Tampa City Council
Thursday, October 25, 2007
8:45 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 file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
08:48:55 [Sounding gavel]
08:48:56 >>CHAIRMAN: Tampa City Council is called to order.
08:48:58 The chair will yield to Ms. Mary Mulhern.
08:49:01 >>MARY MULHERN: I'd like to introduce Reverend John
08:49:05 Giles to give our invocation today.
08:49:07 He is the pastor of true faith inspirational Baptist
08:49:11 church, and it's a wonderful church that has supported
08:49:15 many programs for youth and education and partnering
08:49:21 with the Hillsborough schools.
08:49:23 It has one of the most innovative programs there, a
08:49:26 toast program, which is an alternative to
08:49:29 out-of-school suspension which has been shown to be a
08:49:33 great thing to keep students in school, and there's an
08:49:36 adult education program which includes English as a
08:49:39 second language.
08:49:42 Many people may know reverend Giles better as he is
08:49:45 the long-time chaplain of the Hillsborough County
08:49:50 Falkenburg road jail where he is loved and famed and
08:49:54 has done a wonderful job for many, many years.
08:50:05 >>> May we pray.
08:50:06 Our father, we pause to say thank you for all your
08:50:11 manifold blessings and to thank you in advance for
08:50:15 this beautiful, beautiful day.
08:50:17 Bless us this day, and bless especially the out
08:50:22 standing members of our City Council, and their
08:50:27 Continue, O God, to give them the counseling and
08:50:31 conflict management skills that they need, the same
08:50:37 similar skills that you gave Solomon in the Old
08:50:46 They will need them while they labor to provide
08:50:49 quality, professional, public service to all of us,
08:50:54 more especially the residents of this city.
08:50:57 Now, O heavenly father, we ask that you would breathe
08:51:02 your Holy Spirit upon all of us for the purpose of
08:51:08 this meeting to be filled with your peace and your
08:51:14 This is our prayer.
08:51:21 (Pledge of Allegiance).
08:51:39 >> Roll call.
08:51:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
08:51:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
08:51:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.
08:51:43 >>MARY MULHERN: Here.
08:51:44 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Here.
08:51:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
08:51:46 At this time, I will turn it over to our attorney for
08:51:49 item number 1.
08:51:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Item number 1 is set for council
08:51:58 Public hearing is closed.
08:51:59 This is action pursuant to rule 4-C of the council's
08:52:03 rules of procedure.
08:52:04 It does require, however, a full City Council to be
08:52:09 present, particularly in this present case.
08:52:12 And I believe the chair has been informed that council
08:52:14 member Dingfelder will be delayed this morning by
08:52:21 perhaps another 20 or 25 minutes.
08:52:26 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I move that we hold item number 1
08:52:29 for 30 minutes.
08:52:30 >> Second.
08:52:30 (Motion carried).
08:52:31 >>GWEN MILLER: We have to go into recess until 9 a.m.
08:52:36 >> Thank you, Madam Chair, for the quick meeting.
09:04:04 [Sounding gavel]
09:04:08 Tampa City Council is called back to order.
09:04:09 Roll call.
09:04:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
09:04:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
09:04:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.
09:04:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
09:04:22 At this time we go to item number 2 which is a
09:04:24 Before we start, our attorney will speak, for council
09:04:29 members to discuss and have dialogue with the staff
09:04:31 and he's going to explain the rest of it.
09:04:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, council, just to refresh your
09:04:36 recollection, workshops are defined as a meeting of
09:04:42 the City Council held for the purpose of Council being
09:04:44 informed on and discuss matters of special concern
09:04:48 that require time in excess of that usually afforded
09:04:54 for staff reports at a regular meeting.
09:04:57 With regard to public comment, it says the public may
09:04:59 be heard on the matter, which is the subject of the
09:05:02 workshop, if, upon motion and vote of council, the
09:05:04 chair opens the floor for public comment during the
09:05:08 No official action on the matter which is the subject
09:05:10 of the workshop shall be taken during or after a
09:05:12 workshop unless the public is afforded the opportunity
09:05:15 to comment prior to action.
09:05:17 However, directions to staff resulting from the
09:05:20 workshop do not require public comment.
09:05:23 And that's on the assumption it will be coming back on
09:05:27 the agenda at a later date when public will have an
09:05:31 opportunity to speak. This is the first workshop day
09:05:33 you have had since you amended your rules to have a
09:05:35 full day set aside for workshops.
09:05:38 Public comment other than is not specifically
09:05:41 I don't know how council wishes to do it, if it wishes
09:05:43 to set out ground rules at the beginning of the
09:05:45 I should point out that this particular agenda did
09:05:50 make comment to general public comment at the end of
09:05:52 the meeting, and perhaps that is a carry-over from the
09:05:56 way CRA works.
09:05:57 But primarily, it was the intention of council at the
09:06:01 time that workshops were discussed that public comment
09:06:04 was not to be taken unless council made that decision
09:06:12 So I don't know whether council wishes to address it
09:06:14 now or address it when the time should come up.
09:06:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Comments by council members?
09:06:19 Reverend Scott?
09:06:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, primarily workshop design, to
09:06:27 discuss and educate towards the issue so they can make
09:06:30 good, sound public policy.
09:06:31 However, I think if a councilman wants to ask someone
09:06:35 in the room, if you want to ask a question that can be
09:06:39 addressed, I think that we can accomplish a lot more
09:06:41 especially on -- today they are very controversial
09:06:47 issue items and I think it would be helpful if we not
09:06:50 take public comment unless you have a question that
09:06:52 you want to ask.
09:06:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
09:06:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think it depends on the topics to
09:07:00 a certain extent.
09:07:03 And also on this issue of us taking some action.
09:07:07 For example, on the canal issue, which is coming up at
09:07:13 10:30 this morning, in speaking with staff, I think
09:07:17 staff is looking for us to take some preliminary
09:07:21 direction on some of the canal issues, and therefore
09:07:27 in order to do that, I think it would be wise, as well
09:07:30 as procedurally appropriate, to take some public
09:07:36 Now, we can modify the public comment because if 30,
09:07:40 40 people stand up and want to talk and they have
09:07:43 three minutes each, we'll be here till 5:00 tonight or
09:07:46 So I think maybe what we can do is just take it on a
09:07:52 workshop by workshop basis, see how our schedule is
09:07:55 going and see how the issues are going.
09:08:00 Tom, you pretty much scheduled this first workshop,
09:08:05 and maybe the public comment isn't as important on
09:08:08 that one because we are not going to be deciding
09:08:11 But I think when we get to the canal and stormwater
09:08:14 issues, Mr. Walter is going to suggest to us that we
09:08:18 take some preliminary action, and we might have to
09:08:21 take some public comment.
09:08:26 >>MARY MULHERN: I agree with councilman Scott,
09:08:32 especially since this is our first workshop, kind of
09:08:34 stick to the ground rules.
09:08:37 But, Mr. Dingfelder, I think you're absolutely right,
09:08:40 if we are supposed to take some action, we have to
09:08:43 hear from the public.
09:08:44 But my feeling is that maybe we don't need to take
09:08:48 action today on this, because it is a workshop, and
09:08:51 that's not what these are intended for.
09:08:54 And we need to make sure that we afford the public as
09:08:58 much time for comment as they need on this important
09:09:02 I think it's really going to be a legislative decision
09:09:05 if we want to go forward with something with this, and
09:09:07 I think we should do it through our regular process
09:09:10 and have the full public hearing when we would want to
09:09:15 schedule them.
09:09:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I think the presentation made by
09:09:23 City Council attorney is accurate.
09:09:25 My feeling is this.
09:09:27 If we have discussion on one, we should have
09:09:29 discussion on all.
09:09:30 And if we have discussion on all, we are not going to
09:09:32 finish it today.
09:09:34 I know we have a day and night meeting.
09:09:36 And we all understand that.
09:09:37 And I certainly want to get input from the audience as
09:09:40 to why they came, woke up early this morning to be
09:09:44 On the other hand, a rule is a rule.
09:09:48 And if we take discussion and vote on something, it's
09:09:55 contrary to the law, whatever it is, because a
09:09:57 workshop is to work together -- and I understand what
09:10:01 councilman Dingfelder and Scott are saying.
09:10:04 One of them is a relatively new one.
09:10:06 The other one has been here for -- well, Moby Dick was
09:10:12 a minnow, 33 years ago.
09:10:14 We could certainly discuss it among ourselves.
09:10:16 Reason for the workshop is I can't go to any council
09:10:18 member's office and discuss city business.
09:10:20 They can't do it among themselves either.
09:10:22 So the workshop is our secret meeting on television.
09:10:26 How do you like that?
09:10:29 So that's what it's about.
09:10:31 So when we do these things, they are done with a
09:10:34 purpose and an intent.
09:10:35 And I would just caution that if we do one today, we
09:10:39 are going to open Pandora's box to a lot more.
09:10:42 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I agree with Mr. Miranda.
09:10:45 If we listen to one workshop, we have got to open all
09:10:48 of them.
09:10:49 Thank you.
09:10:50 >>GWEN MILLER: We discuss among council members and
09:10:56 staff and we will not have comments from the public
09:10:59 until we have our public hearing, and at that time
09:11:01 everybody can speak and express their opinions.
09:11:04 Ms. Saul-Sena?
09:11:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
09:11:06 I think that that's a fine way to proceed today, but I
09:11:10 think it also underscores the facts we need to create
09:11:13 opportunities for less formal dialogue with the public
09:11:15 and council members and city staff, and that perhaps
09:11:19 this isn't the forum that there needs to be
09:11:23 opportunities for that.
09:11:23 Perhaps we can discuss that next year at our retreat.
09:11:26 I was talking to no, ma'am Snelling about it that the
09:11:29 most productive development of ordinances and
09:11:34 Connecticut Septembers are when staff, council
09:11:36 members, and the public can talk amongst ourselves and
09:11:41 create good solutions to some of our challenges.
09:11:44 >>MARY MULHERN: I just wanted to bring up the question
09:11:46 about we will leave it open if we have a specific
09:11:51 question for someone in the public.
09:11:53 >>CHAIRMAN: Yes.
09:11:55 Mr. Shelby?
09:11:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: For the sake of -- would you like to
09:12:00 correct the agenda that has public comments slated for
09:12:03 the end?
09:12:05 By motion?
09:12:06 >> So moved.
09:12:07 >> Second.
09:12:07 (Motion carried).
09:12:08 >> Nay.
09:12:11 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open item number 2.
09:12:14 Reverend Scott.
09:12:14 >> So moved.
09:12:17 >> Second.
09:12:17 (Motion carried).
09:12:18 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just to give you a reminder, council,
09:12:22 in about five or seven minutes, I am going to ask the
09:12:24 chair whether you wish to take up item number 1,
09:12:27 because the motion was to hold it for 30 minutes.
09:12:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Madam Chair?
09:12:35 May I suggest we can always override that motion.
09:12:38 It makes sense to me to get that out of the way as
09:12:40 opposed to interrupting the workshop, and then proceed
09:12:46 with the workshop.
09:12:46 Once you start the workshop on the WMBE you ever you
09:12:49 are going to stop for another 20 minutes.
09:12:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: As the maker of the motion I move
09:13:00 to retract the motion to hold for 20 or 30 minutes.
09:13:03 >> Second.
09:13:04 (Motion carried).
09:13:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Now we will go back to item number 1.
09:13:08 Mr. Shelby.
09:13:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, council.
09:13:11 Council, relating to this matter, there have been
09:13:13 items that have been received that have been available
09:13:16 for public inspection prior to today.
09:13:17 I would ask those be received and filed into the
09:13:20 record prior to the vote.
09:13:21 >> So moved.
09:13:22 >> Second.
09:13:22 (Motion carried).
09:13:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Again, council, do you wish to have any
09:13:28 additional information, or are you prepared to vote?
09:13:31 I believe you were all present at one point in time.
09:13:35 I think it's up to the clerk.
09:13:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Will you state the motion?
09:13:43 >>THE CLERK: The motion before council was the title
09:13:45 of the ordinance read for first reading, motion did
09:13:48 not carry, with Saul-Sena, Scott and Mulhern voting no
09:13:51 and Miller being absent.
09:13:54 The motion was to place the ordinance on first
09:14:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And to set it for a second hearing.
09:14:02 >>THE CLERK: That would be separate from that, to have
09:14:05 it set for second public hearing on November 8th at 6
09:14:06 o'clock to run in conjunction with the zoning
09:14:10 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: In the past couple of weeks I
09:14:15 have talked to some people pertaining to Ward street,
09:14:19 one being Mr. Smith who has the talk show, cornered me
09:14:24 on the bus in Quantico, Virginia.
09:14:28 I thought I was going to go out the back window.
09:14:30 Anyway this week I visited the site and spoke to a
09:14:34 couple of homeowners.
09:14:35 I don't even have their names to be honest with you.
09:14:37 Thank you.
09:14:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Caetano, the law would require a
09:14:43 little bit more specificity about what the positions
09:14:45 were, to allow the public to know of that.
09:14:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a point of order.
09:14:50 I thought we had been advised by council that the
09:14:52 vacating is not quasi-judicial, and therefore we don't
09:14:56 necessarily have to get into this.
09:15:00 Obviously, the rezoning is quasi-judicial and the
09:15:03 disclosure is appropriate.
09:15:04 But the technical that I have been told was vacating,
09:15:10 Julia, is not quasi-judicial and therefore the detail
09:15:14 on disclosure is not necessary.
09:15:17 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
09:15:18 I don't think I have ever specifically opined on that.
09:15:21 I know there was a written legal opinion but it was
09:15:29 I think that that may be something that may be
09:15:32 valuable for research and maybe an updated legal
09:15:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I stand corrected.
09:15:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I certainly understand Mr.
09:15:41 Caetano's position.
09:15:43 If he would just elaborate one sentence.
09:15:46 You certainly didn't say how you were going to vote,
09:15:48 and you didn't do anything of that nature, so I think
09:15:51 you said it to the record, met two individuals,
09:15:56 whatever, and that's it.
09:15:57 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: And Mr. Smith doesn't want the
09:16:00 road closed.
09:16:02 In fact, he feels that some of the roads should be
09:16:05 open that are closed there now.
09:16:08 And another gentleman had a petition, he said he had
09:16:13 about 100 names on it to close the street.
09:16:16 And he was conferring with a woman, some doctor's
09:16:21 wife, I don't recall her name, and that was the extent
09:16:24 of it.
09:16:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So you had a 50-50 call.
09:16:27 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I guess that's what you'd call
09:16:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I am going to ask you,
09:16:32 because the public hearing is closed, and because of
09:16:36 the posture in which it's coming to you, it would be
09:16:39 safe to assume that there is no basis for you, based
09:16:43 on the evidence that's in the record, upon which you
09:16:46 can change your vote.
09:16:47 My suggestion is if there are any additional issues
09:16:50 that need to come forward, should this come to a first
09:16:53 reading based on that vote, should it come to a second
09:16:55 reading based on that vote, it will be a full public
09:16:57 hearing and people have the opportunity to discuss it.
09:17:00 What I'm saying, council, is, as your attorney, I
09:17:04 would be very concerned if any member of council
09:17:09 should change their vote from what was done up until
09:17:16 this time.
09:17:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I appreciate your legal advice, Mr.
09:17:20 Shelby, but I think that people can change their minds
09:17:22 and just musing upon something an extra two weeks and
09:17:26 I don't think you have to necessarily say that there's
09:17:28 specific external reasons for changing your mind.
09:17:31 People can just change their minds.
09:17:33 That's why we have a process.
09:17:35 And I think that you're being overly cautious.
09:17:38 That's my take on it.
09:17:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And I respect that, council member.
09:17:42 I should point out especially in terms of denial, the
09:17:45 Florida statute, the Florida legislature, has opined
09:17:49 that there has to be specific reasons for the denial
09:17:51 of a development permit or something related to this.
09:17:54 So that's why I'm just raising that issue.
09:18:00 >>CHAIRMAN: Okay.
09:18:01 Are we ready to vote?
09:18:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: However, that does not preclude a
09:18:05 council member on the second go-around, on the second
09:18:07 reading, to have gathered whatever information he or
09:18:10 she needs, and a change of heart to be determined at
09:18:16 that point in time.
09:18:17 >> With reason.
09:18:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: With reason.
09:18:20 >>CHAIRMAN: Are we ready to vote?
09:18:22 The motion was to --
09:18:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Motion was to vacate the street.
09:18:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: On first reading.
09:18:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I made the motion, seconded by Mr.
09:18:32 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
09:18:34 Opposed Nay.
09:18:34 >> Saul-Sena, Scott and Mulhern voting no.
09:18:38 Motion carried.
09:18:40 Council would need a motion.
09:18:42 >> Set second reading for November 8th.
09:18:46 Are all council members going to be here November
09:18:50 Let me throw that out first.
09:18:57 What, is the meeting on Wednesday now?
09:18:59 We'll make accommodations.
09:19:01 >> What time?
09:19:06 >> 6 p.m.
09:19:07 >> 6 p.m. second reading.
09:19:08 (Motion carried).
09:19:10 >>GWEN MILLER: We go back to item number 2.
09:19:12 Did we open it?
09:19:15 >> Yes.
09:19:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Madam Chair, in that there is no
09:19:24 format, what I can see, a process how to proceed on
09:19:26 the WMBE, let me, if you don't mind, let me outline
09:19:30 for us, this is the city's workshop on the City
09:19:33 Council on the ordinance, perhaps we have the attorney
09:19:37 or someone come and make a presentation, make the
09:19:42 presentation to City Council, followed by presentation
09:19:45 from the county and the aviation authority.
09:20:02 >>> Gregory Hart, manager, minority business
09:20:08 I have a brief PowerPoint to share with you to go over
09:20:11 where we have been with regard to the program,
09:20:13 realignment of the program, given the disparity study.
09:20:17 And David Smith, of the legal office, will also
09:20:22 provide some comment and information as relates to the
09:20:24 ordinance itself.
09:20:27 With regard to the ordinance, we did provide you, I
09:20:30 guess, a couple months ago with a draft that's the
09:20:37 legal office revised that draft and includes some
09:20:39 additional information that Mr. Smith will go over.
09:20:42 I think for the benefit of the public, and interested
09:20:47 in the program, I want to give a little bit of
09:20:49 background in terms of where we have been with the
09:20:52 Tampa minority business development program, the
09:20:54 process that we might use as relates tots disparity
09:20:57 And that would bring us to today, with the proposed
09:21:01 new draft which will realign the program.
09:21:04 In 1991, the WMBE ordinance was adopted.
09:21:13 In 1997 the WMBE ordinance was extended for two
09:21:16 additional years, those years being 97 and 98 due to a
09:21:21 sunset clause that was in the original ordinance.
09:21:24 In '98, the program was promulgated by executive
09:21:29 order, as opposed to continuing to extend it, the
09:21:32 executive order kept it in place and operational.
09:21:36 In 2004, we implemented additional programmatic
09:21:47 At that same time in 2004 we commissioned the Mason
09:21:52 Tillman consulting firm, which we are discussing today
09:21:56 as part of the proposed ordinance.
09:21:57 This past May, 2007, the mayor did enhance our SDA
09:22:03 program in response to the Mason Tillman Associates
09:22:06 That program, as you may recall, had a number of
09:22:10 enhancements that improved our abilities to create
09:22:12 opportunities, and provide contract awards to our
09:22:16 small business enterprise.
09:22:19 Regarding the disparity study, the Mason Tillman audit
09:22:23 looked at all five of the industry classifications,
09:22:27 the prime and subcontracts.
09:22:28 Those included construction, construction-related,
09:22:32 professional services, related services, all five of
09:22:40 the classifications.
09:22:41 The disparity study concluded that there was no
09:22:45 disparity study, across all classifications for
09:22:51 So the existing program that City of Tampa is
09:22:54 implementing which focus primarily on subcontracting
09:22:57 had some notable successes.
09:23:04 Prime contract activity revealed there was a disparity
09:23:07 found in all classifications oh with the exception of
09:23:15 the classification for the architectural engineering
09:23:20 draft, found no disparity for Pittman enterprises.
09:23:27 However keep in mind that our existing programs did
09:23:29 not focus on nor require initiatives to bolster
09:23:33 participation by WMBE primes.
09:23:36 The disparity study as a result made several
09:23:39 recommendations to enhance the program and improve
09:23:41 participation, particularly in the prime contracting
09:23:47 As part of that disparity study recommendation, a
09:23:53 citizens task force, stakeholders task force was
09:23:55 established, and they provided some feedback and input
09:24:00 on the recommendations that worked within the
09:24:04 disparity study.
09:24:06 There were well over 30 recommendations, and the task
09:24:10 force convened for approximately five or six meetings,
09:24:13 and essentially focused their attention on about six
09:24:18 key areas that address each of the Mason Tillman
09:24:22 The task force did consider that all of the
09:24:26 recommendations, particularly their summary of them,
09:24:28 was critical to us moving forward and having an
09:24:31 effective program.
09:24:33 The six areas which were condense and focused by the
09:24:37 task force includes first that we should ensure that
09:24:41 we analyze all procurement processes and maximize the
09:24:46 opportunities for WMBE participation.
09:24:48 Extensionally what that means is there are well over
09:24:51 30,000 procurements by the City of Tampa, and my
09:24:58 office, in conjunction with purchasing, and the other
09:25:02 operating departments, we need to thoroughly review
09:25:05 all of our procurement opportunities and identify
09:25:10 where WMBE and SBE participate.
09:25:16 Secondly impact cash flow. The third was to enforce
09:25:21 monitoring in full compliance with the MBE policy and
09:25:26 We need to emphasize verification of performance,
09:25:29 tracking and reporting.
09:25:31 That is a critical area within the critical disparity
09:25:36 analysis that we lacked in.
09:25:39 The next one was to legislate accountability of our
09:25:44 WMBE program, essentially they are the task force,
09:25:48 that is, is reinforcing the fact that an ordinance
09:25:51 will be appropriate to ensure stability and continuity
09:25:54 of implementation of our program.
09:25:57 The next was to develop comprehensive, reliable,
09:26:00 timely management information system, provide
09:26:03 city-wide support for the distribution and collection
09:26:05 of contracting activity.
09:26:07 What you will see as we move through this presentation
09:26:10 is that, at present, we are not and have not been
09:26:15 collecting all of the necessary data in a standardized
09:26:19 format and in a manner that allows us to evaluate it
09:26:23 consistent with the experts that do disparity studies
09:26:28 and judicial guidance in terms of the kind of
09:26:31 information they must provide.
09:26:33 Next was to increase outreach awareness,
09:26:35 communication, to our minorities in the small business
09:26:47 The emphasis of the disparity study and our ability of
09:26:50 going forward due to disparity analysis and determine
09:26:55 WMBE and SBE is going to be contingent upon our
09:27:01 ability to gather data.
09:27:04 What we have devised is a data management information
09:27:08 system which we are calling diversity management
09:27:11 initiative, DMI.
09:27:16 DMI simply is a city-wide process to report
09:27:21 comprehensive information on vendors doing business
09:27:23 with the city.
09:27:24 DMI will allow us to do regular evaluation and measure
09:27:28 the city's effectiveness in meeting defined WMBE and
09:27:34 SBE program initiatives.
09:27:36 I have illustrated here how DMI actually works. If you
09:27:43 look at the oval depiction there of availability data
09:27:43 and utilization data.
09:27:50 This is our data system.
09:27:52 And the input data on the availability side will be
09:27:57 the kind of information that will be gathered at this
09:28:03 proposed solicitation time.
09:28:05 That includes who is it that is available in the
09:28:09 community to respond to our RFP or our bids, who is
09:28:14 ready, who is willing, who are the prime contractors
09:28:20 and prime consulting firms, contacting to engage
09:28:24 opportunities for subconsulting or subcontracting.
09:28:28 That information has to be gathered on the front end
09:28:30 when you are doing solicitation.
09:28:32 On the other side of the utilization data that's the
09:28:35 post award information gathering.
09:28:37 When that contract is about to be awarded, as well as
09:28:42 after award, we are going to have to collect
09:28:44 information on who is it that the primes utilize,
09:28:51 what's the value of that subconsulting contract, what
09:28:54 are the payment schedules, and how will they be paid
09:28:59 and what is the actual payment given any kind of
09:29:01 change orders or change in scope that either the city
09:29:03 or, for whatever reason, council may need to initiate.
09:29:08 That availability and utilization data will then be
09:29:13 deposited in our data mart, a database, a very
09:29:21 comprehensive database that will then allow us to
09:29:26 write reports, especially reports that will emulate
09:29:32 disparity study in volume 2, being that there are
09:29:36 certain conditions, certain kinds of analyses that
09:29:40 must be performed under disparity study rules and
09:29:43 judicial guidance, that the DMI system will allow us
09:29:47 to do.
09:29:49 Once we have the ability to write those reports, we'll
09:29:52 be able to measure disparity, and provide
09:29:57 recommendations for administration and council to
09:30:00 modify any policies or procedures, or initiator invoke
09:30:04 those controls that will ensure the likelihood that we
09:30:08 will be successful in having WMBE and SBE
09:30:14 That's DMI in a nutshell.
09:30:16 I need to emphasize that DMI is a process, and it's
09:30:19 going to take some considerable amount of initiative
09:30:23 and time to establish the processes, the procedures,
09:30:28 the forum, et cetera, to gather the data.
09:30:31 We began on October 1st, the manual steps to begin
09:30:36 to gather the data.
09:30:39 The automated system that will evaluate that
09:30:43 information and generate reports is an ongoing
09:30:49 I need to speak to that and let you know that we began
09:30:54 manually collecting the data, it's being deposited and
09:30:57 we are creating an automated system to do the input so
09:31:00 that we can generate not just manually but in automate
09:31:05 efficient way the reports necessary to do the
09:31:07 disparity analysis.
09:31:10 I am going to refer to David Smith to discuss some of
09:31:13 the legal --
09:31:19 >>MARY MULHERN: I want to the ask a question.
09:31:23 The supreme court ruling, when was that?
09:31:27 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
09:31:34 Essentially what you have right here are the cases
09:31:37 that I have been reviewing with regard to this.
09:31:39 The brown volumes are the U.S. supreme court case that
09:31:43 is deal with the issues.
09:31:44 What I will do is give you a general overview, and
09:31:47 then walk you through probably the seminal case which
09:31:51 is called Croson case, which was decided some time
09:31:56 However -- and I'll explain this to you when I go
09:31:58 through the presentation -- you need to understand the
09:32:00 limitations of the case.
09:32:02 And these cases are frequently fraught about -- what I
09:32:06 call majority and plurality mix, meaning there's
09:32:09 opinions, parts of the opinion that only four justices
09:32:13 join in, or you have opinion that is two say this,
09:32:16 et cetera.
09:32:17 What I will try to do is walk you through that and
09:32:19 provide a guideline that you can rely on to know what
09:32:22 you need to do.
09:32:25 >> Were you going to do that anyway?
09:32:28 >> Yes, ma'am, I was.
09:32:30 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm wondering if the recent supreme
09:32:33 court ruling about education, is that part of your
09:32:41 work that you are going to talk about?
09:32:42 >>> I have read the case.
09:32:44 And the problem you have is the context is important,
09:32:47 in my opinion.
09:32:49 The analysis that they employ in the contract arena is
09:32:53 a little different than the analysis and the
09:32:55 education -- in the education arena.
09:32:57 That having been said, I need to tell you in all
09:32:59 candor, frequently we are reading a little bit of tea
09:33:02 leaves here in trying to determine exactly where the
09:33:05 court is headed.
09:33:06 Here are some things that are clear and some things
09:33:09 that are unfortunately not clear.
09:33:11 I wish I could give you a clearer view of this.
09:33:13 And some of it is very clear.
09:33:14 And I'll help you understand that.
09:33:16 And I know -- and please don't kill the messenger -- I
09:33:22 didn't write these cases beings they are not decided
09:33:24 the way I would have decided them but nonetheless they
09:33:26 are the law of the land.
09:33:27 >>MARY MULHERN: It's my hope that -- specifically that
09:33:33 case didn't talk about contract, I wish we could not
09:33:40 have that part of the consideration.
09:33:42 >>> I will not address that today, although it creates
09:33:45 some possibilities.
09:33:46 Let me try to --
09:33:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder has a question.
09:33:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Greg -- Mr. Hart -- on your outline
09:33:57 you mention that the task force look at minimizing
09:33:59 financial barriers that hinder participation.
09:34:05 And I'm just wondering what sort of barriers did they
09:34:08 address and identify as being problematic for
09:34:13 participation, A.
09:34:16 And B, what sort of solutions is the city looking at?
09:34:20 And are they in the proposed ordinance?
09:34:23 >>> A couple of the examples would be prompt payment.
09:34:26 Currently there's a 30-day net on pay application to
09:34:30 the prime.
09:34:31 Traditionally the prime extends or pushes that 30-day
09:34:36 The ordinance proposed is that there be a 15 payment
09:34:44 net to our subcontractors through the prime.
09:34:47 Or if a WMBE or SBE certified firm is a prime
09:34:54 contractor themselves, then the system would identify
09:34:56 them as such, and we would look at making payment
09:35:00 within 15 days, assuming all of the necessary
09:35:03 approvals and punch lists and those kinds of things
09:35:08 are met.
09:35:08 Another example was globalization.
09:35:13 Traditionally, the prime is the only entity that has
09:35:16 received mobilization funds to allow its forces, its
09:35:21 materials and all of those costs to be more or less
09:35:24 We are looking at encouraging, if not in some
09:35:29 instances, requiring the prime to justify, to extend
09:35:37 And to give you an example, on a construction project,
09:35:42 sometimes the sub is the one going out and doing the
09:35:46 site work.
09:35:46 That's one of the first work elements that's
09:35:52 That sub is going to need mobilization funds to get
09:35:54 his equipment out there and to pay his employees.
09:35:57 So in that instance, I think there would be
09:36:00 justification to require or pressure that prime to
09:36:03 allocate mobilization funds to the sub.
09:36:07 Those are the kinds of examples that the task force
09:36:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How about insurance?
09:36:13 I know we have some pretty hefty insurance
09:36:16 requirements sometimes.
09:36:17 I'm sure they are well justified in the minds of risk
09:36:20 But have we looked at insurance requirements a little
09:36:25 >>> We have.
09:36:26 Risk management has been very cooperative.
09:36:28 As a matter of fact, several months ago, we did amend,
09:36:32 or risk management did amend their position on
09:36:34 insurance, specifically as it relates to automobile
09:36:40 liability and some of those less imposing insurance
09:36:48 Heretofore, we would require a small business to be
09:36:54 provide million dollar coverage on automobile and some
09:36:58 of those other conditions, when in fact the services
09:37:01 that were being provided did not require that
09:37:05 contractor to use trucks or other equipment in the
09:37:10 servicing of the contract.
09:37:13 That was a burden that was unnecessary.
09:37:15 So risk management has taken that position.
09:37:17 >> I always thought it was sorted of ironic that the
09:37:21 city have sovereign immunity to liability our
09:37:27 liability to 100,000, 200,000.
09:37:29 And yet these insurance requirements for the private
09:37:32 side go up to a million or 5 million in certain cases.
09:37:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Hart, two questions.
09:37:42 One is a couple of parts.
09:37:44 DMI, is that an in-house program, a program that we
09:37:50 are paying for, or did we create it?
09:37:53 How does that work?
09:37:54 >> It's an in-house process that we developed, and
09:37:58 continue to develop, and it takes into consideration
09:38:01 all of the various systems that the city has to
09:38:06 collect and monitor contracting information.
09:38:12 It's your financial system, your procurement system.
09:38:17 All put together to communicate with one another and
09:38:19 provide data that's consistent and standardized.
09:38:22 It's a process.
09:38:23 >> And going along the insurance line, I guess the
09:38:26 most costly insurance, or one of the most costly
09:38:28 insurance is workman's comp.
09:38:32 How is that being handled?
09:38:33 >> Workman's comp is handled as it would be by state,
09:38:39 federal law.
09:38:40 The city does look to make sure that the contracts
09:38:44 that are executed are addressed in terms of the prime
09:38:48 providing under law whatever worker's comp would --
09:38:53 whatever prevailing wages and those type of
09:38:55 >> By that statement am I hearing that you verify the
09:38:59 worker's comp policy with a carrier?
09:39:01 >> To that extent, I'll have to defer to what extent
09:39:07 either procurement or legal verifies that.
09:39:10 My office does not verify that.
09:39:12 >> And the reason I say this, I work in another
09:39:14 operation which I'm not going to mention, but State of
09:39:18 Florida, when the workman's comp policy, we call the
09:39:22 insured, not only the agency but the company
09:39:25 themselves, and verify that that individual has it.
