Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council Meeting
March 6, 2008, 9:00 a.m.

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. BECAUSE THIS
DOCUMENT HAS NOT BEEN EDITED, THERE MAY BE ADDITIONS,
DELETIONS, AND/OR WORDS THAT DID NOT TRANSLATE CORRECTLY.
09:05:21
09:05:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order. The
09:05:25 chair will yield to Reverend Scott.
09:05:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you. Let me introduce this morning
09:05:31 the person that's going to come and give our invocation.
09:05:35 Mr. Jim crew, retired -- reserved military service, employed
09:05:40 with the City of Tampa since January 1995. Tampa police
09:05:43 department from 19952006, and city clerk's office from 2006
09:05:47 to present. Serves as recording secretary for the community
09:05:51 redevelopment agency. City council evening session and
09:05:54 various boards of the city. Formerly served as assistant
09:05:58 pastor of the Outreach Church of God in Brandon, Florida
09:06:02 from 2000 to 2003. A graduate of the River Bible Institute,
09:06:08 involved with nursing home outreach ministry at Havana
09:06:12 Healthcare Center in Tampa. So let's welcome today, no
09:06:15 stranger to us, Mr. Jim Crew. Let's stand and remain
09:06:19 standing for the pledge after the invocation.
09:06:22 >> Thank you for the privilege of offering the invocation
09:06:25 this morning. If we've gone until midnight on some of the
09:06:28 night meetings, that's my fault. I prayed for the overtime.
09:06:33 (Laughter)
09:06:36 >> Let's pray. Lord, we thank you this morning for your
09:06:39 many and awesome blessings, not the least of which are the
09:06:42 blessings of liberty that we enjoy in this greatest and
09:06:45 freest nation on earth. Thank you for those who serve and
09:06:48 defend to preserve those liberties. Members of the
09:06:51 military, law enforcement, public safety and all those who
09:06:53 serve in public service. We recognize that to you belongs
09:06:56 all authority in heaven and in earth, for it is God who
09:07:00 rules in the kingdom of man and appoints over it whom he
09:07:05 will. You have ordained human government and we thank you
09:07:09 for these your servants whom you have appointed expo who
09:07:12 served willingly and faithfully. And we give you all the
09:07:20 glory and all the honor now and forever, amen.
09:07:25 (Pledge of Allegiance)
09:07:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Crew.
09:07:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
09:07:45 [ROLL CALL].
09:07:53 >>GWEN MILLER: At this time, we have miss Janet Hamilton to
09:07:56 come forward and give us some information.
09:08:02 >> Good morning, council members. I am Janet Hamilton, I'm
09:08:06 the executive aide in the water department and I'm also the
09:08:11 chair of the 2008 women's history celebration. Each year
09:08:13 march is recognized as the national women's history month to
09:08:17 ensure that the history of American women will be recognized
09:08:19 and celebrated in schools, workplaces and communities
09:08:22 throughout the country. The national theme this year is
09:08:27 women's arts, women's vision, and pays tribute to the
09:08:30 originality, beauty, imagine nation and multiple dimensions
09:08:35 of women's lives. I've brought some members of the planning
09:08:38 committee with me today to extend a formal invitation to the
09:08:41 City of Tampa's 12th annual celebration to all city council
09:08:44 members, city staff and the public to join with us on
09:08:47 Friday, march 14th at the Tampa convention center from 11 to
09:08:51 noon. During this time that we also pay tribute to Joseph
09:08:55 Howard Stafford by honoring a current or former City of
09:08:58 Tampa female employee who demonstrates outstanding
09:09:03 commitment to her position and the community. Miss Stafford
09:09:06 devoted 24 years to the City of Tampa as an assistant city
09:09:09 attorney and was a pioneer for women's issues both
09:09:13 professionally and in the community. It is with great
09:09:16 pleasure that I formally announce that this year's recipient
09:09:19 is Sandra W. Freedman, first female City of Tampa mayor as
09:09:23 this year's recipient.
09:09:25 [Applause]
09:09:34 >> With that in mind, we also wish to ask that you
09:09:37 substitute to resolution that was given to the city clerk
09:09:39 for the one you were previously given on item number 66,
09:09:43 which will reflect the name of the recipient. We are
09:09:47 pleased that mayor Pam Iorio and council member Mary Mulhern
09:09:51 will be participating in the program. Our keynote speaker
09:09:54 this year is Judy Lisi, president of the Tampa Bay
09:09:59 performing arts center. We hope that you will join us next
09:10:02 Friday. The committee has worked very hard to bring you an
09:10:08 enjoyable event that will truly celebrate women's history.
09:10:10 Thank you for your time.
09:10:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:10:14 [Applause]
09:10:19 >>GWEN MILLER: At this time, Mr. John Dingfelder will
09:10:23 present a commendation.
09:10:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Good morning, council. And Bonnie, you
09:10:41 have some members of your team here?
09:10:43 >> We sure do.
09:10:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: All right. You guys come on up here.
09:10:46 You deserve it. Right up here. We're going to surround
09:10:51 your fearless leader here. Good morning, council. It's
09:11:01 my -- indeed my pleasure to give this commendation to our
09:11:05 very own Bonnie wise, our director of finance. Recently, as
09:11:10 you may recall, Bonnie was nominated to receive an award
09:11:13 from the Tampa Bay business journal for -- to be the chief
09:11:17 financial officer of the year for the entire region in the
09:11:22 government organization category, and we were all on pins
09:11:25 and needles, and she won. And so when I told Bonnie to come
09:11:29 over and get a commendation from us, it's well deserved, she
09:11:33 said she wouldn't do that without her team. And she's
09:11:36 brought her team with her. And, of course, Jim Steffan and
09:11:42 her other chiefs are here as well, the rest of her staff, so
09:11:45 we're really proud. Proud of you and proud of your team.
09:11:49 So with that, I'll go ahead and read this commendation.
09:11:51 Bonnie wise, director of finance for the City of Tampa has
09:11:54 been recognized for her outstanding work in being chosen as
09:11:57 a recipient of the Tampa Bay business journal's chief
09:12:00 financial officer of the year award and the government
09:12:02 organization category. City council has worked diligently
09:12:05 with Bonnie on -- in her various roles in the city, and
09:12:09 we've sought and received your counsel and advice on
09:12:12 numerous occasions. In your capacity of overseeing the City
09:12:16 of Tampa's three-quarter billion-dollar budget, you managed
09:12:18 the financial ship of the city. Your work has been widely
09:12:22 recognized, and that you and your staff have repeated by
09:12:26 been the recipients of the budget presentation of the year






09:12:29 ward from the government finance officers' association.
09:12:31 Bonnie, you're the epitome of a professional. We're proud
09:12:35 to have you as a local and dedicated employee of the City of
09:12:40 Tampa. We congratulate you on the achievement.
09:12:43 Congratulations.
09:12:45 [Applause]
09:12:49 >> Thank you so much. I very much appreciate it. And it
09:12:51 really is an honor to be here at the City of Tampa. Those
09:12:54 of you know that I came from the private sector and joined
09:12:57 the city about five years ago, so I appreciate the
09:12:59 confidence you have put in me, you and the mayor, in putting
09:13:02 me in this position. This is just a portion of the 140
09:13:05 members of the revenue and finance department. We are a
09:13:08 service organization. You are our customers. Our citizens
09:13:11 are our customers. Other departments are our customers.
09:13:14 And every day, we serve those customers well, and I so
09:13:17 appreciate you recognizing me for this, and the Tampa Bay
09:13:20 business journal, for recognizing the City of Tampa on a
09:13:23 regional basis for our contributions. Thank you.
09:13:27 [Applause]
09:13:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to say that you are the
09:13:39 most -- the best communicator about the finances of the city
09:13:43 that we've ever had, and given the increasing complexity,
09:13:47 your skills are even more significant, and this recognition
09:13:50 is so well-deserved. Thank you.
09:13:52 [Applause]
09:14:00 >> Congratulations, Miss wise. Congratulations to you and
09:14:03 to the whole department, and I will tell you, even from a
09:14:06 distance of being across the street at the county, how much
09:14:08 you display your professionalism and your knowledge of your
09:14:15 job, and since I've been here as well, very supportive, very
09:14:19 cooperative, and open to -- to us asking questions, and
09:14:23 sharing with us, and that's so helpful, and so thank you so
09:14:26 very much. You're very deserving.
09:14:28 >> Don't go yet. I want to echo what Linda said, and also
09:14:34 you're a great communicator, but you're also a great
09:14:37 shooter, and it's great to have somebody in your position
09:14:40 that we know you're not only going to make it clear to us,
09:14:42 but we can totally trust what you're telling us, so it's
09:14:45 great working with you, and really appreciate it.
09:14:47 [Applause]
09:14:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Will the members of the Tampa Bay youth
09:14:56 football team please come up.
09:15:33 >>GWEN MILLER: It is really an honor this morning for me to
09:15:35 give this commendation to our young generation. You know,
09:15:38 we have young people out there doing the good things in
09:15:40 life, and showing us how great they are in the community, it
09:15:44 is always nice that we give them the honor and the grace and
09:15:48 the privilege that they should have so I'm very happy to
09:15:51 give this to them, and this is a commendation presented to
09:15:55 the Tampa Bay youth football league and coaches, in
09:15:59 recognition of the dedication and hard work by head coach
09:16:03 Pete honor, assistant coaches and the players in achieving
09:16:07 the 2007 Super Bowl championship for ages nine through ten
09:16:12 pee wee division of the Tampa youth football league. The
09:16:15 American division championship was played in Tampa, Florida
09:16:20 in 2007, where the Skyway Junior Bucs played against the Bay
09:16:24 Area Raiders. The winning scores were 20-13. The Tampa
09:16:29 City Council commends the Skyway Junior Bucs for their
09:16:33 outstanding accomplishment, it's signed by all the members






09:16:37 of the city council, and we are very proud to give this to
09:16:40 you and your team, and we hope you continue to win.
09:16:44 [Applause]
09:16:45 >> I want to thank everybody. You know, we had a good group
09:16:49 of kids, good coaches that come out there and donated their
09:16:52 time, and I didn't have a kid on the team this year, but
09:16:54 when I was coming up, there was always people there to coach
09:16:57 me so I figure if I can give back and get these guys right,
09:17:02 and they did all the work, and they were just a great bunch
09:17:05 of kids to be around this year. Thank you.
09:17:07 [Applause]
09:17:08 >> Madam chair, if I could, I'd just like to give a shout
09:17:11 out to Skyway. My stepson played ball out there many, many
09:17:14 years ago, and they've been having a great program out there
09:17:17 for years, and we appreciate it. Appreciate all your hard
09:17:20 work.
09:17:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you want to introduce the --
09:17:24 >> Can I do it?
09:17:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Yeah, go ahead.
09:17:27 >> I'm Noah.
09:17:30 >> Hi, Noah.
09:17:32 >> I'm Ed Jordan.
09:17:35 >> Hi, Ed.
09:17:36 >> I'm Dion.
09:17:40 >> I'm Renard.
09:17:44 >> And I'm Quinn.
09:17:47 [Applause]
09:17:56 >>GWEN MILLER: At this time, I'd like for the Tampa prep
09:18:00 girls soccer team to come forward.
09:18:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think the rest of the soccer team
09:18:17 should stand up and acknowledge -- in acknowledgment of
09:18:20 your --
09:18:21 >>GWEN MILLER: No, no. We have the boys, too.
09:18:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No. I meant the girls.
09:18:27 >>GWEN MILLER: All the girls supposed to come up. We want
09:18:29 all the girls to come. They were on the team, weren't they?
09:18:32 All right. They helped you win, so we got to have them with
09:18:35 you. Council members, the young people are still shining,
09:18:40 and I love it when we have so many young people showing us
09:18:43 how great they are, it's my honor always to give them a
09:18:47 commendation, and I'd like to give this commendation to the
09:18:51 Tampa prep girls soccer team in recognition for the hard
09:18:54 work dedication and determination, the coaches and girls
09:18:59 soccer team in achieving the 2008 class 2A state
09:19:03 championship. This exciting event took place on Saturday,
09:19:06 February 8th, 2008. The girls soccer team advanced towards
09:19:09 the state championship with 4-2 win at the district and the
09:19:13 regional and the finals. The state championship, a season
09:19:16 that took them further than any other girls' soccer team in
09:19:19 the school history. The Tampa City Council commends the
09:19:22 Tampa prep girls varsity soccer team for its coaches, for
09:19:26 its outstanding accomplishment, and it's signed by all the
09:19:29 council members, and I'd like to present this to who? Who's
09:19:32 going to do this? Come on up.
09:19:39 >> Thank you. We appreciate it. It was a great honor for
09:19:42 the girls. They worked very hard throughout the season.
09:19:44 Thank you.
09:19:47 >> Congratulations.
09:19:47 [Applause]
09:19:58 >>GWEN MILLER: I would like for the boy's soccer team to






09:20:01 come, the Tampa prep boys to come up for -- wow.
09:20:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You guys, squish on in there so you can
09:20:31 get in the picture. Make a few rows.
09:20:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Our young people still doing great things,
09:20:37 council members. Not only the girls, but we have the boys
09:20:40 doing great things, and this is the Tampa prep boys varsity
09:20:43 soccer team. In recognition of the dedication, hard work
09:20:46 and determination led by his coach, assistant coaches and
09:20:50 the boy's soccer team that won the stellar 2008 class 2A A
09:20:57 state championship, this exciting event took place on
09:21:00 Saturday, February the 8th, 2008. The boys varsity soccer
09:21:04 team played with skill and team spirit, defeating
09:21:07 Jacksonville providence school for the state championship.
09:21:09 The final match made their game a 27-win record for the
09:21:13 Tampa prep school's varsity soccer team. The Tampa City
09:21:18 Council congratulates Tampa prep boys varsity soccer team
09:21:22 and its coaches for its remarkable accomplishments and it's
09:21:26 signed by all of the council members, and I'm going to give
09:21:28 it to who? The captain. We going to give it to the
09:21:31 captain. He's going to speak. All right, captain, you in
09:21:34 charge.
09:21:34 >> Okay. I just want to say thank you to coach costa for
09:21:41 another great season. He's actually retiring this year.
09:21:43 This is actually our third state title in four years now,
09:21:46 and we're really honored to be here. I just want to thank
09:21:49 you guys very much.
09:21:52 [Applause]
09:22:01 >> Not retiring, but moving. But it's been an honor being
09:22:06 with these boys, and being a member of this community, and
09:22:09 we -- on behalf of Tampa prep, we thank you for this
09:22:12 recognition. Appreciate it.
09:22:14 >> Congratulations.
09:22:16 >> Thank you.
09:22:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Any defenders out there? Any guys play
09:22:20 defense? There you go. I'm a former sleeper, so there you
09:22:22 go.
09:22:23 >> Thank you very much.
09:22:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you. Keep up the good work.
09:22:27 [Applause]
09:22:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Were you all disappointed you had to
09:23:02 miss class this morning?
09:23:04 >> It's not hard.
09:23:16 >> I'd like to recognize a visitor we have today who, for
09:23:20 some reason, I met him at the strawberry festival. Alan
09:23:28 Tesci is one of our colleagues, I suppose. He's an elected
09:23:32 member of the anchorage, Alaska assembly, and the assembly
09:23:37 is kind of a combination of what we have in our city council
09:23:39 and our county commission. So he's here relocating? No.
09:23:45 >> Good morning. Members of the council, I'm here as a
09:23:48 visitor to your fine city. I'm here with my sister,
09:23:53 Caroline Tesci, who's here in the audience, visiting her for
09:23:58 about a month. I just want to wish the very best to the
09:24:01 council here and say that I'm always impressed with this
09:24:04 city and how friendly and nice it is. I would say that I
09:24:06 represent the downtown district in anchorage. Anchorage is
09:24:10 a city of about 280,000, and I represent the smallest, but
09:24:14 the most urban district, and I gotta tell you after seeing
09:24:18 Tampa, I have a lot to learn about how a town is done right.
09:24:22 You were doing it right, and this town is just a beautiful,
09:24:25 vibrant place. So what an inspiration to me and my family.






09:24:28 I'm just happy to be here.
09:24:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Welcome. We're glad to have you here. And
09:24:33 don't make this your last visit. Come back again.
09:24:35 >> Oh, not at all. In fact, I -- council member Mary was
09:24:38 saying something about moving here. Boy, after 71 degrees
09:24:42 below zero in Alaska this winter, I'm really tempted.
09:24:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
09:24:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you. And is it Alan?
09:24:54 >> Yes, it is.
09:24:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Welcome, and I've known your sister
09:24:57 Caroline for many, many years and I hope that you'll be
09:25:00 working hard on her judicial campaign, so congratulations.
09:25:02 >> I'm getting to meet a lot of people down here, and people
09:25:05 are just so friendly. I mean, it's great. It's a great
09:25:08 town. Thank you again. Thank you for inviting me.
09:25:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Now, we will
09:25:12 go to Mr. Shelby for the agenda.
09:25:17 >>MARTY SHELBY: Good morning. You have -- (off mic) he
09:25:24 just left the room, but he has two items that he has --
09:25:26 would like to have placed on the portion of unfinished
09:25:30 business rather than new business, but they are, in fact,
09:25:32 new business. One involves discussion of the Tampa police
09:25:36 department radio service, and the other is to respond to the
09:25:39 city council --
09:25:44 >> He's going to ask the administration to respond to the
09:25:47 city council on the budget cuts submitted by the TBD
09:25:52 sergeant. My understanding is he's going to ask the council
09:25:56 for a future report. I'm sorry, Mr. Scott. With regard to
09:26:03 your new business, did you wish to have that -- I explained
09:26:06 that you wished to have that placed under staff reports and
09:26:08 unfinished business, and you're going to ask for -- did you
09:26:11 want to have a motion for a future report, or did you want
09:26:13 to have somebody present from the administration?
09:26:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I just wanted to place it -- council want to
09:26:19 place it on the staff report. I have a flight I need to
09:26:22 catch at 4:00, so I don't know how far we're going to get,
09:26:25 but I would like to place this on the staff reports and then
09:26:28 ask for a future report. If we can get to it this morning
09:26:31 on both items. Two items. One is -- is I think you have it
09:26:35 there.
09:26:36 >>MARTY SHELBY: Yes. I told the council one is regarding
09:26:38 the police department radio service, and the other one is
09:26:40 regarding a proposal submitted by a TPD sergeant regarding
09:26:45 the budget cuts. Thank you. So if we could do that by
09:26:48 motion under the approval of the agenda. Okay.
09:26:51 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion and a second. All in favor of the
09:26:55 motion say aye. Opposed nay.
09:26:58 >>MARTY SHELBY: With regards to 8, you have a substitute
09:27:02 resolution, and at the time of moving, the request is going
09:27:05 to be to move the substitution. With regard to item 66, you
09:27:08 have a resolution supporting if mayor's proclamation of
09:27:11 march as women's history month. The legal department has a
09:27:14 substitute resolution which reflects the name of the
09:27:16 recipient, who was just announced this morning, and we would
09:27:18 ask at the time of number 66 you move the substitute on
09:27:22 that. With regard to item 59, council, report on the
09:27:25 traffic, and on-street parking issues in the SoHo, you
09:27:30 received a memorandum from staff requesting that the item be
09:27:34 moved to April 3rd, 2008.
09:27:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second. All in favor of the






09:27:38 motion aye. Opposed nay.
09:27:40 >>MARTY SHELBY: And with regard to items 63, you have had a
09:27:43 request from the legal department to continue that item to
09:27:45 march 20th of 2008.
09:27:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion?
09:27:48 >> So moved.
09:27:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second. All in favor of the
09:27:51 motion say aye. Opposed nay.
09:27:54 >>MARTY SHELBY: And the other items we can take up as they
09:27:57 come along. As for any other changes I'd ask for approval
09:28:01 of the agenda, please.
09:28:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'd like to pull item 14 for staff to
09:28:05 come chat about it.
09:28:10 >>MARTY SHELBY: And council would you like that to be done
09:28:12 under staff reports and unfinished business or would you
09:28:15 like to see if staff can be here by the time we take up that
09:28:18 item on the scent consent document. That's pretty early.
09:28:23 Item number 14. Motion, please.
09:28:26 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second. All in favor
09:28:27 of the motion say aye. Opposed nay. Any other items? A
09:28:32 motion to approve the agenda.
09:28:33 >> So moved.
09:28:33 >> Second.
09:28:34 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion and second. All in favor of the
09:28:36 motion say aye. Opposed nay. Okay. At this time, we have
09:28:40 public comments. Is there anyone in the public like to
09:28:44 speak on any item on the agenda that is not set for a public
09:28:46 hearing?
09:29:00 >> Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Moses, and
09:29:03 I reside at 2902 East Ellicott Street, and then I just thank
09:29:09 God for his grace and his Mercy, especially here today. I
09:29:13 worked all day yesterday and got off at 4:00 this morning,
09:29:16 but I had to be here this morning 9:00, and I really wanted
09:29:20 to speak on the budget cut.
09:29:28 >> Yes, sir.
09:29:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead. We're listening.
09:29:30 >> Okay. Thank you. Let me tell you something. This thing
09:29:34 been bothering me. This budget cut thing here, but when I
09:29:38 heard on the you that there been an add on to the water
09:29:44 bill, that blowed every fuel in my body because I knowed it
09:29:47 was coming. Let me tell you something, ladies and
09:29:49 gentlemen. The whole entire State of Florida is on the long
09:29:54 curse, you know what I'm talking about. I had a curse on me
09:29:58 for nine years and I couldn't shake it off, couldn't run it
09:30:00 off, couldn't buy it off, but this State of Florida, and it
09:30:03 happened about the houses and overflow the State of Florida
09:30:08 in election, and all of the churchfuls got involved in it.
09:30:13 But I want to settle -- but you all set up there with the
09:30:17 mayor and said that we going to raise the water -- garbage
09:30:20 bill? Let me tell you, I been coming to this podium for the
09:30:25 last ten years talking about how you all did that water
09:30:28 bill. Poor people can't make it. Poor people catching hell
09:30:33 today and they on the curse, too. They are catching hell
09:30:36 about this water bill. And what you done the last seven
09:30:40 years, come in and add the garbage bill on to the water
09:30:43 bill, and that crucified the peoples. I told you all I
09:30:47 don't know how many people that living with no water in they
09:30:50 house. Now we got -- everybody poor, I represent them. The
09:30:55 poor Mexicans, they don't have no water in the house, but
09:30:58 I'm telling you -- but I said for you all to do that,






09:31:02 there's a lot of things you can -- but you can't help, I'm
09:31:05 telling you, this city got a curse on it. You know what, I
09:31:09 had to be here this morning because you know what, I know
09:31:11 that red phone was going to ring this morning at 9:00. I
09:31:14 had to be here. But to speak on this budget cut, I'm
09:31:19 telling you all, this is a serious thing, but I ask you all,
09:31:22 please, don't put no more -- we can't take it no more. Us
09:31:26 poor people have suffering in this town. We don't have no
09:31:30 house. Buying a home, curse started right here in this
09:31:37 town. Started right here in this town. That water curse
09:31:40 got started from. Tore down 6,000 poor people's homes, took
09:31:44 them same homes, sell them for 100 million dollars today. I
09:31:48 mean, the same home they go to now, but that's why this
09:31:51 curse started. It's on. Like I said, when that curse get
09:31:54 on you, you can't get it off. I had it on me for nine
09:31:58 years. I couldn't get it off. You know, you know what, it
09:32:03 mayor freeman put it on me and I'm glad she did. It changed
09:32:07 my life. Took everything I had in this world, but I'm
09:32:10 telling you all, though, and you know one thing, it was --
09:32:12 I'm going to say this here and I'm going to close out. It
09:32:15 was a bad mistake that people made that let the good old
09:32:19 girl for the mayor. Now we going for the president with
09:32:22 this same thinking. By the good old boy, a good old girl.
09:32:27 I say go for the track record. Thank you very much.
09:32:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you. Next.
09:32:36 >> Good morning, councilmen. Sam Horton. I actually
09:32:42 represent the NAACP this morning. And we have been
09:32:46 interested in item 58 on the agenda, which is the first
09:32:50 reading of the ordinance in the city. We are pleased since
09:32:56 this is something that's been in operation, or we have been
09:33:02 pushing behind the scenes to get this done even through
09:33:07 mayor Greco's administration, and it finally is coming to
09:33:10 the city council now. We've had a chance to review this and
09:33:13 it does strike the disparity study which was done, and it
09:33:18 actually looks at and provides some impetus for monitoring
09:33:23 what happens, and the previous executive order it had to do
09:33:29 with encouragement program, and we know what encouragement
09:33:33 does. Encouragement resulted in some discriminatory
09:33:39 practices. This actually addresses those issues, and it
09:33:44 provides for contracts on a non-discriminatory basis. We
09:33:53 are here as part of the organization to commend the
09:33:57 ordinance itself and to encourage you to -- if you have
09:34:01 questions about it, that's fine, but we want to encourage
09:34:05 you to pass the ordinance, to get it out of the executive
09:34:07 order position of the mayor because that becomes just a
09:34:12 matter of who's in office at that time. This gives us
09:34:16 something now that would -- with teeth that we can monitor,
09:34:19 that we can bring to the board, and bring to the council
09:34:22 anything that happens in the community. Diversity,
09:34:27 diversity, diversity is what happens in a community. And
09:34:30 just one final thing. One of the things that you note that
09:34:33 the economy rides on the basis of the small business people.
09:34:38 It does not ride on the basis of the big people, you see.
09:34:42 As I said through the others, that sometimes those big
09:34:45 people you make them rich, and they buy a house up in North
09:34:49 Carolina, they'll buy it over in the Bahamas or some other
09:34:51 place, but they don't buy the bread and the meat and
09:34:54 potatoes that keeps the economy going. So you need to be
09:34:57 sure that we keep this going in our community, and we won't
09:35:01 have that kind of recession because we've addressed a






09:35:04 critical issue in the community. Thank you very much.
09:35:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? You
09:35:08 may speak on any items. It does not have to be on the
09:35:11 agenda. If you want to speak on anything else that is not
09:35:14 on the agenda, you may come up and speak now.
09:35:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Horton, thank you for your service
09:35:20 to our community.
09:35:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in public that would like to
09:35:25 request reconsideration for a legislative matter? None?
09:35:27 Okay. We now go to our committee reports public safety,
09:35:38 Reverend Scott?
09:35:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, Madam chair, I'd like to move
09:35:42 items five and six.
09:35:44 >> Second.
09:35:45 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and a second. All in favor
09:35:47 of the motion say aye, opposed nay.
09:35:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Madam chair, I need to go back, 7 and
09:35:54 substitute for number eight.
09:35:56 >> Second.
09:35:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. All in favor of the motion say awe.
09:35:59 Opposed nay. Parks and recreation, miss Linda Saul-Sena.
09:36:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, I just want to say in number
09:36:07 Tennessee the lighting is energy efficient, which is great,
09:36:09 so I 'd like to move 9 and 10.
09:36:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion, all in favor say aye. Opposed nay.
09:36:16 Vice chair Miss Mary Mulhern.
09:36:18 >> I have a question.
09:36:19 >>GWEN MILLER: He has a question on number 14.
09:36:22 >> Oh, I already pulled that.
09:36:23 >> Excuse me. I had a question. It says that number 12 is
09:36:29 a work order to study a solution of flooding. We had a
09:36:34 previous issue with solutions for flooding resulting in
09:36:38 digging up streets that were going to perhaps undermine the
09:36:42 trees, the canopies, along them like sterling, which is in
09:36:45 this particular area, and I'm certainly okay with the idea
09:36:49 that bayside engineering is going to do the study, but I
09:36:53 want to, after we do this, I want to make sure that council
09:36:56 and the neighborhood has an opportunity to weigh in on the
09:37:02 decisiontry on this because we don't want to negatively
09:37:05 impact our neighborhoods, and solving one problem create
09:37:07 others.
09:37:11 >> I'm glad that you brought that up because I thought
09:37:13 Charlie was going to be here so I wasn't going to say
09:37:16 anything, but maybe we should put one of these on the staff
09:37:18 reports to talk about it. Maybe -- there's a number of
09:37:23 things. Why don't we pull number 12 and put that under
09:37:30 staff report.
09:37:31 >> Second.
09:37:32 >> Well, council, before you do that, I should just point
09:37:35 out respectfully that we could suggest that that be done,
09:37:40 and hopefully somebody's in the administration who's
09:37:42 watching this who can communicate the fact that you want
09:37:44 that number 12 and have a staff person here, but my
09:37:47 understanding is they monitor the staff -- they monitor the
09:37:51 approval of the agenda specifically, so -- and I appreciate
09:37:54 council wanting to discuss this and it has every right to
09:37:57 and it should, and I have no objection personally to doing
09:38:01 that, but if you can, for the sake of expediency, if you
09:38:04 could bring it up at the appropriate agenda, and I apologize
09:38:07 to bring that up, but the motion should go forward -- I






09:38:11 understand. Thank you.
09:38:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
09:38:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would just say with all due respect,
09:38:16 Mr. Shelby, they watch the whole meeting, and if they can
09:38:19 come down during staff reports to address our questions on
09:38:21 12, that's fine, and if they can't, we'll defer it for two
09:38:24 weeks, that's their choice.
09:38:26 >>GWEN MILLER: But that's not the point, Mr. Dingfelder.
09:38:29 Like you pull yours in the beginning, the others should have
09:38:32 been pulled the same way.
09:38:35 >>MARTY SHELBY: And I don't mean to cause an issue about
09:38:37 it, but when I sit through --
09:38:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Just want to be fair, that's all.
09:38:41 >>MARTY SHELBY: But just a point of reference, when I sit
09:38:43 through the attorney meetings, the attorneys are instructed
09:38:45 to watch the approval of the agenda individually before they
09:38:48 go back to work doing what they're doing to see if their
09:38:51 particular item for which they've been assigned is going to
09:38:53 be pulled so that they can be here at the time the council
09:38:55 discusses it, so -- and I don't know whether that's true in
09:38:58 the rest of the administration, but I just -- and I
09:39:00 apologize for making an issue out of it.
09:39:02 >>GWEN MILLER: No. We just going by the rules and
09:39:05 policies. We set these rules and we need to follow them,
09:39:07 that's it.
09:39:07 >> There's a motion and a second.
09:39:09 >> Thank you, sir. And here again, I'm going to stick up
09:39:12 for process so I think it's very important for us to follow
09:39:14 our process that we have outlined, and whatever we need to
09:39:18 correct. See, you should always make sure that you doing
09:39:21 what's right and what's fair.
09:39:22 >>GWEN MILLER: That's right.
09:39:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I can't worry about nobody else, but we have
09:39:26 to do what's right.
09:39:30 >> If I could make a suggestion.
09:39:32 >>MARTY SHELBY: There's a motion and a second on the floor,
09:39:34 and if everybody could just take note for that for the
09:39:39 future, it would be helpful, and if we could go forward from
09:39:42 here, I'd appreciate it.
09:39:43 >> Just in explanation, I saw this when I was looking at the
09:39:46 agenda and would have pulled it earlier, but I assumed that
09:39:49 Mr. Miranda was going to be here, and I trust him to, you
09:39:52 know, be -- he's always up on these things. So -- it's kind
09:39:56 of an exception today because he's sick.
09:39:58 >>MARTY SHELBY: And you are the vice chair of that economy
09:40:00 in his absence. You become a chair in his absence.
09:40:04 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and a second. All in favor
09:40:06 of the motion say aye. Opposed.
09:40:09 >> Then I'll move item 11 and -- items 11 through 13.
09:40:13 >> Second.
09:40:15 >> Pulling 14. So 11 through 17, pulling item -- pulling 12
09:40:22 and 14 for staff reports.
09:40:24 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and a second. All in favor
09:40:26 of the motion say aye. Opposed nay. Finance committee
09:40:30 Mr. John Dingfelder.
09:40:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Madam chair. I'd like to
09:40:33 move 18 through 23.
09:40:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Second.
09:40:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 25, 27 and 28.
09:40:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and a second. All in favor of






09:40:40 the motion say aye. Opposed nay.
09:40:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Madam Chair, I've had an extremely busy
09:40:46 week with the NPO and the Hartline and I had some questions
09:40:50 with regard to 24 and 26, so I'm going to defer those for
09:40:53 two weeks just so we can get through our meeting quickly.
09:40:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder, again, let's do these before
09:40:59 we approve the agenda.
09:41:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, I just told you I've been spending
09:41:04 the early part of the week --
09:41:05 >>GWEN MILLER: But you knew they were on there.
09:41:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Working on Hartline and NPO issues to
09:41:11 try and help our street car and that sort of thing, so I'm
09:41:15 not going to apologize.
09:41:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Just do the right thing and follow the
09:41:19 policies and procedures, that's all. When we pulled one
09:41:21 already, pull those two that's all I'm saying.
09:41:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, anyway, I do believe in substance
09:41:27 over process. I believe in process, but I think when you
09:41:29 have important questions related to $900,000 of postage and
09:41:32 related to $180,000 for barricades, I think that the public
09:41:36 wants us to deal with substance over process, so --
09:41:39 >>GWEN MILLER: I'm not disagreeing with that, but just do
09:41:42 it at the right time.
09:41:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I try my best. So anyway with that I'm
09:41:46 going to pull those for two weeks and get some answers.
09:41:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 24 and 25?
09:41:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 24 and 26.
09:41:53 >> Second.
09:41:54 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and a second. All in favor
09:41:57 of the motion aye. Opposed nay.
09:42:00 >> Madam chairman I'd like to move items 29 through 38.
09:42:05 >> Second.
09:42:06 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion and a second. All in favor of the
09:42:08 motion say aye. Opposed nay. Transportation, Miss Mary
09:42:13 Mulhern.
09:42:14 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you, Madam Chair.
09:42:15 >> Question before you move them all, can I ask you? Mayor,
09:42:19 have you been briefed on number 41? I know we -- this is
09:42:27 related to $2.5 million for -- for installation,
09:42:32 maintenance, repair, removal of traffic control and the
09:42:34 street light systems, and I'm just wondering, is that out of
09:42:39 general fund money or is that out of other special
09:42:42 designated transportation you know, transportation like gas
09:42:48 tax money or anything like that? Does anybody have any
09:42:50 idea?
09:42:50 >> I don't know.
09:42:52 >> Why don't we pull that until the next meeting. That is a
09:42:55 lot of money.
09:42:56 >> It's a lot of money. I've been urging -- since we are
09:43:00 facing budget cuts, I've been urging this city to defer some
09:43:05 capital projects. Now, if this is -- if item 41 is out of
09:43:09 gas tax and the only direction it can go is for
09:43:12 transportation improvements, then that's fine, but if it's
09:43:14 out of general fund money, I think we need to move a little
09:43:17 slower on spending general fund money.
09:43:19 >> Madam Chair, I'd motion that we pull this for two weeks
09:43:23 unless we can get somebody here today to --
09:43:26 >>GWEN MILLER: I think we can get someone.
09:43:29 >> Steve, on 41 is $2.5 million for the installation,
09:43:35 maintenance, repair and removal of traffic control and






09:43:38 street light systems. Do you know if any of that comes from
09:43:41 general fund money?
09:43:42 >> Rather than try to give you an answer off the top of my
09:43:45 head, if you would give me a few minutes, we'll find out and
09:43:48 get an answer back to you.
09:43:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's fair enough. I'm sorry to throw
09:43:51 that on you.
09:43:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay, Miss Mulhern.
09:43:54 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay. I will move items 39 and 40, and
09:44:00 items 42 through --
09:44:08 >>GWEN MILLER: 53.
09:44:09 >>MARY MULHERN: 53.
09:44:10 >> Second.
09:44:12 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and a second. All in favor
09:44:14 of the motion say aye. Opposed nay. We now go to other
09:44:18 staff reports, item 54.
09:44:26 >> Good morning, Madam Chair, council members, Jan Mclean,
09:44:30 item number 54, quarterly update on two projects. The first
09:44:33 is the proposed landfill located in Pasco County, entitled
09:44:38 Angelo's Aggregate is what it's commonly known as. The
09:44:44 proposed project is still under review both by the county
09:44:46 and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. The
09:44:49 county is reviewing the conditional land use change, and the
09:44:53 land development review. Both of those are reviews have
09:44:56 only just begun. The applicant is -- has asked them to
09:44:59 initiate those reviews. I have spoken with participants in
09:45:05 the project and the review project, and with citizens. Each
09:45:09 of those reviews -- well, after they're completed, we'll
09:45:14 have a public comment, opportunity prior to any
09:45:16 recommendations, of course, being made to the Florida county
09:45:19 commissioners. With regard to the FDEP review, there are
09:45:24 multiple -- I'm sorry?
09:45:26 >> The FDEP, is that on the same one?
09:45:29 >> Yes. The FDEP review. There are multiple applications
09:45:32 in. There's solid waste application for both the
09:45:35 construction and operation of the landfill. There is an
09:45:37 environmental resource permit application that's in.
09:45:40 There's a potential clean air permit that will be submitted,
09:45:46 and at this point in time, under the solid waste
09:45:51 application, the department has just received responses to
09:45:54 request for additional information. The third response was
09:45:57 received February the 15th. So it's under staff review.
09:46:00 There is an additional response that's due under the
09:46:03 environmental resource permit that's due back march 18th, so
09:46:07 as soon as that comes in, the staff has an additional 30
09:46:11 days to review. Also, the department asks that the Florida
09:46:15 geological survey to conduct an independent survey on
09:46:19 potential possibility for sink hole activity up there.
09:46:22 There was a survey report that was issued, and I can provide
09:46:30 you a copy of it. It's about six or eight pages. I read
09:46:33 through it last night. And the bottom line is the statement
09:46:37 in the report says that there's a general probability of
09:46:41 sink hole formation within the proposed site and surrounding
09:46:44 area is moderate. It goes on to explain what the
09:46:49 characteristics of the entire area is, and the formations
09:46:54 and it's very informative. That's the bottom line of that
09:46:58 survey, and as I said, I can provide you that. As indicated
09:47:01 before, the air permit application is still to be submitted,
09:47:05 and the agencies always have at least 30 days to review
09:47:09 these response from the applicants that they requested






09:47:12 additional information, so that's why this is continuing to
09:47:15 go on. I would estimate that at a minimum, it would take at
09:47:18 least three to six months for the FDEP to come to a
09:47:21 resolution, and as I said, the county is just started its
09:47:24 review on that one.
09:47:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Miss Mulhern?
09:47:30 >>MARY MULHERN: Do you want to go ahead? I -- my question
09:47:33 for you, I don't know if you know the answer to this, but is
09:47:36 this because this is something in another county that might
09:47:40 affect Hillsborough, does that go before the Tampa Bay
09:47:43 regional planning council, too? And if so, has it been
09:47:49 there already, or --
09:47:50 >> It -- there was some discussion, as I went through the
09:47:54 documents, there was some discussion between the citizens
09:47:56 and the TBRPC. They said that if there was any -- the
09:48:04 TBRPC, the Tampa Bay regional planning city council, had
09:48:06 indicated to the citizens that if there were any questions
09:48:10 that were raised, the county had to raise those issues with
09:48:13 regard to how it impacted its comp plan, that the citizens
09:48:17 didn't have the standing to raise those issues directly with
09:48:20 regard to its comp plan.
09:48:22 >> Why wouldn't the stay be able to raise those? It seems
09:48:25 like the city would be able to. I'm one of the city
09:48:30 representatives on the Tampa Bay -- the cities are
09:48:32 represented on the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, too.
09:48:37 >> I actually would have to come back and answer that
09:48:39 question for you. I did not look into what the process was
09:48:41 as far as TBRPC.
09:48:43 >> Okay. Well, I can look into it with Manny, who's the
09:48:48 director, and we have a meeting next week, so I can at least
09:48:53 get a report from them on it or ask for a report.
09:48:58 >> And just to refresh your memory because I know that you
09:49:01 all know, I'm looking at these applications with regard to
09:49:04 any potential impacts that these proposed projects would
09:49:08 have on the water supply to the city, not any of the
09:49:12 internal operations or any -- not to make light, but any
09:49:16 extraneous issues that might go along with the project, just
09:49:20 that whatever potential impacts it would have to the city's
09:49:23 water, that would provide possibly a basis for us to become
09:49:28 involved in this.
09:49:32 >>MARY MULHERN: I think that that's the purpose of the
09:49:34 regional planning council is to be able to deal with things
09:49:38 that cover more than one jurisdiction.
09:49:41 >> Okay. Any other questions on that project?
09:49:44 >> Yes. I very much appreciate you looking at this, and I
09:49:46 want you to continue to scrutinize it, and we've asked for
09:49:49 quarterly updates, but if something comes up prior to the
09:49:53 quarter that you think could negatively impact the
09:49:56 Hillsborough river which is, of course, our drinking water
09:49:59 source, please initiate coming before council.
09:50:02 >> Yes, ma'am.
09:50:02 >> I'd -- and thank you for keeping an eye on this. The
09:50:06 idea of locating a landfill adjacent to one of the
09:50:10 tributaries of the river just -- it's counterintuitive.
09:50:14 It's just stupid. I can't believe they're thinking of doing
09:50:16 this and we just need to be really vigilant that it won't
09:50:20 negatively impact our drinking water source.
09:50:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
09:50:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I wanted to bring up a slightly
09:50:26 different but related issue, Jan, that I'm going to ask






