Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council

Thursday, September 12, 2013

9:00 a.m. session



DISCLAIMER:

This file 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.


09:00:00 >> Chairman Miranda: Council is called to order.

09:07:01 The chair yields to Mr. Frank Reddick.

09:07:03 >> It's a privilege to have with us today the Reverend Dr.

09:07:08 James Favor, with Tampa Baptist church.

09:07:17 >> May we all bow our heads?

09:07:20 Gracious God our father, we humbly thank you for this time

09:07:24 of sharing.

09:07:26 We bless your name, lift you up, magnify you, with your good

09:07:30 glory, honor and praise.

09:07:31 We thank you for the men and women of our City Council.

09:07:36 We thank you for their wisdom, their knowledge and their

09:07:38 understanding.

09:07:39 We thank you for allowing them to have the wisdom to endure

09:07:47 through many of these tedious journeys with regards to the

09:07:50 laws of our city and the ordinances that must be passed.




09:07:54 We thank you for their insight and we pray your blessings

09:07:58 upon them and their families.

09:08:00 We ask you to bless the staff of our city, you bless our

09:08:05 mayor, that you will bless every heart and every home

09:08:08 present here this morning.

09:08:10 We ask that you would lead us from one degree of your grace

09:08:14 to another.

09:08:15 Bless us again.

09:08:16 We ask these blessings in Jesus' name.

09:08:18 Amen.

09:08:19 [ Pledge of Allegiance ]

09:08:22 >> Roll call.

09:08:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Here.

09:08:44 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.

09:08:47 >>HARRY COHEN: Here.

09:08:48 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Here.

09:08:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.

09:08:51 Need a motion for the adoption of the minutes held August

09:08:54 22nd.

09:08:55 I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione, second by Mr. Cohen.

09:08:58 All in favor of the motion?

09:08:59 Opposed?

09:09:00 The ayes have it unanimously.

09:09:05 I'm going to do that right now.

09:09:08 That's the next thing.




09:09:10 I got two memos from council member Capin that she will be

09:09:12 absent today due to her husband's illness, and that's number

09:09:16 one.

09:09:17 And then the other is from Ms. Capin asking for item number

09:09:21 62 to be continued.

09:09:27 Need a motion to receive and file both of them.

09:09:30 I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione, seconded by Mr. Cohen.

09:09:33 All in favor of the motion?

09:09:35 Opposed?

09:09:35 The ayes have it unanimously.

09:09:38 I think on 62 when we get there we'll continue it to the

09:09:42 next month.

09:09:42 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I would like to make a motion to remove

09:09:47 item 60 from the agenda.

09:09:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Item number 60.

09:09:53 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I spoke to the department yesterday and

09:09:58 they provided the information that I was requesting.

09:10:02 >> I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione, second by Mr. Cohen.

09:10:07 All in favor of the motion?

09:10:08 Opposed?

09:10:10 Motion passes unanimously.

09:10:11 Item number 60. Six-oh. Okay.

09:10:16 We need approval of the agenda and -- I have a motion by Mr.

09:10:23 Cohen, second by Mr. Suarez on those two items.

09:10:26 All in favor of the motion?




09:10:27 Opposed? The ayes have it unanimously.

09:10:31 Okay.

09:10:32 If I may at this time, anyone in the audience that requests

09:10:38 any consideration from any past legislative matters?

09:10:45 There is one item, just saw Mr. Grandoff in the audience,

09:10:51 and I believe later on we'll speak about it now.

09:10:53 I don't know if we will be able to discuss it now but I

09:10:56 believe it's item number 53, I believe, I'm not sure.

09:11:02 Is that the one, Mr. Grandoff?

09:11:05 46? 46?

09:11:11 Yes, sir.

09:11:14 Even though that's a 9:30, I just want to bring it up for

09:11:17 discussion and we'll bring it back up at 9:30 so we know

09:11:20 where we are at.

09:11:22 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: I appreciate it.

09:11:24 Bring it up at 9:30.

09:11:27 >> At 9:30.

09:11:28 I just want to you know that there's certain council members

09:11:30 missing and this vote was a 3-4 vote and you may not have

09:11:35 what you need.

09:11:36 I want to make sure everybody is given a fair chance at the

09:11:39 plate.

09:11:39 And I will bring it back up ought the proper time.

09:11:43 Okay.

09:11:43 If I may, I would like to ask this council for permission to




09:11:48 waive the rules so we can have staff reports earlier.

09:11:51 I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione, seconded by Mr. Cohen to

09:11:54 waive the rules.

09:11:55 All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.

09:11:58 Opposed nay.

09:11:59 The ayes have it unanimously.

09:12:02 Before we go into staff reports, public comments, I think it

09:12:07 would be to have staff reports so the public can understand

09:12:11 and listen to what the staff is talking about.

09:12:13 That's just my opinion.

09:12:15 But what do you think, council?

09:12:18 >> The chairman's pleasure.

09:12:21 >> Try that once, see how it works.

09:12:25 So we'll have the staff reports now.

09:12:30 Maybe if the staff were here.

09:12:32 Maybe we are too far in advance.

09:12:33 >> And Mr. Herr was here.

09:12:45 >> Mr. Herr was here.

09:12:47 I saw him in the audience.

09:13:14 Well, we were so quick, we are on staff reports.

09:13:18 >> Good morning, Mr. Chair and council members.

09:13:23 Mike Herr, administrator public works and utilities.

09:13:29 I'm here to report on item 56 and item 61.

09:13:36 Brad Baird will probably be joining us and quite frankly

09:13:38 probably has a lot more detail though offer on this




09:13:41 particular agenda item.

09:13:42 I know this came up at our budget hearing on Monday.

09:13:46 The Councilwoman Montelione had raised the issue about the

09:13:54 Bruce B. Downs road widening project being listed as one of

09:13:58 the projects in her district.

09:13:59 And the reason that the budget office chose to list that

09:14:03 project is because this is a road project that all of you

09:14:08 are very familiar with, a major arterial road in the county.

09:14:12 It is a county roadway project, and we have utilities, water

09:14:16 and wastewater, that are in the county road right-of-way,

09:14:19 and as such we need to approve a joint project agreement

09:14:22 between the county and the city, so our utilities can be

09:14:27 relocated and adjusted to coincide with the road widening

09:14:31 project.

09:14:32 And as part of that, we are going to be in a position to be

09:14:36 able to put in new lines for water and wastewater, and

09:14:39 actually Brad has a visual that he was going to bring over

09:14:43 this morning.

09:14:46 As you know, this road widening project has been going on

09:14:48 for a while.

09:14:49 So the agenda item is addressing a couple segments.

09:14:54 There have already been some segments already completed.

09:14:57 And as part of that completion, we addressed some very

09:15:01 deteriorated wastewater lines that were part of our

09:15:05 transmission systems, and they were extremely corroded and




09:15:10 aged, and so consequently it is valuable to be able to

09:15:15 replace your lines at the same time that there's a road

09:15:18 widening project happening, because it's just, number one,

09:15:24 good management, good planning and economical for us to do

09:15:26 it now rather than come back after the road widening project

09:15:29 is finished.

09:15:30 And it just doesn't make sense.

09:15:33 So as you can see that our investment here is about almost

09:15:39 $6 million between water and wastewater.

09:15:42 So we can provide -- Brad is here and he can provide more

09:15:46 detail if you need it.

09:15:47 But staff recommendation is to approve the agenda items, so

09:15:52 we can move forward with the project.

09:15:54 I think it represents good planning between the city and

09:15:57 county, give us a chance to address some deteriorated lines,

09:16:02 and it's economical to addressing it at this point.

09:16:07 >> Thank you.

09:16:08 Mrs. Montelione?

09:16:10 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr.

09:16:13 Herr.

09:16:16 This agenda item is just to approve the agreement, but the

09:16:22 budget item, or the cost expenditure, is what is budgeted in

09:16:26 the '14 budget.

09:16:29 >> That's correct.

09:16:30 That's correct.




09:16:30 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I wanted to make that clear.

09:16:33 So what we are approving today would also then go to -- if

09:16:39 you could extrapolate, would also be approved --

09:16:43 >> We'll come back with a budget item, because what's going

09:16:46 to have to happen is that there will be design work that's

09:16:50 done.

09:16:50 It will have to be paid for.

09:16:53 And then we'll be paying for construction work for the

09:16:57 rehabilitation because we are in the road rite.

09:16:59 So those items would come back to -- road right-of-way.

09:17:03 So that will come back to council at the appropriate time.

09:17:06 >> So it's all going to be in the '14?

09:17:08 >> Well, the way I read this during fiscal year '13-14 so

09:17:14 during the upcoming fiscal year.

09:17:16 So the joint agreement and then than the appropriation as

09:17:21 part of the budget process.

09:17:22 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.

09:17:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Any further?

09:17:25 Let me say this.

09:17:27 Any public comments on number 56, anyone in the audience

09:17:30 care to speak on 56?

09:17:32 I see no public comments at all on 56.

09:17:35 We can take a vote on 56.

09:17:37 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I'll move the item.

09:17:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion by Mrs. Montelione, second by Mr.




09:17:44 Suarez.

09:17:44 All in favor of the motion?

09:17:46 Opposed?

09:17:46 The ayes have it unanimously.

09:17:48 Thank you very much.

09:17:50 57.

09:17:50 >> Kate Taylor from the city attorney's office presenting

09:18:03 you with an ordinance for first reading consideration, an

09:18:05 ordinance that was requested, that puts the list of

09:18:09 dedicated parks back in chapter 16.

09:18:12 The it was removed in 2009.

09:18:16 What I propose to you is the same list that was removed in

09:18:19 2009.

09:18:19 It has two changes.

09:18:20 They were just name changes that occurred between 2009 and

09:18:23 now.

09:18:25 There's some additional things that I will have to make

09:18:28 between first and second reading.

09:18:33 I omitted a name change when I submitted the ordinance to

09:18:37 you.

09:18:37 I'm available for any questions.

09:18:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Just to bring it back to where it was in

09:18:41 2009 means you can't touch it for anything else?

09:18:46 >> That's right.

09:18:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We want to thank you very much.




09:18:49 I know that was done by some young staffer attorney who came

09:18:54 in and made a signature of something that was just -- but we

09:19:01 have no qualms.

09:19:02 Thank you so much.

09:19:03 Anyone in the public care to speak on 57?

09:19:05 >> Pete Johnson, 510 Harrison street.

09:19:12 I have always wondered why David West park was never a

09:19:16 dedicated park.

09:19:19 I remember when Pam opened it and Shawn Harrison and Karen

09:19:23 Palus, that it was owned by a different department, the

09:19:29 property.

09:19:30 Why can't we quitclaim deed it over to the Parks Department

09:19:34 and make it a dedicated park?

09:19:38 I don't understand why we can't.

09:19:39 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Mr. Bayor isn't here.

09:19:49 Was Greg Bayor going to be joining us this morning?

09:19:54 As far as I know, that piece of property, what I learned

09:19:56 from the stormwater department, was initially a property

09:19:59 owned by the storm wallet department, and our icon of

09:20:07 institutional knowledge and stormwater Alex informed me that

09:20:12 they used to train backhoe drivers in that park.

09:20:15 And then when they found another way to train drivers,

09:20:19 stormwater did not need that park anymore.

09:20:22 Or that piece of land.

09:20:23 So they transferred it to the Parks Department.




09:20:27 Subsequently, the park still floods.

09:20:31 And I have taken Mr. Bayor there.

09:20:33 I have taken Mr. Herr there to look at that park.

09:20:37 And you can see during even moderate rain events the water

09:20:42 is all the way, you know, it's covering the seats of the

09:20:46 picnic tables that are out there.

09:20:48 So I believe that one of the parks in play right now between

09:20:52 storm waters and the Parks Department to either reconfigure

09:20:58 or address the flooding issues in that park.

09:21:02 So something that I talked about for quite awhile is to have

09:21:08 our stormwater department and our Parks Department work

09:21:11 together to try and address not only the flooding problems

09:21:15 in that park but also in Forest Hills park, the Forest Hills

09:21:20 recreation center floods constantly, so there's a couple of

09:21:24 parks with stormwater and Parks Department are working

09:21:28 together to try and address the issues of both having a

09:21:35 stormwater pond and a park at the same time.

09:21:40 So I don't know --

09:21:41 >> And I totally understand that, and very thankful for

09:21:45 that, but the idea of a dedicated park, to make it a

09:21:49 dedicated park, prevents the city from ever selling the

09:21:53 property.

09:21:54 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Right.

09:21:55 And I think --

09:21:56 >> That's something that needs to be done for this park.




09:21:59 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And I think once the stormwater issues

09:22:01 are addressed, then we could add that park to the list.

09:22:03 >> I'll talk to Mr. Bayor about the stormwater.

09:22:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Anyone else in the audience?

09:22:09 Mr. Suarez, would you care to read that ordinance?

09:22:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I present an ordinance on first reading

09:22:16 consideration, ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida

09:22:18 amending City of Tampa code of ordinances chapter 16,

09:22:21 article 6, section 16-9, list of dedicated parks,

09:22:27 reincorporating the dedicated parks list per city code

09:22:32 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict,

09:22:34 providing for severability, providing an effective date.

09:22:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mr. Suarez, a second

09:22:40 by Mr. Cohen.

09:22:40 Further discussion by council members?

09:22:43 All in favor?

09:22:43 Opposed?

09:22:44 The ayes have it unanimously.

09:22:45 >>THE CLERK: The second reading of the ordinance will be

09:22:47 held September 26th at 9:30 a.m.

09:22:51 And the vote was with Capin and Mulhern being absent.

09:22:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Item 58 is the written report of the

09:22:59 Parks and Recreation Department.

09:23:04 Any issues with that, council members?

09:23:08 58.




09:23:09 Yes, sir, Mr. Reddick?

09:23:25 >>JULIA MANDELL: Legal department.

09:23:26 I believe you have been provided with the written report

09:23:28 that relates to fencing that have water beaches associated

09:23:32 with it.

09:23:33 If you have any questions, there's a written report.

09:23:38 If there's an issue that you would like to have addressed on

09:23:41 the general matter of fencing parks where there's water

09:23:45 features, we can go ahead and deal with that issue.

09:23:50 Otherwise as it relates to this particular park I caution

09:23:55 you that any particular coverings on this particular park

09:23:57 and any incident which has occurred in that park Ms.

09:24:11 Mandell, when did this memo come out?

09:24:17 >>JULIA MANDELL: I distributed it to City Council

09:24:19 yesterday.

09:24:19 >> Okay.

09:24:21 The reason I say that is because somehow it was just brought

09:24:25 to my attention just 30 seconds ago, and let me ask you a

09:24:30 couple questions.

09:24:34 Are you saying based on what I'm interpreting here that

09:24:43 there's no way that a fence can be placed on a park area

09:24:46 where we have water?

09:24:50 >> From what I understand, what the memo says, the issue as

09:24:54 a general matter is whether or not any of the parks,

09:24:58 generally when you have a water feature associated, whether




09:25:02 it be a river, whether it be a pool, whether it be a pond,

09:25:06 whatever that water feature is, that so many of the city

09:25:12 parks have water associated, beach, et cetera, that the cost

09:25:16 of fencing all of those parks would be cost prohibitive.

09:25:20 Now, the other issue that I think the Parks Department has

09:25:25 is that many of the features of our park are the fact that

09:25:28 they are associated with those water features.

09:25:31 So from a park and recreation perspective, they also need

09:25:35 that for approach.

09:25:38 So when you look at parks generally that's the position that

09:25:41 they are promulgating.

09:25:44 >>FRANK REDDICK: Well, let me raise the question.

09:25:47 I'm pretty sure there's a way where the park is adjacent to

09:25:53 the river or water feature, that there can be some fencing.

09:26:06 And let me also ask you this.

09:26:08 And I don't know if you can answer this. But what is the

09:26:12 estimated cost if you were to put a fence in that area park?

09:26:17 >>JULIA MANDELL: I think the issue is not looking at this

09:26:20 from a one-park perspective.

09:26:22 But if we are going to make a decision as a city that we are

09:26:25 concerned that parks with water features associated with

09:26:27 them require safety fencing, then it would be appropriate to

09:26:31 look at all the parks, not just one park in particular.

09:26:34 So I think what the Parks Department is saying is so many of

09:26:38 our parks have water features associated with them, whether




09:26:41 it's a beach or some other kind of water feature, that could

09:26:44 look at all of these parks and make a decision with regard

09:26:50 to safety would be cost prohibitive.

09:26:52 Now, I understand that this general item is associated with

09:26:56 a particular incident.

09:26:57 Again, I think at this time, given the status of potential

09:27:02 litigation in this matter, I would caution you discussing it

09:27:05 or looking at this park --

09:27:08 >>FRANK REDDICK: Well, I understand all the legal mumbo

09:27:10 jumbo.

09:27:11 I understand that.

09:27:12 What I'm saying is this.

09:27:17 We have been asked to approve 200 Ks today, $200 that you.

09:27:24 We are asked to approve that today.

09:27:27 And the Parks and Recreation Department can sit here and

09:27:32 tell me, tell this council, and tell every taxpayer in this

09:27:35 city, that it's cost prohibitive for safety reasons?

09:27:43 Because you are going to be back here another day asking

09:27:45 this same council to approve another settlement.

09:27:51 So I understand the legal and all that.

09:27:53 But there's a safety issue here.

09:27:55 And there should be some way that we can protect and

09:28:01 prohibit the city from having to be in a position where we

09:28:05 got to pay out these settlements.

09:28:08 And if we can save one person -- and I don't think it's cost




09:28:13 prohibitive.

09:28:14 I think they should take an approach to looking at how can

09:28:22 we protect that park, how can we protect those people that

09:28:27 participate in those parks, where there's water features,

09:28:30 and not be looking at is this going to cost too much money,

09:28:37 whether hits one park or two parks or three parks. If you

09:28:39 have 151 parks in this city then we should be able to do a

09:28:44 cost analysis to determine what it's going to cost because

09:28:46 we are going to pay that out in legal settlement regardless.

09:28:51 >> I understand what you are saying, Mr. Reddick, and this

09:28:55 is a two part analysis.

09:28:57 One is the cost associated with all of the parks and fencing

09:28:59 all of our parks with associated water features.

09:29:03 The other was a general matter whether or not the Parks and

09:29:06 Recreation Department which has water in part of its park, a

09:29:13 good valuable use of their public parks.

09:29:16 So there's two issues associated with it.

09:29:18 So I would say that those are the two issues, not just the

09:29:24 general safety and pay out of litigation versus the cost

09:29:30 associated with putting in the fence.

09:29:32 It's a two-part analysis.

09:29:34 If you are looking at every single park and making that

09:29:37 calculated decision.

09:29:38 And what the Parks and Recreation Department is saying in

09:29:44 their memo is making those decisions would be cost




09:29:47 prohibitive and is not really part of the mission of what

09:29:49 the parks and recreation sees which is to keep those water

09:29:52 features open to the public.

09:29:53 >>FRANK REDDICK: Well, my last comment, I'm going to, at

09:30:04 the appropriate time, Mr. Chair, make a motion to ask the

09:30:09 Parks and Recreation Department to look at the costs of

09:30:12 putting some type of safety feature in all of the parks that

09:30:15 are surrounded by water, because I think it's a shame that

09:30:21 we are not looking at it from a safety standpoint, but we

09:30:25 are being asked to come here and approve $200,000 for a

09:30:32 person that drowned, and then the possibility might be

09:30:35 pending litigation on another issue.

09:30:37 And then it's not going to be the last time somebody drowns

09:30:42 in a pool, or in a river.

09:30:46 So if we can protect and save any person, if we can put some

09:30:52 safety feature that's adjacent -- not around the river, just

09:31:00 in the area where a playground is located where those kids

09:31:02 are out there running, then we need to try to do whatever we

09:31:07 can to make sure that a person's life is not in jeopardy.

09:31:12 So at the appropriate time, I am going to ask the parks and

09:31:15 recreation to look at bringing back to this council the cost

09:31:21 to put a safety fence in place for every park in the city

09:31:24 where it's joining some type of water feature.

09:31:28 So Mr. Chair, thank you, sir.

09:31:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We have Mrs. Montelione and Mr. Suarez.




09:31:37 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.

09:31:38 And I will support that motion when you bring it up, Mr.

09:31:41 Reddick.

09:31:41 And when we talk about cost prohibitive, we also, in

09:31:44 addition to that $200,000 that we are approving, we also

09:31:48 have a $760,000 item on the agenda for construction of that

09:31:56 street Promenade.

09:31:58 So I think when we talk about cost, and where we are

09:32:02 spending our dollars, I think Mr. Reddick is right, if we

09:32:05 can spend $760,000 on a Promenade for the arts, we can spend

09:32:09 some money to do a little investigating, a study or survey

09:32:15 of our parks to find out what it would cost, and which parks

09:32:20 it would be applicable to.

09:32:22 And if I might make a suggestion -- and Mr. Bayor is here --

09:32:31 in the memo it says a telephone survey was done, we

09:32:34 completed a limited phone survey of nearby jurisdictions to

09:32:37 see if they had any local standards, and there was none.

09:32:41 Well, 28, 29 years ago when I moved to Florida, I lived in

09:32:44 Temple Terrace, and I lived just a few blocks from the park

09:32:50 on River Hills Drive where there is a school.

09:32:53 River hills elementary has a playground, which is adjacent

09:32:57 to the Hillsborough River.

09:33:00 They have a fence around the playground area to keep

09:33:04 children from running off the playground and into the river.

09:33:09 That fence wasn't always there.




09:33:11 When I first moved there, the fence wasn't there.

09:33:13 So there are other jurisdictions that if they don't have a

09:33:18 written policy, if they don't have a local ordinance that

09:33:23 requires it or a resolution that requires it, they do have

09:33:27 strategies that are for safety measures where there are

09:33:31 playgrounds adjacent to water features such as the

09:33:35 Hillsborough River.

09:33:36 >>JULIA MANDELL: That is likely the school board that put

09:33:40 it up and maybe not just because of the park but because of

09:33:43 requirements that to keep schools from having people go on

09:33:49 and off the school property.

09:33:50 So maybe we --

09:33:52 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Maybe we need to check with the school

09:33:54 board and find out what their policy is, calling --

09:33:57 >> I just want it to be clear that some of their reasoning

09:34:01 may have absolutely nothing to do with a water feature.

09:34:04 It probably has more to do with the fact that in the days

09:34:08 since Columbine everybody has made sure that schools don't

09:34:11 have access, and I know with --

09:34:14 >>LISA MONTELIONE: This was awhile ago.

09:34:15 >>JULIA MANDELL: I just want to be clear that we are

09:34:19 looking at it from the same perspective which is parks,

09:34:22 recreation facilities joining a waterway.

09:34:25 And not some other perspective.

09:34:29 But I think calling the school board just to find out what




09:34:33 their policy is would be appropriate.

09:34:34 >>LISA MONTELIONE: My point is that there are strategies

09:34:38 available to us.

09:34:39 And I'm the last person who wants to wall off the river.

09:34:43 I don't want to the see, you know, that beautiful scenic

09:34:48 view in any way compromised.

09:34:52 But there are strategies to prevent children from wondering

09:34:57 off a playground into the river.

09:34:59 I mean, we talked about David West park a minute ago.

09:35:03 That park floods to the point where everybody playing on

09:35:06 that playground could drown in just the water that

09:35:09 accumulates, because I'm telling you the water gets society

09:35:13 high that it's past the seats of the picnic tables that are

09:35:17 in the park.

09:35:19 So, you know, each park is going to be different, and, you

09:35:23 know, each one is going to require, you know, a different

09:35:27 perspective in what we need to do.

09:35:30 But I think it when we are talking about spending money --

09:35:34 Mr. Reddick is right -- if we can spend, you know, $760,000

09:35:40 on putting in art features, we can spend the money to

09:35:44 protect children and adults alike from, you know, the

09:35:49 hazards that they may face.

09:35:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Okay.

09:35:55 Mr. Suarez?

09:35:56 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, chair.




