Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007
9:00 a.m. session

DISCLAIMER:
The following represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
transcript.
The original of this 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.


[Sounding gavel]
>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
Chair will yield to Ms. Mary Mulhern.
>> I would like to welcome Rabbi Mark Sack of the Rodeph
Shalom.
I would also like to thank him for the wonderful years
of preschool that my son enjoyed there, and for the
fact that he assisted when -- insisted when he was
three that, mom, yes, we are Jewish, because he went
to Shabbat every Friday and loved it so much.

>> Would you please stand and remain standing for the
pledge of allegiance?
>> I'm going to open my prayer my boasting that my son
is a very junior aid to senator bill Nelson in his
office and today asked my son what he thought my
prayer should be about this morning.
He said that I should talk about compromise,
mentioning both Democrats and Republicans, he said
that our government won't work for the people if our
leaders don't find a way to overcome their differences
and work together, and I agree.
I think many people, myself included, are looking to
their leaders to negotiate their differences in order
to make things work for them, the people.
And with that in mind I offer this prayer.
Dear God, give us the strength to listen to the ideas
and the opinions of others.
Give us the wisdom to gain insight in what we hear and
what we see.
Give us the courage to grow to move from our set
positions in order to find solutions to the needs and
the problems of our community, to give us the courage

to be an example, to our community and the world
around us, an example of people working together to
create a better society for all people.
As we offer these prayers, we must remember today and
every day, especially as we approach our Thanksgiving
holiday, that we have many blessings for which we must
be thankful, as we begin our work today, we offer our
thanks for our freedom, our prosperity, and for the
opportunity for good living that God gives all of us.
Amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance)
Roll call.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.
>>MARY MULHERN: Here.
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Here.
At this time I will yield to Reverend Scott to do the
Officer of the Month.
>> Thank you, Madam Chairman and to the members of
Tampa City Council.
As always, it's my pleasure every month where we come

forward, chief hotel, to present to us the Officer of
the Month and the commendation.
I want to ask chief Hogue to come forward now and give
us a background of our Officer of the Month.
>>> Chief: Thank you, council, again for recognizing
the Officer of the Month each month.
For November, 2007, we have selected corporal Larry
Timmer, here to my left, to be our Officer of the
Month.
You know, normally, our Officer of the Month comes
from our line personnel, because -- for obvious
reasons, I think.
But this month, because Larry represents really kind
of a softer side of TPD, because he does a lot of
crime prevention works, he works out of PAO right now
with children, and some of our outreach programs.
He was selected over the line personnel for not only
this month but for many, many years of charitable work
that he's done in the City of Tampa, and what he's
done for the citizens of the City of Tampa,
particularly the disadvantaged citizens over the
course of many, many years.

Larry has lead the police department literally, he has
been the lead person for special Olympics at the
police department for many, many years, and that is a
lot of work.
He has organized golf tournaments, and in fact I had
never played golf at night until I went to one of his
golf tournaments.
It's a unique experience.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Did it give you an excuse at least?
>> Well, now, it generally would.
But chief George played with us, and he actually is
the best night golfer I've ever seen, so really not
even an excuse for me he was so good at it.
But he's done other things.
Of course March of dimes, and the police memorial
fund.
But really it's worked with special Olympics.
And those special Olympics kids are special.
There is no cost to them for coming, for staying, an
for participating, and that's all done through
charitable donations.
And Larry, like I said, he's organized golf

tournaments, he's bowled, he's an accomplished bowler,
and, you know, he stood on the roof of donut shops
collecting money from people driving through.
And in fact he spent a whole night one time on a donut
shop.
Last year for special Olympics, he alone raised over
$50,000 over the course of his career it's been in the
hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars, and in
fact he was the only police officer in the State of
Florida that was selected to go to China this year for
the special Olympics because of his past performance.
So we are very, very proud of Larry, we are very proud
of what he's done for this community, year in and year
out.
It's been a lot of work.
And one of the best things about Larry is that when
you get Larry, you get his wife Lisa, also, and you
get his son.
So he brings a whole crew to work with him.
And many, many hours of all of this is done on their
own time because they really do believe in this.
So we are very proud to announce Larry Timmer as our

Officer of the Month.
[ Applause ]
>>THOMAS SCOTT: He's done an outstanding job, and then
the commendations, we want to highlight the fact that
as the chief spoke of he was selected as one of the 92
officers to represent the police department in
Beijing, China, and also to carry the torch across
China.
So with that, Madam Chair, I wand to commend him with
this plaque, commendation, from Tampa City Council.
Also, a gift certificate from Charlie's for $100.
I hope you and your wife enjoy dinner at Charlie's.
And we have other certificates and gifts to give you.
>> I thank you for all that you do for our city and on
behalf of Tampa.
Thank you.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: You organized the 5-K, right?
Are you going to make the chief run?
>> The chief has run several years.
>> I know he's an avid runner: Everybody keeps fit.
Anyway, I'm Steve Michelini here on behalf of a
variety of different corporations.

And the first is Bryn Allen studios.
I would like to present with you a photographic
package to have your pictures taken and professionally
done, and you can hang them right there next to the
chief.
The Hillsborough County towing association would like
to present with you a $50 gift certificate to your
choice of Lee Roy Selmon Expressway, Carabbas or
Outback steak house.
And the Stepps towing service, they are not here this
morning but on their behalf will present with you a
nice little trophy that you can put on your desk.
They will also provide with you a gift certificate for
dinner for two.
On behalf of Bern's steak house and Liss development
we are providing you a $100 gift certificate to Bern's
steak house so you can go enjoy yourself there.
So you have got a full day.
>> I'm used to giving away door prizes.
>> You don't even have to have the winning ticket.
You have won already.
There's no drawing.

Congratulations.
>> I appreciate it.
>> My time to say something?
On behalf of my family, myself, I really appreciate
this.
I was shocked when I learned that I'm receiving this
award.
As Chief Hogue has said there's a lot of officers out
there that work very hard every day to keep the
streets safe here in Tampa.
For me to receive this award, it is truly an honor.
I spent a lot of years at different levels of this
department working in the special events that I do,
it's just extra, but it's close to my heart, and
without my family, my wife Lisa, my son, my daughter,
I probably wouldn't have the time to do that.
They are there.
I am able to spend time with my family at these
events.
On behalf of my family and myself, special Olympics, I
really, really appreciate this award.
Thank you so much.

[ Applause ]
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Scott, and Larry, I just wanted
to say, you know, the chief brings us fantastic TPD
folks to receive this award for their jobs for the
city on and off hours, and I know you do great work
during hours, but it's so important to the city the
work that you and your fellow TPD officers do after
hours.
And we really appreciate it.
Thank you so much.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: Madam Chair, that concludes my
presentation.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
We now go to our agenda.
Item number 61 is a resolution, a request to put it
under staff reports and unfinished business.
It's already there.
Okay.
What about item 64, it's already there, too?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My assistant was not here this week
so I don't have a complete package.
And I wonder, I'm very interested in item 64.

What do we do now to make this happen?
>> I don't know where to direct them.
>>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
The issue on 64, in conversations with councilwoman
Saul-Sena, there's a change that she thinks would be
advisable to the ordinance.
The question is what does council want to do to
proceed in that regard?
The change itself is not difficult to do.
It's really a couple of sentences.
It's making the mothballing requirement in the federal
standards applicable under your code.
The question is, I've only had the conversation with
councilwoman Saul-Sena.
I don't know what the rest of council wants to do,
whether you want to instruct us to make that change,
workshop it, or whether you want to include that in
the -- whatever the schedule is for the next set of
changes.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If I can explain this, it's one of
these simple things to do.
I don't think we need to do a whole workshop.

It says -- this isn't -- this is for buildings that
are designated historic.
And it says that if they are not used, if they are
just sitting there, that we won't have demolition
through neglect.
When I talked about it with legal they said they
couldn't act on it unless council gave them direction.
So I would like to make a motion that council ask the
legal department -- and I don't think it has to be in
27, I think it's an administrative procedure, but
however legal thinks the right way to do it is, is
when a historic building is unused that the be
protected or mothballed according to the secretary of
interior standards.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is that a motion?
Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I am not going to say I'm
supporting or against this suggestion.
But I would like to know the larger ramifications of
everything that we do here, that I do, I should say,
and I would like to know what the costs are, how many

buildings there are.
So I think there should be a workshop to find out
what's going on here, to make a determination to
simply vote on something at this time without knowing
all the facts I think would not be the proper way of
doing things.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Then I will offer a substitute
motion, and I appreciate your comments, Mr. Miranda,
that we workshop this in January at our work shopping
meeting.
Would that be the appropriate time?
So that would be January 24th.
We have a 9:00 session.
>>> That should not take too long.
>> I think this could take 5 minutes.
But at 10:00.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: May I make a suggestion?
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes, Mr. Shelby.
>>>
>>MARTIN SHELBY: The first item is under staff
reports, unfinished business, that was placed there
before the new schedule so that should only be a short

item unless you intend to the take longer.
But my suggestion is perhaps you make this 9:15.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 9:15.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: You continue to second, Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Sure.
(Motion carried).
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And perhaps the staff can answer
the questions raised by Mr. Miranda, how many
buildings did this affect, what would the cost be,
et cetera.
>>GWEN MILLER: Item number 84.
Ms. Marshall.
>>THE CLERK: On item will 84 that particular petition
cannot be heard.
Affidavit was never filed.
In order to reset it, it would require a new
resolution.
But I do not know what date it is.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to strike from the agenda.
>> Second.
>>DAVID SMITH: I'm sorry, I'm not speaking to that

issue.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to remove
from the agenda.
Opposed Nay?
Okay.
>>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
I would like to suggest we take number 68, item 68,
which is with respect to the pending action for the
Citivest matter, on DeSoto and Bayshore, and postpone
that till November 29th.
As you may recall, we had a closed session on this.
We do not yet have a final answer from Citivest with
regard to our settlement discussion.
So it would be inappropriate.
>>GWEN MILLER: We can't do them till 10:00.
>>DAVID SMITH: Oh, is it a time certain?
Sorry about that.
I just noticed that.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe that's a workshop day with
an evening session.
Do you want that --
>>DAVID SMITH: I think I would because if we don't

have closure by the 29th we may need to consider
an alternative that I would like to speak with you all
about.
>>GWEN MILLER: All right.
Item 88.
>>THE CLERK: I have notated that it cannot be heard.
We do have a letter from John Grandoff requesting the
hearing be rescheduled to December 20th to allow
time to complete a compromise with the neighbor and if
not, to allow time to file the required oh record
information.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: With no objection from staff I move
to move it to December 20th.
>>JOHN GRANDOFF: Suite 3700 Bank of America Plaza.
Our architect Sol Fleishman has a conflict on the
20th.
So we are flexible.
December 13th would be available or thereafter.
Whatever is council's pleasure.
>>THE CLERK: It would require a 30 day notice.
January.
>>CHAIRMAN: It would have to go to January.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: January 10th?
No.
>> January 17th, morning meeting.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: January 17th, 10:00.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
(Motion carried).
>>JOHN GRANDOFF: Thank you for your time.
>>GWEN MILLER: We now go to our audience portion.
Is there anyone in the audience that would like to
speak to any item on the agenda not set for public
hearing?
Anyone in the public like to speak?
>>> I'm George Heenson, south DeSoto, to address item
number 68.
Which now my understanding is continued to November
29th.
What I was going to say is the project has been going
on for over four years, and there's been a lot of
public input and public comment and a lot of public
interest, not just myself, the neighbors, the
neighborhood, historic district, et cetera.
And it's difficult for us to say anything about the

alternatives or provide comment if you don't know what
they are, I guess meetings in the shade.
We don't know what the alternatives are, and we just
ask that -- if it doesn't protector work towards
protecting Bayshore and the historic district.
That's all I have.
>>CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dingfelder?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I just want to caution you, council,
per your rules, council should avoid any discussion of
matters at a public meeting where the city is or is
likely to be a party in litigation without the
concurrence of council.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I am going to be amazingly generic
out of caution from council.
Thank you for come down and speaking to us.
The suggestion that I would like to make to the
community is that particular developer has two
projects that he's trying to get through to build
high-rise on the Bayshore.
Different reasons, different times, the community has
come up in opposition to both of them.
Now one of them is in litigation.

We can't talk about it.
But I would urge -- it doesn't mean that you guys
can't go talk to that developer.
And I would urge that you do that on both of those
projects.
He was here last week trying to negotiate and standing
at the podium, it was very awkward, for everybody.
But maybe if you all could put together a small
committee of folks who really do care about the
Bayshore like I know you do, and Mr. Grandoff is here,
and he's listening, and his client, I'm sure, will
meet with you all, and see if there's some compromise
that is can be worked out, then that way everybody
come back in and be happy.
>>> Sure.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Next speaker.
>>> Marlin Anderson, San Jose street, president of the
Sunset Park homeowners association, item 65, having to
do with -- first they are going to talk about the
issue on the port authority paying for the dredging

and the second part is scheduling this vote on the
18th.
I wanted to just state that I feel that the plan that
they proposed thus far is flawed, and I ask that this
not be allowed as it is.
I think that south ardson place compromise and other
options need to be explored before this is actually
passed.
Basically, this is the same plan for the last two
years, really is essentially unchanged, and we feel
it's an unfair plan, and we would like as an
association asking that you not approve this plan as
it is, until this can be looked at further in another
option so we can get a plan that's fair for everybody
concerned.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> Kristina Hendry, Jamaica Avenue, CURRITUCK canal,
known as number 30.
I provided as much backup information as possible so
that you can understand I'm doing the best I can to
bring out the truth which I don't think has been

happening so far.
What you have is a little packet of documents that I
obtained, spent six hours in the stormwater department
going through documents, trying further to figure out
what's going on.
And I came across this item and it occurred to me, we
have been focusing on a million three and how that can
be used.
You have control over the millions.
We don't need to determine whether the federal money
can be used.
You have control over the millions.
The second document is a response from the EPA,
stormwater's question about whether some other project
funds can be used for the match, and the answer there
is, is there a problem with not having enough with the
head water canals or enough match?
So the EPA is starting to ask some questions.
And they say, if you want to change the project,
here's how you do it.
And sure enough, that's what the stormwater department
has done.

The next document shows the letter from Alex Awad, I
think that's how you say his name, trying to change
the federal project to a $7.3 million project.
We have been talking about a $6 million project.
They already know it's going to be 7.3 million dollars
and that's with the budget.
And part of this budget request, the remaining
portions of the project may not comply with formal
federal requirements.
On the attached budget, they have $275,000 budgeted
for engineering.
That's up from the 200 they have been claiming.
I don't want to give the bid amount, but we are
talking about double what I saw in the stormwater
department's files for engineering, because they want
to redo an engineering study that was done in 2000.
How much would this one cost?
This has all the soil borings and analysis and survey.
Although an update needs to be done on the five
priorities, estuaries that need to be done.
Then a copy of the letter, cover letter with the bid
from with just a little bit of their bid that shows

they are excluding circulation and flushing.
That's supposed to be a major part of this canal
sediment removal project is to include flushing, and
the city has asked them not to even look at that
issue.
The next page is from an old right-of-way management
plan.
I don't know what year, there's no date on it but it's
consistent with what I have been hearing.
May I have one more minute?
>> You can wrap that statement up.
>> I can wrap it up.
With oyster shells and encourage emergent mangroves.
Next page shows an article from 2000, renowned
environmental engineer Robin Lewis.
Mangroves are the worst things for those canals.
They could cause them to dry out and become solid
land, instead of water flowing into the bay water
would just back up on the land and all of South Tampa
would be affected by flooding.
>>CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you.
That's it.

Next speaker.
>>> I'm afraid they are turning our canals into
stormwater --
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I appreciate your research on the
six hours in stormwater seems like a tough task.
And I mean that in all sincerity.
The question I have, what is your bottom line?
You were giving us a lot of stuff in a big hurry.
>>> Mr. Dingfelder, at the last meeting you said, this
is just the baby early in the process. This is not a
baby.
It's over two years old.
Look at this thing.
There's so much hair on it.
Digging into this project, city money, and digging
into this pocket for the special assessment.
Do it now.
That's what I would like to you do.
And I would like you to direct them to go back with
the federal project and the city millions and do the
four canals that were priority water bodies.

And if these people want to tax themselves so much,
let them be a prototype canal and let them find out
how much it's really going to cost and how good the
city is really going to do this.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
>>> Those estuaries are just horrible.
Pipes are three quarters of the way filled up.
>> Ellie, why don't you put your name on the record?
>>> Ellie Montague.
Thank you for allowing to us speak on this.
We found out they wanted to use our urban lakes
moneys, anything they can do -- they have not
complied.
I have been in touch with Tallahassee.
I will do more.
I will get some answers.
But we are not getting those estuaries cleaned up.
I'll have you know how important it is for the fish,
for the bay.
You want to get your boat out and you don't have any
fish out there in that stinking rotting place?
That's because we are not using our moneys to clean

out what we worked so hard to get in over 35 years.
I hope that you will stop all this nonsense.
There's so much discussion.
And to think of putting mangroves?
My gosh, Robin taught me about everything I know and
he tells me those mangroves are bad for the bay.
You will never get that dredged again.
The environmental group will never allow them to
dredge where they put the mangroves.
Look what we have out on Kipling, Dick Greco planting
those mangroves around the estuary.
It's going to fill it in.
They won't have a hole to put it in.
They hold filtration a lot.
It doesn't allow it to function anymore.
Then it's totally a mess.
They just put in -- the city wasted 35,000, I believe
it is, to put in a well, besides Kipling, to find
out -- how high the water goes.
That's a waste of money.
They keep wasting our money with studies and studies
and studies and don't do anything.

It's time to take some action, get that going.
That has no business being with the canal money.
That's estuary money.
They have added it to make it more in trying to use it
in the canals, trying to clean up the -- the canals
should be cleaned up.
The city dumped especially north of Kipling, and even
into Beach Park, and all those people who are fighting
to get the canals, they have the most silt coming in
from the city.
Yes, they should have those canals cleaned.
And I hope you are going to listen to the part about
the port authority being in charge, too. Thank you
for listening.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>> My name is Joe Coffer.
I think you all know who I am.
I live on Currituck channel on Davis Island.
I wrote a letter on November the 9th and I believe
everybody should have received it on Tuesday.
This in effect attacks the law -- attacks the
authority of this other council as well as the city to

do anything with respect to those submerged lands.
I conclude, in my first paragraph of my letter, the
Tampa port authority holds title to and regulates all
submerged lands subject to riparian rights of the
upland owners.
As the sole -- and regulates, and has the sole
authority and jurisdiction over and regulation of the
dredging of the submerged land.
Only the upland land adjacent to submerged land shall
make application to the port authority, Tampa port
authority, for a permit to dredge spoil material from
such submerged lands.
The City of Tampa has no right, jurisdiction or
authority over submerged lands, has no right,
jurisdiction or authority to dredge foreign material
from the submerged land and has no right, jurisdiction
or authority to propose or implement the proposed
plan.
That pretty well says it.
I gave you some law and document backup information
and whatever.
And references anyway.

But State of Florida, rights of 1845, owners of
submerged lands, they deed several matters to the port
authority.
First of all, the last one really was 84-4-7, laws of
Florida.
And then what is it now, 95, I think it is, 488.
Anyway, long story short, this includes any action
that you may want to take as council, including the
setting of a resolution concerning the taxing to
collect for things you can't do.
To me, this whole procedure is for naught.
I don't think you want to do a useless act.
And to now pass a resolution, really in effect set up
on the 18th of next month, for consideration of
setting up a taxing district, it would be totally and
absolutely unlawful and inappropriate.
I suggest that you think twice before you move any
further on this.
I don't want to get into all the details concerning
what they are doing and what has been done by the
stormwater department.
I make some strong suggestions in my letter.

One is you cancel everything that's gone on with this
deal.
Number two, you investigate the stormwater department.
Number three, you move forward with the project for
which you have funds already.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>> Richard Coffer. First of all I agree 100% with
100% of the paper my father wrote to you, as I did a
lot of the documentary research for him and I went
over the material extensively, and I know 84-47 and
the recodification of 1995 and the city's own web site
actually recognizing the fact that the port authority
has all authority over sun merged land.
That's from the high water mark of the City of Tampa
dock.
But that being said, I wanted to go into background
information, you have before you of which of upon and
of which the stormwater department is actually making
the decision to move forward toward your vote.
First the maps.
Mr. Walters admitted to me at the plant meeting that

these maps were not based on scientific studies,
weren't based on any engineering whatsoever, except
for the stuff associated with the EPA grant.
Everything outside on those little lines you see on
those maps were contrived.
He said it's basically a guy driving down in a
speedboat and looking at the canal.
The map has actual will you changed, was changed from
the plant high meeting to the last meeting, the one on
the web site.
The lines are longer because I knew which houses he
stopped at on the canal.
And this is having to do with CURRITUCK.
I didn't even look at them.
It is not so important to folks on the -- what the
city attorney stated at the last meeting.
They were talk about making this a fixed dollar
amount.
When asked by council members, what would you do if we
ran out of money?
Said we would stop.
And said, how would do you that?

Well, we showed due diligence.
So I think something should be included for any person
that's going to possibly vote on this that, well, you
might not get any service at all, but you might get
assessments.
And it's also important to note that if the EPA grant
is lumped in with this dredging proposal, if they
start and don't get to the other project, some of the
people might not even get the EPA stuff that's already
been proposed and what the grant was granted for.
I also want to state a quick statement about the
response card.
Now this response card was already discussed in the
last meeting when it was put on the overhead.
And the response card was -- everybody was like, well,
that's not scientific, there's no statistical data
because of the questions on the response card, do you
want any dredging?
And that was it.
It didn't talk about how much money was going to cost
or anything like that.
This response card has now been included on the city

web site and all the information associated with the
response card is being included as to the statistical
data.
And you guys already talked about not using this card.
I think that should be removed from the city web site.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>> Christina costa, co-chair of Tampa CPR, citizens
volunteer group that is in pursuit of getting the
canals dredged.
I really want to commend all of the fine citizens that
continue to give their time and energy to whether or
not this is a good plan.
But the bottom line right now is that what I ask of
council is that you simply enable the democratic
process, let us continue, all of the contentions and
worries they have are absolutely valid, but they have
been cited for decade and through citizens groups
demonstrated through two valuable exercises our own
petition that has been circulated over two years
showed that 87% of the people who responded, who we
engaged in conversation, 87% of the people who

actually own property that might be subject to the
special assessment are in favor of moving forward with
this plan.
Even the Sunset Park homeowners responded in great
favor.
There's one canal that you already have a petition,
which is going to opt out.
That's very clear.
That's fine.
That is their choice in the democratic process.
When we remove that one canal that is strongly
opposed, their own in-favor statistics come in at 83%.
83%.
We ask you only to keep the public hearing intact,
irregardless of whether or not the question of the
port authority is answered today, because this
newsletter from the group that came before us
chronicles the efforts from 1999.
Those of you that have been around for a long time on
council understand, they had already exhausted the
effort to engage the court.
They had already been through many City Council

efforts.
This newsletter depicts that they were now in a
fund-raising mode for litigation.
We choose to spend money on getting the work done
versus spending money to sue the city, sue the port,
and fight for 35 years.
I don't want to come back to you in 20 years and say,
I have been at this for 25 years.
I don't want to do that.
I want to have clean waterways in front of my
property.
I'm entitled to do that.
I'm willing to contribute, as are these enormous
percentages.
Furthermore, I just want to touch on the postcard.
Postcard in and of itself, I was involved in the
design of that.
So perhaps I'm a little bit R bit defensive but the
post postcard came with a letter.
The postcard didn't say I'm in favor, I'm opposed, the
postcard said, I'm familiar with the plan that's been
circulated, and therefore I am in favor.

So it's not as weak as you may believe.
Thank you very much.
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Madam Chairman, before we go on
any further, is the city attorney going to give us an
opinion on this?
>>GWEN MILLER: When we get to the item we'll discuss
it then.
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Thank you.
>>JOHN GRANDOFF: My home address is 4611 Tennison
Avenue.
My professional address is suite 3700 Bank of America
Plaza, a member of the Sunset Park homeowners
association.
On item 65.
I realize that Mr. Caetano's question goes to Jan's
report on whether the port has any responsibility.
I don't mean to preempt that but because of the agenda
I need to say my piece.
I have reviewed the special act and I come to the
compelling conclusion that the port authority needs to
be at the table with the checkbook on this issue, and
take some time, and look at the port authority web

site, and you will see that they routinely, routinely
let contracts out for maintenance dredging all over
the port district.
And geographically, the port district is the entire
county, and all county taxpayers pay against the
millage rate that the port assesses every year.
So they are a taxing district.
I would give you several analogies.
The Hillsborough County Aviation Authority.
The Tampa Sports Authority.
The City of Tampa in terms of its roads and bridges,
all have discreet authority over geographical areas.
For instance, the port authority -- excuse me, the
aviation authority does maintenance on runways from
time to time.
They assess the users, the airplanes.
And they maintain those runways.
They don't call the city and say, city, come over here
and fix this runway.
The Sports Authority maintains the golf courses within
their jurisdiction.
And I think it's a very simple argument that if they

have title to the submerged land, over which navigable
waters run, they have the concurrent responsibility to
maintain those submerged lands within maintenance
dredging.
They certainly have the regulatory authority.
And I think it cuts both ways.
My solution -- my suggestion is that the city should
approach the port authority and ask them to begin
analysis and budgeting for assisting these folks that
need some assistance on maintaining these canals
countywide, not just Sunset Park and Beach Park but
all of the canals.
From Double Branch all the way to Apollo Beach, Lake
Thonotosassa, Lake Keystone, the Hillsborough River
and Davis Island.
That's their jurisdiction.
That's their responsibility.
Thank you for your time.
>>> My name is Arnold Hubbard, I live at 15 West
Spanish Main, which is by willow creek bayou.
I'm here today to lend a little bit of support to
this.

But I also want to caution the council.
As a property owner, I went through the permitting
process from conception to the canal on the Westshore
area.
I learned a lot of things along the way.
Everybody knows that what's there is not naturally
occurring.
It's coming off of city streets, and people's
properties, draining large areas, it's environmental
degradation in a big way.
Those canals could be estuaries and be very beneficial
to the bay but they are not.
They are almost dead zones.
Anything that gets that stuff out thereof is a good
thing.
I listened to chuck Walters' proposal before I
started, and with a very short period of time I
realize that what he was talking about wasn't going to
get it done.
There's a couple of things here that need to be
addressed.
And they are talking about the city participation in a

20-foot section down the middle of the canal.
Okay, you have got an 8-foot boat.
You vary that off 20-foot and you run aground.
How are you going to mark it?
They want to go three foot below mean low tide.
There's a 2-foot variance between the low tide.
Wintertime and even summertime low tide there can be
two feet deep.
That's not navigable.
Okay.
Now on top of that what they want to do is they want
to seed the bottom for oysters and stuff and I commend
it.
But the problem is you seed that there without getting
something from the DEP, and the EPC, that says they
want to dredge it again and go deeper than that, it's
going to be fix at that level.
So therefore what you are going to do is you are going
to seed this thing in, in a nonnavigable bed.
That's not a solution.
Now the other side of this is, if you are big in this
stuff, and in the presence of submerged water, in a

semi liquid, you go and dig 20-foot down through this
stuff, three foot deep, what's going to happen oaf a
period of time, just like when you go to the beach,
you go down and stick your hand in the water and cup
up some sand and magically it all comes and it
disappears.
That's exactly what's going to happen.
It's a bigger scale, but that stuff is liquid.
So you are only going 20-foot and you are only going
to 3-foot deep and it's going to creep back in.
This is not a navigable deal.
But what's in there is not just plant matter, zillions
of leaves and palm frond and trash and so forth.
It's much worse than that.
If I tried to scoop some of this stuff up and bring it
to you in here, I'd be -- I could go to jail on
numerous charges.
This needs to be addressed.
It's not something that we should ignore any further.
And I hope these people have this environmental
consciousness to take care of it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena, we need to wait until

after.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's a question for him.
And that is, have you written what your solution would
be?
>>> No.
Other than to try to get all of it out.
That's what I'm here to say.
What they are talking about here is not deep enough,
not wide enough and won't lead to an environmental
solution.
>> Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby?
>> I believe you are coming up on the half hour.
Did you want to ask if there's anybody else that
wanted to speak?
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anybody else that would like
to speak?
We need to approve the agenda.
Need a motion to approve the agenda.
Get a second?
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby if we are not pulling any

items from the agenda within two days before?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Suggested.
That's what the rule says.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is Mr. Shelby --
>>> an individual member of council wanted to remove
an item from the committee reports, consent agenda,
should attempt to do so a day or more in advance of
the meeting by notifying the members of the council,
the clerk of the chief of staff by memorandum or
e-mail, stating whether the member of council wishes
staff to be present to discuss the item.
And I suspect -- I have had a conversation with the
chief of staff, and it is important for the staff to
know in advance of the meeting whether or not council
wishes to have somebody present at the time.
I have been informed that they do not actively monitor
the meeting.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me speak to it generally and
then I'll get to the specific issue.
For one thing, I think the committee chair -- and we
can discuss this.
I don't think we really hashed out that issue.

But I think the committee chair always has the
discretion to pull out separate items for separate
votes, because if there are council members who want
to vote separately they shouldn't have to be bound to
the fact that it's all clumped together in a big lump.
So I think that's always important.
So when I say I want to pull something, I guess, Madam
Chair, you're suggesting that during the Finance
Committee when I get to that item I pull it for a
separate vote?
Mr. Miranda had indicated to me that he would like a
little discussion on 22 but I'll defer to him.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Madam Chair, again I would like to
ask that of the chair, of the Finance Committee, and
the reason is that Monday, no one was here.
Tuesday, I had a busy calendar.
Yesterday was just as busy.
When I looked at this, it really doesn't say what it's
about.
And I wanted to discuss that so that we can all
understand rightfully or wrongfully what my feelings
were on this one item.

And that was all the reason that a I had asked that
Mr. Dingfelder would so kindly hold this item for
discussion.
>>GWEN MILLER: When we get to that, Mr. Dingfelder,
we'll pull it and discuss it.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So I guess the question is, do you
want to discuss it today or defer for a couple of
weeks?
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Whatever the council's pleasure is.
I can pull it and discuss it, if that's allowable
under Rule 17 218, 12-16 paragraph C, comma 2, and if
we can do that then we can function.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And Mr. Daignault is here so I
imagine he or somebody from his department can help
us.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, Madam Chair, members of council,
I think council always has the right to pull items.
Our rules are attempt to.
So keep in mind again, I'm having a problem getting to
it final agenda before the last minute.
And sometimes things have changed.
So, therefore, you don't always have all the

information that you need.
So I think it needs to be understood that we will try
to attempt to pull the items before and notify staff.
But that does not always -- is not always possible.
I want to go on record to say that council always has
the option to pull and discuss an item.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I concur completely with Reverend
Scott just said.
And there are two points I would like to make.
One is that council is now holding council meetings
only twice a month.
So one would think that the burden on the
administration and staff is less because our meetings
are less frequent.
And oftentimes, there might be things that are brat up
during the community input that we hadn't considered
before but are germane to our consent agenda, and if
we need to ask questions that aren't occurred to us
perhaps but have occurred to the public, I think
that's appropriate for us to do.
And lastly, our responsibility, as I understand, is to
be as complete and thorough as we can in our

responsibilities.
And I think communication is a good and healthy thing.
And there are times even when we have had private
conversations with staff where we want to have them
come to council so that everyone can benefit from
their explanation.
And we may not realize that, that it's the best way to
go.
And so I think it would be very foolish of council to
preclude our ability to ask staff to respond to a
certain council meeting.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I have been informed that Mr.
Spearman is on his way over to address the questions
on number 22.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to approve the agenda.
Need a second.
>> Second
We now go to our ordinance of first reading.
Mr. Caetano, would you read that, please?
You're not ready?
Item number 2.
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: An ordinance being presented for

first reading consideration, an ordinance of the City
of Tampa, Florida, amending, repealing and replacing
section 11-137 of the City of Tampa code to provide
for the adoption of the Florida fire prevention code,
repealing sections 11-138 and 11-139 of the City of
Tampa code to provide for the deletion of obsolete and
redundant code references, providing for repeal of all
ordinances in conflict, providing for severability,
providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Who is the attorney working this?
>>> John McKirchy, law department.
>> Thank you.
I haven't had a chance ton look at the nitty gritty
but just put on the record what this is, in a
nutshell.
>>> The references in the city code currently are to
the old and obsolete fire code, which has been
superseded by a new Florida building code, which is
promulgated by the state fire marshals.
This just brings our code up to date.
>> there's no discretion or anything?

