Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council
Thursday, June 19, 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.

09:04:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Tampa City Council will now come to
09:04:14 order.
09:04:15 We will have Ms. Shirley Foxx-Knowles who is the clerk
09:04:22 for the City of Tampa give the invocation this
09:04:23 morning.
09:04:25 Stand and remain standing for the pledge of
09:04:27 allegiance.
09:04:28 Thank you.

09:04:30 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: Good morning.
09:04:32 Precious father, thank you for this day that you have
09:04:34 made.
09:04:35 We will rejoice and be glad in it.
09:04:38 Father, may we realize that every day is a day for
09:04:41 celebration, because of your love for us.
09:04:46 May we remember, too, in turn be kind and love one
09:04:52 another as you have loved us.
09:04:53 Father, thank you for our great leaders, our
09:04:57 hard-working employees, and our wonderful citizens.
09:05:00 Continue to guide them and make them instruments of
09:05:04 your will.
09:05:05 Thank you for the opportunity to serve and to be of
09:05:08 service.
09:05:09 May we represent you and use our talents to your
09:05:16 glory.
09:05:16 May we remember to whom much is given, much is
09:05:19 required.
09:05:21 Guide our council members, and lead them as they make
09:05:24 decision that is affect the lives of our of our fair
09:05:28 city.
09:05:28 Guide them so that they will do that which is

09:05:32 acceptable in your sight and uplifting for the
09:05:36 residents of our city.
09:05:37 We thank you for your grace and your mercy.
09:05:40 We ask that you continue to protect those serving on
09:05:44 the front line.
09:05:45 We are truly grateful for their service.
09:05:47 And when their job is done, we ask that you bring them
09:05:50 back safely to their loved ones.
09:05:53 And now, O Lord, as we go about the worldly matters of
09:05:57 the city, we again say thank you for everything and
09:06:01 continue to bless and guide us in your way.
09:06:05 These things we ask with humble hearts.
09:06:07 Amen.
09:06:10 [ Pledge of Allegiance ]
09:06:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
09:06:32 Just as a matter of personal privilege, I guess, I
09:06:35 also wanted us to remember, didn't turn on the news
09:06:40 ever since Friday without seeing the news of Tim
09:06:42 Russert of NBC ""Meet the Press"
09:06:46 I just wanted us all to take a minute to think about
09:06:50 really a fin man, a wonderful national hero.
09:06:55 I think that, you know, in government we sometimes get

09:06:59 a little self-important and that sort of thing, and
09:07:03 Tim Russert, I think, exemplified the importance of
09:07:06 the fourth estate, the press, and to keep us on our
09:07:10 toes.
09:07:11 They raised the bar for government, and Tim Russert
09:07:16 met that at the highest standard.
09:07:19 And I think Tim Russert probably raised the bar for
09:07:24 all the press in the local Tampa Bay area, and we
09:07:29 remember him.
09:07:31 He was a true patriot and a true American.
09:07:33 Thank you, Mr. Chair.
09:07:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, councilman.
09:07:38 Roll call.
09:07:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
09:07:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
09:07:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
09:07:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
09:07:44 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Here.
09:07:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.
09:07:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilmen, we have on our agenda
09:07:52 first two items a workshop.
09:07:54 Once we complete those we will move to our regular

09:07:56 agenda which you know by now is a full agenda but
09:07:59 we'll try to get through this morning as much as
09:08:03 possible.
09:08:05 I will ask the Planning Commission to come.
09:08:07 And I will ask that we allow him to finish his
09:08:11 presentation, and then ask all the questions we need
09:08:13 to ask. He has about a 30 minute presentation that he
09:08:15 needs to make.
09:08:21 >>TERRY CULLEN: Terry Cullen with the Planning
09:08:23 Commission staff.
09:08:24 This morning's workshop is on the Tampa comprehensive
09:08:26 plan update. This is your final workshop before your
09:08:30 public hearing, which is scheduled for next Thursday,
09:08:33 June 26th.
09:08:35 There are four things that I want to touch upon at
09:08:38 this workshop.
09:08:39 The first is to reiterate the growth management
09:08:42 strategies in this comprehensive plan update, and to
09:08:46 hopefully clear up some confusion of some of the
09:08:50 nomenclature and how it's supplied in the city and in
09:08:53 this plan.
09:08:54 The second part of this, I would like to go through an

09:08:57 example a hypothetical example of how you can use this
09:09:01 plan perhaps in a rezoning review.
09:09:03 The third is I would like to touch upon an issue that
09:09:06 the Planning Commission, the actual commission itself,
09:09:10 wanted me to bring to your attention that came out of
09:09:13 their public hearing on May 12th.
09:09:15 And the fourth thing I want to talk about is your
09:09:18 public hearing next week.
09:09:23 If I can have the PowerPoint presentation up.
09:09:25 Mr. Garcia behind me is going to maneuver it for me.
09:09:28 And if I could take that to the first slide after
09:09:30 that, the title slide, please. This is the vision
09:09:33 map.
09:09:33 This is going to be your entry point into the
09:09:36 comprehensive plan.
09:09:38 This is the first thing we want people to look at when
09:09:44 we open the comprehensive plan.
09:09:46 It shows on that map the city form and the districts.
09:09:49 This plan has been completely reengineered from the
09:09:51 ground up, so there's a lot of people that are looking
09:09:55 at it somewhat nervously, asking, what does it mean
09:09:58 for them?

09:10:00 They are not familiar with all of the terms that are
09:10:02 being used in that or how they are being applied.
09:10:06 So we fully understand that. This is a learning curve
09:10:09 for many different people and different groups.
09:10:11 We need to tell you that we are committed to working
09:10:14 with these groups now and in the upcoming months all
09:10:17 the way to what is expected to be the adoption public
09:10:20 hearing in the fall, to get them to better understand
09:10:24 the plan and to address any issues they might have
09:10:28 with it.
09:10:28 We are facing several challenges in our future.
09:10:30 We are looking at the year 2025.
09:10:33 We are expecting 92,000 more people to be living in
09:10:37 this city and about 142,000 more people to work in
09:10:40 this city.
09:10:42 Where are we going to put them?
09:10:43 We can't grow any more in terms of annexation.
09:10:46 There's very little opportunity out there.
09:10:48 And there isn't enough vacant land to support all of
09:10:51 the people that are coming here to live and to work.
09:10:55 So for the first time in the city's history, our
09:10:58 future is going to be driven more by redevelopment

09:11:01 than brand new green fill development, and that is a
09:11:06 major shift.
09:11:07 And that's also one of the major factors for why we
09:11:13 made the decision and recommendation to reengineer
09:11:16 this plan from the ground up because a redevelopment
09:11:18 plan is very different than a greenfill redevelopment
09:11:23 plan.
09:11:23 We are also, in the past, since the last plan was
09:11:26 adopted in 1998, ten years ago, have experienced some
09:11:30 tremendous growth pressures that have affected a lot
09:11:32 of our stable neighborhoods.
09:11:35 One of the things that we are keenly aware of, and we
09:11:38 try to deal with in this comprehensive plan update, is
09:11:41 the means and methods in which to protect those
09:11:44 neighborhoods, continue to find ways to stabilize
09:11:47 them, and to direct growth into the most appropriate
09:11:51 areas of the city, and to direct your attention to the
09:11:55 PowerPoint slide, or to this poster board to the left
09:11:58 of me, because the vision map contains elements of the
09:12:02 city form and the districts.
09:12:05 There are five planning districts.
09:12:10 I will ask Tony to go to the next slide for a moment.

09:12:13 There are five planning districts in the city.
09:12:16 There are three that are in the central city called
09:12:18 the heritage district, the Westshore district, and the
09:12:22 university district.
09:12:24 And then there's a north side district and a south
09:12:26 side district.
09:12:28 There's some confusion about what role the districts
09:12:30 play in the growth management approach.
09:12:33 They are thematic. It's very important to understand,
09:12:39 they are grouped together like that because staff,
09:12:41 after looking at them had recommended that they be
09:12:45 designed that way because of certain commonalities
09:12:48 that each district had with each other.
09:12:51 They provided framework for contacts and for data
09:12:53 collection.
09:12:54 They are not used as a growth management tool.
09:12:57 They are used as an identification, thematic type
09:13:02 concept only.
09:13:03 So when I say heritage district, you will know what
09:13:06 area of the city I'm talking about.
09:13:08 Many years ago, we had the city divided up into
09:13:12 districts, but they were called cell quadrant, west

09:13:16 quadrant, east, north, and eventually New Tampa or
09:13:19 university north.
09:13:20 So when we turn to a district description it is very
09:13:26 important to know that we are not trying to put growth
09:13:28 into specific districts per se.
09:13:31 And what we do is we are trying to focus the growth
09:13:34 into various parts of the city form which is different
09:13:38 from the districts.
09:13:39 And I will ask tone toy go to the next slide.
09:13:41 There are five pieces of the city form which are
09:13:45 reflected on the vision map that I have to my left
09:13:47 here.
09:13:48 At the top of the hierarchy are the business centers
09:13:51 and the economic engines that drive our future from an
09:13:54 employment perspective.
09:13:56 We have the downtown area, we have the Westshore
09:14:01 business district, we have the University of South
09:14:01 Florida.
09:14:03 Those are the three business centers.
09:14:05 But we also have some very important economic engines
09:14:09 including the port, MacDill Air Force Base, Tampa
09:14:13 International Airport, and Busch Gardens.

09:14:18 So they are included in there and that's where we
09:14:20 expect to see a lot of growth and employment and
09:14:22 population.
09:14:24 We have another piece of this city form that's called
09:14:26 mixed use corridor villages.
09:14:30 The idea behind that is to take the major arterial
09:14:34 roads that are in our city, and if you look at the
09:14:37 physical development pattern today, they are very
09:14:41 underutilized.
09:14:42 And what we would like to see in the future are those
09:14:46 major corridors of change and converted into linear
09:14:49 neighborhoods that have people living in them, and
09:14:52 people doing business in them.
09:14:55 And the scale of each one of those will depend upon
09:14:58 what planned category they have today.
09:15:01 For example, Nebraska and Fowler are community mixed
09:15:05 use in nature, so we are looking at medium density and
09:15:08 intensity to try to put in there some type of
09:15:12 development that makes sense for that corridor and
09:15:16 fits the scale of neighborhoods surrounding it.
09:15:19 In other areas such as Hillsborough or Adamo, we may
09:15:23 see some more intense development, whereas in other

09:15:25 areas, yes, still such as 40th Street, which is very
09:15:30 suburban mixed use in character, or community mixed
09:15:33 use, we may see something that's much less intense.
09:15:36 The idea behind it is that there will be some kind of
09:15:39 a planning process using form-based codes to help
09:15:43 build these new linear neighborhoods.
09:15:45 This is one area where we expect to see substantial
09:15:48 growth in the future.
09:15:51 They are also identified in the long-range
09:15:53 transportation plan that's been adopted by the MPO as
09:15:57 bus rapid transit corridors.
09:16:00 So it's helping us to become transit ready for the
09:16:03 future.
09:16:04 Another piece of the urban form is called transit
09:16:08 stops.
09:16:08 And they are not going to be here just yet but they
09:16:10 will be coming, and they will be based upon, in most
09:16:13 part, on the rail stations that are expected to be
09:16:16 built as part of a light rail system that we'll have
09:16:19 in the future.
09:16:20 And the plan describes and sets the framework for how
09:16:23 those should be developed with different scales and

09:16:28 intensities.
09:16:29 Then we have urban villages which is a form of the
09:16:32 neighborhood.
09:16:33 We have about six or seven urban villages in the City
09:16:36 of Tampa.
09:16:38 It's a village within the city.
09:16:40 What distinguishes it differently than just a
09:16:43 residential neighborhood, which is another type of the
09:16:45 city form, is that urban villages have a secondary
09:16:50 planning process that's taking place.
09:16:52 For example, Davis islands.
09:16:54 There's been a neighborhood plan that the community
09:16:58 did that helps to inform how that community wants to
09:17:00 be grow or change in the future.
09:17:04 Or community redevelopment area plan is another type
09:17:06 of a secondary planning process, and we have those for
09:17:10 East Tampa, Channelside, we have it for Drew Park, we
09:17:13 have it for Ybor City, we have it for Tampa Heights.
09:17:18 Also, there are other types of secondary planning
09:17:21 processes that define the type of urban villages we
09:17:24 have.
09:17:25 Additional ones include Seminole Heights and Central

09:17:29 Park, West Tampa, and Hyde Park Village.
09:17:32 The idea being once again is that the secondary
09:17:35 planning process will be used to help guide and inform
09:17:39 future decisions or changes for that community.
09:17:43 And finally, we have residential neighborhoods.
09:17:46 And residential neighborhoods are our traditional
09:17:49 neighborhoods that we see.
09:17:50 We have different types actually.
09:17:52 Contemporary, rural, we have high density.
09:17:56 There's a number of different neighborhood types that
09:17:58 we have in the city.
09:18:00 It is the goal of this plan to protect and stabilize
09:18:03 both our urban villages and our residential
09:18:06 neighborhoods.
09:18:07 It's very important to understand.
09:18:09 If I could have the next slide, please.
09:18:12 Let me describe what the growth management strategy
09:18:14 is.
09:18:15 Simply put, we are going to direct most growth into
09:18:19 three parts of the city form -- the business centers
09:18:25 and economic engines is one, the mixed use corridor
09:18:29 villages is two, and the transit stops is three.

09:18:33 The urban villages and the residential neighborhoods
09:18:37 will have limited growth.
09:18:38 We are trying very much to discourage much growth in
09:18:41 those neighborhoods, but they will grow based on their
09:18:45 current capacities, that is, whatever their planned
09:18:48 designations are today.
09:18:52 So, for example, let's take a look at Davis islands.
09:18:55 It is an urban village.
09:18:56 It is planned with residential 6, residential 10, and
09:19:00 it has some community mixed use.
09:19:03 So we expect that in the future it's going to continue
09:19:05 that way.
09:19:07 Temple Crest, another neighborhood is largely planned
09:19:11 of residential 10.
09:19:12 Its future growth and change will be with whatever
09:19:15 type of development may occur in the future that fits
09:19:19 residential 10.
09:19:20 And finally, Gray Gables, likewise, a residential 10
09:19:24 planned community, for the most part, and we expect
09:19:28 the neighborhood to remain that way.
09:19:31 So growth and change will occur perhaps as in-fill
09:19:33 single family detached residential.

09:19:36 Once again, the districts are not being used to tell
09:19:38 us where the growth is going.
09:19:41 It is the pieces of the city forum where we want to
09:19:44 direct the growth.
09:19:46 And there are business centers and economic engines in
09:19:49 just about every one of the districts.
09:19:52 So there will be some growth in the different
09:19:55 districts but it will be based upon growing into a
09:20:00 piece of the city form.
09:20:01 It's not that there's some overintention to direct
09:20:04 growth into one district versus another.
09:20:11 I can go to the next slide, please.
09:20:13 How do we make this work?
09:20:15 If we want to grow this way, how do we make it work?
09:20:18 Today's plan, the one that's in effect today, relies
09:20:26 on land use as a means to direct growth.
09:20:28 And we have found that that has not been effective.
09:20:31 We will continue to use land use.
09:20:33 Now, we look at the future land use map.
09:20:36 It is a tool to implement the growth management
09:20:39 strategy.
09:20:40 It is not the be all and end all.

09:20:44 It is no longer the first point of entry into the comp
09:20:46 plan.
09:20:46 And I'll show you in a moment why.
09:20:49 But we are only proposing two minor map amendments as
09:20:54 part of this plan update, which is why quite stunning,
09:21:00 given the emphasis and importance of the use of the
09:21:03 land use map in the past, one would expect that you
09:21:05 would want to make a whole lot of adjustments to that
09:21:07 future land use map.
09:21:08 We do not.
09:21:11 There is one plan amendment that is being proposed up
09:21:14 in the very northern part of the city for an
09:21:17 annexation, and there's a small scrivener's type
09:21:22 amendment to correct a problem down in Palma Ceia that
09:21:24 was overlooked during the Palma Ceia study that was
09:21:27 done a couple of years ago.
09:21:29 That's it.
09:21:29 We are not proposing any changes to the future land
09:21:32 use map in terms of the planned designation as it
09:21:37 applies to residential neighborhoods, or to urban
09:21:40 villages, or to any part.
09:21:43 We are making one change to the definition of one plan

09:21:49 category, and that is a heavy commercial 24, which you
09:21:52 all recognize is the plan category that typically
09:21:56 allows your heavy more intensive commercial uses such
09:21:59 as your auto body repair.
09:22:02 What we have done is we are renaming it community
09:22:06 commercial and bumping up the density from 24 to 35 as
09:22:10 an incentive for land owners to begin transitioning
09:22:15 heavy commercial uses over some more residential mixed
09:22:18 uses, and it's of particular note in corridors such as
09:22:23 Nebraska and Fowler.
09:22:25 So we are helping that process along as the
09:22:29 opportunity avails itself.
09:22:30 So the future land use map, and what you have planned
09:22:33 today is one tool to effectuate this growth management
09:22:37 process.
09:22:39 The transportation concurrency exception area, which I
09:22:41 am going to get to in a moment, is another tool that
09:22:44 we use.
09:22:46 Our infrastructure planning is the third type of tool.
09:22:50 We want to, of course, address facilities and put new
09:22:55 facilities mostly in the growth areas and upsize if it
09:22:59 avails itself, if it's appropriate to do that, so that

09:23:02 growth can be directed more effectively to where we
09:23:05 want to the go.
09:23:06 But it's very important to note that we are keenly
09:23:08 aware also that a lot of their residential
09:23:12 neighborhoods and urban villages have severe backlogs
09:23:15 in their infrastructure and that those will be
09:23:17 addressed as we continue in time as one of the top
09:23:21 priorities.
09:23:23 And the fourth type of tool that we are using is the
09:23:25 plan amendment process.
09:23:27 We have now differentiate how you can apply for a plan
09:23:32 amendment, and plan amendments and residential
09:23:36 neighborhoods and in urban villages, that you have to
09:23:38 have a life plan category adjacent to you so you don't
09:23:43 have a plan amendment brought before you that brings
09:23:46 in isolated unrelated land use in the middle of the
09:23:50 neighborhood.
09:23:50 So we are doing that as yet another means to manage
09:23:54 growth and make it go where we think it's appropriate.
09:23:58 The next slide, please.
09:23:59 I want to talk briefly about the TCDA, transportation
09:24:03 concurrence exception area.

09:24:05 This is the map that -- this map or one very similar
09:24:12 to this is one that will be brought forward to you
09:24:15 next week at your hearing.
09:24:17 What it does is there's three different areas that are
09:24:19 identified as part of the TCEA.
09:24:23 The first one is the blue area which is downtown.
09:24:26 The green areas which are classified as the urban
09:24:30 redevelopment district.
09:24:32 And must point out if you look at Westshore, that is
09:24:35 not correct.
09:24:36 That map does not reflect the special districts and
09:24:41 the special planning district or district services,
09:24:45 and that needs to be brought down.
09:24:47 I think it's along Dale Mabry to encompass some area
09:24:50 around Dale Mabry and Kennedy, and a thin band back
09:24:57 towards the Howard Frankland bridge.
09:24:59 That is a more accurate reflection of the map and that
09:25:03 one will be brought in next week as part of the plan
09:25:05 that's going to be put in front of you.
09:25:07 And that's something that the city has been working on
09:25:09 with the Westshore alliance on it.
09:25:12 It more accurately reflects what that business

09:25:14 district is, and has always been.
09:25:16 And then the third area, which is all yellow, or green
09:25:20 as you may call it, is the urban in-fill district.
09:25:24 So depending upon what districts you are in, you will
09:25:27 be exempt from transportation concurrency if you can
09:25:31 meet certain requirements.
09:25:34 The requirements are much more stringent in the
09:25:38 yellow-green areas which are the urban in-fill areas,
09:25:41 which encompass our urban villages, and encompass our
09:25:46 residential neighborhoods, two pieces of the city
09:25:49 form.
09:25:50 So using these three neighborhoods I mentioned
09:25:53 earlier, Davis islands as an urban village if you can
09:25:56 see that on the map, Temple Crest, and Gray Gables, if
09:26:01 you look at those three areas, they are all in the
09:26:03 yellowish green color.
09:26:05 They are urban in-fill districts within the TCEA.
09:26:09 The reason we use those labels is because the state,
09:26:15 that's what they set forth in their statutes.
09:26:17 So that's what we are required to use as their
09:26:19 labeling system for it.
09:26:22 But under the urban in-fill, you have the most

09:26:25 stringent requirements that have to be met before you
09:26:27 can be exempt from transportation concurrency.
09:26:31 We have never really used the TCEA before as a growth
09:26:35 management tool.
09:26:36 And that's what we are trying to do here today.
09:26:39 With this plan update.
09:26:41 We have four different types of tools that are being
09:26:43 used to tie growth.
09:26:47 All right.
09:26:47 That's the end of part one.
09:26:49 Let's go on to the part 2 which is the consistency
09:26:51 review, and comprehensive plan.
09:26:54 This is a hypothetical example using a real piece of
09:26:57 property.
09:26:59 Thank you.
09:27:01 This is the southeast corner of Nebraska and Fowler.
09:27:06 I am going to get in position there for a moment.
09:27:09 The current use, there's a vacant shopping center.
09:27:12 There is a Burger King restaurant.
09:27:14 And there's another outparcel with surface parking.
09:27:18 There's about three parcels.
09:27:19 It's about 23 acres in size more or less.

09:27:25 If you look to the right of it, you can see where that
09:27:29 line, it looks like a road, hooks over and heads east.
09:27:34 That is a railroad line.
09:27:36 The proposal is a mixed use residential office and
09:27:41 retail commercial project with access to a light rail
09:27:45 community center station.
09:27:47 When you go into the plan and you look at the
09:27:50 conceptual locations of station stops, which is also
09:27:54 on the vision map here, you will see that one of them
09:27:58 is adjacent to this site -- excuse me, adjacent to
09:28:04 this site.
09:28:05 If I can go to the next slide, I am going to explain
09:28:07 how you would use this plan.
09:28:08 I think you will find it interesting, because it's not
09:28:11 just for your benefit, but it's for every user of the
09:28:14 plan that shows up here in front of council.
09:28:17 Whether it be a developer, attorney, neighborhood, or
09:28:20 just everyday citizens.
09:28:27 Big picture.
09:28:28 That's the first thing do you is establish your
09:28:30 picture.
09:28:30 So your point of entry once again, Lou at the vision

09:28:32 map.
09:28:32 The vision map is up there on the screen.
09:28:35 What planning district are you in?
09:28:36 You locate where the property is, and you can tell a
09:28:39 lot of things from this map.
09:28:40 It is in the university planning district, in the city
09:28:46 form.
09:28:46 It is part of a proposed mixed use corridor village.
09:28:48 Nebraska and Fowler are both identified as that.
09:28:57 There is a transit station that is conceptually
09:28:58 located to the Southeast corner of the site adjacent
09:29:01 to the rail line.
09:29:03 And then when we look at the major systems that on
09:29:07 that map, we see mobility, mixed use corridor villages
09:29:10 or bus rapid transit, we see infrastructure, and we
09:29:14 see neighborhoods.
09:29:15 There is a neighborhood adjacent, or actually this is
09:29:18 part of a neighborhood, the north Tampa community
09:29:22 neighborhood.
09:29:22 So we have established what the big picture is from
09:29:25 that vision map.
09:29:27 I can take you to the next slide.

09:29:29 We do something now called the drill-down.
09:29:33 This is -- you are on Nebraska.
09:29:36 You are facing due east and you are looking at the
09:29:38 site.
09:29:40 All right.
09:29:40 Now using the big picture as your guide, let's go into
09:29:44 the drill-down.
09:29:46 University planning district.
09:29:47 What does the plan say about the university planning
09:29:49 district?
09:29:50 It talks about things such as a kaleidoscope of
09:29:54 diverse shopping and dining opportunities, education,
09:29:59 science, medicine and research.
09:30:01 It's an area that will continue to attract a critical
09:30:04 mass of top students, staff, faculty, researchers and
09:30:09 entrepreneurs, and the opportunities in there are for
09:30:12 improving mobility, attracting residential investment,
09:30:15 and changing the urban form of our corridors.
09:30:18 So there's a number of things in there that could work
09:30:21 with this site.
09:30:23 You may or may not see this at the actual rezoning
09:30:27 level.

09:30:27 This may be something that is discussed with the
09:30:30 applicant in a pre-application conference on the
09:30:33 rezoning.
09:30:35 They are required to come to the city and to come to
09:30:37 the Planning Commission to talk about their
09:30:40 application, and what it means and how it might effect
09:30:48 from the outside.
09:30:49 So these are the types of things that we would bring
09:30:51 forward and we would talk with the applicant.
09:30:53 And enlighten them to let them know that there's a lot
09:30:56 of opportunities, particularly with a site like this.
09:31:01 If I can go to the next slide.
09:31:03 This slide here, I'm at the corner of Fowler and
09:31:06 Nebraska, and I'm looking southeast at the outparcel,
09:31:10 the Burger King.
09:31:12 Let's continue the drill-down.
09:31:14 I said it was in a mixed use corridor village.
09:31:17 Some of the things that are in the plan talk about the
09:31:19 livable city and urban design, when it comes to mixed
09:31:23 use corridor villages.
09:31:26 Does the proposal further economic opportunity, a
09:31:29 sense of place in community?

09:31:31 Is it attractive?
09:31:32 Does Vermont mobility options? Does it feel safe?
09:31:35 Does it have a mix of uses?
09:31:37 Does it retain healthy, open spaces?
09:31:40 There's urban design goals, objectives and policies
09:31:43 that talk about design excellence in the development
09:31:48 ranks, transitions in skill, public safety, and
09:31:51 community design, walkable blocks, buildings that
09:31:55 engage the street, and screening off-street parking.
09:31:59 So there's a wealth of material in the drill-down that
09:32:02 can guide an applicant when they are designing for how
09:32:06 that site will be used.
09:32:08 The mixed use corridor village has a very detailed
09:32:11 description and some general parameters in the plan.
09:32:14 We want to transform our corridors vertically and
09:32:18 horizontally.
09:32:20 This is planned community commercial 35.
09:32:24 We want to create new housing and job opportunities,
09:32:27 if possible, and become transit ready with mixed uses
09:32:30 and friendly transit design, providing sidewalks and
09:32:34 pedestrian amenities.
09:32:35 So I'm just touching upon a lot of buzz words about

09:32:37 things that you would consider as part of a
09:32:40 comprehensive plan review.
09:32:42 So once again we are down from big picture and we are
09:32:45 drilling down into the plan related to the big
09:32:47 picture.
09:32:48 Next slide, please.
09:32:49 This one is at Fowler.
09:32:52 Just east of the site.
09:32:53 And I'm looking southwest down at the site at the
09:32:57 railroad tracks.
09:32:59 Transit station.
09:33:00 This is a likely location for a transit station.
09:33:04 It probably would be a community center station.
09:33:07 And Wan does that mean?
09:33:09 It should provide a sense of community.
09:33:12 Example, it should include gathering places.
09:33:16 It should provide the stationary development around
09:33:18 it, should provide a compact, vibrant user experience,
09:33:23 and that we would like the development proposal to
09:33:25 meet certain minimum densities and intensities of
09:33:29 employment and housing units in population in order to
09:33:34 really support that as a transit-oriented development.

09:33:38 And then there's a number of policies that would guide
09:33:41 the development of the transit station itself.
09:33:44 So there's a wealth of information as it relates to a
09:33:48 transit station.
09:33:51 All right.
09:33:52 Let's go to the next slide.
09:33:54 Here I'm at the southeast corner of Fowler Avenue.
09:33:58 So I'm actually standing on the site.
09:34:00 Remember the Burger King from before.
09:34:02 And I'm looking northward across Fowler Avenue.
09:34:06 Then there's a whole variety of other planning issues,
09:34:08 things that you have dealt with regularly.
09:34:11 General commercial guidelines, something new is how
09:34:15 should they treat the public realm, the future land
09:34:18 use category now includes form guidelines and
09:34:23 development standards, which we never had before.
09:34:26 Housing, if they are providing housing, how can we
09:34:30 encourage land use, multifamily residential, transit
09:34:34 oriented communities, and, yes, now greenhousing.
09:34:37 There is stuff in the plan update that's got policy
09:34:43 direction for groan housing.
09:34:46 There's a brand new chapter in the plan addressing the

09:34:49 economy.
09:34:49 Something brand new.
09:34:52 Is this further intense for the economy?
09:34:55 We talk about land use, which is mostly where your
09:34:58 discussion has been in the past.
09:35:01 Infrastructure and all the general siting
09:35:04 considerations for structure.
09:35:07 So what I have given you is that I have broadened out
09:35:09 the conversation for you, so once that big picture is
09:35:13 painted, and you go through a drill-down, we then look
09:35:18 at the development, and you ask yourself, does it
09:35:21 work?
09:35:23 Or could something else be done a little differently
09:35:26 that could make it a little bit better to further what
09:35:29 the plan is trying to do?
09:35:32 So what we have done is we are not going to be able --
09:35:36 we are not giving you specifically -- you can say
09:35:39 "yes" or "no" to something, but what we are trying to
09:35:42 do is have a more thoughtful and broader conversation
09:35:47 from the comprehensive plan perspective.
09:35:51 The codes and everything that's brought before you as
09:35:54 part of the rezoning review, you are going to get into

09:35:57 those standards about the codes itself.
09:35:59 But what we are trying to do with the comprehensive
09:36:01 plan is let you have a conversation about the big
09:36:06 picture.
09:36:07 That's what's missing in today's comprehensive plan.
09:36:09 There is no big picture painted.
09:36:11 And you have struggled with that, and you have told us
09:36:14 in no uncertain terms, you want to have that
09:36:17 conversation
09:36:24 I'm not saying this is what you would do, but I want
09:36:26 to show you some examples of different development
09:36:28 types that might work on this site.
09:36:34 And if you look at it, there are, what, three or four
09:36:37 stories in height.
09:36:40 There are community mixed use.
09:36:41 They are brought up closer to the road.
09:36:45 And then if I can go to the next slide, that one at
09:36:48 the top is an interesting one.
09:36:50 That is a rendering of a transit oriented type of
09:36:54 development.
09:36:55 And there's some additional ones below that, too.
09:37:00 Picture a day when somebody comes in, an applicant

09:37:04 comes in for a rezoning, and the Planning Commission
09:37:06 staff and city staff can pull out a whole catalogue of
09:37:10 these pictures and say, you know, here's some examples
09:37:13 of development types you may want to think about.
09:37:20 And maybe we can actually encourage some of this to go
09:37:22 where it is appropriate.
09:37:24 To underscore that -- where it is appropriate.
09:37:28 It not just a rezoning.
09:37:30 If you think about it, the rezoning process offers so
09:37:33 many opportunities.
09:37:34 But are we taking advantage of those opportunities to
09:37:37 really make change happen?
09:37:40 Is there a way to make this plan work harder for you?
09:37:43 Let's look at the pipeline, the rezoning pipeline and
09:37:47 possible spinoffs.
09:37:48 The applicant comes in for a meeting or counseling.
09:37:52 There's a lot of rezonings, potential rezonings that
09:37:54 do not make it to you, because at the application
09:37:59 level, staff is talking to them, and they are telling
09:38:02 them where you can expect to have problems.
09:38:05 And they are either going back and correcting problems
09:38:07 before they file, or they are withdrawing before they

09:38:11 even start.
09:38:12 So there's a lot that you don't see.
09:38:13 So that's a very important part of the rezoning
09:38:17 process.
09:38:18 And once again, if we can show them examples of what
09:38:22 could be, it's very possible they may show up here at
09:38:25 a public hearing, and you may start seeing development
09:38:29 that you are finding much more interesting, much more
09:38:31 livable, and is more in line with where we see our
09:38:36 future going.
09:38:39 At that same point let's talk about the economy.
09:38:42 So somebody wants to build this on 23 acres.
09:38:45 Do we just sit passively by?
09:38:48 Or do we start to bring something into the expertise
09:38:52 that's going to be needed to help make that happen?
09:38:54 Do we link the applicant with good information that we
09:38:57 have available at the city and the Planning
09:38:59 Commission?
09:39:00 And what about the resources?
09:39:02 City has a lot of expertise in business development.
09:39:05 Small Business Administration.
09:39:06 The Chamber of Commerce.

09:39:09 Then there's the actual rezoning.
09:39:12 Which you all sit and listen to, and make a motion or
09:39:22 pass an ordinance, the land development policies.
09:39:24 And finally what can we do after the rezoning to
09:39:27 continue support of the successful project?
09:39:30 The plan talks about community partnering.
09:39:33 Maybe that's getting them wrapped up with the
09:39:35 University of South Florida.
09:39:37 Maybe there's some connection there that we could help
09:39:40 foster.
09:39:41 Community capacity building.
09:39:42 Maybe we could have them working with the neighborhood
09:39:44 so that as they build, they are also improving the
09:39:47 neighborhood and helping them achieve their goals.
09:39:50 We could make this a win-win situation.
09:39:52 So it's not just a rezoning anymore.
09:39:56 We have the potential to greatly expand this and
09:39:59 influence change in direction for the future in ways
09:40:02 you never thought possible before.
09:40:05 And that's what we are trying to do with this plan.
09:40:07 This plan is intended to be aspirational.
09:40:11 It's not a super-code.