09:50:30 council to ask you to also look into in terms of your
09:50:35 vigilance and diligence that you do on these other projects.
09:50:38 It's again related to the Hillsborough river. You might
09:50:40 have read in the paper that progress energy, formerly
09:50:46 Florida Power, is proposing the construction of a
09:50:51 230,000-volt power line across the North part of
09:50:55 Hillsborough county. It cuts through new Tampa, through
09:50:59 many of our residents' backyards, but then as related to the
09:51:04 environment, as it continues up, they have a couple of
09:51:06 paths, but one of the proposed paths jogs up by the county
09:51:10 line, and right by the tributaries of the head waters of the
09:51:18 Hillsborough river, the crystal springs, and this is not a
09:51:21 new project. This project was proposed about 15 years ago.
09:51:24 It was called the lake Tarpon Kathleen project, the LTK
09:51:31 project, and they had a lot of opposition. About 10, 15
09:51:35 years ago the EPA came out against it and said it was
09:51:41 potentially violative of the clean water act because they're
09:51:45 proposing big poles in our watershed and disrupting the
09:51:48 watershed. There's also eagles up there and the EPA had
09:51:52 issues as related to the endangered species act. But
09:52:02 anyway, so they kind of put it to bed about ten years. I'm
09:52:07 sure -- you're new to town.
09:52:09 >> She's been around?
09:52:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You've been around?
09:52:15 >> That's okay. Relatively new to the city, but I'm aware
09:52:18 of the issue.
09:52:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay. Good. Well, anyway, so, I have
09:52:23 some environmental concerns, and I actually have some
09:52:26 neighborhood concerns up in the new Tampa area as well. I
09:52:28 don't know if you've gotten any calls on that, Joseph, about
09:52:31 the Florida Power power line. That's your district. But
09:52:33 anyway, I know they're going through a process. They go up
09:52:36 to Tallahassee for the power line -- power line review
09:52:40 process, and that sort of thing, and I'm just wondering if
09:52:43 we could look into that. I think we have the ability to
09:52:47 give feedback on it in terms of our concerns and the water
09:52:52 department's concerns and that sort of thing. So if you
09:52:54 want to come back -- you're coming back quarterly on these
09:52:58 other issues, come back next quarter and tell us what you
09:53:00 found out and what our opportunity is for input on that, and
09:53:04 if the water department, or the neighborhood folks, you
09:53:09 know, have concerns that we should express them on behalf of
09:53:12 all those issues.
09:53:13 >> Second.
09:53:15 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and a second. All in favor
09:53:17 of the motion say aye. Opposed nay. Miss Mulhern?
09:53:20 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes. I'd like to make a motion back to the
09:53:23 agenda item on the Angelo's Aggregate thing. I'd like to
09:53:28 make a motion that city council ask the regional planning --
09:53:33 Tampa Bay regional planning commission to look into where we
09:53:38 are with this and what kind of recommendation they can make.
09:53:42 >> Second.
09:53:44 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and a second. All in favor
09:53:46 of the motion say aye. Opposed nay.
09:53:51 >>MARY MULHERN: And Gwen if you could write a letter. I
09:53:54 know when the county had some problems with Pasco building
09:53:57 the big mall --
09:53:59 >> That's next on the agenda.
09:54:00 >>MARY MULHERN: Is it? Well, they did write a letter to the
09:54:03 regional planning council to look at it so if we could have






09:54:06 a letter from you asking them to look at it, it might be
09:54:09 helpful. It's part of my motion.
09:54:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. Another question?
09:54:13 >> Yes. Now she's going to tell us about Cypress creek,
09:54:17 because we didn't vote.
09:54:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: There's a second, and Marty, I guess
09:54:21 helped --
09:54:24 >>GWEN MILLER: But she added a substitute to that motion.
09:54:26 It wasn't a separate motion.
09:54:28 >>MARY MULHERN: My motion was separate from John's.
09:54:31 >>GWEN MILLER: No. No. But you made a motion.
09:54:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Did we vote on that?
09:54:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Yeah, we voted on it.
09:54:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The clerk says no.
09:54:39 >>GWEN MILLER: I did. I said all in favor while she was
09:54:41 still talking. You probably didn't hear me. I was carrying
09:54:43 the motion. All in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed
09:54:47 nay.
09:55:11 >> Report is what you requested me to come back to council
09:55:14 on. This is the report on the Cypress creek town center
09:55:19 mall. This project is also located in Pasco County. It's
09:55:21 at the intersection of State Road 56 and 54 just to the west
09:55:25 of I-75. What I have up on the graphic right now is the
09:55:30 project area. I don't know if you can see it. It's
09:55:34 outlined in yellow. This roadway here is 75, State Road 56.
09:55:41 And State Road 54.
09:55:47 >> How many acres?
09:55:48 >> Right now, there's been numerous articles, as you well
09:55:52 know, in the paper on a rain event that occurred on January
09:55:55 22nd which initiated discharges into the Cypress creek,
09:56:00 which is also an outstanding Florida water and tributary to
09:56:03 the Hillsborough river which is the city's basis for the
09:56:07 interest in this project. There's multiple actions that are
09:56:09 going on. There is an army corps permit that is in
09:56:14 litigation being petitioned by the Sierra club. There was a
09:56:18 motion for summary judgment. That action is being held in
09:56:22 abeyance due to the actions that have occurred since the
09:56:24 rain event in January 22nd, and let me go to that. Also,
09:56:29 there is also a Southwest Florida Water Management District,
09:56:31 Swiftmud, environmental resource permit that's been issued
09:56:34 to this project. So these are conjunctively being activated
09:56:40 by some of the activities that have been going on. On
09:56:43 January 22nd, there was a significant rain event, and it
09:56:47 caused one of the berms, the weirs that holds back the
09:56:55 sediment on to the project, on this side, on the South side
09:56:58 of 56, where the creek runs adjacent to the project to fail.
09:57:05 Therefore, we had sediment going into the Cypress creek, and
09:57:08 there was an issuance of a notice of violation by the
09:57:13 Southwest Florida Water Management District to the Jacobs
09:57:17 group, which is the developer of the project. We have met
09:57:23 with representatives of the Jacobs group that came down from
09:57:27 Chicago. Their attorney, three of their biological
09:57:32 consultants. They have been very responsive to the city's
09:57:35 request to find out what's the status of the project and how
09:57:37 it may or may not be impacting Cypress creek. Just to give
09:57:43 you a sense, this is the actual project in Pasco County.
09:57:49 Let me see if I can work this twice.
09:57:58 >> Where's Tampa? Tampa's downstream.
09:58:02 >> Yeah. I wanted to give you a sense of where this project
09:58:05 is located with regard to the city's reservoir. The yellow






09:58:10 up here is what I just showed you on the initial graphic.
09:58:12 That is the project. 75. And this is Cypress creek. It
09:58:19 crosses under 75, meanders -- and actually becomes more of a
09:58:23 swamp than a contained creek for -- if you're not familiar
09:58:26 with it. All back in this area before it goes back into
09:58:31 banks and down into the Hillsborough River, the upper river
09:58:36 and the reservoir, which is down under the project map here.
09:58:42 This length is actually 20.3 miles from the project to the
09:58:46 city's reservoir, just to give you a sense of the length.
09:58:50 Since the January 22nd event, the Jacobs group has become
09:58:54 significantly more involved itself, instead of just through
09:58:58 its contractor, and has been responding to requests both
09:59:02 from citizens and from the governmental agencies that have
09:59:05 issued the permits. They have submitted a plan of
09:59:08 corrective action to the army corps, and the army corps is
09:59:12 now reviewing that plan of action. That is what's caused
09:59:15 the lawyers to request an abeyance of the legal action while
09:59:19 they review the corrective action plan in order to
09:59:23 consolidate that into their review. Both of the agencies
09:59:31 have made numerous site visits and there has been a
09:59:34 commitment from the Jacobs group as the developer to have
09:59:36 heightened sense -- a heightened inspection system in
09:59:41 addition to the corrective action plan, and, in fact, they
09:59:44 have two full-time biological consultants on site daily
09:59:51 making an inspection of the entire site to make sure that
09:59:53 the corrective actions on the berms and the weirs are in
10:00:00 place at all times. I drove by there this morning. I don't
10:00:03 live very far. There are multiple silt barriers that are up
10:00:08 that have not been up before, at least those I can see from
10:00:11 the site, and EPC also from their perspective, from the
10:00:15 Hillsborough county line, they were also concerned about
10:00:17 water quality. They have stepped up their water quality
10:00:21 monitoring. And after the rain event and subsequently,
10:00:26 there was another large rain event at the end of February,
10:00:29 they found no negative downstream impacts from the
10:00:32 discharges into the creek, into the river. So the nature of
10:00:38 the sediment, and I'm not even going to attempt to go into
10:00:41 it, but the biological consultant sat with myself and Brad
10:00:46 Baird from our -- the director of our water department to
10:00:49 answer any other questions that we may have concerned on the
10:00:52 impacts to the quality of our water. And we came away from
10:00:57 that meeting feeling very comfortable that they understood
10:01:00 our concerns and that they were taking these actions to
10:01:02 correct anything that occurred before and prevent anything
10:01:04 that would occur henceforth.
10:01:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Miss Saul-Sena.
10:01:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I really appreciate your involvement in
10:01:13 this. I had raised these initial concerns before the mall
10:01:16 was permitted, and one would have thought -- a number of
10:01:19 people entered and raised these concerns and you would have
10:01:21 thought that they would have been careful from the get-go,
10:01:25 and that I'm sorry that it took a fiasco to get everybody's
10:01:29 attention, but evidently that's what it took. I'm glad that
10:01:32 there's now scrutiny. I'd love you to think creatively.
10:01:35 You don't have to write a report or anything, but in the
10:01:38 future, how we might be better equipped to prevent problems
10:01:42 from occurring rather than doing clean-up after the fact.
10:01:45 So, I mean, we the city have no direct role in any of this,
10:01:50 but there might be projects that are within our -- you know,
10:01:54 closer within our jurisdiction where it's just so much






10:01:56 better to do what we're doing now. But before there's a
10:01:59 problem that precipitates the remedial action. But thank
10:02:03 you so much for your scrutiny. And again, keep us involved
10:02:05 if there's any other role for council to play to protect the
10:02:10 Hillsborough River.
10:02:10 >> So just to clarify, on the next quarterly report I would
10:02:15 be bringing back a report both on three -- the two original
10:02:18 projects, the town center and the landfill, and then the
10:02:21 addition of the proposed project energy expansion of
10:02:26 their --
10:02:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think that's more timely. I don't
10:02:29 think that's quarterly. I think Mr. Dingfelder wanted that
10:02:32 report on the high voltage wire, and left it more -- less
10:02:36 than a quarter.
10:02:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Actually, I don't think anything's going
10:02:43 to happen over the next couple of months so I think if you
10:02:45 just come back in the next quarter with these reports from
10:02:47 the power line report, that's fine.
10:02:49 >> Okay.
10:02:50 >> Thank you very much.
10:02:51 >> I just wanted to suggest that if the city had a seat or
10:02:55 more on the EPC we might be able to have some influence. So
10:02:59 this is one of the reasons why it would be good for us to
10:03:01 have some involvement with the county EPC.
10:03:07 >> Thank you.
10:03:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. We need to move resolution number 55.
10:03:18 >> Is that your issue, sir? That was regarding the -- the
10:03:22 fire hydrant maintenance.
10:03:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Daignault.
10:03:32 >> I have some questions. Let me get my paperwork out.
10:03:52 >> In going over the items, it appears that this company is
10:03:59 going to spend two hours on each fire hydrant doing the
10:04:04 testing, the float testing, the painting, putting a marker
10:04:07 on the street, and according to the calculations that I've
10:04:13 come up with, we're looking that this is going to take 24.5
10:04:16 years. How many men do they plan to have on this job? I
10:04:19 know they did submit a piece of paper with some names. I
10:04:25 saw it, but I never got a copy of it.
10:04:28 >> I don't have that with me. I can get you that. You're
10:04:30 correct. They did submit in their proposal a listing of the
10:04:34 people, number of folks that they would be using on this
10:04:37 contract.
10:04:37 >> Right. And as we met yesterday, I asked you some
10:04:40 questions whether these were employees or 1099's, okay,
10:04:44 because yesterday in a meeting with the mayor's office,
10:04:47 everybody on this council, except Mr. Dingfelder, who was
10:04:50 not here, has emphasized they do not want to lay people off.
10:04:54 So therefore I cannot support this ordinance for almost
10:04:59 $700,000. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to do
10:05:02 this job. And I'm sure we're going to have plenty of people
10:05:06 from this city who are going to get laid off and not have a
10:05:09 job. We had 100 people here one day and that morning I was
10:05:13 ready to lay people off. After hearing all the testimony
10:05:16 from these people, I said, I can't lay these people off,
10:05:18 what am I going to do with a 50-year-old man who's been here
10:05:21 20 years? Where's he going to go to work? And this
10:05:25 contract is going to eliminate the people that we have in
10:05:28 this city who are going to get laid off. Like I said, you
10:05:30 don't need to be a rocket scientist to do this job. And I
10:05:34 don't think we should put it -- I know it's out to bid, and






10:05:37 we have a winner, but I cannot support it, and I hope my
10:05:40 council members cannot support this because we are going to
10:05:43 put people out of work. Okay? And looking at all these
10:05:46 figures, it's great to put stuff down on paper, but the way
10:05:51 I calculate it, it's going to take him 24 years to do this
10:05:54 job for $700,000, and it is renewable every year. And I --
10:06:00 I cannot support it and I hope my council members cannot
10:06:03 support it because we are going to lay people off. And I'd
10:06:07 like to make a motion that we reject this bid, this bid
10:06:12 proposal, and we can place people who are going to get laid
10:06:16 off. This has been put on the back burner for years. Every
10:06:21 year we put $350,000 in the fire department for fire
10:06:25 inspections. They've never utilized it. They also put
10:06:28 money in the water department. They used very little of it,
10:06:33 and I presume this money goes back to the general fund. I
10:06:37 don't know how you could co-mingle enterprise fund money
10:06:44 with money from the regular fund, but I asked Bonnie wise
10:06:48 this morning and she explained to me that it does go back.
10:06:51 It doesn't all go back because they utilize some of it. I
10:06:55 took a picture of a water hydrant this morning in my
10:06:57 neighborhood and as you can see part of the jobs they have
10:07:00 to do is to take all the hubs off. There's three hubs and
10:07:03 there's a valve on the top. Most of the hydrants that I see
10:07:08 when I Drive around already have a reflector in the street
10:07:10 which indicates that there's a fire hydrant there. So when
10:07:13 the fire department is driving down the street, they can
10:07:17 visually see that blue marker telling them there's a fire
10:07:21 hydrant on the side of the road. And we've been neglecting
10:07:25 and letting this stuff go. We're lucky we haven't had a
10:07:28 fire where some building burned down and they turned on the
10:07:31 fire hydrant and no water came out. Because we would be in
10:07:35 deep you know what. But I'd like to make a motion that we
10:07:39 reject this bid for the fact that we are going to lay people
10:07:43 off, and I don't want to do that.
10:07:47 >> Second for discussion purposes.
10:07:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
10:07:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'd like to -- it looks like Steve wants
10:07:53 to say something and Brad's here as well, but I'll second it
10:07:56 to keep this discussion going.
10:07:57 >> Well, first of all, council members, you realize it is
10:07:59 the state who requires that these inspections occur, and, in
10:08:04 fact, in 2006, there was a new law that required that they
10:08:07 be inspected annually. So, we have this requirement burden
10:08:12 on us to do this inspection. And as you point out, even if
10:08:17 the state didn't have that requirement, we would want to
10:08:19 make sure that we inspected our hydrants as part of our
10:08:22 water system so that they did work when there was a fire in
10:08:24 the city. There will not be any layoffs as a result of
10:08:30 awarding this contract. Now, we don't have the staff to do
10:08:35 this work. If we were to hire people to do this work
10:08:39 properly, it would take 20 people, ten teams, 20 people that
10:08:45 we do not currently have on our staff, and it would take a
10:08:48 million dollars. If we brought on 20 additional positions,
10:08:53 those positions would have to be competed for in accordance
10:08:57 with the union contract for filling positions. So we
10:09:01 couldn't just take folks who might lose their job as a
10:09:08 result of the budget process in amendment one and just put
10:09:11 them into that position. We just couldn't do that. They
10:09:14 would have to compete for those positions.
10:09:17 >> I wouldn't want to violate the union rules, okay? Let






10:09:21 them compete. And I don't see anything about minority
10:09:24 workers, either, on this contract. All right? I don't
10:09:27 believe this company has the people. Like I said yesterday,
10:09:32 are these subcontractors? Because he is putting money in
10:09:35 here for benefits, okay? And these people are going to have
10:09:38 to live over here for a year. They're all from the west
10:09:41 Palm Beach area, and South of west Palm Beach. It's going
10:09:44 to cost them money. They're making $18 an hour. Okay? I
10:09:48 don't know how they're going to do it. And I -- I don't
10:09:51 think we're going to get our money's worth. We would get
10:09:53 our money's worth if somebody gets laid off, let them bid
10:09:57 for the job. If they're qualified, they should have it.
10:10:01 >> Again, we have gone through all of the proper city
10:10:05 procedures in advertising and in evaluating the proposals
10:10:11 from the bidders in this case. So we've done all of the
10:10:14 city-required processes.
10:10:20 >> Excuse me one second, Mr. Dingfelder. In looking at this
10:10:24 picture, this hydrant is probably five years old. It's
10:10:27 loaded with rust, okay, and this is one of the jobs that
10:10:30 have to take these three hubs up, there's three of them, and
10:10:34 that's the valve that opens up the water for it to come out.
10:10:36 Why should this thing be rusty? And if this passed in '06,
10:10:41 why are we waiting till '08 to implement this? What are
10:10:46 they doing for years? The trouble is there's been neglect.
10:10:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
10:10:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Steve, when you come up with these
10:10:54 numbers, 20 people for -- what did you say, a couple years
10:11:00 or something like that?
10:11:01 >> I said ten teams. 20 people. -- ten two-man teams is
10:11:09 what we believe it would take, and I have the spreadsheet
10:11:11 showing you all the work that would be done under this
10:11:14 contract and the estimated amount of time per process.
10:11:17 We've put that together.
10:11:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And Mr. Caetano indicates that the
10:11:21 contractor is paying his people $18 an hour. I don't know
10:11:25 where -- where that comes from.
10:11:27 >> I don't either.
10:11:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What is your figure based upon, salary?
10:11:34 >> Our figures are based on an average hourly wage for a
10:11:37 city employee of $18. So I think he may be using the
10:11:42 numbers that we've provided him yesterday that includes that
10:11:46 number.
10:11:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Does the $18 include benefits?
10:11:49 >> Plus 30% for benefits.
10:11:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay. And let me look this over and see
10:12:07 if I have any more questions. If I could circle back when
10:12:11 everyone is done, Madam Chair.
10:12:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Miss Mulhern?
10:12:15 >>MARY MULHERN: I just wanted to clarify or ask a question,
10:12:18 Mr. Caetano, when you were talking about 24 years to
10:12:21 complete the inspection, but when we're looking at the
10:12:24 amount we're being asked to approve for this bidder, that's
10:12:29 the year -- is that the contract for the year? That's item
10:12:33 56. That's a one-year contract?
10:12:36 >> That is the amount for one year, and we would expect the
10:12:39 hydrants -- the number of hydrants that we've prescribed in
10:12:42 the specification to be done in a year.
10:12:52 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay. What percentage of the hydrants is
10:12:54 that of the total number? It's all of them? So we could
10:12:57 assume that's what it's going to cost us every year these






10:13:00 inspections need to be done. They're supposed to have been
10:13:06 done yearly, is that correct?
10:13:07 >> Well, up until two years ago, they were being done once
10:13:11 every two years. In 2006, a statute change in the state
10:13:15 level required that they be done annually.
10:13:17 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay. So to do this annually, it's going
10:13:20 to -- that's what it will cost us this year, we can -- if we
10:13:25 do it with a contractor it will cost us more with inflation
10:13:28 and everything onward.
10:13:29 >> That's correct.
10:13:30 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay. Thanks.
10:13:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Miss Saul-Sena?
10:13:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Daignault, what penalty will the
10:13:37 state impose if we don't accomplish this within the year?
10:13:43 >> I'm not sure that I know.
10:13:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I mean, because on one hand --
10:13:51 >> This is Jan Mclean, legal department. There's a
10:13:55 penalty -- there is a requirement, an unfunded mandate that
10:13:59 was put on all local governments in 2006 that these fire
10:14:03 hydrants be inspected by certified fire safety inspection --
10:14:08 inspectors. That's been the statute. We would therefore be
10:14:12 out of compliance with the requirements of the statute.
10:14:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The key word which you shared with us is
10:14:18 unfunded mandate. I just love it when the state tells us we
10:14:21 have to accomplish this, but doesn't give us the resources
10:14:24 with which to accomplish this.
10:14:25 >> I understand. And again there is the risk associated of
10:14:29 not having done that inspection if something should happen
10:14:32 as Mr. Caetano pointed out.
10:14:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I guess the question I have is, and
10:14:39 thank you, Mr. Caetano for your -- I guess the question I
10:14:42 have, one the contract, I guess, and that these have not
10:14:47 been done before, is that right?
10:14:48 >> I'm sorry, sir?
10:14:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: They were supposed to have been doing these
10:14:52 inspections and they have not been doing them?
10:14:54 >> These inspections were done, if you go back four or five
10:14:57 years, they were being done, we had more resources and less
10:15:00 breaks. What has occurred over the last five years or so is
10:15:05 because of other higher priority items in the water
10:15:09 department, we have had to put our attention and our
10:15:11 resources to repairing breaks. So we've gotten away from
10:15:16 doing the regular maintenance like the hydrants. And as
10:15:19 it's gone from two -- or once every two years, now down to
10:15:22 once per year, the requirement is more onerous on us.
10:15:31 Brad's the new department head. He's been here about two
10:15:34 years and so he is trying to make sure that he is doing all
10:15:37 the right things. And again with this state mandate in '06,
10:15:41 this is the way that we can do it within the existing
10:15:43 resources. This is the way we can meet this requirement.
10:15:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay. But also, this end up being the
10:15:50 second bidder, right, this is not just the number one
10:15:54 bidder, right?
10:15:54 >> That is correct.
10:15:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So then we went to the number two bidder.
10:15:58 What was the reason for that?
10:15:59 >> The low bidder did not meet the requirements we
10:16:02 established in the specification for experience.
10:16:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And so the number two bidder was $300,000
10:16:11 more?






10:16:11 >> I believe you're in correct.
10:16:13 >> At first it was 610,000 --
10:16:16 >> I'm sorry, there are 90 -- $89,000 more.
10:16:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay. Let me follow up with another
10:16:24 question. In the RFP, did the WMBE or the office take a
10:16:32 look at this? Were there anything in there to make sure
10:16:34 they comply with the order?
10:16:37 >> Absolutely. Absolutely. Yes, sir. For every contract,
10:16:41 they would review this as well, they would review the
10:16:46 proposals as well.
10:16:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay. Now, I do understand, councilman
10:16:52 Caetano, we cannot tell the administration who to hire at
10:16:56 all, we can only reject the bid, is that right?
10:16:59 >> What you have before you is item 55, which is the budget
10:17:03 amendment to transfer the money for that. Of course, if
10:17:06 council votes down the budget amendment it obviously won't
10:17:09 have the money to do number 56, which is the resolution
10:17:12 which actually approves that bid to the winning bidder. So
10:17:15 they're separate items, but the one before you right now is
10:17:18 the budget resolution followed by the award of the bid.
10:17:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I guess the question is how do we, though --
10:17:25 I mean, I probably agree with you, but my concern is we have
10:17:30 to have these done. I may not agree with you in terms of
10:17:33 what we're saying in terms of the bid, but we can't vote
10:17:37 down the budget amendment if we have to have it done. Do
10:17:41 you understand what I'm saying, council?
10:17:43 >> Mr. Scott, I'd like to interject. Mr. Daignault just
10:17:46 said he didn't have the resources. He had $350,000 in the
10:17:50 fire department budget, and every year, money was put in for
10:17:54 the -- to the water department to do this task. They failed
10:17:58 to do it.
10:17:59 >> Right.
10:18:00 >> They failed. All right? I know Brad has only been there
10:18:03 two years. It may not be his fault, but the money was
10:18:07 there. They did not follow the issue.
10:18:09 >> Let me just clarify. You know, it's not that no hydrants
10:18:13 were inspected. All of the hydrants were not inspected. We
10:18:17 did a -- a number of the inspections. Again, it was not the
10:18:23 dollar resources, it was the people resources that was
10:18:27 difficult.
10:18:28 >> Well, if you have the money in your budget, you can buy
10:18:32 the people. I mean, if you've got money in there to inspect
10:18:34 fire hydrants, $350,000, why did you let it sit there? Go
10:18:38 out and hire some people if you don't have people. We laid
10:18:41 people off not too long ago.
10:18:42 >> Sometimes we can hire extra people and sometimes it's not
10:18:46 so readily available. This is -- again, this is the way we
10:18:50 can get the resources to come to bear on the hydrant issue.
10:18:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I guess my position is, Mr. Smith or
10:19:01 somebody needs to legally advise us here on this issue,
10:19:03 because we have to have the work done. I mean, that's the
10:19:07 state mandated, I heard, right we have to have it done. But
10:19:15 my issue, though, is is what Councilman Caetano is talking
10:19:22 about and that is the opportunity to reject the bid, maybe
10:19:24 have to go back out but maybe allowing the money to be in
10:19:27 the budget. I mean, how do we get there from here?
10:19:31 >> Yes, sir. David Smith, city attorney, and your direct
10:19:35 question was what are your options at this juncture and your
10:19:38 options are to either approve or not approve the contract.
10:19:40 If you choose not to approve the contract, then obviously






10:19:43 the budget measure is not needed either. So I think you
10:19:46 probably need to handle them in somewhat reverse order. If
10:19:49 this council does not want to approve the contract, which it
10:19:51 has the option to do, it's legally entitled to do that under
10:19:54 the charter, then it doesn't go forward. That is how you
10:19:57 would proceed.
10:19:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: But we could approve the budget amendment,
10:20:02 though?
10:20:02 >> You don't have -- no. I don't believe -- I don't believe
10:20:04 that would be -- the budgets amendment would not be
10:20:08 necessary for that -- the budget amendment is only necessary
10:20:10 if you approve the bid, which is number 56. That money
10:20:14 would still be unencumbered or within the present fund where
10:20:18 it is to be designated however the department sees fit in
10:20:22 order to accomplish whatever it needs to accomplish.
10:20:25 >> Let me just put out one more piece of information. This
10:20:27 contract could be terminated with 30 days notice for no
10:20:33 cost. If the city just decided you are not performing, we
10:20:36 don't want to do this anymore, we could terminate this
10:20:39 contract with 30 days written notice, this is a one-year
10:20:42 contract. If this contractor does perform and do the job,
10:20:45 we could extend it for a second or a third year, but again,
10:20:50 if he does not perform, we can end it in 30 days or we can
10:20:53 end it at the end of the first year.
10:20:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Let me ask you a question. Are they hired
10:21:01 locally or are they bringing all the people from west Palm
10:21:04 Beach?
10:21:04 >> I can't answer that question. They indicated some folks
10:21:07 on their -- on their proposal that would come from other
10:21:11 places. They are a local and more regional contractor than
10:21:18 some others that you might look at. They will have to hire
10:21:21 some local folks. But I -- again, we have to be careful
10:21:24 that we don't dictate to the contractor how he does the
10:21:27 work. I mean, that is his -- his responsibility and his
10:21:31 duties. He does have to comply with our requirements, but
10:21:35 how he does the work in the mix of folks is his -- that's
10:21:39 how he makes his money.
10:21:42 >> Madam chairman, I'd like to interject something. When I
10:21:44 started to look at this, I had a phone conference with
10:21:48 Mr. Brad and he informed me that I should not be looking at
10:21:51 this stuff. And I said, what do you mean? This is public
10:21:55 record. These bids were already opened. Maybe I was
10:21:59 stepping on somebody's toes, but that's the way I work. I
10:22:04 do my homework before I start talking, and I don't think
10:22:06 it's right. They say when you go past a fish store if it
10:22:11 smells, don't buy any fish, right? And I'm not buying it.
10:22:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Miss Saul-Sena?
10:22:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you. Mr. Caetano, I really
10:22:19 appreciate you alerting us to this. My bottom line concern
10:22:28 is for getting the hydrants inspected because I think that's
10:22:31 a big safety issue, and I have to say just parenthetically,
10:22:34 that the hydrant in front of my house dripped for five
10:22:37 months. I called and E mailed on a weekly basis. It
10:22:41 finally was repaired. So I definitely see the need to sort
10:22:43 of get on with the repairs. But did -- did HR or someone in
10:22:50 contract administration look at the trade-off between going
10:22:52 out for a contract to do this versus reallocating existing
10:22:58 city employees for this function?
10:23:01 >> The second low bidder, the one that we're proposing to
10:23:05 award the contract to, the bid is $692,000. To do this in






10:23:09 house will be between 900 and a million dollars. 900,000
10:23:14 and a million dollars, and that's based on those numbers,
10:23:18 the $18 per hour, and the benefits and the work tasks that
10:23:24 we would require of this contractor.
10:23:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay. Thank you.
10:23:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
10:23:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you. I had a chance to look at
10:23:32 this. Brad, could I ask you a few questions? I imagine you
10:23:37 probably put this together, or your team.
10:23:39 >> Brad bear, water department director.
10:23:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If council rejected the bid as proposed
10:23:47 by Mr. Caetano -- and let me start off by saying that
10:23:51 Joseph, I respect you greatly for bringing this up, you
10:23:54 jumped on this, you were vigilant about it. You've got a
10:23:57 business background and that's why we're having this healthy
10:24:00 discussion, and I don't know where it's going to go, but I
10:24:02 just want to get some clarifications from Brad. Brad, I'm
10:24:06 going to give you equal compliments. I've worked with you
10:24:09 now for five years and known you for longer and I think
10:24:12 you're extremely competent and capable in every day.
10:24:15 >> Thank you.
10:24:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So, but let me start off with that
10:24:19 question. If council opted not to go this way, you still
10:24:25 have a legislative mandate, you still have a public safety
10:24:28 mandate to do this. How would you do it? How would you
10:24:31 accomplish this mission if -- if council, for whatever
10:24:34 reason, just said, figure it out, Brad.
10:24:38 >> I asked that question to our distribution manager this
10:24:42 morning. The fact is upwards of 90% of our personnel that
10:24:48 work on the pipelines are working every day to repair
10:24:56 breaks, pipeline breaks, to keep the water in the pipeline.
10:24:59 That leaves 10% of the personnel to maintain back flow
10:25:08 prevention devices, fire systems, fire hydrants, meters,
10:25:14 chambers for large meters, on and on and on.
10:25:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay. So you're --
10:25:19 >> It's not enough. Without this contract, I don't think we
10:25:23 can comply with state law or get all the hydrants inspected.
10:25:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But what Mr. Caetano is suggesting,
10:25:33 which I think is perhaps a valid suggestion, is is the other
10:25:36 alternative is that you could add to your work force at some
10:25:43 level to accomplish this task. I mean, clearly your
10:25:46 existing work force is overtaxed, but we have -- we have a
10:25:51 budget to do this, of $700,000, $692,000. So if we gave you
10:25:57 the $692,000 and made the budget transfer, but turned down
10:26:02 item 56, which is contracting out, then you could take that
10:26:06 700 -- $692,000 and hire as many people as you could to
10:26:11 accomplish the task. Isn't that a possibility?
10:26:13 >> That is a possibility for the future. I don't think that
10:26:16 is a viable possibility for this year. I don't see that we
10:26:21 would be able to train those personnel and get that work
10:26:25 done in-house. That's the reality.
10:26:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why is that?
10:26:29 >> Within this year. Which, by December of '08, to get all
10:26:34 of those hydrants done, I don't think that's realistic. It
10:26:40 could be a possibility for future years, I believe.
10:26:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why?
10:26:47 >> Again, in house, we've calculated almost $900,000.
10:26:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We're all suffering budget cuts so what
10:26:57 I'm saying is we've said, okay, we hear you make the claim
10:27:00 for 891,000 to get it done, but if we're saying the only --






10:27:04 all you have in the budget is 692,000, and we're saying do
10:27:08 it in-house, for whatever reason, okay, council says, we're
10:27:13 not going to approve an outside contract, keep it in house,
10:27:16 then you'd have to train the people and you'd have to get it
10:27:19 done, and I think you're -- you're a can-do guy.
10:27:24 >> You'd have to get it done. It would cost us around
10:27:27 900,000, but you would have to not do something else,
10:27:30 whether it's leaking -- you know, fixing leaking pipes,
10:27:35 letting water leak in meters. Whatever it is, there is
10:27:38 other work that would have to fall off the table.
10:27:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where did the $18 per hour come from?
10:27:44 >> It was a figure that was taken from our tech 2 or tech 3
10:27:51 level folks that do that work now.
10:27:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Because that says the average hourly
10:27:55 wage is $18 an hour, but I would suggest that if we started
10:27:59 a new little mini group within your -- within your
10:28:03 department, as Joseph has suggested, you're not talking
10:28:06 about people who have been here X number of years, and have
10:28:11 moved up the ladder, and tech 2 or tech 3 or what have you,
10:28:15 to bring them in at the bottom. What do people start in
10:28:18 that type of area?
10:28:19 >> Yeah. In -- in technician training I think is in the 10,
10:28:24 11, $12 an hour range. So yes, in the future, I think you
10:28:28 could -- you could maybe have some savings associated with
10:28:32 that. I don't think this year that you would be able to do
10:28:37 that. You know, we have -- we're already, you know, several
10:28:41 months into the year, and we have almost 13,000 hydrants in
10:28:49 the City of Tampa, and there are service areas in
10:28:52 Hillsborough county that need to be inspected and serviced.
10:29:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What I'm hearing you say, though, is
10:29:03 starting people out at 10, 11, $12 an hour, we're not
10:29:07 talking about $18 an hour. This is premised on $18 an hour.
10:29:12 >> Right. Those are folks that can do this work today, the
10:29:16 10 and $11 an hour folks need several months of training to
10:29:19 get that done.
10:29:25 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: It won't take you one day to train
10:29:28 somebody to operate this fire hydrant. I don't know where
10:29:31 you're getting your figures from. I'm not a plumber, but
10:29:33 you could train me in one day to open this up and grease the
10:29:39 hubs to put a pressure test on it. It's not a major thing.
10:29:42 I talked to the firemen in many, many cities throughout this
10:29:48 country, the firemen do it. Gainesville just finished
10:29:52 theirs.
10:29:52 >> I understand your position on this. Madam chairman, the
10:29:54 administration is bringing this contract to the council.
10:29:58 We're asking you to approve the funding and the contract.
10:30:02 If you choose not to do that, we'll make other provisions.
10:30:06 I don't know how we're going to get them done. It is not a
10:30:09 good situation to try to add staff at this time. However,
10:30:15 again, if it is the council's choice to approve or
10:30:19 disapprove these two items, if you would take some action,
10:30:22 please, then we'll know how to proceed.
10:30:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. Wait a minute.
10:30:26 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Mr. Daignault, you had money in there for
10:30:29 years and you never utilized it. Okay. Now that you're up
10:30:32 against a wall you're telling us that you can't do it. You
10:30:35 can do it.
10:30:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay, Mr. Caetano, let somebody else speak,
10:30:40 miss Mulhern?
10:30:42 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay. I was just going to say that ask --






10:30:48 when was it that we -- this was brought to light I think by
10:30:51 one of our city beat reporters that we were so behind on
10:30:54 this. Was it two years ago that we realized we were behind
10:30:57 on inspecting the fire hydrants?
10:31:00 >> No. It was in the last six to 12 months. We were not
10:31:05 aware that that law had been changed.
10:31:08 >>MARY MULHERN: Oh, is that what happened? Okay.
10:31:11 >> Most of the state -- we're collaborating the Temple
10:31:14 Terrace and Hillsborough county firefighters. They're all
10:31:16 in the same situation. They're all trying to find a way to
10:31:18 meet this requirement.
10:31:19 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay. Well, I think that's interesting
10:31:21 because I think that in that case, if it takes a little
10:31:27 longer, if we go with your figures, which I think are high
10:31:31 that you're going to have to pay $18 an hour as
10:31:33 Mr. Dingfelder pointed out, we might need to take a little
10:31:37 longer. And I'm guessing that we wouldn't face any kind of
10:31:41 sanction because of that because of the fact that
10:31:46 municipalities were given this unfunded mandate, didn't
10:31:50 realize they had to do it, but my question is why even so
10:31:53 it's taken so long to, you know, just get people on it. And
10:31:59 to start doing it with the resources you had, so I'm going
10:32:02 to support Mr. Caetano's motion because I think that it
10:32:05 really shows that we need to respond to this stuff faster,
10:32:10 and fix it faster. Not have two years of money put from the
10:32:16 fire department. And that's the other question, too. The
10:32:18 money for this, is this all coming from the fire department
10:32:21 into the -- your funds?
10:32:23 >> No. $350,000 is from the fire department. It's been in
10:32:28 their budget annually. All the additional funds come from
10:32:31 the water department, which is an enterprise fund, yes.
10:32:33 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay. So but we have a backup of two years
10:32:37 so we've got $700,000 in there?
10:32:39 >> No. That money goes back to the general fund balance.
10:32:42 It doesn't accrue.
10:32:43 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay. Well, maybe we could get it back from
10:32:46 that balance, which was pretty big after our big tax wind
10:32:49 falls in the last couple of years. I'm just -- I'm going to
10:32:51 support it and ready to vote.
10:32:55 >> May I address the money issue? Because it seems like it
10:32:59 needs some clarification. Every year the fire departments
10:33:04 are invoiced for the hydrant inspection. I'm talking about
10:33:09 Hillsborough county fire hydrant and Tampa -- Hillsborough
10:33:13 county fire department and Tampa fire rescue. The last two
10:33:18 years, when we fell off our mark on maintaining those
10:33:22 hydrants, a credit was given to both fire departments for
10:33:27 the hydrants that were not serviced. So to --
10:33:33 >>MARY MULHERN: So they got the money back?
10:33:35 >> Yes. But every year we're invoiced. Every year they are
10:33:38 invoiced and they pay that bill. For the hydrants that are
10:33:41 serviced.
10:33:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, Madam Chair, this is my second time --
10:33:47 >>MARY MULHERN: Wait. Let me just follow up with one
10:33:49 question. So they were given back part of that 350,000 each
10:33:53 year?
10:33:53 >> That's correct.
10:33:54 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay. Well, maybe they can give it back to
10:33:57 us.
10:33:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay. Madam Chair, this is my second time
10:33:59 speaking and we really need to move, but I want to say this






10:34:02 to us. One is we can't dictate to the administration who to
10:34:12 hire. Under the charter. That's number one. Number two is
10:34:15 we do have the power to reject the contract, and it's up to
10:34:20 the administration to look at how they're going to comply
10:34:23 with the Florida statute. They can go out and rebid this.
10:34:26 There's a number of ways they can consider, but we only have
10:34:30 one option, and that is to reject. Is that right,
10:34:33 Mr. Counsel, Mr. Smith, is that right?
10:34:35 >> Yes, sir. You'll get the same answer from both of us.
10:34:38 That is what's before this body. Either approve or reject
10:34:41 the contract.
10:34:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I just want to understand that, okay? And
10:34:44 the other thing I want to say is that in the budget
10:34:47 amendment, there is no reference to the fire department.
10:34:49 There's no reference here in your budget amendment so I just
10:34:52 want to call that to your attention as well.
10:34:56 >>GWEN MILLER: We got to wrap up, Mr. Dingfelder, we got 30
10:35:00 seconds, that's it. We going to vote it up or vote it down.
10:35:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay. Let me clarify some numbers
10:35:06 because I don't want anybody who's listening out there,
10:35:09 especially our scribes, to get -- to be misled by anything
10:35:16 that's been sed. At $18 an hour, the total work cost
10:35:25 $891,000 if we did it in house. But at $12 an hour, okay,
10:35:29 including 30% benefits, my calculations come out to
10:35:37 $613,000. $613,000. So it appears to me that we can do the
10:35:45 same work if we hire people for less. Maybe we can hire
10:35:48 them on a short -- on a contractual basis in house. So
10:35:54 we're not saying, look, we're going to promise you permanent
10:35:57 employment for the rest of your life or anything like that,
10:35:59 but maybe we can bring people in and start them in the city.
10:36:02 Maybe we can create a different tier of folks like that.
10:36:04 I'm not sure. As Mr. Scott pointed out it's not my place to
10:36:09 figure all that out but I think there are opportunities.
10:36:12 But this is an opportunity to actually save money and do the
10:36:15 same job, okay, because if you -- if we farm it out to DMD
10:36:20 consultants and they come halfway across the state to do
10:36:23 this, it's $692,000. If we do it ourselves and pay these
10:36:28 local folks, who many of which may get laid off and
10:36:32 reemployed with the city doing this task at $12 an hour, we
10:36:35 could do it for $613,000. So not only do I think it's a
10:36:39 wise idea Mr. Caetano, I also think it's a cost-saving idea
10:36:44 and I'll support and second your motion.
10:36:46 >>GWEN MILLER: What do you want to answer that?
10:36:48 >> I think he already did. He said vote it up or down.
10:36:52 >> Okay. My -- I'm not a professional business person, but
10:36:54 I know when you have people doing something, they require
10:36:58 organization and supervision. And I didn't see any money in
10:37:01 the budget before us that reflects any kind of supervision
10:37:04 or administration of this, and I just wondered, is it not
10:37:08 included here? Because that, to me, is an additional maybe
10:37:11 20% of the cost of getting something done.
10:37:14 >> Are you talking about the -- that sheet with the prices
10:37:17 on it?
10:37:18 >> Yes.
10:37:18 >> It does not include supervision. It does not include
10:37:21 travel costs that would also have to be considered to make a
10:37:24 complete apples to apples comparison.
10:37:27 >> Travel costs like vehicles to go to all the --
10:37:30 >> To where all the hydrants are from a central office or
10:37:33 central yard out to the various hydrants throughout the