>>> No.
It's almost operation of statute.
>>CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried).
>>THE CLERK: Second reading and adoption will be held
on December 6th at 9:30.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
We now go to our committee reports.
Public safety, Rev. Scott.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: I would like to move 3 through 7.
>>CHAIRMAN: Parks and recreation, Linda Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move items number 8
through 11.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: Public works, Charlie Miranda.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I would like to move items 12
through 19.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: Finance Committee, Mr. John Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.

Mr. Spearman stepped out?
There he is.
Mr. Miranda had a question on 22, Charlie?
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Yes, sir.
On item 22, as you well know, I talked to yourself,
sir, and the other gentleman in the office for some
time regarding this program, and I add might that I
said, I wasn't too familiar with this.
I don't think anyone else is to any degree is.
And we discussed the methodology of the million dollar
bid on two sides, and I believe I asked the question,
what is the cost of the computer software, something
to that next, and it was 4%.
Am I correct so far?
>>> That's correct.
>> So in other words if you are looking at a million
here and a million there and two million, what I'm
saying is we are 80,000 in the hole before we start
because we have to pay for that service and the
computer, myself thinking, what are the benefits to
make the public best project available and the best
business practice for the least amount of money?

So therefore the next question which I did not ask is
our management fee that goes along with this.
>>> There is.
And this is Greg spearman, director of purchasing for
the record.
Yes, there is, councilman Miranda.
Keep in mind, this is a software system that we are
basically using that's provided by the vendor but it
also includes covering the cost of the consultant as
well.
I want to point out that we do have two contracts in
place, one is cornerstone, and that is for horizontal
work basically for sidewalk, renovation, construction,
repair, and also repair and installation of curbs and
gutters, so that particular category is covered.
The cornerstone.
Hayes contract also covers above groundwork for minor
construction, building, renovation, repair.
Contract that's before you today is Mastec for
underground utility work.
That is the one area that we have not yet covered.
We did not bring that contract before you before

because we had to get some issues with Mac tech.
Now that they are coming before you, we will
complete...
And also for the FDE and MBE programs because of the
subcontracts will be doing with them under the JOC
contracts, and also ties back to the ordinance.
You are going to be voting and approving.
So that's the background regarding that contract.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.
But I don't think I heard a figure on the management
fees.
>>> The management fee is 4%, up to the first $7
million.
And after that it drops to is .5 million.
>> We have 4% management fees and 4% software fees.
>>> It's just a 4% flat management fee.
>> So there is no other fees?
>>> No.
>> Let me ask another question.
Are these works that we are doing under all the
programs that you just stated -- because I did check a
little further, I'll be very sincere with you and the

rest of us.
One company is in Ft. Myers.
The other is in Tallahassee.
And so then there's a computer that tells you some
pipe breaks down in the city, and let's say right here
on the corner water line breaks.
Do you call them and they hire the same contractor we
are going to hire here to do the same thing they are
going to do?
I don't follow the food chain too well.
>>> Well, the subcontractor, the JOC contractor, we
simply require them, or contract with them to do the
work.
We don't just take the contractor -- however, there is
a web site that all the potential subcontractors can
go to and contact Mastec, if they are interested in
performing any of that city work.
So that relationship is between the prime and the sub.
We simply set the goals.
We set the target.
It's up to them to go and find the subcontract and
meet with those goals are.

>> In my mind again, how go we do it before whatever
we call it, John?
Did we pick up the phone and have various contractors
on call or subcontractors on call for an emergency
thing that would be done right now?
>>> Some of those were done on an emergency basis.
Others were done on a case-by-case, individual bid
basis.
And that's the beauty of JOCS, rather than having to
go out and do separate bids, for all these separate
jobs, which is a huge administrative nightmare and
costs the city, because they already bid off of JOCS
competitively to cover a multitude of tasks, you
simply call the JOC contractor, and the city and the
JOC contractor jointly sit down, develop the scope of
work within their system, and once you agree upon
that, we sign off on it and the JOC contract goes to
work.
>> I am not going to support it but I appreciate it
very much.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Charlie, maybe you can be
persuasive and tell us what your concerns are.
I'm all ears.
>> My concern is the city starts off at a minus
already.
For every million you lose 40,000. If you are going
to do 7 million, 4 times 7 is, what, 280.
For every million dollars you are in the hole for
$40,000 for whatever.
And I'm a very simple individual, that I can't think
that a computer is going to save me money if I have
the same subcontractors in the city that are going to
bid on the same job, and I don't quite understand how
you mesh all these things together and you come out on
the plus side when initially you're in the minus side.
And I'm not trying to convince anybody on their vote
one way or the other. That's just me speaking.
>>> Councilman Miranda, the savings comes in for not
having to repeat all of the bids and there's one after
another.
You are going to basically compress your bidding

cycle, your bidding schedule, plus all of the
administrative time it takes to develop your bid, do
the advertising, release the bid, have the bids come
in, review the bid, come back to City Council, review
a recommendation award.
That's basically what you are doing is saving all that
administrative cost and time.
Plus you are getting participation from your MBE and
SBE that's going to be guaranteed because that
contract -- there's a JOC contract to do that, so
there are a lot of intangibles that work very
favorably to the city under this particular program.
They have been so successful throughout the State of
Florida and throughout the country.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I understand that.
But I think all the SBAs and all the small business
people, they still have a right to bid under the old
system.
They were not excluded.
They were not put in a closet and say you can't come
out and speak to this and you can't bid on this.
What I am saying is we are doing the same thing, in my

mind -- and I may be wrong -- where it's stating that
now we have got a contract, and we are in the hole
before we start, and therefore the material costs are
going to be the same.
The labor costs are going to be the same.
And then my question is, and I said this before in
this council, no one here checks.
I hear this coming all over the place.
But no one checks workman's comp, no one verified,
they give us a certificate, we don't know if it's
factual or not, and we take that responsibility.
If something happens not only on this job but any job,
and at the end you go back and you say, well, let me
have your workman's comp and they don't have any, we
are the ones that are going to be responsible.
And I don't believe we checked that at all.
>> We have checked workman's comp, councilman Miranda,
and in all three cases, that is one of the
requirements this council asked to us do on this
contract. We went back and have done that.
We would be happy to provide that information to you.
We verified that they all have the proper insurances

in place.
They have worker's comp.
They have the general liability.
Automobile liability.
They have everything that the city's risk management
department requires.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Several months ago, Ms. Mulhern
brought up an interesting point, which is, do we in
any way give additional weight to doing business with
companies in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County?
And I believe you said no.
And I was just wondering, in this case, do we have the
capacity in a local company to do what we would be
hiring these people to do?
>>> There are some considerations in the draft
ordinance, that you will be approving, that offers
some incentives for companies using SBEs and MBEs
so we would rather wait until you act upon that
because there are some recommendations that came out
of the disparity study which are in the draft
ordinance which address those areas, councilman
Saul-Sena.

>> actually, my question is two fold. Is there a
local version of Mastec?
>> A local version of Mastec?
>> Yes.
>> I'm not sure I'm following you.
>> I'm saying --
>> A provider.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there a local provider that
could provide some more services?
>> We went out on a competitive bid when we actually
went through the process, we advertised, we have made
every effort to get the word out.
>> Is there any -- let me try a different way.
Is there any weight given to locals?
If you are looking at bids, is there any way given to
local businesses?
Because we know that it's something, rather than being
a national corporation, a local corporation, that the
money circulates better locally?
That if we get local independent businesses work, they
give more to local charities, they employ more local
people?

I mean, it's better for our economy.
So my question is, do we give that weight?
>> We don't have a local preference in place.
But we do have a requirement in the bid that the JOC
contractor utilize city certified WMBE and SBE
listing.
>> But we don't have any kind of local preference in
place when we do this?
>> No, we don't.
There's some case law that talks about some of the
disadvantages of local preference, and that's --
>> But other communities do this.
Other cities do this.
Our economy is slowing down and we are all feeling in
the a variety of ways.
I think it's incumbent upon us to try to pitch things
to our local businesses.
And I think it's something that is a policy question
that council should consider and provide direction to.
>>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
I think what Greg was trying to say when he referred
to case law, I always cringe when staff starts

reciting case law.
There are some strong limitations on local preference.
And way gather from your conversation, would you like
to know what we can do.
So we'll look at that issue.
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Spearman, please.
I seem to concur with Mr. Miranda.
I know you have done a lot of work on this.
Now, if Mastec, do they have a list of providers that
are going to work with them already established when
we are in need of a service?
>>> They do have providers in addition to the
certified list of WMBE and -- we know who all the
subcontractors are.
>> You do know who they are?
>> Yes, we do.
>> Do you have any from the City of Tampa or
Hillsborough County?
>>> I would have to actually go back and look at that
list and give that to you.
I can't give you any specific names off the top of my
head.

We do encourage them to use local firms.
That's one of the reasons why on their web site the
work is posted for the local firms to know what jobs
are coming up, for jobs needed by the city, so they
can actually go out and market their services, and the
local firms can market their services to Mastec.
>> So when they are in need of a particular service do
they put it out to bid to their vendors?
>> Yes, they do.
They actually have a web site where they post it and
they allow those vendors to come in.
>>CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Gregory.
Fellow councilmen asked some can good questions.
I think the JOC program, since it's new is going to
generate a lot of questions.
And I think the critical thing -- and we discussed
this, I think, several months ago, is that we have
five, six of these large JOC programs that are all new
and I think they are going to last a year or two, and
I think at the end of that period of time, I'm pretty

confident that you all are going to evaluate them.
When you elevate them, you can bring them back to us.
Now, I think it's important that we see apples to
apples, you know, how much did it cost for us to fix X
amount of pipe before we did JOC and how much does it
cost under JOC?
How do we do MBE and SBE before we did JOC?
Just the before and after picture.
Right now we are kind of shooting in the dark.
You hope it's going to do well.
You think based upon other experiences around the
country, it is going to do well.
Otherwise, you wouldn't be doing it.
But I think the proof has to be in the pudding.
So do we have a motion pending, to your recollection,
to ask you to come back at the end of the JOC
hearings?
>> Yes.
And we are collecting that data and will be coming
back to you sometime after the first of the year with.
For them.
>> Do you know when it will be coming back?

>> We will probably get something to you within the
first, second quarter, because we are asking the JOC
contractors obviously to do the work to compile that
data.
And this is also something as part of the new
diversity management initiative, part of the disparity
study.
So all the information is being tracked.
So we will try to get something back to you within
certain by the second quarter of 2008.
>> Obviously we will need an objective viewpoint from
your staff to look at the pre-JOC period, now, to be
able to compare that work and those prices and those
vendors under the JOC.
>>> Absolutely.
We'll provide that for you.
>> With that and did W due respect to Mr. Miranda and
his concerns, I'm going to support it because I think
the city as a whole and this council has a -- as a
whole has agreed to allow the JOC program to at least
start.
And see where it goes.

And we'll work on it for a couple of years, and you
will be back to us maybe at the end of next year or
something.
>>> That's correct.
Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: With that long thing, I'll move
item 22 just to start.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
>>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Nay.
>>THE CLERK: Dingfelder and Caetano voting no.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to ask the legal
department to take a look at hometown preferences and
come back to council within, like, 90 days on what
things we might be able to support, because I do -- I
am seeing our economy tighten all across the sector.
And I think whatever way we can help local businesses,
we should.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, it's mostly for information but
I'll tell you again -- excuse me for referring to the
county -- but we did this at the county and it's not
as advantageous to the county, to the city to do that

because what happens is you are going to have
repercussions from other counties if you start doing
that.
So we did a study over at the county and we found that
stayed away from it because -- in fact we had a bunch
of folks came in at a public hearing that told us,
don't do that, because it becomes a disadvantage to
this county for doing that, because you are going to
have other counties, okay, if you are going to do
that, we are going to play that same game.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the
floor.
We have a motion and second.
Question on the motion?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: One thing we might want ton look
at, maybe it's not the City of Tampa, maybe not even
Hillsborough County, maybe it's a regional thing, the
bay area.
And then that way, you know -- we won't get into spats
with other cities and counties.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's an excellent suggestion.
So if would you expand the scope of that.

>>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
>> Cross regional preference.
>>DAVID SMITH: I understand the inquiry directed to us
is to advice you with respect to the legality, some of
the policy considerations are going to be of course
yours.
We do have that addressed as Mr. Spearman was talking
about in our current version of the WMBE and SBE
programs and it's regional.
But we'll look at the legalities of it because there
are different types of contractors.
We'll advice you as to the legalities.
You can discuss the policies and decide what is an
appropriate way to proceed.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the
floor.
(Motion carried).
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I move items 20 through 24
excluding 22.
>> Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Building and zoning.

Joseph Caetano.
>> Move 25 through 49.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: I'll second that.
And I just wanted to highlight item 26, 27, 28, 29, an
commend the administration staff.
These items reference to East Tampa on properties,
lots that the city owns, and they did RFPs, and the
way it's set up is that they have to be affordable low
income and they cannot cost more than $180,000.
I think that's very God.
And that helps affordable housing.
I want to commend them on that.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Transportation, Ms. Mary Mulhern.
>>MARY MULHERN: I move items 50 through 57.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I move to set the public hearings,
5 through 60.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).

>>GWEN MILLER: We now go to staff reports.
Item number 61.
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Administrator, public works and
utility services.
First of all, I would like to thank you for
recognizing the needs of our utility system and I
would like to thank you for your support of our
five-year water plan previously.
It's that five-year plan that is going to allow us to
do things like this bond, and therefore support our
utility system.
Attached to your package should have been a list of
projects that will be accomplished through this bond
process.
And will be accomplished over a three-year period.
It's not going to happen immediately.
It will take a little time.
These projects include some of our oldest -- some of
our worst and some of our most repaired pipelines.
And many of them, many of these projects are already
designed, and they are ready to go.
We have more that are in the design pipeline and will

be designed shortly.
These projects are the beginning of an Ernest pipe
replacement program.
And you have heard us talk about that in the past and
we talked about it when we did the rate increase.
And again, this is important for our city, important
for our system, important for the City of Tampa
long-term to begin this type of pipe replacement
program.
What is not included in here is the CEAC program and
the reclaim projects.
We'll be bringing those to you in the not-too-distant
future.
But again I want to make sure that you understand all
of those items that were discussed previously are
going to be brought Ford here in the not-too-distant
future.
With that I'll answer any questions that you may have.
Bonnie Wise is here to answer questions on the bond
structure.
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Daignault, you said you are
going to get into the reclaimed water, also.

While you have these streets open, do you plan to put
sleeves in those openings so that could you run
reclaimed water, maybe four or five years from now?
Because we are throwing, what, 50 million gallons into
the bay of reclaimed water?
And I understand we have 12,000 residents on reclaimed
water.
>>> When we do these water projects, it is not part of
the water design plan to do that.
And these are going to be little pieces or stretches
of the pipeline all over the city.
So it wouldn't be a very concerted or directed effort
to just put these sleeves in.
We do have a plan.
And again in the not-too-distant future we'll be
talking more about where we plan to go, where we would
like to go with reclaimed F.any of these are in that
area -- and it makes sense to do that -- we certainly
will do that.
We'll try to coordinate those efforts.
But many of these projects are not in those type of
areas.

Where it makes sense, again, we will look at that.
You and I have had that conversation before, and I
have committed to you that where it makes sense, where
we know we are going to be expanding reclaimed, we'll
be glad to do that.
>> And I think it's to our advantage, while those
holes are open, put the pipes in there.
You don't have to open them up again.
And rip this T street up and put these residents into
an inconvenience.
I think it will be a big savings.
I don't know if you have the money to put those
sleeves in but maybe this should have been part of the
project.
>>> I understand.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We have had many discussion busy
reclaimed water, and Mr. Caetano brings up an
excellent point that I think the community is well
aware of, the fact that we now have a reclaimed water
system in South Tampa that unfortunately goes by many,
many homes that haven't yet hooked up.
And previously Brad was giving us periodic updates on

the reclaimed water and star system and hookups and
that sort of thing.
I know we have hired a consultant that helped us on
some of these issues but now it seems their focus is
mainly on the wholesale issue, which is a very
important component.
I don't think at the end of the day it really matters
where we use that reclaimed water, and if we can use
it more efficiently in a wholesale setting as compared
to the retail homeowner setting, then that's fine.
But it's a different approach from where we started
out with star.
But the bottom line is, I think we need to get an
update on where we are with the Star hookups in terms
of the percentage customers, what we are doing to
address that issue and to increase the customer base,
and frankly, I mentioned probably six months ago or
year ago, the fact that I believe at some point we are
going to have to consider doing some kind of mandates
to, in my opinion, to the folks who live in those star
areas, that by a certain year, you know, within the
next three, four, five years, if you have a star

reclaimed water system in front of your yard, and you
are using a sprinkler system, okay, potable water, it
just doesn't make any sense.
And we have to have perhaps have an amortization
period, a period of time where we would just mandate
that, folks would get on the system.
Now, I don't believe in just doing mandates without
some type of help from the city.
I think the city should try and help these people get
on there, whether or not we can provide rebates to the
hookup fees or some type of financial incentives for
folks to get on.
But at the end of the day we are spinning our wheels a
little bit here, and as Joseph said, we are throwing a
lot of good reclaimed water out into the bay, and it
doesn't make sense.
>>> If I'm not mistaken, there's an item on your
November 29th agenda for Star update and like I
said we'll have updates for you.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We all know the Star program, or
reclaimed, has been in effect for some time.
Has it been a success?

Depends on how you look at it.
Has it been a failure?
Again depends how you look at it.
The problem was that when we initially did it years
ago, the cost of the putting the line on the ground
was enormous, and the cost to the rate payer was also
high.
So therefore the cost of reclaimed per thousand
gallons was almost the same as the cost of reclaimed
of the regular portable water for a thousand gallons.
So therefore a lot of people that said they were going
to sign never used it.
It has gone from about 1700 customers, to almost
approaching 3,000.
Again I'm going by memory.
But it was anticipated to have 8,000 customers.
So it's getting there because now the costs of potable
or drinking water has gone up and the cost of
reclaimed water has gone down, so therefore, where
those axes meet, I think with a little PR work you are
going to find people sign on because when they start
getting the bill it's going to be much more economical

for them to go on reclaimed than stay on drinking
water.
So there will be a reclaim item come, like was stated
earlier, and that will be, and I hope to different
areas for wholesale and to different six or seven
large users in the city, and then possibly we can
branch out from there and go into residential.
They deserve it.
It's a unit that costs the production of reclaimed,
and they should certainly be entitled to use it.
>>MARY MULHERN: I just want to remind everyone that
when we voted for the rate increases, Mr. Daignault
had adjusted the rate so we are starting to provide
that incentive so we just need to continue to dop
that.
>>CHAIRMAN: We need to pass the resolution.
>> So moved.
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Just to finish that up we are
seeing an increase of people signing up lately.
>>CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
We have a motion and second to pass the resolution.
All in favor?

Opposed?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Daignault, you mentioned
November 29th, and the clerk's calendar does not
appear to show the Star.
>>THE CLERK: Madam Chairman --
>> I think it's going to be moved to December 6th
perhaps.
>> Just during our regular meeting?
Okay.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Yes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Now we go to item number 62.
Attorney McLean.
>>> Jan McLean, legal department, here to provide you
in accordance with your request on item number 62 a
quarterly report on the status of the proposed Pasco
landfill in Pasco County entitled Angelo's recycled
materials, landfill.
As we last spoke, I have been in contact with the
Florida department of environmental protection.
The applicant has submitted two additional information
requests, to request additional information from the

DEP, and they are in that cycle once again.
There has been a third request for additional
information that was issued to the applicant July
31st.
An extension of time was granted so they have until
early December to provide the information to the DEP.
So it's still very much within the permitting review
time frame.
I tried to contact Pasco County to see what kind of
status was going on over there with a request for
reuse change, have not been able to be in contact with
the appropriate personnel over there.
It's been very difficult to send staff over there. We
are trying to attempt to get that information.
But obviously it is not moving towards completion
anytime soon.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I really appreciate your report.
Rather than waiting until another quarter to hear back
from you, after you contact the Pasco staff and see
what other response the applicant provides, if you
could come back to Tampa -- to Tampa? -- under staff
reports and share with us, that would be great.

So is that enough direction to -- because I don't know
when to put it on the calendar because I don't know
when Jan will hear back from them but when she does if
that could come back to council under staff reports, I
would really appreciate it.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: When she has additional information
she could do it under doc agenda, just request it
under staff report.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you so much.
>>CHAIRMAN: We go to item number 63, a resolution.
>>> Santiago Corrada, neighborhood services
administrator to speak to item 63 which was the
district 7 highway beautification maintenance
memorandum of agreement, major thoroughfare, City of
Tampa, which was continued from your regularly
scheduled meeting of November 1st, wanted to
provide a little bit of a clarification on that item.
That is a bundling of all of the maintenance
agreements of a similar type and contractual
obligations that reside under the clean city division
for the maintenance of FDOT properties that had been
enhanced based on requests from the city.

Dollars have already been allocated to those
agreements, and we are contractually obligated to
maintain those properties.
There was some discussion at your regularly scheduled
meeting of November 1st regarding future
agreements.
And we do have a meeting scheduled with FDOT on
December 14th to discuss our future financial
obligations for future projects in light of our
financial constraints, and the ability of FDOT to
contribute financially to any future agreements for
any enhancement that the city may ask for in FDOT
projects.
So I'm really seeking your support and the approval of
this item so we can move on with those contractual
obligations we currently have with FDOT to maintain
these properties.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: One thing I want to be sure about
on these properties, and frankly we need to do a
better job on city properties as well, is SWFWMD and
other agencies have been stressing this conflict of

Florida friendly yards, used to be called xeriscaping.
I think xeriscaping sounded a little too desert like.
Now we call it Florida-friendly yard.
But it's a great concept.
And it's something that obviously from our last
discussion five minutes ago we were talking about
water use and water conservation.
We need to do a better job of it.
When I see that some of these meetings that we put in,
sometimes they look Florida friendly and xeriscape and
that sort of thing, don't look like they take a lot of
water, but other times we are involved in vast amounts
of St. Augustine grass.
And in terms of medians and the D.O.T. median.
And I guess I want to perhaps ask you or maybe you can
report back, look at that issue and report back to see
what direction we are headed, "A," and to see if
possibly we can amend some of these contracts, and if
there's large swaths of St. Augustine on the medians
and that sort of thing, a lot of water and take a lot
of extra maintenance, maybe we can shift those over,
over the years and have more water efficient and cost

efficient programs.
>>> Absolutely.
And I can a sure you that I will carry that message to
FDOT for their future projects, as well as our own
in-house projects, and I can tell you the Parks
Department is really looking at all of that because
again the financial constraints were under as far as
maintenance and upkeep of those properties.
So absolutely.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I appreciate you coming in and
explaining this.
And the reason that council held this is because we
wanted to give you more leverage in negotiating with
FDOT and having them provide the minimum dollars for
maintenance.
So I think it might be helpful to you if council asked
our chairman to write a letter and, you know, Mr.
Shelby can help draft it, and the idea is that City
Council expects the Department of Transportation to
fulfill its minimum financial obligations in terms of
maintenance.
And for you to go into the meeting with this letter, I

think, will give you a little extra help, and we want
to give you that.
>>> I believe the actions of council doing November
1st were probably heard by FDOT.
>> A letter would just crisp it up.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
Mr. Caetano?
>>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Mr. Santiago, the work that's
going on on Nebraska, does that -- is that included in
the program?
>>> I'm not sure if it's a part of this one.
We are bundling similar types and I'm not sure if it's
in this bundle.
However we do have a contractual obligation on
Nebraska.
It will be minimum a.m. because of the opportunities
there are for enhancements on Nebraska.
So that one is one of our minimal contracts.
And I'm not sure it's part of this one or not.
>> I'll probably defer to our attorney that's been

working on this one but the maintenance of that one
would be minimal compared to some that are upcoming.
Yes, this one is included.
It includes State Road 574, west Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr. Boulevard, right-of-way, road improvements,
grass area, located between North Dale Mabry highway
and north Nebraska Avenue.
But not Nebraska Avenue improvements.
I don't see Nebraska Avenue on this one.
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Thank you.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much for calling the
office and being willing to answering questions.
I thank you very much.
>> While Mr. Corrada is here, I wanted to, if I could,
compliment him.
He spoke the other morning before the downtown
partnership outlining the city's arts program.
And specifically talking about Arte which has been
such a great success.
I want to compliment you on that.
And I want to you think hard about how worry going to
be able to continue this with our budget constraints.

We need to continue this.
Have been recognizes the economic development tools
that the arts are and how critical they are to
downtown being a regional scepter and how we need to
ensure that we have the resources to continue our
initiative.
>>> Councilwoman, I appreciate that.
If you would like me to come before council maybe at a
workshop and do that presentation, because we are
indebted and very supportive of the arts and many of
the institutions.
I would be glad to do that, if you set that, I would
be more than happy --
>> This is about maybe an 8-minute PowerPoint and it
was really great.
And at a future workshop we'll schedule it.
Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Item number --
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just to follow up, Santiago.
I'll make a motion.
I would like to hear a report back, and I'll give you
awhile to do it, maybe six months, on this issue of

water friendly yards, how are we incorporating it into
the city's programs, parks, and other programs, clean
cities, as well as the possible relationship to future
FDOT issue.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried).
Item 64 we have made a motion to have a workshop on
January 24th.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: Number 65.
Legal department.
>> John McKirchy, law department.
65 is two items.
There's a preliminary procedural resolution which is
merely setting a public hearing on December 18th
at 5:30.
And that is merely establishing the public hearing.
And even the December 18th proceeding with the
public hearing is merely going to be a resolution,

another preliminary resolution having to do with the
collection of the special assessment, if any, which
would ultimately be taken up in the third quarter of
2008.
So the item is merely a preliminary, very preliminary
resolution setting the public hearing to allow the
public to come in and air their views December
18th on this subject.
And again on the 18th the only sunset is the
method of collection of special assessment, when the
matter is ultimately taken up.
>> I think it's the cart before the horse.
Why don't you tell bus your legal conclusion on the
first part, which is can the port authority pay for
the dredging of the canal?
>>> My charge was to determine the responsibility of
the port authority if any for dredging the residential
canals, and in the areas that are proposed, which is
David highland.
This office reviewed the special act and the general
counsel, port authority, reviewed the available
records, and we were unable to find any basis for

concluding the authority has responsibility to dredge
the residential canal.
We are going to continue our investigation.
Like I say, we have consulted with the general
counsel, the port authority, and they provided their
position at this point.
They stated enabling legislation does not require the
port authority to dredge the submerged lands.
Consequently the port authority is not responsible for
dredging or making any other improvements to
residential canals or other residential waterways.
At this point we have not found any evidence that the
authority owns the residential canals.
My view we have not conduct add title search, but the
authority is investigating title to the residential
waterways as well as some of the other waterways.
They have maintained the title of residential canals
was deeded to the developers for the areas west of
Westshore, including Sunset Park, Beach Park, and
other subdivisions in that area.
The authority is confirming those transactions to more
clearly shed light on the title.

At this point, we have not been able to find any basis
for some responsibility of the port authority to
dredge the residential canals.
If you have any questions.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. McKirchy.
The port authority issues permits for docks on the
Hillsborough River.
I don't know if you are familiar with that.
But I'm pretty sure they do.
>> That's right.
>> But do you know folks who have docks, do you know
if they have to get permits in the Westshore Sunset
Park area?
Permits from the port authority?
>>> Yes, they do.
>> So they do?
>>> But.
By any regulatory agency, like EPC, it's really two
separate issues.
>> The regulatory authority is separate from the
alleged responsibility.
>> But how would they insert jurisdiction over those

docks over in Sunset Park and Beach Park if they
didn't have any jurisdiction over the submerged lands
over there?
It seems kind of intuitive.
>>> Well, I think the way to look at it, there's two
separate issues.
They have taken the position that the regulatory
authority is broader than their responsibility and
jurisdiction for proprietary purposes.
Again their position is title and the deed went to the
developers at that time, and I think that the
regulatory authority's powers are addressed separately
from their contractual authority and their
responsibility to dredge and provide for improvement.
They are addressed separately in the special act and I
think there are really two separate issues.
>> So as the legal department, and Mr. Smith on the
wings here, has the legal department -- you have had
discussions, but you don't have an official opinion
yet on this issue, "A"?
And "B," would you have one before the December
18th proposed public hearing?

>>> Well, I think as Mr. Grandoff is suggesting the
title issues of this matter, the only way to really
determine for sure is to get title information, as I
said, the port authority, general counsel is working
to provide information on title.
It's their position they don't own these canals.
>> I don't think it's just title, though.
It's title, and then responsibility to maintain.
I think it's two issues.
>>> And their position is unless they own it, they
don't have responsibility to maintain it.
>> Right.
So I think we need a formal legal opinion.
This is a big issue.
These are $5 million issues for the community.
I think we need a formal legal opinion by December on
this issue.
But it's a two-fold issue.
"A," do they own it? This F they do own it, "B," the
next question would be, do they have a legal
obligation to maintain it? David, I'm not asking you
to opine on that today but I think it's a critical

issue that has to be opined in writing by December.
>>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
One of the things I learned a long time ago is to know
what you don't know.
I would not be in a position to give you a definitive
opinion today but I understand the need, the time
frame you need in order to make the decision.
Jan McLean and John McKirchy everybody working hand in
glove on this issue.
I heard Mr. Grandoff's testimony earlier today.
One of the things I always do when someone has a
contrary opinion I want to hear it, I want to hear
their basis for it, I want to hear the authority on
which it is predicated, I want to evaluate that
myself.
So we will have that analysis for you.
We will provide you that opinion in writing.
Then when don't want someone else to have to replicate
this process.
So we'll have that for you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Caetano?
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: (off microphone) state statutes

regarding this.
And --
>> Mr. Hofferd.
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: And did he site Florida law.
We have different opinions.
If they have the authority to go over there and issue
a permit for a dock, what gives them that authority,
and yet they don't have authority to pay for the
dredging?
>>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
Unfortunately, in the law, sometimes the authority is
different from the obligation.
So we need to make sure we have looked at what they
have authority to do, and then what they are obligated
to do.
Rights and liabilities are not always coterminous.
But I would be happy to hear from Mr. Coffer.
We have had communication was Mr. Coffer, Jr. before.
If he has anything for to us know I would be happy to
hear it and we are having conversations with Port
Tampa.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I believe Ms. Mulhern had the floor

before me.
>>MARY MULHERN: I just wanted to thank Mr -- the Mr.
Coffers for kind of bringing this to my attention.
I looked at my tax bill last night and I don't live in
anywhere near those ports, don't have a canal, and we
are paying an assessment.
You know, we are paying for the port.
So I think it's an interesting question that I would
like to have some discussion on, because what exactly
is -- the taxpayers are supporting the port, and what
are we getting for that, those tax dollars that we are
providing to the port?
And if anybody this is something that we can find that
they do have some legal responsibility to help with
this dredging and clean-up, I'd like to No. and I'm
not sure, you know, Mr. Smith, that we can have
answers in time to vote on this, December 18th,
whether we are going to go forward with asking for
more tax assessment for our citizens when we are not
sure that they are not already paying for something.
>>SAL TERRITO: Legal department.
I think what's happening with the process that's get

something confusion, a public hearing, methodology,
not to actually impose the assessment.
There's a requirement under the statute that if you
are going to use a uniform methodology you have to do
it at a certain time.
This gives you the option at a later date, if you want
to impose the assessment, to do so. If you don't
approve the resolution today, if you don't approve the
methodology on December 18th, then you don't have
the option of going forward with the special
assessment.
This gives you the option.
You can still say no to the assessment when it comes
before you, but you won't have the option of saying
yes if you want to go forward.
And that's what's happening with the resolution today.
I hope that clarifies.
It looks a little confusing on how it's going forward
at this particular time.
That's all you are doing is setting a methodology.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
But I want to respond to Ms. Mulhern about the taxes.

I was on the port board for several years, and not
only the board has the ability to tax but the school
board, Hartline, all of the agencies.
When I get my tax bill, you look at all those taxes
that are there.
So because they are public agencies and they have been
granted by the legislature to do taxes and levy.
So they have authority.
However, I am glad that the city attorney, though, is
looking at whether they have the authority, the
responsibility to dredge and clean.
I heard earlier that -- we need our attorney to look
at that and see and give us his opinion to is that so?
So I'm glad to see that you are going to be doing that
and coming back with information on that.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I promise to stay under the five
minutes so Mr. Caetano won't get upset with me.
A couple of things here.
My memory tells me in the past, the past
administration, it was concluded that the -- through
the conversations with the port authority that they
had no responsibilities in cleaning up the canals.

They can verify that when they speak, the port
authority attorneys at length and other that is were
here at that time if they so choose to.
I like to put things into perspective so you can
understand what's been going on.
This canal issue has long been here -- and I'm going
to put it into a phrase -- it's lasted longer than the
first world war, second world war, the Korean war, the
Vietnam conflict, and the two invasions of Iraq, and
that is still going on now.
By about 15 years.
So there should be some closure to these good
neighbors one way or the other.
I'm going to support the resolution, but I also want
to put a caveat in there that says looking at just 20
feet, there's only one option on the table.
I think you have to bring many options to the table.
What happened?
You are going to moor your boat.
What is the cost to the neighbors to get it done
right?
And these are the things that bother me.