09:39:29 And I have been surprised, in a lot of cases, about
09:39:32 10%, are fake policy it is same people that we do
09:39:36 business with.
09:39:37 And I'm not saying this is the case.
09:39:39 They may come up, because of the cost, and I
09:39:42 understand some of this, but the costs of workman's
09:39:47 comp is really high, and I didn't know there was a
09:39:49 plan to follow up on it or to assist in it or
09:39:53 something to that nature.
09:39:53 >> Not currently, sir, not within our program.
09:39:58 >> Thank you.
09:40:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I pretty much want to wait until Mr.
09:40:04 Smith presents the ordinance.
09:40:05 To me what's important in the whole thing is the
09:40:09 So that's the issue.
09:40:10 That's what we need to be focusing our attention on.
09:40:13 Either this program will be successful based on the
09:40:16 ordinance and carrying out by the administration.
09:40:21 >>MARY MULHERN: (off microphone) What was that
09:40:34 >>> If I recall, two or three but I can tell you --
09:40:44 There were well over 15 stakeholders.
09:40:53 Sandy Moley, Jan Ash, Arfeia Williams, Joyce, I would
09:41:06 say four or five.
09:41:07 >> Four out of 15. And how many of them were minority
09:41:21 >>> Two.
09:41:22 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm looking at the list, CCMA
09:41:30 consultant work order request.
09:41:37 Is this the basis for your program?
09:41:42 These statistics?
09:41:45 >>> CCNA is one of many components or elements.
09:41:49 >> Well, just glancing over it, it looks like a pretty
09:41:55 small proportion of women.
09:41:56 I'm just looking at the women because I'm a woman.
09:42:01 But total -- I guess this is total number of
09:42:05 architects, women architects is .26.
09:42:11 Not even 1%.
09:42:13 And then total work orders, it looks like, 7.81.
09:42:19 When you come up with those, that's the number
09:42:23 percentagewise from this list, right?
09:42:26 >>> It sounds like.
09:42:27 I'm not sure what you are referring to, if that's a
09:42:30 >> Well, I don't know what this is.
09:42:32 It's in my backup.
09:42:33 It's by year.
09:42:35 Consultant work order request.
09:42:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What you have is some information that
09:42:44 I requested that I couldn't get that Mr. Robinson
09:42:46 e-mailed perhaps to your office.
09:42:48 I have that list.
09:42:49 That's what that is.
09:42:50 Information I requested and I was told I couldn't get
09:42:52 or wasn't available, Mr. Robinson had.
09:42:55 In some kind of way got it and e-mailed it to our
09:42:59 >>MARY MULHERN: I guess my overall question is how you
09:43:01 determined there wasn't any disparity in women hiring.
09:43:11 >>> First of all, CCNA is an area in which the
09:43:17 disparity study did indicate there was disparity.
09:43:19 We didn't have program initiatives that focused on
09:43:23 prime contract participation, like we did
09:43:28 So when they evaluated the extent to which the ethnic
09:43:32 and gender categories were participating, they found
09:43:35 disparity across all classifications, with the
09:43:39 exception of women-owned firms that engage in
09:43:43 architectural and engineering services.
09:43:46 And their analysis apparently was based upon the
09:43:51 number or the availability of women-owned firms and
09:43:56 the number and value of contracts that they received
09:43:59 between 2001 and 2004.
09:44:02 So in their analysis they concluded that the
09:44:08 utilization or underutilization was not statistically
09:44:13 significant under disparity rules, so that women-owned
09:44:17 businesses who engage in architectural and engineering
09:44:21 services are not currently underutilized where we
09:44:26 would need to consider rigid remedy.
09:44:30 Now, that could change for the future.
09:44:31 But that was the analysis.
09:44:33 >> Is that all you are looking at in the entire
09:44:37 ordinance is architecture and engineering?
09:44:39 >>> No.
09:44:40 The ordinance will address --
09:44:43 >> So what about all those other jobs for women?
09:44:49 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
09:44:50 I think if I will give you that background and then
09:44:53 walk you through the ordinance, it will give you a
09:44:54 better context for your questions.
09:44:57 Your questions are very good questions, and hopefully
09:44:59 when you have that context, some of them, the answers
09:45:02 will be apparent, or at least you will know what you
09:45:05 need to focus on.
09:45:06 I believe today, if we can come out of this workshop
09:45:10 with an understanding of what the ordinance does, what
09:45:13 the legal requirements are, and I believe Greg has
09:45:18 some additional data, although it's not in exact form,
09:45:22 and if we can help you understand what type of data
09:45:24 you need, and then I think we need to come back here
09:45:28 and grind through the data with you.
09:45:29 There's just no substitute for it.
09:45:32 We need to talk about how many women were in that
09:45:34 category and how many were awarded the jobs and why
09:45:37 that is or is not a disparity, or how many
09:45:40 African-Americans, you know, each category.
09:45:42 Unfortunately the case law as I'll explain to you in a
09:45:44 minute requires that kind of analysis.
09:45:46 And that's why Greg was emphasizing the importance of
09:45:49 the data, and importance of getting good data and
09:45:52 being able to process it.
09:45:54 >> Okay.
09:45:54 I'm concerned when I look at that data, it doesn't
09:45:59 make sense to me.
09:46:00 When I look at these kind of numbers that we take the
09:46:04 "W" out of "W" MBE.
09:46:07 >> You should not only look at it, in my opinion, you
09:46:10 have to look at it.
09:46:11 This board has to make fact finding that drives the
09:46:15 And I want to make sure you understand the analytic
09:46:20 you need to employ to do that and if I can, I'll
09:46:24 quickly try to walk you through some of this and
09:46:27 provide that context.
09:46:29 And as you can see, I think the next slide is up here.
09:46:32 And this is really very conclusiary, and this
09:46:36 indicates that the general language that we use -- and
09:46:38 what I want to do is provide some meat to those bones.
09:46:41 Obviously, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this
09:46:44 area is subject to strict scrutiny, and that came
09:46:48 along in the Croson case, they essentially overruled
09:46:49 Fullilove, Fullilove versus Klutznick, and in the
09:46:58 Fullilove case, they gave great deference to the
09:46:58 Legislature, for what they said in Croson and every
09:47:02 case since, the standard is strict scrutiny, whenever
09:47:04 you want to employ race or gender conscious methods.
09:47:06 So that's what we need to keep in mind when we are
09:47:09 going through this.
09:47:10 If a government can establish a compelling
09:47:13 governmental interest and craft narrowly tailored
09:47:17 remedies -- and that's why you have to know that
09:47:19 data -- then you can survivor strict scrutiny, and the
09:47:23 ordinance and program will be enforceable and will be
09:47:27 Let me provide a little more detail of that so you
09:47:31 Under the caveat very briefly with the fact that
09:47:33 Croson was a mixture of majority and plurality
09:47:40 The justices, a pretty strong majority, joined in part
09:47:45 4 of the opinion, and what that means is those parts
09:47:48 of the opinion are law.
09:47:49 They establish a precedent.
09:47:51 The other portions of the opinion are commonly
09:47:54 referred to as dicta.
09:47:57 What that means at best intelligent discussion but not
09:47:59 the law of the case.
09:48:01 And in this area, that's very important because we
09:48:03 have a lot of different dicta that have been battled
09:48:09 around, highly political and highly subjective.
09:48:12 Focus on those areas, part one of the opinion said, it
09:48:16 essentially held up the lower court's opinion that
09:48:20 Richman's plan was unconstitutional.
09:48:22 It failed both prongs of the strict scrutiny test.
09:48:27 It neither established a compelling governmental
09:48:29 interest and did it did not establish a narrowly set
09:48:32 of tailored remedies.
09:48:33 I'm emphasizing this because that is your task, and
09:48:36 our goal is to help you accomplish that task.
09:48:40 Essentially, what Croson said is there was no evidence
09:48:44 of discrimination by the city.
09:48:47 Now, there's two different components you need to
09:48:50 think about when you are analyzing this.
09:48:52 If there had been discrimination by the city, then
09:48:57 implement measures to get rid of that discrimination
09:48:59 there. Was no evidence of discrimination by the city
09:49:01 so what they looked at was discrimination in the
09:49:04 And what the cases said in every case since then has
09:49:08 said is that societal discrimination is insufficient.
09:49:12 We all know that goes on.
09:49:14 We also all know it's very important, and in many
09:49:16 cases is dispositive, but what the courts said that
09:49:20 alone is not efficient.
09:49:23 So what we need to find is specifically identified
09:49:27 Now what that means varies somewhat from case to case.
09:49:30 But Croson literally stands for the fact that Richman
09:49:34 did not do that.
09:49:35 It talked about in dicta some of the ways you can
09:49:39 accomplish that in statistical analysis.
09:49:43 But let me tell what you we need to do here.
09:49:45 Court emphasized the fact that Richman tried to look
09:49:51 at their population and tried to say that our
09:49:54 contracting does not reflect our minority population,
09:49:57 which was something like 37%.
09:49:59 They set goals of 30% based on population.
09:50:04 The court said, huh-uh, not a proper analysis.
09:50:07 What you have to do is you have to identify in each
09:50:12 area of contracting and procurement the available
09:50:16 And when you identify those available providers, you
09:50:19 compare the contracts awarded to the available
09:50:23 That's how you measure a disparity.
09:50:25 That has been the Seth test pretty much ever since.
09:50:28 So it requires a lot more gathering of data, which is
09:50:32 why we hired Mason Tillman to do this.
09:50:35 It's not as easy as it looks.
09:50:37 One of the other problems is the cases focus on, you
09:50:40 need to make sure you control for what are known as
09:50:44 independent variables.
09:50:45 What does that mean?
09:50:46 That means you need to do a regression analysis.
09:50:49 What that means, I'm not entirely sure, but
09:50:51 essentially what it means is look at other factors.
09:50:54 So if the award for example for women contractors was
09:50:58 low, but you find out that the dispositive factor was
09:51:02 the size of the business, that doesn't prove
09:51:04 discrimination, that proves there's another factor at
09:51:07 work and that is size.
09:51:09 So what that then means, according to the courts, is
09:51:12 you need to work on those race and gender neutral
09:51:15 methods in order to accomplish greater diversity.
09:51:21 I know this is going to be difficult, particularly as
09:51:23 we go through the information with you, but it's
09:51:26 important to try to keep in mind.
09:51:27 What they were trying to do was distinguish between
09:51:31 generalized, what they call political measures, as
09:51:35 opposed to remedial.
09:51:37 That's another test you need to keep in mind.
09:51:39 Remedial means you are solving the problem in either
09:51:45 direct current discrimination or you are remedying the
09:51:47 effects of past discrimination.
09:51:49 So you need to have data that proves either current
09:51:52 discrimination, or past discrimination.
09:51:55 So these cases are, to make a simplification, an
09:51:59 argument about what evidence establishes past
09:52:03 And then they focus on that, and they say, your remedy
09:52:07 must be narrowly tailored.
09:52:08 What does that mean?
09:52:10 Not a great deal of precision here either.
09:52:12 But essentially what it means is your remedy must be
09:52:14 tailored to the discrimination you specifically
09:52:17 For example, Johnson contractors can't get a
09:52:21 subcontract through Joan's contract because Joan's
09:52:26 happens to be biased or prejudiced.
09:52:28 Johnson can come to the city and say, Joan's refuses
09:52:32 to entertain my part of the bid for the city contract,
09:52:36 I'm being discriminated against.
09:52:38 That's good, hard data.
09:52:40 I wish we had more of that good hard data.
09:52:42 And I'll mention this in public because we need people
09:52:44 who have experienced those kinds of things to contact
09:52:47 the WMBE office.
09:52:49 And let me say something I should have started with.
09:52:52 As you know, I'm not a labor lawyer, so this has been
09:52:55 an educational process for me.
09:52:57 In working with Greg Hart and Bonnie cropper and Joe
09:53:00 Cordera, they have been great.
09:53:04 You have an excellent staff that takes their job very
09:53:06 seriously and really tries to do a great job.
09:53:08 I have worked a lesser extent with Del Holland and I
09:53:11 think Paulette brown, all of the people you have
09:53:14 manning this program are very good.
09:53:17 So what we need to do is we need to determine what
09:53:20 evidence we need.
09:53:22 That's why Greg was emphasizing to you the importance
09:53:24 of the DMI program.
09:53:26 What DMI is going to allow us to do is provide really
09:53:30 excellent current data which we can then narrowly
09:53:32 tailor the remedy as in when we go along.
09:53:37 We currently have no subcontractor discrepancy.
09:53:40 I suspect as we continue to move forward, we will
09:53:42 probably find some problems in that arena, but we need
09:53:47 to have the data before we can take any action.
09:53:49 We currently have a disparity in the primary contract
09:53:53 arena, but we never had a disparity in the prime
09:53:56 contract arena before.
09:53:57 So what our recommendation is, based on the case law,
09:54:00 which is that we implement race and gender neutral
09:54:04 means to attempt to remedy that problem, and if we are
09:54:07 not able to remedy that problem, and the data we
09:54:11 collect indicates we cannot remedy that problem we
09:54:13 will take race and gender conscious measures, if it's
09:54:16 both race and gender.
09:54:17 It may not be, and Greg has a little update but it's
09:54:22 important that you understand how this data works.
09:54:24 For example, you can't use raw gross data.
09:54:29 If, for example, you find -- and I'll explain why --
09:54:33 if you have availability, let's say, of Hispanic
09:54:37 contractors, 10%, and then you look at your awards for
09:54:41 Hispanic contracting, and it is 6%, that is generally
09:54:46 considered to be a disparity because it's less than
09:54:49 80% of their availability.
09:54:50 However, you can't stop there.
09:54:52 What you need to do is vault on a contract by contract
09:54:55 basis, as to who was available, and what the
09:54:59 contractor did, for example, to try to obtain
09:55:02 participation, because if we have 10% Hispanic
09:55:08 contractors but they are all busy, and so we
09:55:10 couldn't -- couldn't get them on that contract, that's
09:55:13 not evidence of discrimination.
09:55:15 That's evidence of them being too busy.
09:55:17 And the courts have made this distinction, you can
09:55:20 understand it, logically it makes sense.
09:55:23 I think sometimes they make too fine a point in these
09:55:25 things but unfortunately that's the point they make.
09:55:27 So what Greg does in his committee is he will analyze
09:55:31 that on a case-by-case basis.
09:55:35 Case law also is absolutely clear that you have to
09:55:38 provide an opportunity for a competing bidder to
09:55:42 establish good faith efforts.
09:55:43 What does that mean?
09:55:45 What that means, if I'm competing for a contract, and
09:55:49 a goal has been set that says this contract ought to
09:55:52 have 6% minority participation and 12% women
09:55:56 participation and 10% Hispanic, based on the
09:55:59 availability of those who do that type of work in
09:56:03 those particular groups of people.
09:56:04 I go out and I can't get the 10% women requirement
09:56:08 because they are busy on other things.
09:56:10 I have an opportunity -- as a matter of fact, law
09:56:14 obligates us to provide them an opportunity to come
09:56:16 back to us and establish that they made a good faith
09:56:19 effort, and not withstanding that they couldn't obtain
09:56:21 if goal.
09:56:23 You will hear from Hillsborough County later that
09:56:24 that's essentially what the city has been doing
09:56:26 previously, and I believe largely how Hillsborough
09:56:30 County functions.
09:56:32 It is how most people function because the law
09:56:34 requires it.
09:56:35 So where does that leave us?
09:56:38 One of the things that's important to keep in mind
09:56:40 here is the court has specifically indicated that the
09:56:46 reasons for using these classifications must be
09:56:52 specific and must be identified, or we cannot use what
09:56:56 they call suspect classifications.
09:57:04 What they have also indicated -- and this is the
09:57:07 Croson which is really the seminal case, the court
09:57:12 objected to Richman's program primarily because it was
09:57:15 tied to population, not skill set necessarily for the
09:57:17 various contracts, but it also said there was no
09:57:20 consideration to use race neutral means first to
09:57:24 increase minority business participation in city
09:57:32 Because our disparity and prime contracting is new
09:57:34 it's incumbent upon the city to use a race and gender
09:57:37 neutral approach first.
09:57:38 There's no evidence the city itself has discriminated.
09:57:41 The city awards prime contracts.
09:57:43 The city therefore needs to do a better job of
09:57:46 generating the kind of diversity in our prime
09:57:48 contracts that we believe is possible.
09:57:50 So the city is going about implementing those kinds of
09:57:53 That's where the adoption of the SBE approach is under
09:57:58 the executive order, that's what the SBE program does
09:58:02 in the ordinance.
09:58:03 Since we have a lot of people to hear from, I'm going
09:58:05 to cut this a little short.
09:58:07 I think you got the basic concept.
09:58:09 Let's talk about the ordinance.
09:58:12 You have got in your PowerPoint some general
09:58:14 statements about the ordinance.
09:58:16 But let me try to cut immediately to the ordinance
09:58:20 itself and kind of walk you through what we are doing,
09:58:23 because I think this is essential.
09:58:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: David, could I ask you a question
09:58:27 before you go to the ordinance?
09:58:28 In regard to the case law, the question, the supreme
09:58:35 court case, our circuit for the southeast United
09:58:39 States, 11th circuit, has had opportunity over the
09:58:44 last, what, Croson has been seven or eight years?
09:58:48 >>> Croson was it.
09:58:50 >> Older than I thought. Anyway, so the 11th
09:58:54 circuit had an opportunity to speak to this and has
09:58:56 spoken to these issues.
09:58:59 Any specific direction from the 11th that's
09:59:03 consistent or inconsistent with what you have already
09:59:05 told us?
09:59:05 >>> These are the circuit court cases, both the
09:59:09 11th and some of the other jurisdictions.
09:59:11 The 11th circuit has not been the friendliest
09:59:14 >> But it's ours.
09:59:17 >>> But it's ours.
09:59:18 It's applicable law, you're right.
09:59:19 As I'll explain later, we are going to look at an
09:59:22 Illinois case, I think we can argue and perhaps use.
09:59:25 The 11th circuit has been not very favorable.
09:59:27 As a matter of fact, in Herschell, a district court
09:59:36 case where they were applying circuit court analysis.
09:59:38 We don't have that problem, I do not believe this
09:59:40 board needs to worry about that.
09:59:41 >> So the eleventh circuit is taking a very strict
09:59:44 approach, and strict interpretation of Croson?
09:59:48 >>> Yes.
09:59:48 Primarily focusing on the evidence and demanding
09:59:51 evidence equivalent to what you find in a court of
09:59:53 And that's the problem.
09:59:57 This is a legislative body.
09:59:59 We don't necessarily have that level of rigor.
10:00:01 I'm trying to help provide that level of rigor so we
10:00:05 get to where we need to go.
10:00:06 >> Thank you.
10:00:06 >>> Certainly.
10:00:07 Okay, if I can take you through the ordinance, I will
10:00:09 also point out not only some of the general provisions
10:00:11 but some of the upgrades, if you will, that we made to
10:00:14 And if you look at the title, that really gives you an
10:00:17 idea of what the revisions deal with.
10:00:21 And in the fourth line, it adds the following:
10:00:24 Prohibiting discrimination in public contracting and
10:00:28 That's always been our rule.
10:00:30 But we also believe it's important to highlight it, to
10:00:33 state it early and to state it often.
10:00:35 If you look down towards the bottom of the title, it
10:00:38 says, it adds the following words: Providing for race
10:00:41 and gender conscious remedies, based upon an adequate
10:00:45 showing of actual discrimination with remedies
10:00:48 narrowly tailored to address the specific
10:00:51 discrimination found.
10:00:53 Now, you can clearly tell I'm simply tracking the case
10:00:56 law there.
10:00:57 So your ordinance will be Constitutional on its face.
10:01:06 Moving into the ordinance itself, I think the
10:01:09 important things to point out to you is the addition
10:01:11 into 26-5' 1 which is the intent and purpose.
10:01:15 It adds the following.
10:01:16 It is also the intent and purpose of this chapter to
10:01:19 create a process for developing race and gender
10:01:21 conscious programs to remedy in a narrowly tailored
10:01:26 way the effects of past or current discrimination,
10:01:31 upon a sufficient evidentiary showing of specifically
10:01:35 identified discrimination.
10:01:36 So we will not have anybody who I think in good faith
10:01:40 can say anything about our ordinance in terms of its
10:01:42 Constitutional on its face.
10:01:44 But what are the real guts of the ordinance?
10:01:46 The real guts of the ordinance start on 26.5-15 which
10:01:50 is a small business committee. This is a committee
10:01:53 that really implements the program.
10:01:55 This committee is comprised of the people identified,
10:01:58 the chief of staff, the manager, that would be Greg
10:02:02 Hart, the purchasing director, that would be Greg
10:02:05 spearman, city attorney, that would be me, public
10:02:07 works administrator, I believe is Steve Daignault?
10:02:14 It's David barn.
10:02:18 No, it's Steve Daignault.
10:02:20 So that is your committee.
10:02:22 It's an even number which is kind of odd.
10:02:26 That committee does the kinds of things we are talking
10:02:28 They are the one that is can take a contract and say
10:02:30 this needs to be unbundled.
10:02:32 What does that mean?
10:02:33 That means the contract has too many things in it.
10:02:36 That makes it difficult for small businesses to
10:02:37 compete, because it is so large, only large businesses
10:02:41 can go after it.
10:02:42 If we can take a component out of that, such as the
10:02:45 movement of traffic, you know, putting the cones in
10:02:49 the stands and all those things we see when there's an
10:02:51 event going on, maybe that portion is a 75 or $100,000
10:02:56 contract which is more obtainable by small businesses.
10:02:59 And most women, minority and ethnic businesses,
10:03:02 there's exceptions obviously, but most of them are
10:03:06 small businesses, and they need to have the ability to
10:03:08 compete at a level they can start with, and then they
10:03:11 can grow.
10:03:12 So the small business committee will help.
10:03:15 The most critical thing I think, the most helpful
10:03:18 approach here is the sheltered market, which some
10:03:21 people will call satisfied.
10:03:23 We like shelter market.
10:03:24 It essentially means that because of the data we have,
10:03:27 we believe we can shelter a certain contract or
10:03:30 procurement and make it available only to SBEs --
10:03:35 This is the race and gender neutral.
10:03:38 We have walked through it before.
10:03:39 So we have that in each different arena.
10:03:42 And what the case law requires is that you identify
10:03:44 the specific skill set, individuals competing for
10:03:49 contract, construction is one but construction-related
10:03:52 is literally a different one.
10:03:53 Professional services is another.
10:03:55 Goods is another.
10:03:56 So you have got a variety of types of things you do.
10:04:01 And the point is not everybody does everything.
10:04:02 They tend to focus in a given area.
10:04:04 Some people straddle and do both construction and
10:04:07 construction related.
10:04:08 I no that's no surprise.
10:04:09 What does this mean in terms of our women and minority
10:04:12 business program?
10:04:13 And that starts in part 3.
10:04:15 And essentially what we have done is we have added in
10:04:17 there 26-5-27 the following language about purpose.
10:04:22 Seek in a race and gender conscious manner to
10:04:25 implement the herein described WMBE program to
10:04:30 ameliorate the remedies narrowly tailored.
10:04:33 What we have done is essentially we have parallelled
10:04:35 in the WMBE component of the ordinance the same
10:04:38 provisions that we have in the SBE program.
10:04:41 There is literally going to be a WMBE committee that
10:04:45 will look at contracts in the same way the SBE
10:04:49 committee does, identify contracts based upon the
10:04:52 evidence that are appropriate for sheltering, and make
10:04:55 sure that the awards occur in that basis.
10:04:58 >> Where were you just now?
10:05:00 >>> This portion starts, part 3 starts at 26.5-26,
10:05:06 which I believe is page 17.
10:05:07 Now, I think mine was printed off an e-mail and yours
10:05:13 may have been a hard copy.
10:05:14 But if you can find part 3, women and minority
10:05:16 business enter praise program.
10:05:18 In article 1 talks about general, and you can see the
10:05:22 You have a red line copy or just a clean copy?
10:05:25 >> Clean copy.
10:05:26 >> I'll send you all a copy of the red lines so you
10:05:30 can have a copy of that as well.
10:05:31 But basically the bottom of the first paragraph in
10:05:33 26-5-27, that's all added beginning with the work seek
10:05:39 in a race and conscious manner.
10:05:42 The next paragraph makes it clear, the city is
10:05:44 monitoring the contracting and procurement.
10:05:47 And when there's evidence of discrimination, "shall
10:05:50 take appropriate action to remedy same."
10:05:54 So those are the requirements that you are charging
10:05:57 the administration to implement.
10:05:59 And if you look at the applicability, it talks about
10:06:02 if the race and gender neutral means do not work, then
10:06:08 the race and gender conscious means "are to be
10:06:12 There is no discretion.
10:06:14 For those of you who aren't as familiar with this as
10:06:17 some this works on a certification process.
10:06:19 You become certified as a woman contractor, minority
10:06:24 contractor, Hispanic contractor as the case may be.
10:06:28 That certification is reviewed by the department, the
10:06:31 manager, I believe ultimately makes the initial
10:06:34 Of course everybody has appellate rights.
10:06:37 So if you seek to become a certified provider and you
10:06:40 are denied that status, you have some rights of
10:06:43 I think the important thing to remember -- and this
10:06:47 starts on article 2 of this subcategory -- yours may
10:06:51 say aspirational and mandatory goals.
10:06:53 We are going to change that to simply say goals which
10:06:55 is the approach that the county takes, I believe.
10:06:57 We like that.
10:06:58 That is a better way to do it.
10:07:02 What happens is goals are being set even now for
10:07:06 utilization of WMBEs even if we are not going to use
10:07:09 a race and gender mandatory requirement at this time,
10:07:13 because we need to monitor utilization.
10:07:15 So we have goals that are set.
10:07:17 We compare it with the actual award and dollar
10:07:21 It's not just awards.
10:07:22 I think Greg may have explained that to you.
10:07:25 Then we will have the data, for each specific
10:07:27 category, and we will possibly even know the people
10:07:30 who were subject to that discrimination who in
10:07:33 particular are entitled to a preference.
10:07:35 So we have a goal process.
10:07:38 And it will be employed.
10:07:39 People who do not provide us the information, they are
10:07:42 obligated to -- well, and this is something we need to
10:07:46 focus on.
10:07:47 But we are requiring be provided with their bid but
10:07:53 not necessarily declare the bid nonresponsive.
10:07:55 We will, it is going to be mandatory to get the award.
10:08:01 So if you provide us a bid, as you know, I'm working
10:08:04 for additional women contractors, and I have talked to
10:08:08 at least three or four, and we know those are three or
10:08:12 four that do work and you are trying to reach another
10:08:14 three or four.
10:08:16 If you are the lowest bidder and qualified we'll let
10:08:18 you get the balance of that between the bid and the
10:08:20 If you don't get it by the award, you don't get the
10:08:24 So the enforcement is stiff.
10:08:26 If you don't provide us the data that we require --
10:08:31 because we also have post award monitoring, you may be
10:08:34 ineligible to bid on a city project.
10:08:36 We have never had that remedy before.
10:08:38 We think it's going to get people's attention.
10:08:40 We think we'll have a very high level of compliance.
10:08:44 So the goal-setting committee, which I think in this
10:08:47 case is pretty much the WMBE office, will go through
10:08:52 that process.
10:08:53 And just so you know, I don't want anybody to think
10:08:55 this is somehow heavily burdensome, egregious thing.
10:09:01 WMBE office helps you.
10:09:03 You contact them.
10:09:04 You're making a bid for a city job.
10:09:07 They will let you know who the subcontractors,
10:09:10 suppliers and providers are, who you can contact.
10:09:13 It's not burdensome.
10:09:17 If you make an effort, we believe you can accomplish
10:09:19 the goals.
10:09:19 That's why you better have a good reason to establish
10:09:22 a waiver and establish good faith.
10:09:25 Now, you know, there's a lot of other provisions in
10:09:31 We have the prohibition on brokerage of services.
10:09:33 What that essentially means is people will not be able
10:09:36 to set up kind of a shell corporation and claim they
10:09:38 are a Hispanic contractor and really giving all the
10:09:42 work to someone who is not.
10:09:43 So we have some protections to make sure it's a
10:09:45 meaningful approach.
10:09:47 That's where the ordinance stands currently.
10:09:48 We think it is a good ordinance.
10:09:51 It's on its way to being an excellent ordinance.
10:09:53 Obviously the purpose of this workshop is to talk
10:09:55 about it more and make some improvements, more
10:09:58 improvements that can be made.
10:09:59 Sorry that I had to drone on but it is complicated.
10:10:03 And if you have any questions I will be happy to try
10:10:05 to answer them.
10:10:06 What we do have, though, we have some questions
10:10:09 previously provided that we have some information for
10:10:12 you about, and what I would like to do, since someone
10:10:16 took the time to provide us those questions, is
10:10:18 provide those answers, and if I can find my sheet.
10:10:23 You have yours.
10:10:24 Here it is.
10:10:26 I believe these were questions primarily asked by --
10:10:35 here they are.
10:10:36 These were, I think, councilman Scott sent these
10:10:39 questions, and they are excellent questions.
10:10:40 First one was, using the numbers that were used to do
10:10:43 the disparity study, provide a break-out of the
10:10:47 numbers that show black, White and Hispanic
10:10:50 disparities that exist now, part of the problem -- and
10:10:53 I think Greg was explaining in his portion is -- the
10:10:57 numbers that we have and that Greg has, and he will
10:11:01 provide you some of that information in a minute --
10:11:04 don't really track the disparity study, because the
10:11:08 disparity study involves not only the gathering of our
10:11:11 data but the analysis of the data, the good faith
10:11:13 issues, the availability issues, and analysis that
10:11:17 well be doing but we have not been able to complete
10:11:19 that yet.
10:11:19 But Greg does have some raw data that he can provide
10:11:22 to you.
10:11:23 What has happened in the post disparity years?
10:11:27 Well, there's a variety of things that have been done.
10:11:29 I think we have kind of indicated some of those.
10:11:34 The executive order has been adopted.
10:11:37 We have a committee that will help unbundle projects.
10:11:40 We have a variety of measures that are being employed
10:11:45 already that help -- Greg, I think there's some more.
10:11:51 >>> The best that we can report right now is based on
10:11:54 primarily awards and WMBE subcontractors, one of the
10:11:58 major problems that was pointed out in the disparity
10:12:01 study was that the data was not readily available to
10:12:03 do the kind of analysis that was necessary.
10:12:06 So the DMI system will allow us to do that.
10:12:10 Speaking of raw data, I do have some information of
10:12:17 participation to date that I would like to share.
10:12:22 Did you take that from me?
10:12:23 If we could use the overhead.
10:12:28 This overhead reflects participation in 2005.
10:12:53 You will see that the total dollars awarded, 34, 35
10:13:00 million, the goal for that year was 16%.
10:13:06 The WMBE participation in 2005 was 21%.
10:13:12 That goal is established based upon our analysis of
10:13:16 procurements that is to be awarded or were awarded by
10:13:19 the city.
10:13:20 And the opportunities it presented for the certified
10:13:24 WMBE that had expertise in the trades that were needed
10:13:29 for all of those contracts awarded.
10:13:31 The breakdown you will see was 3% participation,
10:13:38 Hispanic businesses, 8%, and women-owned businesses
10:13:43 Now that's fairly representative of the percent of
10:13:46 funds that we have certified in the category.
10:13:49 At present, the predominant certification is with
10:13:54 women-owned businesses.
10:13:55 They represent about 45% of certifications.
10:13:59 Hispanic owned businesses coming in second about 30%
10:14:02 and black-owned businesses represent about 20% of all
10:14:07 our certifications, the balance of which 4 or 5 a
10:14:09 percent are other ethnic groups, native Americans,
10:14:14 Asians, et cetera.
10:14:16 And as I mentioned, those percentages are based on
10:14:22 identified subcontracting traits within the project.
10:14:26 And the number of certified WMBEs available to
10:14:32 The goal setting occurs prayer to the bid
10:14:36 As David alluded to, that's our opportunity to inform
10:14:39 the bid community provide us with information on
10:14:45 certified and trades that we need in the contract.
10:14:47 In looking at 2006, the total dollars awarded
10:15:00 increased in 2006 from 35 some million to 65 million.
10:15:08 The goals during that year equated to 11%.
10:15:12 The participation for WMBE resulted in 12%.
10:15:16 Breaking that down by ethnicity and gender we have our
10:15:20 black businesses receiving almost 6%, and Hispanic
10:15:24 businesses 2%, and women 4%.
