11:01:44 Tampa City Council
11:01:47 Thursday, October 30, 2008
11:01:57 11:00 a.m. session
11:02:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: City Council will now come to order.
11:05:00 We will have roll call at this time.
11:05:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
11:05:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
11:05:07 >>MARY MULHERN: Here.
11:05:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.
11:05:10 For the record we have a memorandum from Mr. John
11:05:18 I am attending a conference this week as a
11:05:20 representative of the MPO and will be absent from the
11:05:22 10-30-08 special called meeting.
11:05:27 I will present that for the record.
11:05:37 We have several items for us.
11:05:41 Do we need to take public comment first, Mr. Attorney?
11:05:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't believe that public comment
11:05:49 is listed on the agenda.
11:05:50 What you have before you is a public hearing on item
11:05:54 number 1, public comment is appropriate, then on item
11:05:57 2 my suggestion would be to ask if anybody wants to
11:06:00 speak to it before you move the resolution.
11:06:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So we need to have a presentation, and
11:06:05 then someone to speak.
11:06:06 Is that what you are advising?
11:06:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: On number 1 you have a presentation.
11:06:12 Make a motion to open the public hearing.
11:06:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion to open the public hearing?
11:06:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
11:06:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
11:06:21 (Motion carried).
11:06:22 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Good morning, council.
11:06:29 I'm here before you this morning on first reading, the
11:06:34 opportunity for a first reading on proposed changes to
11:06:37 chapter 9 of the city code which deals with the code
11:06:39 enforcement, and the changes that are coming through
11:06:45 are -- they are two fold.
11:06:47 Some of them are a clean-up type of change, and
11:06:50 there's a few substantive changes, also.
11:06:53 So it's all being done at once and that's it's
11:06:57 comprehensive changes because I don't think there is a
11:06:58 section that I didn't somehow touch either in the
11:07:01 clean-up form or the substance form.
11:07:06 What I would like to do is go over I think some of the
11:07:09 more pressing things that are in the proposed changes
11:07:11 so that you are aware of them.
11:07:13 The first thing I want to speak to is the way the code
11:07:17 reads presently.
11:07:21 It talks about Code Enforcement Board and special
11:07:26 Now chapter 162 of the Florida statutes doesn't
11:07:33 identify special masters.
11:07:34 It uses the term special magistrates.
11:07:37 So that's one of the changes that's throughout this
11:07:39 whole new chapter 9 or the proposed changes in chapter
11:07:44 So I'm changing that to special magistrate so we are
11:07:48 using consistent language as the Florida statutes.
11:07:54 One of the more noticeable changes that's coming
11:07:57 through is the inclusion of special magistrates, right
11:08:03 alongside the Code Enforcement Board, when we are
11:08:05 talking about the powers, the authority, how a hearing
11:08:10 is conducted, the entering of an order.
11:08:13 The way chapter 9 reads now is that it speaks in terms
11:08:17 of the Code Enforcement Board has the power to do
11:08:19 this, the Code Enforcement Board has the authority to
11:08:22 do this, the Code Enforcement Board shall enter an
11:08:28 It also says presently in section 9-7 regarding
11:08:32 special masters, which will be changed to special
11:08:35 magistrates, that the authority and status of special
11:08:38 masters shall be the same as that of the Code
11:08:41 Enforcement Board.
11:08:43 So they have the same power now.
11:08:47 It's just written differently.
11:08:48 What I am doing through here is putting the two side
11:08:51 by side so it's very clear.
11:08:55 Code Enforcement Board special magistrate shall have
11:08:58 the same powers and duties.
11:09:02 Another area is an area I want to get some guidance
11:09:04 from the council on.
11:09:06 When we -- I enacted the civil citation process
11:09:11 earlier in the year, one of the areas that was changed
11:09:15 was the definition of a repeat violation within the
11:09:18 code -- within the civil citation process.
11:09:23 The City Council acted to have a look-back period of
11:09:29 three years meaning if they would have the same
11:09:31 violation within the past three years, they would be
11:09:34 considered a repeat violation.
11:09:38 The way that chapter 9 reads presently, it's actually
11:09:41 a five-year look-back period.
11:09:44 I was thinking for the sake of consistency, you may
11:09:46 want to change it to three years here, too, so that no
11:09:50 matter what, a repeat violation is always the same
11:09:53 violation has occurred in the past throw years.
11:09:55 I just thought that might make it easier for everybody
11:09:59 that we are consistent there.
