have made the abatement
14:25:04 inapplicable to single-family residential and
14:25:07 multifamily residential of six acres or less.
14:25:12 So that is a lesser restriction than existed in the
14:25:17 previous versions of the a basement -- abatement
14:25:22 This is for first reading only.
14:25:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Want to read it now?
14:25:32 We don't have to close it.
14:25:33 Does anyone in the public want to speak on item 43?
14:25:36 >> Move to close.
14:25:37 >>GWEN MILLER: He wants to speak.
14:25:43 >>> We do thank you.
14:25:43 I want to thank you for listening to Ballast Point
14:25:46 Interbay neighborhood, the existing single-family
14:25:49 which we stake our claim on zoning and land use.
14:25:52 Thank you very much.
14:25:53 All of you.
14:25:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak?
14:25:58 >> Move to close.
14:25:59 >> Second.
14:26:00 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
14:26:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance amending ordinance
14:26:04 2005-215 as amended which placed an abatement upon the
14:26:08 acceptance and or processing of applications for
14:26:10 rezoning special use permits and amendments to the
14:26:12 Tampa comprehensive plan, including future land use
14:26:15 map amendments for real property or portions thereof
14:26:19 located within the clear zone and accident potential
14:26:21 zone 1 in the vicinity of MacDill Air Force Base,
14:26:25 extending the application of ordinance number
14:26:27 2005-215, as amended, for an additional six months,
14:26:32 through August 5, 2007, to allow sufficient time to
14:26:36 finalize the findings of the joint land use study and
14:26:39 enactment or adoption of necessary regulatory and
14:26:42 non-regulatory measures, prohibiting the processing of
14:26:45 such requests within those zones of creating an
14:26:49 exemption for city-initiated measures, directly
14:26:53 related to the implementation of the findings of the
14:26:54 joint land use study, creating an exemption for real
14:26:58 property or portions thereof within existing or
14:27:02 proposed comprehensive plan, future land use map, or
14:27:05 zoning designation, or use of single-family
14:27:08 residential, or multi-family residential of six units
14:27:11 or less per acre, providing for severability,
14:27:14 repealing all ordinances or parts of all ordinances in
14:27:17 conflict herewith, providing an effective date.
14:27:19 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
14:27:21 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
14:27:26 All right.
14:27:27 We are going to see if anyone in the pun wants to
14:27:29 reconsider legislative matters.
14:27:31 Anyone who wants to reconsider legislative matter?
14:27:33 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak
14:27:36 on any item on the agenda set for a -- not set for a
14:27:39 public hearing?
14:27:41 Now we go to our ordinances for first reading.
14:27:44 We have a substitute ordinance.
14:27:54 >> Move to authorize the construction and installation
14:28:07 of a proposed encroachment building over a certain
14:28:10 public right-of-way a portion of the alley lying
14:28:12 between lots 1 and 8 in block 9 of Oscawana, generally
14:28:17 located between South Howard Avenue and south Westland
14:28:20 Avenue, as more particularly described herein, upon
14:28:23 certain terms, covenants, conditions and agreements,
14:28:26 providing an effective date.
14:28:27 >> Motion and discussion.
14:28:28 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
14:28:29 Item number 12.
14:28:31 >> Move
14:28:36 Mr. Dingfelder, would you read number 12?
14:28:38 Mr. Dingfelder?
14:28:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes, ma'am.
14:28:40 Let me catch up here.
14:28:47 I'll be glad to read that one.
14:28:52 That's the Palma Ceia rezoning that precludes
14:28:55 multifamily in Palma Ceia.
14:28:58 Thank goodness.
14:28:59 An ordinance providing for an area-wide rezoning the
14:29:01 general location of which is south of Estrella street,
14:29:04 west of mart Aye street, north of San Luis street and
14:29:08 east of Himes Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and
14:29:10 more particularly described in section 1 from zoning
14:29:13 district classifications RM-16 residential multifamily
14:29:16 and CM commercial neighborhood to RS-50 residential
14:29:20 single family providing an effective date.
14:29:21 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
14:29:22 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
14:29:26 We now go to our committee reports.
14:29:27 >>FRANK REDDICK: I move resolution number 13.
14:29:33 >>GWEN MILLER: On parks and recreation.
14:29:35 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
14:29:37 Public works, John Dingfelder.
14:29:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move 14 through 17.
14:29:42 >> Second.
14:29:42 (Motion carried).
14:29:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Finance Committee, Mr. Charles
14:29:49 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: I move items 18 through 23.
14:29:53 >> Second.
14:29:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think Mr. Stout is in the
14:29:58 audience and wanted to congratulate him as the mayor's
14:30:01 and city's new director and head of internal audit.
14:30:06 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
14:30:08 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
14:30:09 Building and zoning, Mrs. Linda Saul-Sena.
14:30:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move resolutions 24
14:30:15 through 30.
14:30:16 >> Second.
14:30:16 (Motion carried).
14:30:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Transportation, Mr. Shawn Harrison.
14:30:24 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move 31 through 36.
14:30:25 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
14:30:30 (Motion carried).
14:30:31 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to set new business items 37
14:30:34 through 48.
14:30:35 >> Second.
14:30:35 (Motion carried)
14:30:38 Through 40.
14:30:40 >>CHAIRMAN: We now go to our public hearings.
14:30:42 >> Move to item number 41.
14:30:44 >> Second.
14:30:44 (Motion carried).
14:30:45 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development. The ordinance
14:30:52 before you, which we had set for today for first
14:30:54 reading, was to create the 4PGC for beer, wine and
14:31:03 liquor sales consumption from mobile cars and
14:31:05 temporary bars on a public golf course, specifically
14:31:09 in this case for Babe Zaharias, but any other public
14:31:13 golf course, having at least nine holes, comprising a
14:31:15 minimum of 35 acres of land.
14:31:16 This classification would not be subject to the
14:31:22 provisions or recording requirements for restaurant.
14:31:26 The second page of the ordinance section 340 also
14:31:29 notes for consumption and consumption of open
14:31:33 containers on streets, sidewalks, alleys and other
14:31:36 public property.
14:31:38 We added provision C-4 for those portions of the
14:31:42 streets or sidewalks that connect the golf cart
14:31:45 If you have any questions, this is a --
14:31:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone in the public want to speak
14:31:53 on item 41?
14:31:55 >> Move to close.
14:31:56 Oh, there's one.
14:32:05 >>> Good afternoon, council.
14:32:06 My name is Gayle matson, 104 matcliff circle, Tampa,
14:32:13 specifically Forest Hills.
14:32:14 I'm also the president of Forest Hills neighborhood
14:32:18 We are very proud that this has been brought before
14:32:22 council and have an opportunity to speak on this.
14:32:26 We too have brought down a large contention of
14:32:28 personnel today but most of them are smarter than I
14:32:31 They are out playing golf today.
14:32:34 But we do have Kenny Simms from the Babe Zaharias golf
14:32:40 course and Kenny baker from the Sports Authority if
14:32:45 you have any questions.
14:32:46 I would like to present or read a letter and then
14:32:48 present it for filing for City Council.
14:32:51 To Mr. Henry Servatra, a letter dated September
14:32:56 29th, 2006.
14:32:59 This is to advise the Tampa Sports Authority that on
14:33:03 September 12th, 2006, the Forest Hills
14:33:05 Neighborhood Association, FHNA, held a general
14:33:10 membership meeting during which the floor was open for
14:33:12 the discussion of the matter of wet zoning.
14:33:15 More specifically, a beverage cart for the babes
14:33:19 Zaharias golf course, the baby.
14:33:24 The matter of wet zoning was put to vote and approved
14:33:29 We look forward to hearing from you in the future, and
14:33:32 as to the next steps to be taken to effect wet zoning
14:33:34 for the babes.
14:33:38 I would like to present those for your file.
14:33:41 >>CHAIRMAN: Would anyone else like to speak?
14:33:45 >> Move to close.
14:33:46 >> Second.
14:33:46 (Motion carried).
14:33:47 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I just wanted to recognize all the
14:33:52 folks in Forest Hills who worked very hard for this.
14:33:55 And I think this will actually improve the bottom line
14:33:58 for our public golf courses and goodness knows
14:34:00 whatever we can do to help them become more
14:34:02 profitable, we need to do, because that keeps them
14:34:05 from coming to us to ask for more money at budget
14:34:08 So good work everybody that's been a part of this.
14:34:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you want to read that?
14:34:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
14:34:18 Move an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida
14:34:19 amending chapter 3, alcoholic beverages code, City of
14:34:22 Tampa code of ordinances amending section 3-30,
14:34:27 alcoholic zoning classification, amending section
14:34:30 3-40, consumption and possession of open containers on
14:34:32 the streets, sidewalks, alleys and other public
14:34:35 property, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
14:34:37 conflict, providing for severability, providing an
14:34:39 effective date.
14:34:40 >> We have a motion and second.
14:34:41 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
14:34:43 Opposed, Nay.
14:34:43 (Motion carried) need to open 42.
14:34:49 >> So moved.
14:34:50 >> Second.
14:34:50 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
14:34:51 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
14:34:52 I'm here concerning the annexation.
14:34:54 I have a PowerPoint presentation.
14:34:58 This will be placed on the screen.
14:35:01 Need some help.
14:35:30 Cable, we need help.
14:35:33 They don't have it.
14:35:37 >>GWEN MILLER: You got it now.
14:35:43 >>> This is the wilderness crossing annexation.
14:35:47 It gets that name from the subdivision of the property
14:35:52 It is located at the southeast corner of the Pasco
14:35:54 County line and Morris Bridge Road.
14:35:57 It comes with approximately 379 acres.
14:36:02 The dark line that you see, the dashed line, is the
14:36:06 city limit line.
14:36:07 The property is directly across the street from the
14:36:09 K-bar property.
14:36:13 This illustration is showing the different ownerships
14:36:16 that are involved.
14:36:18 We have 25 property owners to this petition for
14:36:24 The subdivision does include 34 lots.
14:36:27 You will see that in the center, there are
14:36:29 approximately 9 lots that have elected not to petition
14:36:32 for annexation.
14:36:35 The covered parcels represent the different property
14:36:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a quick legal question.
14:36:45 I thought when you petitioned for annexation towed
14:36:48 physically be proximate to city property.
14:36:51 And I just wanted to check out the one in the middle
14:36:55 that are not wishing to participate that that doesn't
14:36:59 negate the other people.
14:37:00 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Yes, that's correct.
14:37:02 Actually the Morris Bridge Road is county road.
14:37:06 And those parcels all have direct access to the county
14:37:10 Therefore, by the strict determination of an enclave,
14:37:14 they are determined not to be an enclave.
14:37:17 The legal department can further explain that.
14:37:20 The legal department has reviewed this petition and
14:37:23 found it to be consistent with the state law in terms
14:37:27 of application.
14:37:30 The property currently is in an agricultural land use
14:37:33 classification, according to the Hillsborough County
14:37:35 land use, future land use designation, and also an
14:37:40 agricultural zoning district.
14:37:43 It is one unit for every ten acres.
14:37:48 The location again is at the very tip of the northern
14:37:53 eastern edge of the city.
14:37:55 It is not in the urban service area for the city,
14:37:58 which is usually the boundary of the city limits.
14:38:01 And it is also not in the urban service area as
14:38:05 identified in the county's comprehensive plan.
14:38:08 It is, however, in the water and sewer service area
14:38:11 for the city.
14:38:16 This slide summarizes the state statute, and it does
14:38:20 allow for properties that are -- municipalities and
14:38:26 reasonably petition their government for annexation in
14:38:31 the into the municipality.
14:38:34 The legal department again has reviewed this and it is
14:38:37 not an enclave that's being created.
14:38:47 Issues and concerns.
14:38:48 When this petition was filed with the city, this
14:38:51 showed all the different city departments.
14:38:53 There was a lack of information that there is not a
14:38:56 unified development plan for this property.
14:38:58 Each individual property owner is saying they would
14:39:00 like to join the city.
14:39:02 However, they have no immediate plans for development.
14:39:08 This kind of -- usually comes to us with a proposed
14:39:16 plan, and then we could evaluate it so that an
14:39:20 annexation agreement could be reviewed and approved by
14:39:23 the city.
14:39:25 That is not the case hear.
14:39:28 Our list of comments received from the different
14:39:30 agencies, the fire department did raise concerns
14:39:34 concerning the response time there is currently a need
14:39:43 for a fire station in this area.
14:39:44 This area is currently served by the county.
14:39:47 But there is an interlocal agreement that requires the
14:39:52 fire department to respond if the county is not able
14:39:55 In that regard, it's not worsening the situation by
14:39:57 the annexation of this property.
14:40:07 The wastewater department issued an explanation as to
14:40:09 what is expected.
14:40:11 If there is no such facility adjacent to the property.
14:40:15 The service extension will be required if future
14:40:20 development is requiring the water and sewer service.
14:40:24 The extension over 24,000 feet.
14:40:28 It will be done at the expense of the developer.
14:40:30 There are a number of conditions that were reviewed
14:40:32 with the applicant.
14:40:34 And so they are aware of those conditions.
14:40:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If they wanted to develop out of
14:40:47 the low density, then they wouldn't have to bring them
14:40:57 water and sewer?
14:40:57 Just septic?
14:40:59 >>GLORIA MOREDA: that's correct.
14:41:01 I asked Charley about that yesterday, a very long
14:41:06 extension, 24,000 feet.
14:41:13 The ability to use septic tanks will depend on whether
14:41:17 the health department approves that use and it is
14:41:21 possible for lower density development to be able to
14:41:23 be on septic.
14:41:31 The city's wastewater department for determination at
14:41:33 that time.
14:41:36 I'm not sure what happened but I lost my -- I can just
14:41:39 review it.
14:41:40 The upland habitat is the next issue.
14:41:42 I just wanted you to be aware that they are going to
14:41:48 be subject to upland habitat.
14:41:51 This parcel does include county map area significant
14:41:57 for wildlife habitat.
14:41:59 When property is annexed into the city, what is
14:42:01 required, the Parks Department to survey the area, to
14:42:06 analyze it, to determine how upland habitat will be
14:42:10 That will be done if the city is to annex this
14:42:13 property within the next year.
14:42:16 The property will be subject to parks land
14:42:23 And in terms of transportation, the property would be
14:42:26 subject also, and future development would be subject
14:42:29 to concurrency review.
14:42:31 Morris Bridge Road is at a level of service C right
14:42:37 They have no objection at this point.
14:42:39 Water department, no objection.
14:42:40 Stormwater indicated that they will have to meet the
14:42:42 city's water, stormwater requirement, which is the
14:42:46 five-year, 25-year post-development requirement for
14:42:49 the entire site.
14:42:55 In terms of Land Development Coordination, the
14:42:57 property is not in an urban service area.
14:42:59 And they have indicated to us that there are no
14:43:01 immediate plans for development.
14:43:03 So when property is annexed into the city, the city
14:43:07 will have -- a new land use classification identifying
14:43:12 what densities are appropriate for this property
14:43:18 according to our Tampa comprehensive plan.
