Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, February 5, 2009
9:00 a.m. Session


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


09:04:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Tampa City Council will now come to
09:04:32 order.
09:04:33 The chair will now yield to the honorable Charlie
09:04:35 Miranda.
09:04:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
09:04:42 You're the best chairman we have.
09:04:43 And again we only have one chairman.
09:04:45 I want to take this time to introduce Jim Reese who is

09:04:49 going to do the invocation this morning.
09:04:51 Jim has been an upstanding employee of the City of
09:04:56 Tampa.
09:05:03 He gave me the wrong name.
09:05:04 What I'm saying is he's an upstanding individual who
09:05:10 does a lot of work and you see him sitting here in the
09:05:12 circular drive of City Hall.
09:05:14 That means he does the minutes and does them well, and
09:05:20 has to take the council members sometimes speaking two
09:05:24 or three at one time and he's the individual that's
09:05:27 deciphering that information and putting it down so
09:05:29 that the records are kept 100 percent.
09:05:31 So somewhere in history everyone understands and
09:05:34 realizes what's been done.
09:05:37 So we're ready.
09:05:40 Please stand for the invocation and remain standing
09:05:43 for the pledge of allegiance.
09:05:49 >> Let us pray.
09:05:51 Lord, we thank you for this beautiful and cold
09:05:53 morning, another sunrise reminds us of your mercies
09:05:58 which are new every morning.
09:06:00 Thank you that you are the same yesterday, today and

09:06:02 forever and that we may always live in the light and
09:06:04 the warmth of your presence as you promise never to
09:06:07 leave us nor forsake us.
09:06:10 Help us to walk this day well pleasing before you in
09:06:13 all things.
09:06:13 Threat words of our mouths and the meditations of our
09:06:16 heart be acceptable in your site.
09:06:17 And we ask your wisdom and blessing for these your
09:06:20 servants and for all your servants who serve your
09:06:23 people in positions of authority and public trust.
09:06:25 We give you all the glory and all the honor now and
09:06:28 forever.
09:06:29 Amen.
09:06:32 (Pledge of Allegiance)
09:06:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, Jim.
09:06:51 You do a tremendous job.
09:06:55 Roll call.
09:06:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
09:06:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
09:06:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
09:06:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
09:07:00 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Here.

09:07:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.
09:07:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I would like to make a presentation to
09:07:18 Jose Garcia, and we'll do them together, Tampa Bay,
09:07:23 Inc. I'll come down and make this presentation.
09:07:33 Board members, I really can't say enough about Jose
09:07:52 Garcia and rebuilding together Tampa Bay, Inc. They
09:07:56 have done a tremendous job, not only recently with the
09:07:59 20 homes in West Tampa but throughout the City of
09:08:02 Tampa.
09:08:04 Last year, I know they did some work over in the East
09:08:07 Tampa area, and other areas of the city.
09:08:10 And I want to say that we really do appreciate all
09:08:14 that they do, what they mean to this community, to
09:08:18 this city, to this county, and so Mr. Garcia, to your
09:08:23 board, we would really like to honor and recognize you
09:08:26 today for your recent work, for the work that you have
09:08:29 done over at West Tampa, and the lives of the low
09:08:36 income seniors and the family help that you provide in
09:08:39 West Tampa and the improvement that you made in the
09:08:41 historic area.
09:08:42 I won't read all of.
09:08:43 This but what it means is than he gives so much, you

09:08:47 all give so much back to this community for low income
09:08:50 families, for seniors, those in need, and I'll tell
09:08:54 you, people just don't really know the impact what it
09:08:57 really means to the community, to the people that
09:09:01 you're helping, and also to this government.
09:09:03 So on behalf of all of the members of the City
09:09:05 Council, that signed this commendation or make this
09:09:09 commendation to you, for the work that you have done,
09:09:12 especially again during this time of the Super Bowl
09:09:15 celebration and all the partners with you, I
09:09:20 understand also Mr. Ed Turanchik and Tom Holmes played
09:09:24 a major role in helping as well.
09:09:25 I want to thank you and all of your partners for a
09:09:27 great job you and your board members.
09:09:29 So congratulations.
09:09:30 >>> Jose Garcia: Thank you very much.
09:09:36 [ Applause ]
09:09:38 Good morning, Mr. Chairman and City Council members.
09:09:44 We are honored and we are delighted to be here today.
09:09:47 We couldn't complete this project if it wasn't for the
09:09:50 leadership of our board members, Connie is the
09:09:53 president and the rest of our board members, if you

09:09:55 could please stand up so they can recognize you.
09:10:02 Our staff members are also here.
09:10:03 And the leadership is tremendous.
09:10:05 But we couldn't do this without thousands of
09:10:09 volunteers who came in the month of January to
09:10:12 complete these jobs, including general contractors,
09:10:16 home builders, and housing renovators.
09:10:21 But most important is the leadership and partnership
09:10:24 with, through Jeanette Fenton, who went there every
09:10:32 day.
09:10:36 Jeanette did not even -- she said, don't worry, I'll
09:10:42 come to your office and make sure you have what you
09:10:45 need, and the positive messages, and like the fire
09:10:52 department, the police department, the waste
09:10:56 department, they were just incredible.
09:11:00 And I just want to tell you to let them know, you guys
09:11:07 were incredible.
09:11:10 A great partner and a great friend.
09:11:11 And I know with Joan an opportunity to volunteer, and
09:11:19 thank you very much for your leadership.
09:11:20 Thank you for your class.
09:11:24 I can say for sure the best touchdown was this

09:11:24 project.
09:11:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to thank you all for
09:11:50 coming down and sharing what you all accomplished and
09:11:52 creating homes for people.
09:11:53 It's one of the greatest gifts you can give them.
09:11:55 Thank you for all your hard work.
09:11:57 And it means a lot to us that all the board members
09:12:00 came down on this very cold morning.
09:12:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And I want to encourage those to drive
09:12:08 by, see some of the homes, see how beautiful they are.
09:12:12 They are wonderful.
09:12:13 Again I just can't say enough about Jose and this
09:12:16 organization.
09:12:16 Thank you.
09:12:21 Okay, we need to move to the approval of the agenda:
09:12:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Good morning.
09:12:28 Before you, you have the addendum to today's agenda.
09:12:31 There are several items that are required to be
09:12:33 substituted.
09:12:36 Item 3 is a request by assistant city attorney Julia
09:12:41 Cole to substitute the agreement with cheer channel
09:12:44 outdoor.

09:12:45 Number 4 is a settlement substitution for CBS outdoor.
09:12:49 Item 5 is regarding a substitute ordinance with regard
09:12:53 to the chapter 5 revisions.
09:12:55 Item 47 is a request to substitute the resolution
09:13:00 regarding the designation of properties of a local
09:13:03 landmark.
09:13:03 Item 57 is a substitution regarding the comprehensive
09:13:08 plan.
09:13:09 I believe council has had the council to receive all
09:13:12 the items in advance, and those items are requested to
09:13:14 be substituted.
09:13:16 The only other changes would be, to the agenda, is
09:13:20 to -- I am making the request, members of council, to
09:13:27 ask for a two week continuance on item 35 regarding
09:13:30 the renewal of a contract award.
09:13:35 I have some questions that I would like to have
09:13:37 answered of a legal nature that I have not had the
09:13:40 opportunity to do so.
09:13:41 I have discussed that with the committee chair Mr.
09:13:43 Caetano, and that's a request of myself to continue
09:13:47 item 35 for two weeks and have it put on the February
09:13:49 19th agenda.

09:13:51 Also, council, there's a request to remove item 5 --
09:13:57 excuse me, item 5, to move that to be heard with staff
09:14:00 reports at 10:30.
09:14:02 That is presently on the first read section of the
09:14:08 agenda.
09:14:08 So that would be requested to move that to 10:30.
09:14:12 Finally, council, item 63, the resolution has been
09:14:15 received by the city clerk for this request, and
09:14:20 therefore the correct or proper action would be to
09:14:23 move the resolution to item 63, should it be council's
09:14:27 pleasure to do so.
09:14:28 Those are the only changes to the agenda that I'm
09:14:31 aware of, and I'm asking if there's nothing else then
09:14:34 for council to approve the agenda as amended.
09:14:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'd like to move the agenda as
09:14:41 amended.
09:14:41 >> Second.
09:14:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That's fine but I will speak on one
09:14:48 item, no opposition to moving the agenda but I will
09:14:52 speak to one item that's on the agenda.
09:14:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So in the motion we are continuing
09:14:57 item 35 which is included in this motion and other

09:14:59 changes.
09:15:00 Okay?
09:15:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
09:15:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's been moved.
09:15:03 Yes, sir.
09:15:03 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
09:15:06 introduce Ms. Samantha Schmitt at USF.
09:15:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Wait just one second and I'll come
09:15:15 back.
09:15:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Dingfelder.
09:15:19 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
09:15:23 Opposes?
09:15:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I would like to introduce an intern
09:15:28 from the University of South Florida who is a
09:15:30 political major, Mrs. Samantha Schmitt sitting in the
09:15:36 corner over there.
09:15:39 Welcome.
09:15:40 Thank you.
09:15:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, Ms. Brooks.
09:16:02 >> I'm here on behalf of --
09:16:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to the mike, please.
09:16:09 >> I apologize.

09:16:10 I wanted to thank you all for the opportunity to come
09:16:12 down here and speak with you.
09:16:17 I'm here to present the addendum to the Westshore
09:16:19 pedestrian plan.
09:16:21 >> How long is the presentation?
09:16:25 >> I'm sorry, it's only five minutes so I'll go
09:16:28 through this quickly.
09:16:29 >> Make sure, then we'll take public comment right
09:16:31 after.
09:16:32 >> No problem.
09:16:33 We did the original plan in '05 so the addendum
09:16:36 basically revisited that whole area which is the core
09:16:41 area of the business district of Westshore.
09:16:43 And then also looked at other areas within the special
09:16:47 services district of Westshore, and basically we
09:16:51 looked at pedestrian transit bicycle network
09:16:56 deficiencies, past initiatives, we conducted a field
09:17:00 review, but all of this basically -- basically
09:17:06 compiled into the information plan where we have a set
09:17:08 of projects that we prioritize, and they cover
09:17:13 everything from corridor enhancements which includes
09:17:17 sidewalks to intersection enhancements which cover

09:17:20 crosswalks and pedestrian signals.
09:17:24 And we did some preliminary cost estimates for each of
09:17:27 those projects.
09:17:28 And we also identified potential funding sources.
09:17:31 Please note that what you have is a draft.
09:17:35 We are still flushing out some of the details.
09:17:37 Anyway, I'm here before you to seek your approval of
09:17:40 the plan, and to forward it to the MPO board, because
09:17:45 we would ultimately like to have the addendum and the
09:17:48 projects of the addendum incorporated into the city's
09:17:51 framework and then the long-range transportation plan
09:17:54 update that the MPO is currently conducting.
09:18:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Are you finished?
09:18:04 >>> Yes, unless you have some questions.
09:18:05 I'm sorry.
09:18:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: First of all, I want to
09:18:08 congratulate the Westshore alliance for being forward
09:18:10 thinking, and expanding the scope of the pedestrian
09:18:13 plan.
09:18:13 The initial one didn't address the Rocky Point area
09:18:17 which is developing rapidly, and we certainly need to
09:18:19 include that and incorporate other areas to our

09:18:23 northern boundaries.
09:18:24 I think what's before us today is a very clean,
09:18:27 thoughtful road map for where we go in the future.
09:18:31 This is presented to the livable roadways committee of
09:18:35 the MPO and I think well received, but I think
09:18:38 actually the City of Tampa needs to consider adopting
09:18:41 this, which council members probably don't have
09:18:43 something presented to them and adopting it the same
09:18:46 day.
09:18:46 We'll probably need to chew on it awhile.
09:18:48 But as we move forward, and as we allocate
09:18:52 transportation dollars, and as we develop a
09:18:54 transportation policy that's more multimodal, you have
09:18:58 given us a way that we can spend money to make it
09:19:02 easier for people to get around Westshore, whether
09:19:05 they be bus users, bicyclists, or people in cars.
09:19:12 And we as a council are looking at changing the way we
09:19:16 spend impact fees and being able to include more of
09:19:20 these other modes of transportation in our
09:19:22 expenditures.
09:19:24 So what you provided us with today is exactly what we
09:19:27 need to go forward, and I dare say this will be a

09:19:30 model for the entire city, as we recognize we want to
09:19:36 make all forms of transportation easier for people.
09:19:39 This is really an extraordinary study.
09:19:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What I would suggest, Ms. Brooks, is
09:19:48 in terms of approval that we bring this back because I
09:19:52 haven't had a chance to read or review it so we can
09:19:55 add this to our next meeting.
09:19:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Workshop maybe?
09:20:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, if I can raise the issue.
09:20:01 I don't know whether in the statutory scheme of things
09:20:04 where this fits and what effect it has.
09:20:06 I wasn't aware that there was any action requested by
09:20:10 this, and I haven't had a chance to review it with the
09:20:15 administration, so I don't know what the time frame is
09:20:17 for this but I certainly would like to have the
09:20:20 administration, and particularly I would like to have
09:20:23 council receive that input to find out where in the
09:20:25 statutory scheme and planning and council's role this
09:20:30 fits in.
09:20:30 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: If you want to have a report back
09:20:33 in two weeks for that purpose, perhaps that might be
09:20:35 appropriate.

09:20:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Can we get a motion?
09:20:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Four weeks?
09:20:41 I'm going to request the first meeting in March, I
09:20:43 believe.
09:20:43 Would that be acceptable?
09:20:47 >>> Lauren brooks: By all means.
09:20:51 Thank you.
09:20:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It looks very comprehensive, and
09:20:56 I'm sure positive things will come from it.
09:20:58 What I'm wondering about is the neighborhood involved.
09:21:03 I'm looking on page 2-23, it talks about stakeholder
09:21:06 input, and it has a bunch of government entities, and
09:21:10 Westshore alliance, Lincoln Gardens, Rowlette Park,
09:21:16 those residential neighborhoods.
09:21:17 >> Sure.
09:21:19 We conducted an online survey and we have done this
09:21:22 twice actually, and we also mailed out surveys to the
09:21:25 various residents and businesses within the greater
09:21:27 Westshore area.
09:21:29 So that's pretty much how we get our public outreach
09:21:33 component.
09:21:34 >> I don't know how comprehensive your mailing was

09:21:36 because I'm going to guess there are some folks over
09:21:38 there without computers.
09:21:39 >>> Right.
09:21:40 No, I understand.
09:21:41 But we did the mailing.
09:21:44 I think there were probably about 300 residents and
09:21:47 businesses included.
09:21:48 But we also --
09:21:50 >> And how would they have been selected?
09:21:52 >> We give city property appraisers data and basically
09:21:59 did a GAS analysis and I guess pulled out the parcels
09:22:05 within the area, and obtained those addresses, and
09:22:07 then sent the survey via mail.
09:22:10 >> It sounds like you are coming back to talk to us a
09:22:13 little more.
09:22:13 So when you do, maybe just give us an update on the
09:22:17 residential involvement and coming to meetings
09:22:21 perhaps, you know, that sort of thing.
09:22:22 >>> Sure.
09:22:23 Definitely.
09:22:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Because those folks when they come
09:22:26 in front of us on commercial rezonings, really one of

09:22:30 their biggest complaints and issues is getting around
09:22:33 the neighborhood and the safety issues and crossing
09:22:36 Lois and all that stuff.
09:22:37 >>> Definitely.
09:22:39 >> We hear that regularly.
09:22:41 I want to make sure they were plugged into this
09:22:43 process.
09:22:44 Thank you.
09:22:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Ms. Brooks, also, we need about three,
09:22:48 maybe four copies.
09:22:50 >>> Sure, sure, no, this is just a draft to show you
09:22:53 that we are working on it, that something does exist.
09:22:58 But, yes, I will.
09:23:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I would appreciate it very much.
09:23:02 Thank you.
09:23:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This study is to pedestrians, the
09:23:09 tree canopy is to treat, it's so broad and
09:23:12 comprehensive and such a great baseline look at where
09:23:14 the gaps are, and the sidewalks and the transit stops,
09:23:18 and it has a whole investment strategy for the future.
09:23:23 It is fabulously comprehensive and it really will be a
09:23:27 model for us in the future.

09:23:28 So when this report comes back to the administration,
09:23:34 well, the administration was involved in the creation
09:23:36 of the study.
09:23:37 I think that what might be more productive is perhaps
09:23:41 in April scheduling this for a workshop, a council
09:23:45 workshop.
09:23:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, let's hear back, see how this
09:23:51 fits into the scheme of everything.
09:23:53 Then we can perhaps schedule a workshop.
09:23:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
09:23:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's a motion on the floor.
09:23:58 Motion made by councilman Caetano, seconded by
09:24:03 Councilwoman Saul-Sena, that we ask Mr. Shelby to meet
09:24:06 with administration, all parties, see how this fits
09:24:09 into the scheme and scope of City Council.
09:24:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I just want to make sure, you had
09:24:14 indicated it was your intention to ask City Council to
09:24:17 forward this to the MPO?
09:24:19 >>> We would like the MPO board to approve this plan.
09:24:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is thereby a time frame for that?
09:24:24 >>> We were hoping to go in front of them in March.
09:24:26 But we want to make sure all of our T's are crossed

09:24:30 and I's are dotted.
09:24:34 >> It's not necessary to approve something that goes
09:24:39 before the MPO.
09:24:40 The roadways committee reviews it and approves it so
09:24:43 that isn't necessary.
09:24:44 >>> Okay.
09:24:47 Thank you for the opportunity.
09:24:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Want it to come back and find out
09:24:52 exactly --
09:24:53 Yes.
09:24:53 There's a motion.
09:24:54 All in favor?
09:24:55 Opposes?
09:24:57 Thank you.
09:24:58 Now we'll take public comment from those that are
09:25:01 here.
09:25:02 Immediately following public comment, we will take up
09:25:04 the billboard issues, Clear Channel, CBS.
09:25:14 At this time you are allowed to speak to those items
09:25:18 that are on the agenda first, but those items will
09:25:24 follow immediately after public comment.
09:25:27 Again if you are here, you want to address council,

09:25:31 and the settlement agreement with Clear Channel and
09:25:34 CVS, those items -- CBS, Clear Channel will take up
09:25:38 immediately after public comment.
09:25:40 As you come forward you have three minutes.
09:25:42 State your name and address for the record, please.
09:25:45 >>> Alan snow.
09:25:47 I'm at 1203 east Powhatan Avenue, Seminole Heights.
09:25:52 I'm also the director of southwest Florida bicycle
09:25:56 united dealers and co-founders of the Seminole Heights
09:25:59 bicycle club.
09:26:00 I'm here to thank council chair Scott for making a
09:26:05 motion at the last Tampa-Hillsborough expressway
09:26:10 authority board meeting which he made a motion to get
09:26:12 staff there to look at the possibility of opening up
09:26:15 the upper deck of the Selmon expressway for bicycles
09:26:20 on early Sunday mornings.
09:26:21 I just wanted to clarify that.
09:26:24 We would be happy with any kind of access to the top
09:26:28 of the Selmon.
09:26:29 It doesn't have to be every Sunday morning.
09:26:31 Maybe it's once a month.
09:26:33 Maybe it's just quarterly.

09:26:35 Maybe for special events.
09:26:36 But we just wanted to look at the feasibilities of
09:26:40 just bicycles being up on Sunday mornings for a very
09:26:44 short window from maybe eight to ten or seven to nine.
09:26:48 We are not looking to impact any kind of economic
09:26:51 issues there.
09:26:52 So thank you, council chair Scott.
09:26:55 I also want to thank council member Saul-Sena.
09:26:58 She has set a meeting for February 26 at 1:30 to talk
09:27:03 about bike lane issues in the City of Tampa.
09:27:08 We welcome that kind of engagement with the City of
09:27:11 Tampa.
09:27:13 Things are different now in the city.
09:27:15 We have people moving to our city who have different
09:27:18 sensibilities and interests regarding bicycling, and I
09:27:21 know from helping co-found the bike club in our
09:27:25 neighborhood in Seminole Heights, people want safe
09:27:28 places to bike.
09:27:29 It's just part of the livability issue that we want
09:27:32 now.
09:27:32 So, again, I thank council chair Scott for his action
09:27:38 on the floor, also working with you folks, if you have

09:27:41 any bicycle questions, I have access to bicycle owners
09:27:46 as well as thousands of bicyclists.
09:27:51 I look forward to the February 26th meeting as
09:27:53 well.
09:27:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much.
09:27:54 Next speaker.
09:28:00 >>> Wolford Johnson, 4625 Longfellow Avenue, president
09:28:04 of T.H.A.N.
09:28:07 I want to talk about the billboard issue.
09:28:11 The billboard agreement I think started out really an
09:28:15 agreement between attorneys.
09:28:19 From a neighborhood perspective, though, it went from
09:28:22 being a terrible agreement to being just a bad
09:28:25 agreement.
09:28:27 And there's several areas in there. When we looked at
09:28:31 it and everything else, we think we made some
09:28:35 compromises, made some improvements from the
09:28:37 standpoint of distance between residential and digital
09:28:43 signs.
09:28:43 However, there's one area in there, seems like it's
09:28:46 almost like a ticking time bomb type of thing, but an
09:28:49 existing permitted sign, it can be upgraded to a

09:28:53 digital sign without meeting the distance
09:28:57 requirements.
09:28:58 We don't think that is really the way it should be.
09:29:01 Any digital sign, if you are going to a prove a sign
09:29:06 to the city, any digital sign should meet the distance
09:29:09 requirement between the digital sign and the nearest
09:29:14 residential.
09:29:18 As some of you recall at our T.H.A.N. meeting, one of
09:29:21 our members, just north of Gandy, he has not a digital
09:29:28 but a regular sign there.
09:29:29 He said it lights up his living room in the evenings.
09:29:34 Now, you know, a digital sign is going to be much
09:29:40 brighter and so forth.
09:29:42 I guess he will have to double up on his shades or
09:29:45 something to be able to keep all that out of his
09:29:48 living room.
09:29:50 There's really no reason for that.
09:29:52 There's no reason that any digital sign should be
09:29:54 within 500 feet.
09:29:56 None of them to any residential.
09:29:58 So we hope you will keep that in mind.
09:30:00 Thank you.

09:30:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
09:30:09 >> Randy Baron, Comanche Avenue, vice-president of
09:30:13 T.H.A.N.
09:30:14 Working with this billboard agreement since early
09:30:17 November when we were finally advised of its
09:30:19 existence.
09:30:20 First of all let me address the point that Mr. Johnson
09:30:23 was making.
09:30:24 There's a clause in there that allows digital
09:30:26 billboard to be upgraded within the 500 feet, and then
09:30:31 transferred to another location of an already existing
09:30:34 permitted sign.
09:30:36 As part of this agreement permits every existing sign
09:30:40 essentially within certain limitations.
09:30:43 You can put a digital billboard almost anywhere as
09:30:46 long as you can upgrade it in an area that satisfies
09:30:49 the minimum distance requirements.
09:30:51 That's section 74.
09:30:53 And I think like Mr. Johnson said, it's definitely a
09:30:57 ticking time bomb.
09:30:58 Whether it's in there for that specific purpose, I
09:31:00 don't know.

09:31:01 But you know how lawyers are.
09:31:03 They get ahold of a contract and find every
09:31:05 possibility that can happen.
09:31:06 And let's remember, this is a settlement agreement.
09:31:10 This is not legislation.
09:31:11 If it goes wrong two years down the road, you can't
09:31:14 fix it.
09:31:15 This is forever.
09:31:16 So we have to make sure we get it right.
09:31:18 Now clearly the 800-pound gorilla in this agreement is
09:31:23 digital and that's a policy decision you all have to
09:31:25 make.
09:31:25 Do we want digital billboards in the city?
09:31:27 If so, where can they go?
09:31:30 This particular agreement basically says where they
09:31:34 can't go.
09:31:35 I think a better arrangement would be where they can
09:31:37 go.
09:31:38 That can be narrowly defined.
09:31:40 You can put the billboard within certain parameters.
09:31:43 Right now the parameter says can't be within 500 feet.
09:31:46 There's a 75-foot rear yard setback.

09:31:51 Unfortunately more commercial property in the city is
09:31:53 deeper than 75 feet.
09:31:55 Basically it just pushes it from the back of a
09:31:57 commercial property 75 feet, even if there's a
09:32:00 residential property right next to it.
09:32:02 So you have the potential of residential property
09:32:04 being within 75 feet of digital billboard.
09:32:07 The distance limitations in this agreement are
09:32:09 linearly.
09:32:11 I do want to thank the billboard companies.
09:32:14 They sat down with us, and we did get some additional
09:32:16 protections from neighborhoods, specifically we got
09:32:19 across the street.
09:32:20 So if it's a nonFAP-FAI sign and across lineally, you
09:32:29 can't put the billboard there either.
09:32:31 That is some protection.
09:32:32 But if you have a house that's 5 feet behind the
09:32:37 commercial property and put the digital billboard 75
09:32:39 feet from the rear yard setback you can have a digital
09:32:42 billboard.
09:32:43 So these limitations go this way and not back.
09:32:47 We would obviously prefer to have some sort of radius.

09:32:49 We have spoken with the billboard companies.
09:32:52 They considered that.
09:32:54 And their position is they are unwilling to do it, a
09:32:57 radius like that.
09:33:01 There are some other issues in here that get quite
09:33:04 technical.
09:33:05 I'm not sure my three minutes will allow me to gone
09:33:08 into them, but it against a policy issue.
09:33:10 Do we want the city to be digital?
09:33:12 I sent you all e-mails telling you where some of the
09:33:15 digital billboards are, some of the effects they can
09:33:17 have, and this is like that will spill out.
09:33:19 It's not just the light.
09:33:21 It's also the fact that they change.
09:33:23 And while there are some protections for screening,
09:33:27 it's there for digital billboards, for residential, it
09:33:30 takes three years minimum.
09:33:32 So someone is going to have a house looking at a
09:33:34 digital billboard potentially for three years until
09:33:37 the screening kicks in.
09:33:38 So let's decide what we want the city to look like.
09:33:41 And I thank you for your time.