10:15:27 So there was some increase in participation of
10:15:32 black-owned businesses and somewhat above and beyond
10:15:37 their representation, the certification classes.
10:15:45 Keeping in step with what the disparity study
10:15:47 concluded in subcontracting, when combining those
10:15:52 years, 2005-2006, city awarded over $100 million.
10:16:02 The overall participation was 15% broken down as
10:16:06 5% went to black-owned businesses.
10:16:08 4% to Hispanic businesses.
10:16:11 And women-owned businesses 6%.
10:16:13 So that's relatively in keeping with the certification
10:16:21 So I did want to share that with you.
10:16:25 There were some additional questions, David, that you
10:16:27 had received.
10:16:28 >>DAVID SMITH: How does the ordinance address
10:16:32 construction projects under $200,000 in professional
10:16:37 services projects under $100,000?
10:16:39 >>> Well, there are a couple of phases to that.
10:16:42 One is we have -- we now have our bid discount
10:16:46 incentive whereby an SBE certified firm and with the
10:16:50 new ordinance is appropriate under the WMBE program to
10:16:55 bid discount which allows a WMBE bidding as a
10:16:58 parathyroidism to be eligible for 5% discount, not to
10:17:02 exceed $10,000.
10:17:04 Essentially what that means, if I submit a bid as a
10:17:07 WMBE of $10,000 that's going to be viewed -- excuse
10:17:11 me, $50,000, as a WMBE that's going to be viewed as
10:17:15 either a 5% or 10% evaluation.
10:17:19 Reducing their bid amount in terms of evaluating
10:17:21 against the competitors.
10:17:23 Which levels the playing field.
10:17:27 Also, all contracts that have a value of $50,000 will
10:17:34 be continued to be evaluated for goal setting.
10:17:36 So we are going to look at that procurement
10:17:38 opportunity, break it down by its parts, it's trades
10:17:42 and element and then determine what extent we have
10:17:44 certified firms available to, quote, subcontract work.
10:17:48 That's the basis of our subcontract goal setting so
10:17:50 that will continue.
10:17:55 >>DAVID SMITH: The next question was, how do
10:17:57 minorities benefit from the SBE ordinance as it
10:18:00 appears to expand the pool of contractors beyond
10:18:03 Hillsborough County to include Pasco, Manatee,
10:18:06 Pinellas, Polk counties, thereby reducing the
10:18:08 opportunity for minority contractors?
10:18:11 Well, it does reduce the opportunity of minority
10:18:14 contractors in Hillsborough County, but we needed to
10:18:16 use those categories or that geographic area, because
10:18:21 that is the area that established our baseline in the
10:18:24 Mason Tillman study.
10:18:27 What that normally means however, we are not going to
10:18:29 generally get people coming from east Polk County or
10:18:31 maybe northern Pasco County.
10:18:33 We generally get people in southern Pasco and western
10:18:37 Polk, the peripheral counties.
10:18:40 But I don't believe we have a huge amount of those
10:18:42 But that was a requirement simply in order to keep
10:18:44 comparing apples to apples rather than apples to
10:18:48 >>> Also, you know, we are in a metropolitan area.
10:18:53 For small businesses, they do work outside the City of
10:18:56 Tampa jurisdiction, outside the Hillsborough County
10:19:01 jurisdiction Dicks.
10:19:02 So we want to have the ability to increase the
10:19:04 potential and probability that we will have the
10:19:07 requisite 3 SBE firms that allows us to shelter. If
10:19:11 we limited the jurisdiction to injuries the City of
10:19:14 Tampa, it's going to minimize that opportunity.
10:19:21 And that's another reason we have that area.
10:19:25 >> There's another couple of questions which Greg is
10:19:27 best able to answer.
10:19:28 The next one is what procedures do we use to create
10:19:31 opportunities for projects over $200,000?
10:19:35 And I think also we can go to the next one, which is
10:19:39 what is the target or what are the goals?
10:19:40 >> Well, that first question is similar to the earlier
10:19:43 ones whereby we look at any contract that has a value
10:19:45 of $50,000 to see what the subcontract opportunities
10:19:50 We establish the goals, the prime or the proposer
10:19:55 knows what the city expects, based upon who is
10:20:00 Again, similar response to that question, and that we
10:20:03 have a sheltered market bid discount, bid evaluation,
10:20:09 going to also apply to that solicitation.
10:20:13 I think the next question, David, was, what are our
10:20:19 Based upon the disparity study, our goal is going
10:20:24 forward for construction, African-Americans will be
10:20:27 approximately 11%, Asian Americans .3%, Hispanic
10:20:33 American businesses will be 20%, native American .8%,
10:20:38 Caucasian females would be 13%.
10:20:40 In the construction related arena, African-Americans
10:20:44 will be 10.8%, almost 11%, Asian Americans will be 4%,
10:20:49 Hispanic businesses will be 19%, native Americans .5%,
10:20:53 and Caucasian women 13, almost 14%.
10:20:59 >>DAVID SMITH: Let me add to that, part of the problem
10:21:01 when you get down to percentages that are below one,
10:21:03 the statistical reliability is not very high so we
10:21:06 have to be careful.
10:21:07 But we know what the important categories are here,
10:21:10 and we have enough statistics to support it.
10:21:17 >> Another question, how will the city measure
10:21:21 Success is simply the extent to which we identify
10:21:26 We communicate the expected level participation.
10:21:30 And then monitor, insure that those primes are using
10:21:34 the firms that they claim they are using and monitor
10:21:38 payments to those subs, and then calculate the end
10:21:44 result, the contract or project close-out.
10:21:48 Is what we expected to see in participation actually
10:21:53 what occurred?
10:21:54 And that's part of what this whole new data management
10:21:58 information system, allowing all of our financial
10:22:02 systems, procurement systems, demand star, to
10:22:06 communicate with one another.
10:22:07 We have got to ensure that people are receiving what
10:22:10 prime bidders committed to.
10:22:12 So that's how success is measured.
10:22:16 There was another question about bond waivers.
10:22:18 The ordinance does provide that the city has the
10:22:23 ability to evaluate risk up to 200,000.
10:22:29 I think you will hear that the county has a level of
10:22:32 bond waiver that is above that level, somewhere around
10:22:38 They can speak to that.
10:22:38 But that's because they have -- Mr. Scott is probably
10:22:41 aware of this -- because they sought special
10:22:45 legislation that's only applicable to Hillsborough
10:22:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just to add a little bit to that.
10:22:50 SBE committee handles that and for WMBE it would be
10:22:55 the WMBE committee which is essentially the same group
10:22:59 of individuals.
10:22:59 I think we put in the ordinance the possibilities of
10:23:01 raising it to 3, 000,000 if we can get legislative
10:23:04 support but we can only do what we can currently do
10:23:07 under the statute.
10:23:08 Last question in Reverend Scott's series was there
10:23:10 seems to be no voluntary utilization, no target goals
10:23:13 for the WMBE certification.
10:23:15 That was the previous version.
10:23:17 We have added the WMBE portion back in as it was in, I
10:23:23 don't know, the third or fourth or fifth draft.
10:23:26 We have go.
10:23:27 Gone through a lot of iterations.
10:23:29 There are some changes when need to make.
10:23:30 There are some clarifications.
10:23:32 Greg and I need to sit down and go over some of these
10:23:34 processes a little more carefully and make sure we
10:23:37 reflect how this is actually implemented in the field.
10:23:40 But I think that's kind of a general presentation.
10:23:44 I made it a little longer but I think it's important
10:23:46 you know everything you need to know to take the
10:23:49 appropriate action in this area.
10:23:50 If there are any questions we would be happy to answer
10:23:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Reverend Scott.
10:24:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I have about 12 more.
10:24:03 Thank you, Madam Chair.
10:24:05 First of all let me just say, I would hope to have had
10:24:07 those answers in writing to my office before now.
10:24:12 You went through them pretty quickly and I still
10:24:14 didn't get all the information.
10:24:15 So it would have been appropriate for you all to
10:24:18 provide a written report before this workshop today,
10:24:23 okay, so I would have had opportunity to review that
10:24:26 in response to the existing ordinance.
10:24:31 Let me be clear about that, all right?
10:24:34 Secondly, let me follow up and say, too, I have eleven
10:24:38 or twelve other questions.
10:24:40 If you would pass those questions out to council in
10:24:42 regards to the existing ordinance that were provided
10:24:45 to me, and I think it is a good start.
10:24:49 I think it still has a lot of tweaking to do so I
10:24:51 can -- before I can support it, okay?
10:24:54 I think that it's still quite weak.
10:24:56 And I think as I look at it and compare the ordinance
10:25:00 with several other municipalities, with Hillsborough
10:25:03 County, with Pinellas, as well, we still have some
10:25:08 work to do.
10:25:17 Get a copy to Mr. Smith and Mr. Hart and the clerk.
10:25:22 First question I raise, this is an economic
10:25:24 empowerment tool.
10:25:25 I think this is the whole idea of this ordinance.
10:25:29 Then how can the city government better demonstrate
10:25:33 its commitment to outreach through this ordinance?
10:25:36 How can it be strengthened?
10:25:38 And I find that it's still weak relative to empowering
10:25:45 WMBEs to move forward.
10:25:47 One thing I note, there does not appear anything to
10:25:51 help WMBEs to move over to SBEs.
10:25:54 There's nothing there.
10:25:56 Second question: Should the committee be constituted
10:26:01 Is it appropriate to make the chief of staff the
10:26:04 And one of the things you have to keep in mind, you
10:26:06 have an ordinance.
10:26:07 My whole idea is to develop an ordinance for years to
10:26:13 I mean, the next mayor may not have a chief of staff.
10:26:21 So you have to look at all that.
10:26:23 So we should not tailor the ordinance, the
10:26:28 administration should be going beyond that, okay?
10:26:32 Is it appropriate to make the chief of staff the
10:26:34 Should the appointment be reaffirmed annually by the
10:26:37 mayor with approval of City Council?
10:26:39 I will tell knew this ordinance there appears to be no
10:26:42 role for City Council at all.
10:26:43 Now, if City Council doesn't, that's up to you but I
10:26:48 think we have we as a legislative branch of this
10:26:50 government, we make the ordinance, we pass the
10:26:52 ordinance, and I will tell you from what I can see,
10:26:54 City Council has very little role in this ordinance.
10:26:59 That speaks to number 3.
10:27:00 What is the City Council role in enacting this
10:27:04 What are the committee's reporting requirements?
10:27:06 Should that be added to the ordinance?
10:27:10 Four, is the SBE committee a sunshine board?
10:27:13 Does the public hold the committee accountable?
10:27:16 What about the board similar to the Hillsborough
10:27:19 Hillsborough County has an advisory board that meets
10:27:21 quarterly that's open to the public, and the public
10:27:23 has opportunity to have input.
10:27:27 I contend, I keep saying that Hillsborough County has
10:27:31 one of the best ordinances in the region, not only in
10:27:33 the county but in the region, okay, and has been
10:27:37 enacted since 1989, and has been tested and proven.
10:27:42 So I don't understand why we are all over again when
10:27:47 there are some components of that can be extracted
10:27:49 from that.
10:27:52 To help with us the city ordinance.
10:27:53 Number 5, where are the time frames for action?
10:27:59 How soon does the ordinance address the existing
10:28:03 disparity identify if -- identified in the Mason
10:28:06 Tillman report?
10:28:09 6, page 19, that you gave me, Mr. Smith, why doesn't
10:28:14 the City Council set the goals at a public meeting
10:28:17 instead of the manager?
10:28:18 Part of the issue when you look at this ordinance, it
10:28:21 is management driven, and does not seem to give the
10:28:27 mayor or chief the power really to run this program.
10:28:30 It really puts the burden on the manager from what I
10:28:34 can see in this particular ordinance as opposed to
10:28:37 someone at a higher level.
10:28:40 Page 20 as well, in the version I have.
10:28:47 There's no reporting with City Council at all.
10:28:50 That's not in the ordinance.
10:28:52 It should be there, okay?
10:28:54 Page 20.
10:28:56 Mid page.
10:28:58 Labor aspirations, you address that already.
10:29:00 Thank you very kindly.
10:29:01 I think we can agree on that.
10:29:03 I think that's a good move on that, okay?
10:29:05 Page 20, what is an appropriate percent, percentage?
10:29:13 I can see.
10:29:13 Then page 10, page 21.
10:29:17 Number 11.
10:29:18 What are the qualifications for the hearing officer?
10:29:21 Shouldn't that be included in the ordinance?
10:29:25 All those issues are not addressed.
10:29:29 And so what happens is, it makes the ordinance weaker.
10:29:32 It does not put any teeth, in my opinion, in the
10:29:35 ordinance that would help this program be successful.
10:29:39 I am not just for doing the ordinance just to have
10:29:41 something on the books.
10:29:44 I am for something that will say to this community
10:29:46 that this government, this City Council, values every
10:29:51 citizen in this community, whether black, white,
10:29:53 Hispanic, don't matter.
10:29:57 Male or female, heterosexual, homosexuals don't
10:30:01 We value the input when it comes to city contract and
10:30:04 they should have an opportunity to be able to bid on
10:30:09 city contracts.
10:30:13 And I find that lacking in this ordinance, okay?
10:30:17 And so I understand, Mr. Smith, this has a long way to
10:30:28 And I believe we are going to eventually get there.
10:30:31 I only have one vote on this board.
10:30:38 And I would like to get those numbers so I can
10:30:40 continue to look at it.
10:30:41 I know in one year in 2005 you had a higher goal and
10:30:44 then in 2006 the goal was lower in construction.
10:30:48 And, also, I asked for those numbers early on and was
10:30:57 told I couldn't get them, and felt really I got a
10:31:06 strong blow when I got an e-mail from Mr. Robinson and
10:31:11 he had more information than I do and I'm a City
10:31:12 Council person.
10:31:13 So I want you to know I really didn't appreciate that
10:31:15 very much.
10:31:20 But I think we are off to a good start, Mr. Smith.
10:31:22 Obviously from my standpoint -- and again I'm only one
10:31:25 member of this council -- this council will decide and
10:31:27 they will vote.
10:31:28 But I think these questions need to be addressed, and,
10:31:32 council, you need to determine whether you want to
10:31:34 have input, whether you want to delegate all your
10:31:40 responsibility to the administration.
10:31:41 And that's why I said it needs to go -- it's not about
10:31:44 this mayor.
10:31:44 It's going beyond.
10:31:48 Beyond this administration.
10:31:50 You have to understand that.
10:31:51 So those are my questions.
10:31:52 I hope when we come back that you can address those,
10:31:57 or at least include some of these questions or these
10:32:01 concepts into the ordinance, and help us put forth a
10:32:05 very good -- again, in an ideal world -- and we are
10:32:10 not an ideal world, we shouldn't need this.
10:32:13 I believe it's an important ordinance, telling me they
10:32:17 don't have an ordinance but they have a mayor that's
10:32:20 committed to ensure what is ethically and morally
10:32:23 And that's an excellent program.
10:32:30 And all the mayor has to do is say, this will happen,
10:32:33 let's make it happen, let's move forward, and let's
10:32:35 get it done.
10:32:36 And we don't have to keep coming back going around.
10:32:40 So that concludes all I have to say right now.
10:32:43 >>DAVID SMITH: Thank you very much.
10:32:44 We are looking at some of these already, and some of
10:32:46 them we haven't thought about but we will and we'll
10:32:49 get back to you on that.
10:32:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
10:32:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
10:32:53 Tom, you said you only had one vote.
10:32:55 You already have two because as I went through the
10:32:57 ordinance, I was scribbling down the same issues.
10:33:00 I think sunshine, transparency to the community on a
10:33:03 regular basis, possibly including a nonvoting member
10:33:08 of the public to that committee, or more than one, I
10:33:14 think are extremely important issues.
10:33:16 The way I look at the makeup of that committee, like
10:33:19 many committees in the city, it's just six staff
10:33:22 members underneath the chief of staff, and I don't
10:33:28 think that's enough transparency to the community,
10:33:30 whether or not that meeting needs to be in the
10:33:32 sunshine, I think it's something we need to continue
10:33:34 to address, and definitely to include some members of
10:33:38 the community on that.
10:33:41 In regard to periodic reports to this council, that's
10:33:45 a nonissue for me.
10:33:47 That has to be included in the ordinance.
10:33:48 Because like you say, three years from now, who knows
10:33:52 who is going to be sitting here?
10:33:53 Who knows who will be sitting over there?
10:33:55 But the bottom line is those issues have to be
10:33:58 reported to this council because that way they'll be
10:34:01 report to the community right on the television and in
10:34:05 front of these folks.
10:34:06 So that has to be included in the ordinance as far as
10:34:10 this councilman's concern.
10:34:11 The other thing that, David, I didn't see included,
10:34:14 and maybe it's in there, because it is an ordinance,
10:34:19 is the timing.
10:34:20 And also who makes a determination of when we shift
10:34:23 from the SBE to the WMBE program?
10:34:27 Is that in there?
10:34:28 Or --
10:34:31 >>> it is not.
10:34:31 But what we do specifically contemplate, and what I
10:34:33 thought was in there, is annual reporting.
10:34:36 Actually, we believe we need to come back to this body
10:34:39 with either a past year or full year and either
10:34:43 quarterly or semiannually thereafter.
10:34:45 So we contemplate that.
10:34:46 And the answer to your direct question is, who sets
10:34:49 that, this body is certainly involved in that.
10:34:51 It's essential that the data is reviewed, you guys
10:34:54 make specific findings with respect to that data, and
10:34:58 that includes timing.
10:34:59 So that will be contemplated.
10:35:01 >> So we need to make sure that that's clear in there,
10:35:04 and the reporting, it does mention annual reports but
10:35:07 it doesn't say what happens to the annual report.
10:35:10 >> It needs to be elaborated.
10:35:11 >> It needs to be specific and speak to this council.
10:35:13 I would say at a minimum twice a year, reports to
10:35:18 >> We agree.
10:35:19 >> Tom, we are thinking alike and I appreciate your
10:35:24 hard work on this.
10:35:25 >>MARY MULHERN: I would like to have answers to all
10:35:27 these questions, and I'm glad somebody else asked all
10:35:30 the questions.
10:35:34 I think they are big questions for us, and I agree
10:35:36 with everything that both Mr. Scott and Mr. Dingfelder
10:35:44 I have a couple questions and you may have answered or
10:35:47 I may have missed it.
10:35:48 As far as the time frames for action and the measuring
10:35:52 of the data, if we are going to be -- I find this a
10:35:57 little problematic that you are going to spend all
10:35:59 this time collecting the data, then analyzing the
10:36:02 data, and then you have to go back in order to have
10:36:05 this evidence-based, you know, proof of
10:36:09 discrimination, then you have to go back and are you
10:36:12 going to just keep changing the requirements we have?
10:36:17 It just doesn't seem very workable to me.
10:36:19 Or reasonable.
10:36:20 Because if you even looking at year to year when I was
10:36:24 asking about the women representation, for example,
10:36:27 one year it was 10%, the next year 4%.
10:36:30 So how do we, you know, I think we need to really
10:36:33 think about what's the bigger role?
10:36:41 We need to hear the report of the data.
10:36:43 But as far as changing the process, do we really need
10:36:45 to change it? Can't we just set our goals and leave
10:36:47 that in place with the ordinance for awhile?
10:36:50 So that's a question you don't need to answer now.
10:36:52 But I would just like us to think about that.
10:36:58 And this may have been mentioned.
10:37:00 I had to step out for a little bit.
10:37:02 But as far as the board and the sunshine board, I
10:37:04 think because -- and you even mention the word
10:37:08 The case law may make us only look at discrimination
10:37:13 within existing industry.
10:37:17 But I think our hope is that we would get to a better
10:37:20 level of employment and contracting.
10:37:23 Where we are actually representing closer to what the
10:37:27 calculation is.
10:37:28 For instance, 50% women.
10:37:30 And I don't know what the Hispanic figures are, the
10:37:34 minority figures.
10:37:35 But for aspiration, then absolutely on this board, I
10:37:39 don't want to just see representation that indicates
10:37:43 the industry level.
10:37:45 I want to see the population level.
10:37:48 So I want to see a lot of women on the board.
10:37:50 I want to see a lot of minorities on the board.
10:37:52 Because we should be aspiring to better representation
10:37:59 and eventually creating more jobs for minorities and
10:38:03 more opportunities.
10:38:05 So I would like to see a little bit more of that
10:38:07 written into the ordinance.
10:38:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I have one observation, too, Mr.
10:38:15 In the county ordinance and the city, what you have,
10:38:19 in Pinellas, Manatee, Polk County, the county has a
10:38:23 different one, where it's limited almost to
10:38:27 Hillsborough County.
10:38:27 However, they can, other county can come in only for
10:38:32 one time, I believe it is, when they come for six
10:38:35 After that they have to be certified.
10:38:38 Through the county's process.
10:38:40 So that may be something that may be addressed in
10:38:44 other issues.
10:38:44 But you are really diluting the pool when you expand
10:38:48 over to these other counties for those who live here
10:38:51 in Hillsborough County.
10:38:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to thank my
10:38:55 colleagues for the depth to which they have looked
10:38:57 into this.
10:38:58 It's a subject about which I have known less and I
10:39:03 really appreciate your work and I look forward to us
10:39:05 making this a better ordinance.
10:39:08 >>GWEN MILLER: My question is, when we advertise, and
10:39:10 we do not get enough minority businesses to reply, do
10:39:15 we seek out to find if there's some out there?
10:39:17 >> Actually, without a doubt, we have outreach
10:39:24 We go to community meetings.
10:39:25 We advertise.
10:39:27 We are on the web.
10:39:29 There are various initiatives whereby we are out
10:39:33 there, identifying WMBE, and literally going to them
10:39:39 to get them certified.
10:39:43 So, yes, we do.
10:39:45 >>GWEN MILLER: At this time we will go to the county,
10:39:46 the representative for the county.
10:39:47 Would you come up, please?
10:39:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Just to take an opportunity to welcome
10:39:56 Jean gray who heads up the economic development, and
10:39:59 Mr. Spencer who actually runs the WMBE program, Mr.
10:40:04 Ricardo, the legal staff from Hillsborough County.
10:40:08 >>> Gene gray with the Hillsborough County development
10:40:13 As requested we have prepared a brief presentation
10:40:16 with regard to the county's program.
10:40:18 I am going to do a very simple, very brief
10:40:20 introduction, then turn it over to the county
10:40:22 attorney's office, and Spencer Albert, the manager
10:40:27 over disadvantaged minority, women, small business
10:40:31 enterprise programs.
10:40:34 Two things.
10:40:34 First off, Hillsborough County, City of Tampa, has a
10:40:37 long standing relationship on many fronts, including
10:40:41 these programs.
10:40:42 And we are committed to continue to work with the city
10:40:45 in any way that you see appropriate for us to benefit
10:40:50 each other's efforts in this area.
10:40:51 Secondly as councilman Scott pointed out, these
10:40:54 programs are economic development tools.
10:40:57 We take that very seriously.
10:40:59 Two primary reasons, the first being it is the right
10:41:03 thing to do to ensure through policy and through
10:41:06 practice that we are providing appropriate levels of
10:41:09 access to small women and minority businesses, to
10:41:13 government procurement.
10:41:14 Secondly, from a functional standpoint, this is the
10:41:17 best tool that we as a local government can use to
10:41:20 better help them, to better prepare them to help them
10:41:23 to compete in the marketplace.
10:41:25 The reality is, that's where the biggest piece of the
10:41:28 Pi pie is.
10:41:29 Government procurement is a very small piece.
10:41:32 The rest of the pie is where the money is.
10:41:34 We want to help them to be better prepared to wet
10:41:37 better compete in the marketplace.
10:41:39 And we take that very seriously and all of our
10:41:42 programs are designed to help us accomplish those two
10:41:46 With that, I will turn it over to the county
10:41:48 attorney's office and to Spencer to give an overview
10:41:51 of the program.
10:41:53 >>> Good morning, Council. Sheree Fish, I'm a
10:41:57 managing attorney with the county attorney's office.
10:42:00 And I'm pleased to be here on behalf of Renee Lee, the
10:42:00 County Attorney.
10:42:02 We are very proud of our small business enterprise
10:42:05 program, because we believe that we have maintained
10:42:07 both an ethnic and gender consciousness within that
10:42:10 We do that through a lot of different activities in
10:42:13 the county where we are helping and doing outreach to
10:42:16 those disadvantaged enterprises to help them become
10:42:20 better prepared to compete for contracts within the
10:42:24 We do this through a cooperative effort with the Board
10:42:29 of County Commissioners and administration, but with
10:42:32 total oversight by our Board of County Commissioners.
10:42:36 One of the ways that we do this is we maintain data
10:42:39 systems to specifically identify participation.
10:42:45 We identify programs and resources that are available
10:42:48 in the community to assist these types of enterprises.
10:42:50 We hold seminars to acquaint these enterprise was the
10:42:55 different procurement activities and how they can
10:42:57 actively participate and be successful in those
10:43:01 We work with developing innovative methods to advance
10:43:04 program goals through activities such as public and
10:43:06 private partnerships, or other assistance programs
10:43:09 through private businesses.
10:43:13 We enforce our EEOC requirements in all of our
10:43:16 We provide information on state certification to take
10:43:19 enterprises up to the next level.
10:43:23 We encourage public participation, as councilman Scott
10:43:26 advised you through an advisory committee that does
10:43:28 meet and does have input into the program.
10:43:31 And our Board of County Commissioners does establish
10:43:34 goals annually based on input from staff as to what
10:43:37 those goals will be.
10:43:38 They may not be attainable but it certainly something
10:43:41 that we strife towards and we look at ways that we can
10:43:44 improve upon performance if we are unable to obtain
10:43:48 those goals.
10:43:49 We do have provisions for waiver of the bonds, as well
10:43:54 as performance bonds and payment bonds, and, yes, we
10:43:57 did get a special act from the legislation that
10:44:00 addresses performance bonds in CCNA contract.
10:44:04 We also tried to alleviate the cash flow problems of
10:44:07 small businesses.
10:44:07 We recognize that a lot of times they are going from
10:44:11 payroll from week to week and we do try to accelerate
10:44:14 payments to them.
10:44:15 We encourage them to graduate into our small business
10:44:19 enterprise program and that ultimately out of the
10:44:22 program altogether, but also encourage them to come
10:44:25 back and work with other potential businesses that
10:44:28 would have the capacity at a later time to become very
10:44:32 successful in our community.
10:44:34 Our program has been tried.
10:44:36 It went before the 11th circuit.
10:44:39 It did provide the Croson test, I think back in 1989,
10:44:44 and I think that wave only improved upon it since that
10:44:47 One of the things that I think that the courts pointed
10:44:50 out is there's a lot of flexibility in our program,
10:44:53 and of course we think it's a very fair program.
10:44:56 Our ultimate goal is to eliminate or moderate race
10:44:59 conscious preferences altogether.
10:45:02 And I think we have been very successful in working
10:45:05 towards that end.
10:45:06 As far as some of the more specific questions that you
10:45:09 may have as far as programs and how they actually
10:45:12 work, Albert I think is an expert in that area and we
10:45:18 deal with the legal issues but I look to him for
10:45:20 anytime I have questions about what's going on in his
10:45:23 So I'm certainly available to try to answer any
10:45:25 questions that you may have from a legal perspective,
10:45:27 or rely upon Spencer if you have any other program
10:45:32 Thank you.
10:45:40 >> Spencer Albert, manager of the county's minority
10:45:43 business program, as well as its small business
10:45:47 enterprise program.
10:45:51 I have a handout.
10:45:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Give to the our attorney.
10:45:54 With respect to our program, we have been in the
10:46:08 business since 1984, having since 1975 gone through
10:46:17 voluntary race neutral steps to encourage the
10:46:22 utilization of minority and women-owned businesses.
10:46:27 Those efforts having failed in 1984, culminated in the
10:46:33 first minority business program for the county.
10:46:37 In 1989, January, the Croson came out, the last of the
10:46:47 Subsequent to the issuance of the Croson decision,
10:46:50 Hillsborough County was sue, litigation that went on
10:46:54 for four years, the county eventually prevailed in
10:47:02 1994 with the court having ruled in our favor, and
10:47:05 this -- our case, incidentally, went up not only
10:47:11 through the 11th circuit but also went up to the
10:47:14 U.S. supreme court who refused to hear or make any
10:47:19 further changes to what the 11th circuit had
10:47:22 ruled, and that simply was that the Hillsborough
10:47:25 County program was indeed Constitutional, and that it
10:47:30 met the muster that had been set forth and the stance
10:47:36 that had been set forth by Croson.
10:47:39 With respect to the two programs, we attempt that they
10:47:46 complement one another.
10:47:47 The minority business program, with respect to
10:47:53 construction, affects projects that are $200,000 or
10:47:59 more, projects less than 200,000 we reserved, to the
10:48:04 review of our small business enterprise committee, and
10:48:08 program, and we try to see if there are sufficient
10:48:14 available firms to identify most of them for
10:48:20 set-aside, when they are less than 200,000.
10:48:24 We went total legislature in 2004 and asked that
10:48:31 chapter 255, Florida statutes, be amended.
10:48:36 Well, unusually we went in 2003 but we had to return
10:48:39 in 2004.
10:48:40 We had to change our strategy.
10:48:42 But we brought the association of Florida on board
10:48:49 with us and were able to get a special act that
10:48:51 affects the Board of County Commissioners.
10:48:53 And our statutory amendment has been raised to that of
10:48:58 500,000 which has been mentioned earlier.
10:49:02 Coupled with that, we have to, by statute, had to
10:49:05 create a bond education program which we have done.
10:49:11 We have gone through several cycles of that.
10:49:14 And we are working with small firms to increase their
10:49:18 ability to acquire surety bonds.
10:49:27 We don't want to create a situation that firms are
10:49:29 dependent on government forever.
10:49:33 We want to see improvement, growth, eventual
10:49:39 graduation, and hence that brings me to another point,
10:49:42 that our programs, both the minority business program
10:49:44 and our small business program have graduation
10:49:51 You can reach a point in terms of your growth and
10:49:55 success, that you grow beyond the need for our
10:50:00 assistance, and therefore we graduate you up.
10:50:04 To date we have graduated approximately 45 firms,
10:50:08 although we graduated some this week.
10:50:10 But I think 45 is a safe number.
10:50:14 That's generally the program, coupled with the outline
10:50:19 that I have given you.
10:50:20 I'm prepared to answer any questions, if you may have
10:50:25 >> Mr. Dingfelder?
10:50:26 >> Thank you.
10:50:27 Welcome Mr. Albert and the rest of your team.
10:50:31 A pleasure to see you again.
10:50:36 Sort of a big picture question and maybe you all have
10:50:38 been having these discussions among yourselves and
10:50:41 Reverend Scott alluded to this earlier.
10:50:44 Many people in this community speak to consolidation
10:50:47 of governments, city and county governments, we
10:50:51 realize that's a huge undertaking.
10:50:53 Then we drop back a little bit and we speak to kind of
10:50:56 functional consolidations on a department by
10:50:58 department basis.
10:51:00 So I trust Tom's judgment on this, because you were
10:51:06 over there for ten years, and now you are here with
10:51:09 us, and you seem to feel that -- I don't want to put
10:51:13 words in your mouth but it seems like you feel they
10:51:15 have a very good program and you were happy with that
10:51:19 I'm just wondering why we don't just in some way
10:51:21 consolidate the two programs, to come somehow
10:51:26 underneath the county ordinance, and get our staff
10:51:30 working with your staff, and doing it that way.
10:51:38 Have those discussions be happening at your level?
10:51:41 And how would you see the commission accepting that as
10:51:47 >>> Oh, I wouldn't dare touch that.
10:51:49 [ Laughter ]
10:51:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, I don't want to put you on
10:52:12 the hot seat.
10:52:13 >>> Councilman, let me try to address the first part
10:52:16 of your question.
10:52:17 I will ignore or defer the second part with regard to
10:52:21 how the county commission would accept it.
10:52:23 I think from a functional standpoint, I think clearly
10:52:26 it's in line with the current discussions that are
10:52:28 going on between the two administrations, trying to
10:52:31 identify areas of functional consolidation.
10:52:37 And we would certainly welcome, be receptive to
10:52:40 including that in those discussions and seeing if
10:52:42 there's a way to make it happen.
10:52:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Clearly the intent is not to
10:52:48 eliminate any city staff people or county staff
10:52:50 people, but the intent, if you all have been doing
10:52:53 this well and you have been doing it a long time, we
10:52:56 have been doing it a long time, maybe we can do it
10:52:58 better together.
10:52:59 So I would encourage us to look at that as another
10:53:06 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Is that a motion?