I don't like to do something halfway.
These things will fill up again, even though there's a
maintenance part of it that will clean every once a
year, once every two years, come in and do a sweep.
However, I don't want to do something that only meets
half of the requirement.
>> Right.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The neighbors certainly should get
together and find out what the true cost is.
I think you ought to go out and hire, get bids from
other contractors who may do it cheaper.
I'm not telling you we are the best and the most
efficient.
You should be involved with that process yourself so
you can compare the apples to the apples.
And see how much it would cost you.
It might be greater.
Might be less.
But these are the things that I hope that down the
road, before we make our final determination, are all
brought to the table so that we can have an
intelligent conclusion to the canals.

And maybe after that I can retire.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Miranda, I think it sounded
like you are making the motion on the resolution, and
I'll -- if you were I'll second your motion.
As I said last time, I think we are in a process, and
it's still early in the process.
And I think we have to continue that process as we get
more information.
On the 18th, it would be a public hearing.
And I think we need to talk about, was that a regular
night meeting?
Or is that a special meeting?
That's a special meeting, 5:30 p.m.
Is this room going to be able to accommodate it?
Are we going to have any limitations, you know, in
terms of length and that sort of thing?
We can talk about those issues.
But this is a very controversial issue.
We saw it last time.
We have a lot of folks on both sides of the issue.
But I'll support it just to keep the discussion going.

There's many folks in this community, as Charlie
indicated, for 30, 40, 50 years, that wanted the city
to be involved in this.
In terms of costs, Charlie, I think at the end of the
day as we all know when you get something wholesale
you are going to get it at better cost and I think
that's one of the reasons the city is stepping up to
the plate to try to do this on a wholesale large-scale
basis.
Sure, every one those canals can go out individually
and bid and every one of the homeowners can do in
front of their own place but when they do it one by
one it's going to be much more expensive than the city
stepping in and doing it on a larger basis.
I'm not saying I'm supporting it in December,
whatever.
Just on the basis of letting the public speak and
everything a full-blown public hearing I think is an
important part profit sees so I'll second the motion.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I am going to support this also for
the reason of my fellow council members.
But I thought that the letter shared with us today was

very eye opening to me, and I believe that I asked Mr.
Shelby to make copies and share it with our staff.
They don't need to address it now but I want them to
be able to address the meeting on the 18th,
particularly the question about whether the urban
lakes project would be eligible, and the woman from
the EPA was saying, why do you want to change this?
And I appreciate you bringing this forward.
I think this raises some questions, not about whether
we should do the canal, but whether the money in the
lakes project was appropriate to spend here.
I would like that addressed on the 18th.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to move the
resolution.
(Motion carried)
Shirley Foxx-Knowles, item 66.
>>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: City clerk.
Item number 66 is a continuation of your request to
have Mr. Al Giraud come before you and make a 3-minute
presentation regarding his application for the civil
service board.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.

Is he the only applicant we have?
>>> Yes.
>> I have known Mr. Giraud.
I'll move to waive the present and -- the presentation
and just move he be approved.
>> Second.
>>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.
>> I don't mind waiving.
I would at least like to know who he is if he's here.
>>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: We sent him a letter, and we
called, also.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have had communication was him
and I think he's a good member of the community.
I hope I'm right.
So I'll move approval for him.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I hope you're right, too.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I believe we all got a letter from
MALZONE, and she's leaving and we have a vacancy and
we need to get on that.
Could the clerk tell me what's happening?

>>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Foxx-Knowles will tell you.
>>> We are currently advertising for that position.
We ask that application be provided to our office by
November 29th.
And we have scheduled a 3-minute presentation on
December 6th.
>>GWEN MILLER: All right.
Item number 67.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, that's a result of last
week's discussion regarding the charter change.
The issue wishes to discuss it at a workshop or
special discussion meeting cot do so by scheduling it
by motion if it so desires.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If I remember, this was some
discussion with the council, that we looked at
November.
And I believe Mrs. Saul-Sena wanted -- I mean,
January, and in reviewing that January was kind of
full and we went to February, if I remember.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But that's what I remember.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll just move February 28th

for discussion on city charter.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: 9 a.m.
That's our workshop discussion.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried).
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I guess legal would be prepared
and involved in that in terms of options and what have
you.
And I guess to the extent that administration wants us
to stay where we are.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: And also our council attorney will be
involved in the process.
He's the one that really should need to set the stage
and of course the city attorney to be involved, but
our council at the workshop he is the one that should
be involved in this process.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I agree.
For example, let's say there's something I think we
should consider, would the appropriate thing for me to
write a memo to my fellow council members and Mr.
Shelby?

Speaking of ways to present information, I believe it
was Mr. Shelby shared with me a format that another
government uses where there's a discussion, and then
there's some decision points.
I thought that was so clear, it really made making a
decision easier, when you can see the pros and cons
and then the points that we can weigh in.
I think that would be very helpful for this.
And I think frankly helpful for all of the items on
our agenda that we can at least start with our
jurisdiction.
Thanks.
>>CHAIRMAN: Item number 68.
You wanted that continued to when?
>> December 29 -- November 29th.
>>DAVID SMITH: Bee would like that continued to
November 29th.
>>>: So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to continue
item 68 to --
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: December 29th.

>> No, sir.
November 29th.
>> November 29th.
I'm sorry.
This should not take long.
>>GWEN MILLER: All right.
10:00.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a clarification.
November 29th is a workshop day.
You do have a night meeting.
Normally, you do not take up items at a regular agenda
on a workshop day.
At least that hasn't come up yet.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: Because of the time issue, I think we
should go ahead and take it up.
I have no problem.
Anytime there's a time sensitive issue, we should
always go ahead, as long as we are aware of that and
you call to the our attention, I appreciate that.
We should put this on our morning agenda before the
workshop.
>>CHAIRMAN: Then we go to our public hearing for

second reading.
Item number 69.
We need to open.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to open.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
Is there transportation staff here?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Parking staff.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think that real cities have
parking issues.
This is sort off rite of passage.
It means in growing up we have lots of people who want
to come do things and I think that we have to strike a
balance between protecting people in neighborhoods and
allowing people in the neighborhoods to park in the
street in front of their houses.
And I think that this permit is an attempt to get
there.
But I just want to make sure that transportation
hasn't precluded an average residential neighborhood,
people that on-street parking is precluded.

I heard that this week and I was very concerned that
that is a de facto policy that City Council can't
waive.
And these permits are for areas that are having real
crises like the Channel District, or Courier City.
But in our regular neighborhoods, I think people
should be able to park on the street.
But I want to clarify that after we discuss this.
>>> Jim Corbett, parking manager.
That is the approach that we are taking with this, is
to -- what it does, it enables a resident within the
boundary to have that right to park inside -- park on
the street.
In addition it allows visitors to that area the
ability to park up to three hours without having a
permit.
So we are trying to answer both pieces here, not
restricted strictly to residents but to keep it
flowing for both parties.
Primarily after 9:00 at night is when the residential
permit takes full effect, and only residents can park
in that boundary area at that point in time, and that

is seven days a week, of course.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm glad that this is coming about.
District 6 is the parking district of the world.
As Ms. Saul-Sena alluded to Courier City and others
between Cleveland and Swann, and east of Armenia
Avenue, you have a terrible situation there, actually
Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights where you can't
move, there's parking on both sides of the street,
emergency vehicles do not fit.
That's on one side of the district.
On the other side, we have given the property owners
the right because they are prisoners in their own home
during certain events and certain areas that you can't
leave the house an hour and a half before an event and
you can't come home an hour and a half after the event
so you are a prisoner in your own home.
What we have done is allowed them to park on their
lawn or on the property, I should say, and charge a
fee and pay a certain amount of permit.
What is happening, however, that is not copacetic at
this time is that some overzealous property owner,
maybe not everyone property owners, are parking cars

on city rights-of-way and charges for that.
And I believe that's just terribly wrong.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder has a question.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Council, I'm sorry, I was at a
government conference for first reading and I'm a
little bit at a loss in terms of exactly what we are
doing.
Is this definitive in terms of geographic areas that
we are addressing, or does this just give you the
light to go out and target particular areas?
>>> This is an amendment to the original ordinance of
course and it does establish a boundary for
Channelside, which is the one and 200 block of north
12th Street and 1 and 200 block of south 12th Street
at this particular point in time.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So we are adding the Channelside?
I think we already do this in Ybor.
>>> That's correct.
>> And I don't see any reference here in Soho.
I know there have been discussions in Soho and the
Howard Avenue area.
But I don't think -- this ordinance does not implement

it in Soho.
>> That's correct.
It does not in Soho.
Ment does not.
And again, we just met with folks in the community and
have had those discussions.
But at this point, the general consensus is that the
neighborhood does not want to move forward with this
type of residential permit program.
>> I just wanted to make it clear exactly what we are
passing.
So the only two areas, the ordinance previously just
Ybor and now we are adding Channelside.
>>> That's correct.
>> And that's it?
>> That's correct.
And should Soho at some point wish to be --
>> Or West Tampa.
>> Exactly.
We could add those boundaries to an amendment to the
ordinance.
>> Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak

on item number 70 is the.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Before we close, will the
department be instructed to review those two districts
and come back with a plan in 60 days?
Because I believe -- I have been through the
neighborhood.
I have driven around at night.
And it's impossible to even go through a street,
especially in the Soho district on Thursday, Friday
and Saturday night in a Volkswagen.
So you can imagine an emergency vehicle, it has an
enormous amount of impact on the neighborhood.
So I will support this.
I think it's a start in the right direction.
I think there's got to be a little more definitive
answers at the end.
I would like to --
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the public hearing.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>MARY MULHERN: Move an ordinance for adoption, this

is number 70, right?
Vacating closing --
>> No, 69.
>>MARY MULHERN: 69, sorry.
Being presented for second reading, an ordinance of
the city of Tampa, Florida amending the City of Tampa
code, chapter 15, section 15-104, residential parking
permit only area, providing for repeal of all
ordinances in conflict, providing for severability.
Now I know, I wasn't here, that's why I didn't know
what you were talking about.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I would like to ask the parking
department to come back in 60 days with this council
regarding the Soho district and West Tampa district
around the stadium and the Soho district, the
boundaries would be, I believe, it's Cleveland to
Swann, and east of Armenia.
All the way down.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'll second that motion and perhaps

Mr. Miranda can suggest the boundaries in West Tampa.
And what I would like to see, I know it's kind of a
bit of work, but if you could send some kind of
postcard to the people who live there and ask them
what they think of this and ask them to get back to
you, I would love to see the residential people
respond.
I think this is for residential permit that is don't
send it to the commercial, please send it to the
residential property owners.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If I may, I believe West Tampa
should be west of MacDill Avenue from Columbus
drive to MLK, of that boundary up to Dale Mabry.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: To the maker of the motion, out of
deference to staff, because I was at a Soho meeting
where this was pretty controversial, and I would just
suggest perhaps we look at 90 days so we can give the
public time to jump into it.
>> Fine.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried).
>>CHAIRMAN: We need to open item 70 through 79.

>> So moved, 70 through 79.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>CHAIRMAN: Anybody anyone in the public to speak on
70 to 79, please stand and raise your right hand.
(Oath administered by Clerk).
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I understand there are items that
need to be received and filed prior to taking action.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
wants to speak on item number 70?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>THOMAS SCOTT: I would like to move an ordinance
being presented for second reading, an ordinance
vacating, closing, discontinuing, and abandoning a
certain right-of-way all that portion of Ball Street
that is bound by Caesar street to the west and South
Meridian Avenue to the east, in A.W. Gilchrist Oak
Grove, a subdivision in the City of Tampa,

Hillsborough County Florida the same being more fully
described in section 2 hereof providing an effective
date.
>> I have a motion and second.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
>>CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the public that wants
to speak on item 71?
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>THOMAS SCOTT: I'd like to move an ordinance
presented for second reading, an ordinance approving
an historic preservation property tax exemption
application relative to the restoration, renovation or
rehabilitation of certain property owned by Richard O.
Wolfe II and Michelle H. Wolfe located at 800 south
Oregon Avenue, Tampa, Florida in the Hyde Park
historic district based upon certain findings,
providing for notice to the property appraiser in
Hillsborough County, providing for severability,
providing for real peel of all ordinances in conflict,

providing an effective date.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
wants to speak on item 72?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I move the following ordinance upon
second reading, an ordinance approving an historic
preservation property tax exemption application
relative to the restoration, renovation or
rehabilitation of certain property owned by the
Arlington condominium located at 1209-1229 North
Franklin Street, Tampa, Florida in the North Franklin
Street historic district based upon certain findings
providing for notice to property appraiser of
Hillsborough County, providing for severability,
providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict,
providing an effective date.
>> Motion and second.

Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
wants to speak on item 73?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to say this is so
exciting because these are private dollars being used
to renovate historic buildings, and it's a great gift
to the community.
But the one in front of us is on east Columbus drive
which is just beginning to have this kind of
reinvestment, and these are pioneers, and I want to
really celebrate them.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move the following ordinance upon
second reading, an ordinance approving historic
preservation property tax exemption to the
rehabilitation of certain property owned by Lisa
McCorkle located at 1814 east Columbus drive, Tampa,
Florida, in the Ybor City historic district based upon
certain findings, providing for notice to the property

appraiser of Hillsborough County, providing for
severability, providing for repeal of all ordinances
in conflict, providing an effective date.
>> I have a motion and second.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
>> Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak
on item 74?
>> Jill Karsi, Land Development Coordination, I have
been sworn.
The items, if I may, relate to rezoning.
Item number 74, 75 and 79, we have received site plans
certified by the zoning administrator, now filed with
the clerk.
Item 76, 77 and 78 do not provide certifiable site
plans, so we ask that those be continued to second
reading to 11-29 at either 5:30 or 6:00.
>>GWEN MILLER: 76 and 77.
>>> 76, 77, 78, to November 29th.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
>>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)

>>CHAIRMAN: Anyone else to speak on item 74?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I move an ordinance for second
reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the general
vicinity of 2301 west Sligh Avenue in the city of
Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in
section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-50
residential single family to RO residential office,
office, business, professional, providing an effective
date.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Vote and record.
Somebody didn't vote.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
wants to speak on item 75?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.

(Motion carried).
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to adopt the following
ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance rezoning
property in the general vicinity of 1901 north
66th street in the city of Tampa, Florida and more
particularly described in section 1 from zoning
district classifications RS-50 residential
single-family to PD planned development, office,
business, professional, providing an effective date.
>> I have a motion and second.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
>>GWEN MILLER: Did anyone in the public come to speak
on item 76, 77 or 78?
If you want to speak on the continuance you may speak
on it.
It will be continued to November 29th.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to have the items continued to
November 29th.
At what time?
>> 6:00.
>>THE CLERK: You already made your motion.

>>> 76, 77 and 78.
>>GWEN MILLER: We did it.
Mrs. Saul-Sena.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for staff.
We are trying to make life easier for the neighborhood
volunteers to come down to speak.
If you know that something isn't going to be coming to
us because it's been continued, is there anyway you
can let the neighborhood know so that they don't come
down here and park and go through all that hullabaloo?
>>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
I am going to address this in place of staff because
this is a little different situation. This is
actually the first time since we have instituted our
new process in which you have site plans that cannot
be certified.
When will we find that out, seven days ahead of time?
And so what we can do is institute a process under
which we can make the best effort we can to let the
neighborhood associations know that it's going to be
continued not because there's a request but the
applicant can continue, but because of our code, it

has to be continued because of the site plans cannot
be certified.
>> So this is not because the applicant didn't get you
the proper information.
>>> It is because of the applicant, but it's not --
it's a little bit of a different scenario, the really
first time we faced this scenario. It will take a
little time to make sure --
>> Thank you.
I just don't want to put the neighborhood who
sometimes has been down here for throw continued
public hearings to get to the first vote, the
inconvenience of coming down two more times.
>>> Yes.
I agree.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
wants to speak on item 79?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move the following

ordinance for second reading an adoption, an ordinance
rezoning property in the general vicinity of 536 and
544 Channelside Drive, 502 south Caesar street, and
1005 Cumberland Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida
and more particularly described in section 1 from
zoning district classifications CBD-the, central
business district, to CBD-2, central business
district, office-business, and professional,
restaurant, bank, retail, principal use parking,
providing an effective date.
And I'm very excited about this project.
We all welcome -- William come our first gold LEED
office building to town.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
Vote and record.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to open items 80, 81, 82.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone want to speak on item number 80
from the staff?

Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
item number 80?
>> Move to close.
>>SAL TERRITO: Legal department.
Just here for the name change on the Heights project.
I'm certainly here to answer questions.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public want to speak on
number 80?
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move the resolution.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>GWEN MILLER: Item number 81.
Anyone spoke speak?
>>ROSE PETRUCHA: Planning Commission staff.
The Davis Island community plan is the third
neighborhood plan to be successfully undertaken base
on the guidelines of the city adopted back in 1997.
A task force was appointed by the City Council in
2002.

It was about a five-year process.
The task force did an extensive public participation
program to include stakeholders as well as citizens
and business individuals as part of the development of
the state plan.
Residents, property owners and stakeholders adopt this
plan, or approved it, and a vote on a community wide
forum on June 6th of this year, and the Planning
Commission reviewed the plan October 8th and found
it consistent with the Tampa comprehensive plan.
I just want to acknowledge the efforts of the task
force that was involved.
Dennis Cavanagh, Henry Gill, Lorraine Smith, Sheila
Spicola, Charles Touchton, Jeffrey Siewert, Lisa
Devitto, Charner Reese, Renae Tvedt, Kathryn Walsh,
Phyllis Pacyna, Renee Meehan, Gerald Smelt, Jim
Fleming, Pam Tayon, Ray Mulvey, Andy Hayes, Ralph la
Barta, Mike Callahan, and Gary Brown and Lee Medart.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else to speak on item 80?
81?
>> Tuesday or Wednesday night I went to the Davis

Island civic association meeting and these folks
worked five years on this plan and they all deserve
great, great recognition because that's a lot of time
to put into your neighborhood community plan.
And so it's with great pleasure I would like to
move --
>>GWEN MILLER: Not yet.
Did you want to say something?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, do but I'll wait.
>> Need to close first.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move this
resolution.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: If I could, I'll be glad to second
it.
And I want to recognize Gary Brown, who is in the
audience, the co-chair of this, as well as Lee Medart
who is probably out of town, other I'm sure she would
be here.
I went to many of the meetings.

Or several of the meetings in regard to the
neighborhood visioning exercise, in the development of
this neighborhood plan.
It took them four or five years, sometimes that's what
it takes to put these things together and get
consensus.
But looking at the document today, it looks like
excellent vision for the future.
I did have a question for Ms. Petrucha.
>>GWEN MILLER: We closed the public hearing.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We didn't close it.
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes, we did.
>> It's a generic question not related to this item.
We have an e-mail today from another neighborhood, and
I have heard the comments from various neighborhoods
who are expressing some disappointment.
They are not against us approving Davis Island plan
but they are expressing some disappointment because
three neighborhoods have successfully done this, and
they have a plan, codified in place, but now we have
got 30, 40, 50 neighborhoods that are out there that
don't have plans.

Some of the neighborhoods want to get into the
planning process and are being told, I guess, and I'm
not sure by your staff or by our staff, that they
can't do it, we are not going to do it, we are not
going there anymore, or what have you.
So if there's a change in policy, we need to know
about it and we need to chime in on it.
But you know what, Madam Chair, if you want to vote on
Davis Island, let's vote on Davis Island, and then
we'll deal with this in a second.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to a
proffer the resolution.
(Motion carried).
>>I didn't want to rain on David -- a wonderful job.
Now on this issue.
>>RANDY GOERS: Community planning division.
We understand there's a few of the neighborhoods that
want to move forward on a neighborhood plan.
One of the things that we would like to do, we have a
couple of things that we have been working on.
Part of this if you went to the comp plan update, we
sat down with the neighborhood who participated in

this process.
There's actually been four that have gone through the
process.
Port Tampa never got the plan approved.
So we talked to all the representatives that went
through the process to find out what they liked about
the process, where they saw the strengths and
weaknesses, where they saw the potential.
And you notice, it would take a long time for a
neighborhood to do the plan on their own with, some
city staff support.
We would like to be able to help more neighborhoods do
more plans, and be able to do it without them
everything to spend so much time.
At the same time, we are faced with decreasing staff
resources to be able to support.
So I think the direction the administration is moving
forward, I think you heard from Cathy Coyle and the
discussion of community planning, through formed-based
design, at a program that I think they are looking at,
a demo project in the central part of Tampa where they
can look at more than one neighborhood, involve more

of the community and do a real partnership with the
community with the city leading the effort.
And what we think that's going to do is allow the city
to cover more of the neighborhoods, allow them to be
able to get what they want the vision for their
neighborhood, and have it more efficiently done.
So we do know these neighborhoods out there. We are
trying to develop a schedule where the city can come
in, and do something on a systematic basis where we
can look at all the issues that they have.
At the same time I think we want to develop a response
process where they will have specific issues or few
concerns where we can come in and respond to the, more
of a neighborhood support team where they are not left
to do the neighborhood plan themselves, but we can
come in at strategic points and help them solve some
specific problems.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you for saying that.
I think that neighborhood planning is one of the most
important things that we can do as a city for our
neighborhoods.
And they have taken huge responsibility for sort of

going out on their own with really modest Planning
Commission support.
The degree to which we can sort of provide a template
for them to do this is great.
And then we have two responsibilities, one is to pay
attention to their plan when we are making zoning
recommendations, and I never ever seen neighborhood
plans referred to in our zoning hearings, and I think
that they should be.
If they spent five years working on this, we should --
they shouldn't have to come down and remind us.
We should know, if there is an area that has a
neighborhood plan, staff should refer to that
neighborhood plan and N developing their responses.
Secondly, when we develop our capital improvement
projects, we should look at what the neighborhood's
priorities are in spending public money on things that
they deem the most important, and that's an area where
council can really be active and I think we need to
be.
I don't think the existing council members have really
been briefed on the Seminole Heights plan which has

been adopted, the Davis Island plans now, or what's
the other one?
>> Tampa Heights.
>> Tampa Heights.
And God knows they spent years and years on it.
We need to have those plans uppermost in our mind when
we make important decisions for these neighborhoods.
And maybe Mr. Goers during one of our workshops, you
can bring us up to speed, or maybe you can work
individually with some of the more recent council
members to go over the existing plan.
But I feel there's been a real disconnect between the
neighborhood's hard work on their plan and the
implementation of those plans.
And we can get better at this.
Thanks.
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I received a communication from
the Temple Crest civic association, and I think
everybody on this board received a copy of it.
And I am told here that Temple Crest has been told we
cannot do something like this in our neighborhood.
Now I don't know who told them this but I would like

to you contact that particular organization and find
out, whoever told them this, that they could do it, if
they get their plan together.
>>> I don't know exactly what was communicated.
But if it has to do with the 40th Street, we are
waiting for the completion of all of the land
acquisition along 40th Street before we engage in any
kind of long-range planning part of it.
But it's not that we couldn't do it.
We have to wait till certain things happen and bee
would move forward with working with the community.
We are working with that community, the five
neighborhoods are the 40th Street neighborhood plan.
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Goers.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to make a motion that
our city planning staff refers to the comprehensive
neighborhood plans, the neighborhood plans that have
been adopted by the Tampa Heights, Seminole Heights
and now Davis Island, when they make zoning
recommendations or any kind of, you know, staff
recommendations in those areas, and they cite that as

part of their staff recommendations to City Council.
>> I'll second that.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Item number 83.
Does staff want to speak on that?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What about Ballast Point?
They haven't adopted it.
>> 82.
>> Cathy Ginster, legal department. I'm here for the
first public hearing today on a brownfield designation
for the Central Park Village area. This is the first
of two required public hearings under state law to
designate a brownfield.
The second is scheduled for November 29th.
And at that point council will be asked to pass a
resolution to designate the brownfield.
There is a proposed designation is -- has been
submitted and there's an application on file with the
city clerk's office.
We were notified recently, yesterday evening, there
may be a change in the circumstances, that staff will

investigate but we are going to meet with the
applicant, which is the Tampa housing authority, and
the Central Park development to ensure that all the
criteria is in place to lead to the eligibility before
we come back to you on November 29th to ask you
for the designation.
>>CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the public that wants
to speak on item 82?
>> Move to close.
>> Move to close.
>>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second to close.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: Anyone that's going to speak on items
83 through 86, would you please stand and raise your
right hand.
(Oath administered by Clerk).
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to open those items.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>BARBARA LYNCH: Land Development Coordination.
The subject vacating is located in East Tampa in the

community of Adamo and 34th street and I do have a
map on the overhead.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Can we have the monitors?
There we go.
>> The petitioner's property is shaded in red, and the
right-of-way to be vacated is outlined in the yellow.
The petitioner is requesting to vacate a portion of
Second Avenue and 36th Street.
Running from 31st street to 36th street.
Both of these are unimproved rights-of-way.
My first photo is 36th street.
And this is looking south towards Second Avenue.
The next photo is Second Avenue looking east towards
36th street.
The next photo is the petitioner's property looking
east from 35th street.
And another photo from the same location.
And another shot of petitioner's property looking
south from Third Avenue.
Staff has no objections to this request as long as the
easements are reserved for Bright House, stormwater,
TECO and water department.

>>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
>>> Our address is Post Office Box 1016, Tampa,
Florida 33601.
I'm assisting the authorized agent for Sol Walker and
company Joel Schnitzler of Uptown Construction in this
request for the portion of right-of-way referenced by
staff.
The public purpose of the vacation of the subject
rights-of-way is to take contaminated industrial
property that have remained vacant and underutilized
for several years and create an economically viable
read for the property by maximizing the usable land in
consolidating three separate blocks of property into
one unified parcel that will be developed into a
single office warehouse for a defined contract
purchase.
Sol walker and company has already spit submitted and
southbound processing a brownfield designation and
remedial plan which will require capping, as we call
it in the industry, the surface of the property with
impervious material to the greatest extent possible,
so a solution would necessity minimizing any open

space, thus the exposed rights-of-way in the midst of
the three parcels need to be eliminated.
Additionally the public purpose can be defined as one
new job creation by the creation of the warehouses,
increase the property tax evaluation, elimination of a
illegal dumping sites.
We are working with the city code enforcement right
now, to get approximately 3 to 5 truckloads have been
illegally dumped almost on a daily basis and going in
there and clearing them off.
It's been very difficult to secure the property
although we can put fences and posts around them.
We are adjacent to CSX right-of-way.
Trucks keep going around their particular right-of-way
location.
And then also, it will eliminate an area used by
vagrants and transients.
We have noted the surrounding property owner and he's
actually -- of the one property owner that's here and
he has expressed they are in favor of this particular
vacation.
And based upon the above, I respectfully request you

grant the request for vacation of the right-of-way.
I'm available to answer any questions.
>> Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak
on item 83?
Need to close the public hearing.
(Motion carried)
Mr. Caetano?
Would you read that, please?
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: An ordinance vacating, closing,
discontinuing, and abandoning a certain right-of-way,
all that portion lying south of 3rd Avenue, north
of CSX railroad, east of north 35th street, and
west of 37th street, in the east bay park, second
revision, a subdivision located in the City of Tampa,
Hillsborough County, Florida, as more fully described
in section 2 hereof, providing an effective date.
>> We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
>>THE CLERK: Second reading will occur on December
6th at 9:30.
>>GWEN MILLER: Item number 85.
>> Move to open.

>>GWEN MILLER: They are all already open.
>>BARBARA LYNCH: Land Development Coordination.
The subject of this vacating petition is also located
in East Tampa in the vicinity of Adamo and 34th
street.
I do have a map on the overhead and the petitioner's
property is shaded in red.
And alley outlined in yellow.
And I wanted to show you, this is already a dead-ended
alley.
One of the streets has been vacated previously.
You see the alley in yellow and the vacated street to
the west.
>> Can I ask a question?
Is this in a historic district, the Ybor Historic
District?
>> no, it's not.
We checked that.
It's not.
>> Great.
Thanks.
>> The petitioner is requesting to vacate an alleyway

lying between second and third avenues and running
from 32nd street to 34th street.
I have some photos.
This first is the alleyway looking east from the
dead-end.
The alleyway looking west from 34th street toward
the dead-end and this is showing it's already blocked.
Another photo of the alleyway, we actually had to go
over a fence to do this photo and it shows several
structures.
And the next shot is petitioner's property looking
south on third Avenue.
Staff has no objection to this request.
Parks did make comments if any develop occurs that
they comply with chapter 13.
And we are going to include that.
>>CHAIRMAN: Petitioner?
>> John Grandoff, suite 3700 Bank of America Plaza on
behalf of the petitioner requesting the vacating of
this alley.
I have nothing further to add.
>>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone in the public want to speak

on item 85?
>> Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried)
>>MARY MULHERN: Move to adopt an ordinance vacating,
closing, discontinuing abandoning a certain
right-of-way all that alley lying west of 34th
street, north of 2nd eve, east of 31st street
and south of 3rd Avenue in EL Valle, de Tampa, a
subdivision in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County
Florida as more particularly described in section 2
hereby providing an effective date.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>THE CLERK: Second reading and adoption will be held
December 6th at 9:30.
>>GWEN MILLER: Item number 86.
86?
>>BARBARA LEPORE: Land development.
I'm here on item 86 for the petition WZ-07-135 for the
location at 3437-3441 West Kennedy Boulevard.
The petitioner is requesting a 4(COP-R) for the sale

of alcoholic content and the banquet room.
It will be approximately 7,000 square feet and will be
located in -- will be converted into the cooler for
the alcoholic beverages.
Also the wet zoning request is for the patio located.
According to the application, the representative will
have approximately 89 seats located inside.
In 2005 the council granted the 2(COP-R) wet zoning
for this property for the building located on the east
side of this property.
This building and the wet zoning is approximately 1600
square feet.
The wet zoning for first (COP-R) for increase of about
300 square feet.
There are other wet zoned properties, as well as
residential properties, and petitioner is requesting a
waiver of the distance separation between the wet
zoned establishment and residential property.
There are no institutional properties.
(off microphone)
The aerial which is marked on the red is the wet zoned
request.

I have pictures.
The second which -- this is the wet zoning which was
also in 2004 portion, 2(COP-R), and the wet zoning
that they are requesting now is marked in the gray
area.
This is the wet zoning approved.
And these are the buildings that they would like to
get 4(COP-R).
Right here.
Land development has no objection to this request.
The application has been forwarded.
>> Officer Don Miller, City of Tampa police
department.
We have no objections to this wet zoning.
>>CHAIRMAN: Petitioner?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I'm here on behalf of Sonia and
Rick Barcena, a restaurant with an existing 2(COP-R)
classification.
This request would be to expand that property to
enable them to provide for a small banquet room.
The building you see to the left, and this would be a
restoration essentially of that existing building.

And then they have two storage buildings in the back
and a patio.
And all of this is fenced and under the control of the
property owners.
In discussions with the homeowners they wanted me to
make sure there were a couple of things put on the
record.
One is that this is a restaurant, not a bar, and that
pursuant to the state and the city codes you have to
be serving food and alcohol simultaneously and the
kitchen has to remain open as long as you are serving
alcohol.
You cannot have an adult use here.
It would not meet the separation criteria, nor would
you be allowed to serve alcohol in an establishment
that also is an adult use.
Any future conversion of this from a restaurant to
some other use would require a City Council public
hearing to change that, for example, to 4(COP-X), or
straight 4(COP) which would typically be a bar, and
that cannot happen without a public hearing.
In addition to that the current use is a restaurant

and will remain as a restaurant.
This is a Hispanic woman-owned business, a small
family-owned business, husband and wife operate it and
they are there every day.
So if anything goes wrong or potentially goes wrong
there on the premises, they have been named in the top
20 restaurants of Florida, they have been recognized
in Florida trend magazine, have been finalists in
small business awards.
Rick Barcena serves on the Florida restaurant business
association Board of Directors.
All of the buildings that are currently being
petitioned for wet zoning are under their complete
ownership and control.
There are no outside parties involved.
Any distance separation that will be required for
adult use cannot be -- it is essentially a restaurant
and will remain that.
We are requesting that you allow this to happen.
It is a fine restaurant.
It is one that caters to a late evening crowd that
comes from the Performing Arts Center and some other

locations, and enables them to serve meals for these
late diners.
In addition to that we received one letter, I think,
which you also received from north Bon Air expressing
their support.
I now may get some other comments.
I'll be happy to address them.
But essentially this is a family-run business, it will
remain that way, and we are respectfully requesting
the ability to sell mixed drinks along with meals at
the restaurant.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Quick question.
You are not expanding the physical footprint?
>>> No.
Physical footprint are the existing buildings
themselves.
There's a patio in between the two storage buildings
in the back.
This is not for new construction.
These are for the existing buildings that are there.
>>CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the public that wants
to speak on item number 86?