09:33:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
09:33:44 >>> Good morning, members of council.
09:33:50 My name is Rick Pfeiffer, east Hanna in Seminole
09:33:53 Heights.
09:33:54 I also want to speak to the billboards.
09:33:56 Because I think this agreement is a perpetuation of
09:34:00 visual blight in the city.
09:34:03 Reading over the agreement, I couldn't think of a way
09:34:07 that the City of Tampa could acquiesce, cave in or
09:34:10 roll over to an industry more completely.
09:34:14 There is large sections of South Tampa that will be
09:34:16 protected because of the view corridors.
09:34:19 Well, visual blight impacts the rest of the city.
09:34:23 Have you really considered the impact of the digital
09:34:25 billboards will have in terms of light pollution and
09:34:28 negatively affecting nearby residential neighborhoods?
09:34:32 Nothing northbound these agreements moves the City of
09:34:34 Tampa closer to decreasing the billboard blight in
09:34:37 this city.
09:34:38 It even protects the square footage of a voluntarily
09:34:41 removed billboard so it could be moved elsewhere.
09:34:48 It gives Clear Channel, CVS outdoors five years to

09:34:52 obscure 80% of the view of the billboard if the
09:34:55 resident complains.
09:34:56 How many will even know they can complain?
09:34:59 Tell me how many members of council would find that
09:35:03 acceptable if it was next to your home?
09:35:06 It is well past time for the city to show the same
09:35:10 concern for the vast area between Kennedy Boulevard
09:35:12 and Fletcher Avenue that it does south of Kennedy and
09:35:15 in New Tampa.
09:35:16 I would like to submit these 25 pages, pictures that
09:35:20 were taken by a resident of Seminole Heights.
09:35:26 He took 90-some pictures, and these billboards mostly
09:35:32 are within 200 feet maximum of residences.
09:35:39 They reflect the sea of billboards that we already
09:35:42 live with, and which will get worse as they go
09:35:45 digital.
09:35:45 There's no protection by the historic district, though
09:35:49 this does protect the Hyde Park historic district.
09:35:51 There are no protections for the view corridors even
09:35:53 in view of the river.
09:35:57 Many of these billboards already loom over residential
09:35:59 areas.

09:36:01 It's only going to get worse.
09:36:03 This is a bad deal for the residents of Tampa.
09:36:06 It's an especially bad deal for those of us in the
09:36:10 city's older neighborhoods.
09:36:11 Please do not -- please vote in the long-term best
09:36:15 interest of the city and not the short-term interests
09:36:17 of simply making litigation -- thank you very much.
09:36:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
09:36:28 >>> Good morning.
09:36:29 I'm bill Jones, president of citizens for scenic
09:36:33 Florida, today also speaking for Ethel Hammer who
09:36:36 could not be here, and I would like to thank Ms. Cole
09:36:40 for spending time with Ms. Hammer and myself back in
09:36:43 December.
09:36:44 We did have some technical questions.
09:36:48 Some of those have been answered.
09:36:49 Some have not.
09:36:50 At the conclusion I'll give this to your staff
09:36:54 attorney.
09:36:55 Beyond that, I have three points I would like to make
09:36:58 this morning.
09:36:58 The first is, our organization in tracking billboard

09:37:06 lawsuits throughout the country is that Tampa can
09:37:08 expect lawsuits from other billboard companies in the
09:37:11 future.
09:37:12 It is important to anticipate this action that you're
09:37:15 considering today will have on those future lawsuits,
09:37:23 and it's important that you have legal counsel in
09:37:29 projecting toward those future lawsuits, not that you
09:37:32 don't have good lawyers on your staff, it's just
09:37:35 billboard companies really get some specialists, and
09:37:38 those specialists are overturning sign codes, so in
09:37:43 order to protect yourself I think you noticed to have
09:37:45 a specialist in your corner as well.
09:37:47 The second point, safety studies are underway to
09:37:50 determine the appropriate frequency change for digital
09:37:54 billboards.
09:37:55 Federal Highway Administration, AASHTO, National
09:37:59 Transportation Research Board, all have studies in
09:38:02 progress.
09:38:02 What do these studies say that digital changes
09:38:05 shouldn't happen more often than every 15 seconds or
09:38:08 every 60 seconds?
09:38:09 Can you then fix your ordinance and change that later?

09:38:12 I'm not sure you can if it's in an agreement.
09:38:15 Lastly, you will recall that I provided some
09:38:17 information about the digital battle in Los Angeles.
09:38:21 And in that city, there wasn't much interest from the
09:38:24 community, when the council chose to allow digital
09:38:30 billboards.
09:38:30 It wasn't until a digital billboard went up in a
09:38:33 residential area, and the residents in that area came
09:38:37 unglued.
09:38:38 You have already had talk about the claiming that 75
09:38:42 feet is really the distance.
09:38:44 Press reports have said it's 500, and I think you have
09:38:49 a potential problem, expectation was your citizens
09:38:52 there.
09:38:53 And the screening that's been mentioned is only at
09:38:58 ground level.
09:38:59 It's not screening to your living ROM or to your
09:39:04 second floor bedroom, it not to your second floor
09:39:09 flat, and I would ask you to consider if you were
09:39:12 living next to a billboard within, let's say, 200
09:39:16 feet, in the back and down the street just a little
09:39:19 bit, you only are going to get screening after three

09:39:23 years or five years of 80% of the billboards, and what
09:39:29 would you think about that as far as you are sitting
09:39:32 there in your living room or you were having dinner or
09:39:35 trying to sleep with this changeable flashing sign
09:39:39 outside?
09:39:41 My suggestion is if you must approve digital signs,
09:39:46 make them go dark at night after sunset, if it's
09:39:54 visible from a residential area.
09:39:56 Otherwise, I think you are going to have similar
09:39:58 experience to what happened in Los Angeles.
09:39:59 Thank you.
09:40:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, sir.
09:40:04 Next speaker.
09:40:06 >>> My name is Jeff Harmon, 1006 east Idlewild, the
09:40:13 president of the Old Seminole Heights civic
09:40:15 association but speaking as a private citizen is
09:40:17 concerned about what kind of impact this might have on
09:40:19 my neighborhood.
09:40:22 To phrase it politely, we have four major
09:40:27 thoroughfares in our neighborhood, Hillsborough,
09:40:29 Nebraska, Florida Avenue, and I-275.
09:40:33 Potential impact that this would have on our

09:40:35 neighborhood is in my opinion disastrous.
09:40:41 I have no problem, I understand technology changes,
09:40:44 and I do believe there is a place for digital
09:40:47 billboards.
09:40:48 I don't believe that they belong in our neighborhoods.
09:40:51 And looking at this agreement, I can see how this is
09:40:54 going to happen.
09:40:55 Advertisers are going to want to get to those
09:40:58 travelers that are passing through our neighborhood.
09:40:59 And when you have four major thoroughfares going
09:41:03 through there, and some of our streets, Hillsborough
09:41:05 and Nebraska Avenue, and Florida Avenue, some of the
09:41:10 heavily traveled streets in Tampa, but we are only
09:41:13 going to be a focus for a lot of these billboards.
09:41:16 To allow somebody to make a lot more on the same
09:41:21 amount of space.
09:41:22 I'm very cornered about what might happen, these
09:41:24 billboards won't really be servicing the residents who
09:41:27 live in that neighborhood, they will be going after
09:41:33 potential viewers that are just passing through.
09:41:40 What will eventually happen is that right now a lot of
09:41:42 people know the billboards.

09:41:44 They are ugly.
09:41:46 They can avoid them.
09:41:47 With the digital billboard it will no longer be
09:41:49 possible to avoid these.
09:41:51 I really want you to consider how this will impact
09:41:53 especially our neighborhood, but also all of these
09:41:56 neighborhoods, especially in the urban environment
09:42:00 that has a lot of these.
09:42:03 Thank you.
09:42:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, sir.
09:42:07 >>> I'm Laura bell Harris, 1515 west union street,
09:42:18 Tampa, Florida, living in the commonly known McCloud
09:42:25 Bethune homes.
09:42:27 We were here last week January 29th.
09:42:29 At that time I was accompanied by Ms. Gloria MacDill
09:42:33 and her daughter Andrea Brooks.
09:42:35 Ms. McGill is a dialysis patient and unfortunately
09:42:39 today she is in the hospital.
09:42:43 Our concern was that there is some overt action
09:42:48 happening in the North Boulevard homes by one officer
09:42:53 dusty Rhodes.
09:42:54 There have been numerous complaints about officer

09:42:59 Rhodes' treatment of the residents.
09:43:03 I have asked the question over and over, is it just
09:43:06 that the residents are giving us false information?
09:43:10 Or is officer dusty Rhodes indeed abusing his
09:43:14 privileges as a law enforcement officer?
09:43:18 Last week, we were told that officer dusty Rhodes had
09:43:22 been reassigned.
09:43:24 Well, then we found out that that information is not
09:43:28 true.
09:43:30 As citizens of this town, and as registered voters, I
09:43:36 am just wondering if we cannot come to our elected
09:43:40 officials, where can we go?
09:43:43 If we cannot instruct our children to go to your
09:43:47 elected officials, where can you go?
09:43:50 And I think about things like a wise man does not
09:43:56 store his powder keg next to the fireplace, unless
09:43:59 it's in the dead of summer and there is no fire in the
09:44:03 fireplace.
09:44:05 It seems that some preventive measures should be
09:44:09 taken, not only for officer dusty Rhodes but of any
09:44:14 other law enforcement officer of his behavioral
09:44:19 attitude.

09:44:20 I asked for a cone of the completed report that was
09:44:25 sent in by the Tampa Police Department.
09:44:29 Perhaps I did not follow through.
09:44:30 So now I need guidance on how I can obtain a copy of
09:44:36 that completed report handed in by Tampa Police
09:44:40 Department.
09:44:42 Now I need to know where do we go from here?
09:44:45 Does it do any good to bring these matters before the
09:44:48 council?
09:44:50 We thank you for the privilege, but especially on a
09:44:53 cold day like this.
09:44:54 I could have stayed under the cover.
09:44:56 But I'm here trusting that our coming here is not in
09:45:01 vain.
09:45:03 Something needs to be done.
09:45:04 Or is someone behind the door telling officer dusty
09:45:08 Rhodes, sic 'em, boy, sick 'em, and then saying to us
09:45:14 we don't know what's happening.
09:45:15 What is going on?
09:45:16 Thank you.
09:45:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, Ms. Harris.
09:45:19 Ms. Harris, let me apologize to you.

09:45:22 Last week, I think councilman Caetano and myself gave
09:45:27 you information that we had received that there had
09:45:31 been a reassignment.
09:45:33 That's what I was told.
09:45:34 Of course the chief of staff called me and corrected
09:45:36 me that that was not the case.
09:45:40 So there's conflicting information.
09:45:42 So I do want to apologize.
09:45:43 I was going on the information that was given to me.
09:45:46 However, I have forwarded a letter to Mr. Ryan
09:45:50 addressing your concerns, in particular about the
09:45:54 medical treatment so hopefully we will get a response
09:45:56 back relative to that issue, the trespass issue and
09:46:00 the medical treatment issue, trying to take someone,
09:46:04 you know, to dialysis, so hopefully we can have some
09:46:08 sort of policy in place relative to that.
09:46:10 In terms of Mr. Rhodes' reassignment, that is an issue
09:46:16 that will have to be addressed with the
09:46:17 administration.
09:46:18 In the past I have had that conversation.
09:46:20 Let me just say that that was quite an interesting
09:46:28 conversation, and one that left things kind of

09:46:35 uncomfortable in that conversation, because my concern
09:46:40 is always, one, we have to have police protection.
09:46:44 On the other hand, we also must make sure that our
09:46:45 citizens are not harassed.
09:46:47 There has to be an equal balance in this whole
09:46:50 process.
09:46:50 So I have been in the past trying to find a way how to
09:46:54 find that balance, trying to resolve the issue that is
09:46:57 at hand.
09:46:59 On the limited power that we do have as City Council.
09:47:02 Because again the police department is under the
09:47:05 jurisdiction of the administration, the mayor.
09:47:07 So I do want you to understand.
09:47:08 I believe that City Council has been trying to work
09:47:12 with you, understand the issues of concern, tried to
09:47:15 address them, and we'll continue to Troy to find some
09:47:19 resolution with the Housing Authority.
09:47:20 I also had a conversation with Mr. Fletcher, and it is
09:47:24 a situation where the police department is under
09:47:26 contract with the Housing Authority.
09:47:28 I think Mr. Fletcher can add to that.
09:47:31 But, nevertheless, I just want you to understand that

09:47:34 your concern is not falling on deaf ears.
09:47:37 Okay.
09:47:38 Councilman Caetano.
09:47:39 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I was out at the water treatment
09:47:44 plant, and I was introduced to Mr. Rhodes, and this
09:47:48 was I was told his new assignment.
09:47:51 He's on the guard gate out there. I said is this the
09:47:53 same Mr. Rhodes that evidently was a cowed of some
09:47:56 incidents at the Housing Authority?
09:47:58 And they said yes, this is his new job.
09:48:00 So maybe he has two jobs.
09:48:02 I don't know.
09:48:03 But did we ask the administration to get this report
09:48:08 so that we can give this to this young lady?
09:48:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, if I can address that.
09:48:14 In your motion that was made on January 29, the motion
09:48:16 was made by council member Saul-Sena, seconded by
09:48:19 council member Caetano, that council forwards the
09:48:24 request of Laura bell Harris for a copy of the
09:48:27 complete report, the performances of officer dusty
09:48:31 Rhodes, further that the administration be requested
09:48:32 to also provide a written report regarding officer

09:48:34 Rhodes being transferred to another area, motion
09:48:37 carried.
09:48:37 There was no date put on that for a response.
09:48:41 So I don't know what the preference is for that at
09:48:46 this point.
09:48:47 If council wishes to have it placed back for a written
09:48:49 report with a date certain, that might create some
09:48:53 finality to it.
09:48:57 >> Mr. Fletcher, did you want to address that?
09:49:01 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: City attorney.
09:49:05 I think Mr. Chairman Scott correctly articulated the
09:49:10 separation of powers issue between the administration
09:49:13 and the council when he indicated that the issue
09:49:15 related to the policy was directed from council to the
09:49:18 Housing Authority, and the issue related to the
09:49:21 individual officer assignments was directed to the
09:49:24 administration.
09:49:27 You can't get any more fundamentally administrative
09:49:30 than when you are talking about specific assignments
09:49:32 of individual officers.
09:49:33 So in this instance, I don't recall being present when
09:49:36 that motion was made, but I suspect that my view is

09:49:42 that really gets into an administrative issue and
09:49:45 getting a written report on that issue.
09:49:50 I'm not sure how that's going to come about.
09:49:52 So I think so much for the -- someone from the police
09:49:57 department might want to follow up with individual
09:49:59 members of the council that want to discuss this.
09:50:01 I think that may be an approach that would be
09:50:03 productive.
09:50:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There's also one other issue, not to
09:50:09 get into the specifics of the allegations but it's
09:50:12 also important to remember that a member of the Tampa
09:50:14 Police Department is a represented member of a union,
09:50:21 and is represented by that union.
09:50:25 Particularly with regard to activities that may
09:50:29 reflect upon that officer's performance.
09:50:32 So I just want to caution council that then might be
09:50:34 something that it may want to seek guidance as to how
09:50:38 best approach it.
09:50:40 And I understand this is a public forum and it's
09:50:42 important for council to hear these allegations, but
09:50:44 how best to address them, it's also important to
09:50:47 respect the process as well.

09:50:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's true.
09:50:50 Councilwoman.
09:50:51 >>MARY MULHERN: I would like to suggest since he would
09:50:56 can't direct, but it seems to me that Ms. Harris has
09:50:59 been here often, and apparently was here last week
09:51:02 when I wasn't able to attend the meeting, so it would
09:51:05 seem wise to me that council get that report from the
09:51:12 administration on what they are doing to discuss the
09:51:22 problem, because obviously at least one constituent
09:51:24 has a problem.
09:51:26 Otherwise, we will continue to have -- expect this one
09:51:32 citizen to continually come here and not have any
09:51:34 resolution.
09:51:35 So certainly in a written report from the
09:51:39 administration, we might actually hear what the
09:51:44 limitations on what they can do about this due to
09:51:48 union agreements.
09:51:52 I mean, it's really not -- it really could just be a
09:51:57 general explanation.
09:52:00 We don't enjoy having people come here with the same
09:52:03 complaint every week.
09:52:04 And I can't imagine that the police department or the

09:52:06 mayor does either.
09:52:07 So I'd like to ask the administration to give us a
09:52:12 report on what's happening at this particular project,
09:52:18 and maybe do we need to ask the Housing Authority?
09:52:26 We need to just put a date on it.
09:52:32 I think we should put a date on it.
09:52:37 Is two weeks too short?
09:52:39 60 days?
09:52:40 30 days?
09:52:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 30 days.
09:52:43 >>MARY MULHERN: That's the motion.
09:52:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Since Mr. Fletcher is here and he's
09:52:48 hearing everything we say, I think Mr. Fletcher can
09:52:51 follow through with the administration and get the
09:52:52 report and bring it back to us.
09:52:54 I don't think we have to send it to the
09:52:55 administration.
09:52:56 Since he's here, I think Mr. Fletcher would do that
09:52:59 honor.
09:53:00 Would you?
09:53:01 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: I would be happy to follow up on
09:53:03 the motion to facilitate an appropriate response and

09:53:07 get back to you all.
09:53:08 The one thing I would mention as related to the
09:53:11 Housing Authority, I do believe they came here
09:53:13 previously when this came up before council.
09:53:16 I think their general counsel came and talked to us on
09:53:20 these issues as well back in November -- I think
09:53:22 probably November.
09:53:25 He would probably be will to come back and talk to you
09:53:27 all again if that's your desire as well.
09:53:30 >>GWEN MILLER: I would like him to come back because I
09:53:31 made a motion that they come up with some kind of
09:53:34 guidelines for parents who have been their kids come
09:53:38 in and take them to the doctor and so forth and give
09:53:40 them permission without trespassing and we didn't hear
09:53:44 back from that either.
09:53:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, let me -- okay, that letter went
09:53:49 out yesterday, day before yesterday?
09:53:52 The letter just went out to Mr. Ryan, that they look
09:53:57 at such a policy that Mrs. Miller requested.
09:54:00 So they will get that letter, and then they will
09:54:03 probably discuss it at their board meeting.
09:54:07 I will tell you, council, this is an ongoing issue,

09:54:10 and since I have been here is an issue raising or
09:54:13 addressing for quite some time.
09:54:15 I will tell you also on the other side based on my
09:54:18 conversations with Mr. Ryans, and that is than they
09:54:21 have some public meeting with the residents, and the
09:54:23 residents are happy to have the police involvement in
09:54:28 the area, and thinks it gives them more protection.
09:54:33 So you have that side addressed.
09:54:37 At least that's what Mr. Ryans tells me.
09:54:39 And then you have another side saying that this one
09:54:41 particular officer is causing harassment.
09:54:44 Here again, those what we are trying to get to the
09:54:47 bottom and get some clear understanding so that we can
09:54:49 make sure that all of the citizens who are abiding by
09:54:52 the law, and who are doing what they are supposed to
09:54:55 be doing, are having fair treatment.
09:54:58 That's the right of every citizen of Hillsborough
09:55:01 County.
09:55:02 So I will say to Mr. Harris, please understand that
09:55:05 council is doing what it can under the charter.
09:55:08 Please understand that we are trying to work with Mr.
09:55:10 Ryan and the Housing Authority trying to find some

09:55:13 resolution and some effort to bring some resolve to
09:55:16 this issue.
09:55:17 >>> Mr. Chair, how do I obtain that completed report?
09:55:21 >> Mr. Fletcher is going to provide a copy to us.
09:55:24 That is right -- is that right, Mr. Fletcher?
09:55:27 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: I'm not sure what the content of
09:55:33 this report would be, but I will follow up and find
09:55:36 out what's been prepared, and get whatever is
09:55:41 appropriate sent back to the council.
09:55:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We'll find a way once he reports back
09:55:45 to us, we'll see what we can do to make sure you have
09:55:47 that report.
09:55:48 >>> Thank you, sir.
09:55:49 I also would like to inform the council that we will
09:55:53 enlist the aid of Ms. Barbara Walters.
09:55:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
09:55:59 Thank you very much.
09:55:59 Thank you.
09:56:01 There's a motion on the floor that we get -- Mr.
09:56:04 Fletcher?
09:56:04 The motion is that we have a report back in 30 days.
09:56:07 Do you want to handle that?

09:56:09 Can you do that without a motion, or do you need a
09:56:12 motion for that?
09:56:13 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: If would you like to do a motion,
09:56:15 that's fine.
09:56:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion made by Councilwoman Mulhern.
09:56:18 >>MARY MULHERN: I would like to add at the same time
09:56:21 if Ms. Harris could get a copy of the report when it's
09:56:24 available.
09:56:24 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Whatever report has been prepared,
09:56:28 I'll make sure it's sent.
09:56:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
09:56:32 All in favor?
09:56:33 Thank you.
09:56:35 Sorry, public.
09:56:36 We are still on public comment.
09:56:38 Generally it has been my practice not to deal with
09:56:42 issues during public comment, so I must apologize for
09:56:44 getting off.
09:56:46 I'm to blame for that this morning.
09:56:50 >>> Chip Thomas, east Henry Avenue.
09:56:52 I want to talk about the West Tampa and the best way
09:56:57 to start is to look at some pictures.

09:57:01 How do I get this?
09:57:24 >>> To let you know the thought process of the crew
09:57:26 that installed that bright green there is a pedestrian
09:57:29 crossing sign.
09:57:32 Sidewalk right by a school, a middle school, and you
09:57:35 will notice there's space on the left that it could
09:57:37 have moved away from the road but it wasn't for some
09:57:40 reason.
09:57:40 And there's no curve.
09:57:44 So imagine somebody dialing away or drift ago way into
09:57:48 the sidewalk.
09:57:51 That's a typical scenario that you deal with.
09:57:58 This is what you can find all over Tampa.
09:58:04 You know, I thought sidewalks were for poem to walk
09:58:08 on.
09:58:08 Silly me.
09:58:09 I guess they are actually just a place to put things
09:58:11 like telephone poles, there's an electric meter, all
09:58:16 kinds of signs.
09:58:20 This is a reflection of mentality those long existed
09:58:23 in this town.
09:58:24 This is an entranceway to an elementary school.

09:58:28 You will notice how wide it is and how it flares out.
09:58:31 There's a close-up.
09:58:32 Now that design is so that cars can pull in, without
09:58:37 slowing down much.
09:58:38 It's appropriate for a busy commercial road like Dale
09:58:41 Mabry or Kennedy.
09:58:42 But this is a residential street, an elementary
09:58:46 school, 30 mile-per-hour speed limit, 15 miles per
09:58:48 hour before and after school.
09:58:50 Why they would design a curb cut that's so flared out
09:58:54 so that cars can pull in at a fast speed, and which
09:58:56 they do.
09:58:58 This is the crowning jewel here.
09:59:02 Any discussion about the world's most dangerous
09:59:04 sidewalk, the south side of Columbus, east of
09:59:08 MacDill.
09:59:09 And you notice a retaining wall, a cemetery, talking
09:59:14 about a foot and a half there, that's a death trap and
09:59:17 ought to be closed right now.
09:59:18 I would hate to be a lawyer and have to represent the
09:59:20 city on a liability suit on this sidewalk.
09:59:24 And to say this is a mentality that's persisted for

09:59:28 decades in the city, throughout the county, previous
09:59:32 City Councils, county commissioners, school boards,
09:59:34 law enforcement, traffic engineers have been all
09:59:37 played a part to get us to where we are now so it not
09:59:40 your fault, but you are in a position to do something.
09:59:42 So here's some suggestions and if you are not
09:59:44 authorized to pursue these then I'm sure you will
09:59:47 direct me to who would be.
09:59:51 The crosswalk, this is a quick fix and inexpensive
09:59:55 fix.
09:59:55 Prioritize areas that are near schools or busy
09:59:58 intersections and this is both, two blocks from an
10:00:01 elementary school.
10:00:02 Make these brighter and bolder.
10:00:06 Put signs like that in.
10:00:09 And here's a real good crosswalk.
10:00:11 This is on North Boulevard.
10:00:14 That sign there cost about $200, sanctioned by D.O.T.
10:00:19 It bolts in permanently.
10:00:22 So let's get our crosswalks up to standards.
10:00:27 (Bell sounds)
10:00:29 Am I done?

10:00:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move to allow him
10:00:34 one more minute.
10:00:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Can you come back?
10:00:42 Let me hear the next speaker and I may let you come
10:00:50 back after she's finished.
10:00:52 I want get to all the speakers.
10:00:59 >>> My name is Ingrid Smith.
10:01:01 I reside at 7605 north Suwanee Avenue, Tampa, Florida,
10:01:06 here about billboards.
10:01:07 I think it great that we want to get rid of the
10:01:10 billboard, but to replace them with digital, why do we
10:01:14 even need to have digital?
10:01:19 I consider any billboards visual blight because it
10:01:27 encroaches into your habitat.
10:01:29 While we may not be able to say no to the digital,
10:01:34 light travels in a straight path that doesn't wrap
10:01:36 around the block, go down the alley and come back
10:01:38 around so the person directly behind it is 500 feet
10:01:42 away if you take the long way around.
10:01:45 But as the bird flies and light with straight route
10:01:50 across the backyard, back alley, to that person's
10:01:53 house.

10:01:53 I live in Seminole Heights.
10:01:55 So we don't like the lights between Florida and 275
10:01:59 and Nebraska.
10:02:01 Also Hillsborough.
10:02:02 That's a major thoroughfare.
10:02:04 So their wet zoning requires a thousand feet, and if
10:02:11 you are within a certain structure, then why not keep
10:02:14 it consistent with the digitals?
10:02:19 My first experience with a digital billboard would not
10:02:22 have made my company happened because it hand to
10:02:27 change from blue, white, to red, and I was traveling
10:02:30 north, and it was facing that way, also, but it
10:02:32 reflected against the building.
10:02:34 So I was thinking that this blue light, red, was
10:02:39 emergency vehicle coming off the side road.
10:02:42 I slammed on the brakes.
10:02:43 The car behind me was not too happy, missed me by two
10:02:47 inches.
10:02:47 But do we need to really go digital?
10:02:50 If it means keeping what we have, so be it.
10:02:53 But do we really even want more digital in Tampa?
10:02:57 And especially within or near any sort of residential

10:03:01 district or historic overlays.
10:03:04 That's it.
10:03:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much.
10:03:06 Anyone else wish to address council?
10:03:09 Under public comment?
10:03:10 Sir, come on back and let me give you a minute to
10:03:13 finish.
10:03:14 And then we'll take up --
10:03:18 >>> Quick suggestions.
10:03:19 More enforcement of reckless driving and speeding.
10:03:23 They have long been targeting again schools
10:03:26 especially.
10:03:28 Three years ago, 7th Avenue in Ybor used to be
10:03:32 closed to traffic weekend now it's and Franklin Street
10:03:36 was a total pedestrian mall.
10:03:38 Why we boost those I don't know.
10:03:40 But cruising is one of Ybor's biggest problems and
10:03:43 closing that road to traffic on Thursday, Friday and
10:03:45 Saturday night would be a good way of eliminating
10:03:47 that, and be very pedestrian friendly, and the same
10:03:50 thing with frank lien street especially now it
10:03:55 becoming more and more residential.

