Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

Tampa City Council meeting

Thursday, November 7, 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.


08:39:06 >> CHAIRMAN MIRANDA: City Council is called to order.

09:03:05 The chair yields to Mrs. Mary Mulhern.

09:03:08 >>MARY MULHERN: We are honored today to have Rabbi Joshua

09:03:10 Hearshen of Congregation Rodeph Sholom to perform our

09:03:15 morning invocation.

09:03:16 Congratulations are in order for Rabbi Hearshen who just

09:03:23 this past Sunday celebrated the official installation of the

09:03:26 110-year-old congregation.

09:03:28 And he's a lot younger than that.

09:03:36 >> Thank you very much.

09:03:40 Yesterday, whose time has already passed.

09:03:42 Today which is passing and will be no more.

09:03:45 And tomorrow, which is hidden from all comprehension.

09:03:49 These are words that were once said by the great rabbi, and

09:03:55 today as we sit in these sacred chambers, as leaders people

09:04:05 call on us to support them, to advocate for them and put to

09:04:10 their needs before our own.

09:04:16 As leaders we must be aware of the quote. We must know our

09:04:17 past and treasure it and honor it in our now.

09:04:21 We must plan for our future and be constantly aware of the

09:04:25 need to be prepared for any curve balls thrown our way in

09:04:30 the future.

09:04:30 And lastly, we must treasure every moment in the now, as we

09:04:35 live our lives and enjoy the incredible earth which God has

09:04:39 given us.

09:04:40 May God bless our City Council members and our city

09:04:40 leadership. But I also want to mention a dream that we

09:04:50 learn of this week in Jewish communities all around the

09:04:53 world.

09:04:54 We read the Torah each week and we are reading about the

09:05:02 dream of Jacob and the famous ladder.

09:05:05 When he awoke from that dream he said some profound words.

09:05:14 God is in this place.

09:05:18 We must look for the godliness all around us.

09:05:21 We must constantly see that we are not alone in this world

09:05:24 and that the universal God of all faiths is walking by our

09:05:29 side.

09:05:29 We must always be willing to acknowledge the miraculous

09:05:33 nature of existence, and to never diminish it to mere

09:05:35 chance. And when we do this, we will be better suited to

09:05:41 live a life of communal service and communal obligation.

09:05:45 May these be our blessings.

09:05:47 And let us all say amen.

09:05:48 [ Pledge of Allegiance ]

09:06:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Here.

09:06:21 >>HARRY COHEN: Here.

09:06:23 >>MARY MULHERN: Here.

09:06:27 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Here.

09:06:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.

09:06:35 Need a motion for the minutes of the regular meeting.

09:06:39 Motion by Mrs. Montelione, second by Mr. Cohen.

09:06:42 The ayes have it unanimously.

09:06:43 All right.

09:06:44 Under ceremonial activities, number one would be Mr. Suarez

09:06:49 on the waterwise.

09:06:50 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, chair.

09:06:57 Thank you, colleagues.

09:06:59 I'm proud to present our 2013 community -- water-wise

09:07:06 awards.

09:07:09 Allen gray was just talking to me a moment ago and says he

09:07:12 likes doing the construction part of it and he let's his

09:07:15 wife do the flower part of it so working together is

09:07:18 something that we can teach Congress on how to get something

09:07:20 done.

09:07:22 One side takes one side of it and the other side takes the

09:07:24 other side of it so congratulations on that.

09:07:26 Let me read our commendation.

09:07:28 Allen gray is being recognized as the City of Tampa

09:07:32 homeowner winner in the 2013 community waterwise awards.

09:07:36 Mr. Gray used a drought tolerant trees and plants, rain

09:07:42 barrels, past the walks and the creeks of a raised landscape

09:07:47 bed that serves to retain stormwater runoff, true examples

09:07:50 of Florida landscaping practices.

09:07:52 The community waterwise award by Tampa Bay water and county

09:07:58 extension services and neighborhood program which is created

09:08:00 to recognize those who conserve our water resources and

09:08:04 protecting the environment.

09:08:05 Please welcome our own Brad Baird to give the award to Mr.

09:08:11 Gray.

09:08:16 >>BRAD BAIRD: Thank you.

09:08:16 Good morning, council.

09:08:18 On behalf of the water department, we would like to present

09:08:21 a hand crafted stepping stone to Mr. Gray for all of his

09:08:27 efforts, and to his wife, and congratulate him.

09:08:41 They look different every year.

09:08:43 Hand crafted.

09:08:49 I have some pictures of his landscaping to show, if we can

09:08:57 get it on the overhead.

09:09:12 This is a better picture of the landscaping.

09:09:14 I want Councilman Miranda to be show that Florida

09:09:17 landscaping is much more than rock.

09:09:24 And two palm trees.

09:09:25 As you can see, Mr. Gray's is fabulous.

09:09:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If that was a joke -- [ Laughter ] it

09:09:38 will never be on TV.

09:09:39 And it must have been done with your feet.

09:09:45 >> I would like to thank my wife for the incredible design

09:09:58 and collection of the flowers.

09:10:02 We moved them around several times before we got the right

09:10:04 spot.

09:10:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ: There's no better husband.

09:10:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Suarez, he has the last two words in

09:10:21 the house, and those words are "yes, ma'am."

09:10:25 Thank you.

09:10:27 [ Applause ]

09:10:37 >>HARRY COHEN: Our next item is going to be presented by

09:10:42 Councilman Miranda.

09:10:43 And he is making his way to the podium.

09:10:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: It's my pleasure to be here for the

09:10:58 Judeo Christian health clinic and the West Tampa Chamber of

09:11:01 Commerce.

09:11:04 Not as nice looking at Brad Baird.

09:11:08 I will always tell you the truth.

09:11:10 Only a joke, Brad.

09:11:20 In recognition of outstanding effort to raise awareness of

09:11:23 the judicial Christian health clinic which provides medical

09:11:27 Lee sources to indigent resident in the Tampa Bay area, it

09:11:30 is only fitting that the Tampa City Council recognize both

09:11:33 the Judeo Christian health clinic and the Tampa Chamber of

09:11:37 Commerce for the fourth annual flavor of West Tampa event on

09:11:42 Saturday, November 9th, this Saturday, from 11:00 in the

09:11:47 morning to 3 p.m. as MacFarlane park.

09:11:50 Let me say these are both outstanding groups of individuals

09:11:57 we aim to have promote business and the other one to help

09:11:59 those that are less fortunate than you or I do an

09:12:03 outstanding job, not because they are in West Tampa, but

09:12:06 because they are in the City of Tampa, and they serve

09:12:08 everyone, and I'm very proud to live in the same

09:12:11 neighborhood with both of them.

09:12:13 Congratulations to both.

09:12:50 He.

09:12:50 >> We thank you very much for this recognition on behalf of

09:12:53 the West Tampa chamber and the Judeo Christian clinic.

09:12:58 We invite you to come out to MacFarlane park November

09:13:02 9th to 11 to 3.

09:13:05 Small several restaurants will be represented serving food

09:13:08 of various cultures, and is very representative of West

09:13:11 Tampa, and it is a fund raiser to benefit the Judeo

09:13:16 Christian health clinic.

09:13:18 So we thank the West Tampa chamber and Jerry.

09:13:25 It's such a blessing for the clinic who last year recorded

09:13:27 just under 40,000 patient visits.

09:13:30 It's busy as ever serving the people of Tampa Bay who have

09:13:34 no resources for the health care needs.

09:13:36 So we really appreciate the recognition on behalf of the

09:13:38 board and all of the patients as well.

09:13:41 Thank you.

09:13:44 [ Applause ]

09:13:48 >> Hello.

09:13:49 I just wanted to say, I'm dawn Hudson, representing today

09:13:53 the West Tampa Chamber of Commerce and also my employer life

09:13:59 insurance, where U.S. headquarters are in West Tampa, and on

09:14:02 Saturday we are celebrating life.

09:14:05 West Tampa friends and neighbors are going to gather at

09:14:08 Macfarlane Park and celebrate the good work of the Judeo

09:14:12 Christian clinic.

09:14:13 So help is everything.

09:14:14 And hope to have see you there.

09:14:17 [ Applause ]

09:14:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I need two things.

09:14:36 I need to waive the rules so we can bring the staff reports

09:14:39 up.

09:14:40 And then there's a resolution in this agenda today to change

09:14:43 that permanently.

09:14:46 I need to waive the rules to have been bring staff up

09:14:49 earlier.

09:14:50 Made by Mrs. Montelione.

09:14:52 Seconded by Mr. Cohen.

09:14:53 All in favor of the motion?

09:14:55 Opposed? The ayes have it unanimously.

09:14:57 And then before I go to the approval of the agenda and the

09:15:01 addendum, I came in this morning and found a few of them so

09:15:09 request to pull item 31 on the agenda item.

09:15:14 I'm just letting now what's there.

09:15:18 Request to remove item 77 to have been consent.

09:15:24 Request to have item 14 discussed and pulled.

09:15:29 That's another item.

09:15:30 And item number 12, the same item, to be removed from

09:15:36 consent for discussion.

09:15:38 And item 46, the InVision plan, there's a request here to

09:15:44 move it to December 19th.

09:15:48 And item 31 pulled for discussion.

09:15:51 So many those are the items that we are talking about.

09:15:55 We do the approval of the agenda with the addendum.

09:15:58 So that being said, I need a motion to approve the agenda

09:16:01 for the addendums.

09:16:04 Motion by Mr. Cohen.

09:16:05 Second by Mrs. Montelione.

09:16:07 The left side today is way awake.

09:16:10 All in favor of that motion indicate by saying aye.

09:16:12 Opposed nay.

09:16:13 The ayes have it unanimously.

09:16:15 Thank you very much.

09:16:16 Okay.

09:16:16 We go to public comments.

09:16:19 Anyone in the public care to speak on any item on the agenda

09:16:22 first?

09:16:22 And any item off the agenda?

09:16:24 Any item on the agenda, on the agenda, please come forward.

09:16:46 Before we go into that, let me same that any item that's set

09:16:49 for public hearing, we'll have to listen at public hearing

09:16:53 time but go on.

09:16:56 I'm sorry.

09:16:56 >> I speak for the people.

09:17:01 I just want to say one thing.

09:17:04 It's off the agenda, something that I do for the people

09:17:08 every day.

09:17:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Can you move a little closer to the

09:17:12 mike?

09:17:12 I'm having trouble hearing you.

09:17:13 >> I'm speaking for the people.

09:17:15 I St. Pete to everyone how you all feel what's going on.

09:17:20 And I just want to say that a true city and town needs to be

09:17:24 seen in troupe words.

09:17:28 The people have been without the support of leaders and City

09:17:31 Council, and so the open words that people have stood behind

09:17:38 one where the promise of action, but once they got behind

09:17:41 the desk they forgot the people.

09:17:45 While the leaders should look at the hearts, not the

09:17:50 people's hands.

09:17:51 The people don't want or need, they want to stop seeing the

09:17:55 back of the leaders for whom they put their beliefs in.

09:18:00 I support all of you and what you do, how you do it and what

09:18:04 way you do it.

09:18:05 I just want the people to keep believing in you.

09:18:08 So I keep praying for the council, the leaders, and all.

09:18:12 I don't want the people to stop believing in you, like I

09:18:16 don't.

09:18:17 So, please, don't make a promise to them society they don't

09:18:22 lose their faith in you, because I believe in you.

09:18:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

09:18:27 We appreciate it very much.

09:18:28 Next, please.

09:18:29 >> I'm Ed.

09:18:40 Ed Tillou, Sulphur Springs.

09:18:43 I oftentimes speak about food in the sense that food

09:18:50 festivals can be used to really accomplish public health

09:18:53 kind of things.

09:18:54 But it's a little difficult because I was in medical school,

09:18:58 and the motto of medical schools is first do no harm.

09:19:07 And in the black bean festival, I did find problems with the

09:19:10 bean family.

09:19:12 Similarly, orange juice is deficient in fibers, but fiber

09:19:18 could be added to it. Anyway, that's something to take to

09:19:23 Jacksonville some day.

09:19:24 Jacksonville is not in the immediate future, but a little

09:19:26 ways off.

09:19:28 I saw something in the paper, and I was tearing things for

09:19:33 my -- let me see.

09:19:37 18,500 Dimmitt.

09:19:44 And here is Matt Hare Ford.

09:19:50 But there's a couple of Chevy dealers here. Anyway, the

09:19:56 thing about that, there was something on the other side, and

09:20:03 I realized that that was about this.

09:20:11 Dreaming big in downtown Tampa.

09:20:13 This is a lot of the problem.

09:20:14 And this is what I think ultimately percolates through in

09:20:21 something like this.

09:20:29 The problems exist, they are not getting dealt with, and

09:20:33 there's all this visionary kind of stuff, and years ago when

09:20:40 the American society of planning officials had joined, has

09:20:45 been devoured.

09:20:46 It was devoured by the American institute of planners,

09:20:52 visionary planning.

09:20:53 It isn't of what the communities need.

09:20:56 Now, I talked about diesel units.

09:21:04 Exactly the right place for transportation around the city

09:21:06 to get people from north Tampa to downtown quickly.

09:21:09 (Bell sounds)

09:21:11 Anderson road.

09:21:12 It could be a half a cent increase, along with a half a cent

09:21:20 for Hart improvement like Mark Sharpe said.

09:21:22 But of course Mark Sharpe is very theoretical.

09:21:26 He talks in theories.

09:21:28 But he's right.

09:21:29 And the thing is that's the kind of stuff that needs to be

09:21:32 done.

09:21:36 Very important community resources.

09:21:37 So, anyway, I included stuff about Arnold Schwarzenegger,

09:21:43 and he looks pretty good for a man in his 60s.

09:21:49 >> Thank you.

09:21:50 I'll tell Arnold I saw you.

09:21:53 Okay.

09:21:55 Anyone else care to speak this morning to council?

09:21:57 >> Troy Cloughman from Tampa.

09:22:12 What I am before to read you can accept it or not.

09:22:17 I think things become more clear so I am just going to read

09:22:22 it.

09:22:31 I divide the president from the Congress and the Congress

09:22:33 from the people.

09:22:34 I will divide the state government from federal government.

09:22:41 I do this because you have drawn your sword against the

09:22:45 unborn that have never lived to see their own country.

09:22:47 Should I allow the mothers, the fathers and the doctors, the

09:22:50 politicians who made money and all those who voted for

09:22:54 abortion to enjoy a peaceful America?

09:22:57 Eventually, I will take your Constitution to the sword.

09:23:03 Why should I give protect a Constitution that an louse a

09:23:07 woman touch use the sword against the child?

09:23:09 I will not negotiate.

09:23:10 I will not sacrifice even one child for compromise.

09:23:14 You ask how long will this last?

09:23:17 When America puts a bay its sword of abortion I will put

09:23:21 away my sword of division.

09:23:23 So when you see division rising in American life do not ask

09:23:28 why this is happening and how long it will last.

09:23:30 I have already told you the answer.

09:23:31 I speak again of a growing division in America, but a person

09:23:35 that acts selfishly.

09:23:40 A selfish protection against unborn children.

09:23:44 Years ago America had a similar law against slaves, even

09:23:51 succession in the civil war, and only when America came

09:23:55 together again.

09:23:57 The unborn children, abortion is the new wall.

09:23:59 That wall has been built into the lives and hearts of every

09:24:02 American, and it must be torn down.

09:24:04 I want all to see the realities of the unborn is on the

09:24:08 hands of the president of every politician who refuses to

09:24:12 act against abortion.

09:24:16 You already see it happening.

09:24:19 Even your Constitution will not save your union.

09:24:25 What has happened to America which began as the great

09:24:27 enterprise of God?

09:24:28 How many came to your shores the victims of religious

09:24:31 persecution?

09:24:32 They sought this new world to practice their religion

09:24:37 beliefs.

09:24:38 Keep religion hopes, to produce the nation which has left

09:24:43 time and time again.

09:24:44 America announce add bigotry against religion, hands, not to

09:24:52 hear a single religious message.

09:24:54 Signs are deliberate lip removed.

09:24:57 Propagated in the schools.

09:25:01 America proclaims we will not be under God, but the great

09:25:04 enterprises -- the Congress and the Supreme Court.

09:25:08 (Bell sounds).

09:25:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

09:25:13 Appreciate it very much.

09:25:13 >> For your abortion.

09:25:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

09:25:17 Appreciate it.

09:25:18 Next, please.

09:25:18 Anyone else?

09:25:23 I see no one.

09:25:24 We go now to any requests from the public for

09:25:28 reconsideration of any legislative matters at the last

09:25:32 council meeting.

09:25:33 I see none.

09:25:34 We go to items for first reading.

09:25:39 Item number 3.

09:25:41 Mr. Suarez, would you handle that, please?

09:25:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, chair.

09:25:45 I present an ordinance for first reading consideration, an

09:25:47 ordinance amending the Tampa comprehensive plan capital

09:25:50 improvements element by updating the schedule projects

09:25:54 fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2018 by the updating

09:25:57 the Florida Department of Transportation work schedule for

09:26:00 fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2017, by updating the

09:26:05 Hillsborough County public schools facilities five-year work

09:26:08 program for fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2017

09:26:13 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict,

09:26:15 providing for severability, providing an effective date.

09:26:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mr. Suarez.

09:26:20 I have a second by Mr. Cohen.

09:26:21 Further discussion by council members?

09:26:22 All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.

09:26:25 Opposed nay.

09:26:25 The ayes have it unanimously.

09:26:26 >>THE CLERK: The second reading of the ordinance will be

09:26:29 held November 21st at 9:30 a.m.

09:26:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We go to committee reports.

09:26:36 Public Safety Committee chair, Mr. Frank Reddick.

09:26:44 >>FRANK REDDICK: Move items 4 through 7.

09:26:46 >>HARRY COHEN: Second.

09:26:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Discussion by council members?

09:26:49 All in favor of the motion?

09:26:51 Opposed?

09:26:52 The eyes versus it unanimously.

09:26:57 U.parks, recreation, cultural chair.

09:27:01 We'll hold that for a moment and govern to public works, Mr.

09:27:05 Mike Suarez.

09:27:06 >> Move items 21 through 28.

09:27:08 >> Second.

09:27:11 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second by Mrs. Montelione.

09:27:12 All in favor?

09:27:13 Opposed?

09:27:16 Motion passes unanimously.

09:27:18 Okay.

09:27:18 Finance Committee chair, a resolution for first reading

09:27:21 consideration.

09:27:22 Mr. Harry Cohen.

09:27:23 >>HARRY COHEN: Move item number 29.

09:27:27 >> Second.

09:27:33 >>HARRY COHEN: Move a resolution being presented for first

09:27:36 reading consideration, resolution amending the rules of

09:27:38 procedure rule 3-B-2 governing the order of business of the

09:27:44 meetings of the City Council, the City of Tampa, providing

09:27:48 an effective date.

09:27:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Seconded by Mr. Suarez on a close vote

09:27:53 with Mrs. Montelione.

09:27:54 All in favor of the motion?

09:27:56 Opposed?

09:27:56 The ayes have it unanimously.

09:27:58 Building, zoning and preservation.

09:28:00 Chair Ms. Lisa Montelione.

09:28:02 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I move item 30, and I also move items 32

09:28:12 through 45, 47 through 49.

09:28:23 Motion by Mrs. Montelione.

09:28:25 Second by Mr. Reddick.

09:28:26 All in favor ever? Opposed?

09:28:28 The ayes have it unanimously.

09:28:31 Transportation committee chair Ms. Yvonne Yolie Capin.

09:28:35 >>YVONNE CAPIN:

09:28:40 >> I move items 50 and 51.

09:28:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear in the

09:28:44 beginning.

09:28:45 I believe 50 is being pulled for a coming resolution.

09:28:53 I'm not sure about that.

09:28:58 Move 51.

09:28:59 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Well there, wasn't a second, so I move item

09:29:03 51.

09:29:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion by Mrs. Capin.

09:29:07 Now I'm going to the left side instead of the right side.

09:29:10 Mrs. Capin, second by Mr. Reddick.

09:29:12 All in favor of that motion?

09:29:15 Opposed?

09:29:15 The ayes have it unanimously.

09:29:17 We go to items set for public hearing.

09:29:19 52 and 53.

09:29:20 Need a motion to that affect.

09:29:23 I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione, second by Mr. Cohen.

09:29:26 All in favor?

09:29:27 Opposed?

09:29:29 The ayes have it unanimously.

09:29:31 We go back to Parks, Recreation, Culture Committee, vice

09:29:36 chair, Ms. Lisa Montelione.

09:29:40 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you, sir.

09:29:42 Let me flip a couple of pages here.

09:29:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We pulled 12 and 14.

09:29:50 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I move items 8 through 11.

09:29:56 I move item number 13, and then 15 through 20.

09:30:03 Or 16 through 20.

09:30:04 >> Motion by Mrs. Montelione.

09:30:07 Second by Mr. Cohen.

09:30:08 All in favor?

09:30:09 Opposed?

09:30:10 The ayes have it unanimously.

09:30:14 Public hearings for second reading are set at 9:30.

09:30:18 I'm at 9:28.

09:30:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you want to the do staff reports first?

09:30:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Yes.

09:30:26 Let's go to staff reports.

09:30:28 Anyone from the staff?

09:30:30 All staffers come forward.

09:30:36 >>JULIA MANDELL: Legal department.

09:30:38 I'm on item 73.

09:30:41 Council, you had asked for the legal department and the

09:30:44 administration to report back.

09:30:54 I am going to provide you the answer to the first question

09:30:56 which related directly to -- well, maybe not the first

09:31:01 question but there were questions as to whether or not there

09:31:03 were repairs previously done, were done properly, and

09:31:06 whether or not we had a cause of action against the

09:31:10 contractor and the architect related to those projects.

09:31:19 When this first came up previously, and I recall having

09:31:24 heard a presentation made about the pool and the repairs

09:31:26 that were done with the pool and whether or not there was

09:31:29 something actionable against the contractors, the architects

09:31:31 related to that.

09:31:32 So I asked to go back and do a little bit of research as to

09:31:37 what was previously stated, and wept be back to read some of

09:31:43 the documents on my own.

09:31:45 It was coming back in about 2010, 2011 time period, that all

09:31:52 of the actions which were taken by the contractors and were

09:31:56 involved in the pool, none of those were done in such a way

09:31:59 that were actionable.

09:32:01 There was no design defects found, nor was there any

09:32:04 opportunity to go back after the contractors.

09:32:07 Based on my recollection and my independent review I agreed

09:32:12 of that assessment, because somebody believes it's going to

09:32:19 come out is not the same as having something actionable

09:32:22 against the contractor or design professionals.

09:32:26 So I will tell you this, as I think previous, there is

09:32:30 nothing in a cause of action against the contractors or

09:32:35 design professionals and that's why nor can I recommend of

09:32:40 that any action be taken today.

09:32:43 I know there are others to address other questions.

09:32:48 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

09:33:01 Based on my understanding, two points.

09:33:14 $7 million.

09:33:15 And within a few months of completion of that pool, there

09:33:17 was leaks developing in the construction work.

09:33:25 Now, I'm pretty sure that if you had a roof put on your

09:33:28 house, and you are going to spend 10 or $15,000 putting that

09:33:34 roof on, and you come back and weren't pleased with that

09:33:41 roof work, I'm pretty sure you are going to that contractor

09:33:43 or that roofer after a month or two months later, and want

09:33:48 them to come back out there and repair this, because

09:33:50 somebody is at fault.

09:33:53 Somebody has got to be at fault where you have spent this

09:33:58 much money and you got leaks within a few months of

09:34:02 completion.

09:34:06 And for me to hear you say today that there was no

09:34:11 reasonable cause to go after anyone, then it's obvious to me

09:34:18 somebody did a poor job of inspecting the work, somebody did

09:34:24 a poor job from the city administration in overseeing the

09:34:28 project, or somebody did a poor job of not moving forward

09:34:34 immediately after these leaks were determined, because that

09:34:39 pool would be operating today without these faults.

09:34:47 And if someone put a roof on my house, and I paid 10 or

09:34:57 $15,000 for that roof, there's no way I'm just going to say,

09:35:03 I can't find no fault, because when it rains and water is

09:35:07 coming down from my ceiling, that means somebody did a poor

09:35:11 job, and they got 10 or $15,000.

09:35:16 Now, $2.6 million, not only federal and local funds, but

09:35:26 someone has to answer to this problem.

09:35:30 And now we are looking at an estimate of $1.5 million to go

09:35:35 back out there and redo the pool.

09:35:41 It just seems to me that there has to be a poor job, and

09:35:53 someone who had to sign off on that project, sign off on

09:35:56 that work, did a poor job, because there's no way in the

09:36:00 world that you or anyone can tell me you spend $2.6 million

09:36:08 fixing the problem, renovating the pool, and two, three

09:36:11 months later there's leaks, and no one has been held

09:36:17 accountable for that.

09:36:18 There's got to be a way -- I'm pretty sure it's too late

09:36:25 now -- but there has to be a way that somebody should have

09:36:28 been held accountable.

09:36:30 And I'm just disappointed to hear your response, because I

09:36:35 don't think the appropriate action was taken.

09:36:42 And I think somebody laid down on their job and didn't do

09:36:47 what they are supposed to do.

09:36:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Reddick.

09:36:52 Mr. Suarez.

09:36:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Ms. Mandell, Mr. Reddick touched on a couple

09:36:56 of things, but I want to ask you, in terms of our legal

09:37:03 commitment total city in terms of when we sign these

09:37:06 contracts -- and of course they are executed by the mayor,

09:37:15 the contract for the work, you are saying we have no legal

09:37:17 recourse for the job that was not done well, or what are you

09:37:21 saying, that the contract was not written in a way that

09:37:24 allowed to us do that?

09:37:25 Because if the time frame is correct based on what Mr.

09:37:28 Reddick said, it would seem that there's got to be some

09:37:31 legal recourse in my mind based on the contract.

09:37:34 So could you speak to that?

09:37:36 >> I may ask him to get up and explain that a little further

09:37:42 because that is part and parcel of where the issue arises

09:37:45 but just as this came up several years ago, the scope of the

09:37:49 project, and what was done, versus where the repairs were,

09:37:55 additional repairs may have been needed, than these weren't

09:37:58 part of the scope of the project for us.

09:38:00 What I was understanding and told from that meeting at that

09:38:03 time, because I was talking to City Council when this issue

09:38:09 came up and the determination was made at the time given the

09:38:11 scope of the project and the results of other issues that

09:38:17 high pressure come up, that they wouldn't necessarily have

09:38:21 fallen under the scope of that contract and therefore were

09:38:23 not actionable.

09:38:24 That's what I recall.

09:38:26 That's watch my review shows, is that those issues were not

09:38:30 actionable.

09:38:30 I would agree with everything that Mr. Reddick said, and if

09:38:36 you are supposed to repair a roof, there's nothing to stop

09:38:41 us from going back out.

09:38:43 It was the scope of that project versus the ultimate issues

09:38:46 of that came up that created that we Connecticut couldn't

09:38:50 necessarily a tribute it to what the design of that project

09:38:52 was.

09:38:53 And I can ask him to explain that further because it is more

09:38:59 technical than I can give, but it was reported back in

09:39:03 2010ish but was determined previous to that.

09:39:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Can I address in plain language along the

09:39:09 same lines here?

09:39:11 Nothing in your language from being a lawyer -- [ Laughter ]

09:39:17 but in terms of what you are saying is that we had repairs

09:39:22 at 2.6 million or somewhere in that neighborhood to fix a

09:39:26 specific problem.

09:39:27 That specific problem was fixed.

09:39:29 And then another problem developed that had nothing to do

09:39:31 with what their construction was about.

09:39:33 Is of that what you are saying?

09:39:35 >> I wasn't technically involved in that.

09:39:39 What I am saying is you couldn't take the scope of what that

09:39:41 project was and completely a tribute it to the contractors

09:39:44 and/or the be design professionals.

09:39:48 And I could come to have a different conclusion.

09:39:53 >> I think I said of that in a different way.

09:39:59 Mr. Vaughan?

09:40:01 >> I can say it in the a third way.

09:40:03 >> There are a number of almost urban legends about the

09:40:06 Cuscaden pool and what occurred and what time frames they

09:40:09 occurred in, which is one of the reasons that we are here

09:40:13 today.

09:40:14 The original contract was completed in 2005.

09:40:19 At that time, the project was inspected, not only by us, but

09:40:23 also by Construction Services Center, as part of the permit

09:40:28 process, also by the federal government who gave us the

09:40:32 grant --

09:40:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Vaughan, let me interrupt you.

09:40:36 Because we need a little historical perspective here, which

09:40:39 is based on what I just heard from Ms. Mandell, that means

09:40:42 what was the scope of work that was required under the

09:40:45 original contract in 2005, so that we understand why we

09:40:49 don't have legal recourse for this?

09:40:51 So I think that of we need to understand that so we can go

09:40:54 forward.

09:40:56 >>DAVE VAUGHAN: Okay.

09:40:57 It's somewhat independent of that, because of the contract

09:41:01 status and the things I was going to share, but basically it

09:41:04 was a complete renovation and reactivation of the pool at

09:41:07 that time.

09:41:07 >> Okay.

09:41:09 Complete renovation --

09:41:11 >> New equipment, new piping, repairs inside and out, the

09:41:16 pool had sat vacant for a number of years prior to that

09:41:20 project.

09:41:22 So the work was performed, inspected, the pool was put into

09:41:28 operation.

09:41:30 We had the standard one-year warranty for issues that

09:41:35 related to that contract work.

09:41:37 During that period of time, there were issues that

09:41:40 developed, and they were addressed.

09:41:42 At the end of the warranty period, the pool was fully

09:41:44 operational.

09:41:45 It was dry.

09:41:47 It was water tested.

09:41:50 Our staff, park staff, all participated in that testing and

09:41:54 validation.

09:41:56 The pool operated from then until 2009.

09:42:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ: When you say from then you mean after the

09:42:03 one year warranty?

09:42:04 >> Things were fixed that had developed during the 2005 to

09:42:08 2006 year, and then from 2006 it seemed fine, everything was

09:42:14 dry, correct?

09:42:14 >> Yes.

09:42:15 And operated from then until a decision was made to close in

09:42:20 the 2009.

09:42:21 And that's a later topic in the discussion.

09:42:29 As a result of that work being done, and as a result of

09:42:34 their not being fundamental flaws in design, there is no

09:42:40 contract basis for going back again, either the architect or

09:42:45 the contractor.

09:42:46 And that's the basis.

09:42:47 >> Now you have clarified.

09:42:48 And before you go on.

09:42:50 Don't talk more than you need to, because, you know, we just

09:42:54 want to try to figure out some answers quickly.

09:42:56 >> Sure.

