Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

Tampa City Council

Workshop Session

Thursday, October 24, 2013

9:00 a.m. Session


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.


09:06:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: City Council is called to order.

09:06:50 The chair yield to Ms. Mary Mulhern.

09:06:53 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

09:06:54 We are honored today to have Rabbi Richard J. Birnholz of

09:07:00 congregation Schaarai Zedek

09:07:08 >> Let us pray.

09:07:09 Master of the universe, we begin this day with trust in you.

09:07:14 We ask you to bless the mayor and City Council of our great

09:07:17 city, along with all who serve together with them.

09:07:22 Help them use the fullness of their humanity in the service

09:07:26 of our people.

09:07:28 Grant them a sense of purpose, that they may govern with

09:07:31 direction, a sense of duty that they may work with

09:07:34 conviction, and a sense of humor that they may bring a touch

09:07:39 of humility to all they undertake.

09:07:43 Help them to know it is just as important to apportion money

09:07:47 and power with compassion as it is to do so with precision.

09:07:53 Teach them to be grateful for the gift of diversity which

09:07:56 gives Tampa its character, and for the vision of harmony

09:08:00 which gives us a feeling of community.

09:08:02 Most of all, God, let them plant seeds of justice and

09:08:06 opportunity so that they will build not only for us today

09:08:11 but for our children. Amen.

09:55:28 (Pledge of Allegiance)

10:01:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Roll call.

10:01:41 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Here.

10:01:45 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.

10:01:46 >>MARY MULHERN: Here.

10:01:47 >>HARRY COHEN: Here.

10:01:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.

10:01:50 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Present.

10:01:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I guess I'm here and present.

10:01:56 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I'm here.

10:02:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Okay.

10:02:05 The first item on the agenda is presentation, commendation

10:02:08 of police Officer of the Month.

10:02:09 >>FRANK REDDICK: Good morning, council.

10:02:23 It's my pleasure to present this commendation to master

10:02:27 police officer sergeant P.C. Davis, Tampa Police Department

10:02:32 Officer of the Month for October 2013.

10:02:35 Chief.

10:02:35 >> Chief Jane Castor: As always it's a pleasure to be

10:02:42 before council bringing our best and brightest.

10:02:47 Patrick, we call him P.C., has been a member of the Tampa

10:02:50 Police Department, I think like me, forever, and he's worked

10:02:50 in a series of assignments, but for the last six years he's

10:02:54 been the school resource officer at Middleton.

10:02:57 And our school resource officers provide an incredibly

10:03:01 valuable function for our department and for the community.

10:03:07 They have a monthly breakfast that they do their training,

10:03:11 and I try to go to as many of those as I can and impress

10:03:16 upon them the importance of their position.

10:03:17 One, first and foremost, is they keep the school safe, to

10:03:21 make it a safe environment where the children can learn.

10:03:24 But just as importantly is to be there, to be a role model

10:03:28 for those children.

10:03:30 And, unfortunately, some of which have no leadership or role

10:03:36 models in their lives.

10:03:38 And it's really great to see the letters that I get from

10:03:41 parents on the effect that school resource officers have had

10:03:45 in their children's lives, but more so is to see the kids

10:03:49 come back to the school resource office, to let them know

10:03:52 that they are going to college, they have gotten into the

10:03:56 armed services, they are working, they are productive

10:03:59 members of our society, and quite often it's because of the

10:04:02 influence that the school resource officer has provided in

10:04:07 their lives.

10:04:08 Now, just a couple of the things that P.C. has done, all of

10:04:13 our school resource officers do an outstanding job, but P.C.

10:04:16 has one of the more difficult assignments at Middleton.

10:04:20 Middleton high school as most of you know, the majority of

10:04:24 the kids that attend Middleton walk to and from school, so

10:04:29 that brings up a very unique problem especially when school

10:04:32 gets out in the afternoon.

10:04:34 And in the past, years past, before P.C. was there, it

10:04:38 wasn't unusual for us to have to bring in air service, our

10:04:44 motor squads, and a series of other officers every day when

10:04:47 school let out to ensure that there weren't any fights or

10:04:51 any disruption on the way home.

10:04:52 And since P.C. has been out there, he's got control.

10:04:56 And P.C. single-handedly takes care of all the neighborhood

10:05:00 issues.

10:05:00 He knows every one of the kids by name.

10:05:03 And he is able to quell a lot of issues before they become

10:05:08 problems.

10:05:08 And I just want to outline two of the incidents that he took

10:05:12 care of just in the month of September.

10:05:15 On September 10th he received a tip from a student's

10:05:19 father that there was an individual in Middleton at the time

10:05:22 that was armed with a gun.

10:05:23 So P.C. went into that classroom, grabbed that student, went

10:05:28 through the student's backpack and in fact found a loaded

10:05:32 gun in that student's backpack.

10:05:34 Now, if it hadn't been for the relationship that P.C. had

10:05:37 developed, that father wouldn't have felt comfortable

10:05:40 calling P.C. and giving him that information.

10:05:42 And he was able to go in there and get that, and who knows

10:05:45 what would have occurred had he not intervened and taken

10:05:49 that gun from that young man.

10:05:53 Now, on September 17th, just as school was letting out,

10:05:58 he also got information from the community that there was an

10:06:01 individual in possession of a firearm and had pointed that

10:06:03 firearm at a group of people standing at 24th.

10:06:10 So P.C. gave chase.

10:06:12 And I want to say it wasn't on foot.

10:06:16 [ Laughter ] And although he's fast.

10:06:20 He was on his Segway, another benefit we got from the RNC.

10:06:25 We have given some of the Segways to the school resource

10:06:29 officers and he uses that on a daily basis in the school.

10:06:33 So he gave chase to this individual, and the individual fled

10:06:36 on a bicycle.

10:06:37 He gave out a description, and we had ROC officers, air

10:06:42 service and patrol that responded to the area, set up a

10:06:45 perimeter, and they were able to locate this subject.

10:06:50 And they transported him back to Middleton, and P.C. came

10:06:53 back, interviewed him, the individual confessed to the

10:06:57 office and indicated where he had dropped this gun.

10:07:00 P.C. led the officers in there and found a loaded .9 MM gun

10:07:05 laying out in the community that could have been found.

10:07:06 So he has developed relationships not only with the

10:07:10 students, but with the community, and he does an amazing job

10:07:14 of keeping that school safe, and also representing law

10:07:18 enforcement and being a mentor to those young women and men

10:07:22 at Middleton.

10:07:23 So it is definitely my honor to name him the Officer of the

10:07:26 Month for October 2013.

10:07:29 Congratulations.

10:07:30 [ Applause ]

10:07:39 >>FRANK REDDICK: I'm going to call you P.C., too.

10:07:42 On behalf of Tampa City Council, we would like to present

10:07:44 this commendation to you for being chosen our Tampa police

10:07:48 officer for the month October 2013.

10:07:50 Congratulations.

10:07:57 [ Applause ]

10:07:58 We have some goodies for you.

10:07:59 >> Rick Cochran, senior vice-president of PBA.

10:08:20 Great job.

10:08:20 I would like to say congratulations.

10:08:23 A $100 Visa gift card.

10:08:26 >> Michael Kilgore on behalf of the Gonzmart family,

10:08:33 Columbia restaurant, $50 certificate to any location.

10:08:42 >>> I'm Frank DeSoto representing Bill Currie Ford and the

10:08:47 curry family.

10:08:47 It's an extreme pleasure for me to congratulates Patrick on

10:08:50 a job well done.

10:08:52 I would like you to accept this watch on behalf of the.

10:09:04 >> Joe Durkin, Bright House networks.

10:09:08 Congratulations.

10:09:09 Making a difference for the kids out there.

10:09:12 From all of us at Bright House I would like to present you

10:09:15 for one month of all of our services, phone, high speed and

10:09:19 Internet.

10:09:20 Congratulations.

10:09:20 >> Jill Watecki from Tampa Theatre.

10:09:30 Thank you for from all of us.

10:09:31 We have an annual membership.

10:09:33 >> I'm representing the Straz Center for the Performing

10:09:43 Arts.

10:09:45 And on behalf of the Straz we are happy to give you four

10:09:48 tickets to the opening night performance of radio city

10:09:51 Christmas spectacular starring the Rockettes.

10:09:58 And a little souvenir.

10:10:00 >> Honeywell representing attorney at law.

10:10:16 I'm the man assigned to that position.

10:10:18 And you are making me look good.

10:10:19 Keep it up.

10:10:20 I would like to present with you a $75 gift certificate.

10:10:27 Thank you for everything.

10:10:27 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I'm assuming that's an approved location

10:10:36 you are going to.

10:10:38 [ Laughter ] I do want to make sure we are all right on

10:10:40 that.

10:10:42 Stepp's towing, Steve Stickley and Todd Stepp were out of

10:10:45 town but normally they would be presenting you with an

10:10:48 award, a statue, and then a gift certificate.

10:10:50 That will be coming.

10:10:52 So all you have to do is hold your breath and see if it

10:10:55 comes.

10:10:56 If it doesn't come --

10:11:00 On behalf of Byblo's cafe we are going to present you with a

10:11:04 gift certificate for $100.

10:11:06 Have lunch or dinner, your choice.

10:11:09 On behalf of Bern's steakhouse we are presenting you with a

10:11:12 $100 gift certificate.

09:18:11 After a massage you can go to Bern's.

09:18:18 On behalf of prestige photos, before you get your picture

09:18:26 taken you have to be lean and mean.

09:18:29 Anyway, on behalf of all these different corporate sponsors

09:18:32 we are happy to present that to you.

09:18:34 Let me say a couple things here.

09:18:36 The school resource office are the first line of defense and

09:18:40 it's very important because they are there with the kids,

09:18:43 and not only when things go wrong but when things go right.

09:18:46 And having a resource officer who is sensitive to children,

09:18:52 whether they are young, whether they are older in high

09:18:57 school, it's extremely important, and I think we have

09:18:59 learned a lot of lessons about resource officers in the

09:19:02 school, and elementary in the middle school, and so I just

09:19:06 want to say thank you for what you do and helping to develop

09:19:10 good citizens at an early age.

09:19:12 >> Thank you for everything.

09:19:25 I have a few more years left with the department.

09:19:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much, sir.

09:19:42 You sound like there's an elected official like there's an

09:19:45 election that comes up in two years.

09:19:46 What are you laughing at, chief?

09:19:48 [ Laughter ]

09:19:57 Okay.

09:19:59 We have some workshops.

09:20:00 We are a little ahead of time.

09:20:06 Item number 2 is a workshop.

09:20:07 We have a memorandum from Thom Snelling director of planning

09:20:11 and development requesting a continuance to November

09:20:13 14th.

09:20:14 Any discussion on that, council members?

09:20:17 I have a motion by Mrs. Mulhern for November 14th at

09:20:23 9:00 a.m. in the morning.

09:20:27 Seconded by Mrs. Capin.

09:20:30 All in favor of the motion? Opposed?

09:20:32 The ayes have it unanimously.

09:20:34 Although it's 9:18, these are workshops and staff reports

09:20:37 and we are going to go to item number 3.

09:20:40 Cathy Coyle, planning director, manager, to provide a report

09:20:46 on clarifying something about chickens.

09:20:48 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Good morning.

09:20:51 Planning and development.

09:20:53 My third round of this, so please forgive me.

09:20:57 If I could, I believe Mr. Territo has something he wants to

09:21:03 adhere.

09:21:04 >> We can have Mr. Territo first.

09:21:06 >>SAL TERRITO: Legal department.

09:21:12 Off the agenda item we are calling for two public hearings,

09:21:14 one on November 7th, one on November 271st for a

09:21:18 development agreement for the Heights project which we are

09:21:20 taking up tonight on the zoning issue.

09:21:22 We need to get that in the papers quickly so we can get it

09:21:26 on the agenda so a resolution requesting two public hearings

09:21:29 for the Heights.

09:21:29 >> Move to set the public hearings.

09:21:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion by Mrs. Montelione, seconded by

09:21:34 Mr. Suarez on those two items.

09:21:36 All in favor? Opposed?

09:21:37 The ayes have it unanimously.

09:21:39 Thank you very much, sir.

09:21:39 >> Bird sanctuaries and chickens.

09:21:48 So at this point, I did the research, and traditionally,

09:21:51 chickens are not considered part of the definition of water

09:21:57 fowl at the state level.

09:21:59 Locally it has always been interpreted to include chickens,

09:22:03 either chickens in Ybor, part of the local flavor.

09:22:08 Given the fact that -- I don't mean that.

09:22:14 [ Laughter ] I don't mean that fried or broiled or however

09:22:18 else.

09:22:18 Given the life span of our new chicken ordinance at this

09:22:22 point I am not inclined to recommend that we amend our bird

09:22:25 sanctuary provisions at this time, because we have always

09:22:28 included the wild chickens as part of the wild fowl in our

09:22:33 sanctuary.

09:22:33 If we were to change that regulation, just kind of ad hoc

09:22:37 right now, as a reaction to this other rule coming into

09:22:40 effect, I'm a little weary of doing that given the fact that

09:22:45 we do have areas of the city that traditionally have wild

09:22:49 roaming chickens.

09:22:50 And I wouldn't want to do anything at this point.

09:22:57 I would rather wait to see how the chicken ordinance takes

09:23:00 effect and how it goes throughout the city.

09:23:04 I think Councilman Cohen actually recognized that he didn't

09:23:08 think chickens would be everywhere throughout the city

09:23:11 anyway.

09:23:12 It's I would rather just recommend to council that we wait a

09:23:18 little while to see how it goes, because it could have a

09:23:21 very negative effect on --

09:23:27 >>FRANK REDDICK: That statement you just made is not true.

09:23:29 >> It is not?

09:23:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: No, chickens haven't spoken yet.

09:23:33 >> I'm sorry, how is it not true?

09:23:40 >>FRANK REDDICK: I don't know O.chickens everywhere.

09:23:42 >> I'm recognizing the ones that are coming from certain

09:23:45 areas of the city that I have gotten direct correspondence

09:23:48 to not mess with the chickens that are roaming free.

09:23:53 So I leave it to council, but that's basically where we are.

09:23:57 It's a local policy decision.

09:23:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ: A question about, you know, what we have in

09:24:04 terms of sanctuary and what we have currently in Ybor City.

09:24:08 That is a specific ordinance, correct?

09:24:11 For Ybor City?

09:24:12 Am I correct?

09:24:14 >>CATHERINE COYLE: No.

09:24:16 >> So the sanctuary issue is something we cover everywhere?

09:24:21 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The bird sanctuary is city-wide.

09:24:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Cohen?

09:24:25 >>HARRY COHEN: I would just like to suggest that we follow

09:24:29 Ms. Coyle's suggestion of leaving this alone for a while and

09:24:32 just seeing whether or not we have an issue to deal with.

09:24:37 The ordinance is very new, and it needs a little time to see

09:24:41 whether or not we have any unintended consequences from it.

09:24:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Any further comments?

09:24:48 Ms. Montelione?

09:24:52 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I would suggest that we set a staff

09:24:54 report for perhaps this time next year.

09:25:02 That would be about a year and a half, year and three months

09:25:06 since the ordinance was passed.

09:25:09 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Okay.

09:25:09 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So move to have a staff report set for

09:25:15 October -- we don't have October 2014's calendar in front of

09:25:20 us.

09:25:25 Goodness gracious, let's see.

09:25:33 Thursday October 2nd it is at 10 a.m.

09:25:36 >> Second.

09:25:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione,

09:25:39 second by Mrs. Capin.

09:25:40 Further discussion by council members?

09:25:41 All in favor of the motion? Opposed?

09:25:44 The ayes have it unanimously.

09:25:47 Okay. Thank you very much.

09:25:48 We go to workshop item number 4.

09:26:03 Item number 4 was not a workshop.

09:26:11 Item number 3 was discussed and put onto November 14th.

09:26:16 What else do you want to tell me?

09:26:17 It's a workshop on items -- it's a staff report.

09:26:21 Listen.

09:26:21 When you got your three minutes I am going to let you speak

09:26:24 on anything you like, sir.

09:26:25 But I am going to listen to the city attorney first, and

09:26:28 then we are going to go into your meeting, okay?

09:26:31 In a problem.

09:26:33 And I'm still looking to buy cars.

09:26:36 Yes, ma'am.

09:26:37 >>JULIA MANDELL: Legal department.

09:26:40 You had requested a report from the legal department to be

09:26:46 involved in this discussion as it relates to our parking

09:26:49 standards, alternative parking standard, alternative process

09:26:55 as it goes through rezoning applications as well as your

09:26:57 alcohol, beverage processing.

09:27:02 And we have had a few conversations already.

09:27:03 But I am going to take a moment to sort of outline what the

09:27:07 processes are and what the code requires.

09:27:10 So our code requires that anytime you are going for new

09:27:19 development and it's some kind of expansion, not just

09:27:23 interior renovations but expansion of a business, an

09:27:26 increase in intensity or change of use, you are required to

09:27:29 determine whether or not additional parking on your zoning

09:27:33 lot is required, and you are to show how you meet those

09:27:37 requirements on your zoning laws.

09:27:39 And zoning laws is an important question because what comes

09:27:44 in front of you a lot of times is can we use on-street

09:27:48 parking to meet that requirement?

09:27:51 Or can we use a valet service to meet that parking

09:27:56 requirement?

09:27:56 Or can we use some other method to meet that parking

09:27:59 requirement?

09:27:59 But the first thing to keep in mind is what the code

09:28:02 requires is you must provide for parking on your zoning lot.

09:28:06 So we go through whatever process it is, whether or not it's

09:28:10 a construction project, whether it's alcohol beverage

09:28:12 review, et cetera, one of the things that staff always looks

09:28:15 at is whether or not that particular lot that you are

09:28:19 developing within the zoning laws, you can provide the

09:28:22 required number of parking spots.

09:28:25 And so that's the first question that always comes up.

09:28:28 Now, the other thing that our code provides for is two

09:28:33 separate opportunities to deal with parking, either on your

09:28:38 zoning lots or another zoning lot, not in the right-of-way.

09:28:43 But that comes up so much, I want to make that clear.

09:28:49 Not in the right-of-way.

09:28:50 On your zoning lot or another zoning lot.

09:28:53 On your zoning lot, a particular zoning lot, it does say

09:28:58 multi-use like a strip center, and one of the items in the

09:29:06 strip center goes to a new intensity like it was a retail

09:29:10 shop, a medical office, you will see if there is parking

09:29:15 that is not used by some of the other businesses.

09:29:18 There is an opportunity, though, under the way our code is

09:29:21 drafted to have a joint use agreement that says in this

09:29:30 period of time and then allow the restaurants to use this

09:29:32 many spots, whatever the evening hours are.

09:29:35 And that's an administrative review that says, okay, here

09:29:39 are the general hours of medication.

09:29:42 Be it restaurant, we can calculate the way this works.

09:29:47 So there's an opportunity there to sort of look at it not in

09:29:50 terms of a 24 hour day on a multi-use zoning lot.

09:29:54 We can apportion that out.

09:29:56 I think everybody would agree a strip center will typically

09:30:01 have different types of businesses.

09:30:03 The other opportunity to have parking is alternative parking

09:30:16 review, which allows a property owner who cannot accommodate

09:30:22 parking on their own lot, because they changed the use from

09:30:28 retail to medical, et cetera, to cecal tern tiff parking on

09:30:32 other zoning lots within the bounds of the property.

09:30:38 And there are certain parameters for that.

09:30:40 And that's an administrative review.

09:30:43 So you are going to be legally within the bound of your

09:30:48 parking requirement, but using another zoning lot,

09:30:51 alternative parking which we hear about, and there's certain

09:30:55 criteria for that.

09:30:57 One of the main criteria is that lot has to be within a

09:31:00 thousand feet of your lot.

09:31:03 The second criteria -- and I'm paraphrasing a lot of this,

09:31:07 but you heard some of this before -- is there has to be a

09:31:11 safe and lighted pedestrian path between the parking,

09:31:19 utilizing the parking at another lot and the lot in and of

09:31:20 itself, meaning you can't just have something cut down the

09:31:25 back in the middle of nowhere, that, you know, getting

09:31:26 people to and from, might create an unsafe condition.

09:31:31 The third item is the lot, the parking pads that allow that

09:31:37 use.

09:31:39 If it's a PD, for example, that doesn't allow that use,

09:31:43 parking as a specific use, then that's not available.

09:31:46 If it's a CG parcel which allows parking on it, then that

09:31:53 could can be utilized. The exception is the joint use that

09:31:54 we were just discussing.