11:10:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you need a motion to that
11:10:03 >>ERNEST MUELLER: No.
11:10:04 I think if you just let me know which way you want to
11:10:06 go on that.
11:10:07 As I say as it's written right now it written as
11:10:10 I have already made that change.
11:10:11 I just want to make sure if you want to change it back
11:10:14 you could.
11:10:17 >>MARY MULHERN: Can you refer us to where that is, on
11:10:20 what page?
11:10:21 >>ERNEST MUELLER: That is in section 9-3, which is on
11:10:25 page 4, if you have the copy with all the numbers
11:10:31 running down the side.
11:10:32 You will see repeat violation.
11:10:35 And it is written now three years.
11:10:38 I have got to go back in and underline that.
11:10:40 I don't know how but I will get that back in.
11:10:46 But it does say five presently.
11:10:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, my understanding is that the
11:10:52 recollection is that when it was originally discussed
11:10:54 with the citation process, when council enacted the
11:10:58 citation process, it was council's policy decision to
11:11:00 do a look-back at throw years.
11:11:03 And I believe what Mr. Mueller is recommending is to
11:11:06 be consistent with council's policy, and that's the
11:11:11 same process.
11:11:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's fine.
11:11:13 That's fine.
11:11:15 Do we need a motion to that effect?
11:11:17 Okay, so it's clear.
11:11:20 >>ERNEST MUELLER: I didn't know if you want me to
11:11:22 change it back.
11:11:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: No. That's fine.
11:11:25 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Another area as far as clean-up went
11:11:27 as far as S the way that chapter 9 is presently
11:11:30 written, especially within the powers of the
11:11:33 There was some fairly large paragraph that contained
11:11:36 several provisions that were important.
11:11:39 And all I did was break codes out to where each one of
11:11:42 those provisions has a paragraph of so-and-so, easier
11:11:45 to find and that makes for easier readability.
11:11:49 There are two new provisions from section 9-16 and
11:11:54 In 9-16 -- on page 18.
11:12:00 Setting aside orders.
11:12:13 We found -- sometimes cases go in front of the Code
11:12:17 Enforcement Board, or the special masters, and we find
11:12:22 out after the fact, after an order has been entered,
11:12:24 that perhaps this person is on active duty in the
11:12:31 military and this may be signed over in Iraq or
11:12:35 somewhere and we need to pull that order back, set
11:12:37 that order aside so that they don't have a fine
11:12:43 running or any kind of finding against them.
11:12:46 So this allows for those types of situations where we
11:12:48 can set those orders aside that have been erroneously
11:12:51 entered in when we didn't have any notice or
11:12:54 information on that.
11:12:57 9-17 deals with when the board loses jurisdiction.
11:13:03 That's been in the order but I wanted to codify it
11:13:06 into the code which says that the board loses -- and
11:13:09 the special magistrates, jurisdiction 90 days after
11:13:14 the deadline date.
11:13:18 Unless they specifically ask to maintain jurisdiction
11:13:21 over a case longer than that, but don't allow them to
11:13:28 have jurisdiction for more than 180 days.
11:13:32 >> Could you explain the practical meaning of that?
11:13:34 >>ERNEST MUELLER: After 90 days, the way it works
11:13:37 now, it gets assigned up to the city attorney's office
11:13:40 forts collection of the lean.
11:13:41 So once it goes to the city attorney's office, people,
11:13:45 let's say in a 2000 case, a case that went before the
11:13:50 board in 2000 or some period past that 90 days, they
11:13:54 aren't loud to come to the board right now and say,
11:13:56 oh, I wants to have a motion for reduction of fine.
11:14:00 It's being passed on.
11:14:04 Another substantive change of note is in section 9-9-N
11:14:11 which is on page 10, and that just deals with what
11:14:14 happens when there's a tie vote.
11:14:17 In front of a full board.
11:14:20 It was silent before.
11:14:21 Wanted to specify what would happen in the case of tie
11:14:28 Another change clarifies on page 7, the board or the
11:14:39 special magistrate is not going to be able to enter an
11:14:41 order that would direct someone to violate another
11:14:43 section of the city code.
11:14:44 I wanted to clarify that.
11:14:49 And the last change I just want to mention here deals
11:14:52 with title of chapter 9.
11:14:54 Right now it called Code Enforcement Board.
11:14:56 And the change would be just to code enforcement.
11:15:08 There's a lot of housekeeping type matters.