09:42:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ: From 2006 to 2009 no, problems, it seems

09:43:01 everything is working well, there were no issues.

09:43:04 The issues that came up in 2009, were they different issues

09:43:07 than what had come up previously? Or were they the exact

09:43:11 same issues that you had in 2005?

09:43:14 And let me rephrase.

09:43:15 Excuse me.

09:43:16 We know than it was a total renovation of the pool.

09:43:22 Were there specific problems that are, because of the

09:43:25 architecture of Cuscaden pool itself that came up in 2009,

09:43:30 or was at new problem that was created for some other

09:43:34 different reason?

09:43:35 That's what we need to really know.

09:43:36 >> And what I say next, from the end of the warranty period

09:43:40 until the decision made to close the pool, and what has not

09:43:44 been a part of the discussion, throughout this period of

09:43:47 time, was the operation of the pool design.

09:43:52 My office team was not involved in that.

09:43:57 And so in that period of time, to pinpoint problems both

09:44:04 what they were and when they occurred, I can only give you

09:44:07 sort of third-party here is what I heard.

09:44:11 >> Don't give me third party hearsay. If you don't have the

09:44:15 information, don't give us any information.

09:44:17 >>DAVE VAUGHAN: And at the time the pool was closed, what

09:44:20 was reported there was water intrusion in various places,

09:44:24 and that it was a difficult pool to operate and keep

09:44:29 running.

09:44:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ: All right.

09:44:32 Thank you, chair.

09:44:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Ms. Mulhern?

09:44:35 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

09:44:36 I did have a briefing over the phone with you and Mr. Bayor

09:44:43 and Mr. Herr, and one of the questions that didn't get

09:44:46 answered and I haven't heard it yet is why.

09:44:49 And that was a question I asked.

09:44:52 And Mr. Suarez was asking, and I believe Mr. Reddick, why

09:44:57 was the pool closed?

09:44:59 What were the reasons given at the time it was closed in

09:45:02 2009, I think is the real question.

09:45:07 >>DAVE VAUGHAN: I think someone else from our team.

09:45:09 >> Dennis Rogero, chief of staff.

09:45:16 That's an interesting question.

09:45:21 You will recall that I came to the city in 2009.

09:45:23 So I have found out what I found out basically through

09:45:29 talking with others.

09:45:30 I think the only definitive answer is this pool was closed

09:45:34 at a time for a couple of reasons.

09:45:37 There was an economic downturn, severe economic downturn,

09:45:40 and a number of reductions were made in parks and recreation

09:45:43 services.

09:45:44 At the same time, as you heard, we had a pool that wasn't

09:45:47 running nearly as optimal as we would have preferred.

09:45:52 I can find no documentation that identifies a specific

09:45:55 reason why the pool was closed.

09:45:57 But there were a number of reasons that led to the decision

09:46:00 to close this pool.

09:46:01 >> What were those reasons?

09:46:03 >> Again, an economic downturn, across the board reduction

09:46:07 in many services, not just parks and recreation.

09:46:11 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't think there's an urban myth.

09:46:15 I think there were some reasons given.

09:46:17 I vaguely remember this.

09:46:19 And we are looking it up right now.

09:46:21 But there were reasons given for closing the pool.

09:46:24 And that's why the entire community seemed to have the

09:46:26 impression that the pool was closed because of problems, and

09:46:32 whether those were caused by the construction or not, by the

09:46:37 renovation or not, I think we are going to find out, and

09:46:45 this is all I will say until my aide, unless she finds

09:46:49 something doing Googling and find out why we closed in 2009.

09:46:54 Maybe Councilman Miranda remembers.

09:46:56 But I think there must have been some discussion of

09:47:01 structural problems with the pool.

09:47:03 Otherwise, we wouldn't have this perception to the whole

09:47:06 community that the pool was closed because of leaks or

09:47:09 problems in the renovation.

09:47:11 >> I have no doubt that explanations were given to members

09:47:16 of the community, City Council, many parts. I won't comment

09:47:20 on the structural since I am not qualified to determine or

09:47:27 what is structural or not structural.

09:47:28 But you heard there were obviously leaks.

09:47:30 Tremendous amount of water required to keep the pool going

09:47:33 at that time.

09:47:35 There were any number of reasons why this pool was not

09:47:37 running the way we would have liked to it to run.

09:47:42 As you heard, both from our contract administration

09:47:45 department and our legal department, there doesn't seem to

09:47:48 be any fault on the part of the vendor or city staff doing

09:47:52 the work to renovate this pool.

09:47:55 It's probably a little too simple to say it did not turn out

09:47:58 as we would have wished.

09:47:59 But that's really part of it.

09:48:01 It did not turn out as we would have wished.

09:48:03 Combine that again with the economic downturn, and you have

09:48:07 got a number of reasons why the decision was made to close

09:48:10 this pool.

09:48:11 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

09:48:14 Since you are thereby right now, can I also ask the other

09:48:18 big question you have from the neighborhood, why this was

09:48:22 taken out of the budget, this year's budget?

09:48:26 >> Absolutely.

09:48:27 And I think you have all been given an attachment.

09:48:32 Apologize out of the five year capital improvement program

09:48:35 and you will see that the funding was identified for aquatic

09:48:39 facilities.

09:48:46 You will see that the funding, I believe it was $6 million

09:48:49 was identified for aquatic facility.

09:48:51 And within the body of that project, the projects under

09:48:59 consideration for that funding included Cuscaden.

09:49:01 But the funding was not committed to a specific pool as part

09:49:05 of that plan.

09:49:06 Again, $6 million for four pools simply isn't going to be

09:49:11 adequate to do everything, all four of those pools needed.

09:49:15 >>MARY MULHERN: Well, it was included but now it's not

09:49:18 included?

09:49:20 >> In adoption of the subsequent five year plan, the one

09:49:22 that began about a month ago, the funding has been

09:49:25 appropriated to other projects.

09:49:26 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

09:49:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Cohen and Mrs. Montelione.

09:49:37 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you.

09:49:40 A couple of comments.

09:49:50 Where first of all it's amazing when you ask questions about

09:49:52 this story.

09:49:53 It's sort of impossible to get a narrative of what actually

09:49:56 happened to this pool.

09:49:58 And I don't think that's the fault of anyone sitting here

09:50:02 today, because obviously, just like we weren't here when a

09:50:05 lot of these decisions were made, many of you were not here

09:50:08 when they were made, and certainly the mayor wasn't in

09:50:10 charge of the city when the decisions were made, so it's not

09:50:13 like he has any recollection of why different things were

09:50:17 done the way they were.

09:50:19 But I will tell you, I have been to the pool twice, and if

09:50:25 it's closed because of leaks and water intrusion then, it's

09:50:29 certainly suffering from water that somehow leaks in this

09:50:37 period, because the place has extensive evidence of water

09:50:41 damage and leaks.

09:50:43 The second thing is when you close the pool and it sits and

09:50:48 bakes in the hot sun summer after summer after summer, it

09:50:52 actually deteriorates.

09:50:54 Pools are designed to be built with water.

09:50:56 And so when they bake they actually deteriorate at a much

09:51:02 faster rate than if they were being used.

09:51:05 So the condition of the pool now is most likely

09:51:07 considerably worse than what it was when the problem

09:51:12 originally revealed itself.

09:51:16 I don't know that we are ever going to definitively answer

09:51:20 what happened in the past.

09:51:21 But I do think that it's clear that the neighborhoods around

09:51:25 this pool and the community that treasures this pool and

09:51:29 people who care about preserving historically significant

09:51:34 structures, which this pool most certainly, as we have had a

09:51:36 lot of debate in this community over the past couple weeks,

09:51:40 about what is and what is not historic.

09:51:42 But I can guarantee you under anybody's definition this pool

09:51:45 is historically significant.

09:51:47 For all those reasons, I think that we have got to move on

09:51:52 and find a way to get this pool fixed and open again.

09:51:55 And I hope once we wrap up this part of the discussion, I

09:51:59 hope that will move on touch when we answer the other

09:52:04 questions.

09:52:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.

09:52:05 Mrs. Montelione.

09:52:06 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.

09:52:07 As Ms. Mulhern did, I also had a conference with Mr. Bayor,

09:52:14 Mr. Herr and Mr. Vaughan yesterday, and we went through some

09:52:19 of the numbers that were provided to either bring this pool

09:52:26 back to life, or to at least start on a path that would

09:52:33 bring us there.

09:52:39 When he said in answer to Mrs. Mulhern's question that the

09:52:43 allocation of pools in the budget was not specific to one

09:52:48 particular project, but he would be allocated to a

09:52:56 recommendation, I'm assuming parks, the where the money is

09:53:01 most wisely spent.

09:53:03 Now, we have something called demolition by neglect.

09:53:14 And we have used demolition by neglect to bring historic

09:53:19 property owners with to task, to either prevent the

09:53:27 deterioration that Mr. Cohen discussed, that would halt

09:53:33 further deterioration until such time as the prior repairs

09:53:41 could be made.

09:53:43 Sometimes those are very cost prohibitive and a point of

09:53:45 action needs to be carefully thought out so that we can

09:53:49 prevent damage from occurring to the point, and this is as

09:53:59 he also mentioned a very historic pool, one of -- the only

09:54:03 ones left in the entire nation, and we need to take every

09:54:07 step.

09:54:08 If we are going to use demolition by neglect for private

09:54:15 citizens we have to hold ourselves accountable by the same

09:54:18 definition.

09:54:19 We cannot allow this pool to deteriorate further.

09:54:24 So I had in that discussion yesterday asked Mr. Vaughan what

09:54:30 it would take to move forward with just developing the scope

09:54:35 of work, and the costs to get us to where we can make some

09:54:44 repairs, because we were provided a report, a couple of

09:54:50 pages, with a scope of work and cost estimate, so we have

09:54:57 something to work with now.

09:55:00 And this is dated November 4.

09:55:04 So very recently.

09:55:06 The next step would be to go ahead and prepare those bid

09:55:09 documents.

09:55:10 So with the money that you have budgeted, we could at least

09:55:14 identify what steps can be taken to either prevent further

09:55:21 destruction of the pool, or to go ahead and start making

09:55:27 those repairs in an incremental manner with the money that

09:55:30 you have available.

09:55:32 So I believe he told me that it would take $150,000 to

09:55:37 prepare those bid documents.

09:55:40 I think that is not a lot of money, in comparison to 1.5

09:55:48 million cost estimate that's contained in this report, and I

09:55:52 think it would bring us a step closer.

09:55:55 It would save time, certainly, if we had those bid documents

09:55:59 prepared.

09:56:02 And I think four months, if Mr. Herr or Mr. Vaughan --

09:56:12 David?

09:56:13 Mr. Vaughan? I believe the time frame of a report -- or am

09:56:18 I confusing subjects here, because we talked about a few

09:56:21 different subjects in that call yesterday -- there was a

09:56:23 four-month time frame that was mentioned in yesterday's

09:56:26 call.

09:56:26 >> I don't recall that time frame mentioned.

09:56:30 I don't recall us talking about a time frame to accomplish

09:56:33 that.

09:56:33 >> Mr. HERR, do you remember the four month time frame?

09:56:40 Oh, I'm sorry, never mind.

09:56:42 Confusing subjects.

09:56:43 We talked about a few parks yesterday.

09:56:45 But the point with Cuscaden is if we had those bid documents

09:56:51 prepared, how much time would that take?

09:56:58 >>DAVE VAUGHAN: Contract administration.

09:56:58 Before I answer that question, if I may, the question that

09:57:00 you are asking is a little bit R bit different from the

09:57:03 question we discussed yesterday.

09:57:06 The question we discussed yesterday of the 150,000 was to

09:57:09 develop the plans for the complete reactivation. Pool.

09:57:13 A discussion of doing that incrementally or what sort of

09:57:17 preventive things ought to be -- that impact both the

09:57:23 schedule --

09:57:24 >> Right.

09:57:25 >> And I am really not prepared to answer that.

09:57:27 If we were making the decision to go forward today, that

09:57:33 size requires an RFQ, request for qualifications.

09:57:38 That problem sees to get a consultant selected is

09:57:42 typically -- that is a full-hunt process.

09:57:47 From there you have to get -- you have to have negotiate the

09:57:51 fee and the documents have to actually be prepared.

09:57:53 So that's probably another, at least, six months.

09:57:56 So you are looking at those kind of times.

09:58:02 >> And that has a particular bearing to this conversation,

09:58:04 especially when in a context of further neglect and

09:58:10 deterioration of this pool.

09:58:11 If we are looking at ten months of just document

09:58:17 preparation, and RFQ in response, and if we don't start this

09:58:22 process ball rolling now, that is going to add a significant

09:58:28 amount of damage sustained to this pool.

09:58:32 And if we wait till next budget cycle, which is a year from

09:58:38 now, roughly, to start discussing putting this pool and the

09:58:44 repairs back into the budget, now we are looking at two

09:58:48 years.

09:58:48 Because we are going to look at budgets next year.

09:58:53 That's roughly one year from now.

09:58:56 Plus another ten months for the RFQ.

09:59:00 That's two years from now that this pool sits there and

09:59:06 continues to deteriorate.

09:59:08 So what I did propose in yesterday's call, I think, is to go

09:59:13 ahead and start that process with a mid-year adjustment to

09:59:19 the budget of whatever dollar amount it takes for Mr.

09:59:22 Vaughan to start preparing for that eventual RFQ.

09:59:30 Or at least to develop some kind of preventive measure,

09:59:38 whether we cover it, whether there's something that, you

09:59:40 know, some material that could be applied to preserve what's

09:59:45 there now.

09:59:45 I don't know what that is.

09:59:47 I'm not a pool contractor.

09:59:48 But I'm sure that there are pool contractors out there that

09:59:51 compel you what it would take to halt further deterioration,

09:59:56 until we figure out when we can get all of the repairs

10:00:00 necessary to reactivate the pool.

10:00:04 If we use that Swiss cheese method and incremental steps

10:00:09 method, then maybe we can get some assurances that the city

10:00:16 is serious about saving this jewel that maybe nobody else in

10:00:21 the country, or one other place in the country can say they

10:00:24 have.

10:00:28 So let's take that road.

10:00:33 Point made?

10:00:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Point made very well.

10:00:36 Ms. Capin.

10:00:37 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I thank you for all of that, and everyone,

10:00:41 excellent comments on this.

10:00:44 I'm glad you brought up demolition by neglect that we hold

10:00:47 private citizens, but ourselves, and we look at a year, two

10:00:53 years down the road, you know, people moved into this area

10:00:58 and took a chance on revitalizing this area.

10:01:01 Those are the people of that would be using the jewel, and

10:01:05 it belongs to the entire city.

10:01:06 It says a lot about our city.

10:01:09 If we are only interested in putting high-rises and

10:01:12 skyscrapers and we are not looking at preserving history,

10:01:15 and that tells a lot about the culture.

10:01:17 When large businesses that we are looking for, that have

10:01:24 quarters here, they look at what the culture of that city

10:01:28 is.

10:01:28 What do they believe in?

10:01:30 And so far, we aren't believing in a whole lot as far as

10:01:35 preservation is concerned.

10:01:39 Of this pool, it's a jewel.

10:01:42 Absolutely.

10:01:42 It's a jewel and an asset.

10:01:45 And to drive that in any way to stabilize -- stabilize it

10:01:51 and that we can stabilize it and try to mitigate the damage

10:01:54 that's being done as we speak so that we have time to look

10:02:00 at repairing it.

10:02:02 It is very, very important.

10:02:04 And I like everything that Mrs. Montelione said about moving

10:02:10 forward with those steps.

10:02:11 I think that we should definitely -- I don't know what

10:02:15 motion or what we need to do at this time, but I would leave

10:02:18 it up to you to bring it forth.

10:02:21 We have to stabilize.

10:02:22 We have to protect this treasure that we have in our city,

10:02:28 along with others.

10:02:30 And I just wanted to make that comment.

10:02:32 And I appreciate it.

10:02:33 I don't have anything else to add.

10:02:35 Everyone has been very eloquent.

10:02:37 Thank you.

10:02:37 >>HARRY COHEN: I just want to add, I think this has been a

10:02:42 great discussion, and I want to add one other piece to it.

10:02:45 If the city begins the problem sees of moving along in the

10:02:50 way that has been described here today, I think it would be

10:02:54 very appropriate then to activate the people in the private

10:03:00 sector who came to us and indicated that they are ready to

10:03:02 start a fund-raising drive to help out with the costs that

10:03:06 are going to be incurred from doing this work.

10:03:08 And if we move down that road, we can begin that process,

10:03:15 and if it takes a few months to get some of the documents

10:03:18 done, maybe we can start getting some money set aside

10:03:22 privately to pay for the work.

10:03:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.

10:03:29 Mr. Reddick?

10:03:30 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

10:03:33 Let me ask you, of that $6 million, how much is remaining in

10:03:37 the budget?

10:03:38 >> Rogero: I believe it's been appropriated in its entirety

10:03:44 in the new five year plan.

10:03:45 I don't know how much centimeter in cash, left over from the

10:03:49 previous year, but we start the budget from scratch and we

10:03:53 appropriate.

10:03:54 We now have a new five year plan again just adopted that we

10:03:58 appropriate that funding in its entirety.

10:04:00 So if we were wanting to identify funding to Don some of the

10:04:04 things for Cuscaden, we have to research a couple of

10:04:09 potential funding sources.

10:04:11 >>FRANK REDDICK: That's my point.

10:04:19 Step by step, than concerns me because the figure I was

10:04:23 given, say $1.5 million to complete, the renovate this and

10:04:28 get the pool going, and in a city of this size, government

10:04:34 of this size, municipality of this size, and you are telling

10:04:39 me that we have got to have GOP out to the community and ask

10:04:42 people to raise some money for $1.5 million?

10:04:51 I'm pretty sure they found ways to go and do a retention

10:05:00 pond off of 30th street.

10:05:04 Now, you can find money to go do a retention pond, for the

10:05:09 trail, and you can't find $1.5 million to renovate a pool

10:05:16 and get it up and running?

10:05:19 What does it say about this city?

10:05:22 It sends a bad message.

10:05:25 And we have got people traveling all over the country,

10:05:29 recruiting businesses, to come to this city, because you had

10:05:33 a city that come up with $1.5 million to redo a historic

10:05:41 building in a historic district in a historic community.

10:05:46 We should be ashamed to sit up here and say let's do it step

10:05:51 by step.

10:05:52 Let's go out and try to find some dollars.

10:05:55 $1.5 million.

10:05:56 That's the figure that was given to me yesterday.

10:06:03 I'm pretty sure, you are budget man, you are finance man, I

10:06:08 am pretty sure if you go back in your office, look at your

10:06:13 computer, look at the budget, look at resources in this

10:06:16 city, you can come up with $1.57 million.

10:06:21 And that's what I'm asking that you do.

10:06:24 Come up with $1.5 million.

10:06:27 People, we are talking about government.

10:06:28 If we piecemeal this thing, through government, it's going

10:06:35 to be six more years.

10:06:37 There's going to be one step.

10:06:38 It's going to be another six months.

10:06:39 Another step.

10:06:40 We might not be sitting here.

10:06:43 And telephone we are going to do it, do things right and

10:06:46 come up with the $1.5 million to get this done.

10:06:49 I don't care -- that CIT fund, you mean we can't find $1.5

10:07:02 million?

10:07:03 >> I can tell you from a budget perspective every dollar in

10:07:06 this community has been appropriated on other items.

10:07:10 If I am not mistaken during the current five-year period to

10:07:13 the tune of about 407-plus million dollars in parks and

10:07:18 recreation.

10:07:18 So it's an applicable use but the funding has been earmarked

10:07:21 for other items.

10:07:22 >> Well, we can earmark some of those funds for this

10:07:27 historic venture.

10:07:29 Now, I'm pretty sure we can find a way, CIT funds oh be

10:07:34 utilized for this purpose, even though something has been

10:07:36 earmarked, we can earmark those funds, and because we get

10:07:41 all the time where you want to redirect some money and

10:07:48 allocated somewhere else, we have got it on the agenda

10:07:52 today.

10:07:52 So my motion would be, Mr. Chair, that the city budget

10:07:58 director --

10:08:11 Look at earmarking CIT funds to the tune of $1.5 million to

10:08:17 renovate and do what it takes to get this pool up and

10:08:26 running.

10:08:26 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I second the motion.

10:08:28 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, chair.

10:08:31 I think this discussion has been she good.

10:08:33 One of the things that we need to remember, and I think that

10:08:35 Mr. Reddick touched exactly on it, which is it's a policy

10:08:40 question as to whether or not we want to keep Cuscaden

10:08:44 pool -- or excuse me, renovate it, start it again and keep

10:08:49 it going.

10:08:49 The 1.5 million for the estimate for the renovation.

10:08:54 Then the operating cost.

10:08:55 And we are going to have to put into it.

10:08:57 I think that Mr. Bayor, when I talked to him yesterday, one

10:09:01 of the discussions we had was what was the operating cost to

10:09:04 keep it open all year round, or seasonal.

10:09:07 I think the cost was about 150, 180, somewhere in that

10:09:14 neighborhood, and it was about a 450 neighborhood year

10:09:18 round.

10:09:19 Now, there are two different budget questions we have to

10:09:21 answer, which is one CIT budget, and I agree with Mr.

10:09:26 Reddick, if we reprioritize things that are already in the

10:09:28 CIT budget -- and if I recall correctly -- this is a

10:09:33 discussion I had with the public works guys yesterday -- was

10:09:36 that Cuscaden had been earmarked some dollars, or excuse me,

10:09:41 not Cuscaden pool, the entire aquatic budget included CIT

10:09:46 dollars and a clip of about a half million dollars a year.

10:09:51 If I'm wrong I apologize.

10:09:53 But that's something that stuck in my head when we had this

10:09:57 discussion about 18 months ago.

10:09:58 And we had a discussion based on an advisory opinion from

10:10:02 the community about what their priorities were to be used

10:10:06 for CIT dollars.

10:10:08 Because of that, I think of that we really do need to look

10:10:11 at reprioritizing.

10:10:13 Obviously, we are in this because of a situation that was

10:10:21 supposedly solved in 2005.

10:10:24 We realized in 2009 it was not.

10:10:26 So we need to make sure that we figure out how we get that.

10:10:30 But we also need to find that other part of the budget which

10:10:33 is the operation side.

10:10:34 And that's something that obviously we can look at.

10:10:37 The second thing is -- and I think that Mrs. Montelione gave

10:10:40 a great example of it, which is we need to look at the costs

10:10:45 of mitigating circumstances that we can take to protect the

10:10:48 pool in the ten-month period in which we are looking at

10:10:51 trying to solve this problem.

10:10:53 The way I would look at it based on the time frame -- and I

10:10:58 know Mr. Vaughan would get mad if I said it's a set time

10:11:04 frame Lowe but based on his expertise we are going to go by

10:11:07 that.

10:11:07 If we start the process now, on November 7th, that

10:11:10 within ten months we can find out what that cost is going to

10:11:13 be, and we need to find out what it would be to protect the

10:11:18 pool in some way so that we are not another ten months

10:11:22 behind the eight ball, so to speak, because it's

10:11:25 deteriorated even more, and we find even more problems, in

10:11:30 cost not 1.5 million but might cost 2 million.

10:11:35 >> We are not prepared to tell you today what preventive

10:11:40 measures would be necessary.

10:11:42 But we can get a relatively quick turnaround and a relative

10:11:49 expense cost, and comb in and say what those are.

10:11:55 >>DAVE VAUGHAN: Contract administration.

10:11:56 One of the reasons we are not here, what we have to do right

10:12:02 now, is when you look at the condition of the pool in 2010

10:12:05 and 2011 when we first looked at this, and today, two years

10:12:10 later, it's not pretty, but there is not significant

10:12:16 structural deterioration to that building.

10:12:18 And so we don't get out and do this next week we are in

10:12:22 trouble.

10:12:23 That issue, that kind of issue does not exist.

10:12:26 That doesn't mean that there isn't an opportunity to look at

10:12:29 incremental accomplishments of repairs and dealing with

10:12:33 things that might turn into that earlier than others, and we

10:12:39 could come back to you with some recommendations.

10:12:42 >> Well, we wanted to make sure that we have made this --

10:12:46 and I think for all the council members based on everything

10:12:49 I heard, when we get to priority based in terms of the

10:12:52 budget for next year and if we get it the process moving for

10:12:55 all the RFQs and subsequent RFP, and then we start looking

10:13:00 at where we are going to be, we can figure out where those

10:13:03 dollars are going to come from.

10:13:05 That is going to be a hard decision on our part because now

10:13:09 we have to say there are certain things in our CIT five year

10:13:12 plan that we are going to move in order to put into Cuscaden

10:13:17 pool, and that's going to be another policy discussion that

10:13:19 we'll have in the future.

10:13:20 But I do think that we ought to start the process now.

10:13:23 I agree with of Mr. Reddick in terms of his motion so we can

10:13:26 try to find out where some dollars might be there, and then

10:13:29 we are going to have to make those smart choices based on

10:13:31 what those dollars say in terms of our capital projects.

10:13:35 But I think the second thing, obviously, we need to look at

10:13:38 what those operating dollars are going to be.

10:13:40 And that, I think, can go into what the private sector to to

10:13:43 can help us with in terms of a year to year budget for

10:13:48 operating.

10:13:49 No one knows better than Mr. Bayor in terms of using private

10:13:53 dollars to program the parks.

10:13:56 With him being in here, he's such a breath of fresh air, we

10:13:59 all know, in terms of how the parks are run and how he has

10:14:02 reached out to all the community, and I'm praising Mr. Bayor

10:14:09 because now he has a hard job which is finding more dollars

10:14:12 for Cuscaden pool.

10:14:14 But Mr. Rogero, I think we are going to pass that.

10:14:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mrs. Montelione and Mrs. Capin.

10:14:23 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I think I am going to ask Mr. Reddick to

10:14:27 restate the motion, because I believe I can support it, you

10:14:29 know, looking for the funding, or reallocation, but what I

10:14:36 propose, and what Mr. Suarez and Ms. Capin echoed, is that

10:14:41 we need to get this ball rolling now.

10:14:44 We need to spend whatever, you know, small dollars it is to

10:14:50 start preparing the documents that Mr. Vaughan needs to put

10:14:55 forth.

10:14:56 So whether one portion of it is stabilization of the site,

10:15:06 making sure that structural damage doesn't occur in the next

10:15:08 year or two before we can begin work in earnest to

10:15:12 reactivate the entire site, or going ahead and preparing the

10:15:21 documents for that complete renovation.

10:15:24 It takes a long time, Mr. Vaughan, I know it does, to put

10:15:28 those documents together, and we need to take whatever

10:15:33 funding we can and start that process.

10:15:37 So, you know, whether or not they find all the money, 1.5 or

10:15:44 1.7 or 2 million, whatever that dollar amount happens to

10:15:50 become, we need to get the ball rolling.

10:15:54 So simultaneous with looking for that money is let's get

10:15:58 those documents prepared for either strategy, one or the

10:16:05 other, stabilization, or complete reactivation, but we have

10:16:09 to get those documents -- we have to get that ball rolling.

10:16:13 It would just add more time if we wait until we find all of

10:16:16 the money, and then the documents is going to add more time.

10:16:21 I would like these things to happen simultaneously.

10:16:23 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Would have that be a friendly amendment in

10:16:26 addition to the --

10:16:30 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I think it would be.

10:16:32 That's why I asked him to restate the motion.

10:16:34 Because either a separate motion or an amendment.

10:16:37 >>YVONNE CAPIN: And I second it.

10:16:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Cohen?

10:16:44 >>HARRY COHEN: It seems to me there's a lot of moving

10:16:53 pieces to this.

10:16:54 And I want to be clear on what it is that we are asking to

10:16:57 be done move of moving forward.

10:16:59 And I also want to clarify.

10:17:02 Councilman Suarez made an excellent point about private

10:17:05 dollars being used to subsidize operations.

10:17:08 I made the point about raising some private dollars to go

10:17:11 toward the 1.5 million capital cost.

10:17:15 I was not suggesting that we could raise $1.5 million.

10:17:19 But. If we could raise $200 that you, it would be 1.3

10:17:22 million that has to come from the city.

10:17:25 So my view is, anything that we can do in any way to help

10:17:30 address the issues of cost, we should.

10:17:32 We have done that on a number of different projects that are

10:17:35 actually taking place right now.

10:17:37 And I think that there may be people who want to pay $100

10:17:42 down with a brick with their name on it around the deck of

10:17:45 the pool.

10:17:46 Who knows?

10:17:47 So that is where I was going with that.

10:17:50 If you take the time that it will take to go through the

10:17:54 process of preparing the documents, as Councilwoman

10:17:58 Montelione outlined, that gives you a couple months to do a

10:18:02 few things.

10:18:02 It gives you a few months with the CIT budget but also gives

10:18:07 us a couple of months to really start looking at next year's

10:18:10 budget.

10:18:11 We have a workshop scheduled for January 30th.

10:18:13 And we also have the option at looking at what our

10:18:18 priorities are in our general fund.

10:18:19 So there's a lot of different places that we might be able

10:18:22 to go to find the money to do it.

10:18:27 The one thing I'm a little bit concerned about is the sense

10:18:32 that we might just fund the project to pay for this, and if

10:18:42 we do that, that's fine, but it ought to be vetted in front

10:18:45 of the council and evaluate and put out there.

10:18:50 Because, you know, there's a wide variety of things that

10:18:52 could be looked to, and we need to make sure that whatever

10:18:55 those things are, they are consistent with at least four of

10:18:58 our priorities.

10:19:02 But that said, you know, I'm fully in support of a motion to

10:19:06 move this forward, but it don't want to tie up to any

10:19:10 specific funding source until we have had a chance to look

10:19:13 at all those different things you suggested.

10:19:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.

10:19:17 The original motion was made by Mr. Reddick. Who was the

10:19:21 original seconder, clerk?

10:19:22 Ms. Capin?

10:19:23 And then Mr. Reddick and Ms. Capin approved the friend reply

10:19:30 amendment.

10:19:30 So that's the motion that's on the floor.

10:19:32 Any further discussion by council members?

10:19:36 Are you a council member?

10:19:38 I thought there was an election.

10:19:41 Go on, yes, sir.

10:19:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Two points.

10:19:45 Number one, does council have been a date they would like to

10:19:51 attach that motion?

10:19:52 And number two of would be a reminder under your charter

10:19:55 section 71.07 says that budget changes have to be upon the

10:20:00 recommendation of the mayor.

10:20:01 So I would suggest that you have a request to the mayor to

10:20:03 do so.

10:20:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Chair, talk I think we are talking about

10:20:10 because of the time frame looking at next year's budget.

10:20:14 I believe so.

10:20:15 And that's just based on the time frame issue right now.

