Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, July 31, 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.

[Sounding gavel]
09:05:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We will now call the Tampa City
09:05:49 Council meeting to order.
09:05:55 The chairman will go to councilman John oh Dingfelder.
09:06:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's my pleasure and honor to
09:06:02 introduce a good friend of this city's, coach wiener,
09:06:10 the head football coach.
09:06:14 He brought home the state championship title to Plant
09:06:17 High School and to the City of Tampa.
09:06:20 He was also a 2006 Florida high school football coach

09:06:23 of the year in addition to his coaching duties, rob is
09:06:26 an outstanding classroom English teacher, as well, and
09:06:30 we welcome him to City Hall this morning to deliver
09:06:32 our invocation followed by the pledge of allegiance,
09:06:35 if you will please stand.
09:06:38 >> Thank you.
09:06:38 It a pleasure to be back.
09:06:40 Let us pray.
09:06:41 Dear God, just as I had the opportunity every day to
09:06:45 work on a football field and try to take young people
09:06:49 and allow them to still see the big picture, even when
09:06:52 we work with the small details, something we can
09:06:59 practice every day outside of our lives off the
09:07:01 football field, also, where we can roll up our sleeves
09:07:04 and go to work, not get bogged down in details but
09:07:08 work with the details that make the big picture
09:07:11 possible but always keeping our eyes on that big
09:07:13 picture, which is not only winning a football game and
09:07:16 not only winning a battle, but is every day reaching
09:07:22 our with our talents to help others become better, to
09:07:25 allow us to become better people, to allow us to do
09:07:29 more work for those people who have many things and

09:07:35 who are given many things, but also for those people
09:07:39 who have not.
09:07:40 And for those people who are in need.
09:07:43 And perhaps our greatest responsibility is to reach
09:07:46 our helping hand with our talents and those details to
09:07:51 make others and to make our world a better place.
09:07:54 Amen.
09:07:56 [ Pledge of Allegiance ]
09:08:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, coach.
09:08:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much.
09:08:17 Roll call.
09:08:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
09:08:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
09:08:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
09:08:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.
09:08:29 For the record, we do have a memorandum from
09:08:31 councilman Charlie Miranda not being available for
09:08:36 this meeting, and I believe the clerk already has that
09:08:38 on file, has it as part of the record.
09:08:41 So I want to take note of that.
09:08:45 At this time we'll move to the approval of the agenda.
09:08:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members

09:08:53 of City Council.
09:08:53 You have before you the addendum to the agenda.
09:08:55 There are several items that require changes.
09:09:00 There is a request by Cynthia Miller, director of
09:09:02 growth management services to schedule a one hour
09:09:04 workshop on August 28, to provide a briefing on the
09:09:07 status of the greater Seminole Heights vision plan
09:09:11 draft.
09:09:12 If council wants to take this up now or at the new
09:09:14 business at the end of the meeting.
09:09:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think we should just do it now.
09:09:20 I move that we schedule this.
09:09:23 Do we have anything -- I don't have -- well, yes, I
09:09:29 do.
09:09:30 >>MARTIN SHELBY: With regard to the calendar on August
09:09:32 28th you have commendation for police Officer of
09:09:34 the Month, two of them at 9 a.m., a workshop to
09:09:37 discuss transportation issues also scheduled for
09:09:39 9 a.m. and I believe that's going to last at least two
09:09:43 hours.
09:09:43 You scheduled a 10:15 workshop for time purposes
09:09:46 approximately to discuss front doors to face the

09:09:50 street.
09:09:51 It's been suggested, council, that perhaps you might
09:09:53 want to set this workshop at 11 a.m. and reschedule
09:09:57 the 10:15 workshop for another time, perhaps another
09:10:00 day, if that's possible, Ms. Saul-Sena.
09:10:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The street address I think is not
09:10:07 going to be that long.
09:10:10 I think we could probably schedule this -- if the
09:10:15 transportation thing is two hours, to schedule
09:10:17 anything at 10:15 is very unrealistic.
09:10:20 So I would like to go ahead and move that we schedule
09:10:22 this at 11:00.
09:10:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
09:10:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The discussion of the greater
09:10:30 Seminole Heights vision plan draft for 11:00.
09:10:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And the other item for 10:15 and take
09:10:37 it up --
09:10:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Take it up just prior to the
09:10:41 Seminole Heights draft.
09:10:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I have a concern with that.
09:10:43 My experience, sometimes when don't think an item will
09:10:46 take long, then we end up going into it, and I will

09:10:49 tell you that actually the transportation workshop is
09:10:54 supposed to be for three hours.
09:10:55 So at yesterday's meeting, I said, well, we'll scale
09:10:58 it back, if we can move that address thing to another
09:11:01 day and then schedule this for the one hour.
09:11:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ms. Saul-Sena, do you think that
09:11:08 would take longer, to be covered under a regular
09:11:11 agenda meeting as a staff report?
09:11:12 Or do you think it's something that requires a
09:11:14 workshop?
09:11:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think it requires a workshop.
09:11:16 My question perhaps is --
09:11:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why don't we just do it in the
09:11:26 September workshop?
09:11:27 I don't think it's anything --
09:11:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: In the September workshops we have
09:11:30 very few.
09:11:31 Why don't we schedule the street address and front
09:11:37 doors for the September workshop.
09:11:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Would you prefer 9:30 or 10 a.m.?
09:11:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 10.
09:11:43 And for the greater Seminole Heights one, say 11:00

09:11:49 which will give transportation two hours.
09:11:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: So if I understand the motion, the
09:11:54 motion is to schedule the greater Seminole Heights
09:11:57 vision plan as requested for the 28th of August at
09:12:02 11 a.m., and to move -- to reschedule what's presently
09:12:06 scheduled for 10:15 on the 28th to 10:00 on
09:12:10 September 25th, on a workshop day?
09:12:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's the motion.
09:12:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
09:12:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
09:12:17 (Motion carried).
09:12:18 So moved.
09:12:18 Okay.
09:12:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
09:12:22 Council, you have two substitutions.
09:12:23 You have item 47.
09:12:25 You received a memo regarding the substitution for
09:12:28 exhibit B with regard to item 48 you have a substitute
09:12:31 resolution and contract.
09:12:33 You have received that.
09:12:34 Regarding the continuance or removal of items,
09:12:38 council, you have received this morning a memo from

09:12:42 Darrell Smith asking that item 49 relating to property
09:12:49 be removed from the agenda.
09:12:50 That is also I believe item number 6 on your CRA
09:12:53 agenda so I believe Mr. Territo will be making that
09:12:55 same request to have that removed from your CRA
09:12:58 discussion as well.
09:12:59 So with regard to 49, that actually can be removed.
09:13:04 With regard to item 89, there is a request -- this was
09:13:07 a request that Ms. Saul-Sena asked to be put on this
09:13:10 week's agenda, last week regarding the wastewater in
09:13:13 the aquifer.
09:13:14 Steve Daignault sent a memo requesting a continuance
09:13:17 to September 4th, 2008.
09:13:18 I don't know whether you have had that opportunity to
09:13:21 see that, but that is a request that they are not
09:13:23 prepared to go forward today, what my understanding
09:13:27 is.
09:13:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Chairman, my concern is that
09:13:32 council, as a policy making board, needs to be really
09:13:35 involved with our water -- protecting our water
09:13:38 resources.
09:13:39 And I just want to make sure the city isn't spending

09:13:42 time or money pursuing a policy that City Council
09:13:44 would not be supportive of or comfortable with.
09:13:48 So I don't want the proceedings six weeks that he's
09:13:51 asking for, for them to be working on a plan to do
09:13:54 something that we are going to say, oh, we don't want
09:13:56 that to happen, and they have already, you know,
09:13:59 expended resources on that.
09:14:00 That's my only concern.
09:14:02 I'm willing to go ahead to allow -- it won't come to
09:14:08 us for some time, but I just want Mr. Daignault to
09:14:11 reassure us that during this interim time he is not
09:14:14 spending staff or contractual resources allowing the
09:14:19 examination of putting this water into our aquifer.
09:14:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: So what you're asking then is to have
09:14:27 him here to make that request, and you can ask him
09:14:30 that question at that time?
09:14:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, thank you.
09:14:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: With regard to 93 and 94, both
09:14:37 hearings are appeal hearings.
09:14:40 They are scheduled for 1:30 in the afternoon,
09:14:43 coincidentally or at the same time, you have a CRA
09:14:45 meeting.

09:14:46 Council, both of those are asked to be removed from
09:14:49 the agenda.
09:14:52 And, council, if you do that now, considering even
09:14:56 though it was advertised for 1:30, they would not be
09:14:59 heard, the public would not have an opportunity to
09:15:01 speak.
09:15:01 So what can be done is council can take action to
09:15:04 remove those from the agenda now and the clerk can
09:15:06 post on the door the fact those two items have been
09:15:08 removed from the agenda and therefore council won't
09:15:10 have to take it up at 1:30.
09:15:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
09:15:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let's wait until --
09:15:18 Why don't we cover all the changes and make one
09:15:20 motion.
09:15:20 We'll do that at the same time, okay?
09:15:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Items 90 and 91 the resolutions were
09:15:27 received from the legal department.
09:15:28 Those are prepared to go forward.
09:15:31 There are three items that are related to the CRA that
09:15:35 council will take up as the Community Redevelopment
09:15:38 Agency this afternoon, items 45, 44, 45, and 48.

09:15:44 Normally, council, what happens is the CRA takes it up
09:15:47 and has discussion on them.
09:15:48 And then the council comes back and ratifies them.
09:15:52 These are on the consent docket. If Council is
09:15:55 keeping them on the consent docket today, you can go
09:15:57 forward.
09:15:58 If council wishes to have discussion on any one of
09:16:00 those items, 44, 45, and 48, before it votes, the
09:16:05 suggestion would be to remove those from the consent
09:16:08 docket so you can get your questions answered.
09:16:10 There's been a request, if possible, for the council
09:16:14 to vote today rather than have the council recess,
09:16:18 have the CRA heard, have the council reconvene, and
09:16:21 then have to vote on it, if that's possible.
09:16:23 Whatever the pleasure of council is would be fine.
09:16:26 But if there's any desire to remove those from the
09:16:31 agenda, to hold them for discussion today, in the
09:16:34 morning, or after the CRA meets.
09:16:36 Other ways, they are right now presently on the
09:16:39 consent docket and will be passed by City Council
09:16:41 unless there's discussion.
09:16:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me just say to council that I made

09:16:45 this observation and yesterday in reviewing the
09:16:49 agenda, and process is a big usual you for me.
09:16:53 I want to move forward today, but in the future,
09:16:55 again, it's appropriate to have a CRA to discuss any
09:16:59 items of this nature, and then council votes on it,
09:17:02 you know.
09:17:03 Now, I don't have a problem if you want to go ahead
09:17:06 and do that Dan but in the future I want it noted for
09:17:08 the record that process is a big issue with me, okay.
09:17:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, the question would be,
09:17:16 is there any desire by any council member to want to
09:17:19 discuss any of these items before City Council votes
09:17:21 on them?
09:17:22 Otherwise, they would have to be removed on the
09:17:24 agenda.
09:17:24 Otherwise they would be just be passed as part of a
09:17:27 consent. If there's no concern, then that's council's
09:17:30 desire.
09:17:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Did you pull item 43?
09:17:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No, sir.
09:17:39 Not yet.
09:17:39 It on the list.

09:17:40 I haven't gone over them yet but they will be pulled.
09:17:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
09:17:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I haven't gotten to that one.
09:17:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So no one has any concern about the
09:17:50 other CRA items.
09:17:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The items that are requested to be
09:17:56 removed from the consent docket for separate vote
09:17:58 which would be placed under staff reports, unfinished
09:18:02 business at 10:30, are items 33, by request of council
09:18:06 member Mulhern for a change order for the water main
09:18:09 construction, item 36, a compromise settlement.
09:18:13 That actually -- council, I'm sorry, I stand
09:18:16 corrected, that just has to be taken up separately
09:18:19 when do you the committee report because that is going
09:18:21 to require Chairman Scott to have to abstain so that
09:18:24 will require a separate vote.
09:18:25 Other will be removed for council discussion is item
09:18:30 43 with Jammal engineering.
09:18:33 Council, I don't believe there are any other changes
09:18:35 that I'm aware of, unless there are other changes
09:18:38 considered by council.
09:18:38 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Why is item 43 being removed?

09:18:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Sir, it's being removed from the
09:18:47 consent docket for council discussion prior to the
09:18:49 vote.
09:18:49 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Okay.
09:18:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It will be voted on today, whatever
09:18:54 council decision is.
09:18:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Can we get a motion for all the
09:18:57 changes?
09:18:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved including the additional
09:18:59 ones from Darrell Smith, number 49.
09:19:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
09:19:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor let it be known by Aye.
09:19:09 Opposes?
09:19:09 So moved and ordered.
09:19:10 Okay.
09:19:12 Thank you.
09:19:14 We will now take up public comment.
09:19:17 Those who wish to address council, you have three
09:19:21 minutes.
09:19:22 You may come forward as the custom tradition to line
09:19:26 up and to address council on items that are on the
09:19:30 agenda.

09:19:32 Preference is given to those persons first.
09:19:34 And then if time remains you may discuss items that
09:19:38 may not be on the agenda.
09:19:39 Okay?
09:19:40 So we have 30 minutes.
09:19:48 Anyone that wants to discuss an item that's on the
09:19:50 agenda?
09:19:50 Come forward, state your name, address.
09:19:54 You have three minutes.
09:20:02 >>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: My name is Moses Knott, Jr., I
09:20:05 reside at 2902 East Ellicott street, three natures a
09:20:10 week.
09:20:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Welcome back, Mr. Knott.
09:20:12 We haven't seen knew awhile.
09:20:13 >>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: You know, thank you very much.
09:20:16 And also I -- that certain part of the year I work
09:20:24 down at port Manatee loading ships and loading back
09:20:26 ships.
09:20:27 And the season is over with now so I will be with you
09:20:30 all regular.
09:20:31 Thank God for my supporters.
09:20:33 But anyway, I just thank God for his grace and his

09:20:38 mercy, and we always said, this morning I had a
09:20:46 breakdown, and thank God I made it.
09:20:49 But I want to talk about this morning, there used to
09:21:01 be something always to talk about.
09:21:02 But the thing about the city budget this morning,
09:21:05 article 33, I don't know what that's about.
09:21:12 I think the city discussed it one time.
09:21:15 But I got something I want to say about that budget.
09:21:19 Out in my part of town, I see some city trucks come
09:21:22 down my street every day.
09:21:24 I used to own three lots west of Milton and the city
09:21:29 owns that now, and I see thousands and thousands of
09:21:33 people want to buy the city but the city wouldn't sell
09:21:35 it, now they use it for the city, the clean team,
09:21:39 coming every day and just sit down there, and nothing
09:21:43 is being done about that.
09:21:44 But I just say when the city got ready to cut budget,
09:21:49 the city Neat Team, I mean, those people that come
09:21:51 down there every day, they are dumping there and pick
09:21:55 it up and so forth, and then again thousands of people
09:21:58 wanted to buy that property.
09:22:00 And the city wouldn't sell it.

09:22:05 A white man by the name of Robert Burke, he died and
09:22:11 left me that property.
09:22:12 Now the city got it legal.
09:22:13 Now every day city trucks go down there and sit there
09:22:16 and sit there all through the day.
09:22:18 And I think that's a waste of money.
09:22:19 I noticed a couple weeks ago you all was talking about
09:22:22 the budget, you know.
09:22:23 And there's a lot of things in this town that -- I
09:22:31 been coming to the podium for many, many years and I
09:22:34 have seen you all spend money, I mean, just like it's
09:22:37 water running through a dam or something, you know.
09:22:41 But right now you are doing this cut-back thing, and
09:22:44 looks like you are cutting in some places you
09:22:46 shouldn't be cutting in, taking people's jobs, and
09:22:50 sometimes you can cut, help things, then again you can
09:22:57 cut what it is.
09:22:58 But when you all started this thing about cutting
09:23:00 budget it, you got Mr. Fred Hearn's office and sent
09:23:03 all those people home, and then you went and tried to
09:23:06 get a lot of the city employees, and then turn around
09:23:09 and try -- I want you all to be more careful about

09:23:15 that budget thing, hear?
09:23:17 And thank you very much.
09:23:28 >>> Cathleen O'Dowd, here on a non-agenda item.
09:23:32 I'm here on behalf of South Tampa enterprises.
09:23:35 It's a locally owned business.
09:23:37 Three of the four partners are with me today then
09:23:39 morning, Linda and Joe Coyle and Bob Cheney.
09:23:43 By hand delivery yesterday, I believe council members
09:23:45 received correspondence that we prepared in response
09:23:49 to a letter from Thom Snelling, some development
09:23:53 issues that we are struggle with in the Port Tampa
09:23:55 area.
09:23:55 I have extra copies of the letter in case you didn't
09:23:59 already receive it.
09:24:00 Thank you.
09:24:04 At the time South Tampa invested in various lot in the
09:24:14 Port Tampa area their intent was to develop it
09:24:16 consistent with the underlining zoning which was
09:24:18 single-family residential development. There was no
09:24:21 intention to seek any type of variances or waivers or
09:24:24 other allowances from the city.
09:24:26 Unfortunately, the development potential has been

09:24:28 significantly impacted as a direct result of the
09:24:32 Ashton Woods development agreement that was negotiated
09:24:35 and approved back in November of 2006.
09:24:37 The expressed intent of the development agreement was
09:24:40 to establish the duties and obligations between the
09:24:43 Ashton Woods developer and the city and to establish a
09:24:47 framework for the city to utilize with respect to
09:24:49 other developers in the Port Tampa area who intended
09:24:52 to develop vacant land.
09:24:55 It is stated in the development agreement that it will
09:24:56 be a significant impact to the citizens of the city by
09:25:01 improving and revitalizing the Port Tampa area, and
09:25:03 that the construction of certain improvements
09:25:05 including roadways, stormwater run-off, would confer
09:25:08 an area-wide benefit between the geographic
09:25:11 limitations of the Ashton Woods property.
09:25:13 Unfortunately, this has not been my client's
09:25:16 experience with respect to the intent and benefit of
09:25:18 the Ashton Woods development.
09:25:20 One example, the roadways have been constructed at
09:25:24 approximately seven feet above sea level.
09:25:27 For my client's property on sparkman street that means

09:25:30 the roadway is approximately three to five feet above
09:25:34 the grade of their lot, which makes development
09:25:38 extremely difficult.
09:25:40 And in order to -- our logical response to how we deal
09:25:44 with that is, well, we are going to have to bring in
09:25:47 fill to increase the grade to be above the roadway.
09:25:50 Unfortunately, that costs money, money they did not
09:25:53 intend and should not have had to spend in order to
09:25:56 develop the land.
09:25:57 They purchased the property prior to -- I think most
09:26:00 of the parcels were purchased back in 2003 long in
09:26:03 advance of the redevelopment agreement being
09:26:05 negotiated.
09:26:06 So at the time they purchased the property and they
09:26:08 looked at how they intended to develop it, these were
09:26:10 not issues you but are now presently issues they have
09:26:14 to struggle with.
09:26:15 When we talked to the city staff about how do we deal
09:26:17 with the fact that the roadways are elevated to the
09:26:20 point where they are, the response was we can build
09:26:22 the home cell construction or stilts, that doesn't
09:26:28 deal with access to the property, it doesn't deal with

09:26:31 stormwater run-off, and it's in our opinion not a
09:26:34 logical solution to the problem presented.
09:26:37 If we do bring in fill, the effect of trees that are
09:26:43 on the site, in all likelihood the trees will die.
09:26:46 We are told we would then either get a variance to
09:26:48 remove the trees and replace them, again more money
09:26:51 developing the land.
09:26:53 We have issues with retaining wall built by Ashton
09:26:58 Woods, and how it's impacting our property.
09:27:02 (Bell sounds).
09:27:02 If I could just wrap up a minute.
09:27:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
09:27:06 >> We come to you today to raise the level and seek
09:27:09 your help in responding to this.
09:27:11 My client has been responding with staff about six
09:27:12 months now.
09:27:13 But time is no longer on our side.
09:27:15 We are not getting any solutions.
09:27:16 We are not able to get permits to move forward with
09:27:19 development.
09:27:19 And I think my client realistically is looking at a
09:27:25 bankruptcy and foreclosure of their property.

09:27:27 So again time isn't on our side.
09:27:29 We just ask that whatever help you can assist in the
09:27:31 way of getting staff to work with us on this in a way
09:27:35 they haven't, we would appreciate it.
09:27:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena, councilman
09:27:41 Dingfelder.
09:27:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Councilman Dingfelder, it your
09:27:45 district.
09:27:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yeah, I got the e-mail, and went
09:27:48 out about a week ago to drive around and take a look
09:27:51 at it and see what the situation was.
09:27:57 And I can understand part of it.
09:28:02 I'm a little torn on it, because on the one hand, the
09:28:07 Ashton Woods folks are building a couple hundred
09:28:09 homes, and as a result they built the road, they built
09:28:14 the stormwater system and probably put in some kind of
09:28:17 utilities, I would guess, along the way.
09:28:19 It just so happens that their properties are
09:28:21 landlocked within, sort of within the Ashton Woods
09:28:25 project.
09:28:25 And so I don't know how many lots there are, ten,
09:28:31 seven, ten, something like that.

09:28:33 >>> I think currently between 18 and 20 lots.
09:28:35 We are talking specifically about nine lots at the
09:28:37 moment that we would like to be able to go forward
09:28:39 with permits.
09:28:40 >> Right.
09:28:41 And they are sort of scattered among the Ashton Woods
09:28:43 project.
09:28:45 On the one hand, the good news is your client never
09:28:47 would have been able to develop their property unless
09:28:50 they built the road themselves, because there were no
09:28:54 roads there before.
09:28:55 I think you have got to acknowledge that.
09:28:59 So that's sort of the good news.
09:29:01 The bad news is the city entered this development
09:29:04 agreement perhaps without consulting with your
09:29:06 clients, in dealing with those ramifications.
09:29:08 I haven't had a chance to talk with Thom Snelling or
09:29:11 Cindy Miller about this and see what the
09:29:13 administration's position is.
09:29:15 But I can see what some of the problems are.
09:29:20 I don't know what the solution is.
09:29:22 That's what my concern is in regard to, you know, your

09:29:27 clients, because obviously the road is the road.
09:29:31 The Ashton wood project is going along.
09:29:34 That's not going to change or stop necessarily, but
09:29:36 how can we mitigate this to help your client, you
09:29:39 know, develop their property?
09:29:41 And I'm waiting for solutions from you all's side.
09:29:45 And I don't know if this right place to do it.
09:29:49 >> Well, let me suggest at this point either we can
09:29:51 take this up later on in the day, or schedule it, have
09:29:55 staff come at public comment.
09:29:57 This is not the time to deal with this issue.
09:29:59 So a motion or --
09:30:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We are meeting in two weeks?
09:30:05 Is that when we are meeting?
09:30:09 Whenever the next regular meeting is, two or three
09:30:11 weeks.
09:30:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Next meeting regular the 7th.
09:30:16 Meeting after that would be the 21st.
09:30:19 Is that enough time?
09:30:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: They are familiar with it.
09:30:22 They know what's going on.
09:30:23 I move for staff to come on the 7th and give us an

09:30:26 update on this and tell us what some of the solutions
09:30:28 are, might be for this developer.
09:30:31 And obviously all the developers down therein who are
09:30:38 doing a good job in Port Tampa but we can't favor one
09:30:40 developer over another.
09:30:41 That would be my motion.
09:30:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
09:30:46 All in favor let it be known by Aye.
09:30:48 Opposes? So moved.
09:30:51 Anyone else wish to address council during public
09:30:54 comment?
09:30:54 Okay, assume not.
09:30:55 Do we have requests by the public --
09:30:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me add to my motion, just tweak
09:31:01 it a little bit.
09:31:02 If it's the administration and/or legal, because I
09:31:05 have a feeling legal is including this, I don't want
09:31:08 them to feel left out, okay.
09:31:11 Thank you.
09:31:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Request by the public for
09:31:13 reconsideration of a legislative matter.
09:31:15 Anyone here?

