Tampa City Council
Thursday, February 18, 2016
9:00 a.m. Session
DISCLAIMER:
This file represents an unedited version of realtime
captioning which should neither be relied upon for complete
accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of third
party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
[Sounding gavel]
09:03:54 >> Good morning.
We are going to call this meeting to order.
I am going to yield to Councilman Suarez.
09:03:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, chair.
It's my pleasure to introduce Bishop Tom Scott, called to
ministry in August 1971 under the ministry of reverend G.H.
William at the Community Church of God in Macon, Georgia.
He earned a B.A. in criminal justice and a minor in
sociology, attended theological seminary with a B.A., also
Doctor of Divinity by the School of Ministry in 1995 and
Florida Metropolitan University.
I had no idea you were a Bishop and a doctor.
That's something you don't see very often.
Bishop Scott was elected to the Hillsborough County
commission and elected two additional terms.
He served as chairman of the Board of County Commissioners
from November 97 through November of 199.
And he was reelected to Florida in November 2002 and 2003
and elected to the Tampa City Council in March 2007 and
served as chairman as well.
Bishop Scott became pastor of 22nd street of God in
April 1980 and the 34thth street church of God
where he served over 30 years.
Let's welcome back the Bishop Tom DeSoto.
Please stand for the invocation and remain standing for the
pledge of allegiance.
09:05:21 >> Bishop Tom Scott:
It's always my pleasure to be here.
Thank you, Councilman Suarez, for inviting me.
It's good to be here.
Thank you for this privilege.
Shall we pray?
We are always reminded of the fact that you are a great God.
As we come in your presence, we pause to recognize you and
to thank you for the blessings of this day.
The blessings of the day and your grace upon us but for our
great nation, our great country.
We thank you for America today for which she stands for.
Justice and equality, for all of its citizens.
We pray you continue to bless our great nation.
Bless those that represent this country, this state, and
this city.
We pray now for this City Council.
We pray for each of them as they deliberate today on those
issues that are so important to our community.
We pray that you will give them wisdom and knowledge and
insight as they make decisions that are best for our
community.
We pray not only for them but for our mayor today.
Bless him as he leads this city of ours.
Thank you now.
We ask that you bless the men and women in uniform who fight
for democracy around the world and those who protect us here
at home.
Please cover them, bless them and bless their families.
We ask all these things in your name, we pray.
en.
(Pledge of Allegiance)
Roll call.
09:07:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Here.
09:07:19 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Here.
09:07:21 >>HARRY COHEN:
Here.
09:07:22 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Here.
09:07:24 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Here.
Clerk, we have a memorandum off from Yolie Capin, she will
be absent from this meeting, and she wanted it to be
reflected in the record.
Thank you.
Approval of adoption of the minutes.
09:07:45 >> So moved.
09:07:47 >>FRANK REDDICK:
We have a motion from Mr. Cohen.
Second by Mr. Suarez.
All in favor say aye.
Opposed?
All right.
Approval of the agenda.
Addendum to the agenda.
09:07:57 >> So moved.
09:07:58 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I have a motion from Mr. Cohen.
Second by Mr. Suarez.
All in favor say aye.
Opposed?
All right.
Let me just state for the record for everybody to know that
today we are trying the new order for the agenda, and if you
have a copy, there's going to be times when we stop and go
to a particular item so that we can get it done.
And we just want to reflect that on the record that this is
just temporary until we feel comfortable that we want to
make some permanent changes.
09:08:35 >> Speak a little louder.
Can't hear you back here.
09:08:40 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Oh, okay.
What we are doing is we are making some temporary changes to
the agenda, and hopefully that you have a chance to review
it, temporary, and if the council feels comfortable that we
want to make it permanent, we would do that.
But just for today we are trying it.
And just to make sure that's what we want to have do.
So some changes that as we go forward today there will be
times that we stop to do like second readings and some other
things like at a time certain of the hopefully everything
goes smooth and we have no problems.
At this time, we have public comments.
And it's going to be 30 minutes time set.
Public comments.
All right.
Anyone wishing to speak at this time, please come forward.
You have three minutes.
State your name and address for the record.
09:09:56 >> Joe Robinson:
Is the Elmo working?
09:10:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Before you start the clock, Mr. Robinson
is here on an item that is not set for a public hearing.
And the speaker waiver form does not apply strictly by your
rules.
It's council's discretion.
Otherwise it's three minutes.
09:10:17 >> Joe Robinson.
I'm here to talk about the roadway construction improvement
agreement.
You have the documents.
I might go past the three minutes.
In the agreement it states shall engage in constructing in
such improvement, and it states that provider shall comply
with the City of Tampa ordinance minority and women
businesses.
I'm here today that that has not occurred on this
procurement by NTP.
I attended the meeting, as you can see that.
I was a minority business.
I have everything highlighted in yellow.
And then on January 26th, I had access, that they
responded to my questions.
And then all hell broke loose and said a question was raised
regarding NVB 10 and 24, because this may be left blank, and
the project when it's awarded.
Sorry for the confusion.
That is an absolute disagreement with the city's ordinance.
And he wrote back on the 29th in response and conferred
that the form must be submitted, with the RFQ.
And he goes on and says what they are supposed to do was not
done.
The vendors then turned in their proposals on the 8th.
I had met with the attorney over there, asking for a public
records request.
They said they were going to give it to the legal
department.
That was February 2nd.
February 9th I still haven't gotten the protest -- they
already had the proposals in.
I asked and they said state and local ordinance, they
complied with ordinance, which they did not.
The proof is in the submittals.
The submittals from David Nelson, and the NB 20 got that.
The problem is that the rest of the lenders failed to
submit -- vendors failed to submit NB 20.
NB 25 filled out the 22nd.
They didn't have any form.
They didn't have any form.
And correcting didn't have any forms.
The ordinance was violated.
And what they need to do to clean up, they should -- you get
rid of the points.
They should send everybody to interview.
But they did not give anyone an opportunity because of the
error that was made by NTP.
And I'm asking the City Council to ask staff to get that
report to them and that they allow all five firms to come
forward with an oral interview and that will solve the
problem.
09:13:41 >>: Any questions from council?
Let me just ask that Gregory Hart ...
09:13:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Do you need a formal motion?
I'll make that motion.
But in addition, have the legal department also come up with
a report to make sure that all parts of the requirement
through NVP have been followed and explain what it is.
09:14:19 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Got a motion from Mr. Suarez.
09:14:21 >>HARRY COHEN:
We have a motion from Mr -- oh, all right.
Sorry.
(Laughter)
All those in favor please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed.
09:14:32 >>THE CLERK:
February 25thth.
That's your workshop.
09:14:40 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Yes, sir.
09:14:41 >> Kevin O'Neill.
I'm a Executive Committee member out of Hillsborough,
marijuana decriminalization, item 6 on your agenda.
We are not advocating.
We believe we want people in Tampa to be free from being
incarcerated, from being harassed by policing agencies,
whether city, state or federal.
I think you guys have a role to play in being the leadership
in the State of Florida.
There's been a handful of cities that have gone the distance
with decriminalizing pot in their own cities.
You guys have an opportunity to be on the same leadership
list in the State of Florida.
The people of this country, I believe, are sick and tired of
having their parents, their loved ones, their grandparents,
people sick with cancer and need to have pot in order to
deal with whatever digestive issues, chemotherapy drugs
produce.
Also have children, helping them to grow to be the adults
they are.
The last thing we want is to have them put in the cage for
years to go through a totally incompetent justice system,
and to have, you know, 95% of the cases pleaded out when we
don't even know what the hell they are doing but they are
copping a plea, and sitting in a cage in a state prison or a
local jail for months and years all because this process we
have in our system that's somewhat out of control.
We have an opportunity to stop that flow of people going
into a cage, our people, your children, our children, and
hope to God addiction doesn't hit any of our families in
this room, but I'm not here to say that addiction doesn't
exist.
It does.
Part of the punishment of addiction is the drug use itself.
We are not here advocating people to be abusing drugs.
We are advocating our government to get out of our lives,
provide some sanity for us so we can at least conduct our
legal business here, whether hits going to work or running a
business, and have our entire lives taken off rail because
of pot.
So the details of this potential ordinance you are
considering, it's up to you.
It's street to grow a plant and pack it and put it in a pipe
and smoke it, or is it going to be legal to do further
processing like make it into a pill form or adding
pesticides.
In the spirit of what I think you guys are willing to listen
to is we need to keep our people in Tampa out of cages, keep
our people of Tampa protected from being abused by the
judicial system, which is probably understaffed and out of
control, one way or another, and keep people of Tampa free
which is what we want to be here in America.
So thank you for your time.
09:17:34 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you.
[ Applause ]
09:17:36 >> Good morning.
My name is Rick Fernandez, 2906 North Elmore Avenue, Tampa
33602, in the Tampa Heights area.
I'm the president of the Tampa Heights Civic Association,
newly elected, and I'm wearing my issue on my lapel, stop
TBX.
I'm here really as a reminder to the council of the meeting
that was held here last June.
At that point I believe you were constituted as the CRA, if
I remember correctly.
Numbers of people appeared before you then in opposition to
TBX.
As a group you voted unanimously to support our position and
to oppose TBX and to make recommendations to the MPO.
I want to remind you that that happened, and also advise
what's happened since.
The movement has grown.
We have appeared by the hundreds in front of the MPO on
multiple occasions.
We have signed petitions in the thousands opposing TBX.
We have had PERK announce that PBX is one of the 12 worse
road construction boondoggles in the country.
That was just published within the last 30 days.
We have had one national transportation expert appear before
the Urban Land Institute here in Tampa, just last month,
identifying TBX as the worst project he's seen in his years
traveling the country.
We are not going away.
In fact the movement is certainly growing.
We will be more politically active, I believe, during the
course of this year.
I believe you will be hearing from all of us individually
from time to time, probably more from me than you care to.
But mostly what I am here to ask is that you not lose the
passion of your commitment back in June.
We still need your help.
We need your help not just here in the form of a unanimous
vote, that you were kind enough to give us back in June, but
also for those of you who also sit on the MPO board.
We need your support there.
That's important to not necessarily carry over from one
constituted group to the next between June and August of
last year.
We would certainly like to see that happen.
And we want that support to grow to the other members of the
MPO board.
This is an important issue not just for Tampa Heights but
for all of the historic communities in the core area.
For Tampa as a whole and for the Tampa region as a whole.
You hope you don't forget we are the heart of this
community.
We are why Tampa is what it is.
It's not about Wesley chapel, as much as I love Wesley
chapel and my friends there.
When you think of Tampa you think of West Tampa, Ybor City,
Tampa Heights, Seminole Heights, the downtown core.
Protect us.
Help us.
Do your job and we'll help you.
Thank you.
09:20:43 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you.
[ Applause ]
Next speaker.
09:20:45 >> Good morning, City Council.
My name is Christopher Cano.
I am the Executive Director of the central Florida chapter
for the national organization for the reform the marijuana
laws.
I come before you today not as someone with a title but a
father of a sick child and his only option is to help him
with his terminal dementia.
Many of you personally know my familiar reply and I'm asking
you today to think about if it was your family member that
you have to risk your freedom for every single day to make
sure that they can get treated so they can get better.
What would you do for your mom, your dad, your grandparent,
your son or daughter?
That's the question you have before you today when you
choose whether or not you are going to vote on civil
citations for possession because the criminal justice system
in this county we all know is overcrowded, we know that for
80 years cannabis prohibition is rooted in Jim crow in an
attack on the African-American and Latino community.
And I want you to understand that you do have a serious
decision to make today.
That decision is going to determine the leadership of this
city, and determine as the gentleman said the future freedom
of our citizens.
Now, I want everyone in this audience to stand up right now
and show City Council that we are not alone, that you guys
have a serious decision to make today, and that the people
are listening.
But please make the right decision.
Please decriminalize cannabis in the City of Tampa.
Thank you for your time.
[ Applause ]
09:22:46 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Mr. Powell, before you start, let me remind
the audience we have set 30 minutes aside for public
comments.
And when the next person gets up we shorten the time.
So I am going to ask you to hold your applause, and allow
the speaker or your representative to speak so we can move
this time slot.
09:23:16 >> My name is Al Powell, and the residents of 15th and
16th street in Ybor City, we need from you the cutting
down of a palm tree in our alleyway and we need a portion
our alleyway paved for the purpose of being able to park in
the rear of our homes.
And this is the only alternative that's left to us to
pursue.
The reasons for this request is as follows.
We can never be assured of having a parking space in close
proximity to our residents returning home from wherever.
This has been a continuous to be the norm that has us
frustrated dealing with this constant inconvenience.
Imagine returning home to find improper driveway has been
blocked by unknown vehicles, or that parking space outside
your home is now occupied by an unknown vehicle.
Now you have to find a parking space a block over or around
the corner.
Typically, that would be an abnormal occurrence for all of
you.
And if it happens to be an ongoing event I'm sure you all
would find this to be unacceptable and would see some form
or degree of remedy for that situation.
Allow me to respond, I am 61 years of age.
I was born and raised in Ybor City.
I witnessed first hand the changes.
Parking problems.
The parking problems experience is primarily due to the city
transforming Ybor into an area of public entertainment which
brings with it a constant influx of travelers and visitors
that hasn't always existed of the during the days of my
youth there was very little if any ongoing residential
parking to speak of.
This is the preliminary reason for me as tax paying citizens
that I believe the city has a obligation to the residents,
Forbe we do matter.
I believe that I who represent historic landmark home and
any other resident who experiences residential parking
issues deserves an equal amount or more attention and
consideration and to be made whole as many travelers and
visitors that frequent our city.
So again, I'm asking for some help for parking.
And right now the rear is our only alternative.
If you could help us out.
09:26:03 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Mr. Powell, what happened with the
gentleman from the transportation department that worked
with you pertaining to this issue?
What happened?
09:26:11 >> I let them know at the meeting of the issues, and there's
nothing that they can do.
It's a city street.
And I'm saying that we understand that.
It's been an inconvenience for us as a family to not be able
to come home and park.
And we have special events there like Gasparilla, it's just
impossible.
If you move, you lose.
So the only alternative appears to be the rear.
There's a condo to our west that has paved a portion of the
alleyway.
We would like to continue that for our property, the
approximate area of the alley and the property to be paved
as well as the palm tree that's in the way so we can
eventually try to do something in the rear to relieve our
frustration about the parking issue.
And that seems to be our only alternative.
09:27:26 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I will talk with the transportation
department about the problem and see what remedies we can
come up with.
But it's been an ongoing problem for a long, long time.
And I can understand your frustration because you got
on-street parking in front of your residence, and I
understand if you go off and come back, there's another car
parked in front of your home?
09:27:50 >> There's residential signs there.
It's virtually ignored for whatever reason.
And they have from 4 p.m. to 6th p.m., but anybody can
park there anytime.
And even after 6 p.m. people still park, even though they
may get a ticket.
But that does us no good.
So it's an ongoing issue.
09:28:16 >>: All right.
We'll see if we can -- all right, next speaker.
09:28:22 >> I'm Ed, Ed Tillou, Sulfur Spring.
We had a shooting recently and there aren't even pictures
being circulated as to what the individual looked like.
Okay, 9, 6 and 1.
Wow, $12 million for petroleum based fuels again.
I think last year it was eleven.
I guess people are using more and more -- the price went
down, and yet the bill has gone up.
Okay.
A lot of that is vehicles, but, you know, Chevy Volt, you
would have a lot fewer.
So, anyway, item 6.
I don't think the mayor should be saying pot is fine.
But anyway, that was really a pun.
About nitwit journalism.
You know, it caters to people who just read the headlines.
Itself was actually pot should be dealt with, with a fine.
But in any case, that's really a problem with TBF.
And I think TBT gets it from "Tampa Bay Times"
Item one.
Architectural Review Commission.
There's a real problem here with respecting to global
warming that's leading to climatic change, the streams and
such, which will maybe in 50 years flip the Gulf stream,
because once that methane starts coming up through the
Permaforce you have a serious problem.
But you have to really unscrew your heads, two stories on
the trump property, a huge monstrosity behind the library
and you are out of touch with the environment.
You are out of balance. This carbon dioxide is a product of
being out of balance with the environment.
Now, I feel bad for the man with the parking space.
Everybody in Ybor City should get it free from City Council.
But I think they lost their neighborhood to all these
special events.
Which brings into this next thing.
Here is a group of people that loves their neighborhood.
This was Lenni Lenape, which I got interested in. I'll pass
it around. Doing some research on the family. There was
this fellow Jan Tiebout. And he was grilled as a
schoolteacher to deal with this and to help, and he drank
beer with them.
I don't see any problem with after school drinking beer with
the people.
But the Dutch Reform Church had a bad feeling about that and
they brought him back to New York, and he became a farmer in
Brooklyn.
In any casae, here is another group that I'm hoping will be
interested in global warming. The Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape.
This is Pocahontas.
But Lenape, they sold the KANACHI branch Manhattan for $24
but it was a hunting ground.
Then thought the Dutch wanted hunting rights on Manhattan.
So, anyway, times change.
(Bell sounds)
But got to slow it down.
They are not changing in the right direction; they are
changing too fast.
09:31:42 >>THE CLERK:
[Off microphone.]
09:31:57 >> Teresa Miller. I'm here representing the Hillsborough
County Anti-Drug Alliance today, and the many citizens of
Hillsborough County and throughout our state who are having
us uninformed, uneducated and unaware of the implication of
decriminalizing and legalizing marijuana.