14:43:21 We will have basically two years to bring it into the
14:43:24 compliance of the land use plan, as well as the zoning
14:43:30 We envision that given no immediate plans for
14:43:36 development, to craft a new land use classification
14:43:39 similar to the densities and intensities that the
14:43:42 property already has, and developed also a new zoning
14:43:46 classification to follow suit with that intensity.
14:43:51 Right now, you're looking at one unit per ten acres.
14:43:57 At that point, we have no objection to the proposed
14:44:02 I do want to say that in terms of the time that this
14:44:09 is being reviewed and it's considered for annexation,
14:44:12 it's really probably a good time, because working with
14:44:15 the adoption of the update to our Tampa comprehensive
14:44:18 plan, we'll be able to evaluate not just this part,
14:44:23 but really the entire annex area for determination of
14:44:26 appropriate intensities and development so it will run
14:44:35 along with that process.
14:44:36 I'm here to answer any questions.
14:44:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council members?
14:44:41 >> Shawn, on behalf of petitioners.
14:44:53 And city did a great job of sums rising so I will
14:44:57 certainly not take under any more of your time.
14:45:00 I know you are under time constraint.
14:45:01 Let me make three quick points that weren't covered in
14:45:04 the presentation.
14:45:05 One is as to the process.
14:45:06 This is a two-step process by statute.
14:45:08 Today all we are considering is just bringing the
14:45:10 property into the City of Tampa.
14:45:12 Step two in the next year, we will come back for
14:45:15 rezoning land use, those type of things.
14:45:18 I know Gloria has had concerns about zoning.
14:45:20 I was told when we first applied not to ask for
14:45:24 particular zoning, that way we were more flexible to
14:45:27 work with the city, and we certainly will.
14:45:29 We know it's a concern and we will spend the next 12
14:45:31 months working generally towards that.
14:45:32 The second point that I want to bring up is just write
14:45:38 a little context to the area.
14:45:40 I want to just show you a map, if you can all see
14:45:48 We are talking about just this little yellow area.
14:45:52 We are on Morris Bridge Road at county line.
14:45:55 And you have got K-bar ranch here, Robert Thomas
14:46:02 development which is in the county's urban service
14:46:05 And then you have got a state park hear.
14:46:07 So we are this little island here.
14:46:10 And the only one that is not within the urban service
14:46:13 And that's what's driving our petition here.
14:46:15 We are experiencing a lot of the same growth concerns
14:46:18 up there.
14:46:19 There's traffic, all these other things.
14:46:21 But we are not getting any of the benefits.
14:46:22 Right now that water line is being installed right in
14:46:25 front of our property on Morris Bridge Road.
14:46:27 Yet we are on well and septic.
14:46:30 Both of the things which are bad for the environment.
14:46:32 That's what drove this in the beginning.
14:46:36 As galore what pointed out, we don't have any plans
14:46:39 for development.
14:46:40 These are all individual land owners.
14:46:41 We simply would like to be included in an urban
14:46:44 service area and pulled into the 21st century.
14:46:48 Third and final thing, I want to point out to you,
14:46:50 this is a mutually beneficial move because obviously
14:46:53 for us it allows us to have services for the city in
14:46:56 this area but I think it also benefits the City of
14:46:59 Because as Gloria pointed out, right now some of the
14:47:02 services are already deficient, when K-bar ranch goes
14:47:05 on line and puts in 16 home homes it's already
14:47:09 permitted for and petition for another 700 homes,
14:47:11 there's no fire station there.
14:47:13 But you also don't have any place to put that fire
14:47:16 And they would like to use this land.
14:47:17 What we are giving you is vacant land that is
14:47:21 available to use as the -- police stations, new
14:47:28 schools, new parks that are needed.
14:47:29 Now you have available land.
14:47:31 For us we have available services.
14:47:33 So I think it is a give and take that is mutually
14:47:36 With that I'll conclude and answer any questions you
14:47:39 might have.
14:47:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: One question and one comment.
14:47:43 I'll start with the comment.
14:47:44 When Mr. Thomas, Robert Thomas and his family have
14:47:48 recently gone through a comp plan change I'm sure
14:47:51 you're aware of, and I don't know where they are on
14:47:53 the rezoning, for their property, and I know it's a
14:47:57 lot of environmentally sensitive property in that
14:47:59 corner, I am going to guess some of that
14:48:01 environmentally sensitive stuff probably goes in to
14:48:03 you and your neighbors' property as well.
14:48:05 So my point there is to work with staff but maybe use
14:48:10 Mr. Thomas' model as a model for yourself juice that
14:48:14 is something we had discussed because it's a beautiful
14:48:16 amendment to the -- it's not eligible for us because
14:48:20 we are not in the urban but it would be a great model.
14:48:23 >> Exactly.
14:48:24 But I think it would be, because that, Mr. Thomas,
14:48:28 they took a lot of environmental considerations into
14:48:31 And that's number one.
14:48:34 Number two is, I asked staff yesterday, so either
14:48:38 staff or Mr. Starling, you can respond to. This I had
14:48:41 some concerns to make sure this wouldn't affect
14:48:43 anybody's property value and their property
14:48:47 I mean, it might affect their property value but I was
14:48:49 concerned from the tax appraisers' office that this
14:48:55 wouldn't all of a sudden, people would lose their
14:48:57 grandfathering and lose their 3% save our homes and
14:49:00 that sort of thing because it's gone from county to
14:49:02 I don't know much about that sort of thing.
14:49:04 But I just want to make sure there weren't those
14:49:07 >>> Thank you for bringing that up.
14:49:09 This has been a two-year process.
14:49:11 When it first started in January of 'oh 5 we were
14:49:14 asked to get all of the neighbors together to discuss
14:49:16 I invited both the Hillsborough County property
14:49:19 appraiser and the tax collector's office as well as
14:49:22 city legal, and we had already gone through the county
14:49:25 who recommended this to begin with, the annexation.
14:49:28 They spoke to that issue directly.
14:49:29 The only thing that will change slightly is the
14:49:32 millage rate within the city is slightly higher than
14:49:34 that in the county.
14:49:36 It's a matter of a couple of dollars per year.
14:49:38 Everyone is still eligible for homestead exemption,
14:49:42 greenbelt exemptions.
14:49:43 No one's property value is going to be reassessed
14:49:46 simply because of the move from the county into the
14:49:48 It will just be a separate millage rate that's applied
14:49:50 and result in, I believe the number he said, was $24
14:49:54 per 100,000 or something like that.
14:49:56 And all of the petitioners are aware of that.
14:49:59 So it should be a de minimus effect.
14:50:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The real concern I have is that the
14:50:11 city not have to make infrastructure investments in
14:50:18 terms of water and sewer that are just apportion of
14:50:22 the benefit that you would get from being part of the
14:50:25 I had extensive conversations with our staff.
14:50:29 They feel assured when you come in for rezoning that
14:50:32 we will be able to recoup any investment that we would
14:50:35 make in providing those city services to you.
14:50:38 In other words, the granting this annexation wouldn't
14:50:43 have a negative financial effect existing to the City
14:50:46 of Tampa.
14:50:47 They assured me that would not be the case.
14:50:49 >>> And that's exactly the reason that I brought up
14:50:52 with the water line that's being put in right now.
14:50:55 You are already doing that for K-bar directly in front
14:50:58 of our property.
14:50:59 We would be responsible for the connection fee between
14:51:01 our property and that.
14:51:02 But that's something that's already been budgeted, is
14:51:04 already in the process.
14:51:05 So you don't have to do anything for us.
14:51:07 You are just allowing us to partake of what's already
14:51:09 being done.
14:51:10 And obviously if there were anything that were to
14:51:12 develop in the future, Farris distant future I would
14:51:16 imagine, then concurrency would kick in and would you
14:51:19 get participation for any type of road improvement,
14:51:21 any type of park improvements, those type of things
14:51:23 that would help you.
14:51:24 Now you have city land on either side.
14:51:26 You have two people kicking into the pot rather than
14:51:29 just the K-bar side.
14:51:30 So I think if anything it will be a financial help to
14:51:33 the city.
14:51:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
14:51:38 wants to speak on item number 42?
14:51:42 >> Move to close.
14:51:43 >> Second.
14:51:46 You moved too slow.
14:51:52 >>> Malon Durst in South Tampa.
14:52:01 You might wonder why I am up here speaking on this.
14:52:04 I have been all over the map most of my adult life in
14:52:07 the City of Tampa.
14:52:08 And it's excite to me to see the City of Tampa grow.
14:52:13 We haven't annexed anything in a while.
14:52:15 We do have property here.
14:52:16 And I'm contained of, as you know, focused on public
14:52:20 safety issues.
14:52:21 But I'm seeing here the opportunity to have land to
14:52:26 put public facilities there, and expedite those needs
14:52:31 for not just this area, but the entire area.
14:52:35 That entire area, the city going up toward the county
14:52:38 line, has been deficient in that way for a long time.
14:52:42 And as Mr. Darling pointed out you don't have quite
14:52:47 As a matter of fact you have people who are certainly
14:52:49 going to be paying their pro rata share of providing
14:52:52 those services and making it possible to the rest of
14:52:55 the people in that New Tampa area to have better
14:52:59 public safety facilities and response time.
14:53:02 So I'm here to speak in favor of this.
14:53:05 I can't see anything that is a down side for the city
14:53:09 or to the citizens.
14:53:10 So I'm here to speak in favor of it.
14:53:13 Thank you.
14:53:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
14:53:14 Would anyone else like to speak?
14:53:16 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
14:53:17 >> Second.
14:53:18 (Motion carried).
14:53:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'd like to move an ordinance
14:53:29 relating to the voluntary annexation to the city of
14:53:32 Tampa, Florida a municipal corporation existing under
14:53:34 the laws of the State of Florida, of certain
14:53:36 unincorporated lands consisting of approximately
14:53:39 378.64 acres of land generally located one mile north
14:53:45 of Cross Creek Boulevard, south of and adjacent to the
14:53:48 Hillsborough/pasco County line and east of Morris
14:53:51 Bridge Road, annexing said properties to the City of
14:53:55 Tampa upon the petition from owners of said
14:53:58 properties, redefining and extending the boundary
14:54:01 lines of the City of Tampa to include said properties,
14:54:04 providing an effective date.
14:54:05 >> Second.
14:54:05 (Motion carried).
14:54:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public that's going to
14:54:10 speak on items 44 through 55, would you please stand
14:54:13 and raise your right hand?
14:54:25 We need to open item 44 through 55.
14:54:31 We have a motion and second.
14:54:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I ask that all written communications
14:54:35 relative to today's hearings which have been available
14:54:37 for public inspection at the council's office to be
14:54:40 received and filed at this time.
14:54:42 Motion, please.
14:54:44 >> So moved.
14:54:44 >> Second.
14:54:45 (Motion carried).
14:54:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Very briefly.
14:54:51 I just gave that to the clerk F.any members of council
14:54:54 have any verbal communications, ex parte communication
14:54:56 was any petitioner, his or her representative or any
14:54:59 member of the public in connection with today's
14:55:01 hearings, please a reminder to disclose that provider
14:55:03 to the vote.
14:55:04 Finally, ladies and gentlemen, when you state your
14:55:06 name, please reaffirm that you have been sworn.
14:55:08 Thank you.
14:55:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Ready?
14:55:12 >>BARBARA LYNCH: Land Development Coordination.
14:55:14 And I have been sworn.
14:55:15 This is a continued public hearing.
14:55:18 It's in the East Tampa area.
14:55:20 And generally located north of Martin Luther King
14:55:24 Boulevard and west of 22nd street.
14:55:31 I have the Elmo up with the picture.
14:55:33 Petitioner's property is shown in red and the streets
14:55:35 to be vacated are outlined in yellow and the
14:55:38 petitioner is requesting to vacate a portion of
14:55:41 Genesee Street, 22nd street and alleyways lying
14:55:45 between 21st and 22nd street, and general easy
14:55:49 and Chelsea street.
14:55:50 The individual petition did include Chelsea street.
14:55:54 Petitioner has dropped that portion.
14:55:59 This property is located in the East Tampa mixed use
14:56:02 overlay district.
14:56:07 I am going to show you pictures of the street. This
14:56:09 is 22nd street.
14:56:11 And this is looking from Chelsea to general easy.
14:56:14 This is a picture -- general easy.
14:56:19 This is looking from Genesee to Chelsea street. This
14:56:24 is a fought off Genesee to 21st street.
14:56:29 And Genesee again looking the opposite way from
14:56:32 21st to 22nd street. The next pictures are
14:56:35 pictures of the alley. This is the east-west alley.
14:56:41 And that's the condition of the east-west alley.
14:56:48 This is the north-south alley.
14:56:55 Staff objects to this petition in regards to the
14:56:56 portion of 22nd street that's being vacated based
14:56:59 on objections from FDOT, DCW and zoning.
14:57:03 Staff has no objection to the portion of the alleyways
14:57:06 and the portion of Genesee street being vacated.
14:57:10 And easement is requested.
14:57:21 I do have a letter sent by FDOT and there is a
14:57:24 representative from FDOT but I am going to give you
14:57:26 the letter just in case you didn't get it.
14:57:28 I transmitted it yesterday.
14:57:36 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Legal department.
14:57:37 I don't have anything to add to the presentation.
14:57:39 We have not prepared an ordinance in anticipation of
14:57:42 this particular hearing because it's come to you with
14:57:45 a recommendation not to approve.
14:57:47 That being the case, that's why you do not have an
14:57:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
14:57:59 >>> John Marshall, Holland and Knight LLC, here in
14:58:04 And I have been sworn.
14:58:05 This afternoon, we are representing the petitioner,
14:58:08 Mr. Curtis brown, who is here with us today.
14:58:16 I would just like to give the clerk a book with some
14:58:20 of the documents to refer to today, and then to the
14:58:23 staff as well.
14:58:42 Mr. Brown and his former wife Juanita brown own
14:58:46 several lots adjacent to the right-of-way that Mr.
14:58:50 Brown has petitioned to vacate.
14:58:53 I am going to put back up on the Elmo the picture we
14:58:56 were just referring to when Ms. Lynch was just here.
14:59:01 Just a few things to highlight.
14:59:05 Barbara did a good job setting this up.
14:59:08 First, right across the street from the area of
14:59:11 22nd street that Mr. Brown proposes to vacate.
14:59:18 It's difficult to tell here, I realize, because the
14:59:20 Elmo is -- the scale.
14:59:25 This is moving north along 22nd street from MLK to
14:59:28 Hillsborough which is up here, Middleton high school.
14:59:33 The right-of-way is here.
14:59:37 From Mr. Brown's investigation and our investigation
14:59:40 there is somewhere between 75 and 100 feet of
14:59:44 When you get just north of Chelsea street, right here,
14:59:48 it's a large drainage area that the city has here, the
14:59:50 right-of-way all the way up to Hillsborough, there's
14:59:58 quite a bit of narrowing right there.