10:53:08 >> I don't know if it's to the point -- I would be
10:53:10 willing to make a motion.
10:53:12 Well, yeah, we were told not to make a motion today so
10:53:14 let's just keep talking about it.
10:53:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: First legally, I don't think we can do
10:53:19 that, Mr. Smith, because of the fact that under the
10:53:23 mayor's administration, done by city charter so you
10:53:25 may not be allowed to do that.
10:53:28 However, have discussions at some point in the future
10:53:32 that needed to be a broad discussion throughout
10:53:35 Hillsborough County, all of these agencies probably
10:53:36 need to come together and see how we can have a
10:53:39 formalized or a program that's similar, or mirror
10:53:45 exactly so the process is the same.
10:53:47 We do have that -- we did have that discussion a few
10:53:50 weeks ago.
10:53:51 But I'm not sure legally that we can take the mayor's
10:53:58 staff or administration and allow them to function
10:54:00 under the county.
10:54:01 I'm not sure.
10:54:01 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
10:54:03 I attended -- I think we have had one or two meetings
10:54:06 that gene alluded to and one of the things we did talk
10:54:10 about was the legal complication.
10:54:13 But there are some opportunities for us to work
10:54:15 together and improve the efficiency and the process in
10:54:19 both the city and the county.
10:54:21 They do have an excellent program, if there's some
10:54:23 ability to work together on that, we will certainly
10:54:26 talk about it.
10:54:26 But you're right, you fundamentally are the body that
10:54:30 under the charter, what we call the power of the
10:54:37 We have to take that all into account depending on how
10:54:40 far we would go.
10:54:41 But there's a lot of ways we can cooperate that don't
10:54:43 go that far yet.
10:54:45 And it's good to take these kinds of things a step at
10:54:47 a time.
10:54:47 >>MARY MULHERN: Further, in that discussion, one thing
10:54:55 that I'm very impressed that the county is doing --
10:54:58 and I don't know that any of this was written into our
10:55:01 ordinance, but it might be something that our
10:55:06 contractors could utilize.
10:55:08 We could somehow find some way, when you are talking
10:55:10 about training and development and, you know, bringing
10:55:12 them up to being bond level and all that.
10:55:17 It seems like it's an education function that might be
10:55:20 something we could share with you, and if not, if we
10:55:23 could -- to our ordinance.
10:55:26 >>> We are looking for partners.
10:55:30 In fact, you are anticipating me.
10:55:35 I have a letter in some form of draft that will be
10:55:39 coming to Greg and his people with respect to his
10:55:46 formally joining our bond education development
10:55:50 program, and since -- since the city is anticipating a
10:55:57 plan to go to the legislature and requesting increase
10:56:00 in that level, a waiver, 300,000, we already have a
10:56:06 bond education program in place, and we are certainly
10:56:10 looking for partners.
10:56:11 It was developed in concert with the national a surety
10:56:18 Mr. David Caladie came down at the association's
10:56:24 express and worked to develop what we use.
10:56:27 So it's a solid program to prepare people for bond
10:56:33 So I'm excited about that.
10:56:36 >>CHAIRMAN: We move to our next presentation.
10:56:42 I see an ex-city Council member there, now county
10:56:47 commission, Rose Ferlita.
10:56:49 Glad to have you there.
10:56:51 We now go to aviation authority.
10:57:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Madam Chair, thank you again.
10:57:03 I want to thank all these participants for coming.
10:57:07 We have with us today from the aviation, I saw Ken,
10:57:11 who is on the board, I think he's out and then Diane,
10:57:14 and then Cheryl, and then Anita from the aviation
10:57:20 I want to thank them for being here today.
10:57:22 >>> Our pleasure to be here.
10:57:24 >> They also have a very good program, served five
10:57:26 years on the aviation authority.
10:57:28 >>> We will briefly give you kind of an overview of
10:57:32 the program.
10:57:36 We have a PowerPoint.
10:57:38 The disadvantaged business enterprise program that is
10:57:45 in place at the aviation authority was established as
10:57:49 a disadvantaged business enterprise program in 1992.
10:57:52 There were previous versions of the WMBE program in
10:57:56 the early 80s, 1992, set it as a DBE program,
10:58:03 maximum opportunities for participation by small
10:58:05 socially and economically disabled disadvantaged
10:58:07 business concerns.
10:58:09 And in 1999, due to federal mandate, the program was
10:58:15 taken out of the federal program.
10:58:17 Previously they had been the same program.
10:58:18 And was established as a nonfederal DBE program.
10:58:26 The goals for both were the same and approved by the
10:58:29 board on an annual business basis.
10:58:31 It's important to note that most of the projects of
10:58:32 the airport, the capital projects are funded with
10:58:36 nonfederal dollars.
10:58:41 Cheryl will go over some of our participation results.
10:58:44 >>> Good morning.
10:58:45 Cheryl Hawkins, DBE program manager for the aviation
10:58:48 authority and I would briefly like to just discuss the
10:58:51 participation that we have achieved throughout the
10:58:54 past three fiscal years.
10:58:56 And that would include fiscal year, our fiscal year
10:58:59 begins October 1st through September 30th, and
10:59:03 this will start fiscal year '05 through '07.
10:59:07 We believe that we have a good program, and we are
10:59:10 really looking forward to improving it by including
10:59:13 additional components that will help us to achieve for
10:59:17 even greater participation.
10:59:19 Our DBE program is really comprised of two components,
10:59:23 both federal and nonfederal.
10:59:25 And due to the fact that we have to comply with 49 CFR
10:59:31 code of regulations we establish an overall annual
10:59:34 goal as well as a goal based on a project by project
10:59:39 As you can see here, and I am not going to go over the
10:59:42 entire chart, but as a summary, in year 2005, we had a
10:59:47 total of 204,822,228 as far as amounts paid to our
10:59:55 prime contractors, and, as you can see, the total DBE
11:00:00 amount is 39,998,110 dollars which equates to 19.5%.
11:00:07 The same holds true in fiscal year 06.
11:00:11 You can see the totals there highlighted in yellow.
11:00:14 The total dollars paid to our prime of 106 million,
11:00:21 total DBE paid was 17,892,873 which equates to 16.8%.
11:00:27 Let me also note too that we have divided this
11:00:29 particular chart, divides our federal and nonfederal
11:00:34 projects, in yellow highlighted area indicates the
11:00:36 total of the two.
11:00:37 For '06, 2006 through September of '07, we have a
11:00:45 total of -- well, this year we did not have as many
11:00:51 projects as we have had in the past, as well as for
11:00:53 federal purposes.
11:00:54 We only have one project that was federally funded,
11:00:59 AIP or Airport Improvement Program.
11:01:01 So therefore our goal and our percentages were not
11:01:04 quit as high.
11:01:04 Also, you must note, too, that some of our projects
11:01:10 will start either in the beginning or the middle of
11:01:12 the fiscal year, in this case many of our projects now
11:01:16 federal and nonfederal start in the middle of the
11:01:18 year, which would have been the design, and some of
11:01:21 those numbers will carry over as far as percentages,
11:01:23 will carry over into 2008.
11:01:32 This particular slide, I would really like to discuss
11:01:35 and highlight an example of the company who
11:01:38 understands and expects the goals of the aviation
11:01:41 In October of 2004 a design field contract was awarded
11:01:45 to the Beck group for the construction of a new rental
11:01:49 car garage at Tampa international.
11:01:50 As you can see from the slide this particular project
11:01:53 as I mentioned is a design in construction.
11:01:55 We consider that part one and part two.
11:02:01 Part 2 the construction.
11:02:03 Both had a goal of 15%.
11:02:05 As you can see, the Beck group actually exceeded the
11:02:09 goals and they met the goal and design, and keep in
11:02:14 mind as I stated, when you have some of that design
11:02:19 will go through into your construction phase.
11:02:21 However, they did exceed the goals, as you can see, by
11:02:26 The total amount paid was 30,946,859.
11:02:32 The total amount paid to DBE included 11,951,302.
11:02:39 And really what I want to highlight here is the fact
11:02:42 that, you know, sometimes when you put a goal a
11:02:46 contractor or prime can actually achieve it within
11:02:49 two, three, four, and sometimes one contractor, DBE
11:02:53 firm N.this case they achieved the goal by utilizing
11:02:56 26 certified DBE firms.
11:03:01 That's what you like to see employed.
11:03:04 The next slide, air side C development, the Beck group
11:03:07 was also in this project as you can see there, was a
11:03:11 goal in the design area of 11%, and in the
11:03:14 construction 15.
11:03:15 They did exceed the goal, and again, with this
11:03:19 project, just like they utilized 26, they used 30 DBE
11:03:32 What we want to do now is give you some highlights of
11:03:34 the new WMBE program that we are in the process of
11:03:38 drafting right now, which will go tower T our board in
11:03:40 December and will take effect in January of 2008.
11:03:45 As one of the elements that we struggle with as a
11:03:51 disadvantaged process which is standard under federal
11:03:55 law, WMBE certifications, which is what the city and
11:03:59 the county employ, are a lot more accessible for
11:04:04 disadvantaged business enterprises, and what we have
11:04:07 decided to do is to open the playing field so as of
11:04:10 January 1st we will start accepting certifications
11:04:13 in WMBE certifications in Tampa, Hillsborough County,
11:04:18 State of Florida, for work on projects with no federal
11:04:20 We will not be doing those certifications ourselves.
11:04:22 We will continue to do DBE certifications, but we will
11:04:26 accept certifications from individuals that are
11:04:28 already certified with these other agencies.
11:04:31 Another component will be the evaluation of projects
11:04:33 in excess of 500,000 for unbundling. That was
11:04:37 mentioned previously.
11:04:38 That's where you look to see if there's an opportunity
11:04:41 to divide a larger project that may be the hauling
11:04:45 portion or the maintenance and traffic.
11:04:49 Considerations will impact on the schedule.
11:04:52 And we have a very well functioning development
11:04:56 committee that has project management plans and will
11:04:59 be incorporated into our existing development program.
11:05:02 Goals will be established on a project by project
11:05:05 As I said previously goals currently for the federal
11:05:08 program are required to be established on an annual
11:05:11 The nonfederal program has up to this point mirrored
11:05:14 that goal, and we will begin to establish goals on --
11:05:18 will evaluate on an annual basis but we will establish
11:05:21 goals on a project by project basis.
11:05:23 We have a small project group that I'll get into a
11:05:25 little bit more but it's for projects under 100,000.
11:05:29 And we will be evaluating, adding more trades to that
11:05:33 group in the future.
11:05:34 We are also reevaluating our purchasing program to
11:05:38 provide greater opportunities for WMBE.
11:05:42 On the small project group, this was started in 2008.
11:05:46 And to date, as of August, we have spent in excess of
11:05:52 256 thousand dollars, 56,000 of those have gone to
11:05:56 DBEs about 22% and those have been prime, not subs.
11:06:00 We have 16 pre-approved contractors in electrical air
11:06:03 conditioning, plumbing, roofing, fire protection.
11:06:05 This process is similar, mimics the process that wave
11:06:09 done with our appraisers for several years and our
11:06:12 demo contractors, eights great process.
11:06:14 We have gotten pre-approved folks, we can go out and
11:06:17 get folks and move very quickly when one of these
11:06:20 projects comes up.
11:06:21 These projects can range from 30,000 to 100,000, as I
11:06:25 said, under 30,000 we can simply get informal quotes
11:06:28 and go forward.
11:06:30 The benefits of this small project is that we have
11:06:32 what we call now contract light, we have streamlined
11:06:37 the contract language so instead of being a pound of
11:06:39 contract it's more like a few pages of contract.
11:06:41 We have eliminated the bonding requirements.
11:06:43 Aviation authority staff acts as the general
11:06:45 contractor so it's very easy for to us work hand in
11:06:48 hand with the small project contractors in the field.
11:06:53 The changes that I am going to discuss in the
11:06:55 purchasing threshold have just recently taken place as
11:06:57 of July 1st, they had to go through the
11:07:01 Purchases now in excess of 30,000 require the
11:07:03 solicitation of competitive bids.
11:07:05 Previously, this limit was 15,000 which was really
11:07:09 tied our hands a lot for 15,000 is very little amount
11:07:12 for a project award.
11:07:14 And basically just depending on the category, whether
11:07:17 it's construction or goods or whatever, approximately
11:07:20 40 to 95% of our contracts are awarded under 30,000.
11:07:24 So you can see this is a great benefit for us.
11:07:27 Purchases between 15,000 and 30,000 are made after
11:07:31 receiving 3 or more informal quotes and purchases
11:07:33 under 15,000 are made on a discretionary basis, based
11:07:37 on the best interests of the authority.
11:07:39 The objectives of the new purchasing program will be
11:07:42 to extend the authority's money from the most
11:07:44 efficient and cost effective manner.
11:07:46 I'm sure that's always been the objective of the
11:07:48 purchasing program.
11:07:50 To provide minority businesses with an opportunity to
11:07:52 participate in the authority's procurement process
11:07:54 more as prime, and to evaluate the use of government
11:07:59 contracts versus competitive bids whenever possible.
11:08:02 It's been very important for us and easy for to us use
11:08:06 government contracts in the past, and we perhaps
11:08:09 relied on them a little more heavily than we should so
11:08:11 we are going to reevaluate that.
11:08:13 All of these objectives will be incorporated into the
11:08:15 new WMBE program.
11:08:18 One additional item that we are really pleased that we
11:08:21 are rolling out next year is that we are creating a
11:08:26 business and supplier registration form that will be
11:08:28 on the authority's web site.
11:08:30 And all companies including suppliers and WMBE, SBEs
11:08:37 interested in doing business with the authority will
11:08:38 complete a business registration form which will be on
11:08:40 our web site. This database will be available for use
11:08:42 by authority staff as well as registered businesses,
11:08:45 and suppliers, and the general public.
11:08:48 Currently, as you may or may not know, the only direct
11:08:52 database we have available for the public is the DBE
11:08:55 It is a little bit cumbersome to use for the general
11:09:00 All registered businesses and suppliers will
11:09:01 automatically receive notification of bid and proposal
11:09:04 notices on upcoming projects.
11:09:06 Right now we do this only with our DBEs but we are
11:09:09 going to do at cross the board with these registered
11:09:12 We are in the process of writing the software for this
11:09:16 registration form and we anticipate having the form up
11:09:19 on the web site by summer 2008.
11:09:22 We will be advertising its availability.
11:09:25 When we have the program approved by the board in
11:09:27 December, it will become effective in January, and
11:09:30 then it will be the new nonfederal program and the
11:09:34 existing nonfederal DBE program will go away.
11:09:36 In many respects, they will still mirror each other in
11:09:39 a lot of the basic areas, but there will be a lot of
11:09:41 new components.
11:09:42 I will be happy to answer any questions if you have
11:09:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council members?
11:09:48 Thank you.
11:09:48 We appreciate that.
11:09:51 I would like to introduce, we have from St. Pete the
11:09:56 midtown economic development business assistance, and
11:10:03 pronounce your name.
11:10:04 >>> Thank you very much.
11:10:06 Thank you very much for entertaining us today.
11:10:08 My name is Shermati, for midtown economic development,
11:10:13 here today representing Mr. Davis who couldn't be here
11:10:18 because he is at the Florida redevelopment association
11:10:21 With me today is our legal staff.
11:10:27 Development coordinator.
11:10:29 He administrators our SBE program.
11:10:32 To take a couple of minutes to let you know what we
11:10:34 have been doing, in the city of St. Petersburg.
11:10:42 Since 2001 we have been looking at and reevaluating
11:10:45 our program.
11:10:46 In 1989, the disparity study was done in the city of
11:10:50 St. Petersburg, it determined that we did not have a
11:10:53 However, one would think otherwise.
11:10:56 Consequently, the city installed an SDBE program which
11:11:01 is a Small Disadvantaged Enterprise Program which just
11:11:04 focuses on the city of St. Petersburg.
11:11:08 That program was in effect for almost three years, and
11:11:11 was not very effective.
11:11:14 As Mr. Hart mention, initially, the Tampa Bay area, as
11:11:21 the market area for SBE.
11:11:23 What we found is that by focusing in St. Petersburg,
11:11:27 when it came to -- we did not have sufficient vendors
11:11:31 there to do that.
11:11:33 Consequently, our charge from the deputy mayor and the
11:11:36 mayor of St. Petersburg was to look at our ordinance
11:11:38 and see what is best for us, as well as providing
11:11:43 opportunities for the businesses in St. Petersburg,
11:11:45 minority businesses in St. Petersburg, and in the
11:11:50 Tampa Bay area.
11:11:51 We are a very small area, and we found we have
11:11:53 businesses, quite a lot of contracts in Hillsborough
11:11:58 and Tampa and vice versa.
11:12:01 In that program, we did have a WMBE program before we
11:12:05 were told that we were race and gender neutral.
11:12:10 Because of the construction.
11:12:12 Consequently, we spent almost three years looking from
11:12:17 three to last year, looking to develop a small
11:12:25 business program.
11:12:25 We looked at what we have, and see what we can best
11:12:28 put in place to have a level playing field, knowing
11:12:30 the market that we want to focus on, that is our
11:12:34 minority, and other small businesses, being race and
11:12:38 gender neutral.
11:12:39 As a result, City Council approved in September of
11:12:44 '05, or '06 last year, a small business enterprise
11:12:49 We looked at the thresholds.
11:12:51 We raised them.
11:12:52 And we also looked at the market area.
11:12:55 We now currently go with what is being proposed by the
11:12:57 City of Tampa, which is Pasco, Manatee, Pinellas,
11:13:02 Hillsborough and Polk.
11:13:04 One of the things that we have been doing, also
11:13:07 working with Mr. Albert in the regional task force,
11:13:10 and that task force represented people from throughout
11:13:14 this area, also.
11:13:17 Not many from Manatee.
11:13:19 However we decided since we were so close to the
11:13:21 bridge that it's something that is part of our market
11:13:23 So we have this ordinance in place, in '05 -- '06, I'm
11:13:30 sorry, and we have the implementation process.
11:13:32 We have the SBE committee.
11:13:35 It is a committee that we have going on, and it is --
11:13:40 again, that is something that we have had in place for
11:13:42 quite a bit, focusing on construction projects
11:13:46 Our goal, as we will determine, is to have specifics.
11:13:52 Specifics is, with the if you are certified with City
11:13:58 of Tampa, or any one of these agencies and we are all
11:14:03 on the same page involving dry criteria you do not
11:14:06 have to be recertified if you are working with us.
11:14:08 That is our goal.
11:14:09 We are here to express that purpose and we have been
11:14:11 everything discussions with the City of Tampa to make
11:14:13 sure that we are all on a level playing field to
11:14:17 obtain that.
11:14:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me interrupt for a minute.
11:14:20 We are on a time constraint.
11:14:22 And actually not on the agenda today.
11:14:25 We thank you for being here.
11:14:26 >>> Thank you.
11:14:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And I want suggest that Tampa is not
11:14:30 where St. Pete is right now.
11:14:31 And so that's why we have to -- as I said to Mr.
11:14:36 Smith, it's a good start, good effort, but we have to
11:14:38 go back and tweak and then also the opportunity we are
11:14:43 hoping will afford itself where we can look from a
11:14:46 regional approach.
11:14:47 I hate to do this because we are under a time
11:14:51 We have two other workshops that we have not -- that
11:14:53 we have to do supposedly before 12.
11:14:55 I don't know if we are going to get to them, Madam
11:15:01 But let me just thank you for being here, for your
11:15:04 input and the information.
11:15:05 I wish I had known that you were here earlier, at
11:15:07 least from my standpoint.
11:15:08 I'm the one that invited all the other participants.
11:15:11 I didn't know that you were here and wanted to be on
11:15:14 the agenda.
11:15:16 >>> I thank you very much for everything us.
11:15:18 We have been working with the City of Tampa and the
11:15:20 legal staff for awhile and we will continue to do
11:15:22 Thank you very much.
11:15:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:15:25 We need to close the workshop.
11:15:26 >> So moved.
11:15:27 >> Second.
11:15:28 (Motion carried)
11:15:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where do we go from here?
11:15:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me ask.
11:15:35 Mr. Smith?
11:15:36 I want to ask the question in terms of reporting back
11:15:39 to council.
11:15:39 Can we get -- when did can you report back to us on
11:15:43 the next step, that sort of thing in terms of the
11:15:51 ordinance, where they are moving and all that.
11:15:55 >>DAVID SMITH: Yes, sir.
11:15:57 I think your workshop, next workshop is probably
11:16:02 pretty full but I think we can get back with some of
11:16:04 the answers, these four weeks from now, Mr. Shelby, is
11:16:08 that correct?
11:16:18 >>THE CLERK: Your next workshop date is November
11:16:21 And we do have a monthly update, which would be -- I'm
11:16:25 not sure if you want a monthly update next week or the
11:16:28 first meeting.
11:16:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I think let's do December.
11:16:37 >>> Yes, sir.
11:16:38 I would like to start answering some of your questions
11:16:41 as I go.
11:16:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's fine.
11:16:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Rather than take a motion, perhaps
11:16:48 just request council a regular meeting of whatever
11:16:50 date you would like.
11:16:51 >>DAVID SMITH: Some of the questions we can answer
11:16:54 within the next couple of weeks and -- just figure a
11:17:02 >>CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
11:17:03 Now we go into our next workshop, number 3.
11:17:17 >>MARY MULHERN:
11:17:18 >> Given the complexity of this issue and the fact
11:17:21 it's already 11:20 I would assume we are going to be
11:17:24 coming back at 11:30 for the final one.
11:17:27 I just thought that information might be helpful to
11:17:29 people in the audience.
11:17:30 Alcohol and beverages will be at 1:30.
11:17:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby?
11:17:43 He wants to read something first.
11:17:52 If you have signs, please keep them down.
11:17:54 No signs.
11:17:55 No signs are being held in the City Council.
11:17:58 If you have signs, keep them down or take them
11:18:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a reminder, council, that, again
11:18:05 with regard to workshops, lunch has not been
11:18:09 programmed into it.
11:18:11 You are coming back tonight.
11:18:12 So if you did want to take lunch, you would have to
11:18:15 be -- an affirmative motion of council to take lunch.
11:18:20 Otherwise could you work through lunch and then come
11:18:24 back tonight.
11:18:25 You have an evening meeting.
11:18:26 It's council's pleasure.
11:18:27 There is nothing in the rules that requires lunch to
11:18:29 take lunch at a workshop.
11:18:30 >> I think that was an oversight.
11:18:33 I think we are all much more productive when we stop
11:18:36 for lunch and I personally have a business meeting for
11:18:38 lunch so I move we stop for lunch between 12:00 and
11:18:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
11:18:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think the motion is premature.
11:18:49 We have 40 minutes.
11:18:51 Why don't we just see where we are at noon and then
11:18:53 make the motion then?
11:18:56 And I'm respecting your meeting.
11:18:58 But if we get to noon and say we can wrap that up by
11:19:04 10 after 12, then maybe we don't have to do that.
11:19:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
11:19:10 I'm aware of that.
11:19:11 But the reason I made that motion is because people
11:19:12 who are here to talk about or listen to the discussion
11:19:15 on alcohol, I don't think it's humanly possible to
11:19:19 complete our discussion of alcohol since we haven't
11:19:21 even started on the second order of business which is
11:19:23 the stormwater.
11:19:24 So I just felt that we would give them a heads-up that
11:19:28 they might want to do something productive and come
11:19:30 back at 1:30.
11:19:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But I thought what your motion said
11:19:35 is we are going to stop at 12 no matter what.
11:19:37 And that would mean we would stop this discussion on
11:19:40 canals at 12.
11:19:43 I can't support that.
11:19:44 I can support the motion -- a motion that would say we
11:19:46 are going to do the alcohol item 4 on the agenda after
11:19:52 I can agree with that.
11:19:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That was the intent.
11:19:56 >>GWEN MILLER: We will finish item number 3.
11:20:01 >> We'll see how we go.
11:20:03 >>CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
11:20:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wait.
11:20:06 I need to stop at noon.
11:20:10 >>CHAIRMAN: We don't need a motion.
11:20:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We have a motion to defer item 4
11:20:16 until after lunch.
11:20:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I will restate my motion.
11:20:19 My motion is to stop at noon and reconvene at 1:30
11:20:22 with hopes that we can get --
11:20:24 >> No matter what we are doing.
11:20:25 >> No matter what we are doing.
11:20:27 >>MARY MULHERN: I second.
11:20:29 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.
11:20:30 >> Dingfelder, no.
11:20:40 Miller, no.
11:20:42 >> 2-2.
11:20:44 >> Before we start, this is a workshop for council
11:20:49 members to discuss with the staff any ideas that we
11:20:51 have, and there will be no public comments during this
11:20:57 It's between staff and council members.
11:20:59 You may start.
11:20:59 >> Steve Daignault, administrator, public works and
11:21:05 utility services.
11:21:07 You may recall a few months ago I talked to you about
11:21:09 canal dredging.
11:21:10 At that time you scheduled this workshop.
11:21:12 We have worked with a group of citizens who wanted to
11:21:14 know how this could be brought about.
11:21:17 How could we do this?
11:21:19 And this has been a very grassroots effort from them,
11:21:23 with them with the citizens doing the north.
11:21:26 In fact, essentially all of the real work of the
11:21:29 Since we talked to you last, we have had two evening
11:21:33 meetings, public meetings, where we trade to provide
11:21:36 information to those folks who would be most affected
11:21:40 by this process.
11:21:42 And they have essentially seen this same presentation.
11:21:47 We have added a few slides that answer questions that
11:21:50 were brought up at that time.
11:21:53 There also seems to be a persistent question about the
11:21:55 use of $1.3 million grant.
11:21:59 You realize we do not have that money first of all.
11:22:03 Second of all, the intend use of that money is not
11:22:06 going to change whether this goes forward or not.
11:22:08 It would still be for the same intended use.
11:22:12 And Jan McLean from the city attorney's office is here
11:22:16 to address that issue if you you have questions.
11:22:17 What I would like to do is turn this over to Chuck
11:22:20 Walter, and he will begin his presentation and make
11:22:24 introductions of other folks that will be
11:22:26 Thank you.
11:22:29 >>> Good morning, council.
11:22:31 Chuck Walter, director of stormwater.
11:22:33 Today we are going to go over a presentation on
11:22:35 waterway management and how it works in the City of
11:22:38 Today for the presentation, I will open up with some
11:22:41 introductory statements and some outline on how we are
11:22:44 going to move forward.
11:22:44 We'll turn it over to Mike Wigner here with the canal
11:22:48 preservation group, a group of residents that have
11:22:51 been working towards a solution -- 9 we are not going
11:22:56 to have that in our council meeting.
11:22:57 If you don't want to hear it you may leave.
11:23:00 You may leave if you don't want to hear it.
11:23:02 You may leave.
11:23:02 If you don't want to hear it you may leave.
11:23:05 We are going to hear our presentation.
11:23:12 [Sounding gavel]
11:23:12 That's it.
11:23:13 We are not going to discuss it.
11:23:14 We are not going to discuss it.
11:23:17 We have an agenda.
11:23:18 We are going to follow the agenda.
11:23:34 >>MARY MULHERN: I have a couple of questions.
11:23:36 Because this was published as going to allow public
11:23:39 comment, I feel like a lot of people were here
11:23:44 expecting that.
11:23:44 And we should consider that.
11:23:48 I know we don't want to do this in our future
11:23:53 workshops because this is not supposed to be a public
11:23:56 This is supposed to be a work process for City Council
11:23:58 and staff.
11:23:59 But since it was published that way, I think we should
11:24:01 do that.
11:24:04 The second thing I want to say is, Mr. Walter just
11:24:08 said, I know that I think all of council has seen this
11:24:11 Have you seen it?
11:24:13 We have this?
11:24:15 I don't know if everyone who is here in the audience
11:24:18 has seen it.
11:24:19 Is there anyone in the audience who is here for this
11:24:21 workshop who has not seen this presentation?
11:24:28 Three people.
11:24:29 So I think you better speed through this.
11:24:31 Because most people have already seen it.
11:24:34 I would like to ask you to do that.
11:24:36 Because we have other things to do today.
11:24:37 But I would like to move that we allow public comment.
11:24:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:24:44 >>MARY MULHERN: It was advertised that way.
11:24:45 >> It was at the end of the agenda the public may
11:24:48 speak at the end of the workshops.
11:24:54 Mr. Shelby, correct me if I am wrong.
11:24:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, when the agenda was prepared
11:24:58 there were items, this being the first workshop
11:25:00 agenda, it was not necessarily adjusted for the
11:25:02 workshop, and the rules are still being addressed,
11:25:08 City Council's first workshop setting.
11:25:10 So there were things in here, for instance, that are
11:25:12 here for agendaed public comment or information
11:25:14 reports and new business by council members that was
11:25:17 not necessarily discussed or contemplated at the time.
11:25:20 This is not a noticed public hearing.
11:25:23 Whatever is discussed today, council members can ask
11:25:25 questions of people.
11:25:27 It is council's workshop.
11:25:29 Council can determine what it wishes to hear and what
11:25:32 it wishes to not hear.
11:25:33 >>MARY MULHERN: But the agenda was published.
11:25:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: At the end it says general public
11:25:40 If council wishes to do that, there are many ways to
11:25:42 handle it.
11:25:43 One way is to set aside, say, 15 minutes and give have
11:25:46 been a minute or 30 minutes and depending on how many
11:25:48 speak, or to give people three minutes.
11:25:51 Council can set up whatever rules it wishes on how to
11:25:53 address public comment.
11:25:56 It gives an impression that people would have the
11:25:58 opportunity to speak at then of the meeting.
11:26:00 Council at the very beginning of this meeting when it
11:26:02 sets its agenda has this discussion, sets a policy
11:26:07 issue and made a policy decision by motion and action
11:26:10 of the council to remove the general public comment
11:26:12 from the agenda.
11:26:14 That happened this morning.
11:26:15 It's not on the agenda any longer per council's
11:26:20 Then council can choose, if council wishes, if council
11:26:24 has heard a presentation and it -- privately and
11:26:28 doesn't wish to take up its workshop time hearing a
11:26:31 presentation, it can set whatever agenda it wishes to
11:26:34 competent diet things if it so chooses.
11:26:37 This is council's workshop.
11:26:40 >>GWEN MILLER: It's my understanding they are still
11:26:42 going to have a workshop after this workshop, right?
11:26:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: A reminder that no action by this
11:26:52 City Council will be taken today.
11:26:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Correct.
11:26:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Again if people wish to have an
11:26:56 opportunity to speak on any temper council's rules at
11:26:59 any agenda, whether it's on the agenda or not, they
11:27:01 always have that option at a regular meeting.
11:27:04 So there are many ways obviously if something does
11:27:08 decide to get set for a public hearing in the future,
11:27:11 if that is the case, if that's' council's desire down
11:27:13 the line, then again before any council action is
11:27:16 taken, the public will have a full and fair
11:27:18 opportunity to be heard prior to council taking
11:27:28 >> Can council move to waive our procedures based on
11:27:31 majority vote at a meeting?
11:27:33 So, for example, if we were now to ask Mr. Walters
11:27:36 to -- who spent a lot of time hearing the
11:27:40 presentation, which is excellent, but we have all
11:27:42 spent individual time hearing it, if we were to ask to
11:27:46 then limit that to five minutes, hear from this other
11:27:49 group and then allow the public to speak on one minute
11:27:52 each for 20 minutes when could do that, if I made that
11:27:54 as a motion, to waive our rules and allow that.
11:27:57 So I make that motion.
11:28:02 Then I would like to move to waive our rules to allow
11:28:04 the public to speak on this at the end of all the city
11:28:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
11:28:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll second it for discussion
11:28:15 There's a couple of reasons that I said two hours ago
11:28:18 that we need to hear from the public on this issue.
11:28:21 Number one, part of this presentation as I understood
11:28:25 it was going to be scheduled -- it was scheduled to
11:28:29 hear from the proponents who have been working with
11:28:31 the city to speak to this.
11:28:34 The proponents in the neighborhood.
11:28:36 And, therefore, it only makes sense if we are going to
11:28:39 hear from the proponents as part of the presentation
11:28:42 then you sure as heck better hear from everybody else
11:28:44 including some of the opponents.
11:28:46 That's just a fundamental fairness.
11:28:48 Number two, I stood up at Plant High School at both of
11:28:51 these meetings and told everybody about our workshop
11:28:54 and to make sure you come down to our workshop and let
11:28:56 us know how you feel.
11:28:58 So my neck is out there a little bit in regard to
11:29:00 this, because I understood our workshop was going to
11:29:03 be more of an open public workshop as compared to this
11:29:07 other type.