The City of Tampa is considering decriminalization of
marijuana possession for adults.
Other cities including Dade County, Palm Beach, West Palm
Beach, Miami, Key West, Broward, have passed similar
ordinances that allow enforcement officers discretion to
issue a civil citation for possession of up to 20 grams of
marijuana.
That equates to 36 joints which in my opinion someone may be
trafficking instead of personal use.
Most penalties are $100 for the first offense.
Then it escalates up to $500 for the third offense.
Some of our two offenses before reverting back to the
criminal charges. Leon county has an excellent program with
prearrest divergent program for first time marijuana
possession violations, that includes assessment, substance
abuse treatment.
This is the type of approach HCADA is more in line with.
Our mission for HCADA is to promote healthy communities in
Hillsborough County, free of substance abuse, addiction and
substance abuse and addiction through education,
collaboration, and advocacy.
We have concerns about marijuana decriminalization.
Our chief concern is that children and young adults will get
the wrong message.
Many adolescents and college students feel that marijuana is
harmless and a medicine. This is a myth.
Research shows that marijuana -- that the brain continues to
grow until the age 25th.
Marijuana is extremely harmful in developing brains.
In Hillsborough County alone, one of five high school
students in Hillsborough County smokes pot -- has smoked pot
in the past 30 days.
Marijuana use has increased since in 2018 to 14 where all
other drugs have decreased.
Nearly four times as many Hillsborough County high school
students smoke pot than they do cigarettes.
This should be alarming.
Marijuana is a dangerous drug for adolescents.
Research shows that teens who use -- causes brain changes,
poor memory, and lower IQ.
This would have implications for lower grades and higher
dropout rates as Colorado was seeing.
In Monitoring the Future, 6% of college students smoke
daily.
This is the highest rate since 1980.
Our suggestion would be 20 grams of marijuana is far too
large.
We suggest 10 grams.
Allow them the options for first offense only.
Allow --
(Audience outbursts.)
09:34:48 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I'm going to ask law enforcement to remove
you from this chambers.
You make additional outbursts, I am going to ask law
enforcement to remove you from this chamber and you will not
be allowed to come back in here.
So if you want to try me, do an outburst again.
You are going to respect the speaker regardless of your
position.
Thank you.
09:35:16 >> Thank you.
Allow officers to use discretion to give a citation or
arrest based on your best judgment.
Citations should require drug education classes, substance
abuse assessment and treatment.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask
me now.
I have a meeting at ten so I am not going to be able to stay
but all my information is not anecdotal.
It's based on research, facts and data.
09:35:45 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any questions by council?
All right.
Thank you.
09:35:46 >> Thank you very much.
I will send you a copy of this research.
09:35:49 >>: All right.
Next speaker.
09:35:50 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Before we go to our next speaker, are we
going to go to our 9:30 hearing?
09:36:01 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Yes, we discussed that with our attorney
and clear what we have got.
09:36:06 >> Good morning.
My name is James Hatcher, Plant City, also former resident
of Temple Terrace for the first 13, 14 years of my life.
I am pleased to discuss the issue of cannabis in my
hometown.
In my previous testimony, I got statistics from the FBI in
the United States.
We did look at the number of arrests.
Information from the department of corrections of Florida
showed that drugs were also an issue in the state.
Using the Hillsborough crime map, 177 drug arrests happened
this past year.
744 drug arrests happened the previous three years.
Looking at this information from the FBI, that breaks down
by region, that over half of the arrests made for drug
violations are due to can cannabis possession only.
Now, a health care, minor in psychology, drug --
Based on these numbers, 100 for one day, and for a month
over a quarter million growing or possessing a piece of
plant.
That does not make sense.
As for other research out there that is towards cannabis, I
encourage members that look at how cannabis naturally
affects our bodies in healthy ways.
I am bipolar.
I take medication.
But I also use cannabis.
I also have a 3.9 G.P.A., graduated with honors from USF.
Took me nine years to get the degree.
I'm happy.
I'm thrilled.
And I thank you for considering this.
09:39:14 >>: We have five minutes left in public comments.
What is the pleasure of council?
09:39:18 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Since we recently decided to change the
rules, I think we need to test it out and see how it works
and come back for public comments.
09:39:32 >>HARRY COHEN:
The order of business that we are
experimenting with would say that we are going to do the
additional public comment at the end of the meeting.
09:39:51 >>FRANK REDDICK:
So what we are going to do, we have five
minutes left.
And I hate --
09:40:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I'm sorry.
May I be recognized?
09:40:08 >>FRANK REDDICK:
You are will be recognized.
09:40:10 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
In keeping with what council's intention
is and state law is to limit the discussions solely to items
that are going to be voted on, items that are legislative
that are going to be voted on and not set for public
hearing.
Items that council will be coming back to council, people
will have a future opportunity to speak.
Or can wait till the end of the meeting.
But things that are going to be voted on, for instance, on
the consent docket, limit those discussions so you can get
past that and be able to take T votes.
09:40:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
As you well know, I didn't attend those
meetings but let me say this.
Some time back, no one was heard till the end of the
meeting.
The cameras were shut off.
That was all changed.
Most people have a chance to see us one on one.
And I'm not here to convey council rules.
But you have people that may like or may not like the way I
vote but that's their prerogative.
However, I strongly feel that they should be heard since
they are here and they made an effort to come here, and they
didn't know about the changing of the rule.
Certainly it was not Headline News and they are not aware of
these facts.
So my feeling is that we hear them, and for them to come
back, for seven of us tore go to lunch and come back, they
may not have been transportation.
They have got to go home and come back.
They may not have the money to eat a meal.
I don't know. Buff what I am saying is I don't think it
would be in the best public interest to let them wait.
To cut the line off, continue as we were before just for
today's meeting.
That's just my suggestion.
09:41:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So I'll make the motion based on what he
just said which is to add an additional 30 minutes, and I
think the last person that's standing is Ms. Long at the end
of the line.
I think I counted 10 or 11 people in line.
09:42:09 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion by Mr. Suarez.
Seconded by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor? Opposed?
All right.
Ms. Long, you will be the last speaker in line.
And we will spend about 30 minutes and you have three
minutes.
Keep in mind we are extending by 30 minutes.
So she will be the last person in line.
Yes, sir.
09:42:34 >> My name is pastor Frank R. Williams, paradise missionary
Baptist church, 1112 East Scott Street.
I always like to give God all the praises and Thank God for
another day of living.
I'm a disciple of Jesus Christ. Thank God.
We have got a lot of issues, and you say we all have three
minutes.
I have a lot more to talk in three minutes.
In fact it would take hours, two or three hours.
But you all are talking about sexual predators in your
neighborhood.
If we are going to talk about sexual predators in the
neighborhood, I think there would be nobody left in the
neighborhood but me, because we got sexual predators all
over the United States.
And if you want to look, married.
Are you going to check out all the Catholic church?
No.
But you are going to harass me.
And here I am trying to do the right thing in my church.
You blocked up my streets.
Blocked up my right-of-way.
And tell me run a public right-of-way to some Bank of
erica, and having my people from coming to church and
worship God almighty.
But yet you make major things.
We got some problems here.
And I think this young man thank this man for coming up and
speaking on my behalf and the rest of the black folks.
We got a dividing line.
Black on one side and white on the other side.
Whites get all the respect.
Blacks don't get no respect in Tampa, half of Florida, maybe
all over the United States of America.
Neither do Mexicans.
I have homeless people coming to my church.
I don't run them out of church.
I stand up for their rights.
They have rights just like you all have rights.
I have rights just like you all have rights.
My Constitutional right has been, my human rights have been
objected, everything that I do, saying our Constitutional
right, and that's not right.
I Thank God for another day.
And I often tell you all I am going to pray for you all.
But you all have got to pray for yourself in the name of
Jesus Christ.
God bless all of you.
09:45:28 >> I'm Kelly Grumsfeld, 2701 north 9th street here on
behalf of the VM Ybor association but mostly on behalf of
myself as a parent, a homeowner and a very concerned city
residents.
As of this morning there are 77 predatory people living
within a quarter mile of my house, a net increase of two
since the last City Council meeting pertaining to the
subject.
As of the beginning of January, there have been 14 predatory
people listing their addresses as VM Ybor with many of them
in the rooming houses along Nebraska Avenue.
Half of those 14 are brand new to VM Ybor.
They seem to come back to VM Ybor.
We also had a murder in VM Ybor since the last meeting and
the perpetrator was one of those rooming house occupants
that is a sex offender.
These are not the most upstanding residents.
I understand they have to live somewhere.
But why do they have to live within a mile of our
neighborhood?
I am also noticing there's an influx of individuals coming
from other counties as you can see from these flyers.
We have some from Hernando county.
This guy is from Broward County.
This guy is from Manatee County.
This guy is from Miami-Dade county.
These are all new ones since the beginning of the year.
And they are also combing to our neighborhood after being
adjudicated.
This is 2015, and June 2015.
They are being directed to our neighborhood by the Florida
department of corrections, and I hope this is something that
Mr. Shelby will be looking into.
I'm asking that the city enforce the existing Hillsborough
County anti-clustering ordinance that is already on the
book.
The Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously
yesterday to make this ordinance stronger by increasing the
safety zones around schools, daycares and parks by
increasing to 2500 feet.
That would actually include -- 2500 feet for perpetrators or
victims under 16.
That the would actually include the majority of the sexual
predators and offenders that live in VM Ybor.
Because most of their victims are under 12 or under 16.
My concern is that the city creates its own ordinance that
will only go into effect going forward thereby making VM
Ybor a penal colony, essentially.
The county ordinance that went into effect in 2008 could
hopefully be applied to our existing situation, and it
should have been applied -- an ordinance that should have
been enforced when as in the county.
And for the safety of my children and myself I am asking you
to enforce the existing ordinance on the book and provide
some relief to our neighborhood.
Thank you.
(Bell sounds)
09:48:42 >> Good morning.
My name is Kim Headland. I reside at 1001 East 24th
Avenue and here to speak on item number 5 and the clustering
of sex offenders.
Adjacent counties have already created requirements for sex
offenders, eliminate the options for living.
There's a strong desire on the part of the Florida
department of corrections and local law enforcement to have
these individuals in housing instead of on the streets
immediately upon their release.
I understand that.
But there's also been a lack of enforcement of the
anti-clustering ordinance since 2008 primarily along the
Nebraska Avenue corridor, central and East Tampa
neighborhood, Sulphur Springs and the university area.
Most recently the fire marshal negotiated with a local
rooming house owner for of two rooming houses against the
special organization magistrate's ruling, and left us with
two 3,000 foot rooming houses, 30 foot in each of them.
That's 100 feet per person.
I understand everyone needs a place to live and understand
the FDLE and find it much easier and safer to stop by one or
two properties to check 50 or 60 individuals than to go to
many properties.
I also understand that providing housing to sex offenders
can be lower cost but also very profitable to individuals
that own multifamily housing and rooming houses.
What I can't understand is how it's ever possible to house
30 individuals in 3000 square feet while turning a blind eye
to local code, and also don't understand why it's accessible
that our urban core neighborhoods like East Tampa, Sulphur
Springs, University area, have become a dumping ground for
the Florida Department of Corrections when there is a county
ordinance that could be enforced.
So enough is enough.
We have been discussing this for more than five years.
I'm here to ask you to start to take action.
I understand you're hearing a report a little later today.
Please work with finding a way to enforce that county
ordinance, and the building code already in existence, the
same way they would be enforced in any other area of our
city.
Thank you.
09:50:58 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Next speaker.
09:50:58 >> Judy Greer, 1314 east 15th Avenue.
I also reside in VM Ybor.
And of course I ditto what Kelly has said and research.
Our neighborhood is perfect lit conducive to housing all of
these people, but the homeless people, whatever you want to
call them, the sexual predators are the most concern to us.
We have an alternative cafe.
We have so many places.
We have the interstate where they can sleep under, and TPD
can't keep up with all of them, even if they can't stay in
the rooming houses.
So instead of coming up with your own laws, something that
can only be enforced from hear going forward, we need to
look back at the 2008 Hillsborough County ordinance that
would take in all the ones that are already living there.
There's no deterrent.
Even if they are not here, they want to come here because
everything is here for them.
And then as far as Pinellas County has a substation, a
sheriff's substation.
The station there, the area where the sexual predators are
most encircled.
I think you can do whatever you do to get TPD involved but
there's no way that the cops can check on the sexual
predators unless they are in rooming houses.
They do a daily head count.
They check where they are going and all that kind of stuff.
That's the way it's going to be if you are going to hurt a
child or hurt anybody else illegally, then you have to pay
the price.
Thank you.
09:52:55 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Next speaker.
09:52:57 >> Michael Minardi, an attorney in the State of Florida and
speaking about item 6.
Specifically 7 to 1.
That is the arrest ratio from Tampa of African-Americans
versus whites for cannabis.
Even though use by individuals is the same.
That is an incredible disparity. This ordinance can help
stop that.
Civil citations.
You understand the effects of criminal laws on cannabis.
You get a license suspension punishable by up to one year in
jail, a $1,000 fine.
You have to have multiple DUIs to have a 6 month license
suspension in the State of Florida with no hardship but with
one possession of cannabis charge walking down the street
with 20 grams you can lose your lie seasons for six months,
can't get a hardship, causes problems with work.
I have had children, college students, lose scholarships,
lose ROTC programs, for simple couple of grams of cannabis.
And you are ruining these children and these peoples lives
forever by causing this decriminalization.
The city of Miami has estimated about $40,000 in Miami
estimated savings of about $40,000 just by going to a
decriminalization program.
You guys are discussing the sexual predators being
everywhere.
Well, in Florida there's over 10,000 sexual assaults that
are untested as a result of funding, a lack of funding.
We can take this decriminalization money, save on law
enforcement.
Maybe we'll have more officers available to go out and check
on these sexual predators and we can save peoples lives,
prevent them from losing scholarships, prevent them from
injuring military.
That's the implication of what cannabis criminalization does
right now.
As I am sure you know there are four states in this country
and other ballot measures going forward with legalization.
We are not talking about decriminalization.
We are talking about full legalization, regulating cannabis
like alcohol.
And it's working.
It's shown to be a sensible policy.
Colorado made $986 million in revenue from cannabis, has
seen minimal detriments from that.
And the woman earlier who was talking about use, she's very
accurate.
Studies have shown in medical states or legal states, teen
use has not increased and in some states has decreased.
That is one thing the drug war has not done in over 40
years.
In 40 years of our drug war, it has not reduced the use of
any drugs.
This is sensible policy for the City of Tampa, and is
something that I hope you all support.
We have to turn our criminalization of individuals but a lot
of our individuals are young, 18-25 who are getting
arrested.
Many of my clients are 50-plus.
Elderly, 45 and up are the biggest percentage of the
population in our country that are moving and I hope you
approve this message.
09:56:07 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Next speaker.
09:56:10 >> My name is Dana Moxley, and I am a former chairman of the
libertarian party of Florida and resident in the Tampa Bay
area. I'm also third generation Floridian, and I have
children now who are fourth generation Floridians.
I'm very proud of our state.
Also, I have been an advocate for cannibas. I came down
with lyme disease back in 2010 right after I had my daughter
and was slowing down quickly.
And I was at the point where I thought -- I was making plans
for my husband to take care of her forever.
When I realized, when I break the law and use this cannabis
oil, even under the risk, I took it and I got better from
it.
And it healed me.
It made me also realize that in doing so, it gave me the
perception that I was a bad person, that I was a criminal.
But if I went out and talked to people that was the
impression I got.
And I think the message in general that we are sending about
medications and about cannabis essentially is totally off
base, destroying the moral fabric of our society.
I don't remember anyone having a vote on whether to give
oxycodone to children. Yet we are doing that.
No side effects.
And it's not just the legal aspect.
I know we are talking about this in a little bit.
But at least make it look like a civil infraction and not a
criminal, because I don't want my child to think that people
of that use this medicine are criminals when people that can
use medicine prescribed by doctors, even though it's the
standard, are not crimes.
And what I like to teach my children is we don't hurt other
people that haven't hurt you.
We don't cause harm to others.
And sometimes there's rules put in place that force us to
cause harm to other people.
And when those rules are there, instead of making people
break the rules, and making criminals out of them, a civil
infraction is a beginning.
Something like oxycodone.
Medications have horrible side effects proven, when there
have been one proven.
I think this confirms the moral fabric and where we are
going as a society in general, we need to take
criminalization off of this drug.
(Bell sounds).
09:59:17 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Next speaker.
09:59:18 >> Derek Chamblee, Google D-E-R-E-K, C-H-A-M-B-L-E-E, St.
Paul.
Derek Chamblee, Google "Tampa Bay Times," nix Dixon.
I want to speak to an issue that I spoke to at the county
commissioners yesterday about this confederate flag issue
again and this thing that some are calling racist, and if we
can erase racism, the vestiges of racism in America, by
taking down the particular sculptures, the particular
images, for instance, the confederate heroes, I call them.
And it goes even to the point of going into the cemeteries
and saying, hey, everyone that fought for the confederacy or
everyone that has an image related to the war, we have got
to remove their tombstones, and you know what?
They might even be part of the same family.