10:37:36 city, yes, to travel.
10:37:38 >> We already have those vehicles.
10:37:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, but they're busy. I mean, I
10:37:42 think --
10:37:42 >> It's the cost associated with having those vehicles Drive
10:37:46 around, not included in this number.
10:37:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I can't believe that I'm saying let's go
10:37:49 to the private sector instead of doing it in house, but I
10:37:52 just feel like Mr. Baird is completely maxed out in terms of
10:37:59 busyness, and the reason that he came to us to do this to
10:38:04 hire a contractor to take on this responsibility is that
10:38:06 it's a great deal of work and that it needs to be done
10:38:10 within the next year, and his folks are absolutely as busy
10:38:13 as they can be. This is a significant amount of work. It
10:38:16 requires not only the hiring the people, but supervising
10:38:19 them, organizing it, inspecting it. And general
10:38:23 administration. And so to protect our citizens, I'm not --
10:38:31 I'm going to support what's before us. And Mr. Caetano, I
10:38:34 appreciate your initiative, but I just feel like this is the
10:38:37 most efficient way for us to get this done within this time
10:38:40 frame.
10:38:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Caetano make your motion again.
10:38:45 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: My motion is to reject the bid. It was
10:38:47 seconded by Mr. Dingfelder.
10:38:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder, is your motion still second?
10:38:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Absolutely.
10:38:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
10:38:56 >> Just for clarification purposes you're now dealing with
10:38:58 item number 56, is that correct? Mr. Smith's suggestion to
10:39:01 take up that issue.
10:39:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 56.
10:39:04 >> I have a question.
10:39:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion. We going to move
10:39:08 on, miss Mulhern.
10:39:10 >>MARY MULHERN: I just want to ask if this is correct. Miss
10:39:13 Saul-Sena just brought this up or I wouldn't be talking
10:39:16 again, but when you're talking about supervision or transit
10:39:19 and all that, those are things if it's privatized it gets
10:39:22 marked up. If we do it in house there's not going to be a
10:39:25 mark up on it, though.
10:39:27 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed
10:39:31 nay.
10:39:31 >> The purpose of the vote was to reject.
10:39:33 >> I voted nay.
10:39:35 >>CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena voting no.
10:39:39 >> Item 55, I feel like if the water department wants the
10:39:43 money to -- I think that it's really important that the
10:39:46 water do this work, so if they need the $692,000 budget
10:39:51 transfer to do this work in house or however else they're
10:39:53 going to figure it out, then I think that the work has to
10:39:56 get done and we need to give them the money to do it.
10:40:01 >> And Mr. Smith could address that, but it appears that
10:40:04 this is a transfer of money from anticipated revenues to a
10:40:07 particular account that is listed in the resolution as a
10:40:12 transfer to repair and maintenance outside is that is what
10:40:16 is specifically said.
10:40:18 >> So they've got the money in house.
10:40:20 >> In that case, bring it back if you need a budget
10:40:23 transfer.
10:40:23 >> Question. I'll make a motion to deny, but I want to say






10:40:26 that this gives them an opportunity to find ways to ask for
10:40:32 even less money by doing it in house, and we've given them a
10:40:35 lot of suggestions to look at that, and in defense of
10:40:39 Mr. Baird, Mr. Baird is doing his job according to the
10:40:43 instructions of the administration. We have a different
10:40:47 perspective. We'd like them to look -- the water
10:40:53 department, fire department, to look at how they can do this
10:40:56 in house for less money.
10:40:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll second it with a --
10:41:01 >>MARY MULHERN: Just a suggestion.
10:41:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I make a friendly amendment before
10:41:04 you speak, Mr. Scott? Mr. Scott, can I second it and make a
10:41:10 friendly amendment before you speak?
10:41:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.
10:41:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Instead of moving to deny 55, why don't
10:41:16 we just move to strike it from the agenda because it seems
10:41:18 to be irrelevant at this point.
10:41:20 >> Is that what we should do, mart judge?
10:41:23 >>MARTY SHELBY: It would be probably more appropriate to
10:41:26 deny this I would think. Consistent with number 56, rather
10:41:29 than strike it. I believe the administration has it on the
10:41:32 agenda for council action and it would be appropriate for
10:41:34 council to take action.
10:41:37 >> Well, Mr. Daignault, is 55 still relevant? Because it's
10:41:41 out -- it's to send the money outside. Council just denied
10:41:44 56 so I don't know why --
10:41:45 >> I would suggest that we don't need you to do that.
10:41:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can we just strike it from the agenda?
10:41:51 >> No. I would suggest that council suggests that you deny
10:41:56 it.
10:41:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Reverend Scott?
10:41:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We can do that, again, I want to stress from
10:42:03 my standpoint my motion is not to tell the administration to
10:42:05 do the work in-house. I can't -- because of the charter,
10:42:08 you cannot dictate to the administration. What you can do
10:42:11 is deny, and so my vote would be to deny it and then allow
10:42:14 the administration to go out to follow state law. They
10:42:18 under the state law, the mandate to get this done. They
10:42:22 have to find a way to get it done. Whether it's in-house,
10:42:25 whether go back out for bid again or however. That's up to
10:42:28 the administration.
10:42:28 >> That wasn't my motion. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said
10:42:31 that in combination of the motion. The motion is just to
10:42:35 deny it, and I just wanted to -- and Mr. Baird, in support
10:42:40 of his work just say that we're not making a comment on the
10:42:43 work that he's doing and I understand that he's doing what
10:42:45 he's asked to do by the administration so I don't want
10:42:49 anything to reflect badly on him.
10:42:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. We have a motion to deny item 55.
10:42:56 That means that you all can go out for bid again or -- no?
10:43:01 Can't do nothing?
10:43:02 >> Whatever they need to do.
10:43:03 >> They'll figure it out. Okay. All in favor of the motion
10:43:06 say aye. Opposed nay. Okay. All right. We go to item 57.
10:43:14 We need to move the resolution.
10:43:15 >> So moved.
10:43:16 >>GWEN MILLER: A second?
10:43:17 >> Second.
10:43:17 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed
10:43:20 nay. Number 58. I think I hear --






10:43:24 >> David Smith, city attorney. I wanted to bring you up to
10:43:28 date on a couple of things. Unfortunately I got some
10:43:31 material to you late but you should have received today a
10:43:36 bio on an attorney by the name of Colette Holt. She has
10:43:41 been retained by the city to assist us in our ordinance.
10:43:46 Miss Holt is a Yale undergrad and a University of Chicago
10:43:50 law undergrad. She specializes in this area. She has
10:43:55 litigated case ins court throughout the country, she is
10:43:57 recognized as one of the nation's experts in this area.
10:44:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: When you say she's coming on, is that a
10:44:03 consultant or employee or what?
10:44:05 >> She's coming on as counsel. She's a lawyer, she's an
10:44:09 attorney, and you will have a contract before you in that
10:44:11 regard shortly and we scheduled to have her here April 3rd
10:44:16 to meet with this body to talk about these issues and other
10:44:18 things at that time.
10:44:19 >> She's outside counsel?
10:44:21 >> Yes, sir. She's outside counsel. She has some concerns
10:44:24 with the ordinance as it exists currently, some serious,
10:44:27 some not so serious. She's in the process of assisting us
10:44:31 in a re-write. There have been new cases, some of which she
10:44:36 probably was involved in either trying or testifying. She's
10:44:38 also an expert witness. She works on the data side as well.
10:44:41 She's an extremely bright and competent woman, and you will
10:44:44 agree when you meet her. So as I say, we have arranged for
10:44:48 miss Holt to be here April 3rd. She's had an opportunity to
10:44:51 speak with Reverend Scott and she looks forward to have an
10:44:55 opportunity to speak with the rest of you. I believe she's
10:44:59 spoken with Gregory Hart and essentially her recommendation
10:45:02 is to proceed primarily with the SBE component, but we are
10:45:07 going to continue to refine the data process. Data is the
10:45:10 key in this. I know I've probably that is so many times
10:45:14 you're tired of hearing it, but it is. It's what governs
10:45:19 the whole process and she will have the rewrite of the
10:45:21 ordinance done consistent with the case law in the last two
10:45:24 or three years. She may have it done this week, but
10:45:27 certainly by early next week so we'll have it with plenty of
10:45:30 time to let the administration look at it and provide their
10:45:32 comment and to let the council see it so they're aware of
10:45:35 the tweaks that she feels we need to make in this ordinance
10:45:38 to make it both defensible, and in her view there's some
10:45:41 other things we can do we're not currently doing that can be
10:45:44 more aggressive. So obviously what I'm going to be
10:45:46 recommending is that we set the ordinance for first reading
10:45:50 on April 3rd. There will be plenty of discussion
10:45:54 beforehand. And I do think what we should do today is
10:45:57 discuss the issues that this council has already brought up,
10:46:02 councilman Scott has a series of questions, and items that
10:46:05 he wants to have discussed. Others, I believe, councilwoman
10:46:09 Mulhern and councilman Dingfelder in particular, raised some
10:46:13 issues at the last meeting we had so I would recommend that
10:46:15 we have that discussion so that the sense of council with
10:46:19 respect to those issues can be incorporated in this
10:46:22 hopefully last revision that comes for first reading April
10:46:26 3rd. I don't think we could proceed much more rapidly than
10:46:29 that, no matter what, but in this instance, I think we're
10:46:34 going to have a reorganized and a better-presented ordinance
10:46:36 that I think will be more effective, as well as being much
10:46:39 more defensible. So that having been said, if we -- if we
10:46:43 can, we'll just proceed with the questions that this council






10:46:46 had last time, and address those. I've got two that were
10:46:50 within my bailiwick, and I believe Mr. Hart has several that
10:46:55 were really directed to him. And then we have a discussion
10:46:57 related to what Mr. Scott and we spoke about, I think, early
10:47:01 this week. So we've got several components of that. And I
10:47:04 know Reverend Scott has taken the lead on this for
10:47:07 understandable reasons. He's knowledgeable in this area and
10:47:10 has been very helpful. One of the questions that was asked
10:47:14 last time was can we have a local area of preference. The
10:47:17 short answer to that, unfortunately, is no. And the reason
10:47:20 the answer is no is because of our charter. Our charter is
10:47:24 very strong in its statement that we must contract with the
10:47:28 lowest responsive bidder. However, we can deviate from that
10:47:32 when we have a constitutional basis such as we cannot
10:47:37 discriminate and violate the 14th amendment. So generally
10:47:40 speaking we have to go to the lowest responsive bidder.
10:47:44 Now, there's a lot of issues with regard to what constitutes
10:47:47 responsiveness. One of the discussions we had with Reverend
10:47:51 Scott on Monday I think it was can we look at the definition
10:47:54 of responsiveness to take into account other city policies
10:47:57 such as these policies? I don't have a definitive answer
10:48:01 for you on that today. We're going to need to look at that.
10:48:04 I'm going to make sure we get Ms. Holt's input on that. But
10:48:09 irrespective of that, we cannot violate the 14th Amendment
10:48:14 which, among other things, allows for equal protection.
10:48:19 >> I think there's some questions --
10:48:22 >> Well, this isn't about any specifics.
10:48:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Let him finish.
10:48:26 >> Well, can't we ask --
10:48:28 >> No. I want to ask a question. What he just said before,
10:48:31 he launched into the discussion.
10:48:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Reverend Scott asked for the floor first.
10:48:36 So you have to wait, and then miss Saul-Sena, and then you.
10:48:38 Okay. Reverend Scott.
10:48:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I want to go back to your opening
10:48:43 comments and that is in terms of the rewrite now. Council,
10:48:47 what you don't have is a rewrite or some deletion and
10:48:52 correction made by me sent back to the city attorney's
10:48:55 office. I don't think you have had opportunity to see any
10:48:58 of those. I didn't distribute them. I thought that
10:49:02 Mr. Smith would have brought those today. In our meeting on
10:49:06 Monday, we agreed to -- which I gave you a handout, and I
10:49:09 think you have that -- to these -- these areas that move
10:49:14 this ordinance forward. I agree with -- I talked with
10:49:21 Mrs. Holt for an hour on yesterday, and I agree with her
10:49:24 coming before us April the 3rd to help strengthen this or to
10:49:28 make it better. I just want to be careful that we don't
10:49:31 throw the whole thing out and start this process over again.
10:49:35 That's not what I'm --
10:49:36 >> No, sir. We not going to do that.
10:49:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay. Because that's not where I am. I'm
10:49:42 for Mr. Smith all the things we talked about ob Monday, and
10:49:46 one is incorporate most of the suggestions that are here.
10:49:54 That's the exception of the meeting which we talked about on
10:49:57 Monday, incorporate is SBE subcontract, which you can move
10:50:03 forward on that which we agreed on Monday, right? Put in
10:50:06 there the good faith effort, a requirement, and then you
10:50:10 just talked about this whole issue of the responsiveness,
10:50:12 that sort of thing, and then also we mentioned about
10:50:16 creating a waiting point system and then the other last






10:50:20 issue was -- which is very important, is you look at the
10:50:26 data, which she stressed very heavy yesterday that you -- if
10:50:32 you challenge legally, you gotta have something in place to
10:50:35 support, you know, your ordinance and your data. And that's
10:50:40 very important. And what this administration has to
10:50:42 understand -- this administration need to understand that.
10:50:49 And in terms of the system they use, automated system and
10:50:52 how it works and also that the way we're structured that I
10:50:56 guess contract -- is it contract administration that they
10:50:58 have to understand the importance of this whole WMBE issue
10:51:03 that's here. I will tell you, based on my conversation with
10:51:06 her, on yesterday, she told me, without doing a study,
10:51:09 period, she could come in here and find out even on the
10:51:13 subcontracting level, this whole issue of discrimination and
10:51:18 all that, and I think you had that conversation with her as
10:51:20 well. Now, so I won't go into all the specific details of
10:51:23 that. My point is to make sure that we move forward with
10:51:26 the ordinance, we include these changes, we bring her in and
10:51:29 let -- allow her to redraft, whatever you want to do to
10:51:36 strengthen this particular ordinance. I think we agreed to
10:51:38 that on Monday.
10:51:39 >> Yes, Reverend Scott and I did send to her your version of
10:51:43 the ordinance with the changes with the understanding that
10:51:45 she should incorporate those as much as possible and meet
10:51:47 the test. So that's exactly how we're proceeding.
10:51:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So on Monday, we were in agreement,
10:51:55 Mr. Smith, and, you know, the motion was that we meet with
10:51:58 Greg Hart and Mr. Smith and Mr. Shelby, and we did that on
10:52:01 Monday, and spent quite a bit of time reviewing this, and we
10:52:04 came to some consensus and agreement. So I am for moving
10:52:11 forward, and if you don't mind, Madam Chair I need to ask
10:52:14 Mr. Hart if he would come forward and tell us a little bit
10:52:17 more about his operation in terms of the data gathering, you
10:52:20 know, his staff and all that because that is a key component
10:52:23 on making sure that this gets done.
10:52:25 >> Good morning. Gregory Hart, manager minority business
10:52:29 development. Council, we currently have in place a system
10:52:35 which we refer to as Vets, it's a vendor eligibility
10:52:38 tracking system. Essentially what that does for our office
10:52:42 is it registers those firms that we have certified into an
10:52:46 automated system. We're able to distinguish and determine
10:52:50 those status, whether it's an SBE, a WMBE, whether it's
10:52:58 female owned or minority owned. We also are able to enter
10:53:02 some data, which if that firm is party to a bid, we can note
10:53:07 that in the system. It's a very limited system. And as you
10:53:11 know we're also working on this management information
10:53:18 system that would be implemented enterprise wide. It would
10:53:21 allow for your other systems such as ad picks, your
10:53:26 financial management system out of finance and budget, your
10:53:29 procurement system, which is ad picks, and a number of other
10:53:32 systems to talk to one another, to interface. All those
10:53:37 systems provide limited information, which is essential to
10:53:41 my office and our ability to collect data and analyze it for
10:53:46 SBE and WMBE participation. Having said all that, our
10:53:50 capabilities right now are very limited, and there needs to
10:53:56 be continued emphasis as there currently is, on developing a
10:53:59 system that's going to meet the test that's required under
10:54:02 judicial guidance, and that's where we are.
10:54:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And she recommended, as Mr. Smith snow, she
10:54:09 recommended several software programs that could do that in






10:54:13 the range of 25 to $35,000. So -- but -- yeah. Yeah. As
10:54:21 Mr. Smith said, she'll be coming in on the 3rd and she can
10:54:24 help enlighten us more on this particular issue. Her
10:54:28 background, this is all she do for a living. This is it.
10:54:30 She work under the former mayor Washington, as well as
10:54:36 daily, and now she goes throughout the country. She's been
10:54:39 to Minnesota, Pittsburgh, Seattle, San Antonio, Maryland,
10:54:43 and she's redrafted, redone their ordinance, and it will
10:54:47 stand the test all the way to the supreme court as my
10:54:54 discussion with her, so we definitely want to make sure that
10:54:57 she is involved, and thank you Mr. Smith for contacting and
10:55:00 bringing her on board and trying to help us remove this
10:55:02 ordinance. You really reached out, and hit a homerun on
10:55:09 this.
10:55:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you. Mr. Smith, you said that the
10:55:16 reason that we couldn't provide any kind of hometown
10:55:19 preference is because the charter had language precluding
10:55:23 that.
10:55:24 >> The charter has language requiring lowest responsive
10:55:28 bidder we selected, yes, ma'am.
10:55:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay. We are, as city council, talking
10:55:33 about putting some charter changes on the ballot and this
10:55:36 would afford us the opportunity to change that language,
10:55:39 which it sounds like it's a pretty minor change. Could we
10:55:42 direct you to do that?
10:55:43 >> You certainly can direct me to do almost anything, but we
10:55:47 could -- if you would like, I could look -- bring the
10:55:51 charter provision to you and explain its applications.
10:55:54 Actually, Marcy Hamilton has done a memorandum on this so
10:55:57 let me get you that memorandum first, and then you can see
10:56:00 what you want to do.
10:56:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay. What I would like to do is to do
10:56:03 whatever we need to do to the city charter to -- so that we
10:56:07 could provide some hometown preference based on what other
10:56:11 cities have done. I think that it -- keeping money within
10:56:18 our community benefits us all and other cities I know have
10:56:21 done this, and if the stumbling block is language in our
10:56:24 charter, if you could bring us improved charter language for
10:56:28 council to consider, that's what I would like you to do.
10:56:31 >> Yes, ma'am.
10:56:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
10:56:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Miss Mulhern?
10:56:36 >>MARY MULHERN: That was one of my questions, what the
10:56:38 language was that would preclude it. And I think this is
10:56:46 something that has to do with economic development, too, so
10:56:49 it's not just in relation to this ordinance. My question,
10:56:51 although councilman Scott did answer some of my questions,
10:56:56 but I find it curious that at this late date when 're
10:57:05 supposed to be ready to pass this first reading we're
10:57:07 suddenly hiring outside counsel, and I'd like to know how
10:57:10 that happened. That we're hiring someone now.
10:57:13 >> Sure. That's an excellent question. Let me attempt to
10:57:18 explain it. Essentially the approach I had is identical to
10:57:20 the description that miss Holt provided to me when we spoke
10:57:24 most recently and that is we were going to move forward
10:57:27 vigorously with the SBE components. We were going to make
10:57:33 sure then that our data and our data systems and information
10:57:36 were improved, enhanced, enforced and reinforced. Because
10:57:41 you may remember my approach was SBE now, and immediately
10:57:45 within 12 to 16, 18 months, when we have the data that






10:57:48 supports it, we trigger the WMBE component. We may end up
10:57:53 especially with the same thing. Miss Holt is of the opinion
10:57:55 that we should not front load the ordinance. But I'll let
10:57:58 her explain to you why that's the case.
10:58:01 >>MARY MULHERN: Not front load? What do you mean by that?
10:58:04 >> Do not have the WMBE provisions in there until you're
10:58:08 ready to put them in there. So what I was trying to do is
10:58:11 respond as much as I felt I legally could to this council's
10:58:16 preferences. I heard what you wanted to legally occur, and
10:58:19 I understood why, and those were noble goals, so what I did
10:58:24 was I put it in there with the idea that when the data
10:58:28 supported it, those would apply. And part of the problem is
10:58:32 you really can't do anything in the prime area at all very
10:58:36 effectively, but I think we can be more aggressive in the
10:58:39 subcontract area than I thought we could. It really does
10:58:42 help to get an expert opinion on this issue.
10:58:46 >>MARY MULHERN: Well I'm glad to hear that but I'm not glad
10:58:48 to hear that we're now revisiting again the language, the
10:58:53 WMBE language, women and minority businesses. Because
10:58:56 that's -- thought what we directly asked to do, and we -- we
10:59:01 have been delaying this whole thing, so to suddenly have
10:59:03 this outside person, and I think it's great if we have
10:59:06 someone who's a specialist in data systems to help us comply
10:59:10 with, you know, whatever possible things might come up,
10:59:15 that's -- that's great. But, you know, I just think that we
10:59:24 should go ahead with what we asked to be written and maybe
10:59:26 she can just help us with the system stuff. That's fine
10:59:29 with me, but I don't -- you know, I don't think that we need
10:59:32 to bring in outside counsel to now change the language,
10:59:36 which we've been working on for over a year, I think.
10:59:40 Before I was here, it started, right?
10:59:43 >> Yes, it did.
10:59:44 >>MARY MULHERN: So I just think it's really a late date
10:59:47 to -- if this new counsel is going to tell us we need to
10:59:50 back off on a language. I'm not ready to do that.
10:59:56 >> Let me clarify. She's not -- she's not just a data
11:00:00 analyst. She has those capacities. She's an attorney. She
11:00:04 was a city attorney in Chicago, and I think as councilman
11:00:09 Scott indicated she worked under mayor Washington.
11:00:12 >> That was a long time ago.
11:00:13 >> It was a long time ago. It tells you she's been doing
11:00:16 this for a long time. But believe me this woman is
11:00:19 extremely experience, she's very knowledgeable.
11:00:22 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm sure she is but, you know, we're making
11:00:25 policy decisions here and University of Chicago not exactly
11:00:28 the most liberal-minded law school.
11:00:31 >> Well, I believe one of our presidential candidates taught
11:00:35 there. Barack Obama was a professor there. He's not
11:00:37 exactly seen as a conservative, but be that as it may, you
11:00:40 know -- having attended the University of Chicago, I can
11:00:45 tell you you have all kinds there, but you do have --
11:00:48 economically they're very conservative.
11:00:50 >>MARY MULHERN: I shouldn't have said that, but I just had
11:00:53 to get that dig in because it just seems like it's such a
11:00:56 late date to be bringing in --
11:00:58 >> And I understand that.
11:01:00 >>MARY MULHERN: -- more legal advice.
11:01:02 >> Right. But believe me, I think we're going to end up
11:01:04 with a better product as a consequence of it, and I think
11:01:07 it's going to -- because one thing, we are making policy






11:01:10 decisions but we are also making legal decisions and it's
11:01:14 imperative that one of the things that came out of my
11:01:16 discussions with miss Holt that I shared with councilman
11:01:19 Scott the other day, and this happened in Chicago, their
11:01:21 ordinance at one time was thrown out, and when you have an
11:01:24 ordinance that's thrown out or successfully challenged in
11:01:27 any way, compliance just falls off the table. It's a
11:01:30 terrible thing. It's the worst thing you can do for the
11:01:32 policy you want to effectuate here. We need to make sure
11:01:39 that we do not have that occur, because Chicago now is -- I
11:01:43 think it took them five to eight years, a huge period of
11:01:46 time, to get the program reinitiated. So we are four weeks
11:01:50 away from her being here. So I think you are going to
11:01:53 appreciate what you see. I think it's going to accomplish
11:01:55 all of the objectives you can legally accomplish, and that's
11:01:59 all we can do so we are going to have a better product, a
11:02:03 product that meets your policy priorities to the maximum
11:02:05 extent we can legally, and I think that is what you should
11:02:08 want and that is what you will get.
11:02:10 >>GWEN MILLER: I agree, Mr. Smith. We have been working on
11:02:13 this a long time, ever since I've been on council, but I'd
11:02:17 rather wait and make sure we have everything that's in there
11:02:19 that we need to have in there, rather than just pass an
11:02:23 ordinance just to say we have one because like you say if it
11:02:28 fails we're going to be starting back again, so we want to
11:02:33 make sure that it's what we need, so I'd rather just wait
11:02:37 and let's go on ahead and April 3rd listen to her and then
11:02:40 see everything that we need to do then, we'll do it, and
11:02:43 then we'll pass it on. So I don't think we should just rush
11:02:45 into this and then say, oh, we didn't do this, I'd rather
11:02:51 wait and make sure we got everything. We waited this long,
11:02:56 I'd rather wait some more.
11:03:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I want to assure you that it's not a
11:03:03 rewrite. That's the ordinance she's working on now, so it
11:03:05 is not a rewrite.
11:03:06 >> Rewrite is probably the incorrect term.
11:03:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: She's making sure that I guess from a lawyer
11:03:11 standpoint that it's legally defensible, I guess it is,
11:03:15 something along those lines, or it withstand the test in
11:03:24 court, and also these changes will be incorporated based on
11:03:27 our conversation on Monday, so it's not a rewrite. I
11:03:33 think -- I felt good after talking to her and hearing her
11:03:37 out and giving her an opportunity to take a look at this and
11:03:40 structure it that we can move forward. The data has to be
11:03:45 right as well. She put a lot of emphasis on that and the
11:03:49 software and so forth and so on. And so from that
11:03:52 standpoint, I was open. So I want to make sure that council
11:03:57 and the community understand that we are not starting over.
11:04:02 That's not the right phraseology.
11:04:05 >> Correct.
11:04:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We're moving forward with the ordinance,
11:04:08 April the 3rd, this is my motion, that we move forward with
11:04:11 the first read of the ordinance on April the 3rd.
11:04:14 >> Second.
11:04:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: For time certain. She specified she wants
11:04:18 to be here, but she wants to do it in the morning.
11:04:21 >> Yes, sir. She's coming in the night before and leaving
11:04:23 on Thursday.
11:04:24 >>GWEN MILLER: What time do you want to do it Mr. Smith?
11:04:27 >> Whatever council wants to do in the morning.






11:04:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I would say more 10:30, probably, 10 or
11:04:34 10:30. So the motion would be that we move -- we I'd like
11:04:40 to move that we have the first reading of the ordinance on
11:04:43 April the 3rd. Mrs. Holt being here --
11:04:46 >>GWEN MILLER: At 10:30.
11:04:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 10:30. Miss Holt be here to address counsel
11:04:52 as well, and we allocate at least a 30 minute block of time
11:04:58 at least 30 minutes you would need to discuss this and then
11:05:01 we can actually move forward. So I want the community to
11:05:03 understand that we're moving forward with the ordinance. We
11:05:05 just have someone that's -- Mr. Smith has retained who has a
11:05:09 lot of expertise in this area. That's all she does for a
11:05:12 living. And I was very impressed with her credentials. I
11:05:17 was very impressed with talking to her. She's also hired by
11:05:21 the aviation authority. She's working with them as well.
11:05:23 And I can't stress enough, though, to this council and to
11:05:26 the administration the importance of Mr. Hart's position,
11:05:31 the data collection. She referenced all of that. That's
11:05:35 very crucial. Very important for this ordinance. You can
11:05:38 have any kind of ordinance you want to, but if you don't
11:05:40 have the data, if you don't have the staffing in place, it's
11:05:44 just got something on a piece of paper.
11:05:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion.
11:05:49 >> Yeah. I'm the one that was giving advice, not databases
11:05:52 so I'm totally in favor of us tracking what we're doing.
11:05:56 What I -- to be ready to vote on this on April 3rd, though,
11:06:02 I would like to see, as councilman Scott mentioned, we still
11:06:07 don't have the ordinance. I need to see the ordinance that
11:06:10 we're going to be voting on two weeks before we vote on it.
11:06:14 I need to see red lined all of the changes suggested by us,
11:06:22 and then maybe blue lined how they've been changed, because
11:06:25 I'm not going to be ready to vote on it unless I have time
11:06:29 to digest all this, and I'd like to be able to speak with
11:06:32 this attorney if I have questions before she comes here for
11:06:35 us to vote on it.
11:06:37 >> And we will provide you that information, that kind of
11:06:39 detail.
11:06:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
11:06:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just wanted to compliment Reverend
11:06:47 Scott in regard to his hard, hard work and the, you know,
11:06:52 dozens or hundreds of hours he's putting in to this. We all
11:06:55 appreciate it. We appreciate your experience coming over
11:06:58 from the county on this issue, and making this a better
11:07:00 ordinance for our city and our community. Thank you.
11:07:04 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and a second on the floor.
11:07:07 All in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed nay.
11:07:10 Mr. Smith?
11:07:11 >> I was just going to say I would be remiss not to mention,
11:07:13 you have an incredible staff, Gregory Hart is extremely
11:07:17 knowledgeable. He knows what he's doing. He worked very
11:07:20 hard and very well and he's a pleasure to work with.
11:07:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:07:24 >> I just want to make that known.
11:07:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Miss Saul-Sena?
11:07:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you. I would like to request that
11:07:29 the legal department, when they come back, legal department,
11:07:31 when the legal department comes back to us on the -- with
11:07:34 the city charter changes, that you bring us some language to
11:07:37 consider that would allow us to include a preference to
11:07:45 local businesses.






11:07:50 >> Is that a motion?
11:07:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's a motion.
11:07:53 >> Second.
11:07:54 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and a second.
11:07:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Smith indicated some questions
11:07:58 legally, but obviously if he can do it legally, he'll do it.
11:08:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, this is when we come back to change
11:08:06 considerations.
11:08:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But he said it's possible we could even
11:08:11 interpret the existing language.
11:08:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, he's competent he'll share with
11:08:14 us, but also other people do this. Other communities do
11:08:17 this so we can see how they do it.
11:08:20 >> Right. David Smith, city attorney. Our primary
11:08:24 impediment to doing this is our charter. I will provide you
11:08:27 immediately a memorandum of the explanation of why that's
11:08:31 the case, and I understand miss Saul-Sena's motion is to
11:08:34 bring back to this council language that would alter the
11:08:36 charter in a way that would allow geographic preference.
11:08:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
11:08:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And you mentioned earlier about
11:08:44 discussing that, lowest responsive bidder, it just seems
11:08:47 obvious to me that it's responsive to what? It's responsive
11:08:50 to your bid. So if your bid and even your ordinance, you
11:08:53 know, says that we're going to have local preference, and
11:08:56 then your bid goes out and says, you know, in order to be
11:08:59 responsive, you have to be within the following five
11:09:01 counties, then if they're not the following five counties,
11:09:04 they're not responsive, and I really don't understand why
11:09:07 it's a bigger issue than that.
11:09:09 >> You hit the key issue without probably even reviewing the
11:09:12 charter. The problem in the charter is the way it
11:09:14 references how things will occur by ordinance, but,
11:09:21 nonetheless, consistent with the charter. So -- anyway,
11:09:24 I'll explain it to you and give it to you.
11:09:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What we really want is not the existing
11:09:29 problems. What we really want is the solution.
11:09:31 >> Solution. Exactly.
11:09:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Miss Mulhern?
11:09:33 >> And I'll second.
11:09:35 >>MARY MULHERN: I have to say that in support of what
11:09:38 Mr. Dingfelder was saying, it seems to me that all we need
11:09:41 to do is change the language in the ordinance.
11:09:43 >> We will get you an explanation.
11:09:46 >>MARY MULHERN: If we somehow refer to it being a responsive
11:09:49 bid, the fact of it being incorporating these things, it
11:09:54 might be that we could do that within the ordinance. So
11:09:56 maybe you could look at that, too.
11:09:58 >> You're correct. There's a key term in there that talks
11:10:02 about the methodology used and it references an ordinance,
11:10:05 but there's a question as to whether how that interacts --
11:10:09 let me give you the memorandum, you'll understand the
11:10:12 predicament, and then we can understand the solution.
11:10:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Reverend Scott?
11:10:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: This issue came up again at the county
11:10:20 commission, there was a move to do that and we were told
11:10:22 that we could not do it constitutionally, okay? That's
11:10:25 number one. Number two, you know, here again is different.
11:10:28 Secondly, a lot of the business people in the community came
11:10:31 out and asked us to not do it because there are






11:10:35 repercussions for doing that. So I'm just telling you. I
11:10:39 mean, people came out in large numbers, so please, don't --
11:10:43 you don't want to do that. They have serious repercussions
11:10:51 when you do that.
11:10:52 >>GWEN MILLER: There's a motion on the floor. All in favor
11:10:54 of the motion say aye. Opposed nay. Okay. Item number 60.
11:11:01 >> Madam chairman and council I'm prepared and I'm going to
11:11:04 move forward with the star program or star presentation.
11:11:06 However, if you'd Iraq to clean up items 12, 14 and 41, we
11:11:11 have the people to do that at this time.
11:11:13 >>GWEN MILLER: All right. Let's do it.
11:11:15 >> Okay. Item number 12 is an item to look at the
11:11:19 possibilities, what possible solutions there could be for
11:11:23 the Dale Mabry, Henderson and Neptune project. It is
11:11:33 nothing more than that. We're going to be looking at
11:11:37 potential solutions and evaluating those possible solutions.
11:11:48 >> Thank you. The people we hire to look at things tend to
11:11:52 follow the specific request like just look at this street
11:11:55 and they'll look at that street. What I want to ensure in
11:11:57 their evaluation is that they also look at the ancillary
11:12:01 repercussions of potential recommendations, specifically
11:12:05 such as you remember there had been a conversation about
11:12:09 locating a very large pipe down sterling which would have
11:12:12 upset the entire tree canopy. It's important that when
11:12:16 they're looking, you know, under the subsurface at these
11:12:20 pipe decisions that they really consider the above-ground
11:12:24 implications and have that as part of their thinking. So
11:12:27 what I need you to tell us as council is if we support this
11:12:32 contract, how will we be assured that these professionals
11:12:39 will consider these other implications of their study?
11:12:42 >> We're very sensitive to all of those issues. We're going
11:12:46 to, as we move forward with other projects like the CX pipe,
11:12:51 like the 12th street force main, all of those. All of these
11:12:55 things are considered, are dealt with, or are dealt with
11:12:58 with the community. So we will continue to do that.
11:13:01 Again, we've given them a lot of parameters within which to
11:13:05 stay, and they, again, are very sensitive to what the
11:13:09 discussion was last time.
11:13:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Perhaps the way to proceed, then, is for
11:13:17 you to commit to council that you'll come back -- that the
11:13:20 public -- the public needs to not only be informed of the
11:13:23 results. Approximate public needs to be communicated with
11:13:28 as part of the process, with their input sought. So you can
11:13:33 figure out how to do that, but it's really important that
11:13:36 you're -- that you communicate with the public, and with
11:13:39 council as part of this analysis.
11:13:42 >> I understand.
11:13:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
11:13:46 >>MARY MULHERN: I think for all of our sakes, since this is
11:13:52 such a sensitive thing, maybe if we could see the RFP and
11:13:55 the work order, to see what the work exactly that they're
11:13:58 going to be doing is, and that could be more -- if this had
11:14:03 been put on the consent agenda maybe we would have had that
11:14:06 and could have looked at that.
11:14:07 >> It is on the consent agenda and I think it's all in
11:14:11 there.
11:14:11 >>MARY MULHERN: I mean, I don't mean on the consent agenda.
11:14:15 I don't have it. Maybe I didn't get it printed out. Maybe
11:14:23 you could tell us exactly what it says. A summary?
11:14:25 >> Again, we're very sensitive to all of those issues.






11:14:28 We're not going to be bringing back to council anything that
11:14:31 does not address all of those issues. This -- this will
11:14:35 only look at the possible engineering solutions considering
11:14:40 where these things would have to go through. So in other
11:14:42 words, we will be looking at, instead of a huge box, we'll
11:14:47 be maybe looking at smaller boxes in different directions.
11:14:51 We really want to do brain storming, open the doors, look at
11:14:54 all the possibilities. Storage underground. Maybe we won't
11:14:58 fix the problem. Maybe we will help the problem. So again,
11:15:02 we are -- we're bringing the bayside folks in and we're
11:15:05 giving them a blank slate, opening the door and saying, you
11:15:09 know, what could -- what could we do to fix this thing or to
11:15:12 help it?
11:15:14 >>MARY MULHERN: So they're looking at alternatives.
11:15:16 >> Exactly.
11:15:17 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay. That's helpful. And is this a
11:15:21 different company that did the last study that resulted in
11:15:24 the Neptune proposals or discussion?
11:15:27 >> They were involved early on, but they were not the
11:15:29 company that started doing the engineering evaluation and
11:15:35 surveying. They are not that company.
11:15:37 >>MARY MULHERN: Are they the ones that recommended it,
11:15:39 though, to do that big culvert?
11:15:42 >> I couldn't say that they were. Again, they were involved
11:15:45 early on with hydraulic issues of, you know, how do we have
11:15:50 to move this and where does it have to go from that
11:15:53 intersection.
11:15:55 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay. But they're looking at different
11:15:59 things this time.
11:16:00 >> They are very knowledgeable of the issues already
11:16:03 involved, and they don't have to come up on a learning
11:16:07 curve. So they're kind of at the end. They are very,
11:16:10 again, aware of the problems and difficulties that was
11:16:13 discussed before, and they know -- again, they're sensitive,
11:16:16 we're sensitive on trying to find out acceptable solutions.
11:16:22 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay. Is there a way that we can at all
11:16:26 allow the public, the neighborhood, to follow what's
11:16:31 happening?
11:16:36 >> I think it would be a good thing if we would allow
11:16:40 bayside engineering to look at some possibilities and come
11:16:43 back to us. Let's let them, again, do what they can do to
11:16:47 see what will help or solve this problem, and then we'll
11:16:50 lack at those possibilities. And that's all we've asked
11:16:53 them to do.
11:16:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
11:16:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Steve, you and I have been down this
11:17:00 muddy path before, and I know we agree completely, just like
11:17:08 we agree on the Gators. We can agree completely. We don't
11:17:12 want to go where we've been before on this. However, the
11:17:16 last time we hired the contractor, we paid him a lot more
11:17:20 than this and sort of gave them a carte blanche and we ended
11:17:25 up with some very --
11:17:28 >>MARY MULHERN: Less than satisfactory?
11:17:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Neighborhood unfriendly solutions. I
11:17:38 haven't had a chance to look at the scope of work on this.
11:17:41 I'd feel more comfortable putting this off for two weeks.
11:17:46 It doesn't look like there's any urgency because it has been
11:17:49 sort of back burnered for the last year or two, and I would
11:17:55 like to just back burner it for two weeks so I can look at
11:17:59 the scope of work, so I can have a chance to chat with






11:18:01 Mr. Daignault and see where we think we're headed, and give
11:18:05 this -- you know, just slow this down a little bit because
11:18:08 the last thing I want to do is have these neighborhoods come
11:18:15 screaming and calling all seven much of us, including you,
11:18:21 and saying what are we doing. So why don't we just put it
11:18:24 off for two weeks so we can understand what we're looking at
11:18:28 and what we're not looking at. With that I would just move
11:18:31 to defer it 12 for two weeks.
11:18:34 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and a second. All in favor
11:18:36 of the motion say aye. Opposed nay.
11:18:40 >> Thanks, Steve. I think it's in the best interest of all
11:18:45 of us.
11:18:46 >> Okay. Item 14.
11:18:49 >> Good morning, council members. Item 14 is the agreement
11:18:55 in front of you between city and the consulting company, and
11:19:01 they were -- this is to manage one of the three recycling
11:19:07 grants we received from DEP, and this is for $56,000 worth
11:19:14 of work they will be doing, and we -- they are doing, you
11:19:21 know, two other consulting work, they are doing with the
11:19:24 other two grants and, you know, they are -- you know, very
11:19:29 specialized in this area and they are the one who
11:19:32 actually -- again, let me explain what this grant is about.
11:19:36 This is a grant called race to recycle and this is what we
11:19:40 use to educate and give the information for the public event
11:19:49 recycling. That is what we used for the Gasparilla cleanup
11:19:53 and, you know, the Gasparilla distance classic and all that
11:19:57 type of events, and so they will be continuing to work with
11:20:01 us to, you know, develop a program and, you know, develop
11:20:08 education and all that, so that's what this plan is all
11:20:12 about.
11:20:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
11:20:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Vijay and I pulled this just
11:20:18 because the recycling part of it jumped out at me. I think
11:20:22 we obviously all need to do a better job at recycling as
11:20:25 much as we can but I think I read somewhere or I was told
11:20:28 this, they said that when our waste stream at McKay bay
11:20:35 incinerator gets to a certain point, and I assume if it's if
11:20:42 our garbage is too wet, on some occasions we have to take
11:20:48 our newspaper and everything and put it in the to the
11:20:51 incinerator stream and burn it. Is that just idle gossip
11:20:56 and rumor?
11:20:57 >> That's rumor.
11:20:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Had you heard that rumor before?
11:21:00 >> No, I hadn't.
11:21:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It sort of seemed mind boggling to me
11:21:04 that we put it in the blue bins, and some of it might end up
11:21:09 at McKay bay.
11:21:10 >> The recycling materials doesn't go to McKay bay at all.
11:21:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So you never divert the McKay bay -- the
11:21:17 recycling stream over to the incinerator under any
11:21:20 circumstances?
11:21:20 >> No, not at all.
11:21:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay. Thank you.
11:21:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Miss Mulhern?
11:21:26 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm glad you described exactly what they're
11:21:29 going to be doing. And have they -- did they work on this
11:21:33 program for the events before?
11:21:35 >> Yes.
11:21:35 >>MARY MULHERN: This is a continuation of work they were
11:21:38 already doing? And does that end up being -- and I know






11:21:42 it's been really successful the last few years for
11:21:46 Gasparilla, especially. Is that our staff that does it or
11:21:49 is there is this consultant --
11:21:58 >> They do some work. They do some work. We don't have
11:22:01 enough staff to do all the work. They don't do recycling.
11:22:04 >>MARY MULHERN: That's what I was questioning. The
11:22:08 recycling, the collection part, is that in-house?
11:22:11 >> In-house.
11:22:12 >>MARY MULHERN: Is all of our recycling pickup in-house?
11:22:16 >> Yes.
11:22:17 >>MARY MULHERN: And I was wondering about this when we were
11:22:19 talking about the whole issue of the garbage, increasing the
11:22:22 rates for the solid waste pickup, is anyone in your
11:22:26 department looking at increasing the kinds of things that we
11:22:33 can collect into recycling? Solid waste recycling?
11:22:40 >> Yes, actually. And we wanted to get the participation
11:22:44 rate increased and one of the things we were thinking about
11:22:47 is rather than separating the items, put everything in one
11:22:52 container so, you know, and that -- and then, of course, we
11:23:03 are thinking about having some incentive to do that, like a
11:23:06 different tier rate system, talking about doing -- that
11:23:10 computer things we can do to raise the participation. But
11:23:15 while we're doing that, we need a bigger container and then
11:23:18 we need to, you know, change the whole way of doing that
11:23:21 business. That is we need to automate that collection
11:23:26 because if you have bigger containers, manual collection is
11:23:28 not going to be an option.
11:23:31 >>MARY MULHERN: So at this point, the people on the trucks
11:23:33 are actually separating our recycling?
11:23:36 >> Correct.
11:23:37 >>MARY MULHERN: Because the consumers put it in one bin,
11:23:40 then our garbage or recycling pickup has to do that.
11:23:43 >> They do. They do separate that.
11:23:45 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay. So that's a big -- that's part of
11:23:49 your big picture plans, right?
11:23:50 >> Correct.
11:23:51 >>MARY MULHERN: What about for automating? That goes along
11:23:55 with the whole -- is that part of the whole automating
11:23:59 process?
11:23:59 >> That's what Vijay was talking about. If we automated it
11:24:06 then there would be no separation of those streams by the
11:24:08 truck driver and that would be going to one stream.
11:24:11 >>MARY MULHERN: And would that allow us -- because I know
11:24:13 there are things that other areas are able to recycle that
11:24:16 we are still limited in what we can put in there. Are we
11:24:21 ever going to be --
11:24:22 >> We have on our Web site all the items that are
11:24:26 recyclable, glass, aluminum, metals, as well as all the
11:24:30 plastics.
11:24:30 >>MARY MULHERN: Right. But there's like paper and
11:24:34 cardboard.
11:24:35 >> Correct. Again, there's a listing on our Web site and
11:24:38 when we go around with the recycling bins, we give people
11:24:43 that information as well.
11:24:44 >>MARY MULHERN: Right. I understand there's a listing of
11:24:46 what we do pick up. My question is are we looking at
11:24:50 expanding the types of things that we can recycle?
11:24:52 >> As long as there is a market, we can recycle it. I mean,
11:24:56 plus it's -- we're only limited by what the people dispose
11:24:59 of from their homes.