You may come up and speak.
>>> Robert barter.
I think it's a good restaurant, very good.
I think everyone should be able -- I don't have a
problem with zoning for alcohol with A a restaurant.
Eights great idea.
The only concern I have is I would like to find out if
there's some way that I can have them respect our
property next door.
Presently, the property next door is being used by
their customers on our property.
And that is with the present nonalcohol.
On Tuesday nights there were eight cars parked upon
our property.
That's on a Tuesday night.
I don't know what parking is going to be like on a
Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, particularly if they
increase their business or trade.
So increasing their company and earning more money,
I'm concerned about them respecting our property.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Just for the record, I believe
there are two separate issues that the gentleman

brought up.
Certainly not connected with the alcohol zoning.
Ownership of land that might be used for parking or
may not be used for parking, that's a different thing
altogether.
What we are doing now is if you have a dispute on the
parking issues, that's certainly to be handled by the
two parties, not the city.
>>GWEN MILLER: Next speaker.
>> Good morning, council.
I'm Bill Worman, 3707 West Cleveland.
I think it's a privilege to be here. I've talked to
Rick.
I have no problem with what Rick is planning to do.
Our problem from the community standpoint is what
might happen in the future.
An exam would be next door used to be a bar.
And it's now, as I understand it, a strip club.
Now, when it was a bar, it was fine.
But now it's a strip club.
And we understand, the reason they could do that is
because it was grandfathered in.

And talking about the Kennedy the gateway to Tampa.
I wouldn't want to see anything in that order expanded
in anyway.
So I'm not so concerned what Rick is planning to do,
I'm concerned about what happens after Rick.
And we are very concerned about unintended
consequences of what we are doing.
And as long as we are run ago business, it's a
restaurant, and serving liquor and whatever, we have
no issue whatsoever.
If that changes we don't want to find ourselves in a
position where we have grandfathered in something that
we wouldn't want to happen in the neighborhood.
Thank you for your time.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Miranda?
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I ask the petitioner's
representative to come in.
I think he put something in the record earlier
concerning those same concerns, and would you
elaborate?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: We discussed at length the
possibility of this becoming a bar or an adult use,

and what I explained to them was that without another
public hearing that's noticed to them and to all the
surrounding property owners, you cannot change the
classification from a 4(COP-R), which is a restaurant
designation, and that's why I reemphasize to you that
it's a restaurant and will continue to operate as a
restaurant.
In the event that the property is ever sold in the
future it will have to continue as a restaurant,
unless somebody petitions and is successful coming to
City Council to get that changed.
And because of your distance separation and a variety
of other things, I don't think that it's possible.
I am not trying to speak for our future council, but
it's not likely to happen.
As far as adult uses are concerned, that is a separate
process that goes through the zoning office.
You cannot serve alcohol and have an adult use in the
same premises.
It also requires a city administrative review to the
zoning office.
You could not meet the separations for alcohol being

served, and you cannot meet the separations for being
a distance between a school and residentially zoned
property.
So in terms of new adult use or some time subsequent
to the Barcenas, it is not allowed understood your
current code, any future changes to change that to a
bar would have to meet your distance separation, a
variety of other things that you probably could not
meet.
It's physically not possible.
>>GWEN MILLER: Next speaker.
>>> Martha Jean Lorenzo, 3612 Cleveland street, I'm
the vice-president of the Bon Air civic association.
I'm also speaking on behalf of Gray Gables
neighborhood association.
I was told by Mark Popp, the president of Gray Gables,
that he and four or five others on his board either
e-mailed or sent you letters.
As a matter of fact, the three neighborhoods who are
the most -- will be the most effected by this change
did not send letters of support.
The neighborhood that he did get a letter from, north

Bon Air, is on the other, west side of Kennedy.
Our big concern, and what I'm hoping I can convince
you of today, we want to limit their hours of
operation.
And I know that that is done frequently in order to
control the amount of liquor that people can consume,
and the space they are going to be in when they leave
the establishment.
Directly next to the restaurant is the bar called
Envy.
And it has been there for years.
It's been a bar for a long time and it has been
grandfathered in.
They are hours are noon until three in the morning.
There are a lot of problems at Envy.
The City of Tampa police are called almost on a daily,
nightly basis.
The neighborhood right behind are retired and John
Hudson who runs out, I have been in con close --
contact with him, they are really battling lousy
situation that is arise from he inebriated people who
are leaving a bar.

Now, the bar's owners, we were talking this morning,
we were hoping to limit ask, them to limit the hours
of operation till 10 at night which is what their door
says they close at presently.
Mr. Barcena told me that they -- extend those hours,
he doesn't really have a set time for closing and most
of his customers come 10:30, 11, and I think on the
order as late as 11:30 or midnight.
I realize you have to eat and drink simultaneously.
But we are looking at a crowd of people, things like
the bulk of his patrons come late at night.
They will be leaving the same time the inebriated
patrons of Club Envy are going to be leaving.
In particular, Gray Gables, which is right across, Mr.
Popp couldn't be here but that's why he felt strongly
about sending letters, and we are hoping to nail down
a time at closing that is not going to hurt Rigatoni's
from making a good living -- that's not our intent --
but a compromise that will help the neighborhood.
As of this morning we could not get any commitment in
discussing it whatsoever.
I feel I was pretty much told they want it open ended.

And we really don't agree to that.
We are hoping that this morning we can set some kind
of compromise as to when they can close.
So that's what I'm hearing and asking in particular
for Gray Gables and Bon Air association.
>>CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Mr. Michelini, can you answer those questions?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Here is the problem.
Under the current code, if you close a restaurant, you
set an hour, that means everyone is walking out the
door, at whatever hour that is.
And if you serve alcohol, that means that even in some
cases your wait staff has got to be very visibly
active cleaning and not sitting down, not eating, not
doing anything.
So closing hours, if they are in an area where you
have continuous problems, I can understand where you
would like to have a restriction on that.
Kennedy Boulevard is supposed to be your gateway.
That's supposed to be your corridor for light rail,
it's supposed to be your corridor for encouraging
businesses, and when you start cranking down on the

hours of operation on these major thoroughfares, the
only places left open are the places you don't want
people to go to.
If you want them to stay in a restaurant, let the
restaurants function.
This is a small business.
SONIA actually founded the crime watch area for this
district.
She also institute add business partnership with
Mitchell elementary school.
Now these are responsible folks.
And it is a small business.
This is not a huge lounge that's going to cause
problems.
This is a place that's going to help solve the
problems.
Because when you make small businesses viable, they
are the ones that help clean up the neighborhood.
When you allow places like the other ones that they
talked about that create the problems, to thrive, and
you have closed down the one that is are legitimate,
you have served a cross-purpose here.

You have exactly the opposite effect.
And we are very sympathetic to what the neighbors are
wanting.
And they frequently meet at the restaurant.
This is a place that should be encouraged and allow
them to have the freedom to operate a small business.
And we respectfully request your approval as
presented.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What are the current hours allowed
under 4(COP-R)?
>>> All liquor and sales are allowed to serve until
3 a.m.
>> 3 a.m.?
>>> Regardless of whether it's a 2 -- there are some
exceptions for 24-hour stores.
>> Thank you.
I think that the request made by the neighborhood -- I
think 10 a.m. isn't realistic.
I think 3 a.m. is way too late.
I would like to respectfully request that you think of
something reasonable.
I'm think one-ish.

I'm thinking one-ish is more than reasonable for a
restaurant.
And that's adjacent to a neighborhood.
I think 1:00 will not overburden rigatoni's.
I think that's a very reasonable compromise.
I think ten is too early.
No restaurants are open at 3 a.m. except the Pancake
House.
Anyway, that's my two cents.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.
They just serve the drunks. Anyway, certainly, the
petitioners here, are not the one-ishs being focused
on, it's their business, and I know the petitioners,
they are very well thought of in the community and so
forth and so on.
However, a restaurant doesn't close when people leave.
A restaurant closes when you lock the door and they
don't let people in.
So being in the restaurant business for some time --
and I was never in the top 20, I'll say that -- I was
in the back 10 -- [ Laughter ]
So what I'm saying is that -- and these facets of

life, there was only one-ish that I know that was open
ended in all the years that I have been here.
One-ish was left open at some time, and here recently
that happened.
I believe restaurants should have an opening time and
a closing time, to differentiate from bars, so that
the neighbors and the surrounding areas would support
that place of business.
I'm not against having a 4(COP).
I think for every reason you stated here is
statistically collect.
I don't think any restaurant turns out people who are
really inebriated, that contain too much liquor.
Usually you have one-ish or two drinks at most.
And you have a good food like they have at rigatoni's.
But these things, in my opinion, have to have some
closure at some time.
So I don't know what that closure of time is.
If rigatoni's is open till 1:00, I don't know. The
perform arts certainly doesn't close at 1:00.
It closes before 1:00.
And the Ice Palace -- excuse me, the St. Pete Times

forum -- I forget that we have the St. Pete in Tampa,
the Tampa back in St. Pete, we have a city called
Tampa Bay that doesn't exist. Anyway, going back to
the thing here that we are looking at is that I think
they have a great location, great business, put out a
good plate of food, and I would like to see this done,
I would like to see it done with some reference to
time, maybe to speak to your owners who are here to
see if we can come to some consensus of time.
I would think at 1:00 like Ms. Saul-Sena stated they
have an ample time of getting all they can get from
those venues that stay open.
Games, bowl games, anything before that, because at
1:00 -- that's for you to decide, not for me to make.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: What time do they close now?
>> They have patrons leaving the establishment up
until about midnight.
Sometimes a bit later depending on the season of the
year.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: So to 1:00?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: we certainly would appreciate
consideration for a closing time at 1 a.m.

>>GWEN MILLER: All right.
We need to close the public hearing.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Should we put that in the ordinance, so
you can write that in?
>> Directed me to come back with that change in the
ordinance.
>> Need to make a motion to bring that back.
>> So moved with that change in the ordinance.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We can move this with second
reading, can't we?
This is first reading.
>>GWEN MILLER: They are going to bring it back.
>> It's going to be a change in the title.
I could bring it back at 1:30.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Great.
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Could I ask a question?
Does 1:00 mean everybody has to be out of the
building?
>> No.
>> Well, just not accept any more patrons.

You have to stop and vacate the building at 1 a.m.
You adopted a rule that we sort of had some problems
with it, because it means you have to leave the
premises.
Not only can't you serve, you can't eat.
And that's why I'm a little hesitant about time
restrictions.
Because they cause other problems.
And they cause enforcement issues for good businesses.
>>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
The closing time typically means that they can conduct
no more business.
That means they can't serve anyone.
They can't take cash.
The business is closed.
You might still have some activity in there but you
cannot conduct any more business.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: Wait a minute.
You tell me once you're in if I'm sitting there and
say it's 12:45 I want to order another hamburger, I
can't do that because it's getting close to 1 a.m.?
>>> The zoning office told me you must vacate the

premises, and they have issued citations to
restaurants because they have not vacated the
premises.
>> And that's what's written in your code and there's
also been discussion before City Council about the
reason from an enforcement perspective that's
important and I think the police department has opined
to you previously that it's very difficult to enforce
when you have different hours of operation, some sales
of alcoholic beverages.
They have expressed to you within the last year that's
been a nightmare from an enforcement perspective.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is for Ms. Kert.
If you have last call at 12:45, people order, they
pay, they get served, 1:00, there's still people in
there but there's no more new stuff no, more cash
being taken, no more drinks being poured, is that
okay?
>>REBECCA KERT: From a strict reading of your
ordinance, and I can't say exactly what land
development has, in an abundance of caution or what
the police department would like to see but the

ordinance says there can be no more business
transactions. It doesn't require that the building be
vacated.
>> So if somebody is consuming something that they
have previously been served and paid for, that's cool?
>>> Under the ordinance, that's correct, just cannot
cash out or order anything else.
>> If I haven't been paid by 12:45 and I was a
restaurateur, I would --
>> Council, with all due respect, that opinion needs to
be transferred over to these departments because the
police department is not viewing it that way, and the
zoning office is not viewing it that way.
They are saying you must vacate the premises, doors
locked, patrons gone.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We'll communicate that to them.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
This is to be brought back at 1:30.
(Motion carried).
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to request the officer
who is here today to share that with his colleagues.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: I guess the question becomes, we have

to be very careful here.
A public business is allowed to be open longer than
that, you have to be careful, if that we have other
businesses right there across the street or right next
door, and they are allowed to close at 1:00.
That's the issue you have to be very careful with.
>> They are allowed to be open till 3.
They are a bar.
>>> one-ish of the things I mentioned to you is you
are taking people and pushing them out of restaurants
and pushing them into other establishments that you
probably don't want to shove them into.
But I brought to you, and with the police department
several months ago, an issue about how do you deal
with late-night serving diners that also have alcohol?
Because technically they can't operate.
They have to close.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Except the Pancake House.
>>> Well, anyone who serves alcohol has to close at
3 a.m., period.
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Michelini, next door there's
a place that serves alcohol.

They are open till three.
That's right next door?
>>> Yes, sir.
>> That's on the corner of Himes?
>>> Yes, sir.
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: With today's economy and being a
small businessman, it's tough out there.
Charlie, how late were you open when you had your
restaurant?
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Ten.
But I'll tell you Y.by the time you figure your cost
of food sales by employees and figure what came in the
register, it wasn't being open past ten but I was
different.
I have had a different type of clientele, different
type of restaurant.
I used to take the money before 8 so they wouldn't
leave without paying.
[ Laughter ]
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I feel like we have to give the
Barcenas an opportunity to make a living.
It's a tough business and now that, Charlie, being in

the restaurant business.
It's a tough, tough business and the competition.
I was down at PF Changs 11:30 at nature two weeks ago
eating, and I commented to the person I was with, I
said, look at this place, at midnight it's packed.
So if they had a 1:00 closing, they are going to have
to throw everybody out.
I don't think it's fair.
>>GWEN MILLER: Maybe we can compromise to 2:00.
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I make a motion 2:00.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there a question on the motion?
>>MARY MULHERN: I was trying to stay out of this but I
have to be consistent and I know we had this
discussion about another wet zoning a few weeks ago,
and I agree with Mr. Caetano, and I also feel that we
have to -- I don't think it's right to micromanage the
hours of these businesses.
Because every time they come in front of us we have a
different approach.
And I don't think it's fair and I don't think it's
fair for small businesses.
The sad thing is, this isn't a question about this

restaurant and the hours they want and the fact that
they want to serve alcohol.
It's a question of the one-ishs, the business next
door which is the problem we are running into because
we have problems with bars.
Then all these restaurants that want to serve alcohol
with their food have to pay by having their hours
curtailed and everything these restrictions put on
them.
So I think we need to look at whatever it is we can do
to enforce and control the problems we are having with
bars and adult use clubs and not put that burden on
the restaurant owners.
So I would be in favor of just approving the wet
zoning to be consistent.
>>GWEN MILLER: You need to make a motion.
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: We have a motion on the floor.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Could we have --
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The motion was for legal to come
back at 1:30 with a restriction of 1:00.
You have to vote on the first motion.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Vote on a substitute motion.

>>THE CLERK: Already voted on the motion before to
have legal come back.
Mr. Caetano made a motion to amend the time to 2 a.m.
but no second to that motion.
>>MARY MULHERN: Got 10, 1, 2, 3.
I don't know if I want to make another motion, if
council doesn't seem to be in favor of it.
So I should make a substitute motion.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Motion to reconsider?
>>THOMAS SCOTT: Before do you that, I want to raise a
question.
Because you made an argument about the bars and all
that.
My issue becomes when you have these businesses that
are in neighborhoods, and the citizens come down and
they complain, that's my issue, okay?
Perhaps if it wasn't in the neighborhood that might be
a legitimate issue.
But the problem is when you have citizens adjacent or
close by, it's a whole other issue or problem.
However, however, I think, though, by closing the
restaurant earlier you are forcing them to go into the

bar and that's what the community needs to consider
and look at as well.
Would you rather them to go into the bar or stay in
the restaurant?
That becomes the issue.
>>GWEN MILLER: Stay in the restaurant.
>> Do you all want them to go into the bar or have
them be in the restaurant?
That's kind of the issue, I think.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think if you are going eat, it's
different than when you are going to drinks.
And I think people make their own decisions.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The items were brought up between a bar and a
restaurant.
Certainly to get a license in a bar is much more
restrictive than to get one-ish in a restaurant
because they have setback, distance requirements and
so forth and so on.
And restaurants, those things are weighed because you
come under the R and you have different things that
are much more areas you can put a restaurant than a

bar.
So therefore, what Mr. Scott spoke to earlier was that
restaurants, in fact in most case it is smaller
one-ishs are all in neighborhood.
The change are all in big highways.
They can afford the big rent.
And these are the things that they are difficult to
deal with, and I'm trying to come up with some type of
50-50 meeting here where everybody would be happy.
I am not going to tell you I'm not open to suggests
but restaurant business is a whole lot different than
bar business.
Restaurants, the bars are open and usually produce 20
to 25% of the income because people don't go to drink,
they go to have a drink as something just to relax and
have a nice dinner, takes an hour, hour 15 minutes to
have a dinner, whether they drink a glass of wine or
whatever beverage of your choice W.a bar you sty there
an awful long time.
And I don't want to get too mixed up.
When you walk into a restaurant, now where your car is
at.

Let me put it that way.
>>MARY MULHERN: I have ooh legal question for Ms.
Kert.
About our code, if you are serving alcohol, that
category of whatever they are asking for, do the hours
of operation have to be the same for a bar and a
restaurant?
>>> Woo F we were consistently telling you restaurant
that wants rezoning, you all have to close at one-ish,
or you all have to close at two, as opposed to 3 a.m.,
I wouldn't have a problem with that.
I just feel like we are just not being fair, because
we give certain businesses, you know, more room than
others and I would like to point out this is Kennedy
Boulevard.
I know there is a neighborhood adjacent to the but
it's a pretty busy street.
>>REBECCA KERT: Are you asking about whether or not
that's a potential change?
>> Yes, is that possible?
>>> We would be happy to look into it.
I wouldn't want to say for sure.

I would like to look at some of the state regulations.
>>MARY MULHERN: The wet zonings for restaurants seems
to come up almost every time we talk about it, that
people want to set the hours and change the hours and
limit the hours.
And if we could be consistent and leave it at an hour
that will allow the restaurants to stay open, as long
as they need to, to make a living.
>> Well, this is a motion to ask legal to come back
and look at this code.
And if we can, you know -- and I should probably wait
till after Joseph what he's in on that.
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: What happened to the last motion?
A motion that we have no restrictions on the hours.
Nerd, they could be open till 3 a.m. in the morning.
And proprietors of this business are going to make
sure that things are done right or else they are not
going to stay in business.
>>GWEN MILLER: Another motion on the floor.
Question on the motion, Mrs. Saul-Sena?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think the proprietors of this
restaurant are great.

Their food is fabulous.
But the zoning goes with the land, not with the
individual.
I just want to caution my colleagues, somebody else
could buy this in the future and it could be a very --
>>CHAIRMAN: Has to come back before council.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, if it sold and till 3 a.m. it's
a restaurant.
Till 3 a.m., and, now, whoever.
Still a restaurant.
>> Still ooh restaurant but still 3 a.m.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, my question goes again to the
petitioner, do the owner plan to stay open longer than
1:00?
>> Yes, sir.
I think the 2 a.m. is better than 1.
But here is the provision in the code that's driving
this problem, and I'll just read directly from it.
It's unlawful for any person to consume any alcoholic
beverage on any premises of any place of business,
licensed or zoned for the sale of alcoholic beverages,
other than the hours set forth in the subsection which

is 3 a.m.
This section -- or if it's restricted by the code.
Now this section provided it's unlawful for any
establishment licensed for the sale of alcoholic
beverage to permit any person to consume any alcoholic
beverages on the premises, or to be -- to remain open
for the transaction of any business of any kind
whatsoever in any time other than those hours set
forth in subsection -- in the subsection.
So if you give people time to eat their dinner, to
have their last drink and vacate, 2 a.m. is a safe
time.
If somebody comes in late at midnight, 1 a.m. is a
little tight.
It's manageable, but certainly we prefer 2 as to 1:00.
But that's the problem with the code.
We have to stop.
And they have to vacate the promise.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: The motion on the floor was for 3
a.m.
Was there a second to that?
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Yes, there was.

>>MARTIN SHELBY: Then I believe what would be
appropriate would be a motion to rescind and then you
have the motion in front of you which you can then
read on first reading.
>>GWEN MILLER: Reverend Scott?
>>THOMAS SCOTT: My only concern is that, first off,
can't comprehend 3:00 in the restaurant.
Secondly, this is adjacent to a residential area, and
they are asking for a particular time.
Now, if we -- we closed the public hearing, didn't we?
>>STEVE MICHELINI: Those residences on the other side
of Kennedy, they are not adjacent to this restaurant.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me, public hearing is
closed.
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Why don't we take a vote on this?
>> We have a new motion on the floor.
All in favor of that new motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
>>THE CLERK: Saul-Sena no (off microphone).
>>THOMAS SCOTT: I didn't vote.
I was trying to get clarification.
The motion to rescind?

All right.
>>GWEN MILLER: The ordinance that was presented to us.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: I will tell you, I will vote -- I will
vote -- to vote to rescind the previous motion but I
will not support.
I'll give you 2 but I am not going to 3.
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I would like to amend my motion
to 2:00.
>>MARY MULHERN: On that last vote I didn't understand.
>>GWEN MILLER: Passed.
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: My motion is 2:00.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do we get a second on the two?
>> Yes, I'll second that.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to keep it
till 2:00.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: No reflection on the petitioner.
But I just never voted -- and that doesn't mean that I
should never change, but I think a restaurant at that
hour is a long time.
And I just don't support that motion.
I didn't support it on the one-ish on Azeele and
Howard and I won't be supporting this one-ish. Not to

any reference to the owner or the petitioner or their
representative.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
>>THE CLERK: Saul-Sena, Miranda, voting no.
>>GWEN MILLER: We need a motion to have Ms. Kert bring
it back at 1:30.
>> No.
>>GWEN MILLER: Four voted for it.
>>> CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena and Miranda
voting no.
>> She has to bring it back.
>>GWEN MILLER: But changed to 2:00.
And the motion to have Mrs. Kert bring it back with
2:00.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a remainder --
>>CHAIRMAN: We are going to lunch.
You can bring it back.
>>MARY MULHERN: I want to make that motion and another
for legal to bring back the ordinance with closing at
2:00.
But I also ask --
>> Second.

>>GWEN MILLER: Do that separate.
Bring that back at 1:30.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
(Motion carried).
>>MARY MULHERN: I would like to ask that legal look at
our code and see if we can make some changes that
would make it easier for restaurants serving alcohol
to be able to stay open later and also to address the
question of, I guess, the interpretation of our
current code, as far as what it means to closing time
and what that means for the restaurant.
>>REBECCA KERT: I request that you direct that to
legal and land development and we'll coordinate that.
>>CHAIRMAN: Do we get a second?
>>THOMAS SCOTT: I don't know what the motion is.
>>MARY MULHERN: To look into whether we should have
the same -- make it consistent for restaurants, that
we make it consistent in a way we are not, every time
we get a restaurant wet zoning, we tell them what
their hours --
>>THOMAS SCOTT: That's fine, but I think the issue is
not really the restaurant, the issue is the bar.

>>MARY MULHERN: Well, both.
>>CHAIRMAN: Did we get a second on that?
>> Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried).
>>CHAIRMAN: Now we go into recess.
It's lunch time.
>>CHAIRMAN: What are we going to do first?
>> He will present with a presentation.
We can still have discussion.
>> But we have an appeal hearing before we go into
that.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Number 87, council.
>> We have to do that when we come back.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, Madam Chairman, we want to hear
as much as possible.
Why don't we bring that up at three?
>> We are going to be back at 1:30.
>> But come back after that.
>> 1:30?
You want to do him first?
I have something I need to bring up after that.

>> We stand in recess until 1:30.
1:30.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: 3:00 for the appeal hearing?
>>CHAIRMAN MILLER: After the workshop.
(Meeting recessed.)

Tampa City Council
Thursday, November 15, 2007
1:30 p.m. session

DISCLAIMER:
The following represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
transcript.
The original of this 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.

[Sounding gavel]

13:39:54 >>CHAIRMAN: Tampa City Council is called back to
13:39:56 order.
13:39:56 Roll call.
13:39:57 [Roll Call]
13:39:58 Before we begin we have some unfinished business from
13:39:59 this morning we need to take care of.
13:40:01 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
13:40:02 I'm here with a substitute ordinance for the wet

13:40:05 zoning at West Kennedy Boulevard.
13:40:06 I have added the condition that the hours of operation
13:40:07 will be 2 a.m. Sunday through Saturday.
13:40:10 That means that they will need to close at 2 a.m.
13:40:13 >>CHAIRMAN: Do you want to read that, Mr. Caetano?
13:40:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I just want to bring to your
13:40:23 attention, if you don't have a full council.
13:40:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead and read.
13:40:31 Ordinance number 2004-176 (off microphone) making
13:40:36 lawful the sale of alcoholic content beer and wine and
13:40:39 liquor 4(COP-R) for consumption on the premises only
13:40:43 in the connection with a restaurant business
13:40:46 establishment at or from that certain lot, plot or
13:40:49 tract of land located at 3437, 3441 West Kennedy
13:40:53 Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, as more particularly
13:40:57 described in section 3 hereof waiving certain
13:41:00 restrictions as to the distance based upon certain
13:41:04 findings, imposing certain conditions, providing for
13:41:07 repeal of all ordinances in conflict,
13:41:10 parathyroidectomy.
13:41:12 >>CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and a second.
13:41:13 (Motion carried)

13:41:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm going to support the motion
13:41:19 even though I don't believe in restaurant openings
13:41:21 because I know I can count to 4, maybe higher than
13:41:25 that, but I now it's going to pass.
13:41:26 I don't want to waste time for the city employees, the
13:41:31 department heads, the attorney, the petitioner,
13:41:33 everybody involved.
13:41:34 So I know what's going to happen at the end.
13:41:36 I'm going to support this.
13:41:37 But I do not believe a restaurant and a bar should
13:41:40 have the same amount of time, 3:00 in the morning.
13:41:44 There's a difference even in the application form, the
13:41:47 amount of money that you pay for alcohol, 4(COP)
13:41:51 straight is much different, much more stringent than
13:41:55 the 4(COP-R) but I will support it just to get this
13:41:58 thing moving.
13:41:58 >> We have a motion and second.
13:41:59 >>THE CLERK: Saul-Sena no.
13:42:06 (off microphone).
13:42:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There's also going to be a second
13:42:08 reading and adoption of second --
13:42:12 >> December the 6th.

13:42:15 >>MARY MULHERN: And I think I made a motion before
13:42:17 lunch that legal talk about -- because I agree with
13:42:22 you that we need to make those designations different
13:42:26 for restaurants and bars.
13:42:29 So do we need to set a date when we would like to have
13:42:34 a report back from land development, and legal?
13:42:39 >>CHAIRMAN: Ms. Kert, did we give you a date when to
13:42:43 come back?
13:42:44 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay, we'll let you know.
13:42:47 >>CHAIRMAN: We need to open our workshop.
13:42:49 >> So moved.
13:42:49 >> Second.
13:42:50 (Motion carried).
13:42:50 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes, I'm very thrilled to be able to
13:42:58 introduce -- I am going to introduce Elaine McCloud,
13:43:07 our transit manager, and introduce our special guest,
13:43:10 Mr. Cal Marcella, who is the head of the Denver -- I
13:43:16 can't remember what it is.
13:43:21 Regional transit department.
13:43:30 >>> My name is Elaine McCloud and I am the transit
13:43:33 manager for the City of Tampa.
13:43:35 It's my pleasure to be here this afternoon to

13:43:37 introduce to you Mr. Cal Marcellas.
13:43:41 We provided in your packet a BIO for Mr. Cal Marcella.
13:43:46 However, I would like to provide you a brief overview
13:43:48 of Mr. Marcella's background.
13:43:51 Cal has more than 33 years of transit experience
13:43:59 served as the Denver regional transit district RTD
13:44:02 since 1995.
13:44:04 Cal manages 2300 employees, and an annual operating
13:44:08 budget of $300 million.
13:44:14 In 2006, the American public transportation
13:44:17 association known as APTA, the largest trade
13:44:22 association for transit agencies in North America,
13:44:25 selected Cal as the outstanding public transportation
13:44:29 manager of the year.
13:44:31 Also, in 2006, Cal was selected by the university of
13:44:38 Colorado real estate council as the person of the
13:44:41 year.
13:44:43 In 2000, Cal was chosen by the Colorado association of
13:44:48 state transportation agencies and transportation
13:44:52 professional of the year.
13:44:53 And finally, Cal is presently spearheading Fastrack, a
13:44:59 $6.1 billion, 12-year initiative that will build 119

13:45:06 miles of new commuter rail and light rail, 18 miles of
13:45:12 rapid transit, 21,000 new parking spaces at rail and
13:45:17 bus stations, and provide expanded bus service
13:45:20 throughout an 8-county district.
13:45:23 Now I introduce to you Cal Marcella.
13:45:30 >> Madam Chair, members of the council, thank you for
13:45:32 the opportunity to come down to you today and talk
13:45:34 about our experience in Denver.
13:45:35 I made a similar presentation this morning which
13:45:38 struck me, the similarities between the Tampa Bay
13:45:41 region and the Denver metro region out in Denver.
13:45:44 We are further along at this point with a mass transit
13:45:46 buildout but I'm hopeful that some of the information
13:45:50 I present to you will give you some insight and some
13:45:52 direction whereof you might want to go to achieve the
13:45:54 vision of a regionally connected region that goes from
13:45:58 city to city and county to county and a plan that
13:46:01 everyone embraces and buys into.
13:46:04 So with that, I think my presentation is going to come
13:46:07 up.
13:46:10 There it is.
13:46:10 A little about the Denver RTD.

13:46:13 We are a large property.
13:46:14 We have over 2400 square miles.
13:46:18 2.5 million person population.
13:46:20 And like you here, we are larger than just Denver.
13:46:24 We have eight counties, 33 municipalities within our
13:46:28 district.
13:46:28 And very diverse political interests throughout.
13:46:31 The system is large.
13:46:32 We have currently 83 light rail vehicles, more coming
13:46:35 in every day.
13:46:36 We have 175 routes, 66 Park 'n Rides, 35 miles of
13:46:42 light rail, 87 million boardings per year, and we
13:46:47 have, as Elaine said, an operating budget this year of
13:46:51 about 430 million.
13:46:53 Operating costs plus debt service so it's a very large
13:46:55 organization.
13:46:56 We have an interesting board.
13:46:58 If you could overlay this map and perceive to the be
13:47:01 the Tampa-St. Pete area, we have 15 board members that
13:47:04 I report to.
13:47:05 We are somewhat unique in that all of my board members
13:47:08 are allowed -- they have to run to be on the transit

13:47:11 board.
13:47:12 Each represents about 160,000 people.
13:47:14 It's nonpartisan.
13:47:16 And it gives us representation from throughout the
13:47:19 region.
13:47:19 And I'll show you a little more about that in a
13:47:21 second.
13:47:21 But what it means is that everybody has to think
13:47:23 regionally but also everyone looks out for their
13:47:26 districts for local transportation needs.
13:47:29 This is a map of our Fastrack program and we were able
13:47:33 to hand out this brochure which you can refer to.
13:47:36 That represents our whole region, and as you can see
13:47:39 our plan goes to every corner of the district.
13:47:43 It's 122 new miles of light rail and commuter rail.
13:47:46 We have a bus rapid transit line, 31 new Park 'n
13:47:49 Rides, much enhanced bus service, and I wanted to
13:47:56 dwell on this map for a little bit. If you works
13:47:58 overlay this on your area, except put the Gulf of
13:48:02 Mexico to one side, the left side.
13:48:04 It represents a regional plan that we developed in
13:48:07 cooperation with our metropolitan planning

13:48:08 organization, and with all of our cities in the
13:48:11 region.
13:48:12 And we came up with a plan that would address the
13:48:15 needs of the entire community.
13:48:17 We had a bit of a history.
13:48:18 We built the first line opened in 1994, was a great
13:48:22 success, small 5.3 miles, light rail, went through the
13:48:28 middle of downtown.
13:48:29 But our critics said it wasn't a proof of concept.
13:48:36 And getting on a train so they don't have to pay for
13:48:39 parking downtown and they are paying a dollar 50 to go
13:48:41 in, a dollar 50 to go out but that's not a proof of
13:48:44 concept.
13:48:45 My comeback was all those cars coming into downtown,
13:48:48 is that a bad thing?
13:48:51 Stop traffic congestion?
13:48:52 The other thing was overlooked was we took over 350
13:48:53 bus trips outside of downtown because the buses would
13:48:57 come into rail, people would get off the bus and into
13:48:58 rail, and so the most congested part of the trip would
13:49:01 be on rail.
13:49:02 So the combination of the cars that didn't come into

13:49:05 downtown, the buses that didn't come in, we are now an
13:49:10 entertainment area, and congestion in the downtown is
13:49:12 much better, and air quality ratings went way up in
13:49:16 the downtown area.
13:49:16 The only complaints we got were from the downtown
13:49:18 parking interests who had to lower their rates because
13:49:22 the demand wasn't there and many people didn't think
13:49:24 that was necessarily a bad thing, but that trend
13:49:26 continues to today.
13:49:28 Our second line was on the southwest section just like
13:49:30 you see on the map there.
13:49:31 We opened that in 2000.
13:49:33 It was the first suburban line.
13:49:35 And it happened to great reviews.
13:49:38 We projected 8700 riders a day.
13:49:40 We opened to over 12,000.
13:49:42 The criticism was not enough parking.
13:49:44 We had people in parking lots, couldn't get into -- we
13:49:48 had transit that was so full that we had to pass stops
13:49:50 because we had too many people on the trains.
13:49:52 Now I will tell you when we built this we were
13:49:54 criticized by people who don't support transit, like

13:49:58 this will never work, this is a car dependent area,
13:50:00 people will never use it.
13:50:01 But in fact people came to it in droves.
13:50:03 The reason was it was a better mousetrap, better to
13:50:06 get downtown, reliable, was safe, and I told the group
13:50:09 this morning, two weeks after it opened I went down to
13:50:14 take a look at the parking problems and all and people
13:50:16 said, you know, you guys are so dumb, why didn't you
13:50:18 build it bigger? I said I want to remind you two
13:50:21 weeks ago we were being told it was a big failure and
13:50:24 wasn't going to work.
13:50:24 Now we are being oversubscribed. That line today
13:50:27 carries over 18,000 riders a day from an 8700 ride
13:50:30 area day projection and it's been wildly embraced by
13:50:33 the community.
13:50:34 We then moved to the southeast line which again is
13:50:37 light blue on your map, and that is on a highway
13:50:40 corridor, our major north-south arterial called I-25.
13:50:43 It was than an interesting development there.
13:50:45 In 1995, right after I got to Denver, we did a major
13:50:49 investment study, and the public wanted light rail,
13:50:52 double track light rail in that corridor.