We had a lot of families that sacrificed in the civil war,
members that fought on both sides, and I told the county
commissioners yesterday that we need to push for a sculpture
of our first African-American president, Barack Obama, on
stone mountain outside of Atlanta, and we are going to do
this in an equal and a friendly way.
We are not going to take down and erase the sculptures of
the confederate heroes, and we are not going to do this in
Tampa, we are not going to do it in Hillsborough County and
we are not going to do it in the United States of America,
and I have reminded them again that I don't think that with
any time in which General Grant, General Lee at Appomattox
said the confederates could not keep their flag.
In the nation of the world, this is the battleground zero
epicenter of the 2016 presidential campaign, right here in
Tampa, right here in Hillsborough County, and everybody over
the State of Florida.
What are they going to do for the State of Florida?
What are we going to do?
Build a wall around the state?
One person said Florida is a penal colony.
Yes.
Welcome to Florida.
Welcome to Florida.
We are going to fill up the jails.
The homeless workers are continuing to come.
And we are going to register them here in Tampa,
Hillsborough County, and we are going to break the grip of
this Republican party on the State of Florida.
Furthermore --
(Bell sounds)
Legalize it.
10:02:33 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.
Next speaker.
10:02:39 >> I'm Mariah Barnhart.
It's great to address you guys.
As you know, we have gone to the Florida State legislature
in regards to cannabis for several years and have gotten
nowhere so we are really hoping on a local level we can get
some laws passed.
What we all know, anyone with knowledge of the politics
about cannabis legislation, we are a minority.
It is by far the most dangerous and expensive war the United
States has ever waged.
And in regards to our personal circumstances -- you will
hear from another cannaMom -- we have an organization that
advocates for the cannabis medicine.
What you have here in the State of Florida and in the City
of Tampa is a lot of parents, chronically ill children who
are no longer waiting on the legislature.
As everyone knows cannabis has been here forever.
It's not going anywhere. And patients and parents of
critically ill children need away to help their loved ones
or themselves.
We are not criminals for saving our children's lives.
We truly appreciate not only measure but adding the extract
from the plant.
So children, we really like decriminalize on a local level,
as well as the state legalization.
Thank you.
10:03:55 >>: Next speaker.
10:03:55 >> Rene Petro.
And I'm here on behalf of cannamoms and the war on drugs is
a war on humanity.
I have a child who has really, really bad seizure disorders.
He's been on 19 different pharmaceutical FDA-approved
medications.
And every day he asks me, mom, I want to get better.
And I know that cannabis will help him.
But I have to also, as with others, we have to worry about
people coming to knock down the doors and take us away
because we are trying to save our children's lives.
And to me, being in the United States of America, it's about
equal opportunity.
It's about justice and freedom.
And it's about doing what's right by the people.
And Brandon deserves that right.
Everyone deserves that right.
So again, I think we should just -- thank you.
10:05:14 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Next speaker.
10:05:16 >> Good morning.
My name is Joel Lee Sherman, Tampa, Florida.
I am here to speak on item number 5, the sexual predator
issue.
Thank you for allowing me to be able to speak.
Dealing with issues such as these it's hard not to become
emotional but I want to point out a few facts.
The issue about predatory people and potential harm to
others, in a particular area, it should be noted that an
ordinance and any laws that we pass on the books in the
State of Florida did not save the lives of the last three
Tampa police officers that were killed in the line of duty.
Those Tampa police officers were killed less than five miles
from the VM Ybor neighborhood association boundaries.
Killed two of their employees, was not prevented by city
ordinance.
And Hoffman who killed a driver on Howard Frankland bridge
Monday, her first two DUIs were here in Hillsborough
County with an address of Swann Avenue.
I want us to be clear that the documents that I have seen as
written certainly raise numerous Constitutional issues as
far as various things to personal rights that are afforded
individuals.
And additionally, I want to make sure that everyone is clear
that the sexual offenders, sexual predators living in this
area and throughout the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County,
many of them are working.
They are paying taxes.
They are contributing to your salaries.
They are contributing other things which the speakers are
getting the benefit of as we all are.
I want to state for the record that this matter should be
terminated and disregarded and ended immediately, not
wasting taxpayers dollars on this.
If this goes forward, if this is enforced, I will certainly
be taking all legal action in state or federal court.
I thank you for your time.
And I'm sorry I cannot stay further for additional comments.
Thank you very much.
10:08:22 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you.
Next speaker.
10:08:22 >> 921 East Broad Street, Susan Long, if you haven't heard
that before.
There are three items I want to address.
The first one is decriminalization of marijuana.
I moved here from Michigan in 1982, long before
commissioners, Ann Arbor had changed the law for possessing
small amounts of marijuana with a parking ticket.
You didn't see people lying in the streets smoking pot.
It wasn't an issue.
They just didn't go to jail for it.
I think they did that prior to '78, before I ever moved
here.
We are slow.
We are behind the times.
Not a big surprise.
I think we ought to decriminalize.
I know tons of people that utilize it for things other than
just recreation. There are benefits to all of them.
The third thing I want to talk about is the clustering of
sexual predators.
You already do that.
Stick them all along Nebraska Avenue, clustered in Seminole
Heights, Tampa Heights, Ybor.
That's where you put them.
Why don't you either make a small area or get them out of my
backyard.
They live in our parks.
They bathe in the stream, in the park.
You can go down there, be surprised to see some man stark
naked bathing in the stream and you find out he's a sexual
predator, or offender, one or the other.
I would like to see this resolved.
I don't have a quick solution.
You are talking about making solicitation on the sidewalks
legal.
In my neighborhood the solicitation on the sidewalks on
Nebraska Avenue is prostitutes.
I don't think that's what you meant.
I think you are talking about solicitation to sell
newspapers and other goods.
But I have read it and I thought, oh, my goodness, it's now
legal to be prostituting because you are other sidewalk?
I know that wasn't what you intend, okay.
But those are the three things that I wanted to address.
Thank you very much.
10:10:42 >>: All right, thank you.
We move to item 52. Items to be set for public hearing.
Item number 52.
I have a motion by Mr. Cohen, second by Mr. Suarez.
All in favor? Opposed?
10:11:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Move 53.
10:11:04 >>HARRY COHEN:
Second.
10:11:06 >>: All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
Okay.
10:11:08 >> Move item 54.
10:11:12 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion by Mr. Cohen.
Seconded by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor?
Opposed?
10:11:17 >> Move 55.
10:11:19 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion by Mr. Suarez.
Seconded by Mr. Maniscalco to move item 55.
All in favor say aye.
Opposed.
10:11:25 >> I move to open all public hearings 56 through 58.
10:11:29 >> Second.
10:11:30 >>: I have a motion by Mr. Suarez.
Seconded by Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor say aye.
Opposed?
All right.
Item number 56.
Anyone wish to speak on item 56, 57, 58, please stand to be
sworn in.
Anyone going to speak on item 56, 57 or 58, please stand to
be sworn in.
(Oath administered by Clerk).
10:11:59 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Item 56.
Item number 56.
10:12:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I think many of the people were not in the
room when we asked them to move forward.
So they have not been sworn in.
10:12:15 >> We are still waiting for some of the applicants to come
in right now.
10:12:46 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
Item 56?
10:12:48 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Yes.
Is that everybody?
10:12:50 >> Shaun, is that everybody?
10:12:56 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Please stand if you are going to speak on
56, 57, 58, please stand to be sworn in.
(Oath administered by Clerk).
10:13:09 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
Land development.
Site plan has been certified.
Staff has no objection.
10:13:15 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Okay.
Petitioner.
Item number 56.
10:13:17 >> 5312 North Armenia Avenue.
10:13:29 >> Jonathan Baker with the Tiller Law Group.
I think we went over everything last time.
I'm just here if you have any questions.
To let you know that we did update with staff council's
recommendations.
10:13:49 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any questions from council?
Anyone in the public wish to speak on item number 56?
10:13:53 >> Move to close.
10:13:53 >> Second.
10:13:55 >>: Motion to close by Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor say aye.
Opposed?
Mrs. Montelione.
10:14:01 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I move an ordinance being presented for
second reading and adoption, an ordinance repealing
ordinance 2013 149 approving a special using permit S-2 for
alcoholic beverage sales, restaurant, consumption on
premises only, and making lawful the sale of beverages
regardless of alcoholic content, beer wine and liquor on
that certain lot, plot or it tract of land located at 6312
North Armenia Avenue, Tampa, Florida as more particularly
described in section 3, that all ordinances or parts of
ordinances in conflict be repealed, providing an effective
date.
10:14:32 >> Second.
10:14:33 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione.
Seconded by Mr. Suarez.
Please record your vote.
10:14:44 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Capin being absent.
10:14:50 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Item number 57.
10:14:58 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
Land development.
The site plan has been revised and certified.
10:15:10 >>SHAUN AMARNANI:
In the first reading I had two questions
that I would like to answer. The first question is can the
City Council condition for maximum for alcohol permits, and
the answer is no, it would be preempted under Florida
Statute 562.45C, and the second question is, can the City
Council condition be interior of the building designed in a
way that impacts how the establishment -- alcohol operations
operate?
And that again is no.
That would also be preempted by 562.45C.
I'm here for any questions.
10:15:52 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Questions by council?
Anyone in the public wish to speak on item number 57?
Anyone in the public?
10:15:58 >> Clay Bricklemyer for the applicant.
That being said, I did bring a floor plan just for you guys'
understanding.
Let's see if it works here.
I brought copies in case.
So you can see -- I brought pictures, too.
That would be this.
The entrance as you go in.
To the west, you see this fancy writing.
Proposed alcohol.
That would be to the left.
The last two registers would be points of sale.
We have one in Indianapolis doing the same thing.
That is the way it looks.
The only difference, you can see there's signage and
cut-offs, and that's how that is being dealt with.
I do have Wanda -- she's the food and beverage special --
special concepts manager.
This training is sort of how they deal with it.
10:17:50 >> Hi.
First of all, when --
10:17:57 >> I'm sorry, could you state your name?
10:17:59 >> Wanda Cole.
And going to the theaters that are alcohol sales, our rules
and regulations with every staff member of the theater, and
then we go through a training program that teaches how
they -- if someone gets intoxicated, or starts, we teach
them how to make sure that people aren't getting
intoxicated.
We talk to them about underage, because we do have a lot of
underage customers in our theaters.
And we go through a six to eight-hour training period before
we ever serve any alcohol.
And they have to go through the training.
10:19:20 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any questions from council?
10:19:24 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Mr. Bricklemyer, seeing this photograph
that you showed us kind of reinforces my position how I am
not comfortable with having the alcohol at the same counter
as all of the popcorn and soft drinks, candy and whatever.
It seems very easy for people to not follow the rules or the
training.
You know, a lot of people everybody trained in a lot of
things.
And training itself doesn't necessarily mean that 100% at a
time they are going to ask in a manner consistent with the
training that they have received.
Oversight is important.
And creating boundaries is also important because its
physical boundaries, I think, are more of a deterrent even
than training, or supervisory methods are performed
reinforcing the training.
So, you know, having someone -- and as far as I understand,
an underage person could be behind the counter serving the
alcohol.
I mean, do they have to be 21 to serve?
It's your policy but it's not the law?
So I have those concerns.
In other theaters, there is a separation, a physical
separation between where the alcohol is sold and watch your
process is different.
So I still have my concerns.
10:21:21 >> Councilman Montelione, I understand your concerns.
Again, this is more of the operation standpoint that we are
preempted by the Florida statutes.
What we were saying before is the interior of the building,
what we are looking at from an operational standpoint, that
the division of alcohol of the state perspective that they
are the ones doing the operation so we can't go into that
because we are preempted.
10:21:52 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Preempted from which parts of the
discussion?
You spoke about two different things.
10:22:00 >>SHAUN AMARNANI:
So talking about the counter and talking
about the -- kind of the location of setting up the alcohol
and where it goes through, in fact the interior of the
building.
If you wanted to do -- basically, if there were conditions
put on for mitigating impact to the neighborhood, you want
to orient the building a little bit one way to mitigate
those kind of aspects that could affect other neighbors.
That's one area that the City Council can get into.
But when you start going into the operation, we are
preempted by Florida statutes.
10:22:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I understand the concerns of my esteemed colleague.
However, when you look at that philosophy of mind anyway,
you look at pro sports.
Not only do they have it where you go by a pizza or hotdog,
you can buy water, beer, Coca-Cola, at the same line.
They can hawk it in the stadium.
Kids have to pass the beer to the adult.
So I understand that.
Although I am not completely in favor of all those things, I
also understand the position that you are in.
So I would be supportive of this.
10:23:16 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any other questions or questions by
council?
Anyone in the audience wish to speak on item 57?
Anyone in the audience to speak on item 57?
10:23:25 >> Move to close.
10:23:26 >> Second.
10:23:26 >>: Motion by Mrs. Montelione.
Seconded by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor?
Opposed?
Mr. Maniscalco, would you read item 57?
10:23:34 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
I have an ordinance being presented for
second reading and adoption, an ordinance approving a
special use permit S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales, large
venue, consumption on premises only, and making lawful the
sale of beer and wine at or from that certain lot, plot or
tract of land located at 18002 Highwoods Preserve, Tampa,
Florida as more particularly described in section 2nd
that all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict are
repealed, providing an effective date.
10:24:00 >> Second.
10:24:02 >>: I have a motion by Mr. Maniscalco.
Seconded by Mr. Cohen.
Please record your votes.
10:24:07 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Capin being absent.
10:24:15 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Item number 58.
10:24:21 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
Land development.
The site plans have been certified.
I have no further comments.
10:24:26 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Petitioner?
Item number 58.
10:24:28 >> Jonathan Baker, Tiller Law Group, same thing.
We went over everything, if there are any questions we would
be happy to answer them.
The site plan was corrected.
10:24:50 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any questions by council?
Anyone in the public wish to speak on item number 58?
I have a motion to close by Mrs. Montelione, seconded by Mr.
Cohen.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
Mr. Cohen.
10:25:04 >>HARRY COHEN:
I move an ordinance being presented for
second reading and adoption, an ordinance approving a
special use 2, S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales, large venue
on premises only making lawful the sale of beverages
regardless of alcoholic content beer wine and liquor on that
certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 4116 Boy Scout
Boulevard, suite 1 and 2, Tampa, Florida as more
particularly described from section 2, that all ordinances
or parts of ordinances in conflicts are repealed, providing
an effective date.
10:25:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Second.
10:25:38 >>: Motion by Mr. Cohen.
Seconded by Mr. Maniscalco.
Please record your vote.
10:25:42 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Reddick voting no and
Capin --
10:25:58 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I'm sorry, I pushed the wrong button.
10:26:00 >> Move to revote.
10:26:03 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion by Mr. Miranda.
Seconded by Mr. Suarez.
I'm sorry.
10:26:07 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Capin being absent.
10:26:16 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Item number 59.
We go to item number 59.
Mr. Territo.
I got a motion by Mr. Cohen, seconded by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor?
Opposed?
Thank you.
10:26:37 >>SAL TERRITO:
We are here to do something you do on a
regular basis with a slight difference.
We have to have a public hearing on this particular bond
issue.
The daycare organization is asking the city to issue $225
million worth of bonds for three hospitals.
One in Tampa, one in Hillsborough County, and one in
Pinellas County.
They will hold hearings -- I'm sorry.
Please close the door.
They will hold hearings in Hillsborough and Pinellas County.
As well as here. Here they are asking you to issue the
bonds.
This is a bond issue for $225 million to help three
hospitals.
Basically it's for work done there.
The city will receive a fee as it usually does in this
particular case for the $115,000.
It's a very large bond issue.
The city will have no responsibility on paying these bonds
back.
It's simply to make that provision.
You have to ask the public if they have any questions or if
there are any questions you may have.
10:27:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I read this about 3:30 in the morning.
This is for one hospital, 220 some beds in south
Hillsborough, close to Ruskin.
And I want to make sure that the city, as you well know, I
was not permitted to vote in a rezoning recently passed 4-2
by this council.
I want to make sure that none of this money is being used
for any of the work that was discussed at that meeting.
10:28:04 >>SAL TERRITO:
This has nothing to do with zoning matters
or --
10:28:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I just want the record to have show.
Thank you very much.
10:28:15 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any other questions from council ever?
Anyone in the public wish to speak on item number 59?
10:28:19 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Move to close.
10:28:24 >>HARRY COHEN:
Second.
10:28:25 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All in favor say aye.
Opposed?
10:28:27 >> Move the resolution.
10:28:28 >> Second.
10:28:29 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I have a motion from Mr. Cohen.
Seconded by Mr. Suarez.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
All right.
We go to committee reports.
And after committee reports we will be doing presentations.
10:28:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I move 14 through 17.
10:28:53 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I got a motion by Mr. Miranda.
Seconded by Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passed.
Parks and recreation.
Mr. Maniscalco.
10:29:03 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
I move items 18 through 26.
10:29:12 >> Motion seconded by Mr. Cohen.
Is that correct?
All in favor?
Opposed?
Public works.
10:29:21 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I move 27 through 30.
10:29:24 >> Motion by Mr. Suarez.
Seconded by Mr. Miranda.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
Finance Committee, Mr. Cohen.
10:29:35 >> Move 31 through 36.
10:29:37 >> Motion by Mr. Cohen.
Seconded by Mr. Suarez.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed.
Building zoning preservation.
Mrs. Montelione.
10:29:45 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Move 37 through 48.