10:20:17 And I don't know if that's correct of what my colleagues

10:20:21 have been talking about, but I think --

10:20:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have been very quiet and I have been

10:20:26 listening, and my understanding of Mr. Reddick's intent --

10:20:31 and I am not speaking for Mr. Reddick or Mrs. Capin who

10:20:34 seconded the motion -- that they want to look at all the CIT

10:20:37 funding, those projects that were approved within the five

10:20:40 year program to have see where we could get some of that

10:20:43 money scaled back and brought a million and a half or so

10:20:48 dollars equated to whatever the private sector may or may

10:20:50 not give to finish the project.

10:20:54 In the interim, there should be some minor changes like a

10:20:57 $99 pump or $2 hose that takes the water out of the pool in

10:21:02 case it rains in any great proportion like it has this past

10:21:06 summer.

10:21:06 I think that was the intent.

10:21:07 >>FRANK REDDICK: It is.

10:21:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That's where it's at.

10:21:12 So that being said, know whether when would you like that

10:21:16 report to come back?

10:21:20 >>FRANK REDDICK: December 5th under staff reports.


10:21:29 Year 2013, is that correct?

10:21:31 I was going to say 2014.

10:21:32 So what we are saying is December 5th under staff

10:21:39 reports.

10:21:40 That way we can understand what's coming up.

10:21:42 Being mindful of the fact that if you have a program that

10:21:46 could benefit all, everything, that something is going to

10:21:50 get scaled back, and all eight elected officials are the

10:21:54 ones that are doing it.

10:21:56 I want to make sure that's shared.

10:22:02 The recommendation with our vote and consent along with the

10:22:05 mayor's signature that he's willing to do that.

10:22:08 And that's what the intent is.

10:22:10 So I'll take the vote now on the motion by Mr. Reddick.

10:22:13 Seconded by Mrs. Capin with a friendly amendment accepted by

10:22:16 Mrs. Montelione.

10:22:17 All in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye.

10:22:20 Opposed nay.

10:22:22 Motion passes unanimously.

10:22:23 Thank you very much.

10:22:23 I appreciate it, sir.

10:22:29 Item 74.

10:22:37 Let me get 72 first.

10:22:39 That's a continuation to November -- February 21 -- November

10:22:50 21st, 2013.

10:22:52 Motion by Mrs. Montelione.

10:22:54 All in favor?

10:22:55 The ayes have it unanimously.

10:22:58 Item number 74.

10:23:02 >>BRAD BAIRD: Director of parks and recreation.

10:23:06 I am here to follow up and I will follow the recommendation

10:23:10 don't talk more than you need to.

10:23:14 Regarding fencing, the doesn't continues to strive to find

10:23:23 new ways to make the parks for enjoyable for everybody.

10:23:28 I will point out that our playgrounds have a design that

10:23:33 have been constructed and maintained to consumer products

10:23:37 safety commission standards.

10:23:48 We have safety inspectors.

10:23:48 For fencing, we do an outreach.

10:23:50 There are no standards of fencing for playgrounds.

10:23:52 We checked with many jurisdictions in the state and did 20

10:23:57 responded.

10:23:59 There are no standards for fences.

10:24:11 However, ASTM, they have guidelines, about distances to any

10:24:15 vulnerability.

10:24:15 We went and looked at two levels.

10:24:19 Number one, 30 feet from any vulnerabilities, which could be

10:24:23 parking lots, drop-offs and such.

10:24:25 We looked at that.

10:24:27 It would take over $100,000 to complete our fencing.

10:24:32 We did survey one of one of our parks, a level one, and it's

10:24:35 not that large of a number.

10:24:37 We did not look at level two, which is 30 feet to 100 feet.

10:24:46 Also the part of the study what it would take for foliage.

10:24:51 Foliage we would need so you would know -- you don't want to

10:24:58 plant your foliage -- three to four feet high hedge would

10:25:06 run you $1200 for 10 yards, 30 feet.

10:25:09 Multiply that by the number to put out there for budgets.

10:25:15 Put them in our highest priority first.

10:25:18 As an alternative we want to point out that we could very

10:25:23 well go back to the program, we called former staff from

10:25:28 years ago and in 2006, and if we did six pools just in the

10:25:33 summer we could run 3,000 children through for 170,000.

10:25:37 If we did five pools year round, we could do 3600 children

10:25:42 for 220,000.

10:25:46 To suggest to the county that, you know, you have a lot of

10:25:53 county folks coming in.

10:25:56 So we are kind of mulling that over also.

10:26:00 That's where we are on our costs.

10:26:03 >>HARRY COHEN: Councilman Reddick.

10:26:06 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

10:26:09 The latter part that you just stated, that's a good

10:26:14 suggestion you made about the swimming pool, but that's not

10:26:17 the problem.

10:26:20 The problem occurs if somebody is in a pool, and drowns.

10:26:27 What we have is that -- and I understand about the fencing,

10:26:32 and it costs quite a bit to do that.

10:26:36 But my recommendation I made before to staff is that the

10:26:42 shrubbery that you can put there, and you can get those

10:26:46 shrubberies that don't grow taller than me, so that means

10:26:53 they are short.

10:26:56 And you can put those down there, and the plan in the

10:27:03 playground, if a wall rolls toward that, at least it might

10:27:08 prevent that ball from going into the water, at least block

10:27:11 it, and kids just don't have a free pass to go direct to the

10:27:18 river.

10:27:18 So what is the possibility of putting -- and I think you

10:27:21 mentioned about putting those type of shrubberies around the

10:27:29 park, the field, so you can have some type of preventive

10:27:32 measure from a person just going out and into the water.

10:27:38 1200 for 30 feet.

10:27:41 And, I mean, you don't have to Don the entire river.

10:27:44 Just do the areas that are adjacent to a playground or field

10:27:48 or something like that, where you have most of the people

10:27:52 congregate at.

10:27:53 So what is the probability of having that done?

10:27:57 >> Not that hard to do, and we can identify that area, and

10:28:08 might find some funding for that.

10:28:09 >> I think that would be the most feasible way to go.

10:28:15 And I know there are some other problems with the fencing.

10:28:24 But I'm just looking at putting shrubbery that you can put

10:28:33 up, and so that at least it might be a preventive measure

10:28:38 from people chasing a ball, that it won't roll into the

10:28:42 water, might be to block it oh are something.

10:28:45 And the most economical wait to go, and probably the most

10:28:51 safe way to go.

10:28:52 And I hope that you all pursue that.

10:28:55 >>HARRY COHEN: Councilwoman Capin.

10:29:00 Councilwoman Montelione?

10:29:02 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.

10:29:06 I definitely agree with you, Mr. Reddick.

10:29:08 It is an inexpensive remedy.

10:29:13 And I'm glad we can find some funding for that.

10:29:17 Being a little facetious there after our last discussion.

10:29:19 But the one thing that you said is that, you know, we

10:29:24 checked, and I appreciate very much reaching out.

10:29:26 We have gone two pages, two and a half pages of areas, other

10:29:34 municipalities, other cities that you checked with, to see

10:29:38 what their policies were.

10:29:39 So I appreciate that are research very much.

10:29:43 But it seems that some of them, although there's not an

10:29:46 overall policy procedurally for the municipality or that

10:29:53 city, not all of them, a lot of them did say that most parks

10:30:03 with natural waterways and water facilities or playgrounds

10:30:07 have something.

10:30:09 Miami-Dade, we have also used a six foot high chain link

10:30:13 fence installation, not a code requirement but requested by

10:30:15 the community.

10:30:17 That was one that was installed by a canal recently.

10:30:20 And another instance we used a combination of two wood

10:30:26 fences too close to a shower stream.

10:30:30 Sarasota has, as well on a case-by-case basis, fencing is

10:30:37 installed, based on approximate I am at this time to a road

10:30:39 or body of water.

10:30:41 And they go on to say, if they install a fence, it is

10:30:44 because the area draws a large number of people or has a

10:30:48 steep bank.

10:30:49 In this instance, it was football practice that was taking

10:30:55 place at the park.

10:30:56 So I would say that's a large number of people.

10:30:58 And we have several areas where we have parks utilized by

10:31:05 football or soccer or other, lacrosse or other organized

10:31:10 sports where it's not a playground, but it does draw large

10:31:16 numbers of people for that reason.

10:31:19 So I think there's an opportunity.

10:31:20 I think Ms. Capin awhile back said something about looking

10:31:24 at opportunities.

10:31:26 And I think this is an opportunity for us.

10:31:30 We could be the municipal that the city that does class a

10:31:40 policy where maybe it's not, you know, every city's park.

10:31:44 I certainly don't want to fence off all of our waterways.

10:31:48 Mrs. Mandell and I have had that discussion.

10:31:50 But I think that we need to maybe put in place some of these

10:31:57 case by case bases.

10:31:59 We need to have maybe some kind of rule of that would say we

10:32:02 are going to look at P at these parks where there is a water

10:32:10 feature, where there are potential hazards, utilized by

10:32:15 large numbers of children, that we have a policy that

10:32:17 states, we will examine that potential risk.

10:32:23 So whether it's by some kind of audit that the Parks

10:32:26 Department does, and I know you had done some preliminary

10:32:29 work to that end, but that's maybe an opportunity that we

10:32:34 have here to be a leader in that regard.

10:32:37 >>JULIA MANDELL: Legal department.

10:32:39 And we did have individual conversations about these issues

10:32:42 so I don't want to get into too much details of what I said

10:32:45 to you.

10:32:47 But I would remind you that -- and it's probably why a lot

10:32:50 of jurisdictions don't have one size fits all policy.

10:32:55 The second you put those policies into place out don't have

10:32:57 it the same level of leeway that you have when you look at

10:33:00 parks on an individualized basis.

10:33:03 You have to treat every park and every water body the same,

10:33:05 because what you are really saying is this has an inherent

10:33:08 risk to it.

10:33:09 And so I think what would be suggested by the administration

10:33:14 in looking at individual parks and dealing with issues as

10:33:17 they relate to individual parks really is the best approach

10:33:21 from a liability standpoint in the future.

10:33:25 If there is a park that comes up where that issue does

10:33:28 exist, or they think there what the Parks Department is

10:33:32 looking at a harm or risk under what the parameters they

10:33:35 have described, it really needs to be individualized basis

10:33:38 from the administration perspective.

10:33:40 But. If we go through the process of adding a policy either

10:33:43 a city-wide policy or a policy that's over arching, what you

10:33:47 are really saying is you are making a statement that if we

10:33:51 don't follow that policy, we actually created more risk than

10:33:54 we resolved.

10:33:55 Again I want into more detail with you all privately.

10:33:59 If you have any additional questions about that, I would

10:34:00 rather have the conversations individually.

10:34:03 But that's generally why I made the statements that I made

10:34:06 in our other conversations.

10:34:08 Why I made the statement that we made when the issue first

10:34:11 came up.

10:34:11 Thank you.

10:34:12 >> Are there any other questions or comments from council

10:34:15 members?

10:34:19 >>FRANK REDDICK: I just want to ask Mr. Baird, you gave a

10:34:22 report here today.

10:34:24 Now, when are you willing to come back and tell us with when

10:34:32 it's going to be implemented?

10:34:34 >> We were very swift in those playground.

10:34:44 I'm sure areas that need landscaping.

10:34:49 So there will be different levels of impact.

10:34:54 >>FRANK REDDICK: Let me do it this way.

10:34:56 I would like to make a motion, Mr. Chair, to report back

10:34:59 with implementation policy for the parks and recreation

10:35:06 program on December 5th at 9:00 under staph reports.

10:35:13 >> We have a motion from Councilman Reddick, seconded by

10:35:16 Councilwoman Montelione.

10:35:18 All those in favor? Opposed?

10:35:20 Okay.

10:35:21 We'll see you again on the 5th.

10:35:22 Thank you.

10:35:24 I'm going to hold item number 75 for the moment because it's

10:35:27 of particular interest to Councilman Miranda.

10:35:30 We have two items that are here because they are over the

10:35:35 million dollar threshold. We care of item number 77

10:35:38 already.

10:35:38 So if staff is available to address items number 76 and 78

10:35:43 at this time.

10:35:43 >> Good morning, Mr. Herr.

10:35:49 >> Mike HERR, public works and facility services here to

10:35:54 address item 76.

10:35:55 Item 76 is a recommendation to approve an award between the

10:36:00 City of Tampa and container systems and equipment company

10:36:03 incorporated for the purchase of 127 automated side loader

10:36:10 refuse trucks, $277,911.41 for a total of $3,334,936.92.

10:36:24 For use by the solid waste department.

10:36:26 We are asking approval to authorize the director of

10:36:29 purchasing to purchase the property -- excuse me, the

10:36:34 equipment.

10:36:35 The purchase is being made under chapter 204-466, which is

10:36:40 legislation pertaining to cooperative procurements from

10:36:44 Hillsborough County from the Florida sheriffs association

10:36:47 and Florida association of counties, bid award 13-11-09-04.

10:36:53 Under your fiscal statement, the funds to purchase that is

10:36:58 in the solid waste budget.

10:36:59 >>LISA MONTELIONE: As I ask with almost every vehicle

10:37:06 purchase, are these fuel efficient vehicles, some of the

10:37:13 trucks or buses that Hartline is buying are CNG?

10:37:23 Do you know, Mr. Herr, if these are fuel efficient vehicles?

10:37:27 >> I do not believe that these are the compressed natural

10:37:31 gas.

10:37:32 But I will be happy to check that very quickly.

10:37:35 But I don't know.

10:37:39 I know that we have previously acquired five fully automated

10:37:42 side loaders that were compressed natural gas.

10:37:45 I'll check on it.

10:37:46 >>LISA MONTELIONE: We have five, and that's kind of novel.

10:37:50 But I think the price of fuel is not going to go down.

10:37:56 It is going to go up.

10:37:57 And given our budget constraints, I spoke about the fuel of

10:38:06 the budget line item for our police department and fire

10:38:09 rescue vehicles, and the dollar amount of fuel they consume

10:38:13 is huge.

10:38:15 And when we discuss how tight our budget is in finding

10:38:19 things, you know, service dollars to perform in our city, I

10:38:23 think that that's one category where we can actively do

10:38:28 something to reduce our costs.

10:38:30 So it's a lot of vehicles.

10:38:38 And maybe that's an opportunity lost now at this point.

10:38:41 But I would strongly encourage looking at fuel efficient

10:38:46 vehicles I.

10:38:54 >> I will confirm this point.

10:38:55 I think they are compressed natural gas but I will confirm

10:38:58 that.

10:38:59 >> Move number 76.

10:39:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Seconded by Mr. Suarez.

10:39:03 All in favor?

10:39:04 Opposed?

10:39:06 The ayes have it unanimously.

10:39:07 Thank you.

10:39:08 75.

10:39:11 Ms. Mandell, I believe that we had a discussion if hard

10:39:15 costs, soft costs and no costs.

10:39:18 >>JULIA MANDELL: Legal department.

10:39:20 I have had an opportunity as well as Ernie Mueller in my

10:39:22 office to look at this particular issue to have additional

10:39:29 discussion was the Florida League of Cities, and there's

10:39:32 another organization for the code enforcement officer, which

10:39:36 I probably butchered there, designation today as well.

10:39:39 And in having this conversation, and surveying whatever

10:39:44 jurisdictions are doing, there isn't a lot of moving forward

10:39:48 by any jurisdiction, or thought process right now about

10:39:52 changing legislation in order to allow for those to be

10:39:57 placed on the property tax bill.

10:39:58 Let me explain why that is.

10:40:02 There is actually new in many jurisdictions at this time

10:40:06 something that we will be bringing back to council and

10:40:08 recommending to council, that as it relates to the hard

10:40:11 costs -- and when I say hard costs, what I mean are in the

10:40:14 city actually goes out and mows property or other kind of

10:40:18 abatement to actually look at those in terms of creating

10:40:21 special assessments and having the assessment be placed on

10:40:25 your property tax bill.

10:40:27 That's something we can do right now under Florida statute.

10:40:30 And it's something that you many jurisdictions are moving

10:40:33 forward with, and there is some thought process that that

10:40:37 might be a better approach than changing the legislation or

10:40:40 seeing if the Florida legislature, because they get a little

10:40:43 bit sensitive over home rule items, going to them, and

10:40:49 making that issue highlighted to them during this particular

10:40:53 legislative session.

10:40:53 So as opposed to right now, recommendation out of the legal

10:40:58 department that we pursue legislation, which I think could

10:41:01 undermine some efforts of other jurisdictions, we would like

10:41:05 the opportunity to come back to you in January as part of

10:41:07 your overarching workshop on this issue to you make a

10:41:10 presentation on the process to actually create a special

10:41:14 assessment process for hard costs.

10:41:18 As I said, we believe that is easily allowed under Florida

10:41:21 statutes today, and to set that process up, as it relate to

10:41:25 the code enforcement, the soft cost means that's not

10:41:29 necessarily something that we can do right now, but we

10:41:31 believe that there's some value in at least starting the

10:41:34 process up with a special assessment ordinance process.

10:41:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So January what?

10:41:40 I want a specific time and date.

10:41:41 >>JULIA MANDELL: You already have a workshop scheduled in

10:41:44 January to talk about all the other enforcement agencies

10:41:49 that have been brought to your attention.

10:41:51 I believe it's January 30th.

10:41:53 It could be incorrect on that.

10:41:54 >>HARRY COHEN: The workshop on the 30th but I don't see

10:41:59 code enforcement specifically but it is not that full of a

10:42:01 day.

10:42:01 We could do it on the 30th.

10:42:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mr. Cohen for January

10:42:08 30th, 10:30 a.m. for this item to be brought up for a

10:42:14 hard cost recovery by the City of Tampa as presented by city

10:42:20 attorney Julia Mandell, seconded by Mrs. Montelione.

10:42:23 All in favor of the motion?

10:42:25 Opposed?

10:42:26 The ayes have it unanimously.

10:42:28 All right.

10:42:28 That takes care of 74, 75, 76, 77.

10:42:32 78 -- 77?

10:42:38 Than was the one that was taken -- 78.

10:42:42 Yes, ma'am.

10:42:47 I'm doing 78.

10:42:48 77 was done.

10:42:49 And I stated it earlier.

10:42:51 You can you can check the record.

10:42:53 It whats moved from 400 up that to 600 million.

10:42:56 It was not a million dollar so it was moved from there to

10:42:59 consent.

10:42:59 Yes, ma'am?

10:43:00 >> Kimberly Crum, director of human resources.

10:43:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I may be bald but I still got a brain.

10:43:07 >> And I'm here before you on item 78, which is additional

10:43:11 funding for the city Wellness Center to carry us through the

10:43:14 end of the year.

10:43:15 When we first came before you back in 2010 for the approval

10:43:19 of the center, we used a very conservative approach, and

10:43:22 conservative model, and from nearly the very beginning of

10:43:26 the inception of the wellness centers, they have been

10:43:29 utilized at a rate higher than we anticipated so we are very

10:43:34 pleased to be able to share with you that over the last

10:43:36 several years since their inception, you remember the goal

10:43:40 was to reduce the spike of the curve for city employees

10:43:47 wellness plans or health plans, and combined with United

10:43:51 Healthcare costs as well as our Wellness Center costs, we

10:43:56 are pleased that the city has been able to save about $4

10:43:59 million over what would have been anticipated without the

10:44:02 wellness centers and our proactive approach to employee

10:44:06 health care.

10:44:07 So out of that $4 million we are asking to reappropriate

10:44:11 $250,000 to help us pay with center costs that are over and

10:44:16 above our original plan.

10:44:17 And that will carry us through the end of this calendar

10:44:21 year.

10:44:21 >> Move approval.

10:44:23 >> I have a motion for approval by Mr. Cohen on 78, seconded

10:44:27 by Mrs. Montelione.

10:44:28 All in favor of the motion?

10:44:31 Opposed?

10:44:32 The ayes have it unanimously.

10:44:33 Okay.

10:44:34 We go back.

10:44:35 Let me do this, if I may, go to public hearings so that the

10:44:38 people here can go back to work and Don watch they have

10:44:43 torch do E.

10:44:44 Then we go to the items that we pulled.

10:44:47 We go to item 547.

10:44:57 Meth 54 up there 59.

10:44:59 Motion to open the public hearings.

10:45:01 The ayes have it unanimously.

10:45:02 These are quasi-judicial hearings, 54 up there 69.

10:45:06 All those in the public who have any idea or think they are

10:45:08 going to speak, will speak or hopeful of speaking, please

10:45:13 rise and be sworn in by the city clerk.

10:45:16 (Oath administered by Clerk)

10:45:28 Need a motion to receive all the documents, 54 through 69.

10:45:33 Mr. Cohen and Mr. Suarez.

10:45:35 The ayes have it unanimously.

10:45:36 Okay.

10:45:37 54.

10:45:55 54 and 55 are about the same, right?

10:46:00 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: Correct.

10:46:02 Fowler White, 501 East Kennedy Boulevard here on 54 and 565,

10:46:08 the notice of proposed change and the PDA rezoning for Tampa

10:46:11 Palms area 3.

10:46:13 If I may, I want to submit into the record a Power Point and

10:46:17 presentation that was provided to residents of Buckingham

10:46:30 subdivision for the meeting on the 30th.

10:46:34 Some residents are here to speak, so I don't know how much

10:46:44 detail to go into now.

10:46:47 I will reserve some time if necessary to respond to anything

10:46:49 at the end.

10:46:51 Just real quickly at the at the first public hearing, on

10:46:55 October 10th, Councilwoman Montelione had asked us to

10:46:59 meet with some of the residents of Buckingham and Tuscany

10:47:04 because out was obvious that night there was a lot of

10:47:07 misunderstanding about what was in front of the City

10:47:09 Council.

10:47:11 So we did have a meeting on October 30th at 6:00 p.m.

10:47:16 There were 23 people present.

10:47:18 The meeting lasted almost two hours.

10:47:23 My client was there at the beginning.

10:47:28 Did he leave after a few minutes.

10:47:29 And he is also not here today for the same reason, and that

10:47:33 is he got a flu shot and got very sick afterwards and has an

10:47:41 infection that that come to have very serious consequences

10:47:45 and he's under doctor's care.

10:47:47 In any event, he was in bad physical shape to participate in

10:47:53 that meeting or be here today and he certainly apologizes.

10:47:56 I know from some of the comments that people felt as if,

10:47:59 well, he's not here, we can't negotiate, the purpose of the

10:48:02 meeting was not to negotiate.

10:48:04 Councilwoman Montelione asked us to provide information to

10:48:08 the people, and that's what we did.

10:48:11 We really did, we put together the Power Point you have in

10:48:17 front of you.

10:48:18 We think went through it.

10:48:19 We brought maps.

10:48:20 I answered every question that I was able to answer.

10:48:23 Again, we spent almost two hours.

10:48:27 So I do feel the purpose of the meeting was served.

10:48:31 And again I just want to remind council that what this

10:48:36 application is about is something very different from what

10:48:39 some of the comments are about.

10:48:43 Really, all we are trying to do with the notice of proposed

10:48:46 change is get approval, build an additional 116,713 square

10:48:54 feet along Bruce B. Downs Boulevard, and the parcels that

10:49:01 had the affect, along Bruce B. Downs boulevard, not within

10:49:04 the department.

10:49:08 The land use equivalent to trade-off matrix, to add some

10:49:14 additional uses, senior housing, assistive living, many

10:49:18 storage and hotel uses, obviously commercial uses can only

10:49:21 be located again on commercial parcels, the zoning, to add

10:49:28 some changes to the performance standards that have been in

10:49:31 place since 1989, again to have allow for the possibility of

10:49:36 some cluster homes, which is like a neotraditional type of

10:49:41 design.

10:49:42 We revised the condition regarding the parking lot facility

10:49:48 at Hart's request.

10:49:50 But I think it's important to understand that nothing in the

10:49:52 application today is changing the residential entitlements.

10:49:56 I know some people are concerned of that there could be new

10:50:02 residential development near them.

10:50:04 That concern exists today.

10:50:05 Nothing, whether you approve or you do not approve, today's

10:50:10 application, that possibility exists.

10:50:13 It has existed since the 1980s when this development was

10:50:16 first approved.

10:50:19 Where that has not changed.

10:50:21 The only significant changes that have occurred, and we

10:50:24 explained this at the meeting, was in the 1993, the plans

10:50:30 for Tampa Palms area 3 showed a regional mall, and when my

10:50:34 client bought the property at that time in 1994, the DRI was

10:50:41 amended to actually review the amount of square footage

10:50:46 available to what we have now.

10:50:48 It went from over 900 to about 700,000 square feet.

10:50:55 But nothing we are asking for today is for any specific

10:50:59 construction to occur.

10:51:02 It doesn't in any way change the amount of residential

10:51:05 entitlements which are already there.

10:51:10 Issues have come up regarding the widening of I 375, the

10:51:14 installation of a berm by FDOT.

10:51:16 That was all done by the Florida Department of

10:51:19 Transportation.

10:51:20 I know that they have been in communication with the

10:51:22 residents in the area with regard to the possibility of a

10:51:27 noise law.

10:51:28 Councilwoman Mulhern, you had asked something about a berm

10:51:30 that came up.

10:51:31 It's my understanding from reading some of the FDOT --

10:51:35 again, my client has nothing to do with this but just to

10:51:38 answer your question I did do a little research, and my

10:51:41 understanding is that FDOT is building a berm around the

10:51:44 pond to restore the water levels to their historic levels,

10:51:50 because I guess some runoff and flooding occurring that's

10:51:54 damaging some of the trees and wetlands and that's the

10:51:57 purpose of the berm according to be what I read from the

10:52:00 FDOT files.

10:52:03 There was discussion of a gas line going in and trees being

10:52:06 taken out.

10:52:07 That was done by Florida gas pursuant to an easement.

10:52:10 Again, not done by my client.

10:52:14 There's nothing my client can do about that now.

10:52:17 And there's nothing for us to negotiate with regard to

10:52:22 third-party actions done by FDOT and Florida gas, and they

10:52:25 have already occurred, and again the noise near I 756 I know

10:52:36 is an issue between Buckingham and Florida Department of

10:52:38 Transportation, and again not something that my client can

10:52:41 do anything about.

10:52:42 Certainly that's an FDOT issue.

10:52:45 So again we are not here today asking you to allow us to

10:52:50 build something new near the Buckingham and Tuscany

10:52:54 subdivision.

10:52:55 We are asking for additional commercial square footage

10:52:58 entitlements along Bruce B. Downs.

10:53:00 There's already approval to build more residential units.

10:53:04 Again whether you approve what's before you today or not.

10:53:07 And I'm happy to answer any questions after they speak.

10:53:17 If you would like me to readdress those issues I would be

10:53:20 glad to.

10:53:21 Thank you very much.

10:53:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Questions by council members at this

10:53:23 time?

10:53:24 >> I would have some questions but I want to hear from the

10:53:27 public.

10:53:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Anyone from the public to be speak on

10:53:29 item 54, please come forward.

10:53:31 54.

10:53:32 54.

10:53:32 >> Michael Collis. I live in the Buckingham subdivision.

10:53:42 16163 Colchester Palms Drive, Tampa, Florida, and we did

10:53:50 meet with Mrs. Zellman and appreciate her time and working

10:53:54 with her the best we can.

10:53:56 One of the things that was provided at the meeting was area

10:53:59 3 transportation analysis which showed the impact of this

10:54:03 increased commercial activity along Bruce B. Downs.

10:54:06 And what's interesting about that study is probably in the

10:54:08 record, got a lot of charts and graphics.

10:54:11 But it only analyzed impact of the increased commercial

10:54:15 activities for the intersection as long Bruce B. Downs.

10:54:19 There was no analysis of the impact on the intersections

10:54:24 adjacent to Bruce B. Downs.

10:54:26 And I think you will hear from some of the other residents

10:54:29 that there's two intersections in particular that we are

10:54:32 concerned about.

10:54:33 Those are the intersections of Compton drive and Tampa Palms

10:54:37 Boulevard and Compton Drive and Commerce Palms Boulevard.

10:54:42 Again, the transportation analysis that was submitted to you

10:54:46 that is included with this application includes no analysis

10:54:49 of those key intersections.

10:54:52 One of those is a 12-way intersection.

10:54:55 The other is a 16-way intersection.

10:54:58 No traffic lights.

10:55:00 And I can tell you that those are very dangerous

10:55:04 intersections.

10:55:05 I drive my daughter every day through one of those

10:55:07 intersections.

10:55:08 They are very dangerous.

10:55:09 You can imagine for the 16-way intersection you have 8 cars

10:55:12 coming into the intersection, eight cars leaving the

10:55:14 intersection.

10:55:15 And because there's not a traffic light there the way the

10:55:18 traffic laws are, the person honor arrives first has the

10:55:22 right-of-way.

10:55:22 You can imagine it's pretty confusing. Council members on a

10:55:27 Saturday afternoon to drive through one of those

10:55:29 intersections will know exactly what we are talking about.

10:55:32 So all we are saying is, certainly we expect there to be

10:55:36 increased commercial activity along Bruce B. Downs.

10:55:39 I don't think anyone can say that is going to happen and we

10:55:46 get that.

10:55:47 But how that the is going to impact two intersections that

10:55:50 are already intrinsically of interest and anything that's

10:55:54 going to drive additional traffic through those two

10:55:59 intersections.

10:56:00 Certainly the one on Compton park and commerce Boulevard is

10:56:05 adjacent to the BJ's shopping center, it's got BJs and a

10:56:11 Lowes, or a pet smart.

10:56:13 So there will be more traffic for those areas.

10:56:15 So all we are saying is maybe a little more time, maybe New

10:56:20 Tampa Inc. can do a new study that includes what impacts

10:56:23 they will have on those two intersections.

10:56:26 If New Tampa Inc. is willing to do it, I'm sure the

10:56:27 homeowners of Buckingham would be willing to do a new study

10:56:31 just to see what the impact is and to see what needs to be

10:56:33 done to make these intersections safe.

10:56:37 Thank you very much for your time.

10:56:38 >> Thank you very much.

10:56:39 We appreciate it.

10:56:40 Next, please.

10:56:41 >> Ram Ramades. I'm with the homeowners association.

10:56:55 Some comments that I need to make.

10:57:25 >> Turn it the other way.

10:57:27 >> (Speaking away from microphone) This is the closest

10:57:31 point at Buckingham.

10:57:36 Now, you can see along this, these two, the city do this,

10:57:56 okay?

10:57:57 Now, acquired the land in 2007.

10:58:14 Okay?

10:58:14 In 2007, you can read this.

10:58:23 If it's eminent domain it should have happened here.

10:58:42 Did it not happen here.

10:58:43 It only happened here.

10:58:44 One mistake.

10:58:45 Two mistakes.

10:58:47 And I wanted to see what the problem is.