09:31:59 The fifth item is there has to be a long-term lease, which

09:32:03 is approved by the city attorney's office, which is

09:32:09 supported in the records of Hillsborough County, so that you

09:32:14 are finding that second property and being reported so it

09:32:20 can be found by other property owners.

09:32:23 The long-term leasing approved by the city attorney's

09:32:26 office, for as long as I have been with the city, the

09:32:30 following parameters have been what we approve as a

09:32:32 long-term lease.

09:32:34 A lease that has a term of five years or more, that is

09:32:40 renewable, that is signed by the party actually owning the

09:32:45 lot, not somebody leasing, but the owner of the actual lot,

09:32:51 and that particular approved lease runs with the property in

09:33:00 the public records.

09:33:00 >>MARY MULHERN: Ms. Mandell, all of that that you just

09:33:07 described, that's all done administratively?

09:33:11 >>JULIA MANDELL: That is done administratively.

09:33:14 >>CHAIRMAN: When did it that happen?

09:33:16 >> This project has been in for as long as I have been --

09:33:20 there's only been a couple of tweaks to it.

09:33:23 I think we added about it with being recorded in the public

09:33:26 records some time ago.

09:33:28 I think at one point it was at 300-foot distance and changed

09:33:34 to be a 1,000-foot distance to be allow greater

09:33:37 opportunities, to utilize lots in areas where you might have

09:33:42 more of historic areas, and a lot of parking close to it and

09:33:47 those kinds of issues.

09:33:49 Historically.

09:33:52 >> Everything you just described has to meet ow how many

09:33:57 criteria, five or six criteria, all of them?

09:34:00 >> Yes.

09:34:01 >> It has to be within a thousand feet so this doesn't

09:34:04 contemplate or include valet parking?

09:34:07 >> It does not include valet parking.

09:34:10 And that's be a very important point that comes up quite a

09:34:13 bit.

09:34:17 If you as a property owner are going through whatever

09:34:20 process you are going through, whether it's a simple change

09:34:22 of use, whether or not they are asking for a PD, whether or

09:34:25 not they are seeking alcohol, if you can meet these

09:34:30 criteria, then having met your on-site parking requirements,

09:34:38 then no waives are necessary.

09:34:39 >> So this is what strikes me -- and we saw this I think in

09:34:46 the case of valet parking.

09:34:48 >> And a couple of things that are outstanding.

09:34:54 >> This is a question about our process.

09:34:57 And then something that occurs to me that if someone is

09:35:03 coming with -- even they have a valid lease from a separate

09:35:09 property allows them to do parking there, if we have a

09:35:17 registry for other property owners because what they can do

09:35:21 is come with a lease from certain property owners to say,

09:35:24 yes, I agree to allow this establishment to use my property

09:35:26 for parking.

09:35:27 They may have already done that for other property owners.

09:35:30 So do we have a way -- do we have a log or registry of all

09:35:36 of the parking agreements so we know that people aren't

09:35:42 leasing out to more than one establishment?

09:35:48 >>JULIA MANDELL: What I understand asking Ms. Coyle to

09:35:54 apply -- in alternative parking review, it is not just

09:36:04 finding the property upon which we are determining allowed

09:36:08 parking.

09:36:09 It's also finding the other property.

09:36:11 So as we track other property in our system, it shows that

09:36:15 that property has also been approved with a lease for

09:36:19 alternative parking, and process that other property, which

09:36:25 is that process is finding both properties as opposed to

09:36:30 just one property.

09:36:31 >> So your answer is yes --

09:36:34 >>JULIA MANDELL: My understanding --

09:36:38 (talking over each other).

09:36:43 >> But that's the difference between the alternative parking

09:36:46 review process.

09:36:51 We are finding two parcels of property which is what we also

09:36:55 see, which is we are either in a PD process, or we are in an

09:37:00 alcohol approval process, where you have somebody with

09:37:07 waivers to their on-site, because on-site they can't meet

09:37:11 parking and they cannot get that alternative parking which

09:37:17 as I said in the property, they are introducing the review

09:37:21 of one property.

09:37:23 They are saying we would like a waiver to parking.

09:37:25 But as justification for their waiver, they are giving you

09:37:31 evidence of saying we have another way to get parking.

09:37:35 It might not meet our code for alternative parking, but we

09:37:38 can get you a valet, we can get agreements on other

09:37:43 properties.

09:37:44 And as you heard me and Rebecca Kert and others saying,

09:37:49 that's evidence that you can consider.

09:37:51 But we have always told you that that is not necessarily

09:37:55 binding under any process.

09:38:06 We can put notes on the site plan but we are not binding

09:38:08 that other property.

09:38:09 And that's why I have consistently advised against any site

09:38:16 plans top justify a waiver that said 17 parking spots will

09:38:19 be provided pursuant to a valet, orchestra property at 111

09:38:28 Main Street will be used as our parking lot, because the

09:38:33 only property that is in front of you being found by --

09:38:39 bound by your process is the property upon which the

09:38:42 property is being sought, and does very little in the way of

09:38:47 opportunity to track the other property and make sure that

09:38:49 other property actually can be utilized.

09:38:52 Because it has never been reviewed by staff.

09:38:54 It is simply a property owner coming forward, requesting a

09:38:58 waiver of their parking requirements, and saying here is how

09:39:01 we are going to provide parking.

09:39:03 It is evidence for you to consider.

09:39:07 I can't tell you that you don't have it the right to

09:39:09 consider that as part of the public hearing process.

09:39:11 What I have said is I cannot advise you, one, it's

09:39:19 enforceable, and, two, binding on the other property, or,

09:39:22 three, that the other property can be utilized in that

09:39:24 manner.

09:39:25 And that's why that is a difference between the alternative

09:39:27 parking process that we have, which can bind the other

09:39:30 property, does review the other property, we do make the

09:39:34 determination whether or not that other property has the

09:39:36 right zoning, that the parking spot in and of itself meets

09:39:40 our criteria, et cetera.

09:39:42 >> Let me ask one other question on the alternative parking,

09:39:48 the administrative.

09:39:49 Is it possible for a third party to be a broker in this?

09:39:56 Or does it have to be one business asking for this parking,

09:40:07 this alternative parking at the property of another

09:40:10 business, just those two parties?

09:40:15 >> With the land but we always require -- whenever somebody

09:40:18 comes forward, leasing the property --

09:40:28 >>MARY MULHERN: Require property owners?

09:40:30 >> We always require there be an affidavit from the property

09:40:35 owner.

09:40:36 And these run with properties.

09:40:37 So in some form or fashion, either the property owner is the

09:40:40 actual applicant, or alternatively the property owner is

09:40:45 authorizing that person to be bind his property in this

09:40:50 process.

09:40:50 >> Well, I worry about that intermediary or that

09:40:57 representative of the property owner happens to be a parking

09:41:00 company.

09:41:02 >> If they are authorized on behalf of the property owner

09:41:09 there's really no difference than any other business.

09:41:12 That's the way we ensure --

09:41:16 >>MARY MULHERN: And I thinking the burden is bigger on us,

09:41:22 on staff, to make sure we are not allowing more than one

09:41:25 establishment to claim alternative parking on the same spot.

09:41:32 That's my biggest worry about it.

09:41:35 >>JULIA MANDELL: And I think that's a fair concern, because

09:41:37 I think when this was first put in place and as it was

09:41:40 developed, we did not have -- when you had these areas with

09:41:47 little in the way of parking, in terms of each individual

09:41:50 business, but establishing more businesses and, you know,

09:41:56 obviously there are areas outside of that particular area

09:42:05 that are historic areas, or where you have businesses where

09:42:09 they just don't have the required parking.

09:42:15 Cappy's is a good example, too, where they didn't have that

09:42:19 required parking.

09:42:20 So.

09:42:23 >>MARY MULHERN: I think we need to identify those areas and

09:42:25 deal with the parking problems and starting with SoHo, and

09:42:28 then the residential neighborhoods surrounding there, and we

09:42:32 don't have answers for them it, and we don't have enough

09:42:39 parking for what's already been approved.

09:42:42 And we have people who are having a lot of problems.

09:42:46 So I think we need to find some solutions.

09:42:52 And we have done this before with one area adjacent to SoHo

09:42:59 where we allowed those residents to get parking passes.

09:43:02 I think it's something that we need to expand on, especially

09:43:05 on the other side of Howard now.

09:43:09 But that's my big thing.

09:43:11 And then -- I'm just going to finish now so I won't need to

09:43:18 talk again.

09:43:19 I'll just get everything out there.

09:43:23 And I am concerned about when we do give these waivers, and

09:43:27 we do have this evidence from, you know, companies or

09:43:35 individuals.

09:43:35 There have been, at least in SoHo, we have more traffic than

09:43:43 we have parking, and we have reached a limit there.

09:43:46 So every time we give a waiver for parking based on whatever

09:43:50 that evidence, we are just increasing the burden, until we

09:43:55 feigned some more parking.

09:43:56 And I think this council and more so previous councils have

09:44:02 allowed so much intensity in that area with a lot of

09:44:08 promises from the neighborhood to the city that we were

09:44:14 going to have parking there, and I think we are at the point

09:44:18 now between the cities having allowed these things, and the

09:44:25 current business owners having more parking than they can

09:44:29 handle, that between the city and the business owners, we

09:44:32 have to come up with some kind of parking plan.

09:44:36 And I think the permits for the residents so they can park

09:44:41 on their streets and they can have visitors on the streets

09:44:44 and we need to come up with a parking garage.

09:44:46 There needs to be a parking garage.

09:44:48 >>JULIA MANDELL: Well, I want to just say something, I went

09:44:53 back and read it, and when you read the intent of our

09:44:56 requirements, it really, I think, says exactly where we are,

09:45:01 and some it is probably positive and some of it is negative,

09:45:05 which is the intent of our off-street parking requirement is

09:45:08 to avoid undue parking, protect the capacity, move traffic,

09:45:13 avoid unnecessary conflict between vehicles, encourage use

09:45:16 of mass transit, preserve and enhance activity areas within

09:45:20 the city, off-street parking lots and structures, and

09:45:28 reading that in the current text of whereby we are today,

09:45:30 there's a lot of what we have done over time which has tried

09:45:34 to encourage density and intensity for the purposes of

09:45:37 having more pedestrian activities, mass transit.

09:45:40 But at the same time, part of the intent is to ensure that

09:45:43 we are not having these traffic congestion problems, we are

09:45:48 not having issues in terms of pedestrian safety.

09:45:50 So, I mean, it sort of gives an over arching part of the

09:45:55 conversation what our intent is because we believe from how

09:46:02 we think look at it this in terms of that intent remains in

09:46:06 intact, and think the whole purpose was some of the parking

09:46:11 waivers that council in the past, the alternative parking

09:46:17 program because it's the alternative of that parking program

09:46:19 is that you are providing opportunities for businesses to

09:46:22 get parking for their customers.

09:46:27 And that way, you are not saying you have to have an -- you

09:46:34 want to encourage that level of pedestrian activity.

09:46:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I don't want to go into theories.

09:46:38 I want you to answer her.

09:46:39 >>MARY MULHERN: Let me say one last thing that you brought

09:46:42 it up.

09:46:42 You brought up mass transit.

09:46:44 I have to answer that.

09:46:46 Even if we were to -- even if our highest hopes for mass

09:46:52 transit, anything on the drawing board right now, we are

09:46:55 were to happen, there's nothing for South Tampa.

09:46:57 There's no mass transit planned for South Tampa.

09:46:59 So we have to solve the car problem.

09:47:03 We are going to have cars there.

09:47:04 We have all those new residents going in.

09:47:06 So we have to address that and not pretend that we are going

09:47:11 to have mass transit probably in any of our lifetimes in

09:47:15 SoHo.

09:47:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.

09:47:17 I have Mr. Cohen and Ms. Capin in, that order.

09:47:21 >>HARRY COHEN: I want to get back to what for me is the

09:47:27 primary issue here for just a minute.

09:47:30 Not withstanding a lot of very good points that Councilwoman

09:47:34 Mulhern just made.

09:47:36 When we allow a lease to allow parking waiver even if it's a

09:47:58 bona fide lease between two parties and you checked it for

09:48:01 all the different criteria that you laid out, the day after

09:48:04 we approve a special use giving an economic right to that

09:48:14 piece of property that cannot be taken away once we granted

09:48:16 it, if that lease is torn up, it's absolutely meaningless,

09:48:21 correct?

09:48:27 I mean, the fact that someone recorded it, to the fact that

09:48:30 it's been through the administratively approval process,

09:48:33 once a special use is created, if days after that the lease

09:48:36 is torn up, there's absolutely no remedy in terms of going

09:48:39 back and addressing the use, correct?

09:48:42 >>JULIA MANDELL: Let me understand the question now.

09:48:44 If you read the waiver, in that lease and that waiver is

09:48:50 torn up, that waiver is still granted.

09:48:52 >> That's my point.

09:48:53 So my question for you is, is there any way that the waivers

09:48:59 that we grant can't be all or nothing?

09:49:04 Because it seems to me the biggest problem -- and it

09:49:06 directly parallels to what we have been talking about with

09:49:09 the hours of operation for selling alcohol.

09:49:15 When we grant a right here as part of our zoning and

09:49:21 approval process for property rights, there's no going back.

09:49:27 The waivers are forever.

09:49:28 >> The waivers are forever.

09:49:31 >>HARRY COHEN: Is there any way that some of these waivers

09:49:33 could not be forever because they are based on a condition?

09:49:37 And if the condition goes away, the waiver goes away?

09:49:43 >>JULIA MANDELL: As I said in the past, there's so many

09:49:47 pitfalls.

09:49:50 First of all, to me, it lasts a certain period of time and

09:49:56 creates that property right which is one of the problems.

09:49:59 The second problem is if you have a condition for what is a

09:50:02 property right that we granted, it isn't as simple as taking

09:50:06 it away.

09:50:07 We simply go through another process to take it away.

09:50:10 Because if up given a property right, at this time same as

09:50:14 drying up a parcel.

09:50:15 We have given them that right under the law, it's a property

09:50:18 right.

09:50:19 If you are going to take that property right away, you have

09:50:22 to create a process to take it away.

09:50:24 >>HARRY COHEN: But when the --

09:50:27 >>JULIA MANDELL: When the --

09:50:29 >>HARRY COHEN: When a property right is granted based on a

09:50:32 set of circumstances, and those circumstances change, it

09:50:34 just seems reasonable, and it seems sort of common sense

09:50:38 that you would be able to be go back and readdress it.

09:50:42 And I guess it's the sense of all or nothing that makes it

09:50:46 so difficult for us when we are trying to consider how to

09:50:51 deal with these cases, and all of this goes back to our

09:50:59 struggle to find a way to go back and readdress things.

09:51:03 >>JULIA MANDELL: That's why I so often discourage granting

09:51:10 a conditional waiver, because property rights exclusive of a

09:51:19 right based on this piece of evidence -- I'm not saying you

09:51:21 can't take it back.

09:51:22 >>HARRY COHEN: It shouldn't -- shouldn't a property owner

09:51:26 who in good faith is able to mitigate a parking deficiency

09:51:30 by tying up another property, piece of property, shouldn't

09:51:34 that person have a right to go forward as long as they have

09:51:38 got the condition in place?

09:51:40 I mean, it seems to me that there's an unfairness in being

09:51:44 unable to consider it as well.

09:51:45 >> Then that's why we think that utilizing the alternative

09:51:50 parking process is tied to pieces of property which is

09:51:54 outside of the waiver, which is outside -- it's in a waiver.

09:51:57 Once they no longer have that effectively, they failed to

09:52:03 comply with the other process in the permit and we are not

09:52:07 taking something away that just doesn't exist anymore.

09:52:09 And it wouldn't be a violation -- let's say, for example,

09:52:13 the alcohol permit, it's a violation of this other project

09:52:16 that we can take to code enforcement, and our evidence, in

09:52:21 my opinion, is so much better in terms of moving forward in

09:52:26 that process.

09:52:26 Because if we grant these conditional waivers, and we are

09:52:31 not finding that other property, all we are doing is going

09:52:35 against, for example, your liquor license.

09:52:38 And so I think what I'm saying to you is either you

09:52:47 completely take the two things apart and grant special

09:52:52 waiver outside of these processes, and you make that more a

09:52:57 special process, and that's the thing we are looking at.

09:53:01 Or stick with the alternative parking.

09:53:05 And then when somebody comes over to waiver there might be

09:53:08 places in the City of Tampa where you don't think a waiver

09:53:10 is inappropriate.

09:53:11 But what I have to consistently discourage council to do is

09:53:19 grant conditional waivers on the basis of we have parking

09:53:23 over here, and here is our lease agreement, here is our

09:53:27 valet agreement.

09:53:28 Because not only is it an enforcement nightmare to tab this

09:53:33 alcohol away or take their another's PD entitlement away on

09:53:37 that basis, when somebody has ever really reviewed any of

09:53:41 this and nobody really knows how that's being managed.

09:53:44 I just think it's fraught with a tremendous number of

09:53:47 approximate because to be take that right away is going to

09:53:52 require due process.

09:53:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Ms. Capin.

09:53:54 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Everything requires due process.

09:53:56 >> I know.

09:53:58 >>YVONNE CAPIN: All right.

09:54:03 I can see the issue with the PD.

09:54:06 When it comes to alcohol beverage permitting that's where

09:54:10 what we are heading for as far as looking at in the

09:54:15 permitting process, and separating the business license.

09:54:24 And I'm sure you may want to the look at this.

09:54:27 The parking could be part of the condition that goes with

09:54:30 the business license.

09:54:31 >> I would probably discourage that, and let me explain why.

09:54:36 Parking, whale has regulatory part to it, you want to be

09:54:45 able to bind the land to the number of parking --

09:54:54 >> And from a zoning code, you have to show zoning and I

09:55:06 wouldn't make that solely a business regulation.

09:55:08 >>YVONNE CAPIN: You wouldn't put the waiver understood a

09:55:12 business regulation condition?

09:55:14 >> A waiver is a land use.

09:55:17 >>YVONNE CAPIN: A land use.

09:55:18 I see two, three things here.

09:55:22 When you have the joint use for another zoning law, and it

09:55:26 needs to be within 1,000 feet, right?

09:55:29 The joint use?

09:55:31 >> Joint uses aren't the same like a multi-use parcel.

09:55:35 Alternative parking is --

09:55:41 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Okay.

09:55:42 Somebody else's parking.

09:55:43 And then you have the parking alternative review.

09:55:49 This is where even the five-year lease, which we have, if we

09:55:54 have that five-year lease, and it's renewable, it's still

09:55:59 temporary compared to what we have just granted.

09:56:03 >> I would not disagree with you on that.

09:56:09 >>YVONNE CAPIN: So even that is temporary.

09:56:11 But it's something that we can have that we can actually go

09:56:18 back and look at.

09:56:19 >>JULIA MANDELL: And if council wanted to codify some of

09:56:24 the standard, I don't necessarily think that's a bad idea.

09:56:27 This language was drafted with -- it's kind of up to the

09:56:32 city attorney's office on what is a long-term lease has been

09:56:38 something we have been after for a long time and city

09:56:41 attorneys in the past -- I don't necessarily think it's the

09:56:45 worst thing in the world to cod I if I that.

09:56:47 So whatever the renewable term should be, and those kind of

09:56:51 issues, you know, whether or not you want to take it a step

09:56:55 further and not just require that the lease be recorded but

09:56:58 that there's a deed restriction on the property that's also

09:57:01 recorded or a covenant on the property, those are some of

09:57:04 the things that we can do.

09:57:08 Or back with the city or after some period of time you have

09:57:11 to report to the city.

09:57:12 Those are some of the alternatives in order to put more

09:57:16 teeth in the code.

09:57:17 >> Definitely needs more teeth.

09:57:20 I think everyone -- and I do think this all came about

09:57:24 because we were trying to in-fill in these areas of Tampa,

09:57:29 and this is city-wide.

09:57:31 Everyone in the city.

09:57:32 This is the zoning law.

09:57:36 This is city-wide, not just areas.

09:57:39 Everywhere in the city has to comply with this -- with this

09:57:43 zoning lot being available, their parking to be available.

09:57:48 Okay.

09:57:49 Then I do believe like Howard Avenue was brought up.

09:57:54 You know, that was never, ever, was there ever enough

09:57:57 parking there, ever.

09:58:00 That was a pedestrian, that was a walkable area of town.

09:58:08 The same thing -- Howard Avenue, Hyde Park was the same way,

09:58:14 was very walkable.

09:58:16 So what happened is, as Ms. Mulhern and Mr. Cohen brought

09:58:25 up, was in the rush to in-fill we gave some really huge

09:58:36 waivers in that area.