10:03:56 And this is Al Snell's idea.
10:03:58 We could give pedestrians a break campaign, and
10:04:01 pedestrians and cyclists, too, because they need help.
10:04:05 In fact you could have little public service ads,
10:04:08 5-second announcements, bumper stickers, signs,
10:04:12 potential sponsors would be retailers of walking
10:04:18 shoes, maybe SWFWMD would get involved, maybe even
10:04:22 Tampa general, or a big law firm that specializes in
10:04:26 personal injury.
10:04:28 [ Laughter ]
10:04:29 You know, there's a number of ways you could probably
10:04:31 do it, without a lot of out-of-pocket expense.
10:04:34 So thanks for the time and extra time.
10:04:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
10:04:36 >>MARY MULHERN: I am going to try to talk fast, but I
10:04:41 want you to hear this.
10:04:43 There are a number of people who talked on different
10:04:45 subjects having to do with safety, traffic safety
10:04:47 today, and four of us are on the metropolitan planning
10:04:52 organization board, and right now we are writing the
10:04:59 2035 long-range transportation plan, and we are
10:05:03 literally working on the MPO list, and we will be the

10:05:08 ones to adopt it.
10:05:10 We are talking about the overall policies, like this
10:05:15 one page, what the policy is.
10:05:16 And I think something that the community could push,
10:05:20 and I would definitely get behind it.
10:05:23 And it does talk about safety.
10:05:25 It talks in very broad terms about what's important
10:05:28 for our transportation for the future.
10:05:30 But considering the fact that -- well, there's one
10:05:34 good thing I read yesterday, we got this press release
10:05:37 from the mayor that apparently people want to live in
10:05:39 Tampa, like we are tide for fourth for cities where
10:05:43 people want to move.
10:05:45 If we want that to continue, we need to make it a
10:05:48 livable, walkable, safe city.
10:05:51 On the other hand, we get these reports from the media
10:05:55 regularly that we are the most -- least
10:05:57 pedestrian-friendly.
10:06:00 I don't know if it's the city, county or just the bay
10:06:02 area.
10:06:02 So I think it's reasonable for one of the number one
10:06:09 priorities for transportation planning agencies is to

10:06:14 make bicycle and pedestrian travel safer.
10:06:18 And as, you know, leading priority, that would lead to
10:06:24 policies that we can adopt in the city and the county
10:06:28 that would encourage all of things that poem are
10:06:30 talking about today, the bicycle guy, I can't remember
10:06:36 your first name, from Seminole Heights.
10:06:38 Alan.
10:06:39 And you and all the other people who, you know,
10:06:42 hundreds, probably thousands of people in the city,
10:06:45 that that is so important to them.
10:06:48 Come to the next MPO meeting, which is in about a
10:06:51 month from -- Tuesday.
10:06:57 And talk about it.
10:06:58 Because we are the ones that determine how he would
10:07:00 want the city to grow.
10:07:03 And that is a public meeting.
10:07:04 And I know there are public transportation people
10:07:09 here, too, that you might want to talk to Terry and
10:07:14 Michelle will definitely be on our side on this, I
10:07:16 think.
10:07:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
10:07:18 Thank you.

10:07:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And the plans we saw from Westshore
10:07:22 is exactly the kind of thing we need to work on which
10:07:24 is taking the sidewalks that you showed us in the
10:07:26 photographs and making them usable.
10:07:29 Those photographs were really eloquent.
10:07:33 Hold onto them.
10:07:35 Thank you.
10:07:49 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
10:07:50 I'm speaking on items number 3 and 4.
10:07:53 I had requested a substitution.
10:07:56 I have given those to the clerk.
10:08:01 What you have before you in items 3 and 4 are two
10:08:03 proposed settlement agreements with Clear Channel and
10:08:07 CVS which are the main billboard companies within the
10:08:11 City of Tampa.
10:08:12 I discussed this with you before in terms of closed
10:08:14 session, pending litigation, and my goal is not to
10:08:19 spend too much time on the actual litigation because
10:08:21 that wouldn't be appropriate.
10:08:22 But we have brought these agreements to you in an
10:08:24 effort to settle these two pending litigations.
10:08:26 And I think it's important, because we have had the

10:08:29 issue come before City Council several times and we
10:08:32 haven't gotten to the point of actually having a
10:08:34 presentation, that City Council and members of the
10:08:38 public understand the history of billboards within the
10:08:40 city.
10:08:40 And I am just going to spend a very brief moment.
10:08:42 And it explains why we are hear, because we are in a
10:08:45 very unique position, not looking at billboard
10:08:48 companies and billboards existing in the City of Tampa
10:08:51 as if we have never had regulation, and as if we are
10:08:57 introducing new regulations.
10:08:59 In 1985, we had a sign code in the city that allowed
10:09:03 billboards, and that was amended to provide standards
10:09:05 for billboards, and a Constitutional challenge to
10:09:10 that, and many discussion that is went on through the
10:09:12 years, which culminated in 1996, the City of Tampa
10:09:16 entering into what was considered a variance
10:09:19 agreement, subsequent variances were granted for two
10:09:23 billboard companies, the two billboard companies that
10:09:26 you have in front of you in these agreements right now
10:09:31 which were the subject of two variance agreements.
10:09:33 And those variance agreements had standards in them

10:09:36 for not just existing signs, where they were in their
10:09:41 location, but had standards in there for relocation,
10:09:44 that had standards in them, and also had an obligation
10:09:48 that signs would be removed from what we determined at
10:09:53 that time view corridors.
10:09:55 In January 2000, the City of Tampa amended its sign
10:10:01 code again to provide additional standards for
10:10:03 billboards.
10:10:04 So everyone though we had a set of standards in the
10:10:06 variance agreements, we also still had a set of
10:10:10 standards in our codes, and those codes were still on
10:10:12 the books, and in effect.
10:10:14 In January of 2000 he would again amended our
10:10:17 billboards so there's a lot of activity that happened
10:10:20 in 2000.
10:10:21 In August 2000 there was a further amendment to the
10:10:24 code as it related to billboards in which billboards
10:10:27 were banned.
10:10:28 So within the course of a year time period, those of
10:10:31 you on council probably remember all the angst, I had
10:10:34 conversations with the city attorneys that were
10:10:36 involved at the time and it was a very stressful time

10:10:40 relating to billboard and there was a lot of activity
10:10:42 but it ultimately culminated in August of 2000 of a
10:10:45 ban on now billboard, and having billboards which were
10:10:48 not subject to the variance agreements, nonconforming
10:10:53 billboard.
10:10:53 But the variance, be the signs that were the subject
10:10:56 of the variance agreements were carved out of that
10:10:58 ordinance.
10:10:58 And these very important because it gives context as
10:11:01 to why is the legal department bringing these two
10:11:03 agreements forward in this F.A.R.?
10:11:05 It's because we had this set of agreements that
10:11:09 existed from 1996, that created a set of standards for
10:11:14 billboards in the City of Tampa that was distinct from
10:11:18 other billboards.
10:11:19 And I think that's important for council to
10:11:22 understand.
10:11:22 I think it important for citizens to understand,
10:11:24 because I think they have, and they come many times,
10:11:29 why in the world are you doing this?
10:11:30 Well, that is one of reasons we are doing this.
10:11:32 We had already set that standard with these two

10:11:36 companies and billboards owned by these companies were
10:11:38 being dealt with under certain agreements.
10:11:41 Now, in 2004, Clear Channel -- and I don't want to get
10:11:45 too much into the litigation, but they did file, and
10:11:48 that was one of the billboard companies, did file
10:11:51 litigation related to a very discreet issue in those
10:11:54 variance agreements, and that related to signs within
10:11:56 the view corridors, and whether or not the signs could
10:11:59 be relocated.
10:12:02 In 2006, the terms of the variance agreements, those
10:12:08 expired, and just as an aside there is a question of
10:12:14 provisions in there but that's not relevant for
10:12:16 today's conversation.
10:12:17 And in 2007, subsequent to those agreements expiring,
10:12:21 CBS, which was the billboard company which was the
10:12:23 subject of one of the agreements, filed its own
10:12:25 litigation basically asking the courts where are we
10:12:29 and what are we supposed to do now that we have these
10:12:31 expired agreements?
10:12:33 Again, I do think that's very important.
10:12:36 That is why we are here and that is why the legal
10:12:38 department is bringing an agreement forward, for the

10:12:40 purposes of the settling litigation, and it for the
10:12:43 purposes of dealing with the fact that these
10:12:46 particular companies were being dealt with under the
10:12:49 set of agreements as opposed to being dealt with under
10:12:53 a set of ordinances.
10:12:57 Now, I had provided -- I have provided the most recent
10:13:03 version of the agreement with the straight-through
10:13:06 underlined version and a clean copy, and there's also
10:13:09 an executive summary that I provided to you.
10:13:13 So you have that in front of you.
10:13:15 I can go through that, or we could just go ahead and I
10:13:18 could just hit some highlights and we can take
10:13:20 questions.
10:13:20 Because I think at this point council had adequate
10:13:23 opportunity to hear from the public and to review
10:13:26 these agreements, and to go through what's in them.
10:13:30 And I think the thing that City Council is hearing
10:13:31 most about relates to the digital billboard sign
10:13:35 issue.
10:13:36 I will tell you that at the time we had the variance
10:13:38 agreements in place, digital billboards weren't even a
10:13:41 thought process in 1996.

10:13:44 Putting aside the digital billboard issue, the way we
10:13:48 had set this agreement up provides a set of standards
10:13:51 that deals with how billboards can be relocated, how
10:13:56 billboards can be -- the height can be increased, how
10:14:00 we deal with screening, again not withstanding the
10:14:05 digital sign issue, and the effort there was to
10:14:07 provide as I said, a set of standards, and considering
10:14:10 what standards should be in place, I having dealt with
10:14:16 this for several years tried to put in place some
10:14:19 standards and recommended some standard that were
10:14:21 dealing with real life situations.
10:14:22 Again we can go through those specifically, if you
10:14:24 have any questions, but my sense is the digital
10:14:26 billboard issue is the issue that is going to garner
10:14:30 the most amount of questions.
10:14:32 As it relates to the digital billboard, what we have
10:14:36 brought forward is an agreement which does the
10:14:38 following:
10:14:40 The two companies have an opportunity to put in place
10:14:43 a digital billboard for exchange of the removal of
10:14:47 four existing permitted signs in another location.
10:14:52 So it's a four to one ratio.

10:14:55 We did put in some square footages associated with
10:14:57 that so we are talking about billboards of a size that
10:15:00 matters, versus junior billboards that are much
10:15:05 smaller signs.
10:15:06 So there is an opportunity to maybe have more signs
10:15:09 come down if they are smaller but the thought process
10:15:12 there being that if we can reduce the number of signs
10:15:14 in the city that digital billboards could have a
10:15:18 potential opportunity to see that happen.
10:15:23 There was at City Council heard a lot of discussion
10:15:25 about where the signs would be relocated to and how
10:15:27 they would be relocated, and what is in place at this
10:15:31 moment is -- digital billboard has to be 500 feet from
10:15:37 residential on both side of the road lineally measured
10:15:41 and 75 feet from setback as measured from the sign's
10:15:46 face.
10:15:47 I think you have heard discussion over whether or not
10:15:52 a digital billboard can go up in an existing sign
10:15:55 location, and yes, that is within this agreement.
10:15:57 If you have an existing billboard location, that can
10:16:00 be, if you remove four signs, that can be put in place
10:16:05 for an existing sign, and I think that's a fair

10:16:07 assessment of the agreement.
10:16:11 In terms of the time of change, FDOT has a six second
10:16:19 time of change and that has been incorporated for
10:16:21 signs which are considered on FAI-FIP which are
10:16:28 governed by the Florida Department of Transportation
10:16:29 for signs which are not governed by the Florida
10:16:32 Department of Transportation is a ten-second interval.
10:16:35 Not much of a difference.
10:16:37 Something that was discuss.
10:16:39 In terms of the lighting, and I know that issue has
10:16:43 come up, the lighting is the same regardless of
10:16:45 whether or not it's digital or regular sign.
10:16:47 What we have drafted into the agreement is the
10:16:51 lighting can be upgraded or on an existing sign and go
10:16:56 to a digital sign, and it cannot result in a light
10:17:02 intensity greater than 3-foot candles above ambient
10:17:07 lighting as measured from the property line within 200
10:17:10 feet of the base of the sign structure.
10:17:13 That does need to be certified at the time permitted.
10:17:17 I recall that that issue has come up previously, and
10:17:20 there was some discussion of it.
10:17:22 Just so you know what's in the sign code today, it's

10:17:24 1-foot candle four feet from the base of the sign.
10:17:28 So this is a different ratio with a longer stretch of
10:17:32 space but it needs to be looked at.
10:17:34 There are screening requirements.
10:17:35 It is true that, as represented, there is a
10:17:40 requirement if it's a nondigital billboard, in
10:17:43 proximity to residential property.
10:17:46 That has grown to an 80% at five years, three years if
10:17:51 it's digital.
10:17:52 And just so you know the reasons that that kind of
10:17:54 time frame is put in, and this is what I heard over my
10:17:57 years of handling zonings and other land use uses, if
10:18:01 you plant vegetation too large and that will grow
10:18:04 quicker, it doesn't always survive.
10:18:06 That's one of the reasons this was chosen, that's what
10:18:10 I have heard over the years, and that's how we have
10:18:13 dealt with it.
10:18:14 As it relates to trees, that is an issue that you had
10:18:16 come up some time ago, and there are some statutory
10:18:20 provisions relating to allowing vegetation to overtake
10:18:23 a sign, and whether or not that needs to be removed.
10:18:27 We allowed an opportunity for the companies to go a

10:18:30 little bit higher in order to avoid taking down a
10:18:34 tree.
10:18:35 And the companies will be obligated to comply with our
10:18:38 chapter 13 when they go into it relating to protected
10:18:42 trees and grand trees, and that is not something they
10:18:44 are currently required to do.
10:18:47 The two last provisions are part of this is there's a
10:18:51 final judgment and this is really related to the
10:18:53 actual litigation.
10:18:55 There's an obligation that the signs within the view
10:18:58 corridor be removed.
10:18:59 Kennedy within six month, 12 months in other places,
10:19:02 and there is no right to relocate the signs finally
10:19:09 the city will be reimbursed up to $25,000 in attorney
10:19:14 fees litigating these cases.
10:19:16 If I can just take a few more minutes to say a couple
10:19:18 things.
10:19:19 First of all, you know, when we bring the settlement
10:19:23 agreement to you it's not like bringing an orphaned
10:19:25 ordinance.
10:19:25 You don't typically go out and have conversations with
10:19:28 different organizations of the community.

10:19:33 It's a lawyer to lawyer thing.
10:19:34 When we first started this practice that's how it was
10:19:36 treated.
10:19:37 I will say in the time we at the end of the day I
10:19:43 think we got a better agreement.
10:19:44 I do want to say to different folks that I had an
10:19:47 opportunity to work with, they made me work hard and
10:19:51 thinking about things and looking up things, and I do
10:19:53 think no matter what, we got a better agreement today
10:19:56 than we had when I first brought this to you.
10:19:58 And I also want to say that in the legal department's
10:20:01 perspective, it is our perspective that it's
10:20:04 important, given the history of this billboard usual
10:20:08 you in this city, that we have some certainty as to
10:20:14 how billboards are dealt with, and the problem that we
10:20:16 are in right now from a legal perspective is when
10:20:20 don't have certainty and it's important to have
10:20:22 certainty as to how these billboards will be treated
10:20:24 because we will spend time and resources litigating
10:20:27 those issues.
10:20:28 But we also recognize that there's some policy
10:20:30 considerations in this agreement that you need to very

10:20:34 heavily weigh.
10:20:35 And so we do believe it's important, as I said, to
10:20:38 have that certainty, and to deal with the litigation
10:20:41 in this matter.
10:20:42 However, as I said, we understand that there's some
10:20:45 policy consideration.
10:20:46 But we are bringing forward to you and believe that
10:20:49 it -- it will provide that level of certainty, and
10:20:52 that would be what would be important about having
10:20:54 this agreement approved.
10:20:56 I'm available for any questions.
10:20:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, council.
10:21:00 We have a long list of people signed up here for the
10:21:03 presentation.
10:21:03 I want to caution council, I have to leave at 11:15.
10:21:06 So just be aware of that.
10:21:09 As we go forward.
10:21:10 Okay.
10:21:10 Councilwoman Saul-Sena, councilman John Dingfelder and
10:21:15 Councilwoman Mary Mulhern.
10:21:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
10:21:18 I have a quick slide show that the AV people are going

10:21:23 to try to push from down here.
10:21:26 If not -- okay, here we go.
10:21:31 Well, let's go back.
10:21:33 This is about digital billboards, and the title was
10:21:37 unsightly at any speed.
10:21:39 So we can read this.
10:21:40 Other considerations, property values, households and
10:21:58 businesses,
10:22:00 Highway safety.
10:22:07 Field of vision at night.
10:22:11 Rotate images quickly.
10:22:13 Complex messages orphan take five second to
10:22:16 comprehend.
10:22:21 Really bright.
10:22:23 What do we know?
10:22:28 Dangerous.
10:22:39 Brightest object in the driver's field of vision.
10:22:44 Glances.
10:22:46 Chaining messages orphan take more than five second to
10:22:49 comprehend.
10:22:49 So it distracting.
10:22:54 Can digital signs simultaneously be safe for motorists

10:22:57 and effective as an advertising median?
10:23:01 It's distracting.
10:23:05 Research is coming, and a question, if the research
10:23:14 says that the threshold of change that we are allowing
10:23:16 is not safe, is there anything in the agreement that's
10:23:22 before us that allows us to put in a safe level of
10:23:28 change?
10:23:30 Did you hear that, Ms. Cole?
10:23:35 What we can do is say this has been going on for a
10:23:41 very long time.
10:23:42 Why don't we hold off until we see what the safety
10:23:45 recommends are?
10:23:54 We don't know what's safe.
10:24:05 Digital signs violate the highway beautification act.
10:24:10 Environmental considerations.
10:24:22 It's the national organization that is trying to
10:24:24 promote beauty in America by limiting billboards.
10:24:28 I have a couple of quick questions for Ms. Cole.
10:24:32 After 2000, after we voted, we, City Council, I was
10:24:35 off in '95 when we voted to allow some things.
10:24:38 I was back on in 2000 when we voted to ban all
10:24:42 billboards.

10:24:42 Were any billboard removed?
10:24:44 >>> I wasn't here at the time and I understand, yes,
10:24:48 many, many billboards were removed for other reasons.
10:24:51 There were billboards.
10:24:52 Because what I understood was occurring over that
10:24:53 time, and again this is me just looking at codes and
10:24:56 kind of talking through some history, was the previous
10:25:00 codes allow billboards to be in close proximity are
10:25:06 actually located on residentially zoned properties so
10:25:09 there were signs located on these properties that were
10:25:11 reviewed -- removed.
10:25:13 But there were signs in view corridors that were
10:25:15 removed. In fact CVS only has two remaining.
10:25:18 Clear Channel has other signs that are remaining under
10:25:22 the view corridors but there were other signs they
10:25:24 were obligated to remove, both pursuant to the
10:25:28 agreement and the code, as it relates to other
10:25:31 companies, I can't say and don't really have a history
10:25:34 whether or not they complied.
10:25:35 I presume since it's an issue that I haven't received
10:25:38 and the update on the four years, for the four years I
10:25:42 have been here, that that issue has been complied

10:25:44 with.
10:25:44 And those are not in front of you but as far as I know
10:25:47 those have been dealt with.
10:25:49 And I want to clarify one thing that I had said during
10:25:52 my presentation about the view corridor, signs being
10:25:55 removed, and that's the ones on Kennedy would be
10:25:57 removed within a six-month time frame.
10:25:59 It's important to note that not all the signs on
10:26:02 Kennedy are considered within the view corridor.
10:26:05 Those are very specifically defined in these
10:26:07 agreements.
10:26:08 So that's just something I wanted to clarify.
10:26:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let me ask a real basic question.
10:26:15 We had a number of citizens here today from Seminole
10:26:17 Heights.
10:26:17 There are signs that are not digital signs which are
10:26:19 currently in Seminole Heights facing the interstate
10:26:22 but backing up to people's homes because the
10:26:25 interstates, you know, cut through the neighborhood
10:26:27 when the interstates were put in.
10:26:30 According to what I understand you to say, those can
10:26:34 be changed into digital billboards, and they are

10:26:40 closer than within the 500 feet that any new
10:26:43 billboards would require, but those could be changed
10:26:45 into digital billboards without any public
10:26:49 intervention.
10:26:50 >>> The two things that would have to occur if you
10:26:52 have an existing billboard location and you were going
10:26:54 to put a digital billboard on it, you would have to
10:26:57 remove four other billboards from the inventory, from
10:27:03 different locations.
10:27:04 You can't take down a sign those existing it has been
10:27:08 to be from different locations and you would be
10:27:10 required to, if requested, they would be required to
10:27:14 put vegetation and screening on the residential
10:27:18 property.
10:27:19 That would be the things that would be required if you
10:27:20 have an existing location, that is being swapped out
10:27:24 to a digital.
10:27:25 If there's a relocation for a digital, then there's
10:27:28 other requirements that apply.
10:27:31 That is a fair assumption of the way the agreement
10:27:34 currently is.
10:27:35 Thank you.

10:27:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
10:27:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a few.
10:27:41 First let me -- this is not a question to you because
10:27:44 I don't think it's a legal question, I think it's a
10:27:46 policy question to council, but it kind of had me
10:27:50 scratching my head on this for awhile.
10:27:52 And it mime come from the councilman who represents
10:27:56 South Tampa.
10:27:56 But this agreement probably going back historically
10:28:00 seems to be about -- to be about South Tampa and I
10:28:04 think some of the folks from Seminole Heights alluded
10:28:05 to this.
10:28:07 But we want Kennedy to be as beautiful as possible but
10:28:09 I'm not really sure why Kennedy deserves greater
10:28:12 treatment and more special treatment, that's probably
10:28:16 bad grammar, than Hillsborough or Florida.
10:28:20 You know, it seems a little bit inherently unfair
10:28:24 because at the end of the day we are all here for the
10:28:26 entire city.
10:28:29 Similarly, and somebody brought this up from the
10:28:31 neighborhoods, we love Historic Hyde Park, we don't
10:28:34 wanted any billboards or signs in Hyde Park and

10:28:36 neither do I.
10:28:37 But we have also designated Tampa Heights and Seminole
10:28:39 Heights and even Ybor City, which is a little more
10:28:43 difficult because of the interstate, but those are
10:28:45 historic districts, too.
10:28:47 Why is Historic Hyde Park, you know, get special
10:28:51 treatment over these other historic districts?
10:28:53 Just have to toss that out as a matter of fairness.
10:28:57 In terms of this whole discussion that we are in.
10:29:01 That we are entering into.
10:29:03 But here are my questions, Julia.
10:29:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Could we have her answer those?
10:29:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, that wasn't a question,
10:29:11 really, that was a policy thing I think that's sort of
10:29:13 the underlying issue going back ten or more years.
10:29:16 >>JULIA COLE: That's what I was going to say.
10:29:19 The way these are defined, I didn't redefine, I didn't
10:29:22 come to a determination of how they should be defined.
10:29:25 It was how it was defined at the time that we both
10:29:28 entered into these various agreements and also within
10:29:33 the context of our code which also has definitions in
10:29:35 the view corridor, and these were at that time what

10:29:37 was determined to be view corridors.
10:29:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Right.
10:29:42 Maybe times have changed.
10:29:43 But maybe our sensitivities need to change as well.
10:29:47 Here are some questions.
10:29:48 And these are legal questions.
10:29:49 The litigation, the original litigation from both of
10:29:53 these companies dealt with the old-fashioned
10:29:54 billboards.
10:29:56 Okay.
10:29:57 Correct me if I am wrong.
10:29:57 It didn't deal with the digital billboards because at
10:30:01 that time digital billboards really didn't exist as a
10:30:03 technology, correct?
10:30:05 >>> The litigation that was brought by enclosure
10:30:07 channel when it was originally brought specifically
10:30:09 related to view corridors and whether or not a
10:30:11 relocation existed, the litigation brought by CBS is
10:30:18 more of a general, "we don't have an agreement now,
10:30:21 what should we be doing," declaratory type action.
10:30:25 It did not specifically relate to digital billboards
10:30:28 and being allowed to utilize digital.

10:30:31 >> Because the City of Tampa never had full sized
10:30:33 digital billboards, off-site signs, with digital
10:30:36 billboards.
10:30:37 We still don't to this day.
10:30:39 So I guess where I got confused and a little bit
10:30:42 annoyed through this process was, I want to settle
10:30:44 these lawsuits.
10:30:45 I want to define where these traditional signs can go
10:30:51 and where they can't go.
10:30:52 And we don't want to litigate with these folks, we
10:30:54 don't want to spend litigation money and all this.
10:30:57 But, at the same time, all of a sudden, the digital
10:30:59 issue has come into this litigation.
10:31:04 And I don't think it really needs to be there.
10:31:06 And I just want to know if there's any legal reason
10:31:10 that we need to be addressing the digital issue to
10:31:14 resolve the litigation.
10:31:15 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: I think the answer to that
10:31:23 question is there is not a legal obligation that we
10:31:25 address electronic billboards in this agreement.
10:31:29 What there is is an effort to get additional signs
10:31:32 down in the city.

10:31:34 And the way it was offered, we were able to reach some
10:31:37 agreement on that, was through the digital billboard.
10:31:41 There's a mechanism for getting more structures down.
10:31:43 So as Julia indicated, there are policy implications
10:31:47 in these settlement agreements, unlike the settlements
10:31:53 agreements we bring to you all, unlike any other that
10:31:56 I think we have brought to you all, and that policy
10:31:58 choice presented here is getting more structures down,
10:32:01 to get more structures down, to trade off there is the
10:32:05 electronic signs.
10:32:06 So that in a nutshell is the choice here.
10:32:10 >> I think it's extremely, extremely important issue.
10:32:13 Because I don't want us to get distracted on, you
10:32:16 know, that this is the only way to resolve this
10:32:19 lawsuit, because the lawsuit didn't start out about
10:32:22 digital.
10:32:27 Julia, there were some good points brought up earlier
10:32:30 and I just need you to confirm them or refute them.
10:32:36 7-B, Roman numeral 4, in the agreement -- I'm not sure
10:32:43 which agreement, maybe both agreements.
10:32:44 >>> Those agreements are essentially identical.
10:32:46 >> Right.

10:32:49 Mr. Baron brought up 7 before, and it speaks to -- it
10:32:53 seems to speak to the fact, and I think you mentioned
10:32:56 this a few minutes ago, but it seems to speak to the
10:32:59 fact if you have an existing location, okay, full size
10:33:02 billboard location, that you can bring in a digital
10:33:06 sign as long as you bring in four sign credits with
10:33:10 you, and it doesn't matter where it is, doesn't matter
10:33:13 how far it is from anything else, if you have an
10:33:16 existing sign location, 7-B asked you to replace that
10:33:21 with a digital location as long as you bring in those
10:33:23 four credits with you.
10:33:24 >>> That is a correct reading of this agreement.
10:33:26 I think Mr. Baron correctly indicated what that is.
10:33:29 And the process was there, you have already introduced
10:33:32 the billboard there but that was the thought process.
10:33:34 But again the digital does meet that part of the
10:33:38 policy.
10:33:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: All right.
10:33:42 I think it's Mr. Baron or somebody else said that this
10:33:45 is slightly different than most of our codes.
10:33:48 All of our codes.
10:33:49 We have a huge code book over here.