11:25:01 >>MARY MULHERN: Right. But they don't dispose of it into
11:25:04 recycling if you're not going to pick it up.
11:25:06 >> I mean, if there's another commodity that residences
11:25:12 typically do not have.
11:25:13 >>MARY MULHERN: Right. Well, things like cardboard, paper,
11:25:17 Styrofoam, magazines.
11:25:22 >> Yeah. We are going to include magazines and the junk
11:25:26 mail and all of that into the mix because I know that is a
11:25:30 portion that people are throwing out now. One limitation we
11:25:33 have now is our contract with our, you know, buyer of this
11:25:37 material has some limitations, so when you go to the next --
11:25:41 you know, the next contract, we can go, and check with them,
11:25:45 okay, what if we bring this and get some new -- new --
11:25:49 >>MARY MULHERN: Right. You just have one buyer for all of
11:25:51 our recycled materials?
11:25:53 >> For the residential collection, yes, we have.
11:25:56 >>MARY MULHERN: Oh, okay. Well, it seems like maybe you
11:25:59 could look into having, you know, more than one because I
11:26:01 think there are markets. Maybe this buyer doesn't have a
11:26:04 market for it.
11:26:05 >> You'll be looking at that when you get to the next
11:26:08 contact.
11:26:08 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay. And then one more question because I
11:26:10 have looked on the Web site and I've tried to find out where
11:26:13 these things that we don't pick up, where we can drop them
11:26:16 off, and I cannot -- have not been able to determine,
11:26:21 catalogs and magazines, where can those go, City of Tampa
11:26:25 people?
11:26:25 >> We don't have any more public DROP-OFF locations like we
11:26:29 had a couple of years ago. The only one place we have in
11:26:32 city is at the university, and that's why -- you know,
11:26:37 that's why we wanted to include that in our regular, you
11:26:40 know, pickup, because --
11:26:41 >>MARY MULHERN: Why don't we have those? I mean, if we're
11:26:44 not picking them up, we should at least have an opportunity
11:26:47 for people to pick them up.
11:26:49 >> We didn't do it because there was no market for that
11:26:51 material. The recyclers were, you know, very peculiar
11:26:56 about --
11:26:57 >>MARY MULHERN: So there's no market in Tampa Bay for that
11:26:59 kind of paper?
11:26:59 >> When we set up this, when we had this contract, there
11:27:03 were no market at that time. So that's what I said, go to
11:27:08 the next, you know, discussion about the contract, and then
11:27:11 we can add everything --
11:27:13 >>MARY MULHERN: When will that be?
11:27:14 >> I think it's coming up in a few months.
11:27:16 >>MARY MULHERN: Oh, good. Okay. Yeah. I hope you can do
11:27:20 some research on that. I'm going to try to.
11:27:31 >> Item number 41 -- I don't know --
11:27:34 >> Second.
11:27:37 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed
11:27:40 nay.
11:27:40 >> Item number 41, I don't know if Mr. Dingfelder needs more
11:27:43 information or wants me to explain the information.
11:27:46 >>GWEN MILLER: No, he doesn't need no more information. He
11:27:49 has enough information for the day.
11:27:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Item number 41, just for the rest of
11:27:56 council's benefit, I pulled it to see if that money was
11:27:58 general fund money or as I suspected it was gas tax money.






11:28:03 Mr. Daignault indicates 90% of it is gas tax money, so --
11:28:08 >> 24?
11:28:09 >> 41.
11:28:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So anyway, I appreciate you looking into
11:28:18 that. One thing I couldn't tell, Steve, when I looked at
11:28:21 the -- I did look at the agenda item for 41, and this would
11:28:24 really help all of us, because under financial impact
11:28:27 statement, it just says this will provide $2.6 million for
11:28:32 these purposes. I think what we really need to have there
11:28:36 so this way I wouldn't have to ask these questions is we
11:28:38 need to have the budget history on it. What's the source of
11:28:41 the funds, what's the budget year, are there any budget
11:28:45 amendment required, that sort of thing, because somebody
11:28:47 knows that and I think that's really the intent of that item
11:28:51 on the agenda item cover sheet. And then the more
11:28:55 information we have, the less questions we have to ask.
11:28:57 >> I understand.
11:28:59 >> Is it a grant, is it an enterprise fund.
11:29:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's move that.
11:29:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll move that. 41.
11:29:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and a second. All in favor of the
11:29:08 motion say aye. Opposed.
11:29:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I think all the people in the county
11:29:13 appreciate those little countdown things at the crosswalks.
11:29:16 They're very helpful as a driver and as a pedestrian, so --
11:29:19 >> Very good. Item number 60 now?
11:29:23 >> Yes.
11:29:24 >> Again, appreciate the opportunity to give you an update
11:29:27 on star. Reclaimed water continues to be a major initiative
11:29:31 for us. You saw in the presentations yesterday from
11:29:34 enterprise funds when Brad Baird indicated that this was one
11:29:40 of their top three initiatives. Our main two goals continue
11:29:44 to be offset the use of potable and to use as much reclaimed
11:29:48 as possible. That's a savings to us in the water. You all
11:29:53 may recall that initially we had about 5,381 people said
11:29:57 that they would sign up and hook up. In February of 2007,
11:30:02 we had 1,626 people hooked up. Since that -- since that
11:30:09 time about a year ago, in February of 2008, we have 2,907,
11:30:15 an increase of 1300 in one year. So some of our efforts may
11:30:20 be paying off because we've had a significant increase in
11:30:22 connections over the last year. Again, we're continuing
11:30:38 negotiations with TIA, Tampa international, with TECO, with
11:30:42 the sports authority, with Hillsborough county, and with
11:30:44 other folks. We're getting very close on our agreement with
11:30:52 the airport. They're waiting on an assessment with some
11:30:55 property there so we can finalize their agreement. We
11:30:58 continue to move forward with preparing to do the design to
11:31:03 get reclaimed water on Bayshore and get it again off of
11:31:07 potable, and to get it to the part -- the new Curtis Hixon
11:31:17 park, and so we're talking with them as well. There is a
11:31:21 discussion with the county. The county and this water
11:31:26 partners, Inc. are looking at a large water need to be able
11:31:29 to service a new TECO plant. Part of that agreement is they
11:31:32 would like some of our reclaimed water. We're continuing to
11:31:34 talk with them about that.
11:31:37 >> Is that for a nuclear facility?
11:31:39 >> It is not for a nuclear facility, no. No. No. And we
11:31:42 couldn't provide that much water. No. No. No. It's --
11:31:45 no. But it is -- yeah. It's for a new TECO plant in
11:31:49 southern Polk. And again, we -- our water availability is






11:31:54 something, you know, we would be glad to sell them some
11:31:56 water. We do have quite a bit of reclaimed, as you know,
11:31:59 that goes into the bay. Again, we're continuing to move
11:32:06 forward, we're looking at developing and finishing up a tech
11:32:09 manual for reclaimed. We believe that things are all
11:32:11 starting to come together and there is a direct connection
11:32:14 between where we are with we claimed, the fact this we have
11:32:19 the contract moving into place to be able to run some
11:32:22 reclaimed pipes in the ground for us, where we are with the
11:32:26 park. Again, all of these things start coming together and
11:32:29 it's intended to happen that way. You know, we didn't just
11:32:33 happen to have a contractor and design and everything going
11:32:36 again that's been planned for quite some time to move
11:32:39 forward and be able to do that. So I'd be glad to answer
11:32:42 any questions you have.
11:32:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Miss Saul-Sena?
11:32:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you. The public wants reclaimed.
11:32:48 And the people who are currently within, you know, potential
11:32:55 customers, I think we should, again, reach out to them, and
11:32:58 perhaps look at making their lives easier by providing an
11:33:03 alternative of a couple of different contractors to do the
11:33:06 hookup. I know for a number of people that missing piece,
11:33:10 the fact that they had to get their own hookup done, it was
11:33:13 confusing to them. They didn't know who to go to. The city
11:33:16 could negotiate for a bulk price, and I think that that
11:33:19 would spur more customers, which is what we need to do. So
11:33:23 I hope that as we approach the traditional drought, that we
11:33:27 plan on an outreach advertising program. And I also think
11:33:42 that Mr. Dingfelder's suggestion that we give people a
11:33:45 number of years to hook up or be penalized financially is a
11:33:49 good idea because we as a community have made an investment
11:33:52 in this infrastructure and it makes economic sense to have
11:33:55 that infrastructure used completely, but there are a number
11:34:00 of people who are eager to know when they will have access
11:34:03 to reclaimed. So when you have the time lines and maps
11:34:06 available to the public, the public is eager. Thanks.
11:34:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Miss Mulhern?
11:34:10 >>MARY MULHERN: Yeah. I've been hearing from Mr. Caetano's
11:34:14 constituents, and mine, too, but that -- well, they invited
11:34:19 me. Tampa palms especially, but new Tampa people, because
11:34:28 they have big lawns and nice gardens really are asking for
11:34:31 it, and for reclaimed, and I'm wondering if there's any sort
11:34:36 of plan to look at where people have actually the means to
11:34:40 afford the hookup and everything, and the -- where there's a
11:34:44 market for it, where they really want it. And I don't know
11:34:46 what -- if there's a plan to go up there. If you -- what
11:34:50 about USF, too? Those two areas, new Tampa and USF. Are we
11:34:55 looking at those?
11:34:58 >> First of all, it is a very expensive proposition to run
11:35:01 that much water up there. There has been, in the past, a
11:35:06 collaborative plan involving Tampa Bay water, southwest
11:35:10 Florida water management, Hillsborough county, city of Tampa
11:35:13 and Pasco County to run a pipe up to Pasco and hitting all
11:35:15 of those locations along the way. Again, it was very, very
11:35:21 expensive. Tampa Bay water pulled out because of -- because
11:35:26 their initiative could not be done. They couldn't get a
11:35:30 permit to do what they wanted to do, which left the rest of
11:35:34 the partners in that agreement to hold -- you know, to fund
11:35:36 all of the project. Very expensive. There's a whole lot of
11:35:41 other opportunities closer, cheaper to use that reclaimed






11:35:46 water, and that's what we're pursuing. That's what we're
11:35:49 trying to do at the moment.
11:35:51 >>MARY MULHERN: So it has to -- it needs to come from
11:35:54 another source? Is that part of the problem?
11:35:57 >> No. We have -- the source is not --
11:36:00 >> Well, say you're -- you know, you're branching out from
11:36:03 the center of the city pretty much, that's what you're
11:36:05 starting with. So are you -- will you eventually, with
11:36:08 your -- with the infrastructure get up to the university and
11:36:13 then maybe up to new Tampa, or does it have to come from a
11:36:16 different --
11:36:17 >> The intent would be that it would come from the city's
11:36:21 waste water plant.
11:36:23 >>MARY MULHERN: Which is -- where is it?
11:36:26 >> It's out on the port -- it's in the port.
11:36:29 >> Down here. Down here.
11:36:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
11:36:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Steve, I remember going over this with
11:36:39 Brad probably about four or five months ago. And maybe
11:36:47 Sandra's here to help. How many total homes does our blue
11:36:52 pipes, reclaimed water pipes go in front of today in star
11:36:56 one? Ballpark?
11:36:57 >> 10,000. About 9,000.
11:37:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: About 9,000. I think we always have to
11:37:05 start at that 9,000 number. I think that it's misleading to
11:37:09 start at the 5,000 number. Yes, we polled people ten years
11:37:13 ago and we asked them, will you hook up, and they've let us
11:37:16 down because they haven't. But the reality is is we're in
11:37:19 front of 9,000 homes in South Tampa, okay, and a year ago,
11:37:25 only a thousand of them had signed up. Now we're at 2,000.
11:37:30 I applaud you and your staff for getting us to the 2,000 and
11:37:34 whatever efforts you did to get there, but when I asked Brad
11:37:38 three or four months ago, and the reason I asked for this
11:37:40 quarterly update, is to know what our strategy -- you're
11:37:44 having great strategies on the wholesale stuff and the
11:37:46 airport and all that. It's wonderful, okay, but that's a
11:37:49 different chunk of our reclaimed water. Right now we have a
11:37:52 huge investment in the star system, and I think that the
11:37:55 community needs to know, and council needs to know, what our
11:37:58 strategy is to get those other 7,000 homes, 7,000 families
11:38:05 signed up, so they quit throwing gotta potable water on
11:38:08 their yards. They have the reclaimed water on their
11:38:12 curbside. I know there's a cost involved to get it from the
11:38:15 curbside up into their sprinkler system. Some of them like
11:38:19 my -- some of them like, you know, my house, we don't have a
11:38:22 sprinkler system so it's kind of irrelevant. We don't spray
11:38:26 potable water on at all. We don't have much grass. We have
11:38:29 a lot of dirt. But anyway, that's irrelevant, too. But the
11:38:33 bottom line is, you know, it's stilly. We go -- we go in
11:38:37 and out of these water crises. We now have a system that I
11:38:41 hope is working better and better, and we need to get these
11:38:46 other 7,000 families on and in order to do that we have to
11:38:52 have a strategy and maybe that strategy is related to price,
11:38:56 maybe it's related to some kind of subsidy to help these
11:38:59 people with a grant. We used to do those showers fixtures.
11:39:03 We used to help them make their toilets more efficient, you
11:39:06 know, we'd give them free stuff so they'd get on board and
11:39:09 use less potable water. Well, why aren't we being more
11:39:14 aggressive on those fronts? That's the quarterly report I'd
11:39:18 like to see from the staff on it. What is the plan?






11:39:20 >> We'll be glad to give you all of the details of our work.
11:39:26 Again, I was kind of feeling pretty good that 1300 people
11:39:29 hooked up in one year. I thought that was a pretty good
11:39:31 result of our strategy.
11:39:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I complimented you for it, but we're
11:39:36 now at 20%. We've been at 10% now for about three years.
11:39:41 We're now 20% and it's wonderful.
11:39:42 >> In one year.
11:39:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's wonderful. We've doubled. We've
11:39:46 doubled in a year. It's wonderful. Are we going to say
11:39:49 that we're going to continue that path and it's going to
11:39:52 take us the next seven years to get there? If that's true,
11:39:56 then tell us how we've accomplished it and how we're going
11:40:00 to continue to accomplish it?
11:40:01 >> We're going to tell you how we're doing and what we've
11:40:03 done in the past and where we're going in the future.
11:40:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay. I think we've now taken up more
11:40:08 time than we need to on this issue, but, you know, maybe you
11:40:11 all can come brief me individually and then we can come back
11:40:15 to council so we can spend a little less time on it and I
11:40:19 just want to know what the plan is. I mentioned a pretty
11:40:23 drastic solution a couple months ago, okay, and Linda just
11:40:27 mentioned it again. Maybe we need to have a drop dead
11:40:30 point. Five years from now, you've got that potable in
11:40:32 front of your house, if you've got that reclaimed in front
11:40:36 of your house, then you're not allowed to use potable
11:40:39 anymore to water your yards, you know, five years from now
11:40:41 and if people know that that drop-dead date is looming there
11:40:45 in the horizon, that might be the motivation, but we
11:40:49 shouldn't just have a hammer. We should also have a carrot,
11:40:52 and the carrot is some type of incentive, some type of since
11:40:56 difficult. Anyway -- subsidy. I'll talk to you and Sandra.
11:41:02 Come talk to me about what the plan is and how we're going
11:41:05 to get there and then come back and talk to me three months
11:41:09 from now.
11:41:10 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: I have a family member that lives in
11:41:12 Northwood, which is you know where the super target is on
11:41:16 county line road, Bruce B. Downs, you make a left is county
11:41:20 line road, you have the grand Hamptons on your left and
11:41:25 there's some city property on the right side. She has
11:41:27 reclaimed water, and to me, she's out in the woods. And
11:41:31 right across the street is the city. Is there a possibility
11:41:34 that we could make an agreement with Pasco County while
11:41:36 they're doing all this renovation on Bruce B. Downs and
11:41:39 putting the proper piping in, instead of 25 years, like I
11:41:43 said yesterday, maybe we can get it in three or four years.
11:41:47 >> We'll be glad to have that conversation. If there is
11:41:51 water available and they're interested --
11:41:53 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: It's there.
11:41:54 >> If there's water quantity available, I'm not talking
11:41:57 about a pipeline, they were interested in buying ours to
11:42:00 augment theirs. Again, we have not had this conversation
11:42:04 with them. We'd be happy to do that.
11:42:08 >>GWEN MILLER: We going to skip number 61 and 62, and we
11:42:11 going to go over to item 64.
11:42:15 >> Madam Chair, I can take item 61 very, very quickly.
11:42:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's do it after lunch. It's going to be
11:42:22 lunch in 20 minutes.
11:42:23 >> That will be fine.
11:42:24 >> Some of these people sitting here need to go back to






11:42:27 work. Let's get them out of here. All right. 64, the
11:42:30 discussion and adoption of -- who's talking on that?
11:42:33 >> That is Mr. Caetano's request to have that placed on the
11:42:38 agenda regarding an ordinance relating to towing from
11:42:47 establishments that are wet zoned. Unconsentual towing.
11:42:54 Mr. Caetano, did you want to address the issue?
11:42:57 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Yeah. We had a city ordinance, 1448. We
11:43:00 got a legal opinion from our legal department, let me find
11:43:03 it here. And I guess basically what they were saying is
11:43:15 that we do not need to enact this ordinance. Am I right,
11:43:19 Mr. Shelby?
11:43:20 >>MARTY SHELBY: Yes. Mr. Justin Vaske, city attorney,
11:43:28 prepared an ordinance on whether the City of Tampa must
11:43:30 enact an ordinance similar to Hillsborough County's
11:43:34 ordinance, which has been previously provided to council,
11:43:37 their ordinance provided last summer 07-15, and the short
11:43:42 answer is no because section 1448 of the City of Tampa code
11:43:46 of ordinances does not conflict with the Hillsborough county
11:43:48 ordinance. Therefore the provisions of the county ordinance
11:43:51 07-15 may be enforced by the Tampa police department without
11:43:55 the necessity of the City of Tampa enacting its own
11:43:59 ordinance. And I had an opportunity to discuss this very
11:44:02 briefly with Mr. Vaske yesterday, and one of the issues that
11:44:06 was concerning I believe councilman Caetano and others would
11:44:09 be the enforcement within the city, how would TPD be
11:44:14 directed or know to do that if council didn't have their own
11:44:17 ordinance that TPD could reference and Mr. Vaske informed me
11:44:21 that the legal department can send a memo to the TPD to
11:44:26 inform them of this ordinance's existence. The other
11:44:29 alternative is that even though it is not necessary, if
11:44:33 council wanted to have that reflect this provision within,
11:44:37 they can choose to do so, but the legal opinion is it is not
11:44:40 necessary. The policy decision is how, then, do you direct
11:44:45 the TPD to enforce a county ordinance?
11:44:50 >> So if it's on our records as our ordinance, our police
11:44:53 department and code enforcement would be able to enforce it?
11:44:57 Because we have ordinance right now that are on our books.
11:44:59 They're not being enforced. They're county ordinances. The
11:45:03 solicitors that are out on the road and all that stuff. I
11:45:06 think by having this in our record, as part of our rules and
11:45:11 regulations, whatever you want to call them, it's not going
11:45:14 to hurt anybody.
11:45:15 >> Well, if that's council's decision, if that were a motion
11:45:18 to direct the legal department to draft an ordinance to
11:45:21 reflect that and bring it back to council for a first
11:45:24 reading, that would be an appropriate motion.
11:45:25 >> Thank you.
11:45:26 >>GWEN MILLER: What we doing? We going to pass this
11:45:29 ordinance, you say? We don't need to do it while -- while
11:45:33 so why are we acting on it?
11:45:37 >> What's saying is that you presently -- you presently
11:45:39 don't have to have an ordinance in order for TPD to require
11:45:43 it. To enforce it because it's a county ordinance. If you
11:45:49 want to have it as a city ordinance and give it the emphasis
11:45:53 that's on the city's books, then it doesn't conflict with
11:45:56 the county's ordinance, it's running companion to it and
11:46:00 then the city TPD would be able to reference its own code of
11:46:05 ordinances rather than the county's ordinances. Again, if
11:46:07 it's the desire of the city council to put it within the
11:46:10 city's code of ordinances.






11:46:12 >> So moved.
11:46:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Question, Mr. Dingfelder?
11:46:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think I know what this is about but
11:46:21 I'm not completely sure. What is the problem? What is the
11:46:24 concern?
11:46:25 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Unauthorized towing of vehicles. Let's
11:46:28 say you go to some nightclub and you're not able to Drive
11:46:31 home, okay?
11:46:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think my wife would have killed me by
11:46:36 then, but --
11:46:37 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Just to collect the insurance. And then
11:46:39 you leave your car there overnight and we have a lot of
11:46:44 unauthorized towing, nonconsentual towing so somebody would
11:46:50 pull in there and see the car you're driving and is going to
11:46:53 take it so therefore if they have permission to park in that
11:46:56 parking lot, an unauthorized wrecker can't come in there and
11:47:00 tow it away because that happens. Now, when we had the
11:47:03 liquor at the stadium, I asked that question, what if
11:47:06 somebody goes to the game and they leave their car there and
11:47:08 he doesn't know where he left his car but somebody took him
11:47:11 home, how soon do you tow that car? Well, we'll leave it
11:47:16 there a couple of days. That may not happen because the guy
11:47:18 probably won't even remember that he went to the game, all
11:47:22 right?
11:47:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The towing companies just came through
11:47:26 and cleaned out?
11:47:27 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Therefore they have to have that
11:47:29 permission, and when that car is towed, if it's your car,
11:47:33 your son or your mother or daughter can't go out and get it
11:47:36 because they're not the rightful owner of that car and
11:47:39 they're going to keep accumulating charges and that's what
11:47:43 happens and you might be in the hospital, sick, for drinking
11:47:45 too much, right? I think it's a good ordinance and we need
11:47:48 it on the books.
11:47:49 >>GWEN MILLER: So this is to bring it back as a city
11:47:52 ordinance?
11:47:52 >> Yes.
11:47:53 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: And you could model it after the county
11:47:55 ordinance. I think Mr. Scott was on the county when they
11:47:59 did this.
11:48:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well the question, though, is, can they tow
11:48:04 off of private property?
11:48:06 >> Oh, yes, and that complies -- and the city has that
11:48:10 provision, Mr. Caetano has that provision that allows for
11:48:13 it. There is a state law that requires certain hosting
11:48:16 requirements and sometimes you see that, the requirement
11:48:18 that states -- they state the company. But if it complies
11:48:21 with the provisions of state law and the city code there is
11:48:26 a provision for nonconsentual towing within the city and the
11:48:34 county, as I understand.
11:48:35 >> I'm here on behalf of the Hillsborough county towing
11:48:39 association and we're very supportive of this ordinance.
11:48:41 It's a consumer protection provision. What it requires is a
11:48:45 manager from an establishment actually sign the
11:48:48 authorization to have the vehicle towed. What's happened in
11:48:52 the past is they have blanket authorizations and tow truck
11:48:55 companies that have a contract, they'll go in and tow cars
11:48:59 and not know whether it's a legitimate removal or not. And
11:49:04 so what this will do is require the manager on duty to
11:49:06 actually sign the authorization for a vehicle to be removed,






11:49:10 and it puts another layer in there of protection for the
11:49:13 patrons of these restaurants and other places. So we're
11:49:17 very supportive of it. I think it's a good government bill
11:49:20 and it will help the legitimate businesses not get black
11:49:23 eyes for the wildcat tow companies that are out there.
11:49:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All
11:49:28 in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed nay. Move the
11:49:32 resolution for the right-of-way of the --
11:49:34 >> So moved.
11:49:35 >> Second.
11:49:35 >> Motion and second. All in favor of the motion say aye.
11:49:38 Opposed. And do we have a substitute motion for item number
11:49:43 66?
11:49:43 >> Do you have a substitute with the name on it?
11:49:53 >> What item was that?
11:49:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 66.
11:50:01 >> Just move the resolution then.
11:50:03 >> Madam Chair, I vit here, so I would move the resolution.
11:50:07 Do I need to read it?
11:50:08 >> No.
11:50:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. A question on the motion?
11:50:14 Dingfelder?
11:50:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 66?
11:50:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
11:50:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No. I think I'm going to take a leap
11:50:20 here and speak on behalf of all council and congratulate
11:50:23 former mayor Sandy freedman and a wonderful lady, a
11:50:27 wonderful mayor and well deserving of this award in honor of
11:50:31 Josephine Stafford.
11:50:34 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion and a second. All in favor of the
11:50:36 motion say aye. Opposed nay. Okay. Number 67. Oh, he's
11:50:45 just spending the day with us.
11:50:46 >> He enjoys it so much.
11:50:50 >> Good morning again, council members, Steve Daignault. I
11:50:55 was asked to address the time line that has been experienced
11:50:59 so far with regard to the park, Curtis Hixon waterfront
11:51:05 park. This actually goes back to the spring of the year
11:51:08 2000 when there was a selection for the S.O.M. study to --
11:51:12 they selected S.O.M., I'm sorry, for preparation of a
11:51:16 cultural district master plan. There were numerous public
11:51:19 workshops and stake holder meetings in that regard. In
11:51:22 February of 2008, there was completion of phase two of the
11:51:25 cultural district master plan. Again, the plan for the park
11:51:28 area based on replacement of existing museum and large open
11:51:32 space between the two structures, North and South of the
11:51:36 park was addressed. In February of 2004, there are
11:51:41 presentations by three finalists for the design services for
11:51:45 the park. It was a very public -- I remember it very
11:51:49 clearly, very public presentations in the TMA facility, the
11:51:54 current -- or the old TMA building. In November of 2005,
11:51:58 there was an award to Thomas Bosley and associates for
11:52:02 design of the park. In February and march of 2006, there
11:52:06 were various presentations, Kate Jackson, Reagan park,
11:52:13 regarding the river walk and it included in there the master
11:52:17 plan for the river walk and the park in the context of the
11:52:20 river walk project relative to the park. In June of 2006,
11:52:24 there was a public workshop held at Maestro's down here at
11:52:30 the performing arts center. The purpose of the meeting was
11:52:32 to solicit input on the various types of activities and
11:52:37 amenities that were desired in the park. There was






11:52:39 discussion of the project in context to Ashley and the river
11:52:42 walk, again, press coverage there, idea boards and graphics
11:52:48 were used. Subsequent to that, the design was put on the
11:52:54 city's Web site. In October of 2006, again, another public
11:52:57 workshop held at Maestro's, led by Thomas Bosley. The
11:53:03 purpose of that meeting was to present three concepts of the
11:53:06 various -- a design for the park. Developed by the
11:53:09 designers for public input and comment. Again, press
11:53:12 coverage, city Web site was updated. December of 2006,
11:53:18 public presentation of 300 Madison Street organized by the
11:53:24 downtown partnership. It included the park, Ashley museum
11:53:27 and river walk projects. And in march of 2007, presentation
11:53:32 to city council by Thomas Bosley for the process of input
11:53:37 to -- input to date with regard to the park and the
11:53:41 schematic. Graphics subsequently were placed on the Web
11:53:45 site for additional public review and comment. In march of
11:53:48 2007, presentations by the construction manager finalists
11:53:53 were conducted, and scans were selected. All finalists used
11:53:59 park schematic as part of their presentation. That was a
11:54:03 public process as well. February 2008, presentation by
11:54:05 Bosley, Thomas Bosley, to the council. Presentation of
11:54:09 design development graphics based on the previous concept,
11:54:13 design and schematic enhancements, and then February 25th,
11:54:18 2008, public presentation by Thomas Bosley, morning
11:54:22 presentation, again at the performing arts center, organized
11:54:24 by the downtown partnership, and on February 29th, there was
11:54:29 a downtown development breakfast and there was a
11:54:32 presentation on the part by Santiago Carada and Mark Huey.
11:54:39 Please note that these are kind of the bigger, larger
11:54:42 presentations. There were a number of specific one-on-one
11:54:47 meetings with various stake holders to include the downtown
11:54:52 partnership, Gasparilla art festival folks, Tampa performing
11:54:56 arts center, glazier public museum, the public art office
11:55:02 and the Rivergate Tower and again since June of 2006, the
11:55:07 graphics have been on our Web site for review, and download
11:55:10 and comment and input. So again, that's been the history of
11:55:16 providing information regarding the park.
11:55:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Miss Mulhern?
11:55:21 >>MARY MULHERN: Yeah. I just had a couple of things that I
11:55:24 wanted to follow up on this because I had a lot of criticism
11:55:27 at the last presentation. One, a couple of questions.
11:55:31 Thank you for that time line. But as most of us know, it's
11:55:35 very confusing because the museum plans kept changing. The
11:55:41 whole plan for all of that area was changing. So my
11:55:44 question, and I think maybe Santiago Carada can answer it is
11:55:50 the most current that -- the plan that we saw at our last
11:55:54 meeting from Mr. Bosley, when what was arrived at there,
11:55:59 when was the last -- which of those meetings you discussed
11:56:04 was a public forum for people to look at that basic design?
11:56:10 >> Good morning. Santiago Carada, neighborhood association
11:56:16 administrator. I want to go back to the time line and I
11:56:19 would say that when Mr. Bosley presented those three
11:56:23 concepts, whenever Mr. Daignault mentioned that date, that's
11:56:27 really when this last one started to evolve from these
11:56:30 concepts. That would have been October 11th, 2006. We've
11:56:35 really been working --
11:56:36 >>MARY MULHERN: What three concepts?
11:56:38 >> He presented three overall concepts for this park.
11:56:41 >>MARY MULHERN: Three options?
11:56:43 >> Three options. Absolutely. He had all kinds of






11:56:45 configurations of the park, and this last one that was
11:56:48 presented to council, that was also presented at the
11:56:51 downtown development forum, was the evolution of one of
11:56:55 those three concepts. So really the public has been
11:56:58 involved since -- with this final concept since October of
11:57:01 2006. And in fact, you know, and I mentioned at the
11:57:04 downtown development forum, I believe, that when we charged
11:57:08 Mr. Bosley with designing this park, we gave him some very,
11:57:12 very minimal things to work with. We said, you know, we
11:57:15 wanted a larger green space, we wanted a bigger park, we
11:57:19 wanted more shade trees, we wanted open vistas to the river,
11:57:25 making the river accessible to folks, and also to
11:57:28 accommodate some of the events. And all of the things that
11:57:33 you're seeing in this last design have come about through
11:57:36 public process.
11:57:37 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay. Well, then my follow-up on that,
11:57:40 October 2006, the public had an opportunity to see three
11:57:44 concepts, and then what we saw the other day was the
11:57:48 evolution of one of those. How was that arrived at? Was
11:57:53 that a Bosley decision? Or did the public give the input
11:57:56 that narrowed it down to one of those three?
11:57:59 >> Yes, ma'am. Absolutely. It has been the public that has
11:58:02 driven the final evolution of that design. It has not
11:58:05 been --
11:58:08 >>MARY MULHERN: So was it like a workshop where people got
11:58:11 to choose? Was there a vote?
11:58:12 >> Uh-huh.
11:58:14 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay. Miss Saul-Sena, are you
11:58:17 comfortable -- were you there?
11:58:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I've been at every single one since
11:58:20 we've picked SOM.
11:58:22 >> Well, I wasn't on council then, and I've thrown up my
11:58:26 hands on this back then, but now I -- what -- so you feel
11:58:29 comfortable that the public had input on that selection?
11:58:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yeah. It wasn't my favorite choice,
11:58:37 but --
11:58:37 >>MARY MULHERN: Right. That was really what I was concerned
11:58:41 about. Now we have an actual design so I still feel that we
11:58:44 need to have a public forum for people to look at that.
11:58:47 >> We did. And --
11:58:51 >>MARY MULHERN: Public forums are always a good thing.
11:58:55 >> We just had one, actually, where we actually had I want
11:58:58 to say about 75 folks that came out to that. It was held on
11:59:02 February 25th, 2008.
11:59:07 >>MARY MULHERN: Was it publicly-announced event?
11:59:10 >> No. It was put on through the downtown partnership. I
11:59:12 don't know what mechanism they used to invite a lot of
11:59:15 individuals.
11:59:16 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't even think I was invited. I might
11:59:19 have been.
11:59:19 >> But there were a lot of folks there and again they
11:59:22 provided more suggestions, more advice that Mr. Bosley has
11:59:30 taken back and incorporated. You know, this is one of the
11:59:33 most Democratically developed parks I have seen in a long,
11:59:36 long time because every time Mr. Bosley comes to town and
11:59:39 someone says change this or add that or take this, he's done
11:59:42 that so, you know, I really need to say that.
11:59:44 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay. Yeah, I -- the problem, it was
11:59:47 Democratic, but the -- you know, the board gain kept
11:59:52 changing because of what was offered. And I -- you know, I






11:59:58 think we need to go ahead with the park. I don't feel like
12:00:01 the requests for more shade have been accommodated, but I
12:00:05 was very happy to see yesterday, did I see a drawing where
12:00:08 the pylons were gone?
12:00:14 >> We are removing the pylons as they've been presented. In
12:00:18 fact, even prior to the last Bosley presentation, we already
12:00:23 had almost a hundred new trees in this new park than are
12:00:28 currently there. Since then, Mr. Bosley has traded out a
12:00:32 lot of palm trees for observations.
12:00:36 >>MARY MULHERN: Since he was here the last time?
12:00:38 >> Yes, ma'am.
12:00:39 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay. That's great. We need more shade.
12:00:41 >> Since there were comments by council that palm trees do
12:00:45 not provide the adequate shade. He's gone back and
12:00:48 substituted more oaks for palm trees.
12:00:52 >>MARY MULHERN: I just want to say this because I have
12:00:54 expertise in this area, and so I don't necessarily think the
12:00:59 Democratic process in design and architecture -- design.
12:01:07 Linda has the trees -- but I have a sense, and I think that
12:01:13 people should realize this, that the decision was made to
12:01:16 create a space geared for events. So the park concept has
12:01:29 been -- and the Gasparilla art festival is, which we just
12:01:33 had in the streets, which I like it in the streets, but our
12:01:37 big park downtown has been steered in this direction of
12:01:39 being a space for events, and I feel like that decision, as
12:01:45 opposed to the reason we keep asking for more trees, is
12:01:48 actually because I think there's a sense of a lot of people,
12:01:51 including probably residents, that they wanted more of an
12:01:54 interactive park, as opposed to a lawn for a concert or an
12:02:03 event. So that's the problem I have with it. I know I'm
12:02:06 not -- I don't get to decide, but I think that this is why I
12:02:10 would like to see another more public forum so we can get a
12:02:15 sense of is this what people really want downtown, somewhere
12:02:18 that you can have a concert, which means you can only do it
12:02:21 six months out of the year at best, or if people wanted more
12:02:24 of a park.
12:02:29 >> Councilwoman, if I may add, if we were back in October of
12:02:33 '06, I would agree with you, but it's evolved in such a way
12:02:37 to add those components that you're mentioning. A dog run
12:02:40 was added. You don't have that in an events park normally.
12:02:45 We've added a children's playground area, you wouldn't find
12:02:49 that normally in an events park. We've added interactive
12:02:52 water features that you wouldn't normally find in an events
12:02:55 park so it has evolved from more than just an events park to
12:03:00 include those interactive elements, and those were the
12:03:03 result of talking to the public.
12:03:05 >>MARY MULHERN: Right. But when you look at it, these are
12:03:07 all on the periphery and a huge lawn and then you have these
12:03:11 huge platforms on the lawn, so I'm in favor of having
12:03:14 another public forum, not a downtown partnership, which is
12:03:19 an organization, the public didn't necessarily know there
12:03:22 was anything going on, so I'd like to do that.
12:03:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Caetano?
12:03:26 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: I discussed with you the other day, sir,
12:03:29 about those monuments that Mary did not want there. On a
12:03:32 recent trip to Portugal, I saw a park similar to that and is
12:03:36 it possible that we can put electrical so that in the event
12:03:45 we put those monuments where we could demonstrate a message
12:03:48 like next week we're going to have something at the park?
12:03:52 It might be five or six down the road, but at least the






12:03:55 electrical service will be there where those monuments
12:03:57 appeared?
12:03:59 >> We envisioned having an electrical service there because
12:04:02 we have an interactive feature that has a light built into
12:04:05 it. In fact, we're exploring having instead of the pylon,
12:04:11 an artistic feature that has a light element to it so we
12:04:14 will have electricity there, we are envisioning having
12:04:18 electricity there under the current plan and having some
12:04:21 very, very dynamic feature there at the entrance of the
12:04:23 park. That may serve multiple purposes.
12:04:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. It's 12:00 council members, what do
12:04:29 you want to do?
12:04:30 >>MARY MULHERN: Finish this issue and then have lunch.
12:04:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. Mr. Dingfelder?
12:04:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you. Santiago?
12:04:37 >> Yes, sir.
12:04:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Steve, I wanted to thank you for your
12:04:40 E-mail yesterday. I've been asking for a list of the items
12:04:43 that are going into the park, and you provided to me 14
12:04:47 items and you've copied council on them, and I'll make sure
12:04:54 that the clerk gets a copy just to make sure that we're
12:04:57 covered under sunshine. But anyway with that said, I had a
12:05:00 few questions about these items. For one thing, when Mr. --
12:05:06 Joe? I'm sorry. When Mr. Bosley was here, I thought that
12:05:12 we were told that there were two of these interactive
12:05:18 fountains, one up by Ashley and one down by the river, and
12:05:23 then I thought what maybe you or Steve said was we're
12:05:27 only -- we're only going to start with the one down by the
12:05:29 river, and then we're going -- and then in phase two we're
12:05:34 going to do the one up by Ashley. It appears in your
12:05:37 sequence or prioritization list that that's been reversed.
12:05:40 What I'm reading here is that the fountain up at Ashley is
12:05:43 number five and the fountain down by the river walk, which I
12:05:46 thought was more children's oriented, was -- is now number
12:05:50 11. Has that changed?
12:05:52 >> No, sir. Actually, number five is the fountain at
12:05:55 Ashley, and number 11 is the fountain down at the river
12:05:59 walk. There's another small interactive water feature near
12:06:02 the children's playground, which is near the river walk, and
12:06:05 that's the one you're referring to earlier in the
12:06:08 prioritization. What we're doing right now is we're working
12:06:11 very, very closely trying to price these elements. I'm
12:06:16 sorry.
12:06:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Before you move on?
12:06:18 >> Yes, sir.
12:06:18 >> I just want to talk about the prioritization.
12:06:21 >> Okay.
12:06:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: When I saw the big picture, I saw two
12:06:25 what appeared to be play fountains. One was up at Ashley
12:06:28 near the TAMPA things, and the other was down by the river,
12:06:33 which was -- but I thought somebody had described it as the
12:06:38 misters.
12:06:38 >> Yes, sir. That's correct.
12:06:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And it looked sort of foggy or
12:06:43 something. Okay. I don't know about a third. Is there a
12:06:45 third?
12:06:45 >> There is not a third fountain. There's a little water
12:06:49 feature near the children's playground and that is captured
12:06:52 in --
12:06:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Children's play area?