10:29:54 >> Seconded by Mr. Suarez.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
Transportation committee, Mr. Miranda.
10:30:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move items 49 through 51.
10:30:03 >> Second.
10:30:04 >>: I have a motion by Mr. Miranda.
Seconded by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor?
Opposed?
All right.
We go to presentations.
Item number 1.
Madam clerk.
10:30:32 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES:
City clerk.
I'm here regarding items number 1 and 2.
Number 1, presentation by applicant for the Architectural
Review Commission.
We have three vacancies and one applicant.
Mr. Steven Buckman.
See if he's here.
I don't see him.
10:30:59 >> Move the appointment.
10:31:00 >> Second.
10:31:01 >> Move the resolution.
10:31:06 >> Second.
10:31:07 >>: I have a motion from Mr. Cohen.
Seconded by Mr. Suarez.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Those opposed?
Okay.
10:31:13 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES:
Council, we will readvertise for
the other two vacancies.
Moving on to item number 2, Variance Review Board.
We have two vacancies and two applicants.
Mr. John Dingfelder is here.
10:31:37 >> Thank you.
Good morning, council.
It's a pleasure to be here in front of you today.
My name is John Dingfelder.
City of Tampa.
I have applied.
It's interesting sitting on this side of the podium today
and watching the action from out here.
You are doing a great job.
My wife asked me this morning, she said, so what are you
going to say to these guys? Why do you want to go back to
sit on the Variance Review Board?
Many of you know me as serving almost eight years on City
Council with many of you.
But what you might not know is that I actually started on
the Variance Review Board.
I served I think approximately three years, about 15 years
ago, on the Variance Review Board, heard hundreds of cases
with the VRB, it was an honor and privilege to serve our
community in that capacity.
I learned a lot.
Went on to do thousands of zoning zoning cases as a member
of council, learned more, and frankly the answer to her
question is, I miss the public service, miss the opportunity
to be up here and to help guide our community to great and
better things.
So I respectfully request your selection. If you have any
questions, I'll be glad to answer.
10:33:15 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
You said you served almost eight years on
council.
Why do you think that gives you any -- (Laughter).
10:33:22 >> Her question is why I would want to come back.
10:33:25 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
10:33:27 >> Thank you, Mr. Suarez.
10:33:29 >>: Any other questions from council?
Okay.
10:33:31 >> I move the appointment to the board.
10:33:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. If you can,
there are two applicants for which position?
10:33:44 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES:
Shirley Foxx-Knowles, city clerk.
There are two vacancies and two applicants.
One for the position of attorney and one for the position of
alternate.
I think Mr. Feldman is here, also.
10:34:02 >> The incumbent alternate.
10:34:11 >> Yes, incumbent alternate.
I put in for the open seat as well.
My name is Brett Feldman.
I have been serving as alternate on the Variance Review
Board since 2014, been an attorney in this city since 2000.
I have been board certified in construction by the Florida
Bar.
Leadership Tampa class, I served on the committees for
Enrichment Tampa.
I just want to continue my service for the board and for the
city.
Through the process of being an alternate, and I have put in
my name for the open seat.
10:35:04 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any questions by council?
All right.
Mr. Suarez.
10:35:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a question now, because my backup
material has something a little different.
We have one position for landscape architect or arborist
which is to expire in October 2015.
Now the backup may be incorrect.
And we do show the one alternate and does not say whether or
not it is for an attorney position.
I just need to clarify that far.
So do we still have 2001 vacancies and two applicants for
two different positions?
Or do we have two applicants for one position?
10:35:48 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES:
We have two vacancies and two
applicants.
Both of the gentlemen are attorneys.
So the alternate position has expired, or will expire by the
end of this month.
The alternate member fills the attorney position also.
So he would either be considered for the attorney or the
alternate.
10:36:27 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
If I could, according to what I am looking
at here, Mr. Feldman is the alternate currently.
And then there's vacant alternate position.
That's where the confusion is at.
There is a vacant alternate position that expired January
31st.
So is that available for another attorney position?
That answers that question.
Again I am not sure why we have Kelsey Trujeque.
Thank you.
I apologize.
I was confused in terms of the application, the background
material and all the other things that are in here.
10:37:13 >>FRANK REDDICK:
So we are voting for alternate and -- is
that what we are doing?
And then one for attorney?
10:37:21 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES:
We are voting for -- Mr. Feldman is
an incumbent but he's also looking at moving up to being the
attorney.
10:37:32 >>FRANK REDDICK:
So the first vote will be the vote between
the two for just the attorney position.
Is that correct?
10:37:39 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES:
Yes.
10:37:41 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.
Do we have a ballot?
10:37:43 >> It's a little confusing, in the backup material.
And I apologize.
I'm a little bit confused.
10:37:57 >> The two positions for today are for the attorney and the
alternate.
Those are the two coming up.
It expires on February 28th.
10:38:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
[Off microphone.] I would move to elevate
Mr. Feldman to the attorney position and Mr. Dingfelder to
the alternate position.
I think that we can do that, is that correct?
There's no limitation as to him being an alternate and also
an attorney, correct?
10:38:39 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right, we got a motion from Mr. Suarez.
Seconded by Mrs. Montelione.
Any further discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Any opposed?
10:38:55 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
As you mentioned before, Kelsey Trujeque's name is on here
from Rahenkamp Design Group.
She, according to the information we have in our agenda
packet, she's a landscape architect, and her current term
expires October 31, 2015.
10:39:18 >> 2019.
10:39:19 >> It says here 2015.
It's what it says here.
10:39:24 >> Yes.
10:39:26 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So, yes, this is what the backup
material was.
So are we also voting to --
10:39:37 >>THE CLERK:
No. Reappointed by council.
10:39:38 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So this backup material is wrong,
period.
10:39:42 >>THE CLERK:
(Off microphone.) What I have is it shows --
10:39:52 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Moving right along.
Thank you for that clarification.
And Mr. Suarez and I need to go to the copy machine.
Anything else, madam clerk?
10:40:04 >> We already did it?
10:40:12 >> He made the motion.
I seconded it and we didn't vote.
10:40:18 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Well, all those in favor of the motion say
aye.
Opposed. Okay.
10:40:22 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES:
And as far as the alternate
position, Mr. Dingfelder for that.
10:40:29 >> That was part of the motion.
10:40:37 >>FRANK REDDICK:
We go to item number 3.
10:40:48 >>SAL TERRITO:
Legal department again.
Item number 3 you asked to move, the attachment spells out
the process.
The three issues that I spelled out in the memo which I will
just mention to you one more time, one of them is dealing
with contracts we have with SPP because we have a contract
that says they will receive 20% of the tax increment
financing collected downtown, and when we did that, the
legal description included the parcel which you now want to
move.
So in effect we would have to amend that agreement to change
the legal description that may or may not have a large
impact on the ability for us to pay them back in a timely
manner because if that property were to generate a large
tax, that tax would now be in Ybor rather than downtown,
which would give the city the requirement of paying that
back over a longer period of time because we simply wouldn't
have the money coming in as quickly as that.
Another issue dealing with is one that I can't answer at
this particular time, is what impact it would have on the
original baseline that we set up.
I can tell you most likely it would not have any impact.
This has been done in other locations.
But there has never been any litigation on it, has never
been any attorney generals opinions, and the concern we have
is one that if we are wrong that would mean that there's a
$7 million hit to the tax increment financing, not that the
city couldn't continue contributing to it, but could be use
that funding for long-term financing because the
contribution would be from property taxes, not from TIF.
10:42:25 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Territo, what's that $7 million that you
mentioned?
10:42:29 >> The city is putting in around $7 million a year in tax
increment financing.
10:42:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
That's for what, the downtown?
10:42:37 >>SAL TERRITO:
That's for the downtown CRA area.
And that is anticipated to grow over time.
So as a development comes in, the TIF would be get larger.
10:42:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Your statement is you don't know what that
particular gas site will do to that 7 million, even though
it doesn't seem like there's any litigation or other issues?
10:43:00 >>SAL TERRITO:
Correct.
It's an open question that hasn't been answered and if I
give you an opinion that it's not going to be a hit and it
is a hit, it could have a $7 million, $8 million, $9
million hit to you, and that money could still be
contributed by the city, but at that that point that money
would no longer be tax increment financing, it would be
property taxes.
Property taxes for long-term financing for more than one
year requires you to go to a voter referendum.
10:43:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
10:43:31 >>FRANK REDDICK:
We can also request -- because it seems
like you stated that you don't have an answer to some of the
questions.
We can also request an attorney general's opinion.
10:43:40 >>SAL TERRITO:
That's correct.
That's what I suggested.
Because you have two issues.
We have an agreement right now with the county, an
interlocal agreement with the county.
Needing their permission to change boundaries.
So the first step would be are they okay with it?
In informal conversations we had were the counties they
didn't seem to have a problem moving that property from
downtown to Ybor.
But that's just an -- they have to actually go back and
end the downtown portion of the interlocal agreement, the
boundary, and to amend the Ybor City 2 portion to give it a
new boundary.
That would require the city, the CRA, and the county to make
that agreement formally for changing boundaries, assuming
that's done.
Assuming that SPP were okay with making that change we would
have to go back and make if agreements that talks about how
much money we are going to contributes because we are
contributing from a larger piece in the original agreement
than we are contributing in the aftermath because they are
moving it out of the property.
That would require the city, the CRA, and SPP to agree to
that agreement, so we have these two agreements to get out
of the way first.
Those are the easy parts.
The hard part is getting the attorney general -- the hard
part is having a decision from the attorney general that
this should not be a problem.
10:44:59 >>: In that case then, I am going to make a motion that the
legal department draft a letter to the attorney general
within ten days, and that letter be reviewed by council's
attorney prior to the submission to the attorney general as
an opinion on all the unanswered questions, the reservation
you have to this request.
10:45:27 >>HARRY COHEN:
We have a motion and second.
We'll have council discussion of the motion.
Councilman Montelione.
10:45:35 >> Thank you.
When we first discussed this, the last time we opened up the
CRA discussion with the county, it included more than just
boundaries.
It was, you know, what percent of the revenue would be of
those funds, and it did change from our original agreement.
If we change a boundary of an area, will that reopen the
discussion with the county to change the revenue sharing?
10:46:12 >>SAL TERRITO:
That would reopen the entire agreement, not
just this portion of the agreement.
10:46:17 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So there is a possibilities that the
county could come back and ask for more revenue, and we
would have to have that -- and it would only be these two
CRAs, Ybor 2 and downtown.
I mean, it wouldn't be just the one CRA that would be open
for discussion and possible renegotiation with the county,
not just on the boundary line but on the revenue sharing,
but it would be both?
10:46:50 >>SAL TERRITO:
Yes.
And right now that would not have any impact on downtown
because the county doesn't contribute to downtown except for
the portion downtown by the SPP project.
So there would be no impact on the county either way until
it gets moved into Ybor City.
And rights now that parcel would go to Ybor City 2 and they
have a 70% contribution.
10:47:10 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So it won't affect both.
The revenue sharing -- it would just go up.
10:47:19 >>SAL TERRITO:
Financially it won't. Except for the fact
that whatever that project it generates in taxes would no
longer be available for downtown.
It would now be available in Ybor City.
And that would have an impact on the SPP project because the
city's agreement with them is 20% of the entire downtown
CRA.
And we would have to talk to them about are they okay with
changing the agreement we have with them?
Because if we did do that, we would have to change the maps
that were attached to that agreement to the smaller amounts
and that would mean we would have to extend our payment back
to them because you wouldn't have 20%, larger than 20% than
the smaller project.
10:47:58 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
And reading your brief here, your memo,
It seems there is reluctance to do that because that would
increase the length of time that the city would be --
10:48:17 >>SAL TERRITO:
In formal discussions they wanted to see
more of an impact, what the impact would actually be.
I know from the people who were in favor of this, a $12,000
hit.
Right now it's a $12,000 hit because that's all it's
generating.
If they put a larger development on that parcel that would
be a bigger hit downtown.
Not only would it not make the money available to SPP, it
would not make it to the other properties downtown as
welling that you may want to contributes to.
But that's really your decision, not mine.
I want to give you what the implications would be and it's
your decision to make whether you want to move forward.
One other issue is I don't know the administration's
position.
You will say why does that have an impact with CRA?
We can do what we want to do.
Well, I have to change the ordinances, because now the
ordinances have a different legal description, and that is
subject to the mayor's signing on that particular documents.
It's one more issue.
I'm not trying to make it harder than it is but I wants you
to go into this with your eyes open knowing the full impacts
of what it is that you are doing and then it's your decision
how to want to handle it.
10:49:22 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you, Mr. Territo.
I again with getting the attorney general's opinion but I
still don't know that we have enough information, the cost
estimates, the negotiation was SPP, and especially the refer
new sharing position with the county for Ybor 2 should we
move forward with it.
10:49:40 >>SAL TERRITO:
And that would open it up if they wanted to
discuss the sharing or any other CRA areas because it's one
big document that addresses all of the CRA areas.
I don't have any indication that they want to make any other
changes, but that's certainly open to discuss that if they
wish to do so.
10:49:58 >> Thank you very much.
10:49:58 >>SAL TERRITO:
You're welcome.
10:50:00 >>HARRY COHEN:
Any other council members with questions on
the motion?
I just have one question for you, Mr. Territo.
10:50:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Territo, I know that SPP, what we
originally negotiated with the county, when you are talking
about that 20%, that's a 20% that we negotiated with the
county, because is it not true that our agreement with SPP
is that we are going to reimburse them for work that is
already being done and will be completed?
Is that correct?
Why is it that specific to the boundaries of the CRA?
10:50:36 >>SAL TERRITO:
Because when we agreed with the county, and
with SPP, we put a legal description in there as part of the
agreement.
10:50:42 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And I just want to make sure.
The agreement between us and the county, which then SPP has
some role from that.
10:50:52 >>SAL TERRITO:
We have an SPP agreement between the city,
the county and the CRA --
10:50:57 >> And the SPP agreement does say we have the boundaries of
the CRA?
10:51:04 >>SAL TERRITO:
I want to -- bell, it's an attachment.
We are going to give you 20% of the attachment.
And the attachment includes the entire downtown CRA area.
10:51:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I just want to make sure, because there's a
lot of different ways to skin the cat in terms of that
because whatever we are going to produce under the
boundaries of a CRA, downtown CRA, you know, that's going to
happen one way or the other.
The attachment is part of that agreement.
I think we may be, you know, we need to really look at this
and how that's really going to affect it because it does
change how we look at it, definitely, if it has that
specificity in there.
So the other thing is that -- and I will make a friendly
endment, chair, to your motion -- and I don't know -- and
I'll ask Mr. Territo first before I make the motion -- I
mean before I make the suggestion -- have you contacted and
dealt whenever the Florida redevelopment association?
10:52:00 >>SAL TERRITO:
I have not.
10:52:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
You have not?
10:52:03 >> I have not.
10:52:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And I would suggest not only the legal
department contact the AG's office concerning an opinion --
but also to delve into the Florida Redevelopment Association
and some of the things that think they may have seen in the
past to get an answer.
I think it will be helpful because it may have been
something --
10:52:21 >>SAL TERRITO:
I can tell you, I have background
information.
Two things.
This has been done before.
And it has no impact on the original baseline.
If the baseline was set in '83, removing that part is the
baseline stays the same.
It happened before in several locations so I know that has
been done before.
The only reluctance I have is that the only opinions that
count here are the ones you get from us that protect you,
and the AG -- and the AG -- if someone takes that to court
the AG is not even persuasive -- I feel much more
comfortable in at least having that as some support.
10:52:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I agree, and that's why I want the Florida
Redevelopment Association because not only do they know
about the things that have already been done but the things
that are proposed and their opinion as to the way it fits
into the redevelopment statute.
Not that you don't have expertise on it.
You absolutely do.
But it's always nice to have another opinion for someone
that does this all the time.
10:53:19 >>SAL TERRITO:
And I have spoken with bond council, because
if we do any financing, they have to do it as well.
And they are the same way we are.
It's probably not going to be an issue.
But let's be careful.
10:53:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And my motion would be ask for response from
the Florida Redevelopment Association.
10:53:37 >>HARRY COHEN:
Okay.
So it's indicated that both the maker and the seconder of
the motion accept the friendly amendment.
Before we vote on it if there are no other council members
that wants to say anything, I just want to ask you one
question, and that is, how long generally does it take to
get the attorney general's opinion back?
10:53:57 >>SAL TERRITO:
It could be a week.
It could be months.
There is no real answer to that.
It could take a very long time and sometimes a short time.
This is not a difficult question.
I know they are going to come back and say there's nothing
in the statute.
I'm not even sure they are going to come to a conclusion.
10:54:12 >>HARRY COHEN:
My sense for having opinions before is this
will come back relatively quickly.
So I was going to suggest to you that we continue to
research some of these other questions simultaneously while
the opinion is being asked for.
And if no one else has anything else to say, all those in
favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed?
All right.
10:54:41 >>FRANK REDDICK:
We move to item number 4.
10:54:43 >> Everything good morning.
City of Tampa Police Department, Chief Ward.
Item number 4.
Quarterly report.
These are the comparisons of the last of 2014 and the 2015.
10:56:13 >> Okay.
10:56:13 >> The chart compares the first, second and third quarter.
Total of bike stops.
10:56:31 >>HARRY COHEN:
So just saying, it looks as though you are
basically stopping the same number of people but issuing far
fewer citations.