11:15:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We have at various times, various
11:15:14 council members have discussed the fact that maybe the
11:15:16 general way that we have moved forward with having a
11:15:20 Code Enforcement Board isn't the best use of people's
11:15:23 time, but perhaps we should have just magistrates
11:15:27 rather than citizens.
11:15:29 And we have discussed sometimes that maybe appeals
11:15:33 shouldn't be made to council sitting in a
11:15:36 quasi-judicial role, but maybe it would be better for
11:15:38 it to go to a magistrate tip person.
11:15:43 It doesn't appear that you incorporated those things
11:15:46 into this chapter.
11:15:50 How could we look at that in the future?
11:15:55 >>> You kind of have two questions.
11:15:57 With the appeal of a Code Enforcement Board, it
11:16:02 actually goes straight to the circuit court.
11:16:05 They do not come before City Council.
11:16:09 The other part of your question I believe if I'm
11:16:12 understanding it correctly is there might be using
11:16:15 special magistrates to hear cases rather than the full
11:16:19 And I'm looking at that.
11:16:21 And that can actually be done now, as I pointed out
11:16:24 9-7 says that the special masters which shall be
11:16:27 called special magistrates have the same power.
11:16:29 What I am trying to do is low at ways of improving the
11:16:32 process all the way through.
11:16:35 If there's some areas that we enforce that are going
11:16:37 to the board that I would like to have special
11:16:40 magistrates do, because they can specialize and hear
11:16:44 only those cases and train them and have them
11:16:46 understand how to apply the code.
11:16:49 And I think it will be better than having it go in
11:16:51 front of the full board.
11:16:53 So we are looking at that.
11:16:54 And these changes aren't necessary to be able to do
11:16:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do we need to direct you or you
11:17:01 will be doing that when wee you completed your
11:17:04 >>> On that aspect of it?
11:17:06 >> Yes.
11:17:07 >>> Actually, I think that might be more of an
11:17:09 administrative decision.
11:17:10 I'm not sure.
11:17:11 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: The way the code is drafted now is
11:17:16 the administration can choose between the two.
11:17:20 And I think that the concept here is to try using the
11:17:25 magistrates more than we have now, see how that works,
11:17:28 and then if at some point in the future there was
11:17:31 desire to go strictly with magistrates we come back to
11:17:35 you all, I think change the code.
11:17:37 But I think right now the preference is to keep the
11:17:41 board in place and keep them functioning the way they
11:17:43 are, and just look, as Ernie mentioned, at some
11:17:50 specialized areas where we think there's more
11:17:52 efficiency with having one person doing that, so I
11:17:56 don't think we need any action from you all right now
11:17:59 unless you want to tell us that we can't use the board
11:18:02 Certainly you can change the code to do that, but we
11:18:04 don't think that's appropriate at this time.
11:18:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
11:18:11 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Those all I have to present.
11:18:13 Like I said, there's clean-up changes and substantive
11:18:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, sir.
11:18:21 Public hearing.
11:18:22 Anyone wishing to come forward may come forward at
11:18:25 this time, name and address, you have three minutes.
11:18:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: This is a legislative matter so no
11:18:36 need to swear in witnesses.
11:18:38 >>> I can just talk without being sworn in?
11:18:41 Susan Long, 921 East Broad Street.
11:18:43 First of all I'm speaking for me and me alone.
11:18:48 I have real concerns with this at this time, not that
11:18:49 I don't agree with what they are trying to do, but
11:18:52 there was such short notice that we haven't had a lot
11:18:55 of time to go over this.
11:18:57 I have spoken to several people at T.H.A.N., and they
11:18:59 are very concerned because they haven't had a chance
11:19:03 We would like to ask for a continuance.
11:19:05 The other question that I have is, although a lot of
11:19:10 what he's doing is clean-up stuff, when I asked them
11:19:13 what the difference is between what a special
11:19:14 magistrate will be doing now as opposed to what
11:19:18 hearing masters have done up to now, versus what code
11:19:22 board would do, I am not getting clear answers.
11:19:24 I don't think they really have finished the process in
11:19:26 their minds, so that we know the impact that this will
11:19:30 We would like that done.
11:19:31 We would like to have a two week continuance so they
11:19:33 can finish up their business and we'll have a chance
11:19:35 to review it.
11:19:36 Thank you.
11:19:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker.
11:19:44 >>> Richard FORMICA, Pawnee Avenue in the Temple Crest
11:19:51 neighborhood of Tampa.
