TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, January 8, 2015
9:00 a.m.

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

09:04:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
City Council order, chair
yields to Ms. Yvonne Yolie Capin.
09:04:52 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I'm sorry.
I didn't see you.
I know you were here in my office.
But I didn't know -- thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, let me say to all the citizens of
Tampa, to have a healthy and happy new year.
With that, all else is, we'll work out.
So happy new year to all.
And it is my pleasure to introduce Reverend Steven
Brown, who is presently the assistant president of
the university ministry at Saint Leo university.
While also participating as a supply priest

throughout the diocese of St. Petersburg and
Orlando, specializing in Spanish, Portuguese and
English masses.
Reverend Brown has been at Saint Leo university
since 2007.
Prior to Saint Leo, he served as the pastor at St.
Regis church in Indianapolis and St. Nicholas in
St. Louis.
A graduate of the Catholic theological union in
Chicago, Reverend Brown has also served as a
columnist for the Indianapolis recorder newspaper.
Welcome, Reverend Brown.
And thank you.
Please stand for the invocation and the Pledge of
Allegiance.
09:06:02 >> Oh, holy one, oh, mighty one, oh, immortal one,
we recognize you as God.
You're always here.
And to hear us when we pray.
We come before you having begun this new year of
2015.
You have called us to be the servants of your
people here in the City of Tampa.
Today, those in leadership who serve and represent
your people ask your blessing, as together they

seek a new direction for this city in this new
year.
Loving God, we ask for the grace and guidance to
help them truly represent all who live, work,
recreate and better their lives from the city of
Tampa.
The true needs of our city and the common good of
all be their aim.
O, God, let each citizen, both the great and
small, of all races and walks of life, find in
them advocates for justice and equality.
That all those who serve recognizing each person
the dignity you alone bestow and have implanted in
every human heart.
And above all, may your will in these matters
become their will.
Help all those who serve remember that all
decisions and concerns are aimed to the
transformation of our city to effect the presence
of your kingdom, a kingdom of justice, love and
peace.
May material aspects discussed not blind us to the
primary mission of our city, mainly the well-being
and wholeness and respect of all its members and
may you inspire the pentecost meeting of the

apostles, visit us and grant us the light of
divine wisdom, in the words of great prophet, we
are reminded, O, people, just as you regard this
month, this day, this city as sacred, so regard
the life and the property of everyone as a sacred
trust.
We ask this in your name, O God, who is creator,
redeemer and sanctifier and together we say, Amen.
[PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]
09:08:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Roll call.
[Roll Call]
09:08:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Here.
09:08:40 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Present.
09:08:40 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Here.
09:08:41 >>MARY MULHERN:
Here.
09:08:42 >>HARRY COHEN:
Here.
09:08:44 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Here.
09:08:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Here.
Okay, I need approval of the agenda and addendum.
Motion by Mr. Suarez, second by Ms. Capin.
Further discussion by Councilmembers.
All in favor of the motion please indicate by
saying aye.
The ayes have it unanimously.
We go to--before I go to public comments, I want

special thanks to Dan and the technical assistance
of all the equipment that's been ordered.
He worked very long hours with his staff and
providing the upgrades that we have here and
they're not completed yet.
The monitors are back ordered.
And we'll go through trial and error and the clerk
will advise us how the voting is going to be by
roll call, so forth.
Thank you very much for the inconvenience.
But will be a great help to the public once it's
completed.
We go to public comments.
First three minutes, on any item on the agenda
that you wish to discuss.
Items on the agenda first.
And unless those items are set for public hearing.
Items set for public hearing, discussion will
occur only during that period of time.
Anyone in the audience?
Anyone in the audience care to speak to this
Council?
Come right up.
09:10:08 >> Bear with me.
Wanted to have a demonstration here.

I have three minutes.
First of all, my 0 bead dance call to Almighty
God, to allow me an opportunity to present what I
want to present to you today.
To my name is Winston Michael Ray.
And I'm homeless.
I'm the happiest homeless man in the world because
I was born to end homelessness worldwide.
Indulge me for a few minutes and I'll explain
that.
My address is the streets of Tampa.
First I want, again I want to give greetings to
you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Miranda, this distinguished
body.
Well, I want to show you something here.
Everyone here should have one of these.
A home.
And as I walk throughout the city, I don't see
that's quite the case.
It's ironic, we worship a homeless man on Sunday.
Jesus, I think his name was.
Jesus.
But we walk past homeless people from Monday
through Saturday.
That is amazing for the beliefs of a Christian --

we won't get into that.
Have so much here to say.
Operation hobo, acronym for homeless one Barack
Obama.
Will be over in 99 days on April the 17th.
The Mayor is fully aware of it.
This is why I'm here.
I want to invite, take this time to invite the
entire City of Tampa, this distinguished body, the
Mayor, and surrounding areas to come out and have
brunch with the homeless at Trinity Cafe, this
Saturday, January 10, starting at 9:00 a.m.
We can launch the worldwide silver S-I-L-V-E-R,
silver rights movement.
Everything is done.
The soup is done.
We're ready to sit down at the table and eat.
For those who is interested in getting the Mayor's
views on this I would like them to find out what
he says.
Is this an election year?
He's going to be reelected, especially if he comes
out to this brunch.
For those who want to come out and get the Mayor's
views on is it, I think they should give him at

call.
813-274-8251.
John F. Kennedy put it like this.
Let the word go forth.
From this place and time to friend and foe alike,
that the torch has been passed to a new generation
of Americans.
So forth, and so on.
I feel that the torch has been passed.
So, on your closing note, I simply want anyone who
wants to get with me today after this meeting,
I'll avail myself to you.
I did pass information on to your staff to give to
you.
Have you all received that information I passed,
Mr. Chairman?
09:13:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Would you just make your
presentation.
We don't have direct contact.
We just listen and observe.
09:13:20 >> Well, get with your staff.
Operation hobo, homeless one Barack Obama, the
president's been fully aware of this I want to
thank you for your time.
Give it to the Mayor and encourage him we need him

there because it's a choice between Tampa, and
Seattle, Washington.
09:13:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
All right.
Thank you very much.
Next, please?
09:13:42 >> I'm Ed Tillou, Sulphur Spring.
Yeah, I don't have any handouts today.
They succumbed to the cold.
Here was something good in the TVT.
Doesn't seem to be coming up.
09:14:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
That's a new system put in this
week.
And it's all technical.
Maybe I can get some assistance for you while
we're discussing it here.
Ask and they shall show.
09:14:30 >> This was from today's TVT.
Now I got to get it out of focus.
Which I guess this is to set at rest people at
MacDill, it's probably about a dozen or two
dozen people from NORAD.
They know the significance of this thing brought
up at the last meeting.
About the necking of the ADIZ.
Right here, which last never been an issue before,

but Putin is saying he'll resume these flights and
these bomber flights, not only in the Atlantic,
but into the Gulf.
So, anyone, there's probably trepidation at high
levels.
But, weapons systems, World War II ended with
Germany having jet planes and Tiger tanks.
It takes a long time to get this stuff into the
working of things.
Any case, picking up where I was before, didn't
get to finish.
This fellow, this was newsworthy December 7th, but
of course you have so few meetings.
What is it now, a month later.
But you at least had more than the county
commissioners.
This was an interesting thing by Patrick Buchanan.
I don't necessarily agree with it.
Because World War II was necessary.
Was made necessary by World War I.
And within the book he actually does touch on
that.
And he's criticized for underestimating German
militarism and things, which put these two wars in
more or less a context.

But in any case, the bottom line of this material
that this situation with the ADIZ is that in Argo,
they had a half an hour at that embassy to try to
dispose of things.
And the other case here it would be saving things.
But that cuts the half hour warning of missiles
coming from Russia to six minutes.
Six minutes from international waters by cruise
missiles launched from aircraft.
And the aircraft can be aircraft like this, that
didn't denigrate it because they're propeller
planes.
Even though they go 550 miles an hour for hour
after hour, which is pretty much what fan jets do.
So these things are on a par, not to be minimized.
But I come to other dimensions of this.
09:17:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
Anyone else care to address this Council at this
time?
Anyone else?
All right.
Thank you very much.
We go to staff reports and unfinished business.
Before I go any further, Chief Castor is asking

when she comes in, I'm going to ask her to come in
because she wanted to discuss the other items
related to police cameras and so forth.
I asked her when she comes in, I would ask the
chairman of that committee, Mr. Reddick, if he
would be so kind to bring it up before we finish
staff report.
Yes, sir?
09:17:45 >> Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Members of councilmember.
My name is John Grandoff, suite 3700 Bank of
erica Plaza.
I'm representing several folks here this morning
on items 65.
And they want to just have clarification that
their time to speak would be at the 10:00 item and
not at this time, because it is set for public
hearing.
09:18:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I believe, Mr. Counselor.
09:18:07 >> Yes, Mr. Grandoff, as I stated at the previous
hearing, with regard to that particular item, it
is set for a public hearing.
At date and time certain.
However, it's governed by section of the code,
27-61, which sets out the parameters as to whether

there will be public comment.
It is inappropriate for your clients to speak to
that matter at this time.
Moreover, at the time of the public hearing, City
Council will make a determination as to whether or
not it will accept public comment.
09:18:39 >> Thank you.
09:18:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Anyone else?
We go to staff reports and unfinished business.
Item number one.
Mr. Bob McDonaugh.
09:18:49 >>MR. McDONAUGH:
Good morning, Council.
Bob McDonaugh, economic development.
I was asked to give an update on potential
relocation of the City of Tampa's solid waste and
maintenance facility.
It's approximately 20 acres, which is located on
Spruce Street.
There's 20 acres of land, about 110,000 square
feet of buildings.
Five acres of paved land, three acres of concrete.
And at the current time, although there is a fair
ount of encroachment and probably this is not
the highest and best use for the property, there

are not available funds to do a relocation.
There are some pressing issues for solid waste.
One of which is capital for the purchase of more
of the trucks to use, the CNG, which will be more
efficient, extend the useful service life of the
trucks as well as lower their carbon footprint.
And at the -- there are a couple things at the
waste to energy plant that needs some serious
investment.
There will be an extension or an expansion of the
transfer station, which now suffers from fairly
long lines.
And the turbines in the waste to energy plant is
reaching the end of their useful lives.
And so, as far as priorities for capital spending,
right now, they far outstrip the desire to
relocate this facility.
09:20:26 >> Any comments by Councilmembers?
Thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
Item number two.
Mr. Cohen?
09:20:38 >>HARRY COHEN:
This was placed on the agenda in
order to hold a place in case there were changes
that needed to be made to the domestic partnership

ordinance that was proposed by Councilwoman Capin
three years ago and passed by this Council in
2012.
In light of the fact that the county is moving
forward with a similar ordinance.
The clerk, Shirley Foxx-Knowles and I attended a
meeting on this matter just on Wednesday, or
Tuesday.
And it appears that there are not going to be
changes needed to the ordinance.
The ordinance is fine the way it is.
The one item that may be brought back to this
Council and it might have to be done next week in
our evening meeting, under the terms of the
ordinance, the clerk sets the fees and in order to
make the fees consistent with Hillsborough
County's fees, they might need to be tweaked.
If that is the case, she will bring us that item
back at a later date.
The second thing I just wanted to mention is that
if Councilmembers have any questions about how any
of this will work, commissioner Beckner, members
of the clerk's office that are implementing it,
the county staff have all offered to make
themselves available to us in a public meeting.

So, I just -- that's the report.
09:21:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Any further comments by Councilmembers?
Item number two?
We go to item number three.
09:22:05 >>HARRY COHEN:
Item three was an item that was on
our December agenda that we continued to today.
After that meeting I had an offline discussion
with Cathy Coyle since it was my item.
I believe that if we can talk about it today, but
it's also fine if we just want to move on.
She's just going to do some analysis of the
parking ratios in the area of north Franklin
Street.
09:22:32 >>CATHERINE COYLE:
And later this year, we're
actually going to be starting the community vision
plan with the Tampa Heights area as well.
Which we already did with Seminole Heights and the
street area as the third area to do.
What results from that typically are code changes
and land use changes as well.
Which one in effect in Seminole Heights was
dealing with parking and redevelopment of older
buildings and older blocks.
Within the next year or so, we should see some

good resolution on how to deal with those
redevelopment issues.
But we can continue with the analysis as well.
09:23:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Satisfied, Mr. Cohen?
Any other comments by Councilmembers on item
number three?
Thank you very much.
We go to item number four.
Man just walked in.
Got to come to the mic.
09:23:24 >> Good morning, Council, Jake Slater, City of
Tampa administrator of neighborhood empowerment.
I'm here to give update on item number four.
The address of 8207 North Ola Avenue.
Concerning active code enforcement violations.
The address is currently vacant, secured, cut and
overall clean.
There are flow active violations at this time.
The property owner has advised that in order to
move anybody in, he has to fix the toilet and the
sink before it could be occupied.
But as of right now, we don't have any open cases
on that address.
09:24:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Also comment there whether the
other properties, I don't know if that has any

correlation with this.
09:24:18 >> Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman -- the owner of that
address owns another piece of property located at
402 west Sitka.
And that is occupied.
Currently that's occupied by the owner.
And by three other adults.
At this time, we do not have any open cases at
that address either.
09:24:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Capin?
09:24:44 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you for that report.
I appreciate it, as I, I was the one that brought
it forth first.
But when you talk about having to put in the sink
and toilet and -- do we go back and inspect before
they move in?
Or once they move in, we'll look at it?
How does that work?
09:25:06 >> If we see any activity at all at that address,
we'll definitely go back in and do an inspection
at that time.
09:25:12 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.
Thank you for your hard work.
09:25:14 >> Yes, ma'am.
You're more than welcome.

09:25:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any other comments on item
number four?
Thank you very much.
We go to item number 5.
And where is he?
Okay.
Item number 5, evidently on his way in.
Ms. Coyle, you got item number six?
09:25:52 >>CATHERINE COYLE:
Good morning, Council.
Catherine Coyle, planning and development.
Quick update on the chickens, since the passing of
the ordinance.
It was adopted August of last year.
We have done a quick analysis of state
regulations, all local regulations throughout the
state dealing with chickens.
We did switch at the end of September from the old
comply system to the new Accela enforcement
system, which is a lot easier to track cases.
They have chickens and roosters complaint line in
there.
So easier to filter out those complaints.
In comparison of the past system and the new
system, it appears there isn't too much more of up
tick in complaints about chickens.

It ranges between 20 and 30 or so per year.
Related to animals, roosters and chickens.
The bulk of the ones that we have seen are rooster
related.
And complaint from noises for roosters.
At this point, I wouldn't recommend any changes to
any of the ordinances.
I'd actually request that you ask, have me come
back beginning of November.
That way we'll have a full year of the data in
Accela, which is easier to export and more detail
to analyze and more information from those notes.
The inspections are tracked and other civil cases
are linked.
So it's actually much easier system to use.
Using the filters.
But vast majority of the complaints have been
about roosters, actually not chickens.
There have been a couple chicken cases that have,
complaints that have come in.
One in particular was a hundred plus chickens and
it was up in the north Tampa area.
And that was cleared out.
They removed the chickens.
That was one example that was extreme.