10:33:51 And if something is not working out or times change or
10:33:54 the city changes or whatever, we amend the code.
10:33:57 And we do that pretty much every other week, about
10:34:00 something.
10:34:01 Okay.
10:34:04 These digital signs, if we went into this agreement
10:34:07 and the digital signs proliferate in places when don't
10:34:11 want them, we can't amend the agreement unilaterally,
10:34:13 correct?
10:34:15 >>JULIA COLE: We would not have the right to
10:34:17 unilaterally amend this agreement.
10:34:19 >> We have to go back hat in hand to the industry and
10:34:23 say please allow us, and they could say no, which they
10:34:28 very well might because they have an agreement and
10:34:31 they like their contracts and then we are stuck with
10:34:33 it. That's correct?
10:34:33 >>> It's a negotiated agreement, and in order to
10:34:34 renegotiate it, it would require both parties to come
10:34:37 to the table and renegotiate.
10:34:39 >> And since it's property rights it's probably
10:34:41 forever.
10:34:41 >>> Well, among the problems that we have right now is

10:34:44 the question of billboards then being a property
10:34:48 right, and they are typically dealt with forever, and
10:34:51 we are sort of stuck in the middle of that.
10:34:53 But yes, I think that's a fair suggestion.
10:34:56 >> Just a few minutes, Mr. Chairman.
10:35:01 Thank you for your indulgence.
10:35:02 If there's a screening issue.
10:35:04 Somebody said if there's a two-story, do you want to
10:35:06 clarify something, Chip?
10:35:08 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Yes, I just wanted to point out
10:35:10 that you are correct, that this agreement will be
10:35:13 pretty much forever.
10:35:15 But, however, we resolve this litigation that's going
10:35:19 to be the case, whether as some council members
10:35:22 indicated that we solve this through code, well, we
10:35:25 are going to lock in code, which is another choice of
10:35:30 something we are actually not recommending because of
10:35:31 the fear that we lock in our code, and then other
10:35:34 folks avail themselves of these rights, vested
10:35:39 property rights.
10:35:40 That's what this is, is an effort to resolve this
10:35:43 vested property rights issue and we want to copy it

10:35:45 narrowed to these parties.
10:35:46 So you are correct -- but wish to avoid that issue.
10:35:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Right, but my concern is, I'm okay
10:35:56 with locking in a solution as to the paper billboards,
10:35:58 the traditional old-fashioned billboards.
10:36:01 But I have a big problem with locking us in to this
10:36:04 unknown world of digital billboards.
10:36:09 Mr. Chairman, the last time we were trying to get this
10:36:12 resolved in November, December, whatever, council
10:36:15 specifically asked to see maps.
10:36:17 Let's see maps where these things could go.
10:36:20 Okay.
10:36:21 Because it's a big city out there, and there's lots of
10:36:23 possibilities.
10:36:24 And complex documents, with all these, you know,
10:36:28 explanations about, you know, view corridors, not view
10:36:32 corridors, federal highways, not federal highways.
10:36:34 I can't understand it.
10:36:35 Okay.
10:36:36 So we wanted to see maps.
10:36:38 So that way the community could see where these
10:36:41 digital billboards could go.

10:36:44 Julia, what happened on the map thing?
10:36:49 >>> Whether or not we had the technology ability to do
10:36:51 it.
10:36:52 I think they have sent information over to the
10:36:54 companies to see if they could go ahead and overlay on
10:36:56 top of our maps, and I understood that that could not
10:37:00 occur.
10:37:00 So that's where I understand we are on that.
10:37:02 But the city didn't have the technology to do that in
10:37:07 a way that would be of value.
10:37:08 >> So again this adds to the unknown.
10:37:10 Okay.
10:37:11 And that scares the heck out of me.
10:37:19 The linear versus radius issue, that sort of came as a
10:37:23 big surprise about a month ago.
10:37:25 As we were reading this, we said, okay, we are going
10:37:28 to give a couple hundred feet.
10:37:30 >> 500 feet for digital, 300 --
10:37:34 >> 500 feet for digital.
10:37:35 That sounds like a pretty nice buffer.
10:37:36 But then all of a sudden we started reading it a
10:37:39 little tighter and we realized that this is just a

10:37:41 linear buffer.
10:37:43 So, in other words, if you have a house up and down --
10:37:46 on Hillsborough Avenue or Florida Avenue or what have
10:37:48 you, you are going to be protected.
10:37:52 There aren't many houses on Hillsborough or Florida.
10:37:54 But if you have a house back on the side streets 100
10:37:57 or 200 feet off of these big busy highways and you
10:38:02 have a digital sign, there's no protection at all.
10:38:06 This protection is not the radius protection that we
10:38:09 give in our wet zonings and other types of zonings and
10:38:14 land use.
10:38:15 This is a linear protection.
10:38:17 >>> If I could clarify that, we actually did clarify
10:38:22 it in a newer vision of the agreement.
10:38:25 >> Sort of.
10:38:25 >>> And this was after conversations with Mr. Baron,
10:38:28 and actually Mr. Baron had the conversations directly
10:38:31 with the billboard companies and whether or not that
10:38:34 satisfies him is for him to say, but we did put in a
10:38:37 provision which also has setbacks from residential
10:38:41 from the sign face, so you are going backwards really
10:38:46 to residential properties behind the sign.

10:38:48 The only other thing I want to say about the linear,
10:38:51 that is how previous agreements and how our code has
10:38:55 dealt with signs, the use of the linear measurement
10:39:00 came from the historical background.
10:39:04 >> Because as Linda showed in her presentation, a
10:39:10 static paper billboard doesn't intrude nearly as much
10:39:13 into the back neighborhood as lights and brightness
10:39:16 and that sort of thing.
10:39:18 Listen, the bottom line is, as I've said before, I
10:39:21 think there's a place for digital billboards in the
10:39:23 City of Tampa.
10:39:24 I think the place might be downtown, Channelside,
10:39:27 maybe some limited locations on our interstates.
10:39:31 But Tampa doesn't need to look like Times Square.
10:39:34 All across the City of Tampa, we don't noticed to low
10:39:37 like Times Square.
10:39:38 I think this litigation began with normal billboards.
10:39:41 And I think that's where it needs to end.
10:39:43 I think we need to settle -- we need to take this
10:39:46 agreement, carve out any reference to digital
10:39:49 billboards, give it cordially back to the industry and
10:39:53 say, will you settle this on that basis?

10:39:55 Forget about the four to one.
10:39:57 It was a noise idea.
10:39:58 I don't know where it came from exactly.
10:40:00 It was a nice you de.
10:40:01 Forget about it.
10:40:02 Okay?
10:40:03 I don't think we need to do it right now because as
10:40:05 Linda points out it's too early.
10:40:07 It's too early.
10:40:07 We don't need to be the ones, the guinea pigs as far
10:40:13 as this issue is concerned.
10:40:15 Because it's too important and it's going to define
10:40:18 the character of what this city is going to look like
10:40:20 in the future.
10:40:21 So I sound a little fussy but I'm not.
10:40:25 You have worked on this, Yeoman's job for many, many
10:40:28 years as did many other attorneys on the city staff
10:40:31 and I apologize for my tone.
10:40:32 But let's gently carve out all the digital reference
10:40:36 in this, say here's our counteroffer, send it back to
10:40:39 the industry, and, sure, let's settle these other
10:40:43 issues.

10:40:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.
10:40:49 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
10:40:52 I'm in agreement with the two council people who spoke
10:40:58 already.
10:40:59 And I just want to point out that -- and I really do
10:41:05 appreciate -- and I know I actually tried to work with
10:41:07 Julia on this when I first started and unfortunately
10:41:10 it just got more and more complicated.
10:41:12 And I do remember at some point somebody showing me a
10:41:15 map.
10:41:16 So maybe if this comes up again we could see those
10:41:21 maps somewhere out there.
10:41:25 Maybe it was many, many drafts ago or it was before
10:41:28 the old, you know, I don't know.
10:41:30 But there were some maps.
10:41:33 >>JULIA COLE: Well, the map that I had was a map, it
10:41:35 was a very general map, showed some general locations
10:41:39 of billboard signs that were belonging to Clear
10:41:41 Channel.
10:41:42 And it was very general.
10:41:43 And I think it was very difficult to see how that
10:41:47 really had that impact.

10:41:50 I could make that available to you all.
10:41:52 But I think when I started looking at it and showing
10:41:55 it, it really was probably not as accurate as it
10:41:58 should have been.
10:41:59 And I think probably better left off of the
10:42:02 presentation.
10:42:03 >>MARY MULHERN: Let me ask you one thing.
10:42:08 Linda said the latest most recent revision of the sign
10:42:12 code, billboards, was 2000?
10:42:18 >>> In 2000 was the last time City of Tampa took an
10:42:21 action legislative to deal with billboards, and that
10:42:26 action was to ban new billboard, create a
10:42:29 classification of nonconforming billboards, and then
10:42:33 in essence carve out the signs and the billboards
10:42:36 which were the subject of these existing variance
10:42:40 agreements.
10:42:41 >>MARY MULHERN: And so the lawsuits brought by Clear
10:42:44 Channel and CBS, when were -- when did they first
10:42:49 start?
10:42:51 >>> In 2004 Clear Channel brought an action against
10:42:55 the city relating to -- there was a classification of
10:42:58 signs within view corridors.

10:43:00 There was an obligation that those signs be removed by
10:43:04 a date certain.
10:43:05 Clear Channel took the position, from what I
10:43:08 understand, I didn't handle the actual litigation, so
10:43:10 this is just more my general understanding -- is they
10:43:15 took the position, yes, I understand we have to remove
10:43:18 those signs in the view corridors, however, we believe
10:43:20 we have the right at the time of the agreements to
10:43:22 relocate the signs to other locations.
10:43:23 It was a relatively narrow issue.
10:43:26 In 2006, though, the variance agreement had the effect
10:43:30 of expiring.
10:43:31 It was in 2007 that CBS brought their action in which
10:43:36 they really are challenging, okay, well with, it's
10:43:40 kind of a way to say it, what do we do now?
10:43:43 We don't have an agreement.
10:43:44 Worry not really subject.
10:43:46 We may or may not be subject to your code provisions.
10:43:52 We are going to have to litigate the question of what
10:43:54 do we do now, if when don't enter into some kind of
10:43:58 agreement or how to deal with the issue.
10:44:01 That's where we are.

10:44:02 And Clear Channel hasn't expressly brought that issue
10:44:05 up but presuming when do not move forward today, I
10:44:07 can't imagine, or whether or not today or some other
10:44:11 day, I don't know, we are going to end up litigating
10:44:13 those issues and we are going to end up dealing with,
10:44:16 okay, we have these billboards in the City of Tampa,
10:44:21 we need to decide how they are dealt with, and is it
10:44:24 going to be dealt with pursuant to old code
10:44:27 provisions? Is it going to be dealt with pursuant to
10:44:29 an expired agreement?
10:44:30 That is something we don't know, and that's really the
10:44:33 question that we will be facing in court.
10:44:35 And so that was the incident that brought us to the
10:44:39 point of bringing this agreement forward.
10:44:40 Again just raising, why is the digital billboard issue
10:44:44 here?
10:44:44 Part of the conversation occurred relating to digital
10:44:47 billboards, as the technology emerged, the thought
10:44:52 process being, and this is the policy part of the
10:44:54 conversation, to allow digital billboards for the
10:45:01 exchange of the removal of signs.
10:45:03 And other jurisdictions had been in this position.

10:45:05 Hillsborough County is one of them, of not really
10:45:07 dealing with the digital billboard and then they did
10:45:10 just allow digital billboard.
10:45:12 This was seen as an opportunity to remove a number of
10:45:14 signs.
10:45:15 Again that's the policy part of the conversation.
10:45:18 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
10:45:19 So here's what I just want to say.
10:45:20 I really respect all the work you did.
10:45:22 And I think, you know, you came in after it began, and
10:45:28 the technology has been changing at the same time.
10:45:30 So it's going to continue.
10:45:33 So we are not at a point, I don't think, where we can
10:45:36 just say, well, it's not simple to make a
10:45:41 determination about what risk we are taking by
10:45:43 allowing these digital billboard, because everything
10:45:46 is changing all the time, as Councilwoman Saul-Sena
10:45:50 showed us, the research is out, and people are looking
10:45:54 at it now because they are taking it seriously, the
10:45:57 safety issue, which I tend to think becomes a
10:46:00 liability for the city and for the billboard people.
10:46:08 So we don't have the data to really look at whether

10:46:10 this is a safe policy decision for me to make.
10:46:15 I'm not comfortable doing that right now.
10:46:17 I also feel that there are a lot of, you know, there
10:46:21 are so many questions, since this is a new technology
10:46:24 and we are talking about an entire city, and different
10:46:27 locations, and there's just no way -- I think this is
10:46:32 a community standards issue.
10:46:36 We had a number of people come up and talk about how
10:46:38 they do not want these.
10:46:40 They haven't even had to live with them yet.
10:46:44 We are asking people to guess what this is going to be
10:46:46 like when in actuality, I'm going to pass these out to
10:46:49 council, and the clerk.
10:46:52 This was at our last -- I guess we continued the last
10:46:56 time we tried to settle this, right?
10:46:59 This was what happened in L.A. and Hollywood when
10:47:03 their council passed a code that allowed digital
10:47:09 billboards.
10:47:10 And I don't think even the council had any idea what
10:47:15 was going to happen as far as how the citizens were
10:47:16 just really angry.
10:47:18 And this is in Hollywood where they like bright

10:47:22 flashing lights.
10:47:23 Neighborhoods went crazy.
10:47:25 So I really think we have to take this seriously, and,
10:47:29 you know, a council person who needs to listen, and
10:47:35 city-wide, I have to listen to everyone in the city,
10:47:37 and as Mr. Dingfelder pointed out, we are not
10:47:41 necessarily all getting treated equal in this
10:47:44 agreement.
10:47:44 I just don't think there's any reason for us to change
10:47:48 our code, because right now, our code doesn't allow
10:47:51 digital billboards.
10:47:53 This agreement allows them.
10:47:56 The likelihood of being able to change that is pretty
10:47:59 much nil.
10:48:00 So I'm appealing to my colleagues here to give this
10:48:07 some more time, allow a little bit of study, let the
10:48:13 neighborhoods have more input, and also, I was hoping,
10:48:16 you really couldn't see from those pictures that Tom
10:48:21 the photographer gave us but we need to see what it's
10:48:26 like, like turn the lights out in here and have some
10:48:28 pictures of how bright those things are in the night,
10:48:32 in the dark, when you are living near that, whatever

10:48:35 the measurements are.
10:48:37 I don't foal like we have the information to make a
10:48:43 reasonable, fair decision for the residents of Tampa.
10:48:48 And, you know, we -- you're asking us to allow
10:48:53 something that is right now not allowed, and that we
10:48:56 don't have enough information about whether we really
10:49:00 want to do it.
10:49:01 And I think that, you know, somebody provided these --
10:49:07 this article to us at the last meeting, but there's
10:49:09 all kinds of -- there are other cities all over the
10:49:12 country who are dealing with this.
10:49:15 There's all kinds of research we can do.
10:49:17 And then the other thing I want to say is -- I'm
10:49:22 really glad I'm not a lawyer.
10:49:23 I don't envy you, because especially for this, you
10:49:27 know, municipalities.
10:49:29 Because your decision, you can't just make decisions
10:49:38 on gambling on what the likelihood of the most
10:49:42 litigation that we are going to face.
10:49:45 I mean, I understand that's part of our lawyers' job.
10:49:50 But I think that your job is also to do what's right
10:49:53 for the city, because you do work for the city.

10:49:56 And I think that that needs to be weighed as much as
10:50:01 what the costs will be for us.
10:50:04 And one more question with this lawyer thing just
10:50:07 brought up.
10:50:08 Who was litigating this for us before you took over?
10:50:14 >>> I understand that wed outside counsel handling the
10:50:19 litigation.
10:50:20 It was brought inside when Gary Glassman was here and
10:50:23 he was handling the litigation, but we ended up being
10:50:28 in a position where we had an agreement that we
10:50:29 thought was appropriate to bring forward to City
10:50:31 Council.
10:50:32 I'm presuming that was a question for who will be
10:50:41 handling it after that.
10:50:42 I'm really not in a position to handle litigation
10:50:44 anymore.
10:50:45 If I could also say -- and I just feel compelled to
10:50:48 clarify a certain issue because of an issue that Ms.
10:50:51 Mulhern raised and I need the record to be correct.
10:50:54 We do not have anything in our code relating to
10:50:56 digital billboards, but we do have the provision in
10:50:59 our code which does allow signs to be digital with a

10:51:06 change of once every five minutes -- on-site signs,
10:51:10 and, you know, I don't want to get too much into how
10:51:14 that might affect anything because I don't think it's
10:51:17 necessary.
10:51:18 But I didn't want there to be a thought out there that
10:51:21 there is a zero tolerance in the city for any kind of
10:51:24 digital signage.
10:51:25 We do allow it, in our last iteration of the sign code
10:51:30 which was about two years ago that we came up with,
10:51:34 put in place for on-site signs, the allowability to be
10:51:38 digital or electronic, so long as they don't change
10:51:41 more than once every five minutes.
10:51:43 So I just wanted to clarify that and make sure that
10:51:45 everything --
10:51:46 >>MARY MULHERN: Right, but I hope that doesn't become
10:51:48 a slippery slope for us in the fact that we voted for
10:51:51 that, because I really didn't know what the
10:51:55 implications of that were going to be.
10:51:58 And I don't think we should base this decision on
10:52:02 that, because --
10:52:07 >>> I understand.
10:52:09 Just think you need to understand that plays a part,

10:52:11 and the time we did that -- I don't want to get too
10:52:14 much into that.
10:52:15 It's helpful but I do think at the time that we did
10:52:17 that, you know, you were making somewhat of -- at
10:52:22 least on some level it was something that we would
10:52:24 allow.
10:52:25 So I think while whether or not you do it in six
10:52:29 second intervals, whether or not you do it on a
10:52:31 billboard is part of the policy provision.
10:52:32 The context of it all is what we do have in the code.
10:52:35 And to say that we have nothing in our code is not a
10:52:38 fair assessment of that.
10:52:40 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
10:52:41 I accept that.
10:52:42 But I also feel that as part of the problem is even at
10:52:45 that point really the technology was new and there
10:52:49 wasn't data and there wasn't enough, you know,
10:52:52 information.
10:52:52 Maybe it's fine that we did that.
10:52:54 Maybe it's not a problem for the neighborhoods.
10:52:56 But billboards are a totally different story.
10:52:59 So I'm just asking my colleagues to give this some

10:53:02 more time.
10:53:02 And then the one other thing, Julia, is Gary glassman
10:53:07 an expert in --
10:53:14 >>JULIA COLE: I know that -- he isn't with the city
10:53:17 anymore.
10:53:17 So it is what it is.
10:53:18 He has handled a number of land use litigation cases.
10:53:21 Whether or not they were specific, how many cases do
10:53:29 you have that are relating directly to first
10:53:31 amendment?
10:53:31 You know, I have handled signage before.
10:53:36 I think that's somebody else to determine if I am an
10:53:38 expert but I am not the attorney that would be
10:53:40 involved in any litigation, unless Mr. Fletcher makes
10:53:43 a decision to have me --
10:53:46 >>MARY MULHERN: I just want to say this because I have
10:53:48 ultimate respect for both of you and I love working
10:53:51 with you.
10:53:51 But we are dealing with a duopoly. He has more money
10:53:59 than God and seems to own the air.
10:54:01 So since we have been in litigation for at least four
10:54:04 years if not five years, maybe it would be worth it to

10:54:09 get some outside counsel with experience, who has
10:54:15 maybe prevailed.
10:54:16 I don't know if anyone has.
10:54:17 But let's look into that.
10:54:24 Flitch.
10:54:24 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Prior to my time here we did have
10:54:27 outside counsel litigating the cases. There was a
10:54:30 fairly significant order for motion for summary
10:54:34 judgment, and that's what changed our posture from a
10:54:37 litigation posture to a settlement posture.
10:54:42 Just so you know that's kind of how we ended up here.
10:54:45 It's not just that we said, oh, they filed a lawsuit,
10:54:48 let's settle.
10:54:49 We got some initial decisions which really went to the
10:54:53 core of these agreements that we were trying to
10:54:55 enforce, there was ambiguity because of the changes in
10:54:59 the code afterwards, and that's how we ended up here
10:55:02 before you today.
10:55:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
10:55:03 Let me move.
10:55:05 I have to leave in about 20 minutes.
10:55:07 Mr. Miranda.

10:55:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'll be very brief.
10:55:12 Mrs. Cole, you alluded to signs that are changing
10:55:17 every five minutes.
10:55:19 Does the city have some of those?
10:55:21 >>JULIA COLE: The city does have signs.
10:55:23 >> Where are they located at, Channelside, convention
10:55:25 center, Platt Street bridge, certain stadiums.
10:55:30 They have been existing for how long?
10:55:32 >>JULIA COLE: That I don't know.
10:55:34 I will tell you that the way our sign code has read
10:55:36 prior to the recent sign code change, government
10:55:42 signs, whether or not --
10:55:44 >> Let me say also -- please, you speak more than I
10:55:47 do.
10:55:47 Just one second.
10:55:48 [ Laughter ]
10:55:49 I feel like I'm home.
10:55:51 [ Laughter ]
10:55:52 Let me -- I had to say a couple humorous things to get
10:56:02 serious right away.
10:56:03 The text is, there was statements made that why should
10:56:07 any law not be city-wide and be held to certain city

10:56:13 standards?
10:56:13 And I agree with that.
10:56:14 There are very few law that is do that.
10:56:16 The sidewalk law doesn't do that.
10:56:18 The alcohol drinking in parks doesn't do that.
10:56:22 Like I said before, if you drink in one park you do go
10:56:26 to jail.
10:56:27 You drink in another park they pat you on the back,
10:56:30 had a nice game, thank you very much, come back next
10:56:33 week.
10:56:33 So it doesn't -- the next thing is, do we have any
10:56:42 type of statistics that show what type of sign these
10:56:47 now type of illuminated signs, or should I call them
10:56:51 outdoor HD high definition that we all have now in the
10:56:56 houses or most of us are trying to buy or whatever,
10:56:59 what type of light do they reach out, how far does it
10:57:02 reach out this way, or down -- down this way?
10:57:06 Do you have any type?
10:57:07 Does the city, not you, have any information, any type
10:57:11 of lighting standards that they have checked out these
10:57:15 signs to see what type of light they show out, and how
10:57:19 far they go and so forth?

10:57:21 And the reason I ask this, I don't have a sign in
10:57:24 front of my house.
10:57:25 I got many around the neighborhood.
10:57:27 But I have a light about 70 yards away.
10:57:31 One light.
10:57:32 And it must be, I don't know, 150, 200 Watt bulb.
10:57:37 Instead of going down to see the property, it shines
10:57:40 right into my living room.
10:57:44 >>> I am not aware the city has any separate study
10:57:47 that is done.
10:57:48 I know the State of Florida, accepted studies are
10:57:52 done, and it has allowed these digital --
10:57:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: What I'm saying is distance means a
10:58:00 lot and it depends little depending on the type of
10:58:02 illumination that it throws out.
10:58:05 Does anyone have a comparison, Mr. Chairman, regarding
10:58:08 a regular sign, one that changes this way every so
10:58:12 often, or the new ones that just quick changes, what
10:58:17 we are talking about now?
10:58:18 Is there any documentation regarding the candle Watt
10:58:25 of those light and how far it goes out?
10:58:27 >>JULIA COLE: I don't know.

10:58:30 I would have to research that issue.
10:58:32 >> Do you think we can get anyone to do that, send a
10:58:36 city inspector with a meter or something?
10:58:38 >>> I would have to ask our staff whether or not they
10:58:40 have that ability to go ahead and study that.
10:58:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Well, I see here worry going to
10:58:44 spend another -- we spent -- and I don't mind spending
10:58:47 time.
10:58:48 I came prepared to stay all day.
10:58:50 But at the end of the day we are going to talk this
10:58:52 thing and talk this thing and talk this thing, and we
10:58:55 are not going to row solve anything.
10:58:57 I can see it already.
10:58:59 And I am going to leave it up to the chair to make
10:59:04 that decision.
10:59:05 And I just don't feel comfortable hearing from both
10:59:09 sides, and no one has any statistics to show to this
10:59:12 board what, if any, or what greater than something
10:59:18 that we have now will be reflected by these signs.
10:59:22 I can tell you that the ones that I have seen are
10:59:25 different than this, because they change every five
10:59:27 minutes.

10:59:28 They don't have the illuminations.
10:59:30 I don't see any better, any worse, other than I see
10:59:34 clearer with a high definition TV than I did with my
10:59:36 old regular TV.
10:59:41 Maybe it's a little bigger TV.
10:59:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Miller.
10:59:47 >>GWEN MILLER: I know you have been working with this
10:59:49 for a long time, Ms. Cole.
10:59:51 You met with the neighbors.
10:59:52 You met with business people.
10:59:53 You met with private -- you met with everybody to get
10:59:57 their side of it.
10:59:58 I know you represent us very well.
11:00:00 You would not have made this decision if it wasn't the
11:00:02 right thing for the city to do.
11:00:05 Now if we do not pass today we go back to litigation.
11:00:09 We are go going to be spending, what, more money?
11:00:12 >>> We will be spending resources.
11:00:16 How much money we end up spending, I will leave that
11:00:19 to others.
11:00:20 Yes, there will be time and there will be resources
11:00:23 that will be spent to litigate with these two

11:00:26 companies on the issues that we are currently
11:00:28 litigating.
11:00:29 And any additional issues that will come up.
11:00:32 >>GWEN MILLER: And you come up with the same thing,
11:00:38 they don't change their mind, when don't change ours,
11:00:40 we are going to be spending money, money, money, and
11:00:43 everybody here is talking about laying off people
11:00:45 because we don't have the money to change jobs and we
11:00:47 don't think about people losing their jobs, their
11:00:50 livelihoods.
11:00:51 All we think about is going and litigate, spending the
11:00:54 money.
11:00:54 I don't think we should be wasting money, trying to
11:00:59 forget about people.
11:01:00 I would like to know your opinion, should we go back
11:01:04 into litigation?
11:01:05 >>> It's the legal department's opinion that these
11:01:08 agreements create, as it relates to the majority of
11:01:09 issues, certainly that we do not have right now, and
11:01:11 the problem with this kind of litigation is there is
11:01:13 not a lot of certainty on it.
11:01:15 We recognize there is an additional issue and a policy

11:01:18 question of the digital and whether or not as a city
11:01:20 we think it's important to reduce the number of
11:01:24 billboards by allowing for the digital billboard
11:01:26 signs, and that's really, I think, the only portion --
11:01:30 I mean not the only portion.
11:01:33 Much more of a complicated policy question.
11:01:34 As a general matter, we don't have certainty and we
11:01:38 need to have some certainty.
11:01:39 So, you know, that's really the question, is getting
11:01:42 that level of certainty, or else we will be litigating
11:01:45 this issue.
11:01:46 But on the digital issue, that does have more of a
11:01:49 policy implication, and whether or not City Council
11:01:51 thinks it's a good idea to go with the idea of
11:01:56 allowing digital billboards and reducing the number of
11:01:59 billboard signs in the city.
11:02:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
11:02:05 Well, I thought I was through with billboards when I
11:02:08 left county commission.
11:02:10 Here we are again dealing with billboard signs.
11:02:15 Julia, thank you so very much for your hard work.
11:02:17 I know you work very well with the county, as well as

11:02:25 on this issue with the county and here again today on
11:02:27 this issue.
11:02:28 I will say to all of us that it is a very complex
11:02:31 issue.
11:02:32 It is not an easy issue.
11:02:34 It's very complex: I have a few questions.
11:02:37 By the way, I think digital billboards are here.
11:02:40 It is the way of the future.
11:02:42 I think they are going to be around.
11:02:43 The question I have, how many billboard signs do we
11:02:45 have in the City of Tampa?
11:02:51 >>> I can give you right now the that each one of
11:02:54 these companies have.
11:02:55 There are additional billboards out there that are not
11:02:57 with these companies and I don't have those numbers.
11:03:00 But what CBS, one of the companies has, they have
11:03:04 permitted, they can legally keep up 711, I think two
11:03:14 on one pole.
11:03:15 They do have additional two that need to be removed
11:03:18 pursuant to their agreement.
11:03:21 Enclosure channel has 643 spaces that they are allowed
11:03:26 to keep up.