11:19:52 I'm here this morning wearing two hats, one to say a
11:19:55 few words authorized by Wolford Johnson, the president
11:19:58 of T.H.A.N. and the other hat being worn for myself.
11:20:02 T.H.A.N. would like to suggest that any action on this
11:20:05 first reading be postponed or continued until T.H.A.N.
11:20:07 has an opportunity to survey its neighborhood
11:20:09 associations about the contents of the proposed
11:20:13 T.H.A.N. only received information about these changes
11:20:15 after its October meeting.
11:20:17 Coincidentally, or ironically, Mr. Slater had been
11:20:22 scheduled to speak at T.H.A.N. November meeting, which
11:20:26 has yet to come.
11:20:27 Mr. Mueller has also been invited to the November
11:20:32 Speaking for myself, I would like to say some of the
11:20:34 wording in the existing ordinance, and the proposed
11:20:37 changes, seem to be quite Draconian, and I'm
11:20:42 uncomfortable with that.
11:20:43 But that may be just my ignorance in the existing
11:20:53 Can did procedures be outlined accurately and quickly
11:20:55 with the database system that code enforcement is
11:20:58 apparent lip using that is ancient?
11:21:07 I have heard it may be another year before another
11:21:09 system is installed and working. This may be another
11:21:11 reason to delay implementation of these changes.
11:21:13 Finally, the proposed changes do not appear to contain
11:21:15 any mitigation procedures for low-income, elderly or
11:21:20 handicapped residents found to be in violation of
11:21:22 codes and unable to comply.
11:21:24 This may be the most positive reason to delay action
11:21:28 in these proposed changes.
11:21:30 Thank you.
11:21:32 >> Mr. Formica, what is the date of the T.H.A.N.
11:21:36 November meeting?
11:21:39 Mid month?
11:21:40 >>> Yes.
11:21:41 Second Wednesday, I believe.
11:21:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Chairman, maybe what we could
11:21:47 do, I really think that what's being presented is not
11:21:54 That's the way it feels to me but maybe it feels
11:21:56 differently to you guys so maybe what we should do is
11:21:59 give T.H.A.N. an opportunity to speak more with Mr.
11:22:02 Slater and Mr. Mueller and delay first reading until
11:22:08 our meeting on the 16th, and perhaps second
11:22:11 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, I have no problem
11:22:15 with that.
11:22:15 I want to make sure that everybody is on board.
11:22:17 I'm sure that the delay of throw weeks or whatever it
11:22:21 comes out to is not earth shaking in this instance.
11:22:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My motion would to be put this on
11:22:34 our agenda for the 16th, November 16th.
11:22:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
11:22:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: First reading on chapter 9.
11:22:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And first reading heard at what time
11:22:47 at what time?
11:22:47 Madam clerk?
11:22:48 >>THE CLERK: That would be 9:30.
11:22:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What's the date again?
11:22:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is that our next --
11:22:57 Yes, the 16th.
11:23:04 There's a motion on the floor that we agenda this for
11:23:06 first reading on the 16th of November.
11:23:09 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
11:23:14 Thank you.
11:23:18 Our next item is the resolution.
11:23:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I move the resolution, if it's
11:23:26 available, to appoint Fran Davin and David Mechanik to
11:23:32 the Hart board.
11:23:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:23:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion by council member Miranda,
11:23:38 seconded by Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
11:23:41 Yes, sir.
11:23:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If anyone wants to speak to that
11:23:47 before it's passed.
11:23:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone want to speak to the
11:23:52 >>> Thank you, Mr. Chair.
11:23:55 I'm actually not speaking -- my name is Kordell Javis,
11:24:01 303 west Amelia Avenue.
11:24:04 Mr. Chair, not speaking germane to the resolution but
11:24:06 as a student I really don't have time to catch up with
11:24:09 the City Council meetings and this is the one that I
11:24:10 had time to come to, to talk about the issue that I
11:24:13 It actually does pertain somewhat to code enforcement.
11:24:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, okay, you need to come back.
11:24:19 This is a different issue we are on now.
11:24:21 I'll come back and give you the opportunity to address
11:24:23 >>> Thank you very much.
11:24:27 >> All in favor?
11:24:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move that we allow public
11:24:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I am going to do that anyway.
11:24:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you wish, you can close -- excuse
11:24:38 me, before you come up.