13:50:54 And we were going to proceed, had a governor at the
13:50:57 time named governor Roy Romer and said I'm good with
13:51:01 light rail, I'll give you the right-of-way along the
13:51:02 highway, let's go it with.
13:51:04 So we started to proceed with the plan and he went out
13:51:06 of office due to term limits in '96, had a new
13:51:09 governor come in who did not support rail and he said
13:51:12 new front page no, rail, we are going to stay with
13:51:15 highway.
13:51:16 Well, a ground swell of opposition grew out of the
13:51:19 community where neighborhood activists, the Sierra
13:51:22 Club, basically threatened lawsuit after lawsuit, said
13:51:26 there's no way this highway is going to get expanded
13:51:28 without a rail component.
13:51:29 So we were at a stalemate.
13:51:31 Highway department couldn't build a highway without
13:51:33 rail.
13:51:33 Rail couldn't build without highway.
13:51:35 So we got together on one fateful day and came up with
13:51:39 a compromise and said why don't we expand the rail and
13:51:42 do one multimodal program?
13:51:44 We call that T-Rex, a $1.7 billion investment.

13:51:49 Highway was reconstructed entirely, bridges,
13:51:53 utilities, drainage.
13:51:54 One additional lane down to I 225 which is the
13:51:59 arterial that goes off to the northeast and we built
13:52:01 double track light rail along the entire corridor, all
13:52:05 as part of one project.
13:52:06 We did it as a design build.
13:52:07 We estimate we saved upwards of $300 million by doing
13:52:11 it together as opposed to doing it sequentially.
13:52:14 The bids that came in came in 22 months earlier than
13:52:17 we thought it would take to build it under design
13:52:19 built contract and the best news, it opened in 2006,
13:52:24 and it came in under budget, where we had the dubious
13:52:27 task of distributing the underbudget to the
13:52:29 communities along the line which created a lot of
13:52:31 discussion about who would get what.
13:52:32 But what we ended up doing was building a lot of
13:52:34 pedestrian walkways over the highway.
13:52:36 As you know, highways oftentimes become barriers
13:52:38 between neighborhoods.
13:52:39 We were able to bid pedestrian walkways.
13:52:43 I have a slide.

13:52:43 I'll show you what that looks like.
13:52:45 We were able to build art at some of the stations that
13:52:47 made it more attractive.
13:52:48 We were able to expand parking in some areas.
13:52:51 And the line has been just a tremendous asset.
13:52:54 The ridership day is 15% higher than we thought it
13:52:57 would be on opening day.
13:52:58 And all of the communities in the corridor have
13:53:00 totally embraced it.
13:53:01 Now, if I can ask the video folks to go back to the
13:53:05 map.
13:53:07 Once that T-Rex was opened, the discussion in Denver
13:53:10 ceased to be where and where and it came to be when do
13:53:16 I get mine?
13:53:18 We had 15 board members.
13:53:19 They wanted rail investments in their district in,
13:53:21 their corridors, and they gave the staff the directive
13:53:23 to go out and build a plan for the entire region.
13:53:26 And by this time, people had a chance to see it, feel
13:53:29 it, touch it, ride it, and saw it was going to work
13:53:31 and the public embraced it.
13:53:33 Now, that gave rise to the Fastracks program, and our

13:53:38 board told us to do major investment studies in each
13:53:40 of these corridors.
13:53:41 Now major investment studies are two products,
13:53:46 alignment, technology and station sites.
13:53:49 So we did that at substantial expense.
13:53:51 But it allowed to us go out to the community, give
13:53:53 them a blueprint, tell them what we would like to do,
13:53:56 get their feedback, make adjustments and come back
13:53:58 with a plan that ceased to be the district's plan
13:54:02 going to the people but the district's plan with
13:54:04 people input so everybody was familiar with what the
13:54:06 plan was before we went to the ballot.
13:54:09 In November 2004 we put the plan out, went to the
13:54:12 ballot, and we won with a plurality of 58% to 42%.
13:54:17 We are funded by a sales tax in the den very metro
13:54:20 region, again Dade County, 33 municipalities.
13:54:23 Prior to this vote we survived on a .06.
13:54:27 Each tenth of a cent in Denver metro raises $40
13:54:31 million a year.
13:54:31 When we had finished T-Rex which was that multimodal
13:54:35 highway transit project we had no more debt capacity,
13:54:38 we were basically out of money, we had enough money

13:54:41 with the 6 cents to operate and maintain the system
13:54:43 but could not with no more so we were basically done.
13:54:47 We needed more money to make that happen.
13:54:49 So we developed this plan, went to the voters and
13:54:51 asked them to increase the sales tax to a full penny,
13:54:53 a .04 increase. That would accomplish building this
13:54:57 plan that you see above in a 12-year period.
13:54:59 Basically consistent with the plan you see above you.
13:55:04 The vote areas prove it.
13:55:06 We won throughout the district and the voters totally
13:55:09 embraced the idea of a mass transportation system.
13:55:11 We are now nine years one month and 15 days away from
13:55:14 completion.
13:55:15 I track that pretty closely.
13:55:17 Deadlines are very important to the public.
13:55:18 It was a 12-year buildout but we started on January
13:55:21 1st of 2005.
13:55:23 So we are well along the way right now.
13:55:24 And I would add that most of those lines that you see
13:55:27 are an existing rail rights-of-way with freight and
13:55:31 commercial rail.
13:55:32 Denver's success and Denver's growth was predicated

13:55:35 upon rail traffic, coal, mineral, lumber.
13:55:38 It's changed over time.
13:55:39 We are now more of a high-tech area.
13:55:40 So what we are doing is trying to evolve those rails
13:55:44 lines what it used to be to more computer base which
13:55:48 better supports our community today. In it most cases
13:55:50 we are buying property from the railroads and building
13:55:52 next to them.
13:55:52 We are one line with a shared track.
13:55:55 That's troublesome because you have to negotiate
13:55:57 operating agreement was freight rail.
13:55:59 There's always a question of who dispatches, who
13:56:01 controls, who is subordinate to the other.
13:56:04 We like to be in control of our destiny.
13:56:06 Our light rail runs at a 99.8% on-time performance
13:56:10 because we are not interfered with by anyone so we are
13:56:12 working in that direction right now to be completely
13:56:15 self-contained to the greatest degree possible.
13:56:18 In some cases, we are on state highway, 225, but our
13:56:23 state Department of Transportation has he involved
13:56:25 based on our success and they have become real
13:56:26 partners with the regional transportation district.

13:56:29 They are with us.
13:56:29 They are helping us.
13:56:30 They are dedicating rights-of-way which is has really
13:56:33 facilitated the buildout of our system.
13:56:38 I am going to try to help you politically here.
13:56:40 We went with a similar plan in 1997 called guide to
13:56:43 ride.
13:56:44 It was virtually a replica of what I showed you in
13:56:44 2004.
13:56:51 What happened here was the board withdrew support
13:56:54 midway into the plan.
13:56:55 Our transit board, 15 members.
13:56:57 We had some politics going on on the board.
13:56:59 We had a couple of key votes.
13:57:01 One individual wanted to be board chair, didn't have
13:57:03 the votes so he said to the anti-rail folks if you
13:57:06 make me chair I'll turn my vote and turn against rail.
13:57:08 He did so.
13:57:09 He became chair and he turned against rail.
13:57:11 It was very hard to win an election when your board
13:57:13 was not supporting it.
13:57:15 They did a few other things.

13:57:17 They would not let me make any presentations to the
13:57:20 public even like I'm doing to you today.
13:57:22 So if a community said, can you come out and just tell
13:57:24 us what it is?
13:57:25 I had to say no because the board prohibited me from
13:57:27 doing that.
13:57:28 It was very, very difficult.
13:57:30 We lost that election with a vote of 58 to 42.
13:57:35 58% against.
13:57:36 42% for it.
13:57:37 It was a devastating turn in my career, but I
13:57:41 redoubled my efforts to come back and new that
13:57:43 eventually we would prevail.
13:57:45 We also did not run a good campaign.
13:57:47 The campaign team that ran did it not use TV, did not
13:57:50 raise enough money, and did not do a good job of
13:57:53 educating the public.
13:57:54 Now I want to you flip forward to 2004, same plan
13:57:57 basically, but we had 100% board support.
13:58:01 We had done these major investment studies between the
13:58:04 old one, so we T community knew what it was, we had
13:58:07 buy-in, everyone is familiar with the plan.

13:58:09 And we did a professional campaign.
13:58:11 We hired a team that does this.
13:58:13 We did polling.
13:58:14 We did focus groups.
13:58:15 We learned what different communities were thinking,
13:58:17 what they like, what they didn't like.
13:58:19 We made changes as we needed to.
13:58:20 And we did a campaign.
13:58:22 It was actually marketed differently in different
13:58:24 areas based on their priorities and what they liked
13:58:26 and what they didn't like. This was afternoon
13:58:28 different world than 2000.
13:58:31 Bottom line, 58% for, 42%.
13:58:36 Now like Tampa, again one of our similarities, we have
13:58:38 had we have a split constituency between Democrats and
13:58:41 Republicans.
13:58:41 >>MARY MULHERN: Can I ask a question?
13:58:45 You might have already explained this.
13:58:46 But when it failed the proposal or the ballot
13:58:49 initiative failed in '97, was it -- that was the
13:58:54 funding, the sales tax referendum?
13:58:56 >>> Yes, it was.

13:58:57 >> And then in 2004, how did it differ from '97 to
13:59:03 2004?
13:59:03 >>> The plan itself did not differ much at all.
13:59:05 >> But the sales tax is more?
13:59:08 >>> Same exact number.
13:59:10 Exactly.
13:59:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: How much did you spend on the
13:59:13 successful campaign?
13:59:14 >>> 3.6 million.
13:59:15 >> And where was the money raised from?
13:59:18 >>> It was all privately raised.
13:59:20 Our Chamber of Commerces took a lead.
13:59:22 We had developers, chambers, we had consultants, we
13:59:27 had rail car manufacturers, steel manufacturers, all
13:59:30 those obviously that would have an interest in a
13:59:32 buildout.
13:59:33 And that's not atypical for any city you go to.
13:59:36 We actually have very good information on where our
13:59:38 money came from, and I would be happy to share that
13:59:41 with you.
13:59:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: At what rate is the sales tax now
13:59:48 in Denver?

13:59:49 >>> It varies from city to city.
13:59:51 I would say the averages are from 6 to 9% depending on
13:59:54 which city you're in.
13:59:55 Upper end is nine.
13:59:57 Lower end about six.
13:59:58 >> I would live in the one with six.
14:00:00 >>> I tend to agree with you.
14:00:02 We are a little different than Florida.
14:00:03 We have a state income tax.
14:00:05 4.63% in Colorado.
14:00:08 We have very low property taxes.
14:00:10 But the sales taxes is what our cities and special
14:00:14 districts live upon.
14:00:15 We have no state revenue.
14:00:16 We are completely dependent on the sales tax.
14:00:23 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: You said you have 2.5 million
14:00:25 people there.
14:00:25 When you started the program how many people did
14:00:27 snuff.
14:00:27 >>> About 2.3.
14:00:29 We are growing rapidly.
14:00:31 But I read -- I did a little homework on the Internet

14:00:33 about this area.
14:00:34 I would always use the line that we are growing really
14:00:36 quickly.
14:00:37 But I'm afraid that we are slower than you.
14:00:39 This area is growing much faster than Denver metro
14:00:42 region.
14:00:43 And I looked at it county by county.
14:00:45 You have much more aggressive growth projections than
14:00:47 we do.
14:00:48 >> What's the difference in your taxes and our taxes
14:00:51 here, ad valorem tax?
14:00:54 >>> Very, very different.
14:00:55 Again, our property taxes are very low because we pay
14:00:58 a state income tax which you do not.
14:01:00 Most of our state revenues eminent from the state
14:01:03 income tax.
14:01:05 And you make it up on the sales tax and that's why
14:01:10 it's so high because you are dependent upon property
14:01:13 tax.
14:01:13 I used to live in Florida and I remember I used to
14:01:17 grouse about my property tax but now I grouse about my
14:01:20 income tax.

14:01:21 >> When you make a half million a year you have got to
14:01:24 gripe.
14:01:24 >>> That's true.
14:01:25 >> Very true.
14:01:26 Any questions?
14:01:28 If I can go back to that slide.
14:01:30 This is a map of our district where we have -- I do
14:01:33 this purposely because this is a political issue,
14:01:35 obviously.
14:01:37 The blue areas are Democratic controlled, and the red
14:01:40 areas are Republican controlled.
14:01:41 Oftentimes in public transit, my counterparts -- and I
14:01:44 did this in the past -- we overlooked Republicans
14:01:47 because we figure they are not going to support tax
14:01:49 increases, they are not terribly supportive of
14:01:51 transit, but we decided we were not going to accept
14:01:53 that premise with this election.
14:01:56 We decided we were going to basically listen to
14:01:58 Republican districts, listen to issues, listen to
14:02:01 Democratic districts, and put together a plan that
14:02:04 appealed to all segments. Population.
14:02:07 Messages that R resonated with Republicans were

14:02:09 growth, sustainability, quality of life, traffic
14:02:12 congestion, job access, it was access to education,
14:02:17 health care, basic human needs.
14:02:18 So we tried to coordinate the campaign to all sides,
14:02:22 and we did not overlook any segment. Political
14:02:24 spectrum.
14:02:25 The results were the only area we lost was frankly a
14:02:32 Democratic area which we did not expect.
14:02:34 We carried the Republican areas very strongly.
14:02:36 The message of economic growth, sustainability,
14:02:38 quality of life, was overwhelming.
14:02:39 And in some of those districts, we won with over 60%
14:02:43 pluralities because it was a win-win for everybody
14:02:46 involved and there was a general commitment to the
14:02:49 future, health and well-being of the region, and
14:02:51 people got that.
14:02:52 They really understood that.
14:02:56 Where we did not lose one Democratic area, fairly blue
14:02:59 collar, lower income, and the message in post election
14:03:02 polls were people were afraid of the tax, they were
14:03:05 marginal, the economy wasn't doing well, they saw the
14:03:07 sales tax as more onerous than the benefit and voted

14:03:10 no.
14:03:11 The way we work, though, is that in the region, Denver
14:03:14 Regional Transportation District, 51% carries the
14:03:17 whole region.
14:03:18 So everybody wanted the taxes in place before building
14:03:22 the system, even with the area that did not vote yes.
14:03:29 Now we had some issues.
14:03:32 When we went to the ballot it was a $4.7 billion cost
14:03:36 over 12 years.
14:03:36 Since that time we have seen a spike in materials
14:03:38 costs that threw us into a tail spin.
14:03:41 Concrete up 56% over our baseline assumption.
14:03:44 Copper, 2.16, steel 39.
14:03:48 We didn't anticipate this.
14:03:49 We were working on about a 3.6 per year construction
14:03:53 price inflation factor and we hit the spike.
14:03:56 The international demand for commodities, steel,
14:03:59 copper, China, India, Japan, is wreaking havoc on the
14:04:05 entire commodities market.
14:04:06 So we had to adjust substantially.
14:04:08 Also, our sales tax projections are down 11% over 25
14:04:12 years than what the baseline would have indicated.

14:04:16 And I have a theory about that I am going to share
14:04:17 with you and has been validated by some state
14:04:20 economists.
14:04:20 As gas prices go up people have less disposable income
14:04:23 to spend on taxable items.
14:04:25 So a family of moderate means might have at the end of
14:04:29 the week 30 or $40 to spend on taxable items.
14:04:33 When it's going into your gas tank it does not get
14:04:36 spent on taxable items.
14:04:37 Hence we are down, which is counterintuitive because
14:04:39 unemployment is low.
14:04:40 All the factors that say we should be growing are up
14:04:43 but our sales tax is down and I speculate it's because
14:04:45 of gas.
14:04:46 So the implications of increasing fuel prices are much
14:04:49 larger than just what goes into your fuel tank.
14:04:56 We brought our train station 19 and a half acres
14:04:59 around it in 2001.
14:05:01 It will become the intermodal hub for our entire
14:05:03 system.
14:05:04 It's a wonderful old building, will be restored to its
14:05:06 original condition, and behind it, we will have 8

14:05:09 commuter rail tracks, light rail, a bus facility, and
14:05:13 our light rail facility all come together there.
14:05:15 What we like to tell the region is if you get to Union
14:05:18 Station you get to anywhere in the world because our
14:05:20 train to the airport starts at Denver Union Station.
14:05:23 It all comes together at that point.
14:05:25 It will be a wonderful system when it comes together.
14:05:27 Now we have a partnership between our regional council
14:05:31 of governments which is our MPO, the state of Colorado
14:05:34 Department of Transportation, our city of Denver,
14:05:36 which is very important to us as the center of the
14:05:39 city, and of course RTD has taken the lead.
14:05:43 Now I want to talk a little bit about the city of
14:05:45 Denver tanned City of Tampa.
14:05:47 Your vote, the nucleus or nuclei of your regions and
14:05:52 that's accepted.
14:05:52 However, we had a problem in Denver, and that we had
14:05:55 the suburban versus urban dichotomy where some of the
14:05:58 suburban communities were always saying, and I believe
14:06:00 I was quoted in the paper here, our regional
14:06:02 transportation district, RTD, really stands for ride
14:06:06 to Denver.

14:06:07 And I would get chided with that by these suburban
14:06:10 communities.
14:06:11 We had to work very hard to come up with a plan that
14:06:13 really worked for the entire community.
14:06:15 So we listened.
14:06:16 We heard from people about what they needed in the way
14:06:18 of bus services, services for the disabled, where the
14:06:22 lines ought to go, what they want to support, and by
14:06:24 the way, we did not recreate the wheel.
14:06:26 We took the regional vision plan, the 30 year plan,
14:06:29 and we overlaid our plan on that vision plan.
14:06:31 We did not try to recreate it.
14:06:33 Now, the people and communities told us what lines
14:06:36 they wanted to go up on and I used this as an example,
14:06:39 on our northeast line I thought we were going to go up
14:06:42 I-25 like weighed done on the southbound.
14:06:45 I went to the community.
14:06:46 They said no, we want to you move over 2 miles,
14:06:49 there's an old rail line.
14:06:50 Go up that line.
14:06:51 I-25 north is already developed, pretty heavy traffic.
14:06:54 We don't want to go there. Move over because we have

14:06:56 room for development.
14:06:57 We have room for revisions to our comp plans and our
14:07:01 master plans, great ideas for higher density, we would
14:07:06 like to have you over here.
14:07:07 Frankly, I was delighted because instead of buying
14:07:10 property on I 25 which would be extraordinarily
14:07:12 expensive we were on rail right-of-way so we are
14:07:15 buying 40 feet from existing railroads and most of our
14:07:18 lines replicate rail lines so we are building next to
14:07:21 them.
14:07:21 And I think the public and the local communities were
14:07:23 much smarter than we were, because they understood
14:07:26 what was there, where they wanted to go in the future,
14:07:28 and they saw this as a way to realize their long-term
14:07:31 development.
14:07:34 >> Is CSX the rail line out there?
14:07:37 >> No.
14:07:37 Dealing with Union Pacific on two lines and Burlington
14:07:40 northern on the other two.
14:07:41 >> We have not had a positive history of working with
14:07:44 the rails.
14:07:45 Did you develop a new positive history in this

14:07:48 process?
14:07:49 >>> Relatively speaking.
14:07:53 It's difficult to negotiate with railroads.
14:07:57 They are one entity we can't condemn.
14:07:59 No one can condemn an operating railroad.
14:08:02 Secondly, they are doing quite well right now.
14:08:05 Coal is at a peak.
14:08:08 They are making lots and lots of money.
14:08:10 What we have found is we are not embracing shared
14:08:11 track.
14:08:12 It's coal, it's freight, and it's commuter.
14:08:14 We have decided except for one corridor which is
14:08:16 unavoidable, we are going to be building next to them
14:08:20 so we don't impair their operation, they don't impair
14:08:22 ours, and we control our destiny.
14:08:24 I think some of what you have been read being in south
14:08:26 Florida, I know the general manager quite well, it's
14:08:29 always who is subordinate to who.
14:08:32 Does the freight go through or the commuter rail go
14:08:34 through?
14:08:34 When the railroads control it you're secondary.
14:08:37 >> Did you spend a lot on the property?

14:08:38 >> We are still in negotiations.
14:08:40 The answer is, probably yes.
14:08:44 It will not be inexpensive.
14:08:51 >> (off microphone).
14:08:52 >> If I were going through the highway condemning
14:08:54 businesses, homes, relocations, all the political
14:08:56 turmoil, it's a much better way to go the rail
14:09:01 rights-of-way, probably pennies on the dollar
14:09:03 comparatively speaking.
14:09:04 Yeah.
14:09:05 All right.
14:09:11 Can I go back -- there we go.
14:09:12 Union Station.
14:09:13 In the front on the bottom of that slide is the
14:09:15 station I showed you that beautiful building.
14:09:17 We did something different here.
14:09:19 Oftentimes, transit properties when they build a
14:09:22 downtown intermodal, we build our tracks and build all
14:09:25 of our transit revisions, they be afterwards we come
14:09:28 in and we ask them to develop on top, because there's
14:09:30 development potential.
14:09:31 Our downtown is booming much like down here.

14:09:33 Residential, retail, office.
14:09:36 We came up with a new idea.
14:09:38 We said rather than do that, why don't we partner with
14:09:41 the private sector, and why don't we bring in a master
14:09:44 development team that can capitalize on development
14:09:46 potential while we build rail, not afterwards?
14:09:50 So we are now building a plan with the private sector
14:09:52 where we are building our transit investments, and
14:09:55 they are building the development potential at the
14:09:57 same time.
14:09:58 1.4 million square feet of mixed use, residential,
14:10:02 office, and retail, on top of our tracks, but our
14:10:05 tracks will be integrated into that development so
14:10:07 they compliment and don't contradict each other at the
14:10:11 site.
14:10:11 We are very excited about that.
14:10:12 The mayor of Denver has established this as a legacy
14:10:15 project.
14:10:15 It's a recreation.
14:10:16 It's a wonderful opportunity to redevelop a huge
14:10:18 section of our downtown.
14:10:20 And again, this is where all the lines come together.

14:10:24 When it comes to the vision. Region, all of our major
14:10:26 sporting events are on our rail lines.
14:10:29 Rockies play at Coors field, two blocks away from
14:10:32 Union Station.
14:10:33 We have a stop at the Pepsi Center where the Avalanche
14:10:36 and Nuggets play.
14:10:38 Mile High where the Broncos play.
14:10:40 All of our major venues are there.
14:10:42 One goes right to our Convention Visitors Center where
14:10:44 we do our major conventions which opens up a lot of
14:10:47 hotel space in suburban areas for people to come down.
14:10:50 Our theater, performing arts, all of our cultural
14:10:53 events are all served by the corridors.
14:10:55 So it's all come together in a very well considered
14:10:58 way, and will work as a system in a very productive
14:11:01 manner in the future.
14:11:05 This is our schedule.
14:11:06 We promised a 12-year buildout.
14:11:08 And I might add that's a very important lesson
14:11:11 learned.
14:11:11 We had toyed with the idea of 20 year buildout and
14:11:14 nobody went for it.

14:11:16 Public said I don't want to vote for this and pay
14:11:18 taxes for 20 years before it's built.
14:11:20 I want it done in my lifetime.
14:11:21 We tried to do in the a ten-year period.
14:11:24 Numbers didn't work.
14:11:25 12 years was our maximum tolerance.
14:11:27 So we have a 12 year buildout.
14:11:29 That's where we are nine years one month away from
14:11:31 completion right now.
14:11:32 We are very diligent in maintaining our schedules,
14:11:35 because another thing we have learned is that the
14:11:37 public will trust you if they trust you to deliver
14:11:39 what it is you promise when you promise it and for the
14:11:42 right cost.
14:11:43 So we are very, very careful about that.
14:11:45 And I monitor that literally day by day.
14:11:50 We have a transit oriented development policy. I know
14:11:52 land use is so important down here.
14:11:54 I to so many of you.
14:11:56 And the answer is everybody has an idea that sprawl is
14:11:58 a bad thing, clogs up your highways, creates demands
14:12:03 on infrastructure, utilities, all the things that go

14:12:06 it with.
14:12:06 Frankly, my thought is, what better way to reach smart
14:12:09 growth and make the right things for structure
14:12:11 investments than promote smart growth?
14:12:14 Way said in the den very community is there's two ways
14:12:16 to get smart growth.
14:12:17 You can tray to legislate it, restrictive land use,
14:12:20 you can build here but not there, you can build this
14:12:22 but can't build that, and always had issues with that
14:12:25 because the development community is so powerful, they
14:12:26 tend to go to where the market is.
14:12:28 So it always gets tweaked here and there and never
14:12:31 quite works.
14:12:32 The second way to get smart growth is when you build
14:12:34 the kind of infrastructure I just showed you, smart
14:12:38 growth happens not because it has to but because it
14:12:40 makes good business sense.
14:12:41 Our development and our region is all moving towards
14:12:43 the station sites.
14:12:45 I know that council Mulhern told me that you are in
14:12:49 the process of revising your comp plan.
14:12:51 All of our cities are revising their comp plans right

14:12:55 now to intensify zoning entitlements at station sites
14:12:59 coming up in the next nine years.
14:13:00 Quintessential smart growth and nobody is telling them
14:13:02 they have to do that.
14:13:03 They are all doing it because it makes good business
14:13:05 sense.
14:13:05 It gives character and definition to their cities.
14:13:07 It builds on established growth patterns and it's
14:13:10 contracting our travel patterns toward the station
14:13:13 sites.
14:13:13 It's wonderful when the development community comes to
14:13:16 us and helps us reach all the goals that we
14:13:19 established for ourselves but it's not because they
14:13:21 have to, it's because it makes good business sense.
14:13:23 I think that's the greatest lesson learned here.
14:13:26 >>MARY MULHERN: I have a question on that topic.
14:13:29 Our development has been trending towards sprawl, and
14:13:38 obviously we don't have transit so that's a natural
14:13:42 occurrence, but the development community has been
14:13:43 very resistant to transit, to the whole idea.
14:13:49 They are very, very focused on roads, more roads, and
14:13:54 the roads becoming the orientation for the new

14:13:56 developments.
14:13:57 I'm wondering if you look at us, I don't know how much
14:14:00 time you have had to look at Hillsborough County area,
14:14:02 the Tampa Bay area, but compared to Denver, is the
14:14:07 Denver area at a point where it's becoming difficult
14:14:10 to build out, so it makes sense anyway to have the
14:14:13 densities?
14:14:14 Is there room for that sprawl?
14:14:17 Would it have continued if you hadn't taken this rail?
14:14:23 >>> We have much more room than you have.
14:14:25 We are not bounded on one side by the bay, actually
14:14:30 the Gulf of Mexico.
14:14:31 We are bounded by the mountains.
14:14:32 There's a lot of room in the mountains.
14:14:33 And we are on the plains.
14:14:36 Our suburban boundaries are places like Kansas and
14:14:39 Nebraska, which is a long way away from our border so
14:14:42 there's no shortage of room.
14:14:43 >> So there's nothing really that would have stopped
14:14:45 the sprawling from continuing.
14:14:47 >> The only thing that stopped it was the body
14:14:49 politics decided it was not good for to us go in a

14:14:52 way.
14:14:52 And I am going to add a lot of times what happens with
14:14:54 sprawl, the idea is let me move out because traffic is
14:14:57 less and we can do better.
14:14:59 Problem is you load the network no matter where you
14:15:01 are.
14:15:01 So while you might be able to get from your home to
14:15:03 the interstate you have to load the interstate and
14:15:06 that's where it breaks down, and your interstates are
14:15:09 major arterials.
14:15:10 You can't just keep expanding because they hit a
14:15:12 capacity and you can't go any further.
14:15:14 So it's like your veins and capillaries and arteries.
14:15:17 Yes, the veins and capillaries are okay but the
14:15:19 arteries are clogged and have a real problem and
14:15:22 that's what we indicated to our community and
14:15:25 everybody understood it.
14:15:25 It's not in our interest to go out.
14:15:27 It's rather give develop incentives to what Do what we
14:15:31 want them to do which is in-fill, more dependent on
14:15:34 transit access.
14:15:34 >> Can I ask another question?

14:15:36 I know the air quality in Denver at least used to be
14:15:40 really terrible.
14:15:40 >>> Yes.
14:15:41 >> Is that part of what drove this, that towed come
14:15:44 into compliance?
14:15:45 >>> We are actually an air quality attainment area now
14:15:48 but we are right on the cusp.
14:15:51 I am told by November we are not going to be again and
14:15:55 we will have to implement a lot of air quality
14:15:58 improvement tactics.
14:16:01 It's a very environmentally friendly community, very
14:16:03 much outdoors.
14:16:04 There's a predisposition to good quality green
14:16:07 development.
14:16:07 So we had that to work with us.
14:16:09 It was a major motivation.
14:16:11 It wasn't like Los Angeles where you are always in
14:16:15 dangerous zones.
14:16:16 We are not there. But we also don't want to get
14:16:18 there.
14:16:18 So while it was a motivating factor, it wasn't like
14:16:22 say a legal requirement.

14:16:24 But it was just a general disposition that we want to
14:16:27 do better.
14:16:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Ms. Mulhern, I honestly think that
14:16:34 it's not the developers are anti-transit, it's that
14:16:36 there hasn't been any transit system for them to
14:16:39 respond to.
14:16:39 It's actually less expensive to build density, and I
14:16:42 think if we developed a transit system that they would
14:16:45 be enthused.
14:16:45 I want to share with everybody, this is a plan that
14:16:48 was developed six years ago by our community, and if
14:16:51 you look after the page with the map, you see that
14:16:55 planners who we spend like $7 or $8 million on come up
14:17:00 with different strategies for our community.
14:17:04 The county commission at the time wouldn't allow us to
14:17:06 vote on a referendum to have a sales tax to match the
14:17:12 federal money and we lost $300 million.
14:17:14 But we were going down this road and we had a good
14:17:16 plan.
14:17:16 And my feeling is, we should --
14:17:22 >>MARY MULHERN: I take that back, I apologize.
14:17:24 And I shouldn't have said that, that developers aren't

14:17:26 in favor of it.
14:17:26 But what we find is because there is no alternative,
14:17:32 and it's easy to get roads compared to what we have
14:17:35 tried to do with rail, it's much easier to get new
14:17:37 roads built in the rural areas than it is to try to
14:17:42 get transit.
14:17:44 So I'm not blaming the developers.
14:17:46 >>> And I might say I truly am a multimodal person.
14:17:50 It's not all rail.
14:17:51 It's not all highways.
14:17:52 There's room and need for both.
14:17:53 It's just it has to be done in a balance that makes
14:17:56 sense.
14:17:57 Closer you come to the city the more mass transit
14:17:59 makes sense because you have densities.
14:18:00 I heard the argument we don't have the density.
14:18:02 I don't buy that for a second.
14:18:05 You are not going to get to New York or Boston
14:18:07 densities because they built up around rail.
14:18:09 Don't forget, they had rail systems where your home
14:18:12 choice was how close is it to a rail station?
14:18:14 So high-rises, we don't have that.