09:36:00 I won't belabor the point made by my colleagues.

09:36:02 But a couple things is obviously there's a reason that you

09:36:10 answer this question and not Mr. Bayor.

09:36:12 I think it was artfully played.

09:36:14 The specific remains a very specific question, and what's

09:36:17 the cost to put a fence along the river?

09:36:19 That's a question that you can't answer.

09:36:20 It's a question that Mr. Bayor needs to answer.

09:36:23 And again, I know why you are here, because of the way the

09:36:28 crafting of the request included something that probably

09:36:33 should not have been included.

09:36:34 We understand that.

09:36:36 Secondly, I think that in terms of the way this is

09:36:39 written -- it looks like a lawyer wrote part of it, if not

09:36:43 some of it.

09:36:45 >>JULIA MANDELL: I can honestly say I did not write it.

09:36:48 I can honestly say that nobody in my office wrote this memo.

09:36:51 >> Then somebody is doing a good job of legal training over

09:36:55 at the Parks Department, because the issue itself, and

09:37:02 included whenever we don't want to answer a specific

09:37:04 question, we answer a generalized and much bigger question.

09:37:09 The idea of looking at all the parks in terms of water --

09:37:14 and, in fact, I'll quote what it says in here -- that we

09:37:17 have 69 parks that have water features and 38.5 miles of

09:37:22 shoreline.




09:37:23 That has nothing to do with what we were asking for.

09:37:26 And I think that back to what my colleagues have said, if

09:37:31 there is a safety issue or a standard -- well, first, a

09:37:36 safety issue, we need to address.

09:37:38 That secondly, what are the standards and what can be

09:37:40 standards?

09:37:40 Because I guarantee you there is a national association of

09:37:42 parks that looks at standards pertaining to safety when it

09:37:47 comes to water features.

09:37:48 We are not the only Parks Department that has a lot of water

09:37:52 features.

09:37:53 We are not the only Parks Department in Florida that has a

09:37:55 lot of water features.

09:37:57 There has to be some standards somewhere.

09:37:59 If not, I think that we should set these standards, put it

09:38:02 in place, look at some guidance from the legal departments

09:38:06 since you didn't write this memo, and find out how we can

09:38:09 figure out how we can balance the two things that happen in

09:38:12 parks, which is the enjoyment of the natural beauty that we

09:38:16 are trying to preserve in a city park with the safety that

09:38:22 we are obligated to provide at those city parks.

09:38:25 You said it eloquently, much more eloquently than I did at

09:38:29 the beginning of your statement.

09:38:30 We know that there's that balance.

09:38:32 And I would make the suggestion to Mr. Reddick during new




09:38:35 business that we conclude, you know, some kind of standards

09:38:39 so that we don't have an issue with something happening in

09:38:43 the future pertaining to an accident or issue at a city

09:38:50 park, and hopefully we can get to that.

09:38:54 Butt thank you for showing up for Greg Bayor.

09:38:58 >> Well, keep in mind -- and I think you said it very

09:39:01 eloquently, the way this was drafted, it was appropriate --

09:39:04 first it was a written report, and then it was appropriate

09:39:08 for me to caution council, as you always hear me council

09:39:12 when there's a potential for litigation for us to be very

09:39:14 cognitive of that idea, which is why it was appropriate for

09:39:17 the Parks Department to report on this matter generally and

09:39:21 not specifically to this particular park.

09:39:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Yes.

09:39:24 And again, if the question is not -- if it deals

09:39:29 specifically -- because here T motion included an incident

09:39:33 which it shouldn't have.

09:39:34 The question is, what is the cost to provide fencing at the

09:39:37 park?

09:39:38 That's it.

09:39:39 That should be the answer that the Parks Department can

09:39:42 deliver to us.

09:39:43 And I don't think that there is any legal issue in them

09:39:46 doing that for us.

09:39:47 >>JULIA MANDELL: That is correct.




09:39:50 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.

09:39:51 These all I wanted to make sure and be clear on.

09:39:53 Thank you, Ms. Mandell.

09:39:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much, Mr. Suarez.

09:39:56 Anyone else?

09:39:59 Mr. Cohen, I'm sorry.

09:40:01 >>HARRY COHEN: I wanted to add very briefly to what's been

09:40:05 said.

09:40:05 I would also suggest Mr. Reddick when this motion is made in

09:40:07 new business, you know, we could think a little bit outside

09:40:10 the box.

09:40:11 We think don't have to confine ourselves to just fences.

09:40:14 We can think about landscape treatments, buffers that are

09:40:17 treated, by foliage and bushes and other things.

09:40:20 There's a lot of different ways that we can, you know, block

09:40:28 indirect access to water without necessarily building a wall

09:40:30 or fence and I would encourage the Parks Department to think

09:40:33 sort of globally about what some of those solutions might

09:40:36 be.

09:40:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Cohen.

09:40:38 Okay.

09:40:39 On 58.

09:40:44 I have a motion to receive and file by Mr. Cohen.

09:40:47 Seconded by Mr. Suarez.

09:40:48 And Mr. Reddick will address that in new business.




09:40:51 All in favor?

09:40:52 Opposed?

09:40:52 The ayes have it unanimously.

09:40:53 59 has been continued.

09:40:56 According to the addendum.

09:40:57 >>HARRY COHEN: Have we set a date to continue than till?

09:41:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: October 17th of 2013.

09:41:07 Doesn't say time, though.

09:41:11 All right. That's done.

09:41:15 61.

09:41:19 Are the individuals here from the wastewater division?

09:41:24 Yes, sir?

09:41:24 >> Wastewater department.

09:41:27 Item 61 is for the renewal of the contract, to purchase

09:41:32 liquid cationic polymer, the final renewal period.

09:41:39 If you have any questions I am available to answer.

09:41:41 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you, sir.

09:41:45 Will this be bid out, or is this something that's set by the

09:41:48 commodities market?

09:41:49 >> This particular contract, this is the final renewal

09:41:52 period of a contract that is competitively bid.

09:41:55 It's a performance based bid so when we go out to bid again

09:41:58 after this renewal period, we invite numerous bidders to

09:42:02 come in and demonstrate their product compared to the --

09:42:10 >>LISA MONTELIONE: That's what I like to hear.




09:42:12 Thank you very much.

09:42:12 >> Motion by Mrs. Montelione, second by Mr. Cohen.

09:42:17 Before I do that, had does anyone in the public care to

09:42:19 speak on 61?

09:42:20 61?

09:42:23 I see no one.

09:42:24 Motion by Mrs. Montelione, second by Mr. Cohen.

09:42:27 All in favor?

09:42:28 The ayes have it unanimously.

09:42:32 We finished with staff reports, I believe.

09:42:34 >> I believe we need a motion to move item 62 to October

09:42:45 19th?

09:42:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion by Mr. Cohen, seconded by Mr.

09:42:50 Reddick.

09:42:51 All in favor?

09:42:52 Opposed?

09:42:52 The ayes have it unanimously.

09:42:54 We go back to the part of the agenda, public comments on

09:42:58 items on the agenda.

09:43:05 Ofter you can speak to be any agenda on the item first and

09:43:08 then items off the agenda.

09:43:09 >> Pete Harrison, Harrison street, speaking on 29 and 30.

09:43:14 Unfortunately, you know, I have been studying codes since

09:43:29 1997 in the City of Tampa.

09:43:32 I'm getting tired of this.




09:43:33 This is an activity report that will supposedly design

09:43:40 simply because of my request, which I have never had a

09:43:43 department in the City of Tampa design or do anything out of

09:43:47 the on the other hand without some kind of a charge.

09:43:51 Anyway, this activity report shows how many times, or

09:43:58 activity is keypunched into the comply system.

09:44:01 It doesn't tell you if it is for a code violation, or

09:44:06 reinspection, civil citation or what.

09:44:10 That I'm working on.

09:44:11 But as you going through this -- and believe it or not,

09:44:17 after arguing with the department, you can see that there is

09:44:22 an uneven amount of people that do any work.

09:44:31 Also attached is a list of income that is given to these

09:44:37 people.

09:44:40 I'm requesting that you ask Jake Slater to report -- I think

09:44:46 it's the 22nd or the 26th -- to answer questions what

09:44:54 this means.

09:44:57 What does this mean?

09:44:58 Does this mean that one officer in 30 days only did one

09:45:05 action?

09:45:06 What did he do the rest of the month?

09:45:08 Does it mean that one officer did 61 civil citations in one

09:45:15 day?

09:45:15 What does it mean?

09:45:18 This is the most inaccurate cover-up I have ever seen.




09:45:24 Anyway, I am strongly suggesting that you ask Mr. Slater to

09:45:28 do a report on this.

09:45:31 I also just received over 200 addresses that were on the

09:45:37 mayor's list that shows you the process doesn't work.

09:45:47 There's code violations within one city block of the code

09:45:53 office that has never been issued any kind of inspection,

09:46:00 violation, or anything.

09:46:04 I mean, when you look at them, you wonder how a business is

09:46:12 allowed with a roof like that.

09:46:15 (Bell sounds).

09:46:16 >> Thank you very much, sir.

09:46:17 >> It just goes on and on and on.

09:46:20 >> Thank you, sir.

09:46:21 Anyone else in the audience care to speak to any item on the

09:46:24 agenda?

09:46:25 Any item off the agenda you would like to speak on?

09:46:28 >> Susan Long, 920 east broad.

09:46:41 As you know I live in Seminole Heights, has a lot of small

09:46:44 little businesses opened up, predominantly restaurants but

09:46:48 not exclusively.

09:46:49 And I was shocked to find out that they open their doors,

09:46:53 and after operating for about a year and finally starting to

09:46:56 be profitable, the transportation impact fee is two

09:47:04 somewhere between 10 and $20,000 for a little tiny

09:47:07 restaurant I pulled up online -- and I didn't print out




09:47:14 copies for everybody so you can get it online too -- the

09:47:17 transportation impact and features manual, I got it online

09:47:22 and am thoroughly confused. I have no idea how they did it.

09:47:26 But also have a transportation impact fee district schedule.

09:47:31 As best I can figure out, the map is not real clear to the

09:47:37 north-south boundary, Seminole Heights is either in the

09:47:40 central east district or the north central district.

09:47:42 If you look down to restaurant, if we are in the central

09:47:46 east district, 3975, transportation impact fees, and if we

09:47:51 are in the north central district, it's 2997, 2,997, not 15

09:47:57 to $20,000.

09:47:58 These businesses are not told at the front end they are

09:48:01 going to be hit with 10 to $20,000 impact fees.

09:48:06 They are on FDOT controlled roads so you know those moneys

09:48:09 aren't going to fix Florida or Nebraska Avenue.

09:48:14 Because FDOT does those.

09:48:16 These businesses are just starting to make money.

09:48:19 They are small one or two proprietor businesses, just

09:48:23 starting to make money, and come up with $15,000.

09:48:27 We have one business that's about to open.

09:48:28 When I mentioned it to him, if I had known that at the front

09:48:31 we would not be opening, because we don't have an extra 15

09:48:34 to $20,000.

09:48:35 And with no forewarning, about a year, year and a half after

09:48:41 the business opened.




09:48:42 I would like somebody to look into how you can do this to a

09:48:46 small businessman.

09:48:47 Thank you.

09:48:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

09:48:49 Appreciate it.

09:48:49 Anyone else?

09:48:50 >> My name is Matt Mixon.

09:49:04 Agenda 55 by Ashton wood.

09:49:06 >> That's a public hearing.

09:49:14 Anything set for public hearing cannot -- it's got to be

09:49:17 discussed during that time.

09:49:18 It's set for a time certain for the public.

09:49:20 >> Okay.

09:49:21 I'm sorry.

09:49:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: No, it's my fault, not yours.

09:49:24 I apologize to you.

09:49:25 When we get to it you can certainly speak on 55.

09:49:28 I hope it's not long.

09:49:29 >> Okay.

09:49:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I apologize to you, sir.

09:49:33 Anyone else that wants to speak on any item other than those

09:49:37 set for public hearing?

09:49:38 I see no one.

09:49:42 We go now to Public Safety Committee in fact, 46 is the one

09:49:54 that Mr. Grandoff and I had.




09:49:57 It's past 9:30.

09:49:58 We can discuss this now.

09:50:00 Mr. Grandoff?

09:50:01 >> Good morning.

09:50:04 John Grandoff, suite 3700 Bank of America Plaza.

09:50:07 On behalf of the petitioner on item 46.

09:50:14 This is a second reading public hearing.

09:50:16 Because of Ms. Capin's absence, I venture to say there will

09:50:20 be a tie vote.

09:50:21 I don't know if there's folks here that planned to come this

09:50:24 morning to speak.

09:50:25 I would be willing to yield the podium so they can have

09:50:29 their say if they wish.

09:50:30 And if you would like to have a vote, I'm okay with that.

09:50:34 Or if you would prefer to just continue in respect to Ms.

09:50:38 Capin, I can also do that.

09:50:39 I don't want to inconvenience anyone that was not aware of

09:50:43 Ms. Capin's absence.

09:50:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I understand.

09:50:46 And I appreciate it.

09:50:47 Let me ask.

09:50:51 Anyone in the audience care to speak on 46 on the

09:50:53 continuance?

09:50:54 On the continuance?

09:50:57 Here is what we have.




09:50:58 As you can count we have six members.

09:51:01 We really need 7 on this one here.

09:51:04 For us to take a vote today is going to end up just like, I

09:51:08 assume, on a deadlock and it wouldn't be fair to you or to

09:51:13 the petitioner.

09:51:14 So what I am asking this council is to set a date certain.

09:51:19 However, I have to also say that there is some illness, some

09:51:25 serious illness, in the Capin family, and that comes first

09:51:31 in my mind.

09:51:33 And so take there's where we are at.

09:51:38 I would like to set it for sometime in October.

09:51:41 Towards the end of the month possibly.

09:51:43 Mr. Cohen?

09:51:44 >>HARRY COHEN: Ms. Capin asked on her other items be set

09:51:47 for October 17th.

09:51:48 Maybe that would be a good guide to follow.

09:51:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We are going to speak.

09:51:54 I can only allow to you speak on the continuance, not on the

09:51:56 item.

09:51:57 If you care to come up now, I would appreciate it.

09:51:59 >> My name is Ruth Scott.

09:52:06 I live at 3821 west San Juan street.

09:52:10 Are the residents getting weary?

09:52:12 Yes.

09:52:13 Are they frustrated at taking another day off their work




09:52:16 from familiar preliminary or other obligations to attend

09:52:20 council meetings to let you know our opinions of rezoning

09:52:23 this property?

09:52:24 Yes.

09:52:24 Are we here again asking you not to approve the rezoning and

09:52:29 the associated variances? Yes.

09:52:31 Are we asking you to go ahead and listen to the information

09:52:34 on this matter now and take a vote?

09:52:37 And if it's a tie then it's a tie.

09:52:40 Yes.

09:52:42 We are tired.

09:52:43 But we are here again.

09:52:45 You need to recognize that.

09:52:48 I'm sorry for the illnesses and people that are not here but

09:52:52 we are very tired.

09:52:53 And we don't wants to be worn down on this.

09:52:56 This is our neighborhood.

09:52:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

09:53:00 Next, please.

09:53:04 >> My name is Paul Davis.

09:53:06 I reside at 3812 San Juan street.

09:53:09 I have appeared at a couple of these hearings now.

09:53:11 And I think last time the rezoning was going to go down in

09:53:18 defeat and was continued basically to allow the appellate

09:53:21 area belter chance.




09:53:23 Again, not going to be able to get the approval and it seems

09:53:27 top me that at some point, if the vote were to be to approve

09:53:34 this, would we continue it again until there is enough

09:53:37 opposition to oppose it?

09:53:38 I don't think so.

09:53:39 But it seems to me we are simply exhausting the opposition

09:53:44 to this rezoning, and it's time to take a vote and just make

09:53:49 a decision and not to continue this over and over and over

09:53:54 again until the folks are present in chambers to approve it.

09:54:01 It seems to be an unfair way to go about this.

09:54:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

09:54:06 One more, yes, sir.

09:54:07 >> Bruce Scott, 3821 San Juan street.

09:54:17 And when I was here in May, I think it was, at first

09:54:23 reading, we talked about it, the neighborhood is a

09:54:27 residential area and it ought to stay that way.

09:54:29 What I would like to hear -- I know there's certain groups

09:54:33 of you that are for it and some aren't, and that's

09:54:35 understandable.

09:54:36 But the ones that are for the change, I would like to hear

09:54:42 their reasoning for this to happen.

09:54:46 It seems like it's unfair.

09:54:51 This is a democracy and we have petitions with 50-some

09:54:54 signatures, in a very close area there that are against the

09:54:59 change.




09:55:01 So what's going to happen is the City Council is going to

09:55:04 bail somebody out and purchase some land, thinking they are

09:55:06 going to come in here and get it changed.

09:55:09 These not the way it's done.

09:55:11 They try to get change first and then they purchase.

09:55:13 So I just don't think it's right that the minority, very

09:55:17 small minority, is going to control what happens in our

09:55:20 neighborhood.

09:55:21 Thank you.

09:55:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

09:55:23 Ms. Mulhern?

09:55:24 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

09:55:27 I think considering that we have -- do we have another

09:55:31 speaker?

09:55:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Oh, I'm sorry.

09:55:32 Go on.

09:55:33 >> I'm Elizabeth Alexander, 3816 west San Juan street.

09:55:39 My granddaughter lives next door to me.

09:55:41 My daughter lives across the street from me.

09:55:44 This is a residential neighborhood.

09:55:46 People walk their dogs.

09:55:48 They push their children in carriages.

09:55:52 We come repeatedly here.

09:55:57 This shouldn't be something we have to do over and over and

09:55:59 over again.




09:56:00 This is a residential neighborhood.

09:56:01 We should keep it that way.

09:56:04 When we have traffic on Dale Mabry, traffic down our street,

09:56:10 we don't want traffic coming down our street for business.

09:56:22 I lived on the street approximately 18 years, and, of

09:56:29 course, Dale Mabry, there is a business on Dale Mabry, but

09:56:32 Dale Mabry --

09:56:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: You have to speak on only the

09:56:35 continuation.

09:56:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry to interrupt.

09:56:39 Right now we are only talking about whether to grant the

09:56:41 continuance.

09:56:42 >> Do not grant a continue anxious.

09:56:44 We are here now.

09:56:45 We are tired.

09:56:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

09:56:48 Ms. Mulhern, Mr. Suarez.

09:56:49 >>MARY MULHERN: I think we have heard clearly from the

09:56:52 public taking time off work and their time to come down here

09:56:55 that they want to hear this today.

09:56:58 If we have a tie vote we come back anyway.

09:57:01 I think we also might have the entire discussion today and

09:57:04 Councilwoman Capin will have the opportunity to watch the

09:57:08 discussion on replay or online.

09:57:12 So if we do need to come back, our discussion will be




09:57:18 shorter.

09:57:18 So I would move to deny the continuance.

09:57:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Suarez?

09:57:25 >>MIKE SUAREZ: A couple things.

09:57:26 One, one of the speakers said this is not a delay tactic by

09:57:30 anybody, because we don't have a member here.

09:57:35 It is an accident of circumstance and not of design.

09:57:38 So if we vote now and it is still 3-3 as Ms. Mulhern just

09:57:43 mentioned, it comes back again and again and again.

09:57:47 The continuance does not do anything either for or against

09:57:50 any party here.

09:57:52 Now, I understand what Ms. Mulhern's point is, that even if

09:57:56 we hear the public again on the particular issue, Mrs. Capin

09:58:00 or some other member here would have to change their vote.

09:58:03 That creates a different set of problems for us as a council

09:58:08 because then there may be a challenge to the legality of a

09:58:12 first vote in favor of the plaintiff and a second vote

09:58:17 against the plaintiff -- excuse me, not plaintiff, the

09:58:19 applicant.

09:58:19 So for us it becomes a much thicker and weirder issue than

09:58:27 let's vote again.

09:58:28 We vote.

09:58:29 We are stuck in the same place we were two weeks ago, three

09:58:32 weeks ago, a month ago.

09:58:34 Everyone knows how I voted on this particular issue.




09:58:37 I don't have to reiterate it.

09:58:39 I don't know -- and I have been doing these things for a

09:58:41 couple of years now.

09:58:43 Most of the time people do not change their vote.

09:58:46 And I have seen it happen maybe once in the time that I have

09:58:49 been here.

09:58:50 Again, you know, I want to make sure that the public

09:58:52 understands, this is not -- in fact, Mr. Grandoff, I thought

09:58:58 in terms of letting this go forward, we probably would have

09:59:00 voted a continuance with no problem and not allowing anybody

09:59:03 to speak about the continuance.

09:59:06 I shouldn't say we would have allowed it anyway.

09:59:08 But nonetheless he asked for it.

09:59:10 The continuance doesn't do anything for anyone.

09:59:13 It is just a legal procedure.

09:59:15 Unfortunately, we can't move forward if someone does not

09:59:17 change their vote.

09:59:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much, Mr. Suarez.

09:59:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Members of council and members of the

09:59:25 public, I just want to give you a little background just so

09:59:28 you would understand the consequences either way, whether

09:59:33 this is to go forward or not.

09:59:35 Right now, you have an ordinance being presented for second

09:59:39 reading and adoption.

09:59:41 It is not a continued public hearing.




09:59:43 It hasn't been opened yet.

09:59:45 So you are in a state now where by a 4-3 vote, City Council

09:59:51 has moved to pass this on first reading and move it to a

09:59:55 second reading and adoption hearing.

09:59:57 The way City Council structures its hearing is you allow two

10:00:02 full opportunities to take evidence before making a

10:00:05 decision.

10:00:06 And Mr. Suarez referenced the fact that it could be

10:00:11 problematic if a council member votes and changes the vote

10:00:16 between first and second reading.

10:00:19 To clarify, it would be appropriate for council members to

10:00:23 change their vote between first and second reading because

10:00:26 this is a new public hearing to allow you to take additional

10:00:31 evidence.

10:00:32 It allows Mr. Grandoff to make his presentation if he so

10:00:36 chooses, and it allows you to take evidence.

10:00:40 And again, your decision, if it is based on competent,

10:00:44 substantial evidence that is taken at the second reading,

10:00:48 that gives you a basis to change your vote, irrespective of

10:00:54 how you voted the first time, as long as that decision is

10:00:57 rooted in competent, substantial evidence, then you have a

10:01:01 basis to vote however it is you feel the need.

10:01:06 So there is also a custom that this City Council has that if

10:01:13 a public hearing is continued -- for instance, if it's

10:01:16 opened and continued today, at the end of this hearing,




10:01:22 there is not somewhere down the line another opportunity for

10:01:26 Mr. Grandoff to make his full presentation at a second

10:01:28 reading, and just as likely is not possible where people can

10:01:34 testify again at a continued public hearing when they have

10:01:37 previously testified, unless there is a basis for a change,

10:01:42 for instance, in a site plan or a proposal, and then they

10:01:44 can address the changes.

10:01:47 So if those people who are here today testify today, if it

10:01:50 is continued to another day, barring any changes, it is

10:01:54 normally the custom of this council that they have given

10:01:57 their testimony at the second reading, and they will not

10:01:59 have an opportunity to speak again.

10:02:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Ms. Mulhern?

10:02:05 >>MARY MULHERN: Mr. Shelby, okay, I see what you are

10:02:13 saying.

10:02:13 If you speak at the first hearing, you can speak again --

10:02:20 >> At the second hearing.

10:02:22 >>CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that we have allowed people to

10:02:24 speak again if they had new -- something additional to say,

10:02:27 not necessarily that there was any change.

10:02:30 Is that not true?

10:02:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Only on the basis -- no.

10:02:37 Only on the basis if a petition or --

10:02:42 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay, okay, okay, I understand.

10:02:44 Okay, okay.




10:02:47 I'm not sure Councilman Suarez -- or I might not have

10:02:51 expressed myself very well.

10:02:52 But my point is, we have a noticed public hearing that was

10:02:55 to be held here today.

10:02:58 We have people here who want to be heard.