Is that correct?
10:56:45 >>CHIEF ERIC WARD:
That's correct.
10:56:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Can be you give the different types of
citations, the general citation that you are giving
specifically when you have a stop and then have a citation?
What would be the number of citations, what type of
citations?
10:57:06 >> Number of stops?
10:57:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Is it just a traffic citation of some sort?
10:57:11 >>CHIEF ERIC WARD:
More than likely the citation itself is
because of some type of bicycle infraction.
10:57:19 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
A safety violation?
10:57:20 >> Right.
10:57:25 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
It's a pretty significant difference between
what it was previously to what it is now.
And I think one of your graphics, the first graphic that you
have, I think you had a pretty significant drop, probably
more than half.
So what do you attribute that to?
You have done a more aggressive education of the officers
that are out there policing?
Or what contributes to that?
10:58:00 >> I think expressing my concerns and having the officer
understand education first before the citation was the key.
And a lot of the officers have gone into the philosophy of
educating first before that citation is issued, and that's
proven in these charts here.
10:58:20 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Do you know how many arrests came out of
these stops?
I apologize.
10:58:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you, chief.
Chief, on these items that you just showed us regarding the
stops, you said they are primarily stops for traffic
infractions, correct?
10:58:39 >>CHIEF ERIC WARD:
Correct.
10:58:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Have you seen one or two or many that
are the second or third time offenders in the same group
that whatever reason?
10:58:52 >>CHIEF ERIC WARD:
What I am seeing is when the education
doesn't work, then those individuals get citations.
10:58:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I know you offered lights to some bikes
that didn't see them that should have them because you can't
see them at night.
It's very difficult to have been see that.
So I assume you have that program still ongoing?
10:59:10 >>CHIEF ERIC WARD:
Absolutely.
10:59:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you very much.
Getting to citations, this is a three-month comparison.
That's the total number of bike citations issued.
Looking at the same time last year -- there's not much of a
difference.
(Baby calling out.)
11:00:10 >>FRANK REDDICK:
The baby agrees with that.
11:00:12 >> Total citations by quarter. First, second and third,
comparing the three.
This is the total before arrests from bike stops in the last
quarter compared to the first and second quarter.
11:00:58 >>FRANK REDDICK:
When they are arrested, what are they
charged with?
11:01:04 >>CHIEF ERIC WARD:
The last quarter, this is a breakdown of
that, 65 for the quarter.
11:01:37 >>FRANK REDDICK:
When you say assist O/J, what does O/J
stand for?
11:01:43 >> If we stop somebody that they come out of Tampa. Come
out of Pinellas, somewhere else.
11:01:57 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
So there were 65 people that were arrested as a result of a
bike stop.
And the top 3 or the third one is possession of a controlled
substance.
So we are speaking a little later --
11:02:25 >> Let me just clarify.
That's felonies.
That's misdemeanor.
11:02:32 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
That's 7.
So top 5 instead of top 3.
So the other question I have is carry concealed firearm.
I'm assuming that is someone who doesn't have a permit to
carry a firearm?
11:02:53 >>CHIEF ERIC WARD:
Right.
11:02:54 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
All right.
Thank you very much, chief.
11:03:21 >> The next, the green bar, bike stops, arrests, also
traffic stops and all others, different categories.
11:03:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Chief, these are stops separated by all
other traffic stops and bike stops.
So for all the bike stops, for the third quarter we had
three arrests for I guess it would be using firearms, is my
guess?
11:04:04 >>CHIEF ERIC WARD:
Whether it led to an arrest or not.
11:04:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So we will seize the firearms whether we
arrest them?
11:04:11 >>CHIEF ERIC WARD:
Well, let's say we stopped them on a
bike, and we recover the firearm and not the person.
11:04:24 >> And the same thing when you are looking at the traffic
stop, someone that might have a weapon, typically if they
got probable cause to stop them, you will ask them if they
have got any weapons, sometimes they say yes, sometimes they
say no, but eventually you might investigate and find a
weapon in there?
11:04:39 >>CHIEF ERIC WARD:
Absolutely.
11:04:41 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Do you find this unusual that number in
terms of number of, you know, weapons that you find on
somebody that might be part of a bicycle stop as opposed to
something that's unusual, or something that's normal, such
as the case of your experience?
11:04:59 >> CHIEF ERIC WARD:
No.
Most of our street level robberies, the suspect is on a
bike.
So that's not unusual.
11:05:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, chair.
11:05:09 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any other questions of the chief?
Chief, let me suggest -- and I don't know if -- don't know
if I have to do this in the form of a formal motion, but
since you have given a report seeing these results change,
so that means attention has been drawn to this issue.
I feel comfortable enough to suggest that instead of
quarterly reports that we get a biannual report, just come
to us twice a year with a biannual report. I feel
comfortable enough to do that.
11:05:48 >> I would second that.
11:05:49 >>HARRY COHEN:
We have a motion and a second to change from
a quarterly report to a bibiannual report on this item. If
there's no discussion please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed?
11:05:59 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Anything else, Cleve?
CHIEF ERIC WARD: No, sir.
11:06:06 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Don't go too far.
Item number 5.
11:06:19 >> He was supposed to come up but I guess he had another
meeting.
Item number 5.
11:06:43 >> Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Martin Shelby, City Council
attorney to discuss with you item number 5.
And let me begin by saying that the report that I was
preparing to give you was very different 24 hours ago than
what it is now, and the reason being that I was informed
yesterday afternoon that yesterday morning, the Board of
County Commissioners took up the issue of sexual predators
and child safe zone and protective radius.
And it was a motion initially based on the agenda by
Commissioner Murman.
That being said, I had the opportunities to review the
replay of the broadcast.
I saw it last night and again this morning.
And frankly, council, I believe it would change my
recommendation to you before going further with a city
ordinance.
That being said, let me tell you that it was my intention to
come in here to inform you that with the whole many issues
that have to be discussed and vetted to be able to implement
what council asked for, I have had substantial work -- I
have done substantial work in preparation for that.
More work needs to be done.
In order for me to bring you back a decision point.
But that being said, council, I was struck yesterday by the
very clear, resounding support presented by the Board of
County Commissioners by unanimous vote of 7 to 0 to move
forward with expanding the ordinance.
Actually, the way the county attorney placed it, to go along
with what presently exists.
For newly registered sex offenders, that would bar sex
offenders that would be sex offenders whose victims who are
younger than 16 from living within 2500 feet of a child care
facility, library, playground, park or school in
Hillsborough County.
Now, I have the county's existing ordinance here, and
Commissioner Hagan did go into, in some detail, the history
of the fact that in 2008, when he was obviously on the Board
of County Commissioners, the county commission created the
child safe -- actually, the child sex crime prevention
ordinance creating safe zones, which was similar to what
Councilman Suarez had asked for in his motion.
The existing county ordinance as it is now is narrow in
scope to where it applies.
It doesn't really apply to city buildings.
But I can read you the list of where it does apply.
It's currently listed within 300 feet.
But it's an ordinance that's been on the books for going on
since 2008.
Much as the section that deals with the -- the term, I'm
sorry -- the anti-clustering provision.
There are certain hurdles that obviously, with an ordinance
in the city, you would have to pass in order to be able to
enact a city ordinance.
In 2007, that process had begun before the county came in
with their ordinance and the city decided to go along with
the county.
Just to make the point, specifically, the county ordinance
that's on the books presently, section 36-311, says unless
there lab an municipal ordinance duly enacted to the
contrary this provision shall be uniformly enforced
throughout Hillsborough County by all state and local
enforcement agencies and code enforcement agencies.
And an exception and a penalty that goes under what the
county may do in regard to this.
But the point that I would like to make to you, I was struck
when I heard the county commission support for the existing
ordinance, even to the point where there was discussion
about existing -- well, enhancing the existing
anti-clustering provision.
Commissioner asked the county attorney in fact whether it
could be expanded to single-family and maybe based on
density.
So I will share with you that -- I have 30 more seconds --
my impression is, council, that I think there was a clear
declaration bits Board of County Commissioners yesterday in
support of the existing ordinance and its desire to expand
it, and its desire for all residents of Hillsborough County.
So on that basis, council, it's my recommendation -- and it
doesn't have to be a long time to puts this up because I
know time is of essence for a lot of members of the
communities -- for the legal department of the city to work
with the county attorney and for TPD to work together with
the sheriff's office who, by the way, does not have a
representative there yesterday at the Board of County
Commissioners.
That absence was noted by the BOCC.
And it was advised that obviously the sheriff's office has
an integral role to play and will have to be very involved
in this.
So my suggestion would be to engage --
11:13:00 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
As we understand, Mr. Shelby -- I have a
question before you repeated the same thing like three
times.
So I did not get the BOCC's proceedings but I did read an
article that was published about the meeting, and although
it was a 7-0 vote, two commissioners were not generally in
favor, you know, jumping on board with this.
The newspaper report mentioned Commissioner Hagan and his
concern, and also mentions Commissioner White's concern.
They ultimately voted in concert with their fellow members,
but I think there's going to be probably a little more
discussion when it comes back.
My concern -- and would you put this on the Elmo for me?
My concern is that although, you know, we are trying to do
right by some of our citizens, people who have committed
crimes have paid their dues to society by being incarcerated
or released, and to make the assumption that all of these
individuals are going to be repeat offenders is really not a
fair generalization.
That shows my house.
As you can see my aide circled right there, and within a
five mile radius from my house.
So you see it extends all the way out past 75 there to the
east.
And there are 600, I think -- you can't see right there --
it's 630 sexual offenders, sexual predators living in the
area.
I have been in my house or in the area between my current
home now.
I had a few other residences when I first moved to Florida
in Temple Terrace for 30-some-odd years, and served as
president or civic association on the board and so on, or
president of the Junior Women's Club in Temple Terrace.
And to my knowledge, my experience, just anecdotally, we
have not had a problem with any of these sexual offenders
beyond one particular operation that was housing sexual
predators, and that was dealt with by the Tampa Police
Department and taken care of.
It took a number of years but they did take care of it.
So I would be -- piggybacking to my social education, I
would be hard pressed to put another barrier on individuals
that are already complying with the terms of their release
from prison.
Our problem just becomes somebody else's problem.
So if we follow Hillsborough County's ordinance, and have
2500 feet from a school, daycare, playground, whatever, all
of these people will have to move.
Where are they going to go?
So Pasco County passes an ordinance that these individuals
are harming their citizens, not even considering that these
individuals are their citizens.
So they move, say, to Hillsborough County.
Hillsborough County passes an ordinance.
Then what?
They move to Pinellas County, and they move to Hernando
county, they move to Orange County?
I mean, sexual predators when they are released from prison
from the State of Florida, I don't know what these
particular people are going to do.
And I asked Chief Ward maybe when this discussion comes back
to us -- I have a feeling it will come back to us -- that I
narrow down the sample, it becomes a little closer than five
miles, and we check maybe randomly some of the individuals
and see if they are repeat offenders.
But I have a concern with going with what the county's
ordinance is.
I think that is a little bit of an overreach.
I don't want anyone else to be harmed.
But I also want the right of these individuals to be
considered as well.
11:18:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Shelby, I am going to ask specific questions about the
county ordinance and some things that are part of our
motion.
One, there was a lot of discussion earlier yesterday during
the BOCC meeting concerning 2500-foot demarcation point.
Can you explain what it is that we are talking about that it
wasn't as clear as I would like it to be?
Is it that right now the ordinance says only 2500 feet from
schools, playgrounds ands other places where children may be
congregating?
11:18:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
No, if I am correct, I believe what it
refers to is presently they operate under the state statute
which is 1,000 feet.
11:18:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So right now their ordinance mirrors
whatever the state statute is currently?
11:19:04 >> That's correct.
11:19:07 >> So if we wanted to -- and this is not necessarily what I
going to suggest but if we wanted to, we could make it
more stringent than the thousand feet, correct?
So we are not preempted from that, is that correct?
11:19:17 >> That's correct.
11:19:17 >> And then the next question is that the ordinance that we
were talking about, the 2008 ordinance, it not only has the
anti-clustering portion, is that correct?
But it's a broader ordinance or not?
11:19:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Yes, it is.
It's an anti-clustering provision, but it also has areas of
300 feet from safe zones, that allows to travel across, to
and from.
But typically, there are less places than what the motion
calls for.
It says, for instance, certain locations, not limited to
public and private schools, Boys and Girls Clubs, libraries,
parks, youth sports facilities, playgrounds, YMCA
facilities, and it is also -- let's see, safety zones,
daycare centers, places where children are likely to be.
What the motion for council was with regard to city
buildings.
I should also point out just very quickly because it's very
important with regard to the predicate.
Council has to have a factual predicate, has to have basing,
and that includes mapping.
Part of the direction of the county commission to their
staff was to begin that process of the mapping and the like.
If the city wants to go off on its own, you would have to
have the time to be able to prepare all these documents and
gets all these studies and be able to have a factual
predicate before a change to your ordinance.
11:20:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Our own ordinance.
Another thing is part of what my decision to the original
motion was that those safe places, as an example, one place
in particular, is advertised, for runaways and other kids,
that is a corporate decision so people can be considered
safe if they go there, you know, if we were able to do that
at a private entity to be identified to, because they have
already made that determination.
That's something that we can put in the ordinance in
addition, correct are?
11:21:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I believe you have to have a factual basis
to be able to support that, and I believe you also have to
be able to provide --
11:21:42 >> The factual basis what, sir?
11:21:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Saying that there's a greater risk for
children --
11:21:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
There is not a -- designated safe area that
are they would be --
11:22:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
My --
11:22:03 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
The answer to my --
11:22:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
My research has not indicated specifically
what you are asking for.
It doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
It means I haven't gotten to that point yet.
11:22:13 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
One last thing on the county ordinance.
The designation between sexual offenders and sexual
predators in terms of the definition of who they are trying
to keep away from these particular areas, because there is a
distinct difference between the two in state law, and in
terms of -- by those folks that are designated as predators
as opposed to offenders.
So it does have a distinction.
11:22:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
They would make a distinction of predatory
individuals.
11:22:50 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So the distinction already is for predatory
individuals, not necessarily all sexual offenders.
The reason that I ask is because Ms. Montelione put on top
of the map on there and it is all sexual offenders, and it's
hard because some of these sexual predators are here, some
part of that, and that's no one's faults other than that's
how the map was.
There's still a lot that are obviously hidden underneath it.
It's a wide radius.
So for me, the immediate dangers are the sexual predators,
when we start talking about how do we deal with W this
particular issue.
You know, I agree that right now, the ordinance seems to fit
into what the spirit of our discussion was previously.
And what we'll do, I think, is ask our chief that, you know,
to enforce what is already on the books, as long as the
legal department doesn't have any problems with what that
ordinance says.
Obviously it's been other books for a long time and we have
not done a very good job of actually enforcing that
ordinance.
So I think that's the first step.
But I would like to say that I would like to hold out the
fact that is correct we may need to clean up what the
ordinance says based on the fact that we haven't even
enforced it yet so we don't even know what some of the
problems are.
So Mr. Shelby, I appreciate it.
I think again, the discussion that was done yesterday at the
county commission is great, but I still think that they are
in the same boat we are in, in terms of the enforcement of
it.
They have other issues such as Commissioner White brought up
some issues concerning rural areas and whether single-family
homes will be included.
That's I think important issues to discuss.
But I think right now we need to talk about enforcement
especially since it's got the 300-foot designation.
To me, that gives me a little bit more confidence that it is
something that will help with the problem that is specific
to VM Ybor currently and for other neighborhoods throughout
the city.
Thank you, chair.
I appreciate it.
11:25:00 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Mr. Cohen.
11:25:01 >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you very much.
Based on the concerns and comments that the council members
have made and based on what you said and based on also
watching the discussion of the board yesterday, my view is
that they are going to pass something, and as we all know,
we are, in the absence of something that contradicts it, we
are bound by what they pass.
My suggestion is that we wait to see what it is that they
ultimately come up with.
We know that the provisions might change subtly between now
and when they finally vote on it.
And if there are specific items that we want to address in
addition, we take it up after their ordinance is passed and
we keep whatever we do very narrow so that we can
incorporate this broadly as possible, their ordinance, and
if there are going to be tweaks, about very, very distinct
issues.
We can address that very narrowly without changing the broad
confines of the ordinance down the.
So really, you know, I am generally in support of keeping an
eye on this for a little while.
It doesn't seem to me like it's going to take them very long
to come to a conclusion about where they are going to go.
11:26:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
If I can just address something.
11:26:25 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Make it brief.
11:26:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I will.
With regard to anti-clustering, that is already on the
books.
That is actually going to be -- I don't think that is looked
at to be really tough but for the fact that it is necessary
for the city TPD and the legal department to get assurance
from the county that the county is behind that ordinance.
There was nothing said yesterday that would give me any
indication that it wasn't.
But in order for the chief and for the legal department and
Mike Schmitt is here to discuss it, has met with the county
attorney, and there are concerns with being able to enforce
the county's anti-clustering.
The advantage to enforcing the county, you have heard from
the public, is that it's been on the books since 2008.
If you passed your own ordinance, those would be
grandfathered in.
There would be moving registered sex offenders and that's a
major difference.
11:27:28 >>: Let me say this because we need to move this along.
Mr. Cohen is absolutely right.
In the discussion, had a chance to see the tape of the
county discussing it yesterday.