11:29:08 So there's a couple of reasons I think very, very
11:29:11 strongly earlier and again right now to say that in
11:29:13 some fashion we need to open to the public, maybe one
11:29:17 minute each because it appears there are a lot of
11:29:20 And it will still take us an hour to hear from 60 --
11:29:24 >> So you are seconding the motion?
11:29:26 >> I second the motion in some form we open it at then
11:29:30 of the presentation.
11:29:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Are you saying 12:00 --
11:29:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's going to be 12:00 and then we
11:29:35 are going to have to carry over into the afternoon if
11:29:38 we agree to break at 12.
11:29:41 My way would be work through 12.
11:29:44 >>CHAIRMAN: Aren't you going to have another meeting
11:29:45 with the community to discuss this again?
11:29:48 >>> The schedule we have right now would be the next
11:29:51 thing will be basically council will have a resolution
11:29:55 in November, with the public hearing in December.
11:29:59 That is the schedule.
11:30:01 69 and public hearing, everybody will have an
11:30:03 opportunity to speak, correct?
11:30:04 >>> Yes, ma'am.
11:30:05 >>GWEN MILLER: So to speak today, will they be able to
11:30:08 speak again?
11:30:09 >> Yes.
11:30:09 >>GWEN MILLER: We have to listen today and at the
11:30:11 public hearing.
11:30:11 >>MARY MULHERN: He's suggesting we are going to have a
11:30:15 resolution which is actually --
11:30:17 >>GWEN MILLER: A public hearing.
11:30:19 And then the public can speak at the public hearing.
11:30:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And the public actually when the
11:30:24 resolution is on the consent docket, if it appears on
11:30:27 the consent docket, they will be able to speak to it
11:30:30 They can speak to this next week if they wish to.
11:30:33 Under council's rules it allows for off-agenda items.
11:30:36 >>MARY MULHERN: Again people are here with the
11:30:39 understanding they were going to get to speak.
11:30:40 Mr. Dingfelder made it even more clear it was very
11:30:43 So I would like to vote on the question on the motion.
11:30:48 >> I have a question on the motion, because you made
11:30:51 specific reference to Mr. Walters' presentation.
11:30:55 Is your motion still regarding his presentation?
11:30:59 What was the motion, to limit it?
11:31:01 >> To limit Mr. Walters presentation to be five
11:31:04 minutes, that we then hear from the other group, and
11:31:06 then have public comment of one minute each.
11:31:10 >>MARY MULHERN: Second.
11:31:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
11:31:12 THE CLERK: Miller, no.
11:31:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay, Mr. Walters.
11:31:19 >>> Well, this is going to be a different presentation
11:31:22 than I had planned.
11:31:23 So if I could have the Elmo come up.
11:31:25 And I will try to be as brief as possible.
11:31:29 The waterways program has been talked about in the
11:31:33 City of Tampa for many years.
11:31:35 We had some representatives from the CPR group here,
11:31:38 we had conversations with outside counsel regarding
11:31:41 how an assessment could work.
11:31:45 The $1.2 million issue, I think, is something that we
11:31:49 do have to get on the table and make very clear that
11:31:51 the $1.2 million is basically earmarked that was
11:31:56 requested by the City of Tampa to address analysis of
11:32:00 the City of Tampa.
11:32:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Shhh.
11:32:03 Ladies and gentlemen, if we have anybody speaking out
11:32:05 again I am going to have you removed.
11:32:07 We are not going to have any interruptions.
11:32:09 We are here to listen.
11:32:10 If you can't listen, you may leave.
11:32:15 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: I'm sorry to interrupt, council
11:32:17 I know this is your workshop, and your format.
11:32:20 And we'll do it however you want to do it.
11:32:24 However, part of the problem with this issue as keeps
11:32:29 coming back to you is that there are people making
11:32:35 decisions or making conclusions without the correct
11:32:40 information based on little information.
11:32:44 This was an opportunity for us to lay it all out in
11:32:48 front of you and us and anyone else.
11:32:53 This was an opportunity in this workshop to put all of
11:32:56 the issues -- and there are lots of them, and they are
11:33:01 complicated, and they are certainly worth more than
11:33:04 five minutes of your tame.
11:33:05 And I'm sorry for that.
11:33:08 But if you want the format today to be that our
11:33:12 presentation is five minutes, that we'll not use this
11:33:17 PowerPoint, and if you will give us just a few seconds
11:33:22 we'll adjust and we'll give you a five-minute
11:33:25 But, again, this topic is complicated, it is not a
11:33:31 five-minute I shall knew front of the council in a
11:33:33 workshop, and it is for the purpose, again, of getting
11:33:37 all accurate information out in front of the public
11:33:42 and the council together.
11:33:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Daignault.
11:33:46 You have done an excellent job with this.
11:33:48 I spent over an hour yesterday with Mr. Walters.
11:33:54 The public has had one on one conversations with him.
11:33:57 It is an issue which is complicated but you have
11:34:00 developed a good presentation, and we have all heard
11:34:04 We have heard it.
11:34:05 They have heard it.
11:34:06 So I think an executive summary.
11:34:14 >> Okay.
11:34:16 Could we have just a minute?
11:34:19 >>CHAIRMAN: Yes.
11:36:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Sorry, we are waiting for a quorum.
11:36:23 We are waiting for a quorum.
11:36:24 Now we got one.
11:36:25 All right.
11:36:28 Do we need a roll call?
11:36:33 We are roll call, madam.
11:36:37 >>THE CLERK.
11:36:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
11:36:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
11:36:42 >>MARY MULHERN: Here.
11:36:45 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Here.
11:36:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: we have a quorum.
11:36:49 Mr. Walter, go ahead.
11:36:51 >> Here is our abbreviated version.
11:36:52 I would like to start by introducing.
11:37:01 >> Good afternoon.
11:37:02 I apologize.
11:37:02 This has kind of come a little bit out of sequence so
11:37:05 if you will bear with me for just a minute.
11:37:07 I am the member of the Tampa CPR.
11:37:09 My name is Bob Bougier.
11:37:14 I live on a canal along Spring Lake with my wife and
11:37:18 four children.
11:37:19 And I was asked by a lot of my friends and family who
11:37:22 live along the waterways and canals to express what
11:37:26 our mind-set is with respect to the evolution of this
11:37:29 I certainly don't propose to speak on behalf of
11:37:31 everybody who lives along these canals.
11:37:34 However, and I want to say right up front that
11:37:36 everybody has a right to their opinion.
11:37:39 And I think it's admirable that this council is going
11:37:42 to allow everybody the right to express their opinion.
11:37:46 And I want to say that on behalf of my family and my
11:37:49 friends, we are disillusioned.
11:37:52 You know, we feel like we have been lied to and
11:37:55 betrayed on this issue for years.
11:38:01 There's files of letters from previous administrations
11:38:03 and previous council members saying that there would
11:38:05 be action taken on these things.
11:38:07 I've seen the tireless efforts of people from groups
11:38:11 like neighbors against stormwater pollution, and BAHA,
11:38:17 hours of effort to try to get the city to do
11:38:21 But the city never did anything.
11:38:23 So we are disillusioned and we are mad.
11:38:26 We are mad at this city where we chose to raise our
11:38:30 But today, here before you for the first time in a
11:38:32 long time, we have got some hope.
11:38:36 We have a little bit of hope that this council is at
11:38:39 least going to allow us to T right to vote on this.
11:38:42 Just give us the chance to vote to see if this is what
11:38:46 a majority of the homeowners want.
11:38:49 That's what this meeting is here today.
11:38:50 It's not to decide yes or no.
11:38:52 It's to decide whether we have a right to vote on it.
11:38:54 If you disagree with it, I respect your right to
11:38:57 disagree and you can cast that vote.
11:38:59 But that's what the democratic process is all about.
11:39:02 And don't get me wrong.
11:39:05 This proposal that's before us, which is certainly a
11:39:09 compromise, which is the best thing I've ever seen, I
11:39:11 believe the city is completely and 100% responsible
11:39:15 for this stormwater damage.
11:39:16 And I believe the city should clean this up.
11:39:18 And they have been dumping this muck and this dirt
11:39:21 into my family's and our family's backyard for years,
11:39:26 and they should clean it up.
11:39:28 I firmly believe that.
11:39:29 And if you think about it, if you had a neighborhood
11:39:33 of homes that was around a small park or even just a
11:39:36 piece of land that was set aside for the city for the
11:39:39 enjoyment of these people, these neighborhoods, like
11:39:41 Sierra circle, some of you might be familiar with
11:39:44 Sierra circle, and the city diverted stormwater on
11:39:46 that to where muck is piled up and piled up in these
11:39:49 people's front yards and back yards, don't you think
11:39:51 the city would clean that up?
11:39:53 Don't you think they should?
11:39:54 Don't you think they should?
11:39:58 Why be different --
11:40:00 [Sounding gavel]
11:40:01 >> Let him speak.
11:40:02 >> Why is it different because it's in my family's
11:40:04 backyard or these family's backyard?
11:40:07 Because it's under water?
11:40:08 It's not under water any more and hasn't been for a
11:40:10 long time an it's just getting worse.
11:40:15 So, yes, I do believe the city should pay 100% for
11:40:19 But it's not gonna happen.
11:40:21 It's not.
11:40:22 We are presented here at this point, the issue isn't
11:40:26 who should pay for it.
11:40:27 It's whether or not we should have the right to vote
11:40:30 on this issue.
11:40:33 Presented with the first chance ever by the city to
11:40:35 let the democratic process take place, to see if the
11:40:37 majority of homeowners support this for their
11:40:41 And that's all we are asking for, is the right to vote
11:40:44 on this.
11:40:45 And we can have people stand up here and yell, no, the
11:40:49 city should pay for this, no, these people should pay
11:40:51 for. This but we all deserve the right to vote on it.
11:40:54 Very quickly, just an article in the Tampa Tribune
11:40:57 yesterday, the editor's page, the editor's opinion,
11:41:00 and they close by saying, if the homeowners are on
11:41:03 board, council members should applaud and approve the
11:41:07 canal clean-up compromise because it represents a
11:41:09 smart partnership between the city and the homeowners,
11:41:13 one that saves money, helps Tampa Bay, and improve the
11:41:16 quality of life in many neighborhoods.
11:41:18 We are talking about hundreds of families and hundreds
11:41:20 of children.
11:41:21 And isn't that what it's all about?
11:41:23 Don't we have the right to vote to see if we want to
11:41:26 improve the quality of life in our neighborhood?
11:41:29 What we want the council to do is simply allow us to
11:41:33 take the step to have this vote.
11:41:34 If you disagree with it, vote no.
11:41:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thanks, Bob.
11:41:40 [ Applause ]
11:41:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Our time is really limited today so
11:41:43 applause is wonderful but let's try and refrain.
11:41:46 Ms. Saul-Sena.
11:41:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was going to suggest that the
11:41:49 city's PowerPoint that they didn't show be put on the
11:41:54 city web site so people from the public who are
11:41:56 interested in seeing it have access to it through the
11:41:58 city web site.
11:41:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I have got to deal with an
11:42:01 issue of fairness, Michael, because you guys are
11:42:04 proponents, and I respect the heck out of that and I
11:42:07 respect the amount of time you have put in.
11:42:08 But Mr. Daignault, I think the five minutes Mrs.
11:42:16 Saul-Sena suggested was supposed to be sort of staff
11:42:19 five minutes.
11:42:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It was for staff.
11:42:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We can start hearing from opponents
11:42:25 and proponents.
11:42:26 >>> This is how the presentation has been made every
11:42:29 And this is part of the group that has put the
11:42:31 presentation together.
11:42:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I understand that.
11:42:34 I understand that.
11:42:34 But I just want to deal with fairness.
11:42:37 And I don't want this to appear or feel stacked one
11:42:40 way or the other.
11:42:41 So I just want to ask you, you and Mr. Walters, do you
11:42:44 have any part of this that you want to deal with in
11:42:47 terms of staff presentation, staff recommendations,
11:42:51 staff issues, before we go into the public part?
11:42:55 Because when we get to the public park I am going to
11:42:58 limit Michael Wagner to one minute just like I am
11:43:00 going to limit Joe Coffner to one minute.
11:43:05 >> I understand you gave us five minutes and that's
11:43:06 what we were going to use, if that was okay for our
11:43:09 presentation, and we modify it in the 30 seconds we
11:43:12 had outside.
11:43:12 So if you allow us --
11:43:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I can't let you delegate that to
11:43:16 the citizens five minutes.
11:43:19 Because that's unfair.
11:43:22 If staff wants five minutes, staff can have the five
11:43:25 If not then we'll proceed into the community.
11:43:27 Because I have to treat every member of the community
11:43:33 Until Madam Chair comes back then I will be glad to.
11:43:37 >>> Can I have the PowerPoint, please?
11:43:41 These were the six questions that Mr. Daignault had
11:43:44 represented that the citizens needed to address.
11:43:47 And here are basically the outlines of the approach
11:43:51 that is being suggested.
11:43:52 That there needs to be a capital assessment that will
11:43:55 be put forward on the canal, and a long-term
11:43:58 maintenance assessment as well to address this issue
11:44:01 over the long-term.
11:44:03 That there needs to be a process established to
11:44:05 determine if the canal does not want to be involved,
11:44:10 and that procedure is basically outlined at a 3-foot
11:44:14 line that would be established through survey method,
11:44:18 nub upstream where you don't have that level of
11:44:21 service they would be included with an assessment.
11:44:24 The last parcel that could be included would be where
11:44:28 that 3-foot level of service was identified, the
11:44:31 property lines would be extended, and wherever that
11:44:34 intersected, a property, that property would be
11:44:43 Would there be a procedure for assessment deferral
11:44:47 Yes, there is one that's been established.
11:44:49 If a canal in whole wanted to be out of the program
11:44:53 how would that be addressed?
11:44:55 And the group is suggesting that a 50% plus one be the
11:44:59 process that would be used.
11:45:04 That's what's present.
11:45:06 And how could individual property owners do their
11:45:09 respective canal?
11:45:11 We believe that can be accommodated through
11:45:12 permitting, and the property owners would then
11:45:17 negotiate with the contractor at that time, and we put
11:45:19 in contract provisions for that.
11:45:22 Then basically the assessment, there would be three
11:45:26 options, pay up front, pay over 20 years, or you could
11:45:29 defer the assessment until the property is transacted.
11:45:33 From there, I would like to just go to -- we have sent
11:45:38 out a mailer the possibly affected property owners,
11:45:42 and this is important, because these are not -- this
11:45:44 is not the procedures that we are suggesting be used
11:45:48 because the actual area that would be included with
11:45:51 that 3-foot line has not been established.
11:45:54 This was done purely so that we had a good indication
11:45:57 of how people in these possibly affected areas, their
11:46:03 And these are the representations that they have.
11:46:06 I have a map if you want to use the canal number, and
11:46:09 there's cross-reference.
11:46:10 Overwhelming response is generally positive with the
11:46:14 exception of three canals that I would like to bring
11:46:16 to your attention.
11:46:17 That is 4, 13 and 21.
11:46:20 The responses on canal 4 were minimal.
11:46:24 So more outreach is needed for that canal.
11:46:27 The responses from canal 13 were overwhelmingly
11:46:31 negative, that they did not want to be involved.
11:46:34 And similar responses from 21, that we had a poor
11:46:39 response rate.
11:46:39 So we don't feel there is a very good response from
11:46:42 that community.
11:46:44 Other than that, all of the canals that we have
11:46:46 responses with the certified return receipt mailing
11:46:49 were generally positive on the yes side of the
11:46:53 equation, even though some of them were close to the
11:46:55 50% line, they were all over 50% at this time.
11:47:01 >> And your numbers at the bottom?
11:47:03 >>> That is a summary, and the yeses and nos are
11:47:07 balanced against the total responses.
11:47:09 They are not yes against no.
11:47:12 So even the undecided are used in that percentage yes
11:47:17 and no.
11:47:18 The next line I would like to bring your attention to
11:47:21 is the schedule.
11:47:22 Basically, the first time that this will be heard in
11:47:25 any form before council, in other than a workshop,
11:47:28 will be when we send a less -- a resolution to request
11:47:32 a public hearing, that will be done on November
11:47:36 We are suggesting that this be held as a separate
11:47:40 council action item on Tuesday night, December
11:47:44 That is a point I would hope you can have a
11:47:46 conversation about today, because that's an important
11:47:48 point, that's outside of your normal schedule and an
11:47:52 important element that we would like to have
11:47:54 That meeting will be only to send a notice to the
11:47:58 property appraiser of your intent to use the
11:48:02 assessment methodology.
11:48:04 As you will see in the next slide, it won't be until
11:48:06 the spring till you start to make decisions relative
11:48:09 to who is in, who is out, what would the rate be and
11:48:15 who are the affected property owners?
11:48:17 The process is very lengthy.
11:48:19 There is significant opportunity for public comment,
11:48:23 in the process itself.
11:48:24 There will be a minimum three public hearings to
11:48:26 discuss all of these options besides the normal budget
11:48:29 process, which is also a public hearing process.
11:48:40 Most of this information is already on the city web
11:48:42 There are a couple of these additional slides that
11:48:44 will be available as well on the city's web page and
11:48:47 we'll try to get that on there today.
11:48:55 >>MARY MULHERN: Mr. Walter, can you put a copy of that
11:48:57 postcard that was sent out on the -- and tell us,
11:49:04 maybe oh -- or read it to us and tell us what it said.
11:49:11 So the letter came from the City of Tampa?
11:49:23 >>> That's correct.
11:49:23 This mailing was sent out because we had pretty
11:49:26 significant outreach by the citizen group, the CPR
11:49:30 group, and had conversations with a number of
11:49:31 residents regarding this issue.
11:49:34 And we wanted to get some sentiment, because there
11:49:39 were petitions going all around.
11:49:41 So this card was sent out to try to get that response.
11:49:43 >> Can you put it on the overhead so we can maybe read
11:49:47 I don't know if we'll be able to read it.
11:49:49 We would like to see those, if you can put them up.
11:49:53 Probably won't be able to read it.
11:50:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Not bad.
11:50:02 There we go.
11:50:04 >>MARY MULHERN: Oh, here it is, yes.
11:50:06 I just wondered because people got these postcards
11:50:10 from the city, and I'm curious whether they understood
11:50:15 actually what the intent was.
11:50:21 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: (off microphone).
11:50:29 >>> No, sir.
11:50:30 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: That was ad on?
11:50:32 >>> That's a response back.
11:50:33 >>MARY MULHERN: Oh, yes.
11:50:36 >>> And this was sent out as a notice to ask them to
11:50:40 attend these public meetings so that they could get
11:50:42 more information, but they not heard the approach the
11:50:46 CPR group was --
11:50:50 >> So you are meeting with this group that had a goal
11:50:52 in mind for how long?
11:50:54 The CPR group?
11:50:56 >>> Many years.
11:50:57 >>MARY MULHERN: Many years.
11:50:59 And where were the people on the opposite side of it?
11:51:02 Were you meeting with them, too?
11:51:04 >>> We have been discussing that issue with the
11:51:07 community for many years, both sides.
11:51:10 >> But you weren't having --
11:51:13 [Sounding gavel]
11:51:14 >>CHAIRMAN: This is my last time asking you all to
11:51:16 please keep all your comments to yourself till you get
11:51:19 a chance to say something.
11:51:22 >>MARY MULHERN: But you weren't having meetings
11:51:24 specifically with those people?
11:51:26 >>> Yes, ma'am.
11:51:26 We were meeting with everyone who had called to ask
11:51:29 for a meeting, and we were doing it on an individual
11:51:33 When somebody would call us to ask us a question about
11:51:36 how could a canal program be working, we did not say,
11:51:39 well, are you an advocate for it? Then we'll come
11:51:42 talk to you.
11:51:43 Anybody who had a question about this as an individual
11:51:45 homeowner, we went and talked to them.
11:51:47 We did not just talk --
11:51:49 >>MARY MULHERN: But they were the people that wanted
11:51:50 the city to dredge, basically dredge the canal.
11:51:55 That's why they would call you in the first place,
11:51:57 >>> Again, ma'am, I met with people on both sides of
11:52:01 the issue.
11:52:04 >> It sound like from this you weren't just meeting
11:52:06 with them, you were actually working in concert with
11:52:10 them to present their proposal, and as it came to the
11:52:15 citizens it looked like the city -- it was a city
11:52:18 proposal, or at least it was an accepted proposal.
11:52:25 That's how it looks to me if I had gotten a postcard
11:52:27 from the City of Tampa with these questions.
11:52:29 It kind of sounds like the city is already working
11:52:33 toward this end.
11:52:33 >>> Well, ma'am, when Mr. Daignault came to the City
11:52:36 Council and basically presented those six issues that
11:52:39 would need to be addressed, the CPR group did go out
11:52:43 and try to address those issues, and had some
11:52:46 consensus among themselves that here are some answers
11:52:49 to that, and that was the body of this presentation.
11:52:56 >>MARY MULHERN: Right.
11:52:56 But I see a problem with perception that it seems that
11:53:03 the city administration is already working with a
11:53:07 small group to work toward a goal, and the fact you
11:53:12 would even have to send out these postcards means you
11:53:15 were working with a very limited group without the
11:53:18 rest of the affected residents having that early and
11:53:23 close input that the small group was having.
11:53:30 >>> They represent quite a large group, and they have
11:53:32 an organization, and they want to get something
11:53:36 accomplished, and it is our objective that when a
11:53:39 group of residents want to try to get something
11:53:41 accomplished in the city of that when support them.
11:53:42 And that we provide them the technical information
11:53:46 that they need, that council has asked us, again, the
11:53:49 presentation was made that these are outstanding
11:53:51 issues to council, and that they need to go out and
11:53:55 answer them.
11:53:55 So we provide the input on can they do X, Y or Z, and
11:54:01 that is what we do. We try to support members of the
11:54:04 community that want to accomplish projects or
11:54:06 objectives in the community.
11:54:11 >>MARY MULHERN: When did council ask you in
11:54:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have been asking for decade.
11:54:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Many years.
11:54:18 Mr. Dingfelder?
11:54:18 >> I just want to set this up in the appropriate
11:54:23 And Mrs. Mulhern, some in response to your questions,
11:54:27 is that there are members of the community that have
11:54:30 been asking that the city do something.
11:54:33 I think that everybody would be united out there, if
11:54:38 the city would just do the whole thing and not do an
11:54:40 assessment at all.
11:54:42 They would all be united.
11:54:44 Okay, no applause.
11:54:46 [ Applause ]
11:54:47 And that usual you on the floor for a number of years,
11:54:51 but the various administration that is have come and
11:54:55 gone have never seen fit to be able to come up with
11:54:57 the money and that includes council I guess as well to
11:54:59 come up with the money to do that or to be able to
11:55:02 justify doing it also, which is a philosophical thing.
11:55:06 Next thing is, can we do it hand in hand?
11:55:10 Can the city contribute some, the federal government
11:55:13 contribute some, and the affected canal owners
11:55:16 contribute some?
11:55:18 I think that's a direction that we sent staff in over
11:55:21 the last year or two, to go explore that as a possible
11:55:28 Staff, I was comfortable with where staff has been.
11:55:31 I wish they had met perhaps a little more balance with
11:55:34 the pros and cons.
11:55:35 I think they have been a little leaning toward the pro
11:55:38 But that was staff decided to take that approach and
11:55:42 that's fine, because it didn't mean anything.
11:55:45 The postcard was extremely vague, and the numbers that
11:55:50 came back did not mean anything to our decision making
11:55:53 at this point.
11:55:54 Because the real decision-making will be the next set
11:55:57 of postcards.
11:55:58 The next set of postcards, or hopefully more than a
11:56:01 postcard, I believe, will have to have a very, very
11:56:04 comprehensive explanation saying you will likely be
11:56:08 assessed, who knows, X thousands of dollars, seven,
11:56:13 eight, whatever, 6, 7, 8, $108 thousand, you will be
11:56:16 assessed that, okay, and here's why.
11:56:20 And now how do you feel about it?
11:56:22 And then when that result comes back, I believe that's
11:56:27 the time that council will decide which canals will be
11:56:30 in and which canals will be out.
11:56:33 Because those votes will be taken on a canal by canal
11:56:36 If there are not enough canals to justify doing it at
11:56:39 all, at the end of that vote, then the whole program
11:56:42 will likely be scrapped, okay?
11:56:45 But I think that we have to take it in baby steps.
11:56:49 Today is probably about the second baby step.
11:56:52 First baby step was staff working with the community
11:56:55 to get to us where we are today.
11:56:56 Today's baby step will be, should staff go forward and
11:56:59 set this public hearing in December?
11:57:02 And I think that's where we are.
11:57:04 So I just want to put it into context of where we are.
11:57:06 Let's not kill the baby yet, because the baby is just
11:57:10 giving birth, and let's go ahead and hear from the
11:57:13 community a minute each and see how they feel about
11:57:17 where we are today and where we are headed.
11:57:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Walter, did you have anything else
11:57:24 to say?
11:57:26 >>> No.
11:57:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Anybody else to say anything?
11:57:28 >>> No, ma'am.
11:57:29 That's the five minutes.
11:57:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: How many community leaders you all
11:57:34 >>> We had two formal community meetings that were
11:57:36 associated with that postcard to send out and say,
11:57:39 here it all is.
11:57:40 The CPR group, and me personally have met with many,
11:57:45 many people but they were all on individual meetings
11:57:48 so that people really had a chance to ask all of their
11:57:52 These were two large public meetings hell at Plant
11:57:55 High School on October 1st and 3rd, I believe.
11:57:59 >> So the whole community that's going to be impacted
11:58:01 affected were at Plant High School?
11:58:04 >>> Yes.
11:58:06 >> Those two of them.
11:58:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think that the staff is to be
11:58:10 congratulated for doing a very thorough job.
11:58:14 The fact that we did not hear your presentation today
11:58:16 doesn't mean that isn't thorough and clear and
11:58:19 excellent and I look forward to people seeing on the
11:58:21 on the web site.
11:58:22 And I just wanted to clarify.
11:58:24 So we are now going to hear from the public in one
11:58:27 minute increments?
11:58:28 >> For how many minutes?
11:58:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We already set that.
11:58:31 One minute.
11:58:32 >> As many minutes as it takes or start -- stop now at
11:58:37 noon and start up after lunch.
11:58:39 >>GWEN MILLER: How many in the public wish to speak?
11:58:42 Will you raise your hand?
11:58:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Around 30.
11:58:46 >>CHAIRMAN: We are going to lose our quorum.
11:58:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chairman, I would hope that
11:58:54 people -- I would like to adjourn to a specific time,
11:58:57 have all of us back here at 1:30 sharp and hear from
11:59:00 everyone in the public who wants to speak.
11:59:02 That's what I prefer.
11:59:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Reverend Scott?
11:59:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I have a luncheon appointment.
11:59:08 Let me just say this.
11:59:09 And I respect all here, and we have got to learn to
11:59:13 state the rules that we set, council.
11:59:16 Now, I recognize that there was an error made by the
11:59:20 clerk but I thought we collect corrected that, open it
11:59:23 with the first workshop, that was not to have any
11:59:26 public input.
11:59:27 Let me finish.
11:59:28 One thing I understand about workshops, a workshop is
11:59:32 not for the public, it's really for council, okay?
11:59:37 It's for council to be educated, to allow staff to
11:59:40 talk to us, make presentation to us, and we talk among
11:59:43 ourselves and that sort of thing, and the clerk -- but
11:59:47 what happens when we start opening it up, then it
11:59:49 creates the problem, I hope in the future that we make
11:59:59 it very Clare to the clerk these workshops are for
12:00:02 council, no public presentation and council
12:00:04 understands that.
12:00:04 I'm just telling you my position.
12:00:06 That way, you are able to get educated about the
12:00:08 issues, staff will present, make a presentation, and
12:00:13 we will all be informed.
12:00:15 So we have input from the community.
12:00:17 >>GWEN MILLER: It's my understanding at the beginning
12:00:20 we didn't let anyone speaking at the workshop, they
12:00:22 would not speak at none of the workshops.
12:00:24 That was my understanding.
12:00:26 If they were going to speak everybody would speak and
12:00:27 we made a motion that we would have no one to speak in
12:00:30 the workshop.
12:00:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order.
12:00:32 >>CHAIRMAN: I'm speaking, Mr. Dingfelder.
12:00:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I know but I have a point of order.
12:00:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Will you let me finish?
12:00:41 >> Out of respect.
12:00:42 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
12:00:43 Mr. Shelby, we said if somebody would speak everybody
12:00:48 would speak at the workshop?
12:00:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't know what council's official
12:00:52 position is.
12:00:53 The clerk may recall, state what it is.
12:00:57 But my understanding is, there was a discussion.
12:00:59 I don't know whether council took official action on
12:01:01 it but there was definitely a discussion on the fact
12:01:03 that if one workshop took public comment, then there
12:01:09 were several council members expressed the fact for
12:01:11 consistency sake.
12:01:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Now I am going raise my point of
12:01:16 My point of order, Mr. Scott, towed step out of the
12:01:18 room for a minute.
12:01:20 There was a vote at 9:00 this morning in terms of all
12:01:24 the things and that was the vote.
12:01:26 But then there was a subsequent vote when you weren't
12:01:28 in the room that said that due to the extenuating
12:01:30 circumstances of this particular canal issue and this
12:01:33 particular workshop, and the promises that have been
12:01:36 made to the community by this councilman, at the plant
12:01:40 hey meeting, that they would have an opportunity to
12:01:41 come down here and speak.
12:01:44 That I seconded Mrs. Saul-Sena's motion to give the
12:01:46 folks an opportunity to speak one minute each.
12:01:47 That vote carried.
12:01:51 And that's the vote that's ruling this body now unless
12:01:55 there's another subsequent motion to defuse that vote.
12:02:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let's proceed to hear from the
12:02:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Is that the motion, clerk?
12:02:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I have a previous commitment.
12:02:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We can go to lunch.
12:02:13 >> My motion would be we come back at 1:30 and hear
12:02:16 from the public.
12:02:17 That's my motion.
12:02:17 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.
12:02:18 (Motion carried)
12:02:21 We stand adjourned until 1:30.
Tampa City Council
Thursday, October 25, 2007
1:30 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 file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
13:32:09 [Sounding gavel]
13:36:38 >>CHAIRMAN: Tampa City Council is called back to
13:36:39 Roll call.
13:36:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
13:36:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
13:36:46 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Here.
13:36:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
13:36:51 Back on our item number 3 workshop.
13:36:53 Before we begin, we had a show of hands of how many
13:36:57 people would like to speak.
13:36:58 I would like to see how many hands are against.
13:37:07 And how many for?
13:37:09 Those against the dredging and those for the dredging.
13:37:26 >> I think it's more complicated.
13:37:27 >>CHAIRMAN: Okay.
13:37:29 The reason I say that, let me tell you why I say that.
13:37:32 Because if you are going to speak, everybody wants to
13:37:36 speak why they are for and why they are against it,
13:37:39 then we'll have the public hearing and they'll say the
13:37:42 same thing F.anybody has new information they want to
13:37:44 give us today, then we have a long day, we have a
13:37:47 night meeting, we are trying to make it short so we
13:37:49 can get out of here and come to our 6:00 meeting.
13:37:52 So if you have got some new information that you want
13:37:54 to give, and at the public hearing, you may tell us
13:37:57 anything you want to tell us at the public hearing,
13:37:59 you may tell us next Thursday.
13:38:02 We have an agenda item, you can come and talk to us.
13:38:05 If you are just to say I'm for it or not for it, I'm
13:38:08 asking that you -- because we are going to hear you
13:38:15 say this.
13:38:15 If you have some new information on this dredging, I
13:38:21 don't know about other council members.
13:38:23 >> I would like to hear from the public.
13:38:25 I would like to start.
13:38:26 Hear everybody who came down here who waited for our
13:38:28 whole morning thing.
13:38:29 If they only have a minute each, Madam Chairman, let's
13:38:32 >>GWEN MILLER: We have at least 35 people.
13:38:35 >> Well, they all came down here.
13:38:36 >> We have another workshop.
13:38:38 Plus you have the night meeting.
13:38:39 >> I'll be here.
13:38:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question on the workshop.
13:38:44 Do we have to do the chapter 27 workshop?
13:38:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The short answer is --
13:38:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes, we have to.
13:38:49 >>> To make the deadline, take quite some time.
13:38:56 >> Is that a yes?
13:38:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.
13:38:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: All right, let's go.
13:39:00 >>CHAIRMAN: One minute.
13:39:01 We are going to cut you off at one minute.