10:58:51 Thank you very much.

10:58:57 You see this area here, the homeowners.

10:59:24 We need to look at what we need to do over here.

10:59:27 Okay.

10:59:35 We have access.

10:59:41 Thank you for giving me the time.

10:59:47 >> Next, please.

10:59:49 Anyone else in the audience on item 54, please come forward.

10:59:52 Item 54.

10:59:52 Anyone else here who has not spoken who would care to speak?

10:59:56 >> Lowell Harris, 3440 park square east in Tampa.

11:00:04 And my daughter and son-in-law live in Buckingham community

11:00:11 and they have asked me to speak and represent them.

11:00:14 This is no minor ordinance.

11:00:17 It will have a major impact ultimately on Tampa Palms

11:00:21 completely, but immediately on Buckingham.

11:00:24 And not withstanding all of the work that's being done, that

11:00:27 will be done, with the expansion of 275, we now have to face

11:00:35 another development that's going to pull in commercial

11:00:39 property as well.

11:00:42 And we expect to lose many trees in that area.

11:00:47 From what we are hearing today there could be parking lots,

11:00:50 parking garages, park-and-ride.

11:00:54 Who knows?

11:00:55 So Buckingham residents are already being pressured.

11:00:59 Their home values have reduced significantly.

11:01:01 We are looking at a tremendous sound problem with many of

11:01:07 those trees and plants that are valuable to the quality of

11:01:10 life that will be going because -- moved because of the 75,

11:01:16 and now we are looking at this new development which is

11:01:20 going to immediately affect us.

11:01:22 Dramatically.

11:01:24 As it will all of Tampa Palms.

11:01:26 And I hope we didn't widen Bruce B. Downs for the purpose of

11:01:30 more and perhaps unfettered development so that in five

11:01:34 years we will be looking at another widening.

11:01:36 What we are asking you here specifically is to vote not to

11:01:40 approve this ordinance today but to give us an opportunity

11:01:45 to have been speak more effectively with his representatives

11:01:53 and to be able to work something out that will provide at

11:01:55 least a buffer where trees, plants, something is going to

11:02:00 prevent us from being right up against that new development.

11:02:07 And we have not been able to do so, we feel, effectively for

11:02:18 his representatives to this point so that's why we ask you

11:02:20 to give us an opportunity to give us some concession to work

11:02:24 with Mr. Kinsler and his representative on this issue.

11:02:28 Thank you.

11:02:29 >> Thank you very much.

11:02:30 Anyone else in the audience care to speak on item 54 who has

11:02:33 not spoken earlier?

11:02:35 Please come forward.

11:02:37 If you are going to speak, if there's more in the audience,

11:02:39 please line up.

11:02:40 >> Michelle Yeager, 16177 Colchester Palms, and have been

11:02:46 there for eight years, and I am greatly impacted by

11:02:49 obviously what the representative already mentioned.

11:02:56 We are not here to tell you again and again how bad our

11:03:00 property as far as the widening of I-75 but it is where I

11:03:03 can be awakened in the middle of the night by a truck and

11:03:07 the road hasn't been expanded yet.

11:03:08 That's a direct results of the immense amount of trees that

11:03:12 have been removed.

11:03:13 And what we are concerned about is that once Mr. Kinsler

11:03:16 sells the property next to us, I understand things have

11:03:22 already been approved and I understand he wants to be able

11:03:25 to sell that property and that's the reason he's asking for

11:03:28 more opportunity to put on that H.but what we are concerned

11:03:30 about is obviously a great amount of trees are going to be

11:03:33 removed again, and to add fuel to the fire, and our

11:03:37 properties have declined literally 50%.

11:03:42 We paid a half million for our home and it's valued at about

11:03:45 300 right now, and we have several affected by the widening,

11:03:52 and will be affected once this development continues next to

11:03:55 us.

11:03:55 My other concern is the point about both intersections.

11:04:06 There was a fatality at one of those intersections about a

11:04:10 month ago.

11:04:10 More and more people are going to be killed at this

11:04:12 intersection.

11:04:14 We are not asking for a light there.

11:04:16 We are just asking for something where where there is

11:04:20 something to alert you that you are coming up to a stop

11:04:23 sign, something, because on a regular basis -- and I don't

11:04:28 even commute through those intersections as much as some

11:04:30 people I know.

11:04:31 I know some people completely blow through the stop sign.

11:04:34 It's difficult to even see them.

11:04:36 And there's also -- I have had cars come straight on head on

11:04:40 towards me.

11:04:41 And the gentleman commutes to those often, on a regular

11:04:45 basis, he tells me, somebody almost had a head-on collision.

11:04:49 And I really think that once their commercial properties are

11:04:52 developed are in that area, it's just going to grow

11:04:55 exponentially, and the danger is going to be obviously

11:04:59 exponential.

11:05:00 And what's not been told to you is there's a high school and

11:05:03 junior high school right across the street from Bruce B.

11:05:05 Downs, from all of that new construction.

11:05:07 And many of those children, they are going to be impacted.

11:05:14 So to add those dangers.

11:05:15 As much as we love to think that this new law will affect

11:05:19 us, the reality is it's still there.

11:05:21 You can imagine the devastation at risk here, you know, for

11:05:25 loss of life.

11:05:26 And I really would like to ask again, I know just give us a

11:05:31 little more time for more residents, because he was there

11:05:35 for only five minutes.

11:05:36 And we understand he's ill.

11:05:39 We do appreciate the time that she put into it.

11:05:41 (Bell sounds)

11:05:46 But she was not able to tell us.

11:05:51 So we would like that opportunity.

11:05:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thanks very much.

11:05:54 Next, please.

11:05:54 >> My name is David Williamson. I am also a resident of

11:06:01 Buckingham, 16150 Colchester Palms, Tampa.

11:06:09 I don't want to rehash everything that's been said.

11:06:11 It's been said very well.

11:06:12 You are well aware of the devastation that Buckingham has

11:06:15 suffered from over the last few years, and it's been

11:06:19 widespread throughout the county, the city, everywhere to

11:06:22 some extent but I don't think any communities suffered as

11:06:25 much as Buckingham.

11:06:26 I am pretty confident in making that comment.

11:06:28 Moving on to the real point of my coming up here today, I

11:06:31 want to reemphasize two points.

11:06:34 Number one is the safety issue.

11:06:36 The safety issue is something that kind of snuck up on all

11:06:41 of us.

11:06:41 We have these two deadly intersections, literally deadly

11:06:45 intersections in our midst that are going to have a

11:06:47 tremendous amount of additional traffic being funneled into.

11:06:50 There's no planning or consideration being given to the fact

11:06:53 that that new traffic is being added to an already deadly

11:06:58 situation and we are very concerned.

11:07:00 I have a daughter that's a teenage driver.

11:07:03 I'm scared myself going through there.

11:07:05 It's just a very bad situation.

11:07:07 And it's something that we really -- we throw ourselves at

11:07:11 your mercy to please give us some time.

11:07:13 Please have your experts take a look at it.

11:07:16 Legalities see what can be done.

11:07:17 And my second point, the meeting with Mr. Kinsler, he was

11:07:23 gracious enough to show up and he was gracious enough to

11:07:25 bring his legal counsel with him.

11:07:27 However, he had to leave.

11:07:30 I don't think -- I don't know because I'm not sitting in

11:07:32 your seats, but I don't think that was your intent when you

11:07:36 instructed him or asked him to meet with us, to have him

11:07:40 show up for five minutes and then leave his counsel there to

11:07:43 speak to us with no authority whatsoever to discuss any

11:07:46 substantive issues or negotiate in any way, shape or form,

11:07:50 and I would ask you, I would beg you, so to speak, to please

11:07:54 give us some more time to sit down with Mr. Kinsler, to have

11:07:57 your experts take a look at it, and let's see what can be

11:08:01 done.

11:08:01 Thank you very much.

11:08:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much, sir.

11:08:03 Anyone else who has not spoken would care to speak at this

11:08:06 time?

11:08:06 >> My name is Stacy Clark, 16125 Brecon Palms in Buckingham

11:08:16 and I just want to take the opportunity for a few minutes to

11:08:19 represent the many homeowners that are concerned about this.

11:08:22 I don't think we are being unreasonable, and we do

11:08:26 understand progress.

11:08:26 But if we could just find a way to find some harmony.

11:08:34 Amenities moving traffic pattern through commercial traffic

11:08:37 or high density traffic isn't embedding into our area.

11:08:42 There's got to be some ways that we can work this out.

11:08:45 Obviously we have the same concerns, wetlands conservation.

11:08:50 I live on a corner, a beautiful pond, beautiful trees, and I

11:08:53 pay my taxes, I'm very happy, and all of a sudden I have a

11:08:56 concern as do many of our neighbors that that's going to go

11:08:58 away.

11:08:59 And in our community, some other areas of Tampa Palms, we

11:09:05 don't want to leave Tampa Palms, and I'm sorry to hear

11:09:09 people say I am just going to move.

11:09:11 And that's be a very sad comment when it's a beautiful,

11:09:13 wonderful neighborhood and it's starting to fall apart and I

11:09:15 don't think it has to.

11:09:16 There's something that can be done.

11:09:18 People are willing to have do things to make that happen.

11:09:20 It sound like the developer is willing, the neighbors are

11:09:23 willing.

11:09:24 I'm just here to ask and say thanks for giving us the

11:09:28 opportunity but we really need to find some ways to make it

11:09:30 work and address the public safety, the congestion, the

11:09:33 wetlands.

11:09:36 I have another minute and a half.

11:09:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Normally the speaker waiver form has to be

11:09:52 filled out beforehand.

11:09:54 It's council's pleasure.

11:09:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: In other words, if he would have spoke

11:09:57 and you gave him your minute, you wouldn't have been able to

11:09:59 speak.

11:10:00 We are caught in a situation here that I can't win.

11:10:03 I would have to say no.

11:10:04 >> Okay.

11:10:06 Thank you.

11:10:06 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

11:10:08 Anyone else who has not spoken who would care to speak on

11:10:11 item 574?

11:10:13 54.

11:10:14 I see no one.

11:10:15 Petitioner, you heard the concern of the neighborhood.

11:10:25 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: A couple of points and then I am glad to

11:10:27 answer any questions.

11:10:35 I want to make sure everyone understands what we are talking

11:10:38 about.

11:10:40 The people here from Buckingham are here, 75.

11:10:45 The commercial of that we are talking about is going to be

11:10:48 here all along Bruce B. Downs.

11:10:53 The traffic analysis that was done, as I explained at that

11:10:57 October 30th meeting, whenever you you go in to be do,

11:11:02 one of the things you have to do is meet with the Tampa Bay

11:11:04 Regional Planning Council, and the region's traffic

11:11:09 consultant, with representatives from FDOT, with

11:11:12 representatives from the City of Tampa transportation

11:11:14 department, someone from Hillsborough County, someone from

11:11:18 Pasco County, because it is a regional in a analysis, and

11:11:22 they actually direct what it is you are supposed to study,

11:11:26 which intersections you are supposed to study, and in this

11:11:30 case, the study was to determine the impact of the

11:11:36 additional commercial square footage, which again is only

11:11:39 116 that you on regional roadways, primarily, and again

11:11:43 that's why the analysis is done that way.

11:11:45 It's not intended to be analysis of existing conditions but

11:11:52 the traffic that we are talking about that would be

11:11:54 generated by 116,000 additional square feet, again is for

11:11:59 parcels along Bruce B. Downs, which, you know, I think

11:12:03 common sense will tell you cars that come off of Bruce B.

11:12:06 Downs go to the commercial and go out.

11:12:09 If there are cars going internal into the development, it

11:12:13 would be people actually living there, because there's in a

11:12:15 reason anyone using a commercial store or restaurant along

11:12:20 Bruce B. Downs would have any reason to drive internal into

11:12:23 the development.

11:12:25 But again, that's something that is directed.

11:12:29 We don't choose what to study.

11:12:31 That was directed by the reviewing agencies.

11:12:35 Now, as developments come in, as incremental site plans are

11:12:40 approved as in any DRI, decisions are made by city staff,

11:12:46 for instance, as to whether an intersection has becomes

11:12:50 about enough where it warrants a traffic signal.

11:12:53 So there are opportunities down the road where the city may

11:12:55 find the need for an additional stop sign or an additional

11:12:58 traffic signal but that's not part. DRI process because

11:13:03 that can't be done until construction is happening and the

11:13:06 city is reviewing those kind of plans.

11:13:10 Again I just want to reiterate that all that you heard about

11:13:14 the berms, and I-75 widening is an FDOT issue, and concern

11:13:22 about -- there's nothing in this application today asking

11:13:24 for additional tree removal.

11:13:27 Like any other developer, when and if development happens,

11:13:31 the city tree code applies, and the develop Kerr only remove

11:13:35 those trees that are allowed by code.

11:13:39 Again, the commercial square footage we are talking about

11:13:43 was already approved in the DRI.

11:13:45 We just were required to go through the steps of drawing

11:13:47 down from those entitlements.

11:13:49 We are not adding any new commercial parcels.

11:13:52 We are not adding nothing in this application as development

11:13:58 near Buckingham.

11:14:02 Again, this is Buckingham.

11:14:03 And these are some existing residential parcels near

11:14:07 Buckingham.

11:14:07 You can see they are separated by significant wetland.

11:14:11 And there are setback requirements in addition to that.

11:14:15 But nothing today is asking you to approve development

11:14:19 within those parcels.

11:14:21 Those already exist.

11:14:23 Nothing in front of you affects that one way or the other.

11:14:29 To reiterate, the purpose of the meeting on October 30, this

11:14:33 was not a negotiation session, it was always intended to be

11:14:38 informational.

11:14:39 And just to answer the questions, and that's what we tried

11:14:42 to do, you know, people keep asking, give us more time to

11:14:49 try to negotiate.

11:14:50 I don't really -- this isn't a be negotiation test.

11:14:55 What we are asking for is approval again of additional

11:14:58 commercial entitlements along Bruce B. Downs, some new style

11:15:07 homes allowed in the residential, and the other items talked

11:15:10 about, I have already reiterated the park and ride condition

11:15:14 is already there.

11:15:14 We are already required to provide a park and ride facility.

11:15:18 The condition was just actually made stronger there.

11:15:22 Were some references to new parking garages going in.

11:15:25 I have no idea, that's not something we are in front of you

11:15:28 today to ask for.

11:15:29 Again I am happy to answer any questions.

11:15:31 I just wanted to kind of -- try to clear up some of the

11:15:35 misunderstandings.

11:15:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Questions by council members?

11:15:38 Mrs. Mulhern, then Mrs. Montelione.

11:15:40 >>MARY MULHERN: Ms. Zellman, I have to admit these maps are

11:15:45 kind of hard to read.

11:15:47 So since that you have map up there right now, can you

11:15:50 Showtime me where your development, your DRI changes are

11:15:56 being approved right now?

11:15:58 Where are those two intersections?

11:16:02 >> Well, let me show you first the community commercial

11:16:05 parcels are this one, this one -- is that showing?

11:16:13 Here, here and here.

11:16:22 And I'm not sure exactly which ones.

11:16:26 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't live up there so I don't know it

11:16:30 that well.

11:16:31 But someone could come up and show.

11:16:37 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: At the October 30th meeting we had a

11:16:39 large blow-up of both the DRI map and the site plan map

11:16:43 which I don't have with me.

11:16:44 I apologize.

11:16:45 >> An additional 120,000.

11:16:56 These are the intersections than were the subject of the

11:17:01 transportation analysis.

11:17:02 And these are the intersections that we are asking to be

11:17:05 included in the study.

11:17:07 This is a 12-way intersection.

11:17:09 There's in a traffic lights.

11:17:10 This is a 16-way intersection.

11:17:13 There's in a traffic light.

11:17:14 >>MARY MULHERN: And they are adjacent?

11:17:17 >> Yes.

11:17:18 And anything that increases commercial activity.

11:17:20 This is a BJs.

11:17:24 Certainly more commercial activity here would drive traffic

11:17:26 into here, and through this intersection that we are talking

11:17:29 about.

11:17:30 Again no traffic light.

11:17:31 16 lanes there.

11:17:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Ms. Montelione?

11:17:37 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

11:17:38 I along with all of my colleagues received many e-mails

11:17:43 regarding this application, both 54 and 55, and I want to

11:17:49 reiterate that I am prevented from meeting with the

11:17:53 neighborhood because of this quasi-judicial process, and

11:17:56 that is not permitted.

11:18:02 There are a lot of things that occur that were outside of

11:18:08 the control of City Council, anybody at the city, any of our

11:18:14 staff that occurred with the widening and improvements to Pi

11:18:18 75.

11:18:19 Those are being addressed by myself and commissioner Crist

11:18:25 with the State of Florida.

11:18:26 So there's nothing that we could do to ameliorate what's

11:18:33 already happened in that regard.

11:18:37 Commissioner Crist and I hopefully will be successful with

11:18:40 the state, and get some relief to those issues.

11:18:44 But that being said, by rule of law, and any of our

11:18:50 attorneys can say, we can't use that as a reason to delay or

11:18:56 deny this applicant their land use right.

11:19:02 It's an unfortunate situation that did occur, but unlawful

11:19:06 there's nothing we can do about it.

11:19:08 Something else that I wanted everyone to know, because I was

11:19:12 prevented from talking to you about it, is that three of us

11:19:18 sit on the Metropolitan Ministries, and that organization

11:19:25 looks at roads, interconnectivity, safety, planning, and

11:19:33 Compton is one of the roads than recently, in the minutes

11:19:36 from the MPO meeting, the action item was which roads are

11:19:43 being added to or being analyzed for federal highway

11:19:46 administration, urbanized area?

11:19:52 And Compton had been left off that list.

11:19:55 And I had asked at that MPO meeting that Compton be added to

11:19:59 that list, because the roads have to be functionally

11:20:02 classified in certain terms, whether they are family or not,

11:20:08 in order to get assistance to address functionality, and the

11:20:14 safety.

11:20:15 There's all kind of things that, you know, if you are not

11:20:18 listed as a failing road, then you don't qualify for some

11:20:22 remediation.

11:20:24 So those are things that are happening outside of this

11:20:27 body's purview to try and get some relief to some of the

11:20:32 problems that occurred with the development, and the

11:20:38 immensely popular area this has been.

11:20:40 If it wasn't such a wonderful place, people would have stop

11:20:44 moving there, and then some of these traffic issues wouldn't

11:20:47 exist.

11:20:47 But it is a very beautiful place to live and it's a great

11:20:51 neighborhood, so people keep moving in.

11:20:56 And some of the things, now, that were requested or

11:20:59 mentioned during the public session, a buffer.

11:21:08 Requesting us to deny this petition, making concessions, the

11:21:12 I 375 issue, the consideration of intersections, the

11:21:17 inability to meet with Mr. Kinsler, and I think all of those

11:21:23 things are very heartfelt and very relevant but not to this

11:21:27 application.

11:21:31 The trees, the buffers, the wetlands, everything that

11:21:35 happens, a lot of that is in conjunction with 75.

11:21:39 And I would like to ask our city attorney, whoever would

11:21:45 like to answer this question, what would be the consequences

11:21:47 of denial of this application?

11:21:49 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.

11:22:00 That's kind of -- it would depend on what the denial was.

11:22:05 You could of course be sued and then we would litigate that.

11:22:08 I'm not sure I'm understanding.

11:22:10 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Well, the consequences, what can

11:22:12 continue?

11:22:13 If we don't approve --

11:22:15 >> Oh, yes.

11:22:16 >>LISA MONTELIONE: What could they do, if we deny this

11:22:19 application, what would they still be able to do?

11:22:23 >>REBECCA KERT: I can answer that generally but I need to

11:22:25 get staff to provide greater detail about what they can do.

11:22:28 But they can do anything that they have been previously

11:22:30 approved.

11:22:33 And previously been approved.

11:22:35 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So the point I have been making in

11:22:42 asking that question is that the residential, of that plan

11:22:45 already approved for that area.

11:22:47 The only changes they are asking to make is the housing

11:22:50 style?

11:22:51 So the density is not going to change.

11:22:54 It's the same density, correct?

11:22:56 >> Yes.

11:22:57 And through this process you would not be able to change

11:23:00 that.

11:23:00 >> And that predicament that we are in.

11:23:10 I would love to say that I can deliver to you everything

11:23:12 that you asked.

11:23:13 But most of the things you ask for I can't deliver in this

11:23:17 forum.

11:23:18 None of us can.

11:23:21 Its process is outside this forum that we have to work hard

11:23:24 at either at the MPO or with the State of Florida to try and

11:23:28 address some of the concerns that you have.

11:23:33 And even with our traffic department.

11:23:38 When they come in for their permits to develop and use some

11:23:41 of these things, and bring vertical out of the ground, they

11:23:45 are going to GOP through building permit review, and some

11:23:48 things are going to be triggered by those reviews.

11:23:51 So I just wanted to let you know that we are working as hard

11:23:59 as we can to address the problems that you have, and the

11:24:02 things that were all brought up during the public comment

11:24:06 portion, but we can't address them in this format.

11:24:11 So even if we deny, vote to deny this permit -- I mean, this

11:24:15 application, they can still go on and build what it is they

11:24:18 are already permitted to build.

11:24:21 And I don't think -- I don't think denial of this is going

11:24:27 to get you where you want to be.

11:24:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.

11:24:34 Mr. Cohen?

11:24:35 >>HARRY COHEN: I just wanted to say -- thank you for those

11:24:39 comments, Councilwoman Montelione.

11:24:42 The one issue that we can address outside of this hearing is

11:24:48 the issue of the intersection, and in terms of asking our

11:24:53 transportation departments to do a traffic study of those

11:24:56 two intersections.

11:24:58 I would warn everybody that ultimately, and particularly

11:25:02 since you pointed out how many different roads are

11:25:04 intersecting at once, when we do these studies, whatever the

11:25:08 jurisdiction is that's highest in the food chain that owns

11:25:12 the road that goes through the intersection, ultimately

11:25:15 determines what happens to the entire corner.

11:25:19 So depending on who owns all of the different roads that are

11:25:23 intersecting, we could request that our staff work with them

11:25:27 to do a traffic study and determine if there are any calming

11:25:32 measures and any additional things that we can do to make

11:25:36 those intersections safer.

11:25:38 But that is really something appropriately handled outside

11:25:41 of this hearing.

11:25:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Cohen.

11:25:43 Any other council members?

11:25:45 Mrs. Mulhern?

11:25:46 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

11:25:48 Before I'm comfortable with telling the neighbors that

11:25:54 there's nothing Beck do at this point, Ms. Zelman, could

11:25:57 you -- I guess since he showed us where those intersections

11:26:05 were, and they are adjacent to the property that you are

11:26:08 asking for, and I think you did this to our satisfaction

11:26:13 last time.

11:26:13 But I don't remember.

11:26:15 It looks like 36 and 36-A.

11:26:21 What exactly are the changes that we are asking for approval

11:26:25 there?

11:26:27 Is it increasing intensity?

11:26:30 Increasing commercial square footage by 116,000, and that

11:26:34 can only go in 36 -- I'm sorry, 37 down here, between 36

11:26:43 and -- well, part of 36.

11:26:48 I'm sorry.

11:26:49 It very hard to see.

11:26:55 >> Here, here and here.

11:26:56 >>MARY MULHERN: To me it doesn't seem unreasonable for them

11:27:00 to think that there's going to be increased traffic because

11:27:04 you are going to be developing that.

11:27:06 And having more business there.

11:27:11 So to me it seems like an appropriate question.

11:27:14 I don't know if they were able to ask that question at the

11:27:17 meeting with you, or if this is news.

11:27:26 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: What I recall at the discussion at the

11:27:27 meeting is again I did explain how the traffic study is

11:27:30 directed, you know, how it is that the reviewing agencies

11:27:34 direct Rus as to what must be studied.

11:27:36 And again it's because of the development of regional impact

11:27:39 study what they are looking for is impact on the roads,

11:27:44 really not to discuss internal -- or to determine internal

11:27:48 traffic circulation within the development.

11:27:52 >>MARY MULHERN: But now you are asking the City Council to

11:27:54 approve this development.

11:27:58 Ms. Kert?

11:28:00 Where.

11:28:00 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.

11:28:01 >>MARY MULHERN: Is it appropriate to of ask about the

11:28:05 effects of the DRI changes?

11:28:06 >>REBECCA KERT: As far as the DRI, a DRI is created because

11:28:11 it meets certain threshold that will have regional impact.

11:28:14 When they are doing a change to a DRI, the first question

11:28:17 that is asked is whether or not these impacts will have --

11:28:27 the impacts will have regional impacts.

11:28:29 And that's why they do the study.

11:28:30 And that's why the studies focus strictly on whether or not

11:28:33 it will have regional impacts.

11:28:34 Your question and approval is not so much the local issue.

11:28:39 Unless there's conflict with your code.

11:28:41 But basically, you know, does it have additional regional

11:28:46 impacts that are not being addressed?

11:28:48 And then you consider your Land Development Code --

11:28:53 >>MARY MULHERN: So today is about the regional impact?

11:28:56 Not about the local --

11:28:57 >> For the most part.

11:28:59 There's a very limited local context to the changes to a

11:29:03 DRI.

11:29:08 But as far as the DRIs, unless there's a conflict with

11:29:14 some local regulation.

11:29:15 I think Mrs. Feeley did K address further when you get to

11:29:19 the zoning aspect how transportation reviews at that point.

11:29:23 >>MARY MULHERN: This agenda item is for the DRI.

11:29:27 >> The first is for the DRI.

11:29:29 >>MARY MULHERN: So maybe address it in the rezoning?

11:29:34 >> We are talking about it now.

11:29:42 >> I just want to separate out the conflicts with the DRI.

11:29:45 The traffic study was not required, the traffic study was

11:29:49 required by the DRI and that's why it focused on that.

11:29:52 >> So that's the question to ow.

11:29:57 You have a rezoning which is going to increase the

11:29:59 intensity.

11:29:59 So I think that may not have been a requirement of the DRI,

11:30:03 but --

11:30:15 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: Let me remind everyone when the DRI was

11:30:17 approved it was approved for 700.

11:30:20 As of 1994, 700,000 square feet of community commercial was

11:30:25 approved.

11:30:27 In the 1994 amendment, the city added a condition that said

11:30:32 for any increment above 441,500 square feet of commercial,

11:30:37 you have to do a new traffic study, because obviously they

11:30:42 about addressing the part in the future, and that's where we

11:30:46 are trying to be go above the 441, and draw down an

11:30:50 additional 116.

11:30:51 So at that point the traffic study was acquired again the

11:30:55 city of transportation staff did have input into what was

11:30:58 studied.

11:31:00 As part of both the rezoning process and the DRI traffic

11:31:04 study than was required.

11:31:07 But again, remember, much the square footage had already

11:31:11 been approved.

11:31:12 And we were required to do an additional study on the

11:31:15 impacts on regional roads.

11:31:17 >>MARY MULHERN: So you are not asking for an increase in

11:31:20 square footage today?

11:31:23 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: We are asking to draw down from what was

11:31:25 already approved square footage, and a condition by the city

11:31:28 in 1994 required us to do a new DRI traffic study for that.

11:31:36 But the squire footage had already been approved back in the

11:31:39 1980s originally.

11:31:40 So it's a little different than your typical rezoning where

11:31:43 someone is asking to do something new.

11:31:51 I don't know if I made that any more clear.

11:31:53 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't know.

11:31:55 I just wonder, Mrs. Kert, if this is the rezoning request,

11:32:00 it seems like normally we are rezoning, and we are allowing

11:32:06 additional commercial square footage, then that would be the

11:32:11 time touch address the traffic issues.

11:32:14 Even though it's not part of the DRI.

11:32:16 It is a rezoning.

11:32:17 >> I think Ms. Feeley can explain a little bit before where

11:32:23 you are in the process and what the change actually is.

11:32:26 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.

11:32:31 You are hearing the DRI and the rezoning together this

11:32:34 morning.

11:32:36 Much the rezoning is from PDA to PDA to increase those

11:32:39 commercial entitlements by the 100,000-something square

11:32:44 feet.

11:32:44 That did not include the traffic analysis so one was not

11:32:47 performed for this rezoning.

11:32:50 They were performed with the notice of proposed change to

11:32:53 the DRI.

11:32:54 You know, I have been in communication with Ms. Calloway

11:32:59 from transportation.

11:32:59 The intersection in general, when intersections start to

11:33:05 approach counts that may warrant a signal, we do do a signal

11:33:09 analysis of those intersections, and we figure out if they

11:33:12 are now at a capacity which requires signalization.

11:33:16 If they are, then either the city or the developer will put

11:33:21 in a signal.

11:33:22 So what's being raised today is a concern that these

11:33:24 intersections may be approaching, that that would need to be

11:33:29 handled.

11:33:29 That's an issue of whether or not you approve the increase

11:33:32 today or not.

11:33:33 What you are hearing from the public is, there's an issue

11:33:36 out there.

11:33:37 That issue is there whether they build 113,000, 130,000

11:33:42 extra, or they don't build one square foot extra.

11:33:45 Society I would say to you then than needs to be addressed

11:33:48 through the intersection analysis, not through what's before

11:33:52 you today for the rezoning.

11:33:54 But that's mitt own professional opinion.

11:33:56 You know, Ms. Calloway did tell me that when the

11:34:01 intersections approach this level of service or it appears

11:34:03 that they may warrant signalization the city goes out that

11:34:07 is the intersection, or we would have the developer study

11:34:10 the intersection as part of the incremental site plan review

11:34:13 process, and from there, if the signal is warranted, the

11:34:16 city would budget or the developer would pay for that signal

11:34:18 to then be installed.

11:34:20 >> So how do we know that that will happen in of this case?

11:34:24 It sounds like -- what we heard from the public was there

11:34:29 hasn't been a traffic study of those intersections that they

11:34:32 are talking about.

11:34:35 And today, we are talking about increasing density adjacent

11:34:41 to that through rezoning and a DRI.

11:34:43 So how do we know that those will be studied going forward?

11:34:51 >>ABBYE FEELEY: I don't know that it was a warranted

11:34:53 analysis.

11:34:54 There's a difference between a transportation analysis,

11:34:56 which puts trips on the road, at intersections,

11:34:59 signalization analysis, when I look at whether or not an

11:35:02 intersection needs to be signalized.

11:35:04 >> Right.

11:35:05 >> If your request, those intersections based on the

11:35:10 testimony here today be analyzed, then traffic operations,

11:35:14 they have the count.

11:35:15 They would go out and look at whether or not signals were

11:35:18 needed.

11:35:18 >> So I would like to you request that.

11:35:20 And I think that we make these decisions based on whether

11:35:26 there are adverse impacts to the neighborhood.