But the bulk of the rest are rooster related.
Which are prohibited in our regulations, from
keeping on the property.
So there's not anything that I can see that's any
great difference pre or post adoption of the
chicken ordinance at this point.
I would just recommend that I come back in the
beginning of November so I can give you a full
year analysis in the new system.
09:28:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Comments by Council at this
time?
Mr. Suarez, and Mr. Reddick.
09:28:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Ms. Coyle, I had a situation in the
V.M. Ybor area where there was some discussion
about someone's yard or whatever.
Because of the restraints that we have based both
on what it means, the protection for chickens
specifically in Ybor and throughout the city, what
do you suggest people do when it comes to
something like that when there is a lot of folks
that are around?
[audio feedback]
09:28:47 >>CATHERINE COYLE:
I don't know if that is me.
I'm sorry.
If you could repeat that.

09:28:53 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
What I'm saying if someone does
have a situation where there are, you know, lots
of chickens in the yard or whatever, because
restricted to what we can do to them, what is your
suggestion or what can we, canning a citizen do to
help solve that situation?
I know the north Tampa area, when you mentioned a
lot of, over a hundred chickens or something to
that 0 effect, what do you do if somebody has a
bunch of chickens that congregated in a particular
neighborhood or towards someone else's house,
doesn't belong to anyone?
Okay.
What do you do then?
I think we had this discussion previously.
I just want to figure out.
09:29:31 >>CATHERINE COYLE:
At this point, I don't have a
direct answer on that.
Like we said previously, the bird sanctuary covers
wild fowl.
Our interpretation of that has at has been
historically is that that covers any free roaming
bird.
It pretty much is written same way, interpreted
generally the same way throughout the state.

The state itself and those agencies which we did
contact don't necessarily protect chickens the way
local jurisdictions do.
They really let us do that on our own.
How we define that.
It varies slightly around the state.
There have been other jurisdictions around the
state that have recently adopted chicken
regulations as well.
I'm watching Jacksonville because they just
adopted theirs recently too.
So it's kind of a newer thing that's coming out.
Watching what they're doing.
Key West is probably the one that has the longest
standing policy on chickens and the longest
standing program for humanely capturing the
chickens, there are not for profit foundation that
is actually capture them humanely.
They don't execute them.
They actually rehabilitate the chickens and
provide chicken coops and education back to
families to essentially adopt back out chickens to
family.
Was actually an interesting program that we just
found out about.

It is run through a not-for-profit.
09:30:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
What I was going to ask, the last
part of this, which is animal services through the
county would not have any kind of jurisdiction on
this.
09:31:06 >> That's correct.
09:31:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
One of the problems we have in
dealing with constituents when it comes to these
situations, we don't really have an answer for
them, for chickens that are owned by someone else,
because they're not essentially regulated because
of our citywide bird sanctuary standards.
09:31:23 >>CATHERINE COYLE:
Only thing beyond that would be
kind of like what Key West did.
Start brainstorming and coming up with a program
or something to actually work on not, not
enforcement, but being able to humanely capture
them.
Move them.
Get them in an education program for people
keeping them.
09:31:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
09:31:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Reddick?
09:31:47 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let me just follow-up from my colleague,

Mr. Suarez, talking about.
If a citizen had a complaint, who do they contact?
09:31:58 >>CATHERINE COYLE:
Code enforcement.
09:32:01 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Do you think most citizens know
that?
Because you say you're not receiving any
complaints.
09:32:07 >>CATHERINE COYLE:
No, we are receiving
complaints.
There's not any dramatic uptick from previously.
There are approximately between 20 and 40
complaints in any given year, from 2011 on.
There are -- that are directly chicken related.
There are many more that are rooster related.
As I said, we didn't authorize people to keep
roosters in the ordinance that you passed.
09:32:28 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Do you know whether code
enforcement keep a record of the complaints they
receive?
09:32:33 >>CATHERINE COYLE:
They do.
The new system I was explaining to you, that's an
easier system to filter out and look at the
complaints that are coming in.
And they did develop and actual complaint titled
chickens and or roosters.

And put the detail underneath that.
So I'm able to pull the information out much
quicker.
Under the old system they did track but it was
under animal violations, which could've been a
loud dog, could've been animal feces, anything.
So you have to read into the old system to find
out what kind of animal.
09:33:08 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Maybe we need to start a program
about adopting a chicken.
[ Laughter ]
09:33:16 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Maybe that might help.
09:33:19 >>CATHERINE COYLE:
It sounds funny, but it's
not -- it's not very farfetched.
Like I said, Key West actually has it and there
are other jurisdictions around the country that
have the same types of programs.
09:33:32 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you.
09:33:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any others?
Mrs. Capin?
09:33:36 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
As usual, Councilman Reddick comes
up with the solutions.
[ Laughter ]
09:33:42 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I don't think we want him
adopting any chickens.

09:33:49 >> Unless we find a deep friar.
09:33:58 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Don't worry, after today,
you're going to get a lot of chicken reports,
roosters and everything else.
But anyway, anyone else on this item?
Item number 6.
Let me just stop here for a minute.
Chief called and I asked her to come over.
She wanted to hear, take out of order, public
safety.
Mr. Reddick said he would accommodate the chief.
Chief?
Chief of police, Mrs. Castor.
09:34:24 >>CHIEF CASTOR:
Thank you, Councilman Miranda and
Reddick for allowing me to move this item up.
I'm over here to answer any questions that you may
have on the camera system that the Tampa Police
Department is beginning to enter into a pilot
program with taser international.
And they have partnered with evidence.com so the
actual cameras will be from taser and the storage
and evidence handling will be done by
evidence.com.
09:34:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
So most specifically, you're
speaking about item 14, are 15 often the agenda.

Just want to make sure the public is
understanding.
09:35:02 >> Yes, sir.
09:35:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Reddick hasn't done
anything yet.
09:35:06 >> I have a few questions.
09:35:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Reddick?
09:35:19 >>FRANK REDDICK:
My first question, chief, what is
the feeling of the most of the officers within TPD
about utilizing the cameras?
09:35:33 >>CHIEF CASTOR:
I think most officers are in
agreement with the camera systems, the body-worn
cameras.
Is so there can be an accurate depiction or
portrait of what they're doing out there on a
day-to-day basis.
Officers are involved in a lot of different
activities throughout any given shift.
And they're in favor of having this information
available so there won't be any question, in most
cases, of what occurred.
09:36:00 >>FRANK REDDICK:
The other question is, when will
an officer turn on the camera?
09:36:07 >>CHIEF CASTOR:
Well, we have a policy.
What we did, just to give you a quick historical,

we put together a committee over a year ago,
because we saw this coming, the body-worn cameras.
So we put together a committee to investigate it.
That committee is made up of users, officers from
different assignments within our organization.
From T and I and from the union.
So we really tried to be inclusive in that.
And they went through and put out requests for
proposals and, or requests for information first
and they had demonstrations by all of the
different camera systems.
They also got policies not only from the
international association of chiefs of police
model policy, but from other departments that had
already implemented this system, so that we could
try and avoid some of the mistakes that had been
made in the past.
And I can say the group did an outstanding job and
they ended up choosing taser as the company that
would provide the body-worn cameras and handling
of the evidence.
There's two ways to handle the evidence.
You can do it on your own or you can allow a
company to do that.
And we looked at both possibilities there.

It's much more cost effective to allow an
independent company to handle all of the video
storage and the evidence as well.
We also partnered with USF and we'll be working
with them on a year-long pilot project.
We're going to have 60 cameras to start off with.
We have 20 volley tears from each of our uniformed
districts.
And they will volunteer to wear these camera
systems.
And then we'll also have a control group of
officers who aren't wearing those.
And USF will study those two groups for a year to
look at officer injuries, to look at citizen
complaints, use of force incidents, all of those
to try to make some type of evidentiary
comparative between not wearing the cameras and
wearing the cameras.
09:38:13 >>FRANK REDDICK:
And then last question is, once
that is done after the year time, will you be
providing us an updated report on the
effectiveness of the cameras?
09:38:24 >>CHIEF CASTOR:
Yes, sir.
And the intent is to not to wait a year.
To roll out Moore cameras to the department.

Historically what has happened in other agencies,
I think you all know that we, the Tampa Police
Department is a member of the major city chiefs
association.
And what has happened, we have found from other
agencies that have implemented this, is that
there's kind of a stampede at the door once they
implement a pilot program of the other officers
that want to wear these body-worn cameras.
So we envision that there will be more cameras
implemented during that year long pilot.
But that year long pilot will stay to the 60
officers that initially wear them and the control
group as well.
09:39:10 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.
Would you be agreeable to report back in six
months after having utilized the cameras?
09:39:19 >>CHIEF CASTOR:
Yes, that won't be a problem at
all.
09:39:22 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Could I have a motion?
09:39:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
After I finish with
Councilmembers, I'll go back to you for a motion.
I have Ms. Montelione, Mr. Suarez.
09:39:30 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you for being here this
morning, chief.

Before I pull the items, I did call the chief's
office and let them know that I was going to pull
these items for discussion because I thought it
was important, rather than have them on consent
for, you know, this issue is a very, shall I say
hot item for the public, and I thought that they
would benefit from this discussion.
The questions, some of the questions have already
been asked by Mr. Reddick, that I posed yesterday.
Thank you for the call-back.
Sorry I didn't get back to you.
I was at the doctor.
How will the officers being chosen, since you said
there will be a stampede at the door for some of
them, they'll want to wear the cameras.
How will the officers be chosen who's going to be
in the control group and who's going to wear the
cameras?
09:40:30 >> Initially it's going to be volunteer.
There will be a limit of 20 from each district and
officers will volunteer to wear these.
Again, we'll get them in all different shifts and
cycles.
Then the control group is going to be done very
scientifically.

Because I came up with it.
[ Laughter ]
09:40:48 >> The rest of the squad members, basically put
them in a hat and draw a flame for the control
group.
So you will have two officers that will be in like
situations.
They'll be working the same shift, relatively the
same area of the city, so the control officer and
the officer with the body-worn camera will come
from the same squad.
09:41:09 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
And will the cameras be equally
distributed between the three districts?
09:41:16 >>CHIEF CASTOR:
Yes, ma'am, 20 in each district.
09:41:18 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
The other questions I had
related to what the president had stated, now
probably a couple months ago.
Time goes so fast.
That federal money was going to be made available
for departments to purchase cameras.
09:41:37 >>CHIEF CASTOR:
Yes, ma'am.
09:41:37 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Have we utilized that, applied
for any -- I don't even know.
09:41:44 >> We'll apply for that.
But like I left in the voicemail yesterday, one of

the few downsides of being a very safe city for a
city our size is that you don't get a lot of those
grant awards.
But we continue to apply for grant funding in
every instance where it's applicable.
And we'll do so in this one as well.
09:42:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Although I had the answer, I
wanted you to answer it in public, so that I
wasn't the only one privy to that information.
And that really is, wraps up kind of why I wanted
to ask you these questions this morning.
I think that wearing these cameras
unscientifically will probably be a benefit, both
to the officers themselves and to the public.
So, I'm hoping that this goes well and I'm very
pleased that you're utilizing USF.
Go bulls.
09:42:39 >>CHIEF CASTOR:
You're welcome.
09:42:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Suarez?
09:42:42 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, chair.
Chief, thanks for being here today.
I've got a few questions.
Some has to do with specifics in terms of how this
is going to work and some have to do with what
other jurisdictions are doing.

What other jurisdictions either have a pilot
program or have a, are using these body cameras on
a day-to-day basis?
Do you know?
09:43:03 >>CHIEF CASTOR:
Yes, there are departments
nationwide that are probably the closest to us,
Pasco County just went to taser as well.
And they have already started -- I'm not sure if
they're in a pilot program or they have gone
full-blown from the jump.
Orlando is in a pilot program as well.
And Miami I believe is going to start a pilot
program soon.
09:43:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So we'll probably be the third
large municipality in the state that is going into
a pilot program for these particular uses.
09:43:33 >>CHIEF CASTOR:
Yes, sir.
09:43:35 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
In terms of the cameras themselves,
are they recorded on, you know, disc?
Small, you know, removable pieces?
Is it streamed directly in?
What's the protocol for how it gets recorded and
where it goes?
09:43:50 >>CHIEF CASTOR:
The actual recording of those, the
officer will have to activate the camera.

And the cameras will be worn in one of three
different locations and we are going to test drive
each of those as well.
There's the hat you can put the camera on a hat.
The cameras can be mounted on the epaulet of the
uniform or be worn on the glasses on the side of
either sunglasses or regular glasses.
And we're going to utilize all of those so the
officers can figure out which is the best.
We are not going with the chest-mounted because
that has been through trials.
And there are other departments that like that,
but it doesn't get the view of what the officer is
actually seeing.
So, clearly something where it's glass is mounted
or hat, then you get everything the officer is
seeing as well.
Next best in our opinion is up on the epaulet as
well.
Now, in our model policies, there are instances
where the cameras will be turned on and there are
instances where they will not be utilized.
And in between, which you could imagine is the
larger area, is up to the officer's discretion.
If it's a situation where they're supposed to be

used and they weren't, officer has to articulate
why they weren't used.
Now, turning the cameras on and off, I think
everyone is aware that with the muscle memory, the
repetition you have to do something approximately
a thousand times for it to become muscle memory.
And the analogy I could use would be our firearms.
To pull your firearm, which is something that just
has to become automatic with a police officer, is
just as important as target acquisition.
So you have to repeat that over and over.
And that again is why we're going into this pilot
program, so that the officers will be able to hit
it as an automatic on and off.
And the storage of it, the officers will have --
two choices on the storage.
We'll have docking stations within the department.
They can come and put that in at the end of their
shift.
Or they can choose to get a personal docking
station and they can attach that to any home
system that has wi-fi, it will automatically be
downloaded to evidence.com.
09:46:04 >> Let me ask you a couple questions.
Since you mentioned with the type of storage

that's going to be used and you mentioned someone
might have a home unit versus a docking station,
let's say at one of the precincts.
Have you seen anything in terms of chain of
custody issues from other jurisdictions because of
that kind of use?
09:46:25 >> No.
Because they -- we have never had any issues and
we had the in car videos for years now.
I would assume that your question is with
tampering with evidence.
Is there any way that someone could somehow.
09:46:41 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Let me interrupt you for a second.
It is not directly necessarily tampering with
evidence but also just where's the evidence?
Whether or not there's a missing piece of evidence
concerning timeframe, not necessarily a disc
itself.
So, my point is that the police officers going to
have full discretion, based on the guidelines that
you set forth, as to whether or not they turn on
the cameras.
There may be even a piece where they either don't
turn it on or do turn it on but it's also if it's
worn on the glasses, they may forget the glasses,