10:03:00 I think we owe it to the public to give them that

10:03:04 opportunity.

10:03:05 The reality is, as Mr. Shelby just noted, if we hear this

10:03:09 today and come back, it will just, because of a tie vote,

10:03:16 then it will not be a full-blown public hearing, right?

10:03:20 It will just be the opportunity for Councilwoman Capin to

10:03:23 vote?

10:03:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's correct.

10:03:25 I'm glad you brought that up because I want to --

10:03:29 >>MARY MULHERN: Let me refinish.

10:03:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry.

10:03:33 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

10:03:35 So my point is -- and I disagree with both of you with the

10:03:38 idea that people can't change their vote.

10:03:41 We are voting on what we hear in the public hearing.

10:03:43 And people have changed their vote many, many times.

10:03:48 During my tenure and other times.

10:03:51 And as Mr. Shelby pointed out, if there is competent,

10:03:58 substantial evidence for them to do that, you have every

10:04:03 opportunity to do that.




10:04:04 So we can set the odds on what the likelihood of a tie is

10:04:09 today, and it may be very high, but we do not know

10:04:12 individually, as a council, how this is going to come out

10:04:15 today.

10:04:15 And I think hearing this appeal from the public, I think we

10:04:19 need to hear this today.

10:04:20 And I think that this is not going to have any kind of

10:04:25 negative effect on the petitioner's case in any way to hear

10:04:29 it today.

10:04:34 We have one person who was in favor of it who is not here

10:04:37 today who will have an opportunity to hear everything in the

10:04:43 tape, and I think we need to treat the public equally, due

10:04:47 process for the public and the petitioner.

10:04:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me say this.

10:04:52 Anyone can change their vote.

10:04:59 Because if you don't change your vote, no one is 100%

10:05:02 perfect.

10:05:05 But the odds are this, if we have this hearing today, and it

10:05:11 was very clearly stated, and it's a 3-3 vote, unless there's

10:05:17 substantial change in the continuation by the petitioner,

10:05:21 those who speak today will not be allowed to speak at the

10:05:26 continuation in the future other than a member of the

10:05:29 council who is not here so that we review the record, can

10:05:32 vote that person's conscience.

10:05:34 So I'm not opposed to this today but the odds of someone




10:05:40 changing their vote is high, number one, and number two, you

10:05:44 have almost 100% certainty that if it's held today, and

10:05:49 there's no change in the petitioner's side and it's

10:05:53 continued, then the odds of speaking again are almost zero.

10:05:58 Those are the odds you choose.

10:06:00 So let's hear this hearing today and see how the odds go.

10:06:06 You are playing the odds.

10:06:07 You are playing Russian roulette.

10:06:09 We'll go on.

10:06:10 That's my opinion.

10:06:12 We need a motion to open the public hearing first.

10:06:15 I have a motion to open by Mrs. Montelione, seconded by Mr.

10:06:18 Reddick.

10:06:19 All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.

10:06:21 Opposed nay.

10:06:22 The ayes have it unanimously.

10:06:26 Mrs. Mulhern.

10:06:28 Need a motion.

10:06:29 Well, it's open.

10:06:30 It's open.

10:06:33 It's open.

10:06:36 Petitioner, you have got 15 minutes.

10:06:43 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Suite 3700 Bank of America Plaza on behalf

10:06:45 of the petitioner.

10:06:46 And I will simply refresh your recollection to be the




10:06:49 original first reading.

10:06:53 And in summary, the clerk's minutes note that the site plan

10:06:58 would be amended to include the condition that Ms. Feeley

10:07:02 and I and the city attorney, Ms. Cole, had negotiated, and

10:07:06 that condition was where, it would be condition 14 was to be

10:07:15 restrict the use -- and I have a copy of it if you would

10:07:17 like to review that again, but essentially that was the

10:07:20 motion that was adopted at that time.

10:07:23 And I will simply close and ask that you approve this

10:07:28 application this morning, and respectfully request that

10:07:31 approval.

10:07:32 I will reserve my comments for any rebuttal.

10:07:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Any comments by council members at this

10:07:37 time?

10:07:38 Ms. Feeley?

10:07:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: This is us a quasi-judicial.

10:07:47 So witnesses will have to be sworn.

10:07:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Okay.

10:07:49 Anyone in the audience that's going to speak -- and Mr.

10:07:54 Grandoff, I am going to ask you to repeat that short intro

10:07:57 again, please.

10:07:58 Stand up and be sworn in.

10:07:59 (Oath administered by Clerk)

10:08:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Any items on number 46 need to be

10:08:11 received and filed.




10:08:11 I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione, seconded by Mr. Cohen to

10:08:14 receive and file.

10:08:15 All in favor of the motion?

10:08:17 Opposed?

10:08:17 The ayes have it unanimously.

10:08:19 Okay.

10:08:21 I want to ask Mr. Grandoff to come back up.

10:08:27 Well, I see a court reporter.

10:08:29 I might be bald but I'm not blind.

10:08:33 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Yes, sir.

10:08:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: State your motion again, please.

10:08:36 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Yes.

10:08:38 The motion on first reading was to be include the condition

10:08:44 number 14, which has been approved by the city attorney's

10:08:47 office and the zoning department through Mrs. Feeley.

10:08:50 I respectfully request that you now hold a second reading

10:08:53 and approval of the site plan, consistent with that motion,

10:08:57 and I will reserve the remainder of my comments for

10:09:00 rebuttal.

10:09:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

10:09:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Mr. Grandoff or Ms. Feeley, may I ask

10:09:07 for a restatement of what the 14 was?

10:09:14 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.

10:09:22 That note number 14 stated that the permitted uses of the

10:09:25 property shall be limited to office, business, and




10:09:28 professional, dwelling, single-family detached, and retail

10:09:32 sales, specialty goods, as defined in section 27-43, City of

10:09:36 Tampa zoning code.

10:09:37 However, the following uses shall be expressly prohibited.

10:09:43 Restaurant, bar, lounge, liquor store, sale of tobacco

10:09:47 products and smoking paraphernalia, any use involving any

10:09:49 sales of lingerie or any similar fashionable intimate and

10:09:53 alluring apparel or undergarments. For definition of

10:09:56 lingerie, see www.wikipedia and the Websters New Collegiate

10:10:01 Dictionary copyright 1979 or any use determined by the

10:10:06 zoning administrator to be substantially similar to these

10:10:08 stated uses.

10:10:10 Our zoning code, as an aside, does refer to Meriam Webster

10:10:15 when an item is not defined in the zoning code so this would

10:10:18 be consistent with how uses are currently treated and

10:10:20 defined pursuant to chapter 27.

10:10:23 I did certify these plans back on August 19th given that

10:10:27 the case did not move forward the last time it was scheduled

10:10:29 to the number of council members present.

10:10:33 Those certified plans are what is on record with the clerk.

10:10:36 And I just wanted to state that they have been certified.

10:10:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much, Mrs. Feeley.

10:10:40 Anyone in the audience care to speak on this item, item

10:10:42 number 46?

10:10:43 46?




10:10:44 Please come forward.

10:10:44 >> Paul Davis.

10:11:11 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: You are going to speak separately so you

10:11:13 have three minutes each.

10:11:14 >> She'll probably contradict whatever I say. Anyway, my

10:11:20 name is Paul Davis.

10:11:21 I reside at 3812 west San Juan street, half a block from

10:11:25 this property that's being rezoned.

10:11:27 I resided at this property for over 30 years.

10:11:31 During that time, when I first moved in, in 1979, it was

10:11:37 somewhat modest block.

10:11:38 During the last 30 years, I have seen people including

10:11:41 myself invest hundreds of thousands in their property, in

10:11:45 expansions and renovations, and it is now quite a nice

10:11:50 block.

10:11:51 Rezoning of this property at the end of our street on Dale

10:11:53 Mabry, I'm afraid, will alter the nature of our street, and

10:12:00 in effect what you have done is you will take the least

10:12:02 valuable property on our block, and in effect appropriate

10:12:07 the value in all the other properties and make it the most

10:12:11 valuable property for someone who acquired the property I

10:12:15 think within the last 12 months.

10:12:17 It just seems unfair.

10:12:19 There is arising demand for residential property.

10:12:21 I don't think the use of this property, even though it's




10:12:24 along Dale Mabry, precludes its reasonable use as a

10:12:27 residence property.

10:12:29 There's several houses along Dale Mabry.

10:12:33 And if you read the newspaper you will see the demand for

10:12:35 housing in South Tampa is incredibly large.

10:12:39 You see how it is being knocked down, and being improved,

10:12:42 and on the other hand, in terms of retail property, if you

10:12:47 look up and down the street, in the vicinity of this block,

10:12:51 you will see vacant storefronts available, and it seems to

10:12:58 me that there is no real hardship presented to this land

10:13:03 owner.

10:13:03 This land owner bought it knowing it's a residential

10:13:06 property.

10:13:06 There's a house on one of the blocks.

10:13:08 It's a very nice house.

10:13:10 And I see no reasonable reason at this stage to change the

10:13:14 designation.

10:13:15 In terms of the restrictive uses that are proposed on the

10:13:18 property, right now, there is a legal restriction to

10:13:21 residential only.

10:13:23 So once a retail business is established there, there's

10:13:28 nothing to prevent this council from changing the rules

10:13:31 again as it is proposed to change today.

10:13:33 So places of limitations do not guarantee that ultimately in

10:13:38 ten years from now, they aren't going to be facing a request




10:13:41 to make it into something other than what it is today.

10:13:44 For example, a pawn shop.

10:13:46 Right now, I think that might be a permitted use.

10:13:48 And that to me --

10:13:53 (Bell sounds)

10:13:53 -- would change the nature of our block.

10:13:55 And I plead that you deny this request.

10:13:58 Thank you.

10:13:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

10:13:59 Next, please.

10:14:00 >> Karen Davis, 3812 west San Juan street.

10:14:06 I also ask that you deny this request.

10:14:09 I have lived at the address for 28 years.

10:14:12 and I have lived in Tampa my whole life.

10:14:16 The most beautiful part of Dale Mabry is about six to seven

10:14:21 streets that have homes, and that's the prettiest part of

10:14:29 Dale Mabry.

10:14:29 Then you get down to strip mall.

10:14:32 So it's going to take be a way from the beauty of our

10:14:34 neighborhood.

10:14:35 That's all.

10:14:36 Thank you.

10:14:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I appreciate it very much.

10:14:37 Next, please.

10:14:38 >> Ruth Scott, 3821 west San Juan street.




10:14:45 You have listened to my oats comments.

10:14:47 And I appreciate you going ahead and hearing this today.

10:14:51 Not only is this petitioner requesting a rezoning, but in

10:14:54 addition total rezoning, he needs variances to develop this

10:14:58 property as he wishes.

10:15:01 The land is viable to develop.

10:15:06 You will seat some presentation of residences along Dale

10:15:10 Mabry.

10:15:13 One in back of me on Santiago which does not abut Dale Mabry

10:15:16 but it's a 50-foot lot that just sold for just over

10:15:19 $1,806,000, I believe.

10:15:21 So this property can certainly be developed as residential.

10:15:28 As a homeowner of not only my own residence but one of the

10:15:31 properties across the street from my mother lives, we get

10:15:36 letters interested in purchasing property, our property, on

10:15:40 a regular basis, and my mother's house would probably be a

10:15:45 tear-down house.

10:15:46 So as far as looking at keeping this property residential,

10:15:50 that is what I would like to see and what the neighborhood

10:15:52 would like to see.

10:15:55 And we hope that you will vote.

10:16:00 >> Thank you very much.

10:16:02 Next, please.

10:16:03 >> Bruce Scott, 3821 San Juan, been there for 43 years.

10:16:09 Eights great residential neighborhood.




10:16:12 And what I would like to do, if it's okay with the council,

10:16:16 to pass out these pictures of houses in the neighborhood.

10:16:19 They are on Dale Mabry.

10:16:24 I don't know how well that will show up on the screen.

10:16:37 But there's one in particular I would like to point out.

10:16:52 That is a single lot.

10:16:53 And that's a single lot.

10:16:59 Got a nice house on it.

10:17:00 Then there's other houses all along that area.

10:17:04 I can't help but believe that a developer could put two

10:17:07 homes on that property, one nice big huge home with a pool

10:17:12 and everything on the side.

10:17:15 So I agree with Paul Davis that was here a few minutes ago,

10:17:19 stating it's a residential lot.

10:17:27 Thank you.

10:17:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

10:17:30 Next, please.

10:17:30 >> Vic Lewandowski. I live at 3815 west Santiago.

10:17:39 I brought in a survey last time.

10:17:42 I think Mrs. Capin directed one of your staff to do a

10:17:46 follow-up survey which I consider fairly incept empty.

10:17:51 He even admitted he didn't know what he was doing because it

10:17:54 was the first time.

10:17:55 So I have done the survey again.

10:17:56 This is four blocks above and below Bay to Bay.




10:18:10 This area right here is the Plant High School parking lot.

10:18:14 Every one of these blue squares is a single-family home.

10:18:21 The whole area is a single-family home, residential area,

10:18:24 which is amazing.

10:18:27 Mrs. Capin drove through it and she couldn't believe that's

10:18:29 the situation.

10:18:30 There's no retail shop along that eight-block area.

10:18:36 The church parking lot here.

10:18:37 The first commercial property is -- Smith associates realty

10:18:42 and the church is on the other side.

10:18:44 Below Bay to Bay, and I would like to say also above the

10:18:50 parking lot if you go more than 15 miles there is not a

10:18:53 single-family home along Dale Mabry.

10:18:56 It's nonresidential, it's all commercial from there up.

10:19:01 Okay.

10:19:01 So below Bay to Bay, have each intersection.

10:19:11 Here is north.

10:19:12 This is Santiago.

10:19:13 Looking north, here is the townhouse.

10:19:19 Church parking lot here.

10:19:23 This wall here runs along Santiago.

10:19:25 It presents entry and exit into the townhouse offices.

10:19:33 The proposed property -- the only entrance and exit is onto

10:19:38 Santiago from a retail shop.

10:19:40 That's unprecedented in that whole eight blocks.




10:19:42 There's no retail shops that have entrance and exits onto

10:19:48 residential street.

10:19:48 Where in Tampa does that happen?

10:19:53 I don't know if council is aware of that or not.

10:19:57 Okay.

10:19:57 As we go south here, this is looking south, and this is the

10:20:03 property that's in question.

10:20:05 This is realty office over there.

10:20:07 This wall is to be replaced by a white wall to be shield the

10:20:16 property.

10:20:17 That property will have no entrance.

10:20:19 It will have south Dale Mabry address, because he's not

10:20:24 going to have a Santiago address.

10:20:26 It's going to be south Dale Mabry with no entrance off of

10:20:29 south Dale Mabry.

10:20:32 How many businesses have you gone to, gone down the street,

10:20:35 and tried to turn in to that address on that street and it

10:20:40 doesn't exist?

10:20:42 It does not exist.

10:20:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

10:20:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Did you want any of that in the record or

10:20:48 not?

10:20:48 >> Yeah, I do.

10:20:49 >> I was going to ask if I can see that map as well. Will

10:20:51 you pass that around, Mr. Shelby?




10:20:51 >> How many copies?

10:20:57 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I don't know if you need to make a copy.

10:21:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Next, please.

10:21:01 >> My name is Stephani Parick, 3908 west Santiago.

10:21:09 And I just want you all to know that I am very much against

10:21:12 this proposed development as well.

10:21:15 In my block alone, I believe there's a dozen children, two

10:21:20 of which are my own.

10:21:22 The kids play outside a lot.

10:21:26 Right now we see traffic that is in a big hurry avoiding the

10:21:31 lights, always racing down our street.

10:21:33 >> Thank you very much.

10:21:41 Next, please.

10:21:41 >> My name is James Lee.

10:21:49 On August 6th I moved from Pinellas County to 3814 west

10:21:55 Santiago.

10:21:58 When I first drove down Dale Mabry, I couldn't imagine where

10:22:06 else a commercial building would be built because it looks

10:22:08 to me like it's a solid commercial.

10:22:11 And I guess the question that I have is, what's the mission

10:22:19 of the City of Tampa?

10:22:20 Is it to make Dale Mabry totally commercial all the way down

10:22:23 the street on both sides?

10:22:26 Because if that is going to happen, then there's a lot of

10:22:29 residential areas like the one we are talking about here




10:22:31 this morning that's going to be affected.

10:22:35 So I think we have to look at what is the mission of the

10:22:39 city.

10:22:40 Does it make any difference if Dale Mabry is solid

10:22:44 commercial from where it starts to where it ends without any

10:22:49 regard to the people that are in residence close to Dale

10:22:55 Mabry?

10:22:56 I think I live about three or four houses from Dale Mabry,

10:23:00 and I was really surprised at the amount of traffic on Dale

10:23:03 Mabry.

10:23:06 And if this is allowed to go forward, then the street that

10:23:11 we are on, the side streets, are going to be even more

10:23:14 congested than they are, and, in effect, the very nice part

10:23:19 of the residential side of the area that we live in.

10:23:23 So I am very surprised that this would go forward.

10:23:28 It seems like to me that the three people that voted for

10:23:31 this, if they lived in that area and could experience what

10:23:36 goes on there, they might have a different perspective.

10:23:41 Thank you.

10:23:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much, sir.

10:23:44 Next, please.

10:23:44 >> Rachel Liggio, 3808 west Santiago.

10:23:57 There are four great reasons for you to vote against this

10:24:04 project.

10:24:07 First and foremost, and substantially different from the




10:24:11 first reading, is the opposition from the neighborhood.

10:24:14 We now have over 60 household who signed against this

10:24:22 project.

10:24:23 60.

10:24:24 It's a lot.

10:24:27 There are people who live there now.

10:24:33 This is 60.

10:24:35 Each of these addresses are on Santiago and San Juan.

10:24:39 Additional addresses from other neighborhoods close by.

10:24:42 These are the people who live there.

10:24:48 Thank you for your vote.

10:24:50 Frank, Harry, Lisa, we need you guys, too.

10:24:53 Don't be afraid to change your vote because we do have a

10:24:55 substantial difference.

10:24:57 It's right here.

10:24:57 It's the people who live there.

10:25:00 We need you to pay attention to that and honor that and

10:25:03 vote -- we need your vote.

10:25:06 Three or four meetings ago, you asked what the block looks

10:25:15 like.

10:25:15 They presented you with some information.

10:25:17 We were presented by the petitioner with a 28-block example.

10:25:24 From Henderson to Euclid showing you commercial.

10:25:28 There is commercial north of Palmira and south of Obispo,

10:25:33 but not in that 8 block stretch.




10:25:36 So let's look again.

10:25:39 I dropped a copy of this presentation off to each of you in

10:25:48 the office.

10:25:49 I also e-mailed it to you.

10:25:51 I will be happy top provide you with more copies if you need

10:25:53 it.

10:25:54 This is what the eight blocks look like.

10:25:56 25 spaces there.

10:25:57 17 of them are residential.

10:25:59 17.

10:26:00 Not four or five.

10:26:01 17.

10:26:03 There is one church.

10:26:05 There are seven offices, low-volume offices, marketing, real

10:26:09 estate, engineering.

10:26:11 Zero retail.

10:26:12 This is your second reason not to approve this project.

10:26:16 There is no retail in this stretch.

10:26:20 Of those seven offices, only two have access onto side

10:26:26 streets.

10:26:26 This is the reason.

10:26:29 They do not have access on the side streets.

10:26:31 And of those two, only one has exclusive access on the side

10:26:35 street.

10:26:36 The other one has an entrance on Dale Mabry.




10:26:38 And my last point is it's too big.

10:26:42 This project is too big for this piece of property.

10:26:47 Please do not approve this project.

10:26:49 It's too big for the property.

10:26:50 It's wrong for our neighborhood.

10:26:53 It's wrong for our community.

10:26:55 Thank you.

10:26:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Next, please.

10:26:59 >> Gordon Wyman, 3815 West San Juan Street.

10:27:12 I moved from Ohio recently.

10:27:13 And the reason we chose this spot was because of the

10:27:16 residential neighborhood being so close to major roads,

10:27:22 being able to have that access.

10:27:26 At the last meeting I noticed there were three people that

10:27:28 spoke from the neighborhood that were in favor of this.

10:27:31 And that really surprised me having lived there who would

10:27:34 want to change this into a commercial district.

10:27:37 And it came to my attention that they actual lit don't live

10:27:41 in the house.

10:27:42 They own the house but they don't actually live there.

10:27:45 So to me that makes me believe that they would be in favor

10:27:48 of not only this property that we are talking about, but the

10:27:51 house across the street also being sold eventually to become

10:27:55 a commercial facility.

10:27:58 And to me, that's a step in the wrong direction.




10:28:01 And I urge you to keep this residential for those that live

10:28:03 there.

10:28:06 As you saw, 60 houses.

10:28:08 That's quite a few people that want to keep this the same.

10:28:11 And one person that wants to change it to commercial.

10:28:14 Please vote against this.

10:28:17 Thank you.

10:28:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

10:28:18 Anyone else in the audience cares to speak on item number

10:28:21 46, Z-13-26 who has not spoken?

10:28:24 I seat no one.

10:28:25 Petitioner, you have closing remarks.

10:28:31 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

10:28:32 Let me put this on the overhead so you can see the

10:28:36 structure.

10:28:40 He the jewelry store.

10:28:43 Both uses which are limited by the condition 14 staff

10:28:47 provided.

10:28:48 I want to step back to a moment to some of the comments that

10:28:52 were made.

10:28:52 First and foremost, petitions of themselves are not

10:28:56 competent substantial evidence because of obvious reason,

10:28:59 you cannot challenge the petition or what was told to the

10:29:01 person before they signed the petition.

10:29:02 So that is under the law not competent substantial evidence.




10:29:05 Furthermore, the opposition you heard this morning is by and

10:29:11 large speculative, suggestion, that my clients venture

10:29:16 elsewhere to open their stores, and that perhaps the

10:29:22 residential market would come to this property, and

10:29:26 therefore that would be home building venture instead of a

10:29:31 retail venture.

10:29:33 Again, that's speculation.

10:29:34 That is not competent, substantial evidence.

10:29:36 So what is competent substantial evidence? What you heard

10:29:39 in prior hearings and also focuses most centrally on the

10:29:44 report that was prepared by the city staff, and I will

10:29:47 summarize on page 5.

10:29:49 I think the most succinct finding of this report with the

10:29:54 site plan that was negotiated with the city staff and all

10:29:56 departments.

10:29:58 And the finding is, the property is located on the southwest

10:30:01 corner of South Dale Mabry Highway.

10:30:06 Highway.

10:30:07 That is where you put commercial if it is properly cited

10:30:11 in -- cited in a proper site plan.

10:30:14 This is finding number 6 on page 5.

10:30:16 Furthermore, staff concludes the proposed low intensity

10:30:20 commercial use and associated site configuration and

10:30:25 buffering will provide a nice transition from a heavily

10:30:29 traveled corridor back to the surrounding single-family




10:30:33 residential neighborhood.

10:30:35 Let me also remind you that this finding predates condition

10:30:41 14.

10:30:42 So the condition made the site plan even better as far as

10:30:46 restricting uses.

10:30:47 Also, please recall that the Florida Department of

10:30:49 Transportation is prohibiting access on Dale Mabry.

10:30:55 So in any scenario the only available access has to be

10:31:00 Santiago.

10:31:02 I will close by noting that on page 6, there is a finding of

10:31:06 consistency by all departments, no findings of

10:31:08 inconsistency, and the Planning Commission found that the

10:31:10 project is consistent with the comprehensive plan adopted by

10:31:13 this City Council and the Planning Commission.

10:31:16 That is abundant competent substantial evidence to justify

10:31:19 approval, and ask that you do so this morning.

10:31:22 Thank you very much.

10:31:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much, Mr. Grandoff.

10:31:26 Appreciate it very much.

10:31:27 Any additional comments from council members before we close

10:31:29 the hearing?

10:31:30 Mrs. Montelione.