11:35:28 So even off this this wasn't part of the DRI process, if

11:35:33 there is possible adverse effects, why can't it be part of

11:35:37 this?

11:35:39 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Well, rezoning does not look at adverse

11:35:42 effects.

11:35:43 Remember, rezoning looks at the site plan control criteria.

11:35:48 Special uses.

11:35:49 Society if you are looking at --

11:35:57 >>MARY MULHERN: There are definitely traffic impacts.

11:36:01 >> The application that came in did not warrant analysis

11:36:04 based on our criteria for the overall increase in density.

11:36:08 I just want to be clear on the record that it did not do

11:36:11 that.

11:36:11 >>MARY MULHERN: Right.

11:36:12 But is that just increase in density based on residential?

11:36:19 Or does that include the increased commercial?

11:36:23 >>ABBYE FEELEY: When the application came in, reviewed it

11:36:28 for increase in the commercial, and based on the trips that

11:36:30 were being generated, did it not require analysis.

11:36:33 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

11:36:36 Here is what I am trying to understand.

11:36:39 From what we heard from Ms. Zellman for the DRI sheet didn't

11:36:44 have to look at those intersections.

11:36:46 They only had to look at Bruce B. Downs.

11:36:50 Did our transportation department look at those

11:36:52 intersections?

11:36:52 >>ABBYE FEELEY: We wouldn't do analysis at that point.

11:36:59 Those intersections are on Bruce B. Downs, the ones they are

11:37:03 referring to.

11:37:03 >> No, they are not.

11:37:04 >> Would you look at the map that's there?

11:37:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Go back.

11:37:13 >> Right here.

11:37:19 I was out there.

11:37:20 >>MARY MULHERN: So what I am trying to say is because of

11:37:22 this request, we are hearing about a problem.

11:37:25 So it seems like this would be the time to address it.

11:37:28 >>HARRY COHEN: What I was actually saying before is I think

11:37:33 the appropriate way to address it is outside of the public

11:37:36 hearing.

11:37:39 For this application one of us will make a motion asking for

11:37:41 a traffic study in each of those two intersections.

11:37:44 And that's something we do routinely by motion, but also by

11:37:48 request.

11:37:50 The transportation department are very amenable to doing

11:37:53 that.

11:37:53 >>MARY MULHERN: Well, I think it should be part of this --

11:37:58 that should be requested as part of this approval.

11:38:01 >>HARRY COHEN: But I don't think we can ask the

11:38:03 developer -- the developer wasn't given the responsibility

11:38:08 by the transportation reviewing authority to do that study.

11:38:12 I think it's a study that is our responsibility as a city to

11:38:15 undertake subsequent to the application.

11:38:19 That's all.

11:38:20 >>MARY MULHERN: I think it would have been good if the

11:38:22 developer had done that after meeting with the residents.

11:38:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mrs. Montelione?

11:38:28 >>LISA MONTELIONE: As Mr. Cohen pointed out, we can't put

11:38:32 conditions on this rezoning.

11:38:34 It would be like any other rezoning where we have conditions

11:38:41 outside of maybe the alcoholic beverage where they are

11:38:45 required to state hours or something like that.

11:38:47 But that's part of the reason why I had made that point at

11:38:52 the MPO to Liz Compton on the highway urbanized area and

11:38:59 federal class of roads, and I have to read that because I

11:39:01 never get it right if I do it by memory, and that's part of

11:39:04 the reason, is to make sure that this road is listed as a

11:39:10 failing road so it would trigger those warrants, and if

11:39:14 transportation was here they would tell you there are what's

11:39:17 called literally one, that they have to meet the test of at

11:39:22 least, I think, it's five of the warrants in order to prompt

11:39:28 the signal to be put in.

11:39:29 And that's a process, as Mr. Cohen stated, and I had said

11:39:33 before outside of the rezoning.

11:39:36 And when they come in, again to do the construction, and

11:39:42 they looked at the permits that are being pulled, then, you

11:39:45 know, that's also going to be looked at at that point.

11:39:48 They look at ingress and egress and accession and all of

11:39:53 those things under the building permit when they come in for

11:39:56 permitting is go through another review of each department

11:39:59 has to sign off as far as the permit goes.

11:40:03 So if there isn't any further discussion, I mean --

11:40:11 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Well, I haven't asked the other council

11:40:13 members.

11:40:14 Any further discussion by council members at this time?

11:40:18 Anything else?

11:40:24 The public was heard.

11:40:25 We have our own feelings that were expressed.

11:40:27 And I have a motion to close by Mr. Reddick.

11:40:29 Any further discussion?

11:40:31 Do I have a second to close?

11:40:33 Second by Mr. Cohen on item number 54, 55.

11:40:38 All in favor of the motion? Opposed?

11:40:42 The ayes have it unanimously.

11:40:46 Yes, ma'am?

11:40:47 >> I would like to motion as Mr. Cohen pointed out that we

11:40:51 request the traffic division -- I'm sorry?

11:40:57 >> We still have a public hearing.

11:41:04 >> I wanted to do it before they all left.

11:41:13 >> Belief me, they aren't going to leave, I don't think.

11:41:17 All right all right item 54.

11:41:18 Who wants to read it?

11:41:19 Mrs. Capin? See where it goes.

11:41:21 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Okay.

11:41:26 Move an ordinance presented for second reading an adoption,

11:41:30 an ordinance approving the 25th amendment to a

11:41:33 development order rendered pursuant to chapter 380, Florida

11:41:38 statutes, filed by New Tampa, Inc., a previously approved

11:41:43 development of regional impact DRI, providing an effective

11:41:46 date.

11:41:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mrs. Capin.

11:41:51 I have a second by Mr. Reddick on a close vote with Mr.

11:41:56 Cohen.

11:41:59 This is for second reading and adoption.

11:42:01 Roll call vote.

11:42:02 Vote and record.

11:42:05 On 54.

11:42:11 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.

11:42:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Okay.

11:42:16 Mr. Reddick, would you kindly read 55?

11:42:24 >>FRANK REDDICK: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

11:42:27 An ordinance for second reading and adoption, an ordinance

11:42:29 rezoning property in the general vicinity of east of Bruce

11:42:32 B. Downs Boulevard west of interstate 75 and north of flap

11:42:35 power/TECO easement, Tampa Palms area 3, in the city of

11:42:40 Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section 1

11:42:43 from zoning district classifications PD-A, planned

11:42:48 developmental eternity, community commercial with trade-off,

11:42:51 and residential, to PD-A, planned development alternative,

11:42:56 community commercial with expanded trade-off and

11:42:59 residential, providing an effective date.

11:43:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mr. Reddick.

11:43:03 I have a second by Mr. Cohen.

11:43:04 Roll call vote.

11:43:05 Vote and record.

11:43:10 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.

11:43:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second reading, Mrs. Montelione.

11:43:16 You have the floor.

11:43:16 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you very much.

11:43:21 I am going to motion as everybody knows already, the cat is

11:43:24 out of the bag, that transportation division undertake

11:43:27 analysis of the two intersections on Compton park, that

11:43:34 would be parallel to Bruce B. Downs between those commercial

11:43:42 parcels, for some kind of traffic calm, whether it a traffic

11:43:46 light, whether it's an additional stop sign, directional,

11:43:53 for safety purposes, at those intersections, and for them to

11:43:58 coordinate with the analysis or studies being done by the

11:44:02 MPO.

11:44:02 I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione, second by Mrs. Mulhern.

11:44:06 All in favor of the motion?

11:44:08 Opposed?

11:44:09 The ayes have it unanimously.

11:44:10 Thank you all very much for peering.

11:44:14 I have an apology to make to assistant city attorney for

11:44:20 holding up 71.

11:44:21 I said earlier we were going to ask them to come up.

11:44:24 We have -- this is going to be heard tonight.

11:44:27 But we have to open 71.

11:44:30 Am I correct, sir?

11:44:32 >>SAL TERRITO: Yes.

11:44:33 Legal department.

11:44:34 Request you open 71 the development agreement for the

11:44:37 Heights project.

11:44:37 Keep the public hearing open and continue it until tonight

11:44:40 at 6:00 when you take up this project as a whole for

11:44:44 developing the vacation and the wet zoning.

11:44:47 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Move to open 71.

11:44:51 >> Moved to open by Mrs. Capin.

11:44:52 Second by Mr. Suarez on 71.

11:44:54 All in favor of the motion?

11:44:56 Opposed?

11:44:57 The ayes have it unanimously.

11:44:58 Now --

11:45:00 >>FRANK REDDICK: I have a question.

11:45:03 Tonight with the development agreement, we will hear that

11:45:05 question about --

11:45:07 >>SAL TERRITO: You will be able to ask questions.

11:45:09 You aren't taking any action tonight.

11:45:10 This is a development agreement under Florida statute that

11:45:13 requires two public hearings.

11:45:14 If you take any action, it will be --

11:45:17 >>FRANK REDDICK: I just have some information.

11:45:20 >>SAL TERRITO: Anything you ask tonight before the public.

11:45:25 We are just moving it to tonight.

11:45:29 Item 71.

11:45:30 I don't not much if you want to the speak on that but can't

11:45:36 hear it now.

11:45:38 >> Hear it tonight?

11:45:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Yes.

11:45:40 I appreciate it very much.

11:45:41 Okay.

11:45:42 Any motion that was made by Mr. Reddick, seconded by Mr.

11:45:45 Suarez to move it to the night.

11:45:48 >> 6:00.

11:45:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a tough job.

11:45:51 All in favor of the motion?

11:45:52 Opposed?

11:45:53 The ayes have it unanimously.

11:45:55 Thank you very much.

11:45:57 Wow.

11:45:58 I am about ready to quit.

11:46:02 Item number 56.

11:46:06 I can't take much of this.

11:46:07 I'll tell you that right now.

11:46:09 Item number 56.

11:46:10 >> Ron Vila, historic preservationist, here on item 56 and

11:46:16 57.

11:46:20 Ad valorem tax exemptions.

11:46:22 To assist in the presentation, I am going to put a couple on

11:46:32 the Elmo.

11:46:34 This top one is after rehabilitation.

11:46:37 Obviously the bottom one is prior to rehabilitation.

11:46:39 This is the address of the 2201 north Central Avenue.

11:46:44 And I am here on behalf of the owners Versaggi.

11:46:50 This was constructed in 1902.

11:46:53 And since then through fire damage and blight sat vacant for

11:46:57 many years.

11:46:58 The current owner has taken responsibility to rehab the

11:47:01 structure.

11:47:02 And if you look at the bottom picture, you see a lot of new

11:47:05 roof line has been removed, and in the top photo the front

11:47:09 elevation has been reinstated.

11:47:16 This is the elevation, boarded up, in need of repair.

11:47:23 After rehabilitation, took about 18 months to get to be this

11:47:28 state.

11:47:29 This is the shot on the bottom, looking back through the

11:47:35 front door.

11:47:36 You see some of the character defining features, the

11:47:40 transoms boarded up as you look out the porch area.

11:47:44 This is looking from the porch area back to the front door.

11:47:48 You see the appropriate trim, the siding was replaced.

11:47:55 And just to conclude, with a couple of interior shots,

11:47:59 sometime in the past, dropped ceilings were installed, and

11:48:02 then obviously in need of repair.

11:48:06 And then after rehabilitation.

11:48:13 The side along Central Avenue and Tampa Heights.

11:48:15 And this is developed along the corridor because of the

11:48:19 efforts of these owners.

11:48:21 And number 56 on that agenda item.

11:48:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: This is a public hearing.

11:48:30 On item 56.

11:48:32 Anyone in the audience care to speak on item 56?

11:48:35 Any discussion by council members?

11:48:37 Need a motion to close.

11:48:38 I have a motion to close by Mrs. Capin.

11:48:41 Seconded by Mr. Suarez on a clothe vote with of Mr. Cohen.

11:48:46 All in favor of the motion to close, please indicate by

11:48:48 saying aye.

11:48:49 Opposed nay.

11:48:50 The ayes have it unanimously.

11:48:51 Mr. Cohen, would you kindly read number 56, please?

11:48:54 >>HARRY COHEN: I move an ordinance being presented for

11:48:57 second reading and adoption, an ordinance approving a

11:49:00 historic preservation, property tax exemption, application

11:49:04 relative to the restoration, renovation or rehabilitation of

11:49:08 certain property owned by Russell Versaggi and Leigh Wilson

11:49:14 Versaggi, located at 2201 North Central Avenue, Tampa,

11:49:16 Florida in the Tampa Heights historic district based upon

11:49:18 certain findings, providing for notice to the property

11:49:21 appraiser of Hillsborough County, providing for

11:49:24 severability, providing for repeal of all ordinances in

11:49:26 conflict, providing an effective date.

11:49:27 >> Second.

11:49:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion by Mr. Cohen.

11:49:31 Second by Mr. Suarez.

11:49:32 Roll call vote.

11:49:33 Vote and record.

11:49:33 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Mulhern and Reddick being

11:49:52 absent at vote.

11:49:53 >> Moving to item 57.

11:49:59 This building was constructed in 1930.

11:50:03 And on the main floor, dry goods, and grocery store on the

11:50:09 upper level, to the back of this building for residential in

11:50:14 nature.

11:50:16 The address was 1708 east Columbus drive.

11:50:19 And it is currently owned by design sound, architectural

11:50:23 firm that moved from across the bay.

11:50:25 Now, this is the headquarters along moving here, they

11:50:30 brought 18 professionals with them, and as a result of them

11:50:33 relocating their headquarters along looking for residential

11:50:37 to move their personal residence in this area.

11:50:40 So it has a direct correlation, a direct positive

11:50:44 correlation to the area.

11:50:46 Once again when they purchased this property it was boarded

11:50:48 up on the main level.

11:50:50 This is a photo on the left.

11:50:55 Toward the right after rehabilitation.

11:50:57 You Seattle the implementation of the period-appropriate

11:51:00 windows.

11:51:01 The visor was left in place and rehabilitated.

11:51:07 This is looking at the pedestrian level, the sidewalks

11:51:11 brought back to its original luster.

11:51:14 Storefront opened up so it has that pedestrian feeling.

11:51:20 Looking at the site elevation which is the west elevation,

11:51:25 one way, and this is visible to traffic as it comes down,

11:51:32 and then the west elevation, incorporating into that facade.

11:51:42 This is looking up Tampa residential stairs to the second

11:51:48 level.

11:51:50 And to conclude, this was the interior space. They kept it

11:51:57 in that spirit, introducing the workforce on the bottom

11:52:02 level, incorporating period lighting, and then you see the

11:52:06 storefront in the background is open, and how they interact

11:52:09 with the neighborhood.

11:52:11 This also is consistent with Secretary of Interior standard

11:52:18 rehabilitation.

11:52:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Question by council members?

11:52:22 Anyone in the audience care to speak on item number 57?

11:52:25 57?

11:52:26 >>BOB McDONAUGH: Economic development.

11:52:30 I would just like to remained council that this business was

11:52:33 a be recipient of a CRA facade grant which helped facilitate

11:52:37 the rehabilitation of the building.

11:52:38 Thank you.

11:52:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And they had a choice to move to the

11:52:43 Carolinas and they came here.

11:52:53 Just a joke.

11:52:54 [ Laughter ]

11:52:54 >> I have a motion to close by Mr. Cohen.

11:52:56 Seconded by Mrs. Capin.

11:52:57 All in favor of the motion to close?

11:53:00 Opposed?

11:53:00 The ayes have it unanimously.

11:53:03 Mr. Suarez, would you read number 57, please?

11:53:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I move an ordinance being presented for

11:53:11 second reading and adoption, an ordinance approving a

11:53:13 historic preservation property tax exemption application

11:53:17 relative to the restoration, renovation or rehabilitation of

11:53:19 certain property owned by design styles architecture, Inc.,

11:53:23 Andrew Dohmen, president, located at 1708 east Columbus

11:53:28 drive, Tampa, Florida, in the Ybor City historic district,

11:53:31 based upon certain findings, providing for notice to the

11:53:33 property appraiser of Hillsborough County, providing for

11:53:36 severability, providing for repeal of all ordinances in

11:53:39 conflict, providing an effective date.

11:53:40 >>HARRY COHEN: Second.

11:53:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion for approval by Mr. Suarez,

11:53:44 second by Mr. Cohen.

11:53:45 Roll call vote.

11:53:46 Vote and record.

11:53:46 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Mulhern and Montelione

11:53:56 being absent at vote.

11:53:57 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.

11:54:01 Item 58 through 69, there are several required certified

11:54:05 site plans, if I can quickly go through those, certified.

11:54:10 Also standing in for Ms. Moreda this morning for the

11:54:12 alcoholic beverage.

11:54:13 So item 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 67, 68, all require certified

11:54:21 site plans.

11:54:22 Those plans have been provided to the clerk.

11:54:23 I do have them available for your review.

11:54:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

11:54:28 Item 58.

11:54:33 Is petitioner here?

11:54:37 I have a motion to close by Mr. Reddick.

11:54:40 58.

11:54:41 Anybody that wants to speak on 58?

11:54:43 58? Please come forward.

11:54:44 >> My name is Joe Erwin.

11:54:58 I represent the owner of the Latina Colombia restaurant.

11:55:03 At the last hearing there was discussion about whether there

11:55:06 was any liquor license there.

11:55:10 There is a beer and wine license at 5312 North Armenia.

11:55:16 >> Thank you very much.

11:55:17 Anyone else care to speak on this item, 58?

11:55:19 I have a motion to close by Mr. Reddick.

11:55:22 Second by Mr. Cohen.

11:55:23 All in favor of the motion?

11:55:25 Opposed?

11:55:26 The ayes have it unanimously.

11:55:28 Mrs. Capin, would you kindly take 58, please?

11:55:30 >>YVONNE CAPIN: An ordinance being presented for second

11:55:36 reading consideration, an ordinance approving a special use

11:55:39 permit S-2 for alcoholic beverages, sales, restaurant

11:55:43 consumption on premises only, making lawful the sale of

11:55:46 beverages regardless of alcohol content, beer wine liquor on

11:55:49 that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 6312

11:55:54 north Armenia Avenue, Tampa, Florida, as more particularly

11:55:57 described in section 2, that all ordinances or parts of

11:56:00 ordinances in conflict are repealed, providing an effective

11:56:02 date.

11:56:03 >> Second.

11:56:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mrs. Capin.

11:56:07 Second by Mr. Suarez.

11:56:09 Roll call vote.

11:56:10 Vote and record.

11:56:10 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried were Miranda voting no and

11:56:20 Mulhern absent at vote.

11:56:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Item number 59.

11:56:28 Is petitioner here on 59?

11:56:37 Petitioner for 59.

11:56:38 59.

11:56:39 Anyone here?

11:56:41 I know we put a lot of people to sleep but I didn't know of

11:56:48 you fell asleep.

11:56:49 59.

11:56:50 59.

11:56:50 >> Lafferty, petitioner for 59.

11:56:56 Representing the Diocese of St. Petersburg.

11:56:58 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We can't hear you.

11:57:00 Don't get nervous.

11:57:00 >> Representing Diocese of St. Petersburg.

11:57:04 59 here.

11:57:09 >>: Anyone in the audience care to speak on 59?

11:57:11 59? I see no one.

11:57:14 I have a motion to close by Mrs. Montelione.

11:57:16 Second to close by Mr. Cohen.

11:57:18 All in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye.

11:57:20 Opposed nay.

11:57:21 The ayes have it unanimously.

11:57:23 Mr. Reddick, would you take 59, please?

11:57:26 >>FRANK REDDICK: Move an ordinance for second reading and

11:57:28 adoption, an ordinance approving a special using permit S-2

11:57:31 for approval at place of religion assembly, daycares in an

11:57:36 RS-50 single-family zoning district in the general vicinity

11:57:39 of 2102 and 2200 north Gomez street and 3008 and 3012 west

11:57:49 cherry street in the city of Tampa, Florida as more

11:57:52 particularly described in section 1 hereof providing an

11:57:54 effective date.

11:57:54 >>HARRY COHEN: Second.

11:57:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Roll call vote and record.

11:57:59 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Mulhern and Capin being

11:58:06 absent at vote.

11:58:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much for peering.

11:58:10 Item 60.

11:58:11 Petitioner.

11:58:11 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Yes, sir.

11:58:19 Ready to go.

11:58:21 You haven't put me to sleep.

11:58:24 We don't have any comment.

11:58:25 If you have any questions I will be glad to answer.

11:58:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Anyone in the audience care to speak on

11:58:32 number 360.

11:58:33 This 60.

11:58:34 I see no one.

11:58:35 I have a motion to close by Mr. Cohen.

11:58:37 Second by Mrs. Montelione.

11:58:39 All in favor of the motion to close?

11:58:41 Opposed?

11:58:41 The ayes have it unanimously.

11:58:43 Mr. Cohen, would you kindly take number 60, please?

11:58:47 >>HARRY COHEN: Move an ordinance for second reading and

11:58:49 consideration, an ordinance approving a special use permit

11:58:52 S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales, large venue on premises

11:58:56 consumption only, and making lawful the sale of beer and

11:58:59 wine at or from that certain lot, plot or tract of land

11:59:02 located at 13575 Cypress Glen Lane, Tampa, Florida, as more

11:59:09 particularly described in section 2, that all ordinances or

11:59:12 parts of ordinances in conflict are repealed, providing an

11:59:14 effective date.

11:59:15 >> Second.

11:59:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion for approval by Mr. Cohen.

11:59:19 Seconded by Mr. Suarez on 360.

11:59:22 All in favor of the motion?

11:59:23 Roll call vote.

11:59:25 Vote and record.

11:59:25 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin and Mulhern being

11:59:32 absent at vote.

11:59:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Item number 61.

11:59:36 >>HARRY COHEN: I'm recusing Mace from number 61.

11:59:40 Manipulate father is one of the petitioners.

11:59:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And for the record you are filing the form

11:59:48 with the clerk.

11:59:50 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Suite 3700 Bank of America Plaza.

11:59:53 Item 61.

11:59:53 >> Anyone in the audience care to speak on 61?

11:59:57 61.

11:59:58 Please come forward.

11:59:59 I see no one.

12:00:00 Need a motion to close.

12:00:01 Motion by Mrs. Montelione.

12:00:03 Second by Mr. Suarez.

12:00:04 All in favor?

12:00:05 Opposed?

12:00:06 The ayes have it unanimously.

12:00:07 Mrs. Montelione, would you kind lip take number 61, please?

12:00:14 Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity

12:00:20 of 5218, 5220, 5222, 5224 and 5226 South MacDill Avenue in

12:00:26 the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described

12:00:28 in section 1 from zoning district classifications PD planned

12:00:31 development, residential, multifamily, to PD, planned

12:00:34 development, residential, multifamily, providing an

12:00:35 effective date.

12:00:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione to

12:00:38 approve, seconded by Mr. Suarez.

12:00:40 Roll call vote.

12:00:41 Vote and record.

12:00:42 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Cohen abstaining and

12:00:53 Mulhern and Capin being absent at vote.

12:00:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If any of the council members wish to

12:01:06 have more than four council members they are entitled to

12:01:10 that.

12:01:11 We are all right now.

12:01:12 >> Good morning, council.

12:01:14 David singer, singer O'Donniley, south Oregon for the

12:01:18 petitioner at 62.

12:01:20 Happy to answer any questions.

12:01:21 >> Any questions by council members at this time?

12:01:22 Anyone in the audience care to speak on item 62?

12:01:25 62?

12:01:26 Please come forward.

12:01:27 Need a motion to close by Mrs. Montelione.

12:01:29 Second by Mrs. Mulhern to close.

12:01:31 All in favor of the motion?

12:01:32 Opposed?

12:01:33 The ayes have it unanimously.

12:01:35 Mrs. Mulhern, would you kindly take number 62, please?

12:01:39 >>MARY MULHERN: I move an ordinance being presented for

12:01:41 second reading and adoption, an ordinance rezoning property

12:01:43 in the general vicinity of 808 North Armenia Avenue and 2402

12:01:48 west state street in the city of Tampa, Florida and more

12:01:51 particularly described in section 1 from zoning district

12:01:53 classifications PD planned development, office,

12:01:56 business/professional and medical, to PD, planned

12:02:00 development, place of religious assembly, providing an

12:02:03 effective date.

12:02:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mrs. Mulhern.

12:02:06 Seconded by Mr. Suarez for approval on 62.

12:02:10 Roll call vote.

12:02:11 Vote and record.

12:02:11 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being absent at

12:02:21 vote.

12:02:21 >> Item number 63.

12:02:26 63.

12:02:27 >> Good morning.

12:02:33 Just a brief -- back to where we were three weeks ago.

12:02:38 This is the parcel on Rocky Point.

12:02:40 We are seeking rezoning to make the hotel use conforming.

12:02:43 You asked at the end of your last meeting that we go back to

12:02:46 the owners and initiate further conversation with them to

12:02:50 ensure you that we don't have problems. We have done that.

12:02:54 Between the last meeting and dap, we have both an e-mail

12:02:59 survey and mail-out survey, as well as we had a meeting, the

12:03:03 annual meeting of the owners association last Monday

12:03:07 evening, at which time I was asked to attend, and I did

12:03:10 attend, and I explained the relationship of the zoning

12:03:13 issues.

12:03:15 When you look at the results of than representative to my

12:03:19 client here, should you have any questions, when you look at

12:03:21 the result of the survey, the original survey, which was

12:03:25 convened prior to the neighborhood meeting, last Monday

12:03:28 night, ended up with a count of 106 in favor, and five

12:03:33 against.

12:03:34 The five of two owners that own multiple units, my client is

12:03:41 here tonight to confirm to you that after the presentation

12:03:44 they both indicated they are now in support of the rezoning.

12:03:46 I am here with representatives of my client to answer any

12:03:50 questions you might have.

12:03:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Anyone in the audience care to speak on

12:03:53 item number 63?

12:03:57 63. 63?

12:03:59 I see no one.

12:04:00 Motion to close by Mr. Cohen.

12:04:01 Seconded by Mrs. Montelione.

12:04:03 All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.

12:04:06 Opposed?

12:04:06 The ayes have it unanimously.

12:04:08 Mr. Suarez, would you kindly take number 637? But the

12:04:12 attorney is trying to hide.

12:04:14 He has new glasses and a hair cut.

12:04:17 I noticed that from last time to this time.

12:04:19 Mr. Suarez?

12:04:19 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, chair.

12:04:23 I present an ordinance for second reading and adoption, an

12:04:26 ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 2506

12:04:29 north Rocky Point drive in the city of Tampa, Florida and

12:04:32 more particularly described in section 1 from zoning

12:04:34 district classifications RM-247 residential multifamily to

12:04:39 CG commercial general providing an effective date.

12:04:42 >>FRANK REDDICK: Second.

12:04:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion for approval bill Mr. Suarez.

12:04:47 Seconded by Mr. Reddick.

12:04:48 Roll call vote.

12:04:49 Vote and record.

12:04:49 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin and Montelione being

12:04:59 absent at votes.

12:05:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion to continue for 15 minutes,

12:05:07 motion by Mr. Cohen, seconded by Mr. Suarez.

12:05:11 All right.

12:05:12 64.

12:05:13 >> Good afternoon.

12:05:21 I'm Cloris Thomas, 501 South Fremont Avenue, and approval to

12:05:26 rezone property our property would be greatly appreciated.

12:05:29 Thank you.

12:05:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Anyone in the audience care to speak on

12:05:32 item 64?

12:05:33 64? Please come forward.

12:05:35 64.

12:05:37 Motion to close by Mr. Reddick, seconded by Mr. Cohen.

12:05:40 All in favor of the motion to close?

12:05:42 Opposed?

12:05:43 The ayes have it unanimously.

12:05:44 Mr. Cohen, would you kindly take number 64, please?

12:05:48 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

12:05:49 I move an ordinance being presented for second reading and

12:05:52 adoption, an ordinance rezoning property in the general

12:05:54 vicinity of 501 south Fremont Avenue in the city of Tampa,

12:05:58 Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from

12:06:02 zoning district classification PD planned development to

12:06:06 RM-16 residential multifamily providing an effective date.

12:06:09 >> I have a motion by Mr. Cohen, second by Mr. Suarez.

12:06:14 Please signify by saying aye.

12:06:16 Opposed nay.

12:06:17 Roll call vote.

12:06:18 Vote and record.

12:06:19 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being absent at

12:06:28 vote.

12:06:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: 65.

12:06:32 >> GINA GRIMES: Law firm of Hill, Ward, Henderson, suite

12:06:38 3700, here on item 65.

12:06:40 We don't have any additional comments.

12:06:45 >> Anyone care to speak on 657?

12:06:48 I see no one.

12:06:49 Need a motion to close.

12:06:56 Motion by Cohen, second by Mulhern.

12:06:58 The ayes have it unanimously.

12:07:01 We go to Mr. Suarez essentially increase he's making fun of

12:07:05 the chair to read.

12:07:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I present an ordinance for second reading

12:07:10 consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general

12:07:13 vicinity of 3678, 3688 and 3698 West Gandy Boulevard, the

12:07:19 city of Tampa, Florida, more particularly described in

12:07:21 section 1 from zoning district classification CG commercial

12:07:24 general to CI commercial intensive, providing an effective

12:07:27 date.

12:07:27 >>FRANK REDDICK: Second.

12:07:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion by microphone Suarez.

12:07:31 Second by Mr. Reddick on a close vote with Mrs. Mulhern.

12:07:35 Roll call vote.

12:07:36 Vote and record.

12:07:45 We need one more vote.

12:07:52 Vote and record.

12:07:57 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I'm sorry, I was distracted.

12:07:59 >> Motion carried with Capin being absent at vote.

12:08:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

12:08:04 Number 66.

12:08:05 66.

12:08:06 >> Representing owner of the applicant P applicant here to

12:08:14 answer any questions.

12:08:15 Thank you.

12:08:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Any questions by council members at this

12:08:18 time on 66?

12:08:19 Anyone in the audience care to speak on 66?

12:08:23 I have a motion to close by Mrs. Montelione.

12:08:26 Seconded by Mr. Cohen.

12:08:27 All in favor of the motion?

12:08:29 Opposed?

12:08:30 The ayes have it unanimously.

12:08:31 Mr. Reddick, would you kindly read number 66, please?

12:08:36 >>FRANK REDDICK: Move an ordinance for second reading and

12:08:39 adoption, an ordinance rezoning property in the general

12:08:41 vicinity of 68637 South Westshore Boulevard in the city of

12:08:47 Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1

12:08:50 from zoning district classifications IG industrial general

12:08:52 to RM-24, residential multifamily, providing an effective

12:08:55 date.

12:08:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second by Mr. Suarez on a close vote

12:08:59 with Mr. Cohen.

12:09:01 Vote and record.

12:09:01 66.

12:09:02 >> Motion carried with Capin being absent at vote.