12:06:55 >> Yes, sir.
12:06:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay. Just my question and it's just
12:06:59 detail, is it appears that as of today, as of yesterday when
12:07:02 you all sent this list, that the Ashley fountain is now
12:07:05 prioritized as number five, and the little fountain down by
12:07:11 the river is number 11 and it appeared that last time I
12:07:14 thought that was reversed.
12:07:16 >> No. No. The fountain at Ashley has always been
12:07:19 prioritized ahead of the fountain at river walk only because
12:07:22 you have the water element on Ashley. If you have the
12:07:25 fountain and then you have the river towards the rear which
12:07:27 provides a water view and water so that's why the one on
12:07:30 Ashley was always prioritized ahead of the one over near
12:07:34 river walk.
12:07:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, I guess my concern is if we can
12:07:39 only build one, you know, because I'm sure as these items
12:07:42 get further down the list, some of them might fall off, if
12:07:46 we can only build one and it's supposed to be mainly for
12:07:50 children, I don't see business people going down there and
12:07:53 playing in the water, it concerns me to be so close to
12:07:57 Ashley. Is it realistic that families are going to want the
12:08:00 children playing that close to the fountain next to Ashley?
12:08:04 >> We did, and that's why we included a small water feature
12:08:08 near the playground unit which is near the river walk.
12:08:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But what is the purpose of the Ashley
12:08:12 fountain thing? As a parent do I want my children playing
12:08:16 in that at all if it's only, what, 20, 30 feet off of that
12:08:20 four-lane road?
12:08:21 >> It was just in the design of the park, the aesthetics of
12:08:25 the park having a water feature near Ashley at the entrance
12:08:29 of the park, and having another small water feature near the
12:08:33 playground. That was just a matter of design.
12:08:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay. Can I -- just one second?
12:08:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I need to leave, but I want to recognize my
12:08:42 son, my oldest child, mark, would you stand up so everybody
12:08:45 can see my oldest? He's here today so I just wanted you all
12:08:53 to see him, okay?
12:08:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And the other thing I've been asking
12:08:58 about this list is what is the dollar sign associated with
12:09:02 most of these items and you say you're still working with
12:09:04 the contractor?
12:09:05 >> We are.
12:09:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is that list still not available yet?
12:09:09 >> They are still negotiating with subcontractors on pricing
12:09:12 and that will Drive what items we work into the final
12:09:15 contract that we bring before city council. We'll use our
12:09:18 professional judgment in designing the park based on what we
12:09:22 can afford with the limited funding available and bring that
12:09:25 as part of the city council for approval.
12:09:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay. Sometime between now and when you
12:09:31 bring it back you'll have dollars associated with each of
12:09:34 these line items? Because that's how you're making the
12:09:37 decision, right?
12:09:37 >> Yes, sir. That's correct.
12:09:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And when you have that can you provide
12:09:40 that to us, because it's sunshine?
12:09:42 >> Absolutely. Absolutely.
12:09:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you. I'd request that.
12:09:45 >>GWEN MILLER: All right. Anything else? Miss Saul-Sena?
12:09:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to say I really have spent






12:09:51 the last eight years going to all these meetings, and I
12:09:57 think you can't air too much on the side of getting --
12:10:00 getting the public to see what's going on, getting their
12:10:02 feedback, and there really was -- there was kind of a gap.
12:10:06 I think at this point we have evolved to a point where we
12:10:10 need to move ahead with what's proposed. And the shade area
12:10:13 that I seek in the hot weather is Kylie, and what I hope to
12:10:19 see in the next few years is the restoration of Kylie, which
12:10:25 provided this tranquil respite which everybody adored before
12:10:30 all the trees were cut down. That's really sort of the
12:10:33 secret garden that's the alternative during the hot months,
12:10:37 the big grassy area, and I think one of the strengths of
12:10:40 this overall project is that there's the opportunity to have
12:10:43 both. And I'm going to -- you all know I'm going to keep on
12:10:47 getting -- making sure that Kylie is restored. But I think
12:10:52 that we did have a gap between April, when the new council
12:10:58 started, and now, which is February, in terms of public
12:11:01 meetings. I really don't -- I can't think of any specific
12:11:04 ones from last April till now when the public had an
12:11:08 opportunity to see these things. It's always a good thing.
12:11:12 We should do another. And I have to say that the design
12:11:15 that I liked the best, which was the straightforward park
12:11:17 rather than the one with the curve, I'm disappointed with
12:11:21 was selected, and the ultimate selection was done by the
12:11:24 mayor.
12:11:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. We need to break for lunch.
12:11:28 >>MARY MULHERN: Can I just say one pour thing? Because I
12:11:30 think it's important that I know this has been going on for
12:11:33 a long time, but for one thing I wasn't on council, now I
12:11:36 get to talk about it, and I think it is important that we do
12:11:39 have a public forum, especially because the decisions that
12:11:43 were made were also made at a time when our budget looked a
12:11:49 lot different. So we have an opportunity, you know, we
12:11:52 can't make -- I don't want us to make design decisions based
12:11:58 on, you know, the line items and say, well, this costs too
12:12:02 much, let's not do it. We have to make this a great park
12:12:07 because it's going to really help us downtown economically
12:12:09 so I have no intention of stopping or wanting us to stop. I
12:12:13 just want to continue some public input since it has changed
12:12:17 so much and I would like to continue to be informed and for
12:12:20 this council to be informed on what's happening wit. And
12:12:23 I'm really happy that Mr. Bosley has already been so
12:12:27 responsive to what we had to say when he was here and really
12:12:29 appreciate that.
12:12:31 >> Madam Chair if I may just say one last thing. I want to
12:12:34 assure council, our mission has been to develop a park that
12:12:38 meets the needs of a lot of different constituencies, not
12:12:42 only the folks moving into downtown, but the folks that want
12:12:45 to visit from out of town and the folks that want to have a
12:12:50 special visit there so we've worked on planning a park that
12:12:54 really pleases a lot of different constituents.
12:12:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you. And we will now be adjourned
12:13:01 until 1:30.
(The City Council adjourned at 12:11 p.m. and reconvened at
13:44:03 1:42 p.m.)
13:44:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called back to order.
13:44:05 Roll call?
13:44:06 [ROLL CALL].
13:44:15 >>GWEN MILLER: We going to get started with item number 69.
13:44:18 It's a second reading. We need to open 69 and 70.






13:44:21 >> So moved.
13:44:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and a second. All in favor of the
13:44:26 motion say aye. Opposed say nay.
13:44:28 >> Madam Chair, may I ask that you take up number 70? I
13:44:32 think you should take up number -- 69 first, I believe,
13:44:40 or --
13:44:41 >> Okay.
13:44:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Which one?
13:44:44 >> Take number 70 first? Or not? If I'm wrong --
13:44:50 >> You need to do number 70 before you do number 69 because
13:44:53 number 69 --
13:44:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 70 -- anyone want to speak on item
13:44:58 number 70?
13:45:03 >> Council, you know, I've been here before addressing this
13:45:05 issue, Steve McLeany, and I think there's a serious concern
13:45:13 here, I've been asking the city attorney's office and I've
13:45:17 been asking city council to direct the city attorney's
13:45:19 office to clearly disclose -- and I'll put this on the
13:45:22 overhead -- to clearly disclose what those provisions mean
13:45:25 and what they refer to. You're assessing fines and
13:45:29 penalties to people instantaneously without full disclosure
13:45:32 of what they mean and what that violation is. And I don't
13:45:36 think that if you ask anybody what 1923-11 is that they can
13:45:45 tell you off the top of their head, but yet they're asking
13:45:48 you to assign fees and penalties to that without fully
13:45:51 knowing what they are. I've asked one of my attorney
13:45:54 friends about whether or not that applies in law, and what
13:45:59 they've advised me is that that does not meet the single
13:46:02 purpose provision of law. I don't know that. I'm not an
13:46:05 attorney, but I can tell you that just as a general
13:46:11 principle, it is bad policy to adopt penalties and fines for
13:46:14 something that you don't even know what the violation is
13:46:16 for, and I would respectfully request they fully disclose
13:46:20 what those violations mean and how those penalties are going
13:46:24 to be applied.
13:46:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you. Next speaker.
13:46:29 >> Keith Johnson, 301 Druid Hills. As far as that comment
13:46:33 is concerned, it's very simple. If I can do it, anybody can
13:46:36 do it. You go on the Web site. You put in the code
13:46:38 violation. It immediately pops up and tells you exactly
13:46:41 what it is. When you get a parking ticket, or when you get
13:46:44 a speeding ticket, they put down the state code. They don't
13:46:50 write you a dossier of what you did wrong. Enough is
13:46:59 enough. We have fought long and hard for this. We have
13:47:03 finally given code enforcement some teeth. Very little
13:47:06 teeth, but some teeth to enforce the ordinances that you all
13:47:09 pass, just like the ordinances for the vendors on Columbus.
13:47:13 Okay. This is finally some way to enforce the codes that
13:47:16 you all pass. So please, approve it, push it, I hope it
13:47:22 pushes for a lot more than just irreparable damage. Thank
13:47:26 you.
13:47:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you. Anyone else like to speak?
13:47:30 Mr. Caetano?
13:47:31 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Madam Chairman, I don't have time to go on
13:47:35 the internet, believe me, I'm a busy man, and I see these
13:47:39 numbers here, like 19-46, I don't know what it means. I'd
13:47:43 like to see an explanation, what the subject is about. So I
13:47:46 can understand it. I will not vote on this because -- I'm
13:47:50 voting in the dark and I don't want to do that.
13:47:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Lane could you come up and help us out






13:47:56 up here?
13:48:03 >> Curtis Lane, department of code enforcement. The 1900
13:48:09 series, and one of the speakers prior to me alluded to is
13:48:17 that any time a violation is written, a citation is written,
13:48:20 the inspector will cite the code, 1946, which is public
13:48:24 nuisance. He would also -- there's a line item on the
13:48:30 citation itself, where the inspector can write, be
13:48:36 descriptive as to what that means. So the violator can look
13:48:40 at that, just like they will receive a speeding ticket from
13:48:43 a police officer. He would write the Florida State statute
13:48:46 number that deals with that particular violation, and you
13:48:50 could look on your ticket and see where it's careless
13:48:55 driving, it's speeding, reckless driving, the whole bit.
13:48:59 There isn't a whole sheet that he gives you of all of those
13:49:03 violations that you can look at and pick the one that you
13:49:06 just received. So, I mean, it's -- to me, it's the best way
13:49:12 to approach this. If the council would like to have a
13:49:17 printout of what those violations are, we would be more than
13:49:20 happy to accommodate them.
13:49:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. Mr. Dingfelder?
13:49:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Curtis. Quick question to
13:49:27 our legal counsel on this issue. I think it seems like much
13:49:34 to do about nothing, you know, we've got -- we've got the
13:49:37 code sections there. If we could just put out next to the
13:49:40 side of each code section the title of the -- of that code
13:49:43 section or what -- there's some sort of subject description,
13:49:48 and continue on with the ordinance. Right?
13:49:51 >> Let me give you three reasons why the legal department is
13:49:54 hesitant to do this. Number one, if we put the code section
13:50:00 from, let's say, chapter 19 or chapter 27, next to each of
13:50:05 these code numbers, then any time that the title may change
13:50:09 when we do a revision of chapter 19 or chapter 27, someone's
13:50:14 going to have to remember, oh, yeah, by the way, we've got
13:50:15 this title in 23.5. If that change does not happen, which
13:50:21 is, you know, not mandatory that it be in 23.5, then we're
13:50:25 going to create some sort of loophole, or a notice issue
13:50:29 down the road. Number one. Number two, as Curtis was
13:50:35 telling you, this is kind of a prototype of what the
13:50:43 citation is going to look like. I don't know if we can get
13:50:46 any closer. No one's going to get a citation that says a
13:50:49 citation number without any type of description of what's
13:50:53 going on. If you notice, it says right here, violation
13:50:58 description, in fact supporting violation. That's required
13:51:01 to be there. So if someone is going to be hit with a
13:51:05 violation of 19-56, for example, it will say, inoperable
13:51:10 motor vehicle stored outside of a fully enclosed structure.
13:51:14 It will tell them exactly what it is. And, for example,
13:51:18 1956, the title to that is storage of inoperable motor
13:51:23 vehicles, junk or scrap metal in residential or commercial
13:51:26 sections prohibited. That's a pretty long title. So we're
13:51:30 going to be taking up a lot of room in 23.5 for just that
13:51:33 title. And if that changes, then we're going to have to go
13:51:36 back and do it. There's not going to be a matter of anybody
13:51:39 not understanding what the code -- what they're being cited
13:51:43 for. And --
13:51:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is the precedent elsewhere in the code
13:51:49 to support either side of this argument?
13:51:51 >> I don't believe so, no. I know that, and as you know as
13:51:54 an attorney, in the state statutes, whenever they refer to
13:51:58 another state statute, they do it by section number, chapter






13:52:00 and section. They don't do it by using the title also.
13:52:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I imagine we do a lot of that all
13:52:08 throughout our code.
13:52:09 >> Yeah, I think we do.
13:52:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Miss Mulhern?
13:52:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm comfortable with it the way it is.
13:52:15 >>MARY MULHERN: I think I am, too, but having been here only
13:52:18 a year, these types of code, are we writing a lot of changes
13:52:22 into it? It doesn't seem like they're going to change that
13:52:25 often. I mean, I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, I
13:52:32 don't have a big problem with this, but if the titles of the
13:52:34 actual code sections are changing, you know, if they're only
13:52:37 changing occasionally, it doesn't seem like it would be a
13:52:42 big problem because you're going to be getting these
13:52:44 reprinted often enough that you can --
13:52:47 >> One thing I was going to bring out that Mr. McLeany's
13:52:54 comments may have seemed not quite as clear. This ordinance
13:52:59 did not create new violations. You know, if Mr. McLeany had
13:53:05 somebody who was charged with 19-46, previously they would
13:53:09 have had to have gone to chapter 19 and look up chapter
13:53:13 19-46. This ordinance doesn't create any new offenses. It
13:53:18 only is referencing a new way to address those offenses, and
13:53:22 it is actually something that's common within our Florida
13:53:26 statutes to reference only by number. A majority of the
13:53:29 Florida statutes, when they're referencing other statutes
13:53:32 only reference them by number, one of the reasons being that
13:53:35 you can have an extremely length in title. We will be
13:53:39 bringing forward changes to chapter 19 in the future. Those
13:53:42 will be substantive changes where you may see some changes
13:53:45 in the actual type of offenses that are being brought. But
13:53:49 this is really only an enforcement mechanism.
13:53:53 >>MARY MULHERN: Right. I think we all understand that. My
13:53:56 question, which you just suggested, is that you do change
13:53:59 them. So it may be -- if -- if you're anticipating making
13:54:04 changes on a regular basis, then it makes sense not to put
13:54:09 the language in.
13:54:10 >> Otherwise we'd have to amend this one also.
13:54:13 >>MARY MULHERN: Or --
13:54:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Put your name on the record. The clerk
13:54:17 didn't get your name.
13:54:18 >> I'm sorry, David Cherbum, municipal prosecutor.
13:54:24 >> Just as a point of reference, I've been in code five
13:54:27 years and we haven't changed not one thing in five years.
13:54:30 >> Oh.
13:54:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Saul-Sena?
13:54:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is really about a mechanism for
13:54:36 getting people to get their acts together sooner. So are
13:54:39 there any other people want to speak?
13:54:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak? Need to close
13:54:45 the public hearing.
13:54:46 >> So moved.
13:54:47 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion and second to close. All in favor
13:54:51 of the motion say aye. Who's going to read it? Miss
13:54:53 Saul-Sena?
13:54:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, I'd like to move the
13:54:57 following an ordinance of the City of Tampa, Florida making
13:55:01 comprehensive revisions to chapter 23.5 supplemental
13:55:05 enforcement procedures code of the City of Tampa code of
13:55:08 ordinances amending section 23.5-3 definitions, words
13:55:11 defined, amending section 23.5-4, enforcement procedures,






13:55:15 adding section 23.5-5, schedule of violations and penalties,
13:55:19 amending section 23.5-6, supplemental enforcement tool,
13:55:26 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict,
13:55:28 providing for severability, providing for an effective date.
13:55:29 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and a second. Vote and
13:55:32 record.
13:55:44 >>CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda being absent and
13:55:48 Caetano being abstaining.
13:55:51 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: I believe that's incorrect. Do you want
13:55:54 to revote, then? Or do you want to record it differently?
13:55:59 >>CLERK: I can correct it. You voted no?
13:56:01 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Yes.
13:56:02 >>CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda being absent and
13:56:05 Caetano voting no.
13:56:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public want to speak
13:56:10 on item 69?
13:56:15 >> Closed.
13:56:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Got a motion and second to close. All in
13:56:19 favor of the motion say aye. Opposed nay, Reverend Scott?
13:56:22 >> Yes, ma'am. I would like to move ordinance upon the
13:56:25 second reading designating a portion of Tampa as clean zone
13:56:29 in order to regulate commercial activities from March 31,
13:56:32 2008 through April 11, 2008 in preparation for hosting the
13:56:36 2008 NCAA Women's Final Four Basketball Tournament
13:56:40 designating geographic boundaries for the clean zone,
13:56:43 regulating temporary outdoor uses and signage, and temporary
13:56:46 structures, providing for visual buffering, prohibiting
13:56:50 certain portable structures or vehicles and signage,
13:56:53 providing for inspections and permits, prohibiting banners,
13:56:56 streamers, pennants, inflatables and other temporary
13:57:01 signage, providing for penalties, providing for conditions
13:57:04 and restrictions, regulating alcoholic beverages and
13:57:07 providing for an effective date.
13:57:08 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion and a second. Vote and record.
13:57:12 >>CLERK: Who was the second?
13:57:13 >> Second.
13:57:14 >> Second.
13:57:24 >>CLERK: Motion carried unanimously with Miranda being
13:57:27 absent.
13:57:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public going to speak
13:57:31 on items 71 through 82? Would you please stand and raise
13:57:34 your right hand?
13:57:42 [Oath Administered By Clerk].
13:57:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby?
13:57:46 >>MARTY SHELBY: Yes, council, I would ask that by motion
13:57:49 and vote, council receive and file into the record a
13:57:51 documents that have been available for public inspection in
13:57:55 city council's offices related to this matter.
13:57:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Make a motion. A second.
13:58:01 >> Second.
13:58:01 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion and a second. All in favor of the
13:58:04 motion say aye. Opposed say nay.
13:58:06 >> Secondly, with regard to any ex-parte communications to
13:58:10 these quasi-judicial hearings, if you would please disclose
13:58:13 any ex-parte communications that have occurred prior to you
13:58:16 taking the vote and lastly, ladies and gentlemen, when you
13:58:18 do state your name for the record, please reaffirm that you
13:58:22 have been sworn. There's a sign-up sheet outside and I'm
13:58:24 also putting this little sign here to remind you to do that.
13:58:27 I thank you.






13:58:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Reverend Scott?
13:58:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Madam Chair, we're moving to our public
13:58:33 hearing and that's going to be a lengthy process. I have to
13:58:35 leave at 2:30.
13:58:37 >>GWEN MILLER: We're just reading these.
13:58:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You just going to read them? Okay.
13:58:48 >>GWEN MILLER: These are the second readings. Anyone in
13:58:53 the public going to speak on item 71?
13:58:58 >> I have been sworn. The petitioner has turned in revised
13:59:03 site plans between first and second hearing that have been
13:59:06 certified. I would just like to remind you that you had
13:59:11 asked him to relocate the parking -- that you had asked them
13:59:17 to relocate the parking spaces from the front of the
13:59:19 building up here to the rear, where the church has space for
13:59:25 an additional parking spot there. Thank you.
13:59:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak?
13:59:31 >> To item 71?
14:00:02 >> Is lane fisher here? If you could just signal if you're
14:00:06 here. Elaine fisher. Thank you. One additional minute on
14:00:09 the speaker waiver form, and council, I believe Mr. Fisher
14:00:12 has provided some material that he wants in the record. Is
14:00:16 that correct? I'm going to pass that to council.
14:00:21 >> Good morning. My name is William fisher and I reside at
14:00:25 west Woodlawn Avenue. I'm here to speak against -- from
14:00:31 RS-50 to RO. Once again I'm here to represent the wishes of
14:00:34 our neighborhood to remain residential. If you look at the
14:00:36 presentation I provided, you will see a petition against the
14:00:39 rezoning signed by almost every resident on the three
14:00:45 streets directly surrounding this property. If you read the
14:00:47 note on it, you'll see why the other six possible signatures
14:00:51 aren't there. Our first concern with the zoning map that
14:00:54 council was presented by staff in the first reading in
14:00:56 January, while it shows 3 RO and two PD's to the North and
14:01:01 South of this property, if you look at the map and pictures
14:01:03 I provided, you will find that two of the RO properties are
14:01:06 actually residential homes with no plans to change to
14:01:09 office. The two PD's are the houses with the signs out in
14:01:14 front and cannot change their appearance without council
14:01:16 approval. So while the map looks heavily rezoned RO, it
14:01:19 actually is not, but still looks mostly residential. Moving
14:01:22 on to the actual site of the zoning change, there is almost
14:01:25 no zoning requirement. This property has met without being
14:01:27 reduced or waived. It does not meet lot size requirements
14:01:31 considering you had to reduce six required parking spaces to
14:01:34 two, one being an ADA space which can only be used by the
14:01:37 handicapped. It was only made possible because the green
14:01:39 space and buffers were reduced to allow the parking spaces
14:01:42 to be paved along with the alley being paved because of
14:01:45 seven foot setback was not enough space to access the
14:01:48 parking in the backyard. Add to that that most green space
14:01:52 removed, she's paying a triple fee for removing the existing
14:01:55 trees, next to the requirement that it remains residential,
14:01:58 but according to the site plan, with the high pitched roof,
14:02:01 large columns and double front doors and the sign out front,
14:02:03 sounds like that's also being waived. The site plan also
14:02:06 shows an addition to her office, a library conference room
14:02:10 and a large file room which if the property was sold could
14:02:13 easily be converted to more office space. Finally we which
14:02:17 to the signs she'll put out front which code says can be a
14:02:20 ground sign no more than four feet in height. Add that to






14:02:23 four foot signs you see in the pictures and it won't add
14:02:27 much to the neighborhood. In the past few years council has
14:02:29 heard a number of these zoning requests on North Boulevard,
14:02:32 and found them all to be inconsistent and voted unanimously
14:02:36 against them. If ever there were a poster child to being
14:02:38 inconsistent, this is it. Our only hope is that you realize
14:02:41 that this property is not only suited for an office of any
14:02:45 kind, but needs to remain residential. As a neighborhood,
14:02:48 we ask that all of council consider that this property meets
14:02:51 almost none of the requirements for RO and vote no. Thank
14:02:54 you.
14:02:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
14:02:57 >> Sir, did you speak at the first hearing on this?
14:02:59 >> Yes, ma'am. The first hearing, if you remember, was the
14:03:02 night of the first armory thing, and I understand the
14:03:11 council was in a big hurry that night to get out of here.
14:03:14 All I'm asking is that you revisit this site and look at the
14:03:17 plan and you will find out, if you look at what I presented
14:03:20 to you, that this house needs to stay residential and, if
14:03:23 you just put another office in there it's just going to add
14:03:25 to the mess that's already on that street.
14:03:27 >> Thank you.
14:03:28 >> Thank you.
14:03:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
14:03:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thanks.
14:03:38 >> Land development coordination.
14:03:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm going to pass this down to the rest
14:03:43 of council, but the gentleman gave us this information of
14:03:47 record and he says when any of these offices are closed or
14:03:50 sold and they can't be rented, they can always put another
14:03:53 day care facility in a space that's been rezoned RO
14:03:57 residential office. I thought we were pretty specific on
14:04:01 our site plan and the code in terms of the uses.
14:04:05 >> Yes. The RO zoning is a site plan controlled so the
14:04:09 specific use will be called out, and this one is office
14:04:12 business professional.
14:04:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So not day care?
14:04:15 >> No.
14:04:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay. And have we put any additional
14:04:19 limitation? I know there was discussion about the
14:04:22 petitioner, I don't know if she's here or not, but said she
14:04:25 was just going to have herself and maybe one employee, and
14:04:28 one client, you know, very infrequently and that sort of
14:04:32 thing because of her practice, but obviously if she sold her
14:04:34 practice in a different way or came in, or a different, you
14:04:37 know, type of business came in, I guess the community's
14:04:41 concerned there might be more traffic and more parking. Can
14:04:43 we be more specific and maybe if there's legal here, too,
14:04:46 but can we be more specific on our limitation to relate it
14:04:50 specifically to the use that she proposed?
14:04:56 >> Can legal speak to that? She did say on the record at
14:04:59 the previous hearing that she has no employees.
14:05:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, on the record's good, but if you
14:05:04 need to get on the site plan if we really want to make it
14:05:07 enforceable.
14:05:08 >> Rebecca Kert, legal department. You could make it more
14:05:13 specific if that was the wish of council.
14:05:15 >> I think -- I mean, I was supportive of this hesitantly
14:05:19 the last time and the main reason I was was based upon those
14:05:22 assertions. I think that we need to codify those assertions






14:05:25 on the site plan to really make it enforceable. If it's
14:05:30 just to be herself and not even an employee or, you know,
14:05:33 maybe one client at a time, or whatever, then that's what it
14:05:36 should be, because that -- that's the reason I voted for it
14:05:39 and I think it was a pretty close vote, so --
14:05:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak?
14:05:56 >> My name is Joyce, I reside at 805 west Woodlawn Avenue in
14:06:02 riverside heights. I am requesting city council deny this
14:06:05 petition request. The site is 50 feet by 105. It's a small
14:06:10 site. It's not conducive to supporting an office space for
14:06:14 this applicant now, or what it might turn into in the
14:06:17 future. Six parking spaces are required, not even three
14:06:20 fit. We shouldn't have an attitude, well, I think we can
14:06:23 get away with that amount of parking. We should be getting
14:06:25 the -- shouldn't be getting away with anything. We should
14:06:28 be embracing positive planning. This petitioner says she
14:06:33 has low traffic. Let's go with it and say she does. So,
14:06:36 low traffic, how about that? Zoning changes go beyond the
14:06:41 property owner requesting the change and not all residential
14:06:46 offices will be able to get away with this parking proposal.
14:06:51 The small site is positioned on North Boulevard. Parking
14:06:54 isn't even allowed on North Boulevard, so where do they
14:06:57 park? In the alley? Do they block the alley? I notice the
14:07:00 people that live behind there do park in their backyard.
14:07:03 They will want to come and go from that alley, as they do
14:07:07 now, and if there's a car blocking it, or cars pulling out,
14:07:10 where they can't see behind that new brick wall, there's
14:07:14 going to be problems there. So, then you say, well, where
14:07:17 are they going to park? Are they going to park on Natalie
14:07:19 or Braddock? Well, those are City of Tampa neighborhood
14:07:24 streets where there's a ten-minute parking limit. People
14:07:27 will be inclined to park on those corners, making them
14:07:29 dangerous, and not to mention, you already have parking
14:07:32 issues in this neighborhood. It's an older neighborhood.
14:07:35 You don't have large, wide Driveways and two-car garages,
14:07:38 you have minimal amounts of parking. So, if you have a car
14:07:42 parked on the residential street near the corners, one, they
14:07:45 block the visibility for anybody trying to pull out. Two,
14:07:49 cars turning on to the residential street with other cars
14:07:54 parked there, there just isn't even enough room because of
14:07:58 the width of the edge of the pavement. And if you have a
14:08:02 situation, two cars parked on the street, one car pulling on
14:08:05 to the residential street, one car pulling out, you have a
14:08:08 problem, and it occurs. It occurs at the end of my street,
14:08:12 and it does occur in this neighborhood. So, so many times
14:08:17 we look at these communities and we say, well, how did that
14:08:21 happen that we have this parking problem, you know? And you
14:08:24 look back and you say, well, they waived the parking. And,
14:08:28 well, they have actually grandfathered it in, and I did
14:08:32 notice that agenda item 59 today is all about the so-called
14:08:35 parking issues. How many individual site parking spots were
14:08:39 waived that added up to a huge mess down there? I'm
14:08:43 requesting city council deny this petition. I want you to
14:08:46 look forward to the future and make decisions on the
14:08:51 long-term results of that. This is a Band-Aid for a
14:08:55 problem, and it's just not -- it's an answer. It's not the
14:08:58 right answer, and I'd really like to see you deny this, and
14:09:01 I would have been here during the first meeting, but I never
14:09:04 saw the sign.
14:09:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Saul-Sena?






14:09:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you live in this neighborhood?
14:09:08 >> I live in this neighborhood. I Drive these streets every
14:09:11 day. I Drive on Boulevard. I Drive on the internal
14:09:14 streets, and I plan on staying in this neighborhood. I love
14:09:16 it. And I really want to look long-term at what's going to
14:09:20 be best for it. You have the upscale heights projects
14:09:23 moving in. Things are only going to get better. They have
14:09:26 improved. You know, there's areas of concern, but they are
14:09:30 improving, and I would rather long-term answers be given
14:09:34 here rather than a Band-Aid.
14:09:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you. Okay. Next?
14:09:42 >> Chris, 3602 North Boulevard. I have been sworn. First
14:09:47 off, I think the testimony that was spoken at the first
14:09:51 hearing by Erline Randolph, who is the property owner
14:09:59 adjacent to this property, as you recall, she was totally in
14:10:02 favor of this because she was finally getting a buffer.
14:10:05 There's people driving in and out of her yard, that's the
14:10:07 problem that exists now, this is going to provide a buffer
14:10:10 for her to stop her from the busy traffic up and down North
14:10:13 Boulevard. I live on North Boulevard. There have been
14:10:17 several petitions coming forward. There was one that was
14:10:19 just rescheduled last week that's going to be coming forward
14:10:22 again next month. All these properties have been approved
14:10:26 by these business owners. I can tell you North Boulevard is
14:10:29 no place to live. That's why I just joined the committee
14:10:33 for living roadways and they're trying to decrease it to one
14:10:36 direction with a centered turn lane, buffered landscape,
14:10:39 medians and everything in order to slow the traffic for
14:10:42 traffic calming because it's a speedway now. Traffic's 60,
14:10:45 65 miles an hour. I cannot raise a family on this road. No
14:10:49 one is going to purchase these properties that are
14:10:51 residential that have been for sale for years because
14:10:54 there's no desire to live on a main arterial collector road.
14:10:58 That's exactly what North Boulevard is. If I can show you
14:11:03 the -- I won't even get into it but I'm sure you all have
14:11:07 pictures of the property. The petitioner's property has
14:11:10 been vacant for years. Before that it was a bunch of
14:11:13 college students renting it. There was always, you know,
14:11:16 trouble in and out, people pulling in and out of miss
14:11:19 Randolph's yard, using her yard for parking and everything
14:11:22 else. This is going to be an improvement. If you look at
14:11:25 the site plans, all the business owners that have come in
14:11:27 have improved these properties. There's been nothing
14:11:30 improved residentially. I was in front of council a couple
14:11:32 of months ago, trying to get rezoned to run my small
14:11:35 business out of it. I put a ton of money into our property,
14:11:39 and our whole goal is to rehabilitate this entire corridor.
14:11:44 The gentleman spoke about how he represents the
14:11:46 neighborhood. He's never attended one neighborhood meeting.
14:11:48 This is what we discuss in these neighborhood meetings is
14:11:51 what to be done with North Boulevard and everybody is in
14:11:55 consensus that this is the best bet because this has worked.
14:11:58 If you Drive up and down North Boulevard and you look at the
14:12:00 professional offices compared to residential properties,
14:12:03 it's night and day. And there's never going to be any
14:12:05 change. We have to look towards growth and we have to look
14:12:09 towards moving forward to making this a more attractive
14:12:12 corridor that's going to be leading into Tampa heights, into
14:12:14 downtown and into Hyde Park. It's the only North and South
14:12:17 road that does that. That's just, you know, west of the






14:12:20 interstate. There's also going to be an off-ramp coming off
14:12:24 of 275 on North Boulevard, which is going to increase
14:12:27 traffic. Yes, there's -- I got the plans from the dot.
14:12:30 They're putting a cutout now where they're going to expand
14:12:34 it once that's finished. There is -- another problem I have
14:12:39 is folks in these residents live two blocks in. They will
14:12:47 not be affected by this except in a positive way when they
14:12:51 Drive up and down North Boulevard and they see properties
14:12:53 they can be proud of. Right now people Drive up and down
14:12:56 North Boulevard and they think it's not a very good
14:12:58 neighborhood in riverside heights which is totally
14:13:01 inaccurate because it's a great neighborhood. We need
14:13:03 something to provide a buffer for those residents and to
14:13:05 improve the entire corridor aesthetically, so I respectfully
14:13:09 request you stick with the same vote as what you did last
14:13:13 month at 7-0. Thank you.
14:13:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Miss Saul-Sena?
14:13:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Sir?
14:13:18 >> Yes.
14:13:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So you want to take your own property on
14:13:21 North Boulevard and make it into an office use?
14:13:23 >> I run my -- out of it now, because that was council's
14:13:29 intent because it's my homesteaded property. I just can't
14:13:32 live there anymore, I can't raise any children there. It's
14:13:35 dangerous, and that's why you don't have people coming in
14:13:37 and investing the money for that reason. All the
14:13:39 professional offices, they're well maintained, they look
14:13:42 nice and they're very attractive. I mean, just take a ride
14:13:45 up and down and look at the difference between the
14:13:47 residences and the professional offices in between Columbus
14:13:50 and MLK and you'll see. It's night and day. Our whole
14:13:56 intent here is to improve this corridor.
14:13:58 >> I'm sorry. I might not have been listening. Did you say
14:14:02 you lived or have office space there?
14:14:04 >> No. I run my office out of there.
14:14:06 >> So you're single, you don't have any children?
14:14:07 >> Right now, currently, no.
14:14:12 >> You live and work in your -- in the house.
14:14:15 >> In my office, correct, because I have no employees. That
14:14:17 was council's intent last time.
14:14:20 >> You don't live there?
14:14:21 >> No, I do live there.
14:14:22 >> You live and work there?
14:14:24 >> Yes. Because I came for the rezoning a couple of months
14:14:27 ago, it got denied and everybody said, well, what's the
14:14:30 problem? You can run your office out of there as long as
14:14:33 you don't have any employees. I don't have any employees.
14:14:35 It's my homesteaded property so I run my office out of there
14:14:38 as well, but in the future --
14:14:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Please don't speak out.
14:14:42 >> Excuse me?
14:14:44 >>GWEN MILLER: I was talking to someone in the back.
14:14:46 >> In the future, I would like to purchase a house in the
14:14:49 interior of the neighborhood.
14:14:50 >> What is your office? What do you do?
14:14:52 >> Fast track legal services. I do work for attorneys. All
14:14:55 my clients are downtown. I don't have any employees. I'm
14:14:57 constantly downtown researching stuff.
14:14:59 >> Is this attorney one of your clients?
14:15:01 >> No, she's not. I met her when I was going through my






14:15:05 process. And like I said, I've had several other -- there's
14:15:07 several other property owners on North Boulevard that have
14:15:10 come to me with this same intent, who have their small
14:15:13 businesses and have already rehabilitated their homes so
14:15:17 within the next year you're going to see a couple more
14:15:20 coming in front of the council and it's all for professional
14:15:23 offices and we're all in favor of no signage. I mean, if we
14:15:25 can get it to where there's just signage on the door or a
14:15:29 little placard on the wall, our whole intent is to keep the
14:15:33 entire residential character to where you couldn't tell the
14:15:35 difference if it's a residence or an office, and the way I
14:15:37 feel, between 9 and 5, there's someone there. I know the
14:15:41 contention is, oh, well, what happens at nighttime. The
14:15:43 majority of your crimes and burglaries happen during the
14:15:46 day. There's somebody there watching the residential
14:15:48 offices and watching the homes as well, so it creates a nice
14:15:52 relationship between the businesses and the property owners.
14:15:56 I see it as a win. A majority of the community sees it as a
14:15:59 win, and it just -- I would think it would really help
14:16:02 improve that whole corridor entirely.
14:16:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Dingfelder?
14:16:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you. Miss Feeley? Abbye, did I
14:16:14 get the name wrong?
14:16:16 >> Abbye Feeley, land development.
14:16:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm tired. I apologize. Abbye, I think
14:16:24 it's no surprise to anybody that this council wants to
14:16:27 protect neighborhoods as much as possible. We also have a
14:16:30 conflict there. We have a busy street. And I know that
14:16:34 staff probably has no objection to this at this point,
14:16:36 right? I mean, we're kind of --
14:16:38 >> I believe Jill is the planner.
14:16:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I know that. But aren't you the head of
14:16:45 that group for --
14:16:46 >> Yes.
14:16:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay. Well, she's the boss in the room
14:16:50 today.
14:16:54 >> I'll answer to the best of my knowledge. I think I might
14:16:56 know what your question is, but --
14:16:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm just saying from a planning
14:17:00 perspective, you know, I think we need some guidance on this
14:17:03 because, you know, my feeling is we put some heavy
14:17:06 constraints on this residential/office, which really
14:17:09 effectively, if this woman had moved into that little house
14:17:13 she could have a home office and nobody would even know
14:17:15 she's having a home office, but because she doesn't live
14:17:18 there, she has to do the RO instead. I think if we put some
14:17:21 heavy constraints on it, I mean, I have a comfort level. I
14:17:25 live, you know, three houses off of MacDill and I recognize
14:17:28 MacDill is busy and has a lot of commercial uses and office
14:17:31 uses and stuff, you know, just sort of accept it, but I also
14:17:36 realize the Boulevard is not there yet, and I guess that's
14:17:39 their point is they don't want it to be MacDill, so I don't
14:17:41 know. Help us out. You're a planner. You're a trained
14:17:44 planner, gone to college in this. Help us out.
14:17:47 >> There have been some other instances around the city
14:17:49 council where it has been your discretion to do this and
14:17:51 limit what the uses were in there. I believe you've done it
14:17:54 for a real estate office, you've done it. So should it be
14:17:57 your desire today to approve this as an office, there are
14:18:01 some opportunities for limitations as far as law office to






14:18:05 strictly prohibit it or if you even want to go further, you
14:18:08 could go to single attorney law office. I think that from
14:18:13 the planning perspective, and it's very difficult because
14:18:15 when you hear neighbors come before council, they provide
14:18:18 evidence in addition to what you as a planning professional
14:18:21 would look at in relation to a recommendation on a rezoning
14:18:25 report. So, when we looked at the zoning atlas page of what
14:18:32 had transpired along this corridor, when Jill went out to
14:18:35 the site and looked at what was going on along North
14:18:38 Boulevard and just given that North Boulevard is a major
14:18:41 thoroughfare through the city, this transition of this use,
14:18:44 similar to what has happened along Armenia/Howard area North
14:18:48 of the interstate as well, you see that it was a natural
14:18:51 progression. I think that's why you see staff's
14:18:54 recommendation as finding this consistent, given the limited
14:18:58 impact, et cetera. Should it be council's discretion, you
14:19:01 could ask and make sure the petitioner would be willing to
14:19:05 condition it to state single attorney law office or estate
14:19:09 planning law, et cetera, related to their use, acknowledging
14:19:14 the fact that in the future should that change, it would
14:19:16 force a rezoning on this property again. If you did that,
14:19:20 and then whoever wanted to use it again, or if the property
14:19:23 were to be sold, that would bring the petition back before
14:19:27 council as if that person were not a single attorney law
14:19:30 firm or a law firm, then it would be inconsistent with the
14:19:33 current zoning on the property.
14:19:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Strangely enough, I don't know if the
14:19:37 petitioner is here. Is she?
14:19:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Before you leave, to your knowledge, how
14:19:41 many single-family homes do you think is on North Boulevard?
14:19:44 >> In which segment? From --
14:19:47 >>GWEN MILLER: From Columbus Drive to Martin Luther King.
14:19:50 >> From Columbus to Martin Luther King? There's quite a
14:19:55 few. If you look at this map. Talking about this block
14:20:08 face, from Atalee to Braddock, the block face that the
14:20:15 subject parcel is on, it is currently the only one that is
14:20:18 still a residential single-family unit.
14:20:19 >> There's only three houses on it, right?
14:20:22 >> What about across the street?
14:20:23 >> Across the street --
14:20:25 >> It's all single --
14:20:27 >> It's residential office, at the corner of Plymouth and --
14:20:32 >>GWEN MILLER: And the school there? Is the school --
14:20:37 >> Can you put the map up that was just up there?
14:20:40 >>GWEN MILLER: There's not that many single-family homes on
14:20:43 Boulevard.
14:20:43 >> I can let Jill talk to that.
14:20:45 >> Because if all of the -- if the zoning on there is
14:20:48 correct and everything that isn't marked on there is still
14:20:52 single-family, it's a pretty big majority if you look at
14:20:55 that whole block.
14:20:56 >> On the east? You're referring to the eastern side of the
14:20:58 block?
14:20:58 >> Right. And the western side. There's only one, two,
14:21:03 three --
14:21:04 >> This is the corridor.
14:21:06 >> Remember, those are plotted lots. That's not necessarily
14:21:10 development, so that could really be two or three houses on
14:21:13 six plotted lots. That doesn't actually show the
14:21:16 development pattern. That shows the plat underneath.