don't put it on for whatever reason.
I'm not implying anything at all by saying that.
But you know, what happens then legally for folks
that are arrested?
Legally arrested, you know, probable cause based
on the actions of that particular person, what
happens in terms of the evidence chain and what
does that mean for Tuesday as a police department?
Some of the things that we need to look at.
I think you already are looking at this.
Those legal issues are going to become different
than the ones we currently deal with.
We already dealing with a lot of those issues in
the old fashion gum shoe type of police work.
Now with the different technology, we need to
figure out okay, what is it that's happening in
other jurisdictions concerning these body cameras,
where are the holes in terms of our chain of
custody issues, and then how can we solve those
particular issues?
I think that a pilot program, and I know you agree
with me on this, is to find those holes and fill
them so that we don't get into a situation where
we start buying these cameras in a more robust way
and then we find out there are a lot of gaps that

we have not dealt with.
So, my main issue is, you know, really the model
standard operating procedures that we're going to
put in place for these officers in the pilot
program.
And make sure that we work those things as much as
possible to make sure we're not going to have
future problems when we, if we buy any more body
cameras.
09:48:45 >>CHIEF CASTOR:
Correct.
That's exactly what we're working towards.
And there haven't been any gaping holes that have
been discovered so far in any of these camera
systems.
Clearly whenever you involve humans, you could
have the possibility of the video not being turned
on, not being turned off.
I haven't heard any issues of the cameras not
functioning.
The cameras are very high tech.
They're weather resistant.
They're shock resistant.
They can film in low light basically what you see
is what you'll see on the camera system as well.
They also will automatically sync up with our

records system.
Every camera is individually assigned to the
officer by a payroll number.
So, the video that is taken will link up with
reports that are written.
And then the officer will be required to tag that
video if it is going to be used for evidentiary
value.
If it isn't, then it will have to be disposed of
because I'm sure you could all guess the
biggest -- the largest cost in this entire program
is the storage of the information.
And the chain of custody is clearly tracked
through evidence.com once it's marked for
evidentiary value.
And we do have, as I said, specific guidelines of
when they will be filmed, situations that will be
filmed and if they're not, the officer has to
articulate why.
And those instances will come up.
09:50:20 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We'd like to have a copy of that as
to what those situations are, so we're aware of
it.
In addition, I would make a friendly suggestion
that dealing with our legal department and with

your lawyer over at TPD and actually trying get
some advisory opinions from private attorneys that
deal with defense of criminals that are out there,
to find out, you know, where the holes are at now
so we can work them out during the pilot program
so if we do make a decision to buy a large number,
it's going to be a large expenditure, obviously,
and as you mentioned, it's the holding of the
evidence is where the cost is going to be.
That we are prepared as much as possible to go
forward because I do think that this is important
tool for the police officers to have.
I think that this is something, the wave of the
future, but we need to make sure those legalities
are worked out so that we're better prepared for
any legal challenges that come in the forefront.
09:51:21 >>CHIEF CASTOR:
I couldn't agree more.
And I feel we have done due diligence in that
area.
We have researched to see other areas that have
implemented those and some of the issues that have
Arisen, clearly we have included legal Council in
the drafting of our policy.
And the questions of what if situations.
We have also worked with the state attorney's

office because they will be a very integral part
of this as well.
So, we feel like we have included as many
individuals in it.
We have done everything that we can to avoid any
errors moving forward.
But as you stated, there still is a lot to learn
with these body-worn cameras.
But I believe it will be very positive for not
only the officers but for our citizens in the
community as well.
09:52:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, chief.
Appreciate it.
Thank you, chair.
09:52:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Cohen?
09:52:15 >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you very much.
Good morning, Chief Castor.
Happy new year.
I have one quick question and then a comment.
What exactly is the retention period for the
tapes?
Because I would think it doesn't always -- it's
not always immediately apparent that you need to
go back and review something.
So how long do you actually keep it before it gets

destroyed or discarded?
09:52:35 >>CHIEF CASTOR:
That's a date, that's a timeframe
that each agency can set.
Clearly if it's mark for evidentiary value, then
it would go into a long-term storage area, which
is much cheaper than the short-term storage.
And we were looking at a period of 30 days, which
would allow the community, any citizen that had an
issue, public records request, anything along
those lines, a month would clearly be long enough
for someone to come forward and request that
video.
09:53:08 >>HARRY COHEN:
You know, I just wanted to say
that, just last couple of months have been very
challenging in this country.
They've been challenging for law enforcement
agencies, in a lot of different municipalities.
And challenging for citizens in a lot of different
cities.
And I think that you should be commended and our
community should be commended for taking a
proactive approach to try and use whatever
technology we can to, you know, do everything we
can to really understand what's happening in our
city.

So I'm happy to support this and I think it's
great that we'll have a report in six months and
be able to see how it's doing.
09:53:46 >>CHIEF CASTOR:
Thank you.
09:53:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Capin?
09:53:50 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
This might be a odd question but
it just popped into my head.
I just want to say, is there anything, for
instance, if the police officers wearing a camera,
is there any law against a citizen holding a
camera to the police?
09:54:07 >>CHIEF CASTOR:
No.
That happens every day.
09:54:10 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Okay.
You know how much I run into police officers in
the street.
But not -- I was just wondering if that was -- so
that does happen all the time.
09:54:24 >>CHIEF CASTOR:
All the time.
Every single day.
Mast, our officers basically function under the
assumption that they're on video.
09:54:32 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Okay.
I was curious about that.
I was more curious about if there were any rules

of procedure or if it's just okay, you're filming.
09:54:43 >>CHIEF CASTOR:
No, it's fine.
Police officers, we work for the citizens.
So they want to film us doing that work, they're
more than welcome to.
09:54:51 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
So do we.
We work for the citizens too.
Thank you.
09:54:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Reddick?
09:54:57 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair, I would like to make a motion for the new
chief because you will not be here in six months.
For the new chief --
[ Laughter ]
09:55:10 >>FRANK REDDICK:
To report back to the Council on
the effectiveness of the body cameras and
instances where they might have any problems as
they relate to the camera.
09:55:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
When six months, will be in
June.
Have a motion by Mr. Reddick -- just give me the
date in June.
09:55:38 >> June 25th.
09:55:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
June 25th at 10:00 on the year
2015 Tampa city hall.

The old city hall.
I have a motion by Mr. Reddick, second by
Mr. Suarez.
Further discussion by Councilmembers?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by
saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Would you kindly move number 15 and 16?
09:55:56 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Mover items, resolution 14 --
09:56:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
No, 14 is cameras, I imagine
the helicopters.
That's a different one.
09:56:05 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Move resolution 15 and 16.
09:56:07 >> Second.
09:56:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Mr. Reddick.
I have three seconds in a row.
I wish I had equipment here that would tell me who
made the motion because when they triple motion, I
part in the middle.
I'll go with what I heard first, second and third.
I'm not sure I'm correct.
I go with Mr. Cohen on a tie vote with
Ms. Montelione, Mr. Suarez and Ms. Capin.
I satisfied them all.

All in favor of that motion, please indicate by
saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Thank you very much, chief, for reporting to us.
Really appreciate it very much.
I was going to say I hope you're here longer.
But I know, understand what you want to do in life
and I appreciate that very much.
09:56:48 >>CHIEF CASTOR:
Thank you, sir.
I appreciate that.
The only thing I would like to say, our policy
right now is in draft form.
And so, that is going to be released publicly, but
we clearly could make it available to Council.
Thank you all very much.
Behind.
09:57:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Item number five.
And then due respect, we're going to go back.
Promised the attorneys on both sides and good
people at Harbor Island, everyone else in 65.
After this I'll go to 65 and we'll continue the
agenda from them.
Yes, sir?
09:57:18 >> Good morning, Council.

I apologize for missing my tee time.
I was en route when I got called.
Could I please have the PowerPoint for item number
five?
This is my biannual report on the work the city is
doing in regard to the homelessness issue.
Basically we work with, the areas I'm going to
touch 0, I'll work with the Hillsborough homeless
initiative and this is becoming one of our
strongest partnerships with the way this is now
structured.
And the city's involvement on this board.
Also, when I talk about what they're doing at the
homelessness initiative, give you quick update on
25 cities way started 50, 60 days ago.
And the future focus of the organization itself.
The plan that we had been working on.
I say we because I'm on the board.
That we had been working on with the new director,
executive director coming on board, you know, the
board looked at and she looked at and felt there
was a lot of issues with how measurable these
things were.
There weren't a lot of metrics involved in the
plan so you really couldn't judge, you know, how

many homeless people you were actually taking off
the street and finding them suitable, dignified
living arrangements.
So was voted on by the board that they are going
to go back and refocus on putting the strategic
plan together and that's going to be the focus of
our plan going forward.
Especially in January.
Our next meeting is actually January 13th.
The goals and actions still do remain the same.
Chronic homelessness among the various sub
populations by 2022.
And those sub populations are the chronic
individuals, veterans, families, youth and other
single adults.
Those are the populations that the plan is going
to focus on and develop the measures.
For each of the sub populations, these various
strategic priorities will be involved in each and
address and applied to each of the sub
populations.
The community engagement example of that is our
strongest one has been thus far has been operation
reveille.
I'm going to talk more about that as I focus on

that itself.
But also community engagement.
Things as simple as homeless service memorial that
took place just a few days past.
As well as the point in time count which is coming
up in February.
So if you see information on that and want to go
out and count and participate in that effort, it's
quite eye opening.
I did it last year.
Plan on doing it again this year as well.
It kind of really puts you out on the street to
see what's going on.
So those are just a couple things of the community
engagement.
The crisis response system, a big part of that is
just recently taken place with the centralized
facility that was over on 50th street.
Again, I'm going to talk about that later in the
presentation.
But also they're initiating a critical homeless
hotline starting in January.
Hasn't started yet but getting ready to start.
So those are some of the examples of those things.
Ending revolving door homelessness.

That really speaks to providing the needed wrap
around services from medical and emotional health,
job training, medication, food, supplies, and just
all of those, all the things that implies.
Then using increasing self-sufficiency.
And you know, that's why I say we can provide --
talking too fast.
Need to slow down.
Increasing self-sufficiency and then also using
models, proven models, example, the housing first
model and some of that kind of thing, provide
permanent housing.
And then accountability and increasing housing
options.
Accountability really speaks to everybody's
getting on board using the IDIS system, which
is--unity, which is the HMIS.
It's way of tracking, evaluating specifically the
needs of people that are finding themselves in the
homeless situation.
The future focus for the Hillsborough initiative,
reducing veteran homelessness.
The housing solution centers, which we'll talk
about.
The homeless hotline and again focusing on

reducing homelessness for all those sub
populations.
One of the things that we had been started, back
six months ago, or about four months ago, was
Tampa participated in 25 cities initiative.
We were selected by the federal government to
participate in that.
And you recall the key elements of that was many
of the things that we have implemented.
Many things that took place during operation
reveille, which coordinated intake and focusing on
the various needs and identifying the various
needs in a specific fashion of what people need
rather than just kind of shotgun effect.
It really helped with case management and also
combining a lot of the local efforts with the
veterans and the federal government as well as
local government to participate in that.
The goal of that in the first 100 days was to
place 31 veterans and 34 nonveterans chronically
homeless in housing.
And we have achieved that.
We have first of all through operation reveille
and the effort the city has done with
participation in the tenant based rental assistant

as well as continuum of care with all the agencies
that participate with that as well.
From the city's perspective, our housing and
community development activity, we take care of,
we work with the tenant based rental assistance
program.
I'm going to also talk and touch on the current
funding allocations as well as our ongoing effort
with housing first.
And then again with operation reveille.
With the tenant based rental assistance, we have
successfully have 18 active participants.
And have those leased units.
Actually five of those individuals were
chronically homeless veterans that we housed prior
to operation reveille.
Families, shows up as a single voucher but affects
four or five, three or four people or more that
were housed as a family.
So the numbers, even though there's the 18
vouchers, it represents a higher number of actual
homeless individuals.
And we have a few vouchers left that we're going
to, we're continuing to seek and provide housing
for.

The partnerships that have been established Haas
as part of this effort, we did not -- well, we had
these partnerships.
We were not actively engaged with them before.
Includes agencies such as ACT, Catholic charities,
Tampa Police Department and the homeless
initiative, of course, Frances house, healthy
families, county sheriff's office, Tampa
crossroads.
There's a number of those things.
A lot of those individuals were the ones that also
participated in operation reveille.
Perhaps the thing I'm most pleased with is the
partnering landlords we have.
We have identified 12 active landlords to
participate in this program amount of and the
benefit of that is that you're not taking
individuals who are homeless and putting them all
into a single location.
You're able to distribute them to different parts
of the city, north, south, east and west.
By doing that you avoid a lot of the not in my
backyard kind of syndrome that is very difficult
with this particular subject matter.
And you have tenants that are just moving in and

they're recognized as tenants and nothing more.
There's no special stigma associated with that.
So, I really like that deal.
We have identified 12 landlords willing to
participate in this program with us.
Our funding allocations, it still remains very
robust.
This is the money that we do with the various
public service agencies.
Housing agencies.
All have a direct homelessness benefits.
It's the amount of money we put toward that.
We'll draw to your attention we do give the
general fund, the homeless coalition, $55,000.
But also this year when we did participate in
operation reveille, they needed addition natural
money to provide services that were required for
those veterans.
So the city went into the general fund and put in
another $40,000.
And we're also still have the housing first money,
the $250,000 earmarked for that process as well.
Operation reveille, has been a lot of conversation
and there's been a lot of new stories and what it
did.

And really what that represented, the most
significant thing about that represented, it was a
real shift in how we addressed homelessness.
Right now, it's about veterans and that.
But the notion is to really take these kind of
model and move it forward as it applies to other
chronically homeless individuals as well as people
that are just finding themselves homeless out of
other reasons, for other reasons.
It really was a partnership between the Tampa
Hillsborough homelessness initiative, Hillsborough
County and the City of Tampa.
And because it's private sector, ranging from
hooters and McDonald's right down to Dave,
Ashley furniture and various law firms and
contractors.
Dozens and dozens and dozens of private sector
citizens and companies all participating in this
effort.
It was very well received.
We identified 79 individuals that came through
that day.
And we were able to successfully house 53 on that
very day.
With the other 26 in line.