12:09:09 >> Item number 67.

12:09:19 Anne Pollack, 305 South Boulevard here for the applicant.

12:09:23 I am here if you have any questions.

12:09:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Any questions by council members?

12:09:27 Anyone in the audience care to speak on 67?

12:09:29 67?

12:09:30 I see no one.

12:09:31 Motion to close by Mr. Cohen.

12:09:32 Second by Mr. Suarez.

12:09:34 All in favor of the motion to close?

12:09:36 Opposed?

12:09:37 The ayes have it unanimously.

12:09:39 Mrs. Mulhern, would you kindly take number 67, please?

12:09:42 >> I move an ordinance being presented for second reading

12:09:46 and adoption, an ordinance rezoning property in the general

12:09:49 vicinity of 152367 west Carmen street, 1501 west Fig Street

12:09:57 and 502 north Oregon Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida

12:10:00 and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning

12:10:03 district classifications IG industrial general and PD

12:10:06 planned development, residential multifamily to PD, planned

12:10:09 development, residential multifamily, providing an effective

12:10:11 date.

12:10:11 >> Motion by Mrs. Mulhern.

12:10:13 Second by Mr. Cohen on a close vote with Mr. Reddick.

12:10:17 Roll call vote.

12:10:18 Vote and record.

12:10:18 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being absent at

12:10:28 vote.

12:10:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Item number 68.

12:10:33 Petitioner?

12:10:33 >> Greg Roth, Bohler Engineering, 4950 West Kennedy

12:10:39 Boulevard here to answer any questions.

12:10:42 Thank you.

12:10:42 >> Questions by council members on 68?

12:10:47 Anyone in the audience to speak on item 68?

12:10:49 Motion to close.

12:10:50 I have a motion to close by Mr. Suarez.

12:10:52 Seconded by Mrs. Montelione.

12:10:54 All in favor of the motion?

12:10:55 Opposed?

12:10:55 The ayes have it unanimously.

12:10:57 Mr. Cohen, would you kind lip take number 68?

12:10:59 >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

12:11:01 I move an ordinance being presented for second reading and

12:11:04 adoption, an ordinance rezoning property in the general

12:11:06 vicinity of 206, 208, and 212 south Audubon Avenue in the

12:11:12 city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in

12:11:14 section 1 from zoning district classification RM-16

12:11:19 residential multifamily and PD, planned development,

12:11:22 residential single-family attached, and semi-detached, to PD

12:11:26 planned development, residential single-family attached,

12:11:30 semi-detached, providing an effective date.

12:11:33 Motion for approval by Mr. Cohen.

12:11:35 Seconded by Mr. Suarez.

12:11:37 Roll call vote.

12:11:38 Vote and record.

12:11:38 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Capin being absent at

12:11:49 vote, and Reddick and Mulhern voting no.

12:11:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Number 69.

12:11:54 >> Deanna Dunban representing applicant, Indian Rocks,

12:12:05 Florida.

12:12:05 >> Questions by council members on 69?

12:12:08 69?

12:12:09 Anyone in the audience care to speak on 69?

12:12:13 Motion to close by Mr. Cohen.

12:12:14 Seconded by Mr. Suarez.

12:12:16 All in favor of that motion?

12:12:18 Opposed?

12:12:18 The ayes have it unanimously.

12:12:21 Mrs. Montelione, would you kindly take number 69?

12:12:24 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I move an ordinance being presented for

12:12:27 second reading and adoption, an ordinance rezoning property

12:12:29 in the general vicinity of 8617 north 37th street in the

12:12:33 city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in

12:12:35 section 1 from zoning district classifications RM 60

12:12:38 residential single-family to RS 50, residential

12:12:41 single-family, providing an effective date.

12:12:42 >> Motion for approval built Mrs. Montelione, seconded by

12:12:48 Mr. Suarez.

12:12:49 Roll call vote.

12:12:51 Vote and record.

12:12:51 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with ever Capin being absent at

12:13:00 vote.

12:13:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Okay.

12:13:01 I need to first open item number 70.

12:13:05 Motion to open by Mr. Cohen, seconded by Mr. Suarez.

12:13:09 All in favor of the motion to open it?

12:13:12 Opposed?

12:13:12 The ayes have it unanimously.

12:13:13 From what I read here on first public hearing we want to

12:13:16 open it and continue it to tonight, and also got to read at

12:13:20 the second hearing passed tonight will be held November

12:13:23 21st at 9:30 in the morning of the year 2013.

12:13:27 >> Move to continue.

12:13:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion to continue by Mr -- anyone in the

12:13:32 audience care to speak to the continuation?

12:13:34 I see none.

12:13:35 Move to continue by Mr. Reddick.

12:13:37 Second by Mr. Suarez.

12:13:38 All in favor of the motion?

12:13:40 Opposed?

12:13:40 The ayes have it unanimously.

12:13:42 Okay.

12:13:43 That will be heard tonight.

12:13:46 We go back now, so we can maybe have time to do the agenda

12:13:53 what we have left without coming back.

12:13:54 We'll try.

12:13:57 Son items to be pulled.

12:13:59 Items 12 and 14.

12:14:03 >> And 31.

12:14:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Reddick on 12.

12:14:09 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you, chair.

12:14:12 I pulled this item mainly, what is the scope of this

12:14:16 project?

12:14:27 $3,708,000 is a lot of money for architectural design.

12:14:31 >>BOB McDONAUGH: Yes, sir.

12:14:33 And I have some documents to show council.

12:14:35 One.

12:14:36 Concerns raised early on in the process was to make sure

12:14:38 there was plenty of public input.

12:14:40 And so as I will show you, there's actually more opportunity

12:14:43 here than we usually have in a public forum.

12:14:52 Prior to them actually beginning anything, one of the things

12:14:56 they do will be identifying neighbors and stakeholders and

12:15:01 discuss an outreach process.

12:15:03 And prepare an outreach plan.

12:15:05 Again, I believe in earlier meetings one of the concerns

12:15:09 that people in the neighborhood had, they wanted to make

12:15:11 sure that they had input in the plan.

12:15:14 This team that's been assembled, the architect engineer and

12:15:20 Civitas in Denver, Colorado, they were chosen specifically

12:15:23 because they have a lot of experience with parks developed

12:15:27 adjacent to waterways.

12:15:32 Stantec, who is part of their team, also recognized the fact

12:15:36 they did the Channelside and they did a very good job with

12:15:39 public outreach.

12:15:41 We had a number of public meetings with the people in the

12:15:43 district actually chose how the park would be actually

12:15:45 designed.

12:15:46 So between the two of them the fact that it was adjacent to

12:15:49 water and the fact that a member of their team is consistent

12:15:54 and available to the community to reach out and do things is

12:15:57 one of the things than they were chosen.

12:16:06 So, again, the whole process here is to, before they even

12:16:11 put a pencil to paper, they are collecting, assembling data,

12:16:16 looks at neighborhood context, looking at the history of

12:16:19 what went on in the wrong.

12:16:21 So the first thing they do is advertise in the public

12:16:24 meeting.

12:16:31 They have a public meeting, record what is done there.

12:16:37 Based on watch they learned from people in the community,

12:16:39 they prepare program outlines.

12:16:42 They look at the different kinds of things that could be

12:16:44 done.

12:16:46 They look at programming.

12:16:47 They prepare documents to shown to the neighborhood for

12:16:52 their review and comment, so they go ahead, and then they

12:16:55 have public meeting number 2, and present the results and

12:16:59 feedback of what happened in the first meeting.

12:17:08 You

12:17:09 Game again that same process is followed.

12:17:11 Another public meeting.

12:17:12 Public meeting number 3.

12:17:15 Drawings are shown based on refinements that come from the

12:17:18 second public meeting.

12:17:20 After the third public meeting, again the refinements are

12:17:23 brought forth for a fourth public meeting, and another set

12:17:26 of drawings are prepared.

12:17:27 So, yes, this is somewhat relatively expensive.

12:17:32 It's less than 10% of the contract value which is estimated

12:17:35 at $8 million.

12:17:37 So consistent to normal costs.

12:17:40 It's not that much expensive.

12:17:43 And I think one of the things that makes it a little more

12:17:45 expensive is the fact that there is a lot of public

12:17:49 involvement which stretches out the amount of time before

12:17:51 the final design is done.

12:17:53 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. McDonaugh --

12:18:00 >>BOB McDONAUGH: There was an RFQ.

12:18:03 People submitted their qualifications.

12:18:05 This is not done on a hard bid.

12:18:07 9 was done on qualification.

12:18:09 And again two of the things that were important in this

12:18:11 particular group that was chosen was a company that was

12:18:17 proven to be very good at designing things with the

12:18:19 waterfront.

12:18:20 And, again, public engagement part which is what Stantec did

12:18:28 with the design of the Channelside.

12:18:29 >> There was in a one in the State of Florida put in a bid

12:18:33 for this?

12:18:34 >>BOB McDONAUGH: I would have to go back.

12:18:35 We actually had people from all over the country.

12:18:37 But if you would look, the Stantec folks are local.

12:18:44 Moffitt the marine engineers are local.

12:18:48 Arena engineering is local.

12:18:49 And the other two subs are local as well.

12:18:51 >> The architect that works for USF.

12:19:00 >>FRANK REDDICK: Have you had a chance to know see the

12:19:06 Westshore Alliance master plan, right?

12:19:08 >> I have.

12:19:08 >> The East Tampa development plan as well, right?

12:19:17 >> Yes.

12:19:17 >>FRANK REDDICK: The one that -- I think Trent green and

12:19:25 his people have been utilized as well.

12:19:34 Once this is approved and this contract is awarded to this

12:19:37 company, when do you expect them to move forward with

12:19:41 meeting with neighborhoods?

12:19:44 >>BOB McDONAUGH: My expectation was the first of the four

12:19:46 meetings would be sometime within the next 60 days.

12:19:48 What they want to do first is get the background

12:19:50 information, make sure that they have a complete list of

12:19:54 shareholders and stakeholders, that they are involved in the

12:19:57 process.

12:19:58 >>FRANK REDDICK: And is the total agreement, there's in a

12:20:04 additional costs to be incurred?

12:20:07 >>BOB McDONAUGH: This is the total focus that's included

12:20:10 right now.

12:20:11 What I have shown you is the first four pages.

12:20:17 It's than on a 24 by 36-inch document.

12:20:21 >>FRANK REDDICK: Where is the 708,000 coming from?

12:20:27 >> That is the cost of -- this is the cost for actually

12:20:32 Civitas.

12:20:33 All of the companies than you see across the top.

12:20:37 They are all included in that.

12:20:38 >>FRANK REDDICK: So I'm saying where --

12:20:51 >> Move it down a little.

12:20:59 >>FRANK REDDICK: This 708,400, what is this coming out of?

12:21:20 >>BOB McDONAUGH: CIT.

12:21:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mrs. Mulhern?

12:21:23 >>MARY MULHERN: (off microphone) could you tell me the last

12:21:34 two companies?

12:21:38 >> A cost consultant.

12:22:03 It's KVJ, Inc., and they are part of the public outreach

12:22:10 component.

12:22:10 >>MARY MULHERN: Do we have a breakdown for the 700,000?

12:22:17 >> It's attached to the package.

12:22:29 >>HARRY COHEN: Move for an additional 15 minutes.

12:22:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Seconded by Mr. Suarez.

12:22:36 Motion approved unanimously.

12:22:40 Mrs. Montelione.

12:22:40 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you, sir.

12:22:45 The Tampa Housing Authority included Julian B. lane park and

12:22:50 its study area.

12:22:53 What I'm concerned about is overlapping studies.

12:22:57 I'm concerned about, you know, their entire project, their

12:23:03 entire master plan in the area, and how these efforts will

12:23:06 either dovetail or overlap their efforts.

12:23:09 >> AECOM's contract did not include this property.

12:23:14 It's an area of influence, and the Tampa Housing Authority

12:23:17 wanted to make sure that AECOM was aware of the fact there

12:23:22 was a large regional park, but AECOM did not do any planning

12:23:30 exercises for this.

12:23:32 >>LISA MONTELIONE: It is included in the InVision plan,

12:23:35 though, is it not?

12:23:36 >> That's correct.

12:23:37 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And AE com worked on it?

12:23:41 >> They did, but not for the Tampa Housing Authority.

12:23:44 >> And what I always ask for, and Mr. Vaughan provides in

12:23:51 the cover sheets, is the SLB and WMBE programming, so there

12:23:59 is a percentage.

12:24:00 I always like to see it higher.

12:24:02 But it looks like from here it's 7.5%.

12:24:08 But this is a very large contract, and that was one of the

12:24:11 reasons I wanted to discuss it, because 708,400 is a lot of

12:24:19 money.

12:24:19 Again in light of some of the discussions we had earlier

12:24:23 today, it's a big park, it's an important park.

12:24:29 I understand public participation bears a heavy cost to

12:24:35 coordinate.

12:24:36 But 708 is a lot of money, and that's why I am having a

12:24:44 little bit of trouble digesting that expense on this project

12:24:52 when we have a pool that takes 1.5 to get opened and saved

12:25:00 from destruction.

12:25:03 I know one can hardly be compared to the other.

12:25:06 But when you -- when you hear all of these things in the

12:25:10 same day it makes it a little bit more difficult to expend

12:25:13 $708,000 for a consulting contract.

12:25:22 No response necessary.

12:25:26 Anyone else?

12:25:29 Any further comments on item number 12?

12:25:35 Anyone want to move the resolution?

12:25:38 Motion to move number 12 by Mr. Suarez.

12:25:40 Do I have a second?

12:25:42 Second by Mrs. Mulhern.

12:25:43 Further discussion by council members?

12:25:45 All in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye.

12:25:48 Opposed nay.

12:25:50 Motion passes unanimously.

12:25:51 Thank you very much, sir

12:25:52 Item number 14.

12:25:56 Mrs. Montelione.

12:25:57 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.

12:25:59 I was hoping to have someone here from the junior league of

12:26:05 Tampa to talk about the event.

12:26:10 What we are hearing today is the -- or what we will be

12:26:14 approving, I'm sure it will get approved, is a permit for an

12:26:18 event that will take place in January, to highlight and

12:26:22 bring awareness to human trafficking.

12:26:28 And I just wanted to give some highlight points that were

12:26:31 provided to have me by the Junior League.

12:26:33 The junior league of Tampa is focused on child welfare and

12:26:37 education, eradicating child sex trafficking in our

12:26:40 community.

12:26:42 We are currently spearheading a public awareness campaign on

12:26:45 behalf of community campaign against human trafficking to

12:26:48 coincide with human trafficking awareness month in January

12:26:53 2014.

12:26:53 Several events are planned, January 11 through 18 in

12:26:58 partnership with 60-plus area nonprofit organizations, law

12:27:04 enforcement and government agencies.

12:27:05 The signature event will be a kick-off rally on Saturday,

12:27:09 January 11, at Gas Lyke Park downtown.

12:27:13 The community can enjoy live music, food, and of course

12:27:17 learn more about the planned event, organizations involved,

12:27:21 and how they can help.

12:27:23 They look forward to the support of this event to bring

12:27:25 greater awareness to the crime of sex trafficking within

12:27:30 Tampa.

12:27:32 I would like tore say that this is a subject that doesn't

12:27:37 get enough attention in our community.

12:27:41 I am very happy that there is more awareness and training

12:27:47 within our police department, and the judges that sit on the

12:27:52 bench, particularly women, predominantly women are arrested

12:27:59 for prostitution.

12:28:00 They are not just being seen anymore especially because of

12:28:05 the young age of some of these women, as strictly selling

12:28:11 their bodies.

12:28:11 Many of them as young as 12 and 14 years old are

12:28:17 indoctrinated into a system where there's nothing but child

12:28:23 abuse, child molestation, slavery, and trafficking going on.

12:28:34 It's long past due that this scourge on our community is

12:28:40 identified and rooted out.

12:28:43 But thank you, Junior League of Tampa and Junior League of

12:28:45 Florida, for their efforts in this area and hope everyone

12:28:50 will look for those events in January.

12:28:53 And I'll move the item.

12:28:54 >> Second.

12:28:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion by Mrs. Montelione, seconded by

12:28:58 Mr. Suarez.

12:28:58 All in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye.

12:29:01 Opposed nay.

12:29:04 Motion passed unanimously.

12:29:08 We govern to item 31.

12:29:10 That will be the last one before we break because I see we

12:29:13 have three or four.

12:29:14 We have 79, 80, 81, 82.

12:29:16 And I don't think we have enough time.

12:29:19 Before we break for lunch.

12:29:30 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I pulled item 31 and not the previous

12:29:33 item, 30, although they are related.

12:29:35 The purchase of this property by Hillsborough County that is

12:29:37 located in New Tampa, really we didn't have a choice.

12:29:42 We were under the order either sell it to us or we will take

12:29:47 it by eminent domain.

12:29:51 Correct me if I am wrong, Mr. McDonaugh, this property is

12:29:53 being utilized by Hillsborough County in conjunction with

12:29:56 Tampa road widening on Bruce B. Downs, and going to be used

12:29:59 for retention ponds?

12:30:02 >>BOB McDONAUGH: Part of it single-family retention.

12:30:03 Part of is greenway.

12:30:05 But yes, that's the bulk of the use.

12:30:08 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I'm sorry, part of it -- I can't hear

12:30:13 you.

12:30:13 >> Greenway.

12:30:15 >> So it will be an asset to the property even though it is

12:30:19 no longer under the City of Tampa's ownership.

12:30:21 We are being paid $,1460,400 for the property, which was the

12:30:27 higher of the two appraisals amounts that I was privileged

12:30:34 to have see and discuss with Ms. Ammon in real estate.

12:30:40 The question I had was that the expense, or the money, that

12:30:46 is the proceeds, is item number 31.

12:30:50 That's why that one was pulled.

12:30:53 As I look at the description, it said that the first

12:30:57 creation would be within the economic development

12:31:00 infrastructure improvement capital project, which I'm sure

12:31:06 doesn't fit on our spreadsheet.

12:31:10 Can you tell me what the economic development infrastructure

12:31:13 improvement capital project is?

12:31:15 >>BOB McDONAUGH: Yes.

12:31:17 Projects.

12:31:19 In the last year, the State of Florida has gotten much more

12:31:23 aggressive in their recruiting of companies for here, and

12:31:28 probably a good example of it was not too long ago City

12:31:31 Council approved a 2 TI and economic development grant for

12:31:38 depository trust in New Tampa.

12:31:40 That was a half million dollars.

12:31:43 Approximately a half of it was 22 TI.

12:31:50 The other half was economic development.

12:31:51 So we are being looked at more and more frequently.

12:31:54 In the past, the State of Florida did not ask for

12:31:57 participation by local community and the governor's closing

12:32:01 fund.

12:32:02 Because they are being more aggressive and trying to spread

12:32:04 more of their money around the state they are asking more

12:32:08 and more local communities for matching fund.

12:32:10 And so the intent of this would be to be using these funds

12:32:14 to attract more companies to our community.

12:32:16 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you, Mr. McDonaugh.

12:32:22 And I would like to thank the State of Florida for asking us

12:32:25 to pony up now, when they haven't been asking us to do that

12:32:30 in the past.

12:32:31 >>BOB McDONAUGH: Not to defend them, but earmarked $365

12:32:36 million in this last year for economic development.

12:32:40 And they are putting a lot of money in the community.

12:32:43 >> But they are also asking to offset some of that with a

12:32:45 match.

12:32:46 >> Yes, ma'am.

12:32:47 They want the local communities to show they have skin in

12:32:49 the game and are attracting these companies to our

12:32:53 community.

12:32:53 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Would there be any opportunity for any

12:32:58 of this money, as part of economic development of our parks

12:33:03 and our amenities are what often drives people to come here.

12:33:07 One of the things they look at, we know we talk about

12:33:11 transportation at the MPO is how the roads function, and how

12:33:16 long it takes them to get to and from work.

12:33:18 So the development, since you and I discussed this last

12:33:24 night, this property is physically located in New Tampa?

12:33:27 >> Correct.

12:33:28 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Is there a way for us to utilize any of

12:33:32 this money for some of the traffic problems that have been

12:33:36 we just heard earlier today?

12:33:38 >>BOB McDONAUGH: It's a possibility.

12:33:39 Again, it's usually earmarked for doing like the

12:33:45 public-private partnerships where the local community is

12:33:47 asked to do some structure improvements to aid a company

12:33:51 locating in a particular place.

12:33:53 But I can certainly look at that.

12:33:57 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I would appreciate that, sir.

12:33:58 Thank you very much.

12:33:59 >>FRANK REDDICK: Move the resolution.

12:34:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion by Mr. Reddick to move the

12:34:04 resolution.

12:34:05 Seconded by Mrs. Montelione.

12:34:06 All in favor?

12:34:07 Opposed?

12:34:08 The ayes have it unanimously.

12:34:09 All right.

12:34:10 We are not going to make 79, 80, 82.

12:34:16 81, they want to continue it to the 14th.

12:34:28 Council members, do you want to come back at 2:00?

12:34:31 Whatever you want.

12:34:32 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I can come back at 2.

12:34:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We stand in recess then till 2:00.

12:34:43 (City Council meeting in recess until 2:00 p.m.)


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.

02:07:50 [Sounding gavel]

02:09:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: City Council is called to order. Roll

02:09:04 call.

02:09:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Here.

02:09:06 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.

02:09:08 >>HARRY COHEN: Here.

02:09:11 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.

02:09:12 I need to open public hearings 79 and 80.

02:09:17 Motion by Mr. Reddick, second by Mr. Cohen.

02:09:20 All in favor of the motion?

02:09:22 Opposed ever? The ayes have it unanimously.

02:09:24 79.

02:09:24 >> Good afternoon.

02:09:30 Kate Taylor, city attorney's office for second public

02:09:34 hearing.

02:09:37 Brownfield designation.

02:09:39 Staff has determined that all public notice limits notices

02:09:44 have been met.

02:09:45 >> This is a public hearing.

02:09:46 Anyone in the public care to speak on item 79? I see no

02:09:50 one.

02:09:50 I need to close.

02:09:51 I have a motion to close by Mr. Reddick.

02:09:53 Seconded by Mr. Suarez.

02:09:54 All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.

02:09:57 Opposed nay.

02:09:57 The ayes have it unanimously.

02:09:59 There are two resolutions to be read, or to be approved.

02:10:02 The first one and the second one.

02:10:04 Mr. Suarez, would you take both of them under 79?

02:10:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I'll move -- do we have to read it?

02:10:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: No.

02:10:15 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I move 79, both portions of 79.

02:10:18 >>HARRY COHEN: Second.

02:10:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion by Mr. Suarez on both of the

02:10:22 resolutions.

02:10:23 Second by Mr. Cohen.

02:10:24 All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye for

02:10:26 approval.

02:10:27 Opposed nay.

02:10:28 The ayes have it unanimously.

02:10:29 Item 380.

02:10:31 >> Cathy Gentzler, legal department, here for second hearing

02:10:46 of approval for brownfield designation for 1103 north

02:10:50 Nebraska.

02:10:50 This is city-owned vacant property, approximately 1.54

02:10:54 acres.

02:10:55 It's located in the enterprise zone.

02:11:00 And this site that's the subject of at grant that the city

02:11:02 has received, council approved it for environmental clean-up

02:11:09 of the site for $400,000.

02:11:13 Our consultants were hired to implement the grant,

02:11:16 recommended that under the Florida program, in order for the

02:11:27 city to become eligible to recover economic incentives to

02:11:33 the voluntary tax credit.

02:11:35 So that's the second item on the resolution, the second

02:11:38 resolution, number 80.

02:11:40 The first one is to designate the program and the second to

02:11:45 enter into a brownfield site rehabilitation agreement in

02:11:48 order to make ourselves available to get the voluntary state

02:11:51 and tax credit for eligible expenses, and then we will be

02:11:56 come back to you at a later date once the city will figure

02:12:01 out how we sell these on the market private sector.

02:12:06 >> Anyone in the audience care to speak on item 80?

02:12:13 Motion to close by Mr. Cohen, seconded by Mrs. Montelione.

02:12:17 All in favor of the motion to close?

02:12:19 Opposed?

02:12:19 The ayes have it unanimously.

02:12:20 >>FRANK REDDICK: Move number 0 about the two resolutions

02:12:27 attached.

02:12:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Moved by Mr. Reddick, seconded by Mr.

02:12:30 Cohen.

02:12:31 All in favor?

02:12:32 Opposed are? The ayes have it unanimously.

02:12:36 On 81, this is the second hearing, but since the first

02:12:42 public hearing has been postponed and continued by City

02:12:44 Council to November 14th, we need to make a motion, I

02:12:50 guess, for the second pun hearing to be open and continued

02:12:55 to November -- December the 5th.

02:12:58 So I guess the first order is that the first one has already

02:13:01 been changed to November the 14th.

02:13:04 Am I correct, clerk?

02:13:05 So the motion should be then for the second one to be open

02:13:08 and continued at that time to December 5th.

02:13:11 >>HARRY COHEN: Move to open and continue to December

02:13:13 5th at 10:30 a.m.

02:13:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second by Mr. Suarez.

02:13:18 All in favor of that motion?

02:13:20 Opposed?

02:13:20 The ayes have it unanimously.

02:13:22 We go now to item number 82, a review hearing, petition for

02:13:26 review.

02:13:27 Let me also say, we do not have a full council.

02:13:30 The petition -- if petitioner wants to change this to

02:13:35 another date for seven members, they are entitled to ask for

02:13:38 that.

02:13:38 >> No.

02:13:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Okay.

02:13:48 We will open the public hearing.

02:13:49 I have a motion to open it by Mr. Reddick, second by Mr.

02:13:53 Suarez.

02:13:54 All in favor of the motion to open?

02:13:56 Opposed?

02:13:56 The ayes have it unanimously.

02:13:58 For the record since it was not open, I'll ask, if the

02:14:01 petitioner of this case wants to change the date to a future

02:14:06 day for a full council you are entitled to do that.

02:14:09 Do you wish to do that, sir?

02:14:10 >> No, I don't.

02:14:11 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Okay, thank you.

02:14:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: For the record, Mr. Chairman, members of

02:14:20 council, the petitioner is providing a copy on disk of the

02:14:24 previous hearing before the VRB.

02:15:22 I would assume these are the same guidelines. 15 minutes

02:15:25 for presentation, 5 minutes for rebuttal, once we hear from

02:15:29 the audience.

02:15:30 >> I'm Gary Brown, 114 south Oregon Avenue.

02:15:33 I'm the president of Serling Bay Homes here to ask for you

02:15:39 to review the appeal regarding the decision of the variance

02:15:43 Review Board, 1361, to remove a grand oak tree at 3113 west

02:15:52 Paxton Avenue.

02:15:53 I am going to talk quickly because I have an awful lot to

02:15:56 get through, to get onto the record.

02:16:01 Again, a picture of the oak tree, 48-inch live oak.

02:16:06 Next we have aerial photos.

02:16:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm sorry, petitioner has to be sworn

02:16:11 in. Anyone else that's going to speak has to be sworn in.

02:16:19 (Oath administered by Clerk).

02:16:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let's start over with are a fresh 15

02:16:29 minutes.

02:16:30 >> Anyway, I am not going to repeat what I already said.

02:16:33 We are going to go right to the aerial photographs.

02:16:36 The property is located in the first block west of

02:16:39 MacDill Avenue.

02:16:43 South of Gandy.

02:16:45 Here is the property outlined in black off the Hillsborough

02:16:49 County property appraiser's Web site.

02:17:00 The property is here again. Two things I want to point out.

02:17:04 Here most of the lot is with the tree canopy, 40 and 48-inch

02:17:10 oak trees, and about a half of the vacant lot to the west.

02:17:14 It's also covered by the canopy of these two trees.

02:17:20 I have taken the survey of the property, and I just

02:17:24 generally outlined, this $48-inch canopy and this is the

02:17:28 40-inch canopy here.

02:17:34 The subject property is RS-60, a 50-foot wide by 125-foot

02:17:40 home side, but it's actually a legal nonconforming lot.

02:17:44 And the response verifies that so it is a legally buildable

02:17:52 lot.

02:17:55 The history of the property.

02:17:57 This is a 1938 aerial of this part of town.

02:18:01 There's MacDill Avenue.

02:18:03 Again we have outlined the rectangle of the lot.

02:18:06 As you can see, in 1938, this part of town was not

02:18:10 developed.

02:18:10 In fact, this appears to be some kind of a depression,

02:18:15 probably a drainage ditch coming off of MacDill.

02:18:20 There is a tree here apparently but not one of the subject

02:18:23 trees, we don't believe, because we think when this was

02:18:26 developed, this little bit of vegetation probably went away.

02:18:29 Here is an aerial from 1957.

02:18:32 That's an important date.

02:18:33 1957.

02:18:36 We have outlined again the property.

02:18:39 There are two trees.

02:18:40 It's very difficult to see.

02:18:42 They are little tiny specks but we believe these are the two

02:18:46 subject tree, but we begun believe these started to grow

02:18:51 sometime in 1950.

02:18:52 That would make these trees about 60 years old.

02:18:55 There were also two structures, these two lots, at this

02:18:59 point in time.

02:19:03 Again I am going to bring you back to date.

02:19:05 Those two structures are gone.

02:19:09 And of course the trees are much bigger.

02:19:14 Now, we are going to talk betters three lots.

02:19:16 We are going to talk about the subject lot, which is this

02:19:18 lot.

02:19:18 We are going to talk about the vacant lot next door to the

02:19:22 west.

02:19:22 And then we are going to talk about the next lot over.

02:19:25 The reason we are going to do that is because in the history

02:19:27 of this property, it used to be two properties, okay?

02:19:35 The subject property, and home with no garage.

02:19:41 Okay?

02:19:42 The other property had a 1240 square foot home and straddled

02:19:48 both lots.

02:19:49 So the two subject trees which are both on the subject

02:19:51 property had plenty of room to grow.

02:19:57 That's how they got so big in 50 years.

02:20:01 In 2005, the owners of those two properties decided that

02:20:08 they would rezone the property that was one house on two

02:20:13 lots from RS-60 to RS-50.

02:20:22 A couple of months later, they tore down those houses.

02:20:27 Now, I actually had the pleasure of talking to the previous

02:20:30 owner of the property, because they lived directly across

02:20:33 the street, and these were both rental properties that they

02:20:38 maintained, one of them since 1972.

02:20:40 The other they bought in 2000, okay?

02:20:43 So they decided -- and they were an elderly couple -- they

02:20:47 decided they would go ahead and do this so that they could

02:20:50 sell the property.

02:21:05 This is actually the lot furthest to the west of the three.

02:21:11 This is about an 1800 square foot one story home built on

02:21:15 that lot.