14:21:22 >> Is there a way we could see the overhead maybe or I don't
14:21:25 know?
14:21:26 >> Do you have a red/blue map?
14:21:28 >> No. We don't do red/blue for RO. I don't know if you
14:21:33 can see that a little bit. This is the subject property.
14:21:38 >> So, for instance, do we know if -- what's that street at
14:21:43 the bottom that -- the east/west street on the bottom?
14:21:47 West. It says west something. West street. Is it west
14:21:49 street? Okay. So -- so the residential office plotted
14:21:56 above there, how many -- is that one unit?
14:22:05 >> I believe that it looks -- it appears to be one large
14:22:10 office building with surface parking to the north.
14:22:12 >> Where is it?
14:22:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Back it out a little bit.
14:22:15 >> Here's the area.
14:22:16 >> Wait a minute.
14:22:18 >> There's two. It looks like there's two.
14:22:21 >> Yeah.
14:22:23 >> And one of them has a big parking lot on Boulevard?
14:22:27 >> On the North.
14:22:29 >> Okay.
14:22:30 >> And then the next one, is that just one?
14:22:39 >> If you look across the street from that as well, there's
14:22:41 a structure, and then you have a large surface lot. But do
14:22:48 we know that those are --
14:22:50 >> I think he has some specific information on what these
14:22:54 uses are.
14:22:55 >> This is directly across the street from the site.
14:23:05 >> [Inaudible] (off mic).
14:23:17 >> Abbye, let me make this clearer, if you put that back up
14:23:21 there. Which one would you like to see?
14:23:23 >> The map that you had in the first place that had the
14:23:26 zoning.
14:23:30 >> This is my question: You don't have to tell me how many
14:23:33 units are on each of those platted lots, but if the ones
14:23:37 that are not marked PDRO, PDRO, those are the only
14:23:44 classifications I see indicated here, if everything else is
14:23:48 residential, is that the case?
14:23:50 >> Yes.
14:23:51 >> Okay. That's what I needed to know. I don't know if
14:23:55 that's clear for --
14:23:56 >> I'm ready to close.
14:24:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, do you want to speak?
14:24:05 >> Petitioner, do you want to have an opportunity to address
14:24:08 council for rebuttal or any other purposes?
14:24:11 >> Yeah. The question -- consumes. My name is Ben and I've
14:24:15 been sworn in. Excuse me.
14:24:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Move the mic in front of you, please. Okay.
14:24:20 Thank you.
14:24:21 >> On -- Jill does intend, she is the only one that's going
14:24:26 to be working in that building, and she generates very
14:24:31 minimal traffic, and I don't think there will be any impact
14:24:33 in that residence -- residential neighborhood at all.
14:24:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. Thank you, sir.
14:24:42 >> Thanks.
14:24:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Miss Mulhern?
14:24:47 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes. I have to admit that that 10:00 first
14:24:56 reading that we had, a very vague recollection of it, and
14:25:01 was very surprised to see that we all voted for it, and I'm
14:25:04 a little worried that this is the first time that we really






14:25:06 paid attention, so that's why this is taking so long, I
14:25:09 think. But this is my feeling about this, that in -- and my
14:25:15 sense about this today, and I think I would have, had I been
14:25:19 very much more awake, the last time, there are enough
14:25:26 neighbors that live around here in a district that is zoned
14:25:31 residential, which still has a majority of residential homes
14:25:34 on it. That's the zoning, and that's what those houses were
14:25:38 built to be in. That's probably why people who still live
14:25:41 there originally moved to this neighborhood, and you can
14:25:44 talk about how it's changing and what makes it better and
14:25:48 all that, but really that's why we have zoning, so that you
14:25:52 know what cease really appropriate in an area. And I can
14:25:54 tell you, if Charlie Miranda was here, he would be talking
14:25:57 about his neighborhood, west Tampa, I'm guessing, and I
14:26:00 don't know how he would vote on this at all, but he would
14:26:03 tell you about how that happened, bit by bit by bit, that
14:26:05 every house around St. Joseph's turned into an office, and
14:26:09 it used to be a residential neighborhood. This
14:26:12 neighborhood, my sense is they're kind of at that turning
14:26:16 point where it either becomes one of those streets, or it
14:26:19 doesn't. And I think, you know, this -- these photographs
14:26:23 were pretty telling that the space is -- many of the spaces
14:26:27 that are for rent are the office -- residential office
14:26:31 spaces. So I'm sure the petitioner has every intention of
14:26:36 working in this office, but, you know, she's a young
14:26:39 attorney. Who knows? We don't know what's going to happen.
14:26:41 And Mr. Dingfelder, I don't believe in tailoring every
14:26:46 single house that gets zoned with different requirements.
14:26:50 How about the other ones that already got the residential
14:26:53 office? Maybe those are, you know, doing some other things.
14:26:56 So if we make some kind of restrictive requirement on this,
14:27:01 while still giving it that zoning, it doesn't seem fair. So
14:27:06 I'm not going to -- I'm going to change my vote from the
14:27:09 first reading to deny this based on incompatibility.
14:27:15 >> Have we closed the public hearing?
14:27:17 >> Oh, we didn't close the public hearing? I'm sorry. I'm
14:27:20 sorry.
14:27:21 >> Move to close the public hearing.
14:27:23 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion and second to close, all in favor
14:27:26 of the motion say aye, opposed nay.
14:27:27 >> Was that a motion, Miss Mulhern?
14:27:36 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes. I'm going to make a motion to deny.
14:27:38 >> Second.
14:27:39 >>MARY MULHERN: Based on compatibility and based on all the
14:27:42 waivers. We also gave them every waiver they asked for. We
14:27:45 asked -- you know, the parking waiver is interesting because
14:27:48 it seems like it would be hard to have a business if you
14:27:51 could only park one or two cars there. So I'm -- where is
14:28:02 it? I would cite section 27-324.
14:28:07 >> Would you refer to subsection 2?
14:28:09 >> Yeah. Is that the parking? Yes. Yeah. It -- I think
14:28:16 that would interfere with, you know, the other -- and
14:28:20 altering the alley, allowing that would interfere with the
14:28:23 other residence there. Number three, I think it's not in
14:28:28 Harmony, or -- and doesn't support the general intent and
14:28:31 purpose of this chapter because the general -- I think
14:28:37 zoning there, and the uses are still largely residential.
14:28:42 There may be going the other way, but this, you know, every
14:28:46 time you rezone one of these, so I don't think it's in
14:28:49 character. And I think that's it.






14:28:55 >> Council, may I also suggest -- miss Mulhern, based on
14:28:59 what you said, to look at the bottom of the page, to
14:29:02 reference section 27-321 (6) regarding compatibility?
14:29:09 >> Oh, there it is. Yeah. Encouraging flexible land
14:29:13 development which reduces transportation needs, conserves
14:29:17 energy.
14:29:18 >> Below that?
14:29:19 >> Where is it? The very end, of course. Open space,
14:29:22 green --
14:29:23 >> No. 321 under PD.
14:29:27 >>GWEN MILLER: You're on the wrong page. The front page, I
14:29:29 think.
14:29:35 >> Yeah. I'm done.
14:29:36 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion and a second. Question to the
14:29:40 motion, Mr. Dingfelder?
14:29:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you. This one is a close call,
14:29:44 but I think, Mary, when you talk about fairness, I'm not
14:29:47 really sure, fair to who? You said, well, the other people
14:29:50 who have an RO and they don't have conditions, you know,
14:29:54 they got a better deal than this person who is asking for an
14:29:57 RO and was about to get slammed with tremendous conditions
14:30:00 to limit her to just the single attorney practice that she's
14:30:06 talking about. So I think if we're looking to be fair to
14:30:09 the property owner, I think we could split the baby on this.
14:30:12 I think she's already bought this property. Is that my
14:30:16 understanding? She bought the property. She's got a very,
14:30:20 very minimal practice. And we could limit this rezoning
14:30:25 with substantial conditions that frankly if somebody moved
14:30:28 in there and rented this house and had -- and had five
14:30:32 teenagers parking all over the front yard and everywhere
14:30:34 else, I'll tell you what, the impact on that street and that
14:30:37 neighborhood would be a lot more than she and her little
14:30:40 one-person practice coming and going, you know, eight hours
14:30:42 a day. So, you know, I know the intent of the motion is to
14:30:45 protect the neighborhood, and you and I are always on the
14:30:47 same page in that regard, but I think it's just a different
14:30:50 matter of style and how to get there, so --
14:30:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Miss Saul-Sena?
14:30:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you. I want to support the motion
14:30:55 not only for this particular request -- I seconded it. But
14:30:59 it's a small lot, and what we're seeing here is I think a
14:31:05 tipping point, and this will be referred to in the future as
14:31:08 a precedent in either direction. We heard from one of the
14:31:13 persons who intends to try to create additional professional
14:31:17 uses along here, and we really need to look at the overall
14:31:20 integrity of the neighborhood, and it is a residential
14:31:23 neighborhood, and that's why I will be supporting the motion
14:31:25 to deny the request.
14:31:27 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion of denial say
14:31:30 yeah. Opposed say nay.
14:31:35 >>CLERK: I believe we have a split vote. 3-3.
14:31:38 >>GWEN MILLER: No. It's 4-3.
14:31:40 >> Did you vote?
14:31:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why don't you do it again?
14:31:43 >> Do you want to do a roll call?
14:31:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's do a roll call vote.
14:31:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
14:31:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No.
14:31:52 >>GWEN MILLER: No.
14:31:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT:






14:31:59 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes.
14:32:00 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: No.
14:32:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
14:32:09 >>CLERK: Okay. The motion did not pass. Dingfelder,
14:32:13 Miller, Scott and Caetano voted no.
14:32:18 >>GWEN MILLER: It's 4-2.
14:32:20 >> Motion failed 2-4. Okay.
14:32:24 >>MARTY SHELBY: Madam Chair, I need to very quickly, we
14:32:26 need to get past this one, I need to reopen the public
14:32:29 hearing because I've got to get the petitioner's concurrence
14:32:32 to the conditions that I'd like to lay on them.
14:32:35 >> Second to reopen.
14:32:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second. All in favor of the
14:32:39 motion say aye. Opposed say nay.
14:32:42 >>MARTY SHELBY: It is Ben, right?
14:32:44 >> Yes.
14:32:45 >>MARTY SHELBY: You know, Dingfelder always gets messed up,
14:32:49 too. Are you able to speak for the petitioner in terms of
14:32:54 being the applicant that --
14:32:57 >> Yes.
14:32:59 >> Okay. So you're signed off in terms of the --
14:33:02 >> Yes.
14:33:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay. So the question is will you
14:33:05 accept the following conditions that the -- that it would be
14:33:10 just for the -- an attorney, a single practitioner attorney?
14:33:15 >> Yes.
14:33:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay. With no employees?
14:33:17 >> That's right.
14:33:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And only one client visiting at a time?
14:33:21 >> That's right.
14:33:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
14:33:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Close the public hearing again?
14:33:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If you're acceptable to that, I'll move
14:33:27 to close the public hearing and that will be my motion.
14:33:30 >> Before we close --
14:33:32 >> The only person I have, though, is so then, it's
14:33:35 restricted to just one attorney?
14:33:37 >> Yes. That's all she said she is.
14:33:41 >> Yes. It's just her and her office.
14:33:45 >> She owns it.
14:33:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, she can always move.
14:33:48 >> And she can sell it or find somebody -- to protect the
14:33:52 neighborhood.
14:33:52 >> But what about the parking? What if she's got a couple
14:33:58 and they're mediating a divorce and they come in separate
14:34:01 cars?
14:34:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's close the public hearing.
14:34:05 >> She does estate planning, so --
14:34:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Close the public hearing, please.
14:34:10 >> Move to close the public hearing.
14:34:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close. All in favor of
14:34:16 the motion say aye. Opposed say nay?
14:34:17 >> I believe my suggestion would be appropriate for this to
14:34:20 go back to first reading because it has to be a site plan
14:34:24 condition that has to be added on the site plan. That could
14:34:27 be done between first and second reading and therefore you
14:34:29 would pass it on first reading with that condition, it would
14:34:36 conform and come back and be prepared for second reading and
14:34:39 adoption in two weeks.
14:34:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay. So my motion is going to be to






14:34:43 approve it for first reading. I can read the ordinance for
14:34:45 first reading with those three conditions, and that's what
14:34:47 I'll do.
14:34:50 >> In order to expedite -- [Inaudible] (off mic).
14:34:58 >> The code doesn't allow it.
14:35:01 >> Well, let me read the motion. You have not --
14:35:05 >> We haven't voted on it yet.
14:35:07 >> What was the original condition?
14:35:09 >> Let's just see what my problem is here. We are second
14:35:13 reading. Is that right?
14:35:15 >> That's correct.
14:35:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: From now we start all over again, is that
14:35:19 right?
14:35:19 >> Council, if I may, just for the purposes -- for the
14:35:22 purposes of understanding and refreshing your recollection,
14:35:24 there is a new site plan that was introduced to adopt
14:35:28 conditions that were placed on petitioner at the first
14:35:31 reading. Moving the parking locations. And if you're not
14:35:34 familiar with that, the staff brought it to my attention as
14:35:38 a reminder, and I don't know why the council needs to know
14:35:40 that, but there is an additional new site plan that has been
14:35:43 prepared. So in that sense, the answer is that what
14:35:48 conditions that were placed at first reading, it has been
14:35:52 conformed to and a new site plan has been brought to you for
14:35:55 second reading.
14:35:57 >> We're talking about two more weeks?
14:35:59 >> Yes.
14:36:05 >> It's not perfect, but I think Mary made a good point.
14:36:08 She said 10 p.m., and everybody wasn't --
14:36:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I understand that. But my point is that
14:36:13 people been waiting all day. Every week we come with the
14:36:17 same situation, and we get backed up, backed up, backed up.
14:36:20 Because we come and we add all these additional conditions.
14:36:23 Now, I'm going to tell you, you all don't like it, but
14:36:27 that's why zoning is better than this whole process.
14:36:31 >> Well, until we get that, even though I'm not going to
14:36:34 vote for this petition, why don't you show us the site plan.
14:36:37 Do we have the new site plan? Did we already see it?
14:36:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Why we got to see the site plan?
14:36:43 >> So that you can look at it.
14:36:45 >>GWEN MILLER: We don't need to look at it if we okay with
14:36:47 it.
14:36:48 >> It was already voted for to pass it. Why don't you look
14:36:50 at it. If these changes they made between first and this
14:36:54 second reading, answer Mr. Dingfelder's questions, perhaps
14:36:58 you don't need to come back.
14:37:02 >> Council, I just want to remind you that the purpose of
14:37:04 having two public hearings is there is testimony that you've
14:37:07 taken today that you may not have had the benefit of at the
14:37:11 first public hearing, and that is also competent substantial
14:37:14 evidence, and obviously people have the opportunity to come
14:37:18 and make their case to you, and if that competent
14:37:24 substantial evidence shows you the weight of the evidence,
14:37:26 you do have the right to change your vote. So what I'm
14:37:29 saying is just -- how you voted the first time does not lock
14:37:33 you in to how you voted at the second public hearing.
14:37:36 >>GWEN MILLER: All right, Mr. Dingfelder.
14:37:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay. I'll move an ordinance rezone
14:37:41 property in the general vicinity 3114 North Boulevard in
14:37:46 City of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in






14:37:48 section 1 from zoning district classification RS-50 to RO
14:37:52 residential office providing for an effective date. This is
14:37:54 a site controlled district. The site plan would be as it is
14:37:56 today with -- in addition, staff is going to add the
14:37:59 following three conditions: Owners, that the -- it's a law
14:38:04 firm, a -- let's see, a one-lawyer law firm with no
14:38:08 employees, and only one client visiting at a time.
14:38:11 >> And if it's a divorce, one has to have a cab.
14:38:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Do we get a second?
14:38:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Did I get a second?
14:38:20 >> Second.
14:38:21 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and a second. Question to
14:38:23 the motion?
14:38:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yeah. I'd like to add a friendly amendment
14:38:27 that we strike all those conditions there, and go back to
14:38:30 the original conditions.
14:38:34 >> I don't think that's a friendly amendment, but I would
14:38:37 say that's an amendment to the motion which would require a
14:38:40 second in order for you to vote on that amendment.
14:38:42 >> Second.
14:38:42 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and a second. All in favor
14:38:45 of the motion say aye. Opposed say nay?
14:38:49 >> What was the vote?
14:38:50 >> 3-3.
14:38:51 >> Okay. So now it goes back to the original motion. And
14:38:53 my motion -- and everybody understands my motion. Let's get
14:38:57 done with this thing. We've split the baby. The property
14:38:59 owner's okay with it. The neighborhood's not going to be
14:39:02 happy no matter what. But we tried our best. Can we just
14:39:05 try and move this thing? My motion is there. I got a
14:39:08 second.
14:39:08 >> You're moving it.
14:39:09 >> I want to make the point. I'm leaving here in exactly
14:39:12 one minute. That's number one. And number two is --
14:39:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's pass this so we can go on. Anybody
14:39:19 second? You second the motion?
14:39:21 >> His amendment?
14:39:23 >> No.
14:39:24 >> A second to my original motion.
14:39:27 >> That's right.
14:39:27 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion and a second with the conditions.
14:39:29 All in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed say nay. Okay.
14:39:34 >>CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena and Mulhern voting
14:39:37 no.
14:39:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Reverend Scott has to leave.
14:39:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I apologize. I have a flight to catch in
14:39:46 about one hour and 15 minutes, and I'm going to miss it.
14:39:49 But anyway, on the -- I hope I don't miss it. Anyway, I
14:39:53 wanted to -- did you pass those out to council earlier?
14:39:59 Under the staff report of new business, under the -- most of
14:40:04 you may have received the memoranda from sergeant Murray.
14:40:08 He raises some interesting points on this issue. It is a
14:40:12 budgetary issue. He makes allegations that he can save --
14:40:16 that can be saved $6 million. It is my understanding that
14:40:19 under the reorganization, it went from I think 11
14:40:21 lieutenants to 26 from 2003 to where they are now so I would
14:40:26 like for the administration to respond to this, and also to
14:40:30 have the budget department take a look at this as well. So
14:40:33 that will be my motion that it come back to us in, what, two
14:40:36 weeks? Is that sufficient time?






14:40:38 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion and a second. All in favor of the
14:40:40 motion say aye. Opposed say nay.
14:40:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And the second one is that you very well
14:40:44 know that on the 5th, I believe it was, there was a breakage
14:40:50 in the Verizon line that caused the police department to be
14:40:53 without radio contact, which is a public safety issue. And
14:41:00 those of you that may have been watching the news last night
14:41:02 or this morning know that Tampa now is rated as the top 24
14:41:08 terrorist attack. I heard that on the news last night and
14:41:11 this morning. So that raises even more concern that we have
14:41:14 a situation that our law enforcement could not communicate
14:41:16 with one another other than by laptop. I would like for us
14:41:19 to ask the administration to respond how they have addressed
14:41:21 this issue, and to make sure that we can address it, and
14:41:25 assure us that these -- that there are remedies in place in
14:41:30 the future should this happen or occur again. Yes, that's a
14:41:34 motion. Yeah, come back in two weeks as well.
14:41:36 >> Second.
14:41:37 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion and a second. All in favor of the
14:41:39 motion say aye. Question on the motion? All in favor of
14:41:41 the motion say aye opposed say nay.
14:41:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Go back to our agenda item number 72.
14:41:50 Anyone in the public that want to speak on item 72?
14:41:53 >> Move to close.
14:41:54 >> Move to close.
14:41:55 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion and second to close. All in favor
14:41:58 of the motion say aye. Opposed say nay. Miss Saul-Sena,
14:42:00 would you read that, please?
14:42:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Madam Chairman, I move the
14:42:06 following ordinance for adoption after second reading, an
14:42:09 ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages containing
14:42:11 alcohol of more than 1% by weight and not more than 14% by
14:42:14 weight, and wines regardless of alcoholic content, beer and
14:42:18 wine, 2-COP-R for consumption on the premises only in
14:42:21 connection with a restaurant business establishment on that
14:42:23 certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 9801 North
14:42:28 Nebraska Avenue, Tampa, Florida, as more particularly
14:42:31 described in section 2 hereof, waiving certain restrictions
14:42:33 as to distance based upon certain findings, providing for
14:42:38 repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for an
14:42:40 effective date.
14:42:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and a second. Vote and
14:42:42 record.
14:42:42 >>CLERK: Who was the second?
14:42:43 >> Second.
14:42:54 >>CLERK: Motion carried unanimously with Miranda being
14:42:57 absent and Scott being absent at vote.
14:43:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public want to speak
14:43:03 on item 73? Move to close.
14:43:06 >> Move to close.
14:43:07 >> Second.
14:43:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close. All in favor of the motion
14:43:10 say yeah.
14:43:12 >> I'd like to move the following ordinance upon second
14:43:15 reading. An ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages
14:43:18 containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight, and not more
14:43:21 than 14% by weight, and wines regardless of alcoholic
14:43:24 content, beer and wine, 2-COP-R for consumption on premises
14:43:28 only in connection with a restaurant business establishment
14:43:30 on that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 4802






14:43:33 west bay court Avenue, Tampa, Florida as more particularly
14:43:36 described in section 2 hereof waiving certain restrictions
14:43:39 as to distance based upon certain findings, providing for
14:43:42 repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for an
14:43:43 effective date.
14:43:43 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion and a second. Vote and record.
14:43:58 >>CLERK: Motion carried unanimously with Miranda being
14:44:00 absent, and Scott being absent at vote.
14:44:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public wanting to
14:44:07 speak on item number 74? Move to close.
14:44:09 >> Second.
14:44:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion to close. All in favor of the motion
14:44:12 say aye. Opposed say nay. Mr. Dingfelder?
14:44:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll move the following ordinance for
14:44:17 second reading. An ordinance amending ordinance number
14:44:20 2008-4 passed and ordained by the city council of the City
14:44:24 of Tampa on January 10th, 2008, which approved a wet zoning
14:44:27 4-COP-R for 401 North Dale Mabry Highway by replacing a
14:44:31 corrected section 4 for an incorrect section 4, providing
14:44:34 for severability, providing for an effective date.
14:44:35 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion and a second. Vote and record.
14:44:49 >>CLERK: Motion carried unanimously with Miranda being
14:44:51 absent and Scott being absent at vote.
14:44:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public want to speak
14:44:57 on item 75?
14:44:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close?
14:45:00 >> No. They're coming.
14:45:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Oh.
14:45:02 >> They've waited all day.
14:45:13 >> Good afternoon. I'm here representing the applicant, and
14:45:19 if you'd like I can respond to any comment.
14:45:23 >> Do you want to reserve for rebuttal?
14:45:25 >> I will do so.
14:45:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. Let the public speak and then you
14:45:28 come back.
14:45:29 >> Very good. Thank you, Madam Chair.
14:45:35 >> My name is Susan long, I'm president of the old Seminole
14:45:38 Heights neighborhood association. I live at 921 east broad
14:45:42 street. The original first reading for this wet zoning was
14:45:45 held on January 17th, 2008. When I returned home, I had an
14:45:49 E-mail that indicated that this location was for sale. I
14:45:52 printed out the attached listing. The listing states, below
14:45:59 a convenience store and gas station business with two
14:46:02 separate net leases that consist of a garage, car detail
14:46:05 shop and car sales. Looking back at the wet zoning leasing,
14:46:08 wet zoning application, exhibit A1 question 4 asks is the
14:46:13 subject property leased, and no was centered. We feel this
14:46:17 is an indication of complete honesty saying there are two
14:46:23 net leases. As you can see from the application, they state
14:46:26 it is not leased. After the January 17th hearing, I spoke
14:46:28 with the owner and his attorney outside of council's
14:46:33 chambers. He told me he's at the station from 6:30 in the
14:46:36 morning until 1 p.m. on most days. I showed him pictures I
14:46:40 had of code violations, and he proceeded to tell me his
14:46:44 people must have put them there, he's unaware they were
14:46:47 there. At the time, he had code violations for canvas tent
14:46:52 and a three-bay coverall. Here's the coverall. Here's the
14:47:01 canvas tent. And as you can see, the tent isn't even
14:47:06 attached to the -- wasn't even attached to the ground.
14:47:09 Okay. Since that time, he's removed both, however, and now






14:47:14 he is in compliance with code. He has also sent me an
14:47:17 E-mail with a picture indicating that he is in compliance
14:47:19 with code. If he is on site most days from 6:30 to 1 p.m.,
14:47:24 how could he have not known about those structures? They're
14:47:29 relatively large. Again, this seems to indicate that he is
14:47:31 not honestly representing his position. At the January
14:47:34 hearing, the comment was made that no one could walk across
14:47:37 Hillsborough Avenue at that location. As a result, the
14:47:39 church did not need to be concerned with persons purchasing
14:47:42 alcohol at the location, and then drinking it on the
14:47:45 church's property. First, this picture clearly shows that
14:47:52 there is a grassy median on Hillsborough Avenue at this
14:47:55 location, making it much easier to cross than would be the
14:48:00 case if there were no median. Second, much to my surprise,
14:48:03 a few days ago in the middle of rush hour I was driving west
14:48:05 on Hillsborough Avenue and almost hit a young man as he was
14:48:08 running across Hillsborough Avenue from approximately this
14:48:10 location. I don't really know where he started, into what
14:48:12 appeared to be running into the church location. I was
14:48:15 shocked to see someone trying to run across Hillsborough
14:48:18 Avenue during rush hour. However, I would not have been
14:48:20 shocked to see this occur at night when the traffic volume
14:48:23 is much lower. As you know, wet zoning goes with the
14:48:26 property and not with the owner. To wet zone a property,
14:48:29 that A is for sale, and B is not operated or managed by the
14:48:33 owner, is upsetting. The question is: Who is and will be
14:48:37 using the wet zoning? I brought this information to the old
14:48:41 Seminole Heights neighborhood association's board, and they
14:48:43 unanimously requested the wet zoning be denied. Thank you.
14:48:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you. Next speaker?
14:49:02 >> Good afternoon, council members. My name is Beverly
14:49:07 Morrow, and I reside in southeast Seminole Heights at 1106
14:49:11 east Ellicott Street. I am also the past president of our
14:49:15 civic association. The southeast Seminole Heights civic
14:49:19 association remains opposed to the wet zoning petition for
14:49:22 806 east Hillsborough Avenue, as we have during the four
14:49:27 previous efforts to attain wet zoning for this location.
14:49:31 Our primary objections remain the same. The property is
14:49:36 just 380 feet from the Seminole Heights Baptist Church
14:49:40 property. This church is sponsored a successful drug
14:49:45 cessation program for several years, and offers both
14:49:49 after-school and summer activities for the youth in our
14:49:52 community. The property at 806 is only 220 feet from a
14:50:00 Shell Station that sells alcoholic beverages. They're not
14:50:04 within the thousand-foot buffer area. The BP station at
14:50:09 Hillsborough and central also sells alcoholic beverages.
14:50:13 Also, this location is only 100 feet from residential
14:50:17 property zoned RS-50. Additionally, since the petitioner's
14:50:23 first request for wet zoning in 2003, there is now a second
14:50:28 drug cessation program. Hillsborough -- or excuse me,
14:50:33 Tampa, Hillsborough county drug abuse center, and that is
14:50:36 located at 5412 North 9th street, only 660 feet away from
14:50:41 the property. Our neighborhood has a high density level of
14:50:47 businesses that sell alcohol. To add yet another disregards
14:50:54 the best interests of our community. Over the past four and
14:50:59 a half years, the petitioner has operated a deli, tire sales
14:51:05 and service, a detail shop, automotive repairs and a
14:51:09 convenience store, in addition to the sale of gasoline. His
14:51:14 business has grown and been in continuous operation since
14:51:17 opening in 2003. It would appear that the petitioner has a






14:51:22 successful business. Our neighborhood supports the
14:51:26 petitioner's business without patronage of the various
14:51:29 services being offered. May be inclined to shop even more
14:51:38 if the petitioner would offer a larger selection of food and
14:51:42 grocery items rather than snack items. As Susan long
14:51:46 mentioned, it has been discussed in a previous reading that
14:51:50 a patron of the convenience store would not cross six lanes
14:51:53 of traffic on Hillsborough Avenue to reach any of the
14:51:57 properties within the thousand-foot buffer zone. Jaywalking
14:52:01 is very possible at this area of Hillsborough Avenue, as
14:52:05 there is, as you were shown, a very wide, grassy median, and
14:52:09 I, too, have witnessed people crossing at this location. As
14:52:14 a point of information, again, some of this you were given
14:52:18 by Susan, but this property was listed for sale on an
14:52:23 internet real estate site in September of 2005 for 825,000.
14:52:28 While the petitioner sought to wet zone it. At the time of
14:52:33 the first reading of the current petition, on January 17th
14:52:36 of 2008, this property was being offered again on a real
14:52:41 estate internet site for $1.2 million. Since the wet zoning
14:52:48 remains with the property, and transfers to the new owner,
14:52:52 we are very concerned about new ownership and what may be
14:52:56 developed at this location at a later date. Over the past
14:53:02 15 years, southeast and old Seminole Heights have fought
14:53:07 very diligently to diminish negative influences in our
14:53:11 neighborhood. Those being, namely, prostitution, street
14:53:15 level drug activity and vagrancy. Our combined efforts over
14:53:21 the past seven years have allowed us to enjoy a much better
14:53:25 quality of life. Do I have to stop?
14:53:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes. Time's up.
14:53:34 >> Thank you.
14:53:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
14:53:40 >> I just hope that you will consider that over the past --
14:53:43 hold strong and steadfast to what you've denied in the past.
14:53:50 >> Good afternoon, council, my name is Randy barren, 217
14:53:57 west -- Avenue. I'm the former president of the homeowners
14:54:03 association. Both Beverly and Susan spoke very eloquently
14:54:07 about the defects both in the petition and the impacts that
14:54:10 we can have around this neighborhood through wet zoning yet
14:54:13 another location along Hillsborough Avenue. This is -- you
14:54:16 know, we live in the inner city. We live and work in close
14:54:19 proximity to commercial uses. We have residential almost
14:54:24 directly behind us. Across the street from a church. It's
14:54:27 very close to other institutional uses in this area.
14:54:31 Another factor to be taken into consideration is if you wet
14:54:35 zone this, it will always be wet zoned. You reduce another
14:54:39 opportunity for redevelopment. At one point, the petitioner
14:54:44 had -- I don't know whether jokingly or not, suggested maybe
14:54:47 he could turn this into a Dunkin' Donuts if he doesn't get
14:54:52 his wet zoning. Wonderful! We'd love to see something
14:54:55 other than another wet zoned property. But if you wet zone
14:54:57 it it will always be wet zoned, so you will limit the
14:55:00 ability to be redeveloped in a much more
14:55:03 neighborhood-friendly environment. If somebody wants to buy
14:55:05 a six-pack of beer, there are lots of places along
14:55:09 Hillsborough Avenue to purchase that beer. When he
14:55:11 purchased property, he did so, I'm guessing, with the
14:55:14 expectation that he would be wet zoned, and my fear, my
14:55:18 personal fear, is that he's now going to turn this around
14:55:20 and try and sell for a profit. This has happened before in
14:55:23 the neighborhood. Even -- even with conditionals within






14:55:26 months after the conditionals over, the owners then try and
14:55:31 list the property. There's one in particular I know that
14:55:33 was given a conditional a few years back that literally
14:55:36 within a few weeks after the conditional was approved for a
14:55:41 permanent, they put it on the market, they sold it and now
14:55:44 it's been four different delis since then, and has been an
14:55:47 eye sore to the neighborhood. We don't want to see the same
14:55:50 thing happen here. This is a neighborhood that has fought
14:55:53 very diligently to try and improve itself. Adding another
14:55:57 wet zoning of this type is not going to help. I please ask
14:56:01 council if you would reconsider your vote on first reading
14:56:04 and deny this petition. Thank you.
14:56:06 >> Thank you.
14:56:15 >> Hello. My name is Doreen Debona. I'm a trustee of the
14:56:20 old Seminole Heights neighborhood association. My home
14:56:23 address is 203 west Palatson Avenue. Thank you very much
14:56:27 for the opportunity to speak to you today. I have been a
14:56:30 member of the old Seminole Heights neighborhood association
14:56:32 since 1988, and have been on the board since 1989. We in
14:56:39 Seminole Heights have fought diligently for over 20 years to
14:56:43 try and improve the neighborhood, as you know, it has just
14:56:47 been a dreadful situation with some of the changes that have
14:56:51 occurred over the years to the neighborhood. We are so
14:56:53 excited now to have the opportunity to be a test case for
14:56:58 the form-based zoning. We're working so hard to try to make
14:57:01 this more of a residential area, or a more
14:57:05 residential-friendly area. I frequently have visitors come
14:57:08 to my home who Drive North on Florida Avenue, and are just
14:57:11 amazed when they turn off of Florida Avenue that there's
14:57:14 actually nice homes back in the neighborhoods. One of the
14:57:19 things that we've been concerned about as a board and I have
14:57:21 voted repeatedly as a board member, is that how many places
14:57:25 do we need in the neighborhood where you can buy alcoholic
14:57:28 beverages? There are just -- there's a glut already and we
14:57:33 just don't need to continue adding to that. We have fought
14:57:38 this from the first time that it came before city council,
14:57:41 and we are especially concerned as my former -- or my
14:57:47 co-members from OSHNA have spoken to you today that this
14:57:50 is -- is something that once this wet zoning occurred, and
14:57:54 this property is sold, and it does appear that that is the
14:57:58 direction that it's going, that then we are not going to
14:58:01 have any idea what business is going to come in. We would
14:58:04 like you to really consider this. I think -- I heard you
14:58:08 speak on a previous case that it was a turning point
14:58:12 concerning a business that was going into a residential area
14:58:15 on Boulevard. This is a turning point for us, too. We need
14:58:17 to try and stop the influx of businesses that are not
14:58:21 conducive to residential neighborhoods. Again, thank you
14:58:24 for letting me have the opportunity to speak to you.
14:58:31 >> Good afternoon. My name is Dawn Siler-Nixon. I'm a
14:58:36 partner with the law firm here in Tampa, Florida, and I'm
14:58:40 here on behalf of the 589 members of Seminole Heights
14:58:43 Baptist Church. I'm a trustee of Seminole Heights, I'm a
14:58:47 member there, my family goes to church there. Unfortunately
14:58:50 at the last hearing, there was no one here, as you may
14:58:52 recall from Seminole Heights. We had someone here in the
14:58:55 morning, but the hearing ran long as this one has so they
14:58:59 could not stay to the afternoon. These ladies, I don't know
14:59:02 them, but they have eloquently stated our position in this
14:59:05 matter. As you know, Seminole Heights has been in that






14:59:08 community for more than 90 years. We have served that
14:59:12 community well. We have provided many different programs as
14:59:16 an outreach for that community to both people who are
14:59:19 rehabbing from drug and alcohol abuse to children in that
14:59:22 neighborhood who would not have a safe place to go
14:59:25 otherwise. They do say that -- see that as a safe haven,
14:59:29 and allowing this usage for this property that literally is
14:59:33 right across the street. If you've ever driven even 275 and
14:59:37 looked to your right immediately across the street from this
14:59:41 gas station is our ten-foot cross that says Seminole Heights
14:59:45 Baptist Church. To allow them to then have wet zoning,
14:59:50 which would allow alcohol to be served and sold there is
14:59:54 going to allow many problems that are going to occur at
14:59:57 Seminole Heights Baptist Church, in addition to people
15:00:00 buying liquor or alcohol from there, coming across to our
15:00:04 parking lot or our facility, drinking it there, disposing of
15:00:09 those containers there, which we've found in the past, from
15:00:13 the establishments that currently sell alcohol, not only
15:00:19 disposing of those, but having their own from their usage of
15:00:26 that -- that alcohol on our property, and we are very
15:00:30 concerned that the children that are coming to our property
15:00:32 to get away from this kind of activity are not going to see
15:00:36 it as a safe haven. We're concerned that our children are
15:00:39 going to pick up some of these bottles. They may be
15:00:42 approached by these individuals. Some of our elderly
15:00:45 members, we have a huge elderly population that comes to our
15:00:48 church and they're going to be afraid to do that if they
15:00:51 fear someone coming on that property that may be intoxicated
15:00:54 by the use of alcohol they've purchased from this station
15:00:58 that's across the street. We do have a drug and alcohol
15:01:03 abuse rehab program that's there on the property that many
15:01:05 people are coming to not just voluntarily, but people who
15:01:10 have state and local-sponsored programs where they're
15:01:13 required to come. That is going to pose an issue for them,
15:01:16 too, because they're going to be more likely to think, I can
15:01:18 go over here and get a drink, because many of these people
15:01:21 are at the inception of their program. So to allow this
15:01:24 when we have a breadth of places where people can seek and
15:01:31 obtain alcoholic beverages on Hillsborough Avenue and near
15:01:34 Hillsborough Avenue, I do not think is appropriate. I don't
15:01:36 think there's anything that I've seen in the petition, or
15:01:40 that I've heard that's showing any type of hardship insofar
15:01:44 as this business and running its business and making a
15:01:47 profit because they have been in there for some time. This
15:01:50 is the fifth time you've heard that this has been
15:01:53 petitioned. Every time before this, we have appeared at the
15:01:57 first hearing and it's been denied. Again, I apologize for
15:02:00 not being there then, but this is new evidence that I would
15:02:03 hope that you would consider from Seminole Heights Baptist
15:02:06 Church and avoid allowing this as an alternative to the --
15:02:13 >> Do you have a question?
15:02:14 >> I think this is a question for --
15:02:16 >> Is this -- is her church -- are they asking for a waiver
15:02:21 from the distance separation with the church?
15:02:23 >> Yes, they are.
15:02:24 >> Okay. Are there other -- I'm sorry. For some reason, I
15:02:27 don't have any of the backups for this. So are there other
15:02:31 waivers?
15:02:39 >> Sorry. It's behind the transcripts, and they were pretty
15:02:43 lengthy from the first one. There are two institutional






15:02:50 establishments, Seminole Heights Baptist Church, as just
15:02:53 previously stated, and the Tampa/Hillsborough county drug
15:02:55 abuse center located 660 feet away.
15:02:58 >> Okay. And then I have a question, I think this might be
15:03:01 for Rebecca, a legal question. The question of whether the
15:03:07 property was leased, and how the -- the wet zoning is
15:03:14 awarded to the owner of the property. Is that correct?
15:03:19 >> It's awarded basically to the property, and runs with the
15:03:22 property. The question -- the issue that was brought up
15:03:26 about the information in the petition where it said it was
15:03:30 not leased, where, in fact, there might have been some uses
15:03:33 on there that were leased, I understand the confusion on
15:03:38 that, but I do think it's important to understand that the
15:03:40 reason that question is asked on the petition is to try to
15:03:42 ascertain whether or not the petitioner is the owner,
15:03:45 because if the petitioner is not the owner then you have to
15:03:49 get the extra steps to get the owner's permission to go
15:03:53 forward, so that question is not asked to ascertain whether
15:03:56 or not there are uses or what the economic interest is in
15:03:58 the property.
15:03:59 >> Okay. But that brings up my next question that the
15:04:01 property was listed for sale at the time they asked for the
15:04:04 rezoning, is that --
15:04:07 >> That would not be a relevant consideration for you,
15:04:09 economic interests. This is a land use issue so therefore
15:04:12 the compatibility issues would be what you would need to
15:04:15 base your decision on.
15:04:15 >> Thanks.
15:04:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
15:04:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you. The young attorney from the
15:04:22 church.
15:04:24 >> My name is -- first name is dawn.
15:04:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Dawn. The -- I'm talking about bill
15:04:37 Murray and "Groundhog day" on this one because we've seen it
15:04:45 several times. My question on this is going up Hillsborough
15:04:47 Avenue, I guess, to the east, because this is right next to
15:04:50 the -- to the interstate, right at the corner of the
15:04:52 interstate, right?
15:04:53 >> Yes, sir.
15:04:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: As you go to the east, what's the next
15:04:56 available package store?
15:04:58 >> There's a store that's right at Nebraska, and
15:05:03 Hillsborough, which is two parcels away. From this
15:05:07 particular location.
15:05:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: From the convenience store?
15:05:11 >> It is. It is. I think it's a Shell Station.
15:05:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And they have beer and wine?
15:05:18 >> Yes, sir, they do.
15:05:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And is that across the street from the
15:05:21 church on the North side?
15:05:23 >> It is diagonally across, yes, from the northeast corner.
15:05:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I know in the past you and your other
15:05:33 church folks have testified about bottles, I think trash on
15:05:35 the ground and that sort of thing. I guess, you know, going
15:05:45 back, you've heard us talk about, you know, fairness. I'm
15:05:48 not really -- I'm struggling with this issue of fairness in
15:05:51 terms of, you know, the -- that other establishment is two
15:05:58 doors down and he's two doors away, and I'm just trying to
15:06:02 see what the impact is on the church of the current
15:06:06 establishment.