15:00:01 It's also, I think, significant to note that the other
15:00:07 part of this, the T-shaped alleyway here, as Barbara
15:00:14 said, no objection to the alleyway.
15:00:17 This is the portion, on these lots.
15:00:24 No objection also to that portion of the location.
15:00:28 Just to sort of summarize the current situation, what
15:00:31 we are bringing to you today is the question of
15:00:35 whether there can be a vacation of right-of-way along
15:00:38 22nd street.
15:00:40 And there are staff objections to that.
15:00:43 And we have no objections to the alleyway into the
15:00:46 Genesee street location.
15:00:47 But with respect to 22nd street, one of the issues
15:00:50 that when worked with all the staff but have not yet
15:00:54 been able to resolve is the width of right-of-way
15:00:56 between Mr. Brown's property and the school board
15:00:59 property across the street.
15:01:02 As I said a moment ago, there's conflicting evidence
15:01:07 out there in documents, anywhere from 75 feet to 100
15:01:12 I'll get into that a little more particularly in a
15:01:15 But I wanted you to know sort of at the end of the day
15:01:19 what we'll be asking council is with respect to this
15:01:21 portion of the vacation request, we may need
15:01:25 additional time to get an updated survey and title.
15:01:28 We had a survey that Mr. Brown has already had done
15:01:32 but we need to get additional data on the width of the
15:01:35 right-of-way in this area.
15:01:35 So we may be asking you at the end of the day if you
15:01:38 could have consideration with respect to that part of
15:01:42 the vacation request, or until we get the title survey
15:01:47 We have been working with staff to address this issue
15:01:51 and staff has been great but we just haven't been able
15:01:53 to come to a unified opinion about the width of the
15:01:56 right-of-way in that area.
15:01:57 And with that, to start, I just wanted to say staff
15:02:00 has been wonderful from stem to stern, from beginning
15:02:03 to end, and Mr. Brown has really appreciated the time
15:02:06 that they spent with him over the years, but
15:02:08 particularly in the last six months since this was
15:02:15 To provide some background, Mr. Brown, a great story
15:02:20 of a man and his community, and he is a product of
15:02:23 East Tampa and has grown up here.
15:02:25 His family has owned this property since 1970.
15:02:28 And Mr. Brown has been looking at developing this
15:02:31 property for about the last 20 years, has been working
15:02:34 with various state agencies and city department
15:02:38 personnel for quite a time to understand what the
15:02:40 issues are out there, to try to resolve them and try
15:02:43 to move forward to do something that will bring
15:02:46 beneficial economic development to this part of East
15:02:54 It's a request where the public purpose lies, and
15:02:58 where Mr. Brown feels it strongly lies, one thing that
15:03:02 he notes is that there is just an absence of
15:03:07 appropriate space for professionals in this area of
15:03:09 East Tampa.
15:03:10 And this is such a critical corridor and one with good
15:03:16 office space, that there would be an opportunity for
15:03:19 the possibility of accountants or lawyers, health
15:03:22 professionals, other professionals to have office
15:03:25 space that they could use along this critical
15:03:29 And there's reason to be optimistic about this public
15:03:35 And the reason is what's on the board and what the
15:03:37 city is planning for this 22nd street north
15:03:40 And I'm just going to refer to a tab that I have here,
15:03:45 if I can put another graphic on the Elmo.
15:03:47 What it is, it shows you what's being planned
15:04:00 This is the proposed design for 22nd street
15:04:03 between MLK and Hillsborough Avenue.
15:04:05 And if you add up these dimensions here of what the
15:04:09 city is holding, what we understand and what Mr. Brown
15:04:14 wholeheartedly supports, is the city is going to need
15:04:17 a minimum of 06 feet of right-of-way to do that.
15:04:19 As you can see, there are sidewalks on both sides of
15:04:21 the street.
15:04:22 There are -- of the two lanes that are there now, it's
15:04:27 going to be divided by a median.
15:04:29 So this important trends great things for the city and
15:04:35 it will be important for all the businesses and all
15:04:37 the homeowners who are there in that part of the city.
15:04:42 Mr. Brown isn't asking for any of the right-of-way
15:04:44 that will be used for this improvement.
15:04:47 He believes, though, that there's about 100 feet of
15:04:50 right-of-way in front of his house, and so there would
15:04:53 be perhaps up to 40 feet of extra right-of-way, that
15:04:58 if it's not going to be used for improvement like
15:05:00 this, which he thinks is great, that he would like to
15:05:06 use some portion of that right-of-way ideally up to 25
15:05:09 feet to develop an office building on this parcel that
15:05:11 fronts 22nd street.
15:05:17 FDOT and the City of Tampa have objections to the
15:05:22 22nd street request.
15:05:25 And I want to start with the FDOT concern about their
15:05:27 request for vacation.
15:05:30 The letter that you were just handed or that Mr.
15:05:32 Shelby was just handed states as a first concern that
15:05:37 22nd street north is a State Road, and the city
15:05:40 needs to be careful about what it does with the state
15:05:43 We certainly understand that concern, and we
15:05:45 understand that 22nd street north is a State Road.
15:05:50 But what we have also learned -- and this goes back to
15:05:56 the process -- is that 22nd street north is a road
15:06:03 that the state has said is approximately 50 feet in
15:06:09 And it's 50 feet going northward to Hillsborough.
15:06:13 And this is a letter from the department in 1984.
15:06:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can you read that?
15:06:27 It's too small.
15:06:29 >>> Absolutely.
15:06:30 A letter from the district administrator for property
15:06:33 management for FDOT, may 8th of 1984, a short
15:06:37 letter to Mr. Brown saying that their record states
15:06:41 this State Road which is 585, 22nd street north,
15:06:45 has a width of 50 feet northward to State Road 600.
15:06:52 So with that in mind, with FDOT saying at this point
15:06:56 in 1984 that they have 50 feet of right-of-way that
15:07:01 they are concerned about here, we know that the city
15:07:02 has plans to widen the right-of-way to 60 feet.
15:07:09 We believe that FDOT's concerns are addressed.
15:07:12 And we don't want anything that FDOT currently has
15:07:15 that's in the right-of-way.
15:07:18 The second concern that FDOT said in the letter is
15:07:22 that 22nd street will at some point in the future
15:07:27 need to be widened for sidewalks, bike paths,
15:07:31 et cetera.
15:07:32 As a practical matter, FDOT is concerned, if -- it's a
15:07:36 real problem for two reasons.
15:07:37 One is we learned in July 2006 of this year in meeting
15:07:41 with FDOT that they have no current plans to widen
15:07:44 22nd street.
15:07:45 So there's nothing on the books.
15:07:48 The only thing on the books or what's proposed is what
15:07:51 the city plans to do.
15:07:52 But with that said, the existing road is now 24 feet
15:07:56 wide, 12 feet each way.
15:07:59 The city plans to add 6-foot sidewalks on each side of
15:08:02 22nd street and the 14-Foo foot median so will
15:08:06 have that 60-foot right-of-way that will be protected
15:08:09 by the city, and will encompass the 50 feet that FDOT
15:08:12 has in the past told us is out there, and that they
15:08:15 are concerned about.
15:08:17 As a legal matter, there is another issue.
15:08:20 What sort of interest does FDOT have in the
15:08:25 From what we understand from having talked with the
15:08:27 city attorney and staff is that the interest that FDOT
15:08:31 has, and that interest right now currently ends at
15:08:36 Chelsea street.
15:08:37 I just want to point that out to you so you can see
15:08:40 how closely it is to surrounding property.
15:08:43 What we understand is coming north from Columbus
15:08:47 drive, and coming north to just above the property
15:08:51 across the street, above that is the city's
15:08:57 That's what we were told.
15:08:59 So if D.O.T -- FDOT come to the table at this point in
15:09:06 But because of the maintenance interest, the concern
15:09:10 is what sort of facilities does FDOT have there?
15:09:13 2 the road is the physical facility that's currently
15:09:16 The other concern they did have last summer is whether
15:09:18 or not their FDOT drainage facilities, and FDOT was
15:09:23 God enough to send a crew out and determine that the
15:09:26 only facilities that are there now are City of Tampa
15:09:31 drainage facilities, which of course we have talked
15:09:33 about with the city is right-of-way vacation, and that
15:09:38 wouldn't be implicated in what we are asking for.
15:09:41 But as far as maintenance is concerned, what road is
15:09:43 out there, it's only been the road that the actual 24
15:09:48 feet of pavement that FDOT has been maintaining.
15:09:50 Mr. Brown tells me that he and his neighbors have
15:09:52 actually been cutting the grass in the right-of-way as
15:09:55 long as they can remember.
15:09:56 There is no FDOT maintenance there as far as mowing is
15:09:59 concerned at this point in time.
15:10:04 So drawing this together in the public works, City of
15:10:07 Tampa, also objects to the 22nd street vacation.
15:10:11 And this is where we come back to asking for an
15:10:14 additional time to gather some data and look at the
15:10:16 data, the survey, and title data with staff.
15:10:21 As I said, there is a difference of opinion about how
15:10:24 wide the right-of-way is at this point.
15:10:28 Just to demonstrate to you so you understand where we
15:10:31 are getting some of the conflicting data from, I just
15:10:34 want to show you a few documents so that you can get a
15:10:37 flavor for what we are trying to sort through, and why
15:10:40 a definitive survey.
15:10:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I ask you a quick question?
15:10:47 On Genesee street what is that along Genesee street?
15:10:51 It looks like a place where a sidewalk would go or
15:10:54 something like that.
15:10:54 I don't know.
15:10:57 >>> Thank you, Mr. Dingfelder.
15:10:58 There is significant right-of-way.
15:10:59 Let me try to blow up a little bit so you can see
15:11:32 >>> Here's another shot.
15:11:33 A little better actually showing the property line.
15:11:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Doesn't really matter what he
15:11:39 I want to know what you and staff think about the
15:11:41 availability of the sidewalk, if they granted the
15:11:45 vacation at Genesee.
15:11:48 >> I was in some meetings with Roy LaMotte and Kevin,
15:11:53 and Roy met in the field with Mr. Marshall and the
15:11:56 petitioner, and he stated he would not object to the 7
15:12:00 So he must feel that,
15:12:09 He was not poached to 22nd street but the alleys
15:12:12 could be vacated.
15:12:13 So the initial petition after 15 feet that they scaled
15:12:17 back to 7.
15:12:18 So I guess that needs enough room.
15:12:22 Unfortunately Calvin couldn't be here today.
15:12:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, you are the messenger, and we
15:12:27 appreciate that.
15:12:28 Thank you.
15:12:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I have a question.
15:12:30 This is the third time this petition has come back to
15:12:36 >>> Councilwoman, I think it is the third time it's
15:12:38 come back but it's the first time you have actually
15:12:40 heard it.
15:12:41 It's been continued, I believe, twice.
15:12:43 And you were good enough to continue it in August to
15:12:47 this date.
15:12:49 So you're correct.
15:12:50 It did come back to you.
15:12:59 >> When you brought it up the first time, were there
15:13:01 any changes from the second to the third that you are
15:13:06 here now?
15:13:07 >>> The changes now.
15:13:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: They were asking-
15:13:15 >>> They reduced Genesee from 15 to 17.
15:13:23 We have a representative from FDOT.
15:13:24 I know he has to leave pretty quickly.
15:13:26 I don't know if John would be opposed to Mr. Vickers
15:13:29 standing out there and stating --
15:13:34 >>> We have a letter from Mr. Vickers.
15:13:36 >> I didn't know if he would be able to stay.
15:13:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: From what he I can see the letter was
15:13:42 written on January 15th and one of the last
15:13:47 paragraphs said requesting a portion be removed from
15:13:51 the vacation request.
15:13:54 Mr. Vickers, do you want to comment?
15:13:56 >>> Richard Vickers, transportation.
15:14:03 I would appreciate it if you didn't vacate our
15:14:05 I know in my letter we reference a maintenance map we
15:14:09 have from '79.
15:14:12 I don't know if that's been presented by petitioner's
15:14:19 Any agreed-upon determination would have to come
15:14:21 through my office.
15:14:22 And we would be happy to do the research or whatever
15:14:25 we need to do.
15:14:26 When don't want to get involved in this gentleman's
15:14:30 We just don't want to lose any right-of-way.
15:14:38 >> What is your objection to not being willing to
15:14:40 grant petitioner their request, the economic impact to
15:14:47 that community?
15:14:48 >>> Our objection is the cost of right-of-way.
15:14:51 We pay a tremendous amount of money for right-of-way
15:14:53 and it's just not something you want to give away.
15:14:55 It's public funds.
15:14:57 And just don't feel like it's appropriate to give away
15:15:00 publicly-owned property.
15:15:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You never know down the road when
15:15:08 you might need it.
15:15:10 >>> It is incredibly expensive to have to buy
15:15:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions?
15:15:21 >>> Thanks, Mr. Vickers.
15:15:23 To sort of comment, one of Mr. Brown's concerns is
15:15:27 with the length of time he's been out there, and when
15:15:29 you talk about right-of-way, you have time line.
15:15:33 The family has owned the property since 1970.
15:15:36 So this is the 37th year that the property has
15:15:39 been in the family.
15:15:45 And nothing has ever come to fruition.
15:15:48 And we learned recently in July that FDOT doesn't
15:15:51 plan, at least right now, to do anything else with
15:15:53 that corridor.
15:16:10 There really will be right-of-way beyond that.
15:16:12 And to determine with the right-of-way.
15:16:14 Because beyond 60 feet, if there is 100 feet, and
15:16:19 there needs to be 5 on each side, so a sidewalk can be
15:16:24 put in or something like that, I'm sure Mr. Brown
15:16:27 would be more than willing to talk about that.
15:16:29 He does want to do the best thing for the community.
15:16:32 But still 30 feet of right-of-way, and that might be
15:16:34 an opportunity to use 15 feet where he could do what's
15:16:41 appropriate for the community, I think that's the
15:16:43 chance that Mr. Brown is hoping for.
15:16:45 And whether or not that means -- we would be glad to
15:16:48 look at the maps.
15:16:49 We have worked with FDOT before without having a
15:16:52 chance to see the maps.
15:16:52 I think that Mr. Vickers is reporting to you.
15:16:56 >>MARY ALVAREZ: According to the letter that Mr.
15:17:00 Vickers wrote it says the Department of Transportation
15:17:02 has not authorized or empowered the commission, I
15:17:04 guess, to vacate the right-of-way along 22nd
15:17:09 It is FDOT's position for section 336.19 Florida
15:17:14 statute 2006, the city does not have the authority to
15:17:17 vacate property which is owned not under its
15:17:20 So where does that leave us? The way I'm reading it,
15:17:24 we can't do anything about it.
15:17:25 I don't know how you read it but that's the way I'm
15:17:27 reading it.
15:17:28 >>> I hear you, councilwoman.
15:17:31 And clearly that would be a critical issue.
15:17:33 When we discussed that last summer, the understanding
15:17:35 that I had, and perhaps Mr. Santiago might be able to
15:17:40 shed additional light on it as well -- is that whether
15:17:46 it's 60, 80 or 100 feet of rite, that's City of Tampa
15:17:50 But my understanding what FDOT has, they absolutely
15:17:55 have a maintenance right.