02:21:16 So there is activity within the history of this lot.

02:21:25 Now, I want to go into the intent of the tree.

02:21:33 There are two key factors.

02:21:36 We are going to talk about the red one first and then come

02:21:38 back to the green one later.

02:21:44 Tree code recently use ready for these regulations

02:21:48 inordinately used parcel of property.

02:21:54 In determining telephone parcel of property the following

02:21:57 factors shall be considered.

02:22:01 Land use single-family, that's what it is, single-family

02:22:04 detached.

02:22:04 The zoning has already discussed is legal nonconforming lot.

02:22:18 The other had no garage, 2006, been on the property for the

02:22:21 past five years with numerous inquiries to purchase the

02:22:26 property at the asking price of $370,000.

02:22:30 However, know buyers purchased the property due to the

02:22:33 negative impacts. Two grand trees on the property until we

02:22:36 agreed to purchase the property to 46,850 per lot.

02:22:41 The impact of protected trees, I am going to go over the

02:22:46 survey, the parcel of the property, the scale, the location,

02:22:50 protected trees, including around the trees and the impact

02:22:57 of the buildable area.

02:22:58 So if we flip to the next page, we are showing that if there

02:23:03 were in a trees, the buildable area of this parcel is in

02:23:07 green and is about 2,800 square feet.

02:23:16 The next page in orange, the 20-foot required setbacks eat

02:23:19 up about 31% it of the buildable area of the parcel.

02:23:26 Next, the existing use of the development pattern of a

02:23:30 similarly situated property located adjacent to or near the

02:23:33 parcel of property in question.

02:23:36 These are photographs of the existing homes taken on the

02:23:39 block, the actual 3100 address block.

02:23:44 They have a mixture of older homes built in the 40s and

02:23:47 50s.

02:23:50 We have one house being finished, about 24, 2500 square

02:23:56 feet.

02:23:57 This house over 2800 square feet, built just a few years

02:24:00 ago.

02:24:03 We have two homes under construction currently on the lot, I

02:24:08 mean on the block.

02:24:09 And then we have this just went up, this house across the

02:24:13 street down two doors is also going to be demolished.

02:24:21 The other thing that we did is we went out and analyzed the

02:24:24 new home development pattern south of Gandy.

02:24:27 So we went in to MLS, because that's a reputable place to go

02:24:34 to find pertinent data, and we analyzed all new homes on

02:24:39 smaller lots than were sold through MLS in the last 15

02:24:44 months.

02:24:46 Of what we determined -- and this is a map of those

02:24:48 properties, and the subject site, what we determined was the

02:24:57 smallest home sold was 1975 square feet of living area.

02:25:03 The average size of these homes, there were 39 homes, was

02:25:07 around 22 to 2300 square feet.

02:25:14 The thing that's important, though, is these 39 homes sold

02:25:20 in the approximately 50 to 100 days.

02:25:24 Now, that's important because that means that's what the

02:25:26 market wants.

02:25:28 That's what they are looking for.

02:25:36 Moving along.

02:25:40 The reasonable use code would be our test to design around

02:25:45 the trees.

02:25:46 That's usually what most people want to see.

02:25:49 What did you do to design around the tree?

02:25:55 First thing we did was we went out and surveyed the physical

02:25:59 attributes of the tree.

02:26:00 And we did hire a landscape architect and had two arborists

02:26:05 involved.

02:26:06 So we are actually defining and labeling some of the key

02:26:12 holding branches of this tree.

02:26:14 Tree number 1 is the 48-inch diameter tree.

02:26:17 Here is another view of branch number 4.

02:26:20 You are going to see these in a subsequent site plan.

02:26:25 Here is branch number 5.

02:26:27 This one is back to the north along the property line.

02:26:30 This is the 40-inch tree in the front.

02:26:34 This is looking to the east.

02:26:35 This is a branch that comes back towards the property,

02:26:40 number 7.

02:26:41 And number 6, you would actually have been to drive

02:26:44 underneath to get on the property.

02:26:53 So first thing we did, or the next thing we did was we

02:26:57 analyzed the 20-foot radiuses, and how we could site a home

02:27:03 on this property.

02:27:05 First thing we have to do is negotiate access between the

02:27:08 two trees.

02:27:09 The next thing we have to decide is, okay, where everybody

02:27:16 wants on a new home a garage.

02:27:18 So in order to have enough backup space coming out of this

02:27:20 garage, this house would in fact have to be set back about

02:27:24 57 feet to the front of the property.

02:27:28 Now, for a garage to function, it's got to be about 20 feet

02:27:32 deep.

02:27:32 So if we were to draw that line across here, that left us

02:27:38 Tampa recollection tangle.

02:27:43 Now we are going to analyze the vertical aspects of how much

02:27:46 room do we have to build?

02:27:50 So this is where we come back to the branches that were

02:27:52 labeled, in the other photographs, and we actually are

02:27:56 drastically going to show you where these are horizontally.

02:28:00 And you will see that branch number 4 comes directly over

02:28:04 what would be the garage portion of the house.

02:28:11 And then next page shows branch number 4.

02:28:14 It actually shows a one-story scenario.

02:28:18 It clears the house by about five feet.

02:28:21 Now, these are the main structural limbs.

02:28:23 These are not on the branches that are growing on the limb.

02:28:27 These are just the structural members that you wouldn't want

02:28:30 to touch if you cared about saving the tree.

02:28:39 And I think this makes it a little easier for you to

02:28:43 understand.

02:28:44 Okay?

02:28:44 Now, that's a single-story option.

02:28:48 The total square footage of living area, 996 square feet.

02:28:54 I want to you reflect back on the date that we showed you

02:28:57 earlier, that there wasn't a new home built south of Gandy

02:29:02 that was left, buildable left of 1800 square feet.

02:29:09 The average was about 23700 square feet.

02:29:11 The house next door, though, I showed you earlier was just

02:29:14 under 1800, as a one-story.

02:29:17 And that's on the same size lot that this is.

02:29:23 What does the plan look like?

02:29:25 That's a two-bedroom plan.

02:29:27 Nobody is building two bedroom single-family homes south of

02:29:31 Gandy.

02:29:32 They are all three bedrooms and two baths, or four bedroom,

02:29:37 they all have full size two-car garages.

02:29:40 We can only guess because of the 20-foot protective radius a

02:29:44 17-foot wide garage.

02:29:47 We can't even get an indoor laundry room in this plan.

02:29:52 We can put the laundry outside in the garage.

02:29:55 Okay.

02:29:56 So that's the one-story plan.

02:29:59 Two-story plan, same footprint.

02:30:09 Because it's limb number 4 we have to push back even

02:30:13 further.

02:30:15 So in this option, now we can get the three-bedroom plan.

02:30:22 The problem is, we are still at a one, one and a half car

02:30:27 garage, in a indoor laundry room.

02:30:29 These bedroom sizes are not what the market would buy.

02:30:33 This is actually more like an apartment, or a townhouse, or

02:30:38 a condominium.

02:30:42 So when you talk about the City of Tampa's comprehensive

02:30:44 land use plan, which we are supposed to look at, there's a

02:30:48 reason why we have RS-50 lots.

02:30:51 Versus something else.

02:30:53 This is the smallest single-family lot by zoning that we can

02:30:58 build on.

02:30:59 So we ought to be able to build something that the market

02:31:02 wants.

02:31:11 Obviously the -- we just bought the property so obviously

02:31:15 the tree regulations haven't changed.

02:31:17 In terms of market values, we did have an appraisal done.

02:31:24 Before we came along to look at these lots, they became

02:31:27 actively on the market for 1200 days, three and a half

02:31:32 years.

02:31:33 A lot of people came and looked at these and walked away

02:31:35 from them because they didn't want to deal with the trees.

02:31:41 Our appraisal brought the value in at 53,000.

02:31:44 I apologize for the fine print.

02:31:46 But if you were to read the comments in the middle.

02:31:48 Appraisal, it says that the subject site is single-family

02:31:57 parcels, asphalt street.

02:32:01 The site has two grand trees which would severely impact the

02:32:04 subject marketability.

02:32:11 The trees also impact vehicular access to the site.

02:32:15 That's from the real estate appraiser.

02:32:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm sorry, that's the time.

02:32:20 We are going to stop you right here and prosecute you are

02:32:23 going to have five minutes you can use at the end.

02:32:26 I think we get the idea of what you are trying to say.

02:32:29 This is a public hearing.

02:32:30 Anyone in the public that would like to speak on this, you

02:32:32 are certainly entitled to it.

02:32:34 If you want to the speak on item number 82, E-207-13, CH 27,

02:32:49 please come forward.

02:32:50 State your name.

02:32:51 >> My name is Crawford Tanaro, 20137 Paxton Avenue.

02:33:00 I'm here in support of the tree.

02:33:03 I have been here since 1970.

02:33:04 The tree is large.

02:33:06 It looms big in our neighborhood.

02:33:07 It affects the quality of our lives.

02:33:11 It's large, oxygen producing.

02:33:14 I did not plan on coming here, but we had four or five other

02:33:17 people from our side of the block that were going to come,

02:33:19 but unfortunately, they have got jobs.

02:33:21 I'm retired.

02:33:23 I have lived there for 40-something years.

02:33:26 It's a beautiful tree.

02:33:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Excuse me.

02:33:36 >> I know, I know.

02:33:37 >> I apologize.

02:33:41 >> Use the other mike, the one to your left.

02:33:47 >> Oh, I'm sorry.

02:33:49 >> That's basically what I have to say.

02:33:52 I have been there.

02:33:53 It's a beautiful tree.

02:33:55 If they can build a house on it without destroying the tree.

02:33:58 I don't think anybody in the neighborhood would look bad

02:34:02 upon that.

02:34:02 But that tree deserves -- it even shows, from the pictures

02:34:08 in the air, the size of this.

02:34:11 All I can see is a beautiful object, God-given object.

02:34:17 I thank you all for hearing me.

02:34:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much, sir.

02:34:20 Next, please.

02:34:21 >> My name is Jeffrey LaFleur, west Paxton Avenue.

02:34:29 I frequent that a lot because I have a dog and everything.

02:34:33 We go around it.

02:34:36 I do not -- I am not opposed to building on the lot, but I

02:34:41 do oppose any kind of obstruction to that tree, or any of

02:34:45 the planned oaks because of the history of this parcel and

02:34:51 the additional parcel, that the tree stands but the houses

02:34:55 come down, and this tree is still within part of its life.

02:35:03 If it was diseased or anything I could understand bringing

02:35:05 it down.

02:35:06 But since it's still in the fruit of its life, I don't see

02:35:10 the need of bringing it down just to build some conglomerate

02:35:16 house in the neighborhood.

02:35:17 What somebody can do with a 1,000-foot, 1500 square foot

02:35:22 home, what's the difference between that and an additional

02:35:25 thousand, like 2500 square foot house?

02:35:29 If you look at the majority of the houses on the street

02:35:34 itself and everything, anywhere from 900 to 1800 square

02:35:38 feet.

02:35:39 Yes, there's been a lot of new additions to the

02:35:41 neighborhood, which we commend, because it's starting to

02:35:45 bring back up that neighborhood, because it has started to

02:35:49 run down.

02:35:49 But other than that, no need to hurt a tree.

02:35:54 If it were a Laurel oak that had a 50, 360 year life span,

02:35:58 that's one thing.

02:35:59 But these are grand oaks and they have 200, 300 year life

02:36:03 span and everything.

02:36:04 That's all I have at this time.

02:36:07 Thank you all.

02:36:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much.

02:36:09 Appreciate it very much.

02:36:10 Anyone else in the audience care to speak?

02:36:19 Anyone else in the audience? No one else?

02:36:22 Petitioner, you have five minutes --

02:36:28 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I apologize.

02:36:29 Mr. Mueller,I guess you are here to help us with some of the

02:36:38 legal issues?

02:36:39 I have a quick question.

02:36:42 What are the parameters in where we make our decision on

02:36:45 this? And specifically in terms of a grand oak that's

02:36:52 there?

02:36:56 What are the rights for a person that has purchased the lot

02:36:59 to have access to their property in addition to trying to

02:37:03 save the tree?

02:37:05 What are our specific parameters within this specific case?

02:37:11 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Those are located in chapter 13-45.

02:37:15 You don't have that in front of you at all?

02:37:19 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I don't think so.

02:37:24 >>ERNEST MUELLER: There is the reasonable use of

02:37:25 termination.

02:37:26 It is quite extensive.

02:37:27 If you like, I will go ahead and make a quick copy of it and

02:37:30 make it available.

02:37:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ: It's in the back.

02:37:37 And that's what I wanted to get to.

02:37:39 Reasonable use.

02:37:40 There are certain criteria when it comes to reasonable use.

02:37:44 Meaning reasonable use is when there is -- once you purchase

02:37:51 it, the idea, use of this property based on certain

02:37:56 criteria, for these positions, one of them being some of the

02:38:00 conditions concerning trees, okay?

02:38:03 And I think there is something in there -- and I am not

02:38:05 going to -- you are going to know this more than I would.

02:38:08 But specific to creating an unreasonable criteria yourself,

02:38:17 meaning that, you know, you know that that's there, but yet

02:38:21 you want to do something that is against the code because

02:38:27 you can't say it's unreasonable use when you purchased it.

02:38:30 It was already there.

02:38:32 Is that correct?

02:38:32 >> Well --

02:38:35 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Is that an argument that is usually made?

02:38:38 >> Well, I think in using all these factors, you can see

02:38:43 there's ten factors and that all kind of goes toward Wan you

02:38:47 are talking about.

02:38:49 The trees there, and the purchasing, the tree owner wants to

02:38:56 use the property, but trying to weigh the rights of the

02:39:00 purchaser with the existing condition, and our concern over

02:39:02 the tree.

02:39:03 So you have items like item number 7, existing uses or

02:39:11 development pattern or similarly situated property located

02:39:14 adjacent to or near the parcel of property in question.

02:39:18 That's a factor.

02:39:20 Any effort by the permit application -- or applicant to the

02:39:24 redesign, the proposed structure in a manner to retain or

02:39:31 preserve the grand or protected tree.

02:39:34 And number 10 is any other information to be pertinent.

02:39:40 I'm trying to see if there's one that specifically says --

02:39:43 and I don't remember one.

02:39:53 The tree was there, the condition of the property when you

02:39:55 bought it.

02:39:55 >> The point I am getting to is when you are trying to make

02:39:58 an economic argument that this is a burden to continue to

02:40:05 keep a tree in place, if you knew that the burden existed

02:40:08 prior to the purchase of the property, is that a factor in

02:40:12 making a decision whether a tree stays in place?

02:40:17 >> I think this is a catch-all.

02:40:31 And deals with this particular section every day.

02:40:34 >> Mary, help me.

02:40:36 >> Mary Daniel, natural resource.

02:40:41 I have been sworn.

02:40:42 Basically the code states that nonhazardous grand trees

02:40:46 cannot be removed.

02:40:47 And the lot has two grand trees.

02:40:54 The burden on the property owner is to show through

02:40:57 alternative design than they physically cannot build

02:41:00 anything on that lot.

02:41:05 The tree is 48 inches.

02:41:07 >> When you say cannot build anything, anything within the

02:41:09 land use code that is allowed where they are at?

02:41:12 >> Correct.

02:41:13 Correct.

02:41:13 >> And the criteria is, no, we can't remove it?

02:41:19 I just want to get this straight in my head primarily.

02:41:21 No, we can't remove it except for those conditions which you

02:41:26 said there's no way you can build anything on this lot?

02:41:28 >> Correct.

02:41:30 And a burden of proof on the property owner is also to show

02:41:35 several different designs that absolutely cannot and will

02:41:38 not work, and we have not received that information at this

02:41:41 time.

02:41:41 >>MIKE SUAREZ: And the economic argument that you can't

02:41:47 build something that is comparable to other portions of the

02:41:49 neighborhood is not a true criteria that that's used in the

02:41:55 code?

02:41:55 >> There's also a code section that speaks to following the

02:41:59 pattern of the neighborhood and most of the houses within

02:42:01 that neighborhood are small, one-story structures.

02:42:04 We did look at the lot and determined that you could build a

02:42:08 one-story portion, and then we would allow certain cutback,

02:42:14 and lateral, to create a new structural land.

02:42:23 And we had some tests done, and three of us out there

02:42:30 looking at this lot, and we had determined that it was a

02:42:33 buildable lot, that they may not be a 2400 square foot

02:42:39 structure, but they possibly could get maybe an 1800 square

02:42:42 foot structure, and that was in character with the houses --

02:42:45 >> Well, I appreciate you -- and that's what I want to make

02:42:48 sure that we get those criteria out there, and clearly

02:42:51 defined.

02:42:52 One of the problems that we have is when you are looking at

02:42:55 something like this, sometimes we mix up where our criteria

02:42:59 are at because we have done a lot of cases, but we don't do

02:43:02 a lot of these review cases.

02:43:05 So thanks for bringing that up.

02:43:07 Thanks, Mary.

02:43:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have got Montelione, then Mr. Cohen.

02:43:12 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.

02:43:14 And at some point Mr. Suarez brought up that I'm not really

02:43:20 comfortable with.

02:43:30 And that is the only time this healthy grand tree could be

02:43:35 removed is if nothing could be built on the lot.

02:43:39 And to me, I don't read it that way.

02:43:43 Because in the report that we had in our backup material, it

02:43:56 says to exclude reasonable use of a property in this chapter

02:44:02 reasonable use shall mean an actual present use or activity

02:44:06 on a parcel of real property -- and I am going to jump to

02:44:09 the next sentence -- or such reasonably foreseeable

02:44:14 nonspeculative land uses, which are suitable for the subject

02:44:18 parcel of property, which are compatible with adjacent land

02:44:21 uses.

02:44:24 And this is the part that maybe Ernie you can expound on for

02:44:27 me here, which has created an existing fair market value in

02:44:31 the parcel of property greater than the fair market value of

02:44:35 the actual present use.

02:44:37 So to me, it does speak to highest and best use of this lot.

02:44:44 The highest and best use of this lot would not be building a

02:44:48 900 or 1,000 square foot home.

02:44:52 Highest and best use would be -- and again when we talk

02:44:56 about development patterns, one of the gentlemen who

02:45:01 responsible said that the neighborhood has been declining

02:45:07 and was thankful for the new houses that were being built

02:45:11 because the new houses being built were uplifting the

02:45:17 neighborhood.

02:45:17 But the new houses being built are larger than the one us

02:45:20 that had been there.

02:45:22 So if the houses that are there in the existing development

02:45:29 pattern, or the historical development pattern, were small,

02:45:36 or in their home, and the neighborhood was declining, and

02:45:40 the neighborhood is being uplifted by newer, bigger homes,

02:45:46 then why won we ask a property owner to build a small home

02:45:53 when it's the larger home that is bringing the market up?

02:45:58 So when the code says, or the language says, fair market

02:46:06 value in the parcel of property greater than the fair and

02:46:09 market value of the actual present use, I think of that we

02:46:18 are looking at not development pattern of the existing homes

02:46:21 in the neighborhood.

02:46:22 We are looking at future fair market value, which would mean

02:46:27 the development currently under way.

02:46:30 So that's one thing I see.

02:46:33 But Mary, I do have a question when you say could be

02:46:38 developed in this report, and I'm guessing from what you

02:46:40 just testified to that it was your opinion and that of the

02:46:45 folks in the development services division, could be

02:46:49 developed with an 1800 square fat home.

02:46:51 Where did the 1800 square feet come from?

02:46:54 Because I didn't hear that mentioned in the applicant's

02:47:00 testimony.

02:47:01 And he did some pretty nifty drawings, I think, of watt

02:47:06 could be built there.

02:47:07 >> That was an estimate looking at the footprint area that

02:47:14 and there's also a provision within the chapter that states

02:47:20 the applicant can ask for a set back variance in order to

02:47:25 develop on the lot and shall ask for the setback variance.

02:47:29 He has not asked to shift the structure back.

02:47:32 We have had cases where the Variance Review Board has denied

02:47:37 the removal of the tree, and we had several cases.

02:47:42 I have one here with me in which case the petitioner does

02:47:52 not ask for a set back variance and as part of the

02:47:55 application was granted the setback and he had three grand

02:47:58 trees.

02:47:58 He was able to build a two-story structure on the lot.

02:48:01 And it was gobbled up immediately.

02:48:04 And --

02:48:07 >>LISA MONTELIONE: We can't base on what happened in

02:48:10 somebody else's hearing because the circumstances

02:48:12 surrounding the other case might be very different from the

02:48:18 circumstances here.

02:48:19 >> well, it's germane to the fact there were two grand trees

02:48:22 and they were able to build around that.

02:48:25 >> What neighborhood was it?

02:48:26 Was it this neighborhood?

02:48:27 >> It was South Tampa.

02:48:28 >> The idea that it was gobbled up, in other words, sold

02:48:31 very quickly, we can't extrapolate from one neighborhood in

02:48:35 South Tampa to one south of Gandy or anywhere else in the

02:48:38 city.

02:48:39 >> Correct.

02:48:39 >> And from the drawings that are on pages 43 and 48 in the

02:48:47 report, they both show an greater setback -- I mean, a

02:48:55 25-foot setback, at least -- so they are trying to move the

02:49:07 homes to accommodate that tree.

02:49:09 And it's two-story option on this house shows us 1,334

02:49:15 square foot office, a little bit smaller than the 1800

02:49:19 square foot provided in the report.

02:49:21 And no offense to you or anybody else on staff.

02:49:25 A gentleman who has been in the building business for quite

02:49:28 some time, and playing with these drawings and trying to

02:49:32 work around the tree, coming up with 1334 to me is a little

02:49:35 bit more credible, I want to say, than the 1800 that staff

02:49:40 thinks might be able to be built.

02:49:43 Don't get me wrong.

02:49:44 I love trees.

02:49:45 I try and save the tree.

02:49:47 And that was one of the things I was going to ask about,

02:49:51 trimming back the branches, and seeing if that would help.

02:49:56 >> It would help.

02:49:57 And we did look at several branches that could be cut back.

02:50:01 One branch that could be removed, and another branch that

02:50:05 could be subordinated.

02:50:06 And we actually thought it would work.

02:50:09 >> But when at the present time applicant has rebuttal time

02:50:14 maybe we can find out why trimming back the branches doesn't

02:50:18 get him to where he needs to be.

02:50:20 Thank you.

02:50:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Before we go back, I have Mr. Cohen and

02:50:24 Ms. Capin.

02:50:25 >>HARRY COHEN: I want to go to the valuation information

02:50:31 that you provided to us.

02:50:33 There were two lots that were similarly situated that one

02:50:39 sold for 67,500 right next door, correct?

02:50:44 >> I think that's correct.

02:50:45 The three lots the previous owner owned, the people that

02:50:50 bought the western-most lot actually wanted to buy the

02:50:53 middle lot.

02:50:58 1800 square foot, one-story home with a two-car garage.

02:51:02 After they talked to city staff about the impacts of the

02:51:05 20-foot radius on that lot, not the subject lot but on that

02:51:11 lot, they said, we don't want any part of this.

02:51:14 We'll go buy the lot next door.

02:51:16 But wait, there's a Laurel oak tree in the way.

02:51:19 It's in the middle. Lot.

02:51:20 That one came out.

02:51:22 >> So then they paid 70.

02:51:26 And then there's the middle lot.

02:51:28 What happened to that one?

02:51:29 >> We bought both lots, and we paid 93,700 for two lots.

02:51:35 So less than $47,000 per lot because of the impact of this

02:51:40 tree.

02:51:42 >> But my question to you, though, didn't you get the

02:51:45 benefit of the tree?

02:51:46 >> That's not the point.

02:51:47 >> Well, it is the point, though.

02:51:49 Because didn't you pay $40,000 less than you would have

02:51:52 otherwise?

02:51:56 >> That's absolutely correct.

02:51:57 Absolutely correct.

02:51:58 In and out, the one thing I skipped over unfortunately in my

02:52:01 presentation was that the previous owners that owned all

02:52:03 three lots according to the public records, after they

02:52:05 rezoned the between lots to RS-50 so they could all be three

02:52:10 buildable lots, they sold the property for $430,000.

02:52:17 $140,000 a lot.

02:52:18 Now granted the market tanked.

02:52:21 But this is what we are dealing with with this ordinance,

02:52:24 okay?

02:52:25 This has a very significant and unreasonable impact on

02:52:30 market values.

02:52:32 I didn't get hurt but the guy I bought it from got hurt.

02:52:36 So I'm not here to defend myself on that.

02:52:39 I feel sorry for him.

02:52:40 >> I guess where I am going with this, though, is that if

02:52:45 you paid less for the land, and you built a house on it

02:52:50 that's a little smaller than the optimum that you would want

02:52:53 to build, it seems to me it will sell for a little less, but

02:52:58 you have got some of the benefit of that gap in purchasing

02:53:03 the property for less initially.

02:53:04 >> That's a very true statement.

02:53:06 But I showed you -- we tried to design a home respecting the

02:53:10 tree setbacks.

02:53:13 And I have comments about the tree setbacks later.

02:53:15 It the point is, these are functionally deficient floor

02:53:18 plans. They want don't have features that people will pay

02:53:21 for.

02:53:23 So, yeah, somebody would move into the house if we

02:53:26 discounted it the lot price and built the house for free.

02:53:30 Sure, you can always make that statement.

02:53:31 But the point, in my opinion, that the code speaks to when

02:53:36 we go back to the -- and I apologize in my presentation.

02:53:40 I was going item by item through the code in my

02:53:43 presentation.

02:53:43 All of the questions that Councilman Suarez asked are

02:53:49 referring to that, okay, item by item.

02:53:51 You can't just take one of these things out of the code and

02:53:55 try to -- you have got to make all of the arrows in the

02:54:00 quiver and figure out if in fact there is unreasonable

02:54:02 hardship here.

02:54:04 And again, if you go back to the language in the graph on

02:54:09 intent, and nowhere -- and I would like to ask Mr. Mueller

02:54:12 this -- show me in this paragraph where it says if I can

02:54:15 build something then I don't have it the right to the tap

02:54:21 the tree out.

02:54:22 It doesn't say that.

02:54:23 What it says, which the other Councilwoman was alluding to,

02:54:27 is that it is not the intent of this chapter, the terms of

02:54:35 these regulations which are the setbacks.

02:54:37 Those are the terms.

02:54:38 Inordinately burden it is property.

02:54:41 Whether I own it, whether I bought it for 40 or 50,000,

02:54:44 that's not the issue here.

02:54:46 The issue here is that whoever wanted to develop this

02:54:50 single-family parcel ought to be able to, and it goes back

02:55:00 to the development pattern, where the ordinance doesn't say

02:55:03 we have to compare it to things that happened 40 and 50

02:55:07 years ago.

02:55:08 These not what people want today.

02:55:09 They want 16, 18, 2100 square foot homes.

02:55:14 All three. New homes that are currently -- currently under

02:55:17 construction on this block are 2100 to 2400.

02:55:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I understand that but we are getting way

02:55:22 off the subject mat per.

02:55:23 I understand what you are doing and I appreciate it very

02:55:25 much.

02:55:25 Budget I want to narrow it down here.

02:55:28 If council has other questions --

02:55:31 >> But my answer on the value of the lot, is it reasonable

02:55:35 for a lot that didn't have the tree on it that sold for

02:55:39 70,000 compared to a lot with two grand oak trees, not just

02:55:43 one, but two, to sell for 46, 47,000 U.

02:55:49 I would have been wouldn't be down here having this

02:55:51 conversation with you.

02:55:52 I think they were just frustrated and they wanted to unload

02:55:56 the lots.

02:55:59 Thank you very much.

02:55:59 Ms. Capin?

02:56:00 >>YVONNE CAPIN: On page 48, does this tree have branches

02:56:06 over the street?

02:56:07 Can you show me?

02:56:09 Because when I am looking at page 48, I only see the

02:56:13 branches that are number 2 and 4 that are going in toward

02:56:16 the lot.

02:56:17 And I don't see any branches going out towards the street.

02:56:21 Are there branches going out toward the street and they are

02:56:25 now --

02:56:26 >> Again, we are showing you the structural of the canopy

02:56:30 tree.

02:56:31 >> I want to the know --

02:56:32 >> Tampa answer yes, on the stretch you can see it goes over

02:56:36 this area of the some.

02:56:38 Branch canopies is toward the street and that's why we are

02:56:42 not asking for that tree to come out because it's the right

02:56:44 tree in the right place.

02:56:45 It has plenty of room to of grow.

02:56:47 >> I want to see a picture of that tree on the street.

02:56:54 The reason I asked that is because it looked to me that all

02:56:59 the branches are growing in toward the property.

02:57:10 Do you have a photo that shows?

02:57:12 Oh, here we go.

02:57:13 >> Well, this picture on page 40, I'm standing pretty much

02:57:19 facing due east.

02:57:20 >> These branches are on the right, my right?

02:57:25 >> These are going to the street here.

02:57:27 >> That's what I wanted to know.

02:57:29 >> the tree is it in about ten feet.

02:57:31 That canopy extends beyond the front property line.

02:57:34 It's a great tree.

02:57:36 It's one that all the neighbors would want to be saved,

02:57:40 because they walk up and down the street, where they are

02:57:44 going to miss it.

02:57:45 >> Go back to page 47.

02:57:48 I see the point of the evaluation.

02:57:51 But I also caught where this gentleman said the building of

02:57:56 the new home has elevated everybody else's property value.

02:58:03 And that can't be denied.

02:58:06 And then they are expecting to you build a house that is in

02:58:09 the same as what would be built before that was going, you

02:58:19 know, is not -- that is not being repeated anywhere else in

02:58:23 the city anywhere.

02:58:25 Except in an apartment size.

02:58:28 So when I look at this, I was looking at branches 2 and 4,

02:58:34 when you had your drawing, 2 and 4.

02:58:37 Can those be trimmed back?

02:58:41 To build?

02:58:43 >> In the hearing I had the landscape architect here and

02:58:47 arborist.

02:58:49 They did the presentation for me because I sit on the VRB.

02:58:52 I did not want to speak because I had been on the board.

02:58:56 They explained to the VRB that those are structural

02:59:00 scaffolding limbs.

02:59:03 You cannot cut these limbs without doing irreparable harm to

02:59:06 the trees.

02:59:07 Plus you would tap out substantial canopy.

02:59:11 You wouldn't have it a grand tree anymore.

02:59:12 You would probably devalue the tree.

02:59:16 But to answer the question from a design standpoint, Mary is

02:59:20 right.

02:59:20 Although they never told me -- in fact, we specifically

02:59:23 asked Cathy Beck, could we cut limb number 4?

02:59:27 The answer was no.

02:59:28 >> Why?

02:59:31 >> It would do harm to the tree.

02:59:33 >> The same reason you just gave?

