Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, April 17, 2008
9:00 a.m. session

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

09:03:22 [Sounding gavel]
09:03:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Good morning.
09:03:25 The Tampa City Council is will now come to order.
09:03:29 We will turn it over to councilman Joe Caetano.
09:03:38 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Thank you.
09:03:40 This morning we have the pleasure of having Mr. Jim
09:03:42 crew, our city clerk support technician, to provide
09:03:46 the invocation, and after the completion of that we

09:03:49 will stand to pledge allegiance.
09:03:55 >> Jim crew: Let us pray.
09:03:59 Father, we thank you for your many blessings, for this
09:04:02 new day that you have given us.
09:04:04 As your word says, how blessed is a nation whose God
09:04:08 is the Lord.
09:04:08 We acknowledge your blessings, your favor, and your
09:04:11 mercies new each morning.
09:04:12 Great is your faithfulness.
09:04:14 We especially thank you for those who serve in our
09:04:16 military in deference of this great nation and
09:04:19 especially for those families of the ones that have
09:04:21 been lost recently in our communities, and have given
09:04:25 the last full measure of devotion in defense of our
09:04:28 nation.
09:04:28 We thank you for the freedom that we enjoy.
09:04:32 This freedom is not free.
09:04:34 And we are thankful for the sacrifice of those who
09:04:36 have given their lives.
09:04:37 We pray Dear Lord that you be with those who serve you
09:04:40 daily in public service.
09:04:41 Be with these your servants this day.

09:04:43 Give them wisdom in all matters that come before them
09:04:46 and will thank you and give you all the glory and all
09:04:48 the honor now and forever.
09:04:50 Amen.
09:04:52 [ Pledge of Allegiance ]
09:05:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We will now have roll call.
09:05:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
09:05:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
09:05:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
09:05:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
09:05:18 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Here.
09:05:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.
09:05:23 >>MARY MULHERN: Here.
09:05:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: At this time the chair will yield to
09:05:29 the honorable Charlie Miranda.
09:05:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: First of all I want to thank you
09:05:32 for this nice seat.
09:05:33 You know, in my position, anywhere I sit, I don't have
09:05:36 a bad hair day.
09:05:38 And I would like to start this morning by introducing
09:05:42 Vicki Sierra, an 8th grader at the academy of holy
09:05:46 names and an excellent basketball player so she wants

09:05:48 to learn more about what we do, and she's here with us
09:05:52 today visiting for awhile.
09:05:54 Mr. Chair, I am going to go down to the podium, if I
09:05:57 may.
09:05:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.
09:06:03 Mr. Chairman, honorable members of City Council, and
09:06:18 the great citizens of the City of Tampa, it's my
09:06:21 pleasure to be here today.
09:06:22 I would like to ask former chairperson Gwen Miller to
09:06:25 come down, please.
09:06:31 It's my pleasure to stand here with Gwen Miller, now
09:06:48 vice chair of this illustrious City Council, to
09:06:52 recollect nice her for job she's done for four
09:06:55 straight years.
09:06:56 It was my pleasure to work with Gwen Miller in the
09:06:58 prior administration and the prior council.
09:07:02 She was advice chair then for five years, if I recall,
09:07:05 and during that term, in fact, she actually was mayor
09:07:09 at various times when both the mayor and Mace were out
09:07:11 of town.
09:07:12 Not together, I may say.
09:07:16 [ Laughter ]

09:07:18 On behalf of Tampa City Council, I'm honored to
09:07:22 present this plaque to Gwen.
09:07:26 It's more than a plaque.
09:07:27 It's from the heart of every council member for your
09:07:31 graciousness, your consideration of others, your
09:07:35 outstanding service to the city, and it's in
09:07:38 appreciation for your service and leadership to the
09:07:40 citizens of the City of Tampa, and it's got every
09:07:43 council member there, and it's a beautiful plaque
09:07:45 dated April 17th, 2008.
09:07:49 And it's got a plaque.
09:07:51 You remember all the years of your life that you spent
09:07:53 here and the work that you have done for the citizens.
09:07:57 I'll hand you this now.
09:07:58 And then I have another token that we would like to
09:08:01 share with you.
09:08:04 And if you want to say a few words you can.
09:08:07 Then I am going to make the other presentation.
09:08:10 >>GWEN MILLER: I would just like to say thank you.
09:08:12 I know Charlie was behind this because this is like
09:08:14 Charlie.
09:08:15 And I really appreciate having working with Charlie

09:08:16 for so many years.
09:08:18 He has been wonderful.
09:08:19 And he will continue to do a good job.
09:08:21 And I know my colleagues too.
09:08:27 Thank you.
09:08:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The new chair Reverend Scott was
09:08:31 also behind this, along with the other council
09:08:32 members.
09:08:32 And here is a beautiful bouquet of flowers.
09:08:34 We wish you well.
09:08:36 Best of health and continued service to the citizens
09:08:39 of this great city.
09:08:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:08:42 [ Applause ]
09:08:43 I would just like to say, my legislative aide Olivia
09:08:54 Wilson should be here because she really worked hard.
09:08:56 She had a lot of duties to do, and she's done very
09:08:58 well, and worked very hard, and I know she's going to
09:09:01 continue to work hard.
09:09:02 I would like to say thank you to her, and you all
09:09:04 thank her, too.
09:09:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You will have to share those

09:09:08 flowers.
09:09:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, Mrs. Miller.
09:09:18 And now the chair will yield to honorable Gwen Miller
09:09:24 for the police Officer of the Month.
09:09:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Would he come up, please, his family,
09:09:49 co-workers, everybody that's coming up.
09:09:51 Council, it's a pleasure to have our officers here who
09:10:04 do such a great job for the City of Tampa.
09:10:06 We cannot thank them enough. This is just one of the
09:10:08 things we do for our officers.
09:10:10 And I am Gulf of Mexico to turn over to Chief Hogue
09:10:13 and let him know why we are honoring detective Ronald
09:10:17 Phifer.
09:10:19 >> Thank you, councilwoman Miller and thank you to the
09:10:22 chair and the council for once again recognizing a
09:10:24 police Officer of the Month.
09:10:27 And this month we are introducing and making our
09:10:31 Officer of the Month for April, Ron Phifer, who is a
09:10:35 detective stationed out in district 3.
09:10:40 And Ron has regular detective duties, with
09:10:45 investigation on generally felony crimes, and he does
09:10:49 a great job at that.

09:10:50 But in addition to that he was given the assignment to
09:10:52 kind of be our juvenile coordinate or which is a
09:10:55 position that we have had at the police department for
09:10:59 a number of years, but he took it over.
09:11:02 And when he took it over, it kind of worked.
09:11:05 I mean, it worked at what we thought was doing pretty
09:11:08 good.
09:11:09 But we didn't realize just how much improvement could
09:11:11 be made in that program until Ron took it over.
09:11:13 And we have problem juveniles in the city.
09:11:19 And what the police department tries to do is
09:11:23 recognize those juveniles, and usually they have some
09:11:26 sort of sanction, either on home detention or they
09:11:29 have a curfew at night, which really isn't the police
09:11:35 job to follow juveniles up on their court-ordered
09:11:42 sanctions.
09:11:42 But, really, there's not enough juvenile officers to
09:11:45 do it effectively in the City of Tampa.
09:11:48 So juveniles being a particular problem for us,
09:11:51 particularly in the areas of auto theft, and breaking
09:11:54 into vehicles.
09:11:56 We decided that we would do it.

09:11:58 And so we started kind of a program, as I said,
09:12:03 several years ago.
09:12:03 Ron took that program over.
09:12:06 We have had what we call the worst of the worst.
09:12:08 We only target the worst children to keep our eye on
09:12:12 them.
09:12:13 And we had about 15 of them in district 3.
09:12:16 Ron immediately expanded that to 50.
09:12:19 He coordinated between the state attorney's office,
09:12:22 the department of juvenile justice, and the patrol
09:12:25 officers.
09:12:28 In this business, communication is key, making sure
09:12:30 the information is flowing, and who is on what
09:12:33 sanctions, and what requirements they have, they if
09:12:37 they need to be home at 8:00 at night then we make
09:12:40 sure they are home at 8:00 at night.
09:12:41 And that's what Ron did.
09:12:44 And before, the six months prior to Ron getting --
09:12:47 taking over this assignment, at district 3, we had
09:12:53 crime reduction, of course crime reduction is our
09:12:56 mission, and our crime reduction was in the single
09:12:58 digits in that district.

09:13:01 This next six months after he took over, expanded the
09:13:05 program, we were in double digits.
09:13:07 In fact for 2007 district 3 led all districts in crime
09:13:11 reduction in the City of Tampa.
09:13:13 And a large part of it was due to the efforts of
09:13:16 detective.
09:13:17 Phifer.
09:13:18 So we are very proud to announce him as our Officer of
09:13:21 the Month for April of 2008.
09:13:25 Ron, congratulations.
09:13:28 [ Applause ]
09:13:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We would like to give you a
09:13:35 commendation from our council members that says all of
09:13:37 the great things that Chief Hogue just said.
09:13:40 I won't read it but I would like to present it to you.
09:13:44 [ Applause ]
09:13:48 I would also like to give you a gift certificate from
09:13:51 Charlie's steakhouse for $100.
09:13:54 And we have some others from the private sector that
09:13:57 would like to give you something.
09:14:03 >> My name is Steve Stickley and I'm representing
09:14:08 Stepp's towing service on behalf of Jim and Judy Stepp

09:14:11 we would like to present this statue to you for a job
09:14:14 well done and also a gift certificate to Lee Roy
09:14:17 Selmon's.
09:14:20 We appreciate it.
09:14:22 [ Applause ]
09:14:24 >> Representing Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo.
09:14:28 We would like to invite you and your family to spend
09:14:31 the day at the zoo with our compliments.
09:14:37 >> Frank Pasoto representing Bill Currie Ford, on
09:14:43 behalf of Jim Curry, we present you a watch here.
09:14:50 Thank you.
09:14:55 >> Maria Lopez with innovation eye care eye ware, and
09:15:00 on behalf of our doctors and our staff, we would like
09:15:03 to give you a certificate for Raython sunglasses at any
09:15:10 of our eight locations.
09:15:18 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Let's put this over there.
09:15:25 One of the things, I just wanted us to start by saying
09:15:28 that early intervention with juvenile offenders is an
09:15:33 extremely important project and it extremely important
09:15:35 function.
09:15:36 Early intervention takes some of these kids and it
09:15:39 prevents them from becoming adult criminals and I don't

09:15:43 think people realize just how important that aspect of
09:15:46 police work is.
09:15:47 With that said, I would like to present you with a
09:15:50 couple of gifts and some recognition for what you are
09:15:53 doing, and an knowledge.
09:15:57 For the hard work that goes into preventing these kids
09:15:59 from becoming hardened criminals and becoming more as
09:16:02 substitute at committing crimes.
09:16:05 It's extremely important.
09:16:06 And we certainly recognize that.
09:16:08 Gwen Allen studios would like to present you with a
09:16:12 photographic package for you and your family.
09:16:13 You can go and have your pictures taken and the phone
09:16:16 numbers are on here.
09:16:17 You can make your appointment.
09:16:19 On behalf of Bern's steakhouse, David Laxer preventing
09:16:25 you with a gift certificate so you can enjoy dinner at
09:16:28 Bern's.
09:16:28 On behalf of rigatonis', a $50 gift certificate and
09:16:33 this lovely T-shirt that you don't have to wear now but
09:16:35 you have to hold it up for a second because it's green
09:16:37 for the police department.

09:16:39 And on behalf of the Hillsborough County towing
09:16:42 association we are providing you with a $50 gift
09:16:44 certificate so you can enjoy that with your family as
09:16:47 well.
09:16:47 These are nice people.
09:16:48 These are nice restaurants.
09:16:49 And they want to recognize you for what you are doing.
09:16:52 And certainly we appreciate it.
09:16:54 Thank you.
09:16:56 >>> I want to thank you for presenting me with this
09:17:06 honor especially the council, Chief Hogue, I'm major
09:17:12 and major Caderra.
09:17:17 I want to give thanks to the officers on the street.
09:17:19 They are the ones that make this happen, the ones that
09:17:22 are out there 25 hours a day.
09:17:24 I just try to make things easier for them.
09:17:27 And they are the ones who deserve all the credit.
09:17:29 I sure appreciate this honor.
09:17:30 Thank you very much.
09:17:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, chief.
09:17:45 Thank you.
09:17:50 The chair will now yield to councilman John Dingfelder.

09:18:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Good morning, council.
09:18:31 It's my distinct pleasure to have Robinson high school
09:18:36 folks here today.
09:18:38 I have principal Monica and her band director from
09:18:50 Robinson high school.
09:18:51 Welcome.
09:18:52 The reason we are here today and they are here today is
09:18:55 because Jeremy won the prestigious award so I am going
09:19:00 to give him a role of pennies.
09:19:03 You are going to find out why in a second.
09:19:05 And Jim Reese actually has this personalized role of
09:19:09 pennies.
09:19:10 So here it goes.
09:19:11 In recognition -- of being a recipient of the Tom
09:19:16 Bishop award for outstanding contribution to the art of
09:19:19 band directing.
09:19:20 Jeremy Klein of Robinson high school was one of only
09:19:24 five people selected statewide for this prestigious
09:19:27 honor.
09:19:27 Praised by his students, administrators and parents,
09:19:31 Mr. Klein's enthusiasm is evident in all he does.
09:19:34 Laura has said in the newspaper that his kids

09:19:36 absolutely adore him.
09:19:37 His leadership, passion and enthusiasm.
09:19:40 A member of Robinson faculty for four years, this
09:19:43 27-year-old teacher is not that far removed from the
09:19:46 age of the students.
09:19:48 And it shows in his creative and innovative teaching
09:19:51 methods.
09:19:51 Before marching competition, Mr. Klein gives outshine I
09:19:55 knew pennies and tells his students to put them in
09:19:58 their left shoe only.
09:20:00 When they take a step and feel the penny in their left
09:20:03 shoe, they know that I am there with them every step of
09:20:06 the way, he says -- every other step of the way.
09:20:10 Every other step of the way.
09:20:11 They are on their own on the right step.
09:20:15 We can assume that Mr. Klein is telling his students
09:20:17 that with his support they can take that next step on
09:20:20 their own.
09:20:21 Tampa City Council applauds your efforts and the
09:20:23 results of your work, Jeremy, and we are pleased to
09:20:26 honor you with this well deserved recognition.
09:20:28 Congratulations.

09:20:31 [ Applause ]
09:20:33 And as a former high school teacher, and actually a
09:20:35 high school teacher at Robinson, I know the challenges
09:20:38 that one faces, teaching and teaching in high school,
09:20:41 and I admire both of you tremendously for all you do.
09:20:45 Congratulations.
09:20:46 You can say a few words.
09:20:47 And Laura, why don't you say a few words first?
09:20:50 >> First of all, I would like to thank the City
09:20:53 Council, and for all that we are involved in taking the
09:20:56 steps to recognize an individual indicator who --
09:21:03 individual educator of making sure that his students
09:21:07 learn the absolute best that they can, and it's an
09:21:10 educator that in my model for all educators and makes
09:21:15 my job as administrator and school principal one of the
09:21:18 proudest that it can be.
09:21:20 [ Applause ]
09:21:21 >>> Thank you for this honor.
09:21:25 It something that is certainly humbling for me.
09:21:28 As you heard, I am only 27 and certainly not that far
09:21:32 removed.
09:21:33 And it something that I just do every day.

09:21:34 I wake up and teach music, and never thought in a
09:21:37 million years I would be in front of you.
09:21:39 With that I do appreciate this honor and thank you for
09:21:41 your support.
09:21:42 And on behalf of all educators in Hillsborough County
09:21:45 we have to keep pushing the arts.
09:21:47 Thank you very much.
09:21:47 >> Hear hear.
09:21:52 [ Applause ]
09:21:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you all very much.
09:21:54 Thank you, councilman Dingfelder.
09:21:56 We'll move to the approval of the agenda.
09:22:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: An item of new business as a result of
09:22:16 a memorandum from Mr. Darrell Smith, the chief of
09:22:19 staff.
09:22:19 You have a workshop scheduled for 9 a.m. next week on
09:22:23 the responsible employer ordinance.
09:22:25 He is requesting that that be rescheduled to May 22nd,
09:22:29 so he will have advance notice, and it's coming off
09:22:31 next week's agenda.
09:22:33 May 22nd, council, you have one, two, three, four
09:22:36 items, and the last one being scheduled for 10:30 which

09:22:41 is the workshop to discuss the council agenda.
09:22:43 If you would like me to review, you have the calendar
09:22:46 in front of you if you would like to review the
09:22:48 workshop schedule for that day.
09:22:50 Council could have a time, like 11 or 11:30 to schedule
09:22:54 this workshop on the 22nd of May, you can do so.
09:23:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Chairman, do you think that this
09:23:05 responsible employer discussion is going to be more
09:23:10 than -- I wouldn't think so.
09:23:11 So I move to schedule this for 11:30 in May.
09:23:18 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That is an item that does not appear
09:23:20 on this week's agenda.
09:23:22 It appears as the first item on next week's agenda.
09:23:24 He's asking it be removed this week in advance so you
09:23:32 have the continuance date.
09:23:35 The 22nd at 11:30.
09:23:37 Is that the motion?
09:23:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
09:23:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So the on the workshop is at 10:30,
09:23:43 right?
09:23:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.
09:23:44 The last workshop presently scheduled is a 10:30

09:23:48 workshop to discuss the council agenda.
09:23:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Make it 11:00 in case we get through
09:23:58 earlier.
09:23:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: All right.
09:24:01 11:00.
09:24:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?
09:24:08 So moved and ordered.
09:24:10 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There are substitutions of items being
09:24:12 presented, the substitute requested for an ordinance
09:24:15 for item number 7.
09:24:17 There's a substitute requested for resolution on item
09:24:20 23.
09:24:22 There's a resolution being presented for item 24.
09:24:26 The substitute for resolution being presented for item
09:24:28 63.
09:24:30 And finally there's a request by Julia Cole of the
09:24:33 legal department regarding item number 68 under
09:24:36 unfinished business.
09:24:37 She is present today.
09:24:37 Would you like to take that up now?
09:24:40 Have that removed from the agenda at this point?
09:24:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: My suggestion would be we cover all of

09:24:47 the changes and then we can vote once we put them all
09:24:50 in one motion.
09:24:51 Can we do that?
09:24:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, except for the fact this does not
09:24:54 set forth the date that you have closed session and
09:24:58 council may want to set that date.
09:25:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me recognize first councilwoman
09:25:02 Saul-Sena.
09:25:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mrs. Cole and I have been discussing
09:25:09 this for years and am eager to learn more about it so a
09:25:12 closed session will be fine but I hope we schedule this
09:25:15 sooner rather than later.
09:25:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Ms. Cole.
09:25:19 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
09:25:20 I am requesting a closed session be set in the matter
09:25:24 of clear channel outdoor incorporated versus City of
09:25:27 Tampa case 040-1335 pending in Hillsborough County
09:25:32 circuit court to discuss the legal department would
09:25:34 like to discuss settlement negotiations or strategy as
09:25:37 it relates to that matter.
09:25:40 And I would like that set on May 15th, 2008, at
09:25:43 1:30 in the conference room.

09:25:48 And I need to ask for that verbally under Florida
09:25:51 statutes, why I didn't put it in the memorandum.
09:25:57 >> So moved.
09:25:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second with a question.
09:26:02 May 15th is a Thursday?
09:26:03 >>JULIA COLE: That is a Thursday.
09:26:06 >> You said 1:00?
09:26:08 >>> 1:30.
09:26:09 >> Why not do it at noon?
09:26:11 >>> I am happy to schedule it at that time if that's
09:26:13 the will of council.
09:26:14 I didn't know if you want to schedule during lunch or
09:26:17 after lunch.
09:26:20 Whatever the will of council is.
09:26:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It far enough out so everybody could
09:26:24 clear their calendar, do it at noon.
09:26:26 We'll bring a brown bag or what have you.
09:26:29 >>JULIA COLE: Let me amend my request to do it at noon.
09:26:33 So I would request that be set at noon on May 15th,
09:26:37 2008, in the 8th floor conference room in the legal
09:26:40 department.
09:26:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.

09:26:44 >> Second.
09:26:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If it easier on Ms. Cole, does this
09:26:48 ordinance also include the banners?
09:26:50 Or would you like to hold the banners out on this one?
09:26:54 >>JULIA COLE: This doesn't actually include the
09:26:56 banners.
09:26:57 It's a billboard item.
09:26:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's a motion made by councilman
09:27:02 Saul-Sena for 12:00 on the 15th in the upstairs
09:27:08 room seconded by Mr. Dingfelder.
09:27:11 So moved and ordered.
09:27:12 What we can do is have lunch brought in upstairs or
09:27:15 whatever you have been doing in the past, we can
09:27:17 accommodate that, I'm sure.
09:27:18 >>MARTIN SHELBY: With that being said would you like to
09:27:20 remove item 68?
09:27:25 >> So moved.
09:27:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We can list all the changes.
09:27:30 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Then item 68 would be removed pending
09:27:32 that closed session.
09:27:33 With regard to item number 33, there is a memorandum
09:27:36 from Catherine Coyle requesting it be removed because

09:27:41 the petition has been administratively approved
09:27:43 pursuant to council's new policies.
09:27:46 With regards to number 66, a memorandum from Mr. David
09:27:52 Smith, city attorney, is requesting this item be pulled
09:27:55 and removed from the agenda.
09:27:56 That's item 66.
09:27:58 And with regard to number 71, council, I have had an
09:28:04 opportunity to talk with Mr. Smith by telephone this
09:28:07 morning.
09:28:08 And I would lake the opportunity to relay that
09:28:10 conversation relative to this request to continue this
09:28:14 item at that time that we take up item 71.
09:28:20 With regard to item 84, that cannot be heard.
09:28:22 No affidavit filed.
09:28:23 That was set for 10 a.m.
09:28:25 We can take it up at that time.
09:28:26 And I believe the remaining parts of this agenda relate
09:28:31 to additional items and backup material that has been
09:28:34 received since the preparation of the agenda, and they
09:28:38 are outlined in the addendum.
09:28:40 There are no other further changes that I'm aware of,
09:28:42 Mr. Chairman.

09:28:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a motion then to move the
09:28:46 agenda and all the changes?
09:28:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
09:28:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: 71 in or out?
09:28:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's in for now.
09:28:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I wanted to make sure of that.
09:29:00 (Motion carried)
09:29:01 So moved and ordered.
09:29:02 Thank you very much.
09:29:03 Now the council has set aside 30 minutes to take public
09:29:06 comment to hear from -- yes, sir.
09:29:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Sorry to interrupt, Mr. Chairman, but
09:29:11 I see it is 9:30.
09:29:13 You do have a three-minute presentation which could you
09:29:16 take up now, it being 9:30 at this time before you go
09:29:18 into public comment.
09:29:20 It is only a presentation.
09:29:21 It's item number 4.
09:29:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
09:29:25 Well, three minutes on Ashton woods.
09:29:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Or you can wait, take public comment
09:29:35 and then take that item.

09:29:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Do we need to approve the agenda?
09:29:42 >> We just did.
09:29:43 I made a statement that we approve the agenda and the
09:29:46 addendum and the changes.
09:29:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: My apologies, Mr. Chair, however you
09:29:55 wish to proceed.
09:29:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I would rather move to the public
09:29:57 comment and then take the three minutes after that.
09:30:01 So citizens are welcome to come and line up like you
09:30:06 generally do and state your name and address for the
09:30:08 record.
09:30:09 You have three minutes to state any concerns or issues
09:30:11 that you may have.
09:30:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a reminder that these are for
09:30:16 items that are on the agenda that are not set for a
09:30:18 public hearing, and any items on the consent docket,
09:30:21 ladies and gentlemen, this will be your opportunity to
09:30:22 address those items at this time.
09:30:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, ma'am, come on up.
09:30:32 >>MARGARET VIZZI: 213 south Sherill, just waiting for
09:30:36 you to call.
09:30:39 It is of course item 25.

09:30:41 And may I also, chair and Mrs. Miller, you have been
09:30:49 sitting in that chair and up there for a very long time
09:30:52 and we do appreciate everything you have done.
09:30:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:30:56 >>MARGARET VIZZI: With item 25, of course, it is the
09:30:58 item regarding comment at your workshops.
09:31:03 I am very concerned, especially about an issue that is
09:31:06 coming up.
09:31:07 It is the comprehensive plan.
09:31:09 And you have workshops scheduled with the Planning
09:31:11 Commission, and you would not be hearing from us, and
09:31:16 when it comes to you for public hearing it's supposed
09:31:18 to be the -- I'm very concerned that it won't be until
09:31:24 that time that you will hear our comments.
09:31:30 I read through three drafts of 500 pages of that
09:31:33 document, and I have got concerns that I know you will
09:31:36 share when you will read it.
09:31:41 The sooner you would hear those things the better.
09:31:44 If you would prefer that we meet with each one of you
09:31:47 individually and give you those comments, we will do
09:31:50 that, because I know we will be doing that.
09:31:56 But that's why workshop input is so very important.

09:32:00 The other question I asked when the issue came up was
09:32:04 during the legislative matters that you would act on,
09:32:08 for example, to set a workshop, and agree not to take
09:32:14 public comment at that time, could we come back next
09:32:16 week and ask you to do so?
09:32:18 I didn't hear, and I don't know, if the answer was
09:32:22 given, because at least if we could come back, and such
09:32:28 as the comp plan, I mean, it is over 500 pages.
09:32:32 And for you to take all the concerns that I know we are
09:32:34 going to have with what's in that plan right now, on
09:32:38 that night of transmittal, it will be very, very bad.
09:32:44 So please reconsider your decision not to take comment
09:32:48 at workshops.
09:32:50 Thank you.
09:32:58 >> Randy baron, 217 west Comanche Avenue, here on two
09:33:03 items, the first being one that Ms. Vizzi just spoke
09:33:07 on, public workshops, the second, item 71.
09:33:13 And the first issue, there's been many people come
09:33:17 before you in the last three weeks who discussed about
09:33:19 public input on workshops.
09:33:20 I read in the paper that there are concerns that
09:33:23 workshops are the time that council can get together in

09:33:26 the sunshine and discuss these matters amongst
09:33:28 themselves.
09:33:30 However, the sunshine also restricts our access to you
09:33:32 when you are all together.
09:33:34 It's also a time that the public can get together with
09:33:36 you when you are all together at the beginning of the
09:33:38 process.
09:33:40 This is critical.
09:33:41 If we come before you on a vote such as the comp plan,
09:33:44 we are looking at a huge issue, and you are going to
09:33:46 vote on it ten minutes or a half hour later after the
09:33:49 public comment, you really can't have an opportunity to
09:33:53 absorb all the input that we have.
09:33:55 We are really concerned.
09:33:56 And this went before T.H.A.N. last week and there was a
09:33:58 unanimous vote to oppose the change and to encourage
09:34:01 council to allow public comment in some way, shape or
09:34:04 form at the workshop so that we can partner with you
09:34:07 and help you set direction and have staff here, have
09:34:11 all of you here and have the public here, so it should
09:34:14 be a partnership between us all.
09:34:16 So we highly encourage you to reconsider this rule, and

09:34:20 at the very least allow us to come back next week as
09:34:23 Margaret has suggested.
09:34:25 And ask for public comment.
09:34:27 With respect to campaign finance reform, there are
09:34:30 three main issues there.
09:34:33 There is spending limits, actually contribution limits,
09:34:35 not spending limits, who can contribute, and the
09:34:39 reporting requirements.
09:34:41 As a former candidate I can tell you that there are
09:34:43 always going to be some candidates that will be better
09:34:46 at raising money than others.
09:34:48 And campaigns are like a vacuum.
09:34:50 The money will fly to the candidate who needs it.
09:34:53 I am not as concerned about the monetary limits as I am
09:34:55 about the reporting requirements.
09:34:58 There were some incidents in the last election where
09:35:00 there was a lot of money that we did not find the
09:35:02 source of until well after the election was over.
09:35:05 I strongly encourage council to consider especially the
09:35:09 reporting requirements, and with respect to the other
09:35:12 two issues, if this goes before the people, let's let
09:35:15 them determine whether or not they want to have limits.

09:35:19 So I would encourage you to consider on the agenda and
09:35:23 to put it up for a vote of the people.
09:35:25 Thank you so much.
09:35:31 >>> Pete Johnson, 301 Druid hills road.
09:35:35 I want to talk on two items.
09:35:36 One is 24, combining the business tax of the department
09:35:42 with code enforcement.
09:35:43 Thank you, thank you.
09:35:45 Finally it makes sense.
09:35:47 You get a city license, and you're legal.
09:35:50 Thank you.
09:35:50 I couldn't believe how long that took.
09:35:52 The second thing is on 25, free speech.
09:35:56 Come on, people, we're all here on free speech.
09:36:00 The late David West taught me to get up here and speak.
09:36:05 Okay.
09:36:06 People like Betty Schafer got up here and taught me how
09:36:09 to speak.
09:36:10 The one problem I see happening with City Council is we
09:36:13 are turning into the county commission.
09:36:16 We're not allowing people to speak.
09:36:20 And I can see this in small steps, and it keeps going

09:36:23 forward.
09:36:24 And this has got to stop.
09:36:26 This is the City of Tampa City Council.
09:36:29 This is not Hillsborough County, county commission,
09:36:33 that a certain number of people rule the entire county
09:36:36 rather than the people rule it.
09:36:37 So we are the people.
09:36:38 We voted you in.
09:36:39 But we can vote you out.
09:36:41 But we need to be heard on every public meeting at any
09:36:44 time.
09:36:45 Thank you.
09:36:53 >>> Susan long, 920 east broad street.
09:36:56 I want to speak on two issues.
09:36:57 Item 25, speaking at the workshops.
09:37:00 I'm appalled to think that my elected representatives
09:37:04 do not want to hear from me.
09:37:05 That's in essence what it says.
09:37:08 When you want to have a workshop and we are not allowed
09:37:11 to participate at any level, at any time.
09:37:14 Item 71, campaign finance reform.
09:37:17 It would restrict the size of individual contributions.

09:37:21 It would request contributions come from individuals as
09:37:24 opposed to large corporations, regardless of the impact
09:37:27 that it actually would have, but certainly would change
09:37:30 the perception of the average voter, or campaign
09:37:35 contributors, but they actually did have a say.
09:37:38 Many people feel as corporations give, their
09:37:42 contribution is too small to have any impact so they
09:37:45 don't bother.
09:37:46 If it were small enough, they would.
09:37:48 In addition, the reporting requirements need to be
09:37:51 changed so that we as voters know who gave what to whom
09:37:54 before we vote, not after.
09:37:57 And the third item is that this is something, the
09:38:03 result of how you as individuals feel about it, the
09:38:06 people, the residents, the voters should be allowed to
09:38:09 decide.
09:38:09 I would like this up to a referendum so we decide what
09:38:12 we get.
09:38:13 Thank you.
09:38:18 >>> Pat Kemp, 5118 Seminole Avenue, like to speak also
09:38:23 to the items that the others are speaking to, item 25
09:38:26 to allow the public to speak when appropriate, and we

09:38:29 need our input.
09:38:31 That's what this body is here to hear.
09:38:33 On item 71, I would like to thank council member John
09:38:37 Dingfelder for putting this idea out.
09:38:41 I think it really important.
09:38:42 Sarasota has already adopted this kind of campaign
09:38:46 limitation from 500 to $200.
09:38:49 I think it would do a lot to help the perception of
09:38:51 candidates.
09:38:52 I think it would help people feel lick they could go
09:38:55 forward and run a campaign.
09:38:56 I think it would provide access.
09:38:59 And it would really shift the focus away from
09:39:01 fund-raising, which is what has been happening more
09:39:06 towards fund-raising in these City Council campaigns,
09:39:10 unfortunately, and would shift it away from those
09:39:12 resources and into candidates walking the streets,
09:39:16 knocking on doors, making contact with the voters, and
09:39:19 making the voters feel like they are part of the
09:39:21 process, more involved.
09:39:22 I think it would really wake up our City Council
09:39:25 elections and help promote democracy in the City of

09:39:27 Tampa.
09:39:27 So I really hope that you all are supporting letting
09:39:31 the people vote on that, putting it on the ballot and
09:39:34 making that refuse rep dumb available to vote on.
09:39:41 I support it.
09:39:42 Thank you.
09:39:43 >>> Desiree Valdes, president Riverside Heights civic
09:39:49 association, also member of T.H.A.N.
09:39:50 Today I'm here to talk about item number 25.
09:39:55 I really echo Margaret's concerns about not being able
09:39:59 to speak during the workshops.
09:40:05 Also, the Senate has a bill going through right now,
09:40:11 the voice for freedom bill, and it totally would
09:40:16 disseminate anything that is in this that you all are
09:40:20 proposing.
09:40:21 So I really recommend that you guys take a look at
09:40:23 that, and just make sure that you know you are really
09:40:27 giving everybody a chance to be heard.
09:40:30 I know that you don't normally vote on workshops.
09:40:34 So I think it would be more helpful to at least listen
09:40:38 to the concerns of people that are actually being
09:40:43 affected.

09:40:43 Thank you.
09:40:46 >>> Good morning.
09:40:47 My name is John Weizel, retired colonel from the U.S.
09:40:55 military.
09:40:56 Reason I mention this is because I work at different
09:40:58 U.S. embassies where the U.S. government has helped a
09:41:01 lot of countries with humanitarian access, particular,
09:41:06 in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, where I was a director.
09:41:10 We go into countryside, and we build wells for the
09:41:13 people so they can draw water.
09:41:17 That's a cooperative decision for them.
09:41:18 I am very proud to see that in Tampa, City Council,
09:41:22 working with the economic development with Mr. Johnson,
09:41:27 seeking initiative to help small business for areas in
09:41:32 Tampa.
09:41:33 I am interested in district 5 which is at the corner of
09:41:38 22nd and Gibbons.
09:41:40 I own a lot over there which is about 22,000 square
09:41:44 feet.
09:41:44 And I have been trying to develop that piece of
09:41:47 property for awhile until I came back from Morocco as a
09:41:52 director at the embassy, and work with Mr. Johnson.

09:41:57 So the item that I would like to speak to is item
09:42:00 number 6, the transportation impact fees extension
09:42:05 zone.
09:42:06 So I would like for the City Council to put that into
09:42:10 consideration and to support the exemption for impact
09:42:12 fees, transportation impact fees, for that.
09:42:15 There's a lot of work that needs to be done.
09:42:18 There is a lot of blight in that community.
09:42:20 And if you can support these by exempting some of the
09:42:24 fees like I am doing working with Ed Johnson, to
09:42:31 develop some of this area, that we go a long way in its
09:42:35 urban development.
09:42:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, just so that we are clear on
09:42:54 this, this is item number 6.
09:42:56 It's under committee report and consent agenda because
09:42:58 it was a legislative matter of an item being presented
09:43:00 for first reading.
09:43:02 Under Florida law you do not have a public hearing and
09:43:05 adoption except at the second reading.
09:43:08 So this will be coming back for a public hearing in two
09:43:11 weeks.
09:43:15 >>> Good morning.

09:43:16 I'm Jim Grau, 3301 Bayshore Boulevard.
09:43:22 I'm here this morning to encourage City Council to put
09:43:24 the campaign finance reform referendum on the ballot.
09:43:29 The worst thing that can happen to a community is where
09:43:33 the average citizen thinks they don't have influence on
09:43:36 elections, and they believe that big money
09:43:40 contributions overdoly influence election results.
09:43:46 When that happens, people stop participating.
09:43:49 We need to dispel the notion that big money
09:43:53 contribution has more influence on elections than the
09:43:56 average citizen.
09:44:00 Personally, I believe that old-fashioned shoe leather
09:44:03 and face to face contact with citizens should be a
09:44:06 whole lot more important than who the biggest Rolodex
09:44:11 of large money contributors, and particularly those
09:44:15 large money contributors can sometimes be faceless, in
09:44:18 the form of faceless, must be inside our area or might
09:44:23 be outside our area.
09:44:24 That's not good for our local community or the
09:44:27 perception of the citizens of our local community.
09:44:31 But even if you are unsure about the need for campaign
09:44:35 finance reform, or on the fence, I would encourage you

09:44:40 to put it on the ballot as a referendum.
09:44:44 Let the voters decide so that the will of the people
09:44:47 will determine and govern our local election process.
09:44:51 Thank you very much.
09:44:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
09:44:56 >>> Good morning, council.
09:44:59 My name is Michelle Patty.
09:45:02 I have come before this council on many occasions
09:45:04 throughout the year and I'm kind of just shocked at the
09:45:08 fact that now we are being told that our voices will
09:45:10 not be heard.
09:45:11 Council members cannot be everywhere at all times.
09:45:13 We the people, we are at different meetings, we are
09:45:17 good at gathering information.
09:45:18 And because of that information that we have brought to
09:45:20 council over the years, you have been able to make some
09:45:23 informed decisions about things that has affected our
09:45:27 community.
09:45:28 It would be a travesty if this process is not allowed
09:45:33 to continue, that the people are heard from.
09:45:37 That's one of the reasons we vote in America.
09:45:39 One of the reasons we are asked to participate in the

09:45:41 process.
09:45:42 We want to be more of a participate other than on
09:45:46 election day.
09:45:47 Our voices should be heard.
09:45:49 Our concerns should be heard.
09:45:50 And as you campaign, your commitment to the people that
09:45:55 we will be heard.
09:45:56 And I am just shocked that today we are talking about
09:46:01 silencing the people.
09:46:02 There's enough things going on in this country where we
09:46:05 are being pushed out, shoved around, and, yes, we are
09:46:08 bitter, and we definitely should and continue the
09:46:14 council to allow the people's voices to be heard.
09:46:17 So I urge and I encourage the council members, those of
09:46:20 you that are running again, those of you that may not,
09:46:23 that we are definitely should be a part of this
09:46:25 process.
09:46:26 Thank you so much.
09:46:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else want to speak during this
09:46:34 time before City Council on items that are on the
09:46:38 agenda -- or may not be on the agenda?
09:46:43 >>> Ed Turanchik with the West Tampa Chamber of

09:46:52 Commerce.
09:46:54 I don't know if you are also taking comment on --
09:47:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Which item, sir?
09:47:05 >>> Item 6, please.
09:47:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It would be appropriate to speak now.
09:47:08 >>> We would like to state our strong support for the
09:47:13 continuation of the no impact fee zone in West Tampa.
09:47:18 We think it's a very strong tool, assists in
09:47:22 redevelopment of transition in an old neighborhood and
09:47:27 hope you will support that.
09:47:28 Thank you.
09:47:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
09:47:33 Then that will conclude our public comment section.
09:47:41 Let me just speak to the whole issue of the public
09:47:49 comment during the workshops.
09:47:52 It is my understanding council had a workshop
09:47:56 previously, is that correct?
09:47:57 Correct me on that?
09:47:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: They had workshops within the
09:48:02 meetings, designated with the meetings, public
09:48:08 workshop --
09:48:10 So the people watching won't be misinformed, I think

09:48:15 it's misleading to say that your voices will not be
09:48:18 heard, and that council is not giving -- that is not
09:48:23 accurate.
09:48:23 The issue is, during a workshop setting where we are
09:48:28 seeking to be educated by staff, and among ourselves to
09:48:31 talk, under the sunshine, to be able to address issues.
09:48:36 To me that's the issue.
09:48:39 And so, therefore, we also voted that when would not
09:48:42 take any action at those workshops without first
09:48:45 hearing from the public.
09:48:46 So any item that we are going to take action on, we
09:48:49 can't take action unless we first hear from the public
09:48:52 so the public will always be afforded an opportunity to
09:48:54 address council on any issue.
09:48:56 And it just on that particular day that worry just
09:48:59 trying to get up to speed from staff and among
09:49:01 ourselves on issues that may be relevant.
09:49:04 However, I only have one vote, so that's all up to the
09:49:07 council.
09:49:07 I think our rule now is that you have to notice, and
09:49:13 you want to speak to that, Mr. Shelby.
09:49:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I could just take two minutes

09:49:17 because I want to make sure that there is no
09:49:19 misunderstanding.
09:49:21 Council, I initiated the request for changing the
09:49:24 current rule.
09:49:25 And let me explain to you and the public why that is,
09:49:27 because I think it's important.
09:49:30 The application of this rule proved to be unfair in its
09:49:38 application.
09:49:38 And let me explain to you what the present rule says.
09:49:41 It says the public "may" be heard on the matter which
09:49:47 is the subject of the workshop if upon motion and vote
09:49:49 of council, the chair opens the floor for public
09:49:52 comment during the workshop.
09:49:55 And it became obvious to me, and to others as well,
09:49:59 that in the course of the application of that rule,
09:50:02 there was a notice problem.
09:50:06 The public was not on notice whether or not they would
09:50:10 have the opportunity to be heard, unless they were in
09:50:15 the room at the time and somebody on the council made
09:50:18 the motion.
09:50:18 That is a notice problem which I think is, to my way of
09:50:22 thinking, cannot stand.