09:40:15 Though today's plan is often viewed that way.
09:40:17 Tomorrow's plan is intended to be just that, what a
09:40:20 plan really is supposed to be.
09:40:24 And if I can go to the next slide here.
09:40:27 Part 3 I am just going to touch on briefly here.
09:40:30 An issue came up at the Planning Commission's public
09:40:32 hearing that I have been instructed I need to bring
09:40:35 forward to your attention.
09:40:36 You do not have to deal with this today.
09:40:38 It just a workshop.
09:40:39 But it will become an issue, probably need to make a
09:40:43 decision on next Thursday.
09:40:45 And that is that the planned categories for the most
09:40:48 part are now spelling out minimum densities and
09:40:52 intensities.
09:40:53 You are all familiar with the maximum, community mixed
09:40:58 use.
09:40:59 You can go up to 35 dwelling units per acre.
09:41:02 We are now establishing a minimum so if you build in
09:41:04 community mixed use, we are saying the plan proposes
09:41:08 you will build at a minimum of 15 dwelling units per
09:41:11 acre.

09:41:12 And where your floor area ratio, your maximum, was
09:41:16 1.5, we are now saying, your minimum is going to be
09:41:20 .5.
09:41:21 Why are we doing that?
09:41:22 It was proposed because we are running out of land and
09:41:24 we need to make more efficient use of the land over
09:41:28 time and become more transit ready.
09:41:30 It's an issue at the Planning Commission, public
09:41:34 hearing on May 12th.
09:41:36 Spencer Cass is there and he put together a case very
09:41:40 well explaining the way the codes are written today,
09:41:43 that would create a lot of problems for someone trying
09:41:45 to develop a small site or to help revitalize areas
09:41:51 that need it, the concern being that in order to meet
09:41:53 today's codes for stormwater and parking, it would
09:41:56 almost have to force you to go up to two stories, from
09:42:00 one to two stories, which dramatically increase it is
09:42:03 cost, which would probably kill the deal to redevelop
09:42:07 in some of our areas of town.
09:42:09 Planning Commission asks staff to bring this to your
09:42:14 attention and to consider a waiver process for these
09:42:19 minimum densities and intensities in a community mixed

09:42:23 use 35 and community commercial 35 planned categories.
09:42:26 I'm bringing that to your attention so this doesn't
09:42:28 come as a surprise next week.
09:42:30 But it will be a policy issue that we will raise again
09:42:33 next week.
09:42:34 And finally, part 4, final slide.
09:42:39 Talk a little bit about what's going on next week.
09:42:43 Next Thursday, June 26th, 2008, starting no sooner
09:42:47 than 6:00, you have a scheduled public hearing for the
09:42:51 purposes of transmitting this plan to the Florida
09:42:53 State department community affairs for final review.
09:42:58 You are not adopting it.
09:43:01 It will go up to the state.
09:43:03 There will be a review process of a couple of months.
09:43:05 It will come back from the state with objections,
09:43:08 recommendations and comment.
09:43:09 There will be another set of public hearings in the
09:43:11 fall at which point you will make a decision to adopt
09:43:15 this plan, adopt the changes or not adopt at all.
09:43:20 What to expect next Thursday?
09:43:22 I may give you a 30-minute whirlwind tour of the
09:43:25 500-page document.

09:43:27 We are going to be transmitting a papers copy of that
09:43:31 comp plan to you this afternoon, along with a CD with
09:43:35 the background, the background data analysis is 800
09:43:40 pages long.
09:43:41 So this has been five years in the making.
09:43:44 It's extensive.
09:43:50 The Planning Commission held their meeting on May
09:43:53 12th.
09:43:54 They recommended you adopt the plan as being transmit
09:43:57 towed.
09:43:57 I sent over to each of you a DVD, and it's the public
09:44:01 hearing with the Planning Commission on May 12th.
09:44:04 It's over three hours long, but what I mentioned to
09:44:07 you is if you would like a good briefing on the plan,
09:44:11 watch my presentation at the very beginning.
09:44:14 It's about an hour and ten minutes.
09:44:17 And that presentation will give you a good overview of
09:44:20 the plan itself.
09:44:23 And you can watch it in the leisure of your home, turn
09:44:26 me off, turn me on.
09:44:28 Turn it on, turn it off.
09:44:30 So -- all right.

09:44:36 I also have today for the audience, I have about a
09:44:39 ten-page paper copy of a plan summary that summarizes
09:44:43 the plan for those that want it.
09:44:45 I have a couple of extra DVDs for anybody that wants
09:44:48 to watch the Planning Commission hearing from May
09:44:51 12th.
09:44:51 You can go to our web site which is plan2025.org.
09:44:58 You can see the full copy of the proposed plan there.
09:45:00 We have a paper copy available in the library at the
09:45:03 Planning Commission's offices.
09:45:09 We have received public comment throughout this
09:45:11 process.
09:45:13 Two notable groups that I want to bring to your
09:45:16 attention is the Westshore alliance and the Tampa
09:45:19 homeowners association of neighborhoods.
09:45:22 Both of them have been looking at this plan very
09:45:24 closely.
09:45:25 I want to express my appreciation on behalf of staff
09:45:29 for the detail that they have looked at this plan and
09:45:31 the questions they have asked.
09:45:34 There are a number of comments that we made.
09:45:38 It's very likely we will not be able to address all of

09:45:40 their comments by next Thursday.
09:45:43 We are fully committed to continue working with them
09:45:47 even after the plan has been transmitted to the state,
09:45:51 to discuss their concerns, and bring any of the policy
09:45:54 issues or changes back later in the year.
09:45:58 So I just want to let everybody know that we are
09:46:01 committed to doing this.
09:46:02 We have written four drafts of this plan.
09:46:05 So it's been difficult not just for staff, but I
09:46:08 understand it's been difficult for people trying to
09:46:10 review this because changes seem to keep evolving.
09:46:14 So in the spirit of that, we want to keep evolving,
09:46:18 too, and continue the conversation of the groups that
09:46:21 are interested in this plan, because there are a lot
09:46:24 of good comments coming from not only these two groups
09:46:27 but other groups as well.
09:46:28 I am going to turn the floor over to Julia Cole who
09:46:31 has a few comments that she wants to make from the
09:46:33 city attorney's perspective.
09:46:35 And at this point, I am also going to say that this
09:46:39 concludes my portion of the presentation.
09:46:41 And when she is done, that concludes staff's comments

09:46:45 to you for this workshop.
09:46:46 Thank you.
09:47:00 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
09:47:00 I want to take an opportunity to let everybody know
09:47:02 where we are legally and when we proceed in terms of
09:47:05 getting to the transmittal stage.
09:47:08 I think you have all heard me say that we are running
09:47:10 out of time, and in fact we are.
09:47:13 June 25th is next Thursday, plan for public
09:47:17 hearing and from the statutory perspective we are
09:47:19 really in a position where we need to transmit.
09:47:23 We are running out of time and it does need to happen.
09:47:25 And I know that there's a lot of comments that have
09:47:27 come to you.
09:47:28 They have come to us recently, and the city attorney's
09:47:31 office, city staff, Planning Commission staff, a are
09:47:35 raising a lot of issues.
09:47:36 Just in terms of talking about how do we deal with all
09:47:38 of these issues, there are folks here today going to
09:47:40 raise the issues, I think they have put them in
09:47:43 writing.
09:47:43 During your transmittal public hearing you will have

09:47:45 an opportunity to, after looking, taking into
09:47:51 consideration the written comments to transmit with
09:47:54 changes.
09:47:54 You need to make your changes very specific as to what
09:47:57 policies you are trying to change and how you want to
09:47:59 change them in order to have a document that then the
09:48:03 Planning Commission would have the opportunity to
09:48:04 transmit them to DCA.
09:48:06 We will talk about that more at the transmittal public
09:48:09 hearing but I wanted to make City Council aware and
09:48:12 folks in the audience that really you will be voting
09:48:15 to transmit with whatever changes you deem
09:48:18 appropriate.
09:48:20 Now, there are going to be issues that we are not
09:48:23 going to be able to resolve.
09:48:24 There's a lot of different comments to the large
09:48:27 document.
09:48:28 So what we can do is we can work through some of these
09:48:31 issues as best as we can both on a staff level, and it
09:48:35 may mean wave to come back in a workshop format to
09:48:39 ultimately resolve the City Council's document in
09:48:42 terms of the policy direction and you have to make

09:48:44 that ultimate decision.
09:48:45 But I want to caution everybody both on City Council
09:48:48 and in the audience that when we are receiving our
09:48:52 comments back from DCA and we go to vote on adoption,
09:48:59 you can adopt the changes at that point in time but
09:49:03 newer a reactive mode to DCA's comments.
09:49:06 So some of the issues that will be raised today, next
09:49:08 week, and even further on down the line, you will be
09:49:11 able to resolve at an adoption public hearing with
09:49:15 those changes.
09:49:15 But I can't guarantee that we will resolve all of them
09:49:20 because if they are not within the scope of the
09:49:21 comments that DCA has brought to our attention and
09:49:25 it's really in a position where we have a whole policy
09:49:29 change, we are talking about a different document, I
09:49:32 will caution you about issues and other such things.
09:49:35 I'm not saying that's the case but I want everybody to
09:49:37 know that we will do our best, you will do your best,
09:49:41 staff will do the best to get everything in the
09:49:43 comprehensive plan that we want.
09:49:45 But if there's things that at the adoption public
09:49:47 hearing we can't get in this comprehensive plan

09:49:50 because from a legal perspective we either have a
09:49:52 notice problem or a situation where it's in no way
09:49:56 responsive to the Florida Department of Community
09:49:58 Affairs comments, then we will have to resolve those
09:50:04 after the fact, with amendments to the comprehensive
09:50:06 plan.
09:50:07 Again, I say that now because I don't want, as we move
09:50:10 forward in this process, there to be confusion about
09:50:12 where we are, and probably again at the transmittal
09:50:16 public hearing, you know, I think it's appropriate and
09:50:19 important that in making policy decisions, you take
09:50:22 into consideration all these comments and to make as
09:50:25 many of the changes as you possibly can now.
09:50:27 But again, we only have a week so we have to be
09:50:30 cognizant of that, and do whatever we can to ensure
09:50:34 that the document you want is fully formed as much as
09:50:43 we can by Thursday F.there are any questions I will be
09:50:45 happy to answer them.
09:50:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder, Saul-Sena, and
09:50:49 Mulhern.
09:50:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
09:50:51 Julia, I'll start with you since you are the most

09:50:54 recent up.
09:50:57 I have a problem with the process, and it's convoluted
09:51:03 and tortuous the past couple of years.
09:51:06 When I tried to get into this comprehensive plan a few
09:51:10 months ago, and I started reading it, and I started
09:51:13 making notes, and then I find out, well, Donald focus
09:51:16 on that because it's going to change.
09:51:18 And so then I put it aside and then I did it again and
09:51:21 it changed again so it's sort of a moving target.
09:51:24 That's fine.
09:51:24 Change is good, and every change I'm hoping is for the
09:51:28 better on the staff side.
09:51:30 But then we get into this bind.
09:51:31 So now we have a final workshop today, and then a
09:51:35 public hearing next week, and, "oh, now you better
09:51:41 take these things from the builders, they have got two
09:51:44 pages, and from T.H.A.N., they have got seven pages,"
09:51:49 and single spaced, and you have got to work through
09:51:52 all those next week, and if you don't fix them next
09:51:54 week, then you can't fix them in the fall when it
09:51:57 comes back from DCA.
09:51:59 You know, it just doesn't -- it's not really a tenable

09:52:03 situation.
09:52:04 I don't know how we got ourselves into this bind and
09:52:07 into these corners.
09:52:08 And it's very frustrating.
09:52:10 I think it's going to become worse, I think, from
09:52:13 council's perspective as we get into the nitty gritty
09:52:17 details.
09:52:18 Where is the basis -- and I have stood exactly where
09:52:22 you are standing over at the county commission and I'm
09:52:24 a little confused because maybe things have changed in
09:52:26 the last dozen years or so since I have been in your
09:52:29 shoes.
09:52:29 But where is the authority that says that we can't
09:52:31 change this at adoption, that we can't tweak a lot of
09:52:36 this language?
09:52:36 Because frankly a lot of the comments we received, we
09:52:39 are receiving now from the community because I know
09:52:40 the community is interested too.
09:52:46 A lot of this I see as tweaking this policy, tweaking
09:52:48 this language, tweaking this issue.
09:52:50 I think we need to specifically ask the DCA for an
09:52:53 opinion, unless there's already one out there, to say,

09:52:55 you know, we have these comments from the
09:52:58 neighborhoods, we might like to address them at
09:53:01 adoption, you know, can we do that, even though your
09:53:03 comments didn't address them?
09:53:04 >>JULIA COLE: And I understand the frustration, which
09:53:08 is exactly why I wanted to make it very clear where we
09:53:11 are.
09:53:12 >> You are being up front.
09:53:13 >> I don't want this to be shocking at 10:00 at night
09:53:15 next Thursday.
09:53:17 You know, from the statutory perspective, you
09:53:20 transmit.
09:53:20 It comes back.
09:53:24 You get your objections, recommendations and comments
09:53:26 report when you are voting to adopt, you are voting to
09:53:29 adopt on the basis of what you say I don't care what
09:53:32 DCA says and I'm just adopting and then off potential
09:53:35 challenge from TCEA.
09:53:37 You take into consideration that the comments they
09:53:38 have made and you move to adopt with those changes, or
09:53:41 you choose not to adopt.
09:53:43 I mean, that's really from the statutory perspective

09:53:45 where you are and that's within 163.
09:53:48 Now, that's why I wanted to say, it's not a question
09:53:50 of whether or not you can't make tweaks.
09:53:55 You just have toking cognizant that tweaks may be not
09:54:01 a problem.
09:54:02 >> If you are tweaking and here is where we have
09:54:06 tweaked, you know, and then they could, you know, do
09:54:08 what they want with it.
09:54:09 But I think as long as it's careful and there's not
09:54:11 major policy changes, it's neighborhood sensitivity
09:54:13 tweaking or it's business sensitivity tweaking, then I
09:54:17 think that we could be okay doing it at the adoption
09:54:20 stage.
09:54:20 >>> You know, I completely agree with what you are
09:54:24 saying and all the conversations I have had with
09:54:26 several of the different entities have made it clear,
09:54:30 I think legally let's get everything in the record now
09:54:32 so that we protect ourselves in the future from making
09:54:35 changes on those tweaks, if something comes up after
09:54:38 the fact it makes it that much harder.
09:54:39 But I want again to make the record clear that tweaks
09:54:43 are probably not going to be a problem and I think we

09:54:45 are striving to get there, if we are talking about
09:54:47 major policy changes then we might be in a problem.
09:54:50 Again I just wanted it to not be a surprise, you know,
09:54:54 in doing what Mr. Smith would be doing is just making
09:54:58 everybody aware as to where we are, where we need to
09:55:01 be.
09:55:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I appreciate that.
09:55:03 Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of questions to Mr.
09:55:05 Cohen, if I could.
09:55:08 Thank you.
09:55:09 Thank you, Terry, for your hard work and the
09:55:11 presentation.
09:55:12 And I don't mean to be critical of you or Michelle or
09:55:14 your staff.
09:55:16 You all have worked very, very hard on this the last
09:55:18 couple of years and done a great job.
09:55:22 A couple of specific questions.
09:55:24 You mentioned there's a parcel, the only adaptation
09:55:32 that the council has been in the last four or five
09:55:34 years which is the little 300-acre parcel up in the
09:55:37 corner of the city, what is that, off Bruce B. Downs?
09:55:43 No, off Morris Bridge Road.

09:55:47 And the gentleman who is representing the 20 families
09:55:52 up there who own the property has spoken to me and I
09:55:55 think has spoken to other council members, which is
09:55:57 allowed in this process, not allowed in the rezoning
09:56:00 process, about you in the comp plan amendment process
09:56:02 it's allowed.
09:56:03 But, anyway, it's my understanding that your staff
09:56:07 recommendation is different than their request.
09:56:10 And I know we are not in the public hearing yet but I
09:56:14 have some strong concerns about that issue.
09:56:17 And I don't want it to be railroaded due to lack of
09:56:20 time next week.
09:56:25 Frankly, he makes a very persuasive argument that the
09:56:30 SMU-6 -- or is it SMU-3, which is being used adjacent,
09:56:37 on the adjacent -- adjacent properties, city
09:56:40 properties, would be the appropriate category for
09:56:42 their properties.
09:56:43 SMU-3 or SMU-6?
09:56:49 3, excuse me.
09:56:49 So the SMU-3 which is also over there on the jays ants
09:56:52 very, very large properties up there.
09:56:56 And it's my understanding the staff -- recommendation

09:57:01 of some sort of agricultural estate 3.
09:57:05 >> It's called rural estate, one unit for five acres.
09:57:11 We will be sure if you like at the public hearing to
09:57:13 outline our case for that and make sure that everybody
09:57:15 is aware why we have recommended that.
09:57:17 >> Since he's not here I guess we'll do that next
09:57:19 week.
09:57:26 What does concern me a little bit and I heard it
09:57:30 bantered around, minimum density or intensity.
09:57:33 And that's a pretty new concept for this city.
09:57:35 And I think we had this discussion one time about
09:57:38 downtown, sort of in a facetious way.
09:57:40 But I think the example that I gave was, if I was
09:57:43 downtown, and I wanted -- some crazy eccentric person
09:57:51 who owned a block downtown and I wanted to just build
09:57:53 a single-family house downtown, under this proposal,
09:57:56 of minimum density intensity, you are probably going
09:57:58 to tell me, oh, no, you really can't do that, because
09:58:04 you are designating for 24 units per acre or 15 units
09:58:08 per acre.
09:58:09 I think that's very offensive for us, and I think we
09:58:13 always have to balance the property rights issue.

09:58:16 And that's what jumps right out at me real quick, is
09:58:19 the property rights issue of saying a minimum density
09:58:22 or intensity.
09:58:24 And then the same thing goes for this basic notion
09:58:27 that train station example that you gave at Nebraska,
09:58:33 anybody with a good head on their shoulder would say
09:58:35 that's a perfect place for a P.O.D. development, okay,
09:58:39 because it's hopefully a train station might be some
09:58:41 day.
09:58:42 But what if you had a developer who just had a totally
09:58:44 different vision, and wanted to squander the
09:58:47 opportunity to do that?
09:58:48 And he owned the property, and he decided, he or she,
09:58:53 excuse me, decided that she didn't want it -- she
09:58:59 didn't want a train station on their property or
09:59:01 adjacent to their property or access on their
09:59:03 property?
09:59:03 So I think, you know, these are issues we don't have
09:59:07 to wrestle with today but we do have to talk about
09:59:10 them in the public hearing.
09:59:12 And again, it goes back to between the public good and
09:59:18 the private property rights.

09:59:20 And even though we are really -- we would want to
09:59:23 encourage in every possible way with incentives and
09:59:26 everything else somebody to build a good TOD project
09:59:32 there, if somebody doesn't want to do a TOD project, I
09:59:35 don't know, I don't know if this community is ready to
09:59:38 take the lead and say we would make them do that.
09:59:40 Is Randy going to be doing a TCEA presentation today?
09:59:44 >>> No, not that I'm aware of.
09:59:46 >> Has he done a comprehensive -- because I see you
09:59:49 have an attachment.
09:59:51 Says the TCEA.
09:59:53 I remember we had a discussion on TCEA, and I missed
09:59:57 the meeting because I had a death in the family and
09:59:59 that sort of thing, I don't know if I missed the
10:00:01 presentation.
10:00:02 >>> Yes.
10:00:03 Gave it at the last workshop.
10:00:05 >> So I will catch up with you privately on that.
10:00:08 Let's see, I have one last question, Mr. Chairman.
10:00:10 Thank you for your indulgence.
10:00:17 Terry, the five-pages of T.H.A.N. and the two pages
10:00:23 from Mike Peterson on behalf of the development

10:00:25 community, are you all going through those, you know,
10:00:29 item by item to at least address them and be able to
10:00:32 respond to them, and are you going to respond to them
10:00:35 in writing?
10:00:36 If you could respond to them in writing, we are going
10:00:38 to make these changes.
10:00:40 We are not going to make these changes.
10:00:42 And then you get those back to us.
10:00:44 It would probably save a lot of time either today or
10:00:46 next week.
10:00:49 That way, we don't have to wrestle with each and every
10:00:52 one.
10:00:53 >>> We have got a meeting set up with the city staff
10:00:55 to go over T.H.A.N.'s concerns, and we are expecting
10:00:59 to get some from the Westshore alliance.
10:01:01 I have not received anything from the builders or Mike
10:01:04 Peterson.
10:01:05 I haven't seen that yet.
10:01:06 >> Let me say one thing about the TCEA, and I probably
10:01:11 don't know exactly where we are headed on it and I
10:01:13 apologize for that.
10:01:15 Randy and I will get together and he will help brief

10:01:19 me on it.
10:01:20 Last time I saw -- well, let's go back a little bit.
10:01:23 A few years ago, this council specifically gave
10:01:26 direction to staff and said, we need to shrink the
10:01:29 TCEA significantly, okay?
10:01:31 And at that time South Tampa was getting project after
10:01:33 project after project, and South Tampa, in my
10:01:36 district, was in a very big way saying the TCEA is
10:01:41 causing a lot of problems.
10:01:42 We can never look at traffic issues, especially on
10:01:45 this smaller to medium size projects.
10:01:47 Okay.
10:01:48 Not the big projects.
10:01:51 This happened, and Al Steenson and neighborhood after
10:01:54 neighborhood, we can never look at traffic problems
10:01:56 because the TCEA says that the entire city is exempt
10:02:01 from these traffic transportation considerations.
10:02:04 Contrary to the original intent of growth management
10:02:07 act back in the 80s.
10:02:10 I hope we have made some significant improvements on
10:02:14 this revised TCEA plan and I hope we have shrunk the
10:02:21 TCEA district back significantly.

10:02:24 When I looked at your map I didn't see any significant
10:02:27 shrinkage.
10:02:28 I saw perhaps some little pockets of stuff and you
10:02:31 mentioned like Davis Island.
10:02:33 But there's a lot of districts in the city that are
10:02:36 extremely tired of this sort of cop-out that's -- this
10:02:42 cop-out approach that's been taken by the city for the
10:02:44 last ten or more years that TCEA has been in place.
10:02:48 And I don't think folks are aware of necessarily what
10:02:54 the fix is, and if the fix is really a fix.
10:02:58 >>TERRY CULLEN: I believe we have made significant
10:03:02 improvements to the TCEA.
10:03:03 The in-fill area has more stringent requirements that
10:03:08 have to be met before you can be considered exempt
10:03:10 from transportation concurrency.
10:03:13 And those standards are a little bit less in the
10:03:18 redevelopment areas which are Westshore, USF, and they
10:03:24 are even less for the downtown.
10:03:26 So it's a growth management tool.
10:03:29 We are trying to make it much more restrictive in the
10:03:31 residential neighborhoods, urban villages, and make it
10:03:36 less restrictive in the areas where we --

10:03:40 >> Let's talk about South Tampa then.
10:03:42 South Tampa has been shrunk out of the TCEA.
10:03:45 That was the original request.
10:03:46 >> I'm going to ask Jean Dorsey from the city's
10:03:53 transportation department to answer that one.
10:03:54 As she's coming up I am going to do a quick side bar
10:03:57 on some issues you brought up earlier with Julia Cole.
10:03:59 We are going to be, we as the Planning Commission
10:04:02 staff and city staff, will be making at least one trip
10:04:05 to the department of community affairs in Tallahassee
10:04:07 to give them a presentation and go over the review of
10:04:11 this plan, which will be an opportunity to highlight
10:04:14 any additional areas where we think we may be seeing
10:04:17 change.
10:04:19 If you come to the adoption public hearing in the fall
10:04:21 and you have some substantial policy changes that the
10:04:25 legal department is cautioning you against putting
10:04:29 into place right away, your remedy is to put them into
10:04:33 the next plan amendment cycle immediately following
10:04:35 the adoption of the plan.
10:04:36 So it spins off.
10:04:38 It doesn't end.

10:04:39 To be very clear about this, this is a continuous
10:04:41 process.
10:04:42 So there is a remedy that even goes beyond the end of
10:04:44 the plan and adoption.
10:04:46 Thank you.
10:04:55 >> Jean: Transportation division.
10:04:57 To answer your question about the -- we have not
10:05:02 technically shrunk the TCEA.
10:05:04 What we have done is we have added policies that are
10:05:06 going to require more rigorous transportation
10:05:12 requirements within all of the areas with the
10:05:15 exception of the three -- I'll call them growth areas
10:05:18 that Terry mentioned, which are USF, Westshore, and
10:05:24 downtown.
10:05:24 And the reason we didn't necessarily want to
10:05:28 completely eliminate the TCEA in what we'll call
10:05:32 in-fill areas is in doing that, that basically puts
10:05:36 the decision for development approval in the hands of
10:05:39 the State of Florida versus the City of Tampa.
10:05:42 So we felt it was sort of the best of both worlds in
10:05:46 that you have additional neighborhood protections.
10:05:48 Now basically the main changes of what we are

10:05:51 proposing now versus what we have on the books today
10:05:56 is in the in-fill areas which is the neighborhood
10:05:58 stable areas, the neighborhoods are concerned about
10:06:01 growth, there's going to be additional areas to look
10:06:07 at the proximity to transit corridors, and additional
10:06:11 review of how the project will impact the
10:06:13 neighborhood.
10:06:14 And they are going to be land development codes that
10:06:16 we will then write, so these policies can be
10:06:19 implemented, that will require specific mitigation to
10:06:25 be done for the neighborhoods if a project is approved
10:06:29 in those areas.
10:06:30 So it gives you a more of a -- I don't want to say
10:06:36 control, but staring of the project through these
10:06:40 rigorous requirements but it still allows to you make
10:06:43 a decision of whether you want to allow the
10:06:46 development to go forward versus the statement in the
10:06:51 decisions. So we feel it's the best balance of your
10:06:53 decision-making availability versus directing the
10:06:56 growth or and where you want the growth to go.
10:06:59 >> Jean, I appreciate that philosophy.
10:07:02 You specifically carved out South Tampa and not

10:07:05 included South Tampa with that additional policy
10:07:07 language.
10:07:07 You haven't done it intentionally, but I didn't hear
10:07:10 you say South Tampa.
10:07:12 South Tampa is not one of the designated growth
10:07:14 districts, which I think my constituents would be
10:07:17 pleased to hear.
10:07:18 >>> Right.
10:07:18 >> And I pushed very hard for that.
10:07:21 But they have expressed great concern about the use of
10:07:25 the TCEA.
10:07:26 We still have hundreds if not thousands of acres in
10:07:29 South Tampa that are potentially development sites.
10:07:32 Going from, you know, industrial, commercial, into
10:07:35 whatever the future will bring.
10:07:37 And you guys identified them in your own report, in
10:07:40 the Westshore corridor.
10:07:41 So, you know, we need to talk between now and next
10:07:46 week.
10:07:48 And maybe if there's a way to bring in South Tampa and
10:07:51 perhaps even -- I don't know what else you haven't
10:07:54 included.

10:07:55 It just seems like all neighborhoods should be
10:07:57 protected with this type of language.
10:07:58 I don't want to be totally parochial to South Tampa
10:08:02 because I know we care about the whole city.
10:08:03 So I will get with you and Randy between now and next
10:08:07 week and see if we can tweak up some language to
10:08:09 protect all of the neighborhoods, not just the growth
10:08:12 neighborhoods.
10:08:12 >>> Right.
10:08:14 What we have done, and we can share this briefing with
10:08:16 you that you didn't have the opportunity to see, we
10:08:19 can show you by examples of what I'm generally saying
10:08:24 to you, as the project came in we could show you by
10:08:28 example how that project would be reviewed and
10:08:30 treated, if it's in South Tampa versus downtown and
10:08:34 you will get a better feel for the protection that we
10:08:38 are saying that you will see within these policies, to
10:08:41 get a better comfort level.
10:08:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
10:08:52 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.
10:08:53 And I want to thank T.H.A.N. because this is just a
10:08:55 fantastic synopsis here of items to look through in

10:09:02 the 800 plan next week and I don't know if any of us
10:09:11 would be able to navigate that without your help and I
10:09:14 think it's wonderful that you did this.
10:09:17 I have four concerns, and two or three of which Mr.
10:09:21 Dingfelder already brought up that I am going to try
10:09:23 to be brief about it.
10:09:26 One concern I have -- and I'm bringing this up -- I
10:09:30 bring this up at pretty much every zoning hearing we
10:09:34 have, because every commercial development I see,
10:09:38 which I think is going to be included in your CMU
10:09:41 categories and your neighborhood villages, and the
10:09:53 building Supp to the street, and I know the area
10:09:55 behind this new urbanism was to stop putting parking
10:09:57 lots in front, and make it more walkable and
10:10:02 pedestrian friendly.
10:10:03 My problem -- and I don't know if this is something
10:10:05 that we can address in the plan or if it's something
10:10:07 we need to work on our code, but, I mean, I can tell
10:10:13 you, development after development that's gone up and
10:10:16 things that have gone up recently like the new Publix
10:10:20 that's going up in South Tampa, the building is so
10:10:24 close to the street and the sidewalk is so narrow and

10:10:27 there's absolutely nothing between the building and
10:10:29 the street.
10:10:32 The condo buildings in Channelside -- and some of this
10:10:35 has to do with FDOT kind of infringing on what the
10:10:40 plans were for buildings.
10:10:42 And I haven't gone through here.
10:10:45 But I think we need to rethink.
10:10:48 I don't know if it in the comp plan.
10:10:49 Maybe it's in zoning and I just talked with Julie
10:10:54 about.
10:10:54 It's not working the way that we are requiring
10:10:56 sidewalks now.
10:10:58 It's really bad because they are not wide enough.
10:11:02 I even see them as seeming dangerous as opposed to not
10:11:11 pedestrian less friendly, and less attractive.
10:11:13 I am going to look through here.
10:11:15 Maybe you can tell me if there's anything that makes
10:11:17 the sidewalk issue, which is going to be huge as we
10:11:20 finally get more transit, and have transit stops,
10:11:25 safer and easier to access and shaded and all these
10:11:29 things you need for people to actually want to walk,
10:11:32 and want to walk the transit.

10:11:36 >>TERRY CULLEN: The pedestrian part of mobility is
10:11:38 absolutely critical to a livable city.
10:11:40 And there are a number of different standards within
10:11:41 the plan itself that talk about how the treatment of
10:11:45 the pedestrian amenities, such as could be trails or
10:11:49 could be sidewalks.
10:11:49 But in sidewalks we talk about them being shaded so
10:11:52 that they are comfortable to walk along.
10:11:55 And the buildings being brought closer to the road
10:11:58 doesn't necessarily mean right on top of the road but
10:12:00 the idea is to engage the pedestrian and the corridor
10:12:04 users with what's going on in the building itself to
10:12:07 create that kind of environment.
10:12:10 In Seminole Heights the city is already well into a
10:12:15 case study of how to develop a neighborhood plan based
10:12:19 on form-based codes.
10:12:21 And so eventually you are going to see some of the
10:12:25 proposals for that form and what it would require and
10:12:27 the standards that would need to be in place to make
10:12:30 that happen.
10:12:31 And that's a great point in which to start looking at
10:12:35 in terms of sidewalks.

10:12:37 Is that going to create a pedestrian environment
10:12:40 because the sidewalk is too narrow, that is dangerous,
10:12:43 and people won't use it because it feels unsafe, or
10:12:46 because what we end up planting trees and putting
10:12:49 cluttering the sidewalk up with so many different
10:12:51 types of street furniture and it's too narrow that
10:12:54 people can't safely navigate it?
10:12:58 For example, on South Howard Avenue, there are parts
10:13:00 of the sidewalk that are just too narrow, and
10:13:05 especially after a rainfall, if there's water on the
10:13:07 road, you risk getting slashed in a sense.
10:13:11 So I understand what you are say being the plan sets
10:13:13 forth bigger picture in terms of looking at the
10:13:18 pedestrian part of mobility as being very important,
10:13:21 and what things we need to do to make that happen.
10:13:25 So how it gets translated down into the code is going
10:13:27 to be the critical link.
10:13:29 >> Okay.
10:13:30 So I should look at the livability.
10:13:31 Where do I find this in this plan, to see if there's
10:13:37 more we can maybe write in there to make that more --
10:13:40 I mean, you are talking about Howard.