02:59:35 >> Yes.

02:59:35 >> But it's not up to the tree to take it down?

02:59:42 [ Laughter ]

02:59:42 >> That's the hard part.

02:59:44 Okay?

02:59:47 I'm not here to make light of the ordinance.

02:59:49 I probably understand this ordinance better than anybody

02:59:52 else in the room, okay?

02:59:55 I'm trying to make president a valid, logical argument here.

03:00:00 You have got to look at all these different points.

03:00:02 You can't just grab ahold of one and say, oh, the applicant

03:00:06 could build something.

03:00:07 It doesn't even say that in the ordinance.

03:00:09 It doesn't say if you can build something, you can't take

03:00:11 the tree down.

03:00:13 Sell it to me.

03:00:14 >> Then I was looking at your design of the one-car garage.

03:00:23 Is there anyway to come in from the front as opposed to the

03:00:27 sides and make at two-car -- this to come in from the street

03:00:32 as opposed touch where you have it drawn which makes it

03:00:36 wider?

03:00:38 Probably make a two-car garage because you could make it --

03:00:42 well --

03:00:43 >> No, you can't.

03:00:45 You can't make it.

03:00:49 She's asking questions.

03:00:51 You haven't gotten to your five minutes.

03:00:52 >> That's because of the 67-foot setback.

03:00:56 >> The 57-foot setback is because to back in and out of the

03:01:03 garage without getting into the roots on the tree in the

03:01:06 front, you have --

03:01:08 >> Right, I see it there.

03:01:09 >> If there was one tree --

03:01:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: We are not asking you about one tree or

03:01:21 two trees.

03:01:21 >> The answer was to the tree in front.

03:01:26 >> now I see the dimensions.

03:01:29 Yes.

03:01:33 You are 47.

03:01:34 If you went back further east you could make it -- it could

03:01:37 be two cars going in this way.

03:01:40 You could have two cars going in this way.

03:01:45 17-foot east.

03:01:50 The rest of it is your bedroom and stuff.

03:01:53 As far as the garage is concerned, you could come in at the

03:01:57 angle that you see many houses come in through the front,

03:02:01 and the garage is there.

03:02:02 >> Are you asking a question?

03:02:05 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I'm telling you that I did read that.

03:02:09 I'm trying to in my mind get the evaluation.

03:02:21 All right.

03:02:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Suarez again.

03:02:25 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Brown, I have a question.

03:02:29 Did you say you are on the VRB?

03:02:30 >> Yes, I am.

03:02:31 I am the contractor that was appointed by the mayor's

03:02:33 office.

03:02:34 >> So you are on the VRB.

03:02:36 How long have you been on the VRB?

03:02:38 >> 18 months.

03:02:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ: 18 month.

03:02:41 Was this before or after you purchased the property?

03:02:43 >> I just bought the pro property a month ago.

03:02:47 >> So you have been on it for 18 months.

03:02:53 You mentioned you are pretty much the only expert in the

03:02:55 room.

03:02:55 >> No.

03:02:57 >> I apologize.

03:02:59 What you did say is, I probably know this ordinance better

03:03:02 than anyone in the room.

03:03:03 >> I did say that.

03:03:04 >> Okay.

03:03:05 Hang on, hang on.

03:03:07 Let me say something.

03:03:09 You bought it a month ago.

03:03:11 You know the ordinance.

03:03:11 You know the tree.

03:03:13 You know the lot.

03:03:18 It begs the question, what made you think than you could

03:03:21 make an economic placement of a home on a piece of property

03:03:26 that you knew had these trees?

03:03:27 Now, I ask you this because you seem like a smart

03:03:30 businessman.

03:03:30 I don't think that you spend money, good money after bad.

03:03:39 Did you think you could get through this -- this through the

03:03:42 VRB without any issue?

03:03:44 Obviously you know there's an issue and there's an economic

03:03:46 problem with building a smaller home there.

03:03:49 I'm at a loss.

03:03:50 I'm at a loss.

03:03:51 Because I don't know your business.

03:03:52 I am not a construction business.

03:03:55 I'm in the commercial insurance business so I deal with a

03:03:58 lot of guys that have businesses, okay?

03:04:00 And if someone makes an economic argument to me and then

03:04:04 says, I can't do anything with this, after I have already

03:04:08 purchased something," there's a question in my mind, what

03:04:12 were you thinking the first time?

03:04:14 And that's the only thing I have to say. Because, you know,

03:04:17 there are some conflicts in the ordinance.

03:04:18 I can see you coming to all of us and say, you know what?

03:04:22 I have been under the -- on the VRB for the last 18 months.

03:04:27 As a builder I can see the problem coming forth where if I

03:04:30 am a builder and I want to build on a particular lot that

03:04:33 has a grand tree it's not going to make it easy for us to

03:04:35 build something.

03:04:36 I can see you making that argument very easily.

03:04:39 But that's not where we are at right now.

03:04:42 So I guess the question is, I'm not really sure what the

03:04:45 economic incentive was to purchase it a month ago.

03:04:49 And -- well, the question is there.

03:04:57 I have to make sure.

03:04:58 Just stop for a second, okay?

03:04:59 I have to make sure that I can ask than question because I

03:05:02 can see the lawyer fidgeting over here.

03:05:05 Than means you are going to say something.

03:05:07 Are you going to say something, Mr. Shelby?

03:05:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.

03:05:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Go ahead.

03:05:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Speculation as to the economic intent of

03:05:14 the purchaser at the time of the purchase is not relevant to

03:05:18 make a determination.

03:05:20 >>MIKE SUAREZ: There.

03:05:21 Now out don't have to answer.

03:05:22 But before I go on, I ask to put on the record, okay, there

03:05:27 is an aspect. Economic portion of it considering what the

03:05:31 size of other developments are in that particular period.

03:05:35 There is an economic argument that's made within the

03:05:38 ordinance itself.

03:05:39 But what you are saying is in the ordinances that we cannot

03:05:45 either reward or count against someone making a bad

03:05:49 decision.

03:05:52 I mean, essentially that's what the ordinance says, because

03:05:54 if you are saying I want to have the it right to do

03:05:57 something, based on what other people have done around me,

03:05:59 and then you fall against what the be tree ordinance says in

03:06:03 terms of what you are able to do with the tree, we don't get

03:06:07 into this decision of whether or not you are making a good

03:06:10 or bad economic decision, okay it?

03:06:12 So my question probably shouldn't have been asked and I

03:06:16 apologize for that, but it still begs the question and will

03:06:20 always will.

03:06:21 Well we make the decisions, we have to come in into play a

03:06:25 lot of different issues that may not be part of the

03:06:28 ordinance. Anyway, I said what I had to say.

03:06:31 Mr. Brown, please don't answer any questions.

03:06:34 Thank you, Mr. Chair.

03:06:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much, sir.

03:06:37 Let me say this.

03:06:38 No matter who sits here, there, or here, especially on that

03:06:42 side of the dais, there is not one voting issue that doesn't

03:06:50 come before that's not economic.

03:06:51 They are all, whether it's building a sidewalk or not

03:06:54 wanting to build a sidewalk, whether adding to a room or not

03:06:58 wanting to buy a be new house.

03:06:59 And I can remember -- and I'm not going to say who, but I

03:07:03 can remember 1995, there was a lot that came here, that high

03:07:08 pressure a tree in the middle of the lot.

03:07:10 Document you remember that?

03:07:12 And some council members want to design the house around the

03:07:18 tree.

03:07:23 And I do remember.

03:07:31 And we aren't sworn to tell the truth.

03:07:34 But it's that I can't take this gentleman or any gentleman

03:07:37 or any lady or any person who comes here before me, for

03:07:41 whatever reason, and say, if you cut my right leg off I'm

03:07:48 going to tilt to the left.

03:07:50 And you take my left leg off, I'm going to tilt to the

03:07:53 right.

03:07:56 If you cut one side, that's vulnerable to whatever side

03:08:05 because the wind and direction will make that tree a not

03:08:10 perfect tree.

03:08:11 And that's what we are dealing with today.

03:08:14 You are dealing with a not-perfect situation.

03:08:19 If not we wouldn't be here today.

03:08:21 Yes, the neighborhood -- so do I.

03:08:28 So does Mr. Reddick.

03:08:30 And I don't take that into consideration.

03:08:32 Whatever they want to build, that's somebody else's gamble,

03:08:36 not mine.

03:08:37 I don't gamble too much.

03:08:39 So I don't take that into account.

03:08:43 All I looked at is plainly what happened to that individual

03:08:47 that comes here that wants to do something?

03:08:50 If one tree comes out, and I ask the young lady here from

03:08:54 the division what happens to the replacement of that tree?

03:09:02 >> Mary Daniels, natural resources.

03:09:05 I have been sworn.

03:09:06 We do require mitigation when a house is developed on the on

03:09:12 a lot you need to have five rooms for the mitigation to took

03:09:14 place.

03:09:15 In the case of a 48-inch tree the mitigation would be a tree

03:09:20 over 30 inches in diameter.

03:09:23 He will get credit for up to ten points for the other grand

03:09:27 tree that would be remaining.

03:09:29 >> What does that mean?

03:09:34 >> In my professional opinion, there is not enough land left

03:09:40 on the lot to put all the mitigation.

03:09:43 >> I understand that.

03:09:44 But does he have to pay something?

03:09:45 >> He will be required to be pay into Tampa tree bank what

03:09:49 he can't plant on the tree lot.

03:09:50 >> Do you know how many inches that is or the cost?

03:09:53 >> 48 inches times $150.

03:09:57 >> 48 times 150 an inch.

03:10:01 So you have got about $7500.

03:10:05 >> Yes.

03:10:06 >> All right.

03:10:16 These are not easy.

03:10:17 None of these are easy.

03:10:18 Not the one with if lot in the middle or built around it.

03:10:23 >> The setbacks are 20 feet.

03:10:26 And we were allowing to go 15 feet.

03:10:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I understand.

03:10:36 I think I do.

03:10:37 Anyone else?

03:10:40 Mrs. Montelione?

03:10:42 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I almost forgot what I was going to say.

03:10:48 The option of the two-story home is 872 square feet on the

03:10:56 ground floor, 462 on the second floor, and page 49 is the

03:11:04 illustration I'm looking at that shows the branches 4 and 5

03:11:08 in proximity to a second story.

03:11:11 So they one allow you to encroach to the root instead of the

03:11:27 25 or 30 feet that you are showing.

03:11:30 Natural resources let you come closer in order to expand the

03:11:37 footprint of where you can build for a place, driveway.

03:11:46 If you were to turn those branches back and also coming

03:11:55 close to proximity to the trees themselves, would you get

03:11:59 the square footage that you need?

03:12:02 I'm sure that's a scenario at some point, you ran through

03:12:06 your calculations.

03:12:09 >> It's not a simple answer.

03:12:12 >>LISA MONTELIONE: No, it never is.

03:12:13 >> Okay.

03:12:14 We don't fix the garage problem.

03:12:17 And when you --

03:12:18 >> Could you speak closer to the microphone?

03:12:20 >> You don't solve your garage problem, the width of the

03:12:23 garage and the access on the lot.

03:12:24 You still have that, okay?

03:12:26 Yes, you could possibly bump up the square footage on the

03:12:29 second alligator.

03:12:30 We are not going to deny that.

03:12:31 That's obvious, okay?

03:12:33 But again, you have to trim or cut structural rims.

03:12:39 You are going to --

03:12:42 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I would rather cut --

03:12:44 >> And a situation and a conflict between the than new home

03:12:47 and this large tree until one of them loses.

03:12:52 And if the trees dies or goes first, it may in fact hit the

03:12:56 house, or the house next door.

03:12:59 So we don't believe that it's logical or prudent to encroach

03:13:05 on a minimum 207-foot setback on such a large tree.

03:13:10 We don't think that's smart.

03:13:11 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Mary?

03:13:19 >> We were very prudent in our decision and we truly looked

03:13:22 at that angle, and we thought it was very doable.

03:13:27 >> Now, that is something we can use, our history and data

03:13:31 in the past to make comparisons to other cases where we have

03:13:37 allowed encroachment to 15 feet, and trimming of the limbs.

03:13:46 Do we track those?

03:13:47 Have we had success with that?

03:13:49 >> Oh, yes.

03:13:50 Yes.

03:13:50 >> And the tree --

03:13:51 >> We look at that carefully because again we don't want to

03:13:55 make a decision that we are going to have to try to fix

03:13:57 later.

03:13:58 >> And the trees have survived?

03:14:00 >> Yes.

03:14:01 >> And I have seen trees, there's one I have a picture of my

03:14:06 phone from Washington, D.C. where the tree is growing over

03:14:09 the curb, and it's a huge tree, right across from the White

03:14:14 House, and it's amazing how this tree has adapted to what

03:14:18 has been built around it.

03:14:19 >> It's a live oak, and live oaks have better compression

03:14:25 where they compartmentalized decay better.

03:14:29 >> Someone mentioned previously about life span.

03:14:33 And I know we talked about this before.

03:14:35 What's the life span of this tree?

03:14:37 >> On a good day could be as much as 500 years.

03:14:42 Bad days, 300 years, or if we don't take care of it, 75 to

03:14:49 100 years.

03:14:53 That tree won't be replaced in our lifetime because it takes

03:14:56 another 40 to 80 years to get back what we lost.

03:15:01 >>LISA MONTELIONE: All right, thank you.

03:15:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Further comments by council members?

03:15:06 Rebuttal.

03:15:07 Five minutes, sir.

03:15:09 >>> Okay.

03:15:12 There's quite a bit there.

03:15:13 Let me first go to the comments that the Councilman made

03:15:18 about the tree in Washington, D.C.

03:15:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Huff got five minutes.

03:15:22 You can talk about Washington, D.C. or you can talk about

03:15:24 your property.

03:15:24 Which one do you want?

03:15:25 >> Okay.

03:15:26 That one adapted to its condition here.

03:15:28 And in this scenario, we are asking the tree to adapt to the

03:15:32 house after the facts.

03:15:33 The other thing you don't want to ignore is the consequences

03:15:37 on the house, the structure itself, to build than close.

03:15:42 You are going to create a situation with that house, with

03:15:44 mold and mildew and whatnot, because the canopy 100% covers

03:15:48 this lot.

03:15:49 It's not getting hardly any sunlight.

03:15:52 Sunlight is a good thing at times.

03:15:54 Yes, we all want shade from trees but we also need some

03:15:57 sunlight, okay?

03:15:58 I don't believe, based on what I was told by three staff

03:16:01 members at different times, and together, that we can go in

03:16:05 and cut these structural limbs without causing a pop tension

03:16:09 hazard.

03:16:10 Don't forget, we are talking about one house on one side of

03:16:14 the tree.

03:16:15 What about the future house on the other side of the tree?

03:16:18 We haven't even talked about that yet.

03:16:20 But it's gonna happen.

03:16:24 It's going to be two houses on both sides of the street.

03:16:27 Regarding the canopy, there weren't any inaccuracies stated,

03:16:35 going back to market value, I want to answer the other

03:16:38 council's man question about did I get a great deal?

03:16:41 No.

03:16:41 It's going to cost me $8,000 to take the tree out.

03:16:43 It's going to cost $7500 to replace the tree.

03:16:46 I'm now back up to the $70,000.

03:16:48 That's where that number comes from.

03:16:50 That's was supported by the appraisal.

03:16:53 So I'm not in this thinking I'm going to give away. If this

03:16:58 tree comes down, it's going to be just like the one that

03:17:00 sold two doors down.

03:17:02 That's how it should be.

03:17:04 Market driven.

03:17:05 Why did I take the risk?

03:17:06 Because I think, and I apologize to the council -- I didn't

03:17:11 mean to say you don't understand the code -- but I do

03:17:16 understand it. I'm on the VRB.

03:17:18 I sat for five years on the urban forest management

03:17:21 committee talking with our staff about our tree ordinance.

03:17:23 I think I understand how it should be applied.

03:17:25 And when I got the call, the frustrated call from the

03:17:29 realtor who was trying to market these lots for three and a

03:17:32 half years, and they couldn't find any takers, they said,

03:17:35 why can't this work?

03:17:37 And I said it can work.

03:17:40 If you understand the ordinance and if you apply the

03:17:41 ordinance as you should apply it, this is a poster child.

03:17:46 50-foot wide lot, two trees, it should come down so that the

03:17:52 economic use, the market value can be protected, and we can

03:17:57 continue to follow the plan and -- these are not McMansions.

03:18:05 This is a part of town that has struggled.

03:18:10 Prices have again got back to 2006 price levels.

03:18:13 It's really hard for a young family to buy a new home in

03:18:18 South Tampa unless you go south of Gandy now.

03:18:22 I think it the city is trying to keep our young people here.

03:18:25 We want to have them here.

03:18:27 We want to have them raising families.

03:18:29 These were vibrant neighborhood back in the 50s and 60s.

03:18:33 Hyde Park went through the same thing back in the 70s.

03:18:36 Parts of Ybor are going to come back sooner than later.

03:18:39 This is what we are all about.

03:18:41 I have been doing this for 40 years.

03:18:43 I think I understand design better than staff.

03:18:47 Yes, we stood on-site with no tape measures and we had a

03:18:51 general conversation about can't you build an 1800 square

03:18:54 foot home here?

03:18:54 And I said, I don't know.

03:18:56 I haven't studied it yet but I do think we have a real

03:19:00 problem because of the two trees.

03:19:03 That's the biggest difference here, is the two trees.

03:19:07 On the canopy, of this is one of the great parts about this

03:19:15 tree ordinance.

03:19:16 I like this tree ordinance.

03:19:18 What I hate is the process that you put the citizens

03:19:21 through.

03:19:22 And I say you because you control changing the ordinance.

03:19:26 We are going to have that conversation later.

03:19:27 Not today.

03:19:39 When we plant inch for inch, 24-inch trees along Paxton, the

03:19:43 day they were planted we would have 1200 square feet of

03:19:46 canopy versus 7800 square feet that came out.

03:19:49 In ten years, we would almost double it.

03:19:53 Ten years.

03:19:55 In ten more years, we would triple it.

03:19:58 I sat in here today and listened to some residents up in New

03:20:01 Tampa complain about the lack of tree buffer.

03:20:04 If you don't want to plant them here, take them up there.

03:20:07 But I would like to see them stay in the neighborhood where

03:20:09 the canopy comes down.

03:20:11 That makes sense.

03:20:13 Thank you very much for listening.

03:20:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mrs. Capin?

03:20:17 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I couldn't help but appreciate that where

03:20:20 you are pro tree, and the ordinance is good, just the

03:20:23 process.

03:20:24 So you have decided to put yourself forth as the sacrificial

03:20:29 lamb?

03:20:33 >> Is that a question?

03:20:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Any other comments by City Council

03:20:41 members?

03:20:43 Need a motion to close.

03:20:45 I have of a motion by Mr. Reddick to close.

03:20:47 Second by Mr. Cohen.

03:20:47 All in favor of closing are the review hearing and then

03:20:52 making a determination, please say aye.

03:20:57 Opposed nay.

03:20:57 The ayes have it unanimously.

03:20:59 What's the pleasure of council?

03:21:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I move to uphold the decision of the VRB.

03:21:11 >> Second.

03:21:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mr. Suarez.

03:21:14 I have a second by Mr --

03:21:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Do we need to spell out the reason why?

03:21:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It requires you cite the code which is

03:21:24 section 13-45.

03:21:26 But if but wish to make any findings of fact, if council

03:21:33 wishes to make any findings.

03:21:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ: But it's not necessary?

03:21:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Correct.

03:21:40 Well, if it were to be reviewed in circuit court, the court

03:21:43 would otherwise have to infer what council's reasoning is

03:21:46 and that is not as good as hearing what council's basis for

03:21:49 its decision is.

03:21:50 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Well, the findings of fact based on our

03:21:59 staff review would be under number 5, the grand or the tree

03:22:07 shown on the survey of the parcel property scale actually

03:22:12 depicting the location -- the protected tree, that it is not

03:22:19 impacted, there is not a buildable area on the property,

03:22:28 that the grand tree does not affect a buildable area on the

03:22:30 parcel property, that this tree can be protected, and it is

03:22:33 buildable, that there are no special circumstances affecting

03:22:42 development of that parcel property, including without

03:22:45 limitation, so the tree itself is not an impediment

03:22:55 exclusive of the growth of the tree, but there is still a

03:23:00 buildable area on there.

03:23:01 Society the finding of fact in my mind is that you can still

03:23:05 build on property based on our land use, and based on the

03:23:08 protection of the tree itself.

03:23:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mr. Suarez.

03:23:12 Second by Mr. Cohen.

03:23:13 Any discussion by council members?

03:23:15 All in favor of that motion?

03:23:18 Opposed? Nay.

03:23:21 Voice vote.

03:23:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Yes.

03:23:26 >>YVONNE CAPIN: No.

03:23:28 >>FRANK REDDICK: No.

03:23:39 >>THE CLERK: Mulhern?

03:23:41 No.

03:23:42 >> You're voting for her?

03:23:44 [ Laughter ]

03:23:50 >>HARRY COHEN: Yes.

03:23:51 >>LISA MONTELIONE: No.

03:23:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: No.

03:23:54 >> The motion failed with Capin, Reddick, Montelione, and

03:24:02 Miranda voting no.

03:24:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Another motion.

03:24:06 Mrs. Montelione.

03:24:07 >> I motion to overturn the VRB and allow the applicant

03:24:14 petition to go forward.

03:24:14 >> Second.

03:24:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I believe you have to say --

03:24:19 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Say it differently?

03:24:21 Mr. Shelby, can you put words in my mouth?

03:24:25 >> For the purposes of the record citing section 13-45 you

03:24:28 find --

03:24:33 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I find that there is an undue hardship

03:24:35 on the property owner under current code, and that the

03:24:42 intent of the code as stated in our staff report is that

03:24:52 there is cause to remove a healthy grand tree if it is

03:24:56 reasonably foreseeable, nonspeculative land use, which is

03:24:59 suitable for the subject parcel property which is compatible

03:25:02 with adjacent land uses, in which have created fair market,

03:25:06 greater the fair market value of the actual present use of

03:25:09 activity in the parcel property in determining reasonable

03:25:12 use of a parcel of property, the following factors shall be

03:25:16 considered, and the factors number 5, number 7, number 8,

03:25:23 and number 10.

03:25:26 Efficient?

03:25:27 Okay.

03:25:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione,

03:25:30 seconded by Mr. Reddick.

03:25:31 Further discussion by council members?

03:25:32 All in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye.

03:25:35 Opposed nay.

03:25:36 >>THE CLERK: The motion carried with Cohen and Suarez

03:25:44 voting no, and with Mulhern being absent.

03:25:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you all very much for appearing.

03:25:52 Need a motion to receive and file all the documents of the

03:25:54 day.

03:25:55 Motion by Mrs. Montelione.

03:25:57 Second by Mr. Reddick.

03:25:58 All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.

03:26:01 Opposed nay.

03:26:02 Motion passes unanimously.

03:26:04 Public comment.

03:26:05 Anyone in the audience care to speak to this council this

03:26:07 afternoon, please come forward to the mike.

03:26:08 I see none.

03:26:12 We will --

03:26:14 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Wait.

03:26:15 I want to say something.

03:26:16 Happy birthday, Eric Cotton.

03:26:20 >> We just heard about it on TV.

03:26:22 >> And we are not going to sing for the benefit of the

03:26:26 public.

03:26:26 We will not sing.

03:26:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: All right.

03:26:30 We go to information reporters from left to right at this

03:26:32 time.

03:26:32 Mrs. Montelione.

03:26:33 >>LISA MONTELIONE: No, that was the only information I

03:26:36 wanted to provide to council.

03:26:38 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

03:26:40 I have a request from Mr. McDonaugh to give a presentation

03:26:45 at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, November 14th, which is

03:26:50 directly following the CRA board meeting, for presentation

03:26:54 of urban forest management plan.

03:27:04 And it should only require 30 minutes.

03:27:07 >> Motion by Mr. Cohen.

03:27:08 Seconded by Mr. Suarez.

03:27:11 All in favor of the motion?

03:27:13 Opposed?

03:27:13 The ayes have it unanimously.

03:27:15 Anything else?

03:27:16 >>FRANK REDDICK: Mr. Chair, one request commendation for

03:27:23 5 -- 50th anniversary of president John F. Kennedy.

03:27:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Seconded by Mrs. Montelione.

03:27:34 All in favor of the motion?

03:27:36 Opposed?

03:27:37 The ayes have it unanimously.

03:27:39 >>FRANK REDDICK: Second item, Mr. Chair, requesting the

03:27:42 North Hyde Park civic association on November 21.

03:27:52 >> I have a motion by Mr. Reddick --

03:27:59 >> Restate your motion for the clerk.

03:28:02 >>FRANK REDDICK: Yes.

03:28:05 I was requesting to grant the North Hyde Park representative

03:28:09 civic association coming before the council November 21st,

03:28:10 9:00 a.m. for ten minutes to provide some information to the

03:28:16 council.

03:28:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Seconded by Mr. Cohen.

03:28:19 Further discussion by council members?

03:28:21 All in favor of the motion?

03:28:22 Opposed?

03:28:23 The ayes have it unanimously.

03:28:25 Thank you very much.

03:28:25 Ms. Capin.

03:28:26 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I have a couple of motions here and a small

03:28:31 report.

03:28:34 I would like to make a motion to have Michael Patrich,

03:28:38 president and CEO of the Florida Orchestra to give an update

03:28:43 to council on December 5th at 9:00 a.m. meeting.

03:28:46 >> Could you place a time?

03:28:51 Five minutes?

03:28:52 >> Five minutes, definitely.

03:28:55 Five minutes.

03:28:55 Thank you for reminding me of that.

03:28:57 >> Motion by Mrs. Capin.

03:28:59 Second by Mrs. Montelione.

03:29:07 Mrs. Montelione.

03:29:09 Motion made by Mrs. Capin.

03:29:10 Seconded by Mrs. Montelione.

03:29:12 Further discussion by council members?

03:29:14 All in favor of the motion?

03:29:15 Opposed? The ayes have it unanimously.

03:29:17 >>YVONNE CAPIN: And in as much as the debt payment to the

03:29:22 Tampa convention center is due to be paid off in 2015 I

03:29:25 would like to make a motion to schedule a workshop on

03:29:27 February 27th for the City Council and the public to

03:29:31 discuss possible use of these funds.

03:29:33 This money is downtown tax increment financing revenues that

03:29:36 are presently earmarked for the convention center.

03:29:39 The money is being collected today in the city's downtown

03:29:43 CRA area and the money can only be spent on downtown

03:29:46 improvements.

03:29:47 I would like to have --

03:29:51 >>HARRY COHEN: I will second but I think you should

03:29:53 schedule it for a CRA meeting.

03:29:57 As opposed to a City Council workshop.

03:29:59 I would make that request.

03:30:00 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Then let me --

03:30:05 >>HARRY COHEN: Okay.

03:30:12 February 13th at 9:00 a.m.

03:30:14 >>YVONNE CAPIN: February 13th at 9:00 a.m.

03:30:18 That's my request.

03:30:19 CRA.

03:30:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have a motion by Mrs. Capin.

03:30:21 Second by Mr. Cohen for a revenue stream of funds to be

03:30:26 discussed concerning the convention center.

03:30:32 All in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.

03:30:35 Opposed nay.

03:30:35 The ayes have it unanimously.

03:30:37 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Let me clarify something.

03:30:41 At the CRA meeting, my intent is to have public input.

03:30:47 That was the intent.

03:30:53 Of that would work at the CRA.

03:30:54 Thank you very much.

03:30:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: There goes my savings.

03:30:59 [ Laughter ]

03:31:00 >>YVONNE CAPIN: You would be surprised how many people have

03:31:13 planned for that money.

03:31:14 There's all kind of things out there.

03:31:16 >> And find out who have is in charge of deciding where it

03:31:20 goes?

03:31:20 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Okay.

03:31:22 I just wanted to bring out, there was a meeting last Monday

03:31:30 on the Jackson house, and some of the projects that have

03:31:36 come from that, because I have concern about that house.

03:31:38 One of the things that was brought to my attention at a

03:31:41 Friday meeting that I went to by the national preservation

03:31:45 member was that a wood structure is the easiest to stabilize

03:31:49 of all the structures.

03:31:51 Therefore, bracket engineering is donating the cost of the

03:31:55 perimeter fence that is under contract to be installed on

03:31:58 Friday, November 15th at 10:00 a.m.

03:32:01 And Jonathan Salaga, the director of the Tampa Community

03:32:08 Design Center, has a 501(c)3 organization, has agreed that

03:32:17 Mr. Robinson will be putting the house under the 501(c)3 and

03:32:27 for them to be able to raise fund to Triton stabilize and

03:32:32 rebuild this house.

03:32:35 Gilmore is the Jackson house attorney and he will be drawing

03:32:38 up the appropriate papers to allow the Jackson house board

03:32:41 to apply for a loan to underwrite the Jackson house

03:32:44 stabilization.

03:32:45 A fund-raising committee is being created immediately by the

03:32:48 Jackson house board for an emergency stabilizing --

03:32:53 stabilization fund, to receive a $50 that you loan and

03:32:58 longer term fundraising efforts.

03:33:00 The ad hoc committee will meet Friday, November 15 at the

03:33:04 Housing Authority at 2:00 p.m.

03:33:07 A press conference is being planned for Monday, November 18

03:33:09 they at 10:30 a.m. near the Jackson house to discuss how the

03:33:13 interested parties will be able to make tax deductible

03:33:16 donations to the emergency fund.

03:33:18 And I understand that our own Councilman Reddick is involved

03:33:22 in this and will be attending this November 157th

03:33:26 meeting, correct?

03:33:27 So I just wanted that update.

03:33:29 And I guess we will be hearing from you the rest of the

03:33:34 progress.

03:33:39 It's a good thing we are not in the hurricane --

03:33:43 Anything else, Mrs. Capin? Mr. Suarez?

03:33:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Good news about the Jackson house.

03:33:49 I think one main thing which they are changing the structure

03:33:52 of how they can get money, and that will be, I think, a good

03:33:55 thing.

03:33:56 Tonight we are going to have Tampa premier of the JFK in

03:33:59 Tampa film.

03:33:59 I hope that everyone is going.

03:34:01 I know I am going to go for at least a few minutes before

03:34:04 6:00 p.m., come back and hopefully see the film later on.

03:34:08 It's a great thing for us to remember a time when we

03:34:11 essentially became a big town and not a small city anymore.

03:34:20 Anything else before we adjourn to 6:00?

03:34:22 Anyone in the audience, all 500 of you?

03:34:24 I see no one.

03:34:26 Adjourned till 6:00 p.m.

03:34:30 >>

03:34:30 (The City Council meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m.)



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.