09:50:24 It needs to be cured.
09:50:26 So, therefore, it also became obvious to be a fairness
09:50:32 issue, because one would never know whether the issue
09:50:35 upon which they may even come down to speak about would
09:50:38 be the subject of a public comment, whereas other
09:50:43 people would have the opportunity on another subject.
09:50:46 So, for instance, I am not saying this has happened,
09:50:49 but a possibility could exist where a council member
09:50:51 would recognize somebody in the audience who came down
09:50:53 with the intention of wanting to speak, and would
09:50:56 therefore make the motion, but if that person who was
09:50:59 not privy or known to the council member came down with
09:51:01 that same intention, that person would never know, nor
09:51:05 would that council member ever know, to make the motion
09:51:09 to open the floor to allow that person to speak.
09:51:11 So in all fairness, from a fairness and a notice issue,
09:51:14 it became clear to me that this rule had to be changed.
09:51:19 Council has the opportunity to still allow public
09:51:22 comment at workshops if the majority so chooses.
09:51:25 And not only that, also puts the people on notice as to
09:51:29 how long, in order to control its agenda on a workshop
09:51:31 day, it will allow for public comment.

09:51:34 So at the time of the making of the workshop, setting
09:51:37 the date, council has the opportunity to determine to
09:51:42 ascertain among itself whether it would warrant public
09:51:44 comment and how much time, to answer the constituents'
09:51:48 question, yes, this is a legislative matter, after the
09:51:50 workshop is set, council members could be contacted,
09:51:55 and the request for reconsideration could be made to
09:51:57 add public comment to a workshop, because the workshop
09:52:00 is made well in advance of the date of the workshop.
09:52:03 So in terms of it being characterized as shutting down
09:52:07 public comment, council, that was not my intention when
09:52:09 I proposed that this rule be changed, but it became an
09:52:11 issue to you me of notice, and fairness, and an
09:52:14 opportunity for the public to be heard.
09:52:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder, then councilman
09:52:21 Saul-Sena.
09:52:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think sometimes we deal in
09:52:26 semantics.
09:52:28 He would call meetings.
09:52:29 Today we have a meeting.
09:52:30 Next week when call something a workshop.
09:52:32 Another day we call something a special discussion

09:52:34 meeting.
09:52:35 That's sort of inside baseline.
09:52:38 From the citizens perspective, it's just a meeting.
09:52:40 It's a council meeting.
09:52:41 And I think we shouldn't get lost in those semantics.
09:52:46 Somebody mentioned earlier that we are here --
09:52:50 Mr. Chairman mentioned we are here to educate ourselves
09:52:52 and talk among ourselves and talk to staff.
09:52:55 But we have to -- the most important education is the
09:52:58 education that we get from our own constituents.
09:53:01 We go out on the campaign trail, and everything out of
09:53:06 our mouths we say it an honor to serve you, it's an
09:53:09 honor to serve you.
09:53:11 Okay.
09:53:11 But if we are not listening to you, then we are not
09:53:14 serving you.
09:53:16 What I would suggest, and when we get to this item,
09:53:18 whatever time is appropriate, Mr. Chairman, what I
09:53:21 would suggest is that anytime we get together, whether
09:53:23 or not we call it a meeting, a workshop or a special
09:53:25 discussion meeting, that we set aside that same 30
09:53:28 minutes, three minutes per person.

09:53:30 And I think that that's fair.
09:53:32 I think that's acceptable to the community.
09:53:34 We. Heard any complaints on this new procedure that
09:53:36 you brought over from county commission.
09:53:38 And I also think that as somebody pointed out the state
09:53:42 legislature is about to Yang that decision away from us
09:53:44 anyway.
09:53:45 So why don't we just do the right thing and do it
09:53:48 ourselves, and have that level playing field regardless
09:53:53 of what type of meeting we are going to have?
09:53:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
09:53:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Dingfelder, I agree with what
09:54:02 you said completely.
09:54:03 It seems to me to be most efficient, everybody should
09:54:07 work together to craft good legislation, so then when
09:54:10 it comes to our public hearing process, we know what's
09:54:13 there.
09:54:13 And the comprehensive plan, which is coming up, it's
09:54:16 hugely, hugely important, and we need, as a council, to
09:54:21 take this responsibility seriously, which is why we put
09:54:24 it on our agenda every month under workshop.
09:54:27 But we need to be able to hear from the public as part

09:54:29 of that.
09:54:30 This coming Thursday, the 24th, I set aside at 1:30
09:54:35 the opportunity for just a discussion on the
09:54:37 preservation element of the proposed comprehensive
09:54:40 plan, because so many of us are very concerned that it
09:54:45 include the clarity to be an effective element but the
09:54:50 land use element, transportation element, all of those
09:54:53 need the same level of scrutiny.
09:54:55 And I think the idea that we all work together, staff,
09:54:58 council, and the public, to create the best
09:55:00 legislation, is what we should do, and we need to work
09:55:04 on it at the workshop, so that when we send it to the
09:55:06 Planning Commission, and we get it back for first and
09:55:09 second reading, it reflects what we want it to include.
09:55:17 >>MARY MULHERN: I wanted to say something but then I
09:55:20 also wanted to address -- this is an agenda item where
09:55:24 we are going to have discussion.
09:55:26 Oh, no, it not, we are just voting on it.
09:55:28 Okay.
09:55:28 So this is the time that we should be doing this.
09:55:30 Okay.
09:55:33 I want to thank Mr. Shelby for clarifying that, and his

09:55:38 was not the only legal opinion that thought that we
09:55:41 were not affording fairness and due process in the way
09:55:45 that we were allowing public discussion at those
09:55:48 workshops.
09:55:49 I would also like to a sure councilman Dingfelder and
09:55:57 councilwoman Saul-Sena, that all of your colleagues
09:56:00 take very seriously public comment.
09:56:04 And to suggest that we are trying to hush that with
09:56:12 this change that was proposed to us from legal, I'd
09:56:17 like to clear that up, that we are not asking to
09:56:21 silence you, and that we are willing to listen to you.
09:56:26 And the way that we change the rule afforded that
09:56:29 opportunity.
09:56:30 There's no way we are going to have a workshop on the
09:56:33 comp plan and not allow public hearing at that
09:56:36 workshop.
09:56:37 You have every opportunity to have that.
09:56:39 And for some reason we didn't ask for public hearing on
09:56:44 an important issue, as Mr. Shelby told you, you would
09:56:46 have the opportunity to ask them to do that again, and
09:56:52 we could do that.
09:56:55 Really, this is very difficult for us, because this has

09:56:58 been kind of dumbed down to, do we care about listening
09:57:02 to the public or not?
09:57:03 And that is not fair to this council.
09:57:06 And anyone who knows us and has watched this council
09:57:12 knows that.
09:57:13 And I want to remind you of that.
09:57:17 If we can come up with a way to change this rule that
09:57:21 we get public notice, because there is so much pressure
09:57:25 here today to do that from the public, I'm sure I will
09:57:28 vote for that.
09:57:29 But I would also like to point out that that was part
09:57:32 of the problem, was that we could not have a discussion
09:57:39 where we weren't having the public pressuring us, which
09:57:45 meant that we would have three different public
09:57:47 hearings on every issue -- yeah, public hearing with
09:57:53 the option of public comment, which is highly unusual.
09:57:58 Is it not, Mr. Shelby?
09:58:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Depending on what the issue S.it
09:58:03 depends on in what form it comes to council.
09:58:07 >>MARY MULHERN: And I would also like to point out to
09:58:10 you, I'm happy to listen to everything you have to say.
09:58:15 And I don't need to hear it three times.

09:58:17 And I don't think any of us do.
09:58:19 So let's keep that in mind.
09:58:21 And I will do whatever the small part of my
09:58:25 constituency in the audience today would like me to do.
09:58:29 But just remember the other people that are
09:58:31 constituents.
09:58:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
09:58:37 First of all, perception of a problem is much greater
09:58:41 than if you have a problem.
09:58:42 And I think that's what we have.
09:58:44 I can only attest to my district 6.
09:58:48 We have these little books where we have 400 telephone
09:58:54 messages that can be taken in every book.
09:58:57 Mary and I are working -- mostly Mary, not I, I'll
09:59:00 admit to that -- we are approaching 2400 calls in a
09:59:04 little over a year.
09:59:05 So we have been in contact, or I should say the
09:59:09 constituency has been in contact with us.
09:59:11 >>MARY MULHERN: That's the other Mary.
09:59:14 Your Mary.
09:59:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Right.
09:59:18 I get corrected even when I get moved around.

09:59:22 But don't worry, I'll come out a winner.
09:59:25 So what we are saying is that we don't listen.
09:59:29 You know, prior to 2003, there was very little
09:59:36 workshops.
09:59:37 Once in awhile on something special.
09:59:39 Now we have workshops, what time is the sun going to
09:59:42 rise?
09:59:43 Is the sun going to set at 6:30?
09:59:46 Well, let's have a workshop to make sure it does
09:59:48 happen.
09:59:49 And these are the things that we convolute the process
09:59:53 government, and my record on workshop is very poor
09:59:58 because I hardly ever attend.
10:00:00 I think some of them are ludicrous.
10:00:02 They just don't make sense.
10:00:03 So I stay away from that.
10:00:06 But who am I?
10:00:07 I'm one vote, one seventh or 1.45 or whatever it comes
10:00:13 out to of a voting seven.
10:00:15 So I am not opposed to you speaking at a workshop.
10:00:19 What I'm opposed to is having these workshops, half of
10:00:23 them don't make sense.

10:00:24 And that's what it's all about.
10:00:27 Thank you very much.
10:00:42 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: My Address is suite 2700 Bank of
10:00:48 America Plaza.
10:00:49 Our firm has the pleasure of representing Ashton Woods.
10:00:52 I'm joined this morning by Joe Musca and Tom Bennett.
10:00:56 Joe and Tom, please raise your hand.
10:00:59 We have a development agreement under chapter 163.
10:01:02 And that agreement requires us to update the local
10:01:04 government on an annual basis, as to our progress under
10:01:07 the project.
10:01:08 And we are coming this morning to tell you basically
10:01:10 that there's good news from Port Tampa, and we want to
10:01:15 compliment Cindy Miller's staff and also Rebecca Kert
10:01:18 and Cindy Millers staff.
10:01:20 We have been implementing it for two years and we have
10:01:22 had many meetings, haven't agreed on everything, but we
10:01:25 have been able to move the project forward, especially
10:01:28 in these extraordinary times.
10:01:29 I would like to introduce Joe.
10:01:31 And he will give you a brief overview of what he has
10:01:33 accomplished down there along with Tom Bennett.

10:01:36 Thank you very much.
10:01:38 >>> Good morning.
10:01:48 I need some audio visual assistance here.
10:01:51 I'm going to quickly walk you through an update with
10:01:58 our development agreement with the city, when you all
10:02:07 approved the agreement that we are a certified green
10:02:09 builder.
10:02:10 I know the city has been very attuned to that so our
10:02:13 new homes at the city of Port Tampa are now green
10:02:16 certified in the construction.
10:02:20 This is a brief orientation of a location.
10:02:22 We are located just adjacent to MacDill Air Force
10:02:25 Base.
10:02:28 Very, very -- at the very bottom of Westshore
10:02:31 Boulevard.
10:02:33 In two phases.
10:02:34 We are now in the first phase.
10:02:37 What I am going to do now is quickly run through the
10:02:40 highlights.
10:02:41 The bullets of the development agreement and tell you
10:02:43 where we are at each one of these bullets.
10:02:49 The first one was that the architecture should capture

10:02:52 the essence of Port Tampa.
10:02:54 And our architect spent a week driving the entire area.
10:02:59 And I think you will agree that the elevations of each
10:03:01 one of these five homes, these are five homes we are
10:03:04 building down there, captures the essence of Port
10:03:06 Tampa.
10:03:08 In its architectural design.
10:03:15 Additionally, roadways are well under way.
10:03:21 Richardson street has been completed, the extension of
10:03:25 it for our trucks and not disturb the local neighbors,
10:03:32 well removed from the neighborhood.
10:03:34 Stormwater treatment and wastewater treatment is well
10:03:36 underway.
10:03:37 The infrastructure is being placed in the area, finally
10:03:42 as well as utilities are going to be underground, and
10:03:45 that's well underway.
10:03:49 Two more points.
10:03:52 We were under the agreement to clear the drainage canal
10:03:57 which goes all the way out to the bay.
10:03:59 That's been accomplished.
10:04:00 Many years of debris and overgrowth has been removed,
10:04:03 and we have placed a walking trail.

10:04:08 It's in progress.
10:04:09 It will eventually take you all the way to the base, a
10:04:13 nice amenity for not only the new neighbors in that
10:04:15 community but the existing neighbors in the Port Tampa
10:04:20 area.
10:04:21 With regards to trees, we have done our best to protect
10:04:26 all the trees in the area, and those trees that have
10:04:29 been removed will be replaced at 110% of removal rate,
10:04:35 and those trees will remain in Port Tampa community.
10:04:42 Lastly, as part of the agreement -- and we have been
10:04:45 working very closely with the Port Tampa association --
10:04:49 we have not finalized our negotiations.
10:04:52 We assist them in maintaining the Spanish war memorial
10:04:59 park.
10:05:02 It not just done by Ashton Woods and can't be done just
10:05:06 by the city.
10:05:06 And I would like to bring your attention, these
10:05:10 individuals, the employees that are listed here that
10:05:13 everybody instrumental in working with us in this
10:05:17 challenging project.
10:05:18 As you may or may not know --
10:05:20 >>GWEN MILLER: You need

10:05:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You need to wrap it up.
10:05:23 >>> these individuals are the city employees that have
10:05:29 been very helpful in allowing to us move forward.
10:05:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
10:05:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you folks for bringing this
10:05:36 in.
10:05:37 I just want to see that I was real excited about Ashton
10:05:39 Woods coming to Port Tampa.
10:05:41 It's a good in-fill project before that part of my
10:05:46 district.
10:05:47 I'm just curious.
10:05:48 What green building certification are you using?
10:05:50 Florida green?
10:05:52 >>> Yes, sir, Florida Green Building Coalition.
10:05:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And that's the certification we are
10:05:58 talking about.
10:05:59 But anyway, you have been a good neighbor to the
10:06:02 citizens of Port Tampa and I have heard no complaints
10:06:04 from your neighbors in Port Tampa so we are glad that
10:06:07 project is going so well for you.
10:06:08 >>> Thank you for your support.
10:06:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much.

10:06:15 Now any issues for reconsideration from the public,
10:06:20 legislative matters?
10:06:22 >>MARGARET VIZZI: 213 south Sherill.
10:06:26 I don't know if I am do this.
10:06:32 Councilwoman Mulhern said that she definitely would
10:06:36 want input from the public on the comp plan.
10:06:38 I would like to know if it's too late then to ask
10:06:40 council to set public -- at your workshop on the comp
10:06:44 plan next week, if you would hear from us at that
10:06:48 workshop.
10:06:49 And I don't know if I'm too late to do that because I
10:06:51 know that you all did it before.
10:06:53 But those are the issues that we really want to address
10:06:56 council on.
10:06:57 So I would hope that you would consider putting public
10:06:59 input at your workshop next week, at this point
10:07:05 particularly.
10:07:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, ma'am.
10:07:08 And I thought that was opportunity for the public to
10:07:11 speak to any comp plan.
10:07:12 >>MARGARET VIZZI: No.
10:07:14 We always had input.

10:07:15 And it's a total misunderstanding.
10:07:18 We heard comments by so many of council that they
10:07:23 really didn't want us to input at workshops because
10:07:26 they wanted to hear only from the staff.
10:07:28 And that's what we heard.
10:07:29 So last week, for example, you set a workshop on an
10:07:34 issue that the public in that area is very into being
10:07:39 involved in and you decided not to hear from them.
10:07:41 So that really concerned all of us.
10:07:45 I mean, that's just a whole misunderstanding.
10:07:50 It's not among the public.
10:07:51 We feel workshop input is so important because that's
10:07:53 when you are forming the ordinance that you are going
10:07:58 to give us to respond to.
10:08:01 And we feel that if you heard from us previously, the
10:08:05 ordinance would be more to what we are all in agreement
10:08:10 with at the time.
10:08:10 So the workshop issue has really gone way out of line.
10:08:16 We did not misunderstand.
10:08:19 We understood.
10:08:20 And our concern is what happened mainly last week when
10:08:24 it was decided at a workshop that the public really

10:08:26 wanted to give input on.
10:08:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
10:08:28 >>MARGARET VIZZI: You just decided not to hear it.
10:08:30 So that was our concern.
10:08:31 And we would just ask that you would make a motion to
10:08:35 let us speak at next week's comp plan workshop.
10:08:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
10:08:41 >>MARGARET VIZZI: And also the issue is when we come on
10:08:43 the front end, and we don't know what staff sometimes
10:08:47 is going to present, if we speak on the front end, we
10:08:50 can't respond to what you have heard.
10:08:53 So that's why at workshops we were usually able to
10:08:57 comment after we heard the presentation.
10:08:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
10:09:02 >>MARGARET VIZZI: So I hope this clarifies a little bit
10:09:04 to all council where we were come from.
10:09:09 We feel it's so important on not every matter you have
10:09:14 at workshop but at those that really matter that you
10:09:16 will hear from us, and not on the front end but on the
10:09:20 back end, after we hear staff's presentation.
10:09:23 So please, council, consider --
10:09:27 Yes, ma'am.

10:09:27 >> And consider, please, next week.
10:09:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Shelby?
10:09:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If council wishes to take up next
10:09:33 week's -- and it would be my recommendation that
10:09:36 council consider that.
10:09:38 If council wishes to take up adding public comment to
10:09:41 next week's workshop, again you have three of them.
10:09:45 The comprehensive plan at 9:30, the tree canopy,
10:09:48 ecological analysis at 10:30 and a workshop for mass
10:09:52 transit discussion led by a gentleman from Phoenix,
10:09:54 Arizona at 11.
10:09:56 If council wishes to do so now to put people on notice,
10:09:59 and if you wish to address it in the way council member
10:10:01 Dingfelder suggested, or individually, however
10:10:03 council's desire, if council wishes to do so, it would
10:10:07 be appropriate to put people on notice now so that they
10:10:09 have the opportunity to show up and be heard if that's
10:10:12 council's wish.
10:10:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: In order to remove the perception of
10:10:19 not wanting to do the right thing, which I don't think
10:10:21 that's the case here, I move that those three items are
10:10:24 open to the public as they should be.

10:10:27 >> Second.
10:10:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 30 minutes?
10:10:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: 30 minutes.
10:10:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And public comment at the end of the
10:10:35 workshop.
10:10:37 We'll set a time limit of 30 minutes.
10:10:41 In workshops.
10:10:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 30 minutes total, at the end.
10:10:45 Not 30 minutes per workshop.
10:10:48 30 minutes total.
10:10:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: again, what we hear -- and I am not
10:10:55 trying to keep anyone from speaking at all.
10:10:57 But once you heard the first five, guess what, the next
10:11:01 five or next ten say identical the same thing that the
10:11:03 first five said.
10:11:05 Maybe in different words, but at the end, the meaning
10:11:08 is the same.
10:11:10 I'm not trying to muzzle anybody or anything like that.
10:11:14 But it's up to the council members, you want to have 30
10:11:17 minutes each.
10:11:18 I don't really care.
10:11:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The other issue that you have, one

10:11:26 would have to ascertain is whether somebody wanted to
10:11:28 speak and at the first workshop would have to remain
10:11:31 till the end of the morning.
10:11:33 So that is something you might want to do, if you wish
10:11:35 to take whatever -- that's why when I crafted this
10:11:38 motion I took that into account that you wouldn't have
10:11:41 that necessarily the case but you would at least have
10:11:43 people to be on notice that they have a certain set
10:11:46 number of minutes to be able to speak.
10:11:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I make a friendly amendment, or
10:11:52 a suggestion?
10:11:52 How about we forget about the 30 minutes and three
10:11:55 minutes per person at the end of each workshop session.
10:12:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's why I put in the rule as a
10:12:08 total duration for each section.
10:12:12 And this is no disrespect to the public but if you have
10:12:14 three items on the agenda, and 100 people show up for
10:12:17 one, cot very well take quite a long time and nobody
10:12:20 shows up at the second, it will change your workshop
10:12:23 schedule.
10:12:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Maximum of 30?
10:12:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Woofer council wishes.

10:12:30 It council's prerogative.
10:12:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: To a maximum of 30 minutes.
10:12:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I accept that.
10:12:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Per item?
10:12:41 >> Yes.
10:12:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: For next week's agenda on the
10:12:43 workshop.
10:12:44 And that was a motion?
10:12:46 >> Second.
10:12:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion made by councilman Miranda,
10:12:49 seconded by councilman Dingfelder.
10:12:52 And the motion is on items that we will take up to 30
10:12:56 minutes per item on next week's agenda.
10:13:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Three minutes per person.
10:13:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Right.
10:13:04 Up to 30 minutes.
10:13:05 Three minutes per person.
10:13:07 So moved and ordered.
10:13:08 Thank you.
10:13:09 Yes.
10:13:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I was reminded by Mrs. Cole to let the
10:13:12 public and council be reminded that the comprehensive

10:13:16 plan will have a transmittal public hearing as required
10:13:19 by law.
10:13:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: With the discussion, with the motion
10:13:26 and everything else we have done on this issue, how
10:13:29 about a suggestion that when defer items 25 and sea how
10:13:32 next week goes?
10:13:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Great idea.
10:13:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Then bring it back a month from now
10:13:38 after we have had time to think about it and everything
10:13:40 else and have an experiment, and then we'll make a
10:13:44 better informed decision.
10:13:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I think you can always bring
10:13:47 something back.
10:13:48 I don't think you need to defer it.
10:13:50 I think you can always bring it back.
10:13:52 Anytime we add to the agenda.
10:13:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No, what I'm saying not vote on 25
10:13:57 today.
10:13:57 Just continue it for a month.
10:13:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
10:14:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: May I just share my concerns from a
10:14:03 legal standpoint is that the existing work perpetuates

10:14:06 an issue with notice and fairness.
10:14:10 And --
10:14:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: When we set workshops you will
10:14:14 remind us so we address it in the meantime on a
10:14:16 case-by-case basis.
10:14:18 We have a bad rule in place, on a case-by-case basis.
10:14:23 Will that work?
10:14:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If that's council's wish.
10:14:26 I'm just concerned about everything the rule --
10:14:28 Let me back up for a minute here.
10:14:30 So on item 25, councilman Dingfelder, you want to
10:14:33 continue that for 30 days.
10:14:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: May 15th.
10:14:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So the motion you are making then is
10:14:39 continue item 25 for 30 days.
10:14:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
10:14:49 And I would like to speak to it.
10:14:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: On the continuance?
10:14:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
10:14:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, fine.
10:14:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My point of seconding it is that
10:14:55 we'll not have another workshop other than those where

10:14:57 we just committed ourselves to public input prayer to
10:15:00 May 15th so we will have an opportunity as Mr.
10:15:03 Dingfelder said to see how it works.
10:15:05 So it will not -- your concerns, Mr. Shelby, are moot
10:15:11 because it will not have gotten to the May workshop yet
10:15:14 and we will be voting on this prior to that.
10:15:18 >>MARY MULHERN: It seems to me that we are actually
10:15:20 doing what you recommended.
10:15:25 And workshops were already set.
10:15:27 We are opening them --
10:15:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: My concern, council, is between now
10:15:32 and then, when somebody wishes to set a workshop for
10:15:35 June and July, or August, that that be taken into
10:15:40 consideration, because the way the rule reads now, I'm
10:15:45 just concerned the way the rules read now creates a
10:15:48 notice and fairness issue, if council members choose to
10:15:53 invoke that rule at that workshop, and open the floor
10:15:57 at that time.
10:15:58 But obviously if council is consistent, and council
10:16:03 wishes to do that, the issue is a motion is made to
10:16:08 bring up the issue of public comment.
10:16:10 >>MARY MULHERN: I am concerned, and then if we are

10:16:14 continuing this, because why don't we resolve it today,
10:16:18 since it's a legal problem?
10:16:19 We are going to have to discuss it again.
10:16:21 We are going to hear from the public again.
10:16:23 We are going to have another groundhog day where we go
10:16:26 through this.
10:16:27 Isn't that what's going to happen if we vote on this
10:16:29 again?
10:16:29 Why don't we just decide?
10:16:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: May I make a suggestion?
10:16:37 In order to have it somewhat flexible, if you strike
10:16:40 out the language that I had suggested adding which is
10:16:44 public comment on the matter which is the subject of
10:16:46 workshop shall not be taken unless City Council in a
10:16:50 separate motion votes at the time of the setting of the
10:16:52 workshop establishes a specific duration, et cetera,
10:16:55 the language that would remain would just be this.
10:16:58 No official action on the matter which is the subject
10:17:00 of the workshop shall be taken during or after a
10:17:02 workshop unless the public is afforded the opportunity
10:17:04 to comment prior to action, and it could be a policy
10:17:08 that council can take up setting the comments in

10:17:12 advance.
10:17:18 >>MARY MULHERN: We are just continuing debate about
10:17:20 this.
10:17:20 And there doesn't seem to be consensus.
10:17:24 So I think we should just -- or if there is, you know.
10:17:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Shelby, let me suggest so we can
10:17:34 move on.
10:17:34 I don't want to spend my day talking about this issue.
10:17:38 What I would suggest is that when move -- I would
10:17:40 suggest we just have 30 minutes at every workshop, and
10:17:43 be done with it, move on.
10:17:45 If there's somebody hear to speak, we noticed that to
10:17:46 the public.
10:17:47 And be done with it.
10:17:50 Let's move on.
10:17:51 >>MARY MULHERN: Can we do that now?
10:17:53 Let's do that.
10:17:54 >>GWEN MILLER: I would say we need to remove from the
10:17:59 agenda.
10:17:59 Listening to my council members we are going to let the
10:18:03 public speak.
10:18:04 If we are going to let them speak let's vote on it.

10:18:06 If not let's vote on it.
10:18:11 A workshop rather than continue.
10:18:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You convinced me.
10:18:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's not continue it.
10:18:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Miranda, you want to amend your
10:18:20 motion?
10:18:21 There's a motion on the floor now.
10:18:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I withdraw the motion, Mr. Chairman,
10:18:25 in all candor.
10:18:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order.
10:18:29 Real quick.
10:18:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Excuse me.
10:18:31 I hate to be interrupted on a point of order because a
10:18:33 point of order is not what we are discussing.
10:18:35 A point of order -- and I will have the legal
10:18:38 department -- under Charlie's rules of order, not
10:18:43 Roberts.
10:18:46 I'm only joking with you, Mr. Dingfelder.
10:18:49 I'll get serious later.
10:18:51 Mr. Chairman, I move that all public workshops are
10:18:54 allowed for the public to speak for 30 minutes.
10:18:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Including next week.

10:18:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Including next week's.
10:19:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Clarification.
10:19:02 Is it 30 minutes total?
10:19:05 If so, when?
10:19:06 At the end of the agenda?
10:19:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Well, if you speak before the end
10:19:12 agenda they don't know what we are going to do.
10:19:14 They don't know what the conversation is, just like
10:19:17 getting married and taking up the wrong wife.
10:19:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, whether it's 30 minutes per
10:19:24 item after each item or 30 minutes total.
10:19:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me raise a question.
10:19:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let's have a workshop on that.
10:19:32 [ Laughter ]
10:19:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Second.
10:19:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Shelby, what I would suggest the
10:19:37 motion would include is that council -- and hopefully
10:19:41 this will cure the legal issue and you all can speak to
10:19:44 it.
10:19:45 The issue is the legal issue that we are dealing with
10:19:47 here.
10:19:47 And that is that we have 30 minutes, allow up to 30

10:19:52 minutes per workshop at the end of the agenda.
10:19:56 Would that cure the legal issue?
10:20:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY: At the end of each workshop?
10:20:06 >> What I mean by each item is a workshop.
10:20:11 >>GWEN MILLER: And then have three minutes to speak.
10:20:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.
10:20:14 Do you follow what I'm saying?
10:20:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I understand correctly then, if you
10:20:17 have four items you can have up to two hours --
10:20:20 That's exactly right.
10:20:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: As long as I'm clear on it.
10:20:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.
10:20:30 Is that your motion?
10:20:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Yes, sir.
10:20:32 >> Second.
10:20:34 >>MARY MULHERN: What did he say, it could be like two
10:20:38 hours?
10:20:41 So if we don't have a quorum, which is pretty likely if
10:20:44 we are going to have all-day workshop meetings, will
10:20:47 the staff still come to our workshops?
10:20:51 >> Different issue.
10:20:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Then he would call them special

10:20:56 discussions.
10:20:57 It's different.
10:20:58 >>MARY MULHERN: It's not different.
10:20:59 What I have been told is staff doesn't come to -- do
10:21:02 they come to a workshop if we don't have a quorum?
10:21:07 >> Yes.
10:21:08 >>MARY MULHERN: That's my question.
10:21:09 Do they?
10:21:10 >>SAL TERRITO: Legal department.
10:21:11 It's my understanding that your workshops are regular
10:21:13 City Council meetings that you are calling workshops.
10:21:16 If you don't have a quorum you can't have a meeting.
10:21:20 >> That was not my question.
10:21:23 >>SAL TERRITO: My question was it goes on a regular
10:21:26 City Council meeting day and a regular City Council
10:21:28 agenda.
10:21:28 You are call it a workshop but it is a regular City
10:21:31 Council meeting, so you can actually take votes in it.
10:21:33 That was my understanding.
10:21:37 That's my understanding.
10:21:38 >>MARY MULHERN: Are you saying that our workshops that
10:21:40 we are now having regularly one Thursday a month is a

10:21:43 regular City Council meeting?
10:21:45 >>SAL TERRITO: Yes.
10:21:46 And I think that was done so could you take votes in
10:21:48 that if you wanted to.
10:21:50 That was my understanding.
10:21:51 That's my understanding.
10:21:55 And if that's the case you need to have a quorum.
10:21:58 It's not an issue of whether you have a quorum of staff
10:22:01 showing up or not.
10:22:02 If you don't have a quorum you cannot meet.
10:22:04 >>MARY MULHERN: That was not my question.
10:22:06 If we have a workshop we need staff here.
10:22:08 And we are not planning to vote and every --
10:22:12 >>SAL TERRITO: You don't have to vote.
10:22:13 I'm simply saying your workshops are regular City
10:22:17 Council meeting.
10:22:18 As such, you can take a vote or not.
10:22:20 That's your call.
10:22:21 But the issue of whether the staff is going to be here
10:22:23 is not an issue.
10:22:25 It's a regular City Council meeting that you are
10:22:27 calling a workshop.

10:22:27 If you don't have a quorum, you cannot meet.
10:22:29 >>MARY MULHERN: I realize that.
10:22:31 >>SAL TERRITO: I'm missing the point then.
10:22:37 >> Call the question.
10:22:38 >>MARY MULHERN: Will staff come -- this is my question.
10:22:39 Will staff -- this is a question for staff.
10:22:41 Maybe for Cindy.
10:22:48 If we have a workshop and when don't have a quorum,
10:22:50 will staff still come to the workshop and speak to us?
10:22:57 Thank you.
10:23:04 >>SAL TERRITO: If three of you are there, you cannot
10:23:07 have the meeting.
10:23:11 >>GWEN MILLER: If you don't have a quorum.
10:23:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's not a legal meeting if you don't
10:23:16 have a quorum.
10:23:22 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Can we vote, please?
10:23:26 >> We are going to vote on the workshop. The motion on
10:23:26 the floor is to allow public comment at the end of each
10:23:28 workshop.
10:23:29 That is the motion.
10:23:30 Made by councilman Charlie Miranda.
10:23:34 Up to three minutes per person.

10:23:36 Three minutes, up to 30 minutes.
10:23:38 Okay.
10:23:39 Three minutes per person.
10:23:40 Allocate a time of up to 30 minutes.
10:23:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: In one year I lost all my hair.
10:23:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor of the motion let it be
10:23:50 known by Aye.
10:23:51 Opposed same sign.
10:23:52 So moved and ordered.
10:23:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY: May I ask then, council, to have this
10:23:57 item withdrawn with direction to rules consistent with
10:24:02 that motion?
10:24:04 >> So moved.
10:24:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
10:24:06 (Motion carried).
10:24:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to request that Mr.
10:24:11 Smith at our next council meeting, which is in two
10:24:14 weeks, come back and clarify that, that if we lose a
10:24:18 quorum, I think we can change the title of a workshop
10:24:22 to a special discussion meeting which will allow the
10:24:24 public, staff, and existing council members to all
10:24:28 participate.

10:24:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, one thing.
10:24:33 And I don't mean to be humorous.
10:24:35 But this is how I look at this issue.
10:24:37 It takes five individuals to be on a team for a
10:24:41 basketball game.
10:24:42 It takes eleven to be in a team to play somebody else
10:24:46 for a football game.
10:24:48 It takes nine to be on a team to be a baseball team to
10:24:52 play somebody else.
10:24:53 And it takes four council members to have that
10:24:55 opportunity.
10:24:57 That's it.
10:24:58 Plain and simple.
10:25:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The motion is we get a report from
10:25:06 Mr. Smith.
10:25:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just reviewing your workshop on
10:25:11 workshops.
10:25:13 Don't we have a workshop coming up on the agenda?
10:25:17 >> On the agenda.
10:25:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So that would be the appropriate
10:25:19 place.
10:25:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's fine.

10:25:22 That's fine.
10:25:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That will be May 22nd at 10:30.
10:25:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor let it be known by Aye.
10:25:28 Opposed same thing.
10:25:29 So moved and ordered.
10:25:31 Let's do the ordinances presented for first reading.
10:25:33 And then we have a 10:30 appeal.
10:25:37 Okay.
10:25:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Item number 5.
10:25:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anybody here in the public?
10:25:54 >>GWEN MILLER: You don't have to open it.
10:25:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone here want to speak?
10:25:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
10:25:58 >> Second.
10:26:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move file E-2008-8.
10:26:07 An ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida amending
10:26:09 City of Tampa code of ordinances chapter 25,
10:26:12 transportation, section 25-72, use of funds, providing
10:26:15 for severability, providing for repeal of all
10:26:17 ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
10:26:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to ask a quick
10:26:26 question.

10:26:26 This means we can spend transportation funds on
10:26:29 other -- transportation improvements, not just roads.
10:26:32 We can spend them on sidewalks and transit?
10:26:35 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
10:26:36 What this does is allow an expanded use, for transit
10:26:42 which we are actually already doing today, but just
10:26:44 clarifying the ordinance, to ensure that these
10:26:48 included, and it allows us to 50% of funds of impact
10:26:53 fee funds in a given district to be given to Hart for
10:26:58 spending for -- I'm sorry, transit improvements.
10:27:02 Thank you.
10:27:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You guys, this is such a huge step.
10:27:06 Remember the Department of Transportation needs to be
10:27:08 called the road department.
10:27:10 Roads, roads, roads, were all that transportation
10:27:13 engineers thought of.
10:27:14 This is recognizing that sidewalks and transit are
10:27:17 worthy of spending our transportation dollars on.
10:27:19 This is a really exciting improvement.
10:27:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other comments?
10:27:26 All in favor let it be known by Aye.
10:27:28 Opposed same sign.

10:27:29 All right.
10:27:32 >>THE CLERK: Second reading and adoption will be on May
10:27:34 1st at 9:30.
10:27:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mrs. Miller, number 6.
10:27:38 >>GWEN MILLER: An ordinance of the city of Tampa,
10:27:42 Florida amending the city Tampa code section 25-74-A-6
10:27:46 to reinstate the and authorize the no transportation
10:27:49 impact fee exempt zones for a portion of West Tampa and
10:27:52 East Tampa as more particularly described in City of
10:27:54 Tampa code section 25-74-A-6 providing for an effective
10:27:59 period of three years commencing October 19, 2007, nunc
10:28:03 pro tunc, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
10:28:05 conflict, providing for severability, providing an
10:28:07 effective date.
10:28:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
10:28:10 (Motion carried).
10:28:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and ordered.
10:28:13 >>> Second reading and adoption on May 1st at 9:30
10:28:17 an on item 7 we have a substitute ordinance.
10:28:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item number 7 we have a substitute
10:28:22 ordinance.
10:28:22 Councilwoman Saul-Sena.

10:28:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move an ordinance of the City of
10:28:29 Tampa 25-74-A-6 to authorize the extension of the no
10:28:35 transportation impact fee exempt zones for a portion of
10:28:37 Ybor City in City of Tampa code section 25-74-A-6,
10:28:42 providing for an effective period of three years
10:28:44 commencing May 15th, 2008, providing for repeal of
10:28:48 all ordinances in conflict, providing for severability,
10:28:50 providing an effective date.
10:28:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
10:28:53 So moved and ordered.
10:28:55 We have a 10:00 time certain on item 88.
10:28:58 We'll take that item up now.
10:29:02 >>GWEN MILLER: It not 10:30 yet.
10:29:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's set for 10:00.
10:29:22 >>
10:29:26 >>REBECCA KERT: If you could make a motion to continue
10:29:28 that to next month, that could get out of the way.
10:29:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 92?
10:29:33 >>REBECCA KERT: Item 92.
10:29:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I make the motion that we continue
10:29:39 this hearing to next month at the proper time at 10:00.
10:29:43 >>: What was the date?

10:29:47 Next month, what is the date?
10:29:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Would it be May 15th would be the
10:29:55 next date for the appeal hearing then?
10:30:00 >>REBECCA KERT: Could we have it continued to the
10:30:02 29th?
10:30:03 Because I have to get something transcribed.
10:30:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't believe there's a meeting
10:30:08 scheduled.
10:30:09 June 5th is the next available.
10:30:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: June 5th at 10:00.
10:30:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved by councilman Miranda.
10:30:21 Moved and seconded.
10:30:21 (Motion carried)
10:30:23 Item 88.
10:30:25 Is petitioner here?
10:30:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: This is a quasi-judicial hearing.
10:30:35 Would you wish to swear in the witnesses?
10:30:38 >> Yes.
10:30:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: If you are going to speak on this item,
10:30:47 please stand.
10:30:49 (Oath administered by Clerk).
10:30:52 THE WITNESS: A remainder, ladies and gentlemen, there

10:30:55 is a speaker sign-in form outside that we do ask that
10:30:59 he ensure that you are going to sign it if you are
10:31:01 going to be testifying.
10:31:03 And a reminder if I may at this time.
10:31:07 With regard to all items that have been available for
10:31:09 public inspection in City Council's office be received
10:31:12 and filled into the record at this time.
10:31:15 Relative to today's hearing.
10:31:17 >>: So moved.
10:31:21 >> Second.
10:31:21 (Motion carried).
10:31:22 >>> What you are going to have before you is an appeal
10:31:31 of the decision of the Variance Review Board, their
10:31:37 decision to deny the petition of the property owners of
10:31:43 2404 west prospect road to 2438 west prospect road.
10:31:47 That was 17 property owners.
10:31:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Mueller.
10:31:51 I have been informed by the clerk you need a motion to
10:31:54 open the appeal hearing.
10:31:55 >> So moved.
10:31:56 >> Second.
10:31:56 (Motion carried).

10:31:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's an appeal of the decision of the
10:32:03 Variance Review Board to deny the petition of property
10:32:06 owners of 2404 west prospect road to 2438 west prospect
10:32:11 road.
10:32:12 That was 17 property owners.
10:32:14 The petition was seeking relieve from the height
10:32:17 requirements for fences that are set forth in section
10:32:21 27-133-F of the Tampa city code.
10:32:26 The maximum hate for fence as loud is six feet.
10:32:30 The petitioner has requested a variance to build a
10:32:33 14-foot wall, which is eight feet higher than that
10:32:36 allowed.
10:32:37 The hearing was held on September 11th, 2007.
10:32:42 After evidence was presented by the petitioners and the
10:32:45 parties objecting to the 14-foot fence, the variance
10:32:48 review board denied the petition because the hardship
10:32:52 criteria had not been met.
10:32:55 I want to talk a little about your standard of
10:32:59 reviewing this.
10:33:00 This is an appeal of a variance review board decision.
10:33:03 So there will be no new evidence that can be presented
10:33:06 to you.

10:33:08 Your action will be based on the record that was
10:33:10 created during the variance review board hearing.
10:33:13 The standard of review for this council is you need to
10:33:18 determine whether the Variance Review Board's decision
10:33:21 is supported by competent, substantial evidence,
10:33:25 whether due process was accorded to the parties, and
10:33:28 whether the variance review board followed the
10:33:30 essential requirements of the law.
10:33:35 Upon your review of the decision of the Variance Review
10:33:37 Board, this council may either affirm or uphold the
10:33:41 decision of the variance review board.
10:33:44 You may remand the matter back to the Variance Review
10:33:46 Board with direction, or you may reverse the decision
10:33:51 of the Variance Review Board.
10:33:53 And I do believe that the parties that I spoke of
10:33:56 earlier, now the representative of the petitioner is
10:34:01 here, and the representative of the objecting parties.
10:34:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I may, Mr. Chairman, just to
10:34:09 refresh council's recollection as to council's rules,
10:34:12 regarding these appeals, only those honor spoke at the
10:34:15 original hearing are permitted to testify.
10:34:18 Staff shall present the procedural history of the case

10:34:20 to City Council.
10:34:21 The petitioner or appellant shall limit her or his
10:34:25 argument to 15 minutes and the appellant may yield time
10:34:28 to persons offering testimony in support.
10:34:30 Those persons opposed to the appeal shall speak for no
10:34:33 more than 15 minutes in total.
10:34:35 Speakers are limited to three minutes unless otherwise
10:34:39 by City Council.
10:34:40 Finally appellant shall have three minutes for
10:34:43 rebuttal.
10:34:43 >>STEVE MICHELINI: If I could clarify.
10:34:45 We notified people who had submitted letters or had
10:34:49 appeared in support or in opposition to the petition,
10:34:53 as well as the neighborhood association.
10:34:55 And I believe that under your rules they are provided
10:34:58 time to speak as well.
10:35:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: For a total of 15 minutes.
10:35:09 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I'm talking about the homeowners
10:35:11 association as well.
10:35:13 There were letters that were filed.
10:35:14 When notified those people that heir parties of
10:35:16 interest.