09:58:40 And set a precedence that we are dealing with today.

09:58:45 But there's no reason why we can't -- why we can't look at

09:58:51 it further.

09:58:53 So I just want to be clear.

09:58:54 The parking is -- goes with the land, and we cannot separate

09:59:00 that.

09:59:00 >>JULIA MANDELL: It's something that, yes, you can create a

09:59:04 business regulation on, but the fact of it being an

09:59:08 obligation of a land use permit, and it being something that

09:59:11 you might raise that goes with the land under the law.

09:59:15 >> Okay.

09:59:17 I think that's it.

09:59:19 And valet is very temporary.

09:59:24 That is not even something --

09:59:30 >> And as part of alternative parking, that's something you

09:59:38 can.

09:59:39 Enforcement might be a little tricky.

09:59:42 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Well, I understand enforcement.

09:59:45 The part I was trying to get at was if we can get the

09:59:48 parking to be part -- in particular would be alcoholic

09:59:52 beverage permitting, to be part of -- you have the permits

10:00:00 that runs with the land, and you have your hours, the code.

10:00:05 And then we are looking at possible business permit for

10:00:09 extended or flex hours, if you will.

10:00:12 If that could be part of that business, then we have -- we

10:00:17 definitely have something that we could -- we can really

10:00:22 look at and not be permanent.

10:00:26 >>REBECCA KERT: I agree with what Ms. Mandell said that you

10:00:33 can incorporate it into the business permit as a condition

10:00:36 that they meet the zoning/land development regulation.

10:00:41 I'm not sure if that takes you exactly where you want to be,

10:00:44 because we are looking for more flexibility in that.

10:00:48 We could tie it together but it don't think it gets to where

10:00:51 you want to be, not what you are looking for.

10:00:54 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Maybe one of my colleagues has a plan.

10:00:58 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

10:01:01 Mr. Suarez?

10:01:03 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I don't know if I have a plan but I do have

10:01:06 a question that goes along with what Mr. Cohen said, what

10:01:09 Ms. Capin said. If we went into a land use hearing in which

10:01:13 someone is by right already has -- based on the size of the

10:01:21 lot and what the use is, they need 25.

10:01:24 So another 15 would have to come back in our process now for

10:01:27 a waiver, correct?

10:01:29 >> That's correct.

10:01:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Let's say instead we had a process that says

10:01:33 you have your ten parking spaces.

10:01:36 Now as part of your business, you have to have enough to

10:01:40 serve your business patrons based on this formula, okay?

10:01:46 Again, it is not a land use formula.

10:01:48 It's not a land use grant right.

10:01:54 As a regulation.

10:01:55 Is that possible to do in order to have more enforcement on

10:01:58 whether or not people are actually providing those

10:02:00 additional 15 spaces?

10:02:04 >> Well, I think what you could do in terms of business

10:02:08 regulation, business permit --

10:02:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Well, again, don't get into the weeds of

10:02:13 what I just said of the specifics of it, that there is

10:02:16 another process, regardless of where it's at, that has an

10:02:21 enforcement mechanism not tied to land use at all.

10:02:24 >>JULIA MANDELL: That is true.

10:02:29 Let me say it this way, because I think the best approach is

10:02:34 if that's something council wants us to look into, you will

10:02:37 need to give us an opportunity to look into setting up well,

10:02:46 a lot of our business regulation requirements is zoning

10:02:52 approvals and we can actually pull your business license if

10:02:56 the zoning -- we can deny your business operating permit if

10:03:03 you don't meet the zoning requirements.

10:03:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ: How often does that happen?

10:03:08 >> Well, the most recent one that I was particularly

10:03:11 involved with was the pain management center process, and

10:03:15 what we did with that was prior to obtaining a pain

10:03:20 management permit, you actually have to go through our

10:03:23 formal process to prove you meet all your zoning

10:03:26 requirements.

10:03:26 >> So what was the catalyst for identifying those pain

10:03:29 management clinics?

10:03:30 >> When all the pain management clinics were coming -- and

10:03:37 many of those were denying --

10:03:41 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I can interrupt you.

10:03:42 The point I am making is that the catalyst of that was

10:03:46 another, you know, public outcry, some other issues that

10:03:50 dealt with it.

10:03:51 You know, when we are talking about something that's a

10:03:53 little more mundane.

10:03:54 But still has an important aspect of it, you know, we need

10:03:58 to figure out what that process is.

10:04:00 >> I will tell you just so you know, it's a pain management

10:04:03 clinic, with parking.

10:04:06 >> Right.

10:04:07 And again, we don't want to have to get to that point where

10:04:10 something is so egregious that it becomes a public outcry

10:04:13 and we say we think don't want this particular type of use

10:04:16 in this particular area or any area of the city because of

10:04:20 other factors, and then we find a way -- I mean, we know

10:04:27 Capone was put await for tax violation and not for all the

10:04:30 awful things he did.

10:04:31 Obviously your conversation is much more important.

10:04:35 [ Laughter ] if you have got something to say, come on up

10:04:37 and say it.

10:04:38 >> I'm sorry.

10:04:44 What you described is a parking ratio.

10:04:46 That is already codified.

10:04:48 And where council makes a policy decision is what those are.

10:04:55 For type of use.

10:04:56 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Again, the reason we have these workshops is

10:04:59 not to become full-blown ideas that we are going to do this

10:05:04 ordinance.

10:05:04 The idea is we do have some aspects of it that don't have

10:05:08 any enforcement, or is not being enforced.

10:05:13 So we have to figure out do we not have the enforcement

10:05:15 aspect outside of land use or within land use, are we not

10:05:20 following, you know, an enforcement mechanism to actually

10:05:24 make sure people are following it?

10:05:25 Because every time we do these waivers in which parking is

10:05:28 an aspect of it, for us, the frustrating part of course is

10:05:32 always what happens afterwards.

10:05:34 And there's no way for us to track it and I don't think

10:05:37 there's any way that you can tell us now that we have been

10:05:39 tracking this, you know, council, and this is how it works.

10:05:43 I think that's a real disconnect here.

10:05:45 So in order for us to have some kind of enforcement over

10:05:50 what someone wants to do within their business, and again

10:05:53 outside of land use, how do we deal Do that?

10:05:56 Because we already know that land use is forever.

10:06:00 How do we create a system that uses other mechanisms outside

10:06:05 the land use process that also gets what we want, and also

10:06:12 what the land owner wants, so that we have some kind of

10:06:15 fairness into the process.

10:06:17 To me right now, it's an unfair process in many ways, which

10:06:20 is I want to open a business, and your formula says I have

10:06:24 to have 15 spaces, and I have 13.

10:06:28 So we have to wait 2.

10:06:35 Is 2 too much?

10:06:37 Is 5 too much?

10:06:38 Is 8 too much?

10:06:39 You know what I'm saying?

10:06:40 It's a process for us that gets incredibly frustrating

10:06:43 because sometimes we agree on what that waiver is.

10:06:46 Sometimes we don't.

10:06:47 But we definitely have a lot of discussion during land use

10:06:51 as to what that next step is.

10:06:53 And I think my colleague spoke, all three of my colleagues

10:06:56 have already spoken, have essentially said just that, which

10:06:59 is, how do we take that portion of the process, not make it

10:07:04 a waiver but make it something else so that we can enforce

10:07:06 it?

10:07:09 And we don't know, unfortunately, we don't have the kind of

10:07:13 experience and knowledge that you and Ms. Kert, Ms. Mandell

10:07:18 have to deal with some of these things.

10:07:21 You guys, because you are in the weeds all the time, that's

10:07:24 all you see, and we are trying to think of something outside

10:07:28 of that to make a smoother process.

10:07:29 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I think that's where Julie was going,

10:07:35 and as we recommended in other workshops and uses, and I

10:07:38 hate to say the uses are just parking themselves, but

10:07:42 talking about the business operating permit scheme, and we

10:07:44 looked at that for nightclubs and late night permits and

10:07:48 Internet cafes, and weep looked at it for different things

10:07:51 and that's where we can really look to control operational

10:07:54 aspects.

10:07:55 And if there are a class of uses that you think especially

10:07:59 may be in certain areas of the city that you think may have

10:08:02 kind of a heightened review prayer to some of those

10:08:06 approvals, or in addition, because obviously you could

10:08:09 approve a land use permit.

10:08:10 But if they have to have the other permit, just to

10:08:13 operate --

10:08:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ: But the difference, though, Ms. Coyle is

10:08:20 this, that now they have something of value.

10:08:22 They have already zoned it for a specific use.

10:08:24 Just because that particular owner or that particular lease,

10:08:27 lessee, doesn't have the wherewithal or the ability to get

10:08:31 that other part, process doesn't, doesn't mean someone else

10:08:36 can.

10:08:37 Again we are not trying to pick winners and losers.

10:08:39 We are trying to come up with a process that's fair to

10:08:42 everyone.

10:08:42 So the owner of the land, if he's going forward, if I'm that

10:08:47 owner I am going to make sure that whoever I am leasing the

10:08:49 property to is going to have the financial wherewithal to do

10:08:52 this, so the onus is now on the owner of the property that

10:08:55 wants to lease that property very badly to come up with a

10:08:58 solution, and get involved in the process, and saying, hey,

10:09:03 let me see your contract for the parking.

10:09:07 Let the owner of the property and the lessee and the people

10:09:10 that are going to be renting that property be held

10:09:12 accountable for those processes as opposed to us granting

10:09:16 something, waiving it, and now who knows what's going to

10:09:19 happen? We created a wild west situation.

10:09:22 And I am just trying to figure out where can we get

10:09:24 something that's going to change that process to make it not

10:09:27 only fair but enforceable?

10:09:30 Those are the only you two things I'm worried about.

10:09:32 >> I agree.

10:09:36 Wholeheartedly.

10:09:37 Enforcement key.

10:09:38 Let me give you, prior to 2008 parking was never a

10:09:42 consideration with alcohol.

10:09:43 City Council wanted to look at parking as part of that

10:09:46 process, and that's when it was added to it.

10:09:48 Prior though that, it was dealt with through the permitting

10:09:51 process, through a regular variance process, hardship.

10:09:56 You also have the option of removing that and just dealing

10:09:59 with the alcohol.

10:09:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ: But again we don't want to throw the baby

10:10:03 out with the bath water.

10:10:05 >>CATHERINE COYLE: There are a lot of policy opportunities.

10:10:06 I wanted to put that out there.

10:10:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Again, we have to look at those -- how it's

10:10:11 going to affect people going forward so that we can make

10:10:14 that decision based on the best knowledge we have got.

10:10:18 And the one thing that we are going to need, I think from

10:10:21 both you and the legal department, is, you know, A, what

10:10:26 other processes are done south outside the city, but second

10:10:30 of all how can we use a business use permit that deals

10:10:34 specifically with some of these issues?

10:10:36 Because whenever we talk about intensity, when we have a bar

10:10:41 that's operating for 10 or 12 years, and now they want to

10:10:45 add liquor, just beer and wine, and all of a sudden it's a

10:10:50 more intense use and it comes before zoning.

10:10:53 So of course they are moving something or changing something

10:10:57 very minorly and all of a sudden we can put somebody out of

10:11:01 business presumably because, you know, now they are,

10:11:05 quote-unquote, intensifying.

10:11:07 It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

10:11:09 >> There are a few ratios that we have that I think are

10:11:12 excessive as well.

10:11:13 I will put that out there.

10:11:14 There are a few ratios that hi think we overcalculated.

10:11:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ: But I think based on what we said --

10:11:21 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Some of those things are massive.

10:11:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ: And if we take from what we have discussed

10:11:28 so far, there's got to be a way to remove that as a part of

10:11:31 the land use process and find another way of solving that to

10:11:36 make it more enforceable.

10:11:41 Thank you, chair.

10:11:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mrs. Montelione.

10:11:44 >>LISA MONTELIONE: When you were discussing, Ms. Mandell,

10:11:49 the terms of the lease, when you are reviewing it to make

10:11:54 the alternative parking criteria, I didn't hear you mention

10:11:57 anything about a termination clause.

10:11:59 Because I think what we experienced, or what I have

10:12:05 experienced or heard through the discussions during zoning

10:12:07 hearings, is that, well, it could go away at any time.

10:12:11 I think Mr. Cohen made reference to that when he was asking

10:12:14 the question.

10:12:16 But he said five years, has to be renewable, has to be

10:12:20 signed by the owner, has to be recorded in a public record.

10:12:23 But do we have a provision that says that the lease cannot

10:12:27 be terminated prior to the end of the term?

10:12:35 >>JULIA MANDELL: I don't review leases.

10:12:38 I review clauses that allow you --

10:12:43 >> So it's already a 30 day, 60 day notice, to either of the

10:12:48 parties?

10:12:49 >>JULIA MANDELL: I don't approve those if -- but at the end

10:12:55 of the day, and those parties can always agree to terminate

10:12:58 the contract after the fact, which that's one of the reasons

10:13:03 why I think Cathy and I discussed we should have reporting

10:13:10 requirements, meaning that they have to submit the lease on

10:13:13 a yearly basis, so that we see that it's still in place, and

10:13:19 those kind of issues.

10:13:21 I will say probably the code, and having done a very good

10:13:27 job of showing those leases remain in place except to the

10:13:31 extent that you had a bunch of parking as a business, and

10:13:33 now you don't, and then we investigate --

10:13:39 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Then we would require any lease

10:13:41 agreement to be resubmitted on an annual basis?

10:13:45 >> That's something that Ms. Coyle and I have discussed

10:13:48 puttings in the code, something that we don't do now.

10:13:50 Again this is for the alternative parking, not a parking

10:13:53 waiver.

10:13:53 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Right.

10:13:55 And that's what I was referring to.

10:13:56 I mean, I would support, you know, doing something, or

10:14:01 amending our code for that reason.

10:14:06 And I'm just exploring here so I am going to throw out a

10:14:09 couple of ideas.

10:14:11 When I go to Ybor City there's a parking space, and you are

10:14:19 right there at the corner, off of 7th Avenue, which says

10:14:24 for valet parking only and it's a mandatory type of deal.

10:14:30 You pull up, the valet takes your car, goes and parks it for

10:14:33 you.

10:14:39 Are you laughing?

10:14:48 [ Laughter ] no, I'm not surprised.

10:14:51 So, you know, a lot of people especially in Ybor City don't

10:14:58 want to park their car far away.

10:15:01 It's something that seems to be working well.

10:15:05 Could we look at provisions for requiring mandatory valet in

10:15:10 certain areas?

10:15:12 Because with alternative parking, even if the lot is 1,000

10:15:16 feet is what we allow in alternative parking, it's quite a

10:15:21 distance.

10:15:21 I mean, even if you have a lighted path, lighted safe path,

10:15:27 a lot of people won't park in those parking lots.

10:15:30 They'll self-park somewhere, because they don't want to go

10:15:33 all the way over there.

10:15:34 I'll find a space closer, is the mind-set.

10:15:38 Is that something that you have seen, heard of? How does it

10:15:42 work in Ybor, with czar?

10:15:46 >> When you talk about off-street parking, we are talking

10:15:50 about on zoning lots.

10:15:53 The situation you are talking about is in right-of-way, and

10:15:56 we have a process that we actually will be bringing forward

10:16:00 a more specific process for valet parking.

10:16:04 >> Okay.

10:16:07 You can bring it forward because we are having this workshop

10:16:09 now.

10:16:10 >>JULIA MANDELL: I want you to understand these are two

10:16:12 separate parking issues.

10:16:13 One is the provision of parking on your site you had and the

10:16:22 other is the alternative service of valet parking, and is

10:16:29 there something that you get your valet parking permit in

10:16:32 the right-of-way as a way to --

10:16:37 >>LISA MONTELIONE: That alternative parking lot is 1,000

10:16:44 feet away, a lot of people aren't going to want to park in

10:16:49 that lot.

10:16:50 They are going to say, no, I am going to find a place

10:16:53 closer, and I am not going to park over there.

10:16:56 So even though we have the alternative parking in place,

10:17:00 they are not using it.

10:17:06 So would we require mandatory valet service when your lot is

10:17:09 that far away to keep people from parking in the

10:17:12 neighborhood anyway?

10:17:14 I mean, are we defeating the purpose because people aren't

10:17:19 using the lots, and that's why neighborhoods are continually

10:17:24 experiencing problems?

10:17:25 >> As opposed to doing mandatory I think we create as much

10:17:29 flexibility option, so our codes use different models.

10:17:33 I would say for self-parking, I actually would look to

10:17:37 expand to the 1320 which is a quarter mile, 1,320 feet.

10:17:44 I would look for self-parking at that provision.

10:17:46 And then there's off-site parking spaces are functional and

10:17:49 meet parking requirements as in the code.

10:17:52 If you were to look at valet options as an option as opposed

10:17:55 to mandatory, if someone came in and showed that they had

10:17:59 valet parking and they showed us those lots and showed they

10:18:01 were functional and they also provided leases through the

10:18:04 same process, the same provision, but then we don't care how

10:18:08 far away they are, if you have an operation that's

10:18:11 controlling, and go farther, coupled with the fact that how

10:18:17 we do it downtown, or if you have a manned lot you are

10:18:21 allowed to stack cars in tandem as opposed to self-park

10:18:26 lots.

10:18:26 I would look at those two options functioning probably

10:18:29 pretty well together, because people have more ability to

10:18:32 show, some self-parking, some onsite, farther away to valet.

10:18:39 >> Is that part of what you are looking to codify?

10:18:42 >> That will bring purely right-of-way permit.

10:18:47 I'm throwing that out because we --

10:18:49 >> No, I like that.

10:18:50 I like that.

10:18:51 >> We already have that option in downtown, because downtown

10:18:54 has on-street parking in a lot of parking lots to allow a

10:18:59 little more flexibility downtown.

10:19:02 >> Like Howard, you know, the few parking lots they have

10:19:08 could be better utilized, if you do the tandem parking, you

10:19:11 can put a lot more cars in the lot.

10:19:14 >> And given the concentration and the narrow width of the

10:19:17 commercial corridor and the fact that there's large

10:19:20 concentrations of residential, limiting it to 1,000 or even

10:19:23 1320 feet, there's not a lot of land out there.

10:19:28 Valet could go a little farther.

10:19:30 But still get your car back.

10:19:32 It would be under their control.

10:19:35 >> I can make a motion that you bring that back.

10:19:41 >> We already have some of that cost in the code like I

10:19:45 said.

10:19:48 Just no separate section.

10:19:49 >> All right.

10:19:50 And the other idea that I had -- and tell me if this is

10:19:55 something that could be worked through in our code -- is we

10:20:02 talk about individual business types, and the amount of

10:20:06 parking they need.

10:20:07 So intensive uses, medical, restaurant, those kinds of uses.

10:20:16 But we haven't, until now when you brought up downtown,

10:20:21 talked about areas, or zones.

10:20:23 So could we create an individual criteria, special set of

10:20:31 regulation around certain areas of our city?

10:20:35 >> With different parking ratios for different parts of the

10:20:38 city.

10:20:38 >> Well, different parking ratios, but one of the things you

10:20:42 just said was that we allow the tandem parking downtown, but

10:20:48 not in other areas.

10:20:49 So it's not that I would want to maybe add tandem parking

10:20:53 all over the city, but maybe in certain areas it makes

10:20:56 sense.

10:20:56 >> You can geographically require certain things, yes.

10:21:01 >> So that would be something else I would suggest that we

10:21:03 look at, because especially when we have areas that we are

10:21:10 promoting as in our code mass transit, we are also promoting

10:21:14 bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

10:21:18 So not just promoting but building them.

10:21:22 So we have bicycle clubs who regularly now visit certain

10:21:30 restaurants, and they do a restaurant tour, which scares me,

10:21:36 people on bicycles and drinking doesn't seem to go together.

10:21:39 >> Or in cars.

10:21:43 >> Or in cars.

10:21:44 But areas where we have designated as bike/ped zone.

10:21:54 So the parking requirements are less than if you are not in

10:21:57 a bike/ped zone.

10:22:00 So, you know, I'm thinking as we develop PDs for areas,

10:22:07 subdivisions, or -- we can allow a lessening of the parking

10:22:14 if they can show that they are in this mass transit or

10:22:21 multimodal type of area.

10:22:23 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Okay.

10:22:26 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Sound reasonable?

10:22:27 Something we can look at?

10:22:30 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes, we traditionally do that already in

10:22:32 the overlay districts.

10:22:33 But yes.