They are coming back with an ordinance.
I mean, a unanimous vote to bring an ordinance back and have
open discussion about this.
The biggest issue, the reason why I even brought this issue
up before is because enforcement.
I mean, we had a young lady here this morning.
The problem we are everything, these people everybody forced
out of other cities and they are coming here, and you see
them over there in VM Ybor.
So there's no enforcement behind it.
Now, the county has an ordinance in place, even though they
are trying to expand, but the county is not enforcing it.
And the Sheriff's Department is not enforcing it.
The city police department is not enforcing it.
The county ordinance.
We are trying to get to the point -- and this is what I have
been saying -- if we can enforce this issue, with
enforcement, we'll solve a lot of these problems.
And Mr. Cohen, I'm waiting to see what happens with the
county because the county is coming back with an ordinance.
It might be one or two votes that might be different, but
it's going to be a 5-2 or 7-0 vote for a new ordinance.
That's obvious.
And this will be coming back in a short time.
It's not going to be six months, ten months down the road.
It's going to be in a few weeks.
They are coming back with this ordinance, draft ordinance,
for the board to review and approve.
So I'm willing to be patient and see what they have, because
we can support their ordinance, and just say let's enforce
it, I support that.
And that's what my position is.
Let's see what the county comes up with.
And as you say, we want to do all the mapping, do all these
other things, and it might be better for us to see if the
county comes back and move from there.
All right.
Final comments.
11:30:04 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Final comment.
You know, it just puzzles why the county or we are
considering passing another's ordinance.
Why don't we just enforce the one we have now?
And -- no, but it's also, you know, where if we are going to
move forward with some other kind of ordinance, speaking to
what you said, Mr. Cohen, the county's ordinance in a very
narrow way, bringing something back.
So we are talking about another ordinance.
But I don't even see why this needs to be a discussion
whether here or at the county.
All we need to do is enforce what we have now instead of
making it more restrictive.
But that was final comment.
11:30:53 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any other final comments?
Any other final comments ever? Any last comments?
We need to move on.
11:30:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
11:31:01 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right, thank you.
So the position of this council is we are going to sit
patiently to see what the county is going to come back with.
11:31:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And let the chief know we wants to enforce
the currents ordinance.
11:31:16 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Mr. Miranda.
11:31:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
We have TPD watching this.
I was doing work in the office of what was going on.
And no legislative body can certainly pass all the laws they
want.
But the enforcement part, if it's not enforced, or tried to
be enforced, there's no sense of writing that law or any
other law.
And I'm not blaming no one.
But it goes back to a lot of other laws.
I don't want to get into that right now.
But we lack enforcement.
That's all.
11:31:51 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.
We move to item number 6.
11:31:57 >>CHIEF ERIC WARD:
What we have today is what we would like
council to consider as a draft.
I also brought with me Kirby Rainsberger.
He's going to address questions right now reference to the
draft.
11:32:29 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
Legal department.
11:32:29 >>HARRY COHEN:
Mr. Rainesberger, just for the public and
for everyone that's watching this, you have presented to us
a draft ordinance of that we could set for first reading at
some point in the near future if we are so inclined.
Basically, outlining decriminalization of small amounts of
marijuana for adults.
Would you just tell us basically what the provisions are of
the ordinance, and what it is that's being proposed?
11:33:03 >> The statutory misdemeanor amount of marijuana is 20
grams or less.
So we started with that amount.
Instead of making that a misdemeanor criminal offense, the
civil citations program, made it a class 1 civil violation.
The penalty for first offense is $75 under the existing
structure.
(Baby crying.)
That would be handled internally by the legal department,
means the citation would be handled by the legal department
in terms of receipt of the fine amounts. If that is not
paid within 30 days, a citation is sent over to the county
court's office for adjudication in front of the county court
judge.
It would remain a civil violation, not a criminal violation,
would end up in front of the county court judge for a
citation as well.
11:34:07 >>HARRY COHEN:
Just to be clear for everyone's benefit,
this is only for adults.
Juveniles go through an entirely separate system when they
are apprehended with controlled substances?
11:34:20 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
There is, under similar construction at
the moment, a system to put juveniles under a parallel
system that involves modifying a treatment program.
And that would be the primary difference between the two.
11:34:38 >>HARRY COHEN:
And that's what exists currently so we are
not even talking about affecting that in any way?
11:34:45 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
The juvenile system aspect to marijuana
does not even exist in this county at the moment.
It's something we would add to a system that exists for
other crimes to be committed by juveniles, but marijuana is
not among them.
11:35:01 >>HARRY COHEN:
But my point is what we are discussing today
is strictly limited to adults?
11:35:07 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
Yes.
11:35:07 >>HARRY COHEN:
Yes.
Okay.
Thank you.
I just want to reserve a few minutes at the end of the
discussion after other council members have spoken.
11:35:13 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Mr. Miranda.
11:35:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
As I read this early this morning, real
early in the morning, the first 75, the third is 300, the
fourth is 450.
I correct?
11:35:34 >> Yes.
11:35:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
And then how many can you have?
10 at 450, 100 at 450?
I don't know that.
It didn't say that.
From what I read.
11:35:46 >>CHIEF ERIC WARD:
This is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
11:35:56 >> Well, everybody is a first time offender.
11:35:59 >> Exactly.
You have to have the discretion.
Somebody that's a repeat offender not to have govern through
the civil process but go the criminal route.
11:36:07 >>FRANK REDDICK:
And believe me, I read this real early this
morning.
It said code enforcement and the legal department.
So are we prepared as a legal department to handle and keep
up with whether it's one or 1,000 or 10,000 or whatever it
is that you arrest on a yearly basis to make sure that those
records are kept up and processed and fines are collected
and so forth?
Is that what I read was correct?
It said code enforcement also, if I remember.
11:36:35 >> We are prepared to do that --
11:36:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
It did say code enforcement, I think.
11:36:48 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
Code enforcement is part of the program
that utilizes the citation form.
11:36:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
And I think there's diversion from
adults.
I'll tell you why.
In October of 14, I was in a store and some individual --
and I read the police report on what happened to my car --
decided that he went around the car, opened the door,
passenger side, opened the glove compartment, and slashed
one of my tires.
He went in, made a purchase, all on tape.
Went back around, opened that passenger car, opened the
glove compartment and did the same thing to the front tire.
So that's two tires.
The car was sideways like a sinking ship. It was all on
tape.
The guy confessed.
What's bothering me about all this, that individual is a
flight nurse in a helicopter.
And he was slapped on the hand.
And pay restitution and whatever, and I told them they can
stick the restitution where they never find it.
Nothing happened to the guy.
A flight nurse on a helicopter.
To me, what we are going in society is, any day we can't fix
up we set a diversion project.
And I diversion, at the end of the day, really doesn't work
much because you can have repeat offenders.
You know when I was growing up my parents told me, don't do
this or don't do that.
If I did it I was on my own. My father gave me a dime when
I was 14 and said if you have a problem with somebody, call
somebody else when you get arrested.
That's been in my mind. But today you can do whatever you
want, and they say, well, you have got a little problem, or
she's got a little problem, and you do it 100 times, 10
times, two times, and believe me, I'm 100% for whatever use
it is for anybody, but nobody wants to challenge it.
Nobody wants to do, let's get them medicated, get somebody
to prescribe, go pick it up.
I don't know how to solve that problem.
But now we are saying, there's too many arrests happening.
So we have to do something.
And I agree with that.
But to just say that 20 grams, how do you know it's 20 grams
when you arrest somebody?
How do you know it's not 19 grams or 30 grams?
I'm just speaking.
You can answer all these.
You are much more prepared than I am.
I'm not an expert, you are.
And diversion.
There's got to be diversion for adults.
I don't discriminate in any fashion that I know of.
The distribution.
Are we going to have a certain area where they can buy it?
Do you grow it it?
Are you going to arrest the seller who says, hey, I'm only
complying with the law.
All he wants is 20 grams and I have 3,000 grams of 20 grams
each that I can sell legally.
You asked me to sell it, I'm selling it now.
And people are buying it.
It seems to be a very positive thing, everybody is happy.
And these are the things that I don't understand.
And what happens to those who are caught wholesaling it?
11:40:08 >> That's a felony.
They are not part of this program are in anyway, shape or
form.
11:40:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
The buyer is not a felony, right?
11:40:19 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
If he's buying 20 grams or less, that's
correct.
11:40:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I see.
I understand.
So if you buy it and you get caught, that's the idea, get
caught.
Three times, four times, ten times.
You can use at thousand times and not gets caught, which is
fine.
But to have somebody say, you can't use it -- you can use it
but you can't sell it, either legalize it, criminalize it,
but don't politicize it.
This is all about politics.
Get it done right.
Either criminalize everybody or say you can do what you
want.
But I don't have the authority to do that.
That's Tallahassee or Washington.
Why are we not doing that?
I mean, states have it.
There's four states, I believe was stated earlier, everybody
is happy.
But at the end of the day it's not about having it or not
having it.
It's about those states making money.
That's what it's all about.
These what this whole country is based on.
Revenue.
More revenue, baby.
Let me have it.
That's why you hear all the problems.
$3 million.
It's all about money.
It ain't about gambling.
Gambling for profit for the state.
That's what it's about.
That's all I have got to say right now because I am out of
time.
Thanks.
11:41:38 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Mr. Suarez.
11:41:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, chair.
Let me ask specifics.
We are talking a little bit about diversion programs.
Diversion programs already exist, or either drug court, and
there are other diversion programs for other folks for
first-time offenders, depending on the type of crime it is.
Is that correct?
11:42:00 >> Yes, sir.
11:42:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So this is not going to preclude that or
change that in any way.
The civil citation itself is there just to make sure that we
are trying to not incarcerate as many people as we have been
incarcerating for small amounts of marijuana.
Is that correct?
That's the direction we have taken with this?
11:42:24 >> Correct.
11:42:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Correct.
So to me the idea is there.
We talked about this prior, the three of us, in terms of
what it means once you get arrested for the -- not arrested
but cited for the first amount of marijuana that you have.
If I recall correctly, chief, I asked did same question Mr.
Miranda just asked, which is how do you know you have 20
grams or less.
11:42:48 >> And you said there's going to be a scale there.
Guys have a scale.
They usually have scales with them, correct?
11:42:56 >>CHIEF ERIC WARD:
Absolutely.
Part of our investigation.
11:42:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
For example, they get someone, they weigh
it, it's 18 grams, they will write up a citation and gone
about it his way or her way and to pay that citation,
correct?
So if they do not pay the citation, that 30-day period,
which they have in order to do the citation -- I know what
it's like when you don't pay your traffic ticket after 30
days.
What happens with folks that have been cited after 30 days
and they haven't paid the first fine?
11:43:26 >> The citation is transferred to the clerk's office of the
county court where it ends up being assigned to a county
court judge who holds a hearing.
The person is notified and they can attend that hearing.
A judge may find them not guilty.
Obviously there is no fine or penalty attached to that.
A judge assigns them guilty and assesses appropriate fine
and court costs.
11:43:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So they get hit with court costs in addition
to the other fine.
11:44:00 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
The other penalty is the refusal or
failure oh to pay that fine results per the language of the
ordinance in them not being qualified to be under this
program in the event of a future arrest.
11:44:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So the smart thing to have been do is, let's
say I'm someone who doesn't use marijuana very much but I
have got a joint or couple of them from somebody that I
know, I get cited for it.
Smart thing is to pay the fine right away.
Or as fast as you can so that you don't get yourself into
the criminal system after that 30 day from the citation
point.
Correct?
11:44:41 >> Correct.
With the exception of the word criminal system.
It will remain a civil violation even though it's in front
of a county court judge.
11:44:48 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay, I apologize.
I know there's some distinction here that we are having to
wrestle with, which is we are used to the criminalization,
the possession of marijuana.
So now we are under decriminalization it's a totally
different tact that we have.
But there are penalties for people who are constants lip
getting caught and not paying their citation.
Correct?
11:45:11 >> In the criminal context or the civil context?
11:45:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
First in the civil and then the criminal if
you could give me that distinction.
11:45:19 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
In the criminal context, yes.
There are substantial penalties and eventually that will
catch up.
The problem, and other jurisdictions are experiencing this
with their civil citation programs, is the refusal to pay.
Those don't really have a down side.
We are not going to file a civil suit to recover $500, which
is why in our draft they don't get a second bite of that
apple.
They get one time and if they refuse to take advantage
before that lack of a criminal history record, the next time
they are arrested, the next time they are caught with
marijuana regardless of the amount, they could go through
the misdemeanor arrest process.
11:46:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Typically the reason why -- and based on our
conversation, to what my reading of the ordinance is, we are
really just trying to say, look, if you get caught with
something, pay your fine, go about your business, and even
if they get caught, a second time, let's same two or three
months after the first fine has been cited and paid, they
can be cited, paid again, and they can go about their
business.
Is that correct?
Without any of the criminal background.
Is that correct?
11:46:42 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
Yes, sir.
Including a higher fine amount for subsequent violations.
11:46:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So if I get called a second time it's 150.
I correct? So the idea is that when you get caught, pay
your citation.
Don't do anything that you shouldn't do, which is not pay
it, put yourself in a position where you may be skirting
along to a criminal channel as opposed to a civil direction.
Is that correct?
11:47:08 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
Right.
11:47:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, chair.
11:47:10 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Mrs. Montelione.
11:47:11 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
I have a couple of questions about the construction of the
ordinance.
Your definition, cannabis is a definition, paraphernalia is
a definition.
And then paragraph C states that if you are charged with
possession of cannabis and receive -- we are assuming first
offense.
We'll just, as an example, you received a $75 fine.
It says, B, may not be charged with possession of
paraphernalia arising out of the same incident.
It doesn't say anywhere in the ordinance what the penalty is
for possessing paraphernalia.
11:48:00 >> That's accurate.
A problem with my writing of the ordinance.
But I believe it says and it was intended to say that if you
just have paraphernalia, which translated is frequently a
pipe, for example, a bong for smoking in it that has
marijuana residue in it, not enough for a field test but
perhaps not the green leafy substance that you can weigh it
independent of paraphernalia, a device for ingesting it.
So this ordinance would also make a civil violation out of
possession of the paraphernalia.
Frequently, those items are found together.
But the paraphernalia and green leaf --
11:48:48 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
But on occasion they are not.
As you said on occasion it's just the paraphernalia that
somebody has with them.
11:48:57 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
Right.
Which under Florida law is itself a misdemeanor so the
ordinance would also decriminalize the possession of the
mere paraphernalia.
11:49:07 >> So I think that needs to be called out specifically in
the ordinance.
And it doesn't seem to very clearly.
11:49:23 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
Section C.
Any person honor possesses paraphernalia, except as
otherwise authorized by law, commits a violation of this
subsection.
Provided, however, that a person charged with possession of
cannabis under subsection B may not be charged with
possession of paraphernalia arising out of --
11:49:42 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Bu right, but they wouldn't be charged
twice.
11:49:44 >> Right.
11:49:46 >> I get that.
But to me it doesn't call out separately, if you only have
paraphernalia, it's also a $75 fine and it would follow the
same process as having the actual product.
It's just not clear.
It's not clear to me.
I'm sure it's not going to be clear to a lot of other
people.
11:50:11 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
I understand completely.
I'll take another look at that.
11:50:15 >> So maybe we can just have two paragraphs that isolate out
the concept so that it is very clear to the ordinary citizen
who is reading this.
11:50:24 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
I understand.
11:50:24 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
Then the other about the fines and if you don't pay the fine
and what happens thereafter earlier.
We were talking about bicycle citations, and when we heard
some of the testimony, when we were dealing with that issue,
we heard from some people who either didn't pay, you know,
their ticket, and then ended up having complications out of
not having paid their ticket.
I don't know how many individuals -- I don't recall from the
testimony where we had that hearing -- how many people ended
up having worse circumstances because they didn't pay the
ticket.
Are the tickets only payable by writing a check or giving a
credit card, by mail?
Tell me a little bit about the process of how the ticket is
paid.
If we want people to pay it right away, I want to make it as
easy as possible to pay that ticket and not have it be some,
you know, antiquated way of writing a check and putting it
in an envelope and sticking a stamp on it and sending snail
mail.
Hardly anybody does that anymore.
11:51:51 >> Part of the reason that we can do this without additional
personnel is that the process is essentially in existence.
It's the open container process.
That we have used now for a couple of years.
Civil citations for open containers.
11:52:11 >> What is that?
I have never had to pay an open container fine, sir.
11:52:21 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
Basically it's written according to the
city attorney's office.
Personnel collects the fine.
People can walk in.
The address is on the citation.
People can mail in.
And there's a collection point for that.
And then records are kept as to whether or not that citation
is paid.
At the end of 30 days if than the citation is not paid it's
forwarded to the county.
11:52:47 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Can you pay the citation on our website?
I mean, you can pay your utility bill and I think you can
pay a parking ticket.
I know I pay my utility bills by going to the website.
I think I have to go to the website.
I think paying a parking ticket is also there.
And I am getting nodding heads.
11:53:06 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
From behind me, I hope.
(Laughter).
11:53:13 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
Have you paid an open container
citation?
11:53:15 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
We can't ask that question, Mr.
Rainesberger.
11:53:19 >> We do pay things in that fashion, yes.
11:53:24 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So I would like to see this also be
available for payment on our website.
11:53:31 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
It will be.