15:17:57 Whatever is out there, that they are maintaining.
15:18:00 The city cannot infringe upon that.
15:18:02 But my understanding went beyond that.
15:18:08 There is additional land, and it would still be at the
15:18:10 end of the day, your decision about whether or not to
15:18:12 vacate that.
15:18:13 Because FDOT, as I understood it, didn't have a dog in
15:18:17 the fight as far as that land beyond what they
15:18:20 And if that was what I understood the -- I think Mr.
15:18:26 Santiago might enlighten a little on that and perhaps
15:18:32 he might comment.
15:18:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: But if the FDOT has additional
15:18:35 right-of-way and there's additional land beyond that
15:18:37 which is the city's right-of-way then, and beyond that
15:18:40 is the petitioner's land --
15:18:44 >>> it would be petitioner's property.
15:18:45 >> So what are we doing?
15:18:46 Vacating his property?
15:18:53 >>> Correct, it would be way understand to be the
15:18:55 city's land, the city's right-of-way, and vacating a
15:18:58 portion of 22nd street, correct.
15:19:02 >> That's what the gist of the thing is.
15:19:04 >>> From our perspective, correct.
15:19:08 >> You seem like you are wanting to jump in.
15:19:10 >>> There are a couple things I would like to clear
15:19:12 First of all it's not city property, it's publicly
15:19:17 dedicated right-of-way. The city doesn't own it.
15:19:19 It's in trust as Rolando explained how right-of-way
15:19:23 Also, basically, they have a right to use it as well.
15:19:29 So there is no like dividing line between city
15:19:31 right-of-way and D.O.T.
15:19:34 They can come in and use that right-of-way for their
15:19:36 purposes as well.
15:19:38 As the city has used it for their utilities and things
15:19:41 like that.
15:19:41 There are a lot of requests there.
15:19:45 Easements requests.
15:19:46 And Mr. Marshall is correct we don't specifically know
15:19:49 how much right-of-way there is.
15:19:55 I saw 50 and possibly 100.
15:19:57 But it's not right-of-way.
15:19:59 The state is saying why do we have to go out and
15:20:04 possibly obtain or get donations for that right-of-way
15:20:06 to do the expansion.
15:20:09 It's very clear about --
15:20:11 >> So what are you recommending to us?
15:20:12 >> Well, I was in a meeting with John and Curtis and
15:20:17 Calvin and Roy, and the only thing I would like to
15:20:20 differ with John on, none of those people are here
15:20:25 But when we were talking about how much possible
15:20:29 right-of-way might be necessary, they said 86 feet and
15:20:31 that didn't include bike lanes which would be required
15:20:34 by DOT, so you're adding another nine, and a possible
15:20:40 100 if that's what exists out there.
15:20:42 So they were not wanting to vacate any portion of
15:20:45 22nd street because there's a lot of things that
15:20:49 go on with the next or when you need stormwater area,
15:20:54 ponding, litigation and things like that.
15:21:03 >> Can we just continue this mat er?
15:21:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
15:21:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: There's so many unknowns.
15:21:09 Everybody wants to have meetings.
15:21:10 Why are we doing this here?
15:21:12 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Listen to Mr. Santiago, please.
15:21:15 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: You might note this petition is CO
15:21:19 This was filed in 2003.
15:21:21 So it's been lingering for quite some time.
15:21:24 And the issues that are before you are the issues that
15:21:26 the parties have been grappling with, which predates
15:21:34 the petition.
15:21:34 What is a concern, if I can simply remind but what the
15:21:37 criteria is.
15:21:38 This is a publicly dedicated right-of-way.
15:21:40 The fee is not owned by the city.
15:21:42 We hold in the trust.
15:21:43 The general rule of Florida is if you hold in the
15:21:45 trust for the public you hold it for a purpose. This
15:21:47 purpose is to hold it as a right-of-way.
15:21:50 Florida law says you have the power to vacate when it
15:21:54 will also serve the public interest.
15:21:55 What you will doing is weighing whether there's an
15:22:00 interest in the property.
15:22:01 I believe you may surmise the Florida Department of
15:22:04 Transportation still has an interest in the property.
15:22:07 Mr. Kirk here, his statement, the City of Tampa has an
15:22:13 expansion project for that right-of-way.
15:22:16 So in short, there still exists a Ned for that
15:22:20 And having said that, what's before you with regard to
15:22:26 a continuance, please keep in mind, this has been
15:22:28 thoroughly vetted, and what you have got is exactly
15:22:31 what's before you.
15:22:35 The petitioner is asking for something, a small piece,
15:22:39 that the government still says they need.
15:22:42 With that I would introduce Mr. Kirk to present to you
15:22:45 the city public works, transportation position on it.
15:22:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Wait, wait, wait.
15:22:55 I love you to death.
15:22:56 But we are not going to resolve this issue today.
15:22:58 I mean, unless we just vote it down.
15:23:01 I don't think we necessarily have to get to that
15:23:03 point, if there's still discussion to be had.
15:23:10 There's a lot of things we continue.
15:23:12 >>MARY ALVAREZ: There's been three petitions.
15:23:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is your leaning to vote it down or
15:23:19 get more information?
15:23:20 >> We have someone from the Department of Revenue
15:23:21 saying they don't want it done.
15:23:23 We have people from the city saying, no, they don't
15:23:25 want it done.
15:23:26 >> And what Mr. Vickers said was he would be willing
15:23:28 to continue to talk to the petitioner.
15:23:30 And Ed Johnson is over there shaking his head.
15:23:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Vickers, did you say you would be
15:23:38 willing to talk?
15:23:39 >> Change their mind?
15:23:41 >> No, not change their mind.
15:23:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Are you willing to talk to the
15:23:45 >>> We are willing to talk to anybody.
15:23:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
15:23:48 Petitioner come up.
15:23:53 Do you want to have this continued so you can talking
15:23:55 with Mr. Vickers?
15:24:03 >>> If we could talk to Mr. Vickers and come back to
15:24:05 knew two weeks, if that's reasonable, Ms. Alvarez,
15:24:08 then that will give a chance, if Mr. Vickers has
15:24:12 opportunity to schedule.
15:24:12 >>CHAIRMAN: He just wants to know, will you talk with
15:24:22 the petitioner?
15:24:24 >>> Yes, ma'am.
15:24:24 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Or talk to anybody.
15:24:28 >>GWEN MILLER: What did you want to say, Mr. Johnson?
15:24:30 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Were you sworn, Mr. Johnson?
15:24:35 >>> I have not been sworn.
15:24:36 (Oath administered by Clerk).
15:24:41 >>> Ed Johnson, manager of East Tampa redevelopment.
15:24:43 We first saw this request for Mr. Brown's project back
15:24:51 in 2003, presented as a single-story structure, with
15:24:55 the vacation of the streets that are requested here
15:24:58 At that time, Mr. Brown was informed that we didn't
15:25:02 have the jurisdiction on 22nd street, and the fact
15:25:05 that all of our redevelopment efforts on 22nd
15:25:09 street, we are looking at streetscaping it as part of
15:25:13 an overall project for East Tampa redevelopment.
15:25:17 As you are aware, we are under design right now from
15:25:21 21st Avenue up to Martin Luther King, and once
15:25:23 that project is completed, we expect to continue doing
15:25:27 the same type of streetscaping along 22nd, would
15:25:30 run all the way to Hillsborough Avenue.
15:25:33 Part of that streetscaping is going to include bike
15:25:36 lanes, things of that nature.
15:25:37 So after that was presented to Mr. Brown, I haven't
15:25:41 heard from him until this past August.
15:25:43 This past August, he returned with the new project,
15:25:46 and it became a two-story development to be able to be
15:25:52 able to give him the additional parking that he needed
15:25:54 underneath the building, and his office would be on
15:25:58 the second story.
15:25:59 At that time, I advised him to go above the East Tampa
15:26:04 They have a land use subcommittee looking at other
15:26:08 zoning petitions to try to gather some community
15:26:12 He made his presentation to the community the
15:26:18 community welcomed the project with open arms but did
15:26:22 not fully enforce the project because of the vacation
15:26:24 of 22nd street.
15:26:25 And that's where it was left an we haven't heard
15:26:27 anything until we saw it on the agenda for discussion
15:26:30 here today.
15:26:35 We would hope that you would consider keeping 22nd
15:26:37 street available for streetscaping that we are
15:26:41 eventually going to get to.
15:26:46 I would entertain the community would love to have the
15:26:48 It's great for economic development.
15:26:50 If it could be done without vacating 22nd street,
15:26:53 approve it without a vacation of 22nd street.
15:26:56 We think there's ample space there for parking for a
15:26:59 project that was presented.
15:27:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a suggestion that could move
15:27:04 things along.
15:27:05 First of all, we do have the ability, everybody
15:27:08 agrees, that vacating the alleyway is not a problem.
15:27:11 So one thing I could do is move that we approve -- we
15:27:16 ask legal to present the papers on vacating the
15:27:18 alleyway today.
15:27:19 So I would like to move that.
15:27:28 >>> My name is Walter Crumbley.
15:27:30 I didn't have a dog in this fight.
15:27:31 But as long as it got started I'm going to pick up on
15:27:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Have you been sworn in?
15:27:38 >>> I've been sworn.
15:27:39 I haven't heard anybody speak to my dog in this fight,
15:27:44 which I'm a taxpayer.
15:27:46 And I have just got some real serious problems with
15:27:50 the city giving away land that they bought or had
15:27:54 dedicated to them for free, you know.
15:27:58 And especially in light of testimony here that we may
15:28:02 have to come back and buy it back later.
15:28:08 My thought is, if you want to vacate it, I think you
15:28:11 ought to buy it.
15:28:12 That's what the rest of us do when we need property
15:28:14 and not just turn around and give at way because it's
15:28:17 going to give somebody a God deal.
15:28:19 Thank you.
15:28:23 >> Anyone else want to speak?
15:28:25 Mrs. Saul-Sena?
15:28:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I would think if council for
15:28:30 petitioner wishes to address that, have the
15:28:31 opportunity to rebut or address that particular
15:28:34 request, do you agree with that motion that's been
15:28:44 >> You mentioned the alleyways.
15:28:46 I don't think there was any concern about Genesee
15:28:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Right.
15:28:53 Thanks for the clarification.
15:28:54 >> If we could move forward on that basis, I think
15:28:56 that could be updated.
15:28:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That would be my motion to move
15:29:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Question, Mr. Shelby, do we close the
15:29:09 hearing or leave it open?
15:29:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If petitioner agrees and it's
15:29:15 acceptable to council and if anyone wishes to address
15:29:18 that or speak to that.
15:29:20 If none, close the public hearing and bring it to
15:29:26 >> If we need to do other stuff, can we reopen the --
15:29:30 >>MARTIN SHELBY: What other stuff?
15:29:31 This would be the end of this petition.
15:29:33 >> No, no, this is only part of it.
15:29:35 You don't understand.
15:29:36 I want to deal with this and then I have some
15:29:38 questions about the other part of it.
15:29:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: 22nd street.
15:29:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I am bifurcating the request.
15:29:51 >>> If I could recap.
15:29:52 Staff is opposed to only the vacation of 22nd
15:29:58 >> Cool.
15:29:58 So bifurcating --
15:30:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't know if you can do that.
15:30:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Of course you can.
15:30:05 >>> My recommendation, Mr. Shelby, you can certainly
15:30:09 consider deciding the matter with regard to the
15:30:11 alleyway and uncontested matters but wouldn't be able
15:30:16 to close the matter.
15:30:17 The only way to come before you for discussion would
15:30:21 be 22nd street.
15:30:22 That's a very restrictive methodology to impose upon
15:30:27 But the petition would remain open.
15:30:32 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Where does it say here that -- it just
15:30:35 says part of 22nd street.
15:30:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The picture shows 22nd and the
15:30:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I know but --
15:30:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Make your motion.
15:30:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What I would like to do is let
15:30:50 legal think about how they want me to say it but I
15:30:53 think you understand my intent.
15:30:54 My intent is to first deal with the alleys on Genesee,
15:31:00 setting 22nd street aside.
15:31:03 And then I have some other feelings about that.
15:31:05 But first I would like to deal with the alleys on
15:31:08 22nd street.
15:31:09 What my motion would be is to request legal to come
15:31:12 back to us with wording that would allow us to vacate
15:31:17 the alleys and Genesee.
15:31:20 That's my motion.
15:31:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I would like to confer with
15:31:26 Mr. Santiago about this.
15:31:27 But the thing is, the question is, the petition that's
15:31:30 before you, you are going to have an ordinance
15:31:33 You are going to pass an ordinance based on that
15:31:36 I don't think you can just hang out there.
15:31:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Deal with the other thing later.
15:31:45 Well, let me address it now.
15:31:47 And what I would like to see happen with the other
15:31:49 portion is I would like our staff, because 22nd
15:31:53 street is a designated rapid transit corridor, I would
15:31:57 like our staff to consider whether, because of it
15:32:02 being a trance it corridor, if staff or council has
15:32:07 the ability to waive the minimum parking requirements
15:32:11 so that the petitioner would not need the 22nd
15:32:16 street property, but be able to build this building
15:32:22 with fewer parking spaces under the assumption that
15:32:25 because it's on a major transit corridor that some of
15:32:28 the people using whatever he builds to be able to use
15:32:32 transit as a way of getting there.
15:32:35 That's what I'm interested in.
15:32:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Dingfelder?
15:32:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let's get it off the dime.
15:32:45 It doesn't look like the 22nd street is going to
15:32:48 Everybody is against it.
15:32:51 The East Tampa community is against it.
15:32:53 D.O.T. is against it.
15:32:54 Our staff is against it.
15:32:55 So with all due respect to the petitioner and his
15:32:59 attorney, I think we should just put that to bed, be
15:33:03 done with 22nd street, and with that I'm going to
15:33:05 move that we approve the balance of it.
15:33:09 I am going to move we direct legal staff to draft an
15:33:16 ordinance approving -- vacating the alleys as well as
15:33:19 on Genesee street, and deny the balance of petition.
15:33:23 With that, I wanted to say, Mr. Crumbley, I agree with
15:33:26 you wholeheartedly.
15:33:28 I'm always hesitant about vacating public
15:33:30 rights-of-way because they are part of the public
15:33:32 realm but we have been told by legal staff that we
15:33:34 can't sell those because the City of Tampa doesn't own
15:33:36 those, in the city to be able to sell that property.
15:33:40 So it's either we vacate them or we leave them alone.
15:33:44 In this case, these look like alleys that have never
15:33:52 been used and the side street, so I'm comfortable with
15:34:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I want to be clear -- -- I want to be
15:34:05 clear, you understand the motion.
15:34:07 If you wish to voice an objection, now would be the
15:34:13 >> I appreciate very much the point that councilwoman
15:34:18 Saul-Sena made and that's something we'll keep in
15:34:24 I think that Mr. Dingfelder's point, we understand
15:34:27 where we are at.