Right now, they're in the various process of
finding those houses and finding those places to
stay.
The other thing, the last thing I wanted to touch
base on with you is the community housing
solutions center.
Initially, we had talked last time we reported
that we're getting ready to go out with RFP for
the Orient Road facility.
That was going to house up to 175, provide for up
to 175 men and women.
And basically it hit a snag in that the
neighboring facility has an above ground fuel tank
that was bordering right next to it.
And when the analysis came back, that they felt
that they really couldn't implement housing there
of this nature until they got that tank addressed.
So they're looking at various options, either
building a berm, to provide the mitigation and the
buffering needed for the safety and protection, or
moving the tank.
And at some point this facility will go back
online to be available to have that type of
facility there.
So in the meantime, county went out and put out

the RFP and the successful proposer for that was
the, was the drug abuse comprehensives
coordinating offers.
Award of $2.3 million for the housing center.
There's their center over on 50th street.
That's going to house up to 75 people with
complete wrap around service also.
Exactly the kind of thing Ms. Capin had been
talking about and what this Council had been
talking about two, three years ago, about having a
place where you have some place to move, that you
have some place to move if somebody's homeless,
you can take them somewhere.
They're able to stay there until they literally
Raleigh got on their feet, got the services they
needed, got identified, found their ID, their
social security, drivers license, whatever they
needed, they helped them get back engaged.
That's what this center does, food, showers,
personal storage facilities, supervision.
There's a full time doctor there and a part time
psychiatrist on staff 24/7.
Officer McDonald, the various sheriff's department
will have places to take people they find who are
homeless and need help.

They'll take them there.
The other thing is the, the notion is that they
want in the future is to work to establish
additional community, community housing solution
centers.
In various locations throughout the city and the
county.
The purpose being again if you go back to what I
was talking about where you have multiple
landlords participating and accepting the vouchers
for homelessness, or for homeless people.
If you have more of these centers that are
smaller, 50, 75, maybe a hundred, that size
facility is a little easier to find, number one.
Number two it again doesn't concentrate everything
in one part of town and as kind of what everybody
fears.
It disperses it, mitigates and makes a lot of our
social issues and ability to help individuals in
multiple part of the city.
So that is one approach the homelessness
initiative and the county and us are going to
continue to work towards establishing more of
these types of places.
Location as I said is over on 50th street.

Which actually is in the City of Tampa.
The first one is in the City of Tampa.
And again the various partners that are part of
that is just a long list of all the service
providers, whether they're providers of job
training or food services or medical services or
psychiatric training, and things like that.
So, I'll answer any other questions you may have.
And then at the end of the presentation, I have
one more thing I want.
10:12:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have Ms. Montelione,
Ms. Capin, in that order.
10:12:08 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Tom, I asked for my book, my notebook.
He hasn't brought it forth yet.
So I don't remember exactly the name of the effort
that was undertaken that you the and I both
participated in.
Actually, there were a couple efforts.
Going back about two, three years now.
Had was the initial, when it was still the
homeless coalition, before it was rebranded.
Rye view of the ten year action plan.
10:12:47 >> Right.
10:12:48 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
And there were many community

engagement sessions.
When I say community, I mean the community of
individuals and agencies that work in this space.
10:12:59 >> Correct.
10:13:00 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
We spent nearly a year --
I flight nearly a year going through that process.
At the end of that process, HUD asked us to
convene in regular session for probably another
eight months of meetings with some of the same
players, if you will.
And we developed out of those two efforts a series
of recommendations.
And I have not seen some of those recommendations
in your presentation.
I know you can't cover everything in the time
allotted, but one of the most serious, felt by
everyone who attended, was that there was a lack
of planning at discharge from various institutions
or agencies that see homeless people on a daily
basis.
One was discharge planning from hospitals.
So someone goes into the hospital, maybe they had
an apartment or a home before, they have an
extended stay in a hospital.
They have medical bills they can't afford and they

end up homeless because of their medical
situation.
Hopefully with the affordable care act, they're
having a better time of it because they have
health insurance now.
Hopefully.
They've signed up.
But the other was from incarceration.
So discharge from either the prison system or from
the hospital system, there wasn't enough care
taken to where that person was going once they
walked out the door.
Has there been any effort or any movement on that?
Because that was where most of the homeless on our
streets are coming from.
10:15:08 >> Right now -- let me answer in a couple ways.
A lot of the plans that came from the dedicated
opportunities to end homelessness through the
interagency Council on homelessness, a lot of the
efforts that came out of it are the efforts you
talked about in the ten year plan, one of my
issue, one of my problems was, and when I sat down
and had my one on one with Antoinette Triplett, I
told her, I said we have a number of plans when we
first started, it was presented the homeless

coalition 10 years ago had a plan to end
homelessness in 10 years.
And then 10 years later and we went through
homelessness of like 2000 people up to 17,000
people.
And believe me, those numbers were cooked I think
and it was weird way of counting.
10:15:58 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
That was the federal
government's directive.
To count people who were, you know, by no choice
of their own.
10:16:09 >> My daughters are technically homeless by that
definition.
10:16:12 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
No.
I would beg to differ.
You and I have had that conversation before.
10:16:19 >> You know, doing, intervening on the front end
prior to somebody coming home -- becoming
homeless, I'm certain that will be part of the
strategic plan that comes up.
Because I think we don't have a plan that
everybody has agreed to at this point.
And with the new leadership at the initiative, I
think that's the real focus of trying to get those
kinds of things in.

The meeting on Thursday, I'll make sure this
becomes part of that conversation.
I know that we have, when I did talk to Antoinette
to lay the plans on the table to see where there
are places they can be integrated and where they
make sense to have it as a single document.
She and I have had that conversation.
I will continue to have that conversation with
her.
Hopefully, the, hopefully the, the final plan, or
the final document comes out of that will have
that intervention prior to somebody actually
becoming homeless.
That there is some post discharge planning,
whether it's from the prison system or the jail or
the hospitals or whatever.
10:17:19 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
This is the notebook that I was
referring to.
So -- but you filled in the names, so I didn't
have to look them up.
Thank you very much.
You know, one thing I beg to differ with, is that
when we went through this process with everyone in
the room, there was consensus on a lot of the
goals and a lot of the strategies that were

outlined in the work that we put in over probably,
you know, an 18 to maybe even, I would say 24
months of discussions and planning.
I attended almost every one of those meetings over
that time period.
And there was a lot of consensus.
Especially on the discharge planning.
So I have to say I'm really disappointed that we
spent all that time --
10:18:06 >> I don't know where --
10:18:08 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
And then.
10:18:10 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I don't know where that plan is
in terms of what we're going to discuss next week.
10:18:14 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay.
10:18:17 >> I know that in my regular day job --
10:18:21 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Now that I brought it up again
I'm sure you'll address it.
10:18:24 >> As the planner, like we develop multiple,
multiple, multiple plans a lot and they do get,
they get shelfed.
That's the biggest knock sometimes with planning.
Is implementing and bringing them forward.
Having a document that brings all of those kinds
of things together is really the goal.
And I think we're closer to that than we have ever

been before quite frankly.
10:18:48 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Understand.
Okay.
So, the other major -- well, two questions I have.
Do you know what percentage of the city's budget
is spent on homeless?
Not talking about federal money because that is
pass-through money in my mind.
10:19:05 >> The actual general fund percentage of that, I
don't have that number.
10:19:08 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
It's probably a really small
number.
Probably infinitesimal number.
I would, you know, we just came through a budget
process and I would say that it's something that
the City of Tampa needs to do is step up to the
plate.
We dedicate a lot of staff time, so if you want to
add that in, that's budget money being spent on
these initiatives.
But you know, I don't see that we have any real
skin in the game, so to speak.
10:19:40 >> I would beg to differ on that I have a lot of
my skin in this game.
10:19:43 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
No, that's what I said.

Staff time we do.
Staff time we do.
I'm talking about as a percentage of our budget.
I think it's a reflection on us, you know, how we
treat the least of us is a reflection on how we
operate.
And the last thing I want to mention is that there
are few boards, agencies that are as important as
this one.
I would say that this is probably one of the most
important ones.
At least in my mind.
In my opinion.
And this Council has been talking about homeless
since we were first seated in 2011.
It was one of the biggest topics we had in 2011
because we were discussing the street solicitation
ordinance and a lot of this discussion was borne
out of that a lot of us felt very strongly about
what the city should be doing in that regard.
So, I'm curious, we all sit on a lot of boards.
Each one of us has a number of committee
assignments.
But this is not one that we have an assignment to.
Hillsborough County has an elected official on

this board.
Correct?
10:20:57 >> Yes.
10:20:58 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
But the City of Tampa does not.
10:21:00 >> I represent the Mayor on that board.
10:21:02 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
You represent the Mayor.
You're not an elected official.
So it's hard for us to know how we can help and
what we can do if we're not part of the
conversation.
So I guess, you know, what I would ask, it would,
I'm assuming be part of the bylaws of THHI.
10:21:22 >> Which we're updating.
10:21:23 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
What perfect timing.
So I would ask that an elected official, I mean
all due respect, I know you represent the Mayor,
but we answer to the public.
Directly.
So I would ask that an assignment be created for
Council to have an appointment to THHI.
10:21:47 >> I can bring up when they discuss the bylaws.
We were asked to come back and look at the bylaws
and see what kinds of things.
10:21:56 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'm sorry?
You appoint me?

I put a lot of time into this, since we talked
about that, you know, I made that statement during
the ordinance when we were passing the ordinance.
You know, it's something my constituents wanted.
Me personally, I may not have voted the way that,
you know, I felt.
But it was what my constituents wanted.
I voted for the ordinance.
But I said right then that I would do everything
that I possibly could to assist and eliminate the
cause of homelessness in the first place.
So, it's not something new.
It's something I've been doing, I participate in
the homeless count more times than I can count.
And I also sit on the board of Ybor youth clinic,
which serves many of the -- many of their clients
are unaccompanied homeless youth.
I'm trying to do my part.
I that I Council should have a representative on
this board because we can't, we can't be an active
part of the solution if we're not part of the
process.
Thank you.
10:22:59 >> I can carry that message forward.
10:23:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Capin?

10:23:04 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.
That was a great campaign for that position.
Okay.
Right when you said, Ms. Capin had suggested that,
I was going to comment because you read my mind.
I was thinking okay, I hear what, where we're at
with that.
And when we talk about, you know, three years,
whatever, in 2010, when I was serving here, you
know, it was brought up and I remember the
homeless coalition coming up with their plan and
we were questioning why we had been, we were eight
years or nine years into a plan and we were at
17,000.
And I understand the count the way it went and
that we were talking about doubling up and, but I
was invited twice.
One to Cathy Castor's office, about this.
And then I was invited by Mr. Guy king, who serves
on this board.
To come and observe.
And that was about three years ago.
I agree with Ms. Montelione, that the Mayor may or
may have an appointment.
But we are not part of the administration.

We are legislative and when it comes to us, we
need to vote on these things, so we should be
somewhat informed about them.
Or at least have some direction.
So I appreciate that coming up.
Thank you.
10:24:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Anyone else at this time?
Anything else, sir, on item number five?
10:24:55 >> I'm good, sir.
Thank you.
10:24:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
And your next semiannual report will be June 25,
right?
10:25:04 >> Yes, I think that's right.
I want to introduce Keyana.
You've seen her a couple times before.
We recently promoted her to be our housing
planning coordinator.
So she has gotten a promotion and this issue is
very passionate to her.
She's working very hard in this and definitely,
just wanted to acknowledge her.
You'll probably be seeing more of her in the
future.

10:25:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Congratulations to you.
Okay.
Like I stated earlier, Ms. City attorney will make
a presentation at this time.
Very short.
10:25:39 >>JULIA MANDELL:
I know you're back go to go into
a significant hearing.
But prior to you moving into that wanted to take
this opportunity to introduce our legal intern for
this spring.
His name is Jared Simpson.
He's a third year law student at Cooley school of
law and he graduated from the University of South
Florida as well as Hillsborough Community College.
So he is a local guy who has a very interesting
and unique background.
I'm really excited for him to be with us because
his background really is in music and art and
technical writing.
And we have a lot of interesting things going on
in the city right now where we're working through
our, some of our Lights on Tampa practice.
He brings an interesting perfective and will being
a very good addition to our office for this spring
semester, plus we take whatever free labor we can

get around here.
So I'm very excited to introduce him.
Hopefully you'll get to see him a little bit
through this semester.
If he could come on up and say hi.
10:26:44 >> I didn't know I was going to get put on the
spot.
I just want to say that it's a greats pleasure to
be working for the City of Tampa.
I'm really thankful that opportunities like this
are provided for students.
Look forward to doing the best I can and learning
the most I can from this experience.
So, thank you.
10:27:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Just for the record, state
where coolly is at.
10:27:03 >> It's Thomas Cooley law school in Riverview,
Florida.
Miranda all right.
Thank you very much.
Our pleasure to meet you, sir.
Keep that legal department in check.
[ Laughter ]
10:27:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
All right.
Just for the record, so I don't, I know we said we

were going into 65.
But I like to open all items 55 through 65, motion
by Mr. Suarez.
Second by Mr. Cohen.
Further discussion by Councilmembers on those
items, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
All right.
65 is open.
I'm going to turn to Mr. Shelby.
10:27:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Thank you.
Good morning, members of City Council.
Martin she will buy, City Council attorney
bringing up item number 65.
A continued public hearing from December 18th,
2014.
For City Council's consideration on the
recommended order of Steven Pfeiffer, the hearing
officer pertaining to the decision of the zoning
administrator which approved a PD incremental plan
review for the manor of Harbour Island 402 Knights
Run Avenue in Tampa.
This being a continued public hearing, I am going
to begin the discussion without repeating all that

was discussed and all that I had informed you of
at the hearing on December 18th.
But the purpose of the continuance was to give
City Council the opportunity to review the record.
So I am going to begin by asking members of City
Council, is there any member of City Council who
has not reviewed the record of the hearing that
was held before the hearing officer?
I see no response.
So then, Mr. Chairman, the City Council is
prepared to proceed.
10:29:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you, Mr. Shelby.
Discussion should be, which we have any argument
on the motion that's before us.
It's up to the City Council to decide whether you
want any further argument.
We have heard a lot of that the prior week before
we took our Christmas vacation.
Mr. Suarez?
10:29:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I just want to clarify something
with our legal team here.
The parameters in terms of whether or not we open
up for any discussion, we have a very narrow
purview in which we can hear any kind of
presentation towards us, is that correct?