11:24:39 Normally what would happen, council, during a regular
11:24:41 meeting, if you wish to take public comment it would
11:24:43 be at the end of the meeting, and per council's rules
11:24:45 is usually not televised so if you wish to finish your
11:24:48 business or you wish to take it now, it's council's
11:24:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I'll take it now.
11:24:54 I want to give him an opportunity to speak.
11:24:56 Then I have some business to cover.
11:24:58 You have three minutes.
11:24:59 >>> Thank you, Mr. Chair.
11:25:04 At USF, I'm kind of government with the governance
11:25:07 But we had an issue earlier, I tried to call the
11:25:11 police about a noise complaint.
11:25:13 I live in Tampa Heights.
11:25:16 This is I guess the third residence I have lived in
11:25:18 since going to college.
11:25:19 I used to live in unincorporated Hillsborough County.
11:25:22 Used to live on campus.
11:25:24 And I have had noise complaints before where I lived
11:25:26 in unincorporated Hillsborough County and on campus
11:25:28 and both were taken care of.
11:25:31 In a very expedited manner.
11:25:34 But when I called a noise complaint on my neighbors
11:25:38 the house bass Watt was literally shaking, the Tampa
11:25:41 police told me there's no noise ordinance, we don't
11:25:44 know if we can bring in a police enforcer to. Me, I
11:25:47 mean, I really don't understand.
11:25:50 Doesn't matter what neighborhood it is.
11:25:52 I have lived in Tampa since I was seven years old and
11:25:54 I understand maybe if this was Bayshore or Palma Ceia
11:25:58 if I called the police they probably would have come
11:26:00 on five seconds.
11:26:01 But if there's an issue that a citizen has, the police
11:26:04 should come immediately and the police in that
11:26:06 neighborhood are very eager to come over if they are
11:26:10 suspicious but if they can't even come over and say,
11:26:14 Hey, would you please turn down your music?
11:26:16 I don't even know if there is a noise ordinance.
11:26:20 I looked it up online and it said something about
11:26:25 applied to the entertainment district or whatnot.
11:26:28 But even if there is not a noise ordinance, and even
11:26:35 after that I had to call back tots general line, I
11:26:37 called into our district line, district 3 line.
11:26:39 I had to call back to the general line and they said
11:26:41 that no enforcement had been dispatched.
11:26:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We need to make a correction.
11:26:48 The motion needs to be continues to the 20th, so I
11:26:54 need to know the agenda item, the clerk just made note
11:26:57 of that, that we need to continue it to the 20th.
11:26:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is the 20th the next regular
11:27:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: After the -- I would like to
11:27:06 correct my motion.
11:27:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So do we need to revote now?
11:27:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Motion to amend would be fine.
11:27:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, motion to amend.
11:27:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
11:27:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify by saying Aye.
11:27:18 So I just want to make sure you clearly understood.
11:27:26 Thank you.
11:27:29 You can continue, sir.
11:27:30 >>> We called back to the general dispatcher, and they
11:27:35 said that no enforcement had been dispatched even
11:27:39 though the district 3 operator said there had been,
11:27:41 and then she said she would dispatch an enforcer and
11:27:44 no enforcer ever came by.
11:27:45 I think it was at least an hour or two hours before
11:27:49 the noise actually stopped.
11:27:51 I used to be a criminology major.
11:27:53 So I remember a theory called broken window theory
11:27:57 that if you let something go in the neighborhood such
11:28:00 as noise or code enforcement or someones grass growing
11:28:05 that it's going to be a slippery slope and if you let
11:28:09 people think I can play loud music without worrying
11:28:11 about the cops, I wonder what else I can get away are
11:28:14 or what else I can do without police enforcement.
11:28:17 So I just want to bring this to you all's attention
11:28:19 and I wants you all to be aware of. This and I would
11:28:21 like to thank Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
11:28:25 I'm a member of student government.
11:28:27 I think you came and spoke to us on Tuesday during the
11:28:30 debate ant I appreciate you coming down to speak to
11:28:33 Thank you very much.
11:28:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, sir.
11:28:37 Who do we need to refer this over to?
11:28:39 Someone in administration.
11:28:40 >> I believe just ask administration to do it.
11:28:42 They would funnel it into the appropriate department.
11:28:47 If you would ask administration to report back on
11:28:51 Well, noise would normally be TPD, I believe is the
11:29:00 agency that would handle the noise violation.
11:29:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So can we refer it over to the police
11:29:09 chief, to the police department?
11:29:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Or you can just ask the
11:29:13 administration to report back.