10:31:31 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I want to address a couple of things.

10:31:34 One of the speakers during public comment said that if any

10:31:39 of us lived in the area we might feel differently.




10:31:41 And I want to address that, because I personally take

10:31:44 offense to that.

10:31:46 I live in an area that has commercial two blocks from my

10:31:52 house.

10:31:53 I think a lot of us live in areas that commercial is very

10:31:57 close to our homes.

10:31:58 So just because we don't live on this particular section of

10:32:01 this particular street doesn't mean that we can't relate to

10:32:05 what it's like to live with commercial property adjacent.

10:32:10 I live a few blocks from Busch Boulevard.

10:32:13 So there's no busier commercial stretch than Busch

10:32:17 Boulevard.

10:32:18 And people drive through my neighborhood all the time trying

10:32:20 to get from Busch to Fowler.

10:32:23 So I understand what it's like to have traffic, you know,

10:32:28 had come through your neighborhood.

10:32:31 I would also like to -- and Mr. Grandoff talked about this,

10:32:35 the access.

10:32:36 There are, in the materials -- and this is very well put

10:32:39 together so thank you very much for the hard work that you

10:32:41 did in putting this together.

10:32:45 There are businesses that has access from Dale Mabry, but

10:32:53 Ms. Feeley, if you can talk to me a little bit about the

10:32:58 difference between when these properties may have been

10:33:00 zoned, or located there, why the Department of




10:33:04 Transportation allowed access off of Dale Mabry for some

10:33:11 businesses, and they are not allowing it for this one.

10:33:14 Do you know?

10:33:16 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.

10:33:21 This was a map that we had put together based on our survey,

10:33:27 and the motion of Mrs. Capin.

10:33:28 We never got to discuss this so I'm not sure the mention to

10:33:33 what was presented to staff and how it was not correct.

10:33:37 But this shows you the offices, and I can't speak to what

10:33:46 DOT put into effect and driveways and how many driveways and

10:33:50 feet in the road and what was going on in that instance.

10:33:53 In this case, this application, D.O.T. did deny access on

10:33:58 Dale Mabry and therefore the property owner is entitled to

10:34:00 access.

10:34:01 And based on the configuration provided that access was

10:34:06 located onto Santiago.

10:34:12 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Do we have anybody from transportation

10:34:15 here?

10:34:16 >>ABBYE FEELEY: No.

10:34:22 >>MARY MULHERN: I missed what you just said about access

10:34:28 onto Santiago.

10:34:34 >>ABBYE FEELEY: This was the map that we had put together

10:34:38 per direction of Councilwoman --

10:34:40 >>MARY MULHERN: I heard that.

10:34:41 >>ABBYE FEELEY: The different accesses onto Dale Mabry.




10:34:45 The question that was asked by Councilwoman Montelione was

10:34:47 why D.O.T. denied access to this property along Dale Mabry.

10:34:52 And I said I am not clear as to why they did that, how they

10:34:57 do that.

10:34:58 If it's based on the number of driveways, the feet of the

10:35:04 road, the safety -- the letter from D.O.T. indicates that

10:35:09 the minimum criteria set forth in their rules, chapter 1497,

10:35:17 to justify driveway, that this is requires a minimum of 125

10:35:22 feet from a neighboring connection, or side street.

10:35:26 And that was signed by James Myers, manager.

10:35:29 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Can we take a look at that letter?

10:35:34 Thank you.

10:35:35 In looking at -- I like this map that you just put up,

10:35:38 because it shows not only the balance between commercial and

10:35:43 residential, but it also, those arrows indicate the access

10:35:47 to those properties.

10:35:48 Is that what those arrows indicate?

10:35:51 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Yes.

10:35:51 And where they have in and out.

10:35:59 A lot of times it's just one way in, one way out.

10:36:05 But that does show all of the access for residential,

10:36:10 office, church, mixed use, and there's one, two pieces of

10:36:16 vacant property along here.

10:36:19 >> And I seep that Mrs. Duncan just joined us.

10:36:22 It would be appropriate for me to ask questions much




10:36:24 transportation?

10:36:25 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Feel that would be completely up to Mrs.

10:36:30 Duncan.

10:36:30 She wasn't involved in this review or this application.

10:36:32 This was Mrs. Calloway and Jonathan Scott but that's

10:36:36 completely up to her.

10:36:37 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Mr. Shelby?

10:36:45 Mrs. Duncan is here, and Mrs. Feeley just pointed out that

10:36:49 she's not involved N.review process.

10:36:52 Mrs. Calloway and Jonathan Scott were.

10:36:55 Would it be appropriate for me to $questions of Mrs. Duncan?

10:37:01 I'm sorry to put you on the spot, Mrs. Duncan.

10:37:06 I don't believe she's been sworn.

10:37:07 >>ABBYE FEELEY: That review was part of the mayor's move to

10:37:11 put us all under one roof at the Construction Services

10:37:14 Center.

10:37:15 That function has been moved under the planning team now,

10:37:18 which is managed by Catherine Coyle.

10:37:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can amend my agreement that huck.

10:37:26 Just to be remind you is what that does that gives Mr.

10:37:28 Grandoff an opportunity if he so chooses to address the

10:37:31 issues that have been raised in council's questions.

10:37:33 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I'm guessing that he's probably going to

10:37:37 address issues that we'll talk about.

10:37:40 Right, Mr. Grandoff?




10:37:46 Ms. Duncan?

10:37:49 >> Jean Duncan, city of transportation division.

10:37:51 (Oath administered by Clerk).

10:37:57 >> Yes, I do.

10:37:58 I'm looking at this map, the one that Mrs. Feeley just had

10:38:02 on the overhead so you might want to have a copy of that

10:38:05 because that's going to be referenced.

10:38:10 Can you tell me what classification of a street, south Dale

10:38:13 Mabry is?

10:38:15 I think it refers in the Planning Commission's report that

10:38:19 it's an arterial or collector.

10:38:21 >> Well, at this moment, I would say my assumption is that

10:38:27 it's an arterial.

10:38:32 We do have a city approved this map on the books.

10:38:36 >>LISA MONTELIONE: What is the definition of an arterial?

10:38:42 >> Well, I'm sort of paraphrasing but an arterial would be a

10:38:46 higher functioning road that would generally handle, again,

10:38:50 higher volumes of traffic, most likely to be a four-lane

10:38:56 roadway or more, and be a roadway that's handling traffic

10:39:04 that's going from destinations that heir across an area, or

10:39:12 regional connection from point A to point B.

10:39:16 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So it's a street that would be a highest

10:39:19 volume traffic street, one that typically, although it may

10:39:26 have started out as a small, sleepy, quiet part of town,

10:39:31 with a lot of residences on it, this street classified as an




10:39:36 arterial now is a commercial type of street?

10:39:41 >> Sometimes the classification changes because of the

10:39:45 character of the road and the area that it's serving change

10:39:49 over time.

10:39:50 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And I am not familiar.

10:39:52 I asked for a copy of the letter from the Department of

10:39:54 Transportation.

10:39:54 I'm not familiar with what a class 7 roadway is.

10:39:57 This is a class 7 roadway and requires a minimum of 125 feet

10:40:01 from a neighboring connection or side street.

10:40:03 >> I would have to take a look at that. I can tell you that

10:40:10 our functional classifications are based on the federal

10:40:13 highway standards, and we have a more simplistic version of

10:40:18 that where we basically have arterials, collectors, local

10:40:23 roadways, and there's be a sort of a middle-of-the-road

10:40:26 version which is the neighborhood collector.

10:40:29 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Got it.

10:40:34 Functionally, one of the photos shows a lot of traffic on

10:40:37 one side of the street.

10:40:38 And I would suppose looking at Ms. Feeley's map with the

10:40:43 arrows of access that, you know, since the property directly

10:40:48 across the street from the one that is the subject of this

10:40:51 petition, and the two, three directly to the south all have

10:40:56 access to south Dale Mabry, people coming in and out, making

10:41:01 turns left or right, would considerably slow traffic, so I




10:41:06 guess functionally, logically, it would make sense that the

10:41:10 D.O.T. would not want another access to further slow

10:41:14 traffic.

10:41:15 Thank you.

10:41:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Ms. Mulhern it?

10:41:17 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

10:41:20 Ms. Duncan, I just am reading this letter from the

10:41:24 Department of Transportation, and my interpretation or my

10:41:31 reading of this letter is the reason that they denied the

10:41:35 access from Dale Mabry is because this is a class 7 roadway

10:41:41 and requires a minimum of 125 feet from a neighboring

10:41:46 connection or side street.

10:41:47 So it seems to me that the reason they are denying it is the

10:41:53 fact that there's a side street residential, and by allowing

10:41:59 entrance onto that residential lot, that will allow access

10:42:07 to those side streets, right?

10:42:09 Isn't that what they are saying?

10:42:13 They don't want to grant access because that would grant

10:42:17 access to residential, directly into residential streets,

10:42:22 side streets.

10:42:23 >>JEAN DUNCAN: I haven't had the opportunity to be apprised

10:42:30 of the details -- appraised of the details in this D.O.T.

10:42:35 denial.

10:42:35 I can tell you that generally speaking that the higher the

10:42:38 functioning of the road, the more, how should I say, onerous




10:42:45 the D.O.T. is in giving the right-of-way to that main line

10:42:50 roadway.

10:42:51 So being that this is an arterial roadway, their sensitivity

10:42:57 is to making sure that that arterial is functioning in the

10:42:59 manner in which -- they are wanting it to function which is

10:43:03 to deteriorate the large volumes of traffic so the more

10:43:09 contact points you have, the more driveways you have, on

10:43:12 that roadway, the more obviously accident opportunities, the

10:43:19 more it can affect the functioning of the road in terms of

10:43:21 the volumes --

10:43:23 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

10:43:24 They are concerned about volume on arterial, on Dale Mabry.

10:43:26 >> I am assuming the alternative, therefore --

10:43:40 >>MARY MULHERN: I guess you are an expert on this and I am

10:43:42 not.

10:43:43 But my guess is the reason they have this is to allow for

10:43:54 the volume in the speed and movement they want on Dale

10:43:58 Mabry.

10:43:58 But as a result of those regulations, we do end up

10:44:03 protecting the side streets.

10:44:06 And they mention the side streets and the neighboring

10:44:09 connection to a side street.

10:44:10 So you think that could be part of the interpretation?

10:44:16 That's at least part of the effect, by not always

10:44:19 allowing -- you know, everything that 125-foot minimum, that




10:44:29 end up in effect protecting neighborhoods from the traffic

10:44:31 impact.

10:44:31 >>JEAN DUNCAN: Again, I have to really read the full

10:44:39 position that the D.O.T. is making on.

10:44:41 This I can say that the D.O.T. does look at balance the

10:44:47 needs of the users of the roadway with the operation of the

10:44:50 roadway.

10:44:51 So I'm just -- the denial was that what we are being

10:44:58 requested was not a hardship situation or was not a

10:45:00 situation that was not granting an impact that they felt was

10:45:05 not something they wanted to see on the road.

10:45:07 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

10:45:12 Thanks.

10:45:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Ms. Feeley?

10:45:14 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.

10:45:17 While she was speaking I did bring up the rule cited --

10:45:24 cited in that letter.

10:45:25 It does talk about the 7 and also talks about the 125 feet.

10:45:31 And Santiago has an access to Dale Mabry.

10:45:35 You would have to be 125 feet from those access to be get

10:45:40 another access.

10:45:41 There's a minimum separation of 125 feet.

10:45:44 So the way I read what be is on there -- it doesn't show.

10:45:52 Well, you know, it talks about the classification does come

10:45:57 down to be say 125 feet, in feet.




10:46:04 So San Juan and Santiago are connected to Dale Mabry.

10:46:08 Therefore, would you need 125 connections to qualify for

10:46:12 another connection, and what D.O.T. is saying that on this

10:46:15 roadway it's not available.

10:46:17 Second to that, if you come down to the access classes, 2

10:46:23 through 7, and it says access 7 here, roadways are

10:46:28 controlled accesses where adjacent land is generally

10:46:31 developed to maximum feasible intensity and roadway

10:46:34 widening, potential is limited.

10:46:36 So they do try to limit what's going in and out there given

10:46:41 that 125 feet based on the road, the amount of traffic,

10:46:48 given 7 is the highest classification.

10:46:50 So just to have provide some clarification based on what I

10:46:53 found.

10:46:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.

10:46:56 Mr. Grandoff, I know you had closing statements but there

10:46:58 has been some addition that has been spoken about by council

10:47:00 members and a couple individuals from the staff.

10:47:03 Would you like to comment on that?

10:47:04 You are certainly entitled to.

10:47:06 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Yes, briefly.

10:47:07 First of all, I believe Mrs. Duncan's testimony is expert in

10:47:12 nature because it's a requesting of special engineer so I

10:47:15 would submit to you that her opinion to you is competent

10:47:17 substantial evidence.




10:47:19 Also, Ms. Feeley's findings of the rule particularly chapter

10:47:23 1497 as to the class 7 roadway is also competent substantial

10:47:28 evidence.

10:47:28 I ask that the clerk note that she cited a rule from the

10:47:35 FDOT.

10:47:36 Let me ask one illustrative point.

10:47:39 In a perfect world Dale Mabry would have no access on it.

10:47:42 And the rule basically says if you are going to have it,

10:47:45 access on both sides, you need a space of 120 feet, 125 feet

10:47:50 apart.

10:47:51 FDOT is in the safety business.

10:47:52 And the volume of traffic moving business.

10:47:55 Dale Mabry being one of the heaviest volume traffics, quite

10:48:01 evident to everyone.

10:48:02 That concludes my comments on the traffic issue. And again

10:48:04 I ask for your approval this morning.

10:48:05 >> Thank you very much.

10:48:06 Any further comments by council members?

10:48:08 Mr. Cohen?

10:48:08 >>HARRY COHEN: This has been a very difficult issue that we

10:48:13 have talked about over and over.

10:48:17 And we are not encouraged to go out and visit these sites

10:48:26 ourselves outside of the public hearing.

10:48:28 But unlike Councilwoman Montelione, I do live and travel in

10:48:32 this neighborhood all the time.




10:48:35 And I'm very familiar with the area.

10:48:38 And what I have feel about this is that much of the

10:48:47 opposition to this is based on a fear that are something is

10:48:51 going to happen here that will dramatically change the

10:48:55 character of the neighborhood, and, in fact, way see is

10:49:01 something happening here that actually may protect the

10:49:03 neighborhood, because this structure that is being proposed

10:49:07 is, in my read of it, directly in line with the Planning

10:49:12 Commission and the city's comprehensive plan of creating

10:49:17 buffers between residential and commercial.

10:49:19 And what everyone else seems to see as an encroachment into

10:49:25 the neighborhood, I see as a buffer between the neighborhood

10:49:27 and Dale Mabry.

10:49:28 And I have heard over and over again in these meetings the

10:49:34 fears that somehow we are going to come back down the road

10:49:37 and amend this and change it, and that somebody how this is

10:49:43 the slippery slope that's going to lead to something else

10:49:45 being there that's not contemplated now.

10:49:49 And, you know, obviously, none of us can predict what a

10:49:53 future council or future group might do, but the way that I

10:49:57 see this is that it's actually going to protect the

10:50:02 neighborhood from a larger commercial development as opposed

10:50:06 to create a new one.

10:50:07 And my own read of it is that it is exactly in line with our

10:50:12 comprehensive plan, and what we are encouraged to do.




10:50:15 It is not ever comfortable or something that we want to do

10:50:20 to vote against the will of a neighborhood.

10:50:24 But in my read of the facts here, the competent substantial

10:50:29 evidence in my view is very heavily weighed toward the

10:50:33 approval of this petition, because it does meet the

10:50:36 criteria, and that's why it would receive a finding of

10:50:42 consistency both from the city and from the Planning

10:50:44 Commission.

10:50:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

10:50:47 Mr. Suarez?

10:50:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I apologize, Mr. Reddick.

10:50:53 I was just outside talking to one of our attorneys about the

10:50:58 balance between what the state's right is in terms of a

10:51:02 State Road and our right as a city to zone the way that we

10:51:06 want to zone.

10:51:07 And one of the problems that we have -- and I think Mr.

10:51:10 Grandoff said it very succinctly -- FDOT's goal is only to

10:51:14 move people as quickly and as safely as possible.

10:51:17 They could care less about the neighborhood.

10:51:19 They can care less about the City of Tampa in terms of what

10:51:22 we want to do and to develop in certain areas.

10:51:26 I think that at some point we are going to have to look at

10:51:29 what our rights are as a city in relation to FDOT's rules.

10:51:35 In and out, the problem that we are going to have

10:51:36 single-family that that is not something that is easily done




10:51:39 and not something that is going to be resolved here.

10:51:41 I voted against this the first time.

10:51:43 I am going to vote against it again today.

10:51:45 Primarily because of those issues, that the transportation

10:51:50 issues that are inherent in this piece of property was known

10:51:55 prior to the purchase of the property, it was known during

10:51:58 the time that they were trying to develop the property, and

10:52:01 it's known now.

10:52:03 There is no hardship in my mind, and no granting of waivers

10:52:06 should be allowed.

10:52:07 But that is my own viewpoint.

10:52:10 I respect my colleagues in terms of how they vote.

10:52:14 I just do not see this as an incidence to be where it should

10:52:19 be allowed.

10:52:20 Thank you, chair.

10:52:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

10:52:22 Need a motion to close.

10:52:23 Motion by Mr. Reddick to close.

10:52:24 Second by Mrs. Montelione.

10:52:25 All in favor of the motion?

10:52:27 Opposed?

10:52:27 The ayes have it unanimously.

10:52:29 Who wants the floor?

10:52:30 Mrs. Mulhern.

10:52:30 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.




10:52:33 I am going to read my original motion from the first hearing

10:52:38 to deny the petition so I am going to read it verbatim.

10:52:43 Then I am going to cite new evidence that we received today.

10:52:48 So I make a motion to deny this petition based on the

10:52:53 inconsistency with the residential character of the

10:52:57 neighborhood.

10:52:58 I am going to adhere that the new evidence we saw today

10:53:05 shows us within that 8 block area there is no retail.

10:53:09 There is the only commercial are small low intensity

10:53:13 offices, and I think we saw some multifamily units.

10:53:19 And so this is a change to the residential character of the

10:53:25 neighborhood.

10:53:28 The site plan -- wait, I'm sorry.

10:53:32 I lost my place.

10:53:35 This is going to create a burden on the neighborhood as

10:53:37 Councilman Suarez just mentioned, and as we have heard, and

10:53:43 I believe -- I agree with the interpretation, of course, of

10:53:47 our transportation director and of the lawyer Mr. Grandoff

10:53:51 about this.

10:53:52 The point of that, that that rule not allowing access, is to

10:53:56 move traffic on Dale Mabry.

10:53:58 But the reality is for the neighborhood, and increasing

10:54:03 intensity from the high volume traffic.

10:54:07 Once you do allow more access on that residential street,

10:54:10 that's what you are going to have is more traffic coming in




10:54:13 to a retail business that should be located and as part of

10:54:23 our comprehensive plan located along the arterial corridor,

10:54:27 not on residential streets.

10:54:30 So that is going to create a traffic burden and a safety

10:54:34 burden for the residents.

10:54:36 The reduction of the buffer and the infringement of parking

10:54:39 on the residents.

10:54:40 I think that there isn't really a justification as many of

10:54:44 the people pointed out dab.

10:54:47 This is a waiver that's being asked for in the reduction,

10:54:51 and I don't think that is justified, considering did fact

10:54:54 that this is a viable property to be used for residential or

10:54:58 office residential.

10:55:00 I believe that it would not promote a more desirable living

10:55:05 and working environment than would be possible to restrict

10:55:08 application of minimum requirement.

10:55:11 So I think we heard that over and over today.

10:55:13 And this is important.

10:55:14 This is part of our code.

10:55:16 This is -- the testimony of the people who live in the

10:55:22 district is what is going to tell us whenever we are going

10:55:26 to have what is a desirable living situation.

10:55:32 I'm going to cite the section of our code, 27-139, that this

10:55:43 would be possible through the strict application of minimum

10:55:46 requirements in the zoning district.




10:55:48 So I think that was a point I was trying to make, that

10:55:53 burden has not been met.

10:55:55 Per section 27-136.7, City of Tampa code of ordinances, and

10:56:04 the statement from the legal department that the applicant

10:56:07 commitment to limit the types of uses was problematic.

10:56:11 Now this isn't something we heard today.

10:56:13 I am going back to the first reading.

10:56:15 But the limitation of the uses is problematic as being

10:56:19 enforceable.

10:56:20 And I think someone suggested today -- and I think it's

10:56:25 absolutely doesn't take a general use to figure out that

10:56:30 there's no way we can anticipate every possible retail use

10:56:35 that has not been with crossed off or eliminated from the

10:56:40 list here, and the reality is that even if it has been,

10:56:45 there is no enforceability to that.

10:56:47 You heard that from our lawyers during the first meeting.

10:56:50 I would like to add the new evidence that we sought today

10:56:55 both from the neighbors and from Ms. Feeley showing us the

10:57:03 maps, showed us that thereby was no retail in that

10:57:06 eight-block area.

10:57:07 There were a couple of instances of access, but that's a

10:57:13 fact that they are already there, and FDOT is not going to

10:57:16 allow anymore access directly onto where directly from Dale

10:57:21 Mabry into that eight-block radius of that neighborhood.

10:57:29 And I believe that's a good thing.




10:57:31 I think that's the reason that we have these rules, is so

10:57:35 that we can protect the character and the quality of our

10:57:40 neighborhoods.

10:57:40 So those were the key pieces of new evidence that we saw

10:57:45 demonstrated today, that there was very limited access from

10:57:47 Dale Mabry into those side streets.

10:57:50 And that there was absolutely in a retail in that general

10:57:54 area.

10:57:55 Now I am going to go back and --

10:58:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I believe what she's trying to state is

10:58:01 on the record.

10:58:02 >>MARY MULHERN: I am stating the reasons for my motion.

10:58:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: In her motion.

10:58:06 Yes.

10:58:06 >>MARY MULHERN: So I am going to go back to section of our

10:58:11 code 27-136, to promote the efficient and sustainable use of

10:58:16 our land and structure, with careful consideration of

10:58:19 potential adverse impact to on-site natural implements,

10:58:23 impact neighborhoods and cultural resources.

10:58:25 I think that you will the impact to the neighborhood from

10:58:28 the traffic and the act S sees has been demonstrated to be a

10:58:35 difficulty.

10:58:37 That same section number 5, encourage flexible land

10:58:42 development, which reduces transportation needs, conserves

10:58:45 energy and will maximize preservation of natural resources.




10:58:49 I don't think in any wait this is going to reduce the

10:58:51 transportation needs.

10:58:52 It's actually going to create more intensity by allowing

10:58:56 access to this residence, completely residential street, for

10:59:00 two different businesses now on the street.

10:59:03 Number 6, promote and encourage development where

10:59:05 appropriate in location, character and compatibility with

10:59:09 the surrounding impact to neighborhoods.

10:59:12 I do not believe this is compatible.

10:59:14 I think that we have had competent substantial evidence just

10:59:16 from looking at the maps, and Mrs. Feeley showed us that we

10:59:20 do not have been any retail businesses on this residential

10:59:23 street.

10:59:24 Number 7, promote more desirable living and working

10:59:27 environments than would be possible through strict

10:59:31 application.

10:59:31 I believe this is a less desirable situation, and we have

10:59:36 heard that from all the people who live there.

10:59:41 I think that's all I have got.

10:59:43 Let me look at my notes here.

10:59:53 That's it.

10:59:54 Thank you.

10:59:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mrs. Mulhern.

10:59:56 I have a second by Mr. Suarez.

10:59:57 Further discussion on the motion by council members?




10:59:58 All in favor of the motion for denial, please signify by

11:00:01 saying aye.

11:00:04 This is the second reading so it has to be roll call, right?

11:00:13 Roll call vote of the motion by Mrs. Mulhern and seconded by

11:00:17 Mr. Suarez.