10:22:34 >> Look at it but I think I want to make it more formal so

10:22:40 that when applicants come before us, we have a certain set

10:22:44 of regulations to look at, and some criteria to be consider,

10:22:49 rather than having the discussion time after time and having

10:22:52 applicants come in and relying on them to get creative and

10:22:57 bring us something, rather than us sitting here going, we

10:23:01 don't have anything that really speaks to that.

10:23:04 So I would like to make it a little more formal.

10:23:07 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Okay.

10:23:09 And that's all I have.

10:23:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

10:23:11 I have Mr. Cohen and then Mrs. Capin and then I have a

10:23:14 couple of words.

10:23:15 >>HARRY COHEN: Very briefly, one of the things that's so

10:23:18 nice about having a workshop like this is having an actual

10:23:21 chance to talk about an issue and think about it and hear

10:23:25 what everyone has to say.

10:23:26 And I want to make a suggestion that relates back to

10:23:29 something we have also been dealing with recently, and

10:23:34 that's the business permit for alcohol, from midnight to be

10:23:38 3.

10:23:38 And we are going to be having discussion about that

10:23:41 obviously in a couple of weeks.

10:23:42 But it seems to me -- and I'm just making a suggestion

10:23:45 here -- that one thing that we mate do is make a did of that

10:23:50 permit that the establishment be fulfilling, the parking

10:23:57 criteria in its own site plan, that part of the approval is

10:24:02 simply a certification even that they are providing the

10:24:11 number of spaces for the parking that they were originally

10:24:15 approved to provide.

10:24:17 So that might be a very simple way of dealing with at least

10:24:23 some part of the problem.

10:24:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Cohen.

10:24:28 Ms. Capin?

10:24:29 >>YVONNE CAPIN: (off microphone) a business owner comes

10:24:38 before us, the person that's leasing the property, to ask

10:24:41 for, in this case, I am going to go with alcoholic beverage

10:24:46 permit.

10:24:46 And time and again without the owner of the property being

10:24:54 here, even asking how long of a lease do you have?

10:25:02 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Before we process application for special

10:25:04 use or rezoning, the application is actually notarized by

10:25:08 the property owner giving that person the authorization.

10:25:11 The property owner does not have to appear for granting the

10:25:13 authority.

10:25:14 >>YVONNE CAPIN: But do we know what kind of lease or how

10:25:19 long?

10:25:20 For instance, you have someone, and they have a five-year

10:25:23 lease.

10:25:23 But we have just granted a permit that runs with the land.

10:25:28 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.

10:25:34 I think this goes to the crux of what all of you and all of

10:25:38 us find very frustrating about regulating alcohol through

10:25:41 land use regulation, and that is that question of does

10:25:45 someone have a five-year lease or ten year lease isn't

10:25:48 relevant because the question is, is alcohol as a use

10:25:51 compatible in this location on this property?

10:25:53 So it doesn't matter if someone has a five year, ten year.

10:25:57 Again it goes to the crux of what's so frustrating.

10:26:00 >> But it really does -- what we have to consider.

10:26:05 But when you look at the practical sense of it, it's very

10:26:10 much important.

10:26:11 And I don't know how we can maybe work that into the

10:26:15 business license somehow.

10:26:17 It's something to think about.

10:26:20 Because sometimes we have just granted pay dirt to land

10:26:28 owners.

10:26:28 >> Thank you.

10:26:29 Let me say this.

10:26:30 It sound so simple but sometimes for every action there's a

10:26:34 reaction.

10:26:34 I have always said that.

10:26:35 And you say, well, 1,000 feet.

10:26:38 I guess a thousand feet is 12,000 inches.

10:26:41 I don't know.

10:26:41 I guess a thousand feet is three and a third football

10:26:45 fields.

10:26:45 Might be a few inches off.

10:26:47 I guess a thousand feet is 5/16th of a mile based on a

10:26:53 quarter of a mail being 440 yards and another third to it.

10:26:57 So what I'm saying is that, you know, I feel the action and

10:27:05 reaction clause, how can somebody be here, the petitioner

10:27:11 and not the petitioner, you have a lease for parking garage,

10:27:14 parking slot or whatever you want to call it, but in that

10:27:18 lease you himself have a termination clause where either

10:27:20 party can terminate within 15-day notice.

10:27:24 You also don't have that I know of any way where that lot is

10:27:28 committed to this, because that lot is not put on a list

10:27:32 where it can't apply for rezoning because it already has a

10:27:35 lease for five years, unless that two parties within 15 days

10:27:39 cancel and you can apply for any kind of notification you

10:27:42 want.

10:27:43 So they put all of us, the city, not on the petitioner, but

10:27:50 once that petitioner gets what he or she wants, or the land

10:27:53 gets whatever it wants, then that unfair practice comes in,

10:27:59 because now it's gone away.

10:28:03 The parking has really become a problem, and who has to face

10:28:08 the music?

10:28:09 The City of Tampa.

10:28:10 Not the petitioner.

10:28:12 He or she has that zoning.

10:28:15 That land has been zoned for whatever reason, alcohol or

10:28:17 not, and guess what.

10:28:21 We are saying that what I would like to see is find out if

10:28:26 there's any areas of the state that have some type of

10:28:30 ordinances where if you apply for some zoning, and that

10:28:34 zoning is granted by that authority, but in that record,

10:28:39 just like wave to perfect our weather, that their record be

10:28:43 perfected where they say this is what's going to happen, and

10:28:46 if A, B and C do not happen, and if it does happen and it

10:28:50 cancels, then that plot of land, whatever it was zoned for,

10:28:54 or alcohol, reverts back to its natural stage whatever that

10:28:59 was.

10:29:02 End of debate.

10:29:03 And what we are trying to do in my machine is find a fair

10:29:07 way, that up to now it's only been one way, their way.

10:29:11 You can't do this because that's wrong.

10:29:13 You can't say that because that's wrong.

10:29:15 Well, governments are supposed to protect both sides.

10:29:18 And right now we are only holding our end to one side.

10:29:22 I like to see fairness.

10:29:24 And I think all of us agree with that.

10:29:26 That all neighborhood are protected.

10:29:30 This same neighborhood may come and applaud a petitioner

10:29:33 because he or she has met all those obligations.

10:29:36 But during that course of action those resources, that same

10:29:42 neighborhood comes here for relief, and we can't give relief

10:29:47 because we give it away.

10:29:50 Understood the process of law, that says now you can do

10:29:54 those things.

10:29:54 So, you know, a third -- a thousand feet is three and a

10:30:00 third football fields.

10:30:01 Let me put it into perspective.

10:30:03 That's about as close as being from Tampa Bay Boulevard from

10:30:07 the south to MLK on the north.

10:30:10 And if you were to park a car, the first couple of cars may

10:30:14 make it in four or five minutes that way and four or five

10:30:17 minutes back.

10:30:18 By the time you park your 50th car, you already went 20

10:30:22 miles, and you ain't doing it in four or five minutes.

10:30:25 So there's another conceivable process.

10:30:30 It can't be done on a timely basis.

10:30:32 I don't not be how you are going to transport the car.

10:30:34 You ain't going to put them in a rack and take them over.

10:30:38 I don't know.

10:30:39 But what I'm saying is we have got to have a reasonable

10:30:42 clause ton protect both sides and right in and out the only

10:30:46 one we are protecting is one side, and it's not fair.

10:30:53 Unfair practice, unfair presentation, because the fact that

10:30:56 we have to deal with will not be the fact at the end.

10:31:00 Only in the beginning.

10:31:02 So it doesn't have a term that anything is cancelable.

10:31:07 And if this is the way it goes and this is the way these

10:31:11 petitioners want to act, I can tell you, say you know what?

10:31:16 Me myself, you don't meet the regulations, you don't meet

10:31:18 the parking requirements, adios, baby.

10:31:22 I may lose 6 to 1 but I will lose protecting both sides.

10:31:26 Anyone else?

10:31:27 Mrs. Montelione, Ms. Capin.

10:31:29 Let me go to Ms. Montelione first.

10:31:31 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I am going to make a couple of motions

10:31:34 here so we can bring some of these ideas back in staff

10:31:38 reports.

10:31:40 I'm sorry?

10:31:42 Oh, we want to have public comment first?

10:31:47 >> Before you make the motion.

10:31:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let's hear from the public first.

10:31:52 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I don't have a motion.

10:31:56 I have a comment.

10:31:56 The thousand foot.

10:31:58 I remember that number kept popping up in my head.

10:32:00 I had a 1,000 fat drive in my house out in Lutz on a lake,

10:32:04 and it is quite a distance.

10:32:08 I don't think it goes from Tampa Bay to MLK.

10:32:11 But --

10:32:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'll measure it for you this afternoon.

10:32:15 >> A 1,000-foot drive on my property.

10:32:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: All right.

10:32:28 Let me listen to the public if I may at this time on item --

10:32:33 the one we are discussing, item number 4, I believe it is.

10:32:36 Number 3?

10:32:37 Number 4.

10:32:38 Number 4.

10:32:38 Yes, sir.

10:32:39 >> I'm Ed Tillou, Sulphur Springs.

10:32:44 Okay.

10:32:48 I want to speak about 3 and 5 a.

10:32:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: You can speak on 3.

10:32:55 We.

10:32:56 Spoken on 5 yet.

10:32:57 >> But I have a class and I will miss breakfast to get to my

10:33:03 class and I'm really hungry.

10:33:05 So anyway, I will be getting this out to you.

10:33:10 Very important is fact checking.

10:33:12 And here, for instance, you know, you can't expect too much

10:33:19 from a City Council when in the newspapers they say that

10:33:23 U.S. importation of petroleum is one third, more than one

10:33:29 third.

10:33:29 Well, it's two-thirds.

10:33:32 So I hear as this comes out this continual indulgence of cry

10:33:37 babies.

10:33:37 Oh, I have to walk a thousand feet.

10:33:39 I have to use a car.

10:33:40 Now, there was a wrong pronouncement in this session, a and

10:33:47 this was that public transportation, there's no public

10:33:53 transportation.

10:33:54 Maybe it's a semantic problem because there is public

10:33:56 transportation.

10:33:57 There is public transit, buses two or three blocks away is

10:34:04 the 30 bus.

10:34:05 I walk that and I'm handicapped.

10:34:09 So why is there indulgence on cry babies who have to ride

10:34:14 their cars?

10:34:16 Is it in the Constitution?

10:34:17 Is it in the Bible?

10:34:19 You have to drive your car?

10:34:20 You have to use two gallons a day of gasoline?

10:34:24 It goes like this.

10:34:25 I didn't have this last week.

10:34:30 Okay.

10:34:32 18,300.

10:34:33 I was challenged on that like I was challenged on 20,000.

10:34:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Put it back up.

10:34:39 I am going to challenge you again.

10:34:40 Put it back up.

10:34:41 Put it back up.

10:34:42 >> It goes with.

10:34:45 This using a half gallon a day instead of two gallons.

10:34:48 But people don't have to use anything.

10:34:50 They can use public transportation.

10:34:52 Now, when people in the late 50s and early 70s, I think

10:35:00 the county commission is modeled in the fists.

10:35:06 But in the late 50s and early 60s, mass transit.

10:35:11 Now, I was in California in the late 60s and the early

10:35:14 70s.

10:35:14 I was in Madison in the 70s.

10:35:17 And what is this, transit for the masses?

10:35:22 That's the kind of stuff you used to hear in those times.

10:35:27 The 39 bus.

10:35:29 The 30 bus.

10:35:31 This is available.

10:35:32 I use it.

10:35:34 What about half price beer for people that show that they

10:35:37 use the buses?

10:35:38 They show a bus ticket and they get half price on their

10:35:41 beer.

10:35:43 They discontinued it.

10:35:44 (Bell sounds)

10:35:46 So, anyway, there are other solutions.

10:35:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me just speak on the boat.

10:35:51 You got 193,999 and I am speaking for myself and you have

10:35:57 cash.

10:35:58 I want to be show the public what you are saying.

10:36:00 I am going to improve I can't buy a Volt for under 20.

10:36:05 That's 2995 that I have to give in cash, so that's added on

10:36:10 to that 18,399.

10:36:12 You had that one for 18.

10:36:14 You had one for 19.

10:36:15 And then this one has got -- where is the 7,500?

10:36:24 That was the other one.

10:36:25 So you have got two articles there that don't match.

10:36:33 40,000 and you take away a thousand.

10:36:35 That's 39.

10:36:36 Another thousand, that's 38. Another 5,000 on rebate.

10:36:39 That's 33.

10:36:40 And then you have got to pay back up to that at 3,000 for

10:36:43 the tax.

10:36:46 That's 36.

10:36:47 >> You have to figure the taxes. There are no subsidies.

10:36:50 But there are reasons.

10:36:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I said I would buy ten of them and give

10:36:55 them away for 18,000, what you told me, sir.

10:36:57 >> But that's item 5. I have to go to my class.

10:36:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm sorry.

10:37:00 I wanted to clear something up.

10:37:02 Mrs. Mulhern.

10:37:03 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

10:37:04 I accept your correction.

10:37:07 Yes, there are buses that run on Howard and MacDill.

10:37:11 However, we don't have a comprehensive mass transit system

10:37:16 that would allow people to get from -- to get around,

10:37:22 especially when we are talking about a bar district, I don't

10:37:26 know that they would be able to get home after closing on

10:37:29 the bus.

10:37:30 But you are right to point out that we do have buses.

10:37:33 Thank you.

10:37:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Next, please.

10:37:36 >> Madison street.

10:37:46 If you can get a guy on a bus in South Tampa,

10:37:53 In reference to number 3 here, this is about the parking

10:37:56 thing, I just want to point out that if you gave away less

10:38:00 land to millionaires and multi-million dollar corporations,

10:38:04 there would be land around for people to park on.

10:38:07 That's number five and you are taking it off the agenda

10:38:10 apparently.

10:38:10 Bull in reference to this number 3, it's always occurred

10:38:14 tore me that one of the reasons we have such lousy

10:38:17 attendance numbers over the stadium in Pinellas County is

10:38:22 because of the same issue of not being able to transport

10:38:25 people from hear to there, point A to point B.

10:38:30 If you were to build community parking in South Tampa and

10:38:34 transport people comfortably back and forth between that

10:38:38 location and the Rays stadium you would be able to alleviate

10:38:46 parking of some of the stuff on South Howard Avenue.

10:38:49 Utilizing the type vehicles they have running around in

10:38:54 downtown Tampa to get people from their neighborhoods even

10:38:56 to these bars and things, or to community parking place to

10:38:59 the bars and restaurants and so forth that are down that

10:39:02 way.

10:39:03 But again, if you keep giving away all your assets to

10:39:07 millionaires, everybody's garbage bill is going to keep

10:39:10 going up and a lot of social problems are not going to be

10:39:13 cured.

10:39:14 Thank you.

10:39:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

10:39:17 Appreciate it very much.

10:39:18 Anyone else?

10:39:19 >>STEVE MICHELINI: A couple things.

10:39:21 That I would like for council to consider.

10:39:23 One is that a lot of the parking problems in the older

10:39:27 sections are a result of the taking of right-of-way which

10:39:30 eliminated some of the on-street parking.

10:39:33 And when you go through the code review process, whether you

10:39:36 are in permitting or whether you are in special use for

10:39:41 alcohol permit, they don't allow you to count the backing in

10:39:46 the right-of-way parking spaces, and that's one of the

10:39:48 things that aggravated the condition at Cappy's that

10:39:52 required that you had to get a waiver for that.

10:39:55 So you can't count any of that.

10:39:57 One of the suggestions you might consider is to allow the

10:39:59 historic pattern of parking that existed and then pick some

10:40:03 date, 1970 or 1960 or something, that existed and allow that

10:40:09 parking to be counted for those businesses so you are not

10:40:11 putting additional pressure either on the business or on the

10:40:15 neighborhood.

10:40:17 The third thing is the method of calculation for parking

10:40:21 changed.

10:40:22 So previously, if a restaurant was calculating its parking

10:40:27 requirement, it was .3 per seat in a restaurant, and that

10:40:31 changed the life safety code calculation which is the

10:40:35 maximum occupancy of an area, that added the parking

10:40:39 requirements to a lot of businesses they couldn't possibly

10:40:43 meet.

10:40:43 And that's why you are getting a lot of requests for waivers

10:40:46 on parking.

10:40:48 The fourth thing is, some of my client have gone through the

10:40:53 alternative parking plan and when you are talking about a

10:40:56 thousand foot distance those are not really practical for

10:40:58 walking, but what happens is the businesses use that for a

10:41:02 valet parking operation.

10:41:04 So it's a convenience thing.

10:41:06 They drive up to the front of the business and then they are

10:41:08 valet parked a thousand feet away.

10:41:11 So those parking lots are well utilized, because without

10:41:14 that parking they are out of business.

10:41:16 They simply cannot function without it.

10:41:20 The fourth thing is the leases that you talk about are

10:41:24 protected extremely well, because they are so valuable to

10:41:28 the intensive use of the various properties.

10:41:32 Those leases are shot.

10:41:37 So if nobody knows that one or the other leases is coming up

10:41:41 that businesses control, some of the businesses go to them

10:41:44 and say, you want instead of $500 a month you want $750 a

10:41:47 month so they tray to steal the leases.

10:41:50 So they are very well protected.

10:41:52 And one of the other issues -- let me finish up here -- SoHo

10:41:58 had a parking garage in the original CIP and that parking

10:42:03 gorge was taken away and the money used to build the second

10:42:06 garage in Ybor City.

10:42:09 So when that whole development plan was first initiated, and

10:42:12 all of the intensity of the restaurants, and the various

10:42:15 entertainments that occurred on South Howard, the plan was

10:42:19 the city was going to build that garage, and it didn't

10:42:22 happen.

10:42:24 So there's a lot of things that contribute to that. Anyway,

10:42:29 if you will consider those things, I think that you might

10:42:31 want to look at that.

10:42:33 I can talk to the staff about it if you like.

10:42:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

10:42:35 >>MARY MULHERN: Mr. Michelini, when the valet parking, they

10:42:44 are shopping around, are they going back to land development

10:42:46 and telling them that there's now a new --

10:42:50 >>STEVE MICHELINI: They don't give the leases up.

10:42:54 All I'm saying is the leases are targeted by other companies

10:42:57 and other businesses who realize that parking is at a

10:43:01 premium.

10:43:02 And so the value continues to increase.

10:43:05 If you have a lease in hand, you are not going to give it

10:43:08 up.

10:43:08 If you give it up, you are out of business.

10:43:11 And in the alternative parking plan, we went through an

10:43:15 extensive review with the city, and Julia Cole when she told

10:43:19 you sheet doesn't approve leases that have these 30-day out

10:43:23 clauses, that's absolutely correct.

10:43:24 She was very thorough in her examination, as was the city

10:43:28 staff.

10:43:31 And Cathy and Eric Cotton scrutinized the locations of those

10:43:35 alternative parking locations and all. Addresses, and they

10:43:39 compare them.

10:43:40 So if another business comes in and says, hey, I have

10:43:42 parking at this, this and this location, they compare that

10:43:45 to their master list that they keep.

10:43:48 And if there's a conflict there they throw it out.

10:43:51 So there are other businesses try to do that.

10:43:53 But they have been caught in the process and thrown out.

10:43:58 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So my motion so we can close this

10:44:07 discussion and move on.

10:44:08 I do want to say one thing about mass transit in South

10:44:11 Tampa, South Howard area.

10:44:16 There are the beginnings of talk of establishing a

10:44:20 circulator system in the area, so that would alleviate some

10:44:25 of the neighborhoods problems with parking.

10:44:29 All right.

10:44:29 So with that, I would ask for a staff report, and I will

10:44:34 rely on vice chair and calendar keeper Mr. Cohen to set some

10:44:38 dates for provisions of Land Development Code.

10:44:48 One is the suggestion of Ms. Coyle to require leases to be

10:44:52 submitted on an annual basis when they are utilized for

10:44:57 alternative parking review, or submitted as evidence -- and

10:45:06 I think this is maybe what Mr. Miranda is trying to get to,

10:45:09 when they are submitted as evidence for the granting of the

10:45:13 waiver during public hearing.

10:45:16 I would also ask that staff look at creating or formalizing

10:45:25 the zone where multimodal mass transit, transportation

10:45:33 facilities are available, and having that be part of the

10:45:39 public hearing where we are presented with a request for

10:45:43 waivers, so it would be part of the staff report.

10:45:47 That makes some sense?

10:45:49 Also, that we look at not only for a thousand feet, but if

10:45:59 we go any further than a thousand feet in considering

10:46:04 alternative parking arrangement that it would be a situation

10:46:08 where there would be a mandatory valet contract in order to

10:46:13 facilitate the use of that lot that's so far away, and that

10:46:19 tandem parking be allowed in some of the areas and zones

10:46:23 that were mentioned.