11:53:32 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Great.
Thank you.
I think that's our customer process for people now senior to
just go to a website and make a payment on the website.
Thank you.
That's all the questions I have, sir.
11:53:45 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Okay.
I am going to let you close it out.
11:53:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I hope it's not under the open container
rule because open containers, in my opinion -- and not to
disrespect anyone here -- it's certainly not adhered to over
all parts of the city.
You can fine 10,000 people, between Himes and Dale Mabry,
and MLK and Tampa Bay Boulevard, in fact 10,000 of them in
one day.
How many get a ticket there?
Very few.
However, if you go somewhere else in the city, find one
dude, and bingo, he's arrested or she's arrested.
Again no offense to anyone here but I can prove everything I
say.
You can watch what happened.
Out can't have 200, 300 police officers taking care of
60,000 people.
They get stampeded.
They can't handle it.
So what bothers me the most is it's all about money.
If you really want to help society, if you really want to
help the young people, that had the choice of their parents
raising them, they had the choice of having the parents or
grandparents, the aunt, uncle, the police officers going to
parks talking about don't do this, don't do that, I can't
legislative choices.
The public here has choices that they have to make on that
you are own.
That's their choice to do what they want to do.
If it's the law, abide by it.
If you want to take the risk and do what you want to do,
then take the risk.
I can't legislate what you want to do.
That's your prerogative, ladies and gentlemen.
That's not mine.
I don't tell you where to live, what to buy, I don't tell
you what car to drive.
I don't tell you what to smoke.
If you want to do it, do it.
But there's a penalty with that.
Here is where it comes in.
If we really want to help the young people -- a and most of
them don't have the el diniro to pay the fine-o, what do you
think they are going to do?
They have only got two choices.
Don't pay it -- it doesn't work very well in my view.
That's just my view.
So what are we doing?
If the feds want to change the law I'm all for it.
But to me, to legislate and try to work around something
just because we want to do it, everybody wants to do it,
that's fine.
But don't take and choose who you want to do it and how you
want to do it.
The money part of it to me is a disgrace.
If you really want to help the young people, don't find
them.
Put them in the diversion program, including those of age.
Money doesn't mean anything.
We already have a police force.
We have code enforcement.
We have the legal department.
Why do you have to collect money? There's no need to
collect money if you really want to talk to them and say you
are doing the wrong thing.
You either have the opportunity to make the right choice for
yourself -- not for me.
I told my kids the three thing.
I don't believe they have ever done it.
If they did, I sure as hell don't know about it.
But to place it all on money, it's what's ruining this
country.
Get a red light.
Pay a ticket.
Pay the ticket.
They don't have the money.
And we continue to talk about money.
That's the only thing that bothers me in this ordinance is
about money.
If you already have it in place, and you don't need no other
employees, why do we need moneys?
Answer that?
11:58:02 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
A philosophical issue -- and if you are
asking me in my personal capacity --
11:58:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I wouldn't embarrass you.
11:58:10 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
You would.
We go back a very long way.
11:58:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
We both had hair and you still do.
11:58:21 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
The people behind me would disagree.
We are not trying to encourage the use of marijuana. So the
balance for the police department and, frankly, for the
other members of council and for the citizenry, is we don't
want to encourage the use, and we don't want to give
somebody a criminal history record for what society has come
to conclude is a very minor violation.
But somewhere between just ignoring it and putting you in
jail is some kind of penalty.
And what kind of penalty can we assess?
The penalties that we have chosen to assess is financial.
If you can't pay the fine, one of your options is to not do
the crime.
And we would hope that maybe people would select that opens
because frankly outside of medical marijuana context, I
don't know personally how good it is for you.
So we discourage its use.
And if only to encourage compliance with existing law.
If you want to go to Tallahassee and completely wipe the law
off the books, that's society's prerogative.
The city doesn't have that power.
11:59:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
And thank you very much.
I don't want to take too much of your time.
But again, I don't like it.
I am going to vote against it.
I am going to tell you this.
I one vote more likely for it on a trial basis if it had no
money because I want to make sure that those young kids --
it's a shame that it goes on for life but that's a choice
that they made.
They knew watch the law is.
If I rob a bank, do I go to jail if I rob the bank for $100
and for $20 I go to this program?
No.
I robbed a bank.
I'm not trying to make it the same.
But what I am saying is if I break the law as I know it and
they know it, there's a penalty.
So if you are going to have money into it, there might be
another breaking of the law.
That's all I'm saying.
12:00:40 >>FRANK REDDICK:
We need to get --
12:00:42 >> Move to extend for another half hour.
12:00:45 >>: All right.
Another half hour, by Mr. Cohen, seconded by Mr. Miranda.
All in favor?
Opposed?
Make it brief.
12:00:59 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'm in the slow motion this morning.
I don't know about anybody else.
So, the only option we are doing here is payment of a fine.
Would it be possible, without having to end up in front of
this judge in a court, to have a component of community
service if someone can't afford the fine? And then as a
first offense? Or as alternative to the $75 for first
offense?
I mean if it's a second or third I understand that.
But if it's somebody who -- Mr. Suarez used the example, you
know, doesn't frequently smoke marijuana, but has the
unfortunate incident that they get caught, or one of the few
times that they do, and having to pay a $75 fine, could they
do community service instead?
12:02:05 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
It's possible.
But not without a substantial administrative infrastructure
that we don't currently have.
So if you want to hire a couple of people to administer this
program, to make sure that people perform those community
service hours --
12:02:32 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
But doesn't the court system already
have a process?
Do you want to weigh in on this?
Because there are other infractions that the court deems,
you know, that they serve community service instead of, you
know, a fine or jail sentence.
12:02:52 >> Mike Schmitt.
I can give you a little more to go back on.
When somebody gets arrested they are going to have to pay
substantial court costs, hire an attorney, bond associated
with that.
There's going to be a substantial cost to arrest an
individual for possession of cannabis.
The city's proposal is a citation, $75.
It's a substantial will you less alternative.
An individual getting arrested honor does have the option of
going to diversion is still going to face even more cost,
because the way diversion is set up, you would go to county
court.
You qualify for what's flown as misdemeanor intervention
program.
You actually have to pay for that program.
And that's a substantial cost.
As for the city doing community service, I have looked into
that issue in the past.
And not only what Mr. Rainesberger said, but we have to
consider insurance.
I contacted Salvation Army, and we would have to have these
people shard.
Otherwise, when they go do community service hours, they get
injured, they sue the city.
So having somebody just do community service hours to work
something off not only is the administrative costs but there
is the risk of liability to the city.
So the way that misdemeanor provision works, the person has
to purchase an insurance card, and that insurance comes at
an additional cost to the person.
But the person has to purchase an insurance card before they
go out and start cleaning up trash or whatever, if they are
going to do insurance through the Salvation Army.
12:04:46 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Do you know how much that cost is?
12:04:49 >> Well, you know, this is a couple of years ago, and this
was back when the Salvation Army was still supervising it.
They are no longer supervising.
So back in, I believe, the conversation I had with them, I
believe it was $15.
It wasn't a substantial thing, but that's because they had
already done --
12:05:11 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So to see if it was imperative for those
fines.
Substantially less.
12:05:16 >> But in order to do that, they have to pay the monthly
cost for insurance because they have a community service
probation officer.
They have a probation officer.
That's, I think, 40 bucks a month plus the insurance card,
another 15, $20.
You have to get a contract with that insurance company.
So it's a lot of steps.
Which did research that in the past because I wanted to
consider community service for the City of Tampa.
And it got to be so overwhelming that we haven't initiated
it.
12:05:49 >> I understand.
Thank you.
12:05:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I think he was looking at my way without
mentioning my name, and I understand everything the young
man said.
I don't have that capability.
But the city did say that there was no cost involved, and
they had it all done, code enforcement police and the legal
department was going to have it.
They had no hires to be hired.
But there was ample personnel on staff to do that.
That's what I heard.
12:06:17 >> If you do it over a fine system as it's presently
constructed Miranda so if there's no fine, there should be
no problem then.
12:06:26 >> If you are not going to penalize them at all, you're
right.
12:06:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
So that's what you are trying to do.
You know, you can only be halfway pregnant?
12:06:37 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
We are not understanding each other.
12:06:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Well, it's all right.
I understand.
You understand what I am saying.
12:06:42 >> (Audience member):
No.
12:06:46 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.
12:06:46 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
It's a public meeting.
This is a council meeting.
It's not a public town hall.
So, I mean, Mr. Chairman, you said earlier outbursts and you
can't just call out from the audience.
12:07:04 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
When I see this, I think about a
gentleman I knew in college back in 2005.
He was arrested, misdemeanor charge.
Eventually, the charges were dropped.
The case was dismissed but only after he had to spend a
night in jail, had to pay for an attorney, had to deal with
let's of stress.
And after that, anytime he applied for a job he had to say,
he was asked if he has ever been arrested, he had to explain
what the situation was.
Had this been in place back then, he would have paid a $75
fine instead of thousands to an attorney, never had to go to
jail, never had to deal with that, and in future employment,
didn't have to answer the question of previous or prior
arrests.
Today, last time I heard he was a productive member of
society were a family, with a good job and whatnot, but that
always lingers.
Had this been in place it would have never been an issue.
That $75 fine.
That was his only infraction, only time he did anything
against the law.
So when it comes to this, I'm glad to see that we are
bringing there up.
12:08:10 >>FRANK REDDICK:
You know, before I turn to Mr. Cohen to
make final comments, make a motion, I first want to thank my
colleagues for initiating this discussion here today by
putting it on the agenda for discussion, and Mr. Cohen.
I had a chance ton review the board minutes, the draft that
you submitted to us, and let me just say briefly that we
have got to get away from thinking about -- everything has
changed.
We see this in this current presidential election.
Things are changing.
But you cannot -- and I feel good about this -- I would
encourage everyone to go back and read the article on
Saturday where she spoke about the young man who made one
mistake, one mistake, and he's paying for it the rest of his
life.
One mistake.
He got caught with less than 20 grams.
And he's paying for it.
He's denied so many opportunities for jobs, for college, for
the military, he's been denied all those opportunities
because he made that one mistake.
Should we deny all these individuals to make that one
mistake?
Because I guarantee you, each one of us goes back to our
young days.
We made a mistake.
We made a mistake.
We just didn't get caught.
But we made a mistake.
And I don't think not one of us can sit up here and say we
have not made a mistake.
Ran a red light, we were standing in a park drinking a beer
with open container.
You made a mistake.
You just didn't get caught.
But some of these people out there that make a mistake, they
deserve that opportunity for a second chance.
And this ordinance -- yes, I support this.
You continue to violate, violate, and violate, and not pay
the fine, I think there's something in the ordinance about
30 days, you have some type of penalty after 30 days and all
of this.
So what kind of future can we have, what kind of city can we
have, when we deny the people an opportunity because they
made one mistake?
We just can't be that type of city.
I mean, you got a 19, 18 or 19-year-old, and you get caught
with a joint or two joints, and I still don't know how many
joints is 20 grams but if he got caught with a joint or two,
and he's denied the opportunity for provide for your family
by one mistake, you are denied the ability to go to military
to represent your country because of one joint or two
joints, or you are denied that opportunity to be an elected
official because of one joint or two joints.
I guarantee you, if you look at the citizens around this
country and this city, and they were denied an opportunity,
some of them had that joint, or two joints growing up.
If they got caught they wouldn't be sitting here now.
So I am going to support this ordinance here.
And I agree, it can use some tightening up that Mrs.
Montelione talked about, I support that.
And I support my colleagues bringing there forward because
let mow just conclude by saying this.
When you deny these people that second opportunity, these
are the people that you are going to find out, these are the
people you are going to find on the street corners without a
job.
These are the people that have to rob to make ends meet
because they are denied these opportunities.
We have got to be about making changes in society, that we
are going to deny one mistake about a joint.
And then in my senior year, at prom night, somebody passed
me a joint to me and I had the worst day of my life.
(Laughter)
I haven't seen a joint since.
But suppose passing that joint around on prom night they got
caught, I would not be sitting here today.
And that's the reason why I say these people at least
deserve this opportunity.
And I turn to my colleague, Mr. Cohen.
12:14:06 >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Things are changing in this country.
And our nature, our sense of what's fair and unfair, what's
right and wrong, continues to evolve.
And the presidential election was mentioned in passing,
because we are seeing right now so many of the issues that
are contentious are things that have been building up over
time, things that have been crying out for change.
And the fundamental problem with our current marijuana laws
are that the punishments don't fit the offense.
We are punishing people so disproportionately in relation to
what it is that they have done that we completely,
completely have gotten the system out of whack.
The reason it is so bad to enter the court system on the
first time was amply discussed here today, and what it is is
that the minute you walk in the door of the courthouse, it's
thousands of dollars out of your pocket to deal with the
costs that come with just walking in the door and availing
yourself of the system.
I actually agree with Councilman Miranda.
I wish there would be no fine situation for this.
But the fine is our way of saying, we don't approve of this,
we are not legalizing it, but we are recognizing that the
way we are handling it now is totally disproportionate to
what it is that we are trying to get across to people.
And Councilman Reddick and Councilman Maniscalco in what
they were describing is the fact that under the current
symptom, people's lives are literally ruined because of one
or two youthful indiscretions, things that really deserve,
yes, a small fine, but not the kind of a sanction that will
ultimately cause you not to be able to get a job, caution
you to fall into debt, cause you to perhaps have untold
legal bills.
You might even find yourself in a situation down the road
where you can't find a job.
And the fact is in this country whether we like it or not,
minorities are far disproportionately affected by these laws
the way that they are currently enforced, and that is just a
fact. And the only way that we can bring things back to
some kind of parody is by examining the penalties for this
type of behavior.
This is not legalization.
It is simply a concession that what we are doing is too
harsh and its consequences are too severe.
And peoples lives are being ruined in this present system.
People who need these items for medical purposes, for
compassionate purposes, because they are suffering from
cancer or glaucoma, should not be fearful that they are
going to end up in jail or that they are going to end up
bankrupt.
They ought to know that their behavior is not going to be
sanctioned in such a way that their life is going to be
ruined on the other side of it.
So my view is that we should move this ordinance forward.
I would like to see it come back on first reading on March
3rd.
And I would like to make a motion to set it for hearing on
that date.
12:17:44 >> Second.
12:17:46 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
May I?
12:17:49 >>FRANK REDDICK:
We have a motion from Mr. Cohen.
Seconded by Mr. Maniscalco.
Question?
12:17:55 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.
I would like you to consider the amendment that I asked for.
12:17:58 >>HARRY COHEN:
Well, here is the issue.
And we can certainly discuss it but I think that Mr.
Rainesberger's answer goes to the heart of the current
problem, which is the minute that you start putting these
types of conditions on, there has to be a mechanism --
12:18:13 >> No, I am talking about the paraphernalia.
12:18:16 >>HARRY COHEN:
I think he agreed to change the language --
12:18:22 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
But I want to --
12:18:24 >>HARRY COHEN:
I'm sorry, I thought you were going to the
other issue.
12:18:29 >> No.
And I just want to be sure about the payment on the website.
I don't not that that has to be in the ordinance.
But I want to hear from IC that they are going to be able to
make that available.
12:18:40 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.
We have a motion from Mr. Cohen.
Seconded by Mr. Maniscalco with an amendment by Mrs.
Montelione.
You accept it?
12:18:57 >>HARRY COHEN:
Yes.
Thank you.
12:18:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Just because I am going to vote for to
the come back doesn't mean I am going to support.
I put that on the record.
12:19:05 >>: All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
Okay.
9:30, March 3rd.
12:19:15 >>HARRY COHEN:
March 3rd.
12:19:17 >>: Thank you.
We go to item number 7.
12:19:21 >>REBECCA KERT:
Legal department.
I am here on item number 7 which is a request for the legal
department to appear and review the possibilities of
adopting an ordinance allowing solicitation on the city's
right-of-way.
I have met with all of you individually, and as you know we
are currently in litigation under solicitation ordinance as
well as reviewing the others that are coming out, and we are
not in a position to put forward any proposed amendments at
this time.
I'm available if there are any questions.
12:19:57 >>: Mr. Cohen.
12:19:58 >>HARRY COHEN:
I would like to suggest that we not receive
regular updates on this again until there's been somebody
change in the status, if someone brings it up, because we
keep bringing it up and there's really nothing to talk
about.
12:20:15 >>FRANK REDDICK:
That's a motion?
Seconded by Mr. Miranda.
Any further discussion on the motion?
All those in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
Okay.
I guess we won't see you for a while.
(Laughter)
All right.
Item number 8.
12:20:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Move item number 8 to March 8th.
12:20:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
May I speak to that?
I agree whenever Mr. Suarez to what he said.
But are we going to have a breakdown?
I can't ask for -- if you see the auditors to go do an audit
to find out what really transpired because the people that I
spoke to that did with MANCON and I don't understand how
MANCON can have a building on city property.
They pay no rent, as I understand it.
I don't flow if they are still there.
12:21:16 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I think you need to come and --
12:21:21 >>GREG SPEARMAN:
Purchasing.
What was the question again?
12:21:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
As I recall a year or so ago when this
came up first they were using the same city building that
the city was in without paying rent.
I don't not if that's still happening or are they paying
rent?
I can't ask for an audit because it's under administration
to do an audit of comparable cost to the city.
I understand and I agree. I'm not questioning anyone's
authority but I want to the see it on paper by an auditor.