15:34:29 We will accept the motion that Mr. Dingfelder put
15:34:32 And I think discussions with staff, we appreciate what
15:34:38 was recommended as an idea to go forward.
15:34:41 >> Then I think it will be appropriate, council member
15:34:44 Dingfelder, to close the public hearing.
15:34:46 >> Move to close.
15:34:47 >> Second.
15:34:47 (Motion carried).
15:34:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Make the motion I just made a
15:34:52 minute ago.
15:34:53 >> Second.
15:34:54 (Motion carried).
15:34:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 46.
15:35:01 >> When will that come back?
15:35:02 I guess you have to bring back.
15:35:03 >>GWEN MILLER: He'll bring it back.
15:35:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just whenever.
15:35:06 >> Move to open.
15:35:08 >> Second.
15:35:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
15:35:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, council.
15:35:13 I have a question whether council wishes to address
15:35:17 concerns for continuance on number 48.
15:35:22 >>> Thank you, council.
15:35:23 On 153, the issue of notice has come up.
15:35:26 We have reviewed the notice.
15:35:28 And it is in fact in compliance with ordinance
15:35:31 However, I do feel the need to let you know that the
15:35:34 two homeowners association has said that they did not
15:35:37 in fact receive notice.
15:35:39 So the two homeowners associations have advised they
15:35:44 did not receive notice.
15:35:46 This is in order to be heard.
15:35:49 However, you may want to core continuance.
15:35:50 >>GWEN MILLER: And if you do do that, I would ask that
15:35:52 you hear from the applicant before you continue the
15:35:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Who is the applicant?
15:36:03 >>> Sandra and I have been sworn in.
15:36:10 I am here in front of you to consider --
15:36:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Speak on the continuance, these all.
15:36:18 >> I'm here to request a continuance due to the fact
15:36:20 that to what he just said, our petition that we are in
15:36:30 compliance with everything, and I will get in touch
15:36:32 with the homeowners association to advise what
15:36:39 happened, to see what the issue was.
15:36:41 Because we have complied with all the regulations.
15:36:46 If possible, for us to continue this during the
15:36:50 evening hours, that way, we also can have a chance to
15:36:54 be here, and that way have a chance to be here.
15:37:00 I have some issues to make arrangements, if next week
15:37:12 that would be appreciated.
15:37:13 But as soon as we can.
15:37:17 We have been dealing with this for a very long time.
15:37:19 So to see what you can do.
15:37:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby, can we have this in the
15:37:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, you can have those in the
15:37:30 evening if that's what you intend to do, if you
15:37:32 announce it.
15:37:34 Of course you will probably have to waive your recalls
15:37:36 to add additional continuance for an evening meeting.
15:37:40 I don't know.
15:37:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Do you know how many we have next
15:37:49 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Next week is too soon.
15:37:50 >>: They have to meet with the neighbors.
15:37:54 >> Sometime in March or April.
15:37:55 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I move we continue for two weeks,
15:37:59 keep it in the daytime but set it for a time certain
15:38:01 and we will do the -- they wait add round until 4:00
15:38:05 this afternoon to deal with this.
15:38:06 So that would be my motion.
15:38:07 I don't want to start a trend of setting night
15:38:09 meetings for alcohol and zonings.
15:38:17 >> 1:30?
15:38:18 >>SHAWN HARRISON: No.
15:38:19 10:00 two weeks from now.
15:38:21 >> February 1st.
15:38:24 >> 10:00 on March 1st.
15:38:27 >>> February 1st at 10.
15:38:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you have to take off from work then?
15:38:31 >> Yes.
15:38:32 I would have to make arrangements.
15:38:33 Is it possible in the afternoon hours?
15:38:35 Or if it's at ten, an approximate time.
15:38:38 >>GWEN MILLER: We'll take you at 10:00 so you can
15:38:42 leave and go back.
15:38:45 You come at ten and we'll take you at ten.
15:38:52 >>> Next March --
15:38:53 >>GWEN MILLER: February.
15:38:54 >>> I'm sorry, February 1st at 10:00.
15:38:56 >>GWEN MILLER: When 10:00 comes I will take you.
15:38:59 >>> Oh, thank you.
15:39:00 I'll be ready.
15:39:02 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
15:39:06 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
15:39:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would encourage you to contact
15:39:08 the two neighborhood organizations so you can chat
15:39:11 with them prior that that.
15:39:13 >>> We will.
15:39:14 We are quite concerned about what happened.
15:39:16 But thank you.
15:39:18 >>GWEN MILLER: You're welcome.
15:39:26 >>> Land Development Coordination.
15:39:28 I have been sworn.
15:39:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 46.
15:39:45 >>> This is a petition to vacate a portion south of
15:39:49 Hillsborough, and west of Dale Mabry.
15:39:52 Petitioner's property is in red and vacating area is
15:39:55 in yellow.
15:40:00 They are requesting to vacate a portion of church
15:40:02 Avenue lying south of crest Avenue north between Dale
15:40:06 Mabry Highway --
15:40:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order.
15:40:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry to interrupt, council.
15:40:33 To answer Mr. Dingfelder.
15:40:34 That was Mr. Barren's e-mail, was the issue prior to
15:40:39 number 48, I think.
15:40:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
15:40:44 >>> Petitioner is petitioning to vacate to a portion
15:40:50 previously vacated about ten years ago.
15:40:52 At the time the petition
15:41:22 This is a picture of church street looking north.
15:41:28 And this is the petitioner's property at the dead-end.
15:41:36 And this is the petitioner's property at the northeast
15:41:38 corner of church.
15:41:42 And some streets abutting not being vacated, south
15:41:47 Avenue looking east on Dale Mabry.
15:41:49 And this is the intersection of church Avenue and
15:42:02 Staff has no objections as long as the easement for
15:42:04 utilities is reserved overall and petitioner takes
15:42:09 over ownership.
15:42:12 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Legal department.
15:42:18 The ordinance with those recommendations is prepared
15:42:21 and has just been distributed to you.
15:42:27 I think TECO, city water easement and the transfer of
15:42:31 responsibility for maintenance of those facilities
15:42:34 within the subject vacated right-of-way.
15:42:35 That is all.
15:42:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
15:42:38 David, hill ward and Henderson.
15:42:55 I am here with stadium properties incorporated.
15:42:59 We agree with staff report.
15:43:01 And it's not owned by the city.
15:43:10 It's right-of-way only used by us as far as public
15:43:12 benefit and addressing the very valid concern, the
15:43:19 wastewater facilities will be taking ownership by
15:43:23 stadium properties and that responsibility will be
15:43:24 taken off the city in terms of public benefit.
15:43:28 And if you have any questions.
15:43:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the pun that wants
15:43:32 to speak on item 46?
15:43:33 >> Move to close.
15:43:34 >> Second.
15:43:35 (Motion carried).
15:43:35 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Move an ordinance vacating,
15:43:43 closing, discontinuing, abandoning a certain
15:43:46 right-of-way, all that portion of north church Avenue,
15:43:51 lying north of west south Avenue, west of Dale Mabry
15:43:54 Highway, S.R. 580 and east of north Cortez Avenue, in
15:44:01 re-plat of Drew Park, a subdivision in the City of
15:44:04 Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, the same being
15:44:06 more fully described in section 2 hereof, providing an
15:44:11 effective date.
15:44:12 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
15:44:13 (Motion carried)
15:44:16 Item number 47.
15:44:44 >>> I have been sworn.
15:44:44 >>BARBARA LEPORE: Land development.
15:44:48 Property WZ 06-113.
15:44:51 The location of 1544 North Dale Mabry highway.
15:44:55 Petitioner is requesting a 2(APS), to sell beer and
15:45:00 wine, at the target store.
15:45:05 Beer and wine on the second floor, and it will be
15:45:08 incidental to the sell of food.
15:45:17 Residential properties, which were acquired, signed
15:45:24 Land development has no objection.
15:45:29 The general location, this is the area on the west
15:45:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The map that we have has a very
15:45:49 large area outlined in yellow. It's a request -- is
15:45:52 the request to vacate the entire area?
15:45:56 >>BARBARA LEPORE: No.
15:45:58 It shows the area.
15:46:05 >> So it's just a portion.
15:46:07 >>BARBARA LEPORE: Yes.
15:46:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Officer Miller?
15:46:13 >>> Officer Miller, City of Tampa police department.
15:46:15 I have been sworn.
15:46:17 The city police department has no objection to this
15:46:19 wet zoning.
15:46:19 >>CHAIRMAN: Petitioner?
15:46:25 >> I'm with target stores, the store manager for the
15:46:27 area and I have been sworn.
15:46:29 I'm just here to thank you for your time.
15:46:31 I'm new to Tampa.
15:46:32 So I have gotten to see quite a bit of Tampa today
15:46:35 through your eyes.
15:46:36 I would just like to thank you for your time and
15:46:38 request that it be approved.
15:46:39 >> Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak
15:46:41 on item 47?
15:46:43 >> Move to close.
15:46:44 >> Second.
15:46:44 (Motion carried).
15:46:49 >> I hope you don't voice your opinion on us today.
15:46:53 >>FRANK REDDICK: Move an ordinance making lawful the
15:47:00 sale of beverages containing alcohol of more than 1%
15:47:03 by weight and not more than 14% by weight of wine
15:47:07 regardless of alcoholic content, beer and wine,
15:47:10 2(APS), in sealed containers for couples on premises
15:47:16 at or from the lot, plat or tract ever land located at
15:47:20 1544 North Dale Mabry highway, Tampa, Florida, more
15:47:24 particularly described in section 2 hereof, waiving
15:47:27 certain restrictions as to the distance based upon a
15:47:31 certain finding, providing for repeal of all
15:47:33 ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
15:47:35 >> We have a motion and second.
15:47:37 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
15:47:38 Opposed, Nay.
15:47:40 (Motion Carried)
15:47:40 Item number 49.
15:47:59 >>BARBARA LEPORE: Land development.
15:48:06 This is petition WZ 07-04, at the location which is
15:48:19 713 North Franklin Street.
15:48:29 In 2002 there was a wet zoning approved by City
15:48:32 Council, the wet zone went dry in 2004.
15:48:40 And the wet zone properties in the 1,000 walking
15:48:51 Asking City Council to waive distance requirements.
15:48:56 Land development has in a objection to the request.
15:49:00 >>> Officer Miller, City of Tampa police.
15:49:02 We have no objection to this wet zoning.
15:49:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
15:49:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The application speaks for itself.
15:49:14 >>BARBARA LEPORE: Okay.
15:49:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Continue it?
15:49:18 >>SHAWN HARRISON: It's a restaurant.
15:49:20 There's in a objection.
15:49:20 It has the R designation.
15:49:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Is anyone in the public here to speak
15:49:24 on item 49?
15:49:25 >> Move to close.
15:49:25 >> Second.
15:49:26 (Motion carried).
15:49:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
15:49:35 Move to approve -- making lawful the sale of beverages
15:49:39 of alcohol of more than 1% by weight not more than 14%
15:49:43 by weight, beer and wine, 2(COP-R) for consumption on
15:49:46 premises only in connection with a restaurant business
15:49:48 establishment on that street lot, plot or tract of
15:49:50 land located at 713 North Franklin Street, Tampa,
15:49:53 Florida, as more particularly described in section 2
15:49:55 hereof, waiving certain restrictions as to distance
15:49:58 based upon certain findings imposing certain
15:50:00 conditions, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
15:50:03 conflict, providing an effective date.
15:50:04 >> I have a motion and second.
15:50:05 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
15:50:09 Number 50.
15:50:42 >>> Land development.
15:50:43 This is petition WZ 07-13.
15:50:46 Property is located at 2223 Westshore Boulevard.
15:50:53 2(APS), U-201-A.
15:50:57 This is the shopping center of Tampa International
15:51:04 The second level of the mall.
15:51:10 The sale of alcohol will not be incidental.
15:51:15 There are wet zoned properties within 1,000 feet.
15:51:21 There are no residential properties.
15:51:23 Land development has no objection to the request.
15:51:31 >>> Officer Miller, City of Tampa police department.
15:51:33 We have no objections to the petition.
15:51:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
15:51:40 >> Ann Pollack, mechanic-news improvement just to
15:51:46 reiterate this is in International Plaza.
15:51:48 They are going to have a retail shop.
15:51:52 If you have any questions.
15:51:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public want to speak on
15:51:55 item 50?
15:51:57 >> Move to close.
15:51:57 >> Second.
15:51:57 (Motion carried).
15:51:58 >>MARY ALVAREZ: An ordinance making lawful the sale of
15:52:07 beverages containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight
15:52:09 and not more than 14% by weight and wine regardless of
15:52:13 alcoholic content beer and wine 2(APS) in sealed
15:52:16 containers for consumption off premises only at or
15:52:19 from that certain lot, plot or tract of land located
15:52:22 at 2223 Westshore Boulevard, unit U-201-A, Tampa,
15:52:27 Florida, as more particularly described in section 2
15:52:30 hereof, waiving certain restrictions as to distance
15:52:33 based upon certain findings, providing for repeal of
15:52:35 all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective
15:52:38 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
15:52:39 (Motion carried)
15:52:41 Item 51.
15:53:17 >>BARBARA LEPORE: Land development.
15:53:18 The location is 2202 West Kennedy Boulevard.
15:53:23 The petitioner is requesting to wet zone the first
15:53:25 floor of the building.
15:53:29 4,000 square feet.
15:53:30 The sale of alcohol will be incidental.
15:53:39 There are wet zoned properties, also residential
15:53:42 properties in the 1,000 walking distance.
15:53:49 City Council needs to waive the distance requirement.
15:53:52 Land development has no objection to the request.
15:53:59 >>> Officer Miller, City of Tampa police department.
15:54:02 I have been sworn.
15:54:04 Tampa Police Department has no objection to this wet
15:54:07 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I have been sworn.
15:54:11 And basically this is an existing bungalow, Kennedy
15:54:18 It's a two-story bungalow. First floor is being
15:54:23 Second floor is the office.
15:54:24 It is consistent with the Kennedy overlay district.
15:54:26 And it will be a nice addition to the Boulevard.
15:54:28 We respectfully request your approval.
15:54:30 I certainly would be happy to answer any questions.
15:54:34 But it's on Kennedy.
15:54:35 Access is off Kennedy and off of a side street.
15:54:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: As a frame of reference, there's a
15:54:47 little book store the last three or four years.
15:54:51 >>> Used to be a book store, immediately adjacent to
15:54:53 the shell gas station at Armenia and Kennedy.
15:54:57 And across the street from the side store.
15:55:02 >> Armenia and Kennedy or Howard?
15:55:04 >>> Or Howard, I'm sorry.
15:55:06 >> How big a restaurant?
15:55:07 >>> It's 4,000 square feet.
15:55:11 So it has a restaurant designation.
15:55:15 That includes the kitchen, the storage areas, and
15:55:17 things like that.
15:55:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone in the public want to speak
15:55:23 on item number 51?
15:55:29 >>> My name is Walter Crumbley.