10:35:16 That's fine, however you want to handle it.
10:35:19 We can deal with it later.
10:35:20 Basically, the petition came to the variance review
10:35:25 board following a request for a vacating of an alley
10:35:34 that ran behind a number of the homes.
10:35:35 Those homes were seeking relief because of a number of
10:35:38 people who were abusing those rights-of-way in the
10:35:43 back.
10:35:44 They were setting up camp behind the property.
10:35:52 If you look at the Elmo.
10:35:53 All these things were presented at the hearing.
10:35:56 This is the alleyway.
10:35:57 If you will on the right-hand side, those are the
10:36:00 various petitioners.
10:36:01 There were 17 property owners that joined in this
10:36:03 petition.
10:36:04 They joined jointly in the vacating petition which
10:36:06 vacated this area between the fence on the east you see
10:36:10 on the left and the fence you see on the right.
10:36:12 It extends around to the railroad track, which with
10:36:21 this property around here, and what was happening was
10:36:23 people were walking up behind the home.

10:36:26 There are no homes abutting it.
10:36:27 So they were walking up in an unpoliced area and
10:36:33 conducting all kinds of different activities that were
10:36:35 undesirable to the residents.
10:36:37 So they came to City Council, requested a vacating of
10:36:41 that alley.
10:36:41 It was vacated upon your direction and given to the
10:36:44 homeowners.
10:36:45 What happened then was they sought to relocate their
10:36:49 fences back to the vacated portion.
10:36:52 And because the existing fences were already ten feet
10:36:56 in height or greater, that's why we petitioned to have
10:37:00 the fences and walls be allowed to go up to 14 feet
10:37:04 which was lattice, was only two feet on the top, and it
10:37:10 also included the relocation of the fences all the way
10:37:13 around the site, to railroad tracks and a variety of
10:37:17 other places.
10:37:18 I believe in the initial hearing that we were not
10:37:21 provided with enough information when we started the
10:37:24 process, there were only offensive members of the VRB
10:37:27 that were present, there was a lot of different
10:37:35 discussion about what should be done.

10:37:36 Variance review board was not presented with this which
10:37:38 was in full force and effect at the time they were
10:37:41 operating under the old rules.
10:37:42 The initial motion that was made was for a continuance,
10:37:46 which we and the objectors had agreed to, and we were
10:37:51 talking about dates for a continuance, and that motion
10:37:53 failed 3-2.
10:37:55 And then there was a motion for denial which also
10:37:57 failed 3-2.
10:38:01 Which apparently under those rules, that that now
10:38:04 prevails in some manner, but I wasn't aware three votes
10:38:07 in either direction would deny a proposal.
10:38:12 I would like to refer you back to the testimony in the
10:38:17 record.
10:38:18 And if you look at your transcript, one of the
10:38:22 objectors who was a key vote in the -- not approving
10:38:28 our continuance did not visit the site by his own
10:38:30 admission.
10:38:31 That's on page 3.
10:38:32 The originating petition was designed to try to control
10:38:38 some of the traffic that was behind the properties, to
10:38:42 provide a buffer from the railroad tracks, to provide

10:38:45 some screening, and from the noise.
10:38:48 This picture will show you the proximity of the fences
10:38:53 to the railroad tracks, the expressway authority.
10:38:57 We went in and asked for some relief to provide for
10:39:00 that buffer.
10:39:02 When individuals come before the City Council, and they
10:39:06 come before the Variance Review Board, you have very
10:39:08 strict standards regarding buffering.
10:39:10 If buffering means something on fences and walls, it
10:39:13 means something here to these people.
10:39:16 These are existing fences which we are trying to
10:39:19 relocate, which I have already said.
10:39:22 In addition to that, Hillsborough County -- I'm sorry,
10:39:27 Hillsborough Avenue needs $300,000 to build buffer
10:39:37 walls to cut down noise and to a bait some of the
10:39:40 visual obstructions that were occurring, because of
10:39:46 Hillsborough Avenue as well as the interstate.
10:39:50 Here is a buffer wall which the neighborhood
10:39:54 association negotiated, and with D.O.T.
10:39:57 That wall is probably 18 feet tall.
10:40:00 They didn't, as far as I know, they didn't seek any
10:40:04 variances or waivers to have that wall put in place.

10:40:09 As you can see on this picture, that wall is
10:40:14 immediately adjacent to single-family residential.
10:40:19 We are not asking for anything in that kind of drastic
10:40:24 kind of construction.
10:40:25 We simply were asking for the existing fences to be
10:40:27 allowed to be moved back to the original -- to newly
10:40:31 vacated property line.
10:40:36 The visual and the safety aspect of that fence are
10:40:43 apparent.
10:40:44 One of the oppositions, the statement was made that
10:40:46 it's out of character with the large and looming
10:40:49 presence of this wall.
10:40:52 This fence.
10:40:53 We have taken a number of other pictures to show you,
10:41:00 this is the corner of where that vacated property
10:41:03 begins.
10:41:04 And if you look on the left you will see a garage
10:41:07 that's right here.
10:41:08 What we were talking about doing, we are extending the
10:41:12 fence across the vacated portion here and then
10:41:14 extending it down along the vacated area.
10:41:18 You can see the garage again and the fence.

10:41:27 This is a view from down the street.
10:41:29 This is looking back toward -- this is looking westward
10:41:32 away from the vacated portion.
10:41:40 This section has been a constant source for the dumping
10:41:44 of trash and debris, as well as for poem coming up
10:41:46 behind the houses.
10:41:48 Typically on a six-fat fence, you are abutting or
10:41:53 adjoining another residential property.
10:41:55 This abuts either heavy commercial or industrial
10:41:58 property which is the Crosstown expressway authority.
10:42:03 The individuals that objected to this, this is a view
10:42:09 toward the vacated portion.
10:42:10 You would have to look through this house and all of
10:42:14 the other three or four other houses before you would
10:42:16 even be able to see the fence.
10:42:24 This is a view along the railroad tracks. You can see
10:42:35 the proximity of the fence.
10:42:36 This approximately is where the vacating portion is.
10:42:41 You see the railroad tracks and Crosstown expressway
10:42:45 authority.
10:42:47 When the neighbors originally called the city about the
10:42:50 issues and the vagrants they were facing the code

10:42:53 enforcement people came out and actually cited all of
10:42:55 the property owners for not maintaining the alley.
10:42:57 And so the individual property owners paid to have the
10:43:00 alley cleaned.
10:43:03 This is the third part of that process.
10:43:06 They cleaned the alley.
10:43:07 They vacated the alley.
10:43:08 They are now requesting they be allowed to relocate
10:43:11 their fences to accommodate their homes.
10:43:14 And you have to ask yourself, what is the cost of
10:43:17 having some sense of security, some sense of trying to
10:43:22 knock down the noise that comes off of the railroad
10:43:24 tracks, and off of the Crosstown expressway authority?
10:43:29 In terms of the views, again, this is a view looking
10:43:36 eastward from the end of the street, and that's exactly
10:43:40 what you would see across the end.
10:43:43 That's a ten-foot fence.
10:43:45 Our request was up to 14 feet to accommodate the trees
10:43:51 and the other fences that were there.
10:43:53 Officially, we were asking for a minimum of ten feet
10:43:57 with a two feet of lattice across the top of it so they
10:44:02 could restore the hedges and some of the landscaping

10:44:05 that was in that area.
10:44:09 The homeowners association president is here.
10:44:13 He can certainly speak to that issue and hear support
10:44:15 for this.
10:44:19 Do you want to come up?
10:44:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Before we do that, excuse me.
10:44:26 Let me understand the process.
10:44:27 So now is this part of his 15 minutes?
10:44:30 >> Yes.
10:44:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I want you to understand that's part of
10:44:32 your 15 minute presentation.
10:44:35 Continue.
10:44:37 >>> David Terella, the 2008 homeowners president of-he
10:44:46 knew suburb beautiful association.
10:44:50 I also happen to have a home on prospect.
10:44:53 So if I can just address my position as president of
10:44:56 the association.
10:44:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a point of order.
10:45:03 Did you speak at the hearing below?
10:45:08 David, did you speak at the hearing below?
10:45:12 >>> No.
10:45:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's a problem.

10:45:15 It's a procedural problem.
10:45:16 >>STEVE MICHELINI: We can move on.
10:45:23 Come on up.
10:45:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Did this gentleman speak at the
10:45:27 hearing?
10:45:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: David, we apologize.
10:45:29 It's just our procedure.
10:45:30 >>> I understand.
10:45:31 Thank you.
10:45:31 >>> Brett green.
10:45:34 I live at 2438 prospect road.
10:45:36 And it's my garage that you see in the pictures there.
10:45:42 It's the first house in on the vacated property line,
10:45:45 the vacated alley.
10:45:52 He had mentioned earlier, and the problem was I live at
10:45:55 that property, my children play in the yard really feet
10:45:59 away from this vacated alleyway.
10:46:02 And myself and my neighbor, there were several break
10:46:09 ins of the property.
10:46:11 Not my property but my neighbors and several others had
10:46:13 break ins on the garages that were immediately on the
10:46:16 old property line.

10:46:16 So what we are interested in doing is providing
10:46:21 certainly a barrier of safety for ourselves, and I
10:46:24 think the ten-foot fence, A, it would -- this was my
10:46:31 property right here.
10:46:33 So I am immediately -- I'm the first neighbor to be
10:46:38 affected by this.
10:46:39 The request would be to provide a more secure area, so
10:46:42 the alleyway I is an open area, and walk through there
10:46:45 at the leisure, and to raise the fence up to, I think,
10:46:49 a ten-foot height would be sufficient certainly for my
10:46:52 purposes and I believe for the rest of my neighbors.
10:46:54 That's why I requested a ten foot minimum.
10:46:56 On the other side of that is a building that's been
10:47:00 rehabilitated and no one is living there currently.
10:47:02 So anyone can kind of go back there without much
10:47:07 monitoring.
10:47:08 And I think a ten foot fence would provide more privacy
10:47:11 and security for me and my family and I think for the
10:47:14 families of the other residents that signed the
10:47:16 petition as well.
10:47:17 So thank you for supporting.
10:47:22 Councilman Dingfelder is familiar with the area.

10:47:24 He has been there several times.
10:47:26 And going to Steve's point the people that are
10:47:28 petitioning against this, I really fail to see,
10:47:33 physically there isn't way a fence six, eight, ten,
10:47:40 twelve, 14 feet, they would have to go out of their way
10:47:44 to have this fence cause a problem for them.
10:47:46 But for us that live in this property and would be
10:47:48 affected directly, that could gain access to that and
10:47:54 whoever is going to be moving into the properties
10:47:56 immediately behind that, you know, a permanent
10:47:57 building, we would just like a little more safety from
10:48:01 this property.
10:48:02 I respectfully request your approval of our request.
10:48:06 And I thank you very much for your time.
10:48:14 >>> Jeff Rosenbach, I'm at 2435 --
10:48:18 I was one of the original petitioners who spoke. I am
10:48:22 also the treasurer of the homeowners association.
10:48:24 And in terms of the homeowners association, there were
10:48:27 two.
10:48:27 There was a former one last year, which has been now
10:48:30 changed over, but the former association had no
10:48:33 objections whatsoever to this petition.

10:48:35 As does the current homeowners association.
10:48:38 I want to put that in the record.
10:48:41 As far as the height obviously is a major component to
10:48:44 this appeal.
10:48:46 Essentially what we are doing is looking for 10 to 14
10:48:49 feet.
10:48:50 I think that's a negotiable number we are looking for.
10:48:52 We are trying to do something to get above the six
10:48:54 feet.
10:48:55 Since the -- actually the zoning board hearing, had the
10:49:00 Tampa police over three times since then.
10:49:04 Each time I asked them, would a ten-foot fence be
10:49:08 helpful?
10:49:08 They of course said yes, that would be much better than
10:49:11 what you have now.
10:49:14 It's harder to climb over ten than it is to climb over
10:49:17 six.
10:49:18 And the opposition itself, I think you saw some of the
10:49:21 pictures.
10:49:23 The exposure for the opposing parties, residents, was
10:49:27 probably 20 to 30 fate of potentially 1,000 plus fence
10:49:31 lines that we are talking about here in this petition.

10:49:33 So again I think in terms of magnitude, it not that
10:49:36 great.
10:49:38 And also they don't have some of the hardships that we
10:49:40 have.
10:49:41 So --
10:49:42 Excuse me, sir.
10:49:44 Excuse me for one minute.
10:49:45 All cell phones will be put on vibrate, pleas, or carry
10:49:49 them outside.
10:49:50 Thank you very kindly.
10:49:55 >>> Again as far as the height is concerned, the
10:49:57 opposition brought up a very elaborate discussion of
10:50:00 engineering as far as sounds and light mitigation.
10:50:04 That's in the record that you have.
10:50:05 Again I think the confusion there was, we are not
10:50:07 trying to eliminate all sound coming from the adjacent
10:50:12 properties.
10:50:12 We are trying to mitigate and remove it -- not remove
10:50:15 it but reduce it.
10:50:16 Essentially what we are talking about, you don't have
10:50:18 to be an engineer to know if you go above six, eight,
10:50:23 10, 12, you are going to do some kind of light and

10:50:26 sound mitigation.
10:50:28 Thank you very much for your time.
10:50:33 >>STEVE MICHELINI: In the testimony from the opposition
10:50:35 they indicated in order to be effectively buffering the
10:50:37 sound, we would need a fence of 22 feet, or in excess
10:50:41 of up to 35 feet high.
10:50:44 Some measure of relief should be afforded to these
10:50:47 homeowners.
10:50:49 We are respectfully requesting that you approve a
10:50:51 10-foot height with 2-foot of lattice be allowed on top
10:50:55 of it, along the railroad tracks, and 10 feet of height
10:50:58 from the corner where it turns into the property where
10:51:06 it comes back and abuts the apartment complex.
10:51:11 I can show you on the aerial photograph.
10:51:21 We have the -- I'm sorry.
10:51:22 The aerial photograph shows you all of these homes abut
10:51:40 the Crosstown expressway and the railroad tracks.
10:51:43 And once you turn the corner, there's an apartment
10:51:46 building that goes from here down to here.
10:51:49 There are no single-family residences that abut the
10:51:52 rear of these properties.
10:51:54 There's only the apartment complex parking lot, the

10:51:57 railroad tracks, and the Crosstown expressway
10:52:00 authority.
10:52:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
10:52:05 Question, councilman Dingfelder.
10:52:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a procedural question to
10:52:10 whatever legal staff is familiar with it.
10:52:16 Mr. Michelini, 10-foot, 10-foot plus 2, et cetera,
10:52:23 et cetera.
10:52:23 But when I read the variance record that is the record
10:52:27 that's on appeal, it specifically says to increase the
10:52:33 height of the fence from 6 feet to 14 feet.
10:52:36 We have to know what it is we are judging.
10:52:42 >> I understand.
10:52:43 I was hoping to kind of get some confirmation whether
10:52:46 that could be adjusted here at the appeal.
10:52:48 In light of kind of renewed powers are.
10:52:52 I'll tray to look into that, or whether you are going
10:52:55 to be restricted to what was requested on the petition,
10:52:57 which was 14 feet.
10:53:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think it's real important, because
10:53:05 now the request is modified from what the variance
10:53:08 board heard, we need to know.

10:53:20 >>DAVID MECHANIK: 305 South Boulevard.
10:53:23 Tampa, Florida.
10:53:24 I'm here representing William and joy Mercer who reside
10:53:29 at 1506 Georgia Avenue which is around the corner from
10:53:32 the subject property.
10:53:35 If I might ask council, if I might take another couple
10:53:38 of minutes for a total of, say, five.
10:53:40 I don't believe there are any other people who are
10:53:43 speaking in opposition.
10:53:46 So I would probably be the only speaker.
10:53:49 Let me.
10:53:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me just find out, though.
10:53:52 Are there any other persons in opposition to this
10:53:54 appeal?
10:53:55 Anyone else here that's going to speak in opposition to
10:53:57 this appeal?
10:54:00 All right, I will allow you five minutes.
10:54:03 >>DAVID MECHANIK: I would like to note no disrespect to
10:54:05 the gentleman from New Suburb Beautiful but I advised
10:54:09 people who wanted to speak in opposition that they
10:54:11 could not attend if they have not spoken.
10:54:14 So in fairness, it seemed appropriate that no one who

10:54:18 had not spoken should be allowed to speak.
10:54:22 Let me open by saying, I think a 14-foot fence is
10:54:29 incredibly out of character for this neighborhood.
10:54:32 In fact it's out of character for any neighborhood in
10:54:34 the City of Tampa.
10:54:37 I cannot conceive of a circumstance where a 14-foot
10:54:42 fence is appropriate.
10:54:43 And the examples that Mr. Michelini showed you are
10:54:48 sound or noise attenuation walls that are built
10:54:51 adjacent to highways, when the highways are built, and
10:54:55 it's certainly unfortunate that those walls weren't
10:54:57 built, those things I don't think were really thought
10:55:03 of back in the 80s.
10:55:05 But those walls are built up on the highway, not in
10:55:07 people's backwards.
10:55:10 This would set an incredible precedent, and I believe
10:55:15 an appropriate precedent for allowing 14-foot fences in
10:55:19 neighborhoods.
10:55:22 I would like to go through the hardship criteria that
10:55:26 are required to be found in order to grant a variance.
10:55:30 And I'll just actually only go through two of them.
10:55:33 The applicants have the burden of demonstrating that

10:55:36 the satisfaction of all five criteria, but let me just
10:55:40 read two of them to you so you can get a flavor,
10:55:43 because I think they have utterly failed to meet these
10:55:48 two criteria. It says the alleged hardships or
10:55:51 practical difficulties are unique and singular with
10:55:53 respect to the property.
10:55:55 Or with respect to a structure or building thereon or
10:55:59 the person requesting the variance, and are not
10:56:03 suffered in common with other properties, structures,
10:56:06 or buildings similarly situated.
10:56:09 Well, this is not unique.
10:56:11 I mean, there are literally hundreds of properties that
10:56:15 abut a highway or a railroad track in the City of
10:56:18 Tampa.
10:56:19 So this is not unique with respect to properties which
10:56:21 are similarly situated.
10:56:23 There was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the
10:56:27 property was unique, or the properties were unique.
10:56:34 The second criterion which they must also demonstrate
10:56:37 says that the applicant must demonstrate the inability
10:56:41 to use the land in question for any reasonable legal
10:56:45 use.

10:56:46 Well, these homeowners have been using their property.
10:56:50 They live in them, and they enjoy their homes.
10:56:52 Now, they may not be happy being next to the Crosstown
10:56:57 but that does not preclude them from making reasonable
10:57:00 use of their land.
10:57:02 And I would like to point out, there are 17 applicants.
10:57:06 All but one have purchased their property after the
10:57:09 construction of the expressway.
10:57:15 Mr. Michelini cited basically three reasons for the
10:57:18 request.
10:57:19 One was security.
10:57:23 It defies logic that a 14-foot fence would provide
10:57:27 security when that 14-foot fence would not be fully
10:57:30 enclosing a peace of property.
10:57:32 It can't very well provide security if you could walk
10:57:35 around the side and enter the property.
10:57:37 So I fail to see how it is a security benefit
10:57:43 whatsoever.
10:57:45 And I would hate to suggest that they would be
10:57:47 considering 14-foot fences on the sides or the fronts
10:57:51 of their property.
10:57:53 They are talking about a view as being reasons for the

10:57:57 fence.
10:57:59 Again, they purchased this property knowing that the
10:58:02 expressway was there.
10:58:04 We all have views.
10:58:05 I think you would have a line out the building if
10:58:08 people were able to request variances based on view or
10:58:13 their particular desire not to see something.
10:58:15 Finally, they cited noise.
10:58:18 And I would just like to point out that -- and there is
10:58:21 ample testimony in the record, but would like to point
10:58:24 out Mr. Michelini cited a criteria from the state of
10:58:27 California as to what an appropriate height is for
10:58:31 noise attenuation wall, and we did some calculations, a
10:58:37 witness who spoke on behalf of the Mercers at the
10:58:40 hearing calculated that the elevation of the expressway
10:58:43 was 19 feet at Watrous Avenue.
10:58:47 Under the criteria cited by Mr. Michelini, and by the
10:58:50 way, the Florida D.O.T. criteria actually contemplates
10:58:54 a higher noise wall than what Mr. Michelini's criteria
10:58:58 would suggest.
10:58:59 But under those criteria that he cited, the elevation
10:59:04 is 19 feet.

10:59:05 You would build a barrier on top of the 19-foot,
10:59:11 because you build a barrier at the base of the roadway,
10:59:14 not from the ground.
10:59:16 And so the fence, in order to be effective noise
10:59:19 attenuation, would have to be 25 feet tall.
10:59:23 And of course no one is suggesting a 25-foot tall fence
10:59:27 would be appropriate.
10:59:28 So what we are saying is in addition to their failure
10:59:31 to meet or demonstrate compliance with the hardship
10:59:35 criteria, the remedy that they are seeking, this
10:59:42 14-foot fence, wouldn't even solve the problems that
10:59:45 they are seeking to resolve.
10:59:47 And I would finally just conclude by asking you to
10:59:51 consider the photographs shown to you by Mr. Michelini.
10:59:55 I think that they amply demonstrate the
10:59:59 inappropriateness of tall, high walls in neighborhood
11:00:05 settings.
11:00:06 Thank you very much.
11:00:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me do rebuttal and then questions
11:00:20 by council.
11:00:23 How many minutes of rebuttal from petitioner?
11:00:27 >>> To Mr. Dingfelder's question whether this hearing

11:00:38 should be 14-foot or whether they should change and
11:00:40 tray to go down.
11:00:41 I have been advised, the underlining hearing in the
11:00:46 petition is for a 14-foot fence.
11:00:48 And that's what you are here on.
11:00:50 And if they are to want to go ahead and change and go
11:00:53 less, that's really something that should be heard by
11:00:56 the variance review board.
11:00:58 They can have the evidence on that.
11:00:59 So if you wanted to remand that, remand it back,
11:01:03 keeping that in mind, for something less, then maybe we
11:01:06 can go that route.
11:01:07 But really we are here to affirm or deny or whatever a
11:01:11 14-fat fence.
11:01:13 The other thing I want to make a correction on that's
11:01:16 been brought to my attention.
11:01:17 Hardship criteria on September 11th, 2007, is you
11:01:21 only had to meet one of the criteria, not all.
11:01:24 Criteria.
11:01:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Three minutes rebuttal.
11:01:36 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Yes, sir.
11:01:37 Back on the Elmo for a second.

11:01:39 The property owners that are objecting to this are down
11:01:45 here.
11:01:49 There is not one single single-family house that backs
11:01:52 up to the back of all of those properties, not one.
11:01:57 The only thing that backs up to it is an apartment
11:02:00 complex here with a parking lot that's about 55-wide.
11:02:06 And the beginning of the railroad tracks and Crosstown
11:02:10 authority.
11:02:11 There are no single-family homes impacted.
11:02:13 And additionally these fence and wall Heights are
11:02:15 designed inside of a neighborhood.
11:02:17 This is on the outside of a neighborhood abutting
11:02:20 industrial uses.
11:02:22 And clearly railroad tracks, Crosstown expressway
11:02:25 authority is an industrial use.
11:02:30 With respect to some precedent this is going to happen
11:02:33 willy-nilly all over the place, I not.
11:02:36 If you started a new subdivision you would be required
11:02:38 to put up some kind of abatement or buffer wall that
11:02:40 would be somewhere in the area of the 20 feet, the 25
11:02:44 feet, because you have to buffer it from the railroad
11:02:46 tracks and the Crosstown expressway.

11:02:49 These neighbors are coming back to you from houses that
11:02:51 were built in the 1920s and saying, please allow us
11:02:55 to provide some mitigation for our homes, and at what
11:03:00 cost?
11:03:00 The cost is their peace of mind.
11:03:02 That's what the cost is.
11:03:04 And there is no other single-family house that's
11:03:06 affected in any manner by this at all.
11:03:10 It simply can't happen.
11:03:12 There aren't any.
11:03:15 I have shown you the overhead projector, I have shown
11:03:18 you the lots that are plotted.
11:03:22 The residents couldn't see it unless they walked around
11:03:25 the corner, down the street, and came up to the
11:03:28 apartment complex there.
11:03:31 That's the only time that anybody could see it.
11:03:35 We are respectfully requesting relief.
11:03:38 Although -- we are not planning.
11:03:41 We never got to the point where we could propose to the
11:03:44 VRB that we were asking for less than 14 feet, and why
11:03:49 we were asking for that height.
11:03:51 We never got to that point.

11:03:54 And although we probably did not really want to be
11:03:56 remanded, if that's the only alternative we have to get
11:03:59 to this issue, we would certainly accept a remand.
11:04:02 We prefer to go forward and provide some relief.
11:04:05 We certainly can make the commitments that we are not
11:04:08 planning to build anything that tall.
11:04:11 The VRB started focusing on issues like, what are the
11:04:15 permits going to be like?
11:04:17 Who is going to look at this?
11:04:18 Does it meet hurricane standards?
11:04:20 That's not within the purview of the VRB.
11:04:26 Nor is somebody's perception of what a 14-foot fence
11:04:29 provides or doesn't provide, whether security or not.
11:04:32 That's not the purview of the VRB.
11:04:35 The request to them was does it provide relieve for
11:04:38 these families, should they be allowed to remove their
11:04:42 fences and move them back to the vacated portion of the
11:04:44 property line?
11:04:45 And then if you are allowed to do that, can we keep the
11:04:47 fences at the height that they are currently at?
11:04:50 They are not trying to increase them.
11:04:55 The measurement of height is very tricky here because

11:04:57 you have a differential between the ditch and the top
11:04:59 of the fence.
11:05:00 At grade, they are asking for the ten feet.
11:05:03 We respectfully request your approval.
11:05:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
11:05:08 Questions from councilman Dingfelder followed by
11:05:10 councilman Joseph Caetano.
11:05:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: First, I just wanted to clarify
11:05:19 because last year we did change the criteria.
11:05:22 And I don't want the record to be messed up.
11:05:24 So the new criteria which Mr. Shelby just handed us,
11:05:29 section 17-5-74, says that -- I am going to read it
11:05:34 verbatim.
11:05:35 VRB shall base it's decision on competent substantial
11:05:38 evidence in the official record and shall consider the
11:05:40 following criteria, one, two, three, four, five.
11:05:44 So there's no requirement that if they have been meet
11:05:47 one of the criteria, there's a requirement that they
11:05:51 consider the criteria.
11:05:54 No response necessary.
11:05:55 Just wanted to read the actual ordinance into the
11:05:57 record.

11:05:57 So the record is clear.
11:06:02 I'm going to go ahead and speak to the issue as long as
11:06:04 we have heard from everybody.
11:06:06 And I am very familiar with it.
11:06:09 I walk this neighborhood.
11:06:10 It's about seven, eight, ten blocks from my house.
11:06:17 I don't have a problem with a 14-foot fence on the
11:06:23 highway properties.
11:06:24 Okay.
11:06:27 Steve, if you put up the overhead again.
11:06:29 Because to me there's kind of two sets of properties
11:06:31 here.
11:06:31 There's properties that back up against the highway.
11:06:35 Ms. Mulhern is familiar it with.
11:06:36 She lives in that neighborhood.
11:06:37 She gets all of her friends out here in the audience
11:06:39 here.
11:06:40 But, anyway, if you put up that map with the angle on
11:06:49 it.
11:06:50 The Crosstown expressway F.those folks want to put up a
11:07:03 14-foot fence I don't think it sets a bad precedent.
11:07:07 I would understand it completely if it was in my

11:07:12 property.
11:07:12 The train runs through there at midnight.
11:07:15 And it doesn't hurt anybody.
11:07:16 I think the problem is those folks have been lumped in
11:07:18 with the other folks.
11:07:19 Now, the on the folks down on the lower leg, they butt
11:07:23 up against sort of an older apartment complex, a
11:07:27 two-story apartment complex, typical garden apartments.
11:07:31 It used to kind of be shabby.
11:07:33 Now they fixed it up a little bit but it's still
11:07:36 vacant.
11:07:36 So I understand that there have been vagrant problems
11:07:39 and that sort of thing.
11:07:40 And I sympathize with that.
11:07:42 I think 14 feet, you know, currently if you build an
11:07:46 apartment complex adjacent to a neighborhood, our city
11:07:50 code doesn't allow 14-foot wall between the two as a
11:07:54 separation.
11:07:54 I don't know what we allow.
11:07:56 Maybe 8 feet or something like that.
11:07:59 Six feet or eight feet.
11:08:00 But we don't allow 14 feet.

11:08:02 I think there is a little concern about precedent there
11:08:04 in terms of that.
11:08:07 That's my concern.
11:08:08 I'm open to hear other council members comment on that
11:08:12 sort of thing.
11:08:13 I think the folks on the bottom leg might temper their
11:08:16 enthusiasm a little bit and maybe build it a ten foot
11:08:21 or eight foot fence with a little bit of lattice on top
11:08:24 or something like that, I think that's more reasonable.
11:08:26 Because we don't want to set bad precedent around the
11:08:29 city.
11:08:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Caetano, Saul-Sena, then
11:08:35 Mulhern.
11:08:35 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Michelini, can you put that
11:08:39 map back up?
11:08:40 The one that shows prospect with all the homes.
11:08:45 >>STEVE MICHELINI: The aerial?
11:08:47 The wall is going to be built starting on the corner
11:09:03 down at the left?
11:09:11 >>STEVE MICHELINI: We had asked for the fences and
11:09:13 walls to start at that corner and go to here.
11:09:16 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: And the people complaining are

11:09:19 down on the left a little further?
11:09:22 >>STEVE MICHELINI: They are over here.
11:09:28 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Could you live with a 12-foot
11:09:29 fence or a 10?
11:09:32 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Yes, sir.
11:09:34 >> I have never seen somal Liss, and I have lived
11:09:37 throughout the country in different places, to see it
11:09:43 existing places where people are dumping their trash,
11:09:47 people don't have privacy, vagrants, homeless people
11:09:50 sleeping.
11:09:53 If we can, we have got to try to clean some of that up
11:09:56 if we are going to be the next great city, as the mayor
11:09:58 is always saying.
11:09:59 And we can't do that when we have these conditions.
11:10:04 I think it needs to be cleaned up throughout the whole
11:10:06 city.
11:10:06 That's my point.
11:10:08 Thank you.
11:10:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Saul-Sena.
11:10:11 Councilwoman Mulhern.
11:10:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, council members.
11:10:18 My concern is that the situation that exists here

11:10:19 exists in many, many, many parts of the city.
11:10:22 And I think what would be appropriate, rather than
11:10:26 making a piecemeal decision here, I would like to see
11:10:32 council working with our zoning staff and our land use
11:10:35 people, make a policy decision about the appropriate
11:10:39 height for fences.
11:10:42 I think that we could remand this back to the Variance
11:10:47 Review Board, but in the interim, I think it's our
11:10:51 responsibility to say what kind of fence height is
11:10:55 appropriate.
11:10:55 And I think that we should look at the situation of
11:10:57 being near railroad tracks because the tracks traverse
11:11:01 the city, and I think we should make a policy decision
11:11:05 that then the VRB can rely on in their decision making.
11:11:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.
11:11:15 >>MARY MULHERN: I got my first question answered by
11:11:17 looking at the map.
11:11:17 So the houses start.
11:11:19 Is that Carolina, the street that goes --
11:11:27 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Yes.
11:11:28 Just so we are clear, one of the things I submitted to
11:11:30 Mr. Mechanik was this corner over here is the only

11:11:33 corner that's visible to anyone walking around.
11:11:36 The rest of is it all landlocked.
11:11:38 And we did speak about that being restricted to 10
11:11:41 feet.
11:11:42 And I don't want to misspeak.
11:11:44 I don't want to be speaking something, and I didn't
11:11:48 make a commitment already.
11:11:50 I don't know what authority he has right now.
11:11:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, Mr --
11:11:55 >>MARY MULHERN: That was my question.
11:11:56 You answered my question.
11:11:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And if council has a question, wants to
11:12:01 ask that question, fine.
11:12:02 We don't need another presentation here today.
11:12:05 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I am not going to do that.
11:12:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
11:12:08 >>MARY MULHERN: That's helpful.
11:12:10 But the request for the variance was a 14-foot fence.
11:12:14 And basically the fence is going along the alley that
11:12:20 continues into Neptune street, right?
11:12:23 I think that's -- since this is my neighborhood -- and
11:12:27 John, we can visualize this.

11:12:29 I kept driving around in circles around it today but I
11:12:31 really needed to be on foot, too.
11:12:33 >>STEVE MICHELINI: This alley was never open.
11:12:36 It was never able to be accessed except by foot.
11:12:41 >>MARY MULHERN: But Carolina is the point where Neptune
11:12:43 really becomes a street.
11:12:45 There's houses facing on Neptune, right?
11:12:48 On both sides.
11:12:49 >>> On the other side, that's correct.
11:12:52 And we were asking up to 14 feet.
11:12:54 We never got to that presentation in the VRB because it
11:12:58 was short circuited by the motion for continuance which
11:13:02 failed.
11:13:03 And then the motion for denial failed.
11:13:06 But there was a lot of confusion about what the new
11:13:09 rules were and what application they had.
11:13:12 That's how we got in front of you.
11:13:13 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
11:13:15 I'd like to hear from that maybe from Ernie or someone.
11:13:20 Okay.
11:13:23 That was I think my only question for you, Mr.
11:13:25 Michelini.

11:13:26 But I agree with John Dingfelder.
11:13:32 Just because the east-west part, the straight part,
11:13:38 they are not facing on the tracks.
11:13:44 Can you leave that up there, Ernie?
11:13:47 Oh, you need it?
11:13:49 >>ERNEST MUELLER: No, it can wait.
11:13:55 >> But it's terrible that those apartment buildings
11:13:57 have been empty, and that is a really bad situation.
11:14:02 I'm wondering if whoever owns that land needs to build
11:14:05 a fence around there.
11:14:07 I mean, I know that's not the question.
11:14:09 But I think that might be having the owner of that land
11:14:14 really do something about that, because I think that's
11:14:17 what's causing the problem with the safety and the
11:14:21 access there.
11:14:25 I also agree with Linda, though, that there are, you
11:14:29 know, hundreds, probably more than hundreds of houses
11:14:32 that -- and even as we look across the Crosstown, you
11:14:35 can start to see the houses in Hyde Park that abut
11:14:41 that.
11:14:41 And I don't think there are any -- other than the that
11:14:48 leads up to the freeway, the bottom of the Crosstown,

11:14:53 that's all they had.
11:14:54 So I am concerned about the precedent of totally, you
11:15:00 no, feel for those neighbors that they shouldn't have
11:15:02 to -- there should have been some better buffering,
11:15:09 because they are so close to both the Crosstown and the
11:15:14 railroad.
11:15:15 But I think that it does open up -- this is a tough one
11:15:21 because it opens up whether we are going to have the
11:15:23 whole city again asking for -- to put up 14-foot walls.
11:15:28 And I think Ms. Saul-Sena's suggestion is a great one,
11:15:35 if we remand this back to the Variance Review Board to
11:15:38 look at, and Mr. Dingfelder's, the possibility of a
11:15:45 low -- you know, something lower than 14 feet, and in
11:15:48 the meantime go -- look at our codes and see what we
11:15:51 can do.
11:15:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Miranda.
11:15:57 Then councilman Dingfelder.
11:15:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have been sitting just listening
11:16:02 and trying to understand all the ramifications.
11:16:05 But I need some legal help here as to what of the five
11:16:10 criteria do they fall under for relief.
11:16:14 Of the variance denial by the variance review board.

11:16:18 In other words, where, and in what one of these five do
11:16:24 we have this injunctive relief for the petitioner?
11:16:27 I have failed to feigned one yet.
11:16:30 Maybe there is.
11:16:34 And then there was evidence put into the record by
11:16:37 someone opposed to that, that 16 of the 17 property
11:16:41 owners have been there for a long period ever time.
11:16:58 I can tell you when people moved in there was no
11:17:01 hospitals, no stadium, things like that.
11:17:03 But God bless 'em, when they bought, if I heard right,
11:17:08 they knew what they were buying.
11:17:10 So I want to know where the relief under the 17.5-7-4,
11:17:16 that they are asking this council to give.
11:17:27 >>ERNEST MUELLER: I am going to try to answer your
11:17:29 question, Mr. Miranda, which of the hardship criteria
11:17:31 were met.
11:17:32 And there was quite a bit of discussion by the board.
11:17:38 And really what they found -- actually looking for the
11:17:40 quote -- is that none of the criteria had been met.
11:17:45 In fact I am going to look for the quote.
11:17:54 Is that board member LaBour said, I move to deny.
11:17:58 I'm sorry, bottom of page 54.

11:18:02 And we will be going on to page 55.
11:18:05 Madam Chairman, I move to deny location VRB-07-78,
11:18:14 common location 2404-2438 west prospect to increase the
11:18:20 height of a fence from 6 feet to 14 feet.
11:18:23 Hardship criteria has not been met.
11:18:26 And if you look earlier on in their discussions, you
11:18:31 will find that actually went through a bit of this, one
11:18:42 of the things is they had no documentation.
11:18:44 They noted that there was no documentation of a noise
11:18:47 level that had been presented to them as to what the
11:18:49 noise level is, that the 14-foot fence was not
11:18:55 characteristic of the neighborhood, that other
11:18:58 neighborhoods abut the railroad, and there is no
11:19:02 drawings of the fence, that they weren't exactly sure
11:19:10 that this neighborhood -- that the condition was unique
11:19:15 to the neighborhood, that they could use the land in
11:19:19 question, and that there were other ways to address the
11:19:23 security and safety issues.
11:19:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, along with that, I
11:19:28 certainly feel I can't be a mediator on something that
11:19:31 I guess was presented, and I'm assuming is presented to
11:19:34 the VRB for 14 feet, and now we are hearing a reduction

11:19:38 of 10 feet.
11:19:40 That's not our position here.
11:19:43 We are here on appeal P.I can't mediate something that
11:19:45 was done by another tribunal to vent the opportunities
11:19:51 of the petitioner.
11:19:52 I have nothing for or against either side.
11:19:54 But what I am trying to get at, Mr. Chairman, is where
11:19:58 am I at today legally to make these decisions to not
11:20:04 further complicate the issues that we haven't had so
11:20:06 that we can all understand what we are doing?
11:20:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Chairman, just to get this off
11:20:20 the dime, I think there's room for compromise here.
11:20:22 For one thing, I think the folks who oppose this -- and
11:20:26 I am not going to even ask Mr. Mechanik, but I think
11:20:31 the folks who oppose this, they don't care what's
11:20:33 happening on the Crosstown side.
11:20:34 They can't see it.
11:20:35 Nobody can see it unless you are going up and down the
11:20:39 Crosstown.
11:20:39 And then we are kind of getting used to that as a
11:20:41 society that there's going to be big barrier walls
11:20:43 along our freeways.

11:20:45 So I think that that I shall -- issue is relatively
11:20:49 new.
11:20:49 The key issue is what do we do on the bottom there?
11:20:52 What do we do along that part of prospect that abuts
11:20:55 the apartment complex?
11:20:57 And I think the 14 feet is unreasonable, perhaps the
11:21:01 folks who live over there on Carolina, I can understand
11:21:03 that, if they walk around their neighborhood and this F
11:21:06 they go up Neptune, and they do have the ability to go
11:21:09 up Neptune all the way to that 2438 west prospect
11:21:15 corner.
11:21:15 That is a walkable corner.
11:21:17 When you go up Neptune.
11:21:19 So what I am going to suggest is to reverse the
11:21:23 decision, respectfully remand it back to the VRB.
11:21:27 By the way, Charlie, I do believe if you look at the
11:21:30 hardship criteria, it says if a variance is granted,
11:21:34 number 3, will not substantially interfere with the
11:21:38 health, safety and welfare of those whose properties
11:21:41 will be affected by the allowance of the variance.
11:21:43 I can understand they felt it would be interfered with
11:21:46 at 14 feet but I'm hopeful that perhaps if we mediate

11:21:49 that, moderate that a little bit down to 10 feet, that
11:21:53 it hopefully will find that it's less interference.
11:21:56 So my motion is to remand it back for consideration --
11:22:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Need to close the public hearing.
11:22:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
11:22:07 >> Second.
11:22:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So moved and ordered.
11:22:09 >> I move to remand this back with consideration that
11:22:12 respectful consideration that the petitioner come back
11:22:15 with a modified plan, allowing the 14 feet on the
11:22:19 Crosstown leg, and reducing his request down to 10 feet
11:22:25 on the southern leg along the apartment complex.
11:22:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:22:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion moved and seconded.
11:22:33 >>MARY MULHERN: I have a question on the motion just
11:22:37 for legal because I have a short attention span.
11:22:39 Did you say -- okay, these rules we have, we are basing
11:22:44 our decision on them only having to meet one criteria?
11:22:49 Is that correct?
11:22:55 Because we changed the rule about what the criteria --
11:22:59 what criteria had to be met.
11:23:00 We are voting on -- we are voting that, as Mr.