10:13:41 I can tell you, you know, Dale Mabry, MacDill,
10:13:47 Howard, Armenia, every single sidewalk, street we
10:13:53 have.
10:13:56 What really concerns me -- and I know there's not a
10:13:58 lot we can do about the existing form that we have if
10:14:00 we have these narrow sidewalks right up against the
10:14:03 street but when I see all the new things happening,
10:14:06 and they are using this concept when, for instance,
10:14:11 lifestyles came in -- I can't talk about that because
10:14:15 we are not talking about it.
10:14:19 You can talk about Channelside which is already done.
10:14:22 And it's a problem there.
10:14:23 And as we get more people living there and walking
10:14:26 there.
10:14:26 So if there's anything we can do in the comp plan so
10:14:31 that our sidewalks and our walkability of the people
10:14:36 don't use that idea of pedestrian friendly to mean,
10:14:40 you know, the building is right on the street, and I
10:14:48 know great examples of sidewalks, people who have done
10:14:51 sidewalk studies -- anyway, but the sidewalk is
10:14:57 something I need to talk about --
10:14:59 >>TERRY CULLEN: And a good point balancing putting the

10:15:02 building closer to the street with the sidewalks
10:15:04 concerns, are the sidewalks too narrow, coming closer
10:15:07 to the street in terms of bigger sidewalks.
10:15:09 We'll take a look at the plan to see that the plan
10:15:12 isn't creating a problem with that relationship.
10:15:15 And I'll get back to you on it.
10:15:17 >>MARY MULHERN: The other thing that occurs to me is
10:15:20 we are kind of back on we seem to always be at polar
10:15:25 opposites with the Department of Transportation
10:15:29 because they want their roads to go fast and be wide,
10:15:32 and we want our sidewalks and our pedestrians to be
10:15:35 able to walk.
10:15:36 So anything we can do within here to make our case
10:15:41 stronger for people to be safe walking, I think it's
10:15:47 great.
10:15:47 The other thing -- and I haven't had a chance to read
10:15:50 this because page 1150 but the economics part you put
10:15:57 in here I think is fantastic, I'm thrilled to see
10:16:00 that's going in here.
10:16:01 But I am going to be looking at it because I just kind
10:16:04 of glassed at it now.
10:16:06 But I notice there is part of the vision, you know,

10:16:11 international and global which is great.
10:16:12 But I think if you look at any economic development
10:16:18 data, you need to support small businesses.
10:16:23 We need to support local businesses, because those are
10:16:28 the businesses that create growth.
10:16:30 So I think this is a fantastic opportunity for us to
10:16:34 do that.
10:16:35 And I don't see that as being ever having been part of
10:16:39 the way we look at planning here.
10:16:44 I'm not saying that you don't do that or that we don't
10:16:49 want to do it or our staff doesn't want to do it, but
10:16:52 it hasn't been delineated, and right now because of
10:16:56 the state economically, we are losing jobs, and all of
10:17:03 those things, I think if there's anything we can do to
10:17:06 make that language stronger, because I'm sure it's in
10:17:09 there, but I think that should be the priority.
10:17:12 When you are talking about planning and building.
10:17:15 To support what we already have.
10:17:17 So it's not just small businesses, and it's not just
10:17:19 local businesses.
10:17:20 It's what we have.
10:17:22 And it's interesting because I think it fits in with

10:17:25 the idea of form based, because that is the form
10:17:29 that's already here.
10:17:30 These smaller businesses that are here and have been
10:17:33 here a long time, and that are in danger of
10:17:38 extinction.
10:17:38 That's what we have to help if we want to keep jobs
10:17:40 here and keep the money in our economy.
10:17:42 So I am going to look at that and see with what we can
10:17:45 do.
10:17:45 >>TERRY CULLEN: That's an excellent point.
10:17:47 >> I think that should be the number one priority,
10:17:53 that part of the plan.
10:17:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me remind council we are now at
10:17:57 10:20.
10:17:57 We have another workshop and we have a long agenda.
10:17:59 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay, okay, I'm going to speed it up.
10:18:03 Third thing was the minimum density thing which I
10:18:06 think jumped out at all of us that we didn't do No
10:18:10 this before but I tend to think that Mr. Dingfelder,
10:18:12 our lawyer, is probably right, that there is a problem
10:18:15 with that, you know, just property rights in general.
10:18:20 But I also think that it's contradictory to the idea

10:18:24 of form based zoning because a lot of times what you
10:18:28 are going to have, and one of the great things about
10:18:30 this city or any city or any neighborhood, is what you
10:18:33 have right there.
10:18:34 And I know in Tampa, in general, in the neighborhoods,
10:18:40 they are not high density.
10:18:41 That's what we have.
10:18:42 That's what we have to work with.
10:18:43 So I think we have to be really careful about that.
10:18:46 And my gut feeling is that that language should just
10:18:52 be not in there.
10:18:56 The fourth thing was about the rural estate thing up
10:18:59 in New Tampa.
10:18:59 And I think we really need to look at that.
10:19:03 And the lawyer that talked to all of us or some of us
10:19:08 was suggesting that we could accomplish the same thing
10:19:10 that we are trying to do without creating that new
10:19:15 land use category, but just having a zoning
10:19:17 designation there that would annex part of.
10:19:25 That's it for me.
10:19:26 >>TERRY CULLEN: The final comment you made, we were
10:19:29 not aware of that so I'm not familiar with what that

10:19:32 proposal is, about not including a planned category,
10:19:35 instead include a zoning district.
10:19:37 So we'll do some research on that.
10:19:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
10:19:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
10:19:42 I am so pleased that we have a plan that's not just a
10:19:48 map that's looking at very micro land uses that is a
10:19:56 big picture, that is vision based, clearly what we
10:19:59 want the community to be in the future.
10:20:01 Ultimately what's going to make developers build the
10:20:05 things we want is going to make their life easier and
10:20:08 saying these are the areas that will accept density
10:20:10 without sites, where we encourage the variety of uses,
10:20:15 where I think up to 35 units to the acre. That kind
10:20:21 of incentive based plan will give us the kind of
10:20:25 community that we want to see in the future.
10:20:27 So I want to compliment you for creating a plan that's
10:20:31 like that and I want to thank T.H.A.N. for doing some
10:20:35 of the tweaky things where they are looking at very
10:20:38 specific things where some neighborhoods might want
10:20:40 this, some might not and the plan needs to reflect the
10:20:43 distinctive character of the neighborhood and allow

10:20:46 that fine tuning on whether it's setbacks.
10:20:52 But I think at this point, given the breadth and
10:20:56 ambition of this plan, we are 99% there, and it's by
10:21:03 head and shoulder the best planning effort that I have
10:21:05 ever seen in this community.
10:21:06 And I'm so pleased that at this point in Tampa's
10:21:10 evolution we are looking at redeveloping ourselves in
10:21:12 a smart way.
10:21:13 I think it's really exciting.
10:21:15 >> Thank you very much.
10:21:16 Any other questions?
10:21:16 Okay.
10:21:18 Thank you.
10:21:19 We will now have public comment.
10:21:22 If you will come and you want to address council.
10:21:25 You may come and address council.
10:21:29 >>> Ron Weaver, 401 East Jackson Street.
10:21:35 I also want to complement you and your staff for some
10:21:39 extremely hard work looking at our issues holistically
10:21:42 integrated in the relationships.
10:21:44 I would just lake to ask if we might please about what
10:21:47 it will mean in the next five or ten years to those

10:21:49 trying to get approvals for developments and this
10:21:53 excellent basic structure.
10:21:54 I know you are on page 234, section 35-4 which deals
10:21:57 with transportation concurrency, or not, and its new
10:22:02 met delegation formula which we would like to have
10:22:04 more interpretation.
10:22:06 Section 35.4, second only to coastal high hazard,
10:22:10 section 41.1, page 289, and with regard to the
10:22:14 redevelopment sections on page 304.
10:22:17 First we want to compliment you on continuing to
10:22:19 balance transportation concurrency to prevent
10:22:21 transportation concurrency moratoria, and --
10:22:25 moratorium and however I would respectfully request we
10:22:29 attempt for future conclusions to these matters to
10:22:32 help provide guidance, if you allow no less than a
10:22:36 roadway level service D for purposes of issuing
10:22:40 development orders or permit in the city, except for
10:22:42 those classified as major roadway networks, we might
10:22:46 like to look at what are the potential additional
10:22:48 additions to those major roadway networks that will be
10:22:51 the exceptions from the required level of service D.
10:22:56 Secondly, south of Fletcher, we compliment you for

10:22:58 continuing to be a transportation concurrency
10:22:58 exception area for the purpose of in-fill and
10:23:01 redevelopment consistent with policies, but with
10:23:06 respect to other developments they may not meet the
10:23:08 definition of in-fill and redevelopment we would
10:23:10 appreciate it if we could confirm on those pages that
10:23:12 I just cited the clarification that even within the
10:23:21 exception area, we now have to have approval,
10:23:26 consistent with the methodology, and shall be required
10:23:29 to mitigate impact which constitute, and I quote the
10:23:34 pages I just sited, 234, a threat to the health,
10:23:38 safety and welfare of citizens, to my understanding in
10:23:40 the law and in our understanding that that will be a
10:23:42 major new emergency or major new threat to traffic,
10:23:46 congestion or safety.
10:23:47 But unfortunately, we would need definition of the
10:23:53 next few years, that's much too Brad, that doesn't
10:23:57 tell us anything about what the traffic study which is
10:23:59 going to replace concurrency and mate lead to
10:24:02 concurrency mitigation or not.
10:24:04 In the transportation concurrency exception area.
10:24:07 I guess it's known as the yes, we have no bananas,

10:24:10 yes, we have no concurrency, do we or do not have
10:24:14 concurrency moratorium, and that the transportation
10:24:18 concurrency area persists, it persists with a new
10:24:21 mitigation study which has definitions missing from
10:24:24 words like threats to workers and visitors, a
10:24:28 multimodal area and/or area wide transportation
10:24:31 standards.
10:24:32 Those are the words that activate the new mitigation
10:24:34 that may be in South Howard in the concurrency area
10:24:43 and finally urban redevelopment, transportation
10:24:45 concurrency exception areas, concurrency requirement,
10:24:52 analyses and deals with issues as far as health or
10:24:55 safety, and consistent with the comp plan, you have to
10:24:59 confirm where those primary transit corridors might be
10:25:02 in the future.
10:25:02 (Bell sounds).
10:25:03 Finally coastal high hazard we would appreciate some
10:25:05 definitions with respect to limiting development.
10:25:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
10:25:08 >> No additional density within high hazard.
10:25:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
10:25:14 Next speaker.

10:25:19 Mr. Knott.
10:25:33 >>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: 2902 East Ellicott Street three
10:25:36 nights a week.
10:25:37 Then I thank God for his grace and his mercy.
10:25:40 That's all I got to work with.
10:25:42 I didn't have mom and dad to lean on.
10:25:45 I had to lean on God for his grace and mercy.
10:25:49 Madam Chairman, can I come back and speak on
10:25:51 unfinished business this morning?
10:25:53 Under this workshop here.
10:25:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: In our next session.
10:26:00 This is the is the only thing you can speak on now.
10:26:03 >> Work shown now.
10:26:05 I want to speak on this morning, you know, I was
10:26:07 sitting back there and pointing out different parts of
10:26:10 town and nobody pointed out 22nd and Hillsborough and
10:26:14 34th street.
10:26:14 Nobody said nothing about that, Ms. Miller's part of
10:26:17 town.
10:26:18 Didn't say a word about it.
10:26:20 It is terrible over there.
10:26:24 And you talk about growth.

10:26:26 And people over there, there's 20 people for every
10:26:31 home.
10:26:32 And those are poor peoples.
10:26:38 And what they call these houses some kind of houses.
10:26:42 But those people can't live in those kind of houses.
10:26:45 People are coming here, over on your part of town,
10:26:54 none of you all's part of town but they come in our
10:26:57 part of town.
10:26:57 A lot of people come in one or two or three at a time
10:27:00 but over there come in by the truckloads.
10:27:05 There is nowhere, Mexicans ain't got nothing on the
10:27:12 black people.
10:27:12 Can't get ten people to live in one house.
10:27:14 But what I say, though, I wish to God that somebody
10:27:18 one day will tell you all, you all go down 22nd street
10:27:23 before you all go home.
10:27:26 I come down Buffalo street and from Buffalo all the
10:27:29 way to Hillsborough, and even 3:00 or 4:00.
10:27:34 And you got two schools there.
10:27:35 When the schools, got all them school buses.
10:27:40 No sidewalks.
10:27:41 No roads.

10:27:43 And ain't nothing said about those roads over there.
10:27:54 And 22nd street, I mean, and 34th street the same
10:27:58 way.
10:27:58 That is a mess.
10:28:01 And, you know, thought were going to do something
10:28:07 about 22nd street when they built the school.
10:28:10 And there when they put the police station in, brand
10:28:13 new police station there, I thought, well, at least I
10:28:16 know the police will have a lot of traffic and do
10:28:19 something about the street.
10:28:20 I didn't see nothing.
10:28:23 I mean absolutely nothing.
10:28:25 And I appreciate what you all did about the small
10:28:31 business.
10:28:32 You know, the last time you put this plan together
10:28:34 came in our neighborhood and had a meeting, all the
10:28:37 neighbors come down there, all the peoples get
10:28:39 together and get a peace of paper and but small
10:28:48 peoples get their house fixed and put in money to
10:28:52 borrow for small business, and Hillsborough, ain't
10:29:01 said a word about that.
10:29:02 (Bell sounds).

10:29:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Knott.
10:29:04 Next speaker. Mr. Johnson.
10:29:07 >>> Good morning.
10:29:08 I'm Walter Johnson.
10:29:09 462 South Longfellow Avenue and I'm president of
10:29:15 T.H.A.N.
10:29:15 First I speak as a resident of South Tampa.
10:29:18 Mr. Dingfelder, we share your concerns regarding the
10:29:21 TCEA.
10:29:23 We have roads in our area that are over 200% over
10:29:26 capacity.
10:29:27 So every new development that comes in really just
10:29:30 creates more and more traffic problems so want to
10:29:34 share those concerns.
10:29:34 From the standpoint of the comprehensive plan, I
10:29:38 served on the -- or participated in the study circles
10:29:41 that the Planning Commission had with citizens, and
10:29:44 there was a series of meetings and so forth.
10:29:46 I didn't realize it in so many words but without being
10:29:52 said overall I think it was a good job was done.
10:29:55 In T.H.A.N. we have a zoning committee, and the zoning
10:29:58 committee has met several times on the comprehensive

10:30:01 plan.
10:30:02 And in fact Michele Ogilvie and Randy Goers both
10:30:08 participated in one of our earlier planning sessions
10:30:10 and we do appreciate their help in being able to
10:30:12 explain things to us.
10:30:19 T.H.A.N.'s zoning committee which consists of ten
10:30:21 members representing neighborhoods really from
10:30:23 basically a broad area around the city, the committee
10:30:28 met, and really went through this plan almost page by
10:30:32 page, and came up with a recommendation and
10:30:35 suggestions and so forth that are being communicated
10:30:40 to you now.
10:30:41 We really feel that as a matter of fact before the
10:30:44 meeting started, Terry stated that he had received his
10:30:48 copy, and he appreciated that, and he would like to
10:30:51 meet with our committee sometime in the very near
10:30:55 future.
10:30:55 So that we would appreciate, and glad that will
10:30:59 happen.
10:31:03 Steve LaBour, who has been a very important member
10:31:05 of our zoning committee, has really was instrumental
10:31:10 in putting together these recommendations that you

10:31:13 received and so forth.
10:31:14 So Steve would like to say a few words now.
10:31:16 Thank you.
10:31:22 >> Steve LaBour, 3616 Bay to Bay, Tampa, Florida.
10:31:26 I apologize for a summer cold and hope you are not
10:31:30 catching it, Ms. Saul-Sena, hearing the sneeze from
10:31:35 the audience.
10:31:36 But we do appreciate the process that was put
10:31:38 together, to put together this particular draft of the
10:31:42 comp plan.
10:31:43 Having said that, however, the challenge is that this
10:31:45 is the fourth draft that we like others are trying to
10:31:49 play catch-up so we wish we had been able to get our
10:31:52 comments to you sooner than we could.
10:31:54 But, unfortunately, we are lay people and volunteers.
10:31:59 We are trying to put this together.
10:32:01 This is the map.
10:32:02 We appreciate the district map that was shown earlier.
10:32:05 But this is the map that means a lot to us as the
10:32:09 neighborhood groups of the City of Tampa. This is who
10:32:11 we represent.
10:32:11 And our zoning committee represented neighborhoods

10:32:15 from the length and breadth of this city.
10:32:19 And I will tell you what was great about our meeting
10:32:21 was not just going through all of the rest of the
10:32:24 public proposals in the comp plan but hearing the
10:32:27 discussion, neighborhood to neighborhood, about what
10:32:29 they liked or didn't like, and often, quite frankly,
10:32:32 it was not in a negative way but neighborhoods saying,
10:32:37 gee, we are trying to promote that, where all the
10:32:39 neighborhoods said, yeah, we don't and this is why.
10:32:44 So our recommendations are general in nature.
10:32:46 And we encourage individual neighborhoods to contact
10:32:49 you individually or come down to this hearing to talk
10:32:52 with you.
10:32:53 I'm not going to go through all the 55
10:32:55 recommendations.
10:32:58 But I do want to say that -- and just for the people
10:33:02 watching at home, this is what we are talking about.
10:33:04 This is a very big document to go over and have a lot
10:33:10 of things in it.
10:33:11 And quite frankly that's one of the concerns that
10:33:15 T.H.A.N. had.
10:33:16 We want a comp plan that's not intimidating to the

10:33:18 average neighborhood leader, because I will tell you
10:33:21 that when they pick this you have stuff and they start
10:33:23 reading, especially some of what we recall the
10:33:25 editorial comments, if they don't apply to their
10:33:28 neighborhoods or believe they don't speak to their
10:33:30 neighborhood, they close this book and they stop
10:33:32 reading.
10:33:33 They don't understand that this could help them.
10:33:37 And I will commit to you on behalf of T.H.A.N. that
10:33:40 once this is adopted and passed, T.H.A.N. will do
10:33:42 everything in our power to educate our neighborhood
10:33:45 association as to how they can use this.
10:33:48 As a matter of fact even talked about putting a little
10:33:50 pamphlet together so they can zero in on the policies
10:33:52 that will most help them.
10:33:56 Specifically, I just want to talk about, we have
10:34:00 concern begun the increased density.
10:34:02 We appreciate the fact that we are a growing city.
10:34:04 But quite frankly what happened in the county's comp
10:34:07 plan process, the county was allowed to squeeze down
10:34:10 their density that they want to allow their growth
10:34:14 they want to allow, so from our position they got

10:34:16 pushed into the city.
10:34:17 And so we are very -- we want to be very cautious as
10:34:21 to where that density and how that density proceeds.
10:34:27 Curb cuts, on major thoroughfares for commercial
10:34:30 businesses.
10:34:31 This plan encourages them or -- encourages them to be
10:34:37 placed on roadways that could possibly go into
10:34:42 neighborhoods.
10:34:43 We are totally against that.
10:34:44 And we would like to see that language changed.
10:34:46 We do not like the minimum F.A.R. that you already
10:34:49 talked about.
10:34:50 We also believe that --
10:34:53 (Bell sounds).
10:34:54 I apologize.
10:34:55 Could I wrap up real quick?
10:34:57 We have to realize in some instances parking in the
10:34:59 back might be positive but for many neighborhoods
10:35:01 that's a negative. And lastly, real quick,
10:35:08 Mr. Chairman, how we work this plan this time,
10:35:08 building our legacy of a livable city, with respect to
10:35:14 the neighborhood associations and the work we have

10:35:15 been doing the last 20 years, we happen to believe we
10:35:18 do have a legacy already built.
10:35:20 We do believe we have --
10:35:23 >> Okay.
10:35:23 >> -- is support a livable city --
10:35:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
10:35:27 >> And --
10:35:29 >> Thank you.
10:35:29 Next speaker.
10:35:32 When the buzzer goes off you already have three and a
10:35:35 half minutes.
10:35:35 It's not three, it's three and a half.
10:35:38 >>> Good morning.
10:35:41 Spencer Cass.
10:35:46 First, just as a matter of procedure, we are asking
10:35:49 for exclusion of our two pieces of property.
10:35:51 We believe the minimum F.A.R. requirements for the
10:35:54 comp plan are taken.
10:35:55 We have no interest in giving up our land rights under
10:35:58 a comp plan, believe it violates stat utilities
10:36:01 70.001, and therefore requesting exclusion of those
10:36:06 properties.

10:36:07 As a compromise on the second page, we have drafted up
10:36:10 language that we think might handle both the city's
10:36:15 problems, my problems, and also Planning Commission's.
10:36:21 So if you feel like we are placing the minimum F.A.R.
10:36:24 language with this, it might be a suitable adjustment
10:36:27 for everybody.
10:36:27 Then on the following four pages, I go through all the
10:36:31 different issues we have especially if you support
10:36:34 small businesses.
10:36:35 These are policies that really don't support small
10:36:37 businesses that are going to cause major damage in
10:36:40 West Tampa and East Tampa and Drew Park and all the
10:36:43 areas where we are trying to encourage development.
10:36:45 These are places that need business tows move in, need
10:36:50 an easy process for people to be able to develop.
10:36:53 Unfortunately, what's been adopted are a lot of the
10:36:56 current overlay standards that are floating around
10:36:59 from district to district.
10:37:01 Later on at City Council, we'll discuss the $30,000 as
10:37:06 the overlay policies.
10:37:08 And affordable housing, it's going to cost the city an
10:37:11 extra $30,000 on regulations that were never reviewed.

10:37:15 They don't through any economic review of these
10:37:17 regulations and I think the end results end up being
10:37:20 very negative to the neighborhood.
10:37:22 So I am just going to submit this into the record.
10:37:24 The Planning Commission already has our original
10:37:26 letter requesting exclusion was given to them, as well
10:37:29 as the first two pages of the next letter.
10:37:33 Then the last one we e-mailed over our last-minute
10:37:36 changes.
10:37:36 Thank you.
10:37:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can bee get a copy of that for all
10:37:40 the members?
10:37:41 >> Yes.
10:37:44 Admit that into the record.
10:37:45 >>JULIA COLE: When you get to the final opportunity I
10:37:47 would like staff to respond.
10:37:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, I was going to ask to address the
10:37:55 issue about affordable housing, so, yes.
10:38:02 Mr. Rotella.
10:38:18 >>RON ROTELLA: We submitted our comments in writing.
10:38:21 As Terry told you, we have been involved in this
10:38:23 process for some time, with both the city staff, the

10:38:26 Planning Commission, and Planning Commission staff.
10:38:30 I don't have to tell you that the Westshore Alliance
10:38:33 generally supports this plan.
10:38:34 You know on August 7th we have a DRI amendment to
10:38:36 allow transportation impact fees to be used for
10:38:39 transit.
10:38:40 You know that.
10:38:40 You know we are preaching the pedestrian improvements
10:38:43 in our DRI plan, although it's not included in the
10:38:47 city's transportation impact ordinance so you know we
10:38:51 support well planned growth and should be directed to
10:38:53 urban centers, and you have more density, intensity
10:38:57 that promotes transit.
10:38:58 You know we support that.
10:38:59 But I want to address Mr. Dingfelder's comments
10:39:01 specifically.
10:39:03 The comments that we submitted to you, they are not
10:39:06 tweaking comments.
10:39:07 You heard your attorney say that, how did we get
10:39:10 ourselves in this position?
10:39:12 Here you folks have a comprehensive plan that's 500
10:39:15 pages, that has 1400 policies, and please, this is not

10:39:20 meant to be disrespectful, some of you have not had
10:39:22 the opportunity to review it yet.
10:39:24 And there are "shalls" and there are "requires" in
10:39:28 this plan, and I heard Julia say that if you don't
10:39:31 deal with this now, we are not talking tweaks.
10:39:34 After you transmit your plan to DCA, you may not have
10:39:38 the opportunity to change these "shalls" and
10:39:42 "requires," oh, but then you can deal with that in the
10:39:45 next plan amendment.
10:39:46 Well, I'll tell you, that's not acceptable.
10:39:48 So I'll go to a specific example.
10:39:51 What we have done is we didn't deal with the tweaking.
10:39:55 We know you can tweak later.
10:39:57 What we dealt with is the "shalls" and the "will
10:40:00 requires."
10:40:02 For example, to say, are you going to require
10:40:04 developments undergoing site plan review, to share
10:40:07 access points with adjacent development?
10:40:10 You can't do that.
10:40:12 If you are developing a piece of property and the next
10:40:15 door property owner says to you, that's very nice,
10:40:17 but, no, I am not going to share access with you, I am

10:40:20 going to keep it like on Kennedy Boulevard.
10:40:23 This says it shall require.
10:40:27 So there's a number of policies in the plan that's not
10:40:30 tweaks issues.
10:40:31 Some of these issues -- and I don't mean to speak on
10:40:34 behalf of T.H.A.N -- they are not tweaking issues.
10:40:38 They have some major concerns with some of these
10:40:40 policies as we do.
10:40:42 So I would like to understand how council is going to
10:40:46 deal with these shalls and requires.
10:40:48 It's not a tweaking exercise, before you submit the
10:40:51 plan in the eleventh and a half hour to DCA on the
10:40:56 26th.
10:40:57 We certainly don't want to be up here at your public
10:40:59 hearing on the 26th dealing with these same shalls
10:41:02 and requires.
10:41:03 That's not fair to you.
10:41:04 And it's certainly knots fair to us.
10:41:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me go to the next speaker.
10:41:16 I think the last speaker, right?
10:41:18 And then I'll come back.
10:41:22 >>> Christine Burdick with the Tampa downtown

10:41:24 partnership.
10:41:26 Our planning and management committee has reviewed the
10:41:29 entire plan, several chapters that were much more
10:41:33 pertinent to downtown, in the sense which includes the
10:41:36 Channel District.
10:41:38 Overall we are very satisfied with it, and obviously
10:41:41 the livability.
10:41:46 It strengthens the connection between land use and
10:41:49 transportation, and to accept the growth and
10:41:54 development that we all recognize is needed.
10:41:57 We submitted a number of points to the staff.
10:42:01 You probably haven't seen them.
10:42:02 Terry mentioned them but we submitted a number of
10:42:04 points to the staff asking for minor changes to the
10:42:07 text, both the staff, your staff and the Planning
10:42:10 Commission have welcomed our feedback and it's been a
10:42:13 very good process.
10:42:14 Care is taken to ensure the plan for downtown vision
10:42:18 and action plan that set our guiding principles.
10:42:22 We did it jointly with the City of Tampa, directing
10:42:25 them to downtown, west shore and the university areas,
10:42:28 and creating urban corridor of villages will help

10:42:31 protect our neighborhoods while making the city more
10:42:34 walkable and livable.
10:42:35 Directing -- directing -- although we don't have a
10:42:41 robust transit system presently, we feel this plan
10:42:45 guides the community to become transit ready, although
10:42:55 we don't -- we are currently showing a number of ways
10:43:01 to move our people around town such as water taxis,
10:43:03 small electrical vehicles and on foot.
10:43:05 We partner with Hart in various -- and various
10:43:09 stakeholders, and the in-town trolleys.
10:43:13 They play a significant role as a choice as our
10:43:15 downtown communities develop in the plan, and the
10:43:19 region plans for mass transit.
10:43:21 We look forward to working with the city to implement
10:43:23 the plan through changes, land development regulations
10:43:28 and zoning.
10:43:29 We would like to see a master planning process for the
10:43:32 greater downtown area conducted, a greater plan to
10:43:37 pull it off, complementing the comprehensive plan.
10:43:42 Bee would like to work through some issues on our
10:43:46 roads, limitations FDOT imposes, requiring ground
10:43:49 floor activation, placing emphasis on the pedestrian

10:43:53 experience, historic preservation, and ensuring a
10:43:57 variety of housing prices.
10:44:01 We often mention creative workers, the class that we
10:44:04 all know are part of a very important component of
10:44:07 downtown.
10:44:07 They say they are an active urban center so we need to
10:44:12 ask for real choices in housing, jobs and mobilities.
10:44:15 We will continue to partnership with the Westshore
10:44:18 alliance.
10:44:18 We work very closely with them, and lately in the
10:44:22 reviewing of this plan, on these topics, and with the
10:44:24 university area, to bring the business perspective to
10:44:27 the table.
10:44:28 And we appreciate your having our input.
10:44:31 Thank you.
10:44:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10:44:37 And I think my comments are going to apply to all the
10:44:39 written comments we have received so far, Westshore
10:44:43 alliance, realty, T.H.A.N., builders association, Mike
10:44:49 Peterson.
10:44:49 I think what needs to happen for the efficiency of
10:44:52 this process is that everybody who submitted these in

10:44:56 writing needs to transmit these to Terry Cullen by
10:44:59 e-mail.
10:45:00 Okay.
10:45:01 So that way they have a template on the computer to
10:45:05 work from.
10:45:06 Then what I would suggest is that Terry, you get with
10:45:09 city staff and go through each of these, and it's
10:45:12 going to be a miserable week between now and next
10:45:14 week.
10:45:15 But go through each of these and respond, you know,
10:45:20 Westshore alliance, policy 45-21.
10:45:24 Put a response.
10:45:25 And that could be lengthy.
10:45:27 Agree, we'll make change, disagree, and tell us why.
10:45:31 In bold so it stands out from their comments.
10:45:35 And then get that back to us preferably before next
10:45:39 Thursday.
10:45:39 I know it's going to take awhile but maybe if you
10:45:41 could get it to us by Wednesday, we could all look at
10:45:44 it and massage it over and think about it.
10:45:47 I think that would make next Thursday go much, much
10:45:50 better.

10:45:51 And I would urge you to do that.
10:45:53 And I could do it by motion but I'll leave it up to
10:45:55 council.
10:45:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
10:46:01 I think that's an excellent suggestion, Mr.
10:46:03 Dingfelder.
10:46:03 But I wonder if to make next Thursday go more
10:46:06 smoothly -- and this is an open question for my fellow
10:46:10 council members -- if you all think that at our budget
10:46:14 meeting on Tuesday we should have a specific look at
10:46:17 some of these things so that perhaps we can work out
10:46:20 some compromises before next Thursday night.
10:46:23 In other words, that we have some sort of special
10:46:25 discussion on Tuesday afternoon.
10:46:27 I know that it's time that we hadn't previously
10:46:31 committed, but on the other hand we only do a comp
10:46:34 plan once every five years and we do go on vacation
10:46:37 the next two weeks, so it might make next Thursday
10:46:40 nature look crazy.
10:46:41 So I think we have a budget meeting scheduled next
10:46:44 Tuesday at nine.
10:46:46 I assume that will be several hours.

10:46:48 And I'm suggesting perhaps after that, specifically
10:46:52 the concerns brought by Westshore alliance and
10:46:55 T.H.A.N., comprehensive, and maybe some of the others,
10:46:59 that we just tray to talk through them.
10:47:03 >>MARY MULHERN: I have one question, but -- in
10:47:07 response to Linda's suggestion.
10:47:09 Who would you want to be there?
10:47:10 Just council, or do you want --
10:47:12 >>> I would want Planning Commission, council, the
10:47:15 folks who have written us letters raising these
10:47:19 issues, with the idea that I could have this
10:47:22 conversation directly with a planning staff member,
10:47:25 but I couldn't get everybody together and
10:47:28 understanding perhaps -- I doubt that we will get all
10:47:32 the council members.
10:47:33 We got several that would give us a great opportunity
10:47:35 for more in-depth conversation in trying to go through
10:47:39 it all on Thursday night.
10:47:43 >> Maybe a working lunch.
10:47:46 >>> I'll make that as a motion.
10:47:55 >> I just have mine brought in.
10:47:57 Next Tuesday at 9:00 we have a budget meeting

10:47:59 scheduled.
10:47:59 So I'm saying this could be a working lunch following
10:48:02 that.
10:48:03 >>MARY MULHERN: Maybe we could look at that, take a
10:48:05 short break between this and next council meeting.
10:48:09 All right, I only have one question.
10:48:10 I think it's for Terry.
10:48:14 At this point, if we have access to the entire draft
10:48:19 comp plan, and I. Done this.
10:48:22 I have been looking at the paper.
10:48:24 Can I go online?
10:48:26 They are on the computer, and search by word the comp
10:48:29 plan?
10:48:35 >>> Yes, you can.
10:48:36 It's a PDF file.
10:48:37 >>: Is it searchable by word?
10:48:40 >>> Yes.
10:48:40 >> It is.
10:48:41 Because that question was contained of in response to
10:48:42 Mr. LaBour who said neighborhoods have a tough job
10:48:47 even finding out what's going to apply to certain
10:48:49 issues, and that will certainly help the builders and

10:48:52 developers, too, to be able to get in there and see
10:48:56 what's what.
10:48:57 So thanks.
10:48:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Ms. Miller.
10:49:01 >>GWEN MILLER: It was mentioned east Tampa was not
10:49:04 mentioned in those comprehensive planning.
10:49:07 There are any plans that something for East Tampa is
10:49:10 going to be done in there?
10:49:11 >>> East Tampa is an urban village.
10:49:14 It has a CRA plan as one of its secondary plans, and
10:49:17 some other neighborhood planning processes occurring
10:49:20 on top of that, too.
10:49:23 Has a number of corridors running through it, mixed
10:49:26 use corridor villages, that East Tampa does play
10:49:30 prominently in the plan.
10:49:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:49:35 >>> You're welcome.
10:49:38 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
10:49:39 Because Mr. Cass raises an issue, a legal question, I
10:49:45 did want to respond.
10:49:47 You know, he's arguing that these minimum densities
10:49:51 could potentially create either a taking issue or a

10:49:54 Burt Harris issue.
10:49:55 I'm fairly comfortable that it's not a taking issue.
10:49:58 There may be some legitimacy concerning ours was
10:50:01 whether or not there couldn't be a possible Burt
10:50:04 Harris situation which would require a minimum density
10:50:07 and intensity.
10:50:08 I can't recommend to you that you pull these, that is
10:50:14 not something could you do legally, but I think what
10:50:16 he has done is provided with you some potential
10:50:18 language to deal with the concept of the minimum
10:50:21 density or intensity, and also over the next few days
10:50:25 work with him, to work on that language, to get you
10:50:29 some legally defensible language that would also have
10:50:32 the intent of whatever risk could potentially have
10:50:35 with the minimum density and intensity.
10:50:39 >>MARY MULHERN: Julia, I think it's a big policy
10:50:46 question for to us decide whether we want minimum
10:50:48 density, so whether you feel that it's, you know,
10:50:51 could be a property rights issue or not, I'm not ready
10:50:57 to just accept that.
10:51:00 And I think it might be something we might, I don't
10:51:03 know, not -- not want to be in here.