15:55:33 Courier City Oscawana homeowners association.
15:55:36 I have been sworn.
15:55:38 Generally, the association feels that this is a
15:55:42 legitimate use with this property, and they have in
15:55:46 objection to the wet zoning.
15:55:48 Our concerns as always in this area come back to,
15:55:52 number one, parking, and, number two, the trash and
15:55:57 that sort of thing that seems to emanate from these
15:56:01 places, like perspiration.
15:56:07 That being said, we feel that this is a good use of
15:56:12 commercial property directly on Kennedy Boulevard.
15:56:17 With that I would also add that several residents
15:56:27 close by are not as happy or enthused with that as we
15:56:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
15:56:33 >>> My name is A.J. Sherat.
15:56:39 And I'm not particularly for this, this proposal, just
15:56:45 because there's no parking on that street now.
15:56:49 There's only parking on one side of the street.
15:56:52 And it's a four bedroom home that has four people
15:57:03 living in it.
15:57:03 The house across the street is a four-bedroom home
15:57:06 that has four.
15:57:11 There's only parking on one side of that street.
15:57:14 If you okay this, you are going to have to making the
15:57:16 parking only for residents on that street.
15:57:26 That's my main concern.
15:57:28 Because now there's no place for people to park.
15:57:30 Putting it a public building where you are going to
15:57:33 have drinking and a restaurant, there's not going to
15:57:35 be a place that live on the street to park.
15:57:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Were you sworn in?
15:57:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No, I wasn't.
15:57:47 >>> No, I wasn't.
15:57:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Can you swear him in posthumously?
15:57:53 [ Laughter ]
15:57:58 It's late in the day.
15:58:02 >>CHAIRMAN: Would anyone else like to speak?
15:58:03 (Oath administered by Clerk).
15:58:07 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Just for the record, there are 25
15:58:10 to 30 parking spaces on this property right now.
15:58:13 I can show you a little bit.
15:58:16 I don't have a good picture of it but you can see
15:58:27 there's a driveway adjacent to the west.
15:58:30 And the reason I say there's 25 or 30 spaces is
15:58:32 because it has not gone through commercial permitting
15:58:34 yet and all of those issues will be brought up at that
15:58:36 point regarding this site.
15:58:38 And it will be required to meet the parking
15:58:40 requirements, as well as the landscaping and various
15:58:44 other proposals.
15:58:47 There's no specific additions that are being proposed.
15:58:51 It is going to go through a face list to keep the
15:58:55 existing appearance of a bungalow.
15:59:02 >> It looks like it's going to be very charming.
15:59:04 Do you have hours of operation?
15:59:06 >>STEVE MICHELINI: No. But Kennedy Boulevard is a
15:59:07 fairly active commercial area.
15:59:09 >> And will there be some buffering to the south?
15:59:15 >>> To the south is an apartment building and Al an
15:59:22 The alley is typically accessed by the residents of
15:59:25 the apartment building as well as a commercial
15:59:26 establishment on Kennedy.
15:59:32 I don't know what we could do.
15:59:33 But typically the alley and the fence is there between
15:59:36 Rome and the multifamily apartment building.
15:59:44 >>CHAIRMAN: Need to close.
15:59:45 >> So moved.
15:59:45 >> Second.
15:59:45 (Motion carried).
15:59:46 >>CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harrison?
15:59:48 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I'll support it again because it is
15:59:50 a restaurant, and we do have those restrictions.
15:59:54 Move an ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages
15:59:56 containing alcohol regardless of alcoholic content
15:59:59 beer, wine and liquor 4(COP-R) for couples on premises
16:00:01 only in connection with a restaurant business
16:00:03 establishment on that certain lot, plot or tract of
16:00:05 land located at 2202 best Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa,
16:00:08 Florida, as more particularly described in section 2
16:00:11 hereof, waiving certain restrictions as to distance
16:00:14 based upon certain findings, providing for repeal of
16:00:16 all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective
16:00:18 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
16:00:20 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
16:00:24 Number 52.
16:00:27 >>BARBARA LEPORE: Land development.
16:01:04 This is petition WZ 07-16.
16:01:12 3802 west Dr. Martin Luther King Boulevard.
16:01:18 Requesting to sell full alcohol.
16:01:24 Property is located at 3802 west Dr. Martin Luther
16:01:27 King Boulevard, granted a 4(COP-X) with condition.
16:01:36 If you can look at exhibit A, B, C and D, allows the
16:01:46 sale of beer and wine, H, allows sell of beer, wine
16:02:03 and liquor, allows the sale of liquor, also.
16:02:18 And C, sell of liquor.
16:02:27 D, the dark area a.
16:02:32 Petitioner is looking to have 4(COP-X) with condition.
16:02:45 Within 1,000 walking distance, there is also wet zoned
16:02:54 You have the provision to waive the distance
16:02:58 requirements, separation requirements.
16:02:59 Land development has no objection.
16:03:12 >>> Officer Miller, City of Tampa police department.
16:03:15 We have no objections to this wet zonings.
16:03:17 >>> John Marshall again.
16:03:18 I have been sworn.
16:03:20 With me today -- of New York Yankees and I think
16:03:35 Barbara covered everything very well.
16:03:37 And essentially what we are asking for here, this is
16:03:40 the spring training home of the Yankees.
16:03:44 In March spring training starts.
16:03:47 Ar that, the minor league team plays games there.
16:03:56 Coming down to enjoy the games there, and we are
16:03:58 making some changes at the facility, and it's
16:04:01 something we think will give us some degree of
16:04:04 But also over the past ten years with no violations
16:04:12 and in problems and good neighbors.
16:04:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only question I have, with all
16:04:21 this liquor, is that going to improve the play of the
16:04:22 I don't know.
16:04:24 Do you guarantee a championship 24th year?
16:04:27 [ Laughter ]
16:04:29 Thank you.
16:04:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
16:04:32 wants to speak on item 52?
16:04:34 >> Move to close.
16:04:34 >> Second.
16:04:35 (Motion carried).
16:04:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move an ordinance amending
16:04:44 ordinance 9735 making lawful the sale of beverages
16:04:47 containing alcohol, alcoholic content beer, wine and
16:04:51 liquor 4(COP-X), for consumption on premises only at
16:04:54 or from that certain lot, plot or tract of land
16:04:57 located at 3802 west Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
16:05:02 Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, as more particularly
16:05:03 described in section 2 hereof, waiving certain
16:05:05 restrictions as to distance based upon certain
16:05:08 findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
16:05:10 conflict, providing an effective date.
16:05:12 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
16:05:13 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
16:05:15 Item 53.
16:05:20 >>BARBARA LEPORE: Land development
16:05:24 Petition WZ-07-19.
16:05:27 Museum of science and industry.
16:05:36 A little change I would like to submit for the file.
16:05:39 And I can explain what the change -- from the wording
16:05:48 in the agenda.
16:06:51 This is petition W 4601 east Fowler Avenue.
16:07:09 Which allow for sale of full alcohol, granted to
16:07:16 petitioner for one year.
16:07:27 After the one year can ask for the designation after
16:07:33 the first year be granted.
16:07:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.
16:07:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Are you finished?
16:07:41 Go ahead and finish.
16:07:42 >>> The residential property in the area, and also
16:07:48 property in the area, there are no wet zoned
16:07:54 Land development has no objection.
16:07:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
16:08:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think he would all, you know,
16:08:03 really appreciate MOSI and everything done at MOSI so
16:08:09 this is not intended as a slight at all but is this 26
16:08:14 Something like that or thereabouts?
16:08:17 >>> Yes, sir.
16:08:18 >> I have a little bit of concern about us sort of
16:08:20 granting a permanent wet zoning on such a huge tract
16:08:23 of land.
16:08:24 I understand the purpose.
16:08:27 The purpose today, in 2007, is to allow them to
16:08:29 continue to have the alcohol that goes with that which
16:08:36 I guess is fine.
16:08:37 We have done it in years past.
16:08:38 But my bigger concern is from a long-term perspective,
16:08:42 we are granting 26 acres of sort of blanket wet zoning
16:08:46 without knowing what future use could be there,
16:08:50 et cetera, et cetera.
16:08:53 Is there another way to skin this cat?
16:09:07 >>> The way that the one-year conditional is set out
16:09:09 in your code, it's a one-year conditional and at that
16:09:13 time City Council was to make a decision whether or
16:09:15 not the one-year conditional, they operated within an
16:09:18 acceptable -- they operated in an acceptable way for
16:09:22 City Council, whether or not that's an appropriate
16:09:24 location to have the wet zoning that they had with
16:09:26 that one year.
16:09:29 It would be possible, not today, but it would be
16:09:32 possible the applicant was going to do that, to
16:09:35 condition more specifically the incidental use.
16:09:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Don't we grant little conditional
16:09:46 licenses every year?
16:09:48 >> You grant for Gasparilla temporary licenses.
16:09:51 An issue that you came up before my time but it's only
16:09:54 you allow the limited number a year, three.
16:09:59 >> Three what, three days?
16:10:01 >>> Well, if you have, say, two weekends.
16:10:05 You could have a Saturday and Sunday over awoke end,
16:10:09 but it was not a long enough time to deal with what
16:10:15 was needed.
16:10:16 It would be possible if the applicant wanted to do
16:10:18 this is add a condition.
16:10:20 Right now they are asking for waivers.
16:10:22 So it allows for a waiver because the main use, the
16:10:26 sale of alcoholic beverages is incidental to that use.
16:10:29 Could you put a condition there to be more specific as
16:10:31 to what the use is.
16:10:32 I believe right now they fall under the definition of
16:10:35 a public cultural facility.
16:10:37 And perhaps, you know, the applicant, if they would
16:10:42 want to tie that, so they could continue to have the
16:10:45 4(COP-X) on the entire property if in fact they are
16:10:48 still being operated as a public facility.
16:10:51 >> I mean, MOSI doesn't even own all this land.
16:10:54 They talk about it as leased land, right?
16:10:57 >>> I'm not aware of that.
16:11:03 >> Vicki Ahrens here representing MOSI.
16:11:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Were you sworn in?
16:11:11 >>> Yes, I was.
16:11:12 I couldn't tell where that voice was coming from.
16:11:14 I'm sorry, Mr. Dingfelder, the question?
16:11:16 >> I have a couple of questions and I don't want to
16:11:18 belabor it but I guess the first question is, does the
16:11:21 Renaissance festival, MOSI doesn't even own all this
16:11:26 >>> The county owns the property.
16:11:27 And we are the agent for Hillsborough County in asking
16:11:30 for the wet zoning.
16:11:33 >> Does Hillsborough County own all of the subject
16:11:35 property that you are all asking us --
16:11:38 >>> Yes.
16:11:39 >> All of it?
16:11:40 >>> Yes.
16:11:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I still have concerns about it.
16:11:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I respect the concerns raised by
16:11:48 Mr. Dingfelder.
16:11:49 And I wonder, what is the date of the Renaissance
16:11:52 festival begins?
16:11:53 >>> This year?
16:11:54 >> Yes.
16:11:54 >>> The last weekend in February.
16:11:58 >> What I would like to do is continue this for one
16:12:00 week to allow our legal department to explore another
16:12:03 way to skin this cat.
16:12:06 Are you all listening?
16:12:08 My motion was to continue this for one week to allow
16:12:11 you to explore other options.
16:12:13 Because I similarly am not comfortable with rezoning
16:12:17 this enormous acreage.
16:12:19 And I think we all want to definitely support the
16:12:21 Renaissance festival.
16:12:22 And if we have to craft something specifically for the
16:12:26 Renaissance festival at MOSI, I think that we should
16:12:29 consider doing that.
16:12:30 And it's a unique situation.
16:12:33 And Maurer our existing ordinances don't quite fit it.
16:12:36 But I think that doing this 4(COP-X) is way overkill.
16:12:40 And I would like something that's more narrowly
16:12:43 tailored to meet your needs while not opening up this
16:12:46 entire acreage for that designation.
16:12:49 So my motion would be to continue for one week with
16:12:52 the directive.
16:12:53 I know it's a short time frame but this is the end of
16:12:55 February, that legal work with you to see what other
16:12:57 options exist.
16:13:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion, Mrs. Alvarez.
16:13:05 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The Renaissance festival has been
16:13:07 around for at least four years that I know of.
16:13:09 It's owned by Hillsborough County.
16:13:10 So if we don't grant them this, where are they going
16:13:16 to go?
16:13:19 >> I'm just suggesting there's another way.
16:13:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, I don't see why we couldn't
16:13:25 explore new ways, when they have been responsible with
16:13:29 the festival that they had for the last four years.
16:13:32 I just don't understand why we are doing this at this
16:13:35 Because if it was owned by somebody else, I would say
16:13:38 yes, maybe so, because then the wet zoning would go
16:13:41 with the property if it's sold.
16:13:44 It's going to Hillsborough County.
16:13:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The county can sell it.
16:13:48 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes, the county is going to sell it.
16:13:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I said they could.
16:13:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Could, if.
16:13:56 I won't support that motion.
16:13:57 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm willing to give them a week.
16:13:59 Rebecca, what we might approach it as, talk to someone
16:14:04 in the county legal department.
16:14:05 Typically these things run with the land.
16:14:07 But since it's another governmental entity that owns
16:14:09 the property, maybe we could get the Board of County
16:14:11 Commissioners to do some sort of resolution that says
16:14:17 if they ever don't own this property anymore, they
16:14:19 will voluntarily dry the wet zoning up or something
16:14:22 along those lines.
16:14:24 >>REBECCA KERT: I'll talk to Hillsborough County.
16:14:26 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion.
16:14:31 Is that a motion?
16:14:32 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Just a suggestion.
16:14:35 >>GWEN MILLER: I do have a motion and second on the
16:14:37 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
16:14:38 Opposed, Nay.
16:14:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just as a quick follow-up.
16:14:44 I think the way could you look at it is maybe do
16:14:46 another year conditional, and during the next year, we
16:14:49 could explore revamping the ordinance a little bit to
16:14:53 tweak it so we can accommodate this on a more
16:14:55 permanent basis.
16:14:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
16:14:59 We go to item number 54.
16:15:09 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.
16:15:31 I have been sworn.
16:15:36 The petition Z 06-120 was continued due to technical
16:15:43 objections related to the site plan.
16:15:46 Those technical issues have been resolved based on
16:15:49 revised site plan submitted, and there are currently
16:15:51 no objections.
16:15:53 To recap the case, it is going from RS-50 to PD
16:15:57 planned development, 3215 west Fielder street.
16:16:02 There's currently an existing home.
16:16:04 And a vacant lot.
16:16:10 They will be demolishing the existing home and
16:16:12 constructing two single-family detached homes.
16:16:28 I will just show you a couple of quick pictures of the
16:16:31 And also some pictures of some similar redevelopment
16:16:39 This is the existing home on the site.
16:16:53 This is the drive way immediately to the east under
16:17:03 the new site plan they are going to be continuing that
16:17:06 Here is the vacant area on the site.