10:46:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion -- a couple of motions,

10:46:28 I believe, by Mrs. Montelione.

10:46:31 Do I have a second?

10:46:33 Seconded by Mr. Cohen.

10:46:39 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Would you rather have -- we are

10:46:41 approaching the end of the year.

10:46:42 Would you rather have a staff report or rather role it to

10:46:44 the January cycle?

10:46:45 Because we have a series of workshops to discuss as well.

10:46:47 >>LISA MONTELIONE: If it's better to go into the January

10:46:53 cycle then we can move it along.

10:46:56 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Because we have workshops to talk about

10:46:58 it.

10:46:58 It's up to you.

10:46:58 >>HARRY COHEN: My second was for a staff report.

10:47:02 I just want to be clear about that.

10:47:03 >> You want to stick with the staff report?

10:47:07 I'm getting the nodding heads.

10:47:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Well, let me say this, if I may.

10:47:11 I'm all for that, but I would like to add onto it in that

10:47:14 staff report if legal and the folks who work in land zoning

10:47:19 can come up with other ideas from other areas to incorporate

10:47:23 into our plan, where we see if it's used or not used at the

10:47:27 present time.

10:47:29 And that's what it's all about.

10:47:30 >>HARRY COHEN: The seconder is certainly in concurrence

10:47:36 with that suggestion.

10:47:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: All in favor of the motion?

10:47:47 >> Ms. Mandell and I believe January would be sufficient, to

10:47:51 deal with some of the other legal aspects as well.

10:47:53 >> January 9th at 10 a.m.?

10:47:57 >>LISA MONTELIONE: What's the difference when you mention

10:47:59 about going into the January cycle?

10:48:02 >> January 15th is the cut-off.

10:48:06 So we have the staff report and you decide to make a motion,

10:48:08 just put something in the cycle.

10:48:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me say this.

10:48:13 January 9th is fine but that's going to be an extremely

10:48:16 lengthy because usually we are coming back from the

10:48:18 Christmas holiday.

10:48:19 But I understand that.

10:48:20 I just want you to know that.

10:48:22 >>HARRY COHEN: I think the problem is if we don't we are

10:48:25 going to lose --

10:48:27 >> Yes.

10:48:28 >>LISA MONTELIONE: What do we have the last week of

10:48:30 December, if --

10:48:33 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Vacation.

10:48:34 I have three children.

10:48:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: January 9th at what time?

10:48:42 10:00.

10:48:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: When you set something for staff reports,

10:48:46 we are going to be changing the agenda.

10:48:48 It's not going to be -- just put it for staff reports and it

10:48:51 will show up.

10:48:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That's the year 2014.

10:48:55 >> January 9th, 2014.

10:49:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion by Mrs. Montelione, seconded by

10:49:02 Mr. Cohen.

10:49:03 All in favor? Opposed?

10:49:04 Motion passes unanimously.

10:49:06 Thank you very much.

10:49:07 Mr. Cohen?

10:49:07 >>HARRY COHEN: I would also like to make a motion.

10:49:10 Regarding the idea that I mentioned, I would like it if the

10:49:15 legal department when they come back to us on December

10:49:17 5th could incorporate into the discussion that's already

10:49:22 scheduled about the business regulation 3 Amish you, a

10:49:29 discussion of whether or not compliance with

10:49:32 already-approved parking conditions could be -- could be

10:49:41 components of the ordinance.

10:49:42 >> Second.

10:49:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion by Mr. Cohen.

10:49:44 Seconded by Mrs. Capin.

10:49:46 All in favor of the motion? Opposed?

10:49:48 The ayes have it unanimously.

10:49:50 Thank you, council.

10:49:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I apologize.

10:49:57 The motion that you just made and we passed, Mr. Cohen, does

10:49:59 it include some of the discussion that we had in terms of

10:50:01 parking, separate and apart as a business regulation based

10:50:09 on it or not?

10:50:10 >>HARRY COHEN: Partially.

10:50:11 I think actually you stepped out for the moment when I said

10:50:14 that I had simply followed up on the discussion by saying

10:50:20 that it seemed to me it might be possible when we consider

10:50:28 the business regulation that one of the conditions could

10:50:30 simply be compliance with the already-decided-on parking

10:50:36 conditions.

10:50:36 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I just want to clarify that because I think

10:50:40 that's an important aspect of what we talked about.

10:50:42 So thank you.

10:50:44 Thank you, chair.

10:50:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

10:50:46 We go to item number 5.

10:50:47 That's going to be moved to January 30th, 2014.

10:50:56 Motion by Mr. Suarez.

10:50:57 Seconded by Mr. Reddick on item number 5, the motion to

10:51:02 January 30, 2014.

10:51:07 The ayes have it unanimously.

10:51:08 We now go to item number 6.

10:51:17 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Assistant city attorney.

10:51:20 About a month ago we were here discussing, and came up with

10:51:27 creating a chronic violator and we said we would bring that

10:51:30 back in a workshop, and City Council would help define what

10:51:35 is going to be a chronic violator.

10:51:40 I have preliminarily what the code might look like down the

10:51:49 road.

10:51:54 So a violator meets the criteria of a chronic violator then

10:51:58 the code enforcement officer shall issue a notice to appear

10:52:02 to the chronic violator and the violations will be heard in

10:52:06 municipal ordinance court which would then mean we need to

10:52:09 define what is a chronic violator, and basically kind of a

10:52:15 template of what.

10:52:19 It means a violator has received X number of notices.

10:52:23 That's what I will be lag for you to tell me.

10:52:25 And what time period.

10:52:29 And I want you to consider whether you want it to be the

10:52:31 same code section or any code section, and whether or not

10:52:38 you want it to be on any property located in the city, or

10:52:41 any non-homestead.

10:52:45 >>HARRY COHEN: Councilman Reddick.

10:52:49 I'm sorry.

10:52:51 >>ERNEST MUELLER: That was one of the things we talked about

10:52:53 being able to consider and differentiate is between those

10:52:55 people that want to correct the violations from those that

10:53:01 can't afford to.

10:53:02 And again I have only brought this up as a possibility of us

10:53:05 to look at.

10:53:08 Since beginning with the presumption that people are going

10:53:11 to want to have the house that they live in, you know, no

10:53:16 violations on it or at least in good condition.

10:53:18 Now, if you guys think of another way to be able to

10:53:21 differentiate, that's just a suggestion I have.

10:53:29 Also, the homestead properties in this does give us an

10:53:34 opportunity to bring those to the code board, even if they

10:53:39 had three, four violations because if it's someone that

10:53:41 can't afford it to fix those violations we may be able to

10:53:44 find some assistance through the diversion program or

10:53:47 something else, code board instead of in court.

10:53:51 So at this point I can leave it to you all.

10:53:55 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

10:54:03 I think it's a good suggestion that you put forth, presented

10:54:06 to us, and I want to the say this.

10:54:13 We need to get tough on those that continue to violate,

10:54:18 because I believe that -- I was at a meeting last night and

10:54:24 75% of the questions that was raised by this neighborhood,

10:54:29 they were from code violations.

10:54:31 And it seems that each time I'm at one of these neighborhood

10:54:37 meetings, it seems to be the majority of the questions

10:54:40 center around code violations.

10:54:43 And I can understand that because people who are investing

10:54:49 in their property, and they are trying to keep their lawn,

10:54:53 and their property up to date, and it's just a shame that

10:54:58 someone next door or someone down the street just fails to

10:55:02 maintain that same standard of what other people are doing.

10:55:09 But I am also mindful that we have a lot of senior citizens

10:55:16 that live in homes and their husband passed or their wife

10:55:23 passed and they are living on a fixed income.

10:55:26 And some of these people have been living in the home for

10:55:30 20, 30, 40, 50 years.

10:55:33 And on that fixed income, a roof, for example, that needed

10:55:40 to be repaired, they just cannot afford to have that roof

10:55:44 repaired on a fixed income.

10:55:49 I like the idea about a diversion program, and a possibility

10:55:52 that if funds can be found -- and I would basically like to

10:55:59 remember to be restrict those to senior citizens who meet

10:56:03 certain needs, meet the burden and responsibility of

10:56:07 financial need, where they receive some type of a

10:56:11 assistance, because I cannot see where a senior citizen can

10:56:21 be afford to come down and they have been cited over and

10:56:24 over and then able to come down and pay those fines, or even

10:56:28 appear before the magistrate who will make the determination

10:56:33 about that.

10:56:39 And I thought about this.

10:56:42 And even though chronic means more than once.

10:56:48 I mean, if they violated the code more than once, and if we

10:56:54 are going to send a message to people, and we are going to

10:56:57 be tough on those who continue to violate, then I think that

10:57:05 we need to move forward in a direction, and my belief, and

10:57:11 what I am suggesting, and if there are three violations

10:57:17 within a six-month period of time, we need to move those

10:57:20 people into the court system, because if we tried to give

10:57:26 them a year, that is too long.

10:57:31 And if you look at outstanding cases that you have, it just

10:57:38 bothers me that so many people are addressing the issue

10:57:46 about code enforcement, those people who want to violate the

10:57:54 law, those people who have been cited and want to ignore the

10:57:57 law, and I just think if we are going to do something and be

10:58:05 fierce about this, this is the tame to do it and we should

10:58:07 not give them a year anymore.

10:58:11 If you violate it three times, we are going to -- we need to

10:58:14 move forward, take some action, because if they are going to

10:58:22 be do it once, they are going to do it more than three, so

10:58:26 unless we tighten it up and make it difficult for them, and

10:58:29 keep in mind, we also want to be respectful of those on

10:58:35 fixed income and not punish those who cannot afford it, the

10:58:42 ways to minimize -- going through the diversion program, but

10:58:48 I would think as a part of the discussion, I think we'll

10:58:55 need to start somewhere, and that's my suggestion that I

10:58:59 want to make to this council this morning.

10:59:00 >>HARRY COHEN: Everyone asked to be recognized so I will go

10:59:05 next to Councilwoman Capin.

10:59:07 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Thank you.

10:59:09 I agree with Councilman Reddick, but as far as the violators

10:59:17 have received -- I'm reading this now, notice of violation

10:59:20 in the past -- I would like to hear from our code

10:59:24 enforcement people.

10:59:28 They are dealing with this every single day.

10:59:32 We have so many possible violations.

10:59:36 I don't nobody if it's still there, but we at one time --

10:59:40 you do not have screens on your windows, that's a code

10:59:44 violation.

10:59:47 And I want to give teeth but I want to be careful with

10:59:50 those -- that bite.

11:00:01 That is a concern.

11:00:02 But I also want to say the people like the widows or the

11:00:06 elderly, they just can't afford it.

11:00:10 They can't bring it up to code.

11:00:11 That's a perfect discussion for January 30th, when we

11:00:14 are looking at our budget, and how to be put a fund in

11:00:17 place, some kind of funding that we can have set aside for

11:00:22 just that.

11:00:24 Because I think it's really important.

11:00:26 These people have lived in our city for many, many years,

11:00:29 and worked in our city, paid taxes, and are still paying

11:00:33 taxes, and we need to help them.

11:00:37 So I think that would be a good discussion then.

11:00:40 So I would like to hear from you, what do you see in "fill

11:00:47 in the blanks" here?

11:00:49 >>JAKE SLATER: City of Tampa neighborhood administration.

11:00:56 Thank you for your support.

11:00:57 It means a lot to our members in our department.

11:01:00 We welcome any additional tools you will give us.

11:01:07 We are trying our best to address the blight in the City of

11:01:10 Tampa, just as I have mentioned to you, we have right now

11:01:13 over 6100 vacant properties, foreclosed properties in the

11:01:17 City of Tampa.

11:01:18 Each one of those is an active code enforcement case.

11:01:22 I would ask that you look at, in this overall, the

11:01:30 suggestion to give us the tools and the ability, if a

11:01:35 property, and a property owner has been issued notice over a

11:01:40 certain time period, that we take that case to the

11:01:45 Hillsborough County criminal court.

11:01:50 I really would love to have that in our ordinance.

11:01:54 And with that, that the property owner and/or the tenant

11:01:58 could explain to the judge exactly what is going on.

11:02:00 >>YVONNE CAPIN: How many notices and what time period?

11:02:09 You deal with this every day.

11:02:14 We are here every Thursday.

11:02:18 It accumulates.

11:02:19 >>JAKE SLATER: The city attorney is here who handles our

11:02:24 court, at the municipal court, and I don't know what our

11:02:26 average docket is.

11:02:28 I'm sure it's about 100 cases per month that actually end up

11:02:32 going to Hillsborough County civil court.

11:02:36 But that would really give us a tool for these chronic

11:02:41 violators, that they have been issued notice over X amount

11:02:44 of time, that they have to appear in court, and they have to

11:02:47 answer the questions.

11:02:50 What is going on?

11:02:51 How come you let it happen?

11:02:53 Can you fix the problem?

11:02:54 And what is it going to take?

11:02:56 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Three notices in a year?

11:03:05 I'm looking for a number there.

11:03:06 >> I haven't come up with a firm number.

11:03:11 We are asking for your input.

11:03:12 >> We are looking for your expertise.

11:03:16 At least I am.

11:03:16 >>ERNEST MUELLER: If I could address first what Mr. Reddick

11:03:21 mentioned.

11:03:22 I want to make sure as we start throwing numbers out there,

11:03:26 three notices in six months sounds like, okay, we are going

11:03:31 to get some real bad people.

11:03:33 But remember there's three in seven months they aren't going

11:03:36 to qualify.

11:03:37 So the shorter your window you are going to decrease the

11:03:42 number of people we get.

11:03:43 And again, we want you guys to go ahead and make this

11:03:50 decision, and you guys have said you heard the complaints,

11:03:53 you get complaints from your constituents.

11:03:57 I think we are going to kind of leave that to you all what

11:04:00 it is you want to find as a chronic offender.

11:04:03 Who is it that you want to be answering to the court?

11:04:07 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I have an idea but I want to hear from my

11:04:09 fellow council members.

11:04:10 Thank you for that input.

11:04:11 >>MARY MULHERN: I just want to say a few things.

11:04:19 I was ready to support Councilman Reddick.

11:04:21 But it sound like maybe we should even make the time period

11:04:24 shorter and maybe we can hear from Mr. Johnson on that when

11:04:28 we get to public comments.

11:04:29 Maybe three strikes, three months.

11:04:32 Three strikes in three months.

11:04:39 So that's my suggestion to hear from everybody else what you

11:04:43 think.

11:04:44 I want to point out, as it was pointed out in today's

11:04:48 Tribune and I'm sure this information came from our code

11:04:51 enforcement people, that three quarters of these chronic

11:04:54 offenders are investors.

11:04:57 So I would support that we make these violations with the

11:05:06 short time period, and the chronic offenders only for

11:05:11 nonhomestead.

11:05:12 But then I think we also have to have some kind of an

11:05:16 apparatus for code violations that are homestead.

11:05:21 And I think we got an e-mail from Kelly Bailey and she made

11:05:25 a good suggestion as we are going to hopefully be able to

11:05:27 collect more fines with be this new process from the

11:05:31 nonhomeowners, we could use those funds for assistance for

11:05:35 the elderly and the people that can't afford to be do the

11:05:38 repairs.

11:05:38 So maybe those fines could be go back to helping do that.

11:05:43 And also, I want to point out that we do now have a housing

11:05:48 person, and they may be able to find some grant funding for

11:05:51 that.

11:05:52 And I think that they are working on that.

11:05:54 So that's another alternative.

11:05:59 I think that's all I wanted to say.

11:06:01 Just wanted to make sure that -- oh, yes, then the other

11:06:05 question I had was this idea -- and I don't know if we need

11:06:11 to codify this.

11:06:13 But you shouldn't be able to show up at court and say, okay,

11:06:18 I have already fixed these and have it waived.

11:06:20 It's got to fit, so I don't know if that's written in there,

11:06:24 if we need to have those in there.

11:06:25 >>HARRY COHEN: Councilwoman Montelione and then Councilman

11:06:30 Suarez.

11:06:31 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

11:06:35 Ernie, Jake and I spent a lot of time talking about these

11:06:38 things.

11:06:39 And I think -- I think, Jake, or Ernie, you need to again

11:06:45 state the time period.

11:06:46 The longer the time period, the more chronic offenders you

11:06:51 are going to get.

11:06:51 The shorter the time period, the less you are going to be

11:06:55 able to catch those folks.

11:06:58 And it sound counterintuitive but that's really -- we want a

11:07:04 longer time period, not a shorter one.

11:07:12 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Let's say we went with three months as you

11:07:14 were saying.

11:07:16 If someone got a notice of violation in January, a notice of

11:07:19 violation in February, and then a notice of violation in

11:07:23 April.

11:07:24 So after March, we lose the one in January because it's been

11:07:29 three months, right?

11:07:30 That one drops off.

11:07:31 So come the one in April, you only have two that are

11:07:34 counting toward it.

11:07:36 So they H even though they would have had three and four

11:07:38 months, you still wouldn't have Hillsborough that first one.

11:07:42 >>MARY MULHERN: It doesn't give you enough time?

11:07:44 Is that what you are saying?

11:07:45 >> The first are going to drop off.

11:07:47 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

11:07:49 That's why Councilwoman Capin asked for your advice.

11:07:52 We are not enforcing the code.

11:07:54 We need some help.

11:07:55 >>LISA MONTELIONE: We have spent a lot of time together

11:08:00 over lunch, in meetings in, my office, in the car.

11:08:04 We have talked about this at great length.

11:08:07 And I think where we talked about it, I think we touched on

11:08:12 six months as being the start of an optimal window -- I

11:08:21 can't even speak -- so six months to a year would be more

11:08:24 relatable than three to six months?

11:08:27 So if we are going to be considering time periods, I would

11:08:31 say at a minimum six months, at a maximum a year.

11:08:34 So that would be up to council to be see how far out you

11:08:38 want to go with the time period.

11:08:41 And I would make it, if I had my druthers, I would make it

11:08:46 three violations.

11:08:48 And I would say three violations of the same code, because

11:08:54 you don't want to have somebody who is stuck in, well, I

11:09:00 fixed this but now you are violating me for that.

11:09:02 And that they all count towards the chronic offender.

11:09:07 I would think that are we make it so that it would have to

11:09:12 be the same section of the code that is violated multiple

11:09:17 times to be chronic offender in that section of the code,

11:09:19 because so much of this is discretionary.

11:09:29 Not saying we don't have fine people in the code enforcement

11:09:32 department.

11:09:32 But I think fountain we make it of any code, they open the

11:09:37 window, I think, for a little bit of maybe targeting abuse

11:09:42 or some such.

11:09:43 So I would prefer that we keep it for the same code.

11:09:47 As far as homesteaded or not homesteaded, I agree.

11:09:50 I would say the nonhomesteaded would be the properties we

11:09:54 really want to come down on hard, although I agree, and

11:10:01 again disagree with Mr. Reddick, maybe we can find a common

11:10:06 ground because it's not just as citizens.

11:10:10 I have Pete Johnson, and it says the other problem says the

11:10:15 lack of a diversion program for low income poor and

11:10:20 physically handicapped.

11:10:21 So I think if we have more of a parameter of who gets sent

11:10:25 to that diversion program, and not just limited to senior

11:10:28 citizens, because there are other folks who may be under 65

11:10:33 years old, maybe 55 years old, who need the help, and not

11:10:39 just limit to the senior citizens.

11:10:42 And Ernie, you can suggest some language or some parameters.

11:10:46 Maybe the income verification parameters, that could be used

11:10:50 because someone on a fixed income could be on a fixed income

11:10:53 for a lot of reasons.

11:10:55 So that would be another suggestion I have.

11:10:59 And I like the idea of the fines being directed to a

11:11:04 diversion program.

11:11:05 I think that's one way to have money coming in, a pipeline

11:11:10 of funding for the diversion program, because we typically

11:11:14 use our community development block grant funds for that,

11:11:17 and every year it seems that the federal government is

11:11:21 cutting back on the CDBG funding that we get.

11:11:25 So we need to look at having another source.

11:11:28 Otherwise, we are not going to be able to fund the diversion

11:11:33 program.

11:11:33 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Mr. Cohen, if I can address that before

11:11:37 we go too far and lose that.

11:11:39 Remember, these cases then from the chronic offenders will

11:11:42 be over in court.

11:11:44 And they will be kind of handled with the clerk's office.

11:11:48 They won't get ours.