10:51:08 >>> I would agree with you.
10:51:09 First question is whether or not as a policy you want
10:51:11 in the there.
10:51:11 If you do have a minimum density intensity within the
10:51:14 comprehensive plan, then it would probably be my
10:51:16 recommendation that we provide an opportunity for City
10:51:19 Council to deal with that.
10:51:22 I don't want to call it a waiver because you never
10:51:26 waive your comprehensive plan but there may be an
10:51:28 opportunity to put a policy in the comprehensive plan
10:51:30 which would allow City Council to consider something
10:51:33 less than the minimum density required.
10:51:35 Which is different than maximum.
10:51:37 There is no opportunity to do that for maximum unless
10:51:39 you do what we have done in intensities.
10:51:43 >> But that's not what I'm saying.
10:51:45 I don't like the whole concept being in there.
10:51:47 We don't have minimum densities.
10:51:48 >>> That's the first question.
10:51:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
10:51:51 Thank you.
10:51:52 And you kind of put your motion in abeyance for right

10:51:58 now.
10:51:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, so everybody has a chance to
10:52:01 look at their calendars and what I'm suggesting later
10:52:04 in the meeting is a special discussion meeting which
10:52:05 means we don't have a required quorum, that it be held
10:52:08 in council chambers as sort of a working lunch after
10:52:11 we finish the budget hearing, and that we invite
10:52:14 planning staff, city staff, and the public.
10:52:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So we'll take that up in the next.
10:52:19 We need to move to our next workshop quickly here.
10:52:23 We are running way behind.
10:52:40 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
10:52:41 I went ahead and printed them for you as well today.
10:52:45 Before you is the January 2008 text amendment cycle
10:52:47 for chapter 27 as well as some other amendments for
10:52:50 some other chapters that are related and processed.
10:52:55 The draft is before you.
10:52:57 I will move as quickly as I can.
10:52:59 A lot of these changes are corrections to the code,
10:53:03 for previous changes that occurred.
10:53:09 If you go to tab 1, page 2 in your packet you will see
10:53:12 there's a summary of the regulation changes.

10:53:14 The first change is 17.5, chapter 17.5.
10:53:19 That is a clean-up of the format procedures for the
10:53:22 variance review board, including requirements to
10:53:25 attach a copy of the notice letter that is sent to the
10:53:29 affidavit.
10:53:29 Currently, just so you know, like in a rezoning,
10:53:32 there's an affidavit, a notification turned into the
10:53:36 city clerk 15 days before the public hearing.
10:53:39 The variance review board, land development staff
10:53:42 serves as the staff.
10:53:46 There's two changes in here in chapter 27 and 17.5, is
10:53:49 that when that affidavit is turned in, the applicant
10:53:52 also turns in a copy of the letter that they sent the
10:53:55 surrounding property owners.
10:53:56 Currently, that's not actually required.
10:53:58 And there often is a question of what letter was sent,
10:54:01 people calling in saying it says one thing and not
10:54:04 another.
10:54:04 So it's a matter of clarity for our records.
10:54:13 Let's see.
10:54:15 We go to page 4.
10:54:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I ask one question on variance

10:54:25 review before we move forward?
10:54:28 Thank you.
10:54:28 I was watching the VRB a week or two ago and I noticed
10:54:32 they had what I considered an unusual process.
10:54:34 I didn't watch the whole meeting, Charlie.
10:54:36 I was flipping channels.
10:54:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Okay.
10:54:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But I noticed it's interesting.
10:54:42 I used to be on the VRB.
10:54:44 I note that an unusual practice of rehearings.
10:54:49 And it reminded me of kind of the rehearings that
10:54:56 council used to have for rezonings and that sort of
10:54:59 thing.
10:55:00 >>> Reconsideration?
10:55:01 >> Reconsiderations, yes.
10:55:03 >> Yes.
10:55:05 And they had two or three of them.
10:55:06 I don't know if you saw that that evening.
10:55:08 >>> I didn't watch that particular --
10:55:10 >> But I'm sure your staff can tell you about it.
10:55:12 But anyway, I don't think we can necessarily do it
10:55:17 now.

10:55:17 But I would like some input from the variance board
10:55:21 members themselves, if you could perhaps send them an
10:55:25 e-mail or something, and also your staff and legal
10:55:28 staff to see how the board feels about that.
10:55:34 To me, it's sort of a lot like an extra bite at the
10:55:39 apple.
10:55:40 You know, because basically on two or three of them,
10:55:44 well, the folks got turned down and came back in and
10:55:49 tweaked up their plan and dropped this and added that
10:55:52 and circle back a month later.
10:55:56 And, I don't know, just lake I say, maybe in the next
10:56:01 cycle if you could report back on that issue, and hear
10:56:05 from the folks who are deeply involved in this, but
10:56:07 I'm not.
10:56:07 >>> Just so you know last week within the last ten
10:56:11 days we did have a workshop luncheon with the VRB
10:56:15 members to go over their policies.
10:56:16 >>: Too bad I missed that.
10:56:17 >>> We are still in debate over what kind of changes
10:56:19 will occur, even in their own rules of procedure.
10:56:22 This is something else we can look into and hopefully
10:56:25 bring back to you within the next cycle.

10:56:26 >> Thank you.
10:56:28 >>> Sure.
10:56:30 If you go to page 4, section 27-393, this is the
10:56:34 change that went through the last cycle.
10:56:38 City Council shall approve or deny application for
10:56:40 rezoning within 180 days of the application being
10:56:43 made.
10:56:45 Council, at that point, put in the 30-day extension of
10:56:48 that, and then future extensions for extenuating
10:56:52 circumstances.
10:56:53 The glitch that occurred was that staff sets the
10:56:56 hearings now.
10:56:57 So when we get an application, if it's not set for
10:57:02 hearing, City Council never actually gets to take that
10:57:04 action of whether or not to deny or withdraw or
10:57:07 approve the application within that time frame.
10:57:13 And we had a couple cases since that recycle change
10:57:16 where applications have been in our office and have
10:57:18 never been to the point where we can actually set them
10:57:20 for hearing for months and months and Mondays and it
10:57:23 just carries on and on.
10:57:24 So the additional language was that if it's not set

10:57:28 for hearing it could be withdrawn if it's sitting
10:57:35 there for more than 180 days because at that point you
10:57:37 are not ready to go.
10:57:38 That's basically what that language says.
10:57:40 >> What's with the quotation mark at the end of the
10:57:44 sentence?
10:57:44 >> In the ordinance that's actually in an ordinance,
10:57:50 there's a quotes from the end of the section.
10:57:58 27-394, the next session, we struck all the notice
10:58:01 provisions for text amendment and simply referenced
10:58:04 state law, which is a clean-up from the legal
10:58:08 department.
10:58:11 Paragraph D, parcel rezoning, when you move to the
10:58:14 next page, page 5, this is the requirement that
10:58:18 council actually directed having the site plan, copy,
10:58:22 as part of the good neighbor notice.
10:58:24 So that language was added at your request.
10:58:31 On the bottom of page 5, section 27-184, certificate
10:58:34 of appropriateness, there was a misreference in the
10:58:36 last amendment cycle.
10:58:37 So it's section 184.
10:58:39 It really is 185 so that's a clean-up matter.

10:58:43 Tab 2 starts on page 6.
10:58:46 These are some minor changes to the central business
10:58:49 district regulations.
10:58:51 This is acknowledging under the public arts section
10:58:53 the public arts manager and placing that position
10:58:58 basically in charge of reviewing for the public art,
10:59:00 and then going back and modifying the definition in
10:59:04 chapter 27 for public art to match the definition of
10:59:07 chapter 4, which is the public arts chapter.
10:59:10 Because there was a minor conflict between the
10:59:12 definitions, and that's not good for the whole code.
10:59:15 We went ahead and packaged chapter 4.
10:59:19 Tab 3, page 9.
10:59:24 These are the modifications to the Channel District.
10:59:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I ask a question, Madam Chair?
10:59:34 I know this is probably the existing ordinance. It
10:59:35 says the -- artistic expression or merit of the
10:59:41 representation.
10:59:42 I would agree, we shouldn't review artistic expression
10:59:46 because of first amendment.
10:59:47 But the merit of the representation?
10:59:49 I think that's interesting.

10:59:51 Because wouldn't the public arts committee want to
10:59:54 have really quality work, isn't that what merit is all
10:59:59 about?
11:00:02 Mary, you are our expert.
11:00:03 >>MARY MULHERN: We have a public art professional that
11:00:06 administers the process and she works with the board,
11:00:08 and the reason that that's written that way is that
11:00:14 you have the professional opinion as opposed to any
11:00:17 kind of political opinion and not qualified opinion
11:00:28 determining the merits.
11:00:29 In fact, oftentimes, she has a jury of, you know,
11:00:35 professional occur raters and people who are
11:00:37 determining the choices that they make.
11:00:41 I think Linda would agree.
11:00:43 You have been on that committee.
11:00:43 >> Yes, we changed this language so that you have
11:00:48 professional input, so what you are saying sounds like
11:00:52 a contradiction of that.
11:00:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It just seems to me that what's the
11:00:57 public art committees supposed to evaluate if not the
11:01:00 merit of the work?
11:01:00 I'm not saying the artistic expression.

11:01:03 But I'm saying, what are they evaluating?
11:01:05 F not the merit?
11:01:09 I'm on page 8, paragraph 3 at the top of the page.
11:01:14 >>> Basically in the middle of the paragraph.
11:01:16 >> Middle of the paragraph but it not anything that's
11:01:17 been changed.
11:01:19 I never read this particular paragraph.
11:01:22 The public arts committee shall not review the
11:01:24 artistic expression of merit of the representation.
11:01:33 I don't know.
11:01:35 Is that standard?
11:01:38 >> I suggest you talk to Robin Nigh who happens to be
11:01:41 one of our two art and creative and cultural employees
11:01:49 that we now have on city staff, and she can explain
11:01:51 it.
11:01:52 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
11:01:56 Whenever you are talking about an expression you have
11:01:59 to be very concerned about what all that means.
11:02:04 I probably would recommend that you want staff to take
11:02:08 a look at the way that's written, and to have
11:02:11 additional conversations about the way that's written,
11:02:15 have legal look at that.

11:02:16 That's something that we can do.
11:02:18 How you define these things is always a question.
11:02:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If Robin can contact me and talk to
11:02:32 me about it.
11:02:32 It's the merit part that I'm confused about because I
11:02:35 would think that the committee is sort of the appeal.
11:02:38 It looks like sort of an appeal process that we are
11:02:41 putting in, the public art manager, approve the
11:02:45 proposed public art based on the public art
11:02:47 definition.
11:02:48 Then it goes to the committee.
11:02:49 And then we say what the committee should do.
11:02:53 >> John, let me give you an analogy sort of thing.
11:02:57 We have an art museum, and they have a director, and
11:03:00 they have occur raters, and then we have a Board of
11:03:04 Directors.
11:03:07 The Board of Directors usually works with the
11:03:09 director, and the staff is the one that makes those
11:03:13 kind of determinations because it's a specialty.
11:03:20 Any of our other departments had technical expertise,
11:03:24 they would make the determination of what kind of --
11:03:29 you know, any board you sit on, you are not making

11:03:31 decisions about the technical and those kind of
11:03:39 considerations.
11:03:39 I think people just aren't used to thinking of art as
11:03:46 an actual serious profession.
11:03:47 And that's the problem with not allowing the director,
11:03:54 administrator to be the one that makes those
11:03:56 decisions, with the guidance of the board, and the
11:03:58 approval of the board.
11:03:59 They are just the one that makes the artist tuck
11:04:04 decisions which includes merit.
11:04:07 Artistic merit is something that is decided by the
11:04:13 professional.
11:04:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: When is it come back to us?
11:04:25 >>> what I am hoping for today is to transmit for
11:04:28 their July hearing and coming back to you late July,
11:04:31 early August.
11:04:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We'll have another bite at the
11:04:34 apple.
11:04:38 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Tab 3.
11:04:39 These are changes dealing with the Channel District.
11:04:41 There are some minor tweaks to the language, from the
11:04:45 urban design staff.

11:04:48 You look at page 10, paragraph 2-B-G, it did say
11:04:54 something private or public rights-of-way, that was
11:04:57 changed to at least two prominent sides.
11:05:02 In the Channel District you have two buildings that
11:05:04 abut up against one another and you have elevations
11:05:08 that are fairly blank and a little miss representative
11:05:11 of what the building is actually going to look like,
11:05:14 the street side, not necessarily where the building
11:05:17 butts up against another one.
11:05:19 It's basically an elevation at that point because you
11:05:23 want a --
11:05:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think what would be more helpful
11:05:30 is to say visible to the public, because it could just
11:05:32 be one side, if it was in the block, or it could be
11:05:36 all four sides if it was an entire block.
11:05:38 So I think that what we want to see as a side that is
11:05:43 going to be visible tots public.
11:05:44 >> I can modify that.
11:05:46 >> That's great.
11:05:47 Thank you.
11:05:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Could be any size, probably
11:05:52 substitute language.

11:05:52 >>> The designation of the corridors, let me explain
11:05:55 this particular section.
11:06:01 It's being renumbered to 27-457.
11:06:02 The standards A through E that were set as minimum
11:06:04 standards actually fell below the diagrams that were
11:06:08 done in the strategic action plan.
11:06:09 The whole purpose of getting that bonus floor area
11:06:13 ratio, bonus, density, and intensity for the
11:06:17 amenities, were really to provide an increment above
11:06:21 the standards that were drawn, the actual diagrams
11:06:23 that have been adopted in the code.
11:06:25 The written standard contradicted and was below the
11:06:29 diagram standards, so we are eliminating the written
11:06:32 standard, and acknowledging the diagrams that are
11:06:35 already in the code saying that's the minimum, and if
11:06:37 you do above that, you get the credit for that.
11:06:39 So it was actually a contradiction of the code that
11:06:42 was corrected.
11:06:43 And the next couple changes really are renumbering
11:06:46 sections, and clearing up what I just said, number 13
11:06:52 enhanced landscaping, but it's that portion that
11:06:55 exceeds the design standards of those diagrams.

11:06:58 Yes.
11:07:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is it too late at this junction to
11:07:04 require some activity level on the pedestrian level?
11:07:07 >>> In this particular cycle, yes.
11:07:09 July cycle is right around the corner.
11:07:11 If there were a motion by council to do that --
11:07:14 >> I move that in our July cycle we visit activity
11:07:17 levels on the -- activity of the Channel District.
11:07:24 The idea being that we don't just have surface
11:07:26 parking.
11:07:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
11:07:28 >>MARY MULHERN: And other than a driveway into the
11:07:32 garage S.that an activity, driving into the garage?
11:07:34 >> So that we are voting to look at this in the next
11:07:37 cycle.
11:07:37 >> We can't take action until we have public comment.
11:07:43 We'll ware not taking action.
11:07:44 >> Tab 4, page 12.
11:07:51 Due some T some of the renumbering, it renumbers a lot
11:07:56 of the sections.
11:07:57 So a lot of what you see here just is renumbering the
11:08:00 sections.

11:08:00 No changes to the actual overlays themselves.
11:08:02 It's on page 13.
11:08:06 However, what you do see, the fourth one down, South
11:08:08 Howard commercial overlay, there was, when the ARC,
11:08:15 code changes occurred last cycle, some of the numbers
11:08:18 changed.
11:08:19 This is a change to that, because of that change.
11:08:22 Just a reference to the number, section number.
11:08:25 If you look at the East Tampa and the West Tampa
11:08:28 standards on the bottom of page 13 and the top of page
11:08:31 14, this language change is from the legal department.
11:08:35 It clears up the site plan as part of the development
11:08:39 review committee process to the CBCs, those areas.
11:08:45 This was discussed probably about six or eight months
11:08:47 ago.
11:08:48 That motion was made and is from the legal department
11:08:50 as well.
11:08:51 Kennedy Boulevard corridor standards.
11:09:00 We have some issues with FDOT on Kennedy Boulevard and
11:09:04 where and how the lighting will be placed.
11:09:06 What you see here on page 15 is the change to the
11:09:08 diagram, the codes themselves will be moved from the

11:09:12 public right-of-way onto the public property.
11:09:16 Because of basically an agreement in the permitting,
11:09:19 the liability, and maintenance issue that we are
11:09:20 having with FDOT.
11:09:22 We are working through the pavement requirements,
11:09:25 which you can see the banding on page 16, in the
11:09:29 planned view of the Streetscape.
11:09:31 You can see the brick banding.
11:09:34 We are working through a memorandum right now of
11:09:39 agreement, with FDOT to get that banding done by the
11:09:43 private property owner, and that should be coming to
11:09:45 you fairly soon.
11:09:46 But this change basically tweaks the requirements, and
11:09:50 it just shifts the light about 8.5 feet.
11:09:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You had a question?
11:09:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to thank you for working
11:09:58 through the banding issue with us.
11:10:00 And I want to share with council members, Department
11:10:02 of Transportation is being, in my opinion, completely
11:10:06 ridiculous, and that they are not allowing street
11:10:08 lights on the streets.
11:10:10 They are saying that all streetlights have to be on

11:10:12 private property.
11:10:13 And if we want to have pedestrian lighting, it should
11:10:15 be where the pedestrians are, which is on the
11:10:18 sidewalk.
11:10:18 So staff has been not able to get it through the
11:10:23 FDOT's legal group so I think it needs to go through
11:10:26 those of us that are MPO members to bring up as an MPO
11:10:32 level that it's not allowing things that all the other
11:10:38 districts allow in terms of pedestrian amenities, and
11:10:41 we need to look at it as a policy.
11:10:46 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Tab 5.
11:10:47 This is a blending change between just a general
11:10:51 parking standard, and the Ybor City parking standards.
11:10:55 Council did make a motion to strike interim parking
11:10:58 for allowable use on Ybor City.
11:11:00 The first thing that you see in the table on page 18
11:11:03 that as an allowable use.
11:11:08 When you go to page 19, the alternative parking
11:11:11 requirements under 27-180, there's some minor changes
11:11:14 to the language at the top, paragraph A through C.
11:11:18 Basically keeping the lighting and security measures
11:11:22 the same as today, current code.

11:11:24 But then in D, on the bottom of page 19, going through
11:11:28 page 21, what you see is the parking lot standard
11:11:31 being set, which is different than the parking lot
11:11:34 standards city-wide.
11:11:40 If you have a lot, just to give you an example, first
11:11:42 the landscaping.
11:11:43 If you have a law that's 7500 square feet or less
11:11:47 there's no required interior landscaping on the lot,
11:11:50 no islands being required, no perimeter landscaping
11:11:54 being required.
11:11:55 However, we are going to require that you do some sort
11:11:58 of fencing, and if you look at page 23 you can see the
11:12:01 diagram -- for what will be sidewalks.
11:12:08 Schematic drawing.
11:12:09 Any of these types of fences or structures that are
11:12:11 placed on the property are ultimately under the review
11:12:14 of the Barrio Latino commission.
11:12:16 When you are over 7500 square feet, however, do you
11:12:20 have to provide a five foot landscape buffer as
11:12:23 opposed to the 8-foot under chapter 13.
11:12:25 And there are some minor landscaping requirements that
11:12:30 are done.

11:12:30 There is an alternative irrigation requirement.
11:12:35 The city may approve manual irrigation as opposed to
11:12:38 putting in an irrigation system.
11:12:40 As long as everything is maintained in a healthy
11:12:44 condition.
11:12:44 Then there are some buffering and screening
11:12:45 requirements between uses.
11:12:47 So if you have a parking lot next to residential, you
11:12:49 may be required to do the taller fence or a solid
11:12:56 fence.
11:12:58 The surface of the parking lot, also at a minimum, the
11:13:01 spaces may be turf or hard rock.
11:13:05 You don't necessarily have to pave the entire site
11:13:07 which also will help with any stormwater issues in the
11:13:09 area.
11:13:11 The signage, paragraph 8, page 21, the parking lots
11:13:18 whether there is a fee or payment collected there is
11:13:21 18 inches by 24 inches that's required to be posted on
11:13:25 the property.
11:13:26 Also to include the name of the parking lot contact
11:13:29 person, the starting cost of the park being, the
11:13:32 contract information, phone and address and the

11:13:34 physical address of the parking lot.
11:13:37 No sign may exceed 4 square feet in area, has to meet
11:13:40 the minimum design standards that -- we are on page 22
11:13:46 but for some reason disappeared.
11:13:51 They were e-mailed to you but for some reason the
11:13:53 diagram didn't come through.
11:13:56 There are alternative design allowances.
11:13:59 That does got go to the Barrio Latino commission.
11:14:02 The final Lang language about all legally established
11:14:05 paved parking lots that do not meet the standards of
11:14:08 section D or E above shall be subject to the
11:14:11 nonconforming section of the code.
11:14:17 And it's a really long, drawn-out process.
11:14:20 I can go into it, if there's any questions.
11:14:24 If you go to page 24, this is where you get outside of
11:14:32 Ybor City.
11:14:32 This is the change for off-street parking, off-site
11:14:37 parking spaces within 1,000 feet.
11:14:39 This is the change that you heard about in the
11:14:42 presentation on South Howard, changes that I did a
11:14:45 couple of weeks ago, I believe, currently a 300-foot
11:14:48 distance for off-site parking; we are recommending

11:14:51 1,000 feet which is still within the range of a
11:14:53 walkable distance.
11:14:54 And also opens up opportunity to share parking within
11:14:58 an area.
11:15:00 Finally, on page 25, there's a minor change to the
11:15:03 definition of commercial equipment. Vehicles,
11:15:06 machinery, materials, or furnishings, owned, used or
11:15:06 designed and intended for commercial purposes.
11:15:15 This is a minor tweak only because it has come up to
11:15:19 the Code Enforcement Board countless times.
11:15:22 We actually got this language from one of our
11:15:27 assistant city attorneys actually who used to work for
11:15:31 another jurisdiction whose language was changed and
11:15:33 actually cured a lot of issues they were having with
11:15:36 people who were using private vehicles.
11:15:39 They were registered but were designed as commercial
11:15:42 vehicles, and people use them as regular standard
11:15:49 vehicles.
11:15:50 Unfortunately, they weren't designed for that.
11:15:51 And it's a constant headache for the code enforcement
11:15:54 division.
11:15:58 If you go to tab 6, this is the transfer development

11:16:01 right.
11:16:02 Proposal.
11:16:04 For that particular program, and this came about a
11:16:07 year ago.
11:16:08 So I believe Ms. Cole has spoken to you many times
11:16:12 about this and there was some research done by an
11:16:16 attorney at Carlton field.
11:16:18 This is a culmination of all of that work.
11:16:20 You start with first and foremost ascending site.
11:16:25 Sending site as defined in this section are either
11:16:30 historic landmark or property designated within a
11:16:32 district.
11:16:36 The receiving site is the place that you can transfer
11:16:38 to.
11:16:39 The only receiving sites that are defined right now
11:16:42 are within the central business district.
11:16:44 So I want to clear that up for anyone who has a
11:16:46 question.
11:16:46 You cannot just transfer from the historic district or
11:16:49 from a landmark to anywhere in the city, we are
11:16:52 finding that receiving area as the CBD.
11:16:56 And with the exception of two districts within the

11:16:59 CBD.
11:17:00 And the two character districts are the cultural arts
11:17:03 district and the riverfront district which is
11:17:05 essentially just one band on the western side of the
11:17:07 river.
11:17:07 So any other character district can receive the
11:17:11 transfer rights.
11:17:14 What this does is if you transfer the right, first and
11:17:18 foremost you have to be eligible.
11:17:20 So you get a certificate of eligibility from the
11:17:22 historic preservation manager.
11:17:24 The criteria for that are on page 29, B, 1, 2 and 3.
11:17:31 One is that it is designated as a historic property.
11:17:34 Two, that there has been a renovation on that property
11:17:37 done but meets the Secretary of Interior standards.
11:17:39 And, three, that there has been an issue on the
11:17:43 certificate of occupancy.
11:17:44 So that building is done.
11:17:45 It has been rehabilitated.
11:17:48 Once you are eligible, you can come to the zoning
11:17:49 administrator or designee and get a certificate of
11:17:53 availability, and that is simply saying that the site

11:17:56 is eligible to receive additional entitlements.
11:18:03 It reflects the development rights available to
11:18:05 transfer from the sending site.
11:18:07 So that will be for the property in the downtown.
11:18:11 And then the last step is the actual certificate of
11:18:14 transfer, which is the final document that the zoning
11:18:16 administrator certifies and is recorded with the clerk
11:18:20 of the court, that locks in that transfer.
11:18:23 So it's a recorded document.
11:18:25 And along with that you will have a covenant of zoning
11:18:27 on the original sending property as well.
11:18:31 There is a calculation method in here, if you look at
11:18:34 page 30.
11:18:38 There is table 6-2 and 6-3.
11:18:44 6-2 is the sending site and it's an example.
11:18:48 I gave an example of an RM-24 zoning district,
11:18:52 property is 100 by 200.
11:18:54 The base you can methodology, Tau the property
11:18:56 boundaries, subtract the minimum zoning setback, and
11:19:00 that's your basic box that you could build within.
11:19:05 You get the dimension in the third row there.
11:19:07 It's bold, 86 by 155.

11:19:09 With maximum allowable height under that zoning
11:19:11 district is six stories, at a rate of one story per
11:19:15 ten feet.
11:19:16 You multiply that out.
11:19:18 There is a total allowable development right of 79,980
11:19:22 square feet on that property.
11:19:23 In theory.
11:19:25 Ware not holding any other land development
11:19:27 regulations.
11:19:28 We are doing basic zoning requirements to get that
11:19:32 box.
11:19:32 The existing structure of this scenario is 30 that you
11:19:35 square feet.
11:19:36 So there is an available transferable right of 49,980
11:19:40 square feet.
11:19:43 With that, you can send it to another site.
11:19:47 Table 6-3 worked backwards, it works from the
11:19:51 receiving site.
11:19:51 You can tray to figure out, okay, I don't want to
11:19:53 build a 12 story building, I want to build a 15 story
11:19:57 building, how many square feet do I need to get in
11:19:59 order to do that?

11:20:00 In this scenario to go from 12 to 15 on a basic 200 by
11:20:04 200 block, it's 120,000 square feet because eights
11:20:08 zero lot line development downtown.
11:20:10 So that person would have to go out and find those
11:20:14 rights, from any historic property that has gotten a
11:20:18 certificate of availability.
11:20:21 What you get out of this is, or what the developer
11:20:25 would get out of this, is the ability to process a
11:20:28 special use 1 as opposed stow coming through to
11:20:32 council for rezoning, is by going through this step.
11:20:37 It doesn't avoid the design standards of the code at
11:20:40 all.
11:20:41 Very clearly you still have to meet every central
11:20:43 business district guide lane for design.
11:20:45 The regulation for design.
11:20:46 What this does is it eliminates or takes back the
11:20:50 public hearing process so it can save 3 to 6 months of
11:20:53 time, which is also an added benefit.
11:20:56 And if you take setback it also benefits the historic
11:21:00 properties by allowing them to develop those rights in
11:21:02 hopes that you preserve what is actually there.
11:21:06 That's really the methodology.

11:21:07 Yes.
11:21:14 I have one more tab.
11:21:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And then we'll take questions.
11:21:22 >> I understand.
11:21:24 >>> A privately initiated text amendment.
11:21:27 It is to allow accessory dwelling units.
11:21:30 It's creating a special use category for accessory
11:21:33 dwelling unit, not necessarily extended family, but
11:21:36 only within the Seminole Heights overlay area.
11:21:40 It's very limited.
11:21:41 It is privately initiated.
11:21:42 This one in particular, because it is privately
11:21:44 initiated, has the process through, so there will be a
11:21:49 separate presentation at the public hearing from the
11:21:51 person that actually initiated it.
11:21:54 She is in this scenario and she has an entire booklet
11:21:57 for each one of you to go through, with very
11:21:59 interesting information.
11:22:00 But what this does is it allows accessory dwelling
11:22:05 units to occur as a special use on the property, but
11:22:07 it doesn't necessarily restrict it to an immediate
11:22:10 family member, and it does allow rent to be paid, but

11:22:14 it does set very strict standards on how many people
11:22:17 can occupy it, and how it's used, and the size of the
11:22:24 actual building, one unit.
11:22:26 I can go into those in detail if you want, or wait for
11:22:29 the public hearing.
11:22:30 I'm done other than that.
11:22:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
11:22:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A few questions.
11:22:38 I have stored them up, Mr. Chairman, at your request.
11:22:40 On the historic PD -- TBO, historic property TDO, it's
11:22:46 great work by Carlton Fields as well as staff.
11:22:49 My question is this.
11:22:52 I know we are taking baby steps, and we are going to
11:22:54 limit the receiving zones to the central business
11:22:57 district.
11:22:59 And I think that's probably a prudent idea as far as
11:23:02 taking a first step.
11:23:03 But my recollection is I can't remember any projects
11:23:09 or rezoning where height was really an issue downtown.
11:23:15 I mean, it seems like we are always talking about --
11:23:20 >> Think about the correct rezoning.
11:23:21 Anything in the north area, overhang.

11:23:27 >>: Because of the CBD1?
11:23:31 >>> 1 is up north.
11:23:33 But keep in mind if you take a step back from that,
11:23:35 downtown, you cannot build higher than 120 feet in
11:23:38 height without rezoning your property.
11:23:41 >> To what?
11:23:42 >>> CBD 2.
11:23:43 Even if you are CBD 2 you have to re zone the CBD 2 to
11:23:47 get above 120 feet.
11:23:48 We have got 120-foot cap downtown.
11:23:51 In the zoning code.
11:23:52 And so a way to get outside of that is to either
11:23:56 rezone again the CBD 2, for a higher height or through
11:24:00 this method if you are transferring from an historic
11:24:03 property.
11:24:03 We'll go ahead and allow consideration for a higher
11:24:05 height based on whatever square footage you are
11:24:07 purchasing, and transferring.
11:24:09 But you have to follow the design regulations.
11:24:12 >> I think we have had this discussion before, but is
11:24:14 there -- there might have been some historic logic to
11:24:18 a height limitation downtown, but is there any modern

11:24:21 logic from a planning perspective to a height
11:24:24 limitation downtown?
11:24:26 >>> I think without viewing an actual true plan for
11:24:30 downtown because height isn't necessarily gad on every
11:24:32 single block, in the entire geographic area.
11:24:36 It's a policy decision.
11:24:37 But I think without finalizing an actual plan for
11:24:40 downtown, that question can't be answered.
11:24:43 >> Well, I remember my colleague Mary Alvarez and I
11:24:49 had this chat late one night, and just never seemed
11:24:53 logical to me.
11:24:54 We designate something as downtown, we want to the be
11:24:57 vibrant, in every possible way, and I can't imagine
11:25:01 any corner of downtown that you wouldn't want to have
11:25:04 a hey rise of some sort, unless there's an existing
11:25:08 historic building on it that you are trying to
11:25:09 protect.
11:25:11 But that's my recollection.
11:25:13 But, anyway, we can discuss that, I guess, down the
11:25:15 road some more.
11:25:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena and Mulhern.
11:25:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Will you come back to me?

11:25:25 Because I have a few others.
11:25:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Dingfelder, if you have
11:25:28 unlimited height you have nothing to trade and we blew
11:25:30 it for about ten blocks downtown where we gave that
11:25:32 away, 20 years ago, and as a result, we can't get
11:25:37 anything from it.
11:25:38 You need to have a limitation so that you can say,
11:25:41 okay, you can go higher if it's appropriate, if you do
11:25:44 other things that are nice for the public.
11:25:48 It's a negotiating tool, and it's a way to make
11:25:51 everybody stop and say, okay, well, what are the
11:25:55 benefits?
11:25:55 What are the tradeoffs?
11:25:57 And frankly, the DR will give us something to make
11:26:01 historic preservation have something that they can
11:26:05 sell for value to somebody else who then gets to
11:26:09 develop hair in the historic buildings.
11:26:12 >> And then come in for your rezoning and your trading
11:26:16 and the rest of your scrutiny.
11:26:19 >> There's scrutiny for other things.
11:26:22 But anyway, the reason that the cap for downtown.
11:26:28 >>MARY MULHERN: I want to respond to that.