11:29:14 It depends on what council --
11:29:21 >> The issue, it sounds like he called the police
11:29:23 department and there was no action, is what he's
11:29:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's clearly a TPD issue.
11:29:29 I didn't realize if you wanted to deal with the event
11:29:31 or prospectively of what the issue was.
11:29:34 I wasn't clear on what council's desire was.
11:29:36 But if it's clearly what happened in this specific
11:29:40 instance, relative to TPD's action, the request would
11:29:44 be to TPD.
11:29:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
11:29:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
11:29:48 >> Second.
11:29:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We would be asking for a staff
11:29:51 report back on the specific location and why there was
11:29:57 a lack of response from the police department to the
11:30:03 And timeliness.
11:30:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: My issue is not that.
11:30:05 My issue is that he had a time to sit down with
11:30:10 whoever and address his concern.
11:30:12 I don't necessarily need a report back.
11:30:14 I just need to know that they met with him to address
11:30:17 his concern, those all.
11:30:18 That's all.
11:30:20 Now council may want something else.
11:30:22 He's come because he had an issue, had a problem and
11:30:24 it wasn't addressed.
11:30:26 Now he's saying, okay, he's come here, let's refer him
11:30:29 to administration.
11:30:30 Because clearly, that's under the charter.
11:30:36 Mr. Fletcher, you are limited in what you can do?
11:30:38 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: That's right.
11:30:40 Other thing I was going to mention is looking at a
11:30:42 couple provisions, depending on where in the city it
11:30:45 may be, it may be police, the noise apparently is not
11:30:49 a clear area jurisdiction as other things.
11:30:52 So I think your motion to ask someone to get with him
11:30:56 is appropriate.
11:30:58 And then I'll figure out also which rules might apply
11:31:03 if when want to get into this.
11:31:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, councilwoman.
11:31:06 >>MARY MULHERN: Think it would benefit especially the
11:31:10 people in the Tampa Heights neighborhood if we did
11:31:11 have a report about how -- and especially if there
11:31:16 were different ways that noise complaints are dealt
11:31:19 with in different neighborhoods, we could just have a
11:31:23 brief report here from TPD about, you know, what
11:31:27 happens when a noise complaint comes in, and what the
11:31:31 ordinances are.
11:31:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
11:31:36 It's been moved and seconded.
11:31:37 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
11:31:42 >>MARY MULHERN: I think the motion would include
11:31:44 getting with the citizen about his particular
11:31:48 complaint, and also having a report.
11:31:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And the question would be do you want
11:31:56 an appearance or written report?
11:31:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Written report is fine.
11:32:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Finally how long would you wish?
11:32:03 >>MARY MULHERN: I think it was brought up for the
11:32:07 public benefit.
11:32:08 We should have just a brief -- I would like to have an
11:32:11 oral report.
11:32:11 >> Staff report?
11:32:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And how long do you wish to give
11:32:20 >>MARY MULHERN: November 20th.
11:32:21 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: I want to make sure we are clear,
11:32:25 we have two things here.
11:32:26 One is for the administration to get back about this
11:32:28 particular incident.
11:32:29 The other one is for appropriate administration which
11:32:34 I suspect will be my office to report back on the
11:32:37 standards and which noise ordinances apply.
11:32:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.
11:32:41 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: And how they are implemented.
11:32:43 >>MARY MULHERN: Do you need two motions?
11:32:48 >>> No, I just wanted to make sure for the clerk's
11:32:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I just want to be clear that -- is it
11:32:55 council's desire to find out what the provisions are
11:32:57 in the code, or is it council's desire to find out
11:33:00 from the enforcement, from an enforcement perspective
11:33:04 of how those code provisions are applied?
11:33:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
11:33:13 Anyone else from the public?
11:33:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Did we carry the motion?
11:33:17 >> All in favor signify by saying Aye.
11:33:19 So moved and carried.
11:33:21 All right.
11:33:21 Anyone else from the public?
11:33:22 Okay, new business.
11:33:23 Anyone has anything they want to bring to council
11:33:26 besides me?
11:33:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, were those resolutions
11:33:31 >> Yes, moved the resolution.
11:33:34 >>MARY MULHERN: I would just like to recognize a city
11:33:39 department head, Robin Nigh, who is our public arts,
11:33:43 or arts program administrator, is receiving an award
11:33:48 from creative Tampa Bay.
11:33:50 For being a creative catalyst, basically a leader in
11:33:55 the community in the arts for her work.