15:06:06 >> It's -- in my mind it's much different because that
15:06:10 establishment is much farther away than the direct across
15:06:13 the street that this particular location is for Seminole
15:06:18 Heights Baptist Church. In the past, and I have been there
15:06:20 picking up the bottle and the things, and cleaning up after
15:06:23 the people who have left them there. People have actually
15:06:26 lived in some of the bushes and things that are near there.
15:06:29 You can see the packages that they have with beer in them,
15:06:33 with the brown bags from that location. That has been
15:06:37 pretty well stocked as far as we can tell. It's not as much
15:06:42 that it's happening now. The problem is is that we fear
15:06:45 that should this occur, like it has occurred in the past in
15:06:51 numerous other places, that that will recur and be on a
15:06:54 larger scale. That is a big problem not only for our
15:06:57 members, but for the people who come from the surrounding
15:07:00 community, and the children that might happen upon this
15:07:02 thing.
15:07:03 >> And you know, with all due respect, you know, it's like
15:07:07 when Dale Mabry comes down through my district and Dale
15:07:13 Mabry and Hillsborough have a lot of parallel and there's a
15:07:15 lot of places you can buy liquor, and I don't know -- well,
15:07:19 thank you.
15:07:20 >> And I think that -- just to follow up on that. I think
15:07:23 that's the point. There are a lot of places that you can
15:07:25 buy. Why do we need another one that would be a variance
15:07:28 from your ordinance that requires it to be a thousand feet
15:07:30 or more?
15:07:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone else like to speak?
15:07:36 Petitioner?
15:07:39 >> Rebecca Kert, the legal department. I just want to
15:07:43 clarify one point. Although our code does use the phrase
15:07:46 waivers I just wanted to remind you that in fact the clerk
15:07:49 had told us that they're not requesting a variance a
15:07:51 thousand foot, it's a special use process, so the applicant
15:07:54 has to demonstrate that they meet your criteria to get the
15:07:58 waiver. Your criteria is that the sale of alcoholic
15:08:01 beverages is incidental to the primary use. After that, to
15:08:04 deny it the burden shifts back to the city council to prove
15:08:06 that the granting of this special use, the granting of the
15:08:09 wet zoning is adverse to the public interest, so I just want
15:08:12 to clarify that.
15:08:14 >> Excuse me. Can I ask for a question on that?
15:08:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
15:08:18 >> Wouldn't the location of two drug rehab facilities within
15:08:22 a thousand feet be evidence of that?
15:08:23 >> It could be. That's for city council to determine.
15:08:26 >> Thank you.
15:08:29 >> Madam Chair, members of the council, Luke Lirot here for
15:08:34 the applicant. And I think that we have embraced every
15:08:38 concern that you've heard today and done everything we can
15:08:40 to comply with the requests of the neighborhood. The reason
15:08:46 I say that is when we first filed this application, the only
15:08:49 thing we wanted was for the council to consider what's fair
15:08:51 and what's reasonable. I think that if you look at the area
15:08:55 itself, it's hard to rebut these concerns of Jaywalkers that
15:09:02 might be running across the street with alcohol in hand or
15:09:06 some other issue, but when you get right down to it, the
15:09:09 other stores in the area, and I think we -- as I tried last
15:09:16 time to show you that every other gasoline/convenience
15:09:19 store, every other one, has the competitive ability to sell






15:09:23 alcoholic beverages. So it's not really a glut. It's not
15:09:27 an issue of we're trying to advance the decline of the
15:09:30 neighborhood. The only basis for our request is my client
15:09:34 shouldn't be the only individual who has the disadvantage of
15:09:36 not being allowed to do what everyone else compatibly in the
15:09:42 area does. Every other area on Hillsborough Avenue both
15:09:45 North and South, every convenience store, sells beer and
15:09:48 wine. So what we thought we would do to address the
15:09:52 concerns of what we felt -- and again, this -- I don't think
15:09:55 this is ever going to happen, but if they're already finding
15:09:58 bottles, what we suggested was we will agree to the
15:10:01 condition that we won't sell bottles. We won't sell any
15:10:04 individual containers. We don't sell liquor. Nobody drinks
15:10:08 it there, and according to the way that the measurement is
15:10:11 undertaken in your code, the location that actually sells
15:10:14 beer and wine is closer to the church by the measure of
15:10:18 pedestrian travel. There's a crosswalk there, and
15:10:21 basically, they are closer to the church than my client
15:10:24 would be according to the measurement in a way that distance
15:10:27 is calculated in the code. Now, part of the prior
15:10:33 presentations in support of this application showed that the
15:10:36 owner has absolutely done everything he could to upgrade
15:10:39 this property. I think everybody was in agreement that it
15:10:41 was wonderfully increased in aesthetic appeal. I was a
15:10:46 little disappointed that miss long would come up here and
15:10:48 say things that we already corrected her on. The leases
15:10:50 have to do with somebody there that details cars. When she
15:10:53 pointed out to myself and my client in the hall the last
15:10:56 time we were here that there was some concern about the --
15:10:59 the tent that they would wax the cars under, we looked at
15:11:03 it, found out that it wasn't in compliance. We cleaned it
15:11:05 up. It's a little disingenuous to say here's what it was
15:11:09 before, but after I told him to fix it he fixed it, but he's
15:11:13 still a bad guy. It doesn't work that way, and I just -- I
15:11:15 think that in the grand scheme of things, adding one cooler
15:11:19 of beer that can't be sold by the bottle on Hillsborough
15:11:21 Avenue, which is commercial up and down for miles in both
15:11:25 the east and west direction, that has residential areas
15:11:28 behind it, the whole way, to suggest that this minor
15:11:33 judgment of fairness, the minor decision to let my client be
15:11:37 on equal footing with everybody else in his type of business
15:11:42 is not going to impart any of the speculative fears that the
15:11:45 community has tried to articulate. It simply lets him
15:11:50 compete with everybody else. The property's not on the
15:11:55 market. We made that clear last time we were here. Those
15:11:58 listings are from years ago, and again, once you give
15:12:02 somebody wet zoning it's there forever, and then in the same
15:12:08 meeting say it's conditional, I have a problem with that as
15:12:11 well. This is a conditional request. We have come up with
15:12:14 every possible feature we can to address every concern by
15:12:16 limiting the sale of individual bottles, and candidly, you
15:12:19 don't get any kind of sales appeal from a conditional grant
15:12:22 because whoever, if the property was ever sold, they would
15:12:26 have to follow the same rules. They can't break these rules
15:12:28 either. So I think respectfully, there is no drinking on
15:12:33 premises, it is on the entrance ramp to 275, or 275 North.
15:12:39 It's walled in on every side other than the entrance ramp.
15:12:44 There are physical barriers between this and any residential
15:12:47 area, and my client's not asking for anything other than
15:12:51 what everybody else in his business has, plus he's willing






15:12:54 to concede the one issue that everybody else can sell single
15:12:57 bottles. He won't do it. That's a condition that he agreed
15:13:00 to. So in the interest of fairness, in the interest of
15:13:03 reasonability, in the interest of the fact that there are
15:13:07 facilities there that are closer, according to your code
15:13:09 than him, and the fact that to presume that somebody's going
15:13:14 to Jaywalk, sit in an open, hot parking lot and drink cases
15:13:17 of beer that are going to be a problem, I just don't think
15:13:20 that those are legitimate fundamental reasons, I don't think
15:13:23 that that's substantial competent evidence to justify this
15:13:26 and quite honestly, he's not asking to hurt the
15:13:29 neighborhood. He's asking for a chance. If he doesn't do
15:13:31 what he's promising to do when this comes back before you in
15:13:34 a year, you can say, you didn't do it. But it's not going
15:13:38 to be any kind of adverse impact on the neighborhood based
15:13:42 on we came up with every possible concession that we could
15:13:45 voluntarily. So I'd like to see the board be fair. I'd
15:13:48 like to see you be reasonable, and I'd like you to consider
15:13:51 granting this wet zoning to somebody that I think has shown
15:13:55 that he just is looking for fairness. It's the fifth time
15:13:57 he's tried this. The last time I guess he got close, but
15:14:00 it's just troublesome to put a small businessman at a
15:14:05 disadvantage based on the speculative fears of other people
15:14:08 that he's done everything he can to accommodate and we ask
15:14:11 that you just give him this one chance. Thank you. And I'm
15:14:15 ready to answer any questions if you got any.
15:14:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question.
15:14:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
15:14:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Somebody in the neighborhood I think
15:14:23 pointed out that this discrepancy on the file, the
15:14:28 application said there's no lease.
15:14:30 >> No. I verified that with the city attorney's office
15:14:33 before we even did it. They want to know who tones
15:14:36 property. That's not any kind of inaccuracy in the
15:14:38 application. They want to know if you're leasing the
15:14:40 property or if you own the property. If you have some kind
15:14:43 of sublease where you let somebody wax cars or you have a
15:14:47 sublease for somebody that might do something else, that
15:14:50 doesn't change the ownership, so the application is
15:14:52 accurate. There's just somebody there that also waxes cars
15:14:55 in addition to the sale of gasoline.
15:14:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So the petitioner is a lessee right now?
15:15:01 >> No. He's the owner. He's the owner. The application is
15:15:04 entirely accurate. There's no problem at all with that. He
15:15:08 lets somebody else clean cars there. That -- and again,
15:15:11 that came from a listing that's no longer in existence.
15:15:14 That listing was taken off the internet quite some time ago,
15:15:17 so -- and everybody knows it was taken off, so it's kind of
15:15:20 troubling to hear it today, but --
15:15:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And the other blank on that form said is
15:15:26 there a contract for sale of the property?
15:15:28 >> No, there's not. Absolutely not. Everything in the
15:15:30 application is true. I signed it under oath, my client
15:15:33 signed it under oath. It's accurate.
15:15:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. Any other questions? Close the
15:15:40 public hearing. Got a motion and second to close. All in
15:15:43 favor of the motion say aye. Opposed say nay. Miss
15:15:46 Saul-Sena?
15:15:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I was absent
15:15:49 at the previous vote for this, but I remember it from the






15:15:51 other times that it's coming before council. It seems to me
15:15:54 that the petition doesn't meet the standard that's put forth
15:15:57 on our ordinance because of its location which is proximate
15:16:06 to the church, and because of that, I will move for denial.
15:16:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Miss Mulhern?
15:16:13 >>MARY MULHERN: I'll second that and I just wanted to point
15:16:16 out, too, that the adverse affect to the public interest is
15:16:22 added on. The church already has people buying package
15:16:28 liquor and leaving bottles on their premises. Another place
15:16:34 that they can buy it that's right across the street could
15:16:37 only add to the problem. And I think that the there's --
15:16:44 you know, just adding to the problem is still a bad thing,
15:16:46 and I certainly don't know why the other establishments got
15:16:50 wet zoned or when they got wet zoned, but I don't think
15:16:53 that's really has anything to do with our decision about
15:16:56 this one, whether we -- the former council made some
15:17:01 exceptions to the waivers, at that point maybe there was
15:17:05 only one waiver, and then the other one got two, so I don't
15:17:10 really think that applies.
15:17:14 >> Rebecca Kert legal department.
15:17:19 >>MARY MULHERN: Would you please help me with that?
15:17:21 >> Yes. It's my understanding based on the motion that you
15:17:24 would be citing to section 370 A 2, 3, 4 and 6.
15:17:28 >> Thank you.
15:17:32 >>GWEN MILLER: That's what you said?
15:17:33 >> Yes.
15:17:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second. All in favor of the
15:17:36 motion say aye. Opposed say nay.
15:17:38 >>CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder and Caetano voting
15:17:42 no.
15:17:43 >> I don't believe that's correct. I think you need four
15:17:46 positive votes.
15:17:48 >> The vote was 3-2.
15:17:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Then it is automatically carried over to
15:17:52 the next regular meeting under unfinished business, which
15:17:55 will be in two weeks. Would that be April 3rd?
15:18:03 >> It would be march the 20th at 9:30.
15:18:07 >>GWEN MILLER: March the 20th at 9:30.
15:18:10 >>MARY MULHERN: Will the hearing remain closed?
15:18:12 >>MARTY SHELBY: Yes. What happens is normally it's set for
15:18:14 unfinished business rather than for a time certain, so it's
15:18:17 normally set under unfinished business.
15:18:19 >> Can we make the tape available to the council members who
15:18:22 weren't here?
15:18:22 >>MARTY SHELBY: I'm going to ask that they send a memo and
15:18:25 ask that they be prepared to be able to vote based on the
15:18:29 record that has taken place to this point.
15:18:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone on the
15:18:33 public who wants to speak on item 76? Move to close? A
15:18:42 motion and second to close. All in favor of the motion say
15:18:44 aye. Opposed say nay. Mr. Dingfelder?
15:18:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Madam Chair. Move the
15:18:48 following ordinance upon second reading. An ordinance
15:18:51 making lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol of
15:18:53 more than 1% by weight, not more than 14% by weight and
15:18:56 wines regardless of alcohol lick content, beer and wine, 2
15:19:00 cop for consumption on premise and in sealed containers for
15:19:03 consumption off premises at or from that certain lot, plot
15:19:05 or tract of land located at 1418 east Busch Boulevard,
15:19:08 Tampa, Florida as more particularly described in section 2






15:19:11 hereof, waiving certain restrictions as to distance based
15:19:14 upon certain findings, providing for repeal of all
15:19:16 ordinances in conflict, providing for an effective date.
15:19:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and a second?
15:19:21 >> Second.
15:19:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Second.
15:19:22 >> Wait for the light. Is it working?
15:19:30 >>CLERK: We're having some technical difficulties.
15:19:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Voice roll call.
15:19:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
15:19:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
15:19:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
15:19:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT:
15:19:44 >>JOSEPH CAETANO:
15:19:46 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes.
15:19:48 >>CLERK: Motion carried unanimously with Miranda and Scott
15:19:51 being absent.
15:19:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public want to speak
15:19:57 on item 77?
15:19:58 >> Move to close.
15:19:58 >> Second.
15:19:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion to close. All in favor. Opposed say
15:20:04 nay? Miss Mulhern?
15:20:06 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you. I move an ordinance upon second
15:20:08 reading an ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages
15:20:10 containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight, and not more
15:20:13 than 14% by weight and lines regardless of alcoholic
15:20:17 content, beer and wine, 2-APS in sealed containers for
15:20:21 consumption off premises only at or from that certain lot,
15:20:24 plot or tract of land located at 1601 west Kennedy
15:20:27 Boulevard, Tampa, Florida as more particularly described in
15:20:29 section 2 hereof waiving certain restrictions as to
15:20:32 distance, based upon certain findings, providing for repeal
15:20:35 of all ordinances in conflict, providing for an effective
15:20:36 date.
15:20:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and a second. Voice roll
15:20:41 call.
15:20:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
15:20:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
15:20:44 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes.
15:20:47 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Yes.
15:20:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
15:20:51 >>CLERK: Miranda and Scott. Motion carried unanimously,
15:20:55 with Scott and Miranda being absent.
15:20:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone on the public want to speak
15:21:02 on item 78?
15:21:04 >> Move to close.
15:21:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
15:21:06 >> Second.
15:21:06 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed
15:21:09 say nay. Miss Mulhern?
15:21:10 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you, Madam Chair. I move an ordinance
15:21:12 being presented on second reading, an ordinance making
15:21:14 lawful the sale of beverages regardless of alcoholic
15:21:17 content, beer, wine and liquor, 3-PS in sealed containers
15:21:21 for consumption off premises only at or from that certain
15:21:24 lot, plot or tract of land located at 1601 west Kennedy
15:21:28 Boulevard, Tampa, Florida as more particularly described in
15:21:30 section 2 hereof, waiving certain restrictions as to
15:21:33 distance based upon certain findings, providing for repeal






15:21:37 of all ordinances in conflict, providing for an effective
15:21:37 date.
15:21:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and a second. Voice roll
15:21:42 call.
15:21:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
15:21:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
15:21:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
15:21:46 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes.
15:21:49 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Yes.
15:21:51 >>CLERK: Motion carried unanimously with Miranda and Scott
15:21:54 being absent.
15:21:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public want to speak
15:21:57 on item 79?
15:22:00 >> Move to close.
15:22:01 >> Second.
15:22:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion to close. All in favor of the motion
15:22:03 say aye. Opposed say nay. Miss Mulhern?
15:22:05 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you, Madam Chair. I move an ordinance
15:22:08 being presented for second reading, an ordinance amending
15:22:12 ordinance number 2007-262 passed and ordained by the city
15:22:15 council of the City of Tampa on December 20th, 2007,
15:22:18 correcting a scrivener's error by deleting section 2 and
15:22:22 renumbering the remaining sections, providing for
15:22:25 severability, providing for an effective date.
15:22:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and a second. Voice roll
15:22:28 call.
15:22:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
15:22:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
15:22:35 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes.
15:22:37 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Yes.
15:22:40 >>CLERK: Motion carried unanimously with Saul-Sena and Scott
15:22:45 being absent at vote and Miranda being absent.
15:22:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public want to speak on item
15:22:52 80? Anybody want to speak on 80? Need a close.
15:22:55 >> Move to close.
15:22:56 >> Second.
15:22:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Second. All in favor of the motion say aye.
15:23:00 Opposed say nay. Mr. Caetano.
15:23:02 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: An ordinance amending ordinance 2007-263
15:23:05 passed and ordained by the city council of the City of Tampa
15:23:09 on December 20th, 2007, correcting a scrivener's error by
15:23:14 deleting section 2 and renumbering the remaining sections,
15:23:17 providing for severability, providing for an effective date.
15:23:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and a second. Voice roll
15:23:24 call.
15:23:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
15:23:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
15:23:29 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes.
15:23:31 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Yes.
15:23:32 >>CLERK: Motion carried unanimously, with Saul-Sena and
15:23:35 Scott being absent at vote, and Miranda being absent.
15:23:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in public want to speak on 81?
15:23:46 >> Land development coordination. I have been sworn. The
15:23:48 site plans that were requested to be revised between first
15:23:51 and second reading have been received and certified by the
15:23:54 zoning administrator. Thank you.
15:23:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak?
15:23:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
15:23:59 >> Second.
15:23:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion to close. All in favor of the motion






15:24:01 say aye. Opposed say nay. Mr. Caetano?
15:24:03 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: An ordinance being presented for second
15:24:05 reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the general
15:24:08 vicinity of 4004 East Hillsborough Avenue and 4005 East
15:24:13 Mohawk Avenue in the City of Tampa, Florida and more
15:24:15 particularly described in section 1 from zoning district
15:24:18 classifications, CI, commercial intensive, to PD, planned
15:24:22 development, restaurant, drive-in, providing for an
15:24:25 effective date.
15:24:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and a second. Voice roll
15:24:29 call?
15:24:30 >>CLERK: Saul-Sena.
15:24:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
15:24:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
15:24:33 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes.
15:24:35 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Yes.
15:24:36 >>CLERK: Motion carried unanimously with Saul-Sena and Scott
15:24:39 being absent at vote, and Miranda being absent.
15:24:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public want to speak
15:24:45 on item 82?
15:24:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
15:24:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion to close. All in favor of the motion
15:24:51 say aye. Opposed say nay. Mr. Caetano?
15:24:52 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: An ordinance rezoning property in the
15:24:55 general vicinity of 6808 and 6812 South Himes Avenue in the
15:25:00 City of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in
15:25:02 section 1 from zoning district classifications, RS-60,
15:25:06 residential single-family to RS-50, residential
15:25:10 single-family, providing for an effective date.
15:25:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and a second. Voice roll
15:25:14 call.
15:25:14 >> Who was the second?
15:25:15 >> Second.
15:25:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
15:25:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
15:25:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
15:25:24 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes.
15:25:25 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Yes.
15:25:27 >>CLERK: Motion carried unanimously with Scott being absent
15:25:30 at vote and Miranda being absent.
15:25:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 83 through 86, we need a motion
15:25:36 to continue to march the 20th.
15:25:39 >> So moved.
15:25:40 >> Second.
15:25:40 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion and a second. All in favor of the
15:25:43 motion say aye. Opposed say nay. Okay. Item number 87 and
15:25:48 86, anyone in the public want to speak on those items, would
15:25:50 you please stand and raise your right hands?
15:25:53 >> Which numbers?
15:25:54 >> 87 and 88.
15:25:54 >> 87 and 88? [Oath Administered By Clerk].
15:26:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. We need to open those two.
15:26:08 >> So moved.
15:26:09 >> Second.
15:26:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second. All in favor of the
15:26:12 motion say aye. Opposed say nay. Staff?
15:26:14 >> 87?
15:26:15 >>GWEN MILLER: 87.
15:26:19 >> 87, I don't know if you'd like to vote it on the back-up
15:26:22 or continue it to --






15:26:23 >> That's okay. I'm familiar with it.
15:26:25 >>GWEN MILLER: We're familiar with it. Anyone want to
15:26:27 speak on item 87? Need a close.
15:26:30 >> Move to close.
15:26:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion to second and close. All in favor of
15:26:34 the motion say aye. Opposed say nay. Is have a new
15:26:37 ordinance or the one on here is okay?
15:26:39 >> Looks good.
15:26:40 >> Are you going to read it?
15:26:41 >> I don't have a copy of it.
15:26:43 >> I'll do it.
15:26:45 >> This one here? Ordinance being presented for first
15:26:48 reading consideration an ordinance approving the historic
15:26:50 preservation property tax exemption application relative to
15:26:54 the restoration, renovation, rehabilitation and certain
15:26:57 property owned by Michael Shea and Silvana Capaldi, located
15:27:03 at 1801 west Hillsborough Avenue, Tampa, Florida, in a
15:27:08 historic district based upon certain findings, providing for
15:27:12 notice to the property appraiser of Hillsborough county,
15:27:14 providing for severability, providing for repeal of all
15:27:18 ordinances in conflict, providing for an effective date.
15:27:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and a second. All in favor of
15:27:24 the motion say aye. Opposed say nay.
15:27:25 >> Madam Chairman, I just want to say that I was walking
15:27:28 around this part of Hyde Park last Saturday, and it looks
15:27:33 fabulous. This area 30 years ago was really run down. Now
15:27:36 it looks like a show place, and the revenues the city gets
15:27:39 from all the reinvestment is just phenomenal. It's
15:27:42 beautiful.
15:27:42 >> It's going to get better when they finish Hyde Park.
15:27:46 >> Hyde Park village.
15:27:47 >> Hyde Park village.
15:27:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there a staff here for 88?
15:28:09 >> Good afternoon, council, Abbye Feeley, land development
15:28:11 coordination. I have been sworn. Item number 88 on your
15:28:14 agenda this afternoon is WZ08-31 located at 723 west
15:28:22 Columbus Drive. The property is currently zoned CG,
15:28:25 commercial general, and they're applying for a 2-APS wet
15:28:28 zoning, which is beer and wine for consumption off premises
15:28:33 only. The petitioner is requesting a 2-APS wet zoning to
15:28:38 sell beer and wine beverage in connection with a grocery,
15:28:41 convenience, specialty store. The wet-zoned area will
15:28:44 contain 2,000 square feet. According to the application,
15:28:47 the sale of alcohol will be incidental to the primary
15:28:50 function of the property, as convenience store. There are
15:28:53 several locations, residential and institutional and other
15:28:57 wet-zoned properties located within a thousand feet of the
15:29:00 property. Therefore you'll see in the staff report that
15:29:02 they are asking for a waiver in this instance. To the
15:29:13 thousand-foot criteria.
15:29:30 >> Okay. This is the site located on the northwest corner
15:29:33 of Boulevard and Columbus. There is a surface parking lot
15:29:37 here. It is not owned or operated by the site. The parking
15:29:41 for the site is located to the west of the building.
15:29:53 >> I lost my other pictures.
15:30:01 >> Sorry. My other pictures fell.
15:30:07 >> Here's a picture of the subject site. You can also see
15:30:11 that there are signs posted on the building stating that
15:30:15 parking for this site is in the rear of the property. Not
15:30:18 in the front. Here is a view of the property looking east






15:30:27 across Boulevard. Here's a picture of the rear parking area
15:30:34 of the property. And a picture to north of the property.
15:30:41 This is an alleyway, and then to the north is residential.
15:30:49 This is a view looking across Columbus at the southwest
15:30:53 corner of Columbus and Boulevard. There's a church at this
15:30:56 location. This is a little bigger picture of the church
15:31:05 building. And this is a look from the back parking lot area
15:31:10 across Monroe Street to the residential property. Staff is
15:31:23 available for any questions. Yes, ma'am?
15:31:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Miss Saul-Sena?
15:31:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Didn't this come before us about six
15:31:31 months ago?
15:31:31 >> Yes. It was denied in June of '07.
15:31:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What is the statute -- I mean, how
15:31:38 frequently can people --
15:31:39 >> It had been six months since it was previously denied.
15:31:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So every six months --
15:31:44 >> They can come back and ask for reconsideration, yes,
15:31:48 ma'am.
15:31:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
15:32:01 >> Good afternoon, council, officer don Miller, City of
15:32:04 Tampa police department. The police department has no
15:32:07 objections.
15:32:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
15:32:11 >> Steve McLeany. We're here requesting a conditional one
15:32:16 year with closing time restrictions, which we've already
15:32:19 committed to the neighbors, as well as to the -- we've asked
15:32:23 the city attorney to prepare an ordinance in that regard.
15:32:26 To give them an opportunity to get open and prove
15:32:29 themselves. They moved in to a building that was vacant and
15:32:33 boarded up for two years. It took them at least a year to
15:32:36 get that building renovated and get it cleaned up, to hall
15:32:40 away the trash and debris, to replace the windows that have
15:32:44 been broken out, remove the boards and to put a glass. They
15:32:48 have support from the neighborhood association, as well as a
15:32:51 number of neighbors who have signed petitions, including a
15:32:55 day care that's currently operating within a thousand feet,
15:32:57 and I have those petitions that I would like to enter into
15:33:00 the record. The neighbor -- the property owners have been
15:33:03 very aggressive in cleaning this up. It is a very
15:33:08 high-speed thoroughfare between North Boulevard and Columbus
15:33:13 Drive. There's a lot of traffic that goes through there,
15:33:15 and it operates as a grocery store. It's been operating
15:33:18 since 2006 as a grocery store. To my knowledge, there are
15:33:22 no incidents that have been attributed to this location.
15:33:27 They are asking, again, for beer and wine to go, and this is
15:33:31 a conditional use for one year with a ten p.m. closing time.
15:33:34 And again, the city attorney's office has that -- has that
15:33:38 petition. It's a 2000 square foot existing grocery. It had
15:33:44 a wet zoning before up until 2004, when it closed, and then
15:33:48 that wet zoning dried up when the owner abandoned the
15:33:50 building. There are 12 parking spaces in the rear, and
15:33:54 they're currently in negotiations to assemble, at least to
15:33:58 provide utilization for additional parking in the front. It
15:34:03 is basically the owners have poured a lot of money in here.
15:34:07 They've cleaned it up. They've hauled off trash and debris
15:34:12 repeatedly, and they joined the -- in working with the
15:34:15 homeowner association. They have a bulletin board inside
15:34:17 the grocery store, announcing community activities,
15:34:20 including the median location for the homeowner association,






15:34:24 and they've had several meetings with them. The owner is
15:34:28 here to answer any questions. I'm also available to answer
15:34:31 any questions you might have. And I know that there are
15:34:34 people here to speak on behalf of the petition. I would
15:34:38 respectfully request your approval, again for a one-year
15:34:41 conditional with time restrictions.
15:34:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public want to speak on item
15:34:46 88? Come up and speak. If you want to please come up and
15:34:51 speak.
15:34:55 >> Hello. My name is Chet Roberts. I reside at 2402
15:34:59 Ridgewood Avenue so I'm very close to this convenience
15:35:03 store, and I'm very for this convenience store. I think
15:35:05 what we're missing here is the before and after picture.
15:35:08 He's made a lot of changes here, and he's only beautifying
15:35:13 and stabilizing that corner right there on Columbus Avenue,
15:35:16 which you guys just got over with Boulevard. You know how
15:35:19 bad Boulevard is North ways. So I'm really supportive of
15:35:23 this. You know, what's our options here? You know, I'm
15:35:27 kind of like an agent for change, and if we don't give him
15:35:29 this zoning, where are we going to be looking at, a vacant
15:35:33 building with people hanging out, doing drugs? You know,
15:35:37 another dilapidated building in this area, which I don't
15:35:43 really think we need right now, you know. I hope you guys
15:35:46 go ahead and approve this. Thank you.
15:35:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question. Do you have any connection
15:35:52 with this building other than to go in there and buy bubble
15:35:55 gum or whatever?
15:35:56 >> No. Actually I have a lot of connection to this building
15:35:58 and the neighborhood. Like I said, I live at 2402 Ridgewood
15:36:02 Avenue.
15:36:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But I mean legal connection or --
15:36:05 >> No. None whatsoever. I'm just looking for some kind of
15:36:08 stabilization on that corner, some kind of beautification,
15:36:11 which this gentleman is trying to offer to that corner.
15:36:14 He's not also just going to be selling food, he's also going
15:36:18 to be bringing in other businesses there because there's
15:36:20 other vacant office buildings right there.
15:36:22 >> Thank you.
15:36:23 >> Thank you.
15:36:25 >> Can I ask a staff question real briefly?
15:36:31 >> Go ahead. Speak.
15:36:32 >> Good evening.
15:36:33 >> Good evening.
15:36:34 >> Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
15:36:37 >> Thanks for waiting.
15:36:38 >> My name is Mary Watson. This is my second appearance to
15:36:43 be here for this occasion, and I'm here speaking on my
15:36:47 community from Ross Avenue up to Warren and North Boulevard.
15:36:58 The purpose of this letter is to provide our viewpoint on
15:37:02 the recent developments of cane's grocery to request a wet
15:37:06 zone for the sale of alcoholic beverages. The address for
15:37:10 King's Grocery is 707 west Columbus Drive, and they wish --
15:37:15 I got the address wrong. It's 735. And they wish to sell
15:37:19 alcoholic beverages from this location. We as members of
15:37:22 this community request that this will not be allowed. The
15:37:26 community is plagued with property, crime, and low education
15:37:32 and alcoholic beverages would increase escalation of
15:37:37 devaluation, degrading and demoralization of this community.
15:37:44 There are already many locations where alcoholic beverages
15:37:47 may be purchased. This community does not need another






15:37:50 store that contributes to the degradation of our community.
15:37:56 The store owner sole purpose is to increase their profit.
15:38:02 They do not have to live with the alcoholic vagrants, the
15:38:06 crime that are committed by alcoholic criminals, and the
15:38:09 increased probability that a citizen of our community is
15:38:11 severely injured due to the consumption of alcohol from this
15:38:15 store. We write letter to make an attempt to reach the
15:38:23 conscience of the elected officials to serve the citizens of
15:38:26 the community. The need for a better community should
15:38:30 outweigh the need of a store owner with a greedy profit. We
15:38:36 ask you to review this case with community in mind to decide
15:38:38 for what is better for the community and not for the best of
15:38:41 the store owners. We have provided with this letter a list
15:38:43 of other citizens who are residents of this community that
15:38:47 oppose the efforts of king grocery store in attempt to gain
15:38:53 an alcohol license. With sincere gratitude to city council
15:38:58 for our consideration of this important matter. Sincerely
15:39:04 our community. Now, this store has been broken into four
15:39:06 times in December. The last time it was broken into was
15:39:13 January. On the pictures that she showed you, on the back
15:39:18 side, where you saw the glass, it's now boarded up from
15:39:24 being broken into the store. This is the type of thing that
15:39:28 we hadn't -- we have gotten away from in Tampa heights.
15:39:31 They have renovated Tampa heights. It's much better. And
15:39:35 we want it to stay that way. We don't have the vagrants
15:39:45 walking up and down the street as they used to do. We don't
15:39:48 have it anymore. Our streets are clean. We can sit on our
15:39:51 porches and enjoy the nice sunshine as it's going down in
15:39:54 the evening. We don't have to be afraid. We don't have to
15:39:57 run in the house because there's a car passing shooting
15:39:59 their guns because they feel like they want to shoot. We
15:40:02 done got beyond that and all the community is asking the
15:40:05 council to do is let us keep that. They have come in and
15:40:13 fixed up the old houses. It's really nice and all we asking
15:40:16 you to do is let us enjoy our community. We have nothing
15:40:20 against the store. It's a lovely store, but we don't need
15:40:23 more alcohol. Do I need to leave?
15:40:25 >> Yeah. Thank you. I'll take it.
15:40:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Next speaker.
15:40:34 >> Good afternoon, council, good to see everyone again, good
15:40:37 to see you're looking good. My name is Arty Rosebury. I
15:40:44 can walk to the store in less than one minute. I live
15:40:47 behind the store. And she's right. We have come a long
15:40:49 way. Long way. Part of coming a long way comes from the
15:40:55 cleanup of king's grocery. Right behind King's Grocery,
15:41:00 where the previous owners owned it, right behind there, when
15:41:03 the previous owners had it, there was a lot of vagrancy, a
15:41:09 lot of vandals, a lot of homeless living behind the place.
15:41:12 There was a lot of this going on, but once King Grocery came
15:41:15 to be, they began to clean up the area. There's no more
15:41:20 nothing hanging behind there and that's after they begin to
15:41:23 clean up the housing, and all of that. So after they
15:41:27 cleaned up the houses and everything, you still had a
15:41:29 problem when the previous owners were there. So now that
15:41:33 there's new owners, you don't have that problem there
15:41:35 anymore, and that's where I live. She lives on another
15:41:38 section across Boulevard. I live behind the store. I
15:41:43 remember when my neighbor Robby, who lives directly behind
15:41:50 me, they broke in his house and stole the fishing poles, the
15:41:53 guys that stayed behind there, and they broke in my house






15:41:56 and stole my fishing poles. Please, leave my fishing poles
15:41:59 alone. I got to fish. I love fishing. But my point is
15:42:03 since king's groceries have been there, we have not had any
15:42:06 problems. Since they have been there. I'm afraid that if
15:42:10 you deny them today and they close up shop, then we may go
15:42:14 back to the same vagrants who live behind there before,
15:42:18 living there again, and that's what I don't want. I have
15:42:21 six kids. We got a lot of pedophiles in the neighborhood.
15:42:28 I have to protect them. I have to watch over them and if we
15:42:31 can keep them away from living behind our houses, directly
15:42:34 behind, you know, our houses, then praise God, you know,
15:42:37 it's a blessing.
15:42:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Miss Mulhern?
15:42:41 >>MARY MULHERN: Can I ask you what your zip code is there?
15:42:45 >> 33602, ma'am.
15:42:47 >>MARY MULHERN: Do you know if there's another zip code
15:42:49 adjacent to there?
15:42:53 >> I'm not sure what the other zip code is on the other
15:42:56 section. There's four sections represent, but I live in
15:42:59 riverside heights.
15:43:01 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay. Riverside heights is mostly 33602?
15:43:04 >> Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.
15:43:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. Thank you. Next speaker?
15:43:21 >> The woman got up and said there's some broken windows in
15:43:24 the back.
15:43:24 >> There aren't any broken windows in the back. What she's
15:43:27 referring to is the same thing that the last gentleman spoke
15:43:30 about is that when there's a break-in, they have to put
15:43:33 plywood up until the storefront windows can be ordered and
15:43:36 replaced. King grocery is ordering shutters so that they
15:43:42 won't be breaking the windows, but they're replacing
15:43:44 everything. It doesn't look like it's a derelict building.
15:43:47 It's been cleaned up and it's very clean. The two
15:43:51 neighborhood associations that wrote letters in support of
15:43:53 this, and they should be in your file, are riverside heights
15:43:56 and Ridgewood Park. The homeowner association that she's
15:44:03 referring to is further to the east, is Tampa heights. It's
15:44:06 not in this immediate vicinity. It's close, but it's not
15:44:10 directly affected, and that's why the people that came here
15:44:13 today, and they've waited all day, which is -- is a
15:44:17 terrible -- you know, it's a great contribution, I'm glad
15:44:20 they stayed, they live immediately adjacent to this
15:44:23 property. And they, if anyone, should know what efforts
15:44:29 have gone into the building and what's happened to clean up
15:44:32 the neighborhood. You also asked about the zip codes. I
15:44:35 can tell you that the ones that we notified looks like it's
15:44:42 33602, for the most part. There's some -- there's some that
15:44:45 are P.O. boxes, but they -- 336 -- I think this is a P.O.
15:44:52 box. They look like they're all 33602. But in the
15:44:56 immediate vicinity, I mean, the Mondanis have gone in and
15:45:04 they've put their savings in to restoring this grocery
15:45:07 store. They have prepared food, as well as grocery items.
15:45:10 And one of the things that I thought was very impressive
15:45:12 when I first met with them was that they put up a community
15:45:16 bulletin board to make announcements about, you know, people
15:45:18 that needed babysitters people -- you know, having homeowner
15:45:23 association meetings and a variety of other things. And
15:45:27 they're reachable. They're not absentee owners. They're
15:45:30 there. So I think, you know, we talked about this and I met
15:45:33 with TPD about a conditional zoning. I think there were






15:45:36 some reservations about a full-time granting of a wet zoning
15:45:40 that would be permanent. But everyone seemed to be more
15:45:43 comfortable with the conditional zoning, and with the limit
15:45:45 on time. So it's not there open late at night. It's not
15:45:48 going to be feeding into other types of activities, and then
15:45:54 10:00 -- you know, one of the questions I asked them also
15:45:57 was why 10:00? Well, a lot of people are working on the
15:46:00 second shifts, they're not getting off until 8 or 9:00 at
15:46:03 night, they're coming by there and buying groceries on their
15:46:07 way home so that's what time they closed and we respectfully
15:46:11 request your approval for a conditional one year closing at
15:46:14 10 p.m..
15:46:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Saul-Sena?
15:46:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you. This is relevant. The --
15:46:20 the sale on this -- in the parking lot in front is kind of
15:46:25 an ad hoc shop thing. That's no relation to this owner is
15:46:34 it?
15:46:34 >> No relationship at all. And they've been cited. They're
15:46:37 under code enforcement citation. That property is a
15:46:41 separate lot that's not controlled by these individuals at
15:46:43 all, and I think everyone, including the gentlemen that came
15:46:46 up and spoke, have been trying to do something about that.
15:46:48 And the owners of king grocery are supportive of trying to
15:46:51 do something about that as well.
15:46:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's really good to hear because I
15:46:54 think that's been a blight in that neighborhood forever.
15:46:57 >> In between the time when I posted the sign and when I
15:47:01 came back to take the pictures, people -- somebody had
15:47:03 dumped a load of trash immediately behind the building, and
15:47:07 Mr. Mondani said -- you know, first thing he said was Steve,
15:47:12 I know, I've got a truck coming, it's coming to pick this
15:47:15 up. I've got some guys hired to come back here and clean
15:47:18 this up so they're making a very positive contribution. And
15:47:21 these small businesses are the way to help these
15:47:23 neighborhoods stabilize and revitalize themselves. And like
15:47:26 I said, a conditional one year gives them a chance to prove
15:47:29 themselves and if they don't do that then, you know, the
15:47:32 burden is on them.
15:47:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I like the conditional. Thank you.
15:47:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Want me to close?
15:47:37 >> Move to close.
15:47:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and a second. What did you
15:47:42 want? You have to say it before we --
15:47:47 >> Yeah. I'm not -- I'm not ready to close the public
15:47:50 hearing because I was taking my time to go over these
15:47:53 petitions, and I wouldn't have asked that zip code question
15:47:59 if I hadn't noticed that some of these were signed by people
15:48:02 who live, one from Jacksonville, one from Temple Terrace.
15:48:07 There was one from Miami, and I don't know this neighborhood
15:48:11 that well, but the zip codes, even for the people in Tampa,
15:48:15 are all over the place. We've got 33604, 33607, 33614,
15:48:22 33612, so I don't -- I'm just not comfortable with giving
15:48:30 these petitions the same weight that we got from the 30
15:48:34 callers, at least 30 calls and E-mails just between first
15:48:38 and second reading of people that told -- Charlie -- it's --
15:48:46 district five is Charlie, right?
15:48:47 >> No. It's Reverend Scott.
15:48:51 >> Okay. Well, it's west Tampa. I think a lot of people
15:48:54 think that Charlie's their councilman. Mary Bryan, Charlie
15:48:58 Miranda's aide, got just lots and lots of calls from people






15:49:01 in the neighborhood who were not comfortable with it, and I
15:49:05 think these petitions, you can look them over and I don't
15:49:09 know -- I don't know who collected them, but --
15:49:12 >> Well, they're patrons that went into the grocery store
15:49:16 and, you know, we didn't screen them and say, well, you had
15:49:19 to be right here. I mean, they were told that it was for
15:49:23 the neighbors to sign.
15:49:25 >> But they obviously don't live in that area.
15:49:27 >> Well, if I had seen it --
15:49:28 >> They're driving down Columbus on their way home.
15:49:32 >> If I had seen it I obviously would not have presented
15:49:35 them as being representative of the neighborhood. But the
15:49:37 two associations that wrote letters in support and the
15:49:39 people that have come here, I think, should weigh fairly
15:49:43 heavily.
15:49:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Close the public hearing? John?
15:49:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yeah. I just wanted to reinforce a
15:49:53 little bit what Mary Mulhern said a little bit ago because I
15:49:57 got a lot of these faxes -- excuse me. A lot of these
15:50:00 E-mails that are part of the record now because we submitted
15:50:03 them to the clerk. Many families who go to the Catholic
15:50:07 school, which is within the thousand square feet distance --
15:50:19 the sisters which I think run villa Madonna, that's their
15:50:23 school, but anyway, we got one, two, three. This lady, Anna
15:50:34 Smith, lives in the neighborhood, Darlene Johnson lives in
15:50:37 the neighborhood. Anthony Cutro, Antonio Peta lives in the
15:50:45 neighborhood, is opposed. Marlene, looks like villa
15:50:53 Madonna. A lot of folks can't come here during the day for
15:50:57 alcohol rezonings, but they seem to be sending a message
15:51:00 loud and clear that this is not in the best interest of the
15:51:02 neighborhood or the adjacent school. I say adjacent
15:51:06 loosely. It's 800 feet away, but under our zoning code it's
15:51:09 still nearby. So --
15:51:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. We need to close the public hearing?
15:51:15 >> Can I comment for a second? I do know that the owners
15:51:17 went door to door and spoke to the day care center, and
15:51:21 anyone else that had an institutional use, and early on,
15:51:26 councilman, there were more concerns, and I think when we
15:51:29 went out and renoticed because we realized that there were
15:51:32 some institutional uses, that are tenants of buildings that,
15:51:37 for example, there's a church that's a tenant of a building
15:51:41 that didn't show up on the measurement form, so we renoticed
15:51:47 for that purpose, when we went back to talk to them there
15:51:51 was, you know, fairly strong support for a conditional use.
15:51:53 Not for a blanket wet zoning, and that's why I said we came
15:51:57 in and asked for a chance for them to prove themselves, to
15:52:00 give them one year, and -- and obviously people are going to
15:52:03 be watching to see if they prove themselves or not.
15:52:08 >> Back in January, I've got another ten or so E-mails
15:52:11 opposed to this, and the ones I just read to you were dated
15:52:14 this week, so -- okay.
15:52:19 >> I just wanted to tell you that I've been assured, because
15:52:22 the aides, who are very good at this, went over all the
15:52:26 calls and E-mails, and they said 30 of them came in before
15:52:30 this hearing, in between first and second hearings, so --
15:52:34 >> I'm saying we haven't had a second hearing. This is the
15:52:37 first time it's come up. But there was another wet zoning
15:52:41 on Columbus Drive a few weeks ago that was not related to
15:52:44 this at all.
15:52:44 >> Well, that's what all these people refer specifically to