If you could go through that for us, I would
appreciate it.
10:29:44 >> I'd be very happy to.
Thank you.
Councilman Suarez, you're referring to code of
ordinances section 27-61 J 1 E, Roman numeral II,
number one.
The oral argument criteria.
I'd like to read it for you, please.
To refresh your recollection.
City Council may only allow public discussion upon
a request for oral argument filed by a party or
upon its own motion.
And to refresh your recollection, a request had
been made by Mr. Grandoff.
City Council may only open the meeting for oral
argument if City Council finds that the hearing
officer did not address a matter introduced into
the record or the recommended order contains an
biguity.
If City Council allows oral argument, City Council
may limit such oral argument to addressing only
those matters for which it opened oral argument.
And I would remind Council that this requires then
a finding by City Council and I would recommend

that that be made in the form of a motion, a
second and a vote.
If Council were to entertain that.
10:30:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
After hearing that, does any
Councilmember have any respect to what the City
Council attorney, Mr. Shelby said regarding what
they read, if there's any ambiguity or anything
they feel must be brought up at this time for
argument?
I see none.
Discussion on the recommended order.
Any further discussion by Councilmembers on the
recommended order?
Yes, sir?
[Inaudible]
Section 27-51, let me remind you then that with
regard to the final order, there are certain
criteria that has to be fold.
I'd like that, to read that to you.
City Council may adopt the recommended order as
the final order or may reject or modify the
recommended order as provided herein.
City Council may not reject or modify any findings
of fact reached by the hearing officer.
If City Council determines that finding of fact is

not based upon competent substantial evidence,
contained in the record, or that a finding of fact
does not comply with the special requirements of
law, City Council may replanned the matter back to
the hearing officer.
But only if it determines that additional fact
finding is required.
If City Council rejects or modifies the conclusion
of law, it must state with particularity in the
final order its reasons and must make a finding
that substitution of a conclusion of law is as is
as or more reasonable than that which was rejected
or modified.
If City Council directs staff to prepare a final
order, which Council would be my recommendation,
the revised order usual be transmitted to the
parties and nonparty participants and presented to
the City Council within 45 calendar days for
adoption.
And that's if there is a revision to be made.
So, Council, basically your discussion amongst
yourselves in that you found, or that you did not
find any basis for an oral argument, it would be
to discuss the order that is before you, a
recommended order.

It is recommended to you by the hearing officer.
Your options are to adopt it as the final order,
or reject it or modify the recommended order as
previously provided in the ordinance.
10:33:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Okay.
Further discussion by Councilmembers on the
recommended order?
Any discussion on the recommended by Councils?
10:33:49 >> Mr. Miranda, I'd like to be heard on
Mr. Shelby's opinion to the board.
10:33:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I'll have to ask for opinion
from my own counselor on this.
What are the procedures within the guidelines of
the discussion of the order?
10:34:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Ultimately, Council, my
recommendation would be to have a motion on the
floor and a second, if that's what Council chooses
to do.
In advance of discussion.
Normally under Roberts rules you do that.
In the past, Council has discussion before a
motion has taken place.
10:34:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I'm asking.
I will get to that in a second.
I just want to make sure in the legal light before

I go to the Council, that I'm from the proper
guidance of the zone.
10:34:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
With regard to Mr. Grandoff, I do
have a concern.
Now, Mr. Grandoff, with you speaking at this
point, because within the procedure of 2761, there
is no opportunity delineated for you to do so.
What I can do if you wish is we can ask Council to
be able to allow me to have a side bar
conversation with you.
Otherwise, Mr. Grandoff, I am going to at the end
of the hearing give you an opportunity to proffer
something for the record.
In order to preserve whatever rights your clients
may be entitled to.
So however you wish to proceed.
10:35:19 >> Perhaps Mr. Shelby and I can speak at the side
for a moment.
10:35:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Mulhern, Ms. Capin?
10:35:26 >>MARY MULHERN:
I'm going to try out -- sorry.
Go ahead.
10:35:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Just one second.
10:35:31 >> I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
Could I resolve Mr. Grandoff's issue before we
proceed further?

10:35:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Let me take a three minute
break.
We come back.
You gentleman address that.
You counselors address that and we'll be back in
three minutes.
They're going to discuss something -- let me take
three minutes here and we'll be right back.
Stand in recess for three minutes.
[Short recess]
10:37:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
City Council is called back in
session.
Roll call.
[Roll Call]
10:44:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Here.
10:44:30 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Present.
10:44:31 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Here.
10:44:32 >>MARY MULHERN:
Here.
10:44:34 >>HARRY COHEN:
Here.
10:44:35 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Here.
10:44:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Here.
All right.
I believe we're back on 65 and the short recess we
had, I believe Mrs. Montelione, Ms. Capin wanted
the floor in that order.

10:44:49 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I don't know if Jean Duncan had
a chance to talk to you outside, Mr. Chair.
Know we already opened the public hearing, but we
have a couple of people here, some senior staff
members, that I'd like to get out of here.
And it's on items 8 and 9.
Two contracts, I would move approval of the
contracts just so that they can get back to work.
10:45:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Item 8, 9.
Any further discussion by Councilmembers on 8, 9
under staff reports?
10:45:19 >> Seconds.
10:45:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion by
Mrs. Montelione, second by Mr. Cohen.
Any further discussion by Councilmembers?
All in favor of the motion for 8, 9 for passage,
please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Thank you very much.
10:45:34 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you for your indulgence,
Council.
10:45:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
We go to item 65.
Ms. Capin?
10:45:41 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Just very quickly.

I noticed at our last meeting and it was very
distracting so I want to make a point that our
staff refrain from nodding in approval or
disapproval.
That did happen.
And I would please ask if any of the staff that
refrain from those gestures.
Thank you.
10:46:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Okay.
Any further things?
We're at the decision for recommended order.
Discussion for recommended order.
10:46:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Yes, if I can, Mr. Chairman.
I had the opportunity the speak with the attorneys
and the city legal department in the vestibule
regarding a concern of Mr. Grandoff.
Mr. Grandoff raises an issue I would ask City
Council to address clearly for the record.
And that is as you know, that City Council may
only allow public discussion upon a request for
oral argument filed by a party or upon its own
motion and then we discuss the criteria.
Mr. Grandoff raised the issue that he did file a
request for oral argument.
You do have a copy of it.

You have reviewed it as part of the record.
It was served on December the 4th of 2014.
And for the purposes of the record, Council, I am
asking you to make a ruling on that request for
oral argument as to whether that request did or
did not meet the criteria for allowing oral
argument.
10:47:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I need a motion one way or the
other from Council.
On item, for oral argument.
Mr. Suarez?
10:47:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Just quick question.
We're still under the same criteria in terms of
what oral argument actually means in terms of
their parameters going forward if an oral argument
or not oral argument is going to be presented
before us.
Meaning it's still within that very narrow
parameter of what is already in the record as
opposed to any new evidence or any new discussion
about any other issues.
Correct?
10:47:53 >> That is correct.
I will also remind Council that if the motion is
to allow the oral argument, there needs to be a

finding specifically that it did not address a
matter introduced into the record or recommended
order contains an ambiguity and that criteria was
in fact met.
10:48:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So meaning if we make that order to
allow oral argument, we have to state those
reasons which was not found in the record, is that
what you're saying?
Or am I correct?
10:48:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
It would be my recommendation
that you make a finding as to what criteria had
not been met.
There is no ambiguity within your decision.
10:48:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
10:48:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Mulhern?
10:48:35 >>MARY MULHERN:
I don't, you know, I hate to wade
into these legal questions that maybe -- but I
ought to be clear on them.
The place we did allow the oral argument at our
last hearing.
And this is, isn't this a continuing?
10:48:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
To refresh your recollection, you
did not get to the threshold question of whether
to allow oral argument.
It was continued for the purposes of giving

Council a full opportunity to review the record.
So that question had not been addressed.
I will try to simplify this, Council, in the sense
that when it was opened on the floor as to whether
the criteria was met, a short while ago, no motion
was made.
And no second and no discussion on that oral vote.
So therefore, one might argue by unanimous
consent, that the cry they aria was not met.
Mr. Grandoff is asking for a formal determination
by motion and vote of that fact.
10:49:39 >>MARY MULHERN:
Okay.
I understand that.
So what we had at the last hearing was the
argument for us, to allow the oral argument?
Is that correct?
10:49:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
No.
The parties did not have the opportunity at that
time to discuss with you.
The discussion was amongst Council as to whether
you were prepared to proceed.
And if that does not -- I believe that's my
recollection.
10:50:03 >>MARY MULHERN:
Well, they made their appeal --
they made their appeal case.

They made a case.
We heard from.
10:50:11 >>JULIA MANDELL:
Julie Mandell, city attorney.
What occurred at the last proceeding is in order
to move forward, there needed to be assurances on
the record that all members of City Council had
had the full and complete opportunity to review
the record.
There was some concerns that possibly not all the
members of Council had a full opportunity to
review the entire record.
Therefore, it was continued to assure that the
entire record was reviewed.
We did never get to the question of whether or not
the criteria for oral argument had been met and
therefore never took any other motion.
10:50:45 >>MARY MULHERN:
Thank you.
10:50:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Montelione?
10:50:48 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you, sir.
Going back to the first question, where you said
you didn't hear anyone from Council say that they
felt that one of the thresholds was met.
I'm referring to, excuse me a second.
It's E 21, where it says that Council may only
allow public discussion upon request for oral

argument and if the City Council, and I'm skipping
over -- and if the City Council finds the hearing
officer does not address the matter introduced
into the record or recommended order contains an
biguity.
Now, there are in the recommended order, there
were two places where I had a question.
You know, and in reading through all the
transcript and all the testimony that was given,
in my mind, some of these, or the two things that
I cited in the finding by the hearing officer were
more or less satisfied.
I mean, I guess if the hearing officer were here,
I would ask him the question of how he came to
those two conclusions, where I felt that maybe it
wasn't exactly stated in a clear and concise
manner.
Do you understand the question or you want me to
clarify?
Would that be a basis for opening the oral
argument under the ambiguity.
10:52:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Is the question -- I'm trying to
understand your question.
Did you find that there were ambiguities in terms
of what his findings were or was the basis, or the

fact that he did not to your satisfaction
articulate a basis in the order for those
findings?
10:53:10 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.
The latter.
10:53:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Then my question to you then is,
are the findings ambiguous?
And the second question would be, are the findings
supported by competent substantial evidence based
on your review of what you found in the record?
10:53:33 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Reading the hearing officer's
recommended order, without reading all of the
pages of testimony, presents the order as not
being clear.
But once you read all of the testimony, then you
understand where the hearing officer is coming
from in what he stated in the order.
So in other words, you would have to read all of
the pages of testimony to get the clarity of the
recommended order.
Does that mean that the recommended order is
biguous?
10:54:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Ms. Mandell, did you want to
opine?
10:54:27 >>JULIA MANDELL:
Yes.

You are obligated to review the record as a whole
which includes both the recommended order and
background information.
Therefore, you need to find, make your
determination based upon the record as a whole,
not just the face of the recommended order.
10:54:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
And I agree with her position on
that.
That's true.
10:54:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Before I go to other
Councilmembers who have asked, anyone who has not
spoken care to speak at this time? Ms. Mulhern
then.
10:54:57 >>MARY MULHERN:
I was just going to say her answer
was yes and no.
10:55:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Let me see -- let me see if I can
ask you this, Councilwoman Montelione.
Was it related to something that is a finding of
fact or a conclusion of law?
10:55:27 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Hmm, finding of fact -- define
conclusion of law.
I'm not a lawyer, so...
10:55:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Was the correct criteria of the
code applied correctly in a nutshell?
In other words, did he follow what the code

required?
10:55:52 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.
And the feedback from these microphones is making
me insane.
10:55:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I won't get so close.
Here is my question to you.
Will the oral argument resolve the ambiguity or
what you determined may or may not be something,
because if I understand what you're saying is, the
conclusions that he's made were not ambiguous.
But you are unclear as to -- until you review the
record below, upon all that which he based his
decision.
10:56:33 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.
And Ms. Cole already opined that the, whether or
not the, if I understood her correctly, the
recommended order was ambiguous to me, I would
base my clarification of that ambiguity on the
entire record as a whole.
In reading through all of the testimony, not only
by, you know, the staff that was called and the
professional opinions of the engineers and
consultants, but of the petitioners themselves,
my, the initial questions I had in the hearing
officer drawing those conclusions were clarified.

I understood after reading the entire testimony
why he said the things he did in the recommended
order.
But if someone were to just read the recommended
order, a member of the general public or anybody
else were to just read the recommended, the
recommendation that the hearing officer made, it
would not be clear.
But if Ms. Cole opining that it's based on the
entire record, then it's not ambiguous.
10:58:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
We haven't said anything.
What I'm trying to say, not in your case, anyone's
case, all seven of us, you were very specific in
why you had to bring it up.
Where was the error?
And where was the fallacy of the recommendation or
something to those words?
Where you felt that that, whoever Mr. Pfeiffer I
believe his name was, or pronounced that way, made
an error or committed a mistake in his
recommendation of the order and you had to be very
specific and to where it was to bring it up to say
that the oral argument, here is what you want to
bring Republican the oral argument.
And have yet to hear that from anyone.

10:58:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Well, then I guess my question
would be, Ms. Montelione, if you wish to raise
your question in the form of a motion, should it
get a second, then it would be open for discussion
and maybe the ambiguity could be then resolved
ongst City Council before the vote on oral
argument, and if City Council allows the oral
argument, then it could be limited to those
issues.
10:59:17 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Like I said, the ambiguity for
me goes away once, once the entire record, once
all of the testimony is taken into consideration.
10:59:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Let me ask you this.
And I apologize for getting into this in detail.
But I --
10:59:34 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I guess before you go on,
Mr. Shelby, what I'm trying to say is that in our
code, it says that we, oral argument could be
heard if the, if the hearing master's recommended
order is ambiguous.
10:59:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
And you're saying it is.
10:59:50 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Just in and of itself, it may
be.
But in the context of the entire hearing, it is
not.

10:59:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Well then let me ask you this
question, then.
If the -- is it ambiguous because you believe that
there is a matter that the hearing officer did not
addressed that was introduced into the record?
11:00:13 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
You know, what I'm -- I'm
struggling with is something that this Council
struggles with during almost, wouldn't say every
rezoning, but I would say maybe 50 to 75% of the
rezonings that we hear on a monthly basis brings
up the same issues and this Council has struggled
with those issues every single time.
11:00:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
My advice to you, Council, and
this goes to any member of Council, and you
particular, Ms. Montelione, is using the criteria
which you delineated, there is based upon my
conversations with the attorneys, the issue being
Mr. Grandoff's request for oral argument, he made
this request, and even had he not, if there is a
reason, Council can do it on its own motion, there
needs to be finding.
So my question to you is looking at that criteria,
can you frame a motion that could be put on the
floor and receive a second to allow oral argument?
Because Ms. Montelione, the other opportunity for

you to do that, to raise these issues, would be on
the discussion of whether to adopt the recommended
order as the final order.
The question now is whether this warrants oral
argument and whether your issues can be resolved
at oral argument or maybe your issue is in fact
with the wording of the recommended order.
11:01:59 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I would say that -- this is
very difficult to try and frame this properly.
My issues were resolved in reading the entire
testimony.
But does that mean that the public is not served
by not hearing oral arguments?
Are we serving the public by not hearing the oral
argument because their legal teams and their
clients, whether it be the City of Tampa or
Mr. Grandoff's clients, don't have the opportunity
to weigh in on these questions that we struggle
with on a regular basis.
11:03:09 >>JULIA MANDELL:
I do understand this is so
different than what you're used to handling that
it clearly is hard to put it in the same frame of
reference as your typical quasi-judicial
proceedings.
But you are used to having record reviews.