11:00:18 If you vote yes, you are voting for denial.

11:00:20 If you vote no, you are not voting for denial.

11:00:23 Roll call vote.

11:00:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Yes.

11:00:28 >>FRANK REDDICK: No.

11:00:30 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes.

11:00:31 >>HARRY COHEN: No.

11:00:33 >>LISA MONTELIONE: No.

11:00:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Yes.

11:00:37 Guess what.

11:00:38 3-3.

11:00:40 Yes, sir.

11:00:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, let melt relay to council

11:00:45 under public rule 6-H of council rules if a motion in a

11:00:49 quasi-judicial matter fails to receive at least four votes

11:00:52 the motion failed.

11:00:53 And if another motion in order is not made the public

11:00:56 hearing shall automatically be reopened and continued at a

11:00:59 time certain at the next regularly scheduled council meeting

11:01:03 unless council makes another motion in order to continue to




11:01:05 the another date and time.

11:01:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Due to circumstances that we have, the

11:01:10 illnesses, I would like to see this moved to October

11:01:13 17th.

11:01:14 >> So moved.

11:01:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: 9:30 a.m.

11:01:17 Excuse me, yes, sir?

11:01:24 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: The date is okay.

11:01:25 I'm Clare on that date.

11:01:26 While the hearing is reopened I would like to confirm that

11:01:28 the D.O.T. letter that was discussed of June 27, 2013, by

11:01:34 Mr. Myers is in the record.

11:01:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Yes, all of that has been received, will

11:01:37 be received and filed.

11:01:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I will confirm that I did make copies,

11:01:41 didn't it to council, and I did give a copy of that letter

11:01:43 to the clerk.

11:01:47 Let me just finish this vote.

11:01:49 I need a time for that.

11:01:52 9:30 in the morning.

11:01:53 Motion by Mr. Cohen.

11:01:54 I believe seconded by Mrs. Montelione for this hearing to be

11:01:57 continued, October 17 at 9:30 in the morning, the year 2013.

11:02:02 All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.

11:02:04 Opposed nay.




11:02:05 Motion passes unanimously.

11:02:07 Thank you very much.

11:02:09 Mr. Cohen?

11:02:10 >>HARRY COHEN: Yes, I have a question for council.

11:02:12 And perhaps our transportation staff can answer that.

11:02:19 I know this hearing is still open.

11:02:20 But is there any ability to have a conversation with the

11:02:26 Department of Transportation between now and the next vote

11:02:28 about their determination, and to open that matter up for

11:02:33 discussion with them about the access onto Dale Mabry?

11:02:41 I think I'm asking Mr. Shelby.

11:02:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I appreciate it, Mr. Grandoff, your

11:02:45 expertise, but I don't want to muddy the record.

11:02:48 This is council discussion.

11:02:50 Yes, sir, continue.

11:02:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, Ms. Cole, I want to confer with

11:02:55 you on that.

11:02:56 I want to be clear.

11:03:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: This is what's called side bar.

11:03:04 You see it on television all the time.

11:03:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY: In this quasi-judicial setting it would be

11:03:12 inappropriate to talk to somebody who at some point in time

11:03:15 offers competent substantial evidence.

11:03:17 And I would therefore advise against it.

11:03:19 >>JULIA MANDELL: Legal department.




11:03:26 Typically when you have the situation where you have a 3-3

11:03:30 vote, you don't typically reopen the public hearing.

11:03:32 It's not really noticed as a public hearing.

11:03:35 So the only what I want to get that level of information for

11:03:37 the record is to reopen a public hearing, which because

11:03:43 that's not being moved to the public hearing, I'm concerned

11:03:47 we might have a notice problem associated with it and there

11:03:50 cannot be individual conversations.

11:03:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council had amended their rules.

11:03:54 So what we have now is a situation where per council's

11:03:57 rules -- and Mr. Grandoff was correct in that -- the hearing

11:04:02 as of right now is reopened, and it will come back -- it

11:04:07 will come back to council with no motion on the floor as a

11:04:09 continued public hearing.

11:04:10 >>JULIA MANDELL: I apologize for that.

11:04:14 I had forgotten that we had changed our rules.

11:04:16 It didn't used to be that way.

11:04:18 Given the fact that there's a potential for this to be

11:04:20 reopened as a public hearing, you can make that request,

11:04:22 bring that forward, and open it for that limited purpose and

11:04:25 hear from FDOT if they want to present some additional

11:04:28 information.

11:04:29 Of course, the petitioner would have the right to have any

11:04:31 additional comment on that fact.

11:04:33 >>HARRY COHEN: But anything would have to be done would




11:04:35 have to be done in here during the public hearing.

11:04:38 Okay, thank you.

11:04:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I'll hold off until later on.

11:04:42 I have a question for legal after the closing.

11:04:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

11:04:47 46 is continued to 10-17 at 9:30 in the morning.

11:04:53 All right.

11:04:53 We need to open 47 through 63.

11:04:56 Since I am here I am going to do these second readings.

11:04:59 I am not going to discuss 46 anymore.

11:05:02 I am going to open 47.

11:05:04 I just want to make sure.

11:05:06 I am going to open 47 through 63.

11:05:08 Which are my remaining public hearings.

11:05:10 I am trying to get them in before lunch so the people we are

11:05:13 baying somebody here get their due process can speak.

11:05:17 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Item 45 was also a second reading.

11:05:21 I wasn't sure what happened because I knew 46 came up to ask

11:05:25 for a continuance.

11:05:26 So 45 --

11:05:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'll do 45 through 63.

11:05:30 45 through 63. need to open 45 through 63.

11:05:33 I have a motion by Mr. Suarez, second by Mrs. Mulhern to

11:05:36 open 45 through 63.

11:05:38 All in favor?




11:05:39 Opposed?

11:05:40 The ayes have it unanimously.

11:05:41 456 is open.

11:05:42 Anyone in the public care to speak on item number 45?

11:05:44 45?

11:05:46 V-3-73.

11:05:48 Please come forward.

11:05:52 45.

11:05:52 Is petitioner here?

11:05:57 Just got to say "hi."

11:05:59 Has everyone been sworn in?

11:06:02 >> I haven't.

11:06:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Aha.

11:06:07 Anyone else?

11:06:08 You have to be sworn in.

11:06:09 (Oath administered by Clerk)

11:06:10 Yes, sir.

11:06:18 >> Here for second reading.

11:06:23 Nothing has changed.

11:06:24 We had some adjustments to the site plan. That was

11:06:27 completed.

11:06:28 And nothing further.

11:06:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

11:06:30 City of Tampa, any comments on the changes?

11:06:35 Everything is fine to go?




11:06:37 Need a motion to close.

11:06:38 I have a motion to close by Mr. Reddick.

11:06:40 Seconded by Mr. Cohen.

11:06:41 All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.

11:06:45 Opposed nay.

11:06:46 The ayes have it by 2.

11:06:47 All right.

11:06:48 Mr. Suarez, would you kindly take number 45, please?

11:06:52 >> I present an ordinance for second reading and adoption,

11:06:59 an ordinance approving a special use permit S-2 approving a

11:07:03 daycare in an RS 50 residential single-family zoning

11:07:07 district in the general vicinity of 4121 west Comanche he

11:07:12 Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida as described in section

11:07:15 1 hereof providing an effective date and including any

11:07:17 revisions that have been made between first and second

11:07:21 reading.

11:07:24 >> Motion by Mr. Suarez. Second by Ms. Mulhern. This is a

11:07:25 roll call vote.

11:07:29 Vote and record.

11:07:37 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being absent.

11:07:40 And Mrs. Montelione being absent at vote.

11:07:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

11:07:44 46 we have taken care of.

11:07:45 We go to item number 47.

11:07:48 It is a substitute ordinance if I recall.




11:07:51 Petitioner?

11:07:51 >> 2240 Belleair road, Clearwater, Florida.

11:08:02 This is a matter that was before you last time.

11:08:04 It's the product of a mediated effort to regain wet zoning

11:08:08 to the subject property.

11:08:09 We worked extensively with than the police and city staff to

11:08:13 address their concerns.

11:08:14 Those were approved by the mediator.

11:08:16 They were presented, and I think we have ironed out whatever

11:08:19 additional issues remain as far as legal descriptions and

11:08:22 the coordination of the parking and the security plan.

11:08:25 So it's our request that you approve this today and allow

11:08:28 the business to get back in operation, and as to the add to

11:08:33 the beneficial tone much commerce in the area and I'm happy

11:08:35 to answer any questions.

11:08:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

11:08:37 Any comments by council members?

11:08:43 Anyone in the audience care to speak on this item number 47?

11:08:47 47?

11:08:47 Need a motion to close by Mr. Reddick.

11:08:49 Second by Mr. Suarez on 47.

11:08:51 All in favor of the motion?

11:08:53 Opposed?

11:08:54 Hearing is now closed.

11:08:56 All right.




11:08:56 I need a motion on 47.

11:09:02 And I believe it's a substitute ordinance.

11:09:04 I'm not certain on that.

11:09:05 Mr. Reddick?

11:09:06 >>FRANK REDDICK: An ordinance approving a special use

11:09:12 permit S-2 for alcohol beverage sales, bar lounge on

11:09:19 premises only and making lawful the sale of beverages

11:09:22 regardless of alcoholic content, beer wine and liquor, on

11:09:25 that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at

11:09:28 1710th 1 North Franklin Street, Tampa, Florida.

11:09:30 >> I have a motion by Mr. Reddick, a second by Mrs. Mulhern.

11:09:34 >> I'm sorry, I didn't hear the entire ordinance.

11:09:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: He said substitute.

11:09:39 He read the whole ordinance.

11:09:40 >> As more particularly described -- I think it's truncated

11:09:48 on our substitution.

11:09:50 I think that's what he's referring to.

11:09:57 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.

11:10:01 Tampa, Florida as more particularly described in section 2,

11:10:04 that all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict are

11:10:06 repealed, providing an effective date.

11:10:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion again by Mr. Reddick and

11:10:11 again seconded by Mrs. Mulhern and again we are going to

11:10:13 take a vote on something we should have done earlier.

11:10:15 Roll call vote.




11:10:16 Vote and record.

11:10:28 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being absent and

11:10:31 Miranda voting no.

11:10:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much for attending.

11:10:34 Item number 48.

11:10:35 >> Joel Sousa, land development, certified by the zoning

11:10:47 administrator.

11:10:47 Here to answer any questions with regard to item 49.

11:10:49 The applicant requests to be submit a clean site plan.

11:10:53 The other one was hand corrected.

11:10:55 They want a clean one for the record.

11:10:56 >>HARRY COHEN: Are you on 48 or 49?

11:11:01 >> 48, 49, 50, 51, 52.

11:11:04 >>HARRY COHEN: Which one are you referring to be now?

11:11:06 >> Item 49.

11:11:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: He said he went up there the list of

11:11:10 those that he had and he said that 49 is complete.

11:11:16 And I'm half deaf.

11:11:17 But maybe that's what I heard.

11:11:18 >>HARRY COHEN: Just a little confused.

11:11:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: No, you are not confused.

11:11:23 You ought tore silt here for a while.

11:11:25 All right.

11:11:27 48.

11:11:27 We are on 48.




11:11:29 Petitioner?

11:11:30 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.

11:11:32 On item 48, as you will recall, at the first public hearing,

11:11:36 the applicant reduced the size at his request.

11:11:39 That required a change to legal description in the

11:11:41 ordinance.

11:11:41 I received that yesterday, in a new ordinance.

11:11:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The ordinance?

11:11:50 All right.

11:11:51 Petitioner?

11:11:51 >> Truett Gardner, north Ashley drive.

11:11:56 We made the revisions in the site plan from the previous

11:11:59 hearing and respectfully ask for your approval.

11:12:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: You reduced the size, correct?

11:12:04 >> Correct?

11:12:05 Thank you very much.

11:12:05 Anyone care to speak on item number 40, V-3-32?

11:12:10 Need a motion to close.

11:12:11 I have a motion to close by Mr. Suarez, seconded by Mrs.

11:12:14 Mulhern.

11:12:14 All in favor of the motion to close?

11:12:17 Mr. Oh, I'm sorry.

11:12:18 Before I take the vote.

11:12:19 >> I was asking to be recognized.

11:12:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I didn't quite take the vote.




11:12:24 You can still speak on it.

11:12:25 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

11:12:26 I want to ask our attorney if this is a reasonable request.

11:12:32 I wasn't here for the first reading, and there was

11:12:36 Councilman Cohen voted against it.

11:12:38 I could ask to hear from him?

11:12:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You have to reopen the public hearing.

11:12:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I didn't quite take the vote.

11:12:47 I did not take the vote.

11:12:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Okay.

11:12:50 Then the answer would be yes.

11:12:52 >>MARY MULHERN: If you don't mind.

11:12:53 >>HARRY COHEN: It gives me trepidation to be testifying in

11:12:59 a public hearing, but I will saying that I did vote against

11:13:01 it because I am concerned with be the lack of parking on the

11:13:05 site, that given the increased hour one day when someone

11:13:13 wants to operate a restaurant, breakfast and lunch, that

11:13:17 this could end up creating a parking burden on the adjacent

11:13:21 neighborhood.

11:13:21 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

11:13:23 Mr. Gardner, do you have anything new business to offer

11:13:26 about the parking situation?

11:13:28 >> first to ask if you had an opportunity to review the

11:13:37 tape and what they are doing.

11:13:39 We did scale back the hours before.




11:13:41 I appreciated Mr. Cohen's concerns.

11:13:46 But we did scale back the hours greater than what code

11:13:48 allows.

11:13:49 We could have --

11:13:50 >>MARY MULHERN: What are the hours?

11:13:52 Condition you remind us?

11:13:53 >> We are 7 to, I believe, 10:00 p.m. every night with the

11:13:58 exception of Saturday night, which is 11.

11:14:01 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

11:14:03 Thank you.

11:14:03 >> And Pinky's is a breakfast business.

11:14:09 They are going to continue that business.

11:14:11 And this is just W this isn't for them to put that aside and

11:14:19 do something new.

11:14:20 They have substantial parking over and above worked out for

11:14:22 that.

11:14:23 But it's not all of a sudden going to turn into a nightclub

11:14:27 or something FOB that effect.

11:14:28 >> If I may.

11:14:35 Upon reflection especially upon what Mr. Cohen said, I made

11:14:37 an assumption incorrectly as to whether you are familiar

11:14:40 with be the record at first reading.

11:14:42 And it would be inappropriate to base your decision on Mr.

11:14:46 Cohen's reasoning solely without having the benefit, and Mr.

11:14:55 Gardner -- I was going to say Truett but that would be




11:15:00 inappropriate.

11:15:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Truett Gardner.

11:15:03 >> It would be inappropriate to do it that way.

11:15:05 So I would advise you with caution if you would like the

11:15:07 opportunity to be review the record and Mr. Gardner would

11:15:10 want you to have a continuance for that opportunity, that

11:15:12 would be appropriate.

11:15:14 But I would caution, and in the future I would be asking the

11:15:18 question that Mr. Gardner ask an initial threshold question

11:15:21 before I would have said yes.

11:15:23 >>MARY MULHERN: I will not base my decision on any

11:15:25 testimony just now.

11:15:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If I remember, I haven't closed this

11:15:31 hearing.

11:15:32 I got to that point and I stopped.

11:15:34 So we are going to take the vote to close.

11:15:36 And I forgot who made the motion to close and who was the

11:15:39 second.

11:15:39 But I think Mr. Suarez and Mrs. Mulhern.

11:15:42 All in favor of the motion to close?

11:15:45 Opposed?

11:15:45 The ayes have it unanimously.

11:15:49 Whose turn is it?

11:15:50 Ms. Mulhern, if you are in favor of this, please read it.

11:15:53 If not we'll find another reader.




11:15:55 >>MARY MULHERN: I move an ordinance being presented for 48.

11:16:02 I move an ordinance --

11:16:06 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: 48 is substituted.

11:16:07 Here is the ordinance.

11:16:08 >> I move an ordinance approving a special using permit for

11:16:14 alcoholic beverage sales, restaurant, consumption on

11:16:17 premises only, and making lawful the sale of beer and wine

11:16:20 at or from that certain lot, plot or tract of land located

11:16:23 at 32501, 3205 Bay to Bay Boulevard, Tampa, Florida as more

11:16:27 particularly described in section 2, that all ordinances or

11:16:30 parts of ordinances in conflict are repealed, providing an

11:16:33 effective date.

11:16:35 Move this on second reading.

11:16:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mrs. Mulhern.

11:16:39 I have a second by Mr. Suarez.

11:16:41 This is a roll call vote.

11:16:42 Vote and record.

11:16:42 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being absent, and

11:16:53 Cohen voting no.

11:16:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

11:16:56 We or go to item number 49.

11:16:58 49.

11:17:01 Single-family petitioner here?

11:17:12 >>GINA GRIMES: With the law firm of Hill, Ward, Henderson,

11:17:15 101 East Kennedy Boulevard.




11:17:18 We revised the site plan including the voluntary commitments

11:17:21 that we made to the neighborhood association.

11:17:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Any comments by the city at this time?

11:17:29 Anyone in the audience care to speak on item 49?

11:17:32 49?

11:17:34 V-13-90.

11:17:35 Motion to close by Mr. Reddick, seconded by Mrs. Montelione.

11:17:38 All in favor are? Opposed?

11:17:40 The ayes have it unanimously.

11:17:41 Mr. Cohen, would you kindly take number 49, please.

11:17:43 >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

11:17:44 I move an ordinance being presented for second reading and

11:17:47 adoption, an ordinance approving a special use permit S-2

11:17:50 for alcoholic beverage sales, restaurants, consumption on

11:17:53 premises only and making lawful the sale of beverages

11:17:56 regardless of alcoholic content, beer, wine and liquor on

11:17:59 that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 1719 and

11:18:03 a 1723 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, as more

11:18:07 particularly described in section 2, that all ordinances or

11:18:10 parts of ordinances in conflict are repealed, providing an

11:18:13 effective date.

11:18:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion for approval by Mr. Cohen.

11:18:17 Second by Mr. Suarez.

11:18:18 Roll call vote.

11:18:19 Vote and record.




11:18:24 >> Motion carried with Capin being absent.

11:18:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We go to item 50.

11:18:31 V-13-92.

11:18:33 Is petitioner here on item number 50?

11:18:35 Five-oh?

11:18:42 >> Good morning, council.

11:18:44 At the last hearing we made some changes on the site plan

11:18:47 that needed to be changed.

11:18:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

11:18:50 Any comments by the city?

11:18:53 Anyone in the audience care to be speak on item 50, V-13-92?

11:18:58 I see no one.

11:18:59 I have a motion to close by Mr. Cohen.

11:19:00 Second by Mr. Suarez.

11:19:01 All in favor of the motion to close?

11:19:03 Opposed?

11:19:04 The ayes have it unanimously.

11:19:05 Mrs. Montelione?

11:19:06 Would you kindly take number 50, please?

11:19:09 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I move an ordinance approving a special

11:19:13 using permit S oat 2 for alcoholic beverage sales, bar

11:19:17 lounge consumption on premises only and making lawful the

11:19:20 sale of beer and wine at or from that certain lot, plot or

11:19:24 tract of land located at 9340 North Florida Avenue, suite F,

11:19:28 Tampa, Florida as more particularly described in section 2




11:19:31 that all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict are

11:19:34 repealed, providing an effective date.

11:19:35 >> Second.

11:19:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion for approval by Mrs.

11:19:39 Montelione, seconded by Mr. Reddick on a close vote with

11:19:42 Mrs. Mulhern.

11:19:43 Roll call vote.

11:19:44 Vote and record.

11:19:52 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being absent.

11:19:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

11:19:55 Item number 51.

11:19:57 Is Petitioner here on item number 51?

11:20:00 >> Yes.

11:20:03 Jean gore write on behalf of Tampa firefighters museum.

11:20:07 We too made all the recommended changes to our site plan and

11:20:14 request your favorable vote on this.

11:20:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: All right.

11:20:21 City, any comments on that?

11:20:23 Anyone in the audience care to speak on item number 51?

11:20:25 Item number 51?

11:20:27 Please come forward.

11:20:29 V-13-93.

11:20:31 I see no one.

11:20:32 Need a motion to close.

11:20:34 Motion to close by Mr. Suarez.




11:20:35 Second by Mr. Cohen.

11:20:36 All in favor?

11:20:38 Opposed?

11:20:38 The ayes have it unanimously.

11:20:39 Mr. Suarez, would you kindly take number 51, please?

11:20:42 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I move an ordinance pediatric presented for

11:20:46 second reading and adoption, an ordinance approving a

11:20:48 special using permit S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales, large

11:20:52 venue, consumption on premises only, and making lawful the

11:20:55 sale of beverages regardless of alcoholic content, beer,

11:20:57 wine and liquor on that certain lot, plot or tract of land

11:21:01 located at 7207 east Zack Street, Tampa, Florida and more

11:21:05 particularly described in section 2, that all ordinances or

11:21:08 parts of ordinances in conflict are repealed, providing an

11:21:11 effective date.

11:21:11 >> I have a motion for approval by Mr. Suarez.

11:21:14 I have a second by Mr. Reddick.

11:21:15 Roll call vote.

11:21:16 Vote and record.

11:21:18 Vote and record.

11:21:27 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being absent.

11:21:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Item number 52.

11:21:35 Petitioner here on 52, V-13-94?

11:21:43 >> North Tampa.

11:21:45 We have made slight rescissions.




11:21:48 Again my thanks for your consideration of the matter to

11:21:52 extend services to the downtown market.

11:21:54 Thank you.

11:21:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Any comments by the city on this item?

11:21:57 Anyone in the audience care to speak on item 52?

11:22:01 52?

11:22:02 V-13-94?

11:22:03 I see no one.

11:22:04 Need a motion to close.

11:22:05 I have a motion to close by Mr. Suarez.

11:22:07 Second by Mr. Reddick.

11:22:08 All in favor of the motion?

11:22:10 Opposed?

11:22:10 The ayes have it unanimously.

11:22:14 Item number 52, Mr. Reddick, please.

11:22:16 >>FRANK REDDICK: A motion for second reading, an ordinance

11:22:24 approving a special use permit S oat 2 for alcoholic

11:22:26 beverage sales, small venue, consumption on premises and

11:22:30 package sales off premises and making lawful the sale of

11:22:33 beverages regardless of alcoholic content beer wine and

11:22:35 liquor on that certain lot, plot or tract located at 803

11:22:40 North Tampa Street, Tampa, Florida, as more particularly

11:22:43 described in section 2, that all ordinances or parts of

11:22:47 ordinances in conflict are repealed, providing an effective

11:22:49 date.




11:22:49 >> Second.

11:22:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion for approval by Mr.

11:22:52 Reddick.

11:22:53 I have a second by Mr. Suarez.

11:22:54 Roll call vote.

11:22:55 Vote and record on 52.

11:23:03 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried were Capin being absent.

11:23:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Item number 53.

11:23:09 53.

11:23:11 Anyone in the audience?

11:23:13 Is petitioner here?

11:23:14 >> Dennis Fernandez, architecture review and preservation

11:23:21 manager.

11:23:21 I gave a full presentation on first reading for item 53 and

11:23:25 54 and we are asking for your support this morning.

11:23:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

11:23:27 Anyone care to speak on item 53?

11:23:29 53?

11:23:30 Come forward.

11:23:31 I see no one.

11:23:32 I have a motion to close by Mr. Reddick.

11:23:34 Second by Mr. Cohen -- Mrs. Mulhern.

11:23:38 All in favor?

11:23:39 Opposed?

11:23:39 The ayes have it unanimously.




11:23:40 Item 53. Mrs. Mulhern, would you kindly take 53, please?

11:23:46 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

11:23:47 No substitute on this?

11:23:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Not that I know of, no.