11:26:30 But I need to make sure.
11:26:31 Is it just the central business district?
11:26:33 Or does this include Channelside and everything?
11:26:36 >>> No.
11:26:37 >>> The Channel District is its own entity.
11:26:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You said something across the
11:26:43 river.
11:26:44 I don't know.
11:26:44 >>> It on the western side of downtown, east side of
11:26:48 the river, the cultural arts district.
11:26:50 And the riverfront district.
11:26:51 There are 12 subdistricts or character districts
11:26:54 within the CBD.
11:26:55 There are two that are carved out.
11:26:57 But you cannot actually use this program for.
11:27:00 They are on the riverfront where the museum is, and
11:27:03 all along that waterfront.
11:27:04 Really that's the new corridor.
11:27:09 >>MARY MULHERN: Those are the only pieces that are not
11:27:14 receiving sites?
11:27:15 Is that what you are telling us?
11:27:16 >>> Correct.

11:27:17 >> And Channelside is not a receiving site?
11:27:19 >>> No.
11:27:19 The Channel District is actually not within the CBD
11:27:23 boundary.
11:27:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Two more questions.
11:27:26 On page 25, this commercial vehicle definition, I have
11:27:29 heard about this problem before.
11:27:32 Somebody had the largest but they just use it for
11:27:36 their day to day thing.
11:27:40 So I'm trying to figure out, what are we doing here on
11:27:42 the day-to-day basis?
11:27:44 Are we trying to help these people or trying to help
11:27:47 code enforcement?
11:27:48 What's the effect of this?
11:27:49 >>CATHERINE COYLE: This by interpretation is saying,
11:27:54 no, if you have a step van you are using as a private
11:27:57 vehicle you cannot park it at your residential home.
11:27:59 >>: Even if it doesn't have any signs on it or
11:28:01 anything?
11:28:02 >>> Correct.
11:28:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And this came from code enforcement
11:28:10 or from T.H.A.N. or what?

11:28:11 >>> It's a combination of code enforcement staff,
11:28:16 zoning staff.
11:28:17 It's been an ongoing issue for a number of years.
11:28:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Council, I mean, I have a problem
11:28:26 letting this go to Planning Commission, let them talk
11:28:28 about it and come back to us. I think we need to
11:28:31 think about it just a little bit and talk about it a
11:28:33 little bit more when it comes back to us.
11:28:35 And then the last question I have on page 23 in Ybor
11:28:39 City, those fence diagrams.
11:28:43 I know you said that these things would still be
11:28:46 subject to the barrio.
11:28:47 But I don't want us to create an inherent conflict
11:28:49 with the barrio right off the bat.
11:28:51 Between your drawings and Wan they allow.
11:28:54 But specifically I'm looking at picture D.
11:28:58 That lass like, you know, the cheap Sipe res that I
11:29:06 have in my backyard, been there for 20 years.
11:29:09 Do they allow that in the barrio right now?
11:29:16 A little six-foot Cypress fence?
11:29:19 >> I can't answer that question.
11:29:21 I'm not sure.

11:29:23 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
11:29:24 I have been informed that how it works with staff to
11:29:31 get those pictures the way they are.
11:29:33 So that's my understanding.
11:29:34 So I'm assuming that they would in fact comply with
11:29:38 the regulations from the barrio.
11:29:40 >> It just doesn't look very Yborish to me, just a
11:29:45 standard six foot cypress fence.
11:29:47 So we'll just get a clarification from them prance in
11:29:52 person when that comes back.
11:29:53 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11:29:56 Other questions?
11:30:05 If not we'll take public comment at this point.
11:30:11 Public comment?
11:30:24 >> Steve LaBour, Tampa, Florida.
11:30:29 Margaret Vizzi is the chairman of the zoning
11:30:31 committee, couldn't be here today.
11:30:33 So I'm standing in her stead.
11:30:41 Those were at our last meeting to respectfully request
11:30:45 council to remove from your consideration to the July
11:30:49 batch the item of page number 5.
11:30:52 And that's the transmittal requirement of site plans

11:30:57 to neighborhoods during the neighborhood notice.
11:31:02 There's a variety of reasons why.
11:31:04 I won't take up your time to go into them now unless
11:31:06 you would like to hear it.
11:31:08 It is an interesting issue.
11:31:10 We think we would not be opposed to that.
11:31:13 However, we don't want to first of all burden most of
11:31:18 the people who apply who are smaller type people.
11:31:23 Second of all is what's working incredibly well is
11:31:26 that once we get the notice, the neighborhoods get the
11:31:29 notice, they actually want them to actually contact
11:31:32 the developer directly, and when that happens, always
11:31:39 make sure there is an exchange of site plan and
11:31:42 usually a meeting.
11:31:43 We are concerned that some developers are simply going
11:31:45 to say, look, I got the site plan, never heard
11:31:51 anything from them so I take it they didn't have any
11:31:54 problems or they would have called me.
11:31:55 The other thing it encourages that dialogue back and
11:31:58 forth.
11:31:58 We would like to have a little more discussion about
11:32:00 it and that's all we are asking you to do in June or

11:32:04 July.
11:32:05 Thank you.
11:32:07 >>> Spencer Cass.
11:32:13 I'm actually addressing you as the president.
11:32:16 Virginia homeowners association.
11:32:18 I concur with that.
11:32:19 We prefer calls from builders going through the plan.
11:32:21 We never had a problem getting a set of plans from the
11:32:24 building, they are very cooperative, they go through
11:32:26 them with extreme detail, they want us to understand,
11:32:29 they want to hear our comments.
11:32:30 I'm afraid that this is going to leave them saying
11:32:36 that's the end of this, and I think the current
11:32:38 process works fairly well.
11:32:41 Thank you.
11:32:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker.
11:32:48 >>> Good morning.
11:32:50 Steve Triaga, with YCDC, I'm also the chair of the
11:32:55 YCDC parking committee.
11:32:57 We have been working on this with the city staff for
11:33:02 quite a few months, and the staff has been very good
11:33:07 at meeting with us, and for the most part, we agree

11:33:11 with most of the changes on this proposed ordinance.
11:33:14 However, there's a few things on here that have yet to
11:33:18 be worked out.
11:33:28 Our understanding as to the paved drive aisle, page
11:33:31 20, number 4, we are not going to be paved for lots
11:33:35 under 7500 square feet.
11:33:37 Our understanding was that these paved drive aisles
11:33:41 would be lots over 7500 square feet.
11:33:47 And the page 21, number 8, the four square foot sign
11:33:54 we thought was a little smaller and we wanted the
11:33:56 ability to have a six square foot sign.
11:34:01 The other thing on the same paragraph under cop tact
11:34:04 person, we wanted to put a company name on the sign,
11:34:06 not necessarily a person's name, but a company name.
11:34:12 And, yes, the last thing on here was the lighting.
11:34:16 There is a change on the lighting that it should be
11:34:20 within one year.
11:34:21 That's under page 19-C.
11:34:24 They have got on here that the new lighting would be
11:34:27 adopted within one year of this ordinance.
11:34:31 And our understanding was that the lighting was going
11:34:33 to be postponed to your January hearing.

11:34:36 Lighting and security were going to be left untouched
11:34:39 until later time.
11:34:41 Those are the only four issues that we have with us,
11:34:43 other than that we support it.
11:34:47 Thank you very much.
11:34:51 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Let me just follow up with what he
11:34:54 just said for a second.
11:34:55 The plan amendment you have these lots that are being
11:34:57 utilized, the business climate is down, and when you
11:35:00 start putting heavier restrictions on some of these
11:35:02 vacant lots they are going to be empty vacant lots
11:35:05 instead of being partially utilized.
11:35:07 And I don't think anyone wants to see just empty lots
11:35:09 not being used at all.
11:35:10 So we are asking for a minimal adjustment to these
11:35:15 regulations and they can continue to be used without
11:35:17 an extraordinary expense.
11:35:18 Let me go back to a couple other things.
11:35:20 There was a motion made earlier regarding including
11:35:23 site plans being distributed to homeowner associations
11:35:25 as part of a notice.
11:35:27 That's an extraordinary burden.

11:35:30 Why should a homeowner association receive more than
11:35:34 what normal 250 fate of notice to all the property
11:35:37 owners that are affected receive?
11:35:40 We talked about this before.
11:35:42 You all made a motion for it to come back to you.
11:35:44 But I really don't think that we should be in the
11:35:46 process of sending out site plans that go to
11:35:50 neighborhood associations, that do not know how to
11:35:52 read those site plans, they should be coming into the
11:35:54 city staff office, and reviewing them with a
11:35:56 professional, so someone can explain to them what the
11:35:59 site plans mean.
11:36:00 We are asking for trouble by sending out site plans,
11:36:04 and it's an undue burden being placed on the
11:36:07 petitioner.
11:36:07 The second thing is, requiring the street lights for
11:36:11 Kennedy Boulevard to be put on private property.
11:36:14 Now we'll put those three in conflict with the
11:36:17 building.
11:36:18 Remember, Kennedy Boulevard has us moving the
11:36:20 buildings up towards the sidewalk.
11:36:22 So now we have a small buffer area, we have a

11:36:25 pedestrian activity area, we have a sidewalk cafe area
11:36:29 that we are trying to encourage, and now we are going
11:36:32 to put street lights inside that same buffer area, and
11:36:35 the setbacks on Kennedy Boulevard.
11:36:38 You are going to have a lot of conflicts with that.
11:36:40 I would urge that we continue dealing with D.O.T.
11:36:43 instead of making the property owner responsible for
11:36:46 placing those lights on the property.
11:36:49 We talked about the rock versus turf usual issue on
11:36:53 the parking lots in Ybor City.
11:36:56 The thousand foot of utilization for off-site parking,
11:36:59 for sharing parking, that's the Julia Cole amendment
11:37:03 and it's a great amendment.
11:37:05 It helped relieve a lot of pressure and N developed
11:37:07 areas.
11:37:08 So I'm very supportive of that.
11:37:12 She knows it's the Julia amendment.
11:37:14 Okay, at this time Cathy Coyle amendment.
11:37:16 One other thing, a lot of people have convert step
11:37:23 vans to campers. I don't think it's a huge problem.
11:37:26 But when you start converting these commercial
11:37:28 vehicles to recreational vehicles and things like

11:37:31 that, you are getting into use issues that are not
11:37:35 widespread, and I don't think they are terribly
11:37:38 difficult to deal with in the community.
11:37:40 But now you are telling someone they can't convert a
11:37:43 commercial vehicle to a private recreational vehicle
11:37:45 or some other use.
11:37:46 I would urge you not to adopt that provision.
11:37:49 Anyway, again, look carefully at the site plan issue.
11:37:54 I think it's an extraordinary expense and the
11:37:57 petitioner should not have to be sending those site
11:38:00 plans out.
11:38:01 You are just asking for trouble without a professional
11:38:03 sitting down and reviewing them with the staff.
11:38:06 Thank you.
11:38:16 >>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: I reside at 2902 East Ellicott
11:38:21 street.
11:38:21 I want to speak on the step van type thing, you know.
11:38:29 Okay, back to this thing here, you said earlier the
11:38:40 small businessman.
11:38:41 All the small businessmen that use this type of
11:38:46 equipment for lawn equipment and everything, for their
11:38:49 kind of business, you know, where they can park it in

11:38:52 their driveways.
11:38:53 Because if you have small business and then got to pay
11:39:01 storage for these vans, it got out of control now,
11:39:04 nowhere, places you used to store you can't store
11:39:08 anymore because of code enforcement.
11:39:10 So it's really difficult now.
11:39:11 And I wish you all would leave that alone, leave it
11:39:18 like it is.
11:39:18 Now I know some people get carried away and put great
11:39:22 big signs.
11:39:23 That's up to you all about that.
11:39:24 But I wish you all would leave that alone, because I
11:39:29 talk to many mens going in the lawn business, and they
11:39:33 can't find a job, only get a couple of lawnmowers and
11:39:37 go cut people's yards.
11:39:38 Same thing about car washing, and all kinds of
11:39:42 business vehicles.
11:39:44 All of them gets a van because they say I can park it
11:39:46 in my driveway and go to work and make a living for my
11:39:49 family and won't have no problem.
11:39:51 So we need that alone.
11:39:52 And back to the fencing thing, you know, we had a

11:39:55 couple of big issues at one time about a man put a
11:39:58 fence up there.
11:40:01 North of Tampa here somewhere.
11:40:02 And then an issue made the man take the fence down,
11:40:07 donating a fence.
11:40:09 Now that's another thing.
11:40:11 In poor part of town where I live at, people have used
11:40:14 these chain link fences for years and years.
11:40:18 And so I agree with some of the upper class areas, you
11:40:21 know, that maybe -- most people use wood fences right
11:40:25 now, a wood private fence now.
11:40:28 That's what they use now.
11:40:29 One reason for privacy and a fence.
11:40:32 And then you can buy those things for 18, close to
11:40:37 $20.
11:40:38 Now they have gone to 25, $30.
11:40:43 So I would say if you would eliminate the galvanized
11:40:49 chain link.
11:40:49 Then some of the chain link fence, what they are doing
11:40:52 now, they are painting them black now and making them,
11:40:57 if you paint a chain link fence.
11:40:59 But in the poor part of town where I live at, you

11:41:03 know, we can't afford like the rich part of town, we
11:41:06 can't afford that.
11:41:07 So go lighter on the poor people if you can, you know.
11:41:11 Thank you very much.
11:41:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Knott.
11:41:14 Okay.
11:41:16 Council?
11:41:16 >>MARY MULHERN: I just vice-president a question for
11:41:21 legal because I have a lot of questions about a lot of
11:41:30 the specifics.
11:41:31 I'm wondering, if we transmit this to the Planning
11:41:33 Commission and it comes back, and we have time to
11:41:36 address a lot of these, is this the type to do that?
11:41:39 >>CATHERINE COYLE: What I would be asking for at the
11:41:45 end of these workshops with whatever tweak you want to
11:41:48 make you make a motion on whatever language you want
11:41:51 changed and make a motion to transmit to the Planning
11:41:54 Commission, a recommendation.
11:41:55 Really they are recommending whether or not the
11:41:57 language is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
11:41:59 Then it comes back to you for two public hearings.
11:42:04 >> That's when we can address all of these

11:42:06 particular --
11:42:07 >>> Correct.
11:42:08 If you have specific questions I can certainly try to
11:42:10 address them.
11:42:11 >>MARY MULHERN: Well, one thing I think will make
11:42:13 Mr. Knott feel better, this was only for the Ybor City
11:42:17 historic district, the fence requirements.
11:42:19 Am I right?
11:42:20 Or is this in other --
11:42:22 >>> The fences that you see in here are specifically
11:42:24 for the parking lot standards in Ybor.
11:42:26 >>MARY MULHERN: So that's the only place.
11:42:30 >>> Correct.
11:42:31 >>: So that's good to know.
11:42:32 And then the vehicle thing we can talk about I have a
11:42:41 lot of questions about to do that but we can talk
11:42:44 about that when it comes back.
11:42:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If there is a consensus for council,
11:42:52 council can do that today or it can wait.
11:42:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We have consensus from our
11:43:01 speakers, both from Mr. LaBour and Mr. Michelini
11:43:05 about not requiring the developers to send out site

11:43:11 plans to the neighborhood so in a moment of Kum ba yah
11:43:13 I would like to direct staff to do that for this time
11:43:16 around.
11:43:17 >>> We had staff report on that as well.
11:43:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's a motion.
11:43:21 >>MARY MULHERN: Second.
11:43:23 (Motion carried)
11:43:25 So moved.
11:43:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: As somebody whose eyes have gotten
11:43:30 more challenged I think a larger sign stating parking
11:43:33 information is good for all.
11:43:35 There was a recommendation that the parking signs be
11:43:36 increased from four square feet to six square feet.
11:43:39 That's a motion.
11:43:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
11:43:43 (Motion carried).
11:43:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And I wasn't exactly Clare on the
11:43:52 drive aisles.
11:43:54 I guess I need to get briefed by staff.
11:43:56 It wasn't clear to me if the drive aisles need to be
11:43:59 improved, if it's a larger development.
11:44:01 It would make sense, if it were a larger parking lot,

11:44:05 the drive aisles would need to be paved, and a smaller
11:44:08 area they wouldn't need to be paved.
11:44:10 I did get that right?
11:44:12 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
11:44:13 If you look at page 19, D-2, driveway, any driveway
11:44:19 placed within a public right-of-way falls under the
11:44:21 transportation technical standards.
11:44:23 And those are concrete aprons, at a certain dimension
11:44:27 depending on the type of driveway and the type of
11:44:29 traffic coming in.
11:44:30 And that's a basic minimum construction standard, so
11:44:32 that when you are leaving the public right-of-way and
11:44:34 going to public right-of-way you don't want a bunch of
11:44:38 debris and torn up curbs and torn-up grass and
11:44:41 everything else.
11:44:43 It's a typical standard throughout the city.
11:44:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: On the same thing that was alluded
11:44:50 to by Mrs. Saul-Sena, we have been working on this now
11:44:53 for about eight or ten years on these lots.
11:44:56 We have given extensions.
11:44:57 We have given time.
11:44:58 We have given more than the courtesy that was the

11:45:02 intent of former council members and former
11:45:04 administration to get everything up to code.
11:45:08 Although I understand the 7500 square foot minimum lot
11:45:13 thing, I'm in favor of the apron being improved so
11:45:17 that the garbage doesn't go to the street, that the
11:45:20 sand doesn't filter out, and you have got blowers
11:45:23 blowing sand and grass everywhere.
11:45:26 I think some minimum standard like you just spoke to,
11:45:30 Ms. Coyle, are necessary.
11:45:31 I hate to disagree with my good friend from Ybor City
11:45:34 on that aspect but I think it's time that we do some
11:45:37 minimum things to improve the area.
11:45:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any others?
11:45:44 Yes.
11:45:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is it an appropriate motion to
11:45:47 transmit the Planning Commission?
11:45:50 >>CATHERINE COYLE: With the changes.
11:45:51 >> With the changes.
11:45:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I do hear a second?
11:45:55 >> Second.
11:45:56 >>MARY MULHERN: Actually you can go vote on that and
11:46:01 then mine is separate.

11:46:03 For the whole entire --
11:46:05 Transmitting the plan.
11:46:06 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes, then I have one more question, if
11:46:08 I can, before we vote on that.
11:46:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.
11:46:10 >>MARY MULHERN: I just want to be clear.
11:46:13 Commercial equipment thing is actually making it
11:46:17 easier for people to park their van.
11:46:20 Am I correct in that?
11:46:25 >>> Not at their home.
11:46:26 >> Not at they're home.
11:46:34 Not at their home.
11:46:35 >> A van is fine, correct.
11:46:37 Just a regular --
11:46:38 >> But, say, Mr. Knott's example, you have maybe a
11:46:43 trailer with lawn mowers on that, you can't park that
11:46:47 in your driveway.
11:46:48 >>> That's commercial equipment.
11:46:49 Remember the entire single-family residential
11:46:51 district, if you have a single-family home, that has
11:46:54 all of your business equipment there, and that's the
11:46:56 issue that we want with the neighbors calling in on

11:46:58 other neighbors, and associations calling in on
11:47:00 properties that are -- it's a constant issue with
11:47:03 compliance.
11:47:07 >>MARY MULHERN: Well, in the times when it is a
11:47:09 problem, I mean, people not only can't afford gas,
11:47:13 they can't afford to have a business place.
11:47:16 I don't know, I'm not sure about it.
11:47:17 But we can transmit it and talk about it.
11:47:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We have a motion.
11:47:26 All in favor let it known by Aye.
11:47:28 Opposed?
11:47:28 The motion is to transmit with the changes by council.
11:47:32 (Motion carried).
11:47:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Caetano, you passed out the Land
11:47:38 Development Coordination recommendation.
11:47:42 Is it your request of council that council pass a
11:47:45 motion to ask the Land Development Coordination to
11:47:47 consider this in the next cycle?
11:47:52 You don't have to read it.
11:47:54 I'm just asking is it your intention to have council
11:47:56 make a motion to have land development consider this
11:47:58 in the next cycle?

11:47:59 >>CATHERINE COYLE: If I may, before a motion is made,
11:48:02 this is actually something we have been trying to work
11:48:03 on internally.
11:48:04 There's about 274 -- it's actually an "R"
11:48:08 classification, not a "C."
11:48:10 There's about 274 "R" classifications and been in the
11:48:14 process of trying to work through this issue creating
11:48:16 an e-mail database and even getting the fax numbers
11:48:19 for these location that is may not have a computer.
11:48:21 And then working on our web site trying to get the
11:48:28 HCML format.
11:48:30 This doesn't require a code change.
11:48:31 We are actually working on it now.
11:48:33 I could come back in 30 or 60 days and give you a
11:48:36 report on when that will be up and running.
11:48:38 >> Many of those people don't have e-mails.
11:48:41 >> Many of them do.
11:48:42 Many of them are regular establishments.
11:48:45 You know, larger chains.
11:48:46 But the smaller ones are the ones that are sometimes a
11:48:49 little harder to get ahold of even by phone because
11:48:52 they are in and out, hard to get hold of the owner.

11:48:55 That's what we are trying to track down now.
11:48:57 >> Way want to present, at the last time we had I
11:48:59 think four or five people here, and one of the women
11:49:02 who owns it in the New Tampa area, she had to close
11:49:07 her restaurant to come down here.
11:49:08 And she sat here all day.
11:49:11 Until I read it in the order that she was going to be
11:49:13 here, and I notified him, and she says I'm sitting in
11:49:17 the audience.
11:49:17 And I didn't know that.
11:49:20 >>> This is something we are trying to correct.
11:49:22 We can do it as an internal policy, so I can come back
11:49:26 like I said in 30 or 60 days and let you know where we
11:49:28 are in the process and hopefully we'll be done by then
11:49:31 and I'll be able to show it to you.
11:49:32 >> Okay.
11:49:35 Because I not fair to have somebody sit here for five
11:49:37 or six hours just like I see a lot of our employees
11:49:40 sitting here for five or six hours.
11:49:42 Some of these guys are making $100 a an hour.
11:49:45 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Not me.
11:49:48 [ Laughter ]

11:49:54 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Not you, Charlie.
11:49:57 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: All right, thank you.
11:49:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to make a motion that
11:50:00 we add to our July cycle the activation of the ground
11:50:04 level in the Channel District, and CBD.
11:50:08 I would like you to work on it and bring it back to us
11:50:11 in our July cycle.
11:50:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
11:50:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
11:50:16 (Motion carried)
11:50:19 Okay.
11:50:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Before we break can I go into some
11:50:26 semantic things?
11:50:27 I know we are finished with both of these items.
11:50:29 There are individuals here that were scheduled for
11:50:31 10:00 in the first meeting.
11:50:32 All they want is a continuance.
11:50:33 Can we take that out of turn?
11:50:37 Notify the 10:00 and give those individuals the
11:50:39 opportunity?
11:50:40 That's number one.
11:50:41 Number two, in reviewing some of the ordinances in the

11:50:44 water department, I would like to ask legal to work
11:50:46 with the water department right there and the attorney
11:50:51 Jan McLean for the statutes that you shall apply for
11:50:54 water meter.
11:50:56 It does not say that you shall apply within 30 days.
11:50:59 You shall install a water meter.
11:51:03 Why I'm saying that, I have run against -- and wording
11:51:07 these things very carefully, individuals who have a
11:51:09 high water bill next door, there's people living
11:51:12 without a water meter, without a well.
11:51:16 So these things are going on in some isolated parts of
11:51:19 the city.
11:51:20 And I would like for that to come back within 30 days
11:51:23 of the change that you shall install a water meter and
11:51:26 have city services if you apply.
11:51:30 As I understand it now it only reads you shall apply
11:51:32 for a meter.
11:51:33 So that leaves it you can apply it and never fulfill
11:51:38 your obligation and I think that's wrong.
11:51:41 That's number two.
11:51:42 Number three, as you well know, I have talked about
11:51:44 different things in the city about me going or some of

11:51:49 my colleagues and individuals who might want to put
11:51:50 wind power in their house.
11:51:54 I would like a response from Cathy Cole of the legal
11:51:59 department as what height, are there any ordinances we
11:52:00 have to make some tweaking to, to allow the city, they
11:52:03 want to go into the wind operation, to individuals,
11:52:06 whoever they may be, that want to put wind power in
11:52:09 their house along with solar power in their house to
11:52:13 meet the regulations.
11:52:14 I certainly don't want to be one that's violating a
11:52:17 city ordinance.
11:52:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I think what we have to do now is
11:52:19 actually end the workshop and then start up the City
11:52:23 Council meeting next.
11:52:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Okay.
11:52:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor let it be known by Aye.
11:52:34 Our next meeting?
11:52:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We were discussing ordinances.
11:52:38 That's why I brought it up.
11:52:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What we need to do now, how much time
11:52:42 do you need, about a minute, two minutes?
11:52:45 Go right into it.

11:52:46 Why don't we do that then?
11:52:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Convert some of those into motions?
11:52:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I will.
11:52:55 Council, excuse me, Marty.
11:53:00 Can we go ahead and take a motion that he just made
11:53:03 without having public comment?
11:53:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Under new business you don't normally
11:53:15 take comments.
11:53:18 Need to open the regular meeting and take a role.
11:53:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Roll call.
11:53:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
11:53:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Still here.
11:53:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
11:53:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
11:53:39 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Still here.
11:53:40 >>MARY MULHERN: Finally here.
11:53:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I haven't left.
11:53:51 Why don't you go ahead?
11:53:52 You have the floor.
11:53:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I repeat the same motion that I
11:53:55 made before, A, that those individuals that are in the
11:53:58 audience that have a hearing for continuation that

11:54:00 were set for 10:00 this morning be allowed to come out
11:54:02 of order to satisfy that need.
11:54:08 I'll go to another request requesting confirmation in
11:54:11 the record for the preparation and presentation and
11:54:15 commendations done yesterday to present judge E.J.
11:54:18 Salsinas retiring from the judiciary.
11:54:23 We got the notification for Wednesday.
11:54:25 I would like that T go on the record with a
11:54:28 confirmation vote.
11:54:29 That's number two.
11:54:30 Number three, the ordinance on water meters, I believe
11:54:33 the ordinance now reads that you shall apply for a
11:54:37 meter.
11:54:38 It does not tell you that you shall apply and install
11:54:42 a meter.
11:54:43 That's what I have been hearing from the water
11:54:46 department and wave got to change that ordinance if
11:54:49 possible with council's consent.
11:54:51 Number 4 was the height necessary or do we have to
11:54:54 change any ordinances regarding individuals in the
11:54:56 city who may want to put in a windmill or things of
11:54:59 this sort to help, not only conservation of earth but

11:55:05 conservation of electric use, and meet those
11:55:10 individuals needs for their own house.
11:55:11 I would like for the legal department to work on that
11:55:14 with Ms. Coyle, to come back to council within two
11:55:24 months or something like that.
11:55:25 On the water thing, I think they can do that within
11:55:27 two weeks really.
11:55:28 That's a simple one.
11:55:29 And those are my four recommendations.
11:55:30 >> Second.
11:55:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Question for Mr. Miranda.
11:55:35 Did you want those to come back, to reappear?
11:55:40 >> Yes, I stayed one, two months, and the other two
11:55:42 weeks on the water meter issue because I think that's
11:55:45 fairly simple.
11:55:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question on the motion.
11:55:48 On the windmills, I'm going to support the motion to
11:55:50 study it for staff to look at it.
11:55:56 This is an issue going on in communities all across
11:55:58 the country.
11:55:59 I think there are some concerns.
11:56:00 When you have solar, it doesn't matter, it's really

11:56:05 not a big deal.
11:56:06 When you have a windmill and you have noise issues and
11:56:09 you have sight issues.
11:56:11 I think it's something we need to go into, but go into
11:56:14 very carefully and cautiously.
11:56:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We have a motion on the floor.
11:56:17 All in favor let it be known by Aye.
11:56:20 Opposes?
11:56:20 Okay.
11:56:21 Those who are here for the continuance, if you will
11:56:24 come forward.
11:56:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: We have also had a request from a
11:56:35 member of administration to be clear if there are any
11:56:37 items that need to be removed from the consent docket
11:56:39 that council do that before lunch, to let those people
11:56:42 know that they can go back to work, that they are not
11:56:45 going to be here, they don't have to be here.
11:56:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Want to continue it first?
11:56:49 >>MARK BENTLEY: 201 North Franklin.
11:56:56 Item 60.
11:56:58 A continuance to August 21st.
11:57:01 All interested parties and residents of The Towers of

11:57:03 Channelside have been informed.
11:57:06 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved, Mr. Chairman.
11:57:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:57:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We need to open that, I guess.
11:57:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion to continue.
11:57:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor let it be known by Aye.
11:57:17 Opposes?
11:57:19 (Motion carried).
11:57:20 >>MARK BENTLEY: Thank you very much.
11:57:21 I appreciate it.
11:57:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else here who has a
11:57:23 continuance?
11:57:24 Has a continuance?
11:57:29 Okay.
11:57:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: With regard to the approval of the
11:57:32 agenda, Mr. Chairman, item 40 is a request for a
11:57:35 substitute resolution.
11:57:38 With regard to item 50, there is a suggestion by chief
11:57:41 of staff Darrell Smith that item 50 be continued to
11:57:44 the February 25th, 2008 workshop at 9 a.m.
11:57:49 And I believe everything else is going to be able to
11:57:54 be addressed at the time they come up.

11:57:58 There is no notice.
11:58:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.
11:58:07 >>MARY MULHERN: Are we going to council meeting right
11:58:09 now?
11:58:10 >> We are in council meeting.
11:58:11 We just did the addendum.
11:58:13 We need to find out did you have anything you want to
11:58:15 pull, and want to speak to the addendum?
11:58:19 >>MARY MULHERN: I have a few questions on a few items.
11:58:22 And I don't know if we need to pull them.
11:58:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: On the consent agenda?
11:58:26 >>MARY MULHERN: Yeah.
11:58:30 Number 17.
11:58:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We are talking about now so that we
11:58:35 can notify the administration.
11:58:37 We are not going to be able to answer questions before
11:58:39 lunch.
11:58:39 It's lunch time now.
11:58:42 If you have got questions, you want to pull them, the
11:58:45 administration wants to know about them.
11:58:47 >>MARY MULHERN: I do have some things I want to pull.
11:58:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What are they?

11:58:50 >>MARY MULHERN: Number 17.
11:58:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item number 17.
11:58:54 Okay.
11:58:57 >>MARY MULHERN: And number 20, although I may have an
11:59:02 answer from Marty already.
11:59:04 So I need to pull item number 17.
11:59:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
11:59:08 You are pulling item number 17.
11:59:09 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes, I am pulling number 17, and 20.
11:59:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You are pulling 20.
11:59:13 What --
11:59:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You can choose to do that, but we can
11:59:20 communicate to staff you don't have to after I talk to
11:59:22 you about it.
11:59:23 In other words, pull it now.
11:59:24 >>MARY MULHERN: Pull 17 and 20.
11:59:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
11:59:27 Any other items you want to pull?
11:59:29 >>MARY MULHERN: No.
11:59:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
11:59:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 23 and 27.
11:59:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 23.

11:59:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 23 is a question of staff.
11:59:41 27 is internally.
11:59:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other items?
11:59:47 Okay.
11:59:48 Then motion to approve the addendum and pull items.
11:59:54 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
11:59:56 that we have a response on that wet zoning proposal
11:59:59 within 30 days.
12:00:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We'll come back to that.
12:00:04 Let's deal with this right now, the addendum and the
12:00:06 pulled items.
12:00:07 Is there a motion to approve the agenda?
12:00:11 >>: So moved.
12:00:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
12:00:12 (Motion carried).
12:00:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Take public comment.
12:00:17 And then we will go into --
12:00:21 >>> Spencer Cass once again, here as president of the
12:00:24 Virginia park neighborhood association, item number
12:00:26 39.
12:00:27 I started to address this before.
12:00:28 This is the fact that it's $32,000 to bring plans into

12:00:38 conformance for affordable homes on the East Tampa
12:00:40 overlay district.
12:00:42 To me, I don't think you should spend the $32,000.
12:00:46 I think you should have staff go and tweak your
12:00:48 overlay district, keep the $32,000, use it for
12:00:51 somebody else to get an affordable home.
12:00:53 Because you are talking about adding $600 a year to
12:00:58 their mortgage, talk about increasing their taxes.
12:01:01 I think we are going about this the wrong way.
12:01:03 Instead of spending the money, let's fix the ordinance
12:01:06 so we can use what the city already has.
12:01:10 Second thing I want to very quickly address the city
12:01:13 budget discussions you talked about last week, as I'm
12:01:16 sure you are all aware.
12:01:17 I have been told by the administration that the next
12:01:19 budget discussion will be televised.
12:01:21 I'm hoping that we can get some confirmation from City
12:01:24 Council that will happen.
12:01:25 The second is that there was $100 million in taxes in
12:01:30 Hillsborough County uncollected last year.
12:01:33 We had businesses closing, and the discussion seemed
12:01:35 to focus around possibly raising rates.