11:03:29 And these two companies have the majority of them.
11:03:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, so we have 711 by CBS and two
11:03:34 need to be removed.
11:03:36 643 --
11:03:38 >>> With 85 that need to be removed from Clear
11:03:40 Channel.
11:03:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So we have 1354 signs total.
11:03:46 >>> Approximately.
11:03:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Approximately 1354.
11:03:50 Did you not reference or state that for every digital
11:03:53 sign they will remove four of these signs?
11:03:56 >>> They would be required to remove four signs for
11:03:59 each upgrade to a digital sign.
11:04:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So as I understand it, we have 1354.
11:04:09 And for every four, we will put in one digital.
11:04:28 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: There's also a number of the signs
11:04:38 particularly for CBS are under that
11:04:46 To get to the minimum square footage.
11:04:49 So it not just about -- it's a little more complicated
11:04:53 than that.
11:04:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So then how many signs?
11:04:56 We don't know.

11:05:02 Well, based on what he just said.
11:05:07 >>JULIA COLE: That and CBS.
11:05:09 Some of them are smaller than 300 square feet.
11:05:12 You have the potential of having to remove more signs
11:05:15 rather than less signs.
11:05:16 But, yes --
11:05:22 >> Okay, explain -- what is the issue about the
11:05:28 banking?
11:05:28 >>> The issue about the banking is that over time,
11:05:32 signs, each one of these companies had signs that they
11:05:35 had up that needed to be removed, and it's only the
11:05:39 loss of a Lose, et cetera.
11:05:42 And the way our agreement reads right now is they
11:05:44 didn't lose those signs, and the way -- when say right
11:05:48 now, the ones that have expired, and I think it's a
11:05:50 fair assessment of Florida law, an issue that we would
11:05:54 be litigating is whether or not the rights to the sign
11:05:58 either through eminent domain action or through a
11:06:00 lease.
11:06:00 What this agreement does is actually capture all this
11:06:04 so we know what those are, so we understand where
11:06:07 those are, and we mach sure that we are accounting for

11:06:12 them and we have certainty versus what we have right
11:06:14 now, which is the signs that are out there, that there
11:06:20 is some legal rights, the companies are going to say
11:06:23 there's some legal rights to have, and we have the
11:06:25 right to do something with them, to relocate them or
11:06:28 do something with them.
11:06:29 So as part of the having some certainty over them,
11:06:33 they are captured in these agreements, we have the
11:06:35 banking of the signs, the other thing that the banking
11:06:38 does allow is for additional consolidation of the
11:06:43 numbers of sign structures for signs that maybe were a
11:06:46 little smaller and areas that can bump up their square
11:06:50 footages using the sign bank.
11:06:54 >> That's to the advantage of the city?
11:06:56 >> It to the advantage of the city because, A, we have
11:06:59 a good updated list of where the signs are, we have
11:07:01 certainty on how we deal with them.
11:07:03 Right now we don't have that level of certainty and
11:07:06 that's part of the concept behind the agreement.
11:07:08 >> Let me just follow up.
11:07:10 Have you discussed with council members, should we
11:07:13 vote this down today, what will be the action or

11:07:18 recourse?
11:07:18 >>> I have had closed sessions.
11:07:23 I think I adequately expressed the down side of not
11:07:27 voting on this agreement.
11:07:28 And we would be in a position, if we vote this down,
11:07:32 and there isn't some other discussion, we will be
11:07:34 doing -- we'll be back in litigation, we will be
11:07:38 expending resources in litigation.
11:07:40 Some of the issues we raised today are the issues that
11:07:42 will come up.
11:07:43 And we could end up in a situation where we could be
11:07:46 litigating what regulations apply to these.
11:07:50 And I think that's probably the starting place of
11:07:52 where we go.
11:07:53 And especially the bank signs.
11:07:58 You start getting the on the questions of rights and
11:08:03 those kinds of things and that could happen --
11:08:05 I know we have had discussions but I want this to be
11:08:07 on the record so people who are here have a little
11:08:10 more insight.
11:08:12 Don't understand it all but a little more insight of
11:08:15 what's at risk here.

11:08:16 >>> And I think that's the risk.
11:08:18 What we don't have right now with these -- that these
11:08:21 agreements would give is certainty.
11:08:22 We would know what we have.
11:08:25 I think it's a fair assessment.
11:08:27 I think everybody here understands.
11:08:28 The billboards are not going away.
11:08:31 Not withstanding the digital issues.
11:08:33 They are not starting from scratch.
11:08:34 We are not then, okay, this is where we think
11:08:36 billboards should go generally.
11:08:37 What we are saying, we have already made some
11:08:39 decisions.
11:08:40 That's why I spent some time going through the
11:08:42 history.
11:08:43 We have made some decisions in the City of Tampa how
11:08:45 we are going to treat not just all billboards but the
11:08:47 billboards belonging to these two companies.
11:08:49 So it's really important.
11:08:52 My feeling is it's very important that we create
11:08:54 certainty on how to deal with them.
11:08:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: One last thing I want to say, and that

11:08:59 is, the outstanding issue for me -- and I want to be
11:09:03 clear on this -- and based on what I heard today was
11:09:07 the uncertainty with the digital signs is what I
11:09:09 heard, either from the neighborhood, a little more
11:09:12 protection in terms of that.
11:09:14 Do you think that we can get, I guess, some more
11:09:20 consideration in terms of the digital signs in terms
11:09:24 of how it impacts the neighborhood?
11:09:26 In particular we start talking about Seminole Heights
11:09:28 and those areas or historic areas, especially along
11:09:32 275.
11:09:33 Now I will tell you that those digital signs are very
11:09:35 bright.
11:09:40 There's one on Dale Mabry and Watters, I believe it
11:09:42 is.
11:09:43 You can see that sign almost two miles away.
11:09:45 Literally, it is a very, very, very bright sign.
11:09:50 So my concern is with the neighborhood, when you talk
11:09:55 about Seminole Heights and 275, those signs, up
11:09:59 against that.
11:09:59 So I am concerned about that.
11:10:03 To me that is the only issue that really troubled me

11:10:06 the most today, is that those digital signs, and the
11:10:10 impact it will have back into the neighborhood.
11:10:15 >>> I don't know if there's any more room for
11:10:17 negotiation on those issues in terms of what's in
11:10:19 front of you.
11:10:20 You know, there were attempts at screening in those
11:10:23 issues.
11:10:25 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: The important thing to remember on
11:10:26 that issue is it does have a standard now that I
11:10:28 believe is 3-foot candles within 200 feet, can't
11:10:33 increase above ambient.
11:10:35 That is the standard that in place now that would be
11:10:38 certified when the sign came in, and upgraded, and it
11:10:42 will be something that we will be able to monitor.
11:10:45 So --
11:10:46 >> But does that standard give protection to the
11:10:48 neighborhood or to that -- see, that's the question.
11:10:50 That's the unknown I'm trying to search for.
11:10:55 You can come in 3 candles, and just light up my whole
11:10:59 house at 12:00 at night.
11:11:01 I don't know.
11:11:03 You all want certainty.

11:11:04 We want certainty.
11:11:05 But I want to make sure that there is neighborhood
11:11:08 protection relative to these digital signs that are
11:11:10 going back, and particularly again along the highway,
11:11:13 I know, into Seminole Heights or other areas.
11:11:17 It's a huge issue.
11:11:18 >>> I don't have a study that I can point to to tell
11:11:22 you kind of subjectively what that number means.
11:11:24 It seems to be used in different locations.
11:11:27 But in terms of what the real life on the ground is, I
11:11:31 can't answer that question.
11:11:32 >> So again, my point, Mr. Fletcher, Ms. Cole, is the
11:11:36 digital sign.
11:11:36 I think that is the underlying issue here in terms of
11:11:40 make sure you have protection.
11:11:42 I'm not opposed to the digital sign per se.
11:11:47 I understand that they are here, they are not going
11:11:49 away.
11:11:50 You might want to face that.
11:11:52 They are not going away.
11:11:54 They are here.
11:11:55 However, I want to make sure that the neighborhoods

11:11:57 are protected relative to these digital signs, and
11:12:02 that at 12:00 at night when I'm trying to sleep, that
11:12:05 I don't have my whole bedroom lit up.
11:12:09 So that is the underlying issue that I'm wrestling
11:12:15 with.
11:12:15 Congressman Dingfelder and then Saul-Sena.
11:12:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr.
11:12:21 Miranda, because you really hit it on the nail head.
11:12:23 I think we are all kind of in agreement that on the
11:12:26 paper billboards we think it's a good agreement, we
11:12:29 think it will make the litigation go away, we want the
11:12:31 litigation to go away, et cetera.
11:12:33 But on the digital billboards there are too many
11:12:35 unknowns.
11:12:36 Mrs. Saul-Sena pointed out driver safety.
11:12:38 I pointed out and I think Mrs. Mulhern, where are they
11:12:41 going to be located? And you guys pointed out how
11:12:44 bright and what distance.
11:12:45 And we can't answer any of those three questions.
11:12:48 So I have an alternative idea.
11:12:51 What I would suggest is, I agree with you, Tom,
11:12:55 digitals are here, Weaver we allow them on the five

11:12:59 minute intervals of the Walgreen's and CBS, and they
11:13:03 are happening.
11:13:04 But what I would suggest is, why don't we take this
11:13:07 head on the digital question?
11:13:10 Why don't we create -- why don't we have staff do the
11:13:12 research and create a digital ordinance, okay, and I'm
11:13:17 just going to throw this out, that would allow them in
11:13:20 appropriate locations like downtown and Channelside
11:13:22 understood certain limitations.
11:13:25 We could use a special use process.
11:13:27 Okay.
11:13:27 So that way they are not just allowing -- allowed a as
11:13:31 a matter of right, but in some certain interstate
11:13:34 locations.
11:13:35 There are some certain interstate locations, I-275,
11:13:39 you know, certain places along 275, not neighborhood
11:13:46 275 but other parts, or I-4 out there by the casino,
11:13:50 and out there.
11:13:52 You know, there's some appropriate places. But let's
11:13:54 define them by an ordinance.
11:13:56 Let's direct staff to start drafting an ordinance.
11:14:00 We'll put this settlement agreement on the side.

11:14:03 We are not going to vote it up.
11:14:05 We are not going to vote it down.
11:14:07 Put it on the side.
11:14:08 In the meantime let's draft a digital ordinance.
11:14:10 I'm sure there are some in other cities that we can
11:14:13 start looking at.
11:14:13 And then, okay, as we make progress and we show good
11:14:17 faith to the industry, that we want to allow them to
11:14:20 have digital locations, okay, then maybe they'll say,
11:14:24 okay, we'll adopt the ordinance, and then we can pull
11:14:30 that digital language out of this ordinance.
11:14:32 And put that aside.
11:14:36 So I think we are waiting in good faith and I think
11:14:39 it's a fair direction to go.
11:14:42 I will make that as a motion, that we direct staff to
11:14:47 start drafting a digital ordinance, working with the
11:14:49 industry, on certain limited locations with a special
11:14:54 use process, and in the meantime that we evade the
11:15:01 settlement agreement for a certain period of time
11:15:03 until we can make progress on that ordinance.
11:15:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: My only concern is, Ms. Cole -- I see
11:15:08 you writing there.

11:15:09 Can I have your attention?
11:15:09 I guess my concern is the settlement agreement, what
11:15:12 happened with the settlement agreement, okay?
11:15:14 Because here again, I still think that's an issue.
11:15:18 My only concern is that we can get concessions from
11:15:21 the industry relative to the neighborhood, again, with
11:15:25 the digital sign.
11:15:26 That's my only issue, I mean.
11:15:28 If they can agree to that, if they can say, okay, we
11:15:32 agree to more protection within the neighborhood,
11:15:34 Seminole Heights, historic district, I'm ready to move
11:15:36 forward.
11:15:37 If we can't then we got a problem.
11:15:39 >>JULIA COLE: I don't know what their position would
11:15:41 be in terms of an ordinance.
11:15:43 And I don't know what their position would be in terms
11:15:44 of having additional protection.
11:15:47 They certainly have the right after hearing
11:15:50 conversation say, you know what?
11:15:51 We want to get back into litigation.
11:15:53 And they could do that.
11:15:54 Or you know they could feel after conversation it

11:15:58 worth either additional short term conversations or an
11:16:01 ordinance.
11:16:05 There may be some connotations that I would have to
11:16:08 think through so that would take a little time in
11:16:11 terms' terms of the fact when you go through history
11:16:13 of billboard these are all billboards that we have
11:16:15 specific agreements with these specific companies and
11:16:17 it may be more complicated to do an ordinance.
11:16:19 All that being said -- and I'm not saying it's not
11:16:22 doable, I'm just saying it's something we have to
11:16:25 think through --
11:16:28 >> Be positive.
11:16:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, my issue again, if council
11:16:34 should pass this motion today, to create an ordinance,
11:16:38 what happens then to the other part of the settlement
11:16:41 agreement?
11:16:42 That discussion needs to take place.
11:16:44 >>> I think it's possible that the companies will say
11:16:46 to us, well, you guys certainly have that right but we
11:16:49 are going to get back to our litigation.
11:16:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's also possible, Mr. Chairman,
11:16:53 that they might have heard me just now and say that

11:16:56 they are will to work with us for the next three or
11:16:58 four months to come up with an ordinance that will
11:17:01 resolve the digital issue, then we can pull the
11:17:03 digital issue out of those agreements, and enter into
11:17:06 those agreements the way they were two or three years
11:17:09 ago before they got digitalized.
11:17:11 I think that's a possibility, too.
11:17:13 Right, Julia?
11:17:14 >>> I would have to go have that conversation.
11:17:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A possibility.
11:17:18 >>> A possibility.
11:17:20 "would have to go have that conversation.
11:17:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Ms. Cole, I want to point out that
11:17:26 we said no, let's bring the neighborhoods into the
11:17:28 conversation, and now what?
11:17:30 What's before us is better than it was, as Mr. Johnson
11:17:33 said, it went from terrible to bad.
11:17:35 Now we have the opportunity to make it crisper,
11:17:40 cleaner, better, because City Council does not want
11:17:43 the City of Tampa to suffer from visual blight.
11:17:47 And as Mr. Dingfelder identified, there are spots
11:17:49 where the blight billboards might be very appropriate

11:17:53 downtown, out by the casino, maybe out by the airport.
11:17:57 But the point is, we haven't had that specific
11:17:59 conversation and I think it could end up with much
11:18:06 better agreement.
11:18:07 So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call the motion on
11:18:12 the floor.
11:18:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I want to have more discussion
11:18:18 and then come back before we act on the ordinance.
11:18:20 I think we are close to resolving the issue.
11:18:23 I'm just telling you, I think we are close to resolve
11:18:25 the issue and I would feel much more comfortable if we
11:18:28 allow our attorneys to meet with the industry to try
11:18:30 to come back with a resolution that will address the
11:18:33 digital signs that are still in neighborhood.
11:18:37 I think the ordinance from my standpoint is again the
11:18:42 unknown with the litigation that we have out there.
11:18:45 That's my position.
11:18:46 Okay?
11:18:48 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a question for Ms. Cole.
11:18:50 You are saying four for every digital.
11:18:58 So we --
11:19:00 >>> I was going to ask a question about the motion so

11:19:03 I'm clear.
11:19:04 Is the motion to abate continued consideration of the
11:19:08 settlement agreement until such time that the legal
11:19:10 department and the administration come back with an
11:19:13 ordinance which deals specifically with digital
11:19:16 billboards, or digital signs within the City of Tampa,
11:19:19 and then bring up the agreement at that time?
11:19:24 Is that what the motion is?
11:19:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: With a finite -- I don't want them
11:19:30 to say this is, you know, another two years.
11:19:33 Okay, I would like to say 90 days, that we'll fast
11:19:36 track this for 90 days to come up with an ordinance
11:19:40 that can address this, and, you know, yes, it might
11:19:45 need to address the four to one somehow or another.
11:19:50 That needs to be a possibility.
11:19:51 So we don't lose the opportunity --
11:19:58 I have to leave.
11:19:58 I'm not going to support the motion on the floor
11:20:00 because I think we are close to a settlement.
11:20:02 I think we should allow the attorneys go with the
11:20:05 industry, and resolve the issue of the digital sign,
11:20:08 you know, here again as it relates to the

11:20:10 neighborhoods.
11:20:10 So based on that I'm not going to support the motion.
11:20:13 Because I think we are very close at resolving this
11:20:15 issue.
11:20:16 Okay?
11:20:16 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, how long have we
11:20:19 been working on this, with the sign company?
11:20:22 Before I came on this council.
11:20:23 >> Three years now.
11:20:28 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Government is great to study,
11:20:30 study this study, we either vote it up or down today.
11:20:33 That's my opinion.
11:20:34 Because people are saying that it's going to distract
11:20:36 the driver.
11:20:37 And if we put all these bicycle lanes in the city,
11:20:42 that's being proposed, people are going to be
11:20:45 distracted, also, when there's people riding their
11:20:48 bicycles.
11:20:48 They are going to take their eyes off the road to make
11:20:51 sure they don't hit that person on the bicycle.
11:20:54 So either way.
11:20:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's a motion on the floor.

11:20:57 Mr. Fletcher, I will give you an opportunity to speak
11:21:00 and then we'll vote on the motion.
11:21:01 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: This is councilman Dingfelder's
11:21:05 motion?
11:21:05 >> Yes.
11:21:07 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: You all want to ask us to go back
11:21:09 and look at some different things.
11:21:10 I think that's your prerogative.
11:21:14 I just want to be clear that if we have an ordinance,
11:21:20 it's going to be very difficult, tricky to have an
11:21:22 ordinance working together with the settlement
11:21:25 agreement.
11:21:27 I see the policy question and that's fine.
11:21:28 But if we have an ordinance that we can amend
11:21:31 periodically, it's not going to solve the vested
11:21:35 rights issues that we are dealing with here.
11:21:37 So --
11:21:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That wasn't the point.
11:21:40 The point was we create this ordinance that just deals
11:21:42 with the digital issue.
11:21:44 Doesn't deal with these other issues.
11:21:45 The idea is for them to run parallel together, when we

11:21:48 come back and hopefully have the digital ordinance
11:21:50 about to be adopted, hopefully they would be in
11:21:53 agreement that they would modify the settlement
11:21:56 agreement to pull the digital out because we have
11:21:59 already addressed --
11:22:03 >> Go forward with the digital issue and then have an
11:22:09 ordinance on where to have digital.
11:22:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Right.
11:22:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm going to speak for my second
11:22:14 time as the rules recall because I think many people
11:22:18 have spoken more than to two but I am going to limit
11:22:21 myself to two.
11:22:21 If we speak only about the digital then what happens
11:22:26 to the four to one?
11:22:27 Is that out?
11:22:32 Only speaking about one item, you are giving up
11:22:34 something else.
11:22:34 >>> I don't want to say that categorically.
11:22:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm not against the four to
11:22:41 something but I don't want this to leave today
11:22:45 thinking that we are going to come back and a
11:22:52 two-headed cow only has one head when it comes back.

11:22:56 I don't mind holding it for two weeks, see if you can
11:22:58 work something out, different things, scenarios.
11:23:00 I think meeting of the minds and having conversation,
11:23:03 and N a humane way solves more problems than "let's go
11:23:08 to war," and in this case in one wins.
11:23:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I like Charlie's motion.
11:23:16 Charlie's motion I think says, let's take my motion,
11:23:20 throw it to legal, let them talk to the industry for
11:23:22 two weeks and see if that's a direction that we can
11:23:25 all head together.
11:23:26 So, Charlie, if you want to make that as a motion --
11:23:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And see what happens.
11:23:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So the motion that you are making is
11:23:34 that negotiations continue with the idea of an
11:23:38 ordinance as well.
11:23:41 I can support that.
11:23:42 But I can't support, say let's do an ordinance and
11:23:46 forget about settlement.
11:23:53 >>JULIA COLE: I want to make sure, if I am doing an
11:23:55 ordinance direction, because this has been out there
11:23:58 for a long time.
11:23:59 Way understand the motion then to say is a

11:24:01 continuation for two weeks to discuss the issue of
11:24:05 either moving in the direction -- of moving in the
11:24:08 direction of an ordinance and removing that for
11:24:12 digital billboards and removing that as part of the
11:24:14 settlement agreement, but not lose out on the four to
11:24:18 one.
11:24:18 Is it also to discuss if there's any other
11:24:21 opportunities?
11:24:23 >> Yes.
11:24:23 Yes.
11:24:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And if possible someone in the
11:24:26 administration or whatever, some type of engineer to
11:24:30 determine what type of lighting.
11:24:31 I've heard all kinds of things.
11:24:33 I can hear you can hear an airplane from here to
11:24:36 Atlanta but I don't know if that's true or not.
11:24:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Still an opportunity to address the
11:24:41 community concerns.
11:24:42 >>> I just want to make sure I am going in the right
11:24:45 direction.
11:24:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And there's still an opportunity to
11:24:47 address the community's concerns relative to digital

11:24:53 that affects the neighborhood.
11:24:54 That's a motion on the floor made by councilman
11:24:56 Miranda, seconded by councilman Dingfelder.
11:24:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can we clarify when it comes back
11:25:02 in two weeks it will be at the beginning of our
11:25:04 agenda?
11:25:05 >> Yes, fine.
11:25:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, let me speak to that, because --
11:25:11 let me speak to that.
11:25:12 Because coming back on the 19th, we need to change
11:25:17 to another date because the 19th already it's
11:25:21 hectic.
11:25:22 I mean, it is full.
11:25:23 We had a meeting yesterday.
11:25:25 So I will not suggest putting this on the 19th.
11:25:33 >>> I'll still be here the following week.
11:25:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So that will be the first meeting
11:25:38 March.
11:25:38 March 5th.
11:25:39 We'll bring it back March 5th.
11:25:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: But set up the way you did today,
11:25:45 have it first on the agenda?

11:25:46 >> Yes, that's fine.
11:25:47 It's moved and seconded.
11:25:48 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
11:25:50 Opposes?
11:25:52 Yes, sir.
11:25:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Can we take item 50?
11:25:55 >> Yes.
11:25:56 I am going to have to leave.
11:25:57 Item 58.
11:26:09 Mr. Charlie Miranda, he's the grand marshal, along
11:26:13 with -- the grand marshal for the Gasparilla.
11:26:20 We want to congratulate them.
11:26:22 That's on item 46.
11:26:23 We'll take up item 58 and then go back to regular
11:26:26 items.
11:26:28
11:26:25 I apologize staff that we're running late.
11:26:35 We'll take up staff issues right after item 58.
11:26:39 Thank you.
11:26:44 >> Good morning and thank you very much for the
11:26:47 opportunity to speak here today.
11:26:48 I want to thank you for all that you do and

11:26:52 particularly for yours and Mayor Iorio's belief and
11:26:57 support of the center and our public/private
11:26:59 partnership.
11:26:59 We know that you understand the value and the impact
11:27:03 of culture programs on our economy, family and
11:27:05 visitors.
11:27:06 I have some -- I hope this is the magic -- oh, yeah,
11:27:10 there we go.
11:27:11 Okay.
11:27:12 As validation of our public/private partnership, you
11:27:18 might be interested to know that since the center
11:27:20 opened in 1987, every major Florida city has or is
11:27:24 building a Performing Arts center, including
11:27:27 Ft. Lauderdale, Miami, West Palm, and Orlando, which
11:27:31 will open in two years and has a $400 million budget.
11:27:35 But we will still be the largest in Florida.
11:27:37 Our annual meeting is next Monday, and I am happy to
11:27:41 present to you first our annual report.
11:27:46 We are very grateful that we ended last year on a high
11:27:49 note, especially during these difficult economic
11:27:51 challenges.
11:27:52 And I would like to offer you some highlights.