13:39:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would suggest go for and against,
13:39:07 for and against, just to make it a little balanced.
13:39:09 >>GWEN MILLER: They showed their hands.
13:39:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You mental eternity at the
13:39:15 microphone if you can.
13:39:15 >> Good idea.
13:39:17 >>CHAIRMAN: Anybody that's going to speak line up and
13:39:19 get on your side.
13:39:21 Over here, against over here.
13:39:28 If I look and you are light at the line that means you
13:39:30 are telling me you are not going to speak.
13:39:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Fine.
13:39:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Fine.
13:39:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And Mr. Cofon, we have a hand Mike.
13:39:41 >>> I'm Christina from 804 bayside.
13:39:47 Thank you for your insistence on fairness.
13:39:50 I want to just say two things.
13:39:51 First of all, in Ms. Mulhern's perception that Tampa
13:39:57 CPR is a small group working with the city, we are
13:40:00 We are a very group.
13:40:02 We worked for over two years.
13:40:03 We have engaged in dialogue and written communication
13:40:05 with almost 400 of the 600 affected homeowners.
13:40:09 So we are a large group.
13:40:11 And I want to make that very clear.
13:40:13 Also, we do have a web site.
13:40:16 We have worked very hard to be very inclusive and
13:40:19 educational, even after we heard a lot of the feedback
13:40:24 from people that had questions at the public
13:40:28 information meetings where we had over 200 people.
13:40:31 We supplemented our frequently asked questions on our
13:40:33 web site so we are working very hard to dispel the
13:40:37 continuing misinformation and confusion.
13:40:40 Thank you.
13:40:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
13:40:44 Let's rotate.
13:40:47 >>> Good afternoon.
13:40:48 I'm Fran Marshall, live on Davis islands, and I'm
13:40:52 against the dredging.
13:40:56 It is all about the money and who is going to pay for
13:41:02 If there is a grant, it should only be used to do the
13:41:08 canals that it would cost that much to do.
13:41:12 And apply for another grant and do it another year.
13:41:16 It doesn't all have to be done at the same time.
13:41:18 But I feel like we need to live within our budget.
13:41:21 If we can't afford to do it, don't do it.
13:41:25 Why are we taxing people, putting liens on folks'
13:41:29 homes, those that cannot afford to pay for the $8,000
13:41:35 dredging will be charged the most in the long run,
13:41:37 because they will have compounded interest every year
13:41:41 on the $8,000 until the money is paid off.
13:41:46 If you tend to live there another 20 years instead of
13:41:49 paying 8,000, that person will probably pay 14,000 to
13:41:53 have a canal dredged because they don't want it to
13:41:56 begin with.
13:41:57 So I think that needs to be considered.
13:41:59 Everybody is not, as I call it, a fat cat.
13:42:05 Some of us live on fixed incomes, and the $8,000, I
13:42:10 prefer to have a new range and refrigerator that I
13:42:14 need, not a ditch in the middle of the canal.
13:42:16 Thank you.
13:42:19 (Bell sounds).
13:42:20 >> Thank you.
13:42:22 >>> Good afternoon.
13:42:23 Michael Widner, 4905 west San Nicholas, CPR co-chair.
13:42:31 Number one, I apologize for the miscommunication this
13:42:33 morning on a presentation.
13:42:34 We were here certainly we are advocates for the
13:42:36 process, but we were here because much of what see in
13:42:40 that presentation we were asked the questions to
13:42:43 present that and that's why we were here.
13:42:45 I appreciate that you all feel well informed and many
13:42:48 of the residents feel well informed, they all raised
13:42:50 their hand, they saw the presentation, but I still to
13:42:52 this day get e-mails, I receive letters to editors in
13:42:55 the newspaper that once we do this assessment we open
13:42:58 ourselves up to taxes, they are going to raise it
13:43:01 ninth they want.
13:43:02 There's a lot of misinformation.
13:43:04 This morning we had outside counsel to answer those
13:43:06 questions and unfortunately they weren't allowed to
13:43:09 Understand as well as everyone thinks they are well
13:43:11 informed they may not be.
13:43:12 So those frequently asked questions are probably a
13:43:14 good thing for them to look at.
13:43:15 The second thing is, we have heard all of this before,
13:43:18 and frankly, what do you call it when do you the same
13:43:20 thing over and over again but you expect different
13:43:23 A lost us call it insanity.
13:43:25 And frankly we are not for using insanity to solve
13:43:27 this problem.
13:43:28 We approached the city.
13:43:29 We asked them for their help.
13:43:30 And lastly, as Barbara Bourgeois said earlier we ask
13:43:37 you to hope create this procedure.
13:43:40 One of the challenges, did we Tampa CPR for two years
13:43:43 has done a petition, we have done a registered
13:43:45 mailing, the city has a registered mailing, we had
13:43:47 people go to numerous meetings, and the residents are
13:43:49 all busy folks.
13:43:50 They are saying how many times do I have to say I want
13:43:52 to do this, how many times do I have to come down and
13:43:55 do that?
13:43:56 So we ask for your help.
13:43:57 Thank you.
13:43:59 >>> Sam Mirabella, San Rafael street.
13:44:05 One thing I wanted to state, earlier Mr. Walters made
13:44:08 a statement the that they were giving presentations to
13:44:11 anybody and everybody back in May.
13:44:14 Sunset Park homeowners association requested a
13:44:17 presentation by Mr. Walters.
13:44:20 He responded, they were not given presentations at the
13:44:23 But come to find out a few days later, they were
13:44:26 giving a presentation privately to a group of 15 canal
13:44:29 captains, Michael Wagner's group.
13:44:33 So they. Entirely been completely truthful.
13:44:38 I represent canal 13, a group of us have a petition
13:44:41 with over 85% majority of the canal that want to be
13:44:46 operated out of. This we don't believe this is a fair
13:44:49 tax structure.
13:44:49 I think it's vague.
13:44:51 There's a lot of holes in it.
13:44:53 And we don't want to be put in a tax structure, then
13:44:56 given the hard costs.
13:44:57 It's like going to a contractor and say, okay, build
13:45:01 my house, and bill me for it later.
13:45:05 We also don't want to subsidize other homeowners who
13:45:08 bought on "add water" so to speak.
13:45:14 By the way, I would like to give this petition.
13:45:15 Can I give this to City Council?
13:45:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: By the way, Sam brings up a good
13:45:20 point in regard to if you know what canal number
13:45:23 you're on, let us know, or obviously the street would
13:45:25 be helpful as well.
13:45:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
13:45:37 >> Lori Widner, San Nicholas street.
13:45:45 I would like to ask that City Council support
13:45:47 something that is not unique to Tampa.
13:45:50 This proposal is no different than many of the special
13:45:53 assessments for canal dredging that occur all over the
13:45:56 country, including the State of Florida.
13:45:59 This is not unique.
13:46:00 We do not come up with this plan or the way to calm
13:46:06 We took this from many, many other canal owners, and
13:46:11 their same situation.
13:46:16 Thank you.
13:46:23 >> My name is Kristina Hendry, Jamaica Avenue, canal
13:46:29 30, I have signatures of six people here.
13:46:37 >> You get one minute, that's it.
13:46:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yeah.
13:46:40 >>GWEN MILLER: One minute is all you get.
13:46:44 >> Okay.
13:46:44 I do have some letters.
13:46:51 I want to restate the:
13:47:01 Earlier it was stated that nothing has been done, and
13:47:03 that's not part of my understanding, and 2004 a
13:47:09 federal grant was granted, for a $2 million project,
13:47:15 and the city needs to match a million.
13:47:17 There were five specified places for that money to be
13:47:24 And in April there was an RFQ submitted, short list,
13:47:31 in July of 2004, in August of 2004.
13:47:35 They requested one of the bidders to make a
13:47:37 presentation in October 2004, congratulations, let's
13:47:43 negotiate, and get this project done.
13:47:46 December 2004, it scheduled work was create, meaning
13:47:52 four of the canals.
13:47:53 I don't know what happened to the fifth.
13:47:55 So that's a question out there.
13:47:58 And in January 2005 --
13:48:03 (Bell sounds).
13:48:03 That's it.
13:48:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Quick question.
13:48:06 You used some of your time to give souse literature.
13:48:10 What's your reason on the opposition side of this?
13:48:14 >>> I would like council to direct stormwater
13:48:17 department to do first things first, to follow up on
13:48:19 this federal grant money that's been sitting there for
13:48:23 two years with no action since this Tampa CPR group
13:48:27 started up with they are doing.
13:48:29 Nothing has gone forward with this federal grant
13:48:31 And I would like this council to direct the stormwater
13:48:34 department to go forward with the bidding and the
13:48:38 contracting and the doing of what that federal grant
13:48:42 money was awarded for.
13:48:43 And I would like this council to direct the stormwater
13:48:47 department not to close off the pipe in Currituck
13:48:55 channel which Mr. Walters told me himself he intended
13:48:58 to do, and I would like --
13:49:00 >>CHAIRMAN: That's enough.
13:49:03 We can hear it at the public hearing.
13:49:07 You have gone over your minutes.
13:49:08 >> I would like to put these documents that I was
13:49:10 referring to also in the record.
13:49:18 >> My name is Matthew Hoffman, 5014 west Riviera on
13:49:25 canal 6.
13:49:27 I'm in favor of the canal dredging.
13:49:29 It was stated several times earlier, but we elected
13:49:32 you, you represent us, and I think that there is
13:49:34 hopefully you see enough concern expressed that you
13:49:37 allow us just to have the opportunity to bring this to
13:49:41 the public forum and have the vote, the democratic
13:49:44 process to determine whether we as property owners
13:49:46 want to pay for something to be done in our city that
13:49:49 we can enjoy and benefit from.
13:49:51 Even some of the speakers earlier that have spoken
13:49:54 about being taxed without representation are being
13:49:56 taxed and told they are going to not know what they
13:49:59 are going to pay before.
13:50:00 I think the city has done a great job, and I commend
13:50:03 the city.
13:50:03 Usually working with government organizations you
13:50:05 don't enjoy the process, or feel like you are getting
13:50:08 help, but I have to say in this case, my hat is off to
13:50:10 the people that made themselves available, they have
13:50:13 provided information and expressed a willingness to
13:50:16 support a citizen initiated event.
13:50:18 So I appreciate that.
13:50:20 And I hope that City Council will take that into
13:50:22 >> What canal are you on?
13:50:25 >>> I'm on canal 6, also referred to as Neptune canal.
13:50:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
13:50:32 >>> Trent DOS, canal 30.
13:50:36 I moved to Davis Island back in 2003.
13:50:39 I decided to move to the water, on Davis Island, the
13:50:44 water was usable.
13:50:45 I looked at several homes on the Westshore side,
13:50:47 decided against it because the canals need to be
13:50:50 We don't need it where we are at.
13:50:52 We have a problem getting under the bridge at high
13:50:55 I would rather see the bridge redone and three more
13:50:58 feet added to that.
13:50:59 These people do honestly need it.
13:51:00 I decided not to move there for that reason.
13:51:02 >> That would really be a thrill hill.
13:51:06 >>> But, Mr. Dingfelder, you brought up a good point
13:51:09 earlier if the city were to pay for it everyone would
13:51:11 agree and I think this T city should pay for it for
13:51:14 this reason.
13:51:14 If you were to take just 400 affected canal owners on
13:51:18 the Westshore side and do the dredging as the city,
13:51:22 the value of those properties would go up probably
13:51:24 half a million dollars apiece because now it's usable
13:51:28 That would increase the tax roll by 200 million,
13:51:32 generating 4.4 million a year to be used for the city
13:51:35 for whatever, and that's not just one year, that's in
13:51:39 And it would take time to get up to there because some
13:51:41 people wouldn't sell.
13:51:42 But I can tell you, I pay substantially more for my
13:51:46 house than I would have over there because my water is
13:51:48 usable and I think that would be a viable solution for
13:51:50 the city to look at.
13:51:51 It pays for itself.
13:51:52 It's a business decision.
13:51:53 Look at it like a business.
13:51:55 If you put 20 million into it what are you going to
13:51:58 generate for years to come because of it?
13:52:00 It pays for itself.
13:52:01 There's no reason for to us pay for it or these
13:52:03 citizens to pay for it even though they are willing to
13:52:05 do it.
13:52:05 Do the math.
13:52:06 Run it like a business and it more than pays for
13:52:09 Makes money.
13:52:10 (Bell sounds).
13:52:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
13:52:11 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: One question, sir.
13:52:16 Under the present system on the second property, it
13:52:18 would only go up 3% so you can't go up half a million
13:52:22 >> It would only go up for 3% for people that are
13:52:25 homesteaded but if I was looking on Westshore I would
13:52:29 have spent much more money when I bought on Davis
13:52:31 Island, my taxes were nine grand the first year,
13:52:34 jumped to 20 on the new assessment.
13:52:36 People will sell if there's more value in their home.
13:52:38 If we were to raise our bridge our value would go up
13:52:40 by 800 to a million.
13:52:42 I would sell.
13:52:42 You would then get instead of 20 grand, 30 grand a
13:52:46 Would take some time but it's there.
13:52:50 >>> Jane Karash, Spring Lake drive, canal 19, and
13:53:01 Plant High School, the question was raised as to
13:53:03 whether the residents at Spring Lake bridge were going
13:53:07 to be assessed this assessment, also, and the answer
13:53:11 was, no, they are not.
13:53:13 Well, they use the canal just as much as the residents
13:53:15 to the west.
13:53:16 And I think they should be assessed, also.
13:53:20 My second point is the maintenance fee.
13:53:23 It was also brought up that Plant High School, the
13:53:26 maintenance fee could be assess to boat registration
13:53:30 and renewal.
13:53:31 And I think that's a good idea and I think that should
13:53:33 be added to this plan, also.
13:53:38 Thank you.
13:53:40 >>> M. Anderson, president of sunset homeowners
13:53:47 We have several canals that are candidates for this
13:53:50 special taxing district in our neighborhood.
13:53:51 And I have a couple points I want to make.
13:53:54 I have spoken to the $1.3 million.
13:53:57 Before we have all heard this.
13:53:58 One thing that I did find out recently is that they
13:54:00 talk about dredging this as part of this whole deal
13:54:03 but all they really want to go is Do is cut a pass
13:54:06 through the middle of the lake which is unacceptable
13:54:08 and I think is a misuse of federal funds.
13:54:10 The other thing is, as far as the fairness of this
13:54:14 whole plan, I'm in favor of all these canals getting
13:54:18 I feel like the plan itself is unfair.
13:54:20 And the reason why is because between Beach Park and
13:54:23 Sunset Park, we drain 3,000 acres all the way to
13:54:28 Howard Avenue.
13:54:29 And when this comes in here, it comes in only five
13:54:34 There's three at Sunset Park, two at Beach Park.
13:54:38 One canal drains almost 750 acres into one little
13:54:41 So what's happening is, if you look at promoters of
13:54:45 this plan, most of them live on these heavily
13:54:50 sedimented canals.
13:54:51 And the way this is working, you end up subsidizing
13:54:55 these heavily sedimented canals which is not fair.
13:54:59 So the other thing is we talked about what about the
13:55:01 city taking in some money in all of this?
13:55:04 Until three years ago that would have been impossible.
13:55:06 But I feel with this new stormwater tax we could take
13:55:09 a portion of that money and we could use it on these
13:55:13 five canals to make it more fair.
13:55:14 (Bell sounds).
13:55:16 That's my presentation.
13:55:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
13:55:20 >>> I'm Scott Murphy, 1106 Culbert isles drive, canal
13:55:24 number 9.
13:55:25 I'm in favor of this.
13:55:26 I think this committee should be commended for their
13:55:29 I think when you are faced with an opportunity for the
13:55:32 citizens to vote to pay two-thirds of the cost of the
13:55:35 dredging project, we ought to jump at that
13:55:38 I think if it doesn't pass, you are going to have a
13:55:41 huge influx of taxpayers that are paying excessive
13:55:45 amounts of property tax on the water that will demand
13:55:48 and force the city to dredge, and I think should take
13:55:53 the opportunity to take individual money, two-thirds
13:55:55 of the cost to make the project work.
13:55:57 Thank you.
13:55:57 >> I have owned a home on 606 phosphorus on canal 30.
13:56:06 I want to thank the council for giving the public the
13:56:08 opportunity to speak this afternoon.
13:56:12 Mr. Walter and his team have worked hard to find a
13:56:16 solution to this problem but I want Mr. Walter to
13:56:19 remember he's working for all Tampa citizens.
13:56:22 I was surprised this morning he would represent the
13:56:24 results of a vague postcard survey as a true read of
13:56:28 the public's feel. This morning the biggest was the
13:56:31 response to councilman's Dingfelder, these are my
13:56:33 words not his, comment that all parties should welcome
13:56:35 the city living up to its responsibilities to dredge
13:56:37 the canal.
13:56:38 An obligation it has avoided for decades.
13:56:41 I pay higher taxes than most of our neighbors that are
13:56:44 not on the canal only because I live on the
13:56:46 Why would I ever want to pay a surcharge on top of
13:56:50 those hey taxes is beyond me.
13:56:51 I'm asking you and your colleagues to step up to the
13:56:54 plate and address this issue which has been ignored
13:56:56 for so long.
13:56:57 Clearly you have a large but vocal concerned citizens
13:57:00 requesting action.
13:57:03 All of us using existing funds including my hair
13:57:05 waterfront tax tows make it happen.
13:57:07 Thank you.
13:57:14 >> Good afternoon.
13:57:15 My name is Joe Rosier.
13:57:17 I own a home on 4819 west bay villa.
13:57:21 It is canal 20.
13:57:23 I grew up on canal 14, since I was 8 years old, I'm an
13:57:29 avid Fisherman and wake border.
13:57:32 I have gotten stranded.
13:57:33 I recently missed a class in graduate school because I
13:57:37 couldn't get back into my canal, had to take it to a
13:57:40 friend's house, be picked up, the whole ordeal took
13:57:43 too much time.
13:57:44 I look at it from the fact that I have hopefully 50,
13:57:46 60, 70 years ahead of me living in the home I just
13:57:50 I have been in it about a month now.
13:57:51 And I don't just use my boat but once or twice a week
13:57:59 if the tide is right and in the future raising a
13:58:01 family there.
13:58:01 I want to be able to enjoy what I paid for.
13:58:11 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: I live at 4611 Tennison Avenue.
13:58:16 Sunset Park.
13:58:17 I'm not here on behalf of anyone.
13:58:19 I'm a practicing attorney.
13:58:21 I do not live on a canal.
13:58:23 I do not own a boat.
13:58:24 However, I fish on some of these canals and in Lake
13:58:26 Kipling and Lake Dundee.
13:58:28 I'm here to suggest to you that the process needs to
13:58:30 be changed for the simple reason that the Tampa port
13:58:33 authority is not at the table in this process.
13:58:36 If you bear with me for a moment, the Tampa port
13:58:39 authority controls all navigable waters and submerged
13:58:44 lands northbound Hillsborough County, plus lake
13:58:49 I know this because I have permitted many projects on
13:58:52 submerged lands for Hillsborough County.
13:58:54 In the special act of creating this Tampa port
13:58:56 authority and conveyed those lands to the Tampa port
13:58:58 authority they also have the concurrent obligation to
13:59:02 maintain, through maintenance dredging, all submerged
13:59:05 lands in the county.
13:59:07 Including the City of Tampa.
13:59:09 The stormwater tax is supposed to apply upstream.
13:59:13 Stormwater tax does not apply downstream.
13:59:17 I think this is not your problem.
13:59:21 This is the port authority's problem.
13:59:23 And I think you should take this problem and lay it
13:59:25 delicately on their lap and say, you need to fund
13:59:28 this, because we all receive this in the mail every
13:59:36 >> Did you pay it?
13:59:40 >> I'm standing here with my trim notice.
13:59:45 You will see on my property, my wife and I were
13:59:47 assessed about $100 by the port district as were all
13:59:50 property owners of Hillsborough County.
13:59:51 The port authority collecting money from us every year
13:59:54 under what they have under the special act but they
13:59:57 are not spending it in the dredging of the Tampa
14:00:02 submerged land.
14:00:03 This is not your problem.
14:00:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay, thank you.
14:00:07 >>> I suggest to you --
14:00:09 >>GWEN MILLER: One minute, that's it.
14:00:11 Your time is up.
14:00:12 >>> I suggest to you --
14:00:14 >>CHAIRMAN: Your time is up, one minute.
14:00:15 >>> I'm going to ask for time on their agenda for
14:00:18 myself to come and my neighbors to come and say, time
14:00:22 to take care of the problem.
14:00:24 The mayor is on the port authority.
14:00:25 We have a county commissioner here this morning on the
14:00:27 port authority.
14:00:28 Five gubernatorial appointments.
14:00:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Your time is up.
14:00:34 >>> I live on south Dundee.
14:00:44 Canal number 15.
14:00:46 I have several questions.
14:00:50 I have a second home in south Dundee, lived there for
14:00:52 19 years.
14:00:53 I did not buy on inferior water.
14:00:55 My water has been filled in with sediment over the
14:00:58 years and I no longer boat like I did in the first
14:01:07 Ms. Mulhern seemed to think we were a specialty group,
14:01:10 did not entertain the neighbors and everyone involved
14:01:13 in the community.
14:01:14 I want to make it clear it's not true.
14:01:16 I have a let their personally went around and hand
14:01:19 delivered to every neighbor that was affected
14:01:21 homeowner on north and south Dundee.
14:01:25 I offered appointments.
14:01:26 I met with many, many of them.
14:01:29 And a an average of a little up one hour.
14:01:37 My other canal captain did similar so that everyone
14:01:40 had the opportunity.
14:01:41 I had one person who refused to listen to my
14:01:43 presentation which is in my notebook.
14:01:46 I had another person who listened to it all said, I do
14:01:48 not agree, I will vote no.
14:01:50 Those people were given time.
14:01:53 We had a public hearing.
14:01:54 We had organized this so that all persons for or
14:01:57 against can have the information.
14:01:59 In addition, I supported for many years city dredging,
14:02:04 but I became educated and found out that, no, we are
14:02:07 in the State of Florida, our waterway management plan,
14:02:10 the dredging plan, taken by the city but paid for in
14:02:15 accordance with waterway homeowners, and we modeled
14:02:20 our plan after those done in other counties here.
14:02:23 And I thank the city for assisting us and the other
14:02:27 parties could organize a group, and they would do the
14:02:29 same for them.
14:02:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Joe, we have a hand mike if you
14:02:37 want to sit.
14:02:40 >>> That's okay.
14:02:41 My name is Joe Coffer, Tampa, lived there about 18
14:02:48 years now, built a house.
14:02:51 And it's on Currituck channel.
14:02:59 I don't know if that's number 3.
14:03:01 We have lots of traffic on our canal.
14:03:03 We have boats coming in and going out.
14:03:04 A lot of people own boats.
14:03:06 I have questioned whether or not we need to have any
14:03:10 But in any event, Currituck channel was mentioned
14:03:16 specifically in the application for the 1.3 million
14:03:19 Spring Lake channel, Lake Kipling, Lake Dundee,
14:03:24 Neptune lagoon, Currituck channel.
14:03:30 Let's put it all together.
14:03:32 Based on what he said at one of the meetings of Sunset
14:03:34 Park homeowners association, that is second plan.
14:03:40 Second plan is I can get whatever work needs to be
14:03:43 done on my channel which I don't believe is much,
14:03:45 except down at the end, past the airport.
14:03:50 At the airport the city has failed to maintain the
14:03:52 channel, and also the drawn lawns, two houses down
14:03:57 from me.
14:03:58 Those were the only problems we have on that channel.
14:04:02 I say, threat city do this so-called second plan.
14:04:06 F further, I object to writing a nice long letter to
14:04:09 this gentleman over here, and he hasn't even called me
14:04:13 about it.
14:04:14 (Bell sounds).
14:04:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
14:04:18 >>> Charles Palmer.
14:04:32 I live at 808 south Bayside Drive, canal 7.
14:04:36 I believe all members of our neighborhood are in favor
14:04:38 of the canal dredging, from the letter that was sent
14:04:45 I'm an avid boater myself.
14:04:49 I have about three hours a day that I can actually go
14:04:51 out in a boat, without being caught by the tides and
14:04:55 If I were to fall off my dock, I would probably go up
14:05:00 to here in muck.
14:05:02 So it's a pretty serious thing to me personally and to
14:05:07 my neighbors that we don't have navigable waters.
14:05:10 The second thing I would like to tell you is in
14:05:12 cleaning up this muck, I don't even know if you call
14:05:15 it mud.
14:05:17 In Charleston where I grew up it's called plus mud.
14:05:20 I'm cleaning it up, at the same time the opportunity
14:05:22 to the replant sea grass and make those canals
14:05:30 environmentally sounder is going to greatly improve
14:05:33 the quality of our water, the quality of our outdoor
14:05:37 activity, it should make a significant difference in
14:05:43 the waterfront here, in Tampa Bay.
14:05:46 So I support it.
14:05:48 And I would urge to you please allow an open vote so
14:05:50 we can know whether we can proceed or whether there's
14:05:53 enough people to say no and pursue it some other way.
14:05:58 Thank you.
14:06:03 >>> Richard Cooper, by default. I don't need to go
14:06:08 into that.
14:06:09 I live with my mother. The question on our canal
14:06:16 never was whether it should be dredged.
14:06:18 I see this level of service map.
14:06:20 That is not an accurate map.
14:06:24 There's three feet at low tide everywhere except right
14:06:26 up by the airport.
14:06:28 And right by the airport, just 15 years ago, could you
14:06:31 see the golf cart bridge that's been there forever,
14:06:33 and now it's solid mangroves.
14:06:35 It's terrible.
14:06:36 But you also have a 6 by 6 culvert that runs
14:06:38 completely under the airport and goes to the sea plane
14:06:42 To the other side of that you can see chairs, you can
14:06:44 see all kinds of muck, everything that people just
14:06:46 dumped in there.
14:06:47 It's never been maintained.
14:06:48 If that channel was just opened up, all our problems
14:06:53 are Currituck channel.
14:07:00 And the mangroves have grown just recently because 15,
14:07:03 20 years ago you could see that bridge no problem.
14:07:05 And those mangroves have just taken off and now they
14:07:08 are completely across and they are just holding all
14:07:10 the sediment right there.
14:07:12 And we don't have the same problems.
14:07:14 We understand Westshore has a serious, serious
14:07:17 And I actually grew up in the bayou so I know you can
14:07:20 walk across the Neptune channel from my friend's
14:07:24 house, at medium tide you would walk across.
14:07:28 And it's always been that way.
14:07:30 I never knew why but I'm hearing a lot of it has to do
14:07:33 with stormwater issues.
14:07:35 But they are not the same.
14:07:36 Davis Island is not the same problem as Westshore
14:07:45 >>CHAIRMAN: We are not going to have any talking out.
14:07:47 >>> I'm Stella Kirsenhasser and I live on the channel,
14:07:55 not quite two years ago, I had a Christmas party over
14:07:58 in Westshore.
14:08:00 A woman came in, and we were all sitting there
14:08:02 talking, and she says we are going to be real happy,
14:08:05 we are going to get the rich people from Davis Islands
14:08:07 to support us when we dredge the canal.
14:08:12 Then that didn't go very good with me at all because
14:08:16 living on the channel, and destroying it didn't go
14:08:20 with me at all.
14:08:21 If it's necessary, we will go along with dredging it.
14:08:26 I feel that we should not share any of the expenses of
14:08:30 the five channels over there that are going to be
14:08:33 dredged, because only one channel that we are on,
14:08:39 So that's how I feel about it.
14:08:40 And I feel that all these things should be done, you
14:08:43 pay for them.
14:08:45 There is a fellow on sunset, the sunset area, they got
14:08:49 all of the people on his canal there to Chip in and
14:08:53 get it dredged.
14:08:54 And he got it dredged.
14:08:55 And they all paid for it.
14:08:58 It didn't come that T that large amount of money, that
14:09:01 we are thinking of spending up to $8 million.
14:09:04 We don't even know anything about who is doing the
14:09:06 dredging and how they came up with these numbers.
14:09:11 I don't think I would ever want to do business without
14:09:13 getting a quote from somebody and knowing who it was
14:09:16 and letting everybody know about it that was in the
14:09:19 Thank you.
14:09:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Stella.
14:09:26 >>> My name is Lee Small and I have lived in Sunset
14:09:30 Park for 34 years.
14:09:33 I certainly wish that when we talked about dredging,
14:09:37 or cleaning up the environment, getting the muck out
14:09:41 and doing the stormwater, that sunset homeowners, we
14:09:48 have had that organization quite a number of years.
14:09:51 I do think that we would have had a lot of time to
14:09:54 find out and give people more than one minute to find
14:09:59 out how they feel about paying for it.
14:10:01 I like to pay my taxes as part of the community but I
14:10:04 don't want to have an assessment and lien and leaving
14:10:08 my children, I had hoped to live in the house and be
14:10:11 able to give my property to my family, to my children.
14:10:18 It's just sitting -- hitting people in the pocketbook
14:10:22 when they are at the age of a flexible paycheck.
14:10:28 Of course, I want to see the environment so that
14:10:31 people can use -- I have a canoe I like to go in the
14:10:39 water, or a larger ship.
14:10:40 We did have a boat.
14:10:42 And of course when you leave this world you don't want
14:10:47 to leave it worse, you want to leave it better.
14:10:50 But please think of other ways, maybe all that has
14:10:55 been done by our city, professionals, try to work
14:11:01 another way to pay for it.
14:11:06 >>> Ellie Montague.
14:11:10 I want to know what happened to the report on Lake
14:11:11 Kipling. That was the first motion made at this
14:11:15 No one talked about it at all.
14:11:17 Lake Kipling is a nasty mess that I have lived in
14:11:20 front of since 1967.
14:11:24 We did get a consent order.
14:11:26 City is not following a consent order.
14:11:27 They are going to get another one.
14:11:29 Because the money they used, what do they do?
14:11:36 They come over there and put in -- upstream to keep
14:11:45 from the flowing into our evident wares.
14:11:47 I worked 35 years to get a grant.
14:11:49 We got the 1.3 million, and the award no matter how
14:11:54 many times the city tried to change the wording, I
14:11:57 have the letters to the mayor, I have the actual
14:12:00 wording here that says when it was awarded and listed
14:12:06 all the mistakes.
14:12:07 Sediment removal from estuaries of the head waters at
14:12:09 the canals.
14:12:10 That does not include the canals, does not include run
14:12:13 ago little strip down the middle of the estuary.
14:12:15 We need those springs bubbling again.
14:12:18 We need to fish out there.
14:12:19 My children were swimming in that water when we came
14:12:22 We had blue crabs.
14:12:23 You have not addressed what you are going to do about
14:12:26 Kipling, and you can't, it's misappropriation of funds
14:12:31 to take away the 1.3.
14:12:33 The city has been using the money for the canal people
14:12:35 to get them to go along with their scheme, which is
14:12:38 not a good scheme and I wouldn't trust them because
14:12:42 you haven't been able to trust them so far.
14:12:49 >> Come to the mike.
14:12:50 >>GWEN MILLER: You have to come to the mike.
14:12:51 >> Canal 31, I have been a resident there on Davis
14:12:55 Islands for 27 years.
14:12:58 I have enjoyed the eagles screaming, the fish swimming
14:13:02 through the canals and so forth waking me up in the
14:13:05 morning, and I trust that when this canal dredging
14:13:07 goes forward, we'll end up having all that.
14:13:11 The sea life is in the water.
14:13:14 Not only the fish but all the other animals who live
14:13:17 there will be disturbed and destroyed.
14:13:19 But that's okay.
14:13:20 It's all bad for the environment.
14:13:24 Of course we have many and more bigger boats because
14:13:27 more wealthy people living there with bigger and
14:13:30 bigger homes, and the result of that is they can't get
14:13:33 their boats over the sand bars.
14:13:36 Beyond that, though, the attorney who was here before
14:13:40 is quite correct.
14:13:41 The port authority has the authority over that canal
14:13:45 and all the canals.
14:13:47 And I trust that the city has been in contact and
14:13:50 worked directly with it.
14:13:52 Anybody who wants to build a dock on that, any of
14:13:55 those canals, has to get a permit from the port
14:13:59 Thank you.
14:13:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
14:14:07 Do you want to say anything?
14:14:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question for Steve anyway
14:14:10 69 right now?
14:14:11 Mr. Dingfelder.
14:14:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A couple of questions.
14:14:16 Linda and I shared the same question on the port
14:14:20 Mr. Grandoff brings up a good point.
14:14:24 Are we in touch with the port authority?