11:11:49 We will get a percentage back at some point depending on

11:11:51 what the judge fines them for and then we get a percentage

11:11:54 of that.

11:11:55 I want you to be know that we don't have a whole lot of

11:11:58 control over those fines while they are over in the court

11:12:00 and Wan gets sent to us.

11:12:03 So we don't get 100% of that --

11:12:07 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Well, the same way we do with the noise

11:12:10 ordinance, it would be $500, $ hundred, you know, a type 3,

11:12:16 I think it was, Jake, a type 3 classification, where we are

11:12:22 setting a basis for the fine.

11:12:25 The judge can go over that if the judge likes to, but we are

11:12:28 setting parameters for what those fines at a minimum should

11:12:31 be.

11:12:33 >>ERNEST MUELLER: We are limited to $500 at this time.

11:12:37 We are trying to get the legislature up that, to $500 per

11:12:40 violation.

11:12:41 So we can't go any higher than that.

11:12:43 And that's going to be up to the judge.

11:12:50 But someone has to go to court, and answer to be a judge as

11:12:54 to why --

11:12:55 >>LISA MONTELIONE: But looking at a minimum, three

11:12:57 violations in six months, or three violations in a year, a

11:13:02 minimum $1500 because it's $500 per violation.

11:13:05 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Depending upon what the judge issues,

11:13:09 determines is going to be the fine.

11:13:11 >>LISA MONTELIONE: But we have -- we only have been two

11:13:17 judges that we are dealing with.

11:13:18 So that one particular judge who is hearing those cases is

11:13:22 going to recognize the same person coming back, you know,

11:13:26 you are a chronic violator in this period of time, and then

11:13:30 as soon as it comes up you are a chronic violator for this

11:13:35 period of time, and I think as the judges see the same

11:13:38 people, the same company, than they are investment companies

11:13:41 over and over again, I think they are going to have a

11:13:44 tendency to not be so lenient.

11:13:45 >>HARRY COHEN: Let me move on to Councilman Suarez, and

11:13:52 then we'll hear from the public as well.

11:13:55 Councilman Suarez.

11:13:56 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, chair.

11:13:58 The chronic violator, I think three violations, three

11:14:03 notices of violation in a six month or-year period, I think

11:14:08 that's something we can discuss and make a determination on.

11:14:11 But I do think in terms of chronic, Ernie, if I can ask you

11:14:15 a question real quick.

11:14:18 We passed something like this now.

11:14:20 And we have the violation time frame and what it means to be

11:14:23 a chronic violator.

11:14:25 Those people that are currently have been in the system and

11:14:29 violated already, those do not come into -- can we allow

11:14:34 that to happen so that -- is it a chronic violator received

11:14:38 a number of notices in the past year, or previous, or last

11:14:43 year, something like that, can we do something like that to

11:14:45 capture those or not?

11:14:47 >>ERNEST MUELLER: I have to look into that more.

11:14:49 But my thought would be the best we would be able to do is

11:14:51 let's say you make it a year.

11:14:55 The day it becomes active we could potentially look back a

11:14:58 year and probably have to wait till the next violation to be

11:15:00 able to count that year.

11:15:03 I'm certainly willing to look into how far --

11:15:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Not only notice of violation in the past

11:15:09 year but current violations.

11:15:12 Current as of the time that they get passed.

11:15:14 >> I think so if I am following what you are saying.

11:15:19 >>MIKE SUAREZ: If we already have somebody that's a chronic

11:15:21 violator, we pass this and say those who received notice of

11:15:24 violation in the past, three violations in the past one

11:15:28 year, or those that are currently in violation.

11:15:38 And I assume than might meet favor.

11:15:41 >>ERNEST MUELLER: I am kind of hesitating, to make sure

11:15:47 that we would have to wait for there to be a violation.

11:15:49 In other words, if you are saying, okay --

11:15:53 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Ernie, hang on.

11:15:55 That's not what I am saying.

11:15:57 I'm saying by virtue of you already having a violation, the

11:16:00 minute we pass this, you are already in violation.

11:16:04 AP new citation.

11:16:06 Again, I think that the language here is broad enough that

11:16:09 does not say new violations.

11:16:12 It says receive notice of violation in the past year.

11:16:15 So my guess is -- and again, you are going to have to check

11:16:18 this up -- my guess is that they get funneled into it, too,

11:16:22 as a chronic violator.

11:16:25 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Correct.

11:16:25 But again this is where I want to be sure. We to have the

11:16:28 trigger of a violation.

11:16:30 And then January 1st.

11:16:35 And then the code enforcement find a violation on January

11:16:39 2nd at a piece of property, they'll look back a year at

11:16:42 that point.

11:16:42 We won't be able -- and I want to make sure we are clear --

11:16:46 we think won't be able on January 2nd to start looking

11:16:48 back to see who has had them in the last year.

11:16:51 The trigger is going to be the violation that's going to

11:16:53 make --

11:16:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ: A new violation.

11:16:57 When we make violations, this is a separate questions that

11:17:00 either you or Jake can answer.

11:17:01 When we make a violation, let's say someone is constantly

11:17:07 violating one or another type of ordinance that we have.

11:17:13 Does it start anew again, meaning that, hey, this is three

11:17:17 months later, I'm giving you another notice of the same

11:17:20 violation? Or does it go back to what the original

11:17:24 violation date was?

11:17:27 So January 1st, I have given you a violation for X.

11:17:31 Three months later, I go, hey, you haven't cleaned up X, we

11:17:35 sent another violation, and we are sending them off to court

11:17:38 or some other thing.

11:17:39 I just want to know the process so we can clean up the

11:17:42 language.

11:17:43 Because the problem that I am having and some of the

11:17:45 heartburn I'm having, how do we go forward, not just with

11:17:49 new violators, quote-unquote, or those that are already

11:17:54 chronic violators?

11:17:55 Because if we are not going to capture them, had it's going

11:17:57 to make it a little bit less effective.

11:17:59 I'm not talking about those that are already in the court

11:18:02 system, those that are already in our enforcement system.

11:18:06 >>ERNEST MUELLER: I have to think about that because you

11:18:10 are correct.

11:18:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I want to make sure the language is clear

11:18:14 and strong as it can, so those folks that are already

11:18:17 violators don't skate because we have changed this, that

11:18:21 they are -- that they are held accountable for it.

11:18:26 We can think about that in a moment.

11:18:27 But I want to point something out to you.

11:18:29 One of the things that Mr. Reddick brought up and something

11:18:32 that I think we talked about before, which is there are

11:18:37 circumstances of people, that become chronic violators from

11:18:41 no fault of their own, or because of conditions they are in.

11:18:45 Mrs. Montelione mentioned some aspects of that.

11:18:47 And what I think as part of the definition of what a chronic

11:18:52 violator is, we may want to put exception in terms of those

11:18:57 folks that are elderly, veterans, people that are currently

11:19:02 serving in the military.

11:19:04 There may be a lot of other factors.

11:19:05 One of the things that I think we can look at is the

11:19:07 property appraiser has an entire list of people that they

11:19:12 exempt property taxes on by virtue of some of these things

11:19:15 and I'll read some of them to you.

11:19:17 Veterans disabilities.

11:19:18 Okay.

11:19:19 They have goat a discount for veterans, combat related

11:19:22 disability.

11:19:22 I think those can be rolled into one.

11:19:25 Someone that is a widow or widower.

11:19:27 Someone that is active military.

11:19:30 Those with a service-connected total and permanent

11:19:33 disability.

11:19:34 And again all these can be defined.

11:19:36 Or we can just go reference those that are on the property

11:19:40 appraiser's Web site.

11:19:43 With the spouse of the military or first responder who has

11:19:48 been killed, and citizens 65 years of age or older.

11:19:54 Those are, I think, examples of some of the exemptions we

11:19:57 can do for chronic violators.

11:20:00 A component of that might be part of it.

11:20:02 But I do think that we need to really look at that so that

11:20:05 we are not capturing those folks that have mitigating

11:20:08 factors, that we are putting them into the code enforcement

11:20:13 system, and it would be not only difficult for them to pay

11:20:19 code enforcement or be able to meet the code enforcement but

11:20:23 in addition I think is an unconscionable act by the city if

11:20:27 we did that.

11:20:28 I think we need to tighten up some of the language on that

11:20:31 for the exemption, but also put a little bit more teeth in,

11:20:35 and I know that you wrote this as broadly as possible so

11:20:37 that we can have as much input as possible in it.

11:20:40 And I appreciate you doing that, because I think that we

11:20:43 need to be really hash through a lot of that so that we make

11:20:47 it as easy for you all to enforce it and not another burden

11:20:51 and another difficulty for you and code enforcement.

11:20:55 Thanks, chair.

11:20:55 >>ERNEST MUELLER: And I put it back up here because you

11:21:00 brought up a good point.

11:21:00 There's times where there is not going to be a notice.

11:21:04 So I changed it to be receive violation or notice of

11:21:08 violation.

11:21:08 >> That's essentially what I am talking about.

11:21:14 >>ERNEST MUELLER: And if I could real quick talk about the

11:21:16 time for window.

11:21:17 >>HARRY COHEN: I think we got that.

11:21:23 We understand that.

11:21:24 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Okay.

11:21:29 I just wanted to be clear.

11:21:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Cohen?

11:21:34 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

11:21:35 A couple of things.

11:21:36 I certainly am in support of this concept broadly.

11:21:40 And I am happy to support whatever motion the council thinks

11:21:44 would be appropriate regarding the time frame and the number

11:21:47 of violations.

11:21:49 There is nothing stopping us from creating one class of

11:21:53 chronic violator for a homesteaded property, and a different

11:21:56 one for non-homesteaded property with a different set of

11:22:00 penalties and criteria.

11:22:05 I have a great deal of difficulty with the concept that

11:22:08 Councilman Suarez is talking about.

11:22:12 And I understand exactly what his frustration is, I think,

11:22:16 and that is that it would be terrible to put this in place

11:22:18 and have people that have been violators sort of get a free

11:22:23 pass for whatever they have done in the past.

11:22:25 But we are considering taking these cases to Hillsborough

11:22:29 County criminal court, which means that a judge will have

11:22:35 the discretion to penalize offenders based upon the evidence

11:22:40 that they hear, and they could put someone potentially in

11:22:44 jail.

11:22:44 They would not got to prison.

11:22:45 It wouldn't be a long sentence.

11:22:47 But they could put them in jail for a limited period of

11:22:50 time.

11:22:50 And as a result, there is no way, I think, that we can put

11:22:57 something in place that doesn't start on the day that the

11:23:01 ordinance is passed.

11:23:02 I understand what Mr. Mueller is saying about the first

11:23:06 violation.

11:23:07 I don't think it allows a look back into the past year

11:23:09 because the offender was not on notice that their act might

11:23:13 put them in jeopardy of actually being incarcerated.

11:23:17 So I think that we would have a very big Constitutional

11:23:21 problem under the ipso facto clause in passing an ordinance

11:23:26 quite like that.

11:23:27 Beyond that, though, I certainly think that the day that the

11:23:30 ordinance becomes law, we ought to immediately start

11:23:33 counting and putting people on notice that they are now

11:23:38 counting toward the total.

11:23:43 So one other comment.

11:23:46 I think that if there is going to be an exception for

11:23:49 hardship here, it should be narrow rather than broad.

11:23:53 And I thought Councilwoman Montelione's suggestion of income

11:23:58 verification process might be appropriate.

11:24:01 What concerns me about broadening the category beyond

11:24:06 anything directly income related, talk about widow and

11:24:09 widowers, a rich widow or widower should not be exempt from

11:24:13 having to keep their property in line with the code.

11:24:18 And since most code violations or many are really a public

11:24:21 safety issue, and a nuisance issue, I don't think it's

11:24:28 appropriate to give people dispensation for any other reason

11:24:32 that they can't afford to make the repair.

11:24:34 So those are just a few comments on the item.

11:24:38 Thank you.

11:24:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Cohen, I guess there's only two of

11:24:45 us that are married -- and not to each other.

11:24:49 I want to say that.

11:24:50 [ Laughter ] so who is next?

11:24:57 Anyone else?

11:25:00 Ms. Capin and Mr. Reddick.

11:25:02 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Very good points brought up.

11:25:06 I agree.

11:25:06 When I heard that about the past violations, I thought the

11:25:09 same thing.

11:25:09 I thought I would say, well, I have no idea that this was

11:25:14 coming.

11:25:15 It's not even here.

11:25:17 So, yes, I would definitely agree.

11:25:21 An income verification is very important because we talk a

11:25:23 lot about elderly.

11:25:25 There's rich elderly.

11:25:26 There's young people that are suffering.

11:25:28 There's family people, young family people that are in dire

11:25:32 straits.

11:25:33 I haven't been employed for a long time.

11:25:35 So I agree with that also.

11:25:38 Of course, elderly don't have -- you know, past time of

11:25:45 employment and that's a consideration.

11:25:47 I want to ask something here as far as the same code.

11:25:53 Because if you violate under one code and you fix it, then

11:25:57 it's no longer there.

11:25:59 Correct?

11:26:02 You were noticed.

11:26:03 And that was a violation.

11:26:07 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Let's say you need to repair the roof,

11:26:11 with that particular code section.

11:26:13 If you repaired the roof then presumably you wouldn't have

11:26:15 to be -- if you repaired the whole roof not again for a

11:26:20 while.

11:26:21 If you repaired a portion of the roof then potentially you

11:26:24 could get hit with the same one again.

11:26:27 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Okay.

11:26:30 But it is subjective and we do have to be careful with that.

11:26:33 And like I said, you know, screens on your windows can be a

11:26:37 code violation, and half of South Tampa would be under --

11:26:43 society I want to nobody that, if it's fixed then it's no

11:26:47 longer a violation.

11:26:53 If you are noticed and you fix it.

11:26:55 >> If you are asking whether they fix it, do they somehow

11:26:58 fall out of the -- what could be a potential for a chronic

11:27:02 violator?

11:27:02 The answer would be no.

11:27:03 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Okay, thank you.

11:27:08 And I also think that I tend to favor the longer term, the

11:27:13 one-year, less violations and notice which would be three.

11:27:18 So it gives you a real tight on the -- a year to catch up

11:27:26 with them.

11:27:28 I'm favoring that if that's considered.

11:27:30 And that's all I have to say.

11:27:32 Thank you very much.

11:27:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.

11:27:34 Mr. Reddick, and Mrs. Montelione.

11:27:37 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Chair, I will hold off until the

11:27:43 public wishes to speak.

11:27:45 Basically all I want to do is make a motion to move forward.

11:27:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mrs. Montelione?

11:27:50 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I was looking over some notes that I

11:27:52 think we all received.

11:27:54 I believe these came from John Jones last time we talked

11:27:58 about code enforcement.

11:27:59 And thereby was one suggestion that he made here that I

11:28:03 don't know if it's possible, or if we can do this, but I

11:28:07 think it might be a good one.

11:28:13 When we have someone who is a chronic violator, who has been

11:28:17 to court, and repeatedly becomes a chronic violator, so we

11:28:24 have got, you know, kind of a merry-go-round or a -- of this

11:28:32 particular person or entity, because it could be an

11:28:37 investment firm, could we refuse to make utility or water

11:28:45 hookups to that property, if they are continually found to

11:28:48 be a chronic violator?

11:28:51 So you have a chronic violator, right?

11:28:53 And then a chronic violator again.

11:28:57 And then they are a chronic violator again.

11:29:00 And over a period of three years, they have been to court

11:29:05 ten times.

11:29:07 Obviously they are not learning their lesson.

11:29:09 >> Legal would not be in a position to try to address that

11:29:15 right now.

11:29:15 I would want to talk with our people that work with --

11:29:19 >>LISA MONTELIONE: It's just one of the suggestions that he

11:29:21 had, and I think it came from John.

11:29:23 Submitted awhile back, and thought that maybe that might be

11:29:29 something to explore.

11:29:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.

11:29:30 Let me just say this, and then I yield to Mr. Reddick.

11:29:35 What I see here something like what I do in my other life,

11:29:39 however, this idea with statutes and rules and notice of

11:29:46 violation in the past year, from hear forward, I guess you

11:29:49 get a violation now, you have a year from this date calendar

11:29:52 year, see if you don't get another one.

11:29:55 But the first violation is so much and that's spelled out.

11:29:57 I wish it were spelled out.

11:29:59 The second violation increases.

11:30:00 And the third violation really increases.

11:30:03 I don't know if that's spelled out, if you are taking some

11:30:06 of these to court.

11:30:06 If we use this or something similar I think the amount

11:30:12 should be spelled out.

11:30:13 The first violation is so much.

11:30:14 The second violation is an increase.

11:30:16 And the third violation triples.

11:30:19 And then if they don't pay, it's put onto their ad valorem

11:30:23 tax bills like was discussed earlier.

11:30:25 So we have got to stop the backlog somehow.

11:30:28 Whatever we are doing now is not fool paragraph because we

11:30:32 are not doing it.

11:30:35 The system is broke somewhere.

11:30:37 And that's my only comments.

11:30:39 And I'm looking for some direction from the legal

11:30:41 department.

11:30:44 Should you spell out in this chronic violation section what

11:30:46 the fees are, what the penalties are, what they should be?

11:30:50 >> Again, what's going as a notice to appear, it isn't going

11:30:57 to be like a civil citation.

11:30:58 Notice to appear will go from municipal ordinance violation.

11:31:01 And that's really when we determine what the be fine will

11:31:06 be,.

11:31:07 >> But if we appear before a judge with nothing in there,

11:31:10 what is the judge going to say?

11:31:12 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Well, if we are at this point -- and Mr.

11:31:14 Schmidt had to leave, who is our prosecutor, and I can talk

11:31:18 with him about it, but I would think we would be asking for

11:31:20 the maximum fine each time.

11:31:22 There wouldn't be a tier because when this kicks in, we are

11:31:25 talking about if you go three in one year, and that's what I

11:31:29 am kind of hearing, or three in six months, come that third

11:31:32 one, you are in court.

11:31:33 That's the third time you have been in violation.

11:31:36 So we would be asking for the maximum.

11:31:38 Again, the maximum is $500 at this time that the statutes

11:31:43 allow.

11:31:44 >> So then you are saying that all of the same, first

11:31:46 violation, second violation, third violation.

11:31:48 >> As a chronic violator.

11:31:51 >> So there's nab way of increasing it from the first one

11:31:54 double to triple.

11:31:55 >> No.

11:31:56 Again, the real thing, the notice to appear, the impact is,

11:32:01 you are going to court.

11:32:02 You are standing in front of a judge, and you are explaining

11:32:05 the violation.

11:32:08 And with the maximum fine of $500.

11:32:12 >> Let me ask you this, sir.

11:32:17 $there's 500 the most we can do by this city or by law.

11:32:23 >> No.

11:32:24 500.

11:32:25 We have got to get the legislature to try and open that up.

11:32:30 I do think that's a little bit old like 70s numbers, lake

11:32:35 1985 dollars. We need to bring it up to try to get the

11:32:38 legislature to increase that.

11:32:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I would be inclined to double and triple

11:32:43 if possible.

11:32:45 That way if they don't pay within 30 days it goes on the tax

11:32:48 bill and somebody else can buy the -- if they don't want to

11:32:52 pay then it gets sold however the process is.

11:32:56 And then somebody pays the taxes, they have got to be pay

11:32:58 not only that, they have to be pay the interest on it.

11:33:02 But I yield to bright ideas.

11:33:05 >>HARRY COHEN: I ask a question along the line that Mr.

11:33:09 Miranda is pursuing. By creating a chronic violator,

11:33:13 category, does that alone -- because it's a separate

11:33:21 violation -- by having three violations, you are now labeled

11:33:24 a chronic violator, you have a separate violation as a

11:33:29 chronic violator.

11:33:29 >>ERNEST MUELLER: The idea is it's a procedure, it's a

11:33:33 process that's going to say once you hit this, you don't go

11:33:37 to the Code Enforcement Board.

11:33:38 You don't get a civil citation.

11:33:40 You are going to court.

11:33:42 Going to mandate which tool we use.

11:33:48 >>MIKE COHEN: Cohen I understand.

11:33:49 That but by becoming a chronic violator and violating three

11:33:52 times, would that somehow exempt it from the $500 limit?

11:33:56 That's what I'm asking.

11:33:58 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Because we aren't going to have a

11:34:00 violation that says you are a chronic violator.

11:34:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Anyone else before I go to the public?

11:34:09 This is a workshop.

11:34:13 Public, three minutes on item 6 part 1 and part 2.

11:34:19 >> Pete Johnson, Harrison street.