11:23:09 Dingfelder just said, if we think they meet one of the
11:23:13 criteria, that's all they have to do to get the
11:23:19 variance?
11:23:26 >>STEVE MICHELINI: If I could for point of
11:23:27 clarification.
11:23:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: No.
11:23:28 >> I just want to put you put in there where it starts
11:23:34 and stops.
11:23:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Michelini, the public hearing is
11:23:37 closed.
11:23:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The east-west stretch.
11:23:41 >>> I just wanted to get a little clarification.
11:23:47 The way it reads is that actually doesn't say, as Mr.
11:23:51 Dingfelder pointed out, doesn't say it has to meet one
11:23:54 of them.
11:23:55 Just says they have to be considered.
11:23:59 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
11:24:00 So we are voting on whether all of those were
11:24:06 considered by the Variance Review Board?
11:24:11 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Remember what the criteria is, number
11:24:13 one.
11:24:14 Is there constant substantial evidence to support the

11:24:17 VRB's decision?
11:24:21 Two, is it supported by the parties?
11:24:25 Three, were the essential requirements of law followed
11:24:27 by the VRB?
11:24:29 That's your criteria, but you also have the ability
11:24:32 through your discussions -- pondering that you can
11:24:36 either, A, affirm the decision of the board, reverse
11:24:41 it, or remand it back for more information.
11:24:45 Or for any modification you deem appropriate.
11:24:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's a motion on the floor.
11:24:54 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
11:24:56 Opposed same sign.
11:24:59 Moved and ordered.
11:25:00 Okay.
11:25:07 Remanded back.
11:25:10 Let me move to the committee reports.
11:25:14 Council, good observation, I want to point out at this
11:25:16 time.
11:25:17 That's why I think it's important to take a look at our
11:25:19 agenda.
11:25:19 We could spend an hour on these appeals.
11:25:21 That's why I say we have to start setting these appeals

11:25:23 at 1:30 so we get all the morning things out. Way so
11:25:27 we don't keep staff here all morning.
11:25:29 I just wanted to make that observation.
11:25:32 Public safety.
11:25:33 Gwen Miller.
11:25:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Move 8 through 10.
11:25:38 >> Second.
11:25:39 (Motion carried).
11:25:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Parks, recreation, councilwoman
11:25:43 Saul-Sena.
11:25:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move resolutions 11
11:25:46 through 14.
11:25:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
11:25:48 (Motion carried).
11:25:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Public works, councilman Charlie
11:25:54 Miranda.
11:25:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move item 15 through 21.
11:25:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:25:58 (Motion carried).
11:26:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Finance Committee chairman Mary
11:26:07 Mulhern.
11:26:07 >>MARY MULHERN: I move items number 22 through 32, 33

11:26:20 moved, right?
11:26:21 >>THE CLERK: With the substitutions on 23, 24.
11:26:25 >>MARY MULHERN: I move items 22 through 32 with
11:26:29 substitutions for 23, 24.
11:26:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 25 is out.
11:26:36 >>MARY MULHERN: And 25 in one month.
11:26:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just wanted to recognize two
11:26:46 excellent public servants as related to item 24.
11:26:49 The first is Jake Slater, who is in the audience.
11:26:57 Jake, stand up and be recognized.
11:26:59 We appreciate all of your hard work starting at TPD,
11:27:04 and then going over to business and tax management for
11:27:08 the last couple of years, and now he's going to be
11:27:10 heading up code enforcement.
11:27:13 So, anyway, I just wanted to recognize all your hard
11:27:17 work.
11:27:17 I agree with the mayor 100% in this promotion and this
11:27:21 consolidation.
11:27:22 Congratulations.
11:27:23 In my opinion.
11:27:24 >>> Good morning, council.
11:27:26 Thank you very much.

11:27:26 I'm very excited and very anxious to get over there.
11:27:32 Actually working with the city going on 35 years.
11:27:34 I actually live in the City of Tampa.
11:27:36 It's my home.
11:27:36 This is where I live, where I shop, this is where I
11:27:39 work at.
11:27:40 I'm excited to actually be a part of code enforcement
11:27:45 and business tax division.
11:27:46 Thank you for all your support.
11:27:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I also wanted to recognize Curtis
11:27:51 Lane hobby don't think is here, also did TPD and then
11:27:55 did a Yeoman's job on code enforcement.
11:27:57 Really got that department into great shape and leaving
11:28:00 it for Jake in great shape.
11:28:02 Curtis has done a wonderful job.
11:28:05 He's a tremendous public servant.
11:28:07 As a matter of fact, I would like to bring him back for
11:28:09 commendation two weeks from now, if he will graciously
11:28:13 join us. Anyway, I will just do that as a little side
11:28:17 motion after we move these other items.
11:28:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And I was going to bring up once we
11:28:23 carried the motion, but that's fine.

11:28:24 Thank you.
11:28:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was going to similarly say how
11:28:29 pleased we are to have you in this position.
11:28:31 And I had a chance as many of us had to talk with him
11:28:34 prior to today, particularly demolition by neglect has
11:28:38 been identified by the preservation community as a most
11:28:44 insidious form of loss of our historic structures, the
11:28:47 Maas Brothers building a fine example of that.
11:28:50 And I know that Mr. Slater is going to really focus on
11:28:53 not allowing demolitions on neglect in the future.
11:28:55 So thank you.
11:28:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's a motion.
11:28:57 And we have pulled items 33 and what's the other one?
11:29:02 25 has been dealt with.
11:29:05 So the only one you are pulling is 33.
11:29:08 All right.
11:29:10 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm not pulling it.
11:29:12 >>THE CLERK: 25 and 33 have already been heard.
11:29:17in favor of the motion
11:29:18 by saying Aye.
11:29:19 Opposed same sign.
11:29:20 So moved and ordered.
11:29:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll move a commendation for Curtis

11:29:25 Lane two weeks from now.
11:29:27 >> Second.
11:29:28 (Motion carried).
11:29:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Joseph Caetano, building
11:29:35 and zoning.
11:29:36 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I want to move items 34 to 50.
11:29:41 I want to point out on item 42, new Tampa, Inc., is
11:29:45 donate something property to the City of Tampa.
11:29:47 I believe this property is going to be sold to
11:29:50 Hillsborough County for a retention pond for the
11:29:52 widening of Bruce B. Downs.
11:29:55 And I was hoping that we can get a dog park in there,
11:30:00 because every day I get calls from people who are
11:30:03 looking for a dog park.
11:30:06 And Mr. King was donating land near the expressway but
11:30:13 I understand it's been tied up in legal for a couple
11:30:15 years.
11:30:15 I don't know why.
11:30:16 But we need to look into that to find out why.
11:30:19 So we move those items from 34 to 50.
11:30:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
11:30:25 (Motion carried).

11:30:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Transportation.
11:30:30 Councilman John Dingfelder.
11:30:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's my pleasure to move items 51
11:30:37 through 60.
11:30:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:30:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor let it be known by Aye.
11:30:45 Opposed same sign.
11:30:47 So moved and ordered.
11:30:48 Items set for public hearing by council, consent, 161.
11:30:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Move 61.
11:30:55 >> Second.
11:30:56 (Motion carried).
11:30:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So moved and ordered.
11:31:10 Okay.
11:31:11 What do we have pulled, just the one item?
11:31:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We have continued public hearing.
11:31:42 All the others are staff reports under unfinished
11:31:46 business.
11:31:46 Okay.
11:31:48 Public hearings.
11:31:49 Proposed ordinance.
11:31:55 8 want to do staff reports?

11:32:00 They have been here all morning.
11:32:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
11:32:05 That's fine.
11:32:06 Come up.
11:32:08 Take up item 62 page 12.
11:32:21 >> Item 62.
11:32:22 Is anyone here?
11:32:23 >> That's a report from the Sports Authority.
11:32:25 You should have a written report.
11:32:31 I have given that to you.
11:32:32 However, I did respond.
11:32:34 He sent a letter.
11:32:35 In his letter, he says evidently it's their policy not
11:32:38 to appear before another government entity or body
11:32:41 without the approval of the board.
11:32:44 And my consultation with that, which I find strange,
11:32:50 that this council funds one third of the budget,
11:32:53 shortfall, I find it interesting, and it's my
11:32:57 understanding that it's not a part of their policy.
11:32:59 However, I did respond in a letter of writing to him,
11:33:03 that I was appalled at that, because City Council is
11:33:08 another government body, an agency, requesting his

11:33:13 appearance, and to wait to get full approval from the
11:33:16 board is -- I didn't quite understand.
11:33:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We fund their deficit?
11:33:24 >> Yes.
11:33:24 But I responded with a letter.
11:33:27 I can give you a copy of that. I did respond in
11:33:28 deference to that, because I just think that to me it
11:33:33 shows disrespect for this body.
11:33:36 With that being said, you do have a written report.
11:33:38 Okay.
11:33:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 62 I move the resolution.
11:33:42 63.
11:33:42 I move the resolution.
11:33:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 63 has been pulled by councilwoman
11:33:48 Mary Mulhern.
11:33:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: With regard to item 62 then, your
11:33:52 action taken to receive and file this document then?
11:33:56 And move on?
11:33:57 >> Yes, yes.
11:33:59 >> So moved.
11:34:00 >> Second.
11:34:00 (Motion carried).

11:34:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 63.
11:34:03 Pulled by councilwoman Mary Mulhern.
11:34:07 >>MARY MULHERN: I asked to pull it but it had already
11:34:10 been put on staff reports.
11:34:11 Is that right?
11:34:13 >> Yes.
11:34:13 >>MARY MULHERN: I didn't realize it.
11:34:15 I thought you had moved it.
11:34:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let's hear from John.
11:34:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let's hear.
11:34:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll second the motion.
11:34:27 >>> Jan McLean, legal department, item 63.
11:34:32 I wanted to make sure a little housekeeping.
11:34:35 I have been watching the council, and I believe that
11:34:37 the substituted memorandum of agreement was accepted.
11:34:43 Just want to make sure that that was completed.
11:34:48 What we have before you for your approval is a
11:35:15 memorandum of understanding between the city,
11:35:19 Hillsborough County, Tampa Electric Company, and the
11:35:26 corporation.
11:35:26 I met with each one of you to put the MOU in context
11:35:31 with the project which will be on screen.

11:35:34 I apologize.
11:35:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me just raise a question.
11:35:38 There are any particular by the council?
11:35:42 She has met with us.
11:35:44 We have all been briefed.
11:35:45 Are there any particular questions you want to raise
11:35:46 with her?
11:35:47 >>MARY MULHERN: I do.
11:35:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
11:35:52 >>MARY MULHERN: I just wanted to talk about this a
11:35:55 little bit, that it's a huge project that the city is
11:35:58 committing to.
11:36:01 Did read the memorandum of understanding.
11:36:03 I'm trying to find it.
11:36:06 And I had a lot of questions.
11:36:12 I also wanted to point out that this council has been
11:36:14 asking the administration for a year about reclaimed
11:36:20 water and what plans we had.
11:36:22 And we haven't been briefed on any of this.
11:36:24 We haven't had any proposal until we suddenly are
11:36:27 asked to sign a memorandum of understanding which
11:36:30 commits us pretty much, from what I can read, to going

11:36:35 into this partnership with the county, TECO, and
11:36:42 mosaic, and basically promising them that we will
11:36:48 commit all of our reclaimed water that is not
11:36:52 currently being used to them.
11:36:55 And I just think that's a huge thing.
11:36:57 It sounds like a fantastic thing.
11:36:59 I think it's going to be a great thing if we can do
11:37:02 this.
11:37:02 It sounds lick a good environmental thing.
11:37:05 On the surface.
11:37:05 But I'm not ready to sign a memorandum, an MOU,
11:37:12 memorandum of understanding, especially with the
11:37:14 experience this council has had before where -- and I
11:37:17 wasn't here.
11:37:18 A lot of us weren't on council.
11:37:19 But that was pushed through, signed on a consent
11:37:25 agenda, and I don't think people realized exactly what
11:37:27 they were agreeing to.
11:37:29 And I just don't feel comfortable.
11:37:31 I appreciated your briefing.
11:37:34 It was great.
11:37:34 But there was a lot of questions I have about, you

11:37:37 know, putting reclaimed -- I mean, all kinds of
11:37:41 different things.
11:37:41 You want us to put reclaimed -- put our reclaimed
11:37:44 water into groundwater, recharging over, in
11:37:50 Hillsborough County, the city, giving, you know, the
11:37:54 reclaimed water to mosaic, and what are we going to
11:37:58 get out of this?
11:37:59 How much is it going to cost?
11:38:01 What's it going to mean for all the areas of the city
11:38:03 that have been asking for reclaimed water?
11:38:06 How much of it is going on?
11:38:08 There's a lot of questions.
11:38:09 And I haven't had time to even write up all of my
11:38:14 questions in the one day I have had to consider this
11:38:19 huge contract.
11:38:20 Because that's basically what it is.
11:38:22 I don't know what else you call it.
11:38:24 You call it a memorandum of understanding.
11:38:25 But we are signing to and agreeing to a lot in this.
11:38:30 And I think -- I'm getting it's going to be a great
11:38:33 thing if it goes forward.
11:38:35 But I'm not ready to say that the city, and our

11:38:41 constituents, are ready to enter into this without
11:38:44 hearing anything about it.
11:38:45 And that's the other thing.
11:38:46 There's been no public even description of what we are
11:38:50 planning to do.
11:38:51 No public hearing.
11:38:52 And I'm especially concerned when we talk about the
11:38:56 funding and the finance we are talking about getting
11:38:59 money, you know, through the state for this project.
11:39:02 Well, you know what?
11:39:04 The legislature is more than willing to give, you
11:39:07 know, a lot of money to private interests.
11:39:09 And without them having the public hearing, the open
11:39:13 government that we have here.
11:39:15 So I just have all kinds of questions.
11:39:17 I hope I'm not out on my own planet again.
11:39:20 I hope I have some support here.
11:39:22 But just to ask for a continuance so that we can
11:39:27 present -- I can at least present my questions so that
11:39:31 the public can hear about what this plan is, and I'm
11:39:35 going to do some research and talk to some people, you
11:39:40 know.

11:39:40 I haven't even heard from Charlie Miranda.
11:39:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: You will.
11:39:45 >>MARY MULHERN: I know.
11:39:49 And I'm guessing that Charlie knew about this.
11:39:53 Jan McLean: If I could maybe I could help you out,
11:39:57 without interrupting.
11:39:57 Because one of your first issues that you raised is
11:40:02 not accurate with regard to the MOU.
11:40:04 We are not committing to anything.
11:40:06 We are not committing our water.
11:40:08 We are not committing our funds.
11:40:10 We are committing our time, and we are putting the
11:40:13 city at the table for the discussion of whether the
11:40:18 city would provide its water and if the city would
11:40:24 provide its water at what cost and at what obligation.
11:40:26 And at in a point in time does this MOU obligate the
11:40:30 city without coming back in front of council to have
11:40:34 your input, to have that public airing.
11:40:37 What this does is commit the city to be a part of the
11:40:40 negotiations.
11:40:42 And without being a part of the negotiation, the city
11:40:45 may find itself in a position where it is leveraged to

11:40:49 be outside of the negotiations.
11:40:51 >> Right.
11:40:53 >>> And your reclaimed water would be subject to being
11:40:56 taken.
11:40:58 To being considered by others as part of a larger
11:41:03 resource project.
11:41:04 So I just wanted to clarify that with regard to
11:41:07 commitment.
11:41:08 >>MARY MULHERN: I understand.
11:41:10 And that's what you are telling us, and that's what
11:41:13 I've heard this before.
11:41:14 But when I look, I have lots of yellow lines in here.
11:41:19 And that's just, you know, from having a little bit of
11:41:22 time to look at it.
11:41:24 But under three, city and county reclaimed water, A,
11:41:29 it is the intent of the parties that nothing shall
11:41:32 impede the use of the city or county reclaimed water
11:41:34 for the project.
11:41:36 Nothing can impede it?
11:41:38 That sounds like a commitment to me.
11:41:43 And under D, such agreement shall include but not be
11:41:46 limited to -- limited to quantities, timing of

11:41:50 delivery, and costs to be paid therefor.
11:41:56 We are going to get this agreement.
11:41:57 But in the meantime, you are not even giving us an
11:42:02 estimate of what you are talking about.
11:42:03 >>> Well, what this does, it gives the city, the chair
11:42:09 of the table, to go and discuss these issues, and very
11:42:12 critical issues, and that's why you spell them out in
11:42:14 the MOU, put the other parties on notice, that these
11:42:17 are the issues that are important, among other things,
11:42:21 to the city to be discussed and incorporated into a
11:42:24 potential water supply agreement, that you would have
11:42:28 action on.
11:42:28 >>MARY MULHERN: Right.
11:42:30 But from my looking at this, we are committing to more
11:42:33 than just discussion.
11:42:35 We are cutting off investigating anything else,
11:42:39 without ever even having an answer.
11:42:42 Joseph Caetano asked a few weeks ago about why we
11:42:45 can't get reclaimed water up in his neighborhood,
11:42:49 because the people across the street have it.
11:42:53 We haven't even got an answer on that.
11:42:55 So I just don't feel ready to do this.

11:42:57 And I don't think we have time right now, because I
11:42:59 think it's legitimate for me to have some questions,
11:43:02 and we don't have time to go through them right now.
11:43:05 We have got how many other items?
11:43:07 100 other items on the agenda today.
11:43:09 So I would like to move to continue this, at least for
11:43:14 two weeks until our next regular council meeting.
11:43:17 >> Second.
11:43:21 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.
11:43:22 So we can have public hearing, noticed public hearing
11:43:24 on it, and so that I can figure out what you want me
11:43:29 to sign.
11:43:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me raise a question.
11:43:32 Is this time sensitive?
11:43:39 >>> Jan McLean: It is time sensitive in that the city
11:43:43 has the source of water that is being considered in a
11:43:47 larger project.
11:43:49 Absolutely true.
11:43:52 The people that are proposing the larger project and
11:43:55 including the first phase have submitted an
11:43:57 application for cooperative funding to the water
11:43:59 management district.

11:44:02 If the water management district -- if the city wants
11:44:05 to be a party to the negotiations under this project,
11:44:14 then we need to act on it sooner rather than later.
11:44:19 Is it fatal to negotiation ifs we don't pass it today?
11:44:22 I can't stand in front of you to say that it is.
11:44:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena, councilman
11:44:29 Dingfelder, and councilman Miranda.
11:44:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mary, I have an idea.
11:44:34 The 9:00 meeting next Thursday was canceled, the
11:44:38 responsible employer ordinance, so we have a little
11:44:41 time slot then under our workshop session.
11:44:43 Perhaps we could have -- we could reschedule it for
11:44:47 then.
11:44:47 That would address your concern about time
11:44:49 sensitivity, and it would address our concerns for
11:44:53 more information.
11:44:53 I asked many of these questions when we met.
11:44:56 And to me the overarching question is, if we make a
11:45:00 commitment of our water, which we now recognize as
11:45:04 valuable, how would it impact us 30 years down the
11:45:08 line?
11:45:08 What are our plans, long-term, in-depth for our water?

11:45:12 You said this is something we are working on.
11:45:14 I think that's really maybe the critical piece of the
11:45:17 information, is what kind of commitment would we be
11:45:21 making?
11:45:22 It seems to make sense.
11:45:24 It seems like it would be a very positive enterprise
11:45:28 for us to participate in.
11:45:29 So I would like the maker of the motion to consider
11:45:33 her concern and maybe we could discuss it more in
11:45:35 depth next Thursday at 9:00.
11:45:38 >>MARY MULHERN: Can I say something to that?
11:45:43 >>> Can I inter ject in there's in a commitment of
11:45:47 water.
11:45:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Our time is getting away.
11:45:49 It almost 12.
11:45:50 >>MARY MULHERN: We might be able to vote if I can ask.
11:45:54 I'm talking about having a public hearing on this.
11:45:57 I would rather have it be a staff agenda item.
11:46:00 But if we are going to put it on the workshop is that
11:46:02 enough time to make the public notice requirement?
11:46:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Public notice requirement is not an
11:46:08 issue.

11:46:09 The issue is whether the administration can be able to
11:46:11 be responsive within such a short period of time.
11:46:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder, then councilman
11:46:19 Miranda.
11:46:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: First let me speak to the merits of
11:46:24 this thing.
11:46:26 I have been aware of this thing for awhile.
11:46:28 Just rumors and scuttlebutt around town.
11:46:34 Overall it sounds like a good idea.
11:46:36 Sounds like a good regional plan.
11:46:38 I think that the generalized notion is they would take
11:46:43 a portion of the treated sewage water that we
11:46:48 currently dump into the bay.
11:46:51 Okay?
11:46:51 And that treated sewage water that we currently dump
11:46:53 into the bay is extremely high in nitrogen.
11:46:56 And it's not good for the bay.
11:46:59 And so generally speaking, I think that it's a good
11:47:02 idea if on a regional basis we can sell this thing,
11:47:06 this water, and dumping into the bay, and the critters
11:47:12 don't give us any input when we dump it into the bay
11:47:14 but we can sell it to this project so we actually make

11:47:17 money that we never would have considered making
11:47:18 before.
11:47:22 Our current reclaimed water project, the star project,
11:47:25 is not doing so well, and it only uses a fraction of
11:47:29 the water that we generate out of the sewage facility.
11:47:34 So, anyway, I think this is a win-win.
11:47:37 But in deference to Mrs. Mulhern, she has some
11:47:40 questions, she has some concerns, perhaps there's
11:47:43 people in the community that are have contacted her
11:47:45 and have concerns.
11:47:46 You know, I think one week is not going to make or
11:47:49 break this thing.
11:47:50 Because I know for a fact that these discussions have
11:47:52 been banging around for about two years.
11:47:54 So I think if we can continue it for a week, it not
11:47:59 going to be a public hearing per se, but we can
11:48:02 continue it for a week, put it on our workshop agenda,
11:48:05 and that knew space that's created, allow for 30
11:48:09 minutes of public comment at the end of that workshop,
11:48:11 so the public, if anybody wants to comment on it, can.
11:48:14 And then be prepared to move this forward.
11:48:17 I think we should move it forward.

11:48:19 As an attorney I will tell you a memorandum of
11:48:20 understanding is not a commitment.
11:48:24 I mean it's an agreement to get along.
11:48:26 Okay?
11:48:27 And it's an agreement to consider discussions, and to
11:48:32 move this project one more step forward, but it's not
11:48:35 anything that anybody commits to, there's no lawsuits
11:48:37 involved, if we backed away from it a year from now.
11:48:40 So with all that said, Ms. Saul-Sena, I think, made a
11:48:44 motion to continue it for a week, to the 9:00 workshop
11:48:47 next week, set it up for a workshop, allow for public
11:48:50 comment at the end of it, in deference to Mrs. Mulhern
11:48:53 I'll second that motion.
11:48:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11:48:59 A memorandum of understanding, I agree with the
11:49:01 attorney John Dingfelder, is like being pre-engaged
11:49:06 without a ring.
11:49:08 In other words, there's in a engagement party yet.
11:49:10 If we don't have this signed, we are not part of the
11:49:17 parties discussing our own asset.
11:49:19 And let me warn all of us, there are individuals out
11:49:22 there in the private sector that are luring to take

11:49:28 this water without us collecting one cent.
11:49:30 Not one penny.
11:49:33 There are leaders in the State of Florida who are
11:49:36 drafting legislation that could dampen the City of
11:49:44 Tampa's reclaimed water issues, and take it away from
11:49:47 us for distribution to the region without one penny to
11:49:52 the citizens who create it.
11:49:54 This is a very important issue.
11:49:57 This is to give our legal department and those that
11:49:59 are involved in reclaimed a seat at the table so that
11:50:04 they can protect the citizens of the City of Tampa.
11:50:10 Let me talk about reclaimed and why it's where it at
11:50:13 just for a second, Mr. Chairman.
11:50:15 When we did this some years ago, it was anticipated
11:50:20 that 8,000 people would sign up, due to the costing
11:50:25 factor that was kind of on the high side of reclaimed
11:50:28 versus potable water.
11:50:29 We didn't have 8,000 people.
11:50:31 We had maybe 1800, 1900.
11:50:34 This administration has been working just as hard as
11:50:35 the other to get that up to the 8,000.
11:50:38 They have up to somewhere around 3,000.

11:50:41 But it not their fault that this hasn't gotten any
11:50:43 further.
11:50:44 Let me explain that.
11:50:46 When the original pipe was dug from that side of the
11:50:50 bay to this side of the bay, and I don't know how they
11:50:53 did that because I ain't that smart, the reclaimed
11:50:56 system started, the main trunk line.
11:50:58 The distribution.
11:50:59 However, during all of that, there was debris that
11:51:03 went into the lines.
11:51:06 That debris now has grown, where you have an oak tree
11:51:10 maybe, 2 X 4, something is blocking the system.
11:51:16 So for us to continue to sign up individuals in our
11:51:20 great city for reclaimed water, no benefits because
11:51:25 the water is not going to get there because it has a
11:51:28 distribution power to get there because there's a
11:51:30 lawsuit that's been milling around, and from what I
11:51:32 have heard, that should be settled sometime in the
11:51:34 fall.
11:51:35 After that, the reclaimed system is, understood the
11:51:42 administration, set to do first some large users of
11:51:48 water -- the airport, a couple of malls, the hospital,

11:51:54 the Buccaneers, things of that nature.
11:51:57 There's about seven or eight.
11:51:58 Some of those projects along Boy Scout Boulevard.
11:52:01 We currently use about 1.5 million gallons of
11:52:04 reclaimed water.
11:52:05 Now you go look at the other side.
11:52:08 They are saying, well, City of Tampa is sitting on
11:52:10 their duffers, they throw out 55 million and use 1.5,
11:52:14 why don't we take it from them?
11:52:17 I have met with some of those high-ranking officials,
11:52:20 and I told them, that wasn't part of governance.
11:52:26 Only water, not reclaimed water.
11:52:27 But you know what? With the stroke of a pen, from the
11:52:29 legislature and so forth and so on, you are going to
11:52:32 lose the most valuable asset you have, and you only
11:52:34 have one shot at this, not two.
11:52:37 Only one.
11:52:39 For me to vote against putting this on, whether I know
11:52:42 something about it or not, is not germane to the
11:52:46 question.
11:52:46 Because what you are voting on is giving the
11:52:49 administration and the legal department the right to

11:52:51 be at the table to protect each and every one of us.
11:52:55 What about the pricing?
11:52:56 What about the metering?
11:52:58 What about resale from them to somebody else?
11:53:01 Those are the things that the legal department will
11:53:03 have to work on to make sure that this is not a
11:53:08 giveaway.
11:53:09 And if we don't sit at that table, you are going to be
11:53:13 sorry, but I'm not going to be part of being sorry.
11:53:16 I will tell you now that hi won't support this for
11:53:19 another weak or another two weeks, because those
11:53:22 individuals that are just circling around us, those
11:53:26 Ospreys and those eagles to make their next meal, is
11:53:29 not going to be off my back.
11:53:31 I can tell you that this is a very, very important
11:53:33 issue.
11:53:34 And if I know nothing at all about reclaimed water or
11:53:37 water itself, I will support this for my own
11:53:43 satisfaction that I have done the right thing.
11:53:46 It's like taking a flu shot.
11:53:49 You protect yourself against something that might be
11:53:51 come.

11:53:51 And without taking that shot, without giving the legal
11:53:54 department and the administration the opportunity to
11:53:57 sit at that table will be an injustice to yourself.
11:54:01 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11:54:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Miranda, you said it well because I
11:54:08 feel the same way.
11:54:09 I don't think we need to wait either.
11:54:10 The longer you wait, I think the sooner the better
11:54:15 that we can get our seat at that table, be there, know
11:54:19 what's going on, make the decisions, they are going to
11:54:21 benefit us and we need all the benefit and help that
11:54:24 we can get.
11:54:24 And I think it's good to go forward.
11:54:28 Listen to Ms. McLean and she explained it very well.
11:54:32 I understood it well.
11:54:33 She told me everything I need to know.
11:54:36 She knew just what needs to be done and I know we need
11:54:40 to move forward and I will not support holding it
11:54:42 another week.
11:54:43 I say we need to go forward with it.
11:54:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, let me just say to all of us,
11:54:48 this is a very important issue.

11:54:50 I think councilman Miranda has said it well.
11:54:55 I think councilman Dingfelder said it.
11:54:57 There's in a need for me to be redundant.
11:55:02 However, I am a firm believer in giver the
11:55:07 opportunities an opportunity to ask and get their
11:55:09 questions answered.
11:55:11 I am going to support the motion.
11:55:12 However, I want the motion to include that we vote on
11:55:14 this issue, though, on Thursday.
11:55:16 That we vote on it on Thursday.
11:55:18 Okay?
11:55:19 And again, as said, it is just simply an opportunity
11:55:22 to be at the table.
11:55:25 And so I am giving deference to my colleague, because
11:55:29 the question that she thinks she needs to be answered,
11:55:33 so I am going to afford her the opportunity to get
11:55:36 those questions answered so that she can be satisfied.
11:55:39 And on Thursday, though, I will be voting supporting
11:55:41 this because I think it is important to move forward
11:55:45 on this memorandum of understanding.
11:55:47 It's an opportunity to sit down at the table while you
11:55:50 are cutting up the pie and you are talking about how

11:55:52 you are going to make it and everything else.
11:55:55 Okay.
11:55:55 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.
11:55:57 I appreciate your support on this.
11:56:00 And it's obvious -- I started out by saying it lass
11:56:08 like a great thing, and I'll probably vote for it,
11:56:10 too.
11:56:11 However, when we are told -- when we get two days and
11:56:14 then you tell us, oh, but you have to vote it tomorrow
11:56:17 and you give us this contract, I think the city legal
11:56:21 department has something to do with this contract.
11:56:23 So I'm glad that John is privy to rumors and
11:56:26 scuttlebutt and that Charlie is on Tampa Bay water,
11:56:31 and knows everything already.
11:56:33 But I don't.
11:56:33 And I would appreciate being able to make decisions
11:56:39 and vote according, you know, what I think is in the
11:56:43 benefit of my constituents.
11:56:44 So, you know, we want to talk about how we have got to
11:56:47 have public hearings at our workshop.
11:56:50 But we get this biggest, you know, plan, commitment,
11:56:53 and it is a commitment, and if you want to read this

11:56:58 you will see that it is.
11:56:59 And if you have been here even for the short year I
11:57:03 have been here, you will know that a memorandum of
11:57:06 understanding can come back and bite.
11:57:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
11:57:10 Councilman Miranda.
11:57:11 Then we have to move it.
11:57:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have just want to clear the
11:57:14 record.
11:57:14 This has nothing to do with Tampa Bay water.
11:57:16 Not at all.
11:57:17 Not one drop of water belongs to Tampa Bay water.
11:57:21 But if when don't move it may all be lost to Tampa Bay
11:57:25 water or another entity.
11:57:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I have a motion on the floor.
11:57:28 All in favor of the motion signify by saying Aye.
11:57:30 Opposed same sign.
11:57:36 Okay.
11:57:37 It is about 2 minutes to 12.
11:57:38 Let's try to pick up a couple more items and then
11:57:40 break for lunch.
11:57:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY:

11:57:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just so the public is clear this is
11:57:45 being set for the 9:00 time slot in the workshop.
11:57:48 30 minutes of public comment to follow.
11:57:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
11:57:52 Item 64.
11:57:56 Chief Dennis Jones, and Ms. Miller.
11:58:06 >> He has been here since 8:30.
11:58:10 >> Good afternoon.
11:58:12 Thank you, Chairman Scott, members of council.
11:58:14 We have provided you with a letter in response to the
11:58:17 request.
11:58:18 I would say that certainly great progress has been
11:58:21 made in the last year in the new construction area for
11:58:25 the fire department.
11:58:27 And we are prepared to answer any questions that you
11:58:30 have.
11:58:30 We still have a ways to go but there has been great
11:58:33 improvement as indicated in the letter.
11:58:35 And we are certainly here prepared to answer any
11:58:37 questions you may have.
11:58:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I am very eager for your examiners
11:58:45 to have the opportunity to learn there are new

11:58:50 innovative technologies and techniques for dealing
11:58:52 with historic buildings.
11:58:54 Most of our rules deal with new construction and very
11:58:58 contemporary construction techniques.
11:59:01 When you are dealing with a historic building you have
11:59:03 different concerns and complexities.
11:59:04 And I just want some reassurance that your examiners
11:59:10 have a chance to be educated about the new
11:59:13 preservation techniques that are out there, so that we
11:59:16 can make these older buildings fire safe but not
11:59:20 destroy their character by putting in things that are
11:59:22 not appropriate.
11:59:26 That they have had that training or can get that
11:59:28 training or you plan to get them that training.
11:59:31 >>> Understood.
11:59:33 >> Great.
11:59:35 Okay.
11:59:35 >>> And most of the changes have required us to move
11:59:40 new inspectors there.
11:59:41 They have a lot of training that needs to be done to
11:59:43 bring them fully up to speed just to do the basic job.
11:59:46 And included in that we'll certainly include that.

11:59:49 >> I would like to get with you, and I can get the
11:59:51 resources for training.
11:59:53 >>> Okay.
11:59:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?
11:59:56 Need a motion to receive and file, I guess.
12:00:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
12:00:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So moved and ordered.
12:00:06 Thank you for being here.
12:00:07 Sorry it had to be all morning.
12:00:08 Item 65.
12:00:09 This an item that we can come back to, Mr. Miranda,
12:00:15 the legal department?
12:00:18 It's an item that I think you requested.
12:00:20 Is that the one?
12:00:27 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
12:00:28 And this item was a request.
12:00:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We'll come back later.
12:00:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The larger issue is much more
12:00:38 important.
12:00:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, I bring to City
12:00:45 Council's attention -- City Council's attention that
12:00:47 it's the noon hour.

12:00:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I am going to break in just a second
12:00:50 here.
12:00:51 Item 66 has been pulled.
12:00:54 All right.
12:00:54 Off the agenda.
12:00:55 Item 67.
12:01:06 Granting permission to Brian Roberts.
12:01:08 Is there a motion?
12:01:10 Moved and ordered.
12:01:12 68 has been dealt with.
12:01:13 69 again is the resolution approving the petition of
12:01:16 the boy scouts.
12:01:16 >> So moved.
12:01:18 >> Second.
12:01:18 (Motion carried).
12:01:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So moved and ordered.
12:01:23 Item number 70 for some time by the budget analyst.
12:01:31 Do we need to discuss that item?
12:01:33 >> I think we should.
12:01:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We will pick it up after lunch then.
12:01:38 Item 71, that's been pulled, right?
12:01:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's on the agenda for discussion.

12:01:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I could clear that up from today.
12:01:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: If we don't have a long discussion.
12:01:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I would discuss it but I would like
12:01:55 to hold it if I can to after lunch.
12:01:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I am just trying to get rid of those
12:02:00 items we can get out of the way and move on.
12:02:01 Okay?
12:02:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What I would suggest, Charlie, this
12:02:05 might work for both of us, is Mr. Smith has sort of an
12:02:10 opinion that sort of puts it in limbo.
12:02:12 He's not in town today.
12:02:13 What I would suggest is to defer that for two weeks.
12:02:19 If you don't like that --
12:02:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: It's not that I don't like it.
12:02:24 Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dingfelder, I don't know if the
12:02:26 legal department reviewed this.
12:02:27 I see special assistant, city attorney, the main
12:02:30 thrust of the operation here, and that's a lawsuit
12:02:34 that's in the court system, I believe, that if you can
12:02:37 have less served than the amount, and there's also
12:02:42 litigation from the United States supreme court on an
12:02:44 issue versus -- it was -- it started with R. Russell

12:02:53 or somebody versus Stouffer or something like that.
12:02:55 I don't have all the information here.
12:02:59 And it talks all about that.
12:03:00 I really wanted to discuss it.
12:03:02 But I wanted to discuss about Lawton Chiles, what he
12:03:05 did, I want to discuss the right you have the right to
12:03:08 go with zero.
12:03:09 I don't want to take that right away from you.
12:03:11 You want to run for office you can do it.
12:03:13 And I want to discuss all the CPI.
12:03:14 I want to go into full detail about this.
12:03:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What I would like to do since there
12:03:19 are legal matters is defer it for two weeks till David
12:03:22 can be here and give us the city attorney opinion.
12:03:25 That's why I would rather not do it today.
12:03:28 Because David is not here.
12:03:29 And these issues are going to come up.
12:03:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: But again, Mr. Chairman, I would
12:03:32 like to present the evidence that I have today,
12:03:34 because it was on the agenda.
12:03:35 People spoke on it today in the audience.
12:03:37 And I didn't have a chance to express.

12:03:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We'll take it up.
12:03:41 We will only pull one item, item 33 off the consent,
12:03:45 is that right? We'll take that up first thing at 1:30
12:03:48 and then we'll continue.
12:03:56 Then we'll continue our agenda at 1:30.
12:03:58 We stand in recess until 1:30.
12:04:01 (City Council in Recess)
12:04:01




Tampa City Council
Thursday, April 17, 2008
1:30 p.m. session


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

13:37:15 [Sounding gavel]
13:37:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Tampa City Council will now come back
13:37:17 into order.
13:37:17 Roll call.
13:37:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
13:37:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
13:37:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
13:37:24 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Here.
13:37:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.
13:37:29 Let me just announce before we move back to our

13:37:31 agenda, as you very well know that on May 1st,
13:37:36 which is the Heros Luncheon, that we all plan on
13:37:41 attending that, and so I have been asked to announce
13:37:44 that we will adjourn at 11:30.
13:37:47 We'll recess at 11:30 on May 1st.
13:37:50 11:30 on May 1st so that we can attend the heroes
13:37:54 luncheon.
13:37:54 I believe at the convention center.
13:37:56 So I announce that.
13:38:01 We want to go back to item 65.
13:38:04 The clerk wasn't sure that we took action on item 65.
13:38:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Yes, we took action on that.
13:38:15 >> That was the banners.
13:38:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I said the legal department, as
13:38:20 long as we continue, we hold the banners up to a later
13:38:23 date.
13:38:27 >>THE CLERK: I don't think we did it in an official
13:38:30 motion to do that.
13:38:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
13:38:32 >> Second.
13:38:32 (Motion carried)
13:38:36 That's item 65.

13:38:37 We are back to item 70.
13:38:44 Item 70.
13:38:45 That is in reference to the hiring of the budget
13:38:47 analyst.
13:38:49 And we have some limited conversation.
13:38:52 My suggestion was that we now do that for this budget
13:38:56 cycle, because it wasn't in there, but we add it to
13:38:59 the budget for next year, and that we use staff use
13:39:03 one from the budget department to help us get through
13:39:06 that.
13:39:06 And since you are the chair of the Finance Committee,
13:39:09 you may want to begin.
13:39:12 >>MARY MULHERN: I think we can get -- not have a big
13:39:16 discussion, or not have too much.
13:39:20 I'm ready to just make a motion to do that, to discuss
13:39:25 not to discuss, but to put it on -- I guess maybe
13:39:30 later agenda to budget for a budget analyst for next
13:39:35 year's budget.
13:39:37 And do that, to help us with that, the job
13:39:46 description, and determining, you know, how we want to
13:39:49 do it, if we want to make it a contract, or time or
13:39:52 whatever.

13:39:54 Maybe we could -- I don't know if we want to get into
13:39:58 those kind of details today.
13:40:00 I don't think so.
13:40:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: My suggestion would be not even make a
13:40:03 motion, that I think you bring it up during the budget
13:40:06 process.
13:40:06 >>MARY MULHERN: Right.
13:40:09 Through the process work on it.
13:40:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Between now and whoever you want to
13:40:12 work with, to draft something so that you can bring it
13:40:15 to us during that time.
13:40:16 >>MARY MULHERN: That's what we'll do.
13:40:18 It will come to us as part of the budget process for
13:40:20 next year, and we'll start working on it soon, because
13:40:23 that's the other thing, is I'm going to talk with
13:40:27 Bonnie and the administration about getting budget
13:40:30 process to us earlier, so we see what, you know, do it
13:40:36 in a more timely fashion.
13:40:37 So we have a chance to look at it.
13:40:39 And then the on the thing I was going to suggest is
13:40:41 that -- I mean, I still -- I like the idea of having a
13:40:47 budget advisory committee.