There are cases that come to you that are limited
to the record only.
You need to think about this in terms of the
record only.
I want to just let Council know so that they
understand that members of the public have already
had an opportunity to weigh in on this decision.
And the decision is a recommended order to you
with an underlying record.
The question for you is, are you going to uphold
that decision or overturn that decision based upon
the record?
The only purpose for oral argument is to argue to
you why there may be an issue within the record.
So I think you need to look at it in the context
of the whole.
It is not a question of whether or not the public
might be on notice of one line out of the hearing
officer's recommended order because this is taken
as an entire record.
So I would say to any Councilmember who might want
to open this up for oral argument and that is
completely within your jurisdiction based upon the
criteria and the code, that if you find that there
is an ambiguity in the order that is not

satisfactory to you within the context of the
record, the question you would be asking people to
discuss with you at oral argument is that
biguity, which is not found in the record for
your satisfaction.
And so that's why this is different.
But it is a record review.
It is completely based upon the record in front of
you.
Any argument that needs to come based upon the
record and if you're satisfied that the record
takes care of any ambiguities, then I would opine
that that's where you need to look at in terms of
making a decision on opening for oral argument.
But it is unclear again.
It is the record as a whole you're reviewing, not
just one line or one statement out of a, the
recommended order.
But the record as a whole.
11:05:13 >> I disagree with Ms. Mandell.
Not what the rule says.
Not what the rule says.
11:05:22 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'd like to hear from other
Councilmembers.
I mean.

11:05:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I'm going to speak and then
I'll let other Councilmembers speak.
This is about a record.
This is not a if I read one part and the other
part I didn't read, if I hadn't read the other
part, I wouldn't understand the first part.
In my case or anyone else's case.
This is about whether some individual, in this
case, the magistrate, and any way, if you feel
that there's something that you read that you
disagree with, then bring it up.
And we'll have oral arguments on that.
But no oral arguments are necessary if you agree.
If you disagree, then be specific.
Bring it out.
And let the Council get a second.
And let's bring it up to the open air.
No one is trying to hide anything from the public.
This is a --
11:06:13 >> Mr. Miranda -- my client has to be able to
understand from the recommended order what the
decision was.
The rule says that the recommended order contains
an ambiguity, you may open the matter for oral
argument.

We have a due process right to read the order and
understand what the officer said.
We do not have to be obliged to read every page
from hither to yon of the record to understand
what he meant.
There's an ambiguity.
I'm allowed to be heard on that.
11:06:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I didn't say you were not.
But I never interrupted you, sir, never.
11:06:44 >> I apologize.
11:06:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I've never done that, have I?
11:06:48 >> No.
11:06:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
But take you a habit to do it
to me.
11:06:51 >> I apologize.
11:06:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Just want to get that clear in
the Orlando argument.
11:06:56 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay.
Might I state what I am talking about?
11:07:05 >> Absolutely.
I think --
11:07:08 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I am talking about, this might
clear things up and might help other
Councilmembers.
What I am talking about, so we're not talk in

circles here.
Finding number 17, on page 7, the bottom of the
paragraph, the part that I underlined states that
the proposed development would disturb the quality
of life of existing residents that could not serve
to negate a property owner's right to develop.
That is one of two things that I struggle with.
11:07:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Could unread the whole sentence,
please?
11:07:55 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay.
The whole sentence, it starts, it's number 17.
I'll give Councilmembers a chance to locate it
because we have volumes and volumes of paper.
Page 7 of the recommended order.
Number 17.
Almost to end of the paragraph.
It starts, sentence even if it were clear from the
evidence, which it is not, that the proposed
development would disturb the quality of life of
existing residents that could not serve to negate
a property owner's right to develop in accordance
with the city's ordinances, including ordinance
9797.
That is one of two things that I don't think until
you read all of the evidence, because one has to

be presented during a hearing a competent and
substantial evidence.
When I read the testimony of the petitioners, I
did not find competent and substantial evidence.
It was all subjective.
So, as we know during rezoning hearings, we don't
take subjectivity.
We take competent substantial evidence.
What in my mind may not have been fully explored
or addressed is that when we hear a rezoning, we
also hear from the Planning Commission.
And in the Planning Commission, they read their
recommendations and the comp plan speaks to those
tenets, if you will.
So that's, that's one.
The other is previous page, page 6, number 13.
Where it says the sentence starts out, third,
continued availability is secured through a shared
parking arrangement that has been approved by the
city attorney.
I put check marks next to, you know, whether or
not I thought they were met.
Now, after reading all the testimony, I put a
check mark next to it.
However, it was brought up during the testimony

and I could go through and find who said it.
Might have been the hearing officer himself.
That lease agreements can been broken.
A parking garage could be sold.
It could be challenged in court.
It could be terminated.
I have not, according to the legal department,
they're satisfied with the lease agreement.
But I've not read the lease agreement.
I don't know whether or not -- and that's why I
brought up what we struggle with during a lot of
rezonings, is just that particular issue.
About leases being broken.
So, those are my concerns.
Now, from what I understand, the question is, is
whether or not the process of an incremental
review was the proper process.
In my mind, an incremental review was the proper
process.
City staff followed the right process.
There was no question whether or not a substantial
change review had to be taking place because first
you go from a planning standpoint, and a review
standpoint.
First you look at whether or not it satisfies the

code.
When they submit the application.
There are 20 people who sit on our pre-submittal
conference.
20 people decided, as a group, that the
incremental review was the right way to go.
I feel the incremental review was the right way to
go.
I don't think there's a question whether or not
this should've been a substantial change review.
The right process was followed.
It was an incremental review.
It met all the criteria, according to our code,
they followed the right process.
If that's the only question, then there's no
reason for oral argument because file that they
did follow the right process.
But if the question is whether or not there's
biguity, then have a different question.
Then in my mind, there is a reason to have oral
argument.
I'm sorry I make this more complicated.
Just from my experience, I go a little bit deep.
11:12:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Let me see just for the purposes
of the record, you referenced the last sentence of

paragraph 17 and your second point was related to
which?
11:13:08 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Paragraph 13.
I'm sorry, I went backwards.
Excuse me.
17 was the more important than 13.
11:13:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Well, Council, that --
11:13:25 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I don't know if it's a motion.
[Inaudible]
11:13:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
That's the question.
The question is, if that is in a form of a motion
and a second, then there could be discussion and
second on the motion.
If there's a vote in favor of oral argument, you
can choose to limit to it those subject matters.
But if you believe it contains an ambiguity, or --
see, here's the issue.
First of all, for the record, you've made clear
what your concerns were.
11:14:00 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.
11:14:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Would having an oral argument
resolve those issues for you or were those issues
resolved in the question of reviewing the record?
11:14:13 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
As I said before, issues were
resolved in my mind by reviewing the entire

record.
11:14:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Do you feel a need that this
would, based on your reading, give you pause as to
whether to adopt the ordinance as a whole?
11:14:31 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
No.
I would -- I hate this saying, but at the end of
the day, I would agree with the recommended order
from the hearing master.
11:14:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
So would oral argument --
11:14:54 >>JULIA MANDELL:
I'm getting concerned we are
getting way too down this path.
Julie Mandell, city attorney.
I think we are going too far down the path when
the only question is the question of whether or
not the criteria of the method to open for oral
argument.
Only comment I will say is that under the code,
you cannot change the findings of fact.
You can only change the conclusions of law.
So therefore, when you look for whether or not
there is an ambiguity, you look at the record as a
whole and ultimately you're only opportunity to do
anything different is to change a conclusion of
law based upon the record.
But other than that, I think we're going too far

afield and I would really think at this point if
we could move forward with a motion, that would be
appropriate.
11:15:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have Mr. Reddick.
11:15:47 >>MARY MULHERN:
If Mr. Reddick could restate his
motion.
11:15:51 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I haven't stated one.
But I'm ready to state one.
We just need a motion, right?
, to move it.
11:15:57 >> Yes.
11:15:58 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motorist.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to move that we deny the
request for oral argument based on no ambiguity in
the record.
11:16:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
There's been no motion for
denial.
There's been no motion to deny it.
That I know of.
11:16:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Reddick, the
motion is with regard to the request for the oral
argument and my understanding is that you are
making the motion to deny the request based on the
fact the criteria has not been met, is that
correct?

Or am I misstating?
11:16:34 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Yes.
That I found there not to be ambiguity within the
state of records.
11:16:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
And with also regard to the fact
that, a matter that was not addressed that you
find --
11:16:50 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Everything has been met.
11:16:51 >> Second.
11:16:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion on the floor
now, discussion by Mr. Reddick.
Stated on the record by Mr. Reddick, seconded by
Ms. Mulhern.
Further discussion by Councilmembers?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by
saying aye.
Opposed nay.
Motion passes 6-1.
I need a motion to receive and file any and all
documents.
11:17:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
The next step would be to then have a discussion
on the recommended order itself.
11:17:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Well, that was item on
discussion for a recommended order.

Any further discussion on the recommended order at
all?
I need a motion to that then.
11:17:37 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'll move acceptance of the
hearing master's recommended order.
11:17:41 >> Second.
11:17:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion by...
11:17:49 >> Mr. Chairperson, would the motion be per the
code to adopt the recommended order as the final
order?
11:17:54 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.
11:17:54 >>I have a motion by Ms. Montelione, I have a
second by Ms. Mulhern on the order stated by
Ms. Montelione, motion stated by Ms. Montelione,
seconded by Ms. Mulhern.
Further discussion by Councilmembers?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by
saying aye.
Opposed nay.
Motion passes unanimously.
All right.
Now I need a motion to review documents made
outside of section 2761.
Requirements and everything that was considered.
11:18:23 >> So moved.

11:18:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
And not considered.
11:18:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Mr. Chairman, if I can, I'm
handing that to the clerk.
Basically what I'm providing is the correspondence
received outside the hearing that was before the
hearing officer.
11:18:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I'm sorry, I missioned the
maker of the motion was for that, Mr. Reddick made
the motion, seconded by Ms. Montelione.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by
saying aye.
Opposed nay.
Counselor?
Mr. Shelby?
You need anything regarding the, allow the
parties?
11:18:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Yes.
I see Mr. Grandoff is at the lectern.
At this time, Council, Council having made its
decision, I'm going to allow the parties to
proffer for the purposes of preserving their
client's rights in the record to make their
argument for the purposes of review if certiorari
review if they so choose.
11:19:24 >> Thank you, Mr. She will beach.

All items are in evidence and in the record.
What I'd like to do at this time is poll each
member of the City Council if they would please
enunciate their reasons for the decision.
11:19:38 >> Mr. Grandoff, I appreciate that request.
However, that request is not delineated within
the, within the section 2761.
Also by the way, that is, if it were to be a roll
call vote that would be that Council's purview,
not yours.
The purpose of your opportunity to speak now is to
assert anything you wish to have preserved for the
record.
11:20:06 >> Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Shelby.
Then I would like to proffer a very brief argument
that based upon the record in evidence and
considered by the hearing officer as enunciated in
the recommended order, that was adopted this
morning, that the incremental review process as
provided in Chapter 27 and the review process as
provided in Chapter 27-61, are both on their face
and as applied operating to deny my client's
procedural due process and equal protection under
the law as guaranteed under the United States

constitutional's fifth and 14th amendments.
And further, that the decision rendered this
morning as well as a decision of the recommended
order by the hearing officer is not supported by
competent substantial evidence.
And it departs, both decisions departs from the
essential requirements of the law as provided by
the Florida Supreme Court decision of Snyder
versus Broward County.
And with those comments and proffer, I conclude my
remarks.
And I thank you very much for your time last
December and your deliberations this morning and
going through the record and doing what is
necessary to guarantee us a proper hearing this
morning.
Please understand that my, my arguments of law are
meant for the preservation of the record and to
properly enunciate my client's arguments on the
law and for us to find further relief as
necessary, which we intend to do immediately.
Appreciate your courtesy this morning.
Again, Mr. Miranda, I apologize for enter
correcting during your discussion.
11:22:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I appreciate your

professionalism.
Appreciate you appearing on behalf of your client
and I appreciate everything you said to this
Council.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Cohen?
11:22:10 >>HARRY COHEN:
May I ask a question of Mr. Shelby
for a moment?
During this matter, we have all been basically
subject to a gag order.
We have not been allowed to talk to our
constituents about it.
It puts news the awkward position of not being
able to explain to people why we do what we do.
And I'm wondering, now that we have taken these
actions, are we still not allowed to discuss it?
Are we still prevented from, from, you know -- is
it going to come back to us again or are we free
to at least have colloquy with our citizens?
11:22:55 >> Thank you for asking that question.
I was going to address that.
I was going to advise City Council to not discuss
the matter during a 30 day appeal period.
And obviously if an appeal is filed, then there
will be an action in court that might ultimately

certainly affect City Council.
So, it would be my strong advice to you and to
also assert to your constituents that under advice
of Council, considering there have been discussion
about legal proceedings that are going to occur
subsequent to this, it would be my advice that for
as much you a as elected officials might want to
talk to constituents, it would be my strongest
advice to refrain from doing that.
11:23:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
One other question.
When does the 30 days start?
11:23:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
From the time the order is, from
the time the order is signed.
Is that correct?
I don't know when would that -- do we have?
I don't know the exact.
11:23:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Please let us know.
11:23:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I will inform you.
But until such time as 30 days runs from then,
please do not say anything.
11:24:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Anything else on this item?
Night a motion to close this hearing.
Have a motion by Ms. Montelione, second bring
Reddick to close the hearing.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by

saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Thank you all very much for appearing.
Vulnerability it very much.
We go back, I believe the only item we had left
was item number 7.
And the first part of staff reports.
11:24:27 >> Good morning, Councilmembers.
Dennis Fernandez, architects review and historic
preservation mag.
Item number 7 I was asked to appear and provide
some information related to two particular items.
The difference essentially between a national
historic district and a local historic district.
And the decision-making process for demolitions of
structures that are outside of a local historic
district.
On the first matter, just for ease of discussion,
I provided this slide.
National register designation, which is listed on
the national registry of historic places is a
method of recognition that's provided through the
national Parks Department.
And the department of the interior.