14:18:16 But what you do have, even in suburban communities,
14:18:19 the mode of choice is a Park 'n Ride.
14:18:23 Let me drive a mile and a half or two miles, take a
14:18:26 train in.
14:18:26 That product works and it works well.
14:18:28 Now, the tangential benefit is while the station is
14:18:31 there you are going to see densities go up around it
14:18:33 because it makes sense.
14:18:35 We have a big reverse community.
14:18:36 We have inner city folks that take the rail every day
14:18:39 to go to work every day.
14:18:40 Because the trains go in both directions.
14:18:43 So we are really bringing our region together.
14:18:44 And I want to make another point.
14:18:46 It's going to sound negative.
14:18:47 I don't mean it to sound negative.
14:18:49 You mean it to sound motivational.
14:18:51 On the first corridor which we built which opened in
14:18:54 2000, suburban line, it was 177 million of which 120
14:18:59 million was federal funds.
14:19:00 Those are federal new start discretionary funds that
14:19:03 helped us build that line.

14:19:05 You get it, if you have got a good plan, if you moved
14:19:08 ahead as a local community, had the initiative.
14:19:10 And it could go to anyone.
14:19:12 And we got 120 million.
14:19:14 We then followed up with our T-Rex multimodal plan
14:19:17 with highway and transit, we got another grant of 525
14:19:21 million in federal funds that helped us build that
14:19:23 line.
14:19:24 So we end up with these wonderful investments, they
14:19:27 have enormous impacts on growth and development
14:19:29 patterns, and we got a lot of federal money which is
14:19:32 discretionary.
14:19:33 At this point, I don't want to offend you, I'm really
14:19:36 just trying to motivate you.
14:19:37 None of that money has come to Tampa, because you
14:19:40 haven't had any projects in the pipe, you haven't done
14:19:42 the homework, you haven't made the application to get
14:19:44 this discretionary money.
14:19:46 Colorado is a small state.
14:19:48 We only have 8 representatives.
14:19:49 We are not as powerful politically.
14:19:51 And yet we have done really well.

14:19:53 Salt Lake City, another city, our neighboring state,
14:19:56 incredibly well, because we have gone out front.
14:19:59 But you have to do your homework and show local
14:20:01 commitment to be eligible for those funds.
14:20:03 It creates jobs.
14:20:04 It creates economic sustainability.
14:20:07 At the end you have these wonderful transient
14:20:09 investment that is help mobility, help air quality,
14:20:11 help development in the long run.
14:20:12 So it really makes an awful lot of sense to pursue
14:20:14 that.
14:20:15 >> Have you told our county commission that?
14:20:17 >> Not -- I'm sure the message will get back.
14:20:21 And I hope it's not portrayed in a negative way.
14:20:23 But the mayor actually gave me a book today and said,
14:20:28 if you have taken all of our tax dollars here's this
14:20:30 book and I didn't mean it to be that way.
14:20:32 But there are federal systems available but you really
14:20:35 have to take the initiative to move at long.
14:20:37 >> And we have done a lot of work, a lot of people in
14:20:41 this room that did the work.
14:20:42 It's just our problem I think has always been the

14:20:45 political.
14:20:46 >>> And let me share a thought.
14:20:49 At the end of the day we hired a professional campaign
14:20:51 team that ran it.
14:20:52 They told us at the end of the day when one hour
14:20:54 election, people went to the map, saw the lines, saw
14:20:58 the station sites, saw the time frame, saw the budget,
14:21:00 they knew what they were going to get N.colorado, I
14:21:03 think this is probably true everywhere, if you want
14:21:05 people to vote for something they need to know what
14:21:07 they are going to get, when they are going to get it
14:21:09 and what it's going to cost F.you can demonstrate that
14:21:11 you have to bring to the a high level of specificity
14:21:14 so people understand what it is we are voting on.
14:21:16 It was very powerful for us.
14:21:18 And at the end of the day it was the plan.
14:21:20 And I am certain that if that plan were done updated,
14:21:24 that could possibly be the map.
14:21:25 And in this region, I think T-Barta is a wonderful
14:21:29 start.
14:21:30 And you can move anywhere.
14:21:31 To get reasonable proceeds, the sales tax, whatever

14:21:36 mechanism you use, you need to get Clearwater,
14:21:39 St. Pete, suburban communities on board, in line.
14:21:42 And I have to share with you that when you were out
14:21:45 and I was presenting information on my plan, I was
14:21:47 debating one of the anti-rail folks to get shipped in,
14:21:51 are going to ship people in why you shouldn't do this,
14:21:54 because taxes are bad and transit is bad.
14:21:56 And I was doing well in a debate with him, and at one
14:21:59 point he got totally exasperated and said to me, well
14:22:03 it's pretty obvious to me what you are doing, you
14:22:05 built this so everybody in the region will get
14:22:06 something so they'll all vote for it.
14:22:10 Which I said, DUH, you got me on that one.
14:22:13 We are going to ask everybody for their vote.
14:22:15 We think everybody needs to receive a benefit from the
14:22:17 program and it worked and it worked well.
14:22:20 >> When we look at your map, since you brought up
14:22:23 TBRTA which is brand new for us, is this, your Denver
14:22:32 regional transportation area, is it similar in
14:22:35 geographically in miles and in population to our whole
14:22:40 TBRTA area which is the whole Tampa Bay area?
14:22:43 >> I think it's pretty close.

14:22:46 The planner is here, I know you have MPO
14:22:49 representatives.
14:22:50 We are 2400 square miles, 33 cities and 8 counties.
14:22:52 >> And did you have to create the regional
14:22:57 transportation department in order to ask for the tax
14:23:02 increase over all those different municipalities?
14:23:07 How did that work?
14:23:08 How did you actually get it on the ballot in all those
14:23:10 areas?
14:23:11 >> The regional transportation district has been
14:23:12 around for about 30 years.
14:23:14 So we are already the regional provider of service.
14:23:17 We did have to go to the legislature, however, and ask
14:23:19 their permission to go to the ballot.
14:23:21 >> So did you have taxing authority?
14:23:24 >>> Only with voter approval.
14:23:26 So we had to go to the ballot and get the vote.
14:23:40 >> JOSEPH CAETANO: At Union Station, how many miles
14:23:43 to long mountain, which is all the way up on the top?
14:23:46 >> It's about a 61-minute train trip.
14:23:49 When we opened.
14:23:50 And it's approximately 47 miles away from the

14:23:53 downtown.
14:23:57 It's a long trip.
14:24:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Does it go to the airport?
14:24:09 >> Yes, sir.
14:24:09 On the far right-hand side, eastern side, DIA, Denver
14:24:15 international airport.
14:24:16 >> Glad you told us.
14:24:17 >> And I might add the city of Denver is a strong
14:24:20 partner of ours, and the mayor has been our champion.
14:24:22 The mayor of Denver led this blot initiative in the
14:24:26 face of the campaign on the TV commercials.
14:24:28 He totally gets the idea of regionalism.
14:24:30 He totally gets the idea of why we need to invest to
14:24:34 insure our future.
14:24:34 City of Denver is building our station at the airport
14:24:36 so it can integrate right into our new airport.
14:24:39 And we can coordinate with TSA and security and get
14:24:43 off the train, check your bags and right into the
14:24:45 airport.
14:24:46 It will be a greatly facilitated access to the
14:24:48 airport.
14:24:49 I might add as this regional plan evolves, when we

14:24:52 polled access to the airport was always highest on
14:24:54 people's list whereof they wanted to go to.
14:24:56 When I think of this area, and I think of people going
14:24:59 to the airport from Clearwater, St. Pete, Sarasota, if
14:25:01 they could be ensured that they can take the drain all
14:25:04 the way and not have to drive and park, it's a very
14:25:06 attractive alternative and it worked that way for us
14:25:08 as well.
14:25:09 So we are very analogous that way.
14:25:11 >> I know at Tampa international it's already on their
14:25:13 plan, in terms of that, the airport is the aviation
14:25:17 authority way ahead in that plan.
14:25:23 >>> Absolutely.
14:25:24 And so I think that's a wonderful start.
14:25:26 It shows me that the airport already has the
14:25:28 understanding and the vision that rail access is an
14:25:31 integral part of their future and if you can have the
14:25:33 whole region to that it works even better.
14:25:35 >> I'm curious as you look at your plan, you showed
14:25:40 earlier, this area did not really support it.
14:25:44 >>> That's right.
14:25:45 >> I notice when you look at this you really are going

14:25:48 around that.
14:25:48 I mean, is that because they didn't support it?
14:25:53 >>> You sound like one of my constituents out there.
14:25:57 They picked up on that.
14:25:58 I think I have it on this one.
14:25:59 We did promise them a protective right-of-way, and you
14:26:05 can see it on your hashmark in the middle right where
14:26:08 you pointed.
14:26:08 We are buying options on right-of-way through that
14:26:12 sector because the airport is located where it is,
14:26:14 this is one of the fastest growing areas of the
14:26:16 region.
14:26:17 The line they get is the northeast line, the north
14:26:20 line here.
14:26:21 But we are negotiating to purchase right-of-way for a
14:26:24 future investment.
14:26:25 I might add that when we won this ballot initiative it
14:26:29 wasn't a week afterwards, I went out and make made
14:26:32 presentations to people to make sure they understood
14:26:34 what we were going to do and everybody started asking
14:26:36 me for the next set of investments.
14:26:37 What about over here?

14:26:38 What about over here?
14:26:39 What about over here?
14:26:40 To which I say, wait a minute, you just passed this
14:26:42 multi-billion program.
14:26:44 We can't really go through the next phase.
14:26:46 However, we did trademark a term called next tracks.
14:26:55 So it's very volatile at this point but that corridor
14:26:58 was for exactly what you picked up on, a rapidly
14:27:00 growing corridor and we are going to need it so we are
14:27:03 going to do options on right-of-way through there.
14:27:07 >>MARY MULHERN: That struck me, too, and especially
14:27:09 because we were just in Charlotte, a group went from
14:27:12 the chamber to look at Charlotte.
14:27:16 And it was before they voted and they were very
14:27:18 worried on their transit sales tax repeal.
14:27:24 There is a group trying to repeal it.
14:27:25 And it was the same dynamic.
14:27:28 It was the people in the inner city, it was the
14:27:33 African-American, Democratic area that felt like they
14:27:37 weren't being served by the plan.
14:27:38 I just think it's something that we can certainly
14:27:40 learn from, as we can see it's happening, and I think

14:27:45 that it's our responsibility to make that part of our
14:27:48 plan, to make sure that those are the people that need
14:27:50 the public transportation the most, who can't afford
14:27:54 to have two cars or even one.
14:27:55 >>> Absolutely.
14:27:56 In retrospect, we almost took for granted the
14:28:01 neighborhoods and the political persuasions that we
14:28:03 always thought would vote for us and we didn't do a
14:28:06 good enough job there.
14:28:08 I will say the upside to these investments, job
14:28:10 opportunities are opening now in suburbs that were
14:28:12 previously very difficult to get to from the inner
14:28:15 city.
14:28:15 Suburban job opportunities looking for, laborers are
14:28:17 looking for jobs, that links everybody up.
14:28:20 And also if you look at that map, everybody who
14:28:23 locates on the rail line now has access to the entire
14:28:25 regional labor market, from the high end computer
14:28:29 programmers to the low end security folks, to the
14:28:31 landscapers, to hotel jobs, all the things that come
14:28:35 together, the region has now been connected and that
14:28:38 includes the airport which always has a need for

14:28:41 labor.
14:28:41 It becomes a very attractive region to do business,
14:28:44 because you have access to the whole marketplace.
14:28:51 I put this slide N.you will see that it's a
14:28:55 partnership between us, the RTD, local governments who
14:28:58 are doing all the zoning and entitlements, and the
14:29:00 private sector.
14:29:01 We work very closely with them.
14:29:03 But I have the saying I use in Denver, on TOD, transit
14:29:07 oriented development, we are the T in the TOD.
14:29:10 We are sometimes prone to become developers, instead
14:29:13 of needing five acres, put up a building, frankly we
14:29:16 don't do that.
14:29:17 That's not what we are empowered to do.
14:29:19 We are the transit folks.
14:29:20 We work very closely with communities and developing
14:29:22 communities but we are not getting into the
14:29:24 development business because frankly I'm not good at
14:29:26 that.
14:29:27 We would probably mess it up.
14:29:28 And that's not what our legislative entitlement tells
14:29:30 to us do. It tells us to be the transit folks and I

14:29:33 stick to that.
14:29:33 But we recognize that transit oriented is a critical
14:29:38 part and we will make property available, we'll trade
14:29:41 off property, we'll do all of that, but we are not
14:29:43 going to become developers.
14:29:47 The Center for Transit Oriented Development projects
14:29:49 that 155,000 housing units will be located within a
14:29:54 half a mile of our rail lines by 2030.
14:29:57 Housing is moving toward the rail station sites.
14:30:00 Our regional council of governments, the Denver
14:30:02 Regional Denver Council of Governments, DRCOG,
14:30:04 forecast 548,000 jobs will be within a half mile of
14:30:09 our transit lines.
14:30:11 Which means that accessibility with our emerging job
14:30:15 market is getting closer and closer to where we are
14:30:17 building these developments which is in everybody's
14:30:20 best interest.
14:30:27 >> Our rail station is on the western side of the
14:30:28 highway. That garage is actually our park and ride
14:30:31 facility.
14:30:32 We were going to be on that open space where you see
14:30:34 the cars parked but the city in question here, we were

14:30:39 already in design and had big investments.
14:30:41 We want to build a City Center and develop this whole
14:30:43 area in high density, could you move your parking
14:30:45 facility?
14:30:45 Now we were almost 6.5 million into design of the
14:30:48 facility, and we said we could not do it if they
14:30:51 didn't make up the difference.
14:30:53 Community wrote us a check for $6.5 million and we
14:30:56 relocated the parking facility so they could develop
14:30:58 on the site.
14:30:59 It was that important to them.
14:31:00 They get the D.O.T., the highway, the access.
14:31:06 And you see this bridge, a pedestrian only bridge,
14:31:09 bridges one side of the highway to the other.
14:31:10 Those barriers that speculate communities are now
14:31:12 bridged.
14:31:13 We have probably eight of those along the line right
14:31:15 now.
14:31:15 So we are opening up opportunities, and also we get
14:31:18 people from and to development on both sides of the
14:31:22 highway without having that barrier.
14:31:23 It's really brought us closer together in more ways

14:31:26 than one.
14:31:28 I'll get to the conclusions.
14:31:31 If you had the desire and the will and you want to be
14:31:33 a great city, you also need to be a great region.
14:31:35 None of us live independently.
14:31:38 We are all interdependent.
14:31:40 The vision should be lofty but attainable when you
14:31:43 come up with your transit.
14:31:44 You should capture the region's imagination and be
14:31:47 embraced throughout the district.
14:31:48 You can't impose a plan on people and say take it or
14:31:51 leave it.
14:31:52 You have to get out there, tell them what it's with
14:31:54 about, get their input and genuinely seek regional
14:31:58 approval to what it is you are going to put on the
14:32:00 ballot and what's going to be delivered.
14:32:01 Policy board which in this case would you all and your
14:32:06 companion guests set the provision and muster
14:32:09 political support but let the professional staff
14:32:12 manage it because it's very important that we do what
14:32:14 we do and that's what we do.
14:32:17 You also have to have a solid budget and revenue plan.

14:32:19 We are not there now.
14:32:20 Our 4.7 billion plan is now 6.1 billion because of the
14:32:24 inflated cost of materials.
14:32:25 We are using unique project delivery techniques.
14:32:28 We are scrambling right now.
14:32:29 I believe we are going to get there but it's probably
14:32:31 going to be longer debt service than we had originally
14:32:34 anticipated but it's been difficult, and there's a
14:32:37 whole wealth of information how to do cost estimates
14:32:41 and validate.
14:32:42 But I would suggest be very conservative.
14:32:44 Much better to come in under budget than go over.
14:32:47 So we'll be happy to help you on that as you get
14:32:49 through your evolution.
14:32:52 Our agency has a history of delivering our projects on
14:32:54 time and on budget.
14:32:55 We got the public's trust.
14:32:57 They trust our agency that we are going to do what we
14:32:59 promised we are going to do. All of our lines have
14:33:02 exceeded ridership projections.
14:33:03 It used to be that transit would pump up their numbers
14:33:06 to try to hit good numbers. We not do. That we have

14:33:11 been over our ridership estimates on every line that
14:33:14 we built, and that creates public confidence.
14:33:17 You need a strong professional staff, need a strong
14:33:21 proven and capable that that leads to plan
14:33:24 development.
14:33:25 You need strength, passion, commitment.
14:33:28 You need a strong transit entity that knows what they
14:33:30 are doing and how to operate a good system and on time
14:33:32 is clean and safe.
14:33:34 You need to work closely with your state D.O.T.
14:33:36 You know, highways and transit are not forever apart.
14:33:40 We are coordinated and we need buy-in from all
14:33:43 segments of the transportation community.
14:33:44 We have done a very good job of that.
14:33:46 And what it takes at the end of the day is passion,
14:33:48 commitment and 24/7, 365 commitment to get the job
14:33:52 done by everybody involved.
14:33:53 This is not an undertaking for the weak of heart.
14:33:56 It really takes total commitment, and buy-in to the
14:33:59 vision and to the picture of what you want to loon
14:34:02 like as you mature as a city and as a region.
14:34:05 And I believe that's my last slide.

14:34:08 >> Thank you.
14:34:10 There are folks here who everybody working on this for
14:34:12 20 years.
14:34:13 And the question is, how did you create this core of
14:34:19 advocates who then were successful in educating and
14:34:22 sharing the vision with everyone else?
14:34:27 Was government the leader? How did it work?
14:34:29 >>> Lots of leaders for different things.
14:34:31 On the technical side, my agency did that.
14:34:34 We run a good system.
14:34:36 We run great bus service.
14:34:37 People like us.
14:34:38 We poll very well.
14:34:39 We have a good identity, good brand, if you will.
14:34:41 So we proved that we could be entrusted.
14:34:44 We vetted it.
14:34:45 We came up with a good plan.
14:34:47 Our business community took the lead.
14:34:48 Our Chamber of Commerce.
14:34:49 We have chambers in all segments of the region but we
14:34:51 have a metro Denver chamber which is sort of the
14:34:54 umbrella group.

14:34:55 They took the lead on the campaign.
14:34:56 They recognized that if we were to thrive and to
14:34:59 survive as a good business community, we needed a
14:35:04 transportation system to make it work.
14:35:06 They headed up the campaign.
14:35:07 They hired the campaign teams.
14:35:09 They raised the money.
14:35:09 The business community was our leadership and we
14:35:12 worked with them and continue to work with them to
14:35:14 this day very closely, because our goals are mutual.
14:35:17 They see us as an integral part of the region's
14:35:20 long-term economic well-being.
14:35:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Reverend Scott.
14:35:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Did you make a presentation to the
14:35:28 TBRTA group, the transportation authority?
14:35:34 >>> I did not.
14:35:34 I was supposed to do one tonight but I understand not
14:35:36 all the members could attend so that was canceled.
14:35:39 >> It should have happened even if they weren't.
14:35:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The reason I raise that is because you
14:35:44 made a very valid point of all the stakeholders, and
14:35:47 how strong they need to be when you talk about the

14:35:52 MPO, TBRTA is the one that I think is taking the lead
14:35:56 on this issue, is that right?
14:35:57 >>> Thank you, councilman Scott.
14:36:07 Definitely TBRTA would be taking the lead to do the
14:36:11 regional plan, put that plan together for this area.
14:36:15 To answer your question, I think the best thing to do
14:36:17 is to propose the idea to TBRTA.
14:36:23 You have previous councilmen being on it.
14:36:25 So coming months, and we can get together with Cal and
14:36:30 see if he's available.
14:36:30 And also, I have been in contact with somebody else,
14:36:37 from Utah, and we talked about it and he said he might
14:36:39 be interested in coming in the springtime so we can do
14:36:42 something similar to that, and also let you know that
14:36:44 the MPO did something similar, and would do it again.
14:36:51 >> Well, I was just raising it as an issue or concern,
14:36:56 because if they are taking a lead, I mean, this entire
14:36:58 presentation really helps enlighten you to make sure
14:37:02 all your stakeholders are on board, and give a lot of
14:37:06 lot of good ideas.
14:37:07 So I wonder had you made that presentation, and you
14:37:10 have not, and I think it would be worthwhile for them

14:37:12 to see this presentation, and have the opportunity
14:37:14 that we are having today to raise questions.
14:37:18 >>> Maybe you want to also convey this message to
14:37:21 Mayor Iorio since she sits on TBRTA, and in my
14:37:26 capacity I will talk with the other members.
14:37:32 >>MARY MULHERN: While you are there, when we talk
14:37:34 about MPOs relating to our TBRTA group, which this
14:37:38 new group which I just noticed your professional staff
14:37:43 line, which is very important, that group -- and that
14:37:46 group is not -- my question is, how do we -- you have
14:37:51 a group, an organization that's been there for a long
14:37:54 time, right?
14:37:54 How many years did you say?
14:37:57 30.
14:37:57 And how many MPOs does it include?
14:38:00 Because you said it's several counties, right?
14:38:04 Just one.
14:38:05 Okay.
14:38:06 So this is -- you can, I'm sure, help us kind of
14:38:10 figure it out but we are talking about a different
14:38:12 situation.
14:38:12 And it strikes me -- and Linda and Tom and Gwen, you

14:38:17 will know better than me since I'm new -- that our
14:38:21 Hillsborough County has been working on these rail
14:38:24 plans for a long time.
14:38:25 So we now have this big regional group, with how many
14:38:29 different, eight counties?
14:38:31 And all these different municipalities.
14:38:34 But we are really the only county that had started to
14:38:39 plan.
14:38:42 >> Pinellas has for rail.
14:38:47 And Orlando is way ahead of us.
14:38:50 >> TBRTA.
14:38:52 >> You know, Tampa Bay partnership which includes all
14:38:55 these -- they get. This now have you had a chance to
14:38:58 talk to Tampa Bay partnership while you are here?
14:39:00 Great.
14:39:02 >>MARY MULHERN: But Linda, what I'm talking about, you
14:39:04 know, if their transit authority mirrors their MPO,
14:39:11 and where if we have how many different MPOs in
14:39:15 TBRTA?
14:39:16 >>> Well, we have a two-tier system.
14:39:18 We have just one MPO as a regional level and it's
14:39:21 called the MPO chair committee and state legislation.

14:39:28 We have that set up now.
14:39:29 But we also maintain the local MPOs.
14:39:32 And with that we have 6 MPOs.
14:39:35 >> But how many are in that is TBRTA group?
14:39:39 >>> Six.
14:39:40 >> So the MPO is the one that actually does the
14:39:45 design, right?
14:39:46 The plan?
14:39:47 They did the -- somewhat?
14:39:50 Well, I'm asking.
14:39:53 >>> Actually, our MPO did the plan from the 30,000
14:39:57 level.
14:39:58 We took it down to 5,000 to say, this is the idea,
14:40:02 these are the corridors, where should it actually go,
14:40:05 what sports rail, where was the slope correct?
14:40:08 We did that as part of our agency.
14:40:10 We are the implementing entity.
14:40:11 And I will say that I did do a little bit of a
14:40:14 planning and information gathering behind your back,
14:40:16 if you will.
14:40:17 The former county manager in Pinellas County was a
14:40:20 friend of mine I worked with when I lived in Miami.

14:40:22 And I asked him, I said, is there receptivity really
14:40:26 for a TBRTA regional authority?
14:40:28 He said yes.
14:40:28 What's got to emerge, though, is a plan that everybody
14:40:31 can buy into, that have been feels equally -- that
14:40:34 benefits everyone equally.
14:40:36 And that's what I think the challenge is.
14:40:38 I think a lot of the plans are locally driven like
14:40:41 Hillsborough has a good one.
14:40:42 You have done a lot of work with Lucy Davis.
14:40:46 A lot of work there. But it's got to be the regional
14:40:48 transportation plan that people really buy into.
14:40:50 >>MARY MULHERN: My worry for us is that waiting for
14:40:55 all of those MPO dollars and all of those cities and
14:40:58 all those counties, and we have got this TBRTA that
14:41:02 has no staff, and really no -- I don't know how much
14:41:05 authority they have at this point -- that it is going
14:41:07 to delay -- if we wait for a finished product from
14:41:12 them, it's going to set us back.
14:41:15 So I worry about that.
14:41:20 >>> Can I give you some update?
14:41:23 Your worry is being shared by other people.

14:41:25 So by legislative action.
14:41:28 TBRTA will come up with a plan by the month of July
14:41:33 twine and that they propose to move that up to January
14:41:38 twine so now it's not that far away.
14:41:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: TBRTA by July?
14:41:46 >>> By July.
14:41:49 There's a push to have the plan done by January of
14:41:51 2009.
14:41:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: January of 2009.
14:41:56 Okay.
14:41:58 I still think, though, the issue for us -- and I hear
14:42:02 you well when you talk about, because you have an
14:42:05 agency that's been in existence for 30 years.
14:42:08 >>> Yes, sir.
14:42:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And have been given pour and
14:42:15 authority, I don't know whether TBRTA has that.
14:42:18 Another thing, they have no staffing.
14:42:22 And then also, you still have to work with multiple --
14:42:26 Lucy, I understand what you are talking about when you
14:42:29 say multiple MPOs even as chairman of the council,
14:42:32 dop not have power, authority as MPO.
14:42:37 So there are still some things that need to be worked

14:42:42 on to bring everybody together to really make this
14:42:44 happen, or make it a reality.
14:42:47 And so in terms of TBRTA, I think they are critical if
14:42:51 we talk about regional and getting them on board.
14:42:55 I think that's very key.
14:42:56 And you know, I worked on the Hillsborough County plan
14:43:00 and over at Hartline. That thing was forever.
14:43:03 It took a long time.
14:43:04 A lot of money.
14:43:05 How much did we spend, about $8 million, wasn't it,
14:43:07 something like that?
14:43:08 About $8 million.
14:43:12 >>> For the Tampa rail study, yes.
14:43:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Right.
14:43:15 For the Tampa rail study.
14:43:17 It took quite a bit of time.
14:43:18 So I'm hoping that TBRTA is well on their way, at
14:43:25 least understands all the ramifications.
14:43:28 Now the one exception that we do have or one good
14:43:31 point, do you have FDOT on TBRTA an MPO.
14:43:35 >>> I was going to mention. That I did a little
14:43:39 research on the Internet and came up with an article

14:43:41 by FDOT called the interstate of transit report, and
14:43:44 they are actually recognizing right now that a
14:43:46 successful plan has to go beyond the borders of
14:43:49 Hillsborough County and into others, and they have
14:43:51 taken some initiative there.
14:43:53 So perhaps in the void that you have right now with
14:43:58 TBRTA with no staff and no budget, maybe FDOT can step
14:44:01 into that role and start to put the meet on the bones
14:44:05 of the regional plan.
14:44:06 That's an alternative that I picked up on.
14:44:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We have something called reality
14:44:12 check put on by the Urband Land Institute and showed
14:44:16 us how much we are going to grow and how much we need
14:44:18 to connect.
14:44:18 Did your people travel to other cities and see how
14:44:21 their transit systems worked?
14:44:24 >>> We did, and we do.
14:44:25 I was in Charlotte about a month ago.
14:44:27 And we helped them on their campaign.
14:44:30 I was down there doing some interviews and such, much
14:44:33 like I'm doing here because we didn't want to see that
14:44:35 thing go down either.

14:44:37 We are in very close communication with Salt Lake
14:44:38 City, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, we all worked together
14:44:43 very, very closely and we see what works, what
14:44:45 doesn't, everything from vehicles to traffic
14:44:49 maintenance and signals and all the various elements
14:44:52 of rail operations.
14:44:53 We were the first to go out with a whole system,
14:44:56 request to build a system.
14:44:57 But you all picked up on something very important, and
14:44:59 that is, we had a line built that was wildly
14:45:03 successful.
14:45:03 We had another one underway that people liked so
14:45:06 people do could gout go out and use it and kick tires.
14:45:09 They knew Watt was all about.
14:45:10 That helped us a lot.
14:45:14 >> I went to rail volution a couple of weeks ago.
14:45:19 Dr. Dingfelder isn't here but Lucy was there, Ed was
14:45:22 there, and there were two themes that came out.
14:45:26 One was transit oriented development, but more making
14:45:33 your land use and that's why this be discussion of
14:45:45 time lines and whether we are going to do this and
14:45:47 whether we are going to wait until we have a huge

14:45:49 regional plan is that we have to do this soon, because
14:45:53 this is a question of the fact that 40% of our carbon
14:45:59 emission comes from cars, and the other -- another 30%
14:46:04 comes from buildings.
14:46:08 So the combination of creating transit and having
14:46:10 transit oriented development is the biggest thing that
14:46:16 we can do to save the climate, save the planet.
14:46:18 So it's not just a question of, oh, should we -- maybe
14:46:22 we should wait till we have this big regional plan.
14:46:25 We really have to do something as soon as we can.
14:46:28 And considering that we do have a plan, and we have
14:46:31 actually -- they actually have vetted it and updated
14:46:37 it and presented it to the public.
14:46:39 So I'm thrilled that you're here and talking to Tampa
14:46:43 and talking to the mayor.
14:46:44 I just want to say that I don't think we should wait.
14:46:47 I don't think -- I don't think we can afford to wait
14:46:51 until they figure out how they are going to administer
14:46:54 this big agency.
14:46:57 That agency needs to grow as we put some transit in
14:47:00 place.
14:47:04 >>> I agree with you, there needs to be a sense of

14:47:06 urgency, because there two things.
14:47:08 I showed you what's happening to the cost of
14:47:10 materials.
14:47:11 It's never going to be cheaper than it is right now
14:47:13 and I'm scared to death frankly about what's going to
14:47:16 continue to happen as these costs continue to go up,
14:47:18 it becomes extraordinarily expensive.
14:47:22 Secondly preservation of right-of-way.
14:47:23 If you don't get those rights-of-way in public sector,
14:47:26 they could be forever lost.
14:47:27 And as I worked it in my region and told people, right
14:47:31 now, we are doing commuter rail in some of our
14:47:33 corridors, and it's not newfangled, not 180-mile
14:47:38 bullet train.
14:47:38 However, we are building investment.
14:47:40 We are building track.
14:47:41 We are preserving right-of-way.
14:47:42 And I have no doubt that in the next 20 to 40 years
14:47:45 that technology is going to evolve.
14:47:47 But if we have already got the track and the
14:47:49 right-of-way, we can now move to the next level, it's
14:47:51 going to be even better for the future.