13:40:48 We could also, you know, put that off until the next
13:40:53 fiscal year, if people -- not a great deal of
13:41:00 enthusiasm about that but I think it would be a good
13:41:02 thing to consider because it would be good for the
13:41:03 administration, too, to hear from the, a little bit --
13:41:10 if we had an advisory committee, sunshine committee,
13:41:12 and one of us appoint -- each of us appointed one
13:41:15 person, and then when we would hear from them it would
13:41:18 also be an opportunity for the administration to see
13:41:20 what kind of reaction we are getting from the public
13:41:22 about budget proposals.
13:41:23 So I think, you know, I like the idea.
13:41:28 You know, I'm going to wait and hear if anybody wants
13:41:30 to pursue it before the next fiscal year.
13:41:34 And I would be willing to do that but I am not going
13:41:37 to make a motion to do that.
13:41:40 I'll wait and hear.
13:41:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
13:41:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
13:41:45 I would be very happy to make a motion that each of us
13:41:47 appoint a person to be an advisory committee, because
13:41:50 this is going to be the most challenging budget we

13:41:53 have ever faced, because of the shortfalls that were
13:41:56 reported in the paper this morning.
13:41:57 And I think that we have we each select individuals
13:42:02 who are very savvy and that can provide good input and
13:42:07 insight and we work with one of Bonnie's staff people
13:42:12 to help with that.
13:42:12 >>MARY MULHERN: I would second that and ask that we
13:42:16 come -- if it passes, that we come back in May, a
13:42:23 month from now, our next council meeting, with ideas
13:42:27 for who we want to appoint.
13:42:33 I think we need to talk to legal, too, about how to
13:42:36 form that committee in the sunshine and make sure we
13:42:39 are doing what we need to do.
13:42:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
13:42:44 Well, certainly I'm not opposed to next year.
13:42:52 I think, as I said two weeks ago, that we should start
13:42:55 the budget process earlier, and discuss that with the
13:42:58 administration to see how we could do that.
13:43:01 I know last year, John, who was councilman Dingfelder
13:43:04 was the chairman and we had meetings over in the Mease
13:43:08 building.
13:43:09 What I suggest is we hold those meetings here, before

13:43:13 council, earlier meeting, and start the budget process
13:43:16 with the chair of that Finance Committee.
13:43:18 I think that to appoint a committee now, to go
13:43:21 further, then of course you have to wait till the
13:43:25 committee brings back your recommendations.
13:43:27 Unless -- while you are going through the process to
13:43:30 hear from them.
13:43:31 I think it would be more advantageous for next year.
13:43:34 That way, as opposed to trying to pull them together
13:43:37 now.
13:43:38 I think when I started the process earlier, holding
13:43:40 those meetings here in these chambers, talking to
13:43:43 staff, here again, talk to the administration and see
13:43:45 if that's possible, and I think that's much more --
13:43:53 >>MARY MULHERN: I am going to be meeting with Bonnie
13:43:55 next week or the following week and we are going to
13:43:57 start doing that.
13:43:57 And we'll work toward -- it will be my intention to
13:44:02 schedule our budget meetings here, to schedule them
13:44:04 earlier, and come back at our next council meeting
13:44:07 with a proposal for that.
13:44:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Chairman, I think what we could

13:44:12 do is, if we wanted to just, on a personal level, as
13:44:17 individual council member perhaps, invite an
13:44:20 individual to come to the meetings, which will be held
13:44:23 here, hear everything, and then advise us, you know,
13:44:26 we could do that, and start training our citizen
13:44:29 volunteers to provide input to us.
13:44:31 I think this is going to be a very challenging year.
13:44:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
13:44:39 Anything else?
13:44:40 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes, so I think the motion would be
13:44:42 that we work within the budget process to budget for a
13:44:45 budget analyst next year, and I think with the
13:44:51 advisory committee, we can bring it up again next
13:44:57 year.
13:44:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I withdraw my motion about an
13:45:01 advisory --
13:45:02 >>MARY MULHERN: Not hearing from anybody else.
13:45:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I just want to say if we are
13:45:09 budgeting on a budget committee I have in a qualms.
13:45:11 However I don't want a to support a budget analyst I.
13:45:16 don't want the two mixed up.
13:45:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: As I understand it, it will be brought

13:45:21 up during the budget process, right?
13:45:24 So that we are just trying to get it on our agenda.
13:45:28 >>MARY MULHERN: And it will be part of the budget when
13:45:30 it's proposed.
13:45:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So it's pretty much to bring up
13:45:34 discussion when we discuss the budget, for next year's
13:45:38 budget.
13:45:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is that the intent of the maker of
13:45:41 the motion?
13:45:42 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes.
13:45:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And you had a second for that, right?
13:45:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Before we move fast -- and I
13:45:50 apologize.
13:45:51 I'll support the motion, definitely in favor of the
13:45:53 motion that we do that for next year's budget cycle,
13:45:57 so we can have the discussion, hopefully adopt that.
13:46:01 When it comes to the budget committee, and Gwen, you
13:46:08 had brought this up last year, actually to suggest
13:46:12 more public -- more community input.
13:46:18 I'm in favor of it.
13:46:19 I think that it would be good to have -- to have
13:46:22 citizen input on probably the most important thing

13:46:24 that we do, which is the budget.
13:46:27 What happens now is, we get really deep into the
13:46:30 budget, and then we have the public hearings, and it's
13:46:34 almost like a done deal.
13:46:36 If we have an ongoing committee that's meeting year
13:46:39 round, to address budget items as they come up in the
13:46:43 agenda, but also to address the annual budget, then I
13:46:47 think it might be very helpful to us and I know
13:46:50 there's a lot of smart people out in the community
13:46:52 that we can appoint to be on that committee.
13:46:54 It doesn't cost us anything.
13:46:55 And if they are willing to help us, I think we should
13:46:57 be willing to accept that help.
13:47:06 >>MARY MULHERN: And I will make another motion about
13:47:08 the committee.
13:47:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor of the motion on the
13:47:10 floor, signify by saying Aye.
13:47:13 Opposes, same sign.
13:47:15 So moved and ordered.
13:47:17 Okay.
13:47:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'll make a motion that -- I make a
13:47:21 motion that we do, each of us appoint a person to

13:47:26 serve in our stead as a member of the budget committee
13:47:29 and they attend the meetings and get up to speed.
13:47:34 I don't have the breadth of their responsibility, but
13:47:38 this would just be -- to see if council members are
13:47:43 interested in having that kind of advisory committee
13:47:44 for us.
13:47:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And again I am not opposed to that.
13:47:48 I think it would be more beneficial for next year to
13:47:50 get started early now.
13:47:52 Because keep in mind, we are able to start the budget
13:47:55 process earlier.
13:47:57 The meetings are going to be held here.
13:47:59 We are going to have public comment.
13:48:02 You are going to have citizen participation through
13:48:04 the public comment.
13:48:05 Do you want more, I guess, input beyond that for this
13:48:09 budget cycle?
13:48:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What this would allow,
13:48:12 Mr. Chairman, my thought is, for them to talk amongst
13:48:15 themselves so that they wouldn't need additional staff
13:48:18 time being briefed, but they could talk amongst their
13:48:22 selves.

13:48:22 >> I was waiting.
13:48:27 >> If it's a sunshine group they won't be able to talk
13:48:30 among themselves.
13:48:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If we create a sunshine opportunity
13:48:34 for them.
13:48:35 >>SAL TERRITO: But we have to put that as a public
13:48:37 hearing, noticed, and all that.
13:48:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And financial disclosure and the
13:48:41 like.
13:48:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: People know what they are going
13:48:44 into it what the requirements are, then --
13:48:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I will share with you that it will
13:48:49 take at least, in order to organize it and get it
13:48:51 together, it will take some time.
13:48:55 With council's intent to get started on this --
13:48:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Shelby, my thought is, if it
13:49:01 takes let's say a month to pull it together, we aren't
13:49:03 scheduling our first budget meeting probably until May
13:49:06 or June.
13:49:07 I think the two things could run concurrently.
13:49:09 And we'll see what benefit it could be.
13:49:11 My feeling is, it doesn't hurt to get started.

13:49:16 >>GWEN MILLER: When I came over, if we let them know
13:49:21 what happens when you start researching, come up with
13:49:23 the committee --
13:49:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, the council concept of having a
13:49:27 sunshine board, we have learned recently, is -- I
13:49:32 would say it's complicated but I would say there are
13:49:34 certain legal requirements that have to be met and of
13:49:37 course one of them being the notice, the taking of the
13:49:40 minutes, the fact that minutes have to be recorded,
13:49:43 and again, with regard to financial disclosure, the
13:49:47 state forms that are required.
13:49:48 So as long as that -- see, once council creates that
13:49:54 committee, that committee takes on certain legal
13:49:56 responsibility for that, and as long as council is
13:49:58 aware of that.
13:50:04 >>GWEN MILLER: We don't know which direction to go
13:50:08 because it's going to be hard to get people to
13:50:11 volunteer for all those things we are saying they have
13:50:13 to do.
13:50:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That motion on the floor we have to
13:50:16 move.
13:50:16 I have to leave at 3:00.

13:50:17 I have a plane to catch.
13:50:19 That's the motion on the floor.
13:50:26 The motion by councilwoman Saul-Sena is for each of us
13:50:29 to appoint a person, a citizen, to serve as a budget
13:50:33 advisory committee member.
13:50:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: With the understanding it will be
13:50:38 sunshined and all that.
13:50:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: To come back by a certain date?
13:50:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, May 15th.
13:50:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, this is nothing knew.
13:50:46 It's happened before.
13:50:47 It was enacted back between sometime in '95 and 2003,
13:50:52 we had that.
13:50:52 So I'm not opposed to that.
13:50:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
13:50:56 Second by councilwoman Mary Mulhern.
13:50:59 All in favor let it be known by Aye.
13:51:01 Opposed same sign.
13:51:01 So moved and ordered.
13:51:03 Thank you.
13:51:03 Item 71.
13:51:04 I think Mr. Miranda wanted to speak to it, that

13:51:09 particular item.
13:51:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I appreciate it.
13:51:12 I know some good citizens came here today and spoke on
13:51:14 it, and that's the way they feel.
13:51:17 And I'm not here to try to change their mind.
13:51:19 I wouldn't do that.
13:51:20 When people make up their mind no matter what side of
13:51:23 the aisle they are on, I know I'm smart enough that I
13:51:25 can't change it.
13:51:26 Just like if you are campaigning and somebody says you
13:51:31 are wasting your time with me, don't waste your time
13:51:34 there looking for a vote.
13:51:36 I know that.
13:51:38 In 1991, Lawton Chiles made it a priority of his to
13:51:50 change the campaign.
13:51:51 It used to be a thousand dollars.
13:51:53 A thousand dollar for a primary, run-off, and a
13:51:56 thousand for a general.
13:51:57 Chiles is one of the best things that happened to the
13:51:59 State of Florida.
13:51:59 He changed it to $500.
13:52:01 That's been the law since 1992.

13:52:05 What does that do and what does that mean and where
13:52:07 are we going?
13:52:11 I am going to try to prove to those people in the
13:52:14 audience that's here that $500 today is really equal
13:52:19 to $100 yesterday.
13:52:22 You see, there's a thing called consumer price index.
13:52:27 $100 yesterday -- and I'm talking about 1974 -- it's
13:52:35 really worth about 437 to $467 depending on how you
13:52:40 look at the consumer price index.
13:52:42 And to prove that, I had $600.
13:52:51 So I got five $100 bills of the new ones, and one $100
13:52:57 bill of yesterday.
13:53:00 This 100 was worth $100.
13:53:04 These 500, if you go to Europe, you are lucky to get a
13:53:08 bus ride.
13:53:10 Because it's not worth that anymore.
13:53:12 So I understand the good logic and the good feeling.
13:53:15 But let me go on and explain a little more.
13:53:18 I went through my research at Bob Evans.
13:53:24 You heard me right.
13:53:25 Bob Evans.
13:53:26 Bob Evans has a cost of living, and I was able to buy

13:53:31 74, 84, 94, and 2001.
13:53:35 Let me tell you what my research -- that's 20 bucks,
13:53:38 by the way.
13:53:39 I wasn't that expensive.
13:53:41 A home in 1974 was about 34900.
13:53:47 In '84 the home was 86,000.
13:53:50 In '94 it was 119,000.
13:53:53 In 2001, 136,000.
13:53:55 And today, who knows, likely over 200.
13:53:58 >> It is.
13:54:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: A new car in '74 was 3700.
13:54:04 A new car in '84 went up to 8700.
13:54:09 To 12,000 something in '94 and to over 25,000 in 2001.
13:54:19 Let's talk about gasoline.
13:54:20 In 1974, gasoline was 55-cent a gallon.
13:54:25 In 1984, gasoline was $110 a gallon.
13:54:29 And in '94, believe it or not, it went down a penny to
13:54:33 $1.09.
13:54:35 In 2001, it was 1.46.
13:54:38 A bargain.
13:54:39 And today I don't have to tell you, it's over ten
13:54:42 times -- excuse me, over six times what it was in

13:54:45 1974.
13:54:47 Why am I bringing this up?
13:54:51 Because $100 value then is equal to $500 today.
13:54:58 It gives the incumbent, because you can't have a no
13:55:02 spending.
13:55:05 It's against Constitutional.
13:55:06 So it gives us the incumbency the power to hold on to
13:55:14 those individuals who want to seek office who may be
13:55:17 able to collect money but have zero name recognition.
13:55:21 There is no limit to what an individual that has the
13:55:25 means by which to raise money, or write themselves a
13:55:28 check for 200, 300, 400, 500.
13:55:32 The last race was over $2 million spent.
13:55:38 However, you can't quash the limit.
13:55:40 You can quash the little individual who wants to go
13:55:44 out and be competitive.
13:55:48 Any canned rat cunning for -- running for office today
13:55:51 can say, listen, I don't want to put 500 in my limit.
13:55:55 I want to make $10 my limit.
13:55:59 Lawton Chiles did that and got elected.
13:56:01 He wrote the law, changed the law to 500 and got
13:56:04 elected by only raising $100 a person.

13:56:06 We go to perception and reality.
13:56:10 I have no qualms with anyone trying to change this.
13:56:13 However, I think it's not the best thing in the world
13:56:16 to do right now.
13:56:18 You can certainly change the way organizations, those
13:56:22 organizations that try to do things at the end to harm
13:56:25 you that you have no way of answering them back, they
13:56:28 form these committees, whatever they are called, and
13:56:30 do these things to subvert the minds of the voters,
13:56:34 and the voters get so disgusted they don't show up to
13:56:37 vote.
13:56:38 There's where the problem is.
13:56:41 I firmly believe that we are heading in the wrong
13:56:45 direction by changing the amount, because $500 today
13:56:50 is worth $100 in 1974.
13:56:55 But what I'm saying is, if you look at all these
13:56:58 things, all the costs, all the deals that cost you
13:57:04 money, a newspaper article today, I'll tell you what
13:57:07 I'll do.
13:57:08 If I ever run for office again, I'll make you a
13:57:11 promise.
13:57:13 And I would like this for maybe set in somebody else's

13:57:18 mind, all of you.
13:57:19 Run with in a money.
13:57:20 Not my own.
13:57:21 Not a campaign contribution from no one.
13:57:26 How more democratic can that be?
13:57:28 I offer that to the public.
13:57:30 Maybe us here can do the same thing so everything is
13:57:33 level.
13:57:33 No money.
13:57:34 You can't raise a dime to seek office.
13:57:36 You can go like Charlie Miranda did in 1972 and give
13:57:40 you the right to run for office by putting it on the
13:57:43 ballot through a petition.
13:57:45 You can still do that today.
13:57:47 In fact, when I talk about that, let me talk about
13:57:49 salaries.
13:57:51 In 1977, this council salary was $9600.
13:57:57 In '74 it was $7800.
13:58:00 Today it's 4,250.
13:58:02 Simple math will tell you, if you multiply 7,800 times
13:58:09 5, had you come up to pretty close to the same that I
13:58:14 offered you, it's five to one, thereabouts.

13:58:18 So what has gone up is a cost to apply to run for
13:58:22 office, which is based on a percentage of the salary
13:58:25 that you make.
13:58:27 So right now, it would cost about 2400 to qualify to
13:58:32 run for council.
13:58:33 Well, if you don't have the 24, you can't run.
13:58:37 But in 1972 we changed that.
13:58:40 I didn't say I.
13:58:42 We.
13:58:43 Me and a bunch of supporters said that was wrong.
13:58:45 And we went out and went all the way one year, won an
13:58:50 a Pell and the state was smart enough to send it to
13:58:54 supreme court, Miranda versus Florida.
13:58:57 So the court refused to hear it.
13:59:00 And if I ever run for office again whether it's in the
13:59:02 city or the county, and -- there might be an
13:59:09 individual who would willingly put up with in a money,
13:59:12 zero, nada, no stamps, no campaign literature, no
13:59:16 mailouts, no nothing.
13:59:21 A TV ad today, you are going to run for office or high
13:59:24 office you better have a lot of it in the bank because
13:59:26 you will be spending close to 100,000 like that.

13:59:29 And radio commercial I first thought was 10, $12.
13:59:34 I guarantee it's 150.
13:59:35 And newspaper ads for a full page then was minimal.
13:59:39 Now it's in the tens of thousands of dollars.
13:59:41 So what I'm saying is, it sounds great until you
13:59:45 really look at it.
13:59:47 It doesn't work.
13:59:48 It hurts the little guy, or the little young lady, or
13:59:51 the old lady or the old guy who doesn't have the money
13:59:55 that wants to run for office and make a good showing.
14:00:02 Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know what else to tell
14:00:04 you.
14:00:05 I'm not accusing anybody of anything.
14:00:07 I certainly appreciate the times that I have had that
14:00:10 were given to me but anytime anybody wants to talk to
14:00:12 me oath and by the way I talk to the majority of those
14:00:15 folks that came today and I explained to them in my
14:00:17 office exactly how I felt.
14:00:19 And I hope they understood what I said.
14:00:21 I'm sure they did.
14:00:22 They are very nice people.
14:00:24 They are very well informed.

14:00:26 And I do believe that anyone who formed these
14:00:30 committees to pull out half truths. Called them
14:00:35 liars, half truths on behalf of the candidate and to
14:00:38 hurt another should have the same reporting schedule
14:00:41 that I have.
14:00:41 And I have to take these $600 back.
14:00:44 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
14:00:51 Councilman Dingfelder.
14:00:52 >> Let's go back what we were talking about, Charlie,
14:00:58 because I gave one to everybody else and gave one to
14:01:01 the clerk.
14:01:02 As you know, I started talking about this about a year
14:01:05 ago right after the last election.
14:01:07 And I won't get into that last election but it did
14:01:10 bring up a lot of these issues.
14:01:11 And why I believe -- here is a good place to start.
14:01:15 When I started talking about campaign finance reform,
14:01:18 people immediately said, well, can't you do something
14:01:21 about the county, too?
14:01:22 Well, we can't.
14:01:23 Okay.
14:01:23 Our jurisdiction is right here within this room and

14:01:25 within the city.
14:01:26 But it became abundantly obvious to me that people are
14:01:32 really desirous of this, and they are really craving
14:01:35 for this.
14:01:36 And that was exemplified by the city of Sarasota.
14:01:38 The city of Sarasota put the basic same concepts on
14:01:43 the ballot.
14:01:44 And the minute they put it on the ballot, okay, it
14:01:47 passed by 80-something percent.
14:01:50 I don't remember the exact number.
14:01:51 I can get it but I think it was like 82, 83%.
14:01:56 It is perception, Charlie.
14:01:58 Okay, we can talk about the value of money.
14:02:00 None of us will differ with you that $500 back then
14:02:03 versus 100.
14:02:05 I agree with you, you know, in terms of the value of
14:02:08 $500 or 100.
14:02:11 But perception is a huge part of everything that we
14:02:15 do.
14:02:15 And if you look at these sheets that I gave, I wish
14:02:18 everybody would take a look at it because I didn't
14:02:20 just put this together alone.

14:02:22 A lot of good hard-working people put this together.
14:02:25 And the reason that we need campaign finance reform
14:02:30 are really perception reasons.
14:02:32 Okay.
14:02:32 It says incumbents have an inherent advantage when it
14:02:35 comes to fund raising.
14:02:36 And I will prove that to you by statistics.
14:02:38 And Mr. Chairman and Mr. Miranda, I have heard you
14:02:41 both say that this hurts the little guy.
14:02:44 Well, let me tell you what hurts the little guy, is
14:02:46 the status quo today, and this is on page 2 in bold.
14:02:52 It says in the four council races from last year,
14:02:55 2007, districts 1, 2, 5 and 6, the four previously
14:03:01 elected officials raised an average of $121,000, in
14:03:06 contrast to the challengers who averaged $33,000.
14:03:11 Okay.
14:03:12 It is inherent that as the incumbent, we are all the
14:03:16 incumbent, it's inherent that as the incumbent, the
14:03:20 minute we are the incumbent we have an advantage not
14:03:22 only in name recognition and everything else, all
14:03:24 those intangibles which we aren't doing anything about
14:03:27 but we have an inherent advantage in fund-raising.

14:03:29 We have an inherent advantage in getting $500
14:03:32 contributions.
14:03:33 All right?
14:03:34 And that, to me, you know, this would hurt me as much
14:03:39 as anybody else, if I ever ran for anything else in
14:03:42 the City of Tampa, because I'm the incumbent.
14:03:46 But what I'm saying is let's disregard us for the
14:03:50 minute.
14:03:50 Okay?
14:03:51 All of these people are suggesting -- and there were
14:03:55 30 good people at most of the meetings that we had --
14:03:57 all they are suggesting is, put it on the ballot.
14:04:00 And let them decide.
14:04:02 Take.
14:04:03 Take it away from ourselves, in my own myopic vision
14:04:06 of what's good for us, and that sort of thing, and let
14:04:10 them decide about that.
14:04:11 But anyway, let me move down on this.
14:04:13 Okay.
14:04:13 They believe that incumbents have an inherent
14:04:16 advantage when it comes to fund-raising and I believe
14:04:19 that statistics pull that is out.

14:04:21 Second, many believe that candidates spend too much
14:04:23 time and energy raising money.
14:04:26 In the campaign finance reform will shift the focus of
14:04:28 the candidate, shift the focus of the media, and shift
14:04:31 the focus of the community back to the healthy
14:04:34 grassroots issue.
14:04:35 Okay.
14:04:37 None of us like to raise money.
14:04:39 Okay.
14:04:41 I think you would have to be craze toy say you like to
14:04:44 go Do that fund raising.
14:04:46 That's a miserable part of running.
14:04:47 I think we all enjoy the part of running and you
14:04:50 actually go out and meet people and talk to people.
14:04:53 But what happens is when you have pressure on you to
14:04:55 raise money, more money, more money, $500
14:04:59 contributions, you spend all your time on organizing
14:05:02 those silly little parties, those campaign
14:05:04 fund-raising parties and getting those together and
14:05:07 who is going to bring what and who is going to bundle
14:05:10 what money and that sort of thing.
14:05:11 If we reduced the $500 limits down to the 100 or two,

14:05:16 they got rid of the $100 idea, now we are talking
14:05:19 about $200, Charlie.
14:05:20 But if we push it down from 500 down to $200 we can
14:05:24 eliminate all of that because the average citizen who
14:05:26 is sitting out there who comes in front of us is
14:05:29 comfortable giving 100 or $200.
14:05:32 Okay?
14:05:32 It's always the developers and the special interest
14:05:34 folks who are really comfortable in getting the $500.
14:05:38 All right.
14:05:39 Let me move forward down on this.
14:05:41 The third bullet, campaign finance reform will help
14:05:45 dispel the notion that perception, that people with
14:05:48 less money have little influence in their government.
14:05:50 I'm not saying that's true or false, but there's a
14:05:53 huge perception out there that the little guy can't --
14:05:56 doesn't have a voice, so he just says, forget about
14:05:59 it, I'm not going to waste my time going down to
14:06:01 council, I'm not going to waste my time even giving
14:06:04 them my $100 but there's all those $500 contributions
14:06:09 floating around.
14:06:10 Campaign finance.

14:06:11 The fourth item on the list will increase transparency
14:06:16 in election.
14:06:17 That's item 4 at the top of the page.
14:06:19 And what that suggestion says is that we would change
14:06:22 the reporting period, because right now the reporting
14:06:25 period, I think, says your final report has to get to
14:06:31 the supervisor's office by the Monday before the
14:06:33 Tuesday of the election.
14:06:34 But we can move that earlier.
14:06:37 We can move that up into the week before.
14:06:39 That way, by election day, everybody knows --
14:06:42 everybody knows who is giving you what.
14:06:44 Okay.
14:06:44 And I think that's a nice touch.
14:06:47 Sarasota has done it and I think we can do it.
14:06:50 And the last bullet point is voter turnout.
14:06:55 We all know that we have problems with voter turnout
14:06:57 in terms of Mu nice path pal elections.
14:07:00 And part of that is probably because we hold them in
14:07:05 March but that's a whole other discussion.
14:07:07 What I heard from people is many people again just
14:07:09 kind of wash their hands of city government, because

14:07:13 of the poor perception of what they believe happens
14:07:16 with these campaign contributions.
14:07:18 If we improve our perception, you can't prove it, but
14:07:21 I believe there's an opportunity to increase voter
14:07:24 turnout.
14:07:26 I have got two or three pages here, but let me start
14:07:28 with the basics.
14:07:30 In 2003, in 2003 --
14:07:36 Are you going to go through all those pages?
14:07:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No.
14:07:40 But I'm bouncing around but Mr. Miranda got a fair
14:07:45 amount of time without any criticism.
14:07:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You have already gone two minutes
14:07:49 over, but go ahead.
14:07:50 Go ahead.
14:07:50 I want to be fair.
14:07:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
14:07:55 In 2003, all City Council races raised about $500,000.
14:08:02 Give or take a few dollars.
14:08:04 By 2007, all right, all the City Council races jumped
14:08:08 up to $1.2 million.
14:08:11 More than double.

14:08:11 Now, Charlie, we can talk about inflation.
14:08:13 But you can't accommodate inflation in that four years
14:08:17 time, and say that it doubles.
14:08:19 I'm sorry to mention that but you raised that point.
14:08:22 I'll finish and then rebut.
14:08:24 Inflation has nothing to do with it.
14:08:27 $500,000 in 2003 became $1.2 million.
14:08:32 Okay.
14:08:32 By 2007.
14:08:33 Where does that go in 2011?
14:08:36 Okay.
14:08:37 Let's talk about how much it costs to run.
14:08:39 Rudy Fernandez, my predecessor in this district 4
14:08:42 seat, sent me an e-mail.
14:08:44 And you guys have copies of e-mails.
14:08:46 E-mails from great civic activists.
14:08:49 Terry Neal, bill Robinson.
14:08:54 Johnson.
14:08:55 Ely Montague.
14:08:57 Pete Botto.
14:08:58 Andy CARTE.
14:09:01 John Jones.

14:09:02 Steve LaBour.
14:09:03 Rudy Fernandez.
14:09:05 Bookie Buchman.
14:09:06 They are all in support of this and you have their
14:09:08 e-mails.
14:09:09 Rudy Fernandez September sent me an e-mail and he
14:09:13 said, when he ran for office back in, I don't know,
14:09:16 1991, okay, he ran for district 4 and he ran on $15
14:09:20 that you for that seat.
14:09:22 In 2003, Ms. Saul-Sena held the seat for awhile.
14:09:26 I don't know what you raised, Linda. But in 2003 when
14:09:29 I ran for the seat, trust me, I did all the mailing I
14:09:32 needed to do with 40 some thousand dollars.
14:09:40 That's all we should be talking about with City
14:09:42 Council races.
14:09:42 Now we are up into the fact that my race, me and my
14:09:46 main opponent last year raised $150,000.
14:09:49 Okay.
14:09:49 Because that's where the $500 contribution puts these
14:09:53 races.
14:09:54 Mrs. Mulhern had a race where her opponent raised 200,
14:10:00 almost -- I know you won, but -- and I'm not talking

14:10:09 about -- and I won, too.
14:10:12 Okay?
14:10:12 But I'm not talking about who won and who lost.
14:10:15 I'm just talking about obscene amounts of money.
14:10:18 There's no reason that your race -- and I don't care
14:10:20 if it's city-wide or district wide -- nobody needed to
14:10:25 bring in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
14:10:27 It's not necessary.
14:10:28 It creates a bad perception, okay, in the public.
14:10:31 If there's anybody out there in the public who might
14:10:33 agree with me and has the nerve, would you raise your
14:10:35 hand?
14:10:37 I just asked you a question.
14:10:38 Would you raise your hand if you might agree with me?
14:10:42 Thank you.
14:10:42 There are a few.
14:10:43 And there were more this morning. Anyway, the bottom
14:10:46 line is, we know that this is the right thing to do.
14:10:49 If we can take it away from ourselves and put it away
14:10:54 for a few minutes, that this is a good thing to do.
14:10:57 And the most important thing, Mr. Chairman, is to let
14:11:00 the people decide.

14:11:01 We shouldn't be afraid to put it on the ballot, to put
14:11:04 it on the ballot.
14:11:06 That's an important, popular, popular, popular issue.
14:11:09 Put it on the ballot and let the people decide.
14:11:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
14:11:18 Incumbent or not incumbent anyone in the audience can
14:11:21 cap their own campaign.
14:11:23 You don't have to accept $500.
14:11:25 You can let people no, I don't want but 100, I want
14:11:29 but 50.
14:11:29 You do not have to accept it.
14:11:31 And you don't have to ask people for it.
14:11:35 You know, you are saying that they just give it to you
14:11:38 and give it to you.
14:11:39 But you can turn it down.
14:11:40 You don't have to accept it.
14:11:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You know what?
14:11:43 >>GWEN MILLER: No, you don't have no reason to tell me
14:11:45 why you have to accept it.
14:11:46 You don't have --
14:11:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
14:11:52 >>GWEN MILLER: You raised all that money.

14:11:54 They are going to --
14:11:55 Okay, okay, all right.
14:11:57 [Sounding gavel]
14:11:58 Okay.
14:12:00 Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
14:12:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I love the idea of this being a
14:12:08 referendum.
14:12:08 And I think what was supposed to happen, Marty was
14:12:11 supposed to give a report to us.
14:12:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Hold that, please.
14:12:19 >>MARY MULHERN: John, I know you have been thinking
14:12:20 about this for a year.
14:12:21 But I have been for 30 years talking about this,
14:12:24 because I was on this debate team when I was in high
14:12:29 school, and one year, we spent the whole year talking
14:12:32 about campaign finance reform.
14:12:34 So there's a lot you can do about campaign finance
14:12:37 reform.
14:12:38 I have to say again that, as you said, everyone knows
14:12:43 that it would be good to get the money out of
14:12:45 politics.
14:12:46 Wouldn't we all love that?

14:12:48 And that isn't the question.
14:12:49 I mean, you don't need to convince us that we need to
14:12:52 get the money out of politics.
14:12:53 But top think that we have a solution right here, I
14:12:56 don't want to mislead -- you know, these are my
14:13:01 friends, too, and probably all the rest of us who want
14:13:03 this, that this is really going to work.
14:13:06 So I want to hear, first of all -- and I can tell you,
14:13:11 I talked to the foremost election attorney in Florida,
14:13:14 and he said, don't bother doing this.
14:13:18 Not when you brought it up, because we all think about
14:13:20 this.
14:13:21 You know, I spent two years doing this.
14:13:23 It's not like we are not thinking about it.
14:13:25 We need to have a debate about the merits of campaign
14:13:28 finance reform, getting the money out of politics.
14:13:31 We all know it would be great.
14:13:32 Is it going to work?
14:13:33 The question for us.
14:13:35 Okay, even if this wouldn't work, whether it would
14:13:38 work or not, if it's going to pass constitutionally in
14:13:41 the State of Florida, and in the supreme court of the

14:13:47 United States, that's something we need to hear from
14:13:50 some experts on.
14:13:51 So I don't think there's any -- you know, Marty can do
14:13:54 the research and let us know, but my question for you
14:13:57 is that memo we got from David, was that talking about
14:14:02 Sarasota's campaign finance reform?
14:14:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That case does not talk specifically
14:14:09 about the issue of campaign contribution limitations.
14:14:13 It talks about the voting process and the auditing
14:14:16 process.
14:14:17 And --
14:14:20 >>MARY MULHERN: Well, I think that's irrelevant.
14:14:22 But if we look at other cities in Florida that have
14:14:25 done this, and if it has stood, that's what we need to
14:14:29 see.
14:14:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Sarasota County capacity --
14:14:33 John.
14:14:34 Let's finish.
14:14:35 Discuss excuse me just for a minute.
14:14:38 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
14:14:39 And I'm --
14:14:39 As chair I want you to finish what you need to do and

14:14:42 then I will recognize the next person in line.
14:14:44 I have a list of people who asked to speak,
14:14:46 councilman.
14:14:46 I am going to honor that.
14:14:50 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay, thank you.
14:14:52 And I'm not going to get into debating this, because
14:14:55 I'm really good at it.
14:14:56 And I don't need to do that.
14:14:59 And I don't think it's even relevant.
14:15:02 Because we need to know if we go ahead and put this on
14:15:05 the ballot, and if it passes, you know, what are the
14:15:08 chances of it passing, or -- not of it passing but of
14:15:14 it being upheld.
14:15:16 I would like to hear that from Marty when he is ready
14:15:19 to give us his report.
14:15:23 The other thing I wanted to say in support of Mr.
14:15:26 Miranda's statistics that he gave us is not only is
14:15:29 the cost of living going up that much, but the
14:15:32 consumer praise index doesn't even reflect energy and
14:15:36 food, which are the things that have gone up the most.
14:15:38 So that was interesting to me to find out that, you
14:15:41 know, from the time that -- when was your first --

14:15:48 >> '74.
14:15:49 >>MARY MULHERN: So I really don't think we are
14:15:52 interested in talking about the merits of this,
14:15:54 because it's obvious if we could solve the problem,
14:15:57 the perception problem, and the reality problem of
14:15:59 people buying, be able to buy elections, that will be
14:16:03 great.
14:16:03 But I want to hear, you know, before we get all these
14:16:07 people all excited about something that may not even
14:16:14 stand the process in court.
14:16:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Miranda.
14:16:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
14:16:19 I would be 110 supportive if there was away of saying
14:16:22 there was a limit on spending.
14:16:27 See, but they know, they are smart enough to know that
14:16:30 it's unconstitutional.
14:16:40 I have already said if I run for this office or
14:16:42 another hint, county commission, I am going to draw up
14:16:46 an affidavit for the next council meeting, and I am
14:16:48 going to pass it around.
14:16:50 I am going to see how many want to sign up to the zero
14:16:53 democracy campaign, and let's see where that goes.

14:16:57 And let's see where everybody fits into that.
14:17:00 And I'm not trying to embarrass anybody.
14:17:02 But I have always got another curve ball to throw if
14:17:04 you are throwing fast balls at me.
14:17:06 So I learned that long time ago.
14:17:11 My vote for zero.
14:17:13 See, I ain't afraid of losing.
14:17:15 In fact the most worrisome part is doing this job
14:17:18 right, not losing a campaign.
14:17:20 So I try to play within the bounds of what I'm giving,
14:17:23 my whole life I have been like that and I ain't afraid
14:17:26 of winning and I'm not afraid of losing.
14:17:29 So I've lost before and I've won before.
14:17:32 But I have walked away with my head up high.
14:17:35 So when next council meeting is, I am going to sign an
14:17:38 affidavit that I will raise zero dollars including the
14:17:42 amount to pay to run to qualify for office.
14:17:46 And go back to my point in 1972.
14:17:48 And I want to see the maker of this motion does that.
14:17:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
14:17:53 Then I want to say something and bring this to a close
14:17:56 so we can move on.

14:17:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me raise a few questions and I
14:18:01 apologize for being a little emotional about this.
14:18:02 I think it's an important issue for the people.
14:18:05 It has nothing to do with me or any future campaign
14:18:08 that you or I or anybody else might have to do, has to
14:18:12 do with the people.
14:18:13 And the people have spoken both here and other places
14:18:16 very loudly.
14:18:18 If you look at page 3, item 6 -- and if anybody would
14:18:21 possibly take the time to actually look at this, it
14:18:23 would be helpful.
14:18:24 But on page 3, item 6, it answers the question, is it
14:18:28 legal to limit the size of the contributions?
14:18:31 Okay.
14:18:32 In 1999, Mrs. Mulhern, the county of Sarasota passed
14:18:37 it.
14:18:38 In 1999.
14:18:40 Okay.
14:18:41 17 years ago, 18, 19 years ago.
14:18:44 And it was upheld by the circuit court.
14:18:48 Okay.
14:18:48 I think there was possibly an appeal taken.

14:18:51 It never went anywhere. So the $200 limit already
14:18:55 passed.
14:18:55 The State of Florida in '91 says $500.
14:18:59 But local governments have the authority to further
14:19:02 restrict a law.
14:19:04 And that's what Sarasota County did in '99.
14:19:08 And the city of Sarasota, most recently, went ahead
14:19:12 and did the $200, also.
14:19:14 So this has been around 100 municipalities around the
14:19:19 country are doing this, okay?
14:19:20 And this has passed Constitutional muster in various
14:19:23 courts around the country.
14:19:25 And yes, Charlie, you are abundantly right, we didn't
14:19:29 attack issues that we know are unconstitutional like
14:19:32 tapping the top limit because the courts said you
14:19:35 can't do that.
14:19:35 If you could do that I would think we would include
14:19:38 that, too.
14:19:38 That's number one.
14:19:39 I am just rebutting a couple of comments,
14:19:41 Mr. Chairman.
14:19:56 Let me see if there's anything else I need to hit.

14:19:58 There's nothing about rich people funding their own
14:20:01 campaigns now.
14:20:02 They could know Do it now and they can do it late are
14:20:04 because the have said you can't limit the -- what's
14:20:07 the mayor in New York?
14:20:11 You can't limit the Bloombergs of the world who want
14:20:14 to put their gazillions or in this case hundreds of
14:20:17 thousands of dollars into their own campaign.
14:20:19 If you could limit it, I would say we would limit it
14:20:22 but you can't.
14:20:23 So we are addressing the things that we can address.
14:20:25 This is an effective tool and a starting point, Ms.
14:20:30 Mulhern.
14:20:31 Is it the pan as I for everything?
14:20:34 No.
14:20:34 But if we la to it for everything we wouldn't do
14:20:36 anything, because it's a good opportunity.
14:20:38 And you know what?
14:20:39 Even if we don't think it's a great thing personally,
14:20:44 have faith in the voters.
14:20:46 Let the voters decide.
14:20:47 Put it on as a referendum and let the voters decide.

14:20:50 The thing is out of control.
14:20:51 There's in a reason for City Council races to be about
14:20:54 hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars because
14:20:57 people will never run.
14:20:58 If they look at the last race for district 4 and they
14:21:02 say, oh, my God, you can't run for district 4 unless
14:21:04 you can raise $150 thousand, then good people will not
14:21:07 run, okay?
14:21:09 What we need to do is push that down.
14:21:11 And the way to push it down is to get rid of the $500
14:21:15 contributions.
14:21:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I really want to bring this to
14:21:18 close.
14:21:18 Let me just say this and then we'll hear from the
14:21:21 attorney.
14:21:21 I don't support, I said when it was first raised, and
14:21:26 brought up the cost.
14:21:27 Here again I think Mr. Miranda is right.
14:21:29 You can't control the limit of the spending -- I mean,
14:21:32 Lawton Chiles is a good example.
14:21:35 Lawton Chiles limited his contribution to $100.
14:21:38 And he won every time.

14:21:40 He won every time he ran.
14:21:42 That is a good, logical example.
14:21:44 That's history.
14:21:46 That's a fact.
14:21:52 Lawton Chiles never lost a race, only getting $100 per
14:21:56 contribution.
14:22:00 He's proven it.
14:22:05 I don't know why we are arguing it.
14:22:07 It's right there.
14:22:08 The other side, if we want to have a fair playing
14:22:11 field, level playing field, the thing to do is for all
14:22:15 incumbents agree not to take a contribution and then
14:22:18 let the people running against you get a contribution,
14:22:21 because you already have name recognition.
14:22:25 You're name is in the paper every day.
14:22:26 You are on television every day.
14:22:30 People stay up -- till 2:00 in the morning watching us
14:22:34 on television.
14:22:36 I mean, come on.
14:22:42 We are incumbents have name recognition.
14:22:46 Your name was in the paper today.
14:22:48 My name was in the paper today.

14:22:50 Going to be in there tomorrow.
14:22:52 You are going to be on television and tomorrow.
14:22:56 But if you are on the ballot, you already put the
14:22:59 person who runs against you at a disadvantage.
14:23:03 So, therefore, if you want to help level the playing
14:23:08 field, then the incumbent should not receive any
14:23:11 contribution, and then allow the person top go ah and
14:23:18 limit them to 200.
14:23:19 See where that goes.
14:23:20 But Lawton Chiles is your classic example of limiting
14:23:23 to $100 and winning every election he ran for.
14:23:27 Now, you had two chances and then you need to move.
14:23:30 >>MARY MULHERN: I am not going to take a lot of time.
14:23:34 Charlie reminded me of something that I forgot to say.
14:23:37 The -- what I hear from lawyers, and this doesn't
14:23:41 happen until you get to the federal level, but the
14:23:43 whole idea that it's free speech, and it's hard to
14:23:48 limit contributions, because -- and I don't agree with
14:23:51 it.
14:23:52 I don't think giving money is speech.
14:23:54 But that's what the experts that I talked to had to
14:23:58 say.