12:01:41 Over a five-year period, the benefits and salaries
12:01:44 being paid out by some of these departments have
12:01:46 increased 60%.
12:01:47 That's an unsustainable rate of growth.
12:01:53 They have risen for me, they have risen for all of
12:01:55 you.
12:01:55 What I suggest is that given that the City of Tampa
12:01:58 has money in the capital improvements fund, the city
12:02:02 start spending that money instead of things, I don't
12:02:04 care if you build the riverwalk, downtown build the
12:02:06 riverwalk, you build the museum, you don't build the
12:02:09 museum, to start spending on things to bring down
12:02:12 operating costs for the various departments.
12:02:13 If you have to put in the solar panels or whatever,
12:02:16 and you have money in the capital improvement fund
12:02:17 that you can't use for day to day operation, you use
12:02:19 that money to build the windmills and solar panels to
12:02:23 bring down your operational costs.
12:02:25 But these expenses are not passed through.
12:02:28 Thank you.
12:02:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else from the public?
12:02:32 Okay.

12:02:33 Thank you very much.
12:02:34 We need to deal with item 53 and 59.
12:02:38 Motion to open the public hearing.
12:02:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
12:02:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
12:02:42 (Motion carried).
12:02:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 53 and 59, we need to have those
12:02:47 read.
12:02:47 Mr. Miranda, would you read?
12:02:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
12:02:51 Item number 53.
12:02:53 E-2008-8, 16.
12:02:57 Move an ordinance for second reading, an ordinance of
12:02:59 the city of Tampa, Florida amending ordinance
12:03:02 2006-296, by clarifying and modifying the list of
12:03:06 allowable uses on the property formerly known as the
12:03:10 Tampa Waterworks Park, clarifying that the list of
12:03:15 restrictions were intended to apply only to the
12:03:17 historic and nonhistoric portions of the pumping
12:03:21 station structure, repealing all ordinances in
12:03:23 conflict, providing for severability, providing an
12:03:25 effective date.

12:03:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion and second.
12:03:30 Record the vote.
12:03:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you could, before you do that --
12:03:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, anyone here wish to address City
12:03:36 Council on this item, item 53?
12:03:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: F and if you could move to close the
12:03:41 public hearing.
12:03:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close.
12:03:44 >>MARY MULHERN: Second.
12:03:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
12:03:47 Record your vote, council.
12:03:49 Item 53.
12:03:53 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously with
12:04:11 Dingfelder being absent at vote.
12:04:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
12:04:16 59.
12:04:16 Move to open the public hearing.
12:04:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
12:04:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?
12:04:24 Opposes?
12:04:24 So moved.
12:04:25 Okay.

12:04:32 59.
12:04:33 This is a resolution.
12:04:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I move the resolution.
12:04:35 >> Second.
12:04:37 >>> If you could ask if there's anybody.
12:04:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Public hearing.
12:04:44 Anybody want to address council on item 59?
12:04:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.
12:04:49 >>: Second.
12:04:49 (Motion carried).
12:04:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move the resolution.
12:04:52 >>: Second.
12:04:55 (Motion carried).
12:04:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Quickly and then we go to lunch.
12:05:02 >>> There's two resolutions.
12:05:03 I failed to mention the resolution.
12:05:06 First one is amending the restated Tampa Heights
12:05:12 development and the other is a resolution between the
12:05:14 City of Tampa and the Community Redevelopment Agency
12:05:16 of the City of Tampa.
12:05:18 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Does your motion encompass both
12:05:20 resolutions?

12:05:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Right.
12:05:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do you think we can cover real quickly
12:05:28 the committee reports?
12:05:30 And then we'll go to lunch.
12:05:32 Thank you.
12:05:33 Public safety, councilman Gwen Miller.
12:05:35 >>GWEN MILLER: I move item number 11.
12:05:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: No.
12:05:43 1.
12:05:43 >>GWEN MILLER: 1 through 5.
12:05:45 >> Second.
12:05:46 (Motion carried).
12:05:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Parks and recreation, Councilwoman
12:05:50 Saul-Sena.
12:05:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move resolution 6
12:05:55 through 12.
12:05:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor let it be known by Aye.
12:06:00 (Motion carried)
12:06:02 So moved.
12:06:02 Public works.
12:06:04 Councilman Miranda.
12:06:06 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move 13 through 16 and 18, holding

12:06:09 17 at this time.
12:06:11 And let me speak on 17, if I may.
12:06:15 I had some footnotes that I had reviewing this item.
12:06:20 I believe that this goes into a certain fund number,
12:06:23 and the solid waste department.
12:06:27 And the numbers the same as comparable to last year.
12:06:31 However, I think that the product that we are
12:06:33 collecting, stuff of that nature had gone up in price
12:06:39 so I don't know if that had been taken into account
12:06:42 and I believe that's what council member Mulhern was
12:06:45 thinking.
12:06:46 I'm not sure.
12:06:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That hadn't been pulled, now.
12:06:57 >> We are discussing it.
12:07:01 >>MARY MULHERN: I had a couple of quick questions.
12:07:03 I mate even get them answered.
12:07:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, why don't we come back and do
12:07:08 that after lunch?
12:07:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Number 13 through 18, minus 17.
12:07:13 >> Second.
12:07:14 (Motion carried).
12:07:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Finance Committee, Councilwoman

12:07:19 Mulhern.
12:07:19 >>MARY MULHERN: I move item 19, 21, 22, and 24 through
12:07:26 29.
12:07:28 >> Second.
12:07:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You are pulling item 20, 23, 27.
12:07:34 That's what I have marked, 27 being pulled by
12:07:36 councilman Dingfelder.
12:07:38 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm sorry.
12:07:39 Then removing --
12:07:40 You are pulling 20, 23 and 27.
12:07:42 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm sorry.
12:07:44 I didn't remove 27.
12:07:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All of the other items.
12:07:49 Okay.
12:07:49 Moved and seconded.
12:07:50 (Motion carried)
12:07:52 Building and zoning.
12:07:54 Councilman Caetano.
12:07:55 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Item 39, did we pull that?
12:08:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We are under that now.
12:08:02 We didn't pull it, no.
12:08:06 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Approve 30 to 39.

12:08:12 >> Second.
12:08:13 (Motion carried).
12:08:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
12:08:16 Transportation, councilman Dingfelder.
12:08:19 Councilwoman Mulhern.
12:08:21 Transportation.
12:08:22 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
12:08:23 I'll move items number 40 through 45.
12:08:26 >>: Second.
12:08:27 (Motion carried).
12:08:30 >>GWEN MILLER: I would like to set public hearings for
12:08:33 item number 46.
12:08:35 >> Second.
12:08:36 (Motion carried).
12:08:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And one item.
12:08:40 And we have to go.
12:08:41 That's item 58.
12:08:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There's a request for 58 if you can.
12:08:52 Needs to be opened.
12:08:53 >> Move to open.
12:08:54 >> Second.
12:08:55 (Motion carried).

12:08:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Are there any witnesses that need to
12:08:57 be sworn?
12:08:58 >> Any witnesses going to speak before council?
12:09:00 Need to be sworn?
12:09:02 Please stand and raise your right hand.
12:09:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I see no one responding.
12:09:07 >> Move to close.
12:09:08 >> Second.
12:09:08 (Motion carried).
12:09:09 >> So moved and ordered.
12:09:14 Councilwoman Miller.
12:09:16 >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
12:09:17 An ordinance being adopted upon second reading, making
12:09:23 lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol of
12:09:25 more than 1% by weight and not more than 14% by weight
12:09:29 and wines regardless of alcoholic content, beer and
12:09:32 wine, 2(COP-R), for consumption on the premises only
12:09:35 in connection with a restaurant business establishment
12:09:37 on that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at
12:09:41 901 West Platt street, Tampa, Florida as more
12:09:43 particularly described in section 2 hereof waiving
12:09:46 certain restrictions as to the distance based upon

12:09:48 certain findings, providing for repeal of all
12:09:59 ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
12:10:00 >>: Second.
12:10:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Vote and record.
12:10:05 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously with
12:10:07 Dingfelder being absent at vote.
12:10:10 >>GWEN MILLER: We stand in recess until 1:30.
12:10:12 Thank you.
12:10:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
12:10:29 We stand in recess until 1:30.
12:10:32 Thank you.
12:10:32 (City Council recess)
12:10:32

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.




Tampa City Council
Thursday, June 19, 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.


13:35:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called pack to
13:35:22 order.
13:35:22 Roll call.
13:35:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
13:35:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
13:35:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
13:35:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
13:35:33 >>GWEN MILLER: We now go to item number 47.
13:35:35 Staff report, unfinished business.
13:35:38 Mr. Santiago.

13:35:41 >> Good afternoon.
13:35:46 Santiago Corrada, neighborhood services administrator.
13:35:49 And it is a pleasure this afternoon to present an item
13:35:52 47, Florida friendly landscape, Florida friendly
13:35:58 yards, both terms are used interchangeably.
13:36:00 It really is a pleasure because we have an incredibly
13:36:02 dedicated and intelligent staff that has been
13:36:05 incorporating those principles for many, many years in
13:36:09 the designs of our parks and our collaborations with
13:36:12 FDOT, and before I do a very brief but very
13:36:18 educational PowerPoint on Florida friendly landscapes
13:36:22 I want to thank with the staff that met with me and
13:36:24 put together the PowerPoint, out of our Green office,
13:36:27 Thom Snelling, Laura Lee, worked with Cindy Miller,
13:36:30 Jim Pickney with Clean City, and under Parks and Rec,
13:36:33 Karen Palus, Brad, Pete, and I especially want to
13:36:37 thank Gloria Brown who is with us today, she was able
13:36:41 to capture all our ideas and all of our examples where
13:36:43 we use those principles and incorporate them in this
13:36:46 PowerPoint that I will present to you this afternoon.
13:36:49 This morning.
13:36:50 I'm sorry, this afternoon.

13:36:51 And, in fact, just this past week, in the St. Pete
13:36:55 Times periodical on Monday, on the front page of the
13:37:00 metro section, there was a great article about Florida
13:37:03 friendly landscapes that incorporates examples of what
13:37:07 those principles represent.
13:37:08 So if I could bring up the PowerPoint, I would like to
13:37:12 just very, very briefly go over what those Florida
13:37:15 friendly yard principles are.
13:37:17 We talk about it all the time but for the public, the
13:37:20 first principle is the right plant in the right place.
13:37:22 Make sure that the plant that you are planting has the
13:37:24 right kind of sunlight, the right type of soil, they
13:37:28 are drought resistant so you make sure that your plant
13:37:31 material is the right material.
13:37:32 You water efficiently, kills me when I drive around
13:37:36 and it's just rained and people have their sprinklers
13:37:40 on.
13:37:40 You water efficiently, fertilize appropriately, slow
13:37:43 release fertilizers are the best but in most cases you
13:37:47 don't need to overfertilize.
13:37:49 You really do it to maintain the health of the --
13:37:53 health of the plant material.

13:37:54 Cyprus Mel much is recommended and always keep two to
13:37:58 three inches of mulch, keep separation from the plant
13:38:01 material in order to prevent disease.
13:38:02 Attract the right kind of wildlife.
13:38:04 And manage yard pests responsibly.
13:38:08 Again that has to do with making sure you use the
13:38:11 right types of fertilizers in your jarred when
13:38:15 necessary.
13:38:15 And the last three, recycle, recycle all of your lawn
13:38:21 clippings, leaves that dropped, use them as mulch.
13:38:25 My wife does a great job when she mows the lawn
13:38:29 because I'm always working collecting the grass
13:38:31 clippings and reusing them throughout the yard to
13:38:34 cover dead spots, that kind of thing.
13:38:36 Reduce stormwater run-off.
13:38:38 That's just what it means.
13:38:39 Please make sure that you have had the right
13:38:41 vegetation to prevent the water from taking debris
13:38:44 into the aquifer, into drains, that kind of thing.
13:38:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What's your excuse on Sunday for
13:38:51 not mowing?
13:38:53 >>> Seven days a week.

13:38:57 Seven days a week.
13:39:00 She really likes to do the work so I let her do what
13:39:03 she enjoys.
13:39:04 Very gratefully.
13:39:05 And then the agenda item speaks to examples where we
13:39:09 use these principles.
13:39:12 And Courtney Campbell causeway is a fine example.
13:39:16 As now that was designed some time ago and our staff
13:39:18 being forward thinking and very, very involved, of
13:39:20 course we have partnerships with the University of
13:39:22 Florida that developed the nine principles, University
13:39:25 of South Florida, and there you see some of the
13:39:27 examples of the principles that can be found in the
13:39:30 Courtney Campbell causeway.
13:39:32 I won't read all of those to you, but you can see they
13:39:34 are represented by some of those images.
13:39:39 Cotanchobee park employ many of the principles.
13:39:42 A great amount of work went into shoreline
13:39:46 preservation of the river, irrigation used throughout,
13:39:49 watering efficiently, a lot of mulch utilized
13:39:52 according to the principles, native plant materials,
13:39:55 and some modest stormwater practices to capture rain

13:39:58 water.
13:40:02 Innovate pool, the exterior of our pools.
13:40:06 There again you see those examples of the Florida
13:40:08 friendly yard principles.
13:40:10 And most recently, we reengaged the exterior of fire
13:40:18 station 14, and designate our first City of Tampa
13:40:23 Florida friendly yard with all of the elements
13:40:25 incorporated.
13:40:26 And that was done internally by our great team of
13:40:29 professionals in the parks and rec department, clone
13:40:32 city department, volunteers, as well as our green
13:40:37 office.
13:40:39 Fire station 14.
13:40:45 Of course we have incorporated all of the principles
13:40:47 into the design of 40th Street, which as you know is a
13:40:50 multi-agency collaboration to redevelop that corridor.
13:40:56 Cypress point park is one of our latest examples where
13:40:59 we have again used limited low volume irrigation,
13:41:03 removal of exotic plant species, protecting the
13:41:06 waterfront, shoreline restoration and the appropriate
13:41:09 use of native plant materials.
13:41:11 And that is just a handful of our examples, although

13:41:15 we use them.
13:41:16 We use those principles in all of our design work
13:41:18 within our landscape architect in the landscape
13:41:22 department, extremely knowledgeable.
13:41:24 They are involved when we design roadway projects with
13:41:26 FDOT, when we renovate medians, and that knowledge is
13:41:32 passed on to our clean city folks that then is
13:41:35 responsible for maintaining those properties.
13:41:37 Now I would like to just open it up for any questions
13:41:39 you might have.
13:41:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
13:41:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Santiago.
13:41:48 Always a good report.
13:41:52 And I'm going to call your wife about that lawn
13:41:56 mowing.
13:41:56 >>> She does a good job it.
13:41:58 >> Let's talk about water because really that's what
13:42:00 we are talking about, is trying to reduce the use of
13:42:03 potable water in our communities for yards and
13:42:05 shrubbery and all of that.
13:42:08 Does your department get a bill from the water
13:42:12 department for the amount of water that they use on

13:42:15 the various parks?
13:42:18 >>> Yes, I would imagine we do.
13:42:20 >> Okay.
13:42:21 So that's a real cost then.
13:42:22 >>> It would be a cost.
13:42:23 >> To your department.
13:42:24 >>> And we are bound by the same watering restriction
13:42:26 that is anybody else is bound by.
13:42:28 So that's why -- in some of our locations, you may see
13:42:32 the browning of grass and some drying.
13:42:34 But, yes, we are bound by those same restrictions.
13:42:38 >> Okay.
13:42:39 What I was wondering about was, I'm sure that on our
13:42:44 new parks and our new installations, most of which you
13:42:47 have just shown us, the fire station, that sort of
13:42:49 thing, fire stations are actually a retrofit.
13:42:52 But what can we do to -- what can we do as sort of a
13:42:56 capital effort to convert over our parks, you know,
13:43:01 and existing parks, because we have huge amounts of
13:43:07 acreage, huge amount of acreage, that is not on the
13:43:10 reclaimed system, that you are irrigating with potable
13:43:13 water.

13:43:14 >>> And in fact we have been very, very involved, as
13:43:17 you may know, with the redesign of Curtis Hixon park,
13:43:21 an element of that redesign is the use of reclaimed
13:43:24 water for all the watering of that very nice big park.
13:43:27 We are also looking at reclaimed water for our linear
13:43:30 park on the Bayshore.
13:43:31 So slowly but surely, in those areas where reclaimed
13:43:34 water is available to us, we are looking to modify
13:43:38 those watering utilities, to --
13:43:43 >> What I'm talking about is existing parks.
13:43:45 You probably got 100 parks out there, something like
13:43:48 that, existing parks.
13:43:53 I know you have a shortage of capital funds in terms
13:43:55 of renovating those parks to be more Florida friendly,
13:43:58 to use less water.
13:44:00 What I'm thinking about is maybe there's an
13:44:01 opportunity, and Mr. Daignault in the back there,
13:44:03 there is an opportunity where we could write an
13:44:06 ordinance than would allow the water department to
13:44:11 perhaps, you know, help the Parks Department with some
13:44:15 retrofitting of the existing parks, to make them more
13:44:19 Florida friendly, to use less water, which not only

13:44:22 from a budget perspective, the mayor and council are
13:44:24 trying to, you know, reduce the city's overall
13:44:28 consumption of potable water, but also, you know,
13:44:30 again lead by example.
13:44:32 >>> And I can tell you in many of the medians that are
13:44:35 now under the maintenance responsibility of clean
13:44:39 cities, we have used drip irrigation for a very, very
13:44:42 long time to water efficiently, and I was surprised, I
13:44:45 was visiting some meetings down in the Gulf view area,
13:44:48 not too long ago, and those were done some time ago,
13:44:50 and they were supplied with drip irrigation which is
13:44:54 nice to see.
13:44:54 >> And the other question I have is goes directly to
13:44:58 you, Steve, if you want to come up.
13:45:04 It will serve you right to be here for Santiago's
13:45:07 presentation.
13:45:07 >> He'll get me back, though.
13:45:09 >> And we had this discussion before when we talked
13:45:11 about these water issues, potable issues.
13:45:14 But I would like us to -- I would like to see us come
13:45:18 up with some type of meaningful incentives to the
13:45:21 community, for first who renovate their existing

13:45:26 yards, to go toward Florida friendly yards.
13:45:30 You know, so, in other words, somebody just got a big
13:45:34 expanse of turf out there, and they realized it's not
13:45:37 good for our environment, not good for our community,
13:45:40 they would rather go to something else, but maybe we
13:45:44 can incent that and maybe the water department could
13:45:46 incent that, you know, and we could start in a small
13:45:49 way.
13:45:50 Maybe we could set aside something in the water
13:45:52 department budget, you know, for a certain amount of
13:45:54 money.
13:45:55 Obviously, it's totally a voluntary thing.
13:45:58 We would never impose anything on people to make them
13:46:01 convert their yards over.
13:46:03 But there might be some folks out there who are tired
13:46:05 of paying those water bills that really need a little
13:46:07 incentive from government to put in the Florida
13:46:11 friendly species and reduce their water.
13:46:14 And I'm talking about in areas where there's no
13:46:17 reclaimed.
13:46:18 Something we could look into?
13:46:22 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Again if people do that, certainly

13:46:24 one of the advantages to them is they will have lower
13:46:26 water bills.
13:46:27 >> Well, yeah.
13:46:28 But I'm not seeing any massive things in the
13:46:32 neighborhood going that way.
13:46:36 So I'm thinking maybe if we had some incentive program
13:46:39 to say if you become a Florida certified friendly yard
13:46:43 and reduce turf with X amount of yard then -- you
13:46:48 know, there's a big capital expenditure for the home
13:46:52 owner to do. That he has to hire a landscaper or she
13:46:56 has to hire for those plant materials and what have
13:46:58 you.
13:46:58 But anyway, I'll make a motion to just look into it.
13:47:08 Thank you, Steve.
13:47:12 >>MARY MULHERN: This is good to see that we are aware
13:47:14 of all this stuff but I think we as council need to
13:47:17 look at what kind of policy changes we need to make to
13:47:20 make it more a requirement when it's especially
13:47:26 economically economics.
13:47:28 The cost to do anything Florida friendly we should be
13:47:31 doing it so I think that needs to be a policy for us,
13:47:34 especially with any public money that we are spending,

13:47:39 that if possible when we are doing any kind of
13:47:41 landscaping, if you can put in Florida friendly
13:47:44 landscaping, you have to do it if it doesn't cost
13:47:48 much.
13:47:48 Chances are, as Mr. Dingfelder suggested, it will cost
13:47:51 more.
13:47:52 But I think we need to have a shift in the way that we
13:47:56 look at what we are paying at the outset.
13:48:00 Because we are going to save on the water in the long
13:48:02 run.
13:48:03 So it's expensive but we have to look one year, two
13:48:08 years, three years.
13:48:10 You are going to make up the cost of this.
13:48:12 So I think in general we just need to start thinking
13:48:18 like that.
13:48:18 And this came up when I was talking to Thom Snelling
13:48:21 who is just, you know, really excited about all of
13:48:23 this, and working toward it.
13:48:25 And I think part of our problem, if you come up and
13:48:29 show us, but nobody knows we are doing it and I think
13:48:31 the city has a PR problem because we are not letting
13:48:34 people know all the things we are doing, and we need

13:48:38 to have the links on the web site so that people, you
13:48:41 know, as John was saying it's not only people aren't
13:48:46 incented to do it but they don't know what to do.
13:48:50 I think we need to work on that PR and it's huge in
13:48:54 all areas.
13:48:55 I also think that, you know, there is a best
13:48:58 practices.
13:49:01 There are two big volumes of best practices for cities
13:49:05 that the mayor signed a mayor's agreement, U.S.
13:49:14 mayor's agreement, that has best practices.
13:49:15 So we should be doing everything we can that's in
13:49:17 there.
13:49:18 And I think that needs to be adopted, and some of
13:49:21 these things I think we need to work on as we continue
13:49:25 to create policies and codes that will be more -- that
13:49:34 will conserve water and do all these, you know,
13:49:37 advance our green goals.
13:49:38 So I think we need to kind of change the way we think
13:49:41 about this, and just move forward with it, and maybe
13:49:45 pay a little bit more when you are planting and every
13:49:49 year after that.
13:49:51 My take on it.

13:49:52 But I'm glad to see that you are doing all this.
13:49:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Miranda and Councilwoman
13:49:58 Saul-Sena.
13:49:58 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I am going save everybody in the
13:50:01 City of Tampa $100 and I'll tell you how to do that,
13:50:04 that lives within the corporate limits.
13:50:05 Don't water on non-watering days.
13:50:08 You won't get a ticket, and you save a hundred bucks.
13:50:13 So that's the first example that I am going to talk
13:50:15 about.
13:50:16 If you really want to save money and save the
13:50:18 environment and save the resources, don't water.
13:50:22 We have given up an enormous amount of tickets and
13:50:26 they are going to get only large fer you get caught
13:50:28 the second and third time.
13:50:29 You may save $250 or $450 and not have to go to court.
13:50:34 So that's my first advice.
13:50:36 The second advice is -- and it not an advice -- that
13:50:39 if you look at the departments of wastewater, water,
13:50:45 there's four of them that are tied into the funds that
13:50:51 are enterprise funds.
13:50:52 Before I vote on anything, I like to know what impact

13:50:55 it's going to have on the water department.
13:50:58 I don't know how much money we are talking about here,
13:51:01 if it's something, just a small amount, I don't mind.
13:51:05 But I cannot put a department that is a revenue part
13:51:10 of the city that creates its own revenue and has to
13:51:13 pay its own bonds, has to pay its own salary, has to
13:51:16 pay its own debt service, in the red.
13:51:20 We had to change the rate because, you know, equipment
13:51:23 and different things that need to have some of the
13:51:27 best drinking water in the country costs money.
13:51:30 Certainly, the fuel costs a lot more.
13:51:33 Certainly the chemicals have gone up even higher than
13:51:35 gasoline.
13:51:37 And I like to know first of all what all this entitles
13:51:41 before I start voting on an entity that has to carry
13:51:45 its own load.
13:51:47 That's all I have got to say.
13:51:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's so encouraging to know that we
13:51:53 are doing things right.
13:51:54 This is a very excellent report, and tied into this is
13:52:00 what I know will be coming to us about the tree report
13:52:03 which happens to be the most amazing report we have

13:52:05 ever received.
13:52:06 And I just wonder if you can give us a time frame when
13:52:08 we are going to receive back some policy suggestions
13:52:13 to support the tree report.
13:52:15 >>> As now, the tree symposium was held today, and we
13:52:20 apologize for having it on a council day.
13:52:22 But with the availability of the convention center for
13:52:24 us to be able to get there, I was there this morning,
13:52:27 attendance was incredible.
13:52:29 >> How many?
13:52:30 >>> Full room.
13:52:32 Full ballroom.
13:52:33 I believe they were rooms 13 and 15.
13:52:35 Results of the study were presented which were very,
13:52:38 very promising.
13:52:39 I heard comments that our canopy is back to our
13:52:41 1970s level which is tremendous, with all the
13:52:45 development that's begun on in our city.
13:52:48 I believe there's another public input opportunity.
13:52:52 And they were generating ideas, generating commentary
13:52:55 for the study, and it should be coming to you, I want
13:52:58 to say within the next several months, after they have

13:53:00 had public input and been able to work with all that
13:53:03 data.
13:53:03 >> Because I see the two things really working in
13:53:06 concert.
13:53:07 You know, creating Florida friendly yards and a tree
13:53:13 canopy that saves water, creates shade, cools our
13:53:16 city.
13:53:17 Thank you so much.
13:53:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If I may comment on my motion.
13:53:21 A motion, a very friendly motion, I think we are all
13:53:25 in this together.
13:53:26 And I give you plenty of time to do it.
13:53:30 Let's say 120 days, four months would be fine.
13:53:35 For one thing, I would liking to something -- to have
13:53:38 something tangible approximate your water bill is, how
13:53:41 much water you are using, and what is the Parks
13:53:44 Department pay for it, number one.
13:53:47 And the second part goes to this conservation issue.
13:53:51 Because that's really what we are talking about.
13:53:53 The reason we get into this reclaimed water issue is
13:53:56 not because, you know, we are thrilled about using
13:53:58 reclaimed water, it's because the potable water that

13:54:00 we purchase from Tampa Bay water has a premium
13:54:03 attached to it.
13:54:05 All right?
13:54:05 If it didn't, frankly, we wouldn't be into this as
13:54:08 much as we are.
13:54:09 And this is just another opportunity for us to go into
13:54:13 a different angle on the conservation program.
13:54:15 And that's why it's important to the water department
13:54:18 as a possibility.
13:54:19 Because it might improve the water department's bottom
13:54:22 line.
13:54:22 But anyway, the second problem would be a report from
13:54:24 the water department on the possibility of a
13:54:27 residential incentive program for renovators oh who
13:54:32 change our their yards from traditional yards to
13:54:35 Florida friendly yards and can prove that they are
13:54:36 going to use, you know, less potable water.
13:54:39 It's just a report, Charlie.
13:54:41 And we are always interested in information.
13:54:44 And I know that's why you will support it.
13:54:46 But thank you.
13:54:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: You mean next week I can stay home?

13:54:54 [ Laughter ]
13:54:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's been moved and seconded.
13:54:58 (Motion carried)
13:54:59 Thank you.
13:55:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you so much.
13:55:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 48.
13:55:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Very briefly, I am providing council
13:55:14 with a copy of a 1975 resolution which was given to
13:55:17 Bonnie Wise by Sandy Marshall and has been forwarded
13:55:21 to council member Mulhern.
13:55:23 This is the 1975 resolution that at that time the
13:55:29 citizens advisory and Finance Committee, you will
13:55:32 Vermont in front of you, and it is up to council what
13:55:34 it wishes to do.
13:55:36 >> Do
13:55:42 >>MARY MULHERN: Sandy Marshall, or detective, found
13:55:55 this for us, and here we were trying to imagine how to
13:55:58 form a budget advisory committee, and it was done.
13:56:03 Now here is where my questions for Mr. Miranda start.
13:56:07 Was there actually -- so there actually was an
13:56:10 advisory committee formed?
13:56:11 >> Yes, there was.

13:56:13 I can even tell you it was my designee.
13:56:16 >>MARY MULHERN: Wait, let me guess.
13:56:18 So funny. Anyway, so this is good news because we
13:56:22 don't have to really rewrite.
13:56:25 There are some changes in here, and I guess the other
13:56:27 question for you, Charlie, was it says in here that
13:56:32 the City Council staff has to be the support for this
13:56:38 group.
13:56:39 And since we don't have any budget staff at this
13:56:42 point, at that time was there an assistant budget
13:56:48 analyst?
13:56:49 >>> You are not going to like the answer but let me
13:56:51 tell you what it is.
13:56:52 Staff means one -- in 1975 there were no aides. In
13:56:57 fact there was only four people working in the City
13:56:59 Council.
13:57:00 I can name them.
13:57:03 There was Hazel Pines.
13:57:05 Beverly Spicola, who ran the office.
13:57:08 And Christy, who was a receptionist.
13:57:10 And Joanne, who was the lady who did all the work
13:57:15 technically.

13:57:16 There was one telephone back here.
13:57:17 There was a cubbyhole like in a post office, you came
13:57:20 in and got your messages, and you did your own
13:57:23 calling.
13:57:24 But that's how it was then.
13:57:25 And the staff was the four individuals that I just
13:57:28 mentioned on a rotating basis, I would assume, and
13:57:31 that was Ms. Spicola's responsibility to do that, and
13:57:37 they were the staff to record whatever they want, or
13:57:40 whatever, however they wanted to do it.
13:57:41 It was their committee.
13:57:42 They chose what items to speak on.
13:57:46 We stayed away from them.
13:57:48 We didn't attend any meetings.
13:57:49 They came and made recommendations to the council.
13:57:54 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
13:57:55 That sounds like kind of the same idea that I was
13:57:57 envisioning, and I think we are all talking about.
13:58:00 The only change I would make in here is -- oh, that's
13:58:03 the other question.
13:58:03 At that time, was there -- were you using that budget
13:58:08 analyst that we have in our charter?

13:58:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: In 19 -- there was a change,
13:58:16 somewhere in the 70s, budget analyst came on, his
13:58:22 name was Mr. Star.
13:58:23 He left.
13:58:24 There was another and he left to go when I was
13:58:26 chairman out of 98 or 97, I forget what year, and we
13:58:30 had some, we didn't have -- there were gaps in years,
13:58:34 maybe eight years in between each one.
13:58:36 And then since '98, I don't think.
13:58:40 So now you are looking at ten years between those two.
13:58:44 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: That was in 1986?
13:58:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: 1896.
13:58:51 [ Laughter ]
13:58:52 >>MARY MULHERN: This is what I suggest we do, probably
13:58:54 just continue this again.
13:58:55 But the only problem with it is -- there's no problem
13:59:01 with us all pointing someone to be on a budget
13:59:04 advisory committee.
13:59:05 But as I talked to Bonnie Wise about this, it became
13:59:08 apparent that we needed some staff person from budget
13:59:12 and finance to work with.
13:59:16 So Bonnie and I are trying to figure that out.

13:59:18 What I think would be best is if we just have one of
13:59:22 the, you know, have her assign someone to that for
13:59:25 this year.
13:59:26 If we want to do that this year.
13:59:29 We don't really need to pass anything else, because we
13:59:31 have got this in place and we agreed to have a
13:59:33 committee, and I think -- I guess the other question
13:59:36 is this.
13:59:38 We talked about posting it, which we seem to have to
13:59:42 do.
13:59:42 And I think Marty and I have drafted.
13:59:44 This is it?
13:59:45 It got --
13:59:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe it did have to comply with
13:59:50 the public meeting as well.
13:59:52 >>MARY MULHERN: So we need to -- and I'll work with
13:59:54 the clerk on this.
13:59:56 And Marty.
13:59:57 Just get that posted and then by the time there's been
14:00:01 enough notice, which is, what, two weeks?
14:00:03 >>> In terms of posting --
14:00:06 >> For the advisory committee, so we can get the

14:00:08 advisory committee in place for this year, before the
14:00:12 budget process is over.
14:00:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Directing council to have somebody
14:00:18 appointed individually, each member of council?
14:00:21 >>MARY MULHERN: Yeah, we keep talking about it.
14:00:23 I think we voted on it, didn't we?
14:00:26 Yes.
14:00:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: By what point did you want to have
14:00:28 that?
14:00:31 >>MARY MULHERN: Since we have to do it by public
14:00:33 notice --
14:00:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The meeting has to be noticed.
14:00:37 Put it on the agenda in a few weeks to have -- I'm
14:00:39 sorry.
14:00:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We have a budget -- I'm sorry.
14:00:45 >>>
14:00:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If council wishes to have the names
14:00:48 provided so that this can be compiled and council can
14:00:53 take action to form that committee, and then what
14:00:56 happens just a matter of posting through the clerk's
14:00:58 office downstairs, then have a place and a time, and
14:01:04 the requirements, then just take place.