14:47:52 But the key is to get it under your control so you
14:47:55 don't lose it, and it starts getting sold off in
14:47:58 parcels or segments get sold off.
14:48:00 It just makes sense.
14:48:01 That's why I agree, there is a accepts of urgency,
14:48:03 absolutely.
14:48:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for Elaine who
14:48:10 introduced you, and what does council do next?
14:48:12 We like this.
14:48:13 We want this.
14:48:13 We want to make this happen.
14:48:15 How did K we support the administration, or how do we
14:48:20 push this along?
14:48:21 >>> Well, clearly, I think TBRTA is a very good first
14:48:24 step.
14:48:25 >> But we don't have a seat at the table.
14:48:27 How does council help?
14:48:29 >>> Right.
14:48:30 And of course mayor I your yeah is one of the 16
14:48:33 members on the TBRTA board.
14:48:35 But I think as Cal Marcella mentioned in terms of the
14:48:38 role of elected officials in terms of trying to

14:48:41 galvanize the community --
14:48:43 >> Do you think adopt ago comp plan that supports
14:48:48 transit land use would be a way to push that?
14:48:50 >>> Yes.
14:48:50 We now have a comprehensive plan and staff is
14:48:53 currently reviewing the draft comprehensive plan to
14:48:55 look at the link between land use planning and mass
14:48:59 transit in order to make sure that we are directing
14:49:02 the question of where do we want growth to go?
14:49:05 So clearly, we are working on having our comprehensive
14:49:08 plan reflect that marriage between mass transit and
14:49:12 land use.
14:49:18 >>MARY MULHERN: I have lots and lots of questions.
14:49:20 I'll try to be fast.
14:49:21 You know when you showed us how the board turned
14:49:24 anti-rail at one point.
14:49:28 What were you able to do to get them to come back?
14:49:31 What was the solution to that?
14:49:34 >>> Cal: Great question.
14:49:36 Prior to that point, you need to get 256 residents of
14:49:40 signatures in your district and you're on the ballot.
14:49:42 At that point you never had to articulate your agenda,

14:49:45 your direction, your support for transit.
14:49:47 So we had some stealth candidates that came in under
14:49:50 the radar and got elected.
14:49:53 And the most powerful transit supported area of my
14:49:55 region which is Boulder, Boulder Colorado is where the
14:49:58 university is, sort of like Ann Arbor and Berkeley,
14:50:02 way out there in terms of environmental causes and
14:50:04 support, they elected a libertarian who actually
14:50:08 opposed transit.
14:50:09 So what happened was after that, we had another cycle
14:50:12 of elections and the visibility of my transit board
14:50:15 members went way up.
14:50:16 The League of Women Voters, local communities, mayors,
14:50:19 picked candidates to run in support of them to make
14:50:21 sure we knew who it was.
14:50:23 Now we have aboard that votes typically run 15-0,
14:50:27 14-0, because everybody knew what they were running
14:50:30 on, it was on a positive agenda.
14:50:32 >> And it almost sounds like a school board kind of
14:50:34 how you have it set up with the elected members.
14:50:38 We don't have anything like that.
14:50:42 All of our boards are kind of appointed by elected

14:50:45 officials mostly.
14:50:46 But was it always that way when it was set up?
14:50:49 >>> No.
14:50:49 s was strictly appointed and then some individuals
14:50:52 went to the legislature and said let's make it elected
14:50:54 instead.
14:50:55 There's only three major transit agencies that have
14:50:57 elected boards.
14:50:59 Bart, which is in San Francisco, Oakland, and Denver.
14:51:02 And I would share with you, in my darkest days I would
14:51:04 have said worst structure could you imagine.
14:51:07 But now I would have to say now that visibility is
14:51:09 elevated at this time best board I could have because
14:51:11 everybody is in there.
14:51:12 Everybody looks out for their constituents.
14:51:15 So bus stops and bus routes and unruly drivers,
14:51:19 whatever that might be.
14:51:20 But they also have a regional perspective.
14:51:22 And everybody has bought in.
14:51:23 Everybody has bought into the concept that a high tide
14:51:27 raises all boats.
14:51:30 We are going to do better than if we fight each other

14:51:34 individually.
14:51:35 It's actually worked out very well for us.
14:51:40 >>MARY MULHERN: That might be a good thing to do for
14:51:42 TBRTA.
14:51:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And I notice how gray your hair is, in
14:51:48 all those years of anti-rail --
14:51:50 >>> it goes with the territory.
14:51:51 [ Laughter ]
14:51:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
14:51:55 >>MARY MULHERN: Can you tell us specific things --
14:52:03 thank you, Linda, for bringing up that comp plan.
14:52:05 And I'm all for making sure that we get our
14:52:13 comprehensive changes to support rail.
14:52:15 I know, Linda, now a lot about this.
14:52:17 I don't know very much.
14:52:18 But I would like to hear from you about what
14:52:22 specifically can we put into our comp plan that will
14:52:25 help us create rail?
14:52:29 >>> What we have seen -- and again we don't do a comp
14:52:31 plan but the cities do.
14:52:33 So now that we have this map with these station sites
14:52:35 that are pretty well set, they are now changing their

14:52:42 comp plan, higher density, what we call TMU-30, mixed
14:52:45 use entitlements, residential, office, retail space.
14:52:51 So the cities themselves versus taken it upon
14:52:53 themselves to update their comp plan so that they
14:52:56 optimize the potential represented by rail and we
14:53:01 educate our community.
14:53:01 We are out there constantly to tell them what it's all
14:53:04 about and they have responded remarkably well.
14:53:07 So we know the vision is going to be realized because
14:53:09 all the cities are capitalizing to make sure that the
14:53:12 development happens around the stations, and a lot of
14:53:14 demographics are changing, a lot of older people.
14:53:17 Older folks are selling homes now, they want to live
14:53:19 near rail.
14:53:19 I want to go downtown.
14:53:20 I want to go to a show I.don't want to drive.
14:53:23 Especially on the interstates coming in and out of the
14:53:27 city.
14:53:27 That's a very good thing.
14:53:28 And we are seeing that happen right now because
14:53:30 everybody gets it.
14:53:31 So that's -- but again you have to give them a good

14:53:33 reason to change the comp plan.
14:53:35 We have it now because the rail is coming and it's
14:53:37 coming relatively soon.
14:53:39 It's a nine-year buildup.
14:53:40 Most of the corridors will be built in seven years.
14:53:42 That's really on the short range planning horizon.
14:53:45 That's how we are making it happen in the comp plan
14:53:47 perspective.
14:53:48 >> Well, we have 2050, right?
14:53:53 And with rail lines drawn in, and I think -- is there
14:53:58 any reason why we couldn't use that to make some
14:54:00 changes to our comp plan?
14:54:06 >>> It's tough to sell because your critics will say
14:54:09 why?
14:54:09 You don't have think plans to build anything here. Why
14:54:12 are you making these changes?
14:54:13 But could you still do it in anticipation of making
14:54:16 that happen.
14:54:16 But it helps when you have lines on the map and you
14:54:18 have a time frame and a specific program.
14:54:20 >> Another reason not to wait.
14:54:22 >>> Absolutely.

14:54:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I know you have a 3:00 conference
14:54:27 call so my quick question is, now that you have been
14:54:30 so successful in Denver, would you consider moving
14:54:33 back to Florida?
14:54:36 [ Laughter ]
14:54:37 >>> I have been asked that question before.
14:54:40 Frankly, the program I have right now is still nine
14:54:43 years away from completion.
14:54:45 We are having some cost challenges where I have to
14:54:48 reconcile available revenues against expenses that are
14:54:51 emerging.
14:54:52 And as I like to say, we birthed this baby.
14:54:56 I'm not ready to put it up for adoption yet.
14:54:58 I have to stay where I'm at for a period of time.
14:55:00 But I love this community and I applaud each and every
14:55:03 one of you.
14:55:04 You have such a wonderful vision, it's such a great
14:55:06 community.
14:55:06 Your growth numbers are off the chart.
14:55:08 We are growing.
14:55:09 But I looked at yours and you exceed ours by quite a
14:55:11 bit.

14:55:12 And I think the region has to recognize that.
14:55:15 If you think it's bad today, I have to share with you
14:55:17 that I met with several people this morning, and
14:55:20 everyone I met was complaining about their community
14:55:22 this morning.
14:55:23 It was 70 minutes to get in, 80 minutes to get in, we
14:55:26 are backed up.
14:55:27 And I will share with you, we are not that bad in
14:55:29 Denver as you are here, and we have got the plan and
14:55:31 vision and got together and it happened.
14:55:33 So I believe you have the pieces.
14:55:34 But as you said, you have a lot of challenges.
14:55:36 Got to get everybody under the same umbrella, got to
14:55:39 get everybody to buy into your plan, there's got to be
14:55:42 regional consensus, to get the MPOs to buy in on a
14:55:46 greater plan, and that's not easy.
14:55:48 That's going to take some homework but it will be
14:55:50 done.
14:55:50 And I would say by personal observation I think the
14:55:52 region is ready.
14:55:53 I really do think it's ready.
14:55:55 But it's got to coalesce around a specific plan with a

14:55:57 time frame.
14:55:58 And I believe you can deliver it.
14:55:59 I'm very optimistic about your area.
14:56:02 >>MARY MULHERN: One more question.
14:56:05 It may be too early in your execution of rail.
14:56:07 But do you have any data that shows that you are
14:56:11 reducing vehicle miles, travel, because of the royal?
14:56:15 >>> Absolutely.
14:56:16 We do surveys regularly.
14:56:18 We did our new rail lines most recently on T-Rex.
14:56:23 40% of the riders on T-Rex are new, did not ride
14:56:26 transit before the rail line went in.
14:56:28 When Tau those numbers you build into an average trip
14:56:32 length, you can measure your emission reductions and
14:56:35 everything.
14:56:35 There's no doubt rail attracts people that were not
14:56:37 previously on transit.
14:56:39 That's all congestion relief and all Cal Kabul in
14:56:43 terms of your environmental impact.
14:56:45 Absolutely.
14:56:46 >>GWEN MILLER: We would like to say thank you.
14:56:48 We really appreciate you coming to Tampa and your

14:56:51 presentation is excellent.
14:56:53 And I know we are going to get on the right foot and
14:56:55 we are going to start railing.
14:56:58 [ Applause ]
14:56:59 >>> Thank you.
14:57:02 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to close our workshop.
14:57:05 >> Move to close.
14:57:06 >> Second.
14:57:06 (Motion carried).
14:57:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Now we go to our appeal hearing.
14:57:11 We need to open the a feel hearing.
14:57:12 >> So moved.
14:57:13 >> Second.
14:57:13 (Motion carried).
14:57:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can we take a five-minute break?
14:57:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
14:57:27 Let's get through with this and get out of here.
14:57:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, if I can, just to remind you
14:57:35 of your standard of review.
14:57:40 This City Council, pursuant to your code, in reviewing
14:57:43 the decision of the board, our commission shall
14:57:45 determine, one, whether the board's decision was

14:57:46 supported by competent, substantial evidence, two,
14:57:50 whether due process was afforded, and three, whether
14:57:52 the essential requirements of law have been observed.
14:57:55 In other words, was the proper law applied properly?
14:58:00 Council, do you have time constraints for appeal
14:58:04 hearings which have been adopted into your new rule.
14:58:11 And for quasi-judicial matters, appeal to City
14:58:17 Council, only those people who spoke at the original
14:58:19 hearing are permitted to testify.
14:58:20 Council shall present the procedural history of the
14:58:23 case to the City Council.
14:58:25 The petitioner or appellant shall limit his or her
14:58:28 arguments to 15 minutes, and if there are other people
14:58:32 who are offering testimony in support, the appellant
14:58:34 may yield that time for those people for a total of 15
14:58:39 minutes.
14:58:39 Those persons opposed to the appeal shall speak for no
14:58:41 more than 15 minutes in total.
14:58:43 Speakers are limited to three minutes each unless
14:58:45 otherwise questioned by council and three minutes for
14:58:51 rebuttal.
14:58:52 Normally what happens is the staff then will present

14:58:54 procedural history of the case and give you a
14:58:56 background and let you know where the -- where the
14:59:01 issue is and what's before council.
14:59:04 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
14:59:05 This is an appeal on approval by architectural review
14:59:08 commission of a wall.
14:59:10 The appeal is by neighboring properties.
14:59:13 Actual property owner would like to bring before you
14:59:16 before we begin and I think that would be appropriate
14:59:18 for you to hear from him before we get to any of the
14:59:23 issues.
14:59:25 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Suite 3700 Bank of America Plaza.
14:59:30 I represent Jeff Tedder.
14:59:33 If you will look at your agenda you will see item 87.
14:59:36 And 88.
14:59:41 I was hired recently by Mr. Tedder to handle number
14:59:44 88.
14:59:46 I learned within the last hour or so that there was
14:59:49 also a cross-appeal that Ms. Lopez had filed which is
14:59:54 number 87.
14:59:57 I did not know about that appeal.
15:00:01 And I came this morning to ask you to continue number

15:00:03 88, which did you until January 17th.
15:00:11 We have not completed the record for item 88.
15:00:13 We are not prepared to go forward.
15:00:18 Ms. Lopez on her appeal number 87 is certainly within
15:00:21 her rights to go forward today.
15:00:22 I am totally unprepared.
15:00:24 I have asked her if she wouldn't mind continuing until
15:00:27 the 17th of January.
15:00:29 She would rather not do that.
15:00:32 It seems to me that the reasonable thing to do would
15:00:35 be to consolidate these appeals, have her appeal
15:00:39 decided, and my client's cross appeal decided on
15:00:42 January 17th, for what it's worth my client
15:00:45 architects Sol Fleischman is also talking to Ms. Lopez
15:00:49 about a possible compromise which may make all of this
15:00:52 unnecessary.
15:00:53 Certainly, I apologize to bring this to you at this
15:00:56 time, and I wish I had known that this morning, and
15:01:01 Ms. Lopez would not have been required to spend most
15:01:05 of the day here and I apologize to her about that.
15:01:07 But that's where we are.
15:01:08 I just want to be as efficient as possible.

15:01:11 >>GWEN MILLER: So Ms. Lopez is not willing to
15:01:15 continue?
15:01:18 Would you come up, Ms. Lopez?
15:01:21 >>REBECCA KERT: I think you need to hear from the
15:01:23 appellant.
15:01:28 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: She's apparently appealed a
15:01:30 certificate of appropriateness granted in August.
15:01:32 Mr. Fleischman on behalf of Dr. Ted era peeled a
15:01:37 separate issue, I think was decided in September.
15:01:39 I was later hired in November to get this procedurally
15:01:43 on track, and that's essentially where we are.
15:01:47 There are two issues on appeal.
15:01:53 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Is the decision of one case be
15:01:55 falling on the other?
15:01:57 In other words, if Ms. Lopez doesn't want to continue,
15:02:00 and you do, what's the bearing on your case and on her
15:02:06 case?
15:02:08 >>> She has a right to go forward today and you have a
15:02:10 right to hear it.
15:02:11 I think her application is in order.
15:02:13 It's just I'm not prepared on the issue she's bringing
15:02:15 up.

15:02:16 I was hired on a separate issue regarding the wall,
15:02:20 and a tree involved, and probably more than you want
15:02:23 to hear about right now.
15:02:24 All I'm asking is for economy reasons, let's do them
15:02:27 all one day, January 17th.
15:02:30 She doesn't want to the dop that because she's already
15:02:32 continued once unbeknownst to me.
15:02:34 I apologize.
15:02:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's hear from Ms. Lopez.
15:02:38 >> Ms. Lopez: I prefer not to continue because we
15:02:42 have been here since 10:00 this morning and Sol
15:02:44 Fleischman knew we were coming today and I have not
15:02:47 received a telephone call from him in the last week
15:02:49 which I expected.
15:02:50 So I prefer to go ahead.
15:02:55 >> Put your name on the record.
15:02:56 >>> Patricia Lopez.
15:03:00 1201 Bayshore Boulevard.
15:03:02 And I would actually like my daughter to come up and
15:03:05 speak for me in the beginning.
15:03:09 If you don't mind.
15:03:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Can her daughter speak for her?

15:03:13 >> Sure.
15:03:13 >>> We haven't been sworn in.
15:03:16 >>GWEN MILLER: But we can before we start.
15:03:20 >>> Did she speak at the original hearing?
15:03:22 >>> Yes, she did.
15:03:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, would you like to hear from
15:03:26 staff to give you the --
15:03:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If I may, if I recall, the items
15:03:32 that we are looking at, if the petitioner had a
15:03:37 spokesperson, family member or not, in the original
15:03:40 hearing, that she's allowed to speak on those subject
15:03:43 matters to those points only.
15:03:45 If she did not speak at the original hearing, which I
15:03:48 don't know if she did or not, then she's not entitled
15:03:53 to speak.
15:03:55 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
15:03:56 Actually, did not speak at the first hearing.
15:04:02 It does get kind of confusing because we had two
15:04:05 hearings.
15:04:05 It involves one wall and two portions of the wall.
15:04:09 So they can be heard separately.
15:04:10 But there are overlapping issues which is why it's

15:04:13 getting kind of concerned, the first hearing and
15:04:18 second hearing.
15:04:20 Did not speak at the first hearing which is actually
15:04:22 the hearing which is on appeal right now.
15:04:26 I would leave to the Mr. Shelby's discretion about
15:04:28 whether or not she's allowed to act as a
15:04:30 representative for her mother and allow her mother to
15:04:34 speak, but she herself did not speak.
15:04:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The reason I say that is because
15:04:39 it's the exact feeling of whoever spoke at the first
15:04:43 two hearings to bring that to the record.
15:04:46 I don't know who spoke for the other case.
15:04:49 Other case is not going to be heard today because they
15:04:51 are asking for a continuation.
15:04:53 So I don't know what happened.
15:04:54 >>> We were represented by legal counsel, Graham
15:05:00 Carothers, which we decided not to retain further.
15:05:04 My daughter is a recent law school graduate.
15:05:06 So I would like her to --
15:05:11 >> That's up to our legal counsel.
15:05:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I will tell you, if she's
15:05:16 allowed, she has to speak to the record because it

15:05:18 will be challenged in court.
15:05:19 She has to speak to the record.
15:05:20 She can't introduce any new evidence.
15:05:22 >>> Oh, no, she knows that.
15:05:24 >> But it has to be pretty close to what was said.
15:05:27 I would let our attorney.
15:05:29 >>> I think she's going to stick to very basic issues,
15:05:34 which is why we are here today.
15:05:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Let us decide how we are go with it.
15:05:43 >> (off microphone) to suspend those rules by
15:05:49 unanimous vote.
15:05:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
15:05:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Wait, wait.
15:05:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: To speak to the record.
15:05:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Wait a minute.
15:05:59 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Knife objection to that.
15:06:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: But my concern here, council, if
15:06:09 something happens, we make a decision, and she didn't
15:06:11 speak in the original hearing, can go to court and
15:06:19 challenge and be overturned.
15:06:21 They need to understand that.
15:06:25 From my experience from hearing cases before.

15:06:28 It might be different.
15:06:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There's a motion and second to
15:06:31 allow the daughter to speak on the record.
15:06:32 I think that's very reasonable.
15:06:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
15:06:38 Let's go.
15:06:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I want to hear from counsel though
15:06:41 before we do that.
15:06:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, first, if I can, I had an
15:06:46 opportunity to review the transcript.
15:06:48 Ms. Kert was present at the hearing and she's familiar
15:06:50 with the process up until this point.
15:06:56 In a previous appeal hearing, if somebody is familiar
15:06:59 to something that is not coming into the record, or
15:07:01 they know if Ms. Kert or somebody was present and has
15:07:05 knowledge of that, they bring that to council's
15:07:07 attention.
15:07:08 I certainly wasn't there.
15:07:11 That being the caution to the parties, people
15:07:12 understand that.
15:07:13 But it has to be clearly within the rule that relies
15:07:17 on the record. This is not de~novo. You have to look

15:07:20 at the record below.
15:07:21 So with that understanding, I'm sure Mrs. Kert -- and
15:07:26 I will accept as I can, and if we have any parties
15:07:29 that seem to be going outside the record, and if
15:07:31 council has knowledge of that or questions, they can
15:07:33 do that as well.
15:07:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I will also say, Madam Chair,
15:07:37 certainly the Lopezes has the right to not have
15:07:42 another council, to have another council in this case,
15:07:46 their daughter, but she has to stay on the record,
15:07:49 that's all.
15:07:49 >>CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second that she
15:07:51 represent her mother.
15:07:52 (Motion carried)
15:07:55 Those that are going to speak, stand and raise your
15:07:59 right hand.
15:08:02 (Oath administered by Clerk).
15:08:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
15:08:08 What's your daughter's name, Stephani Lopez?
15:08:13 Will you please come up?
15:08:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We hear from our staff first.
15:08:21 >>REBECCA KERT: The rules proceed that your staff will

15:08:23 give an unusually presentation.
15:08:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
15:08:29 >>> Wilson Stair, architectural review.
15:08:36 I'm here to give you an overview, give you a sense of
15:08:41 the location of the property, what's transpired up to
15:08:45 this point in time, and then turn it over to --
15:08:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would you speak louder, please?
15:08:53 >>WILSON STAIR: Yes.
15:08:54 I'm sorry.
15:08:54 At any rate, I will give you all a sense of the
15:08:56 location.
15:08:58 And again, the petition, the appeal hearing, Dr.
15:09:06 Carlos and Patricia Lopez regarding a certificate of
15:09:09 appropriateness.
15:09:10 This is the ARC.
15:09:13 ARC, 1209 Bayshore Boulevard.
15:09:26 ARC-07-145.
15:09:34 To give you an idea where it's located, it's got south
15:09:38 Willow to the west of the site.
15:09:42 It fronts on Bayshore Boulevard.
15:09:44 And to the west -- or to the east is New Port Avenue.
15:09:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you have a photograph?

15:09:55 >>> Yes.
15:09:56 We have several photographs.
15:09:57 And again, it gives you the vicinity.
15:10:01 Again, the Lopezes are right next door to the property
15:10:07 in question.
15:10:16 This is the front of the property, as it fronts on
15:10:19 Bayshore Boulevard.
15:10:23 You are going to notice this part is a retention wall.
15:10:27 And we are going to be talking a lot about fences
15:10:31 throughout.
15:10:33 So note that.
15:10:34 And then we'll show you other neighboring properties
15:10:40 that have the same design.
15:10:45 Okay, next.
15:10:45 This is Willow Avenue.
15:10:52 And notice that the change in the height as it comes
15:10:57 down, that's the grade level, changing, and this is
15:11:01 Willow as it's descending to Bayshore Boulevard.
15:11:12 And what I'm showing you was previously approved by
15:11:16 the ARC.
15:11:17 They have approved it.
15:11:23 >> Whose property is that?

15:11:24 >>> This is Jeffrey Tedder's property.
15:11:26 This is on Bayshore Boulevard.
15:11:29 You're on Tedder's property looking toward the bay.
15:11:34 Again, this is the retention -- the rewall and it
15:11:41 comes up about 18 inches from grade, the height of it
15:11:44 there.
15:11:44 Okay.
15:11:46 Again, that has been approved also.
15:11:52 Another photograph looking at the property along
15:11:55 Bayshore.
15:12:04 Okay.
15:12:05 This is a different angle along the retention wall
15:12:10 along Bayshore.
15:12:11 And notice the tree in the upper left-hand corner.
15:12:16 That's going to be an issue that I'll briefly touch on
15:12:20 as we go along.
15:12:26 Here again is that tree.
15:12:28 This portion, from that far pier, we are looking from
15:12:34 Bayshore to this point that's roughly 30 feet is --
15:12:45 has been disapproved by the ARC at this point in time.
15:12:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It was built without permission?
15:12:59 >>WILSON STAIR: Well, what happened, they were

15:13:01 building it.
15:13:01 I'm not going to get into a whole lot of the details.
15:13:04 But they were building the wall, and the tree, to get
15:13:11 it at the retention wall -- I'll show you here in a
15:13:15 minute -- you cannot build a wall in the front setback
15:13:20 area.
15:13:21 And that front setback area is 30 feet from the
15:13:24 street.
15:13:26 Well, this area was to be a retention wall on that
15:13:31 side, and they could not bring in fill dirt and cover
15:13:37 the tree's roots.
15:13:39 So that way it becomes a wall that's in that front
15:13:44 line setback.
15:13:45 And so, therefore, the ARC disapproved it.
15:13:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But it was already built?
15:13:53 >>WILSON STAIR: It was partially built, my
15:13:56 understanding was.
15:13:57 And the Parks Department cited or they caught them.
15:14:04 Okay.
15:14:11 This is another shot of the wall toward the rear.
15:14:14 And again that's already been approved by the ARC.
15:14:18 There's another shot that's been approved.

15:14:30 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: How high is that wall?
15:14:31 >>> It's roughly six feet.
15:14:33 Right now I'm going to show you some similar walls.
15:14:46 Just so you know that there's compatibility in the
15:14:50 Hyde Park district along Bayshore.
15:14:54 This is one sample.
15:15:04 This is another.
15:15:05 Notice they are piers now.
15:15:09 When do you a retention wall, do you them in 8-foot
15:15:12 increment so you can handle small piers that you see
15:15:15 along the top of the wall.
15:15:17 It has to be every eight feet.
15:15:21 Here is another example of retention walls along
15:15:25 Bayshore.
15:15:29 And then just a couple of other to kind of give you a
15:15:32 sense that the character is different here.
15:15:57 Can you hear me?
15:16:01 Here's Bayshore.
15:16:02 This is north.
15:16:05 This is the Lopez property.
15:16:06 And this is Tedder's.
15:16:10 All of the walls that you see, except for this

15:16:13 portion, this is front line, 30-foot setback.
15:16:22 Have been approved by ARC.
15:16:32 The only portion now is this roughly 30-foot segment
15:16:35 here.
15:16:35 And do you see the 36-inch oak tree?
15:16:48 Originally this was to be a retention wall which is
15:16:50 okay.
15:16:51 I mean, everything back at this 30-foot line, you can
15:16:54 have a regular size wall.
15:16:56 But in front of that line you can only have a
15:17:01 retention wall.
15:17:02 And that's the dilemma.
15:17:06 The tree was here so they couldn't build.
15:17:10 They roughly had a 3.5-foot to 4-foot wall there.
15:17:14 But it was like a retention wall on one side.
15:17:18 In other words, you can have up to 18 inches on the
15:17:22 inside of the wall, but it can be higher on the
15:17:26 outside.
15:17:52 >>> One more example.
15:17:55 The inside of the wall.
15:17:56 This is Bayshore, sidewalk.
15:18:00 And so you can see the big difference.

15:18:02 As long as there's 18 inches from the top of soil line
15:18:07 to the top of the wall there, you're fine.
15:18:14 So that concludes my comments.
15:18:18 And -- staff, would like to say something?
15:18:32 >>> Historic preservation.
15:18:33 I just want to explain a little something that was
15:18:36 prior to Wilson coming into the ARC, which is why you
15:18:41 might be a little bit confused as to was it built, was
15:18:44 it not built?
15:18:47 Previously, Del Acosta gave approval to build the
15:18:50 retaining wall.
15:18:51 This is the actual approval that was there and
15:18:53 approved at staff level.
15:18:56 With Mr. Acosta.
15:18:58 After the fact they of course started building.
15:19:01 Everything was going along fine.
15:19:02 And that's when the neighbor, the Lopezes, came and
15:19:07 questioned the viability of the approval from staff,
15:19:12 after researching some legal, it was determined that
15:19:15 even though it was common practice and the policy to
15:19:19 do this approval at Sarasota, Florida level, there is
15:19:21 actually no verbiage in the ordinance giving that

15:19:27 authorization.
15:19:27 Therefore, it had to go in front of the board as if
15:19:31 there were no walls already approved and already
15:19:34 there.
15:19:35 So when it came to the ARC for the approval, yes, we
15:19:38 have pictures because the wall was there, because of
15:19:41 all of this problem.
15:19:45 So the ARC then has approved the entire portion minus
15:19:51 the one section, that one section to the right-of-way
15:19:54 of the property that's abutting to the Lopezes is not
15:19:58 part -- that will be the January appeal.
15:20:02 I just want to let you know that is not part of what
15:20:04 the discussion should be today.
15:20:06 The discussion today is the approval of the retaining
15:20:09 wall, the entire wall in the front, on Bayshore
15:20:14 Boulevard.
15:20:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We are talking about two different
15:20:23 things.
15:20:23 You are saying that the bottom of that picture there,
15:20:25 the purplish color, which I assume is the one
15:20:28 that's -- that runs the same length as the Bayshore
15:20:31 Boulevard, between the property, is the one that we

15:20:34 are listening to today, not the one with the three.
15:20:38 Tree on the side?
15:20:39 >>> The different colors are different portions.
15:20:43 This is the actual site plan that was brought into the
15:20:47 public hearing.
15:20:48 So the purple is the front yard, as in the entire
15:20:53 front yard setback.
15:20:56 This has already been approved, previously.
15:21:00 So the approval that Mr. Acosta gave was to match what
15:21:04 was existing, create a retaining wall across the
15:21:09 front, the entire front portion, and then build the
15:21:15 wall along the side yard, behind the front setback,
15:21:18 and along the rear of the property.
15:21:19 >> I'm trying to make it simple for me, anyway.
15:21:23 Which case is before us, the whole thing or just the
15:21:25 wall on Bayshore?
15:21:27 >> Everything minus this --
15:21:28 >> That's the next case.
15:21:30 >> Correct.
15:21:30 >> So what we are looking there is the other doctor, I
15:21:33 forget his name, Tedder, and on the other side, to my
15:21:38 right, would be the Lopezes.

15:21:41 >>> Yes.
15:21:42 >> So then we are talking of Dr. Tedder's property.
15:21:45 >>> Yes.
15:21:46 >> Of the Bayshore, the color purple.
15:21:48 >>> The entire appeal is on Dr. Tedder's property.
15:21:51 >> Except for that portion today.
15:21:55 >>> Except for that portion, correct.
15:21:57 >>GWEN MILLER: The orange?
15:22:00 >>> No.
15:22:00 >> Purple.
15:22:01 >>> Actually the orange.
15:22:03 The small section.
15:22:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: They are not doing that.
15:22:08 >>> This is what we are not looking at today.
15:22:10 So pretend this is not here.
15:22:21 The blue is existing and the left side is existing.
15:22:23 So the orange to the right, and the purple is what.
15:22:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Probably not the clearest
15:22:37 presentation.
15:22:41 >>> I'm sorry, I was just informed it's the blue
15:22:44 portion that was previously approved and existing.
15:22:45 Green and the orange and the purple is the new wall,

15:22:50 retaining wall.
15:22:54 In question.
15:22:54 >> So we are looking at the orange and the purple.
15:22:56 >>> Yes.
15:22:57 And the green.
15:22:57 >>GWEN MILLER: And the green.
15:22:59 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm sorry.
15:23:04 I got detained so I missed the first part.
15:23:07 I know I'm probably asking you to repeat what you
15:23:09 already said.
15:23:09 I'm really sorry.
15:23:10 This petition, now I know what is in question.
15:23:13 But all of the walls have already been built.
15:23:16 Is that correct?
15:23:17 It's already there?
15:23:18 >>> It is there.
15:23:19 Might not be complete but it's there.
15:23:21 >> Okay.
15:23:23 And with all of that -- was all of that approved by
15:23:28 Del Acosta?
15:23:29 >>> Correct.
15:23:29 >> But then you determined after that, and after it

15:23:32 was built, after they already decided it wasn't done
15:23:39 correctly -- so we are just being asked to rule on
15:23:51 this.
15:23:58 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: What is the reason for the
15:24:03 appeal?
15:24:04 They don't want the wall?
15:24:07 >> At this point I think it would be appropriate to
15:24:09 have the appellant come up and explain their position.
15:24:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Lopez?
15:24:21 >>> My name is Stephani Lopez.
15:24:28 And my parents live on Bayshore.
15:24:32 And I didn't speak at the first public meeting.
15:24:34 However, I did speak at the second one.
15:24:36 And the reason why I didn't speak at the first one is
15:24:38 because I hadn't read the Tampa zoning code and hadn't
15:24:42 read the architectural design guidelines so I really
15:24:45 didn't know what my parents were fighting over or what
15:24:47 the problem was.
15:24:48 But I did know that they were not happy about the
15:24:50 existing wall, or the wall that was being built.
15:24:54 They realized it was not in compliance with what --
15:24:57 well, it wasn't given approval, and it didn't follow

15:25:00 the correct procedural guidelines.
15:25:04 But basically, is this on?
15:25:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, just put it on and it will go
15:25:13 on.
15:25:16 >>> My mother and I went down to the office and we
15:25:21 asked for the full record.
15:25:23 And because we were going through this appeal.
15:25:26 And we realized it was really nothing in it.
15:25:29 I mean, it was probably this thick.
15:25:30 And this is the whole application.
15:25:33 And it's just a couple of pages.
15:25:39 (off microphone)
15:25:42 And I'm a novice at this.
15:25:54 I don't know much about what procedures that they are
15:25:57 supposed to go through.
15:25:58 But I do know they got the design guideline.
15:26:01 And I'm going to put this down, too.
15:26:04 But Del Acosta did not have the authority to give the
15:26:10 authority to build the wall.
15:26:12 And I don't have a picture.
15:26:17 But the previous owners of my parents' house, I
15:26:19 believe they owned the whole block.

15:26:22 So Dr. Tedder -- bought the property.
15:26:30 The exact same retaining wall run ago long our
15:26:32 property line all the way to Bayshore, ran the entire
15:26:36 block, and our house was built in 1924.
15:26:41 It's on page 8 of the design guidelines.
15:26:43 It's an example of the colonial revival architectural
15:26:46 style and it's also listed on third on the list of
15:26:51 local historic landmarks.
15:26:54 What we have in exist ting was a retaining wall.
15:27:06 And don't understand how Del could think he would have
15:27:09 the authority to allow or give the approval to how he
15:27:12 thinks he gave approval for Dr. Tedder to demolish a
15:27:17 historic retaining wall without having a public
15:27:19 hearing held, when it's obvious, you read the
15:27:23 guidelines, you read the Tampa zoning codes, that a
15:27:26 public hearing had to be held.
15:27:27 So basically --
15:27:31 >>REBECCA KERT: I'm going through the record and I'm
15:27:33 not seeing that that argument was made in the record.
15:27:36 >>> Oh, yes.
15:27:40 Graham Carruthers.
15:27:45 >>REBECCA KERT: I'll keep looking.