11:23:51 >>MARY MULHERN: I move an ordinance being presented for

11:23:53 second reading and, do an ordinance of the city of Tampa,

11:23:55 Florida designating the Easley building located at 510 North

11:24:00 Franklin Street, Tampa, Florida as an addition to the north

11:24:04 Franklin Street downtown local landmark multiple properties

11:24:08 group as a local landmark providing for repeal of all

11:24:11 ordinances in conflict providing for severability, providing

11:24:14 an effective date.

11:24:14 >> Second.

11:24:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion for approval by Mrs.

11:24:18 Mulhern, a second by Mr. Reddick.

11:24:21 This is on 53.

11:24:23 A-2013-2.

11:24:25 Roll call vote.

11:24:26 Vote and record.

11:24:31 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being absent.

11:24:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Item number 54. Made comments on both 53

11:24:44 and 54. Am I correct?

11:24:46 Anyone in the audience care do speak on item number 54,

11:24:49 A-2013-3?

11:24:51 I see no one.




11:24:52 I have a motion to close by Mr. Reddick.

11:24:54 Second by Mr. Cohen on a close vote with Mr. Suarez.

11:24:56 All in favor of that motion to close signify by saying aye.

11:24:59 The ayes have it unanimously.

11:25:01 Mr. Cohen, would you kindly take number 54, please?

11:25:05 >>HARRY COHEN: I move an ordinance being presented for

11:25:07 second reading and adoption, an ordinance of the city of

11:25:10 Tampa, Florida designating the Sulphur Springs gazebo

11:25:13 located at 701 East Bird Street in section hereby as a local

11:25:21 landmark providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict

11:25:24 providing for providing for severability, providing an

11:25:25 effective date.

11:25:27 >> I have a motion by Mr. Cohen for approval.

11:25:30 Second by Mr. Suarez.

11:25:31 Roll call vote of the vote and record.

11:25:33 >> Motion carried with Capin being absent.

11:25:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.

11:26:00 Okay.

11:26:16 (Water glass spilled.)

11:26:16 This is better than Tampa rescue.

11:26:20 [ Laughter ]

11:26:22 Okay.

11:26:28 I'm sorry.

11:26:30 We go to item number 55, which is already open.

11:26:36 Public hearing.




11:26:39 E-2013-8, 24.

11:26:42 >>JEAN DUNCAN: I want to clarify.

11:26:50 Jean Duncan, transportation.

11:26:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: As long as you are sworn in, you are

11:26:54 sworn in.

11:26:54 >> Thank you.

11:26:55 The city is in receipt of an assessment application from the

11:27:02 development.

11:27:03 John Grandoff is here representing developer today.

11:27:06 Of this public hearing is being conducted in compliance with

11:27:09 our city code, chapter 27, as it relates to subdivisions.

11:27:14 And this public hearing is for a non-ad valorem special

11:27:21 assessment roll streetlights for the Landings at Port Tampa

11:27:24 phase 2.

11:27:25 I will describe the boundary.

11:27:27 Located south of Loughman street, west of south Manhattan,

11:27:39 east of south Westshore.

11:27:45 I would like to mention a time frame to point out to you and

11:27:51 the applicant's representative for further comments.

11:27:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

11:27:54 Legal?

11:27:55 >> Julie Hardy. Legal department.

11:28:00 I just want to make a couple points for council's

11:28:03 consideration.

11:28:04 All Florida statute requirements have been made pursuant to




11:28:07 request of council including a requirement in the submittal,

11:28:12 complete application.

11:28:14 And council must determine that the property will derive a

11:28:22 special benefit from the service provided and the assessment

11:28:24 is fairly and reasonably apportioned to properties that

11:28:27 receive the special benefit.

11:28:29 And I think Mr. Shelby handed you out a little more detailed

11:28:34 information.

11:28:35 And one more thing that deadline to be approve the special

11:28:38 assessment for this tax year is September 15th.

11:28:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Yes, sir.

11:28:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Also for the record, council has been

11:28:48 distributed a map, and I believe Mr. Grandoff has a copy I

11:28:51 provided to him.

11:28:52 I don't know at what point in time this would be explained,

11:28:56 and the markings on it will be relevant.

11:28:58 I guess it will happen at some point in the presentation.

11:29:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Petitioner, any further comments?

11:29:07 >> I would just explain the map which is a working map

11:29:11 through some conversations.

11:29:13 I can put it on the Elmo.

11:29:16 If I can find one that's not marked on already.

11:29:21 Again it's a working map that was prepared within the last

11:29:37 week for some conversation purposes.

11:29:41 The yellow blocks on the map are the parcels that are within




11:29:45 the assessment application of the applicant.

11:29:49 The red sort of dash marks are where new lighting has been

11:29:56 put in under this assessment.

11:29:59 The star markings are existing streetlights that are out on

11:30:03 the system outside of this assessment that were done prior.

11:30:07 And then the white parcels are not related to this

11:30:11 application.

11:30:16 So I will again refer to you any questions you might have

11:30:19 for the applicant or that you might have for staff.

11:30:23 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Mrs. Duncan, don't go away.

11:30:26 You put that map back on there?

11:30:29 Overhead, please.

11:30:31 I'm looking at ow south Shamrock road.

11:30:36 If this is north-south oriented this would be a north-south

11:30:39 road.

11:30:42 Do you find that, the third street in?

11:30:44 >>JEAN DUNCAN: Yes.

11:30:45 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And this appears to be one, two, three,

11:30:50 four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve

11:30:55 streetlights indicated by little stars on south Shamrock.

11:31:06 South Shamrock.

11:31:08 If I go north-south.

11:31:10 Sorry.

11:31:10 I'm counting just the ones on south Shamrock from north to

11:31:15 south.




11:31:16 >> South of Richardson, you are referring to?

11:31:19 >> From west Loughman all the way down to be -- well,

11:31:28 there's no street name.

11:31:33 Of this street right here.

11:31:35 I don't know.

11:31:37 Okay.

11:31:38 So there are 12 streetlights indicated by the stars on the

11:31:41 map.

11:31:42 But only three of them are going to be part of the special

11:31:46 assessment of the 12.

11:31:50 >>JEAN DUNCAN: I apologize.

11:31:55 Are you talking about the one right here?

11:32:02 >>LISA MONTELIONE: As you go north, the other --

11:32:04 >>JEAN DUNCAN: Yes.

11:32:05 And if you will notice those red dash marks are generally

11:32:07 around the yellow parcels.

11:32:12 Yes, generally speaking.

11:32:13 Well, two of them are.

11:32:15 And one of them -- generally speaking, they are around the

11:32:20 boundaries of the yellow parcel.

11:32:26 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So maybe just explain once again why are

11:32:28 only three of the 12 included in the assessment?

11:32:33 >>JEAN DUNCAN: Those three particular lights are part of

11:32:35 this application for these yellow parcels that heir shown on

11:32:40 the map.




11:32:41 So it's part of the developer's project to develop those

11:32:46 yellow lots those streetlights that have been the red dash

11:32:54 will put in under phase 2.

11:32:56 So those are the lights that the yellow lots are being

11:33:00 assessed for under this application.

11:33:02 >> Okay.

11:33:04 So let me upfront say that cars are going to travel

11:33:12 north-south on Shamrock and generally streetlights are put

11:33:16 in for two reasons, for pedestrians, and safety.

11:33:23 I know from my discussion was the department of -- Florida

11:33:26 department of transportation district 7 secretary that it's

11:33:29 for the safety of cars traveling from their standpoint, it's

11:33:33 for the safety of cars traveling on the roads so they can

11:33:37 see clearly.

11:33:38 And it would appear that the assessment that's going to

11:33:45 apply to where yellow lots benefits everybody.

11:33:54 But only the people who have I guess the misfortune of

11:34:00 having one of the properties that are yellow are paying for

11:34:04 those lights.

11:34:07 Or are if this passes potentially paying for the lights.

11:34:10 And we were given a two-pronged test, streetlight special

11:34:16 assessment by Mr. Shelby, and they will list seven tells on

11:34:25 this fact sheet, and it says at the bottom City Council

11:34:30 should make its legislative determination in the form of

11:34:33 finding of fact, and I'm not sure that I see that this meets




11:34:41 this test.

11:34:42 Because the first one, is there a benefit to the

11:34:50 installation of streetlight fixtures and continued night

11:34:53 illumination?

11:34:54 What makes it special, as compared to the rest of the city

11:34:57 that do not pay the assessment for streetlights?

11:35:01 Which parcels are being assessed?

11:35:04 And number 4 particularly strikes me because it says, are

11:35:07 there any parcels that receive the benefits that are not

11:35:10 being assessed?

11:35:12 And exactly what are those parcels?

11:35:14 And I think that South and Shamrock where you have one, two,

11:35:22 three, four, five lots with a streetlight in front of it

11:35:27 that are not paying the assessment, they are benefiting from

11:35:32 that light, that people in the surrounding lots are paying

11:35:37 for.

11:35:38 So, you know, that to me is questionable.

11:35:42 You have the same situation on south Trask at the northeast

11:35:49 corner of the map that you gave us, right next to where it

11:35:53 says number 4.

11:35:54 >>JEAN DUNCAN: Okay.

11:35:55 >>LISA MONTELIONE: You have got several lots.

11:36:00 Three large ones on the west side of south Trask.

11:36:04 And then you have three smaller ones, four smaller ones, on

11:36:07 the east side of south Trask that aren't paying the




11:36:11 assessment, but have streetlights in front of them.

11:36:14 So I'm a little angst about that.

11:36:19 >>JEAN DUNCAN: From the transportation technical

11:36:23 perspective I will answer your question as best I can and

11:36:27 maybe some legal support would help as well.

11:36:29 But it's kind of two things.

11:36:31 One is that there are many situations of payments being made

11:36:40 by homeowners, individuals, where others are receiving the

11:36:45 benefit.

11:36:45 For example, sidewalks were put in, in different streets,

11:36:52 under subdivisions that are constructed, and are you could

11:36:59 decide to walk your dog down the street but you didn't pay

11:37:05 for it but it's for payment of the home because it's all

11:37:08 factored in under the development plan that somebody knew

11:37:13 buying this home would be paying indirectly for the

11:37:16 sidewalks.

11:37:16 So there's lots of cases where people are paying for

11:37:19 something, but others are getting the benefit.

11:37:23 It's just the way it is.

11:37:26 So no one is putting up the sidewalks.

11:37:32 The other side of it is, this development came in under a

11:37:35 development agreement.

11:37:37 It's following chapter 7 of our subdivision code.

11:37:41 This is our standard process for assessing lights that are

11:37:47 added to our inventory.




11:37:48 So this is business as usual basically in terms of the

11:37:55 public hearing that we are here for, and the lights that are

11:37:57 being added to the inventory.

11:37:59 And those yellow lots that are now having assessment placed

11:38:04 on them.

11:38:04 >>LISA MONTELIONE: What seems unusual to me, because of

11:38:16 subdivisions I'm familiar with, is usually it's the entire

11:38:22 subdivision.

11:38:23 So once you enter well into that subdivision, every home in

11:38:32 that subdivision -- and likewise, if there's a mixed use PD,

11:38:39 and there's a portion of commercial property in front of the

11:38:42 subdivision, and townhouses and commercial, and then the

11:38:45 residential lots, all of those residents, business owners,

11:38:51 property owners, I should put it that way, all of those

11:38:54 property owners are paying into the maintenance and the

11:38:58 special assessment for those lights, not just cherry picking

11:39:04 here and there.

11:39:04 >> That is a very good point.

11:39:06 And there is a slight difference for this particular

11:39:10 development in that it wasn't a typical line around a box

11:39:16 and everything inside that box are the subdivision.

11:39:20 What occurred is some years ago, I believe it was 2006, we

11:39:24 had the development agreement here.

11:39:27 The city sat down with the actual developer and agreed on

11:39:32 putting together a development agreement for this particular




11:39:38 development because of the benefit that each side could get

11:39:43 from that.

11:39:44 If the city had not entered into a development agreement for

11:39:46 these parcels or this developer, the developer could have

11:39:49 come in one by one by one, you know, hundreds of individual

11:39:52 lots coming in for development.

11:39:56 By packaging them together under the subdivision code and

11:40:01 under a development agreement, the developer got some

11:40:04 benefits in doing that, and the city got benefits by having

11:40:09 a continuous sidewalk plan, a continuous roadway plan, a

11:40:12 continuous streetlighting plan, where we wouldn't have

11:40:15 gotten that if the parcels came in one by one.

11:40:20 So it was a little bit different in that the platting was

11:40:24 out there previously, and it wasn't part of the subdivision

11:40:27 plot process.

11:40:28 So it appears on paper, maybe it was cherry picking, but the

11:40:32 developer came in with a package of lots he was planning to

11:40:36 develop.

11:40:37 They all fell under this development agreement, and that's

11:40:42 why he's coming in now with his assessment to assess those

11:40:45 parcels that he's completed under phase 2.

11:40:49 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Well, thank you for that explanation.

11:40:52 I wasn't here in 2006 when this property came in.

11:40:58 So, you know, perhaps that was maybe something that council

11:41:01 didn't consider as a ramification somewhere down the line




11:41:04 where we are addressing this now.

11:41:07 And this is probably for Mr. Grandoff.

11:41:12 But number 6 and number 7 also cause me to pause, although 6

11:41:25 isn't a legal requirement, it may go to fairness, because

11:41:27 I'm not sure, having been in the subdivision world before, I

11:41:31 know that it's hard to say what a veiled person says to a

11:41:40 person when they are selling them a lot or house, but were

11:41:43 the purchases of the parcels to be assessed, informed them

11:41:46 that is correct they were to be assessed for the

11:41:47 streetlights at the time of purchase?

11:41:49 Again, when you do a sub division, and it's every lot in the

11:41:51 subdivision, it's a lot easier to explain to somebody who is

11:41:55 buying that this is a gated community and all of these, you

11:41:59 know, fees are going to be assessed to you, where the

11:42:05 association is in place and so forth, where as this, since

11:42:08 it is kind of spotty, would be more difficult for either a

11:42:13 salesperson representing the developer, or the purchaser of

11:42:17 the property to understand where the subdivision starts and

11:42:20 where it stops.

11:42:21 And number 7 is the assessment fairly and reasonably

11:42:26 apportioned among the properties that receive the special

11:42:28 benefit?

11:42:29 And again that relates back to the map and number 4.

11:42:35 And you made the point about the sidewalk.

11:42:38 But I think with street lights it's a little different, I




11:42:40 mean, because sidewalks don't require the maintenance, you

11:42:44 know, the cars potentially running into them and the pole

11:42:54 may need to be replaced, or if these are the pretty painted

11:42:58 types of poles, if there's any further maintenance.

11:43:01 It's not a sidewalk.

11:43:02 It has to be a lot of uses.

11:43:05 >> We do have maintenance on our sidewalks, where trees

11:43:11 grow, and --

11:43:12 >> I would convenience tush not as much as street lights.

11:43:15 >> Again trying to use as an example that there are other

11:43:19 things that we pay for, that others benefit from.

11:43:22 But again -- for this particular application, for which this

11:43:28 public hearing is held, this is all under that chapter 27

11:43:33 code process.

11:43:35 It has a little different nuance in that the parcels are not

11:43:40 all contiguous.

11:43:42 Maybe they are contiguous in R, but a little differently

11:43:48 than norm.

11:43:49 But again that was all covered under the development

11:43:51 agreement, that these parcels would come in under this

11:43:53 process.

11:43:54 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And I'm sorry, council, I just noticed

11:43:59 this.

11:44:00 On South Westshore Boulevard, almost every lot on the east

11:44:05 side of South Westshore Boulevard is covered in yellow




11:44:09 except for one.

11:44:11 That seems very unusual.

11:44:12 Everybody else on that street is paying for the

11:44:14 streetlighting except for one person.

11:44:18 That seems very odd.

11:44:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Ms. Mulhern?

11:44:22 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

11:44:23 Councilwoman Montelione asked a lot of my questions.

11:44:26 But I have so many questions, and I am guessing the rest of

11:44:29 council does, too, that maybe we should continue this.

11:44:33 Again, to get our questions answered.

11:44:35 But let me have you clarify one thing before you do that.

11:44:42 And I had to step out at the beginning, so I didn't hear the

11:44:45 very beginning of what you had to say.

11:44:48 Are all of the yellow parcels new to be developed parcels?

11:44:56 >> They are new construction under phase 2.

11:45:02 >> Of the development project. Okay.

11:45:04 >> So those are all -- now, where we see the existing

11:45:10 streetlights, Mr. the red stars, have they already been

11:45:15 assessed?

11:45:16 >> In some cases, there was an assessment done, and in some

11:45:20 cases they have been there for many, many years.

11:45:24 >>MARY MULHERN: I guess my question -- okay, the areas that

11:45:27 are not -- I have a lot of questions.

11:45:31 The white areas that are not being assessed, but that do




11:45:37 already have those streetlights, are they already assessed?

11:45:40 Are they already paying an assessment?

11:45:43 >>JEAN DUNCAN: They are either under special assessment or

11:45:46 they are paying through their millage for streetlights.

11:45:48 >>MARY MULHERN: Are people getting an assessment, you are

11:45:53 asking us to do this new assessment, are they also already

11:45:56 paying under the millage or will they be?

11:45:59 >> No.

11:46:00 >>MARY MULHERN: It will only be the a assessment?

11:46:03 >> Yes.

11:46:04 >>MARY MULHERN: These are my questions, that I think we

11:46:07 need to continue this.

11:46:10 I see areas that -- I see one area that's being assessed but

11:46:15 that is not getting streetlights, and that is, what is the

11:46:19 southern border, the name of the street isn't on here?

11:46:22 I don't know if it's cut off in the middle of the blocks or

11:46:26 not.

11:46:26 >> Canal street.

11:46:28 >>MARY MULHERN: So at canal and Westshore, there are lots

11:46:33 that are not getting -- there's no pink slash so they are

11:46:38 being assessed but are not getting streetlights.

11:46:41 Then on Westshore, on the west side of Westshore, there's a

11:46:46 whole block.

11:46:47 I think Councilwoman Montelione mentioned this.

11:46:50 South of -- way south of tarpon, south of whatever.




11:46:56 At the southern border that are getting streetlights and are

11:47:00 not assessed.

11:47:00 Only the one of those southern parts is being assessed.

11:47:06 Then on Fitzgerald street south of tarpon, on the east side

11:47:14 of Fitzgerald, they are not being assessed and they are

11:47:17 getting new street lights.

11:47:19 Then on Shamrock, on the west side, just south of tarpon,

11:47:27 actually the west and the east side of Shamrock, there are

11:47:31 blocks that are not being assessed.

11:47:34 And then Councilwoman Montelione mentioned Trask street

11:47:40 already.

11:47:41 So that's what I can see just sitting here looking at this

11:47:44 map right new.

11:47:45 So I don't see how we could vote on this without having

11:47:51 these addressed.

11:47:52 Are you ready to explain all of that?

11:47:55 >>JEAN DUNCAN: I will do my best.

11:47:56 I can tell you that the reason that any of the white parcels

11:47:59 are not being assessed is because they are not part of that

11:48:05 package of parcels that this developer is bringing forward

11:48:08 for assessment.

11:48:08 And the only reason all these lights are going in is because

11:48:12 the developer is having them put in under this project.

11:48:15 So if the developer wasn't doing the project, a light

11:48:18 wouldn't be going up.




11:48:19 >>MARY MULHERN: But this doesn't seem that this T people

11:48:23 are -- okay.

11:48:24 So if they are being assessed, I don't see how that is fair

11:48:32 application of this assessment authority that we have if

11:48:38 only one side of the street is being assessed for the

11:48:40 streetlights.

11:48:41 >> That's because those yellow par else are under that new

11:48:43 construction, and those yellow parcels are the ones that are

11:48:49 sharing that cost of that streetlight system which is being

11:48:53 put in under this development project.

11:48:56 If there's a light that you are not seeing on there, that's

11:48:58 because when the developer coordinated with TECO for the

11:49:01 lighting design, these are the lights that were decided were

11:49:05 necessary to properly illuminate the roadway.

11:49:08 >>MARY MULHERN: I guess my question isn't -- it's that the

11:49:13 people who are bearing the burden of it are bearing the

11:49:17 burden, and there are others who are getting the benefit and

11:49:20 not getting it.

11:49:24 That's part of my question.

11:49:25 >>JEAN DUNCAN: For the equity thing, that's with the

11:49:31 understanding and knowledge when they purchased that lot

11:49:33 that that would be part of their obligation, and those that

11:49:35 are not bearing the burden are just the recipient of the

11:49:40 benefit of an adjacent development that's going on that

11:49:44 happens to be getting lighting, getting lighting, which they




11:49:47 wouldn't be getting if that development wasn't going in.

11:49:51 With that's kind of the equity explanation.

11:49:54 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

11:49:56 Thanks.

11:50:03 >> Mr. Reddick and Mr. Suarez.

11:50:04 >>FRANK REDDICK: Let me just ask, when were these property

11:50:09 owners notified of this assessment?

11:50:10 >>JEAN DUNCAN: I would defer to the applicant to see if he

11:50:14 can provide a date on that.

11:50:32 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Hill, Ward and Henderson, suite 3700 Bank

11:50:34 of America Plaza.

11:50:36 The postmark indicates August 2.

11:50:40 And I believe it was about 46 days, if you go forward to

11:50:45 today.

11:50:48 >>FRANK REDDICK: August 2 of '13?

11:50:54 >> Yes.

11:50:55 Adequate notice.

11:50:56 >>FRANK REDDICK: If this fails to pass, who will be

11:50:59 responsible for streetlighting?

11:51:02 >> I don't know the answer to that question.

11:51:09 I would ask that --

11:51:18 >> Julie Hardy.

11:51:22 I believe a ten year agreement with TECO to pay for these

11:51:31 streetlights.

11:51:31 >>FRANK REDDICK: They have an agreement with TECO to pay




11:51:35 for it even if it doesn't matter?

11:51:39 >> From my understanding, would have the obligation to

11:51:44 continue to pay.

11:51:53 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: I will be very succinct.

11:51:54 This was platted in 1985.

11:51:57 Henry plant system.

11:51:59 Came in and made a large purchase of many parcels.

11:52:02 None it was developed.

11:52:04 It was all pasture.

11:52:05 The development agreement negotiated in 2006 obligated

11:52:09 Ashley woods to improve and include lighting in these areas,

11:52:13 an enhancement to the property which they are obligated to

11:52:16 do.

11:52:16 They are passing through the costs to the ultimate

11:52:20 purchasers of the lot.

11:52:21 I realize that this has caused you much consternation, and

11:52:25 I'm uncomfortable that this is not in proper form.

11:52:30 And I feel that I'm obligated to tell you that, and that we

11:52:38 need to get our house in order.

11:52:40 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.

11:52:44 That raised some serious issues.

11:52:46 I had a lot of concerns about this.

11:52:50 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Let me also add, Mr. Reddick, I will inform

11:52:55 them of it, is that you must approve the assessment by

11:52:59 September 15 or it cannot be placed on the role.




11:53:02 I will also offer to you that I will make sure that of a

11:53:11 representative contact any folks who have questions about

11:53:14 whether this was properly in the documentation.

11:53:17 Typically, this is in the document, but we will make sure

11:53:20 that it is provided to them appropriately.

11:53:23 >>FRANK REDDICK: Well, thank you.

11:53:26 Because I agree with my colleagues that have already stated.

11:53:29 I mean, when you look at the fairness, there's nab fairness

11:53:34 in this.

11:53:37 And as Mrs. Mulhern stated, I believe it was Mrs. Mulhern,

11:53:45 you have a whole block with all yellow, and I think you have

11:53:48 one house.

11:53:50 Not assessed at all.

11:53:52 I mean, how can you -- my next door neighbor be assessed and

11:54:01 I don't get assessed?

11:54:03 So if I had to -- and we are going to vote, I would vote it

11:54:09 down.

11:54:09 I would not vote to support.

11:54:11 And unless this is done properly, unless this is done

11:54:15 fairly, and now hearing that -- I forget what you stated

11:54:26 before.

11:54:26 >> I apologize for the late hour, and it shouldn't be forced

11:54:31 to you for September R approval before the 15th.