11:27:55 Our impact on the community remains impressive.
11:27:58 Carol Morsani Hall ranked number one in the world for
11:28:03 overall activity.
11:28:04 700,000 people were served.
11:28:06 42,000 complimentary tickets were distributed to the
11:28:06 community.
11:28:07 68,000 hours of service from more than 700 volunteers.
11:28:16 761 professional performances in 365 days.
11:28:21 415 community events, conferences, and meetings.
11:28:25 And employment for 150 full-time and 450 part-time
11:28:29 local residents and artists.
11:28:32 In our education program, 60,000 students were served
11:28:35 through our professional arts education opportunities.
11:28:39 40,000 attended school field trip programs.
11:28:42 Almost 9,000 engaged in 100 classes, 50 camps and
11:28:46 community outreach.
11:28:47 98 artists are employed as educators.
11:28:51 43 preschool and community partnerships where we
11:28:55 provide program and content.
11:28:57 All told, we had $100 million local economic impact,
11:29:01 which we believe is a wonderful return on investment.
11:29:04 But more than mere numbers, these figures represent

11:29:08 significant service to our community.
11:29:10 Last season, our Patel Conservatory Youth Orchestra
11:29:14 received national acclaim when they premiered a new
11:29:18 original symphonic work.
11:29:19 At the metropolitan Ministry School for Children, one
11:29:23 of our free community partnerships, we are providing a
11:29:25 full school year curriculum of the arts, including
11:29:28 ballet, music and theater classes.
11:29:30 School administrators are already crediting these
11:29:34 classes with the students becoming more focused and
11:29:37 more serious about their studies.
11:29:38 We've also taken the opportunity to use our shows to
11:29:41 raise over five tons of food for ministries.
11:29:44 In light of our challenging times, we are keeping our
11:29:48 community spirit uplifted by offering more free and
11:29:50 affordable programs than ever.
11:29:52 Including through the broadway club, $10 tickets for
11:29:55 broadway shows.
11:29:56 Assistance for underserved students with our access
11:29:59 arts scholarship program.
11:30:00 Free educational study guides and programs for
11:30:04 teachers and college internship for learning the

11:30:06 business of the arts.
11:30:07 We have started a series of free events, including
11:30:10 free scene on the green movies.
11:30:12 Free holiday concerts.
11:30:13 Free artists on the Riverwalk performances.
11:30:15 Free opera preludes and master classes, broadway
11:30:19 family night activities, free rock school performances
11:30:23 and a free summer splash festival at the conservatory.
11:30:27 We developed one of the strongest broadway markets in
11:30:31 the nation which allows us to bring the best shows
11:30:32 available to Tampa first.
11:30:33 Last year we were the only Florida engagement for the
11:30:35 blockbuster "Jersey Boys."
11:30:37 We also brought in "Radio City Music Hall" and "The
11:30:41 Lion King."
11:30:42 We present cutting-edge broadway, like the Tony
11:30:44 award-winning "Spring Awakening," again the only
11:30:47 engagement in Florida.
11:30:47 "Stacy Keach" and "Frost/Nixon" coming up this month.
11:30:51 This week alone, we're presenting "Chorus Line," which
11:30:53 is sold out.
11:30:54 Tomorrow we premier a new show created by Tampa

11:30:56 artists called "Waist Watchers," a musical.
11:30:59 None of us know anything about losing weight, but we're
11:30:59 doing that.
11:31:01 And then we bring in "Spamalot," "Rat Pack" and
11:31:06 "Fiddler on the Roof."
11:31:07 As you might have heard on the "Today" show, we're
11:31:10 working on a new young adult musical with author and
11:31:12 "Today" show host Kathie Lee Gifford called "Keeping
11:31:14 It Real," which will target and nurture personal
11:31:17 growth for teen girls.
11:31:18 She's actually starring in the show here, and we're
11:31:21 using local girls in the casting.
11:31:23 As for our future, we're developing a new producing
11:31:26 company called "The Broadway Genesis Project," which
11:31:28 will have an impact on our local economy as well as
11:31:31 add to Tampa's appeal as the cultural tourism
11:31:34 destination.
11:31:35 Through the Broadway Genesis Project, we are creating
11:31:37 and producing new major American musicals.
11:31:39 It will really expand our reputation on the national
11:31:42 cultural landscape, and we believe become a point of
11:31:45 pride for Tampa.

11:31:46 The first new musical production is in its creative
11:31:50 stages right now.
11:31:51 Looking at the big picture, we moved forward
11:31:55 carefully, strategically, and assessed our needs and
11:31:58 their relationship to the overall community,
11:32:01 especially our growing Cultural Arts District, which
11:32:03 we are just so thrilled about.
11:32:05 This year, as we get even closer to bringing Tampa's
11:32:09 cultural district to new life, we have undertaken a
11:32:12 new needs assessment and are partnering with the city
11:32:15 to do our part in helping to make the southern area of
11:32:19 our campus and the Tyler and Cass Street area safer,
11:32:23 more attractive and more functional for the increase
11:32:26 in residents and visitors.
11:32:28 I have more.
11:32:30 I just want to say -- the center is committed to
11:32:36 transparency and best practices in all of our
11:32:39 governance and finance.
11:32:40 I know that's becoming increasingly important.
11:32:42 We have done that for years.
11:32:44 I'd like to leave you with one note regarding these
11:32:46 challenging times.

11:32:47 During the World War II blitz in London, Winston
11:32:50 Churchill insisted that the theaters remain open to
11:32:52 uplift its citizens.
11:32:55 After 9/11, Mayor Giuliano insisted that broadway
11:32:58 theaters open and they did two days later.
11:33:00 I know we're facing challenging times, but I am hoping
11:33:04 and trusting Tampa believes in its theaters as well.
11:33:07 And I thank you.
11:33:08 Did we do all the slides?
11:33:10 Oh, good.
11:33:11 Okay.
11:33:11 Here is our annual report.
11:33:15 And I thank you for your time.
11:33:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We want to thank you and your
11:33:19 staff, Julie, for the job you've done not only this
11:33:21 year but throughout the many years and your staff and
11:33:25 yourself are the ones really responsible for making
11:33:27 the center what it is.
11:33:30 You've certainly gone into your airs to help the
11:33:33 community in general.
11:33:33 And you deserve all the accolades you all get.
11:33:36 You are numero uno, that means number one.

11:33:40 And I think that you will continue to grow, and you
11:33:45 have a small parcel of property there, so I'm sure
11:33:50 you'll find ways of working with it to make it even
11:33:53 larger and better as the kids continue to go into the
11:33:57 arts.
11:33:58 And I think, really, that it means a lot to a young
11:34:01 mind to see something that otherwise they may never
11:34:05 have a chance to see, and maybe change their life.
11:34:07 Thank you.
11:34:08 >> Thank you very much.
11:34:09 And thank you for all that you do.
11:34:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Everything that Mr. Miranda said,
11:34:14 yes.
11:34:14 Thank you.
11:34:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
11:34:17 We're continuing our staff reports, go to item 59.
11:34:21 Anybody from legal to speak on 59?
11:34:28 Okay.
11:34:31 We'll go to 60.
11:34:35 >> Good morning.
11:34:36 Cindy Miller, director of growth management
11:34:38 development services.

11:34:39 For my portion of item number 60, we did submit to
11:34:45 City Council a few days ago a summary of all the
11:34:47 various incentives and other loan programs available
11:34:51 for historic preservation, whether they be through our
11:34:53 historic preservation office or our housing division.
11:34:56 That report has been submitted to you, and we do have
11:35:00 this information also available on our Web site.
11:35:02 So that would address my portion of this item.
11:35:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: How do we let folks know about
11:35:09 these financial incentives that are available to them?
11:35:12 >>CYNTHIA MILLER: This information is available
11:35:15 through our Web site, through our various divisions,
11:35:17 through my department, growth management and
11:35:19 development services, through housing and community
11:35:21 development division, and the historic preservation
11:35:23 division as well.
11:35:24 We also will advertise this information on the CTTV.
11:35:31 On the city's cable news television as well.
11:35:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just think that the money is only
11:35:37 as good as people knowing that it's there to ask for
11:35:39 it, to put it to good use.
11:35:42 We'd rather see the money invested in saving historic

11:35:45 properties than sitting there gathering a modest
11:35:50 amount of interest.
11:35:51 Have our applications been forthcoming?
11:35:55 I mean, what's available to the public right now so we
11:35:57 can let them know?
11:35:59 >>CYNTHIA MILLER: We have -- basically, first of all,
11:36:01 there is always the tax incentive program that would
11:36:05 be through the state as well as you can get
11:36:08 information through historic preservation, which is
11:36:12 both tax credits as well as ad valorem property tax
11:36:15 exemption.
11:36:15 The interstate historic preservation trust fund is
11:36:18 probably what most people would be looking for.
11:36:22 For homeowners that are within the Tampa Heights, Ybor
11:36:25 City, and West Tampa, national historic districts.
11:36:30 For homeowners that are income qualified, meaning
11:36:32 lower income, we have grants available up to $15,000.
11:36:36 Also in those three areas, for whether it's
11:36:38 residential or commercial, we have loans available.
11:36:40 And they are at very reasonable rates.
11:36:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And we have money in the bank right
11:36:45 now.

11:36:45 >>CYNTHIA MILLER: There's money in the bank right now
11:36:47 and an application process that we advertise twice a
11:36:50 year.
11:36:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And we have money available
11:36:51 downtown, correct?
11:36:52 >>CYNTHIA MILLER: Also money under the CRA, which
11:36:55 we're calling the downtown Community Redevelopment
11:36:57 Agency preservation loan program and funds have been
11:37:00 set aside through the CRA.
11:37:03 Again, the same application process can contact our
11:37:07 historic preservation division or can contact the
11:37:09 city's economic and urban development department.
11:37:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And we have some facade money
11:37:16 available, don't we?
11:37:17 >>CYNTHIA MILLER: Not necessarily specific for facade.
11:37:20 It's under other programs.
11:37:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Don't we have facade money
11:37:24 available in Ybor?
11:37:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: There was some in West Tampa.
11:37:29 >>CYNTHIA MILLER: That was a number of years ago.
11:37:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, those are great funds that
11:37:32 are available to the public and tax credits.

11:37:35 And we want to get the word out and hope that people
11:37:38 take advantage of it.
11:37:39 Because it's there to help people.
11:37:41 >>CYNTHIA MILLER: Thank you.
11:37:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Miranda.
11:37:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you Chairman, Miller.
11:37:47 Ms. Miller, number 60 is what we're discussing and
11:37:49 that deals only with historical properties?
11:37:52 >>CYNTHIA MILLER: When it comes to our housing and
11:37:54 community development division, we also have
11:37:56 rehabilitation funds that are available to the broader
11:38:00 population.
11:38:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That's what I wanted to hear.
11:38:02 >>CYNTHIA MILLER: And that is up to $50,000 for income
11:38:05 qualified individuals throughout our city.
11:38:08 And in East Tampa, there are additional monies that
11:38:10 can take that up to $80,000.
11:38:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Number five.
11:38:19 >>CYNTHIA MILLER: I would like to come to number five,
11:38:22 but could I go now to number 62?
11:38:24 My colleague Karen needs to go on to another meeting.
11:38:30 This is a request to have an amendment to our fee

11:38:33 schedule, the city's fee schedule as to tree removal
11:38:39 and tree trimming permits.
11:38:42 I know there has been a lot of discussion in the media
11:38:46 on this.
11:38:47 I do want to clarify one thing as I was quoted or
11:38:50 alluded to me today, we did increase these fees as of
11:38:55 January 1st of 2009 along with the rest of our fee
11:38:58 schedule.
11:38:58 We did have a consultant working with us in 2008 to
11:39:03 develop these fees.
11:39:04 Very frankly, sort of sounded like I was blaming the
11:39:08 consultant.
11:39:09 I didn't mean to ever say that the consultant made an
11:39:11 error.
11:39:12 I believe that we gathered information and we did not
11:39:16 properly provide that information to the consultant.
11:39:18 So they jumped to some conclusions.
11:39:20 But what we are basically recommending and in very
11:39:25 simple terms, when it comes to a grand tree removal
11:39:31 per property, this would be a hazardous tree, the fee
11:39:34 currently for residential would be $286.
11:39:36 We recommend that be reduced down to 128.

11:39:40 For commercial it would be the same amount.
11:39:42 And then we also have fees effective for 2010 for the
11:39:46 same purpose for residential, would go down to 150
11:39:49 from 335.
11:39:50 And then commercial from 335 down to 150 as well.
11:39:54 We also have four other fees that we are recommending
11:39:58 or excuse me, two other fees we're recommending
11:40:01 adjustment and two that would stay the same.
11:40:04 We had a meeting with industry representatives last
11:40:06 Friday at our construction services division.
11:40:10 The department of growth management and development
11:40:12 services has been working with the parks and
11:40:14 recreation department.
11:40:15 And we would ask that you authorize us to now reduce
11:40:19 these fees for 2009 and 2010.
11:40:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, again, Chairman Miller.
11:40:24 Ms. Miller, I applaud you for making the changes, and
11:40:29 if I remember the text of the presentation for the
11:40:33 change that we were ranked near the bottom I think in
11:40:36 about 18 or 19 categories and some were 11 or 12 or
11:40:41 ninth, in the middle now.
11:40:43 What I've heard since, not only about the trees and

11:40:47 maybe the information that I've received from certain
11:40:50 individuals is not adequate, correctly, is that before
11:40:56 you didn't need to have a permit to change your front
11:40:59 door and now you do.
11:41:01 Am I correct?
11:41:01 I don't know.
11:41:02 >>CYNTHIA MILLER: Mr. Barrios is here who is our
11:41:05 manager.
11:41:05 He says, no, a permit is not required to replace the
11:41:08 front door.
11:41:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Are there any changes we did
11:41:11 regarding different things that a homeowner can do
11:41:13 without pulling a permit to before to pulling a permit
11:41:17 now?
11:41:18 Thank you very much, I got the answer by the
11:41:20 communication of the head shake.
11:41:21 >>CYNTHIA MILLER: And that communication by the head
11:41:23 take was that, no, what is entailed and what requires
11:41:26 a permit has not changed.
11:41:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.
11:41:28 I'm so happy to hear that.
11:41:30 >>CYNTHIA MILLER: Also mention on the permit fee

11:41:32 modification we're talking about, these are fees that
11:41:34 the majority of the dollar amount will go to the parks
11:41:36 and recreation department.
11:41:37 We do process them at growth management development
11:41:39 through the construction service division, but these
11:41:42 are fees that are recouping the cost parks and
11:41:45 recreation must put into these types of activities.
11:41:50 >>GWEN MILLER: You were hoping to --
11:41:53 >>CYNTHIA MILLER: Well, the resolution is before you.
11:41:55 Although it is under staff reports, there is an actual
11:41:58 resolution on your agenda.
11:41:59 We just asked to be put on staff reports so that I'd
11:42:02 have the opportunity to speak to you about it.
11:42:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to thank the
11:42:09 administration for being responsive to the concerns of
11:42:12 the public specifically about the grand tree fees.
11:42:15 I think that's what's -- I think that what's before us
11:42:20 is much more successful in what we ultimately want to
11:42:22 do which is protecting the trees as well as making
11:42:24 sure our staff costs are covered.
11:42:26 Thank you for making that adjustment.
11:42:33 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Can we move that resolution that

11:42:35 Ms. Miller suggested to reduce those fees?
11:42:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:42:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to approve the
11:42:41 resolution to reduce the fees.
11:42:42 All in favor of that motion, aye.
11:42:44 Opposed, nay.
11:42:45 [Motion Carried]
11:42:45 Mr. Miranda.
11:42:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That's number five?
11:42:49 >>CYNTHIA MILLER: That was number 62.
11:42:51 Now if I could go back to number 5.
11:42:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Item 61 is a staff report that's
11:43:02 already been done three times and I don't think we
11:43:04 need it.
11:43:05 That's the Irvin Lee in public works.
11:43:11 The plant high report about the traffic and that sort
11:43:13 of thing.
11:43:14 I was trying to let them go.
11:43:18 IRV has to go do Gasparilla, which right now is more
11:43:22 important.
11:43:22 If there's nothing new, then I would strike it from
11:43:30 the agenda.

11:43:31 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion to retract 61.
11:43:34 All in favor of the motion, aye.
11:43:36 [Motion Carried]
11:43:38 >>CYNTHIA MILLER: Number five is an ordinance
11:43:39 presented for first reading consideration.
11:43:42 I believe there is a substitute ordinance that has
11:43:45 been presented for this.
11:43:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
11:43:47 >>CYNTHIA MILLER: In very simple terms, chapter five
11:43:50 is basically other than a few items that are unique to
11:43:53 Tampa, which are not being changed, I want to clarify,
11:43:56 not being changed, this is basically adopting what is
11:43:59 chapter one of the state building code and adopting it
11:44:02 into our local code.
11:44:04 And the reason we are basically ending up giving you a
11:44:08 book of a new code section is we believe it's easier
11:44:11 for our customers to be able to have it all in one
11:44:13 place.
11:44:14 And, frankly, the underscores and strike-throughs
11:44:16 would have been so extensive, it would have been very
11:44:19 difficult to read.
11:44:20 Procedural changes primarily coming from the state,

11:44:22 and we would request that you have it for first
11:44:25 reading today, and then we would be back I believe in
11:44:28 two weeks for second reading.
11:44:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I just have one statement, if I ask
11:44:32 Ms. Cole, are there any provisions in this chapter
11:44:35 five for hardship criterias?
11:44:39 >>JULIA COLE: We wouldn't have changed any hardship
11:44:41 criteria that we would have had previously to today,
11:44:43 and I don't believe there's any -- I guess, I don't
11:44:45 really understand what you mean by hardship criteria.
11:44:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'll meet privately with you and
11:44:50 Ms. Miller, if I may.
11:44:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Would you like to read the substitute?
11:44:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Item 5 is substitute ordinance
11:44:58 presented for first reading.
11:44:59 Ordinance in the City of Tampa, Florida, deleting
11:45:02 entirely of the city Tampa code of ordinance chapter
11:45:05 five adopting the City of Tampa code of ordinance
11:45:07 chapter five, the City of Tampa building code adopting
11:45:10 the City of Tampa 120 miles-per-hour wind speed line
11:45:13 maps, providing for severability, repealing all
11:45:15 ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict,

11:45:18 providing an effective date.
11:45:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Second?
11:45:22 We have a motion and second.
11:45:23 All in favor, aye.
11:45:24 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Scott absent at vote.
11:45:27 Second reading of the ordinance will be held February
11:45:30 the 19th at 9:30 a.m.
11:45:34 >>GWEN MILLER: We'll go to item 59 that we have
11:45:38 somebody here now.
11:45:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I had a question for Mr. Mueller
11:45:45 after he's finished speaking.
11:45:46 >> Good morning, Council.
11:45:47 Ernest Mueller, assistant City Attorney.
11:45:51 With regard to item 59, this request was kind of
11:45:55 morphed into something a little different.
11:45:57 Last time I was here, I gave you an idea of what we
11:46:04 collected for fines the last several months.
11:46:06 Then you asked me to bring back information as to what
11:46:08 that was last year.
11:46:09 That's what I have for you today.
11:46:10 October 2008 until January 2009, the city has
11:46:20 collected, four months, $173,847 in code enforcement

11:46:27 board fines and special assessment liens.
11:46:30 And to compare that to last year, which we had
11:46:35 collected during that same period of time, 187,750.
11:46:40 About a $15,000 difference, which in light of the
11:46:49 economic times right now isn't too bad at all.
11:46:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.
11:46:54 And that is, if there's a company that's doing -- that
11:46:58 wants to do business with the City of Tampa, can we
11:47:00 preclude them from getting a contract until they paid
11:47:03 their fines?
11:47:07 >> I would have to look into that.
11:47:09 I couldn't give you a definite answer right now.
11:47:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to make a request,
11:47:14 then, that the Legal Department, and I'll give you 30
11:47:17 days to look into if a company or an individual owes
11:47:22 the city for code enforcement violations that we not
11:47:25 do business with them, that we not pay them city money
11:47:28 while they are not in, you know, good standing with
11:47:31 the city.
11:47:32 It seems to me that that's logical, but then you'll
11:47:36 tell me if it's legal.
11:47:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Fletcher.

11:47:39 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: If I may, typically those are
11:47:43 handled under a debarment procedure where certain
11:47:45 entities are barred from doing business with the city
11:47:47 or whatever governmental agency for certain specified
11:47:50 reasons.
11:47:50 It's something that we would have to put in either
11:47:52 code or administrative executive order.
11:47:54 And so I haven't looked at those recently to see what
11:47:58 standards we have at the city, but that's where we
11:48:01 would have to find those.
11:48:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If you could look into that and
11:48:04 written report in 30 days is fine.
11:48:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Ms. Miller.
11:48:07 Both attorneys here that just spoke, a reduction of
11:48:10 $15,000 doesn't mean you're not doing your job.
11:48:15 It means that things are getting done quicker without
11:48:18 them coming before the code enforcement board.
11:48:19 That being said, in my opinion, notice I said "my
11:48:23 opinion," code enforcement was not created as a
11:48:26 collection agency of that debt.
11:48:29 It was created to make sure that the building
11:48:31 structures, the fiber of those neighborhoods and it's

11:48:35 not all the neighborhoods, the majority of those code
11:48:38 enforcements are in three or four neighborhoods, not
11:48:41 in all of them.
11:48:42 There are sporadic cases throughout the city, but they
11:48:46 congregate in a certain area of town, two or three
11:48:50 areas, like I said earlier.
11:48:52 It is meant to make those structures to be brought up
11:48:55 to a standard so that the city does not decay from
11:48:59 within, and you have to go to the special grant
11:49:03 monies, 50, 80, 1,000 thousand dollars for later on in
11:49:07 life.
11:49:07 So, again, I'm asking that, are there any mechanisms
11:49:14 that you gentlemen may think of, ladies may think of
11:49:18 that could help people out instead of saying here,
11:49:21 here's your $150 ticket and here's your second
11:49:24 violation, here's your third violation, and you go to
11:49:26 court and in the end, there's still that individual
11:49:29 has very little to give, that instead -- because the
11:49:33 same people, these things, if -- and I'm not into
11:49:37 studies too much, but if you go back and realize you
11:49:42 don't come to code enforcement one time and it's over.
11:49:45 During a period of ten years, the same individuals

11:49:47 come multi-times.
11:49:48 Is there any way that there could be some loans, some
11:49:51 monies to repair those things with a payback back to
11:49:56 the city?
11:49:57 If you're going to pay a fine, I think it's easier and
11:49:59 safer to fix the building.
11:50:02 And maybe sometimes even less expensive to fix the
11:50:05 building than to go through what we're going through.
11:50:10 Code enforcement, I've said this before, is the
11:50:12 toughest job in the City of Tampa.
11:50:14 Because neither side is on your side.
11:50:16 You're out there like I used to say, a dangling
11:50:21 participle.
11:50:22 You are by yourself.
11:50:23 And you're working to get something done that's very,
11:50:26 very difficult.
11:50:27 Because in most instances, not all instances, but in
11:50:29 most instances, those individuals don't have the
11:50:33 funds.
11:50:34 Some do have the funds, and just want to be a little
11:50:37 stronger voice and heard and go all through whatever
11:50:40 they feel is their right to do whatever they think is

11:50:43 right.
11:50:44 But the big picture is to maintain the city at a
11:50:48 certain standard so it's not a decayed city, so when
11:50:52 people drive around, don't see buildings that are
11:50:54 leaning one way or the other, falling apart and so
11:50:57 forth and so on.
11:50:58 So I don't know if that's possible.
11:50:59 There could be a mechanism between your department and
11:51:03 the department has just left about getting monies out
11:51:05 to these people to fix the buildings.
11:51:14 >> Thank you.
11:51:15 A few questions here.
11:51:16 First, I'd say that I definitely agree that the code
11:51:18 enforcement process is not set up to be an accounts
11:51:21 receivable or really revenue generator.
11:51:25 It is kind of what we're asked to present here on this
11:51:28 agenda item, but I think the goal should be and
11:51:33 legally and I think they do focus on compliance.
11:51:35 I think we presented previously a few weeks ago some
11:51:41 diversion programs that the city has in place.
11:51:44 I'm not aware of any that actually provide money for
11:51:47 the types of things you're described, but I can go

11:51:50 follow up with the growth management and code
11:51:52 enforcement department to see what opportunities are
11:51:54 there.
11:51:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Please do.
11:51:56 And if you come back -- not today or tomorrow, but in
11:51:58 four months.
11:52:00 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Thank you.
11:52:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena.
11:52:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
11:52:04 I'd like to make a motion that we hear back from legal
11:52:06 in 30 days about the preclusion of doing business with
11:52:11 people that are currently under code enforcement
11:52:12 violation with the city.
11:52:17 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Second.
11:52:18 Madam Chairman, this morning, I think -- I don't know
11:52:22 who identified some monies that could be used to rehab
11:52:25 homes.
11:52:28 Can this money be used for things like this?
11:52:30 Ms. Miller brought it up.
11:52:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That's what I'm asking --
11:52:35 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Can I ask Mr. Mueller, on page 11 of
11:52:43 your report, Joyner & Jordan-Holmes released six

11:52:49 million six hundred five, what is that for?
11:52:52 >> Sir, what are you looking at?
11:52:54 >> Company named Joyner & Jordan-Holmes.
11:52:58 Released their fines of 6,605,661.
11:53:06 >> They are the law firm that represents the city on
11:53:08 these matters.
11:53:11 >>GWEN MILLER: They represent our code enforcement.
11:53:16 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: On page 11 of the report.
11:53:18 59 I think we're on.
11:53:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I believe he's talking about the
11:53:28 agency -- [INAUDIBLE]
11:53:29 >> I know who Joyner & Jordan-Holmes is.
11:53:32 I'm not familiar with what it is you're looking at.
11:53:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: He referenced the release of liens
11:53:37 to the tune of $6 million that Joyner & Jordan-Holmes
11:53:40 must have done over a period of time.
11:53:43 >> Is this something that's been in the system for a
11:53:45 while?
11:53:46 I didn't submit anything specifically for this
11:53:48 meeting.
11:53:48 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: I'm getting it off the computer here
11:53:50 on item 59, that's what we're on, right?

11:53:53 It's in the backup material.
11:54:05 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion on the floor.
11:54:07 While you're researching that, we'll vote on the
11:54:09 motion.
11:54:10 All in favor of the motion to have a report back in 30
11:54:13 days, aye.
11:54:14 Opposed, nay.
11:54:14 [Motion Carried]
11:54:15 Item 63.
11:54:23 Dingfelder, you had that.
11:54:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Resolution?
11:54:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:54:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Item 63.
11:54:33 Move the resolution --
11:54:35 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Just a minute, please.
11:54:36 Mr. Mueller is going to give us an answer.
11:54:39 >> What I believe that is a report that was given
11:54:42 probably six months ago.
11:54:43 That's when actually Mr. Smith was up here telling you
11:54:46 when we were going through that report, the
11:54:48 corrections we were making, and I believe that's
11:54:51 saying that Joyner & Jordan-Holmes years ago had done

11:54:56 what we pulled in-house within the last few years.
11:55:00 We found as we were going through the mistakes that
11:55:02 six million and some dollars worth of liens that had
11:55:04 been released by Joyner & Jordan-Holmes had not been
11:55:08 indicated on the report, and we made that correction
11:55:10 to show that those numbers would not show up again.
11:55:13 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: On that same report, there's some
11:55:15 eight million dollars from the City of Tampa.
11:55:17 What does that represent?
11:55:18 >> That again was another one where it was city-owned
11:55:21 properties that somehow we had come into possession of
11:55:26 that had these outstanding liens on that either had
11:55:29 been released or once we took possession, it became
11:55:32 released.
11:55:33 Again, when we're going through the report, finding
11:55:35 those errors, if you recall, we started with 200 --
11:55:39 liens of $250,000 or more.
11:55:41 And then we dropped it down 200.
11:55:43 And we were doing that housekeeping.
11:55:45 That was, I believe, we added all those up so we could
11:55:51 report to you what corrections we had made and what
11:55:54 the different categories were.