11:34:22 I only have three minutes but I want to thank this City

11:34:24 Council because it is the first City Council in the last 20

11:34:27 years that has even taken up this subject.

11:34:30 The problem of repetitive violators is strictly due to one

11:34:35 thing.

11:34:39 We do not follow the state statute.

11:34:42 The statute reads that if a code officer finds a violation

11:34:48 that they shall have a hearing.

11:34:53 So the whole process is illegal.

11:34:58 And the state statute tells us exactly how to do the

11:35:03 process.

11:35:04 The second thing is, you put in a violation.

11:35:14 Here is one that has had accumulation problems several tames

11:35:18 within one year.

11:35:22 So, you know, if you only limit it to six months, or two in

11:35:29 one year, okay, let's say a year, we have a repetitive

11:35:32 problem.

11:35:43 Here is one that goes on for years and years and years.

11:35:46 They fix it.

11:35:46 In a problem.

11:35:48 Never brought to a hearing.

11:35:50 That's why the statute reads that they shall have a hearing.

11:36:00 No other community in the State of Florida has a repetitive

11:36:05 code violation ordinance.

11:36:10 Why should Tampa have to change the process?

11:36:15 Why can't Tampa just enforce those statutes?

11:36:21 I'm sorry.

11:36:22 We need a diversion.

11:36:23 And a comment that was made to me was, at least in the last

11:36:29 diversion that Joyce Stevens managed and handled perfectly,

11:36:35 was because of corruption.

11:36:38 Well, that's the administrative problem.

11:36:41 That is not the citizens' problem.

11:36:45 I'm sorry.

11:36:46 That diversion program worked.

11:36:48 I worked it.

11:36:49 I saw it work.

11:36:51 And it was done in the most professional, record-keeping

11:36:55 way, and we should return to it.

11:37:01 My last comment is, all of this is great talk, but unless

11:37:07 the administration shows some improvement, and number one,

11:37:14 by the state statute.

11:37:16 Number two, stop closing cases that are not complying, or

11:37:20 that cannot be proven that they have complied.

11:37:23 And developed a diversion programs lake we have with Joyce

11:37:28 Stevens.

11:37:28 Thank you all.

11:37:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thanks very much.

11:37:30 Anyone else in the audience care to speak on item number 6?

11:37:35 Okay.

11:37:36 Council, what's -- we made some recommendations.

11:37:39 Mr. Reddick?

11:37:40 >>FRANK REDDICK: Let me ask Mr. Mule area question to move

11:37:48 forward.

11:37:50 And maybe somebody might know this.

11:37:53 What is the income guideline, what is that?

11:38:00 Does anybody know?

11:38:03 >> I really don't know.

11:38:05 >>FRANK REDDICK: I know it's 10,000.

11:38:09 Is it 10,000, $12,000?

11:38:15 >> Let me get it.

11:38:20 It's on my desk.

11:38:25 >> Well, let me ask you one other question.

11:38:36 Those people that are cited, say as chronic violators, could

11:38:43 we put their pictures on our Web site?

11:38:52 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Again kind of contemplated that H.but

11:38:56 wouldn't site them as a chronic violator.

11:38:59 If they meet the criteria for chronic violator, it still

11:39:03 gets taken to court.

11:39:04 They are cited as a chronic violator.

11:39:06 >>FRANK REDDICK: And --

11:39:12 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Again I can't speak don't that right now.

11:39:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mrs. Montelione?

11:39:16 >>LISA MONTELIONE: This information was provided to me from

11:39:20 the Tampa Housing Authority at a meeting yesterday.

11:39:24 2013 income limits for Tampa, Hillsborough, for one person,

11:39:31 income category 80% below, which would be 31,850.

11:39:36 Two people, 36,400.

11:39:39 Three people, 40,950.

11:39:42 Four is 45,450.

11:39:45 Five is 49,100.

11:39:48 And six is 52,750.

11:39:52 That's household.

11:39:53 If there are four people in the household and the income of

11:39:58 the persons providing for the family, their combined incomes

11:40:02 of people providing for the family is 40,950, you are 80%

11:40:08 below the MSA and considered low income.

11:40:17 Very low income is 50%.

11:40:19 And then there's extremely low income.

11:40:21 So I would just pass this around.

11:40:25 Maybe if you look at it, it makes more sense.

11:40:28 >>HARRY COHEN: And you could apply different criteria to

11:40:33 homesteaded or not-homesteaded property.

11:40:38 >>MARY MULHERN: I was just going to ask Mr. Mueller and Mr.

11:40:43 Slater to address Mr. Johnson's question about why we don't

11:40:50 bring these code violations to the Code Enforcement Board.

11:40:56 >>ERNEST MUELLER: I can address a little bit of that.

11:40:58 Again, our Code Enforcement Board, code enforcement

11:41:02 magistrate, remember, they are volunteers.

11:41:05 They take time out of their day.

11:41:07 They come here.

11:41:09 The board is compliance driven.

11:41:12 Special magistrates are compliance driven.

11:41:15 So if it's already been decided they are in compliance the

11:41:23 case prayer, we aren't going to have them sit there, here a

11:41:27 case that's already been complied.

11:41:29 Plus people that come down, remember there's individuals, if

11:41:34 something happens, they don't get it done in time but they

11:41:37 do get it done before the hearing, then the first-time

11:41:39 violation, they have to come down here, pay for parking,

11:41:42 they do all of that.

11:41:44 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

11:41:46 Doing what we can.

11:41:47 I think today we just have to go forward.

11:41:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I asked Mrs. Saul-Sena to come and make

11:41:51 a little thing here about an art show.

11:41:54 And I don't want to belabor but she's got a place to be.

11:41:57 Mr. Reddick?

11:41:59 >>FRANK REDDICK: I would like to make a motion that -- I

11:42:03 would like to move that violators who have received three

11:42:07 violations in the past year, within a year time frame, for

11:42:14 violation of city code section, directed to court

11:42:28 provisions, review of the court, and also include exception

11:42:33 to nonhomestead property owners as well as families who

11:42:39 meet -- and I don't want to use the term federal guide lanes

11:42:43 because I think it's lower than what I am reading hear --

11:42:49 that meet the federal poverty guidelines.

11:42:51 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Can I ask you a question to make sure I

11:42:54 am understanding you?

11:42:55 Is that only for the homestead property?

11:42:59 Again, it's a little hard to factor in the figures to this.

11:43:06 So, in other words, if they have homestead property, but

11:43:09 make more than the poverty line, do you plan on counting it?

11:43:13 I don't recommend putting in those types of figures.

11:43:16 I think it's just a matter for the homestead --

11:43:20 >>MARY MULHERN: I think we were talking about the

11:43:22 diversion.

11:43:24 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Right.

11:43:24 But ware not here on the diversion.

11:43:26 We are hear on the creating of a definition for a chronic

11:43:30 violator.

11:43:31 So what I am saying is I can't tell if you are trying to

11:43:34 say, okay, we are going to exempt the homestead property,

11:43:37 but only if you make so much money.

11:43:41 >>FRANK REDDICK: Where I was going, to get in there the

11:43:45 part about those who might be on limited income.

11:43:50 I want you to -- the federal poverty guide lanes which I

11:43:54 think is far less than what I am reading hear.

11:43:57 And I don't have that information with me.

11:44:02 And that's what the motion was going.

11:44:05 And the last part, and all fees that are collected from code

11:44:14 enforcement violators be directed to the diversion program.

11:44:18 >>HARRY COHEN: I think I would like to make a suggestion

11:44:24 that we define chronic violator for homestead and

11:44:27 nonhomestead separately, so that we are clear on what the

11:44:31 criteria are for being a repeat violator for homestead, and

11:44:35 what they are for nonhomestead.

11:44:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Is a violator still in violation?

11:44:42 I don't understand why --

11:44:43 >>HARRY COHEN: I think the difference is that the income

11:44:46 issue is relevant to the homesteaded property.

11:44:49 I'm not sure that it's relevant to the nonhomesteaded

11:44:52 property.

11:44:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: A party can have 20 properties and still

11:44:58 make under $40,000 if you are not counting the property.

11:45:00 I don't know.

11:45:01 You got me confused.

11:45:02 >>HARRY COHEN: I'll defer to the maker of the motion.

11:45:06 I'm just throwing it out there.

11:45:07 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I have the same issue.

11:45:10 Can we fit it all into one, or are we making it two separate

11:45:14 issues hear of nonhomesteaded with an income level, and I do

11:45:20 believe that those incomes might be corrected because that's

11:45:23 a HUD program which is a federal program.

11:45:27 So the Tampa Housing Authority, it does seem hey,.

11:45:37 So I defer to ow.

11:45:38 But I would like to fit it all in one, but will it work?

11:45:43 >>FRANK REDDICK: And ask legal if it will work fish we put

11:45:46 it all into one.

11:45:48 >>ERNEST MUELLER: I don't think so.

11:45:51 Remember, we were going to have a code enforcement officer

11:45:54 doing an investigation, going to look back and see how many

11:45:56 violations there are.

11:45:58 He's not going to be able to discern what someone's income

11:46:01 is.

11:46:02 And what we want to do is focus on the status of chronic

11:46:06 violators, and create that.

11:46:11 Again, Mr. Miranda, the reason we are putting in homestead,

11:46:16 nonhomestead, and we talked about this.

11:46:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I was listening to you.

11:46:23 I was in this little room, real close.

11:46:29 >>ERNEST MUELLER: The homestead manual is one way of trying

11:46:33 to carve out who doesn't want to do it to those who can't

11:46:36 afford to do it, and with the presumption that people are

11:46:39 going to try to keep the place they live in in good

11:46:42 condition.

11:46:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Before I go to Mr. Suarez, let me say

11:46:46 this.

11:46:46 Why it did I say that?

11:46:48 First of all, you already have those nonhomesteaded

11:46:51 properties being checked unfairly because you don't check

11:46:56 them every year.

11:46:56 You pay for them to be checked but you only check them once

11:47:00 every three years.

11:47:01 Am I correct?

11:47:03 What do you think nonhomesteaded property is?

11:47:07 >>ERNEST MUELLER: I don't know if all nonhomesteaded

11:47:09 property is rented out.

11:47:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: But in theory nonhomesteaded property

11:47:13 is -- the rental has to be a certain portion of it.

11:47:19 We are paying, all of us, property tax, whether you are

11:47:23 homesteaded or not homesteaded.

11:47:25 But now we are going to use aside instead of all together.

11:47:32 When you look at what we are doing, the government doesn't

11:47:34 care if you have it or don't have it.

11:47:36 You pay a tax based on the value of that home.

11:47:38 So now here we are saying, oh, wait a minute.

11:47:42 We ain't going to treat you that way.

11:47:45 We are going to treat you differently based on income.

11:47:47 It's not based that way.

11:47:48 The whole ramification of paying your taxes is paying your

11:47:51 taxes, based on the value of the home.

11:47:55 They don't check homesteaded properties.

11:47:57 We only check nonhomesteaded properties.

11:48:00 And yet we are we are already creating -- treating them

11:48:05 differently because the inspector should have gone there and

11:48:07 at that time seen what violations there are.

11:48:09 So they should already be somewhere.

11:48:11 But they are not, I guess.

11:48:12 I don't know.

11:48:14 Mr. Suarez?

11:48:15 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, chair.

11:48:17 You know, on the income aspects of it -- and this is again

11:48:20 back to what the property appraiser does -- and this is

11:48:25 specifically those that are 65 years of age or older.

11:48:27 Butt what be they do is the resident must receive homestead

11:48:31 exemption, the annual household income limitation is the

11:48:35 adjusted gross income as defined by the U.S. internal

11:48:38 revenue code, the income threshold is adjusted annually by

11:48:42 the average cost of living index.

11:48:44 Now, again, because you have a homesteaded property, it puts

11:48:47 you in a different, I think, a different category than

11:48:50 someone that is only on the poverty line, because the

11:48:54 chances of -- and again, this is just a speculation on my

11:48:57 part -- of you being that below the poverty line and also

11:49:03 having a homesteaded home is probably less unless you have

11:49:07 inherited the home, and there may be some other issues, too.

11:49:11 But I think if we can just use some of the language that's

11:49:14 already there and make it a little easier for us as opposed

11:49:17 to trying to reinvent the wheel.

11:49:19 That's the only suggestion I am going to make.

11:49:22 >>FRANK REDDICK: Then amend to the nonhomesteaded

11:49:25 exemption, homesteaded properties.

11:49:29 >> If I am understanding, three --

11:49:42 >>FRANK REDDICK: Three and within a year time zone.

11:49:44 >> One year.

11:49:46 >>FRANK REDDICK: Right.

11:49:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Ms. Mulhern?

11:49:53 >> Is that the same violation?

11:49:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Is that the same house or different

11:49:57 houses? If somebody has different houses that that are

11:50:00 nonhomesteaded.

11:50:01 Hear again, though, sir, they all have different addresses.

11:50:05 Does it mean if you have a violation in one, two, and three,

11:50:09 is that considered three violations or one violation in each

11:50:12 address? You have got to be clear.

11:50:15 >>ERNEST MUELLER: What you have defined is three violations

11:50:17 total.

11:50:18 You are talking about the violator, not the address.

11:50:20 So if you have three violations, one on three different

11:50:24 nonhomestead properties, within the past year, they would

11:50:28 qualify as a chronic violator pursuant to the motion that

11:50:32 Mr. Reddick just made.

11:50:34 It would qualify as a chronic violator, even though the

11:50:38 violations were on different properties.

11:50:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And you think that's going to pass the

11:50:44 muster of the court?

11:50:45 >> Yes, I believe that status -- what we are doing is

11:50:53 directing them.

11:50:54 They are not being cited as a chronic violator.

11:50:58 The chronic violator status directs which tool we are going

11:51:01 to use.

11:51:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have Ms. Muscle American and Mrs.

11:51:04 Montelione.

11:51:04 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I am just going to go along with what --

11:51:07 I would like to hear from our other attorney here and I'll

11:51:10 go along.

11:51:10 >>HARRY COHEN: I think Councilman Miranda raises a very

11:51:17 interesting question.

11:51:17 It's a much more difficult question than the one we were

11:51:21 talking about earlier but I see where he's gone here.

11:51:23 If you get three violations simultaneously on three separate

11:51:28 properties, and feigned yourself in court, you know, it's a

11:51:37 narrower problem but I can see.

11:51:38 It would certainly be cleaner to make it on the same

11:51:41 property.

11:51:41 That would definitely specify that it be on the same

11:51:46 property.

11:51:46 >>LISA MONTELIONE: There's one thing before I get into this

11:51:53 discussion that you just brought up, is we didn't say

11:51:57 whether it was for the same section of the code or if it was

11:52:03 any section of the code.

11:52:04 So in looking at Ernie's visual hear, we have got three

11:52:09 violations, one-year period, so the next line is the same or

11:52:15 any city code sections.

11:52:18 >>FRANK REDDICK: Well, I was going the same --

11:52:24 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So if you can make it the same.

11:52:26 There we go.

11:52:27 Okay.

11:52:27 Now, and I understand -- I guess that's what I am going to

11:52:34 get to, the "any."

11:52:37 And I understand the difficulty of what Mr. Miranda brought

11:52:39 up, what Mr. Cohen was talking about, that if on the same

11:52:42 day, I have got three houses, I'm an investor and all three

11:52:49 houses are adjacent to one another, and they all say they

11:52:57 are mowing or accumulations.

11:53:00 Well, if all three houses get violated the same day, then

11:53:05 I'm automatically a chronic offender.

11:53:08 The beauty I see in that is it puts you into the court

11:53:16 system, and you will know that you cannot let your

11:53:24 properties go unattended, and you cannot let your

11:53:30 maintenance go unchecked, and you will not be in that

11:53:35 situation again.

11:53:36 And I think it will nip at the bud, as my mother would say,

11:53:43 any fought problems, because they know.

11:53:48 If it's the same property, and you have got those three

11:53:50 houses all in a row, they could clean up the one, and not be

11:53:56 a chronic violator, but not clean up the next two.

11:54:00 Or they can clean up two and not the third.

11:54:05 So I think now you get into a shell game.

11:54:10 Okay, this month I am going to clean this property.

11:54:12 Next month I am going to clean the other property.

11:54:15 And they continually violate the code as a matter of

11:54:19 business, but they are not being responsible for the

11:54:24 neighborhood that their properties are located in.

11:54:28 So I would say any properties.

11:54:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That's fine.

11:54:31 I have Mr. Cohen.

11:54:32 >>HARRY COHEN: You know, you are absolutely right.

11:54:34 Everything you said is absolutely right.

11:54:37 I totally agree with you.

11:54:38 However, however, the objection that was raised about this

11:54:42 is not the substance of what you said.

11:54:45 It whether or not it creates a notice problem.

11:54:49 It's whether or not it creates a notice problem that would

11:54:51 cause the statute to be challenged.

11:54:55 And I just -- and I don't nobody what the result would be,

11:54:59 but I think it's cleaner to do it on the same property,

11:55:03 because then you are not going to have any ambiguity

11:55:06 whatsoever,.

11:55:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me site this before I continue.

11:55:09 Every property has got a folio number.

11:55:12 Every property has got an address that matches that folio

11:55:15 number.

11:55:16 You have got to understand -- I'm not saying it works or

11:55:20 doesn't work.

11:55:21 But you present a case where you are the third violator on

11:55:24 three different folio numbers that don't match.

11:55:27 I don't know.

11:55:28 I'm not a lawyer.

11:55:29 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I say don't be timid.

11:55:36 I say let's go for it.

11:55:38 We can't live in fear of litigation all the time.

11:55:46 I think it's time to make some bold steps and that we don't

11:55:50 say, well, maybe this might not work, we might get sued,

11:55:55 let's go for it and let's test it and let's see if this

11:55:58 works.

11:55:58 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Remember I'm telling you, I told you so.

11:56:01 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I understand that.

11:56:04 >>MARY MULHERN: I was going to go with let's stick with the

11:56:11 one property.

11:56:12 Now you are saying -- I think we should stick with one

11:56:15 property.

11:56:17 I would support the motion that when do that H.three

11:56:21 violations one year, same property.

11:56:22 >>FRANK REDDICK: That's what we have now.

11:56:25 These what we have up there now.

11:56:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Anything else?

11:56:33 Anything else?

11:56:35 We will restate the motion.

11:56:39 Maker of the motion.

11:56:40 Mr. Reddick.

11:56:41 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Chair, the motion is any violator that

11:56:51 receives three violations in the past year for violation of

11:56:53 the same, code section the same, nonhomestead property,

11:56:58 located in the City of Tampa, submitted to criminal court

11:57:04 for the court review.

11:57:05 >> Second.

11:57:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion by Mr. Reddick.

11:57:08 Second by Mr. Cohen on a very close vote with Mrs. Capin.

11:57:12 And I mean 100th of a second.

11:57:17 Any further discussion by council members? All in favor of

11:57:20 the motion indicate by saying aye.

11:57:22 Opposed nay.

11:57:23 Motion passes unanimously.

11:57:25 Okay.

11:57:25 >> Also, as we often do, if we could, you are going to bring

11:57:33 this back as an ordinance.

11:57:36 I would ask that we set a report to be received a year from

11:57:42 the time of the passage of that ordinance and put that on

11:57:47 the calendar.

11:57:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We don't know whether the ordinance will

11:57:53 pass.

11:57:53 It could be sometime in December.

11:57:55 >>LISA MONTELIONE: December 14 understood staff reports.

11:57:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Cohen, you are the man.

11:58:02 >>LISA MONTELIONE: 2014 under staff reports.

11:58:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion by Mrs. Montelione, seconded by

11:58:10 Mrs. Mulhern.

11:58:10 All in favor? Opposed?

11:58:12 The ayes have it unanimously.

11:58:13 Yes, sir?

11:58:14 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Just a quick remainder as you say, I will

11:58:17 get this written in and then be part of a big overhaul of

11:58:20 chapter 9.

11:58:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We understand.

11:58:24 Thank you.

11:58:24 Anyone else who has not spoken who cares to speak on this

11:58:27 item? New business report, information report by council

11:58:32 members.

11:58:36 We have part 2.

11:58:37 I thought we did part 1 and part 2, but part 2.

11:58:42 I have a motion for annal additional 15 minutes by Mr.

11:58:44 Cohen, seconded by Mrs. Montelione.

11:58:46 Further discussion by council members?

11:58:47 All in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye.

11:58:52 Opposed? The ayes have it unanimously.

11:58:54 Part 2.

11:58:54 >>JAKE SLATER: Part 2, have administration appear and

11:59:03 report regarding renter versus landlords.