09:31:20 Question for reconsideration.
09:31:21 Assume not.
09:31:22 Then we'll move now to our committee reports.
09:31:31 Public safety.
09:31:31 >>GWEN MILLER: I move items 1 through 10.
09:31:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
09:31:36 (Motion carried).
09:31:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Parks, Recreation, Culture Committee.
09:31:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'd like to move resolutions 11
09:31:48 through 13.
09:31:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
09:31:50 (Motion carried).
09:31:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Public Works Committee.
09:31:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: As vice chairman, I'll move on
09:31:59 behalf of Mr. Miranda items 14 through 35.
09:32:07 Unless there are any pulled.
09:32:09 Excluding 33.
09:32:13 >>MARY MULHERN: 33 and --
09:32:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to comment on items 14
09:32:22 and 15 where we are hiring Greeley and Hanson to help
09:32:26 us value and keep up what to do with our reclaimed
09:32:29 water, which is relevant -- question that I have for

09:32:34 Mr. Daignault.
09:32:36 Good news is we are spending money to figure out what
09:32:38 to do with our water.
09:32:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll move all those except number
09:32:48 33.
09:32:50 >> Second.
09:32:50 >> Moved and seconded.
09:32:51 >> Then we'll take up 33.
09:32:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Finance Committee.
09:32:56 Yeah, we'll come back to it.
09:32:57 Finance Committee.
09:33:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ms. Mulhern, if you can hold 36.
09:33:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Go ahead and take up -- however you
09:33:06 want to move, either one.
09:33:07 >>MARY MULHERN: I want to move items 37 through 42.
09:33:14 >> A second?
09:33:19 >> Second.
09:33:19 (Motion carried).
09:33:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
09:33:22 Now.
09:33:23 >>MARY MULHERN: Do you want to take up item 36 now?
09:33:26 >> You can move it if you want to.

09:33:27 That's up to you.
09:33:28 >>MARY MULHERN: Oh, that's right, I'm sorry.
09:33:30 We need to put it on.
09:33:38 >> Item 39, you may want to discuss because I have
09:33:41 another name to add to the list on that particular
09:33:44 item and I'm not sure how you want to do that, if you
09:33:46 even discuss the actual resolution itself.
09:33:50 You and I have discussed it.
09:33:51 I'm not sure if anybody else on the --
09:33:54 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't think so.
09:33:57 We're fine.
09:33:58 That's up to the rest of council.
09:33:59 >>SAL TERRITO: I have one more name to be added to the
09:34:04 list of advisory committee members.
09:34:07 Mr. Miranda's, if I may.
09:34:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You have already voted, if you could
09:34:13 rescind the vote on number 39.
09:34:14 >>MARY MULHERN: Move to rescind the vote on 39.
09:34:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor let it be known by Aye.
09:34:21 Opposes?
09:34:22 So moved.
09:34:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe Mr. Territo is going to

09:34:26 offer a substitution.
09:34:28 >>MARY MULHERN: In the meantime I move 36.
09:34:32 >> Second.
09:34:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me submit this to the clerk.
09:34:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And the reason for the conflict, sir?
09:34:38 >> My son is involved in this case and therefore I'm
09:34:43 abstaining from that.
09:34:44 There's a motion.
09:34:45 Moved and seconded.
09:34:47 Let it be known by Aye.
09:34:48 Opposes?
09:34:50 And one abstention.
09:34:54 Building and zoning.
09:35:07 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Item 49 has been removed.
09:35:10 So let's approve item 43 to 58.
09:35:14 Remove 49.
09:35:15 >>MARY MULHERN: We pulled 43 for discussion and --
09:35:23 49.
09:35:25 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: 43 for discussion.
09:35:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 43 has been pulled.
09:35:35 So you are moving 44.
09:35:39 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Through 58.

09:35:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: With the exclusion of number 49.
09:35:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Pulled.
09:35:46 Let it be known by Aye.
09:35:48 Opposed?
09:35:49 >>THE CLERK: Who was the second on that?
09:35:51 >> Me.
09:35:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Transportation committee.
09:35:56 Mr. Dingfelder.
09:35:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
09:36:07 Move 59 through 61.
09:36:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?
09:36:16 >> Was there a second?
09:36:17 >>
09:36:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.
09:36:19 Items being set by council.
09:36:20 62.
09:36:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Move 62 through 69.
09:36:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 62 through 69.
09:36:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved by Councilwoman Miller, seconded
09:36:33 by councilman Dingfelder.
09:36:35 (Motion carried).
09:36:36 Okay.

09:36:40 Items set for public hearing for council consent
09:36:46 through 69, okay.
09:36:47 We go back now to the pulled items.
09:36:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, if council wishes to
09:36:53 have the items discussed with the administration, that
09:36:59 would be set for 10:30.
09:37:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: From the pulled items, yes.
09:37:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Under council's procedures, they will
09:37:11 start, at a time certain council will start its
09:37:14 business at 10:30 and take administrative items with
09:37:17 the staff.
09:37:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do separate readings?
09:37:22 >> Let me make a note, I want to point out in the
09:37:24 backup materials to council, I want to thank the
09:37:30 administration and staff for the information backup on
09:37:32 the WMBE participation, particularly if you look at
09:37:37 item 26 and several items where they note the
09:37:40 percentage or participation of WMBEs which is very
09:37:44 helpful, okay.
09:37:45 Item 26, I think it 44.6 participation by WMBE.
09:37:53 Item 19 is 47.2%.
09:37:56 So I want council to be aware of that.

09:37:58 We are getting that kind of detailed report which is
09:38:03 very helpful.
09:38:04 Okay.
09:38:05 We will now take up the second readings.
09:38:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Item 70 and 71 are not
09:38:15 quasi-judicial, witnesses don't have to be sworn, just
09:38:19 read in open public hearing.
09:38:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to open item 70 and 71.
09:38:25 >> Second.
09:38:26 (Motion carried).
09:38:27 Anyone wishing to address council on item 70, a public
09:38:30 hearing?
09:38:31 >> Move to close.
09:38:32 >> Second.
09:38:33 (Motion carried).
09:38:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I move the following ordinance for
09:38:37 second reading, an ordinance of the city of Tampa,
09:38:39 Florida amending ordinance 2008-69 by correcting a
09:38:42 scriveners errors in subsection F of section 25-72 use
09:38:42 of funds, providing for repeal of ordinances in
09:38:42 conflict, providing for severability, providing an
09:38:42 effective date.

09:38:42 >> Seconded by Councilwoman Saul-Sena. Record your
09:38:42 vote.
09:38:42 >> Motion carried unanimously with Miranda being
09:38:42 absent.
09:38:42 >> Item 71, public hearing. Want to move to open?
09:38:42 Anyone that wants to address council on 71, public?
09:39:57 >>MARY MULHERN: We need to not close the public
09:39:59 hearing yet?
09:40:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I would recommend that you keep it
09:40:01 open.
09:40:01 You haven't voted to close it yet.
09:40:03 >> So move --
09:40:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't think you voted to close it
09:40:05 yet.
09:40:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Go ahead.
09:40:10 >>MARY MULHERN: I just wanted to explain, and Ms. Kert
09:40:16 will probably be better at explaining it, but I just
09:40:19 last night looked at the ballot language for this
09:40:22 charter change.
09:40:24 And it was a little bit confusing.
09:40:27 So I spoke with Mr. Fletcher, and he's spoken with
09:40:34 Mrs. Kert, and we have made some very minor revisions

09:40:37 to it.
09:40:38 And I have the revisions here.
09:40:40 So we need to decide if we want to postpone this vote.
09:40:45 We have to vote on it today.
09:40:48 But I feel that council needs to see the changes.
09:40:52 I have the copies right here.
09:40:54 So I guess our decision -- and Mrs. Kert can explain
09:41:02 better than me but we have to decide if we want to
09:41:05 vote now or wait.
09:41:07 We can vote at the end of the meeting or we can do
09:41:08 it -- I don't know if we can do it this afternoon.
09:41:14 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
09:41:15 Ms. Mulhern had some issues about the readability of
09:41:19 the ballot language which is on the second page of the
09:41:21 ordinance.
09:41:21 That is language that is actually what appears on the
09:41:24 ballot.
09:41:25 She did speak with Mr. Fletcher and he and I reviewed
09:41:28 the language.
09:41:29 It is legally sufficient.
09:41:30 We believe that it still conveys, you know, to what's
09:41:36 legally required what is in the changes so it more of

09:41:38 a readability issue.
09:41:39 There has been discussion where it would not be
09:41:42 required to go back to first reading.
09:41:43 You could adopt this on second reading today, and it
09:41:49 does need to be adopted today.
09:41:50 Thank you.
09:41:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And what's the change in the
09:41:54 language?
09:41:57 >>MARY MULHERN: Really, the basic -- the major change
09:42:00 is in the first sentence.
09:42:02 Right before "should the charter be amended to allow
09:42:05 City Council to employ" rather than "appoint an
09:42:09 attorney."
09:42:10 And I think that that language could easily be read by
09:42:14 people who aren't aware our charter, city government,
09:42:19 as where we were maybe appointing someone.
09:42:24 Now some additional --
09:42:37 >> (off microphone).
09:42:44 >>MARY MULHERN: What I handed you now is the new
09:42:46 language.
09:42:47 The old language in your backup.
09:42:49 And in the ordinance.

09:42:55 Now it reads --
09:42:57 >>GWEN MILLER: She wrote this.
09:42:58 >>MARY MULHERN: It reads should the chatter be amended
09:43:02 to allow City Council rather than the city attorney to
09:43:04 employ an attorney.
09:43:07 So it makes it clear that we are just changing who is
09:43:11 doing the hiring and firing as opposed to --
09:43:13 >>GWEN MILLER: What is the old language?
09:43:16 >>MARY MULHERN: The old language was should the
09:43:19 charter be amended to allow City Council to employ,
09:43:23 rather than appoint.
09:43:25 Doesn't change the meaning.
09:43:27 It just makes it clearer to the public what we are
09:43:30 trying to say.
09:43:30 Because it's going to be on the ballot.
09:43:32 And that's always a difficult thing for people to
09:43:36 understand the ballot amendment language.
09:43:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think it's an excellent change.
09:43:49 And Ms. Mulhern, if you did it, I commend you.
09:43:52 City attorney is comfortable with either language,
09:43:54 then I think we should go with language as suggested
09:43:57 by Mr. Mulhern.

09:44:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think this is more clear.
09:44:05 >> I don't know why we didn't -- this is second
09:44:07 reading and I was surprised that none of us,
09:44:10 especially John didn't notice it before, but we were
09:44:13 so busy looking at the charter, I think we just didn't
09:44:15 look at this language.
09:44:16 So I just want to thank Chip and Rebecca for doing
09:44:21 this the morning before our meeting.
09:44:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There are a lot of gender changes
09:44:27 we are making because the charter had been written
09:44:29 like in '75.
09:44:31 Authorizes also included?
09:44:33 >>REBECCA KERT: City Council said the only change they
09:44:36 were going to put forward at this time are those
09:44:39 dealing with City Council attorney.
09:44:41 All the others you voted not to go forward on.
09:44:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: As I recall there were things on the
09:44:46 ballot, that we felt that was too much.
09:44:49 Just go with the one.
09:44:52 So then we need -- yes.
09:44:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would move in a that we go
09:44:56 forward with this.

09:44:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You seconded his motion.
09:45:00 Already made the motion.
09:45:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And this includes the campaign
09:45:03 finances?
09:45:03 I'm just curious.
09:45:05 [ Laughter ]
09:45:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, the motion to accept the
09:45:15 substitute ordinance before it's read should be a
09:45:18 separate motion.
09:45:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Corrected.
09:45:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded by Councilwoman
09:45:22 Saul-Sena.
09:45:24 >>MARY MULHERN: Need to read the resolution?
09:45:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Whether you accept the restitution,
09:45:32 then you need to accept the resolution.
09:45:35 You need to vote on whether you accept the
09:45:36 substitution.
09:45:37 That's just a straight --
09:45:39 Okay.
09:45:40 Motion has been made.
09:45:41 Second.
09:45:42 All in favor let it be known by Aye.

09:45:44 Any opposes?
09:45:44 So moved.
09:45:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, you may want to ask if
09:45:47 there's anybody in the public who wishes to speak for
09:45:49 the substitute.
09:45:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
09:45:51 Anyone from the public wish to address council on the
09:45:54 motion on the substitute change?
09:45:57 Anyone from the public?
09:45:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
09:46:00 >> Second.
09:46:01 (Motion carried).
09:46:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Now you read the substitute.
09:46:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Miller.
09:46:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Read the first.
09:46:16 Ordinance relating to the government of the city of
09:46:19 Tampa, Florida submitted to the electorate of the city
09:46:23 of the proposed amendment to the revised charter of
09:46:25 the City of Tampa and of 1975 as amended regarding
09:46:28 charter section 2.04 staff, more particularly
09:46:32 regarding the City Council attorney, providing
09:46:34 referendum, providing an effective date.

09:46:35 >> Second.
09:46:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion by Councilwoman Miller,
09:46:41 seconded by councilman Dingfelder.
09:46:59 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously with Miranda
09:47:04 being absent.
09:47:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT:
09:47:09 >> Move to open item 72.
09:47:11 >> Second.
09:47:12 (Motion carried).
09:47:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone who wishes to address council
09:47:24 on all of the items, 72 through 86, stand.
09:47:32 (Oath administered by Clerk).
09:47:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Can we go ahead and open all of them?
09:47:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Move 72 through 86.
09:47:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
09:47:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe there might be some items
09:47:49 that need to be received and filed that have been
09:47:51 available for public inspection in City Council's
09:47:54 lobby prior to the vote.
09:47:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
09:47:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
09:47:58 (Motion carried).

09:47:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Finally, council two, things.
09:48:01 If there's been any ex parte communications please
09:48:03 disclose the sum and substance of that communication,
09:48:06 with whom it occurred prior to the vote, and ladies
09:48:08 and gentlemen, just reaffirm for the record that you
09:48:11 are sworn if you do testify.
09:48:13 I put a sign there to remind you.
09:48:16 Thank you.
09:48:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 72.
09:48:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
09:48:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone from the public want to address
09:48:23 council on 72?
09:48:24 Okay.
09:48:25 Moved to close.
09:48:26 (Motion carried).
09:48:27 Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
09:48:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move the following ordinance for
09:48:31 second reading and adoption.
09:48:33 An ordinance amending ordinance number 2005-56
09:48:37 vacating, closing, discontinuing, abandoning all those
09:48:41 certain rights-of-way known as WESLEY drive and
09:48:45 Langhorne court lying off of Tampa Palms Boulevard

09:48:48 west, in the map of Tampa Palms area 2, 7 E-unit 2 a
09:48:54 subdivision within the Tampa Palms community
09:48:56 development district in the City of Tampa,
09:48:57 Hillsborough County Florida amending section 5 of said
09:49:01 ordinance to require all title holders of the property
09:49:03 abutting the proposed vacated rights-of-way described
09:49:06 therein to convey their interest in said rights-of-way
09:49:08 to the Huntington of Tampa palms homeowners
09:49:14 association, Inc., providing an effective date.
09:49:15 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Second.
09:49:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Caetano.
09:49:23 Record your vote, please.
09:49:30 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Mulhern voting no,
09:49:32 and Miranda being absent.
09:49:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 73.
09:49:37 Anyone from the public wishes to address council on
09:49:39 item 73?
09:49:42 Motion to close?
09:49:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
09:49:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
09:49:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Caetano, item 73.
09:49:56 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: An ordinance being presented for

09:49:58 second reading, an ordinance vacating, closing,
09:50:00 discontinuing, abandoning a certain right-of-way, a
09:50:03 portion of alleyway lying north of west Street, south
09:50:08 of Alfred street, east of Massachusetts Avenue, and
09:50:11 west of OLA Avenue in corrected map of Eldorado, a
09:50:14 subdivision located in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough
09:50:17 County, Florida, the same being more fully described
09:50:19 in section 2 hereof, providing an effective date.
09:50:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Second?
09:50:28 Seconded by Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
09:50:31 Record your vote.
09:50:44 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously with Miranda
09:50:46 being absent.
09:50:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone that wishes to address council
09:50:52 on item 74?
09:50:53 Anyone here wishing to address council on item 74?
09:50:56 >>LaCHONE DOCK: Land Development Coordination.
09:51:02 Items number 74, 75, 83 and 85 all require certified
09:51:07 site plans.
09:51:08 Those plans have been certified by the zoning
09:51:09 administrator and submitted to the clerk.
09:51:12 I have copies of those if you have any questions.

09:51:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
09:51:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 74, I don't think I was here for
09:51:20 that first reading.
09:51:22 1718 west Main Street, a 2(APS) beer and wine package
09:51:27 store.
09:51:28 Give me a rough idea.
09:51:30 I know Main Street.
09:51:31 But where are we talking about on Main Street?
09:51:33 What's the cross street and what type of establishment
09:51:36 is this?
09:51:36 >>> This is an establishment that has a multi-use
09:51:39 there.
09:51:40 There is a barbershop, a laundromat that is there, and
09:51:45 they have a food service that's strictly walk-up,
09:51:48 where they walk up to the window, they can order and
09:51:51 take out.
09:51:51 They don't have any sit-down seating.
09:51:55 And it just adjacent to the interstate.
09:52:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Were there any objections from that
09:52:02 West Tampa neighborhood?
09:52:05 What is that neighborhood?
09:52:07 >>> I believe there was one person that came and

09:52:09 testified at the hearing.
09:52:13 >> For or against?
09:52:17 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
09:52:18 City Council did at the last meeting request a change
09:52:20 to the ordinance to limit the sale of alcoholic
09:52:23 beverages in conjunction with a grocery, and that
09:52:26 change was made and adopted on first reading.
09:52:29 >> In conjunction with a grocery?
09:52:31 And so that's like sort of like 7-Eleven type thing,
09:52:34 like a convenience store?
09:52:37 >>REBECCA KERT: It would need to have some sort of
09:52:39 food.
09:52:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Everybody is good with that?
09:52:44 You guys heard it?
09:52:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The tern was raised by someone who
09:52:49 had a competing business down the street.
09:52:50 And I was very surprised that there is an elementary
09:52:53 school across the street, but not one neighbor showed
09:52:55 up and raised any concerns.
09:52:58 And the idea was that this is an existing business in
09:53:01 the neighborhood, and this is just expanding the
09:53:04 product line.

09:53:05 >> So this is down toward MacDill?
09:53:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, in a, no.
09:53:10 Just across the street from the housing authority
09:53:12 offices.
09:53:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Oh, that elementary school.
09:53:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But I was very surprised that no
09:53:20 one expressed concern because of the proximity to the
09:53:23 elementary school.
09:53:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
09:53:35 Motion to close?
09:53:36 >> So moved.
09:53:39 >> Second.
09:53:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: One other question.
09:53:43 One of the problems that this neighborhood has
09:53:45 complained about over time is the sale of individual
09:53:49 containers, particularly in glass, that doesn't break,
09:53:52 and kids are going barefoot.
09:53:55 Are he would able to limit the sale of individual
09:53:57 containers?
09:53:59 Rebecca Kert question.
09:54:04 In this particular case.
09:54:06 I happen to do -- did an extensive neighborhood survey

09:54:11 a number of years ago.
09:54:12 Neighborhood was very concerned about people buying
09:54:14 into glass containers of alcohol, specifically, or
09:54:19 beer.
09:54:20 And then they get broken on the streets, and it would
09:54:24 negatively impact the kids particularly because of the
09:54:25 proximity of this to the elementary school across the
09:54:29 street.
09:54:31 Does council have the ability to limit the sale of
09:54:36 individuals.
09:54:37 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
09:54:38 City Council has in the past, I will advise you, they
09:54:39 have previously, that is an issue that deals with the
09:54:42 sale of the business part of the alcoholic beverages,
09:54:46 and there's an issue that it may be preempted by state
09:54:49 law.
09:54:49 I don't have anything on that but I have raised that,
09:54:53 City Council has, and proposed that condition but if
09:54:55 you were to do that, would you need to have the
09:54:57 applicant speak to that.
09:54:58 >> Is the applicant here?
09:55:00 Oh, good.

09:55:02 >>> I have not been sworn in.
09:55:03 (Oath administered by Clerk).
09:55:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Before you speak I believe the motion
09:55:15 was to close the public hearing.
09:55:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to reopen.
09:55:18 >> Second.
09:55:19 (Motion carried).
09:55:19 >>> This is a small convenience store that also has a
09:55:25 restaurant component and barbershop.
09:55:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you have any photographs?
09:55:31 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I don't know if we have them with
09:55:34 me.
09:55:34 It's one building about 6 hundred square feet and I
09:55:36 think the concern that you had before was that it was
09:55:39 going to become a stand-alone, some kind of a package
09:55:43 store.
09:55:43 And that's why we suggested that you put the
09:55:46 restriction on there that it be incidental to the
09:55:50 principal uses that were there.
09:55:51 It is fairly small, and it does serve a very small
09:55:55 area.
09:55:56 And I think I mentioned to you, I went and drove

09:55:58 around and asked some of the other business people and
09:56:02 other residents around there, were they supportive of
09:56:04 it and they all seemed to be supportive.
09:56:07 In terms of restricting it to glass only, I don't
09:56:09 think their intention is to be selling quarts to go.
09:56:12 This is a food establishment that also has a grocery
09:56:17 store in the barbershop.
09:56:18 And we are at second reading now.
09:56:21 I would hate to go back again and try to put a
09:56:23 restriction that may not be enforceable on there.
09:56:26 But we certainly will have a commitment that the
09:56:29 intention is not to sell glass to go.
09:56:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, what does that mean?
09:56:35 That means you will not sell quarts to go?
09:56:39 >>> I can't speak absolutely for the owner in that
09:56:42 regard.
09:56:42 >>: I am very concerned about the proximity to the
09:56:44 school and I would feel much more comfortable granting
09:56:47 it if you didn't sell quarts to go, because I am very
09:56:51 familiar with the problem in that portion of West
09:56:53 Tampa with kids being hurt by broken glass, people not
09:56:57 thinking.

09:56:57 >>> Like I said, it's a typical convenience store.
09:57:01 >> It's not a typical convenience store.
09:57:03 If you showed us photographers, it's not a typical
09:57:07 convenience store.
09:57:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern, councilman
09:57:10 Dingfelder, councilman Caetano.
09:57:14 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you, Linda, for bringing that up
09:57:16 because it woke me up to remember the first reading.
09:57:22 And I don't think there was anyone from the
09:57:25 neighborhood here for that either.
09:57:27 However, there is a letter from Janice Williams, the
09:57:32 president of the old West Tampa neighborhood
09:57:33 association and crime watch.
09:57:36 I want to read this so that everyone hears it.
09:57:39 Dear Tampa City Council members, I will not be able to
09:57:41 attend the hearing scheduled for July 17th, 2008.
09:57:45 There are a few residents who support the petitioner's
09:57:48 request to sell beer and wine at 1718 west Main
09:57:51 Street.
09:57:52 They feel that since the location is in the Main
09:57:54 Street business district, it is appropriate to have
09:57:56 the business selling beer and wine.

09:57:58 Others feel that the petitioner should have the same
09:58:00 opportunity to sell wine and beer as other businesses
09:58:03 that have received approval in the past.
09:58:06 That's the first paragraph.
09:58:07 And Mr. Michelini had said that he had support from
09:58:12 the neighborhood association.
09:58:14 But when I looked in the file, I found this letter.
09:58:17 And here's the second paragraph.
09:58:19 However, the majority of residents oppose the request.
09:58:23 There is a grocery store at the corner of main Street
09:58:25 and Rome Avenue that is within close proximity to the
09:58:28 site in question.
09:58:29 Residents express concern that people sell drugs at or
09:58:32 near the grocery store.
09:58:33 There is an elementary school, Dunbar magnet school
09:58:36 across the street from the site.
09:58:38 There is also a laundry adjacent to the site. This
09:58:41 could create a dangerous area for customers using the
09:58:44 facility.
09:58:44 It is also important for you to know that residents
09:58:48 live within walking distance of the site in question.
09:58:51 There are churches within walking distance of the site

09:58:53 as well.
09:58:55 I just wanted that to be known, because it looks like
09:58:59 there is no one in opposition with this neighborhood
09:59:02 president, and I'm going to pass this down in case you
09:59:12 didn't get this.
09:59:13 But there is also a list attached.
09:59:14 And I think that -- Steve, this is just the people
09:59:20 that were noticed?
09:59:21 I don't know what that is might be Mick that's the
09:59:24 notice list.
09:59:25 One of the issues you have, a lot of people in this
09:59:27 neighborhood do not have their own transportation so
09:59:29 they have to walk up to various convenience stores.
09:59:33 And one of the issues that came out when I was talking
09:59:35 to them was, because there's no competition among the
09:59:38 grocery stores, some of them were charging higher fees
09:59:41 for some of their essential products, and the
09:59:46 competition was welcomed.
09:59:48 The only individual that came and opposed this was the
09:59:50 owner of the other grocery store, that this would now
09:59:53 be in competition with.
09:59:54 I think some of that back and forth that was occurring

09:59:57 between neighbors supporting or not supporting were
10:00:00 those who seemed to be -- like the other establishment
10:00:04 or were trying to support those owners.
10:00:07 I didn't hear any kind of split among the different
10:00:11 people that I talked to.
10:00:12 They were very supportive, and they seemed to like the
10:00:15 food, and it's a little sandwich shop, restaurant, and
10:00:22 the barbershop is attached, and then the grocery store
10:00:24 is attached to that.
10:00:27 The police department had no objections either.
10:00:29 They surveyed the same people that I did.
10:00:31 >>MARY MULHERN: You had mentioned that you had a
10:00:33 letter from the neighbors.
10:00:34 >>> I asked the owner to produce that, and that
10:00:39 probably was a preliminary letter of support, and it
10:00:41 was revised later on with the official letter that
10:00:44 went in, because we were told up until the day of the
10:00:46 hearing that they were supportive.
10:00:50 And I asked him to produce that letter as well, which
10:00:53 he went back and looked for, and I don't know if you
10:00:57 knew this or not but the laundromat burned and is now
10:01:00 under renovation.

10:01:02 So it's been a longer process, I think, than you would
10:01:07 normally have.
10:01:08 And because it's a small establishment, they don't
10:01:11 have the kind of resources that would normally be
10:01:14 available to a Circle K or 7-Eleven or something like
10:01:18 that.
10:01:18 But it is small.
10:01:19 It's 600 square feet.
10:01:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder, councilman
10:01:26 Caetano.
10:01:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I hear what you are saying, Steve,
10:01:31 about competition and I think that's all fair and
10:01:33 good, and I'm in favor of competition.
10:01:35 We want to encourage small business.
10:01:37 And this looks like a nice little small business on
10:01:40 the one hand.
10:01:41 On the other hand, I agree with Ms. Saul-Sena in
10:01:43 regard to the sale of singles, whether or not it's
10:01:48 quarts or other singles.
10:01:54 You know, I think if this is a convenience for people
10:01:58 to be able to take the beer and wine home and drink it
10:02:00 at home, you know, along with their groceries or what

10:02:03 have you, that's all fine and good.
10:02:05 But in regard to encouraging any type of street
10:02:09 drinking or drinking at the laundromat or, you know,
10:02:13 other types of things which might happen, if you are
10:02:17 selling singles, that concerns me.
10:02:19 >>> Councilman, I don't have any problem westbound
10:02:23 restricting single sales.
10:02:24 It was the glass that was the issue.
10:02:26 Singling sales is not an issue and certainly we can
10:02:29 agree to that restriction.
10:02:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: it's an issue for me and I
10:02:34 appreciate your accommodation.
10:02:35 Mrs. Saul-Sena, I don't know about the glass part of
10:02:37 it because you can't buy wine -- I guess could you,
10:02:40 some wines in cardboard boxes but most wines in glass
10:02:45 bottles.
10:02:48 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Think we can maybe a city
10:02:52 ordinance that you can only sell in cardboard boxes?
10:02:55 >> In a, no, no.
10:02:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That will be my biggest issue.
10:02:59 Mr. Michelini, I'm sorry if we have to modify it.
10:03:04 >>> Is that considered a significant change?

10:03:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's up to legal.
10:03:09 Under that circumstance I could support it.
10:03:11 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
10:03:12 I can make that change today, considering what time
10:03:16 you meet again and what time I end up getting out of
10:03:19 here but it would be something that would be
10:03:21 appropriate to go forward on second reading.
10:03:22 I would also like some clarification on what exactly
10:03:25 the sale of alcoholic beverages it's to be incidental
10:03:29 to because I have heard at the last meeting that was
10:03:31 to be incidental to the grocery, and now I am not sure
10:03:34 if that's exactly what the intent of the applicant was
10:03:36 or the City Council.
10:03:37 If I could get some clarification whether it's
10:03:40 restaurant or incidental to other retail sales, to
10:03:43 make sure I get that changed.
10:03:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you have a suggestion?
10:03:49 >>STEVE MICHELINI: We can make it broader if you like
10:03:51 but the intent was to make it incidental to the
10:03:53 grocery store because that was a stand-alone
10:03:56 operation.
10:03:56 We weren't mixing the ownerships, the operational

10:04:00 ownerships.
10:04:01 I think you would be more concerned about the
10:04:02 difference of the grocery sales, if you start adding
10:04:05 in the barbershop, and, you know, the food service,
10:04:09 then your incidental sales is going to climb.
10:04:12 It's not going to decrease.
10:04:14 The smaller the package, no pun intended here, but the
10:04:20 smaller the area that you're incidental to would
10:04:24 reduce the amount of sales of the alcohol, if you
10:04:27 expand that area, it would increase the potential for
10:04:30 more sales.
10:04:33 At least that's the way I would read it.
10:04:38 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
10:04:39 The application actually says, and the affidavit to
10:04:45 authorized agent, the proposed use of land is retail
10:04:48 convenience store which is retail sales, kind of like
10:04:50 a 7-Eleven like you mentioned.
10:04:52 Just to clarify for the record the area that's
10:04:55 actually receiving the special use permit for alcohol
10:04:57 sales is only 48 square feet.
10:04:59 It's 6 by 8.
10:05:01 It's in the back of the building so it's very, very

10:05:03 small.
10:05:03 It is that walk-up window where you can buy your beer
10:05:09 or boxes of wine.
10:05:11 The retail sale is fine, grocery, food.
10:05:16 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Dingfelder, what is it
10:05:18 exactly you want?
10:05:19 You don't want singles, in glass.
10:05:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm not addressing the glass issue.
10:05:25 I'm just talking about singles.
10:05:26 To not sell singles.
10:05:27 If they want to sell six packs, that's fine, take it
10:05:30 home and drink it.
10:05:31 But I'm opposed to the singles or quarts, you know, as
10:05:36 Ms. Saul-Sena --
10:05:37 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: This is not like South Tampa
10:05:39 where everybody has a lot of money, and maybe the
10:05:43 gentleman or whoever is going to go in could only
10:05:45 afford a single, all right?
10:05:48 With today's economy, we are hurting the small
10:05:50 business.
10:05:51 We had a big business here that just closed, 1,000
10:05:55 people going out of business.

10:05:56 And that's been I begins, okay?
10:06:00 And -- been I begins.
10:06:02 We cannot keep hurting the small business because
10:06:04 that's what we are doing and I'm sick and tired of
10:06:07 hearing they are selling drugs on the corner.
10:06:09 That's not his job.
10:06:10 It's the police department's job.
10:06:12 Get them the hell off Bruce B. Downs because that's
10:06:14 all they do all day is giving tickets up there.
10:06:16 I understand they gave 50 tickets on the new fly-over
10:06:20 the other day because the fly-over was going to open
10:06:23 on the 17th.
10:06:23 It didn't open.
10:06:24 They moved it to the 18th.
10:06:26 Finally on the 24th they opened it.
10:06:29 And I got many phone calls from people that got $140
10:06:34 ticket because they didn't know whether the bridge was
10:06:36 open.
10:06:36 And I discussed that with the chief anyway.
10:06:39 We can't keep hurting the small business.
10:06:42 And that's what we are doing.
10:06:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me raise a question.

10:06:49 In the same area, since you have the other grocery
10:06:52 store, are they allowed to sell singles?
10:06:54 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
10:06:58 Without examining each ordinance, as you know, City
10:07:00 Council recently has been individualizing each wet
10:07:06 zoning.
10:07:06 Without will go at them I couldn't say for sure, but
10:07:09 I'm not certainly aware of any -- it's not something
10:07:11 that you consistently have applied.
10:07:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The reason I'm saying that is because,
10:07:18 yeah, one small business here, sounds like in a wall
10:07:23 somewhere, all of a sudden, they can't sell singles,
10:07:27 but you got these guys selling singles across the
10:07:30 street, you know, you got issues, you got a problem.
10:07:35 And you are going to talk about the competitiveness of
10:07:39 the competition.
10:07:39 And you are right, councilman Caetano, a lot of these
10:07:43 are small mom and pop stores is what they are, trying
10:07:46 to survive, I guess.
10:07:48 I do have an issue, if it's close to a school or
10:07:55 church now.
10:07:55 But my understanding is, the school is, it's like in

10:07:59 back of the school.
10:08:06 But we can find out about the other area, not trying
10:08:11 to put extra work on it but if you can put your hands
10:08:14 on that.
10:08:14 Councilman Dingfelder.
10:08:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was just going to respond to Mr.
10:08:19 Caetano.
10:08:19 Joseph, you make a good point.
10:08:21 We are all concerned about the economy and small
10:08:23 business and everything.
10:08:23 But he would can't lose sight of the fact that when we
10:08:26 make these wet zoning decisions they are forever.
10:08:28 Our economy is going to come back.
10:08:30 I'm optimistic.
10:08:31 And I'm sure we all are.
10:08:32 Our economy will come back.
10:08:34 But these wet zonings are forever.
10:08:36 And you know what?
10:08:36 If I look at Main Street, I think Main Street, that
10:08:39 west Main Street in West Tampa has come a long way.
10:08:42 I mean, it really has.
10:08:44 It's on the rise.

10:08:45 All right?
10:08:46 But because it's on the rise is where my concern is.
10:08:50 I don't want to encourage, you know, the public
10:08:55 consumption of alcohol.
10:08:57 And when you sell singles, you see it, you know.
10:09:00 People buy a single.
10:09:01 They put it in a little brown paper bag and they go to
10:09:04 the corner and they plop down and they drink it.
10:09:06 And that hurts the neighborhood.
10:09:07 And that hurts Main Street.
10:09:10 Specifically this Main Street.
10:09:12 And that's where my concern is, Joseph.
10:09:15 You know, the petitioner, I asked the question, Mr.
10:09:18 Michelini jumped on it and he said he's sure his
10:09:22 client would be fine with the singles.
10:09:24 >>> I think -- the entire establishment is 600 square
10:09:31 feet.
10:09:31 As Cathy pointed out.
10:09:33 I'm not sure the exact cut-out.
10:09:34 This is a tiny grocery store.
10:09:36 They are not likely to become a drug hole.
10:09:39 You post the property according to the police

10:09:41 department.
10:09:43 It allows them to come onto the property and arrest
10:09:45 people who are doing illegal activity.
10:09:47 >> And a minute ago you said we're fine with the
10:09:49 prohibition of singles, correct?
10:09:50 >>> If that means forward or not moving forward,
10:09:53 absolutely.
10:09:53 >> Okay.
10:09:54 So I think it's better for the neighborhood.
10:09:55 This neighborhood association said they are opposed to
10:09:58 it, period.
10:10:00 We are looking for the middle ground, the compromise.
10:10:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Not all of the neighbors.
10:10:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The neighborhood association.
10:10:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern, then Saul-Sena.
10:10:12 >>MARY MULHERN: I think the neighborhood was will go
10:10:14 for a compromise.
10:10:14 And I am all for supporting small, local businesses
10:10:18 all the time.
10:10:20 But we also have to think about the economic
10:10:22 development of these neighborhoods.
10:10:25 And Linda talked about, how many, 15, 20 years ago

10:10:29 having this concern.
10:10:30 So if the neighborhood is concerned about this
10:10:33 particular business, and these neighbors have a job,
10:10:39 and they can't come in here repeatedly and show up and
10:10:42 argue about it.
10:10:42 So I feel that, you know, it's my place to stand up
10:10:47 for those neighborhoods.
10:10:49 And I don't think that they are really making a
10:10:53 distinction between whether you sell one or whether
10:10:55 you sell six.
10:10:56 You could put your money together and buy a six-pack,
10:10:59 or, you know, I think you got to make a decision of,
10:11:04 you know, what the best thing for the neighborhood is.
10:11:06 Sometimes, you know, it's not going to be the best
10:11:09 thing for, you know, what this particular owner wants.
10:11:13 But I did have one more question.
10:11:20 The gentleman who came in on the first reading who
10:11:22 does not want business, does he sell alcohol?
10:11:25 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Yes.
10:11:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Also sales singles, too.
10:11:31 >>> If I could put this in perspective for a second.
10:11:34 >> It's my turn.

10:11:36 You answered it.
10:11:39 About 16 years ago I worked very extensively with the
10:11:41 neighbors of West Tampa for three years developing a
10:11:43 neighborhood plan.
10:11:44 We brought in people from USF who queried folks, what
10:11:49 do you want to see in your neighborhood?
10:11:51 They wanted to see a bank.
10:11:53 They wanted more good services.
10:11:56 Worked extensively with the housing authority.
10:11:58 We put together with the city a revolving fund for
10:12:01 retail.
10:12:02 What the neighborhood neighbors said they didn't want
10:12:05 was more alcohol.
10:12:06 They were very specifically about this.
10:12:08 And it was because, particularly at main and Howard,
10:12:11 there were a couple of places that have like three
10:12:18 dusty cans, but they basically sold beer and the
10:12:20 neighbors were very upset about it because they felt
10:12:22 that it degraded the neighborhood, the people bought
10:12:24 these, they sat at the park and drank it and it was a
10:12:27 problem.
10:12:28 And I remember that clearly.

10:12:29 We were successful for a time getting a bank in there.
10:12:32 Unfortunately the bank left because they didn't have
10:12:34 enough deposits.
10:12:36 The good news is West Tampa is beginning to get some
10:12:39 traction now, and we should do everything to support
10:12:42 healthy neighborhood retail.
10:12:44 And I don't know that this addition brings things up
10:12:47 in the neighborhood.
10:12:49 >>GWEN MILLER: councilman Caetano.
10:12:51 And we need to take some kind of action.
10:12:54 We have been 20 minutes on this item.
10:12:56 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Can Ms. Kert come back and tell
10:12:58 us what the competitors in that area, are they
10:13:02 restricted? How long does it take to research that?
10:13:06 >>REBECCA KERT: I would not be able to come back with
10:13:08 that today.
10:13:08 We have to identify which wet zonings are in the area
10:13:10 and then pull all those individual ordinances.
10:13:12 So I would not be able to come back with that.
10:13:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, if it gets us off the dime,
10:13:20 council, I'm willing to move forward with councilman
10:13:23 Dingfelder's recommendations, move to the package sale

10:13:25 or whatever it is without singles so we can move on.
10:13:29 I mean, we spent 20 minutes on this issue.
10:13:31 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Is that all right with you?
10:13:34 >>> We are not trying to make things difficult.
10:13:37 I accept that amendment to move forward.
10:13:38 And I think --
10:13:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved directing legal staff to
10:13:43 modify the ordinance and bring it back at a later time
10:13:46 today.
10:13:47 Since we are here till midnight.
10:13:51 >>> Thank you very much, council.
10:13:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
10:13:55 All in favor?
10:13:58 Anyone from the public want to address us?
10:14:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did you ask for Nay?
10:14:06 >> Anyone opposed?
10:14:07 I'm sorry.
10:14:07 Anyone opposed?
10:14:08 Motion.
10:14:09 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm opposed to -- we are going to vote
10:14:13 on the change later, right?
10:14:18 >>> The vote will come up later.

10:14:20 >>MARY MULHERN: I am opposed to the change because I
10:14:22 want --
10:14:25 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Mulhern voting no.
10:14:30 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Thank you.
10:14:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 75.
10:14:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Was the public hearing closed on
10:14:36 that, by the way?
10:14:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No, didn't need to be because I
10:14:39 directed staff.
10:14:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Rather than continue the public
10:14:42 hearing, why don't you close the public hearing and
10:14:44 come back and read the ordinance?
10:14:46 Re open and make a motion to close.
10:14:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion to close?
10:14:51 >> Move to close.
10:14:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilwoman Miller.
10:14:57 All in favor let it known by Aye. Opposed?
10:14:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, the reason I suggest that is
10:15:01 because if you are going to continue the hearing it
10:15:03 should be at a time certain.
10:15:12 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department. I'm here on item
10:15:15 75. I have a substitute ordinance for this one.

10:15:16 We had incorrectly listed the waivers in the backup
10:15:18 report.
10:15:19 You had the correct information but we had it listed
10:15:22 wrong. So I need to substitute.
10:15:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone from the public wishing to
10:15:31 address council on 75?
10:15:33 >> So moved.
10:15:34 >> Second.
10:15:35 (Motion carried).
10:15:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern, would you read
10:15:41 75?
10:15:53 >>MARY MULHERN: I move an ordinance approving a
10:15:55 special use permit S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales,
10:15:59 small venue, and making lawful the sale of beverages
10:16:01 containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight and not
10:16:05 more than 14% by weight and wines regardless of
10:16:08 alcoholic content, beer and wine, 2(APS), in sealed
10:16:11 containers for consumption off premises only at or
10:16:14 from that certain lot, plot or tract of land located
10:16:17 at 8210 parkedge drive, Tampa, Florida as more
10:16:21 particularly described in section 2 hereof, providing
10:16:25 for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an

10:16:28 effective date.
10:16:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
10:16:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
10:16:34 Record your vote.
10:16:36 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Caetano being absent
10:16:47 at vote, and Miranda being absent.
10:16:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 76.
10:16:53 Anyone who wishes to address council on item 76?
10:17:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question on 76.
10:17:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What is this establishment?
10:17:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That was my question.
10:17:13 304 east Davis.
10:17:18 Swat A.
10:17:21 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
10:17:22 304 East Davis Boulevard is unit A.
10:17:29 I'm trying to recall exactly which one it is.
10:17:31 Oh, this is the lounge, the sushi place.
10:17:35 At the end of that separate building next to the handy
10:17:38 food store.
10:17:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That was my question, too.
10:17:42 Thank you.
10:17:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone here wishing to address council

10:17:44 on item 76?
10:17:46 Motion to close.
10:17:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.
10:17:47 >> Second.
10:17:48 (Motion carried).
10:17:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I move the following ordinance upon
10:17:52 second reading, an ordinance making lawful the sale of
10:17:55 beverages containing alcohol more than 1% by weight
10:17:57 and not more than 14% by weight and wines regardless
10:18:00 of alcoholic content beer and wine 2(COP-R) for
10:18:02 consumption on the premises only in connection with a
10:18:05 restaurant business establishment on that certain lot,
10:18:08 plot or tract of land located at 304 East Davis
10:18:10 Boulevard, swat A, Tampa, Florida as more particularly
10:18:15 described in section 2 hereof, waiving certain
10:18:17 restrictions as to distance based upon certain
10:18:21 findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
10:18:24 conflict, providing an effective date.
10:18:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded by Mulhern.
10:18:30 Record your vote.
10:18:40 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Caetano being absent
10:18:42 and Miranda being absent.

10:18:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 77.
10:18:49 Anyone wishing to address couple on item 77?
10:18:59 >>MARGARET VIZZI: 213 south Sherill.
10:19:01 Some of the issues, like the one on Main Street, I
10:19:05 want to speak for beach park homeowners association.
10:19:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Are you speaking to -- I'm sorry, Ms.
10:19:10 Vizzi, are you referencing number 77?
10:19:15 >>> Yes.
10:19:15 The Westshore plaza, yes.
10:19:17 And I have been sworn.
10:19:21 During the first hearing, I had asked some questions
10:19:25 both of Cathy and Rebecca regarding a portion of this
10:19:29 business that is supposed to be a private club with an
10:19:33 area that would have a private key entrance.
10:19:37 I was told that was not part of what they had applied
10:19:40 for in their wet zoning, so not to address it.
10:19:44 However, in the meantime, when Emily was speaking with
10:19:52 the police officer, he said there is a concern about a
10:19:56 locked area of their wet zoned establishment.
10:20:01 That's one of the questions.
10:20:08 So said not a problem.
10:20:10 I don't know if anybody can answer that.

10:20:12 The other issue is what is the wet zoning secondary
10:20:17 to?
10:20:17 Because there's going to be sales of tobacco, of food,
10:20:21 there's a barbershop, there's a private club, and it's
10:20:24 supposed to have, I think, $2,000 membership.
10:20:27 That's what the gentleman told us when he talk talked
10:20:30 to us, monthly dues.
10:20:34 So what is the wet zoning secondary to?
10:20:36 Those are the two questions we still have.
10:20:38 When it was read at first reading two weeks ago, I
10:20:41 couldn't address it so we didn't even come because it
10:20:46 just the ordinance being brought forward to you.
10:20:48 So now that we can address it, can we have answers to
10:20:52 these questions?
10:20:52 Thank you.
10:20:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
10:20:59 Petitioner?
10:21:00 >>> Grace Yang, 201 north Franklin street, suite 2200
10:21:07 Tampa.
10:21:07 I have been sworn.
10:21:09 For the petitioner, the wet zoning petition that was
10:21:13 filed, the proposed use of the land as a retail cigar

10:21:17 store/private club and lounge.
10:21:20 And that was noted on the wet zoning petition as
10:21:24 filed.
10:21:25 It was also explained when the representative from the
10:21:31 LLC and I met with the Beach Park homeowners
10:21:36 association board, we did show drawings of the
10:21:39 proposed floor plan, and it did show, and we did
10:21:43 explain that there is a portion in the cigar club that
10:21:47 would have a private members-only access point,
10:21:50 because part of the business model that's being
10:21:53 proposed is that there would be a majority open to the
10:21:59 public, that there would be members who could join the
10:22:02 cigar club, pay a membership, and have access to a
10:22:05 separate lounge area with arm chairs, flat screen
10:22:10 TVs, SOFAS, work stations where they could try to do
10:22:17 some work.
10:22:17 And so there is that private club component in it.
10:22:20 But the majority of the club is open to the public.
10:22:25 The overall business is planned to be a cigar club, a
10:22:29 cigar shop, and the alcohol being incidental to the
10:22:32 cigar use.
10:22:34 I believe we tried to spell that out in the conditions

10:22:37 that we agreed to self-impose in the ordinance.
10:22:41 And if there are still questions, I would be glad to
10:22:44 try to answer them.
10:22:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much.
10:22:46 Ms. Vizzi, does that answer your concerns?
10:22:56 >>MARGARET VIZZI: I guess it does not because these
10:22:59 private club dues are supposed to be very high.
10:23:01 So if the dues for the private club are part of what's
10:23:04 going to balance with the alcohol sales, as was
10:23:08 brought out earlier, the higher those things are, the
10:23:11 more alcohol that could be sold.
10:23:14 And the other question which, sorry, I was going to
10:23:19 ask, is there a process by which the city monitors
10:23:22 that, just like they do with the restaurant sales, a
10:23:29 regular report that's given?
10:23:30 That was the third question I had which I'm sorry.
10:23:33 But, no, I don't think just saying the tobacco sales,
10:23:37 because -- are the membership dues part of the tobacco
10:23:43 sales?
10:23:45 What exactly are they going to put down as sales to
10:23:49 balance their liquor?
10:23:50 That's our question.

10:23:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do they have to put anything?
10:23:56 If it's an X and not an R?
10:24:00 >> It's an X.
10:24:00 That's what it says.
10:24:04 Legal?
10:24:06 Do we have legal staff to address?
10:24:09 >>REBECCA KERT: If I understood the question
10:24:11 correctly, the question would be, would the dollar
10:24:17 amount of their sales to the private club or the dues
10:24:20 to the private club be counted in what was considered
10:24:23 incidental?
10:24:26 If that's the correct question.
10:24:28 The sale of alcoholic beverage is entirely incidental
10:24:30 to the primary function of the business establishment,
10:24:33 retail sales of cigars and cigar related products and
10:24:35 accessory personal services or bona fide restaurant.
10:24:39 It does not include a private recreational facility in
10:24:43 what the sale of alcoholic beverages have to be
10:24:46 incidental to, so the sales of cigars, personal
10:24:49 services or bona fide restaurant.
10:24:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And what was that last question, the
10:24:54 third question that she wanted an answer?

10:24:57 Do we monitor that?
10:24:58 Does the city monitor these kinds of services?
10:25:05 >>> Do they have a recording requirement like in your
10:25:08 R designation?
10:25:09 No, they do not.
10:25:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any additional questions by council?
10:25:19 Councilwoman Mulhern then.
10:25:22 >>MARY MULHERN: Legal?
10:25:30 Okay.
10:25:30 So we have approved I believe wet zonings for clubs,
10:25:38 right?
10:25:40 Like private clubs.
10:25:41 >>REBECCA KERT: Yes.
10:25:44 And private recreational facilities.
10:25:50 On Franklin Street.
10:25:52 >> That's what I was thinking about.
10:25:56 And it's not an R.
10:25:58 It's not a restaurant designation, is that right? Is
10:26:03 that what you are saying?
10:26:04 >>> No.
10:26:10 It was not R designation.
10:26:12 It would have been tied to the private recreational

10:26:16 ability and I don't recall if it was X amount.
10:26:20 It might not even have been an X.
10:26:22 It might have been an ability to sell high wine
10:26:25 prices.
10:26:25 I believe that's what --
10:26:29 >>MARY MULHERN: I guess I need a refresher.
10:26:32 But the options are for wet zoning.
10:26:35 You can get a wet zoning for a restaurant so it's
10:26:39 incidental?
10:26:40 >>> Right.
10:26:40 Incidental to a restaurant.
10:26:41 And the big difference there is they are required to
10:26:44 have an affidavit twice a year that their food and
10:26:48 nonalcoholic beverage sails are greater than the sale
10:26:51 of alcoholic beverages.
10:26:52 >> What about a bar?
10:26:55 There's no -- that's the same thing as --
10:26:58 >>> A bar would not qualify an R, you typically think
10:27:03 of as an R.
10:27:04 That would need to get an X or just a straight COP
10:27:08 designation.
10:27:09 >>MARY MULHERN: I think it's interesting.

10:27:11 Ms. Vizzi brought up, this is interesting because we
10:27:13 are getting all these requests for wet zonings for
10:27:19 unusual, you know, not a restaurant, not a liquor
10:27:21 store, not a bar, and our code doesn't really give us
10:27:28 much room as far as not a restaurant.
10:27:33 >>> If you are not a restaurant what we do is we put
10:27:37 in the ordinance or you can have the option of putting
10:27:39 in the ordinance the sale of alcoholic beverages is
10:27:43 incidental to some other primary function, in this
10:27:46 case, the cigar sales and accessory for services or
10:27:50 bona fide restaurant.
10:27:51 Difference there is there is not a reporting
10:27:53 requirement.
10:27:53 Right now there's a requirement that twice a year
10:27:56 somebody submits an affidavit.
10:27:58 We don't go through their books twice a year.
10:28:00 They submit an affidavit twice a year.
10:28:02 If it's not an R, though, they are not required to
10:28:04 submit that affidavit, and we would evaluate it on a
10:28:06 case by case situation if there was a complaint.
10:28:09 >> So if you have a complaint, and then you
10:28:12 investigate, then what happens?

10:28:16 I mean, are there any consequences?
10:28:19 >>> Yes, I mean, there are consequences, depending
10:28:22 upon the violation, and somebody would need to go out
10:28:25 and investigation and if it's felt we have enough
10:28:28 evidence to demonstrate the sale was not incidental to
10:28:30 these uses then we can bring revocation proceedings
10:28:32 under your new -- that you adopted in April.
10:28:36 >> In the past, has that happened?
10:28:39 Have we had people reporting on, I guess, with
10:28:42 maybe --
10:28:44 >>> Since I have been here I am not aware of a
10:28:46 complaint that has come up.
10:28:47 Somebody who is to have incidental sales, it not
10:28:50 operating, so I can't, you know, it's not a good
10:28:52 example that there never were any.
10:28:54 I'm not aware of any complaints.
10:28:57 Of a specific incident.
10:28:58 >> It seems like all you can do is be vigilant as your
10:29:03 neighborhood association really is.
10:29:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
10:29:10 Rebecca, I think what we need to do is look at how we
10:29:13 can clarify and make transparent this process, so that

10:29:19 we do have more ability in the future and here to know
10:29:24 really and truly what's going on.
10:29:26 I anticipate this is going to be a wonderful
10:29:28 establishment.
10:29:28 It looks beautiful.
10:29:29 It looks great.
10:29:31 Westshore plaza has too much at stake to allow
10:29:34 something that isn't very well run to be part of the
10:29:39 plaza.
10:29:39 So I have very high expectations.
10:29:41 But I think that relying on a twice a year affidavit
10:29:44 is a little -- we might consider doing something that
10:29:48 gives the city a little better sense of what's going
10:29:52 on.
10:29:53 >> I will remind City Council that it was within the
10:29:58 last year or so that City Council went from requiring
10:30:01 greater reporting requirements and even sometimes I
10:30:04 think it was four times a year at some point, you went
10:30:07 to two times, and requiring people to actually -- it
10:30:12 was a policy that was very burdensome, for the staff
10:30:15 and for the applicant, but certainly if you want to
10:30:18 direct us to do, to go back and try to do something

10:30:22 more thorough on that, that would be something we
10:30:25 could bring back to you.
10:30:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Perhaps what we need to look at,
10:30:29 because we are getting into beauty salons running with
10:30:33 the licenses and cigar bars and all these other
10:30:35 things, maybe we should -- maybe a council member
10:30:39 would volunteer, not me, to work with you on the
10:30:42 development of just a way that we have a really good
10:30:45 sense that these things don't turn into bars.
10:30:47 That's our concern.
10:30:48 And I don't want to create more burdensome reporting
10:30:51 requirements.
10:30:51 But I also don't want these places turning into bars.
10:30:54 Maybe we can be creative and look at what other
10:30:57 communities are doing.
10:30:58 >>REBECCA KERT: We have certainly been trying.
10:30:59 >>MARY MULHERN: I volunteer John Dingfelder to do
10:31:03 that.
10:31:05 I think he would be the perfect person to do that.
10:31:07 And I just want to say that when my salon starts
10:31:10 allowing cigar smoke, I'm not going there.
10:31:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, we need to move.

10:31:16 Do you have any additional questions?
10:31:22 >> Grace: Two closing points.
10:31:24 I think there was a comment about police concern.
10:31:27 I was not aware of any concerns from police officer
10:31:32 Miller.
10:31:32 I believe the police report in your packet shows there
10:31:35 were no concerns from the police with respect to this
10:31:39 proposed business.
10:31:39 So I did want to point that out.
10:31:41 And also just to say that this proposed ordinance does
10:31:46 state as part of the conditions that the business must
10:31:49 be maintained either as a bona fide restaurant, or as
10:31:52 a retail, or as a primary business with retail cigar
10:31:56 sales, retail sales.
10:31:58 So I do want to point that out, that it is tied to
10:32:01 that, so that if there is still remaining concern that
10:32:04 it will turn into a full-blown bar, that cannot be the
10:32:08 case with the self-imposed conditions in this proposed
10:32:11 ordinance.
10:32:11 Thank you.
10:32:15 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, can I ask one
10:32:17 question?

10:32:17 >> Yes.
10:32:18 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Ms. Kert, in the future, if the
10:32:20 owner of this business wanted those restrictions
10:32:23 changed, is that possible that he can come to this
10:32:25 City Council and change it?
10:32:27 >>REBECCA KERT: Yes, it is possible, but they would
10:32:28 need to come in with a formal application.
10:32:31 And the only other thing that Cathy Coyle reminded me
10:32:34 to remind you all is this is a wet zoning and it is
10:32:37 under your old process.
10:32:38 Under the new process we are under chapter 27. In
10:32:40 chapter 27 you have a whole list of defined uses.
10:32:43 And when applicants are coming in we are asking them
10:32:47 to define terms so we do feel it's enforceable.
10:32:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.
10:32:54 >> Second.
10:32:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?
10:32:58 Opposes?
10:32:58 Okay.
10:32:58 >>GWEN MILLER: I move to adopt the following ordinance
10:33:01 on second reading, an ordinance making lawful the sale
10:33:04 of beverages regardless of alcoholic content beer wine

10:33:07 and liquor 4(COP-X) for consumption on premises only
10:33:12 at or from that certain lot, plot or tract of land
10:33:15 located at 218 Westshore plaza, Tampa, Florida, as
10:33:19 more particularly described in section 2 hereof,
10:33:21 waiving certain restriction as to distance based upon
10:33:24 certain findings, imposing certain conditions,
10:33:27 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict,
10:33:29 providing an effective date.
10:33:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's been moved and seconded by
10:33:32 Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
10:33:34 Record your vote, please.
10:33:44 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder being
10:33:45 absent at vote and Miranda being absent.
10:33:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Council, we need to go to staff
10:33:50 reports at this point and come back to second
10:33:52 readings.
10:33:53 It is now about 10:33.
10:33:55 So we'll take up the staff reports at this time.
10:33:58 And the first one I have is item 87.
10:34:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 87 is just having to move the
10:34:08 resolution.
10:34:09 >>GWEN MILLER: So moved.

10:34:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT:
10:34:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second?
10:34:15 >> Second.
10:34:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and second.
10:34:17 (Motion carried).
10:34:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 88.
10:34:23 Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
10:34:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
10:34:26 I was really so pleased with the general report on the
10:34:28 tree canopy.
10:34:30 It's like the best piece of work that's ever been done
10:34:33 by our Parks Department.
10:34:36 It was so thorough and comprehensive.
10:34:38 And the report we got from Karen Palus said that they
10:34:42 received a grant to deliver an overall strategy for
10:34:45 urban forest sustainability.
10:34:47 Our next step is to convene a stakeholders group and
10:34:52 build consensus, develop strategies and
10:34:54 recommendations, and that will come to us.
10:34:56 What I would like to do is request that Ms. Palus give
10:35:00 us a time frame for this process.
10:35:03 Oh, there she is.

10:35:08 >>KAREN PALUS: Good morning.
10:35:10 Karen Palus, parks and recreation director.
10:35:13 I can give you a time frame.
10:35:14 We are getting ready to send the letters out to the
10:35:17 individuals that have been selected from the mayor's
10:35:19 symposium, and they will be part of that group.
10:35:21 We'll go through the process with them over the next
10:35:24 three months, and we anticipate having a function in
10:35:27 January to talk about their consensus items.
10:35:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is it a real diverse group,
10:35:35 neighborhood people, development people?
10:35:36 >>> Yes, we had about 125 folks that participated in
10:35:39 the symposium, got great feedback, input from them,
10:35:43 great facilitation, so we'll be taking about four
10:35:46 pages worth of ideas and move forward to have them
10:35:49 really kind of come in to the key focus points, the
10:35:52 goals and sustainability issues that we want to make
10:35:54 sure we address.
10:35:55 >> Thank you so much for your work on that.
10:36:02 >>MARY MULHERN: I think that's great that you are
10:36:03 doing that, but I did hear from a constituent who was
10:36:06 on a committee or -- Linda, you must know about this.

10:36:11 There was a tree study?
10:36:16 So this person said there were a couple of specific
10:36:18 recommendations which I think we really don't need to
10:36:24 wait for a really long study to do.
10:36:27 I would like to see that.
10:36:29 Were there some findings at the end of that?
10:36:32 >>> Yes, there were.
10:36:33 We adopted some things there were consensus on, a
10:36:36 couple of things there weren't consensus on, a simpler
10:36:38 method for determining grand trees, and what can we do
10:36:41 to protect the not quite grand, so we will have grand
10:36:46 trees in the future.
10:36:46 >>MARY MULHERN: That was one of the things that was
10:36:49 suggested to me that there had already been, you know,
10:36:53 discussion.
10:36:53 But I thought that there was a consensus.
10:37:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: One of the things, the things that
10:37:03 fell out, we said we would get back to.
10:37:05 So this is the getting back to.
10:37:06 >>MARY MULHERN: Well, I hope that you will find that,
10:37:10 submit to the Karen, because we are always reinventing
10:37:14 the wheel, and that's a lot of work that you and those

10:37:17 neighbors put into it.
10:37:17 And this person is an environmentalist so she knows
10:37:21 what she's talking about.
10:37:23 But one thing that I think we should do, there's no
10:37:25 reason, this is going to take a long time.
10:37:27 Your study and recommendations and all that.
10:37:30 One thing she wanted to do is just remove camphor
10:37:35 trees from the protected trees because they are
10:37:37 invasive.
10:37:38 >> That should be able to be done.
10:37:41 >>> I'll go back and collect that.
10:37:44 We did remove that already.
10:37:46 >>MARY MULHERN: That would be great if we have.
10:37:49 And the other thing is what you were saying was
10:37:50 contested but she was recommending that grand oak
10:37:53 status be determined by DBH, which is -- what is DBH,
10:38:00 diameter?
10:38:02 To 30 inches instead of this points formula which
10:38:05 allows people to include the canopy which they are
10:38:09 easily able to trim before you come and measure it.
10:38:14 So I would like us to push forward with that, if we
10:38:17 can.

10:38:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We can do that as a policy
10:38:23 decision, we, council.
10:38:24 >>MARY MULHERN: Just because it great that we are
10:38:27 doing this.
10:38:28 We have to quit reinventing the wheel.
10:38:30 And it just delays work that, you know, we could be
10:38:35 doing.
10:38:35 And that study was so fantastic and so huge that I
10:38:38 know that what you are going to be dealing with going
10:38:40 to be really broad and really -- it's going to take a
10:38:43 long time.
10:38:46 >>KAREN PALUS: we are trying to focus on the overall
10:38:48 goals and how we look at that for the future and
10:38:50 manage that.
10:38:50 >>MARY MULHERN: Right.
10:38:52 >>KAREN PALUS: But the information going from the
10:38:53 group that worked so hard before, again we focus on
10:38:57 all of those consensus items. We still have a few of
10:39:00 them that were borderline that we would like to
10:39:02 continue to look forward to, and that's part of the
10:39:05 discussion that came out of the symposium.
10:39:08 Several of those items came back.

10:39:09 So we'll continue to focus on that and look at that as
10:39:12 well.
10:39:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
10:39:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Karen.
10:39:18 It's an excellent study, and provides a really good
10:39:21 base lane for this community to move forward.
10:39:23 And I think I would guess we are probably being pretty
10:39:27 progressive as compared to other communities around
10:39:28 the state and around the country.
10:39:30 One of the things that jumped out at me and we talked
10:39:33 about it when you made the presentation was the fact
10:39:34 that we have this big canopy, the canopy is Brazilian
10:39:39 pepper, so on the one hand Brazilian pepper is -- I
10:39:44 mean any tree is a nice tree because of what it does
10:39:46 in terms of shade and everything else, but the flip
10:39:48 side is, you know, Brazilian pepper has so many
10:39:52 negatives.
10:39:53 I know we used to have a pretty aggressive program
10:39:56 about the Brazilian peppers.
10:39:57 I'm just wondering, you know, with budget cuts and
10:40:01 everything else, are we able to really attack the
10:40:03 Brazilian peppers like we used to?

10:40:06 >>KAREN PALUS: Well, as far as past practices, we
10:40:09 continue to work on those.
10:40:10 We worked a lot with our volunteer organizations,
10:40:14 beautification, keep Hillsborough beautiful, a lot of
10:40:16 groups that are coming in.
10:40:17 That's really been more of our focus, has been focus
10:40:20 like we did the MacKay Bay, just recently we had over
10:40:24 200 volunteers out there, and they did a tremendous
10:40:26 amount of work on that.
10:40:28 The key with that, and this is part of our focus is
10:40:31 making sure we continue to treat those areas, that
10:40:33 they do not come back.
10:40:34 So we focus on that because of that.
10:40:42 And you will recall who came to speak in regards to
10:40:46 our tree study spoke about Brazilian pepper, so we
10:40:50 have been working kind of in regard with our
10:40:52 neighborhoods ands with our different volunteer groups
10:40:54 to really focus on that within at least the areas that
10:40:57 we can manage.
10:40:58 >> But the Brazilian pepper, I mean, I have actually
10:41:03 physically worked out there on those volunteer days at
10:41:06 MacKay Bay.

10:41:08 like ten years ago, but that is our property, but
10:41:10 obviously this Brazilian pepper problem must be sort
10:41:13 of endemic on a lot of private property as well and
10:41:17 maybe we need to do a better job of education, you
10:41:19 know, that sort of thing to get out to the private
10:41:22 community, and then if somebody says, yeah, I have got
10:41:26 this big, you know, Brazilian pepper problem but I
10:41:30 could use some volunteers to help we could plug them
10:41:33 all together.
10:41:34 >>> And that's exactly what came out of the symposium,
10:41:36 the really overarching piece of the folks that
10:41:40 participated is that education and outreach, and that
10:41:42 is part of what our staff will be focusing on
10:41:44 especially in the natural resource section, to develop
10:41:47 some of the educational pieces, be able to share that
10:41:50 information, and work with the group that we have been
10:41:51 working with, too, to get that information out, into
10:41:54 all hand, not just in our parks and our facilities and
10:41:57 the things that we manage, but also in the private
10:41:59 sector, so they know what to look for, they know what
10:42:02 to do within their properties and to help in that
10:42:04 process.

10:42:04 >> So you will get back with us on that as your
10:42:07 program develops?
10:42:07 >>> Yes.
10:42:08 >> I love it when we think alike, Karen.
10:42:12 Thank you.
10:42:12 >>MARY MULHERN: I want to ask if Terry Neal is on any
10:42:16 of your committees.
10:42:16 >>> Yes.
10:42:19 We didn't get him to commit but he is on one of our
10:42:23 groups.
10:42:23 >>MARY MULHERN: He had that brilliant idea that you
10:42:26 pull a pepper on plant or some kind of tree.
10:42:29 And I don't know what a Brazilian pepper looks like.
10:42:32 I don't have any trees in my yard other than oak.
10:42:37 Could you get us a picture?
10:42:38 >>> I'll be happy to.
10:42:40 >>MARY MULHERN: Just even broadcasting that so people
10:42:43 know what the invasive tree is.
10:42:45 I didn't know until we got that study about those.
10:42:48 And if they were like one third of all the trees?
10:42:52 So that would be helpful.
10:42:53 >>> Okay.

10:42:55 I would be happy to do that.
10:42:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I volunteer to work with you to
10:42:58 re-look at the simple measurements of grand trees and
10:43:01 bring that back to council.
10:43:04 Thank you.
10:43:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?
10:43:05 Thank you very much.
10:43:09 Item 89, Councilwoman Saul-Sena has a couple
10:43:13 questions.
10:43:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Daignault, thank you so much
10:43:16 for coming over here.
10:43:17 I don't mind putting off the study -- I mean the
10:43:21 report by you.
10:43:21 I just want to be reassured that we are not spending
10:43:24 any money, we are going forward in any way looking at
10:43:27 this, until you come back here.
10:43:29 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: The city master plan, there's a
10:43:32 reclaimed master plan is not looking at recharge.
10:43:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
10:43:38 I need to be reassured that no consultants -- you know
10:43:41 how we just today voted to give money to consultants
10:43:44 to look at overall.

10:43:46 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Correct.
10:43:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have been educated by the
10:43:50 environmental community that putting wastewater into
10:43:51 our river is not a good thing.
10:43:53 I don't know what your opinion is.
10:43:54 But I don't want to spend money hiring people to look
10:43:57 at doing something that the environmental community --
10:44:02 we had this discussion two years ago.
10:44:03 It was a big thing.
10:44:06 Now SWFWMD is back saying maybe we should do this,
10:44:09 they are under pressure from, you know, other folks.
10:44:11 I don't want the city to think about doing this.
10:44:14 And I don't know how to get us to do that.
10:44:19 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Again our scope of work for the
10:44:22 master plan is to fully utilize reclaimed within the
10:44:25 city.
10:44:25 It is not asking them to explore recharge or do any
10:44:29 kind of engineering work on recharge.
10:44:33 That's our study.
10:44:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
10:44:35 So SWFWMD is looking at this, right?
10:44:38 >>> I am not totally familiar.

10:44:40 I have heard lots of discussion.
10:44:41 We want to continue to be watching to see what they
10:44:43 are doing.
10:44:43 But I can't control SWFWMD.
10:44:46 >> But we are not.
10:44:48 We are not --
10:44:49 >>> That's correct.
10:44:49 >> The scope of work to your consultant on the stuff
10:44:52 we voted on today.
10:44:53 So we are not looking into it.
10:44:54 >>> That's correct.
10:44:56 That's a true statement.
10:44:57 >> Okay.
10:44:58 We are all listening.
10:44:59 >>> Yes, ma'am.
10:45:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you for clarifying.
10:45:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
10:45:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Steve, as long as Linda had you up
10:45:08 there.
10:45:09 You and I have been having chats about star one.
10:45:12 And I just want to make sure that star one would be
10:45:14 addressed in the master plan in some form.

10:45:17 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: We are going to have
10:45:20 recommendations on how we move forward, and deal with
10:45:23 customers as well.
10:45:24 So we'll have that in the recommendations part of that
10:45:27 study when that comes out.
10:45:28 We'll have recommendations in that regard.
10:45:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: In the ma master plan?
10:45:33 >>> Yes.
10:45:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
10:45:45 >>MARY MULHERN: -- reclaimed water but I haven't.
10:45:47 I'm having frustration just trying to get any
10:45:50 direction from the city.
10:45:52 And there's just one very simple thing that I think
10:45:56 you could do, is to compile a list of plumb percent,
10:46:07 or have a link on your web site or somehow let people
10:46:11 know who will do that for them.
10:46:13 I'm sure there's a way that legal can help us do that
10:46:16 so it's not that we are promoting anyone.
10:46:19 I mean, I really find that that's really problematic
10:46:27 for me, that we don't know who the people who are
10:46:31 doing it are.
10:46:32 So I'm supposed to -- I don't want to go through the

10:46:34 phone book and have to get all these estimates.
10:46:36 When there are people that are already doing it.
10:46:41 And I just think it's a simple thing.
10:46:43 But it becomes a roadblock to doing anything when you
10:46:46 don't get any direction, when you try to get some
10:46:50 help.
10:46:52 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: I don't know who you called or
10:46:54 talked to, but we'll be glad to provide with you some
10:46:56 information.
10:46:57 Be glad to do that for anyone.
10:46:58 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.
10:47:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We need to take up item 90 and it 1,
10:47:07 resolutions.
10:47:08 >> Need a motion to defer the report.
10:47:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We didn't vote on it earlier?
10:47:21 We did?
10:47:22 >> Move 89.
10:47:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion made by Councilwoman Miller for
10:47:32 item 89 which is referenced to Mr. Darrell Smith,
10:47:36 memorandum to us.
10:47:37 Seconded by councilman Dingfelder.
10:47:39 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

10:47:41 Opposed, same sign.
10:47:42 Okay.
10:47:42 So moved.
10:47:43 Okay.
10:47:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Move the resolutions for item 90 and
10:47:49 91.
10:47:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
10:47:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Did we get the resolutions?
10:47:54 Okay.
10:47:55 Moved by Councilwoman Miller, seconded by councilman
10:47:57 Dingfelder.
10:47:58 (Motion carried)
10:48:00 Okay.
10:48:01 Then the last item for staff reports, item 92.
10:48:05 This is on the Gary school.
10:48:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry to interrupt but just a
10:48:10 reminder that you also have items 43 that was removed
10:48:20 from the consent item.
10:48:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.
10:48:23 Going to the Gary school.
10:48:24 Anyone to address that?
10:48:25 >>> Good morning.

10:48:27 Thank you for giving us the opportunity to give you an
10:48:29 update on this issue today.
10:48:32 I would like to start off by mentioning two procedural
10:48:36 issues.
10:48:37 I would like you to keep in mind as we have this
10:48:39 discussion today.
10:48:40 One is that there is a pending zoning matter related
10:48:42 to this site.
10:48:45 And the other issue is that there is procedurally a
10:48:50 possibility in other actions that may come before you
10:48:53 related to either demolition of the property -- if the
10:48:56 property owner should seek that or other approvals so
10:48:59 I would ask that you not say anything to specifically
10:49:01 pre-judge anything related to this site, this
10:49:04 facility, and talk about this more as we talk about
10:49:07 going forward, how to hopefully address the policy
10:49:14 issues associated with what we have been asked to
10:49:15 address, which is this particular demolition by
10:49:19 neglect concept (Chip) that has been brought up by
10:49:25 council members from time to time.
10:49:27 First of all, I would like to point out that we have
10:49:30 demolition by neglect ordinance in process.

10:49:33 It's in the July cycle.
10:49:35 We are working on that to address many of these
10:49:37 issues, related not just to historic homes but to
10:49:44 other abandoned buildings as well.
10:49:46 Rebecca Kert has been working on that I think in
10:49:49 consultation with many council members.
10:49:51 I would like you to be aware of. That we are being
10:49:53 proactive.
10:49:56 And we are aware of this issue.
10:49:59 Unfortunately, with the Gary school, the collapse
10:50:04 occurred prior to having those protections in place.
10:50:10 Historic preservation and protection of historic
10:50:13 abandoned buildings is a very challenging issue that's
10:50:15 being addressed nationwide.
10:50:20 The City of Tampa is not the only one that's having
10:50:22 issues with this type of situation.
10:50:25 And we are working very hard to find the best solution
10:50:28 that will get us to where we want to be, which is
10:50:30 preserving these buildings and not being punitive and
10:50:34 not forcing people to either tear down or otherwise
10:50:38 abandon the historic use and character of the
10:50:42 building.

10:50:42 So with that premise, I would like to turn it over to
10:50:48 Ernie Mueller who has been working on this specific
10:50:51 code enforcement matter to talk about the procedures
10:50:53 that we have in place now.
10:50:58 And then we have staff here from both historic
10:50:59 preservation and code enforcement to answer any
10:51:01 questions that you may have related to the building or
10:51:04 the historic preservation program, and the code
10:51:07 enforcement process related to the historic buildings.
10:51:11 And for the record, my name is Chip Fletcher, and I'm
10:51:14 the city attorney, and this is my first time to appear
10:51:19 before you as part of my duties now that I have been
10:51:23 sworn in, and looking forward to working with you, and
10:51:29 as you might be able to tell I'm very much in getting
10:51:31 down to business and moving on.
10:51:32 So I would like to do that at this point.
10:51:34 Thank you.
10:51:41 >>> Good morning.
10:51:42 Ernie Mueller, assistant city attorney.
10:51:45 What I would like to do is just give you a report as
10:51:47 to what has occurred with regard to the Code
10:51:50 Enforcement Board process that has occurred thus far

10:51:53 with the Gary school.
10:51:58 On Tuesday, July 22nd there, was a collapse of part of
10:52:01 the Gary school.
10:52:03 On Friday, July 25th, there was an emergency Code
10:52:06 Enforcement Board hearing in front of a hearing
10:52:09 officer.
10:52:13 At the emergency hearing, the hearing officer found
10:52:15 that the condition of the structure presented a
10:52:16 serious threat to the public health, safety and
10:52:19 welfare.
10:52:20 The hearing officer ordered that the structure be
10:52:23 stabilized to prevent further collapse and that the
10:52:26 rubble be cleared, and that was all within 15 days
10:52:29 that that needed to be done.
10:52:31 There was a concern that -- oh, and if that 15-day
10:52:35 deadline was not met, then there would be imposed a
10:52:38 $500 per-day fine for each day the structure was not
10:52:42 stabilized and that the rebel remained after that
10:52:45 deadline.
10:52:48 Now there, was a concern as to whether the condition
10:52:50 of the structure was such that stabilizing it would
10:52:55 pose a danger to anybody entering onto that property.

10:52:57 Therefore, both the property owner and the city are
10:53:00 going to have structural engineers inspect the
10:53:04 structure.
10:53:06 And the reports from those engineers would be
10:53:07 submitted to the hearing officer as soon as possible,
10:53:12 and within those 15 days.
10:53:13 If the reports indicated that stabilizing the
10:53:16 structure posed a danger, then another hearing would
10:53:20 immediately be set in front of the hearing officer to
10:53:22 discuss the impact of those reports on the record that
10:53:26 had already been ordered setting that 15-day dead lane
10:53:29 to stabilize that building and clear that rubble.
10:53:32 Now, this morning, the city structural engineers and
10:53:35 the fire department were on scene and did conduct an
10:53:39 inspection of the building.
10:53:41 The remainder of the violations -- and that is whether
10:53:45 the condition of that building violated the city's
10:53:48 vacant code standards, is still pending and will be
10:53:53 heard by the full Code Enforcement Board on August 27.
10:53:58 Thank you.
10:53:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
10:54:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Ernie.

10:54:05 You have a lot of backup here so if you are not the
10:54:08 appropriate person then defer to somebody else.
10:54:09 But, you know, at this point in time, you know, we now
10:54:13 have a collapse of what appears to be about a fourth
10:54:15 of the outside shell, at least that's what it appears
10:54:20 to be in the newspaper, maybe more than that.
10:54:23 What I wonder about, sometimes you see in other cities
10:54:26 and maybe it's even been done in this city, you know,
10:54:29 where a portion of the facade, of a facade is kept,
10:54:35 okay, kind of as a symbolic representation of what was
10:54:38 there, and then the rest of the building is just built
10:54:41 brand new around it.
10:54:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Behind it.
10:54:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yeah, behind it and around it.
10:54:49 But at least on one side perhaps it has some type of
10:54:52 representation of what was there, you know,
10:54:55 symbolically.
10:54:56 And I have seen this -- actually in my daughter's
10:55:00 neighborhood in Washington, D.C.
10:55:02 You know, they just left a portion of the facade so
10:55:04 everybody can kind of have a nice remembrance of what
10:55:07 is there, and then they build a target behind it,

10:55:10 which was sort of interesting.
10:55:12 But, anyway, so what I would like to ask or suggest,
10:55:17 as the folks go through this process, and code
10:55:20 enforcement, is maybe they will look at this as an
10:55:23 all-or-nothing thing.
10:55:24 So maybe the engineers, you know, they conclude that
10:55:28 structurally, you know, this structure has significant
10:55:30 problems.
10:55:31 Maybe as a mitigation, maybe they could still
10:55:34 preserve, you know, one side of the facade, so when --
10:55:39 if this person gets permission to build this swim club
10:55:42 or whatever, or whatever eventually goes there, that
10:55:45 they would include a portion of it.
10:55:47 Linda, you probably are more familiar with that, or
10:55:51 Mary, than I am, but I just want to throw it out there
10:55:54 as a suggestion.
10:55:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.
10:55:58 >>MARY MULHERN: I think that happened at the last
10:56:03 resort when you haven't protected a building.
10:56:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think that might be where we are
10:56:09 on this one.
10:56:09 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't think we are ready to talk

10:56:12 about that.
10:56:14 >>> If I may follow up on that point, too.
10:56:18 Part of the decision-making process and deciding how
10:56:20 to go father from this point was how to give the
10:56:23 property owners as many options as possible for
10:56:25 dealing with the site.
10:56:26 It would be his decision whether or not to take that
10:56:28 approach and seek approval from the ARC, and part of
10:56:33 the reason that the decision was made not to condemn
10:56:36 the property, which would have been an option with
10:56:38 this type of a hazard, but to go with the different
10:56:41 enforcement process, the emergency hearing that we
10:56:44 selected, was to not impede the ability of the
10:56:46 property owner to look at all those different options.
10:56:49 And so I definitely hear what you are saying, and I
10:56:53 understand that.
10:56:55 I would just like to make Clare that it is the
10:56:57 property owner's decision.
10:56:58 When don't want to pre-judge what decision he makes
10:57:01 for the --
10:57:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: For the future, Chip, as we proceed
10:57:05 in drafting a better ordinance, you know, let's build

10:57:08 that type of thing in so it's not just the property
10:57:11 owner's decision, so if you get to a certain point
10:57:15 where I believe we might be approaching on this one,
10:57:19 that that's part of our code, you know, instead of an
10:57:24 all-or-nothing proposition.
10:57:26 >>MARY MULHERN: I have a question for you, I think I
10:57:30 have the floor.
10:57:31 Was it okay for us to be discussing what to do with
10:57:34 this building?
10:57:37 >>> Well, I was trying to say let's be careful about
10:57:40 saying what we think should happen with this site.
10:57:42 And so I think we need to recognize that presently
10:57:45 it's the property owner's decision.
10:57:48 There are processes in place where he could petition
10:57:52 to demolish the building.
10:57:55 My understanding is that would go to the ARC, and then
10:57:57 potentially an appeal of that would go to this body.
10:58:00 So I don't think we really want to get into what
10:58:02 conditions we may want to place on that, or otherwise
10:58:06 get into a lot of detail of that.
10:58:09 From a policy standpoint, I understand councilman
10:58:11 Dingfelder's perspective that we need to make sure we

10:58:14 have the flexibility in the code to allow that to
10:58:17 happen.
10:58:18 And I wanted to make clear that we recognize that we
10:58:21 need to give the flexibility to allow that to happen
10:58:24 and that is why we chose to go with the current
10:58:27 enforcement process rather than a demolition order
10:58:29 which creates a lot of impediments through the -- to
10:58:32 the property owner redeveloping the property.
10:58:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena and councilman
10:58:37 Caetano.
10:58:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
10:58:39 Mr. Fletcher, let me start off by saying that you are
10:58:42 new here, and so is Jake Slater who is in charge of
10:58:46 code enforcement, and this issue significantly
10:58:50 predated your term.
10:58:51 I began bringing this up five and a half years ago,
10:58:54 and if I feel frustrated today it's because the
10:58:57 efforts were not successful.
10:59:00 The first effort was when the school board owned the
10:59:02 building.
10:59:03 My question to you is, does the school board have to
10:59:05 protect their -- have to follow the city's code?

10:59:11 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: My understanding of the current
10:59:13 law -- I can't speak to what was on the backs at the
10:59:15 time that the school was owned by the school board.
10:59:19 But the current law is that the school has separate
10:59:22 statutorily designated authority to set their building
10:59:26 codes consistent with state law, and that we cannot
10:59:30 directly enforce our code upon them.
10:59:34 Now, our understanding is that they have a
10:59:35 relationship with the city in which our code
10:59:37 enforcement staff provides inspection services.
10:59:41 But that our ability under state law to directly
10:59:44 regulate their buildings, implementation of their code
10:59:50 is very limited.
10:59:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Starting tomorrow, I go to the
10:59:53 Florida trust for historic preservation board meeting,
10:59:56 and I'm going to work on this on a state level,
10:59:58 because I think that it's obvious that we need to be
11:00:01 able to protect buildings like this.
11:00:03 But we have significant internal challenges.
11:00:08 The reason that this -- that we have lost significant
11:00:11 buildings from the Maas Brothers building to the fires
11:00:14 because the buildings were inadequately secured, is

11:00:16 because we have a disconnect between Dennis' fine work
11:00:22 in identifying historic buildings and code
11:00:25 enforcement's ability to make property owners secure
11:00:28 their buildings properly if they are not being used.
11:00:30 This is our issue.
11:00:33 I don't feel that there's value in ranting and raving.
11:00:37 I think there's value in putting our energy starting
11:00:40 today look into looking at where those disconnects
11:00:44 occur and strengthening them.
11:00:45 I will work on it from a state level.
11:00:48 Council is committed to work on it in terms of passing
11:00:50 the ordinances.
11:00:51 But we need you guys to make this a real priority.
11:00:53 Tampa doesn't have that many nice little buildings, we
11:00:58 really don't.
11:00:59 We are not Boston.
11:01:01 We are not Washington.
11:01:02 We have maybe a dozen or two.
11:01:03 And we need to significantly protect the ones we have.
11:01:06 Mr. Slater's first day on the job I took up the street
11:01:09 to take a look at a couple that I'm concerned about.
11:01:12 There's some others scattered about.

11:01:13 I will provide with you this list.
11:01:15 And what I would like is a report back in 60 days on
11:01:21 how we are going to improve our -- oh, and speak of
11:01:25 which, when do we get the rules to be law?
11:01:31 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: You have a couple of questions
11:01:33 there.
11:01:33 Let me address them in order.
11:01:35 First of all, I would like when I get done to get R
11:01:38 give both Jake and Dennis opportunity to come up and
11:01:43 respond. Having looked at the time line, I would note
11:01:45 that the action this year on the Gary school site
11:01:49 actually occurred fairly shortly after Jake Slater
11:01:52 would come in here and being involved, and I think it
11:01:55 does take leadership to make these things happen.
11:01:57 And I think we have that now, at least from my
11:02:01 perspective.
11:02:01 But I think Jake and Dennis should address that
11:02:04 directly.
11:02:06 With regard to the rule provisions, Rebecca is
11:02:13 confirming.
11:02:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Caetano.
11:02:19 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Sir, you mentioned there were 15

11:02:22 days, a mandatory something had to be done.
11:02:26 Okay, Ernie, is that 15 days over?
11:02:32 >>> No, it would be 15 days from the 25th.
11:02:35 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: And then on August 22nd you are
11:02:38 having another hearing.
11:02:40 >>> The 27th actually.
11:02:42 That's before Code Enforcement Board when the actual
11:02:45 code violations themselves regarding whether the
11:02:48 building is in violation of the city's vacant code
11:02:55 standards will be heard at that time.
11:02:56 >> Many while, is that building gated in any way to
11:03:00 protect people from going in there?
11:03:02 >>> There is a fence, chain link fence, around the
11:03:06 entire property at the perimeter of the property.
11:03:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me just follow up and then
11:03:13 recognize councilman Caetano.
11:03:15 Let me just follow up with a couple of issues of
11:03:17 concern that I have.
11:03:19 Because I have been here about a year and a half.
11:03:24 It is my understanding that this issue was raised by
11:03:26 Councilwoman Saul-Sena about five years ago.
11:03:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.

11:03:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And my concern is, when a council
11:03:31 person raised a concern, why does it get to this point
11:03:34 before any action is taken?
11:03:36 Now, please understand, I hear what you say about the
11:03:41 school board.
11:03:41 And that's part of government that hides behind its
11:03:46 own regulations and rules.
11:03:48 Every other citizen, every other private person,
11:03:53 property is in deplorable condition we hide behind the
11:03:57 fact can't nothing be done to protect it.
11:04:00 Come on, people.
11:04:02 A council person raised an issue five years ago.
11:04:04 It was under the supervision of the school board.
11:04:08 This body should address the school board at that time
11:04:10 and point out to them, we have a major concern about
11:04:13 this structure, what are you going to do about it?
11:04:17 There was an issue.
11:04:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: They came down here and said they
11:04:20 would do something and they never did anything.
11:04:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Then we should have went back and take
11:04:25 whatever steps are necessary to correct the problem.
11:04:27 We have a responsibility, the school board is in the

11:04:31 community, in the City of Tampa, it becomes a hazard
11:04:34 to the community and we just sit back and said, well,
11:04:37 we are going to take care of it and after five years
11:04:40 nothing is followed up on.
11:04:42 We have to do better than that, okay?
11:04:44 Because we have to look at the time frame.
11:04:46 School board sells it off.
11:04:48 Now you have a private owner has it so now we want to
11:04:51 hold them responsible for all of the damage, and they
11:04:54 should take part of the responsibility, but also the
11:04:56 school system and the school board, because it was
11:04:59 brought to their attention five years ago.
11:05:01 So my issue is, Mr. Fletcher, from a legal standpoint,
11:05:08 what can we put in place to address it?
11:05:11 I mean, even if we can't do anything through the
11:05:14 legislature, there's got to be something that we can
11:05:18 do to raise the consciousness of the school board that
11:05:21 we will not tolerate any buildings within the City of
11:05:24 Tampa, that significant spans to be destroyed or
11:05:32 demolition by neglect that well not tolerate now, and
11:05:34 that we will pursue all avenues.
11:05:36 I mean, at some point, you have got to put -- apply

11:05:40 the pressure.
11:05:41 It was unnecessary for this building to be in the
11:05:43 condition that it's in.
11:05:44 Especially after a council person called it to their
11:05:47 attention.
11:05:47 So what can we do?
11:05:50 Are you looking at other remedies or solutions in that
11:05:52 regard?
11:05:54 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Well, the school board is a unique
11:05:57 issue, and I will ask my staff to look at whether
11:05:59 there are other avenues of getting to enforcement with
11:06:02 the school board.
11:06:03 My understanding is where -- the way the state statute
11:06:07 is set up we are very limited and we will follow up on
11:06:10 that.
11:06:10 Regarding the other buildings that are not school
11:06:14 board-owned buildings, the demolition by neglect
11:06:20 ordinance that we have in process, I think, is a step
11:06:23 forward.
11:06:24 We really have two challenges in this area of historic
11:06:28 preservation.
11:06:29 The primary enforcement mechanism that we have is code

11:06:32 enforcement.
11:06:35 That is a process which the fines are statutorily
11:06:41 capped.
11:06:41 They are roughly $1,000 per event, and for repeat they
11:06:45 go up, and there are variations on that.
11:06:48 But that gives you a sense compared to the cost of
11:06:52 repairing these buildings.
11:06:53 The economic incentive there is mixed.
11:06:58 There are going to be situations where the economic
11:07:00 choice is for the property owner to pay those fines
11:07:06 rather than to restore that building.
11:07:08 And that's a problem with the way our system is set
11:07:11 up.
11:07:12 And that's a problem that's being a hindrance to
11:07:17 historic preservation nationwide.
11:07:19 It's not unique to the City of Tampa.
11:07:22 Now, we could have the option of going to court and
11:07:25 seeking injunctions on the facilities to get mandatory
11:07:29 injunctions for taking action to restore the property.
11:07:34 We need to have clear code provisions that we can
11:07:38 enforce in that regard.
11:07:39 We are working on that.

11:07:40 I think that is an option that we could pursue.
11:07:43 But my understanding working at case law, talking to
11:07:47 staff, that the results on that are mixed.
11:07:48 So that would be, I think, an option, that we would
11:07:52 not want to pursue initially but we may want to
11:07:54 discuss what type of instances in which we would want
11:07:57 to initiate that type of litigation.
11:07:59 That is a significant policy decision that we would
11:08:02 need to investigate.
11:08:04 And I'm not sure if this -- in this instance we knew
11:08:08 that in fact it was so dilapidated.
11:08:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We knew.
11:08:12 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: So just to get back to your point
11:08:17 is, I can't explain why it took so long to take action
11:08:22 on this particular facility after it had been raised
11:08:25 so many times.
11:08:26 And I'll let code enforcement and historic
11:08:30 preservation staff speak to that.
11:08:32 My understanding is that in this instance it wasn't
11:08:35 designated a historic structure until 2006.
11:08:38 Not really sure why that happened.
11:08:39 But under our code, that's an important prerequisite

11:08:45 to these different enforcement actions that we have.
11:08:47 And the other thing that I will mention is that the
11:08:55 coordination, as Councilwoman Saul-Sena mentioned
11:08:57 between historic preservation and code enforcement is
11:08:59 key in getting in there early, and that, I think,
11:09:03 under our current tools is the best way to go forward.
11:09:06 And we need to evaluate what other legal options are
11:09:08 available.
11:09:09 But I'm not confident standing here today that I can
11:09:14 tell you that we can categorically require every
11:09:19 property own theory has a historic building to fully
11:09:22 and completely restore that building.
11:09:23 Our code just isn't set up that way right now.
11:09:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And I understand that.
11:09:28 But let's go back to my usual you then, and that is
11:09:31 this.
11:09:31 The school board had in their possession this
11:09:36 property.
11:09:37 Five years ago Councilwoman Saul-Sena raised the
11:09:39 concern as an issue.
11:09:42 Absolutely nothing was done.
11:09:44 I'm saying at some point the city needed to lobby the

11:09:48 state legislature to change the law, but we find some
11:09:51 way to hold whoever it is -- I have a problem with
11:09:55 government when they hammer at the private citizen,
11:09:58 but yet, at the same time, government is allowed to
11:10:01 get away with almost murder, but yet we hold the
11:10:05 private citizen at the highest standard.
11:10:11 Something wrong with that.
11:10:12 That's a double standard and we shouldn't allow that.
11:10:15 With the school board with, the county, with the city,
11:10:17 whoever it is, whatever government entity it is, they
11:10:21 should be held to the same standard that we hold our
11:10:23 private citizens to.
11:10:24 Okay?
11:10:24 So whatever it takes, from my standpoint, we need to
11:10:27 be working on that to ensure that this kind of
11:10:29 travesty does not happen in the future.
11:10:31 The other issue -- and you raised some other options
11:10:34 there -- but have we looked at -- are you looking at
11:10:37 this whole issue of -- and I'm trying to stay away
11:10:44 from the present owner -- if someone comes forward
11:10:46 with a historic building, requesting a PD, that a
11:10:52 violation be looked at before a PD is granted, and

11:10:55 something -- has something of that nature been looked
11:10:57 at?
11:10:58 That option?
11:10:59 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: We have to be careful.
11:11:06 We have to be careful about tying code enforcement
11:11:10 action and the past history on the site to a future
11:11:16 land use approval.
11:11:18 There are some issues related to due process related
11:11:22 there.
11:11:23 So my understanding is that is a very difficult thing
11:11:26 to do legally.
11:11:29 We can evaluate that as part of our review of the
11:11:31 issues.
11:11:31 But I don't think that that is necessarily the best
11:11:36 way to go.
11:11:36 I think we will have challenges in enforcing that.
11:11:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I think, Mr. Fletcher, we need
11:11:46 to look at all the options.
11:11:48 We can look at it but we may not vote on it at the end
11:11:50 of the day.
11:11:51 I think at this point we need to look at all options.
11:11:54 I'm a firm believer in getting the options, getting

11:11:57 the facts and then decide we start eliminating what we
11:12:00 cannot do.
11:12:01 Councilwoman Saul-Sena, then councilman Dingfelder.
11:12:04 I'm sorry, councilman Dingfelder.
11:12:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Couple of things.
11:12:11 Ernie -- I'm sorry, Mr. Fletcher, just because he's
11:12:18 been involved in this for a couple years.
11:12:20 Are enforcement proceedings and code enforcement
11:12:23 typically stayed if somebody says I am going in for a
11:12:26 PD in front of City Council and I'm going in for
11:12:29 rezoning in front of City Council?
11:12:31 And I'm not just saying ARC.
11:12:33 I'm speaking across the board.
11:12:35 Is that a defense in front of code enforcement
11:12:37 officers to say I'm going in front of council and I
11:12:40 need a stay accordingly?
11:12:42 >>ERNEST MUELLER: In those types of situations, I
11:12:49 think what I need to do first is explain how a Code
11:12:53 Enforcement Board process works.
11:12:57 Coming from the Code Enforcement Board, they will
11:12:59 either plead guilty to the violations, or there will
11:13:02 be a hearing, they have an evidentiary hearing and

11:13:06 then a finding.
11:13:07 If the person is found to be guilty then what happens
11:13:10 is they try and set a date for them to come into
11:13:13 compliance.
11:13:15 And they'll set that.
11:13:16 And if someone were to be having a. Or variance, need
11:13:22 to get a variance, that that would bring them into
11:13:25 compliance, the way that it runs right now is they
11:13:27 would take that time in consideration as to how long
11:13:30 it would take, and put the compliance date somewhere
11:13:33 out there, passed by the time it would come before
11:13:36 you, or before the VRB, or the ARC or BLC.
11:13:41 So the answer is, the way that it works now is, I
11:13:46 guess, there is some sort of -- I don't know if it's
11:13:49 an abatement, but the time is there, and if they come
11:13:52 into compliance by that date, then no fine will kick
11:13:56 in, which is the enforcement tool.
11:14:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I guess you answered sort of one
11:14:03 procedural possibility.
11:14:04 But how about -- it's my understanding that
11:14:08 occasionally somebody doesn't even go into the hearing
11:14:11 process prior to pleading guilt or not guilty, that

11:14:17 they don't even go into that process, that they can
11:14:19 stay that process just by saying I'm going in for a
11:14:22 PD, I'm going in for rezoning.
11:14:25 Maul mule are you asking about getting a continuance?
11:14:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I guess so.
11:14:30 >>ERNEST MUELLER: I try hard not to have that happen.
11:14:32 I triune formally to get people to enter a plea or to
11:14:35 have a hearing and give people time to come into
11:14:37 compliance after there's been a finding.
11:14:40 Now, there are times where a continuance is sought,
11:14:42 and it's been granted, but it's been over my
11:14:45 objection.
11:14:45 I like getting these cases moving along.
11:14:48 And allowing people time to successfully come into
11:14:53 compliance.
11:14:54 But I don't like having these cases linger.
11:14:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me follow up that question, and
11:15:00 my next question with Jake.
11:15:01 Where is Jake?
11:15:02 There he is.
11:15:03 >>> Jake Slater, code enforcement.
11:15:08 >> How long have you been on this gig?

11:15:10 >>> Almost three months.
11:15:11 >> You want to go back to where you were before?
11:15:15 >>> I have a much more overall perspective than I ever
11:15:21 have before.
11:15:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Following up a little bit, because
11:15:27 Ernie answered from a legal perspective.
11:15:30 I would like you to answer from your procedural
11:15:32 administrative perspective.
11:15:38 >>> The first week I had the pleasure of walking
11:15:40 Franklin Street with Councilwoman Saul-Sena, and my
11:15:44 boss Santiago Corrada, and I also had the pleasure of
11:15:49 meeting with Dennis Fernandez from historical office,
11:15:55 and at that point I realized about the importance.
11:15:58 Over the last two and a half months, I have talked to
11:16:01 actually Dennis several times, and we had actually a
11:16:05 meeting set up for two days after the walls caved in.
11:16:11 I realize that the code enforcement process has to be
11:16:16 flexible for the historical building, or historical
11:16:19 sites.
11:16:23 If it's not a life and safety issue, as what we have
11:16:27 out there now, my policy is going to be to talk to
11:16:32 legal, talk to Dennis and see if we can come up with a

11:16:36 plan of action.
11:16:38 And not to go in there and not just to cite them for
11:16:44 everything.
11:16:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So how would that relate to -- my
11:16:48 question is, you know, do people get continuances?
11:16:51 Do they get stays?
11:16:52 If they say I'm going in to council for a rezoning,
11:16:56 and if they do is that a good thing or a bad thing?
11:17:00 >>> I haven't had to actually deal with that in
11:17:02 regards to a historical building.
11:17:05 >> I meant across the board, historical or regular.
11:17:08 >>> I haven't had to answer that question yet.
11:17:12 >>> I don't know if Mr. Slater can actually answer
11:17:14 that question because again it's more to the board.
11:17:16 Let me do a little better job of explaining some of
11:17:18 the questions why I didn't give you a firm answer.
11:17:21 For example, if someone wants a variance, you know,
11:17:24 that the violation is that there's something in the
11:17:26 setback.
11:17:29 And it goes in front of the Code Enforcement Board.
11:17:32 As I told you, there will be a time that they'll set
11:17:34 the deadline.

11:17:35 In those circumstances, there is an abatement.
11:17:39 It is -- I think our code even says that you can't
11:17:45 fine someone until all enforcement is abated until the
11:17:48 end of the -- until they appear in front of the
11:17:50 variance review board, the BLC or the ARC.
11:17:55 There have been cases where cases have come in front
11:17:59 of the board where someone is doing, say, selling cars
11:18:01 in a zoning district that doesn't allow that.
11:18:05 I have tried very hard to make sure that the people
11:18:07 know that there is no abatement.
11:18:09 You can't sell cars until you get that variance.
11:18:12 There's a difference.
11:18:13 So it depend -- depends on the situation.
11:18:17 I don't know if I have ever experienced a PD
11:18:19 situation.
11:18:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I guess PD or variance.
11:18:25 My other question, Jake, and I probably don't want an
11:18:28 answer to this today, but we had for years, we had
11:18:32 this Hanson issue, and the comply system, or the
11:18:35 Hanson system, and I think the Hanson system is gone
11:18:38 now, you know, and, anyway, maybe in a month or so you
11:18:42 can give us a report on where we are headed to a

11:18:45 better computer system that will aid you, you know, in
11:18:51 your entire process.
11:18:53 Would a month be good for you on that?
11:18:57 >>> I wish I could come back in a month.
11:18:59 I have a meeting today with the I.T. group which I'm a
11:19:04 voting member of, and I don't know if I am going to be
11:19:07 able to tell you that we have an overall date set.
11:19:13 But I'll be more than happy to come back and actually
11:19:15 give you like an update where code enforcement is with
11:19:18 the overall enhancements with our computer system.
11:19:25 The current type of comply system came in in 1989, and
11:19:31 it unfortunately dictates the way that we do actually
11:19:36 business, which I met my first week, and we talked
11:19:40 about that.
11:19:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Which is so wrong.
11:19:43 We have a computer system that tells us how we enforce
11:19:45 our ordinance.
11:19:46 >>> An antiquated DOS system.
11:19:50 >> It sounds like a bad movie.
11:19:52 How about -- I'm going to make a motion when we are
11:19:55 all done maybe 60 days to come back and give us an
11:19:57 idea.

11:19:58 The last thing I want to say, Mr. Chairman in,
11:20:00 response to your question, and I think this is kind of
11:20:02 timely, is I am your representative on the council of
11:20:04 governments, which includes the school board.
11:20:07 And we have a meeting coming up in August.
11:20:13 And if you want to give me -- some unidirectional
11:20:17 input on issues that you want me to raise or how you
11:20:20 might want me to raise them, I will be glad to raise
11:20:22 them with the school board and with the other local
11:20:24 governments, maybe in an interlocal could be an idea
11:20:28 as a voluntary thing.
11:20:31 Between the City of Tampa and the school board.
11:20:34 I don't know how many other of these issues there are
11:20:36 out there.
11:20:37 But maybe there are.
11:20:39 So that's all I have to say.
11:20:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm very encouraged that we have
11:20:48 done -- we are beginning to do things right.
11:20:50 I think that your recognition of this issue is fresh.
11:20:54 The problem, frankly, is on the shoulders of the --
11:20:58 your predecessor, the people from the school system,
11:21:04 specifically Cathy Valdez, who came before council

11:21:07 twice and said, we recognize this is an issue, we will
11:21:10 stabilize it.
11:21:11 And I really am very upset that they didn't do that.
11:21:14 We actually -- Tampa Preservation gave them $20,000
11:21:18 worth of blue tarps to put up there, which obviously
11:21:21 didn't work.
11:21:21 They knew about this issue years in advance.
11:21:24 I was at the site favor and a half years ago with
11:21:27 Mayor Iorio and candy Olsen from the school board and
11:21:31 we discussed it.
11:21:32 And it just hurts your heart.
11:21:34 But I think the only thing to do is to try to use the
11:21:38 pain of this wall collapse to help us quickly get our
11:21:43 act together.
11:21:45 And I think in the future, I was mentally walking
11:21:48 through all the old schools.
11:21:50 There aren't that many old schools that are now
11:21:52 abandoned.
11:21:53 Frankly, we lost McFarland.
11:21:56 We saved a couple of shards and put it into the new
11:21:59 wall.
11:22:00 We saved part of the school next to the interstate

11:22:05 where FDOT purchased it.
11:22:07 We have lost a lot of our old schools. And to their
11:22:07 credit the school board has done some things well.
11:22:09 The D.H. Waters school is a wonderful preservation
11:22:12 effort and there were others in the community that are
11:22:14 well preserved.
11:22:15 I think our issue now is with the private sector.
11:22:18 And I think it has to be education and responsibility.
11:22:22 People can't say when they own a historic building
11:22:25 that they didn't know it was historic.
11:22:27 They have to understand what their responsibility is.
11:22:30 I'm not insisting that they put the money into
11:22:33 rehabbing it.
11:22:34 I'm saying if they don't rehab it, they have to
11:22:37 mothball it properly, so that it can stand there
11:22:40 intact for a couple of years until they have the good
11:22:42 sense to sell it to somebody who will rehab it.
11:22:44 The value of historic preservation, because of the tax
11:22:47 credits, and the specialness of our community, has
11:22:50 increased and I think this is a problem that working
11:22:53 together we can solve.
11:22:54 But I am not going to be content to wait for years.

11:22:56 I want to see some action as quickly as we can,
11:23:00 because it's just too painful.
11:23:07 >>> I know that I will do everything I can from a code
11:23:09 enforcement perspective to make the whole process work
11:23:12 a whole lot better than it is now.
11:23:14 I met with legal.
11:23:16 I met with Dennis Fernandez for the past several
11:23:20 weeks, since I got word that that wall fell down.
11:23:22 I felt terrible.
11:23:25 I wished there was something that I could have done in
11:23:29 my first 90 days, but that did not happen.
11:23:33 But I give you my word I will do everything that I
11:23:35 possibly can to make the system work better.
11:23:41 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.
11:23:42 I'm not going to say anything about this particular
11:23:45 building because it's really just a symptom.
11:23:49 And I have to say that Linda Saul-Sena and an entire
11:23:53 community, including Dennis and people on our staff,
11:23:56 and all kinds of people in this building have been
11:24:03 working for historic preservation for years.
11:24:06 And we can't let this occurrence not force us to come
11:24:13 up with solutions.

11:24:16 And what I have to say to Chairman Scott is that this
11:24:20 council has the ability to take a positive policy
11:24:28 stance on historic preservation and I think it was one
11:24:32 of our first meetings after we were elected, we had a
11:24:36 presentation which Linda had asked for, about what was
11:24:39 being done to preserve historic buildings and mothball
11:24:46 them.
11:24:47 And we did get a presentation, but we didn't get much
11:24:50 further than that.
11:24:51 And I'm telling you, I just said that was the most
11:24:54 depressing thing to see the beautiful history of
11:24:57 Tampa, picture after picture, of how it was crumbling.
11:25:01 So this city has to make a commitment to our history.
11:25:06 The city has to do it.
11:25:09 The administration and this council has to do that.
11:25:11 It can't be just Linda Saul-Sena.
11:25:13 I mean, eventually, she's going to get term limited
11:25:16 out.
11:25:17 Who knows, she might even move.
11:25:24 But we have to support that.
11:25:26 So I'm thrilled that Linda and John are going to work
11:25:28 with the other governments and the school boards and

11:25:33 state law.
11:25:34 I am going to work with our attorneys to work on the
11:25:38 code, to strengthen it.
11:25:44 I saw John Grandoff there, and there are a lot of
11:25:47 arguments against historic preservation.
11:25:51 But if you make a commitment to it, there are
11:25:54 certainly cities all over this country that have been
11:25:58 able to do that.
11:25:59 So we need to look at what they are doing, and in
11:26:06 Florida, if there are cities, St. Augustine, a
11:26:10 historic city, I'm sure has a good laws that preserve
11:26:14 the beautiful buildings that they have.
11:26:16 And I just have to just say that Linda has just been
11:26:22 doing this incredible job for years.
11:26:26 And she deserves all the credit for not just reacting
11:26:31 to a terrible crisis, but trying to create policy and
11:26:37 a climate where we do value our history.
11:26:41 What is your city if you don't value the history?
11:26:46 The only visible part of your history are the
11:26:48 buildings.
11:26:48 So if you let the buildings go, you don't even care
11:26:51 about where we are coming from.

11:26:54 And then I had a question for Dennis.
11:27:00 How many people are in your department who ha V a
11:27:03 title that involves historic preservation?
11:27:08 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: I have two historic preservation
11:27:09 specialists, historic preservation technician, office
11:27:13 support, we have a total of five plus myself.
11:27:18 We administer the Barrio Latino commission,
11:27:21 Architectural Review Commission, Historic Preservation
11:27:22 Commission, and the trust fund.
11:27:25 >>MARY MULHERN: That sound like about five people
11:27:28 besides --
11:27:32 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Five plus me.
11:27:33 >> And did you lose any people in the last year, any
11:27:36 positions?
11:27:37 >>> We lost a vacant position which was a support
11:27:41 position, and of course the division was consolidated
11:27:48 so we lost a manager.
11:27:49 I'm over the entire division now.
11:27:53 >> Was consolidated with historic preservation and --
11:27:57 >>> The architectural commission, the architectural
11:28:00 review component was consolidated with the historic
11:28:03 commission.

11:28:04 They were previously separate.
11:28:06 Two different administrators.
11:28:07 Now they are together.
11:28:08 That's a good thing.
11:28:10 We are able to respond more quickly and more
11:28:12 cohesively to situations like this.
11:28:17 >> I just wanted to know, we still have the same
11:28:21 number of eyes, and people working on it.
11:28:24 So it sounds like you lost one position, kind of
11:28:28 responsible position.
11:28:31 >>> Right.
11:28:31 One staff position, one manager position.
11:28:33 >> You are doing two jobs.
11:28:34 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: I'm doing two jobs.
11:28:37 The job requires that you do really everything.
11:28:40 But I think, you know, just a couple things that I've
11:28:45 heard and I wanted to add too is that the punitive
11:28:53 processes involved with punitive really aren't what
11:28:57 saves historic buildings.
11:28:59 What saves historic buildings is historic development
11:29:02 and incentives, and we have to also work at that.
11:29:05 You have to have obviously the code enforcement

11:29:07 regulations in place for buildings such as the Gary
11:29:10 school, that reached a certain point where you know
11:29:13 that they are a serious threat to the building, if you
11:29:17 don't do something immediate.
11:29:19 However, I think that having the willingness of the
11:29:22 individuals who play a different role in the
11:29:25 organization such as Jake and myself, to identify that
11:29:29 there's a problem, and try to take action to correct
11:29:31 that problem, is vital.
11:29:33 We met just a few months ago in my new role and his
11:29:37 new role, and I said welcome to the job, we have a
11:29:41 problem.
11:29:41 And we immediately began to try to work towards that,
11:29:44 which is a dialogue that we have never had in the
11:29:46 past.
11:29:46 And that's very refreshing for me because I have been
11:29:50 here before for different reasons, maybe not as high
11:29:54 profile as this particular one, but I have had similar
11:29:56 instances like this, and I share your frustration for
11:30:00 some of the internal obstacles that can occur.
11:30:03 But we do have, I think, it is going in the right
11:30:06 direction, we do have the demolition by neglect

11:30:09 ordinance, drafted, and scheduled to come back.
11:30:18 This particular property, the portion of the building
11:30:21 that collapsed was the portion that was slated for a
11:30:24 major addition to be added to it so hopefully we can
11:30:26 get to a point with the property own theory we can
11:30:29 still facilitate that redevelopment.
11:30:31 My concern here is not to penalize the property owner
11:30:36 to the point where he just relies on demolition.
11:30:42 I want it off the table.
11:30:43 I want a discussion what can we do here into the
11:30:46 future.
11:30:46 I'm open to suggestions such as Mr. Dingfelder
11:30:48 presented.
11:30:49 You know, I'm open to that dialogue.
11:30:51 We have to get to the point where we can have that
11:30:53 dialogue right now.
11:30:54 The owner is in somewhat of a defensive position and
11:30:58 we have to get through that.
11:30:59 But, you know, we understand there's an issue.
11:31:01 We have had one tool to deal with this problem, and
11:31:04 that tool has not been adequate.
11:31:06 So we are trying to add other tools into our choices.

11:31:20 >> (off microphone)
11:31:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I want to be clear.
11:31:25 A government entity, a government body, had this
11:31:28 property five years ago, the code requires that if a
11:31:36 vacant build, one, you board the windows up, you have
11:31:39 to have a certain color paint, is that right? None of
11:31:42 that was done at this site?
11:31:46 I'm telling you, I drove by there.
11:31:49 Windows are broke out, no boarded-up windows.
11:31:56 And my point is, you have a school system, millions of
11:32:03 dollars, and couldn't board up the windows?
11:32:08 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: They spent it on travel, that's
11:32:10 why.
11:32:12 >> Ooh.
11:32:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And then they sell the property.
11:32:20 And then knew owner picks it up.
11:32:22 He has it a year, year and a half, you know.
11:32:25 And still, he says $100,000.
11:32:28 I don't know what.
11:32:29 But that's a whole other issue, too.
11:32:31 But from what I can see is, you're right.
11:32:35 We don't want to penalize people, but at the same time

11:32:38 we have to hold somebody accountable.
11:32:40 >>> That's correct.
11:32:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Somebody has to be held accountable.
11:32:45 And that's my issue here.
11:32:46 Okay?
11:32:49 Other questions?
11:32:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What was my motion?
11:32:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: First of all, I want an editorial
11:33:04 that's called historic travesty to be received and
11:33:10 filed by the clerk because it truly is a travesty.
11:33:12 We need to remember the pain of this and use it to
11:33:15 spread, to do something quickly.
11:33:16 Because we have had this discussion for years and
11:33:18 years and years.
11:33:19 I mean years and years and years.
11:33:21 And I will come to you, Jake and Dennis with, a list
11:33:23 of ten buildings right now that I am worried about
11:33:25 that we don't want to see in the headlines, so we need
11:33:29 to get on it quickly.
11:33:31 Then I would like a report back in 60 days on some
11:33:34 specific tests that we are taking administratively to
11:33:42 address these issues, whether they are process steps,

11:33:45 whether they are making a really good list of the
11:33:50 property we have to offer, whether it's outlining what
11:33:52 you need to do to properly secure and mothball it.
11:33:56 I think if we give yourself ourselves a deadline,
11:33:59 that's a good thing.
11:34:00 So my motion, Mr. Chairman, is 630 days from now at
11:34:02 our council meeting we have a staff report on steps
11:34:05 that we are beginning to take to address these.
11:34:07 >> Second.
11:34:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Demolition by neglect.
11:34:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
11:34:11 Motion is moved and seconded.
11:34:13 All in favor of the motion signify by saying Aye.
11:34:16 Opposes?
11:34:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My motion, Gwen reminded me, was
11:34:26 Mr. Slater to come in front of us in sixty days to
11:34:29 tell us where we are with the computer system and his
11:34:31 various processes.
11:34:34 That would be the second motion.
11:34:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded by councilman
11:34:38 Dingfelder, seconded by councilman Mulhern, to come
11:34:41 back and give us an update.

11:34:43 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
11:34:45 Opposed same sign.
11:34:49 I would like for us to look at a motion giving legal
11:34:52 the responsibility, or John, to talk at the Council of
11:35:01 Governments about this issue and also the Florida
11:35:04 statute to see if that there's opportunity to amend
11:35:07 now.
11:35:07 Okay?
11:35:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
11:35:11 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
11:35:13 Opposed, Nay.
11:35:13 >> thank you.
11:35:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have something good to announce.
11:35:18 A year ago when the building burned in Ybor which was
11:35:20 bad, we realized the only rules were called procedures
11:35:23 dealing with demolition.
11:35:29 There were no issues dealing with preservation.
11:35:31 And now through Thom Snelling and the group coming
11:35:34 together we have rules for stabilization.
11:35:36 Because that's really what we are aiming for.
11:35:38 Stabilization, reconstruction, reworking.
11:35:42 And I think with focusing on what we can do to

11:35:45 stabilize, we need to -- and part of the report that
11:35:47 we are going to get in 60 days, I would like to look
11:35:50 at what we can do with our revolving fund, not the
11:35:53 fund that can only be spent in Ybor but the other fund
11:35:58 that has more open rules, to create money than we
11:36:04 could spend rapidly to stabilize the building if
11:36:07 there's an emergency to protect it because I think
11:36:09 that's really important.
11:36:10 Sometimes there's a fire in the middle of the night
11:36:12 and you need money by the next morning, the property
11:36:15 owner may be in Canada, and we need to figure out how
11:36:20 to keep it.
11:36:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What's the motion?
11:36:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Oh, my motion is in 60 days when we
11:36:26 get the report back we also look at the availability
11:36:28 of establishing a fund for emergency stabilization.
11:36:35 And if we have a little bit of money there, if we need
11:36:37 more, we need to find it because sometimes it's life
11:36:41 and death.
11:36:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second to the motion?
11:36:43 >> Second.
11:36:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

11:36:45 (Motion carried).
11:36:47 Thank you.
11:36:47 That concludes our staff report.
11:36:48 We need to go back to second reading.
11:36:51 We have 20 minutes.
11:36:53 I'm sorry, the other item that we pulled.
11:36:55 Item 33, 43.
11:37:02 Item 33.
11:37:08 >> I just wanted to hear from Steve.
11:37:12 I pulled this because I have a limit of $8 million
11:37:23 999,000 on the consent agenda for.
11:37:29 And $9 million kind of jumped out at me.
11:37:32 I would like a little brief explanation, especially
11:37:34 when it says it's a change order, adding $9 million.
11:37:40 And I did pull the back off.
11:37:45 I didn't have a chance to talk to you.
11:37:47 But I also felt that the public ought to know in a
11:37:50 little more detail when we are extending our contract
11:37:58 and adding $9 million.
11:38:00 And the contract isn't in here.
11:38:02 I guess my questions are, what was the scope of this
11:38:08 project?

11:38:09 I know it's water main.
11:38:10 It says water main construction.
11:38:12 So what is the project?
11:38:23 And somewhere in here, I think it did say that the
11:38:28 contractor was going to be paid at the same rate.
11:38:30 So I'm trying to understand that.
11:38:32 Do they get $9 million a year?
11:38:34 Or was this something -- is this what you thought
11:38:41 would be finished and now it's a bigger job?
11:38:45 I just want to know what's going on.
11:38:48 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Administrator for public works
11:38:50 utility services.
11:38:51 I would be glad to explain it.
11:38:52 We have an annual contract to do water pipe
11:38:58 extensions.
11:38:59 The extension or renewal is for the next year.
11:39:01 So we have done it for 12 months.
11:39:04 In that contract, when we awarded it, we had an option
11:39:06 to extend it.
11:39:08 We are exercising the option.
11:39:10 The $9 million is a notional amount of money.
11:39:14 We are anticipating that well do about this much,

11:39:18 two-inch, 6-inch, 14-inch, whatever says pipe in the
11:39:22 future.
11:39:23 These pipe-line extensions are when there's new
11:39:26 development, when there's a new need, this is work
11:39:29 that we do daily.
11:39:31 But I can't tell you exactly how much it will be.
11:39:34 It is based upon again the development and the growth
11:39:37 and the demand in the city.
11:39:39 So this is our tool for getting this done.
11:39:43 Using last year's rates, we think, is a good thing,
11:39:47 and it is without a cost of living increase.
11:39:52 It is the same rates as last year.
11:39:54 And they have performed satisfactorily.
11:39:56 We would like to continue doing business with them,
11:39:59 and those why we are bringing this to you.
11:40:01 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't feel totally comfortable with
11:40:09 this process, because it's like this open-ended
11:40:17 contract, and you are not -- I mean, okay, at the
11:40:20 beginning of last year, you said you wanted them, you
11:40:23 assume, to do this, this and this.
11:40:27 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: We advertised last year.
11:40:29 >>MARY MULHERN: Do they have time lines?

11:40:31 Do they have --
11:40:32 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: We issue work orders regularly,
11:40:35 almost daily, again depending on the demands on our
11:40:38 water system.
11:40:40 Commerce that when don't -- customers who we don't
11:40:43 know about today are going to show up in four or five
11:40:46 months and say I need a water line extension from
11:40:48 where you have water over to my project.
11:40:50 They come to us throughout the year.
11:40:52 This is the way we get much of that work done.
11:40:57 So it is, in fact, putting it on the shelf, being
11:41:01 ready to provide that service, and extend those water
11:41:05 pipes when we need them throughout the year.
11:41:08 This is, quite frankly, this is a lifeblood item for
11:41:13 our departments.
11:41:16 We have various departments have various types of this
11:41:19 sort of contract so that we can deal with demands on
11:41:22 our systems.
11:41:23 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't have any doubt that the work
11:41:26 needs to be done.
11:41:27 I just am curious about it.
11:41:30 So this particular contract, when did this ANL

11:41:36 underground get the contract the first time?
11:41:38 >> They were the successful bid area year ago.
11:41:40 >>: A year ago.
11:41:41 So how many options do they have over a year?
11:41:46 >>> The contract allows us to extend two -- we have
11:41:50 two, one-year options, totally our choice based on
11:41:54 their performance.
11:41:56 >>MARY MULHERN: So I hope that we'll rebid it in
11:42:01 another year.
11:42:03 That's a lot of money to not, um, to not have other
11:42:09 options.
11:42:10 And I also want to point out this is not about this
11:42:15 contract -- well, it is about this contract, but it's
11:42:17 in general about contracting.
11:42:20 And I am going to bring this up again eventually with
11:42:26 our new city attorney.
11:42:28 But you live it because Chairman Scott, I don't know
11:42:34 if you saw, but I think they put the minority and
11:42:36 women business subcontractors in here.
11:42:39 Is this what this list you gave me?
11:42:40 >>> Yes.
11:42:41 >> Which is very nice.

11:42:42 But as I read it over, about half of the
11:42:46 subcontractors are out of state.
11:42:48 So I think we really do need to look at local business
11:42:53 preferences.
11:42:55 That's my next thing that I would like to look at in
11:42:58 contracting.
11:42:58 And I know some of these supplies are probably from
11:43:03 unique suppliers, but on the other hand, water mains
11:43:06 are everywhere.
11:43:07 We might be able to find some more local people and
11:43:12 give those jobs to people around.
11:43:14 >>> I understand.
11:43:15 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.
11:43:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: One thing I wanted to clarify is
11:43:19 anybody who is actually listening to us, but if a
11:43:24 private developer has a brand new contract a half mile
11:43:26 down the road and he needs a larger main, 8-inch main
11:43:30 instead of existing 2-inch main, he's got to pay us to
11:43:35 do that, and then we in turn pass that on to the
11:43:38 private sector, this particular contractor to do it.
11:43:41 I wouldn't want anybody to think that the private
11:43:44 developer, you know, that we are just doing that for

11:43:46 the private developer.
11:43:47 That's the cost of that new construction.
11:43:49 >>> Correct.
11:43:51 We charge fees for that work to be done.
11:43:55 That's correct.
11:43:55 >> The other thing is, if next year came around, and
11:43:59 that same contractor says I'll do it for the 2006
11:44:04 praise or the 2007 price, would the cost with labor
11:44:10 and everything else going up, I don't know that that's
11:44:13 necessarily a bad thing.
11:44:14 So I think we need to be careful about -- that it's
11:44:18 rebid.
11:44:19 >>> Last year when they were the low bidder they were
11:44:22 $4 million below the second low bidder so it was
11:44:25 considerable.
11:44:25 But again we needed to keep all those things in mind,
11:44:28 price of gas, et cetera, because these people will
11:44:30 travel around.
11:44:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think probably the best thing is
11:44:34 not do it on something that big and significant on
11:44:37 consent and just, you know, bring it up through us if
11:44:39 you are going to renew it again next year, give us a

11:44:42 comprehensive analysis as to why.
11:44:44 And I think that would probably satisfy.
11:44:46 >>> I understand.
11:44:47 Thank you.
11:44:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, consent generally is something
11:44:52 that's routine that you pretty much know, okay, what
11:44:55 it is, that sort of thick thing.
11:44:57 But I think Councilwoman Mulhern is saying is you got
11:45:02 another extension option off of that, then we bid,
11:45:05 which we are required to do anyway.
11:45:06 They have to rebid.
11:45:10 The final option.
11:45:10 >>> Correct.
11:45:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I thought it was the next time is what
11:45:15 it was.
11:45:16 >>MARY MULHERN: This is the second year.
11:45:17 So they'll have another --
11:45:20 They have one more year to go.
11:45:22 >>MARY MULHERN: If they get it.
11:45:23 But I would like to see it on -- not on the consent
11:45:26 agenda.
11:45:27 If it comes back I'll pull it again.

11:45:29 Just because I don't think, you know --
11:45:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's worth a discussion.
11:45:36 >>MARY MULHERN: It's worth a discussion, and John's
11:45:38 question brought up another question for me.
11:45:39 As far as the same -- when you say it's at their same
11:45:45 rate, is that locking in the material cost?
11:45:53 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Yes, it is material costs and labor
11:45:55 but if we paid them by linear brick of a certain size
11:46:01 pipe they install.
11:46:02 >> Does that mean they are going to charge you at the
11:46:04 same rate they did last year?
11:46:06 >>> That's correct.
11:46:07 >>MARY MULHERN: that's good.
11:46:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We have to move.
11:46:10 We have a lot of second readings to do before 12:00.
11:46:18 We have CRA.
11:46:20 >> So moved.
11:46:21 >> Second.
11:46:21 (Motion carried).
11:46:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 33.
11:46:25 Councilman Dingfelder.
11:46:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would like a very, very brief

11:46:28 2-minute staff presentation on this as to why it's
11:46:30 good for us to subordinate, to agree to subordinate
11:46:34 $600,000 of city loans to other loans on the Jammal --
11:46:42 what is that cigar factory called?
11:46:44 The Morgan cigar factory.
11:46:46 >>> The property 1403 North Howard Avenue is the
11:46:50 property which hosts the Morgan cigar factory
11:46:53 building.
11:46:54 The property, Nicholas Jammal building, Inc., it had
11:47:01 previously been vacant for 30 years. In doing so they
11:47:03 have obtained loans through the historic preservation
11:47:06 trust fund, which has a maximum loan allowance of $200
11:47:12 that you per cycle.
11:47:15 They acquired three loans totaling $598,000 some
11:47:22 dollars over a period of a year and a half.
11:47:24 Also, the owner acquired a loan for $700,000 to
11:47:30 further develop the shell of the building and the site
11:47:33 improvements necessary to convert the building into an
11:47:37 adaptive reuse.
11:47:38 The property owner did come to me in early 2008 and
11:47:43 request a subordination of the city loans and the
11:47:49 Wachovia loan to another loan that he wishes to

11:47:51 acquire for up two $2 million, which is a line of
11:47:57 credit.
11:47:57 It would not exceed 2 million.
11:48:00 He may actually utilize that less than 2 million.
11:48:04 That request was forwarded to the historic advisory
11:48:09 committee.
11:48:10 Advisory committee considered the financial
11:48:12 wherewithal of the property, both through a 2007
11:48:16 appraisal, which valued the property at his current
11:48:20 condition at that time of $6,900,000.
11:48:24 The total encumbrances after the subordination if that
11:48:29 were allowed would be $4,524,000.
11:48:34 Leaving a loan to value of 66%.
11:48:38 Typically, anything under 75% or anything over 75%
11:48:44 loan-to value is considered somewhat of a concern.
11:48:48 We are well under that.
11:48:50 Also considered was the condition of the debts of his
11:48:56 owner and his company because both signed on the city
11:48:59 loans, he has had an excellent history of making the
11:49:04 payments on all loans affecting the building, his
11:49:06 credit history is excellent, and all his debts and
11:49:10 accounts have been paid up to terms.

11:49:12 That being said, the advisory committee recommended
11:49:15 for subordination of the various times to a new loan
11:49:18 to allow the property owner to go ahead and complete
11:49:20 the project.
11:49:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So the administration's request is
11:49:30 that this council approve the subordination.
11:49:32 >>> That's correct.
11:49:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to recognize on a
11:49:39 bright note, on a really fabulous note, Mr. Jammal has
11:49:43 done the most extraordinary job of restoring this
11:49:46 building.
11:49:46 Putting back up the water tower, repointing three
11:49:49 stories of brick and the basement.
11:49:51 It is a show place for historic preservation.
11:49:55 It was the site of renewed architectural community,
11:49:58 celebration of historic celebration, and this should
11:50:01 be a model for what we should move toward in the
11:50:03 future.
11:50:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.
11:50:06 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.
11:50:12 (off microphone) I just need a little clearer
11:50:14 indication of the historic preservation trust fund.

11:50:18 Is that what that loan -- if we ended up with the
11:50:26 burden -- if we had to pay back, as we approach this
11:50:30 and we are subordinated to the bank loan, does that
11:50:33 come out of the historic preservation trust?
11:50:39 >>> The historic preservation trust funds have been
11:50:42 expended already currently.
11:50:44 What we would be doing with this action is allowing
11:50:48 Wachovia to go into a position above the city, which
11:50:51 they are requiring to lend further money to complete
11:50:54 the project.
11:50:55 What would not be subordinated would be the 2004
11:51:00 community development block grant dollars, which would
11:51:03 remain in first position.
11:51:05 That's when Mr. Jammal acquired the property from the
11:51:09 City of Tampa, that loan was put in place. That would
11:51:12 remain in first position with Wachovia, and his new
11:51:15 loan coming in thereafter and then the city being in
11:51:18 fourth, fifth and sixth place position.
11:51:20 If the building owner defaulted and the building went
11:51:27 into some type of foreclosure proceedings, then the
11:51:30 priority of the loans to pay out would each financing
11:51:34 industry going in order.

11:51:38 According to the financial documents that Mr. Jammal
11:51:43 provided us, everyone if you take out 20% of the
11:51:45 equity, which is usually sacrificed through a
11:51:50 foreclosure proceeding as I'm told, we would still be
11:51:52 within a comfortable zone to recoup our investment
11:51:56 through sale, resale of the property.
11:51:59 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
11:52:01 That's good to know.
11:52:02 And then I want to understand what the historic
11:52:05 preservation trust fund, the process for -- because my
11:52:11 understanding was, it was for relocation of houses
11:52:15 that were affected by the interstate.
11:52:18 >>> It's actually a result of the relocation of the
11:52:21 houses that would be relocated, rehabilitated to the
11:52:28 Florida Department of Transportation.
11:52:29 Those houses were then transferred ownership to the
11:52:31 city, and the city then sold those houses.
11:52:35 The funds that were earned through the sale of those
11:52:38 properties were put in a trust fund, a revolving trust
11:52:41 fund, with the purpose of restoring historic
11:52:44 properties within eligible areas.
11:52:46 West Tampa is an eligible area.

11:52:48 >> So someone applies for a grant or a loan to that
11:52:53 fund, and how is it determined who gets that?
11:52:56 >>> The funds, there is an entire program, which is
11:53:00 developed, that considers first of all the threat to
11:53:04 the building as a priority for funding, the scope of
11:53:09 the work that's being considered and how that can have
11:53:13 sort of a Domino effect within the immediate area for
11:53:16 redevelopment, and the goal of rehabilitating the
11:53:20 building to a use rather than just keeping it vacant
11:53:23 is considered, too.
11:53:25 It's a competitive process.
11:53:28 So the applicants, they submit an application, accept
11:53:32 applications twice a year.
11:53:34 It goes before an advisory committee that's been
11:53:37 appointed through the mayor, and the advisory
11:53:39 committee makes a recommendation, brings it to City
11:53:41 Council, and the mayor, for approval.
11:53:43 >>MARY MULHERN: So in this case --
11:53:47 Excuse me for a minute.
11:53:48 It's about five minutes to 12.
11:53:50 We don't have a meeting scheduled this afternoon.
11:53:51 We have about another 12 second readings that we have

11:53:54 got to do.
11:53:55 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
11:53:56 This is $4 million.
11:53:59 Let me just ask one more question.
11:54:01 One more question.
11:54:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I have a problem with our agenda.
11:54:04 >>MARY MULHERN: I asked to pull this so I am entitled
11:54:06 to another question.
11:54:07 What is adaptive reuse?
11:54:11 >>> Well, the owner currently has a PD revision going
11:54:14 through, which you will be seeing in October.
11:54:17 But he is proposing to have an office medical school,
11:54:25 various other uses.
11:54:26 I'm not sure of all of them, the zonings.
11:54:29 Maybe Mr. Caetano can comment on. That but it is
11:54:33 going to be a facility that is going to be utilized
11:54:36 for various uses that will be compatible with the
11:54:38 buildings configuration.
11:54:41 It says $4 million.
11:54:42 Actually the city's is just about $6, 000,000.
11:54:46 That's what we have an investment in right now.
11:54:48 >>MARY MULHERN: Oh.

11:54:49 Okay.
11:54:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: A motion?
11:54:52 >>: So moved.
11:54:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved by Councilwoman Saul-Sena,
11:54:55 seconded by councilman Dingfelder.
11:54:57 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
11:54:59 (Motion carried).
11:55:00 We need to go back.
11:55:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Keep up the good work.
11:55:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Council, it's five minutes to 12.
11:55:09 Anyone have to leave at 12:00?
11:55:11 Anyone has to leave at 12?
11:55:14 I'm looking at going 10, 15 minutes over.
11:55:18 Second reading and then new business.
11:55:21 >>GWEN MILLER: So moved we continue.
11:55:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:55:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify by saying Aye.
11:55:28 Opposed?
11:55:28 Okay.
11:55:29 Item 78.
11:55:32 Anyone in the public wish to address council on item
11:55:35 78?

11:55:37 Motion to close.
11:55:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.
11:55:39 >>: Second.
11:55:39 (Motion carried).
11:55:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move for second
11:55:48 reading and adoption.
11:55:50 An ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages
11:55:53 containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight and not
11:55:56 more than 14 by weight and wines regardless of
11:55:58 alcoholic content beer and wine 2(APS) in sealed
11:56:01 containers for consumption off premises only at or
11:56:04 from that certain lot, plot or tract of land located
11:56:07 at 3433-3435 South Westshore Boulevard, Tampa, Florida
11:56:11 as more particularly described in section 2 hereof
11:56:13 waiving certain restrictions as to distance based upon
11:56:16 certain findings providing for repeal of all
11:56:18 ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
11:56:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Dingfelder.
11:56:24 Record your vote.
11:56:29 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Caetano being absent
11:56:34 at vote, and Miranda being absent.
11:56:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 79.

11:56:39 Anyone wishing to address council?
11:56:41 Item 79.
11:56:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
11:56:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:56:45 (Motion carried).
11:56:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern, item 79, please.
11:56:50 >>MARY MULHERN: I move an ordinance being presented
11:56:52 for second reading.
11:56:53 An ordinance being making lawful the sale of beverages
11:56:55 containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight and not
11:56:58 more than 14% by weight and wines regardless of
11:57:00 alcoholic content, beer and wine, 2(COP-X) for
11:57:03 consumption on the premises only at or from that
11:57:06 certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 4401
11:57:10 north Himes Avenue, Tampa, Florida as more
11:57:12 particularly described in section 2 hereof waiving
11:57:14 certain restrictions as to distance based upon certain
11:57:17 findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
11:57:19 conflict, providing an effective date.
11:57:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
11:57:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
11:57:26 Record your vote, please.

11:57:28 Seconded by Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
11:57:37 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda being absent.
11:57:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 80.
11:57:41 Anyone from the public?
11:57:44 >>CHAIRMAN: Move to close.
11:57:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Before we close I need
11:57:47 clarification.
11:57:48 I couldn't remember where this is.
11:57:49 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
11:57:52 As you recall this is for Sarah's Romeo's petition for
11:57:55 an art gallery.
11:57:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone from the public wish to address
11:57:58 council on item 80?
11:58:04 >>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: I reside at 2902 East Ellicott
11:58:13 street.
11:58:14 And I want to speak, but something happened to me this
11:58:18 morning listening to you all, had a conversation with
11:58:20 this place in West Tampa selling beer.
11:58:22 And something happened to me, and I thought about it.
11:58:25 But, you know, let me tell you all something a lot of
11:58:31 you all don't know.
11:58:34 There was a big discussion this morning about one can

11:58:38 of beer and go outside or one glass of beer and go
11:58:40 outside and drink it.
11:58:42 Let me tell you all something.
11:58:43 You all forgot.
11:58:44 I been coming here, I know, you all passed a law about
11:58:47 seven or eight years ago, anybody, any black man be
11:58:53 caught drink ago beer on his patio, if he can be seen
11:58:57 from the street, he going to jail.
11:58:59 So you all put that in law.
11:59:02 Now, I was in a courtroom about five or six weeks ago.
11:59:06 When I leave here I am going to call.
11:59:07 I am going to bring this conversation back up and put
11:59:10 it in you all's face every time I come to this podium.
11:59:14 They got a law, that law was passed for black peoples
11:59:17 only.
11:59:18 Now, ever since that day -- wait a minute.
11:59:20 I went in a courtroom about five weeks ago, and this
11:59:24 judge say anybody here holding a container stand up.
11:59:28 About eight black men stood up.
11:59:31 And this judge said, he says something wrong.
11:59:34 I'm going to bring this judge's name because I am
11:59:37 going to call the time I leave here and get a history,

11:59:40 going to get a letter from him.
11:59:42 He said something wrong when a black man being charged
11:59:47 $120 for a beer.
11:59:50 For an open can of bare or anything that's out in the
11:59:52 street drinking.
11:59:53 If that police see him walking down the street
11:59:55 drinking that beer that police would jump out of his
11:59:57 car and run him.
12:00:01 Put a knee back of the head and he's going to jail.
12:00:05 He pay $120.
12:00:06 Now wait a minute.
12:00:08 My favorite politician ain't here today.
12:00:11 He knows about that.
12:00:11 Charlie Miranda.
12:00:14 He brought it up several times when he was here
12:00:16 before.
12:00:17 He said something wrong when you all can go in West
12:00:20 Tampa, and where all the black folks live.
12:00:24 Now wait a minute.
12:00:27 I ride my bicycle all over the town, ride the bus and
12:00:30 everything else, see what's going on.
12:00:32 I see white folks up and down Bayshore, when they have

12:00:36 a parade, now wait a minute, here's one in Ybor City
12:00:39 rate now and I bet you all going to be talking about
12:00:41 if anybody going to be walking down a street drink ago
12:00:43 beer.
12:00:44 But I'm going to go back and get that judge's name and
12:00:47 tell you, he said something wrong.
12:00:52 And $120.
12:00:54 So if you all read about a black man drink ago beer,
12:00:57 it's $120.
12:00:57 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Can you have somebody research
12:01:03 that?
12:01:03 I would like to see.
12:01:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I don't think that's quite accurate.
12:01:06 Legal can come back and speak to that.
12:01:08 Let me have legal address that but I don't believe
12:01:12 it's quite accurate.
12:01:13 Okay?
12:01:14 On item 80, on item 80, does the petitioner wish to
12:01:21 say anything?
12:01:23 If not, move to close.
12:01:24 >> Move to close.
12:01:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor say Aye.

12:01:28 Okay.
12:01:29 Councilman Caetano, would you read 80?
12:01:32 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: An ordinance for second reading,
12:01:34 an ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages
12:01:36 containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight and not
12:01:39 more than 14% by weight and wines regardless of
12:01:41 alcoholic content, beer and wine, 2(COP), for
12:01:44 consumption on premises and in sealed containers for
12:01:47 consumption off premises at or from that certain lot,
12:01:51 plot or tract of land located at 1515 East 7th Avenue,
12:01:56 Tampa, Florida, or more particularly described in
12:01:58 section 2 hereof, waiving certain restrictions as to
12:02:01 distance based upon certain findings, imposing certain
12:02:04 conditions, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
12:02:07 conflict, providing an effective date.
12:02:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
12:02:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Clerk, sort of in response to
12:02:20 Mr. Knott, and I wasn't here for the first vote on
12:02:22 this although I was here for the first hearing on
12:02:24 this, did we put some conditions on this?
12:02:28 >>> Yes.
12:02:29 You limited the sale of alcoholic beverages to be an

12:02:30 accessory -- a new term -- to retail service.
12:02:41 >> Specifically, you can't buy beer and wine and leave
12:02:43 the premises, correct?
12:02:45 >>REBECCA KERT: Not -- they can sell it in closed
12:02:50 containers for off-premises consumption, 2(COP).
12:02:54 But you can't like buy it -- they can't serve it open
12:02:57 and you walk around with it.
12:02:59 That's correct.
12:02:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
12:03:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Record your vote, please.
12:03:05 It's moved and seconded.
12:03:13 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda being absent.
12:03:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 81.
12:03:17 Anyone from the public wishing to address council.
12:03:24 Anyone from the public.
12:03:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
12:03:27 (Motion carried).
12:03:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move an ordinance for second
12:03:30 reading and adoption, an ordinance amending ordinance
12:03:33 2006-150 passed and ordained by the City Council of
12:03:38 the city of than the on June 15, 2006 correct ago
12:03:41 scrivener's error by substituting an approved site

12:03:43 plan dated May 11, 2006, for the old site plan dated
12:03:47 May 4, 2006, attached to the ordinance that was
12:03:51 supplied in error, providing for severability,
12:03:53 providing an effective date.
12:03:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Caetano.
12:03:57 Record your vote, please.
12:04:07 >>THE CLERK: The motion carried with Miranda being
12:04:08 absent.
12:04:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 82.
12:04:10 Anyone from the public wishing to address council?
12:04:12 Item 82.
12:04:13 Motion to close?
12:04:16 >> So moved.
12:04:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
12:04:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So moved.
12:04:21 Councilwoman Miller.
12:04:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Move an ordinance for second reading
12:04:25 for adoption, an ordinance rezoning property in the
12:04:27 general vicinity of 3822 and 3824 north 55th
12:04:30 street in the city of Tampa, Florida and more
12:04:32 particularly described in section 1 from zoning
12:04:34 district classifications RM-16 residential multifamily

12:04:37 to CG commercial general, providing an effective date.
12:04:41 >> Second.
12:04:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Dingfelder.
12:04:46 Record your vote.
12:04:54 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda being absent.
12:04:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 83.
12:04:57 Anyone from the public wishes to address council?
12:05:00 Item 83.
12:05:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
12:05:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want a shot at convincing -- the
12:05:08 more I think about it, the more I think this building
12:05:10 is absolutely unacceptable and I really urge you all
12:05:13 to reject this completely mediocre, unworthy site plan
12:05:18 proposal.
12:05:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Reject or continue it so they can
12:05:24 improve it?
12:05:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think they have to start at the
12:05:28 bottom.
12:05:28 So a continuance to let them rethink it so I think a
12:05:34 continuance would be a great idea.
12:05:36 I make a motion to that this be continued to allow --
12:05:41 >>JULIA COLE: We first need to ask whether or not the

12:05:43 petitioner wants to have a vote on this or whether or
12:05:45 not they would come forward with a continuance.
12:05:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Petitioner?
12:05:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just point of order for a second,
12:05:58 Ms. Cole.
12:06:03 I understand the petitioner has the right to an up or
12:06:05 down vote but I don't know if they have a rate to an
12:06:09 up or down vote with in a time frame.
12:06:11 I think if we have a time frame and we have questions
12:06:13 or concerns, that would be the province of council.
12:06:18 I mean, we don't have a deadline within our code of
12:06:21 when we decide how long we have to decide on a PD.
12:06:26 >>JULIA COLE: I think the petitioner, when they
12:06:28 petition the government, have a right to have a
12:06:30 decision made, and we are at second reading.
12:06:34 I believe petitioner has a right to indicate whether
12:06:36 or not they would like their vote today, or whether or
12:06:38 not it's acceptable to have this continued.
12:06:41 And now if there is something that City Council has
12:06:45 indicated specific information, and they are asking
12:06:47 for a period of time to review, that may be a
12:06:50 different situation but that's not what I am hearing

12:06:52 is occurring here.
12:06:53 What I am hearing is occurring here is a request to
12:06:55 continue so that this petitioner can go back and
12:06:57 redesign this building in a manner which would be more
12:07:02 consistent with the design guidelines in this
12:07:04 council's opinion.
12:07:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can also add, council, I would
12:07:09 also share a concern that the people who voted the way
12:07:12 they did at the first hearing --
12:07:14 6 to 1.
12:07:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Was based on substantial competent
12:07:18 evidence they heard at the hearing.
12:07:19 Any changes now at the second hearing, at the second
12:07:23 reading would have to be based on competent
12:07:24 substantial evidence that occurred at the second
12:07:26 reading.
12:07:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That doesn't mean you have to vote
12:07:30 the same way the second time as do you the first time.
12:07:32 >>JULIA COLE: You absolutely are under no obligation
12:07:37 to vote the exact same way you did the first time.
12:07:41 It would be helpful if somebody for the record would
12:07:44 indicate what is indicated in the record.

12:07:49 For the record standpoint that would be valuable and I
12:07:51 would probably want to make that request to City
12:07:53 Council.
12:07:56 So I would agree with you on that sentiment.
12:08:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Shall I elaborate?
12:08:03 >> Well, you voted against it.
12:08:08 You voted against it.
12:08:11 >> Whatever the question was on that.
12:08:14 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: So it was a 6 to 1.
12:08:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 5 to 1.
12:08:19 I forgot she wasn't here.
12:08:20 >>GWEN MILLER: I would like to hear from petitioner if
12:08:23 you would like for us to vote on it today.
12:08:26 >>DAVID SMITH: 401 East Jackson Street for the
12:08:28 petitioner.
12:08:29 I have been sworn.
12:08:32 Unfortunately, we had this discussion regarding
12:08:35 whether or not we should move forward with this and
12:08:38 make all these changes, or not.
12:08:41 And it was I think fully debated at that time by
12:08:46 adding the conditions on the site plan, which the
12:08:48 petitioner agreed to do, that these things would be

12:08:49 addressed at construction plan and that would be
12:08:52 satisfactory to the majority of the commission at that
12:08:53 time.
12:08:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What did you add?
12:08:59 >>> I can go back and get my sheet but what we added
12:09:02 is all of the items relative to dealing with the
12:09:04 pedestrian interface, dealing with the design of the
12:09:07 corners of the building, enhancing the pedestrian
12:09:10 entrances, dealing with the westward side of the wall
12:09:13 which is the one immediately abutting the parking
12:09:15 garage which would be abutting the property,
12:09:19 architecturally so it's more compatible and even
12:09:22 though we know it may be blocked in the future making
12:09:24 it more compatible as far as view until such
12:09:27 redevelopment occurs, dealing with the interface
12:09:30 between the sidewalk and the pedestrian area.
12:09:34 Here we go.
12:09:35 Thank you very much.
12:09:36 Dealing with the building, the location of the
12:09:39 building name.
12:09:42 We put five or six or seven, you know, dealing with
12:09:46 awnings, making the awnings located in larger and more

12:09:50 pronounced.
12:09:51 The concept and review by staff, to determine that it
12:09:54 was representative of the urban design guidelines,
12:09:57 relative to the quality of the representation, I don't
12:10:01 think there's a question that we met the intent of the
12:10:06 design guidelines.
12:10:07 Question is whether or not council felt that the
12:10:08 quality of the representation was for anyone to see in
12:10:12 elevations.
12:10:18 So we would be reluctant to say let's look at this in
12:10:22 redesign, I'm afraid in some council persons opinions
12:10:26 we may be back at the same thing about whether or not
12:10:27 the tweaks were adequate enough, or the awnings got
12:10:30 big enough.
12:10:31 When I think the design guide lanes and the urban
12:10:34 design manager is going to be able to take those
12:10:36 things and add it to the plan, and a sure that the
12:10:39 details are there.
12:10:42 And so I respectfully request that we take action on
12:10:45 it.
12:10:45 I know it's in the council's province to do what they
12:10:48 want to do.

12:10:49 But I thought it was fairly clear when we last spoke
12:10:53 that we should move forward and make these changes,
12:10:55 and expect to have approval at second reading.
12:11:03 >> That's what we discussed.
12:11:05 >>GWEN MILLER: I move to close the public hearing.
12:11:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
12:11:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to share with council
12:11:11 that --
12:11:14 Do you have any more questions for staff?
12:11:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.
12:11:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let's close the public hearing.
12:11:19 All in favor of the motion?
12:11:22 (Motion carried).
12:11:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Honestly, what we have before us is
12:11:24 not acceptable.
12:11:25 The things that I added to the site plan last time
12:11:27 were because I felt so hamstrung by the staff
12:11:31 recommendation that what was before us was adequate
12:11:34 when in fact it was not adequate, that the best we
12:11:36 could do was add these things.
12:11:38 Council has the ability to say, now what?
12:11:40 You can't add a tweak here and a tweak there and

12:11:42 really have something that's acceptable.
12:11:45 What's before us -- the petitioner's project will
12:11:50 never come back before us, before the public.
12:11:53 This is council's only opportunity to say, you know,
12:11:58 it's structurally flawed, you need to start from the
12:12:00 get-go and rethink it.
12:12:02 My only hope is that in today's market this won't come
12:12:06 to fruition because if it were to, we would all be
12:12:09 disappointed for the next 50 years.
12:12:10 I really urge my colleagues to vote against it.
12:12:14 >>GWEN MILLER: I'll read it.
12:12:17 I move to adopt the following ordinance, an ordinance
12:12:19 rezoning property in the general vicinity of 606 east
12:12:25 tailor street and 611 east Harrison street in the city
12:12:27 of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in
12:12:30 section 1 from zoning district CBD-1 central business
12:12:34 district off-street parking, to CBD-2 central business
12:12:38 district, hotel, residential, retail, providing an
12:12:40 effective date.
12:12:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second?
12:12:42 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Second.
12:12:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.

12:12:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Linda would love to put us between
12:12:50 that rock and a hard place.
12:12:53 I hear what you're saying on the one hand.
12:12:56 And I think that you are right.
12:12:57 The representations that were brought to us were not
12:12:59 particularly attractive, aesthetically pleasing or
12:13:04 very functional.
12:13:05 It seems like from what David Smith the petitioner
12:13:09 said is that we address some half dozen of the
12:13:17 functional, the sort of functional issues, awnings and
12:13:22 sidewalks, and some of those things.
12:13:27 It's still doesn't improve necessarily the look of it.
12:13:33 But I think the reality is that he sort degenerative
12:13:40 what we told him to do at the time and I participated
12:13:45 in the discussion and I gave him my vote then and I
12:13:47 don't feel comfortable backing up on it now.
12:13:50 So I am going to support it.
12:14:00 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Mulhern and Saul-Sena
12:14:05 voting no and Miranda being absent.
12:14:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 84.
12:14:11 Anyone from the public wish to address council?
12:14:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.

12:14:14 >> Second.
12:14:14 (Motion carried).
12:14:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Dingfelder, councilman Dingfelder,
12:14:19 item 84.
12:14:20 >> I'll move the following ordinance on second
12:14:22 reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the general
12:14:24 vicinity of 1923, 1925, and 1927 north 57th street
12:14:29 in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly
12:14:31 described in section 1 from zoning district
12:14:33 classifications RS-50 residential single-family to IG
12:14:37 industrial general providing an effective date.
12:14:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
12:14:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Record your vote.
12:14:49 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda being absent.
12:14:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone wish to address council on item
12:14:53 85?
12:14:54 Anyone wish to address council on 85?
12:14:59 >>: Move to close.
12:14:59 >> Second.
12:15:00 (Motion carried).
12:15:00 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't want to.
12:15:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move the following ordinance for

12:15:08 second reading and adoption.
12:15:10 An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity
12:15:12 of 9412 North Boulevard in the city of Tampa, Florida
12:15:15 and more particularly described in section 1 from
12:15:18 zoning district classifications RS-50 residential
12:15:21 single-family to PD planned development residential,
12:15:24 single-family, providing an effective date.
12:15:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: record your vote, please.
12:15:29 Yes, second?
12:15:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
12:15:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Dingfelder.
12:15:33 Thank you.
12:15:35 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda being absent
12:15:40 and Mulhern being absent at vote.
12:15:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 86.
12:15:44 Anyone from the public wishing to address council?
12:15:46 Item 86.
12:15:47 >>: Move to close.
12:15:54 >> Second.
12:15:54 (Motion carried).
12:15:55 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: An ordinance being presented for
12:15:58 second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the

12:16:01 general vicinity of the northeast corner of church
12:16:04 street and Ohio Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida
12:16:06 and more particularly described in section 1 from
12:16:08 zoning district classifications RS 620 residential
12:16:11 single-family to RS-50 residential single-family to
12:16:13 providing an effective date.
12:16:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Second?
12:16:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
12:16:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Record your vote, please.
12:16:20 Seconded by Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
12:16:27 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda being absent
12:16:31 and Mulhern being absent at vote.
12:16:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That concludes the items on the
12:16:36 agenda.
12:16:37 We move now to new business.
12:16:39 Councilman Caetano.
12:16:41 New business?
12:16:43 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: No.
12:16:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena?
12:16:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.
12:16:50 >>GWEN MILLER: I would like to present a commendation
12:16:52 to the 100th birthday of the independent party of

12:16:55 color, I can't pronounce it.
12:17:02 I'm going to present to the them.
12:17:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
12:17:05 Moved and seconded.
12:17:06 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
12:17:07 (Motion carried).
12:17:13 Councilman Dingfelder.
12:17:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would like to present a
12:17:16 commendation.
12:17:17 Diane green has been the public relations manager at
12:17:20 MacDill Air Force Base and is retiring today after
12:17:22 32 years of service.
12:17:24 And I think we have all dealt with her over the years.
12:17:27 She does a great job and I would like to see if she
12:17:30 wants to come in and accept a commendation at her
12:17:32 convenience.
12:17:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
12:17:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, so moved.
12:17:42 Okay.
12:17:44 The last item I believe what I have is the discussion
12:17:50 about the contract between union firefighters coming
12:17:54 before us.

12:17:54 Administration was requesting the 28th.
12:18:03 And I think we kind of looked and thought about the
12:18:06 26th.
12:18:06 It whats brought to my attention that councilman
12:18:08 Dingfelder will not be here.
12:18:10 That is the week of the democratic convention in
12:18:12 Denver, the 25th through the 28th.
12:18:14 And so we need to discuss at this point, it looks like
12:18:19 the 26th -- 25th, TVth and 28th.
12:18:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If you want to have it without me,
12:18:25 that's okay.
12:18:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I think we need a full council.
12:18:27 I think we need a full council.
12:18:30 >>GWEN MILLER: How about the next week?
12:18:33 >> Someone mentioned the 21st.
12:18:34 My only concern about the -- 21st, or September?
12:18:41 The 21st we have a full agenda.
12:18:47 I think the 21st has been offered.
12:18:50 I looked at the calendar.
12:18:51 It looks like we have a full day even with CRA.
12:18:55 Appeals at 1:30.
12:18:56 We have the CRA meeting at 1:30.

12:18:58 >>GWEN MILLER: I told you don't put stuff on CRA.
12:19:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I don't know how that happened.
12:19:03 >>GWEN MILLER: The first week in September.
12:19:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Then we need to allow for enough time
12:19:11 to be able to address the issue.
12:19:16 I'm assume based on my discussion with administration
12:19:20 that we are going to allow each side a presentation
12:19:22 roughly about 30 minutes each and then we discuss it,
12:19:27 at least a two-hour discussion and then allow public
12:19:29 hearing, it may go longer than that.
12:19:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Why don't we do it on an off-day on a
12:19:34 Tuesday?
12:19:35 >> Well, that's way was suggesting but councilman
12:19:38 Dingfelder will not be here on the 26th.
12:19:40 So what other days?
12:19:43 >>GWEN MILLER: The 20th.
12:19:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: On the 20th?
12:19:48 I don't know what the administration --
12:19:51 >>THE CLERK: We have Code Enforcement Board meeting.
12:19:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Oh, yeah, yeah.
12:20:00 >>GWEN MILLER: what the Tuesday after the 20th?
12:20:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Of September?

12:20:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
12:20:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What about Wednesday when we are
12:20:11 having the budget meeting anyway?
12:20:13 We could have it afterwards or before.
12:20:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: No, no.
12:20:25 >> I thought the budget was at night.
12:20:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It is at night.
12:20:29 5:01.
12:20:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Chairman, since wove to be here
12:20:33 at five, we could be here at four.
12:20:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I'm just always skeptical when we have
12:20:38 a full tired, also tired and exhausted, and we are not
12:20:41 as alert.
12:20:42 We have a meeting at night.
12:20:43 I would much rather for us to have it in a morning
12:20:45 meeting or a 1:30 meeting, when we don't have a night
12:20:51 meeting.
12:20:51 Preferably.
12:20:52 That way, we are much more refreshed.
12:20:54 Because it's going to be a long meeting.
12:20:56 We have to hear from both sides.
12:20:58 And you have got to be able to hear from the public.

12:21:01 We are going to allow public input.
12:21:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Chairman, the 24th is a
12:21:05 Wednesday, right?
12:21:09 For that budget meeting Linda just suggested.
12:21:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 24th of September.
12:21:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The 10th is also a Wednesday.
12:21:20 I guess Linda's point is if we just came at four on a
12:21:25 Wednesday, or three or whatever, it doesn't mean --
12:21:31 Let me raise a question.
12:21:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm sure the 10th is.
12:21:39 The 10th is the day before.
12:21:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The 10th of September?
12:21:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The clerk did a very nice job of
12:21:50 presenting a calendar.
12:21:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You like the color?
12:21:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Come at four or five.
12:21:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Instead of three.
12:22:00 THE CLERK: Mr. Chair, you are were talking about the
12:22:03 20th of August.
12:22:03 If you have it in the afternoon the Code Enforcement
12:22:05 Board should be finished.
12:22:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So the 20th will be a Wednesday.

12:22:10 So we are suggesting -- the 20th, I think I am out
12:22:17 of town on that evening.
12:22:20 >>GWEN MILLER: August 20th.
12:22:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We could do it at 1:00 or 1:30 on the
12:22:39 20th.
12:22:40 Would the chamber be available?
12:22:44 >> Yes.
12:22:54 So Wednesday the 20th.
12:22:56 Do you want to check that, check with administration?
12:22:59 We need to check with administration.
12:23:02 So we are talking at 1:30 on the 20th.
12:23:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Actually you won't be convening as a
12:23:22 City Council.
12:23:24 It will be a different day.
12:23:26 A different record, a different clerk.
12:23:30 >> If we can make contact with administration, and I
12:23:34 was looking at the calendar for the this.
12:23:36 Again looking at 1:30 on August 20th.
12:23:40 Any other business?
12:23:41 Yes?
12:23:42 >> Need to receive and file.
12:23:47 >> Move to receive and fail.

12:23:48 >> Second.
12:23:49 (Motion carried).
12:23:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I'm sorry to inform you that
12:23:56 the date for the strategic planning, the tentative
12:23:58 date of August 19th does not work for all council
12:24:01 members.
12:24:01 So I am working out on dates in September to work with
12:24:08 the children's board and the facilitator and I'll work
12:24:11 with your aides to see if your dates are available.
12:24:14 I don't know if council wants to do it in September.
12:24:16 I know your dates are very full.
12:24:17 If the answer is yes, September 16th, a Tuesday
12:24:20 morning from nine to noon might be possible.
12:24:22 I'll check with your aides for availability.
12:24:24 I just want to let everybody know the tentative date
12:24:27 of August 19th will not take place.
12:24:29 >> September what?
12:24:29 >> September 16th.
12:24:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other business to come before
12:24:34 council?
12:24:37 Any comments from the public?
12:24:39 Okay.

12:24:40 We stand in recess.
12:24:42 Thank you.
12:24:46 1:30 CRA meeting.
12:24:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: City Council will return at 5:30.
12:24:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 5:30 City Council.
12:24:53 City Council, 5:30.
12:24:55 (Meeting recessed.)
12:24:57
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.