14:23:59 But I do want to say, I would support this if -- if
14:24:07 and after our attorney has a chance to do some
14:24:10 research and make a recommendation to us.
14:24:12 And I would support the people that launched this
14:24:19 campaign finance reform, and I would be willing to do
14:24:24 that.
14:24:24 But I really hope we are not going to have to have
14:24:26 another -- never maned.
14:24:31 I can just talk about this all day and listen, too.
14:24:34 But anyway, I think that we need to hear a legal
14:24:38 opinion.
14:24:39 We need to hear from --
14:24:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, let me just state at the
14:24:45 outset that I am not prepared to make a full
14:24:47 presentation today.
14:24:56 But let me also say that I believe that council is at
14:25:00 a disadvantage to not have the city attorney present
14:25:02 here today, which he had a previous engagement.
14:25:06 Mr. Territo is present.
14:25:08 I'm familiar with the case.
14:25:09 And is the subject of the memo that you have received.
14:25:13 That case is a second DCA case that controls this

14:25:17 district, that controls Sarasota as well.
14:25:19 It was decided October 31st of 2007.
14:25:25 A question has been sent and it's scheduled to be
14:25:27 heard by the Florida Supreme Court, I believe it is
14:25:30 May 7th.
14:25:31 And, Council, frankly that may or may not be
14:25:34 dispositive of the issue.
14:25:36 The issue is whether or not that case would have an
14:25:40 effect on the issue of campaign finance, because if it
14:25:44 would effect what Tampa does, it also would effect
14:25:48 what Sarasota has already done.
14:25:49 That being said, council, I had a conversation with
14:25:53 David Smith this morning relative to his memo.
14:25:57 And relative to the fact that council may have a
14:25:59 discussion.
14:26:00 And he has authorized me to say that not withstanding
14:26:04 his memorandum, if it is the desire of a majority of
14:26:07 this council to be able to go forward on this issue to
14:26:12 meet deadlines perhaps necessary to get it on the
14:26:15 ballot, he would have no objection.
14:26:17 But he is not here to discuss it, the merits of it
14:26:20 with you, and I am not prepared to do that today

14:26:23 myself.
14:26:24 I wanted to bring that to your attention.
14:26:26 But he did have a conversation with me and he
14:26:28 authorized me to be able to make that statement.
14:26:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I will tell you now, I am not
14:26:34 for putting this thing on our agenda and keep talking
14:26:37 about it every week.
14:26:38 I am going to just tell you that.
14:26:40 We need at some point to puppet it to rest.
14:26:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I agree, Mr. Chairman.
14:26:45 However, that Sarasota case was the case actually
14:26:48 heard on the campaign finance, or was it heard on
14:26:51 other subject matters?
14:26:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Heard on other subject matters.
14:26:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.
14:26:58 That proves my point.
14:27:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Ms. Saul-Sena.
14:27:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Shelby, what is the dead lane
14:27:04 for getting something on the ballot?
14:27:05 Do you know?
14:27:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.
14:27:08 I did speak to a gentleman at the supervisor --

14:27:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Just --
14:27:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm trying to recall.
14:27:14 I believe it's the end of June sounds like.
14:27:18 >>SAL TERRITO: It is.
14:27:20 Legal department.
14:27:21 The actual deadline is August 6th.
14:27:22 But since you don't have any council meetings in July
14:27:25 for a lot of that area, June 28th is effectively
14:27:28 your date.
14:27:29 Reason for that is you need 90 days to go to the
14:27:32 Justice Department approval.
14:27:33 You need time for the supervisor of elections to print
14:27:35 the ballots, to get them overseas and so forth.
14:27:37 Effectively June 28th.
14:27:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So my motion, Mr. Chairman, is we
14:27:41 continue this discussion to the first meeting in June,
14:27:45 and get a staff report from David Smith -- no, that we
14:27:51 put it -- maybe we'll workshop actually.
14:27:55 Let's just get a report from David Smith.
14:27:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What are you asking for, a report from
14:28:01 David Smith or asking for the discussion to be in
14:28:04 June?

14:28:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like the discussion to be
14:28:07 in June.
14:28:07 By that time this case may or may not be germane will
14:28:10 be decided, and maybe communicated to council members
14:28:14 that they would like a referendum.
14:28:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second?
14:28:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll second for discussion
14:28:20 purposes.
14:28:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
14:28:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The case that David attached or
14:28:29 referred to, the Sarasota case, the certified question
14:28:33 to the Florida Supreme Court, this comes out of the
14:28:36 Jennings issue, the Congressman Jennings issue about
14:28:38 missing ballots.
14:28:39 It had nothing to do with campaign finance.
14:28:41 And David will come back and tell us that.
14:28:43 But the case, the certified question says, is the
14:28:48 local government preempted and precluded from passing
14:28:51 local laws regarding the counting, recounting,
14:28:54 auditing, canvassing and certification of votes?
14:28:58 Now, there was other discussion in here about total
14:29:00 preemption.

14:29:02 There's an outside chance the flan supreme court not
14:29:06 in June, by the way, they are going to hear oral
14:29:08 argument in May.
14:29:09 There's in a way they are going to come out with an
14:29:11 opinion of that fact.
14:29:12 The question that they are faced with that was sent to
14:29:15 them from second DCA has to do with counting,
14:29:17 recounting, auditing, canvassing and certification of
14:29:21 votes.
14:29:23 The case had nothing to do with campaign finance.
14:29:25 So with that, you need a motion to do something.
14:29:28 And I am going to withdraw my motion from Mrs.
14:29:31 Saul-Sena, but because now what? I don't want to keep
14:29:34 talking about this.
14:29:34 I want to see where the votes are.
14:29:36 So let's just see where the votes are.
14:29:39 You would have in front of you -- you have in front of
14:29:41 you a three-page document.
14:29:42 On that three-page document includes four specific
14:29:45 hard things that this committee, including myself,
14:29:48 believes that we should put on the ballot.
14:29:50 Okay.

14:29:52 Does everybody have it?
14:29:53 One, two, three and four.
14:29:56 The first one -- I am going to start at the bottom,
14:30:01 all right?
14:30:02 Number 4.
14:30:02 Number 4 says that we would -- and I'm going to ask
14:30:06 for four separate votes.
14:30:07 >>MARY MULHERN: Wait.
14:30:10 Point of order.
14:30:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My motion is to ask for a legal
14:30:14 opinion.
14:30:18 Everybody was invited.
14:30:19 [Sounding gavel]
14:30:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Council, please.
14:30:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My motion -- I want to make a
14:30:24 chairman.
14:30:24 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: He Goetz keeps getting a bite of
14:30:27 the apple.
14:30:28 I haven't gotten a word in.
14:30:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
14:30:31 Let me read the meeting, John.
14:30:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I defer to Mr --

14:30:36 Again, let me run the meeting.
14:30:41 Now, you had the T floor.
14:30:42 And the chair recognized you.
14:30:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll defer to Mr. Caetano.
14:30:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You need to finish your motion.
14:30:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mrs. Mulhern asked me right.
14:30:53 I'm not saying we put it on the ballot without a legal
14:30:55 opinion.
14:30:56 Of course, send to the legal.
14:30:57 The three or four items that we can pass, send it to
14:31:02 legal and make sure we are legal in doing it.
14:31:04 If we are not legal in doing it then we wouldn't do
14:31:06 it.
14:31:06 The motion would be to ask legal to draft an ordinance
14:31:09 on these four issues, if we have to do an ordinance in
14:31:13 order to put it on the ballot.
14:31:14 Okay?
14:31:14 If legal comes back and says they have done their
14:31:17 research across the land, several state and local, and
14:31:21 can't do it, they'll come back and tell us that.
14:31:29 Actually, I am going to strike the first one.
14:31:31 Because -- I don't know.

14:31:33 All right.
14:31:35 Some people seem to have problems with the fact that
14:31:38 this includes the mayor issue.
14:31:39 So I am going to say let's just talk about one, two
14:31:42 and four, and let's leave out the mayor contest.
14:31:44 I don't care if we include the mayor contest.
14:31:47 It was never my intent to include the mayor con --
14:31:51 contest because to me it's City Council.
14:31:54 So my motion will be let's say one, two and four, send
14:31:58 to the legal department, ask them to review it, and if
14:32:01 it passes legal muster to come back to us with an
14:32:04 ordinance that would put it on the ballot for
14:32:05 November.
14:32:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
14:32:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman KATERNO.
14:32:12 Cat cattle why do you want to leave the mayor out?
14:32:14 Because you may run for mayor some day, right?
14:32:20 >> You want the mayor in there?
14:32:22 Okay, put them all in.
14:32:23 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: If you only want to accept $100,
14:32:26 only accept $100 lake Lawton Chiles did.
14:32:28 I know when I started my first race was in February of

14:32:32 '07.
14:32:33 Everybody says, when are you going to start raising
14:32:35 money?
14:32:36 One of my opponents started raising money in July of
14:32:39 '06.
14:32:41 And I had my first fund-raiser on February 2nd.
14:32:46 Because I was going to be like Charlie.
14:32:48 I was going to borrow money from him to pay for my
14:32:51 campaign.
14:32:53 But I think we should leave it the way it is.
14:32:55 If you only want to accept $100 or nothing, that's
14:32:59 your prerogative.
14:33:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll put it back in.
14:33:02 One, two, three, four.
14:33:03 If you will give me a second on that, Mr. Caetano.
14:33:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's a motion on the floor.
14:33:12 Councilwoman Mulhern --
14:33:15 >>MARY MULHERN: I have a question on the motion.
14:33:17 John, I thought what I said was I wanted to hear a
14:33:21 report from the attorneys.
14:33:24 I didn't say I wanted them to write this up.
14:33:26 And I think that you're asking council to support this

14:33:33 work that I don't know, you and a number of our
14:33:39 citizens have done, and this is the first time that
14:33:42 I've seen it.
14:33:43 So it's just kind of reminding me of earlier today
14:33:47 where something is put in front of me without the
14:33:54 respect to give us the time to look at something.
14:33:56 And then, you know, I want to support this concept.
14:33:59 But I'm not ready to have this written up as the
14:34:03 referendum.
14:34:04 We haven't even really digested what you want to do.
14:34:08 If you want our input, if you want me to vote for
14:34:11 this, that's my amendment to your motion.
14:34:15 Is that we get the reports from legal, and that's
14:34:20 probably back to what Linda's motion was, that we have
14:34:23 discussion, and then we talk about what exactly we
14:34:26 want to be put in the referendum, so that we have
14:34:29 input to that.
14:34:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only concern I have,
14:34:33 Mr. Chairman, if I could, please.
14:34:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena was next.
14:34:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you want to know what my concern
14:34:40 was, Mrs. Saul-Sena?

14:34:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We need to send to the legal, when
14:34:44 it comes back to us, we can change it however we want,
14:34:46 and the timing is an issue this gives us a basis
14:34:49 for --
14:34:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's all I was going to say.
14:34:55 Thank you, Linda.
14:34:56 Time is of the essence.
14:34:57 We can't let June slip by.
14:34:59 So if we can do it.
14:35:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's a motion on the floor.
14:35:03 I am not going to support it and I am going to tell
14:35:04 you why.
14:35:05 Number one, I don't agree with it.
14:35:07 I think you already know that.
14:35:08 Number two is, I will tell you, African-Americans at a
14:35:10 disadvantage.
14:35:11 I'm just telling you.
14:35:14 Running against a Caucasian, they are at extreme
14:35:16 disadvantage.
14:35:17 I will tell that you from experience.
14:35:18 So another reason I am not going to support it is
14:35:21 because this council never appointed a task force.

14:35:23 What you should have done is that council should
14:35:26 appoint a committee.
14:35:26 This is not a committee from this council.
14:35:28 This is councilman Dingfelder's committee.
14:35:31 This is not the City Council's committee.
14:35:33 Okay.
14:35:33 So I'm not going to support it.
14:35:36 There's a motion.
14:35:37 All in favor of the motion may signify by saying Aye.
14:35:40 Opposed, same sign.
14:35:48 >>THE CLERK: (off microphone).
14:35:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think Mrs. Mulhern you said you
14:35:54 were supporting the motion.
14:35:55 The motion was to do exactly what you said --
14:35:59 >>MARY MULHERN: Can I --
14:36:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to put up a substitute
14:36:22 motion.
14:36:24 >>: Workshop it.
14:36:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There is no substitute motion at this
14:36:26 point because the motion failed.
14:36:27 The motion failed 5-2, unless councilwoman Mulhern
14:36:33 wants to reconsider.

14:36:34 Motion fails 5-2.
14:36:36 Okay.
14:36:39 The motion failed 5-2.
14:36:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Who were the two?
14:36:44 >> (off microphone).
14:36:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Excuse me, I really need
14:36:54 clarification on this.
14:36:55 I pulled back on my motion and I said let's do what
14:36:57 Linda had suggested.
14:36:59 All right.
14:36:59 Which was to send it to legal.
14:37:02 It's what Mary had suggested, which is to send it to
14:37:04 legal.
14:37:06 And let legal do something with it.
14:37:09 Look at it.
14:37:10 Bring it back.
14:37:10 And for council to continue that discussion which I
14:37:12 think was exactly what Mrs. Mulhern said.
14:37:14 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes, I'm sorry.
14:37:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If it wasn't Clare --
14:37:18 >>MARY MULHERN: The motion was clear and I'm just --
14:37:21 I'm just --

14:37:26 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, she was on the
14:37:28 prevailing side.
14:37:29 Let her reconsider her motion and let's vote again.
14:37:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do you want to ask for
14:37:33 reconsideration?
14:37:34 >>MARY MULHERN: No.
14:37:37 I know what you voted on.
14:37:38 I was persuaded at the last minute.
14:37:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We need to move on, you all.
14:37:42 All right.
14:37:43 Thank you very much.
14:37:43 Item 72.
14:37:59 >>> Grath management development services.
14:38:01 I'm here to talk about the administration to appear on
14:38:03 some issues regarding the mental health care facility
14:38:05 at 6220 north Nebraska.
14:38:11 My perspective, the first thing we had to look at was
14:38:14 find out whether the property was zoned correct and
14:38:16 right now the property is zoned CI which is commercial
14:38:19 intensive zoning district which allows for medical
14:38:22 clinics, hospitals and things such as that.
14:38:25 What the city has in its current records identifying

14:38:28 this property that has been identified for use for
14:38:32 administrative offices for treatment agency.
14:38:35 And we have had that on the books since about 1992,
14:38:38 and there's been noon subsequent change for use or any
14:38:42 additional work from that.
14:38:43 As you know, this facility had been used as a mental
14:38:46 health facility for going back to at least 15 years, a
14:38:50 little bit longer, back to 1992.
14:38:56 Since our records indicate, it has been used for
14:39:00 various administrative offices for homeless, outreach
14:39:03 services and homeless programs, but again the
14:39:05 operative word is that they were being used for
14:39:08 administrative offices.
14:39:11 When I look on the web site to find out what the
14:39:16 mental health care, Inc., advertises, it lists
14:39:20 psychiatric council, different kind of counseling,
14:39:25 group therapy, individual therapy, and drug therapy.
14:39:27 When I called for clarification, speaking to some of
14:39:29 the representatives about, in reality what happens is
14:39:33 a psychiatrist comes twice a month or so, has a --
14:39:39 makes sure medicines are being taken care of
14:39:41 correctly.

14:39:42 There is no pharmacy located here.
14:39:43 There are no prescriptions filled here.
14:39:46 Prescriptions are issued here because that's one of
14:39:48 the purposes of having the psychiatric treatment
14:39:51 taking place.
14:39:53 What does all this mean, is that clearly, this
14:39:56 facility has been here for quite some time, operating
14:39:59 in much the same fashion that it has.
14:40:01 There is some confusion in terms of its role as a
14:40:06 doctor's office.
14:40:07 And only the reasons that is a salient point is if it
14:40:12 is being used as a doctor's office -- and that's not
14:40:15 been determined -- that is one of the issues that has
14:40:17 to be determined by our zoning administrator, asked
14:40:21 Gloria Moreda to set up a time where the zoning
14:40:24 administrator can visit the site and determine exactly
14:40:27 what is taking place here, to see to what extent, the
14:40:28 thresholds are, the square footages allowed for this
14:40:32 kind of thing and see if they operate as an accessory
14:40:34 to this or as its primary use.
14:40:36 Once that determine determination is made, you know,
14:40:40 there are a number of different kinds of things that

14:40:41 we can do from a zoning perspective again, in order to
14:40:44 rectify that.
14:40:47 I have been in contact with Mr. Rayme Nuckles of the
14:40:53 homeless coalition and drafting some of the issues
14:40:56 that came up over the past few weeks.
14:40:58 He's also in process of trying to meet with some of
14:41:00 the homeowners in the neighborhood and contact them.
14:41:03 When I spoke to Mr. Nuckles this morning he is trying
14:41:06 to set up a meeting to try to get to where they can
14:41:09 they're can be some common ground resolution, what the
14:41:12 specific concerns are.
14:41:13 So Mr. Knuckles is working on that.
14:41:17 For our part we will make sure that Land Development
14:41:18 Coordination stays involved to make the determination
14:41:21 on the appropriate use and whether or not the use is
14:41:24 following.
14:41:25 It comes under a change of use issue.
14:41:29 As the type of thing that's allowed to be there, this
14:41:31 facility is allowed to be there, by right, because it
14:41:34 is zoned correctly.
14:41:35 If it's determined to be a doctor's office, it still
14:41:37 is technically -- not technically, it is allowed to be

14:41:41 there in the zoning district.
14:41:42 Only question that comes into some of the site
14:41:44 regulations that would apply such as zoning and
14:41:48 buffering and things.
14:41:50 That's my report on that.
14:41:51 And what we are going to do, as soon as I get
14:41:54 additional information from Mr. Nuckles and he had
14:41:58 some meetings with the neighborhood association, at
14:41:59 that point maybe he can come back and say what the
14:42:01 result is, and once the zoning administrator comes out
14:42:04 and takes a look at it she will come back and say we
14:42:07 have determined to the be X, Y, Z type use, and final
14:42:11 solution to that will take place after she makes that
14:42:12 determination.
14:42:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Taking action?
14:42:25 No action needed?
14:42:26 Thank you.
14:42:27 Item 73.
14:42:33 >>GWEN MILLER: You didn't go know where.
14:42:35 >>> It's like old times.
14:42:36 It's actually kind of fun.
14:42:40 Growth management services again.

14:42:42 We requested the real estate, whether the roads were
14:42:47 over on 5000 West Gandy Boulevard were actually being
14:42:50 torn up and disassembled, as part of the actual
14:42:52 zoning, and the short answer is, yes, they are.
14:42:54 That's why those roads were taken.
14:42:56 And that you have a memo from Cynthia Miller through
14:43:00 Mr. Smith explaining more detail what that is.
14:43:03 But basically we are monitoring the site.
14:43:07 The structure permits have been pulled.
14:43:09 They are in a variety of different states of
14:43:11 completion, and we'll continue to monitor those as we
14:43:14 do with any active permit going out on a regular
14:43:17 basis, checking and making sure they are in compliance
14:43:19 with city's code and that's exactly what we are doing
14:43:21 now.
14:43:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any questions?
14:43:25 Okay.
14:43:25 Motion to receive and file.
14:43:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
14:43:28 >> Second.
14:43:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?
14:43:32 Opposed?

14:43:33 Moved and ordered.
14:43:34 Now the second reading on proposed ordinances.
14:43:42 Continuance, okay.
14:43:55 Anyone here to be speaking on public ordinances.
14:43:58 If you are going to be speaking on any of the public
14:44:00 hearing items.
14:44:06 Through 79.
14:44:08 (Oath administered by Clerk).
14:44:16 >>GWEN MILLER: I would like to open all the public
14:44:17 hearings.
14:44:18 >> Second.
14:44:18 (Motion carried).
14:44:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 74.
14:44:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, Mrs. Kert, do you want to be
14:44:27 there just in case?
14:44:29 There's something that I need to -- need help on.
14:44:32 Council, if you recall correctly, this case was
14:44:35 brought forth for second reading, because of the issue
14:44:38 of the public hearing.
14:44:40 It has been closed.
14:44:42 The issue was the opportunity for Mr. Michelini to
14:44:44 have the opportunity for rebuttal.

14:44:46 And my understanding is that what is going to happen
14:44:49 today, he will have that opportunity.
14:44:52 The public hearing will be closed and council will
14:44:54 entertain a motion for ordinance being presented for
14:44:58 second reading.
14:44:59 And these what you have before you today.
14:45:00 Is that correct, Ms. Kert?
14:45:01 Thank you.
14:45:03 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Let me just start by saying that I
14:45:07 think there is ash misperception about what this
14:45:13 petition is for.
14:45:13 We originally went to the neighborhood association,
14:45:15 met with them, received their endorsement, and as
14:45:18 recently as last week received a reendorsement of that
14:45:21 same request for a one-year conditional 2(APS) zoning,
14:45:30 closing at 2 p.m.
14:45:31 A number of people sent e-mails supporting this
14:45:33 petition.
14:45:34 People that were directly behind this came forward
14:45:37 personally and supported it.
14:45:39 Let me read briefly from one of the letters that you
14:45:41 received.

14:45:43 I am supporting the one-year conditional wet zoning
14:45:45 for the sale of beer and wine at king's grocery 723
14:45:49 west Columbus, I live directly behind the above
14:45:52 property.
14:45:54 We are the most immediately affected neighbors, and
14:45:57 therefore the most -- we are the most -- the closest
14:45:59 and most immediately effected neighbors.
14:46:02 I and many of my neighbors on these two small streets
14:46:06 as well as the Riverside Heights neighborhood
14:46:09 association are deeply troubled and puzzled by the
14:46:11 lack of support for the conditional wet zoning.
14:46:14 We finally have a property owner who cares about what
14:46:16 the community thinks and what is in the best interest
14:46:20 of the community at large.
14:46:22 He sought out and listened to our concerns and
14:46:24 addressed, he's been educated beyond his desire.
14:46:28 He spent a great deal of time and effort and money
14:46:31 improving the entire property and opening a small,
14:46:34 clean, well-run convenience grocery store.
14:46:37 He needs the additional customer traffic for the sale
14:46:39 of beer and wine to turn a profit for his store.
14:46:43 The property owner does -- if he does not continue to

14:46:46 improve the overall condition of the property, we
14:46:49 would be the first ones to be heard by City Council
14:46:51 the loudest in opposing the conditional wet zoning
14:46:55 becoming permanent.
14:46:58 We have a very specific closing time.
14:47:01 We have sought out and listened and had neighborhood
14:47:05 meetings regarding the various individuals that live
14:47:07 around this property.
14:47:08 They have gone door to door.
14:47:09 And what makes this a unique condition is that not
14:47:12 only has the petitioner gone door to door, but the
14:47:15 neighbors behind this store have gone with the owner
14:47:20 to solicit support from other people and explain what
14:47:24 the proposition was.
14:47:25 Initially, there was some concern that this was being
14:47:28 proposed as a liquor store.
14:47:29 It is not.
14:47:30 It is a grocery store, and will remain a grocery
14:47:34 store.
14:47:34 It also is requesting that we have a one-year
14:47:37 conditional and give them the chance to prove
14:47:39 themselves

14:47:44 When you have the folks that are most immediately
14:47:45 effected come forward, and they sit here hour after
14:47:48 hour as they have done in the two previous hearings,
14:47:52 that's a good sign.
14:47:54 We are asking for your ability to provide us with that
14:47:58 one-year conditional.
14:48:00 As you have said, I have said, and the neighbors have
14:48:02 said, if something goes wrong, they'll be the ones
14:48:05 here telling you.
14:48:06 And if we haven't fulfilled our promises, then we
14:48:08 don't deserve a wet zoning.
14:48:12 We are respectfully requesting an opportunity.
14:48:15 It's a small business.
14:48:16 And, unfortunately, other businesses have the ability
14:48:19 to sell alcohol, beer and wine, in the area.
14:48:23 And if this man doesn't have it, he simply cannot
14:48:27 compete.
14:48:27 They won't go there to buy anything.
14:48:31 Anyway, I don't think that most of you realized
14:48:34 before -- and I'll say it again -- the neighborhood
14:48:36 association has reviewed this.
14:48:38 They reaffirmed this as recently as last week.

14:48:41 And it's a one-year conditional.
14:48:47 They didn't ask you to support a permanent wet zoning.
14:48:49 They asked you to approve a one-year conditional and
14:48:52 allow the neighbors that actually live directly behind
14:48:55 here to continue working with the ohm -- owner and
14:49:00 making it a better place and we respectfully request
14:49:03 your approval.
14:49:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion to close?
14:49:08 The motion was that we only opened it for the rebuttal
14:49:10 from the last meeting.
14:49:15 So motion.
14:49:17 And second.
14:49:18 All in favor let it be known by Aye.
14:49:20 Okay.
14:49:20 Mr. Miranda.
14:49:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Item number 74.
14:49:25 Move an ordinance making lawful the conditional sale
14:49:27 of beverages containing alcohol of more than 1% by
14:49:30 weight and not more than 14% by weight and wines
14:49:33 regardless of alcoholic content, beer and wine 2(APS)
14:49:36 in sealed containers for consumption off premises only
14:49:39 at or from that certain lot, plot or tract of land

14:49:42 located at 723 west Columbus drive, Tampa, Florida,
14:49:46 more particularly described in section 2 hereof,
14:49:48 waiving certain restrictions as to distance based upon
14:49:50 certain findings, imposing certain conditions,
14:49:54 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict,
14:49:56 providing for an effective date.
14:49:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: A second on the motion.
14:50:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And this is just for adoption.
14:50:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Right.
14:50:13 Move to adopt the ordinance.
14:50:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
14:50:16 Record your vote, please.
14:50:21 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder and
14:50:23 Saul-Sena voting no and Mulhern being absent.
14:50:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 75.
14:50:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, item 75, 77, and 80 are all
14:50:34 related.
14:50:36 However, item 80, a nonquasi-judicial public hearing
14:50:41 regarding displacement of brick streets, would be
14:50:44 appropriate to take up first, and that, council, is as
14:50:48 a result of an ordinance that council has, and Ms.
14:50:52 Cole, did you want to give a background?

14:50:57 If you like.
14:50:57 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
14:50:59 As Mr. Shelby said, 75 and 77 and 80.
14:51:06 75 and 77 were a vacation and rezoning which you heard
14:51:09 approximately three weeks ago.
14:51:10 The vacation is to request a vacating of streets but
14:51:14 also to waive brick streets, and transportation
14:51:17 technical manual, there has been in place a regulation
14:51:23 relating to displacement of a brick street which this
14:51:27 request would ultimately displace an existing brick
14:51:30 street.
14:51:31 Mr. Shelby handed out that ordinance to you, and what
14:51:34 that provides is for a public hearing when there is a
14:51:43 quarterback by a governmental entity or third party to
14:51:47 displace a brick street.
14:51:49 Without giving too much detail, you are just really
14:51:51 determining whether or not it would be in the public
14:51:53 interest to displace the brick street.
14:51:55 You would be doing that pursuant to a resolution.
14:51:59 So I will ask petitioner just to briefly touch on that
14:52:05 item.
14:52:05 However, just so you understand the entire context of

14:52:08 this, the vacation petition would have the impact that
14:52:12 you have already heard on first reading to vacate the
14:52:15 public interest in the actual street, but not in the
14:52:18 brick in and of itself.
14:52:20 Now, I wasn't actually at your zoning hearing but I
14:52:23 was listening to it because you know that's what I
14:52:25 lake to do when I'm not here is listen to you all when
14:52:28 I'm at home, and I did hear there was some
14:52:30 conversation about where that brick street -- where
14:52:32 that brick was going to be utilized.
14:52:35 At the time there was discussion about having that
14:52:36 brick being used within the project.
14:52:38 However, before this discussion with the
14:52:40 transportation division, and pursuant to the brick
14:52:43 street placement provisions, it was determined for the
14:52:48 petitioner's part and our transportation division's
14:52:51 part it would be more appropriate for the city to go
14:52:52 ahead and keep the brick.
14:52:54 I tell you that, so that is part of your consideration
14:52:57 for the displacement, but also as part of your
14:52:59 vacation petition, we have actually amended the
14:53:02 vacation ordinance which we can do between first and

14:53:06 second reading even though this was not at your
14:53:08 request to reflect as opposed to the being used as a
14:53:13 project in and of itself as the brick would return to
14:53:16 the city transportation department per our usual
14:53:18 process, which is actually a standard condition of
14:53:23 vacation ordinances.
14:53:24 So that is just for your information, where we are.
14:53:28 I will be requesting that you take action first on
14:53:30 item number 80, then go ahead and go back to 75, take
14:53:33 a vote on 75, and then we can deal with the rezoning
14:53:36 ordinance, which I understand from staff the rezoning
14:53:40 has been -- the site plan has been certified.
14:53:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Julia.
14:53:50 This is back to the bricks real briefly.
14:53:53 What I would like, because sometimes we approve
14:53:55 projects.
14:53:55 And sometimes they don't get built exactly as we
14:53:58 envision.
14:53:59 I would like to have a couple of stipulation busy the
14:54:02 bricks.
14:54:02 First of all, that if the brick can be used within the
14:54:05 site plan that it will.

14:54:07 And then if it can't, then it return to the city.
14:54:09 Secondly, that the brick not be removed until the
14:54:14 petitioner has applied for building permits.
14:54:19 Or something to indicate that this is really
14:54:20 happening.
14:54:24 The issue we looked at on Gandy, a few items back, is
14:54:29 a case in point.
14:54:30 I mean, that wasn't -- this was a brick street, so I
14:54:35 really love this project.
14:54:36 It doesn't use brick as part of it.
14:54:38 If we go through the project that's before us, that's
14:54:40 great.
14:54:41 But I just want to make sure that the removal isn't
14:54:44 triggered until we have a very good sense of the next
14:54:48 phase that's happening.
14:54:49 >>JULIA COLE: To answer your second question first,
14:54:49 Since that whole issue on Gandy came to light and
14:54:55 relooking at vacation ordinance, we have very clear
14:54:58 standards, both within the vacation ordinance and
14:54:59 within our zoning as it relates to the timing, but I
14:55:04 think going back to your first question, if that is
14:55:09 the intent of council that you want to go ahead and

14:55:13 provide for that brick to be used within the project
14:55:16 first, before it is given back to the transportation
14:55:21 staff, I think there needs to be some determination as
14:55:24 to what it means to use it within the project.
14:55:27 Is it intended to be used within the project in public
14:55:30 open areas?
14:55:30 Is it intended to be used within the project in other
14:55:33 areas?
14:55:33 If that's the case I would let now.
14:55:35 But transportation had a pretty significant objection
14:55:39 to this brick on a street being used not for the
14:55:45 purposes of being on a street but, say, a walkway or
14:55:48 in the internal portion of it.
14:55:50 It is ultimately up to you, but I just wanted you to
14:55:53 know where their objection is coming from that street
14:55:57 bricks should be used as part of a street, not as a
14:56:00 decorative feature on a project.
14:56:02 But that is up to council.
14:56:04 And if that is the case, and you do vote to allow it
14:56:06 to be used within the project, then I will request the
14:56:09 opportunity to amend the ordinance to provide for that
14:56:12 because what is in front of you just takes it back to

14:56:14 the regular language relating to giving us back the
14:56:19 brick, and the petitioner didn't have a problem with
14:56:20 that.
14:56:21 So I just wanted to speak to those issues.
14:56:25 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open the public hearing for
14:56:31 80.
14:56:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor let it be known by Aye.
14:56:34 So moved and ordered.
14:56:36 Okay.
14:56:37 >>DAVID MECHANIK: 305 South Boulevard here on behalf
14:56:40 of the applicant.
14:56:42 We had originally advised the staff that we did not
14:56:45 have a problem -- incorporating the brick within the
14:56:49 project.
14:56:49 However, when the idea was suggested that the brick
14:56:54 must be incorporated in a road, we were concerned
14:56:57 about that because we don't know that that's a
14:57:00 suitable thing for a, quote, road that would be open
14:57:03 to the public.
14:57:04 As you know the bricks had a certain degree of wear,
14:57:09 there maybe safety issues, so we said it could be a
14:57:12 sidewalk or maybe a Piazza.

14:57:14 As far as we are concerned, we are still okay with
14:57:16 that as an alternative.
14:57:22 Butties guess the other concern we would just raise is
14:57:25 we would really like to not have a delay as a result
14:57:27 of adding those stipulations.
14:57:30 Also the other one you mentioned about not removing
14:57:32 the brick until we are ready to build something would
14:57:36 be also appropriate.
14:57:37 You know, we have no problem with that.
14:57:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Maybe someone from transportation
14:57:44 could address.
14:57:46 Have you been listening to the conversation?
14:58:00 >>> Yes, I have.
14:58:01 Melanie Calloway.
14:58:02 I have not been sworn.
14:58:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You have not been sworn.
14:58:12 Okay.
14:58:14 >>> Julia was correct.
14:58:15 Issue with the brick street.
14:58:19 Transportation, we feel if you are going to vacate a
14:58:21 street, it was our understanding they were just moving
14:58:25 the street.

14:58:26 If they want to keep it as a brick street just have
14:58:28 them move it to incorporate.
14:58:30 They had told us later on that was not what they were
14:58:32 going to do.
14:58:33 So then they are saying, well, can we use the bricks
14:58:35 to incorporate into their process?
14:58:37 And you are like, okay, you can do that.
14:58:39 However, you know, we want to make sure that's in the
14:58:42 actual street, those bricks are in the street.
14:58:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: How about sidewalks or walkways?
14:58:48 >>> In the right-of-way.
14:58:49 In the private right-of-way, sidewalks.
14:58:56 Sidewalks or crosswalks, some type.
14:58:58 And they weren't really sure how they would
14:59:01 incorporate it if they were going to at all.
14:59:03 So I thought maybe the best way to do it is give you
14:59:05 back the bricks and have the bricks for future
14:59:08 maintenance of our streets.
14:59:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm okay with not requiring them to
14:59:15 be incorporated into the project.
14:59:17 But to be given to the city for use.
14:59:20 And I know that now the city is securing them and not

14:59:23 selling them to other cities, or letting vandals take
14:59:26 them.
14:59:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay, staff on item 80.
14:59:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, did you want to take the
14:59:34 vote on this one?
14:59:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Do 80 first.
14:59:40 >>> I think that's the entire presentation for number
14:59:43 80 so we can do that on the resolution.
14:59:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Comments?
14:59:47 >>> There is a notice area for this but it's all
14:59:59 judicial matter.
15:00:01 I would request to see if there's anybody in the
15:00:02 audience that wants to speak for a minute.
15:00:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Does anybody in the public want to
15:00:06 speak on item 80?
15:00:08 Now we can close.
15:00:09 Need to close it.
15:00:11 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Close the hearing.
15:00:13 >> Second.
15:00:13 (Motion carried).
15:00:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Do we have an ordinance?
15:00:20 Move the resolution?

15:00:22 Just to move the resolution.
15:00:24 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Move the resolution approving
15:00:26 request of displaced brick street, all that portion of
15:00:29 14th street lying south of Adamo Drive and north
15:00:32 of harbor street in Tampa dock company's estuary
15:00:40 subdivision, a subdivision in the City of Tampa,
15:00:42 Hillsborough County, Florida, as more particularly
15:00:44 described in section 1 of this resolution.
15:00:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Get a second?
15:00:50 >> Second.
15:00:51 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor say Aye.
15:00:54 Opposed, Nay.
15:00:57 (Motion carried)
15:01:04 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
15:01:05 I'm requesting you take action on item number 77 which
15:01:08 is the rezoning of vacation.
15:01:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public to speak
15:01:14 on item 77?
15:01:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
15:01:23 >> Second.
15:01:24 (Motion carried).
15:01:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Mulhern, are you going to vote for

15:01:28 that?
15:01:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'll move it.
15:01:30 I move the following ordinance upon second reading, an
15:01:34 ordinance rezoning property in the general advice of
15:01:37 1317, 1312, 137250 Channelside Drive, 739-14th
15:01:43 street, 610 and 1412 harbor street, 1615 east Adamo
15:01:47 Drive, and 1601 east Sahlman drive in the city of
15:01:53 Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in
15:01:55 section 1 from zoning district classification 1H
15:01:59 industrial heavy and CD-2 Channel District 2 to PD
15:02:03 planned development, residential, retail, office,
15:02:06 business, professional, and CD-2 Channel District 2
15:02:10 providing an effective date.
15:02:10 >> Second.
15:02:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Vote and record.
15:02:16 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Mulhern voting no and
15:02:22 councilman Scott being absent.
15:02:23 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
15:02:25 Now I request that you vote on item 75.
15:02:27 I want to make sure the clerk has the amended
15:02:30 ordinance which indicates the brick will in fact come
15:02:33 back to the City of Tampa.

15:02:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
15:02:38 wants to speak on item 75?
15:02:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
15:02:42 >> Second.
15:02:43 (Motion carried).
15:02:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I.
15:02:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I move to adopt the following
15:02:50 ordinance, an ordinance vacating, closing,
15:02:52 discontinuing, and abandoning a certain right-of-way
15:02:56 all that portion of 14th street lying south of
15:02:58 Adamo Drive and north of harbor street, in Tampa dock
15:03:02 company's estuary subdivision, a subdivision located
15:03:05 in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida the
15:03:08 same being more fully described in section 2 hereof,
15:03:10 providing an effective date.
15:03:10 >> Second.
15:03:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Vote and record.
15:03:17 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Mulhern voting no and
15:03:19 Scott being absent.
15:03:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
15:03:24 wants to speak on item 76?
15:03:29 >>> Good afternoon.

15:03:33 LaChone Dock, land development coordination.
15:03:36 On the following item, Z 07-99, Z 08-02 and Z 08-12,
15:03:42 these plans have been certified by the zoning
15:03:46 administrator and have been submitted to the clerk.
15:03:48 I do have copies of these plans if you have any
15:03:49 questions.
15:03:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone like to speak on item 76?
15:03:57 >>> Henry Hicks, 3003 west Azeele, suite 200, Tampa,
15:04:03 Florida.
15:04:03 And I have been sworn.
15:04:06 I am a representative from the developer, and I just
15:04:09 wanted to point out that between the first reading and
15:04:12 today, there was one minor change made to the plan,
15:04:16 which involved the narrowing of the driveway area by
15:04:23 two feet on a very small section, so that a sidewalk
15:04:26 could be created, and that was implemented into this
15:04:30 final draft.
15:04:33 I don't know that there's anything else that I needed
15:04:35 to clarify for you.
15:04:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: This is the second reading, Madam
15:04:41 Chair.
15:04:41 I want to make sure the legal department is fine with

15:04:44 that, that it doesn't have to go back to first reading
15:04:46 if there were any substantial reading between --
15:04:49 changes between the ordinances.
15:04:58 >>> That is on the certified site plan.
15:05:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to close.
15:05:06 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close, Madam Chair.
15:05:08 (Motion carried).
15:05:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 76.
15:05:13 I would like to move the following ordinance for
15:05:16 second reading and adoption, an ordinance rezoning
15:05:19 property in the general vicinity of 2005 east Osborne
15:05:22 Avenue and 4616-22nd street in the city of Tampa,
15:05:27 Florida and more particularly described in section 1
15:05:29 from zoning district classifications RS-50 residential
15:05:31 single-family, RM-24, residential multifamily, and CG
15:05:35 commercial general, to PD planned development
15:05:37 single-family attached, semi detached, providing an
15:05:39 effective date.
15:05:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
15:05:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Vote and record.
15:05:46 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miller voting no,
15:05:58 Scott being absent.

15:06:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
15:06:02 wants to speak on item 78?
15:06:05 Need to close.
15:06:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
15:06:07 >> Second.
15:06:07 (Motion carried).
15:06:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Caetano, would you read 78, please?
15:06:12 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Ordinance for second reading, an
15:06:16 ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of
15:06:18 125 Adelia Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and
15:06:21 more particularly described in section 1 from zoning
15:06:23 district classifications RS-50 residential
15:06:25 single-family to PD planned development, residential
15:06:29 single-family, detached, providing an effective date.
15:06:32 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
15:06:33 Vote and record.
15:06:42 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Mulhern and Saul-Sena
15:06:44 voting no, Scott being absent.
15:06:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
15:06:49 wants to speak on item 79?
15:06:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
15:06:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.

15:06:55 (Motion carried).
15:06:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Mulhern, would you read that one,
15:07:01 please?
15:07:11 >>MARY MULHERN: I'll move an ordinance being presented
15:07:17 for second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in
15:07:20 the general vicinity of 3901 North Boulevard in the
15:07:22 city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described
15:07:25 in section 1 from zoning district classifications
15:07:28 RS-50 to PD planned development, professional office,
15:07:32 providing an effective date.
15:07:34 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
15:07:35 Vote and record.
15:07:43 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Scott being absent.
15:07:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
15:07:47 Everyone that's been sworn in for 81 through 84.
15:07:51 Have you all been sworn in?
15:07:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you want to continue on?
15:08:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Through 87.
15:08:02 Anyone speaking on 81 through 87, please stand and
15:08:05 raise your right hand.
15:08:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you intend to speak?
15:08:11 (Oath administered by Clerk).