14:01:06 >>MARY MULHERN: We don't have to go through the
14:01:08 process of having public notice to invite people to be
14:01:13 applied.
14:01:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Ms. Saul-Sena.
14:01:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We have a budget meeting this
14:01:20 Tuesday.
14:01:20 So I would think that if we want our particular --
14:01:25 each individual asking someone to serve, I am going to
14:01:27 ask the person I am going to ask to serve, I think we
14:01:30 should all try to give the names of the person we are
14:01:33 asking to Mary by this coming Tuesday and invite those
14:01:39 people to attend the meeting as an audience member so
14:01:41 this will start being on track with the conversations.
14:01:44 It seems to me that timing is of the essence.
14:01:47 We don't have to do anything statutorily.
14:01:50 And then when we all appoint the people, let them
14:01:54 figure out when they are going to meet.
14:01:55 I don't think we need to tell them when they are going
14:01:57 to meet.
14:01:58 I guess we do have to do it initially.
14:02:00 And I would look to Mrs. Mulhern to chair the budget
14:02:03 committee to take a day and time to meet and I think

14:02:06 since they are volunteers perhaps it would be not in
14:02:08 the middle. Work day.
14:02:10 But I will leave that to you.
14:02:12 But I am going to personally pick somebody and get
14:02:15 this thing going.
14:02:15 >>MARY MULHERN: That's a great suggestion.
14:02:17 So anyone who is planning to ask someone to be a
14:02:21 budget adviser should invite them to the budget
14:02:25 meeting on Tuesday.
14:02:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: My suggestion would be to communicate
14:02:32 rather than communicate to Ms. Mulhern's office if you
14:02:34 could communicate to my mailbox or the clerks office
14:02:37 but communicate to me would probably be the easiest
14:02:39 way.
14:02:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Two minor suggestions on the
14:02:43 resolution and I'm sure you and Marty can tweak up the
14:02:46 resolution, maybe bring it back next week.
14:02:48 One, I think -- obviously this year is going to be
14:02:55 different, but we could appoint them this year and
14:02:57 they could go through next year but from that point of
14:02:59 time it makes sense to be October 1 for the rest of
14:03:03 the fiscal year but that's up to you, Mary.

14:03:05 Then the other thing is just what you were talking
14:03:07 about earlier about staff report support.
14:03:09 We could probably put in a resolution something like
14:03:12 council would respectfully request that the
14:03:13 administration provide, you know, budget/support for
14:03:18 the committee, probably all we can do.
14:03:21 You know, because of the charter and everything.
14:03:23 But if we put it in the res resolution gives it a
14:03:26 little more strength.
14:03:28 >>MARY MULHERN: Well, the beauty of Sandy finding and
14:03:32 the fact we have a budget analyst already in the
14:03:35 charter, we don't have to pass a resolution at all.
14:03:37 If we want to change the wording of this, we can at
14:03:39 some point.
14:03:40 But right now, I think -- and I think that was Sal's
14:03:45 advice.
14:03:50 >>SAL TERRITO: Legal department.
14:03:52 That was under the old charter, the dates were
14:03:55 different for your fiscal year.
14:03:57 >>MARY MULHERN: All right.
14:03:58 If we have to change it, we can do that.
14:04:01 We can make the dates changes.

14:04:03 And otherwise, I think we might want to strike that
14:04:07 language that says that we don't get any help from the
14:04:11 staff, because at this point, we don't have a budget
14:04:15 analyst who works for council.
14:04:19 I am going to propose at the budget meeting that we
14:04:22 put that in our City Council -- in the budget, the
14:04:26 city budget for next year to -- a budget analyst for
14:04:31 the council, and we'll talk about that at the budget
14:04:34 meeting.
14:04:36 But I think we might want to strike that language,
14:04:39 Marty.
14:04:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's my recollection that --
14:04:42 >>MARY MULHERN: Maybe not.
14:04:43 For this year we can just do what John said, and ask
14:04:46 for the help that Bonnie is perfectly happy to give
14:04:49 us.
14:04:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It was my recollection, and it's my
14:04:52 recollection, understand that the administration
14:04:53 agreed to provide someone from staff to work with us
14:04:58 through the budget process.
14:04:59 >>MARY MULHERN: Yeah.
14:05:02 So I think to be more clear maybe we'll talk about

14:05:06 that.
14:05:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If something needs to be brought back
14:05:08 to council, put through the agenda, under unfinished
14:05:12 business, staff reports.
14:05:13 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay, good.
14:05:15 So I think we are good.
14:05:16 I think Linda's suggestion was good.
14:05:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Council Miranda.
14:05:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I don't see in here where council
14:05:23 member being also a citizen of the city cannot appoint
14:05:26 themselves.
14:05:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why not?
14:05:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Shelby?
14:05:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I would have to research that.
14:05:39 It might encompass a dual office position.
14:05:41 I would have to look at that.
14:05:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, it would be consistent
14:05:45 because you keep talking to yourself.
14:05:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And remember the best change in
14:05:50 life is when you look at yourself in the mirror.
14:05:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, all right.
14:05:54 >>MARY MULHERN: You can appoint --

14:05:58 Take no action on that item then, right?
14:06:03 >> No.
14:06:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 49.
14:06:06 Item 49 and 50.
14:06:08 50.
14:06:09 We continued item 49.
14:06:21 >>GREG SPEARMAN: Director of purchasing.
14:06:23 I have a brief PowerPoint presentation I would like to
14:06:25 present to you to give you an annual overview of the
14:06:28 JOC program.
14:06:34 Before I get to the details of the presentation, I
14:06:36 would like to -- our JOC program administrator putting
14:06:42 together a staff report.
14:06:43 Okay.
14:06:43 So this is our annual report for you.
14:06:46 And let me see if I can get this next slide.
14:06:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can we bring it up on council's
14:06:56 screen if that's possible?
14:06:58 We see it up there. It's just easier to read here.
14:07:00 >> This first slide is basically an overview of the
14:07:04 JOC program, because some of you were not here when we
14:07:07 implemented the program initially.

14:07:08 JOC is basically a performance based bid contract.
14:07:18 For the procurement process, the small to medium size
14:07:20 construction, repair projects.
14:07:22 Nationwide the JOC program was introduced in 1985.
14:07:27 Since that time, over one billion dollars of
14:07:30 construction has been placed through JOC, with over
14:07:35 2,000 job orders placed.
14:07:38 Let's talk about the City of Tampa JOC time line.
14:07:44 I think we may be advanced just a little bit.
14:07:48 In April 2006, council approved the contract for the
14:07:53 JOC program and June of 2007 the approved contract
14:07:59 with Tate construction and also with cornerstone, our
14:08:03 first JOC contractor, and November 2007 we added two
14:08:08 JOC contracts, and in December of 2007, cornerstone
14:08:13 was removed.
14:08:15 We had reached the limit under that contract and in
14:08:17 March of 2008 the Hayes job contract was removed
14:08:24 because we reached the maximum of that contract.
14:08:26 Let's talk about the JOC program.
14:08:30 As of today we have nine JOC ordered contracts under
14:08:34 review, $844,000.
14:08:36 We have 19 active that are in place now for a total of

14:08:42 a little over $908,000, and completed orders, 46 total
14:08:48 for a total of $2.7 million.
14:08:50 All total through the program up to this point, that's
14:08:53 either in process, already been acted upon, about $4.4
14:08:59 million for a total of 74 orders.
14:09:01 As you know, there is an administrative fee in terms
14:09:03 of the JOC program.
14:09:05 It's 4% up to the first $7 million and 1.5% after
14:09:09 that.
14:09:09 So also we have spent $145,000.
14:09:15 And this is very similar to what you would see with
14:09:18 many construction contracts where you have design
14:09:21 fees, that type of thing, so we don't really do that
14:09:25 as a major consideration.
14:09:27 If we go to the next slide, I want to talk about the
14:09:32 JOC program, job orders.
14:09:36 Currently we have two job orders that are under
14:09:38 review, a little over $132,000.
14:09:41 In terms of active job orders under the JOC system we
14:09:44 have four with a value of $364,000.
14:09:47 And in terms of completed sidewalk projects, we have
14:09:51 completed 20 job orders totaling a little over $1.5

14:09:55 million for a total of $2,067,000 just in sidewalk in
14:10:01 our work orders.
14:10:02 And that constitutes about 20 job orders total.
14:10:07 Go to the next slide.
14:10:09 This slide represents non-stop job orders.
14:10:15 We have seven that are currently under review, a
14:10:17 little over $711,000.
14:10:20 We have 15 active job orders for a little over
14:10:24 $543,000, in terms of completed job orders for the
14:10:29 nonsidewalk we have 26 we have completed for a little
14:10:32 over $1.1 million for a total of $2.4 million for 48
14:10:39 job orders for non-sidewalk work.
14:10:42 The next slide.
14:10:45 Various departments that participated in the JOC
14:10:50 program since its inception, contract administration,
14:10:54 convention center, fire rescue, police department,
14:10:56 parks and rec, solid waste, stormwater,
14:10:58 transportation, traffic engineering, traffic signals,
14:11:01 water distribution, water production, wastewater.
14:11:05 And the next slide is one that you will have
14:11:07 particular interest in, talking about the performance
14:11:09 under the JOC contract in terms of WMBE and actual

14:11:14 participation.
14:11:16 We had a goal of 10% participation by
14:11:19 African-American-owned businesses.
14:11:21 We actually achieved 10.6 for a total of $287,000.
14:11:26 Hispanic we had a goal of 9%.
14:11:29 We were a little under that 5.9% for a total of
14:11:33 159,000.
14:11:34 Women owned businesses, we had a goal of 66% and we
14:11:39 actual -- 6% and we achieved a little over $477,000,
14:11:43 and the total WMBE participation, the goal was 25%.
14:11:47 We actually had 34%.
14:11:50 A little over $925,000.
14:11:52 (Bell sounds).
14:11:53 Even though we were not measuring small businesses at
14:11:56 the time in terms of a mandatory requirement, we did
14:11:59 track that in the JOC system and we had an 8.5%
14:12:04 participation in FDE.
14:12:10 We had three primary contractors in the JOC system for
14:12:12 a total of 68 subcontractors.
14:12:15 Eight of these are African-Americans, five Hispanic,
14:12:19 nine are women, nine are small business, and this last
14:12:22 particular, 39 of these were Tampa-based companies,

14:12:28 based here in Tampa, that use the JOC system.
14:12:33 And just to give you some program statistics total,
14:12:38 WMBE participation 34%.
14:12:41 The average job order is actually 53,831.68.
14:12:46 The average contract evaluation was 4.58 on a scale of
14:12:55 10.
14:12:56 The highest time, the price the time the purchase
14:13:01 order is actually issued is 39 days.
14:13:04 And then on the last slide, I have some sample
14:13:07 projects listed in review for JOCs, Mastec and North
14:13:15 America handled that project.
14:13:16 The total was $16,000, completed, and the development
14:13:22 for 22 days.
14:13:26 They got a 4.9 rating out of a total high of five.
14:13:32 Then at the Tampa convention center electrical
14:13:35 installation for outdoor planters, cornerstone was the
14:13:39 contractor, a little over $303,000.
14:13:42 Women participation -- WMBE participation 38%.
14:13:47 Valleys, 4.9 of 5.
14:13:50 Then the third project is poinsettia punching station
14:13:54 improvements.
14:13:55 Contractor was Hayes construction.

14:13:56 The project total was $41,688.49.
14:14:01 Development was 26 days.
14:14:03 The WMBE participation was 31% and the evaluation was
14:14:07 4.5 out of 5.
14:14:10 That concludes my overview.
14:14:12 I will be happy to answer any questions you might
14:14:14 have.
14:14:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Saul-Sena and councilman
14:14:18 Miranda.
14:14:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Who does the 4% go to,
14:14:22 administrative?
14:14:23 >>> The Gordian group.
14:14:25 Other is the computer software.
14:14:29 That fee covers the usable software.
14:14:32 It covers the consulting fees.
14:14:34 It covers training.
14:14:36 It also covers updates in the software.
14:14:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Who is the consultant?
14:14:42 >>> The Gordian group out of Greenville, South
14:14:46 Carolina.
14:14:46 >> So we are sort of subcontracting with them to
14:14:50 handle this program on our behalf, and their fee is

14:14:54 4%.
14:14:54 >>> They are providing the software for to us utilize
14:14:57 the JOC system and 4% fee on top of that.
14:15:01 That's only to the first 7 million.
14:15:03 After that it's 1.5%.
14:15:08 >> Do we use this evaluation criteria in all our
14:15:11 contracts, or just in the JOC contract?
14:15:14 >>> In terms of what I presented to you this
14:15:17 afternoon?
14:15:17 >> The evaluation criteria, yes.
14:15:19 >>> I'm not sure if we are doing that in contract
14:15:23 administration, only on the JOC contracts.
14:15:27 Now we are tracking women's participation through the
14:15:32 WMBE office but to get specific data and pull it up
14:15:36 from the system, we are able to do that with this
14:15:38 particular software package.
14:15:39 And with the new DMI system that's under development,
14:15:42 we will be able to give you some reports.
14:15:46 >> I think what I need to do is meet with you
14:15:48 privately and have a more thorough explanation.
14:15:51 Thank you.
14:15:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: As you know I have not voted for

14:15:55 the JOC program and nothing against you or anything
14:15:58 else.
14:15:59 Certainly the participation of the SBE and WMBE is
14:16:04 certainly good news.
14:16:05 However, I looked at it on a double ledger.
14:16:08 It would have been the same way without JOCs in
14:16:10 these programs.
14:16:11 When I see poinsettia pumping stations improvements
14:16:14 does that mean they changed the pump there?
14:16:16 I don't think so.
14:16:17 That means they laid SOD or did something around the
14:16:20 area.
14:16:21 Maybe I'm wrong.
14:16:22 But when I see a project that says poinsettia pumping
14:16:25 station, to me it's to fix the bumps.
14:16:28 I don't think they did that.
14:16:30 So what I'm saying is, that's why Ms. Saul-Sena
14:16:33 alluded to, I don't vote to spend 4% on a computer
14:16:36 system that we ourselves in the city could do and get
14:16:39 the same subcontractor to do the same work to hire the
14:16:44 same people.
14:16:44 And I certainly don't want to research it and go back

14:16:46 in history and find out that the same people that have
14:16:49 been doing it are still doing it.
14:16:50 And God bless em because they are doing a good job.
14:16:53 That's not my point.
14:16:54 My point is I don't like to spend 4% of my money to go
14:16:58 somewhere else.
14:16:59 And I don't see a value in return.
14:17:01 In other words, that company didn't do anything else
14:17:04 but offer a computer system that we use to get the
14:17:07 same people to do the same work that needed to be done
14:17:11 anyway.
14:17:11 And that's my only feeling.
14:17:13 And you are doing a great job, in every area. This is
14:17:17 just one area where I disagree with the
14:17:18 administration.
14:17:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
14:17:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
14:17:25 When I looked at this program originally, I had some
14:17:33 similar concerns, Mr. Miranda.
14:17:34 But the more I followed the detail in the program, it
14:17:40 appeared to me that a lot of the time that our mid
14:17:45 level staff spent in terms of specking out projects, I

14:17:50 think -- and you can correct me if I am wrong.
14:17:52 I'm glad David is here as well because he's been in
14:17:54 this for a long time.
14:17:55 It appears to me that a lot of time those folks were
14:17:58 to spend in terms of specking these things out,
14:18:01 putting bid packages together, you know, sending over
14:18:04 these bid packages, going through the opening process,
14:18:08 you can eat up a lot of staff time, which equates to a
14:18:11 lot of staff, money, and I am going to guess that's
14:18:14 how we justify the 4%.
14:18:16 I think perhaps we need, now, you need to perhaps look
14:18:21 at, you know, look at that, because Charlie raises a
14:18:25 very good point.
14:18:26 He's always very prudent about the citizens money.
14:18:29 But I think we probably need to perhaps look at
14:18:31 what -- how we did it before and how much money it was
14:18:34 costing us before to justify that 4%.
14:18:39 But I think at the end of the day, I think if you show
14:18:43 that, you can show that it's probably at least a
14:18:47 break-even, if not better.
14:18:49 Now going to the WMBE thing which is why you are here
14:18:52 today, when you come up with the percentages, Greg, is

14:18:57 it based on the dollar amount spent as a percentage of
14:19:03 total?
14:19:03 Or is it based upon the number of subcontracts or
14:19:06 something like that?
14:19:08 >>> It's actually based on the actual dollar amount
14:19:11 spent in the contract.
14:19:15 >> On all sides of this I think I'm excited but on the
14:19:18 WMBE side I'm very excited because our goal is 20% and
14:19:22 appears we are exceeding our goal consistently on this
14:19:24 program, as you predicted.
14:19:26 Thank you.
14:19:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?
14:19:30 Okay.
14:19:31 Thank you, sir.
14:19:35 Okay.
14:19:35 Item 51.
14:19:42 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Administrator for public works and
14:19:44 utility services.
14:19:44 Actually, items 51 and 52 are together.
14:19:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: They are both together.
14:19:51 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: 51 is the reso that moves the money
14:19:55 around.

14:19:55 52 is the item for the 12th Street force main.
14:20:00 This is a project you all will recall this pipeline
14:20:02 has broken twice, once it actually took up a good
14:20:07 piece of Sligh Avenue.
14:20:09 Another time it was we spilled a lot of sewage into
14:20:13 the river.
14:20:14 This project we put together because it is of such a
14:20:18 concern to us, and so we were going to be replacing
14:20:22 about five miles, 48-inch diameter force mains, sewer
14:20:27 line, from the Sulphur Springs area down close to
14:20:30 Martin Luther King Avenue.
14:20:33 It will go under the river.
14:20:34 It will go under Hillsborough Avenue and under MLK.
14:20:40 One of the things I want to point out to you is that
14:20:43 we will be coming back next week, assuming council
14:20:47 approves it this week, we'll come back next week and
14:20:50 take the pipe out of this project.
14:20:51 And we will buy it.
14:20:53 City will buy the pipe and we will save the cost of
14:20:57 the -- that's about $180,000 just for this project.
14:21:02 We have spent time in the neighborhoods.
14:21:04 We have briefed the neighbors.

14:21:06 The route is all determined.
14:21:07 Everybody understands where we will be going.
14:21:10 When we go into those areas, we are going to spend, on
14:21:14 a given block, spend a week in preparation, a week of
14:21:17 installing the pipe, and a week of restoration.
14:21:20 During that time they will have access to their
14:21:22 houses.
14:21:22 Maybe not 100% of the time, but they will have access
14:21:26 at the end of the day.
14:21:27 We'll accommodate everybody's needs.
14:21:28 We will have representatives in the neighborhoods
14:21:31 there as they work so people can come up.
14:21:34 They will be wearing a blue vest and talk to them and
14:21:37 find out what the time schedule is, if they have any
14:21:40 questions or issues.
14:21:43 On this solicitation, we have exceeded again, there
14:21:46 are WMBE goals, and again in the future, just a little
14:21:50 bit further in the future, once we get a little more
14:21:53 description of the design for the CEAC pipe, the big
14:21:58 water pipe, we will be bringing back a piece of that,
14:22:01 and adding it to this contract or this project,
14:22:05 because there is one street, one stretch of street.

14:22:09 I think it's about 2400 feet, where we will be putting
14:22:13 in the sewer line and the water line on the same
14:22:15 street.
14:22:16 So we would like to do that all at the same time.
14:22:19 So again we would like to bring that back and put it
14:22:21 in this N this contract.
14:22:23 When we restore the area, after it's restored, we will
14:22:27 come back and replace the street.
14:22:29 Again, the folks will have brand new streets from curb
14:22:31 to curb, the entire curb, the entire street will be
14:22:34 replaced when we fin wish this work.
14:22:39 So again I would be glad to answer any questions you
14:22:42 have.
14:22:42 We ask to have this separate so you can --
14:22:45 Give us -- I now briefed me yesterday but could you
14:22:49 give council the WMBE figures in terms of percentage?
14:22:53 I think you told me about 23, 24.
14:22:56 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: We are exceeding it by 25%.
14:22:59 The number, I believe you know that number better than
14:23:02 I do.
14:23:05 >>> In the construction piece for number 6 which is
14:23:08 the 12th Street construction it's 9.4%, which is for

14:23:12 the actual construction.
14:23:13 There are other aspects, earlier portions of this that
14:23:16 we have come to where that number is higher.
14:23:18 And actually for utility project, the 9.4%
14:23:24 participation, it's actually a high.
14:23:27 I think it was down five or six.
14:23:32 >> Which is historical.
14:23:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: On this project it's 9.4%?
14:23:37 >>> During the construction, yes, sir.
14:23:39 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: What our actual participation is.
14:23:42 The goal, I thought it was 6.
14:23:45 Our goal was 6 based on the availability of folks to
14:23:48 do this type of work.
14:23:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I know you were telling us about
14:23:52 25%.
14:23:52 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Well, we have exceeded -- I know
14:23:55 it's a small number but we have exceeded the goal by
14:24:00 about 25% of what the goal is.
14:24:02 We have exceeded that goal.
14:24:03 We have gone from six to nine, almost 10%.
14:24:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Also when you give the reports what I
14:24:09 would like to have in the future is the breakdown by

14:24:11 ethnicity as well as by gender.
14:24:17 >>> It is in the package.
14:24:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
14:24:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Move resolution 51 and 52.
14:24:24 >> Second.
14:24:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion moved 51 and 52.
14:24:28 (Motion carried).
14:24:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Did you want to take up items 17,
14:24:44 23 -- 21, 23, 27?
14:24:51 >> Item 17.
14:24:51 >>MARY MULHERN: Item 17, I'm glad to see Steve
14:25:00 Daignault are still here.
14:25:01 I just wanted to say a couple things and a couple
14:25:05 questions.
14:25:07 One, I'm thrilled to read in the paper today that we
14:25:13 are going to be recycling so many more items.
14:25:16 It's fantastic.
14:25:17 And it's one less thing that I can be bugging Steve
14:25:21 Daignault about because I keep asking him about that
14:25:24 for the past year.
14:25:25 So I'm just real excited about that.
14:25:27 That is great.

14:25:29 My questions were, number one, we are renewing the
14:25:33 contract with the same company that's been buying the
14:25:35 recycled material?
14:25:37 >>> Yes.
14:25:38 >> But the $400,000, I guess that's your estimated
14:25:42 amount.
14:25:43 Is that -- does that reflect the larger amount of --
14:25:51 >>> It based on the attendance, and -- on the tenants,
14:25:57 and previously, last year, was based on separate item.
14:26:06 So now need to give the same rate, you know, but again
14:26:17 the rate is the same but expecting more.
14:26:22 >> So they actually purchase it for their purposes?
14:26:24 So even though they are getting more -- you have to
14:26:27 explain this to me.
14:26:28 I'm getting a little confused.
14:26:30 They are picking up more items, the same company,
14:26:32 right?
14:26:33 >>> No, we are picking up.
14:26:35 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: To answer your question, yes.
14:26:38 This establishes a rate, and that 400 is a number --
14:26:42 if you take what we have been picking up from the
14:26:44 past, times this established rate it comes up to the

14:26:47 400. If they pick up more, we pay them more.
14:26:51 And that rate is established.
14:26:54 So 100 times --
14:26:57 >>> But at this point we don't know how much that's
14:27:04 going to be.
14:27:08 We had in the past.
14:27:09 >>MARY MULHERN: For them, they are recycling.
14:27:14 We can maybe hope that it will be more?
14:27:16 >>> That's what we are hoping.
14:27:18 Yeah.
14:27:18 That's what we are hoping.
14:27:19 >>MARY MULHERN: It looks like a lot and I think it's
14:27:22 fantastic for anyone who is watching.
14:27:24 >>> And we agree to do some modification.
14:27:37 Letting them know.
14:27:38 >>MARY MULHERN: The bad news is I am going to start
14:27:41 bringing up the once a week pickup again.
14:27:43 Maybe.
14:27:44 We'll see how it goes.
14:27:47 Containers for garbage now that we have more recycling
14:27:50 that we are going to be doing.
14:27:52 And my husband asked me this morning, well, we are

14:27:54 going to need more recycling bins, so that's another
14:27:58 consideration.
14:27:58 But it's great.
14:27:59 Now, my other question is, people we have been using,
14:28:05 is it possible that maybe next year we could go out
14:28:07 for bid?
14:28:08 There may be other companies in the area?
14:28:10 >>> Yes, we can.
14:28:11 Actually, we have -- we can go out to bid next time
14:28:18 probably, because next year we know --
14:28:24 >> Know ba we are doing.
14:28:25 >> And that can give us an opportunity to evaluate and
14:28:28 see what's out there.
14:28:32 We know what the market is doing also.
14:28:33 >> That's great.
14:28:34 I'll read it.
14:28:35 What they are adding.
14:28:36 Does everybody know?
14:28:39 You can put phone books, paperback books, cereal
14:28:44 cartons, cardboard, office papers, junk mail?
14:28:52 That's great.
14:28:54 Oh, this is a question that we always argue about at

14:28:57 home.
14:28:57 Can you put the slick newspapers like magazines?
14:29:03 Wan about magazines?
14:29:04 >>> We used to do magazines.
14:29:06 >>: We do?
14:29:08 See, no one has known. That I have been trying to
14:29:10 figure that out.
14:29:10 You can put your magazines, and your parade magazine
14:29:13 and all that in there.
14:29:15 Great.
14:29:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Miranda, council marine
14:29:31 Caetano, and councilman Dingfelder.
14:29:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The reason I have a couple
14:29:35 questions of curiosity is, I don't know what the
14:29:37 aluminum price was last year to this year and I don't
14:29:40 know what the tonnage was last year to this year
14:29:43 projection.
14:29:44 And every time I go around to put something in the
14:29:46 recycle bin I always ask myself, I wonder where this
14:29:50 can is going to end up.
14:29:56 You know what I'm saying?
14:30:02 Aluminum.

14:30:03 And the aluminum sells for certain amount per pound.
14:30:08 Last year we collected X pounds at an X factor of that
14:30:13 price.
14:30:13 What is the price of that aluminum today?
14:30:16 And what is the X factor which I don't know?
14:30:19 So maybe we have an answer.
14:30:20 Maybe we don't have an answer.
14:30:22 I can tell you that in some states, other than here,
14:30:27 the cans are all coded.
14:30:30 And when you buy 24 cans they charge you $2.40 extra.
14:30:34 When you bring your cans back, you get a slip for
14:30:38 $2.40.
14:30:39 There is no recycling.
14:30:40 You recycle your own.
14:30:43 And it works very well.
14:30:44 The same thing in other areas.
14:30:45 So that and the business community may not like that,
14:30:50 but -- bless you -- this is community.
14:30:55 And it happens quite frequently and it first is a lot
14:30:57 of resistance to that.
14:30:59 And of a awhile when you find out the best way of
14:31:02 doing it, it works very well.

14:31:05 >>> Yes.
14:31:09 Aluminum is a market by itself.
14:31:15 So aluminum is not that --
14:31:19 >> The way I look at it, knotty prices have gone up
14:31:22 even if you have less commodity come out to the same.
14:31:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Caetano.
14:31:28 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I had a resident in New Tampa
14:31:31 call me up.
14:31:32 They have waste management.
14:31:33 And he said they watched the recycling truck four
14:31:36 weeks in a row coming and picking up his recyclable
14:31:40 material which he had in separate containers, and the
14:31:43 guy through it all into one spot in the truck.
14:31:46 In other words, the paper, whatever the recyclables
14:31:51 were.
14:31:51 So I contacted waste management, and they said that's
14:31:55 the way they do it.
14:31:56 They send to the a recycling center in Orlando, and
14:32:00 it's recycled.
14:32:02 It's disseminated by hand.
14:32:07 >>> Yeah, that's how they are acceptable our
14:32:09 materials, and where they separate all these.

14:32:13 They collect everything together.
14:32:14 It goes to Orlando.
14:32:15 And in New Tampa we don't do that.
14:32:20 >>: We don't do that?
14:32:21 >> No.
14:32:22 >> Is it more efficient or more cost effective for
14:32:25 them to do that?
14:32:26 >>> Recycling, we don't do New Tampa anywhere.
14:32:29 >> I know you don't but waste management does.
14:32:31 >>> Yes.
14:32:34 >> When you do it that way you have less per ton.
14:32:37 If you just throw it all in together you get less per
14:32:39 ton.
14:32:40 So it does cost you to do that.
14:32:44 >> They separate it in Orlando.
14:32:46 >> Yes.
14:32:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder, councilman
14:32:53 Miller.
14:32:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would presume, without any actual
14:32:58 knowledge, that the steel prices and -- because we
14:33:03 recycle steel cans now, don't we?
14:33:07 Yes.

14:33:07 Steel prices and paper prices are probably very
14:33:11 volatile because I am sure they are all related to the
14:33:13 price of gas and production for nonrecycled steel and
14:33:19 paper.
14:33:20 Based upon that knowledge that perhaps we both agree
14:33:24 on, I'm really curious why we didn't bid it this year,
14:33:31 you know.
14:33:31 And I know we always have an opportunity in these
14:33:33 contracts to renew, if possible, or if it's
14:33:38 advantageous to the city.
14:33:39 But we don't know if it's advantageous to the city if
14:33:42 we don't bid it.
14:33:44 So I'm hesitant to support it this year just on that
14:33:49 basis.
14:33:50 >> We have no idea of, you know, how this is going to
14:33:55 end up.
14:33:56 At least by doing this one, we know what to expect by
14:34:01 next year, to go and evaluate.
14:34:08 >> We have had this contract for a couple of years.
14:34:10 >>> But we are doing the single this year.
14:34:15 And of course just like I said earlier, the question
14:34:18 was, you recycle.

14:34:26 They are separate operations.
14:34:28 When we separate and give it to them --
14:34:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So we are changing our mode.
14:34:34 >>> Right.
14:34:34 >> Because I'm in that part of Tampa where you pick up
14:34:37 my recycling.
14:34:38 >>> Right.
14:34:38 >> So previously they separate.
14:34:40 I watched them.
14:34:41 Now you are telling me, our city employees are not
14:34:44 going to separate anymore.
14:34:45 Therefore they can go faster, less man power, they
14:34:48 just pick up the whole thing and throw it in the back
14:34:51 of a typical truck.
14:34:52 They can use any truck as opposed to a specialty
14:34:54 truck.
14:34:55 >>> They can.
14:34:55 >> So did we renegotiate a price for the existing
14:35:00 vendor?
14:35:01 Or was the price in there from before?
14:35:04 >>> No.
14:35:06 The additional question was, they agreed that they

14:35:09 would -- they are taking it, separating it.
14:35:16 By next year, we know exactly how we are doing, then
14:35:26 we are in a position to go and negotiate.
14:35:27 >> I understand a little better then.
14:35:30 So you are bringing me around.
14:35:31 But the next question is, do we know what the price
14:35:36 they are paying for other large municipalities?
14:35:41 In other words, in Orlando, or in Jacksonville, you
14:35:44 know, large communities like that, do we know what
14:35:48 price they are getting under that same scenario?
14:35:54 >>> I don't know, I would need to checkup, because
14:35:59 when we did that last time, I did not know the
14:36:06 numbers.
14:36:06 >> Maybe what we have to do, we have some other items,
14:36:10 maybe an hour or so.
14:36:11 Maybe you can defer this a little bit and call your
14:36:13 guys and see if they know that answer?
14:36:19 >>> I can get some numbers.
14:36:20 >> Because I would feel more comfortable, if we know
14:36:23 we have looked at this, we know what other cities,
14:36:26 Orlando, are getting the same amount per ton, that we
14:36:28 are, or Jacksonville or something, then I would feel

14:36:32 more comfortable.
14:36:38 Like apples to apples.
14:36:43 >>: Maybe we can just defer it for a little bit.
14:36:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Would it be possible for me to get a
14:36:48 list of the new items that you can recycle, and
14:36:51 then -- it is?
14:36:56 >>MARY MULHERN: It's in the backup, too.
14:37:02 >> Put that on the new container.
14:37:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Because a lot of people don't get the
14:37:07 paper.
14:37:08 But they need to know, we get calls from constituents,
14:37:12 I would like to be able to tell them, this is what you
14:37:14 can recycle.
14:37:15 >>> Okay.
14:37:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any action, councilman Dingfelder?
14:37:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Without any action, Mr. Chairman,
14:37:23 why continue don't we hold this one and see what he
14:37:28 can come back and tell us a little later in the
14:37:30 meeting.
14:37:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's fine.
14:37:32 Item 20.
14:37:33 >> I am going to move that item.

14:37:36 I got my questions answered.
14:37:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion and second on item 20.
14:37:40 (Motion carried)
14:37:41 Item 23.
14:37:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I want to commend city attorney
14:37:49 Justin havoc and Bonnie Wise.
14:37:53 They called me during lunch and I have no further
14:37:55 questions on this so I move item 23.
14:37:57 >>: Second.
14:37:58 (Motion carried).
14:38:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 27, the rules procedure.
14:38:06 In reviewing what was submitted to council and what's
14:38:08 in doc agenda it appears that I did not make a change,
14:38:11 and I have an amendment if council would consider it.
14:38:14 Council, it was, I believe, council's attention to not
14:38:17 have staff appear here before 10:30 a.m.
14:38:20 Therefore, the items removed from the consent agenda
14:38:24 should follow the staff report in unfinished business.
14:38:27 If council would like to do that, I made that change
14:38:31 here.
14:38:31 I believe that's what council's intention was.
14:38:41 That being said, this is pulled for discussion by

14:38:43 councilman Dingfelder.
14:38:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
14:38:47 I apologize.
14:38:48 This is a meeting that I missed, or council
14:38:52 workshopped this issue and I was out of town on family
14:38:55 business.
14:38:58 I guess I had a couple questions on the changes.
14:39:01 One thing, I asked Marty, I said what happened to
14:39:04 ceremonial activities that we previously limited to
14:39:07 two per meeting?
14:39:08 And he said we are going to consolidate those on
14:39:11 workshop days.
14:39:13 And I guess that would include police Officer of the
14:39:15 Month, fireman of the quarter, boy scouts, you know,
14:39:21 church groups, et cetera, et cetera.
14:39:24 I'm not keen on the idea.
14:39:27 >>GWEN MILLER: I wasn't either.
14:39:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm here for you now.
14:39:33 I'm not keen on the idea.
14:39:35 I think -- I always find it's kind of a nice way to
14:39:38 start a regular meeting.
14:39:40 You know, I find it a pleasant way to start a meeting.