11:34:00 She's done for public art.
11:34:03 I would like to let that be known.
11:34:05 And there will be a recognition by creative Tampa Bay.
11:34:11 I can't find the date, but we have a night meeting.
11:34:14 So none of us will be able to attend.
11:34:18 I would like to give her recognition for that.
11:34:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is that a motion?
11:34:30 >>MARY MULHERN: I just wanted information.
11:34:32 She's getting an award.
11:34:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I am going to release the gavel and
11:34:35 make a couple of motions here.
11:34:37 One is that on 18th street park, want to ask the
11:34:44 administration to look at renaming 18th street
11:34:47 park after Mr. Al Barnes, naming it Al Barnes park.
11:34:53 Mr. Barnes served this community well as a teacher and
11:34:55 also served on the Sports Authority.
11:35:00 So that's the motion.
11:35:01 >>MARY MULHERN: Second.
11:35:04 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
11:35:06 Opposed, Nay.
11:35:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Secondly, I would like to request we
11:35:12 ask the administration, whatever department is
11:35:16 appropriate to look into naming or having a national
11:35:22 registry of historic sites for Rogers Park.
11:35:25 Rogers Park is a historical site, and came out and
11:35:31 played golf for many years, and so therefore I'm
11:35:34 asking that we ask administration to look into
11:35:41 implementation of that for national registry of the
11:35:44 historic site for Rogers Park.
11:35:47 >> Motion and second.
11:35:48 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
11:35:50 Opposed, Nay.
11:35:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And the next motion is that we ask
11:35:53 again administration also to investigate, looking into
11:35:58 the local registry for designation of historic
11:36:00 structure for Rogers Park, again talking about the
11:36:07 house there that is a historical building, I
11:36:10 understand, and if that can be done, that we look at
11:36:13 inviting, bringing in the golfers Hall of Fame from
11:36:17 Atlanta and moving that site to Rogers Park.
11:36:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wait.
11:36:23 I have been speaking to the people who are interested
11:36:25 in the organization going in there to teach young
11:36:30 I'm all about historic preservation, but the
11:36:32 implication is what should the status of this building
11:36:36 So I don't feel comfortable moving ahead with looking
11:36:38 at this historical thing without looking at the larger
11:36:41 conversation, which is should this building be used
11:36:44 for first tee or for this other use?
11:36:49 So I think what we should do is put this on our agenda
11:36:53 so that we can invite both sides in to speak to
11:36:56 council about what their intentions are for this
11:36:59 building, before just directing a particular
11:37:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Again if you listen to the motion, the
11:37:06 motion was that we look into investigate that whole
11:37:10 issue, what they would do is meet with everyone on
11:37:13 that particular issue and see whether it would be
11:37:15 feasible to move forward with that.
11:37:17 As I understand, this would not prohibit the first tee
11:37:21 from moving forward.
11:37:24 I understand that there's some allocation of funds for
11:37:30 That's fine.
11:37:30 Now, at the end of the day, that's good.
11:37:35 We also have to remember this is a historical
11:37:38 So we are asking pretty much them to look at it and
11:37:40 see if it's feasible for that kind of designation,
11:37:45 with the understanding they are going to do an
11:37:47 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, that building you
11:37:51 are talking about, if it's going to be historical,
11:37:54 incidence doesn't have to be modified to those
11:37:58 In other words, I understand it's under renovation
11:38:01 right now.
11:38:03 And I got a call from the first tee, also.
11:38:06 And aren't therein guidelines on how a building has to
11:38:11 be renovated if it's going to qualify?
11:38:15 Is it now at the present time the remodeling that they
11:38:17 are doing, does it qualify to be an historical
11:38:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's why worry asking staff to
11:38:25 I don't know.
11:38:25 That's why I framed the motion to say that we ask them
11:38:30 to investigate and report back to us.
11:38:32 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Because if they are doing that
11:38:34 renovation now, it may not qualify after spending all
11:38:36 that money.
11:38:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's exactly right.
11:38:38 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: So maybe we should have the
11:38:40 administration stop what's going on until we come up
11:38:43 with an order.
11:38:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I don't think we need to stop
11:38:47 I think we need them to investigate and look at.
11:38:50 It may be feasible the it is and it may not be.
11:38:54 It's just amazing to me that you have a historical
11:38:56 billing, historical site that there's never been
11:38:59 anything put forward to my knowledge.
11:39:01 And let me clarify, to make this number one included
11:39:05 on the national registry, and secondly, the building
11:39:08 It has historical significance to this community.