16:17:08 It has a couple of citrus trees there now.
16:17:16 This is the home immediately to the west.
16:17:18 Next to the home with us is another vacant lot.
16:17:21 There has been in-fill development in this area
16:17:24 consisting two of-story homes.
16:17:26 Let me show you a couple of pictures of recently.
16:17:33 This is also on fielder.
16:17:51 What is proposed are two single-family homes,
16:17:53 two-story in nature.
16:17:59 Each new lot being created will maintain a 50-foot
16:18:03 Staff has no objections.
16:18:05 >>CHAIRMAN: Petitioner?
16:18:06 >>STEVE MICHELINI: If you may recall, there were no
16:18:20 And we had some technical issues we haven't resolved
16:18:23 and we changed them on the site plan that would be
16:18:26 graphically correct and it has a clean copy in front
16:18:28 of you.
16:18:29 I respectfully request your approval.
16:18:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Have you had a chance to discuss
16:18:34 this with Bayshore Beautiful homeowner association?
16:18:38 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Yeah, we notified them.
16:18:39 I didn't talk directly to Sue Lyon but we sent a
16:18:43 letter and there was in a objection.
16:18:44 The only call I got was in support of this.
16:18:49 >> And I'm pleased that you got a rear-garage in that
16:18:53 one side.
16:18:54 The one you didn't do it on the other side is there's
16:18:56 a tree in the way?
16:18:57 >>> Yes, sir.
16:18:58 >> I think that's a worthwhile thing.
16:19:02 Looks like a good plan.
16:19:04 >>> Thank you.
16:19:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
16:19:06 wants to speak on number 54?
16:19:08 >> Move to close.
16:19:11 >> Second.
16:19:11 (Motion carried).
16:19:12 >>FRANK REDDICK: Move an ordinance rezoning property
16:19:21 in the general vicinity of 3215 west fielder street in
16:19:26 the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly
16:19:28 described in section 1 from zoning district
16:19:31 classification RS-50 to residential single-family to
16:19:35 PD, planned development, residential single-family,
16:19:40 detached, providing an effective date.
16:19:41 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion.
16:19:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
16:19:45 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
16:19:47 >> Thank you very much.
16:19:50 Have a nice day, council.
16:19:54 Need some caffeine or something.
16:19:57 >>GWEN MILLER: You can bring us some back then.
16:20:01 Number 55.
16:20:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is that last but not least?
16:20:22 >>> Council, this case, Z 06-125, was set before you
16:20:26 on December 14th.
16:20:27 It's in the Old Seminole Heights neighborhood
16:20:31 And in the overlay district.
16:20:37 The original site plan sought to maintain the existing
16:20:44 porte-cochere and garage in the back, and by doing
16:20:48 that had a property line that would be established
16:20:52 when splitting the lot.
16:20:53 You have advised the petitioner to look at the
16:20:56 potential of removing part of the garage and
16:20:59 straightening that property line so that you wouldn't
16:21:05 have those jogs. The petitioner has revised the site
16:21:11 plan to accommodate that request.
16:21:17 They have removed just a portion of the garage and
16:21:19 straightened that line out, maintaining the frontage
16:21:22 on the lot.
16:21:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We believe you.
16:21:26 Checked it out.
16:21:28 >>> Staff has no objection.
16:21:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
16:21:36 >>> Matt Campbell.
16:21:41 I revised it.
16:21:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
16:21:48 wants to speak on item 55?
16:21:53 >>> Susan Wala, and I have not been sworn.
16:22:00 (Oath administered by Clerk) I just want to say I
16:22:08 support the support of City Council straightening out
16:22:10 the lot line and Mr. Campbell worked very closely with
16:22:13 the board over the last month or so and we resolved
16:22:15 all our differences and we recommend this be approved
16:22:17 as presented.
16:22:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Good.
16:22:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
16:22:21 Need to close.
16:22:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
16:22:24 >> Second.
16:22:24 (Motion carried).
16:22:33 >> An ordinance rezoning property in the general
16:22:35 vicinity of 1017 east Crenshaw street from general
16:22:39 classifications RS-6 oh 0 residential family to PD
16:22:43 single family detached residential providing an
16:22:44 effective date.
16:22:45 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
16:22:46 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
16:22:48 Opposed, Nay.
16:22:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you for waiting all this
16:22:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Now we have item 57, appeal hearing.
16:22:56 Anyone that's going to speak on item 57 needs to stand
16:22:58 and raise your right hand.
16:23:02 (Oath administered by Clerk) need a motion to open.
16:23:16 >> So moved.
16:23:17 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
16:23:18 >> My name is mark Straley.
16:23:20 I am the appellant in this appeal from the Variance
16:23:24 Review Board.
16:23:50 I had abound copy and I believe a brief was furnished
16:23:54 to council members.
16:23:59 -I won't go everything that's in the brief.
16:24:02 But receipt let me briefly describe what the nature of
16:24:07 my appeal is.
16:24:08 And to begin, I would like to just briefly describe
16:24:11 what it is that my wife and I wish to do.
16:24:15 We own -- our home is in Beach Park on wood Berry.
16:24:20 And we bought the house in 1997.
16:24:23 In 1989, prior to our owning the house, the then
16:24:27 current owners of the property, a couple by the name
16:24:29 of Anderson, sought and obtained a variance to put in
16:24:35 a small swimming pool.
16:24:37 And in the photograph, you can see the pool was built
16:24:45 back in 1989.
16:24:47 It abuts a masonry wall that is on the property line
16:24:50 of our lot.
16:24:56 That's the western property line.
16:24:57 As you can see the pool butts up against that masonry
16:25:01 Here's another shot of the pool backyard.
16:25:09 As you can see the wall is architecturally finished
16:25:12 and matches our main structure.
16:25:17 We are seeking to put in a relatively small one-story
16:25:20 pool enclosure.
16:25:22 In order to do that, we contacted city staff and were
16:25:25 informed that we needed to file for a variance, which
16:25:28 we did.
16:25:31 The variance seeks to reduce the side yard set back
16:25:34 from five feet to zero feet because the pool itself is
16:25:37 located essentially on the western property line of
16:25:39 our property.
16:25:44 This is an appeal hearing before City Council so it's
16:25:46 not an evidentiary hearing.
16:25:48 What council is doing this afternoon is sitting in
16:25:53 effect as an appellate court looking at the record as
16:25:56 it was developed before the Variance Review Board.
16:26:01 And under the city code, the council is required to
16:26:05 look at three things.
16:26:07 The first thing that council has to look at is, was
16:26:11 there substantial, competent evidence to support the
16:26:14 denial of the request that my wife and I filed seeking
16:26:18 a variance of the side yard setback to build this pool
16:26:23 And as I am going to argue in a little more detail in
16:26:27 a moment, I think the answer to that is no.
16:26:29 In fact, if you look at the record, there's no
16:26:32 evidence to support a denial of our request.
16:26:36 So it's not a question of whether there's substantial
16:26:40 In our mind, there is no evidence in this record that
16:26:43 would support a denial of our request.
16:26:50 The second legal issue that the council needs to
16:26:52 address is what is the code is referred to whether the
16:27:01 essential requirements of the law have been observed
16:27:03 by the DRB which I think is did the DRB follow the
16:27:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I ask you a question?
16:27:11 There's a comment on page 7 of the transcript from Mr.
16:27:14 And he says: I guess the other issue to me is at
16:27:19 least it's not one of those gigantic screen
16:27:23 I was looking for the drawing or picture of what type
16:27:24 of screen enclosure you're proposing.
16:27:27 >>> Well, it's in the record.
16:27:30 There's a copy of the contract to build the pool
16:27:34 It's a one-story pool enclosure that we are talking
16:27:39 >> Okay.
16:27:39 >>> With an approximate maximum height of 13 feet.
16:27:42 >> And you need to start it at your wall because
16:27:44 that's where your wall is.
16:27:46 >>> There's no place else logically, if you are going
16:27:49 to enclose the pool, given where the pool --
16:27:52 >> Not halfway across the pool.
16:27:54 >> Not to accomplish what we are seeking to
16:27:56 accomplish, no, sir.
16:27:57 >> How about on the side yard?
16:27:59 The same issue there.
16:28:00 >>SHAWN HARRISON:
16:28:01 >>> Well, this is aside yard.
16:28:03 >> It's not a rear yard?
16:28:05 >>> This is not the rear, this is the side.
16:28:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do we have a drawing?
16:28:16 >>> Sure.
16:28:17 Mrs. Saul-Sena --
16:28:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What's happening on the backside of
16:28:20 It looks like a lot of shrubbery which is probably
16:28:24 your neighbor's shrubbery.
16:28:26 >>> Yes, it is.
16:28:26 In answer to Mrs. Saul-Sena's question, on page 41 of
16:28:29 the record, there is a survey at tab H.
16:28:40 And, Mrs. Saul-Sena, you can see the pool, which
16:28:42 literally abuts or comes very close to the western
16:28:46 property line.
16:28:48 And then the hatch marked area is roughly the area
16:28:50 that we are proposing to enclose.
16:28:54 Both the pool and a patio area adjacent to the pool.
16:29:03 >> Do you have concurrence from the immediate next
16:29:06 door neighbor?
16:29:07 >>> Yes, sir.
16:29:07 In the folder, behind tab E, page 24 of the record,
16:29:19 there is a letter from William and Sandra lures, who
16:29:24 are next door property owners to the west.
16:29:28 >> They have no objection.
16:29:29 Is there anybody else that did object?
16:29:31 >>> There is no one that objected.
16:29:34 Including the city staff.
16:29:37 That underscores the point that I think I'm trying to
16:29:39 emphasize to council.
16:29:41 This is a case where there is no evidence to support a
16:29:44 denial of our petition.
16:29:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I ask legal a question?
16:29:51 What sort of options do we have?
16:29:53 I get confused on these various appellate procedures
16:29:57 that we are under.
16:29:58 The last one was de novo.
16:30:00 Where are we on this?
16:30:02 >>> Donna Wysong, legal department.
16:30:05 Your action today is either affirm the VRB decision
16:30:08 which was to deny the variance, or you can remand it
16:30:10 to the VRB with instructions or directions to rectify
16:30:15 any of the due processor substantial competent
16:30:18 evidence violations, if you feel that any occurred.
16:30:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If we feel that there was not
16:30:28 substantial evidence to support the denial, then what
16:30:31 would you recommend as a motion along those lines?
16:30:37 >>> You would remand with direction --
16:30:45 >> Do you have any language to suggest?
16:30:47 >>> We have got a complete record.
16:30:48 I'm being sincere.
16:30:49 We presented our case.
16:30:51 I think we established the hardship criteria.
16:30:54 I submitted a brief and I can go into great detail
16:30:57 about how I think the res judicata established back in
16:31:04 1989 when the pool was granted.
16:31:07 In the absence of any opposition from anybody --
16:31:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: All I am looking for is the
16:31:15 appropriate motion because I am go B to make one if
16:31:18 there's nobody out there.
16:31:19 >>> I would ask the council to move to Kurt Warner
16:31:21 quash the decision of the VRB and remand it to the VRB
16:31:25 with instructions to grant the variance.
16:31:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Unfortunately, I think we messed
16:31:29 ourselves up and we don't have that option, and that's
16:31:32 what Donna was trying to say.
16:31:34 But it's just going to take a little longer to get to
16:31:38 where you want to go.
16:31:41 >>> Donna Wysong: I would say an option would be to
16:31:44 remand with instructions to make a decision based on
16:31:50 substantial, competent evidence in the record and
16:31:57 specifically removing from consideration certain
16:31:59 I believe Mr. Staley put in his appeal record certain
16:32:03 comments that were made by the board members that
16:32:06 relate to leaves falling into the yard of the
16:32:11 neighbor, which there was a letter from the neighbor
16:32:14 that they did not object to this.
16:32:15 I believe one member did make comment about, you know,
16:32:18 leaves falling into this person's yard but they did
16:32:20 not object.
16:32:21 So that's really maybe kind of one went against the
16:32:26 evidence that was actually in the record.
16:32:28 So we can remove that comment.
16:32:29 We can also remove the comment of one VRB member who
16:32:34 made, I believe, a comment that the first variance
16:32:37 should have never been granted in the first place.
16:32:39 Regardless, the variance was granted and we live with
16:32:42 So perhaps removing a couple of those more opinions in
16:32:47 the record that go against the evidence in the record,
16:32:50 and then make another decision based on just the
16:32:53 evidence that's in the record.
16:32:55 Substantial, competent evidence in the record.
16:32:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public to comment to
16:33:07 Did you speak at the hearing?
16:33:11 >>> No, she did not.
16:33:14 This is not de novo.
16:33:16 We are dealing with this record.
16:33:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If we remand it back Ms. Advise can
16:33:24 I speak.
16:33:25 >>> No.
16:33:26 I am not going to speak.
16:33:27 I am going to get up in front of the VRB and say,
16:33:31 ladies and gentlemen, assuming that council reverses
16:33:33 it, I'm satisfied with the record as it exists.
16:33:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What happened at the VRB happened
16:33:41 at the VRB.
16:33:42 Let's see if there's anybody else.
16:33:49 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the hearing.
16:33:53 >>> With all due respect, I think we are allowed ten
16:33:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You're winning.
16:34:00 You should know that.
16:34:01 >>> Well, I -- can I make one other comment?
16:34:05 >>GWEN MILLER: We have to close the public hearing.
16:34:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: He can say one other comment.
16:34:09 >>> The only reason, and I apologize, and I have been
16:34:11 here all day just as you have, so I'm sympathetic, and
16:34:15 everyone wants to go home.
16:34:16 The concern I have got is, VRB is going to turn me
16:34:20 There's in a doubt in my mind about that.
16:34:22 I'm going to be back in two months.
16:34:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Then we have the ability to
16:34:28 >> But what I am seeking to accomplish, to save your
16:34:30 time, my time, the VRB's time, this record is such
16:34:35 that I think I have a legal right to this variance.
16:34:38 >>GWEN MILLER: See what City Council is going to do.
16:34:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
16:34:50 >> Second.
16:34:50 (Motion carried).
16:34:51 >>> I would like to get it clear that our instructions
16:34:53 on the VRB.
16:34:55 So I think councilman Dingfelder is in the right
16:34:59 But I think the other portions, I don't think it was
16:35:02 clear at least not based on the description I heard
16:35:04 earlier that they need to consider this without taking
16:35:10 additional evidence based on the record, and that they
16:35:12 act based on the prior record, and based on the
16:35:17 competent, substantial evidence in this record.
16:35:20 And if that's the motion, then I think that's
16:35:22 appropriate. I was not clear if that was the motion.
16:35:25 I don't think it's fair to the petitioner to go back
16:35:27 and put on his entire case again at this point.
16:35:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I second that if we have the
16:35:33 ability to do that.
16:35:41 >>> Do we have the ability to reverse --
16:35:41 >> Not at this level.
16:35:43 >>GWEN MILLER: At the next appeal we can reverse?
16:35:45 >>> That's correct.