15:52:48 this. They're not talking about something else.
15:52:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Are you ready to close the public hearing?
15:52:53 >> Move to close.
15:52:54 >> Second.
15:52:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close. All in favor of
15:52:58 the motion say aye. Opposed say nay. You want to read,
15:53:02 Mr. Caetano at the bottom of the page?
15:53:10 >> I'm going to move to deny this based on the waivers
15:53:15 presented. I think clearly from all of these people who
15:53:21 live right in the neighborhood, it does not benefit -- it is
15:53:25 not of public benefit to their community.
15:53:27 >> Second.
15:53:28 >> To have another wet zone store in that neighborhood. So
15:53:36 based on that, I'm voting to deny it.
15:53:41 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion.
15:53:42 >> I seconded it.
15:53:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion for denial.
15:53:45 >> Did you include the statutory reference?
15:53:47 >> No.
15:53:48 >> I talked about -- I didn't use the number.
15:53:50 >> She likes the number.
15:53:51 >> I don't know why I don't have that. I believe that you
15:53:55 were referencing section 3-78, 2, 3, 4 and 6, which deals
15:54:01 with the waiver requirements and the criteria.
15:54:03 >> Thank you.
15:54:03 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed
15:54:07 say nay.
15:54:11 >> March 20th under unfinished business, failed to receive
15:54:14 the requisite four votes under rule 4C.
15:54:19 >> What is the vote?
15:54:20 >> Want me to announce that?
15:54:21 >>CLERK: It was a 3-2 vote with Caetano and Dingfelder
15:54:26 voting no.
15:54:27 >>GWEN MILLER: No. Miller.
15:54:28 >>CLERK: Or Miller. Miller and Caetano voting no.
15:54:33 >> Own a motion to deny. Thank you.
15:54:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Be under unfinished business next week.
15:54:40 >> The 20th, right?
15:54:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes. Not next week. Two weeks. Okay. We
15:54:44 got to go back to item number 42.
15:55:00 >> 42?
15:55:01 >>GWEN MILLER: 62. Do you want to do 61 first?
15:55:11 >> No. I'd like to make a motion that we continue this
15:55:14 discussion about the budget because I know that councilman
15:55:17 Scott was really interested in contributing, and in the
15:55:21 interest of not going over the same information.
15:55:26 >> What do we have next week?
15:55:27 >> CRA.
15:55:28 >> Could we add it to the end of our CRA meeting?
15:55:32 >>GWEN MILLER: No. It's too much. The night meeting.
15:55:34 >> Did you hear the end of the CRA?
15:55:36 >> I think it's a very long CRA, and what you would be doing
15:55:39 is doing city council business, and -- the clerk has a copy
15:55:46 of the E-mails. They've been filed.
15:55:49 >>GWEN MILLER: So two weeks?
15:55:52 >> March 20th? Okay.
15:55:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Get a second?
15:55:55 >> Second.
15:55:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second. All in favor of the
15:55:58 motion say aye. Opposed say nay. Okay. Mr. Shelby, for






15:56:03 61?
15:56:05 >>MARTY SHELBY: Yes. Council member Miranda had requested
15:56:09 this item. He's absent today. I've had an opportunity to
15:56:14 talk with his legislative aide Mary Bryan, and council I'm
15:56:19 making the request that it be removed from the agenda at
15:56:22 this time, and council Miranda will return it to the agenda
15:56:25 at the appropriate time.
15:56:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion? All in favor of the motion say aye.
15:56:29 Opposed say nay. Okay. Item number 68. Mr. Shelby? 68?
15:56:42 >>MARTY SHELBY: Oh, item 68. Yes, council. I had a
15:56:55 discussion at last week's workshop with assistant city
15:56:58 attorney Julia Cole, and I had raised this during the
15:57:05 discussion of the workshops regarding public comment, and
15:57:08 there's a concern, council, that in the sense of fairness
15:57:10 and consistency, that a rule should be adopted that one
15:57:14 should know whether one should appear at the outset, whether
15:57:18 or not there's going to be public comment, and that it
15:57:22 should not be on the determination of who particularly shows
15:57:25 up that day because it is unfair with regard to both whether
15:57:30 or not council opens the floor to whoever should show up,
15:57:33 and those who would perhaps show up and not have the
15:57:36 opportunity or think there is no opportunity and miss that
15:57:39 opportunity. So there are two proposals. One of them I put
15:57:44 in the memo, which is to make the determination of whether
15:57:47 you're going to have public comment at the time that you set
15:57:53 the workshop, and then do that by a separate vote, and also
15:57:58 set your time duration and hold to it, because one of the
15:58:01 main concerns about public comment is once you open -- at a
15:58:05 workshop, that is, once you open the floor, depending on
15:58:08 what the subject matter is, you lose control over the time
15:58:12 of your agenda. 50 people could show up on one item and
15:58:15 take several hours and that will push back those other items
15:58:18 that you have scheduled. The other alternative, which is
15:58:22 not on the menu -- menu. Memorandum. Menu. This is
15:58:29 dessert. The other opportunity is to create a policy,
15:58:36 council, a bright line rule that says for a workshop items,
15:58:39 with the exception of you asking specific questions of
15:58:41 specific people, that you do not open it for public comment
15:58:45 and that those people who do wish to speak are always given
15:58:48 the opportunity at the next regular meeting under items that
15:58:51 are not on the agenda. But either way, my proposal is to
15:58:54 change the language to at least be clear and consistent, and
15:58:58 the -- again, the other proposal to just make a bright line
15:59:03 rule is also clear and consistent. But in all fairness, the
15:59:07 issue should be addressed before the day of the workshop.
15:59:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
15:59:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I've had complaints from various people
15:59:17 in the community, and especially folks in the neighborhoods
15:59:19 who watch us and want to participate, that our process is
15:59:26 messed up, because -- and we got a good process going now in
15:59:30 terms of these workshops, you know, we consolidate them to
15:59:33 one day, we get into these policy discussions as Marty and
15:59:37 David and others have urged us to do, and I think that's
15:59:40 working well. But the missing component is where having
15:59:44 these discussions among ourselves and occasionally with
15:59:46 staff without any public input. And when we want public
15:59:57 input, we have to break the rules, and I think what we
16:00:00 should do is establish a rule for automatic public input but
16:00:03 on a limited basis. That way we can control it, okay, so
16:00:07 what I'm thinking about is maybe like 15 minutes, two






16:00:11 minutes for any speaker after the first, you know, 15 or 16
16:00:14 minutes, I guess, something like an even number. But
16:00:19 anyway, something like that. So maybe 20 minutes. Two
16:00:21 minutes per person up to 20 minutes for each particular
16:00:27 topic of that workshop. That way we accommodate the
16:00:29 neighborhoods and other folks who might want to participate
16:00:32 in our community workshop, but at the same time we have a
16:00:35 limitation in control and expectations on what might occur.
16:00:39 So I think that might be a good compromise.
16:00:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Miss Mulhern?
16:00:44 >>MARY MULHERN: I was thinking along some different lines,
16:00:50 and I think it's because -- and I'm sorry, again, councilman
16:00:53 Scott isn't here because I'm guessing he would share my
16:00:58 feeling that the reason that we cut down our city council
16:01:02 meetings to every other week was because we didn't want
16:01:06 every week to turn into the marathon that it is. We made
16:01:09 that decision -- or not a decision. That's how a workshop
16:01:13 is described, right, that it's for council and staff? How
16:01:18 did we -- how did we come to say that we would not have
16:01:22 public input at those?
16:01:27 >> You did that, I believe, if I recall correctly, at your
16:01:30 retreat. At your strategic planning meeting. It was a
16:01:33 consensus of the board at the time.
16:01:35 >> How did workshops work the last time? You just scheduled
16:01:38 them as needed? Okay. So this is a real change in the way
16:01:41 it's been going for years?
16:01:47 >> Yes.
16:01:48 >> My feeling is that I would like to really limit the
16:01:51 public input on this, and I feel -- and I know there's
16:01:53 controversy on this, too, but the what do you call them,
16:02:00 special discussion meetings, if we -- for instance, your
16:02:03 great green building ordinances, meetings, that those could
16:02:06 have been just special discussion, isn't that what they
16:02:08 started out as? You know, if we had that -- for a special
16:02:13 case where you want to have full public input before it
16:02:16 comes to a public hearing, because I just -- I don't think
16:02:21 that we need to -- the public's going to still have their
16:02:26 two bites at the apple when we have the public hearing for
16:02:29 whatever the workshop discussion is, and I just think that
16:02:35 they're already getting a good deal, according to Reverend
16:02:39 Scott. If we had a zoning hearing master, they wouldn't
16:02:42 even get to, you know, speak at two hearings before council,
16:02:45 anyway. So I think that maybe do your first option, where
16:02:52 if we announce it ahead of time, because it's something
16:02:57 where we absolutely need to give them a chance to talk about
16:03:00 it, and we need their input, fine. But I -- I'm not
16:03:06 interested in going back, you know. I'm interested in being
16:03:10 able to communicate with you all and with staff, and work on
16:03:15 these issues without the public input because they're going
16:03:19 to get it anyway when we get around to it. If there's a
16:03:22 special case, I know there are big issues like franchise
16:03:25 agreements and the green ordinance, where we need to have
16:03:27 that option. We can put it on the agenda. Put it on a
16:03:31 council agenda as a staff report or something where the
16:03:34 public, we can ask the public to be here. Let's just keep
16:03:37 the workshops as a working -- and I think that came from
16:03:40 Mr. Scott in the first place. Because that's how they do it
16:03:44 in the county. The workshop is workshop for the commission
16:03:47 and staff, not for public input. So that's my feeling about
16:03:51 it. I don't know.






16:03:53 >>GWEN MILLER: And my feeling's the same way. We say
16:03:56 workshop. Workshop is for council members and staff. And
16:03:59 the public only have two times, first public hearing and
16:04:03 second public hearing. They have the opportunity to speak
16:04:05 then so I say we need to keep it without public comments so
16:04:08 we be fair because we hadn't been fair at some workshops, we
16:04:11 let some people speak, some didn't speak, so let's cut it
16:04:15 out and do what we say we're going to do, no public speaking
16:04:18 at the workshops.
16:04:19 >> Council, just for clarification. Some items that are
16:04:22 ordinance that require two public hearings, people have the
16:04:26 opportunity to speak at two public hearings. If it's a
16:04:29 legislative matter, they can speak to it on the agenda under
16:04:32 agenda public comment, but there is really no public comment
16:04:34 in the first reading. There is a public hearing at the
16:04:39 second adoption public hearing. With regard to resolutions
16:04:44 that may appear on the agenda, there may not be a public
16:04:48 hearing at all. Depending on -- depending on how the items
16:04:52 come to council, there may not be a public hearing. Rather
16:04:55 than -- heart than a discussion for agenda public comments.
16:05:02 For instance, let's just take the hydrant issue just for the
16:05:06 sake of argument today.
16:05:07 >> The what?
16:05:08 >> The hydrant --
16:05:09 >> The discussion with the fire hydrants. The awarding of a
16:05:12 bid, for instance, is a resolution. You may have a workshop
16:05:18 on certain matters and it would come back to council as a
16:05:21 resolution on your consent document and it would not appear
16:05:24 for a public hearing and it would just be agenda public
16:05:26 comment would be their only opportunity to speak to it.
16:05:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Well, they'll still have an opportunity to
16:05:30 speak on it. It's not like we're not giving them an
16:05:35 opportunity at all. They will get a chance to speak. They
16:05:39 will get this opportunity.
16:05:40 >> And I also think that -- and Mr. Caetano, I'm glad you
16:05:44 brought that up because I've been meaning to thank him, and
16:05:47 I think he gave -- you did all that research on those fire
16:05:50 hydrants and on the water department and all of that and it
16:05:53 was a really good example for me of why we need a budget
16:05:56 analyst, because I don't think he has time to go through the
16:06:03 items on the agenda and find out, you know, where all the
16:06:05 money was coming and going. But back to this -- what was I
16:06:09 going to say that if Mr. Caetano, for instance, wanted
16:06:12 that -- wanted public input on that, he could ask to have it
16:06:15 put on the agenda for a staff report, and the public could
16:06:18 come. And it's not something. That's what I'm saying. I
16:06:22 think if we have an issue big enough that we need public
16:06:25 input, we're going to make sure we get it, either at council
16:06:29 meetings, at the staff report, or at a special discussion
16:06:31 meeting, or a community meeting, which we often do for
16:06:35 bigger things outside of our regular meetings. So I don't
16:06:38 think we need it.
16:06:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's get a motion on the floor. Anybody
16:06:41 want to make a motion?
16:06:43 >> I liked your motion.
16:06:44 >>GWEN MILLER: I can't make the motion. You have to.
16:06:46 >> Okay. All right. I just make a motion that we do not
16:06:48 have public comments at our workshop meetings unless -- and
16:06:55 I want this to be really an exception. If there's no other
16:06:58 time to schedule it, we schedule a public hearing at the






16:07:02 workshop with enough time to give public notice for that.
16:07:06 So what is that, two weeks?
16:07:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes. Two weeks.
16:07:09 >> It actually could be less.
16:07:11 >> Second.
16:07:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Got a second. Second on the motion.
16:07:15 >> Sometimes, a workshop is information, and it's kind of a
16:07:20 make or break deal, like if we hear something we decide not
16:07:23 to go ahead with it, that's the only opportunity to weigh in
16:07:27 on it. What Mr. Shelby recommended to us is that we have a
16:07:30 choice, which is we let everybody know in advance you will
16:07:34 have an opportunity to speak on this. What it would do is
16:07:37 give everybody a heads up. It would take away the
16:07:40 uncertainty of should I show up, should I not show up, do I
16:07:43 get to weigh in at all. I think it would afford council,
16:07:46 when we want to exercise that, the opportunity to, and --
16:07:51 and it's most of the time, we choose not to because we --
16:07:54 >> You have to do it when you're scheduling.
16:07:56 >> Right. Right.
16:07:57 >> Which is pretty much what I'm saying.
16:07:58 >> It is. That's why I'm suggesting that we go with what's
16:08:01 written because he's already written it up.
16:08:04 >> That was your first option, right? That's what you said?
16:08:06 >> It says I propose that we consider the following
16:08:08 amendment, and that's what --
16:08:09 >> You can consider it, but --
16:08:11 >> The only -- the only concern that I --
16:08:13 >>GWEN MILLER: We not considering that. We considering no
16:08:16 comment at workshops.
16:08:17 >> You're saying ever? Ever?
16:08:19 >>GWEN MILLER: That's workshops is not for --
16:08:22 >> But then we break our own rule by motion.
16:08:25 >>GWEN MILLER: No, we're not breaking our own rule.
16:08:29 >> That's fine with me. I'll go back to your motion. More
16:08:31 restrictive, that workshops, we don't have public hearing.
16:08:35 >>GWEN MILLER: We had a second on that. All in favor of
16:08:37 the motion say aye.
16:08:38 >> Wait. Wait. Wait. Okay. For some reason, there's a
16:08:44 strange notion that I once remembered in grade school
16:08:48 something about a government for the people and by the
16:08:50 people. I don't know. Call me crazy.
16:08:52 >>GWEN MILLER: So that we govern the people when they
16:08:54 speak --
16:08:55 >> It's not that we're governing, it's that we are
16:08:58 government for the people and by the people. We are here at
16:09:01 the will of the people. We are elected by them. We are
16:09:07 here for their servants. We should have the public input as
16:09:13 early and as often as possible. We can't start developing
16:09:15 an attitude of them. I heard that a few minutes ago.
16:09:19 "Them", their opinions, their input. No. No. Okay? It --
16:09:26 it's the wrong direction, and if we want to look up the
16:09:31 street for direction on this issue, it's the wrong way to
16:09:33 look, okay, because that --
16:09:36 >>GWEN MILLER: I gave my own personal opinion.
16:09:38 >> I know. But somebody mentioned about commissioner Scott
16:09:41 and his experience from up the street. On my opinion, and
16:09:47 I've been up there, I've worked up there, okay, and I think
16:09:49 we treat the public much better, and as we should, and we
16:09:52 don't want ahead in a different direction just because we're
16:09:56 doing up the street. I think Mr. Shelby's proposal has






16:09:59 merit because what it does is it basically says if there's a
16:10:03 special case and I'm going to tell you a special case, this
16:10:06 issue about campaign finance reform. Okay? I was just
16:10:09 about the try and calendar it for a workshop in April, all
16:10:13 right, but that issue needs the public input because you on
16:10:16 the council need to hear what I've heard out in the
16:10:18 community when they held that meeting. You need to hear
16:10:22 that early on so then you need to know if it should be set
16:10:25 for further meetings. If you don't hear it at a workshop,
16:10:28 you're not going to hear it at all.
16:10:30 >>GWEN MILLER: You can hear it at the special meetings.
16:10:32 >> There is no special meetings.
16:10:34 >>GWEN MILLER: You can make a motion.
16:10:36 >> And nobody shows. No. We have to be here to hear --
16:10:39 >>GWEN MILLER: You say at the special meeting we going to
16:10:42 review the tape of those members who did not review the
16:10:46 tape.
16:10:46 >> We are elected as legislators and as representatives, so
16:10:53 we do do some of our work based on our own information, and
16:10:58 I think that election reform is a good example. I don't
16:11:00 want to hear from the public yet. I'd like to hear from
16:11:03 some election lawyers. I'd like to hear if we're going to
16:11:08 propose to change our election, public finance laws, let's
16:11:12 hear from the experts on how we can go about doing that
16:11:15 before we start asking the public what they want to do.
16:11:18 Great. They want to do it. Will it ever stand up in court?
16:11:21 I'd like to know that first. Then you have your workshop,
16:11:25 you -- we talk about it, we find out, we ask staff to come
16:11:32 back. Then we make it, put it on the agenda for, you
16:11:36 know -- you know, for a staff report.
16:11:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The problem again is -- I agree with
16:11:46 you, it's good to get other expert input, that sort of
16:11:51 thing, but we can't even get there unless the public comes
16:11:53 to urge this council to get there. And that's one of the
16:11:58 things, sometimes the public has to be the one to motivate
16:12:02 us to move to the next step. If I made a motion today to
16:12:04 refer campaign finance reform to the legal department to
16:12:07 start drafting things, to start looking to all these issues,
16:12:10 it would die three to four or something like that, because
16:12:13 there's been no public clamor because there's been no
16:12:16 opportunity for public input. So that's the whole point.
16:12:19 That's the whole point. And I'm not saying it should be
16:12:22 available every time. I backed off of that. What I'm
16:12:25 suggesting is Marty's language, which is a compromised
16:12:28 language. When the person and council goes to set a
16:12:32 particular workshop, at least you have the option to say,
16:12:34 you know what, this is an issue that needs public input. Or
16:12:38 not. But at least it would be voted on at that time. If
16:12:41 council says, well, we disagree with you John, we don't want
16:12:45 public input on that, then fine, then council prevails.
16:12:49 >> Why don't we vote on my motion, because it's not going to
16:12:52 pass because you two are going to vote against it and it's
16:12:55 going to come back anyway and then we'll have everyone.
16:12:57 >>GWEN MILLER: We got a motion and second on the floor.
16:13:00 All in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed say nay. Okay.
16:13:03 Bring it back in two weeks, Mr. Shelby.
16:13:05 >> Okay.
16:13:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. New business?
16:13:08 >> That's everything. That was everything.
16:13:11 >> Move to receive and file everything.






16:13:13 >> Second.
16:13:13 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed
16:13:15 say nay.
16:13:19 >> A make a motion to give accommodation to Debbie at
16:13:25 Bartels middle school for being selected as teacher of the
16:13:27 year at Hillsborough county. I don't know whether she can
16:13:29 come here. Perhaps I can go to the school.
16:13:33 >> You can take it to her.
16:13:34 >> Yeah. And I don't know how I got chosen for this one,
16:13:38 but I understand we can't have chickens in the city.
16:13:42 It's -- it's an ordinance that you can't have a chicken in
16:13:45 your yard. You can have one in your refrigerator, but you
16:13:50 can't have one in your yard.
16:13:51 >> Don't tell Ybor that.
16:13:53 >> I would like to ask council to adopt a non-binding
16:13:56 resolution to oppose the use of factory farming practice of
16:14:00 the confinement of egg-laying hens in battery cages.
16:14:03 >> I'll second that.
16:14:04 >> Okay. And I know when I go to rotary every Friday
16:14:08 morning I look at those eggs in the hopper that they have
16:14:11 there for us, and once I saw that video, my views on eating
16:14:18 eggs is completely different unless I buy them.
16:14:22 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of that motion?
16:14:24 >> Question on the motion for the maker of the motion?
16:14:26 You're requesting a resolution, a written resolution?
16:14:28 >> Yeah. I have it right here. I have a sample.
16:14:32 >> A sample? Would you like me to bring it to draft it for
16:14:35 you and then bring it back to the regular meeting?
16:14:37 >> It's already drafted. All you got to do is put your name
16:14:41 on it.
16:14:41 >> It's just a sample.
16:14:43 >> You got it?
16:14:44 >> It's a sample. Would you like me to --
16:14:47 >> Let's vote to say if we want it first. Okay?
16:14:52 >> I didn't know if the maker of the motion wanted to bring
16:14:56 it to me to draft a resolution and bring it back to council.
16:14:59 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed
16:15:02 say nay. Nay.
16:15:05 >>CLERK: Motion carried with Miller voting no.
16:15:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else, miss Mulhern?
16:15:12 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't think so. I need to ask my brain.
16:15:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
16:15:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A couple of things. Jim Stetson has
16:15:20 requested that we put on the calendar the 2009 presentation
16:15:23 of the budget in August. That would be Thursday --
16:15:28 Thursday, August 7, 2008, at 9:30 in the morning, a
16:15:34 presentation from Mayor Iorio and Monte Wise, director of
16:15:40 finance.
16:15:40 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and a second. All in favor
16:15:44 say aye.
16:15:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And speaking of campaign finance reform,
16:15:48 right now it's calendared for march 20th, which is a little
16:15:51 premature for the community to put all their thoughts
16:15:54 together, so they have requested that -- this is sort of
16:15:59 strange, that we workshop this issue on April 24th at our
16:16:04 workshop for --
16:16:06 >> Second.
16:16:09 >> For now we'll do that and figure out how to get public
16:16:12 input.
16:16:13 >> Council, it doesn't have to be in your rules. If you






16:16:15 want to make that determination right now by a separate
16:16:19 vote, and just say how much time do we want to do it.
16:16:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's true, so I think this is an issue
16:16:26 that's very important to hear from the public, but on a very
16:16:29 limited basis. So if we could give the public 15 minutes,
16:16:34 two minutes each, except for the last person only gets a
16:16:37 minute, but anyway, on Ann --
16:16:39 >> Is it already on the agenda for that day?
16:16:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No. I'm going to move it from march
16:16:44 20th because it was on the regular agenda march 20th. I'm
16:16:47 going to move that to April 24th at the workshop, and add --
16:16:52 and add -- and just say 15 minutes maximum, two minutes per
16:16:56 person.
16:16:56 >> I think we should leave that pending our vote on how we
16:17:00 want to handle our workshops, like just schedule the
16:17:02 workshop, and we can figure out if there's going to be
16:17:05 public comment after we have the -- finished that
16:17:08 discussion.
16:17:08 >> We can vote on this and see if it goes.
16:17:11 >> Okay.
16:17:11 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed
16:17:16 say nay.
16:17:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: All right. I'll make a different
16:17:19 motion.
16:17:20 >>CLERK: Motion carried with Miller voting no.
16:17:23 >> No, Mulhern.
16:17:25 >> And Caetano, I believe.
16:17:31 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: I was dumping something in the garbage and
16:17:33 I didn't vote. What was the vote again?
16:17:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's all right. The motion failed
16:17:38 either way, so let me make an alternative motion. These are
16:17:41 just procedural. The motion would be to reschedule the
16:17:43 march 20th campaign finance reform discussion to April
16:17:48 24th -- well, you know what, if we're going to get into all
16:17:51 that mess, I'll just put it on the regular calendar. Is the
16:17:54 regular calendar date April 17th?
16:17:57 >> Yes.
16:17:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay. Let's just do it April 17th, put
16:18:02 it on the staff reports.
16:18:03 >> Second.
16:18:03 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and a second. All in favor
16:18:06 of the motion say aye. Opposed say nay. Anything else?
16:18:08 >> Hartline. Tell us what that is.
16:18:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Sure. I'd be glad to. As you're a
16:18:15 representative on Hartline. The street car issue that we
16:18:17 discussed a few weeks ago, and I think council made a motion
16:18:20 to ask Hartline to reconsider, Hartline reconsidered its
16:18:24 vote on the $900,000. It's sort of in limbo right now
16:18:27 because what I suggested and what passed is we're going to
16:18:30 have a joint meeting between Hartline and the street car
16:18:34 board, Mary's on the street car board, and to hash out this
16:18:40 issue of should, you know, should the line be extended four
16:18:43 or five blocks up into downtown. If so, how do we -- you
16:18:47 know, is there a good business plan in place to be able to
16:18:50 support that, et cetera, et cetera. So hopefully in the
16:18:52 next few weeks we'll schedule that, we'll have a good
16:18:55 meeting, hopefully we'll have a good business plan and we'll
16:18:58 be able to move forward with that extension, I hope.
16:19:01 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you. Because that's what my new
16:19:03 business that I couldn't remember was. The street car board






16:19:06 is -- we're having a finance committee meeting tomorrow and
16:19:09 we're going to write our business plan. The Hart board
16:19:13 meeting didn't include the street car board. I'm not sure
16:19:15 that the street car board is going to want to meet as a
16:19:19 board with the Hartline board because Hartline is asking to
16:19:25 take away funding. So it's not in the really interest of
16:19:30 the streetcar board to meet -- you know, as a board with
16:19:37 that board. It would be like --
16:19:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, the intent is to try and find that
16:19:42 compromise so we don't take away money, and I think that if
16:19:45 you choose to not --
16:19:48 >> No, there is no compromise. You either -- they either
16:19:51 take the money or some of the money, whatever. I don't
16:19:55 think the streetcar board, it's going to be in their
16:19:58 interest to meet with you to compromise because the money
16:20:00 was ear marked for the streetcar board, so you made that
16:20:05 decision as the Hartline board that you wanted to negotiate
16:20:08 with the streetcar board and the streetcar board wasn't
16:20:11 there to say that they wanted to do that, so --
16:20:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay and we've now got it back to the
16:20:17 status quo where the money effectively is back where it was
16:20:20 before February. And we're -- and the whole intent was
16:20:25 let's get together, let's talk about this. We did it two
16:20:28 years ago and it worked pretty well. Let me finish. We got
16:20:32 together, let's talk about this in the spirit of
16:20:34 cooperation. If the streetcar board chooses not to show up
16:20:38 and talk about this business plan because there might be
16:20:40 questions that we need to ask you all about the business
16:20:43 plan, then the Hartline board is going to consider as a slap
16:20:46 in the face and we'll have no alternative but to say you
16:20:48 know what, let's go back where we were and use that $900,000
16:20:52 for a county BRT issue.
16:20:54 >>MARY MULHERN: This is a government question for me because
16:20:57 we, as the streetcar board meet with the Hart executive
16:21:01 director, and with staff from Hart and discuss things. So
16:21:06 for two boards -- do you know -- what do you think about
16:21:10 this, Marty? It doesn't make sense to me.
16:21:15 >>MARTY SHELBY: If they're executive correctors, they're
16:21:18 not members of a collegial body.
16:21:21 >> Right.
16:21:28 >>MARTY SHELBY: I believe it's a sunshine board.
16:21:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's a sunshine board, but it's a
16:21:34 non-profit.
16:21:34 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't know. We're having our finance
16:21:36 committee meeting tomorrow, and that's all related to
16:21:39 keeping that funding that was ear marked for the street car,
16:21:43 so we'll discuss it tomorrow, you know, maybe -- this may
16:21:48 just be my --
16:21:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I urge you to do it.
16:21:54 >>MARY MULHERN: It's not a matter of not wanting to talk
16:21:56 about it. It's the matter of how -- how we go about that.
16:22:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Saul-Sena?
16:22:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you. My experience as a twice
16:22:05 Hartline board member who used to have the streetcar board
16:22:09 talk about how we make the streetcar project work. It's a
16:22:12 good thing to talk. But that's not my new business. My new
16:22:18 business is that I'm very concerned about the $457 million
16:22:22 that the State of Florida committed to CSX to develop
16:22:29 commuter service in Orlando that would -- that has no
16:22:32 connection to Tampa, and on our agenda in the future is a






16:22:40 presentation by T. Barta. It seems to me that T. Barta,
16:22:45 which is supposed to be coming up with regional transit
16:22:49 should be taking a look at commuter rail service in our
16:22:52 region and making sure that what they're thinking of doing
16:22:55 in Orlando isn't going to potentially in the future hurt
16:22:58 Tampa, that we should be looking at opportunities for
16:23:00 connectivity. There was some conversation about an am track
16:23:04 statewide system. We need to be not having the state give
16:23:09 all this money for commuter and rail, that precludes Tampa.
16:23:18 So what I'd like to do is ask that when -- I think it's FDOT
16:23:24 is coming to council under our workshop to talk about T.
16:23:29 Barta and regional connectivity, that they also address rail
16:23:33 connectivity, and that our lobbyists in Tallahassee, because
16:23:36 the city has one, makes sure that we -- I don't exactly know
16:23:43 how to do this, but I just want to make sure that we're part
16:23:46 of the conversation. This is tremendously important.
16:23:48 >> Can I ask you a question?
16:23:50 >> Yes.
16:23:51 >> Okay. This isn't related -- this is commuter rail. This
16:23:55 isn't related to the CSX deal.
16:23:57 >> Yes. This is the CSX deal.
16:24:00 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay. Well, I think you might be -- it's
16:24:04 fine to discuss it, but I think that's really up in the air
16:24:07 as to whether or not -- and I don't know that we want to be
16:24:09 part of that because Orlando doesn't -- and Lakeland -- Polk
16:24:16 County doesn't even want that.
16:24:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No. Lakeland doesn't want the
16:24:21 non-commuter rail clogging up their downtown. Orlando wants
16:24:24 this deal because they'll get $150 for commuter rail. I
16:24:28 want Tampa to not be cut out of this. I want to make sure
16:24:31 we're part of the conversations. I think the appropriate
16:24:34 motion is for Elaine, who's our transportation maven, is to
16:24:39 come to Tampa during our next -- come to council during our
16:24:43 next workshop and discuss whether the city is participating
16:24:47 in conversations about rail connectivity with Orlando, with
16:24:53 Amtrak and as part of the T. Barta.
16:24:57 >> And I think that's a great idea and you brought up that
16:25:01 Amtrak thing. This is a big discussion because -- or maybe
16:25:04 the Amtrak thing should be separate because Amtrak was
16:25:09 talking about -- oh, near, they're talking about intercity.
16:25:12 They want to talk about both of those, and I think there's a
16:25:16 state legislator in Polk County who's been really advocating
16:25:23 and -- against this CSX.
16:25:28 >> Because it will have such a negative impact on their
16:25:30 downtown. We need to discuss that.
16:25:33 >> Right. But I'm just saying -- we can discuss it but I
16:25:36 don't necessarily think we want to get in on that deal. We
16:25:39 want some -- and so we'll discuss it.
16:25:41 >> Okay. So my motion is that this -- that this is on
16:25:45 our -- at our next workshop, that Elaine discuss the rail
16:25:48 ramifications.
16:25:50 >> Second.
16:25:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and a second. All in favor of
16:25:53 the motion say aye. Opposed say nay. Anything else?
16:25:55 >> No. Thank you.
16:25:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. I would like to invite everyone to
16:25:58 come out to the united Negro college fund all star
16:26:04 basketball class. It's being represented by the Tampa Bay
16:26:08 sports commission. It's at Jefferson high school this
16:26:10 Friday on march the 7th at 6 p.m.. we have the girls doing






16:26:13 the three points, the boys doing three points and dunking,
16:26:18 and they pick out fans and they shoot and win $50. So I
16:26:24 would like to invite everybody to come out, the admission is
16:26:27 $5.
16:26:28 >> I'm going to go see Jersey boys Friday night.
16:26:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Oh, that's not more important than this. We
16:26:34 have all the high schools from the east to the west.
16:26:38 Anything else?
16:26:39 >> I had one other announcement, you just reminded me. We
16:26:42 have a lot of rowing going on up and down the river in the
16:26:46 channel right now, and local organization headed up by Tom
16:26:54 Fiester is holding a Regatta on March 15th. It's called the
16:27:01 Stewards Foundation. It's the Tampa Mayor's Cup Regatta,
16:27:05 and the best place to view it on March 15th and from Davis
16:27:09 Island near Tampa General Hospital. So if you can park
16:27:13 around there and then walk over to the channel, you'll be
16:27:15 able to see teams from Yale, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Clemson,
16:27:20 Marietta College, Florida Tech and Dartmouth, as well as
16:27:24 some others compete in a beautiful Regatta. If you want
16:27:27 more information, you can get in touch with my office or Tom
16:27:30 Fiester.
16:27:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay. Anything else come before council?
16:27:34 We stand adjourned.
16:28:08 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to set a date for the public hearing
16:28:11 for the city to go in with solid waste.
16:28:24 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to go back on the air. Please put
16:28:27 us back on the air. My attorney doesn't help me out, Jan.
16:28:31 I'm glad you're here. We had one item -- roll call?
16:28:51 [ROLL CALL].
16:28:59 >>GWEN MILLER: We have one item that we need to take up for
16:29:01 next week. We need to make a motion to have a public
16:29:04 hearing on the clean city emerging with the solid waste.
16:29:10 >> So moved.
16:29:11 >> I believe that was to bring back or to direct legal to
16:29:15 begin the process to do that.
16:29:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Set a public hearing, yes.
16:29:19 >> To set a public hearing. I don't believe it's for next
16:29:22 week, but I think legal will schedule it.
16:29:24 >> Okay. And was that -- and this came up from our budget
16:29:27 meeting, John, so you might not have heard all of this.
16:29:30 >> Yes. Okay.
16:29:31 >> Is this a public meeting to discuss whether we're going
16:29:34 to raise the fee?
16:29:37 >>GWEN MILLER: So the public give their input on it.
16:29:40 >> Is that part of it?
16:29:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes. Do we get a second?
16:29:44 >> Second.
16:29:45 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say aye.
16:29:48 >> Any discussion on the motion?
16:29:49 >> No. No discussion on the motion.
16:29:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Come on, I sat here to wait for your
16:29:53 motion. You can give me discussion.
16:29:55 >>GWEN MILLER: It's going to be advertised and everything.
16:29:57 >> Yes. But at this point in time, if my recollection
16:30:00 serves me, it was -- the motion request was to direct legal
16:30:03 to begin that process to bring council that -- an ordinance
16:30:09 to begin making --
16:30:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Our public get an opportunity to speak on
16:30:13 it, yes.
16:30:14 >> I'm not ready to do that.






16:30:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Let the public speak on it?
16:30:20 >> No, I'm ready -- no. I'm ready to --
16:30:26 >>GWEN MILLER: We not going to do anything but listen to
16:30:28 the public, get their input.
16:30:31 >> It's just a public hearing? I'm not ready to vote on
16:30:35 raising garbage rates.
16:30:37 >>GWEN MILLER: No. We won't vote to raise it that day.
16:30:40 No.
16:30:42 >> Isn't that what the motion is?
16:30:43 >> No.
16:30:44 >> Tell us what it is.
16:30:45 >> May I -- I think what we should do is put a staff report
16:30:49 on our agenda with the specific proposal that was brought up
16:30:56 the other day many the mayor's meeting about adding clean
16:31:00 cities to the solid waste department with an explanation of
16:31:05 what the fees would be. And then we could discuss it as
16:31:08 part of a report before council.
16:31:12 >> Fine.
16:31:13 >> Thank you.
16:31:13 >> We have that public hearing. Should we have it at the
16:31:16 convention center?
16:31:17 >>GWEN MILLER: No. No.
16:31:20 >> The stadium.
16:31:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
16:31:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay. About month ago, this council
16:31:31 asked the administration to give us a report back on the
16:31:34 financial -- on the financial possibilities and the
16:31:37 financial impact of going to once a week garbage collection.
16:31:45 Mr. Daignault and the administration provided a three-page
16:31:48 memo that was, you know, circumvented the basic question,
16:31:53 okay? Nowhere in the memo did he say how much we could save
16:31:56 or not save if we went to once a week garbage collection.
16:32:00 The only thing it said was we, the administration, have
16:32:03 decided we don't want to go to once a week garbage
16:32:06 collection, we're not going to explore it, but we're going
16:32:09 to explore other things, sort of on and on. The only reason
16:32:12 I ever mention once a week garbage collection as a
16:32:16 possibility was because of the proposed garbage rate hike,
16:32:22 okay? So I figure, well, if you got a 10% hike or a 15%
16:32:27 hike, whatever the amount is, let's look at ways to offset
16:32:30 that hike with cost savings, and then maybe we don't have to
16:32:36 do the hike at all. Now, am I willing to have a discussion
16:32:39 about it and a staff report about it and that sort of thing?
16:32:42 Yes. Would I continue to like to see Mr. Daignault comply
16:32:46 with this council's unanimous request for the exact amount
16:32:51 of cost savings, and not just the bottom line, but how he
16:32:56 got there, you know, what are the assumptions, the
16:32:58 methodology, et cetera, et cetera. It's just like the
16:33:01 decision this morning, Joseph, you know, without the --
16:33:04 looking at that two-page paper, I wouldn't have been able to
16:33:07 to be able to tell that he was talking about $18 and we said
16:33:11 yeah, but if you did it at $12, it's 600,000 instead of
16:33:15 800,000. We need the methodology to see what his conclusion
16:33:17 is and how he got there. Don't come to a conclusion and
16:33:20 then work backwards and say this isn't -- you know, this
16:33:23 isn't going to work.
16:33:25 >>GWEN MILLER: I don't remember having a motion.
16:33:26 >> Yeah, we had a motion.
16:33:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: As a matter of fact, I just -- I just
16:33:30 want to say one more thing.






16:33:31 >> Maybe -- John?
16:33:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: One more thing.
16:33:33 >> Okay.
16:33:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: This is not without precedence. I just
16:33:37 happened to Google this about ten minutes ago. The city of
16:33:40 Tallahassee was facing the same thing, increased costs, fuel
16:33:44 costs, labor costs, et cetera, et cetera. So what did they
16:33:47 do? They decided they'd go back -- they'd go to once a week
16:33:51 pickup and do you know what they found out? They also found
16:33:55 out that in conjunction they'd have a 40% increase in
16:33:58 recycling, but I think there may have been other factors
16:34:01 there. But the bottom line is that Tallahassee is a
16:34:03 southern town, six months -- I've lived there. It's just as
16:34:09 hot in Tallahassee as it is here, and they did this last may
16:34:11 so these are the kinds of things that staff needs to be
16:34:14 exploring. Other towns in Texas that are doing this? I
16:34:17 heard Sarasota county has done this. You know, and I know
16:34:20 it's controversial. I've gotten the E-mails. People are
16:34:23 very sensitive about their garbage. But you know what,
16:34:26 they're also sensitive about their bills.
16:34:28 >> Yeah.
16:34:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I think that it's our fiduciary duty
16:34:33 to explore all options.
16:34:35 >> You're going to have public hearing and input from the
16:34:38 community to see how they feel about it. Miss Mulhern?
16:34:41 >>MARY MULHERN: I totally agree and I have a lot of -- I'm
16:34:43 not sure that even if we got what you asked for when we made
16:34:48 that motion the last time, we're going to get all the
16:34:51 information we need because after we got that memo from
16:34:54 Mr. Daignault, it just raised lots and lots of questions for
16:34:57 me, so it may be that we asked for that, and then all these
16:35:01 other questions come up, but you know, what he's saying is
16:35:04 we have a plan to automate, and we're going to do it, and I
16:35:09 want to know what that's costing us, where we are in that
16:35:12 process, how much those garbage cans cost. We need to know
16:35:16 what we're spending now, and we need to see a breakdown. So
16:35:21 we need a lot of information. Well, the only thing that
16:35:31 came up today, I was asking Vijay when they were talking
16:35:35 about money for recycling, what are they doing in
16:35:38 conjunction with this -- and what they are doing apparently
16:35:41 is just planning to automate the recycling pickup, which is
16:35:44 going to cost a lot of money, too, and which may not be
16:35:48 exactly the most affordable way to go. So there's a lot to
16:35:53 talk about, so maybe just -- I don't know.
16:35:55 >> May I make a suggestion? Because of the way this came
16:35:58 about and the fact that we did this at the end of the
16:36:01 meeting and ultimately had to reconvene, can this be
16:36:04 added -- and it's not a full council, especially, could this
16:36:07 be added as unfinished business for council at the march
16:36:10 20th? Because I believe the administration is looking for
16:36:13 direction quickly. It's the next regular meeting. And the
16:36:16 entire council will be here. You'll be able to address
16:36:18 these issues, and staff will be present. There is nobody
16:36:21 here now.
16:36:23 >> Excellent suggestion.
16:36:24 >> Yeah. I think that's a good idea also because
16:36:31 Mr. Dingfelder wasn't there and also because it wasn't a
16:36:34 council meeting and that we were being asked to vote at this
16:36:37 mayor's meeting. And I think we need to get back to our
16:36:40 process.






16:36:43 >>GWEN MILLER: We had a motion on the floor.
16:36:48 >> I think that the suggestion that we put this under
16:36:50 unfinished business march 20th is excellent and that will be
16:36:54 my motion.
16:36:54 >> Second.
16:36:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and a second. All in favor of
16:36:57 the motion say aye. Opposed say nay. Now, is there
16:36:59 anything else we missed? If we missed anything else? Okay.
16:37:05 We stand adjourned.
(The City Council meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.)