And essentially it lists that property as being a,
having historic integrity within the master list
of historic properties for the United States.
It also allows tax credits for the restoration and
preservation of those properties that are federal
level.
It does have requirements for section 106
mitigation when historic properties are affected
through the expenditure of federal funds.
And it does provide in some situations the ability
for local governments to provide ad valorem tax
exemptions, which our particular municipality does
take advantage of.
A local historic district, which is the program
that I administer, is related to our local
historic preservation ordinances that are housed
under Chapter 27 within the City of Tampa.
And that does provide methods for various forms of
review of historic properties, both for
architectural changes to those properties and we
have two boards.
The architectural review commission, the Barrio
Latino commission that review those locally.
It provides for a process of demolition.
This prescriptive within Chapter 27 as to what

would satisfy that criteria for demolition.
It sets building standards that are within the
various design guidelines that apply to historic
properties throughout the city.
And once again, it does allow in our case for an
ad valorem tax exemption program as incentive to
preserving.
11:27:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Mulhern?
11:27:12 >>MARY MULHERN:
Mr. Fernandez, can you put that
back?
I wanted to ask if, for local historic
designations, does the demolition permit have to
be, go through the architectural review?
11:27:27 >> That is correct.
If a property is locally designated either as a
contributing structure within a local historic
district or as a local landmark structure, then
any type of demolition request is required to go
through a process, either with the A.R.C. 0 are
the BLC.
11:27:48 >>MARY MULHERN:
But if it's a national register,
it doesn't?
11:27:51 >> That's correct.
It does not as a national register listed
property, the local government's authority is a

requirement.
Under our particular avenue as a certified local
government, is to simply report back to the state.
The state historic preservation office, that a
demolition has been granted.
We do have a process for any, within our
ordinances, within the Historic Preservation
Commission ordinance, for any property that's over
50 years old, rather they are listed on the
national registry or not, there is an
administrative review that's conducted for the
demolition request on those properties.
And we do apply criteria within the code that
mainly clarifies the importance of that structure
individually to the local history of the city.
So we, for everyone we do these every day, every
property that's 50 years old has a review on it.
11:28:48 >>MARY MULHERN:
Right.
But that's not, it doesn't go there you go through
the architectural review commission or any kind --
there's no public notice.
11:28:56 >> That's correct.
11:28:57 >>MARY MULHERN:
Or public hearing.
So my question, is there something that precludes
us from adopting that as a policy an ordinance

where that would be under review?
11:29:08 >> In a national registry?
11:29:11 >>MARY MULHERN:
Yes.
11:29:11 >> I believe there would need to be changes to the
ordinance for that to occur because currently
that's not how the ordinance is written.
11:29:18 >>MARY MULHERN:
But there's no law that precludes
us from doing that, is there?
11:29:23 >> No.
You can create ordinances to effect the process by
which those decisions are made.
11:29:29 >>MARY MULHERN:
Okay.
Thank you.
11:29:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any other Councilmembers?
11:29:32 >> Well, we kind of covered the second part of
that with the demolition process.
But did want to state, there was this question
about a Courier City particularly because that was
the issue that generated the motion.
And Courier City is part of the Hyde Park local,
I'm sorry, national register historic district
that was created in 1985.
When the ordinances were created to establish Hyde
Park as a -- this is the Hyde Park historic
district map.

And this is the area that's Courier Oscawana.
And in 1985, the national district, which is
indicated in the blue line, was established.
In 1988, the local historic district, which is
indicated in the red line, was established and has
been maintained essentially since that time.
In 1988, there was essentially a lack of support
in these particular areas of national register
district to join in to the local historic
district.
And as a means of moving the designation process
along, those particular areas were left out of the
local boundaries.
And that has been a struggle with sort of ad hoc
redevelopment in these areas really ever since
because it does rise to the level of being
considered to be part of the national registry
district but lacks protection of the local
historic district.
11:31:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Montelione?
11:31:10 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
When you said that it was, how you phrased it,
lack of support for including those areas in the
local district when the, in 1988 I think you said,
when -- really hard to see from here.

The areas in the red line.
I don't think that's going to make a difference.
I'm sure if I was closer to it would be clearer to
me too.
Could we consider the local designation for those
areas?
That are national now?
11:31:53 >> The Historic Preservation Commission has looked
at this item a number of times.
11:32:00 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
When was the last time they
looked at it?
11:32:02 >> We looked at it extensively in 2007.
At that time, we resurveyed the area.
Essentially.
11:32:13 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
That's much better.
11:32:14 >> This is the original map that was part of the
survey that was conducted in 1985.
At that time, you can see there was 123 was
considered contributing or historic structures.
And 56 noncontributing structures.
And the percentages that you see at the bottom are
what really are crucial to meeting the
requirements for designation both on a national
and local level.
And those, that number is essentially 65% that you

look for contributing structures within a
designated area.
And a lot of times that's why you see these
boundary lines on these national registry
districts particularly kind of jog in and out in a
fashion that captures the most historic structures
that are able.
Since this particular time, through our records,
these are the numbers that we have now.
Through demolition, historic structures or through
inappropriate modifications of historic
structures, obviously that number has fallen.
An interesting point is the number of
noncontributing structures, which have increased,
with essentially one structure being torn down on
a particular lot and then two structures being
replacing that structure.
11:33:29 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
And that's, you know, I'm not
surprised.
Which would, if they weren't protected, they're
going to go away.
And it's really too big a shame that we didn't in
1988 make this part of the local historic district
because those structures that were contributing at
that time might still be with us.

And you know, you look at 65, I think it was 65%
you said of contributing.
11:33:55 >> Normally.
11:33:56 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
To establish a district.
For me, we need to save what we have left.
Because at this rate, you know, I could see in
another 10 years, we're not going to have any.
Or we're going to have very few.
And it's the historic districts that increase in
value.
You know, the property values, even when we
experience a downturn in the economy.
If you with are in a historic neighborhood, those
properties, those houses more or less held their
value and it's part of the fabric of the City of
Tampa is people come here for the history.
And if we continue to allow these structures to be
demolished, or to have contributed, to have
noncontributing structures built without having
that same character as the neighborhood, we are
going to end up not having any history at all in
that area.
And that's why you know the national historic
district to me really doesn't do a whole lot.
11:35:09 >> The situation that we were in with this

property on MELVA, for me was the most difficult
situation.
When you're facings, you have the demolition
application in front of you and then you have a
cry for preservation.
You know, the time to do this is, well in advance
of one redevelopment is planned.
You know, the case probably most in review by this
Council is when we worked with VME board to expand
the boundaries of the Ybor City historic district
to include that particular neighborhood.
We did that over a course of a few years and were
able to accomplish that.
And working with a neighborhood association.
The last time that this particular issue was
brought up before City Council, previous Council
in 2007, they instructed a request for the HPC to
look at -- the historic preservation commission to
look at alternatives that could be preservation
oriented for the area.
And we had several discussions on that and several
hearings and there was a discussion about what's
called a conservation district that essentially
protects historic structures but allows for the
nonhistoric parcels to redevelop in accordance

with the appropriate zoning levels.
And at that, following that discussion I reached
out to Courier City neighborhood and sent them a
letter and we had a subsequent meeting and he took
that back to his organization as a discussion
point because what it does is essentially put the
restrictions on the historic property owners to
maintain their property while the nonhistoric
properties can redevelop.
And there was not support for that concept at that
particular time.
And at that point, the discussion ended for the
conservation district.
11:36:53 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Well, I have a couple of
feelings because you know, on the one hand, if you
make the, the regulations so strict, if it reduces
the opportunity for these properties to be
preserved.
In other words, they have to put so much money
into it that it's not feasible for most people to
purchase the home or the commercial building and
restore it because it's so expensive.
So, you know, demolition becomes a preferred
method because they just can't afford to restore
it to the historical, you know, exact thing.

So I would like to have some leeway in there so
it's economically feasible.
And you and I have talked about in the past,
counseling people who come in for a demolition
permit.
In advance to say look, you can tap into these
funds, you know, we have a team of people, maybe
we could have what I termed at one point a rapid
response team when we were talking about Jackson
house.
We have a team of people who can sit with you and
give you alternatives on how this can be
profitable for you or this can be economically
feasible because you would get tax credits.
You would get help with the facade grants or
whatever the case may be.
And establish a program where we actually are
proactive with the historic structures we have
left.
So, I have very mixed feelings.
I want to do something and I don't know if we can
do it by ordinance or those are procedures or, you
know, how we could put something like that plan in
place so that we stop losing our historic
structures and the character of the neighborhood.

11:38:59 >> One thing to keep in mind within this
particular area of town is that most of the
underlying zoning allows for multi-family
residential development.
You know, either RM-16 or more intensive zoning
classifications that are the housed underneath the
single-family houses.
Which is unique to the district.
You won't find that as widespread within the local
historic district which has primarily
single-family zoning or multi-family zoning that
was applied to a multi-family structure, which was
appropriate at the time.
So there's a incentive to demolition within
courier city because they do have a highest and
best use that they can achieve by removing the
single-family structure and then putting three or
more units on that particular parcel.
And that's particularly been challenging within
this neighborhood, where there's the lack of
protection and then that ability to maximize
investment.
11:40:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Finished?
11:40:07 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.
11:40:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Mulhern?

11:40:10 >>MARY MULHERN:
Yes, I think -- thank you.
This is informative and discouraging at the same
time.
You might want to -- those same people or perhaps
new people in the neighborhood that were upset
about a recent demolition of a historic
hundred-year-old, or more than a hundred, might
have changed their mind.
So might be worth doing a survey and seeing if
they'd be willing to reconsider.
11:40:39 >> By all means.
I'm very happy to do that.
We have a very, we have limited resources
staff-wise.
But if there's neighborhoods, we'll always engage
with neighborhoods' attempt to preserve those.
We do respond, I think with a sense of urgency
when we have demolitions.
Particularly when those demolitions meet the
requirements of the code.
I have two properties right now that have been
required for demolition that are going through the
Historic Preservation Commission process.
So that process does play out.
We do try to engage the neighborhoods and now

reach out and have that same discussion I had with
the past president.
11:41:19 >>MARY MULHERN:
Okay.
Good.
I have some questions but I'm going to try to meet
with you and talk about some other possibilities
about take without taking the up too much time
right now.
11:41:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any further discussion on that
item?
Thank you very much for appeal.
Appreciate it very much.
We're going to go through 12 maybe, ask Council
give me another 30 minutes.
Yes, Mrs. Capin?
11:41:42 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Just one thing I want to bring up
about this.
As he walks out the door.
That's okay.
For the record, he could look it up and watch it
on TV.
[ Laughter ]
11:41:57 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Dennis, I'm sorry it took me a
minute.
When we talked about tax credits and letting them

know, I agree with Councilwoman Montelione in that
we need to have common sense in these, in these
preservation in accordances and, because we have
people that are elderly and a tax credit means
nothing to them.
Want means to them is they are fixed income.
They've lived in the house for 40, 50 years.
And when that has to be taken into consideration.
It absolutely does.
And maybe one of the things to look at is that the
existing owner, when it changes hands, at that
point, the new owner knows all the rules and these
are applied.
But the owner of record at the time, we have to
have some flexibility.
I'm not sure how it would apply, but it should,
because really, we ask for these things but it's
not always the most economical or efficient, both
in, for instance, in windows, not necessarily the
most effective in energy saving, but yet it's
historical.
And so what are we looking at?
We're looking at the environment or we're looking
at, what exactly are we trying to accomplish?
I think we should try to accomplish both.

11:43:48 >> Correct.
11:43:49 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I appreciate you listening to me.
But that is very big concern for me.
Because I have seen, I have witnessed and I'm sure
you've seen where cigar factories were purchased
and have been boarded up because the owners could
not afford the windows that were required to be
replaced there.
And so what do we have?
We have a boarded-up factory.
We have to have some kind of, some kind of
compromise.
Some kind of variance review that they need
certain criteria.
That's just my point.
It's not one size fits all.
Okay.
Thank you.
11:44:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Anyone else?
Okay.
We go to item 54.
Night a motion for Pate for review,
February 19th at sock 30 in the morning.
Motion by Mr. Cohen, second by Mr. Suarez.
Further discussion by councilmembers.

All in favor of the motion, please indicate by
saying aye.
The ayes have it unanimously.
55 through 65, we're open prior.
These are seconds readings.
55 is nonquasi-judicial.
This open.
Ordinance for second reading.
11:45:06 >> Mr. Chair, I have number 55 [Inaudible]
11:45:11 >> So moved.
11:45:12 >> Second.
11:45:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Ms. Montelione.
I have a second by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by
saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Item 56, anyone from 56 through 64, these are
quasi-judicial hearings.
Need to be sworn in.
If you're going to speak on these items, please
stand and be sworn in by the clerk.
[Oath administered by Clerk]
11:45:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Item 56.
11:45:46 >> Glorida Moreda, land development.

I just, the site plan has been certified.
This is AB 2-14-37.
I did want to state for the record that the
requested AB sales permit is for a small venue
packaged sales retail sales, package sales, beer,
wine liquor for off premise consumption only.
They are asking for a reduction of the distance
separation from other AB establishments.
250 feet to 146 feet.
The nearest other establishment is Can Carlos
tavern and liquor store.
And they are also asking for the distant
separation waiver from residential 250 feet to
63 feet.
11:46:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Petitioner?
Item 56, petitioner here?
Let's go.
I'm trying to get you all in before time expires.
11:46:45 >> Greg Barnhill, 219 South Glen Arbor.
The minor modifications requested at the first
hearing have been adjusted and submitted for
review.
And there's no additional comment.
11:47:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any question by Councilmembers?
Anyone in the audience care to speak on item 56.

File ab 2-14-37.
Please come far.
Item 56.
11:47:11 >> Move to close.
11:47:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion to close by Mr. Cohen,
second by Mr. Reddick.
Stirrings discussion by Councilmembers?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by
saying aye.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Mr. Suarez, would you kindly read 56 please.
11:47:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I present an ordinance for second
reading and adoption, an ordinance approving a
special use permit, S-2 for alcoholic beverage
sales, small venue package sales off premise
consumption only and making lawful the sale of
beverages regardless of alcoholic content - beer,
wine and liquor - at or from that certain lot,
plot or tract of land located at 6428 and 6430
North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida, as more
particularly described in section 2, that all
ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict are
repealed, providing an effective date.
11:47:52 >> Have a motion by Mr. Suarez for passage of
second reading, seconded by Mr. Reddick.

Further discussion by councilmembers?
Voice vote, roll call.
11:48:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Yes.
11:48:05 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes.
11:48:07 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Yes.
11:48:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Yes.
11:48:12 >>HARRY COHEN:
Yes.
11:48:15 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Mulhern and
Montelione being absent.
11:48:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
As I said earlier, most of these votes, all going
to be voice roll call because the monitors are not
operable right now.
Item 57.
11:48:27 >>Glorida Moreda, land development.
The AB 2-15-01, the request is for bar, lounge,
beer, wine, on premise consumption only.
The site plan has been certified.
11:48:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Petitioner?
11:48:48 >> Good morning, Kelsey Patterson.
I have no comment unless you have questions.
11:48:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Anyone in the audience, any
further questions by councilmembers?
I remember you from shark tank.
Anyone care to speak on item 57?