15:08:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ladies and gentlemen, please remember
15:08:19 there is a sign-in sheet that you should sign if you
15:08:21 intend to speak.
15:08:22 Also for the record, when you state your name, please
15:08:24 reaffirm that you have been sworn.
15:08:26 I'll put a sign to remind you.
15:08:28 Thank you.
15:08:34 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open number 81.
15:08:36 >> So moved.
15:08:45 (Motion carried).
15:08:46 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.
15:08:51 I have been sworn.
15:08:52 The case before you this afternoon, WZ 08-53 is
15:08:56 located at 11408 north 30th street.
15:08:59 The current zoning is PD planned development.
15:09:02 And they are requesting a 2(COP-X), which is a wet
15:09:07 zoning in order to sell beer and wine in association
15:09:09 with a hotel.
15:09:11 The property contains a six-story residential hotel
15:09:14 with a pool area.
15:09:15 The request is for 76,966 square feet of area,
15:09:20 including 73,200 square feet to be located inside and

15:09:25 3,766 square feet to be located around the pool area
15:09:30 outside of the building.
15:09:31 The establishment was 66 feet total, 50 of them will
15:09:35 be inside.
15:09:36 Seats.
15:09:37 The sale of the alcoholic beverages will be incidental
15:09:40 to the primary use of the property as hotel.
15:09:42 The wet zoning in the entire area hotel is necessary
15:09:45 in order for the petitioner to be able to provide
15:09:48 alcoholic beverages with room service.
15:09:54 Just to familiarize you with the site.
15:09:59 To the north, 30th street, Bruce B. Downs.
15:10:09 I'll show you a couple quick pictures of the site.
15:10:37 There is like a long drive back to the property.
15:10:40 There's an outparcel here that I will show you and
15:10:43 there are several hotels here.
15:10:45 This is Pepsico company overhear.
15:10:48 A picture of the front of the property.
15:10:51 This is the rear where that pool area is.
15:10:56 This is a view from 30th looking north toward
15:11:00 Fowler.
15:11:00 This is the outparcel.

15:11:05 And then the Pepsico that I referred to.
15:11:09 There is as you can see on the staff report one other
15:11:16 wet zoned property within 1 that you feet.
15:11:19 And also there are no residential properties or
15:11:22 institutional uses within 1,000 feet.
15:11:25 Land Development Coordination has in a objections to
15:11:28 this wet zoning request.
15:11:29 I also provided you with a police report for this
15:11:31 case.
15:11:33 If there's any questions, staff is available.
15:11:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just have a quick question.
15:11:42 Is the long skinny outparcel included?
15:11:46 >>> That drive way, in the aerial?
15:11:49 Yes, in the wet zoning, no, in a.
15:11:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
15:11:56 >>> Officer Don mill per, City of Tampa police
15:11:58 department.
15:11:58 City of Tampa police department has no objections to
15:12:00 this wet zoning.
15:12:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
15:12:04 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Miller, is this report you
15:12:07 are going to be giving?

15:12:08 Nobody is helping you, is that it?
15:12:11 From criminal intelligence?
15:12:15 >>> Good afternoon.
15:12:22 Grace Yang, 201 North Franklin Street, suite 2200,
15:12:26 Tampa, Florida.
15:12:27 I have been sworn.
15:12:28 And I am the tone for the petitioner today.
15:12:32 As you have heard, this is for the Hyatt place hotel
15:12:35 near Busch Gardens on north 30th street.
15:12:38 It used to be an AmeriSuites hotel and has now been
15:12:42 rebranded and completely renovated inside.
15:12:45 Joining me today in the audience is Drew Dockran, the
15:12:54 general manager of the hotel.
15:12:54 As staff has noted, this is a request for a 2(COP-X)
15:12:57 beer and wine only for consumption on the premises.
15:13:00 I'm happy to answer any questions from council
15:13:02 members.
15:13:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
15:13:04 wants to speak on item 81?
15:13:07 >> Move to close.
15:13:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
15:13:11 (Motion carried)

15:13:17 Ms. Mulhern, are you busy down there?
15:13:19 Number 81.
15:13:21 >>MARY MULHERN: I move an ordinance being presented
15:13:23 for first reading consideration, an ordinance making
15:13:25 lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol of
15:13:27 more than 1% by weight and not more than 14% by weight
15:13:31 and wines regardless of alcoholic content, beer and
15:13:34 wine, 2(COP-X), for consumption on the premises only
15:13:37 at or from that certain lot, plot or tract of land
15:13:40 located at 11408 north 30th street, Tampa,
15:13:44 Florida, as more particularly described in section 2
15:13:47 hereof, waiving certain restrictions as to distance
15:13:49 based upon certain findings, providing for repeal of
15:13:52 all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective
15:13:53 date.
15:13:55 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
15:13:56 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
15:13:58 Opposed, Nay.
15:13:59 Item number 82 need to open.
15:14:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
15:14:02 >> Second.
15:14:02 (Motion carried).

15:14:03 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.
15:14:07 On item number 82, I would like to ask that you remove
15:14:10 this item from the agenda.
15:14:13 Per the new rules, the zoning administrator was able
15:14:15 to grant the 180 day extension request
15:14:19 administratively, and granted the extension from
15:14:22 January 10th to July 8th of 2008.
15:14:25 The applicant has demonstrated the intent not to
15:14:28 abandon her 27,523 822.
15:14:42 (Motion carried).
15:14:42 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion to open number 83.
15:14:47 >> So moved.
15:14:50 >> Second.
15:14:50 (Motion carried).
15:14:50 >>ABBYE FEELEY: WZ 08-65 is located at 1714 North
15:14:59 Armenia Avenue, suite A.
15:15:01 The current zoning on the property is CI commercial
15:15:03 intensive.
15:15:04 And the wet zoning request you heard 2(COP-R).
15:15:08 Petitioner is requesting a 2(COP-R) which is beer and
15:15:10 wine sales for consumption on premises only in
15:15:13 conjunction with a restaurant.

15:15:16 This is located in a one-story building.
15:15:18 Wet zoning will contain 1,794 square feet.
15:15:22 The sale of the alcohol will be incidental to the
15:15:24 primary function of the business.
15:15:28 As you can see on the staff report there are several
15:15:30 wet zoned properties within 1 that you feet of the
15:15:32 request.
15:15:32 There is also residential property and several
15:15:37 institutional uses within 1 that you feet.
15:15:40 Therefore, there is a request for City Council to
15:15:42 waive the distance separation requirement between
15:15:44 these uses.
15:15:46 Land development has in a objection.
15:15:53 The site is located on the southwest corner of union
15:15:58 and Armenia.
15:16:07 There's a picture of the site.
15:16:18 This is the Armenia side of the site.
15:16:20 Here is an additional photo of the union side of the
15:16:23 site.
15:16:25 Parking.
15:16:26 Here is a have you looking south on Armenia.
15:16:31 This is the northwest corner of Armenia and union.

15:16:34 Just directly north of the subject property.
15:16:37 This is a look down union.
15:16:45 This is the southeast corner of union and Armenia
15:16:49 directly across the street from the subject site.
15:17:00 This is looking down the interstate. This is a
15:17:01 one-way segment of Armenia.
15:17:05 Staff is available for any questions.
15:17:12 >>> Officer Don Miller, City of Tampa police
15:17:15 department.
15:17:15 City of Tampa police department has in a objections to
15:17:17 this wet zoning.
15:17:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
15:17:28 >>> Jessica RAIA-long.
15:17:35 I am one of the owners of this bistro.
15:17:38 >> Mike long.
15:17:39 I have been sworn in.
15:17:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions?
15:17:42 Anybody in the public want to speak on 83?
15:17:44 >> Move to close.
15:17:45 >> Second.
15:17:45 (Motion carried)
15:17:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move the following ordinance, an

15:17:56 ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages
15:17:57 containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight and not
15:18:00 more than 14%by weight and wines regardless of
15:18:03 alcoholic content, beer and wine, 2 dop R, for
15:18:06 consumption on the premises only in connection with a
15:18:10 restaurant business establishment on that certain lot,
15:18:13 plot or tract of land located at 14 -- 1714 North
15:18:17 Armenia Avenue, suite A, Tampa, Florida, as more
15:18:20 particularly described in section 2 hereof, waiving
15:18:22 certain restrictions as to distance based upon certain
15:18:25 findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
15:18:27 conflict, providing an effective date.
15:18:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
15:18:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was just going to say, to Jessica
15:18:38 and Mr. Long and their partner, this is the NO-HO
15:18:44 bistro and it's really wonderful that you all have
15:18:46 gone into the neighborhood, and made a huge investment
15:18:50 in the neighborhood, and they are doing a great job
15:18:52 there with a restaurant, fine restaurant, and I'm sure
15:18:54 that this will just help supplement that with beer and
15:18:58 wine.
15:18:58 So keep up the good work.

15:19:02 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Is there any outside seating at
15:19:04 this establishment?
15:19:05 >>> No, there isn't.
15:19:07 My understanding is because the way the parking is
15:19:09 designed and the set back between sidewalk outside of
15:19:11 the doors of the bistro and the parking, it wasn't
15:19:14 approved.
15:19:15 Initially we had wanted to, but we would have to
15:19:17 renegotiate the entire site.
15:19:19 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Thank you.
15:19:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
15:19:26 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
15:19:30 (Motion carried)
15:19:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 84 cannot be heard.
15:19:38 Have you got a new date?
15:19:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Remove from the agenda by motion.
15:19:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I would like to reschedule.
15:19:45 They have paid the amendment fee for misnotice.
15:19:47 If you could set that for June 26th.
15:19:49 >> So moved.
15:19:50 >> Second.
15:19:51 (Motion carried).

15:19:51 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open number 85.
15:20:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
15:20:02 >> Second.
15:20:03 (Motion carried)
15:20:20 >> WZ 08-73 located at 5200 west Tyson Avenue, planned
15:20:27 development, request is for a 4(COP) beer, wine and
15:20:30 liquor, sale of beverages regardless of alcoholic
15:20:32 content --
15:20:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 85?
15:20:39 That was 86.
15:20:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We are going to hold on to 86.
15:21:07 >>ABBYE FEELEY: We'll come back to it.
15:21:10 Z 08-70 located at 1619 west snow circle, a PD planned
15:21:15 development, Hyde Park Village.
15:21:16 The request is for a 2(COP) beer and wine, consumption
15:21:22 on premises.
15:21:23 The area to be wet zoned includes 3,957 square feet
15:21:29 with a total of 92 seats, 72 of which will be located
15:21:32 inside and 20 seats which will be located outside.
15:21:36 Sale of alcohol will be incidental to the primary
15:21:41 business which is a restaurant.
15:21:42 It was for a 2(COP) which is consumption on premises

15:21:46 and containers for consumption off premises.
15:21:50 There are several wet zoned properties within a
15:21:52 thousand feet including the wine exchange, TIMPANO's,
15:21:58 restaurant, and there are residential properties
15:21:59 within a thousand feet.
15:22:01 There are also institutional uses within a thousand
15:22:03 feet.
15:22:03 Therefore, per discussion of council you would need to
15:22:06 waive the distance separation requirement.
15:22:08 I know most of you are familiar with Hyde Park
15:22:16 Village.
15:22:18 The new location of the wine exchange is here.
15:22:21 The site we are will go at is actually back in the
15:22:23 corner on snow circle.
15:22:26 The pottery place is here in the corner and this is
15:22:32 directly adjacent to that.
15:22:46 The storefront is a little further back.
15:22:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I ask a question while she has
15:22:54 that picture up?
15:22:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
15:22:56 Mr. Dingfelder.
15:22:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't have a problem with the wet

15:22:59 zoning per se.
15:23:00 But I'm a little concerned and surprised, and I'm sure
15:23:05 we will hear from the applicant, the external seats,
15:23:09 that you said 20 seats.
15:23:12 I assume they are going to put it under the awning
15:23:14 there, right where says coming soon, Beer Garten.
15:23:18 But my concern is the apartments upstairs.
15:23:22 Which you can see there's an apartment right there,
15:23:24 and then there's another apartment upstairs above the
15:23:26 pottery shop, and there's a few other apartments that
15:23:29 have terraces.
15:23:32 I don't know that I have heard any complaints yet, but
15:23:34 I know that the wine exchange is doing extremely well,
15:23:39 and they have a large outdoor seating area right down
15:23:44 the path there.
15:23:49 Right under that awning.
15:23:50 And it's wonderful.
15:23:52 But I'm just concerned about outdoor seating.
15:23:56 And I want to hear more about that.
15:23:58 And I wondered if staff explored that at all or had
15:24:01 any concerns about it.
15:24:06 >>> When I was out at the site I didn't know exactly

15:24:09 how they were going to place 20 additional seats
15:24:12 outside.
15:24:13 They will need to get, I believe, the sidewalk cafe
15:24:20 through transportation.
15:24:22 I'm not exactly sure.
15:24:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Not public right-of-way.
15:24:27 I don't know.
15:24:27 >>> But it would be five 4-top tables basically, and I
15:24:31 didn't know how they were going to exactly configure
15:24:33 that on the storefront but maybe the petitioner can
15:24:35 speak to that a little further.
15:24:41 >>GWEN MILLER: One second.
15:24:53 >>> Officer Miller, City of Tampa police.
15:24:56 City of Tampa police department has in a objection to
15:24:59 this wet zone.
15:25:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Now petitioner may come up.
15:25:02 >> My name is April Cox, owner, and I have been sworn
15:25:05 in.
15:25:06 >> My name is Patty Cory, owner, and I have been sworn
15:25:09 in.
15:25:10 >> We are offering the seats on the outside facility
15:25:13 because we do not allow smoking in our restaurant, so

15:25:18 that we are capable and did get approval from our
15:25:22 tenants before we signed our lease.
15:25:24 That it would be okay to the village to allow seating
15:25:27 underneath the awning in front of our storefront to
15:25:29 allow somebody that would like to smoke a cigarette or
15:25:33 sit outside as does the wine exchange, and the other
15:25:37 patio that has been built onto the redevelopment.
15:25:41 >> In addition to that we will have no electronics, no
15:25:44 music, nothing that would add to anything beyond
15:25:48 normal conversation of the patrons.
15:25:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Mulhern?
15:25:58 >>MARY MULHERN: Can I ask a question?
15:25:59 I was just there yesterday and I hadn't been to Hyde
15:26:01 Park Village since the wine exchange moved over there.
15:26:07 And I was really struck by how much -- suddenly there
15:26:11 was pavement in there, and I think they tore down --
15:26:14 >>> They made the easement much --
15:26:16 >> They made it huge so it looks like there's a lot of
15:26:18 space there for -- I mean, and then, you know, I saw
15:26:23 your signs.
15:26:23 >>> There's a ten-foot easement from the side of the
15:26:27 new fountain that was put in up to the beginning of

15:26:30 the awning that's wide open for public access.
15:26:40 >> Between your awning and where the fountain --
15:26:43 >>> Yes.
15:26:43 Ten feet there.
15:26:44 And we will have it gated so it will not --
15:26:46 >> I thought, you know, that area looked fine.
15:26:50 But I don't know what direction it is.
15:26:52 But as you go toward the wine exchange, that area is
15:26:57 huge.
15:26:58 And this isn't actually -- I don't think it's a
15:27:01 problem with your establishment at all.
15:27:03 But it looks like as they fill in the other buildings
15:27:08 there we do need to watch for wet zoning, because it
15:27:11 looks like there is a definite intent to have a lot of
15:27:15 outdoor setting -- seating there.
15:27:17 So I think Mr. Dingfelder's concern is well stated so
15:27:21 we need to be careful.
15:27:22 But I think your place is situated in a good spot.
15:27:24 >>> Thank you.
15:27:27 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Wet zoning the sidewalk, also?
15:27:31 >>> We requested that that will be wet zoned and well
15:27:34 gate to the where you only have access from the inside

15:27:37 of our building, where there would be no access.
15:27:41 There will be emergency gates that you can walk in
15:27:45 without going through the front.
15:27:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can you oh or somebody put up that
15:27:51 picture that we had up before?
15:27:56 Thank you, Abbye.
15:27:57 She's got it.
15:28:03 >> The straight-on shot.
15:28:08 Abbye described five 4-tops and you are anticipating
15:28:18 putting that underneath the awning there?
15:28:20 >>> Correct, yes.
15:28:21 We have two spaces.
15:28:22 >> You go further to the left?
15:28:24 >>> We are knocking the walls between the two units.
15:28:27 I believe it's 1619 and 1621.
15:28:30 We leased both of those spaces so it is actually quite
15:28:34 longer than appearing.
15:28:35 But the address that exists is 1619, which will take
15:28:37 over the second unit.
15:28:43 It's wider than appearing.
15:28:44 >> It's twice as wide as that.
15:28:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.

15:28:48 Let's make sure that we advertised and dealt with this
15:28:51 properly.
15:28:54 What we are looking at front of us right now just says
15:28:57 1619.
15:28:58 So it's your intent to do beer and wine on both
15:29:00 properties?
15:29:01 >>> Well, it accesses the address that they told us to
15:29:05 go by because we are knocking the wall down.
15:29:07 So it will go by just one address.
15:29:12 I'm not sure --
15:29:16 >> Abby will look at that and make sure we are okay in
15:29:18 that regard.
15:29:19 Have you spoken with the neighbors uppers?
15:29:20 >>> We have been to wine exchange.
15:29:22 We have been to quite a bit of the --
15:29:23 >> Upstairs.
15:29:24 People who live --
15:29:25 >>> I have not met anybody directly, but I have been
15:29:28 down there on a weekly, daily basis, getting word, I
15:29:32 have heard nothing but this is something that's going
15:29:35 to --
15:29:36 >> Abbye, if you could show that picture, not the

15:29:39 tight picture but the picture that shows the
15:29:41 apartments.
15:29:42 That picture.
15:29:43 Okay.
15:29:43 Are you aware of those apartments uppers?
15:29:45 >>> Yes.
15:29:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If I lived up there, I would start
15:29:50 having concern about too much noise out there.
15:29:53 Your hours are going to be what?
15:29:54 >>> Well, we have not closing hours because we don't
15:29:59 know what our business --
15:30:01 >>> Our patrons will dictate our closing hours.
15:30:04 >> We will be open till eleven.
15:30:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It could be midnight or could be
15:30:08 one in the morning.
15:30:09 >>> We intend to comply with all ordinances, noise
15:30:13 ordinance laws.
15:30:15 >> I understand.
15:30:16 If there's potentially 20 people, if it's beer, it
15:30:19 might be 20 guys sitting out there drinking beer and
15:30:23 smoking cigarettes and talking loudly at midnight or
15:30:27 one in the morning, it might be a concern for the

15:30:29 people upstairs.
15:30:30 >>> Which we would have no problems a daily basis
15:30:34 evaluating the fact that our patios can be closed, and
15:30:37 only allowing patrons on the inside rooms when noise
15:30:41 becomes an issue.
15:30:45 >> Was it originally your intent to do the outdoor
15:30:47 thing or was this just an after thought?
15:30:50 >>> Well, because we don't allow smoking, woo he feel
15:30:52 we need to have some areas, and we are born and raised
15:30:57 in Florida, love being outside.
15:30:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Like I said, I have no concept with
15:31:01 the concept.
15:31:02 I never anticipated it was going to include outdoor.
15:31:05 If I lived alone there I would have concern with the
15:31:07 noise that's coming from wine exchange.
15:31:09 I haven't spoken with those people, but I know some of
15:31:11 them.
15:31:12 I had concern because it's sort of a tunnel effect.
15:31:14 And there's a lot of business in wine exchange that's
15:31:18 now open till eleven and twelve on the weekends.
15:31:21 We can't do anything about that because we approved
15:31:23 that awhile back.

15:31:24 But I don't know if we want to exacerbate the outdoor
15:31:27 thing.
15:31:27 I think it's wonderful that you all are doing the
15:31:29 other thing.
15:31:32 Maybe fewer seats.
15:31:33 Maybe just one table, four seats, something like that.
15:31:36 So it's not potential for a big 20-person crowd.
15:31:41 I just have some concerns.
15:31:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena.
15:31:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did you all have to notify the
15:31:47 people who live --
15:31:50 >>> Absolutely, yes.
15:31:52 We did.
15:31:53 And every one of them --
15:31:54 >> Is there like a condo association?
15:31:57 And they were notified?
15:31:59 >>> We actually had meetings with them.
15:32:00 >> And what kind of feedback did you get?
15:32:07 >>> No one has really said, oh, my gosh, what are you
15:32:11 going to be?
15:32:12 And, now, we have explained.
15:32:13 >> And they understood with you are going to have

15:32:15 outside tables?
15:32:16 >>> Absolutely.
15:32:18 I had no negative comments regarding any concerns
15:32:20 about noise.
15:32:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think cafes are going to be the
15:32:29 saving grace.
15:32:32 >>> The candy shop will not survive without another
15:32:36 anchor, I believe, in that area.
15:32:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
15:32:41 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I take a little exception to Mr.
15:32:44 Dingfelder's words, 20 "guys" out there.
15:32:46 [ Laughter ]
15:32:48 10 women will take what 20 guys will do.
15:32:52 [ Laughter ]
15:32:53 Unless they are drinking tea.
15:32:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
15:33:00 wants to speak on item 85?
15:33:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close.
15:33:04 >> Second.
15:33:05 (Motion carried).
15:33:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Miranda, would you read that?
15:33:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move an ordinance presented for

15:33:13 first reading, an ordinance making lawful the sale of
15:33:17 beverage containing alcohol by more than 1% of weight
15:33:20 not more than 14% by weight, wine, regardless of
15:33:23 alcoholic content, beer and wine, 2(COP), for
15:33:26 consumption on premises and in sealed containers for
15:33:29 consumption --
15:33:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Wait a second.
15:33:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead, Mr. Miranda.
15:33:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm sorry.
15:33:41 >> For consumption off premises at or from a certain
15:33:45 lot, plot or tract of land located at 1619 west snow
15:33:50 circle, Tampa, Florida, as more particularly described
15:33:53 in section 2 hereof waiving certain restrictions as to
15:33:55 distance based upon certain findings, providing for
15:33:58 repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an
15:34:00 effective date.
15:34:03 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
15:34:04 Question on the motion.
15:34:05 Mr. Dingfelder.
15:34:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll second this.
15:34:08 I work, you know, in the village.
15:34:10 I support the restaurants and establishments in the

15:34:13 village.
15:34:15 Of course, I never drank a beer, Joseph --
15:34:19 >>GWEN MILLER: With ten guys?
15:34:21 >> But I have concerned concerns about that.
15:34:23 Since we have two public hearings there will be an
15:34:25 opportunity of anybody who does live above there has
15:34:28 concerns will be able to contact us and let us know.
15:34:30 I would also encourage you specifically not J just
15:34:33 generically to contact condo association but to
15:34:36 specifically let those folks know -- that's what I
15:34:40 asked earlier and I didn't hear anything.
15:34:48 Anyway, between first and second reading if anybody
15:34:50 has a problem I'm sure they will let us know.
15:34:53 I'll support the motion.
15:34:54 (Motion carried).
15:34:57 >> Motion and second.
15:34:58 >> CLERK: Second reading will be on May 1st at
15:35:01 9:30.
15:35:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to open number 86.
15:35:05 >> So moved.
15:35:06 >> Second.
15:35:07 (Motion carried).

15:35:07 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Now the one I gave you before.
15:35:15 WZ 08-73 is located at 5200 west Tyson Avenue.
15:35:23 It is PD planned development, and before you this
15:35:27 afternoon is 4(COP), beer, wine and liquor for
15:35:30 consumption on and off premises.
15:35:34 Petitioner is requesting a 4(COP) wet zoning in order
15:35:36 to sell alcoholic beverages regardless of contents for
15:35:39 consumption both on and off premises.
15:35:42 The site currently has an existing 2(COP) that was
15:35:44 issued pursuant to ordinance 4009-A August of 1966 and
15:35:49 a 4(COP) that was issued pursuant to ordinance
15:35:52 2002-240 on November 4, 2002, restaurant on-site also
15:35:58 known as fish bar and grill.
15:36:00 Existing 4(COP) is approximately 1600 square feet -- I
15:36:04 mean 16,000 square feet, and the currently seats to
15:36:08 expand the existing to 18,000 square feet.
15:36:11 Including the pool area of the recently approved plan
15:36:14 development private Yacht Club and office.
15:36:17 Based on the application the establishment will have
15:36:19 approximately 120 seats, 60 seats located inside the
15:36:22 building and 60 seats located outside the building.
15:36:25 It will contain a minimum floor area of 1 that you

15:36:27 square feet.
15:36:28 There are no wet zoned properties, residential
15:36:30 properties or institutional properties located within
15:36:34 1,000 feet of the request area.
15:36:50 5200 west Tyson, Westshore over here, Tyson Avenue.
15:36:58 This is just rezoned.
15:37:01 Probably about six months ago.
15:37:02 A lot of construction going on on the site right now.
15:37:06 The wet zoned area is behind, the 4(COP) behind,
15:37:11 dumpsters here in a little building.
15:37:14 There are some other lovely pictures.
15:37:17 Construction on the site.
15:37:21 Yacht company next to the site, to the west.
15:37:29 U.S. reserves across Tyson.
15:37:31 There's another picture of the reserve area.
15:37:33 Staff is available for any questions.
15:37:43 >>> Officer Don Miller, City of Tampa police
15:37:45 department.
15:37:48 Police department has no objection to the wet zoning
15:37:50 but we do have some matters we want to speak to the
15:37:54 council about reference to package sales to go
15:37:59 reference the marina.

15:38:00 The police department is a little concerned about
15:38:01 package sales to go towards the marina as far as hard
15:38:06 liquor sales.
15:38:07 We were hoping maybe the petitioner would have
15:38:10 self-imposed conditions reference to hard liquor sales
15:38:13 to marina patrons.
15:38:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
15:38:18 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
15:38:19 This is a little additional information of staff.
15:38:26 Our staff has advised you this location needs in a
15:38:29 waivers.
15:38:29 It's 1,000 feet away from all of your sites in the
15:38:34 ordinance.
15:38:34 In fact they are entitled to this as a matter of
15:38:36 right.
15:38:38 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Abbye, you said that building has
15:38:40 16,000 square feet?
15:38:41 >>ABBYE FEELEY: In a, the area -- what they are doing,
15:38:48 they are actually -- and I don't have a good picture
15:38:50 of the building because I can't get on-site with all
15:38:52 that construction.
15:38:53 But where rattle fish, the restaurant was, they are

15:38:57 going to have a pool out there as part of the private
15:38:59 yacht, includes it's going to be the restaurant, plus
15:39:04 that additional pool area that's going to be located
15:39:06 outside.
15:39:07 Currently there are 16,000 square feet.
15:39:11 Expansion of the pool deck and pool deck would be
15:39:13 2,000 square feet, so the total area would be 18,000.
15:39:17 For the 4(COP).
15:39:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
15:39:22 >>> Good afternoon.
15:39:28 Michael Brooks, 500 East Kennedy Boulevard, suite 200,
15:39:32 Tampa 33602.
15:39:34 Here on behalf of the applicant which is the Tampa
15:39:38 harbor yacht clubs.
15:39:41 I think all of you were on council the last time this
15:39:43 property was rezoned.
15:39:45 Some of you may remember the adjacent restaurant is
15:39:51 the rattlefish restaurant.
15:39:55 The rattlefish sits on a 4(COP) that was approved, and
15:39:59 in fact, Mr. Miranda, you were the chair back in 2000
15:40:02 when that wet zoning was approved.
15:40:05 It was expanded by 20 feet to accommodate the actual

15:40:08 physical location of the building, because it appraise
15:40:11 dated the actual construction.
15:40:14 So fast forward to today, what we are seeking to do is
15:40:17 to add 2500 roughly square feet to the existing 4(COP)
15:40:21 to accommodate a pool and deck area that will be a
15:40:26 project amenity for the members of the club.
15:40:29 So I'm here to answer any questions that you might
15:40:31 have about the request.
15:40:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
15:40:35 wants to speak on item 86?
15:40:38 Need to close.
15:40:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
15:40:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
15:40:41 (Motion carried).
15:40:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Mulhern, are you ready to read 86?
15:40:47 >>MARY MULHERN: Move an ordinance being presented for
15:40:51 first reading consideration, an ordinance repealing
15:40:53 ordinance 2002-240 making lawful the sale of beverages
15:40:56 containing alcohol regardless of alcoholic content,
15:40:58 beer, wine and liquor, 4(COP), for consumption on the
15:41:03 premises and in sealed containers for consumption off
15:41:06 the premises in connection with a business

15:41:08 establishment on that certain lot, plot or tract of
15:41:11 land located at 5200 west Tyson Avenue, Tampa,
15:41:14 Florida, as more particularly described in section 3
15:41:16 hereof, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
15:41:19 conflict, providing an effective date.
15:41:22 >>CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second.
15:41:23 (Motion carried)
15:41:31 We need to open number 87.
15:41:32 >> So moved.
15:41:33 >> Second.
15:41:33 (Motion carried)
15:41:34 This is the last wet zoning for today.
15:42:02 WZ 08-77 is located at 4302 and 4224 west Gandy and
15:42:10 4921 south Lois Avenue.
15:42:12 Wet zoning requested is 2(APS) for the sale of beer
15:42:15 and wine regardless -- I'm sorry, containing alcohol
15:42:18 of more than 1% by weight not more than 14% by weight
15:42:21 and wines regardless of alcohol in sealed containers
15:42:23 for consumption off the premises only.
15:42:27 The petitioner is requesting the 2(APS) in connection
15:42:30 with a retail grocery store.
15:42:32 Proposed wet zoning is located on the first floor of a

15:42:35 one-story building containing approximately 3.189
15:42:39 acres, 138,894 square feet, sale of alcohol will be
15:42:43 incidental to the primary function.
15:42:47 There are several wet zoned properties within 1,000
15:42:49 feet including the Sweetbay supermarket, BP gas
15:42:52 station and Hooters.
15:42:53 There are also several residential properties.
15:42:55 There are no institutional uses within 1,000 feet.
15:43:09 I think everybody is familiar with this one.
15:43:11 This is the location on Gandy Boulevard that is going
15:43:16 to be becoming a Wal-Mart.
15:43:25 A lot of construction in this area so it is difficult
15:43:28 to get to get good pictures for you.
15:43:30 This is the existing building.
15:43:34 And also there was an adult video store here that is
15:43:36 also encapsulated in this that will be going away.
15:43:40 This is a look toward looking west on Gandy
15:43:48 immediately adjacent to the site.
15:43:50 This is the property on Lois.
15:43:55 Moving down Lois.
15:43:58 Across Lois from this property, looking toward Gandy.
15:44:09 And then immediately across on the north side of Gandy

15:44:12 across from the property is the Sweetbay.
15:44:14 And scan design.
15:44:17 Land development has in a objections to this request.
15:44:24 >>> Officer Don Miller, City of Tampa police
15:44:28 department.
15:44:28 Police department has in a objections to this wet
15:44:30 zoning.
15:44:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
15:44:31 >>> Jim Porter rude McClosky here representing the
15:44:37 applicant.
15:44:38 We are prepared to go forward today. In fact we have
15:44:40 our entire team.
15:44:41 Late last night I received an e-mail from Al Steenson
15:44:46 the president of the association asking for a
15:44:48 continuance.
15:44:48 I think it would be appropriate to hear from him
15:44:50 before we go any further.
15:44:57 >>> Al Steenson, president of the Gandy civic
15:45:01 association.
15:45:02 I have been sworn.
15:45:04 I have a copy of an e-mail that I want to place in the
15:45:06 record.

15:45:07 Last Monday night we had a very extensive
15:45:09 conversation -- discussion regarding this Wal-Mart and
15:45:15 the end result was this.
15:45:17 The association feels that this petition is kind of
15:45:21 premature, since they are having a lot of issues with
15:45:26 FDOT regarding the total access in and out of this
15:45:30 site.
15:45:31 So we are asking that this item be continued until
15:45:34 such time as the petitioner, Wal-Mart or Mr. Porter,
15:45:40 can present to the city and to the association an
15:45:46 approved accepted site plan.
15:45:48 With that I would like to enter a copy of this e-mail
15:45:51 that I sent to Mr. Porter last night.
15:45:56 And we would ask that this be continued until we get a
15:46:01 site plan that we can all work with.
15:46:04 Thank you very much.
15:46:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, are you in agreement with
15:46:08 the continuance?
15:46:09 For how long?
15:46:15 >>> Council, as I said, we were prepared to go forward
15:46:18 today but we have been working very closely with the
15:46:20 neighborhood.

15:46:20 Mr. Steenson has been to self neighborhood meetings
15:46:23 where we have attended to talk about the project.
15:46:25 I want ton say a few things for the record, though.
15:46:27 One, the site is zoned appropriately, zoned commercial
15:46:30 intensive.
15:46:31 There is no further action by council needed other
15:46:33 than the wet zoning request.
15:46:35 For beer and wine sales associated with the
15:46:37 supermarket.
15:46:38 Two, the issues that Mr. Steenson talked about are
15:46:40 being worked out, and they are completely unrelated to
15:46:43 the request for a wet zoning.
15:46:45 I want to make that clear, but again when want to be
15:46:48 good neighbors, and we are certainly willing to keep
15:46:50 working with the neighborhood.
15:46:52 Things like the elevation, and issues like that.
15:46:55 So as a courtesy to Mr. Steenson and to the group, we
15:46:59 are certainly willing to continue this item.
15:47:01 What I would propose is continue it to June 26th,
15:47:04 which is your last meeting in June.
15:47:07 Hopefully we'll have the issues worked out that he
15:47:09 referenced.

15:47:10 If not, then we would be in a position to maybe look
15:47:13 at another continuance.
15:47:14 It doesn't effect our -- affect our permitting to seek
15:47:17 a continuance, and to again be good neighbors we do
15:47:20 not object to that.
15:47:21 We request it be continued to June 26th.
15:47:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Madam Chair.
15:47:29 Due to an applicable solution between the two parties
15:47:32 I move for a continuance to June 26th in the
15:47:34 morning.
15:47:36 >> Second.
15:47:36 (Motion carried).
15:47:37 >>GWEN MILLER: We go to item number 89.
15:47:47 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
15:47:48 As you may recall, on 89 and 90 were appeals regarding
15:47:51 a wall on Bayshore.
15:47:52 They were continued at the request of -- they were
15:47:57 cross appeals, on the same piece of property, and both
15:47:59 parties had agreed to continue it to try to work out a
15:48:03 solution amongst themselves.
15:48:05 I know they did go before the ARC and get a new design
15:48:07 ap proved by the ARC.

15:48:10 90 has already been removed from your agenda because
15:48:14 they filed.
15:48:15 On 89 nothing has been filed.
15:48:19 >>GWEN MILLER: What do we do, just continue it?
15:48:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Continue it for a few weeks.
15:48:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: With regard to number 90, madam
15:48:36 clerk, a request to have it withdrawn?
15:48:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We could continue 89 for two weeks.
15:49:02 If nobody shows up in two weeks --
15:49:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
15:49:06 To continue for two weeks.
15:49:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 90 was dropped.
15:49:11 >>GWEN MILLER: 89 continue for two weeks.
15:49:13 (Motion carried).
15:49:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to strike 90 from the agenda.
15:49:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
15:49:19 (Motion carried).
15:49:20 >>GWEN MILLER: 91.
15:49:24 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
15:49:26 What you have before you is an appeal of a decision by
15:49:29 the variance -- a decision of the Variance Review
15:49:31 Board to deny the petition for property located at

15:49:35 2708 north 50th street.
15:49:38 The petition was the Tampa sign code which before the
15:49:45 amended sign code so our new requirements, this is
15:49:47 under the old sign code, but that's when the petition
15:49:49 was filed.
15:49:50 The petitioners were requesting a variance to
15:49:53 construct two pylon signs.
15:49:56 I would like to say we call them free standing signs
15:49:59 now.
15:50:02 But pylon signs, a variance of 30 feet, which they are
15:50:08 allowed to construct to 50 feet.
15:50:11 There's a 50-foot variance for the two signs. This
15:50:14 hearing was held on February 21st, 2008, and at
15:50:17 the time the petitioners had a hearing and presented
15:50:22 evidence to the variance review board.
15:50:25 I do not believe there was anybody in opposition.
15:50:28 However, the variance review board denied the petition
15:50:31 finding that the hardship would not -- was not shown
15:50:34 at that time.
15:50:37 I will just reiterate what the appeal standard is.
15:50:40 Noon new evidence may be presented to you, and your
15:50:45 actions are based on the record created before the

15:50:47 Variance Review Board.
15:50:48 Standard of review is you are to determine whether the
15:50:51 VRB's decision is supported by competent, substantial
15:50:54 evidence, due process is afforded, and the VRB follows
15:50:59 the essential requirements of the law.
15:51:01 And similar to the previous appeal you have the
15:51:04 authority to either affirm or uphold the decision of
15:51:06 the VRB, remand the matter back to the VRB with
15:51:10 direction, or reverse the decision of the VRB.
15:51:13 I do want to state one further thing because I think
15:51:16 at the last hearing there was some confusion about
15:51:20 what those standards are.
15:51:21 And I just wanted to read to you from 17.5-74.
15:51:25 When the VRB is reviewing whether or not it is
15:51:28 appropriate to grant the variance, the VRB is
15:51:31 authorized to grant the variance in cases involving
15:51:33 practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship.
15:51:38 In essence, they are looking to see is there an
15:51:40 unnecessary hardship or a practical difficulty?
15:51:43 In making the determination as to whether or not those
15:51:47 two criteria has been met the VRB shall base its
15:51:50 decision on competent, substantial evidence, in the

15:51:53 official record, and shall consider, by criteria --
15:51:59 and those are the five criteria that you think of in a
15:52:02 variance review, but they have to meet one or two or
15:52:05 five, it is you have to determine whether or not there
15:52:08 is a hardship, or a practical difficulty, and it will
15:52:12 look at those criteria in making that determination.
15:52:17 If you have in a other questions of me I would ask the
15:52:19 petitioner to go ahead and move forward with their
15:52:22 case.
15:52:30 >> Darrin qualm, East Jackson Street.
15:52:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't know whether the witnesses
15:52:37 were sworn for 91.
15:52:39 If that was --
15:52:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Have you been sworn?
15:52:45 Go ahead, sir.
15:52:47 >> Darrin qualm.
15:52:49 With me is Mr. Wugnabi, for the variance review board
15:53:02 for two 50-foot pylon signs at the Miller in hotel
15:53:05 site in East Tampa which is off I-4 and 50th
15:53:08 street.
15:53:09 We are requesting a 15-foot variance from the 35-foot
15:53:13 limit to 50-foot.

15:53:17 The elevated I-4, the elevated I-4 is 35 feet, which
15:53:24 is at the same level of the limit of the sign.
15:53:27 And also because of the dramatic change in the access
15:53:30 and recirculation when you are getting off of I-4 onto
15:53:34 50th street there.
15:53:35 It's a very difficult to get to the Miller in hotel
15:53:40 property.
15:53:43 At the VRB hearing, the VRB discussed a lot of issues
15:53:48 but didn't actually focus on the primary which is
15:53:51 hardship.
15:53:52 And there is a serious hardship here that no one is
15:53:56 going to go to this new hotel, going to renovate the
15:54:01 Miller in hotel, it's going to become a Quality Inn,
15:54:05 and in a one is going to be able to go to this hotel
15:54:08 if they can't -- if they don't know where it is.
15:54:10 If they are driving on the highway.
15:54:12 And you can't have an interchange hotel if in a one on
15:54:15 the highway sees where it is.
15:54:21 The I-4 widening and elevation -- here is the -- this
15:54:34 is I-4.
15:54:35 And here is the Miller in hotel right hear.
15:54:37 And what we have now is we have where the orange dot

15:54:41 is, we have an existing 47-foot high sign that says
15:54:46 Miller in hotel on it.
15:54:47 But due to the widening that's now encroaching, the
15:54:50 FDOT had to take a portion of this property when it
15:54:55 widened I-4, and the 47-foot existing sign is now
15:54:59 encroaching on the FDOT property.
15:55:02 So we have to remove the 47-foot sign, but now you are
15:55:05 going to the core regulation, a 30-foot height
15:55:09 limitation.
15:55:12 So under the code, section 20.5.
15:55:17 So what we have is a unique situation.
15:55:18 We meet impact through the highway configuration.
15:55:23 The I-4 has been elevated to 35 feet.
15:55:26 The existing 47-foot sign is being removed.
15:55:30 And to the same height as the highway.
15:55:33 So no one on the highway is going to be able to see
15:55:36 where this hotel sign is.
15:55:40 Also, there's going to be a new reconfiguration for
15:55:44 the -- on how to get out of the exit, how to get to
15:55:48 50th street also causes problems.
15:55:50 I have some photos which were in evidence before the
15:55:57 review board.