14:14:26 What's their position?
14:14:27 >> I don't believe we have asked them to dredge the
14:14:30 We have been in touch with them regarding permitting.
14:14:32 We will certainly touch base with them and see if we
14:14:35 can get a position out of them.
14:14:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Walter?
14:14:44 >>> I believe the port authority's charge is maintain
14:14:47 the boat channels with respect to the ship channels,
14:14:52 not for residential channels.
14:14:55 I believe that's in their charter, but I could get
14:14:57 more information for you on it.
14:14:59 But they were specifically assigned the responsibility
14:15:03 by the Army corp.
14:15:09 I think it's worth pursuing.
14:15:11 Definitely worth pursuing at least to get a
14:15:13 clarification on what their role is and what their
14:15:15 duty is under law.
14:15:17 So I'm sure you will bring that to us next time we
14:15:20 discuss this.
14:15:23 And my next question is, some folks have mentioned the
14:15:28 RFQ which I believe has now been almost awarded or at
14:15:32 least in negotiations with C.H. Hill, the company.
14:15:40 What is that for and how does that relate to, you
14:15:43 know, what we are talking about today?
14:15:45 That's question number one.
14:15:46 Question number two is, that was actually correct.
14:15:50 We did promise back in the summer that we would
14:15:54 discuss Lake Kipling and I know that things got off
14:15:57 track a little bit.
14:15:58 >>> I'll start out with your second question.
14:16:01 That information was in the presentation.
14:16:02 >> Maybe you can give us one or two-minute version on
14:16:10 both of those.
14:16:12 The RFQ and H.C. hill, the first question.
14:16:19 Second question, what is the status of Lake Kipling?
14:16:21 Is that a separate deal?
14:16:23 Or is that going to be subsumed within this other
14:16:26 >>> If I could bring the slides back up.
14:16:30 With regards to the C.H. Hill we are not moving
14:16:34 forward with that contract.
14:16:35 We were not able to negotiate with the EPA to actually
14:16:38 reimburse us for that activity, because of our
14:16:42 procurement process.
14:16:43 So we are going back out on the street to make sure
14:16:46 that we are in accordance with the EPA procurement
14:16:51 procedures so we can get those funds reimbursed once
14:16:53 we go to design.
14:16:54 That's the status of that.
14:16:56 With respect to the Lake Kipling issue, again we have
14:16:58 got a number of different pots of money that we are
14:17:01 using on that project.
14:17:03 We have already completed part of the work on that
14:17:05 lake, with respect to putting in a storm sectors on
14:17:09 the northeast corner of the lake, and some in the main
14:17:12 We have got money from urban lakes rescue that we are
14:17:15 going to be installing additional controls.
14:17:17 And to the extent that we are going to possibly run
14:17:20 out of money with the urban lakes rescue and we can do
14:17:23 the sediment removal as part of this contract is again
14:17:27 our intent to try to pull funds and overlap as much
14:17:31 external funding as we can to accomplish these
14:17:35 >> In the scenario that looks like, for argument's
14:17:38 sake, if this multi-canal project doesn't go through
14:17:42 for whatever reason, what would happen to Lake Kipling
14:17:47 and the other couple lakes over there?
14:17:49 >> The same project that was intended.
14:17:51 Again, the intent of this is just to take advantage of
14:17:54 mobilizing a contractor once, of combining the work so
14:17:59 that it can all be done more cost effectively.
14:18:01 >> Just to be clear, if this other project didn't go
14:18:07 through, the city on its own using the federal money
14:18:10 and the city money would continue on with the Lake
14:18:12 Kipling and these other lakes, these other two or
14:18:15 three lakes that are over there.
14:18:19 Lake Kipling.
14:18:20 >> They were outlined.
14:18:22 We have prepared a map showing the location that is we
14:18:25 would do the work.
14:18:26 >> But it would continue regardless?
14:18:29 >> Different project, yes.
14:18:30 >> Mr. Caetano.
14:18:32 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: What Mr. Grandoff brought up, I
14:18:35 think we deserve an opinion from our attorney, instead
14:18:39 of Mr -- our public works man here.
14:18:43 I make a motion that we have our city attorney --
14:18:47 excuse me, sir.
14:18:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, council, but my suggestion
14:18:53 is to hold that suggestion to a regular meeting.
14:18:59 >> The public comment now and let them know in the
14:19:01 form of a motion next week.
14:19:03 But at least let the legal department know there's a
14:19:05 consensus of council.
14:19:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We can do this.
14:19:10 >> We can't ask for an opinion?
14:19:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes, we can.
14:19:14 We had public comment and that opens the door to allow
14:19:16 that's what Marty said at the beginning of the
14:19:22 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: My motion is within two weeks
14:19:24 have legal counsel come back with an opinion, should
14:19:26 the port authority be paying for this?
14:19:28 This gentleman said that it was the open runways and
14:19:31 not the small canals.
14:19:33 So let's get a legal opinion and find out where we are
14:19:37 I'll tell you what.
14:19:38 I am not going to support the dredging of the canals,
14:19:41 because the city brings in enough money, and if they
14:19:45 spent their money prudently threw the years they could
14:19:48 be doing their dredging of the canals.
14:19:51 [ Applause ]
14:19:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I saw legal council flinch when you
14:19:59 said two weeks.
14:20:00 Jan, do you need more than two weeks?
14:20:02 We want to be fair to legal.
14:20:10 >> Just a report.
14:20:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just wanted to be respectful of
14:20:14 your time.
14:20:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Mulhern.
14:20:20 >>MARY MULHERN: I have a question on the motion.
14:20:21 >>GWEN MILLER: If you have a question.
14:20:26 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm sorry.
14:20:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion?
14:20:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I want to know what basis are we
14:20:32 voting on a motion when I thought it was outlined we
14:20:36 would take no action in our workshops.
14:20:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Basically that no action which is the
14:20:48 subject of the workshop shall be taken unless the
14:20:50 public is afforded the opportunity to comment before
14:20:56 action, and councilman Dingfelder made the point that
14:20:58 council did take public comment, therefore --
14:21:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's in the rule?
14:21:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's exactly the rule.
14:21:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: But the issue is, we have convoluted
14:21:13 this whole process.
14:21:14 I'm going to tell you that now.
14:21:15 And we outlined these workshops not to take public
14:21:18 comment, it's the opportunity for staff to address
14:21:20 this council and back and forth, it not like the
14:21:24 public wasn't going to have the opportunity to speak.
14:21:26 They have had plenty of opportunities to speak on this
14:21:28 issue and we voted on it the first thing this morning,
14:21:30 we come back, behind some of the council members were
14:21:34 out and taking another vote.
14:21:35 That's -- you have got to be consistent.
14:21:37 And when you are not consistent, it creates problems,
14:21:39 and it creates havoc in the whole process.
14:21:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Question on the motion.
14:21:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena?
14:21:46 >> Call the question.
14:21:47 >>THE CLERK: May I verify one thing?
14:21:50 Two weeks would be November 8th.
14:21:52 Next regular session will be November 15th, one
14:21:55 week later.
14:21:57 >>GWEN MILLER: November 15th.
14:21:59 We have a motion and second.
14:22:00 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
14:22:01 Opposed, Nay.
14:22:03 >>THE CLERK: Scott, no.
14:22:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Mulhern.
14:22:07 >>MARY MULHERN: I had some questions for Mr. Daignault
14:22:10 or Mr -- I saw the entire presentation, had it
14:22:16 presented to me by Mr. Walter and I didn't see
14:22:20 anything in there about an RFQ.
14:22:23 I want to understand where that came from.
14:22:30 >>> Because of the money, the 1.3 million grant
14:22:32 funding that we don't have but have had the grant
14:22:35 approved for, we initiated some action to hire a firm
14:22:42 to start doing some engineering, the environmental
14:22:44 engineering that would be necessary to do dredging,
14:22:47 whether it was Lake Kipling or anyplace else.
14:22:50 We initiated the process to select the firm.
14:22:54 Then once we selected a firm, we began negotiations.
14:22:57 So the RFP was to advertise to consultants that we
14:23:02 wanted to have them let us know that they were
14:23:04 interested so we could consider them.
14:23:06 That process has been stopped.
14:23:07 >> That's where I needed to know but I was curious
14:23:14 when it got started why it hasn't come to us first.
14:23:16 >>> We come to council when we have a contract to be
14:23:26 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I was not on this council when
14:23:27 the money was allocated for Lake Kipling.
14:23:30 I remember watching it at home.
14:23:32 What happened to that money?
14:23:33 It specifically said Lake Kipling.
14:23:37 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Again, we consider and go over it
14:23:39 We have the attorney here to give you an opinion on
14:23:41 that grant.
14:23:42 That grant application enumerates lots of water
14:23:49 bodies, enumerates lots of water bodies.
14:23:52 We have had approval.
14:23:54 We have not yet met all of the criteria to receive
14:23:57 that money.
14:23:59 That money has not come to the city.
14:24:02 As chuck was explaining, our process, everyone our
14:24:07 process of selecting any firm did not meet their
14:24:14 criteria so we had to stop and back up to go through
14:24:17 it again meeting the federal criteria for the
14:24:21 selection of an engineering firm.
14:24:22 >> How much was that grant?
14:24:25 >> The grant is for $1.3 million and it requires a $1
14:24:29 million match from the city.
14:24:40 >>MARY MULHERN: You have to go back to the -- is it
14:24:43 the EPA that's awarding the grant?
14:24:45 >>> Correct.
14:24:46 >> Okay.
14:24:46 And show how you are going to use the money, right?
14:24:49 >>> We have to demonstrate that we meet all of their
14:24:53 >> Is part of the problem that you are suggesting
14:24:55 other uses of the money as opposed to what it was
14:25:03 I would like to suggest we all read all the backup on
14:25:06 Because, again, I saw the presentation yesterday.
14:25:09 And I've also read the backup.
14:25:11 And it isn't clear to me that we can switch as Mr.
14:25:19 Caetano was saying, I know you're saying that we can.
14:25:24 But I would encourage all of my colleagues to read all
14:25:27 the backup.
14:25:28 Because it's not clear to me.
14:25:31 But I do want to hear from you.
14:25:32 >> We certainly go by the city attorney's opinion.
14:25:48 >> JAN MCLEAN: I actually have the backup, as you
14:25:48 said, with regard to the project when it was
14:25:48 submitted, and there is correspondence thereafter.
14:25:52 As was indicated earlier, the project title does say
14:25:56 sediment removal from the estuaries of the head waters
14:25:59 of the canal.
14:25:59 Then you go through the entire project proposal and it
14:26:05 seeks to removal of sediment, and over 13 estuaries
14:26:08 and natural man made canals.
14:26:10 And in the entirety of the document, it's been my
14:26:13 opinion consistently throughout this that I have been
14:26:16 involved in this over a year and a half that the city
14:26:20 has the option of choosing which of these areas that
14:26:25 it would implement the project in.
14:26:33 It doesn't vice-president to go in a priority order.
14:26:36 It's indicated and listed by examples, which as you
14:26:39 read it, it says the affected areas include.
14:26:42 Therefore, it would be -- identified areas would be
14:26:47 like examples for the 13 areas that were proposed in
14:26:50 the project.
14:26:53 >> So your question being can we switch from Lake
14:26:56 Kipling to other canals?
14:26:59 There's no switching involved.
14:27:00 There's an identification as to what and where the
14:27:03 city will use the money for.
14:27:05 >>> Well, while we are naming particular bodies of
14:27:11 water and say estuaries first, I do not feel, because
14:27:14 I have read that over many times, and to me it doesn't
14:27:17 seem that it's necessarily the conclusion.
14:27:30 It seems it's fairly clear, in that if it's not
14:27:33 absolutely delineated in there,.
14:27:50 >> it says the affected areas include.
14:27:52 Therefore it would mean than these wouldn't be
14:27:54 inclusive within the 13 areas.
14:27:57 >> So would you make certain, wouldn't you make
14:28:00 certain that those were included in the work you do?
14:28:02 >> They may or may not be.
14:28:04 Because if you have a sum of money, a finite sum of
14:28:09 money and the proposed project, it's implemented in
14:28:12 whatever order the city intends for it to be, are
14:28:16 still complying with the concepts and the provisions
14:28:19 that you apply for, for the money.
14:28:24 >>MARY MULHERN: I have that document in here
14:28:26 somewhere, but the other backup in the application for
14:28:30 the grant and the communication with them is this is
14:28:34 supposed to be for environmental purposes.
14:28:37 It's not about creating navigable man-made canals.
14:28:42 It's talking about the health of the water, and the
14:28:46 And considering it's the Environmental Protection
14:28:48 Agency, I think that makes a strong argument that at
14:28:51 least at the beginning we would be using that money
14:28:55 for the estuaries, and the health of the estuaries in
14:29:02 the bay and the canals.
14:29:04 You know, if there are natural canals, the canals
14:29:16 >>> Mr. Daignault was just indicating there were some
14:29:20 overheads included in the presentation that would have
14:29:21 answered some of these questions.
14:29:23 The way that the project was proposed to the federal
14:29:28 government, in order to receive the money, indicates
14:29:31 that we will do this work within man-made canals, as
14:29:36 well as estuaries and natural canals.
14:29:43 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Again, Ms. Mulhern, at the
14:29:45 beginning of my presentation, I indicated that our use
14:29:47 of that fund would be the same, whether or not the
14:29:51 canal dredging went forward.
14:29:54 That money is intended to be used for environmental
14:29:58 enhancement only.
14:30:02 The canal dredging is to go beyond that to
14:30:05 navigational capability.
14:30:06 So again, I'm not sure why this continues to be a
14:30:15 >>MARY MULHERN: With the idea of the dredging and it
14:30:18 seems to me that at least the people who are here, who
14:30:22 are in favor of the dredging, see this as you
14:30:25 committing that money and the matching grant from the
14:30:29 city toward dredging canals first.
14:30:33 And guaranteeing that.
14:30:34 And that's part of the reason why they are willing to
14:30:39 accept and affect them on their canals.
14:30:44 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: I'm certainly sorry that we were
14:30:46 not allowed to make the presentation today.
14:30:49 >>MARY MULHERN: I heard the presentation yesterday.
14:30:51 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: If we had made the presentation we
14:30:54 would have answered many of these questions.
14:30:55 >>MARY MULHERN: No, because I did hear the
14:30:58 presentation and it didn't answer these questions.
14:30:59 If it had, I wouldn't be bringing them up.
14:31:01 >>> Again they are addressed in the presentation.
14:31:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
14:31:09 The way I understand it -- and I just want to try and
14:31:12 simplify it as much as possible because I asked the
14:31:14 same questions before as well.
14:31:16 Steve, the way I understand it is basically, if we
14:31:20 look at A plus B equals C, okay?
14:31:25 We look at A plus B equals C, A, okay, would be the
14:31:30 $1.3 million we get from the feds, plus the city
14:31:34 That's to do the environmental work.
14:31:37 B is the supplemental work, which is being proposed by
14:31:40 the neighborhoods that want the canal dredging.
14:31:42 That's to do the navigational part of it.
14:31:45 And then if you add A plus B, you get to C, which is
14:31:48 the final product.
14:31:50 You completed the environmental work, and you have
14:31:52 done the dredging, and, thereof, you get to C, which
14:31:56 is a combination of the fact that you have done your
14:31:58 environmental stuff, and you have dredged, and you
14:32:00 have got a better product at the end of the day.
14:32:02 That's the way I see it.
14:32:04 Now, if we don't do B, all right, then obviously we
14:32:07 don't get to C, but we still will accomplish A with
14:32:11 the two or 2.3 million, whatever it is 2-point
14:32:14 something million dollar that we have.
14:32:19 That was my question earlier.
14:32:21 It will be less because we have less to work with.
14:32:24 The canals won't get dredged to a navigational depth
14:32:27 as I saw over at plant high, and during my lunch
14:32:31 meeting as well, okay, but we'll just accomplish A, if
14:32:34 we don't vote for B and get to C, we will still
14:32:37 accomplish A.
14:32:38 We will have that money.
14:32:39 We'll do that.
14:32:41 But -- Ellie, don't start clapping yet.
14:32:45 Because if we vote for B, we will still spend the
14:32:47 money for A, okay?
14:32:49 We will spend the citizens' money for B.
14:32:52 And we'll get to C.
14:32:53 So I'm not saying which way we are going.
14:32:55 I'm not saying which Aye I'm going.
14:32:57 But I think it's -- to me it's not that difficult.
14:33:02 It's not that complicated.
14:33:03 And one way or the other, we will spend that federal
14:33:05 money and we will match it with a million dollars of
14:33:08 city money.
14:33:08 Regardless of what the other decision is going to be.
14:33:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Now, we need to come up with a day for
14:33:19 the public hearing?
14:33:21 >>> Yes.
14:33:21 It was my hope at least council would have that
14:33:23 conversation about the Tuesday evening, December
14:33:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think the reason I met with Mr.
14:33:33 Walters, the reason he was suggesting a Tuesday is
14:33:36 because we have -- this is going to take a long
14:33:40 We don't want to tack it onto a zoning meeting.
14:33:43 It's worthy of its own evening.
14:33:45 And because of the holidays coming up, we miss a
14:33:47 couple of weeks.
14:33:50 I personally would be supportive of Tuesday.
14:33:57 >>GWEN MILLER: You got all choked up?
14:34:01 Ms. Mulhern.
14:34:04 >>MARY MULHERN: I would like to separate if indeed
14:34:10 what Mr. Daignault is telling us, A, boils down to A,
14:34:16 I think that we should be considering that as a
14:34:18 council and voting on that.
14:34:21 And that the concept of assessment for dredging is a
14:34:29 separate issue.
14:34:29 I would like to see them separated.
14:34:31 And I would like to see us address the grant and the
14:34:36 use of that money first, and separately since we had
14:34:40 that grant for how many years?
14:34:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We have already done that.
14:34:44 We have already done that.
14:34:48 >> Why hasn't the work been done?
14:34:50 >> We are working on it.
14:34:51 >> We have a public hearing on it, too, so we can
14:34:55 discuss it on a Tuesday.
14:34:58 >> The public hearing is finished discussion dredging.
14:35:02 >> I'm not talking about --
14:35:04 >> A, we already voted on it.
14:35:06 We already got the money.
14:35:08 We're going to do the improvements --
14:35:11 >>MARY MULHERN: Why are we talking about canals at the
14:35:14 same time then?
14:35:15 >>GWEN MILLER: You can't speak.
14:35:17 >>MARY MULHERN: You are talking about canals.
14:35:19 >>CHAIRMAN: Put your hands down.
14:35:20 You can't speak.
14:35:23 That's why we are going to have the public hearing.
14:35:24 >>> The reason these are being put together is because
14:35:27 we have to prepare the environmental documents.
14:35:30 We have to get the permits and do the engineering.
14:35:33 And if we have them as separate projects, we lose much
14:35:36 of the economy of scale of having a combined project.
14:35:40 That is why we are proposing to do them at the same
14:35:44 >>MARY MULHERN: Right.
14:35:45 But are you using the grant money to do the
14:35:47 engineering for the canal dredging?
14:35:50 >>> Yes, but it's minimal in comparison.
14:35:52 Because you are basically -- it should be one permit.
14:35:57 If you do them separately it will be two permits.
14:36:00 You only have to prepare one permit application if
14:36:02 it's one project.
14:36:04 Every time that you break this down into a smaller
14:36:06 set, it's doubling the work every time.
14:36:10 Even though it's basically the same amount of process,
14:36:13 time, money to make each application and so on.
14:36:18 So the intent is they have the economy of scale of
14:36:20 doing both projects at the same time.
14:36:22 >> Okay.
14:36:23 But then you are spending that money that was
14:36:25 earmarked for something, or anticipating spending it
14:36:29 or spending the city's matching money on that study,
14:36:31 and my question is, how much is that going to cost?
14:36:35 And I think if we are going to have, you know, this
14:36:37 public hearing, I want -- I think that we should know
14:36:41 how much the decide --
14:36:44 >> It's not a study.
14:36:46 Actually it's a report.
14:36:54 >> Anytime they use federal money.
14:36:55 That was in the schedule that I gave you yesterday
14:36:58 That scope of work will come to you in January.
14:37:08 >>CHAIRMAN: Ms. Saul-Sena, was that a motion you made?
14:37:11 >> I was going to clarify that.
14:37:12 My motion is we hold a meeting, I believe on -- a
14:37:15 public hearing -- Tuesday the 18th.
14:37:23 >>GWEN MILLER: 5:30?
14:37:26 >>> It will come back to you in a resolution.
14:37:28 Again we were just looking for some consensus we were
14:37:30 going to go with that.
14:37:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, I'll second it because you
14:37:36 have to dissect and see what the motion is.
14:37:38 The motion is to hold the public hearing.
14:37:40 The motion is to continue the democratic process that
14:37:43 we have started today.
14:37:49 It's not a motion in favor or opposition.
14:37:53 And this time we'll have more people and more time
14:37:55 because it will be set aside as a Tuesday night to do
14:37:58 So that's why I am going to support the motion without
14:38:00 any confusion in terms of what I'm supporting.
14:38:02 >> We have a motion and a second.
14:38:04 Question on the motion, Ms. Mulhern?
14:38:07 >> I feel like I'm talking to a wall here.
14:38:10 My point is that, John, we are going to have public
14:38:13 hearing, and it's going to be this -- if we can
14:38:17 separate the two of an environmental grant and then a
14:38:31 tax assessment.
14:38:32 It just seems like two huge issues and I think it
14:38:35 would make more sense to separate them.
14:38:36 That's all I am going to say.
14:38:38 We can vote.
14:38:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me just clarify.
14:38:41 By holding the public hearing and having a vote at the
14:38:43 end of that evening, okay, the vote at the end of that
14:38:46 evening will be, are we moving forward or are we oh
14:38:50 Basically it's a vote on the if we vote on B and B
14:38:58 passes then we are moving forward with A and B
14:39:00 together to head towards C, next year.
14:39:05 If B dies, then we move forward with A, because chuck,
14:39:09 he's got $2 million that we have to do something with
14:39:12 and we should do something with.
14:39:20 It will be one vote that will be determinative of
14:39:22 which direction we go.
14:39:23 >>CHAIRMAN: We have a motion.
14:39:24 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
14:39:26 Opposed, Nay.
14:39:29 >> Nay.
14:39:30 >>GWEN MILLER: You bring the resolution back to us.
14:39:31 >> Yes, ma'am.
14:39:37 We now move to our next workshop, item 24, chapter 27.
14:39:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you for your patience.
14:39:49 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
14:40:18 >> Last week I sent through the document of the
14:40:21 proposed changes to chapter 27.
14:40:24 Also, you have a 4-page document with a minor change
14:40:28 to chapter 22.
14:40:38 I also handed out three extra copies in case you
14:40:43 didn't have it printed out.
14:40:46 If I could ask a question because it was raised in the
14:40:50 last workshop.
14:40:51 I had planned on asking for two separate motions from
14:40:55 And I understand that public comment would have had to
14:40:57 have taken place based on your new rules.
14:41:00 But the first motion would have been to request to
14:41:03 transmit the document for the Planning Commission, and
14:41:05 the second one would be to direct legal to draft a
14:41:08 resolution to set the public hearing.
14:41:09 I don't know --
14:41:11 >> We can ask for public comment.
14:41:13 [ Laughter ]
14:41:16 >>> I live in the city.
14:41:17 I could get up and speak.
14:41:19 But if you are barred from making those motions
14:41:23 because of your rules, I would ask for a place holder
14:41:25 next week to have those two motions made.
14:41:27 I don't want to violate the rules.
14:41:29 >>CHAIRMAN: A few minutes ago:
14:41:35 >>> The small document that you got that's related to
14:41:37 chapter 22, this is a quick insert item, this
14:41:43 What is changing in this document is how the vacating
14:41:47 petition is filed.
14:41:48 Right now, it's filed with the city clerk.
14:41:51 And what this document changes is that it's filed,
14:41:54 as -- with land development which we are the one that
14:41:57 is process it.
14:41:58 It makes sense.
14:41:58 It's really a correction to that process.
14:42:00 I would be able to transmit as well.
14:42:03 If you go to tab 1, as I sent it over and this is the
14:42:07 way the document will be, as I described the last time
14:42:10 we went through this, the table of contents, and each
14:42:14 section is going to be changed, has a tab for the
14:42:19 Tab 1 is a minor correction, the solid waste language.
14:42:23 They really changed -- this is what they changed --
14:42:27 where it says an approved serviceable location for a
14:42:30 solid waste container it says a serviceable and safely
14:42:33 acceptable approved location.
14:42:36 It's just a change in the way it's worded actually.
14:42:39 And noting on 27-132 that for all new containers,
14:42:44 screening can enclosures, there's a 4-foot paved
14:42:47 walkway so you can walk to the enclosure so it is not
14:42:49 dirt or torn-up grass or anything, it is a clear
14:42:53 pathway to it.
14:42:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I jump in at each section?
14:42:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you want to finish or interrupt you?
14:43:02 >>> That's completely up to you.
14:43:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: On the screen enclosures, one thing
14:43:10 I notice, and I'm wondering if we can perhaps put it
14:43:13 in the code to give the department a little more
14:43:15 authority, is the maintenance of the enclosures.
14:43:18 Because what happens is, yeah, they build a nice
14:43:22 And then within a year or two the door is hanging
14:43:24 down, you know, and lopsided, or the door is gone, or,
14:43:28 you know, it knots maintained.
14:43:30 And maybe solid waste doesn't feel that's their role.
14:43:34 But I think it should be their role.
14:43:35 I think it should be a continuing obligation and not
14:43:38 just something that maybe code enforcement would do,
14:43:40 which they wouldn't do.
14:43:43 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Solid waste actually has their own
14:43:46 code enforcement officers as well to go out for
14:43:50 property maintenance and discovery issues and
14:43:52 I can certainly check with them to see if they site
14:43:56 people on the condition of their enclosures, and if
14:44:00 there needs to be any tweaks.
14:44:01 I'm not sure that it would actually fall under 27,
14:44:06 property maintenance issues are held in chapter 19 and
14:44:09 then chapter 26 is the solid waste chapter so we may
14:44:12 be able to make some tweaks to those, too.
14:44:15 That's where their authorities fall.
14:44:17 >> What I was thinking about is on this 27-132 which
14:44:20 is the solid waste enclosure box, maybe there should
14:44:26 be a statutory obligation in that provision that says,
14:44:30 you know, it will continue to be maintained, so it's
14:44:35 an obligation on the property owner here, and then
14:44:38 that way, how they enforce it doesn't matter much to
14:44:43 me because that's administration.
14:44:44 But maybe we can assist by putting something here in
14:44:47 27-132 to just make sure that the property owner knows
14:44:51 that it's a continuing obligation to maintain that
14:44:55 That enclosure box.
14:45:03 >> It's not a big deal to add --
14:45:06 >> Not a big deal?
14:45:08 >> We have that kind of phraseology in chapter 13 for
14:45:11 maintenance and landscape, property maintenance.
14:45:13 We have typical statements like that throughout the
14:45:16 >> I can point to about three or four examples around
14:45:20 town, people just don't maintain them.
14:45:25 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Okay.
14:45:26 Tab 2.
14:45:27 And what you will notice is first several tabs really
14:45:30 are minor tweaks to code.
14:45:32 I should be able to get through them pretty quickly.
14:45:35 Bonus density regulations.
14:45:37 And this is not CBD periphery.
14:45:43 This is standard bonus and density regulations
14:45:43 required by the comp plan, and I can explain the
14:45:45 difference if you want me to.
14:45:45 This was already in the code.
14:45:48 And all it does, before it said percent of medium
14:45:53 And all we did was correct the language that is area
14:45:57 medium income to follow the HUD standard, is really
14:45:59 the addition of one word.
14:46:07 Tab 3.
14:46:09 Commercial review.
14:46:12 It's just a correction.
14:46:13 It's shifting the duty from the director to the zoning
14:46:15 administrator which is actually codifying the process
14:46:17 that we actually follow for commercial review.
14:46:24 Tab 4.
14:46:26 This is a correction based on the last revision that
14:46:31 we did that changed the zoning process, as you know,
14:46:35 and one of the requirements in there for the site plan
14:46:39 was that it had a signature line for City Council
14:46:44 chair, city clerk, and manager.
14:46:47 We changed that to the ZA zoning administrator for
14:46:50 certification because now there's a certification
14:46:52 But it was an oversight the last time.
14:46:55 Tap 5, lot width regulations.
14:46:59 The lot width regulations were changed two cycles ago,
14:47:03 and the way that we measure lot width, the way we
14:47:06 measured is actually worked out.
14:47:08 We had the wrong process acknowledged in here, though.
14:47:11 What we did, unfortunately, in that last change, was
14:47:15 if there's some kind of variance needed to a lot width
14:47:18 we had it going to the Variance Review Board or ARC
14:47:22 which if you are not meeting the lot width it should
14:47:25 be rezoning so it's just a change in procedure to
14:47:28 correct it.
14:47:31 If you have got a substandard lot.
14:47:37 Tab 6.
14:47:38 The appeal method regulation.
14:47:42 This is an appeal of a zoning administrator decision
14:47:44 on a special use 1.
14:47:47 I come every couple weeks or couple months and once in
14:47:50 a while there's an appeal.
14:47:51 And what you are deciding is whether or not to waive
14:47:53 certain criteria that I can't.
14:47:57 It was not technically in the code that way.
14:48:01 The process is a little open ended.
14:48:03 We followed it and processed it that way.
14:48:06 But the changes here are really to acknowledge what we
14:48:09 do in process.
14:48:10 Just to make sure that it's tick technically correct
14:48:13 in the code.
14:48:13 And that's really what this does is to allow you to
14:48:16 waive those criteria.
14:48:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Does it change anything in terms of
14:48:24 your ability to waive?
14:48:26 >>> No.
14:48:27 I'm not allowed to waive any of those.
14:48:30 Unless you want me to.
14:48:32 >> Won't go there.
14:48:33 >>> In tab 7, central business district regulations,
14:48:37 we worked with the partnership on this and urban
14:48:42 design came up with some graphics for us.
14:48:45 These are some pretty good compromises, we think,
14:48:48 dealing with downtown development.
14:48:57 >> One of the things we discussed is creating a fund
14:48:59 so people don't always have to build structured
14:49:02 They can give money into a transit fund and that would
14:49:04 be instead of building all the structured parking.
14:49:07 And I thought it was coming up in this batch but I
14:49:11 need reassurance it will come up in the next batch.
14:49:14 >>> We are working on most of the parking issues for
14:49:16 >> Great.
14:49:17 Because I don't believe that given the that we are
14:49:20 going to be committed to transit that we shouldn't
14:49:22 keep requiring people to build all the parking.
14:49:25 >>> Thanks.
14:49:26 No problem.
14:49:27 The first provision, standard practice throughout the
14:49:30 city per the code, is we are allowed to consider
14:49:34 off-site parking for commercial uses.
14:49:36 It has to be within 300 feet with a lighted,
14:49:40 attractive, marked pedestrian pathway.
14:49:43 Down we are looking at extending that from 300 feet to
14:49:46 1,000 feet.
14:49:47 People tend to walk a couple of blocks, which is
14:49:51 I personally walked three blocks to get here which is
14:49:54 about 800 feet.
14:49:55 Extending that to 1,000 feet in the Channel District
14:50:00 and the CBD, actually the partnership -- that was a
14:50:05 recommendation from Mr. Linder.
14:50:08 From public open space, you will note that there are
14:50:11 graphics that Nicole VARY actually did with Laurel
14:50:20 Lee, and two lines ago we increased public open space
14:50:24 from 10% to 15%.
14:50:27 There was a bit of discussion about that.
14:50:32 What we did in here whether it was 10 or 15 or 35%,
14:50:38 the thing is we had no real design requirements of how
14:50:43 and where someone places that public open space, and
14:50:45 what was happening a lot of times is you get two or
14:50:49 five-foot around the building it's not really creating
14:50:53 a true open space where people can congregate.
14:50:56 What we did was, 15% is still the basic standard.
14:51:00 But if you put in the certain locations.
14:51:05 One aggregate area along an entire frontage.
14:51:16 Along the frontage, arterial right-of-way.
14:51:23 That's the 12% requirement.
14:51:26 However, if you follow the old pattern, you scatter it
14:51:30 throughout the block and it really not a true usable
14:51:33 public open space.
14:51:35 You are required 15.
14:51:36 We are essentially giving you a break to create
14:51:38 something that is usable for the public.
14:51:43 Some of these three options.
14:51:46 At 15% you pretty much do it anyway you want.
14:51:49 What happens a lot of times is it doesn't leave it a
14:51:51 true usable space.