11:54:37 It was placed to me fairly lately and I assure you we will

11:54:40 get it right and they will have been perhaps return next




11:54:44 year with our house in order.

11:54:45 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

11:54:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.

11:54:49 Before I go to Mr. Suarez or Mr. Cohen.

11:54:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

11:54:56 Ms. Hardy, I know you don't appear us before us very front.

11:55:00 And you know we like to talk to our lawyers.

11:55:03 The development agreement that was originally entered into

11:55:06 in 2006, what are the requirements of Ashley woods as a

11:55:09 developer through that development agreement?

11:55:11 Because I looked in my packet.

11:55:12 I did not see the agreement itself in there.

11:55:15 >> I have a copy.

11:55:21 >>MIKE SUAREZ: War the requirements of Ashley woods in

11:55:23 terms of the development of streets, roads, lighting, so on,

11:55:30 their commitment to us as I signatory to that agreement?

11:55:41 Did I the ask a tough question?

11:55:46 Mr. Grandoff, let me ask you, in terms of when you say --

11:55:53 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Ashley woods.

11:55:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Your client has agreed to provide those

11:56:00 without any specific acknowledgment that there will be an

11:56:03 assessment at some point, correct?

11:56:05 >> Correct.

11:56:08 And they have the opportunity under chapter 197 to ask for

11:56:12 this non-ad valorem assessment.




11:56:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Terrific.

11:56:15 The reason I was asking -- and I know you have done many of

11:56:18 these in the past, right?

11:56:20 Have some working knowledge of community development

11:56:22 districts.

11:56:23 Typically, when you have be a large land owner that's going

11:56:28 to plat houses and they will assess, as those property

11:56:31 owners take possession, each one of them for those

11:56:35 improvements that have been done so that they can live in

11:56:37 their community, is that correct?

11:56:38 >> Correct.

11:56:39 >> This was not created as a community development district,

11:56:42 correct?

11:56:43 >> Right.

11:56:44 It's after the fact.

11:56:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ: We have several afterwards from folks that

11:56:51 live in the area that it is not in their contract that they

11:56:54 would be assessed or that this would be part of their

11:56:58 agreement in purchasing the contract.

11:57:00 Would you say that that is a correct statement?

11:57:03 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: I don't know that it is because --

11:57:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ: You are a late comer, too, representing this

11:57:08 group, probably.

11:57:09 >> Correct.

11:57:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Because I would guess that you were




11:57:12 horrified when you saw the development agreement.

11:57:14 >> No.

11:57:15 I helped write it.

11:57:17 [ Laughter ]

11:57:20 >> Then you are even more horrified.

11:57:21 >> Mrs. Grimes and I helped negotiate and write that

11:57:26 agreement.

11:57:26 So I have a fairly working knowledge of it right now.

11:57:29 >> So we can blame Mrs. Grimes because she's not here right

11:57:34 now.

11:57:34 [ Laughter ] But the reason that I asked is because the

11:57:36 issue of fairness comes in to play, when an unbeknownst

11:57:42 property owner comes in and tries to buy the property, if it

11:57:45 is not shown in their contract that they are going to be

11:57:50 assessed, I think it is on its face an unfair assessment to

11:57:53 then be asked for after the fact.

11:57:55 And I think that you kind of touched on it, and maybe she

11:58:00 might even agree on that, which is since we don't look at

11:58:05 these development agreements practically at all in the City

11:58:08 of Tampa, there's not a lot that's actually good for this

11:58:15 type of development, that for us to then do an assessment

11:58:18 after the fact because of a mistake that was made on the

11:58:21 part of the applicant, I think, is an egregious mistake on

11:58:25 our part if we do that.

11:58:27 Secondly, I think that if you are -- and I think that we




11:58:34 need to look at the timing.

11:58:35 I know that you are under a time frame because of the

11:58:37 assessment itself.

11:58:38 I would make a suggestion to you -- and I think I can do

11:58:41 this, because this is not a quasi-judicial forum -- that you

11:58:45 would go back to your client, ask them to go to each one of

11:58:51 these homeowners and find out how many would like to have

11:58:53 the assessment now.

11:58:54 I think I know what the answer is going to be.

11:58:58 Secondly, I would like to know more information in terms of

11:59:00 what their commitment is.

11:59:01 And will TECO -- and it may not have been in 2006, it might

11:59:09 have started in 2009 -- you are obligated to 2019 would be

11:59:13 my guess on most of these parcels.

11:59:15 So for us to make after decision now on a special assessment

11:59:21 for something that they are already committed to providing,

11:59:24 would, I think, be unfair to the people that live in that

11:59:27 particular assessment district.

11:59:28 And secondly, I think not to be unfair to Mr. Grandoff and

11:59:32 to his client, which is, I think that they have an

11:59:35 obligation and a duty, if they feel that they are going to

11:59:40 be out of dollars because of what has happened, find a

11:59:44 reasonable agreement between the homeowners that are there,

11:59:48 the city, and so on, so that we can move forward with it.

11:59:51 Because I think that on its face, this is going to be bad




11:59:55 precedent on our part, it's bad development policy, I

11:59:59 believe, and I think it's bad all around, because it does

12:00:04 not get to where we need to be in the future.

12:00:07 And I will make one comment to our friend Jean Duncan who is

12:00:12 terrific.

12:00:13 The difference between a special assessment and us doing a

12:00:17 regular millage where we provide services to the entire city

12:00:21 is that we don't have these special assessment districts for

12:00:25 the most part within the city other than there's some in

12:00:28 Ybor and Channelside area.

12:00:30 Those things that people know about and are assessed, and

12:00:34 are prepared for that based on where they live.

12:00:37 This is a totally different situation.

12:00:39 This is more what happens in part of our city in New Tampa,

12:00:45 Tampa Palms, and other areas that people have bought and

12:00:49 understand what a community development district does for

12:00:53 them, and then they have an elective role within that.

12:00:55 I dealt with property owners that have developed the entire

12:01:00 property, then set up the homeowners association, who then

12:01:04 have elected representatives, and look at the assessments

12:01:06 that they are being assessed.

12:01:08 So we are not in that situation.

12:01:10 You might want to think about putting that forward for those

12:01:13 folks, if it fits under our particular ordinance.

12:01:18 That's all I have to say, chair.




12:01:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm sorry.

12:01:32 Mr. Cohen?

12:01:33 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

12:01:35 I think everyone has done a great job of exhausting this

12:01:37 discussion.

12:01:38 I do want to particularly compliment Councilwoman Montelione

12:01:41 for laying out the prongs which clearly there's some

12:01:46 difficulty with whether on the face of the item.

12:01:54 When Mr. Reddick asked the question about the notice, I

12:01:56 think what he was actually asking is whether or not the

12:01:58 property owners were notified when they bought the property

12:02:01 as opposed to of the hearing itself,.

12:02:04 That's what I interpreted the question to be.

12:02:06 And I know that for me these a part of the difficulty I have

12:02:10 had with this matter.

12:02:11 But I have a second difficulty were this and I just want to

12:02:14 lay this out on the table.

12:02:15 If this is supposed to be approved before September 15th

12:02:17 tax deadline, why on earth would you come here on September

12:02:22 12th when someone somewhere must know that we do not have

12:02:27 the ability to continue it to another meeting in order to

12:02:30 get us more information?

12:02:32 So when councilwoman Mulhern asked about continuing it, I

12:02:35 started shaking my head because, you know, that's not an

12:02:41 option that's available to us, because of the way this is




12:02:44 calendared.

12:02:45 So I would join with everyone else.

12:02:46 If we had a vote today I would also vote no.

12:02:49 And I would hope that over the course of the period of time

12:02:54 we can work through some of these issues.

12:02:56 But I do know there are plenty of places in the city, where

12:02:59 the city pays for streetlights.

12:03:04 And, you know, from some of my investigation of this over

12:03:08 the last day or two, it seems to me that the standards are

12:03:14 not exactly evenly applied across the city in terms of who

12:03:18 is going to pay for what, and what developers are going to

12:03:20 be responsible for what, and that mate expose a larger

12:03:23 problem that we mate need to look at at some point.

12:03:26 So I don't want to belabor the point.

12:03:28 But that's all.

12:03:35 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: And there's absolutely --

12:03:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I am going to ask council for 30 minutes.

12:03:39 Motion by Mrs. Montelione, seconded by Mr. Suarez on a close

12:03:45 vote with be Mr. Cohen.

12:03:46 The ayes have it unanimously.

12:03:47 >> I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman.

12:03:51 There's absolutely no excuse for this to be forced upon you

12:03:54 on September 12th and I will communicate that in very clear

12:03:56 language to my client.

12:03:58 You don't deserve that kind of treatment.




12:04:00 Especially with the public here.

12:04:05 I will assure you that they will get this corrected the way

12:04:08 it should be done in adequate time to those who are notified

12:04:12 to review it and for you to consider it properly, which is

12:04:15 what your duty is. I want to also make it clear that I have

12:04:18 no information as to what was placed in the contract, what

12:04:23 may have been told to these people as to the notice issue

12:04:25 Mr. Reddick read.

12:04:27 I will make sure that is investigated.

12:04:29 But I don't want it construed that there is a notice flaw.

12:04:32 I have nothing further to add.

12:04:35 And again, I thank you for your extraordinary time on this

12:04:38 matter.

12:04:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can follow up with Mr. Grandoff said.

12:04:45 My reading of the ordinance, there is not a legal

12:04:48 requirement in terms of the petitioner asking for an

12:04:51 assessment that purchasers be told at the time of purchase

12:04:54 that there is going to be an assessment.

12:04:56 Not for this purpose that's before council now.

12:04:59 It does go to an issue of fairness in council's mind.

12:05:02 But in terms of the notice requirement, I agree with Mr.

12:05:05 Grandoff, and as Ms. Hardy, statutorily, notice has been met

12:05:11 in this case.

12:05:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.

12:05:13 Okay.




12:05:14 This is a public hearing

12:05:16 Anyone in the public care to speak on 55, please come

12:05:18 forward.

12:05:18 >> Good morning.

12:05:23 I should say good afternoon.

12:05:25 7109 south Wall Street.

12:05:27 I did do a written objection which I believe has been

12:05:31 submitted.

12:05:32 For the agenda, I don't know if it needs to be read in.

12:05:36 >> It's in the file.

12:05:37 >> Thank you.

12:05:38 For the agenda, I don't understand, it says resolution must

12:05:41 be adopted during the public hearing.

12:05:43 And I find that you are going to adopt it anyway so that's a

12:05:46 little confusing to me as a member of the public and I am

12:05:49 hope that's not the case.

12:05:50 I also --

12:05:52 >> We are not.

12:05:52 >> All right.

12:05:54 The other, I have with me the original.

12:05:58 I did submit to someone in the office on the signatures of

12:06:03 18 people who object to this proposed assessment.

12:06:06 I would like to submit the original signatures today, if I

12:06:09 can do that.

12:06:13 And I would consider myself able to speak on behalf of those




12:06:19 people personally and that I would be showing up at the

12:06:22 hearing to express their objection.

12:06:25 If I could just say earlier, one of the council members

12:06:28 talked about the due process.

12:06:29 And I certainly would say that due process was not met

12:06:32 although I know technically the notice requirement was

12:06:35 enough but I will tell you that it seems to me the

12:06:38 homeowners had been notified and if it had been part of the

12:06:41 contract that there would have been no reason for the

12:06:45 builder to have notified us of a special assessment.

12:06:50 They could have just done it through their contract.

12:06:51 And to clarify for you, I guess on this map that Jean

12:06:58 provided, if you look at the bottom of like Fitzgerald

12:07:02 street there are many houses in white that are not affected.

12:07:07 I see the assessment.

12:07:09 As I understand it, those houses diabetes have the sort of

12:07:12 streetlight thing in their contract.

12:07:15 That's what I understand.

12:07:16 Some of the houses may have.

12:07:18 Some of the other white houses that are not in yellow, not

12:07:22 affected, are developed by other builders.

12:07:26 So I don't know all of the names.

12:07:35 Other people getting the benefits of something else.

12:07:38 Also, I would say to council, I don't know if it's fair for

12:07:42 someone to the Department of Transportation as to whether




12:07:44 Ashley woods has met its obligation under their development

12:07:48 plan.

12:07:48 I don't think that would be proper.

12:07:51 And also it seems like an attorney for the city is sort of

12:07:55 speaking on behalf of the petitioner here today.

12:07:57 (Bell sounds)

12:08:01 I just don't think it meets the two prong test.

12:08:04 I live on wall street which is up at the top of the map up

12:08:06 here.

12:08:07 And that, I don't know this seven road, there's a lot of

12:08:14 traffic on that road.

12:08:15 The streetlights I pay for which are already in place which

12:08:18 are a different style mind up from the street lights down

12:08:20 here on with South benefiting other motorists, which is the

12:08:29 stated goal of streetlights.

12:08:30 So if I am asking to pay for that and other people are

12:08:33 getting the benefit, and it's not like sidewalks, because

12:08:35 nobody is suggesting a special assessment for sidewalks.

12:08:38 These all I have.

12:08:39 And I encourage you to deny this, and not let this go

12:08:44 forward.

12:08:44 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you very much.

12:08:47 Next?

12:08:53 >> I would like to save these folks of time.

12:08:57 We'll simply withdraw the request this afternoon.




12:09:00 Or if you wish to vote it down, that would be fine with me.

12:09:04 >>HARRY COHEN: I'm happy to have it --

12:09:09 >> There's no need for it.

12:09:17 I think I have the prerogative to withdraw the application.

12:09:22 It's withdrawn.

12:09:23 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you.

12:09:24 But we do still have the public hearing open.

12:09:26 So we can go ahead and here from members of the public that

12:09:29 are here.

12:09:29 >> I will be very brief my name is Matt Mitcham. I reside

12:09:33 at 7514 South Parkland Street. Councilwoman Montelione

12:09:39 pointed out the main point I wanted to make right across

12:09:43 from my home, two different developers build homes.

12:09:47 Those homes were also not given a special assessment.

12:09:50 They would receive a benefit.

12:09:51 And even though it may not have been -- when I purchased my

12:09:56 home in December of 2009 they did not notify me of any sort

12:09:58 of special assessment.

12:10:00 We as neighbors did gather and we also have a petition

12:10:03 signed by 37 owners and residents.

12:10:06 Where I still would like to go ahead and file even though I

12:10:08 understand it's going to be withdrawn.

12:10:09 But we are adamantly opposed to this:

12:10:16 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you very much.

12:10:21 >> My name is Amy Evancho, 7604 South Parkland Street. I'm




12:10:29 one of the original probably 12 homes that were in Ashton

12:10:33 Woods.

12:10:33 At no time did Ashton Woods ever disclose it is not in our

12:10:37 contract.

12:10:37 We don't have a homeowners association.

12:10:39 We think don't have it be a CDD.

12:10:41 And I think for them to notify us, you know, a month ago to

12:10:46 do this is very underhanded.

12:10:49 Additionally, I would like to go on record as saying that a

12:10:52 lot of the people in Ashton Woods are military.

12:10:55 And a lot of the people are rotated out.

12:10:58 I have several neighbors.

12:11:02 I purchased back in 2009.

12:11:03 And several of the neighbors that were on the original

12:11:09 street there are now being located out -- rotated out.

12:11:14 We have people overseas.

12:11:15 We have people all different places in the country.

12:11:17 So you have renters that are coming in thereby now.

12:11:19 And they are now probably not being forwarded in some cases

12:11:25 like that.

12:11:26 And additionally, this assessment is, from my understanding,

12:11:29 is for 20 years.

12:11:33 We were told when we called the city, is this a one-time

12:11:36 assessment? And they said it will be for 20 years.

12:11:39 So I just want to go and say that I would encourage you --




12:11:44 and I appreciate the dialogue that you all have had here

12:11:46 today.

12:11:46 I really appreciate the hard questions that you have asked.

12:11:49 But now we in the future are going to come back and oppose

12:11:54 this.

12:11:54 We very mentally oppose it and want you to prosecute vote

12:12:02 this down.

12:12:03 >>HARRY COHEN: Mrs. Duncan, is it a 20 year assessment just

12:12:06 for clarification?

12:12:07 >> Well, the TECO does a 20 year lease.

12:12:09 But the problem the way they are structured, they make the

12:12:14 case if there is a structure it needs to be replaced every

12:12:18 20 years.

12:12:19 So what that basically is, it puts you in a situation of

12:12:23 perpetuity, because they say in 20 years, the structures

12:12:27 need to be replaced and therefore you have to enter into a

12:12:30 new lease to get the streetlights functioning again.

12:12:32 So it's a little bit misleading that it's 20 years.

12:12:37 It is 20 years.

12:12:38 But a light won't keep burning for 20 years after that

12:12:47 without the revisiting of the rates, and that's all under

12:12:50 the Public Service Commission, under TECO's rate structure.

12:12:53 Nothing that the city can control, unfortunately.

12:12:55 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you.

12:12:56 >> (away from microphone) Kusiva. I live at 7615 Sparkman.




12:13:00 I am a realtor.

12:13:01 I purchased my house.

12:13:03 So, yes.

12:13:03 You asked a question, councilman Montelione, was a realtor

12:13:08 ever notifying the buyer?

12:13:09 Well, no, I didn't know anything about it.

12:13:14 It wasn't something anybody was told.

12:13:17 We had meetings on the street.

12:13:19 We are all taken aback by the fact that Ashton Woods as a

12:13:22 developer should have taken on the responsibility like other

12:13:25 developing communities of us taking on the lighting.

12:13:28 But yet they want to pass the buck to the homeowners.

12:13:32 I live on Sparkman Street.

12:13:34 I'm one of the last houses before the whites there.

12:13:39 They are not getting assessed.

12:13:41 So I hope you would vote down this now and in the future.

12:13:44 We shouldn't take on this.

12:13:46 This is Ashton Woods.

12:13:49 Thank you.

12:13:49 >> My name is Kate swann, 7516 Sparkman Street.

12:13:53 And as you noticed on the map, I live in an area on sparkman

12:13:59 road, there's approximately five homes across the street who

12:14:02 are going to benefit from the lights.

12:14:03 And would pay of no fees for this whatsoever.

12:14:07 I am not opposed to, you know, improving the neighborhood




12:14:11 and paying the fair share.

12:14:12 But if it's not spread evenly and not being assessed fairly,

12:14:16 I do have an issue.

12:14:18 My other issue is the fact that one of the reasons I did

12:14:20 purchase this home in this area was because it was not a

12:14:24 homeowner's association.

12:14:25 It was not, you know, an area where I would spend my

12:14:30 hard-earned dollars on something that I was not necessarily

12:14:33 wanting,.

12:14:35 And I could put that toward my home.

12:14:37 And the fact that after the fact, going through my purchase

12:14:41 agreement and everything else, they are coming now and

12:14:44 saying, hey, we are going to do this assessment and you are

12:14:46 going to be charged for 20 years, it's very unfair, I don't

12:14:51 feel it's on good faith because those are some of the

12:14:55 specific questions I asked when I went to purchase my home.

12:14:57 And, you know, definitely appreciate you taking the --

12:15:02 looking at it from a fairness point of perspective. Overall

12:15:07 we all want our neighborhoods to be well kept and maintained

12:15:12 just to ensure it's done fairly.

12:15:14 Thank you.

12:15:14 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Chair, a form of clarification to be

12:15:19 clear on this.

12:15:21 If Mr. Grandoff is withdrawing this request, is it incumbent

12:15:31 upon to us accept this withdrawal or do we still have -- do




12:15:34 we need to vote whether we are going to vote and a move it

12:15:38 forward?

12:15:40 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: It doesn't matter to me.

12:15:42 Whatever your prerogative.

12:15:43 I am very apologetic for the delays.

12:15:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe Mrs. Hardy is more familiar with

12:15:51 the process.

12:15:52 But council has to go through a certain process.

12:15:55 There have actually been previous resolutions that are

12:16:01 required under statute to bring you to the point where it's

12:16:03 noticed.

12:16:03 And there's a time line that has to be met.

12:16:06 80s Mr. Grandoff said, the deadline is this week for this

12:16:09 year.

12:16:09 Now, I guess the question would be with when the application

12:16:12 is withdrawn they have to begin the whole process all over

12:16:15 again, is that correct?

12:16:16 And normally, what normally happens in a case like this is

12:16:20 if the petitioner is requesting that it with drawn, council

12:16:25 as a custom usually allows the petition to do it because the

12:16:28 legal effect in this case would be the same.

12:16:30 >>MARY MULHERN: I just wanted to say that the legal effect

12:16:36 would be the same if we deny this petition.

12:16:39 They would have to go back if they wanted to.

12:16:41 So I don't it --




12:16:47 >>HARRY COHEN: I think it's a distinction without a

12:16:49 difference.

12:16:49 Either someone make the motion with to drawn it or make the

12:16:52 motion to deny it.

12:16:55 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I'll move to deny.

12:16:58 >>HARRY COHEN: Oh, we need to clogs the public hearing.

12:17:00 We have a motion to close the public hearing by Mr. Suarez.

12:17:02 Seconded by Mrs. Mulhern.

12:17:04 All those in favor pleas indicate by saying aye.

12:17:06 Opposed?

12:17:07 Okay.

12:17:08 The hearing is now closed.

12:17:09 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I move to deny the application of Mr.

12:17:12 Grandoff and Ashley wood.

12:17:16 >> We have a motion to deny from Councilwoman Montelione,

12:17:19 seconded by Councilman Suarez.

12:17:21 All those in favor please indicate by saying aye.

12:17:23 Opposed?

12:17:24 The application is denied.

12:17:27 We are going to move on now to item number 63, which is our

12:17:31 last regular item before we will go back to the consent

12:17:34 agenda.

12:17:38 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.

12:17:39 The appellate is a special use 1:00 be a peel from a

12:17:43 congregate living facility at 1106 east Richmere street, the




12:17:56 southeast corner of Richmere and south 12th Street, and is

12:18:01 an area that is zoned RS-50.

12:18:06 The congregate living facility, petitioners are asking for

12:18:09 ten beds.

12:18:11 The special using conditions under section 27-132 limits the

12:18:16 ability for the administratively approval of congregate

12:18:22 facility to 8 beds.

12:18:23 City Council in the past has approved this rotation back in

12:18:27 2009 -- location back in 2009.

12:18:29 Ordinance 2009-40 to allow the congregate facility at 8

12:18:34 beds, and they are asking now for the ability to add two

12:18:38 more beds to this facility.

12:18:41 I have photographs at this time.

12:18:45 That's the residence on Richmere, at the corner of 12th as

12:18:50 well.

12:18:50 This is a corner street.

12:18:53 That's 12th Street.

12:18:58 The properties that are across the street, this is a

12:19:00 single-family neighborhood.

12:19:03 Although the area is -- City Council would need to approve

12:19:10 if this were to be a ten-bed facility.

12:19:13 >>MARY MULHERN: Ms. Moreda, would you put the map back up

12:19:19 there and tell us what neighborhood this is in?

12:19:23 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Richmere is just east of Nebraska Avenue,

12:19:29 and just north of Busch Boulevard.




12:19:31 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

12:19:32 >>HARRY COHEN: Any other questions from council?

12:19:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Quick question.

12:19:41 Right now, you said in the past it's been zoned for this

12:19:45 type of use, but for less beds?

12:19:50 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Yes.

12:19:50 The code allows for a facility eight beds in the RS-50

12:19:54 district.

12:19:56 And this is an administrative review as zoning

12:20:00 administrator.

12:20:01 Unless they meet the conditions, we do not approve it.

12:20:04 It takes council's motion to accept the increase to a

12:20:08 ten-bed facility.

12:20:09 >> But the applicant --

12:20:16 >> Right.

12:20:18 >>MARY MULHERN: The eight beds, is that based on just any

12:20:22 residential?

12:20:27 >> No, within the RS-50 district, yes, and all the

12:20:33 single-family residential districts, the RM-12 and the

12:20:36 RM-16, the code limits to the an 8-bed facility.

12:20:39 This is an RM 20 land use designation so the ten beds can be

12:20:46 considered.