15:56:01 This is what the existing 47-foot sign looked like.
15:56:05 That's 47 feet.
15:56:09 Here is another example of what it looks like now.
15:56:15 As you can see, it's 47 feet sign goes above the
15:56:19 highway, which I-4 is on the left there.
15:56:22 That's elevated.
15:56:23 47 feet, you can see it from the highway.
15:56:28 Now, under the current 35-foot limit for
15:56:33 identification signs, the quality INN sign was in the
15:56:42 record before the variance review board and I just
15:56:44 inserted into this picture to give you an example of
15:56:47 what a 35-foot sign is going to look like instead of
15:56:49 the 47-foot sign.
15:56:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Right there as you are showing us
15:56:56 today in the record for the --
15:57:03 >>> I cut and pasted the quality inn sign into it for
15:57:10 comparative purposes.
15:57:11 The quality inn sign.
15:57:13 >> It's nicer.
15:57:15 You have to stick to the record that you have below.
15:57:17 Okay.
15:57:18 >>> The quality inn sign with the quality on it and I

15:57:25 just transposed it.
15:57:27 So council can understand the difference between
15:57:30 47-foot and 35 feet anyway.
15:57:32 Now here is a view from the highway.
15:57:35 And if you see it, the arrow, you see that?
15:57:39 The arrow is pointing down to the black sign.
15:57:48 That is saying Miller in hotel right there.
15:57:51 >> There's nothing on that sign right now, right?
15:57:53 >>> Right now the Miller in hotel is dilapidated and
15:57:57 going to be renovated.
15:58:04 The other sign is taken off.
15:58:05 That's why the black section in the picture.
15:58:08 Here is another view, looks like when you are looking
15:58:12 east, behind the -- it shows the 47-foot sign barely
15:58:20 looking over the highway.
15:58:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: At the end of the day what's
15:58:34 happening to the 47-foot sign?
15:58:36 >>> The 47-foot sign has to come down because it's
15:58:39 encroaching on the FDOT property.
15:58:41 >> You want to put up two 50-foot signs?
15:58:44 >>> Yes.
15:58:45 >> And in relationship to this existing 47-foot, where

15:58:49 would they go?
15:58:53 >>> The site plan here, on the other corner of the
15:58:59 property where the yellow dots are here and here --
15:59:02 >> And why would you need two when the Miller ins had
15:59:04 one for as long as they have?
15:59:09 >>> Because the access has been dramatically changed.
15:59:16 If you see -- you used to be able to go on 50th
15:59:20 street and you would be right there at the Miller in
15:59:23 hotel.
15:59:23 What happens now is the exit through the middle of the
15:59:28 highway now.
15:59:29 And you would come down, say you are going east an
15:59:31 I-4.
15:59:32 You come down and get on 50th street.
15:59:34 But instead of turning on 18th street to get right
15:59:36 to the Miller in hotel, now 18th street is blocked
15:59:41 off and you can't get from 50th street to 18th
15:59:43 street.
15:59:43 So now someone who see it is sign is going to have to
15:59:47 go all the way up 50th street, off the map, and
15:59:52 hit 21st street, make a left, then go make a sharp
15:59:56 left and come all the way back down 18th street

15:59:58 and come back here.
15:59:59 >> So why do you need the one next to ramp H, says
16:00:05 ramp H?
16:00:06 Why do you need that one?
16:00:07 That was a good explanation of why you needed the one
16:00:09 to the north.
16:00:09 But why do you need the one to the south?
16:00:14 >>> Because the more signs the better with something
16:00:17 like this.
16:00:18 We don't want to build something that's doomed for
16:00:19 failure.
16:00:20 Another thing is, if there is a hotel and a restaurant
16:00:23 combination here, it might need two, one sign for the
16:00:27 restaurant and one sign for the hotel.
16:00:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask a question?
16:00:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let me finish.
16:00:37 I think the interstate has created a lot of these
16:00:40 situations, as the VRB noted in the transcript.
16:00:43 But I sort of have a problem with going from one to
16:00:47 two.
16:00:47 And I haven't heard anything real compelling to
16:00:50 justify it.

16:00:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena.
16:00:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Sir, when you renovate your
16:01:00 building aren't you going to put some signage on the
16:01:03 building itself?
16:01:03 And how high will the building be?
16:01:07 >>> I'm not sure on that.
16:01:08 >> Isn't the building six stories?
16:01:09 Didn't you state that?
16:01:10 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
16:01:11 You have to be very careful for the record, and I'm
16:01:15 not sure this line of questioning was part of the
16:01:16 record.
16:01:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My concern is that the building
16:01:19 itself would have additional signage in addition to
16:01:22 this.
16:01:23 And so it helps us get our mind around how much
16:01:25 signage is adequate.
16:01:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Six story was the other one.
16:01:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let me ask legal then.
16:01:36 How many stories is this building?
16:01:38 >>> I'm not really sure.
16:01:39 I think that whatever -- if that's in the record

16:01:41 already, we can go find that in the record.
16:01:43 If it's not in the record already, then what you are
16:01:45 going to need to do -- because I am reviewing the
16:01:48 record yesterday and I have forgotten by now.
16:01:52 It was really just based on the two signs and the
16:01:55 discussion of the two signs.
16:01:56 We don't have a very long record as part of this.
16:02:00 But that is part of the analysis you want to
16:02:01 undertake, then my recommendation is to remand it back
16:02:05 and I think maybe deal with the issue related to both.
16:02:10 Unfortunately the way this works you can't get
16:02:11 additional information.
16:02:12 I can look and see if that is in the record.
16:02:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is a very honest -- did the
16:02:19 record reflect --
16:02:21 >>JULIA COLE: That's my point.
16:02:23 Even if he knows the answer, he can't say --
16:02:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Co-say to me that's not in the
16:02:27 record.
16:02:29 Does the record reflect the height of this building
16:02:31 and are there going to be additional signs on this
16:02:33 building itself?

16:02:34 >>> The picture that I show right here in the record
16:02:38 and the Miller in story, we are just renovating a
16:02:42 two-story hotel.
16:02:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
16:02:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Caetano.
16:02:50 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: A few weeks ago after that hotel,
16:02:53 that $30 a day hotel which has nothing to do with you,
16:02:57 I went over with my aide and took pictures of all
16:02:59 these signs.
16:03:00 In fact, I think most of them there are probably
16:03:02 illegal.
16:03:03 That guy that's got a boat up that you showed the boat
16:03:05 there.
16:03:06 Now when somebody is coming down I-4, once they pass
16:03:10 your entrance, if your signs are going to be next to
16:03:14 the little yellow dots that you have there, how are
16:03:16 they going to get into your place?
16:03:20 Once they pass those two dots, the yellow dots, how do
16:03:23 they get into the Miller in hotel?
16:03:25 >>> They are going to have to -- they have to go up
16:03:29 50th street and come back down 18th street and
16:03:32 get access along here.

16:03:33 >> If they are on the expressway, I-4, you want those
16:03:37 signs high enough to be seen from the expressway,
16:03:40 right?
16:03:40 >>> Yes.
16:03:41 >> But once they pass those signs, how do they get --
16:03:44 they can't turn around because they are going one way.
16:03:49 >>> If they were heading -- identification signs.
16:03:54 A billboard where we could put it on-site.
16:03:58 AP F they are already passed it, keep going west and
16:04:02 turn around at the next exit, a different exit.
16:04:05 But these are designed, interchange hotel for this
16:04:10 particular 50th street exit.
16:04:12 >> Because there's a mess down there and I have given
16:04:17 all these pictures to code enforcement.
16:04:20 I told Mr. Scott --
16:04:22 >>JULIA COLE: I'm sorry, I'm going to have to stop.
16:04:25 This is again a review.
16:04:27 All this record that you are bringing into the record
16:04:28 isn't part of the record, is inappropriate.
16:04:30 >> Okay.
16:04:33 >>JULIA COLE: I trust when you make your decision you
16:04:35 will just be making the decision based on the record.

16:04:38 >>MARY MULHERN: Julia, Julia, Julia.
16:04:41 I'm trying to support what you just said.
16:04:43 But we are being asked to review the question of the
16:04:48 height of the sign.
16:04:50 That's it.
16:04:51 Right?
16:04:52 >>JULIA COLE: Correct.
16:04:53 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
16:05:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I may add, the criteria that Mrs.
16:05:05 Cole was saying, if you believe there is not competent
16:05:08 substantial evidence in the record with which to make
16:05:10 this determination, you can remand it back to the VRB,
16:05:14 saying there is insufficient evidence upon which they
16:05:19 have made their decision.
16:05:20 What I am saying is that's an option.
16:05:23 Or the other criteria -- I'm sorry, you had a
16:05:26 question.
16:05:28 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't think what you just said is
16:05:29 helping.
16:05:30 What I'm trying to clarify is, the Variance Review
16:05:32 Board denied the height.
16:05:38 Because that was the variance they were asking for.

16:05:40 >> Yes.
16:05:41 >>MARY MULHERN: So how is it -- would they even have V
16:05:46 to ask for a variance to have two signs?
16:05:48 I mean that's not even a question we are supposed to
16:05:50 be considering, is it?
16:05:51 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
16:05:53 They are entitled to two signs.
16:05:55 That is part of the record.
16:05:56 They are entitled to two 35-foot signs.
16:06:00 They are asking for a variance to allow those two
16:06:03 35-foot signs to go to 50-foot so 15-foot variance on
16:06:09 each individual sign.
16:06:10 But not to have an additional sign.
16:06:13 Two signs are allowed.
16:06:14 >> So that's not the issue for us.
16:06:16 Okay, thanks.
16:06:16 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I have another question.
16:06:18 Julia?
16:06:19 They are allowed two signs.
16:06:21 But once they do the addition to the expressway are
16:06:26 those signs going to be visible at the present height
16:06:28 that they are permitted to have?

16:06:31 >>> Under the City of Tampa code, they can have signs
16:06:35 at 35 feet.
16:06:37 They are entitled to two signs at 35 feet.
16:06:39 I think what their argument is for why this is should
16:06:44 be granted as a variance is you are not going to be
16:06:47 able to see those signs, and therefore they would like
16:06:49 to have the increase in height in order to be visible
16:06:52 from the interstate.
16:06:53 So that's what their argument is.
16:06:56 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Which is a good argument.
16:06:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions by council members?
16:07:01 Mr. Dingfelder?
16:07:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can somebody put up one of those
16:07:05 pictures that shows the long-range view, maybe the
16:07:11 boat picture?
16:07:13 I think when I read the transcript what the variance
16:07:27 board was getting at was sign clutter and sign
16:07:30 pollution.
16:07:30 As you come to the fairgrounds coming into town, it's
16:07:34 almost like sign world, you know.
16:07:37 And it's a shame because they have done such a nice
16:07:40 job, the interstate is very attractive, and they spent

16:07:43 a lot of money on a lot of aesthetics.
16:07:46 And then you sort of get into the sign clutter.
16:07:49 But obviously, and Joseph, I am going to say it to
16:07:51 you, obviously we don't want to hurt them from a
16:07:53 business perspective.
16:07:55 We want to give them the business rights to fly.
16:07:58 At the same time we have to balance that with trying
16:08:00 to avoid sign clutter.
16:08:02 So that's where somebody at the variance board
16:08:05 suggested that they would probably be okay with one
16:08:10 50-foot sign, which is -- they have always had one
16:08:13 sign, and it's the same establishment.
16:08:15 They are just changing names.
16:08:17 But again I repeat what I said earlier.
16:08:20 I don't see a whole lot of necessity as to why they
16:08:23 should have two 50-foot signs that will now protrude
16:08:26 above the interstate and add to the sign clutter.
16:08:30 So that's a long-winded way of saying when we are all
16:08:33 done I'll move -- I am going to suggest we remand it
16:08:36 back and suggest they just go with the one 50-foot
16:08:39 sign and they can do the other one at 35 feet because
16:08:41 they have a right to do it at 35 feet.

16:08:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to close the public hearing.
16:08:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close the public hearing.
16:09:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Our attorney is conferring.
16:09:03 Ms. Mulhern.
16:09:10 >>MARY MULHERN: I think that -- I don't even know that
16:09:13 we can do that.
16:09:14 I think Julie is going to tell us.
16:09:17 But I think if you look at what's happened to the
16:09:19 access to this hotel, they need all the help they can
16:09:21 get with signage.
16:09:22 And I just think they certainly are showing a hardship
16:09:27 that would justify them having two signs.
16:09:30 And I don't think -- I don't see how we can send it
16:09:34 back.
16:09:36 That's not the question.
16:09:37 The question is whether they can have that height.
16:09:40 Am I right?
16:09:42 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
16:09:44 In determining whether or not there was competent,
16:09:47 substantial evidence, due process, you could make a
16:09:51 finding that there is not competent substantial
16:09:54 evidence to support the decision on one of the signs,

16:09:57 and competent substantial evidence supported on the
16:09:59 other sign, and then remand it for a decision by the
16:10:04 Variance Review Board consistent with that sign.
16:10:07 And you could do that.
16:10:10 So that is authorized.
16:10:11 Now, so it's clear for City Council and the
16:10:17 petitioner, the petitioner can get down back in front
16:10:19 of the VRB and say, we either want them both or we
16:10:23 don't want anything, then we end up back where we are.
16:10:27 But I think under the way the code is written you have
16:10:30 the right to make those two separate findings and
16:10:32 remand it back.
16:10:34 >>MARY MULHERN: With that answer I am not going to
16:10:36 support the motion to remand it back.
16:10:44 John made a motion.
16:10:46 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Who owns that big sign that's
16:10:48 sticking up in the air there?
16:10:54 >>> That's some confusion below at the VRB.
16:10:58 If that's a billboard, it's also part of the
16:11:01 competitive disadvantage of the days inn.
16:11:05 I don't know how -- 50 feet tall.
16:11:09 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I think with all the construction

16:11:11 on I-4, all the modifications they are doing, maybe
16:11:13 the sign ordinance needs to be revamped.
16:11:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We are discussing that on May
16:11:21 15th.
16:11:23 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: So a small businessman can have
16:11:24 an opportunity to compete against everybody.
16:11:26 I think that sign there needs red lights so the
16:11:29 airplanes don't hit it.
16:11:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Miranda?
16:11:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: No, I can understand the issues
16:11:35 here.
16:11:36 At this point, years back that highway was not
16:11:41 elevated.
16:11:41 It was narrow and low.
16:11:43 So from malfunction junction all the way to where this
16:11:48 is, which has been a great improvement, they have
16:11:50 changed the elevation of most -- and some of these
16:11:55 things are unavoidable, I guess.
16:11:57 But I can understand both sides.
16:11:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's close the public hearing.
16:12:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close.
16:12:02 >> Second.

16:12:02 (Motion carried).
16:12:02 >>CHAIRMAN: What's the pleasure of council?
16:12:05 >>MARY MULHERN: I would like to move to grant the
16:12:11 appeal.
16:12:12 Is that what I -- to --
16:12:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: To grant the a peel.
16:12:21 >>MARY MULHERN: And overturn the decision of the VRB
16:12:23 to allow the sign height to be 50 feet.
16:12:26 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Second.
16:12:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: For two signs?
16:12:31 >>MARY MULHERN: For two signs.
16:12:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I am not going to support that
16:12:34 motion because I think that one side would be
16:12:39 tolerable.
16:12:39 Two signs is really visual blight.
16:12:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
16:12:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: In regard to the legal standard, I
16:12:49 believe that they have met the burden for hardship as
16:12:53 to one sign.
16:12:56 That that establishment has never had two signs.
16:12:58 So when the highway was lower, they were comfortable
16:13:01 with one big tall sign that said Miller in.

16:13:03 Now that the highway is higher, we want to give them
16:13:06 one big tall sign that says Miller in but now they
16:13:09 want two big sign that is say -- well, not Miller in
16:13:12 but the quality inn.
16:13:14 So there's no justification.
16:13:15 There's no hardship for a brand new 50-foot sign.
16:13:18 I think it's a little on the greedy side.
16:13:21 And I asked for a better explanation and never got
16:13:25 one.
16:13:25 So I can't support that motion.
16:13:27 I could support a motion for one and we could send it
16:13:30 back and let them get one.
16:13:32 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion.
16:13:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I don't know if I'm in order or out
16:13:37 of order but you can take me out, I guess.
16:13:40 It's appropriate to put a substitute motion on the
16:13:42 same issue for a one sign at 50-foot, and one sign of
16:13:47 35-foot.
16:13:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The question is whether the
16:13:53 substitute motion, whether council can grant just one
16:13:55 sign, or do they have to require a remand back to the
16:13:59 VRB?

16:14:00 >>JULIA COLE: It's my opinion that you only have the
16:14:03 authority to uphold, reverse, whatever is in front of
16:14:08 you, and in essence you can't put the -- that needs to
16:14:12 be remanded for the VRB for them without splitting the
16:14:18 baby, the best way that I can --
16:14:20 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of that motion say Aye.
16:14:23 Opposed, Nay.
16:14:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We can't do what we just said we
16:14:28 wanted to do.
16:14:30 You can't do two signs.
16:14:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 3 to 3.
16:14:39 >>THE CLERK: (off microphone)
16:14:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Be prepared to vote on this issue
16:14:57 with a closed public hearing.
16:15:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for legal.
16:15:06 Would the petitioner, seeing how we are split 3-3 at
16:15:09 this point, in order to ensure success, be able to
16:15:13 come back and change their request at this point at
16:15:16 the next hearing?
16:15:19 >>JULIA COLE: The only way for that to occur would be
16:15:22 for you to remand it back to the VRB so-so the VRB can
16:15:27 be the entity to make these decisions.

16:15:29 I know it's kind of awkward but you are really sitting
16:15:31 in a different role, the appellate role.
16:15:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
16:15:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Now we go to information by council
16:15:41 members.
16:15:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just so the petitioner understands
16:15:44 what's happening, this will return on May 1st
16:15:48 under unfinished business for a vote with the full
16:15:52 council after the missing council member has an
16:15:54 opportunity to review the record.
16:16:03 >>> We don't have to present?
16:16:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No, sir.
16:16:09 He will have the entire record.
16:16:12 Today's record.
16:16:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Information.
16:16:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have two items here and I believe
16:16:18 one of them may need some assistance African-American
16:16:19 the legal department.
16:16:20 When we talk about sidewalks, is that one that's got
16:16:22 to go to the Planning Commission?
16:16:23 >>> Depends on what section --
16:16:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I don't know the section but let me

16:16:35 say this.
16:16:36 I have been inundated by calls, I would say 10 to 15
16:16:41 maybe, on sidewalk issues, in some parts moot, does
16:16:44 not address them in the ordinance.
16:16:46 Let me tell what you that is.
16:16:47 If a homeowner goes out and does everything proper and
16:16:51 puts in the driveway, to the street, pave the apron,
16:16:56 and then for whatever reason the sidewalk cannot be
16:17:01 built, or he or she wants it built, they don't give
16:17:07 credit for what's already there.
16:17:14 If you have 18 fate of ingress or egress whether this
16:17:17 should be a sidewalk and for whatever reason there's a
16:17:19 tree on the other side or fire hydrant on the other
16:17:22 side you can't build a sidewalk.
16:17:23 When the time comes to calculate the pavement in lieu
16:17:25 of they charge you for the whole frontage of your
16:17:32 property so you have already created part that you
16:17:34 need to do to meet your building obligation.
16:17:37 Now you have got to pay for the whole thing at $43.50
16:17:41 which I think is way out of line.
16:17:48 I would like to ask somebody to explain to me where it
16:17:50 came from.

16:17:51 Maybe it was me, I don't remember.
16:17:52 But what the final cost S.how are these things
16:17:55 happening?
16:17:55 They are unavailable to perform what they want to do.
16:17:58 They bought a lot.
16:17:59 They built the house.
16:18:01 And for whatever reason, that sidewalk cannot be done
16:18:05 from end to end to meet the code.
16:18:08 They have the drive way in.
16:18:10 And when they come back to pay in lieu of, they are
16:18:13 charged for the whole, let's say, 60 feet.
16:18:17 They are charged for the whole 60 feet, not minus the
16:18:19 18 or 20 feet that they already have a part of.
16:18:22 And I just think that's wrong.
16:18:23 It's not the right way.
16:18:25 That same ordinance has no appeal.
16:18:28 We heard appeals today on various things.
16:18:34 But it's ironic something that is so dear to the heart
16:18:37 has no appeal to this council.
16:18:39 Then if you have a ditch in front of your house you
16:18:42 expand your house by 50%, guess what.
16:18:45 Even if there's no sidewalk for miles, you have to put

16:18:48 a sidewalk or pay in lieu of.
16:18:50 The only problem is, the ordinance specifically says
16:18:53 the sidewalk should be addressed only public
16:18:59 rights-of-way when in this case the right-of-way is a
16:19:01 ditch.
16:19:02 Now I never heard of a floating sidewalk, unless you
16:19:04 have skis or something.
16:19:06 But then they tell you, well, you give in the Lou of,
16:19:10 or you build the sidewalk on your property.
16:19:13 Well, that's taking a private land, in my judgment,
16:19:16 and these wrong.
16:19:17 And that should not be.
16:19:19 So I'm looking -- maybe I'm wet behind the ears.
16:19:22 I'm looking for direction R here because I think that
16:19:25 this ordinance has a lot of tweaking for it to happen.
16:19:43 I am going to be the recipient or somebody is going to
16:19:45 be the recipient of somebody who bought a house that
16:19:48 cannot build a sidewalk for whatever reason.
16:19:50 There is no exclusion clause, there is no if in case
16:19:55 there's a fire hydrant.
16:19:57 It's not the people's fault that bought the house or
16:20:00 are buying the lot to build the house.

16:20:03 There is no exclusion in the ordinance and I think
16:20:09 that's terribly wrong.
16:20:10 When we talk about fairness I think that's one that
16:20:12 should be really considered by this council.
16:20:16 I don't know what to tell you.
16:20:18 I don't know if it goes to the planning City
16:20:20 Commission but if it does in the next cycle we ought
16:20:23 to discuss this at length and come up with an answer.
16:20:25 The second one I won't ask for a vote right now.
16:20:28 The second one is one that has to do with properties.
16:20:35 When the city sells a property to an individual,
16:20:38 groups of individuals, to build affordable housing,
16:20:42 and later on there's a period of two years, they give
16:20:47 you one more year, three years to build the house, I
16:20:49 understand all that.
16:20:52 But they buy the lot for a very reasonable price.
16:20:55 And what happens is, they flip the lot, or could flip
16:20:59 the lot for something other than affordable housing.
16:21:02 I believe that's an injustice to the taxpayers, and
16:21:06 something that's terribly wrong.
16:21:07 I think that when you have a lot, and the city sells
16:21:10 you that lot for you to build an affordable house at a

16:21:14 reduced rate on that property, that is your
16:21:17 responsibility, not mine, not the council members, to
16:21:20 say you will build an affordable house there.
16:21:23 You are not going to hold it for ten years and then
16:21:26 you are going to say, well, guess what, I got all the
16:21:29 development around me now, I am going to sell it for
16:21:32 commercial.
16:21:32 If that's the case we are in the wrong business.
16:21:34 We have to help people who need affordable homes.
16:21:36 And if these individuals are coming forward -- I saw
16:21:38 an ad the other day that said they are going to sell
16:21:41 various lots in the newspapers.
16:21:42 I read that.
16:21:43 I'm sure you did also.
16:21:44 That these lots are sold with the intent that they are
16:21:47 for affordable housing and they should be for
16:21:49 affordable housing, that when these lots are sold,
16:21:51 there is no more, well, we are going to see what
16:21:54 happens in two or three years, five years, ten years.
16:21:57 No, we are not selling land on speculation.
16:21:59 We are selling land to have affordable housing so that
16:22:02 the people who need it the most are the recipient of

16:22:05 the benefit of the end product.
16:22:08 And this is not happening in some cases.
16:22:10 So I feel very strongly about these two issues.
16:22:12 I need some guidance and I need some help and that's
16:22:15 what I'm asking the council members to do.
16:22:17 Thank you, Madam Chair.
16:22:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
16:22:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to address --
16:22:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Miranda, everyone though
16:22:29 there's reciprocity is rare around here I will support
16:22:31 what your suggestions are.
16:22:34 I agree with you.
16:22:35 I think the sidewalk thing needs tweaking and I don't
16:22:38 think we should throw the baby out with the bath
16:22:40 water.
16:22:41 I think we have made good progress with our in lieu
16:22:43 fee and we are building more sidewalks with the in
16:22:45 lieu fee and I don't think we should abuse that.
16:22:48 But I do agree with you there are some problems.
16:22:52 In regard to the driveway issue, I agree with you
16:22:55 100%.
16:22:56 That's silly.

16:22:57 They should get credit for that span.
16:22:58 In regard to ditches, you know what?
16:23:00 If there's a ditch there, chances are it's never going
16:23:03 to be culverts and there's never going to be
16:23:05 sidewalks.
16:23:05 I think they should be excluded from it.
16:23:08 When there's a ditch.
16:23:09 Because that's sort of a physical reality that there
16:23:13 will never be sidewalks so why should they be evenly
16:23:16 penalize it?
16:23:17 I also have an issue with in my district with a corner
16:23:21 property, they pay it wrapped around both sides of the
16:23:25 corner so they get the double whammy which I think we
16:23:27 need to address.
16:23:30 So with that, I think the right direction is
16:23:33 probably -- I know you hate this word, but probably to
16:23:36 workshop it or just to ask staff to come in for a
16:23:39 staff report during a regular meeting.
16:23:42 Maybe you like that better.
16:23:46 >> I think I'll take that one.
16:23:47 >> So why don't we give staff a month to cogitate on
16:23:51 that and come in for a staff report.

16:23:54 On those specific three issues.
16:23:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Would you like them -- as separate
16:24:00 items?
16:24:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No, same item.
16:24:02 But they can also speak to the dollar amount.
16:24:04 We went through this dollar amount exercise the year
16:24:07 before you got back.
16:24:08 And they came in and showed the cost of building a
16:24:12 sidewalk, and that's how they justified it.
16:24:14 But I think they should have to justify it regularly.
16:24:16 So if the cost of concrete has gone down, then they
16:24:19 can speak to that.
16:24:21 Cot.
16:24:21 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: You mean the first time or second
16:24:23 time?
16:24:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: This recent time.
16:24:25 Third time, fourth time.
16:24:26 But there are actually four issues there and they can
16:24:29 dig into the record to see what they are.
16:24:30 And come back in a month.
16:24:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
16:24:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

16:24:34 (Motion carried).
16:24:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: In regard to affordable housing, I
16:24:38 saw a lot of nods around here.
16:24:40 I think we all remember well that one incident that
16:24:43 was in front of us about two month ago, and that got
16:24:46 all screwed up, and they got a great deal, and then
16:24:49 ultimately, you know, it sort of drift add way, and
16:24:52 the affordable housing never got back.
16:24:54 I think there should be something in the form of
16:24:56 perhaps a resolution or everyone an ordinance that
16:24:58 says that if we have affordable housing and doesn't
16:25:03 get built in a certain period of time it reverts back
16:25:06 to the city, automatically, end of discussion.
16:25:08 I don't know how we accomplish that, Marty.
16:25:10 >> I guess a direction to the legal department.
16:25:20 What you just stated was the intent of a reverter if
16:25:22 it is not specifically built within a certain period
16:25:24 of time for affordable housing.
16:25:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And the people not be allowed to
16:25:31 develop for anything but affordable housing.
16:25:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I am trying to recall, council, there
16:25:35 may have been something that happened as a result of

16:25:36 what happened --
16:25:38 >>MARY MULHERN: That's what I was going to say.
16:25:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The administration did say they are
16:25:42 aware of that situation and are taking steps to avoid
16:25:44 that particular issue happening again.
16:25:46 >>MARY MULHERN: I think that we got -- we got some
16:25:49 kind of report afterwards, but we certainly didn't
16:25:52 pass any kind of ordinance.
16:25:54 So we want to make sure we don't just get another
16:25:57 report of the same thing, and we actually hear --
16:26:04 >> Send it to legal.
16:26:06 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I make a motion for them to explain
16:26:10 if we can do it.
16:26:11 I know the present law states that if you don't do it
16:26:14 within two years, maybe a year extension, then you
16:26:17 have to sell the property back to the city for 10 or
16:26:20 15 or 20% less.
16:26:21 I don't remember the figure.
16:26:22 But I understand that.
16:26:23 And I'm not even opposed to that.
16:26:25 But it's got to be something that the legal department
16:26:27 can come up with to draw that ordinance that if you

16:26:31 don't do it by that certain time you either sell it
16:26:34 back to the city, or that amount less, or bye-bye.
16:26:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And it would be in the form of a
16:26:42 revisionary interest.
16:26:44 Problem with the current system is, it's up to the
16:26:46 whim of the administration and the real estate
16:26:49 department.
16:26:49 Sometimes they say, well, we don't want it back.
16:26:52 Well, I think we should take it back.
16:26:55 We should stockpile it and sell it again.
16:26:57 Right.
16:26:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: In the situation that came before
16:26:59 council, the provision with unliquidated damages --
16:27:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: They sold it and made more money.
16:27:07 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor?
16:27:11 (Motion carried).
16:27:11 >>THE CLERK: When would you like that to come back?
16:27:16 >> May 15th.
16:27:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: 30 days.
16:27:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mine is a lot simpler.
16:27:24 I have two eagle scouts in my district.
16:27:25 We have commendations for them to receive eagle scout

16:27:30 ranking this weekend.
16:27:32 And I think my office will deliver those at your
16:27:35 consent.
16:27:36 Marc N. Scott.
16:27:42 Second is David S. Holden.
16:27:47 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
16:27:50 >> Congratulations to those two fine young men.
16:27:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I came from an arts council meeting
16:27:56 at lunch and I wanted to tell you, there are a number
16:27:59 of great activities this weekend, very briefly,
16:28:04 tomorrow all council members are invited to the Tampa
16:28:06 Museum of Art groundbreaking at 11:30.
16:28:09 And tomorrow evening is the sixth annual state of the
16:28:13 river.
16:28:13 And Saturday is ECOLUTION, a sustainability fair in
16:28:20 downtown Tampa.
16:28:21 Sunday is earth day.
16:28:22 And Sunday three to five at the Plant Museum is a free
16:28:25 art activity on to the public called singing, visual
16:28:30 arts, performance, and it's free and open to the
16:28:33 public, 3 to 5:00 at the Plant Museum.
16:28:36 I hope everybody comes out and enjoys all these great

16:28:38 activities.
16:28:40 And I want to commend the parks and rec staff who has
16:28:43 been working their hearts out every weekend since
16:28:46 October on all these activities for our community.
16:28:49 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: We have a contract with the
16:28:53 company out on 301 that sells surplus vehicles and
16:28:56 stuff.
16:28:58 And that contract is good until August.
16:29:01 And somehow, we are not doing business with them any
16:29:04 longer.
16:29:05 We are doing it on the Internet with some company.
16:29:10 And the Internet is charging us, I think, 7%.
16:29:13 The company out on 301 charges 10%.
16:29:17 The company that is selling these vehicles comes with
16:29:22 the Internet and people come down to the yard and pick
16:29:24 up their vehicle, and they are not paying sales tax.
16:29:28 And the law is, the point of sale is Tampa.
16:29:31 Whether the guy comes from New Hampshire or wherever
16:29:33 he's coming, he's coming here to pick up his vehicle.
16:29:36 He has to pay sales tax, State of Florida and
16:29:40 Hillsborough County.
16:29:41 Now, I talked to Sal about it today.

16:29:43 And I would like legal to come back with an opinion.
16:29:47 And I hear from the people at the compound where they
16:29:53 are keeping the trucks and vehicles now that we are
16:29:55 released once the vehicle is sold, and they pay the
16:29:58 sales tax wherever they go.
16:29:59 If the guy is from New Hampshire he doesn't pay sales
16:30:01 tax.
16:30:02 Because they don't have a sales tax in New Hampshire.
16:30:04 So I want legal to come back with a final opinion on
16:30:09 what they have been doing.
16:30:10 Is it legal or not legal?
16:30:12 >>GWEN MILLER: That's a motion and second.
16:30:14 (Motion carried).
16:30:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: How long did you wish to have that?
16:30:20 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I think they have been discussing
16:30:21 it already so they should be able to come back at our
16:30:24 next regular meeting.
16:30:26 With a legal opinion on what they have been doing.
16:30:29 Is it right or isn't it right?
16:30:30 >>MARY MULHERN: I just wanted to say because of the
16:30:40 sunshine law that I am reminded of constantly, and I
16:30:42 am not going to be able to talk to councilman

16:30:45 Dingfelder, who I know is surprised at me changing my
16:30:49 vote at the end of the discussion about campaign
16:30:52 finance, that it was a confusing discussion.
16:31:01 I was also surprised that it even being on the agenda
16:31:04 because my recollection was that I thought we were
16:31:08 going to have a workshop about it.
16:31:10 But, anyway, I know that it seemed like I had given
16:31:13 you the support and then I withdrew it.
16:31:16 But I actually was convinced and kind of a lot of my
16:31:21 thoughts on this were reinforced when councilman Scott
16:31:25 said that he didn't feel like this was a really coming
16:31:29 from -- you know, it was coming from a small group, it
16:31:33 wasn't like this was a representative group from the
16:31:36 city, and that the public has got to have their input
16:31:40 on this in the first place.
16:31:41 So I'm I just want to you know that, and I am not
16:31:47 going to make a motion to bring this back today,
16:31:49 because Mr. Scott isn't here, but I think you have
16:31:55 done great work with this, and I know that, you know,
16:31:58 your constituents were really excited about this.
16:32:01 And I don't want to kill it, but I do think that it
16:32:09 should have been a public -- well, it was a public

16:32:14 hearing.
16:32:14 I don't know.
16:32:15 What I was trying to get at was that we should have a
16:32:19 very public open discussion at a council meeting about
16:32:23 what kind of legislation we would want to do, and then
16:32:27 we would give it to legal as opposed to what it ended
16:32:30 up being with us going back and forth.
16:32:33 So I just want to explain that.
16:32:35 I don't know, you know.
16:32:38 But how you feel about that.
16:32:40 But at the next council meeting that we are all here,
16:32:49 I will bring that up, unless you want to do that.
16:32:52 But I'm just giving you my feelings about it, if you
16:32:59 want to revisit the whole thing.
16:33:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I feel like Mr. Dingfelder
16:33:07 exhibited great leadership in this, but I don't think
16:33:10 he cooked up the idea.
16:33:11 I think it really did come from the public, and I
16:33:13 think we should allow the public an opportunity to
16:33:15 come down for all council members to hear their
16:33:17 concerns, and to that end, because we do need to do
16:33:20 something if it's going to be on the ballot.

16:33:22 I would like to put it on our May workshop so that we
16:33:28 can have the public participant.
16:33:35 I think workshop would be an appropriate time to
16:33:40 discuss it because it would be an in-depth discussion.
16:33:43 >>MARY MULHERN: And you are saying what I have been
16:33:47 having trouble saying it's one of those things where
16:33:49 it comes from a small group or, you know, a little
16:33:52 group, neighborhood group, and I think that's
16:33:55 wonderful, but I don't think that you go from that to
16:34:00 writing a proposal to put on the ballot.
16:34:02 I think that we need a fuller public hearing, open
16:34:05 hearing for everyone.
16:34:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
16:34:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, I appreciate that.
16:34:12 I certainly do appreciate it.
16:34:14 One, I tried to workshop it.
16:34:16 But then it was about a month ago when we all decided
16:34:18 we didn't allow public comments during workshops so I
16:34:21 said, okay, we'll put it on regular meeting.
16:34:24 If it had been on workshop I think it would be a
16:34:27 little more deliberative.
16:34:29 Bygones be bygones.

16:34:31 The thing is not how we got here but where we go from
16:34:33 here.
16:34:34 There are four of us, and Joseph, I'm saying this to
16:34:36 you, if there are four of us that think there's hope
16:34:39 and terms of moving this forward and that some form of
16:34:43 campaign finance reform is a good idea, you know, it
16:34:46 doesn't matter to me which one of these ideas, some of
16:34:48 these ideas.
16:34:50 And let me tell you about a small group.
16:34:52 We sent out like a thousand e-mails to every single
16:34:55 person who ever e-mailed me for the last year.
16:34:57 We sent them out, and that's people across this whole
16:35:00 city, not just my district.
16:35:01 There were two articles from these young ladies, in
16:35:03 the newspapers, talking about this, and basically, as
16:35:06 I recall, kind of telling them when the meetings were
16:35:08 going to be.
16:35:09 Okay.
16:35:09 And then we had 30 people from across the city show up
16:35:13 at these meetings.
16:35:14 So I don't want to defuse the idea, that this is
16:35:20 Dingfelder's plan.

16:35:21 It's bygones be bygones when everybody jumped on me
16:35:28 about that.
16:35:30 I said, you know, this is something we need to look
16:35:33 at.
16:35:33 From that point on other people had taken the ball and
16:35:36 run with it and I think they contacted you.
16:35:38 >> No.
16:35:40 No.
16:35:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, they told me they were going
16:35:43 to attempt to contact all council and have discussion
16:35:45 was you.
16:35:46 Whether or not they did or not, I don't know and I
16:35:47 don't care.
16:35:48 But anyway, with all that stead, I really appreciate
16:35:50 you saying what you said, Mary.
16:35:52 I really do.
16:35:52 I think we should try and workshop it in May.
16:35:57 Joseph, there seems to be some indication when we were
16:35:59 having the discussion that you were interested in it.
16:36:03 And the other three, philosophically they are not
16:36:06 interested but if there's for of to us move forward
16:36:09 that's all it takes.

16:36:11 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Madam Chair, when I want to bring
16:36:13 something up, and I am speaking about myself, I don't
16:36:16 send e-mails to no one.
16:36:18 I study the issues.
16:36:19 I don't want to meet with 30 or 50 or 100 people.
16:36:23 I got elected to serve.
16:36:25 I'll take the input if they call me with an idea.
16:36:27 There's no problem with that.
16:36:29 Like I said earlier, you can check the records.
16:36:31 I have gone to almost 2400 calls to my one-office
16:36:37 person.
16:36:38 So let me say another thing.
16:36:40 If you are going to have that, don't have it in this
16:36:43 chamber because I am going to pack the building.
16:36:45 You are going to need the convention center.
16:36:48 >> Let's see what happens.
16:36:49 >>> Because I am also going to bring up no money to
16:36:52 run for elected officials who are serving in power
16:36:54 now.
16:36:55 The hurt that it puts on the minorities, the hurt that
16:36:58 it puts on the people with lesser income, is
16:37:01 understandably, and it doesn't do anything for those

16:37:03 who want to run a check.
16:37:06 When I ran for mayor they raised over $2 million.
16:37:09 The only thing I said is I am not going to be parted
16:37:12 of an auction.
16:37:13 I am going to be part of an election.
16:37:16 It don't bother me what happened in the campaign.
16:37:19 Doesn't matter who I ran against.
16:37:20 I take politics with a grain of salt.
16:37:22 It doesn't bother me what people say or don't say in a
16:37:25 campaign.
16:37:26 I don't look back at any election.
16:37:28 In fact, every one that's ever beat me, guess what,
16:37:31 I'm very close or friendly with them.
16:37:33 And that's all I can say.
16:37:35 But if you are going to do, that don't have it here
16:37:37 because I'll make awe promise I'll fill the building.
16:37:39 >>GWEN MILLER: I would like to give a commendation --
16:37:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My motion is that we have this
16:37:44 meeting on May 29th, which is not a normally
16:37:47 scheduled council meeting, but it's a special meeting
16:37:50 just to discuss this, and that we have it at the
16:37:53 convention center.

16:37:59 >> If it passes today --
16:38:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Didn't get a second.
16:38:03 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm seconding that.
16:38:06 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor.
16:38:07 Opposed?
16:38:08 >>THE CLERK: (off microphone).
16:38:15 >>GWEN MILLER: I would like to give a commendation to
16:38:18 Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority, their 55th conference
16:38:21 here in our city, April 23rd through -- 27th.
16:38:30 I'm going to carry it to them.
16:38:31 We need a second.
16:38:33 >> Second.
16:38:33 (Motion carried)
16:38:33 >> Reverend Scott would like to -- he's requesting on
16:38:42 behalf -- a proclamation be prepared. We don't give
16:38:45 proclamations.
16:38:47 A commendation to new Wallace Linkston of New Hope
16:38:50 Missionary Baptist church for many years of service.
16:38:53 I have a motion and second.
16:38:54 (Motion carried)
16:39:01 Receive and file.
16:39:03 >> So moved.

16:39:04 >> Second.
16:39:04 (Motion carried).
16:39:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Before you adjourn, council has set a
16:39:07 special regular meeting or an additional regular
16:39:10 meeting --
16:39:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: A workshop, on May 29th at
16:39:15 9 a.m. at the convention center.
16:39:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 9 a.m. at the convention center.
16:39:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Specifically for campaign finance
16:39:21 reform.
16:39:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Be there or be square.
16:39:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And doing any advance research on
16:39:27 this?
16:39:29 Mary?
16:39:29 >>> (off microphone).
16:39:56 >>MARY MULHERN: If John could give us the numbers of
16:39:58 the examples of different cities that have done that,
16:40:02 and this may northbound here.
16:40:03 I didn't see it.
16:40:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That is an additional motion, I'm
16:40:06 sorry to say.
16:40:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move that Mr. Shelby do

16:40:09 additional research to see what campaign finance
16:40:11 reforms have been implemented by municipalities in
16:40:13 Florida.
16:40:13 >>MARY MULHERN: In Florida and how they withstood so
16:40:17 far.
16:40:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's a motion and second.
16:40:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
16:40:25 (Motion carried)
16:40:26 Anything else to come before council?
16:40:27 We stand adjourned.
16:40:28
16:40:31
DISCLAIMER:
The preceding represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.