11:55:57 So the city-owned properties, those were properties
11:56:01 that the city came across to own that those liens
11:56:05 would have been merged at the time of our taking
11:56:08 ownership.
11:56:08 And we had to correct the system at that point.
11:56:12 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: That's when you came into the
11:56:14 department when there was some $66 million that was
11:56:18 identified in liens that were not paid?
11:56:23 >> Right.
11:56:24 Well, comply was showing outstanding.
11:56:27 I don't remember the total number.
11:56:29 That's when we went through, corrected them and then
11:56:34 reported back to the Council what those corrections
11:56:37 were.
11:56:37 So that information, you know, somewhere between six
11:56:41 months to a year old.
11:56:45 >>GWEN MILLER: We'll move on to committee reports.
11:56:47 Public safety, vice-chair Mr. Miranda.
11:56:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Madam Chair.
11:56:52 I move items 6 through 12.
11:56:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:56:56 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

11:56:58 All in favor of the motion, aye.
11:56:59 [Motion Carried]
11:57:00 Parks and recreation, Ms. Saul-Sena.
11:57:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
11:57:04 Move resolution 13 through 15.
11:57:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
11:57:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second.
11:57:08 All in favor of the motion, aye.
11:57:09 [Motion Carried]
11:57:09 Public works, Mr. Charlie Miranda.
11:57:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move items 16 through 26.
11:57:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:57:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second.
11:57:16 All in favor of the motion, say aye.
11:57:17 [Motion Carried]
11:57:18 Finance Committee vice-chair, Mr. Caetano.
11:57:20 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Yes, Ms. Chairman.
11:57:24 I'd like to move items 27 to 30.
11:57:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:57:29 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
11:57:30 All in favor of the motion, say aye.
11:57:32 [Motion Carried]

11:57:32 Building and zoning, Mr. Caetano.
11:57:35 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Like to move items 31 to 35.
11:57:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, 34.
11:57:39 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Okay, we did 35.
11:57:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We'll deal with it next week.
11:57:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Second?
11:57:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:57:45 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion, aye.
11:57:46 Opposed, nay.
11:57:47 [Motion Carried]
11:57:47 Transportation, Mr. John Dingfelder.
11:57:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
11:57:50 I'll move items 36 through 46, Mr. Miranda wants to
11:57:53 speak to 41.
11:57:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I want to speak on 41 very
11:58:00 carefully.
11:58:00 I have asked Legal Department for about 10 or 11
11:58:04 months on that sidewalk ordinance.
11:58:06 It hasn't been presented so I'm going to take it upon
11:58:08 myself to write an ordinance within the next 30 days.
11:58:12 It says here 597,000, which is fine.
11:58:16 I don't care if it's 5 million, get something done in

11:58:18 the city for the benefit of all citizens.
11:58:20 However, some of this money comes from CIT tax.
11:58:27 All of us pay into that, and the problem is all of us
11:58:30 ain't never going to get a sidewalk.
11:58:31 As I said, I'm not here against sidewalks.
11:58:32 I love sidewalks.
11:58:33 The people that originally helped draft the ordinance
11:58:35 years ago meant well, but they never took into account
11:58:39 the seriousness of things that could happen when you
11:58:41 implement an ordinance citywide, like stated earlier,
11:58:46 some things aren't covered.
11:58:47 Well, when you have ditches and the majority of the
11:58:50 area that I serve, you can't build the floating
11:58:54 sidewalk.
11:58:54 So then your own money goes to build the sidewalk
11:58:58 somewhere else, and you have zero benefit for that.
11:59:00 When you do that, or they tell you either do that or
11:59:03 give me your property and build the sidewalk on your
11:59:06 property, that creates an additional burden on the
11:59:09 homeowner.
11:59:09 Now somebody is going to walk down the middle of the
11:59:11 street, jump an eight-foot ditch to walk 60 feet on

11:59:15 the sidewalk, jump eight-foot ditch to get to the
11:59:17 other side of the road.
11:59:19 It doesn't make practical sense.
11:59:21 Common sense is not taught.
11:59:23 It's learned.
11:59:23 What I'm saying is, these things that we have in this
11:59:27 ordinance will be addressed in the ordinance I'll
11:59:31 present within the next 30 days.
11:59:32 It's not that I want to make changes just for the sake
11:59:36 of change.
11:59:37 It's that I've had a preponderance of calls, and I can
11:59:40 give them to you, if you want, from the Pauls that I
11:59:45 know, from the Johns that I know, and these
11:59:49 individuals and from other individuals that have had
11:59:53 to not give, put a sidewalk because there was a tree
11:59:56 in the way or fire hydrant in the way, yet they had to
11:59:59 pay into the fund for somebody else to get a sidewalk.
12:00:03 And the problem with that is, we don't have a citywide
12:00:07 plan that says within five years, if there's 20 lots
12:00:12 or 10 lots and you build a 60-foot portion of a
12:00:15 sidewalk, that you're going to have a completed
12:00:16 sidewalk.

12:00:17 It may be five years, 10 years, 20 years, a hundred
12:00:23 years, and guess what, there is no benefit.
12:00:26 I can show you sidewalks that end in a dead-end street
12:00:32 that go nowhere.
12:00:33 60 feet.
12:00:35 Now, what benefit is that to the public?
12:00:37 To the general public?
12:00:38 Very little.
12:00:40 What I'm saying is, this needs to be revised, and in a
12:00:43 couple of weeks, you're getting one larger than this.
12:00:47 From what I understand, this is a bid, and I'm glad to
12:00:51 hear, that will reduce the cost of the 40 some dollars
12:00:55 a linear foot to about 50% of that.
12:00:58 Because economic times, I guess things are going down
12:01:01 and costs and in value and I'm happy to see that and I
12:01:05 want to see things done.
12:01:06 But I'm going to support this, but I will not be
12:01:10 supporting any future sidewalk that comes in because
12:01:14 the public is paying for them, and they have no
12:01:16 benefit.
12:01:17 It is an additional impact fee on those residents that
12:01:21 get no sidewalk.

12:01:22 They just give the money to somebody else.
12:01:24 To me, that's wrong.
12:01:25 To me that's unconstitutional.
12:01:27 And we have been sued before.
12:01:31 And I hear from at least one attorney that I know,
12:01:33 there might be another lawsuit coming on the sidewalk
12:01:37 on many, many thousands, if not millions of dollars,
12:01:40 that have been given into the fund that the people
12:01:42 never got the right to use on their property.
12:01:46 I said this months ago, maybe 10 months ago, that
12:01:49 maybe a different type of credit to be given to those
12:01:52 individuals so they can put something into the house
12:01:55 instead of paying it to my house to have a sidewalk.
12:01:57 Sometime even the apron leaving into a driveway was
12:02:01 not given credit for.
12:02:03 20 feet where you paid for it twice.
12:02:05 Paid 60 feet for the lot, but you only did 40 because
12:02:09 you already had a 20-foot entrance into your home.
12:02:13 So these are the things that were never thought of.
12:02:16 It was done with good intention, with good minds, with
12:02:19 good help from the people, but I've had so many
12:02:21 complaints about this, that this is what has been on

12:02:24 the calendar for a while.
12:02:26 So I promise you that within 30 days, I'll bring one
12:02:30 for your consideration for the Council members and
12:02:32 they can tweak it, adjust it, but something has to be
12:02:35 done on this ordinance.
12:02:36 Thank you, Madam Chair.
12:02:37 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Mr. Chairman -- I mean, madam
12:02:39 Chairman, Mr. Miranda, when money is collected for a
12:02:44 sidewalk, does that money have to be spent in that
12:02:46 district?
12:02:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: There is I think four or six
12:02:50 districts in sidewalks.
12:02:51 I think the answer is yes.
12:02:53 But the districts run many square miles.
12:02:57 The city is about 120 square miles.
12:02:59 If you divide that by four or six, you see the square
12:03:03 miles around.
12:03:04 And when you figure the cost of the sidewalk, that
12:03:08 block may not get a sidewalk for 20 to a hundred
12:03:11 years.
12:03:11 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: It's really no benefit for that
12:03:13 local area.

12:03:14 I was introduced to a sidewalk that was required at
12:03:16 the new Westin hotel the other day.
12:03:18 You know where it leads to?
12:03:19 The water.
12:03:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Go underwater, we can do that.
12:03:24 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Can we go underwater?
12:03:26 Okay.
12:03:26 Why don't you put that in your ordinance.
12:03:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I appreciate where Mr. Miranda is
12:03:32 coming from.
12:03:33 Sometimes we actually agree on these issues.
12:03:35 I know, don't faint.
12:03:40 I would support an ordinance ultimately that carved
12:03:43 out the ditches.
12:03:43 Anywhere in your district when they have those massive
12:03:48 ditches that will never have sidewalks, I think they
12:03:52 deserve an exception.
12:03:53 But I think we need to be careful not to go too far
12:03:57 with that, because there have been some very, very
12:03:59 positive steps taken, and I want staff to come in when
12:04:02 we do get to that discussion to show the excellent
12:04:06 locations that we're building sidewalks, to connect

12:04:09 places, to put near bus shelters, to put near schools
12:04:13 and that sort of thing.
12:04:14 The other thing I was going to say, sometimes these
12:04:17 little sidewalks to nowhere, when my wife and I walk
12:04:20 our dogs around the block, I just said yesterday, it
12:04:23 was the weirdest thing, I said there are three new
12:04:26 houses right in a row.
12:04:27 And they have three sidewalks that now connect.
12:04:30 And they all have children.
12:04:31 And so the children get to at least get out of the
12:04:34 road and play up and down those three sections of
12:04:37 sidewalk.
12:04:37 Now, they don't connect to anywhere else right now.
12:04:40 But at least they have about 100 or 150 feet of
12:04:44 sidewalk that they can learn how to ride their bike
12:04:46 and their skateboard and run around and be a little
12:04:49 bit more safe.
12:04:50 I tell you what, they are not safe out on that road.
12:04:53 I'm going to agree with you Charlie, let's do
12:04:56 something but let's not go too far with it.
12:04:58 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the
12:05:00 floor.

12:05:00 All in favor, aye.
12:05:01 Opposed.
12:05:02 [Motion Carried]
12:05:02 We need to make the motion to set our public hearings.
12:05:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved, items 47 through 50.
12:05:10 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
12:05:11 All in favor, aye.
12:05:12 We'll now go to our public hearings for second
12:05:15 reading.
12:05:15 Anyone in the public going to speak on these items,
12:05:18 would you please stand and raise your hand to be sworn
12:05:21 in.
12:05:25 (Oath administered by clerk).
12:05:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I ask that all items that have been
12:05:33 available for public inspection in City Council's
12:05:35 offices be received and filed by motion, please.
12:05:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
12:05:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second.
12:05:40 All in favor of the motion, aye.
12:05:42 [Motion Carried]
12:05:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Finally, Madam Chair, I just wanted
12:05:45 to share with you that it is the noon hour.

12:05:48 Per Council rules, the Council wishes to continue?
12:05:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Can we get a motion to continue through
12:05:55 lunch hour?
12:05:56 Motion and second.
12:05:57 All in favor, aye.
12:05:57 [Motion Carried]
12:05:58 We need to open the public hearings.
12:06:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 51 through 56.
12:06:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
12:06:03 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
12:06:05 All in favor, aye.
12:06:05 [Motion Carried]
12:06:06 Is there anyone in the public want to speak on item
12:06:09 51?
12:06:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
12:06:11 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
12:06:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close.
12:06:13 All in favor of that motion, aye.
12:06:14 [Motion Carried]
12:06:19 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you, Madam Chair.
12:06:20 I move an ordinance being presented for second reading
12:06:22 and adoption, an ordinance approving an historic

12:06:25 preservation property tax exemption application
12:06:28 relative to the restoration, renovation or
12:06:30 rehabilitation of certain property owned by Jo Ann
12:06:34 Myer Valenti trustee located at 824 south Oregon
12:06:38 Avenue, Tampa, Florida, based upon certain findings;
12:06:41 providing for notice to the property appraiser of
12:06:44 Hillsborough County; providing for severability;
12:06:47 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict;
12:06:50 providing an effective date.
12:06:50 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
12:06:52 Vote and record.
12:07:02 >>THE CLERK: The motion carried with Scott and
12:07:04 Saul-Sena being absent at vote.
12:07:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public want to
12:07:08 speak on item 52?
12:07:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
12:07:11 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion, aye.
12:07:13 [Motion Carried]
12:07:13 Mr. Caetano.
12:07:15 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
12:07:19 Ordinance being presented for second reading and
12:07:19 adoption, an ordinance approving historical

12:07:19 preservation property tax exemption application
12:07:24 relative to restoration, renovation, rehabilitation of
12:07:26 certain property owned by Charles P. Lomel Junior and
12:07:30 Meyer Lowelle Lomel located at 1714 West Richardson
12:07:39 Place, Tampa, Florida, based upon certain findings,
12:07:42 providing for notice to the property appraiser of
12:07:45 Hillsborough County; providing for severability;
12:07:46 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict;
12:07:49 providing an effective date.
12:07:49 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
12:07:51 Vote and record.
12:07:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Joe, the clerk put those in on
12:07:56 purpose just as a tongue twister for you.
12:07:58 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Scott and Saul-Sena
12:08:01 being absent at vote.
12:08:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public want to
12:08:04 speak on item 53?
12:08:07 >> Eric Cotton, Land Development.
12:08:10 Items 53, 55, 56, certified site plan from the zoning
12:08:14 administrator have been delivered to the city clerk's
12:08:15 office.
12:08:16 The city can move forward on their second reading.

12:08:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak?
12:08:21 We have a motion and second to close.
12:08:22 All in favor of the motion, aye.
12:08:23 [Motion Carried]
12:08:24 Mr. Dingfelder.
12:08:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, move the following
12:08:26 ordinance for second reading.
12:08:27 Ordinance approving a special use permit S-2 for
12:08:30 alcoholic beverage sales, small venue and making
12:08:33 lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol of
12:08:35 more than 1% by weight, and not more than 14% by
12:08:37 weight and wines regardless of alcoholic content, beer
12:08:42 and wine, 2(COP-R) for consumption on the premises
12:08:45 only in connection with a restaurant business
12:08:47 establishment on that certain lot, plot, or tract of
12:08:49 land, located at 610 south Armenia Avenue, Tampa,
12:08:52 Florida, as more particularly described in section 2
12:08:54 hereof.
12:08:55 Approving waivers as set forth herein, waiving certain
12:08:58 restrictions as to distance based upon certain
12:09:00 findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
12:09:02 conflict, providing an effective date.

12:09:03 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
12:09:04 Vote and record.
12:09:09 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena and Scott
12:09:11 being absent at vote.
12:09:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public want to speak on
12:09:20 item 54?
12:09:21 >> Grace Yang, 201 North Franklin street.
12:09:25 I am the authorized agent for the petitioner.
12:09:27 At Council on first reading, there were some concerns
12:09:30 about the restricted hours of sale for this property.
12:09:33 I did want to affirm to Council that the restricted
12:09:36 hours have now been noted on the site plan.
12:09:39 There was also a question posed about the six-foot
12:09:42 tall frame fence between the commercial property and
12:09:45 some adjacent residential property.
12:09:47 I did want to affirm that the revised site plan will
12:09:49 now have that replaced with the six-foot high masonry
12:09:52 wall.
12:09:53 In addition, I did want to place into the record a
12:09:55 letter from Mary Yoakum.
12:09:58 She is one of the adjacent property owners who had
12:10:01 noted some opposition and concern about the petition

12:10:04 prior to first reading.
12:10:05 I wanted to enter the letter into the record to show
12:10:09 and indicate that she is fine with the buffer waiver
12:10:12 that's being requested by our petitioner for the
12:10:15 15-foot landscape buffer to be reduced.
12:10:19 And she had some remaining concerns about the
12:10:21 dumpster.
12:10:22 The dumpster location.
12:10:23 We met with her again this morning.
12:10:25 She was here with her three-year-old daughter.
12:10:27 And, unfortunately, needed to leave.
12:10:29 The dumpster issue continues to be something that is
12:10:32 in her letter, and in speaking with her, she is asking
12:10:35 if the dumpster can still be moved further west
12:10:39 towards MacDill.
12:10:40 I did speak with solid waste about that, and I believe
12:10:47 there are questions from solid waste.
12:10:48 We would agree to try to move the dumpster over one
12:10:50 more parking space to try to see if that might
12:10:53 alleviate something.
12:10:54 Council's pleasure.
12:10:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Significant site change from the

12:11:02 drawing?
12:11:03 Julia?
12:11:05 Somebody?
12:11:11 >>ERIC COTTON: Eric Cotton, Land Development, if that
12:11:13 change is made, we go back to first reading, which
12:11:15 would happen on February 19th with the other S-2s
12:11:18 for alcohol and consider back from that point forward.
12:11:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We can't have second reading.
12:11:24 >>ERIC COTTON: Correct.
12:11:25 Second reading couldn't take place today because the
12:11:25 site plan hasn't been certified.
12:11:29 >> We would prefer to stay with the dumpster location.
12:11:34 There is a property owner request to move it over --
12:11:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Turn on the overhead, please.
12:11:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Can we get the overhead on, please?
12:11:44 It's on now.
12:11:46 >> This is where the dumpster is currently located.
12:11:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Back it out.
12:11:52 Use the gadget.
12:11:55 Can you back it out?
12:11:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's the side street, right?
12:12:14 >> This is Marlin Avenue.

12:12:16 Mr. and Mrs. Yoakum live across the street here.
12:12:21 This is the property line, so if you can imagine the
12:12:25 property line here, their house encroaches a little
12:12:28 bit into this commercial area here on the west side.
12:12:32 This is where the dumpster is currently located.
12:12:36 There are concerns because there is an overhead wire
12:12:38 here.
12:12:39 And so the Yoakums are asking if we could move it
12:12:44 over.
12:12:45 My client is fine with the solid waste recommendation
12:12:52 to leave it here.
12:12:53 But we are willing to put it here if that would help a
12:12:57 little bit.
12:12:58 I think the Yoakums across the street are just trying
12:13:00 to move the dumpster as far towards MacDill as
12:13:04 possible I did want to get that on record.
12:13:10 I don't think it makes a huge, huge difference to move
12:13:12 it over one space.
12:13:14 I did want to go on record that this was a case they
12:13:17 made and we discussed it.
12:13:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Solid waste, are you in agreement
12:13:21 moving it one space over?

12:13:23 What did they say?
12:13:25 No?
12:13:25 >> I'm not sure.
12:13:29 >> Vince, solid waste department.
12:13:33 We would be okay with one space to the west.
12:13:35 Of the current location on the site plan.
12:13:38 Currently right here.
12:13:44 Just one more spot.
12:13:46 Same layout.
12:13:47 It would have to be reviewed again, I believe.
12:13:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Cotton?
12:13:53 If they move it one more space --
12:13:57 >>ERIC COTTON: It would go back to first reading.
12:13:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It would be read today on first
12:14:01 reading and then the changes would be made between
12:14:03 first and second reading.
12:14:04 It would come back being certified.
12:14:07 With the direction you give them today, it would come
12:14:09 back with those changes on second reading in two
12:14:11 weeks.
12:14:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How about the time delay?
12:14:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Yang, are you okay with that?

12:14:17 >> Hi.
12:14:18 My name is Len love.
12:14:20 Is it appropriate for me to speak?
12:14:22 I'm the property owner.
12:14:23 I just wanted to -- we are trying to do everything we
12:14:29 can to alleviate any inconvenience or eyesore to the
12:14:33 Yoakums who live there.
12:14:34 I think it is important to point out to Council that
12:14:35 the location of their home has been built on a
12:14:38 property that was once commercial.
12:14:39 They owned this commercial property and have moved
12:14:41 their house into the commercial zone.
12:14:43 So had they not built their house in the commercial
12:14:45 zone, this wouldn't even be discussed.
12:14:48 Directly across the street on the site plan, if you
12:14:50 were to follow the property lines that property was
12:14:52 commercial until just a few years ago when they moved
12:14:55 into this area and built their house or residential
12:14:58 use and have, in fact, encroached into the commercial
12:15:01 zone.
12:15:01 So we wouldn't be faced with this issue had they not
12:15:05 built their house on commercial property.

12:15:06 So we've agreed to add additional fencing, by the way,
12:15:11 which we're fine with.
12:15:12 We're pleasant about it.
12:15:14 We want to do everything we can.
12:15:15 But I have to say, it does great an inconvenience to
12:15:18 us to have to come back again.
12:15:21 I mean, the dumpster does meet all the requirement of
12:15:24 solid waste.
12:15:26 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes, I had a question.
12:15:29 Maybe I don't remember this correctly.
12:15:31 But when we had -- this was continued, so this is the
12:15:36 continued -- no, this is second reading.
12:15:38 Okay.
12:15:39 Wasn't there -- was this the case where solid waste
12:15:44 wasn't here to talk about this?
12:15:46 I'm getting mixed up.
12:15:47 >> No.
12:15:48 >>MARY MULHERN: All right.
12:15:48 Then, I just want to point out that it's interesting
12:15:53 that you mention that, because the Council probably
12:15:56 had to rezone that as a PD or something.
12:16:02 >> Again, I don't want to stretch this out or turn it,

12:16:04 if you were to look at the plot and the plat or
12:16:07 whatever it is that determines it, you can see that
12:16:09 the commercial -- our property would continue across
12:16:12 the street in the commercial zone, and they elected to
12:16:15 build their home in this commercial zone.
12:16:17 They asked for permission to change that use to
12:16:20 residential.
12:16:20 Now we have to pay the burden for that.
12:16:22 I don't think it's --
12:16:24 >>MARY MULHERN: Is that on the corner of MacDill
12:16:27 and Marlin?
12:16:31 >> It's a couple lots back.
12:16:32 Again, honestly, I like the Yoakums.
12:16:36 We are favorable to them.
12:16:37 We've agreed to add additional fencing, not even
12:16:40 required by the code.
12:16:41 Today we've agreed with them to add more screening for
12:16:44 the parking lot.
12:16:45 We had to sign a waiver for them to come into the
12:16:48 commercial zone.
12:16:49 At this point, we're being penalized for it.
12:16:52 And I --

12:16:55 >>MARY MULHERN: Is the dumpster enclosed by a masonry
12:16:58 wall?
12:16:59 >> Yes, ma'am.
12:17:01 >> Not by masonry wall, though.
12:17:03 >> It's required to have a 10-foot masonry enclosure
12:17:06 with screening on the front as code would require it
12:17:08 to be completely screened.
12:17:09 We've also gone one step further and have agreed to
12:17:12 add additional fencing from the dumpster location back
12:17:15 into the neighborhood, which we're not required to do,
12:17:18 but we're fine with that because we're trying to be
12:17:20 accommodating.
12:17:21 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
12:17:22 So my question for legal, is there any way we can ask
12:17:25 that?
12:17:26 Do we absolutely have to go to a second reading to get
12:17:28 them to move that over one space?
12:17:32 >> There is no certified site plan today.
12:17:34 This case could not go to second reading regardless.
12:17:38 It would have to be continued for two weeks.
12:17:40 In the interim, the site plan would have to be
12:17:42 certified for whatever remaining issues they have

12:17:44 outstanding, not dealing with the dumpster.
12:17:46 What you could do today is, if you want to deal with
12:17:50 the dumpster issue, you would have first reading and
12:17:53 continue it for second reading, and have the site plan
12:17:56 certified in between.
12:17:57 If you do not want to deal with the dumpster issue and
12:18:00 leave it as it is, it would still need to be continued
12:18:02 for two weeks to allow the site plan --
12:18:06 >>MARY MULHERN: Move to close the public hearing.
12:18:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Caetano.
12:18:11 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Ms. Kert, so we can vote on it today
12:18:13 as it was presented originally, correct?
12:18:15 >>REBECCA KERT: No, you could not.
12:18:16 Between first and second reading, between first and
12:18:19 second reading, and this is second reading, the site
12:18:22 plan was supposed to be certified by the zoning
12:18:25 administrator to say that it complied with all --
12:18:27 whatever changes you had and whatever buffers and
12:18:30 waivers that they needed.
12:18:32 That has not been done.
12:18:33 Cannot have second reading today regardless if there
12:18:35 are any additional changes.

12:18:37 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: By moving this dumpster, does it
12:18:38 require the gentleman, Mr. Love, to put another curb
12:18:41 cut in?
12:18:45 >>REBECCA KERT: That's not a legal question.
12:18:46 You have to ask staff.
12:18:47 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: What we're doing is another small
12:18:50 businessman, and he brought up some new evidence today
12:18:54 that the property Ms. Yoakum is living in was
12:18:58 commercial.
12:18:58 She decided to build a residential home there, so it
12:19:01 puts a gentleman on this gentleman, and it shouldn't
12:19:04 be.
12:19:04 I'm ready to vote on it today.
12:19:06 >>GWEN MILLER: It would be for first reading
12:19:09 regardless of what they do with the dumpster.
12:19:11 Up to them about the dumpster.
12:19:13 It will come back at second reading.
12:19:16 Today we'll do first reading because the site plan --
12:19:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Correct, Madam Chair.
12:19:19 If I understand, Madam Chair, what the deal is, no
12:19:21 matter what happens today, whether the dumpster stays
12:19:24 or the dumpster moves, you can't pass this on second

12:19:26 reading because the site plan hasn't been
12:19:28 appropriately approved, am I correct?
12:19:31 >>REBECCA KERT: That's correct.
12:19:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: In other words, it takes two weeks
12:19:34 with or without the site plan, with or without the
12:19:37 dumpster being moved.
12:19:39 So if the petitioner agrees, I guess there's -- I
12:19:41 think the only cost going to be is the length of ten
12:19:45 feet of additional wall.
12:19:46 Am I correct?
12:19:48 >> Yes.
12:19:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So I would like to get this thing
12:19:51 moving for the benefit of all and say that we pass
12:19:53 this on first reading, and in two weeks, it comes
12:19:56 back, it's going to be the same two weeks, the same 14
12:19:59 days, the same 14 times 24 hours.
12:20:02 I'm not going to go into the seconds, but I can
12:20:05 mathematically if you wish.
12:20:06 What I'm saying is, let's get it off.
12:20:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only thing I would say
12:20:11 procedurally, we need to decide, are we going to make
12:20:13 them move the dumpster a space over or not?

12:20:16 Because that's our decision.
12:20:17 Not anybody else's.
12:20:18 So we've heard it all.
12:20:19 We just need to make a decision.
12:20:21 Do we want to make them move the dumpster or leave it
12:20:24 where it is?
12:20:26 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: I move that we let the dumpster stay
12:20:29 where it's at and let's vote on it today as our first
12:20:32 reading.
12:20:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Second?
12:20:35 >>MARY MULHERN: I'll second that.
12:20:36 >> If you're not going to move the dumpster, then you
12:20:39 already had first reading.
12:20:40 You just need to continue this two weeks for site --
12:20:44 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: The dumpster stays where it's at.
12:20:46 >>MARY MULHERN: And I just wanted to point out for the
12:20:51 benefit of the neighbors that we had a similar thing
12:20:54 on MacDill also recently and the restaurant has
12:21:00 opened that, and they seem to have resolved their
12:21:03 problems with neighbors as far as where the dumpster
12:21:07 is.
12:21:08 And it seems to have been a good solution.