11:59:06 We realize that the rental properties and the absentee

11:59:10 landlords is a continuing problem in the City of Tampa.

11:59:13 The last couple months we had a chance to be actually take a

11:59:16 look at our overall enforcement process, and try to develop

11:59:19 ways to better address that.

11:59:25 Effective about two weeks ago we have been issuing notices

11:59:27 to both the landlord and the tenant, not a citation, but an

11:59:34 actual notice for the violations occurring on properties.

11:59:38 That million give us the ample time to pursue investigations

11:59:44 on the overall violations and to get both parties to

11:59:49 actually tell us what their roles are.

11:59:51 So that's the current policy.

11:59:54 Rental properties, issue notice to both the landlord and the

11:59:58 tenant to pursue additional investigative processes and

12:00:03 techniques.

12:00:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mrs. Montelione?

12:00:07 >>LISA MONTELIONE: That's the current process on the

12:00:09 notices.

12:00:10 But if they are found in violation, are the landlords

12:00:16 notified that the tenant has been found in violation?

12:00:23 >>JAKE SLATER: If the investigation reveals both the

12:00:26 landlord and tenant are responsible for both of the

12:00:29 violations, the roofing case, and the landlord's

12:00:35 responsibility but there's a couch in the carport, or a

12:00:39 vehicle which belongs to an attendant, both parties will be

12:00:43 issued a civil citation.

12:00:49 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So, Mr. Mauler, when we talked about

12:00:53 this, when we had our last workshop or last report on code

12:01:00 enforcement, I thought we were told that that was not the

12:01:04 case, that be both the landlord and the tenant were not

12:01:08 being notified and that the landlord and the tenant were not

12:01:10 being violated.

12:01:13 >>ERNEST MUELLER: We talked about that.

12:01:14 I think what he's saying is this is what they are going to

12:01:17 be doing is notifying both.

12:01:18 >>LISA MONTELIONE: It's current policy but is that written

12:01:23 into our code?

12:01:24 >>JAKE SLATER: No, it's not.

12:01:25 That's policy.

12:01:26 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So I think we need to codify it.

12:01:31 Even being in the rules and procedures manual, so to speak,

12:01:35 that means that sometimes it could be done, and sometimes it

12:01:39 may not be done.

12:01:40 It's just policy.

12:01:44 It's not in our code.

12:01:46 And I think we need to put it in our code to make sure it

12:01:49 happens, and it happens on a regular basis.

12:01:51 >>JAKE SLATER: I didn't realize we had to put that in our

12:01:55 code.

12:01:56 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I would make a motion that we cod I if I

12:01:58 that policy.

12:01:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione.

12:02:01 Seconded by Mrs. Capin.

12:02:02 Let me add something.

12:02:03 When we notify someone, is it by registered certified mail

12:02:06 or just by mail?

12:02:08 >>JAKE SLATER: Certified.

12:02:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I want that the in there.

12:02:11 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Add that in the motion, that notice be

12:02:16 provided by registered and certified mail.

12:02:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We have that motion.

12:02:19 All in favor of the motion by Mrs. Montelione, seconded by

12:02:22 please Capin, signify by saying aye.

12:02:26 Opposed nay.

12:02:26 The ayes have it unanimously.

12:02:29 >>ERNEST MUELLER: The notice of violation be sent to both?

12:02:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Right.

12:02:32 >>LISA MONTELIONE: If it's just a notice, then they both

12:02:35 get it.

12:02:36 And if it's a violation, they both get it.

12:02:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Now let me say this.

12:02:40 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Because the landlord needs to be

12:02:42 notified that the tenant was in violation.

12:02:46 So the tenant receives a violation.

12:02:47 A copy of that violation is delivered to the landlord.

12:02:52 So then that way the landlord can call the tenant and say,

12:02:57 clean up your act or you are outta here.

12:03:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me ask the gentlemen a question.

12:03:03 Is there anything that we haven't discussed that you need to

12:03:07 be make your jobs easier and work?

12:03:12 So we can do it now.

12:03:13 >>JAKE SLATER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

12:03:16 You have heard me say that the code enforcement process is a

12:03:20 burdensome, long, difficult process to enforce.

12:03:25 And the criminal justice system, it's a heck of a lot

12:03:28 easier, but I think that the tools that we have, we have

12:03:33 three different ways to go.

12:03:34 We have a civil citation process.

12:03:36 We have the code process.

12:03:37 Now we have the criminal court process.

12:03:39 What the chronic offender program it's going to take

12:03:41 somebody work, as Ernie said.

12:03:46 Our inspectors are out there making these type of judgments

12:03:50 each and every day but in the last couple of your months

12:03:52 with your overall support has really helped us and has

12:03:55 really given us the tools.

12:03:56 We are actually looking into various types of programs,

12:03:59 working with the diversion program, to try to get that up

12:04:03 and running better right now.

12:04:10 We talked actually yesterday and asked to come back probably

12:04:12 in about six, to come up with an idea on that.

12:04:17 But we have the tools now.

12:04:19 Again, thank you for all your support and understanding

12:04:23 about the code enforcement process.

12:04:24 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

12:04:25 >>YVONNE CAPIN: And in the process if you think that there

12:04:32 is something new that could help, do not hesitate to come

12:04:36 forward and ask.

12:04:36 >>JAKE SLATER: Thank you.

12:04:39 We are in the process of actually training five solid waste

12:04:45 inspectors to handle code violations with us.

12:04:48 We are going to be hiring two more inspectors, seven

12:04:53 additional people which is about half of our staff almost.

12:04:56 So that's good.

12:04:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me say this.

12:04:58 I know this is -- the next one is a little harder.

12:05:03 We have hundreds, maybe thousands of homes in the City of

12:05:06 Tampa that are in violation, because through the process of

12:05:12 30, 40 years, they are sold, resold, sold, resold, we go

12:05:21 after the person that's there now.

12:05:23 That person didn't do it.

12:05:27 Sometime back somebody did it.

12:05:29 What I am lag for is help in trying to solve these problems,

12:05:32 because if they were done without inspection, I would

12:05:35 assume, since they were done within no notification, just on

12:05:42 weekend, weighed more violations on weekend than we have in

12:05:45 a month of Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Tuesdays and

12:05:49 Mondays, because that's when they do them.

12:05:53 How come we don't fine them until they are way past 30, 40

12:05:59 years, and you weren't hear doing during that.

12:06:02 But what I am saying is, if I see them, how come the rest of

12:06:05 the world doesn't see them?

12:06:07 What I'm lag for -- and I need your help -- is work on the

12:06:12 programs where these homes are inspected, and these people

12:06:15 very to pay for what they have done.

12:06:19 Somehow, in the real estate business wave to come up with

12:06:23 something when it's sold, I mean we are inspecting

12:06:27 everything but the cause.

12:06:29 The cause is whoever did it, we can't even feigned whoever

12:06:32 did it because now there's three different families living

12:06:35 there.

12:06:37 So how do we solve that problem?

12:06:39 Or do we just close our eyes and hope that nothing catches

12:06:42 fire and hope that nothing falls down by itself?

12:06:44 These are the things that bother me, the health, welfare

12:06:47 issues.

12:06:48 And it's very hard to solve this problem.

12:06:53 I'm asking for help.

12:06:54 You don't have to answer me today.

12:06:56 But I like to be see something done, the administration

12:07:00 working with this side, to work on something to have these

12:07:04 homes inspected, and if need be brought up to standards.

12:07:08 Maybe not necessarily changed.

12:07:10 It already there.

12:07:11 I can't tell somebody I am going to knock down half your

12:07:17 house.

12:07:17 The I don't have the heart to do that.

12:07:19 But in the same token he, we haven't found them for the last

12:07:23 20, 25 years, 30 years, 40 years.

12:07:26 And the same token they are collecting rent, so what I am

12:07:35 saying is you have multifamily and residential zoning, and

12:07:38 we are not complying, either way we just let life go on.

12:07:43 Somehow we have to work it out, and get this problem solved.

12:07:49 Maybe it's just me.

12:07:50 >>JAKE SLATER: Currently we treat those cases on a

12:07:56 complaint basis.

12:07:57 We do the rental inspections once every three years.

12:08:01 That's our current policy and procedure.

12:08:04 But you and I have talked in the past.

12:08:06 And we probably do need to come up with a better wait to do

12:08:09 the inspections on those properties.

12:08:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm not asking to solve it today.

12:08:13 I'm asking let's work it out between administration and this

12:08:16 body.

12:08:16 Yes, ma'am.

12:08:16 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I think we had a discussion about the

12:08:20 frequency of rental inspections coming up.

12:08:22 >>JAKE SLATER: Coming up on November 7th.

12:08:27 I'm not sure.

12:08:28 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And something I want to ask

12:08:30 construction.

12:08:31 Jake, when you and I drove around my neighborhood, two

12:08:35 houses down from my house, I reported and showed you a

12:08:39 second story that was put on a house without permit.

12:08:43 And I reported to code enforcement just a couple of weeks

12:08:49 ago, I gave them a list of all of the properties that are

12:08:53 either currently under construction with no permits, where

12:08:58 repairs are being made, renovations, what have you, and ones

12:09:02 that I had previously pointed out.

12:09:05 And I got an immediate response back, which was fabulous,

12:09:10 Sal Rogero and from our construction services John Barrios,

12:09:16 and I might add it was about 7:00 at nature when he

12:09:21 responded on a Friday, so very wonderful response and

12:09:23 attention from both of them.

12:09:25 However, I was told that with the ones that were ongoing,

12:09:30 they would cite those, take care of those right away, but

12:09:33 the ones that I pointed out that were already completed,

12:09:37 they said, well, you know, it looks lake it was done a

12:09:39 couple years ago, and I don't know if we can do anything

12:09:42 about it.

12:09:44 So I was kind of disheartened because it's only been since I

12:09:50 have been in office two years that that second story was put

12:09:53 on that house.

12:09:54 And I have reported it.

12:09:56 And there seems to be some disconnect that if they don't, if

12:10:02 it's not currently understood construction, they don't have

12:10:07 any impetus to really follow through with it, which I think

12:10:11 is what Mr. Miranda was talking about.

12:10:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Maybe we can't touch them.

12:10:15 I don't know.

12:10:15 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So I'm at a loss.

12:10:18 I mean, I saw that second story being put on without

12:10:22 permits.

12:10:23 With my own eyes.

12:10:24 I live two houses down from there.

12:10:26 And I'm being told that, well, there may not be anything we

12:10:30 can do.

12:10:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Cohen?

12:10:47 >>HARRY COHEN: Just to let everyone know, the discussion

12:10:50 that Councilwoman Montelione was referring to takes place on

12:10:53 January 9th at 10 a.m.

12:10:55 That's the discussion of a rental inspection program.

12:10:57 You might want to add as a scope of that discussion now this

12:11:04 item here.

12:11:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Calendar-man.

12:11:08 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Would you like to discuss it?

12:11:13 A motion then to discuss unpermitted structures, or

12:11:17 additions, renovations, that exist within the City of Tampa

12:11:21 on January 9th, under staff reports.

12:11:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione.

12:11:26 Second by Mr. Cohen.

12:11:30 All in favor of the motion? Opposed?

12:11:32 The ayes have it unanimously.

12:11:33 Okay.

12:11:37 Information reports and new business by council members

12:11:39 right to left.

12:11:40 Mr. Suarez.

12:11:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I think when Mrs. Saul-Sena was hear --

12:11:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Okay.

12:11:52 I'm sorry.

12:11:52 Yes, ma'am.

12:11:52 >> I'm Amy march.

12:11:57 The Tampa chamber is sponsoring a pop-up art sale across the

12:12:01 street at Tampa City Center.

12:12:03 And I think to encourage art from local artists.

12:12:09 We have several really great artists right across the

12:12:12 street.

12:12:12 So I would love to see you guys.

12:12:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Put it up.

12:12:19 We can't see it.

12:12:20 >>HARRY COHEN: For the television audience where is across

12:12:27 the street and what is the time?

12:12:29 >> It's at 2:00 today, and it's at Tampa City Center in the

12:12:35 lobby.

12:12:36 >>HARRY COHEN: Is that where the photographs are?

12:12:40 I recognized yours.

12:12:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That's me when I had hair, the one on

12:12:52 the right.

12:12:52 >> Thank you so much.

12:12:56 >> That was sweet and to the point.

12:13:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, chair.

12:13:03 I have a few new business items.

12:13:04 First I would like to make a motion to present a

12:13:07 commendation to the West Tampa Chamber of Commerce and Judeo

12:13:12 Christian clinic for their flavor of Tampa at MacFarlane

12:13:19 park.

12:13:19 This event is to raise awareness and funds for the Judeo

12:13:24 Christian health clinic.

12:13:25 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Second.

12:13:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: All in fair of the motion?

12:13:30 Opposed?

12:13:30 The ayes have it unanimously.

12:13:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I would like to make a motion also for

12:13:35 commendation to the original members of the Tampa Bay

12:13:37 International Super Task Force -- Frank Morsani, Victor

12:13:44 Leavengood, Robert Sharp, and the memory of Parke Wright

12:13:46 III, in his capacity as chairman, the commendation to be

12:13:48 presented at the World Trade Center, Tampa Bay's 7th

12:13:51 annual dinner being held November 5th at Palma Ceia

12:13:54 country golf and country club.

12:13:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion by Mr. Suarez, seconded by Mr.

12:13:58 Cohen and a close vote with Mrs. Capin.

12:14:01 The ayes have it unanimously.

12:14:03 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Two more, chair.

12:14:04 I have a commendation for an award of an Eagle Scout to

12:14:11 Austin Mark Regussa with Boy Scout troop number 46.

12:14:15 They are going to have an Eagle Court of Honor on this

12:14:19 Saturday, October 26th.

12:14:21 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Second.

12:14:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion by Mr. Suarez, second by Ms.

12:14:25 Capin. Please indicate by saying aye.

12:14:28 Opposed?

12:14:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Another Eagle Scout to Calas B. Shepherd,

12:14:37 also to receive his Eagle Scout award, troop number 46 this

12:14:41 Saturday, October 26th.

12:14:42 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Second.

12:14:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion by Mr. Suarez, second by Ms.

12:14:46 Capin. Discussion by council members?

12:14:49 All in favor?

12:14:51 Opposed?

12:14:51 The ayes have it unanimously.

12:14:53 Ms. Capin?

12:14:53 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I just want to -- kudos to the House, our

12:15:01 Congress is working.

12:15:02 The House approved $8.2 billion for water projects.

12:15:08 This is very, very huge.

12:15:10 Democrats united and Republicans overwhelmingly passed an

12:15:15 $8.2 billion House bill mapping out -- and this is why it's

12:15:19 so important to us here -- the plans for dams, harbor, river

12:15:25 navigation and other water projects for the upcoming decade.

12:15:29 The focus is on ways to strengthen our economy, called an

12:15:36 economic engine for jobs, and I just want to be say, you

12:15:42 know, after all that we have heard in the media, it's good

12:15:46 to see them moving forward on something that's so important

12:15:50 to be our structure, and our economy here in this area, and

12:15:54 all over the United States.

12:15:56 And I would like to see them work on transportation, which

12:15:59 is also job creation.

12:16:01 I just want to say kudos to our Congress.

12:16:04 >> Thank you.

12:16:06 >>FRANK REDDICK: Make a motion for commendation for One

12:16:17 Church One Child, 26th annual conference, Tampa, this

12:16:22 week.

12:16:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion by Mr. Reddick, seconded by Mr.

12:16:25 Cohen.

12:16:25 Further discussion by council members?

12:16:27 All in favor?

12:16:28 Opposed?

12:16:29 The ayes have it unanimously.

12:16:30 Thank you very much.

12:16:31 Mrs. Mulhern.

12:16:32 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

12:16:36 This is just an appeal in case anyone is listening.

12:16:40 I was really saddened to see just a few weeks after we heard

12:16:45 about the Jackson house and the leadership coming from Doug

12:16:50 Zellman and Marvin Knight and other people and Councilman

12:16:54 Saul-Sena, who was here briefly, I thought maybe was going

12:16:56 to talk about that, then both papers said it looks really

12:17:03 bad so this is an appeal to all of the -- anyone in the

12:17:06 community that has the ability to make some contribution,

12:17:10 trying to save the historic Jackson house rooming house,

12:17:14 whether you are a corporate person or whether even some of

12:17:20 the local radio stations, anyone who is involved in the

12:17:24 music business, that we try to save that wonderful part of

12:17:28 our history.

12:17:31 And I don't want to give up on it.

12:17:33 I just want to say.

12:17:34 That and I want to ask for a commendation.

12:17:37 This would be a commendation to give to the Spanish theater

12:17:44 who are on the occasion of a concert that they are

12:17:47 presenting of the music of maestro Ernesto LACONIA who is a

12:17:56 Cuban and former resident of Tampa who is a great composer

12:17:59 and actually wrote a song to Tampa called siesta en Tampa,

12:18:05 and Hillsborough Community College and Ybor City auditorium

12:18:09 is having a concert of his music.

12:18:12 And I wanted to present the Spanish lyric Rick theater we

12:18:15 are a commendation from City Council in memory of this

12:18:19 composer on December 1st.

12:18:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion by Mrs. Mulhern.

12:18:23 I have a second by Mr. Reddick.

12:18:24 All in favor of the motion?

12:18:26 Opposed?

12:18:27 The ayes have it unanimously.

12:18:28 Anything else?

12:18:30 Mr. Cohen?

12:18:30 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

12:18:32 I want to actually tack on to what Councilwoman Capin

12:18:36 brought up, because the water bill that was passed last

12:18:40 night was indeed very significant for our port.

12:18:44 But there is something else in thereby that is extremely

12:18:46 important, and it was directly inserted by Congresswoman

12:18:52 Kathy Castor, and that is language that would allow the

12:18:56 space below the Kennedy Boulevard bridge to be narrowed to,

12:19:00 the federal channels to be narrowed from 200 feet to 100

12:19:03 feet.

12:19:04 Why is that important?

12:19:05 Because as we are working to connect the Riverwalk and make

12:19:10 it contiguous, the bridge that needs to go under the Kennedy

12:19:13 Boulevard bridge would have actually jutted out into the

12:19:17 federal channel.

12:19:18 And by reducing the channel width back, the bridge is now

12:19:23 going to go under the bridge, and allow the entire thing to

12:19:26 be contiguous.

12:19:27 It would not have been able to be done without this act

12:19:32 being passed.

12:19:33 So thank you for bringing it up.

12:19:34 And thank you to the City of Tampa for working with our

12:19:37 Congresswoman Kathy Castor to get it done so we can all

12:19:41 enjoy the Riverwalk and the new Ulele Park all the way to

12:19:46 the history center.

12:19:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.

12:19:52 Great news.

12:19:53 >> I would like council to consider a commendation to CAIR

12:19:58 at the end of their annual event being held next Sunday.

12:20:01 >> second.

12:20:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion by Mrs. Montelione, second by

12:20:05 Mrs. Capin.

12:20:06 All in favor of the of the motion?

12:20:08 Opposed?

12:20:08 The ayes have it unanimously.

12:20:09 >> That's all.

12:20:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Any one of you 500 individuals to speak

12:20:16 three minutes? Motion to receive and file by Mr. Reddick.

12:20:20 Seconded by Mr. Suarez.

12:20:22 All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying guy.

12:20:25 Opposed nay. The ayes have it unanimously.

12:20:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I just needed to amend my motion concerning

12:20:29 the commendation of west Tampa chamber, to be presented here

12:20:33 at City Council on 11-7.

12:20:35 >> I have a motion to correct the motion.

12:20:36 I have a motion by Mr. Suarez.

12:20:38 Seconded by Mrs. Mulhern.

12:20:40 All in favor of that motion? Opposed? The ayes have it

12:20:43 unanimously.

12:20:43 Yes, sir.

12:20:43 >> Pete Johnson.

12:20:46 Thank you very much from the bottom of my heart.

12:20:50 This has been a project of mine for over 20 years, and one

12:20:54 comment that was made, hearing people, magistrates and so

12:21:01 forth are volunteers.

12:21:02 I have talked to every single one of them.

12:21:04 Not one of them has any problem in hearing violation cases.

12:21:11 Many of them have said, we do we not have more?

12:21:16 Okay?

12:21:16 So we are not taking advantage of these volunteers.

12:21:21 They want more cases.

12:21:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: More action, not more violators.

12:21:26 >> No, they want to hear more cases.

12:21:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That's what I am saying.

12:21:31 More cases of action, not more violators.

12:21:33 Thank you very much.

12:21:34 Anything else to come before this meeting?

12:21:44 We stand in recess till 5:30.



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.