14:52:01 The other design change for downtown was to consider
14:52:03 100% compact spaces versus 65.
14:52:06 And we had a discussion with Greg mender actually
14:52:11 brought this up and we talked engineering with him and
14:52:13 he laid out certain floor plates with columns that are
14:52:17 required from the large pilings that have to go and
14:52:19 support these buildings.
14:52:20 And oftentimes, the spaces only are eight or eight and
14:52:23 a half feet wide to accommodate enough -- between the
14:52:27 columns, and then the 24-foot is about all you can fit
14:52:30 because our blocks are so small.
14:52:32 It's pure geometry.
14:52:34 There's just not enough space to put in enough
14:52:37 standard space.
14:52:38 You wind up with a lot of leftover space that you
14:52:40 can't do anything with.
14:52:41 So we felt it more appealing to provide the spaces if
14:52:49 you can in the floor plate.
14:52:51 Finally, the establishment of motorcycle parking.
14:52:54 Motorcycle, that term is actually defined in the
14:52:57 transportation code.
14:52:59 But creating a motorcycle parking space, which could
14:53:01 be used for a scooter also, is a standard space of 5
14:53:05 by 8 and a lot of larger urban cities actually
14:53:08 accommodate motorcycle parking.
14:53:09 So that would be an addition for us.
14:53:14 Tab 8, parking regulations.
14:53:16 You may remember the case a few months back with
14:53:22 downtown, parts of the discussion was, should there be
14:53:24 a lesser requirement or different requirement for
14:53:26 senior housing?
14:53:27 And it was one space per unit is what was discuss.
14:53:30 So we put it in under residential uses, senior housing
14:53:33 projects for persons 55 or older that qualify for HUD
14:53:37 assistance, which is one instead of two and that's
14:53:41 anywhere in the city.
14:53:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm thinking, isn't that even a
14:53:51 I mean, it seems like why are we talking about a half
14:53:54 a space, or quarter space?
14:53:58 Maybe a half just to start with.
14:54:00 Because it would seem like if you make less parking
14:54:04 required you are going to reduce the cost, and make it
14:54:07 more affordable for seniors.
14:54:09 I would think a lot of seniors, now, I don't know,
14:54:13 just seems like a lot of them are going to go into the
14:54:15 housing and not necessarily be driving.
14:54:17 Or if they are driving, I don't know, what do you
14:54:20 >>> A couple of projects, we had the story on a few
14:54:23 years back, the apartment complex that went back at
14:54:25 the old hospital site and that was one of the projects
14:54:28 that qualified for an active senior residence under
14:54:31 this criteria, and they had said that they averaged
14:54:33 about one space per unit, because under this type of
14:54:37 program, they are considered active seniors and they
14:54:40 may work still at this point.
14:54:42 And they typically will have one car per unit.
14:54:45 Because they are still at least one person, either
14:54:48 still going to work or one car that's servicing the
14:54:52 I believe, I can't remember if David Smith said that
14:54:54 there would still be cars at that other facility.
14:54:56 I thought that was his testimony.
14:54:58 But, I mean, that's what we heard from the people that
14:55:02 are doing these, is they still have a car generally,
14:55:04 at least one.
14:55:05 Some of them do say public transportation.
14:55:07 But they certainly don't have two cars.
14:55:08 They usually --
14:55:10 >> Well, we are going the right direction for sure.
14:55:12 And how about in the central business district?
14:55:15 It seems like do we really need --you know, need so
14:55:21 much there?
14:55:21 >> Well, downtown is one per unit anyway.
14:55:28 >> But we could consider reducing it as well in the
14:55:33 senior direct.
14:55:34 >>> For seniors?
14:55:36 >>GWEN MILLER: What about visitors?
14:55:37 >>> The visitor still applies, 1 --
14:55:44 >> And you have employee parking?
14:55:46 >> For senior residences? No.
14:55:48 It's still an apartment complex.
14:55:50 You're thinking of a living assisted facility which is
14:55:52 They have personal services that are given to them.
14:55:55 >> So this doesn't include a --
14:55:59 >>> No. That's a different use. This is a
14:56:00 multi-family use but mostly senior.
14:56:04 >> Okay.
14:56:05 >> Move on.
14:56:05 >>> The next tab, parking regulation.
14:56:08 Oh, sorry.
14:56:09 Tab 9, Kennedy Boulevard overlay regulation.
14:56:12 This actually came from Wilson Stair.
14:56:19 Wanted the addition besides the live oak tree to be
14:56:22 able to plant like a holly and Chinese elm to give a
14:56:25 little variety to the corridor.
14:56:28 That's a minor correction.
14:56:30 Tab 10 is the crematory regulation.
14:56:34 We have been keeping aware of the public workshops
14:56:37 they have been having with the EPC.
14:56:38 Nothing yet has changed in the county regulations.
14:56:42 But what you have before you are some changes to ours
14:56:53 What you will see here is before crematorium was a
14:56:55 special use 2 in the CG district.
14:56:58 We have eliminated it from the CG district.
14:57:01 You won't see them popping up on Hillsborough or
14:57:03 Kennedy or any other street that has the CG district.
14:57:07 The CI district that used to be a straight permitted
14:57:10 use, as well as the IG district, we changed that to an
14:57:13 accessory use.
14:57:14 And as an accessory use, it is limited to one
14:57:20 combustion unit or incinerator which is the term used
14:57:23 in the state code, and those shall be within 500 feet
14:57:29 of a national or local historic district.
14:57:32 The other interesting piece that we put in was that
14:57:36 all loading and unloading and parking areas shall be
14:57:39 screened from the public right-of-way and abutting
14:57:42 properties, within W an architecturally finished
14:57:45 6-foot masonry wall, as long as it meets the
14:57:48 visibility requirements.
14:57:49 So think about loading and unloading.
14:57:51 We wanted to make sure that nobody saw what was going
14:57:55 on in that parking area in the back.
14:57:58 Now, as far as what it is as a permitted use, the IH
14:58:01 district is the only district where it will be a
14:58:03 straight permitted use, but there are requirements for
14:58:07 In the new section 27-140, they also have a 500-foot
14:58:11 separational requirement, local and national historic
14:58:15 They also have to have a 6-foot masonry wall around
14:58:17 their parking loading and unloading and they are
14:58:20 limited to two combustion units.
14:58:24 So you get one more.
14:58:25 What you won't have is facility with 10 or 15, a mass
14:58:29 crematorium, if you will.
14:58:31 But those are the changes that we are proposing for
14:58:33 crematoriums at this time.
14:58:34 If the EPC at some point changes any of their
14:58:37 requirements or if the county looks to change any of
14:58:40 theirs, we may revisit.
14:58:42 This is where we are so far on it.
14:58:45 Tab 11, waterfront lot regulations.
14:59:00 We established a 30-foot set back to the city limits.
14:59:05 Impervious surface area of that waterfront yard that's
14:59:07 created is limited to 30%, so you won't have an entire
14:59:12 paved backyard, straight to the river.
14:59:15 There is an increase required setback for accessory
14:59:18 structures, which is typically 3 to 5 feet now
14:59:21 depending on the yard, we are increasing that to 30
14:59:23 feet, also.
14:59:25 And then pools and pool deck setbacks along the river
14:59:28 are being increased from 5 feet to 15 feet to keep
14:59:31 them off the water as well.
14:59:33 Now, the piece that's not addressed here is the
14:59:40 chemicals, fertilizers.
14:59:41 I'm going to be working with Steve seacrest on that.
14:59:54 Something has been lobbied up at the state and it has
14:59:57 changed, we are will go into that, there's a very
15:00:01 large lobby of chemical fertilizer companies so we
15:00:05 have to find out whether or not we can regulate that.
15:00:07 But we do have Sarasota's regulations and we are
15:00:10 looking at them.
15:00:12 If we could skip to tab 13 if that's possible really
15:00:16 I want to go back to tab 12.
15:00:18 That's where I need it.
15:00:19 A real decision.
15:00:21 Tab 13 is alcoholic beverage sales regulations.
15:00:24 And on the summary page what I put on here was a
15:00:27 motion you made at the last workshop, and basically
15:00:29 the motion that you made, we followed that motion, and
15:00:31 we made those changes.
15:00:35 The only thing that is administrative decision as far
15:00:38 as alcohol, beverage special use permits, are the
15:00:43 temporary alcohol and beverage sales permits, and
15:00:47 anything within a shopping center.
15:00:53 It has to be 250 feet away from residential district.
15:00:58 There is an interesting catch there for that.
15:01:06 >>MARY MULHERN: The shopping center thing, what was
15:01:08 then reasoning for that?
15:01:10 >> I remember it was John that talked about it.
15:01:14 You brought up international plaza. You had to keep
15:01:17 seeing the wet zoning for international plaza. When
15:01:22 the parking outside of it, why do you have to do that
15:01:25 and why can't it be administrative approval?
15:01:29 >> We are making it easier.
15:01:31 >>> For the large shopping centers, yes.
15:01:33 And already in the current code for waivers to be
15:01:35 allowed so we used that same number.
15:01:38 That's a pretty big shopping center.
15:01:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Every time they changed names and
15:01:42 had a new owner, it was kind of like --
15:01:47 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Yeah.
15:01:48 Basically, you can just read through that on your own,
15:01:51 the changes.
15:01:51 You have already read them before and we made the
15:01:54 changes you directed at the last workshop.
15:01:56 Tab 12 is the larger discussion. This is vendor
15:01:59 We talked about it a couple of years ago, and never
15:02:02 really went anywhere.
15:02:05 The bottom line is right now we need a decision one
15:02:09 way or the other.
15:02:10 Either we prohibit them in the city or we allow them
15:02:12 across the board with certain regulations, or we allow
15:02:15 them only in certain locations with certain
15:02:19 What you have before you, there's a couple vendors.
15:02:26 There's an annual vendor, a special event vendor that
15:02:29 ties to City of Tampa special event, there's a
15:02:32 seasonal vendor, like a pumpkin salesperson or
15:02:36 Christmas tree salesperson.
15:02:38 There's a sports entertainment vendor, which are
15:02:40 typically the one as round ice house, or St. Pete
15:02:46 Times Forum, or the Raymond James stadium.
15:02:50 And then Ybor City vendors, which are not permitted
15:02:54 unless there is a special event.
15:02:56 What you have are the regulations for them being
15:03:00 processed as a special use 1, administrative review
15:03:04 and approval.
15:03:04 We do it now based on an interpretation that was made
15:03:08 a few years back, it's a fairly loose process, on the
15:03:12 fee schedule, we charge for that, but we don't charge
15:03:15 for them right now.
15:03:17 And what we really need is some guidance from council,
15:03:22 whether or not we really want these to occur around
15:03:25 the city.
15:03:26 You will note that there are some design guidelines
15:03:37 that were drafted.
15:03:38 These are for annual vendors.
15:03:42 The design standards of what it should look like,
15:03:50 required for certain types of the roof, and where and
15:03:55 how they function.
15:04:00 The other thing the regulations do are restrict where
15:04:03 their vendors can go.
15:04:05 They are limited under number 2, annual vendors are
15:04:11 limited to Hillsborough Avenue, excluding the historic
15:04:16 district, Seminole Heights, Dale Mabry Highway,
15:04:18 Florida Avenue, excluding that portion lying within
15:04:21 Seminole Heights, and Tampa Heights historic district.
15:04:25 Nebraska Avenue excluding that portion lying within
15:04:27 Ybor City.
15:04:30 Adamo drive, excluding Ybor City.
15:04:32 Broadway, from 40th Street to Columbus.
15:04:37 22nd street.
15:04:38 Maritime Boulevard.
15:04:41 Causeway Boulevard.
15:04:42 Armenia between Hillsborough and Watters, Watters
15:04:45 Avenue running from Nebraska, to the city limits.
15:04:48 And Columbus running from 34th to the city limits.
15:04:52 This is a more restricted approach.
15:04:55 But you could have the whole city, any street.
15:04:57 We took a more restricted approach for some of the
15:04:59 larger streets and areas where entrepreneurship and
15:05:03 small businesses might need to be -- like 22nd street.
15:05:07 Kind of like vendor market areas where you would think
15:05:10 that that could occur.
15:05:12 Also places where you have larger parking lots in
15:05:14 front, along the side of larger establishments, where
15:05:18 it would be easy enough to put a cart on the corn for
15:05:22 someone who wants to sell barbecue on the weekend.
15:05:24 And there are restrictions of how large they can be or
15:05:27 hours of operation, how they clean the site and so on.
15:05:30 This is our approach to it.
15:05:32 The regulations have been around for a couple of
15:05:34 I tweaked them this go around.
15:05:37 Really just looking for some guidance on whether or
15:05:39 not we want to allow vendors. If we don't, if we
15:05:42 actually truly want to restrict them, I do need to
15:05:48 tweak the language where they are prohibited.
15:05:50 I don't know that we really want to do that.
15:05:51 But if council decided they do want to restrict them
15:05:54 completely, I would need to tweak the language to
15:05:56 prohibit them everywhere.
15:05:57 And then there's going to be a large code enforcement
15:06:00 action, because they tend to pop up everywhere.
15:06:03 I tend to think -- it's expensive for people to start
15:06:10 It is.
15:06:12 It can be expensive, your inventory can be expensive.
15:06:16 Buying one of these carts and having a place to set up
15:06:18 as long as you are keeping it clean and tidy an it
15:06:20 looks neat, personally, I don't see why not.
15:06:23 But if you are going to allow it, there should be
15:06:26 certain regulations so we can keep them up to a
15:06:28 certain standard, so they are not just proliferating
15:06:31 everywhere all over the city and leaving garbage on
15:06:34 the street.
15:06:34 So we need to have some kind of standard to regular
15:06:37 them -- regulate them.
15:06:39 In larger cities there are areas where you can just
15:06:42 stop and get something.
15:06:45 So I would like some direction.
15:06:51 They can rent a space.
15:06:52 They have to get permission from the property owner to
15:06:54 be there as part of the application.
15:06:56 They can't just show up.
15:06:59 >>MARY MULHERN: My feeling, I agree with you, I think
15:07:01 that we want to allow whatever small businesses are
15:07:04 trying to work, if they are being, you know, clean and
15:07:09 what they are doing is legal, and not interfering with
15:07:12 other small businesses.
15:07:14 I'm just wondering, it seems to be just a product of
15:07:17 the market.
15:07:18 I mean, we are not suddenly going to have vendor carts
15:07:21 all over Tampa, unless, you know, we have a lot more
15:07:25 people living here, a lot more tourists or whatever.
15:07:28 So it seems to me that we should be -- I would tend to
15:07:32 be pretty liberal about it.
15:07:36 What we allow.
15:07:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
15:07:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We had discussed this ages ago and
15:07:43 Thom Snelling was meeting, and we were meeting in
15:07:46 council chambers, giving an indication how long this
15:07:51 was passed a round.
15:07:52 I think we need some form of regulation.
15:07:54 I think what you have before is very fair.
15:07:58 I like the idea of limiting it to the streets you
15:08:03 I would be really open to my colleagues that somehow
15:08:06 stringently should be in terms of what it looks like.
15:08:09 I think the clean, neat, sanitary is really the punch
15:08:12 But rather than having no regulation, which is kind of
15:08:15 what we have now, I would like to move toward
15:08:18 What would be your best recommendation?
15:08:20 >>> The language that we have now, the language that
15:08:22 is before you I think is a good first step.
15:08:25 We can see how it goes, and revisit it if there are
15:08:28 some enforcement issues, or some permitting issues
15:08:32 with it.
15:08:33 That's the beauty of the six month process.
15:08:35 >> In an effort to move this along, I'll move it.
15:08:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I had a question.
15:08:43 Paren 3 says required to -- assuming there are
15:08:53 bathroom facilities.
15:08:54 But is there a requirement that they park that thing
15:08:57 on a lot that has bathroom facilities?
15:08:59 >> That's a good question.
15:09:03 I think the point is if they park in front of a strip
15:09:07 center then they could use the bathrooms that are back
15:09:10 on the strip center.
15:09:11 But if they park on an empty lot, then obviously
15:09:13 there's nowhere to use them.
15:09:15 >>CATHERINE COYLE: You said (3)?
15:09:21 >> Well, I don't know.
15:09:22 The number of your pages, I can't really tell you.
15:09:24 >> I knew I would get that comment.
15:09:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: At this time third page in that
15:09:29 And it's number 3.
15:09:33 3-little I.
15:09:35 >>> If you look back at the top on the follow page on
15:09:39 the top of that section, number 2-A, annual vendors
15:09:44 are prohibited on all undeveloped land zoned for
15:09:49 nonresidential purposes.
15:09:50 There has to be something there already.
15:09:52 This is like an accessory business.
15:09:54 It can't be on a vacant property.
15:09:57 As an annual vendor.
15:09:59 There has to be facilities.
15:10:00 >> Why?
15:10:04 >>> Basically, think about it this way.
15:10:06 I think what we were dealing with a couple of years
15:10:08 ago was vending, selling, in any kind of
15:10:12 establishment, whether it's a cart or permanent
15:10:14 structure, really is, it's a sale of activity, retail
15:10:18 of some sort, and the first thought when we read this
15:10:21 to the current section, you had to go through the
15:10:24 actual permitting process.
15:10:25 You needed to file a site plan, construct parking for
15:10:30 whatever square footage you had, you had to provide
15:10:32 bathroom facilities to meet health department code,
15:10:35 you had to meet fire regulation.
15:10:38 Imagine that's a daunting task for someone that wants
15:10:40 to spend $1,000 on a cart and sell oranges or apples
15:10:44 or hotdogs. That is very daunting.
15:10:47 So when looked at the language we had and basically
15:10:49 made the interpretation that they could go in certain
15:10:51 locations, with a certain type of permit, as an
15:10:54 accessory retail to whatever establishment that was
15:10:58 And that's how we do them now essentially, as an
15:11:01 accessory business, but without having to go through a
15:11:04 full-blown permitting process because there's already
15:11:06 a main facility there.
15:11:07 This is just something extra on the property.
15:11:13 >> It just seems like if we are trying to encourage
15:11:15 that type of thing or at least accept that type of
15:11:17 thing, I can picture people who do pull up to empty
15:11:20 lots and do these types of activities.
15:11:23 So I think just to be clear, we need to -- and you
15:11:26 have just been very clear -- we are not going to allow
15:11:29 them to pull up to an empty lot and do this even if
15:11:32 they could comply with the code requirements.
15:11:34 >>> No, I mean, in addition, plus if they are selling
15:11:37 food and things it's not a very sanitary situation if
15:11:39 there's no running water or electricity or anything.
15:11:44 >> Kind of like Franklin?
15:11:45 >>> There's a whole other set.
15:11:50 >>: I'm okay with that.
15:11:52 If that's what you want to start with.
15:11:54 The other question is, on Dale Mabry you are allowing
15:11:56 this anywhere you will all up and down Dale Mabry.
15:11:58 But how about the pristine parts of Dale Mabry?
15:12:02 I'm sorry, there aren't any.
15:12:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you want to move this along?
15:12:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
15:12:10 Mr. Shelby, don't we need to ask for public comment?
15:12:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You can ask for public comment,
15:12:16 that's correct.
15:12:16 >>GWEN MILLER: We have one person -- do we have one
15:12:21 Would you like to speak?
15:12:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close.
15:12:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I have one brief thing to
15:12:26 raise with council.
15:12:28 And I talked briefly with Rebecca Kert.
15:12:31 And it's not new language but is in the tab of the
15:12:34 alcoholic beverages.
15:12:36 With regard to the council action, to special use.
15:12:45 What it says is that the present language, from I
15:12:48 guess the applicant is barred for a period of 12
15:12:55 months from the previous application, the City Council
15:12:57 may determine that this time period does not apply, if
15:13:00 the new application addresses the grounds for denial.
15:13:03 That came up under PDs and rezoning and council made
15:13:06 the decision that did it not want to get involved in a
15:13:10 hearing at determining whether it did and it gave that
15:13:12 authority to the zoning administrator.
15:13:13 So it would be my suggestion to track of language of
15:13:18 27-395 and at least make it consistent and upon
15:13:21 denying perhaps have the zoning administrator see that
15:13:25 it substantially or adequately complies, that it's an
15:13:28 administrative decision so it doesn't have to come
15:13:30 before council at an unnoticed public hearing.
15:13:37 >>> I'm actually okay with that.
15:13:38 If anything it was an oversight because we like to be
15:13:43 >> Move to close.
15:13:45 >> Second.
15:13:48 >>CHAIRMAN: She's putting it in.
15:13:49 >>> One more question.
15:13:51 You are going to make motions.
15:13:53 You asked for public comment.
15:13:54 Could I state quickly?
15:13:56 A motion to transmit the document to the Planning
15:13:59 Commission, both chapter 22, changes, and 27 for the
15:14:02 December public hearing, and the second one is to
15:14:05 direct the legal department to prepare a resolution
15:14:07 for first reading on December 13th at 5:01 and
15:14:12 January 10th for second reading at 9:30 a.m.
15:14:16 >>CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second to close.
15:14:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: To close?
15:14:22 I have a question on the motion.
15:14:26 Mr. Shelby just indicated something that sounded
15:14:28 reasonable and staff was in agreement with it.
15:14:30 So how are you going to deal with that?
15:14:32 >>> Or could you make the motion to transmit with
15:14:42 >>CHAIRMAN: Now close?
15:14:43 Motion and second to close.
15:14:44 (Motion carried).
15:14:45 >> I would like to move that we transmit these
15:14:49 proposals with changes to the Planning Commission.
15:14:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
15:14:54 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.
15:14:55 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
15:14:56 (Motion carried).
15:14:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And number two, that we direct the
15:15:02 legal department to prepare the resolutions and to
15:15:07 have the first public hearing on December 13th at
15:15:09 5:01, and the second one January 10th at 9:30.
15:15:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
15:15:13 (Motion carried).
15:15:16 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Thank you very much.
15:15:18 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
15:15:19 Mr. Shelby.
15:15:21 Before we end, we need to clear our workshop agenda
15:15:26 How are we going to handle workshops?
15:15:29 We need to get this cleared so the next workshop we
15:15:32 won't have this confusion that we had today.
15:15:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
15:15:37 I really think that workshops are best if -- I think
15:15:41 communication is a good thing, and I don't -- Mr.
15:15:46 Scott might have been on the commission for a number
15:15:48 of years, but, Madam Chairman, you and I have been on
15:15:51 council for even more years, and I think that allowing
15:15:54 the public to speak does not preclude having a good
15:15:56 workshop and I think we should give ours it is
15:15:58 opportunity to have public discussion and then quit if
15:16:01 we want.
15:16:02 I don't want to make up a rule that says we can't hear
15:16:04 from the public.
15:16:05 >>GWEN MILLER: But we did already the rules.
15:16:07 >> Excuse me, we can make the rules --
15:16:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Making them up.
15:16:11 >> The rule gives us the option.
15:16:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We have always allowed -- we have
15:16:16 always moved to waive the rules to allow public
15:16:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby.
15:16:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The public may be heard -- and this
15:16:25 is not from the new rules, this is from the last
15:16:27 revision from 2005.
15:16:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's still good.
15:16:30 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Obviously.
15:16:31 Public may be heard on the matter which is the subject
15:16:33 of the workshop if upon motion and vote of council the
15:16:36 chair opens the floor for public comment during the
15:16:39 And that was the consensus at the time, it still
15:16:42 No official action on the matter which is the subject
15:16:44 of the workshop shall be taken during or after
15:16:46 workshop unless the public is afforded the opportunity
15:16:49 to comment prior to action.
15:16:50 Not necessarily on the day of the workshop, but prior
15:16:52 to action.
15:16:53 However, directions to staff resulting from the
15:16:56 workshop do not require public comment.
15:17:01 If you wish staff to bring something back on the
15:17:03 agenda then you don't have to open public comment.
15:17:11 >> Maybe Mr. Scott needs to be made aware that that
15:17:18 traditionally -- that City Council had that option
15:17:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's true.
15:17:25 And I'm sure that he's familiar with the rules, but I
15:17:28 believe -- and this may come out of a discussion of
15:17:31 the strategic planning session.
15:17:34 I think it's strictly a policy issue.
15:17:36 But the idea of having a workshop was to have a whole
15:17:41 series of items that you could have an in-depth
15:17:45 discussion, set time, so you could have multiple
15:17:48 items, so that you don't necessarily have to take a
15:17:51 lunch break.
15:17:51 For instance, if you didn't take a lunch break today
15:17:54 you would be able to work through to whatever time if
15:17:56 you didn't plan for having a lunch obviously, and then
15:17:58 at least have the time to have the opportunity to have
15:18:00 a break to be able to take on the evening agenda.
15:18:02 That was the intention.
15:18:07 At public comment, depending on the subject matter,
15:18:09 unless you settle a time limit for public comment,
15:18:11 your entire agenda is at the whim of the
15:18:15 responsiveness of the public who chooses to show up on
15:18:17 a particular issue.
15:18:19 So it could throw your entire schedule off.
15:18:21 So I guess from my understanding, it's my belief that
15:18:26 when council wants to sets things up with a time
15:18:28 schedule, it had the option, the idea to limit public
15:18:32 comment in some way to be able to have multiple items,
15:18:36 in-depth discussion and get out of here so you can get
15:18:38 back to the night meeting.
15:18:39 >>GWEN MILLER: And that was my understanding, too.
15:18:41 Mr. Dingfelder?
15:18:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
15:18:44 I think as Ms. Saul-Sena pointed out at the very
15:18:49 beginning of the canal discussion, you know, the most
15:18:51 important thing, what I have heard today, was from our
15:18:54 citizens, from our residents.
15:18:57 We had already been all briefed, you know, on this
15:19:00 issue, in depth by staff, on at least one occasion,
15:19:05 recently, for more than an hour, an hour or more.
15:19:10 So we didn't need to hear from staff.
15:19:14 But we need to hear from our residents.
15:19:16 And Mr. Scott -- and I wish he was here to speak to
15:19:20 this but he'll hear in some point, not behind his
15:19:24 back, but what he said before was that we get
15:19:27 information to help us make better decisions from
15:19:30 I agree with that.
15:19:31 It's important we get information from staff.
15:19:32 But then it's important that we get information from
15:19:34 the community and get feedback from the community.
15:19:37 And I was always under the notion that's why you have
15:19:42 workshops, and what are those other things called?
15:19:44 Special discussion meetings, and whatever you want to
15:19:47 call them, we need to have opportunities, not just in
15:19:50 the formalized public hearing, but as we evolve our
15:19:54 policy, to continue to get the feedback from the
15:19:57 community, not just at the very end when it's all fait
15:20:03 >>MARY MULHERN: I think part of the problem, I think
15:20:05 today's problem was perhaps this should not have been
15:20:08 a workshop.
15:20:10 We didn't need a workshop.
15:20:14 As you said, we had already been briefed.
15:20:16 If this had come as a public hearing, we would have
15:20:19 been ready for it.
15:20:20 Now we are going to have to hear --
15:20:23 >>GWEN MILLER: The same thing.
15:20:26 >> Hear it again.
15:20:27 And today we truncated how much they could speak.
15:20:30 So I think that we need a little more control over
15:20:32 what's going on our agenda.
15:20:34 I don't know.
15:20:35 Maybe we all agreed.
15:20:37 But I don't think we knew that this was going to be --
15:20:40 to become basically a first public hearing.
15:20:45 And if we are having workshops, we should be naming
15:20:50 what we want the workshops to be.
15:20:52 It shouldn't be, okay, I don't know.
15:20:56 It's not necessarily that administration shouldn't
15:20:59 request a workshop or we should make sure before we
15:21:02 agree to it that it's something that we want top
15:21:04 address at a workshop.
15:21:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, if I could just make an
15:21:09 I believe that council was individually briefed on an
15:21:16 item that was actually going to be at the workshop.
15:21:18 So what happened, if you had each member of council
15:21:23 spend time with a high level administrator
15:21:25 individually going over what really could have been
15:21:26 done collectively.
15:21:28 That was ideally the purpose of the workshop, to spare
15:21:31 individual council members the time to do that.
15:21:37 And then have the high level administrator not have to
15:21:40 repeat the presentation seven times, eight times.
15:21:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Well, the next time we know, council
15:21:45 members, you say you do not want to hear, hear it at
15:21:48 the workshop.
15:21:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And what council member Mulhern says,
15:21:53 maybe council needs to be more specific with what it
15:21:57 intends to accomplish during the workshop, and in
15:21:59 terms of what the presentation is aware of where it
15:22:01 wants to go.
15:22:01 And that's something we can work through.
15:22:03 Obviously, this being council's first workshop day --
15:22:07 >>GWEN MILLER: That's why we need to clear up.
15:22:09 Every workshop, we'll hear from the public.
15:22:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I am going to give us a working
15:22:17 example so we can work this through.
15:22:20 Come January, I would like to bring back the green
15:22:26 ordinance document, hopefully, and discussion back to
15:22:32 And I know that the community that's been working very
15:22:34 hard on this will want to participate in that.
15:22:37 So let's figure out the appropriate semantics so we
15:22:42 can go ahead and get that on the calendar in the
15:22:46 appropriate fashion.
15:22:46 But I really, really believe that that's an
15:22:48 appropriate one to hear from the community on.
15:22:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Before, we have two more workshops, how
15:22:54 are we going to handle those?
15:22:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council --
15:22:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Before we get to January.
15:23:02 How are we going to handle the next workshops?
15:23:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm not saying what I can do, is just
15:23:08 take a closer look at it and see how we can -- and
15:23:11 perhaps bring to council some suggestions how to best
15:23:13 address the issue as it arises.
15:23:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: To save time, why don't we all
15:23:20 communicate with you, Madam Chairman, about things we
15:23:22 are interested in how we might address.
15:23:26 We have them all listed in our agenda.
15:23:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Another thing.
15:23:34 We go to these meetings, come to council --
15:23:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think it's great.
15:23:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You're right.
15:23:44 Unilaterally, I shouldn't have said it.
15:23:48 But they were very frustrated and I just wanted to let
15:23:50 them know they have access to their city government.
15:23:52 >>GWEN MILLER: They know that.
15:23:57 >>MARY MULHERN: And the administration will be
15:23:58 including someone from the public in the workshop.
15:24:01 So I can understand why.
15:24:02 >>CHAIRMAN: Anything coming before the council?
15:24:09 >> Move is receive and fail.
15:24:13 >> Second.
15:24:14 (Motion carried).
15:24:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Real quickly I have some new
15:24:23 You all know thankfully it rained yesterday.
15:24:26 The bad news was it rained in on some of our historic
15:24:29 We currently have one code enforcement rule for
15:24:33 But what I'm proposing here is that we have -- that if
15:24:37 something has been deemed historic and is on our local
15:24:40 register, historic places, that when code enforcement
15:24:44 takes a look at it, that it is protected according to
15:24:49 the secretary of interior standards for mothballing
15:24:53 which means it won't rain in.
15:24:55 And so what I would like to do is ask the
15:24:57 administration in 30 days to respond to this.
15:25:00 I think that legal could easily say that we protect
15:25:05 our historic structures by mothballing them according
15:25:09 to the secretary of interior standards, and then the
15:25:11 code enforcement officers would know that these are
15:25:14 historic buildings that need for the rain to not come
15:25:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You want a report from legal then
15:25:21 the administration?
15:25:23 >> From legal and code enforcement in 30 days.
15:25:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
15:25:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: A written and live report at the
15:25:31 second meeting in November.
15:25:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I just want to be able to clarify.
15:25:36 Normally, at the end of a workshop, this is not
15:25:39 agendaed --
15:25:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But it says on our agenda today
15:25:42 that we have new business.
15:25:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Okay.
15:25:47 Well --
15:25:48 >> And the report would be back on November 15th.
15:25:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's a regular session.
15:25:52 >> That's a regular session.
15:25:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
15:25:54 (Motion carried).
15:25:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The second issue --
15:26:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Did the clerk get a copy of that?
15:26:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Oh, please, yes.
15:26:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The second issue is something that
15:26:11 I would like everybody to read and think about, and
15:26:13 I'm not asking for any action, but I would like --
15:26:16 it's an area where I think we can improve.
15:26:18 I would just like to share this with you all, my
15:26:20 colleagues, and think about it.
15:26:23 And I don't exactly know what to do with it but it's
15:26:25 been very stressful for me and I know some of you.
15:26:29 And I just think that we can improve our
15:26:35 I don't want to agenda this.
15:26:36 I just want to chew on it.
15:26:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else from anyone else?
15:26:39 We stand adjourned to 6:00.
15:26:42 See you at six, John.
15:26:45 (Meeting recessed.)