12:20:46 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you.

12:20:47 Petitioner?

12:20:48 >> My name is Florence Akintola.




12:21:02 We have we are applying for ten.

12:21:18 I would appreciate it if you can consider to ten.

12:21:21 >>FRANK REDDICK: You are currently with eight spaces as of

12:21:26 now?

12:21:26 >> No.

12:21:27 We have ten spaces.

12:21:28 >>FRANK REDDICK: You actually go up two more which will be

12:21:33 ten, right?

12:21:34 >> So you have the facility --

12:21:41 >> I have ability for two more.

12:21:44 >>FRANK REDDICK: That's what I am asking. You have the

12:21:45 facility size to accommodate two more?

12:21:47 >> Yes, sir.

12:21:48 >>FRANK REDDICK: And it will not cause any hardship or

12:21:50 problem?

12:21:51 >> No.

12:21:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ: How many square foot is your facility for

12:22:01 the folks you have now?

12:22:03 $26.

12:22:05 >> 2600 square feet and you have eight people living

12:22:07 thereby?

12:22:07 >> Yes.

12:22:08 But we have seven.

12:22:12 >> Right now you have how many people per room?

12:22:15 >> It's two per room.




12:22:16 Because we are approved.

12:22:23 >> So you have four rooms currently that are filled with

12:22:26 eight people?

12:22:27 >> Yes, sir.

12:22:27 >> So now you have another room that is already empty that

12:22:31 you want to put another two in there?

12:22:34 >> Yes, sir.

12:22:34 >> How big are the rooms typically that are --

12:22:38 >> 14 by 16.

12:22:40 >> 14 by 16?

12:22:43 All right.

12:22:43 You said that you are already permitted by the state at that

12:22:47 site?

12:22:48 >> Yes, right now for 8.

12:22:50 >>FRANK REDDICK: Do we need a motion to approve?

12:23:04 >>HARRY COHEN: We need to hear from the public first.

12:23:06 >>LISA MONTELIONE: May I?

12:23:10 Mrs. Moreda, with this petition, were the neighbors notified

12:23:17 within proximity?

12:23:18 Because I don't see in the backup -- and it may be that my

12:23:23 aide didn't print that page.

12:23:24 >> Yes.

12:23:25 Notice was done.

12:23:25 This has actually been scheduled.

12:23:31 But there was a required notice of the neighborhood




12:23:33 association as well as surrounding property owners.

12:23:35 >> And you haven't received any calls or objections.

12:23:40 Okay.

12:23:40 I just wanted to clarify that for the record.

12:23:43 Thank you.

12:23:43 >>HARRY COHEN: With that let me ask is there anyone from

12:23:46 the public hear that would like to speak on this matter?

12:23:49 >>FRANK REDDICK: Move to close.

12:23:51 >>HARRY COHEN: We have a meteorologist to close by Mr.

12:23:53 Reddick, second.

12:23:56 All in favor?

12:23:57 Opposed?

12:23:57 Okay.

12:23:58 Mr. Reddick, would you kindly read the ordinance?

12:24:04 >>FRANK REDDICK: Well --

12:24:12 >> It's not an ordinance.

12:24:13 >> I just make the motion to grant the petitioner, two

12:24:18 additional spaces as part of their request.

12:24:21 >> Second.

12:24:23 >>HARRY COHEN: We have a motion from Councilman Reddick,

12:24:25 seconded by Councilwoman Montelione.

12:24:27 All in favor? Opposed?

12:24:30 Okay.

12:24:30 Motion passes.

12:24:32 Thank you.




12:24:33 We have a little bit more business to finish up this

12:24:36 afternoon before we are done, and that is the consent agenda

12:24:39 and the setting of two public hearings.

12:24:44 Before we get to the consent agenda, let's go ahead and set

12:24:47 the hearing on items number 43 and 4 -- 44.

12:24:55 We have a motion by council Mulhern seconded by Councilwoman

12:24:59 Montelione to set items 43 and 44 for hearings in the

12:25:03 future.

12:25:03 All in favor?

12:25:05 Opposed?

12:25:06 Okay.

12:25:07 We will move on to the consent agenda.

12:25:10 Public Safety Committee, Mr. Reddick.

12:25:11 >>FRANK REDDICK: Approve item number 1.

12:25:14 >> We have a motion from Councilman Reddick.

12:25:17 Seconded by Councilman Suarez.

12:25:19 All those in favor please indicate by saying aye.

12:25:22 Opposed?

12:25:25 Mrs. Mulhern, parks, recreation, culture committee.

12:25:27 >>MARY MULHERN: I move items 2 through 11.

12:25:31 >>HARRY COHEN: Motion from Councilwoman Mulhern, seconded

12:25:36 by Councilman Suarez.

12:25:38 All in favor?

12:25:39 Opposed?

12:25:41 Public Works Committee.




12:25:42 Mr. Suarez.

12:25:42 >> (off microphone)

12:25:50 We have a motion by Mr. Suarez, seconded by Councilman

12:25:53 Mulhern.

12:25:54 All in favor?

12:25:55 Opposed?

12:25:55 Okay.

12:25:56 And Mr. Suarez, would you please move the Finance Committee

12:25:58 item as well with the exception of item number 246 which was

12:26:02 pulled?

12:26:03 >> I was just going to say.

12:26:04 That I move items 20 through 23, and items 25 through 28.

12:26:12 >> Second.

12:26:13 >> We have a motion from Mr. Suarez, seconded by Mr.

12:26:16 Reddick.

12:26:16 All those in favor please indicate by saying aye.

12:26:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Excuse me, chair, you said --

12:26:24 >> Council approval be read.

12:26:31 Excuse me.

12:26:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Restate it?

12:26:34 I present a resolution for first reading consideration, a

12:26:37 resolution amending the rules, procedure rule 3-D, amending

12:26:42 rule 5 and amending rule 7, governing meetings of the City

12:26:45 Council, City of Tampa, providing an effective date.

12:26:47 >>FRANK REDDICK: Second.




12:26:50 >>HARRY COHEN: We have a resolution by Mr. Suarez.

12:26:52 Second go ahead by Mr. Reddick.

12:26:54 All those in favor please indicate by saying aye.

12:26:58 I'm sorry.

12:26:59 For point of clarification, it will come back at the next

12:27:01 regular meeting in the form of a resolution which then gets

12:27:03 moved to approve actually the reading of it.

12:27:05 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you very much.

12:27:09 Mrs. Montelione is going to go now on her committee but she

12:27:12 also has an item to discuss.

12:27:15 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Understood my committee, building,

12:27:18 zoning, preservation, I move 29 through 35.

12:27:21 >> Second.

12:27:23 >>HARRY COHEN: We have a motion from Councilwoman

12:27:25 Montelione, seconded by Councilman Suarez.

12:27:27 All those in favor?

12:27:28 Opposed?

12:27:29 Okay.

12:27:29 Motion passes.

12:27:30 Councilwoman Montelione.

12:27:32 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.

12:27:33 Under the transportation committee, there are two items that

12:27:38 I would ask council's support in continuing, and those are

12:27:44 items number 41 and 42.

12:27:48 41 is the authorization of an amendment to an agreement for




12:27:54 Trimar Construction, in the amount of $760,393 and item

12:28:00 number 42 is related to item 41, because it's the request to

12:28:07 allocate $400,000 within the utility tax capital projects

12:28:11 fund in order to pay part of that $760,000.

12:28:19 >>HARRY COHEN: Do you want to give us a date?

12:28:22 And I think it should be before the end of the fiscal year

12:28:24 given the verbiage here.

12:28:27 >>LISA MONTELIONE: We are looking --

12:28:31 >> September 26th.

12:28:33 >> We are having a special called session on the 19th.

12:28:35 We can do it then. Oh, one subject?

12:28:39 September 26th.

12:28:42 >> At what time?

12:28:45 >>LISA MONTELIONE: 10 a.m.

12:28:46 >> So we are going to -- we have a motion to continue items

12:28:50 number 41 and 42 to September 26th at 10 a.m.

12:28:55 The motion is by Councilwoman Montelione, seconded by

12:28:58 Councilwoman Mulhern.

12:29:00 All those in favor? Opposed?

12:29:02 Okay.

12:29:03 Finally, the transportation committee, Mr. Reddick.

12:29:08 Can you please move those items?

12:29:09 >>FRANK REDDICK: I move items 36 through 40.

12:29:12 >>HARRY COHEN: We have a motion from Councilman Reddick,

12:29:16 seconded by Councilwoman Mulhern.




12:29:17 All those in favor please indicate by saying aye.

12:29:20 Opposed?

12:29:21 Mr. Shelby.

12:29:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a clarification.

12:29:23 And this might be for the clerk.

12:29:24 I don't know whether council took official action to remove

12:29:27 64 and 65 from the agenda per the request.

12:29:31 It wasn't on the addendum.

12:29:33 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Move to remove those two items from the

12:29:38 agenda.

12:29:38 >> Second.

12:29:40 >>HARRY COHEN: We have a motion from Councilwoman

12:29:42 Montelione, seconded by Councilwoman Mulhern remove items 64

12:29:46 and 65.

12:29:46 All those in favor please indicate by saying aye.

12:29:49 Opposed?

12:29:50 Okay.

12:29:51 Those are removed.

12:29:51 >> Move to receive and file.

12:29:57 >>HARRY COHEN: Motion by Mrs. Mulhern, second.

12:30:02 Opposed?

12:30:03 Mr. Suarez, any new business?

12:30:05 >> No, sir.

12:30:06 >>FRANK REDDICK: One, yes.

12:30:08 Two.




12:30:09 One is I would like to get a resolution recognizing

12:30:16 international day of peace for September 21, 2013.

12:30:22 >> Second.

12:30:25 >>HARRY COHEN: We have a motion from Councilman Reddick,

12:30:28 seconded by Councilwoman Montelione.

12:30:29 All those in favor please indicate by saying aye.

12:30:31 >> That was a commendation, right?

12:30:35 >>FRANK REDDICK: Yes, commendation.

12:30:39 The second part is to have a discussion by parks and

12:30:44 recreation, to request that someone from parks and

12:30:49 recreation review this that they spoke of to determine what

12:31:00 can be done to wherever safety features for those parks that

12:31:04 are located within the city, and adjacent near waterfront

12:31:11 property, and fencing, whether it's putting in shrubbery or

12:31:18 coming up with some kind of recommendation to improve the

12:31:21 safety of the facility adjacent to the river, as well as --

12:31:28 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Standard of --

12:31:31 >>FRANK REDDICK: Right, and including that.

12:31:33 >> I'll second it.

12:31:35 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Ad and Ms. Mandell also mentioned

12:31:40 checking with the school board as well to see what their

12:31:42 recommendations are.

12:31:44 >> Right.

12:31:46 And school board.

12:31:47 And chair, got a date?




12:31:50 >>HARRY COHEN: How about October 3rd?

12:31:52 >>FRANK REDDICK: October 3rd.

12:31:55 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Could you specifically mention that

12:31:56 someone from parks and recreation should be here?

12:31:58 >>FRANK REDDICK: Yes.

12:32:00 Parks and recreation.

12:32:01 >>HARRY COHEN: We have a motion from Councilman Reddick,

12:32:05 seconded by Councilwoman Montelione for a report back on

12:32:07 October 3rd at 10 a.m.

12:32:09 All those in favor please indicate by saying aye.

12:32:11 Opposed?

12:32:13 We have our city attorney here for some late-breaking

12:32:16 developments.

12:32:17 >>JULIA MANDELL: Legal department.

12:32:19 I heard that there was a request to continuing items number

12:32:23 41 and 42.

12:32:24 Item 41 being an amendment to an agreement

12:32:30 I'm not saying there's an issue you are with continuing it.

12:32:33 I don't know if there's any time frame associated with that

12:32:36 or any other contractual issues.

12:32:38 I'm not saying that there are.

12:32:40 I just feel uncomfortable not being able to give you that

12:32:43 piece of information should you continue it.

12:32:46 So we are trying to just call quickly to make sure there's

12:32:49 no issue that would create some kind of legal problem down




12:32:52 the road as a result of it.

12:32:55 There very well may not be.

12:32:57 >>LISA MONTELIONE: We already continued it.

12:33:01 And from what I read in the backup material, this is a

12:33:04 section of Zack Street that has not yet begun.

12:33:08 So it's not holding up any work.

12:33:10 It's adding a couple of blocks to what has already been

12:33:13 done.

12:33:13 >>HARRY COHEN: And needed to be done by September 30th.

12:33:20 >> I just heard it was gettings continued.

12:33:23 Am I saw it wasn't on the agenda.

12:33:25 I wanted to come down and find out some additional

12:33:27 information.

12:33:27 And I would like to see if there is an issue associated with

12:33:31 it, and granted the opportunity to come back at next council

12:33:34 meeting to bring that forward to be avoid any complications.

12:33:37 >> We will accommodate you in any way we can.

12:33:40 Councilwoman Mulhern.

12:33:43 >>MARY MULHERN: No new business, thank you.

12:33:46 >>HARRY COHEN: Councilwoman Montelione.

12:33:48 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I have one piece of new business, and

12:33:50 that would be to request our legal department and zoning

12:33:53 administrator to appear and address the issue of

12:33:58 administrative approval and special use permits for

12:34:03 alcoholic beverage in the downtown area.




12:34:06 I understand from -- and I don't want to name the business,

12:34:11 but I understand that there was quite a delay in receiving

12:34:19 their special use permit for beer and wine sales.

12:34:24 And in talking with some folks, it is a more arduous process

12:34:30 for a restaurant downtown to receive a beer and wine license

12:34:36 than it is for a bar or a lounge to receive a beer and wine

12:34:40 license.

12:34:40 So I would like just that to be addressed so that we

12:34:44 don't -- in essence kind of penalize restaurants, encourage

12:34:51 bars and restaurants in the downtown.

12:34:52 >>HARRY COHEN: Would you like that for the next staff

12:34:55 report?

12:34:57 >>LISA MONTELIONE: October would be fine.

12:34:58 I think we have the calendar.

12:35:03 The 3rd.

12:35:03 >> Second.

12:35:07 >>HARRY COHEN: We have a motion from Councilwoman

12:35:08 Montelione, seconded by Councilwoman Mulhern for a staff

12:35:11 report on October 3rd at 10 a.m.

12:35:13 All those in favor please indicate by saying aye.

12:35:18 Our city attorney and director of public works have

12:35:21 returned.

12:35:21 So even though we have continued items 41 and 42, it appears

12:35:25 to me they would like to address us today.

12:35:27 Is that correct?




12:35:27 >>JULIA MANDELL: Legal department.

12:35:32 I believe Mr. Herr was out to lunch and he ran over to see

12:35:36 if there were any questions that he could answer at this

12:35:38 time to get this moving forward.

12:35:40 Alternatively --

12:35:45 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I think maybe the questions I have are,

12:35:50 Mrs. Mulhern seconded the motion.

12:35:52 So maybe I can lay out the questions and we can come back

12:35:54 with the answers at the continued -- unless, you know, Ms.

12:36:01 Mandell had mentioned there is a reason why you want to move

12:36:06 forward rather quickly.

12:36:07 The concern that I had -- and let me pull my note out -- was

12:36:13 that --

12:36:13 >> I'm sorry, can we extend time for five minutes?

12:36:18 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Why don't we make it ten just in case?

12:36:21 >>HARRY COHEN: Ten minutes.

12:36:23 We have a motion for five additional minutes by Mr. Suarez,

12:36:28 seconded by Mr. Reddick.

12:36:30 All those in favor please indicate by saying aye.

12:36:36 Whereof.

12:36:38 >> For that I am going to take 4 minutes 59 seconds.

12:36:41 >>HARRY COHEN: He's watching the clock.

12:36:43 >> These two items refer to the Promenade of the arts which

12:36:47 is Zack Street, and we have already improved part of Zack

12:36:52 Street.




12:36:53 So the amendment is what is item number 41.

12:36:59 It's actually 42 that I am a little more concerned about

12:37:04 because 42 is a resolution making changes to the budget of

12:37:08 the City of Tampa for fiscal year ending September 30th,

12:37:11 approving the transfer reallocation and or proposition of

12:37:15 400,000.

12:37:17 So that is the lion's share that is being spent on this

12:37:23 construction.

12:37:25 And it says that this $400,000 is coming from utility tax

12:37:30 funds.

12:37:31 Now, I have two concerns about that.

12:37:35 One, in part of my research, I found that in 2007, I believe

12:37:41 it is.

12:37:43 It may have been 2009.

12:37:46 I'm fuzzy on the dates.

12:37:48 The city initially tried to pay for the Promenade for the

12:37:52 arts improvement with a loan paid off by property taxes,

12:37:55 which went all the way total Florida Supreme Court, and the

12:38:00 Florida Supreme Court ruled that a referendum would be

12:38:02 necessary to be do that because it was a use of property

12:38:06 taxes.

12:38:07 And this is utility taxes so it's still taxpayer funds.

12:38:11 And now whether or not, you know, the treatment of those,

12:38:16 one is utility taxes, one is property taxes, is different, I

12:38:19 am still concerned because it is taxpayer dollars, and it is




12:38:22 a lot of taxpayer dollars.

12:38:23 And we just recently had gone a discussion about, related to

12:38:31 our budget discussions, all of the infrastructure problems

12:38:34 we had, the flooding and so forth.

12:38:35 And I do nobody for reading articles that appeared in the

12:38:38 press about Zack Street and the improvements that were done,

12:38:44 that not everybody really is happy about having all of this

12:38:47 money spent on that part of Zack Street.

12:38:54 It's only a couple of blocks and seems like an inordinate

12:38:57 amount of money.

12:38:58 I think in 2009 it was Ms. Mulhern and Mrs. Saul-Sena who

12:39:01 was here at the time had opposed the initial cost because it

12:39:07 hovered at better $3 million. If we are spending 7630, now

12:39:11 I am curious because we don't have the numbers handy, what

12:39:13 diabetes we spend for the current section of Zack Street

12:39:16 that's already done?

12:39:17 And if we add those two numbers together how clogs do we get

12:39:21 to that 3 million?

12:39:22 >>MARY MULHERN: Can I get one of the minutes of the five

12:39:24 minutes?

12:39:25 >> Absolutely.

12:39:26 You know, that's my concern.

12:39:30 A, we have a lot of need elsewhere.

12:39:33 And we even had a Supreme Court, you know, coming on.

12:39:37 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.




12:39:45 Thank you for bringing this up, Councilwoman Montelione, and

12:39:48 for pointing it out to me.

12:39:51 Yes, we didn't approve it.

12:39:53 In 2009, there were some of us that didn't approve it who

12:39:56 have a lot of experience in the arts.

12:40:01 And architecture and urban planning that was Councilwoman

12:40:06 Saul-Sena and I, and there may have been others.

12:40:09 And Councilman Reddick and Mr. Herr weren't here.

12:40:13 I just want to let you know that what we convinced them to

12:40:18 spend some of the money on pool, and it might have been

12:40:26 Williams park.

12:40:26 Bullet we took some of this huge amount of money that they

12:40:29 wanted to spend on this Avenue of the arts, which I thought

12:40:33 would be better spent for the same, and in helping the

12:40:38 existing local businesses on Zack Street to maybe improve

12:40:40 their facades or do something like that, then putting just

12:40:49 decorative features and expanding those sidewalks.

12:40:51 Obviously, I have to say that it hasn't gotten great reviews

12:40:54 from what I have heard.

12:40:55 So I think it's well worth us coming back and having you

12:41:01 present it to us anew as a proposal, and whether we really

12:41:04 want to approve that kind of money for that.

12:41:08 You know, we just had our budget hearing and we had he

12:41:10 special reply the Cuscaden pool that had great needs, and

12:41:14 there were some not for profits who only needed a $25,000




12:41:20 from the budget.

12:41:21 I guess these are budget questions.

12:41:23 So --

12:41:25 >>HARRY COHEN: Let me just interject because we are running

12:41:27 out of time.

12:41:29 We have already continued the item.

12:41:31 We have continued it to the 26th.

12:41:32 If there is not a pressing reason to reopen the matter

12:41:37 today, it would be my recommendation that we go ahead and

12:41:40 answer those questions on the 26th.

12:41:44 Where.

12:41:45 >> I certainly don't have the answer to the question with

12:41:47 respect to the lawsuit and the Supreme Court decision.

12:41:51 I can tell you that based on my experience in local

12:41:56 government, the utility tax is an appropriate source of

12:42:00 revenue because Councilwoman Montelione pointed out, it's

12:42:03 considered to be a general purpose tax.

12:42:06 So, therefore, this would be a legitimate expenditure using

12:42:09 that revenue source.

12:42:10 >>HARRY COHEN: Can we go ahead and discuss this on the

12:42:13 26th?

12:42:14 Is thereby anything preventing us from doing that?

12:42:16 >> Well, I think --

12:42:23 >> Mr. Vaughan can speak to that.

12:42:25 But what I know about it is that what we were wanting to do,




12:42:29 we were wanting to push forward with this segment of the

12:42:31 project so we could have it done, and it would coincide with

12:42:35 the opening of the old courthouse, which of course is being

12:42:39 renovated into a private sector project.

12:42:41 >>HARRY COHEN: I don't think the two weeks should be that

12:42:43 big of a deal on that.

12:42:46 Mr. Vaughan?

12:42:48 >>DAVE VAUGHAN: Time is important.

12:42:48 But if that's the council's wishes, we'll address it.

12:42:51 >>HARRY COHEN: We could schedule it for the 26th.

12:42:54 It's two weeks away.

12:42:55 >> Could we address it next Thursday?

12:42:58 A workshop?

12:42:59 >> It is really not appropriate for us to take it up during

12:43:02 a special called meeting.

12:43:03 >> I understand that.

12:43:03 So September 26th.

12:43:05 And what I am hearing is, your fundamental question is how

12:43:10 can we afford -- where does the $400,000 come from and how

12:43:14 is it that we can afford to fund this particular section?

12:43:17 That's what I'm hearing.

12:43:18 >>MARY MULHERN: And is that the best use of those funds,

12:43:23 wherever it's coming from?

12:43:24 >> I guess that's a two way street between the mayor and the

12:43:28 council.




12:43:29 Okay.

12:43:29 >>HARRY COHEN: Okay.

12:43:32 Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to be

12:43:34 address council this afternoon about any matter?

12:43:45 >> My name is David Dinkins. I'm the chairman of the NAACP

12:43:55 Public Safety Committee.

12:43:56 My concern is just like Mr. Reddick's concern is, public

12:44:02 safety.

12:44:03 And I was the employee of the City of Tampa way, way back

12:44:08 there when it was built.

12:44:17 But the reason is that what I heard this morning is that

12:44:24 putting a life against money is no comparison.

12:44:31 Because Temple Crest park, needs to be signs.

12:44:38 The signs that say alligators.

12:44:40 Those gators do come up on land.

12:44:44 Now, part of the problem is not going to be bushes.

12:44:49 It's not going to be -- because little kids or adults, or

12:45:00 even our elderly goes down there. But they got a drop-off

12:45:06 point.

12:45:07 I know this for a fact.

12:45:11 I also was a park security for the City of Tampa.

12:45:15 And I don't see no reason why we shouldn't have a fence

12:45:22 along that because you got other areas also has water,

12:45:28 snakes, gators, and, you know, need to have fence around.

12:45:35 So my whole point is, it doesn't matter, going to be




12:45:43 following this very, very closely, because we cannot put our

12:45:48 dollars on a life.

12:45:50 The school board did what they had to do.

12:45:54 To the safety of the children.

12:45:59 We have to do the same thing.

12:46:03 Our Parks Department and recs, we charge money to use it.

12:46:10 They gave authorization for a football team to come out

12:46:13 there and practice on it.

12:46:15 So the responsibility is on the City of Tampa.

12:46:20 That's all I have to say.

12:46:21 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you very much.

12:46:29 He wants an alligator so he can feed the chickens.

12:46:33 [ Laughter ]

12:46:34 And with that, we are adjourned.

12:46:42



DISCLAIMER:

This file 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.