12:21:50 >>GREG SPEARMAN:
We will gets back with you when we come
back.
12:21:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Okay, thank you.
12:21:54 >>FRANK REDDICK:
So there is a motion to request a
continuance.
I think, Mr. Suarez, you made it?
Seconded by Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor of the motion?
Opposed?
All right.
Item number 9.
Got a resolution here.
Come on.
12:22:13 >> Ocea Lattimore:
Department of asset management, and I'm
here to see if you have any questions on items number 9, 10
and 11.
12:22:26 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any questions on item number 9?
12:22:27 >> I have a question on 9, sir.
It took me off guard that it's JH Oil Company and the fuel
and diesel?
12:22:41 >> Yes, the fuel that we purchased, yes.
12:22:43 >> And do you know, Mrs. Lattimore, is 11.8 million higher
or lower than our last contract?
I know gas prices have gone down and we try to have more
efficiency.
12:23:00 >>HARRY COHEN:
You want to know how much per gallon.
It could be a different amount.
12:23:05 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.
So what the dollar amount is.
Thank you, Mr. Cohen.
Per gallon, not in total.
12:23:11 >> Per our last contract, I do not have that.
I'm sorry.
12:23:19 >>GREG SPEARMAN:
We actually buy gas line, information
service and that is the lowest price that municipalities can
purchase fuel.
That's market rate, and we try to keep it less than what we
pay --
12:23:45 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
That answers my question.
Thank you.
12:23:49 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Okay.
Other questions?
All right.
We need a motion.
12:23:52 >>HARRY COHEN:
Move item 9.
12:23:57 >>: Motion by Mr. Cohen.
Seconded by Mr. Suarez.
All in favor?
Opposed?
Item 10.
Any questions?
12:24:04 >> Move item number 10.
12:24:05 >>HARRY COHEN:
Second.
12:24:07 >>: Seconded by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
All right.
Motion carried.
Item 11.
12:24:12 >> Move item number 11.
12:24:15 >>FRANK REDDICK:
We got a motion from Mrs. Montelione.
Seconded by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
Motion carried.
Item number 12.
12:24:23 >> Move item 12.
12:24:30 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Saving you time to come speak.
We got a motion from Mr. Miranda.
Seconded by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of the motion say aye?
Opposed?
12:24:38 >> Move item 13.
12:24:41 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Got a motion from Mr. Cohen.
Second by Mr. Miranda.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
Motion carried.
All right.
Item 60.
12:24:50 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Move item 60.
12:24:57 >>HARRY COHEN:
Second.
12:24:58 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All in favor?
Opposed.
Okay.
12:25:00 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
We have five minutes left. So 15 more
minutes?
12:25:15 >>FRANK REDDICK:
15 more minutes.
Okay.
Yes, ma'am.
12:25:18 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
Land development.
12:25:19 >> I'm sorry.
Excuse me for a second.
12:25:22 >>THE CLERK:
This is quasi, so they need to be sworn in.
12:25:28 >>: I didn't see that. Thank you. All those to speak on
item 60, please stand to be sworn in.
(Oath administered by Clerk).
12:25:43 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
Land development.
The petition before you is SU-1-1605, property located at
524 West Davis Boulevard.
The request is for an extended family residence as a special
use 1 in the RS-75 district.
The code requires that an extended family residence limits
it to 600 square feet.
The site plan that I had reviewed had a square footage of
608 feet.
Accessory structure which is where the extended family
residence is being located is also limited to a maximum
height of 15 feet.
The proposed structure, I estimated the high of 22.
The applicant is telling me it's over, I think, 19 feet.
They can clarify.
But the property is located on Davis Boulevard, west Davis
Boulevard.
The site plan shows the accessory structure in the rear.
It has a 5 foot side and rear setback.
Well behind the 60 foot setback in the front.
It is a tall structure.
Here is the elevation of the accessory dwelling.
My understanding is the grade of the property is such that
it requires a higher elevation because of the flood
regulations to bring up the finished floor.
Those are the waivers that are listed as being needed for an
extended family residence to be approved.
12:27:24 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any questions from council?
All right.
Petitioner.
12:27:29 >> Good morning, City Council.
My name is Phattara Gibbs, property owner at 524 west Davis.
I'm here to petition the decision made by the zoning
committee regarding the accessory structure.
The proposed structure, what we will be asking for is the
structure to be about 19.5 feet, which is four and a half
feet above what is required, what the maximum required.
The reason being that we have to take the FEMA requirements
into consideration, which means that we have to be four and
a half feet above grade already.
And if you take that aside, the structure is 15 feet.
The approved structure currently has a flat roof, but a
pitched roof.
That was the only difference between the approved structure
and approved structure.
The living quarter is the same.
The soffit is the same.
The location window will be the same.
The only difference of four feet upon the roof.
The reason why we asked for a pitched roof is for multiple
reasons. One for architectural design to be consistent with
the house, and structures surrounded by trees which
accumulate.
12:29:07 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any questions from council?
Mr. Suarez.
12:29:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
A couple of quick questions.
First of all, I had a flat roof before.
I know they don't flow.
It's never a good thing.
In terms of the specific FEMA requirement, what does it say?
12:29:27 >> They have to be above sea level in order to ensure the
property, and that was the minimum requirement required by
FEMA.
12:29:36 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So you are saying that in order to get your
insurance, FEMA is requiring a certain height?
12:29:42 >> And approved by the city we have to be a certain height.
12:29:48 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So you are caught between a flood and a --
12:29:52 >> And if you take that grading a way, we are at 15 feet.
So it was out of our control to have to build it up, it was
kind of out of our control.
12:30:03 >> And you could build it up -- could not build it up?
You would be doing it structurally instead of on the grade.
You are not filling in in order to make it higher, correct?
12:30:12 >> Correct.
And that's the lowest that we can build.
12:30:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, chair.
12:30:20 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Okay, any questions?
Anyone in the audience wish to speak on item number 60?
12:30:23 >> My name is Janice Rickert.
I am the property owner at the southern border of the fence
line that The accessory structure is on.
You talk about a flat roof in Florida, and I understand that
because half of my personal dwelling is flat roof.
It can't be done.
This allows council to realize this is an accessory
structure. This is not the main house.
What is being proposed to be built is 22 feet high, 5 feet
off of my fence line.
It is the visual view of my family room, out my kitchen, out
my dining room.
He's a great neighbor.
The construction crew has been fine.
But it is a large house that is being built there.
It is not out of control that FEMA is requiring this
accessory structure be built four and a half feet hair.
This is not his main house. He does not have to have an
accessory structure with living quarters in it.
That is a choice he's making.
We talked about choice today.
So I would like you to understand and appreciate the effect
that a large secondary structure will have on the
surrounding property, on the value of the surrounding
property.
Single story ranch house.
I have a very large two story house going up next to me with
a request for a very large second home on the lot.
Accessory structures are meant to be garages, pool houses,
maybe a quick shower after getting in the pool.
They are not meant to be a living dwelling.
In addition to the square footage and the height of this
property, we are going to have air conditioners making
noise.
We are going to have someone having their own life going on
in that five feet from my fence line.
This is not what's meant by accessory structure. It's been
approved.
I understand that.
I will accept that.
But he then asks that it be approved beyond the ordinances
for building.
So I ask the council consider that when reviewing this.
12:32:53 >> I'm Donna Chrishain.
I live behind Mr. Gibbs.
And I think it is a fairly large structure going up.
I also have an original structure.
I plan some day to have a pool, hopefully.
So anyway, I don't want to repeat what she said, but I'm
opposed to making it bigger than it needs to be.
I think it was really a matter of flat roof versus a pumped
roof.
But he will get the building he wants for the uses that he
wants, and it's going to be beautiful.
But I'm opposed to that.
And also the other neighbors.
So I have letters from them, the surrounding neighbors
couldn't be here today.
That's one neighbor.
Then this would be our neighbor behind next to me.
They kind of share the same lot in the back.
Again, they already have a flat roof and I also have a flat
roof.
And then the neighbor on the side, he's also opposed to it.
You see it in the front page in this article.
So I appreciate it.
12:34:33 >> Randy Soloman, and I have been sworn.
And this is a request to review the decision of the zoning
administrator pertaining to a special use 1 permit
application.
The applicant is essentially requesting a height variance
which would result in a nonconforming new construction
primary structure.
The variance exceeds the allowable height of the ordinance
by more than 40%.
The city staff decision to deny the permit application was
correct based on the ordinances. To the extent the City
Council reverses the staff decision, which will then allow
for the issuance of a special permit, City Council should
stay within the specific basis for the decision.
The record should be clear as to what sections of the
ordinance support the decision, why this matter should not
be subject to the normal variance review process.
Section 26.61 provides direction regarding City Council's
review of the zoning administrator, permits, specifically,
City Council shall follow all applicable ordinances in
arriving at its decision and reviewing the permit and
hearing evidence and testimony either affirm the permit or
deny the permit.
The arguments presented within the applicant's petitioner
focused on matters which pertain to a height variance, not a
special use situation.
Section 27-132 specifically states that an extended family
residence must be included within a conforming accessory
structure and provide additional citation -- stating it may
not be located in a nonconforming accessory structure or
structure result of a variance.
The ordinance states in part B, the intent of this use is to
meet a temporary need, and part H, the special using permit
shall be reviewed annually by staff and if any conditions or
occupants change, the special use permit will be required.
The applicant is requesting that the City Council approve a
permanent high variance for a special using permit, the
ordinance is temporary in nature.
Furthermore, should the City Council grant the request,
there's no guarantee that a permit will be renewed.
If a permit is not issued the result will be a nonconforming
permanent structure with no special use accessory.
Approved outside the variance process.
And a special use application process is not the proper
venue for what is essentially a variance request and
approval of the applicant's request will be contrary to the
ordinance to establish process, be incompatible with the
neighborhood, and open the city to potential legal
challenges.
Thank you very much.
12:37:20 >> Debbie Zimmomond, and I have been sworn as well.
I would like to incorporate all the prior comments, and in
brevity I will not repeat the comments, but I would like the
comments from the last three speakers incorporated into my
time.
Thank you very much.
12:37:47 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right, petitioner.
12:37:48 >> I will speak to a couple of their concerns regarding
privacy issues.
I completely understand where the neighbors are coming from.
Like I told you previously, it will be the same height.
The structure is not going to -- it will not exceed from
what's approved.
We are asking for only four and a half feet at maximum to
19.5 feet, not 23 feet as stated.
And that four feet will only be seen at the tip of the roof,
and I think it makes the building appear nicer as the
neighbors look at it.
And we plan to follow all the requirements required for
extended family.
My parents live overseas, and they come just a couple times
a year, and that's the reason I am building it, and we plan
to follow all the guidelines by the city.
And it's not for someone to live there permanently.
It's only going to be a couple months out of the year.
12:38:59 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Questions by council?
12:39:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, chair.
Can I ask a question real quick?
Before I ask you the question I want to point out the flat
roof that I was talking about was 1958, and someone added
onto it and did an awful job, and I have lived in that house
until I finally had to sell it because it was so bad.
But, anyway, this is totally different.
Ms. Moreda, we received something in a handout of the
proposed structure versus the approved structure.
Is this something that you provided to us?
Okay.
Now, according to what the applicant is saying an approved
structure with 600 square foot allows for a flat roof
design, no oven in the kitchen and a total structure, 15
feet.
Is that correct?
12:39:49 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
That complies with code requirements.
12:39:51 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So the only difference is between a flat
roof and a pitched roof.
12:39:57 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
That's correct.
12:39:58 >> I wanted to get that through earlier because, believe me,
sometimes, sir, I laugh at our ordinances too but I wanted
to make sure, which there really is a design standard
change, not a problem with them building the appurantment
structure.
12:40:16 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
One of the conditions of the special use is
that it be conforming accessory structure.
It has been a longstanding practice that we take these cases
to council so that you can decide whether or not this is
appropriate, given the location and the character of the
area.
Rather than to go through the process.
12:40:39 >>HARRY COHEN:
My problem with this is that this extra
couple of feet, five feet from the property line, totally
changes the character of the neighbor's yard.
And I'm really afraid that if we start going down this road,
we have properties all over the city that are in low lying
floodplains, and our accessory structure, 15-foot limit, if
we start -- if we start relaxing it, based on these types of
arguments, it's going to be "Katie bar the door" for the
size of the structures that are going to start getting built
literally staring right into people's yards.
And I understand the difficulty.
But the fact is you can still have the structure without
relaxing the rules, it just seems to be designed a little
bit differently, so to me it's the safer choice.
12:41:38 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'm sorry, I didn't chuckle.
It's the second time you used "Katie bar the door," and I
don't think I have heard that in years.
He's too young to know that.
So, you know, the finished floor elevation is what the issue
is with the floodplain.
And I understand that.
But I don't share the same comment about the privacy,
because the four feet is in the pitch of the roof.
So unless there's going to be a wind off in that roof, and
the floor flat up into the attic, no one is going to be
peering over the side.
So it's just simply because of the pitch of the roof.
And a flat roof no matter what year they were built most lit
in Florida are nightmares because they just collect water
and debris.
And up north they collect snow.
So just flat roofs are a nightmare, period.
I just don't share the same viewpoint.
It's a flood elevation that you have to comply with a
building permits or you don't get the building permit.
To build the structure.
And the extra few feet is just in the pitch of the roof.
If it was different, if there was a second story, if there
were windows, if there were other circumstances, I would
agree with you, Mr. Cohen.
But since it's only the roof line, I don't have a problem
with it.
Sorry.
12:43:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I just want to say, because his choices.
They had a choice and they took it.
I can't control choices.
That's all I am going to say.
12:43:32 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any further comments?
Anyone else? Does anyone else wants to speak?
12:43:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
[Off microphone.]
12:43:50 >> [Off microphone.] Everything else will be conforming to
the guidelines.
That's the only difference.
12:44:01 >> CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move to close.
12:44:03 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Got a motion from Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mr. Suarez.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
What's the pleasure of council ever?
12:44:13 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I prove approval.
I guess it would be to agree with the zoning
administrator --
12:44:25 >> Overrule.
12:44:26 >> You look like you want to come to the microphone.
12:44:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Your intention is to affirm or overturn?
12:44:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Affirm.
12:44:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Second.
12:44:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I am going to direct your attention to
page 3 of the order.
12:44:46 >> If you are affirming, you are overturning.
12:44:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
It would be proper under Florida statutes
to give a reason for denial of the development permit to
state the basis, the statutory basis of that denial.
12:45:01 >> The statutory basis per the zoning administrator.
We are affirming the statutory process based on what the
zoning administrator said.
We are just agreeing to the fact that you are following
state and not allowing this particular project to go
forward.
So that's the affirmation.
12:45:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
And therefore, correct me if I am
mistaken, 27-129 you are reviewing the general standards?
12:45:26 >> that's exactly what Ms. Moreda put on there so I am
agreeing with Ms. Moreda.
12:45:32 >>FRANK REDDICK:
We have a motion by Mr. Suarez.
Second by Mr. Miranda.
Further discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Those opposed?
12:45:39 >>THE CLERK:
Motion passed with Montelione voting no.
12:45:52 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Mr. Miranda?
12:45:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
No.
12:45:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Nothing right now.
12:45:57 >>HARRY COHEN:
Nothing.
12:45:59 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
I would like to congratulate my sister
and my brother-in-law.
She had a baby girl this morning.
12:46:05 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Congratulations.
12:46:05 >>THE CLERK:
[Off microphone.] We have two items about the
resolution.
12:46:16 >>HARRY COHEN:
I would make a motion that we postpone that
till our next meeting.
It's Councilwoman Capin's item. So let's put that till
March 3rd.
12:46:26 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.
Anything else?
You say two?
12:46:30 >>THE CLERK:
[off microphone.]
12:46:33 >> All in favor say aye.
Opposed?
Okay.
12:46:36 >>THE CLERK:
And you have the resolution of committee
appointments.
12:46:40 >> Motion by Mr. Cohen.
Second by Mr. Suarez.
All in favor?
Opposed?
All right.
Mrs. Montelione.
12:46:48 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
There is a staff report scheduled for
Thom Snelling and Vanessa McCleary, Hillsborough Tampa
Housing Authority, to appear to discuss the situation with
affordable housing and the number of units available.
So I would like to move that from a staff report to a
workshop, considering there might be considerable discussion
about it.
And I'm hoping there will be.
So that would be moved to March 24 at 9:00 a.m.
12:47:28 >>HARRY COHEN:
Second.
12:47:30 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I have a motion from Mrs. Montelione.
Seconded by Mr. Miranda.
All in favor?
Opposed?
12:47:36 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I would also ask -- and it doesn't have
to be part of the motion but I would also ask that legal
department be here and revenue and finance as well during
that workshop.
12:47:48 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Duly noted.
Anything else?
12:47:51 >> No.
12:47:52 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Before you do that, sir, one item.
Request a commendation for the second annual Tampa pride
celebration taking place on March 26, 2016 in Ybor City.
12:48:13 >>HARRY COHEN:
Motion by Councilman Reddick, seconded by
Councilman Miranda.
All in favor?
Opposed?
All right.
12:48:20 >> (Off microphone.)
12:48:20 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Got a motion from Mr. Miranda, seconded by
Ms. Montelione.
All in favor?
Opposed?
Okay.
Seeing no one to speak at this time, we stand adjourned.
(Council meeting 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.