12:21:12 I think that the neighbors will probably be fine with
12:21:15 it not getting moved.
12:21:16 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to keep the
12:21:19 dumpster where it is.
12:21:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The motion would be to continue this
12:21:26 public hearing --
12:21:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Make a motion to keep the dumpster
12:21:31 where it is.
12:21:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It's on for second read today, so it
12:21:34 would be to continue it.
12:21:34 >>REBECCA KERT: You would continue it for two weeks.
12:21:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: To February 19th at 9:30 to allow the
12:21:36 site plan to be certified.
12:21:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Right, that's it.
12:21:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Need a motion to continue.
12:21:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
12:21:48 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion, aye.
12:21:50 Opposed, nay.
12:21:51 Two weeks, we have the second reading.
12:21:52 Is there anyone here to speak on item 55?
12:21:59 Have a motion and second to close.
12:22:00 All in favor of the motion, aye.

12:22:02 Mr. Miranda.
12:22:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move an ordinance for second
12:22:05 reading and option, ordinance approving a special use
12:22:09 permit S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales large venue
12:22:12 and making lawful the sale of beverages regardless of
12:22:15 alcoholic content, beer, wine and liquor, 4(COP-X) for
12:22:21 consumption on premises only at or from that certain
12:22:24 lot, plot or tract of land located at 1609 west Swann
12:22:28 Avenue, Tampa, Florida, as more particularly described
12:22:30 in section 2 hereof, approving waivers as set forth
12:22:34 herein, waiving certain restrictions as to distance
12:22:37 based upon certain findings, providing for repeal of
12:22:40 all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective
12:22:41 date.
12:22:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can somebody remind me which one
12:22:43 this is on Swann?
12:22:44 I don't want you guys doing it.
12:22:46 The hearing is already closed.
12:22:56 >>MARY MULHERN: Is this the one where market used to
12:22:58 be.
12:23:00 It's the pizza place, right?
12:23:02 The theater.

12:23:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Oh, it's the theater.
12:23:06 >> Hyde Park.
12:23:09 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
12:23:10 Vote and record.
12:23:19 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Scott and Saul-Sena
12:23:21 being absent at vote.
12:23:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public want to speak on
12:23:25 item 56?
12:23:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
12:23:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
12:23:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close.
12:23:31 All in favor, aye.
12:23:32 Mr. Miranda, you want to read that one?
12:23:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move an ordinance for second
12:23:36 reading and adoption approving a special use permit
12:23:39 S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales small venue and
12:23:43 making lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol
12:23:45 of more than 1% by weight and not more than 14% by
12:23:48 weight and wines regardless of alcoholic content, beer
12:23:51 and wine, 2(COP-X), for consumption on the premises
12:23:55 only at or from that certain lot, plot, or tract of
12:23:59 land located at 5016 north Florida Avenue, Tampa,

12:24:02 Florida, as more particularly described in section 2
12:24:04 hereof, approving waivers as set forth herein, waiving
12:24:08 certain restrictions as to distance based upon certain
12:24:11 findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
12:24:13 conflict, providing an effective date.
12:24:13 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
12:24:15 Vote and record.
12:24:17 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Scott and Saul-Sena
12:24:19 being absent at vote.
12:24:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 57, do we have the substitute
12:24:24 ordinance for that one?
12:24:38 >>JULIA COLE: Julia Cole, Legal Department.
12:24:40 Before you move this item, I do have a few matters I
12:24:42 just need to say for the purposes of the record.
12:24:43 I did send City Council a memorandum in which I
12:24:47 indicate to City Council that due to some of the
12:24:50 pending litigation that we have on some map amendment
12:24:54 administrative challenges that I have removed from the
12:24:57 response ORC report -- and that's part of what's been
12:25:00 substituted and given to the clerk, and you received a
12:25:02 copy of it -- the items relating to compatibility with
12:25:05 MacDill Air Force Base, going ahead and just keeping

12:25:10 the language that we have in the current comprehensive
12:25:12 plan in order that we can deal with those on a
12:25:15 potential settlement or remedial plan amendment or
12:25:17 through some other mechanism as part of the
12:25:20 administrative challenge that we're in.
12:25:21 If I could also just say for the purposes of the
12:25:23 record that an issue got raised subsequent to what I
12:25:27 filed with Council relating to some language.
12:25:31 I had said that I would be placing in as part of
12:25:33 second reading.
12:25:34 I have added that language back into there as well as
12:25:37 an issue which was raised at first reading relating to
12:25:41 a map.
12:25:41 That map has been corrected and is also contained
12:25:45 within the ordinance.
12:25:47 Just one other thing I could say for the purposes of
12:25:50 the record, there was an allegation or allegation
12:25:52 probably wrong word, an issue raised as to the future
12:25:55 land use map and whether or not that future land use
12:25:58 map accurately reflected some of the other maps that
12:26:04 were part of the record.
12:26:05 And that issue will be resolved after this has been

12:26:09 transmitted back to DCA and approved by DCA.
12:26:14 With all that being said, unless there are any
12:26:18 questions, I do think there is going to be a public
12:26:21 comment on that.
12:26:22 Did want to make that all part of the record and would
12:26:25 ask that you approve this on second reading and not to
12:26:29 delay.
12:26:29 The fanfare over the fact that this is the remainder
12:26:32 of this is our comprehensive plan second reading of
12:26:34 our newly adopted comprehensive plan.
12:26:36 And we're all excited and looking forward to moving
12:26:39 forward.
12:26:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public want to speak on
12:26:41 item 57?
12:26:47 >> Good afternoon, members of the Council.
12:26:49 Mark Bentley, 201 North Franklin Street.
12:26:52 Before you start the meter running, I know I have
12:26:55 three minutes, I'd like to pass something out.
12:26:58 And then have the clerk --
12:27:27 >> I'm ready to go.
12:27:28 I represent Florida Rock & Tank Lines, and their
12:27:34 property is the subject matter of plan amendment

12:27:36 07-08, which was approved by city council on
12:27:39 August 21st 2008.
12:27:41 Likewise, I represent Spray Miser International, and
12:27:46 their property is the subject matter of plan amendment
12:27:48 07 -- excuse me, 07-02.
12:27:51 In any event, these plan amendments were both approved
12:27:56 by city ordinances.
12:27:57 If you recall at your prior hearing on January 8th
12:28:01 of this year, City Council essentially recognized or
12:28:05 reinstated I guess is the proper way to put it, the
12:28:11 effectiveness and validity of the two ordinances that
12:28:14 approve these two plan amendments.
12:28:15 You might recall at the same hearing, the City
12:28:18 Attorney basically advised Council that the pending
12:28:21 administrative action relating to these two plan
12:28:24 amendments has no correlation or relationship to what
12:28:26 you're doing today with the plan update.
12:28:28 However, review of the land use plan map, actually,
12:28:33 when the two amendments were approved, they should
12:28:35 have been put on the map.
12:28:37 If you review the map, they are not on there.
12:28:40 We think this is kind of illogical and really doesn't

12:28:43 make any sense and improper, how can the ordinances be
12:28:47 approved to change the map when the map was never
12:28:49 changed?
12:28:49 So there's no state law or local law that prohibits
12:28:52 placement of the map, these amendments on the map.
12:28:57 Actually, the statute I give you is 163-3189.
12:29:01 That relates to recognition by DCA of plan amendment.
12:29:04 If you read that, it says a plan amendment, which is
12:29:06 what you-all did last August, does not become
12:29:09 effective until the DCA signs off on it.
12:29:12 Obviously, they contemplate, there was already
12:29:14 amendment.
12:29:15 It's subject to DCA approval.
12:29:18 And I think it's kind of ironic, today what you're
12:29:22 doing is transmitting up to DCA, and these plan
12:29:26 amendments obviously are not effective.
12:29:28 And they might not be effective, so the dilemma here,
12:29:32 our client is in the same legal posture or same boat
12:29:35 as what you're doing today.
12:29:36 So we believe that these two map amendments should be
12:29:41 placed on the map.
12:29:42 That statute says that they do not become effective

12:29:45 until signed off on DCA, nor do the amendments that
12:29:48 you're going to adopt today and transmit become
12:29:51 effective.
12:29:51 There's really no legal basis or distinction to treat
12:29:54 our clients one way and the amendments that recognize
12:29:56 some of the other plan amendments.
12:29:58 So in a nutshell, we would respectfully request that
12:30:01 City Council direct staff to place these two
12:30:04 amendments that I mentioned earlier on the land use
12:30:06 plan map that's going to be transmitted to DCA.
12:30:09 Thank you very much.
12:30:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Mulhern.
12:30:15 >>MARY MULHERN: [microphone not on]
12:30:27 >> They were two privately initiated map amendments
12:30:30 and they were approved by Council on August 21st,
12:30:34 2008.
12:30:36 >>MARY MULHERN: [microphone not on] my questions are
12:30:40 for legal to try to understand where we are at.
12:30:45 I'm trying to figure out why we didn't change the map
12:30:51 at that point.
12:30:51 Is that normally something that happens when we do a
12:30:54 small-scale plan amendment, approve one?

12:30:59 >> In this instance, what happened was the plan
12:31:02 amendments were challenged by the Department of
12:31:03 Community Affairs, and they are subject to litigation
12:31:07 as we speak.
12:31:09 Typically, and I think consistent with the statute
12:31:11 that Mr. Bentley read, those plan amendments aren't
12:31:17 placed into the map until such time that litigation is
12:31:20 resolved.
12:31:21 The logical or illogical result of placing it on the
12:31:25 map prior to that would be to put it on the map,
12:31:29 finish the litigation, get a final order that's
12:31:31 different than what was approved by Council, in which
12:31:35 case we would then have to change the map again.
12:31:37 So our goal here, and we think we've achieved it, is
12:31:42 to put Mr. Bentley's clients in the exact same
12:31:47 position that they would have been had those plans --
12:31:51 plan amendments been approved, as they were by
12:31:53 Council, and not been challenged by DCA.
12:31:56 We've referenced the ordinances in the language that
12:31:59 we're asking that you approve.
12:32:03 We've also vested any action by Council, including
12:32:07 these two ordinances that were approved by Council in

12:32:11 the language that we're asking you to approve today.
12:32:13 So we're actually citing the action by Council as the
12:32:16 basis for vesting them, even though there is this
12:32:19 issue of whether or not they are effective because
12:32:21 they haven't been approved by DCA.
12:32:23 So we've done our best to put these parcels in the
12:32:28 posture they would have been if they had not been
12:32:30 challenged and to separate that litigation from the
12:32:35 total plan amendment so the rest of the plan can go
12:32:39 forward and go into effect and have the ability to
12:32:41 move forward on those issues.
12:32:42 That's what we've tried to do here.
12:32:45 We think --
12:32:45 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
12:32:46 So you're asking us to -- very confusing.
12:32:50 You're asking us to remove those two amendments right
12:32:54 now from the comp plan that we're sending to the DCA.
12:32:58 Is that right?
12:33:01 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: No.
12:33:02 What we're -- what we're recommending is transmitting
12:33:06 to the Department of Community Affairs is the comp
12:33:08 plan that was -- I'm sorry, in this case, it's

12:33:11 actually work response to the Department of Community
12:33:14 Affairs that puts what I would say back into place or
12:33:21 readopts the old language as to the MacDill
12:33:27 compatibility.
12:33:28 Old meaning it's currently in the city's comprehensive
12:33:30 plan prior to this comprehensive plan revision.
12:33:33 What we're also asking you to do is to have a
12:33:38 statement that vests Mr. Bentley's clients, because
12:33:42 those plan amendments were approved by Council prior
12:33:47 to this.
12:33:49 So that when the future action occurs, this adoption,
12:33:54 future action occurs, they will be in the same place
12:33:57 they were when they were approved even though they are
12:34:00 still subject to pending litigation, hopefully
12:34:03 settlement pending litigation and ultimately
12:34:06 resolution that would occur at a future date.
12:34:10 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
12:34:11 I still don't get it.
12:34:13 Let me ask you this.
12:34:14 Okay.
12:34:14 The litigation, the pending litigation is, what,
12:34:19 between MacDill and your client?

12:34:23 No.
12:34:23 Between the DCA and --
12:34:26 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: The way this works, the city
12:34:28 approved at Mr. Bentley's client's request two
12:34:32 comprehensive plan amendments.
12:34:34 Under state law, after those are approved, they get
12:34:36 transmitted to Department of Community Affairs.
12:34:38 If the Department of Community Affairs determines that
12:34:41 they are not in compliance with state law, they then
12:34:49 under an act covering this area of the state, files a
12:34:52 challenge with the division of administrative
12:34:53 hearings.
12:34:55 Mr. Bentley intervened in that on behalf of his
12:34:58 clients.
12:34:58 So now we have litigation between the Department of
12:35:00 Community Affairs and the city and Mr. Bentley's
12:35:03 clients.
12:35:04 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
12:35:05 So the DCA -- I don't remember the word you used --
12:35:12 they challenged our land use change that we made.
12:35:15 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: That's correct.
12:35:16 >>MARY MULHERN: And that happened after he brought it

12:35:18 here, not after we submitted our whole new comp plan.
12:35:22 That's what I'm trying to understand, too.
12:35:23 When did that happen?
12:35:24 Did that challenge come back here or --
12:35:28 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: No.
12:35:30 It's in an estate administrative proceeding.
12:35:34 This actually happened -- Julia, correct me on the
12:35:37 timing if I'm wrong -- what I believe happened was, we
12:35:39 had previously transmitted the comprehensive plan to
12:35:42 DCA roughly a year ago.
12:35:46 I'm sorry, in September.
12:35:51 The litigation occurred -- the petition was filed
12:35:55 prior to transmittal or after transmittal?
12:35:59 >>JULIA COLE: The ordinances approving the two
12:36:01 comprehensive plan amendments occurred prior to us
12:36:04 transmitting to DCA our comprehensive plan, which
12:36:09 contained policies relating to compatibility with
12:36:11 MacDill Air Force Base.
12:36:12 And so they are two separate issues but they have sort
12:36:17 of gotten merged together because of timing.
12:36:20 And in order to deal with all of the issues
12:36:22 holistically, we're recommending that we go ahead and

12:36:24 just pull all the issues relating to MacDill Air Force
12:36:26 Base, allow us to deal with those as part of the
12:36:29 litigation while still making sure that Mr. Bentley's
12:36:33 clients are vested.
12:36:34 What Mr. Bentley has requested from what I can tell is
12:36:36 that we include his two map amendments on our future
12:36:39 land use map, and statutorily, that's problematic.
12:36:44 >>MARY MULHERN: You're saying why can't we do that
12:36:46 because it hasn't been approved by the DCA?
12:36:50 >>JULIA COLE: Correct.
12:36:50 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
12:36:52 I'm a little slow here.
12:36:53 But I want to understand this.
12:36:55 Originally, did his small-scale land amendments go on
12:37:00 their own to the DCA and then they got --
12:37:06 >> And those got challenged.
12:37:07 And that's the posture.
12:37:09 Subsequently, we transmitted the full comprehensive
12:37:13 plan and so now we're in this odd situation where we
12:37:16 have full comprehensive plan revision spending, and
12:37:22 that's what's before you today.
12:37:25 >>MARY MULHERN: You're asking us to pull that out of

12:37:26 what we're sending to the DCA and Mr. Bentley's client
12:37:32 wants us to change the map and send that -- you want
12:37:35 it -- he wants it to go forward with these changes?
12:37:41 >> One final comment, I know you're ready to break
12:37:43 here.
12:37:44 You can hear the confusion.
12:37:45 It's my understanding that the city is ratifying those
12:37:47 two amendments in the update that you-all are
12:37:52 approving, vesting them with the exception that they
12:37:54 are not putting them on the map.
12:37:55 They are referencing the ordinance, but then again
12:37:58 they are not putting on the map.
12:37:59 That's my understanding.
12:38:00 >>MARY MULHERN: Right, but they are saying they can't
12:38:03 put them on the map because they've already been
12:38:05 challenged.
12:38:06 >> Well, I just gave you statute, it says a plan
12:38:08 amendment does not become effective.
12:38:09 Obviously, there has to be an amendment to the plan.
12:38:12 Also, does not become effective until DCA signs off on
12:38:15 it.
12:38:15 It contemplates there was an amendment to the plan.

12:38:21 >>MARY MULHERN: I think I get it now.
12:38:22 >> Thanks a lot.
12:38:23 Appreciate it.
12:38:25 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Mr. Counselor, you want us to leave
12:38:29 the plan amendment as it was passed by the previous
12:38:32 Council.
12:38:32 Is that what you want?
12:38:34 So that would be excluding the two lots that
12:38:36 Mr. Bentley is representing?
12:38:41 >> I can't answer that yes or no.
12:38:43 That's the problem.
12:38:45 What we are asking you to do is pass a comprehensive
12:38:51 plan that does not -- that recognizes those actions
12:38:56 that previously the Council took to approve those
12:38:59 comprehensive plan amendments.
12:39:01 And we do that by citing the ordinances that the
12:39:03 Council approved.
12:39:04 We have not placed them in the future land use map in
12:39:09 the comprehensive plan that you would be transmitting
12:39:13 for two reasons.
12:39:14 One, we think it would not comply with state law.
12:39:18 But secondly, we're trying very hard to keep the

12:39:20 litigation on the two small-scale comp plan amendments
12:39:24 separate from the approval of the full comprehensive
12:39:26 plan.
12:39:27 If we were to put these two small scale amendments in
12:39:32 the map, what we're transmitting today, we would be
12:39:35 essentially asking DCA -- suggesting to DCA that they
12:39:40 then have to pull in the full comprehensive plan map
12:39:42 in order to protect their position on this litigation.
12:39:47 And that would be -- that's what we're trying to
12:39:49 avoid.
12:39:49 We're trying to keep these things completely separate
12:39:52 so that the full comprehensive plan, absent the
12:39:56 MacDill compatibility policies, can go forward,
12:40:00 and we don't have to litigate and hold up the whole
12:40:03 plan while we're trying to resolve these small-scale
12:40:06 plan amendments.
12:40:08 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: So what you're saying is if we send
12:40:10 the plan up to DCA, they could disapprove it the way
12:40:14 we're sending it up.
12:40:16 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: No.
12:40:17 They could, but they wouldn't have grounds do
12:40:20 disapprove it based on the MacDill comprehensive

12:40:25 plan, MacDill compatibility requirements in the
12:40:27 comprehensive plan.
12:40:28 That's our position.
12:40:29 If we were to make the changes that are requested, I
12:40:31 think we would be inviting that.
12:40:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Bentley.
12:40:37 >> Just one more thing.
12:40:38 You can see the confusion here.
12:40:39 What you're doing today are plan amendments that do
12:40:41 not become effective until signed off by DCA, which is
12:40:45 the same situation.
12:40:46 They might not sign off, but they are plan amendments.
12:40:48 What you-all approved in August are plan amendments.
12:40:50 So we're in the same situation as what's going on
12:40:53 today.
12:40:54 Ours are not effective nor are these amendments.
12:40:56 They could be shipped right back to the city.
12:40:59 So there's really no legal distinction from my
12:41:01 perspective to treat them differently.
12:41:03 Thank you.
12:41:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Mulhern.
12:41:06 >>MARY MULHERN: Yeah.

12:41:07 Here's -- here's my question for chip.
12:41:11 What -- if -- if the -- DCA has already objected to
12:41:19 those small-scale amendments?
12:41:22 >> They are the subject of the litigation.
12:41:23 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
12:41:24 So we -- does that mean that the way we wrote the new
12:41:32 comp plan is not consistent with that vote that we
12:41:38 made on those two small-scale plan amendments?
12:41:41 Is that the problem?
12:41:45 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: No.
12:41:46 >>MARY MULHERN: Then I don't -- here's what I don't
12:41:48 understand.
12:41:49 Why would they just because we pull that out, not
12:41:54 still challenge if, you know, the map -- the plan, the
12:42:00 larger plan of that area.
12:42:03 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: It would be much more difficult
12:42:06 for them to -- in my opinion, much more difficult for
12:42:09 them to do that in a way that's defensible.
12:42:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Any more questions?
12:42:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Madam Chair, I want to say one
12:42:24 thing, two things.
12:42:25 One, in regard to this issue, I've been on the other

12:42:28 side of the podium.
12:42:29 I've litigated these comp plan issues.
12:42:31 They are extremely complex.
12:42:33 For once, I'll defer to our legal counsel.
12:42:35 So I feel very comfortable moving the ordinance as
12:42:40 amended and as enunciated by Ms. Cole.
12:42:43 The other thing I want to say which I think needs to
12:42:46 be said is to thank Terry Cullen, Michelle, and Randy
12:42:50 from Planning Commission staff and our staff and all
12:42:53 the other people who worked on it, the neighborhoods
12:42:56 and community who worked on this.
12:42:57 It's been three or four years since they started
12:43:01 working on this.
12:43:01 This is not just any run-of-the-mill ordinance.
12:43:03 This is a huge comprehensive plan update that will
12:43:08 hopefully change our city for the better over the next
12:43:12 20 to 50 years.
12:43:13 With that, I'll move an --
12:43:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Need a motion to close.
12:43:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
12:43:20 >> Second.
12:43:20 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion, aye.

12:43:21 [Motion Carried]
12:43:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: With that, I'll move an ordinance
12:43:24 adopting City of Tampa comprehensive plan entitled
12:43:26 Tampa comprehensive plan building our legacy, a
12:43:28 livable city, updating and replacing the currently
12:43:31 adopted comprehensive plan, including all of the
12:43:33 adopted elements and associated goals, objectives and
12:43:36 policies.
12:43:37 Providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict;
12:43:39 providing for severability; providing an effective
12:43:41 date.
12:43:42 >>MARY MULHERN: Yeah, I just wanted to say that I'm
12:43:45 going to take our legal counsel's advice, which
12:43:49 hopefully for me isn't that unusual, but I'm not sure
12:43:52 anymore.
12:43:52 But I do -- I do have a concern when City Council
12:44:03 makes -- makes a ruling or passes an ordinance or a
12:44:08 land use change and then -- I don't like it when it
12:44:16 appears that we're not necessarily being -- our
12:44:21 decisions aren't necessarily being upheld.
12:44:24 I'm not saying you're doing it in this case, but
12:44:27 that's my hesitation is I want to make sure that our

12:44:32 decisions are defended by the city.
12:44:36 >> And if I could just comment on that.
12:44:38 The reason we're presenting this the way we are, we're
12:44:41 trying our utmost to protect the prior action of
12:44:44 Council.
12:44:44 And although on this particular minor issue, what I
12:44:50 view as a minor issue, we are fully aligned with the
12:44:53 property owner on this litigation, to protect
12:44:56 Council's prior action.
12:44:57 So it is somewhat -- not quite sure what the interest
12:45:02 is in getting these shown on the map, but we are
12:45:06 protecting in this ordinance that you're transmitting,
12:45:10 prior ordinances that you-all adopted.
12:45:12 We have the reference specifically, and we think this
12:45:16 is the best path to get those to a point where they
12:45:19 can become effective and we can move forward.
12:45:22 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
12:45:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Caetano.
12:45:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'll never vote to be past 12
12:45:29 again.
12:45:30 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: We didn't vote.
12:45:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes, we did.

12:45:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Come on.
12:45:34 Let's move on.
12:45:36 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: If we pass this, is it possible we
12:45:37 can go back to the courts and spend more money?
12:45:42 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: The answer is that I think we are
12:45:45 less likely to have to litigate the full comp plan if
12:45:48 you pass it the way we've recommended.
12:45:50 Certainly, if Department of Community Affairs wants to
12:45:55 challenge something in the comp plan, they have that
12:45:57 option, but I think that this limits the opportunity
12:45:59 for litigation and allows us to solve the individual
12:46:05 parcels without litigating the full comp plan, which
12:46:08 will be a more discreet issue and hopefully in my view
12:46:12 likely to be less costly and less difficult.
12:46:16 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
12:46:18 Vote and record.
12:46:35 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Caetano voting no and
12:46:38 Scott and Saul-Sena being absent at vote.
12:46:42 >> Thank you very much for your time.
12:46:44 Appreciate it.
12:46:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to move the resolution --
12:46:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order real quick.

12:46:48 Julia, four votes adequate?
12:46:51 >>JULIA COLE: Yes.
12:46:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
12:46:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to move --
12:46:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move item 63.
12:46:56 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
12:46:57 All in favor, aye.
12:46:58 Do we have new business?
12:47:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Yes, I would like to receive and
12:47:01 file the memo I got from -- regarding the sign
12:47:05 ordinance.
12:47:06 -- [microphone not on]
12:47:09 Also like to express at this time, ask our citizens
12:47:12 for a voluntarily water restriction, voluntarily, even
12:47:16 though it rained this past week, we are in dire need
12:47:20 of water.
12:47:20 So I'm asking for a voluntary, through the Water
12:47:23 Department that I receive some communication from
12:47:26 them.
12:47:27 Things are not getting better, so that's all I got to
12:47:31 say.
12:47:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder, do you have anything?

12:47:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
12:47:34 We all survived and enjoyed the Super Bowl in our
12:47:39 community last week.
12:47:41 I'll tell ya, these things just don't happen by
12:47:44 themselves.
12:47:44 We give commendations regularly to police and fire, so
12:47:47 I don't want to be redundant and give them
12:47:50 commendation.
12:47:50 But I do want to give commendations to public works,
12:47:53 transportation, clean cities and parks for the
12:47:57 tremendous yeoman's job that they did for the Super
12:48:00 Bowl.
12:48:01 And frankly, now they've got Gasparilla coming up back
12:48:03 to back.
12:48:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
12:48:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: In a month when they have a chance
12:48:07 to recuperate, we'll bring them back, bring those
12:48:10 different departments back for a quick appreciation.
12:48:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second?
12:48:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Did you want to do that on a
12:48:17 workshop day?
12:48:18 Yes, we can do that on a workshop day.

12:48:20 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
12:48:21 All in favor, aye.
12:48:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I forgot one, Ms. Chairman.
12:48:25 Ask for commendation to Monsignor Laurence Higgins who
12:48:28 has been selected by the West Tampa Chamber of
12:48:30 Commerce and the West Tampa Optimist Club as a
12:48:32 recipient of the George Guida Memorial Outstanding
12:48:36 Citizen of West Tampa.
12:48:37 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of that motion.
12:48:40 [Motion Carried]
12:48:41 Date?
12:48:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: West Tampa, we do things
12:48:46 differently.
12:48:46 That's on the 20th of February of the year 2009.
12:48:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else, Mr. Dingfelder?
12:48:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No.
12:48:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Mulhern?
12:48:57 >>MARY MULHERN: I want to point out and commend
12:49:02 just -- not give a commendment, just say that over the
12:49:05 Super Bowl weekend, the streetcar system sold -- or
12:49:11 had 45,000, more than 45,000 rides.
12:49:15 So I think it's great for us to realize that and to

12:49:18 know that if there are people who want to get
12:49:22 somewhere on that streetcar, they will use it.
12:49:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else?
12:49:26 Need to receive and file.
12:49:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
12:49:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Got a motion and second.
12:49:32 All in favor, aye.
12:49:33 Anything else come before Council?
12:49:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Like to move to adjourn.
12:49:38 >>GWEN MILLER: So moved.
12:49:39 We stand adjourned.
12:49:40 (Meeting adjourned)
12:49:40