16:35:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think the key here, in 1989,
16:35:50 almost 20 years ago, there was a variance board that
16:35:52 granted this pool and this wall to go right up to the
16:35:55 property line.
16:35:56 Everybody else gets to put a screen enclosure over
16:35:59 their pool.
16:36:00 And in this case the adjacent neighbors don't have a
16:36:02 problem with it.
16:36:03 So if the adjacent neighbors don't have a problem with
16:36:06 it, then I don't think this council should either.
16:36:08 And that's my basis for seconding the motion.
16:36:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Ready for the vote?
16:36:17 All in favor say Aye.
16:36:18 Opposed, Nay.
16:36:20 (Motion Carried).
16:36:23 >>> Donna Wysong: Let me make sure I get this clear
16:36:25 because I will be the one delivering directions to the
16:36:27 VRB, that you are remanding this with the
16:36:30 understanding that they should make a decision based
16:36:32 on substantial, competent evidence in the record, with
16:36:37 the removal of certain comments that Mr. Straley set
16:36:40 forth in his appellate brief.
16:36:44 >> Yes.
16:36:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: But Mrs. Wysong --
16:36:54 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: The purpose was that was not
16:36:56 competent evidence upon which to base the decision.
16:36:58 I think that's what you communicated earlier.
16:37:02 >>> That is Mr. Straley's argue ultimate.
16:37:04 I'm trying to articulate what his argument is in a
16:37:07 simple form.
16:37:09 Thank you.
16:37:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
16:37:11 We now go to our 1:30 workshop.
16:37:17 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
16:37:27 It is actually not a workshop.
16:37:28 It's a discussion.
16:37:29 >>GWEN MILLER: A discussion.
16:37:30 All right.
16:37:32 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I want to present to you the items
16:37:35 submitted for the January chapter 27 cycle.
16:37:39 I have the memo.
16:37:54 There were eleven revisions for the code.
16:37:57 Many of them came from various workshops with outside
16:38:00 agencies, the West Tampa economic development land use
16:38:02 committee, workshop, the builders association on front
16:38:07 porches, meetings with downtown partnership, which we
16:38:11 hope to continue in February, special review
16:38:21 commissions are actually in the packet as well, and a
16:38:25 couple definition changes.
16:38:27 What I hope to do with this is a motion a motion from
16:38:35 council to start the workshop March 15, 2007.
16:38:42 That will be the actual workshop.
16:38:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: (off microphone).
16:38:48 >>> I have the digital versions, the update group that
16:38:53 I keep in my e-mail group that has approximately 200
16:38:56 people in it.
16:38:58 Many of the neighborhood association president,
16:39:01 Shannon Edge, all the VRB members.
16:39:05 Nearly everyone got it digitally today.
16:39:07 I have a meeting with the T.H.A.N. zoning committee,
16:39:10 and the builders association in February, as well as
16:39:13 trying to get on the downtown partnership schedule for
16:39:15 February as well.
16:39:17 But the workshop in March.
16:39:19 And hopefully with direction from council in March
16:39:21 that we can submit for the Planning Commission cycle.
16:39:28 The second piece of this, which I believe there was
16:39:30 some direction from certain council members that you
16:39:32 wanted to enact this.
16:39:34 I do have an ordinance for the front porch revision,
16:39:39 if you would like to enact the ordinance.
16:39:43 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
16:39:45 You are being provided right now with the ordinance
16:39:47 relating to the front porch issue.
16:39:48 This is an issue that's been outstanding for some
16:39:51 time, after many discussions, public information
16:39:54 discussion, and I believe Gloria Moreda.
16:39:57 When Cathy came back to you with the proposed changes.
16:40:01 We are presenting this to you in order to enact the
16:40:07 pending ordinance.
16:40:09 It only allows to us make the changes questions a year
16:40:12 and given the fact it has been around for some time I
16:40:15 would ask for a motion and a vote on that this will
16:40:20 apply for to this ordinance and the appropriate city
16:40:23 staff be directed to apply this ordinance, or deny any
16:40:29 permits which are not in compliance with this
16:40:31 ordinance at this time.
16:40:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A quick question.
16:40:34 So when will we start adopting this?
16:40:38 >>CATHERINE COYLE: You got the workshop for March
16:40:45 15th, 2007.
16:40:46 >> This is not going to move ahead of the pack?
16:40:51 >>> If you enact the pending ordinance doctrine, TST
16:40:55 will apply it to --
16:40:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: By the very fact it's before you
16:40:59 today and you are taking action, on March 15th the
16:41:03 staff is directed to inform those people who may come
16:41:05 forward inconsistent with that ordinance there is a
16:41:09 pending ordinance for council's consideration.
16:41:12 That will preclude basically what they would do
16:41:15 contradicting that ordinance.
16:41:16 So you don't need a motion.
16:41:22 >>> I would like a motion just to indicate that --
16:41:26 >> So moved.
16:41:26 >> Second.
16:41:27 (Motion carried).
16:41:27 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Our goal is to hit the April cycle
16:41:31 and come back, have these adopted hopefully at the end
16:41:33 of April.
16:41:34 Thank you.
16:41:36 >>GWEN MILLER: That's it?
16:41:39 We now go to information from council members.
16:41:46 Can they speak on this?
16:41:48 It's a discussion.
16:41:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Officially it's agendaed as a
16:41:56 Council can choose if they did not have the
16:42:00 opportunity to speak early on during agendaed public
16:42:02 comment, if council wishes to open the floor to take
16:42:04 their comments.
16:42:05 It's council's prerogative.
16:42:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Did you want to speak on this?
16:42:09 >>> Very briefly.
16:42:09 >>GWEN MILLER: On the workshop?
16:42:11 >>> Yes.
16:42:11 >>GWEN MILLER: You may speak.
16:42:13 >>> My name is Greg Linder, 601 north Ashley, suite
16:42:18 I have not been sworn.
16:42:19 >>GWEN MILLER: You don't need to be.
16:42:21 >>> I just wanted to refresh my comments briefly.
16:42:25 We have worked very well with staff and council over
16:42:28 our rezonings and the process of looking at chapter 27
16:42:31 within the city.
16:42:34 Based on great relationships and hopefully doing the
16:42:36 right things on behalf of the pending ordinance.
16:42:41 My purpose is for speaking today is notice.
16:42:45 More than anything.
16:42:47 Cathy and Gloria and the rest of staff have always
16:42:51 been very good to work with and kept in touch with us
16:42:57 a lot.
16:42:57 Back last year when changes were made or proposed to
16:43:01 the central business district, no property owners were
16:43:04 directly noticed on that item.
16:43:08 Public notice and -- or public notice was correctly
16:43:13 But no direct correspondence was provided to any of
16:43:17 the property owners in downtown.
16:43:19 Those changes were made and adopted by council.
16:43:22 They are now part of chapter 27 ordinances.
16:43:27 They are significant developments
16:43:43 Gloria and Cathy have said that they would work with
16:43:47 us in the partnership.
16:43:48 And I'm coming to you as a private land owner.
16:43:55 To the community and to the city.
16:43:56 And I am hopeful that they are.
16:43:58 What I have seen today has not.
16:44:00 But I would like -- we will get into that later in
16:44:03 some additional meetings we are going to have with the
16:44:06 partnership, et cetera.
16:44:07 And I think that we'll get it worked out.
16:44:09 Our intent is to improve the public realm as well as
16:44:12 the city's.
16:44:14 My point being as a property owner, for downtown
16:44:19 Tampa, somebody mentioned to me as part of the
16:44:22 rezoning application, last year, by the way, we
16:44:25 changed that, and all those things that were
16:44:27 significant increases to our costs were changed
16:44:29 without any direct notice.
16:44:35 Change that notice provision so that property owners
16:44:37 are directly notified, earlier in the Ballast Point
16:44:42 say 3100 notices had to go out, mailed directly to
16:44:47 those residents.
16:44:47 We are hopeful that we can get some considerations as
16:44:50 property owners downtown.
16:44:51 That's really my purpose in mentioning this today.
16:44:53 We want to be part of the process.
16:44:55 We've not been part of the process to date
16:45:01 With that, I hope that council considers us as you go
16:45:11 through this process.
16:45:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: (off microphone)
16:45:16 Was one of your concerns that Mr. Huey mentioned
16:45:19 parking spaces?
16:45:20 >>> There were several.
16:45:21 That was one of them.
16:45:23 We were of the opinion that should be a market issue
16:45:25 rather than a zoning issue.
16:45:29 I don't think staff disagrees with that.
16:45:32 I think we need to flush them out over the next month.
16:45:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think need to have a special
16:45:41 discussion meeting like on Wednesday morning.
16:45:43 Perhaps you want to meet with the partnership and
16:45:46 flush them out.
16:45:47 I think as we were trying to proceed transit, we
16:45:55 should encourage fewer spaces rather than more and try
16:45:59 to encourage greater commitment financially to
16:46:02 >>> And I agree with that.
16:46:03 I don't think staff -- we had meetings on other
16:46:06 projects and even conceptually for future projects.
16:46:10 I just know that staff may not be here tomorrow.
16:46:17 And I think we need to do some things to modify the
16:46:20 books rather than keep it as the is and work with
16:46:23 staff on the project which concerns me.
16:46:24 But that's it.
16:46:26 Not to drag it out today.
16:46:27 But want to go on record that hopefully changes the
16:46:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
16:46:33 We now go to information by council members.
16:46:35 Mr. Fletcher, did you have anything?
16:46:39 Ms. Saul-Sena?
16:46:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: two things.
16:46:41 I checked my calendar.
16:46:42 February 7, which is a Wednesday morning at 9 a.m., I
16:46:45 think would be a great time to talk with Debby
16:46:48 Stephenson about the things on the state that are
16:46:51 going to come before the state legislature and council
16:46:53 members can bring things to her that they are
16:46:55 interested in.
16:47:07 Why don't we put this on for now and let's check our
16:47:10 The first Wednesday.
16:47:13 My assistant was supposed to put those dates on.
16:47:15 I don't know.
16:47:19 The other thing is, I a beautiful painting by an
16:47:25 artist named bill Mitchell who moved to Tampa, which
16:47:29 is pretty darned exciting.
16:47:31 Lee Mitchell, I'm sorry.
16:47:33 And he's speaking on Sunday at the Tampa Museum of Art
16:47:35 at 2:00.
16:47:36 And I encourage everyone to attend.
16:47:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There was no motion made.
16:47:43 Are you going to check the date?
16:47:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'll check the date and bring it
16:47:46 back next week.
16:47:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison?
16:47:51 Ms. Alvarez?
16:47:52 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The rescue car to be added to the
16:47:55 March 2 agenda to give us information on the Tampa
16:47:59 firefighters museum for approximately two minutes.
16:48:01 >> Second.
16:48:02 (Motion carried).
16:48:02 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And the on the one is, I got ahold of
16:48:07 the two young men for the burglary attempt.
16:48:14 I would like to appear February 1st at 9:15 in the
16:48:19 >> Second.
16:48:19 (Motion carried).
16:48:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The other one is, we also got in touch
16:48:26 with the principal of the elementary, Linda Geller.
16:48:31 She would like to come on February 1st at 9:30.
16:48:37 >> Second.
16:48:37 (Motion carried).
16:48:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
16:48:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The families on Davis Island want
16:48:48 to use Marjorie Park as a fishing area.
16:48:52 We left a Marge space in Marjorie Park basin without
16:48:55 any boat slips.
16:48:57 And as long as there's a nice sea wall there and it's
16:49:00 a lovely park now, I want us to modify that ordinance
16:49:05 and to amend our code to allow daytime fishing in that
16:49:09 part of Marjorie Park that has no boat slips.
16:49:11 I would ask legal to come back in three weeks with a
16:49:14 draft ordinance to modify that ordinance, whatever
16:49:17 provision it is.
16:49:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
16:49:19 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
16:49:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second, on February 8th, at the
16:49:26 University of Tampa volleyball team and the coach,
16:49:31 Chris Catanach, and the assistant coach, I'm asking that they
16:49:33 appear for a commendation that we already moved
16:49:35 previously, February 8th, 9 a.m.
16:49:38 >> Second.
16:49:38 (Motion carried).
16:49:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Early in the meeting I mention
16:49:43 board of director Gasparilla.
16:49:44 We had the children's parade this Saturday at 3:00.
16:49:46 Anybody who has any question for the city, the
16:49:50 information line is 274-8750, or go to the city web
16:49:56 I made a motion awhile back after the gator victory
16:49:59 about Mr. George Edmondson, also known as Mr. Two
16:50:03 Bits, to come in on behalf of all of the gator nation
16:50:05 and he's available to join us on February 1st to
16:50:08 accept his commendation.
16:50:09 So moved.
16:50:12 >> Second.
16:50:12 (Motion carried).
16:50:13 >> I will try to get a bunch of orange and blue folks
16:50:22 Mr. Woford Johnson, over in Sunset Park, has forwarded
16:50:26 an e-mail to me that I think is sort of endemic of
16:50:29 what's happening all over town.
16:50:31 In your neighborhood, Steve, do you get these young
16:50:36 kids who purport to be college kids and show up at
16:50:39 your door and they try to sell things, and then it
16:50:43 turns out they take your check and then disappear and
16:50:45 that sorted of thing.
16:50:47 Well, anyway, everybody gets -- not everybody but a
16:50:50 lot of people get suckered into that.
16:50:52 Woford said that's happening over in his neighborhood.
16:50:54 And Sunset Park.
16:50:56 He says it's sort of a seasonal thing like the Robins
16:51:00 in my yard, they're here.
16:51:02 So, anyway, I would like a written report from TPD and
16:51:07 legal on what if anything we can do to aggressively
16:51:10 try and stop that.
16:51:13 In two weeks.
16:51:16 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Second.
16:51:16 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
16:51:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Also to contact Mr. Woford Johnson
16:51:21 of Sunset Park neighborhood association.
16:51:25 Just one or two more.
16:51:27 These are all Cindy's fault.
16:51:29 This is a motion for the plant high volleyball team
16:51:33 who also won the state championships, February
16:51:37 15th, to accept their commendation.
16:51:40 >> Second.
16:51:40 (Motion carried).
16:51:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And that's it.
16:51:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby?
16:51:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Briefly, I did send you a memo of my
16:51:56 opportunity to work with the planning council in
16:51:58 addition to the City Council.
16:52:00 I'm meeting tomorrow.
16:52:01 If any council member does have any concerns, please
16:52:04 feel free to raise them with me.
16:52:06 Otherwise, I would appreciate that opportunity.
16:52:09 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Congratulations.
16:52:17 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Being on the Regional Planning
16:52:17 Council now as well as the city, I think it's a great
16:52:21 addition and I look forward to working with you there
16:52:23 and congratulations.
16:52:26 >>> Thank you for the opportunity that council gives
16:52:28 It's a pleasure to continue serving.
16:52:31 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to receive and file all
16:52:34 (Motion carried).
16:52:35 >>GWEN MILLER: What about the calendar?
16:52:40 All right.
16:52:41 Anything else coming before council?
16:52:42 We go to our audience portion.