AB 2-15-01.
Motion to close by Mr. Cohen, second by
Ms. Montelione.
Further discussion by councilmembers?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by
saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Ms. Capin, would you kindly read number 57.
11:49:16 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
An ordinance approving a special
use permit, S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales, bar,
lounge, consumption on premises only and making
lawful the sale of beer, wine at or from that
certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 2310
and 2312 West Waters Avenue, Tampa, Florida, as
more particularly described in section 2, that all
ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict are
repealed, providing an effective date.
And that modifications -- did she state that the
modifications have been made?
11:49:48 >> Yes.
11:49:49 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
So I don't need to repeat that.
11:49:51 >> Second.
11:49:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Have a motion for approval on
file AB 2-15-01 on second reading by Ms. Capin,

second by Mr. Cohen.
Roll call vote.
Voice vote.
11:50:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Yes.
11:50:04 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes.
11:50:05 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Yes.
11:50:06 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Yes.
11:50:08 >>HARRY COHEN:
Yes.
11:50:12 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.
11:50:13 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Mulhern being
absent.
11:50:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Item 58.
11:50:16 >> Good morning.
Mary Samaniego, land development coordination.
For items 58 and 64, all the required changes
between first and second reading have been
complete and the certified applications are at the
clerk's office ready for your signature.
Thank you.
11:50:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Petitioner here on item number
58?
Please come forward.
11:50:36 >> Good morning, commissioners.
Thank you for previous approval.
I don't have any additional comments.

11:50:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Anyone in the audience care to
speak on item 58?
File REZ 14-50.
Please come forward.
Motion to close by Mr. Cohen, second by Ms.
Montelione.
Further discussion, please indicate by saying aye.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Mr. Reddick, would you kindly take number 58,
please.
11:51:03 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Move an item being presented for
second reading and adoption, ordinance rezoning
property in general vicinity of 411 and 411 1/2
South Albany Avenue in the City of Tampa, Florida,
more particularly described in section one, from
zoning district classification RM-16 residential
multi-familiar had to PD planned development,
dwellings detached and semi detached residential,
providing an effective date.
11:51:28 >> Second.
11:51:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion for approval by
Mr. Reddick on second reading and adoption.
Seconded by Mr. Suarez on REZ 14-50.
All in favor of the motion vote by voice roll
call.

11:51:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Yes.
11:51:45 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes.
11:51:47 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Yes.
11:51:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Yes.
11:51:50 >>HARRY COHEN:
Yes.
11:51:51 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.
11:51:52 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried, Mulhern being absent.
11:51:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Item number 59.
Petitioner here on 59?
59.
Please come forward.
11:52:03 >> Good morning, Council.
David Singer, Singer & O'Donniley, 712 South
Oregon.
Here to answer any questions.
11:52:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any questions by
Councilmembers?
Anyone in the audience care to speak on REZ 14-66,
please come forward.
I see no one.
Motion to close by Mr. Reddick, second by Mr.
Cohen.
Further discussion by Councilmembers.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by
saying aye.

The ayes have it unanimously.
Mr. Cohen, would you kindly take number 59.
11:52:30 >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I move an ordinance being presented for second
reading and adoption.
An ordinance rezoning property in the general
vicinity of 2011 North Dale Mabry Highway in the
City of Tampa, Florida and more particularly
described in section 1, from zoning district
classifications, CI, commercial intensive to PD,
planned development, restaurant, restaurant with
drive-in window and retail sales shoppers and
convenience goods, providing an effective date.
11:52:55 >> Second.
11:52:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Have a motion for approval on
REZ 14-66 by Mr. Cohen, second by Mr.~Suarez.
Voice roll call.
11:53:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Yes.
11:53:05 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes.
11:53:06 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Yes.
11:53:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Yes.
11:53:10 >>HARRY COHEN:
Yes.
11:53:11 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.
11:53:12 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Mulhern being
absent.

11:53:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Item 60.
11:53:19 >> Kevin Rolls, petitioner.
I have nothing further unless I have questions
from the Council.
11:53:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any questions by Council at
this time?
Anyone in the audience care to speak on file REZ
14-69?
Please come forward.
I see no one.
Motion to close by Mr. Reddick, second by Mr.
Cohen.
Further discussion?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by
saying aye.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Mr. Cohen, would you --
11:53:49 >> No, my turn.
11:53:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I'm sorry.
Ms. Montelione, would you kindly take number 60
please.
60 is a bad age.
That's why I wanted to skip you.
Look so nice.
11:54:00 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I present an ordinance for

second reading and adoption.
An ordinance rezoning property in the general
vicinity of 3407 West Bay Avenue in the City of
Tampa, Florida, more particularly described in
section 1, from zoning district classifications
RS-60 residential single-family to RS-50,
residential single-family, providing an effective
date.
11:54:18 >> Second.
11:54:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion for approval on
second reading by Ms. Montelione.
Second by Mr. Suarez on REZ 14-69.
Voice roll call vote.
11:54:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Yes.
11:54:31 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes.
11:54:32 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Yes.
11:54:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
No.
11:54:37 >>HARRY COHEN:
Yes.
11:54:38 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.
11:54:39 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried, Miranda voting no.
11:54:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much for
appearing.
We go to item 61.
11:54:50 >> Good morning.
Michael Horner, 14502 Dale Mabry representing the

applicant and owner.
Here to answer any questions.
11:54:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any questions by
Councilmembers?
Anyone in the audience care to speak on 61?
REZ 14-71.
Please come forward.
Motion to close by Mr. Cohen.
Second by Mr. Reddick.
Further discussion by councilmembers?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by
saying aye.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Mr. Suarez, would you kindly take number 61
please.
11:55:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I present an ordinance for second
reading and adoption.
An ordinance rezoning property in the general
vicinity of 2912 North Decatur Avenue in the City
of Tampa, Florida, from zoning district
classification PD planned development detached
single-family dwelling to RS-50, residential
single-family, providing an effective date.
11:55:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Have a motion for approval by
Mr. Suarez, second by Mr. Cohen on file number 61

REZ 14-71.
This is a voice roll call vote.
11:55:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Yes.
11:55:47 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes.
11:55:48 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Yes.
11:55:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Yes.
11:55:51 >>HARRY COHEN:
Yes.
11:55:52 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.
11:55:53 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Mulhern being
absent.
11:55:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Item 62.
Yes, sir?
11:56:01 >> Dale Alderman, petitioner.
5000 17th Avenue North, St. Petersburg.
I'm available to answer any questions.
11:56:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Any questions by
Councilmembers?
Anyone in the audience care to speak on item 62,
REZ 14-73, please come forward.
I see no one.
Motion to close by Mr. Reddick, second by Mr.
Cohen.
Further discussion by Councilmembers.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by
saying aye.

Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Ms. Capin?
Item number 62.
11:56:30 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
An ordinance rezoning property in the general
vicinity of 4524 West Fig Street in the City of
Tampa, Florida, more particularly described in
section one from zoning district classifications
RS-50 residential single-family to PD planned
development, residential single-family attached,
providing an effective date.
11:56:50 >> Second.
11:56:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Have a motion for approval by
Ms. Capin on number 62, seconded by Mr. Suarez on
REZ 14-73.
Voice roll call vote.
11:57:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Yes.
11:57:03 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes.
11:57:04 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Yes.
11:57:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Yes.
11:57:07 >>HARRY COHEN:
Yes.
11:57:08 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.
11:57:09 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried, Mulhern being absent.
11:57:11 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Item number 63.

Petitioner here on 63?
11:57:18 >> Abbye Feeley, Land Development Coordination.
The petitioner's on item 63 and 64 are not present
this morning.
There are places of religious assembly.
One is a parking lot and the other was the
manifestation that was doing the fellowship hall.
11:57:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Anyone in the audience care to
speak on item 63, file SU-2-14-13.
I see no one.
Motion to close by Mr. Reddick, second by Mr.
Cohen.
Further discussion?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by
saying aye.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Mr. Reddick, will you kindly take 63, please.
11:57:54 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Move an ordinance being presented
for second reading and adoption, ordinance
approving a special use permit S-2 approving a
place of religious assembly, day care, fellowship
hall and associated activity in RS-50 residential
single-family, CN, commercial neighborhood, and
RM-16, residential multi-family, zoning district
in the general vicinity of 2917, 3008, 3010 and

3102 East Lake Avenue and 3703, 3707 and 3717
North 30th Street in the City of Tampa, Florida
and as more particularly described in section 1
hereof, providing an effective date.
11:58:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Have a motion for approval by
Mr. Reddick on item number 62 -- excuse me, 63.
SU-2-14-13.
Seconded by Mr. Cohen for approval.
This is a voice roll call vote.
11:58:48 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Yes.
11:58:49 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes.
11:58:52 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Yes.
11:58:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Yes.
11:58:54 >>HARRY COHEN:
Yes.
11:58:55 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.
11:58:56 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carries, Mulhern being absent.
11:59:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Item 64.
Anyone in the audience care to speak on file
SU-2-14-14?
I see no one.
11:59:09 >> Move to close.
11:59:10 >> Motion to close by Mr. Suarez, seconded by Mr.
Reddick.
All in favor of the motion to close, please
indicate by saying aye.

Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Mr. Cohen, would you kindly take number 64.
11:59:21 >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I move an ordinance being presented for second
reading and adoption.
An ordinance approving a special use permit S-2,
approving parking, off-street, commercial
recreational facility private in an RS-50
residential single-family zoning district in the
general vicinity of 4309 North 34th Street in the
City of Tampa, Florida, as more particularly
described in section one hereof, providing an
effective date.
11:59:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Have a motion for approval on
second reading by Mr. Cohen, second by Mr. Suarez,
File SU-2-14-14.
Voice roll call vote.
11:59:56 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Yes.
11:59:57 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes.
11:59:57 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Yes.
11:59:58 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Yes.
12:00:00 >>HARRY COHEN:
Yes.
12:00:01 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.
12:00:02 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carries with Mulhern being

absent.
12:00:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
65 we have done.
We go back to committee reports.
12:00:09 >>HARRY COHEN:
Mr. Chair, move for an additional
five minutes.
12:00:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I'm sure we can make it in
five.
Make it ten.
I have a motion by Mr. Cohen, seconded by
Mr. Suarez for ten minutes addition.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by
saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
We go to public safety committee chair, Mr. Frank
Reddick.
12:00:29 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Move item ten, 11, 12 and 13.
12:00:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Mr. Reddick, second
by Mr. Cohen.
14 needs -- that's single source.
12:00:40 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Ten through 14.
12:00:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Mr. Reddick for 10
through 14.
Second by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of the motion under public safety

committee, please signify by saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Okay.
We go to park, recreation, culture committee
chair, vice chair, Ms. Lisa Montelione.
12:01:04 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Move items 17 through 24.
12:01:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Have a motion by Ms.
Montelione, second by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by
saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
[Inaudible]
12:01:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Substitute on 17.
I have -- now we go to public works committee
chair, Mr. Mike Suarez.
12:01:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, chair I move items 25
through 34.
12:01:30 >> Second.
12:01:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Mr. Suarez, second by
Mr. Cohen.
Further discussion by Councilmembers, all in favor
of the motion, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed nay.

The ayes have it unanimously.
We go to finance committee, Mr. Harry Cohen,
chair.
12:01:47 >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you very much.
I move items 35 through 39.
12:01:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Have a motion by Mr. Cohen,
second by Ms. Montelione.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by
saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
With removal I think one item removed in your
committee, Ms. Montelione, was it 42?
12:02:06 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
42.
12:02:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Building zoning and
preservation chair, Ms. Montelione.
12:02:12 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you, sir.
I move items 40 and 41 and 43 through 50.
12:02:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Have a motion by
Mrs. Montelione, second by Mr. Cohen.
Further discussion?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by
saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.

Transportation committee chair, Ms. Yvonne Yolie
Capin.
12:02:35 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Move items 51 through 53.
12:02:37 >> Second.
12:02:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Mrs. Capin, second by
Mr. Suarez.
Further discussion by councilmembers.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by
saying aye.
The ayes have it unanimously.
12:02:44 >> Mr. Chair, on zoning, do you wish to make a
motion to remove item 42?
12:02:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I need a motion for that.
12:02:53 >> Move 42, 41.
12:02:56 >> Motion to remove items 42.
12:02:58 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Ms. Montelione,
second by Mr. Cohen on 42.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by
saying aye.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Okay.
We go to information reports by Councilmembers.
I believe this time it's left to right.
12:03:14 >>No new business, sir.
12:03:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Cohen?

12:03:16 >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just one item I wanted for clarification of the
clerk.
There were two items on today's calendar.
One related to river art, the other related to
Hogan's beach that were not on our agenda.
I wondered whatever became of those, if they need
to be put on our agenda for January 22nd.
12:03:40 >>THE CLERK:
I believe those might have been
already heard on the 18th and there was no motion
to continue.
It might have been recopied.
I'll check on it.
12:03:51 >>HARRY COHEN:
I know the rowing art wasn't.
I don't think either were.
12:03:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
One we asked code enforcement
to come back at a certain time.
12:04:01 >>HARRY COHEN:
Maybe easiest thing is make a
motion both items appear on staff report agenda on
January 22nd.
12:04:07 >> Second.
12:04:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Mr. Cohen, second by
Ms. Montelione.
Both of those two items.
All in favor please indicate by saying aye.

The ayes have it unanimously.
12:04:15 >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you very much.
12:04:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Reddick?
12:04:17 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Just one item.
Request an commendation recognizing 35th annual
Tampa organization of black affairs breakfast on
Martin Luther King breakfast on Monday,
January 19th.
12:04:28 >> Motion by Mr. Reddick, second by Mr. Cohen.
Further discussion by Councilmembers?
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by
saying aye.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Anything else, sir?
12:04:37 >>FRANK REDDICK:
That's it.
12:04:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Ms. Capin?
12:04:44 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Here we go.
Nothing.
[ Laughter ]
12:04:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Mr. Suarez?
12:04:53 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
I have one item.
I'd like to ask the Council, move for commendation
for Mr. Mike Scanlon, years of service as an

engineer in the public works department to be
presented on January 22nd, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.
12:05:08 >> Second.
12:05:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Motion by Mr. Suarez, I have a
second by Ms. Montelione, in extremely close vote
with Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by
saying aye.
Opposed nay.
The ayes have it unanimously.
Anyone in the audience care to speak to this
Council? All 152 of you.
I need a motion to receive and file with the
documents.
12:05:29 >> So moved.
12:05:31 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
There is one thing.
That flag --
12:05:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
We're going to move it now.
12:05:36 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
One can stay on one side.
12:05:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
The American flag got to be the
right side.
I'm taking that up at the meeting.
I'll appoint you to move the flag.
[ Laughter ]
12:05:45 >> Motion to receive and file.

12:05:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a motion to receive and
file by Mr. Cohen, seconded by Mr. Suarez.
All in favor of the motion, please indicate by
saying aye.
Anything else to come before this meeting today?
Stand adjourned.

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