15:27:47 >>> And actually the outline that the attorney that
15:27:50 represented us at the first meeting, I'm going
15:27:52 through -- wrote administrative approval is limited to
15:27:56 minor modifications, repairs or appropriate
15:28:01 replacement, the application of work other than minor
15:28:04 modifications, or appropriate replacement, the ARC is
15:28:08 required to review the application.
15:28:10 Okay.
15:28:10 And that is on page -- here.
15:28:19 (off microphone)
15:28:22 I don't think you get more simple than that.
15:28:36 I don't understand why we weren't given a public
15:28:39 hearing to at least voice objection to the demolition
15:28:43 of the existing -- historic wall.
15:28:47 That's one of the problems.
15:28:47 Okay.
15:28:48 So then -- I know I have to keep my arguments based on
15:28:56 the record from the first meeting.
15:28:59 The attorney that we retained also mentioned page 99
15:29:03 the design guidelines.
15:29:07 Then it says that they specified just behind the
15:29:19 setback line and that fence height should conform to

15:29:22 the City of Tampa zoning code.
15:29:30 Not suggested standard.
15:29:31 However, neither were followed.
15:29:32 Okay.
15:29:33 So he also said the retaining wall is no more than 18
15:29:42 inches in height, a retaining wall, what happened on
15:29:46 our neighbor's property, he was given approval by Del,
15:29:48 which I have absolutely no idea how he was ever given
15:29:51 it because there were so many in opposition, I would
15:29:53 think he did he would know he did not have the
15:29:56 authority to give that kind of approval.
15:29:58 But he approved a wall, it was very high, and then
15:30:01 after the fact, he brought in fill.
15:30:04 He brought in -- I mean, that's our existing retaining
15:30:12 wall.
15:30:12 He demolished that.
15:30:14 And his wall is so much higher than ours now.
15:30:16 And it's not that we are -- the grade.
15:30:21 And it caused so many problems.
15:30:23 We have flooding on our property.
15:30:24 The flooding -- it's a nightmare.
15:30:27 And it really does affect my parents' property.

15:30:31 And they should have been given the right to speak at
15:30:32 a public hearing.
15:30:35 That's what we are here appealing.
15:30:40 Even our attorney argued that the existing -- or
15:30:43 because it's not completely built, and my parents
15:30:46 called the city, they got a stop work order issued.
15:30:49 Our neighbor ignored the stop work order issue,
15:30:52 continued working.
15:30:53 He then followed the approval, he actually raised the
15:30:57 wall even higher.
15:30:58 I think what he wanted was a really high wall.
15:31:02 But that's not the way Bayshore is.
15:31:06 And that's one of the reasons my parents live there,
15:31:09 it's more of an open community and people don't have
15:31:11 all these fences and walls.
15:31:12 They are not allowed to.
15:31:13 I mean, it would be kind of an awful thing.
15:31:16 It would -- it's a great injustice for people to be
15:31:19 able to build the wall and then after the fact
15:31:22 manipulate the system, bring in this fill, and now
15:31:25 it's like there's not even fill, there are all these
15:31:29 crevices and holes.

15:31:31 And now they call them retaining walls.
15:31:34 It's not a wall.
15:31:36 When he didn't have a fill there, was no fill, his
15:31:38 land was the same height as ours.
15:31:40 You would have never given approval for the wall to be
15:31:44 built in the first place.
15:31:49 I know I spoke at the second public meeting.
15:31:52 So I guess I can talk -- I think that's it.
15:31:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Were there any photographs?
15:32:01 This is the question, I guess, for our staff or for
15:32:04 the petitioner.
15:32:05 Were there any photographs that were shown at the
15:32:09 previous hearings that -- that we haven't yet seen?
15:32:13 >>> We have several.
15:32:27 >> Were they shown at the previously hearing?
15:32:29 >>> Oh, yes.
15:32:31 >> do you want me to put them here?
15:32:34 >> Yes, put them there so people can see them.
15:32:38 >>> Okay.
15:32:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can the camera people zoom in on
15:32:47 it, please?
15:32:48 You don't have to do it.

15:32:49 The camera people, the TV people.
15:32:52 >>> (Off microphone)
15:33:50 A tree has created a problem.
15:33:55 Doesn't have anything to do with the property.
15:34:00 (off microphone)
15:34:09 The actual wall on Bayshore was right here, and at the
15:34:42 sidewalk says, well, that's not right, make it higher.
15:34:46 He thinks he can do whatever he wants.
15:34:47 And I tell you I am fed up.
15:34:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ma'am, I'm sorry to interrupt you,
15:34:56 ma'am.
15:34:56 Just so the record is clear.
15:34:58 Ma'am, can I stop you for a second?
15:34:59 Could you put your name on the record, just so --
15:35:02 >>> I'm sorry.
15:35:03 Patricia Lopez.
15:35:07 And this is a photograph.
15:35:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
15:35:12 Move your finger.
15:35:13 So that's your property.
15:35:17 And the property next to you is what the person next
15:35:22 door did.

15:35:24 Gotcha.
15:35:24 That's pretty graphic.
15:35:25 S thanks.
15:35:27 >>> This water goes all the way, the front sidewalk,
15:35:37 Bayshore Boulevard.
15:35:40 This is what I see now from my property.
15:35:45 You can see Bayshore.
15:35:58 This is the driving tour of Tampa because it's a
15:36:00 lovely historic home and I'm very proud of it and I
15:36:03 have done everything possible to preserve the
15:36:05 integrity and the historical value of my home, and to
15:36:08 allow something like this to happen is just appalling.
15:36:11 Look at this.
15:36:12 A huge concrete wall.
15:36:16 Nothing aesthetic about it.
15:36:18 This is the side.
15:36:24 And on the other side of his house, the fence, at the
15:36:40 first hearing --
15:36:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Excuse me, speak to the council.
15:36:50 >>> This is a concrete wall structure.
15:36:53 I'm very, very sorry.
15:36:56 I'm so excited because --

15:37:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: They are not going to vote, we are.
15:37:03 >>> I know, I'm sorry.
15:37:05 I apologize.
15:37:05 But to present the case after all I have been through
15:37:12 and speaking with him so many times, I talked to
15:37:17 Rebecca Kert and Cindy Miller and it should absolutely
15:37:22 not have been approved, and then when it was presented
15:37:24 before the ARC, they saw a plan that has a stamp of
15:37:29 approval, and the committee chairperson started out
15:37:32 the meeting by saying, what are we doing here?
15:37:35 This has already been approved.
15:37:37 Well, this is a waste of time.
15:37:41 Constantly during the meeting, constantly during the
15:37:43 hearing, Rebecca had to turn to the council people and
15:37:47 say, you have to understand, you are supposed to be
15:37:49 addressing this as though it has never been approved.
15:37:56 (off microphone)
15:38:21 They were being -- why weren't they given a set of
15:38:30 plans that were originally brought in to Del Acosta
15:38:32 that were not approved?
15:38:34 Why weren't they shown what the house and what this
15:38:36 wall looked like before it had ever been built?

15:38:39 It's not right.
15:38:39 It was not the correct procedural -- whatever the
15:38:44 legal term is.
15:38:46 It was a travesty.
15:38:50 Absolutely -- I wish would you read the transcript.
15:38:52 It's unbelievable.
15:38:53 And it was so blatantly biased.
15:39:05 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: To the attorney.
15:39:07 Did Del Acosta have the authority to issue a permit
15:39:10 for this wall?
15:39:12 >>REBECCA KERT: When we were asked to research that
15:39:14 issue we were unable to find that that authority was
15:39:17 ever officially delegated to staff.
15:39:19 Based on the fact that we were unable to find any
15:39:25 specific, clear, delegation to staff, it was our
15:39:29 opinion, in fact did he not have the authority to
15:39:34 usual you it.
15:39:34 Therefore, any permit issued would have been void, and
15:39:37 they would need to -- the applicant would need to have
15:39:40 it approved or denied by the architectural review
15:39:43 commission sitting as a whole.
15:39:45 >> Who put the stamp on it?

15:39:49 >>REBECCA KERT: I don't have any idea.
15:39:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Rebecca, why wasn't a plan with a
15:40:03 stamp on it provided to the ARC?
15:40:06 >>REBECCA KERT: What was provided to the ARC is what
15:40:08 was originally submitted in the form that we had it.
15:40:10 Beyond that, I can't answer that.
15:40:12 I can tell you that it's clear in the record that the
15:40:16 ARC was advised over and over again that any prior
15:40:18 approval was void, and that they had to make that --
15:40:23 >> But that was a verbal point made to them.
15:40:26 But, frankly, when you look at this, there's a big red
15:40:31 stamp in the middle of it, it says this is Kosher.
15:40:33 I mean, that is a contradictory message coming from
15:40:36 our city.
15:40:42 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm sorry, I had a question for
15:40:44 Rebecca again.
15:40:45 And you were the legal person at that hearing who was
15:40:48 advising the ARC.
15:40:52 So this is my question.
15:40:55 Are you giving us the same advice that we should
15:40:58 ignore the fact that this was approved?
15:41:01 Shouldn't be --

15:41:04 >>> the fact that it was approved by staff is not
15:41:08 relevant to the consideration of either the ARC and
15:41:12 therefore it would not be relevant to your
15:41:14 consideration.
15:41:15 I believe Mr. Shelby has advised you what your
15:41:19 standards of review is.
15:41:21 You are looking to see whether there was competent,
15:41:23 substantial evidence in the record to up hold the
15:41:25 ARC's decision.
15:41:27 To look to see whether or not there was a violation of
15:41:29 due process and whether or not the essential
15:41:31 requirements of law were followed.
15:41:35 That's the basis of your review.
15:41:37 Whether or not it was previously approved by staff is
15:41:39 not valid. What is valid is the evidence presented by
15:41:42 your expert staff review and the opinion of whether or
15:41:47 not it was approvable pursuant to the guidelines, and
15:41:50 the other testimony that is relevant to whether or not
15:41:54 this project meets the design guidelines and the other
15:41:57 provision applicable provisions to chapter 27.
15:42:03 >>MARY MULHERN: So we should be making this decision
15:42:05 as if we were hearing it for the first time?

15:42:11 >>> No.
15:42:11 >>MARY MULHERN: No, here's what I'm saying.
15:42:15 I didn't mean to say that.
15:42:17 The ARC made their decision after the wall was already
15:42:22 built.
15:42:23 Is that correct?
15:42:24 Partially.
15:42:24 Okay.
15:42:28 So does the fact of the wall being in existence, is
15:42:33 that supposed -- that shouldn't influence our
15:42:35 decision, should it?
15:42:37 >>REBECCA KERT: No.
15:42:38 No, I don't believe that it should.
15:42:40 You are not looking eh and this is what the ARC was
15:42:43 advised.
15:42:43 ARC was advised they are not looking at this as an
15:42:46 equity issue.
15:42:47 They were looking to see whether or not there was
15:42:48 substantial, competent evidence in the record that was
15:42:53 before them to say that this meets the design
15:42:56 guideline as well as the other applicable code,
15:43:00 standards and provisions.

15:43:01 They found that it did.
15:43:03 For all of the portion of the walls that is before you
15:43:07 today.
15:43:07 And then they continued one portion.
15:43:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Caetano.
15:43:19 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I feel that this Mr. Hearing
15:43:20 today is a little premature.
15:43:22 We have no defense.
15:43:23 And we do have an attorney who represents the
15:43:32 defense -- let me finish please -- we are going to go
15:43:35 through this same scenario the next time.
15:43:37 I think you should have prolonged the hearing until
15:43:39 the other side was ready.
15:43:41 That's my opinion.
15:43:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Just a moment.
15:43:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me tell you what my concern is,
15:43:50 council.
15:43:50 Let me tell what you my concern is.
15:43:52 What we have before us, we make our determination
15:43:54 based on a decision that the ARC has made and we have
15:43:57 to look at that and see that they followed code.
15:44:02 Did they follow code when they gave the approval?

15:44:05 And it's up to Mrs. Lopez to show they did not follow
15:44:15 code, is that right? So that becomes the basis for
15:44:17 the appeal.
15:44:18 They have to show to us and prove to us that the ARC
15:44:24 granted approval, that did not meet code.
15:44:32 Am I Sur missing that pretty accurately?
15:44:34 THE WITNESS: That's one basis, where the elements of
15:44:38 law have been observed.
15:44:38 The other is whether due process was accorded.
15:44:41 The other is whether there's substantial competent
15:44:43 evidence in the record to support the decision.
15:44:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So the decision that we have to make
15:44:48 is not based on whether the wall is there or not
15:44:50 there.
15:44:50 We have to do it based on the facts, whether they
15:44:55 followed the code, and all of that.
15:44:57 Okay.
15:44:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: One of the points that our staff
15:45:01 didn't make, I don't think clearly to us, my
15:45:04 understanding is what all of this is to be about, is
15:45:09 what these retaining walls are supposed to be on
15:45:11 Bayshore.

15:45:12 These walls are supposed to keep the dirt in the yard
15:45:15 from coming out in the street.
15:45:17 They have them in West Tampa.
15:45:19 They have them in East Tampa.
15:45:20 They are usually a low wall.
15:45:21 I can't -- Bayshore has been around in its current
15:45:25 configuration for 60 years.
15:45:26 There isn't a lot of new dirt coming onto Bayshore.
15:45:30 So if a wall is higher than the wall next door, then
15:45:33 it's not following the rules because all the walls are
15:45:35 built 60 years ago.
15:45:37 There's no reason to build a higher wall.
15:45:38 You are not allowed to build a higher wall.
15:45:40 These are supposed to be low to keep the character of
15:45:43 Bayshore intact.
15:45:44 So I don't see how the ARC could have allowed a higher
15:45:49 wall, and bringing in additional dirt is absolutely
15:45:54 not legal.
15:45:57 So I don't see how the staff could have interpreted
15:45:59 it --
15:46:01 >>MARY MULHERN: My question is, where is that in the
15:46:03 code?

15:46:03 >> Right.
15:46:03 >> It's under the ARC in the discussion on walls.
15:46:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a reminder, council, that
15:46:15 petitioner -- excuse me, appellant does have 5 minutes
15:46:18 40 seconds remaining.
15:46:19 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
15:46:21 Could we hear that?
15:46:23 >>> I didn't hear the question.
15:46:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The question is, aren't the walls
15:46:27 supposed to just be there to keep the dirt back?
15:46:30 They are not supposed to be walls.
15:46:31 They are supposed to be retaining walls to keep the
15:46:33 dirt from flying out in the street.
15:46:35 >>MARY MULHERN: Where is that in the code?
15:46:39 That's my question.
15:46:39 >>> Holding the dirt in as part of -- I don't know
15:46:43 what chapter but part of the city code it is allowable
15:46:46 to bring in fill dirt to create a retaining wall.
15:46:49 The ARC must abide by the zoning regulation.
15:46:55 Zoning said yes, you are allowed to bring a retaining
15:46:59 wall if you bring in full dirt.
15:47:00 >> But there was already a wall there.

15:47:07 And demolition isn't allowed -- my understanding, if
15:47:11 demolition isn't allowed within the ARC area unless
15:47:14 the people get a demolition permit.
15:47:16 And I didn't see that addressed.
15:47:20 Demolition of the existing wall, which was historic,
15:47:24 was created in order to build this higher wall:
15:47:27 >>> And if Rebecca can look through, I believe that
15:47:30 was even an issue that was brought up at the public
15:47:33 hearing.
15:47:33 >> But it's a true thing.
15:47:36 >>REBECCA KERT: We are really kind of getting off
15:47:41 process right now.
15:47:42 I understand you have the right to questions but they
15:47:44 have five additional minutes or more to give their
15:47:46 presentation.
15:47:47 I want to make sure they get that.
15:47:48 But I have not been able to find -- and Stephani Lopez
15:47:52 reviewed my copy of the transcript to see if something
15:47:55 perhaps I'm missing but there was no mention about a
15:47:58 prior retaining wall being on the Tedder property, and
15:48:04 inappropriate demolition, but I can find nothing,
15:48:07 nothing in the record.

15:48:08 Now she might want to say it now but it's not on the
15:48:11 record below, and if you base your decision on that,
15:48:14 that's inappropriate.
15:48:15 So I'm asking Stephani Lopez to very if I what I have
15:48:20 seen in the record which I find no evidence.
15:48:22 So at this point, I have to advise you that it would
15:48:25 be inappropriate to consider it.
15:48:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So even if they didn't have a
15:48:30 competent attorney the first time around who didn't
15:48:32 bring it up, he can't bring it up now?
15:48:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Scott no, can't.
15:48:36 >>REBECCA KERT: The record was created below.
15:48:39 The record is now closed.
15:48:41 >>GWEN MILLER: But they have five minutes.
15:48:44 >>> Patricia Lopez: I would just like you to read the
15:48:48 transcripts and if you see over and over again it
15:48:50 keeps making reference to the stamp of approval which
15:48:53 had been granted.
15:48:54 And it was deemed that it was not within his authority
15:48:59 to grant that.
15:49:02 That plan should have never gone before the ARC with
15:49:05 that stamp of approval.

15:49:07 I wrote to Del Acosta personally and asked him, I
15:49:11 wanted to see original blueprints, I wanted to see
15:49:14 what was originally submitted to him for approval.
15:49:16 I wanted to see prior pictures of his home with the
15:49:20 wall that is legally supposed to be a part of the
15:49:25 file, and he told me that that file was in storage.
15:49:31 I said, how can that be? This is being built right
15:49:35 now.
15:49:35 I want to see it.
15:49:40 That's -- there's papers missing.
15:49:43 Absolutely.
15:49:43 There's just no doubt about it.
15:49:45 This is just a travesty of justice, the way this was
15:49:50 handled.
15:49:50 Case before the ARC, it was granted, please read the
15:49:57 transcripts.
15:49:57 That's why we went to the trouble of having eleven
15:50:01 copies made, transcribed and eleven CDs provided to
15:50:06 you so you can see how unfair this case was.
15:50:11 Thank you very much.
15:50:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
15:50:21 >> You have some time left.

15:50:22 >> Go ahead and speak, sir.
15:50:24 >>> (Shuffling of papers) I personally know him.
15:50:32 Somebody who worked for the city --
15:50:35 >> I'm sorry, sir, did you speak at the initial
15:50:36 hearing?
15:50:37 Were you at the hearing?
15:50:47 >>CHAIRMAN: He can't speak then. Okay.
15:50:48 Question by council members?
15:50:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We are sitting like a court of
15:50:55 appeal, where we can only address the items that were
15:50:57 put into the record.
15:50:59 I'm not looking at a wall.
15:51:02 I'm looking at a record, without nothing in it.
15:51:06 That's how I have to look.
15:51:07 That's how I have to feel.
15:51:08 So we can't muddy the water anymore.
15:51:11 And I understand that was not part of the process.
15:51:19 Madam Chair, I'm a little concerned that there's an
15:51:28 appeal today and one coming next month.
15:51:31 Am I correct?
15:51:32 On the same property?
15:51:33 Just the location on the sidewall?

15:51:36 And for me to pass judgment today, and then hear
15:51:40 something at a later date that may change what I did
15:51:43 today, it will be inappropriate for both doctors.
15:51:49 Just like going in with a heart attack and they pull
15:51:53 your nail out.
15:51:54 You are not going to survive.
15:51:55 So what I'm saying is these things, you have to look
15:51:57 at it, and with all due respect to both parties, this
15:52:01 has been going on for some time, and I understand the
15:52:03 frustration of the Lopezes.
15:52:05 I understand the wall is something they don't like.
15:52:09 And I can appreciate that.
15:52:10 I mean may not like it myself.
15:52:13 I don't know.
15:52:14 But for to us hear two appeals on the same property,
15:52:17 I've never done that in all my years in government.
15:52:20 I've heard them all together so that we can make sense
15:52:24 and both parties can be part of the record and have a
15:52:26 conclusion of fact, and a closure to this item.
15:52:32 I would like to continue this to have the record
15:52:39 reflect that although the information is put on the
15:52:42 record, and we can get them to state their case, it's

15:52:50 very difficult I.don't know what's going to happen on
15:52:51 the second one.
15:52:54 What if one changed and the other one is not?
15:52:56 No one is happy.
15:52:57 No one is going to be happy anyway.
15:52:59 Like I always say, today 50% of the people are not
15:53:01 going to like me and if the same group comes tomorrow
15:53:04 I have 100% of the people are not going to like me
15:53:08 because that's the way life is and I understood that.
15:53:10 50% today don't like me.
15:53:11 50% tomorrow you can't even go home.
15:53:13 So what I'm saying is, let's get clarity on this item
15:53:16 and let's find out all the information at the due time
15:53:22 when both of them are in front of us.
15:53:24 And I think that's the simplest way to solving this
15:53:26 thing.
15:53:28 >>CHAIRMAN: Make a motion.
15:53:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I would like to make a motion that
15:53:32 this hearing be continued to the date of -- January
15:53:36 17th.
15:53:36 And I'm sorry you have to look at that wall.
15:53:39 But I can't make anything up.

15:53:40 Anyway I go now I'm going to be wrong.
15:53:44 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
15:53:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is for Rebecca he question for
15:53:52 staff K.anybody come out, not talk to anybody but look
15:53:55 at this wall between now and then?
15:53:58 I would recommend that everybody go take a look at it.
15:54:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Madam Chair.
15:54:08 >>REBECCA KERT: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt
15:54:10 councilman Scott.
15:54:11 I just wanted to make sure that before you actually
15:54:13 vote on the motion to continue, you do allow an
15:54:18 opportunity to at least comment.
15:54:19 He is the appellant in the case and that would be
15:54:21 appropriate.
15:54:27 >>> Well, the only thing that I think we have to talk
15:54:33 about was the fact that our appeal was not based on
15:54:39 substantial competent evidence in the record.
15:54:41 If -- I believe that it's obvious if you go through
15:54:46 what we provided, and what's in the ARC record, this
15:54:50 is what was done.
15:54:55 We wanted to finish today, but, you know.
15:55:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.

15:55:14 Reverend Scott?
15:55:15 >>> Okay, I don't believe the section of the law with
15:55:22 the tree has anything to do -- we are objecting to
15:55:24 that.
15:55:29 Basically, we just don't feel that -- we thought there
15:55:33 was a failure of procedural due process in this case,
15:55:36 that the decision by ARC was, if you read through the
15:55:40 transcript, several times it was mentioned that they
15:55:42 were given the stamp of approval, these sites, had the
15:55:47 stamp of approval and it was determined by legal
15:55:50 counsel as Mrs. Kert mentioned at the first public
15:55:53 hearing that he overstepped his bounds of authority on
15:55:56 granting the approval.
15:55:57 And when we went to the public hearing no one wanted
15:55:59 to hear argument.
15:56:00 They were kind of like, okay, well, the wall is
15:56:02 already built, which wasn't completely finished.
15:56:06 And that was it.
15:56:07 It was a done deal.
15:56:09 And now isn't giving an approval based upon
15:56:14 substantial, competent evidence, just because a wall
15:56:16 is built that isn't in compliance with the guidelines.

15:56:18 If it's not in compliance with the guidelines, it
15:56:22 doesn't matter if it's built out -- we wanted a wall
15:56:27 built that was actually in compliance with the design
15:56:28 guidelines and we have the design guidelines for a
15:56:31 reason.
15:56:32 You know what can be built.
15:56:36 Walls have to be built behind the front yard setback.
15:56:39 Period.
15:56:40 I mean, that's it.
15:56:45 >>CHAIRMAN: Reverend Scott.
15:56:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is the time up now?
15:56:48 I wanted to make sure they got all the time up.
15:56:53 >>THE CLERK: Still have 2:minutes 52 seconds.
15:56:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Whatever time they have I want them to
15:57:00 finish it.
15:57:01 >> Normally if there's other people in opposition
15:57:05 council does give them the opportunity if they wish.
15:57:09 >> I just want to reiterate over and over again that
15:57:12 they were given a site of plans with the stamp of
15:57:14 approval and they mentioned that over and over and
15:57:17 over again, during the meeting.
15:57:23 They never reviewed the plans.

15:57:25 If they were being presented the plans, the very first
15:57:29 time, that was not the case.
15:57:32 And that's what should have had that evening.
15:57:37 They should have reviewed the plan as if they were
15:57:39 seeing those plans for the very first time.
15:57:44 And than is not what happened.
15:57:50 That's why we are here.
15:57:54 >>CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
15:57:55 Reverend Scott.
15:57:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The petitioner is through, is that
15:57:58 right?
15:57:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
15:58:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me ask council to determine -- Ms.
15:58:05 Kert or whoever.
15:58:07 So it was the understanding.
15:58:12 Let me restate again for council.
15:58:16 The appeal today is that we have to base our decision
15:58:21 on the evidence of the record, and ARC, follow the
15:58:25 code.
15:58:29 >> That's about the essence of what it is.
15:58:31 The T in technical terms you are looking at the
15:58:33 decision and you are seeing in the record that you

15:58:35 placed blow, substantial competent evidence to support
15:58:38 that.
15:58:40 You are also looking to see whether there was a
15:58:42 violation of due process.
15:58:43 And you are looking to see whether or not the ARC
15:58:45 applied the correct law.
15:58:47 So basically in essence what you said, did they follow
15:58:50 the code?
15:58:51 Did they apply the facts in the record to the code?
15:58:55 That's in essence.
15:58:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So you are saying again that was due
15:58:59 process?
15:59:00 >>REBECCA KERT: I do believe due process was afforded
15:59:02 to all parties, both the petitioner --
15:59:05 >> And there was a hearing and they were able to state
15:59:07 their objection, and went through it.
15:59:15 I saw the notices and all that.
15:59:19 Secondly, where do we go to look at the wall whether
15:59:23 it is relevant -- the question is did it meet the
15:59:25 code, did it meat the requirements of the code or the
15:59:27 due process?
15:59:28 Is that accurate?

15:59:29 >>> Yes, that's correct.
15:59:30 >> I want to make sure.
15:59:32 So that if we are going to vote today, or vote next
15:59:35 week or next year, our job as elected officials, can't
15:59:40 vote on emotions, we have to vote on whether ARC met
15:59:46 the test of the code, and followed what's been
15:59:48 outlined by City Council.
15:59:50 I am hearing the attorney say she believes this is
15:59:54 accurate.
15:59:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There is evidence in the record
16:00:06 that speaks to how high the fence is supposed to be
16:00:08 and there's a lot of conversation in the record among
16:00:12 ARC -- I guess these are ARC members, with different
16:00:15 interpretations of the appropriate height.
16:00:18 But I think that we should give her more time,
16:00:25 continue this, have a chance to chew on this more,
16:00:28 have a chance to -- council members are allowed to
16:00:32 talk to staff, I understand, and go out to visit the
16:00:36 site, and I think that would be helpful in terms of
16:00:40 this case, because it is complicated.
16:00:44 >>REBECCA KERT: I would not tell any council not to
16:00:48 drive by the site.

16:00:48 You all live in the city and will see the site.
16:00:50 I would caution against speaking to staff members
16:00:53 because they testified in the hearing as experts.
16:00:55 And this is now limited to what was presented to the
16:00:59 ARC to receive additional thoughts and testimony would
16:01:01 not be appropriate.
16:01:02 You need -- you are not looking to see whether or not
16:01:04 it was the best decision.
16:01:06 You are looking to see whether or not in the record
16:01:08 before the ARC there was competent, substantial
16:01:10 evidence.
16:01:16 >>MARY MULHERN: I was just going to say that, you
16:01:17 know, it would probably be to the appellant's benefit
16:01:23 if we had time to read the record.
16:01:30 >> Should we move for a continuance?
16:01:32 >> We already did.
16:01:35 >> Anything you wanted to say?
16:01:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is there anybody else?
16:01:40 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: I would renew my request to continue
16:01:47 it because I think you need to consider them all at
16:01:49 once.
16:01:49 I think that it would be more prudent track.

16:01:51 I would encourage to you go look at the property.
16:01:53 I think Ms. Saul-Sena's property is good because you
16:01:56 can look at the property very easily by being on the
16:01:58 sidewalk and on Willow, without having to go on the
16:02:01 property, get a real good perspective of what's going
16:02:04 on.
16:02:05 I would ask for time.
16:02:05 I'm prepared to give a counter argue full-time the
16:02:09 board prefers to go forward.
16:02:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else that would like to speak?
16:02:15 Mrs. Saul-Sena, you say you want to make the decision
16:02:17 today?
16:02:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, I would rather have a
16:02:19 continuance.
16:02:24 >> Can we vote on that?
16:02:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: She wants to us make a decision today.
16:02:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: She has her three minutes for
16:02:36 rebuttal.
16:02:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: She said she does not want a
16:02:41 continuance.
16:02:42 >> Then she has a right to have a three-minute
16:02:45 rebuttal, which, by the way --

16:02:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Lopez has already rebutted.
16:02:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Well there, was really nothing to
16:02:56 rebut.
16:02:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Gave a minute and a half to continue.
16:03:00 That's all this is.
16:03:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Isn't it our discretion?
16:03:08 It's our discretion.
16:03:15 >>> You can continue.
16:03:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The same piece of property and two
16:03:26 different angles here.
16:03:27 I don't want to be angle out one way or the other.
16:03:30 >>CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second to continue
16:03:32 this item until January 19th -- 17th.
16:03:35 At one time?
16:03:36 At 10:00.
16:03:36 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
16:03:38 Opposed?
16:03:39 Nay.
16:03:41 All right.
16:03:45 >> New business?
16:03:47 Thank you, Madam Chairman.
16:03:48 I gave everybody this really adorable book that was

16:03:50 just created.
16:03:52 And there are more available to the mayor's office and
16:03:55 we can share them.
16:03:55 And I think they tell the story.
16:03:58 Number two, this Saturday at 10:00 is the first free
16:04:01 riverwalk tour starting at Cotanchobee park.
16:04:05 And lastly, somebody was talking about Kennedy
16:04:07 Boulevard.
16:04:08 This is a local publication.
16:04:10 And all these are -- they look like adult uses to me.
16:04:14 I mean, they sound like welcome so-and-so, sensual,
16:04:21 erotic, this stuff is going on, it's on Kennedy
16:04:24 Boulevard, it looks -- I would like to request that
16:04:27 the police department look at these ads, follow up,
16:04:30 and if we have inappropriately zoned adult uses,
16:04:32 particularly on Kennedy Boulevard, which we are
16:04:34 discussing today, they report back to us in 30 days.
16:04:37 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: The officer is right here.
16:04:40 >> I'll give him my copy.
16:04:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
16:04:43 (Motion carried)
16:04:45 Anything else?

16:04:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: One of the local papers said that
16:04:50 we pay be pursuing a baseball team.
16:04:52 We are not.
16:04:53 That can be St. Pete's problem.
16:04:57 They can have all their deficit prosperity and I'm not
16:05:04 a political you know what.
16:05:06 If they want to move to Orlando, they brought it up,
16:05:09 they play there, they have another game coming up this
16:05:11 year, series with somebody else, a lot of blue Jays.
16:05:15 I don't think this Tampa government would want to
16:05:18 steal anybody's gem.
16:05:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you have anything?
16:05:26 >> No, Madam Chair.
16:05:28 >>MARY MULHERN: I -- (off microphone).
16:05:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Turn your mike on.
16:05:36 >>> I would like to give a commendation at our
16:05:40 December 6th council meeting to the environmental
16:05:43 improvement force.
16:05:44 This is a PTA committee.
16:05:48 Formed in May that's already accomplished regarding
16:05:52 implementing recycling in schools.
16:05:55 >>CHAIRMAN: All in favor of the motion.

16:05:57 (Motion carried)
16:05:58 Anything else?
16:05:59 Mr. Caetano?
16:06:02 Clerk?
16:06:03 >>THE CLERK: I have several items.
16:06:04 I was just handed earlier this morning a request from
16:06:07 the downtown association requesting permission to use
16:06:15 the city seal on an event scheduled for December
16:06:18 1st, 8 and 22nd and also December 31st.
16:06:23 We would need to have the resolution come back at
16:06:26 either the workshop session or the meeting on the
16:06:28 29th.
16:06:30 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.
16:06:31 (Motion carried).
16:06:32 >>THE CLERK: Just to receive and file.
16:06:38 >> So moved.
16:06:39 >> Second.
16:06:39 (Motion carried).
16:06:40 >>MARY MULHERN: I think I might have stepped out.
16:06:44 But did we schedule our vote on the Planning
16:06:46 Commission?
16:06:51 >>> Yes.

16:06:52 Mr. Shelby, do we have anything?
16:06:53 We'll go to our audience portion.
16:07:26 (Meeting adjourned.)
16:07:26

DISCLAIMER:
The above represents an unedited version of realtime
captioning which should neither be relied upon for
complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
The original of this 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.