14:39:43 Because often it gets people from the community into
14:39:47 our hall and to share the beginning of the morning
14:39:52 meeting with us, and it's kind of a pleasant way to
14:39:55 start a day.
14:39:56 And I think the key is, we just shouldn't make it last
14:40:01 too long, you know.
14:40:02 And I think we have been doing a lot better on that.
14:40:05 I think the Officer of the Month goes a lot faster
14:40:08 than it used to and that sort of thing.
14:40:10 I would ask us to vote perhaps individually on the
14:40:14 items or something like that if we could, Marty, and
14:40:17 then just on that basis and -- unless somebody can
14:40:21 convince me.
14:40:22 Otherwise I'm not too keen on that one.
14:40:25 Before I relinquish the floor, Mr. Chairman.
14:40:29 What was the other change?
14:40:30 Oh, the other thing is right now, the way it's reading
14:40:33 right now under the new thing, under item L,
14:40:37 quasi-judicial public hearing including appeal
14:40:40 hearings set for 1:30 p.m.
14:40:41 Basically every meeting, we have -- we always seem to
14:40:47 have at least one or more quasi-judicial public

14:40:50 hearings.
14:40:51 So if we put in the our rules like this, we are
14:40:53 guaranteeing that we will always be coming back after
14:40:55 lunch.
14:40:56 I don't think it's a great idea either.
14:40:58 Because sometimes, not often, but sometimes we move
14:41:03 things along and can get out before lunch, you know,
14:41:10 if we set these public hearings maybe for 11 or 11:30
14:41:14 or something like that.
14:41:15 Maybe with even a note that says, you know, our
14:41:20 standard lunch mode or something like that but at
14:41:24 least gives us an opportunity if we are moving along,
14:41:26 get to 11, and we can do those public hearings, then
14:41:30 we can, and then we aren't binding ourselves but this
14:41:34 way we are going to bind ourselves that we will always
14:41:36 need to come back after lunch.
14:41:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me respond, because most of these
14:41:45 are my suggestions.
14:41:46 One, I want to respond to the ceremonial issue, and my
14:41:51 recommendation was to move it to the second Tuesday
14:41:58 during the CRA meeting because generally those don't
14:42:00 last long, so you have audience already, workshop days

14:42:05 you may have an audience, you may not.
14:42:09 But if you keep it to -- I will tell you, keep it on a
14:42:14 regular day, that is moving the thing up to 11:30.
14:42:22 You look at this.
14:42:23 I have been here a year and a half.
14:42:25 Since I have been here, we haven't gotten out before
14:42:29 noon.
14:42:29 Since I have been here.
14:42:30 I have been here a year and a half.
14:42:33 Since I have been here a year and a half, we have
14:42:35 not -- not on regular days.
14:42:40 We have not.
14:42:41 You get out on your CRA days, you get out.
14:42:44 Maybe on your workshop days.
14:42:46 On your regular days you have not gotten out.
14:42:48 You have not, before noon, okay?
14:42:52 And so the last one we had lasted 30 minutes alone.
14:42:58 Last one.
14:42:58 I timed it.
14:43:02 30 minutes.
14:43:05 The last recommendation we had, it was 30 minutes.
14:43:07 So I'm going to hold -- I'll move for the CRA day but

14:43:15 not the regular days because you have to understand,
14:43:17 it's going to push you back then, if you move also,
14:43:20 councilman Dingfelder, your appeals, judicial
14:43:29 hearings, that means people are going sit here and
14:43:32 come back after lunch which they are doing now, which,
14:43:34 you know, you are noticing them now.
14:43:38 At 9:00, 10:00.
14:43:39 You don't get to some of them till 1:30, 2:00.
14:43:43 So that means they have to sit here.
14:43:45 Your staff, we are going to start at 10:30.
14:43:49 I watch it.
14:43:50 We allow for five minutes.
14:43:54 I watched it this morning.
14:43:59 You get a report but you talk about it 20 minutes.
14:44:02 I'm talking realistically.
14:44:05 But it's unfair to the public to say, you know, had be
14:44:08 here at 9:00.
14:44:10 At 10:00 we are going to take your item, don't get to
14:44:13 them till 2:00.
14:44:14 I only have one vote.
14:44:16 Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
14:44:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

14:44:20 I think that the proposal before us should make our
14:44:24 meetings run much more smoothly.
14:44:25 I think doing the commendations on the workshop day is
14:44:28 appropriate.
14:44:31 I think that it's more considerate to the public to
14:44:34 have the appeals at 1:30.
14:44:37 That way, the council members who consider their
14:44:40 appeals have had a break and a little nutrition which
14:44:43 puts everyone in a better mood.
14:44:45 They know that they start their meters at 1:29 and
14:44:49 that they'll be out of here probably within the hour.
14:44:51 I think this is altogether -- I think we made great
14:44:56 strides last year by changing our meetings to have two
14:44:58 regular council meetings a month, CRA meeting which
14:45:01 now we pay attention to, and workshops where we have
14:45:05 the opportunity for very thorough discussion.
14:45:07 I think this is the next step towards making us more
14:45:10 efficient for the public, for the staff, and for
14:45:12 ourselves.
14:45:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.
14:45:16 >>MARY MULHERN: Change.
14:45:17 This is the change here, John.

14:45:24 And I want to know if those commendations have gotten
14:45:28 shorter.
14:45:31 [ Laughter ]
14:45:32 I could make a few recommendations in how they do
14:45:35 that.
14:45:35 I think they could get a little shorter maybe if every
14:45:41 single prize didn't have to have a different
14:45:43 presenter, maybe the council person, is it Charlie or
14:45:47 Gwen?
14:45:49 >> It doesn't take but a minute.
14:45:56 >>MARY MULHERN: Well, now, they are getting free
14:45:58 advertising anyway.
14:45:59 They can have 15 seconds.
14:46:04 >>GWEN MILLER: They move on and the next person comes
14:46:06 up and they move on.
14:46:10 >>MARY MULHERN: I would move that -- move these
14:46:13 changes as they are.
14:46:14 Of course we can always come back and change it back.
14:46:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
14:46:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The city employees, is there a
14:46:28 regular starting time?
14:46:29 I know it sound rather ignorant but we are so isolated

14:46:32 over here.
14:46:32 I would think they start at 8:00.
14:46:37 I guess 8:00.
14:46:38 So typical city employees, 8 to 5, that sort of thing.
14:46:42 I wonder why we start our meetings at nine.
14:46:47 And I'm not a morning person so I am not going to say
14:46:50 we should start at eight.
14:46:53 [ Laughter ]
14:46:54 But I think if we started our meeting at 8:30 that,
14:47:00 you know, that's not a bad thing, and then we could
14:47:04 accomplish some of these issues, you know, start a
14:47:08 little earlier.
14:47:09 That way, we could deal with the ceremonial, and if it
14:47:13 in fact took a half hour, we are doing it from 8:30 to
14:47:18 9:00 anyway which is our normal starting time.
14:47:20 I don't know.
14:47:20 The appeal, quasi-judicial thing, Linda, you are
14:47:24 looking at it from a different perspective and other
14:47:27 council people.
14:47:28 And we talked about this before.
14:47:36 I would like us to consider 8:30 a.m. and then maybe
14:47:46 consider the other changes.

14:47:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I really believe if we start at
14:47:50 8:30 or 6:00 in the morning we are still going to be
14:47:53 here just as long.
14:47:55 [ Laughter ]
14:47:55 I really believe that sincerely.
14:47:56 I really do.
14:47:57 I think that we have to be a little more direct.
14:48:00 No offense to anyone.
14:48:01 Believe me when I say, this including myself.
14:48:03 But I believe you can solve the problem on the
14:48:07 quasi-judicial public hearings if you set up at noon.
14:48:11 So we know we have something to go far and we may
14:48:15 speed the process to get them in before noon.
14:48:17 But you can't say noon specifically because then you
14:48:21 have got to stay here till noon.
14:48:23 But these things like public hearings, legislative
14:48:28 matters, staff reports, unfinished business at 10:30,
14:48:31 does that mean we are going to guarantee the
14:48:32 administration and the department heads in general who
14:48:34 are going to appear that we will listen to them at
14:48:37 10:30?
14:48:38 Because if not that's a public waste of money.

14:48:40 They are here instead of doing what they are supposed
14:48:43 to be doing.
14:48:44 So I want to make sure if we say Jay at a certain
14:48:51 time, we take them in and get them back to work.
14:48:54 They need to be protected in that mannerism.
14:48:57 I think the system is going to work.
14:49:00 We can -- the quasi-judicial, I don't know what's
14:49:05 going to happen, because depending, we might finish
14:49:08 one day at 11:30.
14:49:10 You start the week before.
14:49:13 Then you can finish -- [ Laughter ]
14:49:16 But I'm saying that jokingly.
14:49:18 Believe me when I mean that.
14:49:20 But what I'm saying is we have gotten better.
14:49:23 We are working towards a goal.
14:49:24 We can give this a chance, see how it goes.
14:49:26 If it doesn't go we can always change.
14:49:28 These are our rules.
14:49:29 They can be changed.
14:49:30 That's all I'm saying.
14:49:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We have administration at 10:30 on
14:49:41 staff reports.

14:49:42 We stop and get them here.
14:49:44 >> I agree with that.
14:49:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was just going to make a motion.
14:49:54 And look for a little input.
14:49:56 But how do you all feel about 8:30 in the morning?
14:49:59 Get in here a little earlier and we can get out a
14:50:01 little earlier.
14:50:04 >>MARY MULHERN: 8:30?
14:50:06 Yeah, 8:30 is when school starts.
14:50:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And you drop off?
14:50:14 >>> Well, I'll be here at nine if it starts at 8:30.
14:50:17 You don't want me.
14:50:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A little inconvenience to you.
14:50:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: At 8:30 I have to make sure my
14:50:25 windmill is working.
14:50:27 [ Laughter ]
14:50:32 I could be here at nine.
14:50:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think the other thing that we
14:50:39 should consider that we don't have to vote on today is
14:50:42 what I call commendations inflation.
14:50:45 When commendations first began, the Officer of the
14:50:47 Month got one or two things.

14:50:50 Now it's like a Sunday supplement.
14:50:54 And I really think that it takes a tremendous amount
14:50:56 of time.
14:50:59 The number that we have now, whatever the number is,
14:51:01 you know, five or six or whatever, that's it.
14:51:04 In a more gifts.
14:51:06 Let them stay at that level F.somebody drops off we
14:51:08 can add something.
14:51:09 But that's honestly what takes -- I love hearing why
14:51:12 the officer is being recognized.
14:51:14 They are usually doing something heroic and exciting
14:51:17 and interesting.
14:51:18 The gifts go long.
14:51:24 >>MARY MULHERN: I suggested that we just read them
14:51:26 faster.
14:51:26 I don't want to take any of those gifts away from
14:51:28 them.
14:51:29 I think that's wonderful that they get those.
14:51:31 It's the least we can do for them.
14:51:33 Let's just read them off really fast.
14:51:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I suggest we try to modify.
14:51:40 There's a motion on the floor.

14:51:41 All in favor of the motion?
14:51:45 >>MARY MULHERN: You have to read it.
14:51:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me read this.
14:51:49 A resolution amending rules of procedure 3-B-2
14:51:53 governing the order of business of the meetings of the
14:51:54 City Council of Tampa, Florida providing an effective
14:51:56 date.
14:51:59 With a caveat that if it doesn't work we change it.
14:52:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, forgive me for doing this
14:52:06 but I see it's also amending rule 5, the conduct of
14:52:09 business.
14:52:09 So can you make that amendment?
14:52:14 To amendment rule 3-B-2 and 5, the second page, that's
14:52:18 on the title.
14:52:20 Rule 5 was to move the commendations and ceremonial
14:52:24 matters to the council workshop day.
14:52:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move also with amendment 5.
14:52:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
14:52:32 >> Second.
14:52:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
14:52:35 All in favor?
14:52:36 Opposes?

14:52:37 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder and Miller
14:52:39 voting no.
14:52:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, thank you.
14:52:47 We have a public hearing now.
14:52:52 Item 54 through 57.
14:52:56 >>GWEN MILLER: So moved.
14:52:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved to open.
14:52:58 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
14:52:59 (Motion carried)
14:53:16 (Oath administered by Clerk).
14:53:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you could file these for public
14:53:23 inspection.
14:53:24 >> So moved.
14:53:25 >> Second.
14:53:26 (Motion carried).
14:53:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You opened them all.
14:53:30 >>GWEN MILLER: They are open already.
14:53:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 54.
14:53:40 >>MARY MULHERN: Mrs. Mulhern, would you read item 54?
14:53:43 >> I move an ordinance being presented for second
14:53:45 reading, an ordinance approving a historic
14:53:46 preservation property tax exemption application

14:53:49 relative to the restoration, renovation or
14:53:51 rehabilitation of certain property owned by Florida
14:53:53 Department of Transportation, William Scott,
14:53:56 right-of-way administrator, located at 1301 east
14:53:59 Columbus drive, formerly 1822 east 14th Avenue,
14:54:03 Tampa, Florida, in the Ybor City historic district
14:54:06 based upon certain findings, providing for notice to
14:54:08 the property appraiser of Hillsborough County,
14:54:11 providing for severability, providing for repeal of
14:54:14 all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective
14:54:15 date.
14:54:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second?
14:54:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
14:54:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
14:54:20 Record your vote.
14:54:33 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously with
14:54:35 Dingfelder abstaining.
14:54:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I pushed the wrong button.
14:54:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I ask for a revote.
14:54:43 >> I pushed the wrong button.
14:54:48 >> You got me here at 8:30 today.
14:54:53 [ Laughter ]

14:54:56 No, I'm I'll just change it.
14:54:58 >> Reflect that the vote was unanimous.
14:55:00 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
14:55:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Number 55.
14:55:04 Anyone wish to be heard on item 55?
14:55:06 >> Move to close.
14:55:07 >> Second.
14:55:07 (Motion carried)
14:55:08 >> An ordinance on second reading, an ordinance
14:55:20 approving an historic preservation property tax
14:55:22 exemption application relative to the restoration of
14:55:25 renovation or rehabilitation of certain property owned
14:55:27 by see bold city homes, located at 1525 Horatio street
14:55:33 formerly 44th 20 South Dakota Avenue Tampa,
14:55:36 Florida a locally designated historic landmark, based
14:55:40 on certain findings providing for notice to the
14:55:43 property appraiser of Hillsborough County providing
14:55:45 for severability, providing for repeal of all
14:55:48 ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
14:55:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Seconded by Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
14:55:54 Record your vote.
14:55:56 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.

14:55:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 56.
14:56:00 Anyone wishing to be heard?
14:56:02 >>: Move to close.
14:56:03 >> Second.
14:56:03 (Motion carried).
14:56:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move the following ordinance for
14:56:08 second reading and adoption.
14:56:10 An ordinance authorizing installation, maintenance,
14:56:13 encroachment to the canopy and architectural
14:56:15 decorative features, by Hyde Park partners, LLC, over
14:56:20 the right-of-way known as 2401 west Azeele street,
14:56:23 Tampa, Florida or more particularly described in
14:56:25 section 1 subject to certain terms, covenants,
14:56:27 conditions and agreements as more particularly
14:56:29 described herein providing an effective date.
14:56:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's been moved and seconded.
14:56:35 Record your vote.
14:56:44 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
14:56:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 57.
14:56:47 Anyone wishing to be heard?
14:56:48 >> Move to close.
14:56:51 >> Second.

14:56:52 (Motion carried).
14:56:52 >>GWEN MILLER: I move to adopt the following ordinance
14:56:56 upon second reading, an ordinance making lawful the
14:56:59 sale of beverages containing alcohol of more than 1%
14:57:01 by weight and not more than 14% by weight and wines
14:57:05 regardless of alcoholic content, beer and wine,
14:57:08 2(COP-R), for consumption on premises only in
14:57:12 connection with a restaurant business establishment on
14:57:14 that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at
14:57:17 2902 and 2920 east Busch Boulevard, Tampa, Florida as
14:57:23 more particularly described in section 2 hereof
14:57:25 waiving certain restrictions as to distance based upon
14:57:28 certain findings, providing for repeal of all
14:57:31 ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
14:57:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's been moved and seconded.
14:57:35 Record your vote, please.
14:57:38 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
14:57:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That concludes all of our items for
14:57:50 today.
14:57:50 New business?
14:57:51 Information and new business?
14:57:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

14:58:00 It's come to my attention that you all recall back in
14:58:07 December we had this privatization issue, and we had a
14:58:09 very full house and a very contentious issue.
14:58:12 It's come to my attention that the mayor, the
14:58:14 administration, are seeking to bring that to Council
14:58:17 next week in regard to either security or janitor, one
14:58:25 or the other.
14:58:26 I have two concerns.
14:58:28 One, I'm not positive that I am going to be here next
14:58:31 week for business reasons.
14:58:34 Which is a minor issue.
14:58:36 You all can go on without me, although you know that I
14:58:39 feel very passionately about this issue and I would
14:58:41 like to be here for the discussion.
14:58:42 But number two is, I'm not sure that's really how --
14:58:47 I'm not sure it's an issue that should come up in one
14:58:50 week's time without any discussion with the community
14:58:53 or anything else.
14:58:54 And I'm also not sure it's an issue that council wants
14:58:57 to go out on its summer break on.
14:59:00 So between all three of those, I would like to move
14:59:08 just informally, not even a written resolution, but I

14:59:11 would just like to move and request that the
14:59:13 administration defer this issue until after our summer
14:59:16 break and give us, you know, give us advance notice of
14:59:21 when this issue is going to be coming onto the agenda.
14:59:25 And frankly, you know, at least a few weeks notice.
14:59:28 So people are aware of it, and if they want to give us
14:59:31 their input by phone calls or e-mails or what have
14:59:34 you, they should have the opportunity to give us their
14:59:37 input.
14:59:38 David Smith has been at this podium many, many times,
14:59:42 and he says -- and talked about the charter, and the
14:59:44 charter defines policy, in terms of being part of our
14:59:48 purview.
14:59:49 And this is a big policy decision.
14:59:51 This is not just about a hundred jobs but is a big,
14:59:56 big policy decision as related to all 5,000 employees
14:59:59 of the City of Tampa an all the taxpayers of the City
15:00:01 of Tampa.
15:00:02 So I don't think this is something we should be rushed
15:00:04 into with one week's notice or less than a week's
15:00:07 notice.
15:00:07 So I will respectfully move to urge the administration

15:00:11 to defer this till after our summer break, and
15:00:14 frankly, to give us a couple of weeks notice, and can
15:00:20 do that through the chair and the chair can just tell
15:00:22 council.
15:00:22 So frankly it would come up later in the summer.
15:00:26 That would be my motion.
15:00:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
15:00:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me speak to the motion if I
15:00:34 may.
15:00:34 I don't really know what the administration is going
15:00:36 to do.
15:00:37 I think we should at least have the courtesy of
15:00:40 receiving that information, maybe holding it to
15:00:43 sometime in the future for Mr. Dingfelder in case he's
15:00:46 not here to speak.
15:00:47 But, you know, some of you may run for higher office.
15:00:50 Some of you may be mayor one day and I think you are
15:00:53 going to wanted the same courtesy offered to you.
15:00:56 I don't know.
15:00:57 The mayor has not called me and told me that.
15:01:00 Maybe she has to others.
15:01:01 But I have not been told by the mayor that this is

15:01:05 what's coming.
15:01:07 For me to say that I'm far something, whatever that
15:01:10 may be, before it's presented, it would be
15:01:13 presumptuous, on my part -- I'm just talking about
15:01:16 Charlie.
15:01:16 So I would at least like to offer the administration
15:01:19 the ability to come before us and state on the record
15:01:22 what is it that they have, what is it a finding of
15:01:26 fact.
15:01:27 And the second part, you are not going to like, but I
15:01:31 am going to say it.
15:01:32 At the same time that the administration is cutting
15:01:33 costs, some of us are adding employees.
15:01:38 And that's what I waiver about in my mind.
15:01:42 This budget positions of individuals that we appoint,
15:01:46 it's fine and dandy.
15:01:48 That doesn't cost anything.
15:01:49 We get input.
15:01:51 But when you start with a budget analyst, we are going
15:01:53 to pay through the nose after equipment and after
15:01:58 office space and after -- things are going to be
15:02:03 different.

15:02:04 And I'm not in the mood to spend city taxpayers money
15:02:07 on something that has been working well for many
15:02:10 years.
15:02:11 I saw Ms. Mulhern the other day handle the budget
15:02:14 hearing.
15:02:16 I'll bet she did an excellent job.
15:02:18 And I don't question anyone here on whatever
15:02:22 department you all are looking at, because I have the
15:02:25 confidence that you all do what you think is best, and
15:02:28 you ask for information before the council meeting,
15:02:31 and you are satisfied with it.
15:02:32 It was evidence of it today on things that we held
15:02:35 that we got some answers from that were there.
15:02:37 So, therefore, I'm just not in the mood to add more
15:02:42 staff, when I went back on that 1975 referendum, I
15:02:47 told you how many staff we had, and what was here.
15:02:50 And if you look at the length numbers of the items
15:02:53 that were on the agenda, and the same person that
15:02:56 found these can find those, and guess what -- during
15:02:59 that time, you just didn't say I move 18 through 42.
15:03:03 You had to do one individually at a time.
15:03:05 We used to be out by noon.

15:03:08 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
15:03:12 >>MARY MULHERN: I just wanted to say just in response
15:03:14 to that, I'm planning to, for one thing, find the
15:03:19 funds for this, and, you know, we moved those funds
15:03:22 around every meeting, and I'm not planning to add
15:03:26 cost.
15:03:27 I'm planning to find the money for this.
15:03:29 And I think the first place to look -- and it is in
15:03:32 the budget, finance office.
15:03:35 And they can fund this position out of that.
15:03:38 There's plenty.
15:03:40 And the whole idea of having this budget advisory
15:03:42 committee, which Charlie, you appoint yourself, you
15:03:46 are just going to have one additional meeting.
15:03:48 >>> I got all the time.
15:03:51 >> And I think that's fantastic.
15:03:53 And I if you weren't on council I guess I could
15:03:56 appoint you.
15:03:57 But I don't think that we are --
15:04:01 The motion on the floor to speak to, though, is the
15:04:05 motion by councilman Dingfelder and that is ask the
15:04:07 administration --

15:04:09 >>MARY MULHERN: I just wanted to say that I don't
15:04:10 think it's going to be additional cost to anybody.
15:04:12 It's going to have to come out of somewhere out of the
15:04:15 budget.
15:04:16 The existing budget.
15:04:21 Charlie's issue.
15:04:22 I am in support of yours.
15:04:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I'm sorry, go ahead.
15:04:25 >>GWEN MILLER: You can hear what the administration
15:04:27 has to say next week and then come back, when you come
15:04:30 back, you can --
15:04:36 >> Have them come back next week.
15:04:39 That's the kind of meeting you are going to have
15:04:40 before we go on our two week vacation.
15:04:43 It's not a big deal.
15:04:44 I know it's not summer camp, et cetera.
15:04:46 I'm just giving you the heads-up.
15:04:47 If we urge them not to do that.
15:04:49 They have the right to put anything they want on the
15:04:51 jeopardy.
15:04:52 Marty and David already told us that.
15:04:54 But what we can probably do by resolution or motion

15:04:58 which I have made, and Ms. Saul-Sena seconded, is just
15:05:01 urge them to do that not next week.
15:05:03 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to hear what -- how much it's
15:05:08 going to cost.
15:05:12 If they are going to bring it to us now --
15:05:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We can do it now.
15:05:17 We can do it in August.
15:05:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: A couple things.
15:05:19 Let me just say, one is, outlines the different
15:05:26 responsibilities of the executive branch and the
15:05:27 legislative branch.
15:05:28 So the mayor, the administration want to bring up an
15:05:31 item on the budget they can do that.
15:05:32 But once it's on the agenda for our approval, we have
15:05:35 the right to continue that.
15:05:37 That's what you have to understand.
15:05:38 We have a right to hold that item in abeyance until
15:05:42 you had a hearing or whatever.
15:05:43 You have that right
15:05:46 The point of it is, it becomes your item then.
15:05:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me just say one thing.
15:05:52 I'm sorry.

15:05:52 Once it's on the agenda, the folks are going to have
15:05:55 to take off from their work and come down here.
15:05:57 They don't know that you are going to continue it,
15:06:00 okay?
15:06:01 But they are going to have to take off from work like
15:06:03 they did last time and come down here and tell you how
15:06:05 they feel about it.
15:06:06 What I am trying to do is say there's no rush on this,
15:06:09 okay?
15:06:09 I know there's no rush on this.
15:06:12 They can just put this off until July after the break,
15:06:15 let us know, give us a heads-up when it's going to be
15:06:18 on.
15:06:18 That way we can tell the folks when it's going to be
15:06:20 on the agenda.
15:06:21 That way they don't have to waste their time coming
15:06:23 down.
15:06:23 You are talking about janitors and security guards
15:06:27 that have to take off their jobs to come down here and
15:06:29 bring their families, et cetera.
15:06:31 We saw it the last time and it's going to be the same
15:06:33 thing all over.

15:06:34 I think we should give them the courtesy of not
15:06:36 subjecting them to that.
15:06:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, let me say this.
15:06:47 Again you can pass a motion requesting that.
15:06:50 I'm just saying the item can be continued.
15:06:54 I don't November about nobody else.
15:07:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Come up in the next few days.
15:07:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I have had a briefing on it.
15:07:04 And I believed each council member was going to be
15:07:07 briefed on the item.
15:07:08 That's what I have been told.
15:07:09 >>MARY MULHERN: We are going to be briefed.
15:07:13 We haven't yet.
15:07:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We usually don't get debriefing but
15:07:17 that's neither here nor there.
15:07:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So what I'm saying in terms of what's
15:07:22 come, I already know what's coming.
15:07:25 Because what I have been briefed on is accurate.
15:07:27 Now, I haven't seen if document, the actual, you know,
15:07:30 the whole RFP process.
15:07:32 But I have actually seen what how many employees, all
15:07:36 that.

15:07:37 So my point is, you want to continue.
15:07:43 At least give the administration an opportunity to
15:07:45 bring it before us.
15:07:48 I will be here part.
15:07:49 I won't be here tomorrow evening.
15:07:52 That comp plan, that's very important.
15:07:54 That raises another question.
15:07:55 So, I'm concerned that one way to handle this, could
15:07:58 you do two things.
15:07:59 One is you can send a memo, or motion, to request the
15:08:03 administration to hold it in abeyance --
15:08:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The administration will respect
15:08:10 that if we make the motion.
15:08:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: First meeting in July.
15:08:16 First meeting in July.
15:08:19 I think that's workable.
15:08:21 Or you can come and continue.
15:08:23 Okay?
15:08:24 Councilman Miranda.
15:08:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I didn't really want to bring this
15:08:29 up at this time but the week of the 3rd and the
15:08:32 10th I will be in Tampa for family matters.

15:08:36 So my vacation will be delayed.
15:08:38 I will more likely take it sometime in the end of July
15:08:42 or first part of August but you can continue without
15:08:44 me.
15:08:44 I have confidence in the six remaining council
15:08:47 members.
15:08:50 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm speaking against.
15:08:52 It didn't occur to me until something John said, that
15:08:56 in consideration of the fact that this issue will
15:09:00 probably -- if it goes forward, the privatization, it
15:09:03 will result in job loss.
15:09:09 I think it might be better that we address it as soon
15:09:11 as possible so that people are going to know where
15:09:15 they are going to be.
15:09:16 So at first I thought you were right, John.
15:09:19 But I think, you know, the sooner that we start to
15:09:23 discuss this, and get closer to a resolution, it might
15:09:26 be better for people, the employes to know what's
15:09:30 coming.
15:09:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All I'm saying is he's requesting,
15:09:35 which I generally agree, he's not going to be here
15:09:38 next week, and out of courtesy that we not take the

15:09:41 item or we continue the item.
15:09:43 I generally respect when a colleague requests that.
15:09:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My office is still not sure yet.
15:09:50 I might be, I might not be.
15:09:51 But there's no harm in postponing this.
15:09:58 The only thing on your comment, Mary, the
15:10:00 administration has said they won't lay these people
15:10:02 off, okay, unless we create the correct that they are
15:10:05 asking us to create.
15:10:06 So all we are doing is just pushing it further.
15:10:08 They are still going to give those folks X amount of
15:10:11 notice that they would give them.
15:10:13 It's just a matter of shifting from here to there.
15:10:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's a motion on the floor.
15:10:18 Motion if I am not mistaken --
15:10:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll agree with whoever said first
15:10:23 meeting.
15:10:24 I'll modify the motion.
15:10:24 The motion to request the administration to defer any
15:10:27 of these privatization issues until no sooner than the
15:10:31 first meeting in July.
15:10:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.

15:10:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded that we ask the
15:10:36 administration or request the administration to defer
15:10:39 the privatization issue to the first meeting in July.
15:10:42 All in favor let it be known by Aye.
15:10:45 Opposes?
15:10:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And that would be no sooner than
15:10:49 the first meeting.
15:10:49 They could do never as far as I'm concerned.
15:10:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
15:10:53 Any other new business?
15:10:54 Yes.
15:10:56 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
15:10:57 direct Land Development Coordination to come back
15:11:02 within 30 days with an answer on this proposal that I
15:11:07 presented.
15:11:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's been moved and seconded.
15:11:10 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I think there was one mistake in
15:11:18 zoning C classification.
15:11:20 >> It was an R.
15:11:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: For the transcript, the purpose of
15:11:24 that was the paper that you handed out relative to the
15:11:29 notice requirement for the restaurants.

15:11:33 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Their reports.
15:11:34 >>MARY MULHERN: Don't we need to vote on the -- Vijay
15:11:39 was going to find some figures?
15:11:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: He'll come back.
15:11:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We didn't vote?
15:11:58 >>MARY MULHERN: I thought we did earlier.
15:11:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
15:12:02 (Motion carried).
15:12:03 >> I move to defer 17 till next week.
15:12:06 >>: Second.
15:12:07 (Motion carried).
15:12:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: A cleanup item.
15:12:11 This morning we discussed having an additional special
15:12:14 discussion meeting about -- I can hardly get the words
15:12:21 out -- the comp plan.
15:12:22 I think, unless everyone is so enthusiastic maybe we
15:12:26 shouldn't do it because we are just going to have to
15:12:28 go through it again.
15:12:30 So I withdraw that motion, Mr. Chairman.
15:12:33 And one other thing.
15:12:34 Recently, we were talking about a rezoning in the
15:12:37 Westshore area.

15:12:38 And I said, how does that come part with the Westshore
15:12:40 pedestrian plan?
15:12:41 Well, the other day, Catherine Coyle told me we never
15:12:45 adopted the Westshore pedestrian plan so that's why
15:12:47 they weren't officially paying any attention to it,
15:12:51 even though it was a great plan, so what I would like
15:12:55 to do is request that legal bring back the Westshore
15:12:57 pedestrian plan to City Council for adoption.
15:13:00 Then we can pay attention to it.
15:13:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The Westshore district.
15:13:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The Westshore district pedestrian
15:13:06 plan.
15:13:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Did you make a motion?
15:13:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
15:13:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
15:13:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
15:13:13 (Motion carried)
15:13:14 I have two things.
15:13:15 One is, first of all, as you know from I guess from
15:13:18 the press conference, David Smith is leaving us.
15:13:22 I forgot what date in July it is.
15:13:25 July 16th.

15:13:29 Move that we give him a commendation.
15:13:31 >> Second.
15:13:33 >> He has rendered very good service, at least in my
15:13:36 past year and a half, of course before I got here as
15:13:39 well.
15:13:40 I think we should recognize him.
15:13:41 And perhaps also maybe a little refreshment time as
15:13:45 well, you know.
15:13:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Prior to the meeting.
15:13:51 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
15:13:54 Opposed, Nay.
15:13:54 (Motion carried)
15:13:55 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: In Conserving electricity, Mr.
15:13:58 Chairman, someone left the curling iron on in the
15:13:58 bathroom.
15:14:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, we know it wasn't Charlie.
15:14:09 We know it wasn't Charlie.
15:14:14 Well, one last thing.
15:14:16 It is my understanding that council needs to vote on
15:14:19 this.
15:14:21 I was requesting that we look at adding a keypad to the
15:14:26 back door, entrance to the back like we do here at

15:14:29 front.
15:14:30 >> Second.
15:14:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Keypad for the door here.
15:14:40 You can't get in.
15:14:44 I was told that they have to come before council.
15:14:48 So it's moved.
15:14:49 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
15:14:52 Opposed, Nay.
15:14:54 (Motion carried).
15:14:54 >>THE CLERK: Need to receive and file.
15:14:57 >> So moved.
15:14:57 >> Second.
15:14:58 (Motion carried).
15:14:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you all very much.
15:15:00 That concludes our meeting.
15:15:01 We stand adjourned until the next time.
15:15:04 (the City Council meeting was adjourned)


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.