11:39:11 And I'm not talking about just the African-American
11:39:14 but the broader community.
11:39:15 And in particular if you are talking about bringing
11:39:18 from Atlanta, the Golf Hall of Fame into this
11:39:24 That's tremendous.
11:39:25 I would think that we would want to at least explore
11:39:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay, any other questions?
11:39:37 Did we get a second?
11:39:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'll second it for the purpose of
11:39:42 I think what you are saying is for our staff to report
11:39:44 back to us on what it would take to recognize this as
11:39:51 a historical structure.
11:39:55 But not stopping work on what's going on now.
11:39:59 >>> My motion is not to stop.
11:40:01 My motion is simply, to be clear, look into
11:40:06 investigate, whatever is being done now, the
11:40:10 feasibility of designating a historic structure.
11:40:13 And it may not be feasible.
11:40:20 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, that's my argument.
11:40:21 They may be spending, I don't know how much money they
11:40:23 are spending there. We do have those in the city who
11:40:28 wants to make sure everything is done properly.
11:40:30 We have seen it before this council.
11:40:31 And after spending all that money, they are going to
11:40:33 say, well, you had to do this.
11:40:35 And it's already done.
11:40:36 What do you do?
11:40:41 >>GWEN MILLER: They may have already started
11:40:45 They have probably made changes already that they
11:40:47 should have not made.
11:40:56 >>MARY MULHERN: A question, I think that maybe we
11:40:58 should have that as soon as possible.
11:41:00 Our next council meeting.
11:41:02 They can tell us what's going on.
11:41:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The date would be November 6th.
11:41:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.
11:41:09 Again my motion is not to in any way preclude the
11:41:13 first tee program.
11:41:14 I want to be clear about that.
11:41:16 Now, I will say to you that I do intend to bring back
11:41:18 to council the original contract to include some
11:41:21 change in the language.
11:41:23 You know, I'm not trying to -- that's not my goal.
11:41:30 At the same time I want to protect the historical
11:41:32 significance, understand.
11:41:35 That's my whole intent, and that the program does
11:41:38 involve those students or in the community those who
11:41:43 have said that the first tee program would involve.
11:41:46 And based on our conversation with the Sports
11:41:51 Authority it was not in our contract.
11:41:55 That language is not in the contract at this point.
11:41:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Bring the African-American office?
11:42:11 From Atlanta?
11:42:11 >> Right, the Black Golfers Hall of Fame.
11:42:12 >> Will it fit in there?
11:42:12 >> It is my understanding.
11:42:13 But, here again, you want to explore that possibility.
11:42:17 That's why you are exploring the possibility to do
11:42:20 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the
11:42:22 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
11:42:23 Opposed, Nay.
11:42:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
11:42:27 And the last thing I have is Moffitt cancer center,
11:42:31 commendation to the Moffitt cancer on November
11:42:33 20th in our morning meeting.
11:42:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:42:37 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
11:42:38 Opposed, Nay?
11:42:41 Ms. Saul-Sena?
11:42:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Today is Thursday.
11:42:44 Tuesday is election day.
11:42:45 Our governor has expanded the hours for early voting.
11:42:50 And I just want to say to everybody out there who
11:42:52 might be watching this, vote early if possible.
11:42:55 It will make election day less hectic.
11:42:57 And so in Tampa and Hillsborough County, the hours are
11:43:00 from 7 in the morning till seven at night, on Thursday
11:43:03 and Friday, on Saturday from 8 in the morning till 4
11:43:05 at night.
11:43:06 And I think on Sunday till noon.
11:43:08 I think on Sunday noon to four.
11:43:11 So vote early.
11:43:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Once you are in the line stay in the
11:43:21 It will move.
11:43:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And downtown it's much faster.
11:43:24 I voted down there, and took about 20 minutes.
11:43:28 When I went out this morning someone was in and out in
11:43:32 about ten minutes on the 16th floor downtown.
11:43:34 However be sure to put enough money in the meter.
11:43:38 [ Laughter ]
11:43:38 >>GWEN MILLER: You meet people and you are talking.
11:43:42 Time goes fast.
11:43:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Receive and file?
11:43:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
11:43:53 >> Second.
11:43:53 (Motion carried).
11:43:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anything else to come before council?
11:43:56 We stand adjourned.
11:43:58 (City Council meeting adjourned at 11:44 a.